posted
Hope my previous post answered your question. ie R1a and R1b may be "recent" Africans since pure R* is black/african.
Further - these haplo groups may not be responsible for "white Germanic" features. In fact the Y -chromosomes may not carry ANY white features. These features may reside elsewhere on the other 22-chromo sets. In other words this may be a mute angle/line of discussion.
Saying it another way for the dimwitted (DJ) - Since we are all originally Africans and it is not surprising to find R1a and R1b in throughout Europe. Infact their "immediate" predeccesors were R* and E*. The "I's" seem to be further from Africans.
So miscegnation via the R1a and R1b is not the issue since they all African genes. And we are all africans. It may be genes ONLY found in these Germanic people that will help clarify this issue from the genetic point of view.
In the mean time - we may have to rely on the archeologival evidence that Marc has produced.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^^ Another chance to answer......
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ Meanwhile neither Marc nor XYXman venture and answer to my question....
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Since R1b, R1a and I make up almost the ENTIRE male ancestry of much of Northern Europe, what do you imagine it is *miscegenation,* with?
^ 'smatter Marc?
Apparently photoshop fakery is not a "solution" to every fact which interferes with your fantasies?
quote:xyz writes: You keep missing my point.
^ Your point would appear to be that you can't answer the question.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are you talking to me??! Not sure? But if you are. . . read he entire thread.
key point - Origianl Greeks were Africans/mixed based upon Genetics and archeological evidence. Never said the modern Romans were black. Iberians and other southern Europeans had/have a "strong" black influence. The Macedonins which we agree are white. eventually conquered and occupied Greece. Get the picture. Will continue. Got to go.
quote:Originally posted by markellion: Seriously though I love to read these stories of yours, I want to know the story of how the white Romans got to the Mediterranean
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Marc Washington: [Marc writes] Someone whose name begins with "D" wrote:
"It's a known fact even Marc professes-- that the earliest European remains are represented by Cro-Magnon man."
Where do I "profess" anything about "Cro-Magnon."
[Djehuti writes] Who cares what you profess …
You're a nutcase!
[Marc writes] Djehuti. You ask “Who cares what you profess”???
It was YOU who wrote that I profess something inventing the claim as I did not write what you state.
WHERE DO I "PROFESS" ANYTHING ABOUT "CRO-MAGNON"?
. .
This is the first post on the Apian Way where Africans were crucified by the tens of thousands. It was an “ancient Roman road, running southeast from Rome. Work on it began in 312 BC, ordered by the censor Appius Claudius Caecus. By 244 BC the road had been extended to Brundisium (modern Brindisi, on the ‘heel’ of Italy) via Beneventum (375 km/233 mi). Much of the original road remains.
THE CRUCIFIXION OF MY BROTHERS by the ROMANS Crucifixion was undoubtedly one of the cruelest and most humiliating forms of punishment in the ancient world. Following the siege of Jerusalem by the Romans in 66-70 CE, the Jewish historian Josephus described it as “The most wretched of deaths.” This form of capital punishment, widespread throughout the Roman Empire, including Europe, North Africa and Western Asia, originated several centuries before the Common Era (BCE) and continued into the fourth century CE when the practice was discontinued by Constantine, Emperor of Rome. While its origins are obscure, it is clear that this form of capital punishment lasted for about 800 years and tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of individuals were subjected to this cruel and humiliating form of death. Mass executions of hundreds and thousands appear in the literature..
Genocide is not rhetorical.
It physically eliminated Africans from Europe.
And where exactly is this evidence of genocide against "Africans from Europe" (a contradiction)?! LOL
quote:Originally posted by Marc Washington: Crucifixions and the gradual elimination of Africans from the face of Europe followed Germanic influxes into the region.
Okay, that map above shows the Germanic migrations into the British Isles, but nowhere does it state or present anything about genocide against "Africans of Europe". Unless you believe the indigenous peoples of Britain were African! LMAO @ this nut! Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Caesar was Roman, but evil, so he was white.
Charlemagne was a Franc, albeit a germanic people, he was a good savior and therefore African.
Charlemagane, my brotha. Caesar, whitey.
I like it.
ROTFL
So how the hell is Caesar evil but Charlemagne wasn't, even though 'brotha Charles' committed genocide also, particularly against the pagan Saxons! Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: I AGREE. In case you missed it Djehuti and your mentor Rasol, that your data shows that R1a nad R1b is an European lineage.
...R is black or African. Same as E. Now if we consider E3b to be African shouldn’t R1a and R1b be ALSO African? And by African I mean “recent” African ie NLT 10Kya
Correction, 'R' is a paleolithic lineage so of course it is of African origin but so are *ALL* paleolithic lineages, twit! LMAO
The major difference between E and R is that E is NOT an original out-of-African lineage but was part of the PN2 clade that took place in Africa after the first OOA peoples left the continent! Thus R carriers of Europe are no more "African" than Chinese and Native Americans! Stop trying to justify your stupidity and give it up! Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: So how the hell is Caesar evil but Charlemagne wasn't, even though 'brotha Charles' committed genocide also, particularly among the pagan Saxons! [/QB]
I was thinking the same thing but logic doesn't apply here
Still waiting to know how the white Romans/Macedonians and their evil overlords Caeser and Alexander the Great got to Europe
Posts: 2642 | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just a confirmation of things well-known, the writers refer to an early African presence in Europe as far back as 45,000 years. Actually, evidence shows Africans in Europe 1.75 million years ago (See: M. Balter, Science 5 July 2002: Vol. 297. no. 5578, pp. 26 - 27). Still, the article is good and sheds more light on that early era.
Earliest Evidence Of Modern Humans In Europe Discovered By International Team Jan. 11, 2007
The Kostenki site 250 miles south of Moscow has yielded evidence of early modern humans from up to 45,000 years ago.
The Kostenki site 250 miles south of Moscow has yielded evidence of early modern humans from up to 45,000 years ago.
Modern humans who first arose in Africa had moved into Europe as far back as about 45,000 years ago, according to a new study by an international research team led by the Russian Academy of Sciences and the University of Colorado at Boulder.
The evidence consists of stone, bone and ivory tools discovered under a layer of ancient volcanic ash on the Don River in Russia some 250 miles south of Moscow, said John Hoffecker, a fellow of CU-Boulder's Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research. Thought to contain the earliest evidence of modern humans in Europe, the site also has yielded perforated shell ornaments and a carved piece of mammoth ivory that appears to be the head of a small human figurine, which may represent the earliest piece of figurative art in the world, he said.
"The big surprise here is the very early presence of modern humans in one of the coldest, driest places in Europe," Hoffecker said. "It is one of the last places we would have expected people from Africa to occupy first."
A paper by Michael Anikovich and Andrei Sinitsyn of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Hoffecker, and 13 other researchers was published in the Jan. 12 issue of Science.
The excavation took place at Kostenki, a group of more than 20 sites along the Don River that have been under study for many decades. Kostenki previously has yielded anatomically modern human bones and artifacts dating between 30,000 and 40,000 years old, including the oldest firmly dated bone and ivory needles with eyelets that indicate the early inhabitants were tailoring animal furs to help them survive the harsh climate.
Most of the stone used for artifact construction was imported from between 60 miles and 100 miles away, while the perforated shell ornaments discovered at the lowest levels of the Kostenki dig were imported from the Black Sea more than 300 miles away, he said. "Although human skeletal remains in the earliest level of the excavation are confined to isolated teeth, which are notoriously difficult to assign to specific human types, the artifacts are unmistakably the work of modern humans," Hoffecker said.
[Marc's note: in the nearby Sungir, there are whole skeletons found with remains scientists called 'African' End of note]
The sediment overlying the artifacts was dated by several methods, including an analysis of an ash layer deposited by a monumental volcanic eruption in present-day Italy about 40,000 years ago, Hoffecker said. The researchers also used optically stimulated luminescence dating -- which helps them determine how long ago materials were last exposed to daylight -- as well as paleomagnetic dating based on known changes in the orientation and intensity of Earth's magnetic field and radiocarbon calibration.
Anatomically modern humans are thought to have arisen in sub-Saharan Africa around 200,000 years ago.
Kostenki also contains evidence that modern humans were rapidly broadening their diet to include small mammals and freshwater aquatic foods, an indication they were "remaking themselves technologically," he said. They may have used traps and snares to catch hares and arctic foxes, exploiting large areas of the environment with relatively little energy. "They probably set out their nets and traps and went home for lunch," he said.
While there is some evidence Neanderthals once occupied the plains of Eastern Europe, they seem to have been scarce or absent there during the last glacial period when modern humans arrived, he said. The lack of competitors like the Neanderthals might have been the chief attraction to the area and the reason why modern humans first entered this part of Europe, Hoffecker said.
"Unlike the Neanderthals, modern humans had the ability to devise new technologies for coping with cold climates and less than abundant food resources," he said. "The Neanderthals, who had occupied Europe for more than 200,000 years, seem to have left the back door open for modern humans. "
The ivory artifact believed to be the head of a small figurine, discovered during the 2001 field season, was broken and perhaps never was finished by the person who began crafting it more than 40,000 years ago, said Hoffecker. "This is a really interesting piece," he said. "If confirmed, it will be the oldest example of figurative art ever discovered."
Buried under 10 feet to 15 feet of silt, the artifacts at Kostenki include blades, scrapers, drills and awls, as well as sturdy antler digging tools known as mattocks that resemble crude pick-axes, he said. Mattocks have been found at other Old World sites and the arctic and were used to dig large pits for the storage of foods and fuel, although traces of such pits have yet to turn up at the lowest levels of Kostenki, he said.
Large animal remains at Kostenki include mammoth, woolly rhinoceros, bison, horses, moose and reindeer. A bone chemistry analysis from 30,000-year-old human remains indicates a high consumption of freshwater aquatic foods -- either water birds, fish, or both -- more evidence for efficient food gathering techniques, he said.
The study also included researchers from the University of Arizona, the Kostenki Museum-Preserve in Kostenki, the University of Illinois-Chicago, Boston University, the University College London and the Institute of Environmental Geology, Climate and Geoengineering in Rome. Research at Kostenki has been funded by the Leakey Foundation and the National Science Foundation.
Except for some early sites in the Near East, the oldest evidence modern humans outside of Africa comes from the Australian continent roughly 50,000 years ago, said Hoffecker, [ Marc's note: this isn't true. Above note from SCIENCE I posted shows remains from Africa date to 1.7 million years ago] who was awarded an honorary doctorate from the Russian Academy of Sciences in 2006. Several modern human sites in south-central Europe may be almost as old as Kostenki, he said.
Contact: John Hoffecker, (303) 220-7646 John.Hoffecker@colorado.edu Jim Scott, (303) 492-3114
"It's a known fact even Marc professes-- that the earliest European remains are represented by [Cro-Magnon man."
Where do I "profess" anything about "Cro-Magnon."
[Djehuti writes] Who cares what you profess …
You're a nutcase!
[Marc writes] Djehuti. You ask “Who cares what you profess”???
It was YOU who wrote that I profess something inventing the claim as I did not write what you state.
SHOW ME WHERE I "PROFESS" ANYTHING ABOUT "CRO-MAGNON"!!!
________AND__________
[On Dec. 11, Djehuti writes] I find it curious that Marc does not consider Caesar white even though the man was a southern European.”
[Marc writes] Whereas on the day previous to the comment directly above I wrote on December 10th: “Caesar is white.” I said the exact opposite of what I was accused of not having stated.
As R1a is prevalent throughout Europe, it originated, the web pages infer (there are no other possibilities), amongst Africans.
It is whites who are typically considered round-headed and Africans who are typically called long-headed, isn’t that right?
QUESTIONS:
What is to be made of the fact, then, that (1) Nordic people are “long-headed” and what has that to do with (2) whites as carriers of R1a and (3) the disappearance of Africans from Europe even while R1a is, obviously, found in today's Europeans - no Africans among them?
ANSWERS:
(1) Wikipedia states something easy to find when browsing for “Nordic, long-headed." You will find, "Nordic people were typified by: tall stature, wide shoulders, long headed …”
I’d say that we can see the transition from Africans with long heads to whites with long heads (Nordic peoples) where V. P. Alexeev in his Harvard lectures wrote of the cranium in the picture below from 25,000 years ago in Sungir: “The nose is very broad, similar to African or Australian. This strong development around the nose is not typical for Europoid but is similar to East African populations.”
25,000 years ago Sungir, near Moscow
Whites should be proud that now they can point physically to the above likely African ancestor who 20,000 years before their emergence dwelt in nearly the exact vicinity they would later call genesis in the Volga area.
(2) It is in the above picture, I’d say, where we find a representation of a long-headed African ancestor and carrier of R1a who was the source both of Nordic whites and the R1a they carry.
(3) What has the disappearance of Africans from Europe have to do with white origination in the Steppes whereas they are now found in Scandinavia and Southern England today? The fact that as they entered Europe during the German migration period starting near 500 AD that the new and white carriers of R1a eliminated the indigenous (from Africa but long in Europe) African carriers of R1a.
As genocide is not rhetorical
is the reason Europe is white today (for the most part new immigrants) and no longer African as it had been for the previous 1.2 million years.
And the legacy of Africans to the newcomers - a free gift they did not earn and did not say, "Gee! Thanks!" for:
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ So the demented photoshop poster has returned.
Still, all his ridiculousness has refuted on page 1, why does this retarded thread still persist??
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That is foolhardy DJ – What this thread has done is opened many peoples eye – And Marc has made tremendous points. He may be one of the few that is out their on the limb but he maybe generally correct.
THE MODERN DAY EUROPEANS ARE REALLY NEW TO “EUROPE”. And I don’t consider myself bias. Although I question YOUR agenda. - you do seem to have some knowledge of AE and other ancient civilizations but you lose your credibility when you blindly parrot you Mentor. And frankly it is embarrassing. Especially when he chastises you. WHY DO YOU WANT THE THREAD DELETED??????
I just finished browsing through Snowdens – Blacks in Antiquity and was really surprised to see the quantity of so called “Negroids” throughout the Greek/Roman period. And these negroids were prominent in all strata in the Greek/Roman society. So there were a lot of brothers moving freely throughout the Greek society.
There is valuable info in the thread.
1. Most people do not know about the Germanic Expansion, and the impact it had on the phenotypic composition of Europe, which started about 300BC - 600AD which led to an eventual re-peopling of Europe. It is well documented. I believe the Mangolians(Ghegis Khan (sp?) were the impetus for that. This the STRONG correlation to what Marc is saying albeit the Steppes. The time period is about the same. 2. We all agree that R1a and R1b are indigenous to Europe. Just as E3a and E3b are indigenous to Africa. The issue is what did these people look like ie are they all Black Africans or did R1a and R1b look like present day Europeans. The answer is - THEY WERE ALL black Africans in phenotype. This is based upon the FACT that R* and E* is Black African. In other words the “immediate parent” of the E3a, E3b, R1a and R1b are black people therefore most likely the “immediate child” is black African.
The more people read and gather information the more they will have to conclude that Marc may be on to sometime. He may be the lone voice but he may be correct. (I am on the fence with the Olmecs but that is another discussion). The fact is R1a and R1b are European but we all know that because someone carries these markers it is not proof that they looked like present day Europeans. All this tells us is that the ancestors of the current European . . . . originated in Europe. It tells us NADA about phenotype. And this is where Marc’s photoshop complements the genetics.
I followed Vida advice and found out I am E3a. My brother’s wife grandmother is MtDNA haplo group A (American Indian). So my niece and nephew great-gran is mtDNA A. Looking at them you can see they are mixed with indigenous Indian. However genetic analysis will show his son is E3a and daughter . . .whatever. My point? . . . . . . .Haplo groups DO NOT tell the whole story. In less than 100yrs the mtDNA has disappeared, some of the features still remain. CONCLUSION – Haplo-group DO NOT equal phenotype. Take Marcs Photoshop into consideration.
The modern European features are new to Europe.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: That is foolhardy DJ – What this thread has done is opened many peoples eye – And Marc has made tremendous points. He may be one of the few that is out their on the limb but he maybe generally correct.
THE MODERN DAY EUROPEANS ARE REALLY NEW TO “EUROPE”. And I don’t consider myself bias. Although I question YOUR agenda. - you do seem to have some knowledge of AE and other ancient civilizations but you lose your credibility when you blindly parrot you Mentor. And frankly it is embarrassing. Especially when he chastises you. WHY DO YOU WANT THE THREAD DELETED??????
I just finished browsing through Snowdens – Blacks in Antiquity and was really surprised to see the quantity of so called “Negroids” throughout the Greek/Roman period. And these negroids were prominent in all strata in the Greek/Roman society. So there were a lot of brothers moving freely throughout the Greek society.
There is valuable info in the thread.
1. Most people do not know about the Germanic Expansion, and the impact it had on the phenotypic composition of Europe, which started about 300BC - 600AD which led to an eventual re-peopling of Europe. It is well documented. I believe the Mangolians(Ghegis Khan (sp?) were the impetus for that. This the STRONG correlation to what Marc is saying albeit the Steppes. The time period is about the same. 2. We all agree that R1a and R1b are indigenous to Europe. Just as E3a and E3b are indigenous to Africa. The issue is what did these people look like ie are they all Black Africans or did R1a and R1b look like present day Europeans. The answer is - THEY WERE ALL black Africans in phenotype. This is based upon the FACT that R* and E* is Black African. In other words the “immediate parent” of the E3a, E3b, R1a and R1b are black people therefore most likely the “immediate child” is black African.
The more people read and gather information the more they will have to conclude that Marc may be on to sometime. He may be the lone voice but he may be correct. (I am on the fence with the Olmecs but that is another discussion). The fact is R1a and R1b are European but we all know that because someone carries these markers it is not proof that they looked like present day Europeans. All this tells us is that the ancestors of the current European . . . . originated in Europe. It tells us NADA about phenotype. And this is where Marc’s photoshop complements the genetics.
I followed Vida advice and found out I am E3a. My brother’s wife grandmother is MtDNA haplo group A (American Indian). So my niece and nephew great-gran is mtDNA A. Looking at them you can see they are mixed with indigenous Indian. However genetic analysis will show his son is E3a and daughter . . .whatever. My point? . . . . . . .Haplo groups DO NOT tell the whole story. In less than 100yrs the mtDNA has disappeared, some of the features still remain. CONCLUSION – Haplo-group DO NOT equal phenotype. Take Marcs Photoshop into consideration.
The modern European features are new to Europe.
You are over generalizing. Yes the expansion of "Germanic" peoples in the early to Mid first millenium was a very important factor in European history. However, these people did not replace black Africans as the populations in Europe. White skin has been the predominant phenotype in Europe for the last 12,000 years or more.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:THE MODERN DAY EUROPEANS ARE REALLY NEW TO “EUROPE”.
^ No, they are descendant of Europe's paleolithic populations according to all educated sources.
Not our fault that you can't understand anthropology, no matter how simply it is broken down into baby bites for you.
quote:The fact is R1a and R1b are European
Nope. R1b is both European in origin and paleolithic in datation.
Populations who are R1b quite specifically lived in the glacial refuge in Spain 18,000 year ago.
This is exactly where they were.
Nowhere else.
12,000 years ago the glaciers that made Northern Europea uninhabitable retreated.
This population then migrated from southern Europe to NorthWestern Europe.
Modern populations of Europe ARE the direct descendants of these peoples.
Because of this - to this day in parts of West Europe this single lineage makes up over 90% of the ancestry of 'current' populations.
So, Europeans are not 'new' to Europe.
quote:these markers it is not proof that they looked like present day Europeans.
Markers prove ancestry which is the point at issue. Looks are irrelevant to this, so this is a total strawman argument.
Fact is, if you can't show that R1b is not paleolithic European origin, then you can't claim that modern Europeans are not descendant from Paleolithic Europeans, therefore you have no argument.
In 11 pages of babbling neither you nor Mark have made any sense, for even a single post.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Quote from Doug - You are over generalizing. Yes the expansion of "Germanic" peoples in the early to Mid first millenium was a very important factor in European history. However, these people did not replace black Africans as the populations in Europe. White skin has been the predominant phenotype in Europe for the last 12,000 years or more.
I disagree – and here is why.
1. The Penn study puts white skin about 6-12Kya. NOT greater than 12ky. So white skin evolved AFTER the ice age. 2. Important is an understatement – IT IS THE TURNING POINT. 3. We all agree now that R1b and R1a doesn’t mean JACK. ie, it is not the final word.
So weeding through all of Rasol’s BULL. quote:
The fact is R1a and R1b are European
Nope. R1b is both European in origin and paleolithic in datation.
WTF does that mean? I said the same thing. R1b and R1a are indigenous to Europe ie European. My view they are black African(edited by xyyman - Black European ) based upon the close proximity to R*. The same correlation as with E*, E3a and E3b albeit different “datation”.
I am catching on now, bro, I seeing through some of your egotistical driven rants.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Quote (Rasol) Markers prove ancestry which is the point at issue. Looks are irrelevant to this, so this is a total strawman argument.
Do you listen to yourself. WTF does this means. Looks IS the issue, Dick, eh, Rasol. ie white skin ie phenotype.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
I am tired of explaining this so many different ways.
- We all know Obama father is black and mother white. His father was most like E3a or E3b (heck may be even R1a and R1b). Here in the USA he is considered AA, maybe incorrectly. Another discussion. - Now imagine if he had had children with a women like his mother(white). Then his children would of looked(phenotype) . . .close to white. - Then his grandchildren would of definitely pass for white, if they kept up that tradition.
So in a nutshell ALL the male of Obama’s lineage(decendents) would be . . . . . E3a or what ever. In other words within ~80yrs(~4-generations) E3a went from BLACK phenotypically to LEUCODERMS. So why is it so hard to understand that R1a and R1b IS black. And was probably that way for thousands of years.. . .right up to ~300BC. When this new group eventually became dominant.
As I said so many times. The Haplo groups are NOT a one stop shop indicator of phenotype. Since white women do NOT carry the R1a and R1b and they are. . . . . white. So these “white” features resides some place else besides the y-chromosome. R1a and R1b mostly likely was black african.
So Marc photoshop helps tell the story.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
If R1b is of recent *African* origin, then please name the African population that has this recent lineage?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ The humiliating idiocy that is xyman and Clyde cheering his idiocy is embarassingly pathetic.
I almost feel sorry for him.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Quote from Doug - You are over generalizing. Yes the expansion of "Germanic" peoples in the early to Mid first millenium was a very important factor in European history. However, these people did not replace black Africans as the populations in Europe. White skin has been the predominant phenotype in Europe for the last 12,000 years or more.
I disagree – and here is why.
1. The Penn study puts white skin about 6-12Kya. NOT greater than 12ky...
But that's exactly what Doug just said, nitwit-- white skin predominated in Europe for 12,000 years or more (emphasis on 'or').
quote:...So white skin evolved AFTER the ice age.
No. white skin evolved during the Ice Age, moron! White skin is a response to glacial climate!! LOL
Rasol already addressed everything else as it pertained to genetic lineages.
Keep making a fool of yourself Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
"It's a known fact even Marc professes-- that the earliest European remains are represented by [Cro-Magnon man."
Where do I "profess" anything about "Cro-Magnon."
[Djehuti writes] Who cares what you profess …
You're a nutcase!
[Marc writes] Djehuti. You ask “Who cares what you profess”???
It was YOU who wrote that I profess something inventing the claim as I did not write what you state.
SHOW ME WHERE I "PROFESS" ANYTHING ABOUT "CRO-MAGNON"!!!
________AND__________
[On Dec. 11, Djehuti writes] I find it curious that Marc does not consider Caesar white even though the man was a southern European.”
[Marc writes] Whereas on the day previous to the comment directly above I wrote on December 10th: “Caesar is white.” I said the exact opposite of what I was accused of not having stated.
_________
[Marc writes] I wrote of “The crucifixion of my brothers by the Romans.” I stated the map shows the incursion of Germanic peoples into the region:
to which …
[Djehuti writes] Okay, that map above shows the Germanic migrations into the British Isles, but nowhere does it state or present anything about genocide against "Africans of Europe". Unless you believe the indigenous peoples of Britain were African! LMAO @ this nut!
[Marc writes] Later today I will put up a page showing the early Britons were African. And even if they weren’t you make the massacre seem hilarious. I assure you it wasn’t.
[on Jan 15th Djehuti writes] Still, all his ridiculousness has refuted on page 1
[Marc writes] Djehuti. I asked you before and I’ll ask you again: “What was I proved wrong about on page 1 and how?”
. .
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:What was I proved wrong about on page 1 and how?”
Geneticist, Peter Underhill:
The First Europeans
About 80 percent of Europeans arose from primitive hunters who arrived about 40,000 years ago, endured the long ice age and then expanded rapidly to dominate the continent, a new study shows.
Researchers analyzing the Y chromosome taken from 1,007 men from 25 different locations in Europe found a pattern that suggests four out of five of the men shared a common male ancestor about 40,000 years ago.
Peter A. Underhill, a senior researcher at the Stanford Genome Technology Center in Palo Alto, Calif., and co-author of the study, said the research supports conclusions from archaeological, linguistic and other DNA evidence about the settlement of Europe by ancient peoples.
When we can get different lines of evidence that tell the same story, then we feel we are telling the true history of the species. The researchers used the Y chromosome in the study because its rare changes establish a pattern that can be traced back hundreds of generations, thus helping to plot the movement of ancient humans.
The Y chromosome is inherited only by sons from their fathers. When sperm carrying the Y chromosome fertilizes an egg it directs the resulting baby to be a male. An X chromosome from the father allows a fertilized egg to be female.
"The Y chromosome has about 60 million DNA base pairs. Changes in those base pairs happen infrequently, but they occur often enough to establish patterns that can be used to trace the ancestry of people. Researchers looking at the 1,007 chromosome samples from Europe identified 22 specific markers that formed a specific pattern of change. Underhill said the researchers found that about 80 percent of all European males shared a single pattern, suggesting they had a common ancestor thousands of generations ago.
"The basic pattern had some changes that apparently developed among people who once shared a common ancestor and then were isolated for many generations. This scenario supports other studies about the Paleolithic European groups. Those studies suggest that a primitive, stone-age human came to Europe, probably from Central Asia and the Middle East, in two waves of migration beginning about 40,000 years ago. Their numbers were small and they lived byhunting animals and gathering plant food. They used crudely sharpened stones and fire.
"About 24,000 years ago, the last ice age began, with mountain-sized glaciers moving across most of Europe. The Paleolithic Europeans retreated before the ice, finding refuge for hundreds of generations in three areas: what is now Spain, the Balkans and the Ukraine.
"When the glaciers melted, about 16,000 years ago, the Paleolithic tribes resettled the rest of Europe. Y chromosome mutations occurred among people in each of the ice age refuges, said Underhill. He said the research shows a pattern that developed in Spain is now most common in northwest Europe, while the Ukraine pattern is mostly in Eastern Europe and the Balkan pattern is most common in Central Europe.
"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 from this migration.
"Archaeological digs in European caves clearly show that before 8,000 years ago, most humans lived by gathering and hunting. After that, there are traces of grains and other agricultural products. Earlier studies had traced European migration patterns using the DNA contained in the mitochondria, a key part of each cell. This type is DNA is passed down from mother to daughter."
Antonio Torroni, a researcher at the University of Urbino, Italy, who first proposed that early humans retreated to Spain during the ice age, said in a separate Science report that the Y chromosome study fits completely' with the mitochondria studies.
"The Y chromosome studies are also consistent with genetic studies showing a broader picture of human migration. In general, studies show that modern humans first arose in Africa about 100,000 years ago and thousands of years later began a long series of migrations, he said. Some groups migrated eastward and humans are known to have existed in Australia about 60,000 years ago. Other groups crossed the land bridge into the Middle East. Humans appeared in Central Asia about 50,000 years ago. From there, the theory goes, some migrated west, arriving in Europe about 40,000 years ago. Later, some migrated east, across the Bering Straits, to the Americas."
quote: I hope to provide more evidence for the fact that though there are those who cling to the idea that Europeans are indigenous to Europe and were always there, facts tell otherwise. Facts have it that the Capsammochal were the original population of Europe and during the Migration Period in Early Medieval times, today's whites first entered the continent and established today's European nations between the period of the 5th and 10th centuries
Question what is a Capsammochal ?
Posts: 567 | From: USA | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
"European nations established only from Medieval times - whites are very new to Europe"
Patric Geary's book, THE MEDIEVAL ORIGINS OF EUROPEAN NATIONS, establishes that the first half of the title of this thread is properly named.
The second half says "whites are new to Europe." No matter what way you cut it, this is true. Africans had been in Europe for 1.2 million years. Even if you give whites a genesis of some tens of thousands of years ago in the Steppes, it is still virtually nothing (though they committed genocide against Africans throughout the continent in the little relatively time they were there).
From 25,000 years ago, here is a picture of your African ancestor which you speak so proudly of - and rightly so. The likely African ancestor from which Nordic whites gained their long head and R1a:
You are right to pay homage.
Secondly, while whites have been in the Steppes for however long they were there, that area comprises only a tiny area in "modern" Europe; which whites entered during the Germanic migrations - which happened, figuratively, yesterday or from 500 AD. Africans were wiped out through a process of genocide which was everything but rhetorical.
Let me take some pride of ownership here. I did indeed form the term Capsemmochal to unify the disparate terms whereby a single people were referred hiding the fact that they are all Africans from a single source. I'm proud of originating the term the same as it was my ancestors who originated the Germanic language you all speak today and the alphabet you all use today. That's the way my people are. We are originators.
When their R1a-carrying white relatives came, whites wiped out Africans.
But, the R1a of course remains. The Africans, as seen on the web pages, were all massacred and their wealth and African European lands taken by the whites who were recent migrants from the Steppes.
. .
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
DJ and the OTHER seems to be mixing their facts up. The Article say – the European skin turned pale “recently”. They put the time at about 5300-6000ya. I am new this . .. . .but my math tells me this is AFTER the last ice age. So . . .no vulgarity. . .what are you talking about. . . DJ. I am getting the sense that you are full of it.
And Rasol – new words are invented occasionally why do you think these dictionaries are sometimes “updated”. Because new words become part of our vocabulary (someone starts using it and it catches on). Yo!!!!
Come on bro(Rasol). Who said it. “with knowledge you cannot be fooled”.. .or something like that. I think that is really profound.
It is not personal, I respect what you have put out there.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
anyone notice to the left of this page(top) at about this time - the Advertisement is from the DNA Ancestry Porject?
What a coincidence.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yo! We are all(most at least) trying to get the truth after centuries of lies, mis-education and perverted science.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: DJ and the OTHER seems to be mixing their facts up. The Article say – the European skin turned pale “recently”. They put the time at about 5300-6000ya. I am new this . .. . .but my math tells me this is AFTER the last ice age. So . . .no vulgarity. . .what are you talking about. . . DJ. I am getting the sense that you are full of it.
No I'm not full of it, but YOU obviously are. The article specifically states that European skin turned pale 12,000-6,000 years ago. 12,000 years ago was during the last Ice Age.
quote:And Rasol – new words are invented occasionally why do you think these dictionaries are sometimes “updated”. Because new words become part of our vocabulary (someone starts using it and it catches on). Yo!!!!
ROTFL But new scientific words are only accepted based on its accuracy. Hence the ONLY person who uses the word "Capsamochal" or whatever is Marc Washington, because he is a psuedo-science lunatic. It's his word he invented, and no one else but him uses it.
quote:Come on bro(Rasol). Who said it. “with knowledge you cannot be fooled”.. .or something like that. I think that is really profound.
That saying should be true, but if it is then why is it with all the knowledge we show you, you incessantly keep being a fool?! Perhaps because you don't except such knowledge but only nonsense from your demented mentor, Marc.
quote:It is not personal, I respect what you have put out there.
Of course it's nothing personal, but it is a matter of FACTS. And fact is, you nor your teacher Marc have any clue as to what you guys say.
quote:anyone notice to the left of this page(top) at about this time - the Advertisement is from the DNA Ancestry Porject?
What a coincidence.
So? Anybody else notice how idiotic you have been sounding since you first appeared in this forum?? Have you noticed that all the info we provide you on DNA ancestry you cannot comprehend but twist and spin to your liking?
quote: Yo! We are all(most at least) trying to get the truth after centuries of lies, mis-education and perverted science.
Yes, We excluding YOU and Marc and Clyde. Case closed.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:R1* originates in Africa 30 thousand years ago. When there R1a-carrying white relatives came whites wiped out Africans.
- R1a and R1b are -directly descendant- from R1* over 20 thousand years ago.
- Western Europeans are primarily R1b, not R1a.
- R1* isn't indigenous to Europe. It is found only in Africa and the Levant. It originates either in Africa or the Levantine over 30 thousand years ago.
- R1b and R1a are both 20+ thousand years old.
- Both lineages in Europe- precede the existence of white skin.
- R1a and R1b expanded from two distinct European glacial refuges in the south to the North when the glaciers retreated - 15 THOUSAND YEARS AGO, prior to which, Northern Europe was largely uninhabited.
- Since Western Europeans are primarily R1b, not R1a, you can't only associate R1a with white skin.
So your replacement hypothesis is still blown to shreds, notwithstanding your ability to continue believing in it, because genetics seems to go over your head.
At least you are no longer claiming that Y chromosome R1a represents ancestry from from African -women- raped by genocidal germanics.
posted
For those who missed it... .with the Obama scenario.
Two thousand years later you can have a situation where Black European E3b's amd R1bs, R1as being killed out by White European E3bs, R1as and R1bs. Hmmmmmm . . . . that sounds like what Marc is saying. Hope I don't have to explain myself. Rasol may catch on.
As I said bro - I am a Chemist doing Engineering but I am getting the hang of this genetics thing !!
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Two thousand years later you can have a situation where Black European E3b's amd R1bs, R1as being killed out by White European E3bs, R1as and R1bs.
Y chromosome lineages are unique event polymorphisms - meaning they denote "1" line of descent.
They are not separable into Black European and White European.
And all people, Black and White are descendant from Black Africans, so your attempt to create 'black and white' versions of ancient lineages makes no sense.
quote:As I said bro - I am a Chemist doing Engineering but I am getting the hang of this genetics thing
Nah, you're just a class clown acting a fool to compensate for your inability to understand even the simplist things. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Either the guy is lying about his education/occupation or he is having a hell of a difficult time with them since such subjects as chemistry and engineering require very in depth scientific comprehension.
The guy is definitely a Class F clown! Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Let me take some pride of ownership here. I did indeed form the term Capsemmochal to unify the disparate terms whereby a single people were referred hiding the fact that they are all Africans from a single source.
No one is denying that Africans originate from a single source.
quote: I'm proud of originating the term the same as it was my ancestors who originated the Germanic language
Our African Ancestors did not create the Germanic Language
Germanic is Indo-European
Once again this thread should have ended at page one for only three people supports Marc on this thread
Marc Washington Himself, Xyyman and Clyde Winters
Marc-Mythology Posts: 567 | From: USA | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
[Djehuti (Clarence? Elmer?) writes] Okay, that map above shows the Germanic migrations into the British Isles, but nowhere does it state or present anything about genocide against "Africans of Europe". Unless you believe the indigenous peoples of Britain were African! LMAO @ this nut!
[Marc writes] Djehuti. First of all, the map was designed to show an invasion route, not to deal with genocide. Despite that, genocide isn’t the laughing matter you’d seem to indicate. The Jews didn’t think Auschwitz was funny. Gual became a giant Auschwitz to Africans. Those of Gual were African and Caeser was to Africans what Hitler was to Jews:
Under Caeser, “Reportedly one million Gauls were killed and another million enslaved in pursuit of this aim.”
Africans are absent from Europe today because of continent-wide genocide against them (and Africans fought against each other as well). The past-time of Germanic youth was slaughtering Africans.
You and whites in general praise the misanthropic Caesars and Alexanders who committed genocide against the Africans dwelling in lands they wanted to conquer and populate. You consider them as being great leaders – their ancestors being recent migrants to Italy and “Greece” from lands farther north.
________________________
Rasol. Any way you cut it, Africans lived in Europe for 1.2 million years before whites wiped them out during the Germanic Migration period. Compared to 1.2 million years, whites have been in Europe for an extremely short period of time and are virtually completely new to Western Europe – there since only after 500 AD.
______________________
[Marc writes] Djehuti (Clarence? Elmer?) wrote:
"It's a known fact even Marc professes-- that the earliest European remains are represented by [Cro-Magnon man."
Where do I "profess" anything about "Cro-Magnon."
[Djehuti writes] Who cares what you profess …
You're a nutcase!
[Marc writes] Djehuti. You ask “Who cares what you profess”???
It was YOU who wrote that I profess something inventing the claim as I did not write what you state.
SHOW ME WHERE I "PROFESS" ANYTHING ABOUT "CRO-MAGNON"!!!
________AND__________
[On Dec. 11, Djehuti writes] I find it curious that Marc does not consider Caesar white even though the man was a southern European.”
[Marc writes] Whereas on the day previous to the comment directly above I wrote on December 10th: “Caesar is white.” I said the exact opposite of what I was accused of not having stated.
. .
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Masonic Rebel: Marc Washington
quote: Let me take some pride of ownership here. I did indeed form the term Capsemmochal to unify the disparate terms whereby a single people were referred hiding the fact that they are all Africans from a single source.
No one is denying that Africans originate from a single source.
quote: I'm proud of originating the term the same as it was my ancestors who originated the Germanic language
Our African Ancestors did not create the Germanic Language
Germanic is Indo-European
Once again this thread should have ended at page one for only three people supports Marc on this thread
posted
Nice picture. The point of the thread is that European nations have been established most recently; that being only from the Middle Ages.
And the point of the thread has been to show that whites are new to Europe. Time-wise this is true and though they have been in the Steppes for a modicum of time, they are new to Western Europe. A place they came to inhabit after committing genocide on the African that predated them.
Caesar brags about killing over a million men, women, and children of Gual - Africans. Alexander did the same.
As to Germanic being an Indo-European language. So it may be called. But, the web page below lays the groundwork to understand that whites learned that language in Anatolia - a place inhabited by Africans since the end of Paleolithic times.
You, Rasol, are speaking a language my ancestors taught yours and you are fluently writing in a script my Phoenician ancestors taught your ancestors. Your ancestors are living in the European continent my ancestors carved out of the woods and filled with livestock, vineyards, and farmlands which your people took for their own.
We gave you a way of life and neither you nor your people or ancestors have even said a word of thanks.
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:You, Rasol, are speaking a language my ancestors taught yours
I agree. As and African-American you certainly have English speaking ancestors.
And it is they who brought English into Africa, where my ancestors 1st learned it.
However, I don't know how personalising the issue helps you?
Unless this form of hate/venting is meant to distract from the miserable failure of your 11 page fiasco-thesis. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I agree. As and African-American you certainly have English speaking ancestors.
And it is they who brought English into Africa, where my ancestors 1st learned it.
LOL. A south African whose people wore modest clothing due to the weather and outnumbering whites 50 million to one is prancing around trying to tell African Americans who their ancestors are. hahahaaha, they couldn't even protect their own land from conquest so I doubt that they could protect their own women. No wonder rasol said he would not take a DNA test when the "v" asked him.
The non-degreed scholar who only posts on the internet what others have written because the rest of academia would laugh him off the stage, has the audacity to make himself an expert on African Americans?
Have a good nights rest rasol : )
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ He wants me banned for stating what I stated above. Isn't that rediculous. That is some crazy stuff right there. How sad.
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The African presence in Europe takes on interesting dimensions. For instance, we recognize the African female body type as found in heavy set, short-statured women. This body-type was found in Mesolithic and Neolithic Europe. What is compelling is that throughout Central Europe we have the diamond-incised abdomen.
And we find this same diamond-incised abdomen among Efe women in the Congo today 9,000 years later than the earliest evidence in Europe of the same found in Yugoslavia (No. 4) in a woman the archeologist described as African.
Is the woman in No. 9 in the same family of those others found in Central Europe and farther afield? Was this a sign of tribal marking?
This is yet more evidence that the ancient population of Europe was African (except for an enclave of whites in the Steppes).
The African women in Central Europe lived in the land many thousands of years before the Migrations brought a new people to the land from the Eurasian Steppes.
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
And Ancient Egypt leaves its trace in Eurasia as well. More evidence still that it was Africans throughout Eurasia save the enclave of whites there who millenniums later would come to dominate the continent.
The left column, first three pictures show analogies for the same found in the Ural-Altaic region of Russian Siberia in the right columns:
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
End of note]
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
I almost feel sorry for him. 
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic