posted 12 November 2004 03:56 PM            

quote:

---

I didn't ask for his help or anyones help.

---

quote:

---

I did need it

---

posted 12 November 2004 04:22 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Seems like you are begging for help.

---

You now sometimes i wonder whether:

1. You are just a troll who doesn't seem to really read my posts but just respond to them with profane arguments.

2. You have self-affirmation problems.

3. You are a fascist and a philosopher.

So which one is it? 1, 2 or 3?

quote:

---

Indeed you do. You make some interesting, and inevitable Freudian slips.

---

Sorry i meant to write, i did not need any help.

posted 12 November 2004 04:23 PM            

quote:

---

Yes most Africans share more in common within them than they do with other non-African populations because they cluster together.

---

As a general and sincerely helpful suggestion....especially given your poor understanding of mtdna studies, and your tendency to glean from your sources only what you want to hear, and not necessarily what they are actually saying:

try to avoid over-reliance on mtdna.

These studies come out every few months, and people (like Greeks vs. Macedonians) throw them at one another, as if they are substitutes for critical thinking rather than a mere aid to it.

It's best to use a multi-disciplinary approach: dna, history, geography, phylogeny, morphology, linguistics, etc..

It's not a matter of DNA being "superior" or inferior to other methods. Rather it's a matter of being able to cross-verify and also develop a holistic understanding of the issues at hand.

Question, have you ever even been to Africa? You seem to be unfamiliar with even the basics of Africa: geography, peoples, language and culture. I think you should also visit Africa to at least get a more realistic and less racist view.

posted 12 November 2004 04:30 PM            

quote:

---

1. You are just a troll who doesn't seem to really read my posts but just respond to them with profane arguments.

---

As for trolling, one definition of a troll is someone who argues not from a sincere belief, but rather in hopes of upsetting others, often for reasons of personal or in your case racial animosity.

posted 12 November 2004 04:46 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
[B]Question, have you ever even been to Africa? You seem to be unfamiliar with even the basics of Africa: geography, peoples, language and culture. I think you should also visit Africa to at least get a more realistic and less racist view.

peace...

---

Population genetics is the most accurate anthropology we have to this day. Early Anthropology was heavily based on race which today most anthropologists debunk. Insteed race was replaced by cline, since in human populations genetics race is not determined nor objectively defined. The minority believe it could still be useful in biomedicine.

I found it funny that you ignored the fact that North Africans cluster more closely with Near Easterns than with the sub-Saharan African majority.

I've never been to Africa but one thing is clear to me. People who make from all the diverse African cultures (and also phenotypes) one entity or a black race are absolutely non-scientific and even racist.

posted 12 November 2004 05:28 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orionix:

I found it funny that you ignored the fact that North Africans cluster more closely with Near Easterns than with the sub-Saharan African majority.

---

Orionix,
This have already been discussed here on other threads. Also, Rasol has already tried to get through to you (which you refuse to understand/realize/or choose to ignore). A cluster is only as good as the people you choose to sample from. The sample you are talking about are taken from people that arrived in Africa under 2000 years.
The majority of the population in North Egypt (lower Egypt) is a relatively new influx of people. It only makes sense that they cluster with near east people when their ansectors recently moved to Egypt around the 700 AD (Arab invasion).

As Rasol tried to break it down to you, I'll try on your 13 year old level.

In my sample of America.
I can gather black people in America genetics (exclude the aboriginal people and white people).

Thus, based on my genetic findings the people in America today cluster with the people of Africa.

Wow!, isn't that amazing.

posted 12 November 2004 06:12 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orionix:
Ok first of all racial pride and black supremacy will bring you nowhere. It will just make things worse in the US.

---

I stand by my earlier assessment of your being mentally challenged. If you don't know the meanings of the words you are using, I suggest you don't use them. A supremacist is one, who unfoundedly thinks he/she is superior to another. Stating facts has nothing to do with supremacy. You need to start taking your grade school grammar lessons more seriously, if nothing else.!

quote:

---

Orionix:
Again, you should read my posts more carefully since i havn't wrote the Egyptians weren't Africans but they weren't "black" or "white" or any other so-called "race".

---

I have read your gibberish quite enough. I have yet to see any indication that there is any improvement.

posted 12 November 2004 06:26 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by blackman:
Orionix,
This have already been discussed here on other threads. Also, Rasol has already tried to get through to you (which you refuse to understand/realize/or choose to ignore). A cluster is only as good as the people you choose to sample from. The sample you are talking about are taken from people that arrived in Africa under 2000 years.

---

Did you never hear about genetic trees?

It's true that humans share 99.9% of their gene pool in common but this doesn't mean that biodiversity cannot be measured.

The presence of light skinned people in NW Africa and Lower Egypt is known since 30,000 years ago. Their origin was most probably the Near East. They have probably expanded south into the Sahara, intermixing with earlier black populations such as the Azer and Bafour.

Now most genetic trees you will find represent North Africans being closer to Near Easterns.

Just except the fact that not all Africans are the same, not culturally or phenotypically.

Egyptian-Africans share much more with their people than they do with other Africans.

Edit: As you can see the Berbers of North Africa have significant black influence. No one can deny this.

However in terms of genetic distance they are still closer to Near Easterns than to other Africans. The chart is taken from Luigi Cavalli-Sforza's book: History and Geography of human genes (1994)

[This message has been edited by Orionix (edited 12 November 2004).]

posted 12 November 2004 06:30 PM            

quote:

---

I stand by my earlier assessment of your being mentally challenged. If you don't know the meanings of the words you are using, I suggest you don't use them. A supremacist is one, who unfoundedly thinks he/she is superior to another. Stating facts has nothing to do with supremacy. You need to start taking your grade school grammar lessons more seriously, if nothing else.!

---

Nah the only one here who suffers from mental retardation is you. You guys seem to have some serious self-affirmation problems. I would suggest you to contact your psychiatrist as soon as you can.
If you want i can make the call for you.

posted 12 November 2004 06:54 PM            

quote:

---

The presence of light skinned people in NW Africa and Lower Egypt is known since 30,000 years ago. Their origin was most probably the Near East

---

30,000 years ago the Nile Delta was an uninhabitable swamp area. The modern day light skinned Imazigh[Berber] population probabaly comes from the Methcanoid populations. Metchnoids either were Khoisans or Cro-magnoids. Aflou had affinities with sub-Saharan Africans. BTW, Howells analysis of pre-dyanstic Giza plateau cranial found it was a intermediate between European and sub-Saharan. Howells uses the cluster and clines analysis. He works from a computer of compiled data of various ethnic groups

How do you know what the skin color of a person was 30,000 years ago?

quote:

---

They have probably expanded south into the Sahara, intermixing with earlier black populations such as the Azer and Bafour.

---

This was not untill much later periods. The coastl regions of Northern Africa were relativly isolated from the Saharan regions.

quote:

---

Now most genetic trees you will find represent North Africans being closer to Near Easterns.

---

Yes, because most people exclude the Tuareg, Siwa Oasis Berbers, Souss, and Chuleh Berbers. Most of these samples in the study you present most likely came from Kaybila where the lightest Berbers[Imazigh] live.

Berber is a linguistic classification and not an ethnicity. Each northern African groupos generally calls themselves by their own name. Tuaregs say they are Kel Tamelsheq, Kaybila calls themselves Imzaigh, and Chuleh call themselves different things as well.

Besides this, Greco-Roman writers record both white skinned people and black skinned people living in Northern Africa. The black skinned people were mostly around Southern Morocco,southern Libya[Fezzan], and other Oasis areas. A modern black population lives in the Oasis areas known as Haratin. The Haratin are most likely desendants of the first cultivators in the Sahara but were later put into servitude by the nomadic Tuareg. ABO bloodtyping has shown this to be true.

The ancient Egyptians[Kemetians] showed two distinct Libya nomadic groups. One being the Tenhennu[ dark skinned Libyans] and the other such as the Tamahou[sometimes shown with red or blondish hair]

posted 12 November 2004 06:54 PM            

quote:

---

I found it funny that you ignored the fact that North Africans cluster more closely with Near Easterns than with the sub-Saharan African majority.

---

What's funny is how you dropped you claims about East African clustering with "Non Africa", and now substitute an irrelevant argument about North Africans. Of course I ignored it, until you wrote:

quote:

---

I've never been to Africa but one thing is clear to me. People who make from all the diverse African cultures one entity

---

however the closest we have to that would be your misguided attempt to make the diverse African cultures into two (north/sub saharan) entities, leaving you to work out the resultant self criticism....

quote:

---

People who make from all the diverse African cultures into [two] entities are absolutely non-scientific and even racist.

---

posted 12 November 2004 07:01 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orionix:
Nah the only one here who suffers from mental retardation is you. You guys seem to have some serious self-affirmation problems. I would suggest you to contact your psychiatrist as soon as you can.
If you want i can make the call for you.

---

If I were to receive a dime for every childish statement you make on this forum, I would truly be super-rich. There is a thread that has to do with "Confusion about Nubia", targeting folks like you. However, you initially acknowledged Nubians as blacks, and other Sub-Saharan groups. You even at first blocked out posts about Upper Egyptians having affinity with Nubians and the Horn of Africa folks. It was when it dawned to you that, deep down you couldn't deny this reality, that you decided to argue for Nubians & the Horn of Africa folks as also being "raceless". You aren't kidding anyone here. In fact, it reminds me of the very same tactics used by the likes of Stormfront and other Nazi-based White Supremacist groups. Your first reference was to the Stormfront web-page...a coincidence? I think not!

posted 12 November 2004 07:08 PM            

quote:

---

---

What happened to "east africa's" intermediacy between Africa and the rest of the world. Or are you throwing away that bad argument like a live grendade? Even so, I am surprised you post a chart refuting it. Sloppy work for a troll.

Meanwhile....we expect modern day north africa to show affinity with the levant and southern europe, (why not?) but your graph does not even show us that (irrelevant) theory.

Perhaps you are trying to prove that you can't read your own chart? In which case, point taken.

posted 12 November 2004 07:11 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
Yes, because most people exclude the Tuareg, Siwa Oasis Berbers, Souss, and Chuleh Berbers. Most of these samples in the study you present most likely came from Kaybila where the lightest Berbers[Imazigh] live.

---

True there are the Kabyle and the Toureg. I don't know which group is more dominant but i agree with you that North Africans are somewhere intermediate between Europeans and sub-Saharan Africans.

We don't know what skin color people had 30,000 years ago but we know that the most common maternal haplotype in North Africa is U6 which most probably disperded from the Near East.

quote:

---

Berber is a linguistic classification and not an ethnicity. Each northern African groupos generally calls themselves by their own name. Tuaregs say they are Kel Tamelsheq, Kaybila calls themselves Imzaigh, and Chuleh call themselves different things as well.

---

It's more linguistic but yet to say an ethnic group or a population. We cannot deny the biodiveristy between African populations.

Most people who lived in vicinity of the contemporary Sahalian desert were always dark skinned, no one is going to deny this.

When human skin color changed

Many books have been written praising the near-photographic realism of Paleolithic cave art. Few stress how seldom human figures are depicted. Very few point out that, whenever people and animals are depicted together, the hunters are routinely painted as darker than their prey. Some paleoanthropologists mention this oddity as evidence that the cave artists depicted animals realistically, but for some strange religious reason painted people much too dark. A more plausible explanation is that folks really were dark back then. The hunting scene above, showing dark-brown bowmen shooting medium-brown deer, was painted in what is now France. It dates from about thirteen millennia ago, around the time of the last Africa-to-Europe migration. Europeans had not yet lost their color as of this date.

Similarly, early Egyptian paintings depict only brown people. For example, consider the fragmentary picture of boats, at left. Examine the row of oarsmen. The picture dates from six millennia ago. Again, no European-looking people are to be seen. Of course, one could say that fair-complexioned people might simply not have reached Egypt yet by that time, but see the next example.

Another strategy of examining art approaches the question from the other direction, "When was the first portrait of an undoubtedly fair-complexioned, European-looking person painted?" As it turns out, it was a statue painted in Egypt about five millennia ago. It depicts Prince Rahotep and his Consort Nefret, of the Old Kingdom, early Fourth Dynasty. He is brown. She is pink. For this piece and similar examples ancient art, see P.P. Kahane, Ancient and Classical Art, ed. Hans L. C. Jaffe, 6 vols., 20,000 Years of World Painting, vol. 1 (New York: Dell, 1967).

The evidence of art suggests that the mutation making northern Europeans melanin deficient happened sometime between five and six millennia ago.

As it turns out, DNA analysis shows that the dramatic change in European complexion happened around the Baltic in about 3000 B.C. -- just yesterday, geologically speaking. This was a hundred millennia after our species' emergence. It was forty millennia after the invention of culture (art, music, language, religion, fashion). It was twenty millennia after horses and oxen were painted on the cave walls of Lascaux and Altamira. It was four millennia after the invention of agriculture -- long after the "The Clan of the Cave Bear" stopped hunting and settled down to raise crops. It was centuries after the invention of writing in Sumeria. It was around the time when Egypt's Early Dynastic Period was starting.

For details on the when and how of the paleness adaptation, read Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, Paolo Menozzi, and Alberto Piazza, The History and Geography of Human Genes, trans. Sarah Thorne (Princeton: Princeton University, 1994). This book is the most comprehensive DNA analysis yet published of the migrations and waves of human Diaspora that began about one hundred millennia ago in Africa and colonized the globe. It has become a standard reference for scholars of prehistory. It mainly covers events that transpired across the entire planet, but it spends a page (145) explaining the European paleness mutation. Here is what happened.

Vitamin D is essential to calcium metabolism. Without it, you get rickets: grotesquely bowed legs and malformed skull and chest. Human skin produces vitamin D when the sun's ultraviolet light penetrates the protective melanin layer. This means that the complexion our ancestors inherited from equatorial Africa was a delicate balance. Too little melanin (too fair a complexion) and you would get skin cancer. Too much melanin and you would not produce enough vitamin D.

As we spread out of Africa and across the globe, we moved into regions where sunlight was too weak to penetrate our skin. Fortunately, other animals also produce vitamin D and store it in their fat, just as we do. As long as we made a living by eating animals, especially animal fat, we simply consumed their vitamin D. Our own skin's inability to produce vitamin D in weak sunlight was not even noticed.

Next, about nine millennia ago, the invention of agriculture changed our diet. From then on, most of us lived mainly on grains (wheat, barley, oats). Farmers who lived around the Mediterranean and further south no longer ate vitamin D from animals, but their dark skins produced it from the bright sunlight of the region. Inuits and Laplanders who lived in the far north never switched to grains. They continue to consume mainly animal fat to this day and so acquire vitamin D despite weak sunlight. But the Gulf Stream washes northern Europe and warms the Baltic Sea. In this narrow region, the climate allowed the switch to agriculture, but sunlight was too weak to penetrate dark skin and produce vitamin D. Rickets spread through the population, as can be seen in the fossil bones of the time.

Then, about five millennia ago, a random mutation occurred along the Baltic. It suppresses melanin production and created a breed of people who could live off agriculture in the far north and still not get rickets. Their pale skins are so unprotected that even the weak sunlight of the far north can penetrate and produce vitamin D. Free from rickets, the pale ones multiplied and prospered as their rickety dark-skinned neighbors died out.

Folks remained dark in Africa. Paleness is harmful near the equator, so the pale ones never spread into Africa until the age of European expansion. Paleness offers neither advantage nor harm around the sunny Mediterranean, so people there are about a 50-50 mix between the pale European model of human being and the original African model. Nowadays, vitamin D is added to commercial foods, so rickets is rare, no matter where you live or how dark your complexion.

posted 12 November 2004 07:40 PM            

The article you posted from was from a historian/author at the University of Florida. He writes for the interracial voice. He is not a geneticist nor a biological anthropologist. He seems to interject his own comentary alogside the data he cites.

The color symbolism of reddish brown for males and yellowish color for female is symbolic to differences between males and females. This does not mean that Nofret in the picture was mixed or that her being lighter than Ra-Hotep means she was a different ethnicity. Studies have also shown that females of all races have less melanin than in males. This is true for blacks or whites.

Please stop plagarizing! quote your sources! I quote mine!

As far as reddish brown and yellowish conventions of women, see the following

[......The choice of the single red-brown color to represent The
Egyptian man,rather than a more realistic range of shades ,should
also considered within a wider symbolic scheme that included the
representations of foreginers. The foreigne men to the north and west
of Egypt were depicted by yellow skin[similar to that odf traditional
Egyptian women]; men to the south of Egypt were given black skin.
Although undoubtedly some Egyptians' skin pigmentation differed
little from that of Egypt's neighboors,in the Egyptian worldview
foreigners had to be distinguished . Thus Egyptian men had to be
marked by a common skin color that contrasted with the images of non-
Egyptian men. That the Egyptian women shared their skin color with
some foreign men scarcely mattered,since the Egyptian male is primary
and formed the reference point in these two color scemes---
contrasting in one with non-Egyptian males and in the other with
Egyptian females. Within the scheme of Egyptian/non-Egyptian skin
color,black was not desirable for ordinary humans ,because it marked
out figures as foreign ,as enemies of Egypt,and ultimatley as
represenatives of chaos;black thereby contrasted with its positive
meaning elsewhere. This example helps demostrate the importance of
context for reading color symbolism.........]

[......Thus,the gender distinctionencoded for human figures was
transferred at times to the divie world. The symbolisminherant in the
skin colors used for some deities and royal figures sugest that the
colors given to human skin---although initiallyseeming to be
naturalistic -----might also be symbolic. Male and female skin colors
were probabaly not uniform among the entire population of Egypt,with
pigmentation being darker in the south[closer to sub-sahara Africans]
and lighter in the north[closer to Mediterranean Near Easteners] A
woman from the south would probabaly have had darker skin than a man
from the North. Thus,the colorations used for skin tones in the art
must have been schematic [or symbolic] rather than realistic;the
clear gender distinction encoded in that scheme may have been based
on elite ideals relating to male and female roles,in which women's
responsibilities kept them indoors,so that they spent less time in
the sun than men.Nevertheless, the signifcance of the two colors may
be even deeper,making some as yet unknown but fundamental difference
between men and women in Egyptian worldview............]

The Ancient God Speak by Donald Redford

A Guide to Egyptian Religion

Page 57-61 Color Symbolism

Gay Robins

posted 12 November 2004 07:41 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
What happened to "east africa's" intermediacy between Africa and the rest of the world. Or are you throwing away that bad argument like a live grendade? Even so, I am surprised you post a chart refuting it. Sloppy work for a troll.

Meanwhile....we expect modern day north africa to show affinity with the levant and southern europe, (why not?) but your graph does not even show us that (irrelevant) theory.

Perhaps you are trying to prove that you can't read your own chart? In which case, point taken. ;

---

The answer to this is simple. In 1994 Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza estimated the "Caucasoid" (scientifly speaking the non-African influence) influence among Ethiopians as ~40%. New studies, from Dr. Neil Rich and Feldman from Standford university showed that this number, in fact, is even bigger.

posted 12 November 2004 07:53 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:

The article you posted from was from a historian/author at the University of Florida. He writes for the interracial voice. He is not a geneticist nor a biological anthropologist. He seems to interject his own comentary alogside the data he cites.

The color symbolism of reddish brown for males and yellowish color for female is symbolic to differences between males and females. This does not mean that Nofret in the picture was mixed or that her being lighter than Ra-Hotep means she was a different ethnicity. Studies have also shown that females of all races have less melanin than in males. This is true for blacks or whites.

Please stop plagarizing! quote your sources! I quote mine!

---

My source was taken from here:

Guest Editorial

The Egyptians probably exaggerated the differences between them and the foreginers. But this just shows that citzenship and nationality were by far more important to them.

Even today women are on average lighter skinned than men. Women require more vitamin D.

Again, this doesn't support your claim that ancient Egyptians were a black race who dominated or that the medieval Egyptians were significatly different from how we see them today.

posted 12 November 2004 07:59 PM            

quote:

---

[The answer to this is simple. In 1994 Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza estimated the "Caucasoid" (scientifly speaking the non-African influence) influence among Ethiopians as ~40%. New studies, from Dr. Neil Rich and Feldman from Standford university showed that this number, in fact, is even bigger. ][/QUOTE

Once again where did the samples come from and which ethnic group within Ethiopia? It's well known that the Amharan have slight admixture from Himyarite Yemani,but what about the Oromo? The Oromo are the oldest populations within the Horn of Africa.

You can't use genetic studies to measure caucasoid/ negriod admixture. Sfoza shoots himself in the foot since he does not believe in race.

[QUOTE]Similarly, early Egyptian paintings depict only brown people. For example, consider the fragmentary picture of boats, at left. Examine the row of oarsmen. The picture dates from six millennia ago. Again, no European-looking people are to be seen. Of course, one could say that fair-complexioned people might simply not have reached Egypt yet by that time, but see the next example.

The evidence of art suggests that the mutation making northern Europeans melanin deficient happened sometime between five and six millennia ago.
As it turns out, DNA analysis shows that the dramatic change in European complexion happened around the Baltic in about 3000 B.C. -- just yesterday, geologically speaking. This was a hundred millennia after our species' emergence. It was forty millennia after the invention of culture (art, music, language, religion, fashion). It was twenty millennia after horses and oxen were painted on the cave walls of Lascaux and Altamira. It was four millennia after the invention of agriculture -- long after the "The Clan of the Cave Bear" stopped hunting and settled down to raise crops. It was centuries after the invention of writing in Sumeria. It was around the time when Egypt's Early Dynastic Period was starting.

---

Understand it's not just melanin that makes people different. One thing that makes ethnicities different is bone mass,skeletal features[ i.e. prognathism,curved pelvic musle, and limb ratio]. People who live closer to the eqator tend to have more protruding body parts than people living in colder climates. Even 6,000 years ago the Europeans had a different limb ratio than tropical African people. Forensic scientist still use these measurments to reconstruct burn victims.

posted 12 November 2004 08:08 PM            

quote:

---

The answer to this is simple. In 1994 Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza estimated the "Caucasoid"

---

quote:

---

(scientifly speaking the non-African influence)

---

So non African scientifically defines caucasoid?

Doesn't that kind of thinking meet your definition of racism?

Orionix wrote: People who make from all the diverse [non]-African cultures (and also phenotypes) one entity [caucasoid] are non-scientific and even racist.

Does this mean then that you regard Ethiopians as Negroid with Caucasoid admixture, and Greeks as Caucasoids with Negroid admixture?

posted 12 November 2004 08:11 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orionix:
I found it funny that you ignored the fact that North Africans cluster more closely with Near Easterns than with the sub-Saharan African majority. [This message has been edited by Orionix (edited 12 November 2004).]

---

Thought Writes:

Yet another statement that has little basis in current population biology and/or scientific knowledge.

Thought Posts:

Nature Genetics

2004 Nov;36 Suppl 1:S17-20.

Conceptualizing human variation.

Keita SO, Kittles RA, Royal CD, Bonney GE, Furbert-Harris P, Dunston GM, Rotimi CN.

[1] National Human Genome Center, College of Medicine, Howard University, Washington, DC 20060, USA. [2] Department of Anthropology, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, USA.

"But the Y-Chromosome clade defined by the PN2 transition (PN2/M35, PN2/M2) shatters the boundaries of phenotypically defined races and true breeding populations across a great geographic expanse. African people with a range of skin colors, hair forms and physiognomies have substantial percentages of males whose Y chromosomes form CLOSELY related clades with each other , but NOT with others phenotypically similar.”

posted 12 November 2004 08:12 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
Understand it's not just melanin that makes people different. One thing that makes ethnicities different is bone mass,skeletal features [i.e. prognathism,curved pelvic musle, and limb ratio]. People who live closer to the eqator tend to have more protruding body parts than people living in colder climates. Even 6,000 years ago the Europeans had a different limb ratio than tropical African people. Forensic scientist still use these measurments to reconstruct burn victims.

---

True there are physiological and phenotypical differnces between ethnic populations throughout the globe. But these are merely due to climatic adaptation. Race has little scientific (forensic scientists still use race) standing since there are no descrete, objective human types. However the varation between any given human population is about 85-90% individual and 10-15% "racial".

In general Europeans had much less time to be "white" than Africans had to be "black".

posted 12 November 2004 08:18 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orionix:
It's more linguistic but yet to say an ethnic group or a population. We cannot deny the biodiveristy between African populations.

Most people who lived in vicinity of the contemporary Sahalian desert were always dark skinned, no one is going to deny this.

[b]When human skin color changed

Many books have been written praising the near-photographic realism of Paleolithic cave art. Few stress how seldom human figures are depicted. Very few point out that, whenever people and animals are depicted together, the hunters are routinely painted as darker than their prey. Some paleoanthropologists mention this oddity as evidence that the cave artists depicted animals realistically, but for some strange religious reason painted people much too dark. A more plausible explanation is that folks really were dark back then. The hunting scene above, showing dark-brown bowmen shooting medium-brown deer, was painted in what is now France. It dates from about thirteen millennia ago, around the time of the last Africa-to-Europe migration. Europeans had not yet lost their color as of this date.

Similarly, early Egyptian paintings depict only brown people. For example, consider the fragmentary picture of boats, at left. Examine the row of oarsmen. The picture dates from six millennia ago. Again, no European-looking people are to be seen. Of course, one could say that fair-complexioned people might simply not have reached Egypt yet by that time, but see the next example.

Another strategy of examining art approaches the question from the other direction, "When was the first portrait of an undoubtedly fair-complexioned, European-looking person painted?" As it turns out, it was a statue painted in Egypt about five millennia ago. It depicts Prince Rahotep and his Consort Nefret, of the Old Kingdom, early Fourth Dynasty. He is brown. She is pink. For this piece and similar examples ancient art, see P.P. Kahane, Ancient and Classical Art, ed. Hans L. C. Jaffe, 6 vols., 20,000 Years of World Painting, vol. 1 (New York: Dell, 1967).

The evidence of art suggests that the mutation making northern Europeans melanin deficient happened sometime between five and six millennia ago.

As it turns out, DNA analysis shows that the dramatic change in European complexion happened around the Baltic in about 3000 B.C. -- just yesterday, geologically speaking. This was a hundred millennia after our species' emergence. It was forty millennia after the invention of culture (art, music, language, religion, fashion). It was twenty millennia after horses and oxen were painted on the cave walls of Lascaux and Altamira. It was four millennia after the invention of agriculture -- long after the "The Clan of the Cave Bear" stopped hunting and settled down to raise crops. It was centuries after the invention of writing in Sumeria. It was around the time when Egypt's Early Dynastic Period was starting.

For details on the when and how of the paleness adaptation, read Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, Paolo Menozzi, and Alberto Piazza, The History and Geography of Human Genes, trans. Sarah Thorne (Princeton: Princeton University, 1994). This book is the most comprehensive DNA analysis yet published of the migrations and waves of human Diaspora that began about one hundred millennia ago in Africa and colonized the globe. It has become a standard reference for scholars of prehistory. It mainly covers events that transpired across the entire planet, but it spends a page (145) explaining the European paleness mutation. Here is what happened.

Vitamin D is essential to calcium metabolism. Without it, you get rickets: grotesquely bowed legs and malformed skull and chest. Human skin produces vitamin D when the sun's ultraviolet light penetrates the protective melanin layer. This means that the complexion our ancestors inherited from equatorial Africa was a delicate balance. Too little melanin (too fair a complexion) and you would get skin cancer. Too much melanin and you would not produce enough vitamin D.

As we spread out of Africa and across the globe, we moved into regions where sunlight was too weak to penetrate our skin. Fortunately, other animals also produce vitamin D and store it in their fat, just as we do. As long as we made a living by eating animals, especially animal fat, we simply consumed their vitamin D. Our own skin's inability to produce vitamin D in weak sunlight was not even noticed.

Next, about nine millennia ago, the invention of agriculture changed our diet. From then on, most of us lived mainly on grains (wheat, barley, oats). Farmers who lived around the Mediterranean and further south no longer ate vitamin D from animals, but their dark skins produced it from the bright sunlight of the region. Inuits and Laplanders who lived in the far north never switched to grains. They continue to consume mainly animal fat to this day and so acquire vitamin D despite weak sunlight. But the Gulf Stream washes northern Europe and warms the Baltic Sea. In this narrow region, the climate allowed the switch to agriculture, but sunlight was too weak to penetrate dark skin and produce vitamin D. Rickets spread through the population, as can be seen in the fossil bones of the time.

Then, about five millennia ago, a random mutation occurred along the Baltic. It suppresses melanin production and created a breed of people who could live off agriculture in the far north and still not get rickets. Their pale skins are so unprotected that even the weak sunlight of the far north can penetrate and produce vitamin D. Free from rickets, the pale ones multiplied and prospered as their rickety dark-skinned neighbors died out.

Folks remained dark in Africa. Paleness is harmful near the equator, so the pale ones never spread into Africa until the age of European expansion. Paleness offers neither advantage nor harm around the sunny Mediterranean, so people there are about a 50-50 mix between the pale European model of human being and the original African model. Nowadays, vitamin D is added to commercial foods, so rickets is rare, no matter where you live or how dark your complexion.

[This message has been edited by Orionix (edited 12 November 2004).][/B]

---

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1154815.htm

Ancient Germans weren't so fair
Anna Salleh in Brisbane
ABC Science Online
Friday, 16 July 2004

Researchers may be able to make more accurate reconstructions of what ancient humans looked like with the first ever use of ancient DNA to determine hair and skin colour from skeletal remains.

The research was presented today at an international ancient DNA conference in Brisbane, Australia, by German anthropologist, Dr Diane Schmidt of the University of Göttingen.

She said her research may also help to identify modern day murderers and their victims.

"Three thousand years ago, nobody was doing painting and there was no photography. We do not know what people looked like," Schmidt told ABC Science Online.

She said most images in museums and books were derived from comparisons with living people from the same regions.

"For example, when we make a reconstruction of people from Africa we think that they had dark skin or dark hair," she said. "But there's no real scientific information. It's just a guess. It's mostly imagination."

She said this had meant, for example, that the reconstruction of Neanderthals had changed over time.

"In the 1920s, the Neanderthals were reconstructed as wild people with dark hair and dumb, not really clever," she said. "Today, with the same fossil record, with the same bones and no other information - just a change in ideology - you see reconstructions of people with blue eyes and quite light skin colour, looking intelligent and using tools.

"Most of the reconstructions you see in museums are a thing of the imagination of the reconstructor. Our goal is to make this reconstruction less subjective and give them an objective basis with scientific data."

Genetic markers for hair colour

In research for her recently completed PhD, Schmidt built on research from the fields of dermatology and skin cancer that have found genetic markers for traits such as skin and hair colour in modern humans.

In particular, Schmidt relied on the fact that different mutations (known as single nucleotide polymorphisms, or SNPs) in the melanocortin receptor 1 gene are responsible for skin and hair colour.

"There is a set of SNPs that tells you that a person was a redhead and a different set of markers tell you they were fair skinned."

She extracted DNA from ancient human bones as old as 3000 years old from three different locations in Germany and looked for these SNPs.

Her findings suggest that red hair and fair skin was very uncommon among ancient Germans.

Out of a total of 26 people analysed, Schmidt found only one person with red hair and fair skin, a man from the Middle Ages. All the other people had more UV-tolerant skin that tans easily.

She said she was excited when she "coloured in" the faces that once covered the skulls, and had even developed "a kind of a personal relationship" with one of them.

"It's not so anonymous," she said. "I think this is the reason why people in museums can do reconstruction because our ancestors are not so anonymous any more; they have a face you can look into."

Unfortunately the genetic markers Schmidt used could not distinguish which of the ancient humans had blond versus black hair, and she could not determine eye colour.

But, she said she was confident that this will be possible in a few years.

Schmidt said that such research could also be used to help build up identikit pictures to help identify skeletons or criminals.

The research has been submitted for publication.

posted 12 November 2004 08:32 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
But you don't believe in outmodded race-ist classifcations like caucasoid remember? Perhaps you should qualify that by saying, except as a last resort. lol.

---

ROFL! Like i said i don't believe in race as a biological reality but socially/culturally and subjectively speaking it is still used. You said by yourself that in forensic science race is still useful.

Ethiopians are "racially" mixed, as new genetic studies prove them to be.

quote:

---

So non African scientifically defines caucasoid?

Doesn't that kind of thinking meet your definition of racism?

Orionix wrote: [i]People who make from all the diverse [non]-African cultures (and also phenotypes) one entity [caucasoid] are non-scientific and even racist.

---

quote:

---

Does this mean then that you regard Ethiopians as Negroid with Caucasoid admixture, and Greeks as Caucasoids with Negroid admixture?

---

It depends really how you define Caucasoid.

Today Cavalli-Sforza puts quotation marks around the word "race" but he still consideres Europeans, western Asians and north Africans to be Caucasoid (white).

Personally i do not believe in this. It's social.

Newer genetic work since Cavalli-Sfroza's in 1994 show that Northern Africans are genetically intermediate between Europeans and sub-Saharan Africans.

According to Cavalli-Sforza's defintion Ethiopians are "racially" mixed, this is what they really are. I agree with him.

In terms of genetic distance they are in an intermediate position between Yemenis and other east African groups like the Bantus.

posted 12 November 2004 08:42 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1154815.htm

Ancient Germans weren't so fair
Anna Salleh in Brisbane
ABC Science Online
Friday, 16 July 2004

Researchers may be able to make more accurate reconstructions of what ancient humans looked like with the first ever use of ancient DNA to determine hair and skin colour from skeletal remains.

The research was presented today at an international ancient DNA conference in Brisbane, Australia, by German anthropologist, Dr Diane Schmidt of the University of Göttingen.

She said her research may also help to identify modern day murderers and their victims.

"Three thousand years ago, nobody was doing painting and there was no photography. We do not know what people looked like," Schmidt told ABC Science Online.

She said most images in museums and books were derived from comparisons with living people from the same regions.

"For example, when we make a reconstruction of people from Africa we think that they had dark skin or dark hair," she said. "But there's no real scientific information. It's just a guess. It's mostly imagination."

She said this had meant, for example, that the reconstruction of Neanderthals had changed over time.

"In the 1920s, the Neanderthals were reconstructed as wild people with dark hair and dumb, not really clever," she said. "Today, with the same fossil record, with the same bones and no other information - just a change in ideology - you see reconstructions of people with blue eyes and quite light skin colour, looking intelligent and using tools.

"Most of the reconstructions you see in museums are a thing of the imagination of the reconstructor. Our goal is to make this reconstruction less subjective and give them an objective basis with scientific data."

Genetic markers for hair colour

In research for her recently completed PhD, Schmidt built on research from the fields of dermatology and skin cancer that have found genetic markers for traits such as skin and hair colour in modern humans.

In particular, Schmidt relied on the fact that different mutations (known as single nucleotide polymorphisms, or SNPs) in the melanocortin receptor 1 gene are responsible for skin and hair colour.

"There is a set of SNPs that tells you that a person was a redhead and a different set of markers tell you they were fair skinned."

She extracted DNA from ancient human bones as old as 3000 years old from three different locations in Germany and looked for these SNPs.

Her findings suggest that red hair and fair skin was very uncommon among ancient Germans.

Out of a total of 26 people analysed, Schmidt found only one person with red hair and fair skin, a man from the Middle Ages. All the other people had more UV-tolerant skin that tans easily.

She said she was excited when she "coloured in" the faces that once covered the skulls, and had even developed "a kind of a personal relationship" with one of them.

"It's not so anonymous," she said. "I think this is the reason why people in museums can do reconstruction because our ancestors are not so anonymous any more; they have a face you can look into."

Unfortunately the genetic markers Schmidt used could not distinguish which of the ancient humans had blond versus black hair, and she could not determine eye colour.

But, she said she was confident that this will be possible in a few years.

Schmidt said that such research could also be used to help build up identikit pictures to help identify skeletons or criminals.

The research has been submitted for publication.

---

Interesting. You know human being still know very little about their DNA and what it can be used for so everything should be taken with a grain of salt.

We don't even know exactly how our mind works.

posted 12 November 2004 08:48 PM            

quote:

---

Interesting. You know human being still know very little about their DNA and what it can be used for so everything should be taken with a grain of salt.

---

posted 12 November 2004 08:55 PM            

quote:

---

Personally i do not believe in this.

---

posted 12 November 2004 09:14 PM            

quote:

---

Understand it's not just melanin that makes people different. One thing that makes ethnicities different is bone mass,skeletal features[ i.e. prognathism,curved pelvic musle, and limb ratio].

---

Indigenous Africans such as the AE had plenty of time to become tropically adapted and Black, we always were.

The origin of pale skin in Germany may be a mystery. The origin of dark skin in Africa, is not.

posted 12 November 2004 10:02 PM            

quote:

---

Again, this doesn't support your claim that ancient Egyptians were a black race who dominated or that the medieval Egyptians were significatly different from how we see them today.

---

You forget that I am an Egyptian. Fundamentaly, most Egyptians don't look very different from the ancient Egyptians. However, the population of modern Egypt is more populated and more immigrants have overwhlemed the original Fellahin that lived in both Upper and Lower Egypt. Most of the original population was in Upper Egypt around Luxor to Aswan where today the darkest of the Egyptian population resides.

Plus my argument was not that every ancient Egyptian was black but that Upper Egyptians were and still are majority ''black''. My other argument which I proved was that the civlization of ancient Egypt and cultural facets came from Upper Egypt,and not from the Delta where a more hetrogenous population resided.

Also I felt the author of the following article was using representations of ancient Egyptians for the wrong purposes.

Evidence seems to point to an Upper Egyptian origin of pharaonic civlization:

Recent reserch seem to confrim the hypothesis that the unification
was accomplished by agressive tribes of nomads and hunters from Upper
Egypt who apprently dominated subjigated the sedentary,agricultural
tribes of prehistoric Nile Delta.

The Egyptains thus dvided their land into Upper Egypt,which
streched from aswan to the tipe of the delta,and Lower Egypt which
comprised the area of the delta to Mennefer north. These were the
two lands whose existance loomed large in Egyptain thought and which
were symbolic in various ways in Egyptain iconography.Temple,which
were usually erected on an east-west axis,had a symetrical or near
symetrical so that their northerrn and southern portion correspond to
each other.

Page 2

The Twilight of Ancient Egypt: 1st Millennium B.C.
by Karol Mysliwiec, David Lorton (Translator)

That is why I stated
earlier in the previous post, that yes, had we good depictions of the
First-Second Dynasty rulers, who originated from Nekhen, way south in
Upper Egypt, they should be dark brown in complexion as the people in
those areas were in all subsequent periods down to the present day.

So again, if there were such individuals in the north, they well might
be descendants of these royals from Nekhen. Such may be the case with
Djoser, the first king of whom we have portrait quality statues and
reliefs, and yes, known to be a son of Khasekhemwy, the last ruler of
Dynasty 2, he does appear like a southern Egyptian in type.

Most sincerely,

Frank J. Yurco
University of Chicago

--
Frank Joseph Yurco fjyurco@midway.uchicago.edu

See also about southern Upper Egypt and Nubia being ethnically similar see the following:

"From predynastic times down to the new kingdom when Egypt actually
occupied the land, Lower Nubia remained a region of few social and
economic distinctions and comparatively low population density. The reason
for her tendancy to lag behind her rich northern neighbor has sometimes
been explained (by eurocentrists and racists strikingly familliar to
people on this newsgroup) in terms of racial inferiority. But in physical
affinity the people of this region cannot be differentiated from those of
Upper Egypt. An environmental explanation is more accurate, since Nubia possessed limited amounts of tillable land"(Hoffman "Egypt, Land Before
the Pharoahs" pg.256)

Most of the dyansties and pharaohs in Egypt came from Upper Egypt. Meaning 1,2,3,4,

More mysterious dyansties are 6,,7,8,

9 and 10 originated around modern day Beni Suef

11 originated in modern day Luxor

12 originated between Aswan and the second cataract[Taseti]

13 is mysterious

14,15,16 were puppets or vassals of Hykos[Asiatics]

17 and 18th dyansties originate in Luxor. Donald Redford believes this dyansty was Nubian in origin.

19th dyansty originates in the Delta

Around this time it's mostly divided between the Amun priests and pharaohs in the Delta. Amun priests held more clout than pharaoh according to the Tales of Wenamun.

After this it's a struggle between foregin and indigenous pharaohs.

posted 12 November 2004 10:18 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
The origin of pale skin in Germany may be a mystery. The origin of dark skin in Africa, is not.

---

Why is the origin of pale skin in Germany a mystery?

You say you are not a racist but you sound just like one.

The origin of pale skin in northern Europe is not a mystery. Pale skin is the genetic adaptation of human beings to different environmental conditions. Physical adaptations in human beings are seen in response to extreme cold, humid heat, desert conditions, and high altitudes.

For example, tightly curled hair provides better protection against direct sunlight etc.

posted 12 November 2004 10:38 PM            

*Negroid is social, but Caucasoid is scientific.

*Black is social, but "white" is scientific.

*Sub-Saharan is "black", but the Horn of Africa (which is in Sub-Saharan region) is "intermediate"

*Agrees with Egyptians being black, with southern origins of the civilization...but later on, reasons that since they are actually brown in skin color, they are therefore neither black nor White

The fact that his plagarisms have so easily been exposed throughout this one-sided intellectual discourse, doesn't dawn to him that he isn't dealing with beginners. In fact, many of the material he has presented here, have been shown to support what he is attempting to deny. And yes, including that map that was meant to somehow vindicate him. Such exposures are usually followed by the predictable response, concerning how race is supposedly a social construct. The same answer is received, when he is put in a position to examine mounting evidence against him. For instance, let's take look at his exchange with Ausar;

Ausar:Understand it's not just melanin that makes people different. One thing that makes ethnicities different is bone mass,skeletal features [i.e. prognathism,curved pelvic musle, and limb ratio]. People who live closer to the eqator tend to have more protruding body parts than people living in colder climates. Even 6,000 years ago the Europeans had a different limb ratio than tropical African people. Forensic scientist still use these measurments to reconstruct burn victims.

This would tell any informed person, that Egyptians exhibit these traits as other tropical Africans.

But here's the predictable response from Orionix, not being able to refute the above:

But these are merely due to climatic adaptation. Race has little scientific (forensic scientists still use race) standing since there are no descrete, objective human types. However the varation between any given human population is about 85-90% individual and 10-15% "racial".

posted 12 November 2004 10:55 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orionix:
Studies of mummies from all walks of life, from kings to beggars, show that nearly all Egyptians were the same people as we see in Egypt today.

I think Afrocentrism is putting blacks down. After all the period of Black slavery should be a cause for shame for Whites, not for Blacks.

Afrocentrism, [b]being racist against blacks, is useful to the racist US ruling class, and I think that's why it's tolerated. It serves to inculcate racist, anti-white views among black students, and to keep them obedient to whatever the highly conservative 'authorities' tell them.

The same kind of nationalism flourished in the '60s, where it served to keep blacks from uniting with anti-racist whites to fight racism. That's the function of Afrocentrism today, and very valuable it is to the tactic of "divide and conquer", by which white and black workers and students are kept divided from one another.

The Fallacies of Afrocentrism

[/B]

---

It kills me that facts now become reason for racism and become racist themselves. When the facts point to a black african origin with many different black types then that becomes racist. Hopefully one day you will see past your biases and racist influences ways. Until then, the facts will remain the facts.

posted 12 November 2004 11:06 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orionix:
They have done the same with Nefertiti. Her face turned out to be typical Egyptian, not black but not white either.

Could this be the profile of a queen?

The earliest inhabitants of what is now The Sudan can be traced to African (i.e., Negroid) peoples who lived in the vicinity of Khartoum, the Sudan, in Mesolithic (Middle Stone Age) times (30,000–20,000 BC). They were hunters and gatherers who made pottery and (later) objects of ground sandstone. Toward the end of the Neolithic Period (New Stone Age; 10,000–3,000 BC) they had domesticated animals. These Africans were clearly in contact with predynastic civilizations (before c. 2925 BC) to the north in Egypt, but the arid uplands separating Egypt from Nubia appear to have discouraged the predynastic Egyptians from settling there.

[b]Egyptian influence

At the end of the 4th millennium BC, kings of Egypt's 1st dynasty conquered upper Nubia south of Aswan, introducing Egyptian cultural influence to the African peoples who were scattered along the riverbank. In subsequent centuries, Nubia was subjected to successive military expeditions from Egypt in search of slaves or building materials for royal tombs, which destroyed much of the Egyptian-Nubian culture that had sprung from the initial conquests of the 1st dynasty. Throughout these few centuries (c. 2925–c. 2575 BC), the descendants of the Nubians continued to eke out an existence along the Nile River, an easy prey to Egyptian military expeditions. Although the Nubians were no match for the armies of Egypt's Old Kingdom, the interactions arising from their enslavement and colonization led to ever-increasing African influence upon the art, culture, and religion of dynastic Egypt.

[/B]

---

posted 12 November 2004 11:12 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Horemheb was notorious on this forum for never answering anything correctly, which is why you find fellowship with him.

The difference between you and Horemheb is this: You can't even answer up to your own previous statements, which means that you lie to yourself, hoping for others to help you. But Horemheb can't help you, so your non-response is once again rejected. Sorry.

[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 12 November 2004).]

---

I think, rather I lknow he is infact Horemheb!

posted 12 November 2004 11:36 PM            

Rest assured he is not Horemheb. Let's stop getting personal on this board and just stick to the discussion and topics. This applies to everybody on this board. Let's maintain an atmosphere for debate.

posted 12 November 2004 11:41 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
You forget that I am an Egyptian. Fundamentaly, most Egyptians don't look very different from the ancient Egyptians. However, the population of modern Egypt is more populated and more immigrants have overwhlemed the original Fellahin that lived in both Upper and Lower Egypt. Most of the original population was in Upper Egypt around Luxor to Aswan where today the darkest of the Egyptian population resides.

Plus my argument was not that every ancient Egyptian was black but that Upper Egyptians were and still are majority ''black''. My other argument which I proved was that the civlization of ancient Egypt and cultural facets came from Upper Egypt,and not from the Delta where a more hetrogenous population resided.

---

I agree with you that most Upper Egyptians were always dark skinned or "black" but whether the origin of the subsequent dynastic Egyptian civilizations was Lower Nubia (the land south to Aswan) is still obscure.

Most scholars agree that the origin of the dynastic Egyptians was the Nille River Valley.

Scholars still debate, for instance, whether writing first emerged in ancient Egypt or Mesopotamia.

Professor Arthur G. Brodeur asserts that the ancestors of the southern Egyptians came originally from Nubia. These earliest tribes of Egyptians were Hamites and Kushites (of Ethiopian ancestry).

posted 12 November 2004 11:52 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:
You all have done enough to expose Orionix's weakness. He's made incoherent remarks, and in a nutshell:

*Negroid is social, but Caucasoid is scientific.

*Black is social, but "white" is scientific.

*Sub-Saharan is "black", but the Horn of Africa (which is in Sub-Saharan region) is "intermediate"

---

1. When did i say that Negroid is social but Caucasoid is scietific? You guys should read more carefully before you write to me.

All i said is that the present-day North Africans are genetically closer to Near Eastern than to sub-Saharan Africans. I want to see you giving some evidences on the contrary.

2. The (present-day) people of the horn of Africa are not in sub-Saharan Africa and genetically they were proved to be intermediate.

Ethiopian mitochondrial DNA heritage: tracking gene flow across and around the gate of tears.

Kivisild T, Reidla M, Metspalu E, Rosa A, Brehm A, Pennarun E, Parik J, Geberhiwot T, Usanga E, Villems R.

Estonian Biocentre and Tartu University, Tartu, Estonia. tkivisil@ebc.ee

Approximately 10 miles separate the Horn of Africa from the Arabian Peninsula at Bab-el-Mandeb (the Gate of Tears). Both historic and archaeological evidence indicate tight cultural connections, over millennia, between these two regions. High-resolution phylogenetic analysis of 270 Ethiopian and 115 Yemeni mitochondrial DNAs was performed in a worldwide context, to explore gene flow across the Red and Arabian Seas. Nine distinct subclades, including three newly defined ones, were found to characterize entirely the variation of Ethiopian and Yemeni L3 lineages. Both Ethiopians and Yemenis contain an almost-equal proportion of Eurasian-specific M and N and African-specific lineages and therefore cluster together in a multidimensional scaling plot between Near Eastern and sub-Saharan African populations. Phylogeographic identification of potential founder haplotypes revealed that approximately one-half of haplogroup L0-L5 lineages in Yemenis have close or matching counterparts in southeastern Africans, compared with a minor share in Ethiopians. Newly defined clade L6, the most frequent haplogroup in Yemenis, showed no close matches among 3,000 African samples. These results highlight the complexity of Ethiopian and Yemeni genetic heritage and are consistent with the introduction of maternal lineages into the South Arabian gene pool from different source populations of East Africa. A high proportion of Ethiopian lineages, significantly more abundant in the northeast of that country, trace their western Eurasian origin in haplogroup N through assorted gene flow at different times and involving different source populations.

3. I'm not Horemhob or whoever i think i am. I have only 1 account in this board. Don't need more.

posted 12 November 2004 11:54 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Keino:
I think, rather I lknow he is infact Horemheb!

---

Dude you are living in a dream world. I think you are also blackman but i'm not sure those.

posted 13 November 2004 12:06 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orionix:
I agree with you that most Upper Egyptians were always dark skinned or "black" but whether the origin of the subsequent dynastic Egyptian civilizations was Lower Nubia (the land south to Aswan) is still obscure.

---

It is only obscure to someone who isn't familiar with the history or even the location of the region in question.

quote:

---

Orionix:
Most scholars agree that the origin of the dynastic Egyptians was the Nille River Valley.

---

This is like saying most scholars agree that humans have two legs. Of course, the it was in the Nile Valley. But the origins of the civilization was specifically in the Upper Nile Valley region. It helps to be specific.

quote:

---

Orinix:
Scholars still debate, for instance, whether writing first emerged in ancient Egypt or Mesopotamia.

---

So-called Scholars need to familiarize themselves with the origins of the Egyptian script, with origins going back to the Proto-Sahara. If they know their material well enough, they wouldn't be in the predicament that you are putting too much emphasis on.

quote:

---

Orionix:
Professor Arthur G. Brodeur asserts that the ancestors of the southern Egyptians came originally from Nubia. These earliest tribes of Egyptians were Hamites and Kushites (of Ethiopian ancestry).

---

Simply reiterating a well known fact, that you have chosen to ignore all this time, or should I say "dance around".

posted 13 November 2004 12:25 AM            

quote:

---

So-called Scholars need to familiarize themselves with the origins of the Egyptian script, with origins going back to the Proto-Sahara. If they know their material well enough, they wouldn't be in the predicament that you are putting too much emphasis on.

---

Don't hurry too much. It's not a fact, it's obscure.

We know that the Egyptians spoke Afro-Asiatic languages (the speakers of this language are somewhere genetically related) but experts are not sure whether the Afro-Asiatic language spread from eastern Africa to the Near East or the other way around: from the Near East to Africa.

