posted
you realy think e1b1b1 are negros man you are a fucking ediot what about r1 it is found ion camerron now you have negro cousins in cameroon pay attention haplogroup I IS ABSENT FROM AFRICA THATS WHY IT IS THE EUROPEAN HAPLOGROUP AND IT DOESENT CONECTED TO NATIVE AMERICANS OR CHINESE SINCE IT DOESNT DESCENDENTS FROM HAPLOGROUP K BUT FROM IJ HAPLOGROUP e3b1c1
quote:Originally posted by e3b1c1: you realy think e1b1b1 are negros man
Evergreen Writes: It's not about what I think. I am an impartial student of science. The scientific community has come to the concensus that haplogroup E1b1b1 derived in Africa amoung a group of Africans that most resemble modern Sub-Saharan African populations.
F. X. Ricaut M. Waelkens Cranial Discrete Traits in a Byzantine Population and Eastern Mediterranean Population Movements Human Biology - Volume 80, Number 5, October 2008, pp. 535-564
"Following the numerous interactions among eastern Mediterranean and Levantine populations and regions, caused by the introduction of agriculture from the Levant into Anatolia and southeastern Europe, there was, beginning in the Bronze Age, a period of increasing interactions in the eastern Mediterranean, mainly during the Greek, Roman, and Islamic periods. These interactions resulted in the development of trading networks, military campaigns, and settler colonization. Major changes took place during this period, which may have accentuated or diluted the sub-Saharan components of earlier Anatolian populations. The second option seems more likely, because even though the population from Sagalassos territory was interacting with northeastern African and Levantine populations [trade relationships with Egypt (Arndt et al. 2003), involvement of thousands of mercanries from Pisidia (Sagalassos region) in the war around 300 B.C. between the Ptolemaic kingdom (centered in Egypt) and the Seleucid kingdom (Syria/Mesopotamia/Anatolia), etc.], the major cultural and population interactions involving the Anatolian populations since the Bronze Age occured with the Mediterranean populations form southeastern Europe, as suggested from historical and genetic data." Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The point is Europeans are Europeans. It just so happens that Europeans from the Meditteranean region have a more recent and more substantial blood relationship with Sub-Saharan Africans than northern Europeans. They're still European however.
Humans have lived in Africa longer and Africans were among the first of the worlds people to develop high forms of culture. This may explain why the earliest civilizations in Europe were in the Mediterranean region.
J. Lawrence Angel
American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 74, No. 1/2 (Feb. - Apr., 1972)
"In my own skeletal samples from Greece I note apparent negroid nose and mouth traits in two of fourteen Early Neolithic (sixth millenium B.C.)..."Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
not to me europeans for me are haplogroup I IT FUNNY THAT YOU ARE TELLING ME ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP OF E3B AND E3A WHILE IN THE REALITY YOU SHOULD ALWAYS REMEMBER THAT YOU ARE RELATED GENETICALLY TO NATIVE AMERICANS WHICH ARE NOT WHITE AND HAVE MONGOLID FACIAL FEATURES NOW ABOUT E1B1B1DERIVED AMONG SUB SHARAN E1B1B PROBABLY ORIGINATED IN EAST AFRICA ETHIOPIA REGION BUT MANY OF ITS SUBCLADES ORIGIANTED IN NORTH AFRICA LIKE M34 M81 WHICH IS ABSENT FROM THE HORN OF AFRICA AND ALSO M78 WHICH ORIGINATED NEAR THE SOUTHERN EGYPT SORRY MAN IT IOSNT SUBSHARAN AFRICA IT NORTH AFRICA THE MAIN CLADES ORIGINATED IN NORTH AFRIC ASOME MIGRATED FROM THE TO THE HORN LIKE M78-V32 AND M34 AND SOME WENT FROM NORTH EAST AFRICA EGYPT ARE ATO THE LEVANT ARABIA ANTOLIA M34 V22 THE BALKAN V13 AND EVEN IBERIA M81 SO MOST OF THE CLADES OF E1B1B1 ARE NOT SUB-SHARAN PERIOD. E3B1C1
posted
But we should all note that the idea of "sub-Saharan Africa" is very, very recent in archaelogical time. 15,000 YA "sub-Saharan Africa" would be on the North African littoral.
5,000 YA it would properly begin way into Lower Egypt, i.e. near the Delta and barely south of Alexandria.
Therefore, the idea of "sub-Saharan Africa" cannot be used as any kind of demarcation line for anthropological discourse. So it's time to get rid of this spurious concept.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
sub-sharan africa is south of the shara this is the defenetion i am telling you the m34 m78 and m81 originated in north africa above the shara indid certin clades went to subsharan africa later but the alos went to levant arabia and antolia m34 and m78-v22 and also the balkan v13 most of the clades of e1b1b1 are north african not subsharn in origin tats my point hope you negro will get it e3b1c1
posted
plus too early West Asians looked like Africans.
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5919 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by e3b1c1: E1B1B1DERIVED AMONG SUB SHARAN E1B1B PROBABLY ORIGINATED IN EAST AFRICA ETHIOPIA REGION BUT MANY OF ITS SUBCLADES ORIGIANTED IN NORTH AFRICA LIKE M34 M81 WHICH IS ABSENT FROM THE HORN OF AFRICA AND ALSO M78 WHICH ORIGINATED NEAR THE SOUTHERN EGYPT SORRY MAN IT IOSNT SUBSHARAN AFRICA IT NORTH AFRICA THE MAIN CLADES ORIGINATED IN NORTH AFRIC ASOME MIGRATED FROM THE TO THE HORN LIKE M78-V32 AND M34 AND SOME WENT FROM NORTH EAST AFRICA EGYPT ARE ATO THE LEVANT ARABIA ANTOLIA M34 V22 THE BALKAN V13 AND EVEN IBERIA M81
Evergreen Writes: e3b1c1, we have no arguement here. I agree that E1b1b dervived in Sub-Saharan Africa and that some of it's subclades derived further north as Sub-Saharan Africans migarted to these regions. Hence you have just demonstrated that Black Africans are indigenous to both Sub-Saharan Africa and the Mediterranean Africa as well.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ LOL I don't know why you guys bother to argue with E3bcd. The guy is not only racist but a retarded imbecile. He refuses to believe the FACT that E1b1b1 originated in Africa among indigenous i.e. black African peoples and that the ONLY reason why people in Soutwest Asia, Anatolia and the southern Europe have derived froms of it is because they inherited it from BLACK African ancestors. No matter how many times you repeat it and no matter how much evidence you cite his stupid self cannot compute it.
Getting back to the topic...
I agree that Keita in an attempt to show neutrality is not explicit at all. It's one thing to avoid using the term "negro" which as we all know is specious but it's another thing to avoid using the word 'black' which is not specious at all. We know that all indigenous populations of Africa as tropically adapted people would be 'black' in color identity. In fact, I think it's a damn shame that Keita and other black scientists have to go through all this to prove their non-bias yet white experts don't as if white scientists have never or could never be biased!! Posts: 26361 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually Keita said as much to his questioner. Look at video 5 of the Cambridge videos- he said: "they would have been dark-skinned.."
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5919 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lamin: But we should all note that the idea of "sub-Saharan Africa" is very, very recent in archaelogical time. 15,000 YA "sub-Saharan Africa" would be on the North African littoral.
5,000 YA it would properly begin way into Lower Egypt, i.e. near the Delta and barely south of Alexandria.
Therefore, the idea of "sub-Saharan Africa" cannot be used as any kind of demarcation line for anthropological discourse. So it's time to get rid of this spurious concept.
Agreed- and there is a lot of hypocrisy and inconsistency on the term, such as excluding Ethiopia and Somalia when in fact they are located below the Sahara and thus "sub-Saharan." You are also right about the shifting boundaries of the Sahara. The Sahara was once a lush green belt that extended across a third of Africa.
Posts: 5919 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Originally posted by Evergreen: Evergreen Writes: It's not about what I think. I am an impartial student of science. The scientific community has come to the concensus that haplogroup E1b1b1 derived in Africa amoung a group of Africans that most resemble modern Sub-Saharan African populations.
F. X. Ricaut M. Waelkens Cranial Discrete Traits in a Byzantine Population and Eastern Mediterranean Population Movements Human Biology - Volume 80, Number 5, October 2008, pp. 535-564
"Following the numerous interactions among eastern Mediterranean and Levantine populations and regions, caused by the introduction of agriculture from the Levant into Anatolia and southeastern Europe, there was, beginning in the Bronze Age, a period of increasing interactions in the eastern Mediterranean, mainly during the Greek, Roman, and Islamic periods. These interactions resulted in the development of trading networks, military campaigns, and settler colonization. Major changes took place during this period, which may have accentuated or diluted the sub-Saharan components of earlier Anatolian populations. The second option seems more likely, because even though the population from Sagalassos territory was interacting with northeastern African and Levantine populations [trade relationships with Egypt (Arndt et al. 2003), involvement of thousands of mercanries from Pisidia (Sagalassos region) in the war around 300 B.C. between the Ptolemaic kingdom (centered in Egypt) and the Seleucid kingdom (Syria/Mesopotamia/Anatolia), etc.], the major cultural and population interactions involving the Anatolian populations since the Bronze Age occured with the Mediterranean populations form southeastern Europe, as suggested from historical and genetic data."
Good quote. Keep building up the documentation. On that Ricalt study it has a few diagrams that undermine those who want to airbrush African diversity away. The vaunted "Middle Eastern" populations actually group further AWAY from the Egyptians and Nubians than white 'Nordids'
And while some pounce on this as 'Caucasid' influx proof, the Egyptian group that hangs close to the 'Nordids' is Late Dynasty, after the Hyskos and including the time of the Persian conquest. By contrast, the Nubians and other Egyptians cluster together as they usually do.
Posts: 5919 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: [QUOTE]the specific ancestral morphological signatures and traits shared by a population /human variation evident from craniometric measurements which correspond to geographic patterning in human variation among members of the various geographical populations.
Evergreen Writes: Since there were several ancestral morphological signatures and traits shared found in early Upper Paleolithic Africa does that mean there were several distinct "races" in Africa before modern humans migrated out of Africa?
List these populations and identify the ancestral morphological signitures which separate each population.
posted
^ A good example would be those populations called 'Khoisanid' or 'Bushmanoid' as well as those labeled 'Hamitic' or 'Caucasoid'. These are the arbitrary designations used by western scholars to divide the different African populations up racially even if all were dark skinned and all indigenous to the African continent.
Posts: 26361 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: [QUOTE]the specific ancestral morphological signatures and traits shared by a population /human variation evident from craniometric measurements which correspond to geographic patterning in human variation among members of the various geographical populations.
Evergreen Writes: Since there were several ancestral morphological signatures and traits shared found in early Upper Paleolithic Africa does that mean there were several distinct "races" in Africa before modern humans migrated out of Africa?
List these populations and identify the ancestral morphological signitures which separate each population.
.
Evergreen Writes: This makes no sense, since I am not making the claim that races exist. If you are making such a claim then I would ask YOU to list these populations and identify the ancestral morphological signitures which separate each population. If not then your claim of Races is a fallacy.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Of course Clyde can't list any because deep down he knows that 'race' is a fallacy and one mind you that was invented by white Europeans. Yet this supposed 'great' Africanist scholar that Clyde thinks he is is using such flawed and outdated terminology of the white masters is beyond me. Posts: 26361 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
I wonder what Patriot or Dirk have to say about this? Perhaps they will say that the British were mistaken and were under some kind of delusion. LOLPosts: 26361 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: [QUOTE]the specific ancestral morphological signatures and traits shared by a population /human variation evident from craniometric measurements which correspond to geographic patterning in human variation among members of the various geographical populations.
Evergreen Writes: Since there were several ancestral morphological signatures and traits shared found in early Upper Paleolithic Africa does that mean there were several distinct "races" in Africa before modern humans migrated out of Africa?
List these populations and identify the ancestral morphological signitures which separate each population.
.
Evergreen Writes: This makes no sense, since I am not making the claim that races exist. If you are making such a claim then I would ask YOU to list these populations and identify the ancestral morphological signitures which separate each population. If not then your claim of Races is a fallacy.
Your failure to support your contention proves the fallasy of your claim.
The fact craniometrics can be used to differentiate self-identified races support my proposition & shows that absence of reality in your hollow claim.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: [QUOTE]Your failure to support your contention proves the fallasy of your claim.
Evergreen Writes: What was my contention? You have never made a coherent arguement or established a coherent position.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: [QUOTE]The fact craniometrics can be used to differentiate self-identified races support my proposition & shows that absence of reality in your hollow claim.
Let's add some coherence and structure to this debate.
I asked you to define your terms:
"Since you seem to imply that you are a believer in the concept of biological races please define for us what constitutes a biological race? "
You replied:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: [QUOTE]
A biological race :
"the specific ancestral morphological signatures and traits shared by a population /human variation evident from craniometric measurements which correspond to geographic patterning in human variation among members of the various geographical populations. "
Now I ask you:
How many "races" are there in existence and what are the specific ancestral morphological signatures and traits shared by these "Races", evident from craniometric measurements which correspond to geographic patterning in human variation among members of the various geographical populations?
Please be specific....
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Clyde no doubt has his answer, but in ultra diverse Africa, particularly in East and NE Africa, the classic "race" categories can be shaky, and they have been routinely manipulated to downplay or distort African variabiity. Narrow noses for example are routine in parts of East Africa. Keita in the Cambridge videos points out that if the ancient remains of Gamble's cave in Kenya were examined by a modern forensic pathologist the people would be designated as "white", when in fact their limb ratios would clearly put them as a tropically adapted people native to the area.
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5919 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Ironically there are aborginals of Southeast Asia and the Pacific that would classify in craniometrics to be the same as stereotypically "negroid" Africans yet genetics show they are the most distant from Africans. So how does this support 'race'??
Posts: 26361 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic