quote:As Black and White are adopted ethnic terms for many groups, Mixed would just indicate ancestry from two groups such as those.
This remark does not answer any question.
All Black and White groups have ancestry.
So what distinguishes 'mixed' from 'pure'.
Please provide a list of pure groups....
Please provide list of mixed groups....
Evergreen Writes:
Chimu will not give you a direct answer to this question because his theory is non-sensical at root.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
LOL. These morons keep on trying to argue strawm en. A mixed population is obviously one where the two populations saw themselves as distinct and then mixing occured. If you can't identify any lore that speaks of mixing in the population, then they don't have a mixed identity.
Note that I never mentioned a Pure population. Only the people here obsess in dichotomies. One doesn't have to be Black if they are not White. That a population shows some admixture doesn't mean it had a major effect on their identity. But for cultures that existed in crossprads of two distinct populations that mixing plays a bigger role in their identity
Posts: 385 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LOL. These morons keep on trying to argue strawm en
^ The only moron arguing strawmen is you.
"Mixed" is your strawman, and it's not even a good strawman, as you cannot even argue it well enough to attempt and answer at the questions pertaining to it.
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote: Is Greece mixed?
Is Japan mixed?
Is Sweden mixed?
Is 'everyone' mixed, if yes, then 'what' pray tell does mixed qualify?
If no then explain what "qualifies" mixed?
If mixed means not 'black' and not 'white', then what colour is mixed?
If mixed is not a colour then what relevance can it have for terms that denote colour?
^ What's taking so long?
^ You have no answers. Therefore your ideology is nonsense, and the discussion ends here. Case closed.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Is 'everyone' mixed, if yes, then 'what' pray tell does mixed qualify?
Simply stated, appearance; just as I said a few months back (about sex). By the way, you aren't denying out of Africa are you?
Now the only way I see this (sex) not happening (not really) is a strict reliance on random mutations and genetic drift... which is still an appeal to the chicken legs and flim-flam sauce explanation; I don't care how educated one is. I said it before and I'll say it again, there ain't one shred of evidence to show how this diversity arose without mixing the gene pool in Africa, even though indigenous (leave the white folks out for now). And don't lay the technical route on me because I've read a lot of the same stuff on this site and elsewhere in evolution books and not one, not one, has shown how this diversity was accomplished without sex. Long on technical jargon but far short on specifics. Then again if you lay your life's work at the alter of evolution in all its explanations then yes, you will be bamboozled on a continual basis and have no need for anything else.
And what about this latitude business. In the haste to explain maybe three phenotype differences in diversity around the world a PhD bamboozles you guys and convinced you latitude morphed black boys and girls into white boys and girls then have the nerve to say whites and chinese and blacks are different with the alphabet soup. Looks like to me this E3b and other technical talk isn't about explaining anything.
Since everyone was dark or so the theory goes, then some of that E3b stuff ought to be laying around in such density all over the flippin' world that you can use a shovel to dig it out and prove a point. Yet that isn't the case. And did latitude placement change that E3b, or whatever it is, in whites just so you guys here can be confused as to why whites and Chinese and Africans are phenotypically unlike—even though their ancestors came from Africa.
Finally, is anyone here prepared to say worldwide diversity in appearance specifically came from one man and one woman in Africa? As I said before, if you feel that way then own up to it like a man; this way the Hollywood explanation and photoshop bs remains intact.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:there ain't one shred of evidence to show how this diversity arose without mixing the gene pool in Africa, even though indigenous
^ So a gene pool can be indigenous and mixed with respect to the same entity? In this case Africa?
Explain - when is and African indigenous gene pool mixed? When is it not mixed? Are there any Africans who are not mixed? Were there ever at any time in human history any people who were not mixed, according to 'however' you define mixed?
^ Which remains unclear at this point, btw.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Looks like to me this E3b and other technical talk isn't about explaining anything.
Well correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks to me like several paragraphs of your writing have come and gone, and not a single question has been answered. (?)
Try to look at it this way. My post consists of specific questions, they are not and invitation for stream of consciousness venting.
With every sentense that does not answer, you really are not addressing my post - respectfully.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ It's clear you aren't going to answer anything, so I will address the rest of your somewhat off point musings....
quote:Since everyone was dark or so the theory goes, then some of that E3b stuff ought to be laying around in such density all over the flippin' world that you can use a shovel to dig it out and prove a point.
^ This makes no sense. Dark skin originated 1.2 million years ago with the M1CR gene which enables melanin production in the skin. This has nothing to do with E3b, which is a Y chromosome lineage that originated in tropical East Africa just 20 thousand years ago.
Human beings who have the darkest skin have the more underived allelles but still some derived as well, lighter skin toned Africans have the more derived allelles but still some underived as well.
All of these allelles originate in Africa.
Depigmented Europeans and some North East Asians have very recent [12 thousand years at most] and non African, distinct mutations which disable melanin production.
Without these mutations - there are no white people.
Before these mutations - there were no white people.
The range of skin color found in indigenous Black Africans is therefore not, in the main, a product of 'mixture' with non Africans, rather it is a consequence of in situ adaptation by Africans to African environments.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: If so, then you should be able to answer the question, not tell the person asking you to 'look it up'.
Nice try. Follow your own advice. As that is one of your own tactics. As it is a strawman I have no need to address it farther.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: This remark does not answer any question.
No, it just doesn't answer the question within your silly parameters. Parameters of belief I never subscribed to.
quote:All Black and White groups have ancestry.
But all Black and White groups don't have two different recognized ancestries that are a part of their cultural history. Try again.
quote:Or...write a another reply that doesn't answer the question, which is what we expect from a conniving coward like you.
LOL. Nice try. As I don't subscribe to the concept of purity, your argument is a strawman.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: [QB]
quote:Ridiculous because it would show the foolishness of your supposed ability to quantify what Blackness
hence: The very idea that such terms can be quantified is ridiculous. Which makes Chimpu's question ridiculous.
It's the question and person who asks it that is foolish.
And here is where the hypocrisy shines real bright, as my question was made specifically to examplify the ridiculousness of the claim that you can quantify blackness, Whiteness or otherness.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M at 31 March, 2008 07:02 PM: Black is not subjective. It is a physical description of a persons skin colorhttp://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=000142;p=6#000290
quote:Originally posted by rasol: [QB]
quote:people like to quirm around a lot with their definition of black
Black -> A member of any of various dark-skinned peoples, esp. those of Africa, Oceania, and Australia. - Random House Unabridged Dictionary.
Now let me see, if Black is not subjective and it is based on darkness of skin, then both you assholes are claiming there is a quantitative measure that is objective. Now go shove your head up your ass again.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: What's taking so long?
Contrary to you, I have a life outside this board.
And like I said look who will post next becuase he has no life outside this board Posts: 385 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:But all Black and White groups don't have two different recognized ancestries that are a part of their cultural history
Really? So which whites have only "1" ancestry and "1" cultural history. (???) Lacking Meaningful Answers Often.
quote:My question was made specifically to examplify the ridiculousness of the claim that you can quantify blackness.
^ For the last time: this is your phony claim, and therefore *your* strawman argument, to begin with.
quote:Chimpu writes: Now let me see, if Black is not subjective....
^ All color is subjective, so you are making yet another strawman argument. Only kind you ever make really.
You're pathetic. Is this the best Frank Sweets had to teach you?
What you're running from...
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Rogers: Over 1.2 million years ago, the human ancestors in Africa began to lose their hair and they came under increasing evolutionary pressures that killed off the progeny of individuals that retained the inherited whiteness of their skin. 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.
However, the progeny of those humans who migrated North away from the intense African sun were not under the evolutionary constraint that keeps human skin black generation after generation in Africa.
Jablonski: Dark skin evolved in conjunction with the loss of 'fur' and is the original condition of homo sapiens.
^ Case closed. Keep running.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:But all Black and White groups don't have two different recognized ancestries that are a part of their cultural history
Which whites have only "1" ancestry and "1" cultural history. (???)
Germans?
French?
Italian?
Saxons?
Anglo-Saxons?
Is Spain mixed?
Is Sweden mixed?
Is Greece mixed?
Is 'everyone' mixed?
If yes, then 'what' pray tell does mixed qualify?
If no then explain what "qualifies" mixed?
If mixed means not 'black' and not 'white', then what colour is mixed?
If mixed is not a colour then what relevance can it have for terms that denote colour?
If you admit mixed is of no relevance to colour then why try to use mixed to qualify colours?
Lacking Meaningful Answers Online.
Come on Chimu, you're obviously vexed, but Egyptsearch awaits your next round of desparate non-answers...
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:But all Black and White groups don't have two different recognized ancestries that are a part of their cultural history
Really? So which whites have only "1" ancestry and "1" cultural history. (???) Lacking Meaningful Answers Often.
quote:My question was made specifically to examplify the ridiculousness of the claim that you can quantify blackness.
^ For the last time: this is your phony claim, and therefore *your* strawman argument, to begin with.
quote:Chimpu writes: Now let me see, if Black is not subjective....
^ All color is subjective, so you are making yet another strawman argument. Only kind you ever make really.
You're pathetic. Is this the best Frank Sweets had to teach you?
What you're running from...
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Rogers: Over 1.2 million years ago, the human ancestors in Africa began to lose their hair and they came under increasing evolutionary pressures that killed off the progeny of individuals that retained the inherited whiteness of their skin. 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.
However, the progeny of those humans who migrated North away from the intense African sun were not under the evolutionary constraint that keeps human skin black generation after generation in Africa.
Jablonski: Dark skin evolved in conjunction with the loss of 'fur' and is the original condition of homo sapiens.
The populations changed because of the regions in which they lived. Those living closer to the equator were subjected to more UVR, and evolved darker skin.
From: Pretell, Jaime Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 2:49 PM To: Nina Jablonski Subject: Last clarification?
I don’t want to misconstrue you. You are stating that the ancestors of the Khoisan and the Bantu where somewhere in-between in complexion and the KhoiSan got lighter and the positive selection of the Bantu lead to even darker people. In other words both changed in opposite directions?
From: Nina Jablonski [mailto:NJablonski@la.psu.edu] Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 9:12 AM To: Pretell, Jaime Subject: RE: How dark was skin when it evolved from hairy skin?
Dear Jaime,
Thanks for your message and your good questions.
Several of your questions will be answered If you read our original paper on the evolution of human skin coloration (see attached). It is important to distinguish between the skin color of the earliest members of the hominid lineage who lived about 6 myr ago, and the earliest members of the genus Homo who lived about 2 myr ago. The skin color of the former was relatively light, as in most other catarrhine primates, and covered with dark hair. When most body hair was lost, about 2 myr ago, strong positive selection for higher concentrations of protective melanin pigmentation brought about the evolution of darkly pigmented skin. The Khoi San of southern Africa originally evolved in southern Africa, under reduced UVR conditions (as compared to the equator) and have predictably lighter skin. There is some evidence to indicate that Bantu language group speakers living in equatorial latitudes have undergone continued positive selection to maximize the melanin content of their skin since they diverged from Khoi San stock.The exact coloration of the common ancestor of these two main living lineages of African peoples is not certain, but is probably considerably darker than the Khoi San.
I hope this is helpful.
All the best,
Nina Jablonski
She clearly states theat selection went in both directions. ANd that she is not certain of the exact coloration of the ancients. Darker than KhoiSan and Lighter than bantu still gives a wide range.
Posts: 385 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^Considerably darker than Khoi San is exceptionally dark and given that these said "ancients" adapted such a phenotype near the earth's equator, it would be foolish to suggest a "wide range" when such would be reflective of groups today who still reside near the equator more so than those who don't. Illogical inference.
You still ignore Rasol's reference:
By 1.2 million years ago, all people having descendants today had exactly the receptor protein of today's Africans; their skin was blackPosts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Considerably darker than Khoi San is very dark.
^ Indeed, it is the very darkest Blacks of Africa and Asia who have the most underived allelles. Chimu's 'lighter than bantu' remark is not a quote of Jablonski, but a desparate attempt at misrepresentation, as usual.
We all agree that Chimu is debunked and defeated on this point, so let him wallow in denial as miserable losers are prone to do.
^ this case is closed.
What is of *current* interest is Chimu's latest failure, to answer questions about his most recent laughable claims:
Chimu claims:
quote:But all Black and White groups don't have different ancestries that are a part of their cultural history
Questioning Chimus claims:
quote: Which whites have only "1" ancestry and "1" cultural history. (???)
Germans?
French?
Italian?
Saxons?
Anglo-Saxons?
Is Spain mixed?
Is Sweden mixed?
Is Greece mixed?
Is 'everyone' mixed?
If yes, then 'what' pray tell does mixed qualify?
If no then explain what "qualifies" mixed?
If mixed means not 'black' and not 'white', then what colour is mixed?
If mixed is not a colour then what relevance can it have for terms that denote colour?
If you admit mixed is of no relevance to colour then why try to use mixed to qualify colours?
Hey Chimpu. What's the point of making these retarded claims when you end up humiliated because you can never back them up??
It's good that you have no real culture or ethnic identity other than 'mixed [up]', because you'd be and embarrassment to your 'peoples', if you had a 'people' to call your own that is. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Reconstructing the phylogeny of African mitochondrial DNA lineages in Slavs
Boris A Malyarchuk et. al
To elucidate the origin of African-specific mtDNA lineages, we completely sequenced eight African genomes belonging to haplogroups L1b, L2a, L3b, L3d and M1 gathered from Russians, Czechs, Slovaks and Poles.
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata: [QB] ^^Considerably darker than Khoi San is exceptionally dark and given that these said "ancients" adapted such a phenotype near the earth's equator, it would be foolish to suggest a "wide range" when such would be reflective of groups today who still reside near the equator more so than those who don't. Illogical inference.
Nice try. The Sandawe live right in Tanzania and until they mixed in with the Bantu populations that surrounded them, there is plenty of text that describes them as lighter.
quote:By 1.2 million years ago, all people having descendants today had exactly the receptor protein of today's Africans; their skin was black
Sorry, but the Sandawe and the San also have the receptor protein of today's Africans and they were lighter. Look up the Sanawe and they are consistently described as lighter, but try to find pictures now and they are the same complexion as the Bantu. So obviously a change occured.
quote:Many Sandawe are small, light-boned, and light skinned, or as Lt. Prince would have it 'small and yellowish', have thin lips, an epicathic eye fold, excessive wrinkling of the skin in old age, and some have steatopygia (the accumulation fat in the buttocks and haunches.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandawe_people
quote:The Sandawe live right in Tanzania "Many Sandawe are small, light-boned, and light skinned" - This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.
^ On the one hand, the claim that Sandawe have light skin, on the other, the claim that the light ones have *disappeared* and been *replaced* by the dark ones, which is supposed to explain Chimo's inability to produce his 'light' skinned Sandawe.
posted
Rasol asks: ''So a gene pool can be indigenous and mixed with respect to the same entity? In this case Africa?''
Yes. Since there is a wide amount of diversity on the continent and the evidence shows that phenotypes aren't the same on that continent then yes, as it regards the total entity of Africa. No need to get scared, I'm not talking about white people... yet.
''Explain - when is and African indigenous gene pool mixed?''
I answered this above. Again, when the appearance changes, then that is mixed, even though still indigenous. Right here your problem is not understanding the basic definition of gene pool mixture. You're relying on something else and it's blinding you somewhat, maybe forever, I'm not sure; leave the white folks out for now.
''When is it not mixed?''
If you are referencing this Adam and Eve business then no there can be no mixture; this assumes African origins is true of course. But this one isn't my issue either. On the other hand if you're allowing for the pixie dust then anything goes.
''Are there any Africans who are not mixed?''
It sure looks like some on the continent haven't been touched from outside the continent doesn't it.
''Were there ever at any time in human history any people who were not mixed, according to 'however' you define mixed?''
See the pixie dust explanation. Also your wording of this question assumes you have an answer to it someplace. To which I will ask you tho down yo' proof that you can satisfactorily answer that mangled question yourself... without traipsing into the unknown that is.
''Well correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks to me like several paragraphs of your writing have come and gone, and not a single question has been answered.''(?)
I'm trying to get back to you as fast as I can dude but my time doesn't permit this. And I do apologize for not responding to some of your foolishness sooner; and your foolishness has nothing to do with your alphabet soup either.
I said in a flip manner, which you didn't know how to recognize as such: ''Since everyone was dark or so the theory goes, then some of that E3b stuff ought to be laying around in such density all over the flippin' world that you can use a shovel to dig it out and prove a point.''
You responded with: ''This makes no sense. Dark skin originated 1.2 million years ago with the M1CR gene which enables melanin production in the skin. This has nothing to do with E3b, which is a Y chromosome lineage that originated in tropical East Africa just 20 thousand years ago.''
Would you be so kind as to direct me to a source that says unequivocably, absolutely and positively without a doubt, with no ''we think'' or ''we are certain but... '' thrown in to cast a shadow over the research. Can you do this for me. Like I said the anthropologists, et al, are long on technical jargon but no one wants to proclaim Hallelujah about it.
''Human beings who have the darkest skin have the more underived allelles but still some derived as well, lighter skin toned Africans have the more derived allelles but still some underived as well.
''All of these allelles originate in Africa.''
So Chinese and Scandinavian type people did morph from Black folks after all but only Nina and a few others haven't convinced the entire scientific community yet because I still have yet to see name recognition in any of the most recent evolution books I have proclaiming ''hot damn!'' on this latitude business.
''Depigmented Europeans and some North East Asians have very recent [12 thousand years at most] and non African, distinct mutations which disable melanin production.''
''Without these mutations - there are no white people.
''Before these mutations - there were no white people.''
What kind of circular stuff is this Rasol! You mean those depigmentation mutations had a choice in this and elected to say what hell go ahead! Are you serious about this! Some more of that foolishness I was talking about.
Damn brother, all this stuff came back to haunt the brothers in africa didn't it.
''The range of skin color found in indigenous Black Africans is therefore not, in the main, a product of 'mixture' with non Africans, rather it is a consequence of in situ adaptation by Africans to African environments.''
Pretty bold comment without proving beyond a shadow of a doubt this adaption. So there is a desert environment, a tropical forest, open savanah... what else. I'm willing to bet all those scores of millions overlap in those so-called adaptive environments without a hitch.
What say you Rasol.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Grumman f6f: [QB] Rasol asks: ''So a gene pool can be indigenous and mixed with respect to the same entity? In this case Africa?''
quote:Yes. Since there is a wide amount of diversity on the continent and the evidence shows that phenotypes aren't the same on that continent then yes, as it regards the total entity of Africa.
If you define entity X, and claim that X is mixed -
The you must either define a separate entity Y, or you must divide X into more than one entity, X sub 1, X sub 2, X sub 3.
Certainly it might be possible to do so - for example Africa is the home of the 3 basicl mtdna lineages L1, L2, and L3.
But that's *not* what you've done.
You simply talk in circles about "indigenous mixture" - which is and oxymoron when applied to a singular entity.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you are referencing this Adam and Eve.....then no there can be no mixture; this assumes African origins is true of course. But this one isn't my issue either.
^ Don't know what is 'your issue'. But I do know what my question is, and regarding this, you seem to be admitting that the 'mixed race' model of anthropology cannot be rendered intelligible.
quote:Would you be so kind as to direct me to a source that says unequivocably, absolutely and positively without a doubt
^ Science is about doubt and skepticism and cautious proof.
Only faith can claim to have -no doubt-.
To ask for proof beyound scientific doubt is to commit a burdan of proof fallacy.
Chimu does the same thing all the time.
For example - He denied that South Asian ever referred to themselves as Blacks, and when AlTakruri presented him with undeniable proof... he demanded proof that *all* South Asian referred themselves as such.
^ Demanding unreasonable proof is and argumentative fallacy.
Of course a troll like Chimu - is a lower order form of animal - and aspires to nothing more than to irritate others by being as stupid as he possibly can be.
However I expect better from you.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:rasol writes: ''Depigmented Europeans and some North East Asians have very recent [12 thousand years at most] and non African, distinct mutations which disable melanin production.''
''Without these mutations - there are no white people.
''Before these mutations - there were no white people.''
quote:What kind of circular stuff is this Rasol! You mean those depigmentation mutations had a choice....
^ Reading comprehension error. Reread until you comprehend that nowhere is -intent/choice- ascribed to mutations, but rather only cause and effect.
Now, if you don't know the difference between cause and effect - and intent, then just say so, and I will explain futher.
posted
One thing I will say about the past weeks. I slowly see how real informative these posts can be. I know the veterans don't like to repeat themeslves but I cannot help but be greatful that they take the time to school others on these *important* subjects. I am learning more and more everyday.
alTakruri gave proof that south asians called themselves black and Chimu moved the goal post and wanted proof that *ALL* south asians called themselves Black. What do these posters hope to accomplish by being so sneaky and *Snakey*. All I take from these peoples posts is that people are desperate to cover up and deny *TRUTH*.
I remember Chimu claiming that he refuted Dougs post. When I pointed out to him that he did not and even told him word for word who he was actually talking to, he admitted his mistake and then finally tried to refute Doug. This is what I don't understand, making mistakes is a part of learning. Why stop trying to learn, just because you don't like the Truth. I thought that Jamie really changed from how he posted before, but I see he still has issues and is blinded by ideology. People must stop trying to make truth fit what they want. Let the truth speak for itself. Being so stubborn and absolutely refusing to accept and understand truth is sad. This is where learning stops, people need to free themselves from wanting truth to serve there purpose. Truthseekers must accept *ALL* truth no matter what it is. I understand that Chimu is mixed, I understand and respect that, but Jamie needs to come at truth with a open mind, truth can free you but you must give it a fair chance, leave your bias at the door. All I get from the posts from Jamie so far is blah blah blah these people are morons, Blah Cheerleaders, blah idiots. All because posters refuse to deviate from the topic and just continue to post facts that are unrefuted. Jamie has all the tools to be a truthseeker but he has been brainwashed to see the world in a certain way, a Mixed way, or a If they don't call themselves Black, White,etc then they are not these colors. His learning has been stopped because he refuses to acknowledge any thing that goes against his views, and If the *Facts* cannot be refuted then simply move the goal post. Jaime wake up there is *nothing* holding you back but your own mind. Truthseekers must not let bias control them. You also lose the arguement when you lower yourself to insulting others, which is another tool of changing the topic. Then the insults go back and forth and no one learns anything because people are busy trying to one up each other. This is another way of how the powers that be stop us from uniting and working together. It's sad because it seems most of us play right into this game of hate and don't know it. If people are going to debate we must stop the insults because We really are *ALL* just trying to learn and seeking truth. Free your mind.
Peace
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chimu: LOL. Note that Jablonski speculates that dark skin must have been the first because they came from Sunny Africa. and yet the Sandawe are one of the oldest populations od Sunny Africa in Tanzania and they were not as dark.
"Not as dark?" What do you mean by that? Because this Sandawe below looks very melanin-enriched to me.
Also, just because a population is one of the "oldest in the world" does not mean it is completely unchanged or pure, it just means that it hasn't changed as much as others in the last 150,000 years. If the Sandawe are actually as fair-skinned as you claim, then for all we know that could be because, thousands of years ago, they assimilated a back-migration of somewhat de-pigmented southern Bushpeople who moved into their territory.
Posts: 7071 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Another of Chimu's contradictions is that he wants the Sandawe to represent the oldest population - in order to claim that they are light skin indiginenes, but then they are not light skinned, so he claims they are not indigenous but 'mixed.', which causes them to be dark, which defeats the purpose of his claim.
^ This is typical of his perverted petty-ideological use of 'mixture'.
It also explains why mixture is such a failed catagory as and ethnic self reference.
Notice carefully that Chimu, in spite of his -advocasy of mixture- considers mixture an illigitamising agency.
In fact he uses mixture to impune the ancestry of various peoples.
The only people largely exempt 'oddly' are the Europeans.
He exempts the notion of European, which is somehow 'unassailable' by 'mixture'.
When made to confront his hypocrisy on this subject, he runs away.
- Misquoting scientists. - Misrepresenting their work. - Miscomprehending studies. - Backtracking, bait and switch, warping geography, rather than simply admitting to being wrong.
Lacking Meaningful Answers Online. LMAO
This is his legacy on ES.
What he can't do, is answer questions...
Chimu's claim: But all Whites don't have different ancestries that are a part of their cultural history
^ Really, which ones?
Now...If you can't answer this question, your claims, all of them, are shown to be phony, are they not?
^ Chimu waves the white flag, the troll flag....of surrender.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
History of Click-Speaking Populations of Africa Inferred from mtDNA and Y Chromosome Genetic Variation. [My paper] Sarah A Tishkoff, Mary Katherine Gonder, Brenna M Henn, Holly Mortensen, Neil Fernandopulle, Christopher Gignoux, Godfrey Lema, Thomas B Nyambo, Peter A Underhill, Uma Ramakrishnan, Floyd A Reed, Joanna L Mountain Little is known about the history of click-speaking populations in Africa. Prior genetic studies revealed that the click-speaking Hadza of eastern Africa are as distantly related to click speakers of southern Africa as are most other African populations. The Sandawe, who currently live within 150 km of the Hadza, are the only other population in eastern Africa whose language has been classified as part of the Khoisan language family. Linguists disagree on whether there is any detectable relationship between the Hadza and Sandawe click languages. We characterized both mtDNA and Y chromosome variation of the Sandawe, Hadza, and neighboring Tanzanian populations. New genetic data show that the Sandawe and southern African click speakers share rare mtDNA and Y chromosome haplogroups; however, common ancestry of the two populations dates back >35,000 years. These data also indicate that common ancestry of the Hadza and Sandawe populations dates back >15,000 years. These findings suggest that at the time of the spread of agriculture and pastoralism, the click-speaking populations were already isolated from one another, and are consistent with relatively deep linguistic divergence among the respective click languages.
Hadzabe, Sandawe and Khoisan speaking people carry ancient genes compare to other Africans(more than 52% among the Hadzabe), I don't know why Chimu is making a big case about skin color, Hadza are pretty dark, maybe that's human ancestors look like given the UV index level in East Africa, they must have been pretty dark like the Hadzabe, although we don't really know:
quote:I don't know why Chimu is making a big case about skin color, Hadza are pretty dark, maybe that's human ancestors look like given the UV index level in East Africa, they must have been pretty dark like the Hadzabe, although we don't really know:
^ This all began because Chimu's uninformed hero - frank sweets, claimed that the original African populations weren't black.
He claimed that melanoderms [dark skinned people] evolved recently.
In this view - rooted in wishful thinking - light brown skin - would be the original phenotype, non africans would supposedly descend from light brown skin Africans, and then... Africa would -turn black- after the fact of non African outmigration.
This view has very attractive -wanna believe- value, so some white supremacists and mulatto centrists gravitate towards it.
However it is completely debunked by genetics.
Based upon genetics - the common ancestral phenotype of all peoples - is very dark - like the Hadza, some Southern Sudanese, East African Afrisan speakers like Borana and Hamar, and many others.
"Some" North Africans can qualify this - because some of them, such as Algerian Berber have significant European ancestry, and share recent mutations on skin color allelles, with them.
The non Africans who are ultra dark, like the Andamin Islanders - also have the ancestral state/skin color allelles.
Africans - West, East and South, who are less dark, have a derived allelle as well as and ancestral allelle.
Derived means comes from. By definition - ancestral is parent and derived is child. It is a direct and specific relationship.
So there is no question that the darkest skin melanoderm are most ancient, followed by lighter skinned melanoderm, with leucoderms being the most recent product of mutations on ancestral and derived states perhaps 12~ thousand years or so.
Frank Sweets and Jamie/Chimu are simply wrong.
There is no shame in that, but there is shame in the depths they sink to, to lie about it, and the depths of hatred [and self loathing] within them it reveals.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The funniest thing is that the whites used to agree with this view, believing that recent white mutations reflected an evolutionary development which resulted in whites being a superior "race". However, now that scientists have found that ancient Africans were the first to develop "higher" intelligence in the human species as well as many of the tools and traits that would typify modern human behavior, these whites have tried to make white skin an ancient "aboriginal" trait, in order to claim that white skin is a sign of "special" intelligence and development among humans.
Posts: 8891 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Man To hear that there is others like Jamie out there just makes me wonder why they refuse to accept facts. Frank Sweet saying Africans were not Originally Black is just pathetic reaching. But it goes to show you how desperate and Hateful people are of Black to begin with.
Peoples hatred for Blacks will make them believe in the stupidest ideas as long as they argue against Black. Jamie is no Fool, he just detest Black so much that he found a person(Frank Sweet) who speaks against Blacks and he gravitated to him. It's too bad. All you can hope is that they wake up from there brainwashing. Hatred for something will make people believe anything against it no matter how false it is.
Peace
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think it is a hatred of Black people but it is the mind of a confused person with a mixed background who is looking for some kind of identity...his problem is that he views himself as a mixed person but realize that the white part was originally Black...so he's identity is destroyed...That's what hurting him that the other part that made him mixed was actually as Black originally as his other half...so he can't live with the fact that he's Black on both sides of his heritage at the end of the day....since white were originally Black...and they became lighter very recently in the human history...same thing with Norther Eastern Asians...he's just confused about he's identity like many people of mixed backgrounds...I remember a poster here: half Korean and White American who hated so much the other White part of himself that he found refuge in this forum and was making derogatory comments about Euro-American girls because they have less fine features and are less attractive compare to Eastern Africans girls like Ethiopians girls he met...well that's what happens sometime....you can hate a part of yourself because you are confused..
Posts: 461 | From: Kilimanjaro | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rasol asked: ''So a gene pool can be indigenous and mixed with respect to the same entity? In this case Africa?''
I said this: ''Yes. Since there is a wide amount of diversity on the continent and the evidence shows that phenotypes aren't the same on that continent then yes, as it regards the total entity of Africa.''
...then Rasol rebutted with: If you define entity X, and claim that X is mixed -
''The you must either define a separate entity Y, or you must divide X into more than one entity, X sub 1, X sub 2, X sub 3.
''Certainly it might be possible to do so - for example Africa is the home of the 3 basicl mtdna lineages L1, L2, and L3.
''But that's *not* what you've done.
''You simply talk in circles about "indigenous mixture" - which is and oxymoron when applied to a singular entity.''
I'll jump immediatey to that last paragraph, because that's where the bone of contention arises. What, exactly, is oxymoronic about differences in phenotype in Africa even while being indigenous... and singular? It doesn't matter whether the indigenous aspect is today or thousands of years ago, the phenotype in Africa is different though indigenous. That difference can only have arisen by mixing the gene pool and you should know that. On the other hand if you're still clinging to this mythical view that holds this difference radiates outward from ''known'' type environments which have nothing but speculation to prop up the argument, which also indicates to those so inclined to believe that humans somehow miraculously changed into something else, then I don't know what to say to you.
Returning to your ''no such thing'' as an outside entity as it regards your saying there is no mixture indigenously except the outside aspect, then maybe you can explain how it is the differences in phenotype arose on the continent; keeping in mind I'm not talking about white people and Chinese here. You and others say the environment produced the tremendous variation in phenotype, I say phenotype can only come from gametogenesis. And I'm sure most evolutionary biologists and surely geneticists will tell you the same thing... even while accepting the environment explanation, which is a whole other story from my position. With that in mind my attitude is to stick with what we know works; not that the search shouldn't be ongoing of course.
You seem to be afraid whites are going to pop up on the continent in remote times—even though ''all'' humans originated there. Expresed another way at what point will two very dark Sudanese, male and female, reproduce, generationally, and come up with chinese? Right, that is an extreme, or is it? Well according to some views here then it is quite possible for Sudanese to have Chinese offspring with no intermingling of the genes from the Chinese; even while not admitting it. Now this would be Rasol's outside variety of course but this still doesn't solve how two Sudanese procreating generationally and not coming up with anything other than a very strong resemblance to the Sudanese parents.
Simply stated this means that two humans, say from inner Africa, with an empirical look will not reproduce any offspring that will look totally foreign to them. This is where Rasol's mixture doesn't come into play. By now it should be obvious to all reading this what mixing of the gene pool will show. If this explanation falls short to some here then the burden of proof is on those to show how phenotypes came into being.
''I do know what my question is, and regarding this, you seem to be admitting that the 'mixed race' model of anthropology cannot be rendered intelligible.''
Dam brother clean that up for me. Honestly I had trouble comprehending it.
Perchance you mean: If the anthropological explanation follows suit with the evolutionary environment scenario without a full reasoned argument sans the snake oil then no it cannot be rendered intelligible.
''Science is about doubt and skepticism and cautious proof.
''Only faith can claim to have -no doubt-.
''To ask for proof beyound scientific doubt is to commit a burdan of proof fallacy.''
Then some scientists are beyond the fallacy? You indicate there are none, or at least you seemingly do, yet some scientists are just as dogmatic as the creationists. The latter appeal to nearly blind faith, the former couch their faith in consensus which is by no stretch empiricism in all corners of investigation.
Rasol writes: [b]''Depigmented Europeans and some North East Asians have very recent [12 thousand years at most] and non African, distinct mutations which disable melanin production.''
''Without these mutations - there are no white people.
''Before these mutations - there were no white people.''
I retorted with: What kind of circular stuff is this Rasol! You mean those depigmentation mutations had a choice....
Why did you see need to eliminate the rest of the sentence? Is it you may not have seen what was intended but instead mangled it to your satisfaction to say this:
''Reading comprehension error. Reread until you comprehend that nowhere is -intent/choice- ascribed to mutations, but rather only cause and effect.''
''Now, if you don't know the difference between cause and effect - and intent, then just say so, and I will explain futher.''
Anything else?''
Sure there is brother, now that you ask.
Why are you separating cause and effect from intent in a biological sense. In case you've forgotten mutations are accidents; evolutionarily speaking, some are negative, some positive, some neutral. A car colliding with another is cause and effect; yet there can be intent on one of the driver's part. So yes, definitely, you have those three intertwined. It depends on how you quantify it. So mutations, benefical or neutral, it still implies intent via the cause and effect route.
C'mon back wid it dawg.
By the way, no need to expect better from me, because given some dogmatic fixation to a couple of areas of contention on how humans came to be then nothimg I will say in the near future will be better. Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:What, exactly, is oxymoronic about differences in phenotype in Africa even while being indigenous... and singular?
^ nothing. but then, that's not what you originally said.
notice how you removed the claim of 'mixture' from your reworded statement.
in this case, i agree, there is nothing objectionable in your statement.
one of the rules of debate is to never chase after a 'bait and switch' argument.
if you retract your claim of mixture....then there is no debate.
quote:C'mon back wid it dawg.
no need.
when you reword your comments, to remove the part that was questioned....there is nothing left to debate.
what you are trying to do, is known as 'bait and switch'.
suckers fall for that. i don't.
i will wait for you to repeat your earlier oxymoronic claim, if you like, or not.... it's no concern of mine, that you want to argue over [nothing] but don't know how.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rasol you're accusing me of rewording comments with no evidence to support it. Witness this entire paragraph Rasol. Look at it. Read all of; actually you don't need to read all of it just read down to where it shows how you mismanaged your comprehension; no you didn't do that, you deliberately and recklessly didn't mention the rest when you so hastily ignored content. This makes the second time you've done this, although the first wasn't as blatant.
This is what I said Rasol, no subtractions nor additions: I'll jump immediatey to that last paragraph, because that's where the bone of contention arises. What, exactly, is oxymoronic about differences in phenotype in Africa even while being indigenous... and singular? It doesn't matter whether the indigenous aspect is today or thousands of years ago, the phenotype in Africa is different though indigenous.That difference can only have arisen by mixing the gene pool and you should know that.
When you posted the below from Mr. Keita you didn't even look at how he worded it and it's painfully obvious you didn't.
Your quote From Mr. Keita: The diversity of Africans, is real and largely indigenous. Admixture probably does not explain the bulk of [African] variation.
The difference in his wording and mine is I say mixture, he says probably not. Are you going to tell me now that isn't what Mr. Keita means? Will you say he made a mistake and intended to say of course there is no mixture? And what about his less than certain ''largely'' in his opening sentence? Does Rasol intend to give Mr. Keita the benefit of the doubt and say Keita surely means 99%. What if keita means 60% Rasol. Anything over 50% is largely. But we can assume he also meant much more than that. How about 75%. Unless specifically defined Rasol how can you know in the absence of specificity from Keita. Besides, the issue isn't indigenous as if this is a standalone position not to be assailed, it's mixture within the confines of that indigenousness and how it came to be.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Grumman f6f: Rasol you're accusing me of rewording comments with no evidence to support it.
That's exactly what you did. You wrote a sentense and asked me what was wrong with it. But you consciously REMOVED your erroneous argument from the sentense. Now, why is that?
quote:Witness this entire paragraph Rasol.
^ As I said in the prior post, I will *wait* for you to repeat your fallacy, I will not allow you to play bait and switch, by removing the error and asking me 'what's wrong with it'. Clearly you detected your own error, else why remove it? ->
quote:That difference can only have arisen by mixing the gene pool and you should know that.
^ More bait and switch.
Every act of reproduction mixes the gene pool. That does not constitute 'admixture'. This defines sex, not admixture. You should know that. Admixture in population genetics is defined as a cross between two distinct 'populations'.
You defined only 1 entity, but claimed admixture.
This is and oxymoron.
You still have not addressed it.
You are wasting my time, because you don't understand the terms you use, then therefore don't know what you are talking about.
Your argument is windy, and pointless.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:When you posted the below from Mr. Keita you didn't even look at how he worded it and it's painfully obvious you didn't.
Your quote From Mr. Keita: The diversity of Africans, is real and largely indigenous. Admixture probably does not explain the bulk of [African] variation.
The difference in his wording and mine.....
....is that he is a brilliant bioanthropologist, and you are just guy who likes to argue but does not know what he is talking about.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ANSWERS:
quote:The diversity of Africans, is real and largely indigenous. Admixture probably does not explain the bulk of [African] variation.
- SOY Keita
quote: Will you say Keita made a mistake?
^ That's funny. No, Dr. Keita did not make a mistake. You did. You still are. You misuse words and concepts you don't understand.
You were provided the answer - from Dr. Keita.
I don't let you waste my time while arguing in circles, in order to evade and education.
You may have the last words, or pointless paragraphs in your case, pertaining 'whatever it is you think you are trying to say'.
I will give you this, because it amounts to giving you nothing, and is better than letting you hijack the thread into a nowhere land of rheotrical oblivion, by responsing needlessly to you.
You're welcome, in advance...
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
From Rasol: ''As I said in the prior post, I will *wait* for you to repeat your fallacy, I will not allow you to play bait and switch, by removing the error and asking me 'what's wrong with it'. Clearly you detected your own error, else why remove it?''
Reposting ''my error'' shouldn't be a difficult task for you. Repost everything I said, from the particular you are wrestling with. Repost it Rasol! Show this entire board where I removed or inserted something that changed meaning. Repost it Rasol. You've posted twice since you took specific but erroneous issue and I reposted what I said verbatim. You are still ignoring what I said and claiming dishonesty from me. Now, I will ask you again, repost what it is I removed. Now don't tell me how can you prove something I removed because there is no removal by me, only dishonesty from yourself. I stand behind everything I posted, you took issue with some aspects of it, fine. But don't claim dishonesty from me. Twit.
But let me tell you this, the anger emoticon you placed in your response, yes you should be mad at yourself for getting caught lying— and boldly too. If there is anything for you to salvage from your now useless participation then at least admit your dishonesty.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Reposting ''my error'' shouldn't be a difficult task for you. Repost everything I said
^ It's a very diffucult task in fact because, you bore me.
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:As Black and White are adopted ethnic terms for many groups, Mixed would just indicate ancestry from two groups such as those.
This remark does not answer any question.
All Black and White groups have ancestry.
So what distinguishes 'mixed' from 'pure'.
Please provide a list of pure white and pure black groups....
Please provide a list of mixed groups...
Explain what makes a pure group pure and a mixed group mixed.
Or...write a another reply that doesn't answer the question, which is what we expect from a conniving coward like you.
In a few months Jamie/Chimu coward will return to this forum, repeating the same garbage and still having no answers.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Reposting ''my error'' shouldn't be a difficult task for you. Repost everything I said
^ It's a very diffucult task in fact because, you bore me.
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:As Black and White are adopted ethnic terms for many groups, Mixed would just indicate ancestry from two groups such as those.
This remark does not answer any question.
All Black and White groups have ancestry.
So what distinguishes 'mixed' from 'pure'.
Please provide a list of pure white and pure black groups....
Please provide a list of mixed groups...
Explain what makes a pure group pure and a mixed group mixed.
Or...write a another reply that doesn't answer the question, which is what we expect from a conniving coward like you.
In a few months Jamie/Chimu coward will return to this forum, repeating the same garbage and still having no answers.
Yeh, I’ve seen the Salassin, Jamie troll advancing the same KhoiSan-aint-black position before on Youtube. Poor fella.
But I noticed you referenced Lt. Prince, correct me if I’m wrong but I remember watching a Ashra Kwesi DVD were he quoted this guy saying “pygmies” were Caucasian. Is it the same person or did I hear wrong?
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
[QUOTE]Originally posted by KING: [QB] One thing I will say about the past weeks. I slowly see how real informative these posts can be. I know the veterans don't like to repeat themeslves but I cannot help but be greatful that they take the time to school others on these *important* subjects. I am learning more and more everyday.
I agree. I've been here only couple days and it's helped to teach and clarify a lot.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
[/QB]
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Lacking Meaningful Answers Often.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
That's funny. No, Dr. Keita did not make a mistake. You did. You still are. You misuse words and concepts you don't understand.
Printer-friendly view of this topic