According to Cavalli-Sforza the Afro-Asiatic language originated in SW Asia some 15,000 years ago and from there spread to Africa.

Recent genetic studies indicate that this is very possible...

A predominantly neolithic origin for Y-chromosomal DNA variation in North Africa.

Arredi B, Poloni ES, Paracchini S, Zerjal T, Fathallah DM, Makrelouf M, Pascali VL, Novelletto A, Tyler-Smith C.

Istituto di Medicina Legale, Universita Cattolica del Sacro Cuore di Roma, Rome, Italy. b_arredi@libero.it

We have typed 275 men from five populations in Algeria, Tunisia, and Egypt with a set of 119 binary markers and 15 microsatellites from the Y chromosome, and we have analyzed the results together with published data from Moroccan populations. North African Y-chromosomal diversity is geographically structured and fits the pattern expected under an isolation-by-distance model. Autocorrelation analyses reveal an east-west cline of genetic variation that extends into the Middle East and is compatible with a hypothesis of demic expansion. This expansion must have involved relatively small numbers of Y chromosomes to account for the reduction in gene diversity towards the West that accompanied the frequency increase of Y haplogroup E3b2, but gene flow must have been maintained to explain the observed pattern of isolation-by-distance. Since the estimates of the times to the most recent common ancestor (TMRCAs) of the most common haplogroups are quite recent, we suggest that the North African pattern of Y-chromosomal variation is largely of Neolithic origin. Thus, we propose that the Neolithic transition in this part of the world was accompanied by demic diffusion of Afro-Asiatic-speaking pastoralists from the Middle East.

A predominantly neolithic origin for Y-chromosomal DNA variation in North Africa.

posted 13 November 2004 12:39 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orionix:
[b] Don't hurry too much. It's not a fact, it's obscure.

We know that the Egyptians spoke Afro-Asiatic languages (the speakers of this language are somewhere genetically related) but experts are not sure whether the Afro-Asiatic language spread from eastern Africa to the Near East or the other way around: from the Near East to Africa.

According to Cavalli-Sforza the Afro-Asiatic language originated in SW Asia some 15,000 years ago and from there spread to Africa.

Recent genetic studies indicate that this is very possible...

[b]A predominantly neolithic origin for Y-chromosomal DNA variation in North Africa.

Arredi B, Poloni ES, Paracchini S, Zerjal T, Fathallah DM, Makrelouf M, Pascali VL, Novelletto A, Tyler-Smith C.

Istituto di Medicina Legale, Universita Cattolica del Sacro Cuore di Roma, Rome, Italy. b_arredi@libero.it

We have typed 275 men from five populations in Algeria, Tunisia, and Egypt with a set of 119 binary markers and 15 microsatellites from the Y chromosome, and we have analyzed the results together with published data from Moroccan populations. North African Y-chromosomal diversity is geographically structured and fits the pattern expected under an isolation-by-distance model. Autocorrelation analyses reveal an east-west cline of genetic variation that extends into the Middle East and is compatible with a hypothesis of demic expansion. This expansion must have involved relatively small numbers of Y chromosomes to account for the reduction in gene diversity towards the West that accompanied the frequency increase of Y haplogroup E3b2, but gene flow must have been maintained to explain the observed pattern of isolation-by-distance. Since the estimates of the times to the most recent common ancestor (TMRCAs) of the most common haplogroups are quite recent, we suggest that the North African pattern of Y-chromosomal variation is largely of Neolithic origin. Thus, we propose that the Neolithic transition in this part of the world was accompanied by demic diffusion of Afro-Asiatic-speaking pastoralists from the Middle East.

A predominantly neolithic origin for Y-chromosomal DNA variation in North Africa.

[This message has been edited by Orionix (edited 13 November 2004).][/B]

---

Like I said, you need to go back to the basics; it saves you from obscurity. I don't intend to waste energy trying to correct you on stuff we've dealt with so many times on this board. Refer to the archives.

BTW, I am not the type who pays much attention to discredited sources.

posted 13 November 2004 12:49 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:
Like I said, you need to go back to the basics; it saves you from obscurity. I don't intend to waste energy trying to correct you on stuff we've dealt with so many times on this board. Refer to the archives.

BTW, I am not the type who pays much attention to discredited sources.

---

Molecular Populations genetics is the most credited science to this day.

I agree with you that the ancestral ancestors of the Egyptians were from eastern Africa (maybe present-day Ethiopia) but the point is there is no need to exaggerate.

We know that lighter skinned people (some call them "Caucasoids") were present in North Africa since 30,000 ago. This people were present in Lower Egypt (since at least 3000 BC, Lybia and (costal) NW Africa.

posted 13 November 2004 01:04 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orionix:
[b]Molecular Populations genetics is the most credited science to this day.

I agree with you that the ancestral ancestors of the Egyptians were from eastern Africa (maybe present-day Ethiopia) but the point is there is no need to exaggerate.

We know that lighter skinned people (some call them "Caucasoids") were present in North Africa since 30,000 ago. This people were present in Lower Egypt, Lybia and NW Africa. [/B]

---

posted 13 November 2004 01:15 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Keino:
Where do you get your information from? I don't want you to think I'm attacking you but you are NOT coherent at all. You accept a fact then try to subjectively argue against that fact. This is not logical!

---

A better question would be where you guys get your information from? Afrocentric books?

posted 13 November 2004 01:19 AM            

quote:

---

All i said is that the present-day North Africans are genetically closer to Near Eastern than to sub-Saharan Africans.

---

My opinion of your North Africa cluster argument is that:
* it was badly made (your map doesn't even show what you say it shows)

* it's not worth refuting, (you can make present day north Africa cluster with New Guinnia, and it wont help in regards to AE)

* Thought's response featuring; Keita, Kittles, Royal et. al blew your chart right off the map , but you didn't even understand it, because you don't understand bioanthropology, and couldn't respond anyway.

But I'm sure if we wait long enough you will repost the same stuff, giving us a chance to repost old rebuttal, and you another chance to ignore what you don't understand.
Argument by ignorance.

continue....

posted 13 November 2004 01:25 AM            

quote:

---

I get my information from various sources...

---

posted 13 November 2004 01:27 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Not true. You actually argue in circles, as each argument is disproven, you move to a next, until you run out, then back to 1st. Even to the point of re-cut and pasting the same plagiarised articles, previously refuted, and which you could not support, of course - since they are not your writing to begin with.

---

Prove it to be untrue or just shut the **** up.

You're definitely an Afrocentrist with an agenda. At least i bring evidences to support my claims but you're just trolling around talking **** with no scientific evidences to back up what you are saying.

All evidences (including Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza) point out North Africans are genetically closer to Near Easterns than to other Africans. Thus they are not Caucasoid (European) or anything they are also not black African.

posted 13 November 2004 01:36 AM            

quote:

---

"whether the origin of dynastic Egyptian civilizations was Lower Nubia (the land south to Aswan) is still obscure"

---

posted 13 November 2004 01:40 AM            

quote:

---

Prove it to be untrue or just shut the **** up.

---

posted 13 November 2004 01:42 AM            

quote:

---

Orionix:
The (present-day) people of the horn of Africa are not in sub-Saharan Africa.

---

A waste of time indeed: we've been dealing with somebody who isn't even familiar with African geography.

posted 13 November 2004 01:47 AM            

(Hammer et al., Proc Natl Acad Sci, 2000)