Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
You are a breying ass aren't you? Arguing against a full forensic match not just individual alleles but the exact same allele pairs.
You're incompetent and dismissed because you pooh pooh anything that destroys your a priori beliefs.
Swedes haes the Shorty marker. Does that make them closer to Pygmies than they are to other Scandinavians?
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Come on Sage. Get off the “proprietary” band wagon. What DNATribes is doing is not rocket science. Anyone with a computer and a database of world populations can do what they are doing. What do you think popafflaitor is? All they are doing is taking matching STRs/SNPs from world populations and grouping them together on the world map. They are constantly updating their database and the geopolitical map. They started off with typical Eurocentric labels but notice they have evolved. You should also. If we don’t grow ……we rot. To answer Swenet question he doesn’t realize that popAfflliator has LARGE groups/classification(SSA/North Africa) rather than significant smaller(tribes) classification like DNATribes. Yes, DNATribes have it down to the actual tribes rather than generic “SSA”. What the clown do not understand or will not acknowledge is that FTDNA also classify ALL of these STRs(Amarnas) as significantly African. Is FTDNA cheating also? Using proprietary algorithms? Lol! SMH. Why do I bother? You people!!!
So BOTH DNAConsultants and DNATribes are wrong? SMH
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Look it JR I started the proprietary bandwagon
Neither those profiteering companies data is vetted where they have it from paying customers, no checks in place to eliminate relatives or assure ethnicity in the least and Consultants is really a big joke throwing anti-scienve phraseology around to wow potential suckers er um uh customers
Stop talking **** I did the hard work by hand for myself using popSTR and actual studies/reports cited by Swenet aand Beyoku for Upper Egypt Sudan and Somalia. It overturned results I got years ago and I accepted the results because I'm not a zealous dogmatic ideolog pushing a subject tive agenda who thinks he's aalways right and wants a dollar to pat his own back
You got game but this ain't demogogics.
You got no data and this is about the forensics
I couldn't give a good **** for your gobbledygook.
Do some hard work like me and present it here otherwise shut the **** up
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
the answer is below. Because Berbers and San are older thus has closer link to Native Americans, It is all falling into place like a puzzle.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: [] Poznik et al 2016 Understand what I am saying. Most modern SSA are E1b1a.(not including San-120ky, Pygmy-90ky and Berbers-35ky) Many Asians are O*@~40ky. So yes. Asian lineage is older than most modern Africans. Other recent studies have confirmed E1b1a and R1b-M269-L11 is relatively young. ~6kyo and ~4kyo respectively. Berber lineage are much much older E-M35-M81. Poznik et al wasn't the only study that confirmed that. It all makes sense. That E1b1a was the new emerging dominant species in Africa occupying the Nile and spreading to West Africa morphing and displacing older Africa populations. When aDNA explodes in West Africa. Do NOT expect to find E1b1a amongst the remains. They are new to West Africa because the Bantu Expansion NEVER occurred. [/QB]
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: In fact you know what? I will let the newbies have first dibs on answering the question.
Translation:
[
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nice try gramps. Try again. Why is there no abundance of Great Lakes and South African ancestry in early Greek and Anatolian farmers who are KNOWN to carry ancient Egyptian ancestry?
quote:Against this background of disease, movement and pedomorphic reduction of body size (Table 2, 3) one can identify Negroid (Ethiopic or Bushmanoid?) traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters (McCown, 1939) and in Anatolian and Macedonian first farmers (Angel, 1972), probably from Nubia (Anderson, 1969) via the unknown predecessors of Badarians (Morant, 1935) and Tasians . . . .
posted
WTF Are you talking about? what Anatolian or Greek carrying AEian ancestry? did you make that up again? yes, EEF were Negroid we all know that. But what does that have to do with AEian ancestry. your information is all jumbled up in your head. put the goddamn bong down. come up for fresh air.
the ONLY TWO RELEASED genetic study has AEians aligning with SSA. you know something I don't?
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Nice try gramps. Try again. Why is there no abundance of Great Lakes and South African ancestry in early Greek and Anatolian farmers who are KNOWN to carry ancient Egyptian ancestry?
quote:Against this background of disease, movement and pedomorphic reduction of body size (Table 2, 3) one can identify Negroid (Ethiopic or Bushmanoid?) traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters (McCown, 1939) and in Anatolian and Macedonian first farmers (Angel, 1972), probably from Nubia (Anderson, 1969) via the unknown predecessors of Badarians (Morant, 1935) and Tasians . . . .
—Angel 1972
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's that cognitive dissonance talking again. Gramps is fuming right now.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: But what does that have to do with AEian ancestry.
Uhm. You mean other than the fact that E-M78 so far is second in line as far as consistency among early EEF Y-DNA that is unambiguously NOT of regional hunter gatherer origin? Bronze Age Armenian RISE423 also has EEF-like ancestry, along with Y DNA E-M34. Where do you think E-M78 and E-M34 come from? South Africa? Jupiter?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
:rolleyes:
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: Indeed, Gobekli Tepe sits at the northern edge of the Fertile Crescent—an arc of mild climate and arable land from the Persian Gulf to present-day Lebanon, Israel, Jordan and Egypt—and would have attracted hunter-gatherers from Africa and the Levant.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Nice try gramps. Try again. Why is there no abundance of Great Lakes and South African ancestry in early Greek and Anatolian farmers who are KNOWN to carry ancient Egyptian ancestry?
quote:Against this background of disease, movement and pedomorphic reduction of body size (Table 2, 3) one can identify Negroid (Ethiopic or Bushmanoid?) traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters (McCown, 1939) and in Anatolian and Macedonian first farmers (Angel, 1972), probably from Nubia (Anderson, 1969) via the unknown predecessors of Badarians (Morant, 1935) and Tasians . . . .
—Angel 1972
Swenet, do you have more info on Natufian industries and assemblage.
quote:Ofer Bar-Yosef cites the microburin technique and “microlithic forms such as arched backed bladelets and La Mouillah points" as well as the parthenocarpic figs found in Natufian territory originated in the Sudan.
--Bar-Yosef O., Pleistocene connections between Africa and South West Asia: an archaeological perspective. The African Archaeological Review; Chapter 5, pg 29-38; Kislev ME, Hartmann A, Bar-Yosef O, Early domesticated fig in the Jordan Valley. Nature 312:1372–1374.
quote:Christopher Ehret noted that the intensive use of plants among the Natufians was first found in Africa, as a precursor to the development of farming in the Fertile Crescent.
--Ehret (2002) The Civilizations of Africa: A History to 1800. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia
quote:The Natufians existed in the Mediterranean region of the Levant 15,000 to 11,500 years ago. Dr. Grosman suggests this grave could point to ideological shifts that took place due to the transition to agriculture in the region at that time.
Building on and refining stone tool typologies from North Africa,21,22 the foundation for EP research in the Levant was provided by O. Bar-Yosef23 in his seminal work identifying and defining EP cultures of the southern Levant based on these tools and other site features.
[...]
Early models of culture change associated with pre-agricultural societies of the Levant focused on the sudden, late origin of settled farming villages triggered by climate change. Accompanying this new economic and living situation was durable stone-built architecture; intensified plant and animal use; a flourishing of art and decoration; new mortuary traditions, including marked graves and cemeteries; elaborate ritual and symbolic behavior— a new way of life. This new life style arguably had a slow start, but really took off during the Epipaleolithic period (EP), spanning more than 10,000 years of Levantine prehistory from c. 23,000-11,500 cal BP. The last EP phase, immediately preceding the Neolithic, is by far the best-studied in terms of its cultural and economic contributions to questions on the origins of agriculture.
[...]
Figure 2 presents globally and locally recognized climatic events from 23,000 to 11,500 cal BP and the approximate dates for major EP phases.
[...]
In 2000, McBrearty and Brooks provided compelling evidence that the origin of modern human behavior was not an Upper Palaeolithic revolution, as it has often been interpreted, but that the components of modern human behavior developed over tens or even hundreds of thousands of years of prehistory within Africa.14 In the Near East, Gordon Childe coined the term ‘‘Neolithic revolution’’ to refer to the development of human control over the reproduction and evolution of plants and animals,111 which arguably was the single most significant social, cultural, and biological transition since the origin of our species.
--LISA A. MAHER, TOBIAS RICHTER, AND JAY T. STOCK
Evolutionary Anthropology 21:69–81 (2012)
The Pre-Natufian Epipaleolithic: Long-Term Behavioral Trends in the Levant
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: This is what cognitive dissonance looks like. Gramps can't seem to make up his mind about whether he wants to run or call me out for "spinning".
But where is the abundance of blue Yoruba-like ancestry in the early Greek and Anatolian samples. You know, the same samples that everyone on this forum agreed were partly descended from migrants from the NIle Valley. Gramps?
According to Yoruba history they left the Sudan in the Predynastic age.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Examining STRs not SNPs 8 of the CODIS Core STRs used precisely because they point out ethnic and geographic affinity.
Numerous articles report efficacy of certain locus values and allele values as markers. No pioneering on my part there.
And the below was posted in evidence of allele discrimination power
Can you refresh that image it's not showing
Posts: 11 | From: New York | Registered: Aug 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Thanks to lioness' pic (which captures a good deal of UP European cranio-facial variation) I can convey the point I've been making throughout this thread, better.
UP Europeans (left) and holocene Nile Valley Africans (right)
^Based on eyeballing, the African one in the middle (in the right hand pic) shows a good degree of general resemblance to two of the UP European ones. The two other African ones also show resemblances to the UP Europeans, but more in isolated parts of their faces, mandibles and neurocrania. In the ancestors of these North Africans the relationships would be even more obvious.
Note how, every time I bring this up, Doug keeps skirting around the fact that these two sets would show a lot of general overlap to the exclusion of most Sub-Saharan populations when subjected to PCA.
Doug also keeps skirting around the fact that this EMPIRICAL FACT plays a role in Eurocentric appropriation. Doug is simply lying at this point and trying to keep his self-victimization narrative from getting blown to smithereens.
I know I am responding to an old post, but while I understand the general point you are making about the Saharan relationship to OOAs, don't OOA populations also include East Asians, Australasians, Melanesians, and other populations not generally considered "Caucasoid"? I don't know if ancestral Saharans would necessarily be biologically closer to UP Europeans than those other OOAs. Any special affinity between Saharans and "Caucasoids" that's not present in other OOAs must have come after the UP via "Basal Eurasian".
Again, I get what you are saying about Saharan affinities vis-a-vis OOA. But I wonder why you chose to single out UP Europeans for your comparison when they're not the only OOAs that descend from Saharans.
EDIT: Never mind, I see you were referencing a picture lioness posted, which made me think you simply picked what was handy in the thread to make your point. Who knows, maybe you would have used East Asian or Melanesian crania if she had posted those instead.
Posts: 7083 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
East Asia, South Asia and Oceania had MSA OOA people still roaming there. That's why some of their UP remains have more affinity with MP Levant skeletal remains in some analyses than UP skeletal remains in West Eurasia do. This is the main reason why MRT took hold in the first place. You got all these UP skeletal remains and lithics east of the Iranian plateau that show more continuity with preceding groups than is the case in UP West Eurasia, where you can clearly see new groups arriving on the scene alongside Neanderthals and other archaic humans.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: East Asia, South Asia and Oceania had MSA OOA people still roaming there. That's why some of their remains have more affinity with MP Levant skeletal remains in some analyses than skeletal remains in West Eurasia do. This is the main reason why MRT took hold in the first place. You got all these UP skeletal remains and lithics east of the Iranian Plateau that show more continuity with preceding groups than is the case in UP West Eurasia, where you can clearly see new groups arriving on the scene alongside Neanderthals.
I see. Thanks for clearing that up.
Posts: 7083 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Remember this rope tugging? They don't understand that they're both right. Pre-Toba modern humans are MSA OOA people, post Toba modern humans are UP (and LSA) OOA people.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Remember this rope tugging? They don't understand that they're both right. Pre-Toba modern humans are MSA OOA people, post Toba modern humans are UP (and LSA) OOA people.
Wait, wait, I am confused again. Are you saying East Asians, Oceanians etc. are descended from MSA OOAs whereas West Eurasians are sourced from later UP/LSA migrants? Because this post seems to be saying that while there were MSA people who had migrated from Africa pre-Toba, all OOAs today are descended from post-Toba.
Posts: 7083 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
What part of the article says that all modern people descend from post-Toba, even in the younger theory? The way I see it, the article mentions two competing theories; they are mutually exclusive. They don't converge when it comes to placing the origin of living humans in post-Toba migrants in the region. Exponents of the younger theory downplay the importance of these new UP arrivals or even deny the migration of new UP people.
#1 "In 2005, Professor Martin Richards from the University of Huddersfield led research which used mitochondrial DNA evidence to show that anatomically modern humans dispersed from their Africa homeland via a ‘southern coastal route’ from the Horn and through Arabia, about 60,000 years ago – after the Toba eruption.
There were people in India before the Toba eruption, because there are stone tools there, but they could have been Neanderthals – or some other pre-modern population.”
#2 "However, archaeologists excavating in India then claimed to have found evidence that modern humans were there before the eruption – possibly as early as 120,000 years ago, much earlier than Europe or the Near East were colonized. These findings, based on the discovery of stone tools below a layer of Toba ash, were published in 2007."
Without the DNA of people like the Nubian complex and seemingly related MSA people further east, we don't know how much of their DNA was inherited by living humans in this region. We also don't know how much they differed from us in their autosomal ancestry.
When I said that western Eurasian UP skeletal remains as a whole seem better representatives of the first African UP OOA people I was strictly talking about AMHs, not living humans. As shown by Oase I, surprises in the DNA (and therefore, skeletal morphology) of UP individuals don't have to have implications for the living people in the same region. Some of AMHs in Australia clearly do look more like Qafzeh people and both of these differ noticeably from typical UP West Eurasians, like, say, Cro Magnon I or Mladec 5. That's why I, for instance, wouldn't use UP Australians in a picture comparison to illustrate that point I was making.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I posted something, but nvr mind. See my uploads n posts on this subject on the FB group for more info.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Remember this rope tugging? They don't understand that they're both right. Pre-Toba modern humans are MSA OOA people, post Toba modern humans are UP (and LSA) OOA people.
Wait, wait, I am confused again. Are you saying East Asians, Oceanians etc. are descended from MSA OOAs whereas West Eurasians are sourced from later UP/LSA migrants? Because this post seems to be saying that while there were MSA people who had migrated from Africa pre-Toba, all OOAs today are descended from post-Toba.
You have (re-)read this.
Jibril Hirbo, Sara Tishkoff et al.
The Episode of Genetic Drift Defining the Migration of Humans out of Africa Is Derived from a Large East African Population Size
PLoS One. 2014; 9(5): e97674. Published online 2014 May 20. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0097674
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: What part of the article says that all modern people descend from post-Toba, even in the younger theory? The way I see it, the article mentions two competing theories; they are mutually exclusive. They don't converge when it comes to placing the origin of living humans in post-Toba migrants in the region. Exponents of the younger theory downplay the importance of these new UP arrivals or even deny the migration of new UP people.
#1 "In 2005, Professor Martin Richards from the University of Huddersfield led research which used mitochondrial DNA evidence to show that anatomically modern humans dispersed from their Africa homeland via a ‘southern coastal route’ from the Horn and through Arabia, about 60,000 years ago – after the Toba eruption.
There were people in India before the Toba eruption, because there are stone tools there, but they could have been Neanderthals – or some other pre-modern population.”
#2 "However, archaeologists excavating in India then claimed to have found evidence that modern humans were there before the eruption – possibly as early as 120,000 years ago, much earlier than Europe or the Near East were colonized. These findings, based on the discovery of stone tools below a layer of Toba ash, were published in 2007."
Without the DNA of people like the Nubian complex and seemingly related MSA people further east, we don't know how much of their DNA was inherited by living humans in this region. We also don't know how much they differed from us in their autosomal ancestry.
When I said that western Eurasian UP skeletal remains as a whole seem better representatives of the first African UP OOA people I was strictly talking about AMHs, not living humans. As shown by Oase I, surprises in the DNA (and therefore, skeletal morphology) of UP individuals don't have to have implications for the living people in the same region. Some of AMHs in Australia clearly do look more like Qafzeh people and both of these differ noticeably from typical UP West Eurasians, like, say, Cro Magnon I or Mladec 5. That's why I, for instance, wouldn't use UP Australians in a picture comparison to illustrate that point I was making.
I thought that the younger theory, as paraphrased by that article, was claiming all modern OOAs are descended from a post-Toba migration out of Africa, and that the 120kya people weren't really AMHs or at least not significant in the ancestry of modern inhabitants of these regions.
But I get what you mean about the UP Europeans. Speaking of which, where would you say the modern suite of physical features (not counting skin pigmentation this time) associated with "Caucasoids" originated? Do you think the "Basal Eurasian" Saharans had anything to do with it, or would you trace its origin somewhere in Western Eurasia itself?
Posts: 7083 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's a good question. Because many Mesolithic Europeans would have looked 'ethnic' as some Europeans put it (see for instance Cheddar Man or Moca see link see link here). Even Coon admits that some later UP Europeans look like Amerindians. So, they start out looking like generalized and robust predynastic Egypto-Nubians and start to change in what can be called a 'Polynesian' or 'Amerindian' direction. Or at least some late UP Europeans do. So based on this you can already tell that if Europe would have remained isolated like Australia, they probably wouldn't have had the 'European' look as it exists today.
Ideally, people should refer to such derived OOA regional developments as 'Caucasian'. Because anything ancestral to that and you're going back in the (North) African direction and later than this and you get more African ancestry into Europe in the form of early farming colonists. These derived European types are the indigenous Europeans in my way of seeing things. It's when Europeans had reached their peak in terms of looking distinctive (compared to their OOA ancestors) as a result of evolutionary developments on European soil.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [QB] That's a good question. Because many Mesolithic Europeans would have looked 'ethnic' as some Europeans put it (see for instance Cheddar Man or Moca see link see link here). Even Coon admits that some later UP Europeans look like Amerindians.
Forgot to mention Loschbour, one of the best examples of this because we actually have his DNA. Therefore, we can tell that this 'ethnic' look I'm speaking of was the evolutionary direction some European groups were heading in and not brought in from outside of Europe. Compare Loschbour to the images of 'ideal Caucasian skulls' touted by Nazi Germany and other white supremacist publications which contrasted this morphotype with the 'ideal negro'. The irony...
It would be interesting to see where a sample made up of Moča, Loschbour, Cheddar Man, Chancelade etc. would fit in PCA. I bet they wouldn't cluster far from aforementioned groups in the Pacific.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
You've mentioned that dynastic Lower Egyptians, as per Irish and Keita, would have been physically more heterogeneous than their Upper Egyptian counterparts, almost like ancient Maghrebis. I do think some of this could represent greater Eurasian ancestry like you see in extant Horn Africans (and certainly very late dynastic Egyptians were admixed), but another factor that occurred to me is "Basal Eurasian".
Presumably these dynastic Lower Egyptians shared common descent with the "Basal Eurasian" people who contributed to Neolithic Eurasian ancestry, even more so than people down in Upper Egypt. So maybe some of the "European" or "intermediate" physiognomies in dynastic Lower Egypt might be partly descended from the immediate common ancestors of "Basal Eurasian"? To be sure, this would require the assumption that Upper Egyptians always looked slightly different from the northerners, either due to gradation between them and Nubia/Sudan or due to native diversity among Eastern Saharans. Am I making sense here?
posted
There are clues about the main source of this heterogeneity in Zakrzewski 2002. I probably uploaded the paper to the FB group. If not, let me know and I'll send it to you.
Sonia Zakrzewski (2002), Exploring Migration and Population Boundaries in Ancient Egypt: A Craniometric Case Study.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Why is recommended to use caucasian but verboten to use black? SimonSez.
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Why is recommended to use caucasian but verboten to use black? SimonSez.
because Negroid and Mongoloid are the similar type of terms, assuming "Caucasian" is acceptable
Posts: 42937 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Glyde uses "oid' all over the place, has no problems with it, but If you prefer to leave it out and "Caucasian" is acceptable to you then use "Caucasian, Negro, Mongol"
Posts: 42937 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Glyde uses "oid' all over the place, has no problems with it, but If you prefer to leave it out and "Caucasian" is acceptable to you then use "Caucasian, Negro, Mongol"
So, now you take Clyde as credible?
Now you claim that Tukuler used it here? lol
Tukuler used the word BLACK. Negro is Spanish for black.
The word Caucasian deals with a region called the caucasus. Best for black/ negro is to use Ethiopian or Moor.
Αἰθίοψ , οπος, ὁ, fem. Αἰθιοπίς , ίδος, ἡ （Αἰθίοψ as fem., A.Fr.328, 329): pl.
A. “Αἰθιοπῆες” Il.1.423, whence nom. “Αἰθιοπεύς” Call.Del.208: (αἴθω, ὄψ):—properly, Burnt-face, i.e. Ethiopian, negro, Hom., etc.; prov., Αἰθίοπα σμήχειν 'to wash a blackamoor white', Luc.Ind. 28.
2. a fish, Agatharch.109.
II. Adj., Ethiopian, “Αἰθιοπὶς γλῶσσα” Hdt.3.19; “γῆ” A.Fr.300, E.Fr.228.4: Subst. Αἰθιοπίς, ἡ, title of Epic poem in the Homeric cycle; also name of a plant, silver sage, Salvia argentea, Dsc.4.104:— also Αἰθιόπιος , α, ον, E.Fr.349: Αἰθιοπικός , ή, όν, Hdt., etc.; Αἰ. κύμινον, = ἄμι, Hp.Morb.3.17, Dsc. 3.62:—Subst. Αἰθιοπία , ἡ, Hdt., etc. 2. red-brown, AP7.196 (Mel.), cf. Ach. Tat.4.5.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
why would he use the term "black" that is a color in relation to the word "Caucasian" which does not solely mean "white" ?
Do you understand that the two terms are not similar enough in type?
Stop being stupid, thanks
I have noticed you don't understand lot of nuances in discussions. You miss a lot of important details, To cover this up you do tons of copy and paste
Posts: 42937 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: why would he use the term "black" that is a color in relation to the word "Caucasian" which does not solely mean "white" ?
Do you understand that the two terms are not similar enough in type?
Stop being stupid, thanks
I have noticed you don't understand lot of nuances in discussions. You miss a lot of important details, To cover this up you do tons of copy and paste
Caucasian in essence did (and does) refer to being white, yep. Stop being stupid.
I have noticed in discussions that you're not a black person, but a subliminal racist who lies a lot. When tons of copy and paste material is giving you the L, left and right, you cry out loud then go into sarcasm again, as a response, typical for a comedian. I have also noticed about you, when people ask you for nuances, you can't response respond, except for the sarcasm that is. Take AL-Jahiz in this thread for example. lol
You are so dumb that you can't grasp that the word negro means black. IT IS A COLOR YOU AS YOU SAID, YOU LOON! "OID" gives it a supposed scientific connotation. lol
Here are the nuances, you love to gloss over:
Αἰθίοψ , οπος, ὁ, fem. Αἰθιοπίς , ίδος, ἡ （Αἰθίοψ as fem., A.Fr.328, 329): pl.
A. “Αἰθιοπῆες” Il.1.423, whence nom. “Αἰθιοπεύς” Call.Del.208: (αἴθω, ὄψ):—properly, Burnt-face, i.e. Ethiopian, negro, Hom., etc.; prov., Αἰθίοπα σμήχειν 'to wash a blackamoor white', Luc.Ind. 28.
2. a fish, Agatharch.109.
II. Adj., Ethiopian, “Αἰθιοπὶς γλῶσσα” Hdt.3.19; “γῆ” A.Fr.300, E.Fr.228.4: Subst. Αἰθιοπίς, ἡ, title of Epic poem in the Homeric cycle; also name of a plant, silver sage, Salvia argentea, Dsc.4.104:— also Αἰθιόπιος , α, ον, E.Fr.349: Αἰθιοπικός , ή, όν, Hdt., etc.; Αἰ. κύμινον, = ἄμι, Hp.Morb.3.17, Dsc. 3.62:—Subst. Αἰθιοπία , ἡ, Hdt., etc. 2. red-brown, AP7.196 (Mel.), cf. Ach. Tat.4.5.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Do you understand that the two terms are not similar enough in type?
So? As if Caucasian and Negro have similar sounding patterns. lol You dumb phuck. Then you cry out loud when people call you albino. And rant how you're going to kill people as a response to that? Perhaps you should change it into albinoid vs negroid. In nuances these have closer connotations.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: You miss a lot of important details, ...
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Caucasian in essence did (and does) refer to being white, yep.
Multi millions of Asians have skin as light as so called "white" people. Yet they are not classified as "Caucasian" so again, stop being incredibly stupid
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Caucasian in essence did (and does) refer to being white, yep.
Multi millions of Asians have skin as light as so called "white" people. Yet they are not classified as "Caucasian" so again, stop being incredibly stupid
thanks, lioness
More derailing, when you have no credible argument. LOL
quote:chiefly North American A white person; a person of European origin:
2A person from the Caucasus: the Caucasians of Southern Russia
Usage
In the racial classification developed by 19th-century anthropologists, Caucasian (or Caucasoid) included peoples whose skin colour ranged from light (in northern Europe) to dark (in parts of North Africa and India). Although the classification is outdated and the categories are now not generally accepted as scientific (see Mongoloid (usage)), the term Caucasian has acquired a more restricted meaning. It is now used, especially in the US, as a synonym for ‘white or of European origin’, as in the police are looking for a Caucasian male in his forties.
He delineated three races: Caucasians, Ethiopians, and Mongolians.
They are being called "yellow/ Orientals/ Mongolians ". lol
quote:In their earliest encounters with Asia, Europeans almost uniformly characterized the people of China and Japan as white. This was a means of describing their wealth and sophistication, their willingness to trade with the West, and their presumed capacity to become Christianized. But by the end of the seventeenth century the category of whiteness was reserved for Europeans only. When and how did Asians become "yellow" in the Western imagination? Looking at the history of racial thinking, Becoming Yellow explores the notion of yellowness and shows that this label originated not in early travel texts or objective descriptions, but in the eighteenth- and nineteenth-century scientific discourses on race.
posted
Jackass, you know nothing about anthropology. "Caucasian" in anthropology does not soley mean "very light skinned" It also involves morphology and geography. You are stupid as hell
Posts: 42937 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Jackass, you know nothing about anthropology. "Caucasian" in anthropology does not soley mean "very light skinned" It also involves morphology and geography. You are stupid as hell
LOL Expose your nazi theory, please go ahead. LOL "It also involves morphology and geography. "
Until you can prove that all these regions had the exact same morphology and metrical, you have no argument.
Perhaps you meant "biological or physical anthropology", anthropology itself is a field with many subcategories. Not too fond for someone who calls others stupid as hell. lol
You seem obsessed over this caca thing, especially for a "black American woman"
quote:
The fundamental subject matter of physical (or biological) anthropology is an interest in, and an exploration of, human origins and human variation. This interest dates back to antiquity, but professional writing on such topics might be said to have begun with the Enlightenment of the eighteenth century.
The Enlightenment was also a time when the concept of ‘race’ was formalized and various racial classification systems were proposed (Brace 2005: 22ff.). ‘Race’ as a typological characterization of human variation was to become a dominant theme in physical anthropology until the mid-twentieth century. Classification, an elemental building block of all sciences, was first conducted for humans by the great Swedish taxonomist Carl von Linné (also known as Linnaeus) (1707–78).
[...]
These analyses have also shown that to compartmentalize human variation into discrete groups called “races” is incorrect (Caspari, Chapter 6). While biological anthropologists have long recognized that biological variation in humans cannot be categorized, the race concept is alive and well, both in the public sphere and in various areas of scientific investigation.
[...]
Biological anthropologists have been especially sensitive to the issue of “race” (see Caspari, Chapter 6). They are well aware of the public perceptions of the social dimensions of race, and they address this issue and the focus on the identification of ancestry. While the term “race” is not always appropriate, forensic anthropologists have contrib- uted to understanding the underlying biological variation for ancestral identification. New methods are providing important tools for the identification of geographical origins, for instance stable isotope analysis and inferences drawn about the origins of the food and water ingested by the deceased (see this application in Chapter 21).
[...]
In the latter half of the nineteenth century, physical anthropology was dominated by studies of anatomy, craniology, skeletal biology, human origins, and race. Most of the physical anthropologists were trained as physicians or anatomists, and their primary data were gathered by anthropometric and osteometric measurements and morphological observations. There was little interest in evolution; races or human varieties were seen as fixed and unchanging; typological approaches were applied to concepts of race; studies seldom applied scientific methods of hypothesis testing; and knowledge of the impact of the environment on humans was limited. Much of the scientific activity during this period was taking place in Europe, particularly in England, France, and Germany. Charles R. Darwin’s (1809–82) publication of the Origin of Species in 1859 and his ideas about evolution brought about changes within the community of ethnologists and physical anthropologists.
The National Socialist Period (1933–45), which saw the rise of Adolf Hitler and Nazism, was, of course, marked by an obsession with ‘race’ and racial purity as well as by its own atrocities.
--Bradley A. Levinson (Editor), Mica Pollock (Editor)
posted
This is from 2012, the same year the liar Carlos Oliver Coke started approaching me for help in my PM inbox.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^That is because most of them probably have Horner (and 'Zanj') ancestry. There have been mtDNA studies where Yemeni's cluster with Horners before they cluster with other Eurasians. Arabian Vedda populations are a good example of indigenous black Arabs that don't owe their blackness to African admixture. There are undoubtedly other dark skinned Arabian populations whose dark skin predates African admixture, but good luck proving it without genetic analysis
Notice that my past use of black was in reference to skin pigmentation and referenced groups irrespective of 'race'. It has nothing to do with creating a kumbaya my lord by the campfire 'we are family' racial club including the Obamas and Colin Powells of the world while disowning Maghrebis with roughly the same amount of African ancestry. So, again, we see that Carlos Oliver Coke is a liar when he claims:
"B-b-but y-you and Djehuti also used black in the past. B-b-but when I do it, you pick on me"
Yeah, I used it. But as you very well know, being the big fat liar that you are, it had nothing to do with your racialized and politically motivated use of the term. To the best of my ability, I've always tried to stay away from the narrow layman use and other uses of the term (though I acknowledge that they exist). And it's because of lying looney toons like you, among other reasons, that I stopped using it.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bump in relation to the latest example of gramps being reduced to a dupe.
Shout outs to the people who do their homework beforehand and who know that Mallick et al 2016 can't be completely accurate for various reasons.
When academics disagree or when there is uncertainty, you can always see whether self-styled bs-detecting experts (i.e. xyyman) know what they're talking about because they support the wrong side.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: East Asia, South Asia and Oceania had MSA OOA people still roaming there. That's why some of their UP remains have more affinity with MP Levant skeletal remains in some analyses than UP skeletal remains in West Eurasia do. This is the main reason why MRT took hold in the first place. You got all these UP skeletal remains and lithics east of the Iranian plateau that show more continuity with preceding groups than is the case in UP West Eurasia, where you can clearly see new groups arriving on the scene alongside Neanderthals and other archaic humans.
And no, I don't agree with Pagani et al's conclusion that that's non-African ancestry. [/QB]
This is a good visualization of what I just said. Note that the Fst values drop along the path of Europe's farming colonists for the so-called non-African ancestry only (see fig 3B). In other words, the Fst values don't drop in Syrio-Palestine, Turkey and the Aegean with the so-called African + so-called non-African ancestry in the Ethiopian genomes because this ancestry is less like the Africans that out migrated and joined with the Natufians.
So, what we see here is evidence of an outmigration of Africans whose main African component has nothing to do with SSA ancestry. ALTHOUGH, they would have had a degree of SSA ancestry in addition to this main component that is painted REDDISH in figure 3B.
Also, some SSA populations today might have this component to a degree. But as you can see in the study in question (Pagani et al 2012) and others, this ancestry is not common in SSA. It still exists in the Sahara, though, although it's nowadays mixed with the same ancestry from descendants of EEF from Europe. So, not all 'Basal Eurasian' in Africa is pure and it's not always easy to identify how much of it is African (meaning: never left Africa) and how much of is due to back migration by descendants of EEF and related Middle Eastern groups.
As has been recently noted, there were several distinct 'metapopulations' in the Sahara. But the clearly related regional eastern Saharan populations who suddenly start to pop up in a lot of sites during the mid-holocene (which includes the Badarians, Naqadans, Tenereans and other related groups) mainly had this ancestry in my way of seeing things. They might have had other ancestry components that they picked up in the Sahara, but, again, in my view, this shared ancestry was the common denominator.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
And for those who think that the so-called non-African Ethiopian component in fig 3B peaks in Syria-Palestine because this ancestry is non-African as maintained by Pagani et al, think again.
Out of the used samples in Pagani et al 2012, this component has the most affinity with Egyptians. Modern Egyptian ancestry definitely doesn't typify unmixed Eurasian ancestry. Not even close. How could it when, as we now know (see Lazaridis et al 2014), Europeans don't even qualify as pure Eurasians.
So, if you're going to offer different explanations than what I just offered for the ancestry that is captured in fig 3B, your explanation has to be consistent with its affinities. And my observation that there is a proportion of African ancestry in that so-called non-African component is consistent with its affinities.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: This is from 2012, the same year the liar Carlos Oliver Coke started approaching me for help in my PM inbox.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^That is because most of them probably have Horner (and 'Zanj') ancestry. There have been mtDNA studies where Yemeni's cluster with Horners before they cluster with other Eurasians. Arabian Vedda populations are a good example of indigenous black Arabs that don't owe their blackness to African admixture. There are undoubtedly other dark skinned Arabian populations whose dark skin predates African admixture, but good luck proving it without genetic analysis
Notice that my past use of black was in reference to skin pigmentation and referenced groups irrespective of 'race'. It has nothing to do with creating a kumbaya my lord by the campfire 'we are family' racial club including the Obamas and Colin Powells of the world while disowning Maghrebis with roughly the same amount of African ancestry. So, again, we see that Carlos Oliver Coke is a liar when he claims:
"B-b-but y-you and Djehuti also used black in the past. B-b-but when I do it, you pick on me"
Yeah, I used it. But as you very well know, being the big fat liar that you are, it had nothing to do with your racialized and politically motivated use of the term. To the best of my ability, I've always tried to stay away from the narrow layman use and other uses of the term (though I acknowledge that they exist). And it's because of lying looney toons like you, among other reasons, that I stopped using it.
If the first Arabians came from Africa how on earth could their black skin predate African mixture, especially given that there has probably been movement back and forth between Africa and arabia for many thousands of years? See the Tihama region for an example or Southern Saudi Arabia and other regions in Arabia for example.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
1) OOA settlers came in 2) African admixture happened with said settlers 3) OOA settlers' dark skin predates African admixture.
You see a contradiction because you're in the kumbaya-my-lord-by-the-campfire crew. Your real objection is that I didn't call these OOA settlers of Arabia 'Africans'; I treated them just like other OOA populations. Yep. We saw right through your 'dark skin only' facade when you refused prehistoric dark skinned Europeans membership in your racial dark skin club.
You realized the implications of having ancestors of Europeans in your racial club and you switched up the membership requirements after the fact.
You just can't make this up. Lol. Now he's objecting because I treat the first settlers of Arabia like other OOA populations.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Where is the contradiction?
1) OOA settlers came in 2) African admixture happened with said settlers 3) OOA settlers' dark skin predates African admixture.
You see a contradiction because you're in the kumbaya-my-lord-by-the-campfire crew. Your real objection is that I didn't call these OOA settlers of Arabia 'Africans'; I treated them just like other OOA populations. Yep. We saw right through your 'dark skin only' facade when you refused prehistoric dark skinned Europeans membership in your racial dark skin club.
You realized the implications of having ancestors of Europeans in your racial club and you switched up the membership requirements after the fact.
You just can't make this up. Lol. Now he's objecting because I treat the first settlers of Arabia like other OOA populations.
When did the OOA settlers in 1) become "different" from any later migrants into Southern Arabia? Human settlement in Southern Arabia is at least 60,000 years old. So when did they "split" from Africans and what markers are you using to denote that split, not only genetically but physically in terms of significant differences in phenotype, including skin color?
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Even if it were impossible to delineate the first settlers of Arabia and African source populations, I don't see why we even have to go there. I still don't see where the contradiction would be in stating that post-OOA admixture is not the sole cause of Arabians' dark skin. Establishing who has dark skin when and where has nothing to do with physical features or ancestry.
But, to answer your question, anytime populations split you get peculiarities in the migrants' genomes (e.g. certain new patterns in LD that prove the population is 'young(er)'), so one could easily demarcate OOA settlers from Africans. This is not at all a challenge in population genetics.
Geneticists have no trouble showing that the first settlers in the Americans are demonstrably closer to Native Americans than any living source population near the Bering Strait. But, like I said, I don't see why this has to be invoked in the first place to establish that some living Arabians don't owe their dark skin to post-OOA African admixture.
Also, re: the ease of delineating OOA populations and living Africans, the haplotype backgrounds of skin pigmentation genes show stark differences. This is no surprise and is expected.
quote:Three early diverging haplotypes, C1, C2, and C4, are rare outside of Africa and clearly originated there. In the lineage containing the majority of haplotypes, each of the three branches, containing C5, C6-C7, and C8-C11, give strong evidence of having originated in Africa. C5 reaches its greatest abundance in West Africa and is rare outside of Africa. Within the other two branches, C6 and C9, which are the most common haplotypes in Africa, are also common worldwide, whereas C7 is abundant in East Asia and much less common but widespread in Africa. Consideration of the relationships among haplotype variants (Figure 4) indicates that C6, C7, and C9 (but not C8) dispersed out of Africa and have diverse descendants present and originating in East Asia. Among these descendants is C10, which is abundant in East Asia (and the New World) but extremely rare in Africa (0.5% in LWK). Haplotype C3 represents the final early diverging lineage (Figure 4). Although the lineage containing this haplotype must have originated in Africa, C3 is rare in Africa (1.0% in MKK) but widely distributed in East Asia, the New World, and Oceania. The distributions of C3 and C10 are most consistent with origin outside of Africa and subsequent introduction into Africa by migrations such as those documented by uniparental markers (Richards et al. 2006).
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Even if it were impossible to delineate the first settlers of Arabia and African source populations, I don't see why we even have to go there. I still don't see where the contradiction would be in stating that post-OOA admixture is not the sole cause of Arabians' dark skin. Establishing who has dark skin when and where has nothing to do with physical features or ancestry.
But, to answer your question, anytime populations split you get peculiarities in the migrants' genomes (e.g. certain new patterns in LD that prove the population is 'young(er)'), so one could easily demarcate OOA settlers from Africans. This is not at all a challenge in population genetics.
Geneticists have no trouble showing that the first settlers in the Americans are demonstrably closer to Native Americans than any living source population near the Bering Strait. But, like I said, I don't see why this has to be invoked in the first place to establish that some living Arabians don't owe their dark skin to post-OOA African admixture.
Also, re: the ease of delineating OOA populations and living Africans, the haplotype backgrounds of skin pigmentation genes show stark differences. This is no surprise and is expected.
quote:Three early diverging haplotypes, C1, C2, and C4, are rare outside of Africa and clearly originated there. In the lineage containing the majority of haplotypes, each of the three branches, containing C5, C6-C7, and C8-C11, give strong evidence of having originated in Africa. C5 reaches its greatest abundance in West Africa and is rare outside of Africa. Within the other two branches, C6 and C9, which are the most common haplotypes in Africa, are also common worldwide, whereas C7 is abundant in East Asia and much less common but widespread in Africa. Consideration of the relationships among haplotype variants (Figure 4) indicates that C6, C7, and C9 (but not C8) dispersed out of Africa and have diverse descendants present and originating in East Asia. Among these descendants is C10, which is abundant in East Asia (and the New World) but extremely rare in Africa (0.5% in LWK). Haplotype C3 represents the final early diverging lineage (Figure 4). Although the lineage containing this haplotype must have originated in Africa, C3 is rare in Africa (1.0% in MKK) but widely distributed in East Asia, the New World, and Oceania. The distributions of C3 and C10 are most consistent with origin outside of Africa and subsequent introduction into Africa by migrations such as those documented by uniparental markers (Richards et al. 2006).
The point I am making is that you are over generalizing and simplifying in trying to make your point. Yes, there is mixture in all humans, as all humans are mixtures of two sets of genetic markers from parents to child. But when we talk of whole populations you have to provide the context for what you are saying. The first OOA migrants to Arabia were genetically, physically and phenotypically Africans and likely stayed that way for a very long time. So unless there was some environmental pressure in Southern Arabia to select for light skin over many generations, I doubt that any dark skin in the current arabian population appeared there separate from the in situ population that descended from the OOA migrants. In fact, many of the features in the South Arabian populations are found to this day among arguably ancestral populations still in Africa who inhabit environments near identical to that of South Arabia, straight hair included.
This is the crux of the problem of so many folks arguing over phenotype using genetics alone when genetic lineages don't tell you phenotype. The environmental factors for phenotype are the crucial factor at play here and the basis of "plasticity". And this is why all across Africa you have so much variability in features even among populations who are all VERY BlACK in complexion and having the same genetic lineages, because they have been undergoing thousands of years of random mutations in various environments resulting in a tremendous diversity in features among people with black skin. And not only was this true IN Africa but it was also true for at least 40,000 years after humans left Africa. Light skin was the last major aspect of phenotype variation among humans outside of Africa which means before that most populations still retained their African appearance. The significance here is that people like to play up the significance of labels like "Eurasian" DNA markers but downplay and ignore the fact that historically most human DNA lineages are historically African, even those first arising among OOA populations who left Africa, because they still were near indistinguishable from those in Africa. DNA lineages aren't magic light bulbs that switch from "African" to "Non African" just like that. It takes many years to change a population to the point where it is significantly different in appearance from the base population from which it originated. Case in point, Europeans in America. And given the environmental similarities between Europe and America, it is doubtful that 10,000 years from now those populations would drastically differ, even ruling out modern modes of travel. Just as many native American populations to this day still have a strong physical resemblance to the ancestral populations in Asia they originated from, regardless of complexion.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic