posted
A fairly old study (in more ways than one) but I found it interesting none the less. I find it hard to believe these people were surprised about any of this.
And whats interesting is that this sample is just from African Americans. While out and about I also see large variations, last week even seeing a modern day version of a long straight haired black male that was almost a copy of some of the royal european images, would have asked for his photo if it wasn't strange.
They don't offer equally obtainable quality healthcare to blacks for a reason. Furthermore, they have archives that already gave them this info.
See another example in A Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey by Spencer Wells page 39 for refrence.
What happened to the text book "Negro"? The IDEAL Negro? We have one moron who "prowls" the forum with the stupidity of that claim. Surely its of value? Critical observations across time surely prove it? *Cough* *Cough* (Excuse me).
Though they sure like to play dumb, we have fine examples of that in the very forum as well. This is the tom foolery that is guiding the masses' education system.
Which brings to my mind, has there been any albino and black conflict where the albinos just did a raw head to head assualt? How did it compare to them choosing to covertly destroy black societies before physically moving in for war and direct conquest?
Posts: 310 | From: US | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote: As would be expected with the "out of Africa" theory, the researchers found Africans had the greatest amount of genetic diversity, followed in turn by Middle Easterners, then Europeans and South Asians at about equal levels, then East Asians.
The fierce and proud Bedouin nomads of the Middle East actually have a lot of European and South Asian blood.
The Asian-looking Hazara of Afghanistan are correct in claiming ancestry in Mongolia, but the Han, the dominant ethnic group in China, may be disappointed to discover they're actually two peoples, one north, the other south.
As with the other large-scale study, the Stanford team found the greatest diversity outside of Africa among people living in the wide crescent of land stretching from the eastern shore of the Mediterranean to northern India.
Not only was the region among the first colonized by the African migrants, they theorize, but the large number of European and East Asian genes among the population indicates that it's long been the human highway, with large numbers of migrants from both directions conquering, trading and generally reproducing along its entire length.
This confirms a lot of what we have posted in the forums so far, but also contradicts a lot of everything we have written.
Firstly that the modern Chinese are not actually a single homogeneous ethnic group as I have saying countless times already; this refutes and disproves the obvious lie that China has a bullshit 8,000 year old continous civilization and culture, which is a lie if you use common sense and read a history book about China.
The modern Chinese are not direct descendants of the Xia and Shang Dynasty Chinese civilizations, and that the Northern Chinese actually have distant Indo-European white admixture, from white eurasian movements towards the China area from Siberia, as long ago as the second millennium and I have discovered several reports recently indicating this.
The Bedouin thing confirms what Mike has been saying countless times about many of these so called "arabs" being actually Turks/Europid mulatto's and quadroons of the original black populations of the Arabian peninsula.
What I find confusing is what they wrote about South Asia, first they said that South Asia possibly has a lot of genetic diversity as indicated by the crescent genetic diversity comment.
But then they say that South Asians have as much genetic diversity as Europeans. But how can that be? South Asia is the size of Europe on an area by area basis, and has many diverse groups with different genetic makeups and has been the recipient of many invasions and movements. So how can they be less genetically diverse then Middle Easterners?
I mean the middle east is a broad term, that also includes many groups and peoples with different genetic makeups and cultures unrelated to each others (from Turks to Arabs, to Berbers to Assyrians to Kurds to the Yezidi, to the Druze, to the Jews, to Syrians to Persians etc etc). So whom do they mean by "Middle Easterners"?
South Asia was the first region that OOA migrants went to settle and colonize before they spread to Europe and the rest of Asia. Which means that South Asians should have more genetic diversity then Europeans and others, since that region has seen so many movements and invasions from the Eurasian steppes and the Middle East recently. They also have a genetic North-South divide much more deeper then the Chinese one; and they have the most genetic diverse holding of the R1a haplogroup then anywhere else in the world.
We need to keep pressuring them somehow, so that they keep doing more stuff like this....
Posts: 1558 | From: US | Registered: Sep 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote: As would be expected with the "out of Africa" theory, the researchers found Africans had the greatest amount of genetic diversity, followed in turn by Middle Easterners, then Europeans and South Asians at about equal levels, then East Asians.
The fierce and proud Bedouin nomads of the Middle East actually have a lot of European and South Asian blood.
The Asian-looking Hazara of Afghanistan are correct in claiming ancestry in Mongolia, but the Han, the dominant ethnic group in China, may be disappointed to discover they're actually two peoples, one north, the other south.
As with the other large-scale study, the Stanford team found the greatest diversity outside of Africa among people living in the wide crescent of land stretching from the eastern shore of the Mediterranean to northern India.
Not only was the region among the first colonized by the African migrants, they theorize, but the large number of European and East Asian genes among the population indicates that it's long been the human highway, with large numbers of migrants from both directions conquering, trading and generally reproducing along its entire length.
This confirms a lot of what we have posted in the forums so far, but also contradicts a lot of everything we have written.
It contradicts you because what you wrote was wrong
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic