quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The fact remains that the idea that there had been no mixture between the various population before 1492 is groundless and therefore highlight the fallacy of the proposed identification of continental populations based on genetic population theory. This is why geneticist stopped trying to find archaeological data to support their Bayesian statistical assumptions. There is none.
Yes, it's true that Moors had presence in Germany, but not as a ruling class. We have no evidence for this.
I have not heard or read of the claim that there was no migration going on before 1492, which caused for mixture and admixture amongst people.
In terms of people (Black Indians) who have been in the Americans for 100Kyar, what are the subclades and SNP's? And what was the first dispersion.
Reich (2018) wrote that “the ancestors of East Asian, Europeans, West Africans and Australians were until recently, almost completely isolated from one another for 40,000 years or longer, which is more than sufficient time for the forces of evolution to work”.
He also noted that "Groundbreaking advances in DNA sequencing technology have been made over the last two decades. These advances enable us to measure with exquisite accuracy what fraction of an individual’s genetic ancestry traces back to, say, West Africa 500 years ago — before the mixing in the Americas of the West African and European gene pools that were almost completely isolated for the last 70,000 years. With the help of these tools, we are learning that while race may be a social construct, differences in genetic ancestry that happen to correlate to many of today’s racial constructs are real. "
The interaction between Eurasian and Africans in Europe and Central Asia, however, makes it impossible for geneticists to claim that there were three distinct continental populations. Absent corroborating archaeological evidence that the populations were “isolated” until recently makes the claim by some geneticists that although race is a “social construct”, genomics can identify varied races is false.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The fact remains that the idea that there had been no mixture between the various population before 1492 is groundless and therefore highlight the fallacy of the proposed identification of continental populations based on genetic population theory. This is why geneticist stopped trying to find archaeological data to support their Bayesian statistical assumptions. There is none.
Yes, it's true that Moors had presence in Germany, but not as a ruling class. We have no evidence for this.
I have not heard or read of the claim that there was no migration going on before 1492, which caused for mixture and admixture amongst people.
In terms of people (Black Indians) who have been in the Americans for 100Kyar, what are the subclades and SNP's? And what was the first dispersion.
Reich (2018) wrote that “the ancestors of East Asian, Europeans, West Africans and Australians were until recently, almost completely isolated from one another for 40,000 years or longer, which is more than sufficient time for the forces of evolution to work”.
He also noted that "Groundbreaking advances in DNA sequencing technology have been made over the last two decades. These advances enable us to measure with exquisite accuracy what fraction of an individual’s genetic ancestry traces back to, say, West Africa 500 years ago — before the mixing in the Americas of the West African and European gene pools that were almost completely isolated for the last 70,000 years. With the help of these tools, we are learning that while race may be a social construct, differences in genetic ancestry that happen to correlate to many of today’s racial constructs are real. "
The interaction between Eurasian and Africans in Europe and Central Asia, however, makes it impossible for geneticists to claim that there were three distinct continental populations. Absent corroborating archaeological evidence that the populations were “isolated” until recently makes the claim by some geneticists that although race is a “social construct”, genomics can identify varied races is false.
Seen from a different angle that would mean it contradicts the back migration theory.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
"In an announcement sure to spark a firestorm of controversy, researchers say they’ve found signs of ancient humans in California between 120,000 and 140,000 years ago—more than a hundred thousand years before humans were thought to exist anywhere in the Americas.
If the researchers are right, the so-called Cerutti mastodon site could force a rewrite of the story of humankind.
“I realize that 130,000 years is a really old date and makes our site the oldest archaeological site in the Americas,” says study leader Tom Deméré, the paleontologist at the San Diego Natural History Museum, whose team describes their analysis today in Nature. “Of course, extraordinary claims like this require extraordinary evidence, and we feel like the Cerutti mastodon site presents this evidence.”
To be clear, the team has not found human bones at the site. But as Deméré and their colleagues tell it, their evidence—a mastodon skeleton, bone flakes, and several large stones—shows that the area was a “bone quarry,” where an unknown hominin allegedly smashed fresh mastodon bones with stone hammers, perhaps to extract marrow or to mine the skeleton for raw materials."
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
no human remains even one fifth of 100,000 years old
have been found
which also means no human morphology, no DNA
________________________________
Additionally if you look at all the non-Africans in the Northern hemisphere, if they started out being Africans it is probably in much less than 100,000 years of living in a new environment that they transformed into non-Africans
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
no human remains even one fifth of 100,000 years old
have been found
which also means no human morphology, no DNA
________________________________
Additionally if you look at all the non-Africans in the Northern hemisphere, if they started out being Africans it is probably in much less than 100,000 years of living in a new environment that they transformed into non-Africans
When does DNA have a bearing on phenotype as defined by Western standards? If the overwhelming majority of DNA on this Earth belongs to ONE particular "race" then why on Earth are you asking for DNA as though it will negate what and how race has been traditionally defined, and may I add also has had real repercussions in the World?
The original Ausatraloid populations that originally populated the Americas I can almost ascertain do not have what is typolyzed to an arbitrarily defined landmass known as "African". None the less their phenotype has been defined as "Black" or "Negroid". They have been treated as such in reality. At no point were Aboriginals treated as "Orientals" because of their relative genetic distance to them. This is a typical white disingenuous argument meant to move the goal post, and is what Diop predicted the White researchers would do in the future. Switch from focusing on the relevant measureable phenotype to an arbitrarily defined genotype. So these Black peoples were the first people in the Americas.
This was followed by waves of other Africans and a Mongoloid migration in the continent. These waves included Pygmies or Twa people, followed by Mongoloid peoples, and then waves from various Africoid peoples from civilizations of Africa and others. These African skeletons found in the early Olmec sites referenced in my post on the last page will undoubtedly yield African DNA. The Hudson Bay skulls would undoubtedly yield African DNA.
You also did not have a reply to the fact that an African disorder that was first seen the interior Africa around 8,000 BC was found in ancient Mayan remains. The skull that this was found in will again undoubtedly yield African DNA. How do we know this?
Kemet was defined from Nubia through the worship of Ausarian religion. This Ausarian religion in my opinion partially transcended to the Americas, and we find this in various cultural phenomena in the Americas and interior Africa.
no human remains even one fifth of 100,000 years old
have been found
which also means no human morphology, no DNA
________________________________
Additionally if you look at all the non-Africans in the Northern hemisphere, if they started out being Africans it is probably in much less than 100,000 years of living in a new environment that they transformed into non-Africans
You seem determined to tell Black people to follow the history assigned to us by our white enemies. Are hired by the Smithsonian to do this nonsense? In reading alot of these threads, you've been schooled numerous times within the last year, but you turn around and play dumb to the schoolings months after the fact. Games!
When does DNA have a bearing on phenotype as defined by Western standards? If the overwhelming majority of DNA on this Earth belongs to ONE particular "race" then why on Earth are you asking for DNA as though it will negate what and how race has been traditionally defined, and may I add also has had real repercussions in the World?
DNA is pretty good at determining what continent one's ancestors come from and to an extent particular region. People often discover multiple ancestries they have, some they didn't know about
You also did not have a reply to the fact that an African disorder that was first seen the interior Africa around 8,000 BC was found in ancient Mayan remains. The skull that this was found in will again undoubtedly yield African DNA. How do we know this?
you are showing us a DNA chart here for some reason. Why?
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
When does DNA have a bearing on phenotype as defined by Western standards? If the overwhelming majority of DNA on this Earth belongs to ONE particular "race" then why on Earth are you asking for DNA as though it will negate what and how race has been traditionally defined, and may I add also has had real repercussions in the World?
DNA is pretty good at determining what continent one's ancestors come from and to an extent particular region. People often discover multiple ancestries they have, some they didn't know about
Those conclusions are not anywhere near as accurate as those companies make them out to be. There is a foundational issue with the structuring of populations that these companies need to acknowledge.
As far as you trying to deny that people were "Black" like the Australoid populations who were the first to come to Americas by virtue of their haplotypes you know how dubious that counter argument is. By you even referencing genetics to qualify calling a person a certain race you're shaminglessly making a false equivalence of genetics and race. We know that genetics in humans do not structure into Western defined races, so why would you make a fool of yourself by alluding to genetics having a bearing on that determination? You white people like to have it both ways, but you can't.
Like I said in my first statement in this thread, it is beyond ridiculous at this point for people to continue to attempt to place doubt on the African presence in the Americas before Columbus. You like to troll (and even go as far as insidiously deleting and editing the man's post to lessen the power of his points) Dr. Winters while never really acknowledging the evidence of his arguments.
When does DNA have a bearing on phenotype as defined by Western standards? If the overwhelming majority of DNA on this Earth belongs to ONE particular "race" then why on Earth are you asking for DNA as though it will negate what and how race has been traditionally defined, and may I add also has had real repercussions in the World?
DNA is pretty good at determining what continent one's ancestors come from and to an extent particular region. People often discover multiple ancestries they have, some they didn't know about
You also did not have a reply to the fact that an African disorder that was first seen the interior Africa around 8,000 BC was found in ancient Mayan remains. The skull that this was found in will again undoubtedly yield African DNA. How do we know this?
you are showing us a DNA chart here for some reason. Why?
You're playing dumb. Sickle Cell (AN AFRICAN DISORDER) was found in ancient Mayan skeletons. Sickle Cell clearly correlates with E1b1a which is what most of our type of African belongs to. You want to say that Africans never came to the America's but you cannot explain away this. You need to stop trolling/lying.
quote:Originally posted by Big O: The Hudson Bay skulls would undoubtedly yield African DNA.
what Hudson Bay skulls?
quote:Originally posted by Big O:
The original Ausatraloid populations that originally populated the Americas I can almost ascertain do not have what is typolyzed to an arbitrarily defined landmass known as "African". None the less their phenotype has been defined as "Black" or "Negroid". They have been treated as such in reality. At no point were Aboriginals treated as "Orientals" because of their relative genetic distance to them.
quote:Originally posted by Big O:
African skeletons found in the early Olmec sites referenced in my post on the last page will undoubtedly yield African DNA
So how did you know they didn't have native Australian DNA? You are showing a chart of E1b1a
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Reich (2018) wrote that “the ancestors of East Asian, Europeans, West Africans and Australians were until recently, almost completely isolated from one another for 40,000 years or longer, which is more than sufficient time for the forces of evolution to work”.
He also noted that "Groundbreaking advances in DNA sequencing technology have been made over the last two decades. These advances enable us to measure with exquisite accuracy what fraction of an individual’s genetic ancestry traces back to, say, West Africa 500 years ago — before the mixing in the Americas of the West African and European gene pools that were almost completely isolated for the last 70,000 years. With the help of these tools, we are learning that while race may be a social construct, differences in genetic ancestry that happen to correlate to many of today’s racial constructs are real. "
The interaction between Eurasian and Africans in Europe and Central Asia, however, makes it impossible for geneticists to claim that there were three distinct continental populations. Absent corroborating archaeological evidence that the populations were “isolated” until recently makes the claim by some geneticists that although race is a “social construct”, genomics can identify varied races is false.
To get back at this for a moment. I just found this article, from February 28, 2019.
Geneticist David Reich discusses how migration shaped modern human populations
“No population is, or ever could be, pure,” he said. “Ancient DNA reveals that the mixing of groups extremely different from each other is a common feature of human nature. We do not live in unusual times; profound events have occurred in our past. We should learn and feel more connected from that.”
quote:Originally posted by Big O: The Hudson Bay skulls would undoubtedly yield African DNA.
what Hudson Bay skulls?
quote:Originally posted by Big O:
The original Ausatraloid populations that originally populated the Americas I can almost ascertain do not have what is typolyzed to an arbitrarily defined landmass known as "African". None the less their phenotype has been defined as "Black" or "Negroid". They have been treated as such in reality. At no point were Aboriginals treated as "Orientals" because of their relative genetic distance to them.
quote:Originally posted by Big O:
African skeletons found in the early Olmec sites referenced in my post on the last page will undoubtedly yield African DNA
So how did you know they didn't have native Australian DNA? You are showing a chart of E1b1a
Why are you playing dumb as if you have not already been presented with source listing the Olmec skeletons specifically as African. You sat there trolling Dr. Winters on this for the entire first page, now you don't know that they were African?? What is your deal?
Why are you playing dumb as if you have not already been presented with source listing the Olmec skeletons specifically as African. You sat there trolling Dr. Winters on this for the entire first page, now you don't know that they were African?? What is your deal?
No, arguing with evidence is not trolling and you don't know what you are talking about
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Using W.W. Howell’s measurements researchers determined the PaleoIndians were of African, Australian or Melanesian origin.
quote:Originally posted by Big O:
You also did not have a reply to the fact that an African disorder that was first seen the interior Africa around 8,000 BC was found in ancient Mayan remains. The skull that this was found in will again undoubtedly yield African DNA. How do we know this?
.
.
the DNA of the Olmecs has been tested ask Clyde about it
Why are you playing dumb as if you have not already been presented with source listing the Olmec skeletons specifically as African. You sat there trolling Dr. Winters on this for the entire first page, now you don't know that they were African?? What is your deal?
No, arguing with evidence is not trolling and you don't know what you are talking about
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Using W.W. Howell’s measurements researchers determined the PaleoIndians were of African, Australian or Melanesian origin.
quote:Originally posted by Big O:
You also did not have a reply to the fact that an African disorder that was first seen the interior Africa around 8,000 BC was found in ancient Mayan remains. The skull that this was found in will again undoubtedly yield African DNA. How do we know this?
.
.
the DNA of the Olmecs has been tested ask Clyde about it
.
If the Olmec skulls show distinct racial types then those distinct racial types need to be profiled SPECIFICALLY to answer that question. But western science is too disingenuous to directly answer that question. Instead the will only acknowledge the other 85% of the skulls (which would be the average), and say well the "average" DNA is this and that, while hiding from that 13% which is what the real contention is about. On this website you are the guardian of white academic BS.
posted
^^ So...you do you think that white scientist will use their resources to DNA test this skeleton to unravel their centuries old white supremacist lie of "discovering" this landmass? Do you know that legal ramifications of acknowledging the Blacks of this land mass as indigenous? There is great political incentive to hide these facts for whites who have stolen this land and resources. White acknowledging this would mean that they could be forcibly removed from parts of the Americas in the restitution of our people and recovery of our land and resources.
[ 28. September 2021, 01:03 PM: Message edited by: the lioness, ]
I don't allow bumping threads unless the person is adding new information. Not information they have posted already in many other threads. Or if replying to a person's comment, it's allowed
I'm not allowing somebody to keep promoting their own work and try to promote their idea by clicking old threads at wring "Bump" or something of the like. Some people even do this on multiple of their own threads. It's a selfish thing brining these old threads back up to the recent home page of the forum. I don't see people doing that in Egyptology forum.
But since Big 0 is talking about that old thread I'm opening that Olmec thread
Off topics posts will be deleted
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Big O: ^^ So...you do you think that white scientist will use their resources to DNA test this skeleton to unravel their centuries old white supremacist lie of "discovering" this landmass? Do you know that legal ramifications of acknowledging the Blacks of this land mass as indigenous? There is great political incentive to hide these facts for whites who have stolen this land and resources. White acknowledging this would mean that they could be forcibly removed from parts of the Americas in the restitution of our people and recovery of our land and resources.
For this reason Black people need to be in science more, so you can discredit others who have theses opposing views. One does this based on scientific evaluations tested in a lab that are peer reviewed, not with online opinions. Within recent decades this has become the norm.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
It was a while since I was here but I see that Clyde Winters keeps on posting the same misinterpreted and misrepresented links, and large amounts of meaningless text masses. Pity he can not be proud over his own African heritage instead of trying to insert Africans where there never where any, ie in precolumbian Americas.
I recommend Clyde Winters to take some basic university courses in Native American archaeology, anthropology, linguistics and genetics. There are also courses in precolumbian Mesoamerican studies he could attend to straighten out his wild ideas of some mythological black population in the Americas prior to Columbus. I recommend him to have serious talks with real scientists and historians at conferences and seminars. Maybe he could also participate in some archaeological digs. Some digs have room for volunteers.
Interesting with his claims about Black peoples in the Americas 100 000 years ago. Where are those skeletons? Are they modern Homo sapiens or an older archaic form of humans (for example Denisovans)? Clyde Winters wild speculations raise many questions and one and another eyebrow.
Also trying to blow some sort of life in poor old Andrej Wiercinskis outdated idéas is rather tragic. Let them finally rest in peace.
B t w I will remember that already Bernard Ortiz de Montellano in his time debunked most of Clyde Winters claims here on Egyptsearch several years ago. Still Clyde repeats his old mantras again and again. Exhausting. It feels like watching old reprisals on TV too many times.
And it seems he also has one or another follower who repeats the same old misinformation.
It is a pity with people like Clyde Winters and the (W)abo movement who try to insert themselves in, and twist the history of Native American peoples.
Also it seems like a terrible waste of time.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2683 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
posted
you're trying to pick a fight with Clyde who has not been posting much lately, locked
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic