quote:Winters writes: Evidence is not debunked by rhetoric.
And...
quote:Winters pleads: Every statement you guys said about how I was wrong about this or that genetic information have been proven wrong.
^ Uh, that would be rhetoric.
Here is the evidence...
14 clusters, some exclusive to Eurasia and Africa, some exclusive to Eurasia and PNG, but *none* exclusive to Africa and PNG.
Why is this Dr. Winters?
Don't bother replying if you can't address the evidence by answering this question.
Any reply that is not and answer is a tacit admission that you are too dense and dishonest to address the evidence, so think carefully before you reply and make a fool of yourself once more.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Home Program Links Gallery Philippe's Message Melanesian Culture Melanesian NIUS Events Music Map
Melanesian Spearhead Group
VOM PROGRAM
Hello People of Melanesia and Friends of Melanesia, Please forward to your network.
VOM is Our Radio Program here in Sydney, Australia on 88.9FM and the only program in the Entire World that Unites MELANESIA. Unique avec la difference!
Program breakdown:
9.00pm Welcome music & Welcome to program 9.15pm Prayer by The Uniting Melanesian Lotu/Sydney 9.30pm Pidgin English segment (Raw!) 10.00pm English News (All Areas-Audio) 10.15pm French News (New Caledonia & Vanuatu-Audio) 10.30pm Bau Fijian News-Audio 10.40pm Hindi Fijian News-Audio
From Melanesian Tribal Music to Modern - till midnight or longer!!
About me: Philippe.(Father- Shefa Province, Vanuatu & Mother- Loyalty Islands, New Caledonia inside Melanesia)
VOM Now operating for the past 3 years and looking good!
MELANESIAN Educational for the World to know that we do exist as a Human Race. Melanesians originate from AFRICA via East Africa, India, Asia and into the Western Pacific... Papua New Guinea was our base before we migrated as far central as Fiji and as far west as the Torres Strait Islands and Cape York Peninsula on mainland Australia, including Our Kanaka South Sea Islanders of mainland Australia - descendants of the Melanesians of the Western Pacific taken into Queensland in the 1800's
The name MELANESIA was coined in 1832 by D'Urville in order to map the Pacific Ocean. We are a similar Race/National to Indo-Africans/Afrocoids/Negrittos....One People, Many Nations, Plenty of Languages!
My Melanesian Tribal Language is MAKURAAN I'm not English/French or Pidgin English educated, but I have to use these 3 Common languages to COMMUNICATE with the Outside World of MELANESIA
My vision is to UNITE MELANESIA and work very closely in the near future with the MELANESIAN SPEARHEAD GROUP (An Organisation formed in 1993- Head Office in Port Vila/Vanuatu. Melanesian Spearhead Group
Member countries: Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu & Fiji. Interested Members: Torres Strait Islands, East Timor, Autonomous Bougainville Island, New Caledonia and Aboriginal Australia. Your Face! Aboriginal Australia? Yes...Melanesians & Aboriginals of Australia originally come from AFRICA - Melanesians via India, Asia, PNG and Western Pacific. Aboriginals from AFRICA via INDIA and directly across to Australia. Their hair, language, chanting are similar to some parts of Southern India. So there you have it!
Hope by the end of 2008 early 2009 MSG will cover all these areas. The aim is to preserve THE CUSTOMS, CULTURE AND TRADITIONS of MELANESIA.
MINORITY/DIASPORA GROUPS IN MELANESIA: PAPUANS (Motu-Hiri) - Papua New Guinea + (600 Islands off the coast) ROTUMANS- Fiji Islands BANABAN ISLANDERS (OCEAN ISLANDERS)- Fiji Islands MICRONESIANS - Fiji Islands INDIAN-HINDI - Fiji Islands. WALLIS & FUTUNESE POLYNESIANS- In New Caledonia. ASIANS -In Melanesia CAUCASIANS- In Melanesia AFRICANS - In Melanesia. MICRONESIANS - In Melanesia POLYNESIANS - In Melanesia MIXED RACE/HALF CASTS - In Melanesia.
Contact Philippe philippe@voiceofmelanesia.com
Posts: 387 | From: England, UK | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Educational for the World to know that we do exist as a Human Race. Melanesians originate from AFRICA via East Africa, India, Asia and into the Western Pacific. Melanesians & Aboriginals of Australia originally come from AFRICA .
This is true Jo.
This is relating the evolutionary African origin of the human species from 50+ thousand years ago. This is *not* what Winters is saying. He is saying Fijian are *not* descendant from aboriginal but rather from recent African emigree'.
And since you personally *deny* that humanity originates in Africa, why would you site this, which contradicts your anti evolutionary beliefs while also debunking Winters. (??)
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:OrClyde Winters: You have taught me nothing. Every statement you guys said about how I was wrong about this or that genetic information have been proven wrong. The proof is that I have published papers on these topics. This shows that your comment are illegitimate and reflect your bias and jealousy of my success.
LOL Opinion papers are not the same as peer reviewed research. Something you have always failed to do.
Posts: 385 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Educational for the World to know that we do exist as a Human Race. Melanesians originate from AFRICA via East Africa, India, Asia and into the Western Pacific... Papua New Guinea was our base before we migrated as far central as Fiji and as far west as the Torres Strait Islands and Cape York Peninsula on mainland Australia, including Our Kanaka South Sea Islanders of mainland Australia - descendants of the Melanesians of the Western Pacific taken into Queensland in the 1800's."
Rasol:
Why would you draw inferences from the above quote thar the writer subscribes to evolutionist or 'Out of Africa' theories to explain his origins or humanity, in general?
By now you should be aware that I view as spurious and false the disciplines of evolution and anthropology, which serve other agendas than that of their stated objectives.
My opinion on the thread's topic is that the Fijians or Melanesians (Black Islanders) have valid claims to African descent in terms of historical lineage as it relates to ethnicity/culture, albeit centuries removed; and that their assertions should not be diluted with inferences that they are only credible because of a posit, which states that 'all of humanity originates from Africa'.
Posts: 387 | From: England, UK | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
Why would you draw inferences from the above quote thar the writer subscribes to evolutionist or 'Out of Africa' theories to explain his origins or humanity, in general?
Because that is exactly what they are relating:
Melanesians originate from Africa via East Africa, India, Asia and into the Western Pacific...
^ This refers to the southern land route in OOA theory and would have occured 50 + thousand years ago.
Winters is saying that Tanzanians made it to Oceania by sea a few thousand years ago, and are not related to indiginous Asians or even Australians.
You don't seem to understand the information you are citing.
Also you don't seem to be following his discussion very well.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Modern humans emerged just once out of Africa - and headed straight for the beach - new genetic research suggests.
Most scientists agree that modern humans left Africa relatively recently, and it was traditionally thought that the route taken was northwards, overland into the Middle East and beyond.
But by measuring genetic variation in an isolated population in southeast Asia, Vincent Macaulay at the University of Glasgow, UK, and a team of international colleagues, conclude that the dispersal actually took a southern coastal route.
“It looks likely that a founder population crossed the Red Sea, and spread to Australia via India and southeast Asia, taking a southern route along the coast,” says Macaulay.
Original inhabitants Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) accumulates mutations over generations, so measuring differences between different human populations can estimate the time since they diverged from one another. The team analysed the mtDNA of 260 members of an isolated population living in Malaysia, called the Orang Asli. The ancestors of these people were the original inhabitants of the Malay Peninsula.
Comparisons of mtDNA between the Orang Asli and other sources from Eurasia and Australasia allowed Macaulay’s team to calculate that the first humans arrived in Malaysia around 65,000 years ago. At this time, the northern route out of Africa from the Sinai Peninsula across northern Arabia to the Indian Ocean was blocked by a desert, which early humans would have found almost impossible to cross.
“The southern route has been seen as just another route taken by anatomically modern humans out of Africa,” says Macaulay. “But we are proposing that it is the only route required to explain the mtDNA evidence.”
After reaching Malaysia, a group that would eventually settle Europe branched away, but the main dispersal group made a speedy onward journey to Australia, reaching it only a few thousand years later.
Ancient Australians The work clears up a question that has long troubled anthropologists: how did modern humans from Africa populate distant Australia long before nearby Europe? The oldest human remains in Australia date from 46,000 to 50,000 years ago, fitting neatly with the new genetics data.
The oldest European human remains, however, consist of an adult male’s jawbone, discovered in Romania and dated to between 34,000 and 36,000 years old.
“If the migrants had taken the northern route by looping northwards to Turkey to avoid the desert, then the question arises why they did not continue to Europe as well and leave ancient finds there,” says Peter Forster of the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research at the University of Cambridge, UK. “By default, the southern route makes more ecological sense.”
The southern coastal route might have made more culinary sense, too. “The change to the incorporation of shellfish in the human diet [suggested by earlier research] may have made the coastal route attractive,” says Macaulay. “It’s even possible that the motivation for expanding eastwards was declining fish stocks in the Red Sea at the time of the glacial maximum, around 70,000 years ago.”Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Archaeologists Find Evidence of Origin of Pacific Islanders By Heidi Chang Honolulu, Hawaii
March 31, 2008
The origin of Pacific Islanders has been a mystery for years. Now archaeologists believe they have the answer. As Heidi Chang reports, they found it in China.
China had a sea-faring civilization as long as 7000 years ago. Archaeologist Tianlong Jiao says, one day, these mariners sailed their canoes into the vastness of the Pacific Ocean, and stayed. He points out, "Most scientists, archaeologists, historical linguists and human biologists agree that today's southeast China, Taiwan and Northern Philippines, the whole region is the ultimate homeland of the Austronesian people." The Austronesians include today's Polynesian, Micronesian, Melanesian, and the indigenous people in Philippines, in the Southeast Asia archipelago, and in Taiwan.
He says understanding how seafaring technology developed in prehistoric China 3000 to 7000 years ago is critical in understanding the origins of Pacific heritage. "These people did not have a writing system, so they didn't record their own history, they had an oral history, but over many thousand years, the oral history is easily lost."
"Earlier researchers argued that the reason people first left China and crossed to Taiwan, is because over-population pushed them off the coastal plain of mainland China," he explains, adding that his research takes a different approach. "We're looking at environmental factors that may have contributed in pushing people [from the coastal plain of mainland China] to look for new land." He believes rising sea levels may have stimulated interest in a maritime way of life, and gathering food from the sea.
Rolett is now a professor of anthropology at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, where he teaches classes on Pacific archaeology. "So when I talk about the connection between Pacific Islanders, especially Polynesians, and southeast China, then my Native Hawaiian students are usually surprised, and they say, 'How could it be that Polynesians have roots in China? We don't look like Chinese.' And then I have to explain to them that, 'Yes, they don't look like the people living in southeast China today, but the people living there 6000 years ago, were completely different.' -- Source
.
Posts: 1549 | From: California, USA | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:First I demonstrated that the Fijians have a tradition of migration from Africa to Fiji.
^ This is unproven, as it is likely that this myth of exotic and non native origin of Fijian comes from European invaders, and not Fijian themselves.
Oral legend - per se - without supporting data - constitutes heresay and has little evidentiary value: doesn't matter whose legends they are - Fijian, or as is more probable here -> European.
quote:Secondly I demonstrated that this tradition is supported by genetic evidence
We have shown that this is one of your many lies, and can only be argued via genetic illiteracy. The very geneticist you site directly repudiate your claims.
You then have little recourse, but to proceed to argue with geneticts over their own conclusions pertaining their own study.
It's easy for you to argue with the geneticist since you don't understand the discipline anyway, however ignorance is not evidence, and arguing out of ignorance is only evidence of stubborness.
quote:Rasol has only shown a chart.
Several actually, all of which relate the same reality,
Oceanic are not closely related to contemporary African, they are descendant from ancient and aboriginal populations:
You were asked to explain why they all show that Melanesian and African are genetically distant from one another - the opposite of your claims.
You failed to do so.
Now here is answer from a geneticist:
There is more genetic similarity between Europeans and Africans and between Europeans and Melanesians, than there is between Africans and Melanesians. - Geneticist Alan Templeton
Note that Templeton is not referring directly to any of the genetic studies referenced in the above charts, but rather to his own.
Yet, what Templeton says.... is exactly what those charts show.
This falsifies your claims and ends this pointless argument.
Of course you don't admit this - but you never do, no matter how wrong you are, so that is par for the course for a charlatan.
quote: A chart that does not in anyway contradict the chart I originally posted.
All three genetic studies and all the data presented from them completely destroy your thesis.
That you are too dense and dishonest to admit it, is your problem.
quote:In fact , the shallowness of rasol's reponse
Actually your entire reply is sour rhetoric which still fails to answer a single question pertaining the data.
Empty rhetoric is all you're good for.
This is why other posters, who previously [supported you], are now openly professing their disappointment.
In turn this wounds your inflated ego.
So now you attack them.
But you underestimate them if you don't think they see thru this.
Your reply is really meant to salve your ego with rhetoric....not address the data, or answer their questions.
So it finally constitutes -one more disappointment-.
quote:he offers no discussion of the charts he post.
^ translation: You are begging me to teach you more.
I actually related the meanings of the data in detail, and of course you fail to address this.
But if you or anyone else has questions - feel free to ask them, but don't pretend that the answers have not been provided.
quote:The nescience of this simplton act and its support by certain members of the form
translation: More and more discussants are calling you out as a charlatan, and it's beginning to anger you.
quote: is a clear indication of the stupidity of these members
^ Rage rant. Hilarious.
quote: who fail to have any understanding of the art
^....the art of pseudo-science is what you have brought to this forum.
And this is what has become of it.
Winters: I can guarantee you one thing: the more you post, the less your credibility.
This is because you pile up outragious claims, and keep insisting on them out of egocentrism, no matter how manifestly absurd they are demonstrated to be.
It eventually becomes clear to most discussants that you can't help it, and that they should not take you seriously.
This is what you are venting against, to no avail, of course.
quote:You guys assume that just because someone you respect, demonstrates dilettantism, what ever he says is truth
translation: Bitter reproachment to other discussants from a self absorbed pseudo scholar, because he know longer has the passive-minded army of -followers- that he seeks.
Debunking you is not our goal, it is simply the inevitable consequence of seeking truth.
quote:Debate is based on proposition and supporting evidence.
^ Yes and note that your entire post is based on blowhard rhetoric and empty noisemaking with no evidence whatsover.
That's why you always lose these debates.
quote:Rasol has presented a chart he does not even explain.
You sound almost desparate - ie - begging me to explain.
Actually I already have explained all this data, but if anyone has a specific question, please ask.
That's fair no?
quote: You believe he wins the argument by making a proposition and failing to support it
It's more that you LOSE the argument, because you never answer questions about the data.
You still haven't. This long silly reply by you, that I am taking apart piece by piece just to amuse my self is a perfect example of why you lose.
It contains no information, no data, no answers.
It translates to:
Dr. Winters loses a debate and needs to CRY about it.
quote:Originally posted by Myra Wysinger: Archaeologists Find Evidence of Origin of Pacific Islanders By Heidi Chang Honolulu, Hawaii
March 31, 2008
The origin of Pacific Islanders has been a mystery for years. Now archaeologists believe they have the answer. As Heidi Chang reports, they found it in China.
China had a sea-faring civilization as long as 7000 years ago. Archaeologist Tianlong Jiao says, one day, these mariners sailed their canoes into the vastness of the Pacific Ocean, and stayed. He points out, "Most scientists, archaeologists, historical linguists and human biologists agree that today's southeast China, Taiwan and Northern Philippines, the whole region is the ultimate homeland of the Austronesian people." The Austronesians include today's Polynesian, Micronesian, Melanesian, and the indigenous people in Philippines, in the Southeast Asia archipelago, and in Taiwan.
He says understanding how seafaring technology developed in prehistoric China 3000 to 7000 years ago is critical in understanding the origins of Pacific heritage. "These people did not have a writing system, so they didn't record their own history, they had an oral history, but over many thousand years, the oral history is easily lost."
"Earlier researchers argued that the reason people first left China and crossed to Taiwan, is because over-population pushed them off the coastal plain of mainland China," he explains, adding that his research takes a different approach. "We're looking at environmental factors that may have contributed in pushing people [from the coastal plain of mainland China] to look for new land." He believes rising sea levels may have stimulated interest in a maritime way of life, and gathering food from the sea.
Rolett is now a professor of anthropology at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, where he teaches classes on Pacific archaeology. "So when I talk about the connection between Pacific Islanders, especially Polynesians, and southeast China, then my Native Hawaiian students are usually surprised, and they say, 'How could it be that Polynesians have roots in China? We don't look like Chinese.' And then I have to explain to them that, 'Yes, they don't look like the people living in southeast China today, but the people living there 6000 years ago, were completely different.' -- Source
.
While I do agree that the Pacific Islands are connected with South East Asia and Asia historically, I still think the so-called MYSTERIES of the origin of Eastern Pacific Islands is NONSENSE. Why is it a mystery? Because MOST Eastern pacific Islanders were KILLED OFF due to European diseases and warfare. Therefore, there AREN'T many full blooded Eastern Pacific Islanders left. Therefore, MOST studies that are trying to understand the origins of the people in the Eastern Pacific are only giving HALF or PARTIAL information at best. And a lot of these studies make it seem as if the Eastern Pacific Islanders were UNRELATED to those in Melanesia and Micronesia, which is absolutely ridiculous. So a lot of these studies need to be taken with a grain of salt. You cant just study Chinese maritime traditions and NOT look at Island South East Asia, which INDEED has been populated THE LONGEST of any part of Asia. You CANT skip over New Guinea and Melanesia and not study the ancient nature of those maritime traditions. Genetic studies aren't going to tell the whole picture because there AREN'T enough Eastern Pacific Islanders that aren't HEAVILY MIXED to use as a representative sample. Not only that, but those who are left today are CERTAINLY NOT representative of the ancient diversity in the islands as it was MOSTLY DESTROYED.
The so-called Polynesian look of today is really the result of RECENT European and Asian ancestry among native Pacific Islanders in the east, which makes up MOST of their ancestry in many cases.
Example of MODERN Hawaiian people (mostly NON Hawaiian):
But there are thousands if not millions of historical documents that record what the Hawaiians have looked like over the last 300 years, so there is NO EXCUSE for researchers to pretend to be ignorant.
posted
LOL. Dougie. Where was the "Asian" look and where did it develop independently form those "Black" you claim were either displaced or dissapeared by admixture?
Posts: 385 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chimu: LOL. Dougie. Where was the "Asian" look and where did it develop independently form those "Black" you claim were either displaced or dissapeared by admixture?
Back again for another beatdown, Mustafino?
Posts: 148 | From: Sirius | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chimu: LOL. Dougie. Where was the "Asian" look and where did it develop independently form those "Black" you claim were either displaced or dissapeared by admixture?
YOU YOURSELF posted that the "Asian" look is not limited to Asia and developed among Africans A VERY LONG TIME AGO among some of the oldest people in Africa.
But this isn't about WHAT is or isn't the "Asian" look.
Again, you ask EMPTY questions because of YOUR OWN inability to address FACTS, including posting SENSELESS BABBLE that REFLECTS a LACK of THOUGHT in YOUR OWN BRAIN. Because YOU YOURSELF have shown how ALL FEATURES and ALL COMPLEXIONS ultimately DERIVE FROM BLACKS. But you are TOO STUPID to realize it.
quote:Originally posted by Myra Wysinger: Archaeologists Find Evidence of Origin of Pacific Islanders By Heidi Chang Honolulu, Hawaii
March 31, 2008
The origin of Pacific Islanders has been a mystery for years. Now archaeologists believe they have the answer. As Heidi Chang reports, they found it in China.
China had a sea-faring civilization as long as 7000 years ago. Archaeologist Tianlong Jiao says, one day, these mariners sailed their canoes into the vastness of the Pacific Ocean, and stayed. He points out, "Most scientists, archaeologists, historical linguists and human biologists agree that today's southeast China, Taiwan and Northern Philippines, the whole region is the ultimate homeland of the Austronesian people." The Austronesians include today's Polynesian, Micronesian, Melanesian, and the indigenous people in Philippines, in the Southeast Asia archipelago, and in Taiwan.
He says understanding how seafaring technology developed in prehistoric China 3000 to 7000 years ago is critical in understanding the origins of Pacific heritage. "These people did not have a writing system, so they didn't record their own history, they had an oral history, but over many thousand years, the oral history is easily lost."
"Earlier researchers argued that the reason people first left China and crossed to Taiwan, is because over-population pushed them off the coastal plain of mainland China," he explains, adding that his research takes a different approach. "We're looking at environmental factors that may have contributed in pushing people [from the coastal plain of mainland China] to look for new land." He believes rising sea levels may have stimulated interest in a maritime way of life, and gathering food from the sea.
Rolett is now a professor of anthropology at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, where he teaches classes on Pacific archaeology. "So when I talk about the connection between Pacific Islanders, especially Polynesians, and southeast China, then my Native Hawaiian students are usually surprised, and they say, 'How could it be that Polynesians have roots in China? We don't look like Chinese.' And then I have to explain to them that, 'Yes, they don't look like the people living in southeast China today, but the people living there 6000 years ago, were completely different.' -- Source
quote:Originally posted by Chimu: LOL. Dougie. Where was the "Asian" look and where did it develop independently form those "Black" you claim were either displaced or dissapeared by admixture?
Back again for another beatdown, Mustafino?
Nice try. Moderator assisted ccensorship is not a beatdown. It is just cowardice on the part of the resident debaters.
Posts: 385 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Actually you [Salsassin, Jamie, alias ad nauseum] are a troll, and have historically used conventional troll tactics, including extremely vulgar language, flame bait redundancies, and misrepresentations.
You do feign courtesy for awhile when you change to a new pseudonym - until you suffer another beatdown - and show your true colors.
Or should I respect your mulatoo-centrism and say....colors (s) (s) (s) (s)?
So in essense, Jmt and Charlie Bass and Doug and AlTakruri are right about you.
I pass this along to the uninformed, but otherwise will continue to ignore you - since it's clear that your primary goal is to feed off negative energy [anger] from others, and so assuage your own.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh please. Rasol you are the most pedantic insulting person on this board along with supercar and Djehuti. Your condescending posts, and disrespectful mode of addressing people in a debate leads to people responding in kind. Take your hypocricy somewhere else. Oh wait, you can't as you have no life beyond Egyptsearch.
Posts: 385 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ So Dr. Winters, I take it you have no further questions, and will stop making false assertions, and spreading "reverse Hamite myths" about the ancestry of the Indiginous Fijians?
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ Reviewing Winters unaddressed pity plea.....
quote:First I demonstrated that the Fijians have a tradition of migration from Africa to Fiji.
^ This is unproven, as it is likely that this myth of exotic and non native origin of Fijian comes from European invaders, and not Fijian themselves.
Oral legend - per se - without supporting data - constitutes heresay and has little evidentiary value: doesn't matter whose legends they are - Fijian, or as is more probable here -> European.
quote:Secondly I demonstrated that this tradition is supported by genetic evidence
We have shown that this is one of your many lies, and can only be argued via genetic illiteracy. The very geneticist you site directly repudiate your claims.
You then have little recourse, but to proceed to argue with geneticts over their own conclusions pertaining their own study.
It's easy for you to argue with the geneticist since you don't understand the discipline anyway, however ignorance is not evidence, and arguing out of ignorance is only evidence of stubborness.
quote:Rasol has only shown a chart.
Several actually, all of which relate the same reality,
Oceanic are not closely related to contemporary African, they are descendant from ancient and aboriginal populations:
You were asked to explain why they all show that Melanesian and African are genetically distant from one another - the opposite of your claims.
You failed to do so.
Now here is answer from a geneticist:
There is more genetic similarity between Europeans and Africans and between Europeans and Melanesians, than there is between Africans and Melanesians. - Geneticist Alan Templeton
Note that Templeton is not referring directly to any of the genetic studies referenced in the above charts, but rather to his own.
Yet, what Templeton says.... is exactly what those charts show.
This falsifies your claims and ends this pointless argument.
Of course you don't admit this - but you never do, no matter how wrong you are, so that is par for the course for a charlatan.
quote: A chart that does not in anyway contradict the chart I originally posted.
All three genetic studies and all the data presented from them completely destroy your thesis.
That you are too dense and dishonest to admit it, is your problem.
quote:In fact , the shallowness of rasol's reponse
Actually your entire reply is sour rhetoric which still fails to answer a single question pertaining the data.
Empty rhetoric is all you're good for.
This is why other posters, who previously [supported you], are now openly professing their disappointment.
In turn this wounds your inflated ego.
So now you attack them.
But you underestimate them if you don't think they see thru this.
Your reply is really meant to salve your ego with rhetoric....not address the data, or answer their questions.
So it finally constitutes -one more disappointment-.
quote:he offers no discussion of the charts he post.
^ translation: You are begging me to teach you more.
I actually related the meanings of the data in detail, and of course you fail to address this.
But if you or anyone else has questions - feel free to ask them, but don't pretend that the answers have not been provided.
quote:The nescience of this simplton act and its support by certain members of the form
translation: More and more discussants are calling you out as a charlatan, and it's beginning to anger you.
quote: is a clear indication of the stupidity of these members
^ Rage rant. Hilarious.
quote: who fail to have any understanding of the art
^....the art of pseudo-science is what you have brought to this forum.
And this is what has become of it.
Winters: I can guarantee you one thing: the more you post, the less your credibility.
This is because you pile up outragious claims, and keep insisting on them out of egocentrism, no matter how manifestly absurd they are demonstrated to be.
It eventually becomes clear to most discussants that you can't help it, and that they should not take you seriously.
This is what you are venting against, to no avail, of course.
quote:You guys assume that just because someone you respect, demonstrates dilettantism, what ever he says is truth
translation: Bitter reproachment to other discussants from a self absorbed pseudo scholar, because he know longer has the passive-minded army of -followers- that he seeks.
Debunking you is not our goal, it is simply the inevitable consequence of seeking truth.
quote:Debate is based on proposition and supporting evidence.
^ Yes and note that your entire post is based on blowhard rhetoric and empty noisemaking with no evidence whatsover.
That's why you always lose these debates.
quote:Rasol has presented a chart he does not even explain.
You sound almost desparate - ie - begging me to explain.
Actually I already have explained all this data, but if anyone has a specific question, please ask.
That's fair no?
quote: You believe he wins the argument by making a proposition and failing to support it
It's more that you LOSE the argument, because you never answer questions about the data.
You still haven't. This long silly reply by you, that I am taking apart piece by piece just to amuse my self is a perfect example of why you lose.
It contains no information, no data, no answers.
It translates to:
Dr. Winters loses a debate and needs to CRY about it.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: While some Fijians have a memory of African origin that does not mean that they all came from Africa. Many of them came from aboriginal populations of New Guinea, Indonesia and South East Asia as well.
They don't come from Africa. Their ancestors were stocks from Asia. If any migration took place, it took place from Asia.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: We all know that humans originated in Africa over 100,000 years ago. The issue is how much of an impact RECENT migrations from Africa had in Oceania as Oceania has been populated with blacks for over 60,000 years.
Thank you. Those lands been populated 40-60,000 years with various asiatic stocks. I don't know why Clyde Winters keep looking for a black history outside of Africa. Those people are strictly Asian though they are black.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
They don't come from Africa. Their ancestors were stocks from Asia. If any migration took place, it took place from Asia.
Then prove it. The burden of proof is on you. And please don't plagiarize debatable theories from anonymous sources from the web.
It's rather disingenuous and insulting for you to disregard the oral histories of Fijians without producing a shred of independent data of your own to refute specific claims. Any armchair scholar can sit back on a computer and present schematics from other peoples work and claim Fijian oral history is faulty while surreptitiously presenting erroneous genetic data from the web and presenting it as being 'accurate.' The real work actually involves traveling to the source to investigate these specific claims, interviewing Fijians, learning their language, learning their customs, composing and analyzing independent genetic material, etc.
Nothing is written in stone. Things are subject to change. Perhaps the Fijians do have a recent, direct genetic relationships with continental Africans. And maybe they don't. But how would you know what's accurate from inaccurate if you don't do your own first hand research while relying only on others peoples sources?
Posts: 148 | From: Sirius | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fact: Melanesians are closer related to other Asian people than Africans.
Clyde:
This is primarily the argument against using phenotype as a tool in the ridiculous pursuit of race understanding. People from New Guinea look like Africans but ARE more related to Asians. This is why the term Negroid to denote race makes NO SENSE.
I am actually interested in determining if the Melanesians may have actually looked similar to Chinese people and then evolved into the more tropically adapted types we see today.
Here is my hypothesis: Tropical adaptation is an advance form of adaptation the same with Leucodermia/Albinoism. These are both extreme climatic adaptations from an original type that would be much more similar to Ethiopian people today. The East African people are not intermediates but rather the original type from which we have two extreme adaptations (White and Black).
I realize this lacks any source and very little evidence. The only evidence I have is the history of migrations. In this case I am referring to Blacks as in Bantu tropical adaptation.
Argument:
Considering that the Bantu people are East African derived and that their parent group from which they split are not as tropically adapted, does it follow that their tropical adaptation is a more recently evolved adaptation?
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I am actually interested in determining if the Melanesians may have actually looked similar to Chinese people and then evolved into the more tropically adapted types we see today.
Modern humans did not originate in China, nor did humans in China have a phenotype that matches that of today's pale Chinamen until recently in evolutionary terms, about 10kya.
quote: Here is my hypothesis: Tropical adaptation is an advance form of adaptation the same with Leucodermia/Albinoism. These are both extreme climatic adaptations from an original type that would be much more similar to Ethiopian people today. The East African people are not intermediates but rather the original type from which we have two extreme adaptations (White and Black).
Nope, as we can see from the following when our species homo sapien/modern humans, became human, they lost their fur, to be able to sweat, being that they were in equatorial East Africa their skin would have had to evolve(if pink) to darkly pigmented (black) to be able to provide the skin with enough protection from the sun. This is basic science anyone who denies it, must have a hard time understanding.
Dark skin evolved with the loss of 'fur' in hominids and is the original state of all homo sapiens. - Jablonski. [2000]
The original human population would have been very dark, similar to, today's equatorial Africans. - Jablonski [2006]
By 1.2 million years ago, all people having descendants today had exactly the receptor protein of today's Africans; their skin was Black, and the intense sun *killed off the progeny with any whiter skin* that resulted from mutational variation in the receptor protein- - (Rogers 2004:107).
quote:I realize this lacks any source and very little evidence. The only evidence I have is the history of migrations. In tis case I am referring to Blacks as in Bantu tropical adaptation.
Yes, this lacks evidence and is completely ignorant of OOA.
quote: Argument:
Considering that the Bantu people are East African derived and that their parent group from which they split are not as tropically adapted, does it follow that their tropical adaptation is an evolved adaptation?
Nope, completely wrong. Elongated Africans are actually extremely tropically adapted, while other Africans are tropically adapted, so in actuality East Africans are more tropically adapted than West Africans. Ancient Egyptians also shared these extremely tropical adaptation.
The difference in phenotypes is a result of adaptation to different climates a hot-dry climate, and a hot-humid climate.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Correct. The notion that tropical adaptation is either recent or extreme is anti-evolutionary, and is dis-proven by physical anthropology, and genetics.
Based upon the principal of natural selection, genetics, and skeletal anthropology tropical adaptation is the ORIGINAL and universal state of homo sapiens.
No geneticist or physical anthropologist will refute this.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Dark skin evolved with the loss of 'fur' in hominids and is the original state of all homo sapiens. - Jablonski. [2000]
The original human population would have been very dark, similar to, today's equatorial Africans. - Jablonski [2006]
By 1.2 million years ago, all people having descendants today had exactly the receptor protein of today's Africans; their skin was Black, and the intense sun *killed off the progeny with any whiter skin* that resulted from mutational variation in the receptor protein- - (Rogers 2004:107).
The logic that informs the above is quite clear.
It is amazing the number of people who will fight against it, because it somehow 'bothers' them to know that their ancestors were Black.
The reality of the dark skinned origins of *all* humans directly undercuts the ideology of race.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:asked in April 2008..... 14 clusters, some exclusive to Eurasia and Africa, some exclusive to Eurasia and PNG, but *none* exclusive to Africa and PNG.
Why is this Dr. Winters?
hmm. 6 months later, still no answer from Dr. Faker. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can someone explain what these "tropical adaptations" actually are? Dark skin and long limbs? What about nose width? I often hear about drier climates proudicing narrow noses. Is that true?
Even still, I think it has also been mentioned that East Africans are not always those pointy-nosed folks...Some do not look much different from stereotypical West Africans and vice-versa, and there is great overlap.
Like what was mentioned in another thread; East African is not one common look. But, I'm still not completely sure which looks are almost soley indigenous, and which looks show great recent admixture from the arabian penninsula. I've heard that the Amhara have lots of recent admixture, but not the Oromo...And then I've heard that both groups do not differ much as far as admixture is concerned.
Posts: 72 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Yes, this lacks evidence and is completely ignorant of OOA."
No, I am well aware of the current theories and I am proposing my own for which I plan to determine if their is any evidence to support it. I am quite aware that I am going against the mainstream.
"Nope, completely wrong. Elongated Africans are actually extremely tropically adapted, while other Africans are tropically adapted, so in actuality East Africans are more tropically adapted than West Africans. "
So without getting hungup on semantics. You agree with my premise that West Africans evolved their features from a climatic differential between East and West Africa? The Elongated East Africans evolved into the Congoid people of today? Or are the Bantu people simply a mixture of elongated types and pygmy (not my premise)?
-------------------- Across the sea of time, there can only be one of you. Make you the best one you can be. Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
They don't come from Africa. Their ancestors were stocks from Asia. If any migration took place, it took place from Asia.
Then prove it. The burden of proof is on you. And please don't plagiarize debatable theories from anonymous sources from the web.
It's rather disingenuous and insulting for you to disregard the oral histories of Fijians without producing a shred of independent data of your own to refute specific claims. Any armchair scholar can sit back on a computer and present schematics from other peoples work and claim Fijian oral history is faulty while surreptitiously presenting erroneous genetic data from the web and presenting it as being 'accurate.' The real work actually involves traveling to the source to investigate these specific claims, interviewing Fijians, learning their language, learning their customs, composing and analyzing independent genetic material, etc.
Nothing is written in stone. Things are subject to change. Perhaps the Fijians do have a recent, direct genetic relationships with continental Africans. And maybe they don't. But how would you know what's accurate from inaccurate if you don't do your own first hand research while relying only on others peoples sources?
You're a fvcking idiot. I don't pull anything from the web. Fijans are primitive people and oral history is not reliable. Aborigines say they came from the milky way. That is their oral history. Fijans are strictly Asiatic people and they belong to Asiatic stock. I would like Fijans to prove they recently migrated from Africa. They did not. Their ancestors who came from Asia maybe had ancestors who came from Africa - like everyone else in the world. West Africans have all this great oral history of them being some advanced people who once wore clothes, had written languages, had gun powder, build large structures, and high tech boats. You don't find any evidence of these things. Only primitive people goes by oral history. Other people who have REAL history have records.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are other genetic markers which point to a relationship between the Fijians and Africans. For example, haplogroup V appears in New Guinea, while haplogroup IV has been found only in New Guinea, Near Oceania and Northwestern most Micronesia according to Merriwether et al., Mitochondrial DNA in the South Pacific, p.159, in SS Papilia, R. Deka & R. Chakraborty (Ed.), Genomic Diversity.In Cordaux et al.,Mitochodrial DNA analysis reveals diverse tribal histories of tribal populations from India, Eur. J Hum Genet (2003)11(2):253-264, in figure 2 notes that Clusters X1 and X are found in Africa and the Pacific.
Africans and Fijians share the Y-Chromosome K-M9. The K haplogroup is found in Africa and Oceania. The common Fijian Y-chromosome is M-M4; it exist as derived subgroup M-P34 of Melanesians. Both of these genes are found in among Africans see: Figure 2, in Wood et al., Contrasting Patterns of Y chromosome, Eur J Hum Genet (2005),13:867-876.
Merriwether et al. Origins and dispersal in the mtDNA region V 9bp deletion and insertion in Nigeria and the Ivory Coast, Am. J Hum Genet (1994) noted that Africans and Asians share the T-->C transition at nt position 16189 and the D-loop sequence of nts 15975 to 00048.
posted
"The original human population would have been very dark, similar to, today's equatorial Africans. - Jablonski [2006]"
Climates change and as a consequence we have a green Sahara in recent history. People living in the green Sahara could have evolved until desertfication into the elongated African type. When the Sahara dried those that moved into more tropical environments would start to re-evolve tropical features. I don't know the term for that but essentially adaptations that are dormant still exist in our DNA and can come back out due to environmental cues.
-------------------- Across the sea of time, there can only be one of you. Make you the best one you can be. Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Fact: Melanesians are closer related to other Asian people than Africans.
Clyde:
This is primarily the argument against using phenotype as a tool in the ridiculous pursuit of race understanding. People from New Guinea look like Africans but ARE more related to Asians. This is why the term Negroid to denote race makes NO SENSE.
I am actually interested in determining if the Melanesians may have actually looked similar to Chinese people and then evolved into the more tropically adapted types we see today.
Here is my hypothesis: Tropical adaptation is an advance form of adaptation the same with Leucodermia/Albinoism. These are both extreme climatic adaptations from an original type that would be much more similar to Ethiopian people today. The East African people are not intermediates but rather the original type from which we have two extreme adaptations (White and Black).
I realize this lacks any source and very little evidence. The only evidence I have is the history of migrations. In this case I am referring to Blacks as in Bantu tropical adaptation.
Argument:
Considering that the Bantu people are East African derived and that their parent group from which they split are not as tropically adapted, does it follow that their tropical adaptation is a more recently evolved adaptation?
No one turn from pale to black. Dark is natural; pale is not. You can be black/dark and become lighter even till you are pale, but the opposite is not possible. Mongols had to come from a dark people who hair was already straight. Nappy hair can't make straight hair. Mongols ancestors looks similar to the very population that's there today. The only exception is that their ancestors were dark.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is also evidence from Arabian M clades that may support the Fijian migration tradition.
Abu-Amero et al, Mitochondrial DNA structure in the Arabian Peninsula (2008)
quote:
However, as a few M1 haplotypes did not fit in the M1a1 cluster we did genome sequencing for two of them (Figure 2). Lineage 471 resulted to be a member of the North African clade M1b, more specifically to the M1b1a branch. As we have detected another M1b lineage in Jordan [38], it is possible that the Saudi one could have reached Arabia from the Levant or from northwest African areas. The second Saudi lineage (522) belongs to a subcluster (M1a4) that is also frequent in East Africa [37]. Recently, Tanzanian lineages have been studied by means of complete mtDNA sequences [39]. Three of these sequences also fall into the M1 haplogroup. Two of them belong to the Ethiopian M1a1 subclade (God 626 and God 635), and the third (God637) shares the entire motif that characterizes lineage M1a5 [37] with the exception of transition 10694. Therefore, this mutation should define a new subcluster M1a5a (Figure 2).
The lineages found in Tanzania further expand, southeastwards, the geographic range of M1 in sub-Saharan Africa. Inspecting the M1 phylogeny of Olivieri et al. [37] we realized that our lineage 957 [38] has the diagnostic positions 13637, that defines M1a3 and 6463 that defines the M1a3a branch. Therefore, we have placed it as an M1a3a lineage with an 813 retromutation (Figure 2). It seems that, likewise L lineages, the M1 presence in the Arabian Peninsula signals a predominant East African influence with possible minor introductions from the Levant.
Inclusion of rare Saudi Asiatic M sequences into the macrohaplogroup M tree.
The majority (12) of the 19 M lineages found in the Arabian Peninsula that do not belong to M1 [see Additional file 1] have matches or are related to Indian clades, which confirm previous results [30, 31]. In addition, in this expanded Saudi sample, we have found some sequences with geographic origins far away from the studied area. For instance, lineage 569 [see Additional file 1] has been classified in the Eastern Asia subclade G2a1a [40] but probably it has reached Saudi Arabia from Central Asia where this branch is rather common and diverse [41]. Indubitably the four sequences (196, 479, 480 and 494) are Q1 members and had to have their origin in Indonesia. In fact their most related haplotypes were found in West New Guinea [42]. All these sequences could have arrived to Arabia as result of recent gene flow. Particularly documented is the preferential female Indonesian migration to Saudi Arabia as domestic workers [43]. Five undefined M lineages were genome sequenced (Figure 3). It is confirmed that 5 of the 6 Saudi lineages analyzed have also Indian roots. Lineage 691 falls into the Indian M33 clade because it has the diagnostic 2361 transition. In addition, it shares 7 transitions (462, 5423, 8562, 13731, 15908, 16169, 16172) with the Indian lineage C182 [20], which allows the definition of a new subclade M33a. Lineage 287 is a member of the Indian M36 clade because it possesses its three diagnostic mutations (239, 7271, 15110). As it also shares 8 additional positions with the Indian clade T135 [20], both conform an M36a branch (Figure 3). Saudi 514 belongs to the Indian clade M30 as it has its diagnostic motif (195A- 514dCA-12007-15431). Lineage 633 also belongs to the related Indian clade M4b defined by transitions 511, 12007 and 16311. In addition it shares mutation 8865 with the C51 Indian lineage [20] that could define a new M4b2 subclade. We have classified sequence 551 as belonging to a new Indian clade M48 defined by a four transitions motif (1598-5460-10750- 16192) which is shared with the M Indian lineage R58 (Figure 3). Australian clade M42 [44] and New Britain M29 clade [24] also have 1598 transition as a basal mutation. However, they are respectively more related to the East Asia clade M10 [40] and to the Melanesian Q clade [27], as their additionally shared basal mutations are less recurrent than transition1598 [45].
All these Indian M sequences have been found in Arabia as isolated lineages that belong to clusters with deep roots and high diversity in India. Therefore, its presence in Arabia is better explained by recent backflow from India than by supposing that these lineages are footsteps of an M ancestral migration across Arabia.
The Saudi sequence 201 deserves special mention (Figure 3). It was previously tentatively related to the Indian M34 clade because both share the 3010 transition. However, it was stated that due to the high recurrence of 3010 most probably the 201 sequence would belong to a yet undefined clade [31]. The recent study of new Australian lineages [26] has allowed us to find out an interesting link between their Australian M14 lineage and our Saudi 201 sequence (Figure 3). The authors related M14 to the Melanesian clade M28 [24] because both share the 1719-16148 motif [26]. We think that the alternative motif shared with the Saudi lineage, 234-4216-6962, (Figure 3) is stronger, as 1719 and 16148 transitions are more recurrent than 234, 4216 and 6962 [45]. Therefore, we think that the last three mutations defined the true root of the Australian M14 clade and relate it to a Saudi Arab sequence.
This quote makes it clear that several Arabian clades correspond to genome found in New Guinea and Melanesia (e.g., clades 514, 201, 1719-16148 and etc.). The authors try to explain this to the recent introduction of Indonesian female workers to Saudi Arabia, an Indian backflow to Arabia and Australian camel herders. This explanation does not suffice since we know 1) Australian aborigines did not come to Saudi Arabia as camel herders and 2)Saudi Arabians are Wahabbis and rarely marry non-Arabs. They usually marry cousins.
Finally there is no documented Indian migration back into Arabia, nor is there a relationship between Arabic and the Dravidian languages. As a result, the idea of a backflow can not be supported.
On the otherhand, the evidence of Indian and African haplogroups in Arabia, would support the archaeological, linguistic and anthropological evidence supporting a recent migration of Dravidian speakers out of Nubia, into India.
As a result, the presence of these lineages in Saudi Arabia, must predate the 20th century and may relate to the migration of East Africans to Near Oceania, and Dravidian speakers to India in the past 4000 years since they are not related to ancient hg M lineages--lineages that would support the presences of these genomes in Arabia dating back to the first exit of AMH from Africa 60kya.
quote:Originally posted by osirion: "The original human population would have been very dark, similar to, today's equatorial Africans. - Jablonski [2006]"
Climates change and as a consequence we have a green Sahara in recent history. People living in the green Sahara could have evolved until desertfication into the elongated African type. When the Sahara dried those that moved into more tropical environments would start to re-evolve tropical features. I don't know the term for that but essentially adaptations that are dormant still exist in our DNA and can come back out due to environmental cues.
Living in the desert have nothing to do with being elongaged. People look the way they do do to living and breeding amongst the same family/clan. Elongated Africans are found basically in West Africa, Central Africa, and East Africa with the exception of Ethiopia and Bantus.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Boofer: Can someone explain what these "tropical adaptations" actually are? Dark skin and long limbs? What about nose width? I often hear about drier climates proudicing narrow noses. Is that true?
Even still, I think it has also been mentioned that East Africans are not always those pointy-nosed folks...Some do not look much different from stereotypical West Africans and vice-versa, and there is great overlap.
Like what was mentioned in another thread; East African is not one common look. But, I'm still not completely sure which looks are almost soley indigenous, and which looks show great recent admixture from the arabian penninsula. I've heard that the Amhara have lots of recent admixture, but not the Oromo...And then I've heard that both groups do not differ much as far as admixture is concerned.
As explained, the difference in phenotypes is a result of adaptation to different climates a hot-dry climate, and a hot-humid climate. Elongated types are more adapted to hot dry climates....broad faced types to hot humid climates. Tropical adaptation entails- dark skin, longer limbs. Elongated Africans, in example East Africans are extremely tropically adapted and have longer limbs than other Africans.
Variation in Ancient Egyptian Stature and Body Proportions Sonia R. Zakrzewski*
No significant differences were found in either index through time for either sex. The raw values in Table 6 suggest that Egyptians had the “super-negroid”body plan described by Robins (1983). The values for the brachial and crural indices show that the distal segments of each limb are longer relative to the proximal segments than in many “African” populations (data from Aiello and Dean, 1990).
This pattern is supported by Figure 7 (a plot of population mean femoral and tibial lengths; data from Ruff, 1994), which indicatesthat the Egyptians generallyhave tropical bodyplans.Of the Egyptian samples, only the Badarian and Early Dynastic period populations have shorter tibiae than predicted from femoral length. Despite these differences, all samples lie relatively clusteredtogether as compared to the other populations.
As for the admixture, note the following
The Story of Man
Carleton Coon
p 196-197
Borzoi Books, 1965
quote: Few skeletons have been found in the Sahara, and these are hard to date because of soil erosion. In Arabia prehistoric archaeology has barely been started. Yet we can be reasonably confident, until other evidence upsets the theory, that these deserts were the home of the slender variety of Caucasoid man. In East Africa this type has survived among the slender, narrow-faced Watusi and other cattle people.
According to Coon, the Tutsis represent an ancient "Caucasoid" man in Africa. But Tutsis have ~80% E3a according to published data. Tutsis are elongated Africans just as Ethiopians are. There is absolutely no outside non-African admixture in the Tutsis. Yet they display thin noses and lips. Which shows the diversity of Africa.
quote:....inhabitants of East Africa right on the equator have appreciably longer, narrower, and higher noses than people in the Congo at the same latitude. A former generation of anthropologists used to explain this paradox by invoking an invasion by an itinerant "white" population from the Mediterranean area, although this solution raised more problems than it solved since the East Africans in question include some of the blackest people in the world with characteristically wooly hair and a body build unique among the world's populations for its extreme linearity and height.
C. Loring Brace Nonracial Approach Towards Human Diversity
Cited from The Concept of Race Edited by Ashley Montagu The Free Press p. 135-136
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: Dark skin evolved with the loss of 'fur' in hominids and is the original state of all homo sapiens. - Jablonski. [2000]
The original human population would have been very dark, similar to, today's equatorial Africans. - Jablonski [2006]
By 1.2 million years ago, all people having descendants today had exactly the receptor protein of today's Africans; their skin was Black, and the intense sun *killed off the progeny with any whiter skin* that resulted from mutational variation in the receptor protein- - (Rogers 2004:107).
The logic that informs the above is quite clear.
It is amazing the number of people who will fight against it, because it somehow 'bothers' them to know that their ancestors were Black.
The reality of the dark skinned origins of *all* humans directly undercuts the ideology of race.
The 'ideology' of race is very real. We are not the same. Give up. I hate liberals.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Boofer: Can someone explain what these "tropical adaptations" actually are? Dark skin and long limbs? What about nose width? I often hear about drier climates proudicing narrow noses. Is that true?
Even still, I think it has also been mentioned that East Africans are not always those pointy-nosed folks...Some do not look much different from stereotypical West Africans and vice-versa, and there is great overlap.
Like what was mentioned in another thread; East African is not one common look. But, I'm still not completely sure which looks are almost soley indigenous, and which looks show great recent admixture from the arabian penninsula. I've heard that the Amhara have lots of recent admixture, but not the Oromo...And then I've heard that both groups do not differ much as far as admixture is concerned.
As explained, the difference in phenotypes is a result of adaptation to different climates a hot-dry climate, and a hot-humid climate. Elongated types are more adapted to hot dry climates....broad faced types to hot humid climates. Tropical adaptation entails- dark skin, longer limbs. Elongated Africans, in example East Africans are extremely tropically adapted and have longer limbs than other Africans.
Variation in Ancient Egyptian Stature and Body Proportions Sonia R. Zakrzewski*
No significant differences were found in either index through time for either sex. The raw values in Table 6 suggest that Egyptians had the “super-negroid”body plan described by Robins (1983). The values for the brachial and crural indices show that the distal segments of each limb are longer relative to the proximal segments than in many “African” populations (data from Aiello and Dean, 1990).
This pattern is supported by Figure 7 (a plot of population mean femoral and tibial lengths; data from Ruff, 1994), which indicatesthat the Egyptians generallyhave tropical bodyplans.Of the Egyptian samples, only the Badarian and Early Dynastic period populations have shorter tibiae than predicted from femoral length. Despite these differences, all samples lie relatively clusteredtogether as compared to the other populations.
As for the admixture, note the following
The Story of Man
Carleton Coon
p 196-197
Borzoi Books, 1965
quote: Few skeletons have been found in the Sahara, and these are hard to date because of soil erosion. In Arabia prehistoric archaeology has barely been started. Yet we can be reasonably confident, until other evidence upsets the theory, that these deserts were the home of the slender variety of Caucasoid man. In East Africa this type has survived among the slender, narrow-faced Watusi and other cattle people.
According to Coon, the Tutsis represent an ancient "Caucasoid" man in Africa. But Tutsis have ~80% E3a according to published data. Tutsis are elongated Africans just as Etiopians are. There is absolutely no outside non-African admixture in the Tutsis. Yet they display thin noses and lips. Which shows the diversity of Africa.
quote:....inhabitants of East Africa right on the equator have appreciably longer, narrower, and higher noses than people in the Congo at the same latitude. A former generation of anthropologists used to explain this paradox by invoking an invasion by an itinerant "white" population from the Mediterranean area, although this solution raised more problems than it solved since the East Africans in question include some of the blackest people in the world with characteristically wooly hair and a body build unique among the world's populations for its extreme linearity and height.
C. Loring Brace Nonracial Approach Towards Human Diversity
Cited from The Concept of Race Edited by Ashley Montagu The Free Press p. 135-136
Ethiopians are not elongated. They are short, small to medium built people. The women are short and curvy and the men are short, deform-shaped with no masculine appeal.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: Dark skin evolved with the loss of 'fur' in hominids and is the original state of all homo sapiens. - Jablonski. [2000]
The original human population would have been very dark, similar to, today's equatorial Africans. - Jablonski [2006]
By 1.2 million years ago, all people having descendants today had exactly the receptor protein of today's Africans; their skin was Black, and the intense sun *killed off the progeny with any whiter skin* that resulted from mutational variation in the receptor protein- - (Rogers 2004:107).
The logic that informs the above is quite clear.
It is amazing the number of people who will fight against it, because it somehow 'bothers' them to know that their ancestors were Black.
The reality of the dark skinned origins of *all* humans directly undercuts the ideology of race.
The 'ideology' of race is very real. We are not the same. Give up. I hate liberals.
Ok...Let's play the game. Address the fact that Europeans are closest genetically to Africans whereas the original OOA populations. I.e Oceanians appear furthest away genetically from Africa, if Oceanians and Europeans are part of the same non-African OOA population structure, then Europeans should be as distant genetically from Africans, as Oceanians are. If this is not due to post OOA Neolithic migrations into Europe from Africa, then what is it?
^ All found in West Eurasia....and not in East Eurasia, SouthEast Asia, Australia, New Guinnea, Melanesia.
Can you debunk or address the recent African admixture in Europeans that would make Europeans appear intermediate between Africans and Oceanic(non African) populations????
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: Ethiopians are not elongated. They are short, small to medium built people. The women are short and curvy and the men are short, deform-shaped with no masculine appeal.
You're way too easy.... You have a lot to learn, but from reading some of your previous posts it seems you don't want to learn, but hey, you provide opportunity for others to learn, so you do serve some purpose.
Ethiopians are Elongated East Africans, period, just as the Tutsi, Somali, and Masai are. According measurements comparing them to OTHER Elongated East Africans...
Tutsi of Rwanda:
*[color=green]Stature: 176 cm * Head length: 198 mm * Head breadth: 147 mm * Face height: 125 mm * Face breadth: 134 mm * Nose height: 56 mm * Nose breadth: 39 mm * Relative trunk length: 49.7 * Cephalic Index: 74.5 * Facial Index: 92.8 * Nasal Index: 69.5[/color]
Masai:
[color=blue] * Stature: 173 cm * Head length: 194 mm * Head Breadth: 140 mm * Face Height: 121 mm * Face Breadth: 137 mm * Nose Height: 54 mm * Nose Breadth: 39 mm * Relative Trunk length: 47.7 * Cephalic Index: 72.8 * Facial Index: 89.0 * Nasal Index: 72.0[/color]
Galla(Oromo):
[color=red] * Stature: 171 cm * Head length: 190 mm * Head Breadth: 147 mm * Face Height: 122 mm * Face Breadth: 133 mm * Nose Height: 53 mm * Nose Breadth: 37 mm * Relative Trunk length: 50.3 * Cephalic Index: 77.6 * Facial Index: 91.5 * Nasal Index: 69.0[/color]
Sab Somali:
[color=gray] * Stature: 173 cm * Head length: 194 mm * Head Breadth: 145 mm * Face Height: 119 mm * Face Breadth: 134 mm * Nose Height: 49 mm * Nose Breadth: 36 mm * Relative Trunk length: 49.7 * Cephalic Index: 74.7 * Facial Index: 88.5 * Nasal Index: 72.8[/color]
Warsingali Somali:
[color=navy] * Stature: 168 cm * Head length: 192 mm * Head Breadth: 143 mm * Face Height: 123 mm * Face Breadth: 131 mm * Nose Height: 52 mm * Nose Breadth: 34 mm * Relative Trunk length: 50.7 * Cephalic Index: 74.5 * Facial Index: 94.1 * Nasal Index: 66.0[/color]
Source:
Jean Hiernaux
The People of Africa pg 142
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: Dark skin evolved with the loss of 'fur' in hominids and is the original state of all homo sapiens. - Jablonski. [2000]
The original human population would have been very dark, similar to, today's equatorial Africans. - Jablonski [2006]
By 1.2 million years ago, all people having descendants today had exactly the receptor protein of today's Africans; their skin was Black, and the intense sun *killed off the progeny with any whiter skin* that resulted from mutational variation in the receptor protein- - (Rogers 2004:107).
The logic that informs the above is quite clear.
It is amazing the number of people who will fight against it, because it somehow 'bothers' them to know that their ancestors were Black.
The reality of the dark skinned origins of *all* humans directly undercuts the ideology of race.
The 'ideology' of race is very real. We are not the same. Give up. I hate liberals.
Ok...Let's play the game. Address the fact that Europeans are closest genetically to Africans whereas the original OOA populations. I.e Oceanians appear furthest away genetically from Africa, if Oceanians and Europeans are part of the same non-African OOA population structure, then Europeans should be as distant genetically from Africans, as Oceanians are. If this is not due to post OOA Neolithic migrations into Europe from Africa, then what is it?
^ All found in West Eurasia....and not in East Eurasia, SouthEast Asia, Australia, New Guinnea, Melanesia.
Can you debunk or address the recent African admixture in Europeans that would make Europeans appear intermediate between Africans and Oceanic(non African) populations????
You're a fvcking idiot! Europeans share more DNA with Africans because they are YOUNGER! The oceanic people are the FARTHEST because they are just as old! DNA is a timeline you fvcking idiot. Their branch broke from the indigenous (original) population in a SHORT due time. I don't know what is the timing that separated the oceanians from the "original Branch" but it didn't take long. If that is the case, ALL the descendants from the oceanic branch who ancestors broke off from the "original" stock should share less DNA with Africans who ancestors broke off from the "original" stock. If I had a daughter(biological) she would match me 99.99-100%. However, if she has a child and it doesn't matter with whom -it could be with her brother, well anyway, if she has a child, and her child has a child, and her child has a child, and her child has a child, and so on....That descendant will not match me 99.99-100%. Depending on the generation (time) that child would match me less. It would be anywhere below that 99.99% The more generations away from me, the less matching. You're a fvcking idiot.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:If that is the case, ALL the descendants from the oceanic branch who ancestors broke off from the "original" stock should share less DNA with Africans who ancestors broke off from the "original" stock.
Yes Indeed, this would be the case, now you're learning, since Europeans are part of the original OOA population structure -meaning they descend from Oceanic populations, Oceanic's ultimately descend from Africa.
Indeed Europeans, as explained, should be as far genetically as these non African populations, but if you understood genetics you would know why they are not further, and are actually closer, which is because of the recent Neolithic admixture into the European gene pool. Genetic lineages which arose amongst Africans after the original OOA population left to become the ancestor of all non Africans, was brought into Europe.
^ All found in West Eurasia....and not in East Eurasia, SouthEast Asia, Australia, New Guinnea, Melanesia.
Can you debunk or address the recent African admixture in Europeans that would make Europeans appear intermediate between Africans and Oceanic(non African) populations????
From Cavalli-Sforza: Genes, Culture, and Human Evolution. Pg 187.
quote: ..."In other words, all non-Africans carry M168. Of course, Africans carrying the M168 mutation today are the descendants of the African subpopulation from which the migrants originated.... Thus, the Australian/Eurasian Adam (the ancestor of all non-Africans) was an East African Man."
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:If that is the case, ALL the descendants from the oceanic branch who ancestors broke off from the "original" stock should share less DNA with Africans who ancestors broke off from the "original" stock.
Yes Indeed, this would be the case, now you're learning, since Europeans are part of the original OOA population structure -meaning they descend from Oceanic populations, Oceanic's ultimately descend from Africa.
Indeed Europeans, as explained, should be as far genetically as these non African populations, but if you understood genetics you would know why they are not further, and are actually closer, which is because of the recent Neolithic admixture into the European gene pool. Genetic lineages which arose amongst Africans after the original OOA population left to become the ancestor of all non Africans, was brought into Europe.
^ All found in West Eurasia....and not in East Eurasia, SouthEast Asia, Australia, New Guinnea, Melanesia.
Can you debunk or address the recent African admixture in Europeans that would make Europeans appear intermediate between Africans and Oceanic(non African) populations????
From Cavalli-Sforza: Genes, Culture, and Human Evolution. Pg 187.
quote: ..."In other words, all non-Africans carry M168. Of course, Africans carrying the M168 mutation today are the descendants of the African subpopulation from which the migrants originated.... Thus, the Australian/Eurasian Adam (the ancestor of all non-Africans) was an East African Man."
This shyt you wrote don't make no fvcking sense. What I wrote makes genuine sense. I already told you why Europeans has more common ancestry with Africans and I explained why the Oceanic people don't. What you wrote don't agree with anything I said. It is another case of hocus pocus science. There was never an OOA journey. People broke off the main branch by family/clan. That is where phenotype comes from. Fijans did not come from Africa. They are an Asiatic stock. That is where their ancestral branch come from. LOL! If there is "recent" African 'admixture' amongst Europeans that is because they have "recently" 'mix' with Africans. If you are asking why do Europeans share more DNA that is common amongst Africans - I already told you that they are a younger stock. I don't know how many generations ago some European stocks broke away from branches that you find in Africa today. As far as Europeans appearing "intermediate" between Oceanic and African that doesn't make sense to me. If you are asking about DNA frequency I think I already answer that. It has all to do with TIMING. Can anyone really recap generations and where it began? Hmmmm...Just kill it! Take your Pseudo science and shove it.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:If that is the case, ALL the descendants from the oceanic branch who ancestors broke off from the "original" stock should share less DNA with Africans who ancestors broke off from the "original" stock.
Yes Indeed, this would be the case, now you're learning, since Europeans are part of the original OOA population structure -meaning they descend from Oceanic populations, Oceanic's ultimately descend from Africa.
Indeed Europeans, as explained, should be as far genetically as these non African populations, but if you understood genetics you would know why they are not further, and are actually closer, which is because of the recent Neolithic admixture into the European gene pool. Genetic lineages which arose amongst Africans after the original OOA population left to become the ancestor of all non Africans, was brought into Europe.
^ All found in West Eurasia....and not in East Eurasia, SouthEast Asia, Australia, New Guinnea, Melanesia.
Can you debunk or address the recent African admixture in Europeans that would make Europeans appear intermediate between Africans and Oceanic(non African) populations????
From Cavalli-Sforza: Genes, Culture, and Human Evolution. Pg 187.
quote: ..."In other words, all non-Africans carry M168. Of course, Africans carrying the M168 mutation today are the descendants of the African subpopulation from which the migrants originated.... Thus, the Australian/Eurasian Adam (the ancestor of all non-Africans) was an East African Man."
This shyt you wrote don't make no fvcking sense. What I wrote makes genuine sense. I already told you why Europeans has more common ancestry with Africans and I explained why the Oceanic people don't. What you wrote don't agree with anything thing I said. It is another case of hocus pocus science. There was never an OOA journey. People broke of the main branch by family/clan. That is where phenotype comes from. Fijans did not come from Africa. They are an Asiatic stock. That is where their ancestral branch come from. Just kill it!
You're disagreement with OOA will not make it wrong, all non-Africans (Oceanics, Asians, Europeans etc..) carry a sub-set of East African genes. This occurred from the original OOA populations migrating from Africa. Fijians descend from the same population that all Non-Africans(Oceanics, Asians, Europeans etc..) descend from. Europeans, as explained, should be as far genetically as these other non African populations, from Africans, since Europeans are resultant of populations descending from Oceanics......
From Cavalli-Sforza: Genes, Culture, and Human Evolution. Pg 187.
quote: ..."In other words, all non-Africans carry M168. Of course, Africans carrying the M168 mutation today are the descendants of the African subpopulation from which the migrants originated.... Thus, the Australian/Eurasian Adam (the ancestor of all non-Africans) was an East African Man."
This means a lot and is why it makes you so mad. Europeans do not appear closer to Africans because they are younger. Europeans, like all non Africans descend from the same OOA population. This would put Europeans , as far genetically as Oceanics or Asians etc.. if they didn't receive post OOA lineages.
^ All found in West Eurasia....and not in East Eurasia, SouthEast Asia, Australia, New Guinnea, Melanesia. All post OOA lineages.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
They don't come from Africa. Their ancestors were stocks from Asia. If any migration took place, it took place from Asia.
Then prove it. The burden of proof is on you. And please don't plagiarize debatable theories from anonymous sources from the web.
It's rather disingenuous and insulting for you to disregard the oral histories of Fijians without producing a shred of independent data of your own to refute specific claims. Any armchair scholar can sit back on a computer and present schematics from other peoples work and claim Fijian oral history is faulty while surreptitiously presenting erroneous genetic data from the web and presenting it as being 'accurate.' The real work actually involves traveling to the source to investigate these specific claims, interviewing Fijians, learning their language, learning their customs, composing and analyzing independent genetic material, etc.
Nothing is written in stone. Things are subject to change. Perhaps the Fijians do have a recent, direct genetic relationships with continental Africans. And maybe they don't. But how would you know what's accurate from inaccurate if you don't do your own first hand research while relying only on others peoples sources?
You're a fvcking idiot. I don't pull anything from the web. Fijans are primitive people and oral history is not reliable. Aborigines say they came from the milky way. That is their oral history. Fijans are strictly Asiatic people and they belong to Asiatic stock. I would like Fijans to prove they recently migrated from Africa. They did not. Their ancestors who came from Asia maybe had ancestors who came from Africa - like everyone else in the world. West Africans have all this great oral history of them being some advanced people who once wore clothes, had written languages, had gun powder, build large structures, and high tech boats. You don't find any evidence of these things. Only primitive people goes by oral history. Other people who have REAL history have records.
If you don't "pull" anything from the web then cite your sources. Your ignorant opinion and guess work is irrelevant.
How do you know Fijian oral history is "unreliable", because you say so? What investigation have YOU done into this matter? Have you bothered to study their language and customs, yes or no? Are you a linguist? What qualifies YOU to say Fijian oral history is false?
You just insulted a number of African tribes that have a tradition of oral history. Various African tribes from every corner of the continent have used oral history to some extent. If I didn't know better I would assume you are white. If you are black then you're a pitiful example why some Africans have an unfavorable opinion of AAs. Interesting you used West Africa only as a model when it's clear a number of African tribes from north to south, east and west have used oral histories.
You failed to answer my initial question; prove Fijian oral history is false. The burden of proof is on you since you believe the Fijians are "primitive".
Lastly, be careful who you call an idiot. I've seen a number of members use rather unfavorable verbs in reference to you.
Prove : to learn or find out by experience 2 a: to test the truth, validity, or genuineness of <the exception proves the rule> <prove a will at probate> b: to test the worth or quality of ; specifically : to compare against a standard —sometimes used with up or out c: to check the correctness of (as an arithmetic result) 3 a: to establish the existence, truth, or validity of (as by evidence or logic) <prove a theorem> <the charges were never proved in court> b: to demonstrate as having a particular quality or worth <the vaccine has been proven effective after years of tests> <proved herself a great actress>
Have you done any of the above, Bettyboo? If not STFU!
Posts: 148 | From: Sirius | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Fact: Melanesians are closer related to other Asian people than Africans.
Clyde:
This is primarily the argument against using phenotype as a tool in the ridiculous pursuit of race understanding. People from New Guinea look like Africans but ARE more related to Asians. This is why the term Negroid to denote race makes NO SENSE.
I am actually interested in determining if the Melanesians may have actually looked similar to Chinese people and then evolved into the more tropically adapted types we see today.
Here is my hypothesis: Tropical adaptation is an advance form of adaptation the same with Leucodermia/Albinoism. These are both extreme climatic adaptations from an original type that would be much more similar to Ethiopian people today. The East African people are not intermediates but rather the original type from which we have two extreme adaptations (White and Black).
I realize this lacks any source and very little evidence. The only evidence I have is the history of migrations. In this case I am referring to Blacks as in Bantu tropical adaptation.
Argument:
Considering that the Bantu people are East African derived and that their parent group from which they split are not as tropically adapted, does it follow that their tropical adaptation is a more recently evolved adaptation?
No one turn from pale to black. Dark is natural; pale is not. You can be black/dark and become lighter even till you are pale, but the opposite is not possible. Mongols had to come from a dark people who hair was already straight. Nappy hair can't make straight hair. Mongols ancestors looks similar to the very population that's there today. The only exception is that their ancestors were dark.
At least cite me a source else you are just wasting you time with giving me your opinion to undermine my hypothesis.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
------------------------- If I didn't know better I would assume you are white. If you are black then you're a pitiful example why some Africans have an unfavorable opinion of AAs. -------------------------
Man use your brain. Of course he's white. Its vida aka wolofi aka "the ointment man". He uses the same schtick.
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic