posted 15 June 2005 01:35 PM            

"For example, Howells (1995) found little evidence of continuity between Late Pleistocene fossils and modern groups in the same geographical region, and van Vark (1994:291) demonstrated that European Upper Paleolithic crania are atypical of any recent European population, concluding that ‘‘at least as far as cranial morphology is concerned, recent racial diversity is not a chronologically deeprooted phenomenon.’’ These findings are consistent with Sarich’s (1997) argument that modern human regional/racial diversity is recent, developing around 15,000 to 20,000 years ago."

link

Thus Erroneous one, those prehistoric East Africans didn't resemble any modern human race in that area since racial variation didn't occur until much later. And why did you bold Europeans, but totally forget Peru, Ainu and Easter Island peoples? None of those peoples resemble Caucasoids. Since racial diversity didn't take place until 15,000-20,000 years ago and E3b arose at around 25,000 years ago, the argument that E3b is Caucasoid is refuted. Thus E3b in East Africans isn't associated with Caucasoids.

posted 15 June 2005 01:56 PM            

quote:

---

rasol wrote: Howells does not support Erroneous' claims regarding 'caucazoids' of ancient East Africa.

---

quote:

---

Erroneous reply: Never said he did

---

...actually a lie, since he continues to attempt to say that Howells claims that ancient East Africa was caucazoid, when he specifically does not.

quote:

---

Erroneous writes: Either way, Howells clearly refutes....

---

No, not 'either way'. It's one way - Howells does not support Erroneous far fetched claims and has been DESTROYED in peer review literature, leaving Erroneous with no support for his views, as usual.....

quote:

---

Howells database: lacks the distinct morphology necessary for classifying unknown crania. - . Leathers, J. Edwards, G.J. Armelagos. et. al

Howells data set....CANNOT BE CONSIDERED to be a typical Egyptian series. - Dr. Sonia Zakrzewski

Howells’ data attribute the Nubian specimens
to populations on several continents,
whereas the Forensic Data Bank series provides no explainable pattern of population
attribution. These results suggest that
Fordisc 2.0 cannot accurately identify the
biological affinity of ancient Nubians. - R. Belcher1, F. Williams et. al.

---

posted 15 June 2005 02:11 PM            

"Cro Magnons show huge variability, just like modern populations today, but many of the skulls show a very flat bridge of the nose like many Asian peoples today. It is possible that some of them at least would have looked a little like modern Mongolian people living in a similar climate today."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/beasts/evidence/prog6/page6_2.shtml

If I were to use Erroneous E's flawed reasoning I could say R and I lineages in Europe are actual Mongoloid because pre-historic Europeans resembled modern Asian groups like Mongolians instead of recent Europeans.

posted 15 June 2005 04:19 PM            

Anyone who has viewed this thread will understand why your discourse will go completely over Erroneous' head.

Erroneous will miss your point, that while he is trying to prove the existence of that which is unreal - ancient East Africa caucazoid - Howells, Van Vark et al. are implying that clear continuity in prehistoric skeletypes is generally lacking.

As you correctly deduce, regardless of the demerits of Howells flawed approach, in which he was soundly rebuked via peer review for failing to even compare East African remains to Indigenous East African peoples.

Howells in fact offers no support for Erroneous illogical ramblings. Thus Erroneous is reduced to mere misrepresenation when faced with the reality of complete lack of evidence.

Erroneous lack of basic cognitive capability also betrays him with complete failure to answer....

quote:

---

Originally posted by Topdog:
Retarded guido, why did you selectively leave out this:

Southern African Khwe- 30.8%

[Cruciani et tal 2004]

The South African Khwe have E3b*-M35 at a far higher frequency than any East African group. So once again stupid, if E3b is Caucasoid, please state the name and population of this "Caucasoid" group.

---

As we predicted, he attempted the evasive irrelevant straw-argument of [Khosianoid vs. Negroid, Khwe].

But the question remains.... where are his CAUCAZOIDS of South Africa, from whom the Khwe would have 'aquired' E3b? ? ?

Of course there is no answer as no such oxymoronic creature exists.

old claims that caucasoid people once lived in East Africa have been proven wrong - JO Vogel, PreColonial Africa.

Erroneous cannot even plug the most basic of holes in his ideology and in his head.

quote:

---

Thought writes:
Erroneous what is YOUR scientific definition of Negroid and Caucasoid?

What is your 'chronology' for these "morphologies(?)" ?

---

Caucazoid 'race catagory' which has no specific definition.

Caucazoid morphology(?) which has no specific chronology.

Caucazoid 'gene' which has no actual population lineage.

What a mess, Erroneous!

posted 15 June 2005 09:07 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
What a mess, Erroneous!

---

Indeed.

Evil has obviously come to the wrong place for therapy. 'Make feel good' dissemination of misinformation doesn't go unabated here; this is the kind of thing he can expect in Dieneke's board though.

posted 16 June 2005 08:06 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Topdog:
Since racial diversity didn't take place until 15,000-20,000 years ago and E3b arose at around 25,000 years ago, the argument that E3b is Caucasoid is refuted.

---

Excellent job proving that E3b is not "Black African". Of course, I never claimed it was originally Caucasoid. No OOA lineage was. Rather, it became Caucasoid. And now that we have this invaluable new information you've provided, we can finally begin to establish a chronology of events.

• E3b arose 26,000 years ago in a racially undifferentiated Paleoafrican population, which, according to Howells, already had affinities with Europeans and Asians (but not Black Africans).

  
  

• During the Upper Paleolithic, E3b spread throughout Northeast Africa (on its way OOA), where 20,000 years ago its carriers would have begun to acquire their Caucasoid racial character.

  
  

• During the Mesolithic (beg. 14,000 years ago), primitive Caucasoid E3b-carriers crossed over from Egypt into the Levant (see Luis et al. 2004) where their evolutionary development continued.

  
  

• During the Neolithic (beg. 10,000 years ago), fully Caucasoid E3b-carrying agriculturalists (some with retained primitive traits) migrated to Europe and North Africa from the Levant.

  
  

• At around the same time, E3a-, L1- and L2-carrying Negroids spread throughout Sub-Saharan Africa from their West African point of origin, altering the continent's racial make-up.

  
  

• As a result of all this, modern East Africans are racially intermediate between Black Africans and non-Africans, while Europeans and indigenous North Africans are fully Caucasoid.

posted 16 June 2005 08:58 AM            

quote:

---

Of course, I never claimed it was originally Caucasoid.

---

Of course you originally did.

Of course you backtrack whenever you're asked to prove it, which, of course, you can't. Keep backtracking, Erroneous:

quote:

---

No OOA lineage was

---

* E3b originated in Sub-Saharan Africa.-

* recent gene flow brought E3b from North West Africa into Iberia with the Islamic conquest

As such E3b has nothing to do with Out of Africa Eurasians who had left Asia prior to the existence of Pn2 clade E3a and E3b.....

haplogroups I and R1b are likely to have been in Europe since the Palaeolithic age

M78 (E3b1) is the more likely haplogroup reflecting Neolithic demic diffusion [From Arica into Europe]

OOA lineages, such M168 and L3[MN] were carried by the common ancestors of all non Africans, These people:

"African Eve".

E3b spread to Europe 8kya~ as African Neolithic ADMIXTURE;

along with distinctive African phenotypes, as documented and unrefuted by [McCown, Garrod, Angel, Keita, Ehret, Furon].

quote:

---

Rather, it became Caucasoid.

---

How? Thru the magic of pseudoscience?

Pseudoscience contradicts itself, even in it's own terms, which lack
precise or unambiguous definitions, or have no definition at all.

old claims that caucasoids once lived in East Africa have been proven wrong - JO Vogel, Precolonial Africa.

The mystery of the non-existent sub-saharan caucazoid, exposed:

Asserting that which does not exist is a fallacy known as reification - To regard an abstraction as if it had concrete or material existence.

From John Stuart Mill:

The tendency is to believe that whatever receives a name must be a real entity. And if no entity answering to that name is found, it cannot be as one might suppose, because none existed. But rather, it is suggested that it is something particularly "mysterious."

quote:

---

we can finally begin to establish a chronology of events.

---

No, you still don't have a chronology, you are merely stalling.

quote:

---

E3b arose 26,000 years ago in a racially undifferentiated Paleoafrican population

---

we know from Vogel, Rightmire, Kittles, Hiernaux, Zakrezewski, Keita, et.al that prehistoric whites of east africa do not exist.

Hence E3B IS sub-saharan African, is NOT European, Asian or cau-casian. So where is your claimed caucasoid chronology? Stop stalling and just admit that it doesn't exist.

quote:

---

which, according to Howells, already had affinities with Europeans and Asians (but not Black Africans).

---

Debunked and misquoted Howells, compared ancient East Africans only to Teita, Dogon and San.

He did not compare them to indigenous East African Nilotics groups. Others, such as Zakrezewski, Heirnaux, Keita and Rightmire have:

Prehistoric human crania from Bromhead's Site, Willey's Kopje, Makalia Burial Site, Nakuru, and other localities in the Eastern Rift Valley of Kenya are reassessed using measurements and a multivariate statistical approach. Materials available for comparison include series of Bushman and Hottentot crania. South and East Africans, and Egyptians. When the prehistoric crania are classified with the help of these discriminants, results indicate that several of the skulls are best grouped with modern Negroes.

Howells database does not have East Africans Nilotic and Cushitics - can't assess what you don't test. So your attempt to enlist Howells in your pseudoscientific cause, fails. Sorry.

quote:

---

During the Upper Paleolithic, E3b spread throughout Northeast Africa (on its way OOA), where 20,000 years ago its carriers would have begun to acquire their Caucasoid racial character.

---

Specifically how would E3b 'acquire' a caucasoid character? Thru Elvin' magic?

Of course, you have failed to offer any scientific definition of 'caucasoid', but the fact is, in 6 months you have produced noo credible source supporting caucasoid pseuoscience:

The evidence hardly suggests [post-Pleistocene] domination of the Rift and surrounding territory by "Mediterranean" Caucasoids, as has been claimed. - Phillip Rightmire.

So again we must ask Erroneous to produce the required chronology and definition of terms, not just muddled rhetoric and excuses for why he can't answer.

Recent linguistic and archaeological findings are also reviewed, and these seem to support application of the term Nilotic Negro to the early Rift populations - Rightmire.

next.....

quote:

---

During the Mesolithic (beg. 14,000 years ago), primitive Caucasoid E3b-carriers crossed over from Egypt into the Levant

---

Really? Then why did Larry Angel describe them as "Negroid from Nubia"? And if they are still described thusly in Neolithic Greece, what does this tell us about your far fetched prehistoric East African caucasiod claims?

ANSWER: It tells us why your claims are unsupported and directly contradicted by the current scholarship.

quote:

---

During the Neolithic (beg. 10,000 years ago) fully Caucasoid E3b-carrying agriculturalists with primitive traits

---

You wish. In fac they had... "negroid" features due to CROSSBREEDING [Garrod, Angel], carrying sub-saharan African lineage E3b [Underhill].

African genetic lineages.

African morphology -

IN EuROPE -

during the Neolithic.

No wonder then, you can't answer, and try to......

...SQUIRM your way out.

quote:

---

At around the same time, E3a-, L1- and L2-carrying Negroids Sub-Saharan Africa from their West African point of origin, altering the continent's racial make-up.

---

Nope.

E3b's PN2 sibling, E3a - is nonexistent among many Black East African groups, including E3b carrying southern Sudanese Black Africans.

L2 spread to East and West Africa prior to the development of the PN2 clade, so if L2 is to be "negroid",,,,,then "negroid" would have existed prior to E3b and E3a.

Lastly, L1 predates L2, L3 or E3-Pn2, if IT is somehow associated with 'negroid' then 'negroid' would predate ALL the other 'racial terms' you use.

Thus the peril of linking haplotype to race classification, a false discourse which biologists rightly reject.

Only racist dumb-dumb's like you and Dienekes insist on such pseudoscientific nonsense.

And only complete idiots take anything cut&pasted form Dienekes for anything other than laughs. You two are simply 'screwing your own minds'.

quote:

---

again you refute yourselves

---

Actually its quite clear to everyone that all of your parroted Dienekes claims, have been specifically refuted by geneticists, anthropologists, linguists and historians.

Congratulations on again exposing Dienekes' as a fraud and yourself as a fool for quoting him.

Perhaps he can help you with the question.

For all your trolling, you still have not answered it....

posted 16 June 2005 09:00 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Topdog:
Retarded guido, why did you selectively leave out this:

Southern African Khwe- 30.8%

[Cruciani et tal 2004]

The South African Khwe have E3b*-M35 at a far higher frequency than any East African group. So once again stupid, if E3b is Caucasoid, please state the name and population of this Caucasoid group.

---

posted 16 June 2005 01:01 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Again, kudos on this terrific thread. When you Afronuts start refuting yourselves, it saves me the trouble.

---

LMAO!! The only one being refuted is yourself, Stupid-Euro! LOL It is YOU who refutes yourself as well as being refuted by the folks in this forum, and even the experts you and they cite!!!

You are a joke! How come you never adressed the issue of the Khwe people of South Africa having a high occurance of E3b*-M35?.. Because you can't! Just give it up and stop punishing yourself!! The people are alot smarter than the fools at Dodona! LOL

posted 16 June 2005 02:12 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Excellent job proving that E3b is not "Black African".

---

Sorry, it disproves that E3b isn't caucasoid either.

quote:

---

Of course, I never claimed it was originally Caucasoid.

---

Yes you did claim it was Caucasoid, remembers Coon's 'Caucasoid' prehistoric East Africans?

quote:

---

No OOA lineage was.

---

Idiot, look at the rest of your post, of course you're claiming E3b was an OOA Caucasoid lineage with your bogus reasoning.

quote:

---

Rather, it became Caucasoid.

---

No it did not. If it became Caucasoid explain why East Africans who carry it and South Africa Khwe who carry the *ORIGINAL* underived lineage don't look like Caucasoids?

quote:

---

[list]

E3b arose 26,000 years ago in a racially undifferentiated Paleoafrican population, which, according to Howells, already had affinities with Europeans and Asians (but not Black Africans).

---

Correction, Howells said generalised Europeans, Easter Islander, and Peruvians. Human races were not evolved at this so it makes no sense to say they didn't look like Black Africans. 'Black African' as used and defined using the crania of Howells are Dogon and Teita, not *ALL* black Africans.

quote:

---

During the Upper Paleolithic, E3b spread throughout Northeast Africa (on its way OOA), where 20,000 years ago its carriers would have begun to acquire their Caucasoid racial character.

---

Proof in skeletal remains?

quote:

---

During the Mesolithic (beg. 14,000 years ago), primitive Caucasoid E3b-carriers crossed over from Egypt into the Levant (see Luis et al. 2004) where their evolutionary development continued.

---

Actually the highest levels of E3b1-M78[East African cluster] is found in Upper Egyptians, who were *NOT* Caucasoids. Keep parroting Dienekes. Luis et tal mentions nothing about Caucasoids, primitive or whatever type. Even Coon[your savior] didn't think predynastic Upper Egyptians were Caucasoids in his much *LATER* analysis on Upper Egyptian crania. He even accepted Crichton's analyses on Upper Egypt crania, read:

"Turning to Egypt, it is reasonable to suppose that the early hunters of the jungle-covered Nile Valley postulated by Oliver and Fage (see page 89) contained a strong native African genetic component, and the Neolithic farmers who settled on the open flanks of the valley to either side were Caucasoid, having come directly from Western Asia. Before the end of the predynastic time, the two elements had probably fused. This hypothesis has recently been tested by J. M. Crichton, who made a comparison of a total of 296 predynastic Egyptian, dynastic Egyptian, and Negro skulls by means of multiple discriminant analysis using thirty-four measurements, seven indices and angles, and one computer. This mathematical exercise indicated that the predynastic Egyptians were more like the Negroes than the dynastic Egyptians were, and that the dynastic Egyptians were more Caucasoid than their predecessors. Differences between the two sets of Egyptian skulls were more marked in the face than in the vault. The predynastic skulls have broader, flatter nasal bones and more alveolar prognathism than the dynastic skulls. The predynastic skulls have relatively flat cranial bases, as shown by the difference between the auricular and basion-bregma heights. In this sense, the predynastic skulls were more like those of Negroes. Also, the occipital bone extends higher on the back of the skulls of both predynastic Egyptians and Negroes than on dynastic Egyptians and Caucasoids in general. As Crichton did not have a large series of Bushmen skulls to use for comparison, he could not determine whether or not the African element in the predynastic Egyptian population could have been Bushmen, as suggested by R. Biasutti, rather than Negro."

Carleton Coon,"The Living Races of Man", p. 94

Whats real funny Erroneous E is that while Coon is still outdated[This extract about predynsatic Egyptians is true, however, since Keita came to the same conclusion] why do you have his *OLD* citation from "Races of Europe" as opposed to his much more recent work? Just thought I'd bring that up to your attention. You only allow people to see what you *WANT* them to see. I wonder whether you will change the nonsense on your page now.

posted 16 June 2005 03:24 PM            

E3b --- SRY10831.1, M42, M94, M139, M168, P9, M145, M213, Yap, SRY4064, M96, P29, P2, DYS391p, M35, [E3b]

Which lacks affinity with European Rb1
R1B --- SRV10831.1, M42, M94, M139, M168, P9, P14, M89, M213, M9, M45, M74, P27, 92R7, M207, UTY-1, M173. P25

If one understands the above, it closes the case on 'caucazoid' E3b.

Not that there ever was a 'case' since NO molecular geneticist advocates such idiocy in the 1st place.

If on the other hand, like Erroneous E, one believes that Asian mail order brides 'carry E3b Y chromosome', then you don't understand genetics at all, and any explanation is thus beyound your grasp. Such is the plight of Erroneous Euro.

posted 16 June 2005 03:29 PM            

Nazlet Khater man was the earliest modern human skeleton found near Luxor, in 1980. The remains was dated from between 35,000 and 30,000 years ago. The report regarding the racial affinity of this skeleton concludes: "Strong alveolar prognathism combined with fossa praenasalis in an African skull is suggestive of Negroid morphology form & structure. The radio-humeral index of Nazlet Khater is practically the same as the mean of Taforalt (76.6). According to Ferembach (1965) this value is near to the Negroid average." The burial was of a young man of 17-20 years old, whose skeleton lay in a 160cm- long narrow ditch aligned from east to west. A flint tool, which was laid carefully on the bottom of the grave, dates the burial as contemporaneous with a nearby flint quarry.

- Thoma A., Morphology and affinities of the Nazlet Khater man, Journal of Human Evolution,

vol 13, 1984.

posted 16 June 2005 04:55 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
E3b arose 26,000 years ago in a racially undifferentiated Paleoafrican population, which, according to Howells, already had affinities with Europeans and Asians (but not Black Africans).

---

Evil's Pinnocchio nose is growing ever larger that, he fails to see contradictions within his own statements. If the so-called populations are "racially undifferentiated" [whatever that means, he never answered the question pertaining to this], then how can they have affinities with "Europeans and Asians" and not "black Africans"... be defined by what? If these populations were tropical Africans to begin with, how then can they not have affinities with tropical Africans?

posted 16 June 2005 06:27 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Super car:
Evil's Pinnocchio nose is growing ever larger that, he fails to see contradictions within his own statements. If the so-called populations are "racially undifferentiated" [whatever that means, he never answered the question pertaining to this], then how can they have affinities with "Europeans and Asians" and not "black Africans"... be defined by what? If these populations were tropical Africans to begin with, how then can they not have affinities with tropical Africans?

---

posted 16 June 2005 07:12 PM            

quote:

---

If these populations were tropical Africans to begin with, how then can they not have affinities with tropical Africans?

---

Indeed we are discussing lineage, and genetically - PN2 clade lineages define tropical African, then and now.

Let us then not shy away from the fact that the history of the PN2 clade is the paternal genetic history of Black Africa.

What is changed genetically of course is SOUTHERN EUROPE.

Pn2 lineage was acquired as admixture IN Greece FROM tropical Africa some 30 thousand years AFTER Europe was settled by its indigenous populations.

Moreover in terms of morphology, the populations that introduced this lineage were noted by physical anthropologists, long before the lineage itself was identified.

Southern Europe then, has E3b halplotype for the exact same reason that it has Benin Haplotype [sickle cell].

This reason is known and universally agreed upon by all reputable scientists -

- it is admixture, migration.....cross-breeding.

Speaking of 'caucasoid' Benin Haplotype, or E3b then, is a complete oxymoron, which is why geneticists.....don't.

The inability of racist idiots like Erroneous and his mind-abuser - Dienekes Pontikos to get a grip on biology 101, is their problem.

We're just here to share ACCURATE information and disinfect their brain damaged trolling... while having a laugh at their [self-generated] expense.

No one said learning can't be fun!

posted 17 June 2005 07:33 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Of course you originally did.

---

* Yawn *

My original reply to this tired topic still stands:

The two points of view are not incompatible. Of course, Coon's pre-historic East Africans were not "white" in the modern sense. Even he acknowledged that they were a "specialized, locally differentiated" type. The point is that they were more similar to modern non-Africans (Eurasians) than to Africans (Negroids) -- a finding that has been confirmed by the research of Howells, Hiernaux and Brace, as well as by contemporary genetic evidence.

quote:

---

As such E3b has nothing to do with Out of Africa Eurasians who had left Asia prior to the existence of Pn2 clade E3a and E3b.....

---

Irrelevant. E3b predates the emergence of modern races. It left Africa before "Black Africans" even existed, let alone spread eastward. Hence, it's a racially undifferentiated OOA lineage like the others.

quote:

---

E3b spread to Europe 8kya~ as African Neolithic ADMIXTURE;

---

Incorrect. It spread as Levantine Neolithic admixture:

quote:

---

We already know from PA Underhill that E3b is a sub-saharan African lineage;

---

That's not in dispute, moron. But your ability to understand simple chronology and geography certainly is. E3b arose 26,000 years ago in East Africa. The races didn't start forming until 15-20,000 years ago. Blacks evolved in West Africa. Ergo, E3b cannot possibly be "Black African".

quote:

---

Howells database does not have East Africans Nilotic and Cushitics - can't assess what you don't test. So your attempt to enlist Howells in your pseudoscientific cause, fails. Sorry.

---

We've already covered this, dumb savage . . .

The savage wrote: Howells methods 'obscure' by comparing ancient East Africans to Tieta, Dogon and San, but NOT the elongated and Nilotic types they were found to resemble.

I explained: Um, they were found to resemble South Americans, Ainu and Europeans. Comparing them to elongated Nilotic types wouldn't help your agenda any. The inescapable fact is that ancient, pre-Bantu Kenyans were not the same race as modern, Negroid Kenyans. They were more similar to the non-African peoples of the world. Hence, OOA migrants were not "Black Africans". Sorry.

quote:

---

Specifically how would E3b 'acquire' a caucasoid character? Thru Elvin' magic?

---

Um, in being carried by generalized moderns with Eurasian affinities to the geographical locations where Caucasoids evolved (i.e. North Africa and the Middle East).

quote:

---

Really? Then why did Larry Angel describe them as "Negroid from Nubia"?

---

He didn't. You're just a misquoting monkey with no answers

quote:

---

Nope.

---

Yup.

"True" Black Africans appear as a recent adaptive radiation in the above dendrograms, apparently branching off from an ancestral Pygmy population -- a line of ancestry also indicated by osteological data (Coon 1962:651-656; Watson et al. 1996). This radiation seems to have occurred somewhere in West Africa. Before the Bantu expansion about 3,000 years ago, true Black Africans were absent from the continent's central, eastern, and southern regions (Cavalli-Sforza 1986:361-362; Oliver 1966). They were also absent from the middle Nile until about 4,000 years ago, at which time they begin to appear in paintings from Pharaonic Egypt and in skeletal remains from Nubia (Junker 1921).

http://www.arthurhu.com/99/17/sexratio.txt

On the broad scale, looking at an "Out-of-Africa" scenario, one would expect that, in some region between southern and northeastern Africa, some differentiation would have been taking place within a Homo sapiens stock, evolving into something beginning to approximate later Sub-Saharan peoples on the one hand, and evolving in another direction on the other hand. East Africa would be a likely locale for appearance of the latter. So anyone is welcome to argue that this is what Elmenteita et al. are manifesting. The ensuing picture for East Africa, that is to say, would later have been changed through replacement by the expansion of Bantu or other "Negroid" tribes.

posted 17 June 2005 09:01 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Of course you originally did.

---

quote:

---

Erroneous writes: Yawn

---

Poor tired Erroneous, tired of squirming, tired of contradicting himself.

Your lack of answers got you down?

Genetics too difficult for your CL Brace Neanderthal skull?

No worries, instead of desperately spamming laughable pseudoscience from Dienekes Pontikos, try learning from actual scientists instead:

E3B is a sub-saharan African, non Eurasian lineage

* E3b originated in Sub-Saharan Africa.-

* recent gene flow brought E3b from North West Africa into Iberia with the Islamic conquest

As such E3b has nothing to do with Out of Africa Eurasians who had left Asia prior to the existence of Pn2 clade E3a and E3b.....

haplogroups I and R1b are likely to have been in Europe since the Palaeolithic age

M78 (E3b1) is the more likely haplogroup reflecting Neolithic demic diffusion [From Arica into Europe]

OOA lineages, such M168 and L3[MN] were carried by the common ancestors of all non Africans, These people:

"African Eve".

E3b spread to Europe 8kya~ as African Neolithic ADMIXTURE, along with distinctive African phenotypes, as documented and unrefuted by [McCown, Garrod, Angel, Keita, Sforza, Ehret, Furon, Underhill]. ;

We actually have DNA evidence which fits very well with an intrusion of people FROM northEast Africa INTO southwestern Asia. The Y-chromosome markers, associated with the male, F A D E O U T as you go deeper into the Middle East.

All these Natufians share the same physical type, completely different from that of earlier Palestinians.....presenting certain Negroid characteristics attributable to CROSSBREEDING

"one can identify NEGROID traits appearing in Anatolian and Macedonian 1st Farmers"

"While this MIXTURE could occur by direct diffusion into Europe from Africa or Asia (and undoubtedly there were such gene flows), it is easier to understand if the ancestors of Europeans were originally in the Middle East...Such a population would have been receiving genes FROM Africa and from Asia."

"About 8,000 years ago, a more advanced people, the Neolithic, migrated to Europe from the Middle East, bringing with them a new Y chromosome pattern and a new way of life: agriculture. About 20 percent of Europeans now have the Y chromosome pattern [West Asian J, African E] from this migration."

"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 outdated. The presence of E3b AND Benin HBS in southern Europe illustrates this well."

Remember Erroneous...actual science, and not that RAT POISON Dienekes Pontikos is baiting you with, is what's required.

I'd lay off those Dienekes Donuts if I were you Erroneous! They are rotting your brain. Yawning is one of the symptoms.

See the following.........

posted 17 June 2005 08:32 PM            

Epilepsy

Encephalitis

Brain Tumors

Multiple Sclerosis

Progressive Supranuclear Palsy

Opiate withdrawal

Anxiety

Erroneous: You look ill. You may want to consider filing a lawsuit against Dienekes Pontikos.

posted 18 June 2005 06:37 AM            

quote:

---

At around the same time, E3a-, L1- and L2-carrying Negroids spread throughout Sub-Saharan Africa from their West African point of origin, altering the continent's racial make-up.

---

E3a may have a origin in West Africa but L1 and L2 do *NOT* have a West African point of origin, do you actually read studies for proof or do you just have the habit of making up false scenarios ad naseaum to support your stupid agendas?

Here's a genetic study on African mtDNAs, please point out where L1 and L2 carrying people spread out from their *WEST AFRICAN POINT OF ORIGIN* and colonised East Africa. Before you even bother to look, L1 has an East African origin[L2 being hypothesised to have arisen someplace in the Sahel, where there are no Bantu speakers] area as well as L3 which appears in substantial frequencies in West and central Africans. So whats taking you so long idiot? What are you answers to this? Stop making up riduculous trash you idiot.

posted 18 June 2005 07:16 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
instead of desperately spamming . . .

---

. . . the same post over and over again while hiding behind ad-hominem tirades, try addressing the evidence in my replies. Unless, of course, you can't.

posted 18 June 2005 07:22 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Topdog:
E3a may have a origin in West Africa but L1 and L2 do *NOT* have a West African point of origin

---

posted 18 June 2005 08:03 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
L3 is ancestral to all other mtDNAs. L1 and L2 are not. Therefore, these lineages arrived in East Africa after the OOA migrations that spread L3 (otherwise they would have spread too). They represent admixture from Bantus and other Negroids originating in central, western and southern Africa.

---

No you dumb guido, read the genetic study I posted refutes you and Dienekes' stupid logic so you've been refuted. No further comment. L3 is ancestral to non-African mtDNAs and African DNAs.

I see you have no answers for this

hhttp://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=385086

posted 18 June 2005 09:36 AM            

quote:

---

Erroneous writes: the same post over and over again

---

ACTUAL GENETIC DATA on sub-saharan African E3B and sub-saharan East African E3b1 Gamma

Excellent.

Moving on to the real people:

quote:

---

Top Dog: L1 has an East African origin[L2 being hypothesised to have arisen someplace in the Sahel]

---

Possibly along with the Pn2 precursor of E3B and E3a.

What also needs to be understood is that mtdna [maternal] markers do not typically mutate as fast as, and therefore in sync with - Y chromosome [paternal].

Consider a trans-sahelien population including PN2 males and L2a females and the subsequent mutations in PN2 [E3a and E3b] with no matching mutations in L2a - then one gets the picture more clearly.

This is also why it's futile to try and match these lineages to specific morphologies. [East vs. West Sahel is too - irrelevant and contrived]

Morphology is not static and is shaped by environment.

As lineages denoted by SNP markers spread to diverse environments, physical appearance and function is altered, and SNP mutations do not denote these specific morphological changes.

This is also why so called 'negroid' phenotypes exist in places like South Asia and the South Pacific which have NO E and NO L lineages.

Let's not forget that our boy Erroneous, when pressed to DEFINE his race concepts took a stupid-stab at quoting the Columbia Encyclopedia, only to trap himself again...

Columbia catagorized Blacks of the South Pacific [Oceana] and South Asia belonging to it's 'Negroid' race. Since they have no relationship to West Africans this forced Erroneous to disavow his own encyclopedic reference, leaving him with a contradiction, but still no definition of terms.

Europeans and Out of Africa:

European lineages reveal the fact that they migrated out of Africa at the same time and from the same base population as other non AFricans - for example East Asians and Pacific Islanders.

This means the natural shape of a genetic distance graph plotting Africa, East Asia and Europe would be a "V."

Africa would be at the vertex.

East Asia and Europe would represent the two endpoints of the V, both equi-distant from Africa.

However, as we know, this is NOT the case ....

Genes, peoples, and languages L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza

Europe is genetically intermediate between Africa and East Asia, and between Africa and the South Pacific Islander so called 'negroids'. Why is this?

The reason is POST OOA genetic admixture in Europe;

Specifically, Europe has sub-saharan African lineages AND morphologies not present in East Asia and the South Pacific.

Europe is quite literally, heterogeneous.

Erroneous - run back to daddy Dienekes now, and don't come back until you have some answers.

posted 19 June 2005 07:45 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
you are now completely frustrated

---

No, I am now completely victorious because you failed to answer a single one of my refutations of your nonsense. Instead, you just posted the same refuted nonsense over again.

posted 19 June 2005 09:28 AM            

quote:

---

Erroneous - run back to daddy Dienekes now, and don't come back until you have some answers.

---

posted 19 June 2005 11:11 AM            

If black Africans evolved only "recently" in West Africa, what racial groups existed on the African continent prior to them??

Were these the "undifferentiated generalized modern humans" you spoke of? If so, what is the nature of these people?-- How did they look like?

And as always, What do YOU define as "NEGROID"???

Please try to answer my questions, with no mindless cessation!!

posted 19 June 2005 11:49 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Topdog:

Thus Erroneous one, those prehistoric East Africans didn't resemble any modern human race in that area since racial variation didn't occur until much later.

---

Thought Writes:

How can there be post-pleistocene "Racial Variation" when "Races" don't exist?As Stringer suggests and as I stated previously Mesolithic/prehistoric East Africans DID resemble modern East Africans in RELATIVE terms, just as Mesolithic/prehistoric Germans resemble modern Germans. All of this is based upon the well established anthropological principle of SHARED-DERIVED TRAITS.

posted 19 June 2005 11:52 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Topdog:

Despite that rasol Dienekes and his parrot Erroneos E failed to note that in that same book they cited for a case against pre-historic East Africans being Negroid, the same book concluded that prehistoric Europeans show no continuity with recent modern Europeans.

---

Thought Writes:

Great point. I reiterate: The issue is not ABSOLUTE phenotypic similarity, but RELATIVE phenotypic similarity in a global analysis.

posted 19 June 2005 12:14 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

If black Africans evolved only "recently" in West Africa, what racial groups existed on the African continent prior to them??!

---

Thought Writes:

posted 19 June 2005 12:25 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

Djehuti, you are right. Evil E is attempting another ruse to explain away the Black African genesis of "Civilization". Yet I see that many of you are STILL (sigh!) working with a "Racial Paradigm". Race should be viewed in strictly sociological terms. There is NO basis to "Race" in biology. Africans have levels of BIOLOGICAL VARIATION that form trends/clusters in the analysis global data. But humans in Africa and Eurasia SHARE in substantial levels of genetic material as well. It is not a either or scenario. It is a complex and nuanced scenario. PRIMARY ORIGINS is the real issue, not the outdated, linear and psuedo-scientific theory of "Race".

---

Thought, I agree with you all the way! But I use "race" only to humor Erroneous! So I ask:

quote:

---

If black Africans evolved only "recently" in West Africa, what racial groups existed on the African continent prior to them??

Were these the "undifferentiated modern humans" you spoke of? If so, what is the nature of these people?-- How did they look like?

And as always, What do YOU define as "NEGROID"???

---

posted 19 June 2005 12:28 PM            

Terms such as "Negroid," "Caucasoid," and "Mongoloid" create more problems than they solve. Biologically, such terms are worse than useless. - CL Brace.

The classification of humans into races has proved to be a futile exercise. The idea of race in the human species serves no purpose - Cforza

Populations should be viewed processually as dynamic entities over
time and not “static” entities. The presence of M35/215 lineages and the Benin Hbs in Europe demonstrates this well - Keita

We don’t really talk about races. We talk about lineages being at high frequencies in particular populations. Races really have no meaning biologically, certainly not genetically. - Wells.

dark skin is the original state of modern humans - Jablonski

By 1.2 million years ago, all people having descendants today had exactly the receptor protein of today's Africans; their skin was black, and the intense sun killed off the progeny with any whiter skin that resulted from mutational variation in the receptor protein.......for a million years, the ancestors of all people alive today were as black as today's Africans. - Alan Rogers

East Africans have been 'equatorial' [black] for many 10's of thousands of years - Cl Brace

caucasoid - A member of a racial classification, not in scientific use.

reification -
To regard or treat an abstraction as if it had concrete or material existence.

Reification and race

Early anthropologists tried to explore the nature of human species by systematically classifying H. sapiens into subspecies or races, based on geographic location and physical features such as skin color, body size, head shape and hair texture.

Such classifications were continually challenged by the presence of individuals who did not fit the categories.

The fact is, generalized references to human types such as "Asiatic" or "Mongoloid", "European" or "Caucasoid", and "African" or "Negroid" were at best mere statistical abstractions about populations in which certain physical features appeared in higher frequencies than in other populations. These categories turned out to be neither definitive nor particularly helpful.

posted 19 June 2005 12:28 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

But I use "race" only to humor Erroneous! So I ask:

---

Thought Writes:

Such may be the case, but with so many young minds on this forum I suggest we raise the bar on how we express ourselves. We should mean what we say and say what we mean.

posted 19 June 2005 12:35 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

Djehuti, you are right. Evil E is attempting another ruse to explain away the Black African genesis of "Civilization". Yet I see that many of you are STILL (sigh!) working with a "Racial Paradigm". Race should be viewed in strictly sociological terms. There is NO basis to "Race" in biology. Africans have levels of BIOLOGICAL VARIATION that form trends/clusters in the analysis global data. But humans in Africa and Eurasia SHARE in substantial levels of genetic material as well. It is not a either or scenario. It is a complex and nuanced scenario. PRIMARY ORIGINS is the real issue, not the outdated, linear and psuedo-scientific theory of "Race".

---

Thought is correct. Djehuti, Erroneous steals his garbage from Dienekes and so is limited and predictable - watch for tomorrow's reply buzzword: generalised modern.

Translated:

Since he can't make E3b, Benin Haplotype, or East Africa white, he will claim that admixtures from Africa are from 'generalised moderns', and not 'negroids', thus playing reified non sense words off against one another, and begging you to chase them.

We will wait until he makes this stupid and evasive argument, tomorrow, and then destroy it, as usual.

posted 20 June 2005 08:08 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Since he can't make E3b, Benin Haplotype, or East Africa white, he will claim that admixtures from Africa are from 'generalised moderns', and not 'negroids', thus playing reified non sense words off against one another, and begging you to chase them.

---

Chronology lesson for the dumb savage:

- E3b originated 26,000 years ago.

- Races didn't begin forming until 15-20,000 years ago.

- E3b spread out of sub-Saharan Africa at this time.

posted 20 June 2005 08:30 AM            

quote:

---

Erroneous writes: E3b originated 26,000 years ago.

---

In sub-saharn Africa, not in Eurasia where it is negligible.

quote:

---

Erroneous writes: Races didn't begin forming until 15-20,000 years ago.

---

You reverse yourself and admit that "Caucazoid race" did not exist before the Neolithic.

In doing so, you provide NO support for the notion of the existence of 'caucazoid race' 'after' the neolithic either.

caucazoid - pertaining to a racial classification, not in scientific use - AHD, 2005

classification into race serves no useful purposes - C Cforza.

terms like [caucasoid] are worse than useless - CL Brace

Races really have no meaning biologically, certainly not genetically. - Spencer Wells

Modern human genetic variation does not structure into phylogenetic 'races', nor do the taxa from from classical anthropology qualify as 'races'. - Keita

Caucazoid 'race' didn't exist until German racist Blumenbach invented it 200 years ago.

CaucaZoid is so revealed to be a pseudo-scientific racist ideology, which is why you quote Dienekes and ignore science.

Genetically, southern Europeans are a heterogeneous mixture which includes distinct West Asian and sub saharan African lineages and morphologies.

quote:

---

Erroneous writes: E3b spread out of sub-Saharan Africa at this time.

---

Pristine E3b and eldest E3b1-gamma did not spread to Eurasia. E3b alpha spread to Greece along with the Neolithic, and African mophologies - due to crossbreeding [Garrod, Furan] and population admixture. Caucazoid genes don't exist.

quote:

---

Conclusion: OOA E3b

---

quote:

---

is NOT Black.

---

quote:

---

It's Caucasoid

---

quote:

---

Please provide YOUR definition of terms for caucasoid and negroid, in a scientific sense?

Please lay out your chronology for these morphologies[?].

Please name the caucasoid African population from which the southern Africans inherited E3b*[M35]?

You claim that Greeks are really European.
Based on DNA all indigneous Europeans are of post-LGM refuge lineage.

Please tell me which refuge the Greeks came out of?

---

We're waiting for answers. What's taking so long?

posted 20 June 2005 12:56 PM            

quote:

---

A lesson in genetic chronology for intellectually imparied Erroneous E:

* E3b originated in Sub-Saharan Africa.

* Haplogroups I and R1b are indigenous to Paleolithic Europe.

OOA lineages, such as M168 and L3[MN] were carried by the common ancestors of all non Africans, These people:

"African Eve".

As such E3b has nothing to do with Out of Africa Eurasians who had left Asia prior to the existence of Pn2 clade E3a and E3b.

* recent gene flow brought E3b from North West Africa into Iberia with the Islamic conquest.

* M78 (E3b1, not E3b) is the more likely haplogroup reflecting Neolithic demic diffusion [From Arica into Europe]

E3b spread to Europe 8kya~ as African Neolithic ADMIXTURE;

along with distinctive African phenotypes, as documented and unrefuted by [McCown, Garrod, Angel, Keita, Ehret, Furon].

---

posted 21 June 2005 07:31 AM            

- 26,000 year ago. E3b. No race.

- 15-20,000 year ago. E3b spread. Race form.

- E3b not black. E3b white.

quote:

---

OOA is pre E3b which is why Europeans have none, accept where they are 'mixed', as is the case in Greece.

---

One week and still no answer . . .

Are Greeks "racially mixed" because of their E3b Y-chromosomes as you've claimed many times, or are Y-chromosomes unconnected to race and morphology as you claimed with the Lemba?

Run, rasol, run

And P.S. Virtually all Europeans (and other Caucasoids) have E3b:

posted 21 June 2005 09:35 AM            

quote:

---

- 26,000 year ago. E3b. No race.

---

* 26,000 year ago, E3b originates in Africa, not in Europe or Asia. [Underhill]

* Race has no meaning or relevance to the genetics. [Wells]

quote:

---

15-20,000 year ago. E3b spread.

---

* "Race" is still irrelevant. [Wells]

quote:

---

- E3b not black.

---

Non-sequitor,

* E3b is sub-saharan AFrican [Underhill]

* E3b1 is East AFrican [Sanchez]

* Africans are and have been black for many
10's of thousands of years, [Brace] - ie - since before E3b and after.

* Modern E3b East Africans are direct descendants of Ancient E3b East Africans. [Sanches].

* E3b1 alpha is a descendant of East African E3b1 and spread to Europe along with the Neolithic, and a new, non European Y chromosome pattern [Underhill],

* these non-europeans had "African" morphologies which is attributable to admixture from and crossbreeding with Black Africans [Angel, Garrod, Furon, McCown, Keita, Ehret, Cforza].

* present E3b genetic admixture in Europe is distributed in a South to North cline concordant with both Neolithic and recent historical gene flow from Africa to Europe. [ Bosch, Nebel, Semino]

quote:

---

Are Greeks "racially mixed"?,

---

Chronology - The science that deals with the dates for a sequence of factual events.

We have presented a fact based chronology for the African origin of E3b among the native Black peoples of Africa, and the spread of their lineages and morphologies FROM tropical Africa TO Europe.

The facts are simply as stated by renowned scholars in the relevant fields.

They are subject to peer review, and stand without refutation.

But Erroneous-cum-Dienekes presents no facts, no data, no logic, nothing.

Accordingly, Erroneous' half baked claims are unsupported by even a single reference to any legitimate scholarship.

Keep trying....

posted 21 June 2005 09:38 AM            

quote:

---

Please provide YOUR definition of terms for caucasoid and negroid, in a scientific sense?

Please lay out your chronology for these morphologies[?].

Please name the caucasoid African population from which the southern Africans inherited E3b*[M35]?

You claim that Greeks are really European.
Based on DNA all indigneous Europeans are of post-LGM refuge lineage.

Please tell me which refuge the Greeks came out of?

---

posted 22 June 2005 07:20 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Race has no meaning or relevance to the genetics.

---

Really? Then why did your pal Topdog start this thread? And why did you pat him on the back for it, only to do a complete 360 when you realized that it undermines your "Black African E3b" nonsense? Inconsistent fool.

E3b originated in a generalized East African population. It spread to North Africa and the Near East (homelands of Caucasoid peoples) as modern races were beginning to form. It's NOT "Black African". Period.

quote:

---

We're waiting for answers. It appears you don't have them.

---

posted 22 June 2005 10:08 AM            

quote:

---

Really? Then why did your pal Topdog start this thread

---

Because he is using you as a smack toy who provides comic relief, while the rest of us discuss bioanthropology?

Well, you did ask.

posted 22 June 2005 10:10 AM            

quote:

---

Please provide YOUR definition of terms for caucasoid and negroid, in a scientific sense?

Please lay out your chronology for these morphologies[?].

Please name the caucasoid African population from which the southern Africans inherited E3b*[M35]?

You claim that Greeks are really European.
Based on DNA all indigneous Europeans are of post-LGM refuge lineage.

Please tell me which refuge the Greeks came out of?

---

posted 23 June 2005 06:21 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
[b]Chronology lesson for the dumb savage:

- E3b originated 26,000 years ago.

- Races didn't begin forming until 15-20,000 years ago.

- E3b spread out of sub-Saharan Africa at this time.

- Conclusion: OOA E3b is NOT Black. It's Caucasoid.[/B]

---

Idiot, as always you contradict yourself. Just earlier in this thread you said this about OOA E3b:

"Irrelevant. E3b predates the emergence of modern races. It left Africa before "Black Africans" even existed, let alone spread eastward. Hence, it's a racially undifferentiated OOA lineage like the others."

Now its Caucasoid? Make up your mind fool. BTW, if OOA E3b is 'Caucasoid' in your dumb mind, how is E3b in East Africans, which is indigenous to East Africa, Caucasoid? Pathetic! just admit you're blowing smoke for the sake of blowing smoke and have no idea what the heck you're talking about.

posted 23 June 2005 06:30 AM            

quote:

---

E3b originated in a generalized East African population. It spread to North Africa and the Near East (homelands of Caucasoid peoples) as modern races were beginning to form. It's NOT "Black African". Period.

---

And neither is it white 'Caucasoid' you dummy

posted 23 June 2005 07:25 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Because he is using you as a smack toy who provides comic relief, while the rest of us discuss bioanthropology?

---

Non-reply with which you're attempting to weasel out of your contradiction and dishonesty, just like you weasel out of providing answers.

quote:

---

...could you please stop stalling and answer the questions?

---

posted 23 June 2005 07:30 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Topdog:
Now its Caucasoid? Make up your mind fool. BTW, if OOA E3b is 'Caucasoid' in your dumb mind, how is E3b in East Africans, which is indigenous to East Africa, Caucasoid? Pathetic! just admit you're blowing smoke for the sake of blowing smoke and have no idea what the heck you're talking about.

---

posted 23 June 2005 07:49 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
E3b became Caucasoid, just like all other OOA lineages acquired a racial character during the Upper Paleolithic/Mesolithic. Re-read my chronology. The evidence (including your terrific contribution) supports it.

---

E3b didn't become 'Caucasoid' in East Africans you idiot. You basically have no proof that genes morph into Caucasoids and Negroids, especially in East Africa. Please cite one study that states that genes morph in the manner you described them.

posted 24 June 2005 07:50 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Topdog:
You basically have no proof that genes morph into Caucasoids and Negroids

---

posted 25 June 2005 10:38 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:

E3b originated in a generalized East African population.

---

Thought Writes:

Please tell us SPECIFICALLY what a "generalized East African" looked like?

posted 25 June 2005 10:41 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:

You E3b-carriers acquired a racial character in Northeast Africa and the Levant 15-20,000 years ago.

---

Thought Writes:

E3b did not enter Northeast Africa and the Levant until AFTER ~14,000 ky. In addition the cranial remains of populations living in NE Africa at this time were similar to modern WEST Africans.