quote:Rasol, I don't think anything "evolved", and certainly nothing evolved into another species. It is illogical that one monkey would evolve while another would not
I just patiently explained to you why this statement makes no sense.
So what do you do? You repeat.
With and akoben it's like there is some chemical loose on the 'internet' that has destroyed your brain cells.
lol.
What's wrong with you?
Do you not understand elementary principals of science?
posted
^^^I don't think so. Poor kid also contradicts himself.....
quote: Ohzone says: For that matter why do they insist that humans "evolved" having dark skin which turned pale by adaptation?. Why not that they originally had pale skin and that the darker skin was an adaptation.
Most animals have pink skin under all lthat fur. The Polar Bear however has Black skin under that white/translucent hair so that he can produce heat from the available light. So you see that we have an anomaly as to the need for light versus dark coloring.
And then he says.......
quote:Then why is it that most apes have dark skin? They also have hair.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ he reminds me of jamie, salsassin, a mulatto centrist who got angry when Nina Jablonski stated that the original human population was dark skinned - like modern equatorial africans - after he'd tried his hardest to "interpret" her remarks as referencing a 'medium tone' - his words and not hers.
it simply bothers ethnocentrists - and mulattocentrism *is* ethnocentrism, to know that dark skin of black peoples is the orignal and normative state, and that the pale skin of europeans is the last and most recently derived state.
there are ancient blacks.
there are *no* ancient whites.
since mulatto posists medium tone as indicator of 1/2 black and 1/2 white - then, there are no ancient *mulattos* either.
dark skin precedes medium tone - which precedes pale skin.
^ The reality of Black peoples - as ancient, and aboriginal for all homo sapien continues to vex Eurocentrists.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rasol, I don't think anything "evolved", and certainly nothing evolved into another species. It is illogical that one monkey would evolve while another would not
I just patiently explained to you why this statement makes no sense.
So what do you do? You repeat.
With and akoben it's like there is some chemical loose on the 'internet' that has destroyed your brain cells.
lol.
What's wrong with you?
Do you not understand elementary principals of science?
lol.
ROTFLMAO
You guys waste your time debating with a guy who denies the scientific fact of evolution! Especially you Knowledge, with your long winded answers to his few stupid questions.
All I gotta say is that if there is some 'chemical' or agent on the internet that destroys peoples' brain cells it obviously infected this guy-- creating a hole in this Ozone's brain.
Posts: 26307 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with everything you've written,my father who is a mulattoe/almost quadroon looks very baltid or cro mag [r1b].
It still amazes me how deep the denial of african ancestry goes even on an ancient level. The black ancestry in my family has disappeared within one minor generation.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: We can assign a haplogroup to this population because of the examination of genetic material from this population. This genetic material makes it clear that most Cro-Magnons carried the N haplogroup. ________________________________________
Science 11 November 2005: Vol. 310. no. 5750, pp. 1016 - 1018 DOI: 10.1126/science.1118725 Prev | Table of Contents | Next
REPORTS Ancient DNA from the First European Farmers in 7500-Year-Old Neolithic Sites Wolfgang Haak,1* Peter Forster,2 Barbara Bramanti,1 Shuichi Matsumura,2 Guido Brandt,1 Marc Tänzer,1 Richard Villems,3 Colin Renfrew,2 Detlef Gronenborn,4 Kurt Werner Alt,1 Joachim Burger1 The ancestry of modern Europeans is a subject of debate among geneticists, archaeologists, and anthropologists. A crucial question is the extent to which Europeans are descended from the first European farmers in the Neolithic Age 7500 years ago or from Paleolithic hunter-gatherers who were present in Europe since 40,000 years ago. Here we present an analysis of ancient DNA from early European farmers. We successfully extracted and sequenced intact stretches of maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) from 24 out of 57 Neolithic skeletons from various locations in Germany, Austria, and Hungary. We found that 25% of the Neolithic farmers had one characteristic mtDNA type and that this type formerly was widespread among Neolithic farmers in Central Europe. Europeans today have a 150-times lower frequency (0.2%) of this mtDNA type, revealing that these first Neolithic farmers did not have a strong genetic influence on modern European female lineages. Our finding lends weight to a proposed Paleolithic ancestry for modern Europeans. ________________________________________ This DNA found in the ancient Europeans was N1(a).
It appears to me that the Old Europeans may have been Africans. This is based on the reality that the haplogroup N1(a) is common to Senegambians, modern Ethiopians and the Dravidian speaking people of India (Richards et al, 2005; Toomas et al, 2004). Thus, the Old Europeans may be related to African cattle raising farming groups, originally from Africa and the Middle East who may have planted the seeds of agriculture in ancient Europe, especially descendants of the Natufians.
Cro-Magnon is another name for the Grimaldi people. The Cro-magnon people were tropically adapted or simply Negroes.
They belonged to the haplogroup N which is a branch of L3 branch. The N haplogroup spread from Africa to Europe.
Haplogroup N was found within Cro Magnon skeletons. This gives us physical evidence of this haplogroup in Europe. Lets look at Caramelli's statement: quote: ________________________________________
Specific mtDNA sites outside HVRI were also analyzed (by amplification, cloning, and sequencing of the surrounding region) to classify more precisely the ancient sequences within the phylogenetic network of present-time mtDNAs (35, 36). Paglicci-25 has the following motifs: +7,025 AluI, 00073A, 11719G, and 12308A. Therefore, this sequence belongs to either haplogroups HV or pre-HV, two haplogroups rare in general but with a comparatively high frequencies among today's Near-Easterners (35). Paglicci-12 shows the motifs 00073G, 10873C, 10238T, and AACC between nucleotide positions 10397 and 10400, which allows the classification of this sequence into the macrohaplogroupN,containing haplogroups W, X, I, N1a, N1b, N1c, and N*. Following the definition given in ref. 36, the presence of a single mutation in 16,223 within HRVI suggests a classification of Paglicci-12 into the haplogroup N*, which is observed today in several samples from the Near East and, at lower frequencies, in the Caucasus (35). It is difficult to say whether the apparent evolutionary relationship between Paglicci-25 and Paglicci-12 and those populations is more than a coincidence. Indeed, the haplogroups to which the Cro-Magnon type sequences appear to belong are rare among modern samples, and therefore their frequencies are poorly estimated. However, genetic affinities between the first anatomically modern Europeans and current populations of the Near East make sense in the light of the likely routes of Upper Paleolithic human expansions in Europe, as documented in the archaeological record (37).
Carmelli specifically says: some of the Cro Magnon people belonged to the N group .
It is interesting to note that the DNA for the European farmers 7500 ybp was also haplogroup N1(a), which as noted by the researchers who conducted this research that contemporary Europeans do not have this gene.
The continuity of the N haplogroup from 24000-7500 BC makes it clear that Negroes were the dominant group in Europe up to this time.
quote: my father who is a mulattoe/almost quadroon looks very baltid or cro mag [r1b].
Lol. Man, what do you mean by your father looking Cro-Magnon? You're saying modern Europeans looked like cro-mag? Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Indeed. Afrosaxon, Clyde Winters is the last person you should be listening to when it comes to scientific concepts such as anthroplogy. Posts: 26307 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
He pointed out that Cro-Mag is another name for the Grimaldi people. "The Cro-magnon people were tropically adapted or simply Negroes."
I suspect the Grimaldi were some mixed african type similar to my father as he most fits with the "baltid" phenotype sometimes associated with cro-mags.
-------------------- remember mankind that you are dust and to dust you shall return. Posts: 70 | From: Australia | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
heres another cro-mag/baltid type born to a black mother.
-------------------- remember mankind that you are dust and to dust you shall return. Posts: 70 | From: Australia | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Afrosaxon: He pointed out that Cro-Mag is another name for the Grimaldi people. "The Cro-magnon people were tropically adapted or simply Negroes."
I suspect the Grimaldi were some mixed african type similar to my father as he most fits with the "baltid" phenotype sometimes associated with cro-mags.
What you fail to realize is that Clyde Winters is WRONG, because he subscribes to racial typology such as "negro", which does not exist. Biologically there is no such thing as 'race'. Yes, there are physical features and types but they cannot be grouped based on lineage. For example, since all humans originated in Africa, all humans were tropically adapted. There was no "mixture" among the Cromags since they were the only humans there unless you propose they mixed with Neanderthal. Modern white Europeans are descended from Cromags.
Posts: 26307 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I suspect the Grimaldi were some mixed african type similar to my father as he most fits with the "baltid" phenotype sometimes associated with cro-mags.
Errr, Wrong sorry kid. Your suspicions are erroneous. Cro-Magnon man nor Grimaldi man were a mixed race anything. They're both two different names given to Early modern humans found in Europe, none of which resemble recent Europeans at all.
European early modern humans and the fate of the Neandertals Erik Trinkaus*
"As a result of an ongoing cleansing of the fossil record through direct radiometric dating, a series of obviously modern, and in fact Late Upper Paleolithic or Holocene, human remains have been removed from consideration (7). This cleansing has helped to dilute the impression that the earliest modern humans in Europe were just like recent European populations.
------
Brace et al.
The questionable contribution of the Neolithic and the Bronze Age to European craniofacial form.
When the Basques are run with the other samples used in Fig. 1, they link with Germany and more remotely with the Canary Islands. They are clearly European although the length of their twig indicates that they have a distinction all their own. It is clear, however, that they do not represent a survival of the kind of craniofacial form indicated by Cro-Magnon any more than do the Canary Islanders, nor does either sample tie in with the Berbers of North Africa as has previously been claimed (37, 44-45). …
To test the analysis shown in Fig. 3, Cro-Magnon, represented by the x in Fig. 4, was removed from the European Upper Palaeolithic sample and run as a single individual. Interestingly enough, Cro-Magnon is not close to any more recent sample.
Clearly Cro-Magnon is not the same as the Basque or Canary Island samples. Fig. 4 plots the first and second canonical variates against each other, but that conclusion is even more strongly supported when canonical variate 3 (not shown here) is plotted with variate 1. If this analysis shows nothing else, it demonstrates that the oft-repeated European feeling that the Cro-Magnons are “us” (46) is more a product of anthropological folklore than the result of the metric data available from the skeletal remains...Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ you've been reading keita for years and you still don't know what he says. LOL
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess I mean they were depigmented africans.
-------------------- remember mankind that you are dust and to dust you shall return. Posts: 70 | From: Australia | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Afrosaxon: I guess I mean they were depigmented africans.
Errr, Wrong again. They weren't depigmented either. Your European father looks nothing like Early Europeans 20kya sorry.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by akoben: you've been reading keita for years and you still don't know what he says. LOL
ROTFL @ this hilarious insanity!
quote: ["The Persistence of Racial Thinking and the Myth of Racial Divergence", S.O.Y. Keita and Rick A. Kittles, American Anthropologist (1997)]
^ no races, no types, no trees. you have lots of understanding to do! LOL
No. YOU do! Yes, there are no races but there are types as his work is based on this and of course there are trees as use of dendograms you idiot! Posts: 26307 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No stupid. Keita is not saying they are a "secondary type" or a "secondary type of race". Period.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: akoben = whipped dog frantically barking to cover for his damaged ego.
Indeed. The guy/gal is just too stupid to realize that everyone in this forum with intelligence does NOT take him seriously at all or even acknowledge him/her, let alone "argue" with!
quote:but everyone has borene witnessed to his humiliation, and evidenced stupidity, so we know he's a toothless dog with no bite.
More like an equid with no brains...
quote:the fights over mutt/akoben.
put your tail between your legs, and limp home, while you still can.
More like raise your tail high and bounce home!
LOLPosts: 26307 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Alive-(What Box): ^Who said he was? %)
Sorry rasolowitz, but as you can ^ see ^ even loverboy refuses to support your interpretation of Keita! LOL
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
Sorry but don't delude yourself into thinking Alive disagrees with Rasol's premise, because he does! As does anyone with sense, since his premise is exactly that of Keita's. But your dull-brain just doesn't understand that does it?
Posts: 26307 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Evolution as defined, i.e. one species becoming another, and then coexisting with all its changed descendants is illogical. This is like saying that the Element of Oxygen evolved into Iron which further evolved into Aluminum etc. In nature there is always an advantageous reason for any adaptation. Why evolve predator and prey, when plants are plentiful?
So finding a 36,000 year old skull in South Africa that is similar to one found in Eurasia proves the “out of Africa” theory?? And this “tropical anatomy” = dark skin???? So if Cro mag was “tropically adapted” why was he living in France? What exactly does “tropically adapted” mean.
Partial quote: …”unstained hair samples, the limited fungal influence, and the macroscopic view, it can be assumed that the original hair colour was brown. Similar cases of hair preservation have been reported in studies of both mummified and non-mummified human remains (Aufderheide, 2003; Brothwell and Dobney, 1986; Lubec et al., 1987; White, 1993; Wilson et al., 2002, 2007b)."
I’m glad to see that you pointed out that the mummy’s original hair color was brown, not black. Not mentioned was the fact that it was also fine and silky. That lets out being Negroid to doesn’t it? I think that the skin of people who spend a lot of time in the sun would be packed with melanin don’t you? Therefore they are not necessarily Negroid.
OK so apes have pink skin……SO!! Then you are saying that humans did start out with pink skin???
Afrosaxon, are you saying that your father having the head of a cro-magnon, had a huge heavy jaw and flat cranium, a huge occipital bulge with total brain capacity of 1650 cubic centimeters? That would be about 200 cubic centimeters larger than yourself – if you are average. Also note: the flat cranium changes the location of the eyes. In modern humans they eyes are located in the Middle of the skull. On the cro-mag types the eyes are not in the middle, but higher up – which would make a really creepy looking person.
Your other cro-mag-baltid has eyes in middle of skull – does not match referenced cro-mag proportions.
Regardless of all that, everyone it seems, is assuming that the Earth’s geography has always been just like it is now.
Evolution is not fact. It is a theory. It cannot be proven. Also it cannot be proven just what color any such “original” human may have had.
Posts: 7 | From: Florida | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: Evolution as defined, i.e. one species becoming another, and then coexisting with all its changed descendants is illogical. This is like saying that the Element of Oxygen evolved into Iron which further evolved into Aluminum etc. In nature there is always an advantageous reason for any adaptation. Why evolve predator and prey, when plants are plentiful?
Go read a book you have the least bit of knowledge of evolution obviously if you think it was that simple. You must be a scientologist.
quote: So finding a 36,000 year old skull in South Africa that is similar to one found in Eurasia proves the “out of Africa” theory??
Actually the finding of a similar **SKULL** from Africa, matching similar **SKULLS** from Eurasia the middle East at the same time confirms the same populations inhabiting the lands. All upper Paleolithic Europeans resembled this same population.
quote:And this “tropical anatomy” = dark skin???? So if Cro mag was “tropically adapted” why was he living in France? What exactly does “tropically adapted” mean.
Meaning that the original human population which arose in Africa, was originally tropically adapted. This means when a tropically adapted human arrives in Europe also resembling populations from Africa, this pretty much confirms modern humans came from ***tropical Africa.***
quote:Partial quote: …”unstained hair samples, the limited fungal influence, and the macroscopic view, it can be assumed that the original hair colour was brown. Similar cases of hair preservation have been reported in studies of both mummified and non-mummified human remains (Aufderheide, 2003; Brothwell and Dobney, 1986; Lubec et al., 1987; White, 1993; Wilson et al., 2002, 2007b)."
I’m glad to see that you pointed out that the mummy’s original hair color was brown, not black. Not mentioned was the fact that it was also fine and silky. That lets out being Negroid to doesn’t it?
Nope. Whats a Negroid?
quote: I think that the skin of people who spend a lot of time in the sun would be packed with melanin don’t you? Therefore they are not necessarily Negroid.
Gladly you don't get paid to think. What populations would this be? Lmao black white people?
quote: OK so apes have pink skin……SO!! Then you are saying that humans did start out with pink skin???
Sure.. This has been explained
Dark skin evolved with the loss of 'fur' in hominids and is the original state of all homo sapiens. - Jablonski. [2000]
The original human population would have been very dark, similar to, today's equatorial Africans. - Jablonski [2006]
By 1.2 million years ago, all people having descendants today had exactly the receptor protein of today's Africans; their skin was Black, and the intense sun *killed off the progeny with any whiter skin* that resulted from mutational variation in the receptor protein- - (Rogers 2004:107).
quote:Evolution is not fact. It is a theory. It cannot be proven.
Just about as doubted as the theory of gravity. Sure it could be proven and it has, through the genographic project which traces every human alive back to Africa genetically, anthropology which puts African populations in Eurasia, Asia, Australia etc... and archaeology, which puts an African influence in the original aboriginal cultures throughout the world. From Australia to Europe.
quote: Also it cannot be proven just what color any such “original” human may have had.
Sure it can and has. This is what scientists do. Sorry if science hurts your dogmatist personality.
Dr. Nina Jablonski:
Because humans originated in the high UV concentrated areas of equatorial Africa, any progeny born with lighter skin as the result of variable mutation **would not survive** by natural selection...
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by OhZone: Evolution as defined, i.e. one species becoming another, and then coexisting with all its changed descendants is illogical...
Incorrect. Evolution by definition means change over time and not necessarily into another different species. *All* organisms evolve in one way or another either to meet the needs of the environment or by a sudden mutation or both.
quote:This is like saying that the Element of Oxygen evolved into Iron which further evolved into Aluminum etc. In nature there is always an advantageous reason for any adaptation. Why evolve predator and prey, when plants are plentiful?
What?? You make no sense? How do the elements you speak of change into one form then another in nature? What does this have to do with living organisms?? LOL Your biological question is also silly. It's like me asking why evolve animals at all when we could all just be plants photosythesizing our own food??! That's just the way organisms evolved! No one knows why. Science can only explain how.
quote:So finding a 36,000 year old skull in South Africa that is similar to one found in Eurasia proves the “out of Africa” theory??
Yes especially considering the oldest fossils of modern humans that date millennia earlier than that are all found in Africa and non outside of Africa.
quote:And this “tropical anatomy” = dark skin???? So if Cro mag was “tropically adapted” why was he living in France? What exactly does “tropically adapted” mean.
Tropical adaptation simply means being adapted to the tropics and entails a number of things. Skin color is just one which follows Gloger's rule, another is limb proportions which follows Allen's rule. Both of which show the first Europeans were tropically adapted which means they originated from tropical areas i.e. Africa.
quote:Partial quote: …”unstained hair samples, the limited fungal influence, and the macroscopic view, it can be assumed that the original hair colour was brown. Similar cases of hair preservation have been reported in studies of both mummified and non-mummified human remains (Aufderheide, 2003; Brothwell and Dobney, 1986; Lubec et al., 1987; White, 1993; Wilson et al., 2002, 2007b)."
I’m glad to see that you pointed out that the mummy’s original hair color was brown, not black. Not mentioned was the fact that it was also fine and silky. That lets out being Negroid to doesn’t it?
By 'brown' I take it you mean the Egyptians had auburn hair. That is hardly the case. What you fail to realize is that the pigment phaelomelanin for brown hair is also found among black Africans albeit in small amounts.
^ Notice the brownish tinge in their hair, it is more common among Africans than you think. Also, nowhere in the article did it say anything about the hair being "fine" or "silky"!
quote:I think that the skin of people who spend a lot of time in the sun would be packed with melanin don’t you? Therefore they are not necessarily Negroid.
Racial terms like "negroid" have been debunked. But tell me what peoples in Africa do you know have skin "packed with melanin" other than blacks??
quote:OK so apes have pink skin……SO!! Then you are saying that humans did start out with pink skin???
Of course not.
"Black skin evolved in part with fur loss... Black skin was the original state of the genus Homo.." --Dr. Nina Jablonski
quote:Afrosaxon, are you saying that your father having the head of a cro-magnon, had a huge heavy jaw and flat cranium, a huge occipital bulge with total brain capacity of 1650 cubic centimeters? That would be about 200 cubic centimeters larger than yourself – if you are average. Also note: the flat cranium changes the location of the eyes. In modern humans they eyes are located in the Middle of the skull. On the cro-mag types the eyes are not in the middle, but higher up – which would make a really creepy looking person.
Your other cro-mag-baltid has eyes in middle of skull – does not match referenced cro-mag proportions.
Afrosax is just uninformed as are you.
quote:Regardless of all that, everyone it seems, is assuming that the Earth’s geography has always been just like it is now.
State exactly who ever said Earth's geography has always been the same??!
quote:Evolution is not fact. It is a theory. It cannot be proven. Also it cannot be proven just what color any such “original” human may have had.
You forget that at theory by definition is a notion or thesis that is supported by evidence! Evidence in the form of fossil remains as well as genetics supports evolution. So far there has been NOTHING to disprove it. The skin color of original humans has been shown via genetic analysis which shows that all humans regardless of color (even whites) carry the skin receptors for black skin, and Africans carry the oldest genes.
Posts: 26307 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
For the two playing ignorant trolling flame baiter, M9 defines nonoverlapping haplogroups K through R while it's M89 which defines F-R.
Must be F-R, which isn't the same thing as FR, differences that can be quite big in the world of genetics. Just seems to be something invented by someone who just wants to appear smart, but actually appearing otherwise.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
Elementary to anyone who understands labeling nomenclature.
Yeah right, pseudo-scientific nomenclature is supposed to be easy to understand from a scientific standpoint?
quote: So pray tell Djehuti, what's kooky about FR-M89 and KR-M9 and what research leads you posture agreement with the outted stalker?
Easy, it doesn't exist in scientific nomenclature; it is alTakruri's personal crack-science...nothing more or less.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic