Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
It's what many fair-skinned blacks did during those times.
http://www.post-gazette.com/lifestyle/20031026stain1026fnp2.asp
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:Nothing I said so far is Eurocentric, it is just the truth.
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
This obsurd idea by Euroclowns who claim In one Breath East Africans are white/caucasian Blacks but in the same breath put up images of Lip Plate Eithopians as proof of Black Savagery.
quote:Sorry my friend, but those are not 'real blacks'.
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
It's what many fair-skinned blacks did during those times.
http://www.post-gazette.com/lifestyle/20031026stain1026fnp2.asp
quote:Yes, something close to this is more realistic than what is posted in this thread.
Originally posted by Mike111:
Manu - Is this what you meant? In my experience, most "First Generation" mulattoes look like this.
quote:Obama's father is genetically not a real East African. Only geographically, as his tribe the Luo are migrants. The Luo are mainly of Niger-Congo basin origin, per Tishkoff et al. 2009.
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
Funny thing is Obama is half East African and Half White and looks "blacker" than most Mulattos. But Even Obama would be recognized EASILY as Mulatto in a crowd of African Americans.
quote:Sade, the singer, is Nigerian (Yoruba) and British...
Originally posted by Manu:
African Americans are on average somewhere between 15-25% European/Amerindian. So half Afram half White are rarely true 50/50 Biracials.
Real West African (or Bantu) 50/50 Biracials look very black.
quote:what experience? you live in an all white neighborhood
Originally posted by Mike111:
Manu - Is this what you meant? In my experience, most "First Generation" mulattoes look like this.
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness:
^^^^Mike is this a "mulatto" ?
we await your wisdom
quote:
Originally posted by Mike111:
YES: that lovely San woman is INDEED a Mulatto!
Truthcentric is quite correct!
quote:
Originally posted by cassiterides:
This thread is to teach simple-minded characters like melchior7 who say it is practically impossible for "sub-Saharan" Africans to have offspring that don't specifically resemble ["stereotyped"] sub-Saharan Africans in as short a time as the 2nd generation
===========
Your photos basically debunk your argument because even with white admixture none of those mongrels you posted could ever pass as a white. They are still all mixed-race.
It would take many hundreds or even thousands of years (with intermarriage with whites only) for them to look like normal whites.
quote:They probably were indigenous long long long ago.
Originally posted by adrianne:
show us proof black africans are not indigenous to north africa,
if you cant it will prove just like the sudan the blacks have been pushed down,
just like in north africa
quote:Lioness, Lioness, You know, if you stopped lying, or trying to lie, for just a little while, you might actually learn something by accident.
Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:what experience? you live in an all white neighborhood
Originally posted by Mike111:
Manu - Is this what you meant? In my experience, most "First Generation" mulattoes look like this.
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness:
^^^^Mike is this a "mulatto" ?
we await your wisdomquote:
Originally posted by Mike111:
YES: that lovely San woman is INDEED a Mulatto!
Truthcentric is quite correct!
quote:That's in fact the reason I included offspring of western Africans in the mix, to demonstrate that they can just as look different from the average "sub-Saharan" as the offspring of eastern Africans. These biological realities blow Eurocentric racial fantasies into smithereens.
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
Yes, Explorer Im glad you included West Africans as many Eroclowns claim this is proof of the Caucasian heritage of East Africans. Now with West Africans they have no where to Run..
quote:As noted in the OP, these images had all been posted here before, and by posters who knew the backgrounds of the figures in the images. In that respect, they are not "very selective", but rather, a matter of posters sharing their acquaintances with others.
Originally posted by Manu:
To me these pictures are very selective.
The average half West African half European usually comes out looking 'much blacker'. This is not based on pictures from the internet but real-life experience. Often they even look like regular African Americans rather than mixed.
quote:You are choosing to turn a blind eye to empirical evidence to the contrary put before you, because it upsets the predetermined ideology you've decided to go with.
I do have to agree that half East African half European usually look off-white (as in coastal North African). But the reason for that is mainly because East Africans and Europeans are genetically rather close while West Africans are very divergent.
quote:You are just being emotional. I have backed up my point about your simple-mindedness with facts. There is no doubt in my mind, that if the background of the personalities in these images had not been described to you, you wouldn't not have associated them with "sub-Saharan" Africans, and/or else have determined which "sub-Saharan" territory they have ancestry from.
Originally posted by melchior7:
The simple minded character is you. Many of the folks in your photos do look mixed more or less and are not very typical of Mulatto offspring.
quote:Obama is just another manifestation of European/"sub-Saharan" coupling; he is not the "biological spokesman", LOL, for the personalities I'd shown. And even taking Obama; he looks just as dramatically different from his father, and would standout from the rest of his father's family just as he would standout from his mother's immediate European family. Therefore, it only reinforces my point, about how "sub-Saharan" Africans coupled with Europeans can generate offspring that look different from communities of said parents in as little a time as the first generation offspring.
Think Obama. To put this into perspective, you are using questionable newspaper drawings of a few Black Riffian pirates dating from 1859 to claim that Riffians at that time where basically sub saharan Blacks.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
quote:Some of the personalities I had posted above would not easily standout in this crowd, if their background had not been made known. Furthermore, this is obviously a selective rendering of "Berbers". They can also look like these:
And now look like this,
in about 150 years! And hardley a dark face in sight.
quote:Dumbass, the expulsion and slavery had taken place some time way back; don't you think that's more than enough time for these events to have an impact, especially given the fact that it only takes 1st generation offspring for a marked phenotypic departure of said offspring from their "sub-Saharan"/European ancestry to take place. If the personalities shown above continued to exchange genes with other offspring of similar parental coupling, as the preferred mating selection, then don't you think several generations onwards, the offspring could develop phenotype renderings that may well standout from the modal phenotypes generally found in the communities of the parents involved? We are taking about the impact of slavery here, coupled with the expulsions of diasporan Maghrebi from the Iberian peninsula. If people of "mixed" geographic ancestry selectively preferred to mate with other people of "mixed" geographic ancestry, then that does not amount to "stop mating with their own women". Go to the mall, and buy a clue.
Basically for something like that to happen in a relatively short time, the males have to literally stop mating with their own women and all of them begin taking European women instead.
quote:There could have been exogenous genetic intrusion into the Maghrebi gene pool in the time frame you are espousing; that is not in contention. However, the argument is that "much" of the current makeup of the European element in Maghrebi gene pool can be best explained by the historic slave trade of European females and the emigration of diasporan Maghrebi folks from southern Europe.
Preposterous! Now if you claimed this began gradually since about 800 A.D or so then it would be much more plausible.
quote:The Romans or Greeks wouldn't have made much genetic headway beyond the small administrative centers where they were stationed, and it shows. European male genetic imprint in the Maghrebi is essentially minuscule or negligible. I notice that you use "Eurasians" interchangeably with "Europeans". The Phoenicians, who preceded the Romans and Greeks, were also in the Maghreb. Surely they too must have exchanged some genes with Maghrebi folks, no? So, why do you always translate "light-skin" in the Maghreb as an impossible prospect before the historic European slave trade and the return of Andalusian Moorish communities in that region?
But still we have historical records that show Eurasian people in North Africa during the time of the Egyptians the Romans, the Greeks, etc.
quote:A load of manure. The "prehistoric" Maghrebi remains span a time frame as far back whence anatomically modern humans had not even set foot in the Levant. How's that for a reality check?
We even have prehistoric skeletal remains which are not Sub saharn
quote:"Near East" is not Europe, you do know that, don't you? So you cannot use any "Near Eastern" ancestry interchangeably with "European" ancestry. You say DNA evidence shows "Eurasian" arrival during the LGM. What genetic evidence would that be? I cannot think of any LGM arrival of "Eurasians" in the Maghreb, can you? What would this "Eurasian" element be, when did it arrive in the LGM, and by what markers are they traced? How come no paleontological record of these LGM "Eurasian" have come to light yet, at least as far as I can tell? I don't care if you are "mulattoo", a mongrel, pink, green or yellow, I'm only interested in your answers to these questions, you big flat poopoo-platter head.
not to mention current DNA studies seem to corroborate the arrival of Eurasians during the LGM. We know that many from the Near East came into North Africa as well. So why would anyone subscribe to such an extreme scenario?? Answer, DESPERATION! And I AM a Mulatto you big bone head Lol!
quote:You are still missing the message of the OP. It is refuting melchior7's claim that "sub-Saharan" Africans coupled with Europeans cannot produce offspring that markedly look different from either parent within a very short span of time. It doesn't matter whether AAs and Euro Americans are already "mixed" and then "re-mixing", LOL. According to melchoir7's logic, that still would not be enough to produce offspring that look markedly different from either parents, because according to melchior7, the "sub-Saharan" Africans [west Africans in particular] simply have such a "strong phenotypic peculiarity" about them that cannot be "diluted" within a short span of time.
Originally posted by Manu:
African Americans are on average somewhere between 15-25% European/Amerindian. So half Afram half White are rarely true 50/50 Biracials.
Real West African (or Bantu) 50/50 Biracials look very black.
quote:You've got be the 2nd person I've read so far, who had not carefully read the OP. And what is "normal whites" supposed to mean; who mentioned anything about "normal whites"?
Originally posted by cassiterides:
Your photos basically debunk your argument because even with white admixture none of those mongrels you posted could ever pass as a white. They are still all mixed-race.
It would take many hundreds or even thousands of years (with intermarriage with whites only) for them to look like normal whites.
quote:Here's my answer to Kefi et al.:
Originally posted by melchior7:
Btw there is a prehistoric site called Taforalt very near the Riff area in Morocco. This what they found!
"Our results reveal a probable local evolution of Taforalt population and a genetic continuity in North Africa.
The genetic inheritance of Taforalt population (12,000 years) is composed of:
Eurasiatic component (J/T, H, U et V) and North African component (U6).
Genetic structure of Taforalt:
Eurasiatic Component : H, U, JT, V: 90.5%
North African component: U6: 9.5 %
42, 8% (9/21) H or U
14, 2% (3/21) JT
2 individuals (9,5%) U6"
KÉFI R., STEVANOVITCH A., BOUZAID E., BÉRAUD-COLOMB E.
Diversité mitochondriale de la population de taforalt(12.000 ans bp - maroc): une approche génétique a l'étude du peuplement de l'afrique du nord.
quote:No, that doesn't correspond to the LGM; the LGM winds down at about this time. Moreover, that is the estimated age for the specimens under contention; how's that supposed to serve as evidence of "LGM Europeans in the Maghreb"? That these specimens could not be LGM Europeans in the Maghreb, presumably isolated from autochthonous Africans, is the whole contentious issue to begin with.
Why 12000 BC that corresponds to the LGM, doesn't it?
quote:I simply hear you being silly and making a jackass out of yourself for no apparent reason.
Explorer, don't you hear your deckhand shouting? He is saying "Captain your ship is sinking"! Lol
quote:Would you be able to swim this body of water and cross to the other shoreline, unaided by a transport equipment? Don't be fooled by hand drawn maps that make continents, seas and oceans appear a lot smaller than they actually look. LOL
And for the really clueless out there. Here is a map of short distance between Spain(Europe) and Morocco (Africa)
What fool really believes that this small expanse of water which is only about 8 miles wide at its shortest point is going to prevent people from crossing back and forth, especially in prehistoric times when the Mediterranean was much more shallow than it is today? Nuff said.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:I'm not sure you realize that Luo is a Nilo-Saharan language phylum; did you know it was Nilo-Saharan? If so, then were you under the impression that Nilo-Saharan originates somewhere else other than eastern Africa? Where would that be?
Originally posted by Manu:
Obama's father is genetically not a real East African. Only geographically, as his tribe the Luo are migrants. The Luo are mainly of Niger-Congo basin origin, per Tishkoff et al. 2009.
quote:Unlike you, nature does not see "races" in human beings. If they were "abnormal", there would be no offspring to begin with. If 'mixing' was such a bad thing, humanity would virtually cease to exist all together, as pretty much all populations are the result of "mixing" of different communities or populations. Give me a list of "organs" that supposedly find no matches in 'mixed" people; I find that odd, considering human populations are all pretty much 'mixed' already.
Originally posted by cassiterides:
[QB] mixing is nature's way
inbreeding leads to defects
========
Again incorrect.
Mixing is abnormal and against nature.
Bone Marrow Transplants: When Race Is an Issue
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1993074,00.html
http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejournals/article/206395829.html
Mixed-race patients struggle to find marrow or organ donors - for the simple reason mixed race is not natural from a biological or genetic perspective. There are no matches for marrow or organs since mixed race people are not a race. They are abnormal hybrids with no match.
quote:Your post suffers from a number common-sensical oversights.
Originally posted by cassiterides:
Sure.
Virtually all the Islands off the coast of Africa were not settled until white european explorers landed there.
In other words sub-saharan blacks couldn't even sail to the closest islands to them.
Madagascar for example for first settled by indonesians, not black africans.
What a joke that afrocentrics think blacks created ancient greece, egypt etc when blacks couldn't even settle the closest island to them. LOL.
quote:Well, it would have been too late. LOL. It is the "dirty Negro" blood that made them human in the first place. They'd have to cease being human, in order to rid themselves off African ancestry altogether.
Originally posted by Manu:
The one drop rule prevented these people from considering themselves white, because White Americans apparently wanted to protect themselves from 'dirty Negro' blood entering their genepool (in their worldview).
quote:All incorrect.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
Unlike you, nature does not see "races" in human beings. If they were "abnormal", there would be no offspring to begin with. If 'mixing' was such a bad thing, humanity would virtually cease to exist all together, as pretty much all populations are the result of "mixing" of different communities or populations. Give me a list of "organs" that supposedly find no matches in 'mixed" people; I find that odd, considering human populations are all pretty much 'mixed' already.
quote:Black africans never ventured anywhere until the slave trade. Look at the facts -
1) People now populate other parts of the globe, because black Africans ventured out of the continent and settled these territories.
quote:There is no evidence blacks are indigenous to North Africa. The indigenous North Africans are the Berbers, who are racially mediterraneanoid.
North Africa is not an island. Hence, the absurdity about AE not being created by blacks, or that it couldn't have been initially populated by 'blacks'. How do you figure the humans living in the Maghreb, before humans set foot outside of Africa, came to be there, if not from tropical Africa? You should avail yourself some research capacity, before making easily avoidable intelligent-free claims.
quote:Note the fallacy here. You are equating 'africa' to black, when in actual fact the North Africans never were.
How did Paleolithic era L-type African mtDNA and certain Y-DNA hg A markers end up in Europe, if not by Africans crossing over to southern Europe?
quote:Incorrect.
The original inhabitants of the Canary Islands for example, are determined to have been Africans, possibly in some way related to Tamazight speakers.
quote:Post the "academic" evidence you speak of.
Originally posted by cassiterides:
1. Race is a reality as proven by virtually every field of science. In contrast 'race-denialism' is a modern invention by those with a far left socio-political agenda. But science should have nothing to do with biased political views.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote:^Not ignoring indigenous variation in West Africa, but folks like the Masai are even more divergent from Equatorial West African types, than Somali's are, according to some craniometric studies. Are they mixed with light skinned females?
Men like the Somali mixed with light skinned U6 females before they reached the Maghreb and found Europeans.
quote:Very true.
Originally posted by Manu:
African Americans are on average somewhere between 15-25% European/Amerindian. So half Afram half White are rarely true 50/50 Biracials.
Real West African (or Bantu) 50/50 Biracials look very black.
quote:No, I'm not sure what your point is. I'm saying the proto Berber speakers probably looked something like the Somilians but became lighter as they traveled through North Africa mixing with Near Easterners and others.
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:^Not ignoring indigenous variation in West Africa, but folks like the Masai are even more divergent from Equatorial West African types, than Somali's are, according to some craniometric studies. Are they mixed with light skinned females?
Men like the Somali mixed with light skinned U6 females before they reached the Maghreb and found Europeans.
quote:Ok, mistake on my part then.
Originally posted by melchior7:
I was not trying to explain away the Somalian appearance as being due to any mixture
quote:melchior7 and Explorer, were you guys masturbating when you carried on this dialog of nonsense?
Originally posted by melchior7:
Explorer
There is no doubt in my mind, that if the background of the personalities in these images had not been described to you, you wouldn't not have associated them with "sub-Saharan" Africans, and/or else have determined which "sub-Saharan" territory they have ancestry from.
No but I would have surmised they had Blacke in them based on their features.
However your scenario is not well thought out.
Mulato offspring will likely mate with other mulato offspring which would keep some level of Black traits in the demogrpahic. Unless of course they would leave mulata women by the way
side for Europeans too. Lol. Also think about the ratios. If 30 percent of Black men were taking European wives,that would not be enough to cause a drastsic change in the overall population. The 70 percent would come to dominate. So then the greater majority would have to be taking Euopean wives. I find it
hard to believe not only that you would subscribe to such an extreme theory...but that you are comfortable with this idea of Blacks abandoning their own race for white women. Tsk tsk
Obama is just another manifestation of
European/"sub-Saharan" coupling; he is not the "biological spokesman", LOL, for the personalities I'd shown. And even
taking Obama; he looks just as dramatically different from his father, and would standout from the rest of his father's family just as he would standout from his mother's immediate European family.
And yet he looks Black and is not seen as being much diferent from regular Black Americans. I have known quite a few mixed folks in my time and in most the Black triats are dominant.
Therefore, it only reinforces my point, about how "sub-Saharan" Africans coupled with Europeans can generate offspring that look different from communities of said parents in as little a time as the first generation offspring.
The biggest problem for your scenario is that there are no records or anecdotes of Berbers taking European wives. I have no doubt that some folks in the cities have European blood since that is what the records show. Many were sent to Turkey as well.
The drawings of Riffians you are complaining about, whose dates I cannot ascertain, is a reflection of fact of life.
The dates are areascertianable and easliy so. The newspaper article mentions Prince Adalbert of Prussia. And it is dated 1859. This is important.
Do you remeber when I mentioned Ibn Batutta and his travels in Africa from the 14th century? He said that the Black man's land began in Southern Mauritania. He has described certian Berber tribes as being very White. We can't just ignore it.
"The women of the Bardama are the most perfect in beauty, the most extraordinary in their exterior, of a whiteness without admixture, and of a heavy corpulence" (Ibn Battuta 1985, [1352]: 317
You can cry your eyes out all you like, but it is obviously presented as such, because empirical experience placed them there. The authors did not call them "slaves" or "Sudanese"; they point blank, called them Riffians. Whom should we believe then
The Author was not concerned with with where the pirates orginally came from. Most likley he was one of the ignorant sorts who when he understood that Rif was in Africa he felt compelled to
draw them as Blacks. Then again slaves were employed to work on ships, and some became pirates themselves.
These Riffians wouldn't have even been "Niger-Congo speakers" of western Africa as you imagine.
I believe them to have been from Sub Saharan Africa. It is your task to prove overwise.
because the predominant Imazighen Y-DNA lineage is the E-M35 marker.[b]
The majority are E-m81 which does stem from E-M35. But typically E-M81 do not look Sub Saharan. Nor do we know what the origial E-m35 looked liked..being Afroaasiatic speakers, I would tend to think more like Ethiopians,
Somalians..not like the fellow in that drawing.
[b]Dumbass, the expulsion and slavery had taken place some time way back; don't you think that's more than enough time for these events to have an impact, especially given the fact that it only takes 1st generation offspring for a
marked phenotypic departure of said offspring from their "sub-Saharan"/European ancestry to take place.
First of all, as far the expulsion, many of the Moriscos formed their own communities in coastal North Africa, many which remain to this day.
"Fez in Morocco became home to Muslim and Jewish refugees from Toledo, Cordoba (which fell in the 12th century) and Seville (which fell in the 13th century). A section of Fez is known today as the Andalusian Quarter. Tetouan was
completely rebuilt and repopulated by Granadan refugees.
Many communities in Morocco still identify themselves as Andalusian. Cities such as Diaz, Torres, Medina, Molina, Borras and Banzi still boast of such heritage.
In neighboring Algeria, Tlemcen became a haven for expelled Jews. The Moriscos settled in Oran. In Tunisia, some Moriscos re-converted to Islam but continued to speak and read Spanish for several centuries.
Orchestras in Fez, Tangier and Tetouan still use Andalusian instruments and music dating back to 9th century singer and composer Ziryab. Andalusian music in Morocco is still referred to as ala and has long been encouraged and promoted by official authorities."
http://www.magharebia.com/cocoon/awi/xhtml1/en_GB/features/awi/features/2005/02/03/feature-01.
Most did not just blend back in with the locals as you seem to want to believe. And they certainly did not become berberized. This leaves you with only the slavery theory to fall back on.
If people of "mixed" geographic ancestry selectively preferred to mate with other people of "mixed" geographic ancestry, then that does not amount to "stop mating with their own women". Go to the mall, and buy a clue.
And yet that so called "preference" was pervasive enough to have nearly blotted L mtdna out the demogrpahic map in many cases..if there was ever really much there to begin with.
There could have been exogenous genetic intrusion into the Maghrebi gene pool in the time frame you are espousing; that is not in contention.
Ah that would be your better bet, yet still...
However, the argument is that "much" of the current makeup of the European element in Maghrebi gene pool can be best explained by the historic slave trade of European females and the emigration of diasporan Maghrebi folks from southern Europe.
Pray tell why? Why do we need such a theory? Again look at the map.
Do you realize that the distance across the Channel which separates Britain from the continent is twice as wide? Hell, the distance of the Balearic Islands, Corisca, Sardinia, Crete, and Ireland is greater from the mainland then Morocco. Did I mention the Canary islands?? Here is another map for perspective.
No one has any problems believing that Europeans were able to settle in these relatively distant islands in the Paleolithic. But for folks to cross the tiny strait of Gibraltar before historic, times God forbid!
You might not be aware but its not just Afrocentrics who dislke the idea. I know that many Eurocentircs do not like the idea of Europeans having anything to do with Africa.
Often when studies of megalithic culture are discussed they will completely leave out North African examples. Not only are megaliths found in North Africa but examples of the Bell beaker culture as well. Sometimes they even exclude Iberia which is proven to have the oldest
megaliths and to be the actual origin of the culture and focus on northern France, Britain and Ireland instead. The French are very much like this. As they have colonized much of
North Africa, and have come to look down on North Africans as second rate citizens they would scoff at the notion they could possibly have anything in common with them, especially not genetically. I have seen this first hand.
They will go so far as to have you believe that the Moors never set foot in their land when in fact the Moors have had much more of a presence in France than most people are aware of. Anyway I was suprised at this French study on Taforalt.
The Romans or Greeks wouldn't have made much genetic headway beyond the small administrative centers where they were stationed, and it shows. European male genetic imprint in the Maghrebi is essentially minuscule or negligible.
What would we be looking for? Many Greeks would have been E carriers, I don't know about Romans.
I notice that you use "Eurasians" interchangeably with "Europeans". The phoenicians, who preceded the Romans and
Greeks, were also in the Maghreb. Surely they too must have exchanged some genes with Maghrebi folks, no?
Of course.
So, why do you always translate "light-skin" in the Maghreb as an impossible prospect before the historic European slave trade and the return of Andalusian Moorish communities in that region?
Let me clarify then. I'm not arguing that light skin comes soley from Europeans. My argument is that North Africans have tended be lighter skinned for the longest time. I know another poster who focuses soley on migrations from the Near East 20,000 years ago as having ben most
important in altering the the tropical phenotype. I am focusing on the European input since we're talking about the Rif and people with light hair and eyes etc. If you really believed that a substantial amount of North
Africans were light skinned because of the Phoenicians or other Middle Easterners then you should you clarify. I would have thought that you believed that most North Africans were dark skinned until about 100 years ago. Lol.
A load of manure. The "prehistoric" Maghrebi remains span a time frame as far back whence anatomically modern humans had not even set foot in the Levant. How's that for a reality check?
Yes and from certian periods within that timeframe we have found folks like the Tenerians
Furthermore, the Maghrebi specimens from the
EpiPaleolithic/early Holocene, which I assume are the ones you were alluding to, display diverse patterns. They are not synonymous with any specific contemporary "sub-Saharan" population any more than they are to contemporary Europeans.
I have read that the sub saharan type is quite old and that the Sub Saharan types that were contemporaneous with many of the Maghrebi specimens in question were not so disimilar with sub saharans today. But the key point is that the Maghrebians were usually fairly distinguishable from the folks further south, and that a general phenotypical distinction between sub Saharans and Maghrebi goes back even to prehistoric times.
I'd given you my answer to it in our very first exchange under your current pseudonym, but you never did anything about it. The question is, do you have anything in way of a rebuttal to my response to Kefi & co.; do you have the guts to?
I don't know why you would've. I never mentioned Taforalt until now. I agree with your study that Kefi trying to imply that his group were totally untouched geneticaly by Sub Sharans or local African types is questionable. I see it throws into question some of the methodologies used,
as well as his interpretations leading him to assign certian individuals to certian haplogroups. It does not however prove without a doubt that he is in fact wrong about everything. The article concludes that the arrival of
Europeans is not so unlikely but that their remaining untouched by local populations is to be questioned.
Aside from the last point which I'm not really concerned with, I stress that with the close proximity of Iberia to Morocco, as I have already pointed out, especially with regard to Taforalt, there is no compelling reason to disbeleive that Europeans would have crossed over and settled in this area.
No, that doesn't correspond to the LGM; the LGM winds down at about this time. Moreover, that is the estimated age for the specimens under contention.
Yes but when did the ancesors of these people arrive there?
I simply hear you being silly and making a jackass out of yourself for no apparent reason.
Better check your life boats.
Would you be able to swim this body of water and cross to the other shoreline, unaided by a transport equipment?
I probably wouldn't but many athletic swimmers do in preparation for greater feats.
I'd ask you to give me the mathematical figures of the depth of the Mediterranean sea in an earlier discussion, and to specify which time frame corresponds with which depth, but you chickened out.
Don't recall YOU doing that. You wouldn't happen to have a sock puppet or two on this forum would you? I'm beginning to wonder.
Anyway it wouldn't matter much. We know that folks could and have crossed over in prehistoric times.
People don't just move across large water bodies to the next land for the fun of it. Something has to trigger these events; what were they, and what corroborating evidence supports these explanations? Also, when specifically did these so-called movements take place
That is a rather specious question if you really hope to disprove anything by it. There can be a myriad of reasons anything from escaping invasion to looking for new food sources etc..to just plain curiosty. You know you can see the Rif mountians from the other side.
quote:You are not following the discussion attentively. My intention was to refute the notion that Africans are some kind of immobile lemmings, that they cannot settle the nearest locations within the African continent, let alone small islands off its coast. You also seem to be ignorant of the understanding that the major so-called OOA of the Upper Paleolithic was done from the African Horn, across the red sea and onto the coast of the Arabian peninsula. This is why there is always a disconnect between you and I in these exchanges; you are generally in the dark even about the most basic of information.
Originally posted by melchior7:
You have picked a poor example in your defense since many people just as likely walked across the Sinai into Arabia.
quote:I never said they were no early crossings. That's a figment of your imagination. I said I have seen no evidence of "European" crossings thereof pre-LGM and during the LGM. Unlike your folk stories about European emigrations during this time frame, there are paleontological records of tropical-like human specimens in Europe that match the DNA clue, and there is a premise under which these emigrations could have occurred. So, you are confusing apples with oranges, when you equate my input with your ideological theories.
Aha so you admit that there were early crossings across the strait of Gilbratar, but just not by white folks. Lol. And weren't there A markers found in Sicily, as I seem to recall?
quote:Then do the honors, and answer the questions for verification that I requested of the other poster. If you want those demands to be repeated to you, let me know.
He is right about Madgascar though from what I have heard.
quote:??? Why does a conversation sound like it is no longer between human beings only when you enter the topic? Where do you get off being sexually simulated by these discussions, instead of taking it as an opportunity to educate yourself with informative material? You are some freaky character.
Originally posted by Mike111:
melchior7 and Explorer, were you guys masturbating when you carried on this dialog of nonsense?
quote:You've already been punked by facts to the contrary in the OP post. Here's more facts to punk you with confusion LOL...
Originally posted by melchior7:
Someone mixed with a Somalian is not likely going to look the same as someone mixed with Nigerian.
quote:According to Fst and other genetic distance/similarity measurements (ASD, PCA, IBS etc) East Africans are much closer to Europeans than West Africans are. This should be pretty much common sense, since the OOA migration occurred in that part of the world.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
East Africans and west Africans share common ancestries; how then can western Africans be any more divergent from Europeans than east Africans?
In fact, as one example, the hg R marker is more common in western Africans and Europeans than it is in east Africans. How does that fair with your purported theory above?
quote:You say that "all incorrect", but I see no "corrections" thereof.
Originally posted by cassiterides:
All incorrect.
1. Race is a reality as proven by virtually every field of science. In contrast 'race-denialism' is a modern invention by those with a far left socio-political agenda. But science should have nothing to do with biased political views.
2. Race is natural. If you think not, then good luck explaining why there are so many physical variations in the races.
3. Your fantasy of 'everyone being mixed' is just that a fantasy. In reality there are homogenous races.
quote:Those are not facts; they are your fantasies. If Black Africans never ventured anywhere, you wouldn't be here hating on them. There would be no such thing as "non-Africans". Come on, just put all this nonsense behind you, and fess up on your misguided obtuseness colored by hatred.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by cassiterides:
Black africans never ventured anywhere until the slave trade. Look at the facts -
*When Europeans colonised Africa, they found the sub-saharan black africans living in primitive mud huts with no technology. Yet we are expected to believe blacks were an ancient race who colonised the globe creating civilizations? Take your medication.
quote:You were challenged on this, but you chickened out. What's the point of repeating it, if you cannot defend it?
*As i earlier said, the closest Islands to the sub-saharan black africans they never settled. They were in fact settled FIRST by either Indonesians or white european explorers. Blacks were so primitive they couldn't even sail to the closest Islands to them.
quote:How do you suppose North Africa was populated in the Middle Stone Age, when no humans were to be found outside of the continent, if the source was not tropical Africa? LOL
There is no evidence blacks are indigenous to North Africa. The indigenous North Africans are the Berbers, who are racially mediterraneanoid.
Note the fallacy here. You are equating 'africa' to black, when in actual fact the North Africans never were.
quote:Which European country did the Guanches originally come from, if not from Africa? Why is the sub-stratum of their suggested local gene pool different from continental Europeans?
Incorrect.
The indigenous Canary Islanders were Caucasoid.
*Canary Islander mummies are blonde and red haired.
*The spanish described the natives there as tall, fair haired and light skinned.
quote:Fst distance using what markers. Do you imagine an Fst distance equation using hg R markers, would show that east Africans are closer to hg R-carrying Europeans than the hg R-carrying west Africans?
Originally posted by Manu:
According to Fst and other genetic distance/similarity measurements (ASD, PCA, IBS etc) East Africans are much closer to Europeans than West Africans are. This should be pretty much common sense, since the OOA migration occurred in that part of the world.
quote:Are you suggesting that hg R-carriers transmit no autosomes, such that there would be no correlation between hg R carriers in Africa and those in Europe, because that's what you seem to be implying above? If so, then what genetic science has led you to this sort of reasoning?
R carrying West Africans are not close to Europeans at all if you look at their autosomes, any random non-R East African would be much closer to Eurasians than they are.
quote:I was speaking of genome-wide autosomal DNA data. Typical high-frequency R groups from West Africa like the Mada are much less similar to Europeans than East Africans are for instance.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
Fst distance using what markers. Do you imagine an Fst distance equation using hg R markers, would show that east Africans are closer to hg R-carrying Europeans than the hg R-carrying west Africans?
quote:No, most Chadic groups rich in R tend to have very low levels of Eurasian admixture (around 2%), which is pretty insignificant overall.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
Are you suggesting that hg R-carriers transmit no autosomes, such that there would be no correlation between hg R carriers in Africa and those in Europe, because that's what you seem to be implying above? If so, then what genetic science has led you to this sort of reasoning?
quote:Surely you and I know that you can't document how science has established a non-discrepant reality of race, correct?
Originally posted by cassiterides:
1. Race is a reality as proven by virtually every field of science....In reality there are homogenous races.
quote:^Off-topic but I wonder if anyone's ever studied with any depth the origin of the Capsian industry (wiki's article is unsurprisingly horrendous), who Ehret (2010) says belonged to a proto-Chadic/Berber community (before the two language families were differentiated). I bring that up because the so-called "European" R-V88 in Chadic-speakers would be analogous to the sex-biased gene-flow present in extant Tamizigh-speakers, no? Assuming Ehret is correct, who were the Capsians intermingling with (if anyone) and can the substrate of this diversity (in both groups) be associated with them?
Originally posted by Manu:
quote:I was speaking of genome-wide autosomal DNA data. Typical high-frequency R groups from West Africa like the Mada are much less similar to Europeans than East Africans are for instance.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
Fst distance using what markers. Do you imagine an Fst distance equation using hg R markers, would show that east Africans are closer to hg R-carrying Europeans than the hg R-carrying west Africans?
quote:No, most Chadic groups rich in R tend to have very low levels of Eurasian admixture (around 2%), which is pretty insignificant overall.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
Are you suggesting that hg R-carriers transmit no autosomes, such that there would be no correlation between hg R carriers in Africa and those in Europe, because that's what you seem to be implying above? If so, then what genetic science has led you to this sort of reasoning?
quote:Where you go wrong is when you cling to outdated terminology such as "Negroid" and "Caucasoid".
Originally posted by cassiterides:
DNA research suggests that "white" skin, as found in Europeans, is as recent a phenomenon as about 6 ky ago. And Upper Paleolithic European skeletons seem to suggest change as well. Doesn't this say that any human much older than this age could not have been "white"?
===========
All true, but where the afrocentrics go wrong is that they claim pale Nords sprung from Negroids when in actual fact we sprung from mediterraneanoid Caucasoids.
quote:I believe Cruciani proposes a Northeast to Central Africa spread of R-V88. Only Tamizigh speakers in that region would be the Siwi.
Originally posted by Sundjata:
^Off-topic but I wonder if anyone's ever studied with any depth the origin of the Capsian industry (wiki's article is unsurprisingly horrendous), who Ehret (2010) says belonged to a proto-Chadic/Berber community (before the two language families were differentiated). I bring that up because the so-called "European" R-V88 in Chadic-speakers would be analogous to the sex-biased gene-flow present in extant Tamizigh-speakers, no? Assuming Ehret is correct, who were the Capsians intermingling with (if anyone) and can the substrate of this diversity (in both groups) be associated with them?
quote:Well, if it was that easy then you would have numerous sources cited as your proof, in reality you don't.
Originally posted by cassiterides:
Surely you and I know that you can't document how science has established a non-discrepant reality of race, correct?
If not, let's see it, have at it, you can always pick yourself up and try again.
============
Race has been a scientifically proven fact for hundreds of years and still is.
quote:Yup.
Originally posted by cassiterides:
Do you know what racial profiling is?
quote:I understand that stereotypes exist to try and distinguish between populations.
Originally posted by cassiterides:
If races didn't exist, then the FBI, forensic scientists etc would not have their jobs.
quote:...and everyone else who understands biological anthropology along with the Out Of Africa established fact.
Originally posted by cassiterides:
As i said - the only people why deny races exist are those with a socio-political agenda.
quote:Of course you have to legitimize the terms you use. If not why are you using them?
Originally posted by cassiterides:
Also its not up to me to proove race exists -
quote:Not really, but here goes from the human genome center...
Originally posted by cassiterides:
its up to you it doesn't.
quote:Well, here's your chance to prove me wrong...
Originally posted by cassiterides:
Because as i said race has been a scientifically accepted reality for hundreds of years.
quote:So you're basically implying that everyone you put into the "Caucasoid race" category has the features you say above?
Originally posted by cassiterides:
In reality, there is no evidence for these features that are classified under these outdated fallacious terms you use to be solely specific to the groups applied.
===========
Ok then, good luck finding a negro with straight red or blonde hair, green eyes and pale white skin.
quote:I'll wait for you to show me that every "Caucasoid" population has the exact same features you noted above....
Originally posted by cassiterides:
I'll await for you to post a photo of a straight haired redhead or blonde negro with light eyes.
quote:Just to clarify one of your previous posts, how does all of the above come to represent what the so-called "average african american" looks like? Are you saying that those who look like Michael Jordan, Don Cheadle, or Lil Wayne are some sort of american anomally? Some emperical study behind your opinion or how does that work?
Originally posted by Manu:
Typical half West Africans:
Joseph van Vicker, half Liberian half Dutch
Majid Michel, half Ghanaian half Lebanese
Carmen Ejogo, half Nigerian half British
Boateng brothers, half Ghanaian half German
Georgina Kwaky, half Ghanaian half Hungarian
These images are more representative of how the average comes out.
quote:Of course, it is always easy to say you already know something, when it has already been revealed to you.
Originally posted by melchior7:
Explorer
There is no doubt in my mind, that if the background of the personalities in these images had not been described to you, you wouldn't not have associated them with "sub-Saharan" Africans, and/or else have determined which "sub-Saharan" territory they have ancestry from.
No but I would have surmised they had Black in them based on their features.
quote:You are spouting off on at wishful/emotional whim instead of any hard quantifiable biological fact.
Mulato offspring will likely mate with other mulato offspring which would keep some level of Black traits in the demogrpahic.
quote:The only problem with your estimation of my theory, is that you've got it all twisted. You are obviously not a very attentive character.
Unless of course they would leave mulata women by the way
side for Europeans too. Lol. Also think about the ratios. If 30 percent of Black men were taking European wives,that would not be enough to cause a drastsic change in the overall population. The 70 percent would come to dominate. So then the greater majority would have to be taking Euopean wives. I find it
hard to believe not only that you would subscribe to such an extreme theory...but that you are comfortable with this idea of Blacks abandoning their own race for white women. Tsk tsk
quote:Even when you are trying to deny or distract away from my posts, you actually reinforce them more. LOL
And yet he looks Black and is not seen as being much diferent from regular Black Americans.
quote:Duh -- European female slaves! They were not there to be admired from a distance. LOL
The biggest problem for your scenario is that there are no records or anecdotes of Berbers taking European wives.
quote:You are a severely inattentive poster. The idea that "European genes" are found in Maghrebi gene pool is not a contentious matter at all. Pay attention: the contentious issue is "how much of it is prehistoric and how much, historic".
I have no doubt that some folks in the cities have European blood since that is what the records show. Many were sent to Turkey as well.
The dates are areascertianable and easliy so. The newspaper article mentions Prince Adalbert of Prussia. And it is dated 1859. This is important.
Do you remeber when I mentioned Ibn Batutta and his travels in Africa from the 14th century? He said that the Black man's land began in Southern Mauritania. He has described certian Berber tribes as being very White. We can't just ignore it.
"The women of the Bardama are the most perfect in beauty, the most extraordinary in their exterior, of a whiteness without admixture, and of a heavy corpulence" (Ibn Battuta 1985, [1352]: 317
quote:If he weren't, he would not have called them Riffians. Europeans back in the day, where quite capable and comfortable of calling "Africans" as "Negroes" and denying black connection to coastal North Africa. This author did neither. You, on the other hand, seem not concerned about what the author is saying.
The Author was not concerned with with where the pirates orginally came from.
quote:Are these grounded in actual quantifiable material, or are you just sharing fiction storytelling with us, and wasting your's and everyone else's time?
Most likley he was one of the ignorant sorts who when he understood that Rif was in Africa he felt compelled to
draw them as Blacks. Then again slaves were employed to work on ships, and some became pirates themselves.
quote:What is there to prove, when you've read the primary text yourself, informing you that they are "Riffians"? It's the authors word against your "belief". Any sane person ought to know that there should be no contest, when it comes to honoring the author's descriptions over your's.
I believe them to have been from Sub Saharan Africa. It is your task to prove overwise.
The majority are E-m81 which does stem from E-M35. But typically E-M81 do not look Sub Saharan. Nor do we know what the origial E-m35 looked liked..being Afroaasiatic speakers, I would tend to think more like Ethiopians,
Somalians..not like the fellow in that drawing.
quote:This is a fairytale. Expelled "Moors" have been located even as far as Tunisia.
First of all, as far the expulsion, many of the Moriscos formed their own communities in coastal North Africa, many which remain to this day.
Most did not just blend back in with the locals as you seem to want to believe. And they certainly did not become berberized. This leaves you with only the slavery theory to fall back on.
quote:Because the historical FACTS of slavery and expulsions say so. You do know the difference between theory and fact, don't you?
And yet that so called "preference" was pervasive enough to have nearly blotted L mtdna out the demogrpahic map in many cases..if there was ever really much there to begin with.
Pray tell why? Why do we need such a theory? Again look at the map.
quote:When did the Britons et al. arrive in said Islands. What records (human and relic) are you going by?
Do you realize that the distance across the Channel which separates Britain from the continent is twice as wide? Hell, the distance of the Balearic Islands, Corisca, Sardinia, Crete, and Ireland is greater from the mainland then Morocco. Did I mention the Canary islands?? Here is another map for perspective.
No one has any problems believing that Europeans were able to settle in these relatively distant islands in the Paleolithic. But for folks to cross the tiny strait of Gibraltar before historic times, God forbid!
quote:Hg E is not the only Y-DNA marker in Greeks. You should then know from common sense, that aboriginal "Greek" markers would have to be represented by typical European markers. Your whole self-engaged argument about "light-skin" makes no sense whatsoever, and is just a needless distraction. The issue is concerning "European" genetic contribution. Know the difference between "light skin" and "European genetic contribution"?
What would we be looking for? Many Greeks would have been E carriers, I don't know about Romans.
So, why do you always translate "light-skin" in the Maghreb as an impossible prospect before the historic European slave trade and the return of Andalusian Moorish communities in that region?
Let me clarify then. I'm not arguing that light skin comes soley from Europeans. My argument is that North Africans have tended be lighter skinned for the longest time. I know another poster who focuses soley on migrations from the Near East 20,000 years ago as having ben most
important in altering the the tropical phenotype. I am focusing on the European input since we're talking about the Rif and people with light hair and eyes etc. If you really believed that a substantial amount of North
Africans were light skinned because of the Phoenicians or other Middle Easterners then you should you clarify. I would have thought that you believed that most North Africans were dark skinned until about 100 years ago. Lol.
quote:Why do you feel the need to mention Tenerians, on the heels of revelation about antiquated prehistoric human presence in the Magheb, before human presence outside of the continent?
A load of manure. The "prehistoric" Maghrebi remains span a time frame as far back whence anatomically modern humans had not even set foot in the Levant. How's that for a reality check?
Yes and from certian periods within that timeframe we have found folks like the Tenerians
I have read that the sub saharan type is quite old and that the Sub Saharan types that were contemporaneous with many of the Maghrebi specimens in question were not so disimilar with sub saharans today. But the key point is that the Maghrebians were usually fairly distinguishable from the folks further south, and that a general phenotypical distinction between sub Saharans and Maghrebi goes back even to prehistoric times.
quote:I had brought this study to your attention for the same reason I'm bringing it now. To debunk your theory of how long the Europeans had been present in the Maghreb. And instead of offering a data-specific rebuttal, you give me a summary of an article that I already know about, as I wrote it.
I don't know why you would've. I never mentioned Taforalt until now. I agree with your study that Kefi trying to imply that his group were totally untouched geneticaly by Sub Sharans or local African types is questionable. I see it throws into question some of the methodologies used,
as well as his interpretations leading him to assign certian individuals to certian haplogroups. It does not however prove without a doubt that he is in fact wrong about everything. The article concludes that the arrival of
Europeans is not so unlikely but that their remaining untouched by local populations is to be questioned.
quote:Their ancestors could have been there all along, since human presence is attested to as far back as the Middle Stone Age. There could have also been intrusions from the Nile Valley, as some sources theorize, as indicated by similar stone age articles. But you are digressing. The issue at hand, is that these guys could not have been European immigrants.
Yes but when did the ancesors of these people arrive there?
Would you be able to swim this body of water and cross to the other shoreline, unaided by a transport equipment?
I probably wouldn't but many athletic swimmers do in preparation for greater feats.
quote:I'm now convinced more than ever, that you are regrettably suffering from Alzheimer's at a young age. This issue came up in Charlie Bass' thread, and you did the same thing there then, as you are now doing: chickening out and brushing the issue aside as "not mattering".
I'd ask you to give me the mathematical figures of the depth of the Mediterranean sea in an earlier discussion, and to specify which time frame corresponds with which depth, but you chickened out.
Don't recall YOU doing that. You wouldn't happen to have a sock puppet or two on this forum would you? I'm beginning to wonder.
Anyway it wouldn't matter much. We know that folks could and have crossed over in prehistoric times.
quote:I've just disproven you through the question. It has rendered you unable to deliver and defend yourself!
People don't just move across large water bodies to the next land for the fun of it. Something has to trigger these events; what were they, and what corroborating evidence supports these explanations? Also, when specifically did these so-called movements take place
That is a rather specious question if you really hope to disprove anything by it.
quote:You misread my post.
Originally posted by The Gaul:
Just to clarify one of your previous posts, how does all of the above come to represent what the so-called "average african american" looks like? Are you saying that those who look like Michael Jordan, Don Cheadle, or Lil Wayne are some sort of american anomally? Some emperical study behind your opinion or how does that work?
quote:What you said:
Originally posted by Manu:
quote:You misread my post.
Originally posted by The Gaul:
Just to clarify one of your previous posts, how does all of the above come to represent what the so-called "average african american" looks like? Are you saying that those who look like Michael Jordan, Don Cheadle, or Lil Wayne are some sort of american anomally? Some emperical study behind your opinion or how does that work?
That is not what I said.
quote:As opposed to looking like an average West African (obviously there is no telling what the offspring of a mixed couple will come out looking like)?
The average half West African half European usually comes out looking 'much blacker'. This is not based on pictures from the internet but real-life experience. Often they even look like regular African Americans rather than mixed.
quote:Enlighten me. How does a non-hg R carrying east African show more genetic similarity to a hg R-carrying European than a hg R-carrying west African?
Originally posted by Manu:
Typical high-frequency R groups from West Africa like the Mada are much less similar to Europeans than East Africans are for instance.
quote:The "quantity" of "admixture" is not an issue. The point is that, the hg R-carriers would have elements of their autosomes similar to hg R-carriers in Europe, because they draw from a common ancestral source. Using your logic, one would have to imagine that the hg R-carriers only inherited the Y chromosome and no autosomal chromosomes. You know how absurd that would be, were that your thinking, don't you?
No, most Chadic groups rich in R tend to have very low levels of Eurasian admixture (around 2%), which is pretty insignificant overall.
quote:You place too much emphasis on haplogroups. A hg R carrying West African has little to do with Europeans other than sharing a handful of mutations on the Y-Chromosome. While an East African would share tens of thousands more mutations with Europeans across the entire genome and not simply restricted to the Y Chromosome.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
Enlighten me. How does a non-hg R carrying east African show more genetic similarity to a hg R-carrying European than a hg R-carrying west African?
quote:That element is long gone or diluted so much in Chadic speakers that it really does not matter.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
The "quantity" of "admixture" is not an issue. The point is that, the hg R-carriers would have elements of their autosomes similar to hg R-carriers in Europe, because they draw from a common ancestral source. Using your logic, one would have to imagine that the hg R-carriers only inherited the Y chromosome and no autosomal chromosomes. You know how absurd that would be, were that your thinking, don't you?
quote:The post containing pictures of half West Africans had absolutely nothing to do with African Americans.
Originally posted by The Gaul:
As opposed to looking like an average West African (obviously there is no telling what the offspring of a mixed couple will come out looking like)?
I guess what I need to know is who do you use as a control group for what the "average" unmixed West African looks like, and who is the representative of what the "average" Afram looks like. I have a hard time with certain generalizations so bare with me.
quote:R-V88 is primarily African specific and not "European" at all. None of the African examples have been found in Europe. Hg R-V88 is also very rare in the Maghreb, just as any other hg R is. Only one individual (Ouarzazate Tamazight-speaker) in Cruciani's Moroccan samples had a paraphyletic R-V88 chromosome, while only 2 Algerian Mozabite Tamazight-speakers had a paraphyletic R-V88 chromosome.
Originally posted by Sundjata:
^Off-topic but I wonder if anyone's ever studied with any depth the origin of the Capsian industry (wiki's article is unsurprisingly horrendous), who Ehret (2010) says belonged to a proto-Chadic/Berber community (before the two language families were differentiated). I bring that up because the so-called "European" R-V88 in Chadic-speakers would be analogous to the sex-biased gene-flow present in extant Tamizigh-speakers, no? Assuming Ehret is correct, who were the Capsians intermingling with (if anyone) and can the substrate of this diversity (in both groups) be associated with them?
quote:It would be idiotic not to put too much emphasis on haplogroups, because they denote ancestry. Imagine a person inheriting a Y chromosome without autosomes from his father? That kind of reasoning is just incredibly stupid.
Originally posted by Manu:
You place too much emphasis on haplogroups. A hg R carrying West African has little to do with Europeans other than sharing a handful of mutations on the Y-Chromosome.
quote:How do people sharing the same lineage become less related to one another than they are to someone who doesn't have this shared lineage? You are asking us to be stupid, if you urging us to buy into that kind of thinking.
While an East African would share tens of thousands more mutations with Europeans across the entire genome and not simply restricted to the Y Chromosome.
quote:Diluted by what? You think markers just disappear out of thin air.
That element is long gone or diluted so much in Chadic speakers that it really does not matter.
quote:The DNA reports I was alluding to, include these so-called "Mediterranean caucasoids" of Europe. Do you have any DNA evidence of when this "olive" skin color emerged that supposedly contradicts the 6 ky ago estimation of an "evolutionary sweep" accompanying skin lighting genes in Europe?
Originally posted by cassiterides:
All true, but where the afrocentrics go wrong is that they claim pale Nords sprung from Negroids when in actual fact we sprung from mediterraneanoid Caucasoids.
The original Caucasoids were olive skinned and dark haired. The pale variant sprung from them around c.5000 BC. Hence the Nordic sub-race is nothing more than a 'depigmentated mediterranean'.
quote:Your photo spams are cherry picking. I can find east Africans with "stereotyped" craniofacial patterns just as I could find west Africans with the so-called "caucasoid" traits, and pass them off as the representatives of the entire geographical locations.
Originally posted by melchior7:
We all share common ancestries but many East Africans have a unique look...
See what we mean?
Men like the Somali mixed with light skinned U6 females before they reached the Maghreb and found Europeans.
quote:Your insinuation is objectively untenable. The fact that I could post images like the ones in the OP and elsewhere here, demonstrates that there is nothing inherently typical about offspring carrying partial recent west African ancestry.
Originally posted by Manu:
Typical half West Africans:
quote:Well, it is a matter of fact that Fordisc, i.e. the tool that the law enforcement generally use to predict a person's ethnicity, is prone to failure in correctly identifying a specimen to the actual geographic origin, particularly if the victim/suspect comes from a region for which the Forensics have no sample data and/or for which no comprehensive sample record exists that captures the full intra-population diversity. Luckily for law enforcement, there are other lines of evidence to turn to for consideration in the final analysis, aside from craniometric taxonomy.
Originally posted by cassiterides:
If races didn't exist, then the FBI, forensic scientists etc would not have their jobs.
quote:Nope, can you read? I said genetics.
Originally posted by cassiterides:
The advent of genetics completely debunked the idea of race, as it shows that the traditional categories of race overlap genetically across the board.
=========
Says who? You?
quote:Please show us the consistent pattern of genes that specifically separates each of these races, show me that there will be alleles found in all members of one population and in no members of any other, care to take a crack at it?
Originally posted by cassiterides:
http://racialreality.110mb.com/race.html
''Anti-racist PC agendas and the American Anthropological Association's recent confirmation of the unity of the human species have led to the belief that race is a socio-political invention that promotes racism. An ironic accusation since the denial of the science behind race is what's politically motivated. Forensic anthropologist and professor of anthropology George W. Gill, whose assessments are supported by modern genetics, explains.''
quote:Actually my point was that there is no uniformity for these features that are classified under these outdated fallacious terms you use to be solely specific to the groups applied as "Caucasoid".
Originally posted by cassiterides:
I'll wait for you to show me that every "Caucasoid" population has the exact same features you noted above....
========
You failed to answer.
Remember you claimed races or racial variations don't exist.
If that's the case -
where are those straight haired redheaded negroids?
quote:I believe the Ancient Egyptians and Modern Egyptians are similar. Modern Egyptians probably have around 20% additional West Asian admixture, but 80% of their DNA is roughly the same as their ancient ancestors.
Originally posted by cassiterides:
Do you really think modern egyptians (who are highly mongrelised) resemble the ancient egyptians? I guess you have never studied the history. Modern egyptians are not ancient egyptians - there was a change in the race.
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
Funny thread. Of course this issue was discussed before and before that. Too bad 'Rahotep' is missing this unless he is Manu.
The half-Dutch/half-Somali boy above could easily fit right in the Egyptian Delta like in downtown Cairo.
Here are a couple of Hollywood "mulattoes" who played North Africans.
Joey Ansah
He played a Moroccan based agent in the movie 'The Borne Ultimatum'. In reality his father is from Ghanian while his mother is English. Yet he could easily fit in among Moroccans which he did!
Jaye Davidson
He played the alien villain/Egyptian god Ra in the original motion picture 'Stargate'. He is also Ghanian through his father but English through his mother! But would also fit in as Egyptian.
There is definitely a pattern here.
quote:If only one group moved out of Africa it does not make any sense why Europeans are substantially closer to East Africans compared to Australo-Melanesians and Amerindians.
Originally posted by lamin:
Manu,
Not good enough. Show that there were more than one wave of migrants from East Africa into the rest of the world. One group moving out during Paleolithic times and the other during the Neolithic.
quote:Yes, the Ancient Egyptians were of course native Africans. But so are the modern-day Egyptians, there was a population continuity. Recent West Asian admixture in modern-day Egyptians is minor.
Originally posted by lamin:
Re the Ethnicity of Ancient Egypt:
Again you cannot fool people smarter than you. Don't try it; you end looking stupid.
quote:you list 4 points about the Egyptians being "blacks"
Originally posted by lamin:
1) Greek historians and writers such as Herodotus and Lucian all pointed out that the Egyptians were blacks. All there in their literature. The Greek word used by the Greek writers for both Egyptians and Kushites[ Nubians or Ethiopians for some] is "melanchroes"--which means "black skinned". Simple.
2) The AEs portrayed themselves on their murals as blacks that you would find now in East Africa and places in Sudan like Khartoum.
3) When Napoleon invaded Egypt he took with him researchers and artists like Denon, Champollion, Mariette looked carefully at thousands of murals. They pondered the Sphinx and other gigantic constructions. The conclusion was that the AEs were blacks.
4) The AEs also distinguished themselves from Europeans and West Asians in their murals and human taxonomic groupings.
So it's a closed QED as to what the AEs were in terms of their ethnicity and culture: unambiguously African. No need to debate further, unless you are some kind of flat-earther. [/QB]
quote:Why do you suppose Europeans are substantially closer to east Africans than Australians and Melanesians are?
Originally posted by Manu:
If only one group moved out of Africa it does not make any sense why Europeans are substantially closer to East Africans compared to Australo-Melanesians and Amerindians.
quote:The "west Asian" admixture in modern-day Egyptians is not minor according to Luis et al., for instance. Do you think that recently-derived hg J component in northern Egypt, as an example, is not substantial?
Yes, the Ancient Egyptians were of course native Africans. But so are the modern-day Egyptians, there was a population continuity. Recent West Asian admixture in modern-day Egyptians is minor.
quote:
Originally posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718):
quote:Nope, can you read? I said genetics.
Originally posted by cassiterides:
The advent of genetics completely debunked the idea of race, as it shows that the traditional categories of race overlap genetically across the board.
=========
Says who? You?
The fact that the genetic record shows that the traditional "Caucasoid", "Negroid", "Mongoloid" etc...overlaps one another, this in itself nullifies the idea that these groups are homogeneous.
Sorry kid but genetics trumps your fallacious idea that race exists biologically.
quote:Please show us the consistent pattern of genes that specifically separates each of these races, show me that there will be alleles found in all members of one population and in no members of any other, care to take a crack at it?
Originally posted by cassiterides:
http://racialreality.110mb.com/race.html
''Anti-racist PC agendas and the American Anthropological Association's recent confirmation of the unity of the human species have led to the belief that race is a socio-political invention that promotes racism. An ironic accusation since the denial of the science behind race is what's politically motivated. Forensic anthropologist and professor of anthropology George W. Gill, whose assessments are supported by modern genetics, explains.''
If not then, like I said stop using outdated terms, which you can not validate.
from the human genome center...
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/humanmigration.shtml#2
Will genetic anthropology establish scientific criteria for race or ethnicity?
DNA studies do not indicate that separate classifiable subspecies (races) exist within modern humans. While different genes for physical traits such as skin and hair color can be identified between individuals, no consistent patterns of genes across the human genome exist to distinguish one race from another. There also is no genetic basis for divisions of human ethnicity. People who have lived in the same geographic region for many generations may have some alleles in common, but no allele will be found in all members of one population and in no members of any other. Indeed, it has been proven that there is more genetic variation within races than exists between them.
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=001925;p=1#000000
quote:
Originally posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718):
quote:Actually my point was that there is no uniformity for these features that are classified under these outdated fallacious terms you use to be solely specific to the groups applied as "Caucasoid".
Originally posted by cassiterides:
I'll wait for you to show me that every "Caucasoid" population has the exact same features you noted above....
========
You failed to answer.
Remember you claimed races or racial variations don't exist.
If that's the case -
where are those straight haired redheaded negroids?
Hence not something you can use for identification of race, note...
DNA studies do not indicate that separate classifiable subspecies (races) exist within modern humans. While different genes for physical traits such as skin and hair color can be identified between individuals, no consistent patterns of genes across the human genome exist to distinguish one race from another.
^^Please show us the consistent patterns of genes that exists across the human genome to distinguish one race from another...
I'll wait.
quote:It is just a personal estimate for now, based on the various studies on Egyptians and their neighbors. Until ancient autosomal DNA is sequenced from Ancient Egyptians my guesstimate is just as legit as any other.
Originally posted by Calabooz ':
^Manu, can you post the evidence of continuity in this thread (or maybe another one would be better so as not to derail this one). Thanks.
quote:I already answered this. See the IBS calculations I posted earlier.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
Why do you suppose Europeans are substantially closer to east Africans than Australians and Melanesians are?
quote:hg J was most likely already present in the Ancient Egyptians. It is foolish to think that a region so close to the Near East would not carry this hg until classical times.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
The "west Asian" admixture in modern-day Egyptians is not minor according to Luis et al., for instance. Do you think that recently-derived hg J component in northern Egypt, as an example, is not substantial?
quote:Modern Egyptians do not look like Arabians.
Originally posted by lamin:
Wrong again. The AEs very clearly distinguished themselves from West Asians and Eurasian types.
quote:Just to jump in for a second, I don't think most people would call this a guesstimate as opposed to an "unsubstantiated opinion". It carries no more weight of course than one claiming that modern Egyptians have alien blood and by declaration that their "guesstimate is just as legit as any other". Indeed, it is just as "legit" as any other unsubstantiated opinion, it's illegitimate. In real world situations the only thing that intelligent people are able to rely on is evidence.
Originally posted by Manu:
It is just a personal estimate for now, based on the various studies on Egyptians and their neighbors. Until ancient autosomal DNA is sequenced from Ancient Egyptians my guesstimate is just as legit as any other.
quote:But above you claimed that the ancient Egyptians were "native Africans", but if up to 1/3 (give or take, have to look at the figures for lower Egypt again) of their population carried markers for Eurasian ancestry then how do you propose to reconcile this?
hg J was most likely already present in the Ancient Egyptians. It is foolish to think that a region so close to the Near East would not carry this hg until classical times.
PS. hg J was found in ancient remains of Gaunche natives. It has a very ancient presence in North Africa.
quote:All claims are relative in their truth and no ONE thing can give you an ENTIRE picture, the problem is that you reconstruct your hypothesis with nothing but pure imagination. You cite geography, but putting aside the lack of evidence, I don't even see the logic here (where does it follow that...)? As for evidence, what population models have you relied on to jump to your conclusion of population continuity? What historical records and genetic data have you used in tandem? No ad hoc presentations either please, I'd like to know what you based the statement on when you made it.
Originally posted by Manu:
Nobody can make any definitive statements about the genetic makeup of the Ancient Egyptians as their ancient autosomal DNA has yet to be studied in detail.
quote:Your speculation is irrelevant to current advances in DNA technology and I WOULD be surprised, based on the data above just cited showing J to be of recent provenance and tropical limb as well as cranio-facial discontinuity with near eastern populations, with whom modern Egyptians share many affinities. In fact, I WOULD be more than surprised because autosomal DNA on modern Egyptians show them to affiliate closely with near easterners who are NOT native Africans, so at least one of your claims, that the ancient AND modern Egyptians are continuous, or that both are predominantly native African, is false.
Seeing how progress in the ancient DNA field is being made lately with the sequencing of Neanderthals and Denisovans it is only a matter of time till Ancient Egyptians are examined thoroughly. I would not be surprised if they are only marginally different from modern Egyptians.
quote:All this does is try to undermine the evidence showing you to be wrong yet you have none of your own. By default that makes the former position more sound, no matter how you cut it because this is not a refutation.
Originally posted by Manu:
No, the evidence for a recent origin of J in North Africa is very weak.
Nebel et al. 2002 was a very low resolution study which is not definitive at all. Hassan et al. 2008 never made his DYS sequences public and cannot be verified.
quote:But "he" wasn't the only author of the study (where Peter Underhill and Cavali-Sforza are co-authors), and you also have Nebel and his colleagues. This is not a reasonable rejection of the source since his claims (in this instance) are confirmed by other data. It isn't enough to conveniently ignore this in favor of a hypothesis with NOTHING to support it.
Originally posted by Manu:
He is not reliable. In a recent study where he was the co-author his team inferred that Somalians are a recent mixture between Bantus and Arabs. This guy often makes horrible claims.
Unless the DYS sequences are published and can be independently verified I take his claim of a recent origin of J in North Africa with a grain of salt.
quote:It has a different origin than the J in the Nile valley and came from a different source. So my opinion on that is irrelevant. I haven't even gotten you to answer MY questions yet.
Originally posted by Manu:
What's your take on the divergent J1* in Ethiopia? And what about the high J* in Socotra, which is right off the coast of Somalia?
quote:How do you know that? Weren't you the one just preaching about the need for autosomal DNA recovery from skeletons?
Originally posted by Manu:
[QB] The Guanches Berbers reached the Canary archipelago around 1000 BC, long before any expansionist Muslim Arabs reached North Africa, and J was already in their gene pool.
quote:Based on what?
It is highly unlikely that the Ancient Egyptians had no J until classical times.
quote:You are the only one spreading conjecture and just contradicted your first claim in this reply. You are all over the place unfortunately.
ONLY Ancient DNA can solve this mystery, all other sources are just conjecture.
quote:See the ABO column (Ancient Guanches Berbers Y-DNA frequencies) in this chart:
Originally posted by Sundjata:
How do you know that? Weren't you the one just preaching about the need for autosomal DNA recovery from skeletons?
quote:They are related. And since Berbers are traced back to Northeast Africa, whatever J they got came from that part of Africa.
Originally posted by Sundjata:
Also, ancient Egyptians were not Berbers.
quote:The Malagasy are mostly of West African origin (Bantu) rather than East African. (Hurles et al. 2005)
Originally posted by wooja:
Studies released earlier this year found the people of Madagascar have origins in Borneo and East Africa.
Half of the genetic lineages of human inhabitants of Madagascar come from 4500 miles away in Borneo, while the other half derive from East Africa, according to a study published in May by a UK team.
quote:I don't claim they don't exist, it's not a claim at all, it's an established fact through genetic analysis that it's fallacious.
Originally posted by cassiterides:
AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718) still waiting for you to answer:
You claimed races don't exist,
quote:Well kid, since there's no basis for race there can be no racial variations.
Originally posted by cassiterides:
nor racial variations.
quote:What would that prove?
Originally posted by cassiterides:
Therefore i'm waiting for you to produce a photo of a light skinned, red haired straight haired negro.
quote:Incorrect, I never said variations don't exist, in fact it's the variations within the classical races which is larger than that between them which adds to the fact that race in biological anthropology is totally misleading.
Originally posted by cassiterides:
Still waiting. Remember you claimed races or variations don't exist,
quote:You said this already lol.
Originally posted by cassiterides:
if that is the case you should have no problem finding a straight redhaired negro.
quote:Wtf?
Originally posted by cassiterides:
I guess you also believe white people are dark skinned with afros and chinese have non-slanted eyes.
quote:Yea you repeated this three times.
Originally posted by cassiterides:
Remember you claim races or variations don't exist.
quote:Of course my position is backed up by biological anthropology and hence no way it would be a crackpot position.
Originally posted by cassiterides:
I don't think you realise how crackpot your position is.
quote:Uhh, sorry kid, but clustering by geographical region does not equal race.
Originally posted by cassiterides:
Please show us the consistent pattern of genes that specifically separates each of these races
=======
read the link...
'' detailed genetic analysis of more than a thousand human subjects clusters them into five groups corresponding to major geographical regions''
quote:It has absolutely nothing to do with any political view, just scientific facts, sorry they don't agree with you but it's not my fault.
Originally posted by cassiterides:
Race is a reality. Stop denying it because of your left wing political views and embrace science.
quote:None of these studies say "racial clusters", keep dreaming.
Originally posted by cassiterides:
A collection of recent genetic studies that have identified racial clusters:
•Wilson et al. (2001)
•Calo et al. (2001)
•Rosenberg et al. (2002)
•Hua Tang et al. (2005)
•Nan Yang et al. (2005)
•Agrawal et al. (2005)
quote:^The study its self sort of undermines your claims and if you'd have posted the citation I WOULD thank you because it's a very interesting paper:
See the ABO column (Ancient Guanches Berbers Y-DNA frequencies) in this chart:
quote:.
"Due to low variance of J-M267 compared to that in the Middle East, its presence in the former has been related to the Arab expansion in the 7th century A.D. However, if the arrival of the indigenous people in the islands was around 1,000 years B.C., the presence of J-M267 in NW Africa could be previous to the Arab expansion. Alternatively, this marker might have reached the islands in a **second wave of colonists**
quote:Ignoring this faulty logic for a second, what about this:
They are related. And since Berbers are traced back to Northeast Africa, whatever J they got came from that part of Africa.
quote:Here's a more recent and comprehensive update to Hurles et al (probably what wooja was referring to)..
Originally posted by Manu:
quote:The Malagasy are mostly of West African origin (Bantu) rather than East African. (Hurles et al. 2005)
Originally posted by wooja:
Studies released earlier this year found the people of Madagascar have origins in Borneo and East Africa.
Half of the genetic lineages of human inhabitants of Madagascar come from 4500 miles away in Borneo, while the other half derive from East Africa, according to a study published in May by a UK team.
quote:I read that. However the authors did acknowledge that the markers they used were not necessarily informative about admixture. And if I recall, I don't even think that was the primary focus of their study (to determine admixture).
Originally posted by Manu:
He is not reliable. In a recent study where he was the co-author his team inferred that Somalians are a recent mixture between Bantus and Arabs. This guy often makes horrible claims.
quote:Let me rephrase my question another way: What do you suppose are the underlying reasons for Europeans to be "substantially closer to east Africans than Australians and Melanesians are"?
Originally posted by Manu:
I already answered this. See the IBS calculations I posted earlier.
quote:Yet more foolish, is replying to something before carefully reading it. I asked you if you thought the "recently-derived" hg J markers in northern Egypt are "just minor".
quote:hg J was most likely already present in the Ancient Egyptians. It is foolish to think that a region so close to the Near East would not carry this hg until classical times.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
The "west Asian" admixture in modern-day Egyptians is not minor according to Luis et al., for instance. Do you think that recently-derived hg J component in northern Egypt, as an example, is not substantial?
PS. hg J was found in ancient remains of Guanche natives. It has a very ancient presence in North Africa.
quote:What makes you think "ancient Guanches" were "Berbers"; did/do they speak a "Berber" language?
Originally posted by Manu:
See the ABO column (Ancient Guanches Berbers Y-DNA frequencies) in this chart:
quote:Anatomical analysis of predynastic northern Egyptian specimens had revealed that they clustered more closely with the rest of AE samples and other Africans, but not so much with "Palestinian" samples. The stated reason given for this, was that it indicated a "lack of common ancestry for a considerable amount of time". Does that strike you as conjecture?
Originally posted by Manu:
ONLY Ancient DNA can solve this mystery, all other sources are just conjecture.
quote:Certain types of paraphyletic J1 clades found in east Africa are unique to that region, leading the authors to question whether the hg J1 type under study could not have originated there (see Ferri et al. 2008)
Originally posted by Manu:
What's your take on the divergent J1* in Ethiopia? And what about the high J* in Socotra, which is right off the coast of Somalia?
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:So then you were arguing with me on the issue, just to be argumentative?
Originally posted by melchior7:
You also seem to be ignorant of the understanding that the major so-called OOA of the Upper Paleolithic was done from the African Horn, across the red sea and onto the coast of the Arabian peninsula. This is why there is always a disconnect between you and I in these exchanges; you are generally in the dark even about the most basic of information.
Ha!Dude I know that the first migration out of Africa was into Arabia.
quote:I find your puny attempts at offering advice quite comical. Your story above, even if I were to take it at face value, that in itself would have been good enough as another gesture to debunk that dummy who said that Africans simply couldn't cross any kind of water body to settle other lands. That being said, I'd like to know how you know about the volume of the Red Sea crossing that OOA migrants supposedly took to get to the Arabian peninsula. As far as I know, neither you nor other non-Africans were around when this event was talking place. I find your story interesting, and would like to know how you came up with the details (about the Red Sea) contained in it.
They crossed at what is called at the Gate of Grief the Red Sea is about 12 miles (20 kilometres) wide but 50,000 years ago it was much narrower and sea levels were 70 metres lower. So in other words we are not exactly talking about some daring ocean voyage. Lol! They likely just waded through shallow water You should have mentioned the Atlantic expedtions under Abu BakrII or that Nubia/Axum conducted maritime trade with Oman, Persia as far as India etc. tsk tsk.
quote:Well Einstein <<insert sarcasm here>>, I could have reposted the entire OP, but they would just amount to spam-fillers. It doesn't matter whether I cherry picked the image I chose. What matters, is that it debunks your ticklish claim that you could have correctly guessed those characters were mixed with "sub-Saharan" west Africans, had you not already been told so.
Originally posted by melchior7:
Explorer,
You cannot sit there with a straight face and tell me that you would have guessed, say this guy, had immediate "sub-Saharan" African ancestry, let alone west African:
You cherry picked a humdinger. Bravo.
quote:What retort? Being highly and rightfully doubtful of your pseudo-scientific allegation? My friend, it is ridiculous to expect me to entertain the thought of disproving a crackpot claim presumably by proving a negative counter claim.
And you do realize that your retort is equally void of any hard quantifiable facts, that could bring my statements into question?
quote:You can't even do a little thing such as get my viewpoints right. My contention is that you have no way of always knowing when someone has a dual geographical heritage, and whether this person immediately descends from a "sub-Saharan" parent, let alone where from in "sub-Sahara". Using Obama as an example is irrelevant. You can only guess about those whom you are familiar with, and whom to you, appear to be "intermediate" in their phenotypic outlook; therefore you have no way of objectively typifying and quantifying offspring of dual geographic or "mixed" hertiage, because you'd only be using your subjective perceptions and preconditions in order to judge who you think is supposedly 'mixed' and who isn't. Several of the images in the OP post prove this point. There are personalities therein you wouldn't have guessed in a million years, without being told, that they had immediate "sub-Saharan" African ancestry. Doubtless, there are many more of these sorts of individuals whom you would unsuspectingly tally out of your "individuals be mixed sub-Saharan negroids", because they don't fit into your prejudiced & pseudo-scientific preconceived idea of what a "sub-Saharan negroid/European" should look like.
Apparently you can't see the woods for the trees. Your contention is that many mulattoes would not show evidence of their Black heritage like the Indian looking man. See the post above. However Obama does not fit into your little scheme. He is a mulatto and his negroid traits are quite conspicuous. Capische?
quote:You sound like a sore broken record, who never gets clues when given to you nonetheless. I urge you to revisit Charlie Bass' thread where we went through this issue countless times and where evidence in question were posted, whether you acknowledge them as such or not. Unless you have something refreshingly original to offer, other than the same emotional denials, then I'm moving along.
No, they were to be sampled and ravished by those who could afford them, liked folks who could afford their own harem. Again, where is the written history or tradition that that so many Berbers took European wives and that they are in fact the children of slaves? Surely arabized North Africans would know of this and use this as more of a reason to disparage Berbers. Where are eye witness accounts of escaped slaves having been owned by rural Berbers? Did you know some Americans were counted among North African slaves as well. In fact the US navy was sent to deal with the Barabry pirates on more then one occasion.
quote:You are not only inattentive, but apparently illiterate. You blind-sight yourself with only things you want to hear, rather than what you're being told. All those with brains knew this [as stated in my post above] was the contention all along; you were simply too blind with dogma at the time, to take notice.
You are a severely inattentive poster. The idea that "European genes" are found in Maghrebi gene pool is not a contentious matter at all. Pay attention: the contentious issue is "how much of it is prehistoric and how much, historic".
Oh so now all of sudden you will allow that at least some of it is prehistoric? You have conveniently changed the game but lets continue to play.
quote:I'd have to allow your stupidity and blind dogma nip me in the bud, in order to retract proven genetic impact of expelled Moors in modern Maghrebi gene pools. You know I'm too smart for that, since I'm smarter than you. I know you are so addicted to this "light skin" issue, that you may even need "light-skin" anonymous classes to cure you, but that issue remains immaterial to me. Now repeat after me: We are dealing with "European genetic imprint" and "how much is historic/recent, and how much of it is prehistoric".
Well all you would have to do is admit that many North Africans were light skinned prior to Arab invasion and the expulsion of the moors and nip it in the bud.
quote:You are one circus jokester. You make a claim out of the blue, and you are asking "me" to prove the validity of that claim with a negative. Well, if you couldn't validate your claim, all you had to do was to fess up that you used it, because it seemed like it was helping your agenda, and were not bothered with its authenticity when you first came across the source. LOL
As far as Ibn Batutta why don't you tell me what words he used if you think it can detract from I am claiming. Enlighten me.
quote:This would mean something to me, had you actually produced the requested evidence to validate your claim, and so erase any doubts about it, regardless of whether the audience is supposedly "biased" or not, as you imagine to yourself.
Ah but of course. If a white person is behind it and it doesn't agree with what I would like to think, its that vile euro-centric racism rearing its ugly head again.
quote:You are not telling me that you aren't bright enough to know that when an author describes the ethnicity of the pirates as "Riffians", that he/she is in fact mindful of where said pirates come from? Now, If you were out to convince me of that, then that would be the "kidding" around.
What the hell did he care. Since when is some two bit 19th century journalist an authority on North African ethnicities? Are you kidding me?
quote:I had no idea that the Harratins and Gnawas were my personal belongings. Apparently somebody forgot to tell me that I was that rich and powerful. LOL
The Moroccans themselves will tell you that most Blacks, your Harratins and Gnawas came from countries to the south.
quote:And this gobbledygook of a rant is supposed to prove that the Black Riffian pirates are not authentic Riffians as the primary text states? Tell me, you've got a lot more than emotional speculations to account for the noted black Riffian pirates.
There many records of them being brought into Morocco. The Moroccan kings were famous for importing Blacks, many of them to serve in their Black guard. Moreover the Blacks in Morocco know their history and where they came from. Watcha gonna do??
quote:An old primary source describes the pirates as Riffians and you cry your eyes out about it. Common sense says the author's words, writing in a different time, carries more weight than your emotional lamenting. It's noticeable that aside from these emotional protests, you have been unable to offer a coherent and well though-out reason as to why these black pirates are "fake Riffians", other than that the idea caters to your ideological agenda.
I just love your ploy.. just make unreasonable demands of everyone to meticulously prove every detail of everything, and hopefully said daunting task will discourage them from ever wanting to debate with you again.
Because don't you know, there were laws in Islam forbidding Blacks to pilot ships?
quote:These are interesting questions. However, since you are the one who has a beef with the old primary text, why not find out the answers to these and report back to us. Who knows, it might give you an excuse to reject the primary text, which you have been unable to logical justify at this point. What I do know, is that pre-19th century and 19th century Europeans were not keen on making north Africa synonymous with "blacks" any less than you apparently do.
What is there to prove, when you've read the primary text yourself, informing you that they are "Riffians"? It's the authors word against your "belief".
Riffians meaning pirates who operated around the Rif area. And what was the inspirations for this fellow's drawings in 1859? Think with me on this one... Did he catch the first flight out to Morocco and see for himself? Or do you think perhaps someone emailed him an actual photograph he could use to make sketches? Or how about this, for the average American dummy, Africa = Negro??
quote:If they called themselves "Andalusians", then the section of the expelled who do so, must not be diasporan Maghrebi folks. The Maghrebi are proud of their heritage, as can be seen today in Europe. The French for instance, complain about the Maghrebi immigrants being too reserved and not sufficiently integrating (meaning, adopting French culture over their own] into the "mainstream" culture. Still, the expelled Iberian folks would have extended beyond these self-proclaimed "Andalusians". The talk about speaking "Arabic" and being "Muslim" is immaterial, as the so-called "Andalusians" would not have been alone in this regard, in the Maghreb. You excuses are still skimpy on material.
Because besides the fact they were Muslim and ARABIC speakers, many were also hispanicized to an appreciable extent which was reflected in their culture and music. They called themselves "Andalusians"..or didn't you read the article I posted?
quote:You are misguidedly responding to my posts, and you are urging "me" to stay focused, LOL. I'm not going to tell you that load of crap you are encouraging through a "questionaire", because it has nothing to do with me. I never said there were no L-types in the Maghrebi gene pool; that is your position, and you need to validate it.
It wouldn't. That's why I said they they were nearly blotted out. Do try and stay focus. Now on a serious tip, you going to tell me that nobody was trying to get with them L carrying sisters?? Yeah right! They were Black female slaves going around too.
quote:"Over 20,000" years old not only does not tell me how old the specimen presumably is, it also doesn't tell me how that age was attained, nor does it tell me whether said remains tie in with contemporary Britons. I could go even further: since you seem to be into the "depth" of seas or oceans, when it comes to prehistoric African migrations, as a means to downplay their importance, how come we don't get the details of the same, when it comes to would-be prehistoric Europeans seafarers, like your "prehistoric Britons"?
When did the Britons et al. arrive in said Islands. What records (human and relic) are you going by?
Here we go again. The oldest Human remains discovered in Britain are over 20,000 years old but I suppose if I don't have some actual physical remains to produce for your eyes to see, We'll just have to agree that the first settlers likely came sometime after the invention of the steamship.
quote:These are supposed to be no-brainer questions that any sane anthropologist would entertain to establish what would make EpiPaleothic Maghrebi series "Europeans" instead of autochthonous groups. A weak argument would be; no wait, it would be insane to just assume the prehistoric Maghrebi specimens are "European" just for the fun of it.
You have provided no logic reasoning or evidence for what would bring Europeans to the Maghreb after the LGM, nor have you presented any paleontological evidence of European intrusion into the Maghreb during and before the LGM.
A weak argument.
quote:That question could be asked of just about any landmass settled by humans. That doesn't mean we should just imagine that people did, just because it was "possible" that they were into these things. We need hard evidence that they actually did these things in time frames under investigation. Your questions are really flimsy, because 1)we don't have any evidence, to my knowledge, of pre-LGM and LGM "European" settler immigrants in the Maghreb, and 2)you have provided no evidence as to why they would suddenly become settler immigrants in the Maghreb right at the turn of the LGM, before the spread of the Neolithic cultural package into Europe. The burden is on you, but as usual, you expect your skeptical audience to validate your propositions for you.
I think rather we should turn it around and I'll ask you, given the human propensity for exploration, migration and expansion, ever seeking new territory, can YOU give me some substantial reason why Europeans would not have crossed the 10 mile strait into Africa since you hold that that folks from African did cross over?
quote:These sort of wimpy emotional posts mean nothing to me, if you care to know. I understand people can be quite emotional, when they don't have their ways...in this case, allowed to spread their dogma unhindered.
That seems to smack of some egregious imbalance in your reasoning at best, and rabid afrocentrism at worst.
quote:Whether they are unique to Europe is immaterial. The fact remains that their presence in the Greeks serves as a marker of recent African-mediated gene flow, whether directly or indirectly via the Levant. Hg R clade is essentially an aboriginal European marker for modern humans in Europe. You are dead wrong, and clueless, to suggest that hg E precedes hg R in Europe.
Hg E is not the only Y-DNA marker in Greeks. You should then know from common sense, that aboriginal "Greek" markers would have to be represented by typical European markers.
What do you know about it? The subclade of E found in the Balkans is unique to Europe and the Aegean. The particular mutation dates back at least to the neolithic before the arrival of R carrying Indo-Europeans
quote:Yah, that gives me the answer to the requests above <<insert sarcasm here>>.
And what EpiPaleolithic "sub-Saharan" specimens of west Africa are reportedly "not so different from sub-Saharans today"? The Tenerians, perhaps? According to what variables?
Craniometric ones heh heh..
quote:I urge you to go back to the Charlie Bass thread, and not make a jackass out of yourself...because that is what will happen, if I'm compelled to embarrass you with the truth to the contrary. Your pick.
This is the first time you have brought it to my attention. I will give a more in depth analysis on another post.
quote:Just stated why therein. Do you not know how to read? LOL
Their ancestors could have been there all along, since human presence is attested to as far back as the Middle Stone Age. There could have also been intrusions from the Nile Valley, as some sources theorize, as indicated by similar stone age articles. But you are digressing. The issue at hand, is that these guys could not have been European immigrants.
WHY could they not have been?
You are funny. 
quote:298C is found in an L3a Yoruba. But the methodology is not to look at
Originally posted by melchior7:
16126c is only found in JT a very old an uncommon hg in Europe, and 16304c is actual found in L.
quote:
Also 16298c is not found in
any L or L3 variant that I am aware of. Only H.
quote:The sub-clade names in Watson et al. 1997 are a bit outdated as the nomenclature has changed quite a bit.
Originally posted by alTakruri:
L1b, L2, and L3a -- found all over Africa -- all have 16126C (Watson 1997).
Kefi based TafXXV 3 on its one found marker 126C. Since two JT assigned
specimens also fill various L requirements pro-Euro JT bias is inferred.
Using Kefi's given HVS-I motifs there are six L specimens in total. Kefi's
facile haplogroup prediction is one valid critique from MS's blog. And though it
is somewhat polemic in nature the blog is right to note Eurocentrism's part in
interpreting Africa's ethnography, cultural history, genetics, anthropology, etc.
quote:298C is found in an L3a Yoruba. But the methodology is not to look at
Originally posted by melchior7:
16126c is only found in JT a very old an uncommon hg in Europe, and 16304c is actual found in L.
each mutation in isolation, it is to use all markers of a given specimen.
quote:
Also 16298c is not found in
any L or L3 variant that I am aware of. Only H.
quote:I'd recommend this spreadsheet from Behar et al. 2008:
Originally posted by alTakruri:
What complete sequences mtDNA database should
I use to match Watson's noted mutations or better
to replace the 14 year old terminology in Watson?
quote:That's very useful indeed.
Originally posted by alTakruri:
I notice now many reports stash the stats away in
a supplement often of a file type most can't open.
quote:
Originally posted by melchior7:
alTakruri,
I did find 16126c in L1b but not L2 or L3a according to the reference I'm using.
Did not find 16298c as a requirement for L3a either.
quote:You crack me up when you emotionally discharge some random talk out of your ass, and not realizing that you aren't making any sense.
Originally posted by melchior7:
If you really believe that that folks crossing a narrow strait of shallow water would be enough to debunk the "dummy's" claim, you must be even dumbER.
quote:Well, give me the specifics + evidence, in words. You are capable of writing, right?
I find your story interesting, and would like to know how you came up with the details (about the Red Sea) contained in it.
http://wn.com/early_human_migration
quote:Dummy, what does this have to do with me?
And I would question what good reason is there to equate folks who migrated into Asia 60,000 years ago with modern E carryng Africans of today?
quote:Repeating a [falsified] personally prejudiced (crackpot) estimation of whom you consider "mixed" with whom is a sign of stupidity. The art of debate is clearly alien to you. Here's how it works: You make a claim, you back it up, not the skeptic audience. And no need to cry your eyes out about 'dual geographic heritage". It simply means ancestry from two different continents.
Originally posted by melchior7:
Let’s bring this back to point. In MOST cases with regard to mulattos people can tell that they have Black admixture. This is something I know full well just from my own experiences...
If it really was as a crackpot claim as you say a few established facts should suffice to debunk it, and then you could end this little back and forth. But clearly that is outside of your abilities...
“Dual geographic heritage”?? What a specious term. Lol. You’re a regular snake in the grass.
quote:I maybe funny, but apparently not quite like you. Duping yourself with the fantasy that being a mongrel gives you some kind of a superpower to tell who is "mixed" and whom isn't is certainly funny. Too bad your superpower fails you when "mixed" folks don't conform to your preconceived stereotypes.
Right because if we can’t tell if the parent is from Senegal or Mali, then we can’t tell what “kind of Black” he is.
Well I happen to be mixed and know many other like myself so I think that gives more of an edge in discerning such things nonetheless I'd be surprised if this girl here was a mulatta.
quote:Absolutely, I do raise my hands in victory. As predicted; the same stale empty emotional protests carried over from the other thread. As such, I'm doing good on my promise, and moving along.
And you are disingenous debater. You have never proven that a large amount of European females were sold to Berbers. You hope that using a shallow association with the term RIFFIAN pirates will actually establish in the minds of the not so bright that this actually proves that many European females were sold en masse to folks in riffian villages. But it does not. First of all records show that Females were not so numerous as the majority of slaves came from captured ships. Secondly slaves would be taken to where the demand for them is highest and the profit is worthwhile. Thirdly there is no historic tradition of white Berber slaves ...
Right refer to some other thread where you made the same empty points and raise your hands in victory.
quote:You either have to be dumb and/or have an emotional agenda to protect so as to not get what's being contended, after repeated reminders. As for denying the genetic impact of slavery, you have been doing just that. The only problem is you can't do anything else about it short of emoting. If you wish to dupe yourself with the belief that your weird infatuation with "light skin" matters, then go ahead, but it'll be foolish to think that it's going to help you run away from the facts around the genetic imprint of European female slaves.
You blind-sight yourself with only things you want to hear, rather than what you're being told. All those with brains knew this [as stated in my post above] was the contention all along; you were simply too blind with dogma at the time, to take notice.
What dogma to you ascribe to me? This should be interesting. Also if you do believe that some European mtdna is prehistoric please calrify which, so we can move on.
That you think you are smart is comically obvious, how well your estimations jibe with reality is another matter. For instance, you use broad terminology, “modern Maghrebi gene pools” when I have clearly emphasized Berber groups who have some of the highest frequencies of European mtdna, as my example. That European dna in major cities among arabized Maghrebians could come from slavery, is not what I am contesting.
that you may even need "light-skin" anonymous classes to cure you, but that issue remains immaterial to me.
I seriously doubt that.
Now repeat after me: We are dealing with "European genetic imprint" and "how much is historic/recent, and how much of it is prehistoric".
Why don’t you tell me which part you think is prehistoric and maybe we can come to some closure.
quote:Yeah, spouting off on fairy tales is a sign of being "bright". LOL You're in effect saying that I have to validate your claims for you because you are supposedly capable of parroting secondary sources, but too dumb to validate them.
The wild claim was yours..that Europeans have altered Ibn Battuta’s words or taken them out of context. If you can’t prove this then your position is weak, especially when we consider that many scholars agree that the only blacks native to Morocco are in the extreme south in the Draa valley… must be the same scholars who tampered with Batutta’s writings...
I’m bright enough to understand from studying Morocco that Blacks since historical times at least, are not native to Northern Morocco, especially not the Riff which is a stone’s throw from Spain.
quote:You're a sick puppy. Nobody can take your googling-derived [uneducated] opinions of the Maghrebi seriously. I'd already educated you about indigenous Maghrebi blacks via genetics, language, and paleontology. Remember the deal about proto-Tamazight speakers and where they would have had to originally come from? Naturally not, because your dogmatic goggles cloud your judgment. On the black Riffians, upon denials about their authenticity, you were pressed on the specifics of their genealogical and language history, but you chickened out. Forget already?
What part of Blacks being indigenous only to a small part of Southern Morocco do you not understand? If you disagree then prove it wrong, then you’ll give your native Black Riffians some ground to stand on, until then the gobbledygook is yours.
An old primary source describes the pirates as Riffians and you cry your eyes out about it. Common sense says the author's words, writing in a different time, carries more weight than your emotional lamenting.
Lets get it straight. There is the author’s report of the incidenets in the Mediterranean which does not mention race, then there is the depiction. As I said the sketch likely reflects some generic notion about Africans. Here is an example. Look at how someone drew a sketch of king Moulay Sheriff Rashid
quote:The dummy urges me to stay focused, and then comes up with some imaginary stuff about "les Beurs being expelled Moors" somewhere in my post. Nimrod, they wouldn't be in Europe, if they were expelled. LOL
And you need to try and stay focused again. I was being sarcastic. Of course there is no law restricting Blacks to pilot ships.
Can you prove that?
Where have you demonstrated that “les Beurs” in France are mostly descendants of expulsed Moors? Lol... though some of the actual French might be. And their Own culture is generally seen as Arabic culture. I lived in France. The French scoff at them because they say they slaughter goats in their bathtubs and they sell their daughters away in North Africa when they reach a certain age etc. I use to hear this stuff all the time.
quote:You are stubbornly dumb to realize just how much the matter about descendants of European female slaves preferring to intermingle among similarly descended folks detracts from your dogma. You are equally stupid for offering your "belief" in reply to requests for objective validations revolving around your pre-historic 'seafaring Britons'.
I'm simply trying to educate you that if people of "mixed" African paternal heritage/European maternal heritage preferred to breed amongst themselves, then you wouldn't expect such unions to be good preservation avenues for typical L-type markers that are generally not common in Europe; it might for L-type markers found in Europe, but not those uncommon there. Do you now understand what I'm telling you?
Yeah but you don’t seem to understand that does not detract from what I was saying.
"Over 20,000" years old not only does not tell me how old the specimen presumably is, it also doesn't tell me how that age was attained, nor does it tell me whether said remains tie in with contemporary Britons.
What do you have that would raise doubts?
I could go even further: since you seem to be into the "depth" of seas or oceans, when it comes to prehistoric African migrations, as a means to downplay their importance, how come we don't get the details of the same, when it comes to would-be prehistoric Europeans seafarers, like your "prehistoric Britons"?
You mean like shallow water? I do believe that at a very early period, the span of the Channel would have been shorter. But still far more of an expanse than the strait of grief. Lol.
quote:You jackass, you are apparently too stupid to understand what's being asked of you, let alone forge a sensible reply. You were asked to provide the cultural backdrop and the drivers that are supposed to justify a would-be European settlement in the Maghreb right at the turn of the LGM, when there is no evidence of such elements before or during the LGM, and instead, you go on spouting off some incomprehensible nonsense about continents being populated. What a fuckhead!
These are supposed to be no-brainer questions that any sane anthropologist would entertain to establish what would make EpiPaleothic Maghrebi series "Europeans" instead of autochthonous groups. A weak argument would be; no wait, it would be insane to just assume the prehistoric Maghrebi specimens are "European" just for the fun of it.
Folks don’t generally ask why continents get populated. The general consensus is that human beings move to new areas as their populations grow and expand, and of course hunter gatherers constantly seek new eco systems etc as food sources run out. Again you reveal yourself to be a big bonehead to even to even attempt to contest this..
That question could be asked of just about any landmass settled by humans. That doesn't mean we should just imagine that people did, just because it was "possible" that they were into these things.
With just about every inch of land on Earth being populated by Humans from the freakin Tierra Del Fuego to Tasmania, to the Islands in the South Pacific, you would not expect humans to cross the 10 mile strait of Gilbraltar without some conspicuously compelling reason??? And you pretend to be serious?
quote:Then this is proof that emotional interest wholly drives you to believe in some prehistoric EpiPaleolithic European settler population in the Maghreb, not a keen understanding of facts.
We need hard evidence that they actually did these things in time frames under investigation. Your questions are really flimsy, because 1)we don't have any evidence, to my knowledge, of pre-LGM and LGM "European" settler immigrants in the Maghreb, and 2)you have provided no evidence as to why they would suddenly become settler immigrants in the Maghreb right at the turn of the LGM, before the spread of the Neolithic cultural package into Europe.
I may not be able to tell you Why, but recent studies do imply that hg H has been in North Africa since prehistoric times whether you care to admit or not.
quote:nimrod, you are daydreaming again. Nobody said anything about hg R being older than hg E. It is all in your head. Call back to earth, will ya.
Hg R clade is essentially an aboriginal European marker for modern humans in Europe. You are dead wrong, and clueless, to suggest that hg E precedes hg R in Europe.
I’s not that much older apparently. It is now believed to have entered Europe with the migration of proto Indo European speakers Read this website http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000285
And R comes out of Asia where is still retains a strong presence especially In Iran and Northern India.
quote:You say its "misguided", but offer no substantive determination of this. On the other hand, I strenuously back up my charge against Kefi.
Originally posted by melchior7:
Lets look at this blog you wrote about Tarofalt
One of the problems is that you start off with the misguided conviction that
European studies of North Africa generaly seek to portray North Africa as an extension of Europe,a claim for which you accuse Kefi et al, obviously.
quote:You could have save yourself the trouble of writing all this heap, by simply saying that you are an ignoramus about European need to de-Africanize coastal North Africa. "Race" discussions on the Maghreb or AE would not exist, if your logic made any sense.
So from thebeginning you have poisoned the well so to speak, based largely on your paranoia
since you cannot prove what their intentions are. And as I have stated, many
Europeans are not in favor of having North Africans cluster with themselves either culturally or racially . Exactly what do they have to gain by claiming North Africa?. Do you see any sense of solidarity between Europeans and North Africans, a people they have basically oppressed and stole from?
quote:You are uninformed. The Taforalt specimens are/were referred to as "Iberomaurusians", amongst other EpiPaleolithic/early Holocene Maghrebi specimens. And if it were no marvel to find settler Europeans in the Maghreb suddenly at the turn of the LGM, you wouldn't have been dancing around requested evidence revolving around the issue. Instead, we would have had succinct no-delay answers.
Another note I have to say I don’t readily subscribe to this notion Iberomarusians being one and the same as European settlers as the so called cultural and material link between iberomarusians and anything contemporaneous from Iberia has been disproven. I am more interested in this little group fo people discovered in Tarofalt which is right across from Spain. With that in mind, that one should find
Europeans there is no great marvel..
quote:You are unnecessarily making an ass of yourself, relying on wild guesswork rather than simply familiarizing yourself with the study first. Kefi et al. do make the claim that the Taforalt specimens were untainted by "sub-Saharan" genetic influence. Read the study, fool.
That you question the claim that they were untouched (this is assuming that Kefi is only referring to the group from Tarofalt.)is not without merit at first glance, but have you considered that the actual location of Tarofalt.
quote:Another muttonheaded garb. I made no assumption. If you had cared to read the blog entry, as you so profess, it would have dawned on you that I base this on the extensive paleontological record of the Maghreb. Read the blog, and stop grasping in the dark, pretending you know what you're talking about. LOL
its elevation, the topography of the surrounding areas? Logically if it is in
a mountainous area, it may be hard to get to. But let it be known that Tarofalt is actually in the Rif. Your other blunder is the simplistic assumption that Africans would live everywhere in Africa, in every part, from
one end of the continent to the other, presumably.
quote:Ever heard of using a dictionary?
In this
light we have to ask just what do you mean by "autochthonous Africans"
quote:Cite this "acknowledgement", context and the source. The better question should be, why you think resorting to a question premised on fairy tale is necessary?
anyway?, And the whole notion that folks in Northern Africa were distinct
from their sub Saharan counter parts that you seem challenge in your critique, is one that I have seen you acknowledge here on this forum before. Is it because the term Caucasian was thrown in the mix that you take issue?
quote:You imagine so, because you did not dare confront the cotext wherein that piece came from. What is your word for word answer to the nucleotide details I laid down there?
Next You question Kefi’s control methods stating that there were was a
problem with contamination which Kefi claims was later resolved. “Who is to
say that other contaminating exogenous DNA did not infiltrate sections of
the remaining DNA fragments”? But that is supposition not fact.
quote:Specifics?
You then
claim that subsequent mutations found on certain PCR sequences which the
Kefi et all deem authentic, as proof of outside contamination calling the
mutations "exogenous" without qualification.
quote:dummy, why would I want to show that "16126C-16304C-16311C are of recent origin", if it has no bearing on critiquing Kefi et al.?
It would be quite damning if
you could show us that mutations 16126C-16304C-16311C are of recent origin
and found only in modern Europeans. But can you? 16126c is only found in JT a very old an uncommon hg in Europe,and 16304c is actual found in L. Lol!
quote:Nope, just that you are uninformed. You'd expect that the goal for "independently" running two separate PCR trials for mtDNA fragments of the same specimen is to tell the same story, not a different one every trial. You don't even have to be a geneticist to arrive at that common sense. That you haven't done this, says you are not a bright person to begin with.
Some more of your.. um solid points..
PCR products from the same specimen but of two "independent" PCR trials
with inconsistent sequences were retained for the final analysis. Could it
be because, if these items too were eliminated, then the authors would have
been left with very little DNA material to work with?
More unverifiable supposition
quote:Same deal what? What is the "these" being referenced? Can you offer a good explanation as to why they were expunged from the study? And you call this retort "confronting the nucleotide reasons" I had used to draw these conclusions. What a buffoon.
The reader is not offered explanation on why these were not made part of
the study, and so left on his/her own, to wonder what might have been wrong with them. They could have been damaged, degraded or contaminated; any or a combination of any of these could have affected sequences of those specimens.
Same deal.
quote:Well, you tell me. What does this say? Again, from the blog entry:
One wonders if some of the sequences could well not be artifacts of
exogenous mutations,
Is there any proof that this is in fact the case?
quote:Then it's simple, on your part: What specific nucleotide variants then, other than the noted np do the authors inform us about, to justify their classification arrangement.
16126b is a required mutation in hg JT but it is also found in L1b and M.
You are correct in that. But I find it absurd your implying that Kefi et al
concluded that one specimen was hg T or JT just based on ONE mutation. That
would make no sense.
quote:Hence the mystery of why Kefi et al. at times could not even decide which are the probable haplogroups at hand. These are all things I noted in the blog, which you've conveniently glossed over, and act like you have a clue about what you're doing.
Surely the haplogroups were determined by a combination
with other mutations which are not mentioned.
quote:Then you are obviously uninformed...
Also 16298c is not found in
any L or L3 variant that I am aware of. Only H. Interestingly however 16179T
is not found in H or JT as I know of, but it is found L4b1 and more than one M
clade. Interestingly a few of the mutations in question occur in hg M.
quote:I know that 16172c occurs in a number of hgs. I had already informed you of this in the blog, you dunderhead. LOL
16172c occurs in a number of Haplogroups 16233g not T is only found in hg M
again.
quote:Simple. The authors would have openly reported the specifics of what specifically discriminates the reported sequences from those in haplogroups not shortlisted.
It is a bit puzzling but how do you know the authors didn't consider
alternatives before coming to their conclusions
quote:This was already answered and detailed in the blog post; recap:
And where was Taf XXIV claimed for both hg JT and hg U6? I only see hg U6.
Also some expulsed Moors went to settle in France, as well as Italy and Greece. So again an examination of your statement reveals not only a frightfully impaired reasoning ability but layers upon layers of ignorance, when it comes to the Moors and the history of North Africa.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
quote:Maybe, but I would like to take a look at the actual study before I make a pronouncement.
Originally posted by alTakruri:
[QB] Melchior,
126C:
Watson's L2 is Stefflova's L2 L2a
Watson's L3a is Stefflova's L4 L4g
298C:
Watson's L3a found in one Yoruba specimen is hg V in Stefflova.
Trovoada reports 298c in L1c1b1a, just as likey as Kefi's prediction
of hg V for TafV 27, that specimen's sole found mutation.
But not to lose sight of the point which is Kefi shunted off
a likely sub-Saharan origin frequency of ~29% contribution.
Why? A predilected bias for EurAsian mtDNA maybe?
quote:This is what I'm talking about. You don't get it: no sane person on this planet or perhaps the universe has the cognitive ability to make sense out of your stupidity. You are stupid beyond intelligent recognition. LOL
Originally posted by melchior7:
That’s cuz you don’t have the cognitive ability to make sense out of anything
quote:I don't care for propaganda videos, or the boredom of sifting through some rambling therein. What are you so afraid of about putting it in words succinctly, and going straight to the point and squarely to requested evidence?
Well, give me the specifics + evidence, in words. You are capable of writing, right?
Why would you ask me to do the that when I gave you the link to the source? You just want to be a butthole right?
quote:Dumbfuck, I never mentioned anything about 60ky ago sea-faring OOA hg E carriers. You pulled it right outta your ass. I dare you to directly cite me.
"And I would question what good reason is there to equate folks who migrated into Asia 60,000 years ago with modern E carryng Africans of today?"
Dummy, what does this have to do with me?
It was you dumbass that brought it upas a rebuttal with that other guy. Don’t you even know what you wrote?
quote:You are just too much of a jackass to understand anything even when it's being clarified to you. You cried your eyes out to me about what I meant by "dual geographic heritage", and so, there you had it. You are more emotional than a bitch on pms.
And no need to cry your eyes out about 'dual geographic heritage". It simply means ancestry from two different continents.
It’s part of the Afrocentric ploy to lump North Africans with Sub Saharans as belonging to the same group...
quote:You punked yourself when you said that you had some kind of psychic power to tell who is a "mulatto" and whom isn't, all the while you couldn't even have guessed the backgrounds of several of the personalities posted in the OP. So no, you are the dummy who is racist to those whom you reject as being of "mixed" sub-Saharan African/European heritage, simply because they would not have looked like your stereotypes of people with said heritage.
I maybe funny, but apparently not quite like you. Duping yourself with the fantasy that being a mongrel gives you some kind of a superpower to tell who is "mixed" and whom isn't is certainly funny. Too bad your superpower fails you when "mixed" folks don't conform to your preconceived stereotypes.
Calling me a mongrel just shows what a racist bastard you really are. Thanks for confirming that for me.
quote:Who gives a f*ck about your approval or authentication of when victory has been attained? Not I. You are drunk with dogma like a drunken sailor is with alcohol, so naturally you are going to be in denial of defeat. You don't have the correct judgement to heed to defeat, for your own good.
Absolutely, I do raise my hands in victory. As predicted; the same stale empty emotional protests carried over from the other thread. As such, I'm doing good on my promise, and moving along.
The only serious stab you ever made with regard to this issue was what you wrote on Kefi et al study. And that focused on just one group in Tarofalt. Everything else is just bobbing and weaving and just tossing the ball back at me. You are pathetic.
quote:You see. This is what I was referring to above. You are too much of a muttonhead and drunk with dogma to realize what's being discussed. Ad infinitum, do you know the difference between "European genetic contribution" and "light skin"? This simple question has turned out to be enormously difficult for you, as evidence by your constant chickening out from giving a straightforward answer.
You either have to be dumb and/or have an emotional agenda to protect so as to not get what's being contended, after repeated reminders. As for denying the genetic impact of slavery, you have been doing just that. The only problem is you can't do anything else about it short of emoting.
You are full of ****. I have laid out the task before you. The subject matter is the Berbers. Prove that THEIR tendency toward light traits is in fact a result of European slavery or else kindly shut up. Enough with your impetuous weaseling about.
quote:You mean the ones that say that the Maghrebi versions of Iberian clades are marked by fairly "low diversity"? That's supposed to prove to me that these clades are "Pre-historic"? This is why you shouldn't be citing studies, because you are only good at blindly parroting them without actually understand the genetics at work.
Prehistoric European genetic imprint? I'm skeptical of any substantial input. That's where you are supposed to come in.You have seen the studies yet you dismiss them out of hand.
quote:What demographics? LOL. You are simply full of denial about the impact of European female slaves in the Maghreb, and in an ironic twist, dismissing local black "Berbers" as slave descendants, even when old primary texts speak of local black "Berbers" like the "black Riffian pirates". You go onto all sorts of rounds in denying authentic "black" Riffians, by first trying to discredit an old Euro-sourced primary text simply because you say it appears on a Rastafarian site, which you dismissed as "Afrocentric", and then, proceed to say that the European source must have just blindly dismissed Maghrebi folks as "blacks", presumably because they dismissed anything "African" as "black". In this of course, you are not to be phased by substantial facts to contrary, wherein Eurocentrists of the 19th century and prior, and heck even in the 20th century, have undertaken campaigns to disassociate coastal north Africa from "black Africa"...because to be phased by those facts, you'd have to realize just how ridiculous you're being, by trying to accuse the allegedly 19th century European source on the 'black Riffian pirates". Does it end there? Nope. When you are pressed for validating your claim that there is no authentic "black Riffian", you chicken out on me. You've even suggested that the 'black Riffian pirates' must have been slaves--without evidence of course--used by the "real" Maghrebi folks to presumably catch more slaves, but from Europe. To this end, you tried to equate them with the slaves whom you refer to as the "Harratin" and "Gnawa". My friend, these are not demographics, these are fairy tales grounded on your dogma.
Yeah, spouting off on fairy tales is a sign of being "bright".
Fairy Tales? My statements about demographics of Morocco both past and present reflect the general consensus. You will likely find the information wherever you go to look it up.. Do you think just wildly throwing around words like "fairy tales" will help your case? It doesn’t, it just makes you look clueless and desperate.
quote:Apparently not, but you are, and a forgetful one at that.
I'd already educated you about indigenous Maghrebi blacks via genetics, language, and paleontology. Remember the deal about proto-Tamazight speakers and where they would have had to originally come from?
Naturally not, because your dogmatic goggles cloud your judgment. On the black Riffians, upon denials about their authenticity, you were pressed on the specifics of their genealogical and language history, but you chickened out. Forget already?
Are you a moron?
quote:Yet, supposedly even without this transplant, I'm outsmarting you by 100%, LOL. You dummy, I never said anything about the Maghrebi folks in France being "expelled Moors". You pulled that one too, right outta your ass.
The dummy urges me to stay focused, and then comes up with some imaginary stuff about "les Beurs being expelled Moors" somewhere in my post. Nimrod, they wouldn't be in Europe, if they were expelled. LOL
Scratch that reminder to stay focused, I’m thinking a bonafide brain translplant would better suit you. Beurs are what Maghrebian people are called in France.
quote:You are too much of fuckhead to even assess what is a light year(s), let alone measure anything with it. If blindly equating and generalizing the Maghrebi folk in Europe with "descendants of expelled Moors" is not as stupid as stupidity can ever get, than what else will. You can try to save face and frame this one on me, but it came from none other than your own fat ass. LOL
Your comment, “they wouldn't be in Europe, if they were expelled” is light years beyond STOOPID.
quote:LOL, the lunkhead trying to save face with this incomprehensible gobbledygook, having been caught with his ass bare and pants down, lying his fat ass off about what was said to him. People talk about the Maghrebi immigrants in France being a proud people and accused of being too reserved by the French, while this acutely confused wide-eyed goof goes off the cliff, rambling on about "Maghrebi immigrants in France being expelled Moors".
Also some expulsed Moors went to settle in France, as well as Italy and Greece. So again an examination of your statement reveals not only a frightfully impaired reasoning ability but layers upon layers of ignorance, when it comes to the Moors and the history of North Africa.
quote:LOL, in other words, caught with your pants down again, spouting off stuff that are as real as Peter Pan.
You are equally stupid for offering your "belief" in reply to requests for objective validations revolving around your pre-historic 'seafaring Britons'.
Your quips about validation regarding seafaring Britons is just a silly red herring, one which I will no longer entertain.
quote:Ummm, bonehead, ever heard of the likes of "IberoMaurusian complex", "Capsian complex", "Kebaran", "Mushabean", "Tasian", "Badarian", "Natufian", and the list can go on endlessly? These are all pinned to cultural backgrounds, specified time frames, and in certain causes, placed in specific geo-climatic contexts. More importantly, they are identified with specific skeletal remains. Your imaginary 'pre-historic" Europeans have not been validated by any of these contexts.
You jackass, you are apparently too stupid to understand what's being asked of you, let alone forge a sensible reply. You were asked to provide the cultural backdrop and the drivers that are supposed to justify a would-be European settlement in the Maghreb right at the turn of the LGM, when there is no evidence of such elements before or during the LGM
Who the hell can provide the cultural backdrop LGM Europeans.
quote:Jackass, you are the one who brought up the issue of how deep the Mediterranean supposedly is, just so you could justify laying European claim to the Maghreb. You only complain, when your ass is pressed on the matter.
What kind of nonsensical demmand is that? I told you the proximity of North Africa is enough to expect cross overs. All you can do is keep coming at me with more specious bullshit asking for riduclous validations, like telling you how deep a certain part of the Mediterrean was 10,000 years ago. Then you ask about the culture of prehistoric Iberia. I suppose next you will ask if they were wearing appropriate bathing suits when making the crossing to Africa.
quote:Being acutely misguided is a ritual to you. How can I be biased for being skeptical to something for which no convincing evidence has been produced? And you say I'm dumb, LOL.
And it’s obvious racist bias which keeps you bent on denying any preshitoric presence of Euopeans in North Africa.
quote:It's funny you say that, when you are not bright enough to know what earth is. You lie your ass off again. I never said that "there is no way" E arrived in Europe before hg R, as if to say that such a thing is impossible. I said point blank, that this did not happen, and I'm basing it on evidence. You are of course such a dunderhead, that the subtleties in the difference between the two claims is lost on you. What is your evidence that hg E distribution in Europe precedes that of hg R?
nimrod, you are daydreaming again. Nobody said anything about hg R being older than hg E. It is all in your head. Call back to earth, will ya.
You have to be ON EARTH to call someone back. It was you who claimed that there was no way E arrived in Europe before hg R. Please try and usnderstand what we are actually arguing about.
quote:You are loaded with BS. I did not invent the arguments surrounding Maghrebi folks being "caucasoids" or "north African caucasians"; like that of distortions about AE, I was immersed in it, to dispel myths, like the ones you are trying promote here. You are a good example of the folks I'm talking about, who try to pass coastal north Africa as some sort of European/white man's wonderland, which supposedly has little in common with sub-Saharan Africa. If you aren't pre-occupied with the "race" of coastal north Africans, as you hypocritically accuse me, then why are we even having this debate at all?
Originally posted by melchior7:
You could have save yourself the trouble of writing all this heap, by simply saying that you are an ignoramus about European need to de-Africanize coastal North Africa. "Race" discussions on the Maghreb or AE would not exist, if your logic made any sense.
Generally the Maghreb and Berbers are viewed in a different light with respect to Egypt whose culture we all know originates from the Nile Valley. As far as I know no one is fussin' over European mtdna in Egypt. But thanks for confirming your preoccupation with the race of North Africans.
quote:Indeed, which is why it was stupid to keep accusing me of "just assuming", when you haven't even bothered to read the study yourself, and despite the fact that I quote Kefi et al. whenever I critique them.
You are unnecessarily making an ass of yourself, relying on wild guesswork rather than simply familiarizing yourself with the study first. Kefi et al. do make the claim that the Taforalt specimens were untainted by "sub-Saharan" genetic influence. Read the study, fool.
First of all I can only read what you wrote about the study as I don’t have access to the study myself.
quote:Okay, my bad. I revisited the post in question, and it now occurred to me that you were in fact saying as you clarified above. However, you don't have to be a sore bitch about it.
Secondly, you blundering idiot, I did not deny that Kefi says they were untainted. Actually I said that your questioning kefi’s calim was not without merit, thereby giving you props..well sort off. Didn’t your Pops ever slap you upside the head for not paying attention?
quote:Read the damn thing; it's all spelled out there, in time frames, the names of the complexes, along with the names of the skeletal remains, and stop asking petty questions. LOL
What paleontological record do you have that evidences tropical Africans that far North in the Maghreb.?
quote:Well, if you don't want to use a dictionary, which will give you a simple definition, and educate yourself, then you are intentionally looking to be stupid.
In this light we have to ask just what do you mean by "autochthonous Africans"
Ever heard of using a dictionary?
No, please give us your own fanciful definition. I’m quite sure I will find fault with it.
quote:LOL, you just don't get, do you. They are running PCR for an individual specimen more than once, with each trial independent from the next, and yet, getting different DNA reports from that same specimen. It makes no sense to jumble up the DNA fragments of individual specimens by mixing them with one another. That would be asking for a disastrous result.
You imagine so, because you did not dare confront the cotext wherein that piece came from. What is your word for word answer to the nucleotide details I laid down there?
Let me help you all the same, because maybe the DNA language in the blog was way over your head:
In fact, while the authors proclaim to presumably gotten around to correcting the mutational artifacts of exogenous influences, the following revelations point to unnatural mutations that made their way into the PCR fragments:
Table 7 groups the polymorphisms observed for 23 specimens, mutations in this table are checked several times on different sequences. The mutations are considered authentic when they are found on independent PCR [fragments] of two different DNA extractions performed on the same specimen. In certain cases we noticed for the same individual, different sequences from PCR of independent extractions. As regards the specimen Taf V-18 for instance, mutations 16126C-16304C-16311C are spotted on the sequences of two independent products of PCR, acquired from a first extraction, while for the second extraction, mutation 16311C is not found. So sequence considered for the specimen Taf V-18 is the following: 16126TC-16304C. The non-reproducibility of certain mutations is also observed in the case of specimen XXIV Taf (Table 8). Indeed, the 16129A mutation is observed only once, it is therefore excluded.
These discrepancies could be explained as some kind of mix up among the various specimens in question rather than with some exogenous source.
quote:I had noted this possibility in my blog, as one among several others. Such an event only goes to reinforce my point about questioning the integrity and authenticity of the DNA fragment being used to draw conclusions.
Also in dealing with such old traces of dna it is not inconceivable that in two extractions from the same specimen, the trace of a particular sequence could have degraded to the level of being non detecbale in one extraction yet still barely identifiable in another.
quote:Yes, the "conclusions" I drew about the reported results of Kefi et al.'s DNA sequencing.
As any person with a partially functional brain cell will notice, the conclusions are substantiated by the nucleotide reports cited from Kefi et al.
"Conclusions"?
quote:Well, yes the sequences were mentioned in my blog, but within a direct quotation of Kefi et al. themselves, wherein they note that the specimen, i.e. Taf V-18, had reported said sequence in only one PCR trial of "independent extractions", but that the second PCR trial on the same specimen did not produce those exact same sequences. I said that those results point to "unnatural mutations" and that the sequences were "inconsistent". Yet despite this, Kefi et al. chose to include the specimens, only eliminating the mutation that supposedly did not appear in the two PCR trails of a single specimen.
dummy, why would I want to show that "16126C-16304C-16311C are of recent origin", if it has no bearing on critiquing Kefi et al.?
I don’t have what you wrote before me. But I seem to recall you mentioned those sequences as being evidence exogenous influence
quote:I already answered this. I told you that if they were relying on other sequences that are more discerning, then it only makes sense to inform the reader of these sequences, as the other sequences would have been relatively generic, and hence, not of much informative value. It doesn't make sense, at least to me, why they would only name certain sequences, while leaving out the more discerning one. Not only did Kefi et al. do this, but also they were on many occasions indecisive about what haplogroup to place the specimens. If they were relying on more discerning sequences/mutations than the ones they named, then one would think that they would be able to determine more specifically, what haplogroups the specimens presumably fall, don't you think?
You are correct that 16126c could be found L1b. But we how can we be sure that Kefi chose JT just based on that one mutation. Also do we have any evidence of prehistoric L1b in coastal Maghreb? Where can I find Kefi’s study so I can read it myself?
quote:Of course I have; you should have come across that term in my blog as well...if you had read it as you professed to have. What does it have to do with what I'm saying above? Or put it this way: How does it negate what I'm telling you above?
Nope, just that you are uninformed. You'd expect that the goal for "independently" running two separate PCR trials for mtDNA fragments of the same specimen is to tell the same story, not a different one every trial. You don't even have to be a geneticist to arrive at that common sense.
Have you ever heard of nucleotide degradation?
quote:What is *specifically* the "unsupported supposition" above? You simply make these weird charges, without specifying precisely what it is you are directing your claim.
Again, from the blog entry:
"Several of the variant hypervariable segment positions noted for the different sequences, and therefore offered as some sort of haplogroup vetting-gauges, thereby narrowing assignment of said sequences down to one or couple of suspected haplogroups, turned out to be types that are actually shared across different super-haplogroups. One wonders if some of the sequences could well not be artifacts of exogenous mutations, like those accompanied by hydrolytic deamination, upon the prospect of further investigation."
You just blindly read, without actually understanding a word being said. LOL
What you wrote was the description of particulars followed by an unsupported supposition.
quote:You find my claim peculiar for no apparent reason; how ironic is that?...that you find "my claim"-- which is substantiated--"peculiar", but nothing peculiar about you dismissing my observation as "peculiar" for no reason.
Then it's simple, on your part: What specific nucleotide variants then, other than the noted np do the authors inform us about, to justify their classification arrangement.
I don’t know as I don’t have their document but I do find your claim most peculiar.
quote:You are really obtuse. I'm not supposing a damn thing. Kefi et al. only report certain sequences; what part of that does not penetrate your skull?
As a geneticist, if there are specific mutations that make you certain that so and so report corresponds so and so lineage, then what you do, is to report those highly discriminatory/discerning and peculiar np sequences. You don't simply say well, it is part of this general group, just based on a single or two nps, and then leave the rest to the imagination.
But that’s what you are supposing they did without knowing for certain.
quote:You are just amazingly muttonheaded. So, I'll ask you again:
Hence the mystery of why Kefi et al. at times could not even decide which are the probable haplogroups at hand. These are all things I noted in the blog, which you've conveniently glossed over, and act like you have a clue about what you're doing.
You have taken the possible omission of certain details on the part of Kefi to reach a questionable conclusion.
quote:If you are in fact the one not being racially biased and deceitful, then how come you are the one struggling to corroborate your accusations? How come for every blog claim of mine that you've cited, I always come out on firm grounds, while you look silly for not being able to corroborate your empty accusations and for not being informed about the subject matter? How come you are unable to isolate and specify what critique of Kefi et al. in the blog is supposedly "racially biased" and "deceitful"? I'll tell you how come: it's because you're drunk with dogma, and this coupled with being a bigot, impairs your judgement.
Also you have already shown yourself to be racially biased and deceitful. Why should anyone trust you?
quote:You lazy couch potato.
Why don’t you give us the link to his study so we can all take a look. If there any discrepancies we should try to contact Kefi ourselves.
You are accusing me of deceit and racial bias, simply because you are chronically lazy and not intellectually capable of retrieving the study by yourself and reading it for yourself?quote:Where did Kefi et al. presumably make this blunder; certainly not in the tables that I referenced? This coming from a fraud who says he/she hadn't read the study yet. LOL
I know that 16172c occurs in a number of hgs. I had already informed you of this in the blog, you dunderhead. LOL
As for 16233g, instead of the 16233T that was reported, what does it have to do with anything?
It was a possible blunder on the part of Kefi which you didn’t catch.
quote:Specify these "meaningless meanderings", and why they are supposedly so. Otherwise, we'll just have to dismiss you as a dogmatic quack, just incomprehensibly talking to him/herself.
And I think there may be even more crucial ones which would solidify your case despite some of your meaningless meanderings. But I will wait to see the actual study.
quote:Why don't you just read the blog, it is right in there, you lazy fuckhead.
"And where was Taf XXIV claimed for both hg JT and hg U6? I only see hg U6."
________________________________________
This was already answered and detailed in the blog post; recap:
"The figures given by the authors above, by way of distinct designated individual nucleotide positions, inadvertently head-counts at least one individual twice, unsurprisingly--which amounts to the authors having confused themselves by the ambiguity of their very own specimen assignments into haplogroups, wherein the same individual was counted for both hg JT and hg U, instead of either one of these two haplogroups but not both of them at the same time! This resulted in the authors counting specimen Taf XXIV for both hg JT and hg U6 at the very same time, thereby assigning "4/21" individuals into hg JT and "2/21" individuals into hg U6."
I was asking for excerpts from Kefi’s study to prove this you numbskull.
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Lol. You're just trying divert attention from the fact you are an obvious racist. quote:
Originally posted by melchior7:
quote:Maybe, but I would like to take a look at the actual study before I make a pronouncement.
Originally posted by alTakruri:
. . . .
But not to lose sight of the point which is Kefi shunted off
a likely sub-Saharan origin frequency of ~29% contribution.
Why? A predilected bias for EurAsian mtDNA maybe?
quote:Naw I just came across the abstract, and saw exceprts from it on different sites but when I tried to link to the original source there was always something wrong, the site page was no longer available etc. But pretty much everbody takes it as gospel. But if they just assigned haplogroups to people based on a whim then I have a serious problem with it. One of the sequences they ascribed to hg H was also found in a specific L clade which was supposed to have had a significant frequency in North West Africa and the Canary Islands.
Originally posted by alTakruri:
What? You haven't even read Kefi et al. 2005?
quote:
Originally posted by melchior7:
quote:Maybe, but I would like to take a look at the actual study before I make a pronouncement.
Originally posted by alTakruri:
. . . .
But not to lose sight of the point which is Kefi shunted off
a likely sub-Saharan origin frequency of ~29% contribution.
Why? A predilected bias for EurAsian mtDNA maybe?
quote:
Originally posted by melchior7:
quote:Naw I just came across the abstract.
Originally posted by alTakruri:
What? You haven't even read Kefi et al. 2005?
quote:
Originally posted by melchior7:
quote:Maybe, but I would like to take a look at the actual study before I make a pronouncement.
Originally posted by alTakruri:
. . . .
But not to lose sight of the point which is Kefi shunted off
a likely sub-Saharan origin frequency of ~29% contribution.
Why? A predilected bias for EurAsian mtDNA maybe?
quote:I have read commentaries on it. See my edit above.
Originally posted by alTakruri:
I see.
So you're making comments about others' analysis
of the study without so little as even reading it
leave alone any actual analysis of that report?
quote:
Originally posted by melchior7:
quote:Naw I just came across the abstract.
Originally posted by alTakruri:
What? You haven't even read Kefi et al. 2005?
quote:
Originally posted by melchior7:
quote:Maybe, but I would like to take a look at the actual study before I make a pronouncement.
Originally posted by alTakruri:
. . . .
But not to lose sight of the point which is Kefi shunted off
a likely sub-Saharan origin frequency of ~29% contribution.
Why? A predilected bias for EurAsian mtDNA maybe?
quote:You illiterate dunderhead. I talked about Upper Paleolithic OOA migrants, as in you know, the OOA migrants who gave rise to non-Africans. How the f*ck did you screw that up to mean hg E carriers? You are reduced to flip flopping, having been exposed trying to fraudulently frame me for your own idiotic claim. This is how you tried to do it:
Originally posted by melchior7:
Dumbfuck, I never mentioned anything about 60ky ago sea-faring OOA hg E carriers. You pulled it right outta your ass. I dare you to directly cite me.
Here.
You also seem to be ignorant of the understanding that the major so-called OOA of the Upper Paleolithic was done from the African Horn, across the red sea and onto the coast of the Arabian peninsula.
You mentioned the crossing of the Red Sea. I mentioned MODERN E carriers to show the lack relevance idiot. Stop trying to twist my words around.
quote:What's silly, is your trying to cover your ass up above. LOL We all know you are guilty as charged.
You punked yourself when you said that you had some kind of psychic power to tell who is a "mulatto" and whom isn't,
"Psychic power" What a silly fabrication.
quote:Or to put it in other words, you are going to pretend that you are not in denial of your defeat. Plus, you don't have the judgement necessary to discern what is a taste of reality, when you are a mentally deranged muttonhead to begin with.
Who gives a f*ck about your approval or authentication of when victory has been attained? Not I. You are drunk with dogma like a drunken sailor is with alcohol, so naturally you are going to be in denial of defeat. You don't have the correct judgement to heed to defeat, for your own good.
I could play along and pretend you are winning. But I am of the firm belief that even the mentally derranged deserve a taste of reality now and then.
quote:Well, I am, but you are not. You seem to be too infatuated with splitting hairs about "light-skin", when the discussion is otherwise supposed to be about the European genetic contribution, which is not in doubt, but rather, how much of it is of historic sourcing and how much of it is prior.
You see. This is what I was referring to above. You are too much of a muttonhead and drunk with dogma to realize what's being discussed. Ad infinitum, do you know the difference between "European genetic contribution" and "light skin"?
Why do you bring up such a question? Are we not arguing about whether European genetic contribution is prehistoric or not?
quote:This is your code word for saying that researchers are untouchable Gods, i.e. infallible personalities whom people should blindly follow like a bunch of sheep. This is the excuse generally used by those who don't deeply understand the studies they cite, outside of simply parroting or copying & pasting them word for word. As a result, they are not able to recognize when more knowledgeable folks are pointing out the inadequacies of said studies, thereby rendering them unequipped to refute the critique thereof. To cover up this obvious handicap, they instead natter some claptrap about others "claiming intellectual superiority". That's the real joke, and it's on you.
You mean the ones that say that the Maghrebi versions of Iberian clades are marked by fairly "low diversity"? That's supposed to prove to me that these clades are "Pre-historic"? This is why you shouldn't be citing studies, because you are only good at blindly parroting them without actually understand the genetics at work.
I have read many of these studies and understand clearly what is implied. In a nutshell you are claiming intellectual superiorty over the authors of these studies as you claim to know better. You, the little voice in the wilderness. What a joke.
quote:...which entails your inability to rectify said shortcomings of said studies, that you cite without fully understanding.
To top that, none of your cited studies ever explain why the European input in the Maghreb are one-sidedly female, nor do they keep their conclusions in mind with the male gene pool of Maghrebi populations.
We have already been over that.
quote:You don't get it dummy. The point is that the Tamazight speakers could not have attained European female DNA during the Neolithic for one, because they were not in the Maghrebi coasts nearest (e.g. Morocco) to the Iberian peninsula during the Neolithic. As for "pale faced" Tamazight speakers in Libya, presumably recorded by Egyptians, I'd like to see evidence of it.
Furthermore, the proto-Tamazight speakers are generally implicated as arriving in the far western fringe of the Maghreb some time during the historic epoch before the common era (see Arredi et al. TMRCAs for example),
So before that, they were likely in Libya where the Egyptians recorded those pale faces?
quote:If they did, you have been able to account for European male contribution, instead of the mostly one-sided female contribution; you wouldn't be stuck trying to explain the asymmetry.
meaning, they would not have been that far west on the northern coasts of Africa during the "Neolithic". Yet, it is these recent Maghrebi folks whose gene pools we are discussing.
Because they absorbed the population in the far west when they arrived there.
quote:If you did, we wouldn't be holding our breath for answers to the issues I raised about the asymmetrical European contribution, lack of paleontological record of prehistoric European settlers, the disconnect between age guesswork for Neolithic "European" genetic influence by studies that you cite and dating of proto-Tamazight speakers in the Maghreb, the inability of Euro researchers to accurately assess the complexity of Maghrebi maternal gene pool because of highly fragmentary sampling that generally focused on the same areas (like Morocco), and so forth. This is why you were unable to address the following, and even skipped over points related therein. Recap:
Let's face it, you only cite those studies, even when you don't quite fully understand them, because you get the impression that they are helping you in your argument.
Too bad for you I understand well enough to smack you about with them. Lol
quote:More face-saving gobbledygook. You were complaining about the photos, not for anything said on the "Rastafarian" site in particular, but because the old primary text showed photos of 'black' personalities, whom the old text referred to as "Riffian pirates". This drove you to push forward fairytale conspiracies extending from the Euro source of that old text wanting to equate "anything that is African" with "black", to said 'black" Riffian Pirates being "hired" by "real" north Africans to catch slaves for them. When pressed to prove that you have a clue about how black Riffians got there, you turned chicken quickly.
What demographics? LOL. You are simply full of denial about the impact of European female slaves in the Maghreb, and in an ironic twist, dismissing local black "Berbers" as slave descendants, even when old primary texts speak of local black "Berbers" like the "black Riffian pirates".
That nonsense was soundly squashed. 1. The author of that article did not call them Black Riffians. 2. Your Rastafarian site is the only site on the internet that calls them Blacks. 3. Many scholars since the 19th century have noted the Riffians as being unsually European looking. And anyone who has studied the history of Morocco knows that since histrorical times the only inidenous Blacks were in the Draa valey to the south. Hence the Black pirates if they really were Blacks could not have been indigenous Riffians. Nuff said.
quote:LOL, I rest my case. You've proven my point.
Eurocentrists of the 19th century and prior, and heck even in the 20th century, have undertaken campaigns to disassociate coastal north Africa from "black Africa
A campaign? North Africa is primarily Arabic in culture and language, most of the people are Middle Eastern looking and politically they cluster with Middle East.
quote:If it makes me cry, then it is clearly out of joy from the excess ease with which I get you to prove me right, just like you've done above.
So yes, it’s only logical to place them in a category apart from sub saharan Africa, no nefarious campaign or conspiracy necessary. Does that make you cry?
quote:Dunderhead, I was referring to the expelled folks in the Maghreb, not Europe. Essentially what I was saying, is this: The expelled communities in the Maghreb, whom you claim don't mix with mainstream Maghrebi folks--presumably because the former are "Europeanized" descendants whom ironically speak "Arabic" and practice "Islam", would only not fully integrate with the mainstream population, if they were not real descendants of Arabized/Muslim Maghrebi folks. I qualified this on the grounds that Maghrebi folks are proud of their local heritage of being "Maghrebi" and then proceeded on to give an example of just how proud they can be, using the example of Maghrebi communities in France and how they are accused of being too distant and culturally conservative that they don't integrate into the "mainstream" French culture. But you somehow found a way to jumble this one up too...with some irrelevant babble about "les beurs (you call "expelled Moors") in France".
Yet, supposedly even without this transplant, I'm outsmarting you by 100%, LOL. You dummy, I never said anything about the Maghrebi folks in France being "expelled Moors". You pulled that one too, right outta your ass.
Sigh. Let us examine the evidence then. You said:
If they called themselves "Andalusians", then the section of the expelled who do so, must not be diasporan Maghrebi folks. The Maghrebi are proud of their heritage, as can be seen today in Europe.
quote:The problem is not with other people. The problem is that you are simply too obtuse to understand simple language. You have trouble even understanding your own claims, which you strangely proceed to frame on me, when they are exposed for the incredible stupidity that they characterize.
You should stop and consider the implications of what you want to say before blurting out insipid nonsense. Clearly your intellectual arms are too short to box with me,... son.
quote:dumbass, I was giving you examples of what constitutes "cultural background", since you cried to me that you were too dumb to know what it means. These are not meant to be "free-answers" to aid you to answer my request, which still stands: You have produced no cultural backdrop, geo-climatic perspective or paleontological evidence of prehistoric Maghrebi "European" settlers!
Ummm, bonehead, ever heard of the likes of "IberoMaurusian complex", "Capsian complex", "Kebaran", "Mushabean", "Tasian", "Badarian", "Natufian", and the list can go on endlessly? These are all pinned to cultural backgrounds, specified time frames, and in certain causes, placed in specific geo-climatic contexts.
Do any of those examples pertain to the prehistoric European culture you asked me to describe?? The answer is NO.
quote:You are apparently an ineducable shithead for never understanding the same comment explained to you countless times. Your logic is like saying say, Somalis or Ethiopians loosing their culture and ethnic pride, just because they are abroad. I have to ram this into to your concrete skull in order to make some head way: I referenced diasporan Maghrebi communities in France, because they "never loose track of their heritage and identity as people of the Maghreb". What part of that does your thick skull not get? If these Maghrebi folks were to head back to the Maghreb, they wouldn't want to be estranged from the mainstream. Your own ideologically-driven assumption is that such immigrants will have an isolationist attitude, presumably because they "Europeanized" and "Arabized" at the same time, and cordon themselves off the mainstream. To reiterate my response to that assumption, I'm telling you that those with such attitudes would have to not be Maghrebi-descendants, because their attitude is atypical of Maghrebi folks, even for diasporan Maghrebi folks heading back home. It is naturally ideologically convenient for you to want the descendants of "expelled Moors" to be isolationist, because you imagine that it somehow allows you to say that the rest of the population could not have attained "European female" genes that way.
Originally posted by melchior7:
[QB] Sigh..
I'll just address this one point as I am begining to lose interest.
Dunderhead, I was referring to the expelled folks in the Maghreb, not Europe. Essentially what I was saying, is this: The expelled communities in the Maghreb, whom you claim don't mix with mainstream Maghrebi folks--presumably because the former are "Europeanized" descendants whom ironically speak "Arabic" and practice "Islam", would only not fully integrate with the mainstream population, if they were not real descendants of Arabized/Muslim Maghrebi folks. I qualified this on the grounds that Maghrebi folks are proud of their local heritage of being "Maghrebi" and then proceeded on to give an example of just how proud they can be, using the example of Maghrebi communities in France and how they are accused of being too distant and culturally conservative that they don't integrate into the "mainstream" French culture.
Why would you assume that Moors who lived in Spain for several hundered years would have a similar disposition, and sense of identity as the Maghrebi who never left Africa?? You should know better. Then you go on to cite Maghrebians in modern day France to bolster your point? It's plain to see, you are just too dumb for your own good, sonny.
quote:In other words, a cop-out. LOL
This back and forth with you has become nothing but a flame war. I don't like wastng my time.
quote:You illiterate fagfuck, who said anything about "recent arrivals"?...which has zero bearing on the point being drilled into your fat head. Get your ABCs in order, before you take on seasoned readers on the internet.
Originally posted by melchior7:
You are apparently an ineducable shithead for never understanding the same comment explained to you countless times. Your logic is like saying say, Somalis or Ethiopians loosing their culture and ethnic pride, just because they are abroad.
They lived in Spain for several hundred years among an assortment of different peoples, you big ignoramus. How can you compare that to recent arrivals in Europe from some third world country???
quote:Who gives a sh*t about how long they've been there. Can you quantify specifically how long preexisting Maghrebi communities have been living in places like France, when pressed, you fuckheaded mongrel? What does that have to do with a people being culturally conservative and a highly proud people, no matter where they end up? This is the sort of primitive thinking that dumbass overweight fatso's like you, sitting in some basement, who have never seen the daylight of Africa let alone a clue about Africans, greet towards Africana. You imagine that googling up Africans obscures you as a faux "expert", charlatan or buffoon, as well as the condition that you don't interact very much with real human beings on a daily basis wherever it is you are, let alone folks in continental Africa.
I have to ram this into to your concrete skull in order to make some head way: I referenced diasporan Maghrebi communities in France, because they "never loose track of their heritage and identity as people of the Maghreb".
We are comparing people who have moved to France within the 40 years or so ago with a people who lived in Spain for several generations to they extent that they developed their own idenity. I told your dumb ass to click on the link I provided, but not surprisingly, you didn't.
quote:LOL, I'm willing to bet that the sh*t that comes out of your fat mongrel ass emits more nervous activity than your impenetrable skull.
I have never met someone so stuck on stupid. You sensilessly fight on even when your "troops" (read facts) have deserted you.
quote:Well of course, you are going to be convinced of your own dogma. That is the least audience you can expect of stuff that you pull right out of your ass.
What part of that does your thick skull not get? If these Maghrebi folks were to head back to the Maghreb, they wouldn't want to be estranged from the mainstream. Your own ideologically-driven assumption is that such immigrants will have an isolationist attitude, presumably because they "Europeanized" and "Arabized" at the same time, and cordon themselves off the mainstream.
Well..
To reiterate my response to that assumption, I'm telling you that those with such attitudes would have to not be Maghrebi-descendants, because their attitude is atypical of Maghrebi folks, even for diasporan Maghrebi folks heading back home. It is naturally ideologically convenient for you to want the descendants of "expelled Moors" to be isolationist, because you imagine that it somehow allows you to say that the rest of the population could not have attained "European female" genes that way.
It is the way it is my friend, read the link.
quote:Get your fat mongrel ass off the keyboard, and breath air once in while. Try to meet real Africans [rather than relying some googled gobbledygook] before you make a fool out of yourself on the net.
Oh and North Africa culturally and politically clusters with the Middle East.
quote:LOL. Oh you learned that too from googling, did you. Well, at least you are not doing it from your psychic powers, the one which allows you to telepathically tell who is "mixed" and who isn't.
Originally posted by melchior7:
Yeah most arrived in the late 50's and early sixties. Whew! I thought you had me cornered. (sarcasm)
quote:You are mistaking your classic ass-for-brains behavior for being nice. I know this much: You have never laid eyes on a *living and breathing* African, let alone a Maghrebi.
What does that have to do with a people being culturally conservative and a highly proud people, no matter where they end up?
What Cracker Jack box did you get that out of.? Do you even know any North Africans? Since I'm a nice guy, here is some more reading material to help dispell your delusions.
quote:Yeah. Next you are going to say that you lived on Mars. Outside of that keyboard oriented self-defecating and little world of obesity that you immerse yourself in, you know nothing about the planet we sane people call "Earth". As for your infatuation with my 'ding ding', you fagget little mongrel, at least I can say that it is like Godzilla to the one your paps jacked that rat-hole of your moms to conceive the poor excuse which is you. LOL
This is the sort of primitive thinking that dumbass overweight fatso's like you, sitting in some basement, who have never seen the daylight of Africa let alone a clue about Africans, greet towards Africana. You imagine that googling up Africans obscures you as a faux "expert", charlatan or buffoon, as well as the condition that you don't interact very much with real human beings on a daily basis wherever it is you are, let alone folks in continental Africa.
Actually I have lived in France, have friends from North Africa and all over, been on the continent of Africa and can boast of tons of other things that would compell you to want to jerk your little miniscule ding ding off....
quote:The problem is that you don't have a mind, to bring anything to.
I thought I was being a good Samaritan by trying to bring dummies like yourself to real knowledge. But you bring to mind the old addage "at least the ignorant can learn but the stupid can't."
quote:I guess your googling or wikipedia history lessons forgot to inform you that Tamazight is the authentic language of Maghrebi folks, and it is live and kicking well, despite elite attempts to Arabize coastal Africa. So powerful is the campaign to keep local Maghrebi identity strong, that it had recently been announced that Tamazight would become one of two official Moroccan languages. Saying it is "minor", isn't going to change that, and shows that your experience with a real Maghrebi is about as real as Snow White and the dwarfs. Try telling an Amazigh patriot that his Amazigh culture is "minor" and see if you'll live to tell about your experience thereof. LOL
Here's something to stump for fat thick mongrel skull: What Tamazight culture and language can I find in the fake continent that you called "Middle East"?
Let me show you how feeble and ill thought-out your question is.
First of all, I never called the Middle East a continent. Secondly, the Berbers, are a Afroasiatic speaking MINORITY culture, amongst the larger Arabic (also Afroasiatic) one.
quote:As flattering as it might be, worry less about me, and worry more about loosing that excess obese fat weighing you down in one place, take at least one second break intervals away from your keyboard, and go out and breath 'real' air once in a while, instead of fart air. How's that for an advice, little mongrel munchkin?
Maybe you should go take a nap as you've obviously been straining that little noggin of yours to near delirium . It might regenerate some brain cells, but I wouldn't count on it.
Although Barbara Douglass never told anyone she was white, people see her porcelain skin and her silky hair and assume she is. 
quote:
A Search for Racial Identity on the ‘Color Line’
Deirdre Donahue
USA TODAY
When Gregory Howard Williams was 10 years old, his father turned to him on a bus ride to Muncie, Ind., and told him, "Life is going to be different from now on. In Virginia you were white boys. In Indiana, you’re going to be colored boys. I want you to remember that you’re the same today that you were yesterday. But people in Indiana will treat you differently.
The compelling story of just how different that life would be forms the core of Williams’ much-discussed new book, Life on the Color Line: The True Story of a White Boy Who Discovered He was Black (Dutton, $22.95). Williams left behind the "whites only" schools, swimming pools and move theaters of 1953. Overnight, his racial identity changed.
The memoir is No. 232 on the USA TODAY Best-Selling Books list.
Williams was born to a white mother and a black father when interracial relationships were still against the law in Virginia. His light-skinned father told people he was Italian, and his mother was disowned by her family in Muncie. The couple ran a tavern for servicemen that failed partly because the Korean War ended and partly because Williams’ charismatic father drank heavily. Eventually, Williams’ mother left the family because her husband beat her often and savagely. She took her tow youngest children but left Williams and his brother Mike with their father.
The two sons would not see or hear from their mother for a decade.
With their father, the two boys headed to Muncie, where they discovered that life for black boys was very different than for white boys. "I was the same person, but because my heritage, I was treated very differently," Williams says. Teachers had severely lowered expectations, and Williams was denied an academic award in the sixth grade because of his race. Often going hungry, the two boys lived at first with their paternal grandmother, who had worked at the tavern back in Virginia, where the boys knew her simply as the cook, Miss Sallie. No one had mentioned she was their father’s mother. "She was very angry about that."
Now the dean of Ohio State University College of Law, Williams wrote the book because he had counseled many minority students and they told him how inspiring and affirming his story was. A top student and high school athlete, Williams put himself through Ball State University while working full time as a sheriff. He also attended law school and has published legal textbooks.
When Williams was growing up in Muncie, where the KKK had been active for many years, there was strict racial segregation. Teachers and coaches probed whether Williams was dating white girls in high school. (Black girls were also off-limits because the couple would look interracial.) Williams, now the father of four, including two adopted sons from Honduras, married a white woman he secretly saw during high school.
With fair skin and straight hair, Williams has always looked white. But the issue has "never been skin color - it’s race and racial heritage," Williams says. His white grandmother lived less than 10 minutes away in Muncie, yet brutally rejected the two boys. After they begged for their mother’s address so they could write her, she ordered them out of her car, saying, "I don’t carry messages for niggers!" Only his mother’s youngest sister kept in touch with Williams.
By contrast, his black relatives and their community accepted the two boys after some playground scuffles and taunts. "We became black. Those were the people who were supporting us. I became proud of my heritage. I realized who I was, Moreover Williams had seen his father "pass" for white and the pain he suffered emotionally at this self-denial.
Economically, however, passing generated much more money. Back in Virginia, his father’s businesses grossed more than $50,000 in 1951. After the family moved to Muncie, the best job his 41-year-old father, who had attended Howard University, could get was as a janitor for $50.50 a week.
What saved Williams in the end was a woman named Miss Dora, who took in the two boys, providing them with a stable home. At 52, Miss Dora earned $25 a week as a domestic, yet fed and cared for the boys. "This woman saved my life," says Williams, who dedicated the book to her, his wife and his now-deceased father who, despite his drinking and difficulties, always encouraged Williams to dream and achieve.
His mother, however, remains a wound. Williams understands why she left her husband, but she has never apologized or even admitted that she abandoned two small boys for 10 years. (She periodically returned to Muncie yet never contacted her sons.) When he saw her at age 20, "She didn’t want to talk to us about how we had survived, what we had gone through," Williams says. "She was in denial." When Williams told her recently that the book was to be published, "she was not happy about it."
Williams traveled back to Muncie recently and my heart broke." He visited his elementary school and "life has not changed a lot in 31 years" in terms of what black children can expect from this world. While he believes there have been "some advances in race relations, there continues to be a lot of divisions."
Quite simply, Williams says it is hard for whites to understand how "overpowering and overshadowing the perceptions about blacks in this society can be. It’s very difficult."
Except
‘Remember Miss Sallie who used to work for us in the tavern?’
Dad’s lower lip quivered. He look ill. Had he always looked this unhealthy, I wondered, or was it something that had happened on the trip?
‘It’s hard to tell you boys this,’ He paused, then slowly added, ‘But she’s really my momma. That means she’s your grandmother.’
‘But that can’t be, Dad! She’s colored!’ I whispered, lest I be overheard by the other white passengers on the bus.
‘That’s right, Billy,’ he continued. ‘She’s colored. That makes you part colored, too.’. . .
I didn’t understand Day. I knew I wasn’t colored, and neither was he. My skin was white. All of us are white, I said to myself. But for the first time, I had to admit Dad didn’t exactly look white. His deeply tanned skin puzzled me as I sat there trying to classify my own father...
‘I don’t wanta be colored,’ Mike whined. ‘I don’t wanta be colored. We can’t go swimming’ or skatin,’...
I glanced across the aisle to where (Dad) sat grimfaced and erect, staring straight ahead. I saw my father as I never had seen him before. The veil dropped from his face and features. Before my eyes he was transformed from a swarthy Italian to his true self - a high-yellow mulatto. My father was a Negro! We were colored! After ten years in Virginia on the white side of the color line, I knew what that meant.
From Life on the Color Line
quote:Like I said, you are more emotional than a bitch with pms. You are still sore from being schooled on grade school geology, like another bitch that you know. Could you be the same bitch?
Originally posted by melchior7:
Oh and did I neglect to point out that if it wasn't for the spread of Islam, North Africa today would likely be part of the western world, an extension of southern Europe if you will, with the folks being of Christaian persuasion, having a largely Greco-romanized culture..and umm mostly Eurasian phenotype...