I have read somewhere in passing the following:

"Welll I never said Negroids spread the lineage nor migrated into Europe. Negroid influenced people did carry the lineage into the Levant."

Thought Continues:

How would YOU define "Negroids", versus "Negroid Influenced People"?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

I have read somewhere in passing the following:

"Welll I never said Negroids spread the lineage nor migrated into Europe. Negroid influenced people did carry the lineage into the Levant."

Thought Continues:

How would YOU define "Negroids", versus "Negroid Influenced People"?

---

The migrants who carried the E3b lineage were Negroid, those in the Levant were Negroid influenced. It should have read Negroid influenced people carried the lineage into Europe.

quote:

---

Originally posted by D_ManningJr:
The migrants who carried the E3b lineage were Negroid, those in the Levant were Negroid influenced. It should have read Negroid influenced people carried the lineage into Europe.

---

What determines "Negroid" as a discrete entity?

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
^^ The confusion occurs when you embrace, on any level, the racist inanities of people like Dienekes.

Negroid vs. Negroid influenced has no meaning. It sounds like Dienekes dissembling, to be honest.

---

What we all understand here is not the same for people on dodna so sometimes talking down to their level is necessary. The skeletal material in Nubia during the period in question was very "Negroid" and as the evidence shows, some of it turns up in Levantine skeletal material. I'm being careful not to misquote Angel's words out of context.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
I see, so you are referring specifically to Angel's Negroids from Nubia (?)

---

Yes, and not only Angel's Nubians but Brace's Wadi Halfa Nubians and Groves Sehaba and Tushka Nubians/Upper Egyptians. This evidence makes it nearly impossible to argue against such traits being carried out of Africa with E3b during the Mesolithic.

D_Manning and Charlie_Bass?????

In search of Deep Cover, Triple Agent Europas......

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

D_Manning and Charlie_Bass?????

In search of Deep Cover, Triple Agent Europas......

[This message has been edited by Thought2 (edited 26 October 2005).]

---

Translation:

"I have no evidence to prove that E3b1 alpha is proof of black African mixture in Europeans and I'm frustrated that Charlie Bass doesn't jump on the distortion bandwagon so now I will revive old pointless threads and insult him like an immature cry baby."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charlie_Bass:
Translation:

"I have no evidence to prove that E3b1 alpha is proof of black African mixture in Europeans.."

---

Thought Writes:

The issue is NOT "Black African Mixture" in Europeans. The issue is Black African derived lineages in Neolithic Europe that can be utilized to :

1) Negate the principle of European "racial" purity.

2) Demonstrate the contributions of the African neolithic to European cultural advancement.

All people are "mixed" if you mean having genetic lineages that derive in disparate geographic locals. The concept of race is invalid biologically.

Thought Posts:

Keita 2005:

"M78 is the M35 variant that has also been found in the Levant and the Aegean/Balkans region, and over time variation in this **LINEAGE** has emerged as indicated by other markers; it is not clear how much of this latter variation emerged before and after the lineage went with MIGRANTS FROM AFRICA."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

The issue is NOT "Black African Mixture" in Europeans. The issue is Black African derived lineages in Neolithic Europe that can be utilized to :

1) Negate the principle of European "racial" purity.

2) Demonstrate the contributions of the African neolithic to European cultural advancement.

All people are "mixed" if you mean having genetic lineages that derive in disparate geographic locals. The concept of race is invalid biologically.

[This message has been edited by Thought2 (edited 26 October 2005).]

---

Calling a lineage "Black African derived" while simultaneously stating that "black African" is a social term and Caucasoid genes don't exist is a useless exercise in double think. I stated the underived E3b1 arose in East Africa 23.2 ky so trying to say i refuse to recognize the African origin of this lineage is an automatic strawman argument. I simply said calling E3b1 alpha "black African derived" is misleading because the alpha mutation is not found among "black Africans" and originated from a founder lineage that arose 23.2 ky. pha cluster is mainly restricted to Europe so why call a lineage "black African derived" to cover up this fact and give a false impression?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charlie_Bass:

Calling a lineage "Black African derived" while simultaneously stating that "black African" is a social term and Caucasoid genes don't exist is a useless exercise in double think.

---

Thought Writes:

Why? Please be specific. Thanks.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charlie_Bass:

I simply said calling E3b1 alpha "black African derived" is misleading.

---

Thought Writes:

What I actually said was that E3b1 alpha was a Black African derived lineage. Do you disagree with:

1) E3b1 alpha being derived from a lineage that arose among Black Africans

or

2) The concept of Black Africans

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charlie_Bass:

....the alpha mutation ... is mainly restricted to Europe so why call a lineage "black African derived" to cover up this fact and give a false impression?

---

Thought Writes:

The fact is I have stated MANY TIMES on this forum that E3b1 alpha arose in situ in Europe. My focus is NOT on the presence of E3b1 alpha in and of itself. My focus is on HOW and WHEN the E3b1 LINEAGE made its way from Black Africa to Europe. The evidence indicates that this lineage arose IN Africa AMONG Black people and then spread TO Europe with technological advances. Do you disagree?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

The fact is I have stated MANY TIMES on this forum that E3b1 alpha arose in situ in Europe. My focus is NOT on the presence of E3b1 alpha in and of itself. My focus is on HOW and WHEN the E3b1 LINEAGE made its way from Black Africa to Europe. The evidence indicates that this lineage arose IN Africa AMONG Black people and then spread TO Europe with technological advances. Do you disagree?

[This message has been edited by Thought2 (edited 27 October 2005).]

---

Can you verify through fossil record what Ea Africxans ooked like 23.2 kya? No one is denying the E3b1 lineage arose in East Africa so quit repeating the same nonsense strawman argument. E3b1 alpha is *NOT* proof of "black African mixture" in Europeans and over-emphasizing ad-naseum the origins of E3b1 is not going to change this or put any kind of special twist on the alpha mutation.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charlie_Bass:

Can you verify through fossil record what East Africans looked like 23.2 kya?

---

Thought Writes:

It doesn't matter what they looked like circa 23,000 years ago since the lineage didn't leave Africa until well after 14,000 years ago. And we DO know what East Africans looked like during this time frame.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charlie_Bass:

E3b1 alpha is *NOT* proof of "black African mixture" in Europeans and over-emphasizing ad-naseum the origins of E3b1 is not going to change this or put any kind of special twist on the alpha mutation.

---

Thought Writes:

Again, you keep misquoting me. I said that E3b1 alpha was a "Black African derived lineage", not "Black African derived". The difference in these two phrases implies two different things. We KNOW that E3b1 spread to Eurasia with the neolithic after 14,000 ky ago. We know that E3b1 arose in Black Africa. We do NOT know if E3b1 alpha arose among Black people or not. It does not matter, because we KNOW that:

1) E3b1 negates the idea of White racial purity, especially in southern Europe.

2) It demonstrates the spread of cultural advancement FROM Black Africa TO Europe AFTER the Out-Of-Africa migration.

Now, I noticed that you didn't answer my questions, so I will re-post them assuming you simply forgot to respond. Thanks:

Do you disagree with:

1) E3b1 alpha being derived from a lineage that arose among Black Africans

or

2) The concept of Black Africans

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charlie_Bass:

Can you verify through fossil record what East Africans looked like 23.2 kya?

---

Thought Posts:

Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships
SOY Keita
1993

"Descriptions and photos of late paloelithic remains from Egypt indicate characteristics which distinguish them clearly from their European counterparts at 30,000 and 20,000 BP. These distinguishing characteristics, commonly called "Negroid", are shared with later Nile Valley and more southerly groups. It is not important to label the characteristics "Negroid", only to note that they are shared with a wide range of African populations. Epipaleolithic "mesolithic" Nile Valley remains have these characteristics....although late Natufian hunters and early Anatolian farmers shared some of these traits, suggesting late paleolithic migration out of Africa, as supported by arcaheology."

Thought Posts:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=379225

"Western Asia and Europe have thereafter received an additional wave of genes from Africa, likely via the Levantine corridor, bringing forth lineages of Y-chromosomal haplogroup E, for example (Underhill et al. 2001b)..."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

We know that E3b1 arose in Black Africa. We do NOT know if E3b1 alpha arose among Black people or not.

---

Thought Writes:

We do not know if E3b1 alpha arose among Black people or not. However, given the available cranio-metric data it is probable that their was a substantial element in early Neolithic Greece that would be deemed Black by today's modern social parlance. This segment would have diminished through time, possibly due to back-migration down the Rhine.

Thought Quotes J.L. Angel -

quote:

---

Thought Writes:

It doesn't matter what they looked like circa 23,000 years ago since the lineage didn't leave Africa until well after 14,000 years ago. And we DO know what East Africans looked like during this time frame.

---

So many mistakes from Charlie, but i've pointed them out before and he is clearly too caught up in his anti Black African posturing to honestly discuss them.

Specifically:

* Charlie uses terms like phylo-genetic but is indifferent to cladistic distinctions such as between a clade and cluster.

* He bases his stance on the paper thin foundation of the 'alpha' cluster but wrongly references it in terms of the mrca of E3b1: [You could discover a new str cluster among the sons of an E3b1 father - that does not negate their immediate genetic relationship, or push it back 23 thousand years to the "mrca" of the father's E3b1. This is simply an error.]

* Charlie complains that Black is a social term, as if his own discourse, and population genetics is not layden with social terms.

But of course, it is, and so Charlie is really attempting without success, to rationalise his own apparently strongly held social prejudice.

Entertaining debate though.....