posted 06 May 2005 03:03 PM            

"Probably the most well known case of atavism is found in the whales. According to the standard phylogenetic tree, whales are known to be the descendants of terrestrial mammals that had hindlimbs. Thus, we expect the possibility that rare mutant whales might occasionally develop atavistic hindlimbs. In fact, there are many cases where whales have been found with rudimentary atavistic hindlimbs in the wild (for reviews see Burzin 1972, pp. 65-67 and Hall 1984, pp. 90-93). Hindlimbs have been found in baleen whales (Sleptsov 1939), humpback whales (Andrews 1921) and in many specimens of sperm whales (Abel 1907; Berzin 1972, p. 66; Nemoto 1963; Ogawa and Kimiya 1957; Zemskii and Berzin 1961). Most of these examples are of whales with femurs, tibia, and fibulae; however, some even include feet with complete digits.

Many other famous examples of atavisms exist, including (1) rare formation of extra toes (2nd and 4th digits) in horses, similar to what is seen in the archaic horses Mesohippus and Merychippus, (2) atavistic thigh muscles in Passeriform birds and sparrows, (3) hyoid muscles in dogs, (4) wings in earwigs (normally wingless), (5) atavistic fibulae in birds (the fibulae are normally extremely reduced), (6) extra toes in guinea pigs and salamanders, (6) the atavistic dew claw in many dog breeds, (7) dental enamel in the beaks of birds, and (8) various atavisms in humans (one described in detail below) (Hall 1984).

Primarily due to intense medical interest, humans are one of the best characterized species and many developmental anomalies are known. There are several human atavisms that reflect our common genetic heritage with other mammals. One of the most striking is the existence of the rare "true human tail" (also variously known as "coccygeal process," "coccygeal projection," "caudal appendage," and "vestigial tail"). More than 100 cases of human tails have been reported in the medical literature (Matsuo et al. 1993). Less than one third of the well-documented cases are what are medically known as "pseudo-tails" (Dubrow et al. 1988). Pseudo-tails are not true tails; they are simply lesions of various types coincidentally found in the caudal region of newborns, often associated with the spinal column, coccyx, and various malformations. In contrast, the true atavistic tail of humans develops from the most distal end of the embryonic tail found in the developing human fetus (Belzberg et al. 1991; Dao and Netsky 1984), and it is usually benign in nature (Dubrow et al. 1988; Spiegelmann et al. 1985). The true human tail is characterized by a complex arrangement of adipose and connective tissue, central bundles of longitudinally arranged striated muscle in the core, blood vessels, nerve fibres, nerve ganglion cells, and specialized pressure sensing nerve organs (Vater-Pacini corpuscles). It is covered by normal skin, replete with hair follicles, sweat glands, and sebaceous glands (Dao and Netsky 1984; Dubrow et al. 1988; Spiegelmann et al. 1985). True human tails range in length from about one inch to over 5 inches long (on a newborn baby), and they can move and contract (Dao and Netsky 1984; Lundberg et al. 1962). Although they usually lack skeletal structures, they have also been found with cartilage and multiple articulating vertebrae (Fara 1977; Matsuo et al. 1993). Caudal vertebrae are not a necessary component of mammalian tails; contrary to what is frequently reported in the medical literature, there is at least one known example of a primate tail which lacks vertebrae, as found in the rudimentary two-inch-long tail of Macaca sylvanus (the "Barbary ape") (Hill 1974, p. 616; Hooten 1947, p. 23). True human tails are rarely inherited, though familial cases are known (Dao and Netsky 1984; Standfast 1992). As with other atavistic structures, human tails are most likely the result of either a somatic or germline mutation that reactivates an underlying developmental pathway which has been retained in the human genome (Dao and Netsky 1984; Hall 1984; Hall 1995)."

http://www.evcforum.net/RefLib/EvidencesMacroevolution2.html

Where prognathisms and broad noses? I thought they are examples of atavisms in humans, why aren't they mentioned? As for vestigial characters, they are organs, ie; the human appendix, that have no function or srve no purpose. Erroneous E debunked once again.

posted 06 May 2005 03:36 PM            

trying to explain aways broad noses and proganthisms in Europeans. Incidentally, I've emailed several anthropologists about the uppercase/lowercase Negroid dilemma. They no never heard of such a thing. Erroneous E is in a fanatsy world unto himself.

posted 07 May 2005 07:56 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Topdog:
He misquoted an obscure source on atavism

---

Desperate slave, the study was quoted verbatim, and it's from a 2004 issue of a peer-reviewed medical journal.

quote:

---

he hasn't quoted any direct source to prove his point about lower-case negroid traits[lolololol] in Europeans

---

You just can't let go of the fantasy that your Negro ancestors had some connection to the glories of Ancient Greece and Western Civilization. And really, who can blame you?

"negroid" vs. "Negroid"

posted 07 May 2005 10:38 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
You just can't let go of the fantasy that your Negro ancestors had some connection to the glories of Ancient Greece and Western Civilization. And really, [b]who can blame you?

"negroid" vs. "Negroid"

Two Questions in Search of Answers[/B]

---

posted 08 May 2005 09:03 AM            

quote:

---

TopDog writes: No idiot, you don't understand what atavism is about. I pointed it out to you and its amazing your brain still hasn't realised. Quoting verbatim from an article dealing with atavism in horses has nothing to do with what you're trying to establish.

Unless you can quote a source that says that broad noses and prognathism in Europeans is due to atavism or is an example of atavism you have no case.

---

Erroneous has no answer. Hmm. What's taking so long?

posted 09 May 2005 08:04 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Topdog:
No idiot, you don't understand what atavism is about. I pointed it out to you and its amaing your brain still hasn't realised. Quoting verbatim from an article dealing with atavism in horses has nothing to do with what you're trying to establish. Unless you can quote a source that says that broad noses and prognathism in Europeans is due to atavism or is an example of atavism you have no case.

---

Prognathism is a primitive trait most common today in Negroids (hence the reference to it as a "negroid trait"), but it certainly isn't limited to sub-Saharan populations or indicative of black admixture. It occurs in most archaic hominids, and re-emerges periodically in modern humans.

Hence, though still displaying a "mosaic of primitive traits," like thick bones, prognathism, and skull shape, H. erectus slowly continued and expanded the morphological trends initiated by H. habilus. [Nelson and Jurmain 1991: 490]

http://selenasol.com/selena/personal/prose/ascent_of_man.html

Another major difference in the morphology of the skulls is the "prognathism" of the Neanderthal skull. [...] For this reason, the prognathism in H. habilis is generally referred to as "sub-nasal" (below-the-nose) prognathism, and that in H. neanderthalensis is generally called "mid-facial" prognathism.

http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/nead_sap_comp.html

Facial prognathism is greater than the average amongst modern and late Neolithic Chinese but is similar to the early Neolithic male average.

http://www-personal.une.edu.au/~pbrown3/Liujiang.html

UPPER PALAEOLITHIC SURVIVALS IN IRELAND

An example of notable facial and alveolar prognathism in the case of a dark-haired, light-eyed Irishman. This feature is commoner with Irish of a tall Mediterranean type than with the Upper Palaeolithic strain proper. [NOTE: Irish Meds are of Paleolithic origin with no E3b]

posted 09 May 2005 06:25 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Prognathism is a primitive trait most common today in Negroids (hence the reference to it as a "negroid trait"), but it certainly isn't limited to sub-Saharan populations or indicative of black admixture. It occurs in most archaic hominids, and re-emerges periodically in modern humans.

Hence, though still displaying a "mosaic of primitive traits," like thick bones, prognathism, and skull shape, H. erectus slowly continued and expanded the morphological trends initiated by H. habilus. [Nelson and Jurmain 1991: 490]

http://selenasol.com/selena/personal/prose/ascent_of_man.html

Another major difference in the morphology of the skulls is the "prognathism" of the Neanderthal skull. [...] For this reason, the prognathism in H. habilis is generally referred to as "sub-nasal" (below-the-nose) prognathism, and that in H. neanderthalensis is generally called "mid-facial" prognathism.

http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/nead_sap_comp.html

Facial prognathism is greater than the average amongst modern and late Neolithic Chinese but is similar to the early Neolithic male average.

http://www-personal.une.edu.au/~pbrown3/Liujiang.html

UPPER PALAEOLITHIC SURVIVALS IN IRELAND

An example of notable facial and alveolar prognathism in the case of a dark-haired, light-eyed Irishman. This feature is commoner with Irish of a tall Mediterranean type than with the Upper Palaeolithic strain proper. [NOTE: Irish Meds are of Paleolithic origin with no E3b]

http://web.archive.org/web/20030817073218/www.legioneuropa.org/Racediv/CSCoon/Paper s/p9.htm

---

Using this logic, you might as well say that your teeth, your hair, your eyes et al. are all primitive traits, that have been present in human beings, since the arrival of this species.

posted 09 May 2005 07:08 PM            

quote:

---

Prognathism is something rare in northern Europeans, because of the way they had to adapt to the new environment. So of course, the early Europeans would have carried traces of their tropical morphologies to their new environment. But the tropically adapted morphologies were more frequent in the likes of the Greek skulls that Angel examined

---

Angel specifically states that the traits in question are due to admixture from Nubia, and not atavism in indigenous Europeans.

posted 09 May 2005 07:43 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Angel specifically states that the traits in question are due to [b]admixture from Nubia, and not atavism in indigenous Europeans.

atavism = just another straw argument and red herring meant to run away from the incontestible fact of Black African admixture in southern Europeans, as noted from Angel to Keita neither of whom have ever been refuted on this topic by any serious scholar.

---

posted 10 May 2005 07:35 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Angel specifically states that the traits in question are due to admixture from Nubia

---

Of course, said Nubians were not Negroid. As Angel suggests, they were Basic White. Obviously, they retained certain primitive traits (i.e. prognathism) just like the Neolithic Chinese and Modern Irish referred to above.

quote:

---

Angel to Keita neither of whom have ever been refuted on this topic by any serious scholar

---

Keita's a fool blatantly misrepresenting Angel's data. And Angel "refutes" himself by giving detailed descriptions of Neolithic racial types, none of which are remotely Negroid:

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/Forum8/HTML/001695.html

quote:

---

the incontestible fact of Black African admixture in southern Europeans

---

Incontestable fact = Afronut fantasy

Y-chromosomes:

Autosomes:

posted 10 May 2005 08:04 AM            

quote:

---

Of course, said Nubians were not Negroid.

---

bzzzt. Angel says otherwise......

"Egypt includes an almost Mouillian-negroid early population, linear but with extraordinarily broad nose and heavy and deep mouth region, as well as the negroid small-faced and prognathous and broad-nosed trend in the gracile Badarians." -
J.L. Angel

You keep spinning, we'll keep laughing.

posted 10 May 2005 08:09 AM            

quote:

---

Keita's a fool blatantly misrepresenting Angel's data. And Angel "refutes" himself

---

Show us a peer review from a reputable scientific source stating that Dr. Kieta misrepresents Angel and that Angel refutes himself.

Of course you can't, and only refute yourself as you always do. You've had 4 months. What's taking so long?

posted 10 May 2005 08:17 AM            

quote:

---

Supercar writes: The explanation Angel gives for the presence of "negroid" traits can't of course be miscontriued, even if one tried to do so.

---

posted 11 May 2005 08:05 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
bzzzt. Angel says otherwise......

"Egypt includes an almost Mouillian-negroid early population, linear but with extraordinarily broad nose and heavy and deep mouth region, as well as the negroid small-faced and prognathous and broad-nosed trend in the gracile Badarians." -
J.L. Angel

---

Bzzzt. Those are the same misinterpreted "negroid nose and mouth traits" for which you have no answer. Of course, there were no Negroids in pre-historic Egypt.

And speaking of having no answers, why did you ignore this part of my post?

quote:

---

And Angel "refutes" himself by giving detailed descriptions of Neolithic racial types, none of which are remotely Negroid:

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/Forum8/HTML/001695.html

---

And this part?

quote:

---

Incontestable fact = Afronut fantasy

Y-chromosomes:

Autosomes:

---

I wonder . . .

posted 11 May 2005 08:42 AM            

quote:

---

Supercar writes: The explanation Angel gives for the presence of "negroid" traits can't of course be miscontriued, even if one tried to do so.

---

posted 12 May 2005 07:51 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
As Erroneous, our racist lab rat, continues to so haplessly demonstrate.

---

Translation: You have no answers for anything, and can't even fake it anymore.

posted 12 May 2005 09:18 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Show us a peer review from a reputable scientific source stating that Dr. Kieta misrepresents Angel or that Angel refutes himself.

Of course you can't, and only refute yourself as you always do. You've had 4 months.

---

What's taking so long?

posted 12 May 2005 10:30 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
before you answer a question it has to be coherent.

---

quote:

---

Do you have a peer review from a reputable source stating that Dr. Kieta "misrepresents Larry Angel"?

---

Yes or no?

In order to answer the question you have to have some idea of what we are talking about. You don't.

You are just a silly little vacuous twit who best exemplifies: an empty vessel making much noise - William Shakespeare.

As such, of course you can't answer any question.

Yes or No...or move on troll.

posted 12 May 2005 10:36 AM            

quote:

---

Do you have a peer review from a reputable source stating that Dr. Kieta "misrepresents Larry Angel"?

---

Yes or no?

posted 12 May 2005 10:42 AM            

quote:

---

Dr keita is an Afrocentric and as such needs to be disregarded. When we get into some accepted mainline scholarship

---

Can you provide even 1 example of "accepted mainline scholarship" which supports your accusations against Dr. Keita?

posted 12 May 2005 10:56 AM            

yes - An affirmative or consenting reply.

no - a negative response or non-confirmation.

posted 12 May 2005 11:06 AM            

quote:

---

I could

---

quote:

---

but I am not

---

posted 12 May 2005 12:37 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Still no answers? Most unimpressive.

---

rasol...u dont need to stoop down to these underdeveloped neanderthals..level...they surely are a white supremacist clique...

posted 12 May 2005 09:05 PM            

Perhaps he, like "profesor" Horemheb, doesn't even understand the question?

Let's help him.

Keita is a biological anthropologist and physician who has long been interested in human variation, especially in Africa. He has authored or coauthored publications in peer reviewed science and humanities journals including Nature Genetics, the American Journal of Human Biology, the American Journal of Physical Anthropology, and History in Africa. His research has been in the areas of craniofacial variation, paleopathology, ancient Egyptian skeletal biology, the syntheses of biology, linguistics, and archaeology in order to study population history, and the history of ideas about race.

Keita is currently Senior Research Associate at the National Human Genome Center at Howard University, Research Associate in the Department of Anthropology at the Smithsonian Institution, and a medical officer in the Department of Human Services of the District of Columbia government. He received his medical training at Howard University, a masters in general anthropology from SUNY-Binghamton, and the doctorate in biological anthropology from Oxford University
Center for Genetic Medicine
Northwestern University

Perhaps some ancient pagan Druid incantations can be invoked...raising Carleton Coon [and 18th century anthropology]from the dead, and he could debate with Keita?

Actually no, I doubt it.

posted 13 May 2005 07:30 AM            

quote:

---

Note that the following constitutes the Afronuts' only two shreds of evidence to support their agenda on Greece, which I dub Operation: Steal Greek Culture to Raise Negro Self-esteem.

• 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 13 May 2005 07:32 AM            

quote:

---

The Levantine farmers who spread E3b, J and G to Europe and North Africa during the Holocene were, of course, entirely Caucasoid -- Afronut fantasies notwithstanding. According to Angel, they belonged to four subracial types: Classic Mediterranean (B), Basic White (A3, A4), Alpine (C4) and Mixed Alpine (E1). The following text comes from [1], and the plates are from [2]:

• The Classic Mediterranean type B1 is a generalized Mediterranean, whereas B2 is the more angular form, as often found in Egypt. Types B3, more linear and "Classic" in Sergi's sense, and B4, with the long face, approximate the desert-belt Mediterranean in the range from North Africa and Siwah to Hissar and Kazakhstan.

  
  

  
  

• The Basic White type A1 for example, is close to the British Atlanto-Mediterranean of Deniker and others, and it is longer-faced, more linear throughout than A3. Type A2 is a smaller version of the Upper Paleolithic norm and is broader-based and more rugged than A3, the Central Basic White, which approximates the Eurafrican of the literature and is a smaller version of Cro-Magnon. A4, a squat-faced and low-headed version of A3, being more Eastern than African; and A5 is a taller, more massive version.

  

  
  

• The Alpine type C1 is the typical Central European Alpine form, C2 a smaller trend of this, and C3 is the Upper Paleolithic to Mesolithic form (cf. Borreby). Type C4, short-faced but narrow-nosed and with an almost flat occiput, is an Eastern but not Armenoid form; and C3 is a low-headed and squat-faced version of C4, perhaps frequent in Hittites. These two may be pre-Armenoid.

  

  
  

• The Mixed-Alpine type E1 has the A3 form puffed out and more paedomorphic (cf. Alpine), whereas E2 is Nordic-Alpine and E3 Mediterranean Alpine.

  

[1] J. Lawrence Angel, The People of Lerna: Analysis of a Prehistoric Aegean Population. American School of Classical Studies, Athens, 1971, pp. 36-38.

[2] J. Lawrence Angel, Skeletal Material from Attica, Hesperia, 1945.

---

posted 13 May 2005 07:34 AM            

quote:

---

Anthropology:

J. Lawrence Angel on Morphological Types of Greeks

Carleton S. Coon on the Greeks

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

Y-chromosomes:

Autosomes:

---

posted 13 May 2005 09:58 AM            

quote:

---

Do you have a peer review from a reputable source stating that Dr. Kieta "misrepresents Larry Angel"?

---

Yes or no?

posted 14 May 2005 08:00 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Do you have a peer review from a reputable source stating that Dr. Kieta "misrepresents Larry Angel"?

---

Dishonest ape, Keita claims that "Angel also found evidence for a 'black'...genetic influence in neolithic and later Aegean populations." Angel never determined any such thing. He spoke only of "negroid nose and mouth traits", saying nothing about blacks or genetic influence. That's blatant misrepresentation by Keita.

And now that I've answered your questions (as I always do), have the courtesy to answer mine above...unless, of course, you can't.

posted 14 May 2005 09:01 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Super car:
Angel's comment:

Lawrence Angel
Journal of Human Evolutiom
1972
1, Pg 307

"Negroid traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters (McCown, 1939) and in Anatolian and Macedonian first farmers, probably FROM NUBIA".

Response to bernal and Snowden
SOY Keita
Arethusa
26 (1993) pg 329

"Angel also found evidence for a "black" (if such exists) genetic influence in neolithic and later Aegean populations. Racialists models, which imply non-overlapping gene pools, are clearly negated by Angel's work."

---

The question is:

quote:

---

Do you have a peer review from a reputable source stating that Dr. Kieta "misrepresents Larry Angel"? YES OR NO

---

Stop stalling you DEFEATED DUNCE and answer the question. Yes, or No.

posted 15 May 2005 08:03 AM            

Nothing, that is, except the three posts I asked you to answer above.

posted 15 May 2005 09:01 AM            

quote:

---

there's nothing to answer.

---

posted 15 May 2005 09:05 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Angel specifically states that the traits in question are due to admixture from Nubia

---

Of course, said Nubians were not Negroid. As Angel suggests, they were Basic White. Obviously, they retained certain primitive traits (i.e. prognathism) just like the Neolithic Chinese and Modern Irish referred to above.

quote:

---

Angel to Keita neither of whom have ever been refuted on this topic by any serious scholar

---

Keita's a fool blatantly misrepresenting Angel's data. And Angel "refutes" himself by giving detailed descriptions of Neolithic racial types, none of which are remotely Negroid:

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/Forum8/HTML/001695.html

quote:

---

the incontestible fact of Black African admixture in southern Europeans

---

Incontestable fact = Afronut fantasy

Y-chromosomes:

Autosomes:

wrong,if nubians past and present and most early egyptians were not negriod,than blacks are really white right?get the hell out of here,you and your non-sense.
if racist whites would say that nubians are negriod when they they like to say egypt had black slaves,so i guess you are out of the mainstream of racist whites,and you brand of thinking is rare even among them,but we know that nubians are early egyptians were (negriod)black africans,so stop acting like a fool,it is embarrassing,and even a klansman would say to you,those nubians are negriods my little white stupid brother/sister,are you blind?

posted 16 May 2005 07:27 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
....then the answer is no and you are dismissed.

---

Incorrect. The answer is "not applicable", and you are drowning . . .

posted 16 May 2005 08:50 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Super car:
Angel's comment:

Lawrence Angel
Journal of Human Evolutiom
1972
1, Pg 307

"Negroid traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters (McCown, 1939) and in Anatolian and Macedonian first farmers, probably FROM NUBIA".

Response to bernal and Snowden
SOY Keita
Arethusa
26 (1993) pg 329

"Angel also found evidence for a "black" (if such exists) genetic influence in neolithic and later Aegean populations. Racialists models, which imply non-overlapping gene pools, are clearly negated by Angel's work."

---

The question is:

quote:

---

Do you have a peer review from a reputable source stating that Dr. Kieta "misrepresents Larry Angel"? YES OR NO

---

Erroneous gets punished for having no answers.

posted 17 May 2005 12:58 AM            

quote:

---

Of course, said Nubians were not Negroid.

---

bzzzt. Angel says otherwise......

_____________________________________________
you know rasol,euro trash should stick to the script because even the klan,would say those nubians are negroes,can't you see thier broad noses?(of course nubian broad noses varied in shape like any other black ethnic group.
_____________________________________________

"Egypt includes an almost Mouillian-negroid early population, linear but with extraordinarily broad nose and heavy and deep mouth region, as well as the negroid small-faced and prognathous and broad-nosed trend in the gracile Badarians." -
J.L. Angel
_____________________________________________
of course it is known that many of early egypt's black population comes from the lower nubian region and from the west of the nile but there were changes(many of egypt's early blacks might have the linear broad noses but more skulls need to be studied of course ,and they had more things common with early lower nubia(not every thing of course) than the rest of nubia,and yes upper and southern nubians had some physical differences on average from the upper egyptians but that's okay because nubians and many early egyptians were and are black africans that happen to be two different ethnic groups so if black egyptians on average had linear broad noses,a little lighter on average and shorter and nubians were darker on average, taller on average and had/have broad noses like the common west and central black african that varied just like northern european noses vary, that's okay too ,so evil euro and his friends need to get over it because the truth is here.
_____________________________________________

posted 17 May 2005 05:36 AM            

He continues to sweat blood.

- trying to explain away the Nubian ancestry, Benin Sickle cell, Sub Saharan African and West Asian Y chromosome, and heterogeneous skeletal remains of Ancient Greeks.

This peoples introduced into Europe African and West Asian techniques of the Neolithic.

Let's continue to USE this Erroneous fruitcake.....

posted 17 May 2005 07:50 AM            

quote:

---

Anthropology:

J. Lawrence Angel on Morphological Types of Greeks

Carleton S. Coon on the Greeks

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

Y-chromosomes:

Autosomes:

---

posted 17 May 2005 08:00 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Super car:
Angel's comment:

Lawrence Angel
Journal of Human Evolutiom
1972
1, Pg 307

"Negroid traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters (McCown, 1939) and in Anatolian and Macedonian first farmers, probably FROM NUBIA".

Response to bernal and Snowden
SOY Keita
Arethusa
26 (1993) pg 329

"Angel also found evidence for a "black" (if such exists) genetic influence in neolithic and later Aegean populations. Racialists models, which imply non-overlapping gene pools, are clearly negated by Angel's work."

---

The question is:

quote:

---

Do you have a peer review from a reputable source stating that Dr. Kieta "misrepresents Larry Angel"? YES OR NO

---

posted 17 May 2005 04:32 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Kenndo: Good post. Just have a laugh at Erroneous and his miserable predicament, and resultant ***SELF CHECKING*** remarks.

He continues to sweat blood.

- trying to explain away the Nubian ancestry, Benin Sickle cell, Sub Saharan African and West Asian Y chromosome, and heterogeneous skeletal remains of Ancient Greeks.

This peoples introduced into Europe African and West Asian techniques of the Neolithic.

Let's continue to USE this Erroneous fruitcake.....

There are at least seven or eight ­ maybe eleven to thirteen ­ world regions which independently invented agriculture. None in Europe, by the way. Agriculture was invented in Africa in at least three centers, and maybe even four. In Africa, you find the [b]earliest domestication of cattle. The location, the pottery and other materials we've found makes it likely that happened among the Nilo-Saharan peoples, the sites are in southern Egypt. - Professor Christopher Ehret, Historian, UCLA[/B]

---

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.