quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: That is however a nice and simple definition. All you would have to do is decide a particular shade that could be measured with optical equiptment, a dividing line that separates white from black. Then it's no problem to decide who's black and who's white,
But sub-Saharan Africans are the most diverse in the world as regards skin color, so whether they be light brown to jet black- they would still be sub-Saharan Africans, and still be black in social construct terms.
So we just need to pick a sufficiently light shade of brown that would include such Africans and any other people who would fit into the selected darkness minumum shade
Posts: 43114 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ]What an incredibly stupid comment - and so typical of Albinos.
There are only three races to work with: Black, White/Albino, Mongol.
So what, you're channeling Raven-Symoné - they're "Dark Whites"?
Ha,ha,ha,ha,ha:
Btw - haven't you heard, ALL HUMANS COME FROM AFRICA!
Damn you people are delusional!
That's right we all come from Africa and these days anthropologists say that there no races only the "HUMAN RACE" see the AAA statement on race http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic888771.files/aaa_statement.pdf . Racists in the past have proposed as many as 28 different "races" so your 3 are very unsophisticated. People who keep using races as identifiers are called "racists."
Identifiers such as Black White Red,even Brown are just that identifiers which is imprecise at best, there are no races..however there are folks who are linked closer to each other through genetics although some may looked dissimilar, But in a socio political stance the system of White Supremacy is very real and punishment for being darker on a sliding scale is the same for a Black from India, East Asia, Africa and the so-called middle east, then there is the Americas which is ratched up by x10 this is both overt and subtle, it found it's way in to academia and the jobs market,so it is not enough to say there are no races or we are all of the same race because social construct is still a Mfkr.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: I would be interested in your documenting this. but not with grainy black-and-white photographs of "Aztecs" in the 19th century, or with crania like Luzia , Naia-- skeletons do not tell us either hair shape or skin color, or paintings or photographs taken after slavery began because all of it is much more easily explained by mating between African slaves and others in the New World. So far every pre-columbian paleoindian that has been genotyped has only the New World markers and no African genes.
Ok I do not do grainy Black and White photos of Aztecs of the 19th century nor did I say they were Africans however skeletons of a broad phenotype that could be Africans have been found in the Americas. This is an old study of a find of two skeletal remains discovered on St Croix Virgin Island in 1974,carried out by Bio-anthropologist Larry Angel Douglas H Ubelaker, also posted below is an article that appeared in 1974 Analysis Of The Hull's Bay Skeletons St Thomas
dated 600-1000 BC (Von Wuthenau 1969) Again not saying the above are in fact Africans but the type definitely exist among a wide variety of other faces and hair types this link is excellent for further research into photographic evidence. http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~legneref/ethnic/image.htm#PRECLASSICPosts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by tropicals redacted: [QB]
quote:You didn't use photos but I'm using photos. Why can't you tell us who in those photos you thing are black or not? I have been answering your questions.
You're using photos to create ambiguity in the face of the accumulated evidence.One of the images is of someone who appears to be of south Asian origin??? How would discussing whether or not he's black be germane to assessing whether ancient Egyptians were black African in origin?
If you are to ask if the Egyptians are black you first have to have a confident conception of what black is. Theories that this thing called "black" exists need to be tested with real world examples, rather than reamaining an abstract theoretical realm. With all the varying types in ancient Egypt if one's concept of black is tight one should not be phased by the prospect of so called "ambiguities"
quote:Originally posted by tropicals redacted:
quote: Young Cartheginians? I showed you a very well known source, Loeb classics that said Egyptians, so you didn't uncover a conspiracy with a custom comissioned translation
What does this^ even mean?
What it means is that right there on the famed Loeb classics library was a translation of Young Cartheginians aka "Little Catheginians" and they had translated the said quote as "Egyptans" not Ethiopians. The point is if you asked your professor to translate it and he or she came up with "Egyptians" it's not like there wasn't already a well known translation that already exists also using "Egyptians"
quote:Originally posted by tropicals redacted:
quote: As for Ethiopians translation you cannot assume that the word black being mentioned is why the choose that, there are other contextual reasons and I need to read more on it.
Really? So given the deliberate evasiveness and also assumptions made within Egyptology and the classics on the population backgrounds of the ancient Egyptians, you think it's unreasonable to suggest that something's amiss?
I can tell you that the classicist who translated it for me wasn't convinced, actually displeased, when she came across the replacement of 'Egyptian' with 'Ethiopian'.
Contextual reasons that (conveniently) you need to read more on? Please.
look here are some references Festus' Latin dictionary Aegyptīni : Aethiopes
This is laughable. So you're saying that an empirical observation of and reference to black skin colour in an African population has little significance for whether we'd regard them as black?
I'm trying to figure out your comment here. If I say according to the ancient defintion "black" regards skin color alone then that IS based on empirical observation. Thus any person, African or otherwise with skin dark enough would be regarded as black. Yes, color can be empirically observed
_____________
Aslo keep in mind the ancient writers did not classify people by color as in "black people" in the same way Chinese people don't call themsleves "yellow people" or anything of the like. They only used color words in describing skin tone, not "whites" and "blacks" as if a type of person as is done in modern Western civilization
I'm disappointed you wouldn't take the photo challenge
Posts: 43114 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: I am not denying that there are black people all over the world (Andamanese, negritos, Southern Indians, etc.) what I object is the idea that they are black because Africans came over a few thousand years ago and produced them; rather than they, too, descend from those who left Africa 100,000-70,000 years ago and have been shaped by the environment they live in.
You keep saying stupider and stupider stuff.
What, are you still into the Blacks turned into Whites in Europe nonsense?
So therefore Blacks in the Americas turned into something else too?
Something else like WHAT???
See how Albino lies have left you - a babbling idiot.
Blacks did NOT turn White!
They MADE Whites!
It's called Albinism.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: I am not denying that there are black people all over the world (Andamanese, negritos, Southern Indians, etc.) what I object is the idea that they are black because Africans came over a few thousand years ago and produced them; rather than they, too, descend from those who left Africa 100,000-70,000 years ago and have been shaped by the environment they live in.
You keep saying stupider and stupider stuff.
What, are you still into the Blacks turned into Whites in Europe nonsense?
So therefore Blacks in the Americas turned into something else too?
Something else like WHAT???
See how Albino lies have left you - a babbling idiot.
Blacks did NOT turn White!
They MADE Whites!
It's called Albinism.
So if somebody has a birth defect like blindness, the parents "made" it
They said let's ~make~ the child blind
and it came out blind, LOL
quote:Originally posted by Mike111:
Blacks did NOT turn White!
They MADE Whites!
well why are you always complaining? you made them, take responsibility If the parent can't control the kids what does that say about the parent???
Posts: 43114 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
What, are you still into the Blacks turned into Whites in Europe nonsense?
^^ WRONG >>
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
The Caves of Europe, were seen as temples by the ancient Blacks of Europe.
The last Ice Age in Europe came suddenly. The Aurignacians probably sought santuary in their caves/temples.
. Since the last Ice Age came suddenly the Blacks were trapped in the caves. In darkness.
The first Europeans were definitely Black when they entered the Caucasus Caves. In the caves due to the absence of sunlight the Aurignacians lost the melanin in their skin. The melanin left the skin and congregated in the hair.
This is evident when we look at the depigmented creatures who lived in the caves.The drawings from the Grotte de Marche shows tha various facial changes that took place among the Proto-Europeans who remained trapped in the caves until after 1400-1200 BC.
The Grotte de Marche engravings show the evolution of Blacks into europeans.
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: I would be interested in your documenting this. but not with grainy black-and-white photographs of "Aztecs" in the 19th century, or with crania like Luzia , Naia-- skeletons do not tell us either hair shape or skin color, or paintings or photographs taken after slavery began because all of it is much more easily explained by mating between African slaves and others in the New World. So far every pre-columbian paleoindian that has been genotyped has only the New World markers and no African genes.
.
The last question first:
WHAT ARE AFRICAN GENES???
You lying fool, ALL GENES ARE AFRICAN GENES!
The Albino stupidity that they have UNIQUE genes (like "R") has been debunked - get over it!
The rest of your pathetic drivel is the typical Albino delusional dodge of "Prove it to me without using artifact or data". Ha,ha,ha,ha:
Fool, that's how science is done: artifacts and generated data is the basis of science - just who the hell do you think you are talking to?
Anyhow, this is some of the data:
.
And these are some of the artifacts - PRE-SLAVERY!
.
.
I have left you with nowhere to go, do the intelligent thing, give up.Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
@Lioness Given what the evidence shows us of ancient Egyptian population origins, and given the heterogeneity of what we call black today (as in African descended) it's common sense to infer that they would now largely be regarded as 'black'.
It's not hard, but of course, people, for whatever reasons, play for ambiguities.
When Mary Lefkowitz agrees that the ancient Egyptians would be regarded as black today, we should think about why certain academics are evasive, and why individuals on the internet, such as Lioness, aim to muddy the waters.
quote: If you are to ask if the Egyptians are black you first have to have a confident conception of what black is. Theories that this thing called "black" exists need to be tested with real world examples, rather than reamaining an abstract theoretical realm. With all the varying types in ancient Egypt if one's concept of black is tight one should not be phased by the prospect of so called "ambiguities"
posted
@Lioness Which makes the point of the interchangeability of Egyptians and Ethiopians...now how could this be possible if they were dissimilar? It furthers the statement Sally-Ann Ashton made at the 2009 Manchester conference that Greeks and Romans confused Egyptians and Ethiopians...
My point above, however, was why classicists substitute Egyptian for Ethiopian.It's a theme. Whenever there's reference to or depiction of obvious 'blackness' in an ancient Egyptian context,then the subject becomes 'Ethiopian'.
I'm glad you reference Frank Snowden...his position was generally weird and confused. Although on page 247 of The Negro in Classical Italy even he wrote:"the color of African negroes varies widely and ranges from an intense black to a light yellow..."
quote: look here are some references Festus' Latin dictionary Aegyptīni : Aethiopes
posted
@Lioness But we're talking specifically about the ancient Egyptians. I've never said that classical writers had a sociological context of 'blackness'. Their descriptions are useful because they're matter of fact observations of African skin colour. From them we know that indigenous Egyptians, as Africans, fell within the range of complexions seen peoples of African descent that we would now call 'black'.
It's not hard.
quote:I'm trying to figure out your comment here. If I say according to the ancient defintion "black" regards skin color alone then that IS based on empirical observation. Thus any person, African or otherwise with skin dark enough would be regarded as black. Yes, color can be empirically observed
_____________
Aslo keep in mind the ancient writers did not classify people by color as in "black people" in the same way Chinese people don't call themsleves "yellow people" or anything of the like. They only used color words in describing skin tone, not "whites" and "blacks" as if a type of person as is done in modern Western civilization
I'm disappointed you wouldn't take the photo challenge
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: As populations inhabiting tropical and subtropical environments black people can and have been found all over the globe.
And just like in America, it is the Europeans who documented this diversity the most, yet will in many cases deny and ignore it.
I am not denying that there are black people all over the world (Andamanese, negritos, Southern Indians, etc.) what I object is the idea that they are black because Africans came over a few thousand years ago and produced them; rather than they, too, descend from those who left Africa 100,000-70,000 years ago and have been shaped by the environment they live in.
All black people no matter where they are are a result of the environment. Africans aren't 'special' in that regard. Africa straddles the Equator and the first humans originated in tropical environments. That is the only reason why Africa is populated by black people. Likewise, the humans outside of Africa who are also black also live in tropical environments near the equator. Therefore the common denominator isn't Africa it is the tropical environment the populations live in. That is basic biology.
Posts: 8912 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: All black people no matter where they are are a result of the environment. Africans aren't 'special' in that regard. Africa straddles the Equator and the first humans originated in tropical environments. That is the only reason why Africa is populated by black people. Likewise, the humans outside of Africa who are also black also live in tropical environments near the equator. Therefore the common denominator isn't Africa it is the tropical environment the populations live in. That is basic biology.
.
You have to be kidding!
Please RETHINK you answer, and adjust your comments.
HERE IS WHY!
.
The LiveScience Headline says: 7,000-Year-Old Human Bones Suggest New Date for Light-Skin Gene
An ancient European hunter-gatherer man had dark skin and blue eyes, a new genetic analysis has revealed. The analysis of the man, who lived in modern-day Spain only about 7,000 years ago, shows light-skin genes in Europeans evolved much more recently than previously thought.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^I dunno, but it seems strange that people who have been at it for so many years, would make mistakes like that.
I though the "Blacks are only native to Africa," therefore everyone else is something else - nonsense. Had been forever debunked and rejected by sensible people - except Doxie. Now here it is again - very strange.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ]What an incredibly stupid comment - and so typical of Albinos.
There are only three races to work with: Black, White/Albino, Mongol.
So what, you're channeling Raven-Symoné - they're "Dark Whites"?
Ha,ha,ha,ha,ha:
Btw - haven't you heard, ALL HUMANS COME FROM AFRICA!
Damn you people are delusional!
That's right we all come from Africa and these days anthropologists say that there no races only the "HUMAN RACE" see the AAA statement on race http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic888771.files/aaa_statement.pdf . Racists in the past have proposed as many as 28 different "races" so your 3 are very unsophisticated. People who keep using races as identifiers are called "racists."
Identifiers such as Black White Red,even Brown are just that identifiers which is imprecise at best, there are no races..however there are folks who are linked closer to each other through genetics although some may looked dissimilar, But in a socio political stance the system of White Supremacy is very real and punishment for being darker on a sliding scale is the same for a Black from India, East Asia, Africa and the so-called middle east, then there is the Americas which is ratched up by x10 this is both overt and subtle, it found it's way in to academia and the jobs market,so it is not enough to say there are no races or we are all of the same race because social construct is still a Mfkr.
I agree. There is no denying that racism in the past and now has existed and is evil, or that there is social construction of races. My arguments is with claims that Africans, in the last few thousand years, have been the bearers of advanced culture to a lll sorts of different places in the world.
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ]What an incredibly stupid comment - and so typical of Albinos.
There are only three races to work with: Black, White/Albino, Mongol.
So what, you're channeling Raven-Symoné - they're "Dark Whites"?
Ha,ha,ha,ha,ha:
Btw - haven't you heard, ALL HUMANS COME FROM AFRICA!
Damn you people are delusional!
That's right we all come from Africa and these days anthropologists say that there no races only the "HUMAN RACE" see the AAA statement on race http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic888771.files/aaa_statement.pdf . Racists in the past have proposed as many as 28 different "races" so your 3 are very unsophisticated. People who keep using races as identifiers are called "racists."
Identifiers such as Black White Red,even Brown are just that identifiers which is imprecise at best, there are no races..however there are folks who are linked closer to each other through genetics although some may looked dissimilar, But in a socio political stance the system of White Supremacy is very real and punishment for being darker on a sliding scale is the same for a Black from India, East Asia, Africa and the so-called middle east, then there is the Americas which is ratched up by x10 this is both overt and subtle, it found it's way in to academia and the jobs market,so it is not enough to say there are no races or we are all of the same race because social construct is still a Mfkr.
I agree. There is no denying that racism in the past and now has existed and is evil, or that there is social construction of races. My arguments is with claims that Africans, in the last few thousand years, have been the bearers of advanced culture to a lll sorts of different places in the world.
Why is that an argument to you?
Posts: 22249 | From: Omni | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: There is no denying that racism in the past and now has existed and is evil, or that there is social construction of races. My arguments is with claims that Africans, in the last few thousand years, have been the bearers of advanced culture to a lll sorts of different places in the world.
Albino racist in denial - that means YOU!
If it wasn't Blacks, then who was it?
Certainly you don't mean to say that it was you Albinos:
Your own scientists say that YOU DIDN'T EXIST YET!!!!
So was it Mongols?
Once again: your own scientists say they were the SECOND wave into the Americas!
Okay,okay: I know, it was MARTIANS!
Everybody - see how pathetic these Albinos are?
Sorry Albino Racist in denial - all that's left is the CORRECT answer - BLACKS!
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Black skinned people according ancient definition >
Yep, we know this by now, so I suspect they looked at each other as well. While these alleged genes exchanged.
Posts: 22249 | From: Omni | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote: I would be interested in your documenting this. but not with grainy black-and-white photographs of "Aztecs" in the 19th century, or with crania like Luzia , Naia-- skeletons do not tell us either hair shape or skin color, or paintings or photographs taken after slavery began because all of it is much more easily explained by mating between African slaves and others in the New World. So far every pre-columbian paleoindian that has been genotyped has only the New World markers and no African genes.
Ok I do not do grainy Black and White photos of Aztecs of the 19th century nor did I say they were Africans however skeletons of a broad phenotype that could be Africans have been found in the Americas. This is an old study of a find of two skeletal remains discovered on St Croix Virgin Island in 1974,carried out by Bio-anthropologist Larry Angel Douglas H Ubelaker, also posted below is an article that appeared in 1974 Analysis Of The Hull's Bay Skeletons St Thomas
dated 600-1000 BC (Von Wuthenau 1969) Again not saying the above are in fact Africans but the type definitely exist among a wide variety of other faces and hair types this link is excellent for further research into photographic evidence. http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~legneref/ethnic/image.htm#PRECLASSIC
From THEY WERE NOT HERE BEFORE COLUMBUS: AFROCENTRIC DIFFUSIONISM IN THE 1990’S. Ethnohistory 44 (#2) 1997(with Gabriel Haslip-Viera and Warren Barbour): 199-234.
quote: of a collection of terracotta figurines owned by Alexander Von Wuthenau in Mexico. These figurines are supposed to be realistic portraits of the inhabitants of Mesoamerica and to show that stereotypical “Negroid” people were present in pre-Columbian times. The evidence provided by these figurines is much less impressive than Van Sertima would have us believe. Most of the figurines were purchased rather than obtained from archaeological excavations, because Von Wuthenau has not conducted any excavations. Thus these figurines are not dated and have no evidence for their origin. More problematical is the fact that Mexican Mesoamericanists, who have examined Von Wuthenau’s collection, including the past and present Director of the Institute for Anthropological Research at the National University of Mexico state that many if not all of these figurines are fakes (Vargas 1991, Viesca Treviño 1991, Litvak-King 1991). One of us (WB)[ Warren Barbour], who specializes in pre-Columbian ceramic figurines, and who has handled thousands of them concurs with that assessment. Von Wuthenau (1985: 235), himself, points out that there may be fakes among the figurines, but claims that the number would be small. In any case Van Sertima does not cite Von Wuthenau accurately. Von Wuthenau makes a number of assertions that change the impression given by Van Sertima considerably: 1) that there is an ancient connection between the Olmecs and the Japanese (1985: 80), 2) that there is a strong Asian presence in the Americas, including Chinese with pigtails (1985: 80, 86-87, 92), 3) that a strong Caucasian presence existed in the Americas from the earliest times forward. This presence included Babylonians, Carthaginians, Vikings, Greeks, Jews, Etruscans and semitic peoples in general (1985: 55, 80, 174-175, 176, 178), and 4) that the ruling class in the Maya and other regions from the Classic onward was white (1985: 174-178). Von Wuthenau presents no evidence concerning the actual mechanism by which West African negroids would come to the Americas beyond a credulous acceptance of any and all diffusionist theorists from the Mormon’s “ten lost tribes of Israel,” to Thor Heyerdahl’s papyrus raft and Charles Hapgood’s Ice Age civilization. References Litvak-King, J. 1991. Personal communication (BOdeM). 5/3/91 Vargas, Luis. 1991. Personal communication (BOdeM). 5/3/91 Viesca Treviño. C. 1991. Personal communication 5/4/91 (BOdeM). Von Wuthenau, A. 1985. América: crisol de las razas del mundo. trans. J. Vázquez. Mexico: Editorial Diana (translation of Unexpected Faces in Ancient America
The skeletons in the Ubelaker report could not be radiocarbon dated because of sea water contamination. They are African but had to be dated by context. One of them was associated with iron nails (therefore post-Columbian). The other one was near a pottery shard that was dated to about 1200 AD.
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: As populations inhabiting tropical and subtropical environments black people can and have been found all over the globe.
And just like in America, it is the Europeans who documented this diversity the most, yet will in many cases deny and ignore it.
I am not denying that there are black people all over the world (Andamanese, negritos, Southern Indians, etc.) what I object is the idea that they are black because Africans came over a few thousand years ago and produced them; rather than they, too, descend from those who left Africa 100,000-70,000 years ago and have been shaped by the environment they live in.
All black people no matter where they are are a result of the environment. Africans aren't 'special' in that regard. Africa straddles the Equator and the first humans originated in tropical environments. That is the only reason why Africa is populated by black people. Likewise, the humans outside of Africa who are also black also live in tropical environments near the equator. Therefore the common denominator isn't Africa it is the tropical environment the populations live in. That is basic biology.
You are absolutely correct!! :-)
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: ]I agree. There is no denying that racism in the past and now has existed and is evil, or that there is social construction of races. My arguments is with claims that Africans, in the last few thousand years, have been the bearers of advanced culture to a lll sorts of different places in the world.
Why is that an argument to you?
I'm not clear what you are after? As Doug M has just pointed out there are black people outside of Africa because of the environment not because they just arrived from Africa in the last 5000 years.
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: I'm not clear what you are after? As Doug M has just pointed out there are black people outside of Africa because of the environment not because they just arrived from Africa in the last 5000 years.
See why I found Doug M's statement fishy?
Perhaps not an innocent mis-statement.
Collusion perhaps?
You never know who is who on the internet.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by lioness: look here are some references Festus' Latin dictionary Aegyptīni : Aethiopes
That is his whole M.O. He knocks on a bunch of doors begging academics for opinions and sharing supposed examples of academic "racism" with them. Some generous and unsuspecting academics are receptive to his freeloading, leeching and gossiping about other academics, while other aren't. He then gets the receptive ones riled up and with more gossip and unsubstantiated examples of so-called "racism". The more his correspondents express disapproval towards their colleagues following his instigations and gossiping, the more he becomes convinced that he was right in the first place. Which is where you get his appeals to authority when he says "such and such PhD/Classicist/(insert some other person's opinion) agrees with me" in lieu of providing his own arguments and analyses. In his demented mind, approval from a PhD automatically shields him from criticism and scrutiny. Everyone who disagrees with him is supposed to fall in line following his announcement that some academic agrees with him.
But here is the thing -- and what you've posted following his allegations of "racism" re: Aegyptini, is an excellent example of this -- closer inspection shows again and again that the majority of his purported examples of "academic racism", aren't racism. They're just a reflection of his paranoia and cringing illiteracy and lack of basic reasoning skills.
Tsk, tsk, tsk. What a monumental screw up. There are actually many academics out there who are worthy of pursuing for certain views they hold. But he's too incompetent, dim-witted and ignorant of the literature to find them. That's why he settles with harassing academics who refuse to use the word "black" and other petty disagreements. Posts: 8807 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: ]I agree. There is no denying that racism in the past and now has existed and is evil, or that there is social construction of races. My arguments is with claims that Africans, in the last few thousand years, have been the bearers of advanced culture to a lll sorts of different places in the world.
Why is that an argument to you?
I'm not clear what you are after? As Doug M has just pointed out there are black people outside of Africa because of the environment not because they just arrived from Africa in the last 5000 years.
That point of confusion is common in many circles. Just because a population has features similar to Africans doesn't mean they just arrived from Africa recently. Case in point the Aeta, Papuans and Andaman Islanders are not genetically close to any African population even though they look African. However, it does support the argument that black African tropically adapted people are the first settlers of the planet as all humans ultimately derive from those types of populations.
Posts: 8912 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: I'm not clear what you are after? As Doug M has just pointed out there are black people outside of Africa because of the environment not because they just arrived from Africa in the last 5000 years.
That point of confusion is common in many circles. Just because a population has features similar to Africans doesn't mean they just arrived from Africa recently. Case in point the Aeta, Papuans and Andaman Islanders are not genetically close to any African population even though they look African. However, it does support the argument that black African tropically adapted people are the first settlers of the planet as all humans ultimately derive from those types of populations.
Quote: Case in point the Aeta, Papuans and Andaman Islanders are not genetically close to any African population even though they look African.
Just goes to show how the Albinos shape opinion and though with their teachings. And because certain populations TRUST the Albinos, they never question their definitions or meanings.
As this Y-dna chart clearly demonstrates CLOSENESS or PROXIMITY is determined by the SUPPOSED date and order of mutations.
But it doesn't really work:
Note these incongruities:
Philippines
Aeta people: Y-dna haplogroups C, K, NO, O.
Mitochondrial DNA Haplogroups from Four Negrito Populations two Aeta, two Agta.
As we can see from the chart, (A) is the first defined mutation, and (R) is the last and most recent human mutation. With C/F & D/E closer to A than to R. So lets see just exactly these people are:
Wiki (outdated but not updated).
In human genetics, Haplogroup A is the a Human Y-chromosome DNA haplogroup. Unlike all other Y-DNA haplogroups, it is not defined by a specific mutation, but as the foundational clade of the patrilineal lineage of contemporary human population, by definition rooted in this population's Y-MRCA (or "Y-chromosomal Adam").
Formerly also known as "clade I", bearers of extant sub-clades of haplogroup A are entirely found in Africa (or among descendants of recently extracted African populations), in contrast with the descendant haplogroup BT ("clade II-X") bearers of which participated in the Out of Africa migration of anatomically modern humans.
Haplogroup A frequencies Study population Freq. (in %)
posted
^Now lets look at the LAST group of humans to evolve a new mutation: the (R) people.
Origins
According to the Genographic Project conducted by the National Geographic Society, Haplogroup R2a arose about 25,000 years ago in Central Asia and its members migrated southward as part of the second major wave of human migration into India.
Sorry Doxie - what I told you was all true, you can Read about it here:
uncertainty neutralizes previous conclusions that the intrusion of HGs R1a1 and R2 [Now R-M124] from the northwest in Dravidian-speaking southern tribes is attributable to a single recent event. Rather, these HGs contain considerable demographic complexity, as implied by their high haplotype diversity. Specifically, they could have actually arrived in southern India from a southwestern Asian source region multiple times, with some episodes considerably earlier than others.
The following is Manoukian's (2006) summary of the findings of the Genographic Project conducted by the National Geographic Society and directed by Spencer Wells (2001):
Haplogroup R, the ancestral clade to R1 and R2, appeared on the Central Asian Steppes around 35,000 to 30,000 years ago.
R1, sister clade to R2, moved to the West (READ EUROPE) from the Central Asian Steppes around 35,000 to 30,000 years ago. R1 pockets were established, from where R1a and R1b emerged.
R2a [R-M124] made its first entry into the Indian sub-continent around 25,000 years ago. The routes taken are not clear, although the Indus and Ganges rivers are possible theories put forward. There could, of course, have been multiple immigrations of this haplogroup into the Indian sub-continent, both in the Paleolithic and the Neolithic
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: I'm not clear what you are after? As Doug M has just pointed out there are black people outside of Africa because of the environment not because they just arrived from Africa in the last 5000 years.
That point of confusion is common in many circles. Just because a population has features similar to Africans doesn't mean they just arrived from Africa recently. Case in point the Aeta, Papuans and Andaman Islanders are not genetically close to any African population even though they look African. However, it does support the argument that black African tropically adapted people are the first settlers of the planet as all humans ultimately derive from those types of populations.
Quote: Case in point the Aeta, Papuans and Andaman Islanders are not genetically close to any African population even though they look African.
Just goes to show how the Albinos shape opinion and though with their teachings. And because certain populations TRUST the Albinos, they never question their definitions or meanings.
As this Y-dna chart clearly demonstrates CLOSENESS or PROXIMITY is determined by the SUPPOSED date and order of mutations.
But it doesn't really work:
As we can see from the chart, (A) is the first defined mutation, and (R) is the last and most recent human mutation. With C/F & D/E closer to A than to R. So lets see just exactly these people are:
There is a very fundamental misunderstanding here:
The tree shows the major macrohaplogroups BUT (very importantly) these macrohaplogroups continue to have mutations that define new haplogroups and haplotypes. Therefore there will be haplotypes of very old haplogroups (i.e A, B ,E) that are of more recent origins than haplotypes that are further down the tree (i.e. P,O, R etc..) For example African haplogroups E1b1a7 and E1b1a associated with the Bantu expansion originated 3.4-5.2 KYA,; while haplogroup R1b originated in Asia about 18KYA.
Contrary to the Egypt Search interpretation-- "Africa has the most diverse haplotype variation" This means that new haplotypes have evolved in Africa starting with Macrohaplogroup A 200 KYA, and this is the accumulated variation.
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: So if somebody has a birth defect like blindness, the parents "made" it
They said let's ~make~ the child blind
and it came out blind, LOL [/QB]
You're an idiot.
To think, you on this site 24/7/365 and still make stupid comments like this.
Incest is known to result in defective offspring, so why did your parents ignore this and conceived you? Is it their fault you were born retarded?
Posts: 4693 | From: Saturn | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: I'm not clear what you are after? As Doug M has just pointed out there are black people outside of Africa because of the environment not because they just arrived from Africa in the last 5000 years.
That point of confusion is common in many circles. Just because a population has features similar to Africans doesn't mean they just arrived from Africa recently. Case in point the Aeta, Papuans and Andaman Islanders are not genetically close to any African population even though they look African. However, it does support the argument that black African tropically adapted people are the first settlers of the planet as all humans ultimately derive from those types of populations.
Quote: Case in point the Aeta, Papuans and Andaman Islanders are not genetically close to any African population even though they look African.
Just goes to show how the Albinos shape opinion and though with their teachings. And because certain populations TRUST the Albinos, they never question their definitions or meanings.
As this Y-dna chart clearly demonstrates CLOSENESS or PROXIMITY is determined by the SUPPOSED date and order of mutations.
But it doesn't really work:
As we can see from the chart, (A) is the first defined mutation, and (R) is the last and most recent human mutation. With C/F & D/E closer to A than to R. So lets see just exactly these people are:
There is a very fundamental misunderstanding here:
The tree shows the major macrohaplogroups BUT (very importantly) these macrohaplogroups continue to have mutations that define new haplogroups and haplotypes. Therefore there will be haplotypes of very old haplogroups (i.e A, B ,E) that are of more recent origins than haplotypes that are further down the tree (i.e. P,O, R etc..) For example African haplogroups E1b1a7 and E1b1a associated with the Bantu expansion originated 3.4-5.2 KYA,; while haplogroup R1b originated in Asia about 18KYA.
Contrary to the Egypt Search interpretation-- "Africa has the most diverse haplotype variation" This means that new haplotypes have evolved in Africa starting with Macrohaplogroup A 200 KYA, and this is the accumulated variation.
Contrary to the Egypt Search interpretation
quote:
Fluctuation in population size might be a mark of the out of Africa group because migration and challenges of adapting to new environments subject the population to both influences of drift and inbreeding. Cases of low census size and a larger inbreeding effective size are known in mammalian populations and attributed to recent population reductions [44]. Although the difference between the current and expected census for Australians was not statistically significant it still indicates an interesting feature of this isolated group. It is not clear why Australia was colonized with a higher population size than the populations that colonized other regions. Henn et al., [45] contemplated this in the light of lineage specific acceleration. Our findings, however, indicate that the population of Australia may have maintained a legacy of high Ne originally carried by the ancestral group that left Africa and seen in the number of haplotypes that survived in their gene pool. This may suggest that both census and effective size of the group that made it to Australia was large enough to counteract the effect of drift and permit survival of relics of these original haplotypes.
It is not only genetic data that lends support to an east African origin of humans but the unparalleled ethnic and linguistic diversity that remains one of the highest worldwide. Interestingly the two most ancestral sequences in the NJ tree figure refer to Nubian individuals.
Nubia is currently identified with one of the most ancient human settlements, the Say culture. Recently, a related compound associated with a lithic middle Stone Agindustry was discovered in Dhofar Oman and taken as an evidence of human migration out of Africa through an Arabian route [46]. Overall, the various genetic markers used in the current analysis support the observation of human effective population size larger than previously estimated, and emphasize the importance of sampling populations of putative deep ancestry.
[...]
quote: According to the current data East Africa is home to nearly 2/3 of the world genetic diversity independent of sampling effect. Similar figure have been suggested for sub-Saharan Africa populations [1]. The antiquity of the east African gene pool could be viewed not only from the perspective of the amount of genetic diversity endowed within it but also by signals of uni-modal distribution in their mitochondrial DNA (Hassan et al., unpublished) usually taken as an indication of populations that have passed through ‘‘recent’’ demographic expansion [33], although in this case, may in fact be considered a sign of extended shared history of in situ evolution where alleles are exchanged between neighboring demes [34].
Figure S1 Neighbor joining (NJ). NJ tree of the world populations based on MT-CO2 sequences. The evolutionary relationship of 171 sequences and evolutionary history was inferred using the Neighbor-Joining method. The optimal tree with the sum of branch length = 0.20401570 is shown. The evolutionary distances were computed using the Maximum Composite Likelihood method and are in the units of the number of base substitutions per site. Codon positions included were 1st+2nd+3rd+Noncoding. All positions containing gaps and missing data were eliminated from the dataset. There were a total of 543 positions in the final dataset. Phylogenetic analyses were conducted in MEGA4. Red dots: east Africa, Blue: Africa, Green: Asia, Yellow: Australia, Pink: Europe and gray: America. (TIF)
Figure S2 Multidimensional Scaling Plot (MDS). The 2nd and 3rd coordinates of an MDS plot of 848 nuclear microsatellite loci from 469 individuals of 24 world populations. MDS uses pairwise IBS data based on the 848 loci generated by PLINK software and plotted using R version 2.15.0. The figure, besides a separate clustering of east Africans, indicates the substantial contribution of Africans and east Africans to the founding of populations of Europe and Asia. (TIF)
Figure S3 Multidimensional Scaling Plot (MDS). The 3rd and 4th coordinates of an MDS plot of 848 Microsatellite loci, across the human genome in 469 individuals from 24 populations from Africa, Asia and Europe. MDS uses pairwise IBS data based on the 848 loci generated by PLINK software and plotted using R version 2.15.0. The central position of east Africans and some other Africans emphasizes the founding role of east African gene pool and the disparate alignment on coordinates along which the world populations were founded including populations of Aftica aligning along the 4th dimension. (TIF)
Figure 4. Multidimensional Scaling Plot (MDS). A. First and second coordinates of an MDS plot of 848 Microsatellite Marshfield data set across the human genome for 24 populations from Africa, Asia and Europe. MDS plot was constructed from pairwise differences FST generated by Arlequin program (Table S3). B. First and second coordinates of an MDS plot of 848 Microsatellite loci, across the human genome in 469 individuals from 24 populations from Africa, Asia and Europe. MDS uses pairwise IBS data based on the 848 loci generated by PLINK software and plotted using R version 2.15.0. East Africans cluster to the left of the plot, while Beja (red cluster in the middle), assumes intermediate position. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0097674.g004
Figure S4 Multidimensional Scaling Plot (MDS). First and second coordinates of an MDS plot based on MT-CO2 data set constructed from pairwise differences FST generated by Arlequin v3.11. Population code as follows: Nara: Nar, Kunama (Kun), Hidarb (Hid), Afar (Afa), Saho (Sah), Bilen (Bil), Tigre (Tgr), Tigrigna (Tig), Rashaida (Rsh), Nilotics (Nil), Beja (Bej), Ethiopians(Eth), Egyptians (Egy), Moroccans (Mor), Southern Africans (Sth), Pygmy (Pyg), Saudi Arabia (Sdi), Asia (Asi), Europe (Eur), Native Americans (NA), Australians (Ast), Nubians (Nub), Nuba (Nba) (TIF)
--Jibril Hirbo, Sara Tishkoff et al.
The Episode of Genetic Drift Defining the Migration of Humans out of Africa Is Derived from a Large East African Population Size
PLoS One. 2014; 9(5): e97674. Published online 2014 May 20. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0097674
[*]Figure S2 Multidimensional Scaling Plot (MDS). The 2nd and 3rd coordinates of an MDS plot of 848 nuclear microsatellite loci from 469 individuals of 24 world populations. MDS uses pairwise IBS data based on the 848 loci generated by PLINK software and plotted using R version 2.15.0. The figure, besides a separate clustering of east Africans, indicates the substantial contribution of Africans and east Africans to the founding of populations of Europe and Asia. (TIF) [/list]
Figure S3 Multidimensional Scaling Plot (MDS). The 3rd and 4th coordinates of an MDS plot of 848 Microsatellite loci, across the human genome in 469 individuals from 24 populations from Africa, Asia and Europe. MDS uses pairwise IBS data based on the 848 loci generated by PLINK software and plotted using R version 2.15.0. The central position of east Africans and some other Africans emphasizes the founding role of east African gene pool and the disparate alignment on coordinates along which the world populations were founded including populations of Aftica aligning along the 4th dimension. (TIF)
Figure 4. Multidimensional Scaling Plot (MDS). A. First and second coordinates of an MDS plot of 848 Microsatellite Marshfield data set across the human genome for 24 populations from Africa, Asia and Europe. MDS plot was constructed from pairwise differences FST generated by Arlequin program (Table S3). B. First and second coordinates of an MDS plot of 848 Microsatellite loci, across the human genome in 469 individuals from 24 populations from Africa, Asia and Europe. MDS uses pairwise IBS data based on the 848 loci generated by PLINK software and plotted using R version 2.15.0. East Africans cluster to the left of the plot, while Beja (red cluster in the middle), assumes intermediate position. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0097674.g004
Figure S4 Multidimensional Scaling Plot (MDS). First and second coordinates of an MDS plot based on MT-CO2 data set constructed from pairwise differences FST generated by Arlequin v3.11. Population code as follows: Nara: Nar, Kunama (Kun), Hidarb (Hid), Afar (Afa), Saho (Sah), Bilen (Bil), Tigre (Tgr), Tigrigna (Tig), Rashaida (Rsh), Nilotics (Nil), Beja (Bej), Ethiopians(Eth), Egyptians (Egy), Moroccans (Mor), Southern Africans (Sth), Pygmy (Pyg), Saudi Arabia (Sdi), Asia (Asi), Europe (Eur), Native Americans (NA), Australians (Ast), Nubians (Nub), Nuba (Nba) (TIF)
--Jibril Hirbo, Sara Tishkoff et al.
The Episode of Genetic Drift Defining the Migration of Humans out of Africa Is Derived from a Large East African Population Size
PLoS One. 2014; 9(5): e97674. Published online 2014 May 20. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0097674
No one argues that modern humans came out of Africa-or that Africa "made significant contributions to the founding populations of Asia and Europe"-- That is the key point. Populations once out of Africa evolved independently, just as populations in Africa continued to evolve independently.
What people mean, as I pointed out, when they talk about the great variety of haplotypes in Africa is due to the fact that (modern humans in) Africa have been evolving for 200,000 years--BUT this diversity is within the African macrohaplogroups A,B,C,E as your own image above shows. The only macrohaplogroups theree are A, B and C.
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: No one argues that modern humans came out of Africa-or that Africa "made significant contributions to the founding populations of Asia and Europe"-- That is the key point. Populations once out of Africa evolved independently, just as populations in Africa continued to evolve independently.
What on earth are you on about? The opposite is true. The overwhelming majority of scientists in the field hold to the view that modern humans came out of Africa. Only an incredibly small group of scientists hold opposing views. Now, I bitterly oppose what Mike is pushing, but you're going against what most scientists hold to be true.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
Sorry Anti-White, Pro White genocidist. Haven't I already told you Black racist demon,your site is a biased,Anti-White,Black supremacist site and therefore unreliable. Not only that but I also told you I believe nothing Blacks like you & your ilk say as you can't be trusted to tell the truth.
Posts: 3257 | From: Madisonville, KY USA | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by CelticWarrioress: Mike,
Sorry Anti-White, Pro White genocidist. Haven't I already told you Black racist demon,your site is a biased,Anti-White,Black supremacist site and therefore unreliable. Not only that but I also told you I believe nothing Blacks like you & your ilk say as you can't be trusted to tell the truth.
Aren't all these terrible things that you're describing precisely what white people have subjected hundreds of millions of people to for centuries in different continents?
I don't agree with all this racist talk of 'albinos', and that Europe belongs to blacks or that the Greeks, Romans and other Europeans were anything but white, however, people like Mike seem to be trying to reciprocate what white people continue to do to this day. They are trapped in theory while your people practically steal history and do everything that you continuously list in a bizarre belief that you're victims.
Look at how my Nile Valley heritage is being hijacked in 2016.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by CelticWarrioress: Mike,
Sorry Anti-White, Pro White genocidist. Haven't I already told you Black racist demon,your site is a biased,Anti-White,Black supremacist site and therefore unreliable. Not only that but I also told you I believe nothing Blacks like you & your ilk say as you can't be trusted to tell the truth.
Aren't all these terrible things that you're describing precisely what white people have subjected hundreds of millions of people to for centuries in different continents?
I don't agree with all this racist talk of 'albinos', and that Europe belongs to blacks or that the Greeks, Romans and other Europeans were anything but white, however, people like Mike seem to be trying to reciprocate what white people continue to do to this day. They are trapped in theory while your people practically steal history and do everything that you continuously list in a bizarre belief that you're victims.
Look at how my Nile Valley heritage is being hijacked in 2016.
[*]Figure S2 Multidimensional Scaling Plot (MDS). The 2nd and 3rd coordinates of an MDS plot of 848 nuclear microsatellite loci from 469 individuals of 24 world populations. MDS uses pairwise IBS data based on the 848 loci generated by PLINK software and plotted using R version 2.15.0. The figure, besides a separate clustering of east Africans, indicates the substantial contribution of Africans and east Africans to the founding of populations of Europe and Asia. (TIF) [/list]
Figure S3 Multidimensional Scaling Plot (MDS). The 3rd and 4th coordinates of an MDS plot of 848 Microsatellite loci, across the human genome in 469 individuals from 24 populations from Africa, Asia and Europe. MDS uses pairwise IBS data based on the 848 loci generated by PLINK software and plotted using R version 2.15.0. The central position of east Africans and some other Africans emphasizes the founding role of east African gene pool and the disparate alignment on coordinates along which the world populations were founded including populations of Aftica aligning along the 4th dimension. (TIF)
Figure 4. Multidimensional Scaling Plot (MDS). A. First and second coordinates of an MDS plot of 848 Microsatellite Marshfield data set across the human genome for 24 populations from Africa, Asia and Europe. MDS plot was constructed from pairwise differences FST generated by Arlequin program (Table S3). B. First and second coordinates of an MDS plot of 848 Microsatellite loci, across the human genome in 469 individuals from 24 populations from Africa, Asia and Europe. MDS uses pairwise IBS data based on the 848 loci generated by PLINK software and plotted using R version 2.15.0. East Africans cluster to the left of the plot, while Beja (red cluster in the middle), assumes intermediate position. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0097674.g004
Figure S4 Multidimensional Scaling Plot (MDS). First and second coordinates of an MDS plot based on MT-CO2 data set constructed from pairwise differences FST generated by Arlequin v3.11. Population code as follows: Nara: Nar, Kunama (Kun), Hidarb (Hid), Afar (Afa), Saho (Sah), Bilen (Bil), Tigre (Tgr), Tigrigna (Tig), Rashaida (Rsh), Nilotics (Nil), Beja (Bej), Ethiopians(Eth), Egyptians (Egy), Moroccans (Mor), Southern Africans (Sth), Pygmy (Pyg), Saudi Arabia (Sdi), Asia (Asi), Europe (Eur), Native Americans (NA), Australians (Ast), Nubians (Nub), Nuba (Nba) (TIF)
--Jibril Hirbo, Sara Tishkoff et al.
The Episode of Genetic Drift Defining the Migration of Humans out of Africa Is Derived from a Large East African Population Size
PLoS One. 2014; 9(5): e97674. Published online 2014 May 20. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0097674
No one argues that modern humans came out of Africa-or that Africa "made significant contributions to the founding populations of Asia and Europe"-- That is the key point. Populations once out of Africa evolved independently, just as populations in Africa continued to evolve independently.
What people mean, as I pointed out, when they talk about the great variety of haplotypes in Africa is due to the fact that (modern humans in) Africa have been evolving for 200,000 years--BUT this diversity is within the African macrohaplogroups A,B,C,E as your own image above shows. The only macrohaplogroups theree are A, B and C.
Funny, how you removed the MOST IMPORTANT PART OF WHAT I POSTED!!!
You need to stop making up stuff. Or should I say junk?
According to the current data East Africa is home to nearly 2/3 of the world genetic diversity independent of sampling effect. Similar figure have been suggested for sub-Saharan Africa populations [1]. The antiquity of the east African gene pool could be viewed not only from the perspective of the amount of genetic diversity endowed within it but also by signals of uni-modal distribution in their mitochondrial DNA (Hassan et al., unpublished) usually taken as an indication of populations that have passed through ‘‘recent’’ demographic expansion [33], although in this case, may in fact be considered a sign of extended shared history of in situ evolution where alleles are exchanged between neighboring demes [34].
quote:Although the study's main focus was on Africa, Tishkoff and her colleagues studied DNA markers from around the planet, identifying 14 "ancestral clusters" for all of humanity. Nine of those clusters are in Africa. "You're seeing more diversity in one continent than across the globe," Tishkoff said.
Look at how my Nile Valley heritage is being hijacked in 2016.
you have Egyptian ancestry that is recent enough to include dynastic Egypt?
The lunatic is back. Dumbass, go to Southern-Egypt and North-Sudan. It's them who kept the ancient tradition in tact. But then again, what the heck do you know?
Posts: 22249 | From: Omni | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
Look at how my Nile Valley heritage is being hijacked in 2016.
you have Egyptian ancestry that is recent enough to include dynastic Egypt?
What did I say, lioness? I evoked 'Nile Valley' heritage, which includes Sudan and Egypt -- people with a common origin; people that had the same culture. Understand?
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: No one argues that modern humans came out of Africa-or that Africa "made significant contributions to the founding populations of Asia and Europe"-- That is the key point. Populations once out of Africa evolved independently, just as populations in Africa continued to evolve independently.
What on earth are you on about? The opposite is true. The overwhelming majority of scientists in the field hold to the view that modern humans came out of Africa. Only an incredibly small group of scientists hold opposing views. Now, I bitterly oppose what Mike is pushing, but you're going against what most scientists hold to be true.
What in the world are you talking about!!!!! That is what I just wrote. No one questions that Modern humans came out of Africa.
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
Look at how my Nile Valley heritage is being hijacked in 2016.
you have Egyptian ancestry that is recent enough to include dynastic Egypt?
What did I say, lioness? I evoked 'Nile Valley' heritage, which includes Sudan and Egypt -- people with a common origin; people that had the same culture. Understand?
You have Sudanese and Egyptian ancestry?
wait a minute, your name is sudaniya, I didn't make the obvious connection. I will assume you are Sudanese
quote: No one argues that modern humans came out of Africa-or that Africa "made significant contributions to the founding populations of Asia and Europe"-- That is the key point. Populations once out of Africa evolved independently, just as populations in Africa continued to evolve independently.
What on earth are you on about? The opposite is true. The overwhelming majority of scientists in the field hold to the view that modern humans came out of Africa. Only an incredibly small group of scientists hold opposing views. Now, I bitterly oppose what Mike is pushing, but you're going against what most scientists hold to be true.
What in the world are you talking about!!!!! That is what I just wrote. No one questions that Modern humans came out of Africa.
Quetzalcoatl pay attention to your writing. You explain " No one questions that Modern humans came out of Africa."
Then we go back to the original
" No one argues that modern humans came out of Africa-or that Africa made significant contributions to the founding populations of Asia and Europe"-- That is the key point. "
^^^ The proper way to write this, to remove the ambiguity which you have now clarified is this:
"No one argues that modern humans did not come out of Africa-or that Africa made significant contributions to the founding populations of Asia and Europe"-- That is the key point. "
If you say " No one argues that modern humans came out of Africa-or that Africa made significant contributions to the founding populations of Asia and Europe-- That is the key point. "
it could interpreted as this:
" No one makes the argument that modern humans came out of Africa-or that Africa made significant contributions to the founding populations of Asia and Europe-- That is the key point. "
again a variation with the proper intent:
" No one argues against the idea that modern humans came out of Africa-or that Africa "made significant contributions to the founding populations of Asia and Europe-- That is the key point. "
When I originally read your statement I knew it would be misunderstood and it was
Posts: 43114 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: [Funny, how you removed the MOST IMPORTANT PART OF WHAT I POSTED!!!
You need to stop making up stuff. Or should I say junk?
According to the current data East Africa is home to nearly 2/3 of the world genetic diversity independent of sampling effect. Similar figure have been suggested for sub-Saharan Africa populations [1]. The antiquity of the east African gene pool could be viewed not only from the perspective of the amount of genetic diversity endowed within it but also by signals of uni-modal distribution in their mitochondrial DNA (Hassan et al., unpublished) usually taken as an indication of populations that have passed through ‘‘recent’’ demographic expansion [33], although in this case, may in fact be considered a sign of extended shared history of in situ evolution where alleles are exchanged between neighboring demes [34].
quote:Although the study's main focus was on Africa, Tishkoff and her colleagues studied DNA markers from around the planet, identifying 14 "ancestral clusters" for all of humanity. Nine of those clusters are in Africa. "You're seeing more diversity in one continent than across the globe," Tishkoff said.
We may be talking past each other. I fully agree that Africa has more genetic diversity than the rest of the world-- so that should not be the problem. What I see here in this group, however, is an interpretation of this diversity to mean that haplogroups such as R1a and R1b are native to Africa and were transmitted to Europe in recent times. As I pointed out, in the graph that I did keep of yours, there is great diversity in Africa BUT it involves the African macrohaplogroups A,B,C, and E. Subsequent ones evolved outside of Africa.
Tishkof, S. A., et al. 2009 “The Genetic Structure and History of Africans and African Americans, Science 324:1035-1044 says the following:
quote:Africa is the source of all modern humans, but characterization of genetic variation and of relationships among populations across the continent has been enigmatic. We studied 121 African populations, four African American populations, and 60 non-African populations for patterns of variation at 1327 nuclear microsatellite and insertion/deletion markers. We identified 14 ancestral population clusters in Africa that correlate with self-described ethnicity and shared cultural and/or linguistic properties. We observed high levels of mixed ancestry in most populations, reflecting historical migration events across the continent. Our data also provide evidence for shared ancestry among geographically diverse hunter-gatherer populations (Khoesan speakers and Pygmies). The ancestry of African Americans is predominantly from Niger-Kordofanian (~71%), European (~13%), and other African (~8%) populations, although admixture levels varied considerably among individuals. This study helps tease apart the complex evolutionary history of Africans and African Americans, aiding both anthropological and genetic epidemiologic studies.
The paper is primarily about the genetic variability of Africa and only tangentially about the rest of the world.
As near as I can figure the ancestral clusters referred to in the WaPo article are;
Fulani, Nilo-Saharan, Chadic, Niger-Kordofanian, Southern African Khoesan, W. Pygmy, Hadza, Sandawe, Cushitic ,European, Indian, Oceanic, East Asian, and Native American 9 in Africa and 5 outside)
Thishkoff also lists another 14 but there less than 9 African ones here
Saharan Africa, Western Africa, Southern Africa ,Central Africa, Eastern Africa, African American, Europe-Middle East, Yemen, Central Asia, India, East Asia, Oceania, Australia, Americas
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: No one argues that modern humans came out of Africa-or that Africa "made significant contributions to the founding populations of Asia and Europe"-- That is the key point. Populations once out of Africa evolved independently, just as populations in Africa continued to evolve independently.
What on earth are you on about? The opposite is true. The overwhelming majority of scientists in the field hold to the view that modern humans came out of Africa. Only an incredibly small group of scientists hold opposing views. Now, I bitterly oppose what Mike is pushing, but you're going against what most scientists hold to be true.
What in the world are you talking about!!!!! That is what I just wrote. No one questions that Modern humans came out of Africa.
Quetzalcoatl pay attention to your writing. You explain " No one questions that Modern humans came out of Africa."
Then we go back to the original
" No one argues that modern humans came out of Africa-or that Africa made significant contributions to the founding populations of Asia and Europe"-- That is the key point. "
^^^ The proper way to write this, to remove the ambiguity which you have now clarified is this:
"No one argues that modern humans did not come out of Africa-or that Africa made significant contributions to the founding populations of Asia and Europe"-- That is the key point. "
If you say " No one argues that modern humans came out of Africa-or that Africa made significant contributions to the founding populations of Asia and Europe-- That is the key point. "
it could interpreted as this:
" No one makes the argument that modern humans came out of Africa-or that Africa made significant contributions to the founding populations of Asia and Europe-- That is the key point. "
again a variation with the proper intent:
" No one argues against the idea that modern humans came out of Africa-or that Africa "made significant contributions to the founding populations of Asia and Europe-- That is the key point. "
When I originally read your statement I knew it would be misunderstood and it was
I did not argue over that intend.
I argued over this intend:
What people mean, as I pointed out, when they talk about the great variety of haplotypes in Africa is due to the fact that (modern humans in) Africa have been evolving for 200,000 years--BUT this diversity is within the African macrohaplogroups A,B,C,E as your own image above shows. The only macrohaplogroups theree are A, B and C.
Then his dumbass comes back with a 2009 paper, while the 2014 paper clearly has evolved measurements. Tishkof even mentioned a Hassan et al's., unpublished paper, with these new findings.
Posts: 22249 | From: Omni | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: I argued over this intend:
What people mean, as I pointed out, when they talk about the great variety of haplotypes in Africa is due to the fact that (modern humans in) Africa have been evolving for 200,000 years--BUT this diversity is within the African macrohaplogroups A,B,C,E as your own image above shows. The only macrohaplogroups theree are A, B and C. Then his dumbass comes back with a 2009 paper, while the 2014 paper clearly has evolved measurements. Tishkof even mentioned a Hassan et al's., unpublished paper, with these new findings.
You did not comment on why you disagree with the extreme genetic variety in Africa being primarily in the African macrohaplogroups. I commented on Tishkof 209 because that is the paper you referred to in your post . Cite 2014 and I'll comment on it.
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
. Cite 2014 and I'll comment on it.
Printer-friendly view of this topic