posted 08 September 2005 07:31 AM            

Hence, the respective Asian and African origins of R and E3b in pre-history, and their relationships to the other two haplogroups, are immaterial to their present racial and genetic affiliations. Indeed, when we look at autosomal DNA, R- and Q-carrying populations -- while genetically distant -- appear even closer to one another than do E3b- and E3a-carrying populations: The average distance between North Africans and Sub-Saharan Africans is 1689 (Cavalli-Sforza, 1994), while the distance between Northern Europeans and Native Americans is only 947 (Ibid.).

Maybe a visual aid will help the Afronuts finally grasp this simple reality:

NOTE 1: Ages for some of the haplogroups were imprecise or unavailable, so they had to be averaged or estimated. For example, M45 is dated 30,000-37,000 YBP, and E3b is dated 26,000-30,000 YBP. A date for R could not be found, so the intermediate between the M45 average and the date for R1 was used. The date for PN2 is also an estimate based on the E3b average.

posted 08 September 2005 09:42 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:

Since early humans were "generalized moderns" until at least the Upper Paleo- and Mesolithic periods (Groves, 2003; Howells, 1995; Cinningham, 2002), haplogroups predating this era became affiliated with the phenotypes that eventually developed wherever carrying populations had migrated by the time race formation took place.

---

Thought Writes:

PROBLEM # 1

“Generalized Moderns” were phenotypically akin to MODERN Sub-Saharan Africans and Melaneseans.

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..."

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

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

Neves et al.

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.

Thought Writes:

Furthermore you mention "race formation", yet you never tell us what YOU mean when you use this phrase. This is illogical.

posted 08 September 2005 09:59 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:

Hence, the respective Asian and African origins of R and E3b in pre-history, and their relationships to the other two haplogroups, are immaterial to their present racial and genetic affiliations.

---

Thought Writes:

There is no racial affiliation because the concept of race is pseudoscience. What the PN2 transition demonstrates is that ALL Africans share in a common, recent genetic and hence phenotypic heritage that post-dates the migration of the ancestors of Eurasians out of Africa.

posted 08 September 2005 10:08 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:

The average distance between North Africans and Sub-Saharan Africans is 1689 (Cavalli-Sforza, 1994), while the distance between Northern Europeans and Native Americans is only 947 (Ibid.).

---

Thought Writes:

First you reference E3b and R and then you reference a study by Cavalli-Sforza from a period that predates (1994) the discovery of E3b. All statistical information must be properly textualized. Quoting a source from 1994, years BEFORE the E3b lineage was delineated does not add texture to this process.

Thought Posts:

'Lies, damn lies, and statistics'

posted 08 September 2005 10:27 PM            

I thought I would throw the following study into the mix since it is consistent with the oldest haplogroup M carrying populations ALSO being Black Asians. I reiterate:

"Generalized Moderns" and Sub-Saharan Africans fall within the same phenotypic range of variation."

Thought Posts:

Ancient mitochondrial M haplogroups identified in the Southwest Pacific

D. Andrew Merriwether et al.

posted 08 September 2005 10:35 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

I thought I would throw the following study into the mix since it is consistent with the oldest haplogroup M carrying populations ALSO being Black Asians. I reiterate:

"Generalized Moderns" and Sub-Saharan Africans fall within the same phenotypic range of variation."

---

Thought Posts:

J Hum Evol. 2003 Aug;45(2):113-44.

Ancient teeth and modern human origins: an expanded comparison of African Plio-Pleistocene and recent world dental samples.

Irish JD, Guatelli-Steinberg D.

Department of Anthropology, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK 99775-7720, USA. ffjdi@uaf.edu

Previous research by the first author revealed that, relative to other modern peoples, sub-Saharan Africans exhibit the highest frequencies of ancestral (or plesiomorphic) dental traits and, thus, appear to be least derived dentally from an ancestral hominin state. Both methods yielded similar results, which support the previous findings; that is, of all modern human samples,

**sub-Saharan Africans again exhibit the closest phenetic similarity to various African Plio-Pleistocene hominins -through their shared**

prevalence of morphologically complex crown and root traits. The fact that sub-Saharan Africans express these apparently plesiomorphic characters, along with additional information on their affinity to other modern populations, evident intra-population heterogeneity, and a world-wide dental cline emanating from the sub-continent, provides further evidence that is consistent with an African origin model.

posted 08 September 2005 10:47 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:
All statistical information must be properly textualized.

---

Properly contextualized:

* White Berbers of NorthWest Africa have NO E3b@28ky [Cruciani, 2004].

* They DO have DOWNSTREAM E3b2 with expansion date of 2 ky [Luis, et. al]

Which was introduced into NorthWestAfrica from NorthEast Africa.....
The considerably older linear expansion estimate of the Egyptian E3b2 is 5.4KY [Luis, et al]

* E3b2 is derived from from the 28,000 year old E3B:

* E3b appears to be confined mostly to the sub-Saharan populations - Peter Underhill.

* E3b is found in highest frequency among Black African Bantu, Khoisan and Southern Cushitic Groups of Tanzania.

Properly contexualized....

THESE PEOPLE:


...can be said to represent E3b.

White Berbers of NW Africa can not, because they don't have any.

To place things in their proper context:

You lose again Erroneous.

posted 09 September 2005 04:49 AM            

Can we get a non-distorted view of the difference between E3a and E3b? I am not an Afro-nut but I really disdain these types of distortions.

We know E3b is East African derived so even from the Cavali-Sforza, 1994, irrelevant data, the distance between E3b and E3a is at the most 529 but that would still be wrong:

Average Distances:

Among North Africans 182
Among East Africans/Saharans 200
Among Sub-Saharan Africans 166

Between North and Sub-Saharan Africans 1689
Between East/Saharan and North Africans 596
Between East/Saharan and Sub-Saharan Africans 529

This data would be incorrect in terms of a E3a and E3b comparison, based on what has been stated, since Sub-Saharan people are more than just E3a. But besides that, E3b itself is Sub-Saharan and we know that North Africans are statistically only 40% African at the most.

Basically you are trying to make an association between Hgs but using data that does not support such associations since the data is based on geographical classifications and not HGs.

Basically your North Africans have a considerable amount of French mtDNA and your Sub-Saharan could have any number of non-Cushitic mtDNA.

You go to all the work but you seem to be lacking in good judgement. Man, what a waste of time.

posted 09 September 2005 06:13 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
“Generalized Moderns” were phenotypically akin to MODERN Sub-Saharan Africans and Melaneseans.

---

Of course, they weren't. In the link I provided, Groves makes clear that "generalized moderns" like Herto Man and later specimens were "not, racially speaking, Africans" and had "no traces of the features that characterise any modern races".

quote:

---

There is no racial affiliation because the concept of race is pseudoscience.

---

Typical Afronut Hypocrisy

quote:

---

What the PN2 transition demonstrates is that ALL Africans share in a common, recent genetic and hence phenotypic heritage

---

I guess even visual aids can't help low-IQ niggers understand anything.

quote:

---

Quoting a source from 1994, years BEFORE the E3b lineage was delineated does not add texture to this process.

---

Because you don't like what it says. The date that E3b was delineated is irrelevant since Cavalli-Sforza's analysis deals with total ancestry (autosomes) and not Y-chromosomes. He finds that North Africans are as genetically distant from Sub-Saharan Africans as Englishmen are. Period. That couldn't possibly be if they were nearly half descended from "Black Africans".

quote:

---

Originally posted by Babbling Ape:
THESE PEOPLE:

...can be said to represent E3b.

White Berbers of NW Africa can not, because they don't have any.

---

posted 09 September 2005 07:04 AM            

quote:

---

TrappedEuro: if the Berber cluster of E3b doesn't represent the original "Black African" carriers,

---

quote:

---

BeatenEuro whimpers: then neither does the Greek cluster

---

Your problem is, you don't even understand the premise that you're trying to refute. So you always end up refuting your own premise instead.

Typical EuroLoser foul up.

posted 09 September 2005 01:33 PM            

>>>>NOTE 1: Ages for some of the haplogroups were imprecise or unavailable, so they had to be averaged or estimated. For example, M45 is dated 30,000-37,000 YBP, and E3b is dated 26,000-30,000 YBP. A date for R could not be found, so the intermediate between the M45 average and the date for R1 was used. The date for PN2 is also an estimate based on the E3b average.

This is all guesswork and not to be held as an absolute, irrefutable truth. The dates are vailable in publication form.

>>>>>NOTE 2: All four examples of racial types come from populations bearing 80%+ of the stated haplogroup, with mtDNA that's of the same racial affiliation.

Why did you use North Africans instead of East Africans, the source population of E3b? Is it because they're closer to sub-Saharans than North Africans, therefore making the argument that E3b isn't as distant from E3a populations as you would mislead people in here to believe? I'm not going to subject myself to a long pointless discusion with you, at least Dienekes isn't as stubborn and pompous as you are. Since you onsider blacks to be inferior you're never going to subject yourself to an unbiased discussion. If I continue on, you would not like that. I have some experience with genetics and I can tell by your half-baked misreadings of simple charts and plots, you have not the basic understanding of genetics. In the next post I will present such an example.

posted 09 September 2005 02:18 PM            

You see Ethiopians in the bottom of the plot, but within the same pole as other Africans. Thats not a surpride, given this map and the fact that non-Africans were used in the comparison. Since Ethiopians share in clades L0-L2 and the non-Africans do not, it makes sense that they would group in the same pole.

Look at this plot that has Africans only

When Ethiopians are compared to other Africans and non-Africans are excluded, we can see how close they actually are and the reality is that they are not that close. Of course when we take all Africans and compare them to the world they're going to be closer to each other. Now some points to remember

*Ethiopians are closer to sub-Saharan Africans than to non-Africans based on the fact that Ethiopians and sub-Saharans have maternal lineages that fall within clades L0-L2, while non-Africans do not. The presence of L0-L2 clades in East Africa and in Ethiopia is not due to mixture with intruding Negroid females. To sum it up, maternally, East Africans are more related to other Africans for the simple fact East Africans share L0-L3 with other Africans and only L3 lineages, haplogroups M and N, appear outside of Africa.

{Molecular Biology and Evolution 18:1864-1881 (2001)

Similarly, the arrival of the east African L2/L3 expansion (60,000 years old) in west Africa by 30,000 years ago (Watson et al. 1997 ) implies a westward migration speed of at least 200 m/year.}

posted 09 September 2005 11:24 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Thought2:
“Generalized Moderns” were phenotypically akin to MODERN Sub-Saharan Africans and Melaneseans.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course, they weren't. In the link I provided, Groves makes clear that "generalized moderns" like Herto Man and later specimens were "not, racially speaking, Africans" and had "no traces of the features that characterise any modern races".

---

Thought Writes:

What you have presented from Groves is simply an assumption, not a peer-reviewed scientific analysis. Peer review is the accepted method within the scientific community to evaluate any given hypothesis.

Groves assumption is either ill-informed or inconsistent. For example, he claims that "Generalized Moderns" and Sub-Saharan Africans share "no traces of the features that characterise any modern races", yet in a more RECENT, **peer-reviewed** study Joel Irish finds shared phenotypic traits when comparing "Generalized Moderns" and modern Sub-Saharan Africans.

Thought Posts:

Ancient teeth and modern human origins: an expanded comparison of African Plio-Pleistocene and recent world dental samples.

J Hum Evol. 2003 Aug;45(2):113-44.

Irish et al.

"...sub-Saharan Africans again exhibit the closest phenetic similarity to various African Plio-Pleistocene hominins-through their shared prevalence of morphologically complex crown and root traits. The fact that sub-Saharan Africans express these apparently plesiomorphic characters, along with additional information on their affinity to other modern populations, evident intra-population heterogeneity, and a world-wide dental cline emanating from the sub-continent, provides further evidence that is consistent with an African origin model."

Thought Writes:

In another RECENT, **peer-reviewed** study Neves et al. note affinity between the same **generalized** morphology and modern Sub-Saharans, Melaneseans and Australian Blacks.

Thought Posts:

J Hum Evol. 2005 Apr;48(4):403-14. Related Articles, Links

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

Neves et al.

"The Paleoamerican morphological pattern is more **generalized** and can be seen today among Africans, Australians, and Melanesians."

Thought Writes:

Groves claims out of one side of his mouth that "...each race is VERY heterogenous", yet just because SOME **generalized moderns** have prominent brow ridges he disassociates them from Modern Sub-Saharan Africans even though they have all the other phenotypic traits. If each race is very heretogenous, then prominent brow ridges does not disassociate **generalized moderns** from the Black "race".

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no racial affiliation because the concept of race is pseudoscience.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Typical Afronut Hypocrisy

---

Thought Writes:

TRANSLATION:

"I can't win the debate with reason so I resort to name calling."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quoting a source from 1994, years BEFORE the E3b lineage was delineated does not add texture to this process.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The date that E3b was delineated is irrelevant since Cavalli-Sforza's analysis deals with total ancestry (autosomes) and not Y-chromosomes.

---

Thought Writes:

Of course the date of delineation of E3b is relevent. How can the Cavalli-Sforza study ad value on the subject of ALL lineages when at the time of the study in question ALL lineages were not yet discovered. Duh!

posted 09 September 2005 11:28 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by D_ManningJr:

Why did you use North Africans instead of East Africans, the source population of E3b? Is it because they're closer to sub-Saharans than North Africans...

[This message has been edited by D_ManningJr (edited 09 September 2005).]

---

Thought Writes:

posted 09 September 2005 11:46 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

East Africans ARE Sub-Saharan Africans!

---

Exactly this irrates me to hear these anthropologist and ill-informed tear africa and africans apart trying to divide them in ways that suit their agendas best.

posted 09 September 2005 11:50 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

East Africans ARE Sub-Saharan Africans!

---

posted 10 September 2005 12:04 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by D_ManningJr:

I know that. Just for comparative analysis in the same mold as Sanchez et tal, I separated the two.

---

posted 10 September 2005 12:49 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
With respect. I concur with Keins and Thought. Don't play along with Eurocentric ruses. It's a bad habit. Instead refute them. Always.

---

Ruses can sometimes have the dual role of putting your opponent in betwen a rock and a hard place. Keep the same logic in mind for Evil Euro.

posted 10 September 2005 12:58 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by D_ManningJr:

Ruses can sometimes have the dual role of putting your opponent in betwen a rock and a hard place. Keep the same logic in mind for Evil Euro.

---

Thought Writes:

posted 10 September 2005 01:26 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

Evil E has been between a rock and a hard spot since day one of entering this forum. Adding on to false ideas in no way helps the situation.

---

So true, but there's a method to my madness. Check the thread on Y-chromosone variation in Jordan, you'll see exactly where I'm getting at. Sometimes you have to use the logic of your opponents to expose just how faulty that logic is.

posted 10 September 2005 06:36 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
What you have presented from Groves is simply an assumption

---

No, it's an assessment based on his expert analysis of the skeletal material. The Irish study only looks at dental traits. Moreover, Groves is tracing the development of modern races. The studies you posted are not, and don't contain any information specific to that issue. (And P.S. the Groves article is from 2003, so cut all the "RECENT" bullsh*t.)

quote:

---

Of course the date of delineation of E3b is relevent. How can the Cavalli-Sforza study ad value on the subject of ALL lineages when at the time of the study in question ALL lineages were not yet discovered. Duh!

---

posted 10 September 2005 10:19 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:

No, it's an assessment based on his expert analysis of the skeletal material. The Irish study only looks at dental traits. Moreover, Groves is tracing the development of modern races. The studies you posted are not, and don't contain any information specific to that issue.

---

Thought Writes:

1) If it is an EXPERT ANALYSIS (as in part of the scientfic community) where can I find HIS peer-reviewed study on this issue? Where can I find the statistical indices? Where can I find the population sample information? Where can I find the population size? Where can I find the statistical validity? I can't because it is simply his OPINION. His comment falls outside the standard method of scientific presentation which is peer-review. This may be acceptable base evidence for you, but my bar is much higher.

Yes the Irish study only looks at dental traits. Dental traits are phenotypic traits. Hence if **gereralized moderns** and modern Sub-Saharan Africans share the same dental features they share a common phenotype in this regard. Hence Groves statement that **generalized moderns** share "no traces of the features that characterise any modern races" is inaccurate. As Neves et al and Irish demonstrate Sub-Saharan Africans and **generalized moderns** fall within the same range of variability.

posted 11 September 2005 12:34 AM            

Lets see, if I was EvilE, I would be arguing that E3a is also Caucasoid which would make the entire PN2 clade Caucasian. At the least I would argue that the PN2 clade is Non-Negroid.

For instance, this Tutsi certainly has some interesting features:

Lets play devils advocate. The PN2 clade has traits that makes them closer to Caucasian than Pygmies, San and other various African groups. E3a breaks away from the PN2 clade and mixes with SAN and Pygmies in a south-westward migration which results in various Bantu groups. E3a over a period of time becomes affiliated with the Negroid race because of admixture. The original E3a was no different than Cushitic people which are actually Non-Negroid.

Actually I don't have a big problem with any of this except I don't think the traits overall (which are more than just facial features) of the PN2 clade are actually closer to Eurasians. And even if they were, nobody cares because RACE is a social construct and I am not aware of anyone that considers Somalians or any other Cushite to be Caucasian. They are considered Black and I haven't actually seen the use of Negroid on any census sheet. Essentially you can be Black and mostly Non-Negroid.

Fact is that we just have a racial classification system that has too many double standards and is way to mixed up. I have listened too this dribble for months and I am sick of it.

Have fun but no one can win this debate until you determine a system that has clear definitions that are not debatable.

Is RACE a matter of genetics or a matter of trait similarities? Is it your lineage or your looks?

If we cannot agree to what race is then how the hell can we have a conversation about it. Lame.

posted 11 September 2005 01:27 AM            

HLA genes in Macedonians and the sub-Saharan origin of the Greeks

A. Arnaiz-Villena; K. Dimitroski; A. Pacho; J. Moscoso; E. Go´mez-Casado; C. Silvera-Redondo; P. Varela; M. Blagoevska; V. Zdravkovska; J. Martý´nez-Laso

Department of Immunology and Molecular Biology, H. 12 de Octubre, Universidad Complutense, Madrid, Spain.

HLA alleles have been determined in individuals from the Republic of Macedonia by DNA typing and sequencing. HLA-A, -B, -DR, -DQ allele frequencies and extended haplotypes have been for the first time determined and the results compared to those of other Mediterraneans, particularly with their neighbouring Greeks. Genetic distances, neighbor-joining dendrograms and correspondence analysis have been performed. The following conclusions have been reached: 1) Macedonians belong to the "older" Mediterranean substratum, like Iberians (including Basques), North Africans, Italians, French, Cretans, Jews, Lebanese, Turks (Anatolians), Armenians and Iranians, 2) Macedonians are not related with geographically close Greeks, who do not belong to the "older" Mediterranenan substratum, 3) Greeks are found to have a substantial relatedness to sub-Saharan (Ethiopian) people, which separate them from other Mediterranean groups. Both Greeks and Ethiopians share quasi-specific DRB1 alleles, such as *0305, *0307, *0411, *0413, *0416, *0417, *0420, *1110, *1112, *1304 and *1310. Genetic distances are closer between Greeks and Ethiopian/sub-Saharan groups than to any other Mediterranean group and finally Greeks cluster with Ethiopians/sub-Saharans in both neighbour joining dendrograms and correspondence analyses. The time period when these relationships might have occurred was ancient but uncertain and might be related to the displacement of Egyptian-Ethiopian people living in pharaonic Egypt.

posted 11 September 2005 05:26 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:

Lets see, if I was EvilE, I would be arguing that E3a is also Caucasoid which would make the entire PN2 clade Caucasian. At the least I would argue that the PN2 clade is Non-Negroid.

For instance, this Tutsi certainly has some interesting features:

Lets play devils advocate. The PN2 clade has traits that makes them closer to Caucasian than Pygmies, San and other various African groups. E3a breaks away from the PN2 clade and mixes with SAN and Pygmies in a south-westward migration which results in various Bantu groups. E3a over a period of time becomes affiliated with the Negroid race because of admixture. The original E3a was no different than Cushitic people which are actually Non-Negroid.

Actually I don't have a big problem with any of this except I don't think the traits overall (which are more than just facial features) of the PN2 clade are actually closer to Eurasians. And even if they were, nobody cares because RACE is a social construct and I am not aware of anyone that considers Somalians or any other Cushite to be Caucasian. They are considered Black and I haven't actually seen the use of Negroid on any census sheet. Essentially you can be Black and mostly Non-Negroid.

Fact is that we just have a racial classification system that has too many double standards and is way to mixed up. I have listened too this dribble for months and I am sick of it.

Have fun but no one can win this debate until you determine a system that has clear definitions that are not debatable.

Is RACE a matter of genetics or a matter of trait similarities? Is it your lineage or your looks?

If we cannot agree to what race is then how the hell can we have a conversation about it. Lame.

---

tutsi's

very caucasian!! NOT
tutsi's are bantus and live in the central african rain forest, deal with it.

[This message has been edited by leba (edited 11 September 2005).]

posted 11 September 2005 06:47 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
1) If it is an EXPERT ANALYSIS (as in part of the scientfic community) where can I find HIS peer-reviewed study on this issue? Where can I find the statistical indices? Where can I find the population sample information? Where can I find the population size? Where can I find the statistical validity? I can't because it is simply his OPINION. His comment falls outside the standard method of scientific presentation which is peer-review. This may be acceptable base evidence for you, but my bar is much higher.

---

Bitch, you've referenced Groves yourself in the past. Stop pretending as if he's some kind of amateur just because he's saying things that you don't like. His assessments were published in a scientific article for everyone in the scientific community to read and evaluate. They're perfectly valid.

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:
Do we have a problem with this research?

---

Yes, we do. Where the hell have you been, moron?

posted 11 September 2005 11:06 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:

Analysis of Y-chromosomes and analysis of autosomes represent [b]two entirely separate approaches. Cavalli-Sforza's study doesn't look at Y-chromosomes at all, so it doesn't require the "delineation of E3b". What a clueless f*cking moron you are.

[/B]

---

Thought Writes:

The entire point of your thread was to compare and contrast the Y-Chromosome lineages E3a, E3b, R and Q. I demonstrated that E3a and E3b BOTH post-date the Out-Of-Africa migration of Eurasians. Hence if one defines "Race" as lineage or ancestry then one has to come to the conclusion that Africans who carry the E3a and E3b lineages share in a more recent and common "Racial" bloodline than Africans and Non-Africans. Of course there are abberations such as the Greeks who have substantial Sub-Saharan Y-Chromosome bloodlines.

posted 11 September 2005 11:16 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:

Bitch, you've referenced Groves yourself in the past. Stop pretending as if he's some kind of amateur just because he's saying things that you don't like. His assessments were published in a scientific article for everyone in the scientific community to read and evaluate. They're perfectly valid.

---

Thought Writes:

Hi Evil E

posted 11 September 2005 11:26 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:

Thought Writes:

I would never use such non-scientific comment as PRIMARY evidence. It certainly can be utilized to bolster an EXISTING argument. However you have presented NO evidence to build upon with such less substantial evidence. I on the other hand have clearly presented evidence linking **generalized moderns** and modern Sub-Saharan Africans phenotypically. Please see the peer-reviewed studies from Neves and Irish that I have posted in this thread if you have additional questions or need additional study guide material. Thank you.

---

Thought Writes:

Here is a good example of supporting evidence. The following statement from Stringer can be used to support the peer-reviewed studies of Neves and Irish.

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 11 September 2005 11:35 AM            

quote:

---

Thought2 Writes:
Thought Writes:

The entire point of your thread was to compare and contrast the Y-Chromosome lineages E3a, E3b, R and Q. I demonstrated that E3a and E3b BOTH post-date the Out-Of-Africa migration of Eurasians. Hence if one defines "Race" as lineage or ancestry then one has to come to the conclusion that Africans who carry the E3a and E3b lineages share in a more recent and common "Racial" bloodline than Africans and Non-Africans. Of course there are abberations such as the Greeks who have substantial Sub-Saharan Y-Chromosome bloodlines.

---

posted 11 September 2005 11:41 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Calypso:
Thought2 Writes:
Thought Writes:

The entire point of your thread was to compare and contrast the Y-Chromosome lineages E3a, E3b, R and Q. I demonstrated that E3a and E3b BOTH post-date the Out-Of-Africa migration of Eurasians. Hence if one defines "Race" as lineage or ancestry then one has to come to the conclusion that Africans who carry the E3a and E3b lineages share in a more recent and common "Racial" bloodline than Africans and Non-Africans. Of course there are abberations such as the Greeks who have substantial Sub-Saharan Y-Chromosome bloodlines.

---

quote:

---

Imminently reasonable as a criteria for establishing racial affinity: since we know that the racist and facist always appeal to the purity of "blood"; and we know that the hamitic myth postulated that "hamites" were scions of the caucasian/aryan blood line.
Evil Euro's approach is no more sophisticated or scientific than someone who would argue that a dolphin is more related to a sardine than to a mouse.

---

Excellent analogy.

posted 11 September 2005 12:07 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by leba:

hahahhaha are you saying tutsis and E3a are caucasian? my god! people need to stop postng extreme rare tutsis with narrow-ish features and those pictures are very old and made by european racists.

lets take a look at modern day tutsis who are never posted here (except for paul kagame).

real tutsi's

very caucasian!! NOT
tutsi's are bantus and live in the central african rain forest, deal with it.

[This message has been edited by leba (edited 11 September 2005).]

---

I was playing devils advocate, you are probably not educated enough to know what that means.

But as far as Tutsi goes, my arguement is that their current appearance is due to admixture with Pygmies. Those lacking this admixture appear like the rest of the PN2 clade - Non-Negroid:

By the way the these features are not that rare amongst Tutsi. Hence why the Europeans classified these people as Hamitic.

posted 11 September 2005 12:14 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Yes, we do. Where the hell have you been, moron?

If Arnaiz-Villena's HLA-DRB1 study on Greek-Ethiopian affinities is anything more than junk science, then why has it been rejected by not one, not two, not three, but [b]FOUR world-renowned geneticists? And why have its results never been duplicated by a single other genetic study -- even those conducted using the same HLA genes that Arnaiz-Villena analyzed? This is quite remarkable indeed, but I'm sure the Negroes have a very good explanation. We're all waiting to hear it.[/B]

---

Yes, now I remember this post from you. I am sure your types are up in arms. Not that I think this research has much merit but it certainly does indicate that there is a profound relationship between Ethiopians and Greeks. ;-)

posted 11 September 2005 12:28 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by leba:
Grow a brain negro and finish evolution maybe after that we can have a civilized discussion.

Later.

---

Somalians do not appear very civilized to us at all. But then you are mixed aren't you? Part Somalian part White right? Certainly this is the way you act.

But here is how we see Somalians in the West:

posted 11 September 2005 12:46 PM            

so what about your people then......seems like savage to me.

posted 11 September 2005 12:57 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:
Somalians do not appear very civilized to us at all. But then you are mixed aren't you? Part Somalian part White right? Certainly this is the way you act.

But here is how we see Somalians in the West.

---

posted 11 September 2005 01:23 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by COBRA:
not nice is it. and this is what we see in the EAST.........of your people. Well i forgot your not a FULL jew are you. Part Jew and Part black.

---

How interesting! I am part Black, yes, quite true but then so must be the Somalians since my Ethiopian blood is the same as theirs genetically. So you are a mulatto like me but don't accept your Blackness. Is that because of your Islamic beliefs?

Socially, you are a Mulatto and not Caucasian.

posted 11 September 2005 01:40 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:
How interesting! I am part Black, yes, quite true but then so must be the Somalians since my Ethiopian blood is the same as theirs genetically. So you are a mulatto like me but don't accept your Blackness. Is that because of your Islamic beliefs?

Socially, you are a Mulatto and not Caucasian.

---

What does Islam has to do with anything he just said, Dumb jew. And do you also know the meaning of the word ''Mulatto'' !? , He isn't a Mulatto.

posted 11 September 2005 01:42 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:
I was playing devils advocate, you are probably not educated enough to know what that means.

But as far as Tutsi goes, my arguement is that their current appearance is due to admixture with Pygmies. Those lacking this admixture appear like the rest of the PN2 clade - Non-Negroid:

By the way the these features are not that rare amongst Tutsi. Hence why the Europeans classified these people as Hamitic.

---

posted 11 September 2005 01:52 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by leba:

What does Islam has to do with anything he just said, Dumb jew. And do you aso know the meaning of the word ''Mulatto'' !? , He isn't a Mulatto.

[This message has been edited by leba (edited 11 September 2005).]

---

I am sure you are both mulattos. As far as Islam, don't you all claim to be related to Mohammed? Doesn't seem you guys like the idea of actually being African primarily because of your religious beliefs.

posted 11 September 2005 01:56 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by leba:
No, The pure E3a ones look like that. The ones with East African in them look like Paul Kagame.

---

This cannot be extrapolated by looking at Tutsis. Very few Africans are pure E3a, some have A and B. Ethiopians have plenty of A Pygmies have plenty of B. There's no way you can predict what a pure E3a person is going to look like.

posted 11 September 2005 01:58 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by leba:
No, The pure E3a ones look like that. The ones with East African in them look like Paul Kagame.

---

Look like what? Non-Negroid? Tutsi are 80% E3a and many of them look like East Africans. E3a itself is East African.

posted 11 September 2005 01:59 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:
I am sure you are both mulattos. As far as Islam, don't you all claim to be related to Mohammed? Doesn't seem you guys like the idea of actually being African primarily because of your religious beliefs.

---

posted 11 September 2005 02:01 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:
Look like what? Non-Negroid? Tutsi are 80% E3a and many of them look like East Africans. E3a itself is East African.

---

posted 11 September 2005 02:09 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by leba:
E3a is West-Central african not East African dummy, And Tutsi's don't look like East Africans a very few do, Atleast the ones i've seen upclose.

---

Your the dummy, E3a is part of the PN2 clade and has its origins in East Africa.

posted 11 September 2005 02:13 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by leba:

No, They do not claim to be related to Mohammed, Very few people in this world claim that. And Mulatto is a very rascist spanish word meaning non-Human(west african slave woman) + Spanish male. So no He's not a Mulatto and I aint ...

---

I have been to East Africa and I can tell you that many claim to be related to Mohammed. It is really rather nauseating to hear it too.

posted 11 September 2005 02:18 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by D_ManningJr:
This cannot be extrapolated by looking at Tutsis. Very few Africans are pure E3a, some have A and B. Ethiopians have plenty of A Pygmies have plenty of B. There's no way you can predict what a pure E3a person is going to look like.

---

Devils Advocate:

Tutsi's are from Ethiopia. Many have mixed with the Hutus and have lost their original PN2 traits. As a consequence E3a has become affiliated with Negroes.

posted 11 September 2005 02:21 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:

Your the dummy, E3a is part of the PN2 clade and has its origins in East Africa.

---

Using your logic every haplogroup is East African...

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:
I have been to East Africa and I can tell you that many claim to be related to Mohammed. It is really rather nauseating to hear it too.

---

Lying Jew, Somalis do not claim to be related to Mohammed and many East african muslims don't but a very few do who actually are related...

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:
As for the term Mulatto, simply means mixed race - like you, part white and part black. You simply prefer to think of yourself as being all White. Are you really socially accepted as White? Most people think I am Arabic or Middle Eastern but no one thinks I am White.

---

WTF, Who said I'm white or white mixed?? No i'm not.. And no Mulatto has racist origins which means non-Human + perfect Human...unless you consider yourself that to be

posted 11 September 2005 02:35 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by leba:
Using your logic every haplogroup is East African...

[This message has been edited by leba (edited 11 September 2005).]

---

Using your logic, every African thats predominantly E3a is a Bantu of West-Central origin.

posted 11 September 2005 02:36 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by D_ManningJr:
Using your logic, every African thats predominantly E3a is a Bantu of West-Central origin.

---

Isn't that correct? (Well the West-Central african part not the bantu part)?