posted 17 May 2005 04:43 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by kenndo:

and the oldest site for making pottery was near khartoum and other areas in nubia(sudan-pre-kerma).

euro trash and others with the same illness would say the sun is blue if you give them time.

They always have to feel they have to say something different even if they are clearly wrong.there is a diffence if they would admit they are wrong and say they did not know anything,but they are worse than any person who just got incorrect info. because when you correct them AND GIVE THEM the facts and even show it,their head is hard as a rock.

I wonder if they would say their crap if they would to have a talk with us face to face,and show them some real books WITH pictures.

[This message has been edited by kenndo (edited 17 May 2005).]

---

posted 17 May 2005 04:59 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by relaxx:
The pictures above seem to show something different from Homo Sapiens, what kind of hominids are they?

---

posted 18 May 2005 01:12 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Still no answers from the Afronuts . . .

What's taking so long?

---

Hey silly boy, anyone who knows anything about gentics knows that not all the traits need to be present to show admixture. This is clear from empirical analysis of modern day admixtures of black and white where there is only 10% black ancestry. Some negroid traits are far more dominant than others (ie: broad nose and protrusive mouth). Duh!

Besides - the below post completely undermines you arguement in every angle. Besides, it is well know that the Egyptian population contained Black Africans (even racist accept this).

posted 18 May 2005 01:23 AM            

And the following from someone who was probably quite bias and thus the 33% Mediterranean is really probably just a type of Black African with some caucasoid affinities.

Look at these numbers: 36% Negroid! 11% Mixed race. And 33% assigned to a race that doesn't exist (simply North African Black). And the Egyptians were Caucausian??? The only caucausians that I know of living in the Egyptian region were slaves (you know, the story of Moses), might account for the 11% so called Cro-magnoids.

posted 18 May 2005 01:48 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:
Frédéric Falkenburger compiled and analyzed skull measurements from 1,787 Ancient Egyptian male skulls and divided them into four main groups giving the following results: 36% negroid; 33% Mediterranean; 11% cro-magnoid; 20% of individuals not falling in any of these groups, but related to either cro-magnoids or negroids. (Source: "La Composition Raciale del' Ancienne Egypt," Anthropologie vol. 51, 1947)

And the following from someone who was probably quite bias and thus the 33% Mediterranean is really probably just a type of Black African with some caucasoid affinities.

Look at these numbers: 36% Negroid! 11% Mixed race. And 33% assigned to a race that doesn't exist (simply North African Black). And the Egyptians were Caucausian??? The only caucausians that I know of living in the Egyptian region were slaves (you know, the story of Moses), might account for the 11% so called Cro-magnoids.

---

Which period skulls were analyzed?
Judging from the date, the methods used to analyze these skulls should be highly suspect.

At any rate here is a more recent analysis of the skulls, aside from Keita's own analysis:

Intra-population and temporal variation in ancient Egyptian crania.

S.R. Zakrzewski. Department of Archaeology, University of Southampton, UK. April, 2004.

The level of morphological variation within a population is the result of factors such as population expansion and movement. Traditionally Egyptologists have considered ancient Egypt to have a homogeneous population, with state formation occurring as a result of local processes without influence from migration. This paper tests this hypothesis by investigating the extent of biological relationships within a series of temporally successive Egyptian skeletal samples. Previous studies have compared biological relationships between Egyptians and other populations, mostly using the Howells global cranial data set. In the current study, by contrast, the biological relationships within a series of temporally-successive cranial samples are assessed.

The data consist of 55 cranio-facial variables from 418 adult Egyptian individuals, from six periods, ranging in date from c. 5000 to 1200 BC. These were compared with the 111 Late Period crania (c. 600-350 BC) from the Howells sample. Principal Component and Canonical Discriminant Function Analyses were undertaken, on both pooled and single sex samples.

The results suggest a level of local population continuity exists within the earlier Egyptian populations, but that this was in association with some change in population structure, reflecting **small-scale** immigration and admixture with new groups. Most dramatically, the results also indicate that the Egyptian series from Howells global data set are morphologically distinct from the Predynastic and Early Dynastic Nile Valley samples (especially in cranial vault shape and height), and thus show that this sample cannot be considered to be a typical Egyptian series.

This research was funded by the Wellcome Trust (Bioarchaeology Panel), Durham University (Addison-Wheeler Fellowship) and by University of Southampton."

posted 18 May 2005 07:40 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Still no answers from the Afronuts . . .

What's taking so long?

---

LOL at you idiot, you think continually spamming the same crap[which by the way everything you spam conflicts with each other] gives some kind of credibility? Do you honestly expect people to take serious your feeble attempt at debate?

posted 18 May 2005 07:44 AM            

quote:

---

Angel's Neolithic Types:

"Although the first agricultural inhabitants of the belt from Syria-Israel-Jordan to North Africa were mainly rugged Mediterranean (A3 and some B, in varying preponderance) the eastern end of this belt (McGown, 1939; Vallois, 1936), shows some almost Bushmen-like Basic White (A4b) as well as lateral traits (E1 and C4 [Mixed Alpine and Alpine]) as at Jericho."

Angel's Greek Types:

1. Basic White (Type A)
2. Classic Mediterranean (Type B)
3. Nordic-Iranian (Type D)
4. Dinaric-Mediterranean (Type F)
5. Mixed Alpine (Type E)
6. Alpine (Type C)

On "negroid traits":

If Angel's "negroid nose and mouth traits" represent black racial admixture, then where are the other Negroid traits? Where's the Negroid hair type, skull shape, skeletal form, pigmentation etc.? Funny how these Nomadic Neolithic Niggas transmitted only two of their traits to the Levantines and Greeks. Funny also that in his more detailed analyses, Angel makes no mention of a Negroid racial strain in either Neolithic farmers or modern Greeks. Neither does Coon for that matter. Nor Brace. Any answers, Negroes?

On HLA-DRB1 Fraud:

If Arnaiz-Villena's HLA-DRB1 study on Greek-Ethiopian affinities is anything more than junk science, then why has it been rejected by not one, not two, not three, but FOUR world-renowned geneticists? And why have its results never been duplicated by a single other genetic study -- even those conducted using the same HLA genes that Arnaiz-Villena analyzed? This is quite remarkable indeed, but I'm sure the Negroes have a very good explanation. We're all waiting to hear it.

On Nubians:

"Starting from the Late Neolithic...similarities between the Nubians and the populations of Northeast Africa...and Asia...became even more distinct, which may prove the existence of strong ties derived probably from influx of the Caucasoids from the regions of Levant, Mesopotamia, and India. They were coming to Nubia through the Sinai Peninsula, but probably also through the south Saudi Arabia. The Kerma series from Upper Nubia shows particular similarities to the present-day Indian series.

"From the Neolithic on, or possibly even earlier, the strategic location of Nubia, promoting contacts between various populations, started to bring about effects in the form of the civilizational development of this region. Finally, these two factors led to the Hamitisation process, whereby superimposition of the Caucasoids on the Negroids took place."

On the Oromo:

"The genetic distance analysis showed the separation between African and non-African populations, with the Amhara and Oromo located in an intermediate position."

"...the Oromo and Amhara appear quite similar to Europoids (particularly to the South Arabians) and considerably different from the Negritic peoples."

Anthropology:

[ Neolithic Greeks are #7 -- right next to the Neolithic Swiss at #10 ]

Y-chromosomes:

Autosomes:

---

posted 18 May 2005 08:22 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol: Another day and still no answer = more punishment for Erroneous Euro.

---

posted 18 May 2005 11:03 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Unrefuted and awaiting answers:

[b]What - is - taking - so - long - apes?[/B]

---

I don't get you at all. Just open your eyes and look around. There are plenty of Black/White mixtures of people and it is obvious what negroid traits are the most dominant and which onese are recessive. The nose and the mouth are the most dominant traits and thats why Angel observed them where as the traits that you are referring to are far more recissive in comparisons.

Example: Maria Carey

Just do a Google on her images and see for yourself (silky hair, light mediteranian pigmentation, but broad nose and protrusive mouth). And I think she is something like 30% black. Imagine someone only 10%. I actually know quite a few people like that and you wouldn't be able to tell that they are anything but white unless they told you.

posted 18 May 2005 01:02 PM            

quote:

---

Osirion writes: Errronoues,
I don't get you at all.

---

He's just a beaten troll.

He know full well that Larry Angel's Bushman-like basic-whites with negroid features from Nubia via the predecessors of the Badarians simply means that Angel found evidence of 'mixed' skeletypes in Ancient Greece.

Genetic evidence has proven Angel correct, as over 50% of Greek paternal lineage of is East AFrican and West Asian origin.

He has trolled on and on for 4 months on this issue. New discussants come by from time to time and never once has anyone drawn any other conclusion other than that he is a fruitcake.

posted 18 May 2005 02:46 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:
Actually I shouldn't have replied. Ignore my post. There's really no point in having a dialogue with someone like Euro E. Not that I totally disagree with him since personally I believe the Greek culture is clearly Caucausian in origins and I am not an afrocentric, its just that there does appear to be evidence that blacks were in the Greek area which doesn't really mean that much. I have seen Greek art clearly depicting Blacks (in an over exaggerated mocking way as well) so I just don't see the issue. And I am sure someone is going to point out Black African influence in Greece, but you know, when you think about what really makes the Greek culture Greek, what comes to mind is clearly Caucausian in every sense of the meaning regardless of its origin. Greece is what defines Caucausian even if they learned some farming techniques, medicine and basic government structure from Black Africans (The Greek culture is completely different that African, but then it is different than most of the rest of European culture - hmm, maybe the Afrocentrics do have a point). By the way, Black Africans is really a bad concept anyways. Africans are not all Black but from an North American concept of the race term "Black", well certainly Blacks in a general sense is what I mean.

---

What do you mean by "Caucasian" here, since you brought it up? How does "Greek" define "Caucasian"? What is African culture?

posted 18 May 2005 04:22 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Super car:
What do you mean by "Caucasian" here, since you brought it up? How does "Greek" define "Caucasian"? What is African culture?

[This message has been edited by Super car (edited 18 May 2005).]

---

African culture would take significant time to explain. Better to answer the question of what is culture and then classify them into families:

The totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought.

Since I am certainly not an expert my illustrations will be simple.

The way people dress is a pretty visible aspect of their culture. Sub-Saharan Africa and Ancient Egypt share more affinities with each other than say Egypt shares with Greece.

Today, people in the middle east countries (Muslim states) dress in similar manners and thus you can discern cultural influence.

The Southern Europeans also dressed in similar manner. The Romans, Greeks, Persians and so on. It is interesting to see how these Eurasian societies influenced Egypt over time in terms of types of atire.

Value systems is another good example. Another simple example is, what color represents virtue? In western society (European society), the color white represents virtue. However, in Sub-saharan and the same in AE, Black is the color of virtue.

I take back the use of the word Caucausian. I am not sure what to call Southern European people without this term. I will just say that I don't see the cultural similarities between Sub-Saharan African and the Greeks like I do between Egypt and Sub-Saharan Africa.

posted 18 May 2005 04:33 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:
African culture would take significant time to explain. Better to answer the question of what is culture and then classify them into families:

The totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought.

Since I am certainly not an expert my illustrations will be simple.

The way people dress is a pretty visible aspect of their culture. Sub-Saharan Africa and Ancient Egypt share more affinities with each other than say Egypt shares with Greece.

Today, people in the middle east countries (Muslim states) dress in similar manners and thus you can discern cultural influence.

The Southern Europeans also dressed in similar manner. The Romans, Greeks, Persians and so on. It is interesting to see how these Eurasian societies influenced Egypt over time in terms of types of atire.

Value systems is another good example. Another simple example is, what color represents virtue? In western society (European society), the color white represents virtue. However, in Sub-saharan and the same in AE, Black is the color of virtue.

I take back the use of the word Caucausian. I am not sure what to call Southern European people without this term. I will just say that I don't see the cultural similarities between Sub-Saharan African and the Greeks like I do between Egypt and Sub-Saharan Africa.

---

The point is, African cultures are various, but they do have some affinities with one another. There is no homogeneous African culture. As far as Greeks are concerned, nobody claims their culture is African, because it isn't indigenous to Africa. I see the bringing up of such a notion, as a red herring. However, one cannot deny important cultural contributions to ancient Greece from the Nile Valley and West Asia; writing, the notion of centralized government, farming, medicine, etc, are not light contributions, they are vital contributions to a sustaining complex culture.

posted 18 May 2005 04:51 PM            

quote:

---

Angel's Neolithic Types:

"Although the first agricultural inhabitants of the belt from Syria-Israel-Jordan to North Africa were mainly rugged Mediterranean (A3 and some B, in varying preponderance) the eastern end of this belt (McGown, 1939; Vallois, 1936), shows some almost Bushmen-like Basic White (A4b) as well as lateral traits (E1 and C4 [Mixed Alpine and Alpine]) as at Jericho."

Angel's Greek Types:

1. Basic White (Type A)
2. Classic Mediterranean (Type B)
3. Nordic-Iranian (Type D)
4. Dinaric-Mediterranean (Type F)
5. Mixed Alpine (Type E)
6. Alpine (Type C)

On "negroid traits":

If Angel's "negroid nose and mouth traits" represent black racial admixture, then where are the other Negroid traits? Where's the Negroid hair type, skull shape, skeletal form, pigmentation etc.? Funny how these Nomadic Neolithic Niggas transmitted only two of their traits to the Levantines and Greeks. Funny also that in his more detailed analyses, Angel makes no mention of a Negroid racial strain in either Neolithic farmers or modern Greeks. Neither does Coon for that matter. Nor Brace. Any answers, Negroes?

On HLA-DRB1 Fraud:

If Arnaiz-Villena's HLA-DRB1 study on Greek-Ethiopian affinities is anything more than junk science, then why has it been rejected by not one, not two, not three, but FOUR world-renowned geneticists? And why have its results never been duplicated by a single other genetic study -- even those conducted using the same HLA genes that Arnaiz-Villena analyzed? This is quite remarkable indeed, but I'm sure the Negroes have a very good explanation. We're all waiting to hear it.

On Nubians:

"Starting from the Late Neolithic...similarities between the Nubians and the populations of Northeast Africa...and Asia...became even more distinct, which may prove the existence of strong ties derived probably from influx of the Caucasoids from the regions of Levant, Mesopotamia, and India. They were coming to Nubia through the Sinai Peninsula, but probably also through the south Saudi Arabia. The Kerma series from Upper Nubia shows particular similarities to the present-day Indian series.

"From the Neolithic on, or possibly even earlier, the strategic location of Nubia, promoting contacts between various populations, started to bring about effects in the form of the civilizational development of this region. Finally, these two factors led to the Hamitisation process, whereby superimposition of the Caucasoids on the Negroids took place."

On the Oromo:

"The genetic distance analysis showed the separation between African and non-African populations, with the Amhara and Oromo located in an intermediate position."

"...the Oromo and Amhara appear quite similar to Europoids (particularly to the South Arabians) and considerably different from the Negritic peoples."

Anthropology:

[ Neolithic Greeks are #7 -- right next to the Neolithic Swiss at #10 ]

Y-chromosomes:

Autosomes:

---

What - is - taking - so - long - apes?

know i know you are on the drugs racist one because you got this info from the racist incorrect wesite stormfront and other sites i have read and almost threw up.nubians were the first in nubia and nubians are black not white,there are no white nubians and nubians are not hamites,and in the past they were nunmixed black africans and most are still today,even many of those who have some form of white mixture still look black,and the ones who do not look black are black and call themselves black.

posted 19 May 2005 07:50 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
He's just a beaten troll.

He know full well that Larry Angel's Bushman-like basic-whites with negroid features from Nubia via the predecessors of the Badarians simply means that Angel found evidence of 'mixed' skeletypes in Ancient Greece.

Genetic evidence has proven Angel correct, as over 50% of Greek paternal lineage of is East AFrican and West Asian origin.

He has trolled on and on for 4 months on this issue. New discussants come by from time to time and never once has anyone drawn any other conclusion other than that he is a fruitcake.

Only a true masochist would continue under these circumstances, and that's exactly what Erroneous is.

---

posted 19 May 2005 08:48 AM            

Old Punishment

New punishment.

Contradications

Errors.

No answers.

posted 19 May 2005 10:53 AM            

Erroneous, your arguement was plain debunked with one simple picture of a Negroid Indonesian. I use the word Negroid only as a way of communicating with you since it is an abused term.

The answer to your question is quite simple. East Africans were tropically adapted people, meaning that had what is sometimes Erroneously classified as Negroid features. These people left Africa ~45-50k years ago and their genes AND (note the caps) AND AND AND FEATURES!!! Can be clear seen all the way around the world!

Adamans -> Indonesia -> New Guinea -> Australia -> Central America (clear arhaelogical evidence for so called Negroid people by the definition you have used.

If you want to argue with that then you must change the definition of Negroid because this Olmec head is clearly Negroid by the definition you prefer:
www.entu.cas.cz/.../freetime/eternity/Olmec.jpg

Also, by accepted cranial analysis of the Olmecs, they have been classified as Negroid. Genetic studies have also confirmed this. So we have archaelogical evidence of negroids, anthropological evidence of negroids and now genetic Evidence of Negroids in the New World 2000 years before Columbus. Apparently these Blacks brought along Egyptian culture which brough about the Mayan culture. A clear cultural link with North East Africa and proof that these people were Tropically adapted even after they left Africa.

End of Story no need to discuss anymore. There are more interesting debates. Like, since there were White people in Nort Africa due to various migrations(even though the Egyptian were predominantly of the same kind as Sub-Saharan Sudanese and Ethiopians), how much influence did these clearly European originating peoples have on Egyptian culture. Clearly whites didn't originate the Egyptian culture, but they may have contributed in some ways. Clearly ideas like the Pyramid are African in origian but Whites (really white people for Europe) may have helped in some of the later developments that proved crucial in building the great Pyramids.

posted 19 May 2005 10:59 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:

The answer to your question is quite simple. East Africans were tropically adapted people, meaning that had what is sometimes Erroneously classified as Negroid features. These people left Africa ~45-50k years ago and their genes AND (note the caps) AND AND AND FEATURES!!! Can be clear seen all the way around the world!

---

Thought Writes:

posted 20 June 2005 08:54 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Translation, No Answers Erroneous enjoys being punished.

Old Punishment

New punishment.

Contradications

Errors.

No answers.

---

ATTN ERRONEOUS: Your lesson for today

Southern Europe and its history of using atavism as an illogical excuse for 'African' phenotypes.

The Greek philosopher Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) began the tradition of interracial atavism, explaining that the black [mulatto] son of a white woman was a hereditary throwback to the child's grandfather:

"Children can resemble their more remote ancestors....There was at Elis a woman who cohabited with a Negro. Her daughter was not a Negro, but the son that came from that daughter was."

Aristotle's explanation provided a powerful answer. Greek author Antigonus of Carystus (fl. 250 B.C.) and Greek scholar Aristophanes of Byzantium (257?-?180 B.C.) both incorporated Aristotle's account into their own works. More than three centuries after Aristotle, this explanation was still popular. The Roman scholar Pliny (23-79 A.D.) wrote regarding oddities of birth:

"One certain example is that of the renowned boxer Nicaeus, born at Byzantium, whose mother was the daughter of adultery with a Negro. Her complexion was no different from that of the others [other white women], but her son Nicaeus appeared like his Negro grandfather"

The seemingly impossible birth which Aristotle described was not a throwback and is easily explained otherwise. The white woman from Elis was pregnant with a baby fathered by a white man. When her daughter was born, she was, of course, white. That daughter's son, who was expected to be white but was not, was fathered by a black man. Likewise, Nicaeus' white grandmother may have committed adultery with a Negro, but her daughter, Nicaeus' mother, was white because she was fathered by a white man. Her son Nicaeus, however, was fathered by a black man.

It has been seen that as long as subsequent generations of mulattoes of any degree continue to mate with whites, the skin color of each new generation will necessarily be lighter. Even in cases where white people have remote black ancestry, it is impossible to produce a genetic throwback because dark skin color genes have all been blended out

For over 2,000 years atavism and maternal impression were ways of explaining how a white woman married to a white man could give birth to a mulatto (often referred to as a black) child. In looking back over this span of time, it is really remarkable how these two ideas have flourished. As science has evolved and more accurate information has become available in the fields of genetics and heredity, knowledge has replaced ignorance, and this long, sad history is now finally drawing to a close.

RIP Dienekes, RIP Erroneous

posted 21 June 2005 07:42 AM            

Obviously, you have no clue. It's just another one of your misguided face-saving tactics.

posted 21 June 2005 09:06 AM            

quote:

---

And the relevance of this

---

Topic: Erroneous E and atavism.

The article explains that atavism excuse as a cause of African morphology in southern Europe is of course, a sub-intellectual myth, that only a complete idiot would believe.

Of course, we understand that you have no cogent response, and will need time to run back to Dienekes to come up with a less obvious non-answer.

Until then, keep stalling....we're in no hurry. And you're obviously...

NOT GOING ANYWHERE.

posted 22 June 2005 07:40 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
The article explains that atavism excuse as a cause of African morphology in southern Europe is of course, a sub-intellectual myth, that only a complete idiot would believe.

---

Stupid monkey, that article is talking about mulatto children with visibly black skin, not primitive skeletons with the common trait of prognathism and no other "African" features. What a f*cking desperate retard you are.

Like I said, get some answers and stop embarrassing yourself, ape:

• If Angel's "negroid nose and mouth traits" represent black racial admixture, then where are the other Negroid traits? Where's the Negroid hair type, skull shape, skeletal form, pigmentation etc.? Funny how these Nomadic Neolithic Niggas transmitted only two of their traits to the Levantines and Greeks. Funny also that in his more detailed analyses, Angel makes no mention of a Negroid racial strain in either Neolithic farmers or modern Greeks. Neither does Coon for that matter. Nor Brace. Any answers, Negroes?

• If Arnaiz-Villena's HLA-DRB1 study on Greek-Ethiopian affinities is anything more than junk science, then why has it been rejected by not one, not two, not three, but FOUR world-renowned geneticists? And why have its results never been duplicated by a single other genetic study -- even those conducted using the same HLA genes that Arnaiz-Villena analyzed? This is quite remarkable indeed, but I'm sure the Negroes have a very good explanation. We're all waiting to hear it.

posted 22 June 2005 10:00 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
The article explains that atavism excuse as a cause of African morphology in southern Europe is of course, a sub-intellectual myth, that only a complete idiot would believe.

---

On Queue, Idiot Erroneous rants.....

quote:

---

stupid monkey, that article is talking about mulatto children with visibly black skin,

---

Illiterate ignoramous, the article is discussing the reality of African admixture in Europe, and the history of using atavism [see topic] as a pseudo-scientific excuse to deny it, by racist losers such as yourself.

Naturally it upsets you. Because it's about you. And judging by your tantrum response, you know it too. But tantrums can't save you.

quote:

---

not primitive skeletons

---

Keep spinning Erroneous....

Neolithic Greeks are primitives;

No, they are are caucaZoids identical to modern greeks;

No, modern Greeks have 'atavistic' African traits, having nothing to do with admixture;

No......

Always excuses Erroneous, and always contradictions.... but never any answers. Why is that?

Think it through you dull minded tool. We'll wait......

....

....

....

Now, let's resume USING you:

quote:

---

Thought wrote:
Evil E quotes EARLY J.L. Angel work to support the idea of striking "Racial continuity in Greece" (Angel, 1944), [racial continuity....with so called 'primitive types'?????] yet he ignores the LATER Angel finds "...one can identify Negroid traits appearing in Natufian latest hunters and in Anatolian and Macedonian first farmers, probably FROM NUBIA..."

---

It's easy for us non primitive non Neanderthal-bone-heads Erroneous ->

Southern Europe is simply a mixture of European, African and West Asian. Atavism has nothing to do with it.

That is the point of the parent post, and it is of course, correct.

Angry?

You can go back to bitter rage ranting then....

quote:

---

Erroneous whines: What a f*cking desperate retard you are.

---

And what a foul-mouthed and crazed crybaby you are.

But crying won't save you.

quote:

---

Erroneous tries to explain: "like I said...

---

Yes, we know what you are tying to say.

Keep trying, but not after you've had a valium 1st.

Feeling Ill, Erroneous?

posted 23 June 2005 07:38 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Southern Europe is simply a mixture of European, African and West Asian.

---

Yes, European Caucasoids, African Caucasoids and West Asian Caucasoids. Your ape-like Negro ancestors, who were confined to West Africa until the Late Holocene, are (thankfully) not part of the mix.

quote:

---

Angry?

---

posted 23 June 2005 07:47 AM            

quote:

---

Even in cases where white people have remote black ancestry, it is impossible to produce a genetic throwback because dark skin color genes have all been blended out

---

1) That's patently false. Obviously you've never heard of Sandra Laing, the South African black girl who was born to white parents (DNA testing confirmed parentage).

2) If E3b represents black ancestry, please explain how the Kabyles' 58% of it (that's more than most Ethiopians have) could possibly qualify as "remote".

posted 23 June 2005 06:35 PM            

But I've seen PLENTY of parents, both Black give birth to white like children commonly refered to as "albinos."

Integrity is not even the issue here. It is a genetic fact that two black people can produce a white skinned, blond haired, pink/blue eyed child. Happens all the time.

I suggest Ms Sandra Laing try to to out who her real father was...

Sorry, you still can't come up with any sound proof for your redicules "atavism" arguement.

Also, sorry for you, you will never be Black or even remotely so, no matter how long you bake in the sun.

I can't wait till rasol comes back and cut you another ass hole to go along with all the other ones he has cut for you.

[This message has been edited by Serpent Wizdom (edited 23 June 2005).]

[This message has been edited by Serpent Wizdom (edited 23 June 2005).]