- Heaviest facial hair compared to Negroid or Mongoloid races.
- Light skin colour (leucodermis) compared to Negroid or Mongoloid races (melandermis). The skin of the Caucasin ranges from pale white, to pinkish-white, to a red-white, to a red-olive colour.
- Hemoglobin (redness) shows under the skin of all Caucasians, while not in most Negroids of Mongoloids. Hence only Caucasians can have rosy or red cheeks.
- Diverse hair colours (blonde, strawberry blonde, brown, dark brown, auburn etc) which do not exist or rarely exist in the Negroid or Mongoloid races.
- Hair texture ranges from straight to wavy-straight (Euthycomic), with a minor case of curly. Never wooly or frizzy like Negroid.
- Diverse eye colours (grey, green, blue, hazel etc) which do not exist or rarely exist in the Negroid or Mongoloid races.
- Eye is round (Mesoseme), while Negroid is oval (Megaseme) and Mongoloid slanted (Microseme).
posted
This is based on what scientific study/definition? Or did you just make the stuff up Posts: 1502 | From: Dies Irae | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Nuclear DNA studies also contribute to the deconstruction of received racial entities. Ann Bowcock and her colleague's interpretation (Bowcock et al. 1991; Bowcock et al. 1994) of analyses of restriction-site polymorphisms and microsatellite polymorphisms (STRPs) suggests that Europeans, the defining Caucasians, are descendants of a population that arose as a consequence of admixture between already differentiated populations ancestral to (some) Africans and Asians. Therefore, Caucasians would be a secondary type or race due to its hybrid origin and not a primary race". This compromises the racial schema and also invalidates the metaphysical underpinnings of the persisting race construct, which implies deep and fundamental differences between its units.
--- S.O.Y. Keita & Rick Kittles
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: Physical traits of Caucasian race:
- Heaviest facial hair compared to Negroid or Mongoloid races.
Does this mean the Japanese Ainu and Australian aborigines are "caucasians"?
quote: - Light skin colour (leucodermis) compared to Negroid or Mongoloid races (melandermis). The skin of the Caucasin ranges from pale white, to pinkish-white, to a red-white, to a red-olive colour.
Actually, skin color distribution maps show that the southern Europeans have melanin levels nearly the same as those seen in east Asian-Pacific groups, even though these are of distinct evolutionary backgrounds. Does that either mean southern European groups are not "caucasians", or that eastern Asian and Pacific groups are "caucasians"?
quote:
- Hemoglobin (redness) shows under the skin of all Caucasians, while not in most Negroids of Mongoloids. Hence only Caucasians can have rosy or red cheeks.
I think you meant to say pheomelanin instead of Hemoglobin. Everyone has this, but because most Europeans and east Asians have very low melanin (eumelanin), their pheomelanin levels are more visible.
quote: - Diverse hair colours (blonde, strawberry blonde, brown, dark brown, auburn etc) which do not exist or rarely exist in the Negroid or Mongoloid races.
Well, here lies faulty thinking. You are making classifications presumably on the basis of physical distinctions, yet different hair types is not cause for "racial division"?
quote:
- Hair texture ranges from straight to wavy-straight (Euthycomic), with a minor case of curly. Never wooly or frizzy like Negroid.
See above.
quote: - Diverse eye colours (grey, green, blue, hazel etc) which do not exist or rarely exist in the Negroid or Mongoloid races.
Same here. Why are differences in other aspects of the physique used as a basis for "racial distinction", yet different types of eye colors doesn't qualify for this role?
quote: - Eye is round (Mesoseme), while Negroid is oval (Megaseme) and Mongoloid slanted (Microseme).
There is no distinctions between European eyes and those seen in Africans. That is a fairy tale. Likewise, so-called "Mongoloid" eyes are seen amongst Africans as well.
quote:
- Teeth are small compared to Negroid race.
Can you provide documents on comprehensive global teeth size. I'd like to see how all "caucasians", "mongoloids" and "negroids" have the same set of teeth--with no variations--within their respective "races".
I'm willing to bet that "caucasians" tend to have enormous ears compared to Africans, or is anybody with a "small" ear "caucasian"? If so, do weasels count?
Any visual demonstrations on ear sizes on different individuals from the same race, and then, demonstrates of comparisons between the individuals [meaning not just one representative] pitted against individuals of another "race" . [If image is too big, please simply leave it as a link]
quote: - Caucasians have orthognathic jaws as opposed to mesognathic or prognathic (protuding) jaws of the Negro.
Mugabe must a "caucasian" judging by this trait?...
Even his aid, in front of him, in this picture could be a "caucasian" going by this trait:
quote: - Finger prints of Caucasians are distinct to other races.
What is a "caucasian" fingerprint? Should be interesting, considering that the fingerprints of no two human beings is the same.
quote:
I could go on...
Please do.
And give us an idea about a "caucasian" gene looks like along the way, will you.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: Physical traits of Caucasian race:
- Heaviest facial hair compared to Negroid or Mongoloid races.
As is usual with primitive creatures.
- Light skin colour (leucodermis) compared to Negroid or Mongoloid races (melandermis). The skin of the Caucasin ranges from pale white, to pinkish-white, to a red-white, to a red-olive colour.
Albinism - A condition caused by the bodies inability to make the skin coloring and skin protecting Melanin.
- Hemoglobin (redness) shows under the skin of all Caucasians, while not in most Negroids of Mongoloids. Hence only Caucasians can have rosy or red cheeks.
Blood cells in the skin show through, because absence of Melanin makes the skin transparent.
- Diverse hair colours (blonde, strawberry blonde, brown, dark brown, auburn etc) which do not exist or rarely exist in the Negroid or Mongoloid races.
In Albinos, the Lack of dark color producing Neuromelanin allows RED, Blond, etc. producing Pheomelanin to predominate. When subjected to Sunlight, Pheomelanin becomes carcinogenic - hence their propensity to skin cancer .
- Hair texture ranges from straight to wavy-straight (Euthycomic), with a minor case of curly. Never wooly or frizzy like Negroid.
We agree, this is a Black Woman!
- Diverse eye colours (grey, green, blue, hazel etc) which do not exist or rarely exist in the Negroid or Mongoloid races.
In Albinos, the Lack of dark color producing Neuromelanin allows RED, Blond, etc. producing Pheomelanin to predominate. When subjected to Sunlight, Pheomelanin becomes carcinogenic.
- Eye is round (Mesoseme), while Negroid is oval (Megaseme) and Mongoloid slanted (Microseme).
This one is just too stupid to warrant a response except that Brain and Penis sizes must follow.
- Teeth are small compared to Negroid race.
This one is just too stupid to warrant a response except that Brain and Penis sizes must follow.
Congo = the biggest - no surprise there. Er, did I mention that's where I'm from?
Korea = the smallest - no wonder Kim Jong-il acts like that.
Here is an interesting one: In the West, J-cons have the biggest. There goes my theory of Penis and Brain sizes being in synch.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ur Mean Mike!!.. Here is an interesting one: In the West, J-cons have the biggest. There goes my theory of Penis and Brain sizes being in synch.Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: Physical traits of Caucasian race:
- Heaviest facial hair compared to Negroid or Mongoloid races.
- Light skin colour (leucodermis) compared to Negroid or Mongoloid races (melandermis). The skin of the Caucasin ranges from pale white, to pinkish-white, to a red-white, to a red-olive colour.
- Hemoglobin (redness) shows under the skin of all Caucasians, while not in most Negroids of Mongoloids. Hence only Caucasians can have rosy or red cheeks.
- Diverse hair colours (blonde, strawberry blonde, brown, dark brown, auburn etc) which do not exist or rarely exist in the Negroid or Mongoloid races.
- Hair texture ranges from straight to wavy-straight (Euthycomic), with a minor case of curly. Never wooly or frizzy like Negroid.
- Diverse eye colours (grey, green, blue, hazel etc) which do not exist or rarely exist in the Negroid or Mongoloid races.
- Eye is round (Mesoseme), while Negroid is oval (Megaseme) and Mongoloid slanted (Microseme).
- Caucasians have orthognathic jaws as opposed to mesognathic or prognathic (protuding) jaws of the Negro.
- Finger prints of Caucasians are distinct to other races.
I could go on...
And what in cases where the features are mixture of these due to natural adaptation in that area?
What race are those that have features that cross the spectrum of the features found in the none scientific categories of mongoliod, negroid, and caucasoid? When there is no common ancestry with people from the Caucasus can you really be considered Caucasian especially when there is no Indo-European languages found in the area or genetic input?
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Nuclear DNA studies also contribute to the deconstruction of received racial entities. Ann Bowcock and her colleague's interpretation (Bowcock et al. 1991; Bowcock et al. 1994) of analyses of restriction-site polymorphisms and microsatellite polymorphisms (STRPs) suggests that Europeans, the defining Caucasians, are descendants of a population that arose as a consequence of admixture between already differentiated populations ancestral to (some) Africans and Asians. Therefore, Caucasians would be a secondary type or race due to its hybrid origin and not a primary race". This compromises the racial schema and also invalidates the metaphysical underpinnings of the persisting race construct, which implies deep and fundamental differences between its units.
--- S.O.Y. Keita & Rick Kittles
Asians "arose" out of admixture too, or are they pure, primary type? Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Modern Europeans and Chinese are BOTH a subspecies. Europeans are the result of "Limited" admixture between Dravidian Albinos and "Normal" Blacks - mostly those they encountered when the reached Europe. This accounts for their "Still" close proximity to "Pure" Albinism.
Chinese are the result of "Extended" admixture between Dravidian Albinos and "Normal" Mongol phenotype Blacks. This accounts for their "Generally" darker complexions and "Generally" intermediate phenotype, which is between the wide features of the original Mongols, and the pointy features of Dravidians.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: Mike This one is just too stupid to warrant a response except that Brain and Penis sizes must follow. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wqkq8oAZ-c please click..
Haterade!!! Posts: 1819 | From: odesco baba | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK Mike, the Turks are your favourite turky, but you do have a sense of humour!. I had to do a real LOL when I read your post.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Asians "arose" out of admixture too, or are they pure, primary type?
Anguish, you must undertsnad how arguments are formed. People use various data to support the same conclusion. Hence, neither are a primary type and one of the reasons (arguments) that Europeans are not is because they arose from admixture. Asians are not for other reasons, as overviewed in the cited paper.
I know you've been grappling with this same quote for over two years now but it's time to get over it.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
2. If "Europeans" "arose" from admixture between "already differentiated" Africans and Asians, this means that nobody was in Europe until Africans and Asians, already differentiated, went there and started mixing?
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by anguishofbeing: 1. How did the Asian "arise"?
Through differentiation in Asia after direct migration from Africa.
quote:2. If "Europeans" "arose" from admixture between "already differentiated" Africans and Asians, this means that nobody was in Europe until Africans and Asians, already differentiated, went there and started mixing?
Who said the mixing occurred in Europe?
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^anguishofbeing - That is exactly correct; and has been repeated many times. The vacuum between your ears must be leaking and allowing in some sentient thought.
The Africans were Grimaldi man circa 45,000 B.C.
The Asians were Albinos from Central Asia - conventionally called Hellenes and Latins, or more generally Kurgans - circa 1,200 B.C.
A note here: Are you all so stupid as to expect Keita, Kittles, or whoever, to come out and say it as I do? Wake-up! they would be out on the sidewalks in short order, without a pot to piss in. And knowing Negroes as I do, there is NO hope that Negroes would ever fund their work. The have to say what they say on the QT, silly them, they actually expect Negroes to figure it out.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: Through differentiation in Asia after direct migration from Africa.
When did this differentiation occurred? Dates please. I was of the impression early Asians were still morphologically African/black.
quote:Who said the mixing occurred in Europe?
So Africans and Asian, already differentiated (date?), mixed in Asia then produced Europeans (!) in Asia that eventually went to Europe? Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by castratedfool: Physical traits of Caucasian race:
- Heaviest facial hair compared to Negroid or Mongoloid races.
- Light skin colour (leucodermis) compared to Negroid or Mongoloid races (melandermis). The skin of the Caucasin ranges from pale white, to pinkish-white, to a red-white, to a red-olive colour.
- Hemoglobin (redness) shows under the skin of all Caucasians, while not in most Negroids of Mongoloids. Hence only Caucasians can have rosy or red cheeks.
- Diverse hair colours (blonde, strawberry blonde, brown, dark brown, auburn etc) which do not exist or rarely exist in the Negroid or Mongoloid races.
- Hair texture ranges from straight to wavy-straight (Euthycomic), with a minor case of curly. Never wooly or frizzy like Negroid.
- Diverse eye colours (grey, green, blue, hazel etc) which do not exist or rarely exist in the Negroid or Mongoloid races.
- Eye is round (Mesoseme), while Negroid is oval (Megaseme) and Mongoloid slanted (Microseme).
The terms "Negroid" and "Caucasian" are unacceptable on Egyptsearch
the acceptable ES terms are
"black"
"white"
"biologically African"
If you use the terms you don't get any of this "but how do you define" shyt
You've been here long enough to understand the drivers behind reception of said words, yet beg questions as though you arrived just yesterday.
The above terms "negroid" and "caucasoid" are not ruled out by authorship of ES, but by the dictate of science. Mad? Then blame science.
As for the words, 'black' and 'white', they are simply understood as social constructs or daily lingual items. What about "biologically African"? There is nothing wrong with that word, and you have been quickly briefed on its meaning. If you are really that much worked up about these words, which you are likely to come across quite a bit, then you do have the option of not frequenting this site, you know. Why regularly expose yourself to things that get under your skin?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
The terms "Negroid" and "Caucasian" are unacceptable on Egyptsearch
the acceptable ES terms are
"black"
"white"
"biologically African"
If you use the terms you don't get any of this "but how do you define" shyt
You've been here long enough to understand the drivers behind reception of said words, yet beg questions as though you arrived just yesterday.
The above terms "negroid" and "caucasoid" are not ruled out by authorship of ES, but by the dictate of science. Mad? Then blame science.
As for the words, 'black' and 'white', they are simply understood as social constructs or daily lingual items. What about "biologically African"? There is nothing wrong with that word, and you have been quickly briefed on its meaning. If you are really that much worked up about these words, which you are likely to come across quite a bit, then you do have the option of not frequenting this site, you know. Why regularly expose yourself to things that get under your skin?
You realize this origin of haplogroup E as per which, Africa or the Near East is uncertain.
You could focus on L but you might not because some East Africans are more M
If you define Africans as E1b1a (as you know including P and other markers) you find heavy distribution 70-100% in many parts of West Africa, Central Africa, East Africa as well as Southern Africa. However Populations on the northern fringes of West Africa, central Eastern Africa and Madagascar have tested at more moderate frequencies about 35-35%
Frequencies are low in North Africa, Sudan and Ethiopia ,-about 1.5 - 13% with the exception of certain Libyan Tuaregs which can be as high as 45%. Egyptians about 9% some lower.
E1b1a frequencies in N. Africa, Sudan, Ethiopia mostly well under 50% are not that far from some in the Arabian peninsula. For example Saudis the highest in this region at 7.6%. That's over twice the percentage for Ethiopians at 3.4% and Somalis only 1.5%.
So this P2 definition of Africans is a problem
Posts: 42920 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
You've got to be kidding. Haplogroup E, non-African? That's humorous. Mind listing 5 studies that support haplogroup E as non-African in origin?
Are you trying to make the argument that, since all E carriers are connected, there cannot be such a thing as biologically African? If so, then you obviously failed to understand The Explorer's first pot.
-------------------- L Writes: Posts: 1502 | From: Dies Irae | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
You realize this origin of haplogroup E as per which, Africa or the Near East is uncertain.
You could focus on L but you might not because some East Africans are more M
If you define Africans as E1b1a (as you know including P and other markers) you find heavy distribution 70-100% in many parts of West Africa, Central Africa, East Africa as well as Southern Africa. However Populations on the northern fringes of West Africa, central Eastern Africa and Madagascar have tested at more moderate frequencies about 35-35%
Frequencies are low in North Africa, Sudan and Ethiopia ,-about 1.5 - 13% with the exception of certain Libyan Tuaregs which can be as high as 45%. Egyptians about 9% some lower.
E1b1a frequencies in N. Africa, Sudan, Ethiopia mostly well under 50% are not that far from some in the Arabian peninsula. For example Saudis the highest in this region at 7.6%. That's over twice the percentage for Ethiopians at 3.4% and Somalis only 1.5%.
So this P2 definition of Africans is a problem
Are you on drugs; what does any of this have to do with the words you were whining about earlier, and to which I was replying?
Now that you mention it. Aside from your dubious sourceless figures for hg E1b1a, tell me how hg E origin in Africa [vs. the supposed "Near East"] cannot be a sure thing, when clades immediately upstream to this clade are right here and not in the so-called "Near East"? In relation, tell me why the paraphyletic DE* has only been implicated in two regions, Africa and eastern Asia, none of which is the "Near East". Educate me on why hg E is by far more diverse here (Africa), instead of the "Near East".
When and if you are able to effectively answer these questions, then come to me about hg E origin in Africa not being certain. Otherwise, I strongly urge you to leave theorizing in these complex issues to more capable people, and safely resume your role as a learning rookie.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by L': You've got to be kidding. Haplogroup E, non-African? That's humorous. Mind listing 5 studies that support haplogroup E as non-African in origin?
Are you trying to make the argument that, since all E carriers are connected, there cannot be such a thing as biologically African? If so, then you obviously failed to understand The Explorer's first post.
The argument for an African origin of E is strong. However the frequency of E1b1a is more of what is at issue. It is not strong in some parts of Africa and at the same time shows up in the Arabian peninsula even Europe which is not in Africa.. Therefore you can't center a definition of a person being "biologically African around that.
The premise if we must start with "African" and fit a genetic profile into it.
If you want to use genetics to identify people the geography is a distraction. Why not go directly to the cluster and define people in that way alone?
Alright, you want to stick with "African", go with the assumption that an indigenous African from any any region in African, including the North has more affinity to any other African than they might to a Near Easterner simply because we have these names "African" and "Asian" fine. -If you want to go that route then you must be consistent, profile and differentiate a "biologically Near eastern person" from a "biologically African person" despite the fact that, randomly the distance from Jordan to Egypt is is 676 miles while the distance from Angola to Egypt is 2769 miles away- over 2000 miles further away. How can you disregard the implications of that? It as if someone said "what's closer to Algeria Spain or Botswana?" and somebody else says "I figure Botswana because Spain is on a whole other continent".
Example, the people from ancient Columbia and Argentina are related genetically. The fact that Columbia has an lineage that goes back to North America does not change that.
Alright. you want to stick with this term "biologically African" ? You better be prepared to name the rest of the world in similarly "biologically this or that region" because I'm coming after you on that. Name the rest of the world in this manner I dare you.
How about "biologically Asian"
do you really think that is meaningful?
You would place an Indian and a Chinese person in the same category genetically? isn't that a little too diverse to make a generalization "biologically Asian"
- O.K. what about Africa then???
-that's even more biologically diverse than Asia according to what you folks always point out.
Posts: 42920 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
The "LOGICAL" corollary then, is that "ALL" Humans MUST have been generally the SAME at one time!
Since there is "ABSOLUTELY" No evidence for "recent" "Evolutionary" change in modern man. How does one account for the "Obvious" differences between modern man?
But first: WHAT ARE THOSE OBVIOUS DIFFERENCES AMONG MODERN MAN - AFRICANS?
Some people have broad Noses.
Some people have narrow Noses.
Some people have tightly curled Hair.
Some people have straight Hair.
Some people are Short.
Some people are Tall.
Some people have round Eyes.
Some people have slanty Eyes.
Some people have eye folds.
Some people do not have eye folds.
The predominate Eye colors are Brown and Black.
The predominate Hair colors are Brown and Black.
THE "ONE" THING THEY ALL HAVE IN COMMON, IS THAT THEY ARE ALL "HIGHLY" MELANINATED!
What they Don't "NORMALLY" have: EXCEPT in the case of Albinism.
Pale skin.
Red, Blond, Hair.
Blue, Green, Violet, Gray, Eyes.
If you mix selected "Normal" things, together with the "Albino" things in varying amounts:
Don't you get Europeans and Chinese?
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Etymology and Anthropology of the words Caucasian and Free white person:
Anthropology of caucasian, pertaining to, or characteristic of one of the traditional racial divisions of humankind, marked by fair to dark skin, straight to tightly curled hair, and light to very dark eyes, and originally inhabiting europe, parts of North Africa, western Asia, and India: no longer in technical use. See: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/caucasian
The term Caucasian race (also Caucasoid, Europid, or Europoid[1]) has been used to denote the general physical type of some or all of the populations of Europe, North Africa, the Horn of Africa, West Asia, Central Asia and South Asia.[2] Historically, the term has been used to describe the entire population of these regions, without regard necessarily to skin tone. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_race
Free White Persons: “Free White Persons” referred to in Naturalization Act, as amended by Act July 14, 1870, has meaning naturally given to it when first used in 1 Stat. 103, c 3, meaning all persons belonging to the European races then commonly counted as white, and their descendants, including such descendants in other countries to which they have emigrated.
Free White Persons includes all European Jews, more or less intermixed with peoples of Celtic, Scandinavian, Teutonic, Iberian, Latin, Greek, and Slavic descent. It includes Magyars, Lapps, and Finns, and the Basques and Albanians.
It includes the mixed Latin, Celtic-Iberian, and Moorish inhabitants of Spain and Portugal, the mixed Greek, Latin, Phoenician, and North African inhabitants of Sicily, and the mixed Slav and Tarter inhabitants of South Russia.
Free White People does not mean Caucasian race, Aryan race, or Indo-European races, nor the mixed Indo-European, Dravidian, Semitic and Mongolian peoples who inhabit Persia.
A Syrian of Asiatic birth and descent will not be entitled to become a naturalized citizen of the United States as being a free white person.
See: Ex parte Shahid, D.C.Or., 6 F.2d 919, 921; Ex parte Dow, D.C.S.C., 211 F. 486, 487; In re En Sk Song, D.C.Cal., 271 F. 23. Nor a native-born Filipino. U. S. v. Javier, 22 F.2nd 879, 880, 57 App.D.C. 303. Nor a native of India who belonged to Hindu race. Kharaiti Ram Samras v. United States, C.C.A.Cal., 125 F.2nd 879, 881. .
Posts: 7419 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:The argument for an African origin of E is strong. However the frequency of E1b1a is more of what is at issue. It is not strong in some parts of Africa and at the same time shows up in the Arabian peninsula even Europe which is not in Africa.. Therefore you can't center a definition of a person being "biologically African around that.
Not what I asked. I asked you to support your claim the haplogroup E could have a possible non-African origin (by that I mean recent studies)
Just because it may appear elsewhere other than Africa, does not mean the term biologically African is unfit. Biologically African simply describes people who originated and evolved on the African continent. Asians with African lineages doesn't mean they are not biologically Asian if they developed on the Asian continent.
quote:The premise if we must start with "African" and fit a genetic profile into it.
If you want to use genetics to identify people the geography is a distraction. Why not go directly to the cluster and define people in that way alone?
It is impossible to classify people in genetics, which is why genetics has dis-proven the concept of race. Biologically African is simply a term to describe people who evolved and developed on the African continent as well as originated there. Just because some Africans may have admixture doesn't mean they are less African, or not biologically African.
quote:Alright, you want to stick with "African", go with the assumption that an indigenous African from any any region in African, including the North has more affinity to any other African than they might to a Near Easterner simply because we have these names "African" and "Asian" fine.
It's not because of names, lol. North Africans DO have a greater affinity to Africans because they are predominately African genetically, (although they do have significant non-African mtDNA, perhaps contributing to their features) which is why Frigi et al., states:
"Our results reveal that Berber speakers have a foundational biogeographic root in Africa and that deep African lineages have continued to evolve in supra-Saharan Africa." Frigi et al
If they originated on the African continent, then they are biologically African even if they do have significant non-African mtDNA. The name of the continent they are on is not the basis for saying they have a greater affinity to Africans, it's their genetic profile. In the case of the ancient Egyptians, we know they would be closer to an African genetically because there is no evidence for significant non-African input into ancient Egypt.
quote:If you want to go that route then you must be consistent, profile and differentiate a "biologically Near eastern person" from a "biologically African person" despite the fact that, randomly the distance from Jordan to Egypt is is 676 miles while the distance from Angola to Egypt is 2769 miles away- over 2000 miles further away. How can you disregard the implications of that? It as if someone said "what's closer to Algeria Spain or Botswana?" and somebody else says "I figure Botswana because Spain is on a whole other continent".
Not this AGAIN. Why must you keep making the same argument that you have been refuted in several times prior to this? What does distance have to do with anything at all? Provide evidence for enough migration into Egypt that would give them a connection to someone from the Near East etc., there is none. Now, take a minute to think, if there is no evidence for significant non-African input into Egypt, than how could they have greater affinity to a non-African? Until you can provide evidence that there was such migration to give the Egyptians a greater affinity to someone in Jordan, or elsewhere than another African, I won't even bother going into more detail. You have made this remark so many times, each time getting shut down and then repeating it later. It's getting quite old.
quote:Example, the people from ancient Columbia and Argentina are related genetically. The fact that Columbia has an lineage that goes back to North America does not change that.
OK, now provide evidence that the ancient Egyptians were genetically related to non-Africans. Even though we know they shared a genetic connection to Africans via the PN2 transition of Y haplogroup E. Your comparison of Columbian s and Argentinians has no bearing on ancient Egyptians and other Africans.
quote:Alright. you want to stick with this term "biologically African" ? You better be prepared to name the rest of the world in similarly "biologically this or that region" because I'm coming after you on that. Name the rest of the world in this manner I dare you.
Not even necessary. Any indigenous people who developed in the region they inhabit are would fit that definition. Biologically African is simply another term for indigenous Africans.
quote:How about "biologically Asian"
do you really think that is meaningful?
Yes. Meaningful to describe people who developed in the Asian continent.
quote:You would place an Indian and a Chinese person in the same category genetically? isn't that a little too diverse to make a generalization "biologically
Nobody is making the argument that they are genetically the same. They both did develop on the African continent though, so yes, they are biologically Asian unless they are recent immigrants (which they aren't)
quote:Asian"
- O.K. what about Africa then???
-that's even more biologically diverse than Asia according to what you folks always point out.
And? We aren't saying they are all the same genetically or phenotypically speaking. Only that they developed on the African/Asian continent. Do you have a problem with that?
Posts: 1502 | From: Dies Irae | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
- So how old is the Mongoloid race and where did they come from?
Asians have brownish skin and dark hair, so you can't say they are of albino origin.
Posts: 2408 | From: My mother's basement | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
''There is no such thing as a mongoloid race'' ===
There are three prime races - Mongoloid, Negroid and Caucasoid. This has been accepted for about 150 years and is standard definition within racial typology. You can still find it in modern scientific dictionaries.
The only people who deny races exist are left-wing cranks, who only do so for socio-political reasons.
Posts: 2408 | From: My mother's basement | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:''There is no such thing as a mongoloid race'' ===
There are three prime races - Mongoloid, Negroid and Caucasoid. This has been accepted for about 150 years and is standard definition within racial typology. You can still find it in modern scientific dictionaries.
The only people who deny races exist are left-wing cranks, who only do so for socio-political reasons.
I don't see you backing up your pseudo-scientific claims with peer-reviewed research. No, these definitions are not used in modern science.
Here is the American Anthropological Association's statement on Race:
"In the United States both scholars and the general public have been conditioned to viewing human races as natural and separate divisions within the human species based on visible physical differences. With the vast expansion of scientific knowledge in this century, however, it has become clear that human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups. Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that most physical variation, about 94%, lies within so-called racial groups. Conventional geographic "racial" groupings differ from one another only in about 6% of their genes. This means that there is greater variation within "racial" groups than between them. In neighboring populations there is much overlapping of genes and their phenotypic (physical) expressions. Throughout history whenever different groups have come into contact, they have interbred. The continued sharing of genetic materials has maintained all of humankind as a single species.
Physical variations in any given trait tend to occur gradually rather than abruptly over geographic areas. And because physical traits are inherited independently of one another, knowing the range of one trait does not predict the presence of others. For example, skin color varies largely from light in the temperate areas in the north to dark in the tropical areas in the south; its intensity is not related to nose shape or hair texture. Dark skin may be associated with frizzy or kinky hair or curly or wavy or straight hair, all of which are found among different indigenous peoples in tropical regions. [/b]These facts render any attempt to establish lines of division among biological populations both arbitrary and subjective.[/b]"
Has nothing to do with skull dimensions, limb proportions, index finger or penis length, nor hair texture or color. Has nothing to do with geography, how much water you consume or release, IQ level, or residing in cold climates.
The reality is very simple, yet hidden away to avoid mass hysteria.
The "white" invention has no more distinction than a lack of evenly distributed melanocytes and an inability to manufacture adequate melanin to fill them.
This results in visual skin color depletion found in Skin types 1 through 3, where;
Type 1: complete Albino
Type 2: Albino with clumped and minimally filled Melanocytes
Type 3: Albino with clumped less than 1/10th filled Melanocytes
These are the most immediate visual cues distinguishing Whites (Albinos), but there are other deltas inherent to immunity system, reproductive system, and brain chemistry balances.
Physically, there is no real difference between an African Albino from the European Albino, from the Asian Albino. Any trivial differences are due to diet, environment, and world-view.
There is no such bazaar reality as Caucasian or race. Just insane ramblings of chemically imbalanced "Non" Hue-mans in psychotic denial about their physical reality.
All there is on this planet are, Huemans, and "non" Hue-mans.
That's it, and it's a wrap!
Posts: 2403 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Why is this retarded thread still around?
I see the retard who created it has resulted to 19th century pseudoscientific data. LOL
I would tell the Castrated-mind to kiss my brown "mongoloid" ass but his lips are too dirty.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
''Physically, there is no real difference between an African Albino from the European Albino'' =====
What a retarded comment.
African Albinos look nothing like European albinos.
Here is a European albino child -
Here is a negroid albino:
Note how the african albino cannot pass as a caucasian despite having fair skin, while the european albino just looks like an ordinary caucasian blonde.
Caucasians are not of african albino origin, our facial features and hair texture is completely different.
Look at the two photos above, stop living in denial...the photos also show how ugly black features are compared to white features.
Posts: 2408 | From: My mother's basement | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Actually, if you read what I typed, you'd see I stated there are no physical differences between the two, not to be confused with, no VISUAL differences between the two.
It's my fault because, I am guilty of not following the advice of one of my old mentors who suggested that I NEVER assume my audience has the ability to fill in blanks or extrapolate on data. Therefore, always present to the lowest denominator. The one who lacks even rudimentary understanding. Your response once again reminds me of the high quality excellence of that advice.
1. I never stated that two individuals between the two groups would be identical twins. Simply that there are no significant physical differences.
2. The European Albino you posted exhibits symptoms of OCA1. A FULL albino as can be seen from his white (completely devoid of melanin) hair, and his very translucent eyes which appear pink in the flash due to light leaking through the melanin-less pupil and Iris and reflecting back. This kid not only suffers from OCA1, but also OA, or Ocular Albinism. His eyesight is likely in the 20/80 or 90 range.
3. The second photo of the African Albino is of a person showing clear symptoms of OCA2, or a PARTIAL albino, as can be seen from slight melanin deposits in his hair and eyes. Most African Albinos fall under category 2 OCA and have some melanin production, and therefore no WHITE hair.
Sorry, but I will not be taking time to filter through photos to find an identical match between African and European albinos to satisfy your mistake. I think the above should help assist you in your dilemma. However, since I have this one available and I can post it without taking time or trouble, you can compare the European with this one.
I really appreciate this comment from your above post;
Whatshisnamewrote:
"Note how the african albino cannot pass as a caucasian despite having fair skin, while the european albino just looks like an ordinary caucasian blonde."
LMAO!! How ENLIGHTENING!
Posts: 2403 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^^^ Show us an example of an African Albino that resembles the European Albinos..
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ LOL!!! You mean to ask me to show you an OCA1 African Albino. I have no ready photos of an OCA1 African child. Anyway, The Euro-child above is not of the African, but of the Indian as you can see in the photo I posted.
Posts: 2403 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK...So what about Whites with Dark Hair and Dark eyes, eye they full Albinos to you...Also Curly headed whites are they Indian or african Albinos????
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Comprehensive analysis of oculocutaneous albinism among non-Hispanic caucasians shows that OCA1 is the most prevalent OCA type.
Hutton SM, Spritz RA.
Human Medical Genetics Program, University of Colorado Denver, Anshutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado 80045, USA. Abstract
Oculocutaneous albinism (OCA) is a genetically heterogeneous group of disorders characterized by absent or reduced pigmentation of the skin, hair, and eyes. In humans, four genes have been associated with "classical" OCA and another 12 genes with syndromic forms of OCA. To assess the prevalence of different forms of OCA and different gene mutations among non-Hispanic Caucasian patients, we performed DNA sequence analysis of the four genes associated with "classical" OCA (TYR, OCA2, TYRP1, SLC45A2), the two principal genes associated with syndromic OCA (HPS1, HPS4), and a candidate OCA gene (SILV), in 121 unrelated, unselected non-Hispanic/Latino Caucasian patients carrying the clinical diagnosis of OCA. We identified apparent pathologic TYR gene mutations in 69% of patients, OCA2 mutations in 18%, SLC45A2 mutations in 6%, and no apparent pathological mutations in 7% of patients. We found no mutations of TYRP1, HPS1, HPS4, or SILV in any patients. Although we observed a diversity of mutations for each gene, a relatively small number of different mutant alleles account for a majority of the total. This study demonstrates that, contrary to long-held clinical lore, OCA1, not OCA2, is by far the most frequent cause of OCA among Caucasian patients.
posted
Im asking you because you and Mike seem to have theories not endorced by the people who run that link.(They are according to you and Mike Albinos and are withholding the truth). Im not trying to be feceteous Im asking seriously, Is a White person with Dark Hair and eyes a Half Albino like that African Child who you said has slight Melanin.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
See above Random sample selection of 121 Europeans using visual cues (white skin/blond hair/blue eyes, white skin/Blond hair/brown eyes, white skin/Brown hair/Blue eyes, etc) and following DNA testing found 69% positive for OCA1, and 18% positive for OCA2, OCA2 due to SLC45A2 mutations in 8%, and 7% with no mutation (normal).
Wow! Who doesn't believe this stuff?
Posts: 2403 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic