posted
Notice. I follow the facts and evidence. I dis-agree with the lunatic and MOM that the Asians entered the Americas , dark. Why? The timeline. . . and geography. Send me a PM with your phone number and I will explain to you. wink! wink!
But seriously. This is your home work assignment.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
To be honest, I have never cared about what color a person is or whatever race they think they belong to. I try to treat people as they treat me. I could care less if you're green or yellow.
I wonder why people care so much beyond the obvious colour confrontation that manifests as "white supremacy".?
Are we not all one? All the humans, animals and plants??
Posts: 525 | From: Terra | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
But alas, it turns out that you are just another victim of the White mans propaganda and misinformation machine.
Your were correct when you said that extreme European Albinism can be traced to the Germans. But then you got lost with the White mans bullsh1t.
"NO" the palest people are NOT in Scandinavia. Though the Scandinavians may have a preponderance of Blonds, that by itself is not an indicator.
The Germanic peoples of the British Isles and Germany are the palest people. Forget the bullsh1t about UV regions, it has nothing to do with pale skin: Albinism does.
posted
Come-on Boys and Girls; I thought by now someone would have connected the dots and popped-up with:
Oh Ya, Right: that's probably why the Germanics of Britain (and their American migrants) are the apparent creators of Racism.
Oh Ya, Right: that's probably why the Germanics of Holland (and their American and South African (Afrikaners) migrants) are the apparent creators of Racism.
Oh Ya, Right: that's probably why the Germanics of Belgium (and their American migrants) are the apparent creators of Racism.
Oh Ya, Right: that's probably why the Germanics of Germany (and their American migrants) are the apparent creators of Racism.
Think about it folks, how many other Europeans make such a thing about Race?
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
In conclusion the original home of the Caucasians was the caves of the Caucasus mountains. They were let out of the caves by tectonic events that weakend Black civilizations after 1500BC to such an extent as to make the Black civilizations in Europe and elsewhere, open for invasion and genocide.
This is a very heavy statement.
Posts: 525 | From: Terra | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good question. This is a thinking man or woman. "When did it happen?" We have an idea on where. The Rana(?) study posted on ESR explains "how".
When? - The timeline gives us a clue. . . tick! tock! tick! tock!
Here is a hint - it had nothing(Nada) to do with diet per MOM et al and Dr Lablonski. Why, because the Neolithic revolution took place "AFTER" the skin turned white. PLUS southern Europeans, near the sea would of remained black/brown. Hell if the Inuit remained dark because of sea food then the Greeks and Italians would of also reamin dark. LOL! That's the problem with these Europeans and their BS theories. They never see the big picture. To them the world "IS" Europe.
quote:Originally posted by hottoddi:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
The original home of the Caucasians was the Caucasus Mountains.
.
. They came from the caves after 2000BC [/b] .
AND WHEN EXACTLY DID THEY GO INTO THE CAVES???
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Notice. I follow the facts and evidence. I dis-agree with the lunatic and MOM that the Asians entered the Americas , dark. Why? The timeline. . . and geography.
Why do you disagree?
Posts: 525 | From: Terra | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with you Mike. We have to always read between the lines when these papers are published. But I always say it is in their discussion/conclusion where they spin their BS. The data are most times useful.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry dude/dudette. Go read some old threads to get the full story.
As I said these are recycled arguments.
quote:Originally posted by hottoddi:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Notice. I follow the facts and evidence. I dis-agree with the lunatic and MOM that the Asians entered the Americas , dark. Why? The timeline. . . and geography.
Why do you disagree?
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
when I was in UK last year read a newspaper article that said the ancestor of blue eyed people was someone that would have had to have sex with offspring! Cant find the exact article but this is where it must have come from http://www.livescience.com/health/080131-blue-eyes.htmlPosts: 314 | From: australia | Registered: Jul 2010
| IP: Logged |
When? - The timeline gives us a clue. . . tick! tock! tick! tock!
Here is a hint - it had nothing(Nada) to do with diet per MOM et al and Dr Lablonski. Why, because the Neolithic revolution took place "AFTER" the skin turned white. PLUS southern Europeans, near the sea would of remained black/brown. Hell if the Inuit remained dark because of sea food then the Greeks and Italians would of also reamin dark. LOL! That's the problem with these Europeans and their BS theories. They never see the big picture. To them the world "IS" Europe.
When you talk about the Europeans' BS theories on what causes variation in skin pigmentation would you like to now retract your earlier European theory for the variation in skin pigmentation you made below and the Rana,Harding study as well? Which you kept referring to, which by the way (see your PDF) supports the vitamin D hypothesis?
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: According to the global UV intensity/skin pigmentation map the lightest skin should be found . . . in the Scandinavian regions of Europe. And guess where the white-ist, blondest people are found today. The Scandinavian regions of Europe. SUPRISE!! This is a no-brainer. It is not rocket science.
you're all over the map as usual xyyman. Greece and Italy? take your own advice, look at the timeline, they descended from higher latitudes
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
This is a prime example of subjunctive speech patterns. the words are English but the conveyance is foreign. the speaker intends to say "Where did the first caucasians' originate? " with [u]first[/u] acting as the stressing adjective following a definite article. The pattern above is well established in the African languages with the subject first and the adjective last "caucasians first". A beginner[in English] would not understand this because he would be taught the grammar of the European.
arabic: من اين بلدي كان القوقازيون الاولي؟ min ayn baladi kanal qaqaziyoonul ulaa? from where country were the caucasians first
-------------------- لا اله الا الله و محمد الرسول الله Posts: 495 | From: anchorage, alaska | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
you saying Lioness is an Arab , , , eh , , Turk
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: xyyman - You came SO close.
But alas, it turns out that you are just another victim of the White mans propaganda and misinformation machine.
Your were correct when you said that extreme European Albinism can be traced to the Germans. But then you got lost with the White mans bullsh1t.
"NO" the palest people are NOT in Scandinavia. Though the Scandinavians may have a preponderance of Blonds, that by itself is not an indicator.
The Germanic peoples of the British Isles and Germany are the palest people. Forget the bullsh1t about UV regions, it has nothing to do with pale skin: Albinism does.
xyyman - I have to admit, when faced with a deluge of Whiteman's bullsh1t like this, it's tough to parse the truth from the bullsh1t. But I'm going to try.
One Common Ancestor Behind Blue Eyes
By Jeanna Bryner, LiveScience Staff Writer
posted: 31 January 2008 08:34 am ET
People with blue eyes have a single, common ancestor, according to new research.
A team of scientists has tracked down a genetic mutation that leads to blue eyes. The mutation occurred between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago. Before then, there were no blue eyes.
{Here we see a perfect example of not only the Whiteman lying his ass-off, but also the White mans "Hubris": exaggerated pride or self-confidence: means extreme haughtiness or arrogance. Hubris often indicates being out of touch with reality}
Blue eyes, like Blond hair, are of course NOT unique to European White people, but are found in ALL Albino producing populations - that means that it is EVERYWHERE!
Additionally, science has already proven that the Albinos became a SEPARATE race (by breeding exclusively among themselves) about 40,000 years ago, NOT 6,000 and 10,000 years.
"Originally, we all had brown eyes," said Hans Eiberg from the Department of Cellular and Molecular Medicine at the University of Copenhagen.
The mutation affected the so-called OCA2 gene, which is involved in the production of melanin, the pigment that gives color to our hair, eyes and skin.
"A genetic mutation affecting the OCA2 gene in our chromosomes resulted in the creation of a 'switch,' which literally 'turned off' the ability to produce brown eyes," Eiberg said.
The genetic switch is located in the gene adjacent to OCA2 and rather than completely turning off the gene, the switch limits its action, which reduces the production of melanin in the iris. In effect, the turned-down switch diluted brown eyes to blue.
If the OCA2 gene had been completely shut down, our hair, eyes and skin would be melanin-less, a condition known as albinism.
Here is where they REALLY get cute:
Let me paraphrase: "Only people with ABSOLUTELY NO Melanin are truly Albinos. Because we have SOME melanin, we are NOT really Albinos - he,he.
Definition: Albinism is a form of hypopigmentary congenital disorder, characterized by a partial or total lack of melanin pigment in the eyes, skin and hair.
Albinism is hereditary; The principal gene which results in albinism prevents the body from making the usual amounts of the pigment melanin. Most forms of albinism are the result of the biological inheritance of genetically recessive alleles (genes) passed from both parents of an individual, though some rare forms are inherited from only one parent.
Because organisms with albinism have skin that lacks (sufficiently or entirely) the dark pigment melanin, which helps protect the skin from ultraviolet radiation coming from the sun, they can sunburn easily from overexposure. Lack of melanin in the eye also results in problems with vision. The gene OCA2, when in a variant form, the gene causes the pink eye color and hypopigmentation common in human albinism. Different SNPs within OCA2 are strongly associated with blue and green eyes.
"It's exactly what I sort of expected to see from what we know about selection around this area," said John Hawks of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, referring to the study results regarding the OCA2 gene. Hawks was not involved in the current study.
Baby blues
Eiberg and his team examined DNA from mitochondria, the cells' energy-making structures, of blue-eyed individuals in countries including Jordan, Denmark and Turkey. This genetic material comes from females, so it can trace maternal lineages.
They specifically looked at sequences of DNA on the OCA2 gene and the genetic mutation associated with turning down melanin production.
Over the course of several generations, segments of ancestral DNA get shuffled so that individuals have varying sequences. Some of these segments, however, that haven't been reshuffled are called haplotypes. If a group of individuals shares long haplotypes, that means the sequence arose relatively recently in our human ancestors. The DNA sequence didn't have enough time to get mixed up.
"What they were able to show is that the people who have blue eyes in Denmark, as far as Jordan, these people all have this same haplotype, they all have exactly the same gene changes that are all linked to this one mutation that makes eyes blue," Hawks said in a telephone interview.
Melanin switch
The mutation is what regulates the OCA2 switch for melanin production. And depending on the amount of melanin in the iris, a person can end up with eye color ranging from brown to green. Brown-eyed individuals have considerable individual variation in the area of their DNA that controls melanin production. But they found that blue-eyed individuals only have a small degree of variation in the amount of melanin in their eyes.
"Out of 800 persons we have only found one person which didn't fit — but his eye color was blue with a single brown spot," Eiberg told LiveScience, referring to the finding that blue-eyed individuals all had the same sequence of DNA linked with melanin production.
"From this we can conclude that all blue-eyed individuals are linked to the same ancestor," Eiberg said. "They have all inherited the same switch at exactly the same spot in their DNA." Eiberg and his colleagues detailed their study in the Jan. 3 online edition of the journal Human Genetics.
That genetic switch somehow spread throughout Europe and now other parts of the world.
Remember what I said about Hubris? This White guy from Europe, went all around the world impregnating native women to give them blue-eyed babies. How long ago was that again? He,he.
"The question really is, 'Why did we go from having nobody on Earth with blue eyes 10,000 years ago to having 20 or 40 percent of Europeans having blue eyes now?" Hawks said. "This gene does something good for people. It makes them have more kids."
How best to describe the above?
White boy Dreaming?
White boy rationalizing?
White boy just plain lying his ass-off?
BTW - Wiki already has this up as the definition for OCA2.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Agreed. Many white people are proud of their blue eyes. They don't realize it is a genetic defect that puts them at a dis-advantage.
And yes they do rationalize and delude themselves about it.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
Apparently Europeans are not keeping up with the times.
It USED to be that they could publish bullsh1t like that, and get away with it, because no one had the ability to crosscheck their bullsh1t.
Now, people from all over the world can share information. Some time ago posters were posting pictures of Blue-eyed Africans, Polynesians, Australian Aboriginals etc.
If anyone knows where they are, please re-post.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
He,he, I love debunking White man bullsh1t too much to wait - so I found my own.
Others should go ahead and post their own.
Albinism Quote: "Lack of melanin in the eye also results in problems with vision. The gene OCA2, when in a variant form, the gene causes the pink eye color and hypopigmentation common in human albinism. Different SNPs within OCA2 are strongly associated with blue and green eyes (also hazel etc.)"
posted
Geee, I guess White people aren't so special AFTER all. Looks like ANY people can be Albinic.
It's just that everybody else, had the good common sense NOT to breed with other Albinic people, and thereby create an entire RACE of defectives.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
You know quite well that genetically, White Europeans are predominately Dravidian Albinos from India.
I've been suspecting this for a while now. Though I wouldn't go as far as to say "Dravidian".
quote:Originally posted by Mike111:
I DID SAY "predominately" RIGHT?
I MEAN - THEY ARE NOT THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO CAN PRODUCE EUROPEANS! (Read; Whites/Albinos)
This is becoming rather clear, I mean some whites you look at their general shape and you see an "African" (West African stereotype) especially with regards to skull shape. Shout outs to Derkyperky Posts: 525 | From: Terra | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
BTW Lioness, as I recall, some time ago you commented on how could these new groups of Dravidian Albinos travel so far to their new homeland in Central Asia.
Well as you can see from the map below, it wasn't really very far at all.
And they certainly didn't have any trouble traversing that distance, when they returned to India to wreck vengeance.
posted
1) Mike when you say Dravidian you mean black people right?
2) Also you argue against your own theory when you posted this picture:
If you are arguing that the first Europeans were dark skinned as the above and if they can produce light skinned babies then who's to say that Europeans came from Asian Indians rather than the dark skinned people who were already living in the region?
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Look at the main character in this clip (on the phone). That skull shape, well, it's more likely to be African than Asian in origin. I don't see Asians with that head shape at all actually.
Hmmm, well except this guy Posts: 525 | From: Terra | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just so we're all on the same page here, when we say "Asians" we're talking about OOA people who experienced MUTATIONS outside of Africa (i.e. why we don't call them Africans since as they currently are, they are not what they were when they left).
Posts: 525 | From: Terra | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Nobody said that they experienced mutations OUTSIDE of Africa. That makes no sense, there is no evidence of evolutionary change in modern man. That is not to say that there are no changes in motion, there might be, they just aren't visible.
Dravidians, Albinos, Mongols, etc. are indeed AFRICANS!
The changes that you see outside of Africa are due to ADMIXTURE, NOT evolution!
i,e. the reason that Whites are now a separate race, has nothing to do with evolution. That is simply a matter of one group with a similar disadvantage, grouping together for protection, and interbreeding. Thus only producing offspring with the same defect.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by hottoddi: What are you talking about? Not all Y-chromosome haplogroups evolved in Africa for instance.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: The changes that you see outside of Africa are due to ADMIXTURE, NOT evolution!
ADMIXTURE with what?
Mike's theory is that all light skinned people,many Chinese, Europeans etc. are the result of admixture with tribes of pure albinos who where born of black people who spoke Dravidian languages.
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: BTW Lioness, as I recall, some time ago you commented on how could these new groups of Dravidian Albinos travel so far to their new homeland in Central Asia.
Well as you can see from the map below, it wasn't really very far at all.
And they certainly didn't have any trouble traversing that distance, when they returned to India to wreck vengeance.
A "hindu-aryan migration" is a contested theory in anthropology.
As the arrows in your map shows the theory shows an origin in Hindu Kush a 500-mile mountain range stretching between central Afghanistan and northern Pakistan. The languages spoken are Afghani and Iranian languages not Dravidian. Therefore, silly boy, a hindu aryan migration theory supports an invasion by non-Dravidians from the North into Indian regions which included the Dravidian regions
Alexander took these away from the Aryans and established settlements of his own, but Seleucus Nicator gave them to Sandrocottus (Chandragupta), upon terms of intermarriage and of receiving in exchange 500 elephants.[4] —Strabo, 64 BC–24 ADPosts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Lioness, good try, but you know you don't have the er, "necessities" to really understand it well enough to explain it to others.
hottoddi - I just noticed your from; is that a fun goof, or is there a relationship?
Mike we will have to take that as a loss, your Dravidian theory has just been debunked by your own Indo-Aryan migration, in a boomerang like fashion hitting you in the back of the head.
BTW,
Is this Hottentot a result of albinism??
He's from one of those regions farther from the equator, gee what a coincidence
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lioness - When you get like this (really stupid questions) you are really very fuching annoying!
Aryan invasion of India - circa 1,500 B.C.
Alexander - circa 325 B.C.
Strabo - circa 64 BC–24 AD
Do you see any connect between the above - idiot?
Europeans speak Indo-European languages. Do you know what the "Indo" stands for - idiot? Let me help you - INDIA - idiot!
Graduate Institute of Linguistics - Taiwan
Dravidian Language Family Nothing is known definitely about the origin of the Dravidian language family. Dravidian languages were first recognized as an independent family in 1816 by Francis W. Ellis, a British civil servant. The term Dravidian was first employed by Robert A. Caldwell, who introduced the Sanskrit word dravida (which historically meant Tamil) into his Comparative Grammar of the Dravidian or South Indian Family of Languages (1856).
At present, speakers of the Dravidian languages are concentrated in the southern portion of India, while speakers of the Indo-Aryan language predominate in the northern portion of the country. A well-established hypothesis is that Dravidian speakers were originally spread across all of India. The Indo-Aryan languages were not native to India, rather they were introduced by Aryan invaders from the north. A form of Dravidian must have been spoken in northern India before the arrival of the Aryans. The replacement of the Dravidian by the Aryan languages was probably completed before the beginning of the Christian Era.
The Dravidian language family today includes 75 languages spoken by over 200 million people in southern India, Sri Lanka, certain areas of Pakistan and in Nepal. Tthe prevailing theory is that speakers of Dravidian languages split into Northern, Central, and Southern ancestral languages somewhere around 1,500 BC.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: The Indo-Aryan languages were not native to India, rather they were introduced by Aryan invaders from the north. A form of Dravidian must have been spoken in northern India before the arrival of the Aryans.
Mike my reference to Alexander was an aside about a later period. I am well aware that he came far after the Aryan invasion, I should have made that clear. The thing that wrecks you even further is in your last reply here digging yourself deeper into your own hole (pun). How can you persist with this Dravidian albino theory when you have once again shown that the lighter skinned people were invaders who were not Dravidians?
Before you start attacking me you need to address this because your explanations are obviously in complete contradiction to each other.
Why the Hottentot are light skinned is another item you are sure to avoid because you have no explanation for it, it just doesn't fit your magical stories
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Quote: How can you persist with this Dravidian albino theory when you have once again shown that the lighter skinned people were invaders who were not Dravidians?"
Ah, where did anybody say that they were not Dravidians? Unless I missed something, the references were to language.
Before you get back to your usual stupidity; The timeframe between leaving India as Albino rejects, and the return as Aryans for vengeance, was about 38,000 years - according to genetics. Think about it before posting something stupid.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sure, but Quaran Sura 18 has nothing to do with pre-historic man, the Caucasus mountains, the Sons of Canaan, leprosy, or the origin of white peoples. Except in al~Imam Issa's 'version' these ideas are unknown in al Islam.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Why bother refuting religious mythology adapted to physical anthropology?
quote:Originally posted by MelaninKing:
Al Takruri's remarks above regarding no referencing group on the earth's surface having these same facial feature deviations only adds to the very possible validity of this cave theory, and certainly does nothing to refute it.
First, it may assist in re-enforcing the standard belief. Perhaps not. As you should recognize very well, there is some value in mythology.
Anthropology aspects of ALBINISM
Albinism represents a group of inherited abnormalities of the melanin pigment system in which the synthesis of melanin is absent or reduced, generalized (oculocutaneous albinism) or localised (ocular albinism). Recent molecular studies provide insight into the pathophysiological processes of pigmentation regulation and help our understanding of the genetic heterogeneity of human albinism. It rarely affects Europeans, frequently Africans, only a minority of Amerindians, who nevertheless, when an ethnic group is concerned, presents one of the highest incidence in the world.
Historically, the African albinos were used as an alibi by the European theologians to support Adam's descent of humanity and by naturalists to affirm the alleged superiority of the white men. Anthropological data are mainly issued from Amerindians with contradictories attitudes towards albinos: both acceptance and rejection. Only the Kuna of Panama have given albinos a major place in their mythology, although in reality they frequently reject them.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lioness - I can tell that to your simple mind, God gave the various peoples their languages, and they have spoken them ever since. That does not appear to be the case.
All language is originally African, because that is were man first assembled the various sounds into a standard vocabulary.
When man left Africa, he did not leave his language behind, he continued to use it, and expand upon it.
When different groups of humans came together, the result was ALWAYS a common COMPOUND language - NOT one language completely disappearing. Though the stronger group would have the predominance of carryover.
Thus when you study language groups, you will always see them begin with the prefix "Proto". That is the root of the language group, and it will always return to Africa.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Quote: How can you persist with this Dravidian albino theory when you have once again shown that the lighter skinned people were invaders who were not Dravidians?"
Ah, where did anybody say that they were not Dravidians? Unless I missed something, the references were to language.
Before you get back to your usual stupidity; The timeframe between leaving India as Albino rejects, and the return as Aryans for vengeance, was about 38,000 years - according to genetics. Think about it before posting something stupid.
I am going to have to inform Clyde and Melanin about this. You are now saying that white people are at least 38,000 years old.
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:you saying Lioness is an Arab , , , eh , , Turk
no. not trying to diss or anything as such but just noticed the grammar was non-western
arreubinsoni - Nah, she's American. Likely from the southern regions; they all articulate like that. In the vernacular, they are known as "Trailer Trash" in reference to their living quarters.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic