posted
^^You need to stop scrambling for information on Mahtilda's blog as if she doesn't debunk herself...
quote:These studies suggest a recent and primary subdivision between African and non-African populations, high levels of divergence among African populations, and a recent shared common ancestry of non-African populations, from a population originating in Africa. The intermediate position, between African and non-African populations, that the Ethiopian Jews and Somalis occupy in the PCA plot also has been observed in other genetic studies (Ritte et al. 1993; Passarino et al. 1998) and could be due either to shared common ancestry or to recent gene flow. The fact that the Ethiopians and Somalis have a subset of the sub-Saharan African haplotype diversity and that the non-African populations have a subset of the diversity present in Ethiopians and Somalis makes simple-admixture models less likely; rather, these observations support the hypothesis proposed by other nuclear-genetic studies (Tishkoff et al. 1996a, 1998a, 1998b; Kidd et al. 1998) that populations in northeastern Africa may have diverged from those in the rest of sub-Saharan Africa early in the history of modern African populations and that a subset of this northeastern-African population migrated out of Africa and populated the rest of the globe. These conclusions are supported by recent mtDNA analysis (Quintana-Murci et al. 1999).
---Tishkoff (2000)
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sundjata says: ''...the reality of their mongrelism and derived status.''
So who gets the blame for the psychological manifestations on this planet, the mongrels, or those who provided the mongrel with the derived status in the first place?
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is that all you can say is 'what!' Didn't mean to ask an embarrasing question if you aren't psychologically equipped to understand it.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^No, just the way that you ask it, like most of your weird off-hand questions, doesn't make any sense. It supposes that I know what you mean when you write about "the psychological manifestations on this planet". Please, I have no use for addressing your psychobabble right now. Maybe later.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:These studies suggest a recent and primary subdivision between African and non-African populations, high levels of divergence among African populations, and a recent shared common ancestry of non-African populations, from a population originating in Africa. The intermediate position, between African and non-African populations, that the Ethiopian Jews and Somalis occupy in the PCA plot also has been observed in other genetic studies (Ritte et al. 1993; Passarino et al. 1998) and could be due either to shared common ancestry or to recent gene flow. The fact that the Ethiopians and Somalis have a subset of the sub-Saharan African haplotype diversity and that the non-African populations have a subset of the diversity present in Ethiopians and Somalis makes simple-admixture models less likely; rather, these observations support the hypothesis proposed by other nuclear-genetic studies (Tishkoff et al. 1996a, 1998a, 1998b; Kidd et al. 1998) that populations in northeastern Africa may have diverged from those in the rest of sub-Saharan Africa early in the history of modern African populations and that a subset of this northeastern-African population migrated out of Africa and populated the rest of the globe. These conclusions are supported by recent mtDNA analysis (Quintana-Murci et al. 1999).
One reason it's useless to distinguish "African race" by paternal lineage is it unifies the whole continent.
Secondly, although humans had spread to the whole continent early on, Western Africa gets more thickly populated around 40kya - likely from an incoming Ethiopian population and after the migration of ancestral non-Africans circa 60,000 years ago.
And again, the most common paternal lineage in Africa is E-P2, mainly E1b1b and E1b1a which both come into the picture well over 30,000 years after the "Out of Africa" event and come into the picture in equatorial Africa and to this day are almost limited to Africa South of the Sahara (barring downstream lineages).
And Europe has three primary male lineages and Eurocentrists want to talk about Africa's two seperate genetic races.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Secondly, although humans had spread to the whole continent early on, Western Africa gets more thickly populated around 40kya - likely from an incoming Ethiopian population
Edit: Never mind.. I wouldn't too much dispute this however, it's noteworthy that these peoples would not have been directly ancestral to modern west African populations since this doesn't seem to coincide with the accepted dating of PN2* and its spread.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, i can't find the citation now but that's when it is said to have started. Western Africa was sparsely peopled before that point according to the source.
E-P2 is found at its highest frequencies in Senegal outside of Ethiopia. And that E-P2 and E-M2 come into the picture later only reinforces the point of genetic commonality IMO.
Speaking of which:
quote: The AMOVA analysis performed on the 16 Bantu-speaking populations analyzed in the present work showed that almost all the genetic variation (98.8%) was found to be within populations, with the remaining 1.2% between populations (but not significantly different from 0; P=.103). These results again reflect the very high level of genetic homogeneity among these populations.
AMOVA analysis was also applied to the whole African data set, using several designs:
Taking all the African populations separately, 79.2% of the variability occurs within populations, whereas 20.8% of the variability occurs between populations.
Grouping the populations by main geographic areas, 10.6% between groups, 12.5% between populations within groups, and 76.9% for variance within groups.
Considering the main groups of African languages (Afroasiatic, Niger-Congo, Nilo-Saharan, and Khoisan), similar values were obtained for the variation within groups (76.8%), but 18.9% was found to occur between populations within groups, with the remaining 4.3% corresponding with differences between groups. (This last was not significantly different from 0; P=.068.)
When populations were grouped into Bantu versus non-Bantu, a similar apportionment of genetic variation was found: 74.9% within populations, 17.2% among populations within groups, and 7.9% among groups.
Therefore, it seems that, in Africa, geography plays an important role in defining differences between the main groups, whereas language plays a lesser role.
quote:Originally posted by Fakearab dumbass: Silly Negro!
LOL Can you please define what that is? Again, I'm not even black but Asian.
quote:You don't know what constitutes a race?
'Race' is a phenotype isolate correlating to genetic lineage. Genetics has proven no such thing exists.
quote:When there is as much a genetic difference as present between many Negroid populations - that constitutes a race.
Wait you lost me there. You haven't even defined "negroid" and yet you're speaking of genetic difference between such.
quote:You're delusional if you think all Africans are of the same race. Take a simple course in anthropology and you'll be quick to point it out!
Again 'race' doesn't exist. But it's a fact that all indigenous Africans are 'black' that is very dark in skin color and *all* Africans are genetically related to each other!
quote:Differences between the Nigerian and Ethiopian are at LEAST 5x larger than the Italian (Mediterranean) and Briton (Nordic).
5x based on what??! You still haven't defined the racial categories of "caucasian" and "negroid".
quote:ack" unless you're truly referring to "Black" as a SKIN COLOR - then you must include Australoids, who are the MOST divergent from "Africans" genetically.
Of course, but I am specifically referring to black AFRICANS, you dimwit, of which Ethiopians and ancient Egyptians were!
quote:Anthropologists would always group sub-Saharan African Negroes AWAY FROM Ethiopians. Now we have genetic data to prove it.
And what is this grouping based on??! And exactly what is this genetic data??
quote:Egyptians grouping with Ethiopians and other NE Africans does not show they are "Black" - by any means, racially, but that they are - like Ethiopians - different from Negroes themselves.
Of course they are black, if you've seen depictions of their skin color but again define "negro" first before you can talk about differences from that said category.
quote:
The greatest anthropologists of the world grouped them with non-Negroes before Negroes (If not constitution their OWN group - as they should).
Why?! What is this grouping actually based on?!!
As Sundjiata said, what about the West African man below??
quote:As for the first image, you greatly misinterpreted it. It grouped "Africans" into more than one group.
Thus, constituting a whole different race.
But again, WHAT IS SUCH GROUPING BASED ON??? You keep repeating the terms and talk about "grouping" but never define the bases of the terms or methodology!!
quote:Stop pretending "African" means something racially - it doesn't. The ONLY connection between Negroid peoples and North Africans are the CONTINENT ITSELF.
Again, I never used the word 'race' as scientifically it doesn't exist. However, all indigenous Africans are not only black but genetically related as genetics show and thus continent is NOT the only thing Africans share.
quote:Is Asia now one race?
Again, no 'race'. But the populations of Africa unlike Asia have had continuous geneflow between each other unlike Asian populations who for the most part were geographically isolated for longer periods of time.
quote:You did not debunk it.
I debunked YOU.
quote:Second image - I simply stated that Africa is home to four distinct races - as shown.
Again there is no such thing as 'race' which you have yet to define let alone prove.
quote:Sure, perhaps they are all "African" - but does that mean anything?
Yes, not only do they share the same continent they also share many of the same genetic lineages.
quote:They are a different race. They have different cultures (Or HAD them). They look distinctively different.
Again, no 'race' but they are all black. They have different cultures but all share a commonality and yes there are distinctive looks but that can be said for any populations including those of Europe even though they are all considered the same 'race'.
quote:It's no comparison.
No there's not when what you say makes no sense.
quote:Africa is not a race. It's a continent. Black is not a race. It's a skin color with no logical grouping.
You are correct, but that still doesn't change the FACT that all Africans are biologically and genetically closely related to each other.
quote:3rd - I think your Khoisan comparison is a bit off. Try to actually go with the present anthropology. Khoisan peoples - or Capoids (Racially speaking) - are not NEGROID.
They are HIGHLY different!
Check out The History and Geography of Human Genes page 174-177. It shows how they are not Negroid and DO NOT GENETICALLY CLUSTER WITH OTHER AFRICANS.
Thus, the Capoid peoples are NOT NEGROID.
Where did I say anything about Khoisan??! And again 'race' doesn't exist. Khoisan are still closely related to other Africans.
quote:From The History and Geography of Human Genes: In summary, the information available on individual groups in Ethiopia and North Africa are fairly limited but sufficient to show that they are all separate from sub-Saharan Africans and that North Africans and East Africans (Ethiopian and neighbors) are also clearly separate. [..] It is of interest, however, that there are relic populations in Ethiopia that may show greater similarity to the San or to Southwest Asian populations. Even relic populations - those existing BEFORE Caucasoid or Negroid presence - are closer to San (Who are not Negroid - even Cavalli-Sforza knows this) or SW Asians(Caucasoids).
Also, understand my side firstly. Ethiopians are not Caucasoid. I do not claim this. But I do say they are not the same, genetically, morphologically, or racially - as Negroes in the rest of Africa.
This is only supported!
I like how you can't even find your own images or arguments. Everything you post is filtered through another Negrocentric like yourself. Everything.
And your "Refutations" aren't refutations at all.
It's holding on to Africa being home to one race, which wasn't true even before the Egyptian civilization took it's first breath!
Africa is home to various races, four to be exact.
Stop trying to pretend they are all one race. It's psuedo-scientific.
I'm not running around calling the Ethiopians Caucasoid. I am saying they are not the same as your silly Negroid ancestors.
"Black" constitutes four races in Africa, three of them you have no business being proud of.
Same nonsense. Yet no explanation for any of it! What contitutes a "negroid"?? What contitutes "caucasoid" or "capoid"???! You duck and dodge the significant questions. How could you argue for the existence of such groupings when you can't even define them?!
Posts: 26361 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
1) DUH-Rab's own study quote undermines his claim that Ethiopians are closer to Caucasoids. Quote:
"On the basis of autosomal polymorphic loci, it has been estimated that 60% of the Ethiopian gene pool has an African origin, whereas ~40% is of Caucasoid derivation….
Right off the bat, duh-rAB debunked HIMSELF.
2) Poloni and his colleagues stacked the deck ahead of time by classifying certain DNA as "Caucasoid" then applying the "true negro" model to identify "blacks" as narrowly as possible- mainly Bantu speakers.
What they did was carefully define certain haplotypes as "Caucasoid" if these "were in association" with specific mutations. In other words they massaged the categories so that certain patterns would be defined as "Caucasoid" in advance, thus stacking the deck ahead of time, in comparison to "bantu" speakers. quote: "..Type 6-2 (with its derivatives 209-2 and 214-2), which is considered Caucasoid if associated with other specific mutations.."
The 'Bantu" in the study stand in for true negro. But Bantu speakers are only ONE TYPE in Ethiopia. There are OTHER groups that were CONVENIENTLY left out of the analysis. As Dejhuti points out, Poloni used mostly Amhara, carefully excluding the Oromo who make up the largest population in Ethiopia.
3) The historical data on which Poloni and Cavalli-Sforza establish their claim is outdated Aryan model/true negro. Get this- they underpin their entire article, and base their claim of historial Caucasoid migrants on an obsolete 1964 Britannica article, written 30 years before! Can anyone say loaded dice?
QUOTE from Poloni, Sforza et al:
The first known inhabitants of Ethiopia were hunting peoples whose scattered descendants remained in southern Ethiopia. As early as the 8th millennium B.C., a Negroid element appeared, probably only in the southern part of the country, and mingled with people arriving later (Encyclopaedia Britannica 1964, vol. 8, p. 782). By ∼4,000–5,000 years B.C., Afro-Asiatic peoples (proto-Cushites, proto–Omotic speakers, and proto- Semites) were present in Ethiopia (Levine 1974). They probably derived from the Sahara (Levine 1974) or from Arabia (Encyclopaedia Britannica 1964, vol. 8, p. 782)..
SO let's see. We got:
--Ethiopians closer to Africans than Caucasoids by DUH-Rab's own references
--Ethiopians heavily sharing unique DNA with one of the oldest African populations- the Khoisian San, unlike anything from Europe and outside Africa (Semino 2002, Behar 2008)
--A stacked deck study design by Poloni, than massages the study categories in advance, carefully stacking the deck so that certain hapolypes are braodly defined as "Caucasoid" while the comparison is made to narrowly defined "Bantu" groups.
--Obsolete references from 30 + years ago establishing the skewed basis underpinning their study.
--Finally as to simple admixture models Tishkoff says:
"The fact that the Ethiopians and Somalis have a subset of the sub-Saharan African haplotype diversity and that the non- African populations have a subset of the diversity present in Ethiopians and Somalis makes simple-admixture models less likely; rather, these observations support the hypothesis proposed by other nuclear-genetic studies (Tishkoff et al. 1996a, 1998a, 1998b; Kidd et al. 1998) that populations in northeastern Africa may have diverged from those in the rest of sub-Saharan Africa early in the history of modern African populations and that a subset of this northeastern-African population migrated out of Africa and populated the rest of the globe. These conclusions are supported by recent mtDNA analysis (Quintana-Murci et al. 1999)." [Tishkoff et al. (2000) Short Tandem-Repeat Polymorphism/Alu Haplotype Variation at the PLAT Locus: Implications for Modern Human Origins. Am J Hum Genet; 67:901-925]
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: So you *do* like having a topic named in your honor... by an idiot troll. Do you feel like you need to private message him to show your appreciation? Go head own, no one will notice.
I was joking when I said I was honored. Seriously, I'm more amused! And hell no, I don't wanna private message the fool! I prefer to have him humiliated in a public thread where everyone can see.
quote:How 'bout this one:
''I'm not Mary...''
Well you've denied it long enough; is there something to it?
Nothing to deny. You see, Assopen likes to use the names of Jewish people as negative epithets against others. He does this not only to demean them but in his mind discredit them. He likes to lie and feed off the false notion that I support Mary Lefkowitz when I don't. I've already explained myself in the very threads he continuously links so there is no need to explain things again.
So instead of feeding into his fantasies I like to remind him that not only am I not Mary but I never supported her contrary to his false claims. Funny how whenever I or someone else calls him 'Eva' an effiminate Nazi sympathizer he makes no protest at all. Posts: 26361 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DULL-RAB Debunked: 1) DUH-Rab's own study quote undermines his claim that Ethiopians are closer to Caucasoids. Quote:
"On the basis of autosomal polymorphic loci, it has been estimated that 60% of the Ethiopian gene pool has an African origin, whereas ~40% is of Caucasoid derivation….
Right off the bat, duh-rAB debunked HIMSELF.
2) Poloni and his colleagues stacked the deck ahead of time by classifying certain DNA as "Caucasoid" then applying the "true negro" model to identify "blacks" as narrowly as possible- mainly Bantu speakers.
What they did was carefully define certain haplotypes as "Caucasoid" if these "were in association" with specific mutations. In other words they massaged the categories so that certain patterns would be defined as "Caucasoid" in advance, thus stacking the deck ahead of time, in comparison to "bantu" speakers. quote: "..Type 6-2 (with its derivatives 209-2 and 214-2), which is considered Caucasoid if associated with other specific mutations.."
The 'Bantu" in the study stand in for true negro. But Bantu speakers are only ONE TYPE in Ethiopia. There are OTHER groups that were CONVENIENTLY left out of the analysis.
3) The historical data on which Poloni and Cavalli-Sforza establish their claim is outdated Aryan model/true negro. Get this- they underpin their entire article, and base their claim of historial Caucasoid migrants on an obsolete 1964 Britannica article, written 30 years before! Can anyone say loaded dice?
QUOTE from Poloni, Sforza et al:
The first known inhabitants of Ethiopia were hunting peoples whose scattered descendants remained in southern Ethiopia. As early as the 8th millennium B.C., a Negroid element appeared, probably only in the southern part of the country, and mingled with people arriving later (Encyclopaedia Britannica 1964, vol. 8, p. 782). By ∼4,000–5,000 years B.C., Afro-Asiatic peoples (proto-Cushites, proto–Omotic speakers, and proto- Semites) were present in Ethiopia (Levine 1974). They probably derived from the Sahara (Levine 1974) or from Arabia (Encyclopaedia Britannica 1964, vol. 8, p. 782)..
SO let's see. We got:
--Ethiopians closer to Africans than Caucasoids by DUH-Rab's own references
--Ethiopians heavily sharing unique DNA with one of the oldest African populations- the Khoisian San, unlike anything from Europe and outside Africa (Semino 2002, Behar 2008)
--A stacked deck study design by Poloni, than massages the study categories in advance, carefully stacking the deck so that certain hapolypes are braodly defined as "Caucasoid" while the comparison is made to narrowly defined "Bantu" groups.
--Obsolete references from 30 + years ago establishing the skewed basis underpinning their study.
--Finally as to simple admixture models Tishkoff says:
"The fact that the Ethiopians and Somalis have a subset of the sub-Saharan African haplotype diversity and that the non- African populations have a subset of the diversity present in Ethiopians and Somalis makes simple-admixture models less likely; rather, these observations support the hypothesis proposed by other nuclear-genetic studies (Tishkoff et al. 1996a, 1998a, 1998b; Kidd et al. 1998) that populations in northeastern Africa may have diverged from those in the rest of sub-Saharan Africa early in the history of modern African populations and that a subset of this northeastern-African population migrated out of Africa and populated the rest of the globe. These conclusions are supported by recent mtDNA analysis (Quintana-Murci et al. 1999)." [Tishkoff et al. (2000) Short Tandem-Repeat Polymorphism/Alu Haplotype Variation at the PLAT Locus: Implications for Modern Human Origins. Am J Hum Genet; 67:901-925]
Correct.
First of all, that old study by Poloni used samples from Abyssinian folk like Amhara and Tigre. Abyssnians aren't even the major ethnic group of Ethiopia, the Oromo are. So how can Abyssinians represent *all* Ethiopians??!! That's the first mistake.
The second mistake as you pointed out is the more obvious-- that the non-African or Eurasian genes are labeled as "cacasian". Again, what exactly defines a "cacasian", let alone associated genes?? We know that on the Y-chromosome Abyssinians are 40% J lineages. Haplogroup J originated in Arabia just outside Africa during the paleolithic, but how are the people it arose in "cacasians"?? It goes back to definitions...
Posts: 26361 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
..Speaking of which, we are still waiting for the definitions of "negroid" and "cacasoid". Tell us Fake-Arab, what do these terms mean?? What exactly are these groupings based on??
Why does the East African man and West African man below so much alike??
Also why does the Ethiopian man and the Nigerian man below look so much alike as well??!
So many question yet NO answers from you!
Posts: 26361 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Indeed, despite the title of this thread all I'm getting served is easily debunked B.S.! Where are the actual FACTS?? There are NON from the idiot.
I would actually prefer it if his mistress Mathilda would come to this forum to debate us instead-- basically going straight to the horse if you know what I mean. But as Rasol says, the chances of that happening are very slim. Mathilda knows she's debunked and like Dienekes chooses to promulgate her racial nonsense to idiots like fake-arab than to actually debate folks who know better. Posts: 26361 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
You should ask Mathilda why she does not post on these forums?
The answer is, that she would get chewed up and spit out, just like here corrupt studies that she uses.
Whats missing in your life, that you try desperately to cling to "Caucasoid" Africans.
What is a Caucasoid African??
What does a Negroid African look like??
If we go by Color of skin, Then All Africans are Negroid.
If it is Features, then how come we have Fulani who have E1b1a at 100% in Nigeria have narrow Features. How come Tutsi in Rwanda and Burundi have Narrow faces. How come Omotic, and Kunama in Ethiopia have Broad features yet carry E1b1b.
So really what needs to be asked from you is to define your terms. If you can't define your terms, Then you should look to change how you deal with people and stop spamming stuff from a Known racist like Mathilda.
Peace
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ "negro" in its original definition meant simply 'black'. But notice how all these racialist use terms like "negroid" and "true negro" and "caucasoid" but never 'true caucasian'. It's obvious from the use these terms that they are just specious and loose and therefore INVALID.
Posts: 26361 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Racist Liar a.k.a. fake-Arab, are you going to answer my valid questions??
Are you even going to respond, or are you awaiting orders from your mendacious mistress Mathilda?? Posts: 26361 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Is that you brandishing that khukri on the Gurkha cigar band? Our Turkish slaves are about finished down here in the sahel/savannah. How much are you on sale for, probably a lot cheaper than those musket men we used to buy. Don't forget to bring a few of your wenches with you but shave them first. We only appreciate hair just above the snatch in our snowy sex slaves. You can keep the goat girls and bugger them yourself, but if you shave them then you can tell their arse from their anvil.
Don't get mad, just having a little fun with you sonny boy.
quote:Originally posted by e3b1c1: i never lost remember somalid v13 is greek i am turk i ruled there ass for 400 years i am a warrior in blood i could not lose defently not to negros e3b1c1
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
your funny leave me alone if i have to choose were to live i would chose ethiopia were m34 is common my hourt is in ethiopia i wish i was born there e3b1c1
posted
its ok a man should know how to laugh about himself but i am telling you the truth i realy suffer in western asia i have no friends and i cant even nail those girls thats why i wish i was born in ethiopia the natural place for m34 its common in that country e3b1c1
Posts: 371 | From: egypt | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Even relic populations - those existing BEFORE Caucasoid or Negroid presence - are closer to San (Who are not Negroid - even Cavalli-Sforza knows this) or SW Asians(Caucasoids).
Yes he does see them this way. But the pro-Sforza/Bowcock crowd on ES is still in denial.
Captain, you do realise that in your post (posted 19 May, 2009 04:53 PM) you are misrepresenting Keita again. In the first quote he is saying based on their racialised model (i.e. the boundaries of phenotypically defined races) Europeans would be a secondary race or type while the second quote he is showing genetics shatter the said racialised boundaries seen in the works of Bowcock, Sforza et al. In your zeal to reply to Arabegypt (Mary?) you should be careful not to misrepresent Keita's 1997 paper.
quote:He likes to lie and feed off the false notion that I support Mary Lefkowitz when I don't.
Come on Mary, you did use Leftkowitz library of Alexandria spin to dismiss Prof. James' book as "silly" and labelled it "Afrocentric" hence not real evidence. You still to this day maintain Greek classical philosophy was home grown and avoided every effort to back up you claims. Where's the lie?
It is you who need to stop lying Mary. Like I said, if you want to take back your words and apologise to Prof. James and Molefi Asante then do so. But the more you deny your own words the more you expose yourself as Mary Lefkowitz on ES.
quote:I've already explained myself in the very threads he continuously links so there is no need to explain things again.
Oh really? Where did you reply to Great Jews request to prove Greek classical philosophy was home grown? Stolen LegacyPosts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Ignoring the old beaten troll above but still awaiting replies from the fresh scuffled troll who started this thread... Posts: 26361 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by arabegypt: I'm not claiming Ethiopia is White. It's just not Negroid. Which you, apparently, are.
quote: ROLMAO
The Benin wall is an accomplishment, but not necessarily one of intellect. If I get 10000 people to help me build a wall, it could be done. You just need a reason to do it.
Walls are quite easy to make, actually. You just have to WANT to make it. That's what your Negro friends did.
It was constructed because there was a need to keep out invaders.
@ the Wheel.
You have firstly failed to prove lack of Caucasoid influence on the anceint Egyptians. Hell, you have failed to truly prove the Naqada people were Negroid. If anythin, they were NE African - which are not truly Negroes (They aren't Caucasoid either, but they were often grouped with them morphologically).
Nubia got the wheel from Egypt.
@Gold rhino. The Monomotapa Empire spanned from 1450-1629. A gold sculpture at that time isn't too great. That actually happened during the renaissance in Europe.
Compare it to this piece of European art:
from the 1500's.
Very inticate and perfectly sculpted - your rhino is rough, edged, etc.
@Bust From the 1500s. Made of bronze.
Compare with this: Bronze figure from the Artemisium Wreck from 460 BC.
@Reply about above bronzes.
They are unoriginal, nothing compared to European art 100s of years older, etc.
Find me a masturful piece of Negro European art - and post it in a new thread - and DEMAND someone of White European art before and greater.
@So please define your term of "caucasoid" and "true negro" let alone..... Negroid is a a race encompassing Western and central Africa. Caucasoid is a race encompassing Europe, North Africa, and West Asia.
Negroes aren't necessarily the only inhabitants of Africa. Actually, "Negroid" doesn't even mean African!
"Black" encompasses 4 distinct races. Negroid (True Blacks, what YOU are), Capoids (Khosanid(sp?) peoples of South Africa), Pigmies, and NE African Hornians.
The Hornians separated from other Africans, and the OOA groups descended from them.
Ethiopia is originally non-Negroid. But, over time, Negroid and Caucasoid influence has swept the Horn of Africa.
The Greeks rarely touched sub-Saharan Africa, the "Ethiopians" are primarily NE African peoples and some Negroids.
@Vitruvius Polio He did go to NA - which is not Negroid, fully. Especially at that time - they had a large Caucasoid influence.
I don't recall your referencing claim - so it must have been someone else (Perhaps provide a link so I'll believe you).
Nevertheless, it's quite unintelligent to base how sophisticated or advanced a people are on the BIASED opinions of a few people.
@Blond greeks Blond doesn't mean Nordic. You can be blond, red, brown, white, or black haired and be Nordic. Blond is not a race - but an indication of one.
The Greeks were not primarily Nordic, no. So what? They were no doubt White.
It should also be noted that the end of the Early Helladic period and the early Mycenean period were Nordic primarily, and Alpine secondarily (Alpine 1944). The Classical period, around 500BC, was primarily NORDIC, with a large Mediterannean influence too.
Greece had Nordic elements.
Remember - Africa has the largest genetic diversity. The difference between a Nigerian and San-Bushman is 0.075% (Genetically speaking, of corse) - while the difference between a NORDIC German and MEDITERANNEAN Italian is 0.007. This is 10.7 times as much.
Hell, the difference between a German and Northern Amerindian is the same as a Nigerian and San-Bushmen!
And the difference between a Bantu and Nigerian is 0.27 - which is equal to a German and Lapp (Lapps are Asian Mongoloid peoples - not even caucasoid!)
@Nuris and Kalash. The Middle East is "the area lying between and including Libya on the west and Pakistan on the east, Syria and Iraq on the North and the Arabian peninsula to the south, plus the Sudan and Ethiopia."
Nextly, there is quite a large amount of evidence Alexander the Great touched those places (Or, more specifically, his army - as I said). HERE is a map of his conquests (The Macedonian Empire): http://hotlism.net/imagehost/images/...v03wp8g20i.jpg
The Magadha Empire was the farthest Alexander's army went. That is to the east of India. To get there, he has to pass through Pakistan and Afganistan.
To claim he never touched the land is pure bull****.
http://www.ecclectica.ca/issues/2002/1/issigonis.asp The expedition of Alexander the Great (327-325 B.C.) into what is now Afghanistan has been well documented. He laid the foundations of many cities, some bearing his own name. With the passage of time, some names were changed by newcomers to the area who could not pronounce Greek names. In this way, Kandahar is Alexander's name, Herat is Alexandria Areion, and Ganzhni is Alexandria Gazhaka, among others. @Incorrect. The very classification of "caucasoid" is due....
No it isn't, sir.
You also failed, miserably, to provide these "DNA studies" you speak of. So I will provide mine.
Lovell A et al. (2005) Ethiopia: between Sub-Saharan Africa and Western Eurasia : Thus, it appears that a large fraction of present-day East African mitochondrial ancestry is derived from different populations than the ones that spawned non-Africans. This element is probably responsible for the introduction of the Negroid type in the region, which now forms a major element in the population, together with the pre-Negroid East Africans and more recent Caucasoid arrivals from across the Red Sea. Hornians are not Negroid. Sure, they may be "African" but what does that TRULY mean racially?
From Underhill et al. (2000) Y chromosome sequence variation and the history ofhuman populations
From Tishkoff SA and Campbell MC (2008) African Genetic Diversity: Implications for Human Demographic History, Modern Human Origins, and Complex Disease Mapping:
NE African Hornians are NOT Negroid. They are even closer to Caucasoids - with TWO main points of admixture, while ONE for Negroids! An amazing quote from the study: African populations have maintained a large and subdivided population structure throughout much of their evolutionary history You can see it with your own eyes with the diagram. It's not hard to understand.
"Black" isn't much more than a color. It is not a race. It's a collection of races.
NE Africans (Ethiopians, etc.) are NOT NEGROID PEOPLES. Your West African ancestors are not any more related to THEM than they are to ME (Without admixture taken into play).
@African culture in Egypt. Of course Egypt is African culture! Egypt is in Africa, correct?
I'm speaking of Negro culture. African is not a race. Negroid is.
As for the link I gave the source right under my post!
@"What is this evidence?" HA! Caucasoid does exist!
The fact that they are more morphologically similar to Caucasoid peoples than Negroes!
@Citing sources. I gave the title and EXACT PAGES. How is that not citing exact sources you fool?
Try learning about the internet, it's a nice thing (Not invented by Blacks, mind you) and happens to be a great source of information! The sources show Merimde culture flourished in predynastic Lower Egypt, and Buto Maaadi culture, from predynastic Egypt, also shows connections to South Palestine.
Direct quotes from the source: (Nagada is Naqada)[indent]Some elements of the predynastic Nagada culture of Upper Egypt are evident in the Ma'adi pottery, such as a few vessels of Blacktopped Red class and the occaisonal redpainted bowl. Most of these appear to have been locally manufactured imitations of Nagada wares. However, vessels imported from Palestine, characterized by their pale (usually beige) unburnished surfaces, were also plentiful in the settlement.[..]Palestinian influence on local production is also apparent in loop-handled jars and in bowls decorated with an impressed line just below the rim. The Palestinian prototypes of the latter, as well as the imported vessels themselves, correspond to the end of the Plaestinian Chalclithic period (Beersheba/Ghassul) and the ensuing Early Bronze Age (EB Ia).
@"It's already been explained that morphological affinities..." Morphological affinities grouped the ancient Egyptians with NE Africans and Caucasoids BEFORE Negroes.
NE Africans are GENETICALLY NOT NEGROID AFRICAN.
If you don't like "Negroid" - they are a whole different race compared to your West African ancestors.
@Negroid being made up. Of course it isn't! Black is not a race. It's a skin color with no genetic uniformity. Africa is not a race - it's a continent with many races.
Ethiopians aren't any more racially "Black" than I am.
I do not hate Negroes. I do not take pride in Negro cultures - or Ethiopia/Egypt at all. I have other things to take pride in. Like myself.
I am not a Eurocentrist.
Try not to confuse "Black" and Negroid.
Negroids are the peoples of west and central Africa. Genetic studies and morphological data group NE Africans AWAY from these Negroes (I've stated above in my post).
Try not to divide Whites when they are over 10x more alike than your "Black" race.
@African culture in Egypt. Of course Egypt is African culture! Egypt is in Africa, correct?
I'm speaking of Negro culture. African is not a race. Negroid is.
As for the link I gave the source right under my post!
@"What is this evidence?" HA! Caucasoid does exist!
The fact that they are more morphologically similar to Caucasoid peoples than Negroes!
@Citing sources. I gave the title and EXACT PAGES. How is that not citing exact sources you fool?
Try learning about the internet, it's a nice thing (Not invented by Blacks, mind you) and happens to be a great source of information! The sources show Merimde culture flourished in predynastic Lower Egypt, and Buto Maaadi culture, from predynastic Egypt, also shows connections to South Palestine.
Direct quotes from the source: (Nagada is Naqada)[indent]Some elements of the predynastic Nagada culture of Upper Egypt are evident in the Ma'adi pottery, such as a few vessels of Blacktopped Red class and the occaisonal redpainted bowl. Most of these appear to have been locally manufactured imitations of Nagada wares. However, vessels imported from Palestine, characterized by their pale (usually beige) unburnished surfaces, were also plentiful in the settlement.[..]Palestinian influence on local production is also apparent in loop-handled jars and in bowls decorated with an impressed line just below the rim. The Palestinian prototypes of the latter, as well as the imported vessels themselves, correspond to the end of the Plaestinian Chalclithic period (Beersheba/Ghassul) and the ensuing Early Bronze Age (EB Ia).
@"It's already been explained that morphological affinities..." Morphological affinities grouped the ancient Egyptians with NE Africans and Caucasoids BEFORE Negroes.
NE Africans are GENETICALLY NOT NEGROID AFRICAN.
If you don't like "Negroid" - they are a whole different race compared to your West African ancestors.
@Negroid being made up. Of course it isn't! Black is not a race. It's a skin color with no genetic uniformity. Africa is not a race - it's a continent with many races.
Ethiopians aren't any more racially "Black" than I am.
I do not hate Negroes. I do not take pride in Negro cultures - or Ethiopia/Egypt at all. I have other things to take pride in. Like myself.
I am not a Eurocentrist.
Try not to confuse "Black" and Negroid.
Negroids are the peoples of west and central Africa. Genetic studies and morphological data group NE Africans AWAY from these Negroes (I've stated above in my post).
Try not to divide Whites when they are over 10x more alike than your "Black" race.
Try not to claim OTHER RACES as YOUR OWN.
Want some more?
Hammer MF et al. (1999) Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations share a common pool of Y-chromosome biallelic haplotypes: '
@African culture in Egypt. Of course Egypt is African culture! Egypt is in Africa, correct?
I'm speaking of Negro culture. African is not a race. Negroid is.
As for the link I gave the source right under my post!
@"What is this evidence?" HA! Caucasoid does exist!
The fact that they are more morphologically similar to Caucasoid peoples than Negroes!
@Citing sources. I gave the title and EXACT PAGES. How is that not citing exact sources you fool?
Try learning about the internet, it's a nice thing (Not invented by Blacks, mind you) and happens to be a great source of information! The sources show Merimde culture flourished in predynastic Lower Egypt, and Buto Maaadi culture, from predynastic Egypt, also shows connections to South Palestine.
Direct quotes from the source: (Nagada is Naqada)[indent]Some elements of the predynastic Nagada culture of Upper Egypt are evident in the Ma'adi pottery, such as a few vessels of Blacktopped Red class and the occaisonal redpainted bowl. Most of these appear to have been locally manufactured imitations of Nagada wares. However, vessels imported from Palestine, characterized by their pale (usually beige) unburnished surfaces, were also plentiful in the settlement.[..]Palestinian influence on local production is also apparent in loop-handled jars and in bowls decorated with an impressed line just below the rim. The Palestinian prototypes of the latter, as well as the imported vessels themselves, correspond to the end of the Plaestinian Chalclithic period (Beersheba/Ghassul) and the ensuing Early Bronze Age (EB Ia).
@"It's already been explained that morphological affinities..." Morphological affinities grouped the ancient Egyptians with NE Africans and Caucasoids BEFORE Negroes.
NE Africans are GENETICALLY NOT NEGROID AFRICAN.
If you don't like "Negroid" - they are a whole different race compared to your West African ancestors.
@Negroid being made up. Of course it isn't! Black is not a race. It's a skin color with no genetic uniformity. Africa is not a race - it's a continent with many races.
Ethiopians aren't any more racially "Black" than I am.
I do not hate Negroes. I do not take pride in Negro cultures - or Ethiopia/Egypt at all. I have other things to take pride in. Like myself.
I am not a Eurocentrist.
Try not to confuse "Black" and Negroid.
Negroids are the peoples of west and central Africa. Genetic studies and morphological data group NE Africans AWAY from these Negroes (I've stated above in my post).
Try not to divide Whites when they are over 10x more alike than your "Black" race.
Try not to claim OTHER RACES as YOUR OWN.
quote: gypt was a "Caucasian"Civilization? What do you say about these Facts:
Ancient Egyptian as an African Language, Egypt as an African Culture
Christopher Ehret Professor of History, African Studies Chair University of California at Los Angeles
Ancient Egyptian civilization was, in ways and to an extent usually not recognized, fundamentally African. The evidence of both language and culture reveals these African roots.
The origins of Egyptian ethnicity lay in the areas south of Egypt.
Sir Alan Gardiner: These were long-headed-dolicocephalic is the learned term-and below even medium stature, but Negroid features are often to be observed. Whatever may be said of the northerners, it is safe to describe the dwellers in Upper Egypt as of essentially African stock , a character always retained despite alien influences brought to bear on them from time to time." (pg. 392; Egypt of the Pharaohs 1966)
X-ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1980).
Courtesy of James Harris and Edward Wente:
In terms of head shape, the XVIV and XX dynasties look more like the early Nubian skulls from the mesolithic with low vaults and sloping, curved foreheads.The XVII and XVIII dynasty skulls are shaped more like modern Nubians with globular skulls and high vaults.
The people who bear the greatest resemblence to the ancient Egyptians, at present, are the Nubians; and next are the Abyssinians; page 530
Edward Lane Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians
The period when sub-Saharan Africa was most influential in Egypt was a time when neither Egypt, as we understand it culturally, nor the Sahara, as we understand it geographically, existed. Populations and cultures now found south of the desert roamed far to the north. The culture of Upper Egypt, which became dynastic Egyptian civilization, could fairly be called a Sudanese transplant. Encyclopedia of Precolonial Africa, by Joseph O. Vogel, AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, California (1997), pp. 465-472
Determination of optimal rehydration, fixation and staining methods for histological and immunohistochemical analysis of mummified soft tissues
A-M Mekota1, M Vermehren2
Biotechnic & Histochemistry 2005, 80(1): 7_/13
"Materials and methods In 1997, the German Institute for Archaeology headed an excavation of the tombs of the nobles in Thebes-West, Upper Egypt. At this time, three types of tissues were sampled from different mummies: meniscus (fibrocartilage), skin, and placenta. Archaeological findings suggest that the mummies dated from the New Kingdom (approximately 1550_/1080 BC)..... The basal epithelial cells were packed with melanin as expected for specimens of Negroid origin."
What do you have to say.
Peace
I have to say Africa is not a race and Caucasian peoples existen in Africa.
The "Negroid features" he describes (Aren't you contradicting yourself?) are environmental adaptions to a tropical climate.
The mummies from those various dynasties could be mixed. 100's of years into Egypt Negroes took hold. It's like in the USA. It was ruled by Whites for 100s of years. Now we have a mulatto president.
The people that bear the greatest resemblence to the Anceint Egyptians today are the Egyptians themsleves! Try Brace CL, the premier Egyptologist of today.
Elongated limbs and skin color are environmental and not race related. Other features are.
LOL PM him showing my appreciation of what? His stupidity?? I don't PM idiots which is why I never PM you! LOL Also I have no obligations let alone to you. My comments on Egyptian influence on Greek culture was quite clear as evidenced in the very thread you continuously link, nitwit! Obviously Takruri and everyone else has a clear understanding YOU don't.
By the way, I find it convenient that you are so quick to jump on me in every thread Fake-Arab starts. No doubt you aid your white-aryanist friend! Perhaps it is YOU you PMs the guy to show your supportPosts: 26361 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Yes, I said that which is quite different from Lefkowitz's claims of no Egyptian influence at all. Egyptian influence on Greek anything and not just philosophy occurred well before 'Classical' times and whatever Egyptian works the Greeks had in their possession was not "stolen" but they were frank about their Egyptian origins!
So how many times are you going to bring this issue up?? Why not address it the actual threads they belong in instead of here or other threads like the imbecilic ADD suffering troll that you are?
Speaking of which, why is it that when I ask the imbecile who created this thread to answer, he's silent and YOU are the one whining and b*tching. Coincidence? I think not. Posts: 26361 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Why not address it the actual threads they belong
Good question. Why don't you address Great Jew's thread made just for you and your denials Mary? Why run for so many months, aren't you tired? Damn! lol
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Exquisite examples of African art. But according to the idiotic author of this thread all that is due to European influence even though they are centuries older than the first European arrival! LOL
quote:assopen says: Good question. Why don't you address Great Jew's thread made just for you and your denials Mary? Why run for so many months, aren't you tired? Damn! lol
I made NO denials and I addressed everything in that thread you cite, moron! Or are you too stupid to read what I wrote?? Of course.
Posts: 26361 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: I made NO denials and I addressed everything in that thread you cite, moron! Or are you too stupid to read what I wrote?? Of course.
LOL You change your stance so many times Mary, you have more positions than an under aged Manila whore. Now you forget what you started out doing: denying. So Mary, you no longer deny that the Greeks stole Egyptian philosophy as James said?
Oh I notice you still shy away from listing those Hebrew religious concepts you do recognise as being AE influenced here. Are you denying them too?
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:dick-starved openass cries: LOL You change your stance so many times Mary, you have more positions than an under aged Manila whore. Now you forget what you started out doing: denying. So Mary, you no longer deny that the Greeks stole Egyptian philosophy as James said?
I never changed by stance, I'm not Mary, and it's obvious judging by your ethnic slurring that you are frustrated that I don't give in to your psycopathy. Sorry but I don't yield to anyone, let alond British shemales! LOL
quote:Oh I notice you still shy away from listing those Hebrew religious concepts you do recognise as being AE influenced here. Are you denying them too?
I never denied Egyptian influence on Hebrews as the Hebrews according to their own narratives lived in Egypt for several centuries. What I do deny are the concepts YOU allege! Big difference! Posts: 26361 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:dick-sick puppy writes: "I don't give in to your psycopathy."
Translation: I avoid answering you thus contradicting myself any further. LOL
LOL How convenient you didn't cite my entire quote where I point out your frustration (both intellectual as well as sexual). And again I NEVER contradicted myself. I am quite clear as I was hundreds of times I addressed you-- Egyptian influence goes back to pre-Classical Times and the Greeks never stole anything from Egypt being quite clear which work was Egyptian.
Now keep b*tching over whatever you want, cuz there is nothing left to address.
quote:So this is your AE "influence" you say you acknowledge Mary? The Hebrews simply lived there according to their story? LOL
Sorry Eva, but read the sentence over again. I make it clear that because the Hebrews lived in Egypt they were subject to Egyptian influence! Agian I NEVER denied Egyptian influence, you idiotic liar!
quote:Come on Mary you can try to do better than this. I don't think if you finally answer my question you will look too supid. Come on, give it a try.
Sorry Hitler's b*tch Eva, but I'm not Mary and I answered your questions hundreds of times. I never look stupd as YOU do! And no I won't try buggery.
quote:"list those Hebrew religious concepts you do recognise as being AE influenced"
I will in the thread of the acutal topic! Why don't you just bump up the thread if you want to discuss this further?? As I recall I debunked YOUR claims as which of these concepts were AE in origin. Is that why you refuse to go back there? I notice you have the habit of "escaping" threads which you were debunked only to further your nonsense in other threads.
Let me refresh you memory: Hebrew angels are NOT Egyptian winged goddesses. The Garden of Eden or the two trees and the serpent NOT in Egyptian myth. Monotheism is not Egyptian as Egyptians were polytheists. Should I go on? Posts: 26361 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Egyptian influence goes back to pre-Classical Times and the Greeks never stole anything from Egypt being quite clear which work was Egyptian.
Repeating your BS doesn't make you any less of a coward Mary.
quote: Agian I NEVER denied Egyptian influence, you idiotic liar!
Again "list those Hebrew religious concepts you do recognise as being AE influenced"
Why can't you do it Mary? Why?? LOL
quote: I will in the thread of the acutal topic! Why don't you just bump up the thread if you want to discuss this further??
Lmao @ this Philipino coward!
quote: As I recall I debunked YOUR claims as which of these concepts were AE in origin.
Just as you "recall" you referred to Judaism as a "cult" several times? Those duck eggs are starting to affect your brain girl. LOL
quote: Is that why you refuse to go back there? I notice you have the habit of "escaping" threads which you were debunked only to further your nonsense in other threads.
I always wonder why I linked to those very threads you made your anti-Afrocentric claims and run from Great Jews questions to you. Its my "escape". Yeh! LOL
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
You should ask Mathilda why she does not post on these forums?
The answer is, that she would get chewed up and spit out, just like here corrupt studies that she uses.
Whats missing in your life, that you try desperately to cling to "Caucasoid" Africans.
What is a Caucasoid African??
What does a Negroid African look like??
If we go by Color of skin, Then All Africans are Negroid.
If it is Features, then how come we have Fulani who have E1b1a at 100% in Nigeria have narrow Features. How come Tutsi in Rwanda and Burundi have Narrow faces. How come Omotic, and Kunama in Ethiopia have Broad features yet carry E1b1b.
So really what needs to be asked from you is to define your terms. If you can't define your terms, Then you should look to change how you deal with people and stop spamming stuff from a Known racist like Mathilda.
Peace
I notice no answers yet to your query. But no matter how much DUH-Rab tries, in addition to the other data undermining his case, and in addition to his own refercenes that undermine him, he still can't get around the fact that any incoming "Eurasians" would STILL look like Africans.
posted
^ I also find it strange that in Durab's place Assopen whines and hollers. No doubt he's angered that we humiliated his 'Aryan' brother. Posts: 26361 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:defeated a$$hole grovels: This is because he is following Bowcock/Sforza (1991) and their racial stereotyping (racial schema). Good informative charts btw!
But that still doesn't detract that Euros have mixed African ancestry!
quote:But don't think I forgot about you Mary,
"list those Hebrew religious concepts you do recognise as being AE influenced"
I'm not Mary (either your Madonna or Lady Lefkowitz you fear). I don't think you'll be forgetting this any time soon. Posts: 26361 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: ^^You need to stop scrambling for information on Mahtilda's blog as if she doesn't debunk herself...
quote:These studies suggest a recent and primary subdivision between African and non-African populations, high levels of divergence among African populations, and a recent shared common ancestry of non-African populations, from a population originating in Africa. The intermediate position, between African and non-African populations, that the Ethiopian Jews and Somalis occupy in the PCA plot also has been observed in other genetic studies (Ritte et al. 1993; Passarino et al. 1998) and could be due either to shared common ancestry or to recent gene flow. The fact that the Ethiopians and Somalis have a subset of the sub-Saharan African haplotype diversity and that the non-African populations have a subset of the diversity present in Ethiopians and Somalis makes simple-admixture models less likely; rather, these observations support the hypothesis proposed by other nuclear-genetic studies (Tishkoff et al. 1996a, 1998a, 1998b; Kidd et al. 1998) that populations in northeastern Africa may have diverged from those in the rest of sub-Saharan Africa early in the history of modern African populations and that a subset of this northeastern-African population migrated out of Africa and populated the rest of the globe. These conclusions are supported by recent mtDNA analysis (Quintana-Murci et al. 1999).
---Tishkoff (2000)
You proved me correct it clearly proved that Ethiopians aren't the same as the rest of Sub Saharan Africans.
Posts: 130 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: But that still doesn't detract that Euros have mixed African ancestry!
Poor you. Europeans, like Asians, are mere derivatives of Africans. No one deined this Mary. Don't be a fool.
quote:I'm not Mary
Oh yes you are, Mary. Everyone by now must realise the similarities: your attack on Prof James and even Akhenaten! Have you read Ausarianstein's blog lately?
posted
Ever hear of the Scythians or Tocharians? Once a great prosperous civilisation now is just inhabited by a bunch of turanian water-heads. Same goes for Mesopotamia, Persia, Afghanistan, etc.. Obviously, history has proven Non-Whites cannot sucessfully take over White civilizations.
Posts: 130 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: These studies suggest a recent and primary subdivision between African and non-African populations, high levels of divergence among African populations, and a recent shared common ancestry of non-African populations, from a population originating in Africa. The intermediate position, between African and non-African populations, that the Ethiopian Jews and Somalis occupy in the PCA plot also has been observed in other genetic studies (Ritte et al. 1993; Passarino et al. 1998) and could be due either to shared common ancestry or to recent gene flow. The fact that the Ethiopians and Somalis have a subset of the sub-Saharan African haplotype diversity and that the non-African populations have a subset of the diversity present in Ethiopians and Somalis makes simple-admixture models less likely; rather, these observations support the hypothesis proposed by other nuclear-genetic studies (Tishkoff et al. 1996a, 1998a, 1998b; Kidd et al. 1998) that populations in northeastern Africa may have diverged from those in the rest of sub-Saharan Africa early in the history of modern African populations and that a subset of this northeastern-African population migrated out of Africa and populated the rest of the globe. These conclusions are supported by recent mtDNA analysis. (Quintana-Murci et al. 1999). ---Tishkoff (2000)
quote:
And? This just says NE Africans are the people that the OOA tribes came from.
Out of Africans come from NE Africans which come from sub-Saharan Africans.
This is exactly what it said.
quote: LOL Can you please define what that is?
A Negro is one of the peoples of the various tribes of Africa, not including North Africa, North East Africa, or the South-African Khoisanid peoples.
It's quite hard to define a race itself, though, which doesn't mean races don't exist.
quote: Race' is a phenotype isolate correlating to genetic lineage. Genetics has proven no such thing exists.
Genetics have proven it exists. Race itself is entirely genetic!
But if you want to debate if race exists - go make another thread about it.
quote: Wait you lost me there. You haven't even defined "negroid" and yet you're speaking of genetic difference between such.
Because a race isn't something you can specifically define. You probably don't know what a race is because you don't know what race means!
quote: Again 'race' doesn't exist. But it's a fact that all indigenous Africans are 'black' that is very dark in skin color and *all* Africans are genetically related to each other!
All mammals are related - thus species doesn't exist. Makes sense?
Skin color is not a race. There are dark skinned Whites too - what about Australoids? They have dark skin? They are genetically the furthest from Negroes (Specifically Nigerians were tested) - are they 'Black' in your book?
quote: 5x based on what??! You still haven't defined the racial categories of "caucasian" and "negroid".
5x on genetic differences, sir.
quote:But again, WHAT IS SUCH GROUPING BASED ON??? You keep repeating the terms and talk about "grouping" but never define the bases of the terms or methodology!!
I openly stated "As for the first image..." - now you can't even read the images you copied and pasted onto the forum, sir? Retarded Chink
quote: Again, I never used the word 'race' as scientifically it doesn't exist. However, all indigenous Africans are not only black but genetically related as genetics show and thus continent is NOT the only thing Africa
If they are genetically related, why don't the constitute a race?
All HUMANS are genetically related - what makes Africa so special?
Are the Africans closer together than other populations? That makes a race.
quote: Quote: Again, no 'race'. But the populations of Africa unlike Asia have had continuous geneflow between each other unlike Asian populations who for the most part were geographically isolated for longer periods of time
Again, no 'race'. But the populations of Africa unlike Asia have had continuous geneflow between each other unlike Asian populations who for the most part were geographically isolated for longer periods of time. Africa did have continous gene flow - but some isolation. Anthropologists can sift between Caucasoid, Negroid, and Ethiopian DNA when taking studies. If the Ethiopians were the same as other Negroes (Or BLACKS if you're going to be whiney about it - though the term itself is a load of bull****) they couldn't separate them like that.
From Lovell A et al (2005): Thus, it appears that a large fraction of present-day East African mitochondrial ancestry is derived from different populations than the ones that spawned non-Africans. This element is probably responsible for the introduction of the Negroid type in the region, which now forms a major element in the population, together with the pre-Negroid East Africans and more recent Caucasoid arrivals from across the Red Sea. This was done through genetic testing of an 8 kb segment of the X-chromosome from 72 chromosomes from various populations.
quote: Again, no 'race' but they are all black. They have different cultures but all share a commonality and yes there are distinctive looks but that can be said for any populations including those of Europe even though they are all considered the same 'race'.
Also - can you answer my simple questions: Are the "Black Egyptians" as you claim them - more alike the South African "Blacks" than the Saudi Arabians which border Egypt? If so, how? Is there some sort of line, such as "You must be this dark to be Black" or something?
Posts: 130 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fakearab: And? This just says NE Africans are the people that the OOA tribes came from.
Out of Africans come from NE Africans which come from sub-Saharan Africans.
This is exactly what it said.
Correct, and nowhere did it say anything about "negroid" or "caucasoid". Why? because they don't exist! All indigenous Africans were/are black and all OOAs came from them.
quote:A Negro is one of the peoples of the various tribes of Africa, not including North Africa, North East Africa, or the South-African Khoisanid peoples.
So "negro" is a tribe now?? Tell us what actually makes one a 'negro'?? Why aren't North or Northeast Africans 'negro' when they are black?!! You realize the very meaning of 'negro' is black, do you?? And what defines a Khoisanid??
quote:It's quite hard to define a race itself, though, which doesn't mean races don't exist.
LOL In science, definitions are always simple and straight forward. That you can't provide one means it just doesn't exist!
quote:Genetics have proven it exists. Race itself is entirely genetic!
How so, when genetics proves phenotypes are NOT defined by genetic lineages anymore than genetic lineages are correlated to phenotypes?? For example, there are whites in Europe that have lineages from black Africa and even have genes for sub-Saharan sick-cell. How do you explain this??
quote:But if you want to debate if race exists - go make another thread about it.
Nope, your OWN thread is based solely upon the existence of races and even defines some blacks as "negroid" and others as not. In order for you to back up anything you say you must first explain your racial nonsense.
quote:Because a race isn't something you can specifically define.
Again, when you can't specifically define something by specific criteria then it is non-objective and therefore nonscientific!
quote:You probably don't know what a race is because you don't know what race means!
Actually I do-- traditionally a 'race' is a population defined by phenotypic features correlating with genetic lineage. Genetics proves theres no such thing.
quote:All mammals are related - thus species doesn't exist. Makes sense?
No it doesn't. Yours is both a non-sequitor and a strawman. Mammals are a scientific classification based on certain criteria such as endothermy, hair, mammary glands etc. Specieis is a scientific classification based on population reporoductions, genetic compatability etc.
You have yet to explain your criteria for racial groups such as "negroid" "caucasoid" etc.
quote:Skin color is not a race. There are dark skinned Whites too - what about Australoids? They have dark skin? They are genetically the furthest from Negroes (Specifically Nigerians were tested) - are they 'Black' in your book?[/qb]
You moron! I never said skin color was race! Skin color is just one phenotype. 'Black' is a description of very dark skin. Australian aborigines and Nigerians are both black but that doesn't mean they are closely related. But Nigerians and Ethiopians are both black and they ARE closely related as AFRICAN populations. As far as "dark-skinned whites" of course there are NON that are black or else they wouldn't be white now would they??
quote:5x on genetic differences, sir.
Okay, and WHAT ARE THESE GENETIC DIFFERENCES, boy??
quote:I openly stated "As for the first image..." - now you can't even read the images you copied and pasted onto the forum, sir? Retarded Chink
LOL You're calling me retarded when you can't even properly not logically address anything I ask! Which image image are you referring to and what explanation do you have up yourass from Mathilda this time??
quote:If they are genetically related, why don't they constitute a race?[/qb]
Indeed if Ethiopians are closely related to Nigerians via the PN2 clade how come YOU classify them as different 'races'?? If all humans are related as the same species why are not we one 'race'??
Again you fail to define 'race' which means your terms and definitions are b.s.
quote:All HUMANS are genetically related - what makes Africa so special?
Nothing really except Africa is the brithplace for all mankind. And of course populations who remained in Africa are genetically more closely related to each other than they are to non-Africans-- hence Ethiopians and Nigerians are genetically close.
quote:Are the Africans closer together than other populations? That makes a race.
No, because there are Europeans with recent African admixture but are 'white' and no different in looks from so-called 'pure' Euros. So where is the 'race' in that??
quote:Africa did have continous gene flow - but some isolation. Anthropologists can sift between Caucasoid, Negroid, and Ethiopian DNA when taking studies.
LOL If there was no continuous gene flow between African populations then what do you call PN2 clade?? Why are the different clades and haplogroups indigenous to Africa widespread throughout the entire continent in varying frequencies?? Also how the hell can DNA be "cacasoid" "negroid" when you can't even define what those terms mean??
quote:If the Ethiopians were the same as other Negroes (Or BLACKS if you're going to be whiney about it - though the term itself is a load of bull****) they couldn't separate them like that.
LMAO Who is "they" and HOW are they seperate?? Also black is not b.s. because it has an actual meaning-- extremely dark skin. Yet you still haven't been able to give a meaning of "cacasoid" or "negroid"! LOL
quote:From Lovell A et al (2005): Thus, it appears that a large fraction of present-day East African mitochondrial ancestry is derived from different populations than the ones that spawned non-Africans. This element is probably responsible for the introduction of the Negroid type in the region, which now forms a major element in the population, together with the pre-Negroid East Africans and more recent Caucasoid arrivals from across the Red Sea. This was done through genetic testing of an 8 kb segment of the X-chromosome from 72 chromosomes from various populations.
LOL That study was debunked all too many times in here and in others. Before you can ascribe genes with racial terminology you must first explain what such terminology means in the first place and neither that author nor YOU can explain that. I could easily say that Euros have negroid Y-chromosomal ancestry!
quote:
So? I've seen North Africans who look like the child above yet does this mean Khoisanids live in North Africa too?? Also, many of his features are "mongoloid" as well. Why isn't he classified as 'mongoloid'??
quote:
Okay. He's an Indian man. What does he have to do with indigenous Africans?? Sorry but your picture spam of outdated anthropology mugshots won't help you.
quote:Also - can you answer my simple questions: Are the "Black Egyptians" as you claim them - more alike the South African "Blacks" than the Saudi Arabians which border Egypt? If so, how? Is there some sort of line, such as "You must be this dark to be Black" or something?
Simple. Egyptians share genetic lineages such as E in the Y and more tropical morphology with South Africans than Saudis which are fair-skinned and not. Although there are black Arabians.
Posts: 26361 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You still have to explain why the Ethiopian man and West African man below look very much alike but according to you are different 'races'
Also why does this other Ethiopian man and the Nigerian man below look so much alike as well??!
Do you even have an explanation for this?? You can't even give definitions for your racial terms let alone straightforward ones! So HOW does anything else you say have any validity??
Posts: 26361 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Define a "so-called 'pure' Euro"? I hope you're not going by the Sforza "true-breeding-populations-equals-a-race" arguement.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
Somalis, Amharas, Oromo, Nubians, Southern Egyptians, Songhai, Fulani, Tuareg, Hausa...pretty much all BLACK people from the horn to the Sahel and Sahara to Senegal are brothers, sisters, and cousins.
"Eurasians" and "caucasians" are their children in the genentic DNA family.
Can't make it much simpler than that dumbass arabnonegypt.
Posts: 455 | From: Tharsis Montes | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Where did I say anything about Khoisan??! And again 'race' doesn't exist. Khoisan are still closely related to other Africans.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Go head own, no one will notice.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic