1) the Australians represent the OOA population that settled Asia
2) during the OOA event much of Siberia and North America was under ice from 110,000 - 10,000BC. As a result there was no way Siberians could cross Beringa before the end of the ice age
3) Ice even separated much of South America east to west .
. 4) the first Americans appear in Brazil, Chile and Argintina Latin America around 30,000 BC
5)using craniometric evidence it is clear that the first Americans look like Africans not modern Asian Native Americans
6) using craniometrics I have pointed out that Asia was dominated by the Australian population until the rise of Suhulland when the Melanesian people appear in the area, at this time the Beringa was still under Ice
7) I pointed out that the Melanesian type reach East Asian mainland by 5000 BC, long after Africans had settled Latin America
8) between 15,000-12,000 we see numerous African populations in Mexico and Brazil; and skeletons dating to this period have even been found off the Yucatan coast in the Caribbean
9) these first Americans did not look like the Australians or modern Amerinds
10) iconography of PreClassic people like the Cherla, Ocos and other groups is of Negroes not Amerinds like the Maya
11) Amerind groups not associated with African slaves carry African genes
12) Maya carried African y chromosome
13) Chontal Mayan speakers were classified as Negroes by Quatrefages. This may explain why the Maya carry African genes
14)Negrocostachicanos claim that they have never been slaves and are indigenous to Guererro and Oaxaca on the Pacific coast
15) The Dufuna boat makes it clear that Africans probably had the technology to travel to the Americas 15,000 years ago.
16) Fuegians 100-400 BP carried haplogroup A1. Hg A1 is an African haplogroup.
17) Amerinds carry haplogroup N, just like Africans.
18)The y chromosome STRs of the Fuegians include DYS434,DYS437,DYS 439, DYS 393, DYS391,DYS390,DYS19, DYS 389I, DYS389II and DYS 388 (see: Garcia-Bour et al above). Except for DYS390 and DYS388 they are characteristic of haplogroup A1 . A1 is recognized as an African haplogroup.
19)Quatrefages noted numerous African Native American tribes
20)The antiquity of these populations is supported by the ancient iconography found in these countries which are of African Native Americans.
21) Most contemporary populations are descendants of the San people not Australians.
.
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718:
quote: Most native American populations are descended from people like Australian Aborigines Clyde.
Actually, like all modern humans, **ALL** Native Americans are descended from Australian like populations, this is the point Clyde doesn't understand. Clyde thinks all non Africans who don't look African are a result of space aliens, or some crazy deranged theory like Meninarmer or Marc.
quote: As to the similarities with Africans, the best way to explain it in terms of historical connections, is to assume that the **Asian** ancestral population that gave rise to the **Australians** and to the **first Americans** had its ultimate origins in the **African continent**, as it is in fact the case with **ALL*** modern humans (Stringer and Andrews, 1988; Stringer and McKie, 1996; Lahr, 1994, 1996), ***but which retained a very generalized morphology.***In accordance with Lahr (1996), the Australians are in fact the contemporary aboriginal population that retained the most primitive morphology when compared to the first modern humans.As she stressed "Groups like [...] Australo-Melanesians are all examples of relatively early diversifications without great amounts of gene flow from other groups..." (Lahr, 1996, p.335).
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Here is the evidence.
If you could not cross the Beringa until 14kya and all the skeletons of ancient inhabitants are found near the Atlantic coastline the people had to have come from Africa given the fact the carniometrics indicate that they were of the African variety, and ice blocked any possible movement of people from the Pacific to Argintina and Chile where some of the evidence of early man has been found.
The first Americans did not cross the Bearing Straits to enter the Americas.The earliest sites for Negroes date between 20,000 and 40000 years ago Old Crow Basin Canada(38,000BC) Pedra Furada (45,000BC) Brazil. These people were pygmies and bushman types according to Dr. Dixon, & Dr. Marquez(p.179).
Chile: Monteverde (12,500 years), Tierra del Fuego, Cueva de Fell, Tres Arroyos and some other places.
There are older ones in the Argentinian Patagonia.
quote:
—Patagonia was the world's last place to be colonized by humans. In Arica there have been found remains of 9,000 years; the same in a place at the High Aconcagua and Huentelauquén. In Chile we have more than half of the continent's most ancient human skeletons, all well dated and documented.
Archaeologists believe they have discovered a 13,600-year-old human skeleton deep in a Caribbean underwater cave, making it the oldest ever found in the Americas. The discovery could have profound effects on theories of how humans first reached North America.
The female skeleton, called Eve of Naharon, was found with three other human skeletons in underwater caves along the coast of the Yucatan Peninsula. Excavation of a fourth skeleton – possibly even older than Eve – begins this month in a nearby cave.
The three other skeletons found with Eve have been radiocarbon-dated from 11,000 to 14,000 years ago.
All were found in underwater caves about 50 feet below the surface. At the time Eve and the others would have lived there, the sea level was about 200 feet lower, and the Yucatan Peninsula was a dry prairie. Melting of the polar ice caps 9,000 years ago submerged the burial ground and the subsequent growth of stalactites and stalagmites kept the skeletons from being washed out to sea.
In 1959 archaeologists found the Penon woman skeleton at Mexico City.
[/b] Penon Woman[/b]
Penon woman has been characterized as a Negro and is physically different from Native Americans. The Penon skeleton has been dated between 12,500-15,000BP. The skull of Penon woman is dolichocephalic like most Negroes, not brachysephalic (short and braod) like modern Native Americans. She is related to the Fuegians of Parana Argentina and the Luizia population of Brazil.
Here we have a comparison of ancient skulls found in the Americas.
In the picture above we have three ancient American skulls. They are a) Penon woman (12.755 Ka), b) Texcal Man (9.5ka) and c) Pericue Indian (18th Century). If you look notice Pericue man shows broad features characteristic of the mongoloid type, while both Penon and Texcul do not.
Some researchers claim that these skeletons are of Australian or Melanesian Blacks. This is highly unlikely given the fact that that have been found near the Atlantic Ocean and suggestive of a migration from Africa to Mexico, like the migration of the Olmec 11,000 years later. This view is supported by the discovery of the so-called Eva Neharon skeleton (c.13,600 ) dating to around the same period found in the Caribbean.
By 11,500 we see the appearence tall Negroes from Africa in Colombia, Venezuela and Brazil e.g.,Luiza. Negroes settled America both from the Bearing & South America. Cite an archaeological site where Amerind skeletons have been found prior to the Negro skeletons.
quote:
Oldest Skeleton in Americas Found in Underwater Cave? Eliza Barclay for National Geographic News
September 3, 2008
Deep inside an underwater cave in Mexico, archaeologists may have discovered the oldest human skeleton ever found in the Americas.
Dubbed Eva de Naharon, or Eve of Naharon, the female skeleton has been dated at 13,600 years old. If that age is accurate, the skeleton—along with three others found in underwater caves along the Caribbean coast of the Yucatán Peninsula—could provide new clues to how the Americas were first populated.
The remains have been excavated over the past four years near the town of Tulum, about 80 miles southwest of Cancún, by a team of scientists led by Arturo González, director of the Desert Museum in Saltillo, Mexico (see map of Mexico).
"We don't now how [the people whose remains were found in the caves] arrived and whether they came from the Atlantic, the jungle, or inside the continent," González said.
"But we believe these finds are the oldest yet to be found in the Americas and may influence our theories of how the first people arrived."
In addition to possibly altering the time line of human settlement in the Americas, the remains may cause experts to rethink where the first Americans came from, González added.
Clues from the skeletons' skulls hint that the people may not be of northern Asian descent, which would contradict the dominant theory of New World settlement. That theory holds that ancient humans first came to North America from northern Asia via a now submerged land bridge across the Bering Sea (see an interactive map of ancient human migration).
"The shape of the skulls has led us to believe that Eva and the others have more of an affinity with people from South Asia than North Asia," González explained.
Concepción Jiménez, director of physical anthropology at Mexico's National Institute of Anthropology and History, has viewed the finds and says they may be Mexico's oldest and most important human remains to date.
"Eva de Naharon has the Paleo-Indian characteristics that make the date seem very plausible," Jiménez said.
Ancient Floods, Giant Animals
The three other skeletons excavated in the caves have been given a date range of 11,000 to 14,000 years ago, based on radiocarbon dating.
Radiocarbon dating measures the age of organic materials based on their content of the radioactive isotope carbon 14.
According to archaeologist David Anderson of the University of Tennessee, however, minerals in seawater can sometimes alter the carbon 14 content of bones, resulting in inaccurate radiocarbon dating results.
The remains were found some 50 feet (15 meters) below sea level in the caves off Tulum. But at the time Eve of Naharon is believed to have lived there, sea levels were 200 feet (60 meters) lower, and the Yucatán Peninsula was a wide, dry prairie.
The polar ice caps melted dramatically 8,000 to 9,000 years ago, causing sea levels to rise hundreds of feet and submerging the burial grounds of the skeletons. Stalactites and stalagmites then grew around the remains, preventing them from being washed out to sea.
González has also found remains of elephants, giant sloths, and other ancient fauna in the caves.
(Learn more about how caves form.)
Human Migration Theories
If González's finds do stand up to scientific scrutiny, they will raise many interesting new questions about how the Americas were first peopled.
Many researchers once believed humans entered the New World from Asia as a single group crossing over the Bering Land Bridge no earlier than 13,500 years ago. But that theory is lately being debunked.
Remains found in Monte Verde, Chile, in 1997, for example, point to the presence of people in the Americas at least 12,500 years ago, long before migration would have been possible through the ice-covered Arctic reaches of North America.
(Related: "Clovis People Not First Americans, Study Shows" [February 23, 2007].)
Confirmation of Eve of Naharon's age could further revolutionize the thinking about the settlement of the Americas.
This September, González will begin excavating the fourth skeleton, known as Chan hol, which he says could be even older than Eve.
The Chan hol remains include more than ten teeth, which will allow researchers to date the specimen and gather information about Chan hol's diet.
"When we learn more about the [Mexican finds] we'll be able to better evaluate them," said Carlos Lorenzo, a researcher at the Universitat Rovira i Virgili in Tarragona, Spain, an expert on the subject who was not involved in the current study.
"But in any case, if it's confirmed that Eva de Naharon is 13,000 years old, it will be a fantastic and extraordinary finding for understanding the first settlers of America."
González said he and his team hope to publish the full results of their analysis after the excavation of the fourth skeleton.
"We're not yet in the phase of research of determining how they arrived," he said. "But when we have more evidence we may be able to determine that."
USA 28,000-25,000 14C y.a. This vegetation map showing the eastern USA during the period 28,000-25,000 14C y.a. has been compiled by Paul & Hazel Delcourt. An ice sheet already covered most of Canada and extended south of the Great Lakes. Boreal conifer woodlands and forests predominated in what is now the cool temperate forest zone, and the cool and warm temperate forest belts were compressed southwards.
The last ice age in North America lasted between 110,000 and 17,000BP. The ice-free corridor on the eastern flank of the Rockies did not open before 13,000 years ago. Africans were in the Americas long before the end of the last Ice Age when the “Siberians”, who also were more than likely Africans began to cross the Bearing Straits. By 12,500 BC Africans were already living in Chile.
Stop trying to steal the heritage of the Black people like the Olmecs, who represent the Mother Culture of Mexico.
You are stuck on using terms like African, Negroid and Mongoloid that have NO BEARING on the facts we are discussing. By the time the aboriginal types reached Australia and New Guinea, they were not AFRICANS anymore as AFRICAN refers to a geographic place. And by the time that they crossed into the Americas, this was even MORE true. So WHAT ON EARTH are you talking about? They WERE NOT AFRICANS.
You live in a fantasy world of your own making. These are the terms used to refer to these populations by modern anthropologists stupid. In your world these terms no longer exist but in the literature I cited above they remain.
Just because you prefer to look at the world in rose colored glasses that is your right. But it does not change the way science is presented fool. The Amerinds come from Siberia, so we say they are Asians. The white Americans come from Europe so we call them Europeans. Stupid, if the original Blacks of Asia came from Africa we can call them African fool, just like we call Blacks in America :African American.
Get up off your knees. Read your own scholars instead of trying to protect white feelings teach the truth stupid boy.
.
quote:The only one stuck in a world of rose colored glasses is you Clyde. You claim to be an African scholar who is attempting to redress the deception of white supremacy but it is YOU who cling to that same deception. And YOU ACKNOWLEDGE IT YOURSELF. Therefore, the only one stuck protecting WHITE SCHOLARSHIP IS YOU CLYDE.
You are a joke. The point is YOU don't understand the reason why mixing terms like black, negroid and African are MEANINGLESS and THAT is why I am calling you DUMB. It is isn't about the scholarship from WHITES. It is that YOU PERSONALLY are too dumb to see that ALL of these terms simply mean the same thing: BLACK FOLKS. YOU are caught up in trying to make DISTINCTIONS that do NOTHING that change the facts and OVERLY COMPLICATE something QUITE SIMPLE.
BLACK FOLKS are the oldest form of human on the planet. BLACK FOLKS are the most diverse population ON THE PLANET. BLACK FOLKS are the FIRST PEOPLE on every continent on earth. And ALL HUMANS originated in Africa as BLACK PEOPLE. The first NATIVE AMERICANS were BLACK PEOPLE of various types who MIGRATED to the Americas FROM ASIA and RETAINED many of the traits COMMON TO ALL EARLY HUMANS that migrated OOA. There is NOTHING EXTRA to ADD to it and YOUR ATTEMPTS to pretend to ADD VALUE to this by making up FAUX distinctions BETWEEN AND AMONG these BLACK FOLKS is retarded. And in all actuality you are only using WEASEL WORDS to try and make a CONCLUSION that has no merit. You want the first people of the Americas to be AFRICANS, but you HAVE NO PROOF that the first populations to populate the ENTIRE continent of the Americas came DIRECT from Africa. So instead of trying to provide proof, you resort to FAUX TYPOLOGIES to try and make your case. All so you can claim that these people were AFRICAN AMERICANS. How cute. Don't that just make everything swell..... BULLSH*T. HOW on earth were these AFRICANS if they came from ASIA Clyde? YOU posted maps CLAIMING to show the connections between Africans and the first Americans and NOT ONE of those maps actually showed this. And so of course, you instead rely on your usual bag of tricks involving HALF BAKED premises and contorted logic to make your case. Please stop clowning yourself and start making sense for a change.
I am not at all against the idea that Africans may have indeed been some of the first migrants to the Americas many thousands of years ago. However, I disagree with YOUR METHODOLOGY, which relies on TWISTED LOGIC as opposed to DIRECT EVIDENCE and convincing proof. All of which makes something that has merit into something of a laughable position, simply because YOUR METHODOLOGY is so questionable in many cases. It isn't that THE IDEA is bad in itself, it is that YOU don't follow through and make a convincing case for it.
And yes, black folks only means people with dark skin.
That is the point.
You wouldn't know methodology if you tripped over it.
There is only one methodology in science: you make a hypothesis and support it with evidence. The aim of science is theory construction (F.N. Kirlinger, Foundations of behavior research, (1986) pp.6-10; R. Braithwaite, Scientific explanation, (1955) pp.1-10). A theory is a set of interrelated constructs, propositions and definitions, that provide a systematic understanding of phenomena by outlining relations among a group of variables that explain and predict phenomena.
There are four methods of knowing 1) Method of tenacity (one holds firmly to the truth, because "they know it" to be true); 2) method of authority (the method of established belief, i.e., the Bible or the "experts" says it, it is so); 3) method of intuition (the method where a proposition agrees with reason, but not necessarily with experience); and 4) the method of science (the method of attaining knowledge which calls for self-correction).
You use the method of authority. Because you have been beatdown by white supremacy anything an establishment European writes must be correct especially when it appears in a referred journal as long as it agrees with your bias.
Since your research is based on the method of authority you don't know how to make hypotheses. What you do is simply repeat what you read without any analysis. Scientist, real reasearchers make hypotheses. Mike made a hypothesis and we supported it with data. You on the other otherhand, make statements absent supporting evidence.
Since you are a midget in the world of research and think like whites. Anybody dark skinned is Black to you, when the term Black refers to people of African origin.
As a result, when books recognize that the Australians and Melanesians are not alike you continue to advocate the idea they are one and the same eventhough Australians represent the OOA population, and the Melanesians do not appear in mainland Asia until 18kya, 12k after homo sapiens arrived in South America.
Next you claim that just because some one is dark skinned they much be labled Black. And eventhough whites in America are called Europeans; Blacks African Americans; and Amerinds Asians--you can not call the people who settled Asia and the Americas from Africa Africans, eventhough we call the former slaves of African origin: African Americans. Oh you confused ignorant fool.
Scientific inquiry involves issues of theory construction, control and experimentation. Scientific knowledge must rest on testing, rather than mere induction which can be defined as inferences of laws and generalizations, derived from observation. This falsity of logical possibility is evident in the rejection of the of the idea that Africans were not the first settlers of America, when we know that: 1) Africans had the naval technology to make a voyage to America; 2) no one could cross the Beringa between 110kya to 12kya , yet numerous skeletal remains dating back to 30kya have been found on the east coast of the Americas, coastline that could be easy reached by currents; and 3) the craniometrics make it clear the people were of the Melanesian/African type.
Your answer to this evidence is: The first Blacks to arrive in America were members of the OOA population that crossed Beringa. Yet you provide no data in support of this idea which disconfirms the evidence of a connection. Oh what a fool you are.
Stop claiming to be a careful researcher and supporter of science. You only support what you believe in--not what the science says.
posted
No members of the OOA population made their way to the New World.
There is clear evidence that the OOA population settled Asia. But lets not forget that if the OOA population who took the eastern route out of Africa left the Continent around 60kya this would have been during the last Ice Age.
The Ice Age latsed from from 110kya to around 12kya. As a result the OOA populartion would have found it impossible to take a land route to the Americas across Beringa. As a result, your insistence that the OOA population made their way to the Americas does not correlate with the environmental and archaeological evidence.
.
.
The ancient Americans looked more like the Khoisan then Australians, because they came from Africa not Asia.
posted
You fail to recognize that there is a craniometric difference between Australoids /Australians representatives of the OOA population, Mongoloids and Melanoids; craniometric differences that indicate two migrations of the Black Variety into the Pacific and East Asia.
Tsuenehiko Hanihare discussed the phenotypic variations between these populations(1). Tsuenehiko classified these people into three major populations Southeast Asian Mongoloids (Polynesians), the Australians or Austroloid type and the Nicobar and Andaman (Melanoid) samples which he found lie between the predominately Southeast Asian and Australoid/Australian type (1).
The Australian aborigines and Melanesians show cranonical variates and represent two distinct Black populations(2). The Australoids or Australians live mainly in Australia and the highland regions of Oceania, the Melanoid people on the otherhand live in the coastal regions of Near Oceania and Fiji. D.J de Laubenfels discussed the variety of Blacks found in Asia. Laubenfiels explained that Negroids/Melanoids such as the Tasmanians are characterized by wooly black hair and sparse body hair (2). Australoids or Australians on the otherhand have curly, wavy or straight hair and abundant body hair. Other differences between these Black populations include Negroid / Melanoid brows being vertical and without eyebrow ridges, whereas Australoid brows are sloping and with prominent ridges (2).
This led M. Pietrusewky to recognize two separate colonizations of the Pacific by morphologically distinct populations one Polynesian and the other Melanesian (3). Pietrusewky’s research indicates a clear separation between the Australian-Melanesian crania and the Polynesian crania (3). The findings indicate an origin for the Polynesians in Southeast Asia (3-5), and an early Australo-Melanesian presence in East Asia as discussed in the earlier comment.
Laubenfels argues that the Australians are remnants of the original African migration to the region 60kya (2). This view is supported by David Bulbeck who found that the Australian craniometrics are different from the Mongoloid (Polynesian), and Melanoid crania metrics (4). This research indicates that whereas Australian aborigine crania agree with the archaic population of Asia and first group of Africans to exit Africa, they fail to correspond to the Sahulland crania which are distinctly of Southwest Pacific or Melanoid affinity (2,4). This suggests that by the rise of Sahulland there were two distinct Black populations in Asia one Austroloid and the other Melanoid (4).
The Melanesian type does not appear in East Asia (Siberia) until after 5000 BC. This is thousands of years after Luizia and Eva Neharon had existed in Brazil and Mexico respectively.
By the Neolithic the Melanoids or Papuans are associated with millet cultivation at Yangshao and Lougshan according to Pietrusewky’s work (5). Tsang argues that the probable homeland of the Austronesian speakers was the Pearl River delta, here the Melanoid people cultivated millet (6). Sagart believes that there is a Proto-Sino-Tibetan-Austronesian family of languages based on the millet culture the Melanoids introduced to China (7).
The craniometrics make it clear the ancient Americans are not related to the Melanesians.
Reference:
1. Tsunehiko Hanihare, Interpretation of craniofacial variations and diversification of East and Southeast Asia. In Bioarchaeology of Southeast Asia. (Eds.) Marc Oxenhan and Nancy Tayles (pp.91-111). Cambridge, 2005.
2. D.J. Laubenfels, Australoids, Negroids and Negroes: A suggested explanation for their distinct distributions. Annals Association of Am. Geographers, 58(1), 1968: 42-50.
3. Michael Pietrusewky, A multivariate craniometric study of the prehistoric and modern inhabitants of Southeast Asia, East Asia and surrounding regions:A human kaleidoscope. Cambridge Studies in Biological and Evolutionary Anthropology, No. 43, 2006: 59-90.
5. M. Pietrusewsky, The Physical anthropology of the Pacific, East Asia: A multivariate craniometric analysis. . In L. Sagart, R. Blench, A. Sanchez-Mazos (Eds), The peopling of East Asia Putting together Archaeology,Linguistics and Genetics (pp.201-229). RutledgeCurzon, 2005.
6. Tsang Cheng-Hwa, Recent discoveries at Tapenkeng culture sites in Taiwan;Implications for the problem of Austronesian origins. In The peopling of East Asia Putting together Archaeology, Linguistics and Genetics ,(Eds) L. Sagart, R. Blench, A. Sanchez-Mazos (pp.63-74). RutledgeCurzon, 2005.
7. L. Sagart, Sino-Tibetan-Austronesian an Updated and improved argument. In L. Sagart, R. Blench, A. Sanchez-Mazos (Eds), The peopling of East Asia Putting together Archaeology, Linguistics and Genetics (pp.161-176). RutledgeCurzon, 2005.
First of all the original migrants OOA population had different features than the contemporary Africans.
Here is an Australian
Here is a contemporary Africans
You can clearly see differences between the Australian and African type; while both individuals are described as Negroes you will note that the forehead of the Australian matches in many ways the cranium of earlier hominid forms dating back to the rise of homo sapiens sapiens in Africa.
Any physical anthropologists would note these changes. The coastal Melanesians usually show mixed Australian-African features or features commonly found among Africans--not Australians.\
San
Fijians
Australians
A simple observation of Melanesians and Aborigines make it clear that they resemble Africans moreso than Aborigines--the original settlers of Asia.
The ancestors of the Melanesians and Polynesians probably lived in East Asia. The late appearance of Melanoid people from East Asia on the shore areas of Oceania would explain the differences between the genetic make up of Melanesians living in the highlands and Melanesians living along the shore [1-2].
The skeletal evidence from East Asia [3-7,12] suggests that the TMRCAs of the Polynesians and some of the coastal Melanesians may be mainland East Asia, not Taiwan. The ancestral population for the shoreline Melanesians was probably forced from East Asia by Proto-Polynesians as they were pushed into Southeast Asia by the Han or contemporary Chinese. This would explain the genetic diversity existing among shoreline Melanesians, in comparison to the genetic homogeneity among isolated inland Melanesian, like the Highland New Guineans.
There were two Shang Dynasties, one Melanoid (Qiang-Shang) and the other Proto-Polynesian (Yin-Shang). The first Shang Dynasty was founded by Proto-Melanesians or Melanoids belonging to the Yueh tribe called Qiang [7]. The Qiang lived in Qiangfeng, a country to the west of Yin-Shang, Shensi and Yunnan [7-11,13].
The archaeological evidence also indicates that the Polynesians probably originated in East Asia [4,6-7,12-13]. Consequently, the Polynesian migration probably began in East Asia, not Southeast Asia. Taiwan genetically probably belongs to the early Polynesians who settled Taiwan before they expanded into outer Oceania.
Given the archaeological record of intimate contact between Proto-Polynesians and Proto-Melanoids, neither a “slow boat” or “express train” explains the genetic relationship between the Melanesian and Polynesian populations. This record makes it clear that these populations lived in intimate contact for thousands of years and during this extended period of interactions both groups probably exchanged genes.
References 1. Manfred Kayser, Oscar Lao, Kathrin Saar, Silke Brauer, Xingyu Wang, Peter Nürnberg, Ronald J. Trent, Mark Stoneking Genome-wide Analysis Indicates More Asian than Melanesian Ancestry of Polynesians. The American Journal of Human Genetics - 10 January 2008, 82 (1); pp. 194-198.
2. J. S. Fredlaender, F.R. Friedlaender, J.A. Hodgson, M. Stoltz, G. Koki, G. Horvat,S. Zhadanov, T. G. Schurr and D.A. Merriwether, Melanesian mtDNA complexity, PLoS ONE, 2(2) 2007: e248.
3 F. Weidenreich F., Bull. Nat. Hist. Soc. Peiping 13, (1938-40): p. 163.
4. Kwang-chih Chang, Archaeology of ancient China (Yale University Press, 1986) p. 64.
5. G. H. R. von Koenigswald, A giant fossil hominoid from the pleistocene of Southern China, Anthropology Pap. Am Museum of Natural History, no.43, 1952, pp. 301-309).
6. K. C. Chang, The archaeology of ancient China, (Yale University Press: New Haven, 1977): p. 76
7. Winters, Clyde Ahmad, “The Far Eastern Origin of the Tamils”, Journal of Tamil Studies, no27 (June 1985), pp. 65-92.
8. K. C. Chang, Shang Civilization, (Yale University Press: New Haven, 1980) pp. 227-230.
9. C. A. Winters, The Dravido-Harappa Colonization of Central Asia, Central Asiatic Journal, (1990) 34 (1-2), pp. 120-144.
10. Y. Kan, The Bronze culture of western Yunnan, Bull. Of the Ancient Orient Museum (Tokyo), 7 (1985), pp. 47-91.
11. S. S. Ling, A study of the Raft, Outrigger, Double, and Deck canoes of ancient China, the Pacific, and the Indian Ocean. The Institute of Ethnology Academic Sinica. Nankang, Taipei Taiwan, 1970.
12. Kwang-chih Chang, “Prehistoric and early historic culture horizons and traditions in South China”, Current Anthropology, 5 (1964): pp. 359-375: 375).
13. Winters,Clyde Ahmad, “Dravidian Settlements in ancient Polynesia”, India Past and Present 3, no2 (1986): pp. 225-241.
You are stuck on using terms like African, Negroid and Mongoloid that have NO BEARING on the facts we are discussing. By the time the aboriginal types reached Australia and New Guinea, they were not AFRICANS anymore as AFRICAN refers to a geographic place. And by the time that they crossed into the Americas, this was even MORE true. So WHAT ON EARTH are you talking about? They WERE NOT AFRICANS.
quote:You live in a fantasy world of your own making.
Oh nonsense. He simply lives in the present where most scientists no longer regurgitate the race schematic.
You live in the past.
I will give you some credit though for at least 'trying' a little to be more than the old dog who can't learn new tricks.
So let's examine your thoughts in this thread and see how well you do. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: The Amerinds come from Siberia, so we say they are Asians.
^ Who is we?
Dr. Winters, your discourse may be suitable for confusing the likes of Marc Washington, but to any serious scholar, it consists of and utterly broken logic.
American Indians, whether Mexican, Eskimo or Navaho are considered NATIVE Americans, which is what they are.
To claim they are 'Asians' because presumably some of their ancestors crossed into America from Siberia, is completely illogical.
You could just as easily call Native Australian Aboriginals "Asians" because they entered Australia from Southern Asia.
But, oh, I forgot you ignore that, and call them "Africans" instead, because 50 thousand years ago...their ancestors migrated into south Asian from Africa.
But wait.... these ancestors would be -THE SAME- ancestors as the ancestors that would become the Native Americans.
The idea that Native Australians are 'really' AFricans, and Native Americans are really Asians is pure incoherence.
Here, you are as bad, as loony-Euro-tunes claiming everything is Europid, or caucazoid that -never- originated in, either Europe or the Caucasus.
Anthropology ends, where ethnocentrism begins, and that's where you are trapped.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The white Americans come from Europe so we call them Europeans.
^ Interesting as it implies you admit they are descendant of the aboriginal populations of Europe.... but.... no, we already know you claim the original European population was... African.
So, again, the ethnocentrism that drives your ideology, also cripples it, and renders it incoherent, and self defeating.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
1) the Australians represent the OOA population that settled Asia
2) during the OOA event much of Siberia and North America was under ice from 110,000 - 10,000BC. As a result there was no way Siberians could cross Beringa before the end of the ice age
3) Ice even separated much of South America east to west .
. 4) the first Americans appear in Brazil, Chile and Argintina Latin America around 30,000 BC
5)using craniometric evidence it is clear that the first Americans look like Africans not modern Asian Native Americans
6) using craniometrics I have pointed out that Asia was dominated by the Australian population until the rise of Suhulland when the Melanesian people appear in the area, at this time the Beringa was still under Ice
7) I pointed out that the Melanesian type reach East Asian mainland by 5000 BC, long after Africans had settled Latin America
8) between 15,000-12,000 we see numerous African populations in Mexico and Brazil; and skeletons dating to this period have even been found off the Yucatan coast in the Caribbean
9) these first Americans did not look like the Australians or modern Amerinds
10) iconography of PreClassic people like the Cherla, Ocos and other groups is of Negroes not Amerinds like the Maya
11) Amerind groups not associated with African slaves carry African genes
12) Maya carried African y chromosome
13) Chontal Mayan speakers were classified as Negroes by Quatrefages. This may explain why the Maya carry African genes
14)Negrocostachicanos claim that they have never been slaves and are indigenous to Guererro and Oaxaca on the Pacific coast
15) The Dufuna boat makes it clear that Africans probably had the technology to travel to the Americas 15,000 years ago.
16) Fuegians 100-400 BP carried haplogroup A1. Hg A1 is an African haplogroup.
17) Amerinds carry haplogroup N, just like Africans.
18)The y chromosome STRs of the Fuegians include DYS434,DYS437,DYS 439, DYS 393, DYS391,DYS390,DYS19, DYS 389I, DYS389II and DYS 388 (see: Garcia-Bour et al above). Except for DYS390 and DYS388 they are characteristic of haplogroup A1 . A1 is recognized as an African haplogroup.
19)Quatrefages noted numerous African Native American tribes
20)The antiquity of these populations is supported by the ancient iconography found in these countries which are of African Native Americans.
21) Most contemporary populations are descendants of the San people not Australians.
.
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718:
quote: Most native American populations are descended from people like Australian Aborigines Clyde.
Actually, like all modern humans, **ALL** Native Americans are descended from Australian like populations, this is the point Clyde doesn't understand. Clyde thinks all non Africans who don't look African are a result of space aliens, or some crazy deranged theory like Meninarmer or Marc.
quote: As to the similarities with Africans, the best way to explain it in terms of historical connections, is to assume that the **Asian** ancestral population that gave rise to the **Australians** and to the **first Americans** had its ultimate origins in the **African continent**, as it is in fact the case with **ALL*** modern humans (Stringer and Andrews, 1988; Stringer and McKie, 1996; Lahr, 1994, 1996), ***but which retained a very generalized morphology.***In accordance with Lahr (1996), the Australians are in fact the contemporary aboriginal population that retained the most primitive morphology when compared to the first modern humans.As she stressed "Groups like [...] Australo-Melanesians are all examples of relatively early diversifications without great amounts of gene flow from other groups..." (Lahr, 1996, p.335).
Clyde you do understand that you didn't address the above, or discuss your claim of A2 and B2 being African in origin, carried by Khoisan and Pygmies respectively. Obviously you were confused -as always- about these genetic markers, which is why you made a delirious conclusion, based on your confusion of Mtdna and Y-dna. I hope you'll understand one day....
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ He makes this mistake over and over again, and what's bad is he never admits.
His worse offense was to claim that Senegalese E-M2 was equivelant to Indian M2.
E-M2 is E3a Y chromosome.
M2 is mtdna.
Even when this mistake was pointed out, he continued to spam it, which also shows he can be a propagandists out to deceive and not a scholar interested in learning.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: You could just as easily call Native Australian Aboriginals "Asians" because they entered Australia from Southern Asia.
But, oh, I forgot you ignore that, and call them "Africans" instead, because 50 thousand years ago...their ancestors migrated into south Asian from Africa.
But wait.... these ancestors would be -THE SAME- ancestors as the ancestors that would become the Native Americans.
The idea that Native Australians are 'really' AFricans, and Native Americans are really Asians is pure incoherence.
Clyde actually doesn't ignore it. I actually called him on this one, and he admitted to calling Australians, non-Africans, which immediately prompted my question to him, of why he would then call same populations resembling Africans found in Europe during the UP, or East Asia, be considered African to him. Of course he has no direct responses, what he does it try to explain differences in craniometric characteristics amongst Oceanic populations, notwithstanding, against the fact that Oceanics possess no post OOA lineages, and early human diversification amongst Oceanic populations.
quote:As to the similarities with Africans, the best way to explain it in terms of historical connections, is to assume that the **Asian** ancestral population that gave rise to the **Australians** and to the **first Americans** had its ultimate origins in the **African continent**, as it is in fact the case with **ALL*** modern humans (Stringer and Andrews, 1988; Stringer and McKie, 1996; Lahr, 1994, 1996), ***but which retained a very generalized morphology.*** In accordance with Lahr (1996), the Australians are in fact the contemporary aboriginal population that retained the most primitive morphology when compared to the first modern humans. As she stressed "Groups like [...] Australo-Melanesians are all examples of relatively early diversifications without great amounts of gene flow from other groups..." (Lahr, 1996, p.335).
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Indeed. Racialists run afowl of reality because they are glued to a fixed ideology.
But research and new facts are never ending, and long ago moved the the 'rug' out from under their feet.
They refer to those who keep up with current data as living in a 'dream', because they are more comfortable living in the past, where they can be safe from 'evil' genetics and all those terrible new findings that suggest things they don't like.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ Indeed. Racialists run afowl of reality because they are glued to a fixed ideology.
But research and new facts are never ending, and long ago moved the the 'rug' out from under their feet.
They refer to those who keep up with current data as living in a 'dream', because they are more comfortable living in the past, where they can be safe from 'evil' genetics and all those terrible new findings that suggest things they don't like.
You know nothing about anthropology. Current physical anthropological research makes it clear there are craniometric difference between Australoids /Australians representatives of the OOA population, Mongoloids and Melanoids; craniometric differences that indicate two migrations of the Black Variety into the Pacific and East Asia.
Tsuenehiko Hanihare discussed the phenotypic variations between these populations(1). Tsuenehiko classified these people into three major populations Southeast Asian Mongoloids (Polynesians), the Australians or Austroloid type and the Nicobar and Andaman (Melanoid) samples which he found lie between the predominately Southeast Asian and Australoid/Australian type (1).
The Australian aborigines and Melanesians show cranonical variates and represent two distinct Black populations(2). The Australoids or Australians live mainly in Australia and the highland regions of Oceania, the Melanoid people on the otherhand live in the coastal regions of Near Oceania and Fiji. D.J de Laubenfels discussed the variety of Blacks found in Asia. Laubenfiels explained that Negroids/Melanoids such as the Tasmanians are characterized by wooly black hair and sparse body hair (2). Australoids or Australians on the otherhand have curly, wavy or straight hair and abundant body hair. Other differences between these Black populations include Negroid / Melanoid brows being vertical and without eyebrow ridges, whereas Australoid brows are sloping and with prominent ridges (2).
This led M. Pietrusewky to recognize two separate colonizations of the Pacific by morphologically distinct populations one Polynesian and the other Melanesian (3). Pietrusewky’s research indicates a clear separation between the Australian-Melanesian crania and the Polynesian crania (3). The findings indicate an origin for the Polynesians in Southeast Asia (3-5), and an early Australo-Melanesian presence in East Asia as discussed in the earlier comment.
Laubenfels argues that the Australians are remnants of the original African migration to the region 60kya (2). This view is supported by David Bulbeck who found that the Australian craniometrics are different from the Mongoloid (Polynesian), and Melanoid crania metrics (4). This research indicates that whereas Australian aborigine crania agree with the archaic population of Asia and first group of Africans to exit Africa, they fail to correspond to the Sahulland crania which are distinctly of Southwest Pacific or Melanoid affinity (2,4). This suggests that by the rise of Sahulland there were two distinct Black populations in Asia one Austroloid and the other Melanoid (4).
The Melanesian type does not appear in East Asia (Siberia) until after 5000 BC. This is thousands of years after Luizia and Eva Neharon had existed in Brazil and Mexico respectively.
By the Neolithic the Melanoids or Papuans are associated with millet cultivation at Yangshao and Lougshan according to Pietrusewky’s work (5). Tsang argues that the probable homeland of the Austronesian speakers was the Pearl River delta, here the Melanoid people cultivated millet (6). Sagart believes that there is a Proto-Sino-Tibetan-Austronesian family of languages based on the millet culture the Melanoids introduced to China (7).
The craniometrics make it clear the ancient Americans are not related to the Melanesians.
Reference:
1. Tsunehiko Hanihare, Interpretation of craniofacial variations and diversification of East and Southeast Asia. In Bioarchaeology of Southeast Asia. (Eds.) Marc Oxenhan and Nancy Tayles (pp.91-111). Cambridge, 2005.
2. D.J. Laubenfels, Australoids, Negroids and Negroes: A suggested explanation for their distinct distributions. Annals Association of Am. Geographers, 58(1), 1968: 42-50.
3. Michael Pietrusewky, A multivariate craniometric study of the prehistoric and modern inhabitants of Southeast Asia, East Asia and surrounding regions:A human kaleidoscope. Cambridge Studies in Biological and Evolutionary Anthropology, No. 43, 2006: 59-90.
5. M. Pietrusewsky, The Physical anthropology of the Pacific, East Asia: A multivariate craniometric analysis. . In L. Sagart, R. Blench, A. Sanchez-Mazos (Eds), The peopling of East Asia Putting together Archaeology,Linguistics and Genetics (pp.201-229). RutledgeCurzon, 2005.
6. Tsang Cheng-Hwa, Recent discoveries at Tapenkeng culture sites in Taiwan;Implications for the problem of Austronesian origins. In The peopling of East Asia Putting together Archaeology, Linguistics and Genetics ,(Eds) L. Sagart, R. Blench, A. Sanchez-Mazos (pp.63-74). RutledgeCurzon, 2005.
7. L. Sagart, Sino-Tibetan-Austronesian an Updated and improved argument. In L. Sagart, R. Blench, A. Sanchez-Mazos (Eds), The peopling of East Asia Putting together Archaeology, Linguistics and Genetics (pp.161-176). RutledgeCurzon, 2005.
These papers are all written within the past 2-3 years and highlight the fact you know nothing about contemporary anthropology and the peopling of Asia.
quote:The white Americans come from Europe so we call them Europeans.
^ Interesting as it implies you admit they are descendant of the aboriginal populations of Europe.... but.... no, we already know you claim the original European population was... African.
So, again, the ethnocentrism that drives your ideology, also cripples it, and renders it incoherent, and self defeating.
The Venus Figures represent the first Europeans. They are representative of the San people and are therefore Africans.
This is a bushman or San.
Hottentot
As I mentioned earlier the Bushman created much of the early civilization of Eurasia. They left us numerous figurines showing their type.
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718: [qb] [QUOTE] Most native American populations are descended from people like Australian Aborigines Clyde.
Actually, like all modern humans, **ALL** Native Americans are descended from Australian like populations, this is the point Clyde doesn't understand. Clyde thinks all non Africans who don't look African are a result of space aliens, or some crazy deranged theory like Meninarmer or Marc.
quote: As to the similarities with Africans, the best way to explain it in terms of historical connections, is to assume that the **Asian** ancestral population that gave rise to the **Australians** and to the **first Americans** had its ultimate origins in the **African continent**, as it is in fact the case with **ALL*** modern humans (Stringer and Andrews, 1988; Stringer and McKie, 1996; Lahr, 1994, 1996), ***but which retained a very generalized morphology.***In accordance with Lahr (1996), the Australians are in fact the contemporary aboriginal population that retained the most primitive morphology when compared to the first modern humans.As she stressed "Groups like [...] Australo-Melanesians are all examples of relatively early diversifications without great amounts of gene flow from other groups..." (Lahr, 1996, p.335). Clyde you do understand that you didn't address the above, or discuss your claim of A2 and B2 being African in origin, carried by Khoisan and Pygmies respectively. Obviously you were confused -as always- about these genetic markers, which is why you made a delirious conclusion, based on your confusion of Mtdna and Y-dna. I hope you'll understand one day....
I understand this perfectly. You are the one who pretends to be blind to the facts.
In many cases you will find that Coconuts who have a psychosis brought on by white supremacy suffer from “knowledge blindness”. Knowledge bindness can be defined as the feeling that anything said by another AA is wrong because it was not said first by a European.
I will give you an example. Above I discuss the fact that the Fuegians carry the same STRs as Africans based on the research literature as evidence I provide two citations.
Citation One (1)
quote: Titre du document / Document title Early population differentiation in extinct aborigines from Tierra del Fuego-Patagonia: Ancient mtDNA sequences and Y-chromosome STR characterization = Différentiation des populations anciennes chez les aborigènes éteints de la Patagonie-Terre de Feu : Séquences d'ADNmt et caractérisation STR du chromosome Y Auteur(s) / Author(s) GARCIA-BOUR Jaume (1) ; PEREZ-PEREZ Alejandro (1) ; ALVAREZ Sara (1) ; FERNANDEZ Eva (1) ; LOPEZ-PARRA Ana Maria (1 2) ; ARROYO-PARDO Eduardo (1 2) ; TURBON Daniel (1) ; Affiliation(s) du ou des auteurs / Author(s) Affiliation(s) (1) Secció d'Antropologia, Departament de Biologia Animal, Universitat de Barcelona, 08028 Barcelona, ESPAGNE (2) Laboratorio de Biologia Forense, Departamento de Toxicología y Legislación Sanitaria, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad Complutense, 28040 Madrid, ESPAGNE Résumé / Abstract Ancient mtDNA was succesfully recovered from 24 skeletal samples of a total of 60 ancient individuals from Patagonia-Tierra del Fuego, dated to 100-400 years BP, for which consistent amplifications and two-strand sequences were obtained. Y-chromosome STRs (DYS434, DYS437, DYS439, DYS393, DYS391, DYS390, DYS19, DYS389I, DYS389II, and DYS388) and the biallelic system DYS199 were also amplified, Y-STR alleles could be characterized in nine cases, with an average of 4.1 loci per sample correctly typed. In two samples of the same ethnic group (Aonikenk), an identical and complete eight-loci haplotype was recovered. The DYS199 biallelic system was used as a control of contamination by modern DNA and, along with DYS19, as a marker of American origin. The analysis of both mtDNA and Y-STRs revealed DNA from Amerindian ancestry. The observed polymorphisms are consistent with the hypothesis that the ancient Fuegians are close to populations from south-central Chile and Argentina, but their high nucleotide diversity and the frequency of single lineages strongly support early genetic differentiation of the Fuegians through combined processes of population bottleneck, isolation, and/or migration, followed by strong genetic drift. This suggests an early genetic diversification of the Fuegians right after their arrival at the southernmost extreme of South America. Revue / Journal Title American journal of physical anthropology ISSN 0002-9483 Source / Source 2004, vol. 123, no4, pp. 361-370 [10 page(s) (article)] (47 ref.)
Here Garcia Bour et al note that: Fuegian Y-chromosomes STRs include “Y-chromosome STRs (DYS434, DYS437, DYS439, DYS393, DYS391, DYS390, DYS19, DYS389I, DYS389II, and DYS388) “
Citation Two (2)
quote: Diversity of Y-STR haplotypes of chromosomes belonging to hgA1 and within the R surname. (a) Relationships of Y-STR haplotypes within hgA1. Weighted median joining network containing the 10-locus Y-STR haplotypes (DYS19, DYS390, DYS391, DYS392, DYS393, DYS437, DYS438, DYS439, DYS389I, DYS389II-I) of eleven hgA1 chromosomes. Circles represent haplotypes, with area proportional to frequency and colored according to population.
European Journal of Human Genetics (2007) 15, 288–293. doi:10.1038/sj.ejhg.5201771; published online 24 January 2007 Africans in Yorkshire? The deepest-rooting clade of the Y phylogeny within an English genealogy Turi E King1
In this paper, King et al make it clear that the “Y-STR haplotypes (DYS19, DYS390, DYS391, DYS392, DYS393, DYS437, DYS438, DYS439, DYS389I, DYS389II-I) of eleven hgA1 chromosomes.[/b] “ belong to hg A1.
Note that Garcia Bour et al maintains Fuegians carry these STRs
You don’t have to be brain scientist to recognize that concordance exist between the two sets of STRs.
It stands to reason that if the Fuegians carry Y-STRs associated with haplogroup A1 which is an African haplogroup, the Fuegians have direct African ancestry.
This led me to reach the following conclusion based on the evidence:
quote: Researchers have been able to recover mtDNA samples from 24 out of 60 ancient skeletons from Tierra del Fuego dating to 100-400BP. The y chromosome STRs were DYS434,DYS437,DYS 439, DYS 393, DYS391,DYS390,DYS19, DYS 389I, DYS389II and DYS 388 (see: Garcia-Bour et al below). Except for DYS390 and DYS388 are characteristic of haplogroup A1 (see: King et al, below). A1 is recognized as an African haplogroup. This genetic data make it clear that Negro Fuegians were living in Fuego, 9000 years after Neves believed they had been replaced by mongoloid folk.
The fact that KIK and rasol, individuals who we can assume have normal intelligence could not see the relationship between the Y-chromosomes in these populations makes it clear that they must be a victim of “Knowledge blindness”. A psychosis resulting from their acceptance of their own inferiority and white supremist ideas.
Coconuts. Stop trying to steal the heritage of the First African Americans.Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
I'm not making light of this thread, but I have to say that by doing LOOKALIKES, these old artifacts and works of art speak louder to me. Do you notice the ridge above the Willendorff Beauty's breast? Now from the side I can see they are her arms. She doesn't show nipples, but lower 'lip reading' is possible. Why?
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Venus Figurines
The Bushman continue to carry this ancient form.
. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Posts: 5454 | From: Holland | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
[rASHOL writes] Dr. Winters, your discourse may be suitable for confusing the likes of Marc Washington, but to any serious scholar, it consists of and utterly broken logic.
[Marc writes] Dr. Winters, I don’t agree with all your points but think you’ve made many excellent points and feel your "forensic" evidence is outstanding.
. .
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: No members of the OOA population made their way to the New World.
There is clear evidence that the OOA population settled Asia. But lets not forget that if the OOA population who took the eastern route out of Africa left the Continent around 60kya this would have been during the last Ice Age.
The Ice Age latsed from from 110kya to around 12kya. As a result the OOA populartion would have found it impossible to take a land route to the Americas across Beringa. As a result, your insistence that the OOA population made their way to the Americas does not correlate with the environmental and archaeological evidence.
.
.
The ancient Americans looked more like the Khoisan then Australians, because they came from Africa not Asia.
.
Clyde, you still aren't making sense. The picture you posted is from a model of a skull in South America. It supports research that says the original native Americans came from AUSTRALIA among populations like Aborigines. It does not support what you are talking about. Australian aborigines along with the aborigines of ALL of Asia are black. Some have straight hair (Australia) and others look more like Africans (New Guinea). New Guinea and Australia are considered places with the OLDEST populations in Asia, outside South Asia. ALL of these people are black and ALL of them have features that are very much similar to Africans. Therefore, why on earth would Australian and African features found in the first Americans be a sign of DIRECT African migration, when THE SAME Australian/African features are found in the FIRST ASIAN populations as well. Why the disconnect Clyde? There is no distinction between these Australian/African features and the features of the FIRST people in Asia, because they are very much the same.
NONE of these people are MELANESIANS Clyde. So melanesian features have nothing to do with it.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: [qb] [QUOTE]The white Americans come from Europe so we call them Europeans.
^ Interesting as it implies you admit they are descendant of the aboriginal populations of Europe.... but.... no, we already know you claim the original European population was... African.
So, again, the ethnocentrism that drives your ideology, also cripples it, and renders it incoherent, and self defeating.
quote:The Venus Figures represent the first Europeans. They are representative of the San people and are therefore Africans.
^ I'm sorry but this is more nonsense.
San is a language group of southern and Eastern AFrica.
What you are showing is a physical feature - steatopygia.
Not only san have steatopygia, it is also found in some Melanesians, who are
a) not san language speakers. b) do not specifically resemble san in any other respect than steatopygia. c) most importantly: THEY ARE PROVABLY UNRELATED TO SAN BY GENETICS - yes genetics, mortal enemy of all your wild minded claims.
^ Finally - steatopygia is no more signficant in terms of representing African origin of non African peoples than say - epicanthic folds [slanted eyes], which are found in some SAN and many East Asians.
Does that make East Asians "San", too?
Anthropology ends where ethnocentrism begins, and this is where you are 'stuck'.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ Indeed. Racialists run afowl of reality because they are glued to a fixed ideology.
But research and new facts are never ending, and long ago moved the the 'rug' out from under their feet.
They refer to those who keep up with current data as living in a 'dream', because they are more comfortable living in the past, where they can be safe from 'evil' genetics and all those terrible new findings that suggest things they don't like.
quote:You know nothing about anthropology. Current physical anthropological research makes it clear there are craniometric difference between Australoids /Australians representatives of the OOA population, Mongoloids and Melanoids; craniometric differences that indicate two migrations of the Black Variety into the Pacific and East Asia.
^ Name the current anthropologist who relates the above garbage.
Melanoid means 'black'. There is no such thing in anthropology as a 'melanoid' 'race' of certain blacks:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: No members of the OOA population made their way to the New World.
There is clear evidence that the OOA population settled Asia. But lets not forget that if the OOA population who took the eastern route out of Africa left the Continent around 60kya this would have been during the last Ice Age.
The Ice Age latsed from from 110kya to around 12kya. As a result the OOA populartion would have found it impossible to take a land route to the Americas across Beringa. As a result, your insistence that the OOA population made their way to the Americas does not correlate with the environmental and archaeological evidence.
.
.
The ancient Americans looked more like the Khoisan then Australians, because they came from Africa not Asia.
.
Clyde, you still aren't making sense. The picture you posted is from a model of a skull in South America. It supports research that says the original native Americans came from AUSTRALIA among populations like Aborigines. It does not support what you are talking about. Australian aborigines along with the aborigines of ALL of Asia are black. Some have straight hair (Australia) and others look more like Africans (New Guinea). New Guinea and Australia are considered places with the OLDEST populations in Asia, outside South Asia. ALL of these people are black and ALL of them have features that are very much similar to Africans. Therefore, why on earth would Australian and African features found in the first Americans be a sign of DIRECT African migration, when THE SAME Australian/African features are found in the FIRST ASIAN populations as well. Why the disconnect Clyde? There is no distinction between these Australian/African features and the features of the FIRST people in Asia, because they are very much the same.
NONE of these people are MELANESIANS Clyde. So melanesian features have nothing to do with it.
^ lol. Clyde knows you're right Doug. He simply enjoys making ridiculous claims. It's what he does.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: No members of the OOA population made their way to the New World.
There is clear evidence that the OOA population settled Asia. But lets not forget that if the OOA population who took the eastern route out of Africa left the Continent around 60kya this would have been during the last Ice Age.
The Ice Age latsed from from 110kya to around 12kya. As a result the OOA populartion would have found it impossible to take a land route to the Americas across Beringa. As a result, your insistence that the OOA population made their way to the Americas does not correlate with the environmental and archaeological evidence.
.
.
The ancient Americans looked more like the Khoisan then Australians, because they came from Africa not Asia.
.
Clyde, you still aren't making sense. The picture you posted is from a model of a skull in South America. It supports research that says the original native Americans came from AUSTRALIA among populations like Aborigines. It does not support what you are talking about. Australian aborigines along with the aborigines of ALL of Asia are black. Some have straight hair (Australia) and others look more like Africans (New Guinea). New Guinea and Australia are considered places with the OLDEST populations in Asia, outside South Asia. ALL of these people are black and ALL of them have features that are very much similar to Africans. Therefore, why on earth would Australian and African features found in the first Americans be a sign of DIRECT African migration, when THE SAME Australian/African features are found in the FIRST ASIAN populations as well. Why the disconnect Clyde? There is no distinction between these Australian/African features and the features of the FIRST people in Asia, because they are very much the same.
NONE of these people are MELANESIANS Clyde. So melanesian features have nothing to do with it.
There you go showing your stupidity again. We were discussing the San and Australians--not Melanesians.
You attempt to make it appear that anthropologists claim the earliest skeletal remains found in the Americas such as Luzia are definitely Australian. This is not true Neves made it clear that the anatomy of her skull and teeth - including a narrow, oval cranium, projecting face and pronounced chin - likens Luzia to Africans and Australasians.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ Indeed. Racialists run afowl of reality because they are glued to a fixed ideology.
But research and new facts are never ending, and long ago moved the the 'rug' out from under their feet.
They refer to those who keep up with current data as living in a 'dream', because they are more comfortable living in the past, where they can be safe from 'evil' genetics and all those terrible new findings that suggest things they don't like.
quote:You know nothing about anthropology. Current physical anthropological research makes it clear there are craniometric difference between Australoids /Australians representatives of the OOA population, Mongoloids and Melanoids; craniometric differences that indicate two migrations of the Black Variety into the Pacific and East Asia.
^ Name the current anthropologist who relates the above garbage.
Melanoid means 'black'. There is no such thing in anthropology as a 'melanoid' 'race' of certain blacks:
You just make up terms to make your dumb ideas sound [to you], less dumb.
And let me save you time, in terms of your usual big bags of wind repponses that address nothing:
I only asked for the name of a current anthropoloigst who supports your rubbish.
Don't make us wait, faker.
Names please....
No?
Then your claim is a lie.
Use of term: Melanoid
quote:Melanoid-- Of or related to melanin; black-pigmented. 2. Of or affected with melanosis; melanin is a dark brown coloring found in the body, especially in the skin and hair. Produced by special skin cells that are sensitive to sunlight, melanin protects the body by absorbing ultraviolet radiation from the sun. Does NOT refer to a certain race of people!!
Australoid --Anthropology. a descriptive category including principally the Australian Aborigines and sometimes including Papuans, Melanesians, various small-statured peoples, as Negritos, of the Philippines, Malay Peninsula, and Andaman Islands, and some of the tribes of central and southern India. OR Of or being a human racial classification traditionally distinguished by physical characteristics such as dark skin and dark curly hair, and including the Aboriginal peoples of Australia along with various peoples of southeast Asia, especially Melanesia and the Malay Archipelago.
Re: Indigenous in Asia and Australia Posted by: Yulu-burri-ba (IP Logged) Date: November 10, 2004 01:30AM
when i used the term Negrito i should have used Melanoid. i didnt realise that negrito refered to pygmy people only. I meant that between here [Australia] and India was the land of Melanesian people not neccessarily pygmy people.
i reckon the Pygmy people have just adapted to jungle areas and the Pygmy people of Atherton tableland would have either evolved that way or possibly migrated from the jungles that would have linked Northern Australia to south east asia in their pygmy form. I guess most of the Melanesian people of southesat asia are Pygmy because it is almost all jungle.
so then did the saltwater Melanesian people who are usually quite big evolve from the jungle Pygmies or did the jungle Pygmies evolve from the strong, tall saltwater people?
Thomas Welsby was a white man who lived on Stradbroke Island in the early days of white incursion on Nunukul lands and he states in his writings that the average native man of Stradbroke Island was over 6 foot and the average white man of the time was under 6 foot. He said that no white man would be any match in any form of mortal combat, other than that of the gun, with any Stradbroke Islander.
I have now met at least ten Jupukai people [from Kuranda's jungle or rainforests] who have moved to Stradbroke Island and 90% of the women i have met from Kuranda have been very short. I haven't met many Jupukai men as the family that moved into our neighbourhood comprised only of duaghters [and one son who has a saltwater father from Stradbroke island who is quite tall]. Obviously the jungle people and the saltwater people are very different in appearance but i believe both are Melanesian and of the same 'sub group'.
sometimes i wonder if there is any point in talking about racial differences because of the piont i raised via an elder about 'race' as a new topic but i think that from a historical perspective these discusions about the origins of various 'races' are extremely important.
i reckon all the anthropologists out there should be very carefull about using the term 'Race' as if it distinguishes people, when the only thing that separates say Europeans from Africans or Melanesians is that they have developed different environmental adaptations. To me there is no such thing as race however for this discussion board i will engage in the 'race' notion to save confusion.
Melanoid-- Of or related to melanin; black-pigmented. 2. Of or affected with melanosis; melanin is a dark brown coloring found in the body, especially in the skin and hair. Produced by special skin cells that are sensitive to sunlight, melanin protects the body by absorbing ultraviolet radiation from the sun.
^ This is correct, and thus refers to darkly pigmented person.
Then Winters writes:
quote: Does NOT refer to a certain race of people!!
.
^ This is exactly what I am trying to explain to you.
If you understand this, then you admit there is no basis for dividing.... -> Australoid, from -> Melanoid.
Certainly you cannot do so based on crania, as 'melanoid' is *not* a reference to crania.
Doug is correct.
You aren't making any sense.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Winters responds to Doug: You attempt to make it appear that anthropologists claim the earliest skeletal remains found in the Americas such as Luzia are definitely Australian.
^ Actually the point that Neves is making is that the original populations of America look like Aboriginal populations of Southern Asia and Australia.
It's possible that they migrated up the coast of East Asia and down the coast of North America.
It's also possible that the made it by Sea from Oceania to South America.
Either way, it doesn't make them African, any more than Swedes or Chinese would be African.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
[rASHOL writes] Dr. Winters, your discourse may be suitable for confusing the likes of Marc Washington, but to any serious scholar, it consists of and utterly broken logic.[/b]
[Marc writes] Utterly broken logic? Yeah. Right.
. .
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:This is not true Neves made it clear that the anatomy of her skull and teeth - including a narrow, oval cranium, projecting face and pronounced chin - likens Luzia to Africans and Australasians.
^ Another silly strawman argument.
Please specify the following.
- In what way does Neves -disagree- with Doug?
- And [and this will be the fun part, because you will _never_ answer], on what point does Neves *agree with you*??
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: They are Americans. They are both Black and Indian, because Indian is the name Europeans gave to the natives of America. They were probably descendants of the first Black who settled America 30kya
Therefore, they aren't native Americans, but Africans, now you are using european concepts because they suit you, isn't it?
It is very plausible that the Africans did settle in the so called Americas... So what would be the problem to say that they were Africans?... If Mr. Winters was suggesting that it should be called AFRICA, then you would have a point... But you willing and ready to state CLEARLY ASIA aren't you?....,
So in other words... If it's not proper anymore to state that the indigenous were white, then why should we call them Black?... Is that your arguement?...,
Remember... You supposed geniuses were calling the people Amerindians....,
First off, America got it's name from Amerigo Vaspucci..., Is that not right?... So how in the hell can you argue the name Amerasian to began with.... Your premise in reality is lost from there!...
And while we are at the subject that you brought up.. I am one of those who believe STRONGELY that a black rise is coming...,
Obama is just the beginning...., Forget about what lineage he percieves...., IMAGE is everything especially to a RACIST!... If Obama was in Algeria...
YOU WOULD BE CALLING HIM AN ARAB!....,
Posts: 81 | From: Newark, Nj | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
[rASHOL writes] Dr. Winters, your discourse may be suitable for confusing the likes of Marc Washington, but to any serious scholar, it consists of and utterly broken logic.
[Marc writes] You are talking about someone’s logic when you stuggle even to spell properly?
quote:It is very plausible that the Africans did settle in the so called Americas... So what would be the problem to say that they were Africans?... If Mr. Winters was suggesting that it should be called AFRICA, then you would have a point... But you willing and ready to state CLEARLY ASIA aren't you?....,
^ All human beings originate in Africa.
This means humans as a species are African.
Non Africans by definition are the descendants of the Out of Africa migrants who went on to settle Eurasia and Oceania, Australia and the Americas.
This is not a 'species' distinction, but only an ethnic one, defined in terms of geography.
These people are Natives of the above regions and by definition are therefore not Africans.
If you insist on calling Native Americans - Africans - then - by the same warped logic - you would have to call Europeans - Germans, Swedes, all of them... African too.
Winters knows this, he just specialises in targeting foolish people like Marc Washington with his distorted racist pseudo-theories.
I'm sorry, but Winters is a charleton.
This is why when asked for a single name of a scholar who supports his nonsense, he can't provide...even one.
Be his fool if you want....your choice.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
[rASHOL writes] Dr. Winters, your discourse may be suitable for confusing the likes of Marc Washington, but to any serious scholar, it consists of and utterly broken logic.
[Marc writes] You are talking about serious scholarship? Give me a break.
quote:It is very plausible that the Africans did settle in the so called Americas... So what would be the problem to say that they were Africans?... If Mr. Winters was suggesting that it should be called AFRICA, then you would have a point... But you willing and ready to state CLEARLY ASIA aren't you?....,
^ All human beings originate in Africa.
This means humans as a species are African.
Non Africans by definition are the descendants of the Out of Africa migrants who went on to settle Eurasia and Oceania, Australia and the Americas.
This is not a 'species' distinction, but only an ethnic one, defined in terms of geography.
These people are Natives of the above regions and by definition are therefore not Africans.
If you insist on calling Native Americans - Africans - then - by the same warped logic - you would have to call Europeans - Germans, Swedes, all of them... African too.
Winters knows this, he just specialises in targeting foolish people like Marc Washington with his distorted racist pseudo-theories.
I'm sorry, but Winters is a charleton.
This is why when asked for a single name of a scholar who supports his nonsense, he can't provide...even one.
Be his fool if you want....your choice.
Oceania: A Journal Devoted to the Study of the Native Peoples of Australia ... - Page 69 by Alfred Reginald Radcliffe-Brown, Raymond William Firth, Adolphus Peter Elkin, University of Sydney, Australian National Research Council - "Both Australoids and " Melanoids " are distinguished by their dark skin, the difference being that the former have wavy hair, while that of the latter is ..."(p.69)
The Ethnic Studies Story: Politics and Social Movements in Hawaiʻi : Essays ... - Page 117 by Ibrahim G. Aoudé, Marion Kelly, University of Hawaii at Manoa Dept. of Sociology - Social Science - 1999 - 315 pages "... while blacks (or as they put it "Melanoids") and other darker skinned peoples excel in such areas as "humor, music, art, ability to live a communal life ..."(p.315)
posted
Melanoids? OK, I see. The paper is reviewing European racist theory where the classic authoring bigot suggests non-melanoids lack melanin, or possess insufficient levels to be of any significance and this somehow led them to reach higher evolutionary gains then those peoples with melanin?
Interesting that this author is basing his theory on Whites "evolving" to lose all melanin. Sounds much like the recent paper Rasol and KIK posted, although this earlier paper seems to have come out of Nazi Germany. Also, at that point in time, the value of possessing melanin was still unclear and extremely underestimated.
To your point, the author does make it clear he categorizes all MELANINATED people as the same.
Posts: 3595 | From: Moved To Mars. Waiting with shotgun | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Oceania: A Journal Devoted to the Study of the Native Peoples of Australia ... - Page 69 by Alfred Reginald Radcliffe-Brown, Raymond William Firth, Adolphus Peter Elkin, University of Sydney, Australian National Research Council - "Both Australoids and " Melanoids " are distinguished by their dark skin, the difference being that the former have wavy hair, while that of the latter is ..."(p.69)
-> 1st: Thank you for providing a source, marginal and outdated [1955] as it may be, as that is more than you usually ever do.
Question: Are you claiming that Melanoid refers to a hair texture, that distinguishes "Melanoids" from Australoids?
Or are you claiming that Australoids are a form of "melanoid" with wavy hair?
quote: Member Member # 12654
Rate Member posted 28 October, 2008 12:39 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Melanoids? OK, I see. The paper is reviewing European racist theory where the classic authoring bigot suggests non-melanoids lack melanin, or possess insufficient levels to be of any significance and this somehow led them to reach higher evolutionary gains then those peoples with melanin?
^ This is exactly what Winters source is saying.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
To be honest, this guy does look pretty futuristic. Posts: 3595 | From: Moved To Mars. Waiting with shotgun | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
[rASHOL writes] Dr. Winters, your discourse may be suitable for confusing the likes of Marc Washington, but to any serious scholar, it consists of and utterly broken logic.
[Marc writes] You are talking about confusing discourse (well, you spelled the words correctly) and gloss over the multitudinous conundrums sprouting from your own convoluted mind? What a joke.
posted
^^^^Is Marc 40, or 14? Certainly post as if he is the latter.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
Dr. Winters. Great observations and comments you've made. Great pictures. I have a comment.
Your citation follows:
"Oceania: A Journal Devoted to the Study of the Native Peoples of Australia ... - Page 69 by Alfred Reginald Radcliffe-Brown, Raymond William Firth, Adolphus Peter Elkin, University of Sydney, Australian National Research Council - "Both Australoids and " Melanoids " are distinguished by their dark skin, the difference being that the former have wavy hair, while that of the latter is ..."(p.69)."
Reading the annals of Captain Cook and even those of the historical Mutiny on the Bounty, both record great floods of white men unloading their genes into the indigenous women of Australia, New Zealand, the South Pacific. This would, I believe, account for the straight hair of the Australoids.
I believe it was from the direction of New Guinea that Australia was populated and in New Guinea, the hair is more often than not woolly. But, New Guinea had less white influx than did Australia and New Zealand.
It would seem that the lesser influx of whites into New Guinea would result in the hair remaining woolly as their forebears in Africa; and that their descendents would have straight hair as the original woolly-haired population experienced so much gene-flow from the horny guys from Europe.
This would seem to account, too, for ancient accounts of the African and Indian races being the same save the African had woolly hair and the Indian more straight. But, it was in India during the time of the closing days of Mohen-jo Daro that (I believe) Aryans from the Steppes poured like a mighty flood into India mixing white genes with original African ones - the result being initially African woolly hair turning straight.
I don't know what all the fuss is about who is white, who is Asian, and who is what is.
Tony Blair and Arnold Schwarzenegger are ___.
Connie Chang of NBC and Bruce Lee are ___.
Nelson Mandela and Wesley Snipes are ___.
Everyone would give, respectively, the answers white, Mongul / Asian, black / African.
These being the three main races and those of Southeast Asia and North America being mixtures of the main races - so sub-races.
I don't know what all the fuss is about with people trying to say Africans aren't Africans. Tony Blair isn't and nor is Connie Chang. Africans have full features as the people of Australia, Africa, and much of New Guinea do. Geographically they are not all African but if we define African by phenotype, they are all African.
I don't know why people are running around having babies trying to say that Melanesians aren't African.
I've enjoyed the rigor of your analysis in this thread. I look forward to learning more.
Kind thanks,
Marc
. .
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
[On 10/12, Pmideast wrote] what I am getting from this thread is … [On 10/12, Key replied] Apparently to the ignorant jackasses on this thread, yes this would be true. [On 10/28, Key asked] Is Marc 40, or 14? Certainly post as if he is the latter.
[That is why above and here my question …] And what is your IQ?
. .
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is very plausible that the Africans did settle in the so called Americas... So what would be the problem to say that they were Africans?... If Mr. Winters was suggesting that it should be called AFRICA, then you would have a point... But you willing and ready to state CLEARLY ASIA aren't you?....,
^ All human beings originate in Africa.
This means humans as a species are African.
Non Africans by definition are the descendants of the Out of Africa migrants who went on to settle Eurasia and Oceania, Australia and the Americas.
This is not a 'species' distinction, but only an ethnic one, defined in terms of geography.
These people are Natives of the above regions and by definition are therefore not Africans.
If you insist on calling Native Americans - Africans - then - by the same warped logic - you would have to call Europeans - Germans, Swedes, all of them... African too.
Winters knows this, he just specialises in targeting foolish people like Marc Washington with his distorted racist pseudo-theories.
I'm sorry, but Winters is a charleton.
This is why when asked for a single name of a scholar who supports his nonsense, he can't provide...even one.
Be his fool if you want....your choice.
Well said.
Posts: 1106 | From: Puerto Rico | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:The white Americans come from Europe so we call them Europeans.
^ Interesting as it implies you admit they are descendant of the aboriginal populations of Europe.... but.... no, we already know you claim the original European population was... African.
So, again, the ethnocentrism that drives your ideology, also cripples it, and renders it incoherent, and self defeating.
The Venus Figures represent the first Europeans. They are representative of the San people and are therefore Africans.
This is a bushman or San.
Hottentot
As I mentioned earlier the Bushman created much of the early civilization of Eurasia. They left us numerous figurines showing their type.
Venus Figurines
The Bushman continue to carry this ancient form.
. [/QB][/QUOTE]
^^^Lmao, I just noticed the pics of the females pictured with Steatopygea, are actually Andaman Islanders, and are not Khoisan. Clyde That wasn't very smart.
Clyde, Steatopygea as you can see, is also found amongst the Andamans, Southeast Asians. See Clyde you propose all of this, but fail to realize original OOA populations represented by Australo-Melanesians, Andaman Islanders, New Guinea etc... Do not possess post OOA African lineages, in concordance with your theories. These groups carry pristine OOA non-African lineages Clyde.
Note above the genetic distance between Africans and populations carrying pristine OOA lineages, Oceanic populations.
I've already posted anthropological evidence which puts European UP humans, most closely resembling Oceanic's, and being quite distinct from Khoisan. Yet you don't address the anthropology, nor do you stop your nonsense of Africans migrating directly from Africa into Europe, which did not happen, Clyde.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: You attempt to make it appear that anthropologists claim the earliest skeletal remains found in the Americas such as Luzia are definitely Australian. This is not true Neves made it clear that the anatomy of her skull and teeth - including a narrow, oval cranium, projecting face and pronounced chin - likens Luzia to Africans and Australasians.
Clyde, here is what Neves proposes, deal with it. Posted by me for the hundredth time.
quote:The oldest Americans' Negroid traits are not very specialized, making a direct immigration from Africa or Australia unlikely. Therefore, **Neves**(the head proponent for Australia/African like populations reaching America) believes that the America's more than 12,000 years ago did not necessarily occur by sea: "The traditional path across the Bering Strait is still the most plausible explanation for the entry of this non-Mongoloid population into the New World, if we assume that it was present in Northern Asia at the end of the Pleistocene." And indeed, Japan's aborigines, of whom a few still live in Hokkaido and on the Kurile Islands, display some Australian traits, such as round eye sockets and abundant body hair. A genetic comparison might solve the mystery...
''We know that today's Amerindians have ***four main groups***,'' said Dr. Pena, who found a genetic marker common to 17 different widely dispersed Indian groups across the Americans in the course of an earlier project. ''What would constitute molecular proof of ***Walter's (NEVES)*** hypothesis is to find ***DNA sequences COMPLETELY **different** from those ***four groups***.''
Dr. Meltzer said: ''This is clearly the way to resolve the issue. The skull is intriguing morphological evidence, but in order to really nail down this issue of affinity, you need evidence, and ***DNA*** is the way to go.''
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
[/QB][/QUOTE]
Printer-friendly view of this topic