Like I said earlier, if it is OK for Eurasians to focus on Eurasian DNA history by filtering out African DNA, then why isn't it OK to focus on African DNA history by filtering out Eurasians....
Maybe you or someone else could look at an African genome and filter out the Eurasian DNA
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: Its what I already said... The Afrocentrists like Doug cannot get their head around the idea "Basal Eurasian" ancestry might be (more) North African specific, not pan-African. They ignore population structure inside Africa. Funnily enough these Afrocentric loons do the exact same thing for Europe. All Europeans to them must be white in pigmentation; when I pointed southern Europeans are a faint light brown they got into a hissy-fit, just like they get mega butt-hurt when you point out northern Saharans like Egyptians (above the tropics) are not "black".
No one should be entertaining this pasty pink Devil's trivial arguments. These "arguments" of his are an attempt to place Egyptsearch back in the same cycle of senseless arguments over the obvious facts, that these Devil's do not wish to be obvious (i.e. black Kemet; their humble cave man origins;that we civilized their nomadic asses after 2,000 B.C.E.). Prime example is the Devil is playing dumb (tricknology) about the well known fact that the original Europeans (Grimaldi) and the proceeding waves into the continent were black Africans, and he is using the modern term for the region "Nordic" and the implications of that word to obfuscate what we know happened. Caucasins attempt to historically root themselves to areas that they have overran throughout the World. The Caucasian did not enter Europe until after 2,000 B.C.E., and this fact needs not be let up on for the purpose of entertaining their bullshit.
“The surprise is that the Neolithic peoples of Europe and their Bronze Age successors are not closely related to the modern inhabitants... It is a further surprise that the Epipalaeolithic Natufian of Israel from whom the Neolithic realm was assumed to arise has a clear link to Sub-Saharan Africa.” (Brace et. al. (2006). The questionable contribution of the Neolithic and the Bronze Age to European craniofacial form. Read more:
Think about how pathetic they have to be to KNOW that they were speechless nomadic savages for their entire existence prior to after 2,000 B.C.E., so for pride purposes that have to MANUFACTURE a false history which attaches themselves to the civilizations or areas that they usurp. He should be banned and these Devils need not have a voice in our consciousness from this point forward.
...err.. don't haplogroups in modern Euros show up before 2k BC?? His comments are to bait this type of activity to the Egyptology section...seems to have worked.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: No Swenet, I said it is wrong to use those terms because they are based on 'filtering out' African populations. I have been saying this since multiple threads ago but folks keep trying to "reinterpret" my words as if I can't speak for myself. If these scientists were TRULY trying to link Basal Eurasian and EEF to Africa, then there would be African population clusters in their studies across different parts of Africa, like Tukulur and other "amateurs" are doing. That is the point. But they didn't. In fact, they did the opposite and explicitly removed MOST African "contamination" by focusing solely on Eurasian population clusters. But sure, you will keep spinning this no matter how much those studies blatantly contradict you. How can you compare something that has removed the elements that would be the basis of any comparison?
Lol. Only on ES do you see people write whole paragraphs literally filled with figments of the imagination and have it go unchecked. Self-serving bs thrives here.
"Filtering out African populations".
"then there would be African population clusters in their studies across different parts of Africa"
"But they didn't"
"In fact, they did the opposite and explicitly removed MOST African "contamination" by focusing solely on Eurasian population clusters"
"How can you compare something that has removed the elements that would be the basis of any comparison?"
--------------
And remember, the image below shows some of Lazaridis et al's African samples—the same African samples Doug insist were manipulatively excluded from the study he's talking about:
Doug is too deep down the rabbit hole of mental figments and beyond saving.
And this is what I mean by Swenet trying to argue by proxy that whatever data he pulls up is somehow an "extension" of other peoples work.
If you can show me that exact image and the same data points (population groups, biological statistics and explicit comparisons among the same groups in the same way) from Lazirdis' work I will not post anything else in this thread.
And if you can't show me that will you please stop replying to me on this topic?
posted
I don't waste time with habitual bullshitters who are faking familiarity with the subject. I'm just setting the record straight for whatever it's worth (not much on this site).
-----
A full list of the supposedly "masked" , "filtered" and "removed" African samples Lazaridis et al 2013 used in the aforementioned analysis:
Like I said earlier, if it is OK for Eurasians to focus on Eurasian DNA history by filtering out African DNA, then why isn't it OK to focus on African DNA history by filtering out Eurasians....
Maybe you or someone else could look at an African genome and filter out the Eurasian DNA
Have a look and decide for yourself what it implies.
quote: The ‘Basal Eurasians’ are a lineage hypothesized
—Iosif Lazaridis Genomic insights into the origin of farming in the ancient Near East
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
Like I said earlier, if it is OK for Eurasians to focus on Eurasian DNA history by filtering out African DNA, then why isn't it OK to focus on African DNA history by filtering out Eurasians....
Maybe you or someone else could look at an African genome and filter out the Eurasian DNA
Have a look and decide for yourself what it implies.
quote: The ‘Basal Eurasians’ are a lineage hypothesized
—Iosif Lazaridis Genomic insights into the origin of farming in the ancient Near East
.
.
I hope everyone seriously listens to the expert. He says that "k means...you have training data..you already know what it is and you find the same thing again". What this means is that researchers use k means to describe what they already believe.
This procedure is used just to say what you already believe not create new science.
This procedure is used just to say what you already believe not create new science.
. [/QB]
Clyde you have got to be kidding, you haven't changed your views since 1973.
Didn't you win the Egyptsearch Confirmation Bias award four years in a row? And what about your article "Humans lost the ability to form new Haplogroups After they left Africa" co-authored by Dr. Ish Gebor
I wouldn't call that progressive
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
This procedure is used just to say what you already believe not create new science.
.
Clyde you have got to be kidding, you haven't changed your views since 1973.
Didn't you win the Egyptsearch Confirmation Bias award four years in a row? And what about your article "Humans lost the ability to form new Haplogroups After they left Africa" co-authored by Dr. Ish Gebor
I wouldn't call that progressive [/QB]
I can't wait until Ish gets his PhD. I am sure that he will wait long enough to get tenure before he attacks the status quo propositions. I pray he will be like the spook who set near the door learning the necessary methods to become the perfect researcher.
You seem to believe I have the same views I had in 1973. This is false my ideas have expanded or contracted over time. As a researcher I use both Confirmationist and Falsificationist paradigms of science to conduct my research.
I will change my ideas if the data doesn't support the evidence/data I present in my hypotheses.
Geneticists do not practice science which is hypothesis building. they use k means and Bayesian methods, i.e., they use these methods to evaluate data based on experience or best guesses, instead of making an hypothesis which is a proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth. Bayesian methods are done by researchers to prove assumptions they already believe and accepted as true.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
This procedure is used just to say what you already believe not create new science.
.
Clyde you have got to be kidding, you haven't changed your views since 1973.
Didn't you win the Egyptsearch Confirmation Bias award four years in a row? And what about your article "Humans lost the ability to form new Haplogroups After they left Africa" co-authored by Dr. Ish Gebor
I wouldn't call that progressive
I can't wait until Ish gets his PhD. I am sure that he will wait long enough to get tenure before he attacks the status quo propositions. I pray he will be like the spook who set near the door learning the necessary methods to become the perfect researcher.
You seem to believe I have the same views I had in 1973. This is false my ideas have expanded or contracted over time. As a researcher I use both Confirmationist and Falsificationist paradigms of science to conduct my research.
I will change my ideas if the data doesn't support the evidence/data I present in my hypotheses.
Geneticists do not practice science which is hypothesis building. they use k means and Bayesian methods, i.e., they use these methods to evaluate data based on experience or best guesses, instead of making an hypothesis which is a proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth. Bayesian methods are done by researchers to prove assumptions they already believe and accepted as true. [/QB]
The Clydian method is thus: whatever you come up with is true until someone falsifies it.
In other words if a Clydian says blue elephants exist blue elephants do exist
- unless someone takes a picture of every elephant in the world and proves there isn't a blue one.
That's the beauty of Clydism. You can sit around and come up with theories all day. They're all true and if anybody says they are false they are the ones have to spends millions of dollars and years of time to document every situation to prove it,
meanwhile the Clydist sits at home eating corn chips and dip
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
I can't wait until Ish gets his PhD.
They give PHd's in copy and pasting?
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
It's sad you didn't respond to my initial question / proposition.
Perhaps the explanation in Computer Science was too complex. Let's try it again, with something somewhat simplistic and more accessible for computer illiterates.
Have a look and decide for yourself what it implies.
quote: The ‘Basal Eurasians’ are a lineage hypothesized
—Iosif Lazaridis Genomic insights into the origin of farming in the ancient Near East
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: … unless someone takes a picture of every elephant in the world and proves there isn't a blue one.
Great example. Exactly how the class variables in K-clusters behave, to change the desired resolution (result).
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: "Humans lost the ability to form new Haplogroups After they left Africa"
Ps, did humans lots the ability of genetic mutation while staying within Africa?
Btw, it is written as Ph.D not PHd. Not that I expect you to know this anyway. (just sayin')
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
Like I said earlier, if it is OK for Eurasians to focus on Eurasian DNA history by filtering out African DNA, then why isn't it OK to focus on African DNA history by filtering out Eurasians....
Maybe you or someone else could look at an African genome and filter out the Eurasian DNA
Have a look and decide for yourself what it implies.
I hope everyone seriously listens to the expert. He says that "k means...you have training data..you already know what it is and you find the same thing again". What this means is that researchers use k means to describe what they already believe.
This procedure is used just to say what you already believe not create new science.
That is correct, it is a class variable (Object). One can change the behavior by putting in different methods, until the desired position (goal) is met.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: I can't wait until Ish gets his PhD. I am sure that he will wait long enough to get tenure before he attacks the status quo propositions. I pray he will be like the spook who set near the door learning the necessary methods to become the perfect researcher.
Thank you Clyde.
Hence, Ish Gebor.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Geneticists do not practice science which is hypothesis building. they use k means and Bayesian methods, i.e., they use these methods to evaluate data based on experience or best guesses, instead of making an hypothesis which is a proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth. Bayesian methods are done by researchers to prove assumptions they already believe and accepted as true.
True.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Clyde Winters has a lot of qualifications (BA, MA, MS, PhD), but none of them are relevant to genetics or ancient linguistics which he claims to be an expert in. Also, 99% of his work is published in predatory open access journals, letters (not even peer-reviewed) and Afrocentric pseudo-journals. Aside from that, Clyde also fabricates his status as a professor and being a genetics faculty member.
"Professor of Education, Anthropology and Linguistics, Uthman dan Fodio Institute (UdFI)", and "Faculty Member, Archaeogenetics (UdFI)."
- The UdFI is a defunct private home school in Chicago (likely Clyde's own house). It has no professor or genetics department.
The charlatan Clyde Winters is cited by Stephen Howe in his book Afrocentrism: Mythical Pasts and Imagined Homes:
"The tendency to claim or imply grand-sounding academic careers and affiliations seems to be quite widespread among Afrocentrists."
Howe then references the UdFI as an example.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: …genetics or ancient linguistics…
Actually the methods of these work in very similar ways, with the acceptation for bio-chemistry of course.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: I will change my ideas if the data doesn't support the evidence/data I present in my hypotheses.
This is hilarious when you've been falsified on pretty much everything. I left you a message on YouTube like 8 years ago - on your troll video where you claim Homer's heroes of the Odyssey/Iliad are "black"... 8 years on you've left that video up, despite thoroughly debunked and exposed as a liar. You don't change your views on anything. Your only involvement in trolling forums/YouTube is for politics. You admit to regarding Afrocentrism as a political movement; this is why you claim every non-African ancient culture/people (Sumerians, Greeks, Olmecs, even Norse etc.) were "blacks" from Africa. Its basically a racist attack on people you exclude from your identity politics.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
On the subject of Kemp a few pages back, Afrocentrists point to one dendrogram where ancient Egyptians are not particularly close to Levantine samples. However, if you look more closely at the data with individual samples- Lachish plots with New Kingdom Thebes. http://arthistory.wisc.edu/ah505/articles/Kemp,_Ancient_Egypt.pdfPosts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
This procedure is used just to say what you already believe not create new science.
.
Clyde you have got to be kidding, you haven't changed your views since 1973.
Didn't you win the Egyptsearch Confirmation Bias award four years in a row? And what about your article "Humans lost the ability to form new Haplogroups After they left Africa" co-authored by Dr. Ish Gebor
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: I will change my ideas if the data doesn't support the evidence/data I present in my hypotheses.
This is hilarious when you've been falsified on pretty much everything. I left you a message on YouTube like 8 years ago - on your troll video where you claim Homer's heroes of the Odyssey/Iliad are "black"... 8 years on you've left that video up, despite thoroughly debunked and exposed as a liar. You don't change your views on anything. Your only involvement in trolling forums/YouTube is for politics. You admit to regarding Afrocentrism as a political movement; this is why you claim every non-African ancient culture/people (Sumerians, Greeks, Olmecs, even Norse etc.) were "blacks" from Africa. Its basically a racist attack on people you exclude from your identity politics.
Lying Euroloon. Claiming the Sumerians, Palesgian (Greeks), and Olmecs were Black is not racist.
It was the Greeks who first claimed Pelasgians were not white Greeks.
Homer wrote that the Greek heroes were Black.
Col. Rawlinson said the Sumerians were Kushites after his research into the origin of the Sumerians.
Finally, the Olmec called themselves: Xi, which means Black, and Olmecs mention their migration tradition in Stela #5.
It was Leo Wiener who illustrated that the Olmec artifact the Tuxtla statuette was written in the Vai script, and the Malinke-Bambara language is a substratum language of Aztec and the Mayan languages.
As a result, it was Rawlinson who proved the Sumerians (Akkadians and Elamites) were Kushites. Leo Wiener was the first to claim the Olmecs were Black--not me. This along with the Greeco-Romans claiming the first Greeks were Black, make it clear these paradigms were created by whites not Afrocentrist. If the paradigms that the original Greeks were Black, the Olmecs were Black and the Sumerians were Black, blame these paradigm on the Greeco-Romans, Rawlinson and Wiener--not me and Afrocentrism. These paradigms were made by whites like you. They are all part of the Ancient Model of History developed by the Greeco-Romans.
You are the racist. You attack me because white scholars like the Greeco-Romans, Rawlinson and Wiener told the truth about the ancient history of Blacks. Its racist like you and lioness who attempt to deny the Ancient model of History, which maintained that Blacks have an ancient history.
Real scholars know my research is founded on the works of Rawlinson and Wiener. As a result, to prove me wrong they have to prove these scholars were also wrong, so they remain silent becaudse if they dare to attack me I will respond and show them to be fools. The only people who attempt to attack my work are trolls like you and Montellano.
Montellano published numerous articles attacking Afrocentrists, like van Sertima. He trolled me for twenty years trying to attack my work on-line--but he was unable to publish one article, I repeat one article debunking any of my research in either a peer reviewed journal, or magazine on ancient history.During this same period, my papers have been published in ancient history magazines and peer reviewed journals.
Cass you are Evil and a racist. If you were not an editor at Wiki, you would never have been able to write that racist and false rationalwiki page about me. No one would have published the rationalwiki page, because you wrote the attack on me without any supporting references to anyone attacking my work except Montellano, who has never published one paper debunking my work. If you hadn't been a Wiki editor they would never have published the rationalwiki page. [b] The rationalwiki page you wrote is full of lies. It is only a matter of time that you will be discovered to be a liar and racist and the illegitimate rationalwiki page is removed once the Wiki people learn you have been trolling me for at least 8 years.
Also, if I have been debunked cite the publications where my work was falsified.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: Its what I already said... The Afrocentrists like Doug cannot get their head around the idea "Basal Eurasian" ancestry might be (more) North African specific, not pan-African. They ignore population structure inside Africa. Funnily enough these Afrocentric loons do the exact same thing for Europe. All Europeans to them must be white in pigmentation; when I pointed southern Europeans are a faint light brown they got into a hissy-fit, just like they get mega butt-hurt when you point out northern Saharans like Egyptians (above the tropics) are not "black".
No one should be entertaining this pasty pink Devil's trivial arguments. These "arguments" of his are an attempt to place Egyptsearch back in the same cycle of senseless arguments over the obvious facts, that these Devil's do not wish to be obvious (i.e. black Kemet; their humble cave man origins;that we civilized their nomadic asses after 2,000 B.C.E.). Prime example is the Devil is playing dumb (tricknology) about the well known fact that the original Europeans (Grimaldi) and the proceeding waves into the continent were black Africans, and he is using the modern term for the region "Nordic" and the implications of that word to obfuscate what we know happened. Caucasins attempt to historically root themselves to areas that they have overran throughout the World. The Caucasian did not enter Europe until after 2,000 B.C.E., and this fact needs not be let up on for the purpose of entertaining their bullshit.
“The surprise is that the Neolithic peoples of Europe and their Bronze Age successors are not closely related to the modern inhabitants... It is a further surprise that the Epipalaeolithic Natufian of Israel from whom the Neolithic realm was assumed to arise has a clear link to Sub-Saharan Africa.” (Brace et. al. (2006). The questionable contribution of the Neolithic and the Bronze Age to European craniofacial form. Read more:
Think about how pathetic they have to be to KNOW that they were speechless nomadic savages for their entire existence prior to after 2,000 B.C.E., so for pride purposes that have to MANUFACTURE a false history which attaches themselves to the civilizations or areas that they usurp. He should be banned and these Devils need not have a voice in our consciousness from this point forward.
...err.. don't haplogroups in modern Euros show up before 2k BC??
Haplogroups that were already present in Africans yes. What's your point?
Posts: 348 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Lying Euroloon. Claiming the Sumerians, Palesgian (Greeks), and Olmecs were Black is not racist.
It was the Greeks who first claimed Pelasgians were not white Greeks.
Homer wrote that the Greek heroes were Black.
Col. Rawlinson said the Sumerians were Kushites after his research into the origin of the Sumerians.
Problem is none of these sources say this, you're a notorious liar. Can you provide sources/references? No.
I'm aware Rawlinson called the ancient Egyptians "Nigritic", however Rawlinson clarified the "Nigritic" is not "Negroid". No Egyptologist at the time took him seriously anyway, e.g. see Budge (1893), so now what?
You're trying to say "Afrocentrism" is valid because 19th century white academics supported it, but either they didn't, or you can only find a single crackpot who no-one took serious. And we're living in 2017, not 1890's...
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
Afroloons like Clyde Winters of course don't point out that Rawlinson's "Nigritic" Egyptians were not "Negroid"-
"The fundamental character of the Egyptian in respect of physical type, language, and tone of thought, is Nigritic. The Egyptians were not negroes, but they bore a resemblance to the negro which is indisputable." - Rawlinson, The People of Egypt, p. 24
He has them as only showing some resemblance to the "Negroid", so half-"Negroid" since he realised ancient Egyptians (on average) were not woolly haired etc. Furthermore, Rawlinson went on to argue Egypt was "mixed race" as early as the flourishing Old Kingdom when the pyramids were built:
"Egyptian people, as it existed in the flourishing times of Egyptian history, was beyond all question - a mixed race, showing diverse affinities." (Ibid.)
This hardly lends support to Afrocentrism; Clyde will though only selectively quote, take out of context, or distort Rawlinson's writings for his own agenda.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
Europeans did think -still do- that all Northeast African populations are mixed race. The usage of "Negroid" was usually applied to West-Central Africans and the Bantus in East Africa and Southern Africa.
The ancient Egyptians were predominantly mahogany-brown Northeast Africans; there is no evidence they came from "Eurasia" at any point in time with their closest relations being Lower "Nubians" - a sibling population that they shared a common origin with.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: Its what I already said... The Afrocentrists like Doug cannot get their head around the idea "Basal Eurasian" ancestry might be (more) North African specific, not pan-African. They ignore population structure inside Africa. Funnily enough these Afrocentric loons do the exact same thing for Europe. All Europeans to them must be white in pigmentation; when I pointed southern Europeans are a faint light brown they got into a hissy-fit, just like they get mega butt-hurt when you point out northern Saharans like Egyptians (above the tropics) are not "black".
No one should be entertaining this pasty pink Devil's trivial arguments. These "arguments" of his are an attempt to place Egyptsearch back in the same cycle of senseless arguments over the obvious facts, that these Devil's do not wish to be obvious (i.e. black Kemet; their humble cave man origins;that we civilized their nomadic asses after 2,000 B.C.E.). Prime example is the Devil is playing dumb (tricknology) about the well known fact that the original Europeans (Grimaldi) and the proceeding waves into the continent were black Africans, and he is using the modern term for the region "Nordic" and the implications of that word to obfuscate what we know happened. Caucasins attempt to historically root themselves to areas that they have overran throughout the World. The Caucasian did not enter Europe until after 2,000 B.C.E., and this fact needs not be let up on for the purpose of entertaining their bullshit.
“The surprise is that the Neolithic peoples of Europe and their Bronze Age successors are not closely related to the modern inhabitants... It is a further surprise that the Epipalaeolithic Natufian of Israel from whom the Neolithic realm was assumed to arise has a clear link to Sub-Saharan Africa.” (Brace et. al. (2006). The questionable contribution of the Neolithic and the Bronze Age to European craniofacial form. Read more:
Think about how pathetic they have to be to KNOW that they were speechless nomadic savages for their entire existence prior to after 2,000 B.C.E., so for pride purposes that have to MANUFACTURE a false history which attaches themselves to the civilizations or areas that they usurp. He should be banned and these Devils need not have a voice in our consciousness from this point forward.
...err.. don't haplogroups in modern Euros show up before 2k BC??
Haplogroups that were already present in Africans yes. What's your point?
What are the haplogroups we see in many modern Europeans that you're saying evidence suggests was first in Africans? And please provide the evidence because you'll just be asked by ppl to show proof in response. No point wasting time waiting til they ask, may as well get that bit out the way.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: Europeans did think -still do- that all Northeast African populations are mixed race. The usage of "Negroid" was usually applied to West-Central Africans and the Bantus in East Africa and Southern Africa.
The ancient Egyptians were predominantly mahogany-brown Northeast Africans; there is no evidence they came from "Eurasia" at any point in time with their closest relations being Lower "Nubians" - a sibling population that they shared a common origin with.
Back to my point monolithic Africans. When he was being called out on that with the usage of terms SSA, he started trying to weasel words like "negroid" in with the goal of achieving the same interest of a monolithic portrayal of Africans--while suggesting Africa is not monolithic only when it pertains to the Sahara. We need to focus on (only) Sahara and adaptions to specific ecological areas--when it's politically convenient. Then slap a "negroid" label on as the majority of Africans not in the Sahara to imply a monolithic African people. White supremacist political ambitions maintained!
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Monolithic" SSA's is just a straw-man you invented. Below the Sahara, several different regional morphotypes were always recognised: "Negroid" aka "Congoid" (West-Central Africa), Bushmenoid aka "Sanid" (South Africa), "Aethiopid" (East Africa). Between these some anthropologists recognised gradients, e.g. between "Aethiopids" and "Negroids", were the so-called "Nilotids" and between the "Bushmenoids" and the "Negroid" were "Khoisanids". How would any of this be possible if SSA's were monolithic? Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote: The Evolution of Human Genetic and Phenotypic Variation in Africa
Africa is the birthplace of modern humans, and is the source of the geographic expansion of ancestral populations into other regions of the world.
Indigenous Africans are characterized by high levels of genetic diversity within and between populations. The pattern of genetic variation in these populations has been shaped by demographic events occurring over the last 200,000 years.
The dramatic variation in climate, diet, and exposure to infectious disease across the continent has also resulted in novel genetic and phenotypic adaptations in extant Africans.
This review summarizes some recent advances in our understanding of the demographic history and selective pressures that have influenced levels and patterns of diversity in African populations.
Africa not only has the highest levels of human genetic variation in the world but also contains a considerable amount of linguistic, environmental and cultural diversity. For example, more than 2,000 distinct ethno-linguistic groups, representing nearly a third of the world’s languages, currently exist in Africa
The timing and duration of some of these demographic events were often correlated with known major environmental changes and/or cultural developments in Africa [6].
A number of novel genetic and phenotypic adaptations have also evolved in Africans in response to dramatic variation in environment, diet, and exposure to infectious disease across the continent.
In some cases, these adaptations have occurred in the last several thousand years, exemplifying the ongoing evolution of human populations.
Thus, present-day patterns of variation in African genomes are a product of both demographic and selective events.
--Sarah Tishkoff et al.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Lying Euroloon. Claiming the Sumerians, Palesgian (Greeks), and Olmecs were Black is not racist.
It was the Greeks who first claimed Pelasgians were not white Greeks.
Homer wrote that the Greek heroes were Black.
Col. Rawlinson said the Sumerians were Kushites after his research into the origin of the Sumerians.
Problem is none of these sources say this, you're a notorious liar. Can you provide sources/references? No.
I'm aware Rawlinson called the ancient Egyptians "Nigritic", however Rawlinson clarified the "Nigritic" is not "Negroid". No Egyptologist at the time took him seriously anyway, e.g. see Budge (1893), so now what?
You're trying to say "Afrocentrism" is valid because 19th century white academics supported it, but either they didn't, or you can only find a single crackpot who no-one took serious. And we're living in 2017, not 1890's...
--Rawlinson, The People of Egypt, p. 24
Interesting,
Ni`grit´ic a. 1. (Ethnol.) Pertaining to, or having the characteristics of, negroes, or of the Negritos, Papuans, and the Melanesian races; negritic.
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: Afroloons like Clyde Winters of course don't point out that Rawlinson's "Nigritic" Egyptians were not "Negroid"-
"The fundamental character of the Egyptian in respect of physical type, language, and tone of thought, is Nigritic. The Egyptians were not negroes, but they bore a resemblance to the negro which is indisputable." - Rawlinson, The People of Egypt, p. 24
He has them as only showing some resemblance to the "Negroid", so half-"Negroid" since he realised ancient Egyptians (on average) were not woolly haired etc. Furthermore, Rawlinson went on to argue Egypt was "mixed race" as early as the flourishing Old Kingdom when the pyramids were built:
"Egyptian people, as it existed in the flourishing times of Egyptian history, was beyond all question - a mixed race, showing diverse affinities." (Ibid.)
This hardly lends support to Afrocentrism; Clyde will though only selectively quote, take out of context, or distort Rawlinson's writings for his own agenda.
Interesting,
Dr Clyde Winters
Dr. Clyde Winters is an Educator , Anthropologist and Linguist. He has taught Education and Linguistics at Saint Xavier University -Chicago and Governors State Univerity. Dr. Winters is the author of numerous articles on anthropology, archeogenetics and linguistics. His articles have appeared in the Journal of Black Studies, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, Science, Bio Essays, Current Science, International Journal of Human Genetics, International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics, and Journal of Modern African Studies.
Dr. Winters has deciphered the Meroitic, Olmec and Danubian writing systems. His latest book is Archaeological Decipherment of Ancient Writing Systems.
Apparently the Uthman dan Fodio Institute" is his foundation.
Sep 1996–Jun 2000 Loyola University Brain Based Learning/Educational Psychology/ Curriculum · PhD United States of America (USA) · Chicago
Sep 1972–Jun 1973 University of Illinois Social Science: Linguistics/Anthropology · M.A. United States of America (USA) · Urbana
Sep 1969–Jun 1973 University of Illinois-Urbana Education: Social Science · B.A United States of America (USA) · Urbana
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: On the subject of Kemp a few pages back, Afrocentrists point to one dendrogram where ancient Egyptians are not particularly close to Levantine samples. However, if you look more closely at the data with individual samples- Lachish plots with New Kingdom Thebes. http://arthistory.wisc.edu/ah505/articles/Kemp,_Ancient_Egypt.pdf
You yourself are saying Lachish plots with "New Kingdom" Thebes. Okay.
However, what your try to claim is still beyond me.
quote: A Semitic slave. Ancient Egyptian figurine. Hecht Museum
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote: Egypt, located on the isthmus of Africa, is an ideal region to study historical population dynamics due to its geographic location and documented interactions with ancient civilizations in Africa, Asia, and Europe. Particularly, in the first millennium BCE Egypt endured foreign domination leading to growing numbers of foreigners living within its borders possibly contributing genetically to the local population. Here we mtDNA and nuclear DNA from mummified humans recovered from Middle Egypt that span around 1,300 years of ancient Egyptian history from the Third Intermediate to the Roman Period. Our analyses reveal that ancient Egyptians shared more Near Eastern ancestry than present-day Egyptians, who received additional Sub-Saharan admixture in more recent times. This analysis establishes ancient Egyptian mummies as a genetic source to study ancient human history and offers the perspective of deciphering Egypt’s past at a genome-wide level.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Dr. Winters has deciphered the Meroitic, Olmec and Danubian writing systems."
lol.
Some black Indiana Jones wannabe. The fact is virtually no professional linguist takes Clyde's claims seriously. Clyde's wild claims of deciphering these ancient languages/scripts are covered on websites like "bad archaeology" where he is laughed at.
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: "Dr. Winters has deciphered the Meroitic, Olmec and Danubian writing systems."
lol.
Some black Indiana Jones wannabe. The fact is virtually no professional linguist takes Clyde's claims seriously. Clyde's wild claims of deciphering these ancient languages/scripts are covered on websites like "bad archaeology" where he is laughed at.
quote: It sits alongside other supposed evidence, such as the (probably non-existent) Paraíba stone, the Newark “Holy Stones” and the Los Lunas inscription. What the supporters cannot agree on was the date of the hypothesised contact. Was it c 3000 BCE, as Clyde Winters would have it? Or was it in the middle of the first millennium BC, as Hugh Fox believed? Why is the rest of the iconography of the bowl like that of the Tiwanaku culture, about 600-950 CE?
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
Like I said earlier, if it is OK for Eurasians to focus on Eurasian DNA history by filtering out African DNA, then why isn't it OK to focus on African DNA history by filtering out Eurasians....
Maybe you or someone else could look at an African genome and filter out the Eurasian DNA
Have a look and decide for yourself what it implies.
quote: The ‘Basal Eurasians’ are a lineage hypothesized
—Iosif Lazaridis Genomic insights into the origin of farming in the ancient Near East
Honestly a K-means sort is a formula for doing analysis of data. The data set is what differs from case to case. Just because someone uses a K means sort doesn't mean that the data sets involved or the conclusions are the same. You got all kinds of K-means graphs all over the place. They are not all saying the same thing because the data used is different.
People should understand that and be looking at the data set. Showing a K means chart without showing the underlying data set driving it is meaningless.
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: Its what I already said... The Afrocentrists like Doug cannot get their head around the idea "Basal Eurasian" ancestry might be (more) North African specific, not pan-African. They ignore population structure inside Africa. Funnily enough these Afrocentric loons do the exact same thing for Europe. All Europeans to them must be white in pigmentation; when I pointed southern Europeans are a faint light brown they got into a hissy-fit, just like they get mega butt-hurt when you point out northern Saharans like Egyptians (above the tropics) are not "black".
No one should be entertaining this pasty pink Devil's trivial arguments. These "arguments" of his are an attempt to place Egyptsearch back in the same cycle of senseless arguments over the obvious facts, that these Devil's do not wish to be obvious (i.e. black Kemet; their humble cave man origins;that we civilized their nomadic asses after 2,000 B.C.E.). Prime example is the Devil is playing dumb (tricknology) about the well known fact that the original Europeans (Grimaldi) and the proceeding waves into the continent were black Africans, and he is using the modern term for the region "Nordic" and the implications of that word to obfuscate what we know happened. Caucasins attempt to historically root themselves to areas that they have overran throughout the World. The Caucasian did not enter Europe until after 2,000 B.C.E., and this fact needs not be let up on for the purpose of entertaining their bullshit.
“The surprise is that the Neolithic peoples of Europe and their Bronze Age successors are not closely related to the modern inhabitants... It is a further surprise that the Epipalaeolithic Natufian of Israel from whom the Neolithic realm was assumed to arise has a clear link to Sub-Saharan Africa.” (Brace et. al. (2006). The questionable contribution of the Neolithic and the Bronze Age to European craniofacial form. Read more:
Think about how pathetic they have to be to KNOW that they were speechless nomadic savages for their entire existence prior to after 2,000 B.C.E., so for pride purposes that have to MANUFACTURE a false history which attaches themselves to the civilizations or areas that they usurp. He should be banned and these Devils need not have a voice in our consciousness from this point forward.
...err.. don't haplogroups in modern Euros show up before 2k BC??
Haplogroups that were already present in Africans yes. What's your point?
What are the haplogroups we see in many modern Europeans that you're saying evidence suggests was first in Africans? And please provide the evidence because you'll just be asked by ppl to show proof in response. No point wasting time waiting til they ask, may as well get that bit out the way.
First please explain how this is relevant to the fact that Caucasians did not exist outside of the Caucus until said date?
Posts: 348 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2014
| IP: Logged |
Your claim white people weren't in existence has been falsified, but DNA is evil white man science right? Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
Your claim white people weren't in existence has been falsified, but DNA is evil white man science right?
^^ Obfuscation Devil obfuscation...
"Interestingly, the ancient Egyptians recorded the Tamahu, which means created white people. Egyptian writings also refer to whites as Typhonians or People of Seth, both meaning “the devils.” After these “white devils” were first released into the Black community of the Near East 6000 years ago, they caused severe strife (modern), thus the Africans rounded them up, stripped them of everything and exiled them to the caves and hills of the Caucasus Mountains. This explains the sudden appearance of white people in this region. To prevent their escaping Africans installed a series of guarded walls blocking all exits along that area from one sea to the other!
Thus “roping” them off (hence the word Europe). These walls have been witnessed and recorded by many European writers, including Pliny. Thus, totally cut off from civilization, the whites degenerated into uncivilized, nomadic savages. They remained this way for 2000 years until ‘Allah mercifully sent an Egyptian priest named Musa or Moses to civilize them.’
This explains the otherwise unknown reason why suddenly about 2000 B.C.E, vast hordes of these white barbarians left the Caucasus region and stormed all the (Black) centers of civilizations throughout Mesopotamia, the Near East, Africa and India, destroying and usurping them.
Thus, the Whiteman’s arrival signaled destruction for all these civilizations and the beginning of the Whiteman’s rise to power and the subsequent plague of the Earth for 4,000 years. 6,000 years total. The Devil's time is up.
^^ No one has mentioned the migration that placed Caucasians in the Caucus in the first place....Which means that there more to the story....Explain HOW....an entirely GENETICALLY RECESSIVE/essentially albino population is found together like this, because is completely unnatural. Then explain who are the other non Caucasian white people in Europe prior to 2,000 B.C.E. where did they come from and where did they go. List what civilizations did they created.
You are a Devil
Posts: 348 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2014
| IP: Logged |
"Interestingly, the ancient Egyptians recorded the Tamahu, which means created white people. Egyptian writings also refer to whites as Typhonians or People of Seth, both meaning “the devils.” After these “white devils” were first released into the Black community of the Near East 6000 years ago, they caused severe strife (modern), thus the Africans rounded them up, stripped them of everything and exiled them to the caves and hills of the Caucasus Mountains. This explains the sudden appearance of white people in this region. To prevent their escaping Africans installed a series of guarded walls blocking all exits along that area from one sea to the other!
who created these people
and why did they create these people?
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Explain HOW....an entirely GENETICALLY RECESSIVE/essentially albino population is found together like this, because is completely unnatural.
I've already covered this before- white/light pink skin is actually what most primates have and is the "original" pigmentation of humans:
"The earliest members of the hominid lineage probably had a mostly unpigmented or lightly pigmented integument covered with dark black hair, similar to that of the modern chimpanzee." (Jablonski & Chaplin, 2000 "The evolution of human skin coloration")
"When the first hominins (human ancestors) began hunting and gathering on the open savannah, they lost their body hair, likely to keep cool amid the strenuous exercise of their lifestyle. These early humans probably had pale skin, much like humans' closest living relative, the chimpanzee, which is white under its fur." http://www.livescience.com/43674-cancer-skin-color-evolution.htmlPosts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
Like I said earlier, if it is OK for Eurasians to focus on Eurasian DNA history by filtering out African DNA, then why isn't it OK to focus on African DNA history by filtering out Eurasians....
Maybe you or someone else could look at an African genome and filter out the Eurasian DNA
Have a look and decide for yourself what it implies.
quote: The ‘Basal Eurasians’ are a lineage hypothesized
—Iosif Lazaridis Genomic insights into the origin of farming in the ancient Near East
Honestly a K-means sort is a formula for doing analysis of data. The data set is what differs from case to case. Just because someone uses a K means sort doesn't mean that the data sets involved or the conclusions are the same. You got all kinds of K-means graphs all over the place. They are not all saying the same thing because the data used is different.
People should understand that and be looking at the data set. Showing a K means chart without showing the underlying data set driving it is meaningless.
It is a class variable (Object). One can change the behavior by putting in different methods, until the desired position (goal) is met by reinitializing.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
Your claim white people weren't in existence has been falsified, but DNA is evil white man science right?
Interesting post. However the state says 8Kya max.
Anyway,
quote: Given our results, it remains possible that the PWC represent remnants of a larger northern European Mesolithic hunter-gather complex. However, it appears unlikely that population continuity exists between the PWC and contemporary Scandinavians or Saami. Thus, our findings are in agreement with archaeological theories suggesting Neolithic or post-Neolithic population introgression or replacement in Scandinavia.
--Helena Malmström
Ancient DNA Reveals Lack of Continuity between Neolithic Hunter-Gatherers and Contemporary Scandinavians
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
"Interestingly, the ancient Egyptians recorded the Tamahu, which means created white people. Egyptian writings also refer to whites as Typhonians or People of Seth, both meaning “the devils.” After these “white devils” were first released into the Black community of the Near East 6000 years ago, they caused severe strife (modern), thus the Africans rounded them up, stripped them of everything and exiled them to the caves and hills of the Caucasus Mountains. This explains the sudden appearance of white people in this region. To prevent their escaping Africans installed a series of guarded walls blocking all exits along that area from one sea to the other!
who created these people
and why did they create these people?
According the mythology, it was Djoser.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Explain HOW....an entirely GENETICALLY RECESSIVE/essentially albino population is found together like this, because is completely unnatural.
I've already covered this before- white/light pink skin is actually what most primates have and is the "original" pigmentation of humans:
"The earliest members of the hominid lineage probably had a mostly unpigmented or lightly pigmented integument covered with dark black hair, similar to that of the modern chimpanzee." (Jablonski & Chaplin, 2000 "The evolution of human skin coloration")
"When the first hominins (human ancestors) began hunting and gathering on the open savannah, they lost their body hair, likely to keep cool amid the strenuous exercise of their lifestyle. These early humans probably had pale skin, much like humans' closest living relative, the chimpanzee, which is white under its fur." http://www.livescience.com/43674-cancer-skin-color-evolution.html
The article makes it clear that the theory is *speculative*. Our anatomically human ancestors developed only 200, 000 years ago, whereas our primitive hominid ancestors developed around 1.2 million years ago and may indeed have had lighter skin *BEFORE* humans emerged. The first anatomically *human* ancestord were not white.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Note how no other black poster criticizes Akachi for his hard-core racism, calling white people devils, defects, ugly pink-skins with tails, having no history etc. It's only racism if white people post something mildly insensitive against blacks. Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Interesting post. However the state says 8Kya max.
Even if you go back further in time (say 20,000 BP) when there was negligible frequency rs1426654 and rs16891982 -- Upper Palaeolithic Europeans carried a high frequency of rs1042602, rs2424984, rs642742 and rs12203592 (2/4 of the latter derived alleles are usually always present and a moderate frequency of the others.)
KITLG [rs642742] locus lightens a person’s color by an average of 6 to 7 melanin units. This compares with an overall skin reflectance difference of approximately 30 melanin units between West Africans and Europeans." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2900316/
This is precisely the sort of thing I'm looking for. So rs642742 explains 6 or 7 out of 30 as a percent = 20-23%.
The point I made in that thread is Upper Palaeolithic Europeans would have not been black, but a light brown shade. Most carried rs642742 and that explains up to 23% of the skin pigmentation variation difference between living West Africans and Europeans. This isn't even taking the other three alleles into account, that would probably total 40%. Interestingly I remember Carleton Coon saying something like the skin of Upper Paleolithic Europeans ranged from what is typically observed in Mediterranean populations, to Native Americans.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: Note how no other black poster criticizes Akachi for his hard-core racism, calling white people devils, defects, ugly pink-skins with tails, having no history etc. It's only racism if white people post something mildly insensitive against blacks.
You know very well that he has been called out before (by me at least) for his absolutely insane views, but what is the point of engaging someone that is so clearly filled with irrational hatred? You're not going to salvage anything of value from the person and he will certainly not retract such vile views.
You're reaction is slightly perplexing considering that you're not that far removed from him, are you? You're basically two sides of the same coin, except that you're not quite as visceral.
People like Akachi, Mike, Narmer and Clyde Winters are insane, but their opposite aligned counterparts on Stormfront and other white supremacist forums are the norm.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
"Interestingly, the ancient Egyptians recorded the Tamahu, which means created white people. Egyptian writings also refer to whites as Typhonians or People of Seth, both meaning “the devils.” After these “white devils” were first released into the Black community of the Near East 6000 years ago, they caused severe strife (modern), thus the Africans rounded them up, stripped them of everything and exiled them to the caves and hills of the Caucasus Mountains. This explains the sudden appearance of white people in this region. To prevent their escaping Africans installed a series of guarded walls blocking all exits along that area from one sea to the other!
who created these people
and why did they create these people?
According the mythology, it was Djoser.
So, white people were created in ancient Egypt, interesting
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
, "filtered" 
Printer-friendly view of this topic