posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:

So if the Romans looked like this, per Britannica, then a thousand years before they were probably looked like Bantus. Heh! Heh! Heh! Heh!










From Encyclopedia Britannica, ====

The portraits were popular among nineteenth and early twentieth century collectors, and this had a tendency to isolate them from their funerary contexts. They were studied by classicists and art historians who, basing their conclusions on details in the paintings such as hairstyles, jewellery and costume, identified the portraits as being those of Greek or Roman settlers who had adopted Egyptian burial customs.

---

^ That's partially correct. The portraits represent the children of Colonial Greco-Romans who intermarried with local native Egyptians!

Your argument that Greco-Romans were themselves 'black' is not only ridiculous but runs counter to Marc's belief that Julius Caesar (a Roman) committed genocide against blacks. LOL

By the way, Indo-European is a linguistic group NOT a population. Which is why the oldest populations in Europe today who do NOT speak Indo-European languages are still white, whereas there are groups in India who speak Indo-European languages but are not white.

As usual, your stupidity is unimaginable and apparenlty your mentor Marc can't help you now.

---

Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ Indeed, and you would think as many times as we've explained what or who those portraits depict that they would need no more explanation. But as usual it is only the idiot trolls that resurrect these issues with nonsense.

---

Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ Indeed, and you would think as many times as we've explained what or who those portraits depict that they would need no more explanation. But as usual it is only the idiot trolls that resurrect these issues with nonsense.

---

Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyz-upintheass-boy:

Seems like DJ is a better authority than Brittanica Ho! Ho! Ho! Fag!!

---

quote:

---

Put some more "punch" in your come back. Your are almost not worth the effort. Seems you can't read what was posted. Don't let me break it down for you again!!

---

quote:

---

From Encyclopedia Britannica, ====

The portraits were popular among nineteenth and early twentieth century collectors, and this had a tendency to isolate them from their funerary contexts. They were studied by classicists and art historians who, basing their conclusions on details in the paintings such as hairstyles, jewellery and costume, identified the portraits as being those of Greek or Roman settlers who had adopted Egyptian burial customs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
Well you know it's their forum now. They dictate its direction, topics, tone of conversation, etc. New surfers have no idea of the factual information supplied by the likes of Rasol, Supercar, Thought, Rigaud, yourself, and a few others, that made the old EgyptSearch Ancient Egypt & Egyptology forum the wolfsbane fear of white ethnocentric academia whom I believe masterminded our infiltration by racist, ill educated, mannerless, reactionary, black ethnocentrist rhetoricians in order to discredit the foregoing forum and besmirch the ongoing two forums making them anathema to any whose interest lies in serious research on Africana.

And, alas, they have succeeded.

---

They only thing they've succeeded in showing to all the readers of this forum how incredibly stupid and dim-witted they are on top of racist.

If only there was some real moderating around here, xyz and his boy lovers would not be degrading the forum with their stupidity.

Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
^ Yes, it's the death of moderation of the forum that reduced it to a playground for retards.

---

Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
I think this was missed Explain the descrepancy.

------

Now who is BSing who here? What about the refuge "theory". Where is DJ (and Rasol)when you need him to explain their BS refuge rants.

Hey genious, DJ, hope I don't have to explain the descrepancies.


[i]Y-DNA haplogroup R is believed to have arisen approximately 27,000 years ago in Asia. The two currently defined sublcades are R1 and R2.

Haplogroup R1 is estimated to have arisen during the height of the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM), about 18,500 years ago, most likely in southwestern Asia. The two most common descendant clades of haplogroup R1 are R1a and R1b. R1a is believed to have arisen on the Eurasian Steppe, and today is most frequently observed in eastern Europe and in western and central Asia. R1b is believed to have arisen in southwest Asia and today is most frequently observed in Europe and especially in western Europe, which it entered after the LGM largely in the form of R1b1b2. The Atlantic Modal Haplotype, or AMH, is the most common STR haplotype in haplogroup R1b1b2a.
R2 is most often observed in Asia, especially on the Indian sub-continent and in central Asia.

---

Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
Well it's like the old canard of argument between
the ignorant and the learned where the outside
observer can't distinguish who from whom. By arguing
with the ignorant as if they were learned, am I not
now the ignorant. Being learned should I not know
there's no arguing with the ignorant because being
ignorant of learning how could they submit to the
learned

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
^ Yes, it's the death of moderation of the forum that reduced it to a playground for retards.

---

---

Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
^ Speaking of teaching regardless of ignorance.

Haplogroup R1's origins is discussed here.

http://exploring-africa.blogspot.com/2008/01/r1-m173-in-africa.html

Intelligent folks have an opportunity to learn.

[Brain dead jackasses have another chance to be confounded by their own stupidity]

To each his own.

R1*-M173 bearing chromosomes in Cameroon

Thus far, the highest frequencies of these R1 lineages devoid of any known downstream mutations that characterize other R1* sub-haplogroups, is in Cameroon, to be followed by that detected in Jordan. On average R1*-M173 distribution seems to be relatively more common in African samples, than those outside of it, with detections in Cameroon as already mentioned, Egypt, and Rwanda. Outside of Africa, besides the Jordanian samples, detection of relatively lower frequencies was only in the Omani sample. It is certainly plausible that the presence of R1* chromosomes in Africa are relics of very ancient back-migration, but not conclusive as of yet.

The points thus far argued for back-migration has generally been formed around the idea that R1 macrohaplogroup has relatively lower intra-macrohaplogroup diversity of downstream lineages in areas like Cameroon than those in Eurasia, and while M9 lineages are prevalent in Eurasia, no ancestral markers of these lineages have been uncovered in there to my knowledge. What this fails to take into account, is that Cameroonian populations need not necessarily bear intra-macrohaplogroup diversity of R1, so as to be plausible direct descendants of the founder population for the undifferentiated R1* group. Why? Well, it is plausible that if the founder society was fairly small sized, with a section of this founder community migrating elsewhere, then the former may not necessarily have undergone considerable demic expansion relative to the latter offshoot (branch) which emigrated elsewhere—for some reason or another. The former would therefore experience relatively lower diversity due to smaller effective population size for a certain amount of time than the branch that would have undergone a relatively more rapid demic expansion from the onset. It is only after the small sized community undergoes considerable demic expansion subsequent to a period of relative botteneck, that chances of greater lineage diversity arise. Indeed, the diversity of R1*-M173 chromosomes—lacking identifiable downstream mutations—in Cameroon suggest that the populations derive from a source population that underwent a relatively recent rapid demic expansion.

I've been informed that the R1*-M173 chromosomes in Cameroon appear to be one-step neighbors to those found in the Nile Valley. Perhaps, learning about the distance between Cameroonian R1* lineages and those detected in Omani and Jordanian samples would prove instructive, but at the least, it appears that the Nile Valley corridor played a role in the demic diffusion of R1*-M173. From Flores et al., I get the sense that it is certainly plausible that R1*-M173 bearers diffused from Africa into the Levant via the Nile Valley corridor, likely sometime in the Upper Paleolithic. From Flores et al. we have:

Intrapopulation differentiation in Jordan

As Bedouin tribes had an important role in the colonization of southeast Jordan, it could be that the haplogroup composition of the Dead Sea reflected genetic affinities to them, but that is not the case. The most striking characteristic of the Dead Sea sample is the high prevalence of R1*-M173 lineages (40%), contrasting with the lack of them and of its derivatives R1b3-N269 in Bedouin from Nebel et al. (2001) and its low frequencies in Amman. It is worth mentioning that until now, similar frequencies for R1*-M173 have only been found in northern Cameroon (Cruciani et al. 2002). The possibility that the Dead Sea and Cameroon are isolated remnants of a past broad human expansion deserves future studies.

Interestingly, when the molecular heterogeneity of the G6PD locus was compared between the Amman and the Dead Sea samples, a lower number of different variants and a higher incidence of the African G6PD-A allele was detected in the latter (Karadsheh, personal communication). Another singularity of the Dead Sea is its high frequency (31%) of E3b3a-M34, a derivative of the E3b3-M123 that is only found in 7% Bedouins (Cruciani et al. 2004). Until now, the highest frequencies for this marker (23.5%) had been found in Ethiopians from Amhara (Cruciani et al. 2004). On the contrary, most Bedouin chromosomes (63%) belong to the haplogroup J1-M267 (Semino et al. 2004) compared with 9% in the Dead Sea. All these evidences point to the Dead Sea as an isolated region perhaps with past ties to sub-Saharan and eastern Africa.

Strong drift and/or founder effects might be responsible for its anomalous haplogroup frequencies.

This plausibility is suggested by the support provided by the fact that these chromosomes appear relatively more common in Africa, particularly in Cameroon, and other genetic indicators as that provided by the authors above, exemplified by the distribution and frequency pattern of the African-specific G6PD-A allele [under selective pressure of malarial resistance] on the X-chromosomes of Jordanian samples in association with that of the distribution and frequency pattern of R1*-M173. E-M34 distribution and frequency pattern in these samples may well also factor into any broader perspective of African-Levantine ties of the populations in question.

Two possibilities to deduce from R1*-M173 distribution pattern...

Possibility #1

— Originated in central Sahara or northeast Africa amongst a nomadic lifestyle oriented group and spread thereof to the Levant through the Sinai corridor, during the Upper Paleolithic.

— The remnants in Africa trekked down to Cameroonian region and the lower vestiges of West Africa as a place of refuge, with the coming of the Ogolian aridity [ca. between 23 ky ago and 18ky ago]. Sometime between 19ky ago and 15ky ago, some E-M35 bearing nomads would move into the Levant via northeast Africa, perhaps due to growing pressures of progressive Saharan aridity. This may explain R1*-M173 carriers in tandem with E-M34 carriers in places like the Dead Sea, whereas R1*-M173 is absent in sub-Saharan East Africa [but not in northeastern Africa] - the African Horn region - where E-M34 chromosomes are prevalent. It may also explain why the Dead Sea R1*-M173 bearing population also happens to standout from their high-frequency J1 carrying Levantine Bedouin brethren in sporting high prevalence of the African-specific G6PD-A locus on the X chromosome. The presence of both E-M34 and E-M78 derivatives in the so-called Near East make it clear that E-M35 chromosomes did not spill outside of the continent in a single demographic event or even time frame. On the other hand, E-M34 is absent in West and Central Africa where R1*-M173 chromosomes are most prevalent.

— Upon finding a refuge to escape intense aridified conditions of the Sahara, sections [meaning not all] of the previously largely nomadic R1*-M173 carriers began to settle in their new found refugia. The small communities of R1*-M173 would eventually expand, but they would have been overwhelmed by the faster expanding newly arrived PN2 carriers, especially with the receding of the Ogolian aridity. Those who retained their nomadic lifestyle, trekked back and forth the western[mainly] Sahel and the lower geographical vestiges of West Africa, where some of the settled brethren located themselves. These nomad traditionalists would adopt a pastoralist lifestyle [see: the theme centered on the *divergent* C-13.9kbT allele patterns in R1*-M173 carriers], which would modify their diet.

Although, largely tenuous at this point, there might be a link between the C-13.9kbT allele [has been linked to lactose tolerance promotion] and ancestry amongst a section of the groups bearing the ancestral R1*-M173 markers. This phenomenon of one segment of R1*-M173 bearers having the C-13.9kbT allele, while other segments of R1*-M173 bearers have little to none, has only been demonstrated in Africa, the continent where the R1*-M173 marker is so far the most common. Then again, as just another possibility, this phenomenon might be better related by some other line of ancestry or biohistory that portrays a different demographic history from that of the Y DNA marker.

Sticking point(s) for possibility #1:

The only or main one offered for this possibility from those publications which propose otherwise, is the relative greater diversity of the overall K-M9 family outside of Africa, as opposed to that located within continent, even though the presence of Hg K itself [particularly in East Africa] in the continent has been noted; however, even if one were to look at it from that angle, it doesn't necessarily negate a possible African origin for R1*-M173, as its supposed predecessor P-M45 — in particular, the elusive undifferentiated P-M45 — is just as rare in Asia.

Possibility #2

—Originated in the Sinai or the Levantine or northern regions of the Arabian desert, amongst a very small community nomads of that region. Those that trekked between North Africa and the so-called Near East through the Sinai corridor, would give rise to a subset that decided to stay put in North Africa and lead their nomadic lifestyle there. Others went even further north; they went as far as Europe, wherein they'd become ancestors of R1b bearers; on other hand, the demograhic shifts brought upon later by greater expanding groups, like say Hg J carriers, probably urged some remnants of R1*-M173 to spread eastward, central Asia, wherein they'd give rise to R1a carriers, sometime after the LGM or else after a good duration of the LGM had already gone by. The small group of R1*-M173 bearers who moved into Europe would likely have met relatively modest competition, due to smaller isolated groups in the region, as compared to elsewhere in Asia and in Africa.

—With the coming of the LGM, the R1 carriers in Europe would find refugia in southwestern Europe and certain regions in the so-called Near East. This would have coincided with the aridification of the Sahara, wherein R1* bearers there, as I have noted above, would have migrated southward, out of the region of the intense aridification of the Sahara. However, when the LGM came to a conclusion, the R1 carriers in Europe, who sought refuge in southern Europe and parts of the so-called Near East, would start repopulating the more northerly regions of Europe, and the subsequent expansion, especially with the advent of farming from the so-called Near East, would result in R1b-rich populations wherein the carriers of the downstream [R1b] carriers would overwhelm any remaining original R1b-predecessor R1* group. In otherwords, negative genetic drift essentially drifted out the original R1 carriers. Although R1b itself seems to have come to being before the LGM, its numbers likely became much greater after the LGM. As noted above, small group of R1 carriers who populated Europe, were likely fortunate enough to have not met the same competition from non-R1 bearing groups, as they might have been exposed to in Africa and the so-called Near East.

Sticking point(s) for possibility #2:

Naturally with possibility #2, one would have to explain away why the only one of the two places outside of Africa where the rare unidifferentiated R1*-M173 marker is present, and where it has been the most substantial [after Africa], that this marker appears to be in a population that stands out in its low Hg J [ 9% J1 in the Dead Sea compared with 63% J1 (Semino et al. 2004) of their Bedouin neighbors , per reference by Flores et al. 2005], while it bears 31% E-M34 compared to the only 7% of Bedouin (Cruciani et al. 2004)[See: Flores et al.2005], and last but not least—it has a lower number of different G6PD locus variants and a higher incidence of the African G6PD-A allele (Karadsheh, personal communication) than the Bedouin, when the molecular heterogeneity of the G6PD locus was compared between the Amman and the Dead Sea samples [Flores et al. 2005]. And even Oman, wherein R1*-M173 markers had been located in low frequency, cannot be ruled out as a recipient of these chromosomes through gene flow from Africa, because it isn't too far from northeast Africa, wherein these R1* chromosomes appear, not to mention the fact that other African ancestry therein [like variant E-M35 lineages and E3a chromosomes] make it clear that Oman has definitely been a recipient of genetic introgression from Africa via multiple and distinct demographic events.

Neutralizers...

In either cases of possibility #1 and possibility #2, downstream R1 derivatives are relatively less to absent in the regions that harbor R1* undifferentiated chromosomes. Yet, in the regions that do have the downstream R1 chromosomes, R1* undifferentiated chromosomes are virtually absent. This is simply testament to the possibility that in regions wherein the original R1 carriers [who were likely small to begin with, in terms of effective population size] appear to have expanded the most, the original R1* chromosomes were eventually drifted out by the more downstream R1 carriers.

One thing both possibility #1 and possibility #2 converge on, is this: R1*-M173 in Cameroon are very ancient, and did not come from populations characterizing downstream mutations, like say Europe.

Research extracts that just lend credence to some of the themes expressed in the above...

In the mtDNA landscape, Richard et al. 2000 tell us:

"We conclude that (i) there has been substantial back-migration into the Near East, (ii) the majority of extant mtDNA lineages entered Europe in several waves during the Upper Palaeolithic, (iii) there was a founder effect or bottleneck associated with the Last Glacial Maximum, 20,000 years ago, from which derives the largest fraction of surviving lineages, and (iv) the immigrant Neolithic component is likely to comprise less than one-quarter of the mtDNA pool of modern Europeans."

Neolithic contribution...

"With respect to their Neolithic components, the regions fall into several groups. The southeastern, north-central, Alpine, northeastern, and northwestern regions of Europe have the highest components (15%–22%). The Mediterranean zone has a consistently lower (9%–12%) Neolithic component, suggesting that Neolithic colonization along the coast had a demographic impact less than that which resulted from the expansions in central Europe. Scandinavia has a similarly low value, and the Basque Country has the lowest value of all, only 7%..."

"The principal clusters involved seem to have been most of J, T1, and U3, with a possible H component. This would suggest that the early-Neolithic LBK expansions through central Europe did indeed include a substantial demic component, as has been proposed both by archaeologists and by geneticists."

Late Upper Paleolithic contribution...

"The LUP values are, by contrast, higher toward the west: the western Mediterranean, the Basque Country, and the northwestern, north-central, Scandinavian, and Alpine regions of Europe have 52%–59% LUP, with the central-Mediterranean region having a value of almost 50%..."

"The lineages involved include much of the most common haplogroup, H, as well as much of K, T, W, and X...haplogroup V, the sister cluster of H within HV, appears to have evolved within Europe, possibly in the southwest, and to have expanded with the LUP component (Torroni et al. 1998)..."

"It seems plausible, then, that many founders of haplogroup H—and, possibly, founders from other haplogroups dating to the LUP, such as much of K, T, W, and X—may have (a) arrived prior to the LGM, (b) suffered reductions in diversity, as a result of population contractions at the onset of the LGM, and (c) subsequently reexpanded."

Middle Upper Paleolithic contribution...

"The MUP values are perhaps highest in the Mediterranean zone, especially the central Mediterranean region..."

"The value for the MUP is rather low in the basic fs analysis, at ∼10%–15%, and is highest along the Mediterranean, especially in the central-Mediterranean region. However, after allowance is made for multiple expansions of the H-CRS, it rises to ∼25% overall. The contributing clusters are mainly HV*, I, U4, and (in the repartitioned version) H."

Early Upper Paleolithic contribution...

"The EUP values are highest in Scandinavia, the Basque Country, and northeastern Europe..."

"For the first settlement of Europe, at least, the picture seems to be clearer. The regional EUP component varies 5%–15% and comprises mainly haplogroup U5. The values are highest in southern and eastern Europe, as well as in Scandinavia and the Basque Country."

All in all...

These analyses allow us to quantify the effects that various prehistoric processes have had on the composition of the modern mtDNA pool of Europe. They suggest that <10%> and that ∼20% arrived during the Neolithic.

Most of the other lineages seem most likely to have arrived during the MUP and to have reexpanded during the LUP. Given the uncertainties associated with the analyses, we should not rule out the possibility of a Mesolithic migration, but we have found virtually no evidence supporting this idea.

The above is essentially relevant for the basic theme of major expansion events with the fading of the LGM, which is consistent with R1b bearers' numbers swelling in tandem with said expansions.

More directly related to the issue of R1 bearers, Cinnioglu et al tell us that:

"The phylogenetic and spatial distribution of its equivalent in Europe (Cruciani et al. 2002), the R1-M173 (xM17) lineage for which considerable data exist (Semino et al. 2000a; Wells et al. 2001; Kivisild et al. 2003) implies that R1b3-M269 was well established throughout Paleolithic Europe, probably arriving from West Asia contemporaneous with Aurignacian culture.

Although the phylogeographic pattern of R1b3-M269 lineages in Europe suggest that R1-M173* ancestors first arrived from West Asia during the Upper Paleolithic, we cannot deduce if R1b3-M269 first entered Anatolia via the Bosporus isthmus or from an opposite eastward direction. However, archeological evidence supports the view of the arrival of Aurignacian culture to Anatolia from Europe during the Upper Paleolithic rather than from the Iranian plateau (Kuhn 2002)."

Consistent with the general observation about the role played by the so-called "Middle Eastern" corridor in the initial peopling of Europe involving groups who were to become the main source populations of contemporary native Europeans. Additionally,...

"The variance of 49a,f ht35 related chromosomes are lower in the Balkan, Caucasian and Iraqi representatives than those in Turkey (Table 4). Similarly, the variance is higher in Iberia than in Western Europe.

The decreasing diversity radiating from Turkey towards Southeast Europe, Caucasus and Mesopotamia approximates similar results from Iberia tracing the re-colonization of Northwest Europe by hunter-gatherers during the Holocene as suggested by others (Torroni et al. 1998; Semino et al. 2000a; Wilson et al. 2001)...

Haplogroup R1b3-M269 occurs at 40–80% frequency in Europe and the associated STR variance suggests that the last ice age modulated R1b3-M269 distribution to refugia in Iberia and Asia Minor from where it subsequently radiated during the Late Upper Paleolithic and Holocene. The R1b3-M269 related, but opposite TaqI p49a, f ht 15 and ht35 distributions reflect the re-peopling of Europe from Iberia and Asia Minor during that period.

The R1b3-M269 variances and expansion time estimates of Iberian and Turkish lineages are similar to each other (Table 2) but higher than observed elsewhere (Table 4). Low variances for R1b3-M269 lineages have also been reported for Czech and Estonian populations (Kivisild et al. 2003)." - Cinnioglu et al.

....in a wrap up, which is relevant to the idea of the lineages having expanded northwards from west Asia, and then subsequently expanding back to the Mediterranean regions [with southwestern Europe, i.e., Iberia being important, in terms of refuge] and Asian Minor during the last Ice age, and then at the end of LGM, re-peopling of the northward European regions began from these regions.

By the way, previous genetic research work made very enthusiastic attempts to correlate the likes of U6 and possible "Eurasian"-tagged mtDNA with R1*-M173, supposedly as an attempt to buttress a possible back-migration into Africa; all but failed, with results showing considerable African mtDNA gene pool instead, for populations bearing these chromosomes.


If as pointed out by L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza [see: Genes, peoples, and languages] that markers across the human genome from a sample of 42 populations involving some 120 alleles, i.e. aside from the generally used uniparental paternal and maternal markers, suggest a component of about 1/3 African contribution and 2/3 Asian contribution, then the following would seem to lend support to the African-origin scenario presented above, that is—in light of what is already understood about the genetic markers found in tandem with R1*-M173 chromosomes found in the Dead Sea samples...


One reasonable hypothesis is that the genetic distance between Asia and Africa is shorter than that between Africa and the other continents in Table 1 because both Africans and Asians contributed to the settlement of Europe, which began about 40,000 years ago. It seems very reasonable to assume that both continents nearest to Europe contributed to its settlement, even if perhaps at different times and maybe repeatedly. It is reassuring that the analysis of other markers also consistently gives the same results in this case. Moreover, a specific evolutionary model tested, i.e., that Europe is formed by contributions from Asia and Africa, fits the distance matrix perfectly (6). In this simplified model, the migrations postulated to have populated Europe are estimated to have occurred at an early date (30,000 years ago), but it is impossible to distinguish, on the basis of these data, this model from that of several migrations at different times. The overall contributions from Asia and Africa were estimated to be around two-thirds and one-third, respectively. Simulations have shown (7) that this hypothesis explains quite well the discrepancy between trees obtained by maximum likelihood and neighbor joining. - L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza

---

Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:

catching on?! You will get there. BTW nice find. Let me process this.. . .

Always said one part to the puzzle is analysis and path of R1* to Western Europe(R1b)


After reading thru half: there is a lot of "theory/BS" mixed in with facts.

So far the facts indicate an African origin. Will comment back fully, later.

---

Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
Speaking of Marc, where is the old fella anyway?

I believe he may have been scared off by his exposed hipocrisy . Perhaps he ran back into the arms of his oblivious white wife.

---

hipocrisy
Hypocrisy

LOL, a racist Robot with a flawed spelling routine?
Well, of course. Look to the programmers.

and the paleface says, "Yeah"!
LMAO!

Posts: 3595 | From: Moved To Mars. Waiting with shotgun | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:

After reading thru half: there is a lot of "theory/BS" mixed in with facts.

---

Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

I'm neither racist nor a robot, but Marc has been exposed for the self-contradicting fraud that he is such as marrying the enemy "albino" you so despise!

---

Posts: 3595 | From: Moved To Mars. Waiting with shotgun | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Explorer:
AssOpen, what does that piece instruct you to reference? There's the answer to your question.

---

Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by meninarmer:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

I'm neither racist nor a robot, but Marc has been exposed for the self-contradicting fraud that he is such as marrying the enemy "albino" you so despise!

---

Contradiction, anyone?

---

Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Explorer:
I gave you a simple answer. The tone of your comeback suggests that you don't know how to read.

---

Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Explorer:
Since the mentally impotent AssOfbenStein aka AssOpen was chased away [with his tail tucked between his legs] by his very own doing, I'll do the honors of deconstructing his intellectually shallow and transparent scheme:

In doing so, I'll provide answers to those unanswered questions put to him, which seem to have irreversibly left AssOpen in a state of consciousness paralysis.

AssOfbenStein aka AssOpen tried to pull off with me the game that he tried -- unsuccessfully -- to derail rasol and MindoverMatter718 with. He jumped the gun about some [non-existent] mention of reading the "book" by the same title, that is -- "Genes, peoples, and languages".

This is where my seemingly simple questions come in.

AssOfbenStein had a hunch that answering them would immediately see his intellectually shallow scheme come tumbling down like a deck of cards, even before it was implemented, which is why he refrained and took the coward's way out.

AssOpen's M.O. was to start that crap around the sample size related to the genetic mixtures quantified for the European gene pool, so as to get me to tacitly accept his putting words into my mouth -- i.e. about reading the "book" -- even though it is clear for all able readers to see that the blog post was referencing a *specific* extract from Sforza's work. In the process, he would have liked to see me chime in on the sampling such that he could show that it contradicted something either rasol or MindoverMatter said. This is where the second seemingly simple question comes.

Answering that question would have in all likelihood exposed 1)that either he himself didn't read the book in question and/or 2)that the specific wordings of the extract would have fell out of place in the said book, which would of course, render his trifling scheme useless.

As for the issue of the overall sample size, regardless of what is said about it, it doesn't render any part of the post I applied it to -- any less or more valid than it already is.

AssOpen/AssOfbenStein: it's time to take the cross-dressing costume and dunce cap off and quit your dunce's gig; it was over before it even began.

---

Come Ausarianstein, for the sake of the few readers of your blog who still think you know what you're talking about, did you read the book or not? What samples did he use? And if you don't know this, how then do you know his figures are correct?

Let me help you a bit, Rasolowitz says for the samples he [Sforza] uses non East African populations including central African 'pygmy'.

Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

AssOfbenStein/AssOpen, if you have anything *specifically* about the blog post that you wish to rectify, I'll be glad to examine the *counter material* and its *counter evidence*. Pointless decrepit queries only come from dunces who had no business going to such an intellectually-complicated blog in the first place. I should put up a warning sign over there: "Rated R: Restricted from dunces!"

---

Did I st-t-t-utter J-Jew b-b-boy?

did you read the book or not? What samples did he use? And if you don't know this, how then do you know his figures are correct?

^ that's what I want "rectified".

And by "intellectually-complicated blogs" do you mean like the Lipstadt holocaust blog you and rasolowitz pay homage to...I mean frequent?

Please, give me a break Jew boy!

Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by akoben:

Did I st-t-t-utter J-Jew b-b-boy?

---

Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

By the way, Rasol you forgot a fourth troll tactic of Assoben, that is resort to ad-hominem jew-bashing name-calling.

---

Yes, he engages in racist remarks against jews;

Then appeals to the Jewish Rabbi Jesus Christ, whom he considers to be God.

Then he rails 'against' the "racism" of scientists who say that Europeans are just a depigmented mixture of Africans and Asians and not really a race.

This is because he can't stand the fact that Europeans are mixed, which offends his fake-Nazi, anti-semitic sensibilities.

Yes, he's quite a mess.

But we can still use him to point out the fact that Europeans are mixed.... knowing that he will continue to whine about it, but never, ever, come up with a single fact, source, study or argument that can in any way refute it.

Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Explorer:

quote:

---

Originally posted by akoben:

Did I st-t-t-utter J-Jew b-b-boy?

---

Yeah, dirty Jewish OpenAss; you stuttered. You've failed to specify and refute anything other than caterwaul like a lil bitch. No? Specify point in contention + counter evidence right now!

---

Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by akoben:
I want to stop running and start answering, but I'm pretty much a jackass....

---

All the rambling, yet Europeans are still hybrids ......bwahaahhahahahaa

quote:

---

The "intermediate" biological characteristics of supra Saharan Africans are not easily explained as primarily the result of hybridization.---Keita

---

^^But Europeans are..... Bwahahahahahaa

quote:

---

You do understand what "can not primarily be explained" means right? Can not *primarily* be explained as a result of hybridization.....

Anyway, wrong again, as I wasn't just correcting your idiotic use of Eurasians. Nowhere does he state that hybridization amongst supra Saharans would be anything to do with alleged major racial groups. What Keita does say is, Supra Saharans intermediate characteristics can not be explained primarily, through hybridization with Near Easterners or Europeans, and not as you want to distort "two alleged racial group". you dumb twit.


This is exactly what Keita is saying....

Keita is saying supra Saharan Africans intermediate biological characteristics can not be easily explained primarily through hybridization with Europeans or Near Easterners. Which is because they (supra Saharan Africans) characteristics are indigenous, and they are not mixed like Europeans, hence hybridization primarily does not explain their intermediate biological characteristics, so hybridization is ruled out.

Europeans are mixed, therefore Europeans intermediate status is easily explained through hybridization, whereas intermediate characteristics can not *primarily* be explained due to hybridization for supra Saharans.

---

jackassoben are you ok?

Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Explorer:
Good bitchin dirty Jewish OpenAss, you have no case. The matter is settled then.

---

quote:

---

Nowhere does he state that hybridization amongst supra Saharans would be anything to do with alleged major racial groups. What Keita does say is, Supra Saharans intermediate characteristics can not be explained primarily, through hybridization with Near Easterners or Europeans, and not as you want to distort "two alleged racial group". you dumb twit.

---

Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:

quote:

---

Originally posted by akoben:
I want to stop running and start answering, but I'm pretty much a jackass....

---

All the rambling, yet Europeans are still hybrids ......bwahaahhahahahaa

quote:

---

The "intermediate" biological characteristics of supra Saharan Africans are not easily explained as primarily the result of hybridization.---Keita

---

^^But Europeans are..... Bwahahahahahaa

quote:

---

You do understand what "can not primarily be explained" means right? Can not *primarily* be explained as a result of hybridization.....

Anyway, wrong again, as I wasn't just correcting your idiotic use of Eurasians. Nowhere does he state that hybridization amongst supra Saharans would be anything to do with alleged major racial groups. What Keita does say is, Supra Saharans intermediate characteristics can not be explained primarily, through hybridization with Near Easterners or Europeans, and not as you want to distort "two alleged racial group". you dumb twit.


This is exactly what Keita is saying....

Keita is saying supra Saharan Africans intermediate biological characteristics can not be easily explained primarily through hybridization with Europeans or Near Easterners. Which is because they (supra Saharan Africans) characteristics are indigenous, and they are not mixed like Europeans, hence hybridization primarily does not explain their intermediate biological characteristics, so hybridization is ruled out.

Europeans are mixed, therefore Europeans intermediate status is easily explained through hybridization, whereas intermediate characteristics can not *primarily* be explained due to hybridization for supra Saharans.

---

jackassoben are you ok?

---

Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

quote:

---

Nowhere does he state that hybridization amongst supra Saharans would be anything to do with alleged major racial groups. What Keita does say is, Supra Saharans intermediate characteristics can not be explained primarily, through hybridization with Near Easterners or Europeans, and not as you want to distort "two alleged racial group". you dumb twit.

---

*sigh* Isn't he talking about supra Saharans like Berbers? Didn't he say according to some studies they show shifts between the major racial groups as traditionally and currently defined by some scholars?

---

quote:

---

So their similarities can not be explained primary by hybridization, i.e. being products of the major racial groups.

---

Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

The "intermediate" biological characteristics of supra Saharan Africans are not easily explained as primarily the result of hybridization.---Keita

---

^^But Europeans are..... Bwahahahahahaa

Jackassoben, is Keita implying that some intermediate biological characteristics of supra Saharan Africans might be able to be explained through hybridization, but not primarily? Oh yes of course he is.

Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by akoben:

Yeh, it's settled. You didn't know what the **** you were talking about on your blog as usual.

---

Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged |