Rory Coker, Ph.D.
The word "pseudo" means fake. The surest way to spot a fake is to know as much as possible about the real thing -- in this case, about science itself. Knowing science does not mean simply knowing scientific facts (such as the distance from earth to sun, the age of the earth, the distinction between mammal and reptile, etc.) It means understanding the nature of science -- the criteria of evidence, the design of meaningful experiments, the weighing of possibilities, the testing of hypotheses, the establishment of theories, the many aspects of scientific methods that make it possible to draw reliable conclusions about the physical universe.
Because the media bombard us with nonsense, it is useful to consider the earmarks of pseudoscience. The presence of even one of these should arouse great suspicion. On the other hand, material displaying none of these flaws might still be pseudoscience, because its adherents invent new ways to fool themselves every day. Most of the examples in this article are related to my field of physics, but similar beliefs and behavior are associated with iridology, medical astrology, meridian therapy, reflexology, subluxation-based chiropractic, therapeutic touch, and other health-related pseudosciences.
Pseudoscience displays an indifference to facts.
Instead of bothering to consult reference works or investigating directly, its advocates simply spout bogus "facts" where needed. These fictions are often central to the pseudoscientist's argument and conclusions. Moreover, pseudoscientists rarely revise. The first edition of a pseudoscience book is almost always the last, even though the book remains in print for decades or even centuries. Even books with obvious mistakes, errors, and misprints on every page may be reprinted as is, over and over. Compare this to science textbooks that see a new edition every few years because of the rapid accumulation of new facts and insights.
Pseudoscience "research" is invariably sloppy.
Pseudoscientists clip newspaper reports, collect hearsay, cite other pseudoscience books, and pore over ancient religious or mythological works. They rarely or never make an independent investigation to check their sources.
Pseudoscience begins with a hypothesis -- usually one which is appealing emotionally,
and spectacularly implausible -- and then looks only for items which appear to support it.
Conflicting evidence is ignored. Generally speaking, the aim of pseudoscience is to rationalize strongly held beliefs, rather than to investigate or to test alternative possibilities. Pseudoscience specializes in jumping to "congenial conclusions," grinding ideological axes, appealing to preconceived ideas and to widespread misunderstandings.
Pseudoscience is indifferent to criteria of valid evidence.
The emphasis is not on meaningful, controlled, repeatable scientific experiments. Instead it is on unverifiable eyewitness testimony, stories and tall tales, hearsay, rumor, and dubious anecdotes. Genuine scientific literature is either ignored or misinterpreted.
Pseudoscience relies heavily on subjective validation.
Joe Blow puts jello on his head and his headache goes away. To pseudoscience, this means jello cures headaches. To science this means nothing, since no experiment was done. Many things were going on when Joe Blow's headache went away -- the moon was full, a bird flew overhead, the window was open, Joe had on his red shirt, etc. -- and his headache would have gone away eventually in any case, no matter what. A controlled experiment would put many people suffering from headaches in identical circumstances, except for the presence or absence of the remedy it is desired to test, and compare the results which would then have some chance of being meaningful. Many people think there must be something to astrology because a newspaper horoscope describes them perfectly. But close examination would reveal that the description is general enough to cover virtually everyone. This phenomenon, called subjective validation, is one of the foundations of popular support for pseudoscience.
Pseudoscience depends on arbitrary conventions of human
culture, rather than on unchanging regularities of nature.
For instance, the interpretations of astrology depend on the names of things, which are accidental and vary from culture to culture. If the ancients had given the name Mars to the planet we call Jupiter, and vice versa, astronomy could care less but astrology would be totally different, because it depends solely on the name and has nothing to do with the physical properties of the planet itself.
Pseudoscience always achieves a reduction to absurdity if pursued far enough.
Maybe dowsers can somehow sense the presence of water or minerals under a field, but almost all claim they can dowse equally well from a map! Maybe Uri Geller is "psychic," but are his powers really beamed to him on a radio link with a flying saucer from the planet Hoova, as he has claimed? Maybe plants are "psychic," but why does a bowl of mud respond in exactly the same way, in the same "experiment?"
Pseudoscience always avoids putting its claims to a meaningful test.
Pseudoscientists never carry out careful, methodical experiments themselves -- and they also generally ignore results of those carried out by scientists. Pseudoscientists also never follow up. If one pseudoscientist claims to have done an experiment (such as the "lost" biorhythm studies of Hermann Swoboda that are alleged basis of the modern pseudoscience of biorhythms), no other pseudoscientist ever tries to duplicate it or to check him, even when the original results are missing or questionable! Further, where a pseudoscientist claims to have done an experiment with a remarkable result, he himself never repeats it to check his results and procedures. This is in extreme contrast with science, where crucial experiments are repeated by scientists all over the world with ever-increasing precision.
Pseudoscience often contradicts itself, even in its own terms.
Such logical contradictions are simply ignored or rationalized away. Thus, we should not be surprised when Chapter 1
of a book on dowsing says that dowsers use newly cut twigs, because only "live" wood can channel and focus the "earth-radiation"
that makes dowsing possible, whereas Chapter 5 states that nearly all dowsers use metal or plastic rods.
Pseudoscience deliberately creates mystery where none
exists, by omitting crucial information and important details.
Anything can be made "mysterious" by omitting what is known about it or presenting completely imaginary details. The "Bermuda Triangle" books are classic examples of this tactic.
Pseudoscience does not progress.
There are fads, and a pseudoscientist may switch from one fad to another (from ghosts to ESP research, from flying saucers to psychic studies, from ESP research to looking for Bigfoot). But within a given topic, no progress is made. Little or no new information or uncovered. New theories are seldom proposed, and old concepts are rarely modified or discarded in light of new "discoveries," since pseudoscience rarely makes new "discoveries." The older the idea, the more respect it receives. No natural phenomena or processes previously unknown to science have ever been discovered by pseudoscientists. Indeed, pseudoscientists almost invariably deal with phenomena well known to scientists, but little known to the general public -- so that the public will swallow whatever the pseudoscientist wants to claim. Examples include firewalking and "Kirlian" photography.
Pseudoscience attempts to persuade with rhetoric, propaganda, and
misrepresentation rather than valid evidence (which presumably does not exist).
Pseudoscience books offer examples of almost every kind of fallacy of logic and reason known to scholars and have invented some new ones of their own. A favorite device is the non sequitur. Pseudoscientists also love the "Galileo Argument." This consists of the pseudoscientist comparing himself to Galileo, and saying that just as the pseudoscientist is believed to be wrong, so Galileo was thought wrong by his contemporaries therefore the pseudoscientist must be right too, just as Galileo was. Clearly the conclusion does not follow! Moreover, Galileo's ideas were tested, verified, and accepted promptly by his scientific colleagues. The rejection came from the established religion which favored the pseudoscience that Galileo's findings contradicted.
Pseudoscience argues from ignorance, an elementary fallacy.
Many pseudoscientists base their claims on incompleteness of information about nature, rather than on what is known at present. But no claim can possibly be supported by lack of information. The fact that people don't recognize what they see in the sky means only that they don't recognize what they saw. This fact is not evidence that flying saucers are from outer space. The statement "Science cannot explain" is common in pseudoscience literature. In many cases, science has no interest in the supposed phenomena because there is no evidence it exists; in other cases, the scientific explanation is well known and well established, but the pseudoscientist doesn't know this or deliberately ignores it to create mystery.
Pseudoscience argues from alleged exceptions, errors, anomalies, strange events,
and suspect claims -- rather than from well-established regularities of nature.
The experience of scientists over the past 400 years is that claims and reports that describe well-understood objects behaving in strange and incomprehensible ways tend to reduce upon investigation to deliberate frauds, honest mistakes, garbled accounts, misinterpretations, outright fabrications, and stupid blunders. It is not wise to accept such reports at face value, without checking them. Pseudoscientists always take such reports as literally true, without independent verification.
Pseudoscience appeals to false authority, to emotion,
sentiment, or distrust of established fact.
A high-school dropout is accepted as an expert on archaeology, though he has never made any study of it! A psychoanalyst is accepted as an expert on all of human history, not to mention physics, astronomy, and mythology, even though his claims are inconsistent with everything known in all four fields. A movie star swears it's true, so it must be. A physicist says a "psychic" couldn't possibly have fooled him with simple magic tricks, although the physicist knows nothing about magic and sleight of hand. Emotional appeals are common. ("If it makes you feel good, it must be true." "In your heart you know it's right.") Pseudoscientists are fond of imaginary conspiracies. ("There's plenty of evidence for flying saucers, but the government keeps it secret.") And they argue from irrelevancies: When confronted by inconvenient facts, they simply reply, "Scientists don't know everything!"
Pseudoscience makes extraordinary claims and advances fantastic
theories that contradict what is known about nature.
They not only provide no evidence that their claims are true. They also ignore all findings that contradict their conclusions. ("Flying saucers have to come from somewhere -- so the earth is hollow, and they come from inside." "This electric spark I'm making with this electrical apparatus is actually not a spark at all, but rather a supernatural manifestation of psycho-spiritual energy." "Every human is surrounded by an impalpable aura of electromagnetic energy, the auric egg of the ancient Hindu seers, which mirrors the human's every mood and condition.")
Pseudoscientists invent their own vocabulary in which many terms lack
precise or unambiguous definitions, and some have no definition at all.
Listeners are often forced to interpret the statements according to their own preconceptions. What, for for example, is "biocosmic energy?" Or a "psychotronic amplification system?" Pseudoscientists often attempt to imitate the jargon of scientific and technical fields by spouting gibberish that sounds scientific and technical. Quack "healers" would be lost without the term "energy," but their use of the term has nothing whatsoever to do with the concept of energy used by physicists.
Pseudoscience appeals to the truth-criteria of scientific
methodology while simultaneously denying their validity.
Thus, a procedurally invalid experiment which seems to show that astrology works is advanced as "proof" that astrology is correct, while thousands of procedurally sound experiments that show it does not work are ignored. The fact that someone got away with simple magic tricks in one scientific lab is "proof" that he is a psychic superman, while the fact that he was caught cheating in several other labs is ignored.
Pseudoscience claims that the phenomena it studies are "jealous."
The phenomena appear only under certain vaguely specified but vital conditions (such as when no doubters or skeptics are present; when no experts are present; when nobody is watching; when the "vibes" are right; or only once in human history.) Science holds that genuine phenomena must be capable of study by anyone with the proper equipment and that all procedurally valid studies must give consistent results. No genuine phenomenon is "jealous" in this way. There is no way to construct a TV set or a radio that will function only when no skeptics are present! A man who claims to be a concert-class violinist, but does not appear to have ever owned a violin and who refuses to play when anyone is around who might hear him, is most likely lying about his ability to play the violin.
Pseudoscientific "explanations" tend to be by scenario.
That is, we are told a story, but nothing else; we have no description of any possible physical process. For instance, former psychoanalyst Immanuel Velikovsky (1895-1979) claimed that another planet passing near the earth caused the earth's spin axis to flip upside down. This is all he said. He gave no mechanisms. But the mechanism is all-important, because the laws of physics rule out the process as impossible. That is, the approach of another planet cannot cause a planet's spin axis to flip. If Velikovsky had discovered some way that a planet could flip another's spin axis, he would presumably have described the mechanism by which it can happen. The bald statement itself, without the underlying mechanism, conveys no information at all. Velikovsky said that Venus was once a comet, and this comet was spewed out of a volcano on Jupiter. Since planets do not resemble comets (which are rock/ice snowball-like debris with connection whatsoever to volcanoes) and since Jupiter is not known to have volcanoes anyway (or even a solid surface!), no actual physical process could underlie Velikovsky's assertions. He gave us words, related to one another within a sentence, but the relationships were alien to the universe we actually live in, and he gave no explanation for how these could exist. He provided stories, not genuine theories.
Pseudoscientists often appeal to the ancient human habit of magical thinking.
Magic, sorcery, witchcraft -- these are based on spurious similarity, false analogy, false cause-and-effect connections, etc. That is, inexplicable influences and connections between things are assumed from the beginning -- not found by investigation. (If you step on a crack in the sidewalk without saying a magic word, your mother will crack a bone in her body; eating heart-shaped leaves is good for heart ailments; shining red light on the body increases blood production; rams are aggressive so someone born in the sign of the ram is aggressive; fish are "brain food" because the meat of the fish resembles brain tissue, etc.)
Pseudoscience relies heavily on anachronistic thinking.
The older the idea, the more attractive it is to pseudoscience -- it's the wisdom of the ancients! -- especially if the idea is transparently wrong and has long been discarded by science. Many journalists have trouble in comprehending this point. A typical reporter writing about astrology may think a thorough job can be done by interviewing six astrologers and one astronomer. The astronomer says it's all bunk; the six astrologers say it's great stuff and really works and for $50 they'll be glad to cast anyone's horoscope. (No doubt!) To many reporters, and apparently to many editors and their readers, this would confirm astrology six to one!
This table contrasts some of the characteristics of science and pseudoscience
Science Pseudoscience
Their findings are expressed primarily through scientific journals that are peer-reviewed and maintain rigorous standards for honesty and accuracy. The literature is aimed at the general public. There is no review, no standards, no pre-publication verification, no demand for accuracy and precision.
Reproducible results are demanded; experiments must be precisely described so that they can be duplicated exactly or improved upon. Results cannot be reproduced or verified. Studies, if any, are always so vaguely described that one can't figure out what was done or how it was done.
Failures are searched for and studied closely, because incorrect theories can often make correct predictions by accident, but no correct theory will make incorrect predictions. Failures are ignored, excused, hidden, lied about, discounted, explained away, rationalized, forgotten, avoided at all costs.
As time goes on, more and more is learned about the physical processes under study. No physical phenomena or processes are ever found or studied. No progress is made; nothing concrete is learned.
Convinces by appeal to the evidence, by arguments based upon logical and/or mathematical reasoning, by making the best case the data permit. When new evidence contradicts old ideas, they are abandoned. Convinces by appeal to faith and belief. Pseudoscience has a strong quasi-religious element: it tries to convert, not to convince. You are to believe in spite of the facts, not because of them. The original idea is never abandoned, whatever the evidence.
Does not advocate or market unproven practices or products. Generally earns some or all of his living by selling questionable products (such as books, courses, and dietary supplements) and/or pseudoscientific services (such as horoscopes, character readings, spirit messages, and predictions).
This table could be greatly expanded, because science and pseudoscience are precisely opposed ways of viewing nature. Science relies on -- and insists on -- self-questioning, testing and analytical thinking that make it hard to fool yourself or to avoid facing facts. Pseudoscience, on the other hand, preserves the ancient, natural, irrational, unobjective modes of thought that are hundreds of thousands of years older than science -- thought processes that have given rise to superstitions and other fanciful and mistaken ideas about man and nature -- from voodoo to racism; from the flat earth to the house-shaped universe with God in the attic, Satan in the cellar and man on the ground floor; from doing rain dances to torturing and brutalizing the mentally ill to drive out the demons that possess them. Pseudoscience encourages people to believe anything they want. It supplies specious "arguments" for fooling yourself into thinking that any and all beliefs are equally valid. Science begins by saying, let's forget about what we believe to be so, and try by investigation to find out what actually is so. These roads don't cross; they lead in completely opposite directions.
Some confusion on this point is caused by what we might call "crossover." "Science" is not an honorary badge you wear, it's an activity you do. Whenever you cease that activity, you cease being a scientist. A distressing amount of pseudoscience is generated by scientists who are well trained in one field but plunge into another field of which they are ignorant. A physicist who claims to have found a new principle of biology -- or a biologist who claims to have found a new principle of physics -- is almost invariably doing pseudoscience. And so are those who forge data, or suppresses data that clash with their preconceptions, or refuse to let others see their data for independent evaluation. Science is like a high peak of intellectual integrity, fairness, and rationality. The peak is slippery and smooth. It requires a tremendous effort to remain near it. Slacking of effort carries one away and into pseudoscience. Some pseudoscience is generated by individuals with a small amount of specialized scientific or technical training who are not professional scientists and do not comprehend the nature of the scientific enterprise -- yet think of themselves as "scientists."
One might wonder if there are not examples of "crossovers" in the other direction; that is people who have been thought by scientists to be doing pseudoscience, who eventually were accepted as doing valid science, and whose ideas were ultimately accepted by scientists. From what we have just outlined, one would expect this to happen extremely rarely, if ever. In fact, neither I nor any informed colleague I have ever asked about this, knows of any single case in which this has happened during the hundreds of years the full scientific method has been known to and used by scientists. There are many cases in which a scientist has been thought wrong by colleagues but later -- when new information comes in -- is shown to be correct. Like anyone else, scientists can get hunches that something is possible without having enough evidence to convince their associates that they are correct. Such people do not become pseudoscientists, unless they continue to maintain that their ideas are correct when contradictory evidence piles up. Being wrong or mistaken is unavoidable; we are all human, and we all commit errors and blunders. True scientists, however, are alert to the possibility of blunder and are quick to correct mistakes. Pseudoscientists do not. In fact, a short definition of pseudoscience is "a method for excusing, defending, and preserving errors."
Pseudoscience often strikes educated, rational people as too nonsensical and preposterous to be dangerous and as a source of amusement rather than fear. Unfortunately, this is not a wise attitude. Pseudoscience can be extremely dangerous.
Penetrating political systems, it justifies atrocities in the name of racial purity
Penetrating the educational system, it can drive out science and sensibility;
In the field of health, it dooms thousands to unnecessary death or suffering
Penetrating religion, it generates fanaticism, intolerance, and holy war
Penetrating the communications media, it can make it difficult for voters to obtain factual information on important public issues.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 28 March 2005).]
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 28 March 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
Pseudoscientists invent their own vocabulary in which many terms lack
precise or unambiguous definitions, and some have no definition at all.
This is halarious! I'm ROTFL because this is exactly what evil Euro and Abaza do..... Let the games begin..
p.s. Negroid vs negroid? LMAO....
quote:
Originally posted by Horemheb:
If you agree with the AAA rasol why are you always talking about race. That is clearly the subject that dominates every waking thought you have. You can't have it both ways?
Horemheb you see how this truly defines you, abaza, and evil euro's manner of arguing. The racialization of AE was done by people of European descent and is still perpetuated with subtle lying by ommision and visually.
Anyway I think this thread is fun!
Under true scientific scrutiny and tests Eurocentric Egyptology is demolished and torn to threads.
quote:
Originally posted by Horemheb:
There is no such thing as a Eurocentric Keins. That is a little fantasy cooked up in the minds of people who are preoccupied by their race, like yourself. Keins...you are black, you were born black and you will die black. Why spend all of the years you have PREOCCUPIED by blackness. Join the world, go out and lead a full life and leave the bitterness to the racists like rasol. IBM and GE don't care if you are green. If you can make them money you have a place in the world. This need globalism CREATED by western society and led by the US and UK has a place for everyone , regardless of race.
quote:
BigMix....I read a critique of the book on the net a few minutes ago.
quote:
Originally posted by Horemheb:
There is no such thing as a Eurocentric Keins. That is a little fantasy cooked up in the minds of people who are preoccupied by their race, like yourself. Keins...you are black, you were born black and you will die black. Why spend all of the years you have PREOCCUPIED by blackness. Join the world, go out and lead a full life and leave the bitterness to the racists like rasol. IBM and GE don't care if you are green. If you can make them money you have a place in the world. This need globalism CREATED by western society and led by the US and UK has a place for everyone , regardless of race.
First of all my life is more fulfilled emotionally, financially and sexually than yours can ever be! It is sad that you have your self-esteem built on attaining money and material possessions. You seem to have no value for truth, honestly, character and humanity or nature. You talk of this capatilistic society that does not care about race once you can bring them money but the people make this system work.
The ones who have preoccuppied about race is on general white americans. Blacks and black american are just more likely and willing to honestly talk about these issues out loud in hopes of solving problems. It is mostly on the part of white americans like yourself whom pretend that all is fair when you know in your hearts the ill feelings, prejudices and biases about black people and non white people. You provide proof to the about statement, you are obviously preoccuppied and hateful by the language you use on this board. You do this while pretending to have morals, and pretending to care for people and humailty as a whole. Ironically I learned this with the help of some very good white friends who know how some of their families and white borthers and sisters think, act and what they say only when they are in the trusting company of other likewise whites.
You are right, I was born black and will die black and I love that and would not have it any other way. Being born black is a natural blessing, however I will not get into the scientific reason (I now understand) that make me appreciate this fact.
All of this has no direct connection to AE besides showing the eurocentric pleade to cultural biases to maintain a faux projection and preception of Ancient Egypt to sustain the current structure of power and wealth in this world. I will not play along with you emotional distractions horemheb.
quote:that's where you're wrong. Theoretically capitalism is solely for profit, but in practice it is a crude hybrid of race and profit.
Originally posted by Horemheb:
[B] The problem I see for Mr. Mills position is that it is in conflict with the goals of global capitalism.
One cannot deny the racial opinions that have intertwined itself in Western thought, and to say that one can simply divorce themselves from racial opinions for the sake of profits is ridiculous, since the profiting in a large part is dependent upon the rules of the game of which race is important.
Capitalism as a direct creation of the Enlightenment period comes necessarily with the racial baggage of the Enlightenment period of which this baggage helped to construct society for its economic ends according to its own theorizing.
Anyway, its a good book. Only 133 pages. You can read it out in one sitting.
quote:
Originally posted by Horemheb:
no use in you replying rasol...you would not know social contract theory from a cook book....go away.
Sorry Professor....my thread.
Please respond on topic or not at all, thank you.
western society moved to reform race relations because it was in their interest to do so. You may simply be impatient and that is understandable but race relations are getting better. Now.....they are getting better for those minorities with talent. The plaight of the others is a different subject altogether.
quote:
Originally posted by ABAZA:
CENTER FOR EQUAL OPPORTUNITY
[b]The Self-Esteem Fraud:
Why Feel-Good Education Does Not Lead to Academic Success.
By Nina H. Shokraii.Executive Summary
Which comes first, achievement or self-esteem? This question is at the heart of an important educational controversy. Traditionally, public schools have thought that students’ satisfaction will follow on the heels of their academic success. In other words, children who perform well in class will consequently feel good about themselves. But more recent educational theories have reversed this logic. They say that students must secure high self-esteem before they can hope to achieve. In other words, they must feel good about themselves before they can perform well in class.
For all of its current popularity, however, self-esteem theory threatens to deny children the tools they will need in order to experience true success in school and as adults. Compelling research from around the world lends empirical proof to the traditional claim that achievement precedes self-esteem. There is, in fact, almost no correlation between low self-esteem and any number of social pathologies, including poor school performance, drug abuse, and teenage pregnancy.
Black children are common targets of self-esteem theory, which in their case often goes by the name of Afrocentrism. Yet they are also some of the most vulnerable, since many of them desperately require the same basic academic skills that self-esteem theory subordinates to a shallow, feel-good classroom experience. One study has even shown that inflated self-esteem among adolescent black males can encourage violent behavior.
Schools must abandon their mindless pursuit of empty self-esteem and return to the fundamental task of helping students do their best. Traditional academic preparation best teaches children how to achieve old-fashioned academic success.
Introduction
Americans have lost confidence in their public schools. A Washington Post survey recently asked people what worries them about the future. They were given dozens of choices, from sky-high crime rates to increasing drug usage to old-fashioned economic anxiety. Of all these problems, however, Americans identified the deterioration of public schools as the country’s most pressing problem. "The American educational system will get worse instead of better" feared 62 percent of them.1
This is not exactly a new concern. Frustrated by everything from a long-term decline in test scores to the recent rise in juvenile violence, many Americans are left scratching their heads in bewilderment. What has gone wrong? What can reverse these trends? Desperate for anything that might boost the academic achievement of their charges, many schools have turned to self-esteem theory, which says that teaching children to feel good about themselves will help them perform better as students. This pedagogical approach has begun to dislodge the more traditional emphasis on subjects like reading, writing, and arithmetic.2
This is fundamentally wrongheaded. There is little reason to believe self-esteem leads to academic achievement, or even that self-esteem is necessary for academic success. It is therefore crucial to delegitimize the education establishment’s mindless glorification of self-esteem. As Richard Weissbourd has written, schools gripped by self-esteem theory "are, in essence, producing a generation of poorly educated adults who will lack the habits of hard work and perseverance that have historically been necessary to achieving true success."3
What Is Self-Esteem?
There is no shortage of ways to define self-esteem. Perhaps the simplest one is found in Webster’s Dictionary, which says that self-esteem is "satisfaction with oneself."4 The Basic Behavioral Science Task Force of the National Advisory Mental Health Council offers a fuller explanation: "Self-esteem begins to develop early in life and has been studied in children as young as seven years of age. As children learn to describe aspects of themselves, such as their physical attributes, abilities, and preferences, they also begin to evaluate them. Researchers conclude that, contrary to intuition, individuals have not one but several views of their selves, encompassing many domains of life, such as scholastic ability, physical appearance and romantic appeal, job competence, and adequacy as a provider."5
Psychologists generally split self-esteem into two types: earned self-esteem and global self-esteem. The concepts of each differ in critical ways:
Earned self-esteem. This is the self-esteem that people earn through their own accomplishments –- satisfaction from having scored well on an exam, for example. The psychologist Barbara Lerner says that earned self-esteem "is based on success in meeting the tests of reality -- measuring up to standards at home and in school."6 Earned self-esteem possesses all of the positive character traits that ought to be encouraged and applauded, because it is ultimately based on work habits.Global self-esteem. This refers to a general sense of pride in oneself. It is not grounded in a particular skill or achievement. This means that an underachieving student can still bask in the warmth of global self-esteem, even if the door to earned self-esteem is shut. Advocates say that this feeling of self-worth will inspire academic success. The reality is different. At best, global self-esteem is meaningless. At worst, it is harmful. William Damon, an educational psychologist at Brown University, warns that heightened global self-esteem can lead children to have "an exaggerated, though empty and ultimately fragile sense of their own powers ... [or] a distrust of adult communications and self-doubt."7
The fundamental difference between earned self-esteem and global self-esteem rests on their concepts of academic achievement. The idea of earned self-esteem says that achievement comes first and that self-esteem follows. Global self-esteem theory –- which is more popular in schools -- says that self-esteem leads the way and achievement trails behind. Earned self-esteem, of course, can take care of itself. It will develop almost naturally when children have accomplished something worthwhile. Global self-esteem, however, is artificial. It requires active intervention on the part of teachers, parents, and other authority figures. It is more than mere encouragement –- something all children need. Instead, it involves tricking kids into thinking that anything and everything they do is praiseworthy.Self-Esteem and Academic Success
In 1986, a group of California state legislators convinced themselves that low self-esteem was the root cause behind a variety of social and economic problems such as drug abuse, teen pregnancy, and poor school performance. Before taking this line of thinking too far, however, they decided they needed some research to back up their claims. So they established the awkwardly-titled California Task Force to Promote Self-Esteem and Personal and Social Responsibility. The Task Force published its findings in a book called The Social Importance of Self-Esteem. The editors might as well have called their book The Social Unimportance of Self-Esteem, however, because they found practically no connection between self-esteem and any of the behaviors they studied. As Neil Smelser noted in his introduction, "One of the disappointing aspects of every chapter in this volume ... is how low the associations between self-esteem and its consequences are in research to date."8 Over the years, other reviewers have offered similar readings of the available research, pointing to results that are unimpressive or characterized by "massive inconsistencies and contradictions."9 Most remarkable about the California Task Force, it was not a disinterested group of scholars. They wanted to find a link. But when their research failed to turn one up, they had the honesty to admit it.
Student Performance in Asia
Scholars focusing on the connection between high global self-esteem and academic success have run into similar barriers.10 When psychologists Harold W. Stevenson and James W. Stigler tested the academic skills of elementary school students in Japan, Taiwan, China, and the United States, the Asian students easily outperformed their American counterparts. That came as no surprise. But when the same students were asked how they felt about their subject skills, the Americans exhibited a significantly higher self-evaluation of their academic prowess. In other words, they combined a lousy performance with a high sense of self-esteem. As Stevenson and Stigler point out, Asian schools teach their students to indulge in self-congratulation only after they have paid their dues, through years of learning and hard work. While educators in most countries frown upon pride -- one manifestation of a high self-esteem -- American teachers actually encourage it as a positive personality trait.11
Part of the problem, Stevenson and Stigler found, lies in American teachers’ priorities in the classroom. They focus much more on sensitivity to the students’ needs, whereas Asians concentrate on their ability to explain things clearly. Indeed, roughly half of the Asian teachers surveyed said that clarity is one of the most important attributes required to be a good teacher. Only 10 percent of them said that sensitivity is equally important. Given the same set of choices, American teachers reversed priorities. Moreover, American teachers avoid exposing their students’ poor performance, fearing damage to their self-esteem. Japanese and Chinese teachers, on the other hand, regard mistakes as an index of what remains to be learned through persistence and increased effort. In other words, American schools worry more about how students view themselves than about their actual academic performance.
Australian researchers B.C. Hansford and J.A. Hattie scoured academic literature on the link between global self-esteem and academic achievement. And although they found a slim correlation, they also discovered that the better the research, the lower and less significant the connection. They recommended replacing efforts to boost global self-esteem with efforts to boost academic or subject-specific self-esteem -- which can only occur after students achieve academic success.12
Other studies show that programs created to promote self-esteem among elementary school students actually produce less of it than those designed to improve academic performance. The best research in this area evaluated a federal Head Start program to help children in grades 1-3, called Project Follow-Through. The researchers charged different schools to implement the project. To judge the effectiveness of self-esteem in underwriting academic success, they selected schools with differing philosophies of education. The models were then categorized into three major types: (1) holistically-oriented classrooms prone to promote self-esteem, (2) behaviorally-oriented models emphasizing traditional basic instruction, and (3) combination models that joined the two previous models. Researchers looked at 9,000 students on a variety of measures, from basic skills to cognitive and affective skills. The results were astounding. Students taught using the behavioral model received the highest scores not only in academics but also on self-esteem. The researchers could therefore safely conclude that programs designed to provide young children with the tools for academic success tend to be more successful as the children improve in both academic performance and self-esteem.13
This rule is not limited to young children. Thomas Moeller, a psychology professor at Mary Washington College in Fredericksburg, Virginia, examined students in grades 6 and higher. In every instance, he concluded, "academic achievement is more closely related to academic self-concept than to global self-concept."14
Other research found that although academic achievement in one grade level predicts academic self-esteem in the next grade, neither academic achievement nor academic self-esteem have any identifiable effect on global self-esteem.15 Still other research finds that grades in a given discipline affect academic self-esteem in that particular discipline only. General academic self-concept finds its roots in a school’s climate, teachers’ ratings, and students’ commitment to work.16
Adolescents’ academic performance seems not even to be a factor affecting global self-esteem. Instead, they respond to social activities.17 Beyond high school, high school performance, academic ability, and socioeconomic status affect educational attainment more than global self-esteem.18
Self-Esteem and Black Children
Because self-esteem theory advertises itself as a quick fix to poor academic achievement, it would make sense that the neediest students are also the most vulnerable to its deceptive message. Indeed, black students enrolled in Afrocentric educational programs receive a full-course diet in self-esteem enhancement, all of it positioned on the shaky theoretical ground that injecting racial pride into black children will help them overcome obstacles to academic success.19 But again, the value of self-esteem for black children is highly questionable, even if it does not come packaged in Afrocentrism.
Self-esteem theory made its first dramatic impact upon American schools in 1954, when the Supreme Court accepted that school segregation damaged the self-esteem of African-American children in its Brown v. Board of Education ruling. Low self-esteem, the Court said, "affects the motivation of a child to learn, and has a tendency to retard children’s educational and mental development." According to Barbara Lerner, this proposition makes three questionable assumptions about blacks: (1) Low self-esteem is the major cause of low academic achievement; (2) Blacks have a lower self-esteem than whites; and (3) Changing white attitudes toward blacks will raise black self-esteem. Taken together, these faulty notions provide the reasoning behind the current repudiation of high standards and expectations in our public schools.20
In reality, black children at the same grade level and in the same school system as white children display a higher sense of self-esteem. African Americans usually report "slightly higher levels of agreement with statements about taking a positive attitude toward oneself, judging oneself to be a person ‘of worth,’ and being generally satisfied with oneself."21
Studies also show that, like whites, enhancement of global self-concept is not a potent intervention for academic improvement for African-American adolescents.22 Stanley Rothman and his colleagues at Smith College’s Center for the Study of Social and Political Change found that while the self-esteem levels of blacks are now at least as high as those of whites, the average academic attainment among African-American students is still below that of whites. They conclude that the evidence "appears to show quite conclusively that the low self-esteem hypothesis is neither a necessary nor sufficient explanation of African-American achievement levels."23
Crime, Violence, and Self-Esteem
Those who think low self-esteem is the cause of high crime rates among blacks are also wrong. According to a recent study by psychologists Roy Baumeister, Joseph Boden, and Laura Smart, "first, [this notion] does not fit the transient shifts in the crime rate among African Americans, which is now reaching its highest levels as slavery recedes farther and farther into the background. Second, self-esteem levels among African Americans are now equal to, or higher than, the self-esteem levels of whites. Third, it is far from certain that slaves had a low self-esteem."24 A study by Jennifer Crocker and Brenda Major of the State University of New York at Buffalo, similarly refuted the psychological theories that claim members of stigmatized groups (blacks, for example) should possess low global self-esteem. They argued that stigmatized individuals are not simply "passive victims but are frequently able to actively protect their self-esteem from prejudice and discrimination."25
Ironically, adolescent African-American males living in impoverished neighborhoods are more likely to turn violent if schools bombard them with unearned praise. Baumeister, Boden, and Smart found that when high self-esteem is challenged by others’ negative views, egotism is threatened. People will react in one of two ways. They either lower their self-appraisal and withdraw, or they maintain their self-appraisal and manifest negative emotions toward the source of the ego threat. This response can easily become violent in individuals who place high emphasis on their self-appraisal.26
Vulnerable Children
Every day in the name of self-esteem, however, schools cheat low-income children (many of whom are black) into settling for inflated egos instead of increased knowledge. Such efforts aimed at guaranteeing minorities heightened self-esteem, coupled with lawsuits challenging minimum competency exams and proficiency tests, erroneously assume that these children’s self-esteem cannot possibly get proper nourishment in the poor households in which they are reared. Social workers and teachers create special courses and excuses for these children on a regular basis.27
In his book The Vulnerable Child, Weissbourd vehemently attacks such efforts, asserting that "although poor children are more likely to suffer an array of ... problems, the great majority of poor children are prepared to learn, at least when they begin school. Developmental delays and serious learning difficulties among children ages three to five, are higher among poor than among middle- and upper-income children ... But over 75 percent of poor children ages 6-11 have never experienced significant developmental delays, or emotional troubles, or a learning disability in childhood." Weissbourd highly discourages enrolling disadvantaged minority kids in remedial courses or special education classes, because it will only make it more difficult for them to move into the mainstream.28
From lower standards to a reduced emphasis on tests, minorities are constantly being told that their egos are somehow more fragile and thus are somehow different from the rest of America, even though they have the most to gain from traditional ways of teaching.29 In fact, blacks can flourish in this type of environment, as the experiences of schools such as Booker T. Washington (Atlanta), Xavier Prep (New Orleans), P.S. 91 (Brooklyn), and Dunbar (Washington) have shown.30 African Americans excel in these schools because they are expected to strive high and achieve. Instead of offering a broad array of extracurricular classes or dumbing down their curriculum to increase their African-American pupils’ "self-esteem," they offer a strict diet of math and reading and expect students to get the job done. As Sister Helen Struder, principal of the mostly-black Holy Angels school in Chicago, says, "After all, it’s by success that you build self esteem."31
Conclusion
After years of failed experimentation, it is time to stop touting the importance of self-esteem and start providing students with the elements real self-esteem is made of. As this Policy Brief shows, building self-esteem is not only a smokescreen vis-à-vis academic success, it can also lead to considerable harm. After all, as Weissbourd points out "to develop effective coping strategies, children, in fact, need to learn to manage a certain amount of disappointment and conflict."32
As schools turn against self-esteem theory, they must go back to the basics of teaching, reinstalling high standards and expectations, and holding children accountable for their actions. But these efforts ought not replace paying attention to children’s needs and concerns as individuals. Many educators agree on three general strategies:
Build the relationship between a teacher or parent and a child on respect for the child’s inborn strengths,Help the child set goals and then link sustained effort with success, and
Examine the values you are promoting, because self-esteem is grounded on what a person values.33
The final and probably most important remedy is reintroducing parents in the education of their children. Experts unanimously agree that parental involvement in a child’s education remains one of the most important factors in determining a child’s academic success. Furthermore, parents supersede teachers at building earned self-esteem in their children through the special caring and positive/negative reinforcement that can only come with individualized interaction at home.34[/B]
Facts and truths have nothing to do with emotional rhetoric! Stop pleading to emotions and deal withing the realm of information, facts and truths.
The non-sense above does not do away with the sceintific facts that Anceint Egypt is African culturally, geographically, and racially!
quote:
The researchers collected all the relevant studies they could, including unpublished doctoral dissertations from across the United States, to carry out their analyses. The better the test used to measure self-esteem in the various studies, the more likely they were to find higher self-esteem overall among blacks, Gray-Little said.
Posting that same article over and over again accomplishes nothing. Your self esteem argument isn't working.
quote:
Heru writes: Abaza, Posting that same article over and over again accomplishes nothing. Your self esteem argument isn't working.
Indeed. Resort to tactics such as off topic cut and paste spamming shows one's own lack of self respect. Why do they continue to use ineffectual tactics?
see - Pseudoscience does not progress- a favorite device is the non sequitur.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 28 March 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
[ Sorry Professor....my thread.Please respond on topic or not at all, thank you.
Does he *ever* respond to the topic at hand?
quote:
rasol:Indeed. Resort to tactics such as off topic cut and paste spamming shows one's own lack of self respect. Why do they continue to use ineffectual tactics?
see - Pseudoscience does not progress- a favorite device is the non sequitur
Doubtless that the thread has been highjacked...predictably from TROLLERS!
will alter this reality. What black people need is a useable present, not an ersatz past. I rest my case. Clarence E. Walker
Professor of History, UC Davis
non sequitur - a statement not logically related to the subject, often made in an effort to change the subject.
Argumentum ad hominem - personal attacks which seek to evade the facts presented.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 29 March 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
Pseudoscientific fallacies of logic and reason include... red herring, flawed analogy and...Argumentum ad hominem - personal attacks which seek to evade the facts presented.
Tactics with which every Afrocentrist is intimately familiar:
"Today, Afrocentrism is a racist, highly conservative, nationalist pseudo-science (by the latter term I mean: based upon phony scholarship and premises). It victimizes black students almost exclusively, since it is they who have this nonsense foisted off upon them as truth."
-- Grover Furr, Montclair State University
quote:....tactics which you emulate. A look at some of the practitioners of racist pseudoscience
Tactics with which every Afrocentrist is intimately familiar
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 30 March 2005).]
Thought posts:
quote:
Here is one that I just came across thanks to PBS:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3205_vinland.html
NARRATOR: “But Father Fischer's private scholarship was about to collide with world history. For in 1938, German forces marched into Austria, seized Stella Matutina College, evicted the priests and confiscated everything of value including art, rare books and, Seaver believes, Father Fischer's Vinland Map.
Hitler's campaign of world conquest was fueled by a belief in an Aryan master race, embodied by Germans who traced their cultural roots to the Vikings. In the hands of the Nazis, the Vinland Map would be a historic claim to America and a powerful political weapon.
If Seaver is right, Father Fischer used his knowledge of ancient maps and Viking history to draw the Vinland Map on an authentic piece of medieval parchment. Fischer's Vinland Map was then confiscated by the Germans, and after their defeat, the map found it's way into the hands of known fascist and Nazi sympathizer, Enzo Ferrajoli.”
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 30 March 2005).]
quote:
These afrocentrist actually degarade black people by basically saying that nothing of importance happened for blacks after AE.
Actually that's your line. Do we need to quote you to that effect?
quote:
Thought, used some of your stuff on Greece at a dinner party last weekend and got all the laughs.
Pseudoscience is indifferent to criteria of valid evidence.
The emphasis is not on meaningful, controlled, repeatable scientific experiments. Instead it is on unverifiable eyewitness testimony, stories and tall tales, hearsay, rumor, and dubious anecdotes. Genuine scientific literature is either ignored or misinterpreted.
quote:
Originally posted by Horemheb:
There is no such thing as a Eurocentric Keins. That is a little fantasy cooked up in the minds of people who are preoccupied by their race, like yourself. Keins...you are black, you were born black and you will die black. Why spend all of the years you have PREOCCUPIED by blackness. Join the world, go out and lead a full life and leave the bitterness to the racists like rasol. IBM and GE don't care if you are green. If you can make them money you have a place in the world. This need globalism CREATED by western society and led by the US and UK has a place for everyone , regardless of race.
Is Mark Dean white?
Looks like you've been busy as usual.
quote:
Originally posted by Horemheb:
There is no such thing as a Eurocentric Keins. That is a little fantasy cooked up in the minds of people who are preoccupied by their race....
Professor, we've been over this!!>>Historical & Cultural Biases of the West!!
How could you possible deny the existence of Eurocentrism if racism and white supremacy exist, since these are the products of Eurocentrism?!!
The concept of Eurocentrism is not a recent conjure by blacks, but is a fact that has existed since Europeans or "the West" first rose as a world power! All non-Westerners, that is "people of color" not just blacks were more than aware of the mentality that is Eurocentrism! It's only been recently that white Westerners became aware of it also and are trying to correct their past mistakes. Tell me, why do you think the whole academic community of the West, especially in the heart of Western Europe, is having such a big discourse and is re-evaluating all of its past works?!
[This message has been edited by Djehuti (edited 30 March 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
Pseudoscience rely on every kind of fallacy of logic and reason - A favorite device is the non sequitur.non sequitur - a statement not logically related to the subject, often made in an effort to change the subject.
Argumentum ad hominem - personal attacks which seek to evade the facts presented.
Special pleading for a position in a dispute introduces favorable details or excludes unfavorable details by alleging a need to apply additional considerations without proper criticism of these considerations themselves. [Negro vs. negro]
The lack of criticism may be a simple overlook [A4 vs. A4b] or an application of double standard.
This may take the forms of exemption from principles commonly thought relevant to the subject matter, [Howells flawed dataset which lacks relevant data for native East Africans] claims to data that are inherently unverifiable, perhap as because too remote or impossible to define clearly.
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/Forum8/HTML/002206.html
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 01 July 2005).]
vs.
A professor's expert analysis:
quote:
"Today, Afrocentrism is a racist, highly conservative, nationalist pseudo-science (by the latter term I mean: based upon phony scholarship and premises). It victimizes black students almost exclusively, since it is they who have this nonsense foisted off upon them as truth.The fact that it is tolerated and even promoted at various universities, including the one I teach at, is a tribute to higher education's racism against black students. This kind of worthless, reactionary crap would never be tolerated if it were being purveyed to white students!"
-- Grover Furr, Montclair State University
Argumentum ad hominem - personal attacks which seek to evade the facts presented.
quote:
Originally posted by ABAZA:
Now, this part of the above posted article, really sums up the Attitude of many Afrocentrics and their followers.[This message has been edited by ABAZA (edited 30 March 2005).]
This is part of the reason why Black Africans do better in America than African Americans. However, all of this is due to the caste system in America. By the way, it is not just America but anywhere such a caste system exists. Go to India and see how the untouchables are working through centuries of oppression via government. Go to England and study Irish oppression. They remarks you have posted actually works well in many caste societies. I remember reading an article years ago about the complaint of Englishmen in regards to the strain on the economy due to Irish people.
Not sure what this has to do with Egypt or anthropology or trying to define the lineage and genetics of these people? Can you explain this or are you afraid that you would be too overtly bigoted in doing so?
quote:
Originally posted by Horemheb:
There are always people who feel more at home attacking to dominant power structure. It is a way of justifying their inablity to compete in the dominant culture. This is especially true in an era when Utopian philosophies are numerous. 'The Prince' and the tenents of social darwinism should be must reading for everyone. we have to understand that the strong and smart will always prevail under all possible circumstances. The weak will be subjecated and die under all possible circumstances. Even in our so called 'enlightened age' this continues to be the case, as it must be.
I admire your wisdom...seriously...I'm not joking...
Relaxx
quote:
There are always people who feel more at home attacking to dominant power structure.
There are always people who feel threatened by new ideas and who hide inside "the Matrix" and its "dominant power structure".
quote:
It is a way of justifying their inablity to compete in the dominant culture.
It is a way of justifying their inability to think for themselves or engage in factual discourse.
quote:
This is especially true in an era when Utopian philosophies are numerous.
quote:
'The Prince' and the tenents of social darwinism should be must reading for everyone.
quote:
we have to understand that the strong and smart will always prevail under all possible circumstances. The weak will be subjecated and die under all possible circumstances. Even in our so called 'enlightened age' this continues to be the case, as it must be.
The mentally strong are capable of addressing issues, directly, specifically, concisely and clearly.
The mentally weak engage in pointless meandering discourse, designed to deflect attention from and compensate for, their intellectual shortcomings.
Critics of such theories argue that by asserting that societies develop and therefore operate by "natural" laws, the real aim of "Social Darwinism" theories is to rationalize and thereby legitimize the unequal and disproportionate divisions between and within societies. Critics may make note that Darwin's own work never contained the logical and naturalistic fallacies of assuming that the existence of natural processes would mean that they could "naturally" be extended from biological systems to social systems. In essence, it justifies the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer by incorrectly applying Darwin's theory.
Mahciavellianism - being or acting in accordance with the principles of government analyzed in Machiavelli's The Prince, in which political expediency is placed above morality and the use of craft and deceit to maintain the authority and carry out the policies of a ruler is described.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 01 July 2005).]
quote:
spoken like a true Utopian rasol.
No, just someone who actually understands the meanings of the terms you toss about without comprehension.
quote:
The point is that if you put 10 people in a group and leave them there, one of them will take control.
The above is an excellent example - defines facism - A political philosophy marked by centralization of authority under a dictator,and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
As usual, you fail to address the THREAD TOPIC of pseudoscience, and attempt to destract attention with retarded rantings on facism, social darwinism, and Machiavellian. Did you even realise that the operative principal of Machiavellianism is -> lying? In effect, this is what you are trying to justify.
Nevermind, it's clear that this is actually the best you can do, so no point criticising the lack of an intelligible discourse which you clearly, are simply not capable of.
good day, professor.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 01 July 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by Horemheb:
spoken like a true Utopian rasol. The point is that if you put 10 people in a group and leave them there, one of them will take control. That individual is going to control a larger share of the groups power and resources than the others. Aristotle said it best when he defined man as motivated by "lust, rage and greed." Even racism is economic at its core. If you told white males that their personal wealth would be doubled by marrying a black woman they would all justify doing it. In other words, if you want to understand human beings....follow the money. that is the engine that makes social darwinism correct.
No, we humans are not animals, we are spiritual beings. We can transcend the fleshly desires and do things completely unpredictable. We are not govern by Darwin - we are the wildcards in the equation.
quote:
Originally posted by Horemheb:
There are always people who feel more at home attacking to dominant power structure. It is a way of justifying their inablity to compete in the dominant culture. This is especially true in an era when Utopian philosophies are numerous. 'The Prince' and the tenents of social darwinism should be must reading for everyone. we have to understand that the strong and smart will always prevail under all possible circumstances. The weak will be subjecated and die under all possible circumstances. Even in our so called 'enlightened age' this continues to be the case, as it must be.
You mean like Jews? I have heard you theories before and they sound a lot like a group of Germans in the 1930 that brought about the most savage and barbaric event in human history. So you like to call it social darwinism? Interesting, Jews have the highest IQ in the world, it seems we are the strongest, and yet, the world seems to hate us. Strongest is relative to fitness for a particular environment. Environments change!
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
evade the facts presented.
Yes, you're quite good at that:
quote:
- If Angel's "negroid nose and mouth traits" represent black racial admixture, then where are the other Negroid traits? Where's the Negroid hair type, skull shape, skeletal form, pigmentation etc.? Funny how these Nomadic Neolithic Niggas transmitted only two of their traits to the Levantines and Greeks. Funny also that in his more detailed analyses, Angel makes no mention of a Negroid racial strain in either Neolithic farmers or modern Greeks. Neither does Coon for that matter. Nor Brace. Any answers, Negroes?
- If Arnaiz-Villena's HLA-DRB1 study on Greek-Ethiopian affinities is anything more than junk science, then why has it been rejected by not one, not two, not three, but FOUR world-renowned geneticists? And why have its results never been duplicated by a single other genetic study -- even those conducted using the same HLA genes that Arnaiz-Villena analyzed? This is quite remarkable indeed, but I'm sure the Negroes have a very good explanation. We're all waiting to hear it.
- "Today, Afrocentrism is a racist, highly conservative, nationalist pseudo-science (by the latter term I mean: based upon phony scholarship and premises). It victimizes black students almost exclusively, since it is they who have this nonsense foisted off upon them as truth.
"The fact that it is tolerated and even promoted at various universities, including the one I teach at, is a tribute to higher education's racism against black students. This kind of worthless, reactionary crap would never be tolerated if it were being purveyed to white students!"
-- Grover Furr, Montclair State University
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
evade the facts presented.
quote:
EE writes: Yes, you're quite good at that
You're lousy at it.
Answers provided by Angel, Keita, McCown, Cforza, Ehret, Garrod and Furon:
quote:
Rasol posts: Negroid traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters (McCown, 1939) and in Anatolian and Macedonian first farmers....probably FROM NUBIA via the predessors of the Badarians - Larry Angel
quote:
Natufian - present Negroid characteristics attributable to C R O S S B R E E D I N G - (Garrod and Furon.)...
quote:
and which denote the biological intrusion from Black Africa in Ancient Greeks and Western Asians (Ehret, Keita)
quote:
The People of Lerna
J.L. Angel"Egypt includes an almost Mouillian-negroid early population, linear but with extraordinarily broad nose and heavy and deep mouth region, as well as the negroid small-faced and prognathous and broad-nosed trend in the gracile Badarians."
Thought Writes:
Angel goes on to state that these people migrated FROM Egypto-Nubia TO the Levant, Anatolia and Macedonia (Greece)
quote:
Europeans are a 1/3 African 2/3 Asian MIX. -C Sforza
Genes, peoples, and languages L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza
quote:
E3b and Benin HBS in Europe illustrate this point well. - Keita
If you feel you must continue crying about the above facts, then I suggest you cry to the scholars quoted above, and not to us.
Your tears just make us laugh.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 02 July 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
Answers provided by Angel, Keita, McCown, Cforza, Ehret, Garrod and Furon:
Misinterpretations and irrelevancies provided by rasol, the retarded ape -- but of course, still no answers:
quote:
- Angel's Neolithic Types:
"Although the first agricultural inhabitants of the belt from Syria-Israel-Jordan to North Africa were mainly rugged Mediterranean (A3 and some B, in varying preponderance) the eastern end of this belt (McGown, 1939; Vallois, 1936), shows some almost Bushmen-like Basic White (A4b) as well as lateral traits (E1 and C4 [Mixed Alpine and Alpine]) as at Jericho."
- Angel's Greek Types:
1. Basic White (Type A)
2. Classic Mediterranean (Type B)
3. Nordic-Iranian (Type D)
4. Dinaric-Mediterranean (Type F)
5. Mixed Alpine (Type E)
6. Alpine (Type C)
- On "negroid traits":
If Angel's "negroid nose and mouth traits" represent black racial admixture, then where are the other Negroid traits? Where's the Negroid hair type, skull shape, skeletal form, pigmentation etc.? Funny how these Nomadic Neolithic Niggas transmitted only two of their traits to the Levantines and Greeks. Funny also that in his more detailed analyses, Angel makes no mention of a Negroid racial strain in either Neolithic farmers or modern Greeks. Neither does Coon for that matter. Nor Brace. Any answers, Negroes?
- On Nubians:
"Starting from the Late Neolithic...similarities between the Nubians and the populations of Northeast Africa...and Asia...became even more distinct, which may prove the existence of strong ties derived probably from influx of the Caucasoids from the regions of Levant, Mesopotamia, and India. They were coming to Nubia through the Sinai Peninsula, but probably also through the south Saudi Arabia. The Kerma series from Upper Nubia shows particular similarities to the present-day Indian series.
"From the Neolithic on, or possibly even earlier, the strategic location of Nubia, promoting contacts between various populations, started to bring about effects in the form of the civilizational development of this region. Finally, these two factors led to the Hamitisation process, whereby superimposition of the Caucasoids on the Negroids took place."
- On HLA-DRB1 Fraud:
If Arnaiz-Villena's HLA-DRB1 study on Greek-Ethiopian affinities is anything more than junk science, then why has it been rejected by not one, not two, not three, but FOUR world-renowned geneticists? And why have its results never been duplicated by a single other genetic study -- even those conducted using the same HLA genes that Arnaiz-Villena analyzed? This is quite remarkable indeed, but I'm sure the Negroes have a very good explanation. We're all waiting to hear it.
- On HbS Uselessness:
"African admixture in Sicily has been long suspected because of the presence of the sickle gene. Nevertheless, the degree of African admixture cannot be derived from the study of HbS frequency, since this gene was most likely expanded by the selective pressure of malaria, for a long time endemic to the region. We have examined 142 individuals from the Sicilian town of Butera (12% sickle trait) to search for other markers of the globin gene cluster less likely to be selected for by malaria. The TaqI polymorphism in the intervening sequences between the two gamma genes is informative. We have found only two instances of this African marker (TaqI(-)) among 267 normal chromosomes, demonstrating that the admixture occurred at a much lower level than previously thought." (Ragusa et al. 1992)
- Anthropology:
[ Neolithic Greeks are #7 -- right next to the Neolithic Swiss at #10 ]
- Y-chromosomes:
- Autosomes:
quote:
E3b and Benin Hbs in southern europe illustrate this fact well. - SOY Keita.
quote:
About 8,000 years ago, a more advanced people, the Neolithic, migrated to Europe from the Middle East, bringing with them a new Y chromosome pattern [African E, West Asian J] and a new way of life: agriculture. About 20 percent of Europeans now have the Y chromosome pattern from this migration, he said - PA Underhill
quote:
Negroid traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters (McCown, 1939) and in Anatolian and Macedonian first farmers....probably FROM NUBIA via the predessors of the Badarians - Larry Angel
quote:
Natufian - present Negroid characteristics attributable to C R O S S B R E E D I N G - (Garrod and Furon.)...
quote:
and which denote the biological intrusion from Black Africa in Ancient Greeks and Western Asians (Ehret, Keita)
quote:
The People of Lerna
J.L. Angel"Egypt includes an almost Mouillian-negroid early population, linear but with extraordinarily broad nose and heavy and deep mouth region, as well as the negroid small-faced and prognathous and broad-nosed trend in the gracile Badarians."
Thought Writes:
Angel goes on to state that these people migrated FROM Egypto-Nubia TO the Levant, Anatolia and Macedonia (Greece)
quote:
Europeans are a 1/3 African 2/3 Asian MIX. -C Sforza
Genes, peoples, and languages L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 05 July 2005).]
quote:
Endless reposting of material which my data....
.....has no bearing on.
Some comedy from you though, 
@"your data" Fruedian slip, and your usual bitter racist ad hominems.
Meanwhile, here's real data from renowned scientists -
Dr's Keita and Sforza, Ehret, Angel, McCown, Garrod, Furon, Serjeant, Underhill,
...and if you want more, just ask.
quote:
Populations should be viewed processually as dynamic entities over time and not “static” entities. The presence of M35/215 lineages and the Benin sickle cell variant in southern Europe illustrates this well. - DR. SOY Keita.
quote:- Christopher Ehret
We have evidence of the intrusion of peoples from northeast Africa to southwest
Asia, ... markers FADE OUT as you go deeper into Eurasia
quote:
About 8,000 years ago, a more advanced people, the Neolithic, migrated to Europe from the Middle East, bringing with them a new Y chromosome pattern [African E, West Asian J] and a new way of life: agriculture. About 20 percent of Europeans now have the Y chromosome pattern from this migration, he said - PA Underhill
quote:
Negroid traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters (McCown, 1939) and in Anatolian and Macedonian first farmers....probably FROM NUBIA via the predessors of the Badarians - Larry Angel
quote:
Natufian - present Negroid characteristics attributable to C R O S S B R E E D I N G - (Garrod and Furon.)...
quote:
The People of Lerna
J.L. Angel"Egypt includes an almost Mouillian-negroid early population, linear but with extraordinarily broad nose and heavy and deep mouth region, as well as the negroid small-faced and prognathous and broad-nosed trend in the gracile Badarians."
Thought Writes:
Angel goes on to state that these people migrated FROM Egypto-Nubia TO the Levant, Anatolia and Macedonia (Greece)
quote:
Genetically Europeans appear to be the result of a 1/3 African 2/3 Asian MIX. -C Sforza
Genes, peoples, and languages L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 05 July 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
Some comedy from you though, @"your data" Fruedian slip
Uh, it means the data I collected and posted, you no-answer numbskull.
quote:
Meanwhile, here's real data from renowned scientists -
Thanks for the introduction . . .
quote:
- Angel's Neolithic Types:
"Although the first agricultural inhabitants of the belt from Syria-Israel-Jordan to North Africa were mainly rugged Mediterranean (A3 and some B, in varying preponderance) the eastern end of this belt (McGown, 1939; Vallois, 1936), shows some almost Bushmen-like Basic White (A4b) as well as lateral traits (E1 and C4 [Mixed Alpine and Alpine]) as at Jericho."
- Angel's Greek Types:
1. Basic White (Type A)
2. Classic Mediterranean (Type B)
3. Nordic-Iranian (Type D)
4. Dinaric-Mediterranean (Type F)
5. Mixed Alpine (Type E)
6. Alpine (Type C)- On "negroid traits":
If Angel's "negroid nose and mouth traits" represent black racial admixture, then where are the other Negroid traits? Where's the Negroid hair type, skull shape, skeletal form, pigmentation etc.? Funny how these Nomadic Neolithic Niggas transmitted only two of their traits to the Levantines and Greeks. Funny also that in his more detailed analyses, Angel makes no mention of a Negroid racial strain in either Neolithic farmers or modern Greeks. Neither does Coon for that matter. Nor Brace. Any answers, Negroes?
- On Nubians:
"Starting from the Late Neolithic...similarities between the Nubians and the populations of Northeast Africa...and Asia...became even more distinct, which may prove the existence of strong ties derived probably from influx of the Caucasoids from the regions of Levant, Mesopotamia, and India. They were coming to Nubia through the Sinai Peninsula, but probably also through the south Saudi Arabia. The Kerma series from Upper Nubia shows particular similarities to the present-day Indian series.
"From the Neolithic on, or possibly even earlier, the strategic location of Nubia, promoting contacts between various populations, started to bring about effects in the form of the civilizational development of this region. Finally, these two factors led to the Hamitisation process, whereby superimposition of the Caucasoids on the Negroids took place." (Aleksandra Pudlo, Anthropological Review, 1999)
- On HLA-DRB1 Fraud:
If Arnaiz-Villena's HLA-DRB1 study on Greek-Ethiopian affinities is anything more than junk science, then why has it been rejected by not one, not two, not three, but FOUR world-renowned geneticists? And why have its results never been duplicated by a single other genetic study -- even those conducted using the same HLA genes that Arnaiz-Villena analyzed? This is quite remarkable indeed, but I'm sure the Negroes have a very good explanation. We're all waiting to hear it.
- On HbS Uselessness:
"African admixture in Sicily has been long suspected because of the presence of the sickle gene. Nevertheless, the degree of African admixture cannot be derived from the study of HbS frequency, since this gene was most likely expanded by the selective pressure of malaria, for a long time endemic to the region. We have examined 142 individuals from the Sicilian town of Butera (12% sickle trait) to search for other markers of the globin gene cluster less likely to be selected for by malaria. The TaqI polymorphism in the intervening sequences between the two gamma genes is informative. We have found only two instances of this African marker (TaqI(-)) among 267 normal chromosomes, demonstrating that the admixture occurred at a much lower level than previously thought." (Ragusa et al. 1992)
- Anthropology:
[ Neolithic Greeks are #7 -- right next to the Neolithic Swiss at #10 ]- Y-chromosomes:
- Autosomes:
Nubians do not have "caucasoid" ancestry! Having a few cranial traits similar to "caucasoids" does not a "caucasoid" make! The term "caucasoid" is a vague and loose term anyway (one which you still have not defined )! Not only Nubians but Ethiopians and Somalis were classified a such and even Tutsis of Rawanda who are predominantly E3a, and even the Fulani of West Africa.
I suggest you try a new method instead of rehashing old dead and buried theories.
[This message has been edited by Djehuti (edited 05 July 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
all of that stuff you posted has been refuted long time ago
Really? Please post these "refutations". (Note: Afro-opinions and distorted data don't qualify as refutations.)
quote:
Nubians do not have "caucasoid" ancestry! Having a few cranial traits similar to "caucasoids" does not a "caucasoid" make!
I see. So Nubians showing "particular similarities" to Mesopotamians and Indians doesn't make them partly Caucasoid, but Levantines and Greeks having just two verified primitive traits that happen to be common among Negroes makes them partly Negroid?
quote:
So Nubians showing "particular similarities" to Mesopotamians and Indians doesn't make them partly Caucasoid,...
Since when were ancient or Bronze Age Indians "caucasoid"?!!
Many peoples in Northern India at that time were Dravidian peoples, and ironically they bear similarities with Africans including dark-skin! sorry Stupid-Euro 
quote:
Originally posted by Horemheb:
actually most of the population of India is caucasoid and has been since pre historic times. As you may know the indo european group north of the black sea split with one part migrating towards europe (including the Greeks) and the other going in a southeasterly direction towards India, Afghanistan , Iran etc. Part of this group moved into North africa as well including Egyptians and others across to the atlantic.
Outdated information. You might want to get caught up on the facts.
R1B clade never migrated down into Egypt until 1000 BC. The only argument in regards to Caucasian Encient Egyptians you can make is the one that EvilEuro is making and that is the idea that there was an ancient Caucasian people in East Afica unrelated to R1B clade which is your predominant European marker. This is the idea of E3b being a Caucasian gene. However, this is quite absurd to consider these East African people to be Caucasians since True Caucasians do not have E3b at all.
quote:
Originally posted by Evil Euro:
I see. So Nubians showing "particular similarities" to Mesopotamians and Indians doesn't make them partly Caucasoid, but Levantines and Greeks having just two verified primitive traits that happen to be common among Negroes makes them partly Negroid?
Depends on what time period we are doing the comparison. Since Indian people are a mixture of Caucasian and Australoid (like the Geat Andamans), depending on how far back you go you'll find that there's less Caucasian influence in the gene pool of India resulting in people who do have features more similar to Nubian people like the Great Andamans.
We have already discussed a lot about the first people of India.
These are you first Indian people:
So to say that Nubians have some affinity with the original people of India doesn't really work well for your argument. And again, yes I understand that the author may not have meant this but then you didn't clarify your time period of comparison groups. So it is easy to undermine your point. Please provide more clarity.
quote:
Originally posted by Horemheb:
actually most of the population of India is caucasoid and has been since pre historic times...
quote:
...As you may know the indo european group north of the black sea split with one part migrating towards europe (including the Greeks) and the other going in a southeasterly direction towards India, Afghanistan , Iran etc...
quote:
Part of this group moved into North africa as well including Egyptians and others across to the atlantic.
Woe! You really lost it there! Exactly what makes you think the ancient Egyptians were Indo-Europeans or have anything to do with such??!! Sounds like hilarious "March of the Titans" BS from Arthur Kemp!! quote:
Originally posted by osirion:
...R1B clade never migrated down into Egypt until 1000 BC. The only argument in regards to Caucasian Encient Egyptians you can make is the one that EvilEuro is making and that is the idea that there was an ancient Caucasian people in East Afica unrelated to R1B clade which is your predominant European marker. This is the idea of E3b being a Caucasian gene. However, this is quite absurd to consider these East African people to be Caucasians since True Caucasians do not have E3b at all.
Don't even bother with bringing up genetic studies to answer the crap Hore said. Hore only brought up ethnolinguistics, which were already inaccurate!
quote:
Depends on what time period we are doing the comparison. Since Indian people are a mixture of Caucasian and Australoid (like the Geat Andamans), depending on how far back you go you'll find that there's less Caucasian influence in the gene pool of India resulting in people who do have features more similar to Nubian people like the Great Andamans.
quote:
So to say that Nubians have some affinity with the original people of India doesn't really work well for your argument. And again, yes I understand that the author may not have meant this but then you didn't clarify your time period of comparison groups. So it is easy to undermine your point. Please provide more clarity.
[This message has been edited by Djehuti (edited 06 July 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by Horemheb:
actually most of the population of India is caucasoid and has been since pre historic times. As you may know the indo european group north of the black sea split with one part migrating towards europe (including the Greeks) and the other going in a southeasterly direction towards India, Afghanistan , Iran etc. Part of this group moved into North africa as well including Egyptians and others across to the atlantic.
Horemheb, it would be nice if you would provide some documented proof to back up what you are saying, but what you say is so racist and redicules that not to many sources would be available to back em up.
Next time you go to one of your dinner parties, make sure you show all the junk you be spitting here without providing your identty on it and see if the people there don't develop hernias laughing at what you say here.
quote:
Originally posted by Serpent Wizdom:
Horemheb, it would be nice if you would provide some documented proof to back up what you are saying, but what you say is so racist and redicules that not to many sources would be available to back em up.Next time you go to one of your dinner parties, make sure you show all the junk you be spitting here without providing your identty on it and see if the people there don't develop hernias laughing at what you say here.
Indeed, Hore really lost all of what little credit he had for actually claiming the Egyptians as a branch of Indo-Europeans!!!
The Egyptians were ethnolinguistically a branch of Afro-Afrasians. Their language and culture is closely related to the Cushitic peoples of the Horn like Ethiopians and Somalians, and Chadic peoples like the Hausa of Nigeria. Heck, even the Egyptians have more in common with "caucasoid" Semitic speakers of the Near-East than they do with Indo-Europeans!!
[This message has been edited by Djehuti (edited 06 July 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
Don't even bother with bringing up genetic studies to answer the crap Hore said. Hore only brought up ethnolinguistics, which were already inaccurate![QUOTE][b]Depends on what time period we are doing the comparison. Since Indian people are a mixture of Caucasian and Australoid (like the Geat Andamans), depending on how far back you go you'll find that there's less Caucasian influence in the gene pool of India resulting in people who do have features more similar to Nubian people like the Great Andamans.
quote:
So to say that Nubians have some affinity with the original people of India doesn't really work well for your argument. And again, yes I understand that the author may not have meant this but then you didn't clarify your time period of comparison groups. So it is easy to undermine your point. Please provide more clarity.
[This message has been edited by Djehuti (edited 06 July 2005).][/B][/QUOTE]
You know quite well I don't believe in Australoids, Pygmentoids or Europoids. I am only using his own words against him. The whole racial debate about Egyptians is broadly baseless. It all has to do with a term that has no scientific merit because we have no way of being objective about it: and that term is RACE.
Still, those that believe Blacks didn't have anything to do with Egypt have problems explaining the bust of Narmer or the latest in genetic evidence. Either way you want to define race the Egyptians seem to keep bobbing up a Black people. Push down the black apple in one area and another black apple bobs up to take its place.
Stupid Hor is still stuck on the Aryan model. Even foolhearted EvilEuro is not that stupid. At least EvilE is attacking the real connection rather than using baseless arguements that have been quite refuted for some significant time.
The arguement isn't even about Egyptians anymore, its goes much further down into Africa and becomes an arguement about the whole of East Africa. Egyptians are East Africans.
quote:
Originally posted by Evil Euro:
While it's true that East Indians are not fully Caucasoid, in the genetic and craniometric maps I posted above, they group close to Eurasians and far from Sub-Saharan Africans. And Aleksandra Pudlo clearly states that she's talking about "influx of the Caucasoids from the regions of Levant, Mesopotamia, and India".
Dumb-Euro, craniometric features are the most diverse feautures of human anatomy!!
What you fail to realize is that Nubians, Egyptians, and other East Africans like Ethiopians and Somalians do not fall outside the range of "Sub-Saharan" types and that there are peoples from other areas of Sub-Sahara including peoples in certain areas of Central Africa and in West Africa that have such features!!
Also, Eurasians are diverse in features as well. Exactly which Eurasian feautures are you referring to? There are "mongoloid" peoples that possess affinities that some might consider "negroid", and there are many Eurasians like Andamanese who totally resemble the "true negroids" of the Guinea regions of West Africa, as we have shown you several times already!! Thus, your whole notion of "Eurasian" features being different from "Sub-Saharan", "true-negroid" features is a LIE!!
You dirty, dishonest, dumb mut! 
[This message has been edited by Djehuti (edited 07 July 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by Evil Euro:
While it's true that East Indians are not fully Caucasoid, in the genetic and craniometric maps I posted above, they group close to Eurasians and far from Sub-Saharan Africans. And Aleksandra Pudlo clearly states that she's talking about "influx of the [b]Caucasoids from the regions of Levant, Mesopotamia, and India".[/B]
I really don't know what reference you are using and don't want to sound stupid by arguing against something I haven't read myself. However, if you would be kind enough to post the reference so that we can make sure you are not reading it in a bias way or that the reference itself isn't bias.
Also keep in mind:
I already know that Nubian people did become mixed over time due to an influx of Caucasians. What is debatable is when this occurred. So again you are wasting time unless you can show evidence with a time period that would actually inform us of something we don't already know.
Again, what time period are you referring to?
quote:
Originally posted by Evil Euro:
While it's true that East Indians are not fully Caucasoid, in the genetic and craniometric maps I posted above, they group close to Eurasians and far from Sub-Saharan Africans. And Aleksandra Pudlo clearly states that she's talking about "influx of the [b]Caucasoids from the regions of Levant, Mesopotamia, and India".[/B]
Sorry but you are going to have to clarify something. My understanding is that Ethiopia, Somalia and Kenya are in Sub-Saharan Africa. Using your maps there is a cluster of Black people that shows that Indian people are more or less in an intermediate position between Blacks and Europeans. This is what you would expect if the Great Andaman people were originally East African and mixed with your Caucasian Noth Indian people.
But then this debate is all about shifting definitions. What do you define as Sub-Saharan?
quote:
Originally posted by osirion:
However, if you would be kind enough to post the reference so that we can make sure you are not reading it in a bias way or that the reference itself isn't bias.
Population of Nubia up to the 16th Century BC
Aleksandra Pudlo
Anthropological Review, 1999
"Starting from the Late Neolithic...similarities between the Nubians and the populations of Northeast Africa...and Asia...became even more distinct, which may prove the existence of strong ties derived probably from influx of the Caucasoids from the regions of Levant, Mesopotamia, and India. They were coming to Nubia through the Sinai Peninsula, but probably also through the south Saudi Arabia. The Kerma series from Upper Nubia shows particular similarities to the present-day Indian series.
"From the Neolithic on, or possibly even earlier, the strategic location of Nubia, promoting contacts between various populations, started to bring about effects in the form of the civilizational development of this region. Finally, these two factors led to the Hamitisation process, whereby superimposition of the Caucasoids on the Negroids took place."
quote:
Using your maps there is a cluster of Black people that shows that Indian people are more or less in an intermediate position between Blacks and Europeans.
In this autosomal DNA map, East Indians (including dark-skinned Dravidians) cluster in-between European and Asian groups, reflecting their mixed genetic heritage. They're far away from any African group.
In this craniometric map, East Indians cluster closest to Caucasoids. Nubians are located in-between them and Sub-Saharan Africans, which accords perfectly with Pudlo's finding of Caucasoid-Negroid admixture in Nubia.
quote:
Originally posted by Evil Euro:
In this autosomal DNA map, East Indians (including dark-skinned Dravidians) cluster in-between European and Asian groups, reflecting their mixed genetic heritage. They're far away from any African group.
In this craniometric map, East Indians cluster closest to Caucasoids. Nubians are located in-between them and Sub-Saharan Africans, which accords perfectly with Pudlo's finding of Caucasoid-Negroid admixture in Nubia.
On the issue of Caucasian migration into Nubia.
Where is the actual physical evidence of this and what difference does it make? Already know that Hebrews were there and mixed with the local populations. Not enough though to change the genetic makeup of these people. Besides, I haven't seen R1B frequencies amongst the Nubians even of today to account for your supposed migrations.
As for your map. Again I ask you to clarify what is Sub-Saharan. I noticed that Somalia is showing as even closer to European types than modern day Nubians or Nubians of the ancient times. I consider Somalia part of Sub-Saharan Africa and as a result it completely undermines your argument. You will have to redefine what is Sub-Sahara Africa in order to try to make the point you are making. Also, doesn't the area of Sub-Saharan Africa include SANs which may skew the map since they are not Negroids? Keep in mind I don't believe in a Negroid race but am only trying to communicate in your language. Is the map basically saying the SAN people of the Sub-Sahara are significantly different from Indian people? The map is very vague on these definitions and probably is quite questionable on what groups it represents. I think I will completely dismiss it unless you can find better clarification. That and the idea of a mass migration of Caucasian people from the Caucasus that didn't leave any genetic evidence. But there's plenty of genetic evidence of Nubian people moving into Europe thanks to E3b.
quote:
Originally posted by osirion:
On the issue of Caucasian migration into Nubia. Where is the actual physical evidence of this and what difference does it make?
The evidence is series of crania from Nubia that are identical to crania from Mesopotamia and India. Read Pudlo and stop asking stupid questions.
quote:
Besides, I haven't seen R1B frequencies amongst the Nubians even of today to account for your supposed migrations.
What does R1b have to do with anything?
quote:
I noticed that Somalia is showing as even closer to European types than modern day Nubians or Nubians of the ancient times. I consider Somalia part of Sub-Saharan Africa and as a result it completely undermines your argument.
The intermediate status of Somalis between Africans and non-Africans has already been discussed ad nauseam. I suggest you start paying attention.
quote:
You will have to redefine what is Sub-Sahara Africa in order to try to make the point you are making.
The sample labeled "Sub-Saharan Africa" on the map is composed of Central, Western and Southern Africans (i.e. Negroids). Somalis and Nubians are distinct from those populations.
quote:
I think I will completely dismiss it
Well, that is the standard Afronut response to hard evidence that proves you wrong. So I'm hardly surprised.
quote:
That and the idea of a mass migration of Caucasian people from the Caucasus that didn't leave any genetic evidence.
Caucasians don't all come from the Caucasus, you retard.
quote:
But there's plenty of genetic evidence of Nubian people moving into Europe thanks to E3b.
E3b wasn't spread to Europe by Nubians. It was spread by Northern Levantines.
quote:
Stupid-Euro says: The evidence is series of crania from Nubia that are identical to crania from Mesopotamia and India. Read Pudlo and stop asking stupid questions.
quote:
The intermediate status of Somalis between Africans and non-Africans has already been discussed ad nauseam. I suggest you start paying attention.
quote:
The sample labeled "Sub-Saharan Africa" on the map is composed of Central, Western and Southern Africans (i.e. Negroids). Somalis and Nubians are distinct from those populations.
*sigh* what a dumb mut!
quote:
Originally posted by Evil Euro:
The evidence is series of crania from Nubia that are identical to crania from Mesopotamia and India.
The personal attacks against you are somewhat valid. You misrepresent facts quite a bit.
The evidence you sited was "affinities" not "identical". Irregardless, I already know that there were Hebrews that migrated into Nubian territories. The question is when? It wasn't until near the Hysok invasian that the Nubians developed a relationship with Asiatics.
Basically, putting aside a few questionable skulls of people that "Looked similar something" which doesn't PROVE anything, what about other physical evidence such as pottery or glass? Perhaps there would be proof of trade similar to what was in Lower Egypt?
quote:
Originally posted by Evil Euro:
What does R1b have to do with anything?
R1B is a true Caucasian marker that is found in 90% of all Europeans. It originated in the Caucasus amongst the IndoEuropean people. If you are White then you have R1B. If you find people that look like Caucasians but don't have R1B then you don't have a Caucasian. The problem is that people like yourself use the term Caucasian too losely.
quote:
Originally posted by Evil Euro:
The intermediate status of Somalis between Africans and non-Africans has already been discussed ad nauseam. I suggest you start paying attention.
And you call this map scientific? Let me get this straight. Somalians are in Sub-Saharan Africa but because they skew the cranium map and put the rest of Sub-Sahara Africa closer to the Middle-Eastern, they are reclassified outside of Sub-Sahara? That is ridiculous and completely evidences the lack of professionalism and racist bias of the people that are conducting this research. This is a complete outrage! If you use a regional classification system for comparions, such as Sub-Sarah Africa, you cannot pick an choose who to put into that region, you must take an appropriate cross the board sampling. Fools like you buy into this bias sampling data? That is flat out wrong and you know it. Basically what should happen is that the term Sub-Sarah is dropped and different parts of the area are specifically used.
quote:
Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Caucasians don't all come from the Caucasus, you retard.
TRUE CAUCASIANS are derived from IndoEuropean people that lived in the Caucasus region. You love to talk about the TRUE NEGRO but lets deal with another topic - TRUE CAUCCASIANS!!!! R1B!
Only one racial group has no indication of origin and that is Negroid.
quote:
Originally posted by Evil Euro:
E3b wasn't spread to Europe by Nubians. It was spread by Northern Levantines.
Good grief you like to try to twist things around.
Angel - Negro features probably from Nuba
Its actually somewhat debatable but mainstream geneticist have primarily agreed that E3b likely originate in East Africa (Kenya) and traveled up the Nile and made it into Greece.
All mainstream now and not just the Afro-Nuts saying this anymore.
;-)
Actually I was more like you when it came down to Greece until I started reading the National Geographic Genographic project. Then all that Afrocentric stuff just suddently became quite a bit more substatiated with EVIDENCE from a mainstream source that even you MUST ACCEPT!
[This message has been edited by osirion (edited 11 July 2005).]
[This message has been edited by osirion (edited 11 July 2005).]
Interesting caucasians, don't you think?
quote:
Evil:
Caucasians don't all come from the Caucasus, you retard.
If they don't come from the Caucasus, then why call them "Caucas-ians", you retard!
quote:
Originally posted by Evil Euro:
E3b wasn't spread to Europe by Nubians. It was spread by Northern Levantines.
And from where did these Levantines carry E3b to Europe?
You need to learn to crawl first, before you can attempt to walk. This is the level where you are with genetics!
[This message has been edited by Super car (edited 11 July 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by osirion:
R1B is a true Caucasian marker that is found in 90% of all Europeans. It originated in the Caucasus amongst the IndoEuropean people. If you are White then you have R1B. If you find people that look like Caucasians but don't have R1B then you don't have a Caucasian.
Do you realize that not a single sentence in that paragraph is factually accurate? And the rest of your reply has basically the same problem. That should give you some idea of what an ignorant fool you are.
quote:
Originally posted by Super car:
If they don't come from the Caucasus, then why call them "Caucas-ians", you retard!
"Caucasian" is a misnomer based on early anthropologists' belief that Whites originated in the Caucasus. Seriously, if you don't know that by now, then you have no business discussing race and anthropology.
quote:
And from where did these Levantines carry E3b to Europe?
Um, from the Levant.
quote:
Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Do you realize that not a single sentence in that paragraph is factually accurate? And the rest of your reply has basically the same problem. That should give you some idea of what an ignorant fool you are.
Now you know exactly how you sound to me with this stupid talk about Ancient Caucasian East Africans and E3b being a Caucasoid gene.
[This message has been edited by Djehuti (edited 12 July 2005).]
quote:
Evil:
"Caucasian" is a misnomer based on early anthropologists' belief that Whites originated in the Caucasus. Seriously, if you don't know that by now, then you have no business discussing race and anthropology.
You got the "misnomer" part right! In fact, it [caucasian] is intellectually bankrupt, with no place in modern anthropology, and so, using it to forward a scientific logic, is well...called pseudo-science. You must also be discussing "race" with yourself, for it has no place in anthropology or genetics.
One wonders why two separate words exist for what you are vainly trying to present as one and the same. Black whites; I must say, that is truly a funny one!
quote:
Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Um, from the Levant.
E3b just popped up in the Levant like a phantam from nowhere, right?
"Looney" Tunes world is doing a number on your head!
quote:
Originally posted by osirion:
Now you know exactly how you sound to me with this stupid talk about Ancient Caucasian East Africans and E3b being a Caucasoid gene.
[This message has been edited by relaxx (edited 12 July 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by osirion:
Now you know exactly how you sound to me with this stupid talk about Ancient Caucasian East Africans and E3b being a Caucasoid gene.
The fact that my logical explanations and scientific evidence sound that way to you only goes to confirm your total ignorance.
quote:
Originally posted by Super car:
..."race"...has no place in anthropology or genetics.
Really? Then why does the term "Caucasoid" appear in 26,938 studies at PubMed? And "Negroid" in 38,623 studies? And "Mongoloid" in 12,258?
quote:
E3b just popped up in the Levant like a phantam from nowhere, right?
No, it came from pre-historic Northeast Africa just like every other gene on earth. What silly questions you ask.
quote:
Originally posted by relaxx:
full of inferiority complex
"For [African scholar Valentin] Mudimbe, Afrocentrism is sheer transference of an inferiority complex among today's African Americans." (Source)
quote:
Stupid-Euro says: No, it came from pre-historic Northeast Africa just like every other gene on earth. What silly questions you ask.
Moron, E3b is not an Out-of-African haplotype, it is part of the PN2 transition and exited Africa relatively recently!
quote:
"For [African scholar Valentin] Mudimbe, Afrocentrism is sheer transference of an inferiority complex among today's African Americans."
And what do you call trying to claim the prehistoric inhabitants of East Africa as being "caucasian"??
quote:
Originally posted by Evil Euro:
In this autosomal DNA map, East Indians (including dark-skinned Dravidians) cluster in-between European and Asian groups, reflecting their mixed genetic heritage. They're far away from any African group...In this craniometric map, East Indians cluster closest to Caucasoids. Nubians are located in-between them and Sub-Saharan Africans, which accords perfectly with Pudlo's finding of Caucasoid-Negroid admixture in Nubia.
The populations of India are diverse, moron! The people of southern India alone descend from several populations and it's the same case with northern India.
[This message has been edited by Djehuti (edited 13 July 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by Evil Euro:
The fact that my logical explanations and scientific evidence sound that way to you only goes to confirm your total ignorance.
Yes I am ingorant of your foolish, outdated and moronic facts. I find it amusing at best to hear what garbage people use to think but have long since dropped as being scientific.
One has to lower himself down to your level to have a discussion. You use terms and facts that are "misnomers", "misreprestations", "unscientific"!
Lets just deal with one fact at a time.
FACT: R1B is a marker for Cromagnon. I
FACT: Western European people have this marker in a frequency of 70-90%.
FACT: Most people consider TRUE Caucasians to be Western European people. Most people recognize that South East Europeans and East Indian people are not TRUE Caucasians but mixtures.
FACT: R1B can be traced back to the Caucasus region. I would say that it is reasonable to call this a Caucasoid gene because it at least can be taced back to an area close to the Caucasus.
FACT: You use a term like Caucasian knowing that it is: "an unscientific application", "a misnomer" and "not genetically relevant".
FACT: I use the term to try to describe a group that historically migrated out of a certain area which can be shown via scientific methods.
FACT: You use it to describe facial features that doesn't show ancestry, doesn't show commonality genetically, doesn't show region of origin.
FACT: You seem to want to live in ignorance of the truth. If you are going to believe in a concept of race then you must drop the superficial subjective approach of comparing facial features and use genetics as a more objective approach. Consequently terms like Caucasian which are known misrepresentations and a complete misnomer should be dropped.
With all that said let deal with the issue that you threw a Red Herring at.
*Is Somalia in Sub-Saharan Africa?*
If so, the map you provided as evidence that Nubian are intermediates between Sub-Saharan Africa and East Indian people thus boasting the idea of admixture, is "unscientific and fraud" = PSEUDO SCIENCE!
At the same time. Terms like Caucasian, Negroid, Mongoloid, etc, are misnomers, misrepresentations and are unscientific. So how can we use this terms and be factual about anything we are saying!
Conclusion: The whole debate is about Pseudo scientific concepts that means it makes us all look foolish talking about it!
quote:
Evil agenda wrote:Really? Then why does the term "Caucasoid" appear in 26,938 studies at PubMed? And "Negroid" in 38,623 studies? And "Mongoloid" in 12,258?
I can assure you "jackass" will generate a lot of hits at PubMed and over the internet, but then, this makes it scientific, doesn't it? In any case, you should no longer have a problem or continue to stall in providing the up-to-date scientific meanings of those terms, that have long been rejected by the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, and indeed the entire scientific community, should you?
Ps-PubMed has a collection of various out-of-date and current articles published by various people, but do you have statement from PubMed itself, in that, PubMed attempts to provide up-to-date scientific definitions for non-scientific terms?
quote:
Originally posted by Evil agenda:
No, it came from pre-historic Northeast Africa just like every other gene on earth. What silly questions you ask.
Well, it was a follow up on your silly response to the question of where the Levantines got their E3b lineages from. When you can learn to correctly answer basic questions, then maybe, you'll be ready for more complex ones. But for now, let's stick to the extreme basics:
Do you by any chance, know what you mean by 'pre-historic" in your own claim?
Hate to bust your bubble, but J and R, for example, did not come from "pre-historic" Africa; however, we do know that this isn't the case for the sub-Saharan E3b, don't we?
[This message has been edited by Super car (edited 13 July 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
And one more thing...
The populations of India are diverse, moron! The people of southern India alone descend from several populations and it's the same case with northern India.
[This message has been edited by Djehuti (edited 13 July 2005).]
Djehuti,
This big nosed Greek Mixed up Neanderthal Monkey Moron can be found on his forum: http://dodona.proboards35.com/index.cgi.
He wrote almost the same remark:
Dienekes
Administrator
member is offline
Nothing in excess
Joined: Nov 2003
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,112
Karma: 3 Re: Modern Nilo-Saharans and prehistoric East Afri
« Reply #39 on Jul 8, 2005, 6:15am »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jul 8, 2005, 6:11am, MysterySolver wrote:
It is bankrupt term, with no basis.
If it has no scientific basis, then it is unscientific. If not so, then provide the scientific basis for these claims of yours!
---------------------------------------------------------------
If it had no scientific basis, then I wouldn't get 26908 hits when I search PubMed with it.
« Last Edit: Jul 8, 2005, 6:16am by Dienekes » Logged
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You just have to read all of his posts on Dodona there are no differences compare to what he writes on this forum. Actually Topdog is fighting him on his turf: Dodona. The irony is that he's the moderator on his forum... yes this guy is the big nosed Greek himself no wonder his Avatar on Dodona shows only half of his face..it's just to hide his ugliness....He's so full of inferiority complex that he has to create a forum just to feel good about himself, which shows how insecure he is...I don't really understand why you lower yourself to his level, what I would suggest you is to go there and fight him on his turf, because I don't really see how this discussion is useful...
Relaxx
quote:
Evil agenda wrote:Really? Then why does the term "Caucasoid" appear in 26,938 studies at PubMed? And "Negroid" in 38,623 studies? And "Mongoloid" in 12,258?
quote:
SuperCar writes: I can assure you "jackass" will generate a lot of hits at PubMed and over the internet, but then, this makes it scientific, doesn't it?
For a lark I searched pub med for - voodoo, faith-healing and witchcraft and got 100's of hits, I then searched for NAZI and got well over a thousand hits.
Who would have thought that PubMed is full of witchcraft practising NAZI's.
Pseudoscience relies on elementary logical fallacy.
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
Moron, E3b is not an Out-of-African haplotype, it is part of the PN2 transition and exited Africa relatively recently!
If it exited Africa in pre-history, then it's an OOA haplotype.
quote:
And what do you call trying to claim the prehistoric inhabitants of East Africa as being "caucasian"??
I call it closer to the truth than trying to claim them as being Negroid. And Howells agrees with me.
quote:
Originally posted by osirion:
Conclusion: The whole debate is about Pseudo scientific concepts that means it makes us all look foolish talking about it!
Conclusion: You're by far the dumbest poster at this forum. And believe me, that's saying a lot.
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
For a lark I searched pub med for - voodoo, faith-healing and witchcraft and got 100's of hits, I then searched for NAZI and got well over a thousand hits.Who would have thought that PubMed is full of witchcraft practising NAZI's.
Congratulations on finding a couple thousand items about "lectin from the tubers of Voodoo lily", "alleged lethal sorcery in East Timor", "clinical aspects of witchcraft delusions", "Nazi medical experiments", and "Holocaust survivors".
But see, what I found is 75,000+ studies dealing explicitly with the very real genetic and anthropological differences between Caucasoid, Negroid and Mongoloid races. Here are just a few examples from 2005:
- Polymorphism data at two STR loci in Chinese population.
- Craniofacial profile in Asian and white subjects with obstructive sleep apnoea.
- Attractiveness of own-race, other-race, and mixed-race faces.
- Risk of lung cancer among white and black relatives of individuals with early-onset lung cancer.
- Do white British children and adolescents get enough sunlight?
- Distribution of mtDNA haplogroups in a population sample from Poland.
- Allele frequency distribution of STR loci D5S2845 in four populations.
- Multiplex PCR development of Y-chromosomal biallelic polymorphisms for forensic application.
- Human races and pharmacogenomics of effective bone treatments.
- Ethnic differences in upper lip response to incisor retraction.
- Perception of personal dental appearance in Nigerian adolescents.
quote:
Pseudoscience relies on elementary logical fallacy.
I agree. So why do you keep doing that?
quote:
Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Conclusion: You're by far the dumbest poster at this forum. And believe me, that's saying a lot.
You are resorting to personal attacks already? Man that is so weak! But I do agree, most of these posters are way more knowledgeable about this stuff than me. Hell, don't need to know much to figure out that you are just spewing out a bunch of crap!
Again, is Somalia in Sub-Saharan Africa?
If yes then why doesn't your map include it in that region? But don't bother I already know! By including that data in the Sub-Saharan region it would undermine the prejudicial argument of the person doing the research.
Even a dumb Jew like me can see that. But then I don't take this stuff very seriously. Ultimately it doesn't change the current reality of our society.
quote:
Originally posted by Evil Euro:
If it exited Africa in pre-history, then it's an OOA haplotype.
quote:
I call it closer to the truth than trying to claim them as being Negroid. And Howells agrees with me.
[This message has been edited by Djehuti (edited 14 July 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by osirion:
You are resorting to personal attacks already? Man that is so weak! But I do agree, most of these posters are way more knowledgeable about this stuff than me. Hell, don't need to know much to figure out that you are just spewing out a bunch of crap!
Again, is Somalia in Sub-Saharan Africa?If yes then why doesn't your map include it in that region? But don't bother I already know! By including that data in the Sub-Saharan region it would undermine the prejudicial argument of the person doing the research.
Even a dumb Jew like me can see that. But then I don't take this stuff very seriously. Ultimately it doesn't change the current reality of our society.
Osirion, that's what Stupid-Euro does, resort to personal attacks. Because he is an intellectually bankrupt and frustrated LOSER!!!
quote:
Erroneous latest obtuse reply: But see, what I found is 75,000+ studies dealing explicitly with the very real genetic and anthropological differences between Caucasoid, Negroid and Mongoloid races.....
Prehistoric human crania from Bromhead's Site, Willey's Kopje, Makalia Burial Site, Nakuru, and other localities in the Eastern Rift Valley of Kenya are reassessed using measurements and a multivariate statistical approach. Materials available for comparison include series of Bushman and Hottentot crania. South and East African Negroes, and Egyptians. Up to 34 cranial measurements taken on these series are utilized to construct three multiple discriminant frameworks, each of which can assign modern individuals to a correct group with considerable accuracy. When the prehistoric crania are classified with the help of these discriminants, results indicate that several of the skulls are best grouped with modern Negroes. This is especially clear in the case of individuals from Bromhead's Site, Willey's Kopje, and Nakuru, and the evidence hardly suggests post-Pleistocene domination of the Rift and surrounding territory by "Mediterranean" Caucasoids, as has been claimed. Recent linguistic and archaeological findings are also reviewed, and these seem to support application of the term Nilotic Negro to the early Rift populations.
Sound familiar? It should. It is the negation of your entire ideology.
A search list is not a substitute for a coherent argument, Erroneous.
Your fallacious "appeal to authority" search-list consists of that which specifically refutes your fantasies, and still more which relates - no point in contention.
That you insist on pretense [is there ever anything to your arguments other than patently false pretenses? in 8 months we haven't seen any substance from you] - likens you precisely to Neo-Nazi's who claim that mere search-engine reference to "Nazi" equates somehow to growing ideological support for Nazism, and moreover presumably among sane folk.
Your continued reliance on elementary logical fallacies results partly from your mindless parroting of Dienekes. You should consider some other approach if you ever wish to be taken seriously.
Now, I could go on ripping your every banal utterance to shreds for everyone's continued amusement, but frankly, your obtuseness is boring.
Your ridiculous rantings aren't even worth the little effort it takes to debunk them anymore.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 14 July 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
.....such as:
Prehistoric human crania from Bromhead's Site, Willey's Kopje, Makalia Burial Site, Nakuru, and other localities in the Eastern Rift Valley of Kenya are reassessed using measurements and a multivariate statistical approach. Materials available for comparison include series of Bushman and Hottentot crania. South and East African Negroes, and Egyptians. Up to 34 cranial measurements taken on these series are utilized to construct three multiple discriminant frameworks, each of which can assign modern individuals to a correct group with considerable accuracy. When the prehistoric crania are classified with the help of these discriminants, results indicate that several of the skulls are best grouped with modern Negroes. This is especially clear in the case of individuals from Bromhead's Site, Willey's Kopje, and Nakuru, and the evidence hardly suggests post-Pleistocene domination of the Rift and surrounding territory by "Mediterranean" Caucasoids, as has been claimed. [b]Recent linguistic and archaeological findings are also reviewed, and these seem to support application of the term Nilotic Negro to the early Rift populations.Sound familiar? It should.
A search list is not a substitute for a coherent argument.You continue to commit elementary logical fallacies at every turn, which results partly from your mindless parroting of Dienekes.
Now, I could continue to rip your every banal utterance to shreds, for everyone's continued amusement, but frankly, you've become boring.
You aren't even worth the little effort it takes to debunk anymore.
Cheers to that. Indeed, it would be interesting to see evil agenda name a self-respecting 'mainstream' living and breathing geneticist or bio-anthropologist, who has provided an 'up-to-date' definition of human "races", that has been accepted in modern taxonomy or bioanthropology, a field which has officially rejected such a concept.
[This message has been edited by Super car (edited 14 July 2005).]
You aren't even worth the little effort it takes to debunk anymore.
=============================
Sound judgment, anyone who feels an overwhelming need to reply when he posts stupid comments, is free to do so...but ask yourselves: why is there only one guy from the Mediterranean area who is acting like that and creates a forum to play out his crazy fantasies? The answer is inferiority complex...Some people from Southern Europe (especially in North America where Anglo Saxons constitute the bulk of the social elite) feel a little bit alienated. I'm pretty sure that kind of guys heard some bad jokes about them from Grammar school to University and that makes them suffer...try to understand his psyche before replying blindly every time he posts something...
Relaxx
quote:
Originally posted by osirion:
Again, is Somalia in Sub-Saharan Africa? If yes then why doesn't your map include it in that region?
Because it's not a geographical map, jackass. It's a craniometric map, and Somalis are racially distinct from sub-Saharan Africans, having certain Eurasian affinities.
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
E3b exited relatively recently you moron! It is derived from the PN2 transition that also gave rise to E3a!
Yeah, so? European R exited Asia relatively recently and is derived from M45 which also gave rise to Native American Q. But that doesn't make R a "Red Indian" marker.
quote:
Negroid means black African which prehistoric Africans certainly were, you nitwit!
Please provide a source which describes pre-historic East Africans as "Negroid". And don't parrot rasol's 1975 Rightmire study, because Howells refuted that with an analysis based on almost twice as many cranial measurements.
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
likens you precisely to Neo-Nazi's who claim that mere search-engine reference to "Nazi" equates somehow to growing ideological support for Nazism, and moreover presumably among sane folk.
No, stupid negro, and I already showed you why with your ridiculous voodoo/witchcraft/Nazi examples. Furthermore, a standard search engine contains anything and everything, whereas PubMed's results are limited to valid scientific research. That's why you won't find any "neo-Nazi" material there, but you will find plenty of studies on human races and racial differences.
quote:
relax wrote:
=============================
Sound judgment, anyone who feels an overwhelming need to reply when Evil Euro posts stupid comments, is free to do so...but ask yourselves: why is there only one guy from the Mediterranean area who is acting like that and creates a forum to play out his crazy fantasies? The answer is inferiority complex....try to understand his psyche before replying blindly every time he posts something...
Relaxx
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 15 July 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Because it's not a geographical map, jackass. It's a craniometric map, and Somalis are racially distinct from sub-Saharan Africans, having certain Eurasian affinities.
The map contains geographical information. The term Sub-Saharan is not being used correctly and as a result the map is fraudulent, misrepresentative, containing misnomers: Pseudo Science.
This thread is about discussing such things. Can you not see the issue or is your brain so full of this crap that you no longer can reason normally?
Again: I have no idea which Sub-Saharan Africans are being included in the map and as a consequence I have no idea if the results of the research are accurate. It would be more useful to see tribe comparisons such as Bantu -vs- Oromo. Maybe Central East Africans compared to West Africans. As it is, that map is useless since the researcher(s) can't even stick with basic known geographic information to provide an explaination of the data set being utilized.
Map's evidence is Dismissed.
I would like to see an unadulterated, unbias, and completely objective reference from you. You keep spamming us we researchers who seem to have an agenda. The problem is that they may have something useful to provide in terms of insight but the clarity is completely shot down due to clear muddling with the data sets being used. Simply can't trust any of it.
At the same time I am interested in research that would suggest that the original man was not Negroid but rather an intermediate between all known races of people. This fits with my understanding of the convergence of man to a single race of people that would have internally had the coding of all the other races: the environment simply activated the appropriate genes to produce what we currently see.
I do not believe in probabilistic Evolution but rather a deterministic system (intelligent design).
quote:
Originally posted by osirion:
I have no idea which Sub-Saharan Africans are being included in the map and as a consequence I have no idea if the results of the research are accurate.
"Sub-Saharan Africa" denotes a combined sample from West Africa (Dogon), Congo region (Dahomey), and southern East Africa (Zanzibar, Daya of Tanzania). If plotted separately, these would form a cluster of points centered around the sub-Saharan Africa point.
Now you know.
quote:
At the same time I am interested in research that would suggest that the original man was not Negroid but rather an intermediate between all known races of people.
That's basically what Howells' analysis determined. Try to pay closer attention.
quote:
Originally posted by Evil Euro:
That's basically what Howells' analysis determined. Try to pay closer attention.
If you weren't spamming us with nonesense about Ancient Caucasoid East Africans and jail buddy pictures, people might have a bit more reception of your points.
I thought Howell's analysis was admixture not an original intermediate but then I guess I haven't been paying attention.
However, the term intermediate is questionable. It suggests that one advances from A to C via B (intermediate). When in actuality what I expect is that there's an original A that contains both B and C. B and C simply become dominant in environments that are more favorable to them (gene triggers).
Essentially that the original Adam was East African derived and essentially had affinities with all known races. This would quite acceptable to me.
quote:
If it exited Africa in pre-history, then it's an OOA haplotype.
E3b exited Africa via the Levant at the end of the Paleolithic era, aroun 14.7 thousand years ago, thats hardly OOA and don't distort the maning of OOA.
quote:
Originally posted by Evil Euro:
I call it closer to the truth than trying to claim them as being Negroid. And Howells agrees with me.
It isn't closer to the truth by any stretch of your imagination. Based on the available samples Howell's has there is no surpise, but since his samples have huge wholes in them[Groves et tal, personal communication.]Howell's onclusions are anything but poof that East Africans are 'caucasians'.
quote:
Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Please provide a source which describes pre-historic East Africans as "Negroid". And don't parrot rasol's 1975 Rightmire study, because Howells refuted that with an analysis based on almost twice as many cranial measurements.
Don't parrot Dienekes, the only difference between Howells study and Rightmire's was the samples used, not the amount of measurements. Its not the amount you take anyways, its the particular measurements that are taken that matter.
quote:
Originally posted by Evil Euro:
That's basically what Howells' analysis determined. Try to pay closer attention.
Thats not what he said you idiot, those remains are at the latest date back to 7000 B.C. hardly the timeframe for original man, at Omo dates back to almost 200,000 years ago and was not primitive but fully modern.
quote:
"Sub-Saharan Africa" denotes a combined sample from West Africa (Dogon), Congo region (Dahomey), and southern East Africa (Zanzibar, Daya of Tanzania). If plotted separately, these would form a cluster of points centered around the sub-Saharan Africa point."
Furthermore, Dahomey isn't in the Congo area.
[This message has been edited by Topdog (edited 17 July 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by Topdog:
Based on the available samples Howell's has there is no surpise, but since his samples have huge wholes in them[Groves et tal, personal communication.]Howell's onclusions are anything but poof that East Africans are 'caucasians'.
Brace's data helps us fill in those holes:
A = Generalized Ancient East Africans
B = Negroid Modern East Africans
C = Hybrid "Elongated" East Africans
quote:
the only difference between Howells study and Rightmire's was the samples used, not the amount of measurements.
Rightmire used "up to 34 cranial measurements". Howells used 57.
quote:
those remains are at the latest date back to 7000 B.C.
If East Africans were still non-Negroid as late as 7000 B.C., then they sure as hell weren't Negroid earlier than that.
quote:
Originally posted by Evil Euro:
If East Africans were still non-Negroid as late as 7000 B.C., then they sure as hell weren't Negroid earlier than that.
Sounds like a broken record I don't know if you're Dienekes or not. At any rate.
"As noted, the interindividual African variability is perhaps greater when the degree and range of variation is considered compared with that of the Europeans. The Nile Valley and Horn groups show the greatest overlap with the other regions. This could mean that the northeast quadrant African patterns are more generalized (or that others are more specialized), and/or are more recent hybrids, or simply more variable, but none of these ideas can be definitively supported by this phenetic analysis. The overall results are generally consistent with findings of high African diversity, which in the main can now be considered to be primarily of indigenous African biohistorical origin, without denying some immigration with gene flow from various areas, especially southwest Asia."
Which agrees with this stated by Hiernaux 30 years ago:
Hamites were divided into eastern and northern taxa, with the Egyptians, Nubians, and Somali (and certain other eastern Africans) being placed in the eastern
group. Amazigh (Berbers) (and others, e.g., Fulbe) were classified into the northern wing. In essence, the peopling of northern and parts of eastern Africa in the post-glacial period was interpreted as being primarily the product of settler colonists who came from outside of Africa and penetrated down to East Africa at some time in the past—but apparently after the advent of horticulture in Seligman’s view. The biological aspects of this theory were largely based on assumptions about the genesis of facial morphology and ideas about what constituted a ‘‘real African,’’ but as Hiernaux (1975) states, there had long been peoples with narrow noses and faces, and less prognathism in East Africa, and migration from Eurasia was unnecessary to explain their presence. Hiernaux calls this morphological trend ‘‘Elongated African’’ and postulates that it is the indigenous product of selection in a hot dry climate. (The stereotyped ‘‘African’’ trend can likewise be called ‘‘Broad African.’’)
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HUMAN BIOLOGY 16:679–689 (2004)
quote:
Orision writes: Essentially that the original Adam was East African derived and essentially had affinities with all known races. This would quite acceptable to me.
The earliest fossils recognized morphologically as modern (Omo 1, Masks River Mouth, Border Cave in Africa, and Qafzeh series in Israel). are all associated with Middle Palaeolithic or Middle Stone Age industries (Mode 3) (Allsworth-Jones 1993; Bar-Yasef 1993). The case of Skhul and Qafzeh, and their apparent association with local Levallois-Mousterian artefacts is perhaps the most cited example of a mismatch between technology and biology (Foley 1987). All the caves for the period 120-50 Kyr in Israel show a Mousterian technology, and it is only after this date that the Upper Palacolithic makes its appearance (Bar-Yosef 1992; Marks 1990).
Nor does the picture get any clearer when we move on to the Cro-Magnons, the presumed ancestors of modern Europeans. Some were more like present-day Australians or Africans, judged by objective anatomical observations... -
African Exodus
Christopher Stringer and Robin McKie
1996
Old theories that 'caucasoids' once lived in East Africa have been proven wrong - -Jo Vogel, Precolonial Africa.
The findings suggest the {Andaman} are descended from the "oldest population of the world and were among the first batch of modern humans to migrate from Africa," said professor Lalji Singh, director of the center. -
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/afp/20050516/indianeve.html
The oldest expansion in Eurasia occurred 65,000 ± 23,000 years ago and is witnessed by mitochondrial descendants preserved in Papua New Guinea; the Papuan node is derived from a Eurasian founder, we tentatively propose the following scenario to account for the obvious phenotypic differences between Papuans and 'Asians' despite their sharing a common mitochondrial ancestry:
The M and N founders derive from a single African migration*[note: echoes Tishkoff] but split at an early stage (possibly before reaching Europe, which lacks M).
Meanwhile, proto-Eurasians spent 20 or more millennia genetically drifting to their present distinct phenotypes.
- Peter Forster, Antonio Torroni, Colin Renfrew and Arne Röhl
Molecular data suggest that the early modern human population began to divide between 150,000 to 115,000 years ago. This fissioning would have taken place in Africa.
Modern human fossils dated to about 90,000 years ago are found outside of Africa, but the next genetic fissioning is believed to have occured after this, perhaps about 70,000 years ago(Bowcock et tal. 1991). Modern human remains in Asia, including Australia, are dated after this period, and in Europe, to around 35,000 years ago. Why are these data important?
Because they indicate that the background genetic variation of Europeans, Oceanians, and Asians originated in Africa and precedes in time the presence of modern humans in these areas.
Europeans and Asian-Australians did develop more unique genetic profiles over time, but had a common background before their average "uniqueness" emerged. This background is African in a bio-historical sense. Therefore, it should not be surprising that some Africans share similarities with non-Africans.
- The Diversity of Indigenous Africans
S.O.Y. Keita
Department of Biological Anthropology
Oxford University
quote:
Originally posted by Thought:
Black Athena Revisted
Edited by Lefkowitz and Rogers
1996Clines and Clusters versus Race
Brace et al."An EARLIER generation of anthropologists TRIED to explain face form in the Horn of Africa as the result of admixture from hypothetical 'wandering Caucasoids', but that explaination FOUNDERS on the paradox of why that supposedly potent 'Caucasoid' people contributed a dominant quantity of genes for nose and face form but none for skin color and limb proportions. It makes far BETTER SENSE to regard the adaptively significant features seen in the Horn of Africa as soely an IN SITU response on the part of separate adaptive traits to the selective forces present in the hot, dry tropics of eastern Africa. From the observation that 12,000 years was NOT a long enough interval to produce ANY noticeable variation in pigment by latitude in the New World and that 50,000 years has been barely long enough to produce the beginnings of a gradation in Australia, one would have to argue that the inhabitants of the Upper Nile and East African Horn of Africa have been EQUATORIAL for many TENS of THOUSANDS of years."
Thought Writes:
Hence the science is clear:
A) The E3a and E3b are bloodline/genetic siblings. East and West Africans share in a common bloodline (E3/PN2) and have common shared derived traits such as melanin levels and limb elongation.
B) E3b spread FROM BLACK/TROPICAL Horn of Africa TO Southern Europe with the Mesolithic migrations of Advanced African Foragers and Hunters.
C) The original people of the Horn of Africa were TROPICAL/BLACK Africans for TENS of THOUSANDS of years.
D) Few if any of the genes found in modern Horn of Africa populations spread to this region since the LGM. Hence the modern Black Horn of Africa populations look much like their ancestors that spread E3b to Eurasia less than 14,000 years ago.
E) Modern Greeks are hybrid, part European, part Middle Eastern and part Black African as the M35 lineage and the Benin Haplotype Sickle Cell Variant demonstrates.
F) Modern Greeks cannot trace the a predominate portion of their gene pool to any of the LGM European Glacial Refuges. Unlike the REAL European populations that came out of the Balkan and Ukraine Refuges, the Greeks carry the DEFINING European haplogroup Hg I at low frequencies like the Lebanese.
G) All of this OVERWHELMING evidence supports the contentions of J.L. Angel who claimed that 'Negroid' or more appropriately EQUATORIAL AFRICAN traits spread TO the Natufians and Early Anatolian and Macedonian first farmers via NUBIA!
Quote:
Originally posted by Evil Euro:
...because it's imprecise and enables you to encompass all sorts of non-Negroid and part-Caucasoid groups into your pan-African "race".
Thought Writes:Once again, the term 'Negroid' is a racial construct. 'Race' is now considered psuedo-science by mainstream anthropology. In addition, the term 'Negroid' can be utilized in an arbitrary manner by psuedo-scientists. These same psuedo-scientists would contrive to make everyone from Tony Blair to V.J. Singh "Caucasoid' to support the MYTH of White Supremacy. Black African or simply indigenous African captures the range, variation and underlying unity that is found in Africa.
Quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
That most natively "rain forest" peoples of Africa, the diminuative types - do not generally have the darkest skin tones. They are typically dark brown, reddish brown and yellowish brown. The darkest skintones are often found in areas that are equatorial in terms of UV and also sunny...not cloud covered forest.
Thought Writes:That is a great point. You beat me to the punch on that one. The Biaka people have melanin levels similar to some Berber and San people. The stereotype of the "True Negro" or "Negroid" is a perfect example of psuedo-science at its WORST. Genetics has put the psuedo-scientific racists into a tail-spin. They will soon find themselves in a position of either acknowledging the tropical African roots of the Greeks or disassociating themselves from Greece alltogether to save their 'pristine' culture. Of course if they give up on Greece all they have left is the Druids.
LOL!
Thought Posts:Al-Zahery et al.
2003"...the J clade without mutation M172....haplogroups R-M269 (R1b1) and I-M170 (Hg I), very frequent in Europe, are the MAIN DETERMINANTS OF the first principle component which clearly SEPARATES the European populations from others."
Semino et al.
2000Population Haplogroup Frequency
Greek R-M269 27%
Dutch R-M269 70%
Greek I-M170 7%
Dutch I-M170 22.2%
Thought Writes:The hybrid Greeks are borderline Europeans.
Thought Writes:The Greek people in general carry Sub-Saharan Y-Clades in a frequency approaching ~25% of their gene pool.
Thought Posts:Biomed Pharmacother. 2005 May 9; [Epub ahead of print] Related Articles, Links
Haplotype XV of the Y-chromosome is the main haplotype in West-Europe.
Dieterlen F, Lucotte G.
Institute of Molecular Anthropology, Paris, France.
We have analyzed Y-chromosome variation in a large sample of males from Western Europe by surveying p49a,f TaqI polymorphisms. Haplotype XV (A3, Cl, D2, Fl, Il) is the main Y-chromosome haplotype in West Europe, with a Basque focus in Southwestern Europe. This study demonstrates that the geographic distribution of Y-chromosome variation for p49a,f TaqI haplotype XV reveals an important genetic identity for populations that live in the Occidental part of Europe.
Thought Posts:Semino et al.
2000Population Haplotype Frequency
Dutch Haplotype XV (R1b1) 70.4%
Italian Haplotype XV (R1b1) 62%
French Haplotype XV (R1b1) 52.2%
German Haplotype XV (R1b1) 50%
Greek Haplotype XV (R1b1) 27%
Syrian Haplotype XV (R1b1) 15%
Thought Posts:"Concerning the East Mediterranean, haplotype frequencies fall from Albania (14.7%) and Ex-Yugoslavia (10%) to value 3.8% in Greece and 2.6% in Central Turkey."
"Haplotype XV is the MAIN Y haplotype in West Europe."
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 17 July 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by osirion:
I think EvilE has given up on the idea of an Ancient East African Caucasoid. It is logical that the East Africans were perhaps inbetween all the races that currently exist.
quote:
Actually, I think it is racist to think that East African people were Negroid originally. That suggests that as we become more primitive we begin to look like the modern day Black person. I don't see how that is not racist.
quote:
A racial convergence to a single-race that is essentially a composite of all known racial types is more logical and practical from a deterministic model of evolution point of view.
quote:
Thought Writes:Who is ‘US’? Are you claiming that Greeks are genetically European again? If so please tell us which LGM Refuge the Greeks came out of?
Well, Evil never did actually have an answer for that last question from Thought, concerning which LGM refuge the Greeks supposedly came from, among many other unanswered questions. I suppose he ran out of supply from the Dienekes' pseudo-scientific board.
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by [b]osirionThought and Rasol pointed, Africans show the greatest genetic genetic and relatively great phenotypic diversity, and much of the diversity that Out-Of-Africans have came from their African ancestors!
Relaxx
[This message has been edited by relaxx (edited 17 July 2005).]
[This message has been edited by relaxx (edited 17 July 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by osirion:I think EvilE has given up on the idea of an Ancient East African Caucasoid.
Erroneous is a miserable chronic liar, and will die that way. As such he stops asserting lies only as long as Thought, TopDog and "others" hold his tush to the fire. Frankly, the longer you and he argue, the more he is obviously able to regress and bait you into his lying arguments. That's why I reposted the earlier FACTS which otherwise end up conveniently forgotten as these threads - digress rather than progress.
quote:
It is logical that the East Africans were perhaps inbetween all the races that currently exist.
No it's not, reread Dejuhti's post above - the central fallacy is attempting to classify huge human populations into racial archtypes to begin with.
Archtypes which are arbitrailly defined and which humans in fact have never fit into, do not fit into today, and never will fit into.
quote:
A racial convergence to a single-race that is essentially a composite of all known racial types is more logical and practical from a deterministic model of evolution point of view.
Deterministic models of race are by definition racist.
The race concept is complicated but entails three attributes: essentialism, cladistic thinking, and biological determinism. These attributes have not all been discarded; while biological determinism and its social implications have been questioned since the inception of the field, essentialism and the concomitant rendering of populations as clades persists as a legacy of the race concept - From Types to Populations: A Century of Race, Physical Anthropology, and the American Anthropological Association, Rachel Caspari
The deterministic model of race is known as polygenesis:
The polygenic aspects of Coon's theory were racist and widely recognized to be wrong (Dobzhansky 1963, 1968; Hulse 1963; Montagu 1963; Oschinsky 1963; Washburn 1963 [based on the presidential address at the AAA])
Why this idea makes no sense is explained here:
As late as the 1960s, the respected American physical anthropologist Carleton Coon published a massive, long awaited study, The Origin of the Races (1962), which was taken seriously by a wide public, despite its racist assumptions and nonsensical biology. Coon has proposed that each of the "five races"(by his classification) had evolved separately in Asia, Europe, America, Australia, and Central and Southern Africa. He thought a "pre-sapient" population of hominids(near-men) had first spread over the world; then, each group "crossed the threshold of humanity" separately at different times.
He vastly overemphasized group differences, which he confused with cultural behaviors, and imagined some kind of inevitability for "pre-human" populations to evolve into Homo sapiens wherever they might be. Can one similarly imagine "pre-moose" hoofed animals dispersing throughout the world, then each local population evolving to "cross the threshold of mooseness" at different times?*
Amazingly, such was the state of anthropological science in the United States in 1963, that the book was seriously debated instead of being dismissed as pseudoscience. - Richard Milner, The Encyclopedia of Evolution: Humanity's search for its Origins, 1990, p.381-382]
* for mooseness, substitute caucaZoid-ness, and you will understand the fallacy of caucaZoid anthropology.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 17 July 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by osirion:
I think EvilE has given up on the idea of an Ancient East African Caucasoid. It is logical that the East Africans were perhaps inbetween all the races that currently exist.
I never held that they were Caucasoid in the sense that modern Europeans and Middle Easterners are Caucasoid. However, when OOA ancestry makes a group like Somalis both genetically and craniometrically close to Eurasian populations, as Tishkoff and Brace have demonstrated, then we have to wonder just how "in-between" these ancient East African migrants really were. The argument that they were more like some sort of "proto-Caucasoid" begins to gain strong support.
quote:
Originally posted by Super car:
Well, Evil never did actually have an answer for that last question from Thought, concerning which LGM refuge the Greeks supposedly came from
The answer, you little monkey, is that being genetically European doesn't require coming out of an LGM refuge. Greeks are genetically European because they group with other Europeans. Period.
Y-chromosomes:
Autosomes:
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
miserable chronic liar
Speaking of which . . .
quote:
Question:Are Greeks "racially mixed" because of their E3b Y-chromosomes as you've claimed many times, or are Y-chromosomes unconnected to race and morphology as you claimed with the Lemba?
Or, we can try it this way:
Do you accept Underhill's statement that "There are no known genes on the Y that dictate bone morphology", or do you continue to maintain that so-called "negroid traits" in Levantines and Greeks are the result of their E3b Y-chromosomes?
Coming up on five weeks now and still no answer.
What's taking so long?
quote:
Originally posted by Evil Euro:
[B] I never held that they were Caucasoid in the sense that modern Europeans and Middle Easterners are Caucasoid.
Liar, remember Coon's prehistoric East African Caucasoids?
quote:
However, when OOA ancestry makes a group like Somalis both genetically and craniometrically close to Eurasian populations
Tischkoff never stated that, she said Northeast Africans are intermediate between African and non-African populations. Stop foolishly taking people's words out of context. Keita's 2004 paper on northeast Africans dispels the myth that Somalis are intermediate craniometrically as in mixed race.
quote:
Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Coming up on five weeks now and still no answer.
quote:
What's taking so long?
quote:
Are Greeks "racially mixed" because of their E3b Y-chromosomes
Answer # 3:
quote:
posted by rasol 19 June 2005 12:28 PM: Races have no meaning biologically, certainly not genetically. - Geneticist Dr. Spencer Wells.
quote:
or are Y-chromosomes unconnected to race and morphology as you claimed with the Lemba?
Answer # 4:
quote:
posted 29 March 2005 04:25 PM: All those genes that have been put into the Lemba gene pool have had virtually no effect on their morphology.The genetic changes that produce the morphological change might be fairly small. You can get a very small genetic change that can have a big effect on the organism's morphology or conversely you can have a lot of genetic changes that have no effect on the organism's morphology -Biologist Christopher Wills [PH.d], University of California
quote:
Erroneous writes: Or, we can try it this way:
Answer # 5:
Try it anyway you like. Rephrasing the question won't change the answer, or excuse your obtuseness and immaturity. Your problem is childishness and foolishness, the solution is for you to grow up. Try that.
quote:
Do you accept Underhill's statement that "There are no known genes on the Y that dictate bone morphology",
Answer # 6:
Inasmuch as Togdog and I informed you of this fact, and Underhill and Wells and Wills are sources who verify it - of course we accept the truth of what we have said.
The question is - are you simply too stupid, frightened and dishonest to admit it?
The answer is - YES YOU ARE. That's Answer # 7.
quote:
Or do you continue to maintain....
....the facts regarding the heterogeneous origins of the neolithic Greeks and Levantines are EXACTLY as stated by Underhill, Ehret, Angel, Furon,Garrod, Keita, McCown, Semino, Bar Yossef and others, presented here several times, and unrefuted.
All of the answers provided above are from renowned scholars in physical anthropology, history, genetics, lingusitics and archeology. You nonresponsive replies to them are brain-dead and utterly worthless.
Now, the scholars have answered all your questions yet again.
If you don't like their answers.
If they make you want to cry or...hang yourself, or whatever....too bad.
Write them yourself and do your crying to them.
But please do not write me any further.
Your stupidity and fear no longer entertains and is boring.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 18 July 2005).]
It seems amnesia is a common illness with these trolls and AMR is not the only one who has it!!
We have provided the dumb mut with all the answers yet he seems to have forgotten them and is repeating the same garbage again!!
For example, his reference to Somalis:
quote:
I never held that they were Caucasoid in the sense that modern Europeans and Middle Easterners are Caucasoid...
quote:
However, when OOA ancestry makes a group like Somalis both genetically and craniometrically close to Eurasian populations, as Tishkoff and Brace have demonstrated, then we have to wonder just how "in-between" these ancient East African migrants really were. The argument that they were more like some sort of "proto-Caucasoid" begins to gain strong support.
By your insane reasoning, perhaps this Tibetan,
or this Tutsi who carries E3A...
are also 'intermediate' with "caucasoids"! Perhaps they are part caucasoid??
And since when did OOA have anything to do with "caucasoid" features anyway?!!!
These are pure OOA, even more pristine than Europeans, yet they look more like West Africans!!!
You stupid little dog, just give up and admit you're wrong or is a canine like you just too stubborn to admit that??!!
[This message has been edited by Djehuti (edited 18 July 2005).]
Mark my words; it never fails!
quote:
Originally posted by Evil Euro:
I never held that they were Caucasoid in the sense that modern Europeans and Middle Easterners are Caucasoid. However, when OOA ancestry makes a group like Somalis both genetically and craniometrically close to Eurasian populations, as Tishkoff and Brace have demonstrated, then we have to wonder just how "in-between" these ancient East African migrants really were. The argument that they were more like some sort of "proto-Caucasoid" begins to gain strong support.
These East Africans were proto-ALL Races.
They were no more proto-Caucasoid than they were proto-Negroid. This has already been explained to you: the diversity in East Africa is significant and the phenotypes that are available in all non-Africans are seen in East Africans.
However, I need a bit more clarification from you. Do you believe in Coon's theory that the current racial types evolved from pre-Human stages in isolation from each other? Or do you believe that the current racial types converge on a single type? I am concerned that some on this forum may think I am siding with a somewhat racist concept. Let me make it clear. My believe is that all racial types converge on a single type somewhere in East Africa. This type would have affinities with all the other types.
Deterministic evolution is the idea that we are designed to adapt to environments in predictable ways rather than by random mutation. It follows the idea that man started in one region and fanned out and became more diverse due to diversity of environments. It also assumes that all known races evolved from this single Adam and Eve race (NOT PREHUMANS). If we say that convergence of man to a primitive form resulted in man being Negroid then we must conclude that Negroid types are primitive. I think this is racist. It is keeping with logical deterministic models to assume that Negroid people have continued to evolve into their types from pre-historic times becoming more specialized to their environment. Therefore if we rolled back time this specialization would be reduced back to the original form that would have had the original diversification coding.
Coon's theory of pre-human evolution to human form in separate environments is probabilistic. What I believe is that the original human contained the coding for all existing races of man and by simply moving to a specific location triggered the dominance of one type of code over another. Consequently it would follow that the original human was an apparent intermediate in features and in other ways.
But then this has little bearing on Egypt. Migration through Ethiopia and Sudan would have produced a tropically adapted type compared to a migration through the Caucasus region. All quite predictable.
quote:
Originally posted by osirion:
These East Africans were proto-ALL Races.They were no more proto-Caucasoid than they were proto-Negroid. This has already been explained to you: the diversity in East Africa is significant and the phenotypes that are available in all non-Africans are seen in East Africans.
However, I need a bit more clarification from you. Do you believe in Coon's theory that the current racial types evolved from pre-Human stages in isolation from each other? Or do you believe that the current racial types converge on a single type? I am concerned that some on this forum may think I am siding with a somewhat racist concept. Let me make it clear. My believe is that all racial types converge on a single type somewhere in East Africa. This type would have affinities with all the other types.
Deterministic evolution is the idea that we are designed to adapt to environments in predictable ways rather than by random mutation. It follows the idea that man started in one region and fanned out and became more diverse due to diversity of environments. It also assumes that all known races evolved from this single Adam and Eve race (NOT PREHUMANS). If we say that convergence of man to a primitive form resulted in man being Negroid then we must conclude that Negroid types are primitive. I think this is racist. It is keeping with logical deterministic models to assume that Negroid people have continued to evolve into their types from pre-historic times becoming more specialized to their environment. Therefore if we rolled back time this specialization would be reduced back to the original form that would have had the original diversification coding.
Coon's theory of pre-human evolution to human form in separate environments is probabilistic. What I believe is that the original human contained the coding for all existing races of man and by simply moving to a specific location triggered the dominance of one type of code over another. Consequently it would follow that the original human was an apparent intermediate in features and in other ways.
But then this has little bearing on Egypt. Migration through Ethiopia and Sudan would have produced a tropically adapted type compared to a migration through the Caucasus region. All quite predictable.
quote:
Originally posted by Keins:
Good post!
However, I always hear people talking aobut east africans and west african as it this distinction really mean something. MOST AFRICANS ARE A COMBINATION OF ALL PHENOTYPES ("MONGALOID","CAUCASOID", AND "NEGROID"! However, the combination of all of these 3 pure african features still come out to equal what we call "Negro" anyway and hence these people who display this intermediate phenotype are ignored and the focus is on the "true negro", "almost mongoloid" or "almost caucasoid". Terms like Negroid, mongoloid and caucasoid means NOTHING to africans. They are the genetic ocean and all others are just a random drop of that water.
The sad thing is that many scientists, posters on Egyptsearch or Dodona have a very vague idea about what Africans look like.They never went there. It's so obvious for someone who has lived and seen different Africans whether in West Africa, East Africa, Southern Africa, Central Africa. Modern Africans constitute the Ocean of all phenotypes, whether you call them "Mongoloid" phenotypes, "Caucasoid" phenotypes, "Negroid" phenotypes, they are all derived from Africans...Africans are less mixed than Eurasians and Eastern Asians...it is proved genitically and phenotipically...it's laughable to read Eurasian are "Caucasian" when in fact they have mixed phenotypes,many so called "Caucasians" could pass easily for Bantu (who are the most mixed phenotipically of all Africans) if painted in Black..."Caucasian", "Mongoloid" and "Negroid" concepts are big jokes...they are all African phenotypes...
Relaxx
quote:
Originally posted by Evil Euro:
The answer, you little monkey, is that being genetically European doesn't require coming out of an LGM refuge. Greeks are genetically European because they group with other Europeans. Period.
You little hybrid donkey, this doesn't correspond to an answer to the specific question asked. Period.
quote:
Originally posted by relaxx:
The sad thing is that many scientists, posters on Egyptsearch or Dodona have a very vague idea about what Africans look like.They never went there. It's so obvious for someone who has lived and seen different Africans whether in West Africa, East Africa, Southern Africa, Central Africa. Modern Africans constitute the Ocean of all phenotypes, whether you call them "Mongoloid" phenotypes, "Caucasoid" phenotypes, "Negroid" phenotypes, they are all derived from Africans...Africans are less mixed than Eurasians and Eastern Asians...it is proved genitically and phenotipically...it's laughable to read Eurasian are "Caucasian" when in fact they have mixed phenotypes,many so called "Caucasians" could pass easily for Bantu (who are the most mixed phenotipically of all Africans) if painted in Black..."Caucasian", "Mongoloid" and "Negroid" concepts are big jokes...they are all African phenotypes...
Relaxx
Agreed! I used to think the same way about Africans until I did more research and looked at all the pictures of peoples from all over "sub-Sahara" as well as North Africa.
There is one book I've read recently called Faces of Africa, written by Angela Fisher and Carol Beckwith. They are two renowned photographers who work for National Geographic and whose specialty is Africa. They've written several other books also, but all of them show beautiful photos of the peoples of Africa. It definitely shows the diversity of features of black Africans.
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
Agreed! I used to think the same way about Africans until I did more research and looked at all the pictures of peoples from all over "sub-Sahara" as well as North Africa.There is one book I've read recently called Faces of Africa, written by Angela Fisher and Carol Beckwith. They are two renowned photographers who work for National Geographic and whose specialty is Africa. They've written several other books also, but all of them show beautiful photos of the peoples of Africa. It definitely shows the diversity of features of black Africans.
quote:
Originally posted by relaxx:
...By the way that's a good reference for people who still have a vague idea about what Africans look like.
Relaxx
Which of course, our little "borderline" Europeans, like Evil, could definitely use.
quote:
Originally posted by Super car:
Which of course, our little "borderline" Europeans, like Evil, could definitely use.
That would be an upgrade over his mail order bride pictures of Africans.
quote:
Originally posted by Topdog:
That would be an upgrade over his mail order bride pictures of Africans.
Lol.
quote:
Originally posted by relaxx:
Thanks Djehuti, I will try to find it...By the way that's a good reference for people who still have a vague idea about what Africans look like.
Relaxx
I've checked it out from the library months ago, but I strongly recommend the book. Beckworth and Fisher are excellent photographers. The photographs are of such high quality, stunningly beautiful and very lively! I plan on getting the book soon and scanning some pictures when I get my scanner.
[This message has been edited by Djehuti (edited 18 July 2005).]
[This message has been edited by Topdog (edited 18 July 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Coming up on five weeks now and still no answer.
Answer # 1:
Actually 8 months of your being too stupid to understand the answers provided by the current peer reviewed scholarship.quote:What's taking so long?
Answer # 2:
That fact that you are stupid, and repeat questions via - retardation response, while ignoring the answer - because you don't like the answer, and also because you cannot refute the answer. In essence, you are silly, and a child - however long it takes for you to grow up.quote:Are Greeks "racially mixed" because of their E3b Y-chromosomes
Answer # 3:
quote
osted by rasol 19 June 2005 12:28 PM: Races have no meaning biologically, certainly not genetically. - Geneticist Dr. Spencer Wells.
quote
r are Y-chromosomes unconnected to race and morphology as you claimed with the Lemba?
Answer # 4:
quote
The genetic changes that produce the morphological change might be fairly small. You can get a very small genetic change that can have a big effect on the organism's morphology or conversely you can have a lot of genetic changes that have no effect on the organism's morphology -Biologist Christopher Wills [PH.d], University of California
quote:Erroneous writes: Or, we can try it this way:
Answer # 5:
Try it anyway you like. Rephrasing the question won't change the answer, or excuse your obtuseness and immaturity. Your problem is childishness and foolishness, the solution is for you to grow up. Try that.quote
Answer # 6:
Inasmuch as Togdog and I informed you of this fact, and Underhill and Wells and Wills are sources who verify it - of course we accept the truth of what we have said.The question is - are you simply too stupid, frightened and dishonest to admit it?
The answer is - YES YOU ARE. That's Answer # 7.
quote:Or do you continue to maintain....
....the facts regarding the heterogeneous origins of the neolithic Greeks and Levantines are EXACTLY as stated by Underhill, Ehret, Angel, Furon,Garrod, Keita, McCown, Semino, Bar Yossef and others, presented here several times, and unrefuted.
All of the answers provided above are from renowned scholars in physical anthropology, history, genetics, lingusitics and archeology. You nonresponsive replies to them are brain-dead and utterly worthless.
Now, the scholars have answered all your questions yet again.
If you don't like their answers.
If they make you want to cry or...hang yourself, or whatever....too bad.
Write them yourself and do your crying to them.
But please do not write me any further.
Your stupidity and fear no longer entertains and is boring.
Rasol wins the award for the longest non-answer ever. I nodded off three times while reading it.
For this tremendous achievement, he gets the coveted Horse's Ass trophy:
quote:
Originally posted by osirion:
These East Africans were proto-ALL Races. They were no more proto-Caucasoid than they were proto-Negroid.
That's incorrect. They had far greater non-Negroid than Negroid affinities, as Howells demonstrated.
quote:
Originally posted by Super car:
You little hybrid donkey, this doesn't correspond to an answer to the specific question asked. Period.
Well, when you ask an irrelevant question, you can't expect to get a straight answer. I proved that Greeks are genetically European, thus rendering your "LGM refuge" straw man null and void.
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
I'm betting a grand, that dumbass-Euro will disregard all these unrefuted facts and start spewing his stupidity all over again!!!Mark my words; it never fails!
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 19 July 2005).]
quote:
Just because they have a few craniofacial traits in common with Europeans like nasal index and long narrow faces, does not mean any kind of relation to "caucasoids"!! These cranio-facial traits you call "caucasoid" are not even so because populations around the world possess such features.By your insane reasoning, perhaps this Tibetan,
or this Tutsi who carries E3A...
are also 'intermediate' with "caucasoids"! Perhaps they are part caucasoid??
And since when did OOA have anything to do with "caucasoid" features anyway?!!!
These are pure OOA, even more pristine than Europeans, yet they look more like West Africans!!!
You stupid little dog, just give up and admit you're wrong or is a canine like you just too stubborn to admit that??!!
Dumbass-Euro, what part of this did you not comprehend?
quote:
Originally posted by Evil Euro:
That's incorrect. They had far greater non-Negroid than Negroid affinities, as Howells demonstrated.
You are thinking Black and White and cannot see the gray. This is not a question of intermediate between Negroid and Caucasian, but rather an intermediate or containing the coding of all racial groups. If a group of people are so diverse as proposed, they will have the coding for all racial types and thus have affinities with all RACIAL TYPES. Negroid is only one of many types. So yes, on an average they would have less affinity with Negroid than with non-Negroid (Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Australoid). But then you actually have to believe that those terms are useful which I DO NOT!
quote:
Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Well, when you ask an irrelevant question, you can't expect to get a straight answer. I proved that Greeks are genetically European, thus rendering your "LGM refuge" straw man null and void.
Evil agenda, evading a question is not considered by any means an answer.Surely, even a challenged one like you, knows better than that, don't you? You won't answer the question because of its relevancy, and it has been shown here time and again...that the substantial portion of Greek gene pool have sub-Saharan and Asian origin. Recall:
quote:
"Previous studies revealed that Hg I reached frequencies of ~ 40% - 50% in two distinct regions - in Nordic populations of Scandinavia and, in southern Europe..."
"Its virtual absence elsewhere, including the Near East, suggest that it arose in Europe, likely **BEFORE** the Last Glacial Maximum..."Frequency of Hg I:
Sardinia 42.3%
Swedish 40.5%
Danish 38.7%
Croatian 38.1%
German 37.5%
Macedonian 30%
Normandy 23.8%
Romania 22.2%
Ukranian 21.9%
English 18.4%
Polish 17.8%
Greeks 13.8%Thought Writes:
Sardianians are southern Europeans, yet they carry the **HIGHEST** frequency of Hg I. Greeks are southern Europeans and carry one of the **LOWEST** frequencies of Hg I. This suggests two **SEPARATE** origins for Sardinians and Greeks. Sardinians represent the **INDIGENOUS**, pre-LGM southern European type. Greeks represent a merger/hybrid type between indigenous southern European and in-migrating Middle Eastern and Black African elements.
Try hard not to stress over facts, and have a good day.
quote:
Osirion writes: If a group of people are so diverse as proposed, they will have the coding for all racial types and thus have affinities with all RACIAL TYPES
I understand what you are trying to say, and your good intent. But genes are not coded for 'racial type'. As with your fling with -"Keyanoids", you have an unfortuntate tendancy to go off on tangents while making stuff up.
Instead root your arguments in peer review scholarship - which of course, you must familiarise yourself with, prior.
Also please review the 1st page of this thread and the topic of Pseudoscience.
I'm trying not to be overly critical, but if you're not careful, you will end up making almost as little sense as Erroneous, which takes some doing.
quote:
"Previous studies revealed that Hg I reached frequencies of ~ 40% - 50% in two distinct regions - in Nordic populations of Scandinavia and, in southern Europe..."
"Its virtual absence elsewhere, including the Near East, suggest that it arose in Europe, likely **BEFORE** the Last Glacial Maximum..."Frequency of Hg I:
Sardinia 42.3%
Swedish 40.5%
Danish 38.7%
Croatian 38.1%
German 37.5%
Macedonian 30%
Normandy 23.8%
Romania 22.2%
Ukranian 21.9%
English 18.4%
Polish 17.8%
Greeks 13.8%Thought Writes:
Sardianians are southern Europeans, yet they carry the **HIGHEST** frequency of Hg I. Greeks are southern Europeans and carry one of the **LOWEST** frequencies of Hg I. This suggests two **SEPARATE** origins for Sardinians and Greeks. Sardinians represent the **INDIGENOUS**, pre-LGM southern European type. Greeks represent a merger/hybrid type between indigenous southern European and in-migrating Middle Eastern and Black African elements.
quote:
SuperCar writes:
Try hard not to stress over facts, and have a good day.
This is correct, and geneticist PA Underhill makes no qualms about the fact that indigenous Europeans share a common lineage from LGM refugees, and that in the Neolithic a 'new population' entered Europe carrying genetic signatures from Africa and West Asia.
About 24,000 years ago, the last ice age began, with mountain-sized glaciers moving across most of Europe. The Paleolithic Europeans retreated before the ice, finding refuge for hundreds of generations in three areas: what is now Spain, the Balkans and the Ukraine.
When the glaciers melted, about 16,000 years ago, the Paleolithic tribes resettled the rest of Europe. Y chromosome mutations occurred among people in each of the ice age refuges [R1b+I].
Research shows a pattern that developed in Spain is now most common in northwest Europe, while the Ukraine pattern is mostly in Eastern Europe and the Balkan pattern is most common in Central Europe.
About 8,000 years ago, a more advanced people, the Neolithic [agriculture], migrated to Europe, bringing with them a new Y chromosome pattern [E3b+J] and a new way of life: agriculture. About 20 percent of Europeans now have the Y chromosome pattern from this migration
Greeks at present carry Y chromsome of 24% African E3b; 23% West Asian J, and the remainder Native European haplotypes including R1b and I.
Thus Christopher Ehret notes regarding the origins of the Neolithic in Europe: We have genetic evidence of population intrusion from NorthEast Africa to SouthWest Asia.....There are several areas of the world were agriculture was independently developed - none in Europe, by the way.
Underhill further notes:
Archaeological digs in European caves clearly show that before 8,000 years ago, most humans lived by gathering and hunting. After that, there are traces of grains and other agricultural products.
Y chromosome studies are also consistent with genetic studies showing a broader picture of human migration.
In general, studies show that modern humans first arose in Africa about 100,000 years ago and thousands of years later began a long series of migrations, he said. Some groups migrated eastward and humans are known to have existed in Australia about 60,000 years ago. Other groups crossed the land bridge into the Middle East. Humans appeared in Central Asia about 50,000 years ago.
From there, the theory goes, some migrated west, arriving in Europe about 40,000 years ago.
These are the indigenous Europeans - ancient Greeks were a combination of these Europeans, plus West Asians and East Africans, - this is the concensus view of geneticists, and skeletal anthropologists, archeologists and linguists.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 19 July 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
I understand what you are trying to say, and your good intent. But genes are not coded for 'racial type'. As with your fling with -"Keyanoids", you have an unfortuntate tendancy to go off on tangents while making stuff up.Instead root your arguments in peer review scholarship - which of course, you must familiarise yourself with, prior.
Also please review the 1st page of this thread and the topic of Pseudoscience.
I'm trying not to be overly critical, but if you're not careful, you will end up making almost as little sense as Erroneous, which takes some doing.
And I still say Kenyanoid makes more sense than Negroid! Why are all the other racial types encoded with a region or origin?
I do agree that genes do not encode racial types since we don't really know how to define such a thing. However, either you believe that things happen simply by random or you believe we have internal programming that produces what we see. In the discussion of evolution there are plenty of theories but very few facts or laws. We are really not sure what produces the diversity we see. Again, a deterministic approach to evolution is that there are discrete laws that govern the results - an internal programming.
Example: Pgymies are an example of this. There seems to be a natural genetic change that occurs due to lack of food that results in dwarfism. If you are a probablistic evolutionist then you will say that all the non-dwarfs died off. If you are a deterministic evolutionist, you will say that there was a gene triggered due to an environment change. Both theories have their issues.
All I can say is that we have yet to understand how deterministic biology works but there's ample evidence that it must exist. Unfortunately because we cannot see the evidence of determinism most scientist fall back to probablistic theories. Like with Quantum dynamics, since we cannot really see quarks we use statistic to observe them. This is what probabalistic theorist do with evolution. We cannot observe evolution so we use guesswork. Just because we cannot observe quarks it doesn't mean their propery is truly random: we just can't really see them. The same is true with evolution. We cannot see the mechanism that triggers genes doesn't mean that they are not there.
Can't use peer review research since they are almost wholly into probalistic evolution.
[This message has been edited by osirion (edited 19 July 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
About 24,000 years ago, the last ice age began, with mountain-sized glaciers moving across most of Europe. The Paleolithic Europeans retreated before the ice, finding refuge for hundreds of generations in three areas: what is now Spain, the Balkans and the Ukraine.When the glaciers melted, about 16,000 years ago, the Paleolithic tribes resettled the rest of Europe. Y chromosome mutations occurred among people in each of the ice age refuges [R1b+I].
[B]
Relaxx
quote:
Originally posted by osirion:
You are thinking Black and White and cannot see the gray. This is not a question of intermediate between Negroid and Caucasian, but rather an intermediate or containing the coding of all racial groups. If a group of people are so diverse as proposed, they will have the coding for all racial types and thus have affinities with all RACIAL TYPES. Negroid is only one of many types. So yes, on an average they would have less affinity with Negroid than with non-Negroid (Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Australoid). But then you actually have to believe that those terms are useful which I DO NOT!
The problem Osirion is that racial terms like "Caucasoid" and "Negroid" are based on superficial features.
For example, this African is "caucasoid" by his features.
And by their features, these Asians are "negroid".
Also, as Supercar says, all of these features are phenotypical and have nothing to do with genetic markers like E3 or such but by an entirely different set of independent genes that vary in all human populations! Which is why you cannot directly link phenotype to lineage.
[This message has been edited by Djehuti (edited 19 July 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
The problem Osirion is that racial terms like "Caucasoid" and "Negroid" are based on superficial features.For example, this African is "caucasoid" by his features.
And by their features, these Asians are "negroid".
Also, as Supercar says, all of these features are phenotypical and have nothing to do with genetic markers like E3 or such but by an entirely different set of independent genes that vary in all human populations! Which is why you cannot directly link phenotype to lineage.
[This message has been edited by Djehuti (edited 19 July 2005).]
Anyway if someone looks at the Y chromosome genes for the so called "Caucasian" phenotypes then what about the other half of the population who are female?
Relaxx
[This message has been edited by relaxx (edited 19 July 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by osirion:
You are thinking Black and White and cannot see the gray. This is not a question of intermediate between Negroid and Caucasian, but rather an intermediate or containing the coding of all racial groups. If a group of people are so diverse as proposed, they will have the coding for all racial types and thus have affinities with all RACIAL TYPES. Negroid is only one of many types. So yes, on an average they would have less affinity with Negroid than with non-Negroid (Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Australoid). But then you actually have to believe that those terms are useful which I DO NOT!
osirion - I agree with what you say. My question is why, then, do many people protest or disagree with the way ancient Egyptians are portrayed by Egyptologists. When I see the representations of ancient Egyptians, I don't see a Caucasian. I see a north African. Why do some people insist that Egyptians had more "African" features when, as you said, Africans are very diverse phenotypically. Sure, some may have had more "black" features than others, but why insist that all ancient Egyptians looked a certain way (like the protesters of the King Tut exhibit in L.A.)?
quote:
And I still say Kenyanoid makes more sense than Negroid!
Pseudoscientists invent their own vocabulary in which many terms lack
precise or unambiguous definitions, and some have no definition at all.
quote:
Can't use peer review research since they are almost wholly into probalistic evolution.
Pseudoscience is indifferent to criteria of valid evidence. Genuine scientific literature is either ignored or misinterpreted.
quote:
Why are all the other racial types encoded with a region or origin?
The fallacy of the terms is partly related to lack of actual association between the terms in question and geography, the more fundamental fallacy is the ENTIRE CONCEPT of 'typalogical races'. By making up a phony race typology, you are repeating the fallacy, not correcting it, as you imagine.
If you can't see the folly of countering Erroneous fake anthroplogy by making up your own, then go for it. But your ideas betray complete lack of knowledge of biology and evolution. I only intervened on your behalf, but one can't help fools.
Continue to demonstrate pseudoscience by example......
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 19 July 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by true_egyptian1:
osirion - I agree with what you say. My question is why, then, do many people protest or disagree with the way ancient Egyptians are portrayed by Egyptologists. When I see the representations of ancient Egyptians, I don't see a Caucasian. I see a north African. Why do some people insist that Egyptians had more "African" features when, as you said, Africans are very diverse phenotypically. Sure, some may have had more "black" features than others, but why insist that all ancient Egyptians looked a certain way (like the protesters of the King Tut exhibit in L.A.)?
I'm afraid you're mistaken True. The reason why the people at the Tut exhibit were protesting is because Tut was classified not just as a North African, but as a North African "Caucasian"!! He was classified so mainly because of his narrow shaped nose, which so many black Africans have, yet all of his other features that are "typically negroid" were ignored!!
Such is the problem of certain scientists, is their inaccurate inconsistencies.
[This message has been edited by Djehuti (edited 19 July 2005).]
quote:
Rasol,
Is it possible to have some clarifications about what Europeans looked like before mixing with Neolithic farmers...what anthropology tells us about Paleolithic Europeans...do you have any reference?Relaxx
The caves of Erg-el-Ahmar produced 132 individuals for Miss Garrod. All these Natufians share the same physical type, completely different from that of earlier Palestinians. They are short, about 160 cm. and dolichocephalic. They were probably Cro-Magnoid Mediterraneans, presenting certain Negroid characteristics attributable to crossbreeding. - Raymond Furon - Manuel de Prehistorie Generale
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 19 July 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
The caves of Erg-el-Ahmar produced 132 individuals for Miss Garrod. All these Natufians share the same physical type, completely different from that of earlier Palestinians. They are short, about 160 cm. and dolichocephalic. They were probably Cro-Magnoid Mediterraneans, presenting certain Negroid characteristics attributable to crossbreeding. - Raymond Furon - Manuel de Prehistorie Generale[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 19 July 2005).]
That's why classifying Eurasians as "Caucasians" is very nonsense, since they were hybrids from the beginning.
Relaxx.
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
LOL Somalis don't even have OOA ancestry you moron!! Just because they have a few craniofacial traits in common with Europeans like nasal index and long narrow faces, does not mean any kind of relation to "caucasoids"!! These cranio-facial traits you call "caucasoid" are not even so because populations around the world possess such features.
Your Tibetan and Tutsi don't look remotely Caucasoid, and your Negritos are a recent adaptation. They don't represent pre-historic East Africans any more than Swedes do.
Somalis don't just have "a few craniofacial traits in common with Europeans". They group closer to Europeans than to West, Central and even Southeast Africans in an MDS plot based on 24 cranial measurements.
On the other hand, Neolithic Greeks, who had just two primitive traits in common with Bushmen, bear no relation whatsoever to any kind of Africans (they're #7, right next to the Neolithic Swiss at #10).
quote:
Originally posted by Super car:
the substantial portion of Greek gene pool have sub-Saharan and Asian origin.
Incorrect. A portion of the Greek (and European in general) gene pool has a Northern Levantine origin. J is a Neolithic Anatolian marker, and E3b is an ancient Horn of Africa marker that predates the formation of modern races and that spread to Europe much later from the Levant along with J. Thus, labeling it "Sub-Saharan" is inaccurate and only good for lifting deflated Negro self-esteem. Especially since the bulk of it in Greece has a recent Balkan origin.
But of course, the real issue here is not the idiotic question that you keep asking, but the genetic evidence that you keep ignoring.
Greeks cluster with Europeans and away from Middle Easterners:
Greeks cluster with Paleolithic Basques and away from Africans:
quote:
Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Your Tibetan and Tutsi don't look remotely Caucasoid, and your Negritos are a recent adaptation. They don't represent pre-historic East Africans any more than Swedes do.Somalis don't just have "a few craniofacial traits in common with Europeans". They group closer to Europeans than to West, Central and even Southeast Africans in an MDS plot based on 24 cranial measurements.
On the other hand, Neolithic Greeks, who had just two primitive traits in common with Bushmen, bear no relation whatsoever to any kind of Africans (they're #7, right next to the Neolithic Swiss at #10).
You are aware that the map puts Australian and Malaysian people right next to Sub-Saharan? Those two groups are not racially the same or genetically related. So what good is this map in determining race or lineage? Doesn't seem to mean anything at all other than tell us what we already know about the superficial phenotypes of people. Which again doesn't mean anything in terms of relatedness.
quote:
Originally posted by true_egyptian1:
osirion - I agree with what you say. My question is why, then, do many people protest or disagree with the way ancient Egyptians are portrayed by Egyptologists. When I see the representations of ancient Egyptians, I don't see a Caucasian. I see a north African. Why do some people insist that Egyptians had more "African" features when, as you said, Africans are very diverse phenotypically. Sure, some may have had more "black" features than others, but why insist that all ancient Egyptians looked a certain way (like the protesters of the King Tut exhibit in L.A.)?
BECAUSE the modern day fake recreation of TUT completely ignores ALL THE EVIDENCE that the Egyptians left of what TUT looked like and instead THESE FRAUDS created a TUT that looked like themselves (European)! They say: "We will never know what color Tut looked like or the soft tissue shapes". Really. Of all the people in AE we have Tut's face the best preserved and an excellent idea of what skin color he had!
However, with that said. East African people in general are rather intriguing. I have done my own survey and it is rather interesting what people think of people like King Tut as well as moder day Upper Egyptians. From Asians to Europeans and Africans, everyone see's an affinity with themselves. Asian will note the Asian eyes and high checks. European will note the nasal shape. An African will not the everted lips and protrusive mouth. It is not that these people are mixed but rather that they are more like the original East African which was a converged type before man became more adapted like we see today.
It only makes sense that we are all descended from a race of people that was themselves an intermediate between us all.
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
The fallacy of the terms is partly related to lack of actual association between the terms in question and geography, the more fundamental fallacy is the ENTIRE CONCEPT of 'typalogical races'. By making up a phony race typology, you are repeating the fallacy, not correcting it, as you imagine.If you can't see the folly of countering Erroneous fake anthroplogy by making up your own, then go for it. But your ideas betray complete lack of knowledge of biology and evolution. I only intervened [b]on your behalf, but one can't help fools.
Continue to demonstrate pseudoscience by example......
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 19 July 2005).][/B]
I have already said that if we are going to talk about a fallacious concept such as race then whatever we say will also have to be fallacious by definition. No matter what terms I use as long as it holds to an idea of race it will never be non-fallacious. But then this forum seems to be all about race so I wouldn't have much to say if we didn't discuss it. So lets not be nit-picky and just have fun discussing stuff. Besides, most of the posts of references I have seen from you have terms such as Negroid, Cromagnoid, etc in them. I'm not sure how you are avoiding the race concept yourself.
quote:
Originally posted by Evil Euro:
[B] Incorrect. A portion of the Greek (and European in general) gene pool has a Northern Levantine origin. J is a Neolithic Anatolian marker, and E3b is an ancient Horn of Africa marker that predates the formation of modern races and that spread to Europe much later from the Levant along with J. Thus, labeling it "Sub-Saharan" is inaccurate and only good for lifting deflated Negro self-esteem. Especially since the bulk of it in Greece has a recent Balkan origin.But of course, the real issue here is not the idiotic question that you keep asking, but the genetic evidence that you keep ignoring.
Hate to break it to you buddy, as always, but calling E3b "ancient" and talking about "races", for which you've never been able to define and provide a chronology, has no bearings on the **RECENT** spread of **sub-Saharan** E3b lineages into Europe, among other things inherited, like the Benin Sickle cell. No distorted nitpicking of phrases from studies that you don't understand, will be effective either. Your idiotic replies that never address the question at hand, don't make matters any better for you. The gist is that, instead of being ashamed of being 'hybrid' European, you should embrace it. Insistance on distorting reality, will always lead you to fall on your face. Take care now.
quote:
Originally posted by osirion:
I have already said that if we are going to talk about a fallacious concept such as race then whatever we say will also have to be fallacious by definition. No matter what terms I use as long as it holds to an idea of race it will never be non-fallacious. But then this forum seems to be all about race so I wouldn't have much to say if we didn't discuss it. So lets not be nit-picky and just have fun discussing stuff. Besides, most of the posts of references I have seen from you have terms such as Negroid, Cromagnoid, etc in them. I'm not sure how you are avoiding the race concept yourself.
Osirion, it is pretty clear that you have missed the point of just about everything that folks here have been trying to explain for quite some time now.
quote:
Originally posted by osirion:If you don't believe in intelligent design then of course your a going to dismiss everything I am saying.
What do you consider as "intelligent" design?
quote:
Originally posted by Super car:
What do you consider as "intelligent" design?
Intelligent design is a pseudoscientific attempt to reconcile religion and science.
It is a form of creationism.
The irony of this thread being hi-jacked by pseudoscientific babblement is rich indeed.
Osirion, I'm going to ask you to do me a favor:
If you want to discuss intelligent design please start another thread and do so.
thx.
For once I have to agree with the Greek Bastard, they are remotely related to the following big nosed hybrids:
“As was noted earlier, gene frequency data suggest that European's gene frequencies appeared to be about what would result from a third African and two-thirds Asian mix. While this mixture could occur by direct diffusion into Europe from Africa or Asia (and undoubtedly there were such gene flows), it is easier to understand if the ancestors of Europeans were originally in the Middle East, possibly even Israel (where there is evidence of a settled culture that stored wild grain, which could have easily shifted to cultivating grains.) Such a population would have been receiving genes from Africa via the Isthmus of Suez (and possibly across the Red Sea) and from Asia.”
Cavalli-Sforza, L. L., Menozzi, P., & Piazza, A.
The History and Geography of Human Genes (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994)
[This message has been edited by relaxx (edited 20 July 2005).]
Random mutation has a hard time explaining why people in West Africa and people in New Guinea look the same. Deterministic evolution can explain it quite easily. Same or similar environments with similar nutrients produce similar results.
Essentially, God is a genetic programmer and has some really good branch routines.
quote:
Random mutation has a hard time explaining why people in West Africa and people in New Guinea look the same.
No it does not.
quote:
Deterministic evolution can explain it quite easily.
Again, please start a new thread devoted to intelligent design and race and I will contrribute, thanks.
quote:
Stupid-Euro says:
Your Tibetan and Tutsi don't look remotely Caucasoid,..
The Tibetan and Tutsi have the same features you call "caucasoid" such as similar nasal indices and long facial lengths but short facial breadths. If they were included in the cranio-facial map, they too would group close to Europeans, especially Tibetans!! Perhaps you don't care to claim them because they don't carry any so-called 'caucasoid' haplotypes found in Europe like E3b, as the Somalis do LOL! Then again, you have not even bothered to tell us what YOU mean when YOU use the word "caucasoid"! quote:
...and your Negritos are a recent adaptation. They don't represent pre-historic East Africans any more than Swedes do.
May 20, 2005— Two primitive tribes in India's Andaman and Nicobar islands are believed to be direct descendants of the first modern humans who migrated from Africa at least 50,000 years ago, according to a study by Indian biologists.
A team of biologists at the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology in the southern Indian city of Hyderabad studied the DNA of 10 Onge and Great Andamanese people in the Indian Ocean archipelago who lived for tens of thousands of years in "genetic isolation" from other human contact.
The findings suggest the tribes are descended from the "oldest population of the world and were among the first batch of modern humans to migrate from Africa," said professor Lalji Singh, director of the center.
and this
hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/CB_2002_p1-18.pdf
The oldest OOA anatomically modern humans all possess greater affinity to Australian aborigines or even your West African "negroids" than they do to your Eurasian "caucasoids" that you keep preaching!
quote:
Somalis don't just have "a few craniofacial traits in common with Europeans". They group closer to Europeans than to West, Central and even Southeast Africans in an MDS plot based on 24 cranial measurements.
quote:
On the other hand, Neolithic Greeks, who had just two primitive traits in common with Bushmen, bear no relation whatsoever to any kind of Africans (they're #7, right next to the Neolithic Swiss at #10).
That's besides the point that they have sub-Saharan ancestry no matter what they look like now!!
You are one dumbf***!
quote:
Originally posted by osirion:
However, with that said. East African people in general are rather intriguing. I have done my own survey and it is rather interesting what people think of people like King Tut as well as moder day Upper Egyptians. From Asians to Europeans and Africans, everyone see's an affinity with themselves. Asian will note the Asian eyes and high checks. European will note the nasal shape. An African will not the everted lips and protrusive mouth. It is not that these people are mixed but rather that they are more like the original East African which was a converged type before man became more adapted like we see today.
Actually, epicanthic (slanted) eyes occur among East Africans no more than they do West Africans! Epicanthic eyes have the highest frequency among South Africans, particularly the Khoisan people. As far as high-cheekbones, that seems to be a trait typical of many Africans of all regions including West Africa. The "European" nose shape is moreso common in East Africa, but there are people in West Africa like the Fulani and Tuareg that have that, and East Africans don't have everted lips as frequently as say West Africans!
You seem to be missing the point Osirion that phenotype does not reflect genotype! Most modern day East Africans don't even closely resemble the first Out-of-Africans. But since Africa was the cradle, it would only be natural for blacks to be phenotypically diverse.
As far as your "intelligent design", I really hate to bring religious belief into this issue. Not that I don't believe in a higher power, but science by itself has explained everything already without getting into the works of God.
It is quite simple, phenotype is an adaptive response to an evironment and as humans we are diverse.
End of story.
[This message has been edited by Djehuti (edited 22 July 2005).]
quote:
Dejhuti writes: Incorrect. What makes you think they [Melanesian/Andaman/Australian] are only a 'recent' adaptation?
Indeed....
quote:
J Hum Evol. 2005
Apr;48(4):403-14.
Neves WA, Hubbe M, Okumura MM, Gonzalez-Jose R, Figuti L, Eggers S, De Blasis PA.Laboratorio de Estudos Evolutivos Humanos, Departamento de Biologia, Instituto de Biociencias, Universidade de Sao Paulo, CP 11461, 05422-970, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil. waneves@ib.usp.br
Increasing skeletal evidence from the U.S.A., Mexico, Colombia, and Brazil strongly suggests that the first settlers in the Americas had a cranial morphology distinct from that displayed by most late and modern Native Americans. The Paleoamerican morphological pattern is more generalized and can be seen today among Africans, Australians, and Melanesians. Here, we present the results of a comparative morphological assessment of a late Paleoindian from Capelinha Burial II, southern Brazil.
In both analyses performed (classical morphometrics and geometric morphometrics), the results show a clear association between Capelinha Burial II and the Paleoindians, as well as Australians, Melanesians, and Africans, confirming its Paleoamerican status.
Additionally, early 40kya~ Europeans were also tropically adapted and still had many affinities with Africans - and Melanesians and Australians and other tropical peoples.
Europeans gradually lost their tropical adaptations thru genetic and physical isolation in ICE AGE Europe.
This is why SuperCar & Thought's unanswered questions about the ICE Age refugee European origins of the Greeks is significant.
Before Europeans lost their tropical adaptations?
quote:
African Exodus
Christopher Stringer and Robin McKie
1996"Nor does the picture get any clearer when we move on to the Cro-Magnons, the presumed ancestors of modern Europeans. Some were more like present-day Australians or Africans, judged by objective anatomical observations..."
Earliest Known Out of Africa modern human, found in Israel 70kya~.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 20 July 2005).]
quote:
It is quite simple, phenotype is an adaptive response to an evironment and as humans we are diverse.
Correct. It is also worth noting that human beings have lived in Africa and only Africa for most of their biological history.
This reflects itself in genetics: most of the human genome is found in Africa, in spite of the fact that Africa has only a fraction of the modern population.
And it reflects itself in phenotype - the potentiality for physical adaptation found in Eurasians Austalians, Native Americans and South Sea Islanders is a reflection and extention of what the original African genome makes possible under selective pressure and mutation.
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:You seem to be missing the point Osirion that phenotype does not reflect genotype! Most modern day East Africans don't even closely resemble the first Out-of-Africans. But since Africa was the cradle, it would only be natural for blacks to be phenotypically diverse.
I think this comment could use some modification in that, phenotype does reflect genotype...just that it cannot be predicted from the type of sex related markers that we deal with here on a regular basis, in terms of Y-haplogroups; familiarity with a few identified alleles doesn’t necessarily ensure the prediction of phenotype. Both genetic mutations and the effects of environmental pressure determine phenotypes. Phenotypic similarity doesn’t equate to genotypic similarity, nor does it imply genetic closeness. We’ve seen many examples of this from studies that have been posted here.
Recalling on:
"...all those genes that have been put into the Lemba gene pool have had virtually no effect on their morphology. The genetic changes that produce the morphological change might be fairly small. You can get a very small genetic change that can have a big effect on the organism's morphology or conversely you can have a lot of genetic changes that have no effect on the organism's morphology..." - Christopher Wills
Ps-I think Hiernaux handled phenotypic diversity of sub-Saharan Africans in his table reasonably.
[This message has been edited by Super car (edited 21 July 2005).]
[This message has been edited by relaxx (edited 21 July 2005).]
[This message has been edited by relaxx (edited 21 July 2005).]
[This message has been edited by relaxx (edited 21 July 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by Super car:
Hate to break it to you buddy, as always, but calling E3b "ancient" and talking about "races", for which you've never been able to define and provide a chronology, has no bearings on the **RECENT** spread of **sub-Saharan** E3b lineages into Europe, among other things inherited, like the Benin Sickle cell. No distorted nitpicking of phrases from studies that you don't understand, will be effective either. Your idiotic replies that never address the question at hand, don't make matters any better for you. The gist is that, instead of being ashamed of being 'hybrid' European, you should embrace it. Insistance on distorting reality, will always lead you to fall on your face. Take care now.
Pre-history is not "recent", and E3b is not "Sub-Saharan". It's East African, Levantine, North African or Balkan, depending on the subclade/cluster.
Keep ignoring the evidence, ape. I know your low self-esteem can't handle it.
Y-chromosomes:
Autosomes:
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
The Tibetan and Tutsi have the same features you call "caucasoid" such as similar nasal indices and long facial lengths but short facial breadths. If they were included in the cranio-facial map, they too would group close to Europeans
Don't be stupid. The craniofacial map is based on 24 measurements, not just two.
quote:
What makes you think they are only a 'recent' adaptation? Are you suggesting that their "negroid" features are recent, and that a more "caucasoid" look would be the more ancient look??
Negritos and Negroes are similarly adapted to modern tropical environments. Neither is representative of ancient East Africans.
quote:
That's besides the point that they have sub-Saharan ancestry no matter what they look like now!!
No they don't. See the maps in my reply to Super car above.
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
Actually, epicanthic (slanted) eyes occur among East Africans no more than they do West Africans! Epicanthic eyes have the highest frequency among South Africans, particularly the Khoisan people. As far as high-cheekbones, that seems to be a trait typical of many Africans of all regions including West Africa. The European "nose" shape is moreso common in East Africa, but there are people in West Africa like the Fulani and Tuareg that have that, and East Africans don't have everted lips as frequently as say West Africans!You seem to be missing the point Osirion that phenotype does [b]not reflect genotype! Most modern day East Africans don't even closely resemble the first Out-of-Africans. But since Africa was the cradle, it would only be natural for blacks to be phenotypically diverse.
As far as your "intelligent design", I really hate to bring religious belief into this issue. Not that I don't believe in a higher power, but science by itself has explained everything already without getting into the works of God.
It is quite simple, phenotype is an adaptive response to an evironment and as humans we are diverse.
End of story.
[/B]
I find it interesting that many people believe in 'God' but deny that he has any place in our design. Science is about what is observable and since we really cannot observe evolution but rather can only make conjectures based on what is probable or statistically likely, I would argue that Evolution as we define it is only pseudo-science.
As for genotype and phenotype; genes do determine what we ultimately look like. I think your point is that looks do not define your lineage. Just because someone has features similar to Europeans, this does not mean that they are related somehow. What we can surmise conclusively from pheontype is what kind of environment that person's ancestors have lived in for a considerable period of time. If we want to know relatedness which is what race is suppose to be about, then you need genetics. But you already know this.
As far as West Africa is concerned. Keep in mind that East Africans migrated into West Africa in several waves. The Fulani, Tuareg, Tutsi are recent migrants from East Africa into West Africa. The people with the richest variety of phenotype and genetic diversiy are still the East African people.
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
No it does not.
[QUOTE]Deterministic evolution can explain it quite easily.
Again, please start a new thread devoted to intelligent design and race and I will contrribute, thanks.[/QUOTE]
I do disagree with you faith in Darwinism. It's amazing how people dogmatically believe in Darwinistic principles even though they have no hard evidence supporting it and knowing that new theories are having to be created all the time to try to explain how rapidly a species can adapt (ie: punctual equilibrium).
Random mutation plays a very small part in evolution (and it is really not random). Only the ill-informed and naive believe that science has explained everything via statistical models. It is simple, when we don't understand or it is too complex we just put it into a statistical model and say what is probable.
There is no random and everything can be explained (cause and effect - laws of nature). Even what we call random is governed by the laws of physics which makes it part of the design.
quote:
Originally posted by Evil Euro:
No they don't. See the maps in my reply to Super car above.
Not a very comprehensive map.
quote:
Even what we call random is governed by the laws of physics.
quote:
I do disagree with your faith in Darwinism
If you feel a further need to justify your religious beliefs via the pseudoscience of creationism, pease start a new thread and I will be happy to discuss with you. Thanks.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 21 July 2005).]
quote:
Dumb-Euro says: Don't be stupid. The craniofacial map is based on 24 measurements, not just two.
Well Tutsis and Tibetans were not even included on your silly map! I only stated two features, that doesn't mean two measurements only, dumbass!
quote:
Negritos and Negroes are similarly adapted to modern tropical environments. Neither is representative of ancient East Africans.
quote:
Pre-history is not "recent", and E3b is not "Sub-Saharan". It's East African, Levantine, North African or Balkan, depending on the subclade/cluster.
East Africa IS in "Sub-Sahara," sh** for brains!!
God, you are one dumb mut!!
quote:
Originally posted by osirion:
I find it interesting that many people believe in 'God' but deny that he has any place in our design. Science is about what is observable and since we really cannot observe evolution but rather can only make conjectures based on what is probable or statistically likely, I would argue that Evolution as we define it is only pseudo-science.
As for genotype and phenotype; genes do determine what we ultimately look like. I think your point is that looks do not define your lineage. Just because someone has features similar to Europeans, this does not mean that they are related somehow. What we can surmise conclusively from pheontype is what kind of environment that person's ancestors have lived in for a considerable period of time. If we want to know relatedness which is what race is suppose to be about, then you need genetics. But you already know this.
It is not a good idea to mix our own personal religious beliefs in with science. Yes I believe in the design of God, but I hardly seen what this has to do with the whole topic we are discussing!
quote:
As far as West Africa is concerned. Keep in mind that East Africans migrated into West Africa in several waves. The Fulani, Tuareg, Tutsi are recent migrants from East Africa into West Africa. The people with the richest variety of phenotype and genetic diversiy are still the East African people.
The Tuareg yes, the Fulani maybe, but Tutsi are predominantly E3a carriers while East Africans are predominanty E3b, as such, their origins from East Africa seem unlikely.
And as far as genetic diversity, yes East African carry a great deal, but you seem to know little about the population history of Africa. Populations were more widespread and even more diverse during prehistoric times. You seem to propose that human origins in general are to be found in the East African region. The problem is there is no conclusive evidence for this notion. East Africa maybe the origin of all Out-of-African populations but not for all the populations in Africa. There are peoples in Southern and Central Africa that possess lineages not found in East Africa. The point is, all we know is that human origins began in the African continent but we don't know yet, which exact region.
There was an article I read once which stated how Africa has even lost some of its diversity due to the expasion of certain populations and this is reflected in the languages. There are four main language phyla in Africa right now, yet there are more language phyla in Asia or even in the Americas. Human history in Africa has just been too long to know for sure what all the populations were.
quote:
Evil agenda:
Pre-history is not "recent", and E3b is not "Sub-Saharan". It's East African, Levantine, North African or Balkan, depending on the subclade/cluster.
Hey 'hybrid' scum, convincing yourself that the neolithic in the Holocene (recent epoch) is "pre-history" or talking about some additional "allele", doesn't change anything about your recent sub-Saharan origins. Hang yourself if you will, but you'll still be a 'borderline' European. Please do come back for more punishment, of being told the truth.
[This message has been edited by Super car (edited 21 July 2005).]
quote:
Ancient East Africans all show tropical adaptation and you read the peer reviewed article I cited, it claimed that Negritos are the best representation of early OOAs, you nitwit! All early East African and OOAs are tropically adapted, moron!!
Correct. It's really refreshing to read the posts by SuperCar, Relaxx and yourself as well as some others [forgive me if I do not mention the several others] which show that it IS possible to understand modern bioanthropology.
Holliday (2000) examined postcranial morphology of the varied Levantines from Qafzeh and Skhul (anatomically modern) and from Amud, Kebara and Tabun (Neanderthal). He determined that they were morphologically distinct;
the anatomically moderns were tropically adapted, suggesting African origins,
while the Neanderthals had cold adapted morphology, suggesting European origins.
- Investigating Human Adaption in the Early Paleolithic. Audouze, F., and J. G. Enloe, 1997. High resolutionarchaeology at Verberie: Limits and interpretations.World Archaeology
quote:
J Hum Evol. 2005
Apr;48(4):403-14.
Neves WA, Hubbe M, Okumura MM, Gonzalez-Jose R, Figuti L, Eggers S, De Blasis PA.Laboratorio de Estudos Evolutivos Humanos, Departamento de Biologia, Instituto de Biociencias, Universidade de Sao Paulo, CP 11461, 05422-970, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil. waneves@ib.usp.br
Increasing skeletal evidence from the U.S.A., Mexico, Colombia, and Brazil strongly suggests that the first settlers in the Americas had a distinct cranial morphology. The Paleoamerican morphological pattern can be seen today among Africans, Australians, and Melanesians.
It's the whites of Europe who are a recent product of cold adaption in Europe....
quote:
African Exodus
Christopher Stringer and Robin McKie
1996"Nor does the picture get any clearer when we move on to the Cro-Magnons, the presumed ancestors of modern Europeans. Some were more like present-day Australians or Africans, judged by objective anatomical observations..."
All people having descendants today had exactly the receptor protein of today's Africans; their skin was Black, and the intense sun killed off the progeny with any whiter skin that resulted from mutational variation in the receptor protein. However, the progeny of those humans who migrated North away from the intense African sun were not under the evolutionary constraint that keeps human skin black generation after generation in Africa - Rogers 2004:107
East Africans have therefore been Equatorial [Black] for many 10's of thousands of Years - CL Brace
And interesting question [in modern bioanthropology] is whether Europeans are a hybrid with cold adapted Neanderthal.
Genetics suggest that they are not, morphology suggests that there are similarities but again, phenotype does not always reveal lineage, and whites of Europe are also VERY RECENTLY adapted to the same cold climate.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 21 July 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
How so? Ancient East Africans all show tropical adaptation
Well, to give an obvious example, Negritos are short-statured like Pygmies, which is a recent local adaptation:
"If the pressures selecting for a particular characteristic last long enough that characteristic eventually becomes genetically determined in the general population. This is what must have happened to the Negritos. Their remote ancestors need not have been short. It is more likely that dwarf groups acquire their short stature independently: what many such groups have in common is a long-term residence in a tropical deep-forest environment. The African pygmies, for example, are not genetically related to the Negritos beyond their common humanity but they, too, have been living in a heavily jungled tropical environment for hundreds of generations." (Source)
Of course, pre-historic East Africa wasn't a "tropical deep-forest environment". It was much cooler and dryer.
quote:
the peer reviewed article I cited, it claimed that Negritos are the best representation of early OOAs
No it didn't. It just said they're descended from the earliest OOA migrants. That's not the same thing.
quote:
East Africa IS in "Sub-Sahara," sh** for brains!!
"Sub-Sahara" is broad and used by Afronuts to imply "modern Negro". "East Africa" is specific, and in pre-historic times had nothing whatsoever to do with Negroes of any kind.
quote:
Originally posted by Super car:
Hey 'hybrid' scum, convincing yourself that the neolithic in the Holocene (recent epoch) is "pre-history"
Of course the Neolithic is pre-history. But E3b actually left Africa during the Mesolithic, so the point is moot.
quote:
Hang yourself if you will, but you'll still be a 'borderline' European. Please do come back for more punishment, of being told the truth.
I'll just keep posting the evidence until you can bring yourself to accept it:
Y-chromosomes:
Autosomes:
quote:
Originally posted by Evil Euro:
"Sub-Sahara" is broad and used by Afronuts to imply "modern Negro". "East Africa" is specific, and in pre-historic times had nothing whatsoever to do with Negroes of any kind.
So what about this:
Somalis are sub-Saharans and the Horn of Africa is considered as a part of sub-Saharan Africa:
European Journal of Human Genetics (2005) 13, 856−866
High frequencies of Y chromosome lineages characterized by E3b1, DYS19-11, DYS392-12 in Somali males
"Although the Horn of Africa is considered a geographic part of sub-Saharan Africa, we have analysed the Somali population separately in order to be able to compare the results with previously published data from other African populations."
Sub-saharan Africa is geographic, not racial and Brace is the one who uses Sub-Saharan Africa to mean 'modern Negro' by the way how he breaks his clusters down you silly buffon. Don't come in here with that arrogant attitude as if you know everything and you're above everyone in here. You've been thrashed so many times.
[This message has been edited by Topdog (edited 22 July 2005).]
[This message has been edited by Topdog (edited 22 July 2005).]
quote:
"Sub-Sahara" is broad and used by Afronuts to imply "modern Negro". "East Africa" is specific, and in pre-historic times had nothing whatsoever to do with Negroes of any kind.
Do you read history? :
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 17, 166–200 (1998)
Article no. AA980322
Early Pastoralists in East Africa: Ecological and Social Dimensions
Diane Gifford-Gonzalez
Linguistic and ethnic affinities of Neolithic traditions.
"Ambrose (1982) and Robertshaw (1988) have both sought to link the Elmenteitan and SPN archaeological entities to linguistic groups known to have entered Kenya at some point in the later Holocene. Sutton (1966), Odner (1972), and Ambrose (1982) argued that the SPN (earlier called the ‘‘Stone Bowl Culture’’) represents the original incursion of the earliest food producers, Southern Cushitic speakers, into eastern Africa (Ehret 1967,1974), especially if one includes Nderit/Ileret ceramic bearing occurrences under this rubric. The Elmenteitan has been most commonly linked with Southern Nilotic speakers, on the basis of ethnohistory, ceramic continuities (Robertshaw 1988),and the reconstruction of the timing of migrations and intergroup contacts (Ambrose 1982; Ehret 1974)."
So called 'Prehistoric' East African remains were found in Southwestern Kenya at Lake Elementeita. Ceramics and pottery foud there are linked to Nilotic speaking groups in Kenya, specifically the Stone Bowl culture. The people lived a primarily pastoral transhumance lifestyle just as modern Nilotic and cushitic speakers. I don't know why idiots like you look at only the skeletal remains and ignore things like material culture and linguistics. Underhill et tal pointed thi out in hi email to me and the evidence is strongly in favor of 'prehistoric' East Africans being biologically, inguistically and culturally continuous with modern Elongated East Africans.
[This message has been edited by Topdog (edited 22 July 2005).]
quote:
Idiotic-Euro says: Well, to give an obvious example, Negritos are short-statured like Pygmies, which is a recent local adaptation:"If the pressures selecting for a particular characteristic last long enough that characteristic eventually becomes genetically determined in the general population. This is what must have happened to the Negritos. Their remote ancestors need not have been short. It is more likely that dwarf groups acquire their short stature independently: what many such groups have in common is a long-term residence in a tropical deep-forest environment. The African pygmies, for example, are not genetically related to the Negritos beyond their common humanity but they, too, have been living in a heavily jungled tropical environment for hundreds of generations." (Source)
Of course, pre-historic East Africa wasn't a "tropical deep-forest environment". It was much cooler and dryer.
No one said early OOAs were tropical-rainforest adapted you moron!! When I say tropically adapted, that does not necessarily mean tropical rainforests, dumbass!! It means within the latitudinal range where the climate is hot-- the Tropics! Most of the areas in the tropics are not even rainforests you buffoon! And even if the climate at that time was "cooler and dryer" it was still at tropical temperatures, as Africa has always been!! Stop trying to make early humans like "caucasians", the climate in Africa has never been temperate or cold, you dumb-as-hell idiot!
quote:
the peer reviewed article I cited, it claimed that Negritos are the best representation of early OOAs
It also stated that they preserve both MtDNA and Y-chromosomal lineages that are the most pristine compared to other OOAs.
quote:
Dumbasshell-Euro says: "Sub-Sahara" is broad and used by Afronuts to imply "modern Negro". "East Africa" is specific, and in pre-historic times had nothing whatsoever to do with Negroes of any kind.
You must have hit your head really hard!! The very term and concept of "Sub-Sahara" was invented by white Westerners, not blacks!!! Its scheme was to seperate "caucasian" North Africa from the predominantly black areas south of the Sahara! The region of East Africa, including the Horn, IS south of the Sahara and its populations are black!!
Do you know how stupid you sound?!!
Your mentor Dienekes should be ashamed!!!
[This message has been edited by Djehuti (edited 22 July 2005).]
quote:
evil agenda:
Of course the Neolithic is pre-history. But E3b actually left Africa during the Mesolithic, so the point is moot.
Call it "pre-hitory", "mesolithic" or whatever makes you feel better, but the fact remains as the early holocene spread of sub-Saharan E3b lineages by "neolithic" farmers into Europe. Be happy with your *recent* sub-Saharan lineages, or commit suicide. Either way, the facts stand, and no one cares.
quote:
evil agenda:
I'll just keep posting the evidence until you can bring yourself to accept it...
Well then, do plan on posting that immaterial stuff for whatever remains of your life, for it doesn't affect the established fact in mainstream anthropology. This is why your whining has largely been ignored, as done by the folks of "the Best of Sicily" site; no 'living' mainstream scientist or scholar will entertain your gobbledygook. On the other hand, we've seen e-mail replies from well known mainstream scientists, as exemplified by those shown by Topdog and Thought, which have corroborated the FACTS that have simply been repeated here, and understood by virtually everyone else, but you.
Evil-Euro can attack these unrefuted facts from any angle, but in the end he fails miserably.
[This message has been edited by Djehuti (edited 22 July 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:You must have hit your head really hard!! The very term and concept of "Sub-Sahara" was invented by white Westerners, not blacks!!! Its scheme was to seperate "caucasian" North Africa from the predominantly black areas south of the Sahara! The region of East Africa, including the Horn, IS south of the Sahara and its populations are black!!
I agree that the terms were deviced by Europeans, but they are actually geographical terms. It doesn't denote some kind of "racial" divide, although people have attempted to use it as such. Africans have never been static entities, and the distribution of African lineages is testament to this. The so-called sub-Sahara Africa has never been cut off, or isolated from the north.
quote:
Djehuti writes: When I say tropically adapted, that does not necessarily mean tropical rainforests
Indeed tropical adaptation has little to do with 'height.
It's principal components are skeletal structure for heat dissipation which actually often includes skeletal elongation, as well as dark skin color for UV protection.
Smallness of size is principally an adaptation to limited 'food-game' supply for hunter gatherers, and is often concurrent with forests, harsh environments, including mountains, arctic, desert, and especially islands.
The early Eurasian skeletal remains show a highly tropically adapted African people of diverse sizes, up to and over 1.7 meters.
......
.....
Among the modern Southern Asian, Andaman, South Seas, Australian and New Guinnean populations who carry the most pristine lineages from the original OOA populations, heights range from under 1.6 to 1.9 meters.
This degree of variation in height exists today in New Guinnea alone, as it does in modern Africa.
That is why these people and Africans in general most closely resemble the original OOA Population that spread throught southern Asia, to Australia and beyound, as noted:
quote:
J Hum Evol. 2005
Apr;48(4):403-14.
Neves WA, Hubbe M, Okumura MM, Gonzalez-Jose R, Figuti L, Eggers S, De Blasis PA.Laboratorio de Estudos Evolutivos Humanos, Departamento de Biologia, Instituto de Biociencias, Universidade de Sao Paulo, CP 11461, 05422-970, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil. waneves@ib.usp.br
Increasing skeletal evidence from the U.S.A., Mexico, Colombia, and Brazil strongly suggests that the first settlers in the Americas had a cranial morphology distinct from that displayed by most late and modern Native Americans. The Paleoamerican morphological pattern is more generalized and can be seen today among Africans, Australians, and Melanesians. Here, we present the results of a comparative morphological assessment of a late Paleoindian from Capelinha Burial II, southern Brazil.
In both analyses performed (classical morphometrics and geometric morphometrics), the results show a clear association between Capelinha Burial II and the Paleoindians, as well as Australians, Melanesians, and Africans, confirming its Paleoamerican status.
....
quote:
African Exodus
Christopher Stringer and Robin McKie
1996"Nor does the picture get any clearer when we move on to the Cro-Magnons, the presumed ancestors of modern Europeans. Some were more like present-day Australians or Africans, judged by objective anatomical observations..."
Soon after they lost their tropical adaptations and became morphologically white, Europeans began to re-mix with Black Africans and West Asians during the Neolithic.
The result is that Europeans: appear as a mixture of 2/3rds Asian 1/3rd African- Cavelli Sforza.
This is why Europeans are closer genetically to the Blacks of Africa, whereas the Blacks of Australia, South Seas, are more 'distant'.
Genes, peoples, and languages L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza
The above is concordant with the presence of haplotypes such as Benin HBS, and E3b in, especially Southern Europe.
The perceptive will also note that this is why skin-color cannot be correlated to "race."
And it is too an example of why modern bioanthropology is moving beyound race.
Races have no meaning biologically - Spencer Wells.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 22 July 2005).]
quote:
Supercar says: I agree that the terms were deviced by Europeans, but they are actually geographical terms. It doesn't denote some kind of "racial" divide, although people have attempted to use it as such. Africans have never been static entities, and the distribution of African lineages is testament to this. The so-called sub-Sahara Africa has never been cut off, or isolated from the north.
Absolutely, but apparently Stupid-Euro is to dumb to know this.
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
Indeed tropical adaptation has little to do with 'height.It's principal components are skeletal structure for heat dissipation which actually often includes skeletal elongation, as well as dark skin color for UV protection.
Smallness of size is principally an adaptation to limited 'food-game' supply for hunter gatherers, and is often concurrent with forests, harsh environments, including mountains, arctic, desert, and especially islands.
The early Eurasian skeletal remains show a highly tropically adapted African people of diverse sizes, up to and over 1.7 meters.
......
.....Among the modern Southern Asian, Andaman, South Seas, Australian and New Guinnean populations who carry the most pristine lineages from the original OOA populations, heights range from under 1.6 to 1.9 meters.
This degree of variation in height exists today in New Guinnea alone, as it does in modern Africa.
That is why these people and Africans in general most closely resemble the original OOA Population that spread throught southern Asia, to Australia and beyound, as noted:
[QUOTE]
J Hum Evol. 2005
Apr;48(4):403-14.
Neves WA, Hubbe M, Okumura MM, Gonzalez-Jose R, Figuti L, Eggers S, De Blasis PA.Laboratorio de Estudos Evolutivos Humanos, Departamento de Biologia, Instituto de Biociencias, Universidade de Sao Paulo, CP 11461, 05422-970, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil. waneves@ib.usp.br
Increasing skeletal evidence from the U.S.A., Mexico, Colombia, and Brazil strongly suggests that the first settlers in the Americas had a cranial morphology distinct from that displayed by most late and modern Native Americans. The Paleoamerican morphological pattern is more generalized and can be seen today among Africans, Australians, and Melanesians. Here, we present the results of a comparative morphological assessment of a late Paleoindian from Capelinha Burial II, southern Brazil.
In both analyses performed (classical morphometrics and geometric morphometrics), the results show a clear association between Capelinha Burial II and the Paleoindians, as well as Australians, Melanesians, and Africans, confirming its Paleoamerican status.
....
quote:
African Exodus
Christopher Stringer and Robin McKie
1996"Nor does the picture get any clearer when we move on to the Cro-Magnons, the presumed ancestors of modern Europeans. Some were more like present-day Australians or Africans, judged by objective anatomical observations..."
Soon after they lost their tropical adaptations and became morphologically white, Europeans began to re-mix with Black Africans and West Asians during the Neolithic.
The result is that Europeans: appear as a mixture of 2/3rds Asian 1/3rd African- Cavelli Sforza.
This is why Europeans are closer genetically to the Blacks of Africa, whereas the Blacks of Australia, South Seas, are more 'distant'.
Genes, peoples, and languages L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza
The above is concordant with the presence of haplotypes such as Benin HBS, and E3b in, especially Southern Europe.
The preceptive will also note that this is why skin-color cannot be correlated to "race."
And it is too an example of why modern bioanthropology is moving beyound race.
Races have no meaning biologically - Spencer Wells.
[/QUOTE]
Rasol, you've been repeating this for how long?
This is something virtually all mainstream scholars agree with and if an idiot like Evil-doesn't that's just too bad for him!!
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
No one said early OOAs were tropical-rainforest adapted you moron!! When I say tropically adapted, that does not necessarily mean tropical rainforests, dumbass!! It means within the latitudinal range where the climate is hot-- the Tropics! Most of the areas in the tropics are not even rainforests you buffoon! And even if the climate at that time was "cooler and dryer" it was still at tropical temperatures, as Africa has always been!!
Pre-historic East Africans were adapted to a cool, dry desert environment produced by the Ice Age. They looked nothing like modern Negritos or Negroes, who are adapted to hot, humid jungle environments.
quote:
Originally posted by Super car:
Call it "pre-hitory", "mesolithic" or whatever makes you feel better
I use those terms because they're accurate, not because of the way they make me feel. But you go ahead and keep using the inaccurate "recent" and the imprecise "sub-Saharan" to make you feel like your savage Negro ancestors had something to do with Neolithic agriculture and Ancient Greek civilization.
quote:
Well then, do plan on posting that immaterial stuff for whatever remains of your life
Immaterial stuff = Genetic evidence that Afronuts can't refute and so choose to disregard
Y-chromosomes:
Autosomes:
quote:
Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Pre-historic East Africans were adapted to a cool, dry desert environment produced by the Ice Age. They looked nothing like modern Negritos or Negroes, who are adapted to hot, humid jungle environments.
Big nosed hybrid...hybrids don't talk, they listen...
Relaxx
[This message has been edited by relaxx (edited 23 July 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Immaterial stuff = Genetic evidence that Afronuts can't refute and so choose to disregard
[b]Y-chromosomes:
Autosomes:
---------------------
Big nosed hybrid...hybrids don't talk, they listen...
Relaxx
[This message has been edited by relaxx (edited 23 July 2005).]
quote:
This is something virtually all mainstream scholars agree with and if an idiot like Evil-doesn't that's just too bad for him!!
quote:
Andaman and Nicobar islands are believed to be direct descendants of the first modern humans who migrated from Africa at least 50,000 years ago, according to a study by Indian biologists.
The Caption reads:
Face of the Past.
TW Holliday examined postcranial morphology of the varied Levantines from Qafzeh and Skhul (anatomically modern). He determined that they were tropically adapted, suggesting African origins,
The oldest Out of Africa expansion occurred 65,000 +- 23000 years ago and is witnessed by mitochondrial descendants preserved in Papua New Guinea; the Papuan node is derived from a Eurasian founder, we tentatively propose the following scenario to account for the obvious phenotypic differences between Papuans and [Northern] Eurasians despite their sharing a common mtDNA ancestry:
They derive from a single African migration, but split at an early stage before reaching Europe. Meanwhile, proto-Eurasians spent 20 or more millennia genetically drifting to their present distinct phenotypes.
- Peter Forster, Antonio Torroni, Colin Renfrew and Arne Röhl
Europeans and Asians did develop more unique genetic profiles over time, but had a common background before their average "uniqueness" emerged. This background is African in a bio-historical sense. Therefore, it should not be surprising that some Africans share similarities with non-Africans.
- The Diversity of Indigenous Africans
S.O.Y. Keita
East Africans have been Equatorial [Black], for 10's of thousands of years - C L Brace.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 23 July 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Pre-historic East Africans were adapted to a cool, dry desert environment produced by the Ice Age. They looked nothing like modern Negritos or Negroes, who are adapted to hot, humid jungle environments.
Correction, the environment was probably cooler, but never actually cool, dumbstiff! East Africa was still in the tropics, and tropics does not mean humid jungle. Many deserts and grasslands are located in the tropics also, dumbsh*t!
There are many black Africans today who live in desert environments, stupiddill!!
You don't know anything about climate even the definition of latitudinal tropics, let alone prehistoric climate!!
You don't even know about physical anthropology to say that blacks only live in "humid jungle environments"!! Most populations that are jungle adapted are light-skinned, not dark-skinned, like the Pygmies!
You're belief that "caucasoid"-like people inhabited East Africa or any part of Africa for that matter is a hilarious joke!!
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
Many deserts and grasslands are located in the tropics also, dumbsh*t!
Indeed.... regarding whites of ancient East Africa:
Pseudoscience begins with a hypothesis -- usually one which is appealing emotionally,
but spectacularly implausible -- and then looks only for items to support it.
Pseudoscience ignores criteria of valid evidence and displays indifference to facts:
early Out of Africa populations were tropically adapted - TW Holliday (2000).
their skin was Black, and the intense sun killed off the progeny with any whiter skin that resulted from mutational variation in the receptor protein. However, the progeny of those humans who migrated North away from the intense African sun were not under the evolutionary constraint that keeps human skin black generation after generation in Africa - Rogers
East Africans have been Equatorial [Black] for 10's of thousands of years - CL Brace.
Here are two threads devoted specifically to the facts of Africa's climate cycles throughout history, in which East Africa vaccilates over and again from tropical desert to tropical grassland [savanna].
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/Forum8/HTML/001735.html
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/Forum8/HTML/001036.html
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 23 July 2005).]
quote:
evil agenda:
I use those terms because they're accurate, not because of the way they make me feel. But you go ahead and keep using the inaccurate "recent" and the imprecise "sub-Saharan" to make you feel like your Negro ancestors had something to do with Neolithic agriculture and Ancient Greek civilization.
Well, those Negroes being your *recent* ancestors, doesn't make you 'borderline' folks any less savage, wouldn’t you say? Play with terms, such as calling “Neolithic” farmers, “Mesolithic” farmers, as a remedy for your total mental break down, but your recent sub-Saharan lineages are here to stay; they were *recently* brought to Europe by people, who spread farming to your bush-dwelling 'real' European ancestors, and the ensuing crossbreeding gave rise to the 'hybrid' Europeans we see before us.
quote:
evil agenda:
Immaterial stuff = Genetic evidence that Afronuts can't refute and so choose to disregard
You wish folks here are the only ones dismissing you. Jackass euro, you know as well as I do, that those immaterial stuff won’t make you any less of a borderline European, don’t you? You are now dismissed.
quote:
Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Pre-historic East Africans were adapted to a cool, dry desert environment produced by the Ice Age. They looked nothing like modern Negritos or Negroes, who are adapted to hot, humid jungle environments.
Really? Dry cool desert environment? they don't even go together. Lets look at the evidence:
Source:
Journal of Anthropological archaeology 17, 166–200 (1998)
Article no. AA980322
Early Pastoralists in East Africa: Ecological and Social Dimensions
Diane Gifford-Gonzalez
"Prehistoric" East African remains were found in Kenya and Tanzania and were dated to 7000 B.C. as the earliest possible dating of the remains. Quit putting your foot in your mouth you idiot.
[This message has been edited by Topdog (edited 23 July 2005).]
"The frequency of haplogroup E3b1*(xE3b1b) in Somali males is the highest observed in any populations to date, and we suggest that the Somali male population is the origin of this haplogroup...
Although the Horn of Africa is considered a geographic part of sub-Saharan Africa, we have analysed the Somali population separately in order to compare the results with previously published data from other African populations." Sanchez et al.
The moral: What would cockroaches know about basic geography; they spend most of their time in decaying trash and cupboards.
[This message has been edited by Super car (edited 23 July 2005).]
He continues to vomit old crap that has been refuted a long time ago.
Like, "negroes" are dark-skinned and live only in jungles, when the darkest skinned people live in open grassland and desert environments.
That prehistoric African climate was "cool and dry" thus no black people!! Africa, especially East Africa has always been around the equator, within the latitudinal tropics, so even if the climate was cooler back in the Ice Age, it was still sunny and hot!
And finally that E3b is an OOA haplotype like J, K, R, N, etc.. Ignoring the fact that his "true negroes" carry E3a which is a sister clade to E3b, and both clades have a common recent origin in Sub-Sahara, by definition not an OOA lineage.
[This message has been edited by Djehuti (edited 23 July 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
...an OOA haplotype like J, K, R, N, etc..
Very questionable indeed.
[This message has been edited by Super car (edited 23 July 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
...an OOA haplotype like J, K, R, N, etc..
quote:
Supercar writes: Very questionable indeed.
Supercar is perceptive. There are no official OOA haplotypes. The term is sometimes used to refer to common lineages carried by the original small population that migrated out of Africa:
These would be M-168 on the Y chromosome, and L3[mn] on the X.
This does not include any E or PN2 transition haplotype [E3a or E3b] which by definition defines the common ancestry of post OOA indigenous Africa.
Of course if one likes, one can expand the phrase OOA haplotype to include any haplotype to migrate out of Africa, including Benin HBS - sickle cell haplotype.
Dienekes often attempts to alter reality by playing with terms such as OOA lineage.
He gets by with people who don't or won't think, but his terminology is illogical, and self serving.
And even so it can't be made to serve his 'cause' in spite of all of his frustrated special pleading.
For example: Old African haplotypes like A entered southWest Europe along with E3b.
In this case you have pre Out of Africa haplotype, and a post Out of Africa haplotype, neither one of which is found among the pristine populations [like the Andamans for example], but they are found in Europeans.
By now everyone should understand why: Unlike Indian Ocean and South Sea Islanders...who have been genetically isolated from Africa since the OOA migration, Europeans keep getting sprayed over and again with African lineages both older and younger than their OOA migration.
One other thing: Dienekes attempts to create some sort of 'racial' 'thing' out of L3x lineages because that's what the OOA population has - - however Dienekes forgets that L3 lineage is derived from L1a which is still present in East Africa today.
East Africa has never been 100% L3, but it was 100% L1 before L3 existed. And L1 and L3 spread throughout Africa long before the glacial maximum. And of course, we've already seen what original OOA L3x population 'looks like'.
In other words, all of Dienekes et. al. attempts to develop a racist ideology based on haplotypes are utterly bogus and laughable to all but the most uneducated and ineducable.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 23 July 2005).]
Furthermore, the reconstructed phenotype of a 100,000 year-old Israeli skeleton has no bearing on what the pre-historic East African ancestors of all humans looked like because that skeleton predates both the climatic changes of the Ice Age and the OOA migrations that gave rise to modern populations:
quote:
The Climate Connection"While Richards' genetic research suggests that only one branch of ancient humans migrated out of Africa to give rise to modern populations, research on ancient climate changes helps pinpoint the time when this migration must have occurred, argues Oppenheimer. Some 80,000 years ago, the world's climate began to cool into a period of glaciation. The polar ice caps reached far down into Europe, lowering sea levels and turning much of Africa into arid desert. This climatic shift occurred roughly at the time when the genetic evidence suggests that the tree of human life sprouted a branch that crossed onto the Arabian Peninsula toward India and Southeast Asia. Indeed, notes Oppenheimer, human-made tools dating back nearly 75,000 years have been found as far east as Malaysia. From there, our human ancestors pushed across shark-infested waters to Australia, where they left behind stone artifacts dating back 60,000 years.
"There were no doubt other human migrations out of Africa before this time. For example, ancient human remains dating from 100,000 to 120,000 years ago have been unearthed in what is now Israel. However, these populations, like others, perished without leaving their genetic imprint on present-day humans. By the time the climatic changes gave rise to the exodus some 80,000 years ago, the migration pathway out of Africa through the Near East was blocked by the Sahara desert, says Oppenheimer, and so the only way out was southward."
http://caribbeancultureproject.org/eve.html
quote:
Originally posted by Super car:
the imprecise "sub-Saharan" is pretty clear to these folks
But it isn't to you, ape, because you think it means "Negro". It doesn't. The eastern part of sub-Saharan Africa is a very specific region that was not home to Negroes until well into the Holocene:
On the broad scale, looking at an "Out-of-Africa" scenario, one would expect that, in some region between southern and northeastern Africa, some differentiation would have been taking place within a Homo sapiens stock, evolving into something beginning to approximate later Sub-Saharan peoples on the one hand, and evolving in another direction on the other hand. East Africa would be a likely locale for appearance of the latter. So anyone is welcome to argue that this is what Elmenteita et al. are manifesting. The ensuing picture for East Africa, that is to say, would later have been changed through replacement by the expansion of Bantu or other "Negroid" tribes. (Howells, 1995)
quote:
those immaterial stuff won’t make you any less of a borderline European
The stupid savage continues to dance around the evidence that kills his agenda . . .
Y-chromosomes:
Autosomes:
quote:
Originally posted by Topdog:
Really? Dry cool desert environment? they don't even go together. Lets look at the evidence:
The climate descriptions in your charts only go back to 10,000 B.C. That's the Holocene, when Africa was beginning to acquire its present hot, humid climate. We're talking about the Pleistocene, when East Africa had a cool, dry desert climate.
Read, monkey:
quote:[/B][/QUOTE]
Originally posted by Evil Euro:
"Tropically adapted" is uninformative. It tells us what region OOA migrants were adapted to, but not what climate existed in that region. You Afronuts are interpreting it to mean adapted to modern tropical conditions, but we know that "contemporary conditions are unrepresentative" (Andrew S. Goudie, The Ice Age in the Tropics and Its Human Implications).Furthermore, the reconstructed phenotype of a 100,000 year-old Israeli skeleton has no bearing on what the pre-historic East African ancestors of all humans looked like because that skeleton predates both the climatic changes of the Ice Age and the OOA migrations that gave rise to modern populations:
[QUOTE][b]The Climate Connection
"While Richards' genetic research suggests that only one branch of ancient humans migrated out of Africa to give rise to modern populations, research on ancient climate changes helps pinpoint the time when this migration must have occurred, argues Oppenheimer. Some 80,000 years ago, the world's climate began to cool into a period of glaciation. The polar ice caps reached far down into Europe, lowering sea levels and turning much of Africa into arid desert. This climatic shift occurred roughly at the time when the genetic evidence suggests that the tree of human life sprouted a branch that crossed onto the Arabian Peninsula toward India and Southeast Asia. Indeed, notes Oppenheimer, human-made tools dating back nearly 75,000 years have been found as far east as Malaysia. From there, our human ancestors pushed across shark-infested waters to Australia, where they left behind stone artifacts dating back 60,000 years.
"There were no doubt other human migrations out of Africa before this time. For example, ancient human remains dating from 100,000 to 120,000 years ago have been unearthed in what is now Israel. However, these populations, like others, perished without leaving their genetic imprint on present-day humans. By the time the climatic changes gave rise to the exodus some 80,000 years ago, the migration pathway out of Africa through the Near East was blocked by the Sahara desert, says Oppenheimer, and so the only way out was southward."
http://caribbeancultureproject.org/eve.html
quote:
Originally posted by Evil Euro:
The stupid savage continues to dance around the evidence that kills his agenda . . .
[b]Y-chromosomes:
Autosomes:
--------------------------
Big nosed hybrid...hybrids don't talk, they listen...
Relaxx
quote:
Originally posted by Evil Euro:
The climate descriptions in your charts only go back to 10,000 B.C. That's the Holocene, when Africa was beginning to acquire its present hot, humid climate. We're talking about the Pleistocene, when East Africa had a cool, dry desert climate.Read, monkey:
quote:
TopDog writes: "Prehistoric" East African remains were found in Kenya and Tanzania and were dated to 7000 B.C. as the earliest possible dating of the remains. Quit putting your foot in your mouth you idiot.
Good point:
By about 10 ka, rainfall was plentiful and most of the Sahara was vegetated; in the south, vegetation zones were displaced some 400 km north of their present-day positions, and fauna from the equatorial regions had migrated north into the Sahara (Lezine, 1989; Lioubimsteva, 1995; Ritchie and Haynes, 1995
We are relating the facts of tropical adaptation in Africans and consequently in the 1st Out of Africa peoples, which is very important and highly informative to bioanthropology.
Here is why:
The earliest anatomical moderns found in Eurasia were skeletally tropically adapted, or "African like", whereas Neanderthal were cold adapted, or "European like". The finding suggests two - highly distinctive populations in Pleistocene Eurasia and that modern Humans were tropically adapted and African in origin - TW Holliday, American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 1999.
As usual no refutation has been offered of the salient facts stated plainly above, because none is possible.
The approach of Pseudoscience is to attempt distraction via non-sequitur.
Pseudoscience makes extraordinary claims and advances fantastic theories that contradict what is known about nature. [ex: prehistoric caucaZoid of East Africa]
Pseudoscience not only provides no evidence that their claims are true. They are also indifferent to the scientific evidence that contradict their conclusions.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 24 July 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by Evil Euro:
But it isn't to you, ape, because you think it means "Negro". It doesn't. The eastern part of sub-Saharan Africa is a very specific region that was not home to Negroes until well into the Holocene
Since when did Supercar or anyone else here for that matter (except YOU), use the word "negro"??
You have never been able to properly define what that word means?
The point is, "negro" or not prehistoric East Africans, by our social context were indeed black people.
And as far as your complaints about the climate in East Africa. It does not change the fact plain and simple that East Africa was still around the tropical latitudes and the weather still sunny and warm, even if it was cooler than it is now.
Why bother explaining anything to you, anyway? You are the person who claims that "negroes" are Bantus, and claim that any black person in modern-day East Africa must have Bantu ancestry!!!
Comes to show you have no knowledge on African ethnography and history, let alone climatology and bioanthropology!
You are a waste of time, stupid canine!
[This message has been edited by Djehuti (edited 24 July 2005).]
quote:
evil agenda:
But it isn't to you, ape, because you think it means "Negro". It doesn't. The eastern part of sub-Saharan Africa is a very specific region that was not home to Negroes until well into the Holocene.
Well slut, nobody has used the word "Negro" here in replacement for sub-Sahara; you are one delusional "borderline" creature. You’ve always denied the of course,undeniable recent ‘sub-Saharan’ origins of the Y chromosomes you folks carry. With the well known fact of sub-Saharan East Africa being well within the tropical African latitudes, it doesn’t come as a surprise that the folks coming from this region have always had a tropical background, and hence, tropically adapted. If this is what you personally refer to as "Negro", then yes, that would certainly make you a hybrid "Negro-european".
quote:
evil agenda:
The stupid savage continues to dance around the evidence that kills his agenda . .
The only agenda here, is to instill you with common sense, i.e., your apparent "borderline" european background. Being born from incest is something that you have to personally deal with, but the resultant brain damage, will not be entertained. 
[This message has been edited by Super car (edited 24 July 2005).]
[This message has been edited by Topdog (edited 25 July 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by Topdog:
I'm through giving you attention because you're too dumb to comprehend anything.
Topdog, that goes without saying. In the meantime, what he refers to as his lifeline, is just as immaterial to his "Negro-European" background, as the mail order brides are to Y-chromosomes.
quote:
E3b entered Europe and North Africa from the Near East during the Neolithic. It's virtually absent in sub-Saharan Africa.
...which of course, induced this response:
quote:
Incorrect. E3b originated in tropical East AFrica...[E3b] is the dominent Paternal haplotype in Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea
But eurotrash insisted:
quote:
That's not sub-Saharan Africa,…It's Northeastern Africa
And now...
quote:
eurotrash:
The eastern part of sub-Saharan Africa is a very specific region...
Well, well! Notice how the grease bush ape has now virtually confessed to the truth, having been cornered. This habbit of backtracking is of course nothing new. eurotrash may be good at lying to himself, but he definitely recognizes the truth.
[This message has been edited by Super car (edited 25 July 2005).]
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 25 July 2005).]
So I'll just kindly repost it for you:
"Tropically adapted" is uninformative. It tells us what region OOA migrants were adapted to, but not what climate existed in that region. You Afronuts are interpreting it to mean adapted to modern tropical conditions, but we know that "contemporary conditions are unrepresentative" (Andrew S. Goudie, The Ice Age in the Tropics and Its Human Implications).
Furthermore, the reconstructed phenotype of a 100,000 year-old Israeli skeleton has no bearing on what the pre-historic East African ancestors of all humans looked like because that skeleton predates both the climatic changes of the Ice Age and the OOA migrations that gave rise to modern populations:
quote:
The Climate Connection"While Richards' genetic research suggests that only one branch of ancient humans migrated out of Africa to give rise to modern populations, research on ancient climate changes helps pinpoint the time when this migration must have occurred, argues Oppenheimer. Some 80,000 years ago, the world's climate began to cool into a period of glaciation. The polar ice caps reached far down into Europe, lowering sea levels and turning much of Africa into arid desert. This climatic shift occurred roughly at the time when the genetic evidence suggests that the tree of human life sprouted a branch that crossed onto the Arabian Peninsula toward India and Southeast Asia. Indeed, notes Oppenheimer, human-made tools dating back nearly 75,000 years have been found as far east as Malaysia. From there, our human ancestors pushed across shark-infested waters to Australia, where they left behind stone artifacts dating back 60,000 years.
"There were no doubt other human migrations out of Africa before this time. For example, ancient human remains dating from 100,000 to 120,000 years ago have been unearthed in what is now Israel. However, these populations, like others, perished without leaving their genetic imprint on present-day humans. By the time the climatic changes gave rise to the exodus some 80,000 years ago, the migration pathway out of Africa through the Near East was blocked by the Sahara desert, says Oppenheimer, and so the only way out was southward."
http://caribbeancultureproject.org/eve.html
quote:
Originally posted by Super car:
The only agenda here, is to instill you with common sense, i.e., your apparent "borderline" european background. Being born from incest is something that you have to personally deal with, but the resultant brain damage, will not be entertained.
The stupid savage is still dancing frantically . . .
quote:
Anthropology:On the broad scale, looking at an "Out-of-Africa" scenario, one would expect that, in some region between southern and northeastern Africa, some differentiation would have been taking place within a Homo sapiens stock, evolving into something beginning to approximate later Sub-Saharan peoples on the one hand, and evolving in another direction on the other hand. East Africa would be a likely locale for appearance of the latter. So anyone is welcome to argue that this is what Elmenteita et al. are manifesting. The ensuing picture for East Africa, that is to say, would later have been changed through replacement by the expansion of Bantu or other "Negroid" tribes. (Howells, 1995)
Y-chromosomes:
Autosomes:
Dance, monkey, dance!
quote:
Originally posted by Topdog:
No you stupid guido, If you read correctly those charts go back to 21,000 years which is well within the Pleistocene
No, you dumb spook. The descriptions of climate stop at 12,000 Yrs bp, i.e. 10,000 B.C. You don't even understand your own sources, so how can I expect you to understand mine? Illiterate ape.
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
Pseudoscience contradicts itself, even in its own terms.
"Today, Afrocentrism is a racist, highly conservative, nationalist pseudo-science (by the latter term I mean: based upon phony scholarship and premises)." -- Grover Furr, Montclair State University
"Pseudoscience contradicts itself, even in its own terms."
LOL It is to laugh!!All these backtracking and contradictions, the stupid canine is trying to avoid the obvious and undeniable.
East Africa is and has always been in Sub-Sahara. It has always been within the latitudes of the tropics, even if temperatures at that time were cooler. I noticed he is so insistent about East African climate being cool during the Pleistocene. As if this is to say a "caucasoid" like population.
Idiot, no climate is ever "cool" in Africa, especially not close to the equator!!
quote:
eurotrash:
...still dancing frantically...
An interesting sigh of total defeat from the halfrican grease savage.
grease monkey, I guess your supply of immaterial stuff from dodona has run out of steam, huh! Well, make the best of borderline european background, or disintegrate; makes no difference.
Point made: The polynesian people that are part of the OOA migration from East Africa are clearly not Caucasoid and have more affinities with Black Africans. They also left earlier than the more recent E3b migrants.
Conclusion: the 1st wave of East African people during the OOA were clearly negroid.
EvilE: They became Negroid later due to adaptation.
Correction: Fossil records show that these OOA migrants were clearly negroid over 30,000k years ago.
Still standing conclusion: East Africans were originally tropically adapted people.
Needed evidence to refute this conclusion: Fossil evidence showing that Australian, Polynesian, Great Andamans, Negrito Yemeni, etc, did not have Negroid affinities 20K years ago. The map so far used by EvilE seems to bolster the agrument that they did have Negroid affinities and thus so must ancient East Africans.
So this Ice Age arguement that produced non-Negroid East African thing doesn't seem to fit into the relity of what is known: Negroid like features found all the way around the world all originating from East Africa. Fossil evidence of these affinities going about 20K years.
EvilE doesn't like to deal with this issue and thus it is not worth discussing the same old questionable crap he likes to spew.
quote:
Originally posted by osirion:Why do you guys bother with EvilE? You have already made your point but he just won't accept it.
Well, whether 'it' accepts facts or not, concerning its 'hybridized' background, is of no concern here. Pseudo-science will not be tolerated, and that is the issue.
modern humans first appear in Europe as tropically adapted. (Trinkhaus, 1981).
early Out of Africa populations were tropically adapted - TW Holliday (2000).
their skin was Black, and the intense sun killed off the progeny with any whiter skin that resulted from mutational variation in the receptor protein. However, the progeny of those humans who migrated North away from the intense African sun were not under the evolutionary constraint that keeps human skin black generation after generation in Africa - Rogers
East Africans have been Equatorial [Black] for 10's of thousands of years - CL Brace.
Skeletal evidence strongly suggests that the first settlers in the Americas had a distinct morphology - which can be seen today among Africans, Australians, and Melanesians.
- Neves WA, Hubbe M, Okumura MM, Gonzalez-Jose R, Figuti L, Eggers S, De Blasis PA.
The oldest Out of Africa expansion occurred 65,000 +- 23000 years ago and is witnessed by mtDNA descendants preserved in Papua New Guinea; the Papuan node is derived from a Eurasian founder, we tentatively propose the following scenario to account for the obvious phenotypic differences between Papuans and [Northern] Eurasians despite their sharing a common ancestry:
"They derive from a single African migration, but split at an early stage before reaching Europe. Meanwhile, proto-Eurasians spent 20 or more millennia genetically drifting to their present distinct phenotypes."
- Peter Forster, Antonio Torroni, Colin Renfrew and Arne Röhl
Europeans do not become fully cold adapted until about the end of the mesolithic (Jacobs 1993)
"Nor does the picture get any clearer when we move on to the Cro-Magnons, the presumed ancestors of modern Europeans. Some were more like present-day Australians or Africans, judged by objective anatomical observations..." - African Exodus
Christopher Stringer and Robin McKie
1996
Tropical adaptation is about morphology adapted to climate. It is highly informative for the reasons stated above.
Of course, no one can force another to learn, especially when ignorance and bigotry are the preferred path.
At any rate, the above scholarship can only be addressed directly, not evaded via non-sequitur ad-hominem or childish distraction.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 26 July 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by yazid904:
Isn't there a snow capped area in Kenya that has been around for millenia and it is slowly melting? I don't recall the area but I will check. A rarity, to say the least.
LOL unless Evil-E can say modern humans originated from the tops of Mount Kilimanjaro, cold-adapted!!
Better than saying that the whole region of East Africa was cold!!! LOL
[This message has been edited by Djehuti (edited 25 July 2005).]
Highly recommended.
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
^^ Mt. Kilimanjaro of course, and of no relevance to:modern humans first appear in Europe as tropically adapted. (Trinkhaus, 1981).
early Out of Africa populations were tropically adapted - TW Holliday (2000).their skin was Black, and the intense sun killed off the progeny with any whiter skin that resulted from mutational variation in the receptor protein. However, the progeny of those humans who migrated North away from the intense African sun were not under the evolutionary constraint that keeps human skin black generation after generation in Africa - Rogers
East Africans have been Equatorial [Black] for 10's of thousands of years - CL Brace.
Skeletal evidence [b]strongly suggests that the first settlers in the Americas had a distinct morphology - which can be seen today among Africans, Australians, and Melanesians.
- Neves WA, Hubbe M, Okumura MM, Gonzalez-Jose R, Figuti L, Eggers S, De Blasis PA.The oldest Out of Africa expansion occurred 65,000 +- 23000 years ago and is witnessed by mtDNA descendants preserved in Papua New Guinea; the Papuan node is derived from a Eurasian founder, we tentatively propose the following scenario to account for the obvious phenotypic differences between Papuans and [Northern] Eurasians despite their sharing a common ancestry:
"They derive from a single African migration, but split at an early stage before reaching Europe. Meanwhile, proto-Eurasians spent 20 or more millennia genetically drifting to their present distinct phenotypes."
- Peter Forster, Antonio Torroni, Colin Renfrew and Arne Röhl
Europeans do not become fully cold adapted until about the end of the mesolithic (Jacobs 1993)"Nor does the picture get any clearer when we move on to the Cro-Magnons, the presumed ancestors of modern Europeans. Some were more like present-day Australians or Africans, judged by objective anatomical observations..." - African Exodus
Christopher Stringer and Robin McKie
1996Tropical adaptation is about morphology adapted to climate. It is highly informative for the reasons stated above.
Of course, no one can force another to learn, especially when ignorance and bigotry are the preferred path.
At any rate, the above scholarship can only be addressed directly, not evaded via non-sequitur ad-hominem or childish destraction.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 25 July 2005).][/B]
How do you find this stuff?
quote:
Originally posted by osirion:
How do you find this stuff?
It's basic bioanthropology available in peer review journals, libraries and on the internet.
However, the best place to start is with modern anthropology and molecular genetics textbooks and college courses if possible.
Before discussing anthropology in depth, one needs to know that -
* 'tropical adaptation' is morphology, and is HIGHLY informative to anthropologists - it is not "region". lol.
Understanding what is morphology, is critical to comprehending human origins.
* Y chromosome is not carried by the female, and denotes paternal lineage, and not phenotype or race catagories.
* Conversely, Benin Hbs is a haplotype that is actually causal of morphological change.
Just keep learning, and refer back nto the parent post.
If one learns how to distinguish science from pseudoscience, you will never be distracted by the ignorance of the ill informed.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 26 July 2005).]
When will these dumb Negroes face the facts?
"Tropically adapted" is uninformative. It tells us what region OOA migrants were adapted to, but not what climate existed in that region. You Afronuts are interpreting it to mean adapted to modern tropical conditions, but we know that "contemporary conditions are unrepresentative" (Andrew S. Goudie, The Ice Age in the Tropics and Its Human Implications).
Furthermore, the reconstructed phenotype of a 100,000 year-old Israeli skeleton has no bearing on what the pre-historic East African ancestors of all humans looked like because that skeleton predates both the climatic changes of the Ice Age and the OOA migrations that gave rise to modern populations:
quote:
The Climate Connection"While Richards' genetic research suggests that only one branch of ancient humans migrated out of Africa to give rise to modern populations, research on ancient climate changes helps pinpoint the time when this migration must have occurred, argues Oppenheimer. Some 80,000 years ago, the world's climate began to cool into a period of glaciation. The polar ice caps reached far down into Europe, lowering sea levels and turning much of Africa into arid desert. This climatic shift occurred roughly at the time when the genetic evidence suggests that the tree of human life sprouted a branch that crossed onto the Arabian Peninsula toward India and Southeast Asia. Indeed, notes Oppenheimer, human-made tools dating back nearly 75,000 years have been found as far east as Malaysia. From there, our human ancestors pushed across shark-infested waters to Australia, where they left behind stone artifacts dating back 60,000 years.
"There were no doubt other human migrations out of Africa before this time. For example, ancient human remains dating from 100,000 to 120,000 years ago have been unearthed in what is now Israel. However, these populations, like others, perished without leaving their genetic imprint on present-day humans. By the time the climatic changes gave rise to the exodus some 80,000 years ago, the migration pathway out of Africa through the Near East was blocked by the Sahara desert, says Oppenheimer, and so the only way out was southward."
http://caribbeancultureproject.org/eve.html
quote:
Originally posted by Super car:
I guess your supply of immaterial stuff from dodona has run out of steam
Translation into Human: "I guess your supply of hard evidence that I, as an Afronut savage, can't refute and so choose to disregard has run roughshod over me, to the point where I can only make up lame taunts to save face."
quote:
Anthropology:On the broad scale, looking at an "Out-of-Africa" scenario, one would expect that, in some region between southern and northeastern Africa, some differentiation would have been taking place within a Homo sapiens stock, evolving into something beginning to approximate later Sub-Saharan peoples on the one hand, and evolving in another direction on the other hand. East Africa would be a likely locale for appearance of the latter. So anyone is welcome to argue that this is what Elmenteita et al. are manifesting. The ensuing picture for East Africa, that is to say, would later have been changed through replacement by the expansion of Bantu or other "Negroid" tribes. (Howells, 1995)
Y-chromosomes:
Autosomes:
Dance, monkey, dance!
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
* Y chromosome...denotes paternal lineage, and not phenotype.
Which brings us back to your contradiction, and the question that you can't answer . . .
quote:
Question:Are Greeks "racially mixed" because of their E3b Y-chromosomes as you've claimed many times, or are Y-chromosomes unconnected to race and morphology as you claimed with the Lemba?
Or, we can try it this way:
Do you accept Underhill's statement that "There are no known genes on the Y that dictate bone morphology", or do you continue to maintain that so-called "negroid traits" in Levantines and Greeks are the result of their E3b Y-chromosomes?
Make up your mind, ape. Is E3b "Black" or unconnected to phenotype? You can't have it both ways.
quote:
Osirion writes: Evil E doesn't like to deal with this issue and thus it is not worth discussing the same old crap he likes to spew.
More on how scientists study tropical morphology and what they learn from it -
Tropical adaptation in the original OOA population is highly informative to scientists, from this fact we learn....
* The reason that modern Africans resemble ancient Africans is due to common morphological adaptation to tropical African climate, in present and ancestral populations. [Holliday, Trinkous, Keita]
* Present tropically adapted non-Africans resemble Africans for the same reasons. [Sing, Holliday, Keita]
Caption reads: Face of the Past.
* The reason indigenous South Asians, Indian Ocean Islanders [shown above], South Sea Islanders, New Guineans and Australians are the people who most closely resemble the original Out of Africa populations, who in turn resemble ancient and modern Africans - is because they are also morphologically adapted to a tropical climate. [Neves, Hubbe, Okumura, Gonzalez et. al]
* The reason Europeans have diverged phenotypically from the original OOA population is because they are recently [mesolithic] cold adapted peoples.[Trinkhous, Stringer, Forster, Torroni, et..]
It is because Europeans so little resemble the original tropically adapted OOA populations that.....
quote:
A few anthropologists believe that modern Europeans are descendant from European Neanderthal Cavemen:According to CL Brace: Neanderthals had short, narrow skulls, large cheekbones and noses and, most distinctive, bunlike bony bumps on the backs of their heads. Many modern Danes and Norwegians have identical features.
Brace continues with reference to ancient Ethiopians: they are splendid specimans and good example of the ancestors of modern Ethiopians....but not Europeans. Neanderthal remains a more likely candidate.
Geneticists disagree and suggest that some similarities between Neanderthal are merely due to recent homoplasy in modern Europeans:
Ancient Human DNA, rib sample of a Neanderthal infant, similar to closely related Neanderthal mtDNA but not modern human mtDNA, Neanderthals constitute a distinct group, separate from modern Europeans, some evidence of variation among Neanderthal groups in Europe, can not tell conclusively whether Neanderthals were replaced by modern humans in Europe (via competition) or were consumed by modern human gene pool via hybridization, more recent evidence suggests that Neanderthals went extinct without hybridization - Macroevolution: Systematics, Classification, Origin of Life, Paleontology,
Biogeography, Coevolution
Evolutionary Biology
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 26 July 2005).]
quote:
eurotrash:
Translation into Human: "I guess your supply of hard evidence that I, as an Afronut savage, can't refute and so choose to disregard has run roughshod over me, to the point where I can only make up lame taunts to save face."
Sorry, this is still immaterial!
But as far as your 'attempt' to translate 'growling' into something meaningful goes, I am glad you are coming to terms that you are inhuman, and about time you learn to speak human "language". Still quite some ways to go though. Just keep trying hard.
grease ape, you are no less borderline today, than you were yesterday. The same holds for tomorrow. So long.
quote:
"Tropically adapted" is uninformative. It tells us what region OOA migrants were adapted to, but not what climate existed in that region. You Afronuts are interpreting it to mean adapted to modern tropical conditions, but we know that "contemporary conditions are unrepresentative" (Andrew S. Goudie, The Ice Age in the Tropics and Its Human Implications).
quote:
The Climate Connection"While Richards' genetic research suggests that only one branch of ancient humans migrated out of Africa to give rise to modern populations, research on ancient climate changes helps pinpoint the time when this migration must have occurred, argues Oppenheimer. Some 80,000 years ago, the world's climate began to cool into a period of glaciation. The polar ice caps reached far down into Europe, lowering sea levels and turning much of Africa into arid desert. This climatic shift occurred roughly at the time when the genetic evidence suggests that the tree of human life sprouted a branch that crossed onto the Arabian Peninsula toward India and Southeast Asia. Indeed, notes Oppenheimer, human-made tools dating back nearly 75,000 years have been found as far east as Malaysia. From there, our human ancestors pushed across shark-infested waters to Australia, where they left behind stone artifacts dating back 60,000 years.
http://www.andaman.org/book/chapter47/text47.htm
Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia remains a country largely inaccessible to scientific population studies. Consequently, very little is know of the genetic structure of its people. Under such circumstances it need not be very significant that no Negrito-like populations (or genetic traces of such) have been reported from there. It is likely that a situation not too dissimilar to that described above for the Yemen also exists, at least in some parts, in Saudi Arabia.
Prehistoric archaeology in Saudi Arabia is a relatively young field. It all started in the 1970s when a number of accidental discoveries drew attention to the potential of the area. There is now growing archaeological activity that has already brought to light evidence of Arabia as a hunting ground and corridor of passage for early pre-human and human migrations.
Dr. Mike Petraglia and his team (funded by the The Leverhulme Trust) have found evidence that so far consists of stone tools of the the Oldowan toolmaking tradition (started around 2.5 million years ago in Africa and lasted for around 1 million years) and of the following Acheuleen tradition (started around 1.8 million years ago, again in Africa,and lasted until around 150,000 years ago).
The tools have not yet been put into a typological series nor have they been dated scientifically yet. Only tools but no bones have been found so far so that their makers can only be assumed to have been Homo erectus. The site Shuwayhitiyah (no. 1 below) shows a close relationship to East African Oldoway. The sites along the coasts of the Red Sea as well as inland are younger with Acheuleen tools. The Dawadmi site (no. 2 below) is especially large and shows tools of both types, indicating that it may have been in use for long periods.
The following map shows some of the more significant excavation sites in the peninsula
The hypothetical routes of the first emigration of both pre-humans and anatomically modern humans out of Africa. All routes are likely to have been used at onbe time or the other. The earliest migration of modern humans was likely to have taken place around 100,000 years ago and to have followed the coastlines. Around 60,000 years ago they had reached Inddia.
So much for your theory of associating an arid desert evironment to "caucasoid"-like people and not blacks!
[This message has been edited by Djehuti (edited 26 July 2005).]
The earliest anatomical moderns found in Eurasia were skeletally tropically adapted, or "African like", whereas Neanderthal were cold adapted, or "European like". The finding suggests two - highly distinctive populations in Pleistocene Eurasia and that modern Humans were tropically adapted and African in origin - [TW Holliday, 1999]
Early OOA populations were physically tropically adapted, and black, like modern Africans, South Asians, and Australians....they were not cold adapted whites like modern Europeans. [Rogers, Alan R., Davis, S. Wooding, 2004]
Europeans did not exist at this time and would not for another 30 thousand years.
Early Europeans still resembled modern tropical peoples -> some resemble modern Australian and Africans, more than modern Europeans [C. Stringer, R. McKie 1996]
Europeans would not become fully cold adapted, and white, until the mesolithic some 15 thousand years later. [Jacobs]
According to the peer review scientific scholarship, prior to these events there are no Europeans, and no white people, Neanderthal man notwithstanding.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 27 July 2005).]
and the greeks called the folks south of egypt ethiopians and that was for all of africa south of egypt as well but as we know they were really talking about nubia mostly and the ancient ethiopians i think brace is talking about above are the axumites.
It is known that the nubians of kush in upper and southern nubia were unmixed africans with broad noses,kinky hair and all to most for awhile in lower nubia as well with these features and most kushites of nubia had dark skin but when i read my sister's history book years back it mention that the axumites were part black and part white but most were known to be black folks that were mixed with white arabs but even if they are mixed most would be still considered black in america and it seems the evil euros and other fake history researchers do not seem to understand.I ALWAYS look or read very carefully when someone says that group or this group is singled out as splendid because i do not know where they are coming from until i know more of their work,AND WHEN YOU SEE THE GROUP THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT MOST OR LARGE NUMBERS IN THAT GROUP always seem to have some features that look like whites,like the straight hair OR narrow noses OR BOTH and sometimes lighter skin and it is known that racist europeans have for years try to make most modern day ethiopians and axumties white,along with most black african groups from all regions even if they have clearly broad noses,kinky hair and if there skin is dark,medium or light.that is really a good example of pseudo science.
BY the way there should be a topic on axumite and early egyptian relations(trade, etc.)
[This message has been edited by kenndo (edited 27 July 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
Brace continues with reference to ancient Ethiopians: they are splendid specimans and good example of the ancestors of modern Ethiopians....but not Europeans. Neanderthal remains a more likely candidate.
quote:
Kenndo posts: and the greeks called the folks south of egypt ethiopians and that was for all of africa south of egypt as well but as we know they were really talking about nubia mostly and the ancient ethiopians i think brace is talking about above are the axumites.
He is referring to prehistoric skeletal remains found in Ethiopia.
quote:
it is known that racist europeans have for years try to make most modern day ethiopians and axumties white,along with most black african groups from all regions even if they have clearly broad noses,kinky hair and if there skin is dark,medium or light.that is really a good example of pseudo science.
Yes you are absolutely right. What is happening with Brace and a few others is that is that they have turned to Neanderthal of Europe as a hoped for ancestor, partly because modern humans lived in Africa for soooo... long before there were any Europeans, it reduces Europe to a bit player in ancient anthropological history.
The famouse "Piltdown Man" scandal - a classic of pseudoscience, which involved fake skeletal remains of supposedly prehistoric Englishmen, occured partly because Europeans could find no ancient skeletal remains equivelant to early African hominids.
Possibly one of the most famous scandals in all of science, the Piltdown Hoax illustrates the dangerous effects a preconceived notion of what "should" be true can have on the scientific pursuit of the truth. By the early twentieth century, Darwin's theory of inheritance of favored traits via competition and natural selection had been accepted by the scientific mainstream. Differing from how we view evolution today, the scientific thought of the time was of "directed evolution" [rasol posts: foreshadows intelligent design? ], or evolution leading to perfection of form.
Under this ideology, organisms evolved, toward the perfect natural form (which, incidentally, was human).
Many scientists and thinkers of the day took this notion a step further, proposing that man, too, had evolved through various stages toward a perfect human form, which just so happened to be western European (see our FAQ on the concept of race in paleoanthropology).
In 1912 Charles Dawson a collector of antiquities for the British Museum found the first of two skulls which apparently validated this hypothesis. The specimens were found in deposits that were thought to be Pliocene in age (5 million to 2 million years ago) near Piltdown, England. The fossil was exactly what the paleontological community expected, the large brain and high forehead of a modern human with an ape-like mandible. British paleontologists championed the find, that Britain was the cradle of humankind was almost too good to be true.
The evidence [of forgery] was there the entire time. Any researcher could have looked at the teeth with a microscope and noticed an artificial wear pattern, or the fact that one tooth had a coat of paint on it. But why didn't anyone recognize this forgery? One reason is that beacause Piltdown affirmed many scientists' hypotheses, they were reluctant to put it under scientific scrutiny that might have proved it wrong.
Piltdown Man
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 27 July 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
Even an idiot knows that deserts are extremely sunny and hot!! They may be cool at night, but I doubt people with little pigmentation can survive in the desert sun, especially back in prehistoric times. Are you suggesting that the ancestors of modern humans resembled light-skinned northern Arabs??
Oh, I don't doubt that Ice Age East Africans were pigmented. They just weren't black like rainforest-adapted Negroes and Negritos. They were probably yellowish-brown like desert-adapted Khoisans and North Africans. But skin color is not the only trait, and you're placing far too much emphasis on it. Crania are much more racially informative, and we know that East African crania -- both ancient and modern -- show greater Eurasian than African affinities (Howells 1995; Brace 1993).
And now for a quick recap . . .
Your "Negritos = ancient Africans" hypothesis is incorrect:
quote:
"If the pressures selecting for a particular characteristic last long enough that characteristic eventually becomes genetically determined in the general population. This is what must have happened to the Negritos. Their remote ancestors need not have been short. It is more likely that dwarf groups acquire their short stature independently: what many such groups have in common is a long-term residence in a tropical deep-forest environment."
Rasol's "African Eve" reconstruction is null and void:
quote:
"There were no doubt other human migrations out of Africa before this time. For example, ancient human remains dating from 100,000 to 120,000 years ago have been unearthed in what is now Israel. However, these populations, like others, perished without leaving their genetic imprint on present-day humans. [...] Some 80,000 years ago, the world's climate began to cool into a period of glaciation...turning much of Africa into arid desert."
And Super car's "borderline Europeans" claim is nonsense:
quote:
R.I.P. Afrocentrism
quote:
Surpercar posts: Sorry, but [the above] is still immaterial
You are correct. Pseudoscience continues to rely on non-sequitur, featuring their own desperate off-point rantings, or references that have no bearing on the attested facts.
The scholars noted below are not discussing PRE ooa hominids, tropical rain forests, or the causes of shortness in the Andaman Islanders, or tallness in New Guinneans or South Sudanese.
The noted scholars and relevant facts thus remain unaddressed and un-refuted.
Why is that?
modern humans first appear in Europe as tropically adapted. (Trinkhaus, 1981).
early Out of Africa populations were tropically adapted - TW Holliday (2000).
their skin was Black, and the intense sun killed off the progeny with any whiter skin that resulted from mutational variation in the receptor protein. However, the progeny of those humans who migrated North away from the intense African sun were not under the evolutionary constraint that keeps human skin black generation after generation in Africa - Rogers
East Africans have been Equatorial [Black] for 10's of thousands of years - CL Brace.
Skeletal evidence strongly suggests that the first settlers in the Americas had a distinct morphology - which can be seen today among Africans, Australians, and Melanesians.
- Neves WA, Hubbe M, Okumura MM, Gonzalez-Jose R, Figuti L, Eggers S, De Blasis PA.
The oldest Out of Africa expansion occurred 65,000 +- 23000 years ago and is witnessed by mtDNA descendants preserved in Papua New Guinea; the Papuan node is derived from a Eurasian founder, we tentatively propose the following scenario to account for the obvious phenotypic differences between Papuans and [Northern] Eurasians despite their sharing a common ancestry:
"They derive from a single African migration, but split at an early stage before reaching Europe. Meanwhile, proto-Eurasians spent 20 or more millennia genetically drifting to their present distinct phenotypes."
- Peter Forster, Antonio Torroni, Colin Renfrew and Arne Röhl
Europeans do not become fully cold adapted until about the end of the mesolithic (Jacobs 1993)
"Nor does the picture get any clearer when we move on to the Cro-Magnons, the presumed ancestors of modern Europeans. Some were more like present-day Australians or Africans, judged by objective anatomical observations..." - African Exodus
Christopher Stringer and Robin McKie
1996
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 27 July 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by Evil Euro:
[b]R.I.P. Afrocentrism[/B]
I have already explained to you. In order to refute the claims of the Afrocentrics you must provide fossil evidence that shows that the Negritos, Melanesians, Polynesians, Negrito Yemeni had previously non-Negroid affinities. The references you have provided do not refute the affinities but rather bolster them. So far all I have seen is a cranium map that supports the Afrocentric position.
How? Simple, the cranium map clearly shows that Melanesians and Australian people are essentially Sub-Saharan Africans, or as close as any other group (if we use the map as proof of some sort of relationship which I do not make such a claim). Either they were your Eurasian types originally and adapted or your East Africans were orginally "tropically adapted" or had strong Negroid affinities. Where is your fossil evidence showing adaptation? Rasol has inundated us with evidence showing that this is not the case. Where is your references showing adaptation from the proto-Caucasoid East African phenotype to Negrito?
[This message has been edited by osirion (edited 27 July 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by osirion:
The references you have provided do not refute the affinities but rather bolster them. So far all I have seen is a cranium map that supports the Afrocentric position.
You are quite right in noting that nothing has been presented to counter the known facts of tropical morphology in the original Out of Africa populations in contrast to the recent cold adapted morphology of Europeans.
Bear in mind, the over 20 scholars cited are themselves mostly European, and some are quite 'Eurocentric' in some respects... but the facts are there nonetheless and have not been addressed.
quote:
the cranium map clearly shows that Melanesians and Australian people are essentially Sub-Saharan Africans
They are indeed similar in appearence to each other, [don't need a map to see that] and moreover they are the most similar to Non African Paleolithic remains...
I won't re-cite the scholars here, because it's clear that pseudo's are helpless when faced with facts - which is why they run away from addressing the cited scholars directly.
quote:
they were your Eurasian types originally and were orginally "tropically adapted"
Absolutely. Whereas the original Eurasians were tropically adapted, which is highly informative, modern European are distinctly cold adapted and became so at the end of the mesolithic.
This explains why they don't look like their tropically adapted, per Holliday "African-like" ancestors. Truth is easy. It's "running away" from the truth in bitter desperation that is difficult.
quote:
Where is your fossil evidence a showing adaptation from the proto-Caucasoid
Anticipating tomorrows destractions from our resident pseudo - he will attempt once again to invoke WW Howells on his behalf, although Howells makes no claims for East African caucaZoid.
Specific findings from scholars with regard to caucaZoid in East Africa:
claims that 'caucaZoid' once lived in East Africa have been proven wrong. - JO Vogel, PreColonial Africa.
the term "Nilotic Negro" best describes early Rift populations. - Phil Rightmire.
Top Dog correctly noted earlier why references to Howells, is non-sequitur.....
quote:
Top Dog writes: "Prehistoric" East African remains were found in Kenya and Tanzania and were dated to 7000 B.C. as the earliest possible dating of the remains. Quit putting your foot in your mouth you E-diot.
Those 8 thousand year old remains are not the ancestors of Europeans, and so are moot to discussion of European origins.
Europeans migrated out of AFrica and settled in Europe 35 thousand years ago -PA Underhill.
They are however, the ancestors of East Africans as noted by Jean Hiernaux, the People of Africa: early East Africans are ancestral to modern Elongated East Africans. Niether ancient nor modern East Africans should be considered closely related to Europeans, whom they differ greatly from, in a number of respects.
Who exactly were the 1st Europeans and what did they look like:
Some were more like present-day Australians or Africans, judged by objective anatomical observations..." - African Exodus Christopher Stringer and Robin McKie
1996
And Why is this so?
The earliest anatomical moderns found in Eurasia were skeletally tropically adapted, or "African like", whereas Neanderthal were cold adapted, or "European like". The finding suggests two - highly distinctive populations in Pleistocene Eurasia and that modern Humans were tropically adapted and African in origin - [TW Holliday, 1999]
Pseudo's are free to keep running away from scholars, Holliday, Stringer, Rogers, Underhill, et. al.
But they are merely venting sour grapes with non-sequitur, non-arguments and will continue to be quite rightly dismissed as such.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 27 July 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Oh, I don't doubt that Ice Age East Africans were pigmented. They just weren't black like rainforest-adapted Negroes and Negritos. They were probably yellowish-brown like desert-adapted Khoisans and North Africans. But skin color is not the only trait, and you're placing far too much emphasis on it...
quote:
Crania are much more racially informative, and we know that East African crania -- both ancient and modern -- show greater Eurasian than African affinities (Howells 1995; Brace 1993).
This is one thing you are definitely wrong about!! Exactly what do you mean by 'Eurasian affinities' and 'African affinities'?! You still have not specified what exactly such affinities are, and both Africans and Eurasians are craniomorphically diverse!! Cranial features are the most diverse anatomical traits of humans and so they say little about lineage. Yet you seem to equate Eurasian with "caucasoid" despite the fact that there are many Eurasians who cranially are "negroid"! At the same time, Africans also vary to which some are "negroid" while others more "caucasoid", again this says nothing about genetic ties or lineage.
You are one dumb mutt!!
[This message has been edited by Djehuti (edited 27 July 2005).]
quote:
eurotrash:
And Super car's "borderline Europeans" claim is nonsense
Still immaterial...to your borderline european background.
quote:
Originally posted by osirion:
Where is your references showing adaptation from the proto-Caucasoid East African phenotype to Negrito?
It has been established that racially undifferentiated pre-historic East Africans had greater affinities with modern Europeans and Asians than with modern Africans, and also that Negritos have experienced "long-term residence in a tropical deep-forest environment", from which they've acquired adaptations (e.g. short stature) that were not present in their desert-adapted ancestors. Of course, Europeans have adapted to their own environments as well, but the point is, they didn't evolve from "ancient Negroes".
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
Those 8 thousand year old remains are not the ancestors of Europeans, and so are moot to discussion of European origins.
Right, they're so "moot" that Howells relates them to OOA migrations:
The DISPOP results here are not indicative of anything, except a general non-African nature for all these skulls. Display of POPKIN distances (infra) reinforces this and seems to find nearer neighbors among such more generalized populations as Peru, Guam, or Ainu, but also Europeans or even Easter Island.
Remembering that the Teita series (Bantu speakers of southeastern Kenya), and the recent East African skulls in table 4 above, do clearly exhibit African affiliations, it is fair to say, contra Rightmire, that there seems to be no clear continuity here in late prehistory. On the broad scale, looking at an "Out-of-Africa" scenario, one would expect that, in some region between southern and northeastern Africa, some differentiation would have been taking place within a Homo sapiens stock, evolving into something beginning to approximate later Sub-Saharan peoples on the one hand, and evolving in another direction on the other hand. East Africa would be a likely locale for appearance of the latter. So anyone is welcome to argue that this is what Elmenteita et al. are manifesting. The ensuing picture for East Africa, that is to say, would later have been changed through replacement by the expansion of Bantu or other "Negroid" tribes.
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
both the Khoisans and light-skinned black Berbers live in the extreme south/north ends of the continent respectively---away from the equator!!
But they live in deserts, you moron, which is what tropical Africa was during most of the Pleistocene.
quote:
This is one thing you are definitely wrong about!!
Um, no. Brace and Howells are not wrong.
quote:
Originally posted by Super car:
Still immaterial...to your borderline european background.
Still dancing...because of your borderline human background.
On the Y-chromosome: Greeks, Italians and Spaniards are in the same cluster with Brits, Germans and Czechs.
quote:
Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Right, they're so "moot" that Howells relates them to OOA migrations:The DISPOP results here are not indicative of anything, except a general non-African nature for all these skulls. Display of POPKIN distances (infra) reinforces this and seems to find nearer neighbors among such more generalized populations as Peru, Guam, or Ainu, but also Europeans or even Easter Island.
Remembering that the Teita series (Bantu speakers of southeastern Kenya), and the recent East African skulls in table 4 above, do clearly exhibit African affiliations, it is fair to say, contra Rightmire, that there seems to be no clear continuity here in late prehistory. On the broad scale, [b]looking at an "Out-of-Africa" scenario, one would expect that, in some region between southern and northeastern Africa, some differentiation would have been taking place within a Homo sapiens stock, evolving into something beginning to approximate later Sub-Saharan peoples on the one hand, and evolving in another direction on the other hand. East Africa would be a likely locale for appearance of the latter. So anyone is welcome to argue that this is what Elmenteita et al. are manifesting. The ensuing picture for East Africa, that is to say, would later have been changed through replacement by the expansion of Bantu or other "Negroid" tribes.
You didn't read the entire book, did you?:
From Howells' book, Who's Who is skulls:
p. 96
"The second kind of departure from DISPOP may be allied to the above but involves prehistoric specimens. As above, Fish Hoek, firmly Bushmen in other tests, is here, with no Bush in the reference framework, either European or Asian, not African. So the difficulty of placing the Elmenteita, Afalou, and Teviec specimens, seen earlier and repeated here, comes to the fore again: robusticity? or lack of kin among reference populations? I consider either to be plausible.
p.101
"Beyond actual recent peoples matters change somewhat. Relatively late prehistoric specimens confirm expectable affiliations in many cases; in others the assignment is unreasonable. Certain earlier cases, like Mladec 1, seem to fall into place among modern populations of an area. However, such specimens as Afalou 5, Teviec 11, Elmenteita A and B, and Upper Cave 101 all are generally recognized as modern anatomically but are here probabilistically well removed, while suggesting affiliations which are not credible.
Still waiting for your answer Eurotroll.
[This message has been edited by Topdog (edited 28 July 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by Evil Euro:
It has been established that racially undifferentiated pre-historic East Africans had greater affinities with modern Europeans and Asians than with modern Africans, and also that Negritos have experienced "long-term residence in a tropical deep-forest environment", from which they've acquired adaptations (e.g. short stature) that were not present in their desert-adapted ancestors. Of course, Europeans have adapted to their own environments as well, but the point is, they didn't evolve from "ancient Negroes".
I will only ask one more time and then completely ignore you.
Where is your references showing fossil records of adaptation of Negrito, Polynesian, Melanesian, etc from your so called ancient East African proto-Caucasoid types? Cranium maps, etc, not stature issues. I am open to evidence not speculation.
So far the evidence you have provided only infers that there was further diversification in East Africa before the second OOA wave.
quote:
Originally posted by Topdog:
You didn't read the entire book, did you?:
From Howells' book, Who's Who is skulls:
p. 96"The second kind of departure from DISPOP may be allied to the above but involves prehistoric specimens. As above, Fish Hoek, firmly Bushmen in other tests, is here, with no Bush in the reference framework, either European or Asian, not African. So the difficulty of placing the Elmenteita, Afalou, and Teviec specimens, seen earlier and repeated here, comes to the fore again: robusticity? or lack of kin among reference populations? I consider either to be plausible.
p.101"Beyond actual recent peoples matters change somewhat. Relatively late prehistoric specimens confirm expectable affiliations in many cases; in others the assignment is unreasonable. Certain earlier cases, like Mladec 1, seem to fall into place among modern populations of an area. However, such specimens as Afalou 5, Teviec 11, Elmenteita A and B, and Upper Cave 101 all are generally recognized as modern anatomically but are here probabilistically well removed, while suggesting affiliations which are not credible.
Still waiting for your answer Eurotroll.
The difference between actual thinking and mere 
parroting of the pseudo-scholarship of Dienekes Pontikos,
Which results in.....
suggesting affiliations which are not credible. - WW Howells.
and dullminded inability to grasp those affiliations which are....
early East Africans are ancestral to modern Elongated East Africans. Niether ancient nor modern East Africans should be considered closely related to Europeans, whom they differ greatly from, in a number of respects- J. Hiernaux.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 28 July 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by osirion:
I will only ask one more time and then completely ignore you.Where is your references showing fossil records of adaptation of Negrito, Polynesian, Melanesian, etc from your so called ancient East African proto-Caucasoid types? Cranium maps, etc, not stature issues. I am open to evidence not speculation.
quote:
Originally posted by Evil Euro:
But they live in deserts, you moron, which is what tropical Africa was during most of the Pleistocene.
YOU'RE the moron!! Did you not read what I said?
quote:
Djehuti said: Dumb canine, the desert environment that Khoisans now live in (South Africa) probably didn't exist during that time!Besides, both the Khoisans and light-skinned black Berbers live in the extreme south/north ends of the continent respectively---away from the equator!! In fact these people live directly outside the range of the tropical zone, with Khoisan living just below the Tropic of Capricorn and the Berbers living just above the Tropic of Cancer.
On the other hand, the East African region from whence OOAs originated is smack dab on the equatorial zone, dumbass!!
Populations that are truly adapted to rainforests are lighter-skinned, like Pygmies, because the forests offer shade from UV. While populations who are truly desert adapted have darker/blacker skin, like Nubians and Afar of Africa, the black Yemenis and Mahra of Arabia, and the Bhils of the deserts of India, because of virtually no protection from UV exposure, stupidass!
You call ME a moron, when you couldn't even comprehend what I've written!!
quote:
Um, no. Brace and Howells are not wrong.
I mentioned nothing about Brace and Howells. I said YOU are wrong, dumbass!
Again.
quote:
Exactly what do you mean by 'Eurasian affinities' and 'African affinities'?! You still have not specified what exactly such affinities are, and both Africans and Eurasians are craniomorphically diverse!! Cranial features are the most diverse anatomical traits of humans and so they say little about lineage.Yet you seem to equate Eurasian with "caucasoid" despite the fact that there are many Eurasians who cranially are "negroid"! At the same time, Africans also vary to which some are "negroid" while others more "caucasoid", again this says nothing about genetic ties or lineage.
How stupid can you get?!!
[This message has been edited by Djehuti (edited 28 July 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by Evil Euro:
On the Y-chromosome: Greeks, Italians and Spaniards are in the same cluster with Brits, Germans and Czechs.
Still immaterial, as far as borderline Europeans are concerned, grease monkey.
quote:
Originally posted by osirion:
Where is your references showing fossil records of adaptation of Negrito, Polynesian, Melanesian, etc from your so called ancient East African proto-Caucasoid types? Cranium maps, etc, not stature issues. I am open to evidence not speculation.
Well, if that data was available we wouldn't be having this discussion. However, its absence doesn't change the fact that the ancestors of Negritos came out of a desert environment and then adapted to a rainforest environment, which caused differentiation in the direction of pygmies. Hence, they look like pygmies and are not representative of ancient East Africans.
quote:
Originally posted by Super car:
Still immaterial, as far as borderline Europeans are concerned, grease monkey.
Silence, you nattering no-answer nigger.
quote:
Originally posted by osirion:
I will only ask one more time and then completely ignore you.Where is your references showing fossil records of adaptation of Negrito, Polynesian, Melanesian, etc from your so called ancient East African proto-Caucasoid types?
quote:
relaxx wrote:
Osirion,
This is one of the best interventions so far in this thread...let's see what comes out of his empty Greek head...
Relaxx
Mostly....
...beads of sweat.
But no answers that's for sure.
Psuedoscience is exposed, and defeated once again.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 29 July 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Well, if that data was available we wouldn't be having this discussion. However, its absence doesn't change the fact that the ancestors of Negritos came out of a desert environment and then adapted to a rainforest environment, which caused differentiation in the direction of pygmies. Hence, they look like pygmies and are not representative of ancient East Africans.
*sigh* and again...
quote:
On the other hand, the East African region from whence OOAs originated is smack dab on the equatorial zone, dumbass!!Populations that are truly adapted to rainforests are lighter-skinned, like Pygmies, because the forests offer shade from UV. While populations who are truly desert adapted have darker/blacker skin, like Nubians and Afar of Africa, the black Yemenis and Mahra of Arabia, and the Bhils of the deserts of India, because of virtually no protection from UV exposure, stupidass!
quote:
Silence, you nattering no-answer nigger.
[This message has been edited by Djehuti (edited 29 July 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Silence, you nattering no-answer nigger.
That would then make you a nattering grease spaghetti-eating cave nigger, wouldn't you say?
[This message has been edited by Super car (edited 29 July 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Well, if that data was available we wouldn't be having this discussion.
quote:
Originally posted by relaxx:
That's the most stupid answer I've ever seen in my life...
Relaxx
What else would you expect from a grease wop who believes in fairy tales like, you know, Y chromosome carrying females?
quote:
Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Well, if that data was available we wouldn't be having this discussion. However, its absence doesn't change the fact that the ancestors of Negritos came out of a desert environment and then adapted to a rainforest environment, which caused differentiation in the direction of pygmies. Hence, they look like pygmies and are not representative of ancient East Africans.
Indeed, absence of data is not proof of absence. In this case, however, data is not absent. Fossil records clearly show that these beach combing first wave OOA East African derived people were 'Tropically Adapated' with strong Negroid affinities.
A good term for them: Oceanic Negroes.
Without references to evidence showing that the research provided by Rasol has been refuted and that new evidence suggests support for your hypothesis, I must conclude that there's a preponderance of evidence supporting the Afrocentric viewpoint.
Though myself I would prefer to still see evidence supporting an intermediate I have yet to actually see proof that such exists.
quote:
Originally posted by osirion:
Fossil records clearly show that these beach combing first wave OOA East African derived people were 'Tropically Adapated' with strong Negroid affinities.
Where is this evidence of "Negroid affinities"? "African" doesn't mean "Negroid". All the evidence I've seen points to the Khoisan as most representative of the first undifferentiated OOA humans. And indeed, there exist certain affinities between Khoisans and Negritos:
"Apart from dark skin and curly hair, they [Negritos] have little in common with any African population, including the African pygmies. There are, however, a few fascinating connections to the Khoisan of South Africa." (Source)
"The trait of steatopygia links the Andamanese to the South African Khoisan (Bushmen and Hottentots) in a fascinating way: the two populations are very remote from each other but they are the only living groups with steatopygia. This is especially relevant since steatopygia is genetically controlled and is thought to be very ancient indeed." (Source)
I also came across this passage about skin color, which confirms what I've been saying:
"Of course, nothing above is meant to imply that pre-LGM Europeans were as dark as Africans. Evidence suggests that early modern humans had a medium complexion, like that of today's Khoisan or Ethiopians. The very dark complexion of central Africans also seems to be a recent adaptation (Semino and others 2002). To be sure, prior studies had suggested Mbuti pygmies as most resembling the first moderns, but current molecular evidence points to the Khoisan and Ethiopians." (Source)
quote:
Originally posted by Evil Euro:
I'll just ignore all the nattering niggers who hide behind lame insults and bogus claims to cover their own lack of answers. They know who they are, and acknowledging them only makes them think they matter.
Where is this evidence of "Negroid affinities"? "African" doesn't mean "Negroid". All the evidence I've seen points to the Khoisan as most representative of the first undifferentiated OOA humans. And indeed, there exist certain affinities between Khoisans and Negritos:"Apart from dark skin and curly hair, they [Negritos] have little in common with any African population, including the African pygmies. There are, however, a few fascinating [b]connections to the Khoisan of South Africa." (Source)
"The trait of steatopygia links the Andamanese to the South African Khoisan (Bushmen and Hottentots) in a fascinating way: the two populations are very remote from each other but they are the only living groups with steatopygia. This is especially relevant since steatopygia is genetically controlled and is thought to be very ancient indeed." (Source)
I also came across this passage about skin color, which confirms what I've been saying:"Of course, nothing above is meant to imply that pre-LGM Europeans were as dark as Africans. Evidence suggests that early modern humans had a medium complexion, like that of today's Khoisan or Ethiopians. The very dark complexion of central Africans also seems to be a recent adaptation (Semino and others 2002). To be sure, prior studies had suggested Mbuti pygmies as most resembling the first moderns, but current molecular evidence points to the Khoisan and Ethiopians." (Source)[/B]
quote:
Originally posted by osirion:
Without references to evidence showing that the research provided has been refuted and that new evidence suggests support for your hypothesis....
This is also characteristic of pseudoscience:
pseudoscience - does not progress. Within a given topic, no progress is made and no data is presented.
In contrast modern bioanthropology has largely abandoned the outdated discredited notions of racial typologies.
Human beings do not divide into racial sub-species - negroid, caucasoid and mongoloid, which are artificial essentially political, and non biological, abstractions.
attempts to divide humans into race have failed - Cavelli Sforza.`
As for our resident pseudo, of course he has no data, cannot address the facts, and has been reduced to mindless embittered sub-mental screeches. Also characteristic of pseudos.
quote:
relaxx writes: Pygmies 101
The irony will be lost on some so, spelling it out.
Steatopygia - localised fat storage in the hips, is a feature of the women, but it occurs in a lesser degree in the males. It is also common among the Khoikhoi, and has been noted among the Pygmies of Central Africa.
Steatopygia, like dark skin is a tropical morphology of African origin per.
Rensch's Rule:
populations living in cold environments tend to have a generalized distribution of fat while those living in a hot, tropical environment tend to have localized fat deposits: steatopygia
Hence both are cited by scholars as evidence in support of the tropical African character of OOA peoples, including but not exclusive to the Andamans.
Source:
Generalised fat under the skin is called sub-cutaneous fat. The advantage of sub-cutaneous fat in a cold environment is that it also traps heat. But if this is generalised throughout the body it is maladaptive in the tropics.
So tropically adapted people tend to localise fat in areas such as around the hips, wheras the rest of the body including the limbs tend to have minimal fat - which aids heat dissipation.
Europeans have more subcutaneous fat under the skin than tropically adapted peoples such as the OOA migrants.
Dark skin, steatopygia, heat dissipating limb ratios and skeletal structure - all tropical adaptations.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 30 July 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
The irony will be lost on some so, spelling it out.Steatopygia - localised fat storage in the hips, is a feature of the women, but it occurs in a lesser degree in the males. It is also common among the Khoikhoi, and has been noted among the Pygmies of Central Africa.
Steatopygia, like dark skin is a tropical morphology of African origin per.[b]Rensch's Rule:
populations living in cold environments tend to have a generalized distribution of fat while those living in a hot, tropical environment tend to have localized fat deposits: steatopygia
Hence both are cited by scholars as evidence in support of the tropical African character of OOA peoples, including but not exclusive to the Andamans.
Source:
Generalised fat under the skin is called sub-cutaneous fat. The advantage of sub-cutaneous fat in a cold environment is that it also traps heat. But if this is generalised throughout the body it is maladaptive in the tropics.So tropically adapted people tend to localise fat in areas such as around the hips, wheras the rest of the body including the limbs tend to have minimal fat - which aids heat dissipation.
Europeans have more subcutaneous fat under the skin than tropically adapted peoples such as the OOA migrants.
Dark skin, steatopygia, heat dissipating limb ratios and skeletal structure - all tropical adaptations.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 30 July 2005).][/B]
Rasol,
This off topic, I'm very familiar with what Africans look like...but people from Southern India have phenotypes similar to Africans: there are people who look exactly like Elongated Eastern Africans...and others who have features similar to the Batwa (Pygmies) of Central Africa...however you don't find people who have San features...maybe there are but I haven't seen any...In other parts of the world like Eurasia, or Northern India, you don't really see the same similarities, I mean people are more mixed...Do you know any research in anthropology that compares Southern India and Africa? Maybe I should post that in the other forum...
Relaxx
Another thing, is why does Stupid-Euro talk as if Khoisan people are non-Africans or different from other Africans?!! Khoisan are just as African, or perhaps even more so than West African "negroes" because they are more ancient. But in the end they are all African, so what the hell?!
[This message has been edited by Djehuti (edited 30 July 2005).]
quote:
euroscum grunting:
I'll just ignore all the nattering niggers who hide behind lame insults and bogus claims to cover their own lack of answers. They know who they are, and acknowledging them only makes them think they matter.
No less immaterial! And weeping now, is yet more immaterial.
Now, let us get to what matters to an intellectually downtrodden ginney clown, who hides behind lame insults and bogus claims to cover his own lack of answers:
Richards et al, 2002, actually make reference to an even more recent gene flow of sub-Saharan E lineages into Europe:
"The analysis for eastern Mediterranean Europe indicated a very high frequency (∼20%) of recent gene flow, as compared with only ∼10% Neolithic input. It would be necessary to perform a similar founder analysis (using, for example, a large panel of fast-evolving microsatellites) to see whether a proportion of the putative Y chromosome Neolithic types in Europe are actually of more recent origin. However, it is suggestive that the frequency of Y chromosome haplogroup E, which Semino et al. (2000) have inferred to be Neolithic, appears at particularly high levels in the western Mediterranean in the more extensive sample of Rosser et al. (2000) (fig. 3E). As Rosser et al. suggest, this may imply gene flow mainly from North Africa (where haplogroup E reaches its highest frequency), rather than mainly from the Near East, because, judging from archaeological evidence, the development of agriculture in Iberia is likely to have been largely indigenous (Zilhão 2000)."
From the first PC analysis, Richards et al found that,
"The first PC accounts for 49% of the variation and is approximately east-west within Europe, but the Near East and eastern Mediterranean Europe cluster with central Europe. This gradient is accounted for largely by paragroup R* (nomenclature of the Y Chromosome Consortium [2002]), formerly haplogroup 1 (Jobling and Tyler-Smith 2000) in the west and by haplogroups R1a (formerly haplogroup 3) and N3 (formerly Tat) in the east (fig. 5). In agreement with the suggestion proposed to explain the distribution of mtDNA haplogroup V (Torroni et al. 1998, 2001), the distributions of Y chromosome groups R* and R1a have been interpreted by Semino et al. (2000) to be the result of postglacial expansions from refugia within Europe."
But with Hg E in the mix, they got:
"The second PC of Y chromosome variation accounts for 26% of the variation, and it clusters most European regions at one pole while grouping the Near East at the other, with eastern Mediterranean and central Mediterranean Europe between the two poles.
The main contributors to the gradients are haplogroups E and J (formerly haplogroups 21 and 9, both of which are frequent in the Near East) and, again, R* and N3 (both of which are more frequent in Europe). This points to gene flow from the Near East, as suggested by both Cavalli-Sforza et al. (1994) and Semino et al. (2000). Haplogroup J in Europe is interpreted more specifically by Semino et al. (2000) as the result of Neolithic dispersal. Curiously, however, haplogroups E and J are again most frequent along the Mediterranean coastline and rapidly dwindle as one moves into central Europe, where the archaeological record tells us the main farming expansion took place…
From Semino et al,
"Southern Italy (Apulia and Calabria) contains sites of the early Neolithic period (Whitehouse 1968), but we know from history that these regions were subsequently colonized by the Greeks (Peloponnesians). To test the relative contribution of Greek colonists versus putative earlier Neolithic settlers, an admixture analysis (Bertorelle and Excoffier 1998) was performed, using E-M78 and J-M172(xM12) as signatures of Greek and Anatolian lineages, respectively. The Anatolian source population was based on 523 Turks, of whom 118 were J-M172(xM12) and 25 were E-M78 (Cinniolu et al. 2004). The Greek population comprised 36 Peloponnesian samples, 5 of which were J-M172(xM12) and 17 of which were E-M78 (R.K., unpublished data). In spite of the small Peloponnesian sample size, the high E-M78 frequency (47%) observed here is consistent with that (44%) independently found in the same region (Di Giacomo et al. 2003) for the YAP chromosomes harboring microsatellite haplotypes (A. Novelletto, personal communication) typical of Hg E-M78 (Cruciani et al. 2004 [in this issue]; present study…
…Moreover, the observation that the derivative E-M78 displays the DYS392-12/DYS19-11 haplotype suggests that it also arose in East Africa."
From Sanchez et al.,
"The frequency of haplogroup E3b1*(xE3b1b) in Somali males is the highest observed in any populations to date, and we suggest that the Somali male population is the origin of this haplogroup...
Although the Horn of Africa is considered a geographic part of sub-Saharan Africa, we have analysed the Somali population separately in order to compare the results with previously published data from other African populations."
Semino et al,
German
E3b 6.2%, I 37.5%, J 0%, R1b 50%
Polish
E3b 3.6%, I 23.6%, J 0%, R1b 16.4%, R1a 56.4%
Greek
E3b 22.4%, I 7.9%, J 21%, R1b 27%, R1a 11%
Lebanese
E3b 25.8%, I 3.2%, J 29%, R1b 6.4%, R1a 10%
Now that's some food for thought, for a borderline european.
[This message has been edited by Super car (edited 30 July 2005).]
quote:
however you don't find people who have San features
Tends to be somewhat subjective.
Many people see "East Asian features" in Khoisan speakers, such as the prominent cheekbones and ephipantic eyefolds.
Doesn't matter much as biologically and phenotypically the Khoisan, Pygme, Elongated, Niger Congo types, and Bantu are all related and indigenous African varients.
They share common lineages and moreover their physical features cross-into one another today and did even moreso in the past.
This is why they are not seen as racial types by modern bioanthropologists.
The earliest modern remains found in the Nile Valley 33kya~ were likened to Nubians...but also Khoisans:
Nazlet Khater falls closer to the Late Palaeolithic Nubian samples, If an ancestral descendant relationship existed between Nazlet Khater and the Late Palaeolithic Nubian specimens, then regional continuity persisted among the Upper/Late Pleistocene populations of the Upper Nile region. - The position of the Nazlet Khater specimen among prehistoric and modern populations. Pinhasi R., Semal P.
Journal of Human Evolution, Vol. 13, (2000), pp. 269-288
It is a futility to play the Khoisan-vs-Bantu-vs-Nilote-vs-Pygme game on old African remains....
Genetically, when you go back in time, the lineages of different modern AFrican groups converge, and do not necessarily concord with specific modern ethnic groups, nor should they - since these ethnic groups did not exist at that time.
[this is also why the notion of 'aethiopoid', popular among white purity fantasy crowd in places like stormfront and dodona - and a very few foolish somali who ape them, has no currency in science]
This leads us to the misleading "halfquote" offered by the resident pseudo from the same "PaleoEtiology of Human Skin Tone" article which was earlier properly sited with respect to the tropical African morphology of OOA peoples.
quoted:
Evidence suggests that early modern humans had a medium complexion, like that of todays Khoisan or Ethiopians.
left out:
To be sure, prior studies had suggested Mbuti pygmies as most resembling the first moderns, but current molecular evidence points to the Khoisan and Ethiopians. [Semino 2002]
The 'prior studies' referenced are skeletal, and are correctly represented by the more recent.....
http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/realeve/interactive/migration.html
It reinforces, and is not in conflict with the also excellent Semino [2002] study which is genetic and properly referenced below:
Ethiopians and Khoisan share the deepest clades of the human Y-chromosome phylogeny. - Am J Hum Genet 70:265268, in which
The presence of different Y-chromosome haplotypes belonging to African-specific Group I {Haplotype A} in all groups of Ethiopians and in the Khoisan (at frequencies of 13% and 44%, respectively) confirms that these populations share an ancestral paternity, and it indicates that Group I was part of the proto African Y chromosome gene pool.
Note A/B are precurser to D.
Derived D lineages are what tropical Asians of New Guinnea, Melanesia and the Andamans have.
A/B is also precursor to E, and E is what most modern Africans have, only the oldest East and South African populations like the Oromo, the Khwe, and San retain high levels of Group A.
The current findings, genetic and skeletal are coherent and consistent with the tropical African affinities of OOA populations.
Of course, we don't expect pseudo's who believe women 'carry' Y chromosome to grasp any of it. But that's their problem.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 30 July 2005).]
quote:
Speaking of steatopygia, isn't that why many black women have the "big booty"??!
Steatopygia is present most common in descendants of hunter gather groups probably because it is most strongly selected for among them, then in diminuative types "pygme", and then broad African types.
It is less common in elongated types, who have the least amount of sub-cutaneous body fat in the world having given up storing fat altogether in favor of dissipating heat.
If the San have one kind of extreme tropical adaptation...then the Dinka, for example, have another.
Some of the early branches of physical anthropology, such as early anthropometry, are now rejected as pseudoscience. Metrics such as the cephalic index were used to derive behavioral characteristics. With the rise of Darwinian theory and the modern synthesis, anthropologists had access to new forms of data, and many began to call themselves "biological anthropologists".
quote:
There is no such thing as a Eurocentric Keins. That is a little fantasy cooked up in the minds of people who are preoccupied by their race, like yourself. Keins...you are black, you were born black and you will die black. Why spend all of the years you have PREOCCUPIED by blackness. Join the world, go out and lead a full life and leave the bitterness to the racists like rasol. IBM and GE don't care if you are green. If you can make them money you have a place in the world. This need globalism CREATED by western society and led by the US and UK has a place for everyone , regardless of race.
I agree, money and health is much more important than race. In fact wealthy and educated blacks do not care much about other blacks as well.
[This message has been edited by Puro Hybrido (edited 30 July 2005).]
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 30 July 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by Puro Hybrido:
Pseudoscience refers to any body of knowledge, methodology, or practice that is erroneously regarded as scientific. The standards determining such a distinction vary, but often include lack of empirical evidence, unfalsifiability, or failure to comply with scientific method or apply a heuristic such as Occam's Razor.Some of the early branches of physical anthropology, such as early anthropometry, are now rejected as pseudoscience. Metrics such as the cephalic index were used to derive behavioral characteristics. With the rise of Darwinian theory and the modern synthesis, anthropologists had access to new forms of data, and many began to call themselves "biological anthropologists".
You're exactly correct.
In this case we are dealing with Evil(Stupid, really) Euro, who distorts real science. Distortion of real science is, of course, pseudo-science also.
Evil-Euro is a firm believer in the false notion of racial groups and tries to use genetic markers like mtDNA and those on Y-chromosomes as his 'proof'. Furthermore he tries to associate such genetic markers with phenotype, while all the while ignoring all the evidence.
When he cites sources, he only partially cites the material and leaves out the rest that refutes him!
Stupid-Euro is just a frustrated racialist loony, but don't worry. In time he will just become a normal annoyance.
Welcome to Egyptsearch, by the way.
[This message has been edited by Djehuti (edited 30 July 2005).]
[This message has been edited by relaxx (edited 30 July 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
Speaking of steatopygia, isn't that why many black women have the "big booty"??!Another thing, is why does Stupid-Euro talk as if Khoisan people are non-Africans or different from other Africans?!! Khoisan are just as African, or perhaps even more so than West African "negroes" because they are more ancient. But in the end they are all African, so what the hell?!
[This message has been edited by Djehuti (edited 30 July 2005).]
I noticed that among Ethiopian girls too compare to other African girls...
Relaxx
quote:
Originally posted by relaxx:
I noticed that among Ethiopian girls too compare to other African girls...
Relaxx
Noticed what?
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
Noticed what?
quote:
Originally posted by Super coon:[ Certainly not any answers ]
E3b is found at frequencies of over 50% only in fully Caucasoid North Africans like Kabyle and Middle Atlas Berbers, and partly Caucasoid East Africans like Ethiopians and Somalis. It is not found substantially in any fully Negroid Sub-Saharan Africans. This fact has yet to be refuted (because it can't be).
On the Y-chromosome Greeks, Italians and Spaniards cluster with Brits, Germans and Czechs:
Conclusion: E3b denotes Caucasoid ancestry and has nothing to do with the disgusting savages and slaves of West, Central and South Africa.
quote:
euroscum:
E3b is found at frequencies of over 50% only in fully Caucasoid North Africans like Kabyle and Middle Atlas Berbers, and partly Caucasoid East Africans like Ethiopians and Somalis. It is not found substantially in any fully Negroid Sub-Saharan Africans. This fact has yet to be refuted (because it can't be).
Not only is this immaterial, it is actually a pristine example of pseudo-science and intellectual bankruptcy, which of course, doesn't begin to address the following, concerning recent sub-Saharan genes in borderline europeans:
From Semino et al,
"Southern Italy (Apulia and Calabria) contains sites of the early Neolithic period (Whitehouse 1968), but we know from history that these regions were subsequently colonized by the Greeks (Peloponnesians). To test the relative contribution of Greek colonists versus putative earlier Neolithic settlers, an admixture analysis (Bertorelle and Excoffier 1998) was performed, using E-M78 and J-M172(xM12) as signatures of Greek and Anatolian lineages, respectively. The Anatolian source population was based on 523 Turks, of whom 118 were J-M172(xM12) and 25 were E-M78 (Cinniolu et al. 2004). The Greek population comprised 36 Peloponnesian samples, 5 of which were J-M172(xM12) and 17 of which were E-M78 (R.K., unpublished data). In spite of the small Peloponnesian sample size, the high E-M78 frequency (47%) observed here is consistent with that (44%) independently found in the same region (Di Giacomo et al. 2003) for the YAP chromosomes harboring microsatellite haplotypes (A. Novelletto, personal communication) typical of Hg E-M78 (Cruciani et al. 2004 [in this issue]; present study…
…Moreover, the observation that the derivative E-M78 displays the DYS392-12/DYS19-11 haplotype suggests that it also arose in East Africa."
From Sanchez et al.,
"The frequency of haplogroup E3b1*(xE3b1b) in Somali males is the highest observed in any populations to date, and we suggest that the Somali male population is the origin of this haplogroup...
Although the Horn of Africa is considered a geographic part of sub-Saharan Africa, we have analysed the Somali population separately in order to compare the results with previously published data from other African populations."
Semino et al,
German
E3b 6.2%, I 37.5%, J 0%, R1b 50%
Polish
E3b 3.6%, I 23.6%, J 0%, R1b 16.4%, R1a 56.4%
Greek
E3b 22.4%, I 7.9%, J 21%, R1b 27%, R1a 11%
Lebanese
E3b 25.8%, I 3.2%, J 29%, R1b 6.4%, R1a 10%
So conclusion: ginney europussy, no immaterial stuff will save the day for your pseudo-science school of thought.
quote:
Originally posted by Evil Euro:
E3b is found at frequencies of over 50% [b]only in fully Caucasoid North Africans like Kabyle and Middle Atlas Berbers, and partly Caucasoid East Africans like Ethiopians and Somalis. It is not found substantially in any fully Negroid Sub-Saharan Africans. This fact has yet to be refuted (because it can't be).
On the Y-chromosome Greeks, Italians and Spaniards cluster with Brits, Germans and Czechs:
Conclusion: E3b denotes Caucasoid ancestry and has nothing to do with the disgusting savages and slaves of West, Central and South Africa.[/B]
You're so stupid that even on Sunday you have the time to try to refute the fact that your ancestors were Blacks....
Relaxx
quote:
Stupid-Euro barks:
Conclusion: E3b denotes Caucasoid ancestry and has nothing to do with the disgusting savages and slaves of West, Central and South Africa.
Ignorant and profane insults aside, why does this mut desperately try to cling on to his "caucasoid" E3b lie?
Non of these facts have been refuted by dumbass coondog (a dog who hunts racoons, nothing racial intended but ironic ain't it?) nor will they ever be refuted!!
And that whole bit about the steatopygia only served to further discredit you (more like shooting yourself in the chest, again ). Steatopygia is a tropical adaptation and is something many black women have, dumbhole!
Speaking of steatopygia, why don't you do us all a favor.
Since it bothers you so much that you have some recent African ancestry and are not a pure OOA, why don't you kiss a woman who really is pure OOA...
right on her big black ass!!
[This message has been edited by Djehuti (edited 31 July 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
E3b carried mainly by East Africans is a sister clade of E3a which is carried mainly by West Africans, in the same way that R1b carried mainly by Western Europeans is a sister clade of R1a carried mainly by Eastern Europeans.
No. R1a and R1b split much more recently, and both went in the same direction (toward Europe). A more a propos analogy is with R and Q. Those two lineages split from M45 in Central Asia about the same time E3b and E3a split from PN2. Q went east and became associated with Mongoloids, while R traveled west and became associated with Caucasoids. Same situation as with E3a going southwest to become Negroid-affiliated, and E3b traveling northeast OOA to become Caucasoid-affiliated.
quote:
E3b is found in substantial amounts, not just in the Horn region of Somalia and Ethiopia, but also among Kenyans and some Tanzanians.
Only among the Kenyan Oromo, who are ethnically related to Ethiopian Oromos. Interestingly, the Kenyan Bantu, who have ~14% E3b (which equals ~7% total admixture), are ~9% Caucasoid according to Rosenberg et al. 2002.
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti wrote: why does this mut desperately try to cling on to his "caucasoid" E3b lie?
pseudoscience - does not progress.
quote:
E3b is found in substantial amounts, not just in the Horn region of Somalia and Ethiopia, but also among Kenyans and some Tanzanians.
The highest frequency of pristine original E3b* is found in the South African Khwe.
quote:
Steatopygia is tropical adaptation dumbhole. That whole bit about the steatopygia in OOA populations only served to further discredit you
Pseudoscience contradicts itself even in its own terms.
Back on the planet earth, from http://www.andaman.org
Life in an environment with strong solar radiation inevitably selects dark skin.
The dark-skinned Australian aborigines wandered from Africa through tropical Asia to Australia more than 2000 generations ago.
Throughout their wanderings they never left the belt of intense solar radiation of the lower latitudes and they are still dark.
The human race most likely came out of tropical Africa and was just as likely dark-skinned as most of Africa still is today.
In Africa, the Khoikhoi and San people are "relatively" light-skinned because they have lived in the relatively high latitudes of southern Africa for a very long time.
More from http://www.andamans.org :
Sickle-cell anemia is a genetically inherited disease widespread in Africa and also known
from other tropical and subtropical regions but unknown among Andamanese aborigines.
Unlike Southern Europeans who have Benin sickle-cell, which by definition is genetically inherited from West Africans, Andamans do not.
And why is this?
Andamans have been isolated from West Africans genetically - whereas Europeans have been repeatedly remixed with Africans so that Italians and other S. Europeans have Sub saharan African genes such as E3b and Benin Hbs.
As Dr. Keita notes: racialists models which imply nonoverlapping gene pools......are outdated. Populations should be viewed processually as dynamic entities over time time and not “static” entities. The presence of M35/215 lineages and the Benin sickle cell variant in southern Europe illustrates this well.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 01 August 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by the dumb mut:
No. R1a and R1b split much more recently, and both went in the same direction (toward Europe). A more a propos analogy is with R and Q. Those two lineages split from M45 in Central Asia about the same time E3b and E3a split from PN2. Q went east and became associated with Mongoloids, while R traveled west and became associated with Caucasoids. Same situation as with E3a going southwest to become Negroid-affiliated, and E3b traveling northeast OOA to become Caucasoid-affiliated.
How do compare varieties of the same clade (E3a and E3b) to those of different clades, R and Q?!
How exactly do markers all of a sudden become associated with 'racial' groups?!
And since you acknowledge the PN2 transition in Sub-Sahara what racial group brought about this transition and how did it split between 'negroids' and 'caucasoids'?
I predict more bullsh**
quote:
Only among the Kenyan Oromo, who are ethnically related to Ethiopian Oromos. Interestingly, the Kenyan Bantu, who have ~14% E3b (which equals ~7% total admixture), are ~9% Caucasoid according to Rosenberg et al. 2002.
I don't know about Oromo in Kenya, but there is the Borana and other groups and all of them, including the Oromo are not caucasoid, dumb mut LOL!!
[This message has been edited by Djehuti (edited 01 August 2005).]
quote:
Djehuti:
I predict more bullsh**
It doesn't matter what bullsh** he comes up with, its immaterialness to the following has been well established:
Super car posted:
**RECENT** spread of **sub-Saharan** E3b lineages into Europe, among other things inherited, like the Benin Sickle cell.
From Sanchez et al.,
"The frequency of haplogroup E3b1*(xE3b1b) in Somali males is the highest observed in any populations to date, and we suggest that the Somali male population is the origin of this haplogroup...
Although the Horn of Africa is considered a geographic part of sub-Saharan Africa, we have analysed the Somali population separately in order to compare the results with previously published data from other African populations."
Mainstream anthropology, including Cruciani et al, Semino et al, Underhill et al, Keita, and so on, all concur with the following:
Recently, it has been proposed that E3b originated in sub-Saharan Africa and expanded into the Near East and northern Africa at the end of the Pleistocene (Underhill et al. 2001).
Semino et al,
German
E3b 6.2%, I 37.5%, J 0%, R1b 50%
Polish
E3b 3.6%, I 23.6%, J 0%, R1b 16.4%, R1a 56.4%
Greek
E3b 22.4%, I 7.9%, J 21%, R1b 27%, R1a 11%
Lebanese
E3b 25.8%, I 3.2%, J 29%, R1b 6.4%, R1a 10%
Rootsi et al.
2004
"Previous studies revealed that Hg I reached frequencies of ~ 40% - 50% in two distinct regions - in Nordic populations of Scandinavia and, in southern Europe..."
"Its virtual absence elsewhere, including the Near East, suggest that it arose in Europe, likely **BEFORE** the Last Glacial Maximum..."
Thought Writes:
Sardianians are southern Europeans, yet they carry the **HIGHEST** frequency of Hg I. Greeks are southern Europeans and carry one of the **LOWEST** frequencies of Hg I. This suggests two **SEPARATE** origins for Sardinians and Greeks. Sardinians represent the **INDIGENOUS**, pre-LGM southern European type. Greeks represent a merger/hybrid type between indigenous southern European and in-migrating Middle Eastern and Black African elements.
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
How do compare varieties of the same clade (E3a and E3b) to those of different clades, R and Q?!
It doesn't matter what names they were given. In both cases, the markers split from a common ancestor at around the same time, traveled in different directions, and are today associated with different races.
quote:
How exactly do markers all of a sudden become associated with 'racial' groups?!
Markers carried by different groups when their racial traits developed, or mutations that arose later in already developed groups, became indicative of those races. That's how geneticists are able to trace ancestry.
quote:
And since you acknowledge the PN2 transition in Sub-Sahara what racial group brought about this transition and how did it split between 'negroids' and 'caucasoids'?
None. The split occurred before the formation of modern races. The Negroid and Caucasoid affiliations came later (see above).
quote:
I don't know about Oromo in Kenya, but there is the Borana and other groups and all of them, including the Oromo are not caucasoid, dumb mut LOL!!
Borana and Oromo are one and the same. And of course they're not Caucasoid since their mtDNA is Negroid and Khoisanid.
quote:
How exactly do markers all of a sudden become associated with 'racial' groups?!
They aren't. Credible geneticists do not place racial labels on Y chromosome markers.
Dienekes Pontikos is notorious for taking genetic abstracts and other anthropological works, rewriting them, and inserting his racist inanities into them.
A few not very bright people then quote from Dienekes verbatim believing that they are correctly quoting from anthropological abstracts.
And as we've seen, you can expose these pseudos and break them, by asking them questions that force them to go beyound parrotings of Dienekes.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 02 August 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by Evil Euro:
None. The split occurred before the formation of modern races. The Negroid and Caucasoid affiliations came later (see above).
quote:
Borana and Oromo are one and the same. And of course they're not Caucasoid since their mtDNA is Negroid and Khoisanid.
No they're not! Oromo and Borana are two entirely ethnic groups. Your statements, especially in the past, make it clear that you are not knowledgeable about African ethnography or history!!
In Oromo myth-history- the Borana are the eldest of two Oromo clans, Borana and Barentu. The Borana language is called Borana-Arsi-Guji and is considered a variation of Oromo or even the eldest version of Oromo, which in turn is sometimes considered ancestral(?) to Somali.
The Borana number less than 5 million and live in Kenya, Ethiopia and Somalia.
The Oromo number well over 30 million and are the largest single ethnic group in East Africa.
quote:
euro pussy:
Markers carried by different groups when their racial traits developed, or mutations that arose later in already developed groups, became indicative of those races. That's how geneticists are able to trace ancestry.
...saying which, of course has no bearings on these development, right?
Super car posted:
**RECENT** spread of **sub-Saharan** E3b lineages into Europe, among other things inherited, like the Benin Sickle cell.
From Sanchez et al.,
"The frequency of haplogroup E3b1*(xE3b1b) in Somali males is the highest observed in any populations to date, and we suggest that the Somali male population is the origin of this haplogroup...
Although the Horn of Africa is considered a geographic part of sub-Saharan Africa, we have analysed the Somali population separately in order to compare the results with previously published data from other African populations."
Mainstream anthropology, including Cruciani et al, Semino et al, Underhill et al, Keita, and so on, all concur with the following:
Recently, it has been proposed that E3b originated in sub-Saharan Africa and expanded into the Near East and northern Africa at the end of the Pleistocene (Underhill et al. 2001).
Semino et al,
German
E3b 6.2%, I 37.5%, J 0%, R1b 50%
Polish
E3b 3.6%, I 23.6%, J 0%, R1b 16.4%, R1a 56.4%
Greek
E3b 22.4%, I 7.9%, J 21%, R1b 27%, R1a 11%
Lebanese
E3b 25.8%, I 3.2%, J 29%, R1b 6.4%, R1a 10%
Rootsi et al.
2004
"Previous studies revealed that Hg I reached frequencies of ~ 40% - 50% in two distinct regions - in Nordic populations of Scandinavia and, in southern Europe..."
"Its virtual absence elsewhere, including the Near East, suggest that it arose in Europe, likely **BEFORE** the Last Glacial Maximum..."
Thought Writes:
Sardianians are southern Europeans, yet they carry the **HIGHEST** frequency of Hg I. Greeks are southern Europeans and carry one of the **LOWEST** frequencies of Hg I. This suggests two **SEPARATE** origins for Sardinians and Greeks. Sardinians represent the **INDIGENOUS**, pre-LGM southern European type. Greeks represent a merger/hybrid type between indigenous southern European and in-migrating Middle Eastern and Black African elements.
And of course, genetic markers like Y-chromosomes do become associated with race, and geneticists readily acknowledge this:
"Marked differences in Y-SNP allele frequencies between continental populations can be used to predict the biogeographic origin of a man's ancestral paternal lineage. Using 627 samples collected from individuals within the UK with pale-skinned Caucasian, dark-skinned Caucasian, African/Caribbean, South Asian, East Asian or Middle Eastern appearance we demonstrate that an individual's Y-SNP haplogroup is also strongly correlated with their physical appearance. Furthermore, experimental evaluation of the Marligen Signet Y-SNP kit in conjunction with the Luminex 100 detection instrument indicates that reliable and reproducible haplogrouping results can be obtained from 1 ng or more of target template derived from a variety of forensic evidence types including, blood, saliva and post-coital vaginal swabs. The test proved highly male-specific with reliable results being generated in the presence of a 1000-fold excess of female DNA, and no anomalous results were observed during degradation studies despite a gradual loss of typable loci. Hence, Y-SNP haplogrouping has considerable potential forensic utility in predicting likely ethnic appearance." (Wetton et al. 2005)
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
The Borana and the Oromo aren't "the same" however they are very closely related.In Oromo myth-history- the Borana are the eldest of two Oromo clans, Borana and Barentu. The Borana language is called Borana-Arsi-Guji and is considered a variation of Oromo or even the eldest version of Oromo, which in turn is sometimes considered ancestral(?) to Somali.
The Borana number less than 5 million and live in Kenya, Ethiopia and Somalia.
The Oromo number well over 30 million and are the largest single ethnic group in East Africa.
From Cruciani's [2004] genetic study:
Highest frequence of cluster E-M78 was found in the three Cushitic-speaking groups: the Borana from Kenya (71.4%), the Oromo from Ethiopia (32.0%), and the Somali (52.2%).
The three groups are related, [and to other groups as well] but are not identical, genetically and otherwise.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 03 August 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
[B] From Cruciani's [2004] genetic study:Highest frequence of cluster E-M78 was found in the three Cushitic-speaking groups: the Borana from Kenya (71.4%), the Oromo from Ethiopia (32.0%), and the Somali (52.2%).
The recent sub-Saharan black African ancestors of borderline Europeans, including ginney pussy of course.
And well, surprise, surprise, Dr. Wells as well as all the other experts on the show have been saying what you guys have been saying all along!
There were two other experts on there, one a geologist and climatologist who I forgot his name, but the other was Dr. Jablonsky.
According to the geologist: "Africa during the Ice Age was a few degrees cooler than it is now. It was probably more comfortable than it is today, but certainly not cold. It was warm and sunny but also very dry. It was a desert"
Jablonsky says: "our African ancestors had to have been very dark-skinned to survive in such a climate. They had to have lots of melanin since their bodies are getting lots of exposure to UV from the sun"
In the part of the program when Dr. Wells was in a cave in France investigating the earliest modern humans of Europe (Cromagnon), he was with a French paleoanthropologist who specializes in prehistoric cave art. One of the paintings was on the ceiling of the cave and Dr Wells suggested that the man who made it must have been very tall. The French guy answered "oh yes, he had to have been 6ft or over!"
Jablonsky says: "He still had tropical body proportions-- tall stature with skinny build..."
Dr Wells says: "The earliest Europeans vaguely resemble the Europeans of today. They gradually changed over time, with facial features and nose shape changing..."
Oh and more importantly, Dr Wells traces populations using the Y-chromosome and this is what he said about the Y to a man he sampled in Central Asia: "The Y-chromosome just determines you to be male and does nothing else, but certain information can be read to determine ancestry, at least from the male lineage..."
[This message has been edited by Djehuti (edited 03 August 2005).]
Stupid-Euro can continue to live in his fantasies and denial, but intelligent people are not buying the bulls*** he is selling.
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
Hey guys, I saw that special PBA program last night hosted by Dr. Spencer Wells called Journey of Man which was based on his book. I didn't catch the whole thing since I was out most of the night, so just bare with what I have.And well, surprise, surprise, Dr. Wells as well as all the other experts on the show have been saying what you guys have been saying all along!
There were two other experts on there, one a geologist and climatologist who I forgot his name, but the other was Dr. Jablonsky.
According to the geologist: "Africa during the Ice Age was a few degrees cooler than it is now. It was probably more comfortable than it is today, but certainly not cold. It was warm and sunny but also very dry. It was a desert"
Jablonsky says: "our African ancestors had to have been very dark-skinned to survive in such a climate. They had to have lots of melanin since their bodies are getting lots of exposure to UV from the sun"
In the part of the program when Dr. Wells was in a cave in France investigating the earliest modern humans of Europe (Cromagnon), he was with a French paleoanthropologist who specializes in prehistoric cave art. One of the paintings was on the ceiling of the cave and Dr Wells suggested that the man who made it must have been very tall. The French guy answered "oh yes, he had to have been 6ft or over!"
Jablonsky says: "He still had tropical body proportions-- tall stature with skinny build..."
Dr Wells says: "The earliest Europeans vaguely resemble the Europeans of today. They gradually changed over time, with facial features and nose shape changing..."
Oh and more importantly, Dr Wells traces populations using the Y-chromosome and this is what he said about the Y to a man he sampled in Central Asia: "The Y-chromosome just determines you to be male and does nothing else, but certain information can be read to determine ancestry, at least from the male lineage..."[/B]
Thanks, I will have to see the program.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 03 August 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
"The earliest Europeans vaguely resemble the Europeans of today. They gradually changed over time, with facial features and nose shape changing..."
[/B]
Agreed with everything he said (if it was accurately reported by Djehuti)...however, this part is really ambiguous...it might assume they changed on their own...which I doubt except for the hair and skin tone... if this is what he thinks: then even scientists can believe in myths because this is total speculations...it's called pseudosicience...but I still respect his work and his strong scientific skills...
Relaxx
quote:
Originally posted by relaxx:
Agreed with everything he said (if it was accurately reported by Djehuti)...however, this part is really ambiguous...it might assume they changed on their own...which I doubt except for the hair and skin tone... if this is what he thinks: then even scientists can believe in myths because this is total speculations...it's called pseudosicience...but I still respect his work and his strong scientific skills...
Relaxx
According to Dr. Wells, the first Europeans gradually changed in hair and eye color as well as facial features, as new adaptations.
Jablonsky explained that by the time AM humans reached Europe, they were already light-skinned but not really what we call "white" yet.
[This message has been edited by Djehuti (edited 03 August 2005).]
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 04 August 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
As with skin color, nose shapes etc.., epicanthic eyefolds are not 'racial'.[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 03 August 2005).]
I read the book and even in the interview he makes the same speculation, he fails to understand that all those traits most certainly originated in Africa beside the skin tone and the hair type...
Relaxx
quote:
Originally posted by relaxx:
I read the book and even in the interview he makes the same speculation, he fails to understand that all those traits most certainly originated in Africa beside the skin tone and the hair type...
Relaxx
???? Actually he does understand and states that the traits originated in Africa? Why do you believe he says/thinks otherwise?
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 03 August 2005).]
According to Wells, this common Central Asian ancestor split from peoples who entered India and ultimately both clades originated from the northern part of the Near-East, which in turn split from the group that combed the coasts along the southern part of Arabia to southern India, to the Sudanese subcontinent, to Australia.
[This message has been edited by Djehuti (edited 03 August 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
???? Actually he does understand and states that the traits originated in Africa? Why do you believe he says/thinks otherwise?[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 03 August 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
In the show, Dr. Wells finds a man in Kazakstan who is the pure descendant of the common ancestor of Europeans, East Asians, Northern Indians, and Native Americans. Phenotypically, the man himself looks like a "mongoloid-caucasoid" mixed person. But according to Jablonsky, the ancestor retained African traits also.
That's dangerous...I hope he just sticks to phenotypes...because genetically that's total nonsense...the Andaman islanders are their true ancestors...
Relaxx
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
the Sudanese subcontinent[This message has been edited by Djehuti (edited 03 August 2005).]
Djehuti I'm not familiar with that part of the world...where is that?
Relaxx
quote:
Originally posted by relaxx:
I'm not familiar with...the world...
Relaxx
The biggest understatement...
...well admitting it is the first step on the right direction.
[This message has been edited by COBRA (edited 04 August 2005).]
quote:
"The Borana are one of the resulting groups of Oromo migrants who left the southern highlands of Ethiopia in the 1500's. Most of the Borana and related peoples live in Ethiopia [but] approximately 90,000 live in north central Kenya" (Source)
SKIN COLOR OF EARLY HUMANS:
quote:
"Of course, nothing above is meant to imply that pre-LGM Europeans were as dark as Africans. Evidence suggests that early modern humans had a medium complexion, like that of today's Khoisan or Ethiopians. The very dark complexion of central Africans also seems to be a recent adaptation (Semino and others 2002). To be sure, prior studies had suggested Mbuti pygmies as most resembling the first moderns, but current molecular evidence points to the Khoisan and Ethiopians." (Source)
The Borana/Cushite: [Highest levels of E3b1 and E3b]
The Khwe/Khoisan [highest level - E3b*M35 in the world]:
The Masai/Nilo Saharan,- ["East African lineages of great antiquity"] - S. Tishkoff [early Eurasian tibia-femur limb ratios were more like the Masai, less like modern European or Neanderthal] - Trinkaus, E., "Neanderthal Limb Proportions and Cold Adaptation"]
The Datoga/Nilo Saharan, of Tanzania,
Ancient East African/ E3b@63% per Tishkoff/Underhill
The Hadzabe-Khoisan [another of East Africa's oldest populations, who split from other Khoisan but remained in East Africa - Tishkoff]
Skin Color in ancient Africans:
Africans have retained their dark color rather than having evolved it from a lighter color. - S. Wells, Journey of Man , pg 59
East Africans have been Equatorial [dark skined] for 10's of thousands of years - CL Brace
their skin was Black, and the intense sun killed off the progeny with any whiter skin that resulted from mutational variation in the receptor protein. However, the progeny of those humans who migrated North away from the intense African sun were not under the evolutionary constraint that keeps human skin black generation after generation in Africa - Rogers.
our African ancestors had to have been very dark-skinned to survive in such a climate - Nina Jablonski.
In Southern Africa,
the Khoikhoi and San people are "relatively" light because they have lived in the relatively high latitudes of southern Africa for a very long time.
Semino [2002] study on the Y chromosome history [not the skin color history] of Africans concurs with the above.
One needs to actually read studies, not cite them without reading or basic knowledge of Africa's people....
Ethiopians and Khoisan share the deepest clades of the human Y-chromosome phylogeny.
Want to learn more? Go here.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 05 August 2005).]
quote:
Euro Trash said...
"Of course, nothing above is meant to imply that pre-LGM Europeans were as dark as Africans. Evidence suggests that early modern humans had a medium complexion, like that of today's Khoisan or Ethiopians. The very dark complexion of central Africans also seems to be a recent adaptation (Semino and others 2002). To be sure, prior studies had suggested Mbuti pygmies as most resembling the first moderns, but current molecular evidence points to the Khoisan and Ethiopians."
so you belive that early cascasoids looked like ethiopians.
quote:
rasol quaoted...
Africans have retained their dark color rather than having evolved it from a lighter color
I belive that darwinisome and the belive of eveloution has been proven to be a load load of junk....A far from the truth.
quote:
Spencer Wells:
Africans have retained their dark color rather than having evolved it from a lighter color
quote:
Originally posted by COBRA:
I belive that darwinisome and the belive of eveloution has been proven to be a load load of junk....A far from the truth.
Well.
Pseudoscience displays an indifference to facts and criterion of valid evidence.
What is stated by Spencer Wells is a fact of genetics. Difficult to refute what you don't understand to begin with.
This renders you unable to tell the difference between authentic science from Dr. Wells, and a complete pseudo who believes women carry Y chromosome.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 04 August 2005).]
E3b is a haplotype that originated in Sub-Saharan Africa only over 10,000 years ago, which means Greeks have black African ancestry!!
What's funny is that the highest concentration of E3b1 is located in the Horn among Somali males and the Borana of Kenya. So now Stupid-Euro is saying that these Africans were originally "caucasoid" but became black because of mixture from Bantus!!! LMFO
Stupid-Euro does not even know about basic facts in genetics since he claims females carry the male Y-chromosome, and he obviously does not even know basic historical and ethnographical facts about Africa to say the Bantus were ever significant in the Horn, let alone to say that Bantus were the reason why Somalis look black!!
This is some funny sh**!
quote:
ginney pussy:
"The Borana are one of the resulting groups of Oromo migrants who left the southern highlands of Ethiopia in the 1500's. Most of the Borana and related peoples live in Ethiopia [but] approximately 90,000 live in north central Kenya
Ah, the Borana...one of the recent black African ancestors of borderline Europeans.
quote:
Originally posted by relaxx:
That's dangerous...I hope he just sticks to phenotypes...because genetically that's total nonsense...the Andaman islanders are their true ancestors...
Relaxx
Oh no, Wells never made any description of the Kazak guy. The description was mine!! I was just stating that to show that how phenotype has nothing to do with the genetic markers that Wells uses (something dumb-euro refuses to acknowledge). But Jablonsky did indeed say that these Central Asian ancestors did possess African features.
As far as your claim to the Andamanese, I believe that they did resemble them but were much taller and lighter-skinned according to Jablonsky.
[This message has been edited by Djehuti (edited 04 August 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
A lesson in indigenous peoples of ancient Tropical Africa and their direct descendants:[b]The Borana: [highest level of E3b1 - descendant of E3b]
The Khwe [highest level - E3b*M35 in the world]:
The Masai: [early Eurasian tibia-femur limb ratios were more like the Masai, and less like modern European or Neanderthal - source:
Trinkaus, E., "Neanderthal Limb Proportions and Cold Adaptation]
The Hadzabe-Khoisan [another of East Africa's oldest populations, who split from other Khoisan but remained in East Africa - Tishkoff]
The Juhoansi/Khoisan, split from Hadza and migrated to the South Africa:
Skin Color in ancient Africans:
Africans have retained their dark color rather than having evolved it from a lighter color. - S. Wells, Journey of Man , pg 59
East Africans have been Equatorial [dark skined] for 10's of thousands of years - CL Brace
their skin was Black, and the intense sun killed off the progeny with any whiter skin that resulted from mutational variation in the receptor protein. However, the progeny of those humans who migrated North away from the intense African sun were not under the evolutionary constraint that keeps human skin black generation after generation in Africa - Rogers.
our African ancestors had to have been very dark-skinned to survive in such a climate - Nina Jablonski.
In Southern Africa,
the Khoikhoi and San people are "relatively" light because they have lived in the relatively high latitudes of southern Africa for a very long time.Semino [2002] study on the Y chromosome history [not the skin color history] of Africans concurs with the above.
One needs to actually read studies, not cite them without reading or basic knowledge of Africa's people....
Ethiopians and Khoisan share the deepest clades of the human Y-chromosome phylogeny.Want to learn more? Go here.[/B]
Notice that each African group has different features from each other, which again shows that phenotype has nothing to do with these markers. Which is why even though Greeks carry Sub-Saharan markers they don't look Sub-Saharan. The only plausible explanation is that these African ancestors were absorbed by indigenous populations. It is already shown that they made their way through the Levant, no doubt intermingling with people there. Which is why Greeks also carry haplotype J.
On the other hand, you cannot say the same about the African groups above. Although they vary in features, all them seem to be adaptation or at least intermingling with other Africans, NON of whom were Bantu by the way!
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
Oh no, Wells never made any description of the Kazak guy. The description was [b]mine!! I was just stating that to show that how phenotype has nothing to do with the genetic markers that Wells uses (something dumb-euro refuses to acknowledge). But Jablonsky did indeed say that these Central Asian ancestors did possess African features.As far as your claim to the Andamanese, I believe that they did resemble them but were much taller and lighter-skinned according to Jablonsky.[/B]
The information you are describing from Jablonsky and Wells is quite accurate and consistent with what is known.
I just think the details get lost in translation and the time frames becomes confused as well.
quote:[/B][/QUOTE]
Originally posted by Evil Euro:
[b]BORANA ORIGINS:
SKIN COLOR OF EARLY HUMANS:[QUOTE]"Of course, nothing above is meant to imply that pre-LGM Europeans were as dark as Africans. Evidence suggests that early modern humans had a medium complexion, like that of today's Khoisan or Ethiopians. The very dark complexion of central Africans also seems to be a recent adaptation (Semino and others 2002). To be sure, prior studies had suggested Mbuti pygmies as most resembling the first moderns, but current molecular evidence points to the Khoisan and Ethiopians." (Source)
He's so stupid that he doesn't know what Africans look like and talk about them, he's never been there. He doesn't know that non mixed Africans vary from very dark to very light (like the Sans)...we still call them Black people ...and they probably would laugh if they heard that someone sitting in a chair in America who never saw a Black African in his life call them non Black.
Relaxx
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
Which is why even though Greeks carry Sub-Saharan markers they don't look Sub-Saharan
quote:
The only plausible explanation is that these African ancestors were absorbed by indigenous populations. It is already shown that they made their way through the Levant, no doubt intermingling with people there. Which is why Greeks also carry haplotype J.
That is exactly the case, and if you write any anthropologist they will tell you so.
Always remember: The original evidence of African and West Asian precense in neolithic Southern Europe was skeletal and archeological, from scholars such as Larry Angel, and Dorothy Garrod.
It was decades later before molecular genetics confirmed this fact. To this day, sub saharan E3b lineage is the most common male Y chromosome in Greece, and West Asian J is the second most common.
The Greeks do have mostly European maternal lineages and the patern of male biased migrations leading to founder effect [disproportunate] Y chromosome lineages is typical.
We also see this in other famous population expansions including -
the Berber expansion in NorthWest Africa,
the Bantu expansion in SouthEast Africa,
the Arab expansion in North Africa,
and the Semitic expansion in southern Africa.
quote:
Although they vary in features, all them seem to be adaptation or at least intermingling with other Africans
This is correct, all of the different native African phenotypes are related, and it isn't even always the case that the most similar in appearence physically are the most related biologically, and sometimes significantly different appearing Africans turn out to be rather closely related in terms of ancestry.
This is why the old notion of phenotypically defined races is defunct.
Carleton Coon's notion of race gets one paragraph of mention in Wells book - to the effect that his ideas on race are outdated and not even worth discussing.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 05 August 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by relaxx:
You're kidding, I live not far from a Greek neighborhood, they seem to have more curly hair and a tanned skin than the average European...they look more Arabic...it's probably due to their Sub-Saharan ancestry.Relaxx
Well, the E3b that Greeks have came from the Near-East from the Levant so this is no surprise.
Fact is whatever Africans migrated through these areas were absorbed by the indigenous peoples.
And as I have pointed out before, the Neolithic and Bronze Age of Greece are all Middle-Eastern derived so is it all that surprising?
[This message has been edited by Djehuti (edited 04 August 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
Well, the E3b that Greeks have came from the Near-East from the Levant so this is no surprise.Fact is whatever Africans migrated through these areas were absorbed by the indigenous peoples.
And as I have pointed out before, the Neolithic and Bronze Age of Greece are all Middle-Eastern derived so is is all that surprising?
What I meant is via the Levant and Middle East they probably received part of the phenotypes that came along...even though other groups who received some amount of foreign genes like the Lemba...don't show foreign admixture...let's say they are tanned because they live around the Mediterranean area...what about the curly hair...and other facial features similar to Middle Eastern people and to a certain extant to African people...
Relaxx
[This message has been edited by relaxx (edited 04 August 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
This is correct, all of the different native African phenotypes are related, and it isn't even always the case that the most similar in appearence physically are the most related biologically, and sometimes significantly different appearing Africans turn out to be rather closely related in terms of ancestry.This is why the old notion of phenotypically defined races is defunct.
Carleton Coon's notion of race gets one paragraph of mention in Wells book - to the effect that his ideas on race are outdated and not even worth discussing.
Sorry, stupid-ass Euro!
It's been months since I've visited this forum. It's sad to see that you're still beating the racial horse. Why so much obsession with the "Black Condition". The posts I've read have all started with a meaningful scientific premise and you immediately drag the thread through the muck and mire of race. I've never heard of white men so absorbed by the "reform" of black people... oh wait... I have. They were the slavers and missionaries that were so convinced that all their actions and theories were justified by the "white man's burdon".
I would also ask, with long proud history of various European tribes. Why do Europeans such as yourselves make such a frantic effort to place the culture and achievements of other ancient societies (i.e. Egypt and India) under the European umbrella?
And of all your posts, not a single one makes a scientific statement. All are appeals to emotions, weather good or bad, that will derail any meanful discussion.
quote:
relaxx writes: even though other groups who received some amount of foreign genes like the Lemba...don't show foreign admixture
Exactly,
The Lemba of Africa have a substantial genetic contribution from peoples of the Middle East, Jewish people in fact who apparently arrived in South Africa 2,000 years ago; nobody's sure exactly when-bringing genes with them which have made a substantial contribution to the gene pool of the Lemba. They look just like other southern Africans. All those genes that have been put into the Lemba gene pool have had virtually no effect on their morphology.
The genetic changes that produce the morphological change might be fairly small. You can get a very small genetic change that can have a big effect on the organism's morphology or conversely you can have a lot of genetic changes that have no effect on the organism's morphology.
-Professor of Biology Christopher Wills [PH.d], University of California
Thus we learn biology....from biologists, and not pseudos who cannot even fathom the basic X and Y chromosomes of how babies are made.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 04 August 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by Puro Hybrido:
So genetically everyone is black.
Here we are just talking about the subsaharan haplogroup E3b, originally carried by Black Africans and even today. However every single person on earth has a Black African ancestor, only some racist and ignorant people can't sleep at night because of that...
Relaxx
quote:
Originally posted by Arsalan:
To Horemheb, Abaza, and your ilk...It's been months since I've visited this forum. It's sad to see that you're still beating the racial horse. Why so much obsession with the "Black Condition". The posts I've read have all started with a meaningful scientific premise and you immediately drag the thread through the muck and mire of race. I've never heard of white men so absorbed by the "reform" of black people... oh wait... I have. They were the slavers and missionaries that were so convinced that all their actions and theories were justified by the "white man's burdon".
I would also ask, with long proud history of various European tribes. Why do Europeans such as yourselves make such a frantic effort to place the culture and achievements of other ancient societies (i.e. Egypt and India) under the European umbrella?
And of all your posts, not a single one makes a scientific statement. All are appeals to emotions, weather good or bad, that will derail any meanful discussion.
Indeed, non of the so-called "Afrocentrics" have ever degraded Europeans, Asians, or anyone else but the ignorant individuals themselves!!
Non of them espouse black supremacy, just because Egypt is an African civilization!
And just because peoples of southern Europe happen to have relatively recent African ancestry compared to other Europeans does not mean that their culture is African. However, it is understandable why someone would be so upset to find out they have black ancestry. Members of the KKK in Florida were angry and wanted to silence the genealogy programs that revealed many blacks in the area share the same paternal European heritage that is as recent as several decades to a century. People like Stupid-Euro just can't stand it that they paternally they have prehistoric black ancestry.
quote:
Relaxx says: ...However every single person on earth has a Black African ancestor...
Relaxx
Correct, so the question is what the heck is the problem with that??!!
If the racist can't stomach the very thought that they share not only a relation to black peoples but also an ancestry, then so be it!
[This message has been edited by Djehuti (edited 05 August 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by relaxx:
Here we are just talking about the subsaharan haplogroup E3b, originally carried by Black Africans and even today. However every single person on earth has a Black African ancestor, only some racist and ignorant people can't sleep at night because of that...
Relaxx
heh heh. nicely put.
quote:
Originally posted by relaxx:
Here we are just talking about the subsaharan haplogroup E3b, originally carried by Black Africans and even today. However every single person on earth has a Black African ancestor, only some racist and ignorant people can't sleep at night because of that...
Relaxx
Thanks relaxx but it's not just E3b. Basically every gene (including U5 which is frequent in Europe) dates back to a quite recent African supercluster.
Racists are just ignorant and prejudiced idiots leaving in denial about themselves.
[This message has been edited by Puro Hybrido (edited 04 August 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by Puro Hybrido:
Thanks relaxx but it's not just E3b. Basically every gene (including U5 which is frequent in Europe) dates back to a quite recent African supercluster.Racists are just ignorant and prejudiced idiots leaving in denial about themselves.
Truth, and they will go to bizarre extremes of pseudoscience to deny the undeniable.
These people are the Sandawe of East Africa, related to the Khoisan of South Africa:
Here's what geneticist Sarah TishKoff has to say about them:
We have been able to show, for the first time, that the Sandawe of East Africa the southern bushmen of Botswana, Namibia and South Africa share a recent common ancestry, within about 35,000 years. We speculate the southern bushmen originated in East Africa, and that they both are remnants of a very old group of hunter-gatherers, perhaps the earliest ancestors of modern humans."
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 04 August 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
Truth, and they will go to bizarre extremes of pseudoscience to deny the undeniable.These people are the Sandawe of East Africa, related to the Khoisan of South Africa:
Here's what geneticist Sarah TishKoff has to say about them:
We have been able to show, for the first time, that the Sandawe of East Africa the southern bushmen of Botswana, Namibia and South Africa share a recent common ancestry, within about 35,000 years. We speculate the southern bushmen [b]originated in East Africa, and that they both are remnants of a very old group of hunter-gatherers, perhaps the earliest ancestors of modern humans."
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 04 August 2005).][/B]
Thanks rasol. What she discovered is that the most ancient populations include the Sandawe, Burunge, Gorowaa and Datog people who live in Tanzania. The 150,000-year-old female ancestor (mtDNA) of every person on Earth, may have lived in Tanzania or Ethiopia.
http://www.ntz.info/gen/n01574.html
The Datoga, Gorowaa, Burunge, Masai and others best resemble the East African mesolithic remains and classified by anthropologist as 'elongated' types.
Two of the above are Nilo-saharan and two are Cushitic - those are languages, not skeletypes.
The skeletal remains of these groups overlap in range and appearance and in some cases go back to before the modern ethnic groups diverged.
Tishkoff's genetic data reinforces earlier skeletal data.
Distinguishing science from pseudoscience:
Scientists such as Tishkoff do not attempt to infer East African genetic lineages from "mystery Y chromosome carrying" mail order brides from Best of Asia website.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 05 August 2005).]
quote:
E3b is a haplotype that originated in Sub-Saharan Africa only over 10,000 years ago, which means Greeks have black African ancestry!!
Incorrect. E3b originated in East Africa ~26,000 years ago, predating ALL modern races, including blacks who aren't even native to East Africa. The racial affiliations of Y-chromosome markers came much later.
quote:
The Borana/Cushite: [Highest levels of E3b1 and E3b]
Of course, the Borana are descended from Oromo migrants originating in Ethiopia, and it has been well established that the Oromo -- like the Amhara -- are racially hybrid:
"Considering the erythrocyte enzyme data, the Oromo and Amhara appear quite similar to Europoids (particularly to the South Arabians) and considerably different from the Negritic peoples. There is evidence for close genetic affinity among the Cushitic- and Semitic-speaking population groups of the Horn. Admixture between Europoid and Negritic populations seems to have been the main microevolutionary factor in generating the present day Cushitic (and Semitic)-speaking group of eastern Africa." (Tartaglia et al. 1996)
"The genetic distance analysis showed the separation between African and non-African populations, with the Amhara and Oromo located in an intermediate position." (De Stefano et al. 2002)
"Here we report the gene frequencies of these two polymorphic sites in nine additional populations (Egyptians, Spaniards, Japanese, Chinese, Filipinos, Vietnamese, Africans from Togo and from Benin, and Pygmies), confirming their ethnospecificity and, through the analysis of these two markers in Oromo and Amhara of Ethiopia (two mixed populations), their usefulness in genetic admixture studies." (Ciminelli et al. 2002)
East Africa is so always intermediate with respect to all of Africa, and all non-Africans. This is because it is the central point of origin. This is true whether comparing East Africa and the rest of Africa to China, or New Guinnea.
This can even be shown simply when looking at the maternal dna.
The three main lineages all of which are African in origin are L1, L2 and L3.
East Africa is 50% L3, and 50% L2 and L1.
The rest of Native Africa is 25% L3 and 75% L2 and L1.
The rest of the natively non African world is essentially 100% L3x -
This includes the earliest non African populations in the Andamans, Australia, Fiji, New Guinnea....all 100% L3x.
Thus East African L3 frequency of 50% is "intermediate" between the above mentioned non-Africans at 100%, and the rest of Africa, at 25%.
Europe is as irrelevant to this fact of genetics as Y chromosome is irrelevant to female morphology.
It is simply the consequence of the origin of all non Africans from a small East African population - per Tishkoff.
From Dr. SOY Keita: the anthropological record indicates the presence of anatomical modern people in Africa at a time when hominids in Europe had Neanderthal morphology
From JO Vogel:
claims that Caucasoid peoples once lived in eastern Africa have been shown to be wrong
Meaning:
It is "Europeans" whose tropical African ancestors, the same ancestry as shared by East Asians, Australian aborigines, etc.., migrated out of Africa, splitting from East Asians before moving into Europe.
Therefore Europeans SHOULD show similar 'genetic distance' from Africans as East Asians.
But they don't.
Europeans are about 1/3 closer genetically to Africa relative to East Asians.
Why is this?
The 1st Europeans settled in Europe's glacial refugess for 15 thousand years, before Africans began spreading new genes into Europe's population, particularly during the Neolithic.
This is indicated by Benin HBS and E3b haplotypes among others.
These are genes that originate in tropical Africa and spread to Southern Europe.
African genes in Europeans is what is referred to by geneticist Cavelli Sforza, who tells us and shows us: Europeans appear as a 2/3 Asian, 1/3rd African mix.
Genes, peoples, and languages L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 05 August 2005).]
quote:
Stupid-Euro says: Incorrect. E3b originated in East Africa ~26,000 years ago, predating ALL modern races, including blacks who aren't even native to East Africa. The racial affiliations of Y-chromosome markers came much later.
You talk about "predating all modern races", well how so? Phenotypical change is an ongoing process that takes thousands of years. Also, how the hell did blacks not exist?!! Blacks have always existed in Africa, stupid ass!! What do you think, they were white?!! LOL
quote:
Of course, the Borana are descended from Oromo migrants originating in Ethiopia, and it has been well established that the Oromo -- like the Amhara -- are racially hybrid:"Considering the erythrocyte enzyme data, the Oromo and Amhara appear quite similar to Europoids (particularly to the South Arabians) and considerably different from the Negritic peoples. There is evidence for close genetic affinity among the Cushitic- and Semitic-speaking population groups of the Horn. Admixture between Europoid and Negritic populations seems to have been the main microevolutionary factor in generating the present day Cushitic (and Semitic)-speaking group of eastern Africa." (Tartaglia et al. 1996)
"The genetic distance analysis showed the separation between African and non-African populations, with the Amhara and Oromo located in an intermediate position." (De Stefano et al. 2002)
"Here we report the gene frequencies of these two polymorphic sites in nine additional populations (Egyptians, Spaniards, Japanese, Chinese, Filipinos, Vietnamese, Africans from Togo and from Benin, and Pygmies), confirming their ethnospecificity and, through the analysis of these two markers in Oromo and Amhara of Ethiopia (two mixed populations), their usefulness in genetic admixture studies." (Ciminelli et al. 2002)
Partially correct! The Oromo are indeed related to the Amhara since the Amhara are Ethiopians also, but Amhara carry more OOA haplotypes like J. Which means, if anything, the Amhara are the real "hybrids". Heck, even the Amhara are distinguished by lighter color and more pronounced Middle-Eastern features. The same cannot be said for the Oromo who are are much more pure African. Your "Europoid" features are baseless altogether anyway since such features are globally widespread. Sorry dumb-euro.
[This message has been edited by Djehuti (edited 05 August 2005).]
It has been almost a year, how stupid can this guy get?
Over a dozen scientists, including 2 TV programs now, Discovery's The Real Eve and PBA's The Journey of Man, and yet his dumb ass is still talking the same dumb ****!!
Will his stupidity end, I'm betting it won't.
Why? Because for a person who uses epithets like ni***r, ape, monkey, slave, and such and talks about females carrying the Y-chromosome, you can bet that the only way his stupidity can end is to seek professional help!
But in Stupid-Euro's case, fat chance that's gonna happen anytime soon!
[This message has been edited by Djehuti (edited 05 August 2005).]
quote:
Djehuti:
Stupid-Euro just keeps talking bull****, that no one would buy cuz they know better.
Of course, bull**** doesn’t matter, since we are certain that:
Semino et al,
German
E3b 6.2%, I 37.5%, J 0%, R1b 50%
Polish
E3b 3.6%, I 23.6%, J 0%, R1b 16.4%, R1a 56.4%
Greek
E3b 22.4%, I 7.9%, J 21%, R1b 27%, R1a 11%
Lebanese
E3b 25.8%, I 3.2%, J 29%, R1b 6.4%, R1a 10%
Not to mention:
Benin haplotype Sickle Cell presence > Africans, Italians, Greeks,…
And…
"Negroid traits of Anatolian and Macedonian early farmers attributable to crossbreeding" - Angel, Garrod, Furon
Thought:
The **REAL** Europeans have features such as blue eyes and blonde hair as found among populations such as the Swedes, Croatians, Bosnians, Slovenians, Sardinians, Danes, Dutch, Germans, Normans, etc. All of these groups carry high frequencies of the pre-LGM haplogroup I in frequencies greater than 35%. Greeks carry this defining European haplogroup at ~13%. Lebanese, Jews, Turks etc. also carry this European lineage in low frequencies like the Greeks.
Thought Writes:
Sardianians are southern Europeans, yet they carry the **HIGHEST** frequency of Hg I. Greeks are southern Europeans and carry one of the **LOWEST** frequencies of Hg I. This suggests two **SEPARATE** origins for Sardinians and Greeks. Sardinians represent the **INDIGENOUS**, pre-LGM southern European type. Greeks represent a merger/hybrid type between indigenous southern European and in-migrating Middle Eastern and Black African elements.
Greeks have a low frequency of this **DEFINING** European haplogroup and have **EXTREMELY** high frequencies of Middle Eastern Hg J and Sub-Saharan African Hg E as a result of gene flow from these regions to Greece **AFTER** the LGM. Hence Greeks are hybrid and genetic outliers in a European context.
quote:
...blacks who aren't even native to East Africa.
This is the dumbest thing I have ever heard of! Dumb-Euro's claims that all the blacks of East Africa are of "recent Bantu" descent is hilarious!!
Not only has it been proven that Oromo, Somalis, and Boranas are pure Africans with no Bantu admixture but...
quote:
Rasol says: These people are the Sandawe of East Africa, related to the Khoisan of South Africa:
Here's what geneticist Sarah TishKoff has to say about them:
We have been able to show, for the first time, that the Sandawe of East Africa the southern bushmen of Botswana, Namibia and South Africa share a recent common ancestry, within about 35,000 years. We speculate the southern bushmen originated in East Africa, and that they both are remnants of a very old group of hunter-gatherers, perhaps the earliest ancestors of modern humans."
quote:
and Puro Hybrido answers: What she discovered is that the most ancient populations include the Sandawe, Burunge, Gorowaa and Datog people who live in Tanzania. The 150,000-year-old female ancestor (mtDNA) of every person on Earth, may have lived in Tanzania or Ethiopia.http://www.ntz.info/gen/n01574.html
quote:
and Rasol replies: The Datoga, Gorowaa, Burunge, Masai and others best resemble the East African mesolithic remains and classified by anthropologist as 'elongated' types.Two of the above are Nilo-saharan and two are Cushitic - those are languages, not skeletypes.
The skeletal remains of these groups overlap in range and appearance and in some cases go back to before the modern ethnic groups diverged.
Tishkoff's genetic data reinforces earlier skeletal data.
Distinguishing science from pseudoscience:
Scientists such as Tishkoff do not attempt to infer East African genetic lineages from "mystery Y chromosome carrying" mail order brides from Best of Asia website.
These remnant populations of East Africa--the Hadzabe, Sandawe, and others are the aboriginal peoples of the area long before Cushitic and Nilo-Saharan speaking peoples. And they are ALL BLACK!!!
The notion that prehistoric Africans were anything else but, is a ridiculous joke.
[This message has been edited by Djehuti (edited 06 August 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
African genes in Europeans is what is referred to by geneticist Cavelli Sforza, who tells us and shows us: Europeans appear as a 2/3 Asian, 1/3rd African mix.
Now would be a good time to stop pretending you haven't seen this thread:
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/Forum8/HTML/002449.html
quote:
Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Now would be a good time to stop pretending you haven't seen this thread:http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/Forum8/HTML/002449.html
quote:
And P.S. Cavalli-Sforza clearly identifies Europeans as Caucasoid. So when he says that their gene frequencies are "a third African and two-thirds Asian", he isn't claiming that they're racially mixed, as some Afronuts absurdly maintain.
---------------------------
Yes he is...and that's what they look like....
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
You talk about "predating all modern races", well how so? Phenotypical change is an ongoing process that takes thousands of years. Also, how the hell did blacks not exist?!! Blacks have always existed in Africa, stupid ass!!
"There are implications for the origins of modern races, too. Herto (and Jebel Irhoud) are H. sapiens, but with primitive features. They are not, racially speaking, Africans. The later Omo and Klasies remains are more modern, but they too are archaic, and certainly show no traces of the features that characterise any modern races. Only Qafzeh and Skhul seem to lack these primitive features, and rate as "generalised modern humans". Our species seems to have existed as an entity long, long before it began to spread outside Africa or the Middle East, let alone split into geographic races." (Colin Groves)
"For example, Howells (1995) found little evidence of continuity between Late Pleistocene fossils and modern groups in the same geographical region, and van Vark (1994:291) demonstrated that European Upper Paleolithic crania are atypical of any recent European population, concluding that 'at least as far as cranial morphology is concerned, recent racial diversity is not a chronologically deeprooted phenomenon.' These findings are consistent with Sarich’s (1997) argument that modern human regional/racial diversity is recent, developing around 15,000 to 20,000 years ago." (Source)
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
By the way, as to Stupid-Euro's claims that..These remnant populations of East Africa--the Hadzabe, Sandawe, and others are the aboriginal peoples of the area long before Cushitic and Nilo-Saharan speaking peoples. And they are ALL BLACK!!!
The notion that prehistoric Africans were anything else but, is a ridiculous joke.
The Iraqw of Tanzania,
Yet another Black East African group with oldest mtdna and Y lineages [L1,A] as well as E3b@35%. [Tishkoff, Underhill]
Peter Underhill: E3b-M35 lineages appear to be confined mostly to the sub-Saharan populations."
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 06 August 2005).]
quote:
Djehuti writes: You talk about "predating all modern races", well how so? Phenotypical change is an ongoing process that takes thousands of years. Also, how the hell did blacks not exist?!! Blacks have always existed in Africa, stupid ass!! LOL
The term "generalised modern" is accurately disected in this thread
quote:- Neves, et. al
The Paleoamerican morphological pattern is more generalized and can be seen today among Africans, Australians, and Melanesians.
Early tropical Africans were by definition Black:
their skin was black, and the intense sun killed off the progeny with any whiter skin that resulted from mutational variation in the receptor protein. However, the progeny of those humans who migrated North away from the intense African sun were not under the evolutionary constraint that keeps human skin black generation after generation in Africa - Rogers.
they had to have very dark skin in order to survive in such an environment - Jablonsky
East Africans have been equatorial[Black] for 10's of thousands of years - Brace
quote:
Thought posts: Define what YOU mean when YOU use the term negroid/caucasiod
Naturally pseudo's cannot speak to any point of fact, and prefer to hide behind nonsense terms, that remain forever undefined....
The lack of a coherent answer simply lends further credence to the following:
terms like caucaZoid-mongoloid-negroid are worse than useless - Cl Brace
Conclusion:
Pseudos - invent their own vocabulary, hide behind ambiguous terms, or terms which have no definition at all.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 06 August 2005).]
Semino et al,
German
E3b 6.2%, I 37.5%, J 0%, R1b 50%
Polish
E3b 3.6%, I 23.6%, J 0%, R1b 16.4%, R1a 56.4%
Greek
E3b 22.4%, I 7.9%, J 21%, R1b 27%, R1a 11%
Lebanese
E3b 25.8%, I 3.2%, J 29%, R1b 6.4%, R1a 10%
Not to mention:
Benin haplotype Sickle Cell presence > Africans, Italians, Greeks,…
And…
"Negroid traits of Anatolian and Macedonian early farmers attributable to crossbreeding" - Angel, Garrod, Furon
Thought:
The **REAL** Europeans have features such as blue eyes and blonde hair as found among populations such as the Swedes, Croatians, Bosnians, Slovenians, Sardinians, Danes, Dutch, Germans, Normans, etc. All of these groups carry high frequencies of the pre-LGM haplogroup I in frequencies greater than 35%. Greeks carry this defining European haplogroup at ~13%. Lebanese, Jews, Turks etc. also carry this European lineage in low frequencies like the Greeks.
Thought Writes:
Sardianians are southern Europeans, yet they carry the **HIGHEST** frequency of Hg I. Greeks are southern Europeans and carry one of the **LOWEST** frequencies of Hg I. This suggests two **SEPARATE** origins for Sardinians and Greeks. Sardinians represent the **INDIGENOUS**, pre-LGM southern European type. Greeks represent a merger/hybrid type between indigenous southern European and in-migrating Middle Eastern and Black African elements.
Greeks have a low frequency of this **DEFINING** European haplogroup and have **EXTREMELY** high frequencies of Middle Eastern Hg J and Sub-Saharan African Hg E as a result of gene flow from these regions to Greece **AFTER** the LGM. Hence Greeks are hybrid and genetic outliers in a European context.
quote:
Originally posted by relaxx:
Yes he is, and that's what they look like.
Sforza is simply relating the reality of the biological history of Europeans given the fact of RAO - recent African Origin of all people.
If you took a modern population of fulani, and fijiians - who look rather similar but are genetically among the two most distant people on earth - placed them on an island, and then allowed them to intermix for several generations, the end result would be as following:
Genetically they would appear as a MIX of fulani and fijiian.
The difference is that East Asians and Europeans are clearly descendant from the same small population of tropically adapted, black Africans.
Yet, their genetic distance w/regards to Africans is not the same.
What has happened is Europeans have remixed with Africans to a far greater degree than East Asians have, and moreover this has a great impact on the European genome for reasons stated by geneticist Underhill and Tishkoff:
non africans descend from a small group of africans, there isn't as much genetic diversity "as in africa" because there wasn't much to begin with
When you admix African genes - Benin HBS, E3, L2, etc.. back into the European genome it has a major impact.
quote:Europeans appear as a 2/3 Asian 1/3 African mix - Sforza
Why is this?
The 1st Europeans settled in Europe's glacial refugess for 15 thousand years, before Africans began spreading new genes into Europe's population, particularly during the Neolithic. {PA Underhill}
This is indicated by Benin HBS and E3b haplotypes among others.
These are genes that originate in tropical Africa and spread to Southern Europe.
Genes, peoples, and languages L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 06 August 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by Babbling Ape:
Early tropical Africans were by definition Black:
No, they were by definition "not, racially speaking, Africans ... [showing] no traces of the features that characterise any modern races."
quote:
terms like caucaZoid-mongoloid-negroid are worse than useless - Cl Brace
One of the world's preeminent geneticists begs to differ: "Caucasoids (green), Mongoloids (purple)"
quote:
Europeans appear as a 2/3 Asian 1/3 African mix - Sforza
"The map does show the unity of the...Caucasoids from Europe" - Sforza
What were their features?
And what constitutes a modern black African?
quote:
Originally posted by Evil Euro:
"The map does show the unity of the...[b]Caucasoids from Europe" - Sforza[/B]
Mulatto unity
Early Blacks:
their skin was black, and the intense sun killed off the progeny with any whiter skin that resulted from mutational variation in the receptor protein. - Rogers
Early Eurasians:
The earliest anatomical moderns found in Eurasia were skeletally tropically adapted, or "African like", whereas Neanderthal were cold adapted, or "European like". The finding suggests two - highly distinctive populations in Pleistocene Eurasia and that modern Humans were tropically adapted and African in origin - [TW Holliday, 1999]
C Sforza, The History and Geography of Human Genes, Chapter. 2 - "The Scientific Failure of the Concept of Race.":
Classification of humans into races has proven tobe a futile excercise
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 07 August 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by relaxx:
Mulatto unity
lol. While Europeans show the effects of reduced genetic diversity due to recent expansion from a small population of ICE age refugees, who depigmented [meaning turned white] during the Mesolithic.... the effects of West Asian and East African admixture has been documented by Sforza.
Sforza found Germans and English to be very closly related genetically, whereas the Italians are twice removed, and the Greeks 4 times removed from English/Germanics.
This makes sense - England is an Island settled by Germans from the Paleolithic ice age refuges.
Greece is genetically a combination of paleolithic Europeans plus Neolithic East African and West Asians.
This is why the Greeks have been referred to as "genetically outlier" in a European context.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 07 August 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:Sforza found Germans and English to be very closly related genetically, whereas the Italians are twice removed, and the Greeks 4 times removed from English/Germanics.
This makes sense - England is an Island settled by Germans from the Paleolithic ice age refuges.
Greece is genetically a combination of paleolithic Europeans plus Neolithic East African and West Asians.
This is why the Greeks have been referred to as "genetically outlier" in a European context.
...which is of course why even the likes of Best of Sicily just ignore bafoons like ginney troll, as pests too insignificant for any kind of attention, and aslo...
which is clearly demonstrated time and again, in results like:
Semino et al,
German
E3b 6.2%, I 37.5%, J 0%, R1b 50%
Polish
E3b 3.6%, I 23.6%, J 0%, R1b 16.4%, R1a 56.4%
Greek
E3b 22.4%, I 7.9%, J 21%, R1b 27%, R1a 11%
Lebanese
E3b 25.8%, I 3.2%, J 29%, R1b 6.4%, R1a 10%
Not to mention:
Benin haplotype Sickle Cell presence > Africans, Italians, Greeks,…
And…
"Negroid traits of Anatolian and Macedonian early farmers attributable to crossbreeding" - Angel, Garrod, Furon
Thought:
The **REAL** Europeans have features such as blue eyes and blonde hair as found among populations such as the Swedes, Croatians, Bosnians, Slovenians, Sardinians, Danes, Dutch, Germans, Normans, etc. All of these groups carry high frequencies of the pre-LGM haplogroup I in frequencies greater than 35%. Greeks carry this defining European haplogroup at ~13%. Lebanese, Jews, Turks etc. also carry this European lineage in low frequencies like the Greeks.
Thought Writes:
Sardianians are southern Europeans, yet they carry the **HIGHEST** frequency of Hg I. Greeks are southern Europeans and carry one of the **LOWEST** frequencies of Hg I. This suggests two **SEPARATE** origins for Sardinians and Greeks. Sardinians represent the **INDIGENOUS**, pre-LGM southern European type. Greeks represent a merger/hybrid type between indigenous southern European and in-migrating Middle Eastern and Black African elements.
Greeks have a low frequency of this **DEFINING** European haplogroup and have **EXTREMELY** high frequencies of Middle Eastern Hg J and Sub-Saharan African Hg E as a result of gene flow from these regions to Greece **AFTER** the LGM. Hence Greeks are hybrid and genetic outliers in a European context.
Pretty clear to every thinking individual, but one borderline european's pet.
quote:
Originally posted by Ignorant, Babbling Ape:
Early Out of African migrants:
The Paleoamerican morphological pattern is more generalized and can be seen today among Africans, Australians, and Melanesians.
J Hum Evol. 2005 Apr;48(4):403-14, Neves, et al.
Early Eurasians:
The earliest anatomical moderns found in Eurasia were skeletally tropically adapted, or "African like", whereas Neanderthal were cold adapted, or "European like". The finding suggests two - highly distinctive populations in Pleistocene Eurasia and that modern Humans were tropically adapted and African in origin - [TW Holliday, 1999]
Of course, "African" doesn't equal "Negroid" or "Black", and Australoids are a modern race distinct from generalized pre-historic humans:
"Of all 'major races', Australoids have evidently changed least from the generalised modern human pattern, but the flat, receding forehead and angular skull vault that characterise many full-blooded Aboriginal people today are somewhat different to the Qafzeh/Skhul pattern. A 1999 study by Susan Antón and Karen Weinstein of the University of Florida, in the process of confirming that some of the Australian fossils (including most of the famous Kow Swamp series) had undergone artificial head deformation in infancy, found unexpectedly that most of the Pleistocene fossil Australian crania are rounder-skulled than modern ones. So racial features developed late in this part of the world, too." -- Colin Groves
quote:
C Sforza, The History and Geography of Human Genes, Chapter. 2 - "The Scientific Failure of the Concept of Race.":Classification of humans into races has proven tobe a futile excercise
The savage keeps pretending, but he'll never escape the truth . . .
Cavalli-Sforza Believes in Race
quote:
Sforza found Germans and English to be very closly related genetically, whereas the Italians are twice removed, and the Greeks 4 times removed from English/Germanics.This makes sense - England is an Island settled by Germans from the Paleolithic ice age refuges.
Greece is genetically a combination of paleolithic Europeans plus Neolithic East African and West Asians.
This is why the Greeks have been referred to as "genetically outlier" in a European context.
The genetic distances between the English and other European populations are small. The two greatest are 404 for the Lapps, and 340 for the Sardinians, two populations that contributed few immigrants to the United States. With major European populations, 22 with the Germans, the distances are 24 with the French, 51 with the Italians, and on up to 204 with the Greeks. In comparison with the much larger genetic distances from the Bantu and West Africans, or the Japanese, South Chinese, or American Indians, the European populations do indeed seem similar to each other.
Likewise, the various West African populations are similar to one another. The average distance between the various West African tribes is 157, and 211 among the Bantu groups (p. 184). A representative Bantu to West African distance is 188 (p. 175).
For instance, in inspecting the tree for Europe (p. 268), the Lapps will be found to be the population that is furthest separated from other populations. Next come the Sardinians, which are sufficiently different from other Europeans that their inclusion in the principal components analysis would have required that they be given a component to themselves (p. 291). Their unique gene mix is attributed primely to genetic drift in a small population. The Basques are found to be another distinct group, who are argued to be a remnant of the original Europeans. Iceland is found to be quite distinct from the rest of Europe, which is attributed to genetic drift in a small population.
Torroni, Semino, Scozzari, Sirugo, Spedini, Abbas, Fellous, & Santachiara Benerecetti (1990) reported a sharp distinction between Africans and Italians using markers on the Y chromosome.
Cavalli-Sforza's Autosomal DNA Map:
On the Y-chromosome Greeks, Italians and Spaniards cluster with Brits, Germans and Czechs:
[This message has been edited by Evil Euro (edited 08 August 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by Super car:
...which is of course why even the likes of Best of Sicily just ignore buffoons like ginney troll, as pests too insignificant for any kind of attention
quote:
Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Of course, "African" doesn't equal "Negroid" or "Black", and Australoids are a modern race distinct from generalized pre-historic humans:
Can you define the terms "negroid" and "black", and is there a difference??
Stupid-Euro has not even expressed what he means by those terms, as the troll usually does.
quote:
Stupid-Euro has not even expressed what he means by those terms, as the troll usually does.
quote:
i could of swore scientist a few years ago said black wherent even native to africa they i was taught in school that they migrated there and ther skin turn black lol. Thats what i was taught in school of a video we watch so u cant go buy all scientist cause they switch there stories.
If you understand the parent post and topic, you will be able to distinguish between science and pseudoscience.
Science: findings are expressed primarily through scientific journals that are peer-reviewed, current and maintain rigorous standards for honesty and accuracy. As time goes on, more and more is learned about the physical processes under study
Ex: the mutations that produce light skin color in Northern Eurasians are derived from the original, "darker" form of the gene known as MCiR - melanocortin receptor, virtually the only form found in Africa still. Africans [unlike Northern Eurasians] have retained their original dark color - Geneticist Spencer Wells.
Pseudoscience: does not progress. No physical phenomena or processes are ever found or studied. No progress is made; nothing is learned.
Bandon [Brandon], the 'video' you referenced is apparently badly outdated.
When you choose to stop learning, you become a pseudo. The fault isn't with "science", the responsibility to keep learning is yours.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 08 August 2005).]
[This message has been edited by Super car (edited 23 September 2005).]
quote:
ginney pussy:
- [b]European Distances:
The genetic distances between the English and other European populations are small. The two greatest are 404 for the Lapps, and 340 for the Sardinians, two populations that contributed few immigrants to the United States. With major European populations, 22 with the Germans, the distances are 24 with the French, 51 with the Italians, and on up to 204 with the Greeks. In comparison with the much larger genetic distances from the Bantu and West Africans, or the Japanese, South Chinese, or American Indians, the European populations do indeed seem similar to each other.
Sub-Saharan African Distances: Likewise, the various West African populations are similar to one another. The average distance between the various West African tribes is 157, and 211 among the Bantu groups (p. 184). A representative Bantu to West African distance is 188 (p. 175).
European Outliers: For instance, in inspecting the tree for Europe (p. 268), the Lapps will be found to be the population that is furthest separated from other populations. Next come the Sardinians, which are sufficiently different from other Europeans that their inclusion in the principal components analysis would have required that they be given a component to themselves (p. 291). Their unique gene mix is attributed primely to genetic drift in a small population. The Basques are found to be another distinct group, who are argued to be a remnant of the original Europeans. Iceland is found to be quite distinct from the rest of Europe, which is attributed to genetic drift in a small population.
Italian Y-chromosomes: Torroni, Semino, Scozzari, Sirugo, Spedini, Abbas, Fellous, & Santachiara Benerecetti (1990) reported a sharp distinction between Africans and Italians using markers on the Y chromosome.
Cavalli-Sforza's Autosomal DNA Map:
On the Y-chromosome Greeks, Italians and Spaniards cluster with Brits, Germans and Czechs:
None of this has of course become any less immaterial to the undeniable recent black African gene flow into Southern Europe, particularly southeastern Mediterranean regions. Let’s recap:
Richards et al, 2002, actually make reference to an even more recent gene flow of sub-Saharan E lineages into Europe:
"The analysis for eastern Mediterranean Europe indicated a very high frequency (∼20%) of recent gene flow, as compared with only ∼10% Neolithic input. It would be necessary to perform a similar founder analysis (using, for example, a large panel of fast-evolving microsatellites) to see whether a proportion of the putative Y chromosome Neolithic types in Europe are actually of more recent origin. However, it is suggestive that the frequency of Y chromosome haplogroup E, which Semino et al. (2000) have inferred to be Neolithic, appears at particularly high levels in the western Mediterranean in the more extensive sample of Rosser et al. (2000) (fig. 3E). As Rosser et al. suggest, this may imply gene flow mainly from North Africa (where haplogroup E reaches its highest frequency), rather than mainly from the Near East, because, judging from archaeological evidence, the development of agriculture in Iberia is likely to have been largely indigenous (Zilhão 2000)."
From the first PC analysis, Richards et al found that,
"The first PC accounts for 49% of the variation and is approximately east-west within Europe, but the Near East and eastern Mediterranean Europe cluster with central Europe. This gradient is accounted for largely by paragroup R* (nomenclature of the Y Chromosome Consortium [2002]), formerly haplogroup 1 (Jobling and Tyler-Smith 2000) in the west and by haplogroups R1a (formerly haplogroup 3) and N3 (formerly Tat) in the east (fig. 5). In agreement with the suggestion proposed to explain the distribution of mtDNA haplogroup V (Torroni et al. 1998, 2001), the distributions of Y chromosome groups R* and R1a have been interpreted by Semino et al. (2000) to be the result of postglacial expansions from refugia within Europe."
But with Hg E in the mix, they got:
"The second PC of Y chromosome variation accounts for 26% of the variation, and it clusters most European regions at one pole while grouping the Near East at the other, with eastern Mediterranean and central Mediterranean Europe between the two poles.
The main contributors to the gradients are haplogroups E and J (formerly haplogroups 21 and 9, both of which are frequent in the Near East) and, again, R* and N3 (both of which are more frequent in Europe). This points to gene flow from the Near East, as suggested by both Cavalli-Sforza et al. (1994) and Semino et al. (2000). Haplogroup J in Europe is interpreted more specifically by Semino et al. (2000) as the result of Neolithic dispersal. Curiously, however, haplogroups E and J are again most frequent along the Mediterranean coastline and rapidly dwindle as one moves into central Europe, where the archaeological record tells us the main farming expansion took place…
From Semino et al,
"Southern Italy (Apulia and Calabria) contains sites of the early Neolithic period (Whitehouse 1968), but we know from history that these regions were subsequently colonized by the Greeks (Peloponnesians). To test the relative contribution of Greek colonists versus putative earlier Neolithic settlers, an admixture analysis (Bertorelle and Excoffier 1998) was performed, using E-M78 and J-M172(xM12) as signatures of Greek and Anatolian lineages, respectively. The Anatolian source population was based on 523 Turks, of whom 118 were J-M172(xM12) and 25 were E-M78 (Cinniolu et al. 2004). The Greek population comprised 36 Peloponnesian samples, 5 of which were J-M172(xM12) and 17 of which were E-M78 (R.K., unpublished data). In spite of the small Peloponnesian sample size, the high E-M78 frequency (47%) observed here is consistent with that (44%) independently found in the same region (Di Giacomo et al. 2003) for the YAP chromosomes harboring microsatellite haplotypes (A. Novelletto, personal communication) typical of Hg E-M78 (Cruciani et al. 2004 [in this issue]; present study…
…Moreover, the observation that the derivative E-M78 displays the DYS392-12/DYS19-11 haplotype suggests that it also arose in East Africa."
An example of genetically outlier Europeans:
Greek
E3b 22.4%, I 7.9%, J 21%, R1b 27%, R1a 11%
"Indeed the people of Bosnia-Herzegovina display European specific haplogroups that most likely arose in different glacial refuge areas of Europe (I-M170, R-M17 and R-M269 from Balkan, Ukrainian and Franco-Cantabrian refuges, respectively), and haplogroups considered to have originated in Africa (E) and the Middle East (J)..."
The Peopling of Modern Bosnia-Herzegovina: Y-chromosome Haplogroups in the Three Main Ethnic Groups
D. Marjanovic et al.
Thought Writes:
The *TRUE** European populations that carried Hg I, Hg R1a1 and HG R1b1 INTO these glacial refuges spread down into southern Europe from the north and hence had adapted to Northern Europes clime. The Greeks on the other hand arrived AFTER the LGM from Africa and the Middle East, as the incredible prescence of Hg E and Hg J indicate.
From Sanchez et al.,
"The frequency of haplogroup E3b1*(xE3b1b) in Somali males is the highest observed in any populations to date, and we suggest that the Somali male population is the origin of this haplogroup...
Although the Horn of Africa is considered a geographic part of sub-Saharan Africa, we have analysed the Somali population separately in order to compare the results with previously published data from other African populations."
Ps- Here is a source that seems to have a good idea on what ‘generalized’ means:
Increasing skeletal evidence from the U.S.A., Mexico, Colombia, and Brazil strongly suggests that the first settlers in the Americas had a cranial morphology distinct from that displayed by most late and modern Native Americans. The Paleoamerican morphological pattern is more generalized and can be seen **today** among Africans, Australians, and Melanesians. - Neves et al
The gist: To deny recent Black African gene flow, would be to essentially deny the existence of E lineages altogether in Europe, not to mention Benin Sickle cells, notably present in European countries like Italy and Greece. But as we can see, they do exist, particularly in borderline Europeans.
quote:
Richards et al, 2002, actually make reference to an even more recent gene flow of sub-Saharan E lineages into Europe
The pseudo also continues to spam charts every one of which contradict its own bizarre claims, that is when he is not directly contradicting himself, in his own terms - as pseudos are prone to do.
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
The pseudo also continues to spam charts every one of which contradict its own bizarre claims, that is when he is not directly contradicting himself, in his own terms - as pseudos are prone to do.
LMAOYou are exactly right about that Rasol!
Notice that in the very genetic map the dumb dog posts, East Africans are placed in the same cluster as other Africans and are even close to Bantus. Yet the dumb mutt continues to spew the same nonsense that East Africans are closer to Eurasians than to other Africans!!
pseudo-science is an end to itself.
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
Stupid-Euro, just curious but exactly what did early "generalized modern" humans look like?What were their features?
And what constitutes a modern black African?
quote:
Originally posted by Keins:
Many to most modern africans have a mixture of all the phenotypes. They are a phenotypic mixture of the khoisan "mongoloid", elongated "caucasoid", and broad "negroid" types. This mixture along with curly to kinky hair and dark skin is still by definition what sceintist today call black or negro.
Ultimately it is the entire idea of physical archtypes, stereotypes really, that is flawed.
This is known as "essentialism" and it is an inherent feature of Blumenbach's race partitioning system.
For example: a pure caucaZoid would be a blonde haired, blue eyed, pale skinned long nosed type....the essential caucaZoid.
At the opposite end of this spectrum you would have your modern olive skinned dark eyed, dark haired, curly haired Greeks, for example.
In fact, modern physical anthropology has proven to us that humans never have existed as separate physical archtypes, nor can you reginerate them based on postulating hybridisation from supposedly "pure" states.
This is also why the notion of generalised modern, ultimately works against racialist essentialism.
Again, the Greeks by example.
If we say, as Howells did that Europeans were a generalised "non European" looking people....in the Paleolithic;
If we say, as Erik Trinkaus does, that Europeans did not lose their skin color, and tropical skeletal structure to become "essentialist whites", until the end of the Mesolithic;
If we say, as Larry Angel and Dorothy Garrod did...that they were "hybridised" with East African [Nubian] and West Asian [Natufians], beginning at the onset of the Neolithic;
Then we must ask the question....when did the Greeks ever exist in 'racially essentialist' form?
The notion of an "Aryan" Greece is in fact a platonic [pun intended] ideal, and not a reality that can be assessed and affirmed by physical anthropology.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 08 August 2005).]
quote:
rasol thats what im talking about i know that my whole point of that was saying scientist switch there views on many things.
I understand.
quote:Evil Euro
Originally posted by The Great Pretender...:
Non-sequitur, as Y chromosomes don't have "races."
Y chromosomes are generally classified by geography, and not into "race" which is irrelevant.
...Pretending not to see the evidence that proves him wrong:
"Marked differences in Y-SNP allele frequencies between continental populations can be used to predict the biogeographic origin of a man's ancestral paternal lineage. Using 627 samples collected from individuals within the UK with pale-skinned Caucasian, dark-skinned Caucasian, African/Caribbean, South Asian, East Asian or Middle Eastern appearance we demonstrate that an individual's Y-SNP haplogroup is also strongly correlated with their physical appearance. Furthermore, experimental evaluation of the Marligen Signet Y-SNP kit in conjunction with the Luminex 100 detection instrument indicates that reliable and reproducible haplogrouping results can be obtained from 1 ng or more of target template derived from a variety of forensic evidence types including, blood, saliva and post-coital vaginal swabs. The test proved highly male-specific with reliable results being generated in the presence of a 1000-fold excess of female DNA, and no anomalous results were observed during degradation studies despite a gradual loss of typable loci. Hence, Y-SNP haplogrouping has considerable potential forensic utility in predicting likely ethnic appearance." (Wetton et al. 2005)
This is my gross understanding:
1) It is known that phenotypic variations occur in human beings.
2) The genetic markers associated with various populations, of known phenotypes, have been (at least partially) catalogued.
3) Based on the catalogued data a relationship is established between the population and the genetic marker.
This is my Question:
4) How does it then follow that the ability to predict phenotype from the genetic data catalogued proves the existence of different races? The reasoning seems to be somewhat circular.
This actually is simply a question - with no agenda. I may be totally misunderstanding what’s being said here. I’m hoping someone can clarify this point for me in layman terms. Thank you.
quote:
How does it then follow that the ability to predict phenotype from the genetic data catalogued proves the existence of different races?The reasoning seems to be somewhat circular.
To say the least.
Correlation is not cause:
Confusing correlation with cause is a basic error of logic:
You can correlate the English language to phenotype and come up with an Indian or Nigerian before you come up with an Englishmen for the simple reason that there are more English speakers in those countries today, than there are in Great Britain.
Moreover - if you do the correlation in Africa or Asia, you are guaranteed to come up with a non-European correlation.
What does this teach us about the origins of the English language?
You can correlate Benin Hbs - the gene that causes sickle cell in Europe to Greece or Sicily. You can predict ethnicity and phenotype in Europe via where sickle cell does and does not exist.
You can correlate Cohen Model Haplotype in South Africa to the Buba Lemba Bantu and hence, their phenotype.
The error lies in confusing correlation with cause.
To suggest that any of the above is causal leads directly to error - ie - English Language is Indian or African and not European.
In Genes Languages and Peoples Cavelli Sforza uses correlations on all the above to help invistigate the origins of all three.
Regardless of the acumen of his conclusions he does not make the trivial mistake of confusing correlation for cause and stating that genes 'have languages' or races.
Thus when Cavelli Sforza says in this book that:
Europeans: appear as a 2/3rds Asian 1/3rd Africa mix.
He is not saying that they are racially 'hybrid'.
He is not saying that they are racially 'pure'.
He is shedding light on what HE clearly states is:
* the scientific failure of the idea of "race"
and why....
* classification into race has proven a futile excercise.
Reputable and current geneticists simply do not classify Y chromosome into "races".
That uneducated non-scholars like 'racial reality' and Dienekes Pontikos disregard actual geneticists, and do so anyway, simply reflects their lack of understanding and interest in both the basics of biology, and the basics of logic in thinking processes.
They are only interested in using dis-information to exploit ignorance.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 09 August 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by Babbling Ape:
Originally posted by Super car: ...which is of course why even the likes of Best of Sicily just ignore buffoons like ginney troll, as pests too insignificant for any kind of attentionPseudos invent their own vocabulary in which many terms lack precise or unambiguous definitions, and some have no definition at all. - Distinguishing Science and Pseudoscience Rory Coker, Ph.D.
The pseudo also continues to spam charts every one of which contradict its own bizarre claims, that is when he is not directly contradicting himself, in his own terms - as pseudos are prone to do.
Translation: After seven months, the dumb savage still has no answers for anything.
quote:
For example: a pure caucaZoid would be a blonde haired, blue eyed, pale skinned long nosed type....the essential caucaZoid.
Caucasoids were not originally blond and blue-eyed. Those are recent mutations. You're a clueless moron.
quote:
The notion of an "Aryan" Greece is in fact a platonic [pun intended] ideal, and not a reality that can be assessed and affirmed by physical anthropology.
Straw man. No one here has ever claimed that Greeks were blond, blue-eyed "Aryans". They were, are and will always be Mediterranean, Alpine, Dinaric and Nordic -- i.e. Caucasoid (Angel, Coon, Brace etc.)
quote:
Thus when Cavelli Sforza says in this book that: Europeans: appear as a mixture of 2/3rds Asian 1/3rd Africa mix.He is shedding light on what HE clearly states is: * the scientific failure of the idea of "race"
His name is CavAlli, you illiterate monkey. And he both believes in race and classifies Europeans as Caucasoid. Nothing you say will ever change that.
quote:
Originally posted by Super coon:
None of this has of course become any less immaterial to the undeniable recent black African gene flow into Southern Europe, particularly southeastern Mediterranean regions. Let’s recap:
Of course, all of that information is accurate (more or less), but none of it mentions anything about "Black Africans". That's just your little Afronut fantasy.
quote:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Djehuti:
Notice that in the very genetic map the dumb dog posts, East Africans are placed in the same cluster as other Africans and are even close to Bantus. Yet the dumb mutt continues to spew the same nonsense that East Africans are closer to Eurasians than to other Africans!!
East Africans are genetically intermediate between North Africans (Caucasoids) and Sub-Saharan Africans (Negroids):
-- Cavalli-Sforza
[This message has been edited by Evil Euro (edited 09 August 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
The pseudo also continues to spam charts every one of which contradict its own bizarre claims, that is when he is not directly contradicting himself, in his own terms - as pseudos are prone to do.
quote:
You are exactly right about that Rasol!
Notice that in the very genetic map the dumb dog posts, East Africans are placed in the same cluster as other Africans and are even close to Bantus. Yet the dumb mutt continues to spew the same nonsense that East Africans are closer to Eurasians than to other Africans!!
pseudo-science is an end to itself.
Correct, the E. Africans referred to in that chart are Ethiopians. There are exactly 42 populations listed, and they are separated where possible by linguistic group, with Nilo Saharans separated from Afrasan speakers.
You will also note it is the Berber who are intermediate in that map.
Each map is different and too reflects the methodologies of genetic testing and clustering and other mapping 'artifacts'.
In this case the same approach that makes Europeans to cluster together....causes Ethiopian, Nilo Saharan, Bantu, and San to all cluster together.
2nd:
Erroneous tries again, with another map, but in this case all the populations are African, to begin with.
By definition, this can only show relationships within African groups, not between Africans and Europeans.
In that map, the Taureg of West Africa are most closely related to the East African Beja of Egypt/Nubia, begging the question of other specific East African/West African ethnic group affinities, and once again, completely defeating the intended purpose of displaying it.
No good presenting maps when you don't know how to read them in the 1st place.
3rd:
The same failing is shown on the cranial map shown over and again in which present Africans and Melanesians group together, actually more closely than Europeans to one another.
This lends further impact to Holliday, Trinkaus, Stringer et. al regarding the affinity of modern tropically adapted Africans and Melanesians to early Out of Africa humans.....and their lack of affinity with modern Europeans, who in fact did not become fully cold adapted until the end of the Mesolithic.
And lastly the Lemba Jew fiasco;
in which the claim is made that Lemba "group with caucaZoids" with map presented to that effect, by someone who had never seen an actual picture of a Lemba.
When made to face the reality of the obviously Black African Lemba, the claim of caucaZoid Lemba is reversed.
Yet the pseudo continues to display the map -which shows the Lemba as closer to the Greeks than the Ethiopians are - even as he now denies the claim which provided the basis for displaying the map in the 1st place.
So, you're right, Djehuti.
Pseudos contradict themselves and so refute themselves;
while spinning in n circles.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 09 August 2005).]
Stupid-Euro is just too damn stupid to know that he refutes himself!!!
ginney cave bitch scribbles:
quote:
Of course, all of that information is accurate (more or less), but none of it mentions anything about "Black Africans". That's just your little Afronut fantasy.
This wop scribble is yet more immaterial. ‘Black Africans’ doesn’t have to be used; it is a given! Sub-Saharan Africans have always been tropically adapted, *never ever been cold adapted*; this naturally comes with considerable skin pigmentation, and therefore you have “black Africans”. But if it makes you feel any better, sub-Saharan Black Africans can also be referred to as “tropical Africans”, whose sub-Saharan lineages you are carrying as we speak, borderline europussy. Hey, no need to thank me; it’s a pleasure to continue to confuse you with reality:
Here is a source that seems to have a good idea on what ‘generalized’ means:
Increasing skeletal evidence from the U.S.A., Mexico, Colombia, and Brazil strongly suggests that the first settlers in the Americas had a cranial morphology distinct from that displayed by most late and modern Native Americans. The Paleoamerican morphological pattern is more generalized and can be seen **today** among Africans, Australians, and Melanesians. - Neves et al
Here’s some bonus reality check for you, ginney pussy:
From Sanchez et al.,
"The frequency of haplogroup E3b1*(xE3b1b) in Somali males is the highest observed in any populations to date, and we suggest that the Somali male population is the origin of this haplogroup…
Although the Horn of Africa is considered a geographic part of sub-Saharan Africa, we have analysed the Somali population separately in order to compare the results with previously published data from other African populations."
An example of genetically outlier Europeans:
Greek
E3b 22.4%, I 7.9%, J 21%, R1b 27%, R1a 11%
The gist: To deny recent Black African gene flow, would be to essentially deny the existence of E lineages altogether in Europe, not to mention Benin Sickle cells, notably present in European countries like Italy and Greece. But as we can see, they do exist[/i], particularly in borderline Europeans.
-------------
Now tell the world that borderline Europeans don’t carry the above, and I’ll be first in line to give you more reality check, as I did with your confusion about male and female biology. If you can’t do so, then it is settled: no matter what wop scribble you come up with, it just will never be material to the fact.
quote:
Stupid-Euro, just curious but exactly what did early "generalized modern" humans look like?What were their features?
The dumb dog has failed to answer my questions above...
But Neves et al provides a clear and concise answer-- Increasing skeletal evidence from the U.S.A., Mexico, Colombia, and Brazil strongly suggests that the first settlers in the Americas had a cranial morphology distinct from that displayed by most late and modern Native Americans. The Paleoamerican morphological pattern is more **generalized** and can be seen **today** among Africans, Australians, and Melanesians.
[This message has been edited by Djehuti (edited 09 August 2005).]
But Neves et al provides a clear and concise answer-- Increasing skeletal evidence from the U.S.A., Mexico, Colombia, and Brazil strongly suggests that the first settlers in the Americas had a cranial morphology distinct from that displayed by most late and modern Native Americans. The Paleoamerican morphological pattern is more **generalized** and can be seen **today** among Africans, Australians, and Melanesians. [This message has been edited by Djehuti (edited 09 August 2005).]
There is more from Spencer Wells in support of the above view.
Quoted from pgs 74-75 of Spencer Well’s The Journey of Man:
“One other piece of evidence suggests a direct link between Africa and Australia – physical appearance. The dark skin of the Australians is reminiscent of that found in Africa – something that begs an explanation. Most of the people living in south-east Asia today would be classified as ‘Mongoloid’ peoples, implying a shared history with those living further north in China and Siberia. There are, however, isolated populations of so-called Negritos living throughout Southeast Asia who closely resemble Africans. The most obvious examples are found in the Andaman Islands. The largest tribal groups known as the Onge and Jawara have many features that link them with the Bushmen and Pygmies of Africa, including short stature, dark skin, tightly curled hair and epicanthic folds…The Andamanese are thought to represent a relic of the pre-mongoloid population of Southeast Asia –‘living fossils’, if you will.”
From the foregoing it is clear that Spencer Wells is suggesting continuity in the physical appearance of the Andamanese, “living fossils”, with that of the OOA population and therefore with that of early East Africans as opposed to their (Andamanese) appearance being attributable to local adaptation.
Hope this brings light not heat.
quote:
Originally posted by Calypso:
Djehuti Quotes:But Neves et al provides a clear and concise answer-- Increasing skeletal evidence from the U.S.A., Mexico, Colombia, and Brazil strongly suggests that the first settlers in the Americas had a cranial morphology distinct from that displayed by most late and modern Native Americans. The Paleoamerican morphological pattern is more **generalized** and can be seen **today** among Africans, Australians, and Melanesians.
There is more from Spencer Wells in support of the above view.
Quoted from pgs 74-75 of Spencer Well’s The Journey of Man:
“One other piece of evidence suggests a direct link between Africa and Australia – physical appearance. The dark skin of the Australians is reminiscent of that found in Africa – something that begs an explanation. Most of the people living in south-east Asia today would be classified as ‘Mongoloid’ peoples, implying a shared history with those living further north in China and Siberia. There are, however, isolated populations of so-called Negritos living throughout Southeast Asia who closely resemble Africans. The most obvious examples are found in the Andaman Islands. The largest tribal groups known as the Onge and Jawara have many features that link them with the Bushmen and Pygmies of Africa, including short stature, dark skin, tightly curled hair and epicanthic folds…The Andamanese are thought to represent a relic of the pre-mongoloid population of Southeast Asia –‘living fossils’, if you will.”From the foregoing it is clear that Spencer Wells is suggesting continuity in the physical appearance of the Andamanese, “living fossils”, with that of the OOA population and therefore with that of early East Africans as opposed to their (Andamanese) appearance being attributable to local adaptation.
Hope this brings light not heat.
It does, and re-iterates Neaves, Holliday Trinkaus, et. al. on facts having been related earlier in the thread.
Straw-fire posts notwithstanding, no attempt has been made to refute any of the cited scholars.
Trolls attempt to prevent the truth from being known or simply vent anger and frustration by baiting others.
Hasn't worked though.
quote:
Andaman and Nicobar islands are believed to be direct descendants of the first modern humans who migrated from Africa at least 50,000 years ago. Lalji Sing, director Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology, Hyderabad, India
quote:
The Caption reads:
Face of the Past.TW Holliday examined postcranial morphology of the varied Levantines from Qafzeh and Skhul (anatomically modern). He determined that they were tropically adapted, suggesting African origins,
The oldest Out of Africa expansion occurred 65,000 +- 23000 years ago and is witnessed by mitochondrial descendants preserved in Papua New Guinea; the Papuan node is derived from a Eurasian founder, we tentatively propose the following scenario to account for the obvious phenotypic differences between Papuans and [Northern] Eurasians despite their sharing a common mtDNA ancestry:
They derive from a single African migration, but split at an early stage before reaching Europe. Meanwhile, proto-Eurasians spent 20 or more millennia genetically drifting to their present distinct phenotypes.
- Peter Forster, Antonio Torroni, Colin Renfrew and Arne RöhlEuropeans and Asians did develop more unique genetic profiles over time, but had a common background before their average "uniqueness" emerged. This background is African in a bio-historical sense. Therefore, it should not be surprising that some Africans share similarities with non-Africans.
- The Diversity of Indigenous Africans
Dr. Shomarka Keita
From http://www.andaman.org/book/index.htm :Life in an environment with strong solar radiation inevitably selects dark skin.
The dark-skinned Australian aborigines wandered from Africa through tropical Asia to Australia more than 2000 generations ago.
Throughout their wanderings they never left the belt of intense solar radiation of the lower latitudes and they are still dark.
The human race most likely came out of tropical Africa and was just as likely dark-skinned as most of Africa still is today.
In Africa, the Khoikhoi and San people are "relatively" light-skinned because they have lived in the relatively high latitudes of southern Africa for a very long time.
Sickle-cell anemia is a genetically inherited disease widespread in Africa and also known
from other tropical and subtropical regions but unknown among Andamanese aborigines
It IS known among Europeans though because they inherit the condition from a West African genetic haplotype: Benin HBS. The whites of Europe have West African genes. The Black Andaman Islanders do not.
Correlate as you like....
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 10 August 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by Calypso:
Rasol thank you for your reply to my post. Although I find the arguments on both sides intriguing, I think a preponderance of evidence from your postings and others point to East Africa being continuously inhabited by black people and it would logically follow that E3b originated among a black skinned people who subsequently carried this marker further north. The posters, who posit the existence of non-black East Africans, bearing little in common (physically/phenotypically) with modern day East Africans, have not at this point adduced any compelling evidence in support of such a radical contention.
You're most welcome.
There is only one person offering the 'radical contention' in question, and he is not taken seriously for reasons you've no doubt deduced yourself.
He used to run a racialist message forum obsessed with proving the racial 'purity' of Southern Europe, and is notorious for obsessive and often quite offensive behavior and language in the service of 'lost cause' argumentation.
This forum has no moderation which attracts uncivilised behaviors.
Because you are new to the forum I feel you should be warned. Peace.
quote:
Originally posted by Babbling Ape:
Ethiopian, Nilo Saharan, Bantu, and San to [/b]all cluster together.[/b]
Too bad that isn't Cavalli-Sforza's conclusion about Ethiopians:
"On the basis of autosomal polymorphic loci, it has been estimated that 60% of the Ethiopian gene pool has an African origin, whereas ~40% is of Caucasoid derivation (Guglielmino et al. 1987; Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994, p. 174)."
quote:
By definition, this can only show relationships within African groups, not between Africans and Europeans.
The distances between North Africans and Sub-Saharan Africans are equal to those between Englishmen and Sub-Saharan Africans. East African and Saharan groups are (expectedly) located in an intermediate position.
quote:
The same failing is shown on the cranial map shown over and again in which present Africans and Melanesians group together
Irrelevant (both are adapted to modern tropical climates). The point of the map is that Somalis are racially intermediate between Negroids and Caucasoids, which accords perfectly with their genetically intermediate status between Africans and non-Africans (Tishkoff et al. 2000).
quote:
And lastly the Lemba Jew fiasco
The only fiasco is your inability (unwillingness) to understand the difference between priestly Lemba (~50% CMH) and regular Lemba (~9% CMH).
quote:
When made to face the reality of the obviously Black African Lemba, the claim of caucaZoid Lemba is reversed.
Which brings us back to your contradiction, and the question that you can't answer . . .
quote:
Question:Are Greeks "racially mixed" because of their E3b Y-chromosomes as you've claimed many times, or are Y-chromosomes unconnected to race and morphology as you claimed with the Lemba?
Or, we can try it this way:
Do you accept Underhill's statement that "There are no known genes on the Y that dictate bone morphology", or do you continue to maintain that so-called "negroid traits" in Levantines and Greeks are the result of their E3b Y-chromosomes?
Make up your mind, ape. Is E3b "Black" or uncorrelated with phenotype? You can't have it both ways.
quote:
Originally posted by Calypso: There is more from Spencer Wells...Quoted from pgs 74-75 of Spencer Well’s The Journey of Man:
“One other piece of evidence suggests a direct link between Africa and Australia – physical appearance. The dark skin of the Australians is reminiscent of that found in Africa.There are, however, isolated populations of so-called Negritos living throughout Southeast Asia who closely resemble Africans. The most obvious examples are found in the Andaman Islands. The largest tribal groups known as the Onge and Jawara have many features that link them with the Bushmen and Pygmies of Africa, including short stature, dark skin, tightly curled hair and epicanthic folds”
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 10 August 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Irrelevant (both are adapted to modern tropical climates). The point of the map is that Somalis are racially intermediate between Negroids and Caucasoids, which accords perfectly with their genetically intermediate status between Africans and non-Africans (Tishkoff et al. 2000).
Dumb dog, Somalis are not intermediate at all! You still fail to define what a "Negroid" and "Caucasoid" is. But to make things clear, it has been proven many times that East Africans like Somalis are as equally black African as the Igbo of Nigeria. Their only affinities with "Caucasoids" are some craniometric, but it has been explained ad nausium that many of these features called "caucasoid" are found in various populations that have nothing to do with Europe. Also is the fact that East Africans like Somalis have skeletal structures many anthropologists in the past have described as "super-negroid", as opposed to West Africans who have just "negroid" builds.
Anyway, it also has been explained by Tishkoff why East Africans are genetically 'intermediate', is because all Eurasians descend from a subset of East Africans, dumbass!!
Lastly, you seem to equate the term 'Eurasian' with Europeans or "Caucasoid" when peoples like the Andamanese are equally if not more Eurasian than Europeans (since Europe received recent African genes while Andamanese have not)!
quote:
Make up your mind, ape. Is E3b "Black" or uncorrelated with phenotype? You can't have it both ways.
USE your mind, dog. Nobody in here said the E3b haplotype itself had any effect on phenotype, since it is found in the sex chromoseome, BUT it just so happens that its original carriers were/ are phenotypically black.
Of course your dumb-ass cannot comprehend what this means, even though Rasol gave you a perfect analogy.
English is a language that originated in Europe, does this mean that all or most of its speakers are Europeans??
try and dissect that thought and maybe, just maybe you could understand. (I doubt you would though )
[This message has been edited by Djehuti (edited 10 August 2005).]
“Curiously, however, haplogroups E and J are again most frequent along the Mediterranean coastline and rapidly dwindle as one moves into central Europe, where the archaeological record tells us the main farming expansion took place”-Richards et al.
“Although the Horn of Africa is considered a geographic part of sub-Saharan Africa, we have analysed the Somali population separately in order to compare the results with previously published data from other African populations” - Sanchez et al.
The perfect example of genetically outlier Europeans:
Greek
E3b 22.4%, I 7.9%, J 21%, R1b 27%, R1a 11%
So at the end of the day, here is what counts; all else is immaterial to this reality:
The gist: To deny recent Black African gene flow, would be to essentially deny the existence of E lineages altogether in Europe, not to mention Benin Sickle cells, notably present in European countries like Italy and Greece. But as we can see, they do exist, particularly in borderline Europeans.
quote:
Originally posted by Super car:
Gentleman, at the end of the day, the religious practice of pseudo science by ginney pussy amounts to immaterial wop scraps, for he would have to deny existence of recent sub-Saharan Black African inheritance like the Hg E lineages and HBS (Benin Sickle cell) in borderline southern Europeans. The question is, would he? Well, given cave pussy’s unawareness of difference between male and female sex chromosomes, it is more than possible, that he is that much out there:“Curiously, however, [b]haplogroups E and J are again most frequent along the Mediterranean coastline and rapidly dwindle as one moves into central Europe, where the archaeological record tells us the main farming expansion took place”-Richards et al.
“Although the Horn of Africa is considered a geographic part of sub-Saharan Africa, we have analysed the Somali population separately in order to compare the results with previously published data from other African populations” - Sanchez et al.
The perfect example of genetically outlier Europeans:
Greek
E3b 22.4%, I 7.9%, J 21%, R1b 27%, R1a 11%So at the end of the day, here is what counts; all else is immaterial to this reality:
The gist: To deny recent Black African gene flow, would be to essentially deny the existence of E lineages altogether in Europe, not to mention Benin Sickle cells, notably present in European countries like Italy and Greece. But as we can see, they do exist, particularly in borderline Europeans.
[/B]
What maternal lineages do the Greeks have? E3b only gives them 10% African heritage. Not sure why anyone would argue against that being the case.
quote:
Lastly, you seem to equate the term 'Eurasian' with Europeans or "Caucasoid" when peoples like the Andamanese are equally if not more Eurasian than Europeans
Bravo and correct.
Same goes for East Asians, whose ancestors migrated out of Africa at the same time and as a part of the same group as Europeans.
East Asians and Europeans should show equal~ genetic distance from Africans.
They were essentially the same people, leaving Africa at the same time, after all.
But they don't.
Europeans are a full 33% closer genetically to Black Africans than East Asians are.
As shown:
And stated: "Europeans appear as a 2/3 Asian 1/3 African mix". - C Sforza
And explained:
Europeans arose from primitive hunters who arrived in Europe about 40,000 years ago.
About 24,000 years ago, the last ice age began, with mountain-sized glaciers moving across most of Europe.
Paleolithic Europeans retreated before the ice, finding refuge for hundreds of generations in three areas: what is now Spain, the Balkans and the Ukraine.
About 8,000 years ago, a more advanced people, the Neolithic, migrated to Europe from the Middle East, bringing a new Y chromosome and a new way of life: agriculture.
About 20 percent of Europeans now have the Y chromosome pattern from this migration. - PA Underhill.
This new pattern is further explained by Historian Professor Christopher Ehret:
We have genetic evidence of population intrusion from NorthEast Africa to SouthWest Asia.....There are several areas of the world were agriculture was independently developed - none in Europe, by the way.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 11 August 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by osirion:
What maternal lineages do the Greeks have? E3b only gives them 10% African heritage. Not sure why anyone would argue against that being the case.
I don't know about your calculations, for it is impossible to determine to exact amount of gene flow (highest frequencies of sub-Saharan lineages are found in southern Europe, particularly in the southeastern regions.) , but the highlighted bit of your quote, is precisely the point being made. You can't argue against sub-Saharan gene flow into southern Europe, and admixture in Greeks, UNLESS you are in denial of the *existence* of recent Black African lineages, i.e., E3b lineages and HBS.
[This message has been edited by Super car (edited 10 August 2005).]
Greek
E3b 22.4%, I 7.9%, J 21%, R1b 27%, R1a 11%
So what? What difference does that make?
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 11 August 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by osirion:Well based on these numbers Greeks have 10% East African derived lineage:
Greek
E3b 22.4%, I 7.9%, J 21%, R1b 27%, R1a 11%So what? What difference does that make?
Osirion, do I really need to tell you that these are not based on sampling entire populations? I mean, that should be common sense. This is why I stated that precise level of these lineages in Europe or anywhere else for that matter, is impossible to determine at this point. However, since different studies consistently show higher frequencies of sub-Saharan E3b in southern European populations than central and northern European populations, it would be silly not to become aware of the fact.
Also what can we infer from the study I posted earlier, with Y chromosome frequencies?
Well, the paternal lineages of Greeks, as posted above, shows just how much outlier the Greeks are, in the context of European gene pool. The frequencies of J, R and E aren't that much far apart from one another!
[This message has been edited by Super car (edited 11 August 2005).]
quote:Tell me about it. This is how we get nutcases like AMR or Salsa!
Originally posted by Mansa Musa:
Nice thread Rasol.
It is very important that we learn to distinquish good science from bad science.
It has become clear to me that when it comes to discussions of human biological diversity there is quite a bit of diversity in opinion.
Some people seem to believe that because their opinions may not be considered to be racist that they are therefore exempt of pseudo-scientific racial bias when it is clear that, that is not the case.
quote:Yes, and you can generally tell such type by their eageriness to use adhominems in hopes to bolster the image that they have the "moral highground".
Originally posted by rasol:
Yes, we see this occassionally via the attempt to atribute civilisation and achievement to 'mixed races.'
This approach is subject to the same argumentative fallacies as 'pure race' ideology.
And in fact, the two fallacies depend upon one another and bolster one another.
The only difference is that pure race advocates are generally direct about the their ideology, whereas mixed race advocates sometimes convince themselves, that by promoting the concept of mixture - they are inherently 'fighting racism', and so have the 'moral highground' - this is incoherent.
quote:This article is full of so many misinformed strawmen, it would seem as though the author did nothing but read anti-Afrocentric sources to formulate their opinion.
Afrocentrism:
Afrocentrism is a mythology that is racist, reactionary, and essentially therapeutic. It suggests that nothing important has happened in black history since the time of the pharaohs and thus trivializes the history of black Americans. Afrocentrism places an emphasis on Egypt that is, to put it bluntly, absurd. --Clarence E. Walker*
Afrocentrism is a pseudohistorical political movement that erroneously claims that African-Americans should trace their roots back to ancient Egypt because it was dominated by a race of black Africans. Some of Afrocentrism's other claims are: the ancient Greeks stole their main cultural achievements from black Egyptians; Jesus, Socrates and Cleopatra, among others, were black; and Jews created the slave trade of black Africans.
The main purpose of Afrocentrism is to encourage black nationalism and ethnic pride as a psychological weapon against the destructive and debilitating effects of universal racism.
Some of Afrocentrism's leading proponents are Professor Molefi Kete Asante of Temple University; Professor Leonard Jeffries of City University of New York; and Martin Bernal, author of Black Athena.
One of the more important Afrocentric texts is the pseudo-historical Stolen Legacy (1954) by George G. M. James. Mr. James claims, among other things, that Greek philosophy and the mystery religions of Greece and Rome were stolen from Egypt; that the ancient Greeks did not have the native ability to develop philosophy; and that the Egyptians from whom the Greeks stole their philosophy were black Africans. Many of James' ideas were taken from Marcus Garvey (1887-1940), who thought that white accomplishment is due to teaching children they are superior. If blacks are to succeed, he said, they would have to teach their children that they are superior.
James's principal sources were Masonic, especially The Ancient Mysteries and Modern Masonry (1909) by the Rev. Charles H. Vail. The Masons in turn derived their misconceptions about Egyptian mystery and initiation rites from the eighteenth century work of fiction Sethos, a History or Biography, based on Unpublished Memoirs of Ancient Egypt (1731) by the Abbé Jean Terrasson (1670-1750), a professor of Greek. Terrasson had no access to Egyptian sources and he would be long dead before Egyptian hieroglyphics could be deciphered. But Terrasson knew the Greek and Latin writers well. So he constructed an imaginary Egyptian religion based upon sources which described Greek and Latin rites as if they were Egyptian (Lefkowitz). Hence, one of the main sources for Afrocentric Egyptology turns out to be Greece and Rome. The Greeks would have called this irony. I don't know what Afrocentrists call it.
James's pseudo-history is the basis for other Afrocentric pseudo-histories such as Africa, Mother of Western Civilization by Yosef A.A. ben-Jochannnan, one of James's students, and Civilization or Barbarism by Cheikh Anta Diop of Senegal.
Afrocentrism is being taught in many universities, colleges, and public schools.
quote:Unfortunately, when you bring up "indigenous African variation", they'll argue that "not all Africans are black", and include the Egyptians in the non-black African category.
I think the most effective way to deal with the subject of the "Blackness" or "Africaness" of Ancient Egypt most reasonably is to talk about indegenious African variation, Ancient Egypt as an African culture and how the region evolved into the country we know as Egypt today.
quote:I brought up Halle Berry because I wanted to show that, by some people's standards of blackness, most ancient Egyptians would qualify.
There is no need to talk about "passing" for Black as that still implies a foreign influence on the ancient dynastic culture that did not exist or even worse, a non-African origin for the people of Ancient Egypt with a gradual African influence.
quote:Yes, I emailed Robert Carrol a while back on the subject pertaining to these comments on his website:
Originally posted by Mansa Musa:
I've always liked the Skeptic's Dictionary. A resource for exposing the various pseudosciences to the world is a good idea.
But Rasol, have you ever read their article on Afrocentrism?
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
quote:transference of guilt-feelings that such racial-rubbish [ie k-zoids mix with intrusive negroids].....is best applied to Southern Europe.
Some idiot will bring up the idea of caucasoid ancestry that mixed with intrusive Negroids, as Evil Euro/RacialReality did
quote:You mean you go by the name "Robert Haley"?
Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Yes, I emailed Robert Carrol a while back on the subject pertaining to these comments on his website:
Originally posted by Mansa Musa:
I've always liked the Skeptic's Dictionary. A resource for exposing the various pseudosciences to the world is a good idea.
But Rasol, have you ever read their article on Afrocentrism?
Carrol writes: Right. Well, the entry on Afrocentrism doesn't claim that the ancient Egyptians were a pure Semitic race with no contact with the rest of Africa, including trading, intermarriage, interbreeding, slavery, etc.
The above is of course specious, as semite is not a race but a language group, and the Kemetians were not semites at any rate.
As far as interbreeding thru slavery, as well as trade - that encompasses their relationship with the Asiatics, according to the their own records - such as the Bible, in which the Egyptians and all other Black Africans are ethno-classified as 'hamites' *not* semites.
I asked Carrol for proof that Egyptians were semites, or if none exists explanation of the relevance of introducing semites into his argument?
Carrol writes: What is claimed is that the ancient Egyptians were not a black African race of people, but instead, a 'rather brown' people.
The above is a slippery argumen tand Carrol makes it knowing that some foolish so called Afrocentists will fall right into the trap.
It is of course impossible to prove that the Km.t, or most other Black Africans for that matter belong to a 'black race' as opposed to a 'rather brown' race, because it is impossible to objectively demarcate races to begin with.
Never make the mistake, of Dr. Winters, of trying to redeem African history by proving the Eurocentric concept of descrete racial groups.
It's a completely losing argument that sees Afrocentrists defending the nuttiest forms of Europcentric scientific racism [Coon, Blumanbach], while Carrol just sits back and laughs.
Carrol writes: The rest of European civilization did not steal their culture from this alleged black African race.
I agree with Carroll here, but I don't know of anyone who holds the view that he is attacking, so that's something of a strawman argument.
In any case, we're all one race.
Here Carrol slips up. If we are all 'one race' then you cannot 'racially' differentiate Kemetian civilisation from any other African civilisation.
The entire debate over the identify of the AE exists because Eurocentrists during the 17th century began partitioning civilisations by 'race', and 'discovering' that 'their race' was responsible for virtually all civilisation.
A very convenient lie, since Africa and Asian civilisation far pre-date European.
If we agree that race is pseudo-scientific, what is left is that Ancient Egypt was and African civilisation, and *not* a European civlisation, no matter how much Eurocentrists might wish it were otherwise.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)