"Meanwhile we may note that a detailed analysis of 571 modern Negro crania, made by advanced mathematical techniques, has shown that these crania gravitate between two poles, a Mediterranean Caucasoid and a Pygmy one. The former type is again divisible into an ordinary Mediterranean and a Western Asian type, which suggests more than a single northern point of origin for the Caucasoid element. As we shall in greater detail in Chapter 8 and 9, the Negroes resemble Caucasoids closely a number of genetic traits that are inherited in a simple fashion. Examples of these are fingerprints, types of earwax, and the major blood groups. The Negroes also have some of the same local, predominantly African, blood types as the Pygmies. " This evidence suggests that the Negroes are not a primary sub-species but rather a product of mixture between invading Caucasoids and Pygmies who lived on the edges of the forest, which at the end of the Pleistocene extended farther north and east than it does now.
The Living Races of Man by Carleton S. Coon
Sub-Saharan Africans are arrayed on a cline going from Mbuti Pygmies to Europeans
''The Negroid type is not homogeneous.'' - Cavalli-Sforza et al 1994.
Hiernaux (1975) distinguishes the Pygmies to Negroids on the grounds the latter are a product of the former (a recent mutation) but that there was probable geneflow with Caucasoids as Coon (1967, 1982) maintains.
Also note that on page 123 of 'Living Races of Man', Coon also states that ''To this combination may have been added remnant Capoid genes''. So Negroids are basically a recent mutation from the Pygmies, but with Caucasoid/Capoid admixture.
Posts: 1575 | From: - | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist: Yes. A fact well known today.
''The Negroid type is not homogeneous.'' - Cavalli-Sforza et al 1994.
Hiernaux (1975) distinguishes the Pygmies to Negroids on the grounds the latter are a product of the former (a recent mutation) but that there was probable geneflow with Caucasoids as Coon (1967, 1982) maintains.
Also note that on page 123 of 'Living Races of Man', Coon also states that ''To this combination may have been added remnant Capoid genes''. So Negroids are basically a recent mutation from the Pygmies, but with Caucasoid/Capoid admixture.
Both of you guys are about as dumb as a tree stump - if not dumber. Their writing are about as ignorant as it can be? Stupid is as stupid does.
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
To all intelligent people, do you see how psychotic the Euronuts have become with their white-washing of Africans. Ever since their 'discovery' of the wonders of ancient Egypt, the Euronuts have been on a quest to claim Egypt and other related cultures to be the work of 'Caucasians'. But due to the close relation of Africans their white-washing apparently knows no bounds and have ultimately culminated to its most logical point-- that so-called "true negroes" themselves are descendants of Caucasians. LMAO Thus the ultimate joke that white racism is to claim blacks as their own. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_PrimeIdiot: ''The Negroid type is not homogeneous.'' - Cavalli-Sforza et al 1994.
Yet this contradicts everything that you say, Idiot. According to you the "negroid" has no diversity at all and is homogeneous. Any variation is attributed to admixture, yet now you say the "negroid" himself is the result of admixture between Pygmies and Caucasians. Yet not so long ago you say negroids arose as result of a mutation among Pygmies!! So which is it? Caucasian-Pygmy hybrid or mutant Pygmy??! LMAOPosts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_PrimeIdiot: ''The Negroid type is not homogeneous.'' - Cavalli-Sforza et al 1994.
Yet this contradicts everything that you say, Idiot. According to you the "negroid" has no diversity at all and is homogeneous. Any variation is attributed to admixture, yet now you say the "negroid" himself is the result of admixture between Pygmies and Caucasians. Yet not so long ago you say negroids arose as result of a mutation among Pygmies!! So which is it? Caucasian-Pygmy hybrid or mutant Pygmy??! LMAO
They are mutations from Pygmies with Caucasoid and Capoid geneflow, not literal hybrids.
Lioness has just quotemined without reading the entire chapter Coon dedicates to this topic. So it distorts what he is saying.
On the same page, Coon briefly discusses Capoid admixture as well as i showed and in the same chapter discusses the derivation of Negroids from Pygmies, through an archaic ancestor. This evolutionary sequence was developed by Reginald Ruggles Gates, who Coon extensively quotes.
The quote ''Negroes are not a primary sub-species but rather a product of mixture between invading Caucasoids and Pygmies'' only makes sense if you read in context. Coon is not suggesting Negroids are the result of Caucasoids and Pygmies, but having mutated from Pygmies and then had significant Caucasoid (and Capoid) geneflow.
Posts: 1575 | From: - | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
"Meanwhile we may note that a detailed analysis of 571 modern Negro crania, made by advanced mathematical techniques, has shown that these crania gravitate between two poles, a Mediterranean Caucasoid and a Pygmy one. The former type is again divisible into an ordinary Mediterranean and a Western Asian type, which suggests more than a single northern point of origin for the Caucasoid element. As we shall in greater detail in Chapter 8 and 9, the Negroes resemble Caucasoids closely a number of genetic traits that are inherited in a simple fashion. Examples of these are fingerprints, types of earwax, and the major blood groups. The Negroes also have some of the same local, predominantly African, blood types as the Pygmies. " This evidence suggests that the Negroes are not a primary sub-species but rather a product of mixture between invading Caucasoids and Pygmies who lived on the edges of the forest, which at the end of the Pleistocene extended farther north and east than it does now.
The Living Races of Man by Carleton S. Coon
Sub-Saharan Africans are arrayed on a cline going from Mbuti Pygmies to Europeans
.
loooooooooool
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:"Race, in terms of deep-seated biological differences, doesn't exist scientifically. We are 99.9 per cent identical roughly, at the genetic level. That's actually a remarkably low level of genetic diversity compared to other species of large primates. It represents a population bottleneck event some 70,000 years ago when the population dropped down to as few as 2,000 people. We came back from that, and our genome reflects that."
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_PrimeIdiot: ''The Negroid type is not homogeneous.'' - Cavalli-Sforza et al 1994.
Yet this contradicts everything that you say, Idiot. According to you the "negroid" has no diversity at all and is homogeneous. Any variation is attributed to admixture, yet now you say the "negroid" himself is the result of admixture between Pygmies and Caucasians. Yet not so long ago you say negroids arose as result of a mutation among Pygmies!! So which is it? Caucasian-Pygmy hybrid or mutant Pygmy??! LMAO
ha ahhahahahhhahahha...
THE ANGLO-IDIOT EXPOSED PART 17: - He says there is no sexual diomorphism in Africans or skeletal differences between men and women, when the very anthropologists hr quotes say the opposite.
---------]Originally posted by Anglo- Buffoon: Anglo_Pyramidologist member # 18853 posted 03 June, 2012 05:47 PM
Anglo-Buffoon 17a- "Frost and other anthropologists have noted that sexual dimorphism in Negroids is completely lacking. Check Frost's online blog."
Anglo-Buffoon 17b- "Black females are not lighter or different to black males in craniofacial terms."
^^Stupid muthafucka. The very Frost quote you paste says this:
Men and women differ in complexion because of differing amounts of melanin and cutaneous blood flow; in short, women are fairer, men browner and ruddier (Edwards & Duntley, 1939; Frost, 1988; Frost, 2005; Hulse, 1967; Jablonski & Chaplin, 2000). The size of this sex difference is still debated, largely because most studies are poorly controlled for age (girls lighten only after puberty and immediately before are actually darker than boys).." FROM: Frost Peter, 2006. European hair and eye color, evidence of sexual selection? Evolution and Human Behavior 27 (2006) 85–103u
------- Can't you read imbecile? ALL females differ from males and are lighter. ALL human humans have sexual dimorphism to one degree or another. SO how can blacks "completely lack" said dimorphism according to you, when your own boy Peter Frost says all human have it?
------- ANd in studies of crania men and women do show differences, and these differences can be detected with a battery of modern measurements, as already shown in previous threads where your idiocy was destroyed- example (zakrewski2004-Intra-population and temporal variation in ancient Egyptian crania)
your own peter frost debunks you: ---------------------------------------
"If this common selective force were sexual selection, it could have lightened European skin color by acting on an existing sexual dimorphism. Men and women differ in complexion because of differing amounts of melanin and cutaneous blood flow; in short, women are fairer, men browner and ruddier (Edwards & Duntley, 1939; Frost, 1988; Frost, 2005; Hulse, 1967; Jablonski & Chaplin, 2000). The size of this sex difference is still debated, largely because most studies are poorly controlled for age (girls lighten only after puberty and immediately before are actually darker than boys). Investigators also try to exclude tanning by measuring under the arm, where there is less subcutaneous fat and probably less dimorphism in skin color, given that the lightness of a woman’s skin correlates with the thickness of her subcutaneous fat (Mazess, 1967). In any event, sexual selection may have targeted this sex difference, as suggested by a cross-cultural male preference for lighter complexioned women and, conversely, by some evidence of a female preference for darker complexioned men (Aoki, 2002; Feinman Feinman & Gill, 1978; Frost, 1988; Frost, 1994b; Frost, 2005; Van den Berghe & Frost, 1986)."
FROM: Frost Peter, 2006. European hair and eye color, evidence of sexual selection? Evolution and Human Behavior 27 (2006) 85–103
and:
"A different perspective on sexual dimorphism in skin pigmentation comes from the recognition that human females require significantly higher amounts of calcium during pregnancy and lactation and, thus, must have lighter skin than males in the same environment in order to maximize their cutaneous vitamin D3 production (Jablonski and Chaplin 2000)... Thus strong clinical evidence continues to support the hypothesis that lighter skin pigmentation in females evolved primarily as a means to enhance the the potential for cutaneous vitamin D production and maintain healthy long-term calcium status and skeletal health." -- Human Evolutionary Biology. 2010. By Michael P. Muehlenbein Damm you are one of the most pathetic idiots in existence.
Tell us -- were you born such a retarded shithead, or were you originally a slug who managed to rise to such prominence?
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 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
^^Hapless dullard, you are exposed in another lie. Your own reference was checked. It yielded detailed citations which revealed a quite different story. Scholars say in the mainstream Cambridge Ancient History:
"We must give up the idea that she was of Libyan origin, an attractive theory which was based on blond hair of Hetepheres II, who was then thought to be her daughter. It is now evident that the yellow wig is part of a costume worn b other great ladies." --I. Edwards, C. Gadd, N. Hammond. 1971. The Cambridge Ancient History. 3ed Volume 1, Part 2, Early History of the Middle East
Yet another history says: "The walls of this interior room are decorated with hunting and fishing scenes, including a charming image of Meresankh and her mother, Hetepheres II picking lotus flowers from the river.. The pillars have images of Meresankh wearing a blond wig." --P. Lacovara. 2004. The pyramids and the SPhinx: tombs and temples of GIza
THE FAKER EXPOSED- PART 13- HIS BOGUS CLAIM OF "NORDIC" EGYPTIAN ROYALTY
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
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: ^ Eurafrican is Caucasoid.
^^You are once again exposed. You said EurAfrican is Caucasoid, and cited Serti in support. But using your own citation any reader can see that Sergi considers EurAfricans to be an amalgamation or mixture of many types, directly contradicting your claim.
SErgi says: QUOTE: "This human species, with cranial and facial characters thus well determined, I call Eurafrican; and this because, having had its origin in Africa, where it is still represented by many peoples, it has been diffused from prehistoric times in Europe... The Eurafrican species thus falls into three races: the African, with red-brown and black pigmentation.. Thus the Mediterranean stock is a race or variety of the Eurafrican species." --G. Sergi
You have again failed and are once again exposed. ------------------------------------------------------------
THE FAKER EXPOSED PART 9- HE CLAIMS ALL THESE HIGGINS "DISTORTIONS" BUT WHEN ASKED TO NAME THE SPECIFIC WEBSITES OF THIS ALLEGED "AFROCENTRIC' HORROR, HE RUNS AWAY. WHY IS THAT FAKER?
In fact, Godfrey Higgins ALSO says this about "negroes"
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."
cASSIRETEDES own source debunks him. Note the footnote by his own author- QUOTE: "may not have been Negroes, though Blacks, though it is probably they were so."
His own source says they may not have been Negroes then adds: THOUGH IT IS PROBABLY THEY WERE SO."
^The Faker once again, debunks himself. And he seems not to realize that Ethiopia is in "sub-Saharan" Africa.. lol.. pathetic incompetent..
And he never shows these massive number of websites "all over the internet". Like what? How many? If they are "all over" then he should at least be able to give direct links to 6 showing pages where the "Afrocentrics: are "distorting" Higgins work. LEt's say what the faker has besides hot air. Post DIRECT LINKS to 6 of the huge number of alleged "Afrocentric" websites where the Afrocentrics are "distorting" Higgins. SHow how they are distorting Higgins with specific quotes and specific context.
Watch the Faker duck and run when he is again called on a claim, or make up yet another lie to cover his exposure... -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE FAKER EXPOSED- part 8:
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.
^^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. 194
SO much for your lying claims of "mutations" from "Pygymy" ancestors. In short, you lied about Cavalli-Sforza, creating a falsified claim and a bogus "supporting" reference to a claim that is nowhere supported in his work. You are once again exposed as yet another racist faker You are not fooling anyone.
------------------------
THE FAKER EXPOSED-PART 3- YOu then tried to cover up your lie with even more bogus nformation and STILL fail
You "modified" your Cavalli Sforza claim by including page numbers, and then changing some wording to "adaptive radiation" hoping to divert attention from your exposure.. lmao..
However pages 361-362 of Cavalli Sforza's 1986 book says absolutely nothing about any Negroes "mutating" from pygmies, nor any "adaptive radiation." It merely discusses Pygmy history and geography. You picked out a page at random, not knowing it can be verified via Google Books. You were asked to provide a direct quote but are still running. Now why is that?
""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
--------------------------------------
THE FAKER EXPOSED- PART 2 And Your pathetic "modification" STILL turned out to be bogus. You then said:
"True" Black Africans appear as a recent adaptive radiation apparently branching off from an ancestral Pygmy population — a line of ancestry also indicated by osteological data (Coon 1962:651-656; Watson et al. 1996).
^^But in fact, Watson 1996 has nothing to do with osteological data and does not even mention it. It has to do with mtDNA.
----------------------------------------
THE FAKER EXPOSED- PART 1C YOU THEN PROFFERED ANOTHER FAKE CLAIM BELOW: He says:
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
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Negroids are recent Pygmy mutations with Caucasoid and Capoid geneflow...
Overview -
Negroids radiated from a relatively small West African Pygmy population within the last 12,000 years (Coon, 1962, pp. 651-656; Spurdle et al., 1994; Watson et al., 1996).
The time and place of Negroid origin can be further narrowed down with linguistic data. Speakers of proto-Niger-Congo broke up c. 10,000 BP and the oldest derived group appear to be proto-Mande speakers, whose descendants inhabit the Niger's headwaters near the Mali-Guinea border (Blench, 1984, pp. 128-129; Ehret, 1984; Murdock, 1959, pp. 44, 64-68).
''All of these physical and hormonal characteristics seem to have arisen within a narrow timeframe. In sub-Saharan Africa, the beginnings of proto-agriculture cannot be pushed back much further than 12,000 BP. A tall, clearly black African skeleton has been dated to 6,500 BP (Camp, 1974, p. 241; Coon, 1962, pp. 649-650). This leaves a window of barely six thousand years for the changes that differentiate black Africans (Negroids) from their Pygmy hunter-gatherer ancestors.
By 6,000 to 7,000 years ago, the transition to agriculture had been completed in West Africa and these early agriculturalists were able to support much higher population densities than they had as hunter-gatherers. Inevitably, this nucleus of farming populations began to spread outward at the expense of more sparsely distributed Khoisan and pygmy peoples. By about 4,000 BP, the expansion had reached as far east as the middle Nile, when black Africans first appear in paintings from Pharaonic Egypt and in skeletal remains from Nubia (Junker, 1921). About 3,000 BP, another wave of advance began along the Nigerian-Cameroon border and spread rapidly throughout central, eastern, and southern Africa (Cavalli-Sforza, 1986c, pp. 361-362; Diamond, 1997; Oliver, 1966). By 300 AD, pioneering groups had advanced as far south as KwaZulu-Natal...
So Negroids only moved into Egypt as late as 2000 BC, and 1000 BC in south and East Africa.
Posts: 1575 | From: - | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yet even after Zarahan has just debunked your dumbass, you continue to repeat the rubbish.
Question: If according to you Pygmies are the ancestors of "Negroids" (which you never actually defined but merely imply to be 'Bantus'), then why is it in another thread you cited a review of a Tishkoff study that said this?:
"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. Implicit within the paper is the model of a Bantu Expansion of farmers, as well as a possible later Nilotic expansion (which brought the Tutsi and Masaai) of herders, in a north-south direction. In the process they assimilated/and or/displaced the indigenous populations, of whom the aforementioned peoples are relict islands persisting in ecologically isolated or unfavorable domains."
If as you say, Bantus or "Negroids" are descended from Pygmies, then why the hell is there a large genetic difference between these groups??
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another question: If "Negroids" are as you say the result of hybridization between Pygmies and "Caucasoids" then why the hell did the racially labeled (distorted) graph from Tishkoff you post numerous times before show this?!:
According to the graph Pygmies are included in the group highlighted as "True Negroids" along with Bantus, West Africans, and Nilotic people. But then 'Caucasoids' are still very much distant from them with the Africans being closest to 'Caucasoids' being Ethiopians first and then San Bushmen! Please explain this (your) discrepancy. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^lol, he is not even a good troll. His own material debunks him. Here is Tishkoff from the same:
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ I wonder what nonsensical excuse the Anglo-Idiot will spin up this time... that is if he has the balls to even respond. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ LOL Yeah, well I was expecting the Anglo-Idiot to reply, but it looks like he chickened out like the cowardly WAPS (White Anglo Punk Sissy) he is. No wonder the Brits needed us Yanks to save their asses with folks like Anglo-Idiot around. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Better question is when is the Anglo-Idiot gonna fess up to his lies which we exploded above?! Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Red, White, and Blue + Christian: The first Humans were African Pygmies.
Later tall Negroes came from the Nile Rive traveling East then South.
The tall Black men married pygmy types of mtDNA L1/L0.
That's why approximately 1/3 of African Americans are L1/L0.
The Souther Negroes were the Bantu.
The Northern Negroes were proto-Mandingoes.
So, Modern Africans are mix of many types.
We are Pygmies and We are Giants and everything in between Fat and skinny.
1) If the first humans were pymgies by what cause or process did other humans such as Bantu come about?
2) where do the Khoisan fit into what you said above?
The oldest remains are usually small.
And mutations in the loci occur by nutrition and environmental change.
quote:Y-DNA haplogroup A represents the oldest branching of the human Y chromosome tree, thought to have begun about 60,000 years ago. Like Y-DNA haplogroup B, the A lineage is seen only in Africa and is scattered widely, but thinly across the continent. These haplogroups have higher frequencies among hunter-gather groups in Ethiopia and Sudan, and are also seen among click language-speaking populations. Their patchy, widespread distribution may mean that these haplogroups are remnants of ancient lineages that once had a much wider range but have been largely displaced by more recent population events.
The most commonly seen sub-groups of haplogroup A are A2 (A-M6), A3b1 (A-M51), and A3b2 (A-M13). Sub-groups A2 and A3b1 are seen in South Africa, with A3b1 seen exclusively among the Khoisan. The range of A3b2 is restricted to Eastern Africa and at lower frequencies among Cameroonians. About 1.1% of African-Americans belong to the sub-group A3b2.
quote: Y-DNA haplogroup B, like Y-DNA haplogroup A, is seen only in Africa and is scattered widely, but thinly across the continent. B is thought to have arisen approximately 50,000 years ago. These haplogroups have higher frequencies among hunter-gather groups in Ethiopia and Sudan, and are also seen among click language-speaking populations. The patchy, widespread distribution of these haplogroups may mean that they are remnants of ancient lineages that once had a much wider range but have been largely displaced by more recent population events.
Some geographic structuring is seen between the sub-groups B2a (B-M150) and B2b (B-M112). Sub-group B2b is seen among Central African Pygmies and South African Khoisan. Sub-group B2a is seen among Cameroonians, East Africans, and among South African Bantu speakers. B2a1a (B-M109) is the most commonly seen sub-group of B2a. About 2.3% of African-Americans belong to haplogroup B - with 1.5% of them belonging to the sub-group B2a1a.
posted
I personally cheer the efforts many people are making to sift through the mass of anthropological half-truths and lies to salvage a rightful claim of African historical achievements.In spite of being fair-skinned, i am fully aware of my black African roots based on history,archaeology and modern breakthroughs in DNA studies.The great advances in the once neglected field of Y-chromosome research just in the last 20 years is a powerful reminder of just how similar we REALLY are! I've had well-meaning friends caution me to not publicly speak of my paternal roots.Perhaps this is the "final frontier" for us in the U.S.The arts and sciences are God's gift to us all,NOT to a "selected few" based on color,ethnicity or national origin.When will the academic world finally realize this??
Posts: 2 | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic