quote:

---

Orionix:
In case you are supercar you should urgently get some kind of life dude. You probably spend your whole day here convincing people how black Ancient Egypt is. This is what i call an addicted person.

I believe you and supercar are the same person. You're the kind of people who have too much time on their hand.

---

I would say that Rasol was right about your lack of perception, if I didn’t think it would lead to your misguided mode of thinking, as evidenced above. First you make a claim about single identity, only to then acknowledge that you are indeed referring to two personalities; talk about lack of coherent thinking! Not that I have anything against Rasol, for I think he expresses himself coherently most of time, whether or not I agree with him on an issue, but it appears that you have also failed to notice that I am more direct, in that, I will not hesitate to retaliate and treat you at the level you express yourself. This twisted tactic of yours, in a crude attempt to dampen criticism on your incoherently expressed comments, is not going to benefit you here, for I will continue to expose your lack of familiarity with the subject you are purportedly debating.

quote:

---

Orionix:
I hardely come to this board. I have life. My suggestion for you will be to get one also.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
This has been argeed on by most scholars. Unless you subscribe to the dyanstic race theory proposed by earlier scholars that says Mesopotamian civlizers invaded Upper Egypt thus founding Egyptian civlization.

The archaeological sites in Lower Egypt are less complex than the Upper Egyptian sites and begin to replace the material culture of Lower Egypt around the Naqada IIb period. The oldest religious temple in the Delta is Tell Ibrahim Iwad and it show conformitity with Upper Egyptian models.

See the following from Oxford History of Egypt:

From Petrie onwards,it was reguarly suggested,despite the evidence
of Pre dyanstic cultures,Egyptian civlization of the 1st dyansty
appeared suddently and must therfore have been instroduced by an
invading foreign ''race''. Since the 1970's however excavations at
bautu and nekhen have clearly ,demonstrated the indigenous Upper
Egyptian roots of early civlization in egypt. While there is
certainly evidence of foreign contact in the fourth millennium
B.C.,this was not in the form of millitary invasion

page 65

Oxford History of Ancient egypt
Ian Shaw

[Edit: Another sad thing is the supposition that the racial terms like white (Caucasoid) and black (Negroid) have any anthropological (like by measuring human skulls) or genetic meaning. It does not]

Well, this is true to some extent but there are different physilogical differences between races of people. Forensic anthropologist still use these ground for identifying burned victims for police. Statistical analysis of human remains is still used by most physical anthropologist.

[My point was that thus the Egyptians were Africans, most of them were not black as the people who have always lived in southern Sudan or Zaire.]

Maye not but definatley they shared cultural affinities with people in the south. Such as divine kingship,rain maker king, circumcision and sometimes scarification. Circumcision and scarification is still praticed by the modern Fellahin and Upper Egyptians today.

Most likely the current Zairean population did not exist because the first Bantu migrations occured around 1000-800 B.C. Before this little twa[pgmy] people lived in the forests of Central Africa. The Southern Sudanese most likely lived further northern than modern day.

Not all Southern Sudanese are ptich black like the Dinka and Nuer. Some are lighter and have different facial features such as the Shilluk. Infact, many early anthropologist tried to classify Southern Sudanese as hybrids,but this has been proven wrong.

Here are some examples of southern Sudanese not often shown in general public:

---

Ausar early physical Anthropology has very little standing in modern Anthropology, where population genetics has taken place. Today race is dubunked by most researchers and considered to be a cultural concept.

Even if the ancient Egyptians phenotypically resembled people from the Horn of east Africa, these people were found to be genetically intermediate between SS Africans and non-Africans.

This is a quote from a genetic study:

In general, populations cluster by geographic origin. The most distinct separation is between African and non-African populations. The northeastern-African that is, the Ethiopian and Somali populations are located centrally between sub-Saharan African and non-African populations.

Ethiopian mitochondrial DNA heritage: tracking gene flow across and around the gate of tears

[This message has been edited by Orionix (edited 11 November 2004).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by YuhiVII:
Are the people in southern Sudan "black" as the people in Congo (Zaire)? What about the people in Zambia? Are they "black" as the people in Somalia? Again I think the above point is not relevant to the discussion. The real question to be asked is what your definition of "black" is.

---

How we define black is not important. Race is social so i don't give it many importance. Thus seems like you guys define black as synonymous to African.

quote:

---

I don't think the physical diversity in Africa has anything to do with the size of the continent otherwise Asia would have the most diversity but that's not the case. Other reasons can explain this diversity.

---

Yes natural seclection and genetic drift. Saying otherwise just shows your ignorance.

Genetically modern populations cluster by their geographic origin.

quote:

---

At what point does "fact" separate from "exaggeration" i.e., please explain clearly what is being exaggerated ( I assume you meant that being done by "Afrocentrists")[/B]

---

The Ancient Greeks were not Egyptian in origin. They learned a lot from Egypt and Mesopotamia but their culture is merely their own achievment.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Good posts Ausar and Keino. Quality information and thinking is available for those who choose to avail themselves of it.

---

You spent here the whole night. This is why i can put my word on it that you are the same guy as supercar. You were probably switching between screen names all night long.

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:
Not that I am under any impression that you are well informed on the subject matter, but if you really have a life that you claim to have, even a minuscule one, then why do you continuously come here with half-baked ideas to exchange them with people, whom you consider to be “Afrocentric”, “ethnocentric”, “addictive”, “racist”, amongst the list of labels in your narrow vocabulary. I look at Stormfront folks, who use the very same tactics as yourself, as being totally discredited and racist. I don’t waist any time to exchange ideas with them, particularly in a forum that I consider to be filled with “white” supremacist agendas. But apparently you have the time to deal with people you are supposedly discrediting to that level!

---

Well at least i'm not inciting to racism, what you guys seem to be professional about.

You're definitely the racist type. I realized something about people like you. When you're losing a open-minded argument you're switching to profanity. I'm sure that if you do that with real politicians they'll eat you for dinner.

And yes i have life, this is why in many cases i do not respond to profane posts.

The Horn population can also be clustered with various other Black African groups across the Sahel (south of Sahara) ranging from Wolof to Haratin because this has been an east/west pathway across Africa since the neolithic and earlier. But none of this has any bearing on the fact that these populations are both Black and African.

You can also examine Southern Europe from a similar perspective, as some studies have done and so found that the Greeks cluster more with sub saharan Africans than with Europeans. This study is "fun" becuase it uses the exact inverse methodology as the Aryanists that you tend to quote. It also affirms the very issue regarding Ancient Greece's relationship to Africa that you are "opposed" to:

Genetic distances are closer between Greeks and Ethiopian/sub-Saharan groups than to any other Mediterranean group and finally Greeks cluster with Ethiopians/sub-Saharans in both neighbour joining dendrograms and correspondence analyses. The time period when these relationships might have occurred was ancient but uncertain and might be related to the displacement of Egyptian-Ethiopian people living in pharaonic Egypt." - Arnaiz-Villena A, Dimitroski K, Pacho A, Moscoso J, Gomez-Casado E, Silvera-Redondo C, Varela P, Blagoevska M, Zdravkovska V, Martinez-Laso J.

It's all in how you manipulate the clusters, and thereby suggest conclusions which may in fact be invalid and probably misleading.

It also exploits the fact that people such as yourself quote these studies without comprehension of Mtdna, human anthropological history (out-of-africa), or even a basic understanding of geography.

And since you admit that AE resemble sub saharan African populations of the Horn of Africa, this doesn't really help your argument, as whether AE more closely resemble the Tutsi, the Twa or the Tswana they are still resembling Black Africans, which is what they were.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Orionix: The horn of Africa is also a part of Sub-Saharan Africa and can be "clustered" as closer to the Levant due to human beings migrating Out of Africa from this region. In fact, the horn "should" cluster closer to the Levant than say...the Lavant compared to the Kalahari for instance.

---

Ok what you are doing now is promoting manipulation. First of all genetics says nothing about race. We know that all humans are genetically 99.9% identical. Race has no meaning biologically.

The people of the horn of Africa are genetically intermediate. If you want to claim them as black that is ok with me. It is your subjective description.

Just remember that genetically they're just intermediate. This is what they are and this is how i see them.

Just to note that the genetic marker system has been updated. I would trust polymorphisms and allelic frequencies more than I would markers since some polymorphisms are specific and some are shared between ethnic groups.

The study which you showed was based on the old HG system.

In the future we will have a nuclear DNA which will be much effective in measuring genetic distances.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orionix:

The people of the horn of Africa are genetically intermediate. If you want to claim them as black that is ok with me. It is your subjective description.

---

Orionix,
The people of the horn are black. Didn't you yourself call the nubians black. In case you didn't realize, the region the nubians occupied is part of the horn of Africa.

quote:

---

Originally posted by blackman:
Orionix,
The people of the horn are black. Didn't you yourself call the nubians black. In case you didn't realize, the region the nubians occupied is part of the horn of Africa.

---

They are dark skinned yes but i wasn't reffering to race it meaning nothing genetically. Genetically they are intermediate between non-Africans and other sub-Saharan groups.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orionix:
How we define black is not important. Race is social so i don't give it many importance. Thus seems like you guys define black as synonymous to African.

---

It's so funny how you go back and forth. Isn't it you who said the Egyptians were not "black" as the southern Sudanese or Zairois (Congolese)? Let's take a look at your own words.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orionix:
My point was that thus the Egyptians were Africans, most of them were not black as the people who have always lived in southern Sudan or Zaire.

---

You seem to be defining "black" for us right there.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orionix:
Yes natural seclection and genetic drift. Saying otherwise just shows your ignorance.

---

What affects genetic diversity is not only natural selection and genetic drift but also mutation and genetic recombination. However phenotype(physical features) are an interaction of our genes with the environment. This is another whole discussion on it's own; and in fact I never said otherwise!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orionix:

The Ancient Greeks were not Egyptian in origin.

---

Who claimed that they were?

quote:

---

Originally posted by YuhiVII:
It's so funny how you go back and forth. Isn't it you who said the Egyptians were not "black" as the southern Sudanese or Zairois (Congolese)? Let's take a look at your own words.

---

It's true.

Black (as race) is not objective, it's subjective (based uppon opinion).

And by considering the genetic data there is a distance between Upper Egyptians and southern Sudananse.

If the ancient Egyptians were Ethiopians that means they where somewhere intermediate between non-Africans and sub-Saharan east Africans (not from the horn of Africa).

quote:

---

what you are doing now is promoting manipulation.

---

quote:

---

First of all genetics says nothing about race.

---

Orionix writes: My point was that thus the Egyptians were Africans, most of them were not black as the people who have always lived in southern Sudan or Zaire

Ausar responded in a clear and logical fashion by showing you photographs documenting the different indigenous phenotypes of southern Sudan. Do you even understand the concept of relevance? It seems not. Ausar's response was relevant. You you could not respond in kind, instead you attempt the strawman via mis-comprehended genetic study, which was completely moot to the issue of physical appearance. Your reply was not relevant.

Nontheless, we humor you by addressing it anyway, at which point you response with: "genetics, says nothing about race", which simply confesses the irrelevant and distracting nature of your own argument.

Frankly this discussion is less about race or genetics than it is about your chronic lack of coherence.

quote:

---

The people of the horn of Africa are genetically intermediate.

---

Genes are not intermediate. The term 'genetically intermidate' is a statistical abstraction that can be applied at will and equally as in:

* Southern Europeans are genetically intermediate.

* white brunettes are genetically intermidate.

* Latins are genetically intermediate.

* Semites are genetically intermediate.

* Greeks are genetically intermediate.

* Asians are genetically intermediate.
ad absurdum....

Genes 'are' in fact more accurately discribed as "derivative", meaning they are inherited (derived) from one source and passed on to another, at which point they are altered thru selection and mutation.

Therefore it is more accurate to say that:
the white peoples of Europe are a derivative of Black Africans.

According to Out-of-Africa theory, whites would be most recently 'derived'from Black African population living in East Africa cira 80kya. The indigenous descendants of these peoples Black Africans. If you find a "genetic study" that refutes that, let us know, because the study you cited does not.

quote:

---

If you want to claim them as black that is ok with me.

---

quote:

---

It is your subjective description.

---

quote:

---

It's so funny how you go back and forth. Isn't it you who said the Egyptians were not "black" as the southern Sudanese or Zairois (Congolese)? Let's take a look at your own words.

---

First of all i'm not a geneticits with PH.D but i probably know than you do about the subject. When meauring genetic distances between populations, some can be intermediate.

And since by American (i'm not American) definition of "race" i am black i still don't think Afrocentrism is a good thing.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orionix:
And since by American (i'm not American) definition of "race" i am black i still don't think Afrocentrism is a good thing.

[This message has been edited by Orionix (edited 11 November 2004).]

---

HaHaHaHa,
You are black. You are also from south America. So, you must be as black as people of Sudan. You are funny.

quote:

---

Originally posted by blackman:
HaHaHaHa,
You are black. You are also from south America. So, you must be as black as people of Sudan. You are funny.

---

What does it have to do with anything?? Since when are all south Americans black?

quote:

---

Anti-black prejudices? What the hell are you talking about? I have no prejudices against anyone.

---

quote:

---

First of all i'm not a geneticits

---

quote:

---

but i probably know than you do about the subject. When meauring genetic distances between populations, some can be intermediate.

---

The reason the Greek dna study cited found that Greeks clustered so strongly with Africans, is partly because the study choose a select group of Africans, from populations who were known to have colonised Greece in historic times, as the study itself admits.

They could just as easily have compared other Southern European people with other African peoples (such as Italians and Morrocans), at which point they would have found closer clustering between other Europeans and Africans as well, and the Greeks would no longer appear to stand out.

The study you cited on East Africans is even more laughably contrived.

It commits a geographical fib by removing the Horn Of Africa from Sub-saharan Africa; and then creates a bizarre catagory called "non Africa"; which in fact consists largely of Middle Eastern and North African samples, also removed from Africa. (ignoring most of East Asia, native Australia, etc.)

It then fails to take into account Sahelian and Sudanese populations also known to cluster in mtdan and ABO studies with both the Horn of Africa and the AE.

In essence, if you group by geography, and then play games with the geography, you can suggest any conclusion that you like.

This is known as the logical fallacy of begging the question.

But sense you do this all the time in your own illogical arguments, it is no wonder that you cannot critically examine the materials you selectively glean from your stormfront sources on the web.

quote:

---

And since by American (i'm not American) definition of "race" i am black i still don't think Afrocentrism is a good thing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
If you understood the concept (which you don't), you would realise you aren't saying anything. You can call any population on Earth intermediate between any two other select populations. Your conclusions are a product of how you choose to select and group the populations. Depending on this, you get radically different outcome.

---

First of all genetics is the most reliable science we have today. Early Anthropology heavily relied on the concept of race (a social concept) and was debunked in the 60s.

Since populations are clustered by geography genetic distances can be measured between human populations. The study you posted relied on allelic frequencies of HLA (Human Leukocyte antigen).

Human Leukocyte antigen are group of genes that code for proteins found on the surfaces of cells that help the immune system recognize foreign substances. MHC proteins are found in all higher vertebrates. In human beings the complex is also called the human leukocyte antigen (HLA) system. Since these group of antigenes can be found in very similar frequencies by any human population on earth they are not useful by measuring genetic variation.

The study which i posted was based on polymorphism (the study of the biochemical techniques to identify the differences that occur between the chromosomes, proteins, or DNA) and maternal DNA. These are reliable tools for detecting human ancestry and measuring genetic varation between geopgrahic populations.

1.Ethiopian mitochondrial DNA heritage: tracking gene flow across and around the gate of tears.

2. Y chromosomes of Somalis

A study confirming the essentially atypical character of Somalis, who are again found to be intermediate between Sub-Saharan Africans and non-Africans.

Short Tandem-Repeat Polymorphism/Alu Haplotype Variation at the PLAT Locus: Implications for Modern Human Origins

S. A. Tishkoff et al., Am. J. Hum. Genet., 67:901-925, 2000

Abstract Two dinucleotide short tandem-repeat polymorphisms (STRPs) and a polymorphic Alu element spanning a 22-kb region of the PLAT locus on chromosome 8p12-q11.2 were typed in 1,2871,420 individuals originating from 30 geographically diverse human populations, as well as in 29 great apes. These data were analyzed as haplotypes consisting of each of the dinucleotide repeats and the flanking Alu insertion/deletion polymorphism. The global pattern of STRP/Alu haplotype variation and linkage disequilibrium (LD) is informative for the reconstruction of human evolutionary history. Sub-Saharan African populations have high levels of haplotype diversity within and between populations, relative to non-Africans, and have highly divergent patterns of LD. Non-African populations have both a subset of the haplotype diversity present in Africa and a distinct pattern of LD. The pattern of haplotype variation and LD observed at the PLAT locus suggests a recent common ancestry of non-African populations, from a small population originating in eastern Africa. These data indicate that, throughout much of modern human history, sub-Saharan Africa has maintained both a large effective population size and a high level of population substructure. Additionally, Papua New Guinean and Micronesian populations have rare haplotypes observed otherwise only in African populations, suggesting ancient gene flow from Africa into Papua New Guinea, as well as gene flow between Melanesian and Micronesian populations.

...

"In general, African populations have low frequencies of the Alu(+) allele, in the range of .18.38, with the exception of the Wolof (.44) and the Somali (.47). "

...

"In general, populations cluster by geographic origin. The most distinct separation is between African and non-African populations. The northeastern-African that is, the Ethiopian and Somali populations are located centrally between sub-Saharan African and non-African populations. "

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orionix:
What does it have to do with anything?? Since when are all south Americans black?

---

Orionix,
No one said all south Americans are black. It funny how you you try to switch back and forth and get tangled in your on web of deciet.

You know you stated by America's definition you are black (which I doubt), but then you state AE and Afican people of the horn aren't black.

If you are from south America and you are black (which I doubt). The people of AE and in the horn of Africa are no darker than you and now you consider yourself black by America's definition.

The only 13 year old here must be you to think we will fall for your simple tactics.

Continue on with your game, your web of deciet you snared yourself in, while I enjoy your comedy show.

I'll enjoy watching you, but I moving on to other topics of importance and substance.

Goodbye Horemheb, I mean Orionix.

quote:

---

Originally posted by blackman:
Orionix,
No one said all south Americans are black. It funny how you you try to switch back and forth and get tangled in your on web of deciet.

You know you stated by America's definition you are black (which I doubt), but then you state AE and Afican people of the horn aren't black.

If you are from south America and you are black (which I doubt). The people of AE and in the horn of Africa are no darker than you and now you consider yourself black by America's definition.

The only 13 year old here must be you to think we will fall for your simple tactics.

Continue on with your game, your web of deciet you snared yourself in, while I enjoy your comedy show.

I'll enjoy watching you, but I moving on to other topics of importance and substance.

Goodbye Horemheb, I mean Orionix.

---

What, who is Horemheb? Your friend? Well i'm not him. Dude i think you have some kind of illusion.

You guys need to stop thinking that the ancient Egyptians were of black race like it's some sort of valid science. It's not.

The Egyptians were by the majority brown Africans, exactly as demonstrated by the tomb paintings.

Now talking about Nubia...

At the end of the 4th millennium BC, kings of Egypt's 1st dynasty conquered upper Nubia south of Aswan, introducing Egyptian cultural influence to the African peoples who were scattered along the riverbank. In subsequent centuries, Nubia was subjected to successive military expeditions from Egypt in search of slaves or building materials for royal tombs, which destroyed much of the Egyptian-Nubian culture that had sprung from the initial conquests of the 1st dynasty. Throughout these few centuries (c. 2925–c. 2575 BC), the descendants of the Nubians continued to eke out an existence along the Nile River, an easy prey to Egyptian military expeditions. Although the Nubians were no match for the armies of Egypt's Old Kingdom, the interactions arising from their enslavement and colonization led to ever-increasing African influence upon the art, culture, and religion of dynastic Egypt.

quote:

---

First of all genetics is the most realiable science we have today.

---

quote:

---

Since populations are clustered by geography genetic distances can be measured between human populations.

---

quote:

---

The study you posted relied on allelic frequencies of HLA (Human Leukocyte antigen).
Since these group of antigenes can be found in very similar frequencies by any human population on earth.

---

quote:

---

The study which i posted was based on polymorphism (the study of the biochemical techniques to identify the differences that occur between the chromosomes, proteins, or DNA) and maternal DNA. These are reliable tools for detecting human ancestry and measuring genetic varation between geopgrahic populations.

---

Polymorphic mtdna study is also good science, but when used to measure genetic distance between contrived groups is equally succeptible to the fallacy of false grouping.

The Horn of Africa encompasses dozens of Black African ethnic groups.

* By removing the Horn from Sub Saharan Africa;

* by selecting only 'choice' groups to represent the horn;

* by failing to include adjacent Sahalien populations ranging from the Red Sea Hills in the east, to Mauritania in the West.

...you effectively obscure the genetic relationships both within the different Black African groups in the Horn, and between these groups and other Black Africans who are excluded from the study.

Moreover by failing to understand the implications of "Out of AFrica", you are suggesting conclusions which do not necessarily follow logically from the study you cite, notwithstanding it's inherent flaws. A study showing a closer genetic distance between Kenyan and South Yemeni (another choice 'Non African' group) then between the Masai of Kenya and the San of the Kalahari, and so reflecting the natural fact that the ancestral populations for the Yemani's migrated into Asia from East Africa and not from South Africa does not in any way alter the fact that the Masai are and indigenous Black African people. Indeed the genetic study you cited does not attempt to say any such nonsensical thing; it does not claim that East Africans are not Africans, and does not claim that East Africans are not Black, as both claims would be foolish and are not logically derived from arbitrary groupings and resultant clusterings. And if you cannot understand this, then you don't understand the study.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
...you effectively obscure the genetic relationships both within the different Black African groups in the Horn, and between these groups and other Black Africans who are excluded from the study.

---

Well dude, your mind is kinda messed up. I think you don't really read my posts, you just reply back. "Black African" does not have any meaning in genetics. Popoluation geneticists rather use the word sub-Saharan Africans etc. Why is it so difficult for you to understand that east Africans are genetically in an intermediate position between SW Asians and other sub-Saharan Africans (like the Bantus of eastern Africa). Your intransigence will not change the facts. African is not synonymous to black race or anything.

quote:

---

Moreover by failing to understand the implications of "Out of AFrica", you are suggesting conclusions which do not necessarily follow logically from the study you cite, notwithstanding it's inherent flaws. A study showing a closer genetic distance between Kenyan and South Yemeni (another choice 'Non African' group) then between the Masai of Kenya and the San of the Kalahari, and so reflecting the natural fact that the ancestral populations for the Yemani's migrated into Asia from East Africa and not from South Africa does not in any way alter the fact that the Masai are and indigenous Black African people. Indeed the genetic study you cited does not attempt to say any such nonsensical thing; it does not claim that East Africans are not Africans, and does not claim that East Africans are not Black, as both claims would be foolish and are not logically derived from arbitrary groupings and resultant clusterings. And if you cannot understand this, then you don't understand the study.

---

What does it have to do with out-of-Africa?

That's because all humans have a common gene pool in eastern Africa (probably Khoisanoid man) doesn't mean that there aren't biological variations between human populations, especially in Africa, a very diverse continent.

Secondly i did not suggest any conclusion, east Africans are African.

The study reported by itself that northeast Africans are genetically in an intermediate position between non-Africans and other sub-Saharan Africans. Man talking like you is like to a wall. This is because you are programmed by your agenda.

Now according to the study you posted about Ethiopians clustering with Greeks...

Even a cursory look at the paper's diagrams and trees immediately indicates that the authors make some extraordinary claims. They used a single genetic marker, HLA DRB1, for their analysis to construct a genealogical tree and map of 28 populations from Europe, the Middle East, Africa and Japan. Using results from the analysis of a single marker, particularly one likely to have undergone selection, for the purpose of reconstructing genealogies is unreliable and unacceptable practice in population genetics.

The limitations are made evident by the authors' extraordinary observations that Greeks are very similar to Ethiopians and east Africans but very distant from other south Europeans; and that the Japanese are nearly identical to west and south Africans. It is surprising that the authors were not puzzled by these anomalous results, which contradict history, geography, anthropology and all prior population-genetic studies of these groups. Surely the ordinary process of refereeing would have saved the field from this dispute.

Geneticists believe the paper should have been refused for publication on the simple grounds that it lacked scientific merit.

Note, however, that when analyzed properly even HLA genes, while not ideal markers for tracing ancestral relationships, demonstrate the affinity of Greeks to other Balkan and European peoples, as shown by two recent studies:

In the present study we analyzed for the first time HLA class I and class II polymorphisms defined by high-resolution typing methods.... Phylogenetic and correspondence analyses showed that Bulgarians are more closely related to Macedonians, Greeks, and Romanians than to other European populations and Middle Eastern people living near the Mediterranean. (Ivanova et al. 2002)

The present study is the first to be performed in Macedonia using high-resolution sequence-based method for direct HLA typing. ... A phylogenetic tree constructed on the basis of the high-resolution data deriving from other populations revealed the clustering of Macedonians together with other Balkan populations (Greeks, Croats, Turks and Romanians) and Sardinians, close to another "European" cluster consisting of the Italian, French, Danish, Polish and Spanish populations. The included African populations grouped on the opposite side of the tree.

Mark Jobling has written Human Evolutionary Genetics, an important new textbook about the genetic origins and makeup of humans. You can read three chapters online at the publisher's site.

In chapter 1, Jobling uses Arnaiz-Villena's work on the alleged "Sub-Saharan African" origin of the Greeks as an example of misguided interpretation (p.12):

As an example, Figure 1.5 illustrates the arbitrariness of different possible population groupings based upon DNA sequence diversity at an HLA locus. Often an objective way to choose between different interpretations is not obvious (though objective methods are discussed later in this book), and in its absence, simple assertion often fills the vacuum.

^^^

Figure 1.5: Grouping populations – take your pick.

Relationships between populations based on DNA sequence diversity data at the HLA-DRB1 locus, displayed as a correspondence analysis plot (similar to principal components analysis; see Chapter 6) in which clustered populations are genetically similar. (a) Populations, with names indicated; (b, c, d) Three alternative groupings of the populations (there are others). The grouping chosen by Arnaiz-Villena et al. (2001) is (d) (adduced as support for a sub-Saharan origin for the Greeks) but is essentially arbitrary. Why is it preferred to alternative groupings shown in (b) and (c)? If the population origins were unknown when the groupings were made, would it affect the outcome? Note that this locus is generally regarded as being under strong selection.

quote:

---

Rasol:

Genetics is a good science, but you trying use it to make a point, that cannot be made using genetics, which indicates that you don't understand it.

---

quote:

---

Speaking of Nubia

---

Orionix wrote

quote:

---

At the end of the 4th millennium BC, kings of Egypt's 1st dynasty conquered upper Nubia south of Aswan, introducing Egyptian cultural influence to the African peoples who were scattered along the riverbank. In subsequent centuries, Nubia was subjected to successive military expeditions from Egypt in search of slaves or building materials for royal tombs, which destroyed much of the Egyptian-Nubian culture that had sprung from the initial conquests of the 1st dynasty.

---

Ausar responsed:

quote:

---

This is simply not true that the A-Group Nubians persisted untill the times of Snefru around the 4th dyansty. Whatever ''Egyptian' influence into Nubia and visa versa was during the Pre-dyanstic era. Both A-Group and Naqada culture shared a common culture as the incesense burner attests at Qustal.

The region you are speaking of is Lower Nubia and the Lower Nubians were racially no different from Southern Upper Egyptians. Upper Nubia is past the second cataract was not penetrated by Egypt untill the time of the 17th and 18th dyansty.

Once again Egypt was not a slave soceity,for most of the workers in Egypt was by corvee labor that built the temples and harvested the grain. Tell me why Egyptians would have an excess of slaves when it was not required. Westerners are trying to make Egypt into the ante-bellum south.

Unification of Egypt did not occur untill around 3100 B.C. either from conquest or trade reaching from Upper Egypt into the Maadi culture in Lower Egypt.

See the following:

A possible explanation for this is that A-Group society was so similar to that in predynastic Upper Egypt that there was a kind of equilibrium between them. These Nubian people were not living in the shade of the predynastic Egyptians, nor were they subservient to them in a colonial way. They had no need to leave their home in order to find food or employment in the big city. Given the growing desire for exotic goods like the obsidian from the temple, A-Group Nubians likely came to Egypt for transactions! http://www.archaeology.org/interactive/hierakonpolis/nubian.html

---

To which Orionix could not intelligibly respond. Orionix, at least pay attention to your own previous plagiarisms (page 3 of this thread). No need to repeat a bad argument unless your goal is to annoy, rather than amuse.

quote:

---

No you try. You do it by claiming the ancient Egyptians to be of a dominating black race which everything is derived from him.

---

The claim that Egypt was dominated by a race of blacks is very one-sided. Lower Egypt has always been inhabited by Berber Africans with lighter skin speaking Afro-Asiatic languages.

Edit: Maybe i shouldn't have brought up this assertion on how the ancient Egyptians looked like.

It is a sensitive question to everyone who lives the USA (i'm not American).

Here's a site which explains the emotions which this topic brings up:
http://www.egyptianmyths.net/faq.htm#race

[This message has been edited by Orionix (edited 11 November 2004).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
[My point was that thus the Egyptians were Africans, most of them were not black as the people who have always lived in southern Sudan or Zaire.]

Maye not but definatley they shared cultural affinities with people in the south.

---

Thought Writes:

This is preposterous, the earliest Egyptians (Naqada) were reported to be “super-Negroid” or tropically adapted, hence they would have been very dark and Black.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orionix:
[b]Rasol, Lower Egypt has always been inhabited by Berber Africans with lighter skin speaking Afro-Asiatic languages.

[This message has been edited by Orionix (edited 11 November 2004).][/B]

---

Thought Writes:

quote:

---

"Black African" does not have any meaning in genetics.

---

And neither does sub-saharan; nor white nor mulatto nor any of the terms your racially biased diatribe finds preferable to Black.

quote:

---

Popoluation geneticists rather use the word sub-Saharan Africans etc.

---

Most of all, you are not dealing with the fact that the Horn of Africa is geographically "sub saharan". Any haplotype indigenous to this region is by definition sub-saharan. The study you cite commits a fallacy of logic called clustering illusion.

quote:

---

Why is it so difficult for you to understand that east Africans are genetically in an intermediate position between SW Asians and other sub-Saharan Africans

---

* 1st it was the Horn contrasted with sub sahara and compared with "non-africa";

* now it's East Africa vs. South Western Asia, again compared with sub-saharan Africa.

The question you need to ask yourself is why is it so hard for you to comprehend the obvious: East Africa and the Horn of Africa cluster perfectly with Sub-saharan Africa.

Do you know why? Because they are an indigenous fundamental part of sub saharan Africa.

Here is a working example cluster illusion:

I create 3 groups:

African (represented by the Horn of Africa)

Asian: (represented by China)

European: (represented by Southern Europe)

Polymorphic mtdna study yields the following conclusion: Europeans are an intermediate type between Africans and Asians.

You cannot understand this because you do not understand the difference between logical thinking and fallacious contrivance.

quote:

---

Maybe i shouldn't have brought up this assertion on how the ancient Egyptians looked like.

---

Doesn't matter:

* given photographic evidence pertaining to Black Africans phenotype, you retreat to pseudo-genetics.

* given evidence of the indiginous Sub-saharan basis of East African genotypes, you retreat to pseudo-historical discussion of Ancient Egypt vs. ancient Nubia, which is itself a synthesis of the prior two bad arguments as Ancient Egypt and Nubia have been proven to have both phentotypic and genotypic affinity......meaning the question of "who conquered whom and when between Nubia and Kemet" is completely useless to you.

Someday you will make a good argument. But not any day soon I don't think.

quote:

---

That's because all humans have a common gene pool in eastern Africa

---

quote:

---

Secondly i did not suggest any conclusion, east Africans are African.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Correct, that is out of Africa. Now, try to follow thru and comprehend that the fact that all peoples on earth have East African dna, does not lead to the conclusion that East Africans are not African. And is completely irrevelant to the fact that East Africans are Black.

---

Wow you are the strogest Afrocentrist i've ever meet. It would interesting to know who you really are because many of the things you are saying are not supported by any scientific evidence.

So what if all humans have east African DNA? What do you want to prove with this? That ancient Egypt was dominated by a black race?

What you are doing is just creating more political weapons for your own purposes.

The Sahara desert is nothing more than a geographical description of Africa south of the Sahara desert.

Of course it didn't always exist but at the times we are talking about (3000 BC) it was quite dry. It doesn't apply to anything else, it is just your imagination.

quote:

---

East Africans are also Black. And if you admit that you are not suggesting otherwise, then you are not really saying anything relevant...you are just spinning your wheels.

---

Well the Egyptians were not Ethiopians or Somalians so you don't have a point here.

quote:

---

Wow you are the strogest Afrocentrist i've ever meet.

---

quote:

---

It would interesting to know who you really are because many of the things you are saying are not supported by any scientific evidence.

---

quote:

---

So what if all humans have east African DNA? What do you want to prove with this?

---

quote:

---

What you are doing is just creating more political weapons for your own purposes.

---

quote:

---

The Sahara desert is nothing more than a geographical description of Africa south of the Sahara desert.

---

quote:

---

Of course it didn't always exist but at the times we are talking about (3000 BC) it was quite dry.

---

To discuss the origins of Kemetic (ie -African Nile Valley) culture you have to go back to the less arid North African climate as cattle domestication, mummification and even the early heiroglyphic motifs go back several thousand years before Narmer and dynasty 1, and to a time when the concept of "sahara" as desert barrier was somewhat irrelevant. Most mtdna haplotypes also originate much earlier than 3000 bc, which is why a genetic concept of sahara vs. sub sahara often makes little sense.

You also need to think about the sahel as pathway between the West Coast and the Horn, especially for early cattle-rearing populations (Fulani, Masai); Somalia actually extends into the Southern Hemisphere, making the notion of Somalia as "North Africa" faintly retarded, geographically speaking.

quote:

---

Well the Egyptians were not Ethiopians or Somalians so you don't have a point here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orionix:
Well at least i'm not inciting to racism, what you guys seem to be professional about.

---

This statement only shows how mentally bankrupt you really are. All that has been maintained here, is that Egyptians were and are African, and that the Upper Egyptians were and are predominantly black Africans. These are facts, which you call racism. So if I were to call myself a black person, which I am, then that too, according to your disorganized mode of thinking, would make me racist. You can put your head in the sand, and deny facts by your nazi policy of unfounded name calling, but don't expect the rest of the imformed world to join you in that endeavor!

quote:

---

Orionix:
You're definitely the racist type. I realized something about people like you. When you're losing a open-minded argument you're switching to profanity. I'm sure that if you do that with real politicians they'll eat you for dinner.

---

Let's take a deep look, up and down this entire thread: It appears that you are the one, always on the wrong side of the fence. Look at the number of posters trying to set you straight. To any imformed person, it is apparent that you are definitely not the one, on the winning side of an "open-minded" argument. As far as profanity goes, you are a master at your craft. I would ask you to go back and take another look, to see this for yourself, if only I thought you are even capable of doing that. That last statement of yours goes to show just how cynical you are, in accusing others of what you are guilty of.

quote:

---

Orionix:
And yes i have life, this is why in many cases i do not respond to profane posts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
If you say so. Likewise, you are one of the weaker debaters I've encountered on Egyptsearch.com, period.

---

If i'm so weak in debating so how is it that you could not refute what i wrote before about Greeks not clustering with Ethiopians. So probably i make better arguments than you do.

quote:

---

Interesting that you claim I make statements lacking in evidence, yet you do not dispute the facts here, but merely ask "so what?" -> argument by ignorance.

---

..Just answer the question...

Do you think that Egypt was dominated by a black race? Can you give real scientific evidences (not socio-political evidences) for what you are saying?

Anyway you have weak arguments, that is for sure.

quote:

---

?? Rewrite the above nonsense and fast if you don't want discussants to laugh at it.

---

Sub-Saharan Africa existed at that time, like it or not.

quote:

---

That statement also makes no sense, as by that time Kemetic civilisation was already in place, so that is far too late to decipher it's ultimate origns, based soley on contemporary climate.

---

This is probably what you read in the Afrocentric books. I don't know but
this is not how history was written.

Nubia (south of Aswan) was conquered by the end of the 4th millenium BC...

At the end of the 4th millennium BC, kings of Egypt's 1st dynasty conquered upper Nubia south of Aswan, introducing Egyptian cultural influence to the African peoples who were scattered along the riverbank. In subsequent centuries, Nubia was subjected to successive military expeditions from Egypt in search of slaves or building materials for royal tombs, which destroyed much of the Egyptian-Nubian culture that had sprung from the initial conquests of the 1st dynasty. Throughout these few centuries (c. 2925–c. 2575 BC), the descendants of the Nubians continued to eke out an existence along the Nile River, an easy prey to Egyptian military expeditions. Although the Nubians were no match for the armies of Egypt's Old Kingdom, the interactions arising from their enslavement and colonization led to ever-increasing African influence upon the art, culture, and religion of dynastic Egypt.

quote:

---

To discuss the origins of Kemetic (ie -African Nile Valley) culture you have to go back to the less arid North African climate as cattle domestication, mummification and even the early heiroglyphic motifs go back several thousand years before Narmer and dynasty 1, and to a time when the concept of "sahara" as desert barrier was somewhat irrelevant.

---

Before the Saharan desert desiccated, the larger part of what is now sub-Saharan Africa was a relatively fertile Savanna inhabited by black Africans.

However at 3000 BC the greater part of the Saharan desert already desiccated so the black population migrated south.

quote:

---

Most mtdna haplotypes also originate much earlier than 3000 bc, which is why a genetic concept of sahara vs. sub sahara often makes little sense.

---

Again, populations cluster by geographic origin.

In population genetics, sub-Saharan Africa can be used as a geographic describtion of Africa south of the Sahara.

quote:

---

You also need to think about the sahel as pathway between the West Coast and the Horn, especially for early cattle-rearing populations (Fulani, Masai); Somalia actually extends into the Southern Hemisphere, making the notion of Somalia as "North Africa" faintly retarded, geographically speaking.

---

It doesn't matter. Somalians are genetically intermediate between other African groups (as the east African Bantus) and non-Africans (like Yemenis). Considering that the ancient Egyptians were not Ethiopians and Somailians, your argument is really pointless.

[/QUOTE]Notwithstanding the fact that you brought up the subject of the horn of Africa as a way of evading Ausar's post documenting Southern Sudanese diversity... most bioanthropologists aknowledge the physical affinity of the AE and modern Horn populations, even the likes of C.L. Brace admits as much, and ethnologists often place the AE in the same sub-catagory as Watusi, Somali, Oromo, Masai, Beja, Danakil among other East Africans.[/QUOTE]

There is great diversiry within any population in Africa.

However the Egyptians are NE Africans so they in no way cluster with other east Africans as Ethiopians or Somalians.

Watusi (also called Tutsi) are Rwandan so they are not east Africans.

quote:

---

In way the So it appears your Horn of Africa gambit has stalled, having availed you nothing. We can only hope that knowledge occasionally manages to penetrate the mental fog you have created for yourself. But even if you are learning nothing, others benefit, which I think, is why most of us are even bothering.

---

The Horn of Africa is only 4 countries: Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia and Somalia.

Your ignorace is terrible. You desperately insist to prove how Egypt in it's glorry days was dominated by a black race, although all evidences point out to brown Africans who identified just by "Egyptian race". These people didn't like both their light Asiatic north and their dark Nubian south.

quote:

---

Supercar:

This statement only shows how mentally bankrupt you really are. All that has been maintained here, is that Egyptians were and are African, and that the Upper Egyptians were and are predominantly black Africans. These are facts, which you call racism. So if I were to call myself a black person, which I am, then that too, according to your disorganized mode of thinking, would make me racist. You can put your head in the sand, and deny facts by your nazi policy of unfounded name calling, but don't expect the rest of the imformed world to join you in that endeavor!

---

Ok first of all racial pride and black supremacy will bring you nowhere. It will just make things worse in the US.

Again, you should read my posts more carefully since i havn't wrote the Egyptians weren't Africans but they weren't "black" or "white" or any other so-called "race".

By ethnicity they were just Egyptian and African. They didn't like both the light skinned Asiatics to their north and the dark skinned Nubians to their south.

Nubia was conquered at the end of the 4th millenium BC.

At the end of the 4th millennium BC, kings of Egypt's 1st dynasty conquered upper Nubia south of Aswan, introducing Egyptian cultural influence to the African peoples who were scattered along the riverbank. In subsequent centuries, Nubia was subjected to successive military expeditions from Egypt in search of slaves or building materials for royal tombs, which destroyed much of the Egyptian-Nubian culture that had sprung from the initial conquests of the 1st dynasty. Throughout these few centuries (c. 2925–c. 2575 BC), the descendants of the Nubians continued to eke out an existence along the Nile River, an easy prey to Egyptian military expeditions. Although the Nubians were no match for the armies of Egypt's Old Kingdom, the interactions arising from their enslavement and colonization led to ever-increasing African influence upon the art, culture, and religion of dynastic Egypt.

quote:

---

If i'm so weak in debating so how is it that you could not refute what i wrote before about Greeks not clustering with Ethiopians.

---

Apparently you are so disheveled and swept up in the need for 'rebuttal', that you managed to miss the point, which was ironically stated reasonably well in the material you yourself plagiarised: The limitations are made evident by the authors' extraordinary observations that Greeks are very similar to Ethiopians and east Africans but very distant from other south Europeans; and that the Japanese are nearly identical to west and south Africans. It is surprising that the authors were not puzzled by these anomalous results, which contradict history, geography and anthropology.
....the above applies equally to the absurd, ahistorical, a-geographical, anthropoligical inanity of suggesting that Ethiopia and Sudan, or Somaila and Kenya and Uganda are genetically very distant, compared to their relationships with "the rest of the world" (non-africa)....this is especially so since the borders between these countries are merely modern political boundaries and not geographic or ethnical ones: To repeat:

quote:

---

The Horn of Africa encompasses dozens of Black African ethnic groups.
* By removing the Horn from Sub Saharan Africa;
* by selecting only 'choice' groups to represent the horn;
* by failing to include adjacent Sahalien populations
...you effectively obscure the genetic relationships both within the different Black African groups in the Horn, and between these groups and other Black Africans who are excluded from the study.

---

As with the many relevant posts made by SuperCar, Ausar, Thought and others...you offer no relevant response, but rather resort to plagiarised irrelevant redundancy, and that, to answer your question is why you are a weak debater. Does that answer your question?

quote:

---

Just answer the question...do you think that Egypt was dominated by a black race?

---

More than happy to:

I agree that the Egyptians were black Africans with a southern origin.

Remember that? You should. You wrote it. http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/Forum8/HTML/000629-3.html

Rhetorical Question: Why is Orionix wasting our time repeating bad arguments against facts he himself earlier admitted?

Answer: Because knowing the facts does not correct Orionix underlying racist need to deny them.

Can Orionix offer a better excuse for his behavior? Can he convince anyone else of his own excuses? Can he even convince himself?

I think Afrocentrism is putting blacks down. After all the period of Black slavery should be a cause for shame for Whites, not for Blacks.

Afrocentrism, being racist against blacks, is useful to the racist US ruling class, and I think that's why it's tolerated. It serves to inculcate racist, anti-white views among black students, and to keep them obedient to whatever the highly conservative 'authorities' tell them.

The same kind of nationalism flourished in the '60s, where it served to keep blacks from uniting with anti-racist whites to fight racism. That's the function of Afrocentrism today, and very valuable it is to the tactic of "divide and conquer", by which white and black workers and students are kept divided from one another.

The Fallacies of Afrocentrism

quote:

---

Sub-Saharan Africa existed at that time, like it or not.

---

Exit from Eden - how the Sahara became a desert, Robert Kunzig:

Six thousand years ago, the Sahara was a fertile savanna teeming with animal and people. How did it become a barren sea of sand--and when will change back again?
A geographer at the Free University of Berlin, Hans Pachur has been exploring the Pachur and his group have to carry all the water they'll need for their several-week expedition, because they don't expect to find a drop.

But there once was water here--lots of it. Last March, in the Murzuq Sand Sea of southwestern Libya, Pachur found bones of crocodiles, hippopotamuses, elephants, and gazelles as well as windblown ridges of lake-bed chalk--evidence that the region had been dotted with bodies of freshwater. Years ago in the northern Sudan, Pachur found traces of a lake that may have been as large as Erie. In that same region he traced the course of a river that once flowed east into the upper Nile, crossing several hundred miles of what is now utter desert.....
Along those lost rivers, between 6,000 and 9,000 years ago, giraffes munched on acacia trees, elephants sprayed water from their trunks, hippos wallowed in mud. And people lived there too. They were shepherds and cowherds, hunters and fishers, and they were starting to settle down in small villages and cultivate grains such as sorghum and millet. Pachur believes the Sahara then was an Eden. "People did not experience this region the way we do, as a hostile environment," he says. "For them, it provided enormous possibilities to blossom." On rock walls west of the Murzuq, or in the Gilf Kebir highlands of southwestern Egypt, the Saharans carved and painted scenes from their lives. They depicted themselves driving cattle, hunting, and swimming, or sometimes just sitting around drinking.

But then the climate began to change, and the desert came. It began sometime after 6,000 years ago. Within just a few centuries, a gentle, fertile region the size of the United States was transformed into one of the harshest, most barren places on Earth. The Saharans had to leave. Many must have migrated east into the valley of the Nile, their closest source of water. That exodus, some archaeologists think, may be the event that triggered the rise of the pharaohs in Egypt a little more than 5,000 years ago. Eden gave way to one of the planet's first great civilizations."

quote:

---

Studies of mummies from all walks of life, from kings to beggars, show that nearly all Egyptians were the same people as we see in Egypt today.

---

You might want to use the search function as you continue to repeat thoroughly covered territory:

With SuperCar's permission:

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/Forum8/HTML/000884.html

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
You might want to use the search function as you continue to repeat thoroughly covered territory:

With SuperCar's permission:

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/Forum8/HTML/000884.html

---

They have done the same with Nefertiti but the skin texture, eye color, (AND) lips were added by an anonymous graphic designer.

Horemheb already answered to this, correctly:

quote:

---

Horemheb:

I think it is a great science and the legit science does not give us these views. If it did you guys would not spend all your time complaining about the Euro conspiracy to steal some mythical heritage.
I find it ironic that Africa is in a state of deep crisis and you fellows spend all your time promoting this fictional history when you could be trying to save the people living today. You might be better off trying to teach poor african kids to read than to try to sell the academic community all this nonsense. You'll never win your point on history but you might really help some people living today.

---

Could this be the profile of a queen?

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
If you don't know the history of climate change in Africa, or understand its relevance to the discussion, of Kemetic origns, just ask. No point trying to fake anything at this point, as your credibility level is zero and so cannot be further harmed.

---

The earliest inhabitants of what is now The Sudan can be traced to African (i.e., Negroid) peoples who lived in the vicinity of Khartoum, the Sudan, in Mesolithic (Middle Stone Age) times (30,000–20,000 BC). They were hunters and gatherers who made pottery and (later) objects of ground sandstone. Toward the end of the Neolithic Period (New Stone Age; 10,000–3,000 BC) they had domesticated animals. These Africans were clearly in contact with predynastic civilizations (before c. 2925 BC) to the north in Egypt, but the arid uplands separating Egypt from Nubia appear to have discouraged the predynastic Egyptians from settling there.

Egyptian influence

At the end of the 4th millennium BC, kings of Egypt's 1st dynasty conquered upper Nubia south of Aswan, introducing Egyptian cultural influence to the African peoples who were scattered along the riverbank. In subsequent centuries, Nubia was subjected to successive military expeditions from Egypt in search of slaves or building materials for royal tombs, which destroyed much of the Egyptian-Nubian culture that had sprung from the initial conquests of the 1st dynasty. Throughout these few centuries (c. 2925–c. 2575 BC), the descendants of the Nubians continued to eke out an existence along the Nile River, an easy prey to Egyptian military expeditions. Although the Nubians were no match for the armies of Egypt's Old Kingdom, the interactions arising from their enslavement and colonization led to ever-increasing African influence upon the art, culture, and religion of dynastic Egypt.

The difference between you and Horemheb is this: You can't even answer up to your own previous statements, which means that you lie to yourself, hoping for others to help you. But Horemheb can't help you, so your non-response is once again rejected. Sorry.

quote:

---

Her face turned out to be typical Egyptian

---

Iman: "I am beautiful because I am Black and I am Somali."

Agbani: "Black is truly beautiful"

Orionix: "I agree that the Egyptians were black Africans with a southern origin."

It's so nice when we all agree.

quote:

---

These Africans were clearly in contact with predynastic civilizations (before c. 2925 BC) to the north in Egypt, but the arid uplands separating Egypt from Nubia appear to have discouraged the predynastic Egyptians from settling there.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
You didn't write anything, you plagiarised a well known rebuttal to the Greek DNA study, which as with most of your "material" has been discussed several times before on this forum.

---

Your genetic study was refuted correctly.

Sorry man but you are wrong here. Do you really think that Greeks share more in common with Ethiopians than with their European neighbours? Well then you don't know what population genetics is all about.

The study was refuted by the top men in population genetics.

They were using results from the analysis of a single marker, particularly one likely to have undergone selection, for the purpose of reconstructing genealogies is unreliable and unacceptable practice in population genetics.

When analyzed properly even HLA genes, while not ideal markers for tracing ancestral relationships, demonstrate the affinity of Greeks to other Balkan and European peoples.

This means that Ethiopians, Somalians and even Egyptians share more genetically in common than with Greeks, Macadonians, Bulgarians, Italiens, Spaniards etc.

This is what i meant by measuring genetic distance between populations.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Horemheb was notorious on this forum for never answering anything correctly, which is why we find fellowship with him.

The difference between you and Horemheb is this: You can't even answer up to your own previous statements, which means that you lie to yourself, hoping for others to help you. But Horemheb can't help you, so your non-response is once again rejected. Sorry.

[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 12 November 2004).]

---

I didn't ask for his help or anyones help. I did not need it but i think you desperately do.

Me and Horemheb share much more in common in our views than you and me for example.

quote:

---

Sorry man but you are wrong here. Do you really think that Greeks share more in common with Ethiopians than with their European neigbours?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

No, I don't. Nor do East Africans share more in common with "non Africans" than they do with each other and their fellow Africans. That is the point. And as usual, you have no answer to it.

---

Yes most Africans share more in common within them than they do with other non-African populations because they cluster together.

However this is not the case by northern Africans who seem to cluster more closely with Near Easterns and eastern Africans (only from the horn of Africa) who seem to be intermediate between these two populations.