A) Evil E has not yet defined what he means when he uses the terms Race, Negroid or Caucasoid, nor has he laid out a chronology for the evolution of said features (?).
B) Evil E continues to post images that are supposed to represent his A4 type and tries to pass it off as A4B. Furthermore he overlooks the fact that the B in A4B represents the HYBRID nature of early Greeks after African populations moved into southern Neolithic Europe as supported through dna with the PN2 clade.
C) Evil E continues to work with outdated concepts such as Race and Typology even though these absolutes have been rejected by modern biological anthropology. Furthermore, he rejects the RELATIVE SIMILARITY between modern and Mesolithic Africans while supporting the RELATIVE SIMILARITY between modern and Mesolithic Europeans. He doesn’t seem to realize that humans evolve through time. For example, modern humans are much taller today than they were just three-hundred years ago. Hence, in terms of ABSOLUTE SIMILARITY current living Swedes have a varied phenotype from Swedes who lived during the 17th century in terms of height. Yet in terms of RELATIVE SIMILARITY it is OBVIOUS that 17th century Swedes are closer in phenotypic terms to modern day Swedes than any other population in a global analysis. Likewise, in terms of RELATIVE SIMILARITY it is OBVIOUS that Mesolithic and Modern Somali are closer in phenotypic terms to each other than any other population in a global analysis. Hence the issue is RELATIVE SIMILARITY not ABSOLUTE SIMILARITY. Hence Negroid or negroid is of little consequence, they BOTH represent human populations that fall within the range of modern living Sub-Saharan African variability.
D) He superficially attempts to segregate Khoisan people and other Africans yet as Pinhasi et al note, it was in East Africa during the Upper Paleolithic that the “proto-Khoisan Negro type” split up, migrating into West Africa, North Africa etc. This is consistent with the dispersal of the PN2 clade from a East African homeland after the OOA Migration, but before the LGM.
E) Evil E quotes EARLY J.L. Angel work to support the idea of striking "Racial continuity in Greece" (Angel, 1944), yet he seems to overlook the LATER Angel finds which indicate…. "...one can identify Negroid (Ethiopic or Bushmanoid) traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters and in Anatolian and Macedonian first farmers, probably FROM NUBIA..."
F) Evil E still has not come to terms with the fact that the PN2 Clade derived in Sub-Saharan East Africa among indigenous tropically adapted people AND that southern Europeans and Central and West African share in the same common Sub-Saharan derived origin.
[This message has been edited by Thought2 (edited 04 June 2005).]
quote:Originally posted by Thought2: Thought Writes:
Let’s recap:
D) He superficially attempts to segregate Khoisan people and other Africans yet as Pinhasi et al note, it was in East Africa during the Upper Paleolithic that the “proto-Khoisan Negro type” split up, migrating into West Africa, North Africa etc. This is consistent with the dispersal of the PN2 clade from a East African homeland after the OOA Migration, but before the LGM.
posted
Where - are - your - answers - you - dumb - dirty - dishonest - Negroes?
quote:
If Angel's "negroid nose and mouth traits" represent black racial admixture, then where are the other Negroid traits? Where's the Negroid hair type, skull shape, skeletal form, pigmentation etc.? Funny how these Nomadic Neolithic Niggas transmitted only two of their traits to the Levantines and Greeks. Funny also that in his more detailed analyses, Angel makes no mention of a Negroid racial strain in either Neolithic farmers or modern Greeks. Neither does Coon for that matter. Nor Brace. Any answers, Negroes?
If Arnaiz-Villena's HLA-DRB1 study on Greek-Ethiopian affinities is anything more than junk science, then why has it been rejected by not one, not two, not three, but FOUR world-renownedgeneticists? And why have its results never been duplicated by a singleothergeneticstudy -- even those conducted using the same HLAgenes that Arnaiz-Villena analyzed? This is quite remarkable indeed, but I'm sure the Negroes have a very good explanation. We're all waiting to hear it.
"The San (Bushmen) in southern Africa are a group that physically looks quite different from other Negroids. Baker (1974), and Coon (1965) among others, have argued they are as different from Negroids as Caucasoids are, and should be treated as a separate race from other Negroids."
The DISPOP results here are not indicative of anything, except a general non-African nature for all these skulls. Display of POPKIN distances (infra) reinforces this and seems to find nearer neighbors among such more generalized populations as Peru, Guam, or Ainu, but also Europeans or even Easter Island.
Remembering that the Teita series (Bantu speakers of southeastern Kenya), and the recent East African skulls in table 4 above, do clearly exhibit African affiliations, it is fair to say, contra Rightmire, that there seems to be no clear continuity here in late prehistory. On the broad scale, looking at an "Out-of-Africa" scenario, one would expect that, in some region between southern and northeastern Africa, some differentiation would have been taking place within a Homo sapiens stock, evolving into something beginning to approximate later Sub-Saharan peoples on the one hand, and evolving in another direction on the other hand. East Africa would be a likely locale for appearance of the latter. So anyone is welcome to argue that this is what Elmenteita et al. are manifesting. The ensuing picture for East Africa, that is to say, would later have been changed through replacement by the expansion of Bantu or other "Negroid" tribes. (Howells, 1995)
"True" Black Africans appear as a recent adaptive radiation in the above dendrograms, apparently branching off from an ancestral Pygmy population -- a line of ancestry also indicated by osteological data (Coon 1962:651-656; Watson et al. 1996). This radiation seems to have occurred somewhere in West Africa. Before the Bantu expansion about 3,000 years ago, true Black Africans were absent from the continent's central, eastern, and southern regions (Cavalli-Sforza 1986:361-362; Oliver 1966). They were also absent from the middle Nile until about 4,000 years ago, at which time they begin to appear in paintings from Pharaonic Egypt and in skeletal remains from Nubia (Junker 1921). (Source)
And I'm still waiting for answers to the Bottom Line -- coming up on four months now.
posted
I don't know where you get your information from but you need to do more research. You may look at the people of the Mediterranean and think they are all just of caucasian blood, but to do that show's your knowledge of events. You would have to go back in history to understand more. Such as Hannibal, of North Africa, Carthage, was African. Not Mediterranean as your terms display, but black African. He invaded Italy, Spain, and others areas in the Mediterranean and stayed there for centuries. Why does every person, like yourself, think anyone with knowledge has to be of caucasian descent. Sorry, not so.
Posts: 2 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hannibal was from the Mediterranean coastal city of Carthage (Tunis, Tunisia) and descended from a people who had migrated there from Phoenicia (Lebanon). This is what he looked like according to the Romans:
posted
Yeah, he was from that area. But believe it or not, Northern Africa is on that Sea also. You pull up a picture that some guy says is Hannibal. Some guy who can't handle the fact of a brillant African, so he posts a picture of a Roman online. If I showed you a picture of John F. Kennedy and said it was a picture of the King of Mali, you'd probably believe that too. One caucasian can't make other caucasians darker. Just won't happen. You are just like the spoiled little kid. And to the history of people, you are the kid. First people on earth were African. You came from them. Whether you want to believe it or not. Be thankful of those who gave you life and much more.
Posts: 2 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The physical type of the Phoenicians is well known from the skeletal remains found in tombs at Carthage. A series of 117 skulls, of which 68 are male, belong for the most part to one characteristic type; dolicho- to mesocephalic, with the cranial index at 75; fairly long vaulted, and hence moderately broad; with a very low vault, a moderately broad forehead, a short face, high orbits, and a narrow, projecting nose which often springs directly from the frontal bone with little or no nasion depression. These skulls are in many ways similar to the [Western European] Megalithic or Long Barrow type of the preceding millennium; but, as is to be expected in view of their late eastern Mediterranean origin, show modifications toward a shortening and widening of the vault, and a beaking of the nose."
Interesting comment that predates the genetic evidence of the infussion of Sub-Saharan E3b lineages into the circum-Mediterranean basin from Black Africa.
Thought Posts:
Black Folk Here and There St. Clair Drake
"If the early Delta population was Natufian, even Carleton Coon, an anthropologist whose racist statements sometimes embarrassed his colleagues, would concede a Negroid tinge. On one occasion he wrote of Natufians that "the WIDE, LOW VAULTED NOSE, in combination with PROGNATHISM, gives a somewaht negroid cast to the face." But he hastened to conclude that these people were really "white", that "these late Natufians represent a basically Mediterranean type with minor Negroid affinities." These same people would probably be classified as "Negroes" in the United States, where such minor Negroid affinities are always enough to tip the scales. In the Middle East, however, they remain "white". Such inconsistencies have evoked charges against the profesional taxonomists ranging from hypocrisy to racism, by those Blacks who are aware of their operations. They see a definite attempt to insist that the Neolithic innovators who developed agriculture, pottery, metallurgy, and weaving could not possibly have been what we now call "Negroes."
"If the early Delta population was Natufian, even Carleton Coon, an anthropologist whose racist statements sometimes **embarrassed** his colleagues, would concede a Negroid tinge...
Indeed!
[This message has been edited by Super car (edited 16 September 2005).]
quote:Originally posted by Thought2: Thought Writes: On one occasion he wrote of Natufians that "the WIDE, LOW VAULTED NOSE, in combination with PROGNATHISM
Erroneous writes:
Wide low vaulted nose and prognathism are classic features indicating fully caucaZoid status, of type: A4-getaboutit.
Besides, where are the other Negroid features?
The dark skin?
The big fro?
The delightful penchant for sarcasm.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 16 September 2005).]
posted
Hannibal was clearly Caucasian. Afrocentrics discredit themselves by claiming otherwise. The same can be said of Cleopetra and quite likely of Nefertari. Of course, I think it is equally absurd to claim that Ethiopians are Caucasian or that the original pre-dynastic Egyptians were Caucasian.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
"His comment falls outside the standard method of scientific presentation which is peer-review. This may be acceptable base evidence for you, but my bar is much higher."
quote:Originally posted by Babbling Ape: The dark skin?
"...skin coloration is of no value in determining phylogenetic relationships among modern human groups." (Jablonski, 2000)
quote:The big fro?
Post pictures of all these Southern Europeans with Afros.
Thus both Jablonski and Molnar debunk your encyclopedic definition of race
quote:Erreonous cites: Nevertheless, by limiting the criteria to such traits as skin pigmentation, color and form of hair, shape of head, stature, and form of nose.....
If skin color has no phylo-genetic value, then you debunk 'your' own definition of race, which also has....no value.
Good work, Erroneous. You've completely screwed up, as usual.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 17 September 2005).]
Evidence shows that the structure of the nose, both bony and soft tissue, may undergo radical changes to adapt to the environment (Molnar, 1991). Thus, nose shape would give little evidence of genetic relationship.
Thus both Jablonski and Molnar debunk your encyclopedic definition of race
Thought Writes:
Your exactly right Rasol. Specific phenotypic traits MAY or MAY NOT be indicative of relationship. However, when we add the results of recent genetic analysis on the PN2 clad of the Y-Chromosome we see thateast and west Africans are indeed related, while Greeks carry insignificant levels of the EUROPEAN DEFINING genetic lineages Hg R1b and Hg I. Furthermore, genetic analysis does indicate that Greeks have substantial frequencies of the Sub-Saharan derived lineage E3b. If "race" implies BLOOD LINEAGE or genetics then the Greeks carry the African bloodline. In addition, if we impute a specific "essence" or innate nature to blood lineage then we have to come to the conclusion that the essence/bloodline of Sub-Saharan Africans played some part in the development of Greek civilization.
quote:Originally posted by Babbling Ape: Right over his head.
No, I'm quite familiar with your straw-man and nitpicking tactics of evasion. I just ignore them now. Fact is, you've claimed all along that Southern Europeans have frizzy Negroid hair, but can't produce any examples.
quote:Thus both Jablonski and Molnar debunk your encyclopedic definition of race
Wrong, ignorant spook. What do you think races are if not adaptations to environment? Genes (which may come to correlate with races) and their inter-relationships are a separate thing. That's the whole point of this thread, for which you have no answer.
quote:If skin color has no phylo-genetic value, then you debunk 'your' own definition of race
See previous.
quote:Originally posted by Thought2: In addition, if we impute a specific "essence" or innate nature to blood lineage then we have to come to the conclusion that the essence/bloodline of Sub-Saharan Africans played some part in the development of Greek civilization.
Or, we can just conclude that you're a self-hating Negro slave/savage with an inferiority complex who's so ashamed of this...
That you have to distort genetic data to make your ancestors seem responsible for this...
Not caring that it contradicts your stated position on race and genes...
========================= Question:
Are Greeks 'racially mixed' because of their E3b Y-chromosomes as you've claimed many times, or are Y-chromosomes unconnected to race and morphology as you claimed with the Lemba?
Or, we can try it this way:
Do you accept Underhill's statement that "There are no known genes on the Y that dictate bone morphology", or do you continue to maintain that so-called 'negroid traits' in Levantines and Greeks are the result of their E3b Y-chromosomes?
Come on, monkey, make up your mind. You can't have it both ways. =========================
Yeah, that's the conclusion I'm going with.
After all, a West African Negroid claiming Greek civilization based on a haplogroup from pre-historic East Africa that he himself does not possess is as ridiculous as an East Asian Mongoloid claiming British civilization based on the pre-historic origin of R in Central Asia. Fortunately for the British, Mongoloids are a civilized race with much culture of their own to take pride in, so this latter example of theft hasn't been an issue.
What do you think races are if not adaptations to environment? Genes (which may come to correlate with races) and their inter-relationships are a separate thing.
Thought Writes:
If phenotypic and genetic adaptation are not symbiotic how would these phenotypic traits be passed on or inheirited? Another non-sense claim.
After all, a West African Negroid claiming Greek civilization based on a haplogroup from pre-historic East Africa that he himself does not possess is as ridiculous as an East Asian Mongoloid claiming British civilization based on the pre-historic origin of R in Central Asia. Fortunately for the British, Mongoloids are a civilized race with much culture of their own to take pride in, so this latter example of theft hasn't been an issue.
Thought Writes:
When you use the term "claim" we need to understand specifically what you mean. Do you mean intellectual knowledge such as the spread of pre-dynastic writing systems to the Levant and then on to Greece? Do you mean the spread of phenotypes such as those mentioned by J.L. Angel? Do you mean the spread of lineages such as the West African derived Benin Sickle Cell Variant to Greece? Or do you mean the spread of specific genetic lineages? If you do mean genetic lineages are you claiming that NO Greeks carry genetic lineages from West Africa? If SOME Greeks do carry genetic lineages from West Africa then what is the statistical significance that you use to determine which groups can and cannot make a claim to a specific culture?
[This message has been edited by Thought2 (edited 18 September 2005).]
posted
The dumb-mutt's racist rantings about West Africans won't do any good. Mainstream history and science has already shown the existence of civilization in Sub-Sahara especially West Africa.
And the dumb mutt can't afford to talk about "self-hating" since he tries so desperately hard to deny that his lineage is of recent SubSaharan origin!
I suggest you learn more about your other heritage!
African Civilizations: Precolonial Cities & States in Tropical Africa - An Archaeological Perspective by Graham Connah
[This message has been edited by Djehuti (edited 18 September 2005).]
Posts: 26441 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Thought2: If phenotypic and genetic adaptation are not symbiotic how would these phenotypic traits be passed on or inheirited?
I can only post the explanation. I can't give you the literacy to be able to understand it.
quote:When you use the term "claim" we need to understand specifically what you mean.
Well, I mean that a dumb E3a- and L-carrying savage (i.e. you) has no basis upon which to assert any connection to the culture of Greeks, who possess neither of those haplogroups.
quote:This has nothing to do with the Sub-Saharan origins of the Greeks.
Greeks don't have a sub-Saharan origin, you thieving ape. They're fully European according to Y-chromosomes, autosomes and craniometry:
LOL!!!! You know EvilE, I would stop using that Craniomap. I'm telling you it just helps prove the point the Afrocentrics keep making about Greeks being hybrids.
quote:Originally posted by osirion: LOL!!!! You know EvilE, I would stop using that Craniomap. I'm telling you it just helps prove the point the Afrocentrics keep making about Greeks being hybrids.
No. It helps prove that Afrocentrics (and their little Jew bitch) are wrong about everything from Ancient Egyptians to Neolithic Greeks to North Africans to East Africans, and are too stupid to interpret the MDS plot that seals their coffin.
quote:Anyone care to make some comments about these Greeks?
posted
Us Jews plot right down there with those Iranians. A whole lot further away from Negroes than people like yourself. Muttboy. Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Evil Euro: No. It helps prove that Afrocentrics (and their little Jew bitch) are wrong about everything from Ancient Egyptians to Neolithic Greeks to North Africans to East Africans, and are too stupid to interpret the MDS plot that seals their coffin.Yes.
LOL No, because it has been proven that your MDS plot is obsolete and inaccurate and has been admitted so by the author [Brace] himself! YOU are the one who is too stupid to realize that!!
quote:They're tanned, Caucasoid Egyptians.
Actually it is an Egyptian depiction of people from Crete and of course only your dumb ass would describe them as "tan" LOL!!
Posts: 26441 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Anyone care to make some comments about these Greeks?
EE writes: Yes. They're tanned, Caucasoid Egyptians
Boy you have a sick mind. You are also crazy as hell! I get a good laugh everytime I come to this forum and see your silly attempt at debating history and genetics which present facts that you just can't seem to live with.
As in the words of RASOL, keep trying!!
Posts: 303 | From: Inside my Mind | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Us Jews plot right down there with those Iranians. A whole lot further away from Negroes than people like yourself. Muttboy.
Jews are not even represented on the plot, and Greeks are farther to the right than Englishmen. You're a blind fool.
quote:And I suppose this Minoan had buck teeth!
Yup.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: it has been proven that your MDS plot is obsolete and inaccurate and has been admitted so by the author [Brace] himself!
Post a quote from Brace where he says that his plot is "obsolete and inaccurate".
quote:Actually it is an Egyptian depiction of people from Crete
Keywords: Egyptian depiction -- about as accurate as the European depiction of a blond Jesus.
quote:Dumb-Euro says: Jews are not even represented on the plot, and Greeks are farther to the right than Englishmen. You're a blind fool.
So I suppose the English of Northwest Europe are more racially mixed than Greeks of Southeast Europe?! LOL Besides, it doesn't matter how "far to the right" they are since the POINT is that the Greeks are still plotted within that circled area labelled to be 'hybrids'! So in the end, your own sources refute you (as always).
To Osirion's question of a Minoan skull having buckteeth, Dumb-Euro writes:
quote:yup
Euro, you are too stupid to asess basic anthropological data yet since when did you all of a sudden be able to know what the craniometric traits of a skull are without measuring it and just by looking at a one-sided photo of it?!! Besides, those "buck-teeth" look like alveolar prognathism (a black African trait)!
To my reply about his silly old MDS plot Euro writes:
quote:Post a quote from Brace where he says that his plot is "obsolete and inaccurate".
Of course you are too stupid to know that Brace admitted this when he says he did not have enough African samples and that he agrees with the findings of Hiernax and Keita!
quote:Dumb-Euro says:Keywords: Egyptian depiction -- about as accurate as the European depiction of a blond Jesus.
Actually, it has been established that the people of the Aegean, including Crete, in Neolithic times was of diverse origins. Even in Minaon frescoes people with very dark skin and African features were depicted. Your small selective picture spam won't help you. It never does!! Posts: 26441 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Jews are not even represented on the plot, and Greeks are farther to the right than Englishmen. You're a blind fool.
Keyword: Neolithic Englishmen. Where as we see that Northwest Europeans (which include modern day Englishmen) plot significantly closer to Iranians.
I hate to speculate what that means. Perhaps, just perhaps, it means that the same East Africans from Somalia (or Northern Kenya) made it to Northwest Africa and was able to cross over into Portugal and subsequently also made there way into England. This group of people were replaced later by a Caucasian group of people. Just speculation.
As for Jews not being represented, I would speculate that since they are closer related to Iranians than say central Europeans, they certainly would plot closer to the former group.
quote:Originally posted by Evil Euro: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Thought2: St. Clair Drake... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...is not an anthropologist.
Thought said of an actual anthropologist:
"His comment falls outside the standard method of scientific presentation which is peer-review. This may be acceptable base evidence for you, but my bar is much higher."
Thought Writes:
I have never claimed that St. Clair Drake's work was peer-reviewed. So what is your point? I did not quote from Drake as a primary source. The peer-reviewed work of Keita, Angel, Brace, Ehret, Crucianni, Underhill etc suffice to prove my point.....
posted
evil euro is an idot bushmen are not africans lol. Like africans can have diffrent compexions and features but europeans can or made up caucaion. Arabs and indains are not the same people as europeans. I can see the diffrents and southern european then a northen european just like an western african and a bushmen so we should start make diffrent name for them.
Posts: 188 | From: canton,ma,united states | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic