I definitely don't feel like adding post 1100 to this rediculous thread, but:
The confusion of the above two posters is paramount to a lack of understanding (and of wisdom - that's shown when people speak on something they do not completely understand).
First off, scientists and archaeologists know that murder, genocide, population replacements, genetic drift and further demographic shift can happen.
This is why genetic data has to be compared with skeletal archaeological evidence - which, like language, must been analyzed carefully, scientifically, and objectively.
Other archaeological (art) evidence is only supplementary to other evidence.
European Y haplogroups and mtDNA date back to the Paleolithic.
How the hell could the alleged genocidal population have been absorbed into the remnants (if any, but likely some) of the aboriginal population?
It's just not very likely, and quite far fetched.
It implies that ALL of the current Euros must be the result of invador/aboriginee mixes, which means that the aboriginees must have been prominent after having been nearly wiped out.
Not to mention the lack of evidence of any abrupt change.
posted
. . [Alive B writes: "Sigh ... It's just not very likely, and quite far fetched.
It implies that ALL of the current Euros must be the result of invador/aboriginee mixes, which means that the aboriginees must have been prominent after having been nearly wiped out.
Not to mention the lack of evidence of any abrupt change.
What you have here is sheer impossibility."
[Marc writes]: Tell that to the over one million people of Gual (by far, mostly Africans, i.e. Celts). Caesar bragged about killing that number. This makes him tantamount to Africans what Hitler was to the Jews. It wasn't fun either in the British Isles when the Germanic tribes arrived. They'd skin Celts alive to instill terror. For fun, the Germanic youth would join "armies" to raid Celt villages, pilfer their live stock and even gold, and compete to see who could kill the greatest number of Celts.
Keep in mind that they were incursive peoples, nomads assualting mostly a peaceful, unarmed population. The British Isles was peopled with farmers and seamen, not, initially, trained, armed soldiers. You can read about this fairly easily if you browse. In any case, where your sheer impossibility is concerned, read on:
The whole of Gaul was now conquered for the second time. Six million people had been living in Gaul before Caesar arrived in 58; one million had been killed and one million had been sold as slaves when he left in 50. Caesar himself wrote in his Commentaries on the War in Gaul that peace had been brought to the whole of Gaul. It is not hard to see that this was the peace of a graveyard.
I understand genocide of that magnititude from people we've been taught to respect and hold in awe (e.g. Caesar - but Alexander as well. And we could go on) is hard to contemplate.
. .
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
You mention the "the lack of evidence of any abrupt change." I would say that for these populations to be extant 3000 years ago and completely absent today is an "abrupt change."
Alexander killed over a million Africans (I identify these people as Africans by phenotype)
""Very conservative figures suggest that in the space of just eight years Alexander the Great had slain well over 200,000 men in pitched battle alone, over 40,000 of them Greeks .... More Greeks in two engagements than had fallen in the entire history of pitched battle among city-states."
The genocide committed by these two alone is unconscionable. A conservative estimate is that probably over 30 million Africans (by phenotype) were killed in genocide due to the incursions of whites into the Near East, the Far North, Europe, and Africa over a 2000 year period.
. .
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's the thing with this underlings yes men. Can't think on their own. Rasol open his motuh and they all say, yes sir. Likes of Alive, Trex etc. But we all know why . . . .they are not interested in the truth.
They can't explain all the black African evidence in Europe that many of you pioneers(Marc, Clyde, Marc, Mike, Joe etc) have publish. They repeat the one-liner of Rasol.. . . .PCT.
I wish they could challenge the evidence in a meaningful way besides saying. . . IT IS NOT(CAN'T BE)TRUE. DON'T LET IT BE TRUE.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
"If you become a doctor, folks will face you with dread If you become a dentist, they'll be glad when you're dead You'll get a bigger hand if you can stand on your head
Be a clown, be a clown, be a clown!!" Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
There is a short story about George Washington. He owned slaves and can't be forgiven for that, but if the legend is true, he had character of sorts; and if not true, it is anecdotal still the same. It speaks of the virtue of honesty:
When George was about six years old, he was made the wealthy master of a hatchet of which, like most little boys, he was extremely fond. He went about chopping everything that came his way.
One day, as he wandered about the garden amusing himself by hacking his mother's pea sticks, he found a beautiful, young English cherry tree, of which his father was most proud. He tried the edge of his hatchet on the trunk of the tree and barked it so that it died.
Some time after this, his father discovered what had happened to his favorite tree. He came into the house in great anger, and demanded to know who the mischievous person was who had cut away the bark. Nobody could tell him anything about it. Just then George, with his little hatchet, came into the room.
"George,'' said his father, "do you know who has killed my beautiful little cherry tree yonder in the garden? I would not have taken five guineas for it!''
This was a hard question to answer, and for a moment George was staggered by it, but quickly recovering himself he cried:
"I cannot tell a lie, father, you know I cannot tell a lie! I did cut it with my little hatchet.''
The anger died out of his father's face, and taking the boy tenderly in his arms, he said: "My son, that you should not be afraid to tell the truth is more to me than a thousand trees! Yes - though they were blossomed with silver and had leaves of the purest gold!''
We go from what we might, tongue-in-cheek call THE TRUTH PRINCIPLE from George Washington to the PINOCCHIO PRINCIPLE:
. .
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
So he can post the compilation of African pointy-nosed figures and sarcastically say that those are evidence that West African and Northeast African civilizations were really white.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: That's the thing with this underlings yes men. Can't think on their own. Rasol open his motuh and they all say, yes sir. Likes of Alive, Trex etc. But we all know why . . . .they are not interested in the truth.
They can't explain all the black African evidence in Europe that many of you pioneers(Marc, Clyde, Marc, Mike, Joe etc) have publish. They repeat the one-liner of Rasol.. . . .PCT.
I wish they could challenge the evidence in a meaningful way besides saying. . . IT IS NOT(CAN'T BE)TRUE. DON'T LET IT BE TRUE.
posted
Are they saying that the Kurgan Theory is . . . . .mainstream. Sounds like Marc idea IS mainstream from WIKI- - - - - The Paleolithic Continuity Theory (PCT) is a proposal by Italian linguist Mario Alinei, forwarded in several books and on the continuitas.com website, aiming to reconstruct the origin of languages using the concept of continuity as the basic working hypothesis. Besides Colin Renfrew, Alinei is one of the main detractors of the mainstream Kurgan hypothesis of Indo-European origins
The Paleolithic Continuity hypothesis proposes a reversal of the Kurgan hypothesis and largely identifies the Indo-Europeans with Gimbutas' "Old Europe"[9], while it reassigns the Kurgan culture - traditionally considered early Indo-European - to a people of predominantly mixed Uralic and Turkic stock. The proof of this is sought in the tentative linguistic identification of Etruscans as a Uralic, proto-Hungarian people that already underwent strong proto-Turkish influence in the third millennium BC[10] when Pontic invasions would have brought this people to the Carpathian Basin. A subsequent migration of Urnfield culture signature around 1250 BC triggered this ethnic group to expand south in a general movement of people, attested by the upheaval of the Sea Peoples and the overthrow of an earlier Italic substrate at the onset of the "Etruscan" Villanovan culture.[11]
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
Gimbutas believed that the expansions of the Kurgan culture were a series of essentially hostile, military invasions where a new warrior culture imposed itself on the peaceful, matriarchal cultures of "Old Europe", replacing it with a patriarchal warrior society, a process visible in the appearance of fortified settlements and hillforts and the graves of warrior-chieftains:
The Process of Indo-Europeanization was a cultural, not a physical transformation(????? PCT). It must be understood as a military victory in terms of imposing a new administrative system, language and religion upon the indigenous groups. In her later life, Gimbutas increasingly emphasized the violent nature of this transition from the Mediterranean cult of the Mother Goddess to a patriarchal society and the worship of the warlike Thunderer (Zeus, Dyaus), to a point of essentially formulating feminist archaeology. Many scholars who accept the general scenario of Indo-European migrations proposed, maintain that the transition was likely much more gradual and peaceful than suggested by Gimbutas. The migrations were certainly not a sudden, concerted military operation, but the expansion of disconnected tribes and cultures, spanning many generations. To what degree the indigenous cultures were peacefully amalgamated or violently displaced remains a matter of controversy among supporters of the Kurgan hypothesis.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Alive-(What Box): *Sigh*
I definitely don't feel like adding post 1100 to this rediculous thread, but:
The confusion of the above two posters is paramount to a lack of understanding (and of wisdom - that's shown when people speak on something they do not completely understand).
First off, scientists and archaeologists know that murder, genocide, population replacements, genetic drift and further demographic shift can happen.
This is why genetic data has to be compared with skeletal archaeological evidence - which, like language, must been analyzed carefully, scientifically, and objectively.
You remind me of a Cockatoo - Mindlessly mouthing words without the ability to understand what they mean. The skeletal evidence clearly proves that the original Europeans were Black; but you didn't pick-up on that did you. Just out of curiosity; what did you think the Brace study that was posted was all about? How could language play a part, nobody knows what language they spoke. Then you bring up the panacea of all the would be experts on the board "genetics". First of all, none of you understand it, but yet you quote it like it's something you learned in school. If any of you understood the science, you would know that no-one has a database of objectively chosen, reliable samples, to where any general conclusions can be made regarding the peopling of Europe. Then there is the age-old problem of Europeans lying, or didn't you know about that. .
Other archaeological (art) evidence is only supplementary to other evidence.
Ordinarily that would be true; but when trying to establish the race of the subjects, wouldn't how they depict themselves be more reliable than anything else - think.
European Y haplogroups and mtDNA date back to the Paleolithic.
Yes; some DNA has been extracted from the Paleolithic. But I guess you didn't bother to read it, or didn't understand it. Here is the picture that goes along with the data. Sure looks Black to me.
How the hell could the alleged genocidal population have been absorbed into the remnants (if any, but likely some) of the aboriginal population?
It's just not very likely, and quite far fetched.
It implies that ALL of the current Euros must be the result of invador/aboriginee mixes, which means that the aboriginees must have been prominent after having been nearly wiped out.
Finally something intelligent - The two do not add up, obviously one theory must be wrong, a little research would probably clear that up.
Not to mention the lack of evidence of any abrupt change.
You are completely ignorant of the history; how would you know what evidences there are.
quote:Yes; some DNA has been extracted from the Paleolithic. But I guess you didn't bother to read it, or didn't understand it.
^ Actually What-Box does understand, and you don't.
The Paleolithic lineages under discussion are Homo-Sapien..... not Neanderthal.
You and Marc have some of the most hilariously stupid ideas about anthropology I've ever seen.
quote:Marc complains: Rasol. You call someone an idiot?
Marc, you still clowning?
"If you become a doctor, folks will face you with dread If you become a dentist, they'll be glad when you're dead You'll get a bigger hand if you can stand on your head
Be a clown, be a clown, be a clown!!" Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The fact is the only thing PCT has going for it is the “interpretation/manipulation of “ genetic data.
Archeological, anthropological and historical evidence shows that tropical African type humans were occupying Western and Southern Europe up to around 1000BC.
Rasol is saying that these tropical Africans evolved into Modern Europeans around 12000BC. That does seem to be enough time. The only explanation is that modern Europeans came from (evolved in a timely manner) someplace else and then migrated into the lands they now occupy.
The geography indicates that R1a and R1b were phenotypically modern Africans. The likely scenario is they (African R1a and R1b) probably mixed with incoming modern Europeans (Kurgans). This resultant group out-populated and absorbed/exterminated the remaining black Europeans, similarly to the incoming E3b Neolithic farmers.
But other modern Africans continued to migrate into Europe during pre-history hence the MtDNA L’s and other male Hg seen in present European populations.
It all boils down to numbers - who can create the most offsprings.
Some of these prejudicial scientist can crunch the numbers, sampling plan, statistics and make it say what they want.
So GENIUS. . . . . . if I was you I wouldn’t just accept that findings with out questioning the way in which they arrived at the PCT conclusion. Since as I said the only way for R1b to be in Western Europe and not really noticeable in the East is passage(R*) through NW Africa. Let them resample NW Africa for R*. Plus WE all know that LGM reduces sea level so that isolation pocket/theory is BS. During the LGM Europe and Africa was ONE land mass.
THINK MAN!!!!!
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: [QB] [QUOTE]Yes; some DNA has been extracted from the Paleolithic. But I guess you didn't bother to read it, or didn't understand it.
^ Actually What-Box does understand, and you don't.
The Paleolithic lineages under discussion are Homo-Sapien..... not Neanderthal.
You and Marc have some of the most hilariously stupid ideas about anthropology I've ever seen. [QUOTE]
Rasol – I really agonized over whether or not to correct you. I realize and understand your need and desire to “Win one”; but I just couldn’t let it go, there are just too many ignorant Negroes in the world already, I can’t in good conscience contribute to it: (Note Clyde’s post on Albino’s).
So here is your answer: I responded to Alive-but-needs-to-learn’s post not the thread, he introduced the term Paleolithic.
Here are the definitions for Paleolithic: Lower Paleolithic (2.6 Ma - 100,000 ka) Middle Paleolithic (300,000 - 30,000 ka) Upper Paleolithic (50,000 - 10,000 ka)
As you can clearly see: in order for the conversation to include modern man (Homo-sapien-sapien) in Europe, he would have had to say “Upper Paleolithic” (Grimaldi enters Europe at about 45,000 B.C.). So Rasol - Let this be a lesson for you, you got burned because you were too eager to attack, and didn’t do the necessary research first. But I did, before responding to The-guy-in-the-box, I took a quick look to see what the parameters were for the Paleolithic; Then I responded! See how easy it is to be a smart nigger, as opposed to an ignorant Negro.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Apply some of that "photographic" memory. And do some independent thinking.
I have to agree the bro has a habit of jumping to conclusions without reading (or is understanding )an entire topic or thread.
or is it spin - hence Marc's comment on Pinochio.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
the sad thing is we have to rely on fair, objective Europeans and others to provide us information on genetic studies and other research, as to what is published, data manipulation and "discoveries".
The good thing is there are a few that are really concerned about the TRUTH. Not all are spin to maintain the agenda.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I told you so!!!!!!!!!!!! It depends on how the data is spun! Maybe the quack geneticists (on ES) should do this time of independent analysis like this person.
We Are Not Our Ancestors: Evidence for Discontinuity between Prehistoric and Modern Europeans
Ellen Levy-Coffman
The model of European genetic ancestry has recently shifted away from the Neolithic diffusion model towards an emphasis on autochthonous Paleolithic origins. However, this new paradigm utilizes genetic reconstructions based primarily on contemporary populations and, furthermore, is often promoted without regard to the findings of ancient DNA studies. These ancient DNA studies indicate that contemporary European ancestry is not a living fossil of the Paleolithic maternal deme; rather, demographic events during the Neolithic and post-Neolithic periods appear to have had substantial impact on the European genetic record. In addition, evolutionary processes, including genetic drift, adaptive selection and disease susceptibility, may have altered the patterns of maternal lineage frequency and distribution in existing populations. As a result, the genetic history of Europe has undergone significant transformation over time, resulting in genetic discontinuity between modern-day Europeans and their ancient maternal forbearers.
Received: August 17, 2006; Accepted October 20, 2006
Address for correspondence: Ellen Coffman, Ellenlevy66 (@) yahoo.com
Introduction
The genetic model currently presented by many population geneticists emphasizes the autochthonous Paleolithic ancestry of contemporary Europeans. This paradigm is based on the perspective that contemporary Europeans descend primarily from their hunter-gatherer forbearers who lived in the same region until approximately 10,000 years ago, when the beginning of settled agriculture began. This Paleolithic ancestry is seen as remaining relatively unaffected by later gene flow, including any large-scale movements of farmers out of the Middle East during the Neolithic era. These agriculturalists are in fact presented as outsiders who left only limited genetic traces among contemporary Europeans, who instead derive most of their ancestry from indigenous hunter-gatherers groups that adopted Levantine agricultural practices through a cultural diffusion process.
In an effort to lend support to this genetic model, the distribution and frequency of both mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and Y chromosome haplogroups among modern European populations are utilized in reconstructing ancient population histories. The Basque, lone speakers in of a non-Indo-European language living in the Pyrenees Mountains of Spain and France, are often presented as the best example of a contemporary European group that retains the strongest and most undiluted genetic ancestry derived from Europe’s Paleolithic inhabitants.
Thus, the picture presented by this model is one of substantial genetic continuity between modern groups and the Paleolithic hunter-gatherers who inhabited the same region thousands of years ago. Yeeeah. . . right!!
Yet the DNA evidence suggests a more complex picture than a direct and undisturbed genetic link between contemporary Europeans and their Paleolithic forbearers. A significant and as of yet unexplained genetic discontinuity exists between present and past populations. Since the recent advent of techniques allowing the extraction of DNA from ancient remains (“aDNA”), in particular mtDNA, the actual genetic background of the ancient maternal inhabitants of Europe can now be compared to their contemporary counterparts. Rather than using contemporary European DNA to reconstruct the genetic histories of populations from the past, this new technique allows researchers to determine to what extent later European populations truly do retain the genetic legacy of the earlier group.
In contrast to the Paleolithic paradigm, these studies indicate an unexpected and significant genetic discontinuity exists between contemporary Europeans and their Paleolithic predecessors. They also suggest that the exclusive use of contemporary DNA samples in the reconstruction of earlier population histories has created a misleading picture of the European genetic legacy. for real!!!
Various demographic and evolutionary mechanisms may have led to this genetic break with the past, including the strong likelihood of genetic contributions from migratory peoples that occurred during the Neolithic, and into the Bronze and Iron Ages. This gene flow may have been so significant that genetic signals from the earlier inhabitants of Europe have been all but obliterated, even amounting to wholesale population replacement genocide????. Founder effects, genetic drift and bottlenecks also have had a dramatic impact. In addition, Darwinian principles of natural selection and resistance against disease may have changed the face of Europe over time, causing certain genetic groups to disappear while others have come to dominate the genetic landscape. These events, either alone or in combination, have resulted in a striking genetic discontinuity between past and present populations.
As a result, contemporary Europeans should not be viewed as descending entirely or even significantly from either Neolithic farmers or the indigenous Paleolithic inhabitants of Europe. Rather, Europeans appear to be an entirely new and modern genetic mix formed as a result of a number of demographic and evolutionary events over time, including the continual movement of peoples across the European continent over the millennia.
The Popular Paradigm of Paleolithic Ancestry: Evidence from Central Europe and the First Farmers
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
N1a - wasn't addressed in the PCT study. . . . . .
In human genetics Haplogroup N1a is a mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) haplogroup.
N1a is a rare haplogroup as it currently appears in only .18%-.2% of regional populations. It is widely distributed throughout Eurasia and Northern Africa and is divided into the European, Central Asian, and African/South Asian branches based on specific genetic markers. Exact origins and migration patterns of this haplogroup are still unknown and a subject of some debate
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Looks like even some "prominent", people who know what they are talking about, believe the PCT isolation theory is BS. Some believe the I-HG originated as late as 6000ya. Spread with the Germanic people around. . . . . 400BC - 100AD. This is becoming a recurring theme.
In human genetics, Haplogroup I1 is a Y-chromosome haplogroup occurring at greatest frequency in Scandinavia, associated with the mutations identified as M253, M307, P30, and P40. These are known as single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). It is a subclade of Haplogroup I. Before a reclassification in 2008,[1] the group was known as Haplogroup I1a.[2] Many individuals and organizations continue to use the I1a designation.
The group displays a very clear frequency gradient, with a peak of approximately 40 percent among the populations of western Finland and more than 50 percent in the province of Satakunta,[3] around 35 percent in southern Norway, southwestern Sweden especially on the island of Gotland, and Denmark, and rapidly decreasing frequencies toward the edges of the historically Germanic sphere of influence.
For several years the prevailing theory was that during the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM)[5] the I1 group sought refuge in the Balkans.[6] For a time, the Ukraine was considered as an alternative. Yet, The Genographic Project claims that the founder of the I1 branch lived on the Iberian Peninsula during the LGM. Some have given southern France and the Italian peninsula as possible sites as well.[7] Although the locations vary, proponents of the refuge theories do seem to agree on one issue: that the I1 subclade is from 15,000 to 20,000 years old.
However, professor Ken Nordtvedt of Montana State University believes that I1 is a more recent group, probably emerging after the LGM.[9] Other researchers including Peter A. Underhill of the Human Population Genetics Laboratory at Stanford University have since confirmed this hypothesis in independent research.[10][11] The map to the right showing the expansion of the Germanic tribes from 750 BC to AD 1 also appears to support this concept.
The study of I1, which some had argued was largely ignored by the genetic testing industry in favor of "mega-haplogroups" like R, is in flux. Revisions and updates to previous thinking, primarily published in academic journals, is constant, yet slow, showing an evolution in thought and scientific evidence.[12]
The expansion of the Germanic tribes 750 BC – AD 1 (after the Penguin Atlas of World History 1988): Settlements before 750BC
New settlements until 500BC
New settlements until 250BC
New settlements until AD 1The most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of I1 lived around 6,000 years ago somewhere in the far northern part of Europe, perhaps Denmark, according to Nordtvedt. His descendants are primarily found among the Germanic populations of northern Europe and the bordering Uralic and Celtic populations, although even in traditionally Germanic demographics I1 is overshadowed by the more prevalent Haplogroup R
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Mike3210 writes: As you can clearly see: in order for the conversation to include modern man (Homo-sapien-sapien) in Europe, he would have had to say “Upper Paleolithic”
^ Such incoherence is why the following is written with regards to you Mike.
quote:AlTakruri writes: Mike, your writing reminds me of the Hardy Boys story, "The Zig Zag papers"
posted
So. . . looks like the Author agrees with me. This is an example of true intelligence.
No All the experts beilve that Modern Europeans decendended from Ancient/Prehistoric Europeans. Infact the author is saying Underhill believes that I-hg appeared only 6kya. So the R11, R1b and I wih three lines ilustration may be . . .. . . . .That's what happens why you don't think for yourself. We have to wait on our cousins to validate our concepts. IS THIS RIGHT MASSA??
However, professor Ken Nordtvedt of Montana State University believes that I1 is a more recent group, probably emerging after the LGM.[9] Other researchers including Peter A. Underhill of the Human Population Genetics Laboratory at Stanford University have since confirmed this hypothesis in independent research.[10][11] The map to the right showing the expansion of the Germanic tribes from 750 BC to AD 1 also appears to support this concept.
New settlements until AD 1The most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of I1 lived around 6,000 years ago somewhere in the far northern part of Europe, perhaps Denmark, according to Nordtvedt. His descendants are primarily found among the Germanic populations of northern Europe and the bordering Uralic and Celtic populations, although even in traditionally Germanic demographics I1 is overshadowed by the more prevalent Haplogroup R
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Virtually every comment you make regarding genetics is bogus, per virtually any geneticist, read by anyone who understands what they read.
Bogus, should be your middle-name.
Underhill states directly and clearly that modern Europeans descend directly from Paleolithic Europeans.
Your tortured attempts to misconstrue and even reverse Underhill's comments is perhaps the most laughable exercise in self delusion sense mulatto-centrist Jamie/Chimu tried to reverse the statement of Nina Jablonski regarding the dark skinned origins of all humanity - by claiming that by dark skin she *meant* 'medium tone'.
Must be tough for you two, going thru life, pretending not to hear, and choosing to hear things no one ever said, or ever would say, instead. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mis-direction again. . . . . Huh? I am catching onto your MO. It is not I saying this, bro.. . . .read it again!!!!
It case you missed the point. Some experts do not believe in the PCT. "we are not our ancestors". Tyro and the other cousin(??) should get a kick out of this.
Where did they come from?
------- However, professor Ken Nordtvedt of Montana State University believes that I1 is a more recent group, probably emerging after the LGM.[9] Other researchers including Peter A. Underhill of the Human Population Genetics Laboratory at Stanford University have since confirmed this hypothesis in independent research.[10][11] The map to the right showing the expansion of the Germanic tribes from 750 BC to AD 1 also appears to support this concept.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Alive-(What Box): Where's Djehuti when you need him.
So he can post the compilation of African pointy-nosed figures and sarcastically say that those are evidence that West African and Northeast African civilizations were really white.
Actually I have better things to do then to converse with psychopaths in a forum! Speaking of which, why the hell does is this thread still open let alone exist?!
It should have been a closed topic since my hiatus! The psychotic thesis has been refuted since PAGE 1 and yet it goes on to 23 more pages!!
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ES - where the lunacy never ends.
Indeed! Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hope you are developing your analytical ablity in school. Because your buddy, Pinochio, has been telling tales. He takes one of many hypothesiss and concludes is as fact. eg some REAL genetic experts put hg-I as orginating only 6kya. Some put it originating in Iberia. Who is right?
Teach your boy to examine ALL the evidence.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Mis-direction again. . . . .
Mis-direction is quoting a non scholar from Wiki's opinions.... attributing this falsely to geneticist Underhall, and then refusing to address what Underhill himself states:
posted
^ Rasol, why do you even bother??! It was obvious 23 pages ago that these pyschos are beyond any reasoning.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are you a PRETENDER? Pretending to be an expert on genetics, pretending to be a scholar. Regurgitating without actual independent analysis. Ellen Levy-Coffman did it. Have you? She said - in case you missed it - we are NOT our ancestors. PCT is bogus. She is not the ONLY one. Are you in her caliber? Can you analyze is good as me? Did you or DJ finish school?
We Are Not Our Ancestors: Evidence for Discontinuity between Prehistoric and Modern Europeans
Ellen Levy-Coffman
The model of European genetic ancestry has recently shifted away from the Neolithic diffusion model towards an emphasis on autochthonous Paleolithic origins. However, this new paradigm utilizes genetic reconstructions based primarily on contemporary populations and, furthermore, is often promoted without regard to the findings of ancient DNA studies. These ancient DNA studies indicate that contemporary European ancestry is not a living fossil of the Paleolithic maternal deme; rather, demographic events during the Neolithic and post-Neolithic periods appear to have had substantial impact on the European genetic record. In addition, evolutionary processes, including genetic drift, adaptive selection and disease susceptibility, may have altered the patterns of maternal lineage frequency and distribution in existing populations. As a result, the genetic history of Europe has undergone significant transformation over time, resulting in genetic discontinuity between modern-day Europeans and their ancient maternal forbearers
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Mis-direction again. . . . .
Mis-direction is quoting a non scholar from Wiki's opinions.... attributing this falsely to geneticist Underhall, and then refusing to address what Underhill himself states:
posted
If you read her entire critique of PCT you will realise why Pelegascians, Estruscans are NOT Indo-Europeans. This supports Marc's hypothesis and title of this thread.
DJ - can learn something here instead of his often PUNK responses.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Withoue being a genetic expert I pointed aout the flaw with PCT. This R1a, I, R1b isolation theory doesnot make sense. I didn't need and expert to tell me this. With my limited knowledge of genetics and geology I saw the flaw.
Key holes being
1. R* in Central Afica 2. R1b being in the west 3. hg-I being between R1a and R1b 4. The idea that there was an isolation without a retreat across Iberia.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Withoue being a genetic expert I pointed aout the flaw with PCT.
The problem is not that you are not expert.
The problem is that you simply refuse to understand any fact that is contrary to what you prefer to believe.
All of your 'confusion' was addressed on page one.
Make no mistake, the remaining 20+ odd pages is simply you being hardheaded.
quote: This R1a, I, R1b isolation theory doesnot make sense. I didn't need and expert to tell me this.
^ Hard headnesses in action, since every expert in genetics disagrees with you. When confronted with this reality your hard headed response is to google up some irrelevant non-scholars claims involving ad-hoc pseudo references to geneticists who do not support their claims.
quote:Key holes being
1. R* in Central Afica
^ That is a fact. Stating that fact demonstrates no hole in any theory, nor provides any support for your far fetched claims.
quote:2. R1b being in the west 3. hg-I being between R1a and R1b
This is also a fact, and also demonstrates no hole.
quote:4. The idea that there was an isolation without a retreat across Iberia.
ICE Age population isolation in Europe is based on the fact that most of Europe was covered with ICE and so uninhabited, but there were 3 discontiguous ICe refugeum that were still populated. This is based 1st on archeology, which is then affirmed by genetics.
^ This makes sense to all geneticists. It doesn't make sense to you, because you are a hard headed ideologue who refuses to accept any facts he does not like.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
So he can post the compilation of African pointy-nosed figures and sarcastically say that those are evidence that West African and Northeast African civilizations were really white.
Actually I have better things to do then to converse with psychopaths in a forum! Speaking of which, why the hell does is this thread still open let alone exist?!
It should have been a closed topic since my hiatus! The psychotic thesis has been refuted since PAGE 1 and yet it goes on to 23 more pages!!
I believe ya, and I've asked the same question long ago.
At about page 10 (at which time I had stopped posting for sevral pages but would return for the sake of ES credibility) I had this weird feeling the thread would go on 20 pages, just to irritate me.
Actually, when it comes to history and related subjects, a LOT of people have these crazy stories but the cause other than ignorance can be slight misconceptions and also the distorting effect of word of mouth in general.
Basically the reason I made that comment about you is because (knowing how you'd normally dismiss this in an instant) you did post this neat compilation of pointy nosed West African masks. I was just tiring of this thread because we had about eight threads addressing 'this type' of stuff up at the same time.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: We Are Not Our Ancestors: Evidence for Discontinuity between Prehistoric and Modern Europeans
Ellen Levy-Coffman
The model of European genetic ancestry has recently shifted away from the Neolithic diffusion model towards an emphasis on autochthonous Paleolithic origins. However, this new paradigm utilizes genetic reconstructions based primarily on contemporary populations and, furthermore, is often promoted without regard to the findings of ancient DNA studies. These ancient DNA studies indicate that contemporary European ancestry is not a living fossil of the Paleolithic maternal deme; rather, demographic events during the Neolithic and post-Neolithic periods appear to have had substantial impact on the European genetic record. In addition, evolutionary processes, including genetic drift, adaptive selection and disease susceptibility, may have altered the patterns of maternal lineage frequency and distribution in existing populations. As a result, the genetic history of Europe has undergone significant transformation over time, resulting in genetic discontinuity between modern-day Europeans and their ancient maternal forbearers
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Mis-direction again. . . . .
Mis-direction is quoting a non scholar from Wiki's opinions.... attributing this falsely to geneticist Underhall, and then refusing to address what Underhill himself states:
This is the fact that you have spent 20 pages trying to lie about.
You've wasted your time. You seem to think your stupidity is funny, or cute, when it is in fact, utterly boring.
The only person you misdirect....is yourself.
Actually you waste EVERYONE'S time including YOURS. You obviously don't know what the study means do you?
Okay, let me break it down. The study you cited shows that European lineages were not totally continuous from the Paleolithic (R1a, R1b, and Hg1 being the lineages of white Europeans), but that during the Neolithic Europe recieved immigrants from Africa and Asia (E3b and J respectively). Hence modern Europeans are 2/3 Eurasian and 1/3 African. Whites are aboriginal to Europe NOT newcomers (Marc's thesis) white skin itself is an adaptation to Ice Age Europe. It is Africans who were newcomers to Europe during the Neolithic.
Do you understand? I don't expect so. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Search, find and read the entire piece. At least Rasol knows of claims by Ellen. Although he quotes her as a pseudoScientist. Gather your thoughts DJ. Come with something original.
This advice will help you in school. Especially if you want to do research. Been there.
WE ARE NOT OUR ANCESTORS should be a clue.. . . family. Genius??????!!!!
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: We Are Not Our Ancestors: Evidence for Discontinuity between Prehistoric and Modern Europeans
Ellen Levy-Coffman
The model of European genetic ancestry has recently shifted away from the Neolithic diffusion model towards an emphasis on autochthonous Paleolithic origins. However, this new paradigm utilizes genetic reconstructions based primarily on contemporary populations and, furthermore, is often promoted without regard to the findings of ancient DNA studies. These ancient DNA studies indicate that contemporary European ancestry is not a living fossil of the Paleolithic maternal deme; rather, demographic events during the Neolithic and post-Neolithic periods appear to have had substantial impact on the European genetic record. In addition, evolutionary processes, including genetic drift, adaptive selection and disease susceptibility, may have altered the patterns of maternal lineage frequency and distribution in existing populations. As a result, the genetic history of Europe has undergone significant transformation over time, resulting in genetic discontinuity between modern-day Europeans and their ancient maternal forbearers
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Mis-direction again. . . . .
Mis-direction is quoting a non scholar from Wiki's opinions.... attributing this falsely to geneticist Underhall, and then refusing to address what Underhill himself states:
This is the fact that you have spent 20 pages trying to lie about.
You've wasted your time. You seem to think your stupidity is funny, or cute, when it is in fact, utterly boring.
The only person you misdirect....is yourself.
Actually you waste EVERYONE'S time including YOURS. You obviously don't know what the study means do you?
Okay, let me break it down. The study you cited shows that European lineages were not totally continuous from the Paleolithic (R1a, R1b, and Hg1 being the lineages of white Europeans), but that during the Neolithic Europe recieved immigrants from Africa and Asia (E3b and J respectively). Hence modern Europeans are 2/3 Eurasian and 1/3 African. Whites are aboriginal to Europe NOT newcomers (Marc's thesis) white skin itself is an adaptation to Ice Age Europe. It is Africans who were newcomers to Europe during the Neolithic.
Do you understand? I don't expect so.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
As for the other genius!!! They drew a map of Africa/Europe during the LGM but kept the same shore line. Hint! Hint! Of course northern Europe is covered with ice. The contention is not ice covered northern Europe. PHEW!!! I really wander. You spend too much time regurgitaing stuff. Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ As I suspected, more misconstrued nonsense. I think Rasol and I and a few others have pretty much covered everythin in the first 3 pages of this thread. So if you still can't comprehend anything too bad.
Go ahead believing Marc's lie that whites are new to Europe if you want. I'm sure there are those who believe themselves to be Martians but hey...
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
WHEN YOU POINT ONE FINGER AT OTHERS, YOU ARE POINTING 3 AT YOURSELF
Marc writes: Djehuti and Rasol. Between the two of you, you have mentioned straight- jackets in reference to me. Psychosis. Nut case. Er umm.
Uhh. Hey guys. Ever think of taking a look in the mirror? They say When you point one finger at someone else, you are pointing three at yourself. Here’s a mirror:
[Djehuti (Clarence? Elmer?) writes] Okay, that map above shows the Germanic migrations into the British Isles, but nowhere does it state or present anything about genocide against "Africans of Europe". Unless you believe the indigenous peoples of Britain were African! LMAO @ this nut!
[Marc writes] Djehuti. First of all, the map was designed to show an invasion route, not to deal with genocide. Despite that, genocide isn’t the laughing matter you’d seem to indicate. The Jews didn’t think Auschwitz was funny. Gual became a giant Auschwitz to Africans. Those of Gual were African and Caeser was to Africans what Hitler was to Jews:
Under Caeser, “Reportedly one million Gauls were killed and another million enslaved in pursuit of this aim.”
Africans are absent from Europe today because of continent-wide genocide against them (and Africans fought against each other as well). The past-time of Germanic youth was slaughtering Africans.
[Marc writes] Djehuti (Clarence? Elmer?) wrote:
"It's a known fact even Marc professes-- that the earliest European remains are represented by [Cro-Magnon man."
Where do I "profess" anything about "Cro-Magnon."
[Djehuti writes] Who cares what you profess …
You're a nutcase!
[Marc writes] Djehuti. You ask “Who cares what you profess”???
It was YOU who wrote that I profess something inventing the claim as I did not write what you state.
SHOW ME WHERE I "PROFESS" ANYTHING ABOUT "CRO-MAGNON"!!!
________AND__________
[On Dec. 11, Djehuti writes] I find it curious that Marc does not consider Caesar white even though the man was a southern European.”
[Marc writes] Whereas on the day previous to the comment directly above I wrote on December 10th: “Caesar is white.” I said the exact opposite of what I was accused of not having stated.
. .
European nations newly formed (since the middle ages). Whites new to Europe (have lived there white pigmented for under 20,000 years whereas Africans had been there (before the genocides of Caesar and such) for 2.8 million years.
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Forget about Rasol. Tell me what YOU think. Stop smelling his A$$. Example. . explain the shore line.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ As I suspected, more misconstrued nonsense. I think Rasol and I and a few others have pretty much covered everythin in the first 3 pages of this thread. So if you still can't comprehend anything too bad.
Go ahead believing Marc's lie that whites are new to Europe if you want. I'm sure there are those who believe themselves to be Martians but hey...
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: As I suspected, more misconstrued nonsense. I think Rasol and I and a few others have covered everything in the first 3 pages of this thread. So if you still can't comprehend anything too bad.
quote:Originally posted by Marc Washington: WHEN YOU POINT ONE FINGER AT OTHERS, YOU ARE POINTING 3 AT YOURSELF
Marc writes: Djehuti and Rasol. Between the two of you, you have mentioned straight- jackets in reference to me. Psychosis. Nut case. Er umm.
Uhh. Hey guys. Ever think of taking a look in the mirror? They say When you point one finger at someone else, you are pointing three at yourself. Here’s a mirror:
[Djehuti (Clarence? Elmer?) writes] Okay, that map above shows the Germanic migrations into the British Isles, but nowhere does it state or present anything about genocide against "Africans of Europe". Unless you believe the indigenous peoples of Britain were African! LMAO @ this nut!
Yes, the map above shows Germanic migrations from Denmark and Scandinavia (part of Europe) into the British Isles (another part of Europe). Who lived in the British Isles until then? Why Celtic speaking white Europeans. No black Africans there.
quote:Marc writes: Here are your Africans in Britain:
[Marc writes] Djehuti. First of all, the map was designed to show an invasion route, not to deal with genocide. Despite that, genocide isn’t the laughing matter you’d seem to indicate. The Jews didn’t think Auschwitz was funny. Gual became a giant Auschwitz to Africans. Those of Gual were African and Caeser was to Africans what Hitler was to Jews:
Under Caeser, “Reportedly one million Gauls were killed and another million enslaved in pursuit of this aim.”
Africans are absent from Europe today because of continent-wide genocide against them (and Africans fought against each other as well). The past-time of Germanic youth was slaughtering Africans.
[Marc writes] Djehuti (Clarence? Elmer?) wrote:
"It's a known fact even Marc professes-- that the earliest European remains are represented by [Cro-Magnon man."
Where do I "profess" anything about "Cro-Magnon."
[Djehuti writes] Who cares what you profess …
You're a nutcase!
[Marc writes] Djehuti. You ask “Who cares what you profess”???
It was YOU who wrote that I profess something inventing the claim as I did not write what you state.
SHOW ME WHERE I "PROFESS" ANYTHING ABOUT "CRO-MAGNON"!!!
________AND__________
[On Dec. 11, Djehuti writes] I find it curious that Marc does not consider Caesar white even though the man was a southern European.”
[Marc writes] Whereas on the day previous to the comment directly above I wrote on December 10th: “Caesar is white.” I said the exact opposite of what I was accused of not having stated.
. .
European nations newly formed (since the middle ages). Whites new to Europe (have lived there white pigmented for under 20,000 years whereas Africans had been there (before the genocides of Caesar and such) for 2.8 million years.
Same lies and nonsense. YES there were Germanic invasions FROM NORTHERN EUROPE into the REST OF EUROPE! The rest of Europe was inhabited by whites Also! By your same insane logic, before the Bantu migration into Central and Southern Africa there were no blacks in these regions either! LOLPosts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Forget about Rasol. Tell me what YOU think. Stop smelling his A$$. Example. . explain the shore line.
Agreeing with Rasol or anyone's logical assessment for that matter is NOT smelling their ass. I already told you what I know which is really just properly comprehending that article. It is YOU who tells us what you think which isn't worth a thing.
Still waiting for evidence of whites being "new" to Europe...
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
[Djehuti writes] Go ahead believing Marc's lie that whites are new to Europe ...
[Marc writes] You speak about lies? Read on and you will find quite a few of your own. And find your own admission that whites are new to Europe:
WHEN YOU POINT ONE FINGER AT OTHERS, YOU ARE POINTING 3 AT YOURSELF
Marc writes: Djehuti and Rasol. Between the two of you, you have mentioned straight- jackets in reference to me. Psychosis. Nut case. Er umm.
Uhh. Hey guys. Ever think of taking a look in the mirror? They say When you point one finger at someone else, you are pointing three at yourself. Here’s a mirror:
[Djehuti (Clarence? Elmer?) writes] Okay, that map above shows the Germanic migrations into the British Isles, but nowhere does it state or present anything about genocide against "Africans of Europe". Unless you believe the indigenous peoples of Britain were African! LMAO @ this nut!
[Marc writes] Djehuti. First of all, the map was designed to show an invasion route, not to deal with genocide. Despite that, genocide isn’t the laughing matter you’d seem to indicate. The Jews didn’t think Auschwitz was funny. Gual became a giant Auschwitz to Africans. Those of Gual were African and Caeser was to Africans what Hitler was to Jews:
Under Caeser, “Reportedly one million Gauls were killed and another million enslaved in pursuit of this aim.”
Africans are absent from Europe today because of continent-wide genocide against them (and Africans fought against each other as well). The past-time of Germanic youth was slaughtering Africans.
[Marc writes] Djehuti (Clarence? Elmer?) wrote:
"It's a known fact even Marc professes-- that the earliest European remains are represented by [Cro-Magnon man."
Where do I "profess" anything about "Cro-Magnon."
[Djehuti writes] Who cares what you profess …
You're a nutcase!
[Marc writes] Djehuti. You ask “Who cares what you profess”???
It was YOU who wrote that I profess something inventing the claim as I did not write what you state.
SHOW ME WHERE I "PROFESS" ANYTHING ABOUT "CRO-MAGNON"!!!
________AND__________
[On Dec. 11, Djehuti writes] I find it curious that Marc does not consider Caesar white even though the man was a southern European.”
[Marc writes] Whereas on the day previous to the comment directly above I wrote on December 10th: “Caesar is white.” I said the exact opposite of what I was accused of not having stated.
. .
European nations newly formed (since the middle ages). Whites new to Europe (have lived there white pigmented for under 20,000 years whereas Africans had been there (before the genocides of Caesar and such) for 2.8 million years.
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
[Marc writes] Djehuti (Elmer, Clarence?) writes: Same lies and nonsense. YES there were Germanic invasions FROM NORTHERN EUROPE into the REST OF EUROPE! The rest of Europe was inhabited by whites Also! By your same insane logic, before the Bantu migration into Central and Southern Africa there were no blacks in these regions either! LOL
[Marc writes] There you go accusing someone of a dire psychological state again with what you call "insane logic," Point one finger at others and three at yourself? Are you talking about Djehuti?
By my logic there were no Africans in Central and South Africa before the Bantu migrations? The Bushman / San is African and ancestrally has been there millions of years.
And where are the whites inhabiting all the rest of Europe from the page below? Show us some archeological evidence for these whites you're speaking of as I have done for Africans worldwide and also in Europe on the page below.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic