quote:Originally posted by Simple Girl: Maybe someone can show me a typical black African with a very narrow nose, thin lips, blue eyes and naturally straight strawberry blond hair. Now how is that for variation Any takers?
For what purpose would that be? That would be simply wasting everybody's time - now wouldn't it.
I think this young lady has been done in by Mathilda - simply put - dead on arrival.LOL
We have to realize that most people coming to egyptsearch to deny reality are coming with the same lack of ability to accept reality that Mathilda has because they have been on her site thinkint it deals with anthropology. I really hate to say it but I guess like one blogger put it when he says its something like on the Planet of the Apes when the latter can't accept the fact that humans can speak and have even taught them how.
As Diop said where ancient Egypt is concerned blacks will always be whites in their minds as nothing worthwhile can come from blackness so why argue with people like this who are really just "white nationalists" that can't detoxify their minds and aren't interested in historical or anthropological FACTS.
If the pitch blackest and most kinky haired Somalians were to come before them they would see some of the narrowest and sharpest features in the world making their own features look rather coarse and rough - aside from being asymmetrical. And they would still be white to them.
Let us not constantly waste energy on people who can't accept the facts. I'd rather try to focus on more intriguing things such as figuring out why the Natufians and Ubaidians are seemingly more affiliated with Central and west Africans than ancient Egyptians and how did they get there or was there some backdraft into Africa, Where did Mushabians go after settling in the Levant and did they contribute to later Levant or Arabian populations like the Ghassulians, how Capsian north Africans seem to be related to early Nubians and East African types, both culturally and osteologically, etc.
I have to admit though this thread was funny.LOL
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^ yeah I suspect even if CL Brace took out a full page ad in the NY Times and state the facts they still will not accept it. Do you h ave any more studies on the early Caspian North Africans?
Posts: 124 | From: Zurich | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged |
Incorrect, the pre-dynastic Upper (Southern) Egyptians do show affinities with Nubia, but the DYNASTIC Egyptians show closer affinities with MODERN Egyptians, even the Southern ones.
And these "Afrocentrics", who's ancestors come straight out of the Congos, are the most distant people from them. LOL
[/QB]
quote:Actually the closest match with DYNASTIC Egyptians are other Egyptians, Nubians and "Ethiopics" according to your own diagram.
The diagram, (not mine, but Barry Kemp's) shows the closest first being modern Egyptians, then showing the next being other East Africans like Nubians. Modern Egyptians, although they have a slight Arabic influence from the Mohammedans, are basically just like Nubians accept they are in lighter pigment.
In any case, they all cluster with Caucasoids, and are far away from "Negroids".
quote:In any event, most of these peoples are tropically adapted dark-skinned Africans including the Egyptians southerners, Nubians and Ethiopics, and they cluster much closer to Dynastic or pre-dynastic Egyptians, than Europeans and Middle Easterners, according to your own diagram. The primary cluster is with other Africans, no matter how you slice it.
Sure, Modern/Ancient Egyptians are Egyptians.
Posts: 143 | From: The United States Of America (sadly) | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: [QB] ^ LOL @ Sir Idiot getting debunked after all his friends were! I mean what's the point??
What exactly did I get "debunked" on? There is no Debunking Kemp's diagram you stupid Mongoloid wigger.
Posts: 143 | From: The United States Of America (sadly) | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
What study does this come from? And what exactly is that dendgram measuring?
Frenchman and even Germans clustering with Nubia before Greeks?
Posts: 143 | From: The United States Of America (sadly) | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SirInfamous: ]The diagram, (not mine, but Barry Kemp's) shows the closest first being modern Egyptians, then showing the next being other East Africans like Nubians. Modern Egyptians, although they have a slight Arabic influence from the Mohammedans, are basically just like Nubians accept they are in lighter pigment.
In any case, they all cluster with Caucasoids, and are far away from "Negroids".
But you just contradicted yourself.
Sure Egyptians cluster with Egyptians- we all know that - but the second closest match is with other dark-skinend Africans such as Nubians, then East Africans, who are not Caucasoids. Even conservative Cavalli Sforza puts Ethiopians at 60% African derivation. So right away the primary cluster is with black Africans. And Cavalli-Sforza's narrow race model analysis is superseded by more balanced analyses of Haplogroup E, which is most frequently found in africa and unites numerous African populations.
The PN2 clade of Haplogroup E shatters simplistic race models for it unites numerous Afrian peoples across the continent.
In fact the Egyptians, ancient and modern cluster closer to dark skinned tropically adapted peoples like black Americans, on limb proportion analysis than to white Europeans or White Americans. Comparatively recent Arab mixes have not erased this deep-rooted ancient commonality. No matter how you slice it, the primary grouping is with dark skinned Africans.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The question should by does Mathilda hate Egypt Searh..and why she wont come here and debate...unless Simple Girl is Mathilda...she is a coward plain and simple. I had a conversation and she said Upper Egypt was 50 percent black..I was like O.K well most of the Pharonic famlies came from Upper Egypt then she changed it to 40 percent...lol...
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
Thank you for your posts. I have learned a lot. But, your data is a little out of date on DNA.
Posts: 1115 | From: GOD Bless the USA | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
African Americans are mixed with so-called European DNA - are they Dark skinned Europeans? If so, why don't you call them European? If this is the case and they can be properly called by your standards Dark skin Europeans then why do you call them African Americans instead of dark skin Caucasians? Why do you give AA more African heritage then the Egyptians who were not mixed with this Caucasian blood (whatever that means)and lived and died as citizens of Africa? If you believe they (Ancient Egyptians) were mixed then provide evidence which you have failed to do thus your mixed Caucasian Egypt is nothing more then a fantasy. This post is not to offend us who proclaim to be African Americans or even black because I myself am a so-called African American and is so-called 'Black'.
.......................................
The only reason such argument are still able to exist is because of modern color codes and misuses of words such as 'Nehesi'. The word 'Nubia/Nubian has become synonymous with the word black or negro yet it doesn't mean black. So when they point at the people from the south it is assumed that they are darker when there were extremely dark people in ancient Kemet. Nubia represents a nation of people and not a color. The ancient Nubian like most African nations had a variety of bone structures, skin tones and such. They fought like the white Irish did with white England yet we cannot see this as racism. Thy were both so-called white with one having primarily red hair and freckles.
The ancient Egyptians had problems with the Nubian and thus racist assume they though as they do today. No racism, they were waring nations - that's it. It has nothing to do with color because they both had dark and lighter citizens. When the Ancient Egyptians called themselves black it had a different meaning the what the color black means today. Europeans started calling brown people black and we ignorantly started calling ourselves black but by their definition of black which doesn't carry the same intentions as did the ancient Egyptian meaning to 'black'.
The reason why there is such an argument today is because of the word Nubia and the word black as we used today. Let try something different and tell the truth. We are brown and some of us are brownish red. So of us are so dark that we appear to be black but where a very dark brown!!!
You see if we call ourselves by our true color what color do the racist have left to call the Egyptians except their true color which was brown? If we call ourselves by our true color then they will have to call the Egyptians something other then brown because that would make the Egyptian African. There are pictures of ancient Egyptians darker then his Darkest African brother even they are still brown.
Such terms as dark skinned Caucasian become invalid because they have to define what color dark skin Caucasian is; brown. Racist argument will continue to flourish as lone as we continue to give into there definition of so-called 'black people' as black. Black people are Brown people so then what color are the Egyptians ... say it - brown?
It seem almost dumb but its true something so simple has keep an argument alive and kicking. Such a simple step will force them to see how much more they have in common Ancient Egyptians had with there African brothers and sisters. It might sound dumb once again but if you try telling the truth about yourself they will beginning to see the relationship that African's Have with Africans and it will cut their ties that much more. It unifies and that's what they been using to keep up this small debate; Nubian being there primary weapon.
reclassify yourself correct - from black to brown. use the proper definition of the word 'Nubian'
The very foundation of their argument will began to look foolish even to them.
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
White Nord
A banned big lipped primate
Member # 14093
quote:Originally posted by zarahan: [QB] Originally posted by White Nord:
[QUOTE]“We study the major levels of Y-chromosome haplogroup variation in 15 Sudanese populations by typing major Y-haplogroups in 445 unrelated males representing the three linguistic families in Sudan. Our analysis shows Sudanese populations fall into haplogroups A, B, E, F, I, J, K, and R in frequencies of 16.9, 7.9, 34.4, 3.1, 1.3, 22.5, 0.9, and 13% respectively…. haplogroups F, I, J, K, and R are more frequent among Afro-Asiatic speaking groups including Arabs, Beja, Copts, and Hausa, and Niger-Congo speakers from the Fulani ethnic group…. haplogroups F-M89, I-M170, J-12f2, and J2-M172 were found to be more frequent in the Afro-Asiatic speaking groups.” (“Y-Chromosome Variatio
Right off the bat Ace, the Haplogroups most prevalent in Africa combined, outweigh all others. The weight is towards the African side.
LOL your comprehension sills are as hideous as your arithmetic. How does 24.8% negroid outweigh the 75.2% non-negroid? LOL dunce and this is not even discussing mtdna! There are Caucasian haplogroups represented in Sudan and surrounding Beja, Copts, Hausa, Fulani. Ironic that the very ones that are “Afro Asiatic” have these Caucasian haplogroups which indicates that Caucasians brought the language into Africa. “haplogroups F, I, J, K, and R are more frequent among Afro-Asiatic speaking groups”
quote: “A high proportion of Ethiopian lineages, significantly more abundant in the northeast of that country, trace their western Eurasian origin in haplogroup N through assorted gene flow at different times and involving different source populations… (“Ethiopian Mitochondrial DNA
Not so fast Ace. In the study you cite, Ethiopians group primarily with other Africans such as the Oromo, who make up the major ethnic group in Ethiopia. So again, the weight of the data is on the African side.
quote:”The apportionment of individuals (the average per-individual proportion of ancestry) from each of the eight populations into the four structure-defined clusters broadly corresponds to four geographical areas: Western Eurasia, Sub-Saharan Africa, China and New Guinea. Notably, 62% of the Ethiopians fall in the first cluster, which encompasses the majority of the Jews, Norwegians and Armenians, indicating that placement of these individuals in a ‘Black’ cluster would be an inaccurate reflection of the genetic structure. Only 24% of the Ethiopians are placed in the cluster with the Bantu and most of the Afro-Caribbeans....” (J.F. Wilson et al. Nature Genetics 29:265-269, 2001)
Claims of a "Caucasoid" Ethiopia via Wilson are contradicted by Passarino 1998, Cavalli-Sforza 1997 and Richards 2003, all of which show Ethiopians to cluster prikmarily with other African groups. As to claims re Wilson's Nordic-Ethiopian match, his sampling methods under-represented the majority Oromo.
That’s a lie, Wilsons 2001 study came AFTER Passarinno 1998 and Cavalli-Sforza 1997 so how could they “contradict” it? LOL and its obvious you haven’t even read their studies. “…the Ethiopian gene pool also embraces a considerable component indicative of admixture with populations of Arabian and/or Near Eastern origin (Cavalli-Sforza 1997; Passarino et al., 1998; Thomas et al. 2000; Cruciani et al. 2004; Luis et al. 2004).” (Ethiopian Mitochondrial DNA Heritage: Tracking Gene Flow Across and Around the Gate of Tears Toomas Kivisild et al., 2004)
"placement of these individuals in a ‘Black’ cluster would be an inaccurate reflection of the genetic structure. "
It says what it says and there is nothing you Afronuts can do. Every single study shows Ethiopians and Somalis to be more Caucasoid than negroid…
”The apportionment of individuals (the average per-individual proportion of ancestry) from each of the eight populations into the four structure-defined clusters broadly corresponds to four geographical areas: Western Eurasia, Sub-Saharan Africa, China and New Guinea. Notably, 62% of the Ethiopians fall in the first cluster, which encompasses the majority of the Jews, Norwegians and Armenians, indicating that placement of these individuals in a ‘Black’ cluster would be an inaccurate reflection of the genetic structure. Only 24% of the Ethiopians are placed in the cluster with the Bantu and most of the Afro-Caribbeans....” (J.F. Wilson et al. Nature Genetics 29:265-269, 2001)
Study after study confirm the fact that Ethiopians have Eruasian dna. Its just the way it is retard, and you Afronuts cant do a damn thing about it.
quote: “An extensive bibliographic search was conducted to compile all available data on allele frequencies for classical genetic polymorphisms referring to North African populations. The data were then synthesized to reconstruct the population's demographic history using principal components analysis and genetic distances represented by neighbor-joining trees. Both analyses identified an east-west pattern of genetic variation in northern Africa pointing to the differentiation between the Berber and Arab population groups of the northwest and the populations of Libya and Egypt. Libya and Egypt are also the smallest genetic distances away from European populations. Demic diffusion during the Neolithic period could explain the genetic similarity between northeast Africa and Europe through a parallel process of gene flow from the Near East , but a Mesolithic or older differentiation of the populations into the northwestern regions with later limited gene flow is needed to understand this genetic picture. Mauritanians, Tuaregs, and south Algerian Berbers, the most isolated groups, were the most differentiated, while Arab speakers overall are closer to Egyptians and Libyans. The genetic contribution of sub-Saharan Africa appears to be small .” (Population History of North Africa: Evidence from Classical Genetic Markers” Bosch et al. 2001)
Why you trying to lie Ace? You do it twice in this post, using 2 different dates. The study you cite above was done in 1997 not 2001, and Bosch failed to sample large areas of the Sahara near to Egypt including the Sudan, a major source of the peopling of Egypt. The results are predictably skewed.
Let me get this straight, you’re having issues with the date and not the content? Ok just wanted to make sureeee! ‘Cause correcting the date does not change the content. “Skewed” and what do you base this on? Oh its “skewed” because little ole AFRONUT says so!
AFRONUT, I researched the date and corrected it: “ The genetic contribution of sub-Saharan Africa appears to be small.” (Population History of North Africa: Evidence from Classical Genetic Markers” Bosch et al. 1997) 1997 STILL beats your 1970’s non-genetic study! I also notice you couldn’t refute the content just argue the date. LOL!
Even Keita states that “European metric phenotypes, as well intermediate patterns, are found in mid-Holocene Maghreb sites” is Keita being deceitful? Or are you reatards just cherry picking quotes and manipulating them to suit your racist agendas since after all that is what Afrocentrics are good at.
We found that the frequency of the -13910T allele predicts the frequency of lactose tolerance in several Eurasian and North African Berber populations but not in most sub-Saharan African populations. Our analyses suggest that contemporary Berber populations possess the genetic signature of a past migration of pastoralists from the Middle East and that they share a dairying origin with Europeans and Asians, but not with sub-Saharan Africans. (“Genetic evidence in support of a shared Eurasian-North African dairying origin” 2005)
“since Roman times, gene flow from the Sub-Saharan region has affected gene frequencies of individuals from the oasis.”( “Research on ancient DNA in the Near East” Mateusz Baca, Martyna Molak 2008)
Regardless of the date, all the studies consistently show that sub-saharan dna appears to be small and the Molak study was just completed last year! There is NO WAY you Afronuts can refute this, so you bitch about an incorrect date. It doesn’t negate the fact, AFRONUT.
quote:“We found that the frequency of the –13910T allele predicts the frequency of lactose tolerance in several Eurasian and North African Berber populations but not in most sub-Saharan African populations. Our analyses suggest that contemporary Berber populations possess the genetic signature of a past migration of pastoralists from the Middle East and that they share a dairying origin with Europeans and Asians, but not with sub-Saharan Africans…the main feature of the genetic landscape in northern Africa is an eastwest pattern of variation pointing to the differentiation between the Berber and Arab population groups of the northwest and the populations of Libya and Egypt. Moreover, Libya and Egypt show the smallest genetic distances with the European populations, including the Iberian Peninsula… By contrast, the genetic contribution of subSaharan Africa appears to be small. … The peopling of northern Africa appears to be conditioned by the barriers imposed to the north by the Mediterranean Sea and to the south by the Sahara Desert, which constrains human movement to an east-west direction. The harsh landscape, in which mountainous areas are surrounded by arid extensions, favors a dispersed, fragmented pattern of of human settlement… Demic diffusion of Neolithic populations from the Fertile Crescent is thought to have homogenized the genetic composition of the European populations (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1993, 1994), and it created a major southeast to northwest gradient (Sokal et al. 1991)… population replacement during the Neolithic from the Levant could explain the genetic similarity between Libya, Egypt, and the European populations.” (Population history of North Africa: Evidence from classical genetic markers” Human Biology; Bosch, E; Calafell, F; Perez-Lezaun, et al 2005)
lol Ace, caught in another lie attempting to make the study appeare more up to date. You say it is from 2001 above, now down here you say it is 2005. One lie on top of the other. The study is from 1997, and sleight of hand attempts to make it seem more current are typical of the deception practiced by Madilda and her ilk. But it doesn't matter. Bosch's sampling bias skews the results so an accurate picture of African diversity is not portrayed.
These are scientists that have quoted other scientific studies done in previous years, which support each other dummy. What you are doing here is trying to distract from the fact that "the genetic contribution of subSaharan Africa appears to be small."
quote:"Furthermore the Fulani from Burkina Faso are close to those from The Gambia and, intriguingly, share the distribution of specific alleles with east African populations (Amhara and Oromo).Lulli P, Mangano VD, Onori A, Batini C, Luoni G, Sirima BS, Nebie I, Chessa L, Petrarca V, Modiano D. Department of Experimental Medicine, Sapienza University of Rome, Italy. Hum Immunol. 2009 Aug 5.
If the Fulani show some links with east Africa that ain't nothing in ultra diverse Africa. Remember subsets of that diversity flowed out from East Africa to various other parts of Africa and outside Africa.
WRONG. “We sampled four Fulani nomad populations …in three countries of sub-Saharan Africa (Chad, Cameroon, and Burkina Faso)… The haplogroups of Western Eurasian origin , such as J1b, U5, H, and V, were also detected but in rather low frequencies (8.1% in total). (mtDNA of Fulani Nomads and Their Genetic Relationships to Neighboring Sedentary Populations 2006)
Why yes AFRONUT, that “diversity” you speak so strongly all the time is in reality Caucasian dna that penetrated into deep Africa. Why it shows there is Western Eurasian dna in Fulani yet you insist this is natural black variation? LMAO. DENIAL! 8.1% is a large amount considering the distance it had to travel, yet you want to act like there were no whites in ancient Egypt! Remember slug this is just the maternal dna. I don’t care if that Western Eurasian dna stood at .01% in the Fulani, it is there and that is what accounts for the variation and you no longer need to be confused about their features.
Posts: 219 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
White Nord
A banned big lipped primate
Member # 14093
quote:“Haplogroup R1 (defined by M173 mutation), without further branch defining mutations (M269 and M17) specific to Europeans, accounted for ~40% of the Y-chromosomes in North-Cameroon,… our U5 sequences from the Guinean Fulbe people corroborate Cruciani’s hypothesis of a prehistoric migration from Eurasia to West Sub-Saharan Africa, testified by their present day restricted and localised distribution” (“MtDNA Profile of West Africa Guineans: Towards a Better Understanding of the Senegambia Region” Alexandra Rosa et al.)
Even if there were such a prehistoric migration the people were not likely to be "Caucasoids." Hanihara 1996 shows that early Middle Easterners looked like Africans, hardly surprising given the OOA outflow. Brace 2005 shows that the incoming Neolithic in Europe looked like Africans as well. Anything going into West Africa was likely just another black looking African variant with subsets of original OOA diversity.
Uh uh, WHICH “Africans”? Sub-saharans did not leave Africa they’re still there! And no, M.E. did not look like “Africans” again which ones?
Evolution does not promote the Afrocentric wet dream that negroids gave birth to all races, but that everyone supposedly descends from a “common ancestor.” East Africa and North Africa have vastly different genetic histories, AFRONUT. Negroes do not produce Caucasians and apples do not produce oranges. Some East Africans have been shown to have Caucasian Dna and you somehow think they are “authentic” negroes.
quote:“Unlike other North Africans, Egyptians are closer to East than to West Africans. (Note that, if Eurasian haplogroups were included, North and West Africans would be much more clearly distinguished, since, in the former, the major contribution is from European and Near Eastern mtDNAs (Rando et al. 1999) (“The Making of the African mtDNA Landscape” Antonio Salas 2002)
And (a) East Africans are "sub Saharan".. and (b) dark-skinned, tropically adapted people, and (c) also united with those of the West via Haplogroup E.. Ace, what does this tell you?
Chandrasekar et al. (2007), Shi et al. (2008), and Hai (2008) indicate that the entire E haplogroup is of Asian origin ….“By labeling E3b “African,” we risk ignoring the very historical and genetic complexity, diversity and unusual population distribution of the E3b group as a whole. (November 2008 Ellen Coffman) Clearly labeling all E3b “black African” and or “African Neolithic” is nothing more than lies about the history of this lineage. Some European lineages are derived from “Central Asian” Paleolithic haplogroup R, yet no one calls R lineages in Europe Central Asian and those who are classified as “Asian” did not give rise to Europeans but rather that ancient proto-Europeans inhabited such areas as the Middle East, Asia, North Africa, etc.
BTW this PN2 clade bullshit… it cannot be used as a basis of racial identity, since as I have noted, it is the third most prevalent clade in Turkey and exists outside of Africa. Nice try at a failing attempt.
quote:“All Ethiopian and Yemeni haplogroup T sequences clustered with either T1 or T2 subclades, consistent with the classification of all existing European T coding-region sequences (Ingman et al. 2000; McMahon et al. 2000; Finnilä et al. 2001; Herrnstadt et al. 2002; Coble et al. 2004).” (Ethiopian Mitochondrial DNA Heritage: Tracking Gene Flow Across and Around the Gate of Tears Toomas Kivisild et al., 2004)
All this shows is that there was some outise gene flow into Ethiopia which we all know. The fact still remains however that Ethiopians are firmly a primarily African population. In fact, your own study shows that Ethiopians primarily link with other African groups such as the Oromo, who are a majority of the population, rather than Europeans.
Hence you can not label the mixed populations of N.E. Africa as “authentic” negroes because there were authentic whites/Caucasians there. What it DOES SHOW is that there were whites/Caucasians in the region thousands of years ago, and if they made it as far south as Ethiopia, Sudan (and even Cameroon) they had to pass thru Egypt, not just float over it as you Afrocentrics postulate. 75.2% non-negroid in Sudan and you want to pass this off as insignificant. Embarrassing for Afrocentrics.
quote: And in any event, no matter how you slice it, haplogroup "E" overwhelmingly links Ethiopians together with other Africans rather than Europeans or Middle Easterners, and is clearly demonstrated in several research studies.
“We show that the main indigenous North African cluster is a sister group to the most ancient cluster of European mtDNAs, from which it diverged »50,000 years ago.” (“The Emerging Tree of West Eurasian mtDNAs: A Synthesis of Control-Region Sequences and RFLPs” Institute of Molecular Medicine, University of Oxford)
“Unlike other North Africans, Egyptians are closer to East than to West Africans. (Note that, if Eurasian haplogroups were included, North and West Africans would be much more clearly distinguished, since, in the former, the major contribution is from European and Near Eastern mtDNAs (Rando et al. 1999) (“The Making of the African mtDNA Landscape” Antonio Salas 2002)
“North Africa has had a distinct history, oriented more towards the Mediterranean, since the late Pleistocene.” (“The Making of the African mtDNA Landscape” Antonio Salas et. Al. 2002)
“North African populations are considered genetically closer to Eurasians than to sub-Saharans.” (“Female gene pools of Berber and Arab neighboring communities in central Tunisia: microstructure of mtDNA variation in North Africa Human Biology2005”)
“…markers signaling the Neolithic expansion from the Middle East (12f2, M201, and M35 derivatives) constitute the predominant component in these two Afro-Asiatic populations…12f2 and the M201…are Eurasian in origin… reinforce the idea that the migratory movements between Eurasia and Africa involving these chromosomes occurred mainly across the Levantine corridor.” (“The Levant versus the Horn of Africa: Evidence for Bidirectional Corridors of Human Migrations” J. R. Luis et al, 2003)
M35 originates in the M.E. according to recent studies.
Posts: 219 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
White Nord
A banned big lipped primate
Member # 14093
posted
Maternal lineages of Semitic- (Amharic, Tigrinya, and Gurage) and Cu****ic- (Oromo and Afar) speaking populations studied here reveal that their mtDNA pool is a nearly equal composite of sub-Saharan and western Eurasian lineages. This finding, consistent with classic genetic-marker studies (Cavalli-Sforza 1997) and previous mtDNA results, is also in agreement with a similarly high proportion of western Asian Y chromosomes in Ethiopians (Passarino et al. 1998; Semino et al. 2002), which supports the view (Richards et al. 2003) that the observed admixture between sub-Saharan African and, most probably, western Asian ancestors of the Ethiopian populations applies to their gene pool in general. (Am. J. Hum. Genet., 75:000, 2004)
Funny how to afro nuts like to claim every haplo group under the sun just like U which is not sub-Saharan it is not even East African, it comes from the M.E. Carriers of the U6 mtDNA haplogroup went from the Middle East to North Africa about 39,000 to 52,000 ya. (Maca-Meyer, 2003).
Haplogroup U6 is predominantly North African (Macaulay et al. 1999; Rando et al. 1998) Haplogroup U6 (named 'Ulla' by Bryan Sykes) is a group of people who descend from a woman in the Haplogroup R (mtDNA) branch of the Genographic tree. Haplogroup Uoriginated in western asia It is common (around 10% of the people) [2] in North Africa (with a maximum of 29% in Algerian Berbers[12]) and the Canary Islands (18%). It is also found in the Iberian peninsula, where it has the highest diversity (10 out of 19 sublineages are only found in this region and not in Africa)[12], Eastern Africa and occasionally in other locations.
“phylogenetic analyses indicate that the mtDNA genetic pool of the Libyan Tuareg is characterized by a major “West- Eurasian” component, that is shared with many Berber groups and hypothetically comes from the Iberian Peninsula… complete mtDNA sequencing of U6 and M1 haplotypes allowed to shed light on the phylogeny of these two lineages (Olivieri et al. 2006, Gonzalez et al. 2007). Both of them are predominantly North African clades that originated in Southwest Asia and spread together to North Africa about 40,000 to 45,000 years ago.” (“Holocene human peopling of Libyan Sahara – Molecular analysis of maternal lineages in ancient and extant populations of Fezzan”
Recently, complete mtDNA sequencing of U6 and M1 haplotypes allowed to shed light on the phylogeny of these two lineages (Olivieri et al. 2006, Gonzalez et al. 2007). Both of them are predominantly North African clades that originated in Southwest Asia and spread together to North Africa about 40,000 to 45,000 years ago.” (“Holocene human peopling of Libyan Sahara – Molecular analysis of maternal lineages in ancient and extant populations of Fezzan”)
“The population exhumed from the archaeological site of Taforalt in Morocco (12,000 years BP) is a valuable source of information toward a better knowledge of the settlement of Northern Africa region and provides a revolutionary way to specify the origin of Ibero-Maurusian populations… Ancient DNA was extracted from 31 bone remains from Taforalt. The HVS1 fragment of the mitochondrial DNA control region was PCR-amplified and directly sequenced. Mitochondrial diversity in Taforalt shows the absence of sub-Saharan haplogroups suggesting that Ibero-Maurusian individuals had not originated in sub-Saharan region. Our results reveal a probable local evolution of Taforalt population and a genetic continuity in North Africa. The genetic inheritance of Taforalt population (12,000 years) is composed of: Eurasiatic component (J/T, H, U, V) and North African component (U6). Genetic structure of Taforalt: Eurasiatic Component : H, U, JT, V: 90.5% North African component: U6: 9.5 % 42, 8% (9/21) H or U; 14, 2% (3/21) JT; 2 individuals (9,5%) U6. In modern Human population, JT is present only in: 1,6% Berbers from the North of Morocco 1,8% of Sicilians, 1,6% of Italians. The hypothesis of a sub Saharan origin of the Ibero-Maurussians in the Sahara is not supported by our results, which show a population more typical of the Mediterranean in North Africa for the past 12,000 years. Our results support the work based on cranio-facial and dental studies showing difference between Ibero-Maurussians and their contemporaries in the Sudan. The presence of a sub Saharan component in North Africa is due to migrations after 12,000 BP.” (“Mitochondrial diversity in the Taforalt population (circa 12,000 BP, Morocco): a genetic approach to the study of the peopling of North Africa.” Rym Kefi, Alain Stevanovitch, Eric Bouzaid, Eliane Beraud-Colomb 2005)
U6 is not negroid or even sub-saharan. What was it before it was U6, cant you put two and two together? Oh my bad, you lack the intellect. You think every thing coming into Africa was “black ‘and everything going out of Africa was “black” and that there cant be any other race except of course the “blac” race because race is a “social construct! You post a present day study-chart of Egyptian haplogroups, the main being V, yet interpret this to mean they were “black.” Next you afronuts will say that White S.A. is really “black” and so therefore are all their achievements.
“U5 and U6 diverged from a common ancestor (the Cambridge reference sequence [CRS]) in the Near East where traces remain of U6; Di Rienzo and Wilson 1991.. 50,000 years ago and spread along the north and south coasts, respectively, of the Mediterranean, as far as Iberia to the north and Cyrenaı¨ca to the south, » 45,000–50,000 years ago(“The Emerging Tree of West Eurasian mtDNAs: A Synthesis of Control-Region Sequences and RFLPs” Institute of Molecular Medicine, University of Oxford
“The most probable origin of the proto-U6 lineage was the Near East. Around 30,000 years ago it spread to North Africa where it represents a signature of regional continuity… Attested presence of Caucasian people in northern Africa goes up to Paleolithic times… Linguistic research suggests that the Afroasiatic phylum of languages could have originated and extended with these Caucasians, either from the Near East or Eastern Africa and that posterior developments of the Capsian Neolithic in the Maghrib might be related to the origin and dispersal of proto-Berber speaking people into the area … Haplogroup U splits from R…The expansion of Caucasians in Africa has been correlated with the spread and diversification of Afroasiatic languages…Two autochthonous derivatives of these clades (U6b1 and U6c1) indicate the arrival of North African settlers to the Canarian Archipelago in prehistoric times, most probably due to the Saharan desiccation. The absence of these Canarian lineages nowadays in Africa suggests important demographic movements in the western area of this Continent." What remains enigmatic of the indubitable North African prehistoric colonization of the Archipelago is that it was carried out by people whose U6 lineages mainly belonged to the U6b subclade that has only been spotted in very low frequencies in the modern African populations of Morocco, Algeria, Senegal and Nigeria. Moreover, the U6b and U6c insular haplotypes belong to the autochthonous U6b1 and U6c1 branches differing by substitutions 16163 and 16129, respectively, from all their African counterparts. As the most probable arrival of the first prehistoric Canarian settlers was around 2,500 ya, it is highly improbable that these mutations occurred on the islands. Therefore, we expected to find these Canarian lineages in some place of Africa. However, after extensive sampling they have still not been detected. It is possible that they are present somewhere in low frequencies but, in any case, this phylogeographic distribution suggests that Northwest Africa suffered important demic displacements in the past…Two autochthonous U6 lineages (U6b1 and U6c1), present today in the islands, attest the survival of those aboriginal North Africans until nowadays. The fact that these Canarian lineages have not been detected in Africa and that, in contrast to the ubiquitous U6a and U6a1, the U6b and U6c lineages are scarcely spotted in present African populations, may be clues of past important demographic movements in this western area.” (“Mitochondrial DNA transit between West Asia and North Africa inferred from U6 phylogeography” Nicole Maca-Meyer, Ana M González, José Pestano, Carlos Flores, José M Larruga, Vicente M Cabrera)
Haplogroup U6 (named 'Ulla' by Bryan Sykes) is a group of people who descend from a woman in the Haplogroup R (mtDNA) branch of the phylogenetic tree. It is common (around 10% of the people) [3] in North Africa (with a maximum of 29% in Algerian Berbers[16]) and the Canary Islands (18%). It is also found in the Iberian peninsula, where it has the highest diversity (10 out of 19 sublineages are only found in this region and not in Africa),[16] Eastern Africa and occasionally in other locations. As for your phony made up “explanation” of M1, Ill take what the geneticists say over you any day.
U6 is not “black” negroid or sub Saharan, dummy. You retards only BELEVE it is because you retards desire it to be so. So the only way you retards can “refute” the evidence is to LIE. Produce a study that proves otherwise or SHUT UP.
You Afronuts do not elevate your race by proclaiming as true something for which there is no evidence. Your condition is more than just psychological, it’s much much deeper than that....retard!
“North Africa has had a distinct history, oriented more towards the Mediterranean, since the late Pleistocene.” (“The Making of the African mtDNA Landscape” Antonio Salas et. Al. 2002)Posts: 219 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
White Nord
A banned big lipped primate
Member # 14093
posted
“since Roman times, gene flow from the Sub-Saharan region has affected gene frequencies of individuals from the oasis.” Carriers of the U6 mtDNA haplogroup went from the Middle East to North Africa about 39,000 to 52,000 ya. (Maca-Meyer, 2003).
It’s a hard pill for you Afronuts to swallow, AFRONUT, but swallow none the less you Afronuts will!
Dahkleh is in SW Egypt yet no arrival of negroids until “Roman times.” This firmly suggests that negroids in Egypt are of more populace now than prior to Roman times.
We found that the frequency of the -13910T allele predicts the frequency of lactose tolerance in several Eurasian and North African Berber populations but not in most sub-Saharan African populations. Our analyses suggest that contemporary Berber populations possess the genetic signature of a past migration of pastoralists from the Middle East and that they share a dairying origin with Europeans and Asians, but not with sub-Saharan Africans. (“Genetic evidence in support of a shared Eurasian-North African dairying origin” 2005)
“North Africa has had a distinct history, oriented more towards the Mediterranean, since the late Pleistocene.” (“The Making of the African mtDNA Landscape” Antonio Salas et. Al. 2002)
"The hypothesis of a sub Saharan origin of the Ibero-Maurussians in the Sahara is not supported by our results, which show a population more typical of the Mediterranean in North Africa for the past 12,000 years. Our results support the work based on cranio-facial and dental studies showing difference between Ibero-Maurussians and their contemporaries in the Sudan. The presence of a sub Saharan component in North Africa is due to migrations after 12,000 BP.” (“Mitochondrial diversity in the Taforalt population (circa 12,000 BP, Morocco): a genetic approach to the study of the peopling of North Africa.” Rym Kefi, Alain Stevanovitch, Eric Bo
interesting quote following that "Super Negroid body plan" bullshit
“The change found in body plan is suggested to be the result of the LATER GROUPS having a more tropical (Nilotic) form than the preceding populations.” (“Variation in Ancient Egyptian Stature and Body Proportions” Sonia R. Zakrzewski)
There was LATER mixing in the SOUTHERN area of Upper Egypt with Nubians that led to this body proportion, that's all. Most indigenous Egyptians were not affected by this.
“Previous genetic studies of Egyptian, Nubian, and Sudanese populations allowed for distinguishing between two mtDNA types: the so called “southern” (Sub-Saharan) and “northern” (Eurasian) (for details see: Chen et al. 1995; Krings et al. 1999). To obtain the frequencies of these mtDNA types, amplification of the HVRI region and three RFLP markers was conducted. The authors succeeded in analysing RFLP markers in 34 samples and HVRI sequences in 18 of the samples. Both populations, ancient and contemporary, fit the north-south clinal distribution of “southern” and “northern” mtDNA types (Graver et al. 2001). However, significant differences were found between these populations. Based on an increased frequency of HpaI 3592 (+) haplotypes in the contemporary Dakhlehian population, the authors suggested that, since Roman times , gene flow from the Sub-Saharan region has affected gene frequencies of individuals from the oasis.” (“Research on ancient DNA in the Near East” Mateusz Baca, Martyna Molak 2008)
Too bad AFRONUT, new information is coming out all the time and disproves your BELIEFS. Communication on Contemporary Anthropology (Lan Hai et al )supports an Asian origin for both the YAP insertion and haplogroups D and E. The study bases its conclusions on the recent finding of DE* chromosomes in Tibet by Shi et al. (2008) Chandrasekar et al. (2007), Olivieri et al. (2006) Yet you Afronuts rather BELIEVE the old outdated theory of Underhill et al. (2001)…
posted
Hasn't it already been acknowledged that modern Eurasians possess some ancient Eurasian genes?
Since dolichocephalic populations related to Somali and Ethiopians were predominant in parts of Eurasia until as late as the Middle Ages in some places? So we can see why some modern Eurasian haplotypes link to these populations black populations. That's what some "AFRONUTS" get from all of ur dna "evidence". Excuse us if we don't have it ur way.
And, of course some modern Somalis and other people who've had recent influx from Arabia have some Central Asian or Turkish genes. Now what? Somalis and Fulanis are from indigenous white Central Asians?
Ibero-Maurusians may not have been related to modern "negroid" Sudanese (we all know what "Negroid" means in Sforza talk), in fact they were ancestral to Bronze Age North Africans who were clearly linked to modern East Africans of Somali and Ethiopic type as shown by their tropical skeletons and genetic- based cranial traits still possessed by black east Africans. Now what?
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
posted 09-26-2009 12:55 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Maternal lineages of Semitic- (Amharic, Tigrinya, and Gurage) and Cu****ic- (Oromo and Afar) speaking populations studied here reveal that their mtDNA pool is a nearly equal composite of sub-Saharan and western Eurasian lineages. This finding, consistent with classic genetic-marker studies (Cavalli-Sforza 1997) and previous mtDNA results, is also in agreement with a similarly high proportion of western Asian Y chromosomes in Ethiopians (Passarino et al. 1998; Semino et al. 2002), which supports the view (Richards et al. 2003) that the observed admixture between sub-Saharan African and, most probably, western Asian ancestors of the Ethiopian populations applies to their gene pool in general. (Am. J. Hum. Genet., 75:000, 2004)
Funny how to afro nuts like to claim every haplo group under the sun just like U which is not sub-Saharan it is not even East African, it comes from the M.E. Carriers of the U6 mtDNA haplogroup went from the Middle East to North Africa about 39,000 to 52,000 ya. (Maca-Meyer, 2003).
Haplogroup U6 is predominantly North African (Macaulay et al. 1999; Rando et al. 1998) Haplogroup U6 (named 'Ulla' by Bryan Sykes) is a group of people who descend from a woman in the Haplogroup R (mtDNA) branch of the Genographic tree. Haplogroup Uoriginated in western asia It is common (around 10% of the people) [2] in North Africa (with a maximum of 29% in Algerian Berbers[12]) and the Canary Islands (18%). It is also found in the Iberian peninsula, where it has the highest diversity (10 out of 19 sublineages are only found in this region and not in Africa)[12], Eastern Africa and occasionally in other locations.
“phylogenetic analyses indicate that the mtDNA genetic pool of the Libyan Tuareg is characterized by a major “West- Eurasian” component, that is shared with many Berber groups and hypothetically comes from the Iberian Peninsula… complete mtDNA sequencing of U6 and M1 haplotypes allowed to shed light on the phylogeny of these two lineages (Olivieri et al. 2006, Gonzalez et al. 2007). Both of them are predominantly North African clades that originated in Southwest Asia and spread together to North Africa about 40,000 to 45,000 years ago.” (“Holocene human peopling of Libyan Sahara – Molecular analysis of maternal lineages in ancient and extant populations of Fezzan”
Did someone forget to tell you who the people of Southwest Asia of 40,000 years ago were NOT related to? Brace's findings put the Eurasiatic nonsense to rest, where it was actually put long ago by earlier anthropologists.
"...the oft-repeated European feeling that the Cro-Magnons are ‘‘us’’ is more a product of anthropological folklore than the result of the metric data available from the skeletal remains."
A hard pill for some to swallow obviously.
Ibero-Maurusians and Mechtoids were not a predominantly mesocranic and brachycephalic group related to modern Eurasiatics a predominantly mesocranic and brachycepahlic population especially in southeastern Europe, the northern part of the modern Levant and parts of N. AFrica. These latter Eurasiatics have no doubt acquired the genes of ancient blacks of Southwest Asia or of those otherwise Cro-magnon, mesolithic and neolithic "Mediterranean" men ancestral to eastern Africans.
That is why the Ibero Maurusian and dark skinned Berbers like the Tuareg are ultra-dolichocephalic and dolichocephalic like millions of black AFricans while modern Berbers with fair skin have the mesocephaly and brachycephaly of European and modern "Eurasiatic" man.
When 24 craniofacial measurements of a series of human populations are used to generate neighbor-joining dendrograms, it is no surprise that all modern European groups, ranging all of the way from Scandinavia to eastern Europe and throughout the Mediterranean to the Middle East, show that they are closely related to each other. The surprise is that the Neolithic peoples of Europe and their Bronze Age successors are not closely related to the modern inhabitants..."
Ponder that for a while, and swallow the pill. -------------------------- “The change found in body plan is suggested to be the result of the LATER GROUPS having a more tropical (Nilotic) form than the preceding populations.” (“Variation in Ancient Egyptian Stature and Body Proportions” Sonia R. Zakrzewski)"
Why misinterpret or distort ur own quote. Later than 12,000 Before Present isn't the equivalent of recent. Physical anthopologists know in fact how the influxes of gracile Negroids into the populations of taller black Ibero-Maurusian i.e. Mechta or Cro-magnon types, in North AFrica. The Negroid refers to the gracile Negroids that were ancestral to Mushabian and Badarians, (the latter ancestors of the Amratian/Naqqada groups).
These two black dolichocephalic populations mixed and the taller mor robust one was related to the populations then occupying Southwest Asia and in fact Eurasia.
There was a reason Ehret wanted to have the name Hamito-Semitic changed to Afro-San instead of Afro-Asiatic - so as not to confuse the two!!
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
[QUOTE]Originally posted by White Nord: [QB] Maternal lineages of Semitic- (Amharic, Tigrinya, and Gurage) and Cu****ic- (Oromo and Afar) speaking populations studied here reveal that their mtDNA pool is a nearly equal composite of sub-Saharan and western Eurasian lineages. This finding, consistent with classic genetic-marker studies (Cavalli-Sforza 1997) and previous mtDNA results, is also in agreement with a similarly high proportion of western Asian Y chromosomes in Ethiopians (Passarino et al. 1998; Semino et al. 2002), which supports the view (Richards et al. 2003) that the observed admixture between sub-Saharan African and, most probably, western Asian ancestors of the Ethiopian populations applies to their gene pool in general. (Am. J. Hum. Genet., 75:000, 2004)
Funny how to afro nuts like to claim every haplo group under the sun just like U which is not sub-Saharan it is not even East African, it comes from the M.E. Carriers of the U6 mtDNA haplogroup went from the Middle East to North Africa about 39,000 to 52,000 ya. (Maca-Meyer, 2003)."
Thanks for proving our point. Did someone forget to tell u who people from 40 to 50,000 in Eurasia and the Near East were NOT related to?!
Brace's findings put the Eurasiatic nonsense to rest, where it was actually put long ago by earlier anthropologists.
"...the oft-repeated European feeling that the Cro-Magnons are ‘‘us’’ is more a product of anthropological folklore than the result of the metric data available from the skeletal remains."
A hard pill for some to swallow obviously.
Ibero-Maurusians and Mechtoids were not a predominantly mesocranic and brachycephalic group closely related to modern fair-skinned Eurasiatics, a predominantly mesocranic and brachycepahlic population especially in southeastern Europe, the northern part of the modern Levant and parts of N. AFrica. These latter Eurasiatics have never-the-less acquired the genes of ancient blacks of Southwest Asia or Eurasia otherwise known as Cro-magnon, mesolithic and neolithic "Mediterranean" men evidently ancestral to eastern Africans.
That is why the Ibero Maurusian and dark skinned Berbers like the Tuareg are ultra-dolichocephalic and dolichocephalic like millions of black AFricans while modern Berbers with fair skin have the mesocephaly and brachycephaly of European and modern "Eurasiatic man".
Brace's study has been posted several times on this blog, "When 24 craniofacial measurements of a series of human populations are used to generate neighbor-joining dendrograms, it is no surprise that all modern European groups, ranging all of the way from Scandinavia to eastern Europe and throughout the Mediterranean to the Middle East, show that they are closely related to each other. The surprise is that the Neolithic peoples of Europe and their Bronze Age successors ARE NOT closely related to the modern inhabitants..."
Ponder that for a while, and swallow the pill.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by yql718: ^^ yeah I suspect even if CL Brace took out a full page ad in the NY Times and state the facts they still will not accept it. Do you h ave any more studies on the early Caspian North Africans?
Sorry yq I am just now seeing ur post in response to mine. The ones that I have are mainly physical anthropological and come from the 1990s. I suppose their are more that have been done since that period probably even to be found on-line.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
“Previous genetic studies of Egyptian, Nubian, and Sudanese populations allowed for distinguishing between two mtDNA types: the so called “southern” (Sub-Saharan) and “northern” (Eurasian) (for details see: Chen et al. 1995; Krings et al. 1999)."
I've seen you've been on stormfront. Modern Eurasians are neither of the sub-Saharan nor of the Fayum and Bronze Age northern African type who were ancestral to the Fulani, Somali or Tuareg. Whatever Caucasoid genes these people have is mostly due to modern and not neolithic or Paleolithic accretion. As with black Americans.
-------------------- D. Reynolds-Marniche Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
White Nord quotes most probably prove Brace's discoveries of the relatedness of the "hamitic" African or Afro-Mediterranean i.e., black East Africans, Naqqada, etc to ancient pre-Bronze age inhabitants of Europe and Eurasia .
""phylogenetic analyses indicate that the mtDNA genetic pool of the Libyan Tuareg is characterized by a major “West- Eurasian” component, that is shared with many Berber groups and hypothetically comes from the Iberian Peninsula… complete mtDNA sequencing of U6 and M1 haplotypes allowed to shed light on the phylogeny of these two lineages (Olivieri et al. 2006, Gonzalez et al. 2007). Both of them are predominantly North African clades that originated in Southwest Asia and spread together to North Africa about 40,000 to 45,000 years ago.” (“Holocene human peopling of Libyan Sahara – Molecular analysis of maternal lineages in ancient and extant populations of Fezzan”
Most north AFrican Berber tribes are dark-skinned like the Tuareg. They include many of the people of Siwa, the Nafusa and Berbers of the Draa, the Masmuda of the Shluh or Upper Atlas. Oonly a few groups are pale as some of the Kabyles in Algeria, the Riff region and Chaouia. Most North AFricans away from the coast even excluding the Haratin Iklan and Teda are still dark skinned and clearly related to original indigenes of the North African coast.
"“We show that the main indigenous North African cluster is a sister group to the most ancient cluster of European mtDNAs, from which it diverged »50,000 years ago.”" (“The Emerging Tree of West Eurasian mtDNAs: A Synthesis of Control-Region Sequences and RFLPs” Institute of Molecular Medicine, University of Oxford)
There is also no way of knowing where this divergence took place however.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
So f!king what!! even if you find an ancient Kemite with Red/blond hair...the fact it would have been unusual..and another thing black folks are not the ones sreaming about purity of anything because we coloed folks knows better it is you and other alabaster azzses who try to make some point about mixing..as if it means much to us folks of multi colored variety...a man born and raised in Africa and dark-skinned upon to the point o Meriah Carey..is plain ol coloed folk...we really don't care.So let Rameses have red hair and Euro-genes...not saying that he has...but if he did we would not disown him...
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Originally posted by White Nord: 1) Let me get this straight, you’re having issues with the date and not the content? Ok just wanted to make sureeee! ‘Cause correcting the date does not change the content.
No matter what bogus date you choose, your still fail, and you have already been debunked on the content. Why are you still running away from your earlier lies in this thread, where you put more recent dates on one of your outmoded studies, trying to pas it off as more recent as everyone saw in the link below? You make a fetish out of “more recent” dates. It is obvious that you were trying to pad the study dates so you could continue this deception. No one is being fooled ace. See: http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=001736;p=2
Nord always claims more "recent" studies show white Egypt and Africa, than is why he falsified the dates on the old ones above, and was caught out in a lie...
2) Now let's look at your bogus claim #2- claim calling such people as the Hausa "white":
“We study the major levels of Y-chromosome haplogroup variation in 15 Sudanese populations by typing major Y-haplogroups in 445 unrelated males representing the three linguistic families in Sudan. Our analysis shows Sudanese populations fall into haplogroups A, B, E, F, I, J, K, and R in frequencies of 16.9, 7.9, 34.4, 3.1, 1.3, 22.5, 0.9, and 13% respectively…. haplogroups F, I, J, K, and R are more frequent among Afro-Asiatic speaking groups including Arabs, Beja, Copts, and Hausa, and Niger-Congo speakers from the Fulani ethnic group…. haplogroups F-M89, I-M170, J-12f2, and J2-M172 were found to be more frequent in the Afro-Asiatic speaking groups.” (“Y-Chromosome Variatio LOL your comprehension sills are as hideous as your arithmetic. How does 24.8% negroid outweigh the 75.2% non-negroid? LOL dunce and this is not even discussing mtdna! There are Caucasian haplogroups represented in Sudan and surrounding Beja, Copts, Hausa, Fulani. Ironic that the very ones that are “Afro Asiatic” have these Caucasian haplogroups which indicates that Caucasians brought the language into Africa. “haplogroups F, I, J, K, and R are more frequent among Afro-Asiatic speaking groups”
I think its both your comprehension and math skills that need a workout "Nord". You play another bogus game, defining a host of African groups as 'Caucasian" so you can do your little "white math." That won't work. The overall weight is still African, and that includes Haplogroup E.
Nord loses again...
3) Now let's take your bogus claim #3- where you assert that the Afro Asiatic languages were brought into Africa by white people.
- "Ironic that the very ones that are “Afro Asiatic” have these Caucasian haplogroups which indicates that Caucasians brought the language into Africa. “haplogroups F, I, J, K, and R are more frequent among Afro-Asiatic speaking groups” "
Nord you fail again. Almost all of the Afro Asiatic languages originated in Africa. There was no need for your fantasy 'Caucasoids" to bring them. Respected mainstream scholars destroy your claim as follows:
"the peoples of the steppes and grasslands to the immediate south of Egypt domesticated cattle, as early as 9000 to 8000 B.C. They included peoples from the Afro-Asiastic linguistic group and the second major African language family, Nilo-Saharan (Wendorf, Schild, Close 1984; Wendorf, et al. 1982). -- Christopher Ehret, "Ancient Egyptian as an African Language, Egypt as an African Culture," in Egypt in Africa, Theodore Celenko (ed), Indiana University Press, 1996, pp. 25-27
".. the Horn of Africa certainly contributed more recently to the Near East, because based on linguistic re- construction and the principles of "least moves" and "greatest diversity." It is the geographical home of the ancestor of Afro-Asiatic languages, spoken primarily in Africa with one member in the Near East (Semitic) (Ehret 1984, 1995; Ruhlen 1987). Early Afro-Asiatic spread out from the Horn and did not come into Africa from Asia (brought by "Caucasians") as was believed at one time, and as is occasionally assumed by non-linguists (e.g., Barbujani and Pilastro 1993; Cavalli-Sforza and Cavalli-Sforza 1995). In fact, there is evidence for movement out of Africa at the very time some claim in-migration (Bar-Josef 1987). By the time of the radiation of Afro-Asiatic speakers there was already genetic differentiation in Africa due to African biohistorical processes. There is no need to postulate massive European settler colonization of Africa or genetic swamping and/or settler colonization by Eurasians, as is implied or stated in some contemporary genetic work (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994), echoing the now defunct Hamitic hypothesis. Continental African variation may be interpreted largely without external mass invasions. The antiquity of modern humans in Africa means that there has been time to accumulate a large amount of random genetic variation (Cavalli-Sforza et. al. 1983), which has been shaped by great ecological diversity in the continent (Hiernaux 1975). Genetic drift would also contribute to variability due to fluctuations in population size as founder effects and population expansion events occurred throughout the continent. Therefore it is far more accurate to speak of a range of biohistorical African variants than different races of Africans. Northern Africans are more accurately conceptualized as primarily the products of differentiation than of hybridization." --( S.O.Y. Keita and R. Kittles. The Persistence of Racial Thinking and the Myth of Racial Divergence, S. O. Y. Keita, Rick A. Kittles, American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 99, No. 3 (Sep., 1997), pp. 534-544)
Nord loses again...
4) Now lets look at your bogus claim #4- the Ethiopians as "white"
On your bogus claim - further white Ethiopians: ”The apportionment of individuals (the average per-individual proportion of ancestry) from each of the eight populations into the four structure-defined clusters broadly corresponds to four geographical areas: Western Eurasia, Sub-Saharan Africa, China and New Guinea. Notably, 62% of the Ethiopians fall in the first cluster, which encompasses the majority of the Jews, Norwegians and Armenians, indicating that placement of these individuals in a ‘Black’ cluster would be an inaccurate reflection of the genetic structure. Only 24% of the Ethiopians are placed in the cluster with the Bantu and most of the Afro-Caribbeans....” (J.F. Wilson et al. Nature Genetics 29:265-269, 2001)
Claims of a "Caucasoid" Ethiopia via Wilson are contradicted by Passarino 1998, Cavalli-Sforza 1997 and Richards 2003, all of which show Ethiopians to cluster primarily with other African groups. As to claims re Wilson's Nordic-Ethiopian match, his sampling methods under-represented the majority Oromo. So much for your "Aryan" Ethiopians.
sorry 'Nord'...
Now let's look at your "recent study" fetish:
"That’s a lie, Wilsons 2001 study came AFTER Passarinno 1998 and Cavalli-Sforza 1997 so how could they “contradict” it?
Nord, nord.. sigh.... Just because one study comes after another does not make the later study "true". Must we AGAIN explain such elementary matters to you?
And another bogus claim by you: the Ethiopian gene pool also embraces a considerable component indicative of admixture with populations of Arabian and/or Near Eastern origin (Cavalli-Sforza 1997; Passarino et al., 1998; Thomas et al. 2000; Cruciani et al. 2004; Luis et al. 2004).” (Ethiopian Mitochondrial DNA Heritage: Tracking Gene Flow Across and Around the Gate of Tears Toomas Kivisild et al., 2004) It says what it says and there is nothing you Afronuts can do. Every single study shows Ethiopians and Somalis to be more Caucasoid than negroid…
Nord your own studies that you quoted so much on ES over time debunk you. We all know Ethiopians had some gene low from elsewhere over the eras of their long history but your own Cavalli-Sforza studies show the Ethiopians at 60% African. Why are you trying to backtrack now?
5) Now lets look at your bogus claim #5- the Somalis as white.
Right off the bat the “study” above lacks credibility on the topic of African population history. The PDF is about 2 pages listing no tables or charts, or a breakdown of the sample. It does not reference any previous work in the field. Note the authors statement" "The results are consistent with hypothesis, supported by cultural and historical evidence, of common origin of the Somali population.” The only thing is that they have nothing on Somali population history at all, just a description of the tests they ran. This thin reed would not pass peer review by credible anthropologists. maybe that is why it is in a Blood transfusion journal. But in any event 2 things further undermine it for those claiming "white Somalis":
a)) We all know Somalis have had recent gene flow, from Arabs for example, particularly near the coast. The author above however curiously posts no breakdown of his sample, as is common in studies of other scholars in the field. Hammer 1997 for example in his sample admits that they were all drawn from the far north, near Cairo. This should already tell us how shaky the above “Somali research’ is when they hide their sampling detail.
b))) Second, it is undermined by much more credible studies in the field, which address the issues directly with standard DNA markers. They found that Somalis link more closely with other Africans than Europeans or Middle Easterners. Of course Nord will say ooooohhh, since the dubious “study” above was done in 2006 it must “supercede” anything before, lol… just as how Hilter’s Mein kampf “supercedes” all that was humane and democratic about Germany before he came to power. But this approach is typical of racist neo-nazis like Nord. Much more credible studies place the Somalis closer to Africans.
Nord again loses...
6) Now lets look at your bogus claim #6- the Ethiopians as white again. You post a quote from Bosch, but it already fails in how you try to use it:
[QUOTE] “An extensive bibliographic search was conducted to compile all available data on allele frequencies for classical genetic polymorphisms referring to North African populations. The data were then synthesized to reconstruct the population's demographic history using principal components analysis and genetic distances represented by neighbor-joining trees. Both analyses identified an east-west pattern of genetic variation in northern Africa pointing to the differentiation between the Berber and Arab population groups of the northwest and the populations of Libya and Egypt. Libya and Egypt are also the smallest genetic distances away from European populations. Demic diffusion during the Neolithic period could explain the genetic similarity between northeast Africa and Europe through a parallel process of gene flow from the Near East , but a Mesolithic or older differentiation of the populations into the northwestern regions with later limited gene flow is needed to understand this genetic picture. Mauritanians, Tuaregs, and south Algerian Berbers, the most isolated groups, were the most differentiated, while Arab speakers overall are closer to Egyptians and Libyans. The genetic contribution of sub-Saharan Africa appears to be small .” (Population History of North Africa: Evidence from Classical Genetic Markers” Bosch et al. 2001)
you lose again “Nord”…
7) now lets look at your bogus claim #7- saying that Keita found so-called European metrics…
Even Keita states that “European metric phenotypes, as well intermediate patterns, are found in mid-Holocene Maghreb sites” is Keita being deceitful? Or are you reatards just cherry picking quotes and manipulating them to suit your racist agendas since after all that is what Afrocentrics are good at.
Of course Keita found European metrics but this still does not make your white Egypt claim for two reasons. First the genetic diversity of Africa is so much black populations can show “European” metrics in skulls as part of their built in diversity. Second, you talk about “cherry pickin’ but you conveniently forget to put in the rest of what Keita said. He said that overall, the weight of the data was with Africans. In other studies he also mentions limb proportion studies which show the main cluster is with dark-skinned Africans not whites or Middle easterners, and that includes even northern Egyptians.
Again you fail… “Nord”…
8) Now let’s look at your bogus claim #8- where you use lactose tolerance to claim a “white” North Africa:
We found that the frequency of the -13910T allele predicts the frequency of lactose tolerance in several Eurasian and North African Berber populations but not in most sub-Saharan African populations. Our analyses suggest that contemporary Berber populations possess the genetic signature of a past migration of pastoralists from the Middle East and that they share a dairying origin with Europeans and Asians, but not with sub-Saharan Africans. (“Genetic evidence in support of a shared Eurasian-North African dairying origin” 2005)
The above study can only speak for its sample really because lactose tolerance is old news in Africa. It was developed independently in Africa as noted by recent DNA studies and the link below long ago on ES. So again you fail.
‘North Africa” by the way includes massive parts of Mail, Chad, Niger and the Sudan so any attempts to paint it “white” also fail. Anyone can show some Eurasian gene flow into the region, and we all know it happened, but that doesn’t make North Africa “white”. For decades North Africa has been defined as including Chad, Mali, Niger and the Northern Sudan. The only way you can sustain a “white” north Africa is to conveniently exclude these areas, as well as selectively define away various African peoples as “non african”, but no one is being fooled ace..
here’s a quote from a vaunted “MORE RECENT” report on DNA studies, lol..
A research team led by Dr. Sarah Tishkoff of the University of Maryland has now solved much of the puzzle. After testing for lactose tolerance and genetic makeup among 43 ethnic groups in East Africa, she and her colleagues have found three new mutations, all independent of one another and of the European mutation, that keep the lactase gene permanently switched on. The principal mutation, found among Nilo-Saharan-speaking ethnic groups of Kenya and Tanzania, arose 2,700 to 6,800 years ago, according to genetic estimates, Dr. Tishkoff’s group reports today in the journal Nature Genetics. This fits well with archaeological evidence suggesting that pastoral peoples from the north reached northern Kenya about 4,500 years ago and southern Kenya and Tanzania 3,300 years ago.” Lactose Tolerance in East Africa Points to Recent Evolution By NICHOLAS WADE, NY Times Science 2006
oooooohhhhhhhhhh…… 2006 study data “supercedes” your 2005 study
-------------------- 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: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
Nord always claims more "recent" studies show white Egypt and Africa, than is why he falsified the dates on the old ones above, and was caught out in a lie...
9)) Now lets take your bogus claim #9- a few sub-Saharans at an oasis means a “white Egypt” lol
“since Roman times, gene flow from the Sub-Saharan region has affected gene frequencies of individuals from the oasis.”( “Research on ancient DNA in the Near East” Mateusz Baca, Martyna Molak 2008) Regardless of the date, all the studies consistently show that sub-saharan dna appears to be small and the Molak study was just completed last year! There is NO WAY you Afronuts can refute this, so you bitch about an incorrect date. It doesn’t negate the fact, AFRONUT.
Lol.. Is this all you got ‘Nerd”? what’s there to ‘refute”? All your precious oasis study shows is that, to quote the study: “since Roman times, gene flow from the Sub-Saharan region has affected gene frequencies of individuals from the oasis.” Lol… this is earth shattering? That a minor oasis saw some sub-Saharan gene flow? Lol
10) Now let’s take a look at your miscellaneous claims re “white Africa’:
The peopling of northern Africa appears to be conditioned by the barriers imposed to the north by the Mediterranean Sea and to the south by the Sahara Desert, which constrains human movement to an east-west direction. The harsh landscape, in which mountainous areas are surrounded by arid extensions, favors a dispersed, fragmented pattern of of human settlement… Demic diffusion of Neolithic populations from the Fertile Crescent is thought to have homogenized the genetic composition of the European populations (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1993, 1994), and it created a major southeast to northwest gradient (Sokal et al. 1991)… population replacement during the Neolithic from the Levant could explain the genetic similarity between Libya, Egypt, and the European populations.” (Population history of North Africa: Evidence from classical genetic markers” Human Biology; Bosch, E; Calafell, F; Perez-Lezaun, et al 2005)
The only thing wrong your “white Egypt” and “white Africa” claim based on this text is that the Sahara was not always a desert. It was a well watered greenbelt in various eras and in various areas, and populations moved back and forth. So the vaunted “East-West movement blockage” is a limited claim indeed. Also your passage says nothing about any Cakazoids taking over North Africa- it says ”thought to have homogenized the genetic composition of the European populations.” It says nothing about a white North Africa. It confines itself to the Europeanized populations that had moved in and what some scholars "thought." Your own source once again undermines you claim Ace. When did Chad Niger, Mali, or the Sudan become “white” in your passage? Most of these areas are above the Sahara and have historically been classified as “North Africa”. Again you fail. As for more recent references: here’s one that is gasp, MORE RECENT than your 2005 reference, and it disputes the alleged population replacement theory. Oooooohhhhhhh… more recent Ace….
--
^^look Nerd look.. recent 2008 date on data from Keita... doesn't it "supercede" your stuff? lol
11) On your "White Fulani" mix claims:
" that “diversity” you speak so strongly all the time is in reality Caucasian dna that penetrated into deep Africa. Why it shows there is Western Eurasian dna in Fulani yet you insist this is natural black variation? LMAO. DENIAL! 8.1% is a large amount considering the distance it had to travel, yet you want to act like there were no whites in ancient Egypt! Remember slug this is just the maternal dna. I don’t care if that Western Eurasian dna stood at .01% in the Fulani, it is there and that is what accounts for the variation and you no longer need to be confused about their features.
Only one problem “Nord”.. I said quote: “subsets of that diversity flowed out from East Africa to various other parts of Africa and outside Africa..” and I said this in relation to links with east Africa, not your inflowing “wandering Caucasoids”. And we all know ancient Egypt had gene flow from Persians, romans etc etc at various eras of its history. Your attempt to create a bogus strawman point fails miserably. But even if we grant you a white Fulani percentage, your own data makes the “wandering Caucasoid” influx rather less than impressive. Quote from your own reference: The haplogroups of Western Eurasian origin , such as J1b, U5, H, and V, were also detected but in rather low frequencies (8.1% in total).
So your vaunted cakazoids weigh in at a mere 8%. ooooohhhhhhhhh……… 8% wandering Caucasoids…. Impressive…..
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SirInfamous: What exactly did I get "debunked" on? There is no Debunking Kemp's diagram you stupid Mongoloid wigger.
LOL @ your silly ad-hominem name-calling. Okay "mongoloid" I get but "wigger"?? I'm not white nor do I wannabe be black! LOL
As for your question on what exactly you got debunked on, my only answer is look above my post at what Zarahan pointed out! Ha! Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
White Nord
A banned big lipped primate
Member # 14093
posted
Chandrasekar et al. (2007), Shi et al. (2008), and Hai (2008) indicate that the entire E haplogroup is of Asian origin ….“By labeling E3b “African,” we risk ignoring the very historical and genetic complexity, diversity and unusual population distribution of the E3b group as a whole. (November 2008 Ellen Coffman) Clearly labeling all E3b “black African” and or “African Neolithic” is nothing more than lies about the history of this lineage. Some European lineages are derived from “Central Asian” Paleolithic haplogroup R, yet no one calls R lineages in Europe Central Asian and those who are classified as “Asian” did not give rise to Europeans but rather that ancient proto-Europeans inhabited such areas as the Middle East, Asia, North Africa, etc.
Posts: 219 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by White Nord: Chandrasekar et al. (2007), Shi et al. (2008), and Hai (2008) indicate that the entire E haplogroup is of Asian origin ….“By labeling E3b “African,” we risk ignoring the very historical and genetic complexity, diversity and unusual population distribution of the E3b group as a whole. (November 2008 Ellen Coffman) Clearly labeling all E3b “black African” and or “African Neolithic” is nothing more than lies about the history of this lineage. Some European lineages are derived from “Central Asian” Paleolithic haplogroup R, yet no one calls R lineages in Europe Central Asian and those who are classified as “Asian” did not give rise to Europeans but rather that ancient proto-Europeans inhabited such areas as the Middle East, Asia, North Africa, etc.
**Yawn** This was already flaunted and refuted after a poster who goes by the name of "debunker" decided to delude himself by posting it here....
Btw, as you should already know the E haplogroup makes up most of the African continents Y chromosome, so basically what you're trying to say is that they are all actually Asian, and not African?
What bizarre fantasy planet do you live on? Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ But that is the only Argument they have. ANY argument they try to create to promote a Non Black Ancient Egypt always ends with "Blacks basically being whites" and all Africans really coming from Asia.
Diop even said that in the 70's, the only way you can say Egyptians were "white" is "If we come to the absurd conclusion that blacks are basically whites."
Even if Haplogroup E comes from Asia that has NOTHING to do with White people.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Indeed. Science has proven that Egyptians are genetically African so in order to white-wash Egyptians using genetics, the next 'logical' step in this illogical quest is to white-wash all Africans! So all dumb white racists like WhiteNerd who do this, just shoot themselves in the face! Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
White Nord
A banned big lipped primate
Member # 14093
posted
Some European lineages are derived from “Central Asian” Paleolithic haplogroup R, yet no one calls R lineages in Europe Central Asian and those who are classified as “Asian” did not give rise to Europeans but rather that ancient proto-Europeans inhabited such areas as the Middle East, Asia, North Africa, etc.
Posts: 219 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
In this simplified model, the migrations postulated to have populated Europe are estimated to have occurred at an early date (30,000 years ago), but it is impossible to distinguish, on the basis of these data, this model from that of several migrations at different times. The overall contributions from Asia and Africa were estimated to be around two-thirds and one-third, respectively. Simulations have shown (7) that this hypothesis explains quite well the discrepancy between trees obtained by maximum likelihood and neighbor joining. --Cavalli Sforza Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by White Nord: Some European lineages are derived from “Central Asian” Paleolithic haplogroup R, yet no one calls R lineages in Europe Central Asian and those who are classified as “Asian” did not give rise to Europeans but rather that ancient proto-Europeans inhabited such areas as the Middle East, Asia, North Africa, etc.
What the hell is a "proto European"? That whole CONCEPT is LAME. Are those same "Proto Europeans" also "Proto Americans" because they also "gave rise" to them TOO? Are some Africans "Proto American" as well because they came to America?
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
White Nord
A banned big lipped primate
Member # 14093
posted
Maternal lineages of Semitic- (Amharic, Tigrinya, and Gurage) and Cu****ic- (Oromo and Afar) speaking populations studied here reveal that their mtDNA pool is a nearly equal composite of sub-Saharan and western Eurasian lineages. This finding, consistent with classic genetic-marker studies (Cavalli-Sforza 1997) and previous mtDNA results, is also in agreement with a similarly high proportion of western Asian Y chromosomes in Ethiopians (Passarino et al. 1998; Semino et al. 2002), which supports the view (Richards et al. 2003) that the observed admixture between sub-Saharan African and, most probably, western Asian ancestors of the Ethiopian populations applies to their gene pool in general. (Am. J. Hum. Genet., 75:000, 2004)
You scary bitches
Posts: 219 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK We KNOW Some Africans have Admixture, we got that. What does that have to do with Anything? Have you NOTICED the TREND that those that have that admixture share features with THOSE THAT DONT! East, West, North and South. What do you think that means?
How many Middle Easterners have Admixture via African Y and MTDNA? : A LOT! How many Europeans have Admixture from Y African Y and MTDNA? :A LOT. How many "Non-Africans" are really just "Africans" with a "Differnent Name"? : ALL OF THEM! - What is your Point?
Many of those so called "Eurasian" genes that you are talking about in East African have been there long before Europe was even populated and WAY before Africans "in Europe" developed their own "Regional Clades" of "African Mutations" such as E-M78 (variant 13)
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
White Nord
A banned big lipped primate
Member # 14093
posted
“Since early Neolithic times there existed two distinct but closely related types, a northern in Middle Egypt and a southern in Upper Egypt. The southern Egyptians were distinguished from the northerners by a smaller cranial index, a larger nasal index and greater prognathism. The geographical distinction between the two groups continued during the Pre-Dynastic Period. The Upper Egyptians, however, spread into lower Nubia during that period. By the beginning of the Dynastic era the northern Egyptian type is encountered for the first time in the Thebaïd, i.e., in the southern territory. The incursion, however, seems to have been transitory and the effects of the co-existence of the two types in one locality remained very transient until the 18th Dynasty. From this time onwards the northern type prevailed all over Egypt, as far south as Denderah, till the end of the Roman period... In Lower Nubia a slight infiltration of negroid influence is observed during the Middle Kingdom times. In the New Empire period, however, the southern Egyptian type prevails again. After the New Empire a fresh and much stronger negro influence becomes discernable till the end of the Roman period…The study of the available measurements of the living [Egyptians], however, apparently suggests that the modern population all over Egypt conforms more closely to the southern type. (“The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute” Batrawi page 131-156)
B]So much for the "southern type" that is supposed to look like negroids. If Egyptians are supposedly closer to southern types, and Egyptians in the main are not negroid, then the southern type is obviously not negroid. What Batrawi shows is that the southern type is related to the northern type but still distinguishable due to a “smaller cranial index, a larger nasal index and greater prognathism” what this shows is that the southern type must have been hybrids. Batrawi elaborates that “in Lower Nubia a slight infiltration of negroid influence is observed during Middle Kingdom times.” Therefore if Lower Nubia was already assumed to be completely negroid to begin with previous to the MK, why would there only be a slight infiltration of negroid influence during the MK? The fact remains, Nubia was a similar population to Egypt and only experienced a slight infiltration of negroid influence. Northern Egyptians lacked a “small cranial, nasal index and prognathism” hence were of more pure stock “and prevailed all over Egypt.”[/B]
Posts: 219 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
White Nord
A banned big lipped primate
Member # 14093
posted
"The hypothesis of a sub Saharan origin of the Ibero-Maurussians in the Sahara is not supported by our results, which show a population more typical of the Mediterranean in North Africa for the past 12,000 years. Our results support the work based on cranio-facial and dental studies showing difference between Ibero-Maurussians and their contemporaries in the Sudan. The presence of a sub Saharan component in North Africa is due to migrations after 12,000 BP.” (“Mitochondrial diversity in the Taforalt population (circa 12,000 BP, Morocco): a genetic approach to the study of the peopling of North Africa.” Rym Kefi, Alain Stevanovitch, Eric Bo
Posts: 219 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by White Nord: (“The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute” Batrawi page 131-156)
**Yawn** again! You're outdated....
"There is now a sufficient body of evidence from modern studies of skeletal remains to indicate that the ancient Egyptians, especially southern Egyptians, exhibited physical characteristics that are within the range of variation for ancient and modern indigenous peoples of the Sahara and tropical Africa. In general, the inhabitants of Upper Egypt and Nubia had the greatest biological affinity to people of the Sahara and more southerly areas." (Nancy C. Lovell, " Egyptians, physical anthropology of," in Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, ed. Kathryn A. Bard and Steven Blake Shubert, ( London and New York Routledge, 1999) pp 328-332)
posted
“We show that the main indigenous North African cluster is a sister group to the most ancient cluster of European mtDNAs, from which it diverged »50,000 years ago.” (“The Emerging Tree of West Eurasian mtDNAs: A Synthesis of Control-Region Sequences and RFLPs” Institute of Molecular Medicine, University of Oxford)
“Unlike other North Africans, Egyptians are closer to East than to West Africans. (Note that, if Eurasian haplogroups were included, North and West Africans would be much more clearly distinguished, since, in the former, the major contribution is from European and Near Eastern mtDNAs (Rando et al. 1999) (“The Making of the African mtDNA Landscape” Antonio Salas 2002)
“North Africa has had a distinct history, oriented more towards the Mediterranean, since the late Pleistocene.” (“The Making of the African mtDNA Landscape” Antonio Salas et. Al. 2002)
“North African populations are considered genetically closer to Eurasians than to sub-Saharans.” (“Female gene pools of Berber and Arab neighboring communities in central Tunisia: microstructure of mtDNA variation in North Africa Human Biology2005”)
“…markers signaling the Neolithic expansion from the Middle East (12f2, M201, and M35 derivatives) constitute the predominant component in these two Afro-Asiatic populations…12f2 and the M201…are Eurasian in origin… reinforce the idea that the migratory movements between Eurasia and Africa involving these chromosomes occurred mainly across the Levantine corridor.” (“The Levant versus the Horn of Africa: Evidence for Bidirectional Corridors of Human Migrations” J. R. Luis et al, 2003)
M35 originates in the M.E. according to recent studies.
Posts: 219 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by White Nord: "The hypothesis of a sub Saharan origin of the Ibero-Maurussians in the Sahara is not supported by our results, which show a population more typical of the Mediterranean in North Africa for the past 12,000 years. Our results support the work based on cranio-facial and dental studies showing difference between Ibero-Maurussians and their contemporaries in the Sudan. The presence of a sub Saharan component in North Africa is due to migrations after 12,000 BP.” (“Mitochondrial diversity in the Taforalt population (circa 12,000 BP, Morocco): a genetic approach to the study of the peopling of North Africa.” Rym Kefi, Alain Stevanovitch, Eric Bo
What the hell do Pleistocene Maghrebians have to do with ancient Egypt?
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by White Nord: [QB] “Since early Neolithic times there existed two distinct but closely related types, a northern in Middle Egypt and a southern in Upper Egypt. The southern Egyptians were distinguished from the northerners by a smaller cranial index, a larger nasal index and greater prognathism. The geographical distinction between the two groups continued during the Pre-Dynastic Period. The Upper Egyptians, however, spread into lower Nubia during that period. By the beginning of the Dynastic era the northern Egyptian type is encountered for the first time in the Thebaïd, i.e., in the southern territory. The incursion, however, seems to have been transitory and the effects of the co-existence of the two types in one locality remained very transient until the 18th Dynasty. From this time onwards the northern type prevailed all over Egypt, as far south as Denderah, till the end of the Roman period... In Lower Nubia a slight infiltration of negroid influence is observed during the Middle Kingdom times. In the New Empire period, however, the southern Egyptian type prevails again. After the New Empire a fresh and much stronger negro influence becomes discernable till the end of the Roman period…The study of the available measurements of the living [Egyptians], however, apparently suggests that the modern population all over Egypt conforms more closely to the southern type. (“The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute” Batrawi page 131-156)
Nord, babe, once again your own references are destroying your argument. Your Batawri reference is from 1946, a but outdated. (A.Batrawi 1946, 'The Racial History of Egypt and Nubia'. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 76)
But let's give you the benefit of the doubt and accept your Batrawi refererence as is. Sadly, your own reference kills your argument once again. Quote:
"The southern Egyptians were distinguished from the northerners by a smaller cranial index, a larger nasal index and greater prognathism."
Right away those characteristics speak of darker skinned tropical types, aka the 'Negroid' variant which appears in both brown and black skinned models, with varying facial features. Then your reference goes on to say that so-called "Negroid" influence shows up in the New Kingdom era. This would be expected depending on the years analyzed, such as the influence of the 25th Dynasty took over, or the closer trade, political and cultural links Nubia and Egypt. Indeed according to some authors (Bianchi 2004) the Nubians in some eras of the New Kingdom are almost indistinguishable from the Egyptians) This pattern kills Aryan attempts to claim or insinuate that said 'negroids' are recent additions to Egypt. They were there from the beginning and are thus hardly "new". Batarwi already says that in the early era to the dynasties said "negroid" types show prominently. So we have prominent 'negroid' types there at the beginning, and we see plenty of them also by the tail end New Kingdom. Conservative Egyptologist Frank Yurco 1989 also shows them in the Middle Kingdom. Indeed Yurco (1989) notes that one of the greatest Dynasties in Egytian hsitroy, the 12th, had pharoahs of Nubian and Southern origin. The data thus shows that said "darker" types were not newcomers, but were pretty entrenched across the board and not anything "new"...
But even more damaging, note the last line of your own reference: quote:
The study of the available measurements of the living [Egyptians], however, apparently suggests that the modern population all over Egypt conforms more closely to the southern type.
The author is talking of modern Egyptian populations, and limb length studies put them closer to African populations and African derived African populations than to whites. Don't you see? Your own reference puts Egyptians closer to blacks than whites. Follow-up research all the way up to the present day, c.2008, also shows the same pattern for the ANCIENT Egyptians.
Alack and Alas..
You have failed once again "Nord" by your very own references..
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
The fool contradicts himself also! First he claims that E is Eurasian, then he flips to say that East Africans are a mixture of Eurasian paternal lineages and African maternal lineages! I thought since E is Eurasian then *all* Sub-Saharans are Eurasian in the first place??!
It's also hilarious how he tries to exaggerate the Eurasian paternal lineages in East Africa like J, K, and L, even though they are actually quite minimal compared to say the African paternal lineages in Southwest Asia & Europe!
Cavilli Sforza-- Europeans are 1/3 African...
Calling East Africans "mixed" is like a quadraplegic calling a person with severed nerves in one foot "paralyzed". LOLPosts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: I think what has to be acknowledged now is that geneticisists have again revived "hamitic theory" in refusing to acknowledge the fact that certain populations of obvious African derivation were once predominant in North Africa or the Maghreb, Europe and Eurasia during the Pleistocene and up unti lthe Bronze Age.
In fact even Coon had noted that the elongated types in Northern Egypt in the Fayum, and Elmenteitan Kenya were linked to the European Swiss lakes neolithic culture, megalithic longbarrows and Kurgan peoples of Eurasia. This is something that has been also implied by Brace's work who had also acknowledged these had no affiliation with most of the modern inhabitants of Europe.
Unless geneticists begin to acknowledge the black presence in Eurasia we will continue to have people presuming that the modern roundheaded or lateral headed Eurasians are a large part of the gene pool of the ultra dolichocephalic black people representing their ancient predecessors, i.e. the original Eurasiatics.
This lack of distinction by geneticists either purposefully or most likely out of ignorance is what gives grounds for non-scientists like whiteNord and Mathilda to come back and say blacks are basically largely white Eurasians, and for thinking modern North African whites or near whites are representatives of ancient Pleistocene Eurasians and their ancient Pleistocene North African relatives. When in fact black long-headed East AFricans are more representative of ancient North AFrican and Eurasitic populations.
The peoples of the Fayum representing the so-called "Northern Egyptian type" was allied to the Fulani and other elongated Africans who are classified as less "Negroid" craniofacially than the shorter gracile southern Egyptian Badarians-Amratians were. Both were obviously "black African" but neither are termed "sub-Saharan" by white academics as they are allied to East Africans, This is due to the lingering of "hamitic" and "Mediterranean race" theory.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
[QUOTE]Originally posted by zarahan: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by White Nord: [QB] “Since early Neolithic times there existed two distinct but closely related types, a northern in Middle Egypt and a southern in Upper Egypt. The southern Egyptians were distinguished from the northerners by a smaller cranial index, a larger nasal index and greater prognathism. The geographical distinction between the two groups continued during the Pre-Dynastic Period. The Upper Egyptians, however, spread into lower Nubia during that period. By the beginning of the Dynastic era the northern Egyptian type is encountered for the first time in the Thebaïd, i.e., in the southern territory. The incursion, however, seems to have been transitory and the effects of the co-existence of the two types in one locality remained very transient until the 18th Dynasty. From this time onwards the northern type prevailed all over Egypt, as far south as Denderah, till the end of the Roman period... In Lower Nubia a slight infiltration of negroid influence is observed during the Middle Kingdom times..." [QUOTE]
It is easy to see that even Northern Nubia was not Negroid in ancient times for these kinds of scholars. They have a special idea of what Negroid is. They are relying on hamitic theory which said that ancient peoples of Kerma, A-groups C group etc were not Negroid. Of course, that means the true Negroid for modern white scholars is the National Geographic stereotype of "the Negro" and or what Somalis call "the Bantu".
"Negroid" means anyone with strong prognathism and platyrrhine nasal index as in writings of Coon. But even Coon considered the small gracile Mediterranean types of Egypt and Europe as possessing with a strong Negroid craniofacial aspect - so evidently things have have taken a turn for the worse.
Now Nubians were not even black Africans except for some incoming Negroes in the Middle Kingdom. Take that, National Geographic!
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since some IDIOT duplicated this topic, I say why not bring the original back?! Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've been on mathilda's blog, and she claims that somalis and ethios are closer to arabs/euros than our west african brothers and sisters. Yet isn't it possible that the euros(who mutated and appeared later on) have somali genes and that these so called "caucasoid" features are just extensions of indigenous somali features and thus african?? Is it just me who is deeply insulted by this trickery to divide African people into useless categories to divide them!?
Posts: 6 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^ Mathilda's blog is worse than that, unless you have jet black skin and blubber lips you are not "Black" in her book, and she is very selective with her pics. She usesu only the lightest Egyptians. Also she holds that the Tut and Tyie Busts are Damaged to look Black, yet she goes on about "doctored" images but can only show ONE example.
She won't debate her becuase she will lose plain and simple, all the cards are stacked against her.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
How can anyone not feel sorry for you. You come on this forum posting the EXACT same nonsense that was refuted the first time you came on this forum. You have no explanations for the studies that are posted by me, Mindover, and Morpehus. You don't even know where to start when it comes to these studies. All you have is that one lonely bust that you think trumps scientific facts. How can anyone not feel sorry for you. Your a sad case.
Peace
Greetings.
***raises hand***
I can! and very easily, I might add...
htp
Posts: 3446 | From: U.S. by way of JA by way of Africa | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Indeed, that is why I call her Simpleton Girl. She is just a harmless simpleton, she is no bother at all.
quote:Originally posted by Can_ar: I've been on mathilda's blog, and she claims that somalis and ethios are closer to arabs/euros than our west african brothers and sisters. Yet isn't it possible that the euros(who mutated and appeared later on) have somali genes and that these so called "caucasoid" features are just extensions of indigenous somali features and thus african?? Is it just me who is deeply insulted by this trickery to divide African people into useless categories to divide them!?
LOL Actually the situation is far worse. You see all Eurasians are descended from a subset of East Africans, but such genetic descent took place during the Paleolithic around 50-65 thousand years ago. However, it has been recently discovered that a third of Europeans especially those in southern Europe along the Mediterranean carry paternal lineages that ARE associated with East Africans like Ethiopians and Somalis but that these lineages entered Europe as recently as the Neolithic about 6-8 thousand years ago! Arabia is right next to Africa, so really there isn't much difference between East Africans and indigenous Arabians to begin with.
quote:Originally posted by Jari-Ankhamun: ^^^ Mathilda's blog is worse than that, unless you have jet black skin and blubber lips you are not "Black" in her book, and she is very selective with her pics. She uses only the lightest Egyptians. Also she holds that the Tut and Tiye Busts are Damaged to look Black, yet she goes on about "doctored" images but can only show ONE example.
Oh yes, the silly "true negro" notion where only blacks of a certain look represent the black 'race' but then the "caucasian" race is so diverse, it is represented by a variety of looks from Europeans to North and East Africans, to Southwest Asians, to South Asians, etc. etc.
She may consider North and East Africans to be "brothers" in her blog, but I doubt that's the case in real life, especially knowing the situation with African immigrant communities and gangs in not only the UK but the rest of Europe. I like to see how she'd act if she encountered a Somali Abdul in a dark night. Do you think she'll welcome him as a brotha Abdul? LOL
quote:She won't debate her because she will lose plain and simple, all the cards are stacked against her.
Of course! Why do you think she is too scared to come debate us here, and if we attempt to debate her in her own forum she will just ban us? You think that if she was confident in her claims, she would at least attempt to refute us, but no.
I agree with Bob, she is just a dumb housewife with too much time in her hands. You think with the declining birthrate in her country she would 'busy' herself by having children. LOLPosts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
[/QB]![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
and very easily, I might add... 
Printer-friendly view of this topic