quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness:
some suggest that Africans are related by Haplogroup E1b1 (P2, DYS391p); formerly E3

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness:

some suggest that Africans are related by Haplogroup E1b1 (P2, DYS391p); formerly E3

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingMichael777:

I see.

Also I'm just curious but DNAtribes said...the Massai are 30% Arab and Somalis 40% Arab, 30% West African, 30% Sahelian.

I'm just curious.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
This question of African population relations has been answered many times before. YES, Africans are indeed very diverse genetically because they are the source population for all mankind. The older a population is, the more accumulation of genetic variation and thus diversity. However, greater diversity does NOT mean less relativity. For example, even among the gene pool of a single isolated population where much inbreeding has occurred there is still some form of variation or diversity. It may not be as much as say a larger population that has much contact and geneflow with other populations. Still even among the gene pool of a single family there is genetic variation also even if all members are related to one another. The same can be said of Africans. Genetically there are many clades and subclades and even variation within subclades that are to be found among Africans, yet just because you have individuals who carry lineages of a certain clade does not mean they are not related or even share other genetic characteristics with individuals who carry lineages of another clade, especially if all these individuals reside within the same community or region. Because Africans have such tremendous genetic diversity, there is actually more genetic variation within a single village in Africa than there is in say a state in the U.S. or a nation in Europe, but that doesn't mean all these villagers have no relation to one another! An even better example would be chimpanzees, our closest related species. The chimp species is even older than humans which is why their genetic diversity is even greater still. Two individual chimpanzees of the same population in the same forest have more genetic variations between them than two individual humans who live in opposite ends of the globe, but that does not mean they are unrelated!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness:

some suggest that Africans are related by Haplogroup E1b1 (P2, DYS391p); formerly E3

---

The PN2 or E clade is just one of many present in Africa, though E appears to be predominant. Within E you have E1, E2, E3 etc and within each subclade there are more divisions and variations. Again E though a significant clade is just one aspect shared by Africans. Another problem in African population studies is the designation of certain clades as non-African or Eurasian. For example the R clade and in particular R1 is classed as Eurasian since that is where its subclades are predominantly found. R1a and R1b for example are carried by eastern and Western Europeans respectively with the former also found in Central Asia etc. Yet there are also subclades of R1 and even underived R1* present in Africa, specifically in West Africa. Yet these lineages are found in rural areas devoid of any European or Eurasian contact. There are some scientists who try to explain this by prehistoric back-migrations from Eurasia yet the problem is the very dating of R1* goes back to the time when humans first left Africa to populate Eurasia. So why can't R1 be defined as African instead of Eurasian?? What's funny is that Eurocentric racialists try to associate any so-called 'Eurasian' lineage in Africa with stereotyped "caucasian" features yet all the carriers of R1 derived haplogroups in West Africa are stereotypically "negroid" in characteristics yet nobody tries to 'relate' these so-called "forest negroes" with indigenous white Europeans who carry share the same clade! LOL In the meantime there are Europeans especially southern Europeans in the Mediterranean who carry E lineages clearly inherited from Africans in the neolithic, yet you hardly hear a peep about African migrations into Europe and African admixture among Europeans when that is clearly the case!

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingMichael777:

I see.

Also I'm just curious but DNAtribes said...the Massai are 30% Arab and Somalis 40% Arab, 30% West African, 30% Sahelian.

I'm just curious.

---

This is also why I question DNATribes when it comes to how they label or classify things. Exactly what do they mean by 'Arab'?? What haplogroup or other do they refer when they say 'Arab'. Last time I checked the Massai have had no historical contact with Arabs whatsoever yet they are suppose to be 30% 'Arab'?? And what percentage of Europeans like Greeks are African, since again about a third of Europeans in general carry E lineages with about a quarter of Greeks carrying E. Again there is this biased slant to white-wash or rather 'mix-up' Africans but nothing is said about mixed ancestry in Europeans.

---

So are they really accurate or not accurate?
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ I think the question really is what are they accurate about. Clearly their findings on Egyptian STRs shows relation to Africans further south, but what I am skeptical about are their labels.

Look how they label and divide African populations.



Notice that although Egypt is in North Africa, it is classified as part of the Levant. And again I question what they mean by 'Arab'.

And this is the type of Eurocentric racist b.s. I was referring to earlier.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglo_PrimeIdiot:

Bushmen (Capoids) are genetically distinct despite being surrounded by Bantu Negroids.

---

And exactly how are they genetically distinct? Some Khoisan (Bushmen) carry PN2 (E) lineages associated with other Sub-Saharan Africans. In fact the form found among the Khwe is underived ancestral E1b1b*!



Not to mention the fact that most of the clades found among Khoisan are the oldest-- A and B clades-- which are also found among Pygmies, Ethiopians, and Sudanese peoples. So where pray-tell is the genetic distinction?

Funny how you separate so-called 'Bantu-negroids' and 'Capoids' into two separate races yet you group 'Nordic', 'Alpine', and 'Mediterranean' Euros into the same race despite their differences.

quote:

---

So no, Africans are not close genetically related. You then have genetically distinct Caucasoid populations in the north and east of Africa.

---

Yeah genetically distinct to so-called 'true negroids' yet genetically related to Europeans, right? So North African Siwa Berbers and East African Somalis despite both being black natives of Africa are more related to Europeans than they are to other Africans. Sure thing.

quote:

---

Scientists find great genetic differences among southern Africans

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/18/science/la-sci-african-genomes18-2010feb18

The genomes of Bushmen and Negroids are poles apart...

---

I take it you didn't even read the article did you? And if you did, you obviously did not comprehend what was stated. In fact nowhere did that article contradict anything I said in regards to differences NOT equating to no relations.

From the article your cited:

"Two Bushmen from different tribes living within walking distance of each other can have greater genetic differences than a European and an Asian, according to the study published in Thursday's edition of the journal Nature."

So by your twisted logic these two Bushmen who live within walking distance have no relation to each other then or at least as much as between a European and Asian! LOL
 

---

Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
 
What's funny is that Eurocentric racialist try to associate any so-called 'Eurasian' lineage in Africa with stereotyped "caucasian" features yet all the carriers of R1 derived haplogroups in West Africa are stereotypically "negroid" in characteristics yet nobody tries to 'relate' these "forest negroes" with indigenous white Europeans who carry share the same clade! LOL In the meantime there are Europeans especially southern Europeans in the Mediterranean who carry E lineages clearly inherited from Africans in the neolithic, yet you hardly hear a peep about African migrations into Europe and African admixture among Europeans when that is clearly the case!

Good summary Djehuti. Using the same Eurocentric
methods, then numerous Europeans are not "white"
at all but mixed race.





 

---

Posted by KingMichael777 (Member # 20401) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
[QB] ^ I think the question really is what are they accurate about. Clearly their findings on Egyptian STRs shows relation to Africans further south, but what I am skeptical about are their labels.

Look how they label and divide African populations.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
What's funny is that Eurocentric racialist try to associate any so-called 'Eurasian' lineage in Africa with stereotyped "caucasian" features yet all the carriers of R1 derived haplogroups in West Africa are stereotypically "negroid" in characteristics yet nobody tries to 'relate' these "forest negroes" with indigenous white Europeans who carry share the same clade! LOL In the meantime there are Europeans especially southern Europeans in the Mediterranean who carry E lineages clearly inherited from Africans in the neolithic, yet you hardly hear a peep about African migrations into Europe and African admixture among Europeans when that is clearly the case!

Good summary Djehuti. Using the same Eurocentric
methods, then numerous Europeans are not "white"
at all but mixed race.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingMichael777:

Don't they go by regions?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
This question of African population relations has been answered many times before. YES, Africans are indeed very diverse genetically because they are the source population for all mankind. The older a population is, the more accumulation of genetic variation and thus diversity. However, greater diversity does NOT mean less relativity. For example, even among the gene pool of a single isolated population where much inbreeding has occurred there is still some form of variation or diversity. It may not be as much as say a larger population that has much contact and geneflow with other populations. Still even among the gene pool of a single family there is genetic variation also even if all members are related to one another. The same can be said of Africans. Genetically there are many clades and subclades and even variation within subclades that are to be found among Africans, yet just because you have individuals who carry lineages of a certain clade does not mean they are not related or even share other genetic characteristics with individuals who carry lineages of another clade, especially if all these individuals reside within the same community or region. Because Africans have such tremendous genetic diversity, there is actually more genetic variation within a single village in Africa than there is in say a state in the U.S. or a nation in Europe, but that doesn't mean all these villagers have no relation to one another! An even better example would be chimpanzees, our closest related species. The chimp species is even older than humans which is why their genetic diversity is even greater still. Two individual chimpanzees of the same population in the same forest have more genetic variations between them than two individual humans who live in opposite ends of the globe, but that does not mean they are unrelated!

As for Egypt. Geology shows that the Sahara desert did not always exist and North Africa was once green and fertile. Archaeology also shows that the area that is now Egypt has also received migrations of populations from farther west in the central Sahara as North Africa began to dry out and turn to desert. This is supported by genetics such as the fact that Egyptians carry the Benin variety of HBS (sickle cell anemia).

Note that while ancient Egyptians share many cultural features with other east Africans, there are other cultural peculiarities such as ritual masks, dolls, the wearing of wigs, and iconographic styles that are to be found in West Africa.

---

quote:

---

The big division highlighted in this paper is that between the “indigenous” relict populations, the Hazda, Sandawe, Bushmen and Pygmies, and those who belong to the more widespread agriculturalist and pastoralist societies of Africa

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingMichael777:

Don't they go by regions?

---

Yes, but the question is what is the basis of these designated regions?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingMichael777:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingMichael777:

Don't they go by regions?

---

Yes, but the question is what is the basis of these designated regions?

---

True.

But were there really west Africans, south Africans and people from the great lake region in Egypt?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by typeZeiss:

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingMichael777:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingMichael777:

Don't they go by regions?

---

Yes, but the question is what is the basis of these designated regions?

---

True.

But were there really west Africans, south Africans and people from the great lake region in Egypt?

---

Well you have to understand history before asking this question.

The present populations of West Africa were not there during the time of the Kemetic Empire/State. We don't start seeing modern day west Africans until around the 100 A.D. or some where between year 0 and 100 A.D. I should say. Herodotus relates a story from some Libyans, who say, when they went into the region where the Niger River picks up, in what I assume may have been Mali, there was a kingdom of Batwa people living there. Also, most if not All west African groups have stories of coming from the north from their present locations. Well that or from the east, but again, not local to where they are now.

My assumption is, they were either in present day Mauritania or other north African places, some where in the northern desert, like the Gramatians of southern Libya or in the Nile valley and lake chad areas.

I would love to see they day they really start exploring the Sahara with Satellite or some ground penetrating radar and digging. I have a feeling there is a kingdom there some where, which probably gave rise to Nile valley civilizations. Just a guess on my part, but one I base on what Africans in many areas say of themselves and what archaeologist have found so far. For example, oldest African mummy is in the Algerian desert (yes it was a black child). Pictures carved in rock that seem to depict Anubis as well as Hat Heru (Hathor). There are also writings there which are old, which seem to be older than metu netr.

It is like Dr. Keita said recently (and as I have said all along). You can not just rely on DNA to tell the story, it is going to take history, archaeology etc to piece the story together.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by typeZeiss:
^^

As stated, MODERN DAY West Africans did not live there at that time. Just saying "early human settlers arrived in West Africa around 12,000 B.C." doesn't refute what I stated. There were people there, namely batwa. However, the people who predominate the area now, were NOT there at that time, this is a undisputed fact. Even the recent academic gathering in Chapel Hill discuss this very fact, that early bones/skulls do not match present day people. Obviously, if Herodotus said the Libyans came across kingdoms of people (batwa), who helped them get back to their homeland, then the area was inhabited, the question is, by WHOM.

Do you have the understanding of history, dna, archaeology etc. to draw an intelligent conclusion?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
This question of African population relations has been answered many times before. YES, Africans are indeed very diverse genetically because they are the source population for all mankind. The older a population is, the more accumulation of genetic variation and thus diversity. However, greater diversity does NOT mean less relativity. For example, even among the gene pool of a single isolated population where much inbreeding has occurred there is still some form of variation or diversity. It may not be as much as say a larger population that has much contact and geneflow with other populations. Still even among the gene pool of a single family there is genetic variation also even if all members are related to one another. The same can be said of Africans. Genetically there are many clades and subclades and even variation within subclades that are to be found among Africans, yet just because you have individuals who carry lineages of a certain clade does not mean they are not related or even share other genetic characteristics with individuals who carry lineages of another clade, especially if all these individuals reside within the same community or region. Because Africans have such tremendous genetic diversity, there is actually more genetic variation within a single village in Africa than there is in say a state in the U.S. or a nation in Europe, but that doesn't mean all these villagers have no relation to one another! An even better example would be chimpanzees, our closest related species. The chimp species is even older than humans which is why their genetic diversity is even greater still. Two individual chimpanzees of the same population in the same forest have more genetic variations between them than two individual humans who live in opposite ends of the globe, but that does not mean they are unrelated!

---

based on what you've said here somebody could say no human population is unrelated to any other human population

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglo_PrimeIdiot:

Stop mucking around. There is a large genetic difference from Negroids compared to the Bushmen.

This guy has uploaded Tishkoff et al. 2009 genetic distance maps -

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/08/genetic-variation-within-africa-and-the-world/

The big division highlighted in this paper is that between the “indigenous” relict populations, the Hazda, Sandawe, Bushmen and Pygmies, and those who belong to the more widespread agriculturalist and pastoralist societies of Africa

---

ROTFLMAOH


The only one mucking around is YOU, you dumbf*ck! The Tishkoff paper merely points out genetic differences between *Bantu* peoples and the indigenous pre-Bantu populations of the area! NOWHERE does she say anything about "Negroids" which is a void racial term! It's funny how cite Tishkoff including Pygmies as part of this distinction when you yourself have stated multiple times that "Negroids" are a mutated form of Pygmy!! LOL

quote:

---

Indigenous Africans don't cluster in genetics with Negroids.

---

So I take it you don't consider Negroids to be indigenous Africans either. If that's the case then where did they come from? Outer Space?! LMAO
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
This goes out to all the people with a properly functioning brain (not PrimeIdiots). Genetic differences do NOT mean no relations. Perhaps a simple analogy would be two brothers who look different. Say one brother has blonde hair and blue eyes, is short and has skin that burns easily while the other brother is tall with dark hair and eyes but tans easily. They also have different facial characteristics that one might think they are unrelated yet they have the same mother and father. Obviously the difference in appearance are due to genetic differences, but does that mean they aren't related to each other?? Of course not! The same is true with Africans.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingMichael777:

True.

But were there really west Africans, south Africans and people from the great lake region in Egypt?

---

quote:

---

interesting...

But some people say west Africans come from the Sahara when it wasn't dry.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bettyboo:
[QB] I don't know one African who says their tribe or clan is indigenous to West Africa. Even early scholars, though racists, made note that West African and Southern African populations are recent. Some argue even as late of 1000 A.D.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ Now I won't go so far as to say no group in West Africa is indigenous; however, from what I've read here and in other sources, the Guinea region of West Africa during the Green Sahara period was dense forest area that was sparsely inhabited and most habitation occurred in the Sahara itself which was a lush savannah full of rivers and lakes and plenty of wild game.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingMichael777:

True.

But were there really west Africans, south Africans and people from the great lake region in Egypt?

---

Not necessarily. However the Egyptians obviously share a common ancestry with all these groups.


The period when sub-Saharan Africa was most influential in Egypt was a time when neither Egypt, as we understand it culturally, nor the Sahara, as we understand it geographically, existed. Populations and cultures now found south of the desert roamed far to the north. The culture of Upper Egypt, which became dynastic Egyptian civilization, could fairly be called a Sudanese transplant. Egypt rapidly found a method of disciplining the river, the land, and the people to transform the country into a titanic garden. Egypt rapidly developed detailed cultural forms that dwarfed its forebears in urbanity and elaboration. Thus, when new details arrived, they were rapidly adapted to the vast cultural superstructure already present. On the other hand, pharaonic culture was so bound to its place near the Nile that its huge, interlocked religious, administrative, and formal structures could not be readily transferred to relatively mobile cultures of the desert, savanna, and forest. The influence of the mature pharaonic civilizations of Egypt and Kush was almost confined to their sophisticated trade goods and some significant elements of technology. Nevertheless, the religious substratum of Egypt and Kush was so similar to that of many cultures in southern Sudan today that it remains possible that fundamental elements derived from the two high cultures to the north live on.--Joseph O. Vogel (1997)

As for the Great Lakes Region, are you aware that early Egyptologist Sir E.A. Wallis Budge (1857-1934) held such a theory for Egyptian origins?

It is impossible for me to believe that Egyptian is a Semitic language fundamentally. There
are a very large number of words that are not Semitic and were never invented by a Semitic
people. These words were invented by one of the oldest African people of the Nile valley of
whose written language we have any remains. Their home lay far to the south, and all that
we know of Predynastic Egypt suggests that it was in the neighborhood of the Great Lakes.
EW Budge, Hieroglyphic Dictionary, Dover, 1920.

As for West Africans, as I said two primary strands of genetic evidence is the presence of associated West African lineage E1b1a in southern Egypt as well as Benin form of sickle cell anemia in Egypt especially in the oases areas.

quote:

---

interesting...

But some people say west Africans come from the Sahara when it wasn't dry.

---

Yes there is an abundance of evidence of occupation in the Sahara during the Holocene wet phase. There are neolithic cemeteries and even megaliths or remnants of such throughout the western Sahara and there are oral legends among West Africans of coming from further north or east. And let's not forget that there are West Africans who speak Afroasiatic languages specifically Chadic languages.

"It is possible from this overview of the data to conclude that the limited conceptual vocabulary shared by the ancestors of contemporary Chadic-speakers (therefore also contemporary Cushitic-speakers), contemporary Nilotic-speakers and Ancient Egyptian-speakers suggests that the earliest speakers of the Egyptian language could be located to the south of Upper Egypt (Diakonoff 1998) or, earlier, in the Sahara (Wendorf 2004), where Takács (1999, 47) suggests their ‘long co-existence’ can be found. In addition, it is consistent with this view to suggest that the northern border of their homeland was further than the Wadi Howar proposed by Blench (1999, 2001), which is actually its southern border. Neither Chadics nor Cushitics existed at this time, but their ancestors lived in a homeland further north than the peripheral countries that they inhabited thereafter, to the south-west, in a Niger-Congo environment, and to the south-east, in a Nilo-Saharan environment, where they interacted and innovated in terms of language. From this perspective, the Upper Egyptian cultures were an ancient North East African ‘periphery at the crossroads’, as suggested by Dahl and Hjort-af-Ornas of the Beja (Dahl and Hjort-af-Ornas 2006). The most likely scenario could be this: some of these Saharo-Nubian populations spread southwards to Wadi Howar, Ennedi and Darfur; some stayed in the actual oases where they joined the inhabitants; and others moved towards the Nile, directed by two geographic obstacles, the western Great Sand Sea and the southern Rock Belt. Their slow perambulations led them from the area of Sprinkle Mountain (Gebel Uweinat) to the east – Bir Sahara, Nabta Playa, Gebel Ramlah, and Nekhen/Hierakonpolis (Upper Egypt), and to the north-east by way of Dakhla Oasis to Abydos (Middle Egypt)."--Anselin (2009)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingMichael777:

quote:

---

Originally posted by typeZeiss:
^^

As stated, MODERN DAY West Africans did not live there at that time. Just saying "early human settlers arrived in West Africa around 12,000 B.C." doesn't refute what I stated. There were people there, namely batwa. However, the people who predominate the area now, were NOT there at that time, this is a undisputed fact. Even the recent academic gathering in Chapel Hill discuss this very fact, that early bones/skulls do not match present day people. Obviously, if Herodotus said the Libyans came across kingdoms of people (batwa), who helped them get back to their homeland, then the area was inhabited, the question is, by WHOM.

Do you have the understanding of history, dna, archaeology etc. to draw an intelligent conclusion?

---

What about ancient Ghana?
Which stared around 1500 BC(correct me if im wrong).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness:
[qb]
some suggest that Africans are related by Haplogroup E1b1 (P2, DYS391p); formerly E3 (E3a & E3b)

---

The PN2 or E clade is just one of many present in Africa, though E appears to be predominant. Within E you have E1, E2, E3 etc and within each subclade there are more divisions and variations. Again E though a significant clade is just one aspect shared by Africans.

---

what about the idea that E while not being the only clade that Africans have is predominant to the extent that higher percentages of E3a or E3b enable an African to be distinguished from a "Non-African" just by DNA analysis?
 

---

Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
 
You must also take into account that the African 'E"
appears in some European populations rendering Europeans
a mixed hybrid population, if Eurocentric race models
are applied across the board. The work of Cavalli-Sforza,
using other markers, shows that Europeans are hybrids
and not at all a primary "race."


 

---

Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
You must also take into account that the African 'E"
appears in some European populations rendering Europeans
a mixed hybrid population, if Eurocentric race models
are applied across the board. The work of Cavalli-Sforza,
using other markers, shows that Europeans are hybrids
and not at all a primary "race."

---

Therefore the "pure non-hybrid whites" are the ones out of the green zones

Haplogroup E
 

---

Posted by KingMichael777 (Member # 20401) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by typeZeiss:

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingMichael777:

quote:

---

Originally posted by typeZeiss:
^^

As stated, MODERN DAY West Africans did not live there at that time. Just saying "early human settlers arrived in West Africa around 12,000 B.C." doesn't refute what I stated. There were people there, namely batwa. However, the people who predominate the area now, were NOT there at that time, this is a undisputed fact. Even the recent academic gathering in Chapel Hill discuss this very fact, that early bones/skulls do not match present day people. Obviously, if Herodotus said the Libyans came across kingdoms of people (batwa), who helped them get back to their homeland, then the area was inhabited, the question is, by WHOM.

Do you have the understanding of history, dna, archaeology etc. to draw an intelligent conclusion?

---

What about ancient Ghana?
Which stared around 1500 BC(correct me if im wrong).

---

Ancient Ghana is around first millennium A.D.

Though there may be a earlier date, that's the earliest I know.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness:

quote:

---

Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
You must also take into account that the African 'E"
appears in some European populations rendering Europeans
a mixed hybrid population, if Eurocentric race models
are applied across the board. The work of Cavalli-Sforza,
using other markers, shows that Europeans are hybrids
and not at all a primary "race."

---

Therefore the "pure non-hybrid whites" are the ones out of the green zones

Haplogroup E

---

^^Not necessarily because you have missed an elementary
point. Haplogroup E is not the only haplogroup Africans carry.
Nor have you accounted for haplogroups with high
frequencies in Asia overlapping into Europe. Asia
was settled before Europe remember by anatomically modern humans.


 

---

Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
[QB] You must also take into account that the African 'E"
appears in some European populations rendering Europeans
a mixed hybrid population, if Eurocentric race models
are applied across the board. The work of Cavalli-Sforza,
using other markers, shows that Europeans are hybrids
and not at all a primary "race."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
You must also take into account that the African 'E"
appears in some European populations rendering Europeans
a mixed hybrid population, if Eurocentric race models
are applied across the board. The work of Cavalli-Sforza,
using other markers, shows that Europeans are hybrids
and not at all a primary "race."

---

E linages do not appear in Northern Europeans, They only appear in Southern Europe at 30%, decreasing going north. Places like France and Germany are 10%, and then Wales 2%, while northern Britain 0% like most of Scandinavia (excluding Finland which is around 1%).

Europedia has E linages by country percentage with sources. Northern Britain and Scandinavia (excluding Finland) are 0%. While southern Britain only 2%.

In the north, there was not a large scale agricultural migrant transition. Instead the indigenous Mesolithic peoples of the north directly themselves evolved agriculturally without a Neolithic replacement by outsiders.

Because very few Neolithic aggriculture settlers moved into Britain, this is why the genepool of the average Briton is indigenous going back to the Ice Age.

British Have Changed Little Since Ice Age, Gene Study Says
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/07/0719_050719_britishgene.html

haha. read it and weep.
 

---

Posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist (Member # 18853) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglo_PrimeIdiot:

Stop mucking around. There is a large genetic difference from Negroids compared to the Bushmen.

This guy has uploaded Tishkoff et al. 2009 genetic distance maps -

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/08/genetic-variation-within-africa-and-the-world/

The big division highlighted in this paper is that between the “indigenous” relict populations, the Hazda, Sandawe, Bushmen and Pygmies, and those who belong to the more widespread agriculturalist and pastoralist societies of Africa

---

ROTFLMAOH


The only one mucking around is YOU, you dumbf*ck! The Tishkoff paper merely points out genetic differences between *Bantu* peoples and the indigenous pre-Bantu populations of the area! NOWHERE does she say anything about "Negroids" which is a void racial term! It's funny how cite Tishkoff including Pygmies as part of this distinction when you yourself have stated multiple times that "Negroids" are a mutated form of Pygmy!! LOL

quote:

---

Indigenous Africans don't cluster in genetics with Negroids.

---

So I take it you don't consider Negroids to be indigenous Africans either. If that's the case then where did they come from? Outer Space?! LMAO

---

Negroids are recent mutations from Pygmies. We have covered this before.

The *Indigenous* Africans are the hunter-gatherer Pygmies, Hazda and Bushmen.

Around 12k years ago the Negroids mutated from the Pygmies. This is why the earliest Negroid skull is so recent (Phillipson, 2005).

Only 12k years old. lol. Caucasoid Cro-Magnon skulls date back more than 20k years.
 

---

Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist:


The *Indigenous* Africans are the hunter-gatherer Pygmies, Hazda and Bushmen.

Around 12k years ago the Negroids mutated from the Pygmies. This is why the earliest Negroid skull is so recent (Phillipson, 2005).

Only 12k years old. lol. Caucasoid Cro-Magnon skulls date back more than 20k years. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingMichael777:

quote:

---

Originally posted by typeZeiss:

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingMichael777:

quote:

---

Originally posted by typeZeiss:
^^

As stated, MODERN DAY West Africans did not live there at that time. Just saying "early human settlers arrived in West Africa around 12,000 B.C." doesn't refute what I stated. There were people there, namely batwa. However, the people who predominate the area now, were NOT there at that time, this is a undisputed fact. Even the recent academic gathering in Chapel Hill discuss this very fact, that early bones/skulls do not match present day people. Obviously, if Herodotus said the Libyans came across kingdoms of people (batwa), who helped them get back to their homeland, then the area was inhabited, the question is, by WHOM.

Do you have the understanding of history, dna, archaeology etc. to draw an intelligent conclusion?

---

What about ancient Ghana?
Which stared around 1500 BC(correct me if im wrong).

---

Ancient Ghana is around first millennium A.D.

Though there may be a earlier date, that's the earliest I know.

---

I heard the Soninke people could be found earlier.

And I hear the ancient city of Tichit Walatta dates back 4000 BC - 1100BC.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglo_Prime-Idiot:

Negroids are recent mutations from Pygmies. We have covered this before.

---

Yes you have stated this many times yet you have FAILED to provide evidence of this! In the mean time what you have provided is a Tishkoff study that explicitly states there is a large genetic distinction between Pygmies and Bantus (what you call "true negroes")! So how the f*ck could they be a recent genetic mutation from Pygmies if the very study you cite says they are very distinct genetically?!! You stupid sh|t! LOL

quote:

---

The *Indigenous* Africans are the hunter-gatherer Pygmies, Hazda and Bushmen.

---

You mean these people?:

San (Bushmen)



Pygmies



Hadzabe



Explain how all these people above are 'racially' different from Bantus or "true negroes".

quote:

---

Around 12k years ago the Negroids mutated from the Pygmies. This is why the earliest Negroid skull is so recent (Phillipson, 2005).

Only 12k years old. lol. Caucasoid Cro-Magnon skulls date back more than 20k years.

---

*Yawn*

Nazlet Khater man was the earliest modern human skeleton found near Luxor, in 1980. The remains was dated from between 35,000 and 30,000 years ago. The report regarding the racial affinity of this skeleton concludes: "Strong alveolar prognathism combined with fossa praenasalis in an African skull is suggestive of Negroid morphology [form & structure]. The radio-humeral index of Nazlet Khater is practically the same as the mean of Taforalt (76.6). According to Ferembach (1965) this value is near to the Negroid average." The burial was of a young man of 17-20 years old, whose skeleton lay in a 160cm- long narrow ditch aligned from east to west. A flint tool, which was laid carefully on the bottom of the grave, dates the burial as contemporaneous with a nearby flint quarry.
Thoma A., Morphology and affinities of the Nazlet Khater man, Journal of Human Evolution, vol 13, 1984.
 

---

Posted by KingMichael777 (Member # 20401) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by typeZeiss:

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingMichael777:

quote:

---

Originally posted by typeZeiss:

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingMichael777:

quote:

---

Originally posted by typeZeiss:
^^

As stated, MODERN DAY West Africans did not live there at that time. Just saying "early human settlers arrived in West Africa around 12,000 B.C." doesn't refute what I stated. There were people there, namely batwa. However, the people who predominate the area now, were NOT there at that time, this is a undisputed fact. Even the recent academic gathering in Chapel Hill discuss this very fact, that early bones/skulls do not match present day people. Obviously, if Herodotus said the Libyans came across kingdoms of people (batwa), who helped them get back to their homeland, then the area was inhabited, the question is, by WHOM.

Do you have the understanding of history, dna, archaeology etc. to draw an intelligent conclusion?

---

What about ancient Ghana?
Which stared around 1500 BC(correct me if im wrong).

---

Ancient Ghana is around first millennium A.D.

Though there may be a earlier date, that's the earliest I know.

---

I heard the Soninke people could be found earlier.

And I hear the ancient city of Tichit Walatta dates back 4000 BC - 1100BC.

---

Outside of someone's personal blog, can you site any scholarly research which makes such claims?

---

quote:

---

The source is Cavalli-Sforza's book on the Pygmies entitled 'African pygmies' (Academic Press, 1986).

This work shows that Negroids mutated from an ancestral pygmy population around 9,000 BC in West Africa. So the 'true' Black African today is a recent mutation. Caucasoids and Mongoloids predate them. [Wink] Negroids only migrated into other parts of Africa during the Bantu expansion or slightly earlier. Prior to them, Caucasoids inhabited North Africa and Bushmen (Capoids) to the south who were displaced by the Caucasoids from the Mediterranean around 12,000 BC.

---

^^A bogus reference.
Why should anyone take your word for it given
past bogus references? Quote where Cavalli-Sforza
says these so-called "negroids" "mutated" from
Pygmies. The burden of proof is on you, since you made
the claim.

While you scurry to cover your tracks with yet
more bogus claims, Cavali Sforza, in his well
known The History and Geography of Human Genes,
1994 Cavalli-Sforza summarizes his 1986 work on
Pygmies and specifically debunks the "Pygmy as ancestor"
theory held by other older writings. QUOTE:


"It remains difficult to pinpoint an ancient place
of origin for the Negroid type which includes all
West, Central and South Africans. Contrary to many
earlier opinions, modern Pygmies and Khosians are
not good candidates for a proto-African population."

--Cavalli Sforza et al, 1994. The history and
geography of human genes. 1994


-----------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Djehuti:
So how the f*ck could they be a recent genetic mutation from Pygmies if the very study you cite says they are very distinct genetically?!! You stupid sh|t! LOL

^^lol, the Anglo-Buffoon debunks hisself once again.
He is trolling but he needs to make it more believable.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ Indeed. I'm beginning to believe the guy doesn't even believe the crap he posts and is just joking, either that or he is literally insane.

quote:

---

Anglo-Idiot wrote:

The *Indigenous* Africans are the hunter-gatherer Pygmies, Hazda and Bushmen.

---

You mean these people?:

San (Bushmen)



Pygmies



Hadzabe



Explain how all these people above are 'racially' different from Bantus or "true negroes".

I still await your explanation.
 

---

Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
 
To the thread author,

All humans are genetically related!

As matter of fact, all living creatures of this planet are genetically related. It is only the question of how close or how recent.
 

---

Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingMichael777:
Okay after reading the studies on the Egyptians mummies by DNAtribe. Are all Africans genetically related? I mean how were west African DNA and south Africans found in the mummies? Does this mean Egypt was populated by different African groups?

And were the west Africans always in AE? People always say Africans are diverse and range in different phenotypes. But are they related to each other? My question is are Africans related to one another, since they are so diverse.

And did AE have some west Africans.

---

Here's the DNA Tribe genetic tree of the world. It shows linkage between people of the world (I added Ancient Egyptian to the graph):



According to DNA Tribes and their samples, this is a genetic tree of the world showing relationships and genetic distances between humans ***genetic**** ethnic group. The groups are genetically derived. There's a subjective aspect into what population (what samples) they consider (or not) native to a particular region when creating their genetic grouping. Or less importantly to the name they give to their grouping. Interesting genetic tree for sure (using autosomal STR)
 

---

Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
 


According to the above map, all the Africans are genetically linked to each other. The Eucledian distance is small between all African groups that is Southern Africans, Great Lakes Africans, Tropical West Africans and Sahelian Africans. For Horn Africans they took people in their sample who are really mixed (as I shown in another thread). Probably not as representative of the native Horn Africans as they could be.
 

---

Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingMichael777:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness:
some suggest that Africans are related by Haplogroup E1b1 (P2, DYS391p); formerly E3

---

I see.

Also I'm just curious but DNAtribes said...the Massai are 30% Arab and Somalis 40% Arab, 30% West African, 30% Sahelian.

I'm just curious.

---

quote:

---

Here's an interesting PCA from a study on Spanish genetics that came out this week.

Global PC1 vs. PC2

Javier Gayan et al., Genetic Structure of the Spanish Population, BMC Genomics 2010, 11:326doi:10.1186/1471-2164-11-326

As expected, the Europeans prove to be a homogeneous bunch, but surprisingly, the Maasai from Kenya (MKK) show very different characteristics, just like the African Americans (ASW), who are known to have significant non-African influence. Thus, the two groups overlap on the global plot, because they have a similar mix of global components (ie. Sub-Saharan African and Eurasian), even though they're not all that closely related.

---

Eurasian admixture in the Maasai of Kenya
http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php?t=5281
 

---

Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
 
Posted by AMun ra:


Indeed most Africans are genetically related, but
I wonder what their definition of "tropical" African is.
The Tropical zone extends all the way into southern Egypt.





 

---

Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
[QB] Posted by AMun ra:


Indeed most Africans are genetically related, but
I wonder what their definition of "tropical" African is.
The Tropical zone extends all the way into southern Egypt.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglo_Prime-Idiot:

Massai have high Eurasian admixture.

quote:

---

Here's an interesting PCA from a study on Spanish genetics that came out this week.

Global PC1 vs. PC2

Javier Gayan et al., Genetic Structure of the Spanish Population, BMC Genomics 2010, 11:326doi:10.1186/1471-2164-11-326

As expected, the Europeans prove to be a homogeneous bunch, but surprisingly, the Maasai from Kenya (MKK) show very different characteristics, just like the African Americans (ASW), who are known to have significant non-African influence. Thus, the two groups overlap on the global plot, because they have a similar mix of global components (ie. Sub-Saharan African and Eurasian), even though they're not all that closely related.

---

Eurasian admixture in the Maasai of Kenya
http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php?t=5281

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist:
Massai have high Eurasian admixture.

quote:

---

Here's an interesting PCA from a study on Spanish genetics that came out this week.

Global PC1 vs. PC2

Javier Gayan et al., Genetic Structure of the Spanish Population, BMC Genomics 2010, 11:326doi:10.1186/1471-2164-11-326

As expected, the Europeans prove to be a homogeneous bunch, but surprisingly, the Maasai from Kenya (MKK) show very different characteristics, just like the African Americans (ASW), who are known to have significant non-African influence. Thus, the two groups overlap on the global plot, because they have a similar mix of global components (ie. Sub-Saharan African and Eurasian), even though they're not all that closely related.

---

Eurasian admixture in the Maasai of Kenya
http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php?t=5281

---

The word Eurasian African American doesn't appear in the papre, "Genetic Structure of the Spanish Population", BMC Genomics 2010, 11:32


Thus Maasai as part Eurasian is some speculation and wishful thinking of the Euronut poster on that "biodiversity" forum.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ You know there is something seriously wrong when the Maasai, an African people living in the most rural areas of Kenya who are strictly endogamous meaning they virtually never marry outside their group not even with neighboring Bantus, are said to somehow be part Eurasian! LOL Notice West African groups like the Yoruba or Igbo of Nigeria despite historically documented incidences of intermarriage with British colonists are NEVER called part Eurasian, yet the isolated Maasai are??!

These Euronuts are obviously suffering from a mental disorder.
 

---

Posted by Manu (Member # 18974) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ You know there is something seriously wrong when the Maasai, an African people living in the most rural areas of Kenya who are strictly endogamous meaning they virtually never marry outside their group not even with neighboring Bantus, are said to somehow be part Eurasian! LOL Notice West African groups like the Yoruba or Igbo of Nigeria despite historically documented incidences of intermarriage with British colonists are NEVER called part Eurasian, yet the isolated Maasai are??!

These Euronuts are obviously suffering from a mental disorder.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ And what is the basis of such a claim either linguistically or archaeologically?

---

The Maasai's autosomal DNA has been examined in a comprehensive study by Tishkoff et al. (2009) on the genetic affiliations of various populations in Africa. According to the study's authors, the Maasai "have maintained their culture in the face of extensive genetic introgression". Tishkoff et al. also indicate that: "Many Nilo-Saharan-speaking populations in East Africa, such as the Maasai, show multiple cluster assignments from the Nilo-Saharan (red) and Cushitic (dark purple) AACs, in accord with linguistic evidence of repeated Nilotic assimilation of Cushites over the past 3000 years and with the high frequency of a shared East African–specific mutation associated with lactose tolerance."
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ But exactly where is the evidence that Cushitic speakers inhabited Kenya 3,000 years ago let alone 1,000 years ago? You speak of an allele associated with lactose tolerance, but is not such an allele associated with cattle pastoralists in general, and is not the earliest cattle domestication identified with Nilo-Saharan speakers??
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
...
 

---

Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
 
Here's the DNA tribes Admixture analyses using SNP and world *genetic* regions (the previous human tree I posted was autosomal STR).

www.dnatribes.com/dnatribes-snp-admixture-2012-03-12.pdf

As usual from DNA Tribes, we can see the discrimination affecting what they consider native or not native to a region. For example, if you're Canadian/American of European descent. Don't bother to look at the map. You're not even there. "Pure" American Native and "pure" Australian native ONLY are considered for those regions. Not the same care was taken for black African native people in North Africa (like the Tibu ethnic groups in Libya for example which seems to be exclude from the study, unlike north american natives such as the Ojibwe or Mayans in America). Maybe the same care was not taken for other regions natives population too.

First lets see what their genetic analysis of SNP markers (of their world sample population) have generated in term of genetic groupings:


Again this is not a political, continental or linguistic map or whatever. This a **Genetic** World Map. Grouping together people with similar SNP. Clearly it exclude non-native population (aka Europeans) in Artic, Mesoamerican and Oceanian regions. It is evidently subjective. We accept this because we know the history of those regions and we accept that Europeans are not native to those regions even if now they form the majority of the population there.


Then let's look at the genetic tree of humanity generated by DNA tribes using those world genetic groups:

I don't know about you, but it seems to conform generally to what we know of human migrations since the Out of Africa migrating movements. We can notice that this time, Horn Africans are back to the African groups and they have a large genetic euclidean distance with all other groups as all African population. Clearly showing the DNA STR samples(aka people chosen to represent Horn Africans) were more mixed than their SNP samples. Here Horn Africans are 100% Africans. I mean the Horn African groups is 100% African, obviously in the population there could be some Russian or American or Yemenites living there. That's beside the point. We try to avoid to put admix people in that type of study as much as possible. Great care was taken for North America, but usually it seems DNA Tribes didn't take that much care for it for Africa (like North Africa for example) or even elsewhere in Africa. Still, at least now the **native** Horn Africans are back into the African family.

Then we can now look at the admixture table of DNA tribes. This time, it's not only the external contribution (like the table used to start this thread which I debunked earlier in this thread). It is area admixture table, only limited by the *degree* to which the people used in their samples are "pure" or "not pure" (admixed) representative of their ethnic groups.



I guess people can make their own analysis of it. The Haussa people their use in their study seems to be 100% Africans. The Fulani seems to be 75% Africans with some North African admixture.



Here we can observe the Maasai choosen for the SNP study are 100% Africans. They have no Arabian or North African SNP variations in them.


100% Africans.
 

---

Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
 
To answer the question of this thread title. We must consider this Human genetic tree:


This map regroup ethnic groups with similar SNP variations in their genome (and "exclude" those who don't have similar variations in their genome).

We can note the Euclidean genetic distance in the map showing that all African groups are genetically close to one another (and **relatively** far from other genetic groups like in Europe, Asia, North Africa or the Middle East).

As I said in the above post, this human genetic tree based on SNP variations among humans seems to conform with the Out of Africa migrations patterns as well as most historical knowledge. That is humans leaving Africa between about 100 000-60 000 years ago in small groups, then with groups heading in different directions toward Europe, Asia, America,etc a long time ago.

We can see Africans form a genetically related group with a short euclidean distance (similar SNP variations) between one another.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ Indeed, DNA Tribes SNP data is very much different from their STR data. Though as you point out, their grouping of North Africans is obviously based on some inaccurate bias in which non-natives were viewed as natives. This makes me wonder exactly what SNPs were used for their North African sample or any of their samples in general.
 

---

Posted by Vansertimavindicated (Member # 20281) on :
 
As most of you have already figured out, this entire board consists of ONE sick degenerate that has created ficticious names to talk to itself in. There is NOONE on this site that can be trusted but me. The only links on this site that can be trusted are the ones that I provide for you! Here is a link that you can use as a resource and can be trusted!
http://www.raceandhistory.com/

http://www.cbpm.org/index.html


When you have finished reading this post check out this site to learn the truth about history and ALL civilzations. Do NOT be fooled by the real history link that the filthy monkey created using the race and history link as a guide. This is the ONLY site that can be trusted
http://www.raceandhistory.com/

Isnt it funny how this one little link destroys all of the charts, graphs and pics that the filthy monkey lies to us with? You now understand why the filthy monkey continues to spam the board with photos of modern day populations that had absolutely NOTHING to do with ancient Egypt

http://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2012-01-01.pdf

The next time one of these degenerates tries to tell you a lie just refer the moonkey to the latest DNA analysis on the ancient Egyptians, and then tell the faggot to crawl back in its cave!

http://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2012-01-01.pdf


This pretty much destroys all of the outdated and fallaceous sources that the silly monkey uses doesnt it?
http://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2012-01-01.pdf


The pig just keeps showing us why these crackers should not exist! They have genetically recessive genes and ion 50 years they will be the minority in BRITAIN!! THAT ALONE SHOULD TELL YOU THAT THEY WILL EVENTUALLY DIE OUT LIKE THE UNATURAL ABOMINATIONS THAT THEY ARE!

Look at the low IQ monkey with its charts and pictures LOL tHE dna analysis does not matter to this monkey, because it lives in a world of fantasy! lol

Folks, the monkey performs at my commend. I am this monkeys master!But then again all one needs to do is take a cursury look at this monkeys youtube page to understand the tenuous grip on reality that this monkey has! LOL
http://www.youtube.com/user/phoenician7

When the DNA analysis irrefutably shows that the modern day populations of South Africa, West Africa anmd central Africa are the ancestors of the ancient Egyptians what does a low IQ monkey do???

The low IQ monkey shows pictures and charts and munbles on and on about haplogroups while completely ignoring what the DNA analysis of the ancient Egyptians actually says LOL


the DNA analysis irrefutably shows that the modern day populations of South Africa, West Africa anmd central Africa are the ancestors of the ancient Egyptians. Thats what the DNA says, thats what the science says. This monkey in all of its fake names is very pathetic isnt it?

http://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2012-01-01.pdf

Bookmark this link as it can definitely be TRUSTED
http://www.raceandhistory.com/

http://www.cbpm.org/index.html
 

---

Posted by brick (Member # 20331) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist:
Massai have high Eurasian admixture.

quote:

---

Here's an interesting PCA from a study on Spanish genetics that came out this week.

Global PC1 vs. PC2

Javier Gayan et al., Genetic Structure of the Spanish Population, BMC Genomics 2010, 11:326doi:10.1186/1471-2164-11-326

As expected, the Europeans prove to be a homogeneous bunch, but surprisingly, the Maasai from Kenya (MKK) show very different characteristics, just like the African Americans (ASW), who are known to have significant non-African influence. Thus, the two groups overlap on the global plot, because they have a similar mix of global components (ie. Sub-Saharan African and Eurasian), even though they're not all that closely related.

---

Eurasian admixture in the Maasai of Kenya
http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php?t=5281

---

NON-SENSE.
By way someone said earlier that the european dna in the average african american is not significant and some african american do not have any european dna.Some believe most DO not have any european dna.
 

---

Posted by brick (Member # 20331) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:

I guess people can make their own analysis of it. The Haussa people their use in their study seems to be 100% Africans. The Fulani seems to be 75% Africans with some North African admixture.


Here we can observe the Maasai choosen for the SNP study are 100% Africans. They have no Arabian or North African SNP variations in them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ Indeed, DNA Tribes SNP data is very much different from their STR data. Though as you point out, their grouping of North Africans is obviously based on some inaccurate bias in which non-natives were viewed as natives. This makes me wonder exactly what SNPs were used for their North African sample or any of their samples in general.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
If you look at the color bar above for Horn Africans it seems they have chosen people really mixed as representative of the "native" population there. Which is odd.

People must read and think about how those genetic groups were derived by DNA Tribes.


My point in showing these. Is that they have taken great care into isolating the great minority native population and now consider them representative of America. Created genetic ethnic groups just for them and made a map about it. DNA tribes genetic groups and map which *exclude* the majority European descents (migrants) population in America!! The same care was not taken for Horn Africans. The color bar show Horn Africans as people incredibly mixed with foreign DNA from Arabia, North Africa, North India and others (which has a large band). Others = other DNA Tribes genetic groups from other regions.

Sure it may be true, maybe many Somalians are mixed (maybe not that much also), but who are the representative of the native population there? That's the question.

Obviously all people from all over the world got part of their population which are mixed with foreign elements, but they are usually not considered representative of the Native people from those specific regions. So there's a subjective part into what the DNA Tribes researcher consider native or not when they generate their genetic groups such as Horn African, Tropical West African, Ojibwe, Mayan, North Indian, etc.

Clearly in the Ojibwe native bar above we can see they have chosen people *NOT* mixed with Europeans. (there's no European bar and the color bar labelled "Other" is insignificantly small).

Let's say I choose people who we know have had a lot of contact with outsiders like the Somali which are part of Horn Africans category of DNA Tribes (in fact I'm not quite sure what other people/ethnic groups/locations they have taking into this category).


Real Native Somalians please stand up?!?


Basically, I think like with the natives in America, they should have taken people with a larger Horn African local contribution (red bar) to represent the genetic group called Horn Africans. That's the solution. It's very odd they didn't.

Same thing for the indigenous Africans in North Africa which are ignored as natives (and thus in the DNA Tribe generation of their genetic groups called North African. A group made so large that it encompass those minority native Africans in those regions, thus effectively treated as non-native from that region!! unlike the minority Ojibwe in America).

So imo, they should have taken Horn Africans with a larger local contribution (larger red bar) as representative of the native/indigenous people of Horn Africa.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dana Marniche:
I think one can look at the outside contributions as simply shared resemblances in the genome. There is really nothing else to be read into it.

---

Exactly! Some of the STR markers are surely of foreign extraction, but most of them are just shared ancestry, not necessarily originating outside of Africa, nor is it necessarily brought to the Horn by the groups that have been equated with those ancestries by DNA Tribes.

I'm sure DNA Tribes knows full well that there is more to populational affinity than geneflow from artifically constructed archetypical groups, its just that some of these people don't know how to digest their information.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ In other words, they've gone back to the Tishkoff study or rather distortion of that study where East Africans of all Sub-Saharans have the most affinities to Eurasians, but fail to mention that it's because Eurasians descend from East Africans!

Also, I too have noticed the tactic that Zarahan calls 'stacking the decks', where among certain populations individuals were sampled either unwittingly or wittingly who are known to have foreign ancestry. In the case of Somalis for example there is a community known as the Benadir who are considered half-castes because they have known mixed Arab or even Persian ancestry. Using these to represent mainstream Somalis is as laughable as using elite Mestizos of Mexico to represent indigenous natives.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
[QB] ^ In other words, they've gone back to the Tishkoff study or rather distortion of that study where East Africans of all Sub-Saharans have the most affinities to Eurasians, but fail to mention that it's because Eurasians descend from East Africans!

---

While technically possible it would mean that Horn Africans are the ***RECENT*** parent population ancestors of Arabians and to lower degree North Indian and Others (aka genetic groups from other regions). Which we must admit is not really the 'out of Africa' theory that we usually know about. A Out of Africa theory which date small groups of people leaving Africa at between 100 000 and 60 000 years ago, if I'm not mistaken. It doesn't agree with other historical/anthropological studies like their difference in physical appearances (which suggest that many Horn Africans were long separated from the small groups that left Africa toward India, Asia, Europe, Arabia, America etc a long time ago.

quote:

---

Also, I too have noticed the tactic that Zarahan calls 'stacking the decks', where among certain populations individuals were sampled either unwittingly or wittingly who are known to have foreign ancestry. In the case of Somalis for example there is a community known as the Benadir who are considered half-castes because they have known mixed Arab or even Persian ancestry. Using these to represent mainstream Somalis is as laughable as using elite Mestizos of Mexico to represent indigenous natives.

---

That's what I consider the most likely theory as well. It seems they have picked people for their samples which are oddly mixed as representative of what they call Horn Africans. People who have a small red bar. Like if instead of choosing pure Mayans they would have chosen Mayans which are mixed with the European colonialists. Sure it's true that Mayans are now very much mixed with Europeans genome (often called Hispanic or Latino), but it doesn't make those mixed people good representative of the native population in Central America.

Same thing for Horn Africans. I don't know how much those people are mixed with foreign DNA in term of percentage of the population, but no matter how large that percentage is, it doesn't mean those mixed people are good representatives of the native indigenous population of Horn Africa.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by brick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist:
Massai have high Eurasian admixture.

quote:

---

Here's an interesting PCA from a study on Spanish genetics that came out this week.

Global PC1 vs. PC2

Javier Gayan et al., Genetic Structure of the Spanish Population, BMC Genomics 2010, 11:326doi:10.1186/1471-2164-11-326

As expected, the Europeans prove to be a homogeneous bunch, but surprisingly, the Maasai from Kenya (MKK) show very different characteristics, just like the African Americans (ASW), who are known to have significant non-African influence. Thus, the two groups overlap on the global plot, because they have a similar mix of global components (ie. Sub-Saharan African and Eurasian), even though they're not all that closely related.

---

Eurasian admixture in the Maasai of Kenya
http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php?t=5281

---

NON-SENSE.
By way someone said earlier that the european dna in the average african american is not significant and some african american do not have any european dna.Some believe most DO not have any european dna.

---

Yes but only 5.5%. See Shrivers et al, 2003. 94.5% of African-Americans have recent Caucasoid ('white') admixture though admixing with Europeans from the slave trade. The mean admixture is around 20%.

Most African-Americans on tv look mixed race, not 'black'. This is because they are on average 1/5 white european admixed.
 

---

Posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist (Member # 18853) on :
 
^ Also according to that same study, 30% of 'White Americans' have recent 'black' admixture.

Americans are mutts. Its really pointless if you are American to be arguing for either side, as you are mixed.
 

---

Posted by brick (Member # 20331) on :
 
That's not what your racsit friend says,he believe most black americans look clearly black and he believe only 60%have white admixture.at least he was closer to telling the truth or you was awhile ago.why change what you said before.anyway i believe you two are the same person.you said has cassiterides that even blacks with white admixture tend to look still black.stick to the script you said before an leave like that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by cassiterides:

quote:

---

Your one sick cookie. What is the purpose of you gambling the minute percentage of Nick Cannon's background? Nick Cannon is black and Mariah has distance black ancestry. Those kids will more likely look "black" with a typical "mixed" appearance. White lose out again.

---

Nick Cannon has distant white ancestry. Phenotypically he looks Negroid, i never claimed he didn't. Most African-Americans (around 60%) have White European admixture which is why you get the odd baby produced that looks whiter because of the resurface of genes. The same thing happens in South Africa, since many of the Europeans there have Negroidadmixture through colonial times and so you can get a white couple giving birth to a baby with black features.

Sandra Laing -



She was born to two white parents but because her parents had black admixture 300 or so years back those genes resurfaced giving her the Negroid traits - dark skin, wide nose and wooly hair. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cassiterides:
Black Americans (Hurricane Kitrana photos)-







All thick lipped, wide flat nosed, wooly 'nappy' afro haired and dark skinned like typical Negroids.

So where exactly are these straight haired light skinned negroids with thin noses you claim to exist?

Answer: Only in your head.

You are a self-hating black and hate your own racial traits as shown in the photos and so you project this fantasy that negroes have white features.

Stop the self-hate and embrace some reality.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MissJennifer:



[qb] http://www.smoothpolitical.com/images/katrina-flood-victims.jpg

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9260569/ns/us_news-katrina_the_long_road_back/t/katrina-inspires-generosity-black-americans/

How can you see we don't still look like our ancestors?? These are the average Black Americans living in the USA. Look at their phenotype. Do all of them look racially mixed or like Nick and Mariah kids?? Hell no. We still look Black. I wish black people online would stop lying and saying that we all don't still look African when the majority of us do. What is so wrong with acknowledging that????


If you go to any black city especially in the midwest or south you will see many AAs who look like the photos I posted above.

Look at ALL of those black Americans and hardly ANY of them look like they have any recent admixture. I really question the validity of that study that claims most Black Americans are mixed; it needs to be redone.

AAs don't look mixed at all. The heavy mixing did not occur across the board for all of us

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cassiterides:

---

quote:

---

Why do Black Americans continue to lie and say we are all mixed? In the south, there are areas where many of the black people have very little admixture and still look like their ancestors. Many parts of the midwest too. But we will not acknowledge that; we only focus on the Black Americans who have a high amount of admixture in their ancestry and say they represent the majority of AAs when they don't.

---

quote:

---

I always thought the same thing. alot of AA and whites think if your 100% black that you gotta be pitch black. NO. Theres 1000s of tribes in africa and all there skin tones vary from black to light brown and there not mixed with white.


To refer to anything as "demonic blood" may be a little harsh, but this argument is actually the truth. I am an American born East African and can say honestly that most African Americans do not look that different from Africans regardless of skin color and features if you know Africans well. Africa is the most genetically diverse continent period and you will find every facial feature, hair texture, and skin color there as you do here if not more so due to its own long, unique history. People forget other racial and ethnic groups have also been in Africa for centuries prior to the Atlantic Slave trade, particurly East and North/Northwest Africa. Light skin doesn't necessarily mean one is racially mixed with white, just as dark skin doesn't mean one is racially "pure", and East Africa is a perfect example. These are based on American racial stereotypes and racial myths. African phenotypes range from an Alek Wek type to a Halle Berry type across the continent. I do think people claiming white or non black blood do it based on known family history or dna testing and there is nothing wrong with embracing that. However I notice some aa's proclaim this the most often and the loudest, even as they look as black as anyone else. Many white americans also have negligible native american and sometimes even African blood and appear exclusively European. You rarely seem them proclaiming other blood for that very reason unfortunately. Any white or non African genetics are almost completely negligible with most AAs and most still look and are decidedly African in their appearance. And since science has proven that most human beings genetics have their origins in Africa anyway, this argument is almost moot. We technically are all genetically linked in one way or another. It always goes back to Africa regardless.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist:
[QB]
E1b1b is not Negroid.

Read it an weep -

''Sub-Saharan Africans belong to subclades of E other than E1b1b, while most non-Africans who belong to haplogroup E belong to its E1b1b subclade.”
- Fulvio Cruciani et al, Phylogeographic Analysis of Haplogroup E1b1b (E-M215) Y Chromosomes Reveals Multiple Migratory Events Within and Out Of Africa, Am. J. Hum. Genet, p. 74)


^^The only thing is that the "quote above is a complete fake
and was never utter by Cruciani, as can be verified by looking at
his article: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1181964/?tool=pubmed

The foul faker doctored the quote not knowing the article has been much
discussed at ES. Testifying even more to his incompetence, Cruciani actually
does show E3b or E1b1b occuring in numerous places within "sub-Saharan" Africa.
The three main subclades of haplogroup E3b (E-M78, E-M81, and E-M34) and
the paragroup E-M35* are not homogeneously distributed on the African continent:
E-M78 has been observed in both northern and eastern Africa, E-M81 is restricted t
o northern Africa, E-M34 is common only in eastern Africa, and E-M35* is shared by
eastern and southern Africans (Cruciani et al. 2002)"
--Cruciani

And there is no "page 74" in the Cruciani article.
THE FAKER AND BUFFOON IS AGAIN BUSTED IN A LIE!


THE FAKER'S BOGUS CLAIM PART- 15 - QUOTE:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by cassiterides:
posted 14 January, 2012 11:41 AM
If you are a white heterosexual male in Britain you have virtually zero chance of getting a job.
All the jobs go to blacks or other immigrants.

^^LOL - Idiotic nonsense.
As of 2001, 92.1% of the UK population identified
themselves as White, leaving 7.9%[270] of the UK
population identifying themselves as mixed race
or of an ethnic minority. The population of the
United Kingdom in the 2001 census was 58,789,194,
UK Office for National Statistics- 2001.

That leaves approx 54 million white people.
About 33% of that population were adult men.
Let's take away 8% or so for minorities. So you are saying then
that 25% of the approx 54 million white people
in the UK are all unemployed? Damn you are dumb,
but you only expose the bankruptcy of your racism.



The Fake C-Ass -Hole exposed PART 14 - BOGUS
"NORDIC BLONDS FLITTING AROUND EGYPT

[QUOTE]Originally posted by cassiterides:
posted 29 December, 2011 06:05 AM

Hetepheres II was a blonde

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cassiterides:
posted 28 December, 2011 05:40 PM
Early dynastic & old kingdom royalty was Nordic (blonde and fair skinned)

---

^^^Ha hahahahah you stupid mass of camel vomit!
Up above you reference scholar Frank Yurco, but here is
what Yurco said about the 12th Dynasty, debunking
your claim of "Nordic" Egyptian royalty. You
dumbass.... You are again debunked, with your own
"supporting" references... lmao...

"the XIIth Dynasty (1991-1786 B.C.E.)
originated from the Aswan region.4 As
expected, strong Nubian features and
dark coloring are seen in their sculpture
and relief work. This dynasty ranks as
among the greatest, whose fame far
outlived its actual tenure on the throne...
Because the Egyptian rulers of Nubian ancestry
had become Egyptians culturally; as pharaohs,
they exhibited typical Egyptian attitudes and
adopted typical Egyptian policies."

- (F. J. Yurco, 'Were the ancient
Egyptians black or white?', Biblical
Archaeology Review (Vol 15, no. 5,
1989)



THE FAKER EXPOSED- PART 12
HE says Egyptologists like Frank Yurco says the Egyptians were "Caucasoid"
--- "Virtually every egyptologist believes the egyptians were Caucasoid" --

BUt Yurco says nothing of the sort.. Here for example, is what he says
about the 12the Dynasty rulers aho were Nubian descent: They seem really
"Caucasoid"... yeah, right.. - quote-


"the XIIth Dynasty (1991-1786 B.C.E.)
originated from the Aswan region.4 As
expected, strong Nubian features and
dark coloring are seen in their sculpture
and relief work. This dynasty ranks as
among the greatest, whose fame far
outlived its actual tenure on the throne...
Because the Egyptian rulers of Nubian ancestry
had become Egyptians culturally; as pharaohs,
they exhibited typical Egyptian attitudes and
adopted typical Egyptian policies."

- (F. J. Yurco, 'Were the ancient
Egyptians black or white?', Biblical
Archaeology Review (Vol 15, no. 5,
1989)
-

Another dodge is to twist an old chat/forum discussion
statement by conservative Egyptologist Frank Yurco
out of context. Yurco rejected those who "a
priori" claimed the Egyptians were "black",
that is, a dogmatic claim without presenting
empirical evidence. He never rejected reasonable
argument with data showing the Egyptians were
an indigenous African population -QUOTE:
.. basically a homogeneous African population
had lived in the Nile Valley from ancient to
modern times.. (Yurco 1996- An Egyptological
Review, in Black Athena Revisited)


The Faker exposed- part 11

quote:

---

Originally posted by cassiterides:
^You claim Vanessa Williams is a black woman when her heritage is white welsh and native american

---

-------------------------------------------------------------

But when Marc Washingrton smoked him out, and the
actual facts were checked, Anglo-Pyr/Cassifaker is lying
again:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1354054/Vanessa-Williamss-ancestry-revealed-Who-Do-You-Think-You-Are.html

According to the Faker, anyone with any white ancestry is not "really" black.
SO since a majority of African Americans have white ancestry ranging from 5 to 30%
then most Black Americans are not "truly" black you see...


THE FAKER EXPOSED- PART 10

quote:

---

Originally posted by cassiterides:
^ Eurafrican is Caucasoid.

---

quote:

---

"I believe all the Blavk bambinos of Italy are negroes- not merely blacks;
this admitted, it would prove they very early date of their entrance into Italy." pg 286
pg 434
"the ancient Eturians had the countenances of Negroes, the same as the images of Buddah in INdia." pg 166
pg 474- "They aere in fact, all one nation, with one religion, that of Buddah, and they were originally NEgroes"
pg 59: "nor can it be reasonably doubted, that a race of Negroes formerly had power and pre-eminence in India"
pg 59- AS TO ETHIOPIA: And it is probable that an Ethiopian, a negro, correctly speaking, may have been meant, not merely a black person; and it seems probable that the following may have ben the real fact, viz, that a race of NEgroes or Blacks, but probably of the former, came to India to the west."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglo-Pyr/Cassiredes:
"Fair hair and light eyes colours are only found among Caucasoids, esp of
Europe."

---

But then, in your own thread, by your own hand,
you present a picture of an African albino that
has pale skin, light brown or hazel eyes and fair
hair. You said it was impossible, but then debunk
yourself with your own posted picture.. This is
like the 8-9th time you keep tripping over yourself
with lies, contradictions, and bogus claims.




------------------------------------------------------------------

RECAP
The Faker exposed- part 7
Originally posted by Anglo-Pyr/Cassiredes:
"Fair hair and light eyes colours are only found among Caucasoids, esp of
Europe."

^^Your claim is is completely bogus. Native
diversity or albinism causes some tropical Africans
to have light eyes and light hair. You fail againn..





bbvv

================================================


THE FAKER EXPOSED: PART 6
1-- ^^Faker! In your initial posts you claimed that it
was Cavalli-Sforza talking 'bout negroes "mutating"
from Pygmies. Now in your "corrected" post,
YOU STILL APPEAR A FAKE. You now remove Cavalli-
Sforza's name on the "mutant" claim, admitting that
you were lying all along!
Bwa ha aha
a hah a ha ahahaha aha ahah..


2-- Second point- Peter Frost is debunked by Cavalli-Sforza
who says as to his so-called "mutation" theory:
QUOTE:

"It remains difficult to pinpoint an ancient place
of origin for the Negroid type which includes all
West, Central and South Africans. Contrary to many
earlier opinions, modern Pygmies and Khosians are
not good candidates for a proto-African population."

--Cavalli Sforza et al, 1994. The history and geography of human genes. 194

Frost mentions Cavalli-Sforza in connection with
sexual selection, and movement of some groups
from Nigeria-Cameroon to other parts of Africa.
He never says Cavalli Sforza talks bout any
"negro mutation" and in fact any mutation claim
is directly contradicted by Sforza. Sucka, you
not only lied bout Cavalli-Sforza, you lied about
your own white writer- Peter Frost, and misrepresented him.


THE FAKER EXPOSED: PART 6
Anglo-Pyr/CassiREDES says:
''There are then no Australoids with blonde hair past the age of about twenty''

^^LMAO! Totally fake! Credible up to date sources
note that blondism is prevalent in early life
BUT, contrary to your claim that:
"There are then no Australoids with blonde hair past the age of about twenty",
the shade of color varies. In maturity the hair
usually turns a darker brown color, but sometimes
remains blond. See:
"Gene Expression: Blonde Australian Aboriginals". Gnxp.com.
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2005/08/blonde-australian-aboriginals.php.



^^Here is one of your Australians over 20 years old
who does have blonde hair. YOu are caught out
spinning bogus claims AGAIN!. Bwa ha aha
a hah a ha ahahaha aha ahah..
-

--------------------------------------------------

THE FAKER EXPOSED: PART 5a
[b]So where are these tropical african peoples
with pale white or fair skin? blonde red hair?

^^You fail again. African populations can readily produce blond
or reddish blond hair as noted by hair study author Hrdy
1978 himself, and he references Nubia as an example.
Albinism is another source of red or blond hair
in Africa, and albinism is much more prevalent in
African populations than among Europeans. Even
African Americans produce more albinos than white
Americans. (The pigmentary system: physiology and
pathophysiology- By James J. Nordlund 2006: 603)
(E. Roach and V. Miller 2004. Neurocutaneous disorders.)
QUOTE: "In general, the prevalence of albinism in
Africa is much higher, in the range of 1 in 1
100 to 1 in 3900."

So Africa can and does routinely produce red and blond hair.
All non-Africans are MORE LIMITED subsets of
ORIGINAL African diversity. THe originals
have more built-in diversity than the limited
sub-set populations. This is straight science as
noted by the quote from TIshkoff 2000.

Nor are Africans the only tropical peoples who
can produce reddish hair or blond hair. Among
Australian Aborigines, some tropical groups produce 100%
of individuals with blond hair. Melanesians can
also produce blond or reddish hair, and do so routinely.

White people have no monopoly at all on that hair
color. They merely show more of it, but even among
whites, red hair for example is minor- occurring in less than
5% of the overall European populations, mostly in
northern Europe.

So the claim that there are no tropical Africans with such
variation is once again, proved fake. You made the claim.


-------------------------------------------------------------------

THE FAKER EXPOSED: PART 4
ime and time again, you stand debunked and exposed
for falsifying claims and references. Let's recap:



Originally posted by CASSIFAKedes::

quote:

---

The source is Cavalli-Sforza's book on the Pygmies entitled 'African pygmies' (Academic Press, 1986).

This work shows that Negroids mutated from an ancestral pygmy population around 9,000 BC in West Africa. So the 'true' Black African today is a recent mutation. Caucasoids and Mongoloids predate them. [Wink] Negroids only migrated into other parts of Africa during the Bantu expansion or slightly earlier. Prior to them, Caucasoids inhabited North Africa and Bushmen (Capoids) to the south who were displaced by the Caucasoids from the Mediterranean around 12,000 BC.

---

quote:

---

"Note that in the Old Testament the Danites are the only Hebrew people described as being maritime and associated with ships.."

---

^^Complete Nonsense. In the Old Testament, the tribe of
Zebulun is mentioned as specifically associated
with ships and maritime elements. QUOTE:

Genesis 49:13

"Zebulun will dwell at the shore of the seas;
Yea, he will be at the shore of the ships, And
his side toucheth upon Sidon. "


Anglo-Pyr/Cassi-Fakdes: MULTIPLE TIMES AT BAT, MULTIPLE
EXPOSURES AS A FAKE...

--fake claim that no Australian Abo over 20 is blonde

-- fake claim that NO tropical Africans have any diversity in hair, skin or eye color

-- fake Cavalli-Sforza citation

-- 2nd fake Cavalli-Sforza reference

-- Faked Watson reference

-- Faked Biblical reference

-- FAke representation of Peter Frost's work

-- Fake claim that "studies" say "egyptians were dark are not like 'light-skinned Europeans". COnveniently, the alleged study is missing..

--Fake Higgins claims

--Fake claim that Guiseppe Sergi's EurAfrican race concept is negro-free

--Fake claim that Vanessa Williams has no black ancestry but is "white and Indian"

--Fake claim that Egyptologists like Yurco consider the Egyptians "Caucasoid"

--Fake claim of white Nordic Egyptian royalty

--Fake claim of "blond" Hetepheres

--Fake claim of white males in BRitain "unable to get jobs"

--fAKE Crucuiani "quote" with "citation"

--fake claim that blacks have no sexual diomorphism and no male-female cranial differences

--Fake CDC claim of AUgust 2006

--Hypocritical double standards- bashing African Americans as black when they can be demonized as criminals but when exposed for hypocritical double standards calling them non-black

--Bogus claim that OOA never happened backed by "supporting" references that say nothingof the sort and directly contradict him.


 

---

Posted by brick (Member # 20331) on :
 
I repeat so anglo gets it in his thick head.

quote:

---

Originally posted by brick:



quote-
About 60% of black americans have some form of white admixture,not over 90%,even if it was 90% most still would not look mixed raced whatever that is,but anyway it's around 60% not over 90% stick to your past script at least on that and stop flip flopping cassiterides,i mean anglo.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

Genetic Admixture is not the Same as Appearance

About one-third of White Americans are of between two and twenty percent recent African genetic admixture, as measured by the ancestry-informative markers in their DNA.19 This comes to about 74 million Americans. And yet, day-to-day experience teaches that virtually all White Americans look, well, White. Some may look more Mediterranean and others may look more Nordic, but very few White Americans have a distinctively African appearance. How can one reconcile DNA measurements with common experience?An anecdote may help illustrate the problem. Look again at the chart of Skin Tone as Function of Afro-European Admixture. Consider one of the graph’s outlier points—a “European American” individual plotted as having 11 percent20 African genetic admixture. Dr. Shriver, the project team leader, became curious about this individual for two reasons. First, the person’s African genetic admixture was unusually high for someone who self-identified as a member of the U.S. White endogamous group. Second, the sample had been taken from State College, Pennsylvania, the site of Dr. Shriver’s own campus.21 According to Dr. Shriver:

I had the result for two or three years before I even looked up the ID number of the person whom we tested. I looked at who it was and it was me! I checked myself and the rest of my relatives and tracked it through my family. I never considered that there were any African people in my family. There’s no real variation in my family. The admixture must have been pretty far back. It just so happens that we can detect it with the markers we have. My mom especially stood out as being surprised, maybe because I told her it was coming through her father. She still doesn’t believe it about her family! The part of Pennsylvania where my mother’s father came from is where the Underground Railroad ended. There are several towns right here in Southern Pennsylvania where there are very light-skinned African-American communities that are the remnants of the Underground Railroad.

---

 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ Brick, you waste your time and energy. Everyone in here knows Anglo-Idiot is a liar. The guy claims southern Euros like Greeks who live in the Mediterranean that borders Africa and shows 24% African ancestry are "pure Caucasians" yet goes around and claims a rural people all the way in Tanzania are 'Caucasoid-mixed'.

You are definitely dealing with somebody who is mentally ill, so why bother?!

Do you know that the fool has even gone further to say that "negroids" don't really exist as a separate entity because they are in fact hybrids of Pygmies and Caucasoids?!!
 

---