The second piece is the invasions. If a city didn't exist then that means it didn't have a strong native population that could withstand a lot of immigration/invasions. Alexandria would have a lot more of a foreign influence than Elephantine. The closest thing I know to an isolated portion of Lower Egypt is the Siwa Oasis. https://egyptianstreets.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/DSCF3128.jpg
[ 26. October 2019, 10:41 AM: Message edited by: the lioness, ]
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Forty2Tribes: [QB] I'm warming to the idea that Africa produces white people.
Recent studies have suggested that
Light skin genes began to coalesce in North Africa with largely indigenous people. This was especially true along the coast.
Rhacotis (Egyptian: 𓂋𓏤𓂝𓀨𓏏𓊖 = r-ꜥ-qd(y)t, Greek Ῥακῶτις; also romanized as Rhakotis) was the name for a city on the northern coast of Egypt at the site of Alexandria. Classical sources from the Greco-Roman era, in Greek and in hieroglyphics, give Rhacotis as an older name for Alexandria before the arrival of Alexander the Great.
Rosetta was inhabited throughout the history of Ancient Egypt, then known as Khito, a hieratic word meaning "the populace", under Menes reign.
_____________________________________
However what difference would it make if people were settled along the coast are a hundred miles inland? Also, if Light skin genes began to coalesce only along the coast, then people anywhere along the coast could have moved along the coast laterally and entered the Nile region
quote:Originally posted by Forty2Tribes:
Recent studies have suggested that
Light skin genes began to coalesce in North Africa with largely indigenous people.
what studies?
quote:Originally posted by Forty2Tribes:
The second piece is the invasions. If a city didn't exist then that means it didn't have a strong native population that could withstand a lot of immigration/invasions. Alexandria would have a lot more of a foreign influence than Elephantine. The closest thing I know to an isolated portion of Lower Egypt is the Siwa Oasis.
If Light skin genes began to coalesce in North Africa with largely indigenous people then foreign invasions of other light skinned people would be irrelevant to that.
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Study tells new story about how human skin color evolved Gwen Schanker
"Historically, skin color has been a fundamental dividing human characteristic. According to geneticist Sarah Tishkoff, however, skin color is “a terrible classifier of race.” Tishkoff, quoted in a podcast for Science, is a coauthor on a study published in October 2017 that reveals new information about how pigmentation genes evolved in humans and the extent to which they are responsible for human skin color. "
"Furthermore, by comparing the DNA of the African populations studied to that of European populations surveyed in previous research, Tishkoff and her colleagues determined that some of the variants responsible for light skin likely *****arose in Africa ****nearly one million years ago and were later spread to Asian, Austro-Melanesian, and European populations. "
Anyone understands what this means...?
Quote: "Another variant of particular interest to the researchers was found on the Major Facilitator Superfamily Domain Containing 12 (MFSD12) gene. Analyzing the genotypes of the populations studied showed that African ancestry is correlated with ***decreased expression*** of the MFSD12 gene. Further study in mice and zebrafish showed that MFSD12 has a ***suppressing effect on dark pigmentation***."
____________________ tic! toc!
I called it over 10years ago when Rees et al made that now famous statement I use frequently.
quote:Originally posted by Forty2Tribes "I'm warming to the idea that Africa produces white people."
No need to "warming". It is a clear cut. Only the ignoramous will think otherwise.
There are Africans ......and subset of Africans. THere are African STRs and non-African STRs. If you/foreparents have lived n Africa within the last 2000years most likely your carry African STR regardless of pigmentation. Turks are NOT Africans
AEians are undoubtedly indigenous Africans. That is a fact. That is why they removed markers which show conclusively the Abusirs are Africans and played the SNP frequency card to throw readers off. Those who don't know any better.
Remember Shriver and Beleza concluded humans carried light skin genes long before OOA. He wasn't sure about blue eyes. But he was sure about skin pigmentation.
[ 28. October 2019, 04:42 PM: Message edited by: the lioness, ]
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
Remember Shriver and Beleza concluded humans carried light skin genes long before OOA. He wasn't sure about blue eyes. But he was sure about skin pigmentation.
You make this argument over and over again. Having a gene is one thing but that doesn't mean the trait in that gene is switched on and the trait is expressing itself. Furthermore certain mutations of a gene are required in some cases, such as this of light skin, for the trait to be expressed
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Having a gene is one thing but that doesn't mean the trait in that gene is switched on and the trait is expressing itself.
I'm sure xyyman isn't suggesting that and your conclusion is confusing sense we have seen light skin,eyes and hair in humans caused by mutations,if I'm understand the situation right about light skin genes is whether ancient humans actually expressed those gene variation instead of being carries.
Posts: 1123 | From: New York | Registered: Feb 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
Recall that the Upper Paleolithic Taforalt genomes we have express ancestral alleles for skin color, implying darker skin was normal for them. It may be that certain other native African populations have evolved alleles for lighter skin independent of Eurasian admixture, but I wouldn't conclude from this that what we would call "white" or olive skin has always existed among modern humans in North Africa. At most, they might have been slightly lighter than equatorial populations (think cocoa-brown compared to dark ebony, like the difference you see between ancient Egyptian portrayals of themselves compared to "Nubian" people).
quote:Originally posted by Thereal: Having a gene is one thing but that doesn't mean the trait in that gene is switched on and the trait is expressing itself.
I'm sure xyyman isn't suggesting that and your conclusion is confusing sense we have seen light skin,eyes and hair in humans caused by mutations,if I'm understand the situation right about light skin genes is whether ancient humans actually expressed those gene variation instead of being carries.
No, the term "white" was used. If a person has a gene that when mutated caused light skin but that trait did not occur and the person remained dark you would not call them white. Yet Forty2Tribes said "white" and below xyyman confirms the term. Nevertheless a common trait of xyyman posts is lack of a clearly made point. Additionally he spelled ignoramus wrong. Normally I don't care about spelling that much but not on that particular word.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman:
quote:Originally posted by Forty2Tribes "I'm warming to the idea that Africa produces white people."
No need to "warming". It is a clear cut. Only the ignoramous will think otherwise.
posted
Of course "white" is relative. Brazilian "white" is different to "Scandinavian" white or East Asian "white".
But to Lioness point. Having the white gene does not make someone become European. Some the "blackest" people on the planet carry white genes..ala...Masai(SLC24A5) and Paupans(SlC45A2).
According to Tishkoff the key gene is not having the white gene(s) but the "switching" on of the black gene. Tishkoff wasn't the first. I referenced Rees et al about 10years ago. "removal of the constraint"
Tic! Toc!
Come on people understand what she is saying,
Point? We are forced to be black. Understand what I mean. Black made us human. Melanin made us human. Where is MK? Explain it to them.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
manic = Mania, also known as manic syndrome, is a state of abnormally elevated arousal, affect, and energy level, or "a state of heightened overall activation with enhanced affective expression together with lability of affect."
maybe
yes. I do it for effect.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Of course "white" is relative. Brazilian "white" is different to "Scandinavian" white or East Asian "white".
But to Lioness point. Having the white gene does not make someone become European. Some the "blackest" people on the planet carry white genes..ala...Masai(SLC24A5) and Paupans(SlC45A2).
According to Tishkoff the key gene is not having the white gene(s) but the "switching" on of the black gene. Tishkoff wasn't the first. I referenced Rees et al about 10years ago. "removal of the constraint"
Tic! Toc!
Come on people understand what she is saying,
Point? We are forced to be black. Understand what I mean. Black made us human. Melanin made us human. Where is MK? Explain it to them.
quote:Originally posted by Forty2Tribes
Recent studies have suggested that
Light skin genes began to coalesce in North Africa with largely indigenous people. This was especially true along the coast.....
"I'm warming to the idea that Africa produces white people."
quote:Originally posted by xyyman:No need to "warming". It is a clear cut. Only the ignoramous will think otherwise.
I recommend you stop confusing people when you talk about this subject. Forty2Tribes here is referring to light skinned people when he says "white", not dark skinned people who have the gene that operates that trait but has not mutated to express that trait. So when you say "Only the ignoramous will think otherwise." you are verifying something other than what he means.
Let me simplify this discussion. Did people with skin as light as the average modern European occur first in Africa or did light skin of that degree first occur outside Africa?
I am not referring to rare Albinos who are rare instances of another particular gene mutation and not large populations. You can see Forty2Tribes is referencing North Africa not places like Tanzania and many other places that have occasional but rare cases of albinism.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman:
Melanin made us human.
This is a meaningless statement. An albino lion is still a lion and an albino human being is still human.
The melanin in the top layer of skin that makes it appear dark on the outside is comprised of dead cells. The cell is dead, not in a living function at that point when it manifest as a a dark color of the skin. What it is doing is creating a protective shield by trapping a certain amount of UV radiation into itself and only allowing a healthy amount to penetrate deeper to the lowest layer of skin where vitamin D is processed. So in the top skin layer with the melanin the sunlight is not being used as energy or for vitamin D production. Some of that sunlight is being trapped there to prevent damage to the skin. The melanin is functioning as a trap for excess uneeded sunlight radiation. People like to pretend that melanin has all these other magical functions. Most of that is pseudoscience to make oneself feel good about having dark skin. However it does protect to a large degree against skin cancer an UV damage.
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Come on Lioness I am not Mike. I never mentioned ALBINO. YOU did!
If you need me to explain what Tishkoff is on about or what Rees et al stated 10 years ago, Just ask?
Read Tishkoff statement several times over...you may get it.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: [QB] Come on Lioness I am not Mike. I never mentioned ALBINO. YOU did!
quote:Originally posted by xyyman:
Melanin made us human.
you said this. I brought up albinos because albinos are an example of a human with no melanin. So the statement "Melanin made us human" is meaningless.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman:
If you need me to explain what Tishkoff is on about or what Rees et al stated 10 years ago, Just ask?
no I need you to consolidate the posts and put in the article title of the quotes if you quote, thank you
Quoting something does not make an argument because a quote can be interpreted in different ways to a greater extent then a clearly made argument
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: [QB] Rhacotis (Egyptian: 𓂋𓏤𓂝𓀨𓏏𓊖 = r-ꜥ-qd(y)t, Greek Ῥακῶτις; also romanized as Rhakotis) was the name for a city on the northern coast of Egypt at the site of Alexandria. Classical sources from the Greco-Roman era, in Greek and in hieroglyphics, give Rhacotis as an older name for Alexandria before the arrival of Alexander the Great.
Rosetta was inhabited throughout the history of Ancient Egypt, then known as Khito, a hieratic word meaning "the populace", under Menes reign.
You forgot to include '[citation needed]'. And 'Rosetta located 65 km (40 mi) east of Alexandria,'. Not the same cities. Remember the Nile is shaped like a fan. 40 miles east is also south. I've studied the Predynastic more than any era. http://www.narmer.pl/map/nomy_en.htm These types of Maps are more in line with their history. I can't find anything on Khito. If you look at the other coastal cities like Damietta, and Pelusium they don't have ME history or beyond.
quote: However what difference would it make if people were settled along the coast are a hundred miles inland?
Its the way it effects the populations of post invasion Egypt. Its one thing for the Delta to be the bed of immigration. When you factor how the Northern cities are growing incrementally it argues that they were not able to develop large indigenous populations.
quote: Also, if Light skin genes began to coalesce only along the coast, then people anywhere along the coast could have moved along the coast laterally and entered the Nile region
Wouldn't there be more of a Berber or Libyan related presence? Also this is a matter of degree. I know you have seen this many times. Egypt was a Green Sahara refuge. Coastal people would have been the exception.
quote:what studies?
Its not just the studies. Its the pattern of pigment maps. Northern coast Africans tend to be lighter skin than interior Africans. Recent studies are speaking more to the North Africans being indigenous. Like this study with the phylogency that shows North Africans as related to the most recent ancestors of Europeans and West Asians. https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-019-1679-2
And this study that shows how isolated and lighter skin North Africans are not related to lighter skin Eruopeans in the sort of double dip type of way that you would get from back migration.
quote: If Light skin genes began to coalesce in North Africa with largely indigenous people then foreign invasions of other light skinned people would be irrelevant to that.
Not when they are invaded by lighter skin people. All of Egypt is like 2.5ish percent recent European. Then you have that olderschool Eurasian Rome/Greek ancestry. This is more apparent in the Delta. We have already talked about how Dna Tribes and Nat Geo disagrees on how Arabian Egypt is. I tend to agree with Tribes on Egypt being more Arabic. Nat Geo errors heavy against SSA and probably Sahel genes. According to Nat Geo, Haitians are 9% native American and Senegalese are 8% European . Also Arabs are the only people who invaded more than once even to the point where they changed the language and culture.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Forty2Tribes: I'm warming to the idea that Africa produces white people.
Recent studies have suggested that
Light skin genes began to coalesce in North Africa with largely indigenous people. This was especially true along the coast.
which genes are you referring to that would be found in cosatal North Africa but not further South? .
.
___________________^^ Right according to this, little or no settlement this period 20,000 to 8,500 BC
My white Egypt conundrum.
________________________________________________
.
Iberomaurusian .
Iberomaurusian Taforalt
Taforalt or Grotte des Pigeons is a cave in northern Oujda, Morocco, and possibly the oldest cemetery in North Africa (Humphrey et al. 2012). It contained at least 34 Iberomaurusian adolescent and adult human skeletons, as well as younger ones, from the Upper Palaeolithic between 15,100 and 14,000 calendar years ago.
Either U6 and E1b1b have no ancestors outside of Africa or one or both of them does
quote:Originally posted by Forty2Tribes: My white Egypt conundrum
How can you have a conundrum as regard to Egypt? Your argument is that there are no significant human settlements in prehistoric Eastern North Africa and you talk about light skin genes began to coalesce in coastal North Africa and we see that, yes, those settlements are in the Western half of coastal North Africa why are you even bringing up Egypt and having a conundrum about it?
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: which genes are you referring to that would be found in cosatal North Africa but not further South?
Mostly all are found further south at lower frequency. I'm talking about pigment genes like the light skin version of SLC24A5, SLC45A2, OCA2.
quote:
___________________^^ Right according to this, little or no settlement this period 20,000 to 8,500 BC
My white Egypt conundrum.
________________________________________________
.
Iberomaurusian .
Iberomaurusian Taforalt
Taforalt or Grotte des Pigeons is a cave in northern Oujda, Morocco, and possibly the oldest cemetery in North Africa (Humphrey et al. 2012). It contained at least 34 Iberomaurusian adolescent and adult human skeletons, as well as younger ones, from the Upper Palaeolithic between 15,100 and 14,000 calendar years ago.
Either U6 and E1b1b have no ancestors outside of Africa or one or both of them does
How can you have a conundrum as regard to Egypt? Your argument is that there are no significant human settlements in prehistoric Eastern North Africa and you talk about light skin genes began to coalesce in coastal North Africa and we see that, yes, those settlements are in the Western half of coastal North Africa why are you even bringing up Egypt and having a conundrum about it?
Lower Land and the lack of history. The ancient Moroccans had higher lands. They were mostly dark skin. I forget which one had the lighter skin genes.
But anyhoo its also the history. When I studied the Predynastic, Buto stood out as the big city capital of Lower Egypt. I absorbed unverified egyptsearch chatter about the Delta being more swampish and inhospitable but only recently did I recognize the lack of ancient history associated with coastal cities.
Take a look at Buto with the ruins located at Desouk, It is 20-25 miles inland and among hills.
Do you take the indigenous skin color maps literally or do you think its based on a wider higher res gradient?
He considers their daughter to be multiracial Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Full size img incl Cyrenaica where was Dabban industry. I dunno, but Kuper's map A? Were there really no Delta-Fayum-north of Qena industries at any time in the "Mesolithic" Late Stone Age before say 12,000 years ago?
? ? ?
Oh, luv that physical paleo(?) map of half of Africa btw. Know 'bout one showing the other half? I'd sincerely appreciate a share. Nutha favor pls. What precise period or time range is that (presumed) paleo map for?
posted
[img]Oh, luv that physical paleo(?) map of half of Africa btw. Know 'bout one showing the other half? I'd sincerely appreciate a share. Nutha favor pls. What precise period or time range is that (presumed) paleo map for? [/img]
I think its from Kuper and Kroelin (sic) "The Sahara Motor of Africa's Evolution," circa 2008- the old days. Don't have study anymore.
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
I posted section A of Kuper's map series from his supplement so thanks but this is the map I meant and its poster won't share the source.
posted
Of course light-skin alleles evolved in N Africa. Skin color worldwide correlates very well (excepting recent migrants) with latitude. Therefore it is no surprise at all that the N African coast would have lighter skin alleles than the tropics.
Add to that a lot of migration into N Africa from the Levant and even Europe.
Still, this is dangerous territory. Light-skin alleles don't make Egypt "white". I'm looking again at the famous portrait of Narmer... he still looks African.
-------------------- Nican Tlaca Posts: 139 | From: Piedmont, Virginia | Registered: Jan 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Marija: I'm looking again at the famous portrait of Narmer... he still looks African. [/QB]
Flinders Petrie bought the limestone head from an antiquities dealer and guessed it was Narmer
quote:“He was at dinner, and all the antiquities dealers were crowded around him trying to sell him something, and then this head just rolled out of a bag," - Alice Stevenson, curator Petrie Museum
others think it might be Khufu
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Marija: I'm looking again at the famous portrait of Narmer... he still looks African.
Flinders Petrie bought the limestone head from an antiquities dealer and guessed it was Narmer
quote:“He was at dinner, and all the antiquities dealers were crowded around him trying to sell him something, and then this head just rolled out of a bag," - Alice Stevenson, curator Petrie Museum
others think it might be Khufu [/QB]
Yes, I should have stipulated that the "Narmer" identification is disputed.
In any case, the portrait looks like an African (so-called "black") person.
Afrocentrics love to point out that there is not one standard African phenotype, that skin color can vary, yet the minute they see anyone with skin darker than Taylor Swift they claim it's a "black" (African, Kushite, etc.) person.
Light-skin alleles in fact did appear in Eurasia which were not present in the OOA migrants. The light skin of northeastern Eurasians results from different combinations of alleles than that of Europeans, for example, clearly showing that the alleles appeared and proliferated in Eurasia, not Africa.
The obsession with skin color is a legacy of racist Euroimperialists.
-------------------- Nican Tlaca Posts: 139 | From: Piedmont, Virginia | Registered: Jan 2020
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
. Also Arabs are the only people who invaded more than once even to the point where they changed the language and culture.
Printer-friendly view of this topic