quote:Originally posted by akoben: It is important to note that his "Europeans" here would include North Africans like the Berbers.
^^A statement, that was falsified, and instead of validating or addressing your erroneous falsified distortion, you switched to.........
quote:akoben says: Are Berbers sampled as Africans in Genes Peoples and Languages?
When answered, you actually agreed, but in an unusual fashion as noted...
"They're not Africans, they're north Africans. They're not bears, they're polar bears"---jackassoben
As seen from below.....
quote: akoben says: Bravo! He does not consider them Africans, I never said he did not consider them N. Africans distortion junkie.
Of course you then you divert to.....
quote:akoben says Where did he group N. Africans with other Africans?
Everyone can see your runaround ramblings, akoben (if they couldn't, they do now). Which leads back to the fact that Berber speakers are not being referenced when the genetically attributed contributions of 1/3rd Asian, and 2/3rd African are being applied to Europeans, you need to leave that pipe alone kid....
Insults removed - Henu
[ 29. December 2008, 11:13 PM: Message edited by: Henu ]
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Akoben has ruined another thread with his trolling and was pisses me off about it is that the Egyptology Forum is supposed to be moderated, but it isn't. Lets just ignore the troll.
quote:Originally posted by Youngblood Priest[Formerly The Bass: Jackassoben has ruined another thread with his trolling and was pisses me off about it is that the Egyptology Forum is supposed to be moderated, but it isn't. Lets just ignore the troll.
What pisses you off is that you can't post your white scholar's BS in peace. You are forced to validate it and so you hate this. You don't even know how they sample yet you parrot their crap as if it was gospel of white Jesus Christ.
quote:Originally posted by akoben: no page, no quote...you let me down again...
Why don't you produce a quote supporting your position that North Africans were amongst the Europeans who were found to be 1/3 African and 2/3 Asian since it is you who is making that claim? The burden of proof is on you akoben. We're all waiting.
posted
Modern Europeans are genetically result of Asian and Africans as duly noted. The jackass can bray all he wants.....
Validated by above Uniparentals:
Example: E3b is post OOA African, J is Asian. Both present in Europeans as well. Feel free to disprove the fact that we are able to tell when a population is admixed or not through genes.....???? E3b appears in southern Europe, but we know it's a post OOA African lineage. So take a bunch of these specific post OOA African lineages and these specific ancestral Asian lineages and put them together, you'll end up with the modern European gene pool.Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
LMAO @ Charlie Brown resorting to Dr. Winters tactics. This nonsense has to end Charlie Brown. You claimed to have read the book, you claimed to know how he sampled. Produce the page and quote showing the samples for his continents or shut your trap.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
You can never understand anything, never have any data or facts to present.
You just act as dense as possible until your overwhelming humiliation chases you to the next thread...... where you then repeat the same useless troll tactics. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why don't you produce a quote supporting your position that North Africans were amongst the Europeans who were found to be 1/3 African and 2/3 Asian
-> Because he knows North Africans have nothing to do with the findings.
He can't stand the fact that Europeans are mixed, and is looking for an excuse that he can believe in, and then 'argue' for.
Unfortunately [for him] he hasn't found one.
Obviously.
And, he never will, either. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ you're even more irrelevant than ever now. Your so-called "evidence" for Sforza's sampling does in fact show that his Berbers are not grouped with other Africans. Stay irrelevant son.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Attention Deficit Disorder suffering jackass, take your ritalin, then:
Try again.....
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Why don't you produce a quote supporting your position that North Africans were amongst the Europeans who were found to be 1/3 African and 2/3 Asian
-> Because he knows North Africans have nothing to do with the findings.
He can't stand the fact that Europeans are mixed, and is looking for an excuse that he can believe in, and then 'argue' for.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Yes, but "intermediate" in cranial features does not mean 'mixed' as some more 'liberal' Eurocentrics like to suggest. Moreover there are Africans in other parts of the continent that display such "intermediate" traits yet are undeniably black. This was all explained to you before T-rex in a couple of other threads.
Welcome back by the way, Charles.
Yep, in a study on North African crania the "Mechtoid" North African "Mechta-Afalou" type is grouped as "intermediate" - with the modern Dogon of Mali.
On the subject of the Nile Valley (but not the Horn) with respect to these Maghebian and North African types:
quote:Population, Health, and Disease. Over 100 human skeletons of Late Paleolithic age are known from Egypt and adjacent Sudan. Physically, they are all classified as Homo Sapiens. They are grouped with the Mechtoids of the Maghreb, but details of their teeth indicate that they are a separate population, with many similarities to groups in sub-Saharan Africa.
Encyclopedia of Prehistory - Volume 1: Africa Published in conjunction with the Human Relations Area Files (Encyclopedia of Prehistory) (Hardcover) by Peter N. Peregrine (Editor), Melvin Ember (Editor)
This makes sense since there was a gradient of influence (people, culture, language) going from sub-Saharan Africa up through the Nile Valley (which streches from inner Africa) up into the South Western Asia/Western Eurasia.
"Descriptions and photographs of late Paleolithic remains from Egypt indicate characteristics which distinguish them clearly from their European counterparts at 30,000 and 20,000 years BP (cf. Thomas 1984; Stewart 1985; Angel and Kelly 1986). These distinguishing characteristics, commonly called "Negroid," are shared with later Nile Valley and more southerly groups. It is not important to label "Negroid," only to note that they are shared with a wide range of African populations. Epipaleolithic "mesolithic" Nile Valley remains have these characteristics and diverge notably from their Maghreban and European counterparts in key cranio-facial characteristics (see comments in Keita 1990) although late Natufian hunters and early Anatolian farmers (Angel 1972) shared some of these traits, suggesting late Paleolithic migration out of Africa, as supported by archeology (Bar Yosef 1987). Lumping the epipaleolithic remains of the Nile Valley and even those from the Maghreb, into one group has little to support it..." - Keita, Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships, 1993.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Keita was so objective and revolutionary when it comes to handing it to Eurocentric myths. Before Keita we had to deal with phrases like "the negroidization of North Africa".
But back on the "intermediate" types, we remember Groves:
quote:The means of selected modern samples from the dataset of Howells (1973) were entered along with those of the fossil samples into a factor analysis to assess the interrelationships of the samples.
The males of the Afalou, Taforalt and Cro-Magnon samples lie far to the right on the diagram (Fig. 4), on factor 1, followed by Nubia male, Asselar, Cro-Magnon female, and Norse and Egypt male; to the left (scoring low on factor 1) are Dogon and Teita males, and the females of the remaining samples. On factor 2, Cro-Magnon, Taforalt, Norse and Egypt score positively, and Afalou and the sub-Saharan and Nubian samples score negatively.
Factor 1 represents robusticity, factor 2 represents the sub-Saharan/Caucasoid contrast. The Caucasoid populations (Egypt, Norse, Cro-Magnon) score positively on factor 2, the sub-Saharan Teita score negatively. The modern Dogon (Southern Mali) samples are intermediate. The fossil Nubians [who were described as being Mechtoid] score strongly negative, as does the Asselar skull (Central Mali). What is especially interesting is that Afalou also scores negatively, if only slightly; it occupies the same morphological position as do the modern Dogon.
- Groves
“Arambourg et al. (1934) referred to these robust North Africans as the “Mechta-Arbi race”; Ferembach (1962) as Ibero-Maurusians, or Epipalaeolithic, after their lithocultural association. Briggs (1955) divided the Afalou and other samples into four “types” (Palaeomediterranean, African Mediterranean, African Alphine, and true Mechta-Afalou). Anderson (1968) considered them far too homogeneous to warrant this treatment, and indeed Briggs’s analysis is in the typological tradition that held sway up until about 1940, but was thereafter increasingly discarded” - C. Groves, 1999.
quote:Originally posted by Alive-(What Box): Keita was so objective and revolutionary when it comes to handing it to Eurocentric myths. Before Keita we had to deal with phrases like "the negroidization of North Africa".
Yes but Keita was not the first objective scholar to point this out. Others could argue Diop was perhaps the first to make this move of pointing out Eurocentric bias and hipocrisy but unfortunately he didn't have the chance to get out the whole 'racial rut' altogether. It was Keita who did using the most powerful tool to do so-- genetics. With genetics, not only were the Euro-racist bias of the past destroyed but so too was the idea of 'race' and racialism itself.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I've put this topic in Egyptology so that trolls can't hijack it with disruptions because there is moderation in the Egyptology forum. Getting to the Basics......
Apparently not......
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Alive-(What Box): Keita was so objective and revolutionary when it comes to handing it to Eurocentric myths. Before Keita we had to deal with phrases like "the negroidization of North Africa".
Yes but Keita was not the first objective scholar to point this out. Others could argue Diop was perhaps the first to make this move of pointing out Eurocentric bias and hipocrisy but unfortunately he didn't have the chance to get out the whole 'racial rut' altogether. It was Keita who did using the most powerful tool to do so-- genetics. With genetics, not only were the Euro-racist bias of the past destroyed but so too was the idea of 'race' and racialism itself.
True, but Keita makes great use of skeletal/ crania studies as well. His 1990 and 1992 Studies of Ancient Crania in North Africa are a landmark. Throw in the limb proportion studies of Zakrewski showing those tropical body proportions and cranial/skeletal data is crucial. Of course I would agree that it should go together with the DNA research as well. They should cross check each other.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've moderated the thread somewhat, but if you encounter trolls, just ignore them. Don't feed the trolls and they won't stay around.
Posts: 113 | From: Dayr al-Barsha | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Excellent. There are too many side issues being dragged into the main topic.
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's something that I have been wondering about for some time: would NE African features, such as thinner lips and noses, be ancestral to those of so-called "Caucasoids" in western Eurasia? Or did these features evolve separately in NE Africa and W. Eurasia?
Mathilda claims on her blog ( http://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2008/07/30/somali-y-chromosome-study/ )that the people who colonized W. Eurasia from NE Africa were "generalized moderns" that didn't have modern NE African features (and therefore, presumably, modern NE African features are because of Eurasian back-migration rather than being the ancestors of W. Eurasian features), but she provides no citation for the claim.
Posts: 7083 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Phenotypical features such as lip and nose shape and size are genetically highly mutable and are also influenced by environment as well. The narrow features of northeast Africans are NOT ancestral to western Eurasians since fossil evidence clearly shows the ancestors of western Eurasians to have broad type features. Remember that 'Cromagnon' and other paleolithic Europeans still had features in common with "typical" sub-Saharan as well as Australian aboriginal features.
As for Mathilda's site, I tend to avoid it as I do Dienekes' site like the plague. Like Dienekes, the woman clearly has racial issues and is a distorter of scholarly works. But to address what you pointed out, 'generalized modern' is a euphemism anthropologists use to describe features correlating with Australian aborignes and Oceanians as well as most Sub-Saharans which basically means 'broad-featured' or "negroid" if you want to be blunt about. But just as I said in my first paragraph above, such features are highly subject to change especially from environment and as Keita and others have pointed out before, narrow features like nose and lips tend to correlate with dry climate. Considering Northeast Africa consist largely of dry Sahara to Sahelian climate it's no surprise that narrow features evolved independently there. Apparently what Mathilda conveniently left out is that narrow features are also promiment in Northwest Africa as well with such peoples as the Wodaabe nomads who are Niger-Congo speaking peoples with perhaps the highest frequency of E3a. And let's not forget Central Africans like the Tutsi of Rwanda having such features, and there is hardly any Eurasian genetic influence there if at all. And let's not forget Hiernaux's findings of fossils in Kenya and Tanzania which also possessed such features.
So you see this all just a fruitless effort to make Africans look more 'mixed' than they really are. I wonder what she has to say about Europeans then, who in general about a third have recent African ancestry!
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:So you see this all just a fruitless effort to make Africans look more 'mixed' than they really are. I wonder what she has to say about Europeans then, who in general about a third have recent African ancestry!
So Africans are "mixed" but not as mixed as Europeans right? Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: As for Mathilda's site, I tend to avoid it as I do Dienekes' site like the plague. Like Dienekes, the woman clearly has racial issues and is a distorter of scholarly works.
I have to confess, I visit blogs like hers just in case she posts something that makes me rethink my entire worldview. I think it is good to challenge your beliefs on some issues occasionally. That said, she has failed to convert me yet.
Posts: 7083 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
She is obsessed with race and relies heavily on the "true negro" model, which selectively defines certain DNA or sekeletal features as "Caucasoid" while defining away all else as narrowly as possible, someplace far south of the Sahara. Hypocritically, no attempt is made to run the comparison the other way, and define a "true white". Based on these "methods" African peoples are split into neat racial "percentages" of Negroid, Caucasoid, etc. like some bad US Government form.. lol
Many of the studies she uses are deeply flawed, like the dubious Howell's "matches" of Nubians with Frenchmen, Hungarians or Japanese.. lol or those that draw samples in a selective manner such as only sampling northern Egypt near Cairo to "represent" all of Egypt.
Much of her work is a weak and harks back to the now discredited Hamitic Hypothesis or Aryan Race Models. As Dejhuti notes above, "negroid" peoples have many of the supposedly "reserved" Caucasoid" features due to climate and other factors. Narrow noses for example are routine in the high, dry altitudes that make up much of East Africa, and do not depend on any migration from Europeans, Near easterners or Mediterraneans. The ancient Nilo Saharan peoples had such diverse features, and the Elongated East Africans as noted by Keita 1990/1992/2004, Hiernaux 1975 et al. are a well established ancient type of native African. SOme people, even in the 21st century, still findit hard to beleive that all Africans "do not look alike." See Hiernaux's diagram below.
Assorted "backflow" theories are also undermined by the limb proportion studies of the Nile Valley which show "disturbing" "tropical" types rather than Caucasoids.
Finally the deep rooted PN2 DNA clades, unite African peoples across the continent, regardless of how they look. (Keita 2004)
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:So you see this all just a fruitless effort to make Africans look more 'mixed' than they really are. I wonder what she has to say about Europeans then, who in general about a third have recent African ancestry!
So Africans are "mixed" but not as mixed as Europeans right?
Which Africans are you comparing? Which Africans would be more mixed than Europeans?
See, there's the *BIG* difference. Since Europeans are descended from a *single* group from East Africa, hence Europeans (non African) gene pool is extremely less diverse than a *single* African group.
Why you ask? Well simple, non Africans are descended from a single group of East Africans, who experienced population bottlenecks, which decreased diversity in non-Africans, hence the non African population who experienced these bottlenecks, would not even compare to the original population that they actually descend from(in East Africa). Let alone match up genetically or phenotypically to the diversity of continental Africa, where a bottleneck in *ONE* population will not affect others.
So unless you are saying a single group in Africa is more mixed than Europeans, then your comparison doesn't make sense. To compare the extremely limited gene pool of Europeans(who descend from a small population from *AFRICA*) to continental Africa is ridiculous.
Europeans are mixed 2/3rd Asian, 1/3rd African... Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: As for Mathilda's site, I tend to avoid it as I do Dienekes' site like the plague. Like Dienekes, the woman clearly has racial issues and is a distorter of scholarly works.
I have to confess, I visit blogs like hers just in case she posts something that makes me rethink my entire worldview. I think it is good to challenge your beliefs on some issues occasionally.
Someone doesn't like humanities origin. .....
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Her arguments are dumb. If she challenges your 'world view', then you have a very poor education.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan: She is obsessed with race and relies heavily on the "true negro" model,
Which is why she/Mathilda is extremely careful and moderates the comments on her blogs, "pends request" on each. Since she knows she's outdated. She, as well as Dienekes, and Erroneous E/"racial reality" know better than to set foot on this board....
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ She "appeared" once, and then went scampering back to her homemade rathole.
She uses a passive agressive form of trolling, wherein she makes rude remarks while pretending to be forever 'offended' which always gives her an 'out' from having to answer up for any of her bigoted nonsense.
Like Dienekes...she's a coward.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Her arguments are dumb. If she challenges your 'world view', then you have a very poor education.
Or pretty much just a follower(since he doesn't like the facts), who can't think for himself, hence questions his own judgment.... T-rex??
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: while pretending to be forever 'offended' which always gives her an 'out' from having to answer up for any of her bigoted nonsense.
Like Dienekes...she's a coward.
Yes.. Exactly.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan: She is obsessed with race and relies heavily on the "true negro" model,
Which is why she/Mathilda is extremely careful and moderates the comments on her blogs, "pends request" on each. Since she knows she's outdated. She, as well as Dienekes, and Erroneous E/"racial reality" know better than to set foot on this board....
I tried posting some comments on her blog and they got deleted, however, I had the chance to engage her one on one on Evil Euro's forum as she posts there under the name "Europa" and she's still a retard.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Henu: I've moderated the thread somewhat, but if you encounter trolls, just ignore them. Don't feed the trolls and they won't stay around.
Why don't you try doing your job and moderate this forum? As one can see trolling is off the scales here and topics are routinely destroyed for lack of moderation.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by T. Rex: Here's something that I have been wondering about for some time: would NE African features, such as thinner lips and noses, be ancestral to those of so-called "Caucasoids" in western Eurasia? Or did these features evolve separately in NE Africa and W. Eurasia?
Mathilda claims on her blog ( http://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2008/07/30/somali-y-chromosome-study/ )that the people who colonized W. Eurasia from NE Africa were "generalized moderns" that didn't have modern NE African features (and therefore, presumably, modern NE African features are because of Eurasian back-migration rather than being the ancestors of W. Eurasian features), but she provides no citation for the claim.
You've also got to consider that many Africans from across the continent (heard of Robert Mugabe) have thin lips or noses.
Facts to consider:
Within any region or social group of people, one population is likey going to harbor its own unique/distinct diversity of traits apart from the next.
Traits vary clinally, partly because of environment (food/geography), but also because humans reproduce and because they move.
There are no magical qualities inherent in one population being deemed "African" and another "Indian": therefore people in similar environments (mountains valleys tropics arctics jungles) develope similar physiological) traits.
I find it interesting Djehuti mentions the cranial robusticity and tropical morphology of pre-hstoric Western Eurasians. Consider that a recent study suggested that Africans are cranially more gracile than Europeans (which is definitely not hard to believe at all IMO if you have seen alot of african descended people.. I would believe more OR less gracile btw) - so cranial robusticity or gracility doesn't automatically translate into soft tissue / facial traits.
Consider also that pre-PN2 expansion Africa was almost certainly more diverse than its modern counterpart.
Facts about the Nile Valley and Western Eurasia:
The modern populations of South-Western region of Asia and Northern Coastal portion of Africa both have melanin-regulating genes originating in Northern Eurasia (Europe/Central Asia).
NE Africa predomanantly comprises of genetic markers that are most common in North or Horn Africa and originated in the upper Nile or Somalia - these lineages in turn descend from ones most common on the Borana in Kenya/Ethiopia and which originate in either Somaalia or in Kenya or Tanzania.
Still, Nile Vally populationns probably had their very own set of traits just like any other group -- they for sure owned noteable phenetic traits from pretty far away like the Benin sickle cell. And phenetically they had things in common that were somewhat general for South and Central Africa populations as well. Genetically there's Central African R1*.
quote:Originally posted by Youngblood Priest[Formerly The Bass:
quote:Originally posted by Henu: I've moderated the thread somewhat, but if you encounter trolls, just ignore them. Don't feed the trolls and they won't stay around.
Why don't you try doing your job and moderate this forum? As one can see trolling is off the scales here and topics are routinely destroyed for lack of moderation.
After experiencing censorship yourself, you now want to censor others. How sad. Is it because you cannot answer simple questions about a book you claimed to have read? About samples of which you know nothing of? What is the difference between you and mathilda here? I see none.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:So you see this all just a fruitless effort to make Africans look more 'mixed' than they really are. I wonder what she has to say about Europeans then, who in general about a third have recent African ancestry!
So Africans are "mixed" but not as mixed as Europeans right?
Which Africans are you comparing? Which Africans would be more mixed than Europeans?
See, there's the *BIG* difference. Since Europeans are descended from a *single* group from East Africa, hence Europeans (non African) gene pool is extremely less diverse than a *single* African group.
Why you ask? Well simple, non Africans are descended from a single group of East Africans, who experienced population bottlenecks, which decreased diversity in non-Africans, hence the non African population who experienced these bottlenecks, would not even compare to the original population that they actually descend from(in East Africa). Let alone match up genetically or phenotypically to the diversity of continental Africa, where a bottleneck in *ONE* population will not affect others.
So unless you are saying a single group in Africa is more mixed than Europeans, then your comparison doesn't make sense. To compare the extremely limited gene pool of Europeans(who descend from a small population from *AFRICA*) to continental Africa is ridiculous.
Europeans are mixed 2/3rd Asian, 1/3rd African...
Don't be a fool boy, the question wasnt serious I don't take anything you (Djehuti?) the priest, or rasolowitz say seriously, especially since you have proven yourselves unable to comprehends studies you cut and paste from the internet.
quote:Europeans are mixed 2/3rd Asian, 1/3rd African...
Like Evil Euro, no mater how many times you show East Africans aren't "Caucasoid" he will still maintain they are. No matter how many times rasolowitz post "Pygme [sic] and Khosian [sic] are *not* proto-African" - also, Sforza." and Keita says continents used as races cannot be branched, and there was no racial divergence, you will still parrot Sforza. You learn nothing, hence you don't evolve/improve, because you're not man enough to admit that you were wrong. How sad.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Assopen: So Africans are "mixed" but not as mixed as Europeans right?
Correct. There was historical backmigration of Eurasians into Africa, but their genetic influence is not as significant as that of African migrants to Europe in prehistoric times which is why all genetic studies confirm what folks like Sforza pointed out-- that Europeans are one-third African two-thirds Eurasian. But we know how much that pains you, as can be seen by your polluting this thread with your b.s. based on your denial of this genetic fact!
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by T. Rex: I have to confess, I visit blogs like hers just in case she posts something that makes me rethink my entire worldview. I think it is good to challenge your beliefs on some issues occasionally. That said, she has failed to convert me yet.
No. I understand your thinking. You are trying to keep an open mind and that's good. Such is a scientific mind, however you have to remember to judge your sources by the info it presents as well as your previous knowledge. If I were to stumble across a site that contradicts mainstream scientific findings such as speaking of "caucasoid" traits and even denying the African origin of the humankind, it's those type of sites that I prefer to avoid.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan: Much of her work is a weak and harks back to the now discredited Hamitic Hypothesis or Aryan Race Models.
Yes racial thinking still persists.
"Early Afro-Asiatic spread out from the Horn and did not come into Africa from Asia (brought by "Caucasians") as was believed atone time, and as is occasionally assumed by nonlinguists (e.g., Barbujani and Pilastro 1993; Cavalli-Sforza and Cavalli-Sforza 1995)...There is no need to postulate massive European settler colonization of Africa or genetic swamping and/or settler colonization by Eurasians, as is implied or stated in some contemporary genetic work (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994), echoing the now defunct Hamitic hypothesis...Northern Africans are more accurately conceptualized as primarily the products of differentiation than of hybridization."
According to the work of Sforza, Green = "Caucasoid territory".
"Other studies that do not use racial terminology (but usually use the same groups, because the underlying thinking is the same)" - Keita
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Assopen: Like Evil Euro, no mater how many times you show me Europeans are mixed I won't believe you
Because like Evil Euro, you are a stubborn, stupid, (and deep down) racist, punk that can't handle the truth!
And like Evil Euro, you will continue to humiliate and degrade yourself in this forum for the humor and entertainment of all the intelligent posters here. Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
A number of individuals even today still view Europeans having a significant Neanderthal component - especially Brace.
Below is from an article quoting scientists that recognize the problem of relying on dna interpretations.
"Loring Brace, an anthropologist at University of Michigan and a proponent of the idea that people descended from Neanderthals — he argues that features of skulls show a steady progression from Neanderthal to human — says the DNA evidence does not sway him. Different patterns of movement may have caused mitochrondial DNA to diverge more quickly in the past, he says. "The whole picture is still very spotty," Brace says. Erik Trinkaus, an anthropologist at Washington University in St. Louis, says the DNA evidence does not disprove his assertion that the 25,000-year-old skeleton of child unearthed in Portugal is the descendent of a human-Neanderthal hybrid. The new research, he says, just shows interbreeding was not common. "There is no contradiction," he says.
-------------------- D. Reynolds-Marniche Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic