quote:

---

L3 lineages were the only ones involved in OOA migration, L0-L2 lineages *MUST* have came from elsewhere in Africa

---

Kivisild shows us why Dienekes does not have a coherent premise, but even if we pretend otherwise, the premise does not make Dienekes intended underlying point, and here is why:

The Andaman's mitochondrial DNA supports the idea that humans leaving Africa dispersed along a southern coastal route through India and into southeast Asia and what is now Australia

This strongly supports the suggestion that the Orang Asli's [original people] harbor mitochondrial DNA lineages with time depths of about 44,000 to 63,000 years," concluded the researchers.

"The very similar ages of haplogroups M, N, and R indicate that they were part of the same colonization process. This most likely involved the exodus of a founding group of several hundred individuals from East Africa, some time after the appearance of haplogroup L3 about 85,000 years ago, followed by a period of mutation and drift, during which haplogroups M, N and R evolved and the ancestral L3 was lost," wrote the researchers."

L3 is the African group that gave rise to the two non-African groups, M and N, which are two of the three major Eurasian founder groups. N gave rise to the third. http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20050509/outofafrica.html

Since ALL non Africans have L3 derived lineages which were only a fraction of the total [African] gene pool,

and since all non Africans are derived from tropical African peoples and morphologies,

speculations on where exactly in Africa the different L lineages were located is useless for Dienekes intended purposes.

It could be that every current African L lineage existed in some small proto-village somewhere in Kenya, notwithstanding whatever lineages migrated out;

or if it please the pseudo [Dienekes], you can assign each L lineage an imaginary 'separate' area within Africa.

[a bit ridiculous too...what imaginary boundary would define "East vs. Central vs. West Africa" 60k years ago?]

The case would still be that non Africans are derived from a fraction of the African gene pool..... and that these people were tropical African morphologically, [per, trinkhous, holliday, rogers, etc..] regardless of L3,L2 or L1, all of which are African in any case.

The salient fact, which Dienekes seeks to evade is that the only European, or white people to exist at this time were Neanderthal. And they were wiped out by OOA migrants in the Upper Paleolithic, who lost their tropical adaptations [ie - turned white] in the late mesolithic.

No Neanderthal lineages have survived.

So...what Dienekes is trying to do, is invent a role for imaginary-ethnic-racial OOA "Europeans".

In fact, no such creature exists.

He is repeating the most famous fallacy in anthropological history, and for the same reason....
Piltdown man hoax.

quote:

---

Piltdown man hoax,

---

Two aspects aided the survival of the hoax for forty years. It satisfied European expectations that the earliest humans would be found in Eurasia, and the British also wanted a "first Briton" due to national identity

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charlie_Bass:
Its bad when I can predict this kid's actions, it makes you wonder how easy it is to do that.

---

Very easy, i'd say, posted 07 February 2005 11:17 AM:

quote:

---

S. Mohammad writes: Still jumpimg back to that outdated by seven years Passarino study? Read Salas et tal study which is the most updated study on African mtDNA and you will see that Ethiopians have no ancestry from Niger/Congo speakers. Moron!

---

quote:

---

As for the Bantus, I am not a specialist in historic/arhaeologic details, but yes, mostly as far as genetic evidence is concerned, I think generally it is assumed that NE Africa was relatively untouched by the massive gene flow of Bantus.

---

Bantus are not the only Negroids:

The ensuing picture for East Africa, that is to say, would later have been changed through replacement by the expansion of Bantu or other "Negroid" tribes. -- Howells, 1995

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Bantus are not the only Negroids:

The ensuing picture for East Africa, that is to say, would later have been changed through replacement by the expansion of Bantu [b]or other "Negroid" tribes. -- Howells, 1995

And P.S. There's nothing "outdated" about the Passarino study. It was criticized for over-representing J-carrying Amharas, but that has no bearing on mtDNA.[/B]

---

The DNA evidence does not support any massive flooding of even West Africans. The lack of L3b and L3e cofirm this. Nilo-Saharans are indigenous to Northeast Africa as are people with so-called 'Negroid' morphology as represented by the Holocene remains of Sahaba, Tushka[Groves 1999] and Wadi Halfa mesolithic remains[Brace pers. communication]. Negroid peoples didn't come later or from west, central, or south Africa.

quote:

---

The ensuing picture for East Africa, that is to say, would later have been changed through replacement by the expansion of Bantu [b]or other "Negroid" tribes. -- Howells, 1995

---

Even when we take that quote it still doesn't change the fact that:

The guy has been repeating the same crap for months, all of which are contradicting lies!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by kifaru:
"Niger-Congo' females from Passarino "

Could someone post the relevant or in this case perhaps irrelevant portion of the passarino study?

---

You won't get the answer to this, precisely because of its irrelevance; ginzo ape simply snatches straws from a discredited and outdated study without actually understanding what is being said. Hence, ginney's extraordinary bewilderment to such extremely basic questions and the corresponding no-show of the long awaited answers to:

• What "haplotypes" [not a map] are considered “Niger Congo” mtDNA in the Ethiopian gene pool, as per the Passarino study?

• Where is the Borana sample that Passarino studied, and what "Niger Congo" mtDNA are they supposed to carry?
  

When one simply "mimics" without actually understanding what is being said, this kind of inferior sub-intelligent reaction to requests, is to be expected. This is clearly the case with ginney, and the questions were precisely intended to highlight this fact!

Great reference on Andamans islanders. Seems to be similar to result in Science 2005 article this year. I do not recall the month.

Thanks

quote:

---

Originally posted by yazid904:
rasol,

Great reference on Andamans islanders. Seems to be similar to result in Science 2005 article this year. I do not recall the month.

Thanks

hoda hafez

---

You're quite welcome.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
Its clear from reading the responses from various anthropologists that what we are doing here is more of the same old spin.

---

Toomas Kivisild is a geneticist, not a physical anthropologist, and are you even remotely familiar with his work?

The onus is on you to convince us that you understand anything that he is saying, otherwise we have no choice but to dismiss your remarks as a lame attempt at 'spin' by a clown who can't even do that correctly.

quote:

---

rasol...I don't have to convince you of anything. I'm not going to argue with political crackpots.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
rasol, You responded to my post, if you did not think there was a point there you would have ignored it.

---

If you make mistatements, they will be corrected. If your childish mentality is to take satisfaction from the response garnered from your own ignorance, then that's truly sad, but...so be it.

quote:

---

You are so hung up on this 'black thing' that the rest of the world just floats by unobserved..

---

quote:

---

Thats right rasol...I'm not agoing to argue details with a racist moron.

---

quote:

---

If you guys had a valid point to make you would not have to be on this board trying to prove it.

---