posted 02 July 2005 08:18 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
A -> pre-historic East Africans
B -> modern East Africans
C -> 'caucaZoids'

---

Changing the labels in mid debate to evade the facts and set up a straw man isn't going to save you.

quote:

---

Howells did not compare A to B

---

posted 02 July 2005 08:27 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Topdog:
At any rate, in that passage Hiernaux isn't referring to just Tutsis, he's referring to Elongated East Africans....*ALL** of them.

---

That would be fine except that the DNA of his "East" Africans is predominantly West African (Bantu), accounting for their resemblance to Negroids and difference from non-Africans.

quote:

---

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

---

All that passage says is that modern East Africans are descended from ancient East Africans (which is a true but incomplete statement), and that neither are "closely related to Caucasoids" (also true as modern EAs are at least half Negroid, and pre-historic EAs were undifferentiated, with only general Eurasian affinities).

quote:

---

Professor Groves who agreed with Rightmire, North East Africans do *NOT* fall outside the sub-Saharan sphere of morphology.

---

posted 02 July 2005 09:49 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
A -> pre-historic East Africans
B -> modern East Africans
C -> 'caucaZoids'

---

quote:

---

Erroneous writes: Changing the labels

---

The labels are Hiernaux's......

quote:

---

J. Hiernaux: 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].

Sorry Erroneous, try again.....

posted 02 July 2005 09:54 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 02 July 2005 01:06 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Um, that's precisely what he did, moron. Pre-historic Kenyans (A) were compared to Modern Kenyans (B) and found to differ greatly from them.

---

Howells compared Prehistoric[misleading because the remains are Mesolithic]East African Kenyans with *ONE* Kenyan groups that isn't even a significant percentage of the population. Masai people also live in Kenya and are Elongated East Africans so don't mislead people. As Professor Groves stated, Howells reference crania have many holes in them, among them are the lack of Nilotic and Northeast African samples.

posted 02 July 2005 01:19 PM            

quote:

---

That would be fine except that the DNA of his "East" Africans is predominantly West African (Bantu), accounting for their resemblance to Negroids and difference from non-Africans.

---

Hiernaux's Elongated East Africans are Sab Somalis, Warsengali Somalis, Masai, Tutsis, and Galla(Oromos). You still can't read and understand after months of teaching and posting. I'm beginning to wonder are you really retarded and or mentally challenged.

quote:

---

All that passage says is that modern East Africans are descended from ancient East Africans (which is a true but incomplete statement), and that neither are "closely related to Caucasoids" (also true as modern EAs are at least half Negroid, and pre-historic EAs were undifferentiated, with only general Eurasian affinities).

---

Hiernaux stated that modern Elongated East Africans have the same features as the ancient East Africans in the fossil record, if you lack reading comprehension skills learn how to read. Elongated East Africans aren't half 'Negroid' none of the DNA studies have stated that East Africans are 50-50 mixes. And quit lying saying they have general Eurasian affinities, Peruvians, Ainu and Easter islanders are *NOT* Eurasians. Look at a map and see for yourself.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
That's bound to happen after centuries of crossbreeding with central and western Africans.

---

I'm sick of this, post some citations from genetic studies that prove beyond all doubt that east Africans have been cross-breeding with West and central Africans for centuries. Please state all central and west African specific haplotypes and haplogroups. We already know that paternally Somalis and Ethiopians have little to *ZERO* West/central mixture. Now please prove so on the maternal side.

posted 03 July 2005 07:47 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
A and B [fossil and modern], not closely related to C. [Caucasoids].

---

Repost for the Negro with reading comprehension problems:

posted 03 July 2005 07:59 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Topdog:
And quit lying saying they have general Eurasian affinities, Peruvians, Ainu and Easter islanders are *NOT* Eurasians.

---

Don't worry, I'm well aware of Howells' findings. I shorten to 'Eurasian' so that I don't have to list all of the individual groups each time. It's close enough, since the Ainu are from Asia and the other two have distant Asian origins.

quote:

---

Howells reference crania have many holes in them, among them are the lack of Nilotic and Northeast African samples.

---

But we already know from other sources (both genetic and anthropological) where they would group in relation to Howells' two samples:

"In general, populations cluster by geographic origin. The most distinct separation is between African and non-African populations. The northeastern-African -- that is, the Ethiopian and Somali -- populations are located centrally between sub-Saharan African and non-African populations." (Tishkoff et al. 2000)

(Brace et al. 1993)

posted 03 July 2005 10:27 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
A and B [fossil and modern], not closely related to C. [Caucasoids].

---

quote:

---

All that passage says is that modern East Africans are descended from ancient East Africans

---

quote:

---

and that neither are closely related to Caucasoids"

---

In fact, it is, the complete annihilation of your entire caucaZoid-fantasy.

I know admitting the truth after 7 months of denial must be hurting you, but keep trying.

Fight thru the pain.

Admit the WHOLE truth, get it ALL OUT, and we can put you out of your misery and end this debacle [not debate].

Above all, avoid regressing, as follows.....

quote:

---

EAs are at least half Negroid

---

tsk. tsk Erroneous, that is a non sequitur.

We were discussing Hiernaux. Now you are parroting Deinekes which amounts to running away.

I'll help you back on topic:

Keep trying....

posted 03 July 2005 10:54 AM            

quote:

---

But we already know from other sources (both genetic and anthropological) where they would group in relation to Howells' two samples

---

Actually we know that both ancestral and modern groups are Black Africans from direct comparison and analysis of skeletal remains from Rightmire, Keita, Zakrezewski, Groves, Hiernaux and others who all reach similar conclusions.

Moreover, according to Groves, Zakrezewski and many other scientists - Howells database is seriously flawed, lacking Nilotic/Elongated Africans.

Desperate misrepresentation of Howells flawed database, is mere distraction and can't help you.

quote:

---

In general, populations cluster by geographic origin. The most distinct separation is between African and non-African populations. The northeastern-African -- that is, the Ethiopian and Somali -- populations are located centrally between sub-Saharan African and non-African populations."

---

That's true, too bad you don't understand a word of what she is saying -

Tishkoff continues:

This pattern of variation suggests that *ALL NON-AFRICANS* derive from a single common ancestral population which migrated out of Northeast Africa

West African:

Non African [Indonesia]:

East African Oromo are "genetidcally intermediate" between the above two peoples:

The Andaman and Pacific Islander populations have the most pristine Out of Africa L3X lineages. They are closer than any European people to the OOA migrants.

Both physically.....

The 1st Eurasians

and Genetically -

The oldest expansion in Eurasia occurred 65,000 ± 23,000 years ago and is witnessed by mitochondrial descendants preserved in Papua New Guinea; the Papuan node is derived from a Eurasian founder, we tentatively propose the following scenario to account for the obvious phenotypic differences between Papuans and 'Asians' despite their sharing a common mitochondrial ancestry:

The M and N founders derive from a single African migration*[note: echoes Tishkoff] but split at an early stage (possibly before reaching Europe, which lacks M).

Meanwhile, proto-Eurasians spent 20 or more millennia genetically drifting to their present distinct phenotypes.
- Peter Forster, Antonio Torroni, Colin Renfrew and Arne Röhl

The above actually answers the question of where 'white people' come from. Too bad Erroneous can't stomach the answer.

Meanwhile Erroneous continues his rude- coward tactic of ducking questions....

quote:

---

TopDog asks: Please state all central and west African specific haplotypes and haplogroups. We already know that paternally Somalis and Ethiopians have little to *ZERO* West/central mixture. Now please prove so on the maternal side.

---

What's taking so long? No answers...again?

Then run back to Deinekes and find some more non-answers so we can swat you again.

'Racial reality' is a squirming fraud.

posted 04 July 2005 07:36 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Meanwhile Erroneous continues his rude- coward tactic of ducking questions....

What's taking so long? No answers...again?

---

Hypocritical spook, you duck ALL of my questions, so why the f*ck should I answer yours? Especially when I've already provided the requested information ad nauseum, unlike you:

quote:

---

Twentieth day without an answer . . .

Are Greeks "racially mixed" because of their E3b Y-chromosomes as you've claimed many times, or are Y-chromosomes unconnected to race and morphology as you claimed with the Lemba?

Run, rasol, run

---

posted 04 July 2005 07:46 AM            

- Ancient East Africans (A) had affinities with modern Europeans, Ainu, Peruvians and Easter Islanders [Howells 1995]

- Modern East Africans (B) have affinities with Central, Western and Southern Africans (i.e. Negroids) [Howells 1995]

- Northeast Africans (C) are genetically and cranially intermediate between ancient and modern East Africans [Tishkoff 2000; Brace 1993]

- Hence, C = A + B -- with 'A' being racially non-African, 'B' racially African, and 'C' therefore hybrid

Take your time, Afronuts, and let it sink in.

I know admitting the truth after 7 months of denial must be hurting you, but keep trying.

Fight thru the pain.

posted 04 July 2005 10:40 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
West African:

Non African [Indonesia]:

East African Oromo are "genetidcally intermediate" between the above two peoples:

---

.....ABSURD!

posted 04 July 2005 11:02 AM            

quote:

---

This pattern of variation suggests that *ALL NON-AFRICANS* derive from a single common ancestral population which migrated out of Northeast Africa - SA Tishkoff

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by COBRA:
.....ABSURD!

---

It makes perfect sense, if you understand genetics.

posted 04 July 2005 12:29 PM            

quote:

---

Stupid-Euro says:

- Ancient East Africans (A) had affinities with modern Europeans, Ainu, Peruvians and Easter Islanders [Howells 1995]

---

quote:

---

- Modern East Africans (B) have affinities with Central, Western and Southern Africans (i.e. Negroids) [Howells 1995]

---

quote:

---

- Northeast Africans (C) are genetically and cranially intermediate between ancient and modern East Africans [Tishkoff 2000; Brace 1993]

---

quote:

---

- Hence, C = A + B -- with 'A' being racially non-African, 'B' racially African, and 'C' therefore hybrid

---

Take your time, mut, and let it sink in.

I know admitting the truth after 7 months of denial must be hurting you, but keep trying.

Fight thru your stupidity.

Admit the WHOLE truth, get it ALL OUT, and I can put you out of your misery and end this debacle, if not LEAVE!!

posted 04 July 2005 12:33 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by COBRA:
.....ABSURD!

---

Cobra, how is it absurd?

Would you rather prefer the non-African to be an white European, perhaps Irish?

the black aboriginal of Indonesia is just as much non-African as a European, and this is what Stupid-Euro seems to forget or rather deny!

posted 04 July 2005 01:56 PM            

African Exodus
By Chris Stringer

"...Cro-Magnons, the presumed ancestors of modern Europeans. Some were more like present-day Australians or Africans, judged by objective anatomical categorizations, as is the case with some early modern skulls from the Upper Cave at Zhoukoudian in China."

posted 04 July 2005 02:09 PM            

- Northeast Africans are intermediate because OOA migrants descend from a small population of Northeast Africans which Tischkoff states. Why Erroneous E likes to take one-liner citations out of context to prove something I don't know. Its more of a game of words and tapdancing rather than hard facts.

- North East Africans do fall within the sphere of sub-Saharan morphology, I emailed an anthropologist who stated exactly what everyone has been stating to Erroneous E this past seven months. Erroneous ignores it and continues to take studies out of context[his distortion of Hiernaux's citation I posted proves this]. We don't need to argue anymore with this mad distorter of studies.

posted 05 July 2005 07:35 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Topdog:
Northeast Africans are intermediate because OOA migrants descend from a small population of Northeast Africans...

---

...who had greater racial affinities with modern non-Africans than with modern Sub-Saharan Africans.

quote:

---

North East Africans do fall within the sphere of sub-Saharan morphology

---

posted 05 July 2005 07:57 AM            

quote:

---

...who had greater racial affinities with modern non-Africans than with modern Sub-Saharan Africans.

---

If you ever read Howells book[I know you didn't] crania are classified by *REGION* not race and since non-Africans descend from Northeast Africans the former resemble the latter.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
The present intermediate ones perhaps, but not the generalized pre-historic ones.

---

posted 05 July 2005 11:13 AM            

What I see that when a certain gene (group)becomes isolated in another climate without the mother gene (original), the differentiation that takes place in the new land, forces adaption through climate (degree and extent), diet (new food when compared to their old habitat) and shelter (running naked in the jungles and now using/forming building skills and possibly hunting strategies in a now cold climate (Europe or Asia).

posted 05 July 2005 12:47 PM            

quote:

---

you duck ALL of my questions, so why the f*ck should I answer yours?

---

Actually, my bitter, foul-mouthed defeated troll- you've completly failed to answer TopDog's questions, and Thoughts, as well as mine.

Of course we are merely using you since it is clear that you do not grasp genetics or anthropology, so we expect you to make excuses instead of provide answers. It's not like you have a choice. lol.

As for your 'questions'. Several of us have answered all of your questions - several times, with documentation from the leading scholars in bioanthropology.

* Do the Greeks have Dark skin because of E3b? Answered.

* Are the Greeks racially mixed because of E3b? Answered.

* Where are the 'other' negroid features? Answered.

You simply go into denial when you don't like and can't refute the answers, and cannot provide the requested data or answer ANYONE's questions put to you.

Then you repeat your questions like a retarded child, everyday, disregarding the clear answers provided by the leading scholars in anthroplogy and genetics.

TopDog shows you how it's done, learn from him Erroneous, if you're capable of learning that is.....

quote:

---

Originally posted by Topdog:
Northeast Africans are intermediate because OOA migrants descend from a small population of Northeast Africans...

---

Indeed:

quote:

---

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.

---

quote:

---

[OOA founders] derive from a single African migration. The oldest expansion in Eurasia occurred 65,000 ± 23,000 years ago and is witnessed by mitochondrial descendants preserved in Papua New Guinea; the Papuan node is derived from a Eurasian founder, we tentatively propose the following scenario to account for the obvious phenotypic differences between Papuans and 'Asians' despite their sharing a common mitochondrial ancestry: Northern-Eurasians spent 20 or more millennia genetically drifting to their present distinct phenotypes.
- Peter Forster, Antonio Torroni, Colin Renfrew and Arne Röhl


African Eve.

---

Learn from Peter Underhill:

quote:

---

Those studies suggest that a primitive, stone-age human came to Europe, probably from Central Asia and the Middle East, in two waves of migration beginning about 40,000 years ago. Their numbers were small and they lived by hunting animals and gathering plant food. They used crudely sharpened stones and fire. The basic pattern had some changes that apparently developed among Europeans who once shared a common ancestor (Haplogroup R1b) and then were isolated for many generations When the glaciers melted, about 16,000 years ago, the Paleolithic tribes resettled the rest of Europe. - Peter Underhill

---

Thought shows how to answer questions....learn from him Erroneous:

quote:

---

Thought Posts:
African Exodus
By Chris Stringer

"...Cro-Magnons, the presumed ancestors of modern Europeans. Some were more like present-day Australians or Africans, judged by objective anatomical categorizations."

---

Keep trying...

posted 05 July 2005 03:52 PM            

My original email to him:

Hello Mr Underhill, my name is Charles Rigaud and I'm
an anthropology student. My question is about Y
Haplogroup E lineages. I would like to know what it
makes sense to attach physical phenotypes such as
"Negroid" to E3a and "Caucasoid" to E3b? Some people
assume because the latter is low to absent in West and
Central Africans that it must somehow be "Caucasoid"
since it is found in high frequencies in East
Africans, North Africans and Europeans, though the
former[East Africans] are not Caucasoids. My logic
tells me that its dangerous and misleading to attach
specific lineages to physical morphologies since who
people who share the same DNA will not necessarily
look alike and who don't share the same DNA can
sometimes more closely resemble each other[in the case
of West and East Africans. I would like your insight
and guidance regarding these questions. Thanks in
advance.

Best Regards,

Charles Rigaud

His reply to me:

Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 12:11:34 -0700

To: "Charles Rigaud" <cr_rigaud@yahoo.com>

From: "Peter A. Underhill" <under@stanford.edu>

Subject: Re: Haplogroup E lineages

Hi Charles,

Your skepticism is healthy. Clearly there is no direct relationship between physical anthropological data (bone morphology) and Y chromosome haplogroup catagory. There are no known genes on the Y that dictate bone morphology. Someday, geneticists will probably identify genes on other chromosomes that play a role in shaping phenotype, but there is no evidence that the Y harbors such genes. Hence Y chromosomes and bone type are best viewed as independent types of evidence describing relatedness amongst populations. A third type of independent evidence with potential correlative power is
material culture (archeological pottery, etc). While exceptions can always be detected, one general property all these types of independent evidence share is geographic patterning. Since there often are geographic correlations we should pay attention to such signals. But we such view these relationships as correlations, not cause and effect. The challenge then for students of human history is to understand the degree of closeness of these triadic (genes, material, morphology) relationships. Language sometimes also adds another perspective of relationship. I would not characterize the situation you outline as always "dangerous" and "misleading" although the potential for misinterpretation by naive people or by people with an ideological agenda is certainly possible. Clearly attempts to intergrate independent types of evidence must be done with considerable caution and healthy scientific reasoning. What is clear regarding Y haplogroups such as those within the E clade, is that there is exquiste geographic patterning and
substructure concerning Y chromosome phylogenetic patterning(i.e.phylogeography). Thus, chromosomes classified as E3a-M2 best reflect W and C.African ancestral paternity although these types also occur elsewhere in Africa, often at considerably lower frequency. The situation for E3b-M35 encompasses N and E Africa as well as the MidEast and Europe, however subclades within E3b show strong correlations with geography. In cases where physical morphological traits define clear geographic
substructure then correlations between Y haplogroups and morphology might achieve a degree of predictive significance. However, this is probably the exception then the rule. The concept of homoplasy (shared characteristics without common ancestry) must always be considered. Another way to think about it is
"identity by descent" verses "identity by state". As historians we want to find "identity by descent" because that feature exposes authentic relationships, while the "state" situation creates false
associations. In my opinion the Y chromosome molecule presents a more reliable, distingushing and robust line of evidence concerning population relationships than does the more plastic and complex playground of morphology. The interplay between genetic heritage and envirnoment in shaping morphology is complex and poorly understood. Someday that will change, but until then conflating morphology with either material culture or Y chromosome or mtDNA haplgroups must be done with great caution. I don't reject such exercises outright, but results of such exercises must be viewed as theoretical perspectives and not elevated to self-evident truths.

Best wishes,
Peter

posted 05 July 2005 04:41 PM            

Echoes an answer provided earlier:

The Lemba of Africa have a substantial genetic contribution from peoples of the Middle East, Jewish people in fact who apparently arrived in South Africa 2,000 years ago; nobody's sure exactly when-bringing genes with them which have made a substantial contribution to the gene pool of the Lemba. They look just like other southern Africans.

All those genes that have been put into the Lemba gene pool have had virtually no effect on their morphology.

The genetic changes that produce the morphological change might be fairly small. You can get a very small genetic change that can have a big effect on the organism's morphology or conversely you can have a lot of genetic changes that have no effect on the organism's morphology -Biologist Christopher Wills [PH.d], University of California

posted 05 July 2005 06:16 PM            

Erroneous pattern with Hiernaux, Rightmire and Tishkoff is to PRETEND TO IGNORE their repudiations of his pseudoscientific racial ideology, and grasp by the fingernails on to something - anything said, that he can distort.

* with Hiernaux Erroneous ignored: East Africans, fossil and modern, should not be considered to be closely related to Caucasoids of Europe and Western Asia

* with Dr. Rightmire he manages not to hear: the term Nilotic Negro [is best applied] to the early East African populations

* with Dr. Tishkoff, he pretends not to grasp:
ALL NON-AFRICANS* derive from a single common ancestral population which migrated out of Northeast Africa

In each case, Erroneous dull-minded strategy is to focus on something said that he can distort and ignore everything that he can't.

The most pathetic example was with Hiernaux, as Erroneous clung to Hiernaux's use of the word "Hametic", ignoring the intended irony as the entire effect of Hiernaux's devastating thesis is to explode the Hamite myth.

So, we can expect the same sub-mental game playing via his non-response to Underhill.

Clearly there is no direct relationship between (bone morphology) and Y chromosome haplogroup catagory. There are no known genes on the Y that dictate bone morphology. - Underhill.

Now, months have been spent, beating this fact into Erroneous bumpy head....

quote:

---

Erroneous whines: Are Greeks dark because of their E3b Y-chromosomes?

---

quote:

---

rasol wrote:
The answer is NO, as skin and eye color in humans are 'polygenic' morphologies regulated by multiple autosomal genes. It's clear that you have ZERO comprehension of genetics.

---

How will Erroneous manage to run away from Underhill's explanation of same?

Tune in tomorrow for more Erroneous antics:

posted 06 July 2005 07:31 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
rasol wrote:
The answer is NO, as skin and eye color in humans are 'polygenic' morphologies regulated by multiple autosomal genes.

---

Too bad I didn't ask about skin and eye color, which are not primary signifiers of race. I'll repeat the question (yet again) since you obviously have some sort of learning disability:

Are Greeks "racially mixed" because of their E3b Y-chromosomes as you've claimed many times, or are Y-chromosomes unconnected to race and morphology as you claimed with the Lemba?

Or, we can try it this way:

Do you accept Underhill's statement that "There are no known genes on the Y that dictate bone morphology", or do you continue to maintain that so-called "negroid traits" in Levantines and Greeks are the result of their E3b Y-chromosomes?

quote:

---

In each case, Erroneous dull-minded strategy is to focus on something said that he can distort and ignore everything that he can't.

---

You mean like when you distort "negroid" into "Negroid", and "almost Bushmen-like Basic White" into "Black African"? And then ignore that Angel mentions no Black ancestry in either Neolithic farmers or modern Greeks?

Or like when you distort Arnaiz-Villena's rejected HLA study into support for "Black African E3b"? And then ignore all of the reliable Y-chromosome and autosomal maps where Greeks cluster with Europeans and far away from Africans?

Or like when you distort the highly selected sickle cell trait into quantification of "Black ancestry"? And then ignore the presence of malaria in Southern Europe, and the facts that Sicilians have HbS at a frequency of just 2% and Greeks have no maternal or paternal West African DNA?

quote:

---

PRETEND TO IGNORE

---

Speaking of which . . .

• Ancient East Africans (A) had affinities with modern Europeans, Ainu, Peruvians and Easter Islanders [Howells 1995]

• Modern East Africans (B) have affinities with Central, Western and Southern Africans (i.e. Negroids) [Howells 1995]

• Northeast Africans (C) are genetically and cranially intermediate between ancient and modern East Africans [Tishkoff 2000; Brace 1993]

• Hence, C = A + B -- with 'A' being racially non-African, 'B' racially African, and 'C' therefore hybrid

posted 06 July 2005 07:42 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Speaking of which . . .

• [b]Ancient East Africans (A) had affinities with modern Europeans, Ainu, Peruvians and Easter Islanders [Howells 1995]

• Modern East Africans (B) have affinities with Central, Western and Southern Africans (i.e. Negroids) [Howells 1995]

• Northeast Africans (C) are genetically and cranially intermediate between ancient and modern East Africans [Tishkoff 2000; Brace 1993]

• Hence, C = A + B -- with 'A' being racially non-African, 'B' racially African, and 'C' therefore hybrid

[This message has been edited by Evil Euro (edited 06 July 2005).][/B]

---

Still spamming the same regurgitated nonsense after it has already been addressed? We're still waiting on *YOU* to provide some answers and quit ducking specific question that were put to you such as, where is evidence of extensive intermixing between Horn of Africans and West and Central African groups? We're still waiting on those specific haplogroups that bear this out.

posted 06 July 2005 12:08 PM            

quote:

---

Erroneous writes: Too bad I didn't ask about skin and eye color

---

More proof that you are in fact a fruitcake who can't even keep track of his own stupid posts...

quote:

---

posted By Evil Euro: 15 June 2005 07:39 AM:
Are Greeks dark because of their E3b Y-chromosomes?

---

Forgot, did you? You're a mess. Seek help.

posted 06 July 2005 02:52 PM            

quote:

---

Northeast Africans (C) are genetically and cranially intermediate between ancient and modern East Africans [Tishkoff 2000; Brace 1993]

---

Correction, Northeast Africans are genetically intermediate between African and non-Africans populations when viewed through the OOA scenario, in this case we're dealing with here, Somalis. Somalis have *NOT* been significantly impacted with Middle Easterner mixture genetically as has been demonstrated through genetic studies. Somalis and Horn of Africans are *NOT* craniometrically intermediate nor are they 'hybrids' craniometrically, read:

Exploring Northeast African Metric Craniofacial Variation at the Individual Level: A Comparative Study Using Principal Components Analysis
S.O.Y. KEITA*

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HUMAN BIOLOGY 16:679–689 (2004)

"The Nile Valley and Horn groups show the greatest overlap with the other regions. This could mean that the northeast quadrant African patterns are more generalized (or that others are more specialized), and/or are more recent hybrids, or simply more variable, but none of these ideas can be definitively supported by this phenetic analysis. The overall results are generally consistent with findings of high African diversity, which in the main can now be considered to be primarily of indigenous African biohistorical origin, without denying some immigration with gene flow from various areas, especially southwest Asia."

posted 06 July 2005 05:10 PM            

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) I never said pre-historic East Africans were Caucasoid. I've shown evidence that they were non-Negroid "generalized moderns".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You're quite delusional. What's been proven is that Negroids are of recent West African origin, that they spread east beginning c. 1000 B.C., and that pre-historic East Africans were generalized moderns. E3b, of course, is associated with the Caucasoid populations of North Africa, West Asia and Europe, and the hybrid populations of East Africa. It's not associated with unmixed Negroids.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I said they were "proto-Caucasoid and proto-Mongoloid" (according to Howells). You can add to that proto-Negroid. In other words, generalized moderns not belonging to any existing race.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/Forum8/HTML/001498.html
When confronted with facts that refuted his frivolous theories, he has now jumped to saying this:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is from the Table of Contents in Coon's Races of Europe:
Chapter II: Pleistocene White Men
(1) Introducing Homo Sapiens
(2) Pleistocene Climate
(3) Sapiens Men of the Middle Pleistocene
(4) Non-Sapiens Pleistocene Fossil Men
(5) The Neanderthal Hybrids of Palestine
(6) Upper Palaeolithic Man in Europe, the Evidence as a Whole
(7) Chronological and Geographical Differentiation of the European Aurignacian Group
(8) Upper Palaeolithic Hunters of North Africa
(9) Aurignacian Man in East Africa
(10) The Magdalenians
(11) Upper Palaeolithic Man in China
(12) Summary and Conclusions

From (12) Summary and Conclusions:

(1) Homo sapiens was fully evolved as early as the mid-Pleistocene, if not earlier.

(2) The earliest Homo sapiens known, as represented by several examples from Europe and Africa, was an ancestral long-headed white man of short stature and moderately great brain size.

(3) The negro group probably evolved parallel to this white strain, from a related sapiens ancestor. At what point the ancestors of negroes and whites diverged is not known.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The only thing "outdated" about Coon are some of his theories, which have been disproven. But that goes for all of the old anthropologists, including the Afronut favorites. Coon's observational data is as valid today as it was when he compiled it. He looked at skeletal remains from Pleistocene East Africa, and saw that they were Caucasoid. Nothing speculative about that. Just a cold, hard fact.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/Forum8/HTML/001683.html

To even making these two separate points in this thread:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That said, Southern Europeans are, of course, not hybrid. Whereas East Africans most certainly are. Which brings us right back to the Bottom Line and your painfully obvious lack of answers......And I've never claimed that East Africans were once light-skinned. They were, however, skeletally Caucasoid and not Negroid.

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/Forum8/HTML/001700.html

Evil Euro wrote:
Quote:

1) I never said pre-historic East Africans were Caucasoid. I've shown evidence that they were non-Negroid "generalized moderns".

Quoted by Evil E:

And I've never claimed that East Africans were once light-skinned. They were, however, skeletally Caucasoid and not Negroid.

Damned, "Evil E" out to be ashamed of himself. Remember there are many people watching and studying these debates. More than you would like to beieive. Homeboy buried himself right here.

posted 06 July 2005 06:09 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Serpent Wizdom:
Damned, "Evil E" out to be ashamed of himself. Remember there are many people watching and studying these debates. More than you would like to beieive. Homeboy buried himself right here.

---

The problem with Evil-E is that he has told so many lies, he can't even keep track of them!! So as always, he contradicts himself and keeps changing his nonsensical answers.

Poor Evil, he really is a dizzy dog!

posted 06 July 2005 09:15 PM            

But he is getting closer to the truth. You guys really should encourage this new epiphany he is having.

Non-Caucasoid East Africans! This is an amazing turn around of events.

Yes do encourage further. E3b is now cleansed of the misnomer and misrepresntative and sladerous description of being Caucasoid.

posted 07 July 2005 07:29 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
More proof that you are in fact a fruitcake who can't even keep track of his own stupid posts...

---

More proof that you have no answer for the question, and are using your standard tactic of nitpicking to duck it.

Question:

quote:

---

Are Greeks "racially mixed" because of their E3b Y-chromosomes as you've claimed many times, or are Y-chromosomes unconnected to race and morphology as you claimed with the Lemba?

---

Or, we can try it this way:

quote:

---

Do you accept Underhill's statement that "There are no known genes on the Y that dictate bone morphology", or do you continue to maintain that so-called "negroid traits" in Levantines and Greeks are the result of their E3b Y-chromosomes?

---

posted 07 July 2005 07:45 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Topdog:
where is evidence of extensive intermixing between Horn of Africans and West and Central African groups? We're still waiting on those specific haplogroups that bear this out.

---

East Africans have all of the Bantu mtDNA haplogroups mentioned in this passage:

"Several mtDNA markers have been proposed as signals of Bantu dispersals, although often in the absence of any southern Bantu data. Bandelt et al. (1995) and Chen et al. (1995) suggested haplogroup L1a, part of which (defined by a 9-bp intergenic deletion) was confirmed as an important eastern Bantu marker by Soodyall et al. (1996). Watson et al. (1997) similarly proposed a subset of haplogroup L3b. Subsequently, Alves-Silva et al. (2000) and Bandelt et al. (2001) have proposed (on the basis of analyses of Brazilian mtDNA data) that fragments of haplogroups L2, L3e, and L1e may also be important Bantu mtDNA markers." (Salas et al. 2002)

Additionally, Ethiopians have ~13% E(xE3b) Y-chromosomes. (Cruciani et al. 2004)

quote:

---

Correction, Northeast Africans are genetically intermediate between African and non-Africans populations when viewed through the OOA scenario, in this case we're dealing with here, Somalis. Somalis and Horn of Africans are *NOT* craniometrically intermediate nor are they 'hybrids' craniometrically

---

Apparently, Negroes are much dumber than I thought. So here's a visualization of Brace's and Howells' complementary data to help them out:

posted 07 July 2005 10:36 AM            

quote:

---

Vague-Euro says: East Africans have all of the Bantu mtDNA haplogroups mentioned in this passage:

"Several mtDNA markers have been proposed as signals of Bantu dispersals, although often in the absence of any southern Bantu data. Bandelt et al. (1995) and Chen et al. (1995) suggested haplogroup L1a, part of which (defined by a 9-bp intergenic deletion) was confirmed as an important eastern Bantu marker by Soodyall et al. (1996). Watson et al. (1997) similarly proposed a subset of haplogroup L3b. Subsequently, Alves-Silva et al. (2000) and Bandelt et al. (2001) have proposed (on the basis of analyses of Brazilian mtDNA data) that fragments of haplogroups L2, L3e, and L1e may also be important Bantu mtDNA markers." (Salas et al. 2002)

---

quote:

---

Additionally, Ethiopians have ~13% E(xE3b) Y-chromosomes. (Cruciani et al. 2004)

---

quote:

---

Apparently, Negroes are much dumber than I thought. So here's a visualization of Brace's and Howells' complementary data to help them out:

A = Generalized Ancient East Africans
B = Negroid Modern East Africans
C = Hybrid "Elongated" East Africans

---

Apparently YOU are less intelligent than WE thought!! Africans are cranially morphologically diverse as all human populations are, dumb-ass! Since when does having the "elongated" phenotype make you a "caucasoid" hybrid anyway?!! There are "elongated" "mongoloids" as well, does this mean they have "caucasoid" ancestry?!!

You are one incredibly dumb mut!!

posted 07 July 2005 11:52 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
The problem with Evil-E is that he has told so many lies, he can't even keep track of them!! So as always, he contradicts himself and keeps changing his nonsensical answers.

Poor Evil, he really is a dizzy dog!

---

posted 08 July 2005 07:12 AM            

quote:

---

East Africans have all of the Bantu mtDNA haplogroups mentioned in this passage:

---

Which East Africans? Certainly not Northeast Africans. I've read salas et tal's study and all that passage is stating is the lineages brought by Bantu speakers, its says nothing about who specifically carries them. Don't set yourself up for a strawman you idiot.

quote:

---

Apparently, Negroes are much dumber than I thought. So here's a visualization of Brace's and Howells' complementary data to help them out

---

An idiot like you cannot even comprehend Brace nor Howells.

quote:

---

A = Generalized Ancient East Africans

---

Those remains date back to latest at 7000 B.C. and fall within the range of sub-Saharan morphology

quote:

---

C = Hybrid "Elongated" East Africans

---

Nope, they *ARE NOT HYBRIDS*:

Exploring Northeast African Metric Craniofacial Variation at the Individual Level: A Comparative Study Using Principal Components Analysis
S.O.Y. KEITA*

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HUMAN BIOLOGY 16:679–689 (2004)

"The Nile Valley and Horn groups show the greatest overlap with the other regions. This could mean that the northeast quadrant African patterns are more generalized (or that others are more specialized), and/or are more recent hybrids, or simply more variable, but none of these ideas can be definitively supported by this phenetic analysis. The overall results are generally consistent with findings of high African diversity, which in the main can now be considered to be primarily of indigenous African biohistorical origin, without denying some immigration with gene flow from various areas, especially southwest Asia."

Deal with it stupid and quit spitting out lies.

posted 08 July 2005 07:39 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
East Africa is a large region, so which East Africans are you referring to??
Judging by these studies you posted, I would assume you are talking about the predominantly Bantu inhabited southern areas. Show us studies of actual Northeast Africans from Sudan or from the Horn region. They have NIL Bantu admixture whatsoever!!

---

The sample is made up of 80 Nubians, 76 Sudanese, 74 Ethiopians, 27 Somalis, 61 Kenyans (37 of which are from the extreme north on the Ethiopian border) and 12 Tanzanians.

quote:

---

Again, Which Ethiopians? Ethiopia is a nation with dozens of ethnicities? For all I know, the specific Ethiopians you are referring to could be the Amhara who carry a large large percentage of Middle-Eastern derived J haplogroup.

---

The figure is an average of levels in multiple Ethiopian groups. Here's the breakdown:

Jews - 18.2%
Amhara - 5.9%
Oromo - 8%
Wolayta - 16.7%
Mixed - 16.7%

quote:

---

Since when does having the "elongated" phenotype make you a "caucasoid" hybrid anyway?!!

---

When it causes you to group two times closer to Englishmen (#4) than to C, W and S Africans, as is the case with Somalis:

posted 08 July 2005 05:09 PM            

Evil E is a buffoon, who still has not come to terms with the fact that the very concept of "race" is out of date. He uses genetics and cranial morphology interchangeably as if one clearly related to the other. The ideas behind "race" are pre-genetic. The assumption was that any two groups of people that have SOME physical similarities MUST be closely related or have a common lineage. Genetics has anhilalated that conception. There are numerous non-racial explanations for why people look or do not look similar to one another. Genetics is the important issue, because scientific racism is founded on the Greek concept of the "Essence" and hence "Blood Lineage". It is/was believed that the each creature and hence each human family (Race) carried a specific essence that manifest itself through virtue. The phenotype was used in pre-genetic metaphysics and science to segregate human populations and apply specific virtues to these sub-divisions. Modern genetic analysis indicates that there is no absolute correlation between how one looks and who one is related to and hence the "essence" of a person cannot be determined by simply measuring the width of their nose or angle of their jaw line. It may be possible to assign certain psycho-behavioral trends to humans with similar physiologies in that they MAY react to external stimuli in a broadly similar manner. But this in no way has the same implications as the concept of the "essence". If we really wanted to divide humans, I would say that we should look and see if there are trends related to the use of the brain For example, do some ethnic groups have more difficulty harmonizing the two hemispheres (Two Lands?) of the brain than others? How does this relate to the Pineal Gland, Autism or even human adaptation to Ice Age Europe?

posted 08 July 2005 05:30 PM            

quote:

---

Dumb-Euro says: When it causes you to group two times closer to Englishmen (#4) than to C, W and S Africans, as is the case with Somalis

---

Dumb-Euro, get it through your head that cranially resembling Englishmen says NOTHING about lineage!!

There are peoples in West Africa like the Fulani and Asians in Tibet and Native Americans that resemble Europeans cranially!!

quote:

---

The sample is made up of 80 Nubians, 76 Sudanese, 74 Ethiopians, 27 Somalis, 61 Kenyans (37 of which are from the extreme north on the Ethiopian border) and 12 Tanzanians.

---

quote:

---

Topdog says: E(xE3b) could also mean E1 and E2 lineages also, not just E3a-M2, since Cruciani's study dealt explicitly with E3b lineages. All others that are *NOT* E3b are labelled as E(xE3b).

---

Must be since there were no Bantu migrations into Nubia and Sudan at all, and what Bantus did migrate into Ethiopia and Somalia are very minute! Kenyans and Tanzania do have a lot more Bantu populations but the other countries dont!!

posted 08 July 2005 07:18 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

Evil E is a buffoon, who still has not come to terms with the fact that the very concept of "race" is out of date. He uses genetics and cranial morphology interchangeably as if one clearly related to the other. The ideas behind "race" are pre-genetic. The assumption was that any two groups of people that have SOME physical similarities MUST be closely related or have a common lineage. Genetics has anhilalated that conception. There are numerous non-racial explanations for why people look or do not look similar to one another. Genetics is the important issue, because scientific racism is founded on the Greek concept of the "Essence" and hence "Blood Lineage". It is/was believed that the each creature and hence each human family (Race) carried a specific essence that manifest itself through virtue. The phenotype was used in pre-genetic metaphysics and science to segregate human populations and apply specific virtues to these sub-divisions. Modern genetic analysis indicates that there is no absolute correlation between how one looks and who one is related to and hence the "essence" of a person cannot be determined by simply measuring the width of their nose or angle of their jaw line. It may be possible to assign certain psycho-behavioral trends to humans with similar physiologies in that they MAY react to external stimuli in a broadly similar manner. But this in no way has the same implications as the concept of the "essence". If we really wanted to divide humans, I would say that we should look and see if there are trends related to the use of the brain For example, do some ethnic groups have more difficulty harmonizing the two hemispheres (Two Lands?) of the brain than others? How does this relate to the Pineal Gland, Autism or even human adaptation to Ice Age Europe?

Let the fun begin……

---

“As was noted earlier, gene frequency data suggest that European's gene frequencies appeared to be about what would result from a third African and two-thirds Asian mix. While this mixture could occur by direct diffusion into Europe from Africa or Asia (and undoubtedly there were such gene flows), it is easier to understand if the ancestors of Europeans were originally in the Middle East, possibly even Israel (where there is evidence of a settled culture that stored wild grain, which could have easily shifted to cultivating grains.) Such a population would have been receiving genes from Africa via the Isthmus of Suez (and possibly across the Red Sea) and from Asia.”
Cavalli-Sforza, L. L., Menozzi, P., & Piazza, A.
The History and Geography of Human Genes (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994)

Relaxx

posted 08 July 2005 11:07 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by COBRA:
.....ABSURD!

[This message has been edited by COBRA (edited 04 July 2005).]

---

Absurd?

The genetic evidence or the idea that you don't like the truth?

posted 09 July 2005 05:26 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
Must be since there were no Bantu migrations into Nubia and Sudan at all, and what Bantus did migrate into Ethiopia and Somalia are very minute! Kenyans and Tanzania do have a lot more Bantu populations but the other countries dont!!

Be specific when you cite something, you dunce!

---

Indeed the lineages belong mostly to E lineages other than E3a, all Erroneous has to do is read published data, but then again he's equally illiterate as he is arrogant and stubborn:

P2*

Amhara: 10.4%

Oromo: 12.8%

M329

Oromo: 2.6%

M281

Oromo: 2.6%

M123

Oromo: 5.1%

Amhara: 2.1%

Note: E-M123 was *NOT* given a geographical origin in any area, thus it cannot be attributed to having any geographical original. If someone knows more please correct me.

Thus the totals of E(xE3b) lineages in Ethiopian groups total 23.1% for the Oromo and 12.5% for Amhara, at least according to Semino et tal. None of these lienages are found in W and C Africans except for P2* which according to Semino et tal:

"The E-P2* lineages were observed mainly in Ethiopians"

Source:

Origin, Diffusion, and Differentiation of Y-Chromosome Haplogroups E and J: Inferences on the Neolithization of Europe and Later Migratory Events in the Mediterranean Area

posted 09 July 2005 07:31 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Topdog:
Indeed the lineages belong mostly to E lineages other than E3a

---

posted 09 July 2005 07:44 AM            

quote:

---

Why do you constantly stall and avoid the question?

---

Why can't you accept the obvious regarding Ethiopians and quit distorting and misreading studies for your own stupid agenda to affiliate Ethiopians with 'Meds'?

quote:

---

Nope, because the figure isn't from the Passarino study, but from Cavalli-Sfroza and (independently) Guglielmino.

---

Apparently it wasn't just from Cavalli-Sforza because Semino et tal commented on this discrepancy in the *PASSARINO* study, not Cavalli-Sforza's 1994 study. At any rate, genetics on the Ethiopian population have become more clearly understood.

quote:

---

Additionally, the Amhara and Oromo have been shown to be almost identical and both of mixed heritage (Lovell, Fort, De Stefano, Tartaglia, Ciminelli etc.).

---

Incorrect, Lovell reported in the *FULL TEXT* that Ethiopians group closer to sub-Saharans than to non-Africans which is hard to reconcile with De Stefano et tal's conclusion that Ethiopians appear to be more closely affliated with populations of the Mediterranean Basin. The reason for this discrepancy is that De Stefano was studying APoE while Lovell studying the X chromosone, the two studies do *NOT* agree with each other. Ciminelli et tal reported that the Oromo were sub-Saharan than Amhara[I pointed this out already to you so quit regurgitating the same nonsense. I accessed the full study and pointed this out to you.

quote:

---

who were similar to modern Eurasians and distinct from sub-Saharan Africans.

---

posted 09 July 2005 07:57 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
The point is, they're E(xE3b) lineages in East Africa which were not present there when E3b left the continent.

---

Fool, do you even read studies instead of parroting Dienekes? P2* is the precursor for M35 and its Ethiopian in origin. E3b was *NOT* involved in the initial OOA migrations so this has nothing to do with OOA. E3b left Africa via the Levantine Corridor, for God's sake JUST READ THE DARN studies and quit parroting Dienekes logic. All of those E(xE3b) lineages in Ethiopians have East African origins and have nothing to do with W and C Africans where they are *RARE* to totally absent.

quote:

---

A and B represent similarly later additions to the East African gene pool.

---

Fool, A and B lineages are *NOT* late editions in Ethiopians, they represent the sharing of the deepest and oldest Y clades with Khoisan people, there have been whole studies done on this which you seem to ignore. Thats right moron, keep parroting Dienekes.

quote:

---

Your extended rant on this issue is a pathetic attempt to draw focus away from the beating you just took on the maternal front, regarding Bantu mtDNA in Northeast Africa.

---

Beating? Fool, don't make me laugh. You simply posted a citation which stated the maternal lineages that were bought via Bantu migrations but you did *NOT* prove specific that pre-Bantu inhabitants of east Africa possessed these lineages substantially, don't fool yourself into thinking you beat anyone. Bantu speakers also brought E3a-M2 lineages during their migrations but they are extremely low to nonexistent in Ethiopians and Somalis, so what point and what beating did you issue out?