posted 18 May 2005 03:20 PM            

Now read this and when you reply do spam the thread with your nonsense:

"Since the E3b*-M35 lineages appear to be confined mostly to the sub-Saharan populations, it is conceivable that the initial migrations toward North Africa from the south primarily involved derivative E3b-M35 lineages. These include E3b1-M78, a haplogroup especially common in Ethiopia (23%), and, perhaps, E3b2-M123 (2%), which is present as well (Underhill et al. 2000; Cruciani et al. 2002; Semino et al. 2002)."

From Luis et tal

posted 18 May 2005 06:02 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by COBRA:
were do somalies stand in this.

---

Right in the thick of it.

Sanches et. al believe that E3b1 may have originated in Somalia

posted 19 May 2005 04:38 AM            

"The paternal ancestry of Ethiopian Jews resembles that of Africans, with seven out of 17 (41.2%) belonging to haplogroup A3b2, and three (17.6%) belonging to E*. Haplogroup E3b1, defined by M78, was found in all nine populations at frequencies of 10–16.7%. The Samaritan family Cohen carries this haplotype. Haplogroup E3b3,
defined by M123, was present at 5 to 20% in Ethiopian, Ashkenazi, Libyan, and Yemenite Jews, and in Palestinians. Only two individuals, one Ethiopian and one
Moroccan, belong to E3b* and carry neither M78 nor M123...... Samaritans and Jewish populations,except Ethiopian Jews, form a cluster separated from Palestinians and Druze. Ethiopian Jews are related more
closely to Africans."

Erroneous E's nightmare

Also, look at the two PCRs in that study and see where Ethiopians[Ethiopian Jews] group at.

Final points: In Ethiopians are 'paternally caucasoid' Erroneous one, why does this study say their paternal ancestry resembles that of other Africans not to mention being more closely related to other Africans? It makes this point twice. If they were paternally 'Caucasoid' as you failed biased logic dictates, why aren't they clustering closely to Middle Easterners in this study? Thats both maternally and paternally.

posted 19 May 2005 07:44 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Topdog:
Final points: In Ethiopians are 'paternally caucasoid' Erroneous one, why does this study say their paternal ancestry resembles that of other Africans not to mention being more closely related to other Africans? It makes this point twice.

---

Stupid monkey, it's saying that Ethiopian Jews are more related to other Ethiopians (i.e. Africans) than they are to their fellow Jews in the Middle East. That's all. Now go get your GED so you don't have to embarrass yourself with such ridiculous misreadings of simple studies.

Still unrefuted and still awaiting answers . . .

quote:

---

Mounds of recent Y-chromosome, mtDNA and autosomal evidence for Afronuts who are in denial of reality:

"The occurrence of E*5 212 and E*5 204 alleles in two populations of the Mediterranean basin (Turkey and Italy) but not in West Africans can be explained by taking into account that the Ethiopian gene pool was estimated to be >40% of Caucasoid derivation (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994). In addition, more recent phylogenetic analysis based on classical protein polymorphism (Tartaglia et al. 1996) and Y-chromosome sequence variation (Underhill et al. 2000) showed that Ethiopians appear to be distinct from Africans and more closely associated with populations of the Mediterranean basin."

(Scacchi et al., Hum Biol, 2003)

"The present composition of the Ethiopian population is the result of a complex and extensive intermixing of different peoples of North African, Near and Middle Eastern, and south-Saharan origin. The two main groups inhabiting the country are the Amhara, descended from Arabian conquerors, and the Oromo, the most important group among the Cushitic people. ... The genetic distance analysis showed the separation between African and non-African populations, with the Amhara and Oromo located in an intermediate position."

(De Stefano et al., Ann Hum Biol, 2002)

"On the basis of historical, linguistic, and genetic data, it has been suggested that the Ethiopian population has been strongly affected by Caucasoid migrations since Neolithic times. On the basis of autosomal polymorphic loci, it has been estimated that 60% of the Ethiopian gene pool has an African origin, whereas ~40% is of Caucasoid derivation.... Our Ethiopian sample also lacks the sY81-G allele, which was associated with 86% and 69% of Senegalese and mixed-African YAP+ chromosomes, respectively. This suggests that male-mediated gene flow from Niger-Congo speakers to the Ethiopian population was probably very limited ... Caucasoid gene flow into the Ethiopian gene pool occurred predominantly through males. Conversely, the Niger-Congo contribution to the Ethiopian population occurred mainly through females."

(Passarino et al., Am J Hum Genet, 1998)

"Non sub-Saharan African samples are all grouped together...with...the Ethiopian Amharic sample. Ethiopians are not statistically differentiated from the Egyptian and Tunisian samples, in agreement with their linguistic affiliation with the Afro-Asiatic family."

(Poloni et al., Am J Hum Genet, 1997)

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

---

quote:

---

Like most East Africans, Somalis are a hybrid Negroid/Caucasoid population (or, if you prefer, African/non-African). This has been established using several lines of evidence.

• Somali Y-chromosomes:

  "In general, populations cluster by geographic origin. The most distinct separation is between African and non-African populations. The northeastern-African -- that is, the Ethiopian and Somali -- populations are located centrally between sub-Saharan African and non-African populations."

  [Tishkoff et al. (2000) Short Tandem-Repeat Polymorphism/Alu Haplotype Variation at the PLAT Locus: Implications for Modern Human Origins. Am J Hum Genet; 67:901-925]

  
  

• Somali mtDNA:

  "Somali, as a representative East African population, seem to have experienced a detectable amount of Caucasoid maternal influence"

  [Comas et al. (1999) Analysis of mtDNA HVRII in Several Human Populations Using an Immobilised SSO Probe Hybridisation Assay. Eur J Hum Genet; 7:459-68]

  
  

• Somali Crania:

  As expected given the above, Somalis appear as racially intermediate between Eurasian samples (including Europeans, North Africans and Middle Easterners) and a combined sub-Saharan sample (which contains Western, Central and Southern Africans).

  

  [Brace et al. (1993) Clines and Clusters Versus "Race": A Test in Ancient Egypt and the Case of a Death on the Nile. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology; 36:1-31]

  
  

• Somali Racial Type:

  "FIG. 1 (2 views). A Somali from the tribe of Mahmud Grade, British Somaliland. This Somali represents the closest approximation to a white man found among his people. The extreme narrowness of his head and face, the straight nasal profile, and the prominence of his chin, mark him as less negroid than many of his fellows. At the same time his skin is nearly black, his hair curly but not frizzy. The type to which this Somali belongs is ancient in East Africa, as shown by the excavations of Leakey in Kenya. It is a specialized, locally differentiated Mediterranean racial form."

  

  [Carleton S. Coon. The Races of Europe. MacMillan, 1939]

  
  

• Conclusion:

  Coon and Howells were right. Hiernaux was wrong.
  

---

posted 19 May 2005 08:51 AM            

quote:

---

Erroneous writes: what's taking so long

---

...because you're an idiot, you're a fraud and you can't read or think. Next silly question.

posted 19 May 2005 02:22 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:

What's taking so long?

---

quote:

---

Stupid monkey, it's saying that Ethiopian Jews are more related to other Ethiopians (i.e. Africans) than they are to their fellow Jews in the Middle East. That's all. Now go get your GED so you don't have to embarrass yourself with such ridiculous misreadings of simple studies.

---

No dummy, didn't you see the 'Africans' used in that study? They were **NOT** other Ethiopians, the dummy is you because you misread that study:

"Included in the statistical analysis were sequence data generated previously from 23 Africans (five San, four Biaka Pygmy,
four Mbuti Pygmy, five Sudanese, two Herero, one Tswana, one Ghanaian, and one Mandenka) and 21 Europeans (five Britons, two Czechs, two Finns, one Georgian, one Greek, three Icelanders, and seven Italians)."

Where are those other Ethiopians? This study places Ethiopian Jews closer to other Africans, not with Caucasoids. Like the retard you are who thinks he's really debating, keep on spamming the same nonsense.

posted 19 May 2005 02:34 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Topdog:
[B] No dummy, didn't you see the 'Africans' used in that study? They were **NOT** other Ethiopians, the dummy is you because you misread that study:

"Included in the statistical analysis were sequence data generated previously from 23 Africans (five San, four Biaka Pygmy,
four Mbuti Pygmy, five Sudanese, two Herero, one Tswana, one Ghanaian, and one Mandenka) and 21 Europeans (five Britons, two Czechs, two Finns, one Georgian, one Greek, three Icelanders, and seven Italians)."

Where are those other Ethiopians?

---

lol@Fraud Erroneous. He can't be bothered to read, think or pay attention to what's being presented.

He's just distortionist idiot on auto-pilot who responds to information with mindless spam posts.

posted 19 May 2005 02:37 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
lol@Fraud Erroneous. He can't be bothered to read, think or pay attention to what's being presented.

He's just distortionist idiot on auto-pilot who responds to information with mindless spam posts.

Let's continue to use and humiliate him. He likes it anyway.

---

The funny thing about this idiot named Erroneous E is that really believes he's making a valid debate by continuous spamming the same studies over again[studies which conflict him if he really read them].

posted 19 May 2005 02:58 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Topdog:
The funny thing about this idiot named Erroneous E is that really believes he's making a valid debate by continuous spamming the same studies over again[studies which conflict him if he really read them].

---

Actually, I think the guy is quite aware of the fact that, he doesn't believe in most of the stuff he spews out here, any more than everyone else. A distorter feels uncomfortable with reality, but his/her intention is to make others not see this reality. This is the therapeutic element of distortion, at least in the sole mind of the distorter. When the distorter fails to fool people, that is when one begins to see the kind of frustrations, that Evil is now going through.

posted 20 May 2005 06:02 AM            

"Somali Racial Type:
"FIG. 1 (2 views). A Somali from the tribe of Mahmud Grade, British Somaliland. This Somali represents the closest approximation to a white man found among his people. The extreme narrowness of his head and face, the straight nasal profile, and the prominence of his chin, mark him as less negroid than many of his fellows. At the same time his skin is nearly black, his hair curly but not frizzy. The type to which this Somali belongs is ancient in East Africa, as shown by the excavations of Leakey in Kenya. It is a specialized, locally differentiated Mediterranean racial form."

Somalis are now Meds according to this idiot and so are Tutsis, is it me or is this idiot Erroneous E stubbornly refusing to let go of dated, discredited anthrolopogy for the sake of trying to make an argument he cannot make? Oh, btw, some more of Coon's Mediterraneans:

“Both of the Gamble’s Cave skulls seem to fully or nearly “white” in the skeletal sense, the Oldoway is, in a way difficult to analyze, perceptibly Negroid. Many modern tribes of East Africa, including the Somalis, and Masai, and the upper classes of others such as the Bahimas show today the same general features which are found in these pluvial period skulls.

Coon, Carleton S., "The Races of Europe," Macmillan, New York, 1939, p. 45

Now we have it, Somalis, Masai, Bahima[same people as the Tutsi] are all skeletally "white men" according to a 1939 anthropology book.

What interesting to note here is that despite Coon's obvious ridiculous labelling of these people and fossils as being close to 'white men' its actually in agreement with what Hieranux said about the same populations when he said:

"Many authors regard these people as physically akin to the Mediterraneans, hence the label of 'Caucasoids'(or European-like) generally attached to them. However, all their features can be found in several living populations of East Africa, like the Tutsi of Rwanda and Burundi who are very dark skinned and differ from Europeans in a number of body proportions...Now, as mentioned in Chapter 3, the fossil record tells us of tall people with long and narrow heads, faces and noses who lived a few thousand years BC in East Africa at such places as Gamble's Cave in the Kenya Rift Valley and at Olduvai in northern Tanzania. There is every reason to believe that they are ancestral to the living 'Elongated East Africans'. Neither of these populations, fossil and modern, should be considered to be closely related to Caucasoids of Europe and western Asia, as they usually are in literature."

Jean Hiernaux, People of Africa, 1975
[As originally posted here by Said Mohammad earlier.]

Now ask yourself, who makes more sense, Coon or Hiernaux? Though they both agree that the fossils are ancestral to today's Somalis, Tutsi, Hima, and Masai, are any of these peoples skeletally 'white' or 'near white'? Obsolete, dated anthropology needs to be given a rest.

posted 20 May 2005 06:12 AM            

That is how Coon and other white supremacist anthropologists destroyed their credibility.

By taking their at 1st subtle racism to the nth degree - applying it to the Somali, then the Tutsi, the Masai, the Zulu, the San.

They go from the sublime to the ridiculous until only dull minded fruitcakes like Erroneous are unembarrassed to promote such sillyness in public.

posted 20 May 2005 06:28 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Good post.

That is how Coon and other white supremacist anthropologists destroyed their credibility.

By taking their at 1st subtle racism to the nth degree - applying it to the Somali, then the Tutsi, the Masai, the Zulu, the San.

They go from the sublime to the ridiculous until only dull minded fruitcakes like Erroneous are unembarrassed to promote such sillyness in public.

[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 20 May 2005).]

---

I agree and as he always does when presented with points he cannot properly address he will spam the same nonsense in his reply, information he misinterprets with distortions, and pretend[or maybe he actually believes he's making an argument, lol] he's making a valid rebuttal of 'Afronuts'. The only nut is him. I can't believe he takes himself serious.

posted 20 May 2005 07:37 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Topdog:
"Included in the statistical analysis were sequence data generated previously from 23 Africans (five San, four Biaka Pygmy, four Mbuti Pygmy, five Sudanese, two Herero, one Tswana, one Ghanaian, and one Mandenka) and 21 Europeans (five Britons, two Czechs, two Finns, one Georgian, one Greek, three Icelanders, and seven Italians)."

---

Those populations don't correspond to the ones cited in your original quote, which mentioned Ethiopians, Moroccans, Samaritans, Jews, Palestinians and Druze. Get the facts of the study straight before you start posting random quotes to make a "point".

quote:

---

This study places Ethiopian Jews closer to other Africans, not with Caucasoids.

---

Um, that might have something to do with the presence of haplogroup A in Ethiopian Jews at a frequency of ~41%.

posted 20 May 2005 08:24 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Topdog:
Many modern tribes of East Africa, including the Somalis, and Masai, and the upper classes of others such as the Bahimas show today the same general features which are found in these pluvial period skulls.

---

Of course what you should emphasize here TopDog is Coon vs. Howells. Both discredited, and also both contradicting and exposing the fallacies in each others works.

* Carelton Coon: claimed ancient East Africans resemble Masai, Somali, Tutsi, and other Nilotic and elongated types.....but thought they were Hamites who came from Eurasia. Of course the PN2 clade has destroyed Coon's wishful-white-lies.

* Howells: claimed ancient East Africans had odd affinites with Japanese and South American Indians and basically everything but what they are...AFRICAN.

But he reached this truly daft conclusion ONLY by avoiding comparison with indigenous East African nilotic and elongated types - you can't assess what you don't test.

The result is Howells has been trashed over and again in the peer review scholarship.

Moreover the faulty aspects of the work of both Coon and Howells are revealed to be essentially mutually negating.

posted 20 May 2005 02:48 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Um, that might have something to do with the presence of haplogroup A in Ethiopian Jews at a frequency of ~41%.

---

Idiot, don't play a game of double take with me, your ignorant self stated that "Ethiopians are paternally Caucasoid", I've posted studies which have refuted this time and time again and no Ethiopian group, be they Amhara, Tigre, Oromo, or Ethiopian Jews- are paternally Caucasoid. Just because you're too damn stupid and biased to accurately read and interpret a DNA plot doesn't make me the stupid one. The Africans used in that study are the one referred to as 'Africans' in it, so don't play stupid as if you don't know whats being stated. You don't have an argument or valid explanation to refute it so don't play stupid mind games. Idiot!

quote:

---

The point is, your passage about Ethiopian Jews being part black

---

Ethiopian Jews are black, what the heck do you mean by part black? Idiot!

quote:

---

has no bearing on the status of Ethiopians and Somalis as intermediate between Sub-Saharan Africans and Eurasians,

---

Idiot, this 'intermediate' location has been explained to your ignorant self numerous times, Ethiopians and Somalis are northeast Africans and all non-Africans, to include West Eurasians, branched off from a population that migrated out of Northeast Africans. Since northeast Africans branched off from sub-Saharans and non-Africans branched off from the former, that gives Ethiopians and Somalis the intermediate status you moron, since both are northeast Africans. The citations you keep spamming continously like a moron all say this:

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

"In general, populations cluster by geographic origin. The most distinct separation is between African and non-African populations. The northeastern-African -- that is, the Ethiopian and Somali -- populations are located centrally between sub-Saharan African and non-African populations."

And furthermore from that last study you keep missing this passage:

"The intermediate position, between African and non-African populations, that the Ethiopian Jews and Somalis occupy in the PCA plot also has been observed in other genetic studies (Ritte et al. 1993; Passarino et al. 1998) and could be due either to shared common ancestry or to recent gene flow. The fact that the Ethiopians and Somalis have a subset of the sub-Saharan African haplotype diversityand that the non-African populations have a subset of the diversity present in Ethiopians and Somalis makes simple-admixture models less likely; rather, these observations support the hypothesis proposed by other nuclear-genetic studies (Tishkoff et al. 1996a, 1998a, 1998b; Kidd et al. 1998)that populations in northeastern Africa may have diverged from those in the rest of sub-Saharan Africa early in the history of modern African populations and that a subset of this northeastern-African population migrated out of Africa and populated the rest of the globe."

Erroneous E quit spamming, your questions have been answered yet again idiot

quote:

---

Somali, as a representative East African population, seem to have experienced a detectable amount of Caucasoid maternal influence"

---

This question was already answered idiot, the 'detectable' amount of Caucasoid maternal influence is only 11% moron, hardly enough to make anyone highly mixed or racially intermediate.

quote:

---

which has been proven by the overwhelming evidence for which you still have not a single answer.[/B]

---

Idiot your questions have answers now, so quit spamming the same crap repeatedly over and over again, its time you come up with some answers, not some weak answers, strawmans, ad-hominems, red herrings and mind games you've been playing. Now piss off and quit infesting this forum with your mediocrity and stupidity.

posted 20 May 2005 02:59 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Of course what you should emphasize here TopDog is Coon vs. Howells. Both discredited, and also both contradicting and exposing the fallacies in each others works.

* [b]Carelton Coon: claimed ancient East Africans resemble Masai, Somali, Tutsi, and other Nilotic and elongated types.....but thought they were Hamites who came from Eurasia. Of course the PN2 clade has destroyed Coon's wishful-white-lies.

* Howells: claimed ancient East Africans had odd affinites with Japanese and South American Indians and basically everything but what they are...AFRICAN.

But he reached this truly daft conclusion ONLY by avoiding comparison with indigenous East African nilotic and elongated types - you can't assess what you don't test.

The result is Howells has been trashed over and again in the peer review scholarship.

Moreover the faulty aspects of the work of both Coon and Howells are revealed to be essentially mutually negating.

Of course, don't expect Erroneous [intellectual-coward] Euro to face the facts, but they are worth pointing out to more honest and intelligent peoples. Good stuff. [/B]

---

Of course Erroneous E will not address what I pointed out about Coon because he can't and thats why he carefully avoided responding to it. Instead, he decided to play the game of double take and tapdance about the study I quoted from about Ethiopian Jews. None of his tapdancing changes the fact that no Ethiopian group is paternally Caucasoid, that idiot reads plots and maps and sees only what he wants to see and he thinks that spamming it continually gives him some type of edge or point in his debate when it doesn't.

posted 20 May 2005 03:51 PM            

quote:

---

I cannot understand how someone can be so stubborn, ignorant, and arrogant while thinking he's more intelligent.[/B]

---

Are you being sarcastic?

posted 20 May 2005 09:53 PM            

quote:

---

Topdog:

...this 'intermediate' location has been explained to your ignorant self numerous times, Ethiopians and Somalis are northeast Africans and all non-Africans, to include West Eurasians, branched off from a population that migrated out of Northeast Africans. Since northeast Africans branched off from sub-Saharans and non-Africans branched off from the former, that gives Ethiopians and Somalis the intermediate status you moron, since both are northeast Africans...

---

posted 20 May 2005 10:34 PM            

You mentioned that Ethiopians and Somalis are "North East Africans". Is this accurate?

You surmised that all non-Africans including Eurasians branched off from this "North East African" group. Would this group include the ancestors of living Adaman Islanders, New Guineans, Fijians, Solomon Islanders and other Melanesians?

And what about the "Australian Aboriginese", did their ancestors completely bypass a sourjourn in Eurasia?

posted 21 May 2005 01:18 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Super car:
Correction: The Horn of Africa is in sub-Saharan Africa, NOT northeast Africa. [see African map]

---

I'm well aware of that, I just chose to remain within the context of text I quoted from.

posted 21 May 2005 01:28 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by lamin:
To Topdog

You mentioned that Ethiopians and Somalis are "North East Africans". Is this accurate?

---

Yes it is.

quote:

---

You surmised that all non-Africans including Eurasians branched off from this "North East African" group. Would this group include the ancestors of living Adaman Islanders, New Guineans, Fijians, Solomon Islanders and other Melanesians?

---

Yes it would include the above said peoples. You had subsequent branching outside of Africa as well.

quote:

---

And what about the "Australian Aboriginese", did their ancestors completely bypass a sourjourn in Eurasia?

---

Yes, since Australian Aborigines have a high amount of Haplogroup M its postulatd that there ancestors to the southern migration route OOA via southern Indian to Australia.

quote:

---

Are you assuming that there were only 2 branching groups that populated the whole world? The claim is made that NE Africans are "intermediate" between "Sub-Saharan Africans" and "the Rest of the World" but given the length of time that the group that branched further into Africa has spent in Africa wouldn't that mean that there would be a multiplicity of branchings within Africa itself thereby questioning the so-called "intermediate" status assigned to "North East Africans" as defined?

---

posted 21 May 2005 02:46 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Topdog:

It doesn't put into question the intermediate status because all non-Africans have clades that are rooted in haplogroups M and N. M and N are rooted in African haplogroup L3*. L3 has an East African origin and most of the Ethiopian and Somali mtDNA lineages are from L3. Of course there was extensive branching all over Africa which is why you see L2 and L3 lineages all over Africa.

---

Making East Africa largely a genetic subset of Africa, and the rest of the world largely a genetic subset of East Africa. Correct.

For this reason East Africans will virtually ALWAYS be genetically 'intermediate' between ->

* the rest of indigenous Africa,

** anyplace outside of Africa.

posted earlier:

West African:

Eurasian [Indonesia]:

* note: adaman islanders are just as 'eurasian' as japanese islanders and british islanders.

The East African Oromo - are "intermediate" between the above two peoples:

This would be true even if Europe and European whites did not exist, as they have nothing to do with it.

posted 21 May 2005 03:05 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Making East Africa largely a genetic subset of Africa, and the rest of the world largely a genetic subset of East Africa. Correct.

For this reason East Africans will virtually ALWAYS be genetically 'intermediate' between ->

* the rest of indigenous Africa,

** anyplace outside of Africa.

posted earlier:

West African:

Eurasian [Indonesia]:

* note: adaman islanders are just as 'eurasian' as japanese islanders and british islanders.

The East African Oromo - are "intermediate" between the above two peoples:

This would be true even if Europe and European whites did not exist, as they have nothing to do with it.

[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 21 May 2005).]

---

Correct, and thats why to quote Keita:

"Molecular data suggest that the early modern human population began to divide between 150,000 to 115,000 years ago. This fissioning would have taken place in Africa. Modern human fossils dated to about 90,000 years ago are found outside of Africa, but the next genetic fissioning is believed to have occured after this, perhaps about 70,000 years ago(Bowcock et tal. 1991). Modern human remains in Asia, including Australia, are dated after this period, and in Europe, to around 35,000 years ago. Why are these data important? Because they indicate that the background genetic variation of Europeans, Oceanians, and Asians originated in Africa and precedes in time the presence of modern humans in these areas. Europeans and Asian-Australians did develop more unique genetic profiles over time, but had a common background before their average "uniqueness" emerged. This background is African in a bio-historical sense. Therefore, it should not be surprising that some Africans share similarities with non-Africans."

The Diversity of Indigenous Africans
S.O.Y. Keita
Department of Biological Anthropology
Oxford University

Egypt in Africa
Theodore Celenko
pg 104

That last part in bold is what Erroneous E should pay particular attention to. Somalis aren't racially 'intermediate', West Eurasians are more similar to Somalis because Eurasians descend from a population that was a subset of the divesity seen in Somalis and Ethiopians. Their racial intermediate status is authentically African and has nothing to do with Eurasian influence. As usual, instead of specifically addressing these points, Erroneous E will dwell on or find something irrelevant to detract from the main points covered.

posted 21 May 2005 07:23 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Topdog:
I've posted studies which have refuted this time and time again and no Ethiopian group, be they Amhara, Tigre, Oromo, or Ethiopian Jews- are paternally Caucasoid.

---

You've done nothing of the kind. Ethiopians are intermediate between Eurasians and Africans, and their Caucasoid ancestry is mostly paternal, while their Negroid ancestry is mostly maternal:

"On the basis of historical, linguistic, and genetic data, it has been suggested that the Ethiopian population has been strongly affected by Caucasoid migrations since Neolithic times. On the basis of autosomal polymorphic loci, it has been estimated that 60% of the Ethiopian gene pool has an African origin, whereas ~40% is of Caucasoid derivation.... Our Ethiopian sample also lacks the sY81-G allele, which was associated with 86% and 69% of Senegalese and mixed-African YAP+ chromosomes, respectively. This suggests that male-mediated gene flow from Niger-Congo speakers to the Ethiopian population was probably very limited ... Caucasoid gene flow into the Ethiopian gene pool occurred predominantly through males. Conversely, the Niger-Congo contribution to the Ethiopian population occurred mainly through females." (Passarino et al., Am J Hum Genet, 1998)

quote:

---

Since northeast Africans branched off from sub-Saharans and non-Africans branched off from the former, that gives Ethiopians and Somalis the intermediate status you moron, since both are northeast Africans. The citations you keep spamming continously like a moron all say this:

---

No, sometimes what they say is much less ambiguous, like in the one posted above, as well as these:

"Considering the erythrocyte enzyme data, the Oromo and Amhara appear quite similar to Europoids (particularly to the South Arabians) and considerably different from the Negritic peoples. There is evidence for close genetic affinity among the Cushitic- and Semitic-speaking population groups of the Horn. Admixture between Europoid and Negritic populations seems to have been the main microevolutionary factor in generating the present day Cushitic (and Semitic)-speaking group of eastern Africa." (Tartaglia et al., Am J Hum Biol, 1996)

"The occurrence of E*5 212 and E*5 204 alleles in two populations of the Mediterranean basin (Turkey and Italy) but not in West Africans can be explained by taking into account that the Ethiopian gene pool was estimated to be >40% of Caucasoid derivation (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994). In addition, more recent phylogenetic analysis based on classical protein polymorphism (Tartaglia et al. 1996) and Y-chromosome sequence variation (Underhill et al. 2000) showed that Ethiopians appear to be distinct from Africans and more closely associated with populations of the Mediterranean basin." (Scacchi et al., Hum Biol, 2003)

"Non sub-Saharan African samples are all grouped together...with...the Ethiopian Amharic sample. Ethiopians are not statistically differentiated from the Egyptian and Tunisian samples, in agreement with their linguistic affiliation with the Afro-Asiatic family." (Poloni et al., Am J Hum Genet, 1997)

quote:

---

Ethiopian Jews are black, what the heck do you mean by part black? Idiot!

---

Ethiopians Jews (EtJ) are substantially Caucasoid on the Y-chromosome:

quote:

---

This question was already answered idiot, the 'detectable' amount of Caucasoid maternal influence is only 11% moron, hardly enough to make anyone highly mixed or racially intermediate.

---

Well no, not if you ignore E3b. But if you add ~11% Caucasoid mtDNA to ~85% E3b, you get ~48% total admixture, and a population that's racially intermediate between Sub-Saharan Africans and Eurasians as a result:

posted 21 May 2005 09:20 AM            

quote:

---

that idiot reads plots and maps and sees only what he wants to see

---

Indeed, he reposts the map he used to claim the Lemba of South Africa were "caucazoid", even though he was forced to reverse that laughable claim after choking badly on it.

He reposts a map he uses to claim that East Africans are "skeletally intermediate" with Europeans.

But clearly he needs glasses as there are no Europeans on the map, and India, not East Africa is shown as intermediate.

CL Brace map is also flawed as it primarily measures nose width, and does not consider skeletal limb ratio at all. In terms of limb ratio elongated East Africans are EXTREME tropical African varients [per Zakrezewski, Keita, Hiernaus, Robins, Rightmire..AND CL Brace ironically.] which is to say...they are highly distinct from whites.

So TopDog is correct, Erroneous is too stupid to read maps.

Erroneous is also too stupid to think for himself, and so continues to parrot Dienekes rewritten misinterpretations of abstracts.

Erroneous spams his ignorance but has no answers. What's taking so long?

posted 21 May 2005 11:10 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Topdog:
Final points: In Ethiopians are 'paternally caucasoid' Erroneous one, why does this study say their paternal ancestry resembles that of other Africans not to mention being more closely related to other Africans? It makes this point twice.

---

Stupid monkey, it's saying that Ethiopian Jews are more related to other Ethiopians (i.e. Africans) than they are to their fellow Jews in the Middle East. That's all. Now go get your GED so you don't have to embarrass yourself with such ridiculous misreadings of simple studies.
_____________________________________________
you should be ban just for making the comments above-fool.
______________________________________________

Still unrefuted and still awaiting answers . . .

quote:

---

Mounds of recent Y-chromosome, mtDNA and autosomal evidence for Afronuts who are in denial of reality:

"The occurrence of E*5 212 and E*5 204 alleles in two populations of the Mediterranean basin (Turkey and Italy) but not in West Africans can be explained by taking into account that the Ethiopian gene pool was estimated to be >40% of Caucasoid derivation (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994). In addition, more recent phylogenetic analysis based on classical protein polymorphism (Tartaglia et al. 1996) and Y-chromosome sequence variation (Underhill et al. 2000) showed that Ethiopians appear to be distinct from Africans and more closely associated with populations of the Mediterranean basin."

(Scacchi et al., Hum Biol, 2003)

"The present composition of the Ethiopian population is the result of a complex and extensive intermixing of different peoples of North African, Near and Middle Eastern, and south-Saharan origin. The two main groups inhabiting the country are the Amhara, descended from Arabian conquerors, and the Oromo, the most important group among the Cushitic people. ... The genetic distance analysis showed the separation between African and non-African populations, with the Amhara and Oromo located in an intermediate position."

(De Stefano et al., Ann Hum Biol, 2002)

"On the basis of historical, linguistic, and genetic data, it has been suggested that the Ethiopian population has been strongly affected by Caucasoid migrations since Neolithic times. On the basis of autosomal polymorphic loci, it has been estimated that 60% of the Ethiopian gene pool has an African origin, whereas ~40% is of Caucasoid derivation.... Our Ethiopian sample also lacks the sY81-G allele, which was associated with 86% and 69% of Senegalese and mixed-African YAP+ chromosomes, respectively. This suggests that male-mediated gene flow from Niger-Congo speakers to the Ethiopian population was probably very limited ... Caucasoid gene flow into the Ethiopian gene pool occurred predominantly through males. Conversely, the Niger-Congo contribution to the Ethiopian population occurred mainly through females."

(Passarino et al., Am J Hum Genet, 1998)
_____________________________________________
first of all if most ethiopians had some form of mixture most would not have some form that early,it would have been a process over time and if it was that early it would only be a few.
_____________________________________________

"Non sub-Saharan African samples are all grouped together...with...the Ethiopian Amharic sample. Ethiopians are not statistically differentiated from the Egyptian and Tunisian samples, in agreement with their linguistic affiliation with the Afro-Asiatic family."

(Poloni et al., Am J Hum Genet, 1997)

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

---

quote:

---

Like most East Africans, Somalis are a hybrid Negroid/Caucasoid population (or, if you prefer, African/non-African). This has been established using several lines of evidence.

dummy, once again look at the east african map,if most east africans have some form of mixture it would be in the horn of african region and some of these africans are unmixed still,and most east africans do not live in the horn of africa,most east african are still unmixed blacks.

you are so obessed with east africa only being ethiopia and somalia or the horn of africa,did you forget the sudan,kenya and tanzania? where most blacks are still unmixed.
It seems so but i think not really,because you have a racist agenda.

• Somali Y-chromosomes:

  "In general, populations cluster by geographic origin. The most distinct separation is between African and non-African populations. The northeastern-African -- that is, the Ethiopian and Somali -- populations are located centrally between sub-Saharan African and non-African populations."

  [Tishkoff et al. (2000) Short Tandem-Repeat Polymorphism/Alu Haplotype Variation at the PLAT Locus: Implications for Modern Human Origins. Am J Hum Genet; 67:901-925]

  
  

• Somali mtDNA:

  "Somali, as a representative East African population, seem to have experienced a detectable amount of Caucasoid maternal influence"
  ___________________________________________-
  wrong,somalians are not the only east africans.IN east africa there are many other ethnic groups.
  _____________________________________________
  ____________________________________________

  [Comas et al. (1999) Analysis of mtDNA HVRII in Several Human Populations Using an Immobilised SSO Probe Hybridisation Assay. Eur J Hum Genet; 7:459-68]

  
  

• Somali Crania:

  As expected given the above, Somalis appear as racially intermediate between Eurasian samples (including Europeans, North Africans and Middle Easterners) and a combined sub-Saharan sample (which contains Western, Central and Southern Africans).
  ___________________________________________
  I DO NOT THINK all somalis are but who knows?did you check out everyone there?i think not.
  _____________________________________________

  

  [Brace et al. (1993) Clines and Clusters Versus "Race": A Test in Ancient Egypt and the Case of a Death on the Nile. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology; 36:1-31]

  
  

• Somali Racial Type:

  "FIG. 1 (2 views). A Somali from the tribe of Mahmud Grade, British Somaliland. This Somali represents the closest approximation to a white man found among his people. The extreme narrowness of his head and face, the straight nasal profile, and the prominence of his chin, mark him as less negroid than many of his fellows. At the same time his skin is nearly black, his hair curly but not frizzy. The type to which this Somali belongs is ancient in East Africa, as shown by the excavations of Leakey in Kenya. It is a specialized, locally differentiated Mediterranean racial form."
  _____________________________________________
  wrong again on this point,if some form of mixing occured it was not until later ancient times or abit earlier,but not prehistory times but it was a process not over night and are you talking about somalia or kenya?because in kenya leakey did not say anything about a african type man that looks like he his mixed.

  the bones found was that of man that was negriod and did not look like anything close to the white race.
  _____________________________________________

  

  [Carleton S. Coon. The Races of Europe. MacMillan, 1939]
  _____________________________________________
  coon was wrong
  _____________________________________________

  
  

• Conclusion:

  Coon and Howells were right. Hiernaux was wrong.
  

---

What's taking so long?

euro fool-you many of your comments are dead wrong.

posted 21 May 2005 11:34 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by lamin:
To Topdog

You mentioned that Ethiopians and Somalis are "North East Africans". Is this accurate?

You surmised that all non-Africans including Eurasians branched off from this "North East African" group. Would this group include the ancestors of living Adaman Islanders, New Guineans, Fijians, Solomon Islanders and other Melanesians?

And what about the "Australian Aboriginese", did their ancestors completely bypass a sourjourn in Eurasia?

Are you assuming that there were only 2 branching groups that populated the whole world? The claim is made that NE Africans are "intermediate" between "Sub-Saharan Africans" and "the Rest of the World" but given the length of time that the group that branched further into Africa has spent in Africa wouldn't that mean that there would be a multiplicity of branchings within Africa itself thereby questioning the so-called "intermediate" status assigned to "North East Africans" as defined?

---

posted 21 May 2005 12:08 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by lamin:
To Topdog

You mentioned that Ethiopians and Somalis are "North East Africans". Is this accurate?

You surmised that all non-Africans including Eurasians branched off from this "North East African" group. Would this group include the ancestors of living Adaman Islanders, New Guineans, Fijians, Solomon Islanders and other Melanesians?

And what about the "Australian Aboriginese", did their ancestors completely bypass a sourjourn in Eurasia?

Are you assuming that there were only 2 branching groups that populated the whole world? The claim is made that NE Africans are "intermediate" between "Sub-Saharan Africans" and "the Rest of the World" but given the length of time that the group that branched further into Africa has spent in Africa wouldn't that mean that there would be a multiplicity of branchings within Africa itself thereby questioning the so-called "intermediate" status assigned to "North East Africans" as defined?

---

Note:

The most northern part of Ethiopia is below the central part of Senegal-West Africa. The most northern part of Somalia is below the latitude of the Gambia and Burkina Faso.

In fact the latitude of Guinea Bissau and Somalia are approximately the same.

So would you say that Senegal, Gambia and Guinea Bissau are in North West Africa?

Other question:

If L3 is spread all over Africa as you say then that would mean that wherever L3 is found in Africa its constituent populations would also be "intermediate" between so-called "sub-Saharan" Africans and the rest of the world?

The idea of Ethiopia and Somalia being "intermediate" would make some minimal sense if L3 were confined to those 2 areas only.

My concerns spring from whether the usage of terms like "intermediate", "Africa and the Rest of the World", along with other extant terms such as "sub-Saharan Africa", etc. are not just freighted with unconscious, non-scientific ideological baggage. Now that the old Hamitic hypothesis has been discredited--for lack of evidence--movement in the opposite direction has to be sanitised for acceptability purposes.

But even terms such as "OOA" are implicitly problematic when "OOEA" or "East Africa Dispersal Complex" would be more accurate. The reason why OOA is problematic is because it assumes that nothing of equivalent importance was also taking place within the African landmass itself.

posted 21 May 2005 12:33 PM            

quote:

---

You've done nothing of the kind. Ethiopians are intermediate between Eurasians and Africans, and their Caucasoid ancestry is mostly paternal, while their Negroid ancestry is mostly maternal:

---

Idiot, don't play the tapdance game, you stated in your own words that Ethiopians are 'Paternally Caucasoid' based on your mediocre inability to properly read and interpret DNA plots. No one has ever said Ethiopians have more paternal foreign admixture that maternal; the point was whether the foreign paternal mixture was 100% or at least 50%, which you haven't shown and have yet to show any study that states this. Ethiopians are intermediate between Africans and non-Africans, the studies you keep repeatedly spamming even say this yet you're too stupid to read and figure that out.

quote:

---

Ethiopians Jews (EtJ) are substantially Caucasoid on the Y-chromosome:

---

It doesn't matter about substantially 'Caucasoid' you idiot, the point is that a more recent study stated their paternal DNA is closer to that of Africans. The key here is more recent compared to Middle Eastern Jews. And read that study carefully idiot, of the 17 chromosones analysed, only 3 of them matched with non-Africans, the rest are African in origin. If 3 out of 17 equals 'substantially caucasoid' you need a class in mathematics.

quote:

---

Well no, not if you ignore E3b. But if you add ~11% Caucasoid mtDNA to ~85% E3b, you get ~48% total admixture, and a population that's racially intermediate between Sub-Saharan Africans and Eurasians as a result

---

Idiot, E3b isn't Caucasoid as we have proven time and time again, get that through your thick biased brain. It originated in sub-Saharan Africa and or East Africa where no Caucasoids are found, so screw that bogus 48% figure idiot. They are of the elongated physical type as stated by Hiernaux. None of their traits were acquired through mixing with Eurasians unless you want to say they were full blown 'true Negroes' **BEFORE**, which still would not fit your fantasy 'prehistoric non-Negroid' East Africans theory. Idiot, don't think because I'm answering the lame reply that you've made some point, I see you're still hoplessly spamming the same nonsense because you're desperately running of of explanations, so spamming is your last resort.

posted 21 May 2005 01:00 PM            

quote:

---

Correct, and thats why to quote Keita:

"Molecular data suggest that the early modern human population began to divide between 150,000 to 115,000 years ago. This fissioning would have taken place in Africa. Modern human fossils dated to about 90,000 years ago are found outside of Africa, but the next genetic fissioning is believed to have occured after this, perhaps about 70,000 years ago(Bowcock et tal. 1991). Modern human remains in Asia, including Australia, are dated after this period, and in Europe, to around 35,000 years ago. Why are these data important? Because they indicate that the background genetic variation of Europeans, Oceanians, and Asians originated in Africa and precedes in time the presence of modern humans in these areas. Europeans and Asian-Australians did develop more unique genetic profiles over time, but had a common background before their average "uniqueness" emerged. This background is African in a bio-historical sense. Therefore, it should not be surprising that some Africans share similarities with non-Africans."

---

quote:

---

You mentioned that Ethiopians and Somalis are "North East Africans". Is this accurate?

You surmised that all non-Africans including Eurasians branched off from this "North East African" group. Would this group include the ancestors of living Adaman Islanders, New Guineans, Fijians, Solomon Islanders and other Melanesians?

And what about the "Australian Aboriginese", did their ancestors completely bypass a sourjourn in Eurasia?

Are you assuming that there were only 2 branching groups that populated the whole world? The claim is made that NE Africans are "intermediate" between "Sub-Saharan Africans" and "the Rest of the World" but given the length of time that the group that branched further into Africa has spent in Africa wouldn't that mean that there would be a multiplicity of branchings within Africa itself thereby questioning the so-called "intermediate" status assigned to "North East Africans" as defined?

---

quote:

---

Note:

The most northern part of Ethiopia is below the central part of Senegal-West Africa. The most northern part of Somalia is below the latitude of the Gambia and Burkina Faso.

In fact the latitude of Guinea Bissau and Somalia are approximately the same.

So would you say that Senegal, Gambia and Guinea Bissau are in North West Africa?

Other question:

If L3 is spread all over Africa as you say then that would mean that wherever L3 is found in Africa its constituent populations would also be "intermediate" between so-called "sub-Saharan" Africans and the rest of the world?

The idea of Ethiopia and Somalia being "intermediate" would make some minimal sense if L3 were confined to those 2 areas only.

My concerns spring from whether the usage of terms like "intermediate", "Africa and the Rest of the World", along with other extant terms such as "sub-Saharan Africa", etc. are not just freighted with unconscious, non-scientific ideological baggage. Now that the old Hamitic hypothesis has been discredited--for lack of evidence--movement in the opposite direction has to be sanitised for acceptability purposes.

But even terms such as "OOA" are implicitly problematic when "OOEA" or "East Africa Dispersal Complex" would be more accurate. The reason why OOA is problematic is because it assumes that nothing of equivalent importance was also taking place within the African landmass itself.

---

All of this stuff above makes perfect sense!

The problem is that you are arguing with a guy who doesn't even have common sense!

By the way, are you guys aware that Cushitic peoples like Ethiopians and Somalians are not even aboriginal to the Horn region of Africa and that they originated from another area of Africa probably farther north? Many anthropologists think the original inhabitants of the Horn were the hunter-gathering peoples like the Hadza and it is these people



who are the direct ancestors of Out-of-Africans!

posted 21 May 2005 01:23 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by lamin:
[B] Note:

The most northern part of Ethiopia is below the central part of Senegal-West Africa. The most northern part of Somalia is below the latitude of the Gambia and Burkina Faso.

---

I'll go further than that, actually Somalia is partly south of the Equator,and extending into the southern hemisphere - [southern africa] and south of much of Kenya, so it is a bit flippant to refer to it as NorthEast Africa. You are correct.

posted 21 May 2005 01:24 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Topdog:

I'm well aware of that, I just chose to remain within the context of text I quoted from.

---

posted 21 May 2005 01:39 PM            

quote:

---

If L3 is spread all over Africa as you say then that would mean that wherever L3 is found in Africa its constituent populations would also be "intermediate" between so-called "sub-Saharan" Africans and the rest of the world?

---

No, because L3 is the dominent haplotype in East Africa.

Native African mtdna = L1, L2, and L3.

Native non-African mtdna is only L3x were x is downstream of L3, or known as L3M or L3N were M != M1.

There is a reason for this. This reflects the fact that L3 is dominent in East Africa and non Africans are derived from a small population wherin only L3 downstream lineages were perpetuated outside of Africa.

quote:

---

The idea of Ethiopia and Somalia being "intermediate" would make some minimal sense if L3 were confined to those 2 areas only.

---

Actually no, then it would make no sense as it would only mean that East Africa were monotypic or distinct. It is not.

To simplify: If native East Africa is predominently L3 with l2 and L1; if south africa is predominently l1 with l2 and l3, if west africa is predominently l2 with l3 and l1.....and outside of africa is only l3x, then East Africa is 'intermediate', in terms of mtdna type-frequencies.

East Africa would more accurately be described as CENTRAL than intermediate. Because that's what ROA is about, East Africa as the geogrpahic locus from which all human beings derive.

The most important point is that L1,L2, and L3 are all native African haplotypes.

posted 21 May 2005 01:45 PM            

quote:

---

Evil's re-spam:

"On the basis of historical, linguistic, and genetic data, it has been suggested that the Ethiopian population has been strongly affected by Caucasoid migrations since Neolithic times. On the basis of autosomal polymorphic loci, it has been estimated that 60% of the Ethiopian gene pool has an African origin, whereas ~40% is of Caucasoid derivation.... Our Ethiopian sample also lacks the sY81-G allele, which was associated with 86% and 69% of Senegalese and mixed-African YAP+ chromosomes, respectively. This suggests that male-mediated gene flow from Niger-Congo speakers to the Ethiopian population was probably very limited ... Caucasoid gene flow into the Ethiopian gene pool occurred predominantly through males. Conversely, the Niger-Congo contribution to the Ethiopian population occurred mainly through females." (Passarino et al., Am J Hum Genet, 1998)

---

The question that evades Evil, is this: Ethiopia has more than 80 ethnic groups. Where is any indication from this study, that suggests "all" Ethiopian ethnic groups were tested? Where does it indicate that "all" Ethiopian ethnic groups have the same admixture; so, is this to imply that the Oromo, the Amhara, the "Nuer", the various Omo valley inhabitants, etc, have the same degree of admixture? Does Evil even have a clue, between the two, i.e., Oromo and the Amhara, which is the larger group?

posted 21 May 2005 02:02 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by lamin:
Note:

My concerns spring from whether the usage of terms like "intermediate", "Africa and the Rest of the World", along with other extant terms such as "sub-Saharan Africa", etc. are not just freighted with unconscious, non-scientific ideological baggage.

---

We know that is precisely the case. The fact is as Africa is revealed as being more and more important in terms of human biohistory, ws.t terminologies become more convoluted, more twisted, in an effort to evade the inexoriable logic of the central role of Africa and in comparison, the frankly insignificant role of Europe.

quote:

---

But even terms such as "OOA" are implicitly problematic when "OOEA" or "East Africa Dispersal Complex" would be more accurate. The reason why OOA is problematic is because it assumes that nothing of equivalent importance was also taking place within the African landmass itself.

---

posted earlier by rasol:

quote:

---

Even the reference to "Out of Africa" implies that one's ancestors left Africa, which is not the case for native Africans, so there is some bias inherent in the terminology

---

Using the term dispersal complex repeats the concept however - you are still focusing on people leaving [dispersing out from] Africa.

My preference? RAO -> recent African Origins of all mankind.

Again, good comments Lamin.

posted 21 May 2005 02:17 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

...By the way, are you guys aware that Cushitic peoples like Ethiopians and Somalians are not even aboriginal to the Horn region of Africa and that they originated from another area of Africa probably farther north? Many anthropologists think the original inhabitants of the Horn were the hunter-gathering peoples like the Hadza and it is

---

Is that claim derived from a particular source?

Anyway, here is what we know about East African ancestors:

...the fossil record tells of tall people with long and narrow heads, faces and noses who lived a few thousand years BC in East Africa at such places as Gamble's Cave in the Kenya Rift Valley and at Olduvai in northern Tanzania. There is every reason to believe that they are ancestral to the living 'Elongated East Africans'. Neither of these populations, fossil and modern, should be considered to be closely related to Caucasoids of Europe and western Asia, as they usually are in literature."

Source: Jean Hiernaux; The People of Africa(Peoples of the World Series); pgs 42-43, 62-63"

posted 21 May 2005 02:28 PM            

Keita, Shomarka.
Howard University and Smithsonian.

Biological Diversity in the Nile Valley and the rest of Africa: Y -Chromosome lineages, language, and morphological diversity.

The notion of who is “really African” in the indigenous sense, has been plagued by poor science and ideology. Nile Valley populations, and those of the Horn were part of a group conceived as ultimately having come from southwest Asia in the formulations that became most widely accepted. Recent work on the Y chromosome over the last few years indicates that populations that are extremely diverse in aspects of morphology are in fact related in terms of male descent. In the living population of the Nile Valley diversity has been demonstrated from north to south, with the bulk of the variants, being of African origin. In terms of language certain Y lineages are striking in that populations having them cut across language family boundaries, although in some instances there is fair concordance with the phylogeogaphy of sublineages. This paper will explore these themes and findings and what they mean for the conception of indigenous biological Africanity.

posted 21 May 2005 03:04 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Topdog:
Erroneous E in case you still do not get it, E3b is not Caucasoid, here's something else for you to read...

---

posted 22 May 2005 07:40 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Indeed, he reposts the map he used to claim the Lemba of South Africa were "caucazoid", even though he was forced to reverse that laughable claim after choking badly on it.

---

Lemba priests have an average of ~53% Caucasoid Y-chromosomes. Accordingly, they're located approximately halfway between Sub-Saharan Africans and Eurasians on the map. This has been covered before. Get with the program, slave.

quote:

---

But clearly he needs glasses as there are no Europeans on the map, and India, not East Africa is shown as intermediate.

---

Uh, numbers 1 through 10 are all European groups. And both Somalis and Nubians appear as intermediate between those Europeans and the combined Sub-Saharan sample consisting of western, central and southern Africans. Dumb, low-IQ negro.

quote:

---

too stupid to read maps.

---

posted 22 May 2005 07:46 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Topdog:
I see you're still hoplessly spamming the same nonsense because you're desperately running of of explanations

---

posted 22 May 2005 08:17 AM            

quote:

---

Lemba priests have an average of ~53% Caucasoid Y-chromosomes.

---

"Lemba priests"? ROTFL@Erroneous, a retarded racist who confuses himself more and more with each pointless post.

The clueless clown is referring to the Buba clan...

Professor Mathiva, senior Buba Clan leader.

Read and weep you retarded racist:

The Lemba of Africa have a substantial genetic contribution from peoples of the Middle East, Jewish people in fact who apparently arrived in South Africa 2,000 years ago; nobody's sure exactly when-bringing genes with them which have made a substantial contribution to the gene pool of the Lemba. They look just like other southern Africans. All those genes that have been put into the Lemba gene pool have had virtually no effect on their morphology.

The genetic changes that produce the morphological change might be fairly small. You can get a very small genetic change that can have a big effect on the organism's morphology or conversely you can have a lot of genetic changes that have no effect on the organism's morphology - Biologist Christopher Wills [PH.d], University of California.

The Lemba have ZERO percent "caucazoid genes" because caucazoid genes don't exist .

So just run back crying... to daddy Dienekes for more dumb ideas, because it's clear that you've run out of them here.

posted 22 May 2005 08:45 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Euro:
Yes, you certainly are...

---

Unlabled, unnamed 1 thru 10 on this misrepresented, flawed Brace map range from negative - 1. 5 to positive + 1.5 along the Y axis.

They no more cluster together than the Africans who range from 0 to - 2.5 along the X axis.

Only India is intermediate on that map, not that it means anything.

The Somali are shown within the African cluster you deaf dumb and blind Hybrid Neanderthal* [*per map author CL Brace].

Meanwhile, unspecified sub-saharans are shown as only 1 point on the map, which is silly and makes no sense, but does helps hide obvious skeletal affinities between Somali, Tutsi, Oromo, Masai, Fulani, Afar, Hima, Borano, Wolof and many other Nilotic and elongated types - which would be clear if they were:

a) measured properly

b) listed individually.

and most of all...

c) If you were not a dim-witted Dienekes fan boy and could actually read a map correctly.

Sorry Erroneous, try again. But 1st have Dienekes give you some remedial lessons in distortion, because as it is, you stink at it.

posted 22 May 2005 09:02 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
If it were nonsense, surely you would've come up with some evidence to refute it by now, instead of just ranting and raving like a frustrated Afronut. Go ahead and project your hopelessness and desperation onto me, but I'll keep posting the same hard data until I get some valid answers for it (or an admission that there are no answers).

---

Idiot, when you explain my answers then we can progress. As I expected and predicted, you're rambling over insignificant crap that you haven't proven. The points made are:

1)Ethiopians[All the groups discussed] are *NOT* paternally 'Caucasoid'[paternally Caucasoid, are you insane? ]

2) Somalis are *NOT* centrally located due to some bogus 'hybridisation' with Eurasians.[Unless you want to say they were 'True Negroes' before this hypothetical[bogus]hybridisation.]

3)E3b as part of the PN2 clade with along with E3a is *NOT* Caucasoid, nor Eurasian in origin, but split along with E3a from a common ancestor in sub-Saharan Africa due to the E3b-M35* being exclusively in sub-Saharans[cited from Luis et tal 2004]

When you come up with some hard, undistorted answers, then we will progress. How can you ask for answers for your distortions when you haven't made any points?

posted 22 May 2005 09:08 AM            

First of all, it is well known that the Egyptian population is a mixture of many different peoples, especially today. The modern Egyptian population has traits from Greece, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Arabian Peninsula, Sinai, Nubia, Sudan, native Egyptian Population and so on. To try state, unequivically, that these people all look the same and share the same heritage is nonsense. Likewise, to try and assert somehow that genetics alone will determine how the AE looked based on MODERN genetic markers is NON-SENSE, given the history of intermingling of many different peoples in Egypt since the Dynastic Era. If you really are concerned about the Dynastic Egyptians and how they look, you will look at the way they portrayed themselves in their own time. Most Dynastic Egyptians are depicted with brown skin, period. Some are depicted lighter, sometimes women are depicted as golden yellow, but it was quite the norm for the Dynastic Egyptians to portray themselves as brown.

Now, the question for the modern Egyptologist is why did they do this and was that an accurate representation of the skin complexion of the Dynastic Egyptians. Well, if you look at the modern Egyptian population, there is a significant portion of the population with brown skin, exactly the same as that depicted in Dynastic Egyptian portraits. Therefore, the issue of whether the Dynastic Egyptians painted themselves as brown for symbolic purposes is not valid, based on the presence of such a large population of brown skinned people in Egypt today. Likewise, trying to suggest that this is an attempt, as some have said elswere, to show how the sun affected the male populations, versus the effects on women, who stayed inside, is also absolutely invalid. Bottom line, trying to find any and all kinds of ways, including misleading genetic data, to try and convince us that the color brown was not an indication of the true complexion of the Dynastic Egyptians seems to be an extreme effort that makes no sense unless it is part of a larger pattern of purposeful distortion of the facts and history. Therefore, ALL of the evidence must be looked at and analyzed, with honest eyes, taking into account ALL of the evidence. Taking some data and presenting it out of context is not scientific and does not prove anything other than someone trying to find any sort of data they can use to justify an invalid proposition.

posted 22 May 2005 12:51 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Topdog:

2) Somalis are *NOT* centrally located due to some bogus 'hybridisation' with Eurasians.[Unless you want to say they were 'True Negroes' before this hypothetical[bogus]hybridisation.])

---

Thought Writes:

Good point TopDog, even his mentor Dienekes has given up on this mode of thinking:

Dienekes Quote:

Y haplogroup E3b1 in Somali males

"A new study quantifies the extent of Eurasian (15%) and Sub-Saharan African (5%) paternal admixture in Somalis, a population which appears to be predominantly East African paternally."

Thought Writes:

Of course Dienekes utilizes the superficial ruse of 'Sub-Saharan' to "soften the blow" of the Medicentric agenda.

posted 22 May 2005 01:54 PM            

quote:

---

Somali: a population which appears to be predominantly East African paternally

---

As opposed to the Greeks, who are only 24% East African paternally. lol.

posted 22 May 2005 02:51 PM            

quote:

---

Evil "E"

A) Please define your terms, what does "Negroid" and "Caucasoid" mean TO YOU in a scientific sense?

B) Please lay out YOUR chronology for the evolution of these stated morphologies?

---

Erroneous has had 4 months to lay out his chronology but has failed to do so.

The PN2 Clade shows why - He doesn't have one.

* it shows the common ancestry of idigenous Africans [M96] and their distinction from Europeans [M45].

To run away from this clear fact, Erroneous has attempted two self-contradictory forms of evasion.

1] imply that Black African morphology is 'recent' and is denoted by recent E3A hapogroup, but this fails as many Black African groups, including extremely dark Southern Sudanese have little or no E3A.

2] imply that Black African morphology is 'ancient' and denoted by Haplogroups A or B....but A and B predate and are ancestral to PN2 [E3a and E3b] as shown, and this would tend to confirm that Africa's population has always been Black. Indeed while A/B are also ancestral to non Africans, but M96 is ONLY ancestral to African groups.

PN2 E3a and E3b are both indigenous to Africa, closely related to each other and originate among Black Africans, having nothing to do with the I and R clade ice age ancestral European white people.

Disagree Erroneous? Can't stand the truth?

Good.

Then put up or SHUT UP.

Where is your chronology for the development of the racial labels you mindlessly toss around?

Erroneous Fraud.

Erroneous Troll.

Erroneous Simp.

What's taking so long?