posted
The Madonna and Christ child arise from Isis and Horus; and Isis arises from the African tribal queen/mother. But, where can you find studies about this subject?
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
If there was a conspiracy on this scale to cover up black history why did white people forget to cover up where Herodotus writes Egyptions are black with wooly hair
Posts: 2642 | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
The person who introduced the above pictures said that this thread was filled with (to use his word) "redundancy." However, he himself, when I first counted, redundantly posted these pictures 10 and 17 times respectively. Others have been accused of this redundancy but he has posted them yet again and now his own redundancy is up to 12 and 18 times respectively.
And they remain completely irrelevant (and redundant) as the thread has focused on the entry of whites into Europe - but that was narrowed to Western Europe. The posts are irrelevant for the reasons stated on the two-picture page above.
[2] The article I quoted from above showing Germanic entry into Bohemia (the Czech Republic) adds proof to my point: that whites are new to Europe. The original Celts the article spoke of all know were originally African.
[3] I will be adding more to my Africans in Bulgarian / Macedonia before Alexander above. And will be introducing a page showing the African presence in the Czech Republic shown through skeletal remains dating to 35,000 BC down through the late Gravettian period. This will include an image of the Celts, Africans, using their calvary to defend themselves during the invasion period. And as it contributes to the thread of an African presence in Europe and recent white presence, in Central Europe, those populations seen as recently as the Middle Ages are now long gone - though they have left images in figurine from 7000 BC. They are in Central Europe no longer.
I will also add a page in the future showing an a Medieval English town and the type that provided the model, as it were, for towns and villages found throughout England. The people in that picture are wide-nosed Africans. No doubt Celts (though they are not often called "African" in the articles and books that refer to them.) All these Africans are gone, gone, gone. Having given way to white populations new to Western Europe. It is a perverse compliment that they had such a good thing that incursive peoples stopped at no end to get it for themselves - at any cost. The cost was continent-wide genocide against Africans.
Marc, this is great work!! Keep it up.
I find this question of recent melanin loss of great interest. Environmental adaption is certainly a cause for the paling up of whites with loss of skin pigmentation. However, nature being balanced, even cold regions are subjected to UV radiation. So, why such a drastic loss of melanin production by decreased tyrosinase levels, when clearly it was still needed to protect from UV radiation. There are many recorded instances of skin cancer found throughout European, and English history. Therefore, inhabitants of these regions would still require the built-in protection provided by UV protecting melanin. So, why would natural adaptation rid Europeans of an essential pigment/enzyme that was necessary for regional survival. The only other form where these elements are missing is, albinism.
The only feasible explanation for this dramatic epidermal change, is that whites were never exposed to much direct sunlight & Ultra-violet, but were subterranean where they were protected from UV, therefore not requiring natural protection.
Once out of the caves, so to speak, they became susceptible to UV radiation and resultant Melanoma skin cancer. Out of the cave, white are 20X more susceptible to skin cancer from UV exposure.
Is this the leprosy (skin cancer) that Jesus Christ and early Christians provided relief using ointments (sun screen) to ease UV penetration? Have you recorded other instances of leprosy in Africa or Europe preceding the biblical dates?
Posts: 3595 | From: Moved To Mars. Waiting with shotgun | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ I read that article (and more), which is why I'm still asking the question about Europeans being ultra susceptible to skin damage due to UV radiation. The article fails to address this issue, and as I stated before, it can be explained if the condition is albinism, or if Europeans did not live in the open, but in subterranean environment. Actually, the above article merely addresses complexion, and nothing else. The colder climate addresses the decrease in skin pigments (complexion), but not the decrease in tyrosinase levels when they were still needed, if Europeans were to live above ground. As I stated, there have been numerous cases of skin cancer described in early European history in France, England, and Russian documentation. A thousand years later, whites still suffer at the same levels.
One "cure" the English describe for skin cancer, was to tie a piece of raw meat on the infected area. They believed the cancer would eat the meat and leave the skin alone. Can you imagine walking around with a rotten raw piece of meat on your face for weeks? The smell must have be horrid.
PS. I think Marc's work is on the right track, and shows great promise in breaking away from European prospective.
Posts: 3595 | From: Moved To Mars. Waiting with shotgun | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
“Europeans may have been dark as recently as 13,000 years ago. The painters depicted themselves as having darker complexions than the animals they hunted.”
See picture –
It confirms that genetic Upenn study that “Europeans” were black/dark up to 6kya.
-------------------- 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
In equatorial regions of Africa, Latin America and India, where there is a high degree of sun exposure, many of the indigenous people have highly pigmented and thick skins that protect them from the harmful rays of the sun - very dark skin offers about 30 times more protection against the sun than pale skin does. There is not, however, a definite relationship between skin pigmentation and the degree of exposure to sunlight. There are people with unexpected skin colors for the area in which they live. For example, the Tasmanian Australoids are dark-skinned although they live in a temperate latitude; also the pigmentation of American Indians, who are descendants of Asian peoples, is similar across the whole continent of North America. These examples are probably the result of migrations forty or fifty thousand years ago. A few thousand years ago, unknown factors triggered a great migration of people from east to west. The native peoples of central and western Europe were pushed westwards. Among these were the original Celts (people with blue eyes and very pale skins easily burnt by the sun), who eventually populated parts of Scotland and Ireland; their descendants can still be identified in those countries. Similarly, in the last few hundred years peoples with white skins have migrated to Australia and South Africa - areas of high sunshine to which their skins are not well adapted, and among them sun damage and skin cancer rates are high.
What we see as the actual skin color, as distinct from the condition, depends on light that is reflected by four different colored components of the skin, which are found at different levels throughout the epidermis and the dermis. These reflections combine to give us our unique skin color. They are:
* melanin in the epidermis * red blood cells containing oxygen in the small blood vessels of the dermis * red blood cells without oxygen in the same blood vessels * orange-yellow chemicals called carotenoids in the stratum corneum and the subcutaneous fat layer; these are principally responsible for the yellow tones of skin color, and are more abundant in men's skin than in women's.
Carotenoids are found in carrots.
Eating too many carrots can turn you orange!
Of these four factors, melanin is the most important in deciding skin color.
Pigmentation disorders There are some rare congenital pigmentary disorders of skin. In one, the pigment is spread
out along the otherwise invisible lines on the skin called Blaschko's lines. Vitiligo is a condition where there is patchy loss of pigment, usually over the hands and forearms but occasionally it is more extensive. It is possible to hide it by the skilful use of special water-resistant cosmetics. Functions of the epidermis
The epidermis has three principal functions:
* protecting the body from the environment, particularly the sun * preventing excessive water loss from the body * protecting the body from infection.
Protection from the environment
The sun produces enormous amounts of heat and light, some of which reaches the earth. Without this heat and light no life could ever have evolved. Unfortunately the sun also produces less beneficial rays, which are completely invisible to us, called ultraviolet radiation. (Sun beds also expose their users to these rays.) Part of this radiation is reflected by the stratum corneum at the skin surface, part is absorbed by the melaninin the epidermal cells, and some is scattered within the skin. All three processes contribute to the vital function of protecting the nuclei of the cells in the epidermis and the collagen of the dermis. This scattered radiation creates a lot of high-energy particles, which are called free radicals. Free radicals are very reactive, and attack the constituents of the skin: this is why over a long time ultraviolet radiation produces so much damage in whites whose skin contains far insufficient melanin protection.
Posts: 3595 | From: Moved To Mars. Waiting with shotgun | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
Skin type Unexposed skin color Sun response I white always burns, never tans (albino, European) II white always burns, tans minimally (European) III white burns minimally, sometimes tans IV light brown burns minimally, always tans well (optimal intermix Europeans desire from integration) V brown rarely burns, tans darkly (Asian skins) VI dark brown never burns, tans darkly (African skins) Individuals who are types I and II have skin more likely to burn and have difficulty developing a tan. It is also these people who are at highest risk for the development of skin cancer. During the last two centuries or so, many people of this type have moved to sunny climates like those of Australia and South Africa and are now at a much higher risk of developing skin cancer than if they had stayed in Europe.
However, this fails to mention these groups are even susceptible to skin cancers from radiation damage even in Europe. The move to an area of more radiation exposure increases these occurrances.
It was Hippocrates who named cancer "karkinos" 18 after the crab. According to legend, it was so called because this disease "has the veins stretched on all sides as the animal the crab has its feet, whence it derives its name." 19
Genetic Mutation May Be Key To Onset Of Deadly Skin Cancer by Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions. Melanoma will strike 51,400 people in the United States this year, and 7,800 will die from the disease. Melanoma can progress very rapidly and spread to other parts of the body. Only 12 percent of people with metastatic melanoma survive beyond five years.
Posts: 3595 | From: Moved To Mars. Waiting with shotgun | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Here is something from Wiki.
“Europeans may have been dark as recently as 13,000 years ago. The painters depicted themselves as having darker complexions than the animals they hunted.”
See picture –
It confirms that genetic Upenn study that “Europeans” were black/dark up to 6kya.
Europeans did not change from black to white suddenly 6kya. It was a process. European ancestors began turning light once they left the tropics and entered Central Asia before they entered Europe.
By the way, why is this stupid thread still lingering and taking up bandwidth space?? (Mods!)
Posts: 26285 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
An incomplete summary. Still does not explain the extreme genetic mutation which is certainly not climate related adaptation. Maybe environmental, if they spent great deal of time in caves in RECENT history.
The thread is probably still alive due to the strength of it's proposal.
Posts: 3595 | From: Moved To Mars. Waiting with shotgun | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The quotes are not from me. The writer is saying that indigenous Europeans were dark/very dark AT LEAST 13kya. They were pictured as being darker than the animals they hunted. To me 13yrs is a relatively short time in human evolution.
So this lends support to the fact that . . .yeah . . .Marc may be on to something. Up to 13yka darked skinned Europeans (ie Africans) were roaming freely throughout Europe.
Then “suddenly” the lighter skin appeared about 6kya. It took some time for the light skin to be dominant throughout Europe just as long as maybe the Cro-Magnon’s took to replace the Neanderthals.
Various anthropological evidence pints out that African type people were prevalent throughout Europe.
Recent historical evidence shows that modern Western Europeans (Germanic) only spread exponentially after BC 300-AD200.
These are things I, and many others, did NOT know. And this is why the thread still has life. .
The illustration shows a clear distinction between the Mediterranean(mixed Africans) and Germanic (Modern Northern Europeans) peoples.
From WIKI -
During the 5th century, as the Western Roman Empire lost military strength and political cohesion, numerous Germanic peoples, under pressure from population growth and invading Asian groups, began migrating en masse in far and diverse directions, taking them (allegedly) to England and as far south through present day Continental Europe to the Mediterranean and northern Africa.
So the point is anyone with half a brain can deduce that the ethnic Europeans that are present/dominate Europe today only got there about AD200-BC400.
Is that period the Dark Ages????.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: I read that article (and more), which is why I'm still asking the question about Europeans being ultra susceptible to skin damage due to UV radiation.
The comment is non-sequitur as reading the article does not beg the above question.
Non Europeans are also susceptible to skin damgage due to UV radiation.
quote: The article fails to address this issue
No, the scientist do address the issue of the causes of depigmentation in Northern Eurasians.
The failure is yours, because you do not engage the evidence presented, but choose to ignore it instead.
quote: it can be explained if the condition is albinism
Albinism is irrelevant.
quote: There is not, however, a definite relationship between skin pigmentation and the degree of exposure to sunlight.
Incorrect. Any individual who tans under exposure to sun, and lightens under absense of said exposure proves this direct cause and effect relationship.
quote: There are people with unexpected skin colors for the area in which they live. For example, the Tasmanian Australoids are dark-skinned although they live in a temperate latitude
This is because they inherit the same genes for dark skin that all other people inherit. They would have sustained their dark color when migrated out of Africa, into Southern Asia, and into tropical Australia, and hence 10's of thousands of years prior to migration into Tasmania.
I agree that it is of interest that mid latitude Tasmanians do not appear to be any lighter than their low latitutude Australian neighbor/forebearers, but this hardly disproves the relationship between latitude and skin color, which can be seen virtually everywhere on earth, including within Africa.
quote:also the pigmentation of American Indians, who are descendants of Asian peoples, is similar across the whole continent of North America.
Actually Native American pigmentation varies greatly, and reflects both relatively recent migrations from Northern Asia, possibly earlier migrations from the Paleolithic Asia or Oceana, and subsequent migratations from Europe and Africa.
quote: These examples are probably the result of migrations forty or fifty thousand years ago.
This is also wrong, as North America was uninhabited at this time.
quote:The native peoples of central and western Europe were pushed westwards. Among these were the original Celts (people with blue eyes and very pale skins easily burnt by the sun),
Not according to Marc, whose nonsense you praise in condescension, yet clearly do not actually believe.
According to him the original Celts are 'Afrikan'.
You either did not read his drivel [can't blame you really], or are just shining him on.
quote: who eventually populated parts of Scotland and Ireland; their descendants can still be identified in those countries.
This is correct, but has nothing whatsoever to do with the origins or causes of depigmentation in humans.
quote: Similarly, in the last few hundred years peoples with white skins have migrated to Australia and South Africa
Similar to what?
quote: - areas of high sunshine to which their skins are not well adapted, and among them sun damage and skin cancer rates are high.
Of course, so why do you deny the relationship between sunlight and skin color?
quote:or if Europeans did not live in the open but in subterranean environment.
This is just nonsense. If human beings live in shelters 'houses'/tents/huts or caves, what difference does it make whether the shelter is or isn't underground? [ie - subterranean]
quote: Actually, the above article merely addresses complexion, and nothing else.
Actually complexion is the issue at hand, and the scientists are addressing it. It's you who are taking care of the -nothing else- part.
quote:The colder climate addresses the decrease in skin pigments (complexion),
No it does not. This is a common misnomer.
Temperature, per se, is completely unrelated to pigmentation.
No offense, but it is clear that you don't understand the studies referenced.
I would advise that you re-read the study cited and also read the works of Nina Jablonsky and others who specialize in research into skin color, then you might be able to credibly address the issue.
As it stands, you have not.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Vitiligo is a condition where there is patchy loss of pigment, usually over the hands and forearms but occasionally it is more extensive. It is possible to hide it by the skilful use of special water-resistant cosmetics. Functions of the epidermis.
^ I wondered about all the non-sequitur [apparently plagiarised] remarks.
quote:So this lends support to the fact that . . .yeah . . .Marc may be on to something.
Wrong.
It supports the fact that *all people* were originally dark skinned, and that depigmentation is a recent adaptation.
Marcs position is not that pale skin populations recently derive from dark skinned populations.
His positions is that whites have unknown origin, and are so -unrelated- to ancient Europeans, or for that matter - to any ancient population.
So for Marc, white people might as well come from Mars.
I guess that's a fun idea, if only to mock and reverse the white racism that too often passed for science.
But only if you use it as comedy, and don't take it seriously, as you appear (?) to, and at which point....the joke is on you. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Marc can speak for himself. But I believe he is saying that the white Europeans(notice I said white Europeans cf to black European) came from a region of Europe called the Steppes. They eventually spread and conquered all of Europe, replacing the Black Europeans. This replacement of peoples occured between around 100BC -400AD give or take.
The above piece I cited says something similar - The Germanic people, whatever they looked like - which includes most of modern day Europeans, spread and conquered all of Europe around 100BC - 400AD.
To me there is a common thread here. Any intelligent and not so intelligent person can see that.
And I did not make this up. In additon.. . .The drawing piece inferred that .. . yes . . .you are right. Native Europeans were most likely black up to 13kya.
So you agree with Marc. Europeans were black(africans)up to 13k-6kya. Your disgreement seems to be the TIME of replacement. . .or the manner in which it occured.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Marc can speak for himself.
Agreed, so you should state your opinion directly and not try to hide it behind disingenous reinterpretation of what others said.
quote: But I believe he is saying that the white Europeans(notice I said white Europeans cf to black European) came from a region of Europe called the Steppes.
This kind of statement is what makes both your and his nonsense so despicable.
If white people come from -a region of Europe- then they would be indigenous to Europe by definition.
And actually Marc claims the original paleolithic population of the -steppes- was also -Afrikan-.
All of these claims are insipid.
The reality is that pale skin is a recent adaptation - so by definition there is no paleolithic population of whites anywhere.
Therefore seeking and ancient and specific origion of -whites- is a false premise.
For the last time:
White people of Europe are descendant in the main from the Paleolithic inhabits of Europe, who themselves were not white.
This is the conclusion of geneticists and anthropologists.
Being willfully dense about the above conclusion, is not the same thing as refuting it.
quote:They eventually spread and conquered all of Europe, replacing the Black Europeans. This replacement of peoples occured between around 100BC -400AD give or take.
This is a total fantasy, and to even indulge it requires stupifying banality in the face of facts to the contrary repeated again and again.
quote:The above piece I cited says something similar
It says no such thing. Your comment shows the relationship between ignorance and dishonesty. IE- the only way you can stay ignorant, is by being blatantly dishonest about what you site.
quote:The Germanic people, whatever they looked like - which includes most of modern day Europeans, spread and conquered all of Europe around 100BC - 400AD.
^ Non sequitur.
* Germanic is a language, not a lineage, and not a skin color condition.
** Genes for pale skin originate in the Mesolithic not from 100 BC .
** West Europeans population descend from Paleolithic Europeans, who carry 20 thousand year old R1b lineages, that are rare or absent East of Europe.
Therefore your hypothesis is falsified.
It was falsified on page one of this thread.
All you can manage by way of -mindless argument- is pretend to be too dense to understand....
quote:So you agree with Marc.
Nope, we agree with geneticists:
-> Modern Europeans descend from Paleolithic Europeans, as shown above.
You agree with this as well, which is why you fail to address the scientific data, and are reduced to playing dumb, just as all trolls and fakers who argue for the sake of arguing on the internet do.
from Wiki______ Germanic peoples are a historical group of Indo-European-speaking peoples, originating in Northern Europe and identified by their use of the Germanic languages. Migrating Germanic peoples spread throughout Europe in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages. Germanic Europe also has varying degrees of Nordic, Alpine and Mediterraneans
Key point
1. Spread throughout the middle ages 2. Germanic PEOPLE not language
again this is not my quote. ie GERMANIC PEEEEEOPLE.
now who is dumb talk to the guys at Wiki
as I said the common theme, in case you missed it, the Europeans you see dominating Europe today are recent arrivals (ie predominants). I never said they were not decended from the indeigenous black Europeans who lived there over 40ky
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
You don't seem to have one, as exemplified by irrelevant citations from wikipedia which have nothing whatsoever to do with your ludicrous assertations, such as....
quote: from Wiki______ Germanic peoples are a historical group of Indo-European-speaking peoples, originating in Northern Europe... and and identified by their use of the Germanic languages.
.....this repeats what I stated, that Germanic is a language group, contradicts Marc, and lends no credence to you.
Your citation, in the context of your desperate attempt to misinterprete it, is a joke.
quote: Migrating Germanic peoples spread throughout Europe in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages.
Yes, that is when the Germanic languages spread from Northern Europe.
Northern Europeans in turn come from Southern Europe.
Northern Europe was covered with glaciers during the ice age.
The authors of the article you cite and anyone who has read this thread and has modicum of intelligence understands this.
You do too. So why do you continue to embarrass yourself by pretending to be stupid?
quote:Germanic Europe also has varying degrees of Nordic, Alpine and Mediterraneans
^ Yes, also Native Europeans, also descendant in the main from paleolithic Europeans, and also white....so this is another citation which makes no point.
quote:Key point
^ Not likely....
quote:1. Spread throughout the middle ages
-> references Germanic language, not white skin, and not European ancestors from the Martian steppes, as you are want to pretend.
quote:2. Germanic PEOPLE not language
-> Germanic people are denoted by language, not lineage, as denoted in the article you cite, but do not link to, for obvious reasons ->
^ Germanic languages are of post Neolithic provenance.
European lineages are of -paleolithic- provenance.
The article you cite does not claim that European people have no ancestry prior the development of Germanic language, because the authors are not idiots.
Nor does the article have anything to say about skin color, or Black Africans of Europe being replaced by whites.
Since you can't even find a wiki article to support you looney claims, citing the above amounts to admission that your claims are simply a lie, which you are pathetically desparate to justify.
So keep grinning while making yourself look dumb.
quote: now who is dumb?
* Anyone who can't tell the difference between language, and lineage....
** Anyone who can't understand the difference between the Paleolithic, and the Middle ages.
*** Anyone who confuses the post ice age spread of Germanic speakers from the Northern Europe, with the Ice age origins of Europeans in 3 -southern- glacial refuges, from whence post ice age Europe was repopulated.
**** Anyone who can't read a map of paleolithic European population migration history, which -ANWERED THE QUESTION- of this foolish thread on page 1, and so tries to substitute for willful illiteracy with off point citations about the spread of Gemanic langauges in the Middle Ages.
^ Does that answer your question?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
What am I missing. Better yet. . . are you missing the point .. . deliberately.
Germanic language is associated with a Germanic PEEEEOPLE. The piece said so. It is a GROUP OF PEOPLE ie (ethnically similar humans- that came from one specific region of Europe ) and spread and conquered new lands. WTF. That is not too difficult to understand.
This has happened throughout human history. Most times a language is associated with a specific ethnic group of humans. Eg Chinese speak chinese language. There may be black people or Europeans that speak chinese but the language is associated with Chinese ethnic group.
The piece I cited said that they ORIGINATED from a region ie Northen Europe and spread throughout Europe and eventually . . .. the world.
I am not saying they are not decendents of black Europeans. I am saying(and the Wiki piece) this ONE group of people eventually conquered Europe. . .and the world. And there spread is relatively recent. AD200-BC400. THE CHARTS ABOVE SHOWS THIS . . . .BUOY.
I hope you get it now. . . . . . . . . .. . . .
Ps and this ethnic group may not resemble the inhabitants of Europe that occupied the land for over 40ky.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
From the Wikilink on Germanic people: The Germanic peoples are a historical group of Indo-European-speaking peoples, originating in Northern Europe and identified by their use of the Germanic languages which diversified out of Common Germanic in the course of the Pre-Roman Iron Age.
From Wikilink on human skin color: Europeans have lighter skin, hair, and eyes than any other group on Earth. In attempting to discover the mechanisms that have generated such a wide variation in human skin tone, Nina Jablonski and George Chaplin (2000) discovered that there is a high correlation between the tone of human skin of indigenous peoples and the average annual ultraviolet (UV) radiation available for skin exposure where the indigenous peoples live...
UV radiation map
Skin Color map
Thus white skin developed in Europe and is indigenous to Europe -- NO displacement of blacks by 'whites'.
Any questions??
To Mods: Why is this stupid thread still lingering like a bad odor??
Posts: 26285 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
What is the poitn of repeating what I referenced. From WKI. I get the impressing you have very little original thought or ideas. Inference is a good indication of intelligence. Parroting/regurgitating something is does not make one "smart". I mentioned all that you referenced in the above. I an begin to doubt you originality if you know what I mean.
For the LAST TIME TO YOU BOTH. I am not disputing that black Europeans are the ancestors of white Europeans.
Key points are -
Europeans were black(africans) up to at least 6kya. This white group of Europeans eventual became dominant. Maybe 2-3kya.
About BC200-AD400 one of these white European enthic groups (Germanic) flourished and conquered all of Europe - similar to Marc's theory. This maybe similar to the Bantu expansion. Africans replacing other type of Africans(San etc).
In summary - and for the last time - the typical European you see through out Europe today were NOT dominant as up to the middle ages.
I hope you get it this time!!! There is only so many ways I acn spin this.
. . . . . . . . !!!
-------------------- 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
Djehuti said: ''Thus white skin developed in Europe and is indigenous to Europe -- NO displacement of blacks by 'whites'.
''Any questions??
Yup! You betcha!
Then the blacks did morph into white folks, blonde hair, blue eyes, pointy noses and all, all because of latitude placement, albeit at an agonizingly slow pace too? Just enough of a slow pace I might add to soothe Jablonski's bewilderment as to how this came about and in the process hope her and her husband's PhD education will bamboozle enough people and enough scientists to print this bs in scientific journals, which by now should have generated headlines around the world, yet I've seen no such stuff in all my years of reading and dabbling in the literature available, and to state unequivocably that it's true, that I still say bullsh.t. It would be much more sensible and intelligent to say we think, and if one reads a little closer it will be noted they say essentially the same thing, based on our limited understanding, although it's the best we have today, this is how it could have happened. That makes much more sense to offer this approach than to offer information that others will take and run with it to dazzle other non-scientists into believing something they (scientists) can't state definitively to be true.
And to all the set-in-stone co-signers, be advised what co-signing entails.
And spare me the red herring spiel because in context above they all go together (in the opening comment/question).
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Both of you obviously don't have a clue about evolution. To xyman: There was no seperate groups of white Europeans and black Europeans. White Europeans descend from darker skin Europeans!! The change from black to white was not a sudden change that just happened 6KYA. According to Jablonski the change began happening before they entered Europe once European ancestors left the tropics and settled in Central Asia in latitudes with less UV. The process was further encourage through glacial climates in Europe. The process ended by 6KYA if not before. The result is pale/white skin. Thus, THERE WERE NO BLACK EUROPEANS by the time of the Germanic invasions, and even befor then!!
To Gruffman, evolution happens all the time to populations. Color is just one of many human traits that are mutable and subject to change. There is no "magic morph" involved. Humans evolved lighter skin in higher latitudes because darker skin is a hinderance to UV rays necessary for vitamin D sythesis, as there is little UV in high latitudes.
I recommend:
Posts: 26285 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
from DJ -Thus, THERE WERE NO BLACK EUROPEANS by the time of the Germanic invasions, and even befor then!!
The more you write the more I question your mental processing capability. Or are you a PLANT?
you agree there were black europeans. As appears from the cave drawings . . .up to 13kya. And from the Upenn study 6kya
What you'll seem to miss is. . . . These Germanic tribes are DIFFERENT ethnically from the other "white" europeans present they replaced. End result the "replacements" were different ethnically to the people they replaced. The people they replaced were most likely mediit-type ie african laced europeans.
Point being for the final time-
this took place AD400 and it is a DIFFERENT ethnic group. My guess back then the SOuthern Europeans had even more african features than they have today.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I take it you have that book, as evidenced by your continual lack of preparation when this topic is discussed? By the way I prefer talkorigins simply because it will go into detail more thoroughly than your 'Dummies'' book. I'm not saying the books aren't good at all, just that the name implies a surface look for, well, dummies. Admittedly, I'm one of them. But you have to understand once one gets past the dummy stage and makes a concerted effort to really see what's going on behind the scenes and those same scenes show nothing of the kind in terms of specifics it makes one wonder just who the dummy is here by subscribing to a hook-line-and-sinker attitude.
I'll buy the book if you can show me on what page you got your information as it pertains to my post above, not simply your reference to the book as a means to bolster your position on evolution. That isn't my issue. That said, your reference is funny though, I'll give you that. Here you go
By the way I do have a recent Genetics for Dummies book bought nearly a year ago and written by a PhD plus checked by another PhD, just to see if this skin color information was in it because the regular books don't seem to be up to the task in a specific way. Hmm, glad I only spent five dollars to buy it instead of twenty; I guess there was no demand for this ''hot information'' inside of it. And I sure would have thought Jablonski's name would have been in it too even as a passing reference to skin color. It's kind of hard to tell whether the writer of the book snubbed Jablonski with the omission because of some past or current disagreement or maybe it was simply not important that consumers know about it.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: The more you write the more I question your mental processing capability. Or are you a PLANT?
LMAO This quote should be directed to YOURSELF!
quote:you agree there were black europeans. As appears from the cave drawings . . .up to 13kya. And from the Upenn study 6kya
Yes, and all of this was during the Paleolithic. All Europeans were white afterwards and definitely by the time of Germanic expansions.
quote:What you'll seem to miss is. . . . These Germanic tribes are DIFFERENT ethnically from the other "white" europeans present they replaced. End result the "replacements" were different ethnically to the people they replaced. The people they replaced were most likely mediit-type ie african laced europeans.
WRONG! There were NO REPLACEMENTS. Germanic people did not commit genocide on the natives of the areas they conquered but merely settled and intermarried. Still, this does not explain the appearance of all Europeans since Germanic people did not spread into every area of Europe and not all Europeans were genetically effected by Germans, especially the southern areas!
*All* of Europe was white!
quote:Point being for the final time-
this took place AD400 and it is a DIFFERENT ethnic group. My guess back then the SOuthern Europeans had even more african features than they have today.
ancient Greeks from BC
Ancient Romans (Italians) BC
Posts: 26285 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Grumman f6f: I take it you have that book, as evidenced by your continual lack of preparation when this topic is discussed? By the way I prefer talkorigins simply because it will go into detail more thoroughly than your 'Dummies'' book. I'm not saying the books aren't good at all, just that the name implies a surface look for, well, dummies. Admittedly, I'm one of them. But you have to understand once one gets past the dummy stage and makes a concerted effort to really see what's going on behind the scenes and those same scenes show nothing of the kind in terms of specifics it makes one wonder just who the dummy is here by subscribing to a hook-line-and-sinker attitude.
Wrong on all counts. No, I don't have the book, I have never read it, nor do I need to since I've had a perfect grasp of fundamental biological concepts like evolution since elementary school.
The only one who's fallen hook line and sinker is you and your old attitude of (since I don't understand it, it must not be true).
Again, read the book first or do research and then come back and ask questions.
quote:I'll buy the book if you can show me on what page you got your information as it pertains to my post above, not simply your reference to the book as a means to bolster your position on evolution. That isn't my issue. That said, your reference is funny though, I'll give you that. Here you go
Again, nothing doing from me. Go 'learn yourself something' then come back.
quote:By the way I do have a recent Genetics for Dummies book bought nearly a year ago and written by a PhD plus checked by another PhD, just to see if this skin color information was in it because the regular books don't seem to be up to the task in a specific way. Hmm, glad I only spent five dollars to buy it instead of twenty; I guess there was no demand for this ''hot information'' inside of it. And I sure would have thought Jablonski's name would have been in it too even as a passing reference to skin color. It's kind of hard to tell whether the writer of the book snubbed Jablonski with the omission because of some past or current disagreement or maybe it was simply not important that consumers know about it.
Well, since I never read the book I don't know. But I assume the book discusses basic aspects of evolution first.
Tell me, why are some populations shorter than others? Why do some populations have resistance to other diseases while others are more susceptable? Again, it all boils down the same reason as skin color differences-- genetics and evolution.
NOW GO READ THE BOOK.
Posts: 26285 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Djehuti comments on Genetics for Dummies: ''Well, since I never read the book I don't know. But I assume the book discusses basic aspects of evolution first''.
No, it discusses genetics throughout.
''Tell me, why are some populations shorter than others? Why do some populations have resistance to other diseases while others are more susceptable? Again, it all boils down the same reason as skin color differences-- genetics''.
Who said otherwise?
The evolution omission is deliberate because it came afterwards.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ evolution is the the interplay of genetics and environment. No way getting around this basic fact.
White skin *like all features* started or developed from something else.
Posts: 26285 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Someone please tell me, if there was a conspiracy going this far to cover up some supposed ancient black European past why did the white elite neglect to rewrite where Herodotus says Egyptians are "black with wooly hair"
I mean rewriting some words has to be easier than this huge conspiracy theory but they neglected to do so
Posts: 2642 | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by markellion: Someone please tell me, if there was a conspiracy going this far to cover up some supposed ancient black European past why did the white elite neglect to rewrite where Herodotus says Egyptians are "black with wooly hair"
I mean rewriting some words has to be easier than this huge conspiracy theory but they neglected to do so
But according to Mad Marc and his stupified student, the ancient Greeks as pre-steppe, pre-Germanic invaded people were blacks also!! So why would Herodotus and other Greeks describe the Egyptians as 'black' if they were too??
LOL looks like they're caught in another dumb contradition. Posts: 26285 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Keeping things civil.. . . DJ and others have failed to address the point that what we see today as typical Europeans were CERTAINLY NOT typical 6-13kya. Since these were dark skin peeople ie black Europeans.
The white gene APPEARED ie mutation happened about 6kya.
Several thousand years later the color MAY of become dominant. Certainly in the north but very unlikely in the south since africans were still migrating through what they considered and extention of THEIR region.
A specific ethnic group (of Northern white Europeans ie Germanic) - then move and conquered/assimilated/migrated/ran into the south and rest of Europe.. . .displacing the people that were there. Similarly to the Bantu expansion.
This was completed throughout the middle ages.
Jeeze!!! I am getting tired of rephrasing this DJ!. What don't you get! And what is wrong with the position.
You said there was no replacement - but this has happened thorughout human history. eg bantu expansion., the "new world", Arab conquest and expansion in Africa etc etc etc.
THE END . . . .for now on the topic until I get more material.
You seem to be twisting things around. .. intentionally? Being a comic does not suggest accumen but more a Clown(entertainer).
-------------------- 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: Keeping things civil.. . . DJ and others have failed to address the point that what we see today as typical Europeans were CERTAINLY NOT typical 6-13kya. Since these were dark skin peeople ie black Europeans.
Dark-skin but probably not necessarily black since they've been living in in latitudes 30,000 years or so.
quote:The white gene APPEARED ie mutation happened about 6kya.
Yes among these indigenous Europeans which is why their modern descendants are all white.
quote:Several thousand years later the color MAY of become dominant. Certainly in the north but very unlikely in the south since africans were still migrating through what they considered and extention of THEIR region.
Nope. There were no Africans present in Europe until Neolithic times, which even then were a small immigrant minority.
quote:A specific ethnic group (of Northern white Europeans ie Germanic) - then move and conquered/assimilated/migrated/ran into the south and rest of Europe.. . .displacing the people that were there. Similarly to the Bantu expansion.
Again. There was no displacement. The Germanic expansion was not even as extensive as the Bantu expansion so there can hardly be any comparison. Also, Germanic expansions have NOTHING to do with white phenotype since *ALL* indigenous Europeans were already white!
quote:This was completed throughout the middle ages.
See above.
quote:Jeeze!!! I am getting tired of rephrasing this DJ!. What don't you get! And what is wrong with the position.
LOL How do you think I and others feel, when you constantly ignore certain facts just so you can weave your own ludicrous theory to your liking.
quote:You said there was no replacement - but this has happened thorughout human history. eg bantu expansion., the "new world", Arab conquest and expansion in Africa etc etc etc.
Yes, but there is no evidence of Germanic people killing the peoples of the lands they inhabited. Genetics, anthropology, and even historical records show this. Germanic people have NOTHING to do with Europeans being white! I even showed you a map showing that before the Germanic expansions, Celtic people dominated most of Western and Central Euorope. Unless you believe Celts were black also! LOL And I have shown you pictures of Southern European Italians and Greeks-- no black peoples.
You are nothing but a stubborn ofe, moronic enough to be taken in by Marc's nonsense.
quote:THE END . . . .for now on the topic until I get more material.
No. It was THE END a long time ago since the very first page of this thread. If you do get any accurate material all you can do is distort or butcher it like you've done with those wikipedia links pertaining to Germainc peoples and skin color! LOL
You seem to be twisting things around. .. intentionally? Being a comic does not suggest accumen but more a Clown(entertainer). [/QB][/QUOTE]
Posts: 26285 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You seem to be twisting things around. .. intentionally? Being a comic does not suggest accumen but more a Clown(entertainer).
ROTFL The only one "twisting things around" is YOU. That's all you've been doing since you first replied to this stupid thread!!
Rasol and I have explained it to you over and over yet you continue this tirade of silliness. No one in here takes you seriously for your stupidity except your mentally deranged mentor, Marc! LOLPosts: 26285 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Marc you are a path finder of great knowledge. Check this article out on Blacks in Denmark. Great support for your Black Vikings and this thread.
.
Rare mtDNA haplogroups and genetic differences in rich and poor Danish Iron-Age villages.
Melchior L, Gilbert MT, Kivisild T, Lynnerup N, Dissing J.
The Roman Iron-Age (0-400 AD) in Southern Scandinavia was a formative period, where the society changed from archaic chiefdoms to a true state formation, and the population composition has likely changed in this period due to immigrants from Middle Scandinavia. We have analyzed mtDNA from 22 individuals from two different types of settlements, Bøgebjerggård and Skovgaarde, in Southern Denmark. Bøgebjerggård (ca. 0 AD) represents the lowest level of free, but poor farmers, whereas Skovgaarde 8 km to the east (ca. 200-270 AD) represents the highest level of the society. Reproducible results were obtained for 18 subjects harboring 17 different haplotypes all compatible (in their character states) with the phylogenetic tree drawn from present day populations of Europe. This indicates that the South Scandinavian Roman Iron-Age population was as diverse as Europeans are today. Several of the haplogroups (R0a, U2, I) observed in Bøgebjerggård are rare in present day Scandinavians. Most significantly, R0a, harbored by a male, is a haplogroup frequent in East Africa and Arabia but virtually absent among modern Northern Europeans. We suggest that this subject was a soldier or a slave, or a descendant of a female slave, from Roman Legions stationed a few hundred kilometers to the south. In contrast, the haplotype distribution in the rich Skovgaarde shows similarity to that observed for modern Scandinavians, and the Bøgebjerggård and Skovgaarde population samples differ significantly (P approximately 0.01). Skovgaarde may represent a new upper-class formed by migrants from Middle Scandinavia bringing with them Scandinavian haplogroups.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dr. Winters. Thanks for sharing this article by white scientists who draw our attention to the fact that whites only recently entered Denmark some centuries ago and did so replacing the indigenous African population. That the genetic material they discovered is found in East Africa and Arabia could possibly point to such people being in North Africa and Egypt (my pages show Egyptian affinities) perhaps?
I added this article to the two Viking pages below.
quote:Originally posted by Marc Washington: Dr. Winters. Thanks for sharing this article by white scientists who draw our attention to the fact that whites only recently entered Denmark some centuries ago and did so replacing the indigenous African population. That the genetic material they discovered is found in East Africa and Arabia could possibly point to such people being in North Africa and Egypt (my pages show Egyptian affinities) perhaps?
I added this article to the two Viking pages below.
. It is also interesting to note that haplogroups J and I are also found in Africa, especially Ethiopia. This shows that in addition to the ROa African, the people with J and I genes may have also been Africans. Keep up the great work Marc.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Marc you are a path finder of great knowledge. Check this article out on Blacks in Denmark. Great support for your Black Vikings and this thread.
.
Rare mtDNA haplogroups and genetic differences in rich and poor Danish Iron-Age villages.
Melchior L, Gilbert MT, Kivisild T, Lynnerup N, Dissing J.
The Roman Iron-Age (0-400 AD) in Southern Scandinavia was a formative period, where the society changed from archaic chiefdoms to a true state formation, and the population composition has likely changed in this period due to immigrants from Middle Scandinavia. We have analyzed mtDNA from 22 individuals from two different types of settlements, Bøgebjerggård and Skovgaarde, in Southern Denmark. Bøgebjerggård (ca. 0 AD) represents the lowest level of free, but poor farmers, whereas Skovgaarde 8 km to the east (ca. 200-270 AD) represents the highest level of the society. Reproducible results were obtained for 18 subjects harboring 17 different haplotypes all compatible (in their character states) with the phylogenetic tree drawn from present day populations of Europe. This indicates that the South Scandinavian Roman Iron-Age population was as diverse as Europeans are today. Several of the haplogroups (R0a, U2, I) observed in Bøgebjerggård are rare in present day Scandinavians. Most significantly, R0a, harbored by a male, is a haplogroup frequent in East Africa and Arabia but virtually absent among modern Northern Europeans. We suggest that this subject was a soldier or a slave, or a descendant of a female slave, from Roman Legions stationed a few hundred kilometers to the south. In contrast, the haplotype distribution in the rich Skovgaarde shows similarity to that observed for modern Scandinavians, and the Bøgebjerggård and Skovgaarde population samples differ significantly (P approximately 0.01). Skovgaarde may represent a new upper-class formed by migrants from Middle Scandinavia bringing with them Scandinavian haplogroups.
^ LOL And how does this support that Scandanavians are black all of a sudden?? That still doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of Scandinavians in ancient times did NOT carry R0a but R1b.
Posts: 26285 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This purpose of this thread is simple though some continually bring in irrelevant issues.
The purpose is to show that whites have, contrary to the popular view, only been in many countries of Europe (replacing African populations) for a few centuries; and, thank you, Dr. Winters, whites scientists, in the article you present, prove the point with Denmark.
The view of whites being new to Europe is the standard view of white historians and they themselves discuss the fact:
"The Migration Period, also called Barbarian Invasions or Völkerwanderung, is a name given by historians to a human migration which occurred within the period of roughly AD 300–700 in Europe,[1] marking the transition from Late Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages.
The migration included the Goths, Vandals, and Franks, among other Germanic, Bulgar and Slavic tribes. The migration may have been triggered by the incursions of the Huns, in turn connected to the Turkic migration in Central Asia, population pressures, or climate changes.
Migrations would continue well beyond AD 1000, successive waves of Slavs, Alans, Avars, Bulgars, Hungarians, Pechenegs, Cumans, and Tatars radically changing the ethnic makeup of Eastern Europe. Western European historians, however, tend to emphasize the migrations most relevant to Western Europe."
I do not know why some have difficulty catching, or refuse to acknowledge, this uncomplicated, straightforward fact.
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
Wrong on all counts. No, I don't have the book, I have never read it, nor do I need to since I've had a perfect grasp of fundamental biological concepts like evolution since elementary school.
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic