Topic: Max Planck, Harvard and Sao Paulo researchers deny their DNA models are suspect
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
We have seen the Luzia replacement reconstruction is not based on Luzia's skull at all. Some male individual from 2500 yrs later deformed computer enhanced image virtual skull and undifferentiated 'first human populations' ideology informed the new replacement. Are there no available intact skulls or upper crania for physical anthropology forensic reconstruction?
Unbacked by either Cell or Science team members Strauss of the University of São Paulo (USP) has successfully reinvented Luzia going as far as to steal her name to label a group that's temporally unconnected with the Luzia dig. A 'Luzia people' name can also rightfully belong to the fossil set held by the Natural History Museum of Denmark in Copenhagen which all were excavated from the Lagoa Santa site and lived near the same time Luzia did.
The OP blames the Cell article institites but one of them, the University of São Paulo, is at fault. It's official journal says the retrodeform digital model "skull" was fleshed based on DNA in the Cell article.
We have a case parallel with Grimaldi man whose actual physical features were dismissed by self serving ideology inimical to a certain forensic phenotype ytes find distasteful. The real Luzia and Apiuna reconstructions resemble each other.[*]
2:3, they represent the first Original American population of Lagoa Santo. Though they look a lot like a Papuan and an Andaman, they have no discernable genomic link to Oceania peoples.
Let's not forget the people of Lagoa Santa, as well as other first South Americans, weren't misnomered PaleoAmericans because their skull/ face was undifferentiated. The PaleoAmerican inventor, Peter Lund, over 100 yrs ago didn't see the accepted features of living Amerindians. This lead to the false misapplication Paleos were unrelated to all other Amerindians.
Today we know better and a transdisciplinary analysis informs us all humans native to the Americas no matter what era all derive from the same biological root regardless of unexpected faces.
A South American people called Population Y does have an Oceanian genetic signal. Strauss doesn't deny that finding of the Science team, a team he also served on. He just doesn't know how to deal with/interpret it. Thing is, none of the long headed oldest Lagoa Santa individuals carry an Oceania signal.
[*] I see local breeding population similarity in • shape and size of eye sockets • distance between eye sockets • nose flat between eyes • emphasized cheeks • short nose
Luzia has no jaw so no idea she had gonial jutting. Also need Apiuna's skull for truer comparison.
Not to knock Brazil's cyber media but JUSP and FAPESP are not just media reporters. They're organizations directly responsible for finding the fossils under question.
Is it time we moved on to the more than 14,000 yr old Monte Verde way down in Chile. What propelled migration south in just 300 yrs from Oregon way? Cosmology/Spirituality/Religion?
Peștera cu Oase 2 reconstruction Kennis & Kennis (The studio that made the Cheddar man reconstruction) Exhibited in the Neanderthal Museum in Mettmann, Germany.
Peștera cu Oase 2 reconstruction by Richard Neave (same creator of Luzia bust)
Peștera cu Oase , meaning "The Cave with Bones") located near the city Anina, in southwestern Romania, where some of the oldest European early modern human (EEMH) remains, between 37,000 and 42,000 years old, have been found About 6-9% of the genome is Neanderthal in origin. This is the highest percentage of archaic introgression found in an anatomically modern human The autosomal DNA of Oase 1 by Fu et al. (2015) indicates that he (as it was a male) may have shared more alleles with modern East Asian populations than with modern Europeans. However, Oase shared equal alleles with Mesolithic Europeans and East Eurasians suggesting non pre LGM-European admixture in modern Europeans. "Oase 2" belongs to the basal subclade of mitochondrial DNA haplogroup N . "Oase 2" nor "Oase 1" are particularly close genetically to any modern human populations.
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Ironic part of this post just proves what most posters are saying, that the 1st Luiza reconstruction was accurate and was only re-done on silly and unsubstantiated reasons, considering her features are still found among people in the region.
quote:Originally posted by real expert:
The reconstruction of Luzia, if accurate would still look like some Southern American Natives in real life.
A Native man with the facial features of the Olmec heads.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: that the 1st Luiza reconstruction was accurate and was only re-done on silly and unsubstantiated reasons,
The Luzia reconstruction was not redone
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: A South American people called Population Y does have an Oceanian genetic signal. Strauss doesn't deny that finding of the Science team, a team he also served on. He just doesn't know how to deal with/interpret it. Thing is, none of the long headed oldest Lagoa Santa individuals carry an Oceania signal.
A slight correction: 'Population Y' is the designation given to the ghost population in Asia ancestral to some Amerindians as well as some Australasians. Also this Y signal is also found among Aleutian Islanders off the coast of Alaska which suggest a coastal route among these people.
But I also am curious as to the 'Austric' or 'Africoid' appearance of Paleo-Americans.
What about Naia of Mexico?
Her cranium above displays said features but her DNA was/is being mapped. As to whether she has the Population Y signal, I don't know. What I do know is that she carries an early form of mtDNA D1. While D1 one of the main maternal clades of Amerindians today, all other clades of D are found in Asia.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Thx 4/t precision.
Just skim reading I got an erroneous impression of PopY re Surui and Kariwhatchacallems, hahaha.
Man, something funny's going on. It's Anglocentrics assuming superiority over LusoHispanics and Francophones.
We already know about it in Afr iron dating. But check LusoHispanic scientists on S Amer artifacts bonfied at 18,000 yrs old and, maybe not as strongly vetted, up to 40,000 yr old tools/camps.
I tink Tyranno brought up MSA split of E Asia and Oceania types from common roots. Now there's this minor sporadic unexplained West Oceania signal in the Americas. Hmm.
I had abandoned xPacific peopling which you still entertain but now I question Beringia only entrance of Hss into the W Hemisphere. Is there any archaeo backing up Beringia habitation that Anglos insist is a fact while denying widespread preClovis S Amer the LusoHispans uncovered?
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Thx 4/t precision.
Just skim reading I got an erroneous impression of PopY re Surui and Kariwhatchacallems, hahaha.
Man, something funny's going on. It's Anglocentrics assuming superiority over LusoHispanics and Francophones.
We already know about it in Afr iron dating. But check LusoHispanic scientists on S Amer artifacts bonfied at 18,000 yrs old and, maybe not as strongly vetted, up to 40,000 yr old tools/camps.
I tink Tyranno brought up MSA split of E Asia and Oceania types from common roots. Now there's this minor sporadic unexplained West Oceania signal in the Americas. Hmm.
I had abandoned xPacific peopling which you still entertain but now I question Beringia only entrance of Hss into the W Hemisphere. Is there any archaeo backing up Beringia habitation that Anglos insist is a fact while denying widespread preClovis S Amer the LusoHispans uncovered?
The more I learn The less I know
Whether it is Anglocentrics or Latinocentrics (including Portuguese speakers) they are all forms of the same Eurocentric superiority complex. As Lioness pointed out the whole debacle of 'Luzia's People' not really looking austric was not the claims of the scientists but of the Brazilian media. So the bias problem is far more extensive than just the science and academia but the media as well.
I forgot to add to my last post that mt hg D1 was also found in Asia but interestingly enough among Jomon as explained here. Thus, the Jomon may very well be somewhat of a missing link between Asians and Paleo-American ancestors.
That said, my Pacific Island hopping theory is not a straight across the Pacific but rather is something intermediate to that and the Beringian theory. physical anthropologist Walter Neves and geneticist Pontus Skoglund postulate that due to the stereotypical tropical features of Luzia and her like as well as the Population Y signal, it is probable that the migration route may have taken place around the northern Pacific rim either along the Beringian coastline or just south of it along a chain of islands. As for Beringian archaeology it is quite scant no doubt to Beringia now being submerged but it still exist on both sides of the Bering Strait. Earlier in this thread I already cited one study from last year on late Pleistocene infants in Alaska here. There is another study from a couple months back on Holocene baby teeth in northeastern Siberia here.
The problem however is that I think too much emphasis is placed on Siberian populations and not enough on coastal East Asian populations of that time i.e. Population Y.
Ice Age Beringia
Possible Prehistoric Migration Routes
Probable Prehistoric Migration routes suggested by physical remains and DNA
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Whether it is Anglocentrics or Latinocentrics (including Portuguese speakers) they are all forms of the same Eurocentric superiority complex. As Lioness pointed out the whole debacle of 'Luzia's People' not really looking austric was not the claims of the scientists but of the Brazilian media. So the bias problem is far more extensive than just the science and academia but the media as well.
No, I had revised my position on page 2 My guess was not directly a racial superiority motive but rather some white Brazilians, and yes in fact, one of the scientists who is a professor in Brazil and others perhaps not liking that idea that ancient Brazilians could have looked as Richard Neave, who made the Luzia reconstruction of 1999 said had "Negroid" features and Walter Neves, the head of the research team said most strongly resembled Australian Aborigines.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: [QB] Strauss is the Brazilian SCIENTIST media is based on.
The blame is where it belongs, on a scientist.
quote:
“Accustomed as we are to the traditional facial reconstruction of Luzia with strongly African features, this new facial reconstruction reflects the physiognomy of the first inhabitants of Brazil far more accurately, displaying the generalized and indistinct features from which the great Amerindian diversity was established over thousands of years,”Strauss said.
the above is a key quote from André Strauss in Eurek Alert, a publication of the American Association for the Advancement of Science
The is a key quote from archeologist André Strauss, who coordinated the Brazilian part of the two DNA articles which came out in late 2018
"An article on the study has just been published in the journal Cell a group of 72 researchers from eight countries, affiliated with the University of São Paulo (USP) in Brazil, Harvard University in the United States, and Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History in Germany, among others."
Yep, the scientist is the culprit not as much Brazilian media. I am changing my opinion here
If he thinks that the Caroline Wilkinson image is more representative of the Lagoa Santa remains he analyzed it's a reasonable opinion but he discredits Luzia as if she could not represents one of the ancestral components at Lagoa Santa
André Strauss It Max Planck agent-scientists up to their racial tricks again, the German-Brazilian connection
posted
By the way, despite all the wishful thoughts and/or fusses about what early Lagoa Santa people looked like I'm still waiting for studies refuting the findings of Neves et al. such as this one from 1999:
LAPA VERMELHA IV HOMINID 1: MORPHOLOGICAL AFFINITIES OF THE EARLIEST KNOWN AMERICAN All this information indicates that the Americas were first occupied by a generalized population of Homo sapiens very similar to the one that departed from East Asia to Australia around 50,000 B.P., and whose remote origins ultimately can be traced back to Africa (Lahr, 1995; Munford et al., 1995; Neves et al., 1997). This morphology is primarily characterized by very long and narrow skulls, short and narrow faces, with short orbits and noses. A process of in situ microevolution leading to mongolization cannot be ruled out to explain what is seen in terms of cranial morphology in later native American populations, namely broad faces and vaults, tall faces with tall orbits and noses. As Lahr (1995) emphasized, this would have implicated a tremendous amount of convergent evolution in Asia and in the Americas. This becomes even more difficult to accept if we recall that Sutter (1997) has suggested that dental morphology has also changed from a sundadont to a sinodont pattern in prehistoric coastal Chile and Peru during the Middle Holocene. Another indicator that weakens the local microevolution argument is that, at least in South America, the evidence seems to point to a major population replacement around 8,000 to 9,000 years B.P., when the generalized morphology was abruptly replaced by the classic Mongoloid morphology (Munford et al., 1995; Neves et al., 1996a).
By the way, here is a 2005 study from Richard Sutter reaffirming his prior findings:
You add up the sundadonty dental morphology along with the cranial morphology and the Population Y genetics, and it's too much to evidence think there was one homogenous population from Beringia that settled the Americas.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Probable Prehistoric Migration routes suggested by physical remains and DNA
.
or this
.
As I've explained several times in this thread which apparently you missed, the original unedited graphic at the top is most accurate because Population Y did NOT originate in Australasia but in East Asia somewhere in the Chinese coast as they are ancestral to BOTH some Paleoindians AND some Australasians.
As Reich & Skoglund et ales. said: Differences in the shared DNA suggest this ancestry did not come directly from these populations, the team concluded, but through a now extinct population they call “Population Y” that may have lived somewhere in East Asia and contributed genes to both very early Paleoamericans and to Australo-Melanesians. Because the Amazonian groups are only distantly related to Population Y, the team concludes that this represents an ancient rather than recent genetic contribution that arrived in an early “pulse of migration” to the Americas.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
^ Here, posted in Feb 23, 2019 an animation of a digitized Luzia image that is tightly based in the Richard Neave 1999 with the Australian/African features. Neave called it negroid and emphasized not mongoloid or typical Native American morphology
So Strauss has this up on his youtube uncritically. Something fishy going on
Yet in his remarks in this Eurek Alert article from 2018 he suggests it's inaccurate. And in the same article the Caroline Wilkinson image is credit to Strauss and her
Yep, the scientist is the culprit not as much Brazilian media. I am changing my opinion here
If he thinks that the Caroline Wilkinson image is more representative of the Lagoa Santa remains he analyzed it's a reasonable opinion but he discredits Luzia as if she could not represents one of the ancestral components at Lagoa Santa
André Strauss It Max Planck agent-scientists up to their racial tricks again, the German-Brazilian connection
Speaking of the 4th Reich scientist of Max Planck, do you realize Brazil is one of the countries in South America many Nazis fled to?? The other countries were Argentina and Chile and the Nazis there have literally replicated German towns there and continued human experiments and 'Aryan' eugenic breeding programs up until the late 90s!!
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: By the way, despite all the wishful thoughts and/or fusses about what early Lagoa Santa people looked like I'm still waiting for studies refuting the findings of Neves et al. such as this one from 1999:
LAPA VERMELHA IV HOMINID 1: MORPHOLOGICAL AFFINITIES OF THE EARLIEST KNOWN AMERICAN All this information indicates that the Americas were first occupied by a generalized population of Homo sapiens very similar to the one that departed from East Asia to Australia around 50,000 B.P., and whose remote origins ultimately can be traced back to Africa (Lahr, 1995; Munford et al., 1995; Neves et al., 1997). This morphology is primarily characterized by very long and narrow skulls, short and narrow faces, with short orbits and noses. A process of in situ microevolution leading to mongolization cannot be ruled out to explain what is seen in terms of cranial morphology in later native American populations, namely broad faces and vaults, tall faces with tall orbits and noses. As Lahr (1995) emphasized, this would have implicated a tremendous amount of convergent evolution in Asia and in the Americas. This becomes even more difficult to accept if we recall that Sutter (1997) has suggested that dental morphology has also changed from a sundadont to a sinodont pattern in prehistoric coastal Chile and Peru during the Middle Holocene. Another indicator that weakens the local microevolution argument is that, at least in South America, the evidence seems to point to a major population replacement around 8,000 to 9,000 years B.P., when the generalized morphology was abruptly replaced by the classic Mongoloid morphology (Munford et al., 1995; Neves et al., 1996a).
By the way, here is a 2005 study from Richard Sutter reaffirming his prior findings:
You add up the sundadonty dental morphology along with the cranial morphology and the Population Y genetics, and it's too much to evidence think there was one homogenous population from Beringia that settled the Americas.
For what it's worth, the EurekAlert article mentions that Luzia's people could represent a separate (even if related) wave from the ancestors of modern Native South Americans.
quote:"From the genetic standpoint, the Lagoa Santa people are descendants of the first Amerindians," said archeologist André Menezes Strauss, who coordinated the Brazilian part of the study. Strauss is affiliated with the University of São Paulo's Museum of Archeology and Ethnology (MAE-USP).
"Surprisingly, the members of this first lineage of South Americans left no identifiable descendants among today's Amerindians," he said. "Some 9,000 years ago their DNA disappears completely from the fossil samples and is replaced by DNA from the first migratory wave, prior to the Clovis culture. All living Amerindians are descendants of this first wave. We don't yet know why the genetic stock of the Lagoa Santa people disappeared."
One possible reason for the disappearance of DNA from the second migration is that it was diluted in the DNA of the Amerindians who are descendants of the first wave and cannot be identified by existing methods of genetic analysis.
That might account for Luzia's people not looking quite the same physically (e.g. their less "Sinodont" features) as extant Natives in the region.
posted
^ This brings us back to the question of exactly how the first human migrants entered America. Did they all come in through Beringia? If so, these Beringians were obviously of a heterogenous nature as shown in the study I brought up earlier here. But that still does not rule out the coastal migration route south of Beringia as well.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ This brings us back to the question of exactly how the first human migrants entered America. Did they all come in through Beringia? If so, these Beringians were obviously of a heterogenous nature as shown in the study I brought up earlier here. But that still does not rule out the coastal migration route south of Beringia as well.
If Luzia's ancestors were indeed darker-skinned and less Sinodont-looking than the other early colonists, I think they'd be good candidates for taking the southern coastal route as you said.
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannohotep: For what it's worth, the EurekAlert article mentions that Luzia's people could represent a separate (even if related) wave from the ancestors of modern Native South Americans.
I'm sorry but this article is garbage and you shouldn't be pointing out it's worth. There is no DNA for Luzia and no other human remains were found at the particular site. Right in the sub headline it says "distinctly African features attributed to Luzia were wrong" and then if we look at the photo the capition reiterates "Distinctly African features attributed to Luzia were wrong " And the attribution of the photo is to one of the Max Plank research a professor in Brazil, André Strauss and British forensic artist Caroline Wilkinson and Straus says
quote: "Accustomed as we are to the traditional facial reconstruction of Luzia with strongly African features, this new facial reconstruction reflects the physiognomy of the first inhabitants of Brazil far more accurately, displaying the generalized and indistinct features from which the great Amerindian diversity was established over thousands of years," Strauss said.
This is BS. There is nothing wrong with the Luzia. There was no need to even mention Luzia. The article in Cell and the journal Science was DNA analysis of remains at a different site and 2,500 years younger
So this term "Luzia's people" is a dishonest term to try to discredit the Luzia reconstruction. They have DNA only from a different site but they call remains at this site "Luzia's people" to suggest that Luzia has the same DNA and therefore the Richard Neave 1999 reconstruction is wrong. Yet months after Strauss has an animation of the Luzia reconstruction on his youtube contradicting his own remarks in this article.
There is nothing wrong with the Luzia reconstruction. It is simply different from other particular select remains nearby.
posted
^ LOL So now they are going to question and argue as to whether Luzia's features constitute 'southern' (negroid/australoid) features. Sounds like what happened to Egyptian anthropology.
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannohotep: If Luzia's ancestors were indeed darker-skinned and less Sinodont-looking than the other early colonists, I think they'd be good candidates for taking the southern coastal route as you said.
I find it interesting how the population Y signal survives in Eskimo natives of the Aleutian Islands. This itself should be a clue as to the coastal route.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
From where I sit
There are no "people of Luzia." There is a person Eurocentrically named Luzia. There are Holocene people of Lagoa Santa Brazil. They are of various times and uncovered by various digs.
Perhaps listing the finds by dig would shed some kinda light as to if there is one people of Lagoa Santa or differing Lagoa Santa peoples in regard to • settlement date(s) • settlement continuity • cranial form(s) • general nonmetric facial features • post cranial dimensions • ethnicity, ie., - cuisine - tools - abodes - ornament - pastimes - other cultural accoutrements that delineate ethnicity. Unfortunately language's one ethnic feature we can't look into, but, it's no clincher. Same for clothing.
Really? The Big Fish is the Fishtail blade making peoples before 14,000 yrs ago maybe up to 40,000 yrs ago
Was it nearly the same time two wings of a more primary split south and east to become West Oceanians north and east becoming Fishtail Americans maybe?
Oh, yeah PopY signalled Inuit were brought up. Any other Circumpolar peoples show it? I mean did the signal enter from the Polars or they got it from Alaskan former Asians or whatever else ?
posted
^ You bring up some interesting points. Whatever you want to call the woman (Luzia or other) her people have been studied for years by the likes of Walter Neves, Richard Sutter and others and they all agree that human remains in South America dated to 10k bp or earlier possess totally different features from modern Amerindians having 'southern' features as well as sundadonty instead of sinodonty. The same is true of 'Naia' girl of Mexico. A couple millennia later you have a different more modern Amerindian populations in the area. You also have traces of the Population Y signal.
All of this shows that the Americas were settled by heterogenous peoples including those from relatively more southerly areas of Asia.
quote:earlier posted by Tukuler: Another good insider sourced report like the JUSP is from Agencia FAPESP who have funded research projects.
Not to knock Brazil's cyber media but JUSP and FAPESP are not just media reporters. They're organizations directly responsible for finding the fossils under question.
**Is it time we moved on to the more than 14,000 yr old Monte Verde way down in Chile. What propelled migration south in just 300 yrs from Oregon way? Cosmology/Spirituality/Religion?**
^ In regards to your last questions above there is no way of knowing why the migration occurred but if it's true the migration from Oregon to Chile happened that quickly then it can only mean it occurred via a coastal route. Even Sutters says the majority of early Sundadont Americans is found in Chile near the coastline.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
DOI: 10.1126/science.1252619, 750 (2014);344Science et al.James C. Chatters and
Modern Native Americans Late Pleistocene Human Skeleton and mtDNA Link Paleoamericans
Here we report a nearly complete, Late Pleistocene–age human skeleton HN5/48 with intact dentition from Hoyo Negro (HN), a submerged collapse chamber in the Sac Actun cave system, eastern Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico (Fig. 1).
The ancestry of the earliest Americans is still debated, however, because the oldest skeletal re-mains from the Americas (>9 ka, the Paleoameri-cans) consistently fail to group morphometrically with modern Native Americans, Siberians, and other northeast Asians (6). Paleoamericans ex-hibit longer, narrower crania and smaller, shorter,more projecting faces than later Native Americans (7). In nearly all cases, they are morphologically most similar to modern peoples of Africa who tend to exhibit such specialized (Sinodont)traits as winged, shovel-shaped upper incisors, three-rooted lower first molars, and small or absent thirdmolars; from Paleoamericans, who exhibit a less spe-cialized (Sundadont) morphology (7). These differ-ences suggest that America was colonized byseparate migration events from different parts of Eurasia(11) or by multiple colonization events from Beringia(12), or that evolutionary changes occurred in theAmericas after colonization (13).
Because of differences in craniofacial morphology and dentition between the earliest American skeletons and modern Native Americans, separate origins have been postulated for them, despite genetic evidence to the contrary. We describe a near-complete human skeleton with an intact cranium and preserved DNA found with extinct fauna in a submerged cave on Mexico’s YucatanPeninsula. This skeleton dates to between 13,000 and 12,000 calendar years ago and hasPaleoamerican craniofacial characteristics and a Beringian-derived mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA)haplogroup (D1). Thus, the differences between Paleoamericans and Native Americans probablyresulted from in situ evolution rather than separate ancestry
. This 13- to 12-ka Paleoamerican skeleton thus suggests that Paleoamericans represent an early population expansion out of Beringia, not an earlier migration fromelsewhere in Eurasia. This is consistent with hypotheses that both Paleoamericans and NativeAmericans derive from a single source population, whether or not all share a lineal relationship.In light of this finding, the differences in craniofacial form between Native Americans and theirPaleoamerican predecessors are best explained as evolutionary changes that postdate the divergence of Beringians from their Siberian ancestors.
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannohotep: @ Djehuti
You don’t think it’s suspicious that Trump recently told four congresswomen of color to “go back where they came from” despite three of them having been born in the US? Or that he was on the Birther bandwagon even before running for President? And then there’s his Muslim ban, his stereotyping Mexican immigrants, his wanting immigrants to come from Norway and other affluent European nations rather than Third World “shitholes”, etc...
I don't think his tweet was directed at those congresswomen because of their "color" or race but rather his anger of the way they talk about America. Ilhan Omar is from Somalia but his tweet didn't say anything about 'country' only that they should go back to the broken "places" they come from to "fix it up and then come back and show us how it's done"
By the "places" he means either the districts they hail from or he mistook them all as foreign. Either way I don't see how them being non-white was the issue to begin with.
You're right about the "birther" nonsense though I fail to see how that relates to 'race' since the vast majority of blacks in the U.S. were born here just like whites and Obama's mother was white. Race has nothing to do with a person's place of birth and Trump even called out Ted Cruz as not being qualified for the presidency because he's a "Canadian anchor-baby". Yet Cruz is white last time I checked. Also his pathetic reason was the source of the birther conspiracy-- his then friend Hillary Clinton or rather her campaign manager Sidney Blumenthal who not only started the rumor that Obama was born in Kenya but that he was also a drug dealer, not to mention the pornographic pictures of Obama's mother leaked into the internet! Yet funny how nobody called Blumenthal or Hillary racist.
Also there was no "Muslim ban" but rather a ban on a list countries that pose a threat to national security which was first compile under the Obama administration. He also never insulted Mexican immigrants. That is a blatant misquote of a speech he gave in Arizona during his campaign which he referred specifically to illegal immigrants from Mexico and not even all of them. As for the "shithole" comment, that was something claimed by an opponent at a meeting at the oval office and is not something confirmed. Even if it was said, he didn't use "shithole" to describe all 3rd world nations but presumably messed up ones which by the way doesn't pertain to any particular race. According to the claims, his list affluent countries also included South Korea which is not a white country. Funny how despite this claim this past month his administration issued H1B work visas to India and Nigeria.
quote:The man may very well not be too invested in the white nationalist movement, but you can’t deny that he has no problem pandering to that crowd for his own self-interests. Which is pretty scummy in its own right.
I don't know if he is purposely doing that but as a politician that's what they all do-- pander to even the lowest common denominator. Which is why I never support them. I hear his supporters say he's a businessman but he's not anymore and is now another public asshole. He was a private asshole in NY now he's a public one in DC.
quote:Could you please do cite a reputable source claiming Trump has supported all those black businesses, colleges, etc.?
Dude. This was common knowledge back in the 90s. In fact just last month in Atlanta the richest black man in America Robert F. Smith who spoke at Morehouse College graduating class out of charity decided to pay off the student debt of all the members of the graduating class. Smith was a friend and business partner who Trump helped back in the day. The same with Robert L. Johnson the co-founder of BET, and Daymond John the founder of FUBU. There were also a bunch of investors here in Atlanta who got their start as stockbrokers in Wall Street thanks in part to Donald Trump. Again, I find it bizarre that despite Trump's history in civil rights which got him 2 NAACP awards he is now branded a Nazi. Yet the Clintons both had Klansmen as their mentors and aren't called racist at all by the media.
It's ironic because Black males protested against police brutality in the "greatest country on earth". These Black males have a longer history and lineage than Trump in America. Yet he called them sons of bitches, instead of listen to their plead. Trump investing in Black up-and-coming companies doesn't mean he wasn't prejudice. It was a business deal. Business deals are meant to make profit of off. We know that later in his life he became a loyal Fox News and Alex Jones follower (watcher.
Trump himself is a third- generation immigrant. His wife is a first immigration who once opperated illegally. His children are anchor babies.
Literally everything he says is a contradiction.
Here is a nice article I've found, which gives a deep look at things. And it's very much in line with "our" poster "Celtic Warrior" was is far right wing:
"Trump did not address members of the alt-right gathering for a Portland rally, but he did say he’s considering designating antifa an “organization of terror." […] President Trump issued a stark warning to antifa, the collective of militant anti-fascist leftist groups, ahead of a rally on Saturday in Portland, Oregon, where antifa activists were widely expected to confront far-right activists.
The man had a racist history, but he apologized for his racist past. And Hillary literally has a history of Social Justice in Black community. However it’s very unfortunate what happened in the ‘90s with the Joe Biden Bill.
Has Trump ever apologized for the racist things he has said and done?
And his tweet was directed at all of the “Squad” because of their racial backgrounds. Non-White immigrants is something extreme right-wing whites always had a problem with, especially those from Africa.
Ironically he doesn't speak up for Palestinians, and didn’t acknowledge that America has destroyed Somali.
The man didn’t even know the Puerto Rico is American territory, or that Miss Presley is ADOS. Both have lineage boing back before his paternal father ever set foot on American soil.
There is a long history in banning non-whites from entering America (USA). What changed this was the 1965 immigration act, but his rhetoric is not much different from what was “trumped” during the firstReconstruction and second Reconstruction.
Evidence is in the fact that trump started his political career with the “Birther-rhetoric”. He doesn't want non-white American, so therefore… this is the reality Black people deal with.
Perhaps you can explain this?
“The tax cuts that President Trump signed into law last year are disproportionately helping white Americans over African-Americans and Latinos, a disparity that reflects longstanding racial economic inequality in the United States and the choices that Republicans made in crafting the law.
The finding comes from a new analysis of the $1.5 trillion tax cut using an economic model built by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a liberal think tank, and released in a joint report with Prosperity Now, a nonprofit focused on helping low-income Americans attain wealth and financial stability. It is the first detailed analysis of the law to break down its effects by race.” ~Jim Tankersley, Oct 11, 2018, White Americans Gain the Most From Trump’s Tax Cuts, a Report Finds https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/11/business/trump-tax-cuts-white-americans.html
Ending Protection from Predatory Lenders
"In the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis that devastated African-American wealth, Congress established the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to guarantee basic standards of fairness for consumer financial products and services such as mortgages, credit cards, car loans, checking accounts, debt collection, and student loans." ~Algernon Austin, JUNE 15, 2018, Social Exclusion: Black People Have Everything to Lose Under Trump https://www.demos.org/research/social-exclusion-black-people-have-everything-lose-under-trumpPosts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
There has always been tremendous diversity in South and Central America. The idea that the early "Africoid/Pacific Islander" types were replaced by more modern Asians is purely false. Both types have been in place since Europeans arrived.
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great: @real expert
Your three day vacation is up. So BEHAVE....
Thanks a lot sir for removing my ban. To be honest I didn‘t expect that I would be banned without having the opportunity to clear up the accusations thrown at me. I didn't say anything racist towards Afro-Americans nor did I insult them but dare to criticize some of them. I just wrote what I have experienced with people that happened to be Afro-Americans. So I wasn‘t targing Afro-Americans for being Afro-Americans but my post was adressed to these people that attack Native Americans and their heritage. Their main source was the afrocentric website ww realhistory, etc. that is run by Clyde Winters, who is Afro-American.
I criticize those black Americans since they say that the real Natives were modern day black Americans and not Asiatic Amerindian. They use Luzia or australian admixutre in some Natives and very old pics of deeply tanned Natives as proof for their claims. There are plenty you tube clips, websites with crazy content, almost all created by Afro-Americans where Native Americans are viciously attacked and called imposters, Mongolians with a racist undertone. Copts are also verbarly abused, called fake invaders by other black Americans. They are to told to get out of Egypt since ancient Egyptians were black and the ancestors of Afro-Americans. I haven‘t met black Brazilians, or Hatians or Africans making such claims . Since these people were black Americans I have to be specific and tell things by their name. Accussing me of targing Afro-Americans or of racism is unfair. In my humble opinion Egyptsearch should listen to both sides of the story instead to quickly ban users just because certain users want them banned. Being critical of some aspect of Afrocentrism that hurts marginalized, oppressed groups like Native Americans is not racist or anti-black at all. Besides since when is the word Afrocentric an insult?
Posts: 49 | From: Germany | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
Clyde doesn’t run Realhistoryww, Mike111 does and I don’t think he’s American but black European
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great: @real expert
Your three day vacation is up. So BEHAVE....
Thanks a lot sir for removing my ban. To be honest I didn‘t expect that I would be banned without having the opportunity to clear up the accusations thrown at me. I didn't say anything racist towards Afro-Americans nor did I insult them but dare to criticize some of them. I just wrote what I have experienced with people that happened to be Afro-Americans. So I wasn‘t targing Afro-Americans for being Afro-Americans but my post was adressed to these people that attack Native Americans and their heritage. Their main source was the afrocentric website ww realhistory, etc. that is run by Clyde Winters, who is Afro-American.
I criticize those black Americans since they say that the real Natives were modern day black Americans and not Asiatic Amerindian. They use Luzia or australian admixutre in some Natives and very old pics of deeply tanned Natives as proof for their claims. There are plenty you tube clips, websites with crazy content, almost all created by Afro-Americans where Native Americans are viciously attacked and called imposters, Mongolians with a racist undertone. Copts are also verbarly abused, called fake invaders by other black Americans. They are to told to get out of Egypt since ancient Egyptians were black and the ancestors of Afro-Americans. I haven‘t met black Brazilians, or Hatians or Africans making such claims . Since these people were black Americans I have to be specific and tell things by their name. Accussing me of targing Afro-Americans or of racism is unfair. In my humble opinion Egyptsearch should listen to both sides of the story instead to quickly ban users just because certain users want them banned. Being critical of some aspect of Afrocentrism that hurts marginalized, oppressed groups like Native Americans is not racist or anti-black at all. Besides since when is the word Afrocentric an insult?
You sure seem to use it as an insult most of the time.
Whether or not you're sincere, I for one don't buy the whole African Olmec thing, or that African-Americans descend primarily from some aboriginal community separate from "Asiatic" Native Americans. However dark or Luzia-like their populations might have looked, I would characterize all the pre-Columbian Native American civilizations (Mesoamerican, Andean, Mississippian, Anasazi, etc.) as, well, Native American rather than African, African-American, European, or whatever. At some point, people gotta acknowledge that what we call civilization has had participants of all skin colors in it.
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great: @real expert
Your three day vacation is up. So BEHAVE....
Thanks a lot sir for removing my ban. To be honest I didn‘t expect that I would be banned without having the opportunity to clear up the accusations thrown at me. I didn't say anything racist towards Afro-Americans nor did I insult them but dare to criticize some of them. I just wrote what I have experienced with people that happened to be Afro-Americans. So I wasn‘t targing Afro-Americans for being Afro-Americans but my post was adressed to these people that attack Native Americans and their heritage. Their main source was the afrocentric website ww realhistory, etc. that is run by Clyde Winters, who is Afro-American.
I criticize those black Americans since they say that the real Natives were modern day black Americans and not Asiatic Amerindian. They use Luzia or australian admixutre in some Natives and very old pics of deeply tanned Natives as proof for their claims. There are plenty you tube clips, websites with crazy content, almost all created by Afro-Americans where Native Americans are viciously attacked and called imposters, Mongolians with a racist undertone. Copts are also verbarly abused, called fake invaders by other black Americans. They are to told to get out of Egypt since ancient Egyptians were black and the ancestors of Afro-Americans. I haven‘t met black Brazilians, or Hatians or Africans making such claims . Since these people were black Americans I have to be specific and tell things by their name. Accussing me of targing Afro-Americans or of racism is unfair. In my humble opinion Egyptsearch should listen to both sides of the story instead to quickly ban users just because certain users want them banned. Being critical of some aspect of Afrocentrism that hurts marginalized, oppressed groups like Native Americans is not racist or anti-black at all. Besides since when is the word Afrocentric an insult?
Dark skin or black skin has been present in populations all over the world for thousands of years. This isn't something "made up" by Africans in America. European anthropologists and racists have known this since they began "exploring" the world. The problem is they use that as a sign of inferiority in most cases. It is that history that is the root of the problem and the basis of modern day misinformation campaigns seen on the internet from various perspectives. And this is why folks at the Max Planck institute are receiving criticism in trying to create their all encompassing models of human history.
Posts: 8895 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Dark skin or black skin has been present in populations all over the world for thousands of years. This isn't something "made up" by Africans in America. European anthropologists and racists have known this since they began "exploring" the world. The problem is they use that as a sign of inferiority in most cases. It is that history that is the root of the problem and the basis of modern day misinformation campaigns seen on the internet from various perspectives. And this is why folks at the Max Planck institute are receiving criticism in trying to create their all encompassing models of human history.
Recall DJ citing a paper showing that Lagoa Santa people had less "sinodont" physical characteristics than later Natives. Given that sinodonty and various other so-called "Mongoloid" physical characteristics are the product of certain EDAR genetic alleles like he's said, it could be that the Lagoa Santa people represent descendents of a population that left the Beringian standstill "ahead of schedule", i.e. before these EDAR traits reached the same degree of fixture that you see in modern Natives. So while Lagao Santa may have more genetic affinity to Native Americans than to any other world population today, their phenotype could still have looked quite different (e.g. less "Mongoloid") from modern Natives. At least that's how it has come to look to me.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Dark skin or black skin has been present in populations all over the world for thousands of years. This isn't something "made up" by Africans in America. European anthropologists and racists have known this since they began "exploring" the world. The problem is they use that as a sign of inferiority in most cases. It is that history that is the root of the problem and the basis of modern day misinformation campaigns seen on the internet from various perspectives. And this is why folks at the Max Planck institute are receiving criticism in trying to create their all encompassing models of human history.
Recall DJ citing a paper showing that Lagoa Santa people had less "sinodont" physical characteristics than later Natives. Given that sinodonty and various other so-called "Mongoloid" physical characteristics are the product of certain EDAR genetic alleles like he's said, it could be that the Lagoa Santa people represent descendents of a population that left the Beringian standstill "ahead of schedule", i.e. before these EDAR traits reached the same degree of fixture that you see in modern Natives. So while Lagao Santa may have more genetic affinity to Native Americans than to any other world population today, their phenotype could still have looked quite different (e.g. less "Mongoloid") from modern Natives. At least that's how it has come to look to me.
I don't disagree with the idea of multiple waves hitting America and with later waves having different features. What I disagree with is the idea that those older features disappeared and that modern "native Americans" going back prior to European contact were exclusively or primarily sidont.
Posts: 8895 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Nobody is saying those older features disappeared entirely, however there is no denying the fact that the sundadont populaces were largely replaced by the sinodont ones as shown by the skeletal and dental evidence.
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannohotep: Given that sinodonty and various other so-called "Mongoloid" physical characteristics are the product of certain EDAR genetic alleles like he's said, it could be that the Lagoa Santa people represent descendents of a population that left the Beringian standstill "ahead of schedule", i.e. before these EDAR traits reached the same degree of fixture that you see in modern Natives. So while Lagao Santa may have more genetic affinity to Native Americans than to any other world population today, their phenotype could still have looked quite different (e.g. less "Mongoloid") from modern Natives. At least that's how it has come to look to me.
Actually, recent research has come out showing that Beringia may have been an early center of EDAR gene expression.
Gene for teeth used to track ancient human populations Beringia is an area where Siberia and Alaska come together. It is now underwater. But at the last glacial maximum, about 24,000 years ago, sea level was 120 metres lower and this large wide flat open area supported plants and animals and likely a human population. Leslea Hlusko is tracking ancient populations through a gene variant which influences dentition. The EDAR gene controls the shape of incisors and a range of other traits. A new hypothesis is the Beringia region was favourable for expression of the EDAR gene, and populations selected for it. These populations then spread to the Americas and to north east Asia.
If this is true, then it means that the early sundadonts who first settled the Americas did not come from that area but likely south of that area along a coastal area.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannohotep: Given that sinodonty and various other so-called "Mongoloid" physical characteristics are the product of certain EDAR genetic alleles like he's said, it could be that the Lagoa Santa people represent descendents of a population that left the Beringian standstill "ahead of schedule", i.e. before these EDAR traits reached the same degree of fixture that you see in modern Natives. So while Lagao Santa may have more genetic affinity to Native Americans than to any other world population today, their phenotype could still have looked quite different (e.g. less "Mongoloid") from modern Natives. At least that's how it has come to look to me.
Actually, recent research has come out showing that Beringia may have been an early center of EDAR gene expression.
Gene for teeth used to track ancient human populations Beringia is an area where Siberia and Alaska come together. It is now underwater. But at the last glacial maximum, about 24,000 years ago, sea level was 120 metres lower and this large wide flat open area supported plants and animals and likely a human population. Leslea Hlusko is tracking ancient populations through a gene variant which influences dentition. The EDAR gene controls the shape of incisors and a range of other traits. A new hypothesis is the Beringia region was favourable for expression of the EDAR gene, and populations selected for it. These populations then spread to the Americas and to north east Asia.
If this is true, then it means that the early sundadonts who first settled the Americas did not come from that area but likely south of that area along a coastal area.
I stand corrected. Though I do remember you mentioning the ancestors of modern Northeast Asians (as in Chinese, Japanese, Mongolians, etc.) may have also come from Beringia, so maybe they have common ancestor with modern Natives there.
posted
^ As far as northeast Asians like Chinese, Koreans and Japanese having Beringian ancestry, yes this is partly true. Evidence shows back-migrations to Siberia from Beringia and ultimately northwest America, and some of these Siberians made their way into Korea and northern China.
This makes me think of the populations of North Africa and Southwest Asia who both share the same dental morphology and well as other biological affinities and ancestry. Prehistoric north Africans migrated into Southwest Asia and then later on some Southwest Asians return to Africa.
Posts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ As far as northeast Asians like Chinese, Koreans and Japanese having Beringian ancestry, yes this is partly true. Evidence shows back-migrations to Siberia from Beringia and ultimately northwest America, and some of these Siberians made their way into Korea and northern China.
I wonder if those back-migrants in northeast Asia ever admixed with sundadont locals. If so, would that make modern Northeast Asians a hybrid population of sorts?
posted
^ No, because sinodonty and the EDAR mutation itself originated in northeast Asia to begin with. I think you misunderstood when the source I cited says Beriginia was an early center of EDAR mutation, that doesn't make it the source. The source was still northeast Asia; however among those northeast Asians who made it to Beringia there seemed to have been instensive selection for the trait as some experts have described New Word or Amerindian peoples as "super-sinodonty". And as further proof or Beringian back-migration, some populations of Siberia and northern Asia also exhibit super-sinodonty as opposed to regular sinodonty.
Interestingly, the only part of northeast Asia that fit the scenario you described is Japan! It is modern Japanese who exhibit hybrid traits of both sundadonty and sinodonty as well as other traits. This is further proof that sinodont populations arrived relatively late to the Japanese islands.
Posts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Nobody is saying those older features disappeared entirely, however there is no denying the fact that the sundadont populaces were largely replaced by the sinodont ones as shown by the skeletal and dental evidence.
Again, no disagreement with that. What I am saying is that there has always been tremendous diversity in South and Central America and the photos and writings of the Early European colonists attest to this. And even to this day there is tremendous diversity among remote Native Populations.... It is not simply a case of being "exclusively Sinodont or Sudadont" which really just means North Asian vs South Asian.
The problem with all these European models of human diversity is they try and put people in categories and ignore the fact of tremendous variation and overlaps within and between those categories.
Major features of Sundadonty and Sinodonty, including suggestions about East Asian microevolution, population history, and late Pleistocene relationships with Australian Aboriginals
quote: The eight diagnostic morphological traits of the Sundadont and Sinodont divisions of the Mongoloid dental complex are identified. Intra‐and intergroup variation for these crown and root features is plotted. The univariate frequency distributions provide useful evidence for several suggestions about East Asian prehistory, dental microevolution, and intergroup relationships. The case for local evolution of Sundadonty is strengthened by finding Australian teeth to be very similar to this pattern. Australian Aboriginal teeth are also generally like those of Jomonese and some Ainus, suggesting that members of the late Pleistocene Sundaland population could have initially colonized Sahulland as well as the continental shelf of East Asia northward to Hokkaido.
This particular point here in this book goes back to what I have been saying for years on this forum which is that many of Native Americans and Asians descend from an aboriginal root which is most commonly seen in Australian aborigines but was once more widespread.
Posts: 8895 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great: @real expert
Your three day vacation is up. So BEHAVE....
Thanks a lot sir for removing my ban. To be honest I didn‘t expect that I would be banned without having the opportunity to clear up the accusations thrown at me. I didn't say anything racist towards Afro-Americans nor did I insult them but dare to criticize some of them. I just wrote what I have experienced with people that happened to be Afro-Americans. So I wasn‘t targing Afro-Americans for being Afro-Americans but my post was adressed to these people that attack Native Americans and their heritage. Their main source was the afrocentric website ww realhistory, etc. that is run by Clyde Winters, who is Afro-American.
I criticize those black Americans since they say that the real Natives were modern day black Americans and not Asiatic Amerindian. They use Luzia or australian admixutre in some Natives and very old pics of deeply tanned Natives as proof for their claims. There are plenty you tube clips, websites with crazy content, almost all created by Afro-Americans where Native Americans are viciously attacked and called imposters, Mongolians with a racist undertone. Copts are also verbarly abused, called fake invaders by other black Americans. They are to told to get out of Egypt since ancient Egyptians were black and the ancestors of Afro-Americans. I haven‘t met black Brazilians, or Hatians or Africans making such claims . Since these people were black Americans I have to be specific and tell things by their name. Accussing me of targing Afro-Americans or of racism is unfair. In my humble opinion Egyptsearch should listen to both sides of the story instead to quickly ban users just because certain users want them banned. Being critical of some aspect of Afrocentrism that hurts marginalized, oppressed groups like Native Americans is not racist or anti-black at all. Besides since when is the word Afrocentric an insult?
1)When you do actual research, you’ll notice that it was WHITE scholar who started making the claims that the Olmec were people of African descend.
2) It also goes against your earlier claims (a few months ago) that whites were all over the planet and what not ridiculous claims you made.
3) These Black People who make these claims to be indigenous to the Americas base their claims on WHITE RESEARCHER SOURCES. This group is a relatively small group. Most Black Americans don’t even take it seriously. Most know and understand that they have origin in West and Central Africa.
So once again you have proven us that you aren’t an expert on anything. You thrive on prejudices, and that is why you were banned. And rightfully so, I have to add!
Lastly, was it not (some) whites who claimed to have origin everywhere. Still till this day in science we see how it is being weaponized, as you propped up your DNA-example.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
So now they are going to question and argue as to whether Luzia's features constitute 'southern' (negroid/australoid) features. Sounds like what happened to Egyptian anthropology.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Yet funny how nobody called Blumenthal or Hillary racist.
Printer-friendly view of this topic