posted
Okay I was recently in a debate with cachibatches on historum forum. It was a fairly interesting debate until a certain ex Egyptsearch Euronut interfered.
Anyways cachibatches was posting his usual sources.
One of the main sources he was using in his argument was this.
quote:Mitochondrial DNA Sequence Diversity in a Sedentary Population from Egypt A. Stevanovitch http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1529-8817.2003.00057.x/full Mitochondrial genetic data from North Africa are documented by two groups of populations: one composed of populations of the Nile Valley, and the other by populations of the Maghreb. The Nile Valley has been shown to be a migration corridor with populations connected by gene flow (Krings et al. 1999), and phylogeographical analysis of mitochondrial lineages of populations from the Maghreb suggests that modern humans appeared from the Near East following at least two migrations around 50 000 years and 10 000 years ago. A possible migration from Europe may also have occurred during the Neolithic period (Macaulay et al. 1999).
I kept telling him that the Ancestors of the Ancient Egyptians do not go back 50k years, but during the Holocene when the Sahara was wet. I told him the Ancestors of the Ancient Egyptians weren't even living in Egypt during that time but south of the Nile. I also told him its a lose-lose situation for him because... 1. The study he posted is most likely talking about M1 and M1 is no longer Eurasian, and it mutated to African way before the Ancient Egyptian civilization even began. 2. Those Eurasians most likely looked look different than other Africans. I also asked him for physical remains for these Eurasians in Egypt during that time, I even told him the oldest remains found in Egypt are of African type and not the Eurasian.
^^^But again this is all void since the ancestors of the Ancient Egyptians most likely did not live in Egypt at that time, just like the ancestors of modern West Africans did not live in West Africa.
What I seem to notice is that people who argue against an African origin of either the Ancient Egyptians and heck the Berbers...They try to make the argument very complex and the origins of said people very early. cachibatches and others try to argue that mixing in Egypt has been going on since the Paleolithic and earlier to discredit the African origins of the Ancient Egyptians. I've noticed its a tactic in which they mostly use now.
cachibatches also puts a lot of importance on genetic and ignores other factors(like physical remains, migration, culture, paintings,historically records,etc). Yes genetics is an important factor, but its NOT the only factor in finding out the origins of a group of people.
The Ancient Egyptians as a whole stem from an African origins from the South. Pre-dynastic Badarians mostly resembled the Teita (who themselves ultimately derive from Tanzania).
^^^You clearly see the Ancient Egyptians ANCESTORS settling along the Nile and moving North(and NOT south). 8,500 there was NO settlements in the Delta region until later. Then we see desertification and that's when the ancestors of the Ancient Egyptians start to move more NORTH.
The FIRST settlements in the Delta are in the southwest and NOT the northeast which throws a GIANT HOLE into the idea that the Delta people were of Eurasian/Near Eastern origin.
^^^Of course he never addressed this.
I also told him that the easiest Pharaonic culture was done in the south most likely in the Nubian desert. I even posted this to him.
quote:Nabta Playa is an internally drained basin that served as an important ceremonial center for nomadic tribes during the early part of 9560 BC. Located 62 miles west of Abu Simbel some 60 miles west of the Nile near the Egyptian-Sudanese border. Nabta contains a number of standing and toppled megaliths. They include flat, tomb-like stone structures and a small stone circle that predates Stonehenge (2600 B.C.), and other similar prehistoric sites by 1000's of years.
Although some believe the high culture of subsequent Egyptian dynasties was borrowed from Mesopotamia and Syria, University of Colorado at Boulder astronomy Professor J. McKim Malville and others believe the complex and symbolic Nabta culture may have stimulated the growth of the society that eventually constructed the first pyramids along the Nile about 4500 years ago.(1, 2)
Early in the Neolithic age, the inhabitants constructed villages, one of which had walk-in wells. While it is thought by the excavation crew that the ancient nomads only lived in the region during the rainy summers, these wells may have allowed for year-round occupation.(3)
In recent years, the expedition has discovered a massive kurgan in the Nabta Playa lake basin, towering over the fields of stone monoliths, now destroyed by the desert winds. Its small burial pit was found to contain the head of a child 2.5 to 3 years old, undoubtedly the offspring of a powerful ruler of the Nubian Desert about 3,500 years BC, just prior to the establishment of the first Egyptian state.(4)
"The symbolic richness and spatial awareness seen in the Nabta complex of the Late Neolithic age may have developed from adaptation by nomadic peoples to the stress of survival in the desert. The ceremonial complex could not be more recent than the onset of hyperaridity in the region around 4800 years ago, suggesting that the astronomy and ceremonialism of Nabta occurred before most of the megalithic features of Europe, Great Britain, and Brittany were established. Within some 500 years after the exodus from Nabta, the step pyramid at Saqqara was constructed, indicating that there was a pre-existing cultural base, which may have originated in the desert of Upper Egypt. An exodus from the Nubian desert at 5000 years ago could have precipitated the development of social differentiation in predynastic cultures through the arrival in the Nile valley of nomadic groups who were better organized and possessed a more complex cosmology."
Reference: Oldest Astronomical Megalith Alignment Discovered In Egypt By Science Team
Malville, Wendorf, Mazar & Schild, Megaliths and Neolithic Astronomy in Southern Egypt, Nature, pp. 392, 488-491 (April 2, 1998):
The site was first discovered in 1974 by a group of scientists headed by Fred Wendorf, an Anthropology Professor from Southern Methodist University in Texas. The team had stopped for a break from their uncomfortable drive from the Libyan border to the Nile Valley when, as Wendorf stated, "we were standing there minding our own business, when we noticed potsherds and other artifacts." Throughout the 1970's and 1980's, Wendorf returned to Nabta several times. He determined that humans had occupied the Nabta area off and on for thousands of years, dating from as early as 11,000 years ago up until about 4800 years ago. Although the area was occupied for more then 5000 years, the majority of the stone structures and other artifacts originated between 7000 and 6500 years ago. It was considered by most to be the height of human occupation at Nabta.
^^^But of course he didn't address this because he thought his genetic argument was more important, when he never proved anything. I said if genetics is the number one factor then post Autosomal DNA tests of the Ancient Egyptians during the dynastic period, but he has failed to do so.
My question is why do people try to put the date as early as they can for the Ancient Egyptian argument when arguing against the African origins of the Ancient Egyptians? Why do they never stick to dynastic times or even pre-dynastic times? They always must go before the Holocene and even paleolithic period...
Also where did the Ancient Egyptians ancestors come from. I obviously know that the Ancient Egyptians as a whole stem from an African origin, but did they always live in Egypt. My theory is no and that they only recently and during the late Holocene migrate into Egypt. So I do not get why people bring up 50k years for the Ancient Egyptians when they about recently migrated into Egypt.
Anyways what are you guys thoughts? Was I right or was I flat out wrong?
Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Son of Ra: Okay I was recently in a debate with cachibatches on historum forum. It was a fairly interesting debate until a certain ex Egyptsearch Euronut interfered.
I don't believe this but cachibatches says in the thread you linked:
quote:Originally posted by cachibatches
He knows that JAMA/DNA tribes is a hoax....
PROBLEMS WITH DNA TRIBES AND RAMSES STUDIES IS THAT THEY WERE BOTH BASED ON JAMA WORK BY ALBERT ZINK, WHO HAS ADMITTED THAT HE FALSIFIED: "Zink has stated that the tests did not get the same results each time they were run and the results reported in the JAMA paper are those the team adjudged "most likely" based on "majority rule" (Curse of the Pharaoh's DNA AWT Conference Review, Marchant; 2011) The same team (including Zink) that worked on the 2010 study also worked 2012 study "Revisiting the harem conspiracy and death of Ramesses III: anthropological, forensic, radiological, and genetic study".
coming from a different angle>
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: [QB] Global NJTs include Americas deny it if you will. DNATribes 21 region SNP NJT is flawed, as pointed out earlier, in regards to Americas in particular.
There is no way around it no matter how much you like DNATribes that there is no peer reviewed global SNP NJT supporting the DNATribes version.
If there is just simply post it otherwise what I say remains confirmed by scientific evidence not by a bunch of maybe this and maybe that touchy feely suppositions.
I can admit my errors and have done so in the past. I don't base what I write on how I want to believe things are instead of the current facts at hand.
Shut me up. Produce a global SNP NJT confirming DNATribes 21 region SNP dendrogram instead of a bunch of excuses.
Again there is a global STR NJT which I suggest DNATribes "borrowed" to construct their SNP version. I said that in my 3rd reply.
I asked cachibatches to post me Autosomal DNA test for the Ancient Egyptians during the dynastic period since he says genetics is more important. I posted DNAtribes results to show him how Autosomal DNA tests looks like.
I don't think he understands genetics. He thinks Y-DNA tells ones admixture...
Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
Can't believe people are still debating origins of AEians. Get a life. ======
1. I was recently in a debate with an ignaramous on historum forum
2. He thinks Y-DNA tells ones admixture
====
Caucasoid have been in Africa from the very beginning.
BTW- I should look up this Albert Zink character. Wasn't aware he was involved in both studies. Like I said always check out the politics of the researcher.
BTW - In can case you are wonderng it is defies the Laws of Physics for the AEians to be of European genetics. So keep dreaming of migrating R1b - M269 farmers.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
You could have shared with him the skeletal analyses showing Nazlet Khater and other early Egypto-Nubian remains showing sub-Saharan rather than European or even Mediterranean North African affinities. That wouldn't jive very well with his scenario of Upper Paleolithic Wandering Caucasoids peopling the Nile Valley.
As for whether the ancestors of the Egyptians came from the south or always lived in Egypt, keep in mind that the Sahara has through a number of wet and dry phases, starting even before the Holocene. During some of the cooler and drier phases the area was even more inhospitable to humanity than it is today. Therefore I would expect prehistoric Nile Valley Africans to have switched between northern and southern ranges as the aridity fluctuated over time.
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
I did show him the Nazlet Khater man, but him and Fahemdunkers(whatever the fck his name is) tried to dismiss it. Yet they still couldn't post Eurasians remains that old, because the Nazlet Khater man is the oldest physical remains found in Egypt and it shows African affinity.
But again it didn't matter to cachibatches, because like I said before he believes genetics is the only factor.
Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Son of Ra: I also posted this...
^^^You clearly see the Ancient Egyptians ANCESTORS settling along the Nile and moving North(and NOT south). 8,500 there was NO settlements in the Delta region until later. Then we see desertification and that's when the ancestors of the Ancient Egyptians start to move more NORTH.
The FIRST settlements in the Delta are in the southwest and NOT the northeast which throws a GIANT HOLE into the idea that the Delta people were of Eurasian/Near Eastern origin...
The above is something that I myself have pointed out many times before!
Not only is the earliest evidence of settlement in the Delta in the southwest part near the Faiyum, [not to mention that the sepati (nomes) of Lower Egypt are numbered from south to north and west to east as shown here] but there is NO physical evidence of any population of Asiatics in the Delta during predynastic times.
The skeletal data shows as much:
"..sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty (Merimda, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a south-north cline variation along the Nile valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into southern Palestine. The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans." Barry Kemp, Ancient Egypt Anatomy of a Civilisation. (2005) Routledge.
Even the material culture is African in nature and not Asiatic.
"The initial movements westwards across the Sahara and, almost a millennium later, are likely to have been caused by the succession of drought episodes at 7600, 6800-6500, 6100, 5800, and 5500-5400 cal BC (8.6, 7.9-7.7, 7.26, 7, 6.6-6.5 kyr bp)…"-- Fekri Hassan, Droughts, Food, and Culture: Ecological Change and Food Security in Africa’s Prehistory
"..the early cultures of Merimde, the Fayum, Badari Naqada I and II are essentially African and early African social customs and religious beliefs were the root and foundation of the ancient Egyptian way of life." Shaw, Thurston (1976) Changes in African Archaeology in the Last Forty Years in African Studies since 1945
Even archaeologist Barbara Barich in her work Archaeology and Environment in the Libyan Sahara commented on similarities between Capsian culture farther west in Libya and the neolithic cultures of Egyptian oases like the Fayum such as oval shaped reed huts, the hearths and storage pits, and even the bodies interred in the homes. Fekri Hassan cites other material evidence like ground axes, tabular flint tools, lens-shaped bifacial arrowheads, concave-based arrowheads, ostrich shells, amazonite beads, and bone points.
You can read more on the predynastic Delta people and their culture and my theory concerning their Libyan origins here.
Really the only thing tying Delta folk to Asia is trade goods and domesticates (both plant and animal). Euronuts fixate on the latter as their proof of Asiatic presence yet despite the Asian wheat and livestock, interestingly all the terms used for these organisms are native Egyptian and NON are non-Egyptian or Semitic. One would think that if a population of immigrants settled in Egypt bringing in their domestic goods that are foreign to the new land they would at least preserve their vocabulary for them!
These desperate Euronuts are just trying to revive the old "dynastic race" theory of Asiatics settling in the Delta during predynastic times and ushering in dynastic culture even though that theory is long dead ever since the discovery of predynastic Abtu (Abydos) and Nekhen (Hierakonpolis) in Upper Egypt not to mention the years of archaeology in the Sahara.
Seriously, Son of Ra, you need to leave these trolls alone to their insanity. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tell me about...Its 2013 and people STILL can not accept that the civilization of Ancient Egypt was of African origins. I will continue fighting for the African origins of Egypt not to change the mindsets of these insane people, but to educate the ignorant who are not so well informed.
Also...Let's just see what mainstream scholars have to say about this subject shall we...
The conservative mainstream Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt shows ancient Egypt derived from an African cultural sub-stratum
QUOTE:
"The evidence also points to linkages to other northeast African peoples, not coincidentally approximating the modern range of languages closely related to Egyptian in the Afro-Asiatic group (formerly called Hamito-Semetic). These linguistic similarities place ancient Egyptian in a close relationship with languages spoken today as far west as Chad, and as far south as Somalia. Archaeological evidence also strongly supports an African origin. A widespread northeastern African cultural assemblage, including distinctive multiple barbed harpoons and pottery decorated with dotted wavy line patterns, appears during the early Neolithic (also known as the Aqualithic, a reference to the mild climate of the Sahara at this time). Saharan and Sudanese rock art from this time resembles early Egyptian iconography. Strong connections between Nubian (Sudanese) and Egyptian material culture continue in later Neolithic Badarian culture of Upper Egypt. Similarities include black-topped wares, vessels with characteristic ripple-burnished surfaces, a special tulip-shaped vessel with incised and white-filled decoration, palettes, and harpoons...
Other ancient Egyptian practices show strong similarities to modern African cultures including divine kingship, the use of headrests, body art, circumcision, and male coming-of-age rituals, all suggesting an African substratum or foundation for Egyptian civilization.."
-- Source: Donald Redford (2001) The Oxford encyclopedia of ancient Egypt, Volume 3. Oxford University Press. p.28 ----------
And another conservative mainstream encyclopedia says:
"There is now a sufficient body of evidence from modern studies of skeletal remains to indicate that the ancient Egyptians, especially southern Egyptians, exhibited physical characteristics that are within the range of variation for ancient and modern indigenous peoples of the Sahara and tropical Africa.. In general, the inhabitants of Upper Egypt and Nubia had the greatest biological affinity to people of the Sahara and more southerly areas." (Nancy C. Lovell, " Egyptians, physical anthropology of," in Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, ed. Kathryn A. Bard and Steven Blake Shubert,( London and New York: Routledge, 1999) pp 328-332)
And
"must be placed in the context of hypotheses informed by archaeological, linguistic, geographic and other data. In such contexts, the physical anthropological evidence indicates that early Nile Valley populations can be identified as part of an African lineage, but exhibiting local variation. This variation represents the short and long term effects of evolutionary forces, such as gene flow, genetic drift, and natural selection, influenced by culture and geography." ("Nancy C. Lovell, " Egyptians, physical anthropology of," in Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, ed. Kathryn A. Bard and Steven Blake Shubert,( London and New York: Routledge, 1999). pp 328-332)
______________________
Ancient Egypt being of African origins is already accepted in the mainstream academia. But its not accepted in the mainstream media, which is where the ignorance of the Ancient Egyptians not being African comes from.
Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with Son of Ra that it's more productive to inform the uninitiated and open-minded than bother with the arrogant and deluded. Unfortunately the latter camp has a LOT of influence on topically relevant forums like Historum.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Really the only thing tying Delta folk to Asia is trade goods and domesticates (both plant and animal). Euronuts fixate on the latter as their proof of Asiatic presence yet despite the Asian wheat and livestock, interestingly all the terms used for these organisms are native Egyptian and NON are non-Egyptian or Semitic. One would think that if a population of immigrants settled in Egypt bringing in their domestic goods that are foreign to the new land they would at least preserve their vocabulary for them!
Come to think of it, I'm not totally sold on the idea that the whole idea of plant cultivation was introduced to Egypt from the Near East. Apparently the Nabta Playa people were collecting and storing sorghum and millet, the main staples of indigenous African agriculture, centuries before the Fayyum Neolithic culture appears. It would not surprise me if the proto-Egyptians were already farming native African crops before making any contact with the Near East. In this light the introduction of Near Eastern domesticates would amount to little more than the Neolithic African equivalent of the Columbian Exchange.
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: They have to go this far back in order for it to makes sense.
Yep! They know the dynastic period shows CLEAR which is why they retreat to earlier periods. But like I said, its FUTILE! LMAO!
Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: I agree with Son of Ra that it's more productive to inform the uninitiated and open-minded than bother with the arrogant and deluded. Unfortunately the latter camp has a LOT of influence on topically relevant forums like Historum.
Forget 'Historum'. Look at what they're doing in Wikipedia! If I didn't know any better I'd say the section on prehistoric Egypt was edited by 'cachibatches' himself!
Under the mesolithic period, the edited info on the Halfan Culture and its relation to the Capsian is accurate enough, but the entire section on the Mushabian culture and its ancestral connections to Natufian is gone (deleted). Then the Harifian section is edited to say that it is derived from the Natufian in the Levant even though the tool assemblage clearly ties it with the Libyan desert and the preceding Mushabian. But then when you get to the Neolithic the editor claims that the Faiyum and Merimde were settled by people from Asia using Asian domestic animals and plants as evidence! LOL
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: Come to think of it, I'm not totally sold on the idea that the whole idea of plant cultivation was introduced to Egypt from the Near East. Apparently the Nabta Playa people were collecting and storing sorghum and millet, the main staples of indigenous African agriculture, centuries before the Fayyum Neolithic culture appears. It would not surprise me if the proto-Egyptians were already farming native African crops before making any contact with the Near East. In this light the introduction of Near Eastern domesticates would amount to little more than the Neolithic African equivalent of the Columbian Exchange.
You are absolutely correct! Actually, evidence of the harvesting of grains predates Nabta Playa. Just take a look at the wikipage I linked above on the Mesolithic cultures known as Qadan and Sebilian! The Qadan of Sudan and Sebilian of Egypt are two different yet closely related cultures based on the harvesting of wild grass along the Nile. Note that even the Euronut editor didn't bother to edit that section. Also, we know that the domestication of cattle in Africa was independent and had nothing to do with Asia.
What's more is that all the Egyptian terms for cattle and even grains are not only native but actually derived from Nilo-Saharan! One of the exciting archeological events of the past twenty years was the discovery that the peoples of the steppes and grasslands to the immediate south of Egypt domesticated these cattle, as early as 9000 to 8000 B.C. The societies involved in this momentous development included Afrasians and neighboring peoples whose languages belonged to a second major African language family, Nilo-Saharan (Wendorf, Schild, Close 1984; Wendorf, et al. 1982). The earliest domestic cattle came to Egypt apparently from these southern neighbors, probably before 6000 B.C., not, as we used to think, from the Middle East.
One major technological advance, pottery-making, was also initiated as early as 9000 B.C. by the Nilo-Saharans and Afrasians who lived to the south of Egypt. Soon thereafter, pots spread to Egyptian sites, almost 2,000 years before the first pottery was made in the Middle East.
Very late in the same span of time, the cultivating of crops began in Egypt. Since most of Egypt belonged then to the Mediterranean climatic zone, many of the new food plants came from areas of similar climate in the Middle East. Two domestic animals of Middle Eastern origin, the sheep and the goat, also entered northeastern Africa from the north during this era.
But several notable early Egyptian crops came from Sudanic agriculture, independently invented between 7500 and 6000 B.C. by the Nilo-Saharan peoples (Ehret 1993:104-125). One such cultivated crop was the edible gourd. The botanical evidence is confirmed in this case by linguistics: Egyptian bdt, or "bed of gourds" (Late Egyptian bdt, "gourd; cucumber"), is a borrowing of the Nilo-Saharan word *bud, "edible gourd." Other early Egyptian crops of Sudanic origin included watermelons and castor beans. (To learn more on how historians use linguistic evidence, see note at end of this article.)
Between about 5000 and 3000 B.C. a new era of southern cultural influences took shape. Increasing aridity pushed more of the human population of the eastern Sahara into areas with good access to the waters of the Nile, and along the Nile the bottomlands were for the first time cleared and farmed. The Egyptian stretches of the river came to form the northern edge of a newly emergent Middle Nile Culture Area, which extended far south up the river, well into the middle of modern-day Sudan. Peoples speaking languages of the Eastern Sahelian branch of the Nilo-Saharan family inhabited the heartland of this region.
From the Middle Nile, Egypt gained new items of livelihood between 5000 and 3000 B.C. One of these was a kind of cattle pen: its Egyptian name, s3 (earlier *sr), can be derived from the Eastern Sahelian term *sar. Egyptian pg3, "bowl," (presumably from earlier pgr), a borrowing of Nilo-Saharan *poKur, "wooden bowl or trough," reveals still another adoption in material culture that most probably belongs to this era.
posted
Speaking of genetics, I'm in the middle of an argument with someone who argues that the DNA Tribes results are unreliable since the STRs used were "randomly" selected instead of population-specific. I've challenged him to show that the Identifiler and AmpF/STR Minifiler kits used in the original JAMA studies can't determine population affinity.
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: Speaking of genetics, I'm in the middle of an argument with someone who argues that the DNA Tribes results are unreliable since the STRs used were "randomly" selected instead of population-specific.
The STR loci were useful for Euronuts when they formed the basis for successfully clustering North Africans (NAF) and modern Upper Egyptians (UEP) with Europeans (EUR), Indians (SAS) and Middle Easterners (ME) rather than Sub-Saharan Africans (SSA) in Omran et al 2009, but when a reduced set composed of the most powerful STR loci successfully cluster Ancient Egyptians with Sub-Saharan Africans, they denounce the STR loci with whatever pseudo-scientific objection their sorry ass can come up with, and cry wolf.
Omran et al 2009 on the D18S51 locus:
quote:All tested loci were polymorphic; the most discriminating is D18S51 while the least is TPOX. The combined power of exclusion was 0.99999868 and the combined match probability was 1.93x10(-18). The genetic diversity of the Upper Egyptians was compared with those of other populations at the local, regional and global levels.
DNA Tribes on the Ancient Egyptian polymorphism at the D18S51 locus:
quote:These regional matches do not necessarily indicat e an exclusively African ancestry for the Amarna pharaonic family. However, results indicate th ese ancient individuals inherited some alleles that today are more frequent in populations of Africa than in other parts of the world (such as D18S51=19 and D21S11=34).
posted
^ That's a good point, but when I challenged my opponent to discredit the STR loci used in the JAMA research, his response amounted to little more than "the DNA Tribes results are ridiculous and all over the place". In other words, argument from incredulity.
posted
Here is what cachibatches had to say about DNAtribes.
quote:And now you are posting the JAMA/DNA Tribes nonsense. If you had bothered to read though my first post, you would know that this is all an admitted falsification on several levels. THIS IS A MISREPRESENTATION THAT MEASURES ONLY CONTAMINATION:
"Zink has stated that the tests did not get the same results each time they were run and the results reported in the JAMA paper are those the team adjudged "most likely" based on "majority rule" (Curse of the Pharaoh's DNA AWT Conference Review, Marchant; 2011) The same team (including Zink) that worked on the 2010 study also worked 2012 study "Revisiting the harem conspiracy and death of Ramesses III: anthropological, forensic, radiological, and genetic study".
Seriously, Ra, put yourself in the shoes of anyone walking into this thread cold to get information...you have now been caught misrepresenting the conclusions of several pieces of "evidence" that you posted, misrepresenting the conclusions of evidence I have posted, walking back a piece of evidence that you proudly posted...and now posting bogus numbers that are acknowledged by the entire scientific community to be falsifications ON A NUMBER OF LEVELS.
Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Cachi needs to explain how the results could turn up sub-Saharan affinities for the ancient mummies if the people working on them were all European or Arab. Honestly, contamination would seem far more probable if the results turned out exactly like the Euronuts want them to.
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: ^ That's a good point, but when I challenged my opponent to discredit the STR loci used in the JAMA research, his response amounted to little more than "the DNA Tribes results are ridiculous and all over the place". In other words, argument from incredulity.
They are not all over the place at all. They are actually quite specific. Each of the mummies have results that are consistent. The later two mummies also have results that are consistent with the previous mummies. IMO it shows that the genetic PROFILE is only found in remnants in Sub Saharan Africa and is for the most part "extinct."
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Indeed, the Euronuts are beside themselves. Their excuses are as usual stupid and not valid. Mind you these are the same Euronuts who claim Tut carried R1b based on a screenshot (of a control sample) even though JAMA published nor made such claims.
LOL @ the results being "contaminated". Yeah, I'm pretty sure a 'Sub-Saharan' immigrant working the lab contaminated the stuff. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay I am going to ask a very stupid and dumb question that I should already know, but I didn't.
Anways....
My question is how were DNAtribes able to test the mummies when Zahi Hawass banned DNA testing for mummies. Just asking...Please do not flame me for my very ignorant question.
Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ To clarify, Hawass et al were the ones who actually obtained the STR values from the mummies. All DNA Tribes did was run this data through their software to determine population affinity.
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: ^ To clarify, Hawass et al were the ones who actually obtained the STR values from the mummies. All DNA Tribes did was run this data through their software to determine population affinity.
Oh I see. So they basically just said screw Zahi. Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well the data was publicly available in in the JAMA article. Anyone with access to a computer could have run in through many of the databases and came up with a modern population affinity.
DNA tribes has the exception of having their own very large collection of data\modern populations. They also have a special/custom algorithm which may or may not be a good thing. That said, I was happy to correspond with one of the geneticists there and give him the heads up on the Ramesses III data..hence the second article. LOL Yep, i am taking a bit of credit.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
Btw. Seriuosly, the janitor contaminated the sample....he! He!
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Son of Ra: Here is what cachibatches had to say about DNAtribes.
quote:And now you are posting the JAMA/DNA Tribes nonsense. If you had bothered to read though my first post, you would know that this is all an admitted falsification on several levels. THIS IS A MISREPRESENTATION THAT MEASURES ONLY CONTAMINATION:
"Zink has stated that the tests did not get the same results each time they were run and the results reported in the JAMA paper are those the team adjudged "most likely" based on "majority rule" (Curse of the Pharaoh's DNA AWT Conference Review, Marchant; 2011) The same team (including Zink) that worked on the 2010 study also worked 2012 study "Revisiting the harem conspiracy and death of Ramesses III: anthropological, forensic, radiological, and genetic study".
Seriously, Ra, put yourself in the shoes of anyone walking into this thread cold to get information...you have now been caught misrepresenting the conclusions of several pieces of "evidence" that you posted, misrepresenting the conclusions of evidence I have posted, walking back a piece of evidence that you proudly posted...and now posting bogus numbers that are acknowledged by the entire scientific community to be falsifications ON A NUMBER OF LEVELS.
None of the female mummies were tested positive for Y chromosomes (which would have been a red flag for contamination, as women don't carry Y chromosomes):
quote:All 8 females tested were negative for the examined polymorphic Y-chromosomal loci, un- derlining the specificity of the ap- proach.
--Hawass et al 2010
The males from this family, on the other hand, were tested positive for Y chromosomes, albeit that they were only able to get insight into two Y chromosomal loci (DYS393 and Y-GATA-H4). This is also expected, of course, because Y chromosomes are male only markers.
quote:The repeated search for hemi- zygous Y alleles in the males yielded few results, with differing success in the vari- ous markers contained in the multiplex PCR kit used.
--Hawass et al 2010
In fact, the Y chromosomal polymorphisms showed a pattern of a father/descendant/brother relationship where it was expected, based on pre-existing identifications of these mummies, and none where it was not expected (i.e., unrelated mummies that served as controls):
quote:Markers DYS393 and Y- GATA-H4 showed identical allele con- stellations (repeat motif located in the mi- crosatellite allele reiterated 13 and 11 times, respectively) in Amenhotep III, KV55, and Tutankhamun but different allelotypes in the nonrelated CCG61065 sample from TT320 (9 and 9, respec- tively. Syngeneic Y-chromosomal DNA in the 3 former mummies indicates that they share the same paternal lineage
--Hawass et al 2010
Moreover, the above was reproduced several times in one lab, and then reproduced independently in the other lab. The Y chromosome results also differed from the Hawass 2010 investigators:
quote:These results were repeatedly ob- tained with DNA extracted from 2 to 4 different biopsies per mummy; more- over, they differed from the Y profiles of the male laboratory staff and were inde- pendently reproduced twice in a sec- ond laboratory physically isolated from the first, data-generating laboratory.
--Hawass et al 2010
Contamination? Contamination my ass!
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ I didn't even bother to read cachibatche's post until I read Swenet's response. The idiot actually talks about Y-chromosomes in females! LMAOH
As for your question, it isn't stupid at all. DNA testing on mummies was banned until Hawass and JAMA conducted their tests in 2010. Their results were published for all to see so DNA Tribes just took what they saw and ran it in their program.
The STR patterns are like those most common today among Sub-Saharans and those of Ramses III suggests his SNP was E1b1a. So now the Euronuts attack the same DNA Tribes they use to praise.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ I didn't even bother to read cachibatche's post until I read Swenet's response. The idiot actually talks about Y-chromosomes in females! LMAOH
As for your question, it isn't stupid at all. DNA testing on mummies was banned until Hawass and JAMA conducted their tests in 2010. Their results were published for all to see so DNA Tribes just took what they saw and ran it in their program.
The STR patterns are like those most common today among Sub-Saharans and those of Ramses III suggests his SNP was E1b1a. So now the Euronuts attack the same DNA Tribes they use to praise.
The Eurofcks are a funny bunch though...
They claim DNAtribes is flawed yet they ran around(and STILL DO) saying King Tut was R1b, which is shared with Western Europeans. Which was based off a screenshot like you have stated.
But its STILL a lose-lose for them. They seem to have memory loss and forget that that R1b is of ASIAN origins and that it was introduced to not only Europe but also Africa.
R1b arose in Asia and entered both Africa and Europe through Asiatic migrations into those continents.
R1b in Europe = Asia > Europe migration R1b in Africa = Asia > Africa migration
So again its a lose-lose for them.
Again ''R1b1a2'' came into Africa through Asiatic migrations (Asia-Africa back migrations) not through Europeans. So that simply means King Tut's paternal linage shares common ancestry with ''Up to 70 percent of British men and half of all Western European men'' paternal linage. Not that he descends from any Europeans as some Eurocentrics try to spin it. http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/08/01/oukoe-uk-britain-tutankhamun-dna-idUKTRE7704OR20110801
posted
R-M269 is not Asian. R-V88 was NOT introduced from outside Africa. Please keep up...Cruciani was proven wrong in a later study.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ R-V88 is definitely African regardless of its precursors as Africa is where it is solely found. Underived R1* and even R* is found in (hinterland) West Africa suggesting that R either originated in the continent OR if it did originate in Eurasia it did so very close to Africa likely Southwest Asia since Oman has the highest frequency of R1 in Asia at least last time I checked in the Luis, Underhill, et ales. 2004 study 'Horn vs. the Levant'.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ R-V88 is definitely African regardless of its precursors as Africa is where it is solely found. Underived R1* and even R* is found in (hinterland) West Africa suggesting that R either originated in the continent OR if it did originate in Eurasia it did so very close to Africa likely Southwest Asia since Oman has the highest frequency of R1 in Asia at least last time I checked in the Luis, Underhill, et ales. 2004 study 'Horn vs. the Levant'.
^Not sure if that's in line with the data. As far as I know, inner African R Y chromosomes that aren't the result of common era migration (e.g., colonial times) are all characterised by the V88 mutation and they coalesce to the mid-holocene. I don't think any of it falls into M173* or M207* proper.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
You do pleasantly suprise me Lioness and show some brilliance. I don't know about you? But great point. The time tells us. ..what?
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Looking at the DNATribes article I noticed something not mentioned in the article:
bantu Expansion 1000 BC to c. AD 500
Tutankhamun 1341 BC - 1323
__________________________________________
But I'm not sure how this plays out. If you look at the various regions listed one would have to consider that modern people in all these regions listed may not have lived in those regions in the Amarna period. The Bantu expansion is thought to originated in Cameroon, West Africa. Therefore if I'm not mistaken modern people listed on the chart as "South African" may have at the time of the Amarna been West African. The DNATribes article they did not have Khosian samples so that when they said "South African" when that article came out they meant primarily bantu. -and these Bantu would have been in West Africa at the time. (They have recently added specific Khosian data) In 1713, an estimated 90 percent of the Khoisan population is thought to have been wiped out by smallpox. Today to a large extent they are a mixed people, primarily with Bantu.
A question that might come out of this is how similar genetically are modern bantu South Africans to modern West Africans?
what happened after the Amarna>
Bantu Expansion
1 = 2000–1500 BC origin 2 = ca.1500 BC first migrations 2.a = Eastern Bantu, 2.b = Western Bantu 3 = 1000–500 BC Urewe nucleus of Eastern Bantu 4–7 = southward advance 9 = 500 BC–0 Congo nucleus 10 = 0–1000 AD last phase
____________________________________________
Pre-expansion demography
Before the expansion of farming and herding peoples, including those speaking Bantu languages, Africa south of the equator was populated by hunting and foraging people.
Central Africa Groups ancestral to the modern Central African forest peoples (so-called Pygmies), called the Batwa, inhabited this part of Africa prior to the Bantu expansion. Many Batwa groups now speak Bantu languages. However, a considerable portion of their vocabulary is not Bantu in origin. Much of this vocabulary is botanical, deals with honey collecting, or is otherwise specialized for the forest and is shared between western Batwa groups. It has been proposed that this is the remnant of an independent western Batwa (Mbenga or "Baaka") language.
Considerable evidence exists that shows that it was these forest people who taught the Bantu animal husbandry, domesticated bananas (the first domesticated crop), and metallurgy. Western cultures rarely acknowledge the contributions of this extremely important group of early humans. Without metallurgy and the domestication of plants and animals, no civilization known to exist would have been able to do so. The term "pygmy" is a racist term assigned to these people by Europeans.
Southern Africa Proto-Khoisan-speaking peoples, whose few modern hunter-forager and linguistic descendants today occupy the arid regions around the Kalahari desert. Many more Khoekhoe and San descendants have a Coloured identity in South Africa and Namibia, speaking Afrikaans and English.
Eastern Africa The Hadza and Sandawe-speaking populations in Tanzania, whose languages are proposed by many to have a distant relationship to khoi-khoi and San languages, comprise the other modern hunter-forager remnant in Africa. (Other scholars dispute the hypothesis that the Khoisan languages are a single family, and the name is simply used for convenience.)
Parts of what now is present-day Kenya and Tanzania were also primarily inhabited by agropastoralist Cushitic speakers from the Horn of Africa followed by a later wave of Nilo-Saharan herders. The presence of food-producing peoples to the northeast halted the Bantu expansion in this zone of serious cultural resistance.
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is really not reason to entertain any arguments about King tut R-M269. That argument is dead in the water. What I think people are not paying attention too thought is the lack of comparison of the Mummies profiles in modern day specific groups.
Look at the MLI scrores for instance. King tut is over 100 times more likely to have a profile found in Southern and Central Africa than in Arabia.
African American sample has an Angolan score of 47 THOUSAND when compared to specific groups.
The point is the MLI scores are a lot HIGHER when looking at "Your High Resolution Global Population Match Results" vs "High Resolution World Region Match Results".
DNA tribes did not do the Global matches. Not sure why. I emailed them on it.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^They had 22 markers to analyse for the African American person, so they could pinpoint to specific African nations. Probably also explains the higher MLI scores. More analysed loci = more discriminative power. See table 3:
posted
Also they didn't list Egypt sub populations such as Copts and Siwa, not even Egypt alone but as "Levantine". DNA Consultants said Copts had some of the highest affinity with AE
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^They had 22 markers to analyse for the African American person, so they could pinpoint to specific African nations. Probably also explains the higher MLI scores. More analysed loci = more discriminative power. See table 3:
True. I am sure this is it. I guess the question is would their software simply not work with such few markers?
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think its very much like mtDNA motifs. If a motif has too little data you can't determine precise haplotype matches and may have to settle with a general macrohaplogroup, like 'L3' (even though that person's haplogroup may be super derived). I think 8 STR loci do just that; getting the overall wider regional affinity right, and getting past the point of coincidental relationships. Then, the more loci one adds, the more informative the results become.
Makes sense to me as it explains the bizarre continent-wide match likelihoods. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever, as we know via Tishkoff 2009 that STR diversity in Africa is huge. It makes sense, however, if you see it as pan African heritage that every African population has via the primordial populations they all have as their ancestors. DNAconsultants also confirmed this by tagging dates pre-OOA dates to some of the alleles. In this scenario, South Africa simply peaks high in MLI score because it better preserves high frequencies of the alleles, not because of any special ties to Ancient Egyptians.
This is just my hunch, but I think that if we were able to test Egyptian STR genetic material the other way around (meaning, testing what African population's STR alleles occur in Ancient Egyptians), we'd get a totally different picture, with Sahel, Horn and Sudanic specific STR polymorphisms going through the roof, and Southern and perhaps also Western African specific STR polymorphisms appearing at rather low frequencies. Ramses III's E-V38 is not West African specific, neither are most Horner E-V38 Y Chromosomes. The Horners in DNA Tribes' database probably only have low MLI scores because they're not very representative of the original Afrasan speakers after the influx of Semitic speakers 3kya. However, the proto-Afrasan specific STR polymorphisms Horners still have, albeit at reduced frequencies, would probably peak in Ancient Egyptians.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: I think its very much like mtDNA motifs. If a motif has too little data you can't determine precise haplotype matches and may have to settle with a general macrohaplogroup, like 'L3' (even though that person's haplogroup may be super derived). I think 8 STR loci do just that; getting the overall wider regional affinity right, and getting past the point of coincidental relationships. Then, the more loci one adds, the more informative the results become.
Makes sense to me as it explains the bizarre continent-wide match likelihoods. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever, as we know via Tishkoff 2009 that STR diversity in Africa is huge. It makes sense, however, if you see it as pan African heritage that every African population has via the primordial populations they all have as their ancestors. DNAconsultants also confirmed this by tagging dates pre-OOA dates to some of the alleles. In this scenario, South Africa simply peaks high in MLI score because it better preserves high frequencies of the alleles, not because of any special ties to Ancient Egyptians.
This is just my hunch, but I think that if we were able to test Egyptian STR genetic material the other way around (meaning, testing what African population's STR alleles occur in Ancient Egyptians), we'd get a totally different picture, with Sahel, Horn and Sudanic specific STR polymorphisms going through the roof, and Southern and perhaps also Western African specific STR polymorphisms appearing at rather low frequencies. Ramses III's E-V38 is not West African specific, neither are most Horner E-V38 Y Chromosomes. The Horners in DNA Tribes' database probably only have low MLI scores because they're not very representative of the original Afrasan speakers after the influx of Semitic speakers 3kya. However, the proto-Afrasan specific STR polymorphisms Horners still have, albeit at reduced frequencies, would probably peak in Ancient Egyptians.
As usual for him or her, Swenet tries to explain away the DNA results instead of taking them into account. That poster is still shocked about all the new DNA results that doesn't agree with his preconception about the origin of Ancient Egyptians. Like the match to Southern Africa, Great Lakes and Tropical West Africa above, Ramses III being E1b1a or even the L3 results.
It comes to the reason that if more markers were to be used, it would pin-point the results towards people within populations having the highest MLI scores not outside of them. While the "global" MLI scores would be even higher. So, for example, more than 8 markers would pin-point populations within Southern, Great Lakes and Tropical West Africans populations. While the MLI scores for those population groups would be even higher.
We all know that Southern Africans and Great Lakes African weren't at their current location during the formative years of Ancient Egypt. The Bantu migration postdate by many millennium the Ancient Egyptian formative years. It's a well known fact that many Southern African Bantu groups can trace their ancestry to migration from the Great Lakes region for example.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since I'm here, I will give my most plausible theory about Ancient Egyptian origin, its linkage with the rest of African people, taking into account all the genetic, anthropological, linguistic and other scientific data.
Before the formative years of Ancient Egypt, most modern tall African ancestors used to live in the Green Sahara region (from the Atlantic to Eastern Africa). That's where most Africans (including Ancient Egyptians of course) share the same ancestry.
When the Sahara dried up to become a desert again, populations living in the Green Sahara moved toward the Nile, oases and other regions of Africa in search of greener pastures. In the Nile they came to create the great Ancient Egyptians and Kushite civilizations. While in other regions they formed eventually Ghana, Yoruba, Bunyoro Kitara, Kongo, Great Zimbabwe, Zulu and other kingdoms.
So that's it.
While modern Africans are not direct descendants of Ancient Egyptians, they share with them some of the same ancestors who used to live in the Green Sahara region. That's why aDNA from Ancient Egyptian mummies matches African groups all over Africa.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bottom line: Ramses III's E-V38 haplotype hasn't been found in West, Central and Southern Africa, despite the wealth E-V38 samples from those regions that have been mapped out so far.
Bottom line: you rely on a skewed picture painted by DNA Tribes' MLI scores; the Ancient populations that would have roamed the Sahara are not included in DNA Tribes' database. You have no idea of knowing whether the Southern African and Great Lakes regions scores are relatively low, relatively moderate or relatively high, because you have no reference point.
Bottom line: you still don't understand that MLI scores are not admixture percentages and cannot be used to say so and so are admixed with Ancient Egyptians because they have relatively high MLI scores.
Bottom line: most of the Sub-Saharan African haplotypes that have a long history in Egypt are rare and/or not close matches with those in Sub-Saharan Africa outside of the Horn. Instead they are shared with Afro-Asiatic speakers, as demonstrated by Boatini et al, Stevanovitch et al and Salas et al.
Start addressing these pertinent matters before you start b!tching about any perceived bias on my part.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ I agree with Swenet. There have been many population movements in Africa since the early dynastic times of Egypt. We know that Bantu originated in West Africa NOT in the Great Lakes region or Southern Africa, though no doubt there were pre-Bantu populations residing there. It's pretty much conclusive that the ancient Egyptian ancestry or genetic relation lies among peoples of the Saharan region as well as the Sudan and Horn. The Great Lakes region lies just south of the Sudan so no doubt are there very ancient populations who share ancestry with the Egyptians.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Makes sense to me as it explains the bizarre continent-wide match likelihoods. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever, as we know via Tishkoff 2009 that STR diversity in Africa is huge. It makes sense, however, if you see it as pan African heritage that every African population has via the primordial populations they all have as their ancestors. DNAconsultants also confirmed this by tagging dates pre-OOA dates to some of the alleles. In this scenario, South Africa simply peaks high in MLI score because it better preserves high frequencies of the alleles, not because of any special ties to Ancient Egyptians.
Indeed, I've always suspected that the OOA or even pre-OOA dates for these alleles is why you get all these alleged 'Eurasian' affinities that lyinass loves to post such as the example of Somalis.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yep. Australians back migrating to East Africa...
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ I agree with Swenet. There have been many population movements in Africa since the early dynastic times of Egypt. We know that Bantu originated in West Africa NOT in the Great Lakes region or Southern Africa, though no doubt there were pre-Bantu populations residing there.
Many Bantu groups moved from West Africa to East Africa and the Great Lakes region then toward Southern Africa. So many Southern African Bantu groups can trace some of their relatively recent origin to Eastern Africa and the Great Lakes region. Which would explain why Southern Africans and Great Lakes Africans match Ancient Egyptian aDNA more than any other populations on earth.
Much before the Bantu migration, Tropical West Africa (among other regions of Africa) already received influx of people ("tall" Africans) from the Sahara/Sahel/Nile region before and after the dessication of the Green Sahara. Most modern African languages groups can trace their origin in the Sudan/East African regions. For example, Niger-Kordofanian languages (Niger-Congo (Yoruba, Wolof, etc), Bantu) can trace their origin around the Sudan region.
quote: It's pretty much conclusive that the ancient Egyptian ancestry or genetic relation lies among peoples of the Saharan region as well as the Sudan and Horn. [/QB]
Yes. Ancient Egyptian ancestry lies among people of the Ancient Saharan region as well as Ancient Sudan and Horn. Since that time, there's been a lot of movements, migration, invasions, admixture, etc.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic