posted 07 September 2005 12:50 AM            

"Prehistoric East Africans _did_ resemble Eurasians. Eurasians were initially colonists from East Africa, so naturally there was a resemblance.

One only needs to ask the question: who was closer related to east African at the time of the early colonization of Eurasia: (i) Eurasians, or (ii) West-Central Africans?

It would take a great deal of self-delusion to think that East Africans were more similar to West-Central Africans than to their close cousins just across the Red Sea.

So, initially East Africans and Eurasians were genetically similar, and different from the many other diverse peoples of Africa.

In the thousands of years that have passed, the Eurasians started to differentiate from their East African ancestors. At the same time, the East Africans experienced gene flow from other African populations. Even later, some Caucasoids migrated back to East Africa, affecting different populations to different degrees. The result is a genetic intermediacy of East Africans between West Eurasians and Sub-Saharan Negroids.

Anyone who thinks that proto-East-Africans did not resemble Eurasians must think that brothers don't resemble each other. And, anyone who thinks they did not experience gene flow from other parts of Africa, must think that there was a big wall somewhere around East Africa stopping the flow of genes for tens of thousands of years.

posted 07 September 2005 12:54 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Quote From Dienekes at Dodona:

"Prehistoric East Africans _did_ resemble Eurasians. Eurasians were initially colonists from East Africa, so naturally there was a resemblance."

---

Thought Writes:

Somewhat Correct. In fact ALL NON-Africans initially resembled Africans. Saying that Eurasians resembled Africans is like saying the father resembles the son, ass backwards. This undifferentiated or **GENERALIZED** morphology was similar to modern Sub-Saharan Africans.

Thought Posts:

J Hum Evol. 2005 Apr;48(4):403-14.

A new early Holocene human skeleton from Brazil: implications for the settlement of the New World.

Neves WA, Hubbe M, Okumura MM, Gonzalez-Jose R, Figuti L, Eggers S, De Blasis PA.

Laboratorio de Estudos Evolutivos Humanos, Departamento de Biologia, Instituto de Biociencias, Universidade de Sao Paulo, CP 11461, 05422-970, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil. waneves@ib.usp.br

Increasing skeletal evidence from the U.S.A., Mexico, Colombia, and Brazil strongly suggests that the first settlers in the Americas had a cranial morphology distinct from that displayed by most late and modern Native Americans. The Paleoamerican morphological pattern is more generalized and can be seen today among Africans, Australians, and Melanesians. Here, we present the results of a comparative morphological assessment of a late Paleoindian/early archaic specimen from Capelinha Burial II, southern Brazil. The Capelinha skull was compared with samples of four Paleoindian groups from South and Central America and worldwide modern groups from W.W. Howells' studies. In both analyses performed (classical morphometrics and geometric morphometrics), the results show a clear association between Capelinha Burial II and the Paleoindians, as well as Australians, Melanesians, and Africans, confirming its Paleoamerican status.

posted 07 September 2005 01:01 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Quote From Dienekes at Dodona:

"One only needs to ask the question: who was closer related to east African at the time of the early colonization of Eurasia: (i) Eurasians, or (ii) West-Central Africans?"

---

Thought Writes:

posted 07 September 2005 01:07 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Quote From Dienekes at Dodona:

"And, anyone who thinks they did not experience gene flow from other parts of Africa, must think that there was a big wall somewhere around East Africa stopping the flow of genes for tens of thousands of years."

---

Thought Writes:

posted 07 September 2005 03:22 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

Hmmmm, on one hand this lunatic claims that the mesolithic East Africans that migrated into Eurasia during the holocene carried NO "NEGRIOD" genes, then on the other hand he claims that Africans have been pouring into East Africa tens of thousands of years BEFORE the E3b carrying Africans migrated out of Africa. Remember long ago that I noted that East and West Africans were united maternally right before the LGM by the L2a lineage which spread into East and West Africa via the Sahel according to Salas, et al. This implies that maternally the Africans that spread E3b to neolithic Greece carried the phenotypic traits of the Central African foremothers!

---

Like you said...

"Although ancient and recent ties with sub-Saharan and eastern Africans cannot be discarded.…" - Flores et al.

Thought2:
Another line of evidence that the Levant was an ancient conduit of Black Africans reaching into Asia and Southern Europe.

-----

Yazid904:
Greece was one state that described the presence of Africans without the ignorance and greed of othern founding states of the day.

Thought2:
And amazing as it is the Greek claim of Ancient Egyptian roots has been recently substantiated via genetics, linguistics and archaeology.

----

Thought2:
Instead of debating about the Blackness of Ancient Egypt I say that the onous is on the Eurocentric to prove that Greece really was not a multi-ethnic society.

-----------------x-------------

*Indeed, with preponderance of evidence, this has proven to be a futile undertaking by Eurocentric crackpots.

posted 07 September 2005 05:56 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

Hmmmm, on one hand this lunatic claims that the mesolithic East Africans that migrated into Eurasia during the holocene carried NO "NEGRIOD" genes, then on the other hand he claims that Africans have been pouring into East Africa tens of thousands of years BEFORE the E3b carrying Africans migrated out of Africa

---

lol. He's just an phony ideologue who makes up his story as he sees fit.

Greek Nationalist Pontikos must/needs deny Black African influence in Greece.

So.....

* He invents an imaginery sanctuary in East Africa for imaginery white: Tarzan and Jane of East Africa.

* To explain why East Africa is Black now - he postulates that white females were mysteriously "replaced". The Africans kill Jane, so Tarzan's babies are all mulatoos.

* He argument is a classic example of providing excuses for a lack of evidence in lieu of actual evidence. Thus, in order to explain the lack of genetic, archeological or linguistic evidence for population replacement throughout the entirety of the Horn of East Africa - he offers the contradiction that "You must be crazy if you think East Africa could be separated biologically from the rest of Africa".

A crazy idea indeed, and the initial foundation of his entire argument.

If Pontikos were a defendant on the witness stand, he'd be torn apart: "Were you lying then...or are you lying now?"

posted 07 September 2005 06:28 AM            

quote:

---

Greek Nationalist Pontikos must/needs deny Black African influence in Greece.

---

Negro-with-inferiority-complex Babbling Ape must/needs create Black African influence in Greece.

The reason is obvious . . .

posted 08 September 2005 10:22 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:

Negro-with-inferiority-complex Babbling Ape [b]must/needs create Black African influence in Greece.

[/B]

---

Thought Writes:

Evil E Translation: