...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Deshret
»
Black Egypt is an afrocentric lie!
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by AFROCENTRICSMASHER: [QB] None of this means anything. According the the 1998 research of Passarino et. al., the Oromo and the Amhara are genetically indistinguishable and are therefore intermediate between non-African and sub-Saharan African populations: Since the analyses of the two groups did not show important differences, the data from both the Ethiopian groups have been pooled. Ethiopians in general, including Ethiopian Jews, are a genetically intermediate population centrally located between Negroids and Caucasoids; in other words, the fact that Ethiopian Jews are of indigenous genetic origin does not change the fact that they are a non-Negroid population. You obviously have poor reading comprehension skills, you piece of filth, because the aforementioned passage clearly demonstrates that North eastern Africans are genetically distinct from sub-Saharan Negroids. The Tishkoff et. al. study (2000) clearly demonstrates that not only have North eastern Africans divergedd biologically from sub-Saharan Negroids early in their population history, but that North eastern Africans are an intermediate population that is genetically distinct from sub-Saharan Negroids. Tishkoff et. al. (2000) state: The most distinct separation is between African and non-African populations. [b]The northeastern-African—that is, the Ethiopian and Somali—populations are located centrally between sub-Saharan African and non-African populations.[/b] Somalians and Ethiopians are genetically intermediate between Caucasoids and Negroids. East Africans are more related to Eurasians than to other African populations. East Africans are more related to Eurasians than to other African populations. East Africans are more related to Eurasians than to other African populations. East Africans are more related to Eurasians than to other African populations. East Africans are more related to Eurasians than to other African populations. East Africans are more related to Eurasians than to other African populations. East Africans are more related to Eurasians than to other African populations. East Africans are more related to Eurasians than to other African populations. East Africans are more related to Eurasians than to other African populations. East Africans are more related to Eurasians than to other African populations. East Africans are more related to Eurasians than to other African populations. East Africans are more related to Eurasians than to other African populations. East Africans are more related to Eurasians than to other African populations. East Africans are more related to Eurasians than to other African populations. East Africans are more related to Eurasians than to other African populations. East Africans are more related to Eurasians than to other African populations. East Africans are more related to Eurasians than to other African populations. East Africans are more related to Eurasians than to other African populations. East Africans are more related to Eurasians than to other African populations. East Africans are more related to Eurasians than to other African populations. East Africans are more related to Eurasians than to other African populations. East Africans are more related to Eurasians than to other African populations. East Africans are more related to Eurasians than to other African populations. East Africans are more related to Eurasians than to other African populations. East Africans are more related to Eurasians than to other African populations. East Africans are more related to Eurasians than to other African populations. East Africans are more related to Eurasians than to other African populations. East Africans are more related to Eurasians than to other African populations. East Africans are more related to Eurasians than to other African populations. East Africans are more related to Eurasians than to other African populations. East Africans are more related to Eurasians than to other African populations. As I have explained before, I don't care about your personal opinions, but I do care about what the scientific research has to say on the subject of population genetic structure as it varies from region to region. As far as I'm concerned, all of the available research clearly indicates that Ethiopians are a race of mongrels. According to the researchers Risch et. al. (2002): For example, east African groups, such as Ethiopians and Somalis, have great genetic resemblance to Caucasians and are clearly intermediate between sub-Saharan Africans and Caucasians. [...] The one population in their analysis that was seemingly not clearly classified on continental grounds was the Ethiopians, who clustered more into the Caucasian group. But it is known that African populations with close contact with Middle East populations, including Ethiopians and North Africans, have had significant admixture from Middle Eastern (Caucasian) groups, and are thus more closely related to Caucasians. [IMG]http://www.primates.com/chimps/chimpanzee-picture.jpg[/IMG] gger, sometimes I wonder if you really know how to read. Here is the abstract from the Brace et. al. 1993 study (again!): The biological affinities of the ancient Egyptians were tested against their neighbors and selected prehistoric groups as well as against samples representing the major geographic population clusters of the world. Two dozen craniofacial measurements were taken on each individual used. The raw measurements were converted into C scores and used to produce Euclidean distance dendrograms. The measurements were principally of adaptively trivial traits that display patterns of regional similarities based solely on genetic relationships. The Predynastic of Upper Egypt and the Late Dynastic of Lower Egypt are more closely related to each other than to any other population. As a whole, they show ties with the European Neolithic, North Africa, modern Europe, and, more remotely, India, but not at all with sub-Saharan Africa, eastern Asia, Oceania, or the New World. Adjacent people in the Nile valley show similarities in trivial traits in an unbroken series from the delta in the north southward through Nubia and all the way to Somalia at the equator. At the same time, the gradient in skin color and body proportions suggests long-term adaptive response to selective forces appropriate to the latitude where they occur. An assessment of race is as useless as it is impossible. Neither clines nor clusters alone suffice to deal with the biological nature of a widely distributed population. Both must be used. We conclude that the Egyptians have been in place since back in the Pleistocene and have been largely unaffected by either invasions or migrations. As others have noted, Egyptians are Egyptians, and they were so in the past as well. The Egyptians are most related to North Africans and Europeans and absolutely not to sub-Saharan Negroids. The fact that Egyptians do not cluster with sub-Saharan Negroids means that they are of obvious non-Negroid origin. Moreover, Somalis are a non-Negroid population as well. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3