quote:Originally posted by DevilNegrokiller_Wolofi:
quote:Originally posted by astenb:
quote:Originally posted by DevilNegrokiller_Wolofi: ^^I have gone to her blog and she is not different than the people here. She rejects anything she doesn't want to believe just like the people here and I don't see any difference I'm afraid. I don't know who is right or wrong Matildas blog or Egyptsearch.
Well then that just means that MindoverMatter718 is correct and you simply dont have the aptitude to correctly understand genetics. But she doesn't either, simply writing about things she doesn't understand. So when she IS wrong she doesn't even understand WHY she is wrong because she doesn't understand the basic concepts of Genetics.
It is confusing for anyone who is not AFRICAN to try to understand African population genetics if they have not read about their OWN European Genetic history (Mathilda). When she does this she attempts to view African Genetics in a European or "Eurasian" context. Therefore TO HER E3a and E3b are totally separate and she cannot see them connected by the P2 Clade - even after ADMITTING that she DOESNT believe in the false idea that M35 is from the Middle East.
She cannot see the simplicity of it all and see how the genetic structure and layout of the A, B, and E haplogroups of Africans compare with the Haplogroups of her own Europeans...Because she hasn't studied Europeans, she is attempting to see Europeans in Africa. And this is what she blogs about. Studying Europeans in Africa by looking at African DNA, Language, and Culture??
No she is not worried about the male line she is talking about the female line like U6 and M1 those are the lineages she is saying proves her point.
As far as the male lineages she is just like me by not assuming because a lineage is African that that makes it black.
Thats all fine and dandy but when is a population expansion NOT tracked by its male Ancestry and IS tracked by its female? Also, Why do you "Assume" Male lineages in Europe are white? Which Groups in Africa have African Y-Dna and Mtdna and are NOT black? That foreign women DNA could have been slaves for all I care..........Thats how they see it every time they see African MTdna out of Africa (So lets keep it consistent)
As I explained to her Every study of M1 will show it LEAVING Ethiopia and going INTO Egypt and other surrounding Areas. I wont even argue about the Origin of M but I will say this: Indians dont HAVE M1 - Ultimately both M AND N are mutations of African L3 - Its a MOOT POINT - SO ask yourself WHO comes from WHO?
Again, both of you are looking at African Genetics from a NON-Africa view and trying to squeeze a non-African square peg into am African round hole. From L3 comes both M and N - If L3 is African how LONG do these Africans have to be out of African for M or N to NOT be Black.
A good Example is both E and D coming from DE* -Africans have DE* Since DE* gave birth to both Asian D and African E - It doesnt take a brain surgeon to see the first carriers of Haplogroup D would look like this:
A look that would fit anywhere in Africa or Any American city. Looking at this guy above : If people like HIM migrated BACK into Africa, and Africans had D, do you see how it would make no difference as to the "BLACKNESS" of a hypothetical African population that carried D? Now just apply this scenario to M1.
I will not comment on U6. And the study is STILL BOGUS because they didn't test for L3. Look at Zarahan map and see who else doesn't have L3.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by astenb: That foreign women DNA could have been slaves for all I care..........Thats how they see it every time they see African MTdna out of Africa (So lets keep it consistent)
This would be the most plausible scenario for the non African Mtdna lineages amongst North Africans.
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: As for the skin tone development in Imazighen groups of northwest African coast, this is what I've said before; I believe much of it occurred during the historic era of the Holocene, and in no small part due to...
"Trafficking of women from the other side of the Mediterranean sea as slaves surely must have left its own mark. This coupled with a tradition of polygamy [especially amongst those sections of north African populations which were Muslim-converts] would have facilitated households with sizeable headcount of offspring per a single male 'owner'.
So there were likely no white populations(not in large numbers at least), as we see them today in north Africa amongst geographically proximate populations, before historic times. Regardless, there was never a large non African male population as noted through uni-parentals. The large number of maternal genes is likely due to the Islamic era in North Africa, where the African Moors, took European female slaves, as well as many European wives etc(Polygamy)... This is how the maternal gene pool is predominantly European and to a lesser extent African, and paternally predominantly African, and to a lesser extent Asian.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DevilNegrokiller_Wolofi:
quote:Originally posted by astenb:
quote:Originally posted by DevilNegrokiller_Wolofi: ^^I have gone to her blog and she is not different than the people here. She rejects anything she doesn't want to believe just like the people here and I don't see any difference I'm afraid. I don't know who is right or wrong Matildas blog or Egyptsearch.
Well then that just means that MindoverMatter718 is correct and you simply dont have the aptitude to correctly understand genetics. But she doesn't either, simply writing about things she doesn't understand. So when she IS wrong she doesn't even understand WHY she is wrong because she doesn't understand the basic concepts of Genetics.
It is confusing for anyone who is not AFRICAN to try to understand African population genetics if they have not read about their OWN European Genetic history (Mathilda). When she does this she attempts to view African Genetics in a European or "Eurasian" context. Therefore TO HER E3a and E3b are totally separate and she cannot see them connected by the P2 Clade - even after ADMITTING that she DOESNT believe in the false idea that M35 is from the Middle East.
She cannot see the simplicity of it all and see how the genetic structure and layout of the A, B, and E haplogroups of Africans compare with the Haplogroups of her own Europeans...Because she hasn't studied Europeans, she is attempting to see Europeans in Africa. And this is what she blogs about. Studying Europeans in Africa by looking at African DNA, Language, and Culture??
No she is not worried about the male line she is talking about the female line like U6 and M1 those are the lineages she is saying proves her point.
As far as the male lineages she is just like me by not assuming because a lineage is African that that makes it black.
Thats all fine and dandy but when is a population expansion NOT tracked by its male Ancestry and IS tracked by its female? Also, Why do you "Assume" Male lineages in Europe are white? Which Groups in Africa have African Y-Dna and Mtdna and are NOT black? That foreign women DNA could have been slaves for all I care..........Thats how they see it every time they see African MTdna out of Africa (So lets keep it consistent)
As I explained to her Every study of M1 will show it LEAVING Ethiopia and going INTO Egypt and other surrounding Areas. I wont even argue about the Origin of M but I will say this: Indians dont HAVE M1 - Ultimately both M AND N are mutations of African L3 - Its a MOOT POINT - SO ask yourself WHO comes from WHO?
Again, both of you are looking at African Genetics from a NON-Africa view and trying to squeeze a non-African square peg into am African round hole. From L3 comes both M and N - If L3 is African how LONG do these Africans have to be out of African for M or N to NOT be Black.
A good Example is both E and D coming from DE* -Africans have DE* Since DE* gave birth to both Asian D and African E - It doesnt take a brain surgeon to see the first carriers of Haplogroup D would look like this:
A look that would fit anywhere in Africa or Any American city. Looking at this guy above : If people like HIM migrated BACK into Africa, and Africans had D, do you see how it would make no difference as to the "BLACKNESS" of a hypothetical African population that carried D? Now just apply this scenario to M1.
I will not comment on U6. And the study is STILL BOGUS because they didn't test for L3. Look at Zarahan map and see who else doesn't have L3.
People like Matilda are operating from a position of white supremacy. Therefore, in their world view whites MUST be first among humans in terms of genetics and civilization. So they will do whatever they can to make a square hole out of a round one in order for their logic to fit. They know that there were no white Europeans 40,000 years ago. But they don't care, they are trying to build a case for white supremacy and that is what they are going to do in any historical or biological context. That is why trying to argue with them as if it is a simple case of them making honest mistakes is a bad position. The only position to take is that they are arguing from a position of intellectual dishonesty and proceed from that.
So if they don't claim or insinuate that white Europeans populated North Africa 40,000 years ago, they will insinuate that white Eurasians did. But again, just as there were no whites in Europe 40,000 years ago, so too were there no whites in Eurasia. Therefore, whatever genes were being carried by populations back then, they were still black, especially populations in and around Africa. So no matter if M1 arose outside of Africa, it still arose in a population of blacks. Likewise the first J lineages, N lineages and R lineages. Genotype is not phenotype, but again, for racist whites they will claim any lineage in Europe from any time frame as being white. And the obvious reason for this is to DENY the fact that all humans originate in Africa, that ALL features arose in Africa (except white skin), so that they can pretend that whites are somehow distinct and separate from the blacks that birthed them.
The ultimate extension and manifestation of this sort of racist logic is that ancient populations in Sudan have Eurasian ancestry from migrations 40,000 years ago. Anyone who would even consider that as a statement of the ancient Sudanese being white or somehow non black is someone seriously without common sense. Of course the ONLY reason Matilda even MAKES this claim is so that she can claim that Africans really didn't even build the ancient civilizations of Sudan except for "white" Eurasian genetic mixture, let alone that ancient Egypt was originated by blacks.
Such logic is predictable and laughable to say the least.
As a perfect example of the kind of nonsense that Matilda would regurgitate in response to your question about the Andamese and haplogroup D and M1, she may produce the following:
quote: Background
The phylogeography of the Y chromosome in Asia previously suggested that modern humans of African origin initially settled in mainland southern East Asia, and about 25,000–30,000 years ago, migrated northward, spreading throughout East Asia. However, the fragmented distribution of one East Asian specific Y chromosome lineage (D-M174), which is found at high frequencies only in Tibet, Japan and the Andaman Islands, is inconsistent with this scenario. Results
In this study, we collected more than 5,000 male samples from 73 East Asian populations and reconstructed the phylogeography of the D-M174 lineage. Our results suggest that D-M174 represents an extremely ancient lineage of modern humans in East Asia, and a deep divergence was observed between northern and southern populations. Conclusion
We proposed that D-M174 has a southern origin and its northward expansion occurred about 60,000 years ago, predating the northward migration of other major East Asian lineages. The Neolithic expansion of Han culture and the last glacial maximum are likely the key factors leading to the current relic distribution of D-M174 in East Asia. The Tibetan and Japanese populations are the admixture of two ancient populations represented by two major East Asian specific Y chromosome lineages, the O and D haplogroups.
Such a study showing a "deep divergence between southern and Northern populations" proves that there were whites roaming around 40,000 years ago.
Of course the only way to prove this is through extant remains from that time period, but of course such analysis will not be put forward by Matilda of course.
Now what the study actually says, as opposed to the racist distortions of some racists, is that people like the Andamese were the first Asians and this happened 60,000 years ago and is the original basis of the black Buddha with tight curly knots on his head.
Posts: 8907 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DevilNegrokiller_Wolofi:
quote:Originally posted by astenb:
quote:Originally posted by DevilNegrokiller_Wolofi: ^^I have gone to her blog and she is not different than the people here. She rejects anything she doesn't want to believe just like the people here and I don't see any difference I'm afraid. I don't know who is right or wrong Matildas blog or Egyptsearch.
Well then that just means that MindoverMatter718 is correct and you simply dont have the aptitude to correctly understand genetics. But she doesn't either, simply writing about things she doesn't understand. So when she IS wrong she doesn't even understand WHY she is wrong because she doesn't understand the basic concepts of Genetics.
It is confusing for anyone who is not AFRICAN to try to understand African population genetics if they have not read about their OWN European Genetic history (Mathilda). When she does this she attempts to view African Genetics in a European or "Eurasian" context. Therefore TO HER E3a and E3b are totally separate and she cannot see them connected by the P2 Clade - even after ADMITTING that she DOESNT believe in the false idea that M35 is from the Middle East.
She cannot see the simplicity of it all and see how the genetic structure and layout of the A, B, and E haplogroups of Africans compare with the Haplogroups of her own Europeans...Because she hasn't studied Europeans, she is attempting to see Europeans in Africa. And this is what she blogs about. Studying Europeans in Africa by looking at African DNA, Language, and Culture??
No she is not worried about the male line she is talking about the female line like U6 and M1 those are the lineages she is saying proves her point.
As far as the male lineages she is just like me by not assuming because a lineage is African that that makes it black.
Thats all fine and dandy but when is a population expansion NOT tracked by its male Ancestry and IS tracked by its female? Also, Why do you "Assume" Male lineages in Europe are white? Which Groups in Africa have African Y-Dna and Mtdna and are NOT black? That foreign women DNA could have been slaves for all I care..........Thats how they see it every time they see African MTdna out of Africa (So lets keep it consistent)
As I explained to her Every study of M1 will show it LEAVING Ethiopia and going INTO Egypt and other surrounding Areas. I wont even argue about the Origin of M but I will say this: Indians dont HAVE M1 - Ultimately both M AND N are mutations of African L3 - Its a MOOT POINT - SO ask yourself WHO comes from WHO?
Again, both of you are looking at African Genetics from a NON-Africa view and trying to squeeze a non-African square peg into am African round hole. From L3 comes both M and N - If L3 is African how LONG do these Africans have to be out of African for M or N to NOT be Black.
A good Example is both E and D coming from DE* -Africans have DE* Since DE* gave birth to both Asian D and African E - It doesnt take a brain surgeon to see the first carriers of Haplogroup D would look like this:
A look that would fit anywhere in Africa or Any American city. Looking at this guy above : If people like HIM migrated BACK into Africa, and Africans had D, do you see how it would make no difference as to the "BLACKNESS" of a hypothetical African population that carried D? Now just apply this scenario to M1.
I will not comment on U6. And the study is STILL BOGUS because they didn't test for L3. Look at Zarahan map and see who else doesn't have L3.
I totally understand your point BUt based on the rules that both parties Afrocentrics and Eurocentrics have to go by..population genetics deals with continental populations and not color. By U6 and M1 being Asian that allows them to hijack North Africa as well as haplogroup J on the paternal side. I did not make the rules astenb the Anthropologists did and the Eurocentrics are following them while the Afrocentrics aren't.
Afrocentrics saying that haplogroups are "black" are no different than Eurocentrics saying haplogroups are caucasoid. And lets not forget the new revelation from Keita stating that Tropical traits can be re-acquired lol - of course this opens up a WHOLE new can of worms and is perfect for Eurocentric arsenal .
Posts: 152 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DevilNegrokiller_Wolofi:
quote:Originally posted by astenb:
quote:Originally posted by DevilNegrokiller_Wolofi:
quote:Originally posted by astenb:
quote:Originally posted by DevilNegrokiller_Wolofi: ^^I have gone to her blog and she is not different than the people here. She rejects anything she doesn't want to believe just like the people here and I don't see any difference I'm afraid. I don't know who is right or wrong Matildas blog or Egyptsearch.
Well then that just means that MindoverMatter718 is correct and you simply dont have the aptitude to correctly understand genetics. But she doesn't either, simply writing about things she doesn't understand. So when she IS wrong she doesn't even understand WHY she is wrong because she doesn't understand the basic concepts of Genetics.
It is confusing for anyone who is not AFRICAN to try to understand African population genetics if they have not read about their OWN European Genetic history (Mathilda). When she does this she attempts to view African Genetics in a European or "Eurasian" context. Therefore TO HER E3a and E3b are totally separate and she cannot see them connected by the P2 Clade - even after ADMITTING that she DOESNT believe in the false idea that M35 is from the Middle East.
She cannot see the simplicity of it all and see how the genetic structure and layout of the A, B, and E haplogroups of Africans compare with the Haplogroups of her own Europeans...Because she hasn't studied Europeans, she is attempting to see Europeans in Africa. And this is what she blogs about. Studying Europeans in Africa by looking at African DNA, Language, and Culture??
No she is not worried about the male line she is talking about the female line like U6 and M1 those are the lineages she is saying proves her point.
As far as the male lineages she is just like me by not assuming because a lineage is African that that makes it black.
Thats all fine and dandy but when is a population expansion NOT tracked by its male Ancestry and IS tracked by its female? Also, Why do you "Assume" Male lineages in Europe are white? Which Groups in Africa have African Y-Dna and Mtdna and are NOT black? That foreign women DNA could have been slaves for all I care..........Thats how they see it every time they see African MTdna out of Africa (So lets keep it consistent)
As I explained to her Every study of M1 will show it LEAVING Ethiopia and going INTO Egypt and other surrounding Areas. I wont even argue about the Origin of M but I will say this: Indians dont HAVE M1 - Ultimately both M AND N are mutations of African L3 - Its a MOOT POINT - SO ask yourself WHO comes from WHO?
Again, both of you are looking at African Genetics from a NON-Africa view and trying to squeeze a non-African square peg into am African round hole. From L3 comes both M and N - If L3 is African how LONG do these Africans have to be out of African for M or N to NOT be Black.
A good Example is both E and D coming from DE* -Africans have DE* Since DE* gave birth to both Asian D and African E - It doesnt take a brain surgeon to see the first carriers of Haplogroup D would look like this:
A look that would fit anywhere in Africa or Any American city. Looking at this guy above : If people like HIM migrated BACK into Africa, and Africans had D, do you see how it would make no difference as to the "BLACKNESS" of a hypothetical African population that carried D? Now just apply this scenario to M1.
I will not comment on U6. And the study is STILL BOGUS because they didn't test for L3. Look at Zarahan map and see who else doesn't have L3.
I totally understand your point BUt based on the rules that both parties Afrocentrics and Eurocentrics have to go by..population genetics deals with continental populations and not color. By U6 and M1 being Asian that allows them to hijack North Africa as well as haplogroup J on the paternal side. I did not make the rules astenb the Anthropologists did and the Eurocentrics are following them while the Afrocentrics aren't.
Afrocentrics saying that haplogroups are "black" are no different than Eurocentrics saying haplogroups are caucasoid. And lets not forget the new revelation from Keita stating that Tropical traits can be re-acquired lol - of course this opens up a WHOLE new can of worms and is perfect for Eurocentric arsenal .
Actually genotype isn't phenotype and therefore no sane scholar would argue phenotype based on genotypes. J, M, N and all the other lineages 40,50 or 60,000 thousand years ago tell you nothing about phenotype. Scientific understanding of phenotypes from those time periods are based on physical and biological anthropology by analyzing the traits of the remains from that time period. It is from THAT analysis that most scientists identify the traits or phenotypes of ancient human populations and by extrapolation make inferences about skin color.
NOBODY should be trying to say that some population from 40,000 years ago in Eurasia represents white genes flowing into North Africa because genetic lineages aren't phenotypes.
ALL genetic and physical data supports the fact that humans originate in Africa and that Africa is the basis of human diversity, therefore anyone arguing that Europe is or Asia is or ANYWHERE ELSE but Africa is the basis and origin of human genetic or physical diversity is plain talking nonsense.
Posts: 8907 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
White boy/girl, you are pathetic! You take half a day to respond in French, but can't respond in Wolof? I don't know any Senegalese that can't speak both, and I know some that were born in america that are still learning french but DO speak Wolof.
You are an absolute FAKE!! This whole argument was based on YOU saying African people can only be dark, and anyone NOT dark is mixed. That's purely idiotic, ESPECIALLY in the south and east where the majority is NOT dark.
Just leave this thread and stop with the elementary school french. Even I could understand that basic 101 crap and I don't even speak french.
And it shows, when someone has been using the online "English-to-French" translation tools
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
People like Matilda are operating from a position of white supremacy. Therefore, in their world view whites MUST be first among humans in terms of genetics and civilization. So they will do whatever they can to make a square hole out of a round one in order for their logic to fit. They know that there were no white Europeans 40,000 years ago. But they don't care, they are trying to build a case for white supremacy and that is what they are going to do in any historical or biological context. That is why trying to argue with them as if it is a simple case of them making honest mistakes is a bad position. The only position to take is that they are arguing from a position of intellectual dishonesty and proceed from that.
So if they don't claim or insinuate that white Europeans populated North Africa 40,000 years ago, they will insinuate that white Eurasians did. But again, just as there were no whites in Europe 40,000 years ago, so too were there no whites in Eurasia. Therefore, whatever genes were being carried by populations back then, they were still black, especially populations in and around Africa. So no matter if M1 arose outside of Africa, it still arose in a population of blacks.
Notwithstanding the hypothetical, there is no evidence of M1 emerging outside of Africa. Not that every turn has been taken to find such an evidence, but at the end of the day, they all amount to nada!
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DevilNegrokiller_Wolofi:
quote:Originally posted by astenb:
quote:Originally posted by DevilNegrokiller_Wolofi:
quote:Originally posted by astenb:
quote:Originally posted by DevilNegrokiller_Wolofi: ^^I have gone to her blog and she is not different than the people here. She rejects anything she doesn't want to believe just like the people here and I don't see any difference I'm afraid. I don't know who is right or wrong Matildas blog or Egyptsearch.
Well then that just means that MindoverMatter718 is correct and you simply dont have the aptitude to correctly understand genetics. But she doesn't either, simply writing about things she doesn't understand. So when she IS wrong she doesn't even understand WHY she is wrong because she doesn't understand the basic concepts of Genetics.
It is confusing for anyone who is not AFRICAN to try to understand African population genetics if they have not read about their OWN European Genetic history (Mathilda). When she does this she attempts to view African Genetics in a European or "Eurasian" context. Therefore TO HER E3a and E3b are totally separate and she cannot see them connected by the P2 Clade - even after ADMITTING that she DOESNT believe in the false idea that M35 is from the Middle East.
She cannot see the simplicity of it all and see how the genetic structure and layout of the A, B, and E haplogroups of Africans compare with the Haplogroups of her own Europeans...Because she hasn't studied Europeans, she is attempting to see Europeans in Africa. And this is what she blogs about. Studying Europeans in Africa by looking at African DNA, Language, and Culture??
No she is not worried about the male line she is talking about the female line like U6 and M1 those are the lineages she is saying proves her point.
As far as the male lineages she is just like me by not assuming because a lineage is African that that makes it black.
Thats all fine and dandy but when is a population expansion NOT tracked by its male Ancestry and IS tracked by its female? Also, Why do you "Assume" Male lineages in Europe are white? Which Groups in Africa have African Y-Dna and Mtdna and are NOT black? That foreign women DNA could have been slaves for all I care..........Thats how they see it every time they see African MTdna out of Africa (So lets keep it consistent)
As I explained to her Every study of M1 will show it LEAVING Ethiopia and going INTO Egypt and other surrounding Areas. I wont even argue about the Origin of M but I will say this: Indians dont HAVE M1 - Ultimately both M AND N are mutations of African L3 - Its a MOOT POINT - SO ask yourself WHO comes from WHO?
Again, both of you are looking at African Genetics from a NON-Africa view and trying to squeeze a non-African square peg into am African round hole. From L3 comes both M and N - If L3 is African how LONG do these Africans have to be out of African for M or N to NOT be Black.
A good Example is both E and D coming from DE* -Africans have DE* Since DE* gave birth to both Asian D and African E - It doesnt take a brain surgeon to see the first carriers of Haplogroup D would look like this:
A look that would fit anywhere in Africa or Any American city. Looking at this guy above : If people like HIM migrated BACK into Africa, and Africans had D, do you see how it would make no difference as to the "BLACKNESS" of a hypothetical African population that carried D? Now just apply this scenario to M1.
I will not comment on U6. And the study is STILL BOGUS because they didn't test for L3. Look at Zarahan map and see who else doesn't have L3.
I totally understand your point BUt based on the rules that both parties Afrocentrics and Eurocentrics have to go by..population genetics deals with continental populations and not color. By U6 and M1 being Asian that allows them to hijack North Africa as well as haplogroup J on the paternal side. I did not make the rules astenb the Anthropologists did and the Eurocentrics are following them while the Afrocentrics aren't.
Afrocentrics saying that haplogroups are "black" are no different than Eurocentrics saying haplogroups are caucasoid. And lets not forget the new revelation from Keita stating that Tropical traits can be re-acquired lol - of course this opens up a WHOLE new can of worms and is perfect for Eurocentric arsenal .
DEFINE : caucasoid
It doesnt allow them to hijack anything. It all depends on the AREA and the TIME FRAME. Like the example I posted "ASIAN" doesnt always REMOVE BLACK. You can be both BLACK and ASIAN. And as a matter of fact the ORIGINAL "ASIANS" were in fact BLACK. The "Asians" of Southern India are STILL "Black." Aboriginals of Paupa New Guinea, MELANesia, Australia, etc Are BLACK...........But they are not African.
"Caucasian" is a loaded term when speaking of "Genetics" What is the equivalent term for Dark Skin peoples?
And she is talking about 40 THOUSAND years ago, what did everybody look like 40 Thousand years ago? She can trick anyone who is uneducated.
-And Egyptians STILL have L0-L3. -And the Sudanese mummy STILL was not tested for L3. Who said it had to be U6 or M1? What if it was L3?
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DevilNegrokiller_Wolofi:
quote:Originally posted by astenb:
quote:Originally posted by DevilNegrokiller_Wolofi:
quote:Originally posted by astenb:
quote:Originally posted by DevilNegrokiller_Wolofi: ^^I have gone to her blog and she is not different than the people here. She rejects anything she doesn't want to believe just like the people here and I don't see any difference I'm afraid. I don't know who is right or wrong Matildas blog or Egyptsearch.
Well then that just means that MindoverMatter718 is correct and you simply dont have the aptitude to correctly understand genetics. But she doesn't either, simply writing about things she doesn't understand. So when she IS wrong she doesn't even understand WHY she is wrong because she doesn't understand the basic concepts of Genetics.
It is confusing for anyone who is not AFRICAN to try to understand African population genetics if they have not read about their OWN European Genetic history (Mathilda). When she does this she attempts to view African Genetics in a European or "Eurasian" context. Therefore TO HER E3a and E3b are totally separate and she cannot see them connected by the P2 Clade - even after ADMITTING that she DOESNT believe in the false idea that M35 is from the Middle East.
She cannot see the simplicity of it all and see how the genetic structure and layout of the A, B, and E haplogroups of Africans compare with the Haplogroups of her own Europeans...Because she hasn't studied Europeans, she is attempting to see Europeans in Africa. And this is what she blogs about. Studying Europeans in Africa by looking at African DNA, Language, and Culture??
No she is not worried about the male line she is talking about the female line like U6 and M1 those are the lineages she is saying proves her point.
As far as the male lineages she is just like me by not assuming because a lineage is African that that makes it black.
Thats all fine and dandy but when is a population expansion NOT tracked by its male Ancestry and IS tracked by its female? Also, Why do you "Assume" Male lineages in Europe are white? Which Groups in Africa have African Y-Dna and Mtdna and are NOT black? That foreign women DNA could have been slaves for all I care..........Thats how they see it every time they see African MTdna out of Africa (So lets keep it consistent)
As I explained to her Every study of M1 will show it LEAVING Ethiopia and going INTO Egypt and other surrounding Areas. I wont even argue about the Origin of M but I will say this: Indians dont HAVE M1 - Ultimately both M AND N are mutations of African L3 - Its a MOOT POINT - SO ask yourself WHO comes from WHO?
Again, both of you are looking at African Genetics from a NON-Africa view and trying to squeeze a non-African square peg into am African round hole. From L3 comes both M and N - If L3 is African how LONG do these Africans have to be out of African for M or N to NOT be Black.
A good Example is both E and D coming from DE* -Africans have DE* Since DE* gave birth to both Asian D and African E - It doesnt take a brain surgeon to see the first carriers of Haplogroup D would look like this:
A look that would fit anywhere in Africa or Any American city. Looking at this guy above : If people like HIM migrated BACK into Africa, and Africans had D, do you see how it would make no difference as to the "BLACKNESS" of a hypothetical African population that carried D? Now just apply this scenario to M1.
I will not comment on U6. And the study is STILL BOGUS because they didn't test for L3. Look at Zarahan map and see who else doesn't have L3.
I totally understand your point BUt based on the rules that both parties Afrocentrics and Eurocentrics have to go by..population genetics deals with continental populations and not color. By U6 and M1 being Asian that allows them to hijack North Africa as well as haplogroup J on the paternal side. I did not make the rules astenb the Anthropologists did and the Eurocentrics are following them while the Afrocentrics aren't.
Afrocentrics saying that haplogroups are "black" are no different than Eurocentrics saying haplogroups are caucasoid. And lets not forget the new revelation from Keita stating that Tropical traits can be re-acquired lol - of course this opens up a WHOLE new can of worms and is perfect for Eurocentric arsenal .
DEFINE : caucasoid
It doesnt allow them to hijack anything. It all depends on the AREA and the TIME FRAME. Like the example I posted "ASIAN" doesnt always REMOVE BLACK. You can be both BLACK and ASIAN. And as a matter of fact the ORIGINAL "ASIANS" were in fact BLACK. The "Asians" of Southern India are STILL "Black." Aboriginals of Paupa New Guinea, MELANesia, Australia, etc Are BLACK...........But they are not African.
"Caucasian" is a loaded term when speaking of "Genetics" What is the equivalent term for Dark Skin peoples?
And she is talking about 40 THOUSAND years ago, what did everybody look like 40 Thousand years ago? She can trick anyone who is uneducated.
-And Egyptians STILL have L0-L3. -And the Sudanese mummy STILL was not tested for L3. Who said it had to be U6 or M1? What if it was L3?
EXACTLY! Caucasoid = A catch-all term embodying every and any human being that is not so OVERTLY 'negro and prognathous' that academicians can get away with claiming that they have white ancestry. The term caucasoid is a JOKE! It doesn't even have to refer to the Caucas populations anymore! Low prognathism = caucasoid, narrow nose = caucasoid, light skin = caucasoid, any genetic marker not prodominant in west Africa = caucasoid, straight hair = caucasoid, darkskin with straight hair = caucasoid, non bantu language = caucasoid, arabs = caucasoid, indian = caucasoid, native americans = caucasoid, aborgines = caucasoid, my red skinned son = 80% caucasoid according to western academicians...
I think the only NON- caucasoid on this planet was Shaka Zulu....
**** outta here with caucasoid. No such thing.
Posts: 365 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Assopen farted: Yeh, just as how your anti-James propaganda was silenced here.
No, more like YOUR dumb lying as is silenced!
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: OK, I presented this once but, since it was more than obviously ignored and roorag to the contrary is flying about yet again, here it is one more time.
What precisely does James mean by stolen legacy? Let's let him answer in his own words:
Does everyone understand that James' title Stolen Legacy is in reference to later historians erroneously labeling Aristotles' students compiling the traditional Sophia or Wisdom of the Egyptians.
Any other claim as to what James means is spurious and results from not reading what James himself explains is meany by the phrase 'stolen legacy.'
So you're caught in ANOTHER lie. Moving on to the topic at hand...
Posts: 26441 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Correct. And to make matters worse, there are non-African Asians who exhibit "true negroid" crannio-facial features and have about as NOTHING to do with Africa than Japanese and Native Americans.
Posts: 26441 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
I do believe you were asked to substantiate something. Stolen Legacy. And something else...about Classical "Greek" philosophy being "home grown".
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:EXACTLY! Caucasoid = A catch-all term embodying every and any human being that is not so OVERTLY 'negro and prognathous' that academicians can get away with claiming that they have white ancestry. The term caucasoid is a JOKE! It doesn't even have to refer to the Caucas populations anymore! Low prognathism = caucasoid, narrow nose = caucasoid, light skin = caucasoid, any genetic marker not prodominant in west Africa = caucasoid, straight hair = caucasoid, darkskin with straight hair = caucasoid, non bantu language = caucasoid, arabs = caucasoid, indian = caucasoid, native americans = caucasoid, aborgines = caucasoid, my red skinned son = 80% caucasoid according to western academicians...
I think the only NON- caucasoid on this planet was Shaka Zulu....
**** outta here with caucasoid. No such thing.
Correction, the only thing not "caucasoid" or "eurasian" is a bush dweller with a bone through the nose. "Eurasian" is the new "caucasoid"
Its even worse when African people fall into this trap.
Posts: 100 | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
DevilNegrokiller_Wolofi aka the white boy with pink blisters on his penis wrote: ---------------------------------- Like I said..Light skin is not an African trait unless their is mixture OR you have someone that has an ancestor that was albino(this is what causes yellow bastards) ----------------------------------
BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA!!!
Po old pitiful white boy. Is this what your sorry life has been reduced to, a desperate call for attention in order to beg us for some ointment for your penis?
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
.
Printer-friendly view of this topic