...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Deshret
»
KEITA AN AFROCentric fraud
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gynphobic: [QB] [QUOTE] you, cause I can see that on a good day you;re not only a half-wit but a dumb twit as well. Hanihara clusters Egyptians with Nubians and other Egyptians first, not your precious Aryans or Mediterraneans. right off the bat that sinks your "Mediterranean" theory fool. Furthermore Hanihara the dissimilarity between sub-Saharans and the rest of the world is due to the greater genetic diversity in Africa. As other non- Africans split off they developed LESS diversity. You dumb fack- it has nothing to do with your race fantasies. The greater genetic diversity of Africans means that they vary more than other populations, that is why narrow noses or loose hair is nothing special in Africa. It has all been built-in from day 1, and is not due to your fantasy Aryans or 'Mediterraneans'. Don't let your mind wander "Gyno" it's far too small to be let out on its own. Now back to the lesson fool. Hanihara also used Howell's database and grouped based based on series aggregation. But when the same database is broken out by individual craniometric traits, Egyptians group more closely with African populations than with your precious Europeans. [/QUOTE][CODE] [/CODE]Must I repeat myself over and over again or do you need to work on your reading comprehension skills? I suspect the latter: I dare you to find me one statement in the 2003 Hanihara et. al. study which indicates that Egyptians cluster more with sub- Saharan Negroids than Europeans/Middle Easterners. As far as I'm concerned, even Hanihara et. al. (2003) admits that sub- Saharan African populations are biologically distinct from all other populations including Egyptians: Applying the neighbor-joining method to the MMD distances results in the dendrogram illustrated in Figure 3. The initial split, suggesting the greatest dissimilarity, is between Subsaharan Africans and the rest of the world. The Europeans, North Africans, and South Asians are then separated from the remaining groups. Oceania and the Southeast Asian groups form a separate branch that is separated from a large grouping of Central and East/Northeast Asian, Arctic, and New World series clusters. And by the way, Nubians aren't a Negroid population. Your chart is meaningless as body limb proportions are adaptations to the external environment and are not ancestry informative. [QUOTE] Brace 93 did not say Somalis were a "non-negroid" population. He said that they were not as related to the ancient Egyptians as the other groups he presented. You are lying and making things up people never said. In fact Brace put the Somalis as as sub-Saharan population. Your lies are not fooling anyone. /QUOTE] The 2005 study of Brace et. al. said that the Somali and Naqada Bronze samples may possess a "hint" of sub-Saharan Negroid ancestry, but that this was unlikely given how closely the non-Negroid Algerian Neolithic sample clustered with the Naqada Bronze, meaning that Somalis and ancient Naqadans are both non-Negroid peoples. [QUOTE]The fallacy of your lying approach is the term you use "sub-Saharan Negroid lineages" - a term Arredi does not use or define as you do. You basically arbitrarily define a narrow range of certain genes as "negroid" to sustain your 'mediterranean' fantasy. But once you are exposed, your stack of lies collapses. In fact Haplogroup E is most prevalent in Africa as shown by your own map, and the PN2 clade unites numerous African peoples. Your notion of "negroid genes" is plain and simple bullshiit. The bulk of what is in the Nile Valley is not your precious Mediterranean but E- which is found most in Africa. Once again, the closest link is with Africa not 'Mediterraneans". Arredi is not talking about any "Mediterraneans." You conveniently forget to quote some other things from Arredi which show no "Mediterranean" influx. In fact, Arredi mentions LOCAL development in Africa for several lineages, not origins from your mysterious "Mediterraneans." quote: “Under the hypothesis of a Neolithic demic expansion from the Middle East, the likely origin of E3b in East Africa could indicate EITHER a LOCAL CONTRIBUTION to the North African Neolithic OR an earlier migration INTO the Fertile Crescent, preceding the expansion BACK into Africa.” “A clinal pattern of haplography variation like the one we observe can be expected from and EAST-TO-WEST population expansion, and the finding of LOWER E3b2 STR variation in the west than in central North Africa, accompanied by a substantial increase in frequency of this haplography, is most readily explained by expansion into virtually UNINHABITED terrain by populations experiencing increasing drift.” “In addition, g enetic evidence shows that E3b2 is RARE in the Middle East (Semino et al. 2004), making the Arabs an unlikely source for this frequent North African lineage.” [/QUOTE]The chart of Arredi et. al. (2004) clearly demonstrates that the sub-Saharan Negroid contribution to the Egyptian gene pool is almost non-existent at best (only a single subclade of Hg A was ever detected), with Egyptians being genetically similar to other Mediterraneans and therefore, having absolutely nothing in common with Negroids. The authors of the study write that North Africans (including Egyptians) are genetically distinct from both Europeans and sub-Saharan Negroids. According to Arredi et. al. in the study A Predominantly Neolithic Origin for Y-Chromosomal DNA Variation in North Africa (2004): First, as shown in fig. 1B, the lineages that are most prevalent in North Africa are distinct from those in the regions to the immediate north and south: Europe and sub-Saharan Africa. This is illustrated by even a cursory examination of the commonest haplogroups: E3b2 is the most common haplogroup in North Africa, forming 42% of the combined sample. In contrast, R1b made up 55% of a mixed European sample (Underhill et al. 2000) and was even higher (77%) in the Iberian sample examined by Bosch et al. (2001), whereas E3a predominates in many sub-Saharan areas, being present at 64% in a pooled sample (Underhill et al. 2000; Cruciani et al. 2002). Such a finding is not surprising, in the light of the earlier genetic studies, but has an important implication: despite haplogroups shared at low frequency, suggesting limited gene flow, North African populations have a genetic history largely distinct from both Europe and sub-Saharan Africa over the timescales needed for the Y-chromosomal differentiation to develop. E3b is not a sub-Saharan Negroid marker, stupid nigger, and Hg E is of Asian origin. [QUOTE]You dummy.. Are you always this stupid or are you making a special effort today? The ancient Egyptians cluster closest with other tropically-adapted peoples. This means dark-skinned peoples adapted to tropical environments, which include not not forest, but dry and semi-arid regions like the Sahara. Tasmanians are one such dark-skinned tropically adapted people, but there is no record of them moving into Egypt. However the record does show OTHER similar people geographically closer to the Egyptians. What other people are closest to the ancient Egyptians, Gyno-boy? Wait for it fool.. yes.. OTHER AFRICANS.. like Pygmies, San and South Africans. [/QUOTE]Body limb proportions are adaptations to the external environment and are not ancestry informative [QUOTE] "The raw values in Table 6 suggest that Egyptians had the “super-Negroid” body plan described by Robins (1983).. This pattern is supported by Figure 7 (a plot of population mean femoral and tibial lengths; data from Ruff, 1994), which indicates that the Egyptians generally have tropical body plans. Of the Egyptian samples, only the Badarian and Early Dynastic period populations have shorter tibiae than predicted from femoral length. Despite these differences, all samples lie relatively clustered together as compared to the other populations." (Zakrzewski, S.R. (2003). "Variation in ancient Egyptian stature and body proportions". American Journal of Physical Anthropology 121 (3): 219-229. [/QUOTE]Having a super-Negroid body plan, as Robins and Shute explained in their original 1986 study, does not make one a negro [QUOTE]He never claims Stouhal said they were "pure negro" this is something added on by you to create a bogus "talking point." [/QUOTE]You still haven't answered my questions, you ****-skinned, bubble-lipped 'groid! Well, here it is again: None of this proves that Strouhal said that >80% of Badarian hair is of Negroid origin. Nigger, you conveniently avoided answering my questions: Can you find me a single passage in Strouhal's 1971 report in which he concludes that >80% of Badarian hair is Negroid, as Keita falsely claimed in a 1990 report? This is obviously a gross distortion on Keita's part, especially after Strouhal concluded that less than 6-8% of the Badarian crania were determined as being of Negroid origin. If 6-8% of the Badarian crania were determined as being of Negroid origin, then how can >80% of Badarian hair be of Negroid origin, as Keita falsely maintains, especially given the fact that the Badarians were more Europoid than Negroid? S.O.Y. Keita is a lying niggercentric fraud! I have provided a mountain of evidence which clearly indicates that the Egyptians are a white Mediterranean folk, whereas you have only countered this massive amount of evidence with the usual denial and distortion. You obviously have difficulty interpreting written information, but since you come from a racial group that typically displays a double digit IQ cognition, this should come as no surprise. The 2004 Arredi et. al. study clearly demonstrates that North Africans (Mediterraneans), including Egyptians, are not genetically related to sub-Saharan African Negroids. Since you are obviously functionally illiterate (like the majority of negroes), I'll repeat the same quote from the Arredi et. al. study for the nth time: [b]First, as shown in fig. 1B, the lineages that are most prevalent in North Africa are distinct from those in the regions to the immediate north and south: Europe and sub-Saharan Africa. This[/b] This is illustrated by even a cursory examination of the commonest haplogroups: E3b2 is the most common haplogroup in North Africa, forming 42% of the combined sample. In contrast, R1b made up 55% of a mixed European sample (Underhill et al. 2000) and was even higher (77%) in the Iberian sample examined by Bosch et al. (2001), whereas E3a predominates in many sub-Saharan areas, being present at 64% in a pooled sample (Underhill et al. 2000; Cruciani et al. 2002). Such a finding is not surprising, in the light of the earlier genetic studies, but has an important implication: despite haplogroups shared at low frequency, suggesting limited gene flow, [b]North African populations have a genetic history largely distinct from both Europe and sub-Saharan Africa over the timescales needed for the Y-chromosomal differentiation to develop.[/b] Now put that in your crack pipe and smoke it, nigger. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3