quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:

Cacausoids were always in Africa. ...Europeans entered Africa relatively recently.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:

I maintain that kinky hair is a recent adaptation

---

.
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
and..?


 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
xyyman why are you posting people not of Africa?

I am trying to give people a chance to respond to your theory on African Caucasoids, people with the original hair type, Also you got a guy posted with lips thinner than most Caucasians, virtually no lips at all.
We need to stay on topic, Africana Caucasians with chimp-straight type hair
Relax, no need to get nervous about your theory. Let's wait and see what other people say first
 

---

Posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
^Try to fight your own battles.


I have asked you several times to explain in anthropological term the evolutionary physical transition from a African to a Caucasian. You haven't answered up till now. But you always demand answers from anyone else, derictly.


I have also have asked multiple times, why not all Africans have similar thigh coiled hair like the San. Up till now I have only received nonsense babble. No valid argument. So I am still waiting.

quote:

---

Physical variations in any given trait tend to occur gradually rather than abruptly over geographic areas. And because physical traits are inherited independently of one another, knowing the range of one trait does not predict the presence of others. For example, skin color varies largely from light in the temperate areas in the north to dark in the tropical areas in the south; its intensity is not related to nose shape or hair texture. Dark skin may be associated with frizzy or kinky hair or curly or wavy or straight hair, all of which are found among different indigenous peoples in tropical regions. These facts render any attempt to establish lines of division among biological populations both arbitrary and subjective.

---

quote:

---

Southeast and south Asian populations are also often thought to be derived from the admixture of various combinations of western Eurasians (‘Caucasoids’), east Asians and Australasians.
...

These findings, coupled with the recently discovered presence of haplogroup U in Ethiopia [11], support a scenario in which a northeast African population dispersed out of Africa into India, presumably through the Arabian peninsula, before 50,000 years ago (Figure 2). Other migrations into India also occurred, but rarely from western Eurasian populations.
...

Thus, the ‘caucasoid’ features of south Asians may best be considered ‘pre-caucasoid’— that is, part of a diverse north or north-east African gene pool that yielded separate origins for western Eurasian and southern Asian populations over 50,000 years ago.

---

quote:

---

European connection? Some features, such as the molars, of these 40,000-year- old specimens from Romania resemble those of earlier North African hominins.

---

quote:

---

Abstract The Aterian fossil hominins represent one of the most abundant series of human remains associated with Middle Stone Age/Middle Paleolithic assemblages in Africa.


The discovery will help better define northern Africa's possible role in first populating southern Europe.


The makers of these assemblages can therefore be seen as (1) a
group of Homo sapiens predating and/or contemporary to
the out-of-Africa exodus of the species, and (2) geographically one of the (if not the) closest from the main gate to Eurasia at the northeastern corner of the African continent.

Although Moroccan specimens have been discovered far
away from this area, they may provide us with one of the
best proxies of the African groups that expanded into Eurasia[...]

---

quote:

---

At about 40,000 years ago, however, Homo sapiens, in the form of the Cro-Magnons, began trickling into Europe, probably from an initially African place of origin.

[...]

It was brought with them by the Cro-Magnons, whose new qualities had emerged elsewhere. Probably this was in Africa, for it is from this continent that we have not just the first suggestions of the emergence of modern anatomical structure, but of modern behaviors as well.

[...]

The most remarkable early evidence of symbolic activity in Africa comes in the form of the recent find of engraved ochre plaques, such as this one, from Blombos Cave on the southern coast of Africa (Fig. 10). This is an unequivocally symbolic object, even if we cannot directly discern the significance of the geometric design that the plaque bears; and it is dated to around 70,000 years ago, over 30,000 years before anything equivalent is found in Europe.

To evidence such as this can be added suggestions of a symbolic organization of space at the site of Klasies River Mouth (Fig. 11), also near the southern tip of Africa, at over 100,000 years ago. Pierced shells, with the strong implication of stringing for body ornamentation, are known from Porc-Epic Cave in Ethiopia at around 70,000 years ago. Bone tools of the kind introduced much later to Europe by the Cro-Magnons, are found at the Congolese site of Katanda, dated to perhaps 80,000 years ago. Blade tool industries, again formerly associated principally with the Cro-Magnons, are found at least sporadically at sites in Africa that date to as much as a quarter of a million years ago. Also in the economic/technological realm, such activities as flint-mining, pigment-processing and long-distance trade in useful materials are documented in Africa up to about 100,000 years ago. These and other early African innovations are reviewed by McBrearty and Brooks (2000).

---

http://www.metmuseum.org/en/exhibitions/listings/2002/~/media/Files/Exhibitions/2002/AfricaLectureTranscript.ashx
 

---

Posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
Caucasians came/ come from the Caucasus mountains.

quote:

---

1807, from Caucasus Mountains, between the Black and Caspian seas; applied to the "white" race 1795 (in Ger.) by Ger. anthropologist Johann Blumenbach, because their supposed ancestral homeland lay there; since abandoned as a historical/anthropological term. Lit. meaning "resident or native of the Caucasus" is from 1843.



The mountain range name is from Gk. kaukhasis, said by Pliny ("Natural History," book six, chap. XVII) to be from a Scythian word similar to kroy-khasis, lit. "(the mountain) ice-shining, white with snow." But possibly from a Pelasgian root *kau- meaning "mountain."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor:
^Try to fight your own battles.


I have asked you several times to explain in anthropological term the evolutionary physical transition from a African to a Caucasian. You haven't answered up till now. But you always demand answers from anyone else, derictly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor:
[QB] Caucasians came/ come from the Caucasus mountains.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:

Cacausoids were always in Africa

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor:
^Try to fight your own battles.


I have asked you several times to explain in anthropological term the evolutionary physical transition from a African to a Caucasian. You haven't answered up till now. But you always demand answers from anyone else, derictly.

---

Caucasians are Africans, they only migrated to Europe recently so your question doesn't make sense.

If you look at the oldest bones in the world they have neither skin nor hair, one can only speculate.

One might ask how did the kinky haired African Negro evolve from the ape haired, hairy bodied African Caucasian?

I don't know, you have me stumped

---

quote:

---

Southeast and south Asian populations are also often thought to be derived from the admixture of various combinations of western Eurasians (‘Caucasoids’), east Asians and Australasians.
...

These findings, coupled with the recently discovered presence of haplogroup U in Ethiopia [11], support a scenario in which a northeast African population dispersed out of Africa into India, presumably through the Arabian peninsula, before 50,000 years ago (Figure 2). Other migrations into India also occurred, but rarely from western Eurasian populations.
...

Thus, the ‘caucasoid’ features of south Asians may best be considered ‘pre-caucasoid’— that is, part of a diverse north or north-east African gene pool that yielded separate origins for western Eurasian and southern Asian populations over 50,000 years ago.

---

--Todd R. Disotell.

Human evolution: The southern route to Asia

Volume 9, Issue 24, 30 December 1999, Pages R925–R928









 

---

Posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor:
^Try to fight your own battles.


I have asked you several times to explain in anthropological term the evolutionary physical transition from a African to a Caucasian. You haven't answered up till now. But you always demand answers from anyone else, derictly.

---

Caucasians are Africans, they only migrated to Europe recently so your question doesn't make sense.

If you look at the oldest bones in the world they have neither skin nor hair, one can only speculate.

One might ask how did the kinky haired African Negro evolve from the
ape haired, hairy bodied African Caucasian?

I don't know, you have me stumped

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor:
[QB] Caucasians came/ come from the Caucasus mountains.

---

this is the obsolete theory that xyyman has debunked

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:

Cacausoids were always in Africa

---

xyyman is an original thinker with new theories of his own , you can only parrot what others say.

If somebody has a new theory, you have no ability to analzye it.
What you do instead is post other people's theories that everybody already knows about

---

At the hiding behind xyyman.


Explain how one can go from a stereotype "negro" to a stereotype "caucasoid" without having traits by Terentius Neo, somewhere in the middle.





Lioness, you are about the get sandwiched!
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
TOPIC, xyyman's theory:

I won't deal with spammers trying to derail the thread by bringing up all sorts of other stuff from other threads, trying to get me to answer questions from other threads as a spam excuse
emotional spam reaction to topics he doesn't like
When somebody has to do that I win automatically


The statements are by xyyman>

He gets credit for the theory

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:

Cacausoids were always in Africa. ...Europeans entered Africa relatively recently.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
TOPIC, xyyman's theory:

I won't deal with spammers trying to derail the thread by bringing up all sorts of other stuff from other threads, trying to get me to answer questions from other threads as a spam excuse
emotional spam reaction to topics he doesn't like
When somebody has to do that I win automatically


The statements are by xyyman>

He gets credit for the theory

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:

Cacausoids were always in Africa. ...Europeans entered Africa relatively recently.

---

.

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:

I maintain that kinky hair is a recent adaptation

---

.


I don't know xyyman's further detail on this, you will have to ask him

---

Funny how this dumb idiot now claims the elaboration on this theory, has become spamming the thread. While it's based on actual anthropological findings.


Simply because you have no explanation, you now hide behind xxyMan. You can not even tell why you give "supposed" credit for "his theory". You simply copy/past his text. This is what we call spamming.


This is also why you can not explain why a old population such as the San has very tight coiled kinky hair. While other populations from different terrains in Africa have less tight kinky hair, to even loose type of hair texture.



The original coined term and definition for caucasian was posted by me, as well as the biological definition, these two differ. Which puts you in a bad position, lyin'ass. Since these quasi-traits can be found in several African populations, even in the sub-Sahara.














 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Some of us understand. Problem is we equate Caucasoid = European. These Caucasoid traits has always been in Africa. There is absolutely no genetic evidence of Europeans back-migrating into Africa. These Caucasoid Tribes eg Siwa, Gulla, Hausa, Maasia are pure Africans.

Quote: "Explain how one can go from a stereotype "negro" to a stereotype "caucasoid" without having traits by Terentius Neo, somewhere in the middle."
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
As I said....call them what they correctly are. EUROPEANS!!! Caucasoid is a "label". IF you really undertand this stuff ......Don't be afraid of it.
 

---

Posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
Some of us understand. Problem is we equate Caucasoid = European. These Caucasoid traits has always been in Africa. There is absolutely no genetic evidence of Europeans back-migrating into Africa. These Caucasoid Tribes eg Siwa, Gulla, Hausa, Maasia are pure Africans.

Quote: "Explain how one can go from a stereotype "negro" to a stereotype "caucasoid" without having traits by Terentius Neo, somewhere in the middle."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
and..?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
So yes. Kinky hair is a recent adaptation. They same goes for pockets of kinky haired people found throughout Asia ..... And Africa.

---

Does this mean that the San had bone straight hair or loose hair texture during the Paleolithic time frame?
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Don't know but I can make an educated guess.
Don't know their migration pattern but their lineage can be found in Ethiopia AND the Nile region of Sudan.
Point? These NiloSaharans and Ethiopians some with straightish hair is of the same ancestoral line as San.
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Note
Anderman Islanders vs Koreans. Australian aborigene etc The Lunatic had a great thread on hair . Maybe Lioness can dig it up.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
Lyinass is a bully plain and simple. She knows that Xyyman is scientifically illiterate and makes ignorant and ridiculous claims. So she likes to "challenge" these claims as if there is any challenge to them. Meanwhile as TrollKillah' points out, the lyinass herself is a hypocrite because she too makes ridiculous claims that are continuously debunked. Yet you don't see anyone making threads to bait and debunk her! Perhaps that should change.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
Xyyman is scientifically illiterate and makes ignorant and ridiculous claims

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
Lyinass is a bully plain and simple.

---

Troll Patrol do you agree with this?
I thought xyyman was part of the base. Are you going to let the brother get shytted on like that?


I think the idea that the Caucasians who are now in Europe could have originated in North Africa and the idea that they originated in the Caucus could be wrong
I wouldn't say xyyman's theory is impossible.
It's an interesting theory.
Then you have the common ancestor, ape type, covered in straight hair-maybe

---

Explain how one can go from a stereotype "negro" to a stereotype "caucasoid" without having traits by Terentius Neo, somewhere in the middle.



 

---

Posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
Mankind in Africa has and had no hairy body, as it is and was not needed, melanin is protective against UV-radiation. Instead of hair on the body, which is protective against extreme cold. Like in Eurasia. (See isotopic studies.) Maybe it deals with vitamin D. This is just my guess.


If the bodies of homo sapiens were (extensive) hairy, they would have found traces of hair, I guess. At the sites of these oldest human remains. The people who comprise with Hg A and B.


And depending on where tribes resided, it's dependable of their physical appearance, facial features.


The tribes at the site of Kibish look the pic beneath, and this is where the oldest remains were found. It's the Southeast of Ethiopia, near the so called border of Northern Kenya and guess what: South Sudan!







Kibish








Large image


Large image


Interesting is however, that there at the site of Kibish you will find within several tribes, people with several facial features. Small noses, wide noses, thin lips, full lips etc....in all kinds of variety. Yet, these people belong to the oldests groups amoungst mankind.


This a South Sudanese model.


Large image


Recent dating evidence re-establishes the Kibish fossils found in Ethiopia as the oldest modern human fossils known, at about 195,000 years.

The Kibish (Omo) fossils were found in 1967 in the Kibish region near the Omo River in Ethiopia. A partial skull and skeleton (Omo 1) and a skull lacking its face (Omo 2) were discovered in separate localities and dating techniques available at the time suggested they might be about 130,000 years old.

Herto skulls

In 2003 two partial and one nearly complete modern human skulls were found in Herto, Ethiopia, and were dated at about 160,000 years old. They were hailed as the oldest relatively complete and well-dated finds of our species Homo sapiens.



A reconstruction of Homo sapiens skull Omo 1 from Kibish, Kenya, re-dated to 196,000 years old, the oldest modern human specimen

More info on the Kibish
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
Troll Patrol why are toy derailing the thread? The topic is Caucasians and you are posting black people

You're on a big ego trip now. xyyman came up with the theory. The details should be how he explains them. Now you jump in and try to own the theory and presnt it your way. It's jealousy.
xyyman needs support right now Djehuti just bashed him.
You need to let him lead the way.
 

---

Posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
Troll Patrol why are toy derailing the thread? The topic is Caucasians and you are posting black people

---

You are a delusional simplemind, we are speaking of two subjects, the biological origin of caucasoid treats and straight vs kinky hair origin, with the possibility it arose amongst Africans. (See isotopic studies)


In order to understand this, we need to assess where whom came from during what time, place and space. We now have a stablished that quasi-caucasoid treats are amongst sub-Saharan populations, who have very little to do with Eurasians or admixture for that matter. We also have established the most likely possible root of mankind, and the conditions they lived in.




Explain how one can go from a stereotype "negro" to a stereotype "caucasoid" without having traits by Terentius Neo, somewhere in the middle.



 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
I just expalined it in the Pompeii thread idiot

I won't talk about Terentius Neo here.
 

---

Posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
I just expalined it in the Pompeii thread idiot

I won't talk about Terentius Neo here.

---

I looked it up, and you haven't answered the question.


It was merely a idiotic rant.


No validation.


So, again:


(How do you go from a stereotype African to a stereotype Europeans, without a transition?)


In other words, how did the European come in to existence, did they popup out of thin air?


So, explain how one can go from a stereotype "negro" to a stereotype "caucasoid" without having traits by Terentius Neo, somewhere in the middle.



 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
DJ. Still needs to prove

1. He is not a double crossing Hindu
2. He is not a plant and can be trusted
3. More importantly, I am wrong!!
 

---

Posted by HidayaAkade (Member # 20642) on :
 
I guess I have to be the odd man, but why do we continue to call features "caucasoid", when it didn't originate in the caucas?

All those terms like "negroid, mongoloid, etc" are old and incorrect.

Why not just described the feature as narrow or broad so on and so forth?
By using that term, it invites confusion with people who accept that it means someone who is "European" or "Eurasian".
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
To those who don't get it. I am poking fun at the label. It is meaningless and obsolete. It is a tool/label used by racialist to steal other people's culture and history. It is used by modern Europeans to include themselves. Understand that. Reprogram yourself and the meaning of the word.

Point? These features, yes, originated in Africa.

But I still don't trust DJ. I believe he is a sneaky Hindu.
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Any literate person who understand the formation of AE and these other civilizations will understand that modern Europeans have absolutely no!!! Connection. The only connection maybe through Greece by way of Greece being colonized by Africans bringing their Neolithic technology as demonstrated by Sergio, Evans, Smith and others. Now aDNA is supporting this hypothesi.
 

---

Posted by HidayaAkade (Member # 20642) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
To those who don't get it. I am poking fun at the label. It is meaningless and obsolete. It is a tool/label used by racialist to steal other people's culture and history. It is used by modern Europeans to include themselves. Understand that. Reprogram yourself and the meaning of the word.

Point? These features, yes, originated in Africa.

But I still don't trust DJ. I believe he is a sneaky Hindu.

---

My bad.

 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by HidayaAkade:
I guess I have to be the odd man, but why do we continue to call features "caucasoid", when it didn't originate in the caucas?

All those terms like "negroid, mongoloid, etc" are old and incorrect.

Why not just described the feature as narrow or broad so on and so forth?
By using that term, it invites confusion with people who accept that it means someone who is "European" or "Eurasian".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor:


It went up to a point, I had to explain to you that it is anatomically impossible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:

To those who don't get it. I am poking fun at the label. It is meaningless and obsolete. It is a tool/label used by racialist to steal other people's culture and history. It is used by modern Europeans to include themselves. Understand that. Reprogram yourself and the meaning of the word.

Point? These features, yes, originated in Africa.

But I still don't trust DJ. I believe he is a sneaky Hindu.

---

Frankly I don't care what you believe or whom you trust. I still have no idea what makes you think I'm "sneaky" or even a "Hindu"! LOL

You are obviously a confused man. You even have a bad tendency to misinterpret studies and come to WRONG conclusions about what they actually say due to scientific illiteracy while then saying you don't trust the white men who created those studies in the place.

But speaking of "sneaky".

It's obvious this whole thread is nothing more than a strawman the lyinass created to attack 'the base'. She seems to think that if Xyyman is part of 'the base' even though nothing is given of his membership, then she can attack it. As if to say Xyyman is the weak chink in the armor. LMAO

All I gotta say is she is wasting her time. How many times has she been debunked by the very 'base'.
 

---

Posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by HidayaAkade:
I guess I have to be the odd man, but why do we continue to call features "caucasoid", when it didn't originate in the caucas?

All those terms like "negroid, mongoloid, etc" are old and incorrect.

Why not just described the feature as narrow or broad so on and so forth?
By using that term, it invites confusion with people who accept that it means someone who is "European" or "Eurasian".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor:


It went up to a point, I had to explain to you that it is anatomically impossible.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by HidayaAkade:
I guess I have to be the odd man, but why do we continue to call features "caucasoid", when it didn't originate in the caucas?

All those terms like "negroid, mongoloid, etc" are old and incorrect.

Why not just described the feature as narrow or broad so on and so forth?
By using that term, it invites confusion with people who accept that it means someone who is "European" or "Eurasian".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor:


It went up to a point, I had to explain to you that it is anatomically impossible.

---

---

Funny how you copy my post, and mislead people by the actual meaning and intention. Not only do you lie a lot, but you're wicked as well.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by HidayaAkade:
I guess I have to be the odd man, but why do we continue to call features "caucasoid", when it didn't originate in the caucas?

All those terms like "negroid, mongoloid, etc" are old and incorrect.

Why not just described the feature as narrow or broad so on and so forth?
By using that term, it invites confusion with people who accept that it means someone who is "European" or "Eurasian".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor:


It went up to a point, I had to explain to you that it is anatomically impossible.

---

---

Funny how you copy my post, and mislead people by the actual meaning and intention. Not only do you lie a lot, but you're wicked as well.

---

Are you retracting the statement or will you explain to the people what is anatomically impossible?

You seem afraid to say what is "anatomically impossible"

are you hidiing again behind the copy and paste?

---

You are so dumb, you've debunked yourself in that very same thread, which I will link again.


http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=008800;p=1#000016






People can read for themselves what kind of hideous lying person you are. You are so pathetic you'll copy/ paste a text. And lie about me that it was written with different intention and motif. You've been caught a lot of times doing this to others as well. But I will embarrass you in front of everybody. And show them what you truly are.


It has nothing to do with they way you've cited it in as a response to HidayaAkade. As I have made my point elaborately clear in this thread.


http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=008803;p=1#000007
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor:


It went up to a point, I had to explain to you that it is anatomically impossible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor:


It went up to a point, I had to explain to you that it is anatomically impossible.

---

as expected Troll patrol hides from his own statements.
Many people have noticed his lack of clarity, he parrots other people to try to make up for it but quotes cannot really replace dialog

see this:

it "is anatomically impossible" for _______________________

______________________________________^^^^^

he's a coward. He doens't have the balls wo say what is anatomically impossible. He can't quote it form another thread because in the other thared he also didn't say waht is anatomically impossible, he cut the sentence with a period (.)
Bring me some posters who brave enough to make clear statements of opinion and not hide behind long mutiple quotes of Europeans


thanks. lioness

---

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=008800;p=1#000016


Look, dumbo, several times you've posted a poster-text saying: "you are a fucking asshole". While such thing is anatomically impossible. It's merely a stupid rant, nonsense and unscientific.


And again, what you've quoted has nothing to do with a response to HidayaAkade. You've just made that up.


But this happens when folks like yourself with a low IQ are trying to get involved into science.


http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=008800;p=1#000017


You've lost the battle in this thread big time. So all that is left for you here now is trollin'.

In the meanwhile you still have not explained how we get from a stereotype African to a stereotype European, without having a intermediate look like Terentius Neo.



 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
It takes like three or for posts for clarification with this guy, waste of time

Naturally if the discussion was about physical transitions and a joke is thrown in on physicality it could easily get confused.

The following simple answer was all that was necessary

" it is anatomically impossible that someone is a fvcking asshole"

I think the problem is Troll Patrol has some religious thing about not posting curses.

Any way I never said the person was physically an asshole.

It's mentally, enough with this TP Troll
 

---

Posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
It takes like three or for posts for clarification with this guy, waste of time

Naturally if the discussion was about physical transitions and a joke is thrown in on physicality it could easily get confused.

The following simple answer was all that was necessary

" it is anatomically impossible that someone is a fvcking asshole"

I think the problem is Troll Patrol has some religious thing about not posting curses.

Any way I never said the person was physically an asshole.

It's mentally, enough with this TP Troll

---

I did not need a elaborated explanation, to people with intelligence. But since you are slow minded and your IQ is like that of the backside of a hog, it took a lot of effort and pain to make it clear to you. This is how stupid you actually are. By the laughable rubbish you've been posting.


Sad, simply sad.


In the meanwhile you still have not explained how we get from a stereotype African to a stereotype European, without having a intermediate look like Terentius Neo.


But all you do now is type more crap...since you've lost this thread big time. Many posts ago. Hilarious!


 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:

I maintain that kinky hair is a recent adaptation

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:

I maintain that kinky hair is a recent adaptation

---

There is no telling for sure what skin or hair type they had.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
What scientist? What did they "say" about the hair of early man?

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:

I maintain that kinky hair is a recent adaptation

---

There is no telling for sure what skin or hair type they had.

---

---

I'm saying they can't say anything because the oldest humans remains are bare bones and have no indication of hair type or skin color.
Most scientists of today however assume that these earliest humans have the same hair type as predominant modern human hair types of the same region, for example in Kenya.
Thus reconstructions of early hominids is highly speculative
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Hair type is speculation for early man thus far by Scientist.

I am speculating that kinky hair is recent. Why? In the Old world including Asia. People of the same/similar lineage have both kinky/wavy hair and straightish hair. Not only in Africa. You need to look at things holistically and not through the eyes of a Eurocentrist ...or even dogmatic Afrocentrist.

Early man was definitely "black". You do understand that black is also a subjective term. Anyone who read enough will understand this stuff. Norton speculated on "how black" was early man. Kittles agreed with her in that landmark paper of 2009/10?

If you read ...and understood Nortons PhD thesis you will grasp that idea. The thesis is freely available on the web.

Read enough of Tishkoff and you will also understand that she also has reservation of the location and process of pigmentation of early man. (not I said the PIGMENTATION process not depigmentation).

That is why Guido Barbujani said we are ALL Africans and modern Europeans are a sub-set of Africans.
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Dont get it??!!

Black Africans, Black Persians, Black Taiwanese, Black Philipenos, Black Dravidians, Black Australians, Black Harrapan....and light/brown Tunisians. I hope you follow. This is how it was prior to 1500AD.


 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
Dont get it??!!

Black Africans, Black Persians, Black Taiwanese, Black Philipenos, Black Dravidians, Black Australians, Black Harrapan....and light/brown Tunisians. I hope you follow. This is how it was prior to 1500AD.

---

1) what is the minimum block number for being black?

2) what is the maximum number for being white?

3) why are central South Americans on the same latitude of Africans, same relation to the equator, not as dark as the Africans on that latitude (according to this map) ?
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
As usual with you. you miss the nuances. I said old world including Asia. I deliberating left out the New World(the Americas).
Because to the laymen it will look like the pattern is NOT followed. But if you look carefully...it is followed!!! Central America and areas around the equator IS darker!! Not enough time for "selective sweep" to occur? But the pattern is already established.

Oh!! Blocks??? White is also subjective...just as black.
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
For the geographically challenged..Lands Of The Blacks

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
Dont get it??!!

Black Africans, Black Persians, Black Taiwanese, Black Philipenos, Black Dravidians, Black Australians, Black Harrapan....and light/brown Tunisians. I hope you follow. This is how it was prior to 1500AD.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
Dont get it??!!

Black Africans, Black Persians, Black Taiwanese, Black Philipenos, Black Dravidians, Black Australians, Black Harrapan....and light/brown Tunisians. I hope you follow. This is how it was prior to 1500AD.




Cacausoids were always in Africa.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
Dont get it??!!

Black Africans, Black Persians, Black Taiwanese, Black Philipenos, Black Dravidians, Black Australians, Black Harrapan....and light/brown Tunisians. I hope you follow. This is how it was prior to 1500AD.




Cacausoids were always in Africa.

---

You have circled the indigenous blacks of Africa

Now please circle the inidgenous whites of the world including the ones who were always in Africa, thanks

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor:


There weren't any and aren't any indigenous whites to Africa.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor:


There weren't any and aren't any indigenous whites to Africa.

---

xyyman appointed you as his spokesperson ?

let him speak for himself

Also I thought you were an advocate of Mike's albino theory, that whites started in Africa. As we know the highest rates of albinism are in Tanzania, the white motherland

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
Dont get it??!!

Black Africans, Black Persians, Black Taiwanese, Black Philipenos, Black Dravidians, Black Australians, Black Harrapan....and light/brown Tunisians. I hope you follow. This is how it was prior to 1500AD.

---

1) what is the minimum block number for being black?

2) what is the maximum number for being white?

3) why are central South Americans on the same latitude of Africans, same relation to the equator, not as dark as the Africans on that latitude (according to this map) ?

---

You should have posted your favorit people's pics along, with this.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor:


There weren't any and aren't any indigenous whites to Africa.

---

xyyman appointed you as his spokesperson ?

let him speak for himself

Also I thought you were an advocate of Mike's albino theory, that whites started in Africa. As we know the highest rates of albinism are in Tanzania, the white motherland

---

Funny this coming from you, speaking for Mike now, and speaking for Swenet, and for xyyman in this very same thread.


Anyway, xyyman already spoke of this and made his point clear, I'm just underlining his message for you!


Genetic sequenced Albinism in Africans has similar genes as is found in modern Europeans, as I have posted before. The same goes for blue eyes etc...which all can be found as either fixed or non-fixed, within African populations. These alleles became stable during the Holocene in Northern Europe, likely the climate change played part in this. Again dumbo...There weren't whites in ancient Africa. You have nothing else, except for trolling the forum, while switching your pseudo accounts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor:


There weren't any and aren't any indigenous whites to Africa.

---

xyyman appointed you as his spokesperson ?

let him speak for himself

Also I thought you were an advocate of Mike's albino theory, that whites started in Africa. As we know the highest rates of albinism are in Tanzania, the white motherland

---

Funny this coming from you, speaking for Mike now, and speaking for Swenet, and for xyyman in this very same thread.


Anyway, xyyman already spoke of this and made his point clear, I'm just underlining his message for you!


Genetic sequenced Albinism in Africans has similar genes as is found in modern Europeans, as I have posted before. The same goes for blue eyes etc...which all can be found as either fixed or non-fixed, within African populations. These alleles became stable during the Holocene in Northern Europe, likely the climate change played part in this. Again dumbo...There weren't whites in ancient Africa. You have nothing else, except for trolling the forum, while switching your pseudo accounts.

---

show me an anthropogy or biology text that says Europeans are albinos

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DD'eDeN:
"There weren't whites in ancient Africa" Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor"

Where on earth do you think African black-skinned people came from?

African white-skinned ancestors, (with non-white hair, and lots of it!).

(Of course they were ancestral to all people, not just currently black-skinned people.)


Highest proportion of albinos: Tanzania, Nigeria, Namibia.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor:

So are albinos white people or is it a genetic defect?

---

You often post peer reviewed science articles but the fact that you ask this question makes me think you're been taking courses at the Bonehead Studies Department at the University of Mikeology




You forgot you posted this?>

quote:

---

Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor:

Have fun with your luscan-scale theory, while ignoring the obvious. Distribution and movement.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:

Cacausoids were always in Africa. ...Europeans entered Africa relatively recently.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DD'eDeN:
TP: "They come from the black population. Right?"

Define "They" in context please. Who are you referring to? Albinos in Tanzania/Nigeria/Namibia? Or the other groups I mentioned in response to:

"There weren't whites in ancient Africa" Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor"

DD'eDeN: "Where on earth do you think African black-skinned people came from? African white-skinned ancestors, (with non-white hair, and lots of it!).

(Of course they were ancestral to all people, not just currently black-skinned people.)"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DD'eDeN:
Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor asked a question: "They come from the black population. Right?"

Then Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor answered it: -"Albinos is Tansania/ Namibian/Nigeria are from "black populations"."

- - -

Ponsford, please provide a link or abstract of this "new study in 2014". Thanks.

---

Is = in (the auto correction played games, again).

And in both instances I've stated the same.

But, I'm starting wonder if you actually know what these populations in origin look like.






 

---

Posted by DD'eDeN (Member # 21966) on :
 
The photos seem to show a dark eyed infant?

Albinos occur in all animals, obviously including all human groups, and not just among very melanized humans, where it is much more noticeable.

Albino skin reflects far more sunlight than black skin, due to high albedo/reflectivity, so an albino stays cooler due to less solar infra-red radiation absorption, but still gets skin damage from sustained exposure to Ultra-Violet radiation.

The black population from Tanzania, Nigeria, Namibia had white-skin ancestors. They evolved skin colors that provided better camouflage with their surroundings; eumelanin(dark brown) & phaeomelanin(red) were the skin pigments.

UV radiation is less significant under the thick canopy of the tropical rainforest(gray-bark Pygmies), more significant in open woodlands(black-shade Bantus) and more so in open plains and deserts (apricot KhoiSan).

Woods mice are bark gray, beach mice are sandy blonde.

I agree that 40-60ka AMH emigrants had dark skin.
 

---

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
For the geographically challenged..Lands Of The Blacks

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
Dont get it??!!

Black Africans, Black Persians, Black Taiwanese, Black Philipenos, Black Dravidians, Black Australians, Black Harrapan....and light/brown Tunisians. I hope you follow. This is how it was prior to 1500AD.

---

---

Here is another example of The base at work- An ES member going under
the name "Taharqua" schools "the white faithful" of Eupedia.

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/25052-Egyptian-civilisation-and-ancient-Egyptians

and of course recently VNN:
Even his main opponent Frank openly admitted defeat- see below.
http://vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=309339&page=15
 

---

Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
 
Per assorted racists/Thamm:

"Modern anthropological studies mean everything, because when you look at the african american wannabe egyptian negroids logic, its apprent that it's flawed. The same fucks that use the term lighskin and call obama black, are the same ones calling us sand , along with calling the ancient egyptians negros. I find it hilarious they dont look at black as a color, but a race, as if we egyptians who are clearly not black, arent african??? Like notice I dont use the terms white/black on my videos, it's because this doesnt make any sense at all. How can a golden brown egyptian person be black, where is the logic there. Us Egyptians are more native to north east africa, and africa as a whole then half the african population from the horn. There are studies, actually countless studies done on us egyptians comparing us and our ancestors using dental morphology, skeletal measurements, autosomal dna, the list goes on. They all prove that the ancient egyptians whom btw never left egypt, didn't change that much from how they were in ancient times. I mean One of the most common ways of assessing population relationships has been the comparative analysis of skull types.Such a study was carried out by the physical anthropologist C. Loring Brace and five co-researchers (Brace et al., 1993) who statistically analyzed a range of 24 cranial measurements from diverse world samples, including ancient Egyptians. The results of the analysis suggest that ancient Egyptian crania had elements in common with those from Southwest Asia and Neolithic Europe, as well as North and Northeast Africa. However, the Egyptian skulls showed very little similarity to African crania from the more distant south and west. The plot below shows, as accurately as is possible in two dimensions, the relationships between craniofacial configurations of the various regional samples. Joann Fletcher, a consultant to the Bioanthropology Foundation in the UK, in what she calls an "absolute, thorough study of all ancient Egyptian hair samples" — relied on various techniques, such as electron microscopy and chromatography to analyze hair samples (Parks, 2000). She discovered that most of the natural hair types and those used for hairpieces were made of what she calls "Caucasian-type" hair, including even instances of blonde and red hair. Fletcher surmises that some of the lighter hair types may have been influenced by the presence of ancient Libyans and Greeks in ancient Egypt. However, this type of hair was also found to be present in much earlier times. Scientists at the University of Cairo tested DNA from the remains of pyramid workers from 2600 BC, and found that the DNA of ancient Egyptians matches that of modern Egyptians. That is, the people living in Egypt now are essentially the same as the people living there thousands of years ago. The ABO blood type frequencies of ancient Egyptians showed no signs of differing significantly from that of present-day Egyptians. According to the authors, "the bloodgroup distribution obtained for Asiut, Gebelen and Aswan necropoles shows resemblances with the present leucoderm population of Egypt and particularly with its more 'conservative' fraction (the Copts, MOURANT et al., 1976)."
NORTH AFRICAN CAUCASIANS HAVE BEEN IN NORTH AFRICA SINCE THE PALEOLITHIC "Caucasoids who arrived during the Paleolithic (Maca-Mayer;2003) thrived and remain there till this day,reflecting 40,000 years of uninterrupted continuity." (Sanchez- Quinto et al;2012). You hate the fact Egyptians were not Negroids ,making your fairy tales as you go along has failed your Afrocentric sites and you where your BS comes from DNA OF EGYPTIANS - The Y chromosome ,that come downs the father linage and biologically impossible to alter, makes it BIOLOGICALLY impossible for a modern Egyptian to be an invader,ARAB OR WHATEVER ELSE . Caucasian means people of north African,Asian,European descent. The ancient Caucasain Libyans and Egyptians called negriods ,troglodytes...cave dwellers The Steele of Phiale forbade any negroid from entering Egypt - The DNA of modern Egyptians makes it biologically impossible for them to be Arab or whatever invader- they have more African Y chrs than half of the black Ethiopian and Sudanese tribes. Therefore the ancient and modern Egyptians are the same determined by DNA - Scientists at the University of Cairo tested DNA from the remains of pyramid workers from 2600 BC, and found that the DNA of ancient Egyptians matches that of modern Egyptians. That is, the people living in Egypt now are essentially the same as the people living there thousands of years ago with little impact from foreign invaders PROFESSOR MOAMENA KAMEL (IMMUNOLOGIST, CAIRO UNIVERSITY) - "The Predynastic of Upper Egypt and the Late Dynastic of Lower Egypt are more closely related to each other than to any other population. As a whole, they show ties with the European Neolithic, North Africa, modern Europe, and, moreremotely, India, but not at all with sub-Saharan Africa, eastern Asia, Oceania, or the New World." (Brace; 1993) - Egyptians are a good indication of the biological makeup of their ancestors (the ancient Egyptians). On this point, various studies, including genome-wide analyses, have consistently shown modern Egyptians in general as being overwhelmingly of West Eurasian descent. That includes Upper Egyptians Omran et al. (2009) - We examined radiographs of 12 Egyptian royal mummies obtained by two of the authors (W.R. and J.E.H.) and never before published. ...These people were Caucasian." (” 1988 J.E. Harris, Braunstein, M.D. et al) - "The Predynastic of Upper Egypt and the Late Dynastic of Lower Egypt are more closely related to each other than to any other population. As a whole, they show ties with the European Neolithic, North Africa, modern Europe, and, more remotely, India, but not at all with sub-Saharan Africa, eastern Asia, Oceania, or the New World." (Brace; 1993) SUDAN PYRAMIDS The Pyramids are INFERIOR than the Egyptian ones The first of the Meroe Pyramids were copied about 950 years later the last Egyptian pyramids were completed INFERIOR PYRAMIDS BS LAID TO REST The Dogons LMFAO ha ha ha LOL these primitive tribal people are living in Mali today,untouched and still stuck in the stone age. Timbuktu the university was founded by Arabs ,all the scripts are in Arabic. There is no negroid alphabet invented until 1949,Nok Language. Negroids had to rely on Arabic,Greek,Latin and later on French and English,if their fragile brains could grasp to learn to read DENTAL A 2006 bio-archaeological study on the dental morphology of ancient Egyptians by Professor Joel Irish shows dental traits characteristic of current indigenous North Africans and to a lesser extent Middle Eastern and southern European populations, but not at all to Sub-Saharan populations


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

Assorted racists/Thamm say:
Thule?/Thamm says:
Negroids had to rely on Arabic,Greek,Latin and later on French and English,if their fragile brains could grasp to learn to read.

Your racist ranting bout "negroids" has pretty much been debunked by modern data and up to date studies.
Here's a detailed roundup destroying the same, for the record.


Brace 93 Clines and clusters- showing allegedly white Egypt- DEBUNKED.




Caucasoid Egyptian hair claims- - DEBUNKED.




So-called "missing" blacks from ancient North Africa- DEBUNKED.






"Missing" negro alphabets developed only in 1949- LOL- DEBUNKED.

Dubious buffoon. The Nubians had their own alphabet millennia earlier.



2006 dental study showing absence of Africans- DEBUNKED!
ANd actually, the negroid Badarian as shown by Irish were quite representative of the
ancient foundation population of Egypt. Whoops- There goes the laughable dental whitewash.




Radiology of the royal mummies proving ancient Egyptians were white- DEBUNKED.
Harris and Wente say otherwise with their detailed X-ray studies.




Todays' Egyptians almost the same as the ancients- DEBUNKED.
They are heavily admixed with Arabs, and others, which is why moderns cannot be considered identical to ancients.
Shown by not just DNA, BUT ALSO skeletal and cranial data from credible scholars.




The Steele of Phiale forbade any negroid from entering Egypt

^^Hapless dolt, your attempt at a "racial" angle fails. The very same pharaohs who
forbid Nubians to enter Egypt in that era, were themselves of Nubian background!

"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.
Especially interesting, it was a member of
this dynasty- that decreed that no Nehsy
(riverine Nubian of the principality of
Kush), except such as came for trade or
diplomatic reasons, should pass by the
Egyptian fortress at the southern end of
the Second Nile Cataract. Why would
this royal family of Nubian ancestry ban
other Nubians from coming into
Egyptian territory? 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)


All your racist ranting about "inferior negroids" and "fragile brains" has been debunked in detail, and long ago, not only here. What else you got? You simply keep ignoring the evidence that renders such ranting simple rubbish. But of course there is one truth in your rant- your brain is indeed "fragile" and much too dumb to be let out on its own.
 

---

Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
 
Re assorted racist rants and claims, a few final loose ends wrapped up for the record and new readers..


As regards Eurocentric white Egypt claims based on Raxter - DEBUNKED.
In fact, Raxter 2011 affirms the clustering of Egyptians with Africans. quote"

"It can be noted that none of the Northeast African groups are significantly different from any other African groups (East African (EA), African Pygmy (AP), Khoe-San (KS)) (Table 27). 156 Therefore, West Africans of both sexes appear to possess the longest distal bones relative to the proximal for the upper limb. Ancient Egyptians and Nubians thus possess generally tropically adapted upper limb proportions, with their brachial indices grouping with the majority of other African groups."

"Ancient Egyptians and Nubians of both sexes are consistently significantly different in limb length proportions from Northern and Southern Europeans, with their brachial and crural indices grouping with the majority of other Africans."
--Raxter Michele, 2011. Egyptian Body Size: A Regional and Worldwide Comparison by Raxter. Published Thesis, 2011. University of South Florida 2011.

And body mass in the Nile Valley is linked not only with climate variants but with food production as well,
debunking simplistic claims of "wandering Caucasoids."



and Raxter et al 2008-



As regards so-called "updated" 2015 data showing "white" or Caucasoid Egypt, or that moderns are
almost the same as the ancients- DEBUNKED. Moderns are heavily admixed and cannot be considered
the same as the ancient population- a fact borne out not only by DNA, but skeletal and cranial
evidence as well. Here is "updated" data from 2015, showing the recent admixture. In short, much
non-African ancestry in Egyptians traced to Islamic invasions and expansions

"Using ADMIXTURE and principal-component analysis (PCA) (Figure 1A),
we estimated the average proportion of non-African ancestry in the Egyptians
to be 80% and dated the midpoint of the admixture event by using ALDER20 to
around 750 years ago (Table S2), consistent with the Islamic expansion and dates
reported previously. "
-- Luca Pagani et al. 2015. Tracing the Route of Modern Humans out of Africa by Using 225
Human Genome Sequences from Ethiopians and Egyptians. e American Journal of Human Genetics.
American Journal of Human Genetics, Volume 96, Issue 6, p986–991,


As regards the alleged white Gurna people- DEBUNKED. If anything they show definite African
ancestral elements.




The ABO blood type frequencies of ancient Egyptians & assorted white Egypt claims- DEBUNKED.



As regards E-M35 markers excluding "negroids" - DEBUNKED




As regards Keita saying Ancient Egyptians are the same genetically speaking as moderns- DEBUNKED.
The Raving racist says:
Here is a well renowned black professor with an expertise in genetics in ancient Egypt he essentially states that modern Egyptians are the same as their ancient counterparts genetically speaking.
* "The basic overall genetic profile of the modern population is consistent with the diversity of ancient populations that would have been indigenous to northeastern Africa and subject to the range of evolutionary influences over time"
-----------------------

^^The raving racist pulls a quote from an article Keita wrote for National Geographic but PREDICTABLY
AND CONVENIENTLY, it leaves out the rest of what Keita said, which affirms the indigenous African
nature of the ancient Egyptians particularly the foundational early populations. It is wholly bogus
to say that Keita considers the moderns the same as ancients. The "supporting"
Keita quote actually debunks the claim- for it is clear Keita notes that the ancients were diverse
and is merely saying that the moderns are also. Who "denies" this? Everyone knows that the coming of
Hyskos in the New Kingdom and Greeks, Romans, Assyrians, and finally Arabs added "diversity" to Egypt.
That is not and never was at issue. CA Diop never "denied" such elementary matters. But the 'diversity'
ALSO includes so-called "negroid" elements- who under Eurocentric doctrine are supposed to be "missing"
from Egypt until very late in the game.In reality, they were there from Day 1.




Here is the conveniently missing text from Keita's National Geographic blurb. He notes that the weight of
evidence points to a dominant African population profile- as proved by skeletal, dental, cranial and DNA evidence,
and that LATER elements to Egypt from the Near East and Europe would join this African foundation.
QUOTE:

Overall, these studies can be interpreted as suggesting that the Egyptian Nile Valley's indigenous population had a craniofacial pattern that evolved and emerged in northeastern Africa, whose geography in relationship to climate largely explains the variation. Dental affinity studies generally agree with the craniofacial results, though they differ in the details. The body proportions of ancient Egyptians generally are similar to those of tropical (more southern) Africans.. Very little DNA has been retrieved from ancient Egyptian remains, and there are not many studies on the modern population. However, the results of analyses of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and the Y chromosome in the living Egyptian population show the existence of very old African lineages that are consistent with the fossil remains and of younger lineages of more recent evolution, along with evidence of the assimilation of later migrants from the Near East and Europe.."
--SOY Keita. Ancient Egyptian Origins- Human Biology. 2008. National Geographic

--------------------------------------
^^Curious how the distorter forgets to include the above in
the alleged "supporting" Keita reference..


As regards claims that North Africans (with the allegedly "missing negroids" are the "progenitors" of white people- DEBUNKED.


^^Pure non-negroid "progenitors" of white people...



And so it goes...
 

---

Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
 
It's interesting Ish brings up San. Could be that their hair is tighter as a result of spending more time as modern humans under the sun? I think xyyman's theory is sound.

All people have genes for white skin on their palms and souls.


Africans with course hair on their heads have soft hair on their face.


 

---

Posted by DD'eDeN (Member # 21966) on :
 
Note: Congo pygmies have NO steatopygia (extended buttocks) because they do not walk on dry sand.

Note: Andaman Pygmies (beaches half the year) and KhoiSan women (Kalahari) walk on dry sand and have steatopygia.

Note: KhoiSan have slitted eyes walk on open plains.

Note: Congo Pygmies and Andaman Pygmies have round eyes, walk in rainforest.

Note: Andaman Pygmies, Congo Pygmies and Khoisan children have peppercorn hair, with bare skin between tufts of coiled hair, unlike agricultural Bantu. This seems to be archaic Hss AMH phemotype, the oldest form of coiled hair distribution. (Not sure, perhaps also in Australian Aborigines?) Functionally would work as "touch antennae" in small dome huts.
 

---

Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
@Fourty2Tribes,

Never looked it like that, but indeed. You're right.
 

---

Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
 
Zarahan I have to wonder if you're a member of the Truth Seekers group on Facebook. This pos troll David Bowden (who claimed to have an African Studies phd and I put an end to that) posted that snipped Keita quote AND that "We Wuz Kings" trailer in the group, so I had to wonder if you were also in there.
 

---

Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
Zarahan I have to wonder if you're a member of the Truth Seekers group on Facebook. This pos troll David Bowden (who claimed to have an African Studies phd and I put an end to that) posted that snipped Keita quote AND that "We Wuz Kings" trailer in the group, so I had to wonder if you were also in there.

---

I doubt that person has a Ph.D. in Africana. He she knows very little about Africa.

This is a great channel.

https://youtube.com/channel/UC12lU5ymIvSpgl8KntDQUQA
 

---

Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
 
I confirmed he doesn't after I emailed the chair of the African studies department at the school he claimed to graduate from and she confirmed he was never a student there
 

---

Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
 
Nope- never even heard of these so called "Truthseekers." Maybe
they should be called "BS Spinners." What these bozos don't realize
is that their days of easy propaganda are gone. People are
increasingly in possession of the facts and are challenging their BS
around the web, with good data coming up in Google thanks to ES
and other venues. Even Reloaded which is not set up to be a very
active forum is scoring 400 hits a day or more last stat count
I saw- way more than "doctored" Wiki articles on these type topics.
There is always plenty of work to do and still to be done, but
all their efforts to twist the truth, or sandbag dispersion
of the facts are being defeated.
 

---

Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
 
A number of serious books are citing Egyptsearch's info and
analysis. Footnote on this one discussed Saharan genesis. Kuper
is a heavyweight guy in the area- see his 2006 article on
the Sahara as a key motor of Africa's evolution


 

---

Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
^Wauw!
 

---