quote:that white people are not a primary race at all, but as Cavalli-Sforza wrote in one of his studies, that they are a mix of African and Asian- in other words, hybrids?
Nowhere does Sforza say Europeans are a mix of other races. You put up a quote and then lie about what it says. Makes you look stupid. The genetic input from Asia, was from middle-east farmers who were Caucasoid.
lol, pathetic buffoon. I posted Cavalli-Sforza who shows that Europeans are a mix of Africans and Asians to expose your hypocrisy once again, and to take your own race model and debunk you. You are the one always harping on race. Fine, now you have to deal with it. SInce you are into race, it must hurt to know that your beloved Europeans are not a primary race at all, but mere hybrids. You are caught in your own race trap. and the early Middle Easterners, as shown by Hanihara 1996, resembled tropical Africans. They were not "Caucasoids." In post after post you keep harping on "ugly African features." Now it turns out that the incoming Neolithic to Europe had the very same "ugly African features" that you keep harping on. lmao... you got trapped and debunked with your own race model, pathetic fool..
Furthermore, Cavalli-Sforza references the work of his colleague Bowcock in an earlier joint study he did with her as to the mixed nature of Europeans. He notes- quote: "A tree calculated by the maximum-likelihood method and showing that admixture between ancenstral African and ancestral CHinese was responsible for the genesis of the European population (from Bowcock et al, 1991)." ---Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, Paolo Menozzi, Alberto Piazza The history and geography of human genes
Bowcock's original study shows Europeans are mixed:
QUOTE: "Tree constructed by maximum likelihood, assuming a model of admixture between ancestral Africans and ancestral Asians, fitting the distances of the lower triangle of Table 1. According to this model two divergent populations contribute in specified proportions to form a new population. Various pairs of ancestral populations from which the European branch may have descended by *admixture were tested* for choosing ancestral types that contributed to the admixture. Data were found to be most consistent with this tree; ancestral Europeans are estimated to be an admixture of 65% ancestral Chinese and 35% ancestral Africans."
--[ANNE M. BOWCOCK*t, JUDITH R. KIDD*, JOANNA L. MOUNTAIN*, JOAN M. HEBERT*, LUCIANO CAROTENUTO§, KENNETH K. KIDD*, AND L. LUCA CAVALLISFORZA] "Drift, admixture, and selection in human evolution: A study with DNA polymorphisms," Proc. Nati. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 88, pp. 839-843, February 1991. Evolution
and
"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". --O.Y. Keita and Rick Kittles. (1997) The Persistence of Racial Thinking and the Myth of Racial Divergenc
SO you are trapped and debuinked with yourown race model.
--You harp on "ugly african features" but these are the ones carried by the Neolithic farmers into EUrope
--You speak of pure race categories, but Cvalli- Sforza and Bowcock, testing Europeans with other Asiatics such as East Asians (Chinese) find the same admixture pattern- Europeans are a hybrid population between Africans and Asians. The same hybrid pattern showed up in Sforza and Bowcock's Chinese anaysis.
Your own race mongering only shows Europeans to themselves be mongrels.. It must hurt to know that you are nothing special. Using YOUR OWN race concept, you too are the product of mongrelization.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ If Europeans are half African half Asian then explain why Europeans do not have mtDNA L at appreciable frequencies?
Posts: 695 | From: وكان المصريون القدماء القوقازين | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
To Morpheus and others who consistently respond to trolls: You cannot impress a racist with intelligence, cleverness or anything else. You cannot insult them either. We will all always be the dirt on the bottom of THEIR shoes. In their mind no amount of talking will convince them that we are at their level. People, state your strongest case and move on. WE are right. And the evidence is our best defense. Posts: 71 | From: Cleve OH | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by LocDiva: To Morpheus and others who consistently respond to trolls: You cannot impress a racist with intelligence, cleverness or anything else. You cannot insult them either. We will all always be the dirt on the bottom of THEIR shoes. In their mind no amount of talking will convince them that we are at their level. People, state your strongest case and move on. WE are right. And the evidence is our best defense.
Well said!
Posts: 98 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Perahu: ^ If Europeans are half African half Asian then explain why Europeans do not have mtDNA L at appreciable frequencies?
^^You are already stumbling right off the bat. Cavalli Sforza said one third African, two-thirds Asian, not "half African and half Asian". Can you not read?
If you dispute Cavalli-Sforza, show where his data and interpretations, and that of Bowcock are wrong. You dispute their scholarship. It is up to you now to show where they are wrong. Quote directly from Cavalli-Sforza in your reply. Describe the sampling regime and methods he uses and your analysis of said sampling, methods and his discussion.
Lets not deal with your off the cuff one-liners. You already did that and showed that you did not even read what they are saying accurately. If you cannot even do such a simple task why should anyone entertain your claims? Prove you actually read and analyzed his study. The burden of proof is on you.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
One reasonable hypothesis is that the genetic distance between Asia and Africa is shorter than that between Africa and the other continents in Table Table11 because both Africans and Asians contributed to the settlement of Europe, which began about 40,000 years ago. It seems very reasonable to assume that both continents nearest to Europe contributed to its settlement, even if perhaps at different times and maybe repeatedly. It is reassuring that the analysis of other markers also consistently gives the same results in this case. Moreover, a specific evolutionary model tested, i.e., that Europe is formed by contributions from Asia and Africa, fits the distance matrix perfectly (6). 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
^^Either you accept it or continue to go off in your ignorant delusions.
Here's a question I've asked your cohorts wherein they've just run away with no response, perhaps you'll be more challenging, we all know how you love to throw carcassoid geneflow wherever you see fit...
"Europeans appear as a genetic mixture, 2/3 Asian, 1/3 African".--Cavalli-Sforza
Question;
If Oceanians, East Asians and Europeans are all part of the same non-African OOA population structure, then Europeans should be as distant genetically from Africans, as East Asians and Oceanians are, right?
If clustering closer to Africa is not due to post OOA migrations into Europe directly Africa, then what is it?
What does this then make your beloved cuckasians?
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
What maternal haplogroups did those ''Africans'' contribute?
The European mtDNA genepool is close to 100% West Eurasian.
East Eurasian and Sub-Saharan maternal markers are exceedingly rare in Europe.
Posts: 695 | From: وكان المصريون القدماء القوقازين | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^You're the joke for your incessant trolling. Its obvious you're ignorant about genetics yet you can't stop yourself making a fool of yourself.
-------------------- It was high time Posts: 314 | From: Home | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Obviously, Europeans cluster closest genetically to Africans out of all non Africans as shown above.
Million dollar question;
If Oceanians, East Asians and Europeans are all part of the same non-African OOA population structure, then Europeans should be as distant genetically from Africans, as East Asians and Oceanians are, right?
If clustering closer to Africa is not due to post OOA migrations into Europe directly Africa, then what is it?
Whats going on here Perahu? Cavalli Sforza explains his results in the study referenced go read it and come back when you fully understand your genetic clustering.
quote:Originally posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718): Obviously, Europeans cluster closest genetically to Africans out of all non Africans as shown above.
Million dollar question;
If Oceanians, East Asians and Europeans are all part of the same non-African OOA population structure, then Europeans should be as distant genetically from Africans, as East Asians and Oceanians are, right?
If clustering closer to Africa is not due to post OOA migrations into Europe directly Africa, then what is it?
Whats going on here Perahu? Cavalli Sforza explains his results in the study referenced go read it and come back when you fully understand your genetic clustering.
Indeed. He is still running away because his racist double standard is exposed. He cannot even do simple reading and accurately register what both the diagram and the written study text explicitly says. Hiding behind one liners doesn't fool anyone.
What's taking him so long in both reading Cavalli-Sforza, and refuting Cavalli-Sforza?
^What does this then make your beloved cuckasians? -----------
quote:Originally posted by Perahu: ^ If Europeans are half African half Asian then explain why Europeans do not have mtDNA L at appreciable frequencies?
^^You are already stumbling right off the bat. Cavalli Sforza said one third African, two-thirds Asian, not "half African and half Asian". Can you not read?
If you dispute Cavalli-Sforza, show where his data and interpretations, and that of Bowcock are wrong. You dispute their scholarship. It is up to you now to show where they are wrong. Quote directly from Cavalli-Sforza in your reply. Describe the sampling regime and methods he uses and your analysis of said sampling, methods and his discussion.
Lets not deal with your off the cuff one-liners. You already did that and showed that you did not even read what they are saying accurately. If you cannot even do such a simple task why should anyone entertain your claims? Prove you actually read and analyzed his study. The burden of proof is on you.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
Europeans and East Asians are equidistant to Sub-Saharan Africans.
Posts: 695 | From: وكان المصريون القدماء القوقازين | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hay Perahunoid and Casthiteraid got a lil som som fer ya! stick this up your Nostratic
On the last day of the research team's 2010 field season, the scientists went to the final place on their list, a site on a hot, windy, dry plateau near a river channel that was strewn with stone artifacts. Such artifacts are common in Arabia, but until now the ones seen were usually relatively young in age. Upon closer examination, Rose recalled asking, "Oh my God, these are Nubians — what the heck are these doing here?" The 100-to-200 artifacts they found there were of a style dubbed Nubian Middle Stone Age, well-known throughout the Nile Valley, where they date back about 74,000-to-128,000 years. Scientists think ancient craftsmen would have shaped the artifacts by striking flakes off flint, leading to distinctive triangular pieces. This is the first time such artifacts have been found outside of Africa. Subsequent field work turned up dozens of sites with similar artifacts. Using a technique known as optically stimulated luminescence dating, which measures the minute amount of light long-buried objects can emit, to see how long they have been interred, the researchers estimate the artifacts are about 106,000 years old, exactly what one might expect from Nubian Middle Stone Age artifacts and far earlier than conventional dates for the exodus from Africa.
posted
Simpleton, that's a reference to distance between certain few populations not at a whole geographical level like the dendrogam below shows.
Mind you, this is from an author who loves the word "Caucasoid" too, lol.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
Europeans and East Asians are equidistant to Sub-Saharan Africans.
Posts: 695 | From: وكان المصريون القدماء القوقازين | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Perahu: Outdated crap from the 90s.
Genetics doesn't just erase or become discredited like outdated craniofacial terms such as 'Caucasoid'. Genetics is your DNA, it's in your blood kid they don't change. Stop dreaming.
quote:Originally posted by Perahu: Genetic divergences based on recently fully scanned genomes:
Lol between the genomes of the Yoruba, French, San etc...? These are single populations within a broader scale, sorry but the Yoruba and San being compared to the French or Han does not represent Africa vs Europe or Asia, you need to get your head out your ass and step into reality.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yoruba = racially pure Negroids San = racially pure Capoids French = racially pure Caucasoids Papuan = racially pure Australoids Han = racially pure Mongoloids
These researchers are smart enough not to use impure populations.
Posts: 695 | From: وكان المصريون القدماء القوقازين | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lol you have to be kidding me. First of all the researchers you're quoting weren't studying genetic distances of world populations instead as per their research the gene flow from archaic hominids.
In turn, Cavalli Sforza was considering populations as a whole on a large geographic scale.
Again, the Yoruba population does not even come close to representing all of the genetic diversity within Africa (with all non Africans representing a sub-set of African diversity in the first place) nor do the San comparing to a single French or Han sample equate to an Africa vs Europe vs East Asia scenario.
Only a ridiculously infantile mind would agree with your assertions here. Nobody else. You know you makes no sense. In other words you're grasping at straws.
Address the below head on, running from it won't make it go away, you know, because remember it's DNA.
"Europeans appear as a genetic mixture, 2/3 Asian, 1/3 African".--Cavalli-Sforza
Question;
If Oceanians, East Asians and Europeans are all part of the same non-African OOA population structure, then Europeans should be as distant genetically from Africans, as East Asians and Oceanians are, right?
If clustering closer to Africa is not due to post OOA migrations into Europe directly Africa, then what is it?
What does this then make your beloved cuckasians?
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
''Africa'' has a sizable Caucasoid population in the North and Caucasoid admixed peoples in the Sahara and East.
However, when compared to racially pure Negroids like the Yoruba there are no ties with Europe.
Posts: 695 | From: وكان المصريون القدماء القوقازين | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:However, when compared to racially pure Negroids like the Yoruba there are no ties with Europe.
Abstract: HLA genes allele distribution has been studied in Mediterranean and sub-Saharan populations. Their relatedness has been tested by genetic distances, neighbour-joining dendrograms and correspondence analyses. The population genetic relationships have been compared with the history of the classical populations living in the area. A revision of the historic postulates would have to be undertaken, particularly in the cases when genetics and history are overtly discordant. HLA genomics shows that: 1) Greeks share an important part of their genetic pool with sub-Saharan Africans (Ethiopians and west Africans) also supported by Chr 7 Markers. The gene flow from Black Africa to Greece may have occurred in Pharaonic times or when Saharan people emigrated after the present hyperarid conditions were established (5000 years B.C.) 2) Turks (Anatolians) do not significantly differ from other Mediterraneans, indicating that while the Asians Turks carried out an invasion with cultural significance (language), it is not genetically detectable. 3) Kurds and Armenians are genetically very close to Turks and other Middle East populations. 4) There is no HLA genetic trace of the so called Aryan invasion, which has only been defined on doubtful linguistic bases. 5) Iberians, including Basques, are related to north-African Berbers. 6) Present-day Algerian and Moroccan urban and country people show an indistinguishable Berber HLA profile. http://thenile.phpbb-host.com/ftopic408.php Except when they do show-up in massive numbers making a lair out of you ... Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Perahu: ''Africa'' has a sizable Caucasoid population in the North and Caucasoid admixed peoples in the Sahara and East.
You've already tried this, and were refuted why do you continue to spout the BS?
You've tried in another thread with your map of the SLC24A5 allele (gene associated with lightskin in Europeans) derivative carriers and failed.
Remember, after you failed, you then tried to claim derived SLC24A5 was coded for cranio-facial tendencies rather than what it's really coded for; SKIN PIGMENTATION! LOL.
In thought, then the original form of SLC24A5 Europeans carried before it mutated into its derived state also influenced cranio-facial characteristics, right?
Now, being that ancestral SLC24A5 is African then Europeans positively looked African according to your logic. HA HA
Anyway, back to reality and what we're speaking of now, the referenced Sforza study is talking about since the times Europe was colonized by anatomically modern humans back some 30-40kya up until recent times there were numerous contribution from Africa and Asia,.
Please, I beg you to tell us which underived haplogroup is specific to or arose in Europe, I bet you can't name even one.
Why? Because Europeans carry all derived lineages from populations outside of Europe.
quote:Originally posted by Perahu: However, when compared to racially pure Negroids like the Yoruba there are no ties with Europe.
As Brada has shown above there are ties from East to West Africa, whomever you want to call Negroids or not is on you lol, still ruins your fantasy of pure Europeans let alone carcassoids.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thing is Mind 718 even their own pure Negro creation they desperately tried to run a way from always follow them home,as a matter o fact it have been waiting at their door all this time.. Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: The thing is Mind 718 even their own pure Negro creation they desperately tried to run a way from always follow them home,as a matter o fact it have been waiting at their door all this time..
Can't run from your origin, whether recent or old, as one of their own acknowledges, geneticist Spencer Wells knows;
posted
20% of Europeans have middle-eastern (Asian) genetic input from Neolithic farmers.
But these farmers were Caucasoid.
Take a look at the earliest busts and artwork we have of the Mesopotamians -
Blue eyed, thin nosed, straight-wavy brown haired, even painted white in most their artwork.
The Neolithic farmers who entered Europe were Caucasoid. Are you saying the people depicted above are black or 'tropical african'? Posts: 2408 | From: My mother's basement | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Perahu: If Europeans are 33% Negroid.
Then why is their mtDNA 0% Negroid.
Why is there not even trace amounts of Negroid (like at the very least 5%).
Obviously, Europeans are *NOT* 33% Negroid.
The sources they cite from say Europeans are partially African, not Negroid.
However they then swap/confuse/distort the word African with Negroid/Black/'Tropical African' despite the fact they are not synonymous terms.
Here is a North African Berber -
By their logic africa = negroid, the above woman and child are Black tropical adapted africans...
They do this in everythread, and it gets boring.
The sources they quote from don't support what they twist. African does not = Negroid, yet they diliberately equate the two and then spam ''europeans are part african''. The african component of europeans looks like the woman and child above, not negroid.
Posts: 2408 | From: My mother's basement | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: African does not = Negroid.
And Negroid does not equal African, you fail as usual, you can try to rationalize it all you want. African here, means indigenous African, those heavily Eurasian influenced coastal north Africans you love to reference are not representative of indigenous Africans, sorry cashitty.
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: The fact Europeans are Asian/African does not mean they are Negroid or Mongoloid.
It means they have a hybrid origin if we look at it from your logic of races. LOL
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: The sources they cite from say Europeans are partially African, not Negroid.
However they then swap/confuse/distort the word African with Negroid/Black/'Tropical African' despite the fact they are not synonymous terms.
Here is a North African Berber -
That old wrinkled white lady is not an indigenous African, you keep clinging to them for dear life.
African here is in reference to indigenous tropical Africans, I know this upsets you but the sooner you accept the better of you'll be.
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: By their logic africa = negroid, the above woman and child are Black tropical adapted africans...
Nope, that's your stupid logic no one elses.
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: They do this in everythread, and it gets boring.
Keep projecting, we all know you are good at that.
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: The sources they quote from don't support what they twist. African does not = Negroid, yet they diliberately equate the two and then spam ''europeans are part african''. The african component of europeans looks like the woman and child above, not negroid.
Don't you wish? LMAO
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: 20% of Europeans have middle-eastern (Asian) genetic input from Neolithic farmers.
But these farmers were Caucasoid.
Take a look at the earliest busts and artwork we have of the Mesopotamians -
You numbskull first of all you were corrected last time you tried to post these images as Mesopotamian they are not Mesopotamian. Secondly Mesopotamia arose thousands of years after the Neolithic farmers migrated into Europe, how then do you equate them? You're lost.
E3b originated in sub-Saharan Africa and expanded into the Near East and northern Africa at the end of the Pleistocene (Underhill et al. 2001) E3b lineages would have then been introduced from the Near East into southern Europe by immigrant farmers, during the Neolithic expansion (Hammer et al. 1998; Semino et al. 2000; Underhill et al., 2001). [Cruciani et al., 2004, pp. 1014-1015]Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Perahu: How are White Berbers not indigenous? They have been in their current form for at least a couple of thousand of years?
They aren't recently mixed.
As we can see in their DNA they carry Eurasian mtDNA markers heavily, their white skin is caused by the derived SLC24A5 allele which is not indigenous to Africa, Hence they don't represent indigenous Africans, not rocket science.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The admixture occurred mainly thousands of years ago.
They form their own distinct cluster now, and therefore are considered biologically native to Africa.
Posts: 695 | From: وكان المصريون القدماء القوقازين | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yet, Somalis, Tutsis etc... are not biologically African right? But these coastal north African heavily Eurasian influenced populations are? You're a quack, lol.
Anyone in their right mind knows since the SLC24A5 derived allele makes their skin white and is not indigenous to Africa, they then can NOT represent indigenous Africans. Plain and simple.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ They can't be biologically African representing indigenous Africans, when their white skin is not indigenous to Africa, sorry but all your wishful thinking is not gonna change this fact.
quote:Originally posted by Perahu: They are also African, but part Caucasoid part Negroid.
Damn you just don't learn, didn't you just try to claim this in another thread where you claimed the derived SLC24A5 allele was heavily present in the populations you call carcassoid and FAILED?
Don't you remember you then tried to claim derived SLC24A5 coded for cranio-facial characteristics? LOL
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are going to be very disappointed when they finally decide to analyze the genetic structure of Ancient Egyptians.
A lot of SLC24A5 and other Caucasoid pimp juice will be found, mark my words!
Posts: 695 | From: وكان المصريون القدماء القوقازين | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yea yea yea, are you that rainingburntice character? He also argues from a point of view that hasn't happened but predicts it in the future as his evidence. What clowns you guys are. Lol
But I think it's pretty safe to say that since the ancient Egyptians are shown to be tropically adapted like other Africans in contrast to those coastal north Africans who are intermediate between Europeans and Africans, that ancient Egyptians who you claim are carcassoids would have been as dark as these tropical Africans below you so incessantly try to claim as carcassoids as well.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718): Yea yea yea, are you that rainingburntice character? He also argues from a point of view that hasn't happened but predicts it in the future as his evidence. What clowns you guys are. Lol
But I think it's pretty safe to say that since the ancient Egyptians are shown to be tropically adapted like other Africans in contrast to those coastal north Africans who are intermediate between Europeans and Africans, that ancient Egyptians who you claim are carcassoids would have been as dark as these tropical Africans below you so incessantly try to claim as carcassoids as well.
Ancient Egyptians are going to genetically cluster with Modern Egyptians. They will also be genetically closer to EUROPEANS than to true Negroids like West Africans.
You are going to be very very disappointed soon.
All those years of trolling were for nothing!
Posts: 695 | From: وكان المصريون القدماء القوقازين | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hay Perahunoid don't Greeks cluster with your "true Negroids" like West Africans.
HLA genes allele distribution has been studied in Mediterranean and sub-Saharan populations. Their relatedness has been tested by genetic distances, neighbour-joining dendrograms and correspondence analyses. The population genetic relationships have been compared with the history of the classical populations living in the area. A revision of the historic postulates would have to be undertaken, particularly in the cases when genetics and history are overtly discordant. HLA genomics shows that: 1) Greeks share an important part of their genetic pool with sub-Saharan Africans (Ethiopians and west Africans) also supported by Chr 7 Markers. The gene flow from Black Africa to Greece may have occurred in Pharaonic times or when Saharan people emigrated after the present hyperarid conditions were established (5000 years B.C.)
My how soon we forget..
In the ancient sample of the Iberian Peninsula highlights the presence of 50% of sub-Saharan lines. These lines may have been introduced during the Solutrean, the Mesolithic or Neolithic. This work also delved into various technical aspects of obtaining authentic ancient DNA and the influence of several variables in the preservation of genetic material. ABSTRACT The origins of the European Populations Studied extensively from Have Been Different disciplines. It is Thought That ancient demic expansions, like occurred After the Late Those Glacial Maximum or DURING the Middle East from neolithic diffussion to Europe. The Possibility to recover DNA from past Populations offers an unique Opportunity to test in situ These hypothesis. 197 It Were Analyzed teeth and bones from 115 individuos Archaeological Sites and 17 Different from Middle East and the Iberian Peninsula.
quote:Originally posted by Perahu: You are going to be very very disappointed soon.
How long do we have to wait one two three years? Lol when is your wishful thinking predictions going to come about? LMAO
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718): Secondly Mesopotamia arose thousands of years after the Neolithic farmers migrated into Europe, how then do you equate them? You're lost.
E3b originated in sub-Saharan Africa and expanded into the Near East and northern Africa at the end of the Pleistocene (Underhill et al. 2001) E3b lineages would have then been introduced from the Near East into southern Europe by immigrant farmers, during the Neolithic expansion (Hammer et al. 1998; Semino et al. 2000; Underhill et al., 2001). [Cruciani et al., 2004, pp. 1014-1015]
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ So would you like to explain why the Sumerians are white as their artwork and busts show, but you are claiming the Neolithic inhabitants were 'tropical african'?
Was there then a racial displacement? And secondly where did the white Sumerians then come from?
Posts: 2408 | From: My mother's basement | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^Are you on crack? The Sumerian civilization arose thousands of years after Neolithic farmers spread into Europe bringing along African E1b1b some nine thousand years ago. 4000 years is a long time, your comparison is nonsensical.
It is noteworthy that the archaeological evidence indicates an occupation hiatus in the Egyptian Nile Valley between 10,000-6000 BCE (Midant-Reynes, 2000) [Keita, 2005, p. 564] The Egyptian valley was apparently abandoned for some reason between 10,000-6,000 BCE; some peoples may have gone into the Sahara, and others into the Levant. Perhaps at the beginning of this period, or near it (Bar-Yosef, 1987), marks when pre-Neolithic migrants with haplotype V [E3b] would have established pre-proto-Semitic in the Levant, who descendant Semitic became prominent via language shift in populations with VII and VIII; the later Common Semitic (CS) was spoken by an agricultural population (Diakonoff, 1998). Early Amazigh speakers in the northern Sahara in this model would have gone west. [Keita, 2005, p.565] "a Mesolithic population carrying Group III lineages with M35/M215 mutation [E3b] expanded northwards from sub-Saharan Africa to north Africa and the Levant"(Underhill et al., 2001, p. 55; see also Bosch et al., 2001; Bar-Yosef, 1987) [Keita, 2005, p. 562] E3b originated in sub-Saharan Africa and expanded into the Near East and northern Africa at the end of the Pleistocene (Underhill et al. 2001) E3b lineages would have then been introduced from the Near East into southern Europe by immigrant farmers , during the Neolithic expansion (Hammer et al. 1998; Semino et al. 2000; Underhill et al., 2001). [Cruciani et al., 2004, pp. 1014-1015]
quote:“The presence of E-M78* Y chromosomes in the Balkans (two Albanians) , previously described virtually only in northeast Africa, upper Nile, gives rise to the question of what the original source of the E-M78 may have been. Correlations between human-occupation sites and radiocarbon-dated climatic fluctuations in the eastern Sahara and Nile Valley during the Holocene provide a framework for interpreting the main southeast European centric distribution of E-V13. A recent archaeological study reveals that during a desiccation period in North Africa, while the eastern Sahara was depopulated, a refugium existed on the border of present-day Sudan and Egypt, near Lake Nubia, until the onset of a humid phase around 8500 BC (radiocarbon-calibrated date). The rapid arrival of wet conditions during this Early Holocene period provided an impetus for population movement into habitat that was quickly settled afterwards. Hg E-M78* representatives, although rare overall, still occur in Egypt, which is a hub for the distribution of the various geographically localized M78-related sub-clades. The northward-moving rainfall belts during this period could have also spurred a rapid migration of Mesolithic foragers northwards in Africa, the Levant and ultimately onwards to Asia Minor and Europe, where they each eventually differentiated their regionally distinctive branches.”
Larry Angel (1972):
"one can identify Negroid traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters.(McCown, 1939) and in Anatolian and Macedonian first farmers, probably from Nubia via the predecesors of the Badarians and Tasians ..."
^^After you've read the above, read it again, digest it, and then read it again and again maybe then just maybe you'll start understanding.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: ^ So would you like to explain why the Sumerians are white as their artwork and busts show, but you are claiming the Neolithic inhabitants were 'tropical african'?
Was there then a racial displacement? And secondly where did the white Sumerians then come from?
These people you illustrate are not Sumerians. These people were Gutians. The Gutians were hill people.
They are Caucasoid - thin nosed, long wavy hair reaching their backs or buttocks. Take a look at the hair of the Sumerian at the top left. Good luck finding a negro with hair like that.
Posts: 2408 | From: My mother's basement | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718): [QB] ^^Are you on crack? The Sumerian civilization arose thousands of years after Neolithic farmers spread into Europe bringing along African E1b1b some nine thousand years ago. 4000 years is a long time, your comparison is nonsensical.
Sumer was first settled between 4500 and 4001 BC by a non-Semitic people who possibly did not speak the Sumerian language (as evidenced by names of cities, rivers, basic occupations, etc.). [3] These people are now called proto-Euphrateans or Ubaidians,[4] and had evolved from the Samarra culture of northern Mesopotamia.[5][6][7][8] The Ubaidians were the first civilizing force in Sumer, draining the marshes for agriculture, developing trade, and establishing industries, including weaving, leatherwork, metalwork, masonry, and pottery
The Neolithic 3 (PN) began around 6500 BC in the Fertile Crescent.
--
So the Sumerians desended from the Ubaid farmers.
And we know what the Sumerians looked like -
They are Caucasoid - thin nosed, straight-wavy brown haired, blue eyed etc.
Posts: 2408 | From: My mother's basement | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
"one can identify Negroid traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters.(McCown, 1939) and in Anatolian and Macedonian first farmers, probably from Nubia via the predecesors of the Badarians and Tasians ..."
So why do the Sumerians appear Caucasoid and not Negroid?
Please explain. Was their a racial displacement?
Posts: 2408 | From: My mother's basement | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
''The little Mediterranean people, whose ancestors were the Mesolithic Natufians of Palestine'' - Races of Man, Sonia Mary Cole, 1965, p. 59.
''The Natufians lived in caves and temporary shelters: they were mainly a small- bodied, long-headed proto-Mediterranean race'' - Chambers's encyclopaedia, 1967
''Physically the chacolithic Giblites are described as small, dark long-heads of the Mediterranean rae, comparable to the Natufians'' - New light on the most ancient East, Vere Gordon Childe, 1953, p. 220.
''They were of rugged Eurafrican (Robust Mediterranean -Linear Basic White) stock with a dolichocephalic skull and of rather short stature'' - The Neolithic of the Near East, James Mellaart, 1975, p. 38.
==
Natufians = Eurafrican/Mediterraneanoid (Caucasoid) not Negroid.
Posts: 2408 | From: My mother's basement | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
We will all always be the dirt on the bottom of THEIR shoes. In their mind no amount of talking will convince them that we are at their level. People, state your strongest case and move on. WE are right. And the evidence is our best defense. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic