posted
Chandrasekar et al. (2007), Shi et al. (2008), and Hai (2008) indicate that the entire E haplogroup is of Asian origin. Can anyone explain this study and what does it mean.
Posts: 163 | From: United States | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
HAHA! What does it mean?! You know what it means. Why not just concede to the obvious, instead of CONSTANTLY trying to rationalize the errors in defunct Afrocentrism? Afrocentrism is in its final throes (LOL).
-------------------- Will destroy all Black Lies Posts: 2025 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by StTigray: Chandrasekar et al. (2007), Shi et al. (2008), and Hai (2008) indicate that the entire E haplogroup is of Asian origin. Can anyone explain this study and what does it mean.
Sweetie
It means you are Asiatic!
Lion!
Posts: 7419 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
One of those studies were debunked by Hammer et al. (2008), another (Shi, 2008) makes no such claim, and I'm not familiar with the Hai study but this certainly isn't a widely held view. In fact, such a view is in the EXTREME minority. It's illogical to make this argument not simply because how old E is now known to be (see Hammer, 2008) but because the implications are non-existent. The ancestors of Africans are E-carriers. 75% of Africans so geography makes no difference as it is an African haplogroup. The vast majority of the descendants of E live in Africa, so it is associated with them (Africans). I don't care where it first emerged 50,000 years ago, rather 3 steps out of Africa or deep with in the interior, it is still owned by Africans as it comes from THEIR ancestors. Nor does it negate the relationships Africans shared with each other due to this common lineage (from ancient Egypt to modern south Africa). In any event, haplogroup E emerged in Africa and the only debate is among nazi-forum losers and lame duck race weirdos. .
-------------------- mr.writer.asa@gmail.com Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
They are desperate. Even the new study that says NON-AFRICANs have Neanderthal / non human ancestry:
If Haplogroup E originated from a NON AFRICAN population that had Neanderthal Ancestry then it would have been passed to the Majority of Africans who are of Haplogroup E.
The fact that Africans were found WITHOUT the non-human/Neanderthal admixture shows that Haplogroup E developed among them.
Neanderthal is of the Y-dna M89 (Haplogroup F) people and possible Hap C people. Just based on their "anything but African" Neanderthal nonsense it is quite clear that Haplogroups A, BR, B, CR, CT, DE and E.............All have origins in Africa. These Idiots are grasping at straws, just last month there is another study that found 6 more DE* samples from Nigeria.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
@ Lion. BTW. St Tigray is a guy. . .see ESR
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
INDUS VALLEY (Before Brits divided it into India and Pakistan so they'd crystallize into protagonists at each other's throats so as to make exploitation of the land easier:
quote:Originally posted by Gigantic: HAHA! What does it mean?! You know what it means. Why not just concede to the obvious, instead of CONSTANTLY trying to rationalize the errors in defunct Afrocentrism? Afrocentrism is in its final throes (LOL).
No it would mean that the Natufian people of the Levant, who clearly had Sub-Saharan affinities, migrated down the Nile and into Sub-Saharan Africa.
It would mean that the Bible's version of humanity is correct and that Blacks lived in Summer/Mesopatamia.
It would be very interesting if Haplogroup E was not African.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^That is the hurdle the Afrocentrists cant get over. They cannot accept the fact that Africa produced more phoenotypes than the Negro phoenotype; and in the realm of racial taxonomy, that would imply more than one race.
Posts: 1340 | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
What you two clowns fail to realize is that none of those studies say anything of the sort, I.e., that the whole E haplogroup is of Asian origin, what one of them propose is not to call the derived E lineages found in SW Asia and Europe African anymore since they mutated into their own subclade of the E haplogroup, but regardless of this desperate cry for separation, they can't, and fail. The E haplogroup is African and makes up most of the Y chromosomes found throughout Africa, so if the E haplogroup is not African, then most of Africa is not African. Go figure.
And the more than one phenotype nonsense, is actually what you idiots can not get over, it's actually those like you who think true Africans only have the "negroid" phenotype, and that all other Africans that do not are mixed with SW Asians and/or Europeans.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Uh wrong. Africa hosts many phoenotypes. The problem is YOU TURDS try to take that fact and twist it into -- Negroes have many phoenotypes. Africa is one of the couple of continents to have produced different "racial" stocks, if you will (African Caucasian is one of them).
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: actually those like you who think true Africans only have the "negroid" phenotype,
quote:Originally posted by Confirming Truth: Uh wrong. Africa hosts many phoenotypes.
Correct, where did I say that it didn't?
quote:Originally posted by Confirming Truth: The problem is YOU TURDS try to take that fact and twist it into -- Negroes have many phoenotypes.
Nope, it's actually that indigenous tropical Africans have many phenotypes. Btw, what is a "Negroe"?
quote:Originally posted by Confirming Truth: Africa is one of the couple of continents to have produced different "racial" stocks, if you will
Actually in the scientific community there is no such thing as racial stocks, and this has been shown time and again, unless you can prove there is a uniform phenotype and genotype amongst these "stocks" , and that they do not overlap genetically or phenotypically with other "stocks" and that these particular "stocks" are sub-species of one another, than you have no case.
The above is what is needed to identify races, so far all of the old racial taxonomies have been debunked, sorry.
quote:Originally posted by Confirming Truth: (African Caucasian is one of them).
Now that's a laugh.
Are you saying the above man received his thin nose and face from Caucasoids as the outdated author Carleton Coon once did?
Note;
The Story of Man Carleton Coon
p 196-197 Borzoi Books, 1965
Few skeletons have been found in the Sahara, and these are hard to date because of soil erosion. In Arabia prehistoric archaeology has barely been started. Yet we can be reasonably confident, until other evidence upsets the theory, that these deserts were the home of the slender variety of Caucasoid man. In East Africa this type has survived among the slender, narrow-faced Watusi and other cattle people.
^^Now if you do say they came from wandering "Caucasoids" then how come these wandering "Caucasoids" didn't pass on the skin genes for lighter pigmentation as is obvious amongst more northern coastal Africans where the SLC24A5 derived allele is significantly present (60-100%) in geographically proximate populations in north Africa, and how come the limb proportions of these Africans were not affected in any way instead are still considered to be extremely tropically adapted, while those coastal north Africans are intermediate between Europeans and S.S.A's?
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^What I am saying is in North Africa you will find the caucasoid African, while in sub saharan you will find the Negro African. How is that hard to understand?
Posts: 1340 | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Confirming Truth: ^^What I am saying is in North Africa you will find the caucasoid African,
As I noted above, the individual in the picture I posted was considered to be a "Caucasoid", but here's the thing, he has no connections to anyone from the Caucasus mountains. He has no non African ancestry, and is actually a Bantu speaking African. You know Bantu, the ones you think is synonymous with Negroid?
Here's the thing "Caucasoid" is a debunked antiquated term, because these features such as thin noses, lips, or orthognous profiles didn't come out of the Caucasus mountains and spread out from there as once was believed which is where you're relying on your use of the term, but instead you can find these features throughout the world, including Africa, as I have just shown you, and it has nothing at all to do with admixture from the groups most commonly identified as "Caucasoids"
Unless you can prove otherwise.
quote:Originally posted by Confirming Truth: while in sub saharan you will find the Negro African. How is that hard to understand?
What is "Negro African"? Would you consider the man I posted to be one? How about Ethiopians, Somalians, Sudanese or Eritreans? Are they Negro Africans? Because they also come from S.S.A. you know.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
What's your take on the extreme tropical adaptations of the ancient Egyptians being displayed from pre-dynastic throughout all dynasties?
I say this because you seem to be an individual who might like to equate modern Egyptians who resemble SW Asians and coastal north Africans as being most closest to ancient Egyptians when in fact these populations from coastal north Africa and SW Asia do not exhibit these tropical adaptations, in fact coastal north Africans exhibit intermediate body plans between Europeans and S.S.A'. While the ancient Egyptians exhibited extreme tropical adaptations wherein their brachial and crural indices were actually higher than in many S.S.A populations.
You might try to throw in "Caucasoid" features, but you forget about populations like the Tutsis, Ethiopians, Somalis etc...who also exhibit these so called "Caucasoid" features, and are commonly referred to as "Caucasoids" by the erroneous scholars, but these African populations such as Tutsis, Somalians etc.. also exhibit these extreme tropical adaptations, and some of the darkest skin in Africa and in fact genetically are African.
So what's your take? Let's hope you use logic to confirm the truth.
Let's just say for example you think these so called "Caucasoid" features in the indigenous African populations I mentioned came from wandering "Caucasoids", then how come these wandering "Caucasoids" didn't pass on the skin genes for lighter pigmentation as is obvious amongst more northern coastal Africans where the SLC24A5 derived allele is significantly present (60-100%) in geographically proximate populations in north Africa, and how come the limb proportions of these indigenous Africans were not affected in any way instead are still considered to be extremely tropically adapted, while those coastal north Africans are intermediate between Europeans and S.S.A's?
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The term is not outmoded. It is still used in anthropology. You are mis-informed sir. The term is used to denote a phoenotype. Look up physical anthropology to see the term/concept is still valid and in use.
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: Here's the thing "Caucasoid" is a debunked antiquated term,
posted
I just showed you how the terminology is flawed and hence debunked and outdated, unless you can prove that the individual I posted has any connections to the Caucasus you're debunked as well. Yes the term is used to denote a phenotype but the term is misleading since people around the world including indigenous tropically adapted S.S. Africans have these features and has nothing at all to do with people from the Caucasus mountains which is where you rely on your use of the term. Sorry but its false. Use your own logic to evaluate this, if you have any.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Go write to the anthropological society and petition them to dis-continue its use, because you say it is invalid ::insert sarcasm::
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: I just showed you how the terminology is flawed and hence debunked and outdated, unless you can prove that the individual I posted has any connections to the Caucasus you're debunked as well. Yes the term is used to denote a phenotype but the term is misleading since people around the world including indigenous tropically adapted S.S. Africans have these features and has nothing at all to do with people from the Caucasus mountains which is where you rely on your use of the term. Sorry but its false. Use your own logic to evaluate this, if you have any.
posted
You know something I've always wondered? If narrow faced, thin lipped, and prominent nosed Africans are "Caucasoid" despite what their color might be, does that make broad faced, short nosed and thick lipped Europeans "Negroid" no matter their color?
Posts: 26 | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JarHed: You know something I've always wondered? If narrow faced, thin lipped, and prominent nosed Africans are "Caucasoid" despite what their color might be, does that make broad faced, short nosed and thick lipped Europeans "Negroid" no matter their color?
Good point and an obvious contradiction with those fixated on this "race" nonsense.
Like the individual above you that just doesn't get how these terms are misleading.
Since as shown to him, was an indigenous tropical African with the so called "Caucasoid" features, with no ties to anyone from the Caucasus or any non Africans for that matter, yet this deluded individual still insists on using this outdated term.
Which as also shown to him has no use in biological anthropology when in comes to identifying "race" since "race" doesn't exist in biological anthropology.
To him if a forensic anthropologist found the individual (that I posted) remains, and identified him as a "Caucasoid", like many old physical anthropologists have done in the past, he would believe it, regardless of the evidence to the contrary and the DNA which also speaks otherwise.
He fails to realize that all the individual scholars who've tried to promote "race" have always fell short in adequately proving that there is a uniform phenotype and genotype amongst these "races" , and that they do not overlap genetically or phenotypically with other "races" and that these particular "races" are sub-species of one another.
Confirming truth? Lol yea ok, go figure.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
No response on the matter "confirming truth"?
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: @ Confirming truth
What's your take on the extreme tropical adaptations of the ancient Egyptians being displayed from pre-dynastic throughout all dynasties?
I say this because you seem to be an individual who might like to equate modern Egyptians who resemble SW Asians and coastal north Africans as being most closest to ancient Egyptians when in fact these populations from coastal north Africa and SW Asia do not exhibit these tropical adaptations, in fact coastal north Africans exhibit intermediate body plans between Europeans and S.S.A'. While the ancient Egyptians exhibited extreme tropical adaptations wherein their brachial and crural indices were actually higher than in many S.S.A populations.
You might try to throw in "Caucasoid" features, but you forget about populations like the Tutsis, Ethiopians, Somalis etc...who also exhibit these so called "Caucasoid" features, and are commonly referred to as "Caucasoids" by the erroneous scholars, but these African populations such as Tutsis, Somalians etc.. also exhibit these extreme tropical adaptations, and some of the darkest skin in Africa and in fact genetically are African.
So what's your take? Let's hope you use logic to confirm the truth.
Let's just say for example you think these so called "Caucasoid" features in the indigenous African populations I mentioned came from wandering "Caucasoids", then how come these wandering "Caucasoids" didn't pass on the skin genes for lighter pigmentation as is obvious amongst more northern coastal Africans where the SLC24A5 derived allele is significantly present (60-100%) in geographically proximate populations in north Africa, and how come the limb proportions of these indigenous Africans were not affected in any way instead are still considered to be extremely tropically adapted, while those coastal north Africans are intermediate between Europeans and S.S.A's?
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't really think that the origin of the term Caucasian is important to it's definition, so I wouldn't mind a population with no history at all in the Caucasus being called Caucasian. My problem with these terms is that there is no real set definition, it just means whatever the person using it wants it to mean. Many Africans in terms of their facial features are far more Caucasoid than many northern Europeans, having noses and chins of far greater prominence as well as longer faces. In my opinion facial shape is utterly worthless for identifying a population as any race. Genetics are the best option and they don't show any clear separation between races so I just consider a population to be a member of a race if it's well within whatever genetic cluster that race supposedly is.
Posts: 26 | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^So in other words you're clueless and don't how to think for yourself, I understand. Especially since as explained the term Caucasian implies that said features came out of the Caucasus mountains (unless one can prove anatomically modern humans arose in the Caucasus mountains or said features did, which they didn't) and that everyone who has these said features around the world received them from individuals coming from the Caucasus mountains. Makes no sense, and the term like "Negroid" is totally misleading.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
The same principle of "congruent phenotype" can be applied to Africa and East Asia[South East Asia especially]. Just darken the pigmentation of East Asians, shave their hair and you have congruence with a variant of the African phenotype.
So what should we say of those East Asians? LOL "Negroid" phenotype? Or of the Africans "Mongoloid" phenotype?
In truth, the silly claim that anthropologists make about labeling certain Africans is not much more than childish narcissism.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
No it would mean that the Natufian people of the Levant, who clearly had Sub-Saharan affinities, migrated down the Nile and into Sub-Saharan Africa.
You may have this backwards. It is more likely that the Natufians were originally from SSA and migrated into the Levant, and from there, picked up other Asiatic strands over time before migrating into Europe to help usher in various aspects of the Neolithic. Hence Brace 2005 shows the Natufians linking with NIGER-CONGO types, and shows the incoming Neolithic into Europe had African tropically adapted features.
It would mean that the Bible's version of humanity is correct and that Blacks lived in Summer/Mesopatamia.
I think this can be supported by multiple strands of ancient cranial, skeletal evidence. And of course Sumeria/Mesopotamia is in the arid tropic zone and the peoples there show clear links to tropically adapted African peoples on multiple counts.
US anthropologist Carleton Coon, a supporter of southern racial segregation, and relied on heavily by human biodiversity "HBD" types, asserted that the ancient Sumerians bore close resemblance to Englishmen, as shown in his quote below, but modern scholars have long dismissed his ramblings.
It would mean that the Bible's version of humanity is correct and that Blacks lived in Summer/Mesopatamia.
Moses' roundup of the Sons of Ham "hot" or "multitude"), shows these peoples were all related, something being increasingly confirmed by modern science.
-- Mizraim ("Egypt") - Egypt. Interestingly, one of the descendants of Mizraim are the Ludim ("firebrand") spoken of as "those that handle the bow.) A reference to certain tribes of Nubia renowned for archery? Jeremiah 46:9- "let the mighty men go forth: Cush and Phut that handle the shield, and the Ludim that handle the bow."
-- Cush ('Black') - Sudan, Mesopotamia/Ethiopia and perhaps adjoining areas across the Red Sea
-- Phut ('Bow') perhaps Libya or Somalia. Referred to as "those than handle the shield"
-- Caanan ("trader" or "lowland") - the Levant, Palestine, Lebanon area, home of the Natufians
All of the above are linked as follows:
-- all are in the tropical/arid tropic zone -- all of the above are tropically adapted, with data lacking only on the Sumerians skeletally -- Cranial studies show similarities between all of the above peoples, from Egypt, to Sumeria, to Iran -- They speak the Afro Asiatic or geographically adjacent languages/language groups -- haplogroup E links incorporates all of the above
Thus it can be argued that the grouping of Moses as to the sons of Ham has been verified by modern science. Ezekiel 30:5 also considers all these people to be related: "Cush, and Phut, and Lud, and all the mingled people, and Chub.." Chub ("horde" or "cluster") is an unknown people who allied with Egypt. It seems clear that the Biblical ancients did not slice and dice these peoples into "races" as is common in the race obsessive European West, but considered them to be fundamentally related.
It is obvious that Moses would not be accepted by the "HBD" or even the "Aryan church" crowd for this grouping of peoples, just as he would bot be accepted by the denizens of Bob Jones University and elsewhere for his "interracial" marriage to an Ethiopian.
It would be very interesting if Haplogroup E was not African.
A) Asiatic origin is still shaky, overall and as to certain key mutations. Karafet, Hammer et al. 2008 shows Haplogroup E has a much older date than thought, but claimed 'Aryan" mutations are found in their ancestral state in African lineages effectively killing off HBD claims.
b) Even if it was, it would not make a dime's worth of difference. All of these strands derived from overall "B" coming out of Africa, including European weighted "R". But no one is running around saying "R" is "non European" because it derives from "B" Its major frequencies are found in Europe so logically it is sometimes called "European". However a different standard curiously applies to Africa. The main distribution of 'E" is in Africa, but suddenly, consistency is thrown out the window, and the ridiculous labeling double-standards and hypocrisy appear.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JarHed: I don't really think that the origin of the term Caucasian is important to it's definition,
How does this make sense? Would you walk around introducing yourself by the name stupid because you didnt care of the origin and definition?
quote:Originally posted by JarHed: so I wouldn't mind a population with no history at all in the Caucasus being called Caucasian.
The problem is as explained these features associated with said term "Caucasian" didn't arise in the Caucasus mountains hence the term is misleading, as you noted, Africans with more prominent features which are associated with "Caucasoid" simply debunks this erroneous categorization.
quote:Originally posted by JarHed: My problem with these terms is that there is no real set definition, it just means whatever the person using it wants it to mean.
Pretty much a good way to look at it, hence an easier way to understand why the notion of "race" with its arbitrary parameters is fallacious.
quote:Originally posted by JarHed: Genetics are the best option and they don't show any clear separation between races
Indeed, genetics would be the best option in demarcating races, I.e., a sub species.
But as you will note anatomically modern humans have not evolved long enough around the world to become their own sub species, just given the 60-80kya that we began to populate the world outside of Africa is not long enough, and the 160kya we were in Africa without going anywhere allowed for Africans to be both genetically and phenotypically diverse by the time some Africans left to successfully populate the world.
And also given the fact of the numerous population bottlenecks amongst these early ancestors of non Africans endured, which can discerned by the analyses of their limited diversity, genetically and phenotypically speaking.
Through this examination we note that non Africans decrease in diversity both genetically and phenotypically the further the population is from Africa, due to these population bottlenecks, since all non Africans descend from a subset of Africans
Which is why so many tend to hold on to the multi-regional theory which proposes that Homo Erectus who walked out of Africa and populated the world millions of years ago evolved into the populations you see around the world today, you can note how these modern dissenters still try to propagate the Neanderthal origin and/or admixture, since Homo Erectus evolved into Neanderthal in Eurasia.
But these attempts have failed, as you can see as of recently. Nothing but failed attempts by the few scholars who've tried to identify these "races".
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^ How do you see the so-called "splits" of racial divergence posited by some? Are you saying that by the time of the migrations out, there was not enough time to develop into so-called sub-species, allegedly "races"?
I keep running into this stuff. Any credible references showing that this so-called "split" into races never took place?
-------------------- 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 |
posted
My point was that the definition has changed from it's origin. Also I don't think anyone feels like coming up with a new word for it anyways so it no longer matters for a people to have any relationship at all to the Caucasus to be "Caucasian" because the definition is different now. Though technically the word is pretty meaningless. If such terms have to be used I use them to describe any group of people who can be reliably identified as such through genetics and have a somewhat closer genetic relationship to others who can be reliably identified as such.
Posts: 26 | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan: ^^ How do you see the so-called "splits" of racial divergence posited by some?
Erroneous
quote:Originally posted by zarahan: Are you saying that by the time of the migrations out, there was not enough time to develop into so-called sub-species, allegedly "races"?
Basically
quote:Originally posted by zarahan: I keep running into this stuff.
Where, and can you post it?
quote:Originally posted by zarahan: Any credible references showing that this so-called "split" into races never took place?
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: One of those studies were debunked by Hammer et al. (2008), another (Shi, 2008) makes no such claim, and I'm not familiar with the Hai study but this certainly isn't a widely held view. In fact, such a view is in the EXTREME minority. It's illogical to make this argument not simply because how old E is now known to be (see Hammer, 2008) but because the implications are non-existent. The ancestors of Africans are E-carriers. 75% of Africans so geography makes no difference as it is an African haplogroup. The vast majority of the descendants of E live in Africa, so it is associated with them (Africans). I don't care where it first emerged 50,000 years ago, rather 3 steps out of Africa or deep with in the interior, it is still owned by Africans as it comes from THEIR ancestors. Nor does it negate the relationships Africans shared with each other due to this common lineage (from ancient Egypt to modern south Africa). In any event, haplogroup E emerged in Africa and the only debate is among nazi-forum losers and lame duck race weirdos. .
Thanks for the explanation, Sundjata.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan: Originally posted by osirion:
No it would mean that the Natufian people of the Levant, who clearly had Sub-Saharan affinities, migrated down the Nile and into Sub-Saharan Africa.
You may have this backwards. It is more likely that the Natufians were originally from SSA and migrated into the Levant, and from there, picked up other Asiatic strands over time before migrating into Europe to help usher in various aspects of the Neolithic. Hence Brace 2005 shows the Natufians linking with NIGER-CONGO types, and shows the incoming Neolithic into Europe had African tropically adapted features.
Based on the evidence I believe you are right. However, a flood of Biblical proportions reportedly destroyed all human life on the planet and therefore the various humans types had to spread out from a location near Summer. This would make Haplogroup E look like it originated in Asia.
Now, I don't believe in a world wide flood or Noah. My faith is not in Moses. Perhaps that is a weaker faith than others but I tend to think that others misplace their faith. But if Haplogroup E really was Asiatic then I believe it lends more credence to the flood theory than what I have heard in the past. The fact that the Natufians or Canaanites have Sub-Saharan affinities already says a lot about the credibility of the Bible.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JarHed: My point was that the definition has changed from it's origin.
Really has it? So what is this new definition?
quote:Originally posted by JarHed: Also I don't think anyone feels like coming up with a new word for it
It's not that anyone doesn't feel like coming up with a new name for it, because they have, I.e., Hamites, it's actually that the majority of bio-antrhopologists have denounced these outdated terms due to their arbitrariness and limitation it puts on the human variation within Africa and around the world. Only a few minority still cling to these terms.
You'd be hard pressed to show otherwise.
quote:Originally posted by JarHed: anyways so it no longer matters for a people to have any relationship at all to the Caucasus to be "Caucasian" because the definition is different now.
It actually does, especially to the layman, you say someone is Caucasoid they automatically think "white", which is why the notion of black "Caucasians" of ancient Egypt is contradictory.
quote:Originally posted by JarHed: Though technically the word is pretty meaningless.
True.
quote:Originally posted by JarHed: If such terms have to be used
That's the point they don't have to be used, please give me an example of where it can be used in a fashion that is scientifically correct.
Genetics trump the study of cranio-facial characteristics, ten fold, genetics tell us these labels are erroneous. These outdated terms are only used by individuals who are not up to date with the bio-anthropological data which has shown these terms to be entirely misleading, and biased scholars who want to disconnect themselves from Africa.
quote:Originally posted by JarHed: I use them to describe any group of people who can be reliably identified as such through genetics
Oh yea? Pray tell what group can be identified as Caucasian through genetics other than people directly out of the Caucasus mountains? I don't understand.
quote:Originally posted by JarHed: and have a somewhat closer genetic relationship to others who can be reliably identified as such.
Please post these individuals that you feel can be reliably identified as related to "Caucasoids" genetically...thanks.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Confirming Truth: ^That is the hurdle the Afrocentrists cant get over. They cannot accept the fact that Africa produced more phoenotypes than the Negro phoenotype; and in the realm of racial taxonomy, that would imply more than one race.
Funny thing is that most Afrocentrist argue for in situ evolution of the various African phenotypes - just like you. Most Afrocentrist claim that all racial groups originate in Africa - just like you. Afrocentrist claim that indigenous Africans created Egypt - just like you. The only disagreement is with the terminology such as Caucasoid or that phenotype equals race.
If phenotype equals race then my family have 4 different races amongst our siblings. Its a stupid conclusion to think that phenotype is equivalent to sub-species. Besides that the catergorization is not consistently used. East Indians with Negroid features are typicall still called Caucasoids. Europeans with Negroid features the same.
I am not sure what it will take for guys like you to honestly catergorize people. But no, I don't trust what you say because it is obvious you have an agenda that started with the Atlantic slave trade - divide and conquer.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well from what I've seen of genetic studies Europeans and Middle eastern people and some people from India tend to be closer related to each other on average than people from another population. I could call these people "white" but in this case defining them by a color that they aren't really just sounds stupid. Thus Caucasian seems a better term because it sounds sciency and is well known. The term Caucasoid is just stupid because it means resembling a Caucasian. Plenty of Africans have features far more "Caucasoid" than many Europeans with out being more Caucasian than them. And the definition of the word Caucasian is whatever the person using it says they mean by it as far as I can tell. I have seen it used many different ways.
Posts: 26 | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ R1a and R1b - this group also shares the same language family - Indo-European.
However, they are not related closely to Caucasian people of Asia Minor. The Syrian, Persian, Turks and people of the Caucasus are of a totally different genetic phylum.
-------------------- Across the sea of time, there can only be one of you. Make you the best one you can be. Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Osirion could you tell me where you got that bullshit from.
Posts: 220 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ If you think its BS then why would you care where I got it from?
-------------------- Across the sea of time, there can only be one of you. Make you the best one you can be. Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Originally posted by zarahan: I keep running into this stuff.
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Where, and can you post it?
Here it is. a speech given by national Review writer John Derbyshire to black law students at the University of Pennsylvania. It is all the rage on the circuit of the HBD types. Note his patronizing tone - one come down to deliver "knowledge" to the natives - and note his claim of humanity "splitting" into two groups as it left Africa. We all know populations differentiated, but was there this dubious split into 2 subspecies, followed by further splitting to produce the supposedly more virtuous, higher IQ cold climate white and yellow subspecies or "races"? This is that it boils down to and this is what many of his cheerleaders embrace on the web. What is weird is that a lot of sound and fury by opponents of the speech centers around whether affirmative action should be eliminated or iq testing etc etc, but by and large his racial "evolutionary model" goes without serious challenge.
----------------------------------
Speech at the University of Pennsylvania
Thank you, Madam Moderator. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.
I am here this evening in the capacity of a wet blanket. I am here not to take one side or the other on the topic under debate, but to say that the topic, as written, is based on a false premise, and therefore has no satisfactory answer. I don't believe the disparities under discussion can be eliminated. Debate about whether government should play a greater or lesser role in eliminating them is therefore, in my opinion, otiose.
When the organizers first emailed me to suggest I appear on the panel, I told them that this is my view of the matter. I said that I was flattered to be invited to speak at such a prestigious institution, and that, having two teenage children, I am always glad to get out of the house for a few hours; but that racial disparities in education and employment have their origin in biological differences between the human races. Those differences are facts in the natural world, like the orbits of the planets. They can't be legislated out of existence; nor can they be "eliminated" by social or political action.
—————————
That there are natural, intractable differences between the human races seems apparent to me on both rational and empirical grounds.
First, the rational grounds. If a species is divided into separate populations, and those populations are left in reproductive isolation from each other for many generations, they will diverge. If you return after several hundred generations have passed, you will observe that the various traits that characterize individuals of the species are now distributed at different frequencies in the various populations. After a few ten thousands of generations, the divergence of the populations will be so great they can no longer cross-breed; and that is the origin of species. This is Biology 101.
Our species separated into two parts 50, 60, or 70 thousand years ago, depending on which paleoanthropologist you ask.++ One part remained in Africa, the ancestral homeland. The other crossed into Southwest Asia, then split, and re-split, and re-split, until there were human populations living in near-total reproductive isolation from each other in all parts of the world. This went on for hundreds of generations, causing the divergences we see today. Different physical types, as well as differences in behavior, intelligence, and personality, are exactly what one would expect to observe when scrutinizing these divergent populations.
Now, the empirical grounds. We all notice the different physical specialties of the different races in the Olympic Games. There was a run of, I think, seven Olympics in which every one of the finalists in the men's 100 meters sprint was of West African ancestry — 56 out of 56 finalists. You get less pronounced but similar patterns in other sports — East African distance runners, Northeast Asian divers, and so on. These differences even show up within sports, where a team sport calls for highly differentiated abilities in team members — football being the obvious example.
We see the same differences in traits that we don't think of as directly physical, what evolutionary psychologists sometimes refer to as the "BIP" traits — behavior, intelligence, and personality. Two of the hardest-to-ignore manifestations here are the extraordinary differentials in criminality between white Americans and African Americans, and the persistent gaps in scores when tests of cognitive ability are given to large population samples.
There is a huge academic literature on the gaps in cognitive test results, practically all of it converging on the fact that African American mean scores on cognitive tests fall below the white means by a tad more than one white standard deviation. There is in fact so much data on this now that we have meta-studies — studies of the studies: the one best-known to me is the meta-study by Roth et al. in 2001, which covered 39 studies involving nearly six million test-takers. That one standard deviation on cognitive testing has been so persistent across so many decades, a friend of mine, an academic sociologist, calls it "the universal constant of American sociology" — it's like the speed of light in physics.
To see whether that universal constant appears in the study of law, I looked up the LSAC database before coming here tonight. LSAC — the Law School Admission Council — publishes splendid statistical tables on the results of the LSAT exam, broken out by sex, region, race, and so on. The last figures I could find were for 2007-08. In that year, 117,530 students took the LSAT at least once. Of these persons, 69,792 identified themselves as "Caucasian." Their mean score was 152.56, standard deviation 8.96. In that same year, 12,152 test-takers identified themselves as "African American"; their mean score was 142.15, standard deviation 8.40. That's a difference between the means of 10.41 points, which is 1.16 times the white standard deviation. So perhaps my sociologist friend is on to something.
Should you want to say at this point that these so-called tests of so-called cognitive ability measure nothing important, you had better go and argue with the authorities here at the University of Pennsylvania law school. They have carefully recorded, and posted on the internet, that half their student intake, second and third quartiles, falls between LSAT scores 166 and 171.**
—————————
Thus there are both rational and empirical grounds for believing in intractable group differences between the big old inbred paleolithic populations of Homo sapiens. In the context of this discussion, there are two things that need saying about these differences.
First, the differences are statistical. Any population contains variation. Variation within a population is the essence of biology. Those of you familiar with Charles Darwin's great classic On the Origin of Species will recall that three of the first five chapters have the word "variation" in the chapter title. Any population will contain individuals who are fat, thin, fast, slow, tall, short, and so on.
And in the grand biological scheme of things, human population divergences are slight, the populations overlapping massively on most kinds of traits. To go back to that "universal constant of sociology," for instance: Given a one standard deviation gap between black and white means, one thing we can deduce from pure mathematics is that around six million African Americans score higher on cognitive tests than the average white test-taker. In LSAT terms, over 1,300 African American test-takers in 2007-2008 scored above the white mean.
Second, the differences are abstract. Group differences are statistical truths. They exist in an abstract realm quite far removed from our everyday personal experience. They tell you nothing about the person you just met.
Group differences are, for example, one degree more abstract than individual differences. We all acknowledge individual differences all the time: she's fat, he's thin, she's shy, he's outgoing, she's smart, he's dumb.
We are all, to various degrees, aware of our own individual strengths and limitations. Certainly I am aware of mine. For example: My wife is a keen ballroom dancer. Because I love my wife, I did my best to become a ballroom dancer myself. For two years — two blessed years, ladies and gentlemen — I went along twice a week with her to the local Arthur Murray studio to take instruction. At the end of it, I still had two left feet. The instruction I received was like water poured on to a sheet of glass.
Even at the things we are good at, most of us are not very good. I make my living by writing; yet I can name, in my own small personal acquaintance, a dozen people who are better writers than I am. That's not even to mention the Shakespeares and Tolstoys. Most of us are hopeless at most things, and mediocre at the rest.
And yet — look! We don't lose sleep over this. We don't sink into rage and frustration at our own individual differences, or agitate for politicians to put balm on our psychic wounds. We accept our individual shortcomings with remarkable equanimity, playing the cards we've been dealt as best we can. That is the attitude of a healthy human being. To do otherwise would, most of us I'm sure would agree, be un-healthy. How much more unhealthy, then, to fret and rage and agitate about mere statistical abstractions?
Thank you, Madam Moderator.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: What you two clowns fail to realize is that none of those studies say anything of the sort, I.e., that the whole E haplogroup is of Asian origin, what one of them propose is not to call the derived E lineages found in SW Asia and Europe African anymore since they mutated into their own subclade of the E haplogroup, but regardless of this desperate cry for separation, they can't, and fail. The E haplogroup is African and makes up most of the Y chromosomes found throughout Africa, so if the E haplogroup is not African, then most of Africa is not African. Go figure.
And the more than one phenotype nonsense, is actually what you idiots can not get over, it's actually those like you who think true Africans only have the "negroid" phenotype, and that all other Africans that do not are mixed with SW Asians and/or Europeans.
Yup, Mind hit it right on the head. Some white scholars feel so uncomfortable about the fact that their European and Middle-Eastern brethren carry E (African) lineages and so attempt to "de-Africanize" them. Strange that whenever lineages are found in Africa that could possibly but uncertain to be of Eurasian origin, all of a sudden these same scholars scream Eurasian!
Just something I've noticed about some of these studies. Posts: 26243 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Confirmed Lies: That is the hurdle the Afrocentrists cant get over. They cannot accept the fact that Africa produced more phoenotypes than the Negro phoenotype; and in the realm of racial taxonomy, that would imply more than one race.
Actually the big hurdle that YOU and your ilk can't get over is that pseudoscience of racial taxonomy is DEBUNKED with groupings like "negro" or "caucasoid" not even actually existing! Further, you are too stupid to see your own bias in that the racial category of "negro" has only one specific phenotype while "caucasoid" somehow has an assorted variety of phenotypes despite Africa the homeland of supposed "negroes" being much more vast in area, or that African populations by and large are genetically older and more diverse than said Eurasians.
But go on, do keep your head in the dark.
Posts: 26243 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic