quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: ^^^^ you cannot account that such peoples had wavy straight hair 10,000 years ago
They did have wavy straight hair 10.000 years ago. Or are you going to tell me that proto-Badarian hair form waited until 6.400bp to suddenly become predominantly wavy-straight?
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^YOU don't get the point. If nose form co-varies with humidity (which you've just admitted in your previous post) typology is dead. LMAO. You're a hypocritical nutjob. On the one had you claim to subscribe to typology, and on the other hand, you classify dolichocephalic crania as Mongoloid. You're literally retarded beyond fixing.
Palaeo-Mongoloid and Palaeo-Caucasoid skulls are dolichocephalic. Where do you think the types came from? They magically appeared? All modern types derived from parental types.
All early Homo sapiens were long skulled. Brachycephalism is very recent. Weidenreich even wrote a whole paper on this, "The Brachycephalization of Recent Mankind".
Posts: 873 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: ^^^^ you cannot account that such peoples had wavy straight hair 10,000 years ago
They did have wavy straight hair 10.000 years ago. Or are you going to tell me that proto-Badarian hair form waited until 6.400bp to suddenly become predominantly wavy-straight?
it's called admixture, look at the coastal nations, trade routes
then look at the same latitude, Nigeria etc
Posts: 43078 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:it's called admixture, look at the coastal nations, trade routes
You make no sense whatsoever. Nigeria is at the same lattitude as Egypt? Admixture would require damn near population replacement for the Badarians, Naqadans and certain A-group samples. Badarian craniometric samples are the most homogenous of Egypt, none group into the mixed E-series. They also have a nasal index of >54, so that's not going to work either. Besides, the same hair type is found all over the Middle Nile. Good luck explaining that, since Meroites, Badarians, Naqadans and Kermans aren't exactly recent off-shoots from one another, yet they all have hair forms that aren't stereotypically kinky.
Posts: 8807 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Note how the Afroloons are not even consistent:
1. You have Dejhuti claiming "loose wavy" but not true straight hair is native to Africa.
2. You have Troll Patrol claiming "curly" or "loose curly" but not either straight or "European wavy type" hair as native to Africa.
3. Now you have Swenet, claiming true "straight" hair is native.
4. Zaharan who claims all textures as native.
- Just make crap up as you go along. That's what the internet is thesedays. [/qb]
And that's coming from someone whose sources all contradict eachother, from Gill, to Bill, to Coon, to Howell (howell said UP European cranio DON'T cluster with Europeans). You even contradict yourself, re: dolichocranic cranio can be typologically Mongoloid, etc. There is nothing wrong with diversity in views, as long as those views are scientifically supported (which, non of yours are). By admitting that narrow phenotypes are adapted to arid climates in general, you've undermined your own retarded typology related beliefs, and now you're running as usual:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^YOU don't get the point. If nose form co-varies with humidity (which you've just admitted in your previous post) typology is dead. LMAO. You're a hypocritical nutjob. On the one had you claim to subscribe to typology, and on the other hand, you classify dolichocephalic crania as Mongoloid. You're literally retarded beyond fixing.
Wiercinski A. (1961). "The racial analysis of predynastic populations in Egypt". [In:] Atti del I° Congresso di Scienze. Antropolog. Etnologie di Folklore. Torino. pp. 431–440.
Wiercinski A. (1965). "The analysis of racial structure of early dynastic populations in Egypt". Mater i Prace Antropol. 71. pp. 3–48.
Posts: 873 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Note how the Afroloons are not even consistent:
1. You have Dejhuti claiming "loose wavy" but not true straight hair is native to Africa.
2. You have Troll Patrol claiming "curly" or "loose curly" but not either straight or "European wavy type" hair as native to Africa.
3. Now you have Swenet, claiming true "straight" hair is native.
4. Zaharan who claims all textures as native.
- Just make crap up as you go along. That's what the internet is thesedays. [/qb]
And that's coming from someone whose sources all contradict eachother, from Gill, to Bill, to Coon, to Howell (howell said UP European cranio DON'T cluster with Europeans). You even contradict yourself, re: dolichocranic cranio can be typologically Mongoloid, etc. There is nothing wrong with diversity in views, as long as those views are scientifically supported (which, non of yours are). By admitting that narrow phenotypes are adapted to arid climates in general, you've undermined your own retarded typology related beliefs, and now you're running as usual:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^YOU don't get the point. If nose form co-varies with humidity (which you've just admitted in your previous post) typology is dead. LMAO. You're a hypocritical nutjob. On the one had you claim to subscribe to typology, and on the other hand, you classify dolichocephalic crania as Mongoloid. You're literally retarded beyond fixing.
posted
I said Palaeo-Mongoloids skulls have dolichocephalism (which they do) as do Palaeo-Caucasoids. The skulls in question were the UP crania from China, not modern. Brachycephalism only appears in the fossil record very late.
Another example: Palaeo-Negroid skulls have large brow-ridges. Negroids don't.
Also, low NI's only could appear if the teeth were also small [narrow spacing of upper canines]. That's another reason which excludes Negroids from being leptorrhine. Negroids are macrodont, with large palates. Even Aethiopids don't have small teeth.
posted
^You lying dumbass, you said initially said that the Zhoukoudian skulls were mongoloid (not that palaeo-Mongoloids are dolichocephalic) re: But that doesn't change the fact the vast majority are Mongoloid. So, how exactly does dolichocephaly fit into the picture of Mongoloid typology?
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Also, low NI's only could appear if the teeth were also small [narrow spacing of upper canines]. That's another reason which excludes Negroids from being leptorrhine. Negroids are macrodont, with large palates. Even Aethiopids don't have small teeth.
LMAO. You face saving, fraudulent slippery snake. What happened to:
hair form, bone traits, eyes, and lips tend to follow geographic boundaries coinciding often with climatic zones.
and:
The 2011 paper also argues temperature affects nasal size more than vapor pressure level:
You're just going to keep hopping and flip flopping from one objection to another, aren't you? Now that you realize Gill destroyed your dumbass (Gill obviously knows that that narrow phenotype producing climatic pressures aren't exclusive to high latitudes, but also include hot-dry regions), are you going to admit that typology is dead?
posted
^ I don't know why we even bother arguing with these idiots. *sigh*
quote:Originally posted by the lyinass,:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: They did have wavy straight hair 10.000 years ago. Or are you going to tell me that proto-Badarian hair form waited until 6.400bp to suddenly become predominantly wavy-straight?
it's called admixture, look at the coastal nations, trade routes
then look at the same latitude, Nigeria etc
LOL You keep insisting that wavy hair in Africans is the result of 'admixture', but how many times must we keep telling your dumbass that most Egyptians especially in the north have very curly to kinky hair and only those in the south especially in Nubia have wavy hair! What about Horn Africans? Most Horn Africans in the coast again have tightly curled to kinky hair while those in the south far away from the coasts have wavy hair. It's interesting because the frequency of wavy hair is highest around the dry desert areas. What about rural Saharans like the Tibbu who have NO Eurasian admixture but have wavy hair? What about the Sanhaja Berbers who have no admixture and are very black yet have wavy hair? What about peoples in Chad and as far south as Uganda who have wavy hair despite very black skin and "negroid" features.
Your whole premise is a FAIL. Posts: 26472 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lyinass,: You can place it all in Africa and ask the same question why the bizarre contrast in one region of Africa compared to another. In other words fail.
Uh...
1. Africans have the most genetic diversity
2. The African continent is a large continent with varying climates and ecosystems i.e. humid tropical forests to arid tropical deserts.
Duh, b|tch!
quote:The Middle east is known for the transitional curly hair. There is also straight hair and wavy straight hair. I notice who the term "straight" is being slickly attempted to be deleted. Wavy hair is a form of straight hair, the straight hair, Curly hair is more in the middle. Djehutie things that Indian man has wavy ahir. he doesn't. It's just not as limp as so called "bone straight" East Asian hair. Wavy hair is when the outgrowth strands have several S curves in them, waves. Straight hair in the Levant comes from people a littel bit highy, Turkey and Northern Iran region who came back down South
Yet the Middle East is also known for HETEROGENEOUS populations some indigenous, while many NOT and hailing from farther north. This is why you have so many light-skinned hairy bodied, Middle Easterners along side aboriginal black ones.
quote:
^^^^ Common sense:
the Sahara/Sahel is the largest arid region in the world. How come straight hair is much less common there than Europe?Russia/East Asia?
Who said it wasn't, twit? Most indigenous Saharans DO have straight (wavy hair) dumbass!
this is straight hair although not necessarily "bone straight"
^^^ both are compatible with cold environments. If grown long it can keep the neck and shoulders warm. It also processes vitamin D, something that has been noted in animal fur and bird feathers. And is not a liability in hot dray environments. people who have these types of hair who went in South Asia were first in relatively more Northern regions
Are you saying the Australian aborigines and Indians live in cold environments? LOL You are pathetic.
Posts: 26472 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lamin: One might as well argue that since humans have lost most of their body hair in evolutionary time that therefore humans are suffering from some genetic disorder.
This is a complete non-sequitor. The loss of body hair in a species in favor of perspiration to cool down as an adaptation is NOT the same as certain individuals loosing head hair due inefficient metabolism of their own hormones!
quote:Some males are unable to grow beards or much facial hair. Is that a genetic disorder?
No, because it has nothing to do with a malfunction in physiology the way male pattern baldness is! Again another non-sequitor.
quote:The reason I bring up "male pattern baldness" is because humans could just as easily have evolved in such a way that their heads and faces be completely hairless. In other words there is no empirically discernible advantage to having any hair on the cranium at all. Thus straight hair, wavy hair, curly hair, kinky hair bear no relationship to environment and climate. The San of South Africa could just as easily have developed North East Asian type hair. They already have the epicanthic eye fold.
LOL Apparently all the info we discussed just went over your (perhaps bald) head! Hair IS a necessity on the human head or else ALL humans including females would be bald. Male pattern baldness IS a disorder for the following reasons I told you. The different hair forms obviously is the result of some sort of adaptation. I suggest you read more on the matter. Posts: 26472 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Zhoukoudian crania are UP, not modern. They are Palaeo-Mongoloid, just like Cro-Magnon crania are Palaeo-Caucasoid/Europid. They are Mongoloid in context of the time period. Its so sad that this actually has to be pointed out.
Palaeo types in "pure" form no longer exist, but they have derivatives:
Selection pressures now have completely slowed, at least in regards to phenotype -
quote: Professor Steve Jones, of University College London, says the forces driving evolution - such as natural selection and genetic mutation - no longer play an important role in our lives.
The people living one million years from now, should Man survive, will resemble modern-day humans.
Hence the old claims that typology is pseudo-science because it represents static types, is invalid.
Posts: 873 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: The Zhoukoudian crania are UP, not modern.
What do you mean they aren't modern. Of course they are modern? They're Anatomically Modern Humans (AMHs). LMAO, you're all over the place.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: They are Palaeo-Mongoloid, just like Cro-Magnon crania are Palaeo-Caucasoid/Europid.
LMAO. Lying ass snake. You said the UP Zhoukoudian skulls are mongoloid, in order to falsely contrast them with other Asian UP skulls that are Australoid, according to your dumbass. This, despite the fact that Zhoukoudian skulls have affinities with European Upper Palaeolithic skulls and Oceanian populations (in particular Tolai and Australian Aboriginal samples). Literally everything that comes out of your mouth of sh!t. LMAO.
Here, the question of the affinities of Upper Cave 101 and 103, the two better-preserved crania, is examined from the perspective of the Late Pleistocene human fossil record using the methodology of 3-D geometric morphometrics. The degree of morphological variation between the two specimens is also evaluated within the context of recent population variability. Neurocranial and facial morphology are analyzed separately so as to maximize comparative samples. Results show a morphological resemblance of the Upper Cave material to Upper Paleolithic Europeans. It is proposed that the Upper Cave specimens retain important aspects of modern human ancestral morphology, and possibly share a recent common ancestral population with Upper Paleolithic Europeans, in accordance with the Single Origin model of modern human origins. --Harvati, 2009
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Hence the old claims that typology is pseudo-science because it represents static types, is invalid.
LMAO. All you do is run away from what I'm saying and talk out the side of your neck. Who is talking about static types? The point that you've been running away from:
Are you going to admit that typology is dead now that your dumbass has admitted that African populations can diverge from the Negroid typology by 1) becoming long term inhabitants of a region outside of tropical rainforests and 2) having a long history of eating processed foods?
Posts: 8807 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: Apparently all the info we discussed just went over your (perhaps bald) head! Hair IS a necessity on the human head or else ALL humans including females would be bald. Male pattern baldness IS a disorder for the following reasons I told you. The different hair forms obviously is the result of some sort of adaptation. I suggest you read more on the matter. [Embarrassed]
You keep repeating the same nonsense with a puzzling acrimony. Weird.
It is a trivial point that I made concerning hair forms and climate. Some animals in tropical environments are more or less hairless--elephants, rhinos, etc. And all sea-dwelling mammals like porpoises, dolphins, walruses, etc. are completely hairless having lost their hair over millennia.
So there's no reason why humans couldn't become hairless all over--including their heads. Again, my point is that hair form has nothing to do with cranium-protection from the elements as is proven by the fact that male-pattern baldness does not reduce longevity of males in any geographical region.
You inane post is tantamount to saying that old-age is a disorder or that weakening eyesight with age is a disorder.
And by the way those who know about the issue define male patten baldness as a "condition" not a "disorder". Do you understand the difference? w.patient.co.uk/health/male-pattern-baldness
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Apparently all the info we discussed just went over your (perhaps bald) head! Hair IS a necessity on the human head or else ALL humans including females would be bald. Male pattern baldness IS a disorder for the following reasons I told you. The different hair forms obviously is the result of some sort of adaptation. I suggest you read more on the matter. [Embarrassed]
You keep repeating the same nonsense with a puzzling acrimony. Weird.
It is a trivial point that I made concerning hair forms and climate. Some animals in tropical environments are more or less hairless--elephants, rhinos, etc. And all sea-dwelling mammals like porpoises, dolphins, walruses, etc. are completely hairless having lost their hair over millennia.
So there's no reason why humans couldn't become hairless all over--including their heads. Again, my point is that hair form has nothing to do with cranium-protection from the elements as is proven by the fact that male-pattern baldness does not reduce longevity of males in any geographical region.
You inane post is tantamount to saying that old-age is a disorder or that weakening eyesight with age is a disorder.
And by the way those who know about the issue define male patten baldness as a "condition" not a "disorder". Do you understand the difference? w.patient.co.uk/health/male-pattern-baldness
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Note how the Afroloons are not even consistent:
1. You have Dejhuti claiming "loose wavy" but not true straight hair is native to Africa.
2. You have Troll Patrol claiming "curly" or "loose curly" but not either straight or "European wavy type" hair as native to Africa.
3. Now you have Swenet, claiming true "straight" hair is native.
4. Zaharan who claims all textures as native.
- Just make crap up as you go along. That's what the internet is thesedays.
^^Right, and your dumb ass is the soul of "consistency".. Let's look at your previous idiocy...
THE FAHEEMdUMBERS/ANGLO -IDIOT EXPOSED PART 20: He tries ot make out that only rainforest areas define the tropics and says: ----------------------------------------------------------------- quote
The climatic tropical zone is limited to mostly western and central sub-sahara africa. Posted by FAHEEMdUMBERS/ANGLO _Pyramidologist osted 17 November, 2012 04:53 PM ____________________________________
When in fact any credible geography book denotes the tropics within the zone marked out by the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn, a denotation itself based on climate.
THE FAHEEMdUMBERS/ANGLO -IDIOT EXPOSED- PART 19: He says there is no OOA but the very "supporting reference" he proffers directy contradicts his claim. ------------------------- [b]Posted by FAHEEMdUMBERS/ANGLO _Pyramidologist (Member # 18853) on 07 May, 2012 08:45 AM:
OOA never happened.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiregional_origin_of_modern_humans ----------------------------- The idiot gives a Wikipedia "reference" to back up his claim but the very same "supporting reference" he gives states that multi-regionalists acknowledge that hominid species came from Africa in the first place. Their argument is for continuity and distinct development in separate locations AFTER the initial OOA exit putting hominins in different places. This approach STILL recognizes and acknowledges hominin OOA.
Quote from FAHEEMdUMBERS/ANGLO -Idiot's "supporting" reference: This species arose in Africa two million years ago as H. erectus and then spread out over the world, developing adaptations to regional conditions. Some populations became isolated for periods of time, developing in different directions, but through continuous interbreeding, replacement, genetic drift and selection, adaptations that were an advantage anywhere on earth would spread, keeping the development of the species in the same overall direction while maintaining adaptations to regional factors. By these mechanisms, surviving local varieties of the species evolved into modern humans, retaining some regional adaptations but with many features common to all regions.[10]
^^Note they say that their founding population Homo Erectus came from Africa. In short, the FAHEEMdUMBERS/ANGLO -idiot's own "supporting" reference contradicts his claim. What a pathetic fool.
THE FAHEEMdUMBERS/ANGLO - IDIOT EXPOSED - PART 18. The faker says Negroids are defined as having Caucasoid admixture. But when he sees bla-ck models with admixture he suddenly claims they aint black at all. Originally posted by FAHEEMdUMBERS/ANGLO _Pyramidologist: posted 12 June, 2012 05:34 PM http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=008168 Topic: Carleton Coon: Negoids are hybrids of Pygmies and Caucasians [QB] Yes. A fact well known today.
''The Negroid type is not homogeneous.'' - Cavalli-Sforza et al 1994.
Hiernaux (1975) distinguishes the Pygmies to Negroids on the grounds the latter are a product of the former (a recent mutation) but that there was probable geneflow with Caucasoids as Coon (1967, 1982) maintains.
Also note that on page 123 of 'Living Races of Man', Coon also states that ''To this combination may have been added remnant Capoid genes''. So Negroids are basically a recent mutation from the Pygmies, but with Caucasoid/Capoid admixture.
^^Bitch please. Your own words contradict your punk ass. Up above you say that "NEgroids" are a recent mutation with Caucasoid/Capoid admixture. Look bich, look. You say blacks are defined as having that admixture, and quote your favorite racist, Carleton Coon to that effect. But when your hypocrisy is exposed, you all of a sudden deny that the black models posted are "really" black. IN one thread "admixed" Negroes like the black models are black, but when your idiocy is exposed, they suddenly ain't black. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE FAHEEMdUMBERS/ANGLO -IDIOT EXPOSED PART 17: - He says there is no sexual diomorphism in Africans or skeletal differences between men and women, when the very anthropologists he quotes say the opposite.
---------]Originally posted by FAHEEMdUMBERS/ANGLO - Buffoon: FAHEEMdUMBERS/ANGLO _Pyramidologist member # 18853 posted 03 June, 2012 05:47 PM
FAHEEMdUMBERS/ANGLO -Buffoon 17a- "Frost and other anthropologists have noted that sexual dimorphism in Negroids is completely lacking. Check Frost's online blog."
FAHEEMdUMBERS/ANGLO -Buffoon 17b- "Black females are not lighter or different to black males in craniofacial terms."
^^Stupid muthafucka. The very Frost quote you paste says this:
Men and women differ in complexion because of differing amounts of melanin and cutaneous blood flow; in short, women are fairer, men browner and ruddier (Edwards & Duntley, 1939; Frost, 1988; Frost, 2005; Hulse, 1967; Jablonski & Chaplin, 2000). The size of this sex difference is still debated, largely because most studies are poorly controlled for age (girls lighten only after puberty and immediately before are actually darker than boys).." FROM: Frost Peter, 2006. European hair and eye color, evidence of sexual selection? Evolution and Human Behavior 27 (2006) 85–103u
------- Can't you read imbecile? ALL females differ from males and are lighter. ALL human humans have sexual dimorphism to one degree or another. SO how can blacks "completely lack" said dimorphism according to you, when your own boy Peter Frost says all human have it?
------- ANd in studies of crania men and women do show differences, and these differences can be detected with a battery of modern measurements, as already shown in previous threads where your idiocy was destroyed- example (zakrewski2004-Intra-population and temporal variation in ancient Egyptian crania)
your own peter frost debunks you: ---------------------------------------
"If this common selective force were sexual selection, it could have lightened European skin color by acting on an existing sexual dimorphism. Men and women differ in complexion because of differing amounts of melanin and cutaneous blood flow; in short, women are fairer, men browner and ruddier (Edwards & Duntley, 1939; Frost, 1988; Frost, 2005; Hulse, 1967; Jablonski & Chaplin, 2000). The size of this sex difference is still debated, largely because most studies are poorly controlled for age (girls lighten only after puberty and immediately before are actually darker than boys). Investigators also try to exclude tanning by measuring under the arm, where there is less subcutaneous fat and probably less dimorphism in skin color, given that the lightness of a woman’s skin correlates with the thickness of her subcutaneous fat (Mazess, 1967). In any event, sexual selection may have targeted this sex difference, as suggested by a cross-cultural male preference for lighter complexioned women and, conversely, by some evidence of a female preference for darker complexioned men (Aoki, 2002; Feinman Feinman & Gill, 1978; Frost, 1988; Frost, 1994b; Frost, 2005; Van den Berghe & Frost, 1986)."
FROM: Frost Peter, 2006. European hair and eye color, evidence of sexual selection? Evolution and Human Behavior 27 (2006) 85–103
and:
"A different perspective on sexual dimorphism in skin pigmentation comes from the recognition that human females require significantly higher amounts of calcium during pregnancy and lactation and, thus, must have lighter skin than males in the same environment in order to maximize their cutaneous vitamin D3 production (Jablonski and Chaplin 2000)... Thus strong clinical evidence continues to support the hypothesis that lighter skin pigmentation in females evolved primarily as a means to enhance the the potential for cutaneous vitamin D production and maintain healthy long-term calcium status and skeletal health." -- Human Evolutionary Biology. 2010. By Michael P. Muehlenbein Damm you are one of the most pathetic idiots in existence.
Tell us -- were you born such a retarded shithead, or were you originally a slug who managed to rise to such prominence?
quote:Originally posted by FAHEEMdUMBERS/ANGLO _Pyramidologist: [QB] E1b1b is not Negroid.
Read it an weep -
''Sub-Saharan Africans belong to subclades of E other than E1b1b, while most non-Africans who belong to haplogroup E belong to its E1b1b subclade.” - Fulvio Cruciani et al, Phylogeographic Analysis of Haplogroup E1b1b (E-M215) Y Chromosomes Reveals Multiple Migratory Events Within and Out Of Africa, Am. J. Hum. Genet, p. 74)
The foul faker doctored the quote not knowing the article has been much discussed at ES. Testifying even more to his incompetence, Cruciani actually does show E3b or E1b1b occuring in numerous places within "sub-Saharan" Africa. The three main subclades of haplogroup E3b (E-M78, E-M81, and E-M34) and the paragroup E-M35* are not homogeneously distributed on the African continent: E-M78 has been observed in both northern and eastern Africa, E-M81 is restricted t o northern Africa, E-M34 is common only in eastern Africa, and E-M35* is shared by eastern and southern Africans (Cruciani et al. 2002)" --Cruciani
And there is no "page 74" in the Cruciani article. THE FAKER AND BUFFOON IS AGAIN BUSTED IN A LIE!
THE FAKER'S BOGUS CLAIM PART- 15 - QUOTE: [QUOTE]Originally posted by cassiterides: posted 14 January, 2012 11:41 AM If you are a white heterosexual male in Britain you have virtually zero chance of getting a job. All the jobs go to blacks or other immigrants.
^^LOL - Idiotic nonsense. As of 2001, 92.1% of the UK population identified themselves as White, leaving 7.9%[270] of the UK population identifying themselves as mixed race or of an ethnic minority. The population of the United Kingdom in the 2001 census was 58,789,194, UK Office for National Statistics- 2001.
That leaves approx 54 million white people. About 33% of that population were adult men. Let's take away 8% or so for minorities. So you are saying then that 25% of the approx 54 million white people in the UK are all unemployed? Damn you are dumb, but you only expose the bankruptcy of your racism.
The Fake C-Ass -Hole exposed PART 14 - BOGUS "NORDIC BLONDS FLITTING AROUND EGYPT
[QUOTE]Originally posted by cassiterides: posted 29 December, 2011 06:05 AM
Hetepheres II was a blonde
^^Hapless dullard, you are exposed in another lie. Your own reference was checked. It yielded detailed citations which revealed a quite different story. Scholars say in the mainstream Cambridge Ancient History:
"We must give up the idea that she was of Libyan origin, an attractive theory which was based on blond hair of Hetepheres II, who was then thought to be her daughter. It is now evident that the yellow wig is part of a costume worn b other great ladies." --I. Edwards, C. Gadd, N. Hammond. 1971. The Cambridge Ancient History. 3ed Volume 1, Part 2, Early History of the Middle East
Yet another history says: "The walls of this interior room are decorated with hunting and fishing scenes, including a charming image of Meresankh and her mother, Hetepheres II picking lotus flowers from the river.. The pillars have images of Meresankh wearing a blond wig." --P. Lacovara. 2004. The pyramids and the SPhinx: tombs and temples of GIza
THE FAKER EXPOSED- PART 13- HIS BOGUS CLAIM OF "NORDIC" EGYPTIAN ROYALTY
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: posted 28 December, 2011 05:40 PM Early dynastic & old kingdom royalty was Nordic (blonde and fair skinned)
^^^Ha hahahahah you stupid mass of camel vomit! Up above you reference scholar Frank Yurco, but here is what Yurco said about the 12th Dynasty, debunking your claim of "Nordic" Egyptian royalty. You dumbass.... You are again debunked, with your own "supporting" references... lmao...
"the XIIth Dynasty (1991-1786 B.C.E.) originated from the Aswan region.4 As expected, strong Nubian features and dark coloring are seen in their sculpture and relief work. This dynasty ranks as among the greatest, whose fame far outlived its actual tenure on the throne... Because the Egyptian rulers of Nubian ancestry had become Egyptians culturally; as pharaohs, they exhibited typical Egyptian attitudes and adopted typical Egyptian policies."
- (F. J. Yurco, 'Were the ancient Egyptians black or white?', Biblical Archaeology Review (Vol 15, no. 5, 1989)
THE FAKER EXPOSED- PART 12 HE says Egyptologists like Frank Yurco says the Egyptians were "Caucasoid" --- "Virtually every egyptologist believes the egyptians were Caucasoid" --
BUt Yurco says nothing of the sort.. Here for example, is what he says about the 12the Dynasty rulers aho were Nubian descent: They seem really "Caucasoid"... yeah, right.. - quote-
"the XIIth Dynasty (1991-1786 B.C.E.) originated from the Aswan region.4 As expected, strong Nubian features and dark coloring are seen in their sculpture and relief work. This dynasty ranks as among the greatest, whose fame far outlived its actual tenure on the throne... Because the Egyptian rulers of Nubian ancestry had become Egyptians culturally; as pharaohs, they exhibited typical Egyptian attitudes and adopted typical Egyptian policies."
- (F. J. Yurco, 'Were the ancient Egyptians black or white?', Biblical Archaeology Review (Vol 15, no. 5, 1989) -
Another dodge is to twist an old chat/forum discussion statement by conservative Egyptologist Frank Yurco out of context. Yurco rejected those who "a priori" claimed the Egyptians were "black", that is, a dogmatic claim without presenting empirical evidence. He never rejected reasonable argument with data showing the Egyptians were an indigenous African population -QUOTE: .. basically a homogeneous African population had lived in the Nile Valley from ancient to modern times.. (Yurco 1996- An Egyptological Review, in Black Athena Revisited)
The Faker exposed- part 11
quote: Originally posted by cassiterides: ^You claim Vanessa Williams is a black woman when her heritage is white welsh and native american
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: ^ Eurafrican is Caucasoid.
^^You are once again exposed. You said EurAfrican is Caucasoid, and cited Serti in support. But using your own citation any reader can see that Sergi considers EurAfricans to be an amalgamation or mixture of many types, directly contradicting your claim.
SErgi says: QUOTE: "This human species, with cranial and facial characters thus well determined, I call Eurafrican; and this because, having had its origin in Africa, where it is still represented by many peoples, it has been diffused from prehistoric times in Europe... The Eurafrican species thus falls into three races: the African, with red-brown and black pigmentation.. Thus the Mediterranean stock is a race or variety of the Eurafrican species." --G. Sergi
You have again failed and are once again exposed. ------------------------------------------------------------
THE FAKER EXPOSED PART 9- HE CLAIMS ALL THESE HIGGINS "DISTORTIONS" BUT WHEN ASKED TO NAME THE SPECIFIC WEBSITES OF THIS ALLEGED "AFROCENTRIC' HORROR, HE RUNS AWAY. WHY IS THAT FAKER?
In fact, Godfrey Higgins ALSO says this about "negroes"
quote: "I believe all the Blavk bambinos of Italy are negroes- not merely blacks; this admitted, it would prove they very early date of their entrance into Italy." pg 286 pg 434 "the ancient Eturians had the countenances of Negroes, the same as the images of Buddah in INdia." pg 166 pg 474- "They aere in fact, all one nation, with one religion, that of Buddah, and they were originally NEgroes" pg 59: "nor can it be reasonably doubted, that a race of Negroes formerly had power and pre-eminence in India" pg 59- AS TO ETHIOPIA: And it is probable that an Ethiopian, a negro, correctly speaking, may have been meant, not merely a black person; and it seems probable that the following may have ben the real fact, viz, that a race of NEgroes or Blacks, but probably of the former, came to India to the west."
cASSIRETEDES own source debunks him. Note the footnote by his own author- QUOTE: "may not have been Negroes, though Blacks, though it is probably they were so."
His own source says they may not have been Negroes then adds: THOUGH IT IS PROBABLY THEY WERE SO."
^The Faker once again, debunks himself. And he seems not to realize that Ethiopia is in "sub-Saharan" Africa.. lol.. pathetic incompetent..
And he never shows these massive number of websites "all over the internet". Like what? How many? If they are "all over" then he should at least be able to give direct links to 6 showing pages where the "Afrocentrics: are "distorting" Higgins work. LEt's say what the faker has besides hot air. Post DIRECT LINKS to 6 of the huge number of alleged "Afrocentric" websites where the Afrocentrics are "distorting" Higgins. SHow how they are distorting Higgins with specific quotes and specific context.
Watch the Faker duck and run when he is again called on a claim, or make up yet another lie to cover his exposure... -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE FAKER EXPOSED- part 8:
quote:
Originally posted by FAHEEMdUMBERS/ANGLO -Pyr/Cassiredes: "Fair hair and light eyes colours are only found among Caucasoids, esp of Europe."
But then, in your own thread, by your own hand, you present a picture of an African albino that has pale skin, light brown or hazel eyes and fair hair. You said it was impossible, but then debunk yourself with your own posted picture.. This is like the 8-9th time you keep tripping over yourself with lies, contradictions, and bogus claims.
RECAP The Faker exposed- part 7 Originally posted by FAHEEMdUMBERS/ANGLO -Pyr/Cassiredes: "Fair hair and light eyes colours are only found among Caucasoids, esp of Europe."
^^Your claim is is completely bogus. Native diversity or albinism causes some tropical Africans to have light eyes and light hair. You fail againn..
bbvv
================================================
THE FAKER EXPOSED: PART 6 1-- ^^Faker! In your initial posts you claimed that it was Cavalli-Sforza talking 'bout negroes "mutating" from Pygmies. Now in your "corrected" post, YOU STILL APPEAR A FAKE. You now remove Cavalli- Sforza's name on the "mutant" claim, admitting that you were lying all along! Bwa ha aha a hah a ha ahahaha aha ahah..
2-- Second point- Peter Frost is debunked by Cavalli-Sforza who says as to his so-called "mutation" theory: QUOTE:
"It remains difficult to pinpoint an ancient place of origin for the Negroid type which includes all West, Central and South Africans. Contrary to many earlier opinions, modern Pygmies and Khosians are not good candidates for a proto-African population."
--Cavalli Sforza et al, 1994. The history and geography of human genes. 194
Frost mentions Cavalli-Sforza in connection with sexual selection, and movement of some groups from Nigeria-Cameroon to other parts of Africa. He never says Cavalli Sforza talks bout any "negro mutation" and in fact any mutation claim is directly contradicted by Sforza. Sucka, you not only lied bout Cavalli-Sforza, you lied about your own white writer- Peter Frost, and misrepresented him.
THE FAKER EXPOSED: PART 6 FAHEEMdUMBERS/ANGLO -Pyr/CassiREDES says: ''There are then no Australoids with blonde hair past the age of about twenty''
^^LMAO! Totally fake! Credible up to date sources note that blondism is prevalent in early life BUT, contrary to your claim that: "There are then no Australoids with blonde hair past the age of about twenty", the shade of color varies. In maturity the hair usually turns a darker brown color, but sometimes remains blond. See: "Gene Expression: Blonde Australian Aboriginals". Gnxp.com. http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2005/08/blonde-australian-aboriginals.php.
^^Here is one of your Australians over 20 years old who does have blonde hair. YOu are caught out spinning bogus claims AGAIN!. Bwa ha aha a hah a ha ahahaha aha ahah.. -
THE FAKER EXPOSED: PART 5a [b]So where are these tropical african peoples with pale white or fair skin? blonde red hair?
^^You fail again. African populations can readily produce blond or reddish blond hair as noted by hair study author Hrdy 1978 himself, and he references Nubia as an example. Albinism is another source of red or blond hair in Africa, and albinism is much more prevalent in African populations than among Europeans. Even African Americans produce more albinos than white Americans. (The pigmentary system: physiology and pathophysiology- By James J. Nordlund 2006: 603) (E. Roach and V. Miller 2004. Neurocutaneous disorders.) QUOTE: "In general, the prevalence of albinism in Africa is much higher, in the range of 1 in 1 100 to 1 in 3900."
So Africa can and does routinely produce red and blond hair. All non-Africans are MORE LIMITED subsets of ORIGINAL African diversity. THe originals have more built-in diversity than the limited sub-set populations. This is straight science as noted by the quote from TIshkoff 2000.
Nor are Africans the only tropical peoples who can produce reddish hair or blond hair. Among Australian Aborigines, some tropical groups produce 100% of individuals with blond hair. Melanesians can also produce blond or reddish hair, and do so routinely.
White people have no monopoly at all on that hair color. They merely show more of it, but even among whites, red hair for example is minor- occurring in less than 5% of the overall European populations, mostly in northern Europe.
So the claim that there are no tropical Africans with such variation is once again, proved fake. You made the claim.
THE FAKER EXPOSED: PART 4 ime and time again, you stand debunked and exposed for falsifying claims and references. Let's recap:
Originally posted by CASSIFAKedes::
quote: The source is Cavalli-Sforza's book on the Pygmies entitled 'African pygmies' (Academic Press, 1986).
This work shows that Negroids mutated from an ancestral pygmy population around 9,000 BC in West Africa. So the 'true' Black African today is a recent mutation. Caucasoids and Mongoloids predate them. [Wink] Negroids only migrated into other parts of Africa during the Bantu expansion or slightly earlier. Prior to them, Caucasoids inhabited North Africa and Bushmen (Capoids) to the south who were displaced by the Caucasoids from the Mediterranean around 12,000 BC.
^^A bogus reference. Why should anyone take your word for it given past bogus references? Quote where Cavalli-Sforza says these so-called "negroids" "mutated" from Pygmies. The burden of proof is on you, since you made the claim.
While you scurry to cover your tracks with yet more bogus claims, Cavali Sforza, in his well known The History and Geography of Human Genes, 1994 Cavalli-Sforza summarizes his 1986 work on Pygmies and specifically debunks the "Pygmy as ancestor" theory held by other older writings. QUOTE:
"It remains difficult to pinpoint an ancient place of origin for the Negroid type which includes all West, Central and South Africans. Contrary to many earlier opinions, modern Pygmies and Khosians are not good candidates for a proto-African population."
--Cavalli Sforza et al, 1994. The history and geography of human genes. 194
SO much for your lying claims of "mutations" from "Pygymy" ancestors. In short, you lied about Cavalli-Sforza, creating a falsified claim and a bogus "supporting" reference to a claim that is nowhere supported in his work. You are once again exposed as yet another racist faker You are not fooling anyone.
------------------------
THE FAKER EXPOSED-PART 3- YOu then tried to cover up your lie with even more bogus nformation and STILL fail
You "modified" your Cavalli Sforza claim by including page numbers, and then changing some wording to "adaptive radiation" hoping to divert attention from your exposure.. lmao..
However pages 361-362 of Cavalli Sforza's 1986 book says absolutely nothing about any Negroes "mutating" from pygmies, nor any "adaptive radiation." It merely discusses Pygmy history and geography. You picked out a page at random, not knowing it can be verified via Google Books. You were asked to provide a direct quote but are still running. Now why is that?
""It remains difficult to pinpoint an ancient place of origin for the Negroid type which includes all West, Central and South Africans. Contrary to many earlier opinions, modern Pygmies and Khosians are not good candidates for a proto-African population."
--Cavalli Sforza et al, 1994. The history and geography of human genes. 194
--------------------------------------
THE FAKER EXPOSED- PART 2 And Your pathetic "modification" STILL turned out to be bogus. You then said:
"True" Black Africans appear as a recent adaptive radiation apparently branching off from an ancestral Pygmy population — a line of ancestry also indicated by osteological data (Coon 1962:651-656; Watson et al. 1996).
^^But in fact, Watson 1996 has nothing to do with osteological data and does not even mention it. It has to do with mtDNA.
----------------------------------------
THE FAKER EXPOSED- PART 1C YOU THEN PROFFERED ANOTHER FAKE CLAIM BELOW: He says:
quote: "Note that in the Old Testament the Danites are the only Hebrew people described as being maritime and associated with ships.."
^^Complete Nonsense. In the Old Testament, the tribe of Zebulun is mentioned as specifically associated with ships and maritime elements. QUOTE:
Genesis 49:13 "Zebulun will dwell at the shore of the seas; Yea, he will be at the shore of the ships, And his side toucheth upon Sidon. "
FAHEEMdUMBERS/ANGLO -Pyr/Cassi-Fakdes: MULTIPLE TIMES AT BAT, MULTIPLE EXPOSURES AS A FAKE...
--fake claim that no Australian Abo over 20 is blonde
-- fake claim that NO tropical Africans have any diversity in hair, skin or eye color
-- fake Cavalli-Sforza citation
-- 2nd fake Cavalli-Sforza reference
-- Faked Watson reference
-- Faked Biblical reference
-- FAke representation of Peter Frost's work
-- Fake claim that "studies" say "egyptians were dark are not like 'light-skinned Europeans". COnveniently, the alleged study is missing..
--Fake Higgins claims
--Fake claim that Guiseppe Sergi's EurAfrican race concept is negro-free
--Fake claim that Vanessa Williams has no black ancestry but is "white and Indian"
--Fake claim that Egyptologists like Yurco consider the Egyptians "Caucasoid"
--Fake claim of white Nordic Egyptian royalty
--Fake claim of "blond" Hetepheres
--Fake claim of white males in BRitain "unable to get jobs"
--fAKE Crucuiani "quote" with "citation"
--fake claim that blacks have no sexual diomorphism and no male-female cranial differences
--Fake CDC claim of AUgust 2006
--Hypocritical double standards- bashing African Americans as black when they can be demonized as criminals but when exposed for hypocritical double standards calling them non-black
--Bogus claim that OOA never happened backed by "supporting" references that say nothingof the sort and directly contradict him.
--Fake claim that the tropics is mostly rainforest area
^^Mr Consistency- Faheem Dumbers...
Posts: 5935 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lamin: You keep repeating the same nonsense with a puzzling acrimony. Weird.
What I repeat is not nonsense but FACTS. There is nothing weird about it!
quote:It is a trivial point that I made concerning hair forms and climate. Some animals in tropical environments are more or less hairless--elephants, rhinos, etc. And all sea-dwelling mammals like porpoises, dolphins, walruses, etc. are completely hairless having lost their hair over millennia.
So there's no reason why humans couldn't become hairless all over--including their heads. Again, my point is that hair form has nothing to do with cranium-protection from the elements as is proven by the fact that male-pattern baldness does not reduce longevity of males in any geographical region.
You inane post is tantamount to saying that old-age is a disorder or that weakening eyesight with age is a disorder.
You keep confusing hairless state of some mammals including modern humans' relatively hairless bodies with the condition of male pattern baldness! What the hell is that? There is no comparison. One is evolution the other is a disorder. Old age is NOT a disorder because it affects ALL organisms! Male pattern baldness does not even affect most males let alone all males!
quote:And by the way those who know about the issue define male patten baldness as a "condition" not a "disorder". Do you understand the difference? w.patient.co.uk/health/male-pattern-baldness
condition-- a state of being or health.
disorder-- an abnormal condition or malfunction of an organism
Male pattern baldness is BOTH. Alopecia or the loss of ALL hair both head and body is both a condition as well as a disorder.
Again, male baldness results from testosterone not being fully metabolized which has toxic effects on certain cells including hair follicles. The vast majority of males do not have this problem whereas some do. There is no evolutionary advantage at all and the condition has NOTHING to do with the evolution of loss of body hair in modern humans! I don't know why you keep equating male pattern balding with all these other things. Posts: 26472 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by Djehuti: You keep confusing hairless state of some mammals including modern humans' relatively hairless bodies with the condition of male pattern baldness! What the hell is that? There is no comparison. One is evolution the other is a disorder. Old age is NOT a disorder because it affects ALL organisms! Male pattern baldness does not even affect most males let alone all males!
^LMAO. Stating the rather obvious is sometimes an unexpected, but necessary part of conversation.
Posts: 8807 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: It's interesting because the frequency of wavy hair is highest around the dry desert areas. What about rural Saharans like the Tibbu who have NO Eurasian admixture but have wavy hair? What about the Sanhaja Berbers who have no admixture and are very black yet have wavy hair? What about peoples in Chad and as far south as Uganda who have wavy hair despite very black skin and "negroid" features.
Your whole premise is a FAIL. [/QB]
Toubou (Tibbu)
Toubou
Stop lying Sanhaja like The Fulani have West Eurasian and/or Yemeni admixture. Toubou genetics have not been well researched and as we can see kinky hair.
With a few exceptions the prevalence of straight hait largely corresponds to people with relatively lighter brown skin. You claim wavy hair is predominant for the Sahara yet most of the people that have that type of hair are lighter skinned and due to that you call them admixed. You really are full of crap.
Oh and if you think of post pictures form your small portfolio of people of unknown ancestry, no females or boys. There should be dozens of photos on the internet of Sanhaja and "Tibbu" for you to choose from
Posts: 43078 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Austrailan Aboriginees have 4-6% Denisova ancestry. They have the most prominent brow ridges in the world Denisova was found in Siberia There's a clue
Posts: 43078 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
First of all, the whole Denisovan ancestry in modern humans is pure speculation just as Neanderthal ancestry in modern humans is, including in of all populations East African Massai!! The problem is geneticists don't even know the genetic specificities of all human populations which is why you hear all these theories of hominid admixture in one population or another. Even Neanderthal admixture in African populations when there is no evidence of Neanderthals in Africa!
Second of all, as you pointed out, the Denisovans inhabited Siberia. B|tch, I already pointed out the areas and routes the ancestors of Australian aborigines took. NON of which included areas north of the subtropics let alone 'Siberia'!
Lastly, even IF 4-6% of Australian Aborigines have Denisovan ancestry what the f*ck does that have to do with the remaining 96-94% of the population that does not but STILL have wavy hair?!!
What is the point in even arguing with an idiot like yourself who is devoid of basic logic?? Posts: 26472 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lyinass,: Toubou (Tibbu)
Toubou
As if two examples disprove that wavy hair exists among the Toubu. LOL
quote:Stop lying Sanhaja like The Fulani have West Eurasian and/or Yemeni admixture. Toubou genetics have not been well researched and as we can see kinky hair.
B|tch the only one lying here is YOU and Farthead! The Sanhaja are a large group of people. I'm referring to certain tribes in the Sahara who have NO Eurasian admixture at all! And the only Fulani who have Eurasian admixture are coastal types who have European admixture yet exhibit stereotypical broad nose and kinky hair! The Fulani nomads further inland who have wavy hair and narrow features have NIL Eurasian ancestry and those in Nigeria have 100% E1b1a lineages!! We told your dumbass this before when you cited a study on Guinea Coast Fulani!! You lying trick! LOL
By the way, here is a description of some Sanhaja by American sailor Robert Adams...
"The place which was called El Gazie, ( 2 ) was a low sandy beach, having no trees in sight, nor any verdure. There was no appearance of mountain or hill ; nor (excepting only the rock on which the ship was wrecked) any thing but sand as far as the eve could reach. The Moors [of Mauritania] were straight haired, but quite black; their dress consisted of little more than a rug or a skin round their waist, their upper parts and from their knees downwards, being wholly naked."--Robert Adams (1810)
Robert Adams was a very fair-skinned himself since his father is white and his mother "mulatta".
quote:With a few exceptions the prevalence of straight hair largely corresponds to people with relatively lighter brown skin. You claim wavy hair is predominant for the Sahara yet most of the people that have that type of hair are lighter skinned and due to that you call them admixed. You really are full of crap.
Again, YOU are full of crap because there is NO correlation between hair form and skin color, dishonest douche! There are MANY populations in Africa who have wavy hair yet are very dark even jet black in complexion, and the reverse is true-- there are MANY populations who have lighter skin yet have kinky hair! I already told your dumbass that most folks in the Egyptian Delta, Eritrean coast, and northern Ethiopia who are noted for their 'Eurasian' ancestry have kinky hair! In the meanwhile, the sedentary Fulani of the Guinea coasts and Gambia who have recent European ancestry have light skin yet still have kinky hair and broad features!! Again the implications are quite clear to anyone with a properly functioning brain!
quote:Oh and if you think of post pictures form your small portfolio of people of unknown ancestry, no females or boys. There should be dozens of photos on the internet of Sanhaja and "Tibbu" for you to choose from
LMAO B|tch where do you think I get the pictures for my portfolio from??!! I got them from the internet as well! So how exactly are MY pictures of random people of 'unknown' ancestry no good but YOUR pictures of the same are?!!
You are a pathetic, lying, hypocritical, b|tch who is angry that my claims hold fast to evidence while YOUR mixed-up claims do not!
Posts: 26472 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Lastly, even IF 4-6% of Australian Aborigines have Denisovan ancestry what the f*ck does that have to do with the remaining 96-94% of the population that does not but STILL have wavy hair?!!
What is the point in even arguing with an idiot like yourself who is devoid of basic logic?? [/QB]
Damn you are fvcking stupid.
On average of all Austrailain Aboriginees have 4-6% Denisiaova ancestry
not that 4-6% of them have it, dummy
why do you think they have those thick browridges?
You have to go back 200 years to the duboius Robert Adams narrative? ^^ this guy is from Yemen. If Robert Adams narritive is true what he calls Moors are people that very likley could have been like this guy perhaps mixed with indigenous Africa.
You are trying to claim that ther predominant hair type of dark skinned people in Mali is wavy straight hair? GTFOH
That is laughable. The dark skinned malinans have afro kinky hair. The people like Tuareg also have some of these dark skinned kinky haired people but they also have many who are lighter skinned brown than other Malians. The ones that have wavy straight hair are thses lighter skinned Beydan, lighter brown called "white moors".
You do not have the anthropology documenatation to support your alternative claims
Posts: 43078 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: The point that you've been running away from:
Are you going to admit that typology is dead now that your dumbass has admitted that African populations can diverge from the Negroid typology by 1) becoming long term inhabitants of a region outside of tropical rainforests and 2) having a long history of eating processed foods? [/QB]
I don't know what you're talking about. Nothing now diverges. The types are not populations.
Can you change your phenotype naturally during your lifetime? How the hell can someone change their typology?
Posts: 873 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Fake claim that the tropics is mostly rainforest area
Tropical is green only:
Only you and "nilevalleyblogspot" claim tropical = the whole of Africa. Was this a gaffe? I've shown that to people, and they are laughing. Perhaps your goal is to just parody afrocentrism? Fine by me.
Posts: 873 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
According to your own words, typology is dead. This automatically nullifies all your posts. That's all I wanted to hear from your selectively replying, no evidence having dumbass, I'm done talking to you.
Posts: 8807 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ And YOU don't even know the difference between an ass and a p*ssy!! LOL
quote:Originally posted by the lyinass twit: Damn you are fvcking stupid.
On average of all Austrailain Aboriginees have 4-6% Denisiaova ancestry
not that 4-6% of them have it, dummy
Please cite evidence that ALL Australian Aboriginal individuals carry 4-6% Denisovan genomic material.
By the way, this same percentage is said to exist in Melanesians, and other aboriginal Pacific Islanders.
First Aboriginal genome sequenced Like other populations outside Africa, the Australian Aboriginal man owes small chunks of his genome to Neanderthals4. More surprisingly, though, his ancestors also interbred with another archaic human population known as the Denisovans. This group was identified from 30,000–50,000-year-old DNA recovered from a finger bone found in a Siberian cave5. Until now, Papua New Guineans were the only modern human population whose ancestors were known to have interbred with Denisovans.
Yet Papua New Guineans typically have KINKY not wavy hair, dumbass!! LOL
quote:why do you think they have those thick browridges?
LMAOH B|tch, don't you know thick browridges were common to ALL early modern humans, including those in Africa!!
quote:You have to go back 200 years to the dubious Robert Adams narrative?
There is nothing "dubious" about it. He blatantly says the Moors he saw were "quite black" yet with straight hair. He didn't say they were light-skinned or lighter than typical Africans but that in complexion the same as typical Africans only that they had loose hair.
quote: ^^ this guy is from Yemen. If Robert Adams narrative is true what he calls Moors are people that very likely could have been like this guy perhaps mixed with indigenous Africa.
Dumb trick, if the Moors were mixed with folks like the man above why are they not lighter skinned? Why are they still 'quite black'?? Also, the light-skinned guy above may be Yemeni but he is obviously NOT an indigenous Yemeni of the type that say mixed with folks in the Horn. Why do folks in Eritrea and northern Ethiopia with Eurasian derived J ancestry predominantly have tightly curled to kinky hair and NOT wavy hair??!
quote:You are trying to claim that their predominant hair type of dark skinned people in Mali is wavy straight hair? GTFOH
Where did I say such a thing, lyinass trickella?? I am merely saying that the predominant hair type of Saharan people in general is wavy. Many Malians are not even of Saharan ancestry but have ancestry from further south.
quote:That is laughable. The dark skinned malinans have afro kinky hair. The people like Tuareg also have some of these dark skinned kinky haired people but they also have many who are lighter skinned brown than other Malians. The ones that have wavy straight hair are these lighter skinned Beydan, lighter brown called "white moors".
LOL What is laughable are your claims that there is a direct correlation between skin color and hair form. Did you not read what I said?? Why are there many folks of mixed ancestry who have light skin yet kinky hair?? Why are there folks who are very dark/black but have wavy hair?? Answer the questions, trick. Does hair form correlate with skin color or not? Australian aborigines have wavy even light colored hair without admixture from Europeans yet have very dark (BLACK) skin!! And I already busted your lyinass on Denisovan ancestry being a reason when other Pacific aborigines have the same ancestry yet have kinky hair!
quote:You do not have the anthropology documentation to support your alternative claims
B|tch, YOU don't have any anthropology to back up YOUR made up claims! And my claims still have yet to be refuted! Posts: 26472 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just to review. The lyinass twit claims the wavy hair of Australian aborigines is a cold adapted trait inherited from alleged 'Denisovan' ancestry. Yet if such hair is cold adaptation, why are Australian aborigines tropically adapted in everything else i.e. (black) skin color and limb proportions?? Why is hair the only supposedly cold adapted trait? Better yet, before alleged Denisovan genes were discovered in Australian Aborigines, it was discovered in Papua New Guineans first!
Papua New Guineans
^ Note the Papuan people typically have KINKY type hair instead of wavy. Yet like Aussie Aborigines, blondism also occurs especially in children.
By the way, Papuans also have thick brow ridges which the lyinass claims is Denisovan. LOL
The point is Aussies and Papuans share the same genetic lineages and as well as many phenotypic traits except the former have wavy hair while the latter have kinky hair. What's interesting is that the kinky hair of the Papuans is strikingly similar to that of Central Africans including Pygmies. Why is that?? Could it be due to the obvious environmental differences? Australia is predominantly arid desert, while Papua New Guinea and Melanesia are humid forests. What’s more interesting is that the ONLY Australian people that didn’t exhibit loose hair were the Tasmanians.
Tasmanian
Tasmania is a very humid subtropical rainforest environment.
Posts: 26472 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And what about Indians?? Last time I checked, there is no Denisovan DNA in Indians or any modern humans outside of Southeast Asia, Australia, and the Pacific.
According to the lyinass theory, the Indian ancestors of the Australasian aborigines evolved their loose hair in the cold environment of northern Pakistan/Afghanistan area. Though the only lineages ancestral to Australasian aborigines are found in southern India NOT northern India. In fact, the genetic evidence of the these OOA beach combers is not only confined to the south but is very rare. Why? Because of a second wave of Out-of-African migrants that took place around 45-50 kya.
“One branch (of this second wave) from the Middle East, made its way swiftly into India. This small group traveling down into India from the north was so successful that they swamped out nearly all traces of the original coastal migration.”—Spencer Wells, Journey of Man.
Of course a lyinass would assume since they entered India from ‘the north’ they were somehow cold adapted, when there is no evidence whatsoever of this. The fact is, this second wavy of OOA from the Middle East expanded once the (tropical) deserts of Arabia and the rest of Southwest Asia began to wane. And as Wells stated, they entered India swiftly meaning no lingering in the high cold mountains of Afghanistan LOL. If anything, they entered via the Baluchistan areas of southeast Iran and southwest Pakistan as those areas were most hospitable since the Iranian plateau to Central Asia was still desert. This was the reason why
So what kind of hair did the original coastal migrants of southern India have? Nobody knows since there aren’t even any skeletal remains from that period of the Paleolithic let alone ‘hair’. However, there are some scholars who suggest they may have had kinky or frizzy type hair similar to Andamanese and other ‘Negritos’. The reason being is that such hair, though rare, still survives among the most isolated tribes of southern India--tribes such as the Irulas, the Paniyas, and Ghenuas. Western anthropologists have long noted the frequency of such hair among these isolated hunter-gatherer groups to suggest they are a remnant feature.
Ghenua
Irulas
Paniyas ^ the guy on the left
Although kinky or frizzy type hair is most frequent among these isolated tribes, its occurrence is still not as common as loose wavy hair even within the same tribes. So there may be a correlation to what Spencer stated about the original southern coastal types being swamped out by the second wave of OOAs. But again, we don’t know for certain what the actual hair type of the original coastal dwellers was.
And although kinky or frizzy hair is most frequent among the rural tribes, it still shows up in certain occasions among non-tribal folks.
Guru Sri Bala Sai Baba Posts: 26472 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And what of Arabians, the original source population ancestral to all other OOAs including Indians? There are virtually no genetic lineages yet identified in Arabia associated with the first coastal migration. Most lineages are associated with the 2nd wave of OOA while a few others are identified with more recent waves associated with PN2 (hg E).
When it comes to Arabians one must make a distinction between the indigenous Arabians and the stereotypical fair-skinned Arabs of recent northern origins.
The lyinass posted this picture below of a modern Yemeni Arab…
..even though Yemen has received waves of migration from Iran and Iraq since Medieval times. Obviously fair-skinned cold adapted types are not original to Arabia which lies from tropics to subtropics especially southern Arabia which is definitely in the tropics. Even the Arab peoples generally divide themselves into Arab ul-'Aribah (original Arabs) and Arab ul-Musta'ribah (assimilated Arabs).
This man below is a far better representative of indigenous south Arab Yemenis.
Shahara tribesman
Hair form among the indigenous (black) Arabians varies also. While many display wavy type hair, some especially around Yemen and Asir regions possess tight curled to kinky hair forms.
Peoples with typically tight coiled hair:
Akhdam
Qarra
Hawt
Many have tried to dismiss the features of the allegedly non-Arab, outcaste Akhdam people as evidence of Ethiopian ancestry. This is funny considering that the Qarra and Hawt possess the same features yet are not considered outcastes but members of the Arab ul-'Aribah peoples. Also, all three groups possess lineages typical of Arabians particularly upstream J1 and J. Even many western anthropologists have decades ago noted an indigenous ‘Negrito’ or in some cases ‘Negroid’ presence in Arabia as per the mentioned peoples. In fact tightly coiled hair is so common in Yemen that such hair is actually the stereotypical hair of Yemenis and that includes lighter-skinned Mutrariba (mixed) type Arabs of the region.
So what was the hair form of the first OOA people who settled the southern coasts of Arabia? Nobody knows. What was the hair form of the second wave of OOA migrants who completely took over? Again, the same answer. What is interesting is that both tight coiled and loose hair forms coincide in the southern Arabian region while the former is most common in southwest Arabia/Yemen. Why is that? Nobody knows, but my theory is that it may have something to do with the relatively more humid climate of Yemen especially in the Tihama areas. Even during the time of the first OOA, when most of Africa and almost all of Arabia became desert, the only areas that had adequate rainfall from the Indian ocean currents was coastal south Arabia and the Horn which was the reason why the early OOA people not only survived but followed the prey animals along the coasts. For much of human history, the Yemen was more fertile an area than the rest of Arabia hence the ancient Roman term ‘Arabia Felix’. Again, this is my theory but definitely the loose hair of other indigenous Arabians had nothing to do with cold adaptation as there is no evidence for that among indigenous Arabians as it is in India or Australia.
Posts: 26472 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So what about Horn Africans? Many Euronuts love to emphasize the ‘Eurasian’ admixture among Horn African populations, especially Eritreans and Ethiopians. There is the famous Tishkoff study showing 40% Eurasian admixture among Amhara for instance who are just one ethnic group of Ethiopians. Many stupidly assume that wavy hair form is a sign of such admixture yet the majority of Eritreans and Ethiopians display tight hair forms i.e. kinky to tight curls. Most of this alleged Eurasian admixture is dated to Neolithic times, yet there is no evidence that even the Neolithic Arabians who contributed this admixture had loose hair. As I showed in my previous post, the majority of Yemenis have coiled hair forms as well and nothing like the ‘Caucasian’ type if judging from the indigenous tribes I showed! Interestingly enough, the majority of Horn Africans who exhibit loose hair lie in the more arid lowlands and deserts away from the highlands and coasts. This was pointed out by the moderator Henu (an Ethiopian poster) who says that loose hair among Ethiopians is not as common as the Euronuts make it out to be. Even Yonis (a Somali poster) stated similarly that the majority of loose haired Somalis live in the south away from the northern coasts. Thus ‘Eurasian’ genetic influence is not a valid reason for loose hair form among Horn Africans as well.
Somalis are predominantly African in ancestry yet even those individuals with alleged ‘Eurasian’ ancestry are no different from other Somalis in that they exhibit super-tropical adaptations, so why would their hair form be an exception?
Posts: 26472 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Excellent series of posts. I've always suspected that Somalis have a higher incidence of wavy-straight hair than other Horners (combined with a higher proportion of African ancestry than other Horners) due to their possession of E-M35 subclades that show that their male ancestors originate in the Eastern Sahara, while they carry few to no E-M35 subclades that have originated in Ethiopia. What do you think about that theory?
Posts: 8807 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again, we have no idea what hair form the early OOA peoples had or even their immediate ancestors before they left Africa. The point is that BOTH tight and loose forms exist among black aboriginal populations including those who carry the oldest genetic lineages associated with OOA. Australian aborigines typically have loose wavy hair with exception of those in Tasmania. Aussie aborigines share common ancestry with Papuans, Melanesians, and even Andamanese who have tight coiled hair. In India while loose hair is very predominant, tight hair still seldom occurs particularly in the most isolated tribes of southern India. In Arabia kinky hair exists side by side with wavy hair. There is NO evidence whatsoever that loose hair has anything to do with cold adaptation since all other features of the aboriginal peoples who have them are tropically adapted. What’s more is that the division between loose and tight is not clear cut but grades from the tightest spiral tuft to kinky, to curly, then wavy with a loosening of the follicle form.
And what about the ancestral Africans who spawned the OOA people? Spencer Wells and others demonstrate that these oldest deepest clades are possessed by the diverse populations from the Khoisan who have the spiral tuft or ‘peppercorn’ texture that is the tighest coiled form, to the Hadzabe who have kinky hair to Ethiopians. In fact, the Hadzabe seem to hold the closest affinities to ‘Eurasian Adam’ to the point that even the National Geographic Genographic Project views Tanzania as the cradle of the OOA ancestors. We have skeletal remains that give us an idea of how these early modern humans looked in terms of facial form and features but NO evidence on hair. According to all the skeletal evidence, Africans prior to the Holocene exhibited a greater diversity of cranio-facial features than Africans today. If this was the case then why couldn’t there be a diversity of hair forms, especially considering that Africans possessed tremendous genetic diversity. As per my theory, loose wavy hair seems to be associated with arid environments. If most of Africa and Arabia became desert due to an Ice Age, then loose hair forms would have been favored which is why some folks portray the early modern humans who left Africa to look like the below.
depiction of Early OOA AMH Posts: 26472 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Great posts, and I agree that there must exist a correlation between hair form and aridity. If only we knew what the selective pressures were though!
Somalis are predominantly African in ancestry yet even those individuals with alleged ‘Eurasian’ ancestry are no different from other Somalis in that they exhibit super-tropical adaptations, so why would their hair form be an exception?
______^^^^ Djehootie's right Somalis are predominantly African, see the African percentage
Posts: 43078 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Your reasoning doesn't make any sense. That genetic input you're referring to is mostly 3000 years old, and wavy-straight hair (as well as other so called ''Caucasian traits'') in the region pre-dates that time period:
Also, you're ignoring Djehuti's post where he says that Somalis have more incidences of wavy-straight hair than Cushitic speaking Ethiopians, even though Cushitic speaking Ethiopians consistently have more non-African ancestry. Why must you always be so sneaky?
posted
^ LMAO The dumb twit ain't sneaky at all but rather predictable with her passive-aggressive trolling. No matter. All of her lies have been addressed and soundly refuted in my series of posts above.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^Excellent post.
I wasn't quite done, but NOW I am. I just wanted to dispel this lyinass claim that loose hair or at least the wavy kind seen among aboriginal blacks is somehow a cold adaptation when there is NO evidence whatsoever suggest this! Even her less than parsimonious theory of adapting to cold climate of Afghanistan is hilarious. LOL Neither does it explain the wavy hair of Africans who never left the continent and have no Eurasian ancestry whatsoever! Even Ausar mentioned folks in Uganda who have wavy hair yet are otherwise stereotypically "negroid" looking in everything else! It is also silly to presume that these alleged Eurasians contributed their genes for hair only but not skin color, skeletal features, or anything else.
It is this ridiculous persistence in racial thinking that's the problem. And despite the racial nonsense we have this old entry from Britannica (1990 edition) East African local race, a subgroup, roughly corresponding to a breeding isolate in genetics, of the Negroid (African) geographical race, comprising the populations of East Africa and The Sudan. The physical type of the East African local race is primarily one of adaptation to a hot, dry climate; it is marked by long, thin body build, long, narrow face and nose, and moderate to heavy skin pigmentation. The Sudanese peoples are dark-skinned and extremely tall and thin (linear) in build. The other East African populations are also more or less linear in build and somewhat lighter skinned than the Sudanese. All have dark eyes and dark hair, wavy to frizzy in texture.
This brings us back to the actual topic of Egyptians and their Nubian including northern Sudanese neighbors who exhibit such hair... Posts: 26472 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [QB] ^Your reasoning doesn't make any sense. That genetic input you're referring to is mostly 3000 years old, and wavy-straight hair (as well as other so called ''Caucasian traits'') in the region pre-dates that time period.
what reasoning, Djefruity reasoned that Somalis were predominantly African. I put up a chart confirming it.
Now your are talking about wavy-straight hair in the Somali region prior to 3000 years old. What time period in years are you talking about and what remains had hair on them of that period?
What you have said doesn't make sense because Djefruitys comment was not applied on pictures of anceint remains. It was applied to pictures of modern Somalis probably still alive today
You guys win again. Sudanese are predominantly African Look at the East African contribution, it's the highest
Posts: 43078 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ LOL Typical lyinass spinning. Now she cites DNATribes in a distorted way as to claim Sudanese are only 36% African meaning that they are 66.3% Eurasian (if one excluded the "other")! LMAO
And this despite Sudan having the blackest people in the world as well as having predominantly kinky hair form!
quote:Originally posted by the lyinass nut: what reasoning, Djefruity reasoned that Somalis were predominantly African. I put up a chart confirming it.
Now your are talking about wavy-straight hair in the Somali region prior to 3000 years old. What time period in years are you talking about and what remains had hair on them of that period?
What you have said doesn't make sense because Djefruitys comment was not applied on pictures of anceint remains. It was applied to pictures of modern Somalis probably still alive today
YOU are calling me 'fruity' even though you now attempt to de-Africanize Sudan in attempt to save your lyinass face?! LOL
quote:lyinass productions
flushed down the drain. Posts: 26472 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It escapes most people that geographical labeling derives from constructions whether arbitrary or not.
But such labeling cannot work for purportedly scientific anthropology.
Humans have traveled to all parts of the globe in search of habitat territory, tracking hunt animals, escaping from droughts, etc.
Naive readers are often put off by claims that population X has genomic inputs not only from region X but also from region Y, without recognising that region Y is but a geographical continuation of region X.
The point is that when humans migrate their evolutionary status is determined not by some arbitrarily imposed geographical boundary condition but by more meaningful considerations such as bottlenecks, founder effects, genetic drift, assorted mating[as in the case of close-kin matings, etc.].
Most of the above variables are determined by ease of movement--as in whether movement is restricted by terrain such as mountains, water(seas, oceans, rivers, etc.), forests, deserts, extreme cold, etc.
Thus, in this context terms like "African", "non-African", "Eurasian", "Asian", "sub-Saharan", etc. really don't make sense. The optimal analysis should be conducted purely in terms of genomic structures determined by sex and autosomal chromosome analysis.
Eurocentric analysis is a major offender in this regard.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
On the matter of climate on hair form I am rather agnostic on this matter. The reason is that homo sapiens(humans) are in no way exempt from the same bio-environmental pressures that affect other animals.
The puzzle is that animals that live in hot and humid forest conditions can have have hair coverings that are not in discernible way distinct from animals that live in dry-hot or dry-frigid conditions. The same for humid-hot and humid-cold.
Take the easy case of the Orangutan. These primates with wispy-type reddish-brownish hair live in the hot, humid forests of tropical Borneo, Sumatra and other parts of hot, humid Indonesia. The same for the Bengal tiger[as distinct from the Siberian tiger] that lives in hot, humid Indian forests. The Bengal tiger and its Siberian cousin share the same straight hair. The same for forest dwelling monkeys, squirrels, black panthers, jaguars,etc.
The same for hot and cold dwelling members of the family "canis". African wild dogs and foxes have similar straight hair coverings as their Asian and European cousins.
I go back to my original suggestive hypothesis: mating within population isolates is what produces most phenotypical differentiations especially if variables such as founder effects, bottlenecks, genetic drift, etc. are at work.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
You guys win again. Sudanese are predominantly African Look at the East African contribution, it's the highest
Now everyone can REALLY see you're shaken up mentally. Those ancestry percentages are obviously a function of their selective sampling and/or their true negro approach (oh, that STR value doesn't occur in West/Central Africans, so it must be Eurasian). Also, there are people living in Sudan today who look no different from modern light skinned Egyptians, and whose ancestry clusters accordingly. For me to take those ancestry percentages serious, YOU will have to show that those scenarios aren't at play here.
Of course, you will act like you've never read this challenge, because you know that there will be more spanking waiting on you.
Posts: 8807 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Somalis are predominantly African in ancestry yet even those individuals with alleged ‘Eurasian’ ancestry are no different from other Somalis in that they exhibit super-tropical adaptations, so why would their hair form be an exception? [/QB]
The usual nonsense. Aethiopids are predominantly frizzy or very curly, not wavy as in the Europid or Caucasoid sense. Also while the Aethiopid type as a Caucasoid-Negroid interracial cline predominates in Somali, it is not the entire population of course [no population is a single type], nowhere near in fact, so no-one denied Negroids, or others being there (Baker, 1981):
“The Aethiopids (‘Eastern Hamites’ or ‘Erythriotes’) of Ethiopia and Somaliland are an essentially Europid subrace with some Negrid admixture. Typically these are slender people of medium stature, dolicho- or mesocranial; the face is more or less of the Europid form, with rather narrow, prominent nose; there is no prognathism (Fig. 30B, p. 230). Various parts of the body give evidence, however, of Negrid influence. The skin is reddish- or blackish-brown. The dark brown or black scalp-hair is ... variable in texture in different local forms, but as a rule it is not wavy, like that of typical Europids, nor wound into many tight spirals (what the French call ‘cheveux crépus’) like that of Negrids, but of the intermediate condition described as ‘frizzy’ (‘cheveux frisés’), in which each hair curls into several ringlets, the spiral having a diameter of 1 cm or more.” (pp. 225-226)
Wavy hair in Somali is not even common.
Coon (1965, pp. 120-121) -
"The least Negroid peoples of the highlands are the Ethiopians proper... and the Gallas... The majority have frizzy hair. The next commonest is curly hair... [Somalis]: a third have wavy hair."
Its obvious wavy hair did not origin there.
Afrocentrics aren't interested in science, they only are claiming wavy hair is "Black" because they despise their nappy hair. The funny thing is Aethiopids with looser hair textures do not consider themselves "Black". Somali females of the Aethiopid type [as found on Somalinet, Hamiticunion etc] want nothing to do with Negroid men and call them ugly apes.
Posts: 873 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Ignoring the idiot above who obviously did not read by last series of posts and who still cites outdated and debunked Coon crap.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by the lyinass nut,:
You guys win again. Sudanese are predominantly African Look at the East African contribution, it's the highest
Now everyone can REALLY see you're shaken up mentally. Those ancestry percentages are obviously a function of their selective sampling and/or their true negro approach (oh, that STR value doesn't occur in West/Central Africans, so it must be Eurasian). Also, there are people living in Sudan today who look no different from modern light skinned Egyptians, and whose ancestry clusters accordingly. For me to take those ancestry percentages serious, YOU will have to show that those scenarios aren't at play here.
Of course, you will act like you've never read this challenge, because you know that there will be more spanking waiting on you.
Precisely my point. You know these Euronuts are frantic when they try to white-wash or rather 'Eurasianize' Sudanese people! LOL Even the vast majority of Sudanese folks are considered non-Arab by the 'Arab' Sudanese minority of the north and even then the actual Arab ancestry of most Arab Sudanese is questionable. Note how using STR values the folks at DNATribes will call ancestry from as far away as Australia among East Africans! LOLPosts: 26472 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
International Journal of Dermatology, 2012, 51 (Suppl. 1): 12–16
"Human hair is categorized into three broad groups, namely, African [Negroid], Caucasian, and Asian [Mongoloid] based on morphological variations but without major biochemical differences. The structure of African hair is a flattened ellipse, with several small twists and inconsistent cuticle and fiber diameter. It is brittle, tightly coiled, spring-like and has the slowest growth rate. In comparison, Asian hair is circular in cross-section, straight, thicker, with the highest tensile strength and fastest growth rate while Caucasian hair is oval, straight to wavy with medium diameter and tensile strength...Most individuals with the African [Negroid] hair type are dissatisfied with their hair in its natural state."
Posts: 873 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
I am merely saying that the predominant hair type of Saharan people in general is wavy. Many Malians are not even of Saharan ancestry but have ancestry from further south. 
Printer-friendly view of this topic