quote:Black is not a race, there are no races, and the notion of 'pure' or 'mixed' races is thereby irrelevant.
This is not as "black and white" as you would have it as even your own Cavalli-Sforza can't help from distinguishing the races of mankind. The fact that races mix and we can tell an "African gene" in those early Geeks mean that the eulogy for the "race" construct might be premature. Check even his writings on "genetic distances". The notion of caucasian race was fabricated in the 18th century by Johanne Blumenbach based on bible mythology. The notion of their superiority is fabricated, yes, but idea of a "race", maybe not, even as your favorite source:
BTW the KMT = black arguement, though correct, in no way supports the idiocy of it as an "accurate description of skin color". There is no "black skin".
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
What we find here is that the very people who say there is no such thing as "race" speak of nothing but race.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:BTW the KMT = black argument, though correct
Yes it is correct, as you admit.
The 'argument' part, which you then follow with, is so by definition your effort to argue against that which you know to be true.
This is why you are generally too stupid, to reply to...and why I mostly ignore you.
Even though you are trying really hard to not be as much of and OFF TOPIC IDIOT as you usually are......and so at least get me to reply.
Very well....
quote:attention whore writes: in no way supports the idiocy of it as an "accurate description of skin color".
Actually this is a common falacy of scientifically illiterate persons such as yourself.
All -labels- for color, not just black, are illusory and relative. This is true no matter how you attempt to define descrete colors, which do not actually exist in nature.
Color only exists in physics as frequencies of light in the electromagnetic spectrum, there are no distinct frequences that can literally separate light into descrete colors.
Different cultures do not even have the same number of colors. In some cultures brown and red do not exist as distinct colors but only as one color.
This is not wrong, nor right, it is not any more or less accurate.
Color itself is intrinsically subjective, not objective.
There is literally no 'blue' eyes, no 'green grass', and no 'blonde' [yellow] hair either.
But the fact that color is not 'literal' does not invalidate the use of the terms such as MELANODERM - "black skinned", as either scientific parameters or Km.t = "Blacks" as social ethnenes.
Black will remain a common ethnic appletive [actually one of the -MOST- common in all human cultures] and a valid anthropological parameter. [melanoderm literally means BLACK SKINNED.]
So go back to crying about it.... changes nothing.
Black is a powerful concept.
It makes some people happy, and others, like you, cry.
arGoyle - white baby, with blonde -sucker- and green pajamas, crying over black skin.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:rasol: The notion of caucasian race was fabricated in the 18th century by Johanne Blumenbach based on bible mythology.
quote:desparate attention whore writes: The notion of their superiority is fabricated
^ It's the same issue. Let me repeat since you are prone to argue with facts you know to be true but can't stomach:
Before blumenbach there is NO CAUCASIAN RACE.
He invented this pseudoscience based upon the notion of white supremacy, so the ideology of caucasoid and white racism are one and the same.
Blumenbach believed that men - ALL MEN - originated in caucasia, and that whites were the most authentic represenatives of them, with non whites being deginerate.
This idea is false, and with it, so is caucasian race.
But feel free to keep searching for a way to argue, and let us know when you find it.....
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ History of caucasoid pseudoscience, and thus: BACK ON TOPIC:
The Caucasian race, sometimes the Caucasoid race, is a term of racial classification, coined around 1800 by Johann Friedrich Blumenbach for the "white" race of man.
^ Prior to this, you can scour European history and literatue high and low looking for "caucasoids" and find none.
Ironically, when you find the term caucasian in Euro-history and referenced by Germanic and Latin Europeans, it is primarily contemptuous with regards to slavic peoples, who they enslaved. Non slavic Europeans do not historically consider themselves to be caucasian. Heaven forefend!
Caucasoid is a short lived and ill conceived term, and that's why it died so soon after Blumenbach fabricated it.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Debunked writes: Of course 'familiar ethnic labels' (like Black)
^ And of course, Black is not only familiar as and ethnic label, it is also ancient, as and ethnic reference:
Kem, kame, kmi, kmem, kmom = to be black
Kememu = Black people (Ancient Egyptians) in both Ancient and modern Egyptian (Kmemou).
Kem [khet][wood] = extremely black, jet-black
Kemet = any black thing. Note: "t" is silent - pronounced Kemé
Kemet [nu][community, settlement, nation] = Black nation = Ancient Egypt.
Kemet [Romé][people] = Black people. Ancient Egyptians.
Kemit [Shoit][books] = Black books, Ancient Egyptian literature.
It is also specific, and attestible based upon melanin levels...
The basal epithelial cells [of Egyptian mummies] were packed with melanin. - Biotechnic & Histochemistry 2005, 80(1): 7_/13
^ As it is now, so it was then:
Melanin (eumelanin), the chemical body responsible for skin pigmentation, is, broadly speaking, insoluble and is preserved for millions of years in the skins of fossil animals.20 There is thus all the more reason for it to be readily recoverable in the skins of Egyptian mummies, despite a tenacious legend that the skin of mummies, tainted by the embalming material, is no longer susceptible of any analysis.21 Although the epidermis is the main site of the melanin, the melanocytes penetrating the derm at the boundary between it and the epidermis, even where the latter has mostly been destroyed by the embalming materials, show that [Ancieng Egyptians have] a melanin level which is non-existent in leucoderms. - Diop.
So you see Debunked, as much you -hate- reference to Blacks, the term, as and ethnic label, and as a morphology, based on genetics, is not going to go away.
On the hand, the pseudo-science of 'caucasoid' is essentially already dead.
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: What we find here is that the very people who say there is no such thing as "race" speak of nothing but race.
Incorrect. What constantly speak is that 'race' does NOT exist as science has proven; however, getting back to the subject of this forum that still does not change the simple FACT that the ancient Egyptians were black Africans. Black African is not a race but a simple descriptive phrase of reality. They were black natives of the African continent period.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: History of caucasoid pseudoscience, and thus: BACK ON TOPIC:
The Caucasian race, sometimes the Caucasoid race, is a term of racial classification, coined around 1800 by Johann Friedrich Blumenbach for the "white" race of man.
^ Prior to this, you can scour European history and literatue high and low looking for "caucasoids" and find none.
Ironically, when you find the term caucasian in Euro-history and referenced by Germanic and Latin Europeans, it is primarily contemptuous with regards to slavic peoples, who they enslaved. Non slavic Europeans do not historically consider themselves to be caucasian. Heaven forefend!
Caucasoid is a short lived and ill conceived term, and that's why it died so soon after Blumenbach fabricated it.
Thus what is false is all this talk of "caucasians" and "caucasoids" especially those said to be native to any part of Africa like "North African caucasians" or "prehistoric East African caucasoids"! LMAO
Oh and to Knowledge: Never mind Gaygoyle and his nazi boyfriend, Eva! They are likely just upset over the finding below that Rasol cited...
Notice how ever since Rasol cited this, the biggoted boy-georges have been trolling this thread big time even though they weren't interested in it before! Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Djehuti, You are tap dancing a bit. The subject of both boards is race, no rational person would disagree with that. To say that there is no such thing as race is a semantic distraction. Everyone who reads these posts understands that. If there were truly no such thing as race the boards would have no purpose. It would not matter if the egyptians were black Africans or not. People do not argue over subjects that do not matter.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Djehuti, You are tap dancing a bit. The subject of both boards is race, no rational person would disagree with that. To say that there is no such thing as race is a semantic distraction. Everyone who reads these posts understands that. If there were truly no such thing as race the boards would have no purpose. It would not matter if the egyptians were black Africans or not. People do not argue over subjects that do not matter.
Please define "race" and provide evidence that human races are legitimate biological units. Also explain to the audience how a color [Black] somehow equates "race" to you. If you can't do that, then obviously YOU are the one playing the game of semantics.
posted
You are the one that needs to explain the issue. If you really believe there is no such thing as race why are you here involved in this conversation. IF that were the case it would not matter if Egyptians were black Africans or Danish immigrants....it would all be the same.
When I read these boards every post is about race.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
An email reply that refutes Debunked idioti and unsupported assertion that West and Central Africans contributed to the mtDNA pool of Ethiopians:
Furthermore, Bantu migrations mostly affected the paternal genepool of the people they came in contact with, not the maternal genepool. Debunked still has provided no evidence that L1-L2 lineages in Ethiopia came from West Africans and central Africans, not to mention the fact that Ethiopians carry L3 and L4-L6 lineages which are also not found in West and Central Africans, nor can he escape the reality of this: also courtesy of Toomas:
"Phylogenetic analysis reveals that the origin of sub-Saharan African mtDNA variants in Yemenis is a mosaic of different episodes of gene flow. Three different passages can be outlined. The first is gene flow, likely mediated by the Arab slave trade from southeastern Africa, as evidenced by exact mtDNA haplotype matches. Such matches account for 23% of the total variation in Yemenis and occur in lineages and lineage groups that cannot be found in Ethiopia and northeastern Africa. Many of these can be traced to the Bantu dispersal; they have their origin in West Africa and supply thereby the upper time limit of 3,000–4,000 years for their departure from southeastern Africa toward Arabia. The sub-Saharan African component of Ethiopians has remained untouched by such influences and may therefore be considered most representative of the indigenous gene pool of sub-Saharan East Africa."
I don't know why this idiot just ignores this information.
As for haplogroups A and B:
"Groups I and II are essentially restricted to Africans and appear to be the most divergent clades within the tree. They show a patchy distribution, with high frequencies among isolated hunter-gatherer groups and in some peoples of Ethiopia and Sudan. Such a distribution was interpreted as the survival of some ancient lineages through more recent population events (Underhill et al. 2001). In particular, Group I, observed in 43.6% of the Khoisan (usually considered to be descendants of an early African population), is present in all of the Ethiopian samples: its frequency is 10.3% in the Oromo sample and 14.6% in the Amhara sample of the present study, and is 13.6% in the ethnically undefined sample reported by Underhill et al. (2000). In contrast, it was not found in the Senegalese. It is worth noting that the Ethiopian YAP−/49a,f haplotype 26 lineage, which is common within the Khoisan (Spurdle and Jenkins 1992; Passarino et al. 1998), corresponds to Group I and possibly reflects the signal seen in the third PC of classical polymorphisms (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1993, 1994). However, figure 1 shows that the Ethiopian and Khoisan samples within Group I fall into different haplotypes (haplotypes 1, 2, and 5 in Ethiopians vs. haplotypes 4, 6, and 7 in the Khoisan), in agreement with an ancient divergence from the same ancestral population, as has been suggested by microsatellite data
Debunked has provided no evidence of Ethiopians mixing with Khoisan and or West and Central Africans.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Djehuti, You are tap dancing a bit. The subject of both boards is race, no rational person would disagree with that. To say that there is no such thing as race is a semantic distraction. Everyone who reads these posts understands that.
There is nothing semantical about it. There is no such thing as race yet people like Debunked keep coming here all the time ranting and raving about it, which is why we are here to dispatch them! And as I recall did YOU not mention a while back that the Egyptians were "North African caucasians"??!
quote:If there were truly no such thing as race the boards would have no purpose. It would not matter if the egyptians were black Africans or not. People do not argue over subjects that do not matter.
LOL They obviously matter to people like YOU
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Nubians are black Africans, Egyptians North African caucasians...
LMAO
quote: You are the one that needs to explain the issue. If you really believe there is no such thing as race why are you here involved in this conversation. IF that were the case it would not matter if Egyptians were black Africans or Danish immigrants....it would all be the same.
Again apparently matters to YOU and people like YOU.
quote:When I read these boards every post is about race.
And again, it's because people like YOU keep coming here to bring the issue up!
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think there is such a thing as race and so do you. If not there would be no conversation on these boards. When you use the term 'black African' you are making a racial argument. Race is nothing more than a distinction between groups of people.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Knowledgeiskey718 has suffered yet another intellectual thrashing. : )
He has been reduced to either ignoring all but the most intellectually inept like debunker or doing ad hominem attacks on posters whom he can't refute.
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: I think there is such a thing as race and so do you. If not there would be no conversation on these boards. When you use the term 'black African' you are making a racial argument. Race is nothing more than a distinction between groups of people.
Please stop trolling this topic with your dribble.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: I think there is such a thing as race and so do you. If not there would be no conversation on these boards. When you use the term 'black African' you are making a racial argument. Race is nothing more than a distinction between groups of people.
Scientifically speaking there is no such thing as 'race', that is there is no such thing as biologically defined races. Of course race as we know it only exist as socially defined groups. 'Black African' is NOT a race or at least we the intelligent posters of this forum do not use it as such. 'Black' is a description of skin color and 'African' is description geographic origin. Thus Black African merely describes a very dark native of Africa and all populations indigenous to Africa are 'black'. In the same way that all populations indigenous to Europe are pale or 'white'. Thus there are white Europeans, but boiologically speaking there is no such thing as a white European 'race' no more than there is a 'yellow' race of Asia etc. etc. You have various populations all related to one another and non distinct enough to qualify as biologically distinct 'races'.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: I think there is such a thing as race and so do you. If not there would be no conversation on these boards. When you use the term 'black African' you are making a racial argument. Race is nothing more than a distinction between groups of people.
A few questions. If there is such a thing as biological "races", what "race" then do you propose for those heavily mixed Southern Europeans to be a part of?
Southern Europeans who carry E3b, Benin hbs, L1 and L2 and J. Can you explain this?
Or perhaps you can explain how or why Europeans appear to be 2/3rd Asian and 1/3rd African? In actuality there are no Europeans just some mixed Asian and Africans.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Good questions knowledge, but you are talking to old professor H..... well known to this forum as a doddering old american dunce, who can't answer any of your questions.
quote:Originally posted by Charlie Bass: An email reply that refutes Debunked idioti and unsupported assertion that West and Central Africans contributed to the mtDNA pool of Ethiopians:
Furthermore, Bantu migrations mostly affected the paternal genepool of the people they came in contact with, not the maternal genepool. Debunked still has provided no evidence that L1-L2 lineages in Ethiopia came from West Africans and central Africans, not to mention the fact that Ethiopians carry L3 and L4-L6 lineages which are also not found in West and Central Africans, nor can he escape the reality of this: also courtesy of Toomas:
"Phylogenetic analysis reveals that the origin of sub-Saharan African mtDNA variants in Yemenis is a mosaic of different episodes of gene flow. Three different passages can be outlined. The first is gene flow, likely mediated by the Arab slave trade from southeastern Africa, as evidenced by exact mtDNA haplotype matches. Such matches account for 23% of the total variation in Yemenis and occur in lineages and lineage groups that cannot be found in Ethiopia and northeastern Africa. Many of these can be traced to the Bantu dispersal; they have their origin in West Africa and supply thereby the upper time limit of 3,000–4,000 years for their departure from southeastern Africa toward Arabia. The sub-Saharan African component of Ethiopians has remained untouched by such influences and may therefore be considered most representative of the indigenous gene pool of sub-Saharan East Africa."
I don't know why this idiot just ignores this information.
As for haplogroups A and B:
"Groups I and II are essentially restricted to Africans and appear to be the most divergent clades within the tree. They show a patchy distribution, with high frequencies among isolated hunter-gatherer groups and in some peoples of Ethiopia and Sudan. Such a distribution was interpreted as the survival of some ancient lineages through more recent population events (Underhill et al. 2001). In particular, Group I, observed in 43.6% of the Khoisan (usually considered to be descendants of an early African population), is present in all of the Ethiopian samples: its frequency is 10.3% in the Oromo sample and 14.6% in the Amhara sample of the present study, and is 13.6% in the ethnically undefined sample reported by Underhill et al. (2000). In contrast, it was not found in the Senegalese. It is worth noting that the Ethiopian YAP−/49a,f haplotype 26 lineage, which is common within the Khoisan (Spurdle and Jenkins 1992; Passarino et al. 1998), corresponds to Group I and possibly reflects the signal seen in the third PC of classical polymorphisms (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1993, 1994). However, figure 1 shows that the Ethiopian and Khoisan samples within Group I fall into different haplotypes (haplotypes 1, 2, and 5 in Ethiopians vs. haplotypes 4, 6, and 7 in the Khoisan), in agreement with an ancient divergence from the same ancestral population, as has been suggested by microsatellite data
Debunked has provided no evidence of Ethiopians mixing with Khoisan and or West and Central Africans.
As I noted before, and as Debunked failed to rebuttal - both A and B originate in East Africa anyway.
And all M168 lineages derive from B.
The history of East African paternal lineages logically reads as:
1) A only.
2) then A and B where B derives from A
3) then A and B and M168 which derives from B
4) M168 then derives to C, D, E, F, where C D and F are out of Africa lineages, which either developed in Africa and migrated out....or diverge from M168 soon after migrating out.
There is no possible scenerio of and East Africa with only M168 but no A or B, as before M168 East Africa is 100% A and B - as that's all there is.
Lastly it is clear that it is East Africa that has the oldest A/B lineages to this day, the derived A and B lineages found in West Africa, are generally not found in the East.
So Debunked is left as always to spin his wheels and talk about everything -except- what he wants to believe in...East Africa k-zoids which do not exist.Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:^ Good questions knowledge, but you are talking to old professor H..... well known to this forum as a doddering old american dunce, who can't answer any of your questions.
Lol oh it's that old troll hore, ha ha ha ha. I've read many threads with his nonsensical drivel, where he posts his criticizing opinion instead of actual science and facts to refute or correct the opposing scientific facts that are presented at this forum. Sort of like argyle/akoben come to think about it.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: Black is a powerful concept.It makes some people happy, and others, like you, cry.
Projecting again my child, as I never argued against black as an all encompassing racial or ethno-political term. I'm only exposing your silly definition of the term.
quote:Color itself is intrinsically subjective, not objective
Irrelevant. The subjectivity argument is now introduced to get away from your previous statement about the color "black" being an accurate description of skin color in response to claim of Ethiopians being not black. You forgot you were suppose to know that black Africans are not all uniformly dark skinned...oh wait, not unless you believe in the "true negro" stereotype!
But if this is your argument now rasolowitz (that "black" is subjective), prey tell then, why are you in here, post after post, thread after thread, day after day, trying to convince "Evil Euros and Debunkers" that the ancient Egyptians etc were black?!
Are you saying they all looked alike i.e. dark skinnked, your "black"?
Because let's face it, this new subjectivety line/diversion aside, you did give us your definition of "black": after saying Black is accurate as a description of skin color you then proceed to define what you mean by it (person belonging to any of various population groups having dark pigmentation of the skin) then you show us pictorially what it is you are talking about by posting that famous pic from Ramses tomb.
LOL Oh no rasolowitz you f**ked up again!
So based on your narrow definition of the label "black", some of these Nubians are then not black? Based on your narrow definition of black, Khoisan aren't black, hell, Dubois wasn't black?
From the race concept to the black concept: "a powerful concept" - rasolowitz
quote:Before blumenbach there is NO CAUCASIAN RACE blah blah blah
Please try to refute what I actually say little rasolowitz, this is not your sock puppet debunked. Never argued for the usefulness of the term Caucasian or what Blumenbach said, so that Wiki source (LOL) was a waste of time. I am arguing for the race concept (as defined as different identifiable groups based on certain characteristics) as still being useful. Even your own Wiki source says,
quote:The term race or racial group usually refers to the concept of dividing humans into populations or groups on the basis of various sets of characteristics. The most widely used human racial categories are based on visible traits (especially skin color, cranial or facial features and hair texture), and self-identification.
Cast your mind back to that Ramses tomb pic. How did you tell a black (African) different from the white (foreigner)?
And even as I showed you, your own favorite source Cavalli-Sforza, despit the rhetoric outside, can't escape the classifications based on differences either. For your apart, you simply substitute the word "race" for "social ethnenes"[sic] and play the typical liberal double game. But all your posts are about identifying genetic differences between the races...opps "social ethnenes"! LOL
If, as some in here seem to be saying, there are no identifiable biological units how then can you identify "African genes" versus non-African ones in those early Greeks? How do we come to our various human pie charts, "Europeans appear to be 2/3rd Asian and 1/3rd African?" if not by certain identifiable characteristics? How do we know who is "white" (whether or not they are new to Europe) if not by genetic differences? --- that thing called "race".
For some to argue that because there is diversity among Africans, means the race concept is dead is also a fallacy. With all the diversity, how can we still identify and still categorize them as "black African" if not by certain commonalities and hence observable differences from the "other"?
This is why I say you (in fact you all) are the typical liberal hypocrites. Rasolowitz, the Mandela-loving non-racialist who loves to post studies detailing observable differences among humans in ES forums. Yes, Eeeegypt was black, science proves it, but it also says black does not exist, hence what is black is subjective! LOL ah the paradox of life...
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Djehuti, The fact that race is not biological does not make it invalid. All dog breeds have the same biology however different they may appear. That does not mean that race does not exist. In the field of Anthropology race does exist, and in fact is essential to the discpline. Again, we are talking about distinctions.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^A few questions. Don't duck and dodge em either. If there is such a thing as biological "races", what "race" then do you propose for those heavily mixed Southern Europeans to be a part of?
Southern Europeans who carry E3b, Benin hbs, L1 and L2 and J. Can you explain this?
Or perhaps you can explain how or why Europeans appear to be 2/3rd Asian and 1/3rd African? In actuality there are no Europeans just some mixed Asian and Africans.
"Europe shows a shorter genetic distance from Africa than do all the other continents......The overall contributions from Asia and Africa were estimated to be around two-thirds and one-third, respectively. Simulations have shown (7) that this hypothesis explains quite well the discrepancy between trees obtained by maximum likelihood and neighbor joining. " - L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza
-----
Or perhaps you can address if "Caucasoid" is a skeletal entity how do you to explain such Africans as the Tutsis of Rawanda who don't carry E3b but rather carry E3a, and address how or why E3a carrying Africans exhibit so called "Caucasoid" traits?
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
We can agree that from a biological standpoint race is not workable BUT that race in fact does exist as a distinction. As for the E3b, I cannot explain it fully, nor can you. Even so, even if you could by your own thesis it have no VALUE since race does not exist.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: We can agree that from a biological standpoint race is not workable
^^^Lmao a couple of posts ago you were saying YOU KNOW race exists, now you're retracting?
quote: BUT that race in fact does exist as a distinction.
Yea in a social setting by uneducated people who think it has meaning.
quote:As for the E3b, I cannot explain it fully, nor can you.
Sure I can with two simple quotes.
Population genetic relationships between Mediterranean populations determined by HLA allele distribution and a historic perspective.
Arnaiz-Villena A, Gomez-Casado E, Martinez-Laso J.
1) Greeks share an important part of their genetic pool with sub-Saharan Africans (Ethiopians and west Africans) also supported by Chr 7 Markers. The gene flow from Black Africa to Greece may have occurred in Pharaonic times or when Saharan people emigrated after the present hyperarid conditions were established (5000 years B.C.).
---
"Europe shows a shorter genetic distance from Africa than do all the other continents......The overall contributions from Asia and Africa were estimated to be around two-thirds and one-third, respectively. Simulations have shown (7) that this hypothesis explains quite well the discrepancy between trees obtained by maximum likelihood and neighbor joining. " - L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza
quote:Even so, even if you could by your own thesis it have no VALUE since race does not exist.
Yea sure likely story, how convenient, when we prove Southern Europeans are mixed, automatically you now agree there are NO "races"
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
There is no paradox, or contradiction, only your confusion which is due to the followng.
1) You are grown man.
2) You have the mind of a child.
This is not paradox or contradiction. It is duality.
^ This is why you respond to all posters [alTakruri, Knowledge, Dejhuti, and myself] in the same state of sour confusion over what you imagine to be some form of contradiction.
Any adult thinking is beyound your limited perspective....your stock response is to 'wail and simper' against 'contradiction'.
Your duality of being a grown man with a child's mind also explains why you still live in your mom's basement and steal your wireless internet connection from you next-door neighbors, but that's another issue.....
quote:Originally posted by Alive-(What Box): So the deed is done.
It is settled then :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Debunked writes: Of course 'familiar ethnic labels' (like Black)
^ And of course, Black is not only familiar as and ethnic label, it is also ancient, as and ethnic reference:
Kem, kame, kmi, kmem, kmom = to be black
Kememu = Black people (Ancient Egyptians) in both Ancient and modern Egyptian (Kmemou).
Kem [khet][wood] = extremely black, jet-black
Kemet = any black thing. Note: "t" is silent - pronounced Kemé
Kemet [nu][community, settlement, nation] = Black nation = Ancient Egypt.
Kemet [Romé][people] = Black people. Ancient Egyptians.
Kemit [Shoit][books] = Black books, Ancient Egyptian literature.
It is also specific, and attestible based upon melanin levels...
The basal epithelial cells [of Egyptian mummies] were packed with melanin. - Biotechnic & Histochemistry 2005, 80(1): 7_/13
^ As it is now, so it was then:
Melanin (eumelanin), the chemical body responsible for skin pigmentation, is, broadly speaking, insoluble and is preserved for millions of years in the skins of fossil animals.20 There is thus all the more reason for it to be readily recoverable in the skins of Egyptian mummies, despite a tenacious legend that the skin of mummies, tainted by the embalming material, is no longer susceptible of any analysis.21 Although the epidermis is the main site of the melanin, the melanocytes penetrating the derm at the boundary between it and the epidermis, even where the latter has mostly been destroyed by the embalming materials, show that [Ancieng Egyptians have] a melanin level which is non-existent in leucoderms. - Diop.
So you see Debunked, as much you -hate- reference to Blacks, the term, as and ethnic label, and as a morphology, based on genetics, is not going to go away.
On the hand, the pseudo-science of 'caucasoid' is essentially already dead.
quote:Cast your mind back to that Ramses tomb pic. How did you tell a black (African) different from the white (foreigner)?
Because the Kemetian, ancient Egyptians tell us who is who with there writings, and show us with their drawings!
In the Tera Heka scrolls the Kemetians -ie - ancient Egyptians identify themselves, and Kushites as Blacks.
They identify Levatines and Libyans as Reds.
There are no 'whites' in Kemetic color discourse, and none of the peoples above are Europeans either.
I am Black and Beautiful - Coptic Bible.
"I am white and ugly, and it makes me want to cry." - argoyle.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Reading comprehension is a good thing. I agreed with you that biological race constructions do not have value. I went on to dsay that racial distinctions do in fact exist. You proved my point by asking questions that directly impact racial distinctions. rasol then puts up a post that deals only with race. The fact is it's all about race.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agreed with you that biological race constructions do not have value.
^ Yes.
I went on to say that racial distinctions do in fact exist.
^ Of course they do. Racism itself is based on making such false distinctions, so the existence of social distinction based on race, is a given, and is not a point in contention.
You proved my point by asking questions that directly impact racial distinctions.
^ No he didn't, as you never made a point.
In order to make a point you need to show that the notion of biological race has value.
Not only have you failed to demonstrate this, but you just admitted to the opposite.
So you are left to babble away having made no point, and having conceded the point at issue.
You may have learned that race has no biological value Professor H, but you still don't know how to debate. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
There was a point, you chose to ignore it. I accused you, personally, of talking out of both sides of your mouth. Of saying on the one hand that race has no value while posting data that is nothing but racial.
Racial distinctions can have value but you are not trying base your arguments on that foundation. You are somehow trying to make points based on a concept you disagree with.
What we end up with is incoherent thinking from rasol and a few others here.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: I agreed with you that biological race constructions do not have value.
Ok great, we know this, and you can't retract now or prove otherwise.
quote: I went on to dsay that racial distinctions do in fact exist.
Yes and I acknowledged this by agreeing and saying it exists in a social setting where uneducated people apply said terms and think they have scientific value, which they don't.
quote: You proved my point by asking questions that directly impact racial distinctions.
And what questions were these? Please be more specific, elaborate.
quote:rasol then puts up a post that deals only with race. The fact is it's all about race.
I don't see anything coming from rasol's posts which implies in any way that "races" exist.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
You guys are doing all of the ducking and dodging here. The fact is you quote genetics out of one side of your mouth and deny biological race out of the other. Call me all the names you wish or anyone you wish but the fact is you are ducking and dodging.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: You guys are doing all of the ducking and dodging here.
Yea, ducking and dodging your erroneous propositions and then returning with knockout blows, as you can see from your face below.
quote: The fact is you quote genetics out of one side of your mouth and deny biological race out of the other.
The geneticists and anthropologists we quote don't believe in the biological concept of race. Btw...to anyone else doesn't this Patriot/hore character sound like argyle/akoben?
Or if you do wish to propose a biological sense of race then you have to explain the following.....
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718: ^^^A few questions. Don't duck and dodge em either. If there is such a thing as biological "races", what "race" then do you propose for those heavily mixed Southern Europeans to be a part of?
Southern Europeans who carry E3b, Benin hbs, L1 and L2 and J. Can you explain this?
Or perhaps you can explain how or why Europeans appear to be 2/3rd Asian and 1/3rd African? In actuality there are no Europeans just some mixed Asian and Africans.
"Europe shows a shorter genetic distance from Africa than do all the other continents......The overall contributions from Asia and Africa were estimated to be around two-thirds and one-third, respectively. Simulations have shown (7) that this hypothesis explains quite well the discrepancy between trees obtained by maximum likelihood and neighbor joining. " - L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza
-----
Or perhaps you can address if "Caucasoid" is a skeletal entity how do you to explain such Africans as the Tutsis of Rawanda who don't carry E3b but rather carry E3a, and address how or why E3a carrying Africans exhibit so called "Caucasoid" traits?
quote: Call me all the names you wish or anyone you wish but the fact is you are ducking and dodging.
Ducking and dodging what? Why can't you be SPECIFIC?
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
When you use genetics to make your points you are framing your arguments on race/biology. At the same time you say race does not exist.
Now lets stop the childish name calling and attempt to answer the obvuous contradictions in your arguments.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Genetics is in the field of biology.
When you use genetics to make your points you are framing your arguments on race/biology. At the same time you say race does not exist.
Now lets stop the childish name calling and attempt to answer the obvuous contradictions in your arguments.
No one is being childish but yourself.
Sure.... I will gladly address any of your concerns after and only after you address this below....
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718: ^^^A few questions. Don't duck and dodge em either. If there is such a thing as biological "races", what "race" then do you propose for those heavily mixed Southern Europeans to be a part of?
Southern Europeans who carry E3b, Benin hbs, L1 and L2 and J. Can you explain this?
Or perhaps you can explain how or why Europeans appear to be 2/3rd Asian and 1/3rd African? In actuality there are no Europeans just some mixed Asian and Africans.
"Europe shows a shorter genetic distance from Africa than do all the other continents......The overall contributions from Asia and Africa were estimated to be around two-thirds and one-third, respectively. Simulations have shown (7) that this hypothesis explains quite well the discrepancy between trees obtained by maximum likelihood and neighbor joining. " - L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza
-----
Or perhaps you can address if "Caucasoid" is a skeletal entity how do you to explain such Africans as the Tutsis of Rawanda who don't carry E3b but rather carry E3a, and address how or why E3a carrying Africans exhibit so called "Caucasoid" traits?
^^^After you address this you might be taken seriously.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
What's the point here? If there is no such thing as biological race what IS THE POINT of the question you are asking me? The first thing we have to do is determine what the goal of the conversation is. Even if I agreed with everything you asked the result would be....so what. Races do no exist.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: What's the point here? If there is no such thing as biological race what IS THE POINT of the question you are asking me? The first thing we have to do is determine what the goal of the conversation is. Even if I agreed with everything you asked the result would be....so what. Races do no exist.
Point is, if genetics equals "race", as you say. Then how come I just disproved "race" with genetics?
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I did not say that, I agree with you....race is not a biological construct. That being the case it does not matter who had E3b, nor does it matter where Egyptians came from or whether they were black Africans or Moonbeams.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: I did not say that, I agree with you....race is not a biological construct. That being the case it does not matter who had E3b, nor does it matter where Egyptians came from or whether they were black Africans or Moonbeams.
Only to "race" loons it's important. Our point is truth seeking. The point we want to get across is that Ancient Egyptians were in fact what race loons would call "black" African. No way around it. It's funny the extent some people will go to try and make east Africans non -African, so that they can say Africans never did anything. Which contradicts all history and science in general. Any real truth seeker would take offense to this, and correct it, as we are doing here.
The significance of the e3b admixture, is to point out the influence which came from Africa into near east and ten into Europe.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
IF they are really "race loons" you will not convince them. Frankly you run the risk of becoming "race loons" yourself. If there is no race from a bilogical standpoint then you CANNOT argue the Egyptians were black Africans because it would have no meaning. Sounds racist to me.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: IF they are really "race loons" you will not convince them. Frankly you run the risk of becoming "race loons" yourself. If there is no race from a bilogical standpoint then you CANNOT argue the Egyptians were black Africans because it would have no meaning. Sounds racist to me.
As you can see, I said Ancient Egyptians were to what race loons would call "black African", which basically is an nonsensical oxymoron in itself.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ It is only a waste of time for the ineducable. I hope this does not include you. Again, 'black African' is a valid and logical description of both skin color and geographic origin. It is NOT a 'racial' label unless one makes it so. Notice no one in here said anything about a black African 'race'. That is YOUR strawman presumption.
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Genetics is in the field of biology.
When you use genetics to make your points you are framing your arguments on race/biology. At the same time you say race does not exist.
Incorrect. The points we make based on genetics is about ANCESTRY. Ancestry does NOT equate to biologically distinct races.
quote:Now lets stop the childish name calling and attempt to answer the obvuous contradictions in your arguments.
There are no contradictions because we use genetics and physical anthropology to VALIDATE our point about ancestry and why 'race' does not exist.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:In fact, by not addressing these obligations below
I have no "obligation" to "address" any of your nonsense.
Of course that 'nonsense' is your own claims that are being followed up with requests for clarity; why do you think you don't have an obligation to back up your nonsense?
quote: All of the evidence is on my side.
Evidence for "what"; the problem is that you don't know what that "what" is either, let alone understand what "evidence" constitutes...another clear sign of your absolute lack of intuition on the subject matter.
quote: You know this very well, which is why you try to distract from it by asking pointless questions and requesting "explanations" of things
What is "it"? Your claims; if the request for clarity of your flimsy propagations is considered pointless, then my friend, does it not follow that those propagations that it is seeking to clarify -- from *material* and logic standpoint -- was pointless to begin with?
quote: you already understand and realize prove you wrong.
Well, if I were really wrong as you so-claim, does it not make sense that my simple followup clarification requests about your flimsy propagations would have immediately been attended to without difficulty, and put to rest once and for all?...but instead, you clearly appear to have difficulty in confronting them. Man, you could have saved energy from writing this flimsy whining of a response, and instead, loaded your reply to me with *material-laden answers*, but you chose to waste your time with this flimsy reply sporting neither specifics nor a head or tail to make out of it.
quote: I would say, rather, that it's you who have an obligation to address all of the peer-reviewed, published evidence sitting before you.
Oh I would, but remember, you haven't produced one that addresses your obligation waiting below...
quote:Originally posted by Explorateur:
quote:Originally posted by Debunker:
quote:Ah, but the question was what are the specificY and mtDNA uniparental markers that **Ethiopians share with Norwegians**, since you proclaimed such a close genetic connection between the two, if not implying that there is closer relationship there than there is between Ethiopians and other Africans; a fair question, no?
No, it's not a "fair question". It's a stupid question.
Now why would it be a stupid question, considering that you are saying that Ethiopians and Norwegians are more closely related than say, Ethiopians are to other Africans. Should it not be stupid to expect this relationship, as you apparently do, with no expression of such a "close relationship" in the uniparental markers that every single living soul ought to have? And if you don't realize that every living soul has to have uniparental markers, does that not then go back to the point about you not knowing head or tails about genealogical or bio-anthropological matters?
quote: Uniparental markers tell you nothing about the rest of the genome.
But *no* single line of marker, whether uniparental or otherwise, tells you about the rest of the human genome. This goes to provide another example of the fact that you are unschooled on the basics of genetics, doesn't it?!
quote: The Ouldeme of Cameroon share >90% haplogroup R with the Irish, yet the two groups are not at all related.
Of course they are, duh; they share a common recent ancestor that places them outside of that of other clades. Apply the concept of "learning to crawl before you walk" to genetics; you are not ready to debate on anything genetics.
quote: In a genome-wide analysis, they would occupy entirely different genetic/racial clusters.
What is the overall human genome; identify the specifics of its contents.
quote: On the flip side, you can have groups who don't share uniparentals but are closely related based on the entire genome and therefore share cluster membership, like Ethiopians and Norwegians.
Are you trying to say that the ancestry represented by an individual's uniparental markers is not expressed in the rest of the person's genome; that is, a person only inherits a single marker from his/her father and mother? Explain.
^This can't all be that difficult for you, can it? Don't let me down, you've done enough of that. Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know this might be a bit difficult for you as you're use to straw man arguments, but again please try to stick to what I actually say little rasolowitz. I'm not arguing against "ancient Egyptians identify themselves, and Kushites as Blacks", only your narrow Webster definition of what "black" is.
Rasolowitz: "black" is dark skinned pigmented people, like African Americans. Does this mean then that blacks such as Dubois, Malcolm X and Angela Davis aren't black? Does this mean too, as your Webster definition implies, that the Egyptians and Nubians aren't black since they do not uniformly possess "dark pigmentation of the skin"?
You see, it doesn't matter what white source and their updated definition of "negro" you come with, your stereotypically narrow definition does not appropriately describe the diversity in tone among the Egyptians and Nubians. Not unless you believe in the "true negro"...
quote:They identify Levatines and Libyans as Reds.There are no 'whites' in Kemetic color discourse, and none of the peoples above are Europeans either.
One is in fact identified as an "Indo–European" according to Van Setima's book. There is another "races of man" depiction in a different tomb (name escapes me) where one is also identified as "Indo-European". You can find it in Diop's book African Origin where he quotes Champollion's letters observing the different "races of man". But in any event your point is useless as 1) you already said color is subjective, so those skin tones are "white" to me, especially number two and 2) the context of my quote was re race as distinctions between various peoples based on observable (phenotypical) differences (as your own Wiki source says) hence "How did you tell a black (African) different from the white (foreigner)?" was in reference to said distinctions, never said anything about Egyptians having a word for "white".
So again, little rasolowitz, please try to refute what I say, not straw men.
And as for the color "red" as a descriptive term, are you saying it too is an "accurate description of skin color" for Libyans and Levantines/Hebrews? This would be news to Dena Reynolds! LOL As I said, you clowns will eventually f**k up!
quote:BUT that race in fact does exist as a distinction
quote:As a social distinction in America yes. In NAZI Germany the critical social race distinction is between Aryan and Jew
And in here the distinction is made re biological differences between black African and non-Africans. All you do is post geneticists identifying those differences! So what's your point here? You can throw in the usual predictable liberal anti-race arguments about Hitler's ideology blah blah blah, but whatever era we are referring to, it all boils down to categories/labels based on observable differences. Some labels (black) though subjctive are more "accurate" than others(negro), but the differences remain, and scholars point thm out.
E.g. Europeans appear to be 2/3rd Asian and 1/3rd African
Is this pointing to social categories or biology? In other words, how do you identify the "African" percentage in said "European" anyway? What do you use to separate, classify, categorize these different "types" to gt your %?if not observable differences? LOL You fools were right to ignore these contradictions. LOL
quote: The geneticists and anthropologists we quote don't believe in the biological concept of race.
Oh really now? As I showed, this is not as "black and white" as you would like.
quote:The point we want to get across is that Ancient Egyptians were in fact what race loons would call "black" African
Wow! division in the camp! And to top it all off here comes Mary to assure whiskey that he is indeed one of those "race loons"
quote:Again, 'black African' is a valid and logical description of both skin color and geographic origin.
Compounded by the fact that other so-called "Africanists", whiskeys team members, posters do agree with Mary's statement! they can't even agree on their BS
quote:Personal attacks bore me, and won't save you
This can be easily be said of you.
quote: There is no paradox, or contradiction, only your confusion which is due to the followng.1) You are grown man.2) You have the mind of a child.This is not paradox or contradiction. It is duality.^ This is why you respond to all posters [alTakruri, Knowledge, Dejhuti, and myself] in the same state of sour confusion over what you imagine to be some form of contradiction.Any adult thinking is beyound your limited perspective....your stock response is to 'wail and simper' against 'contradiction'.Your duality of being a grown man with a child's mind also explains why you still live in your mom's basement and steal your wireless internet connection from you next-door neighbors, but that's another issue.....
All slander and no issue.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
Genealogy *in the context of population genetics* has everything to do with where (and also when) lineages come from...
The subject of genealogy -- as your own post *unwittingly* makes clear [highlighted] -- is "lineage", which is essentially the "index of ancestry". I *strongly* suggest you brush up on the basic definition of the term.
quote:Debunker writes:
quote:Ethiopians and Khoisan share ancestry in haplogroups A and B ... Ethiopian L1-L2 did not come from mixture
None of those haplogroups were present in Ethiopia at the time of OOA, otherwise they would have been part of the L3/M168 out-migrations. That means their presence in Ethiopia today is due to recent gene flow from elsewhere in Africa.
From where *else* in Africa? Those deep-root lineages are primarily *predominant* in Eastern Africa [largely in Sudan and Ethiopia, but noticeable in other sub-Saharan Eastern African countries] and southern Africa [in KhoiSan groups]; we know where they don't come from -- the KhoiSans, as you've proclaimed. As noted, the KhoiSan and Ethiopian share deep-root markers, but at the same time *polarized* by distinct subclades; this means that there was a **long period of separation* between the two population complexes, wherein subsequent *localization* of markers would result in different subtypes belonging to a single lineage.
You speak of the need for deepest-root clades having to be present in OOA migrants, who are largely characterized by M168 markers; is it safe to say that you've never heard of the notion of 'founder effect'?...no doubt another sign that you have a lot, and I mean "a lot", to learn about the science at hand.
It is generally known that a *subset* of a parent population is considerably stripped off the diversity that characterizes the parent population, and so, a constellation of only a fairly limited index of traits of the parent population are contained within the subset group, with the result being that, only a certain trait or a few -- which would otherwise have been *relatively* obscured in the parent population index [of diversity] -- will be *extraordinarily* magnified once the subset group undergoes considerable expansion in a new locale. This is a feature of what is called a "founder effect". It would appear that such a founder effect occurred in Africa, shortly after which, OOA will lead to a new founder effect in Asia. Add the effect of neutral random genetic drift to this, and it doesn't perplex a perceptive mind to see how OOA populations have become largely characterized by M168 markers, and lack more deep-root markers like Hg A and B.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
:
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic