|
 EgyptSearch Forums
 Ancient Egypt and Egyptology
 Erroneous E refuted again
|
 UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! |
next newest topic | next oldest topic |
| Author | Topic: Erroneous E refuted again |
|
Topdog Member Posts: 321 |
posted 27 July 2005 01:36 PM
  
Eurotroll wrote:
quote:
quote:
[This message has been edited by Topdog (edited 27 July 2005).] IP: Logged |
|
Topdog Member Posts: 321 |
posted 27 July 2005 02:33 PM
Eurotroll wrote:
quote: Neither Brace nor Howells said East Africans, ancient and modern, had closer affinities to Eurasians, quit misrepresenting their studies and distorting it. I have Howell's book and he never classified ancient East Africans as Eurasian, but he did say they were less 'Negroid' than modern day East Africans which were represented by Teita in his samples. He chose Teita because they occupy the same area that ancient East Africans[Mesolithic/Neolithic] used to occupy. On p.102 Howells states:
[This message has been edited by Topdog (edited 28 July 2005).] IP: Logged |
|
Topdog Member Posts: 321 |
posted 28 July 2005 07:54 AM
Whats taking you so long Eurotroll? Running away from the obvious? IP: Logged |
|
Evil Euro Member Posts: 650 |
posted 28 July 2005 08:31 AM
quote: I didn't say "very close". I said "closer" to other Africans than to Eurasians. And since there are no Eurasians on your plot, it can't confirm or dispute that statement.
quote: They're not. They're in a cluster with North Africans and Egyptians away from Sub-Saharan Africans.
quote: No, they're in the same intermediate cluster, so it supports what I've said that both groups are mixed and that differences between them are statistically insignificant.
quote: * Yawn * - Ancient East Africans had greater affinities with modern Europeans than with Negroids: "The DISPOP results here are not indicative of anything, except a general non-African nature for all these skulls. Display of POPKIN distances (infra) reinforces this and seems to find nearer neighbors among such more generalized populations as Peru, Guam, or Ainu, but also Europeans or even Easter Island." (Howells, 1995) [This message has been edited by Evil Euro (edited 28 July 2005).] IP: Logged |
|
Evil Euro Member Posts: 650 |
posted 28 July 2005 08:33 AM
. [This message has been edited by Evil Euro (edited 28 July 2005).] IP: Logged |
|
yazid904 Member Posts: 115 |
posted 28 July 2005 09:39 AM
Eb3, it seems, when separated from the East African homeland through genetic drift (migration to other climes) and in isolation in the heartland of Europe becomes the founder in that new place. On top of that, we have migration taking place over time with different 'groups' and these groups in isolation creates what we know today as a/the phenotype exhibited by the target group. I am looking at this from a point of view of 'dominant' and 'recessive' gene aspect. Topdog's post of two sister(s?), to me, show they are from the same family???. Obviously they may not be but that is a perfect example of the top girl showing less of East African (my take on the picture) genotype, while the one below her showing more of it. IP: Logged |
|
rasol Member Posts: 3990 |
posted 28 July 2005 10:29 AM
quote: Nicely done. [This message has been edited by rasol (edited 16 August 2005).] IP: Logged |
|
Super car Member Posts: 1573 |
posted 28 July 2005 01:54 PM
Nothing here yet that makes borderline europeans, well...any less borderline. IP: Logged |
|
Super car Member Posts: 1573 |
posted 28 July 2005 04:26 PM
quote: ...so says pseudo-science, but now getting back to reality, you have to remember (but how could you when there is nothing in that vessel?) that Englishmen, like other northern Europeans, carry very little typical sub-Saharan E3b lineage (unlike their very high R1b frequencies), and virtually no Benin haplotype sickle cell, which are abundant in southern populations like the Greeks and Italians.
Source: The Peopling of Modern Bosnia-Herzegovina: Y-chromosome Haplogroups in the Three Main Ethnic Groups, D. Marjanovic et al.
"Concerning the East Mediterranean, haplotype frequencies fall from Albania (14.7%) and Ex-Yugoslavia (10%) to value 3.8% in Greece and 2.6% in Central Turkey... "...Haplotype XV is the MAIN Y haplotype in West Europe..." Source: Dieterlen F, Lucotte G., Institute of Molecular Anthropology
And now, closing with another defining European haplotype... Rootsi et al. Frequency of Hg I: "Previous studies revealed that Hg I reached frequencies of ~ 40% - 50% in two distinct regions - in Nordic populations of Scandinavia and, in southern Europe... ...Its virtual absence elsewhere, including the Near East, suggest that it arose in Europe, likely **BEFORE** the Last Glacial Maximum..." Source: Phylogeography of Y-Chromosome Haplogroup I Reveals Distinct Domains of Prehistoric gene Flow in Europe
These facts bundled up with Topdog's post, the picture is quite vivid. IP: Logged |
|
rasol Member Posts: 3990 |
posted 28 July 2005 05:33 PM
The Oromo are virtually all E clade, the Amhara are E + J. That's why they differ so much on Y chromosome maps, such as shown above. Some genetic studies try to confuse the Amhara for - "Ethiopia", but the Oromo, Ethiopia and East Africa's largest ethnic group, and most other Ethiopians do not have the high frequencies of West Asian J as do the Amhara. This fact is correctly reflected in TopDog's map, in contrast to the 'typically' false assertions of idiots who think women carry Y chromosomes. [This message has been edited by rasol (edited 28 July 2005).] IP: Logged |
|
rasol Member Posts: 3990 |
posted 28 July 2005 05:43 PM
quote: Good find, btw. IP: Logged |
|
relaxx Member Posts: 443 |
posted 28 July 2005 07:44 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by rasol: Some genetic studies try to confuse the Amhara for - "Ethiopia" ---------------------- I think most of the time, it's by pure ignorance...some geneticist are good in their fields but fare poorly in ethnology, linguistic analysis and anthropology...of course even Cavalli Sforza... Relaxx IP: Logged |
|
Super car Member Posts: 1573 |
posted 28 July 2005 08:51 PM
quote: Notwithstanding that there are more than 80 ethnic groups in Ethiopia alone; some are more isolated than others. So even if some study mentions an "Amhara" sample, or that of "Oromo", "Tigrinya", or whatever, only a mentally devoid one will interpret that as representative of an entire nation. For instance, a lame clown reading this... Somali male population has approximately 15% Y chromosomes from Eurasia and approximately 5% from sub-Saharan Africa. ...might just pick up the straw, and interpret it as, the main subjects of the sampling (which happens to be Somali males) having no affiliation with sub-Saharan Africa. While the geneticists on the other hand, already understand the meaning of what is not mentioned outright or directly, as exemplified by this acknowledgement: "Although the Horn of Africa is considered a geographic part of sub-Saharan Africa, we have analysed the Somali population separately in order to compare the results with previously published data from other African populations." Sanchez et al [This message has been edited by Super car (edited 28 July 2005).] IP: Logged |
|
Topdog Member Posts: 321 |
posted 29 July 2005 01:33 AM
quote: It doesn't matter whether Eurasians were on that mtDNA plot, the point was that Ethiopians do not cluster with Bantus maternally. Since Bantu speakers and Ethiopians have mtDNA from clades L1, L2 and L3 anyways, it makes sense that that Ethiopians cluster closer to 'other Africans' on that plot. Your dullness and inability to have an understanding of even the simplest things never ceases to make me laugh, scornfully of course.
quote: Are you that damn blind and stupid to read a plot? Egyptians cluster away from East Africans[this particular 'Egyptian' sample was taken from northern Egypt and Arredi et tal's study according to reference materials from Sanchez et tal] on the opposite side of Axis 2 up and away from East Africans. Their closest neighbors on that map in terms of 'African' populations are Amhara[who have a high percentage of J paternally] and North Africans who have similar levels of J with Amharas. BR*(xE) for North Africans is 33.1% while BR*(xE) for Amharas is 39.6%. Amharas groups closer to but not very close to of Africans on that plot because they significant A and B whereas North Africans have zero. If you would have read the full text instead of making crap up for the sake of continuing on this stupid debate you would know this. It all doesn't matter because none of those East African groups cluster anywhere near Eurasians paternally.
quote: From looking at the full text study, the E(xE3b) in Ethiopians is certainly *NOT* composed of E3a, except for the 'Mixed Ethiopian' group which have it at a frequency of 1.6% and Somalis have it a a frequency of 1.5%. The A and thats share is found mostly in the Sudanese sample and Khoisan. Ethiopians totally lack E1 and E2 lineages, while Somalis have it at a frequency of 0.5%. When you say the have E(xE3b) that means nothing literally since there are clades of E that are entirely East African in origin[P2, P2*, and 281 for example, stop being lazy and evasive and read the damn studies that are published.
quote: Wrong, Sanchez et tal's study does count all Eurasian haplogroups and Ethiopians still don't cluster with Eurasians. It doesn't matter because E3b isn't what makes them cluster closer to Eurasians, its haplogroup J that does that, so your point is still refuted. Look again at Sanchez et tal's plot, E3a carriers plot of one side, E3b1 carriers plot on another side and BR*(xE) carriers plot to another side. Since East African specific clades of E3b1 are not found in Eurasins at high frequencies they expectedly cluster away distantly from Ethiopians, not together. Since all the 'Ethiopian' groups are *NOT* pooled together under one big ambiguous 'Ethiopian' label, Sanchez et tal's greakdown is even more accurate than your plot.
quote: If they were 'hybrid' you dumb idiot they would have equal amounts of E3a and Eurasian DNA, but they do not. East African DNA[E3b1] are just as 'African' as West African DNA[E3a] so what difference does it make? They don't cluster with Eurasians very closely because of E3b1, its because of E3b1 that they cluster far away from Eurasians into their own cluster you dumb idiot.
quote: They are *NOT* intermediate in the same cluster you stupid fool, Oromos are much closer to Somalis on that plot who are far away from everyone. Read Sanchez et tal's study you trolling idiot, as well as Semino's and Kvisild's et tal's study, they *ALL* confirm that on the Y-chromosone[which Sanchez et tal's study is based on] Oromos and Amharas are substantially different and *NOT* the same, I even posted it numerous times where it says so and your thick skulled headed stubborn self still doesn't get it. The most 'intermediate' ones on that plot, or should i say the population that lies closest to intermediate status on this plot is North Africans. They lie almost equally distant from Eurasians, sub-Saharan central and West Africans and East Africans. You must be silly and blind to *NOT* se the differences in where Amharas and Oromos lie on that plot. I know your Eurocentric wet dreams are being smashed, but to play stupid as though you can't read that plot is downright pathetic. [This message has been edited by Topdog (edited 29 July 2005).] IP: Logged |
|
relaxx Member Posts: 443 |
posted 29 July 2005 04:55 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Topdog: [B] The most 'intermediate' ones on that plot, or should i say the population that lies closest to intermediate status on this plot is North Africans. They lie almost equally distant from Eurasians, sub-Saharan central and West Africans and East Africans. ------------------------- Obviously North Africans (many are Berbers) are the closest to the center of both axes. North Africans have a large 'hybrid' population: 1 Berber = 1 E3b Sub Saharan African father + 1 European mother, it's called ‘hybrid’...I don't even talk about Greeks...we know that they are more than hybrids...at least the picture is clearer and cleaner with Berbers... Relaxx IP: Logged |
|
Evil Euro Member Posts: 650 |
posted 29 July 2005 07:46 AM
quote: Exactly. Ethiopians are maternally Negroid. You're finally getting it.
quote: I said depending on the sample (i.e. size, location, ethnicity etc.), not the haplogroups. Learn how to read.
quote: So the plot has three sides? Do you know what "side" means? Here's the correct interpretation: * Sub-Saharan Africans (including non-Bantu Khoisans) plot on one side. * Europeans and Middle Easterners plot on the other side. * Northeast Africans plot in the middle, reflecting their hybrid African/Eurasian status.
quote: I didn't say there was no difference. I just said it was insignificant, as other research confirms. They're about as distant from each other as Southern and Central Africans are. That's nothing. IP: Logged |
|
Evil Euro Member Posts: 650 |
posted 29 July 2005 07:50 AM
quote: Of course NOT . . . On the Y-chromosome: Greeks, Italians and Spaniards cluster with Brits, Germans and Czechs. IP: Logged |
|
Djehuti Member Posts: 1399 |
posted 29 July 2005 10:52 AM
The European dog is intellectually hapless. He explains the black 'look' for East Africans as being due to mixture with Bantus, particularly female Bantus. What happened to his "caucasoid" Eurasian women?? And more importantly, the Bantu presence in Northeast Africa specifically, the Horn and Sudan region has been nil! This is proven genetically, linguistically, and historically!! The Somalis in here would laugh at you if they heard you say that they are black because of "Bantu" ancestry!! [This message has been edited by Djehuti (edited 29 July 2005).] IP: Logged |
|
yazid904 Member Posts: 115 |
posted 29 July 2005 01:07 PM
Dhejuti, Euro probably is not familiar with the tribal groups in East Africa so much of his information is book reference. He probably only distingusihes Africans as 'black' and that is his framework. A guess only!!! IP: Logged |
|
Super car Member Posts: 1573 |
posted 29 July 2005 01:47 PM
quote: halfrican grease savage, this is still immaterial, as far as your hybrid nigger-european background is concerned. This must really be the remaining lame dodona straw you are left hanging with, isn't it? In any case, placing East Africans on maps virtually any where you please, or fantasizing about close relationships between 'Englishmen' and Ehiopians, really doesn't do anything to help you escape your borderline european background. Keep that in mind, and you'll be in good shape. IP: Logged |
|
relaxx Member Posts: 443 |
posted 29 July 2005 03:01 PM
quote: You correctly guessed it, he is a complete ignorant, doesn't know what Africans look like. Just go on the Dodona forum which is his, you'll see how stupid and ignorant people are on his forum. They are all perfect examples of some dysfunctional Americans, Australians with European ancestry and some other crazy guys who are affraid of the truth: that their ancestors were human Black Africans...They're sick... IP: Logged |
|
rasol Member Posts: 3990 |
posted 12 August 2005 08:30 AM
quote: IP: Logged |
|
Evil Euro Member Posts: 650 |
posted 13 August 2005 08:37 AM
Conclusions from Sanchez et al. (2005):
* Somalis are predominantly East African (E3b). * East Africans are more Eurasian than African. IP: Logged |
|
rasol Member Posts: 3990 |
posted 13 August 2005 10:45 AM
quote: TopDog, of course, you are quite correct, and the illiterate screechings of Erroneous, the albino monkey, only show his lack of intellectual capacity. Indeed, one shouldn't even need the above graph to understand relative Y chromosome relationships if you know anything at all about the clades represented to begin with. Pn2 clade groups will always be closer to each other, than any other clades....by definition. Those with no Pn2 Y chromosome will be most distant, in a strictly Y chomosome relatedness context. Per Sanchez [above], with the Somali as a baseline you have, in order of Y chromosome similarity: 1 Somali The closest Non African group to the Somali and for that matter any of the 10 above AFrican groups are the Omanis. Why? Recent gene flow between Africa and Arabia is indicated by the prescene of E3A in Oman, at 7%. The frequency of A, B, E1, and E2 in Oman is 3%. Plus: The frequency of E3b in Oman is +20%~ Thus, the cumulative frequency of African Y lineages in Oman is over 30%~. That's why they are the closet non-African group to Africans...Bantu, Somali, Khoisan....doesn't matter. Omani have pan African lineages from North East West and South, that is why they are closer to Africans than other "eurasians" are. Also: And this is why Geneticist Peter Underhill correctly notes: E3b is sub-saharan African in origin. [This message has been edited by rasol (edited 13 August 2005).] IP: Logged |
|
Super car Member Posts: 1573 |
posted 13 August 2005 03:05 PM
*Defacing* studies doesn't get you anywhere, ginney pussy...
quote: And yet, "Although the Horn of Africa is considered a geographic part of sub-Saharan Africa, we have analysed the Somali population separately in order to compare the results with previously published data from other African populations." Sanchez et al
quote: Ok?!
quote: And where does Sanchez et al. *specifically* say what you just said, and what *specifically*, are their *stated* reasons for such a claim? Not only does it contradict the claim made in your second point, but I am more than certain that, it has no bearings on E3a being the closest to E3b and vice versa. Frankly, outlier Europeans with the typical African E3b ancestry, are far more closer to Black African E3a carriers than they are to the non-outlier Europeans with high frequencies of Hg R1b and Hg I, on the Y chromosome landscape. That claim of yours [NOT Sanchez et al.'s] is quite simply, a lie. Here's a pointer: Before lying, you might want to consider the fact that there are others who have access to the full content of the same studies, which you work very hard at intellectually defacing. As a good example, this has amply been demonstrated in the post [by Rasol] preceding this one. [This message has been edited by Super car (edited 13 August 2005).] IP: Logged |
|
Evil Euro Member Posts: 650 |
posted 14 August 2005 08:20 AM
quote: And yet, "Although the Horn of Africa is considered a geographic part of sub-Saharan Africa, we have analysed the Somali population separately in order to compare the results with previously published data from other African populations." Why? Read on . . .
quote: *Sigh* Negroes really are low-IQ illiterates. But I'll give you credit for at least addressing the evidence and not rambling on about nothing like the king of the no-answer niggers right above you. From Sanchez et al. 2005...again: "The data suggest that the male Somali population is a branch of the East African population -- closely related to the Oromos in Ethiopia and North Kenya -- predominant E3b1 cluster γ lineages that were introduced into the Somali population 4000-5000 years ago, and that the Somali male population has approximately 15% Y chromosomes from Eurasia and approximately 5% from sub-Saharan Africa. [...] East Africans are more related to Eurasians than to other African populations."
quote: Evidence? Please post a Y-chromosome plot in which Greeks and Italians group closer to E3a-carrying Africans than to other Europeans and Caucasoids. For that matter, post a Y-chromosome plot in which Ethiopians group entirely with Sub-Saharan Africans and not toward North Africans and Eurasians. I've been asking to see evidence like that since February. What's taking so long? IP: Logged |
|
rasol Member Posts: 3990 |
posted 14 August 2005 09:25 AM
quote: Or Omani, for that matter.
quote: In fairness, perhaps the Spanish are also a little closer to Africa than Sanchez credits them for. quote: [This message has been edited by rasol (edited 14 August 2005).] IP: Logged |
|
Super car Member Posts: 1573 |
posted 14 August 2005 11:19 AM
quote: What is there to "read on"?...when the statement in its complete form is right there for everybody to see, i.e., in light of your talk of “5% sub-Saharan” contribution, which is less than useless... And again, it is plainly stated : And they go onto state, appropriately so, the context in which “sub-Saharan” terminology has been used in this study, lest folks like you are bound to misinterpret the implications: …we have analysed the Somali population separately in order to compare the results with previously published data from other African populations.” I don’t see how this statement helps your case in any aspect; I do however, see that you are in denial of the simple plain text in front of you!
quote: You are one predictable stupid ginney ape, in that, I knew you’d provide this text without actually having a clue what it is, you are providing. First of all, this doesn’t state what you stated earlier, which was: ginney pussy:
“East Africans are more related to Eurasians than to other African populations.” Wherein the above, is it stated that “East Africans are more Eurasian than African” ? Other issues about the Sanchez et al. quote you provided… It clearly states: This statement in fact, makes you look very stupid, and underlies your lack of understanding when you try to use it to support this: “East Africans are more related to Eurasians than to other African populations.”, because it is quite simply telling the *literate* that, the population is East *African*; meaning that, they are apparently indigenous Africans. Statement#2: To the *literate*, the above supports the close relationship with other indigenous Africans, as it is quite simply stated; there is no mention of a non-African population in the above, and then of course, the predominant “E3b1” closes the case, since E3b1 is of sub-Saharan African origin. Statement #3: Again, we are told about the context in which the subject sample, i.e., the Somali sample is studied separately from *other* sub-Saharan Africans, here >: "Although the Horn of Africa is considered a geographic part of sub-Saharan Africa,we have analysed the Somali population separately in order to **compare the results with previously published data from other African populations**” Having seen already that much of the quote actually refutes everything you’ve been hallucinating about, we come to that last statement which you quoted out of context: Statement #4: As I have demonstrated, the bulk of statements made in the quote [you provided] prior to the above statement, doesn’t support the “East Africans are more related to Eurasians than to other African populations”! So then, provide the context in which Sanchez et al make that statement, which does support the aforementioned statement! Ps - I feel like I am teaching a reading class here, i.e., teaching ginney pussy. And like I said, defacing studies doesn't do any good!
quote: The evidence has been staring you in the face for months now, but its presence is only detected by those who have brains. Why show a Y-chromosome plot, when information on the polymorphisms themselves are available? This is essentially what relationships b/n Y-chromosomes are based on, i.e., “polymorphisms”, and so, I present yet again: quote: The above definitely supports this statement: “Frankly, outlier Europeans with the typical African E3b ancestry, are far more closer to Black African E3a carriers than they are to the non-outlier Europeans with high frequencies of Hg R1b and Hg I, on the Y chromosome landscape.” Y plots are related to frequencies of different haplogroups present in 'samples', the results of which depend on the sample size, method of analysis, and a given section of a population. This means that Y plots can vary from study to study depending on the methods used. Y plots don't tell us about genetic closeness between individual haplogroups or haplotypes. SNPs of haplogroups don't change from study to study, even with addition of new mutations; they are pretty much established information observed and acknowledged by every geneticist. On the other hand, you claim that E3b1 carrying populations are genetically closer to R and J carrying populations. Then you should be able to demonstrate this close relationship with SNPs. So come on, let us see those closer relationships via SNPs. Time is running out. [This message has been edited by Super car (edited 14 August 2005).] IP: Logged |
|
Evil Euro Member Posts: 650 |
posted 15 August 2005 08:15 AM
quote: Context is already provided in the quoted passage. The only thing you've "demonstrated" is that you're a dumb, desperate nigger who can't follow a simple line of reasoning. Somalis are analyzed separately from other Sub-Saharan Africans (E3a) because they're different. They're East African (E3b), and E3b-carrying East Africans are found to be more related to Eurasians than to E3a-carrying Sub-Saharan Africans. Period. Case closed. End of discussion.
quote: If you wish to prove that Greeks are "outliers" among Eurasians, then you have to provide a genetic plot in which they "lie out", placing away from other Europeans, other Caucasoids, and toward Negroids. Good luck! IP: Logged |
|
Super car Member Posts: 1573 |
posted 15 August 2005 01:26 PM
quote: Then where is it, you filthy bleeding ginney pussy? We’ve gone through the entire “quote” you provided, and none of it supports either your own statement, which quite comically, you tried to pass of as Sanchez et al’s, i.e., “* East Africans are more Eurasian than African”, or the statement which you’ve tried to intellectually deface, i.e., “East Africans are more related to Eurasians than to other African populations.”
quote: That is what you are saying, but not what Sanchez et al stated as their reason for separating them… “Although the *Horn of Africa is considered a geographic part of sub-Saharan Africa*…**we have analysed the Somali population separately in order to compare the results with previously published data from other African populations.**” - Sanchez et al., 2005. Where does it say in the above, that it is because “they’re different”, you illiterate ginney baboon?
quote: Where does Sanchez et al state this? Provide the specific statement of theirs, that says that illiterate wop dung that you just spewed…and the exact context they worded it in, NOT wop pussy babble!
quote: Well, by this, if you mean your mental incapacity to answer my exposing your wop reading fiascos, then that is certainly the case. quote: Already done [months ago], but ginney cave bitch, you have been busy sticking wop **** in your ass and nauseatingly stinking up the place, that evidence which is right in your face, just isn’t getting into that vagabond wop skull of yours. Greek Outlier Europeans like Greeks and Southern Europeans carrying recent sub-Saharan Black African lineages, are far more genetically close to E3a carrying Black Africans, than they are to the REAL de-pigmented northern Europeans who have quite high frequencies of R1b and I lineages. This has amply been demonstrated via SNPs. Checkmate, ginney fag whore. IP: Logged |
|
Evil Euro Member Posts: 650 |
posted 16 August 2005 08:17 AM
quote: Excellent arguments. "the male Somali population is a branch of the East African population" "East Africans are more related to Eurasians than to other African populations" Period. Case closed. End of discussion.
quote: Sorry, but E3b brings East Africans closer to Eurasians, both genetically and phenotypically. It does not bring Europeans closer to Sub-Saharan Africans. IP: Logged |
|
rasol Member Posts: 3990 |
posted 16 August 2005 08:34 AM
quote:
quote: SuperCar is correct, and all of Sanchez findings can only be understood in the context of this [somewhat contrived] scheme - in which there are 3 catagories of Y chromsome - East African, non-African, and sub-saharan African. In this context his conclusion is that Somali are East African, and not a hybrid of sub-saharans and non Africans. Of course, this is what we have noted all along. However, using this obviously flawed clustering scheme Omanis are more "sub-saharan" at 10%, than the Somali's are - 5%. This is because Omanis who have a total of over 30% African Y chomosome have 20%+ East African Y and 10% West-Central and Southern African Y chromosome. Anyone not grasping the above, does not grasp the study in question. It does one no good to quote from abstracts when you can't understand what is being said, to begin with. Relatedness by Y chromosome per Sanchez plot: Oromo 0 The Omani are only as close as they are because of their African Y chromsome, without which they would be off the upper right corner of Sanchez graph. [This message has been edited by rasol (edited 17 August 2005).] IP: Logged |
|
Super car Member Posts: 1573 |
posted 16 August 2005 12:30 PM
quote: Immaterial wop cry of defeat. Has no bearings on your inability to address even your own lies, that I have quite candidly exposed. Be a man, and not such a pussy for once, and address the issue at hand.
quote: Ever since, you’ve been caught with your pants down, who can blame you for just standing there, looking ridiculous with your pants still down, and unable to redeem yourself. So as always, it’s a pleasure to consistently embarrass you: As I have demonstrated, the bulk of statements made in the quote [you provided] prior to the above statement, doesn’t support the “East Africans are more related to Eurasians than to other African populations”! So then, provide the context in which Sanchez et al make that statement, which does support the aforementioned statement! Where‘s the answer? Come on now, even a beast like you, isn’t getting any younger.
quote: I concur that you never had a case to begin with, to forward as a discussion. We have however, exposed a good amount of hot air coming out of your ass. So, why continue to show the world how mentally handicapped you are? Isn’t the identity complex alone painful enough?
quote: Then, do demonstrate your claim with SNPs, which actually identify haplogroups. It can’t really be that hard, can it? SNPs have on the other hand, unequivocally corroborated this: "Outlier Europeans like Greeks and Southern Europeans carrying recent sub-Saharan Black African lineages, are far more genetically close to E3a carrying Black Africans, than they are to the REAL de-pigmented northern Europeans who have quite high frequencies of R1b and I lineages." Immaterial variable maps don’t counter this fact by any means. IP: Logged |
|
Evil Euro Member Posts: 650 |
posted 17 August 2005 08:23 AM
quote: ...and in which the East African Y-chromosome (E3b) is more related to the non-African (Eurasian) Y-chromosomes than it is to the Sub-Saharan African Y-chromosomes (E3a, A, B).
quote: Of course it does. Niggers are just too stupid to follow the reasoning. But no matter, because the statement stands on its own: "East Africans are more related to Eurasians than to other African populations" Period. Case closed. End of discussion.
quote: Ah, but haplogroups don't identify relationships. See, haplogroup R is closer to haplogroup Q (both are derived from Asian M45) than it is to haplogroup I. But that doesn't mean that an Irishman is more related to a Native American than he is to a Croatian, now does it? IP: Logged |
|
rasol Member Posts: 3990 |
posted 17 August 2005 01:22 PM
quote: [This message has been edited by rasol (edited 17 August 2005).] IP: Logged |
|
Super car Member Posts: 1573 |
posted 17 August 2005 03:06 PM
quote: Go figure, more pussy screechings from ass-whooping. How about having just a little dick for once, and actually address your own lies, that have been exposed, which again is that... If your immaterial statement really stands alone, then you should quite easily be able to address the following, instead of driveling off: "As I have demonstrated, the bulk of statements made in the quote [you provided] prior to the above statement, doesn’t support the “East Africans are more related to Eurasians than to other African populations”! So then, **provide the context in which Sanchez et al make that statement**, which does support the aforementioned statement!"
quote: Take the advice above, negrito-italian pussy; don't be such a filthy ailing pussy. Come on, have the balls to face the issue at hand.
quote: Ah, but if haplogroups don't identify relationship, then why is a little ginney cockroach like yourself, repeatedly and quite ignorantly affiliating E3b, which is a **haplogroup**, with "caucasoids"? Haplogroups either identify genetic relationship or they don't altogether; which is it, cave bitch?
quote: I suppose then, your logic is that Hg R also came from the PN2 transition, right ginney pussy? Just the usual loony but immaterial wop drivels about polymorphisms (that actually make up haplogroups in the first place) not identifying relationships between haplotypes. I mean, how do you think we have haplogroups in the first place? Do you know what SNPs are? Evidently not. When it comes to outlier Europeans, Greek SNPs have unequivocally proven that... "Outlier Europeans like Greeks and Southern Europeans carrying recent sub-Saharan Black African lineages, are far more genetically close to E3a carrying Black Africans, than they are to the REAL de-pigmented northern Europeans who have quite high frequencies of R1b and I lineages." We haven't yet seen your demonstration of Hg R being more "genetically close" to Hg E3b than its PN2 sister Hg E3a, via actual genetic identification of the haplogroups. Ps - Let us know borderline european pussy, if you need a hand in understanding what SNPs are, in the first place! [This message has been edited by Super car (edited 17 August 2005).] IP: Logged |
|
Evil Euro Member Posts: 650 |
posted 18 August 2005 07:56 AM
quote: I already have...repeatedly. Sanchez says that Somali Y-chromosomes are neither Sub-Saharan nor Eurasian, but East African. Then he notes that East African Y-chromosomes are more related to Eurasian Y-chromosomes than they are to Sub-Saharan Y-chromosomes. It couldn't be any clearer. So what is your inferior nigger brain still confused about?
quote: Dumb ape, as I've explained countless times, haplogroups became affiliated with the races that developed wherever said haplogroups migrated. Hence, Q traveled East and is now associated with Mongoloid Native Americans; E3a moved into Western Africa and is now associated with Bantu Negroids; and both R and E3b traveled toward Europe and are now associated with Caucasoids. Their respective Asian and African origins in pre-history are immaterial to their present racial affiliations. IP: Logged |
|
Super car Member Posts: 1573 |
posted 18 August 2005 02:06 PM
quote: Where is it, ginney pussy? It isn’t here yet.
quote: Well, this is just an unsophisticated wop lie, i.e., you sound like a prattling broken record, for here is Sanchez et al.’s statement, yet again: "Although the Horn of Africa is considered a geographic part of sub-Saharan Africa,we have analysed the Somali population separately in order to **compare the results with previously published data from other African populations**” In other words, being East African has no bearings on the sub-Saharan affiliations of the Horn of Africa. This is quite clear to the literate.
quote: Provide the **exact statements and context** in which Sanchez et al. "note" what you claim that they stated. You are apparently the only one on the planet who sees such "notes" in the Sanchez et al. study. This identity complex is making you are see “things” .
quote: Nope, but it is certainly clear that you are one lying mentally challenged med-wop tramp. Where are the answers to the mounting questions on your lies? These question cannot possibly be that hard even for that empty ginney vessel of yours, or can it?
quote: Dumb ape, as I've explained countless times, haplogroups became affiliated with the races that developed wherever said haplogroups migrated.[/quote] Well, retarded furry pussy med-wop slut, you’ve been told countless times that this is just wop gibberish, not science!
quote: Well, not all West Africans are Bantu Speakers, yet they carry E3a. On the other hand, there are E3b carrying west Africans. Another wop gibberish has just been flushed down the toilet.
quote: ginney pussy, firstly, R isn’t an indigenous African haplogroup, whereas E3b is of recent tropical sub-Saharan origin; Hg E, including E3b, is typically African. So you are simply engaging in daily immaterial prattling. The Real Europeans carry Hg R and Hg I in substantial frequencies, because this is what the original European refuges carried, whereas borderline Europeans have lesser amounts of R and I Hgs, because their gene pool consists of substantial **recent** sub-Saharan Hg E and Hg J lineages. The general low frequency of Hg in Europe, simply underlies the outlier status of borderline Europeans!
quote: The recent sub-Saharan lineages in Europe, not to mention HBS, are testament to what some call, "cross breeding". No way around this fact. "Racial purity" is a dead horse, one shouldn't continue beating.
IP: Logged |
|
Evil Euro Member Posts: 650 |
posted 19 August 2005 07:56 AM
quote: Moron, is geography the same thing as genetics? No, it isn't. The point of the study, you illiterate spook savage, is that while Somalis are geographically Sub-Saharan African, genetically "The data suggest that the male Somali population is a branch of the East African population" whose ancestry is only "5% from sub-Saharan Africa". The study goes on to say that East African populations (like Somalis) are "more related to Eurasians than to other African populations". Goddamn, you must be the dumbest nigger in the world.
quote: But they're all Negroids because E3a is a Negroid-affiliated marker. It was spread by Bantu and other Negroid tribes.
quote: That's right, it's an indigenous Asian haplogroup, but that has no bearing on the fact that it's now Caucasoid-affiliated. Just like E3b. IP: Logged |
|
Super car Member Posts: 1573 |
posted 19 August 2005 01:51 PM
quote: Dumb med-wop primitive, who said otherwise? Knowledge of **Basic** geography is however, essential to understanding genetics…which is something you of course lack, among the many others.
quote: Apparently it is you who missed the point, ginney hussy pussy, which was that: **compare the results with previously published data from other African populations**”, not the med-wop gibberish you just provided. And so, East Africans are quite simply, sub-Saharan tropical Africans; there is no ifs and buts about this fact. Now, I hope understand why you need to take up on my earlier advice of getting at least one brain cell.
quote: Well, you prattling broken record, the statement which you just used prior to the above, i.e., Somalis being a branch of East African population, is quite immaterial to the above, and so: **provide the context in which Sanchez et al make that statement**, which does support the aforementioned statement!" You haven’t at this point, because you know that you are one heck of a dishonest ginney mule, whose sole talent is using that rotten hussy pussy of yours.
quote: Well, if they are all “Negroids”, then by default so is E3b, both of which came from the PN2 transition. Wop gibberish about Bantu spread, makes sense only in the empty vessel of a yellow belly cave mule.
quote: Med-wop ginney mule, you have just closed the case yet again, by this admission, for if R is Asian, while E3b & E3a of the PN2 transition are sub-Saharan tropical African, then apparently Hg R cannot possibly be more related to either of the latter, more so than the latter are to one another.
quote: This wop gibberish apparently has no legs to stand on; it is simply the helpless cry of defeat of a miserable hussy med-wop primitive. IP: Logged |
|
Thought2 Member Posts: 1839 |
posted 19 August 2005 09:13 PM
Thought Quotes Dienekes: Earliest examples of the four major racial types "The earliest know Negroids date from the ~14,500-12,500BP site of Jebel Sahaba in Lower Nubia." Thought Writes: The Jebel Sahaba remains posit "Negroids" in Egypt (Lower Nubia) prior to the spread of E3b out of Africa. [This message has been edited by Thought2 (edited 19 August 2005).] IP: Logged |
|
relaxx Member Posts: 443 |
posted 19 August 2005 10:14 PM
quote: Forget about Negroid, I'm from Africa, at least 60% of people of European origin can fall in the category opposite to African cattle herders, the thing is that very few people understand what I mean. Europeans could fall easily in the farmer category...even yourself, Thought, I don't think you understand what I mean....basically we call European people: Bantu like people...but you're not an African apparently to understand the meaning...well, their body, their facial features, their culture is similar to the Bantu speaking people...Basically Negroid is meaningless for an African...because I live among people of European origin and when I look at them, they have very strong bodies, have big noses, big faces, they don't look like elongated eastern africans. Only an elongated eastern african can understand what I mean or someone who lived in many parts of Africa. Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid, is at best laughable for an African. So please stop it. Because most of these studies are written by Europeans, but the problem is that many Africans view them as Bantu speaking people. So who do you trust, Africans or Europeans. It's your choice. Relaxx [This message has been edited by relaxx (edited 19 August 2005).] IP: Logged |
|
rasol Member Posts: 3990 |
posted 19 August 2005 11:29 PM
quote: It's laughable for any educated person. caucasoid/mongoloid/negroid - racial catagories, no longer in scientific use Pseudoscience does not progress, and relies on anachronistic thinking. IP: Logged |
|
Thought2 Member Posts: 1839 |
posted 19 August 2005 11:41 PM
quote: Forget about Negroid, I'm from Africa, at least 60% of people of European origin can fall in the category opposite to African cattle herders, the thing is that very few people understand what I mean. Europeans could fall easily in the farmer category...even yourself, Thought, I don't think you understand what I mean....basically we call European people: Bantu like people...but you're not an African apparently to understand the meaning...well, their body, their facial features, their culture is similar to the Bantu speaking people...Basically Negroid is meaningless for an African...because I live among people of European origin and when I look at them, they have very strong bodies, have big noses, big faces, they don't look like elongated eastern africans. Only an elongated eastern african can understand what I mean or someone who lived in many parts of Africa. Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid, is at best laughable for an African. So please stop it. Because most of these studies are written by Europeans, but the problem is that many Africans view them as Bantu speaking people. So who do you trust, Africans or Europeans. It's your choice. Relaxx [This message has been edited by relaxx (edited 19 August 2005).][/B][/QUOTE] Thought Writes: I have no clue what you are attempting to say nor how it relates to my post? [This message has been edited by Thought2 (edited 19 August 2005).] IP: Logged |
|
Super car Member Posts: 1573 |
posted 20 August 2005 12:05 AM
quote: Yeap. Mr. fairy tale busted as usual! He is aware that such cartoon tales can only be made by himself at his own blog, for they would be squashed (as just done here) so fast at any serious discussion board, that he's head would spin...faster than it is doing at the moment. IP: Logged |
|
Evil Euro Member Posts: 650 |
posted 20 August 2005 07:21 AM
Time to face facts, delusional niggers . . . E3b makes Africans "whiter", while leaving Eurasians intact:
IP: Logged |
|
relaxx Member Posts: 443 |
posted 20 August 2005 08:07 AM
quote:\ looser IP: Logged |
|
relaxx Member Posts: 443 |
posted 20 August 2005 08:33 AM
quote:
quote: [This message has been edited by relaxx (edited 20 August 2005).] IP: Logged |
|
Super car Member Posts: 1573 |
posted 20 August 2005 02:05 PM
quote: Come on, med-wop pussy, what do you know about the Y chromosome function, when you don‘t even know who carries it and who doesn‘t, much less what haplotypes are?
quote: Interesting death scream in the form of a wop mutilation of a study, that is in reality a medwop primitive’s nightmare (i.e., being centered on Sub-Saharan E3b lineages); an incoherent wop patchwork of unrelated pieces of words, in the hope to deceive…itself. "**provide the context in which Sanchez et al make that statement**, which does support the aforementioned statement!" You haven’t done so, and won’t do so, because you are quite aware that it is just a toothless ginney pussy baloney. hussy, stick to what you pasta munching dykes do best, i.e., whoring! IP: Logged |
Also, you have to remember that E3b is not their only lineage. In addition, they have some E(xE3b), A and B. So depending on the sample, they may cluster very close to Eurasians or somewhere in-between Eurasians and Africans. But they never cluster entirely with Sub-Saharan Africans, for the simple reason that they're not entirely African. They're hybrid.
All times are GMT (+2) | next newest topic | next oldest topic |
  |
|
Contact Us | EgyptSearch!
(c) 2003 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.45c