Hey everyone I'm new here and I have a question (please go easy on me I'm new and here to learn, I was always told to ask questions and you guys seem to know your stuff). I know races don't exist but I was wondering if all native africans are more related to each other then any other group of people shouldn't that be consider a race or a independent population? I mean not on a skin color or phenotype level but on a genetic level, seeing that most africans are long limbed, dark skinned people and share common ancestry really the only people who don't fit that are the so called "white" berbers but they still have the "black" hap group E from what i studied. So can you guys clear that up for me because what I've gathered through studies is that africans are a diverse people ranging all phenotypes and a wide variety of skin tones but they are still related very closey and I think we should still use the concept of race in a new way not in skin color but in gentics.
Please forgive me for bad typing or stupidity im just a kid trying to learn from his elders
PS in future posts and topics I may claim two different ethnics groups while I debate this is because my father is Somali and my mother is African-American so I might post from two different points of view on certain topics.
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hersi_Yusuf: I know races don't exist but I was wondering if all native africans are more related to each other then any other group of people shouldn't that be consider a race or a independent population? I mean not on a skin color or phenotype level but on a genetic level, seeing that most africans are long limbed, dark skinned people and share common ancestry really the only people who don't fit that are the so called "white" berbers but they still have the "black" hap group E from what i studied. So can you guys clear that up for me because what I've gathered through studies is that africans are a diverse people ranging all phenotypes and a wide variety of skin tones but they are still related very closey and I think we should still use the concept of race in a new way not in skin color but in gentics.
The fact that you can't include all Africans into a single race without including the rest of humanity (because all human genetic variation is nested in African variation) would suggest against this.
Human DNA Sequences: More Variation and Less Race Jeffrey C. Long,1* Jie Li,1 and Meghan E. Healy2 1Department of Human Genetics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-5618 2Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131 KEY WORDS race; DNA sequence; short tandem repeat; diversity; hierachical models
quote: The pattern of DNA diversity is one of nested subsets, such that the diversity in non-Sub-Saharan African populations is essentially a subset of the diversity found in Sub-Saharan African populations. The actual pattern of DNA diversity creates some unsettling problems for using race as meaningful genetic categories. For example, the pattern of DNA diversity implies that some populations belong to more than one race (e.g., Europeans), whereas other populations do not belong to any race at all (e.g., Sub-Saharan Africans). As Frank Livingstone noted long ago, the Linnean classification system cannot accommodate this pattern because within the system a population cannot belong to more than one named group within a taxonomic level.
...
A classification that takes into account evolutionary relationships and the nested pattern of diversity would require that Sub-Saharan Africans are not a race because the most exclusive group that includes all Sub- Saharan African populations also includes every non- Sub-Saharan African population (Figs. 2B and 4B). Moreover, the Out-of-Africa branch would place all Eurasians in the same race, but this would necessitate placing Europeans and Asians in sub-races.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
Of course all native Africans are related but "race" is a tricky word. Biologically, no, Africans are not a separate race of people as all people draw back to a common source that is very recent in evolutionary terms. There is but one race. Proof is in the fact that non-Africans are basically a subset of African diversity. They represent one group of Africans who left the continent 60,000 years ago. They are basically Africans in terms of biohistory, just not "native" in the sense that they have no "historical" ties to the continent.
Most native Africans are closely related via a lineage or DNA marker (a cluster of genes that can reveal who your common ancestor was in the recent past) called "PN2". The first person to carry the PN2 marker lived in East Africa maybe 30kya. Most Africans (with the exception of "Pygmies" [sic], Khoisan, and some Nilotes) can trace their ancestry to this one individual, while non-Africans cannot. Therefore, native Africans are more closely related paternally to each other than they are to non-Africans. Put it like this. Most native Africans can be considered cousins while Africans and non-Africans can be considered as second cousins. Still related, but not as immediate. This is the way you can frame it. But not in terms of "race" or independent breeding populations.
Posted by Hersi_Yusuf (Member # 20078) on :
oh I see thank you for the help. But i'm still gonna say that KMT were "black" people lol.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
^Of course they were.
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hersi_Yusuf: oh I see thank you for the help. But i'm still gonna say that KMT were "black" people lol.
As much as I hate to say it, I don't know if it's really useful to employ terms with as much misleading baggage as "Black" or "Negroid" anymore. Such characterizations inevitably lead to headaches over how we properly define those terms. Better to simply describe them as dark-skinned Northeast Africans IMHO.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
^^^^ Tropical Africans is an even better term.
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
^ Could work as well.
Posted by Hersi_Yusuf (Member # 20078) on :
^^ Well it is accepted in modern society that Dark skinned, long limbed native Africans are "black" and I personally don't see the wrong in using that term to describe those people. We have became comfortable and familar with those terms and just stating they were northeast Africans (to vague) only just leads to confusion on who they really were because modern Egyptians are called north African but most aren't even native. You really think a self identified "white" person would be okay with the greeks or romans being called southern darkskin europeans? no they would not, so why should we lable them northeast Africans and leave people confuse on who they were because collectively as African peoples that is our history some thing we contrbuted to the world and we should claim it and I personally think the social-construct of "black" puts a finality on the Ancient Egyptian orgin question for good.
Besides most of us put black/african-american on forms we fill out so don't act as if you completely abondoned "blackness" as a identity and consider yourself as only a human. You must feel some special connection with other darkskin native africans (including the dispora)that you don't feel with other people?
Posted by Hersi_Yusuf (Member # 20078) on :
Okay im cool with tropical African since most people that fit are native dark africans excluding the negritos and aboriginals.
Posted by Atemu (Member # 20035) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: Of course all native Africans are related but "race" is a tricky word. Biologically, no, Africans are not a separate race of people as all people draw back to a common source that is very recent in evolutionary terms. There is but one race. Proof is in the fact that non-Africans are basically a subset of African diversity. They represent one group of Africans who left the continent 60,000 years ago. They are basically Africans in terms of biohistory, just not "native" in the sense that they have no "historical" ties to the continent.
Most native Africans are closely related via a lineage or DNA marker (a cluster of genes that can reveal who your common ancestor was in the recent past) called "PN2". The first person to carry the PN2 marker lived in East Africa maybe 30kya. Most Africans (with the exception of "Pygmies" [sic], Khoisan, and some Nilotes) can trace their ancestry to this one individual, while non-Africans cannot. Therefore, native Africans are more closely related paternally to each other than they are to non-Africans. Put it like this. Most native Africans can be considered cousins while Africans and non-Africans can be considered as second cousins. Still related, but not as immediate. This is the way you can frame it. But not in terms of "race" or independent breeding populations.
False. Many Africans with E are autosomally closer to non-Africans than to certain other Africans with the same clade. Notably people in North Africa.
Direct lineages have little to do with overall genetic affinities. Norwegians with haplogroup P (hap R is a sub-group of P) are closer to Arabs with J/E etc than they are to Native Americans with P (hap Q is a sub-group of P).
Posted by Atemu (Member # 20035) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hersi_Yusuf: because modern Egyptians are called north African but most aren't even native.
Idiot. modern Egyptians have more African male ancestry than many Chadics, North Sudanese, and Ethiopians.
^^ So you are saying that modern egyptians are less mixed then other indigenous people? lol so you claim that eurasians skipped all of egypt and left a genetic impact on those people but the modern egyptians stay mostly the same? Funny it sounds to me that the video is trying to say that Chadics, North Sudanese, and Ethiopians look they way they do because of back migration of eurasians and that the modern egyptians are eurasians who are native to Egypt. well I maybe wrong but that seems supspect to me just seems like a eurocentic pushing hamitic theory or some other type of scientfic racism.
Posted by Atemu (Member # 20035) on :
Egyptians have more African male ancestry than many groups south of them. This is a simple fact, deal with it.
Posted by Hersi_Yusuf (Member # 20078) on :
^^^ Like I said I highly doubt it. Then shouldn't we see more of a tropical African body plan in modern Egyptians? If they are more native african because all the people you list still retain those bodyplans and skull shapes and they are so called less African. Besides its common knowledge that Egypt has been occupied and invade by diffrent people and to say that modern Egyptians have more genetic african dna then proven native peoples is stupid, to belive that a gentic onslaught passed over egypt to get to the southern people sounds suspect. Like I said it sounds like more hamitic theory to try claim east africans as whites
Posted by Atemu (Member # 20035) on :
Why do you care so much about Egypt? It is none of your business, stupid Somalian Pirate. Your people are dumb nomads who never build anything historic and still are living in primitive conditions.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
@ Hersi_Yusuf
^You should ignore Atemu. he's actually just a troll (someone whose sole purpose here is to antagonize). This is why he'd tell such a stupid lie. No one worth responding to.
Posted by Hersi_Yusuf (Member # 20078) on :
^ 1st: It is Somali not Somalian
2nd: My ancestors were traders, Mogadishu was a great trade city on the silk road it was called regico aromantico (or something close) by the romans.
3rd: Aes called us punt or pwnet and said the gods lived their and that they came from that region
4th: we are one of the many native peoples egyptians traded and shared culture with hell our languge share similar words with the pharonic languge
5th: why can't I have a interest in my collective african history I love all Africa's cultures (like great zimbabwe, ghana and songhay) and empires but Egypt is my favorite. Plus I'm half AA so my gentic past doesn't end in Somalia.
Now let me ask why do you care?
Posted by Hersi_Yusuf (Member # 20078) on :
@ sundjata
Thank you for the heads up ill ignore him in the future
Posted by Atemu (Member # 20035) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hersi_Yusuf: ^ 1st: It is Somali not Somalian
Who cares.
quote:Originally posted by Hersi_Yusuf: 2nd: My ancestors were traders, Mogadishu was a great trade city on the silk road it was called regico aromantico (or something close) by the romans.
Liar. The Arabs and Swahili folks build those and did all the trading. You are a delusional nomad with no history.
quote:Originally posted by Hersi_Yusuf: 3rd: Aes called us punt or pwnet and said the gods lived their and that they came from that region
Punt/Pwnet was either in Eritrea or the Hejaz (Arabia), not Somalia which is too far from Egypt and no evidence has ever been presented that it was located there.
quote:Originally posted by Hersi_Yusuf: 4th: we are one of the many native peoples egyptians traded and shared culture with hell our languge share similar words with the pharonic languge
Idiot. The Afro-Asiatic language family is a very archaic linguistic group with only few similarities. Your real cousins are the primitive Rendille Maasai tribe, not Egyptians.
Posted by Hersi_Yusuf (Member # 20078) on :
^^ I'm gonna take the advice I was given and ignore its impossible to debate eurocentric on anything. So im gonna opt out to save myself the trouble of your stupidity.
Ps look up keita he shows the genetic and cultural similarities between the two peoples
Pss Somalis are closet to oromos of Ethiopia Aar is a somali word which means lion in the pharonic languge and in Somali
PSS Why should I belive a euronut about my own history?
Posted by Whatbox (Member # 10819) on :
Pwnt is believed to have referred to a region encompassing Eritrea, Northern Ethiopia, and possibly a little of adjacent Sudan, but it may not have denoted an area demarcated in a rigorously rigidly exact manner, but simply the "inland area", "where the exotic animals and short people" are [or were].
quote:Originally posted by Hersi_Yusuf: Hey everyone I'm new here and I have a question (please go easy on me I'm new and here to learn, I was always told to ask questions and you guys seem to know your stuff). I know races don't exist but I was wondering if all native africans are more related to each other then any other group of people shouldn't that be consider a race or a independent population? I mean not on a skin color or phenotype level but on a genetic level.
To answer your question, and it is a valid one, it's like this:
Basically Africa has more variation, though this variation is spread out.
Explanation:
Say you have an ethnic group, divided in to groups A and B, representing Africans and extra-Africans or non-Africans.
The genetic diversity existent in B is also present in A, and more. So A has more variance.
The thing is, let's say A is made up of large ethnic groups or clans or families. It is just that the variance existent in A happens to be intra- - meaning within - group variance rather than inter- or between group variance. Meaning: the variance is fairly spread or distributed out within all groups making it individual (all families pretty much have ranges of variation), rather than meaning that it is mostly so that the groups are so different from eachother.
Because Africans are so variable, actually, I thought the standout point was that all non-Africans were closer related to each other than were any to sub-Saharan Africans. Meaning Europe, Oceania (actually more distantly related to Africa than Europe), East Asia, Alaska, South America, etcetera.
Interesting fact:
There are some individuals in certain regions / ethnic groups on this planet, on one extreme of the variation within our species genome, who are so different from folks on the other extreme, that they could be said to literally be a different sub-species or race from them. As I gethered it this is very few people though, and only in certain ethnic groups.
Posted by Hersi_Yusuf (Member # 20078) on :
^^ Thank you for the help.
Also pwnt from my research includes ethiopia, eritia, way southern sudan and northern somalia because their are pyramids from what Ive learned in all of those places and many of the animals that were trade really only came from that region.Ive also heard that incensce like myrrh and frankencense are indigenous to Somalia. But hey i could be wrong I haven't even started university yet so ill find out then.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Atemu:
quote:Originally posted by Hersi_Yusuf: ^ 1st: It is Somali not Somalian
Who cares.
quote:Originally posted by Hersi_Yusuf: 2nd: My ancestors were traders, Mogadishu was a great trade city on the silk road it was called regico aromantico (or something close) by the romans.
Liar. The Arabs and Swahili folks build those and did all the trading. You are a delusional nomad with no history.
quote:Originally posted by Hersi_Yusuf: 3rd: Aes called us punt or pwnet and said the gods lived their and that they came from that region
Punt/Pwnet was either in Eritrea or the Hejaz (Arabia), not Somalia which is too far from Egypt and no evidence has ever been presented that it was located there.
quote:Originally posted by Hersi_Yusuf: 4th: we are one of the many native peoples egyptians traded and shared culture with hell our languge share similar words with the pharonic languge
Idiot. The Afro-Asiatic language family is a very archaic linguistic group with only few similarities. Your real cousins are the primitive Rendille Maasai tribe, not Egyptians.
The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, Ian Shaw, p. 317, 2003:
"There is still some debate regarding the precise location of Punt, which was once identified with the region of modern Somalia. A strong argument has now been made for its location in either southern Sudan or the Eritrean region of Ethiopia, where the indigenous plants and animals equate most closely with those depicted in the Egyptian reliefs and paintings.
"In the process of cleaning the walls between the tomb's inner and outer chambers they stumbled upon an inscription believed to be the first evidence of a huge attack from the south on Elkab and Egypt by the Kingdom of Kush and its allies from the land of Punt, during the 17th dynasty (1575-1525 BC). "
Texas A&M University
Queen Hatshepsut's expedition to the Land of Punt: The first oceanographic cruise?
Queen Hatshepsut ruled Egypt from ca. 1503 to 1480 B.C. In contrast to the warlike temper of her dynasty, she devoted herself to administration and the encouragement of commerce. In the summer of 1493 B.C., she sent a fleet of five ships with thirty rowers each from Kosseir, on the Red Sea, to the Land of Punt, near present-day Somalia. It was primarily a trading expedition, for Punt, or God's Land, produced myrrh, frankincense, and fragrant ointments that the Egyptians used for religious purposes and cosmetics.
Scandinavians were hunter gatherers for a long time, with no history. Until recent times.
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hersi_Yusuf: I know races don't exist
Wrong.
Forensic scientists, physical anthropologists, pharmacists etcetc still recognise race as valid.
Races are biologically real. If you think not please explain:
Can you explain why Blacks have an IQ 30 points lower than White?
Why are there drugs developed by pharmacists which only Blacks can take?
Why are scientists developing race or ethnic bio-weapons such as bombs?
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hersi_Yusuf: ^^ Thank you for the help.
Also pwnt from my research includes ethiopia, eritia, way southern sudan and northern somalia because their are pyramids from what Ive learned in all of those places and many of the animals that were trade really only came from that region.Ive also heard that incensce like myrrh and frankencense are indigenous to Somalia. But hey i could be wrong I haven't even started university yet so ill find out then.
For thousands of years, several native tree species have provided the raw materials for some of the Horn of Africa’s most important commodities, including frankincense (from Boswellia sacra in Somalia, Yemen and Oman, and B. frereana in Somalia), myrrh (from the widespread Commiphor myrrha and C. guidottii in Somalia and eastern Ethiopia) and dragon’s blood or cinnabar (from Dracaena cinnabari, EN found on Socotra). All three are gum-resins obtained from these trees. Dragon’s blood, is used as a medicine and dye. The production of frankincense and myrrh is still a major economic activity in Somalia and, to some extent, in Ethiopia and northern Kenya.
What happened to your Hamitic union Atmenu?? all of a sudden the new guy is a Somali Pirate?? and not for nothing but trade in the area goes back millennia before the rise of the Swahili city states
And yes Mogadishu was part of the international trade network ran by Somalis but in line with the Swahili,Zimbabwe and other states in-land..look at that the dreaded Bantus and "Hamites" making commercial ties and links with the rest of the world tisk! tisk! what where they thinking.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
Posted by Whatbox (Member # 10819) on :
quote:Originally posted by Whatbox: Pwnt is believed to have referred to a region encompassing Eritrea, Northern Ethiopia, and possibly a little of adjacent Sudan, but it may not have denoted an area demarcated in a rigorously rigidly exact manner, but simply the "inland area", "where the exotic animals and short people" are [or were].
quote:Originally posted by Hersi_Yusuf: ^^ Thank you for the help.
Also pwnt from my research includes ethiopia, eritia, way southern sudan and northern somalia because their are pyramids from what Ive learned in all of those places and many of the animals that were trade really only came from that region.Ive also heard that incensce like myrrh and frankencense are indigenous to Somalia. But hey i could be wrong I haven't even started university yet so ill find out then.
Right, and this goes inline with what I was saying. They went to these places because they were the nearest, they could easily find them in following the Nile River and Red Sea Coast in direct routes South. This all can remain true (that they only went to these named areas) even if the "exact" boarders we define today wouldn't have existed for them, then, and it just meant the simple "inland area". By the way, they have found ancient trade routes inland to areas other than these areas, though it may be true that there weren't any animals that ever came from there.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Just finished watching NG : Human Family Tree by Dr Spencer Wells of the Genographic Project.
Personally I don't agree with some of his point of view but he is clear on certain things.
1. He clearly states there are no Races . . genetically!!!! All humans are genetically a subset of Africans. In other words ALL genes found in non Africans are found IN Africans.
2. He says that humans became DEPIGMENTED in the Steppes of Eurasia.. . .40ky ago!!! which is BS.
3. Depigmentation occured due to lack of sunlight and the need for more efficient vit D sysnthesis most likely in the caves in Asia(Clyde?). This is 30kys before the agricultural revolution(Neolithic).. . .finger to Jablonski and KIK(LOL!).
4. He states that 70kya humans reached South Asia Asia but was wiped out due to a volcanic eruption(Java). The next wave occured around 50kya.
5. His proposes several waves from Africa. Some through the Levant.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Just finished watching NG : Human Family Tree by Dr Spencer Wells of the Genographic Project.
2. He says that humans became DEPIGMENTED in the Steppes of Eurasia.. . .40ky ago!!! which is BS.
Yes it is bullsh1t - they were depigmented when they got there.
But it is very satisfying to see him scramble to try and get ahead of the wave of truth Black researchers are putting on them.
Anyone remember this:
In 2004, Nina G. Jablonski - then of the Department of Anthropology, California Academy of Sciences; published a study entitled "THE EVOLUTION OF HUMAN SKIN AND SKIN COLOR" which declared that White skin developed in Europeans because of a lack of vitamin "D".
Or this:
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
xyyman - You really need to try just a little bit harder.
THE EURASIAN STEPPES:
THE ALBINOS PART OF THE EURASIAN STEPPES.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Cass, Lioness, Jari et al: I'll bet that this is the first time that you are seeing your real homeland. Does it stir and feelings?
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
What is clear there is confusion on WHEN humans became depigmented. Dr. Wells proposes 40ky. Jablonski proposes about 6-12kya. Clearly there is disagreement among white scholars. There is also disagreement on WHY and HOW.
In others words they do NOT know. But as I said many times. I am with Dr. Mekova, Kittles(current)etc.
It is also clear the Steppes played an important part.
BTW - we know now that cited study(above) is outdated. SLCA45 is just ONE of many genes that interact to produce depigementation .. . or pigmentation.
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
^ Simpleton's haven't yet realised pigmentation is really not important as a racial factor. Forensic anthropologists identify someone's race just by looking at a skull. And guess what? They are always 100% right, or they would be out of jobs.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
xyyman - Go back to sleep.
Cass, so you're heading to the exits too huh?
Well, I'll bet this guy wishes you had told him and them, that he was White before the rag-headed mulattoes fuched over him.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
]
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
I usuually have discourse with people who are well read. ie well rounded and knowledgeable.
sho!!!!
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: ^ Simpleton's haven't yet realised pigmentation is really not important as a racial factor. Forensic anthropologists identify someone's race just by looking at a skull. And guess what? They are always 100% right, or they would be out of jobs.
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: xyyman - Go back to sleep.
Cass, so you're heading to the exits too huh?
Well, I'll bet this guy wishes you had told him and them, that he was White before the rag-headed mulattoes fuched over him.
East Africans are 40% Caucasoid. It's why they have thinner noses, straighter hair and Caucasoid bone structure. Blacks out of self-hatred of broad negroid features (which even blacks on this forum themselves claim are ugly) though what to claim these Caucasoid traits are their own. How many times do we have to go over this?
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
^But Cass, above you indicated that bone structure is the determining attribute, so shouldn't he be 100% Caucasoid, just like you?
BTW - where does the 40% come from? I mean is there a mathematical formula or something?
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Cass - I really need to know, are these west African Fulani full or just part Caucasoid, and should they be forced to move to East Africa?
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Cass, while you're thinking about what you want to do with those Fulani, I'm thinking that these fake White people should be sent to Africa.
Just look at this Danish woman, that's a Nigger nose if I ever saw one.
Cass, here is a real tough call for you; if a fake white person has a good nose job, do they become full White people then?
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hersi_Yusuf: Okay im cool with tropical African since most people that fit are native dark africans excluding the negritos and aboriginals.
Keep in mind that tropical Africans have the most skin color diversity in the world, and that they come in numerous different shades, from light yellowish to "jet" black. Light skin in Africa is nothing new, nothing unusual, and occurs in a range from West Africa (i.e. the "Red Igbo) to the vast expanses southern Africa, to the desert peoples of the Sahara and Sahel, to parts of East Africa. Light brown skin is just as native to tropical Africans as darker skin. Naturally regions with more UV radiation will yield more darker skinned people, on the average, but that does not negate the built-in, baseline diversity of tropical Africans. Africa is the birth place where anatomically modern humans evolved. As the original homeland, it is the source of all human diversity.
Pale depigmented "white" skin like that of cold climate northern Europeans is not seen much, compared to brown and black in Africa, but it is not unknown. Keep in mind also that tropical Africans have the highest number of albinos in the world so "white" skin is in place, and has always been in place, and does not depend on "wandering Caucasoids" or "Eurasians" to produce skin color diversity.
QUOTE:
"Previous studies of genetic and craniometric traits have found higher levels of within-population diversity in sub-Saharan Africa compared to other geographic regions. T his study examines regional differences in within-population diversity of human skin color. Published data on skin reflectance were collected for 98 male samples from eight geographic regions: sub-Saharan Africa, North Africa, Europe, West Asia, Southwest Asia, South Asia, Australasia, and the New World. Regional differences in local within-population diversity were examined using two measures of variability: the sample variance and the sample coefficient of variation. For both measures, the average level of within-population diversity is higher in sub-Saharan Africa than in other geographic regions. This difference persists even after adjusting for a correlation between within-population diversity and distance from the equator. Though affected by natural selection, skin color variation shows the same pattern of higher African diversity as found with other traits." --Relethford JH.. 2001. Human skin color diversity is highest in sub-Saharan African populations. Hum Biol. 2001 Oct;73(5):629-36.
QUOTE: "In general, the prevalence of albinism in Africa is much higher, in the range of 1 in 1 100 to 1 in 3900." --(E. Roach and V. Miller 2004. Neurocutaneous disorders.)
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Cass, I know it's tough being the arbiter of Caucasoid, but just one more.
What are we to do with these turn-coat White sluts who wouldn't even give you the time of day. But went out and got lip jobs just so they could do a better job for Black guys.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
^Lioness, don't bother, it wouldn't help you.
Cass, are you thinking what I think you're thinking? Hey it doesn't cost that much, and it will make you more popular with them.
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
^ Some Northern Europeans have wide noses because they have Sami (Lappid) admixture. You can look at the Old Norse texts, and find Vikings with the surname ''flatnose''. They have Lappid admixture.
Timo Soini -
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
quote:Keep in mind that tropical Africans have the most skin color diversity in the world, and that they come in numerous different shades, from light yellowish to "jet" black. Light skin in Africa is nothing new, nothing unusual, and occurs in a range from West Africa (i.e. the "Red Igbo) to the vast expanses southern Africa, to the desert peoples of the Sahara and Sahel, to parts of East Africa. Light brown skin is just as native to tropical Africans as darker skin. Naturally regions with more UV radiation will yield more darker skinned people, on the average, but that does not negate the built-in, baseline diversity of tropical Africans. Africa is the birth place where anatomically modern humans evolved. As the original homeland, it is the source of all human diversity.
Pale depigmented "white" skin like that of cold climate northern Europeans is not seen much, compared to brown and black in Africa, but it is not unknown.
Pigmentation Map -
White skin (Luschan 1 - 12) doesn't appear naturally in Africa.
EDIT: finding other link to show how Zaharan has once again contradicted himself.
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^But Cass, above you indicated that bone structure is the determining attribute, so shouldn't he be 100% Caucasoid, just like you?
BTW - where does the 40% come from? I mean is there a mathematical formula or something?
Caucasoid morphologically, not in pigmentation. Although some would argue this was the ancestral Caucasoid colour, i disagree. It's far too dark.
Dark skin is a recent mutation. So is pale.
Take a look at a San Bushman, and you will see really the original skin hue, its a sallow-light brown colour. It approaches the typical Mediterranoid complexion (olive) and is the same colour as the Cro-Magnon (who were morphologically Caucasoid)
The 40% comes from genetic studies which shows East Africans are heavily admixed with Eurasian (non-African) Caucasoid genes.
---
We don't need pigmentation to determine race.
If we were all blue or green skinned, we can still cluster ourselves based on bone structure, hair texture etc.
Negroid and Caucasoid bone structure look nothing a like.
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
quote:Relethford JH.. 2001. Human skin color diversity is highest in sub-Saharan African populations. Hum Biol. 2001 Oct;73(5):629-36.
Sub-saharan africans have the most skin colour diversity because Capoids are included in the studies. They are non-Negroid and a seperate race. As has been pointed out they have a light-sallow brown complexion, so if you compare that to the dark pigmentation of the Negroid, you get the more diversity.
Genetics clusters Capoids with Eurasians (mostly Mongoloids), not with Negroids.
In other words an East Asian, for example a Japanese, is more related to a Capoid then an African-American.
Are you Japanese? Why else are you trying to cluster yourself with a race you have no genetic connection to?
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: ^ Some Northern Europeans have wide noses because they have Sami (Lappid) admixture. You can look at the Old Norse texts, and find Vikings with the surname ''flatnose''. They have Lappid admixture.
Timo Soini -
Well no Cass; actually as you should know - the Vikings were Black!
A study of the settlement of England and the tribal origin of the Old English people:
by Thomas William Shore (1906)
Quote: "On the borders of Saxony and Prussia at the present day (Germany). Some of the darker Wends may well have been among the Black Vikings referred to in the Irish annals."
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
''On the other hand, the HLA-DRB1 correspondence analysis (Fig. 3) grouped together Western Europe- ans and North Africans, placing together Eastern Mediterranean populations except for the Greeks, who were putted together with Sub-Saharan population, and locating Bushmen and Japanese as an outgroup. These results correlate with those obtained by genetic distances and Neighbor-Joining trees.'' http://my.opera.com/ancientmacedonia...ow.dml/3003682 Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides:
quote:Relethford JH.. 2001. Human skin color diversity is highest in sub-Saharan African populations. Hum Biol. 2001 Oct;73(5):629-36.
Sub-saharan africans have the most skin colour diversity because Capoids are included in the studies. They are non-Negroid and a seperate race. As has been pointed out they have a light-sallow brown complexion, so if you compare that to the dark pigmentation of the Negroid, you get the more diversity.
Genetics clusters Capoids with Eurasians (mostly Mongoloids), not with Negroids.
In other words an East Asian, for example a Japanese, is more related to a Capoid then an African-American.
Are you Japanese? Why else are you trying to cluster yourself with a race you have no genetic connection to?
Cass, here we agree; But more to the point, these African Mongoloids are the ANCESTORS OF "EVERY" ASIAN MONGOLOID! Of course, just like you, the Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, etc. are a Mulatto race - admixed with Albinos.
But I have a question for you:
Could you go over the part where they're not really Blacks or Africans again?
I dunno, but this guy sure looks African to me, plus he lives in Africa and always has. I am just mystified, please clear it up for me.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: Genetics group Bushmen with Asians -
''On the other hand, the HLA-DRB1 correspondence analysis (Fig. 3) grouped together Western Europe- ans and North Africans, placing together Eastern Mediterranean populations except for the Greeks, who were putted together with Sub-Saharan population, and locating Bushmen and Japanese as an outgroup. These results correlate with those obtained by genetic distances and Neighbor-Joining trees.'' http://my.opera.com/ancientmacedonia...ow.dml/3003682
Cass, I have an even BETTER one for you!
Haplogroup D (Y-DNA)
The Ainu people of Japan is notable for possessing almost exclusively Haplogroup D chromosomes In human genetics, Haplogroup D (M174) is a Y-chromosome haplogroup.D is believed to have originated in Africa some 50,000 years before present. Along with haplogroup E, D contains the distinctive YAP polymorphism, which indicates their common ancestry. Both D and E also contain the M168 change, which is present in all Y-chromosome haplogroups except A and B. Like haplogroup C, D is believed to represent a great coastal migration along southern Asia, from Arabia to Southeast Asia and thence northward to populate East Asia.
It is found today at high frequency among populations in Tibet, the Japanese archipelago, and the Andaman Islands, though curiously not in India. The Ainu of Japan and the Jarawa and Onge of the Andaman Islands are notable for possessing almost exclusively Haplogroup D chromosomes.
That means that these Andaman Islanders are GENETICALLY even CLOSER to Mongoloid Asians than the SAN!
Cass, can you please explain that to me?
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
quote:Could you go over the part where they're not really Blacks or Africans again?
I dunno, but this guy sure looks African to me, plus he lives in Africa and always has. I am just mystified, please clear it up for me.
The Khoisan have non-Negroid features such as epicanthic folds, steatopygia, peppercorn hair, thinner lips and flatter faces. They also have neotonic features, as the males have a horizontal penis. Excluding their hair, they look far more Mongoloid than Negroid.
As already noted they also have a lighter skin pigmentation, with is a sallow brown.
In anthropology peppercorn hair is classified as Lophocomi ''tufted'' (peppercorn) as opposed to the Negroid Eriocomi ''fleecy''. Both fall under Ulotrichous (wooly) but they are different hair textures. If you take a look at the picture you posted you will see the appearance peppercorn hair differs to the Negroid hair texture, despite both being wooly.
I don't regard the Khoisan (Capoids) to look anything like Negroids. They have far more common feature with Mongoloids.
Posted by Atemu (Member # 20035) on :
Many Khoisan either have recent Afrikaner/White or Bantu blood.
The racially pure Capoids are very rare and almost extinct, mostly remnants found in the San community.
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides:
quote:Relethford JH.. 2001. Human skin color diversity is highest in sub-Saharan African populations. Hum Biol. 2001 Oct;73(5):629-36.
Sub-saharan africans have the most skin colour diversity because Capoids are included in the studies. They are non-Negroid and a seperate race. As has been pointed out they have a light-sallow brown complexion, so if you compare that to the dark pigmentation of the Negroid, you get the more diversity.
Genetics clusters Capoids with Eurasians (mostly Mongoloids), not with Negroids.
In other words an East Asian, for example a Japanese, is more related to a Capoid then an African-American.
Are you Japanese? Why else are you trying to cluster yourself with a race you have no genetic connection to?
Complete nonsense. Your "Capoid" racial classification is obsolete, and discredited, and seldom used by modern scientists today. And "genetics" does not cluster your "capoids" with "Mongoloids." In fact, the San peoples share the deepest Y-DNA clades with other Africans, (Cavalli-Sforza 2002). You lose again on yet another bogus claim.
As for your claim that white skin does not occur naturally in Africa, it does on very infrequent occasions, and more so in the case of albinos, of which Africa has the highest proportion. You lose again.
ANd you keep contradicting yourself with your own references.
-------------------------------------------------------------------- Genetics group Bushmen with Asians -
''On the other hand, the HLA-DRB1 correspondence analysis (Fig. 3) grouped together Western Europe- ans and North Africans, placing together Eastern Mediterranean populations except for the Greeks, who were putted together with Sub-Saharan population, and locating Bushmen and Japanese as an outgroup. These results correlate with those obtained by genetic distances and Neighbor-Joining trees.'' http://my.opera.com/ancientmacedonia...ow.dml/3003682 [/b]
^^The references above note that Khosians are extremely diverse with more difference between them than other nearby populations. And the Harpending reference does not even mention the San. You just put it in as yet another part of the bogus smokescreen you are trying to spin, and fail so dismally at. Your own article ref below shows that the San do NOT cluster with your "Mongoloids". And your Arnaiz-Villena ref shows Bushmen with Japanese is based on certain rheumatoid arthritic similarities, NOT actual population exchange that can be verified by anthropology or archaeology. In any event, since Africa is the source of modern humanity any population on earth could show some linkage to some other African population. You are totally bogus, and your claims, even using your own "supporting" references, fall apart on even on cursory examination.
Bushmen neighbours are genetically continents apart
22 February 2010
By Dr Rachael Panizzo Appeared in BioNews 546
Comparing the genomes of Archbishop Desmond Tutu and !Gubi, a Khoisan elder from the Kalahari, reveals that, although they are geographical neighbours, their genomes are as different from each other as they are from European or Asian individuals. These findings, published in the journal Nature, reflect the extent of human genetic diversity on the African continent.
Archibishop Tutu and !Gubi are the first southern Africans to join just eleven people worldwide who have had their genomes fully sequenced and made publicly available for research. Until now, only one other African genome - a Yoruban individual from Nigeria - had been sequenced.
Genetic and genomic research has concentrated on European and Asian populations until recently. But it is thought that modern humans originated in Africa approximately 200,000 years ago and a small population migrated to Asia and Europe 70,000 years ago, bringing with them only a subset of human genetic diversity.
Researchers, lead by Dr Stephan Schuster from Pennsylvania State University, identified Archbishop Tutu and !Gubi as representatives of two southern African groups that could shed light on the human genome's diversity. Archbishop Tutu was selected because of his Tswana and Nguni ancestry, the two largest Bantu groups in southern Africa, who make up approximately 80 per cent of southern Africans. !Gubi is the elder leader of a group of Khoisan Bushmen, who are believed to have lived as hunter-gatherers in the Kalahari region for tens of thousands of years and are the oldest known lineage of modern human.
Their genomes were compared to the reference human genome, and the genomes of European, Asian, and Nigerian Yoruban individuals. The researchers identified more than one million new DNA variants within the Bantu and Bushmen genomes that were not shared with the European, Asian or Yoruban genomes, nor with each other.
'On average, there are more genetic differences between any two [Khoisan] in our study than between a European and an Asian', said Professor Webb Miller from Pennsylvania State University and a co-lead author on the study.
The protein-coding regions of three other Bushmen elders were also sequenced. The majority of genetic variants identified in the Bushmen genome were new variants that had accumulated since its lineage diverged from other human populations, and did not represent ancestral genetic variants.
The researchers found the Bushmen genome had several genetic variants that may be associated with a hunter-gatherer lifestyle, such as the ability to store water in body tissues, as well as variants involved in susceptibility to malaria and obesity.
Dr Schuster and colleagues hope that the genomes may help to identify differences in genetic susceptibility to diseases and response to drugs. They may also contribute to the development of more effective anti-retroviral drugs to treat HIV, as some southern Africans respond poorly to existing drugs. Archbishop Tutu added:
'Genetic information is important for pharmaceutical companies in preparation of drugs and it is for that reason among others that I agreed to participate in this research'.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides:
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^But Cass, above you indicated that bone structure is the determining attribute, so shouldn't he be 100% Caucasoid, just like you?
BTW - where does the 40% come from? I mean is there a mathematical formula or something?
Caucasoid morphologically, not in pigmentation. Although some would argue this was the ancestral Caucasoid colour, i disagree. It's far too dark.
Dark skin is a recent mutation. So is pale.
Take a look at a San Bushman, and you will see really the original skin hue, its a sallow-light brown colour. It approaches the typical Mediterranoid complexion (olive) and is the same colour as the Cro-Magnon (who were morphologically Caucasoid)
The 40% comes from genetic studies which shows East Africans are heavily admixed with Eurasian (non-African) Caucasoid genes.
---
We don't need pigmentation to determine race.
If we were all blue or green skinned, we can still cluster ourselves based on bone structure, hair texture etc.
Negroid and Caucasoid bone structure look nothing a like.
If East Africans truly are 40% Eurasian why aren't they carring that extensive hairy body trait. And why are have remained the same tropical adapted portioned people vs the cold adapted body portioned Eurasians. lol
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides:
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: xyyman - Go back to sleep.
Cass, so you're heading to the exits too huh?
Well, I'll bet this guy wishes you had told him and them, that he was White before the rag-headed mulattoes fuched over him.
East Africans are 40% Caucasoid. It's why they have thinner noses, straighter hair and Caucasoid bone structure. Blacks out of self-hatred of broad negroid features (which even blacks on this forum themselves claim are ugly) though what to claim these Caucasoid traits are their own. How many times do we have to go over this?
Posted by Atemu (Member # 20035) on :
I have met Ethiopians with hairy arms. Also, East Africans grow fuller beards than others Sub-Saharan folks.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Atemu: I have met Ethiopians with hairy arms. Also, East Africans grow fuller beards than others Sub-Saharan folks.
Who the hell cares who you have so called met.
Africans aren't hairy people. This is fact.
At coastal areas it differs to some degree. But always have by far lesser body hair than Europeans or eurasians. Let alone excessive body hair. It is being despised.
Ironically it's always the dumbest of the dumbest whites who claim to be in authority over others, and claim know more about the people they speak of then those people themselves. "Bare" that fact!
It happens all the time. Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
The fact of the matter is Negroids have the least phenotypic diversity.
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
quote:Complete nonsense. Your "Capoid" racial classification is obsolete, and discredited, and seldom used by modern scientists today. And "genetics" does not cluster your "capoids" with "Mongoloids." In fact, the San peoples share the deepest Y-DNA clades with other Africans, (Cavalli-Sforza 2002).
Cavilli-Sforza supports the seperation of Capoid and Congoid (Negroid). These two races also appear in modern peer reviewed literature, they are not 'obsolete'.
See: Cavalli-Sforza, L. Luca; Menozzi, Paolo; and Piazza Alberto The History and Geography of Human Genes Princeton, New Jersey: 1994 Princeton University Press "Khoisanids" Page 174-177
The Capoid race looks nothing like the Negroid in phenotype, and they are genetically distinct.
Capoids are not true sub-saharan africans, they originated in northern Africa and were pushed south by Caucasoids, and as Atemu said, many of them have Caucasoid (white) admixture.
What i would like to know is why are you attempting to cluster yourself with a race that looks nothing like you?
Do you have epicanthic folds slanted eyes? Posted by asante-Korton (Member # 18532) on :
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: The fact of the matter is Negroids have the least phenotypic diversity.
The fact of the real matter is race doesnt exist so you fail
quote:Wells says. "Race, in terms of deep-seated biological differences, doesn't exist scientifically. We are 99.9 per cent identical roughly, at the genetic level. That's actually a remarkably low level of genetic diversity compared to other species of large primates. It represents a population bottleneck event some 70,000 years ago when the population dropped down to as few as 2,000 people. We came back from that, and our genome reflects that."
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
quote:Originally posted by asante-Korton:
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: The fact of the matter is Negroids have the least phenotypic diversity.
The fact of the real matter is race doesnt exist so you fail
quote:Wells says. "Race, in terms of deep-seated biological differences, doesn't exist scientifically. We are 99.9 per cent identical roughly, at the genetic level. That's actually a remarkably low level of genetic diversity compared to other species of large primates. It represents a population bottleneck event some 70,000 years ago when the population dropped down to as few as 2,000 people. We came back from that, and our genome reflects that."
So called ''race deniers'' like Brace and Keita end up proving races exist.
Brace's/Keita's genetic clustering:
Exactly the same as Charleton Coon but different names. Posted by asante-Korton (Member # 18532) on :
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides:
quote:Originally posted by asante-Korton:
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: The fact of the matter is Negroids have the least phenotypic diversity.
The fact of the real matter is race doesnt exist so you fail
quote:Wells says. "Race, in terms of deep-seated biological differences, doesn't exist scientifically. We are 99.9 per cent identical roughly, at the genetic level. That's actually a remarkably low level of genetic diversity compared to other species of large primates. It represents a population bottleneck event some 70,000 years ago when the population dropped down to as few as 2,000 people. We came back from that, and our genome reflects that."
So called ''race deniers'' like Brace and Keita end up proving races exist.
Brace's/Keita's genetic clustering:
Exactly the same as Charleton Coon but different names.
quote:Wells says. "Race, in terms of deep-seated biological differences, doesn't exist scientifically. We are 99.9 per cent identical roughly, at the genetic level. That's actually a remarkably low level of genetic diversity compared to other species of large primates. It represents a population bottleneck event some 70,000 years ago when the population dropped down to as few as 2,000 people. We came back from that, and our genome reflects that
Posted by asante-Korton (Member # 18532) on :
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides:
quote:Originally posted by asante-Korton:
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: The fact of the matter is Negroids have the least phenotypic diversity.
The fact of the real matter is race doesnt exist so you fail
quote:Wells says. "Race, in terms of deep-seated biological differences, doesn't exist scientifically. We are 99.9 per cent identical roughly, at the genetic level. That's actually a remarkably low level of genetic diversity compared to other species of large primates. It represents a population bottleneck event some 70,000 years ago when the population dropped down to as few as 2,000 people. We came back from that, and our genome reflects that."
So called ''race deniers'' like Brace and Keita end up proving races exist.
Brace's/Keita's genetic clustering:
Exactly the same as Charleton Coon but different names.
Cassi bitch says
quote:I don't regard the Khoisan (Capoids) to look anything like Negroids. They have far more common feature with Mongoloids.
???
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
^The casper bitch boy has also claimed Khoisan were Cockasian.
Almost makes you wish for the early ES days when the Euronuts were actually somewhat of a challenge.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by asante-Korton:
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides:
quote:Originally posted by asante-Korton:
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: The fact of the matter is Negroids have the least phenotypic diversity.
The fact of the real matter is race doesnt exist so you fail
quote:Wells says. "Race, in terms of deep-seated biological differences, doesn't exist scientifically. We are 99.9 per cent identical roughly, at the genetic level. That's actually a remarkably low level of genetic diversity compared to other species of large primates. It represents a population bottleneck event some 70,000 years ago when the population dropped down to as few as 2,000 people. We came back from that, and our genome reflects that."
So called ''race deniers'' like Brace and Keita end up proving races exist.
Brace's/Keita's genetic clustering:
Exactly the same as Charleton Coon but different name.
quote:Wells says. "Race, in terms of deep-seated biological differences, doesn't exist scientifically. We are 99.9 per cent identical roughly, at the genetic level. That's actually a remarkably low level of genetic diversity compared to other species of large primates. It represents a population bottleneck event some 70,000 years ago when the population dropped down to as few as 2,000 people. We came back from that, and our genome reflects that
That boy isn't bright enough to understand any of what you've quoted. He can't grasp that humans have mutated from one source and genes have mutated on a micro level due to environmental conditions.
He rather believes a eugenics freak.
So he ignores these images, hence he has never been able to explain what causes thin facial traits and thin hair texture. Or why the East Africans he tries to claim "as brothers /( black caucasoids") aren't cold adapted in limb portions, but rather tropical adapted like the ancestors.
]
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
^ Capoids are not Negroids.
Your people have been committing acts of genocide long before European colonists arrived. In fact it is white people who are trying to save them.
Google: khoisan/bushman genocide
Negroids also hunt down pygmies and cook them for dinner.
Yet the afronuts on ES want to claim pygmies and bushmanoids are their own race or ''black brothers'' LOL.
In Africa your people are butchering and committing acts of genocide against them...
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: ^ Capoids are not Negroids.
Your people have been committing acts of genocide long before European colonists arrived. In fact it is white people who are trying to save them.
Google: khoisan/bushman genocide
Negroids also hunt down pygmies and cook them for dinner.
Yet the afronuts on ES want to claim pygmies and bushmanoids are their own race or ''black brothers'' LOL.
In Africa your people are butchering and committing acts of genocide against them...
It's absolutely hilarious when a nazi thinks he is the forerunner. Telling anybody what they are and who they are. (he believes)
All the boy cites is eugenics nazi propaganda.lol
Posted by asante-Korton (Member # 18532) on :
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: ^ Capoids are not Negroids.
Your people have been committing acts of genocide long before European colonists arrived. In fact it is white people who are trying to save them.
Google: khoisan/bushman genocide
Negroids also hunt down pygmies and cook them for dinner.
Yet the afronuts on ES want to claim pygmies and bushmanoids are their own race or ''black brothers'' LOL.
In Africa your people are butchering and committing acts of genocide against them...
quote:Wells says. "Race, in terms of deep-seated biological differences, doesn't exist scientifically. We are 99.9 per cent identical roughly, at the genetic level. That's actually a remarkably low level of genetic diversity compared to other species of large primates. It represents a population bottleneck event some 70,000 years ago when the population dropped down to as few as 2,000 people. We came back from that, and our genome reflects that."
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
You really fail in everything you try. Plus you suffer from amnesia. lol
Y-DNA haplogroup A represents the oldest branching of the human Y chromosome tree, thought to have begun about 60,000 years ago. Like Y-DNA haplogroup B, the A lineage is seen only in Africa and is scattered widely, but thinly across the continent. These haplogroups have higher frequencies among hunter-gather groups in Ethiopia and Sudan, and are also seen among click language-speaking populations. Their patchy, widespread distribution may mean that these haplogroups are remnants of ancient lineages that once had a much wider range but have been largely displaced by more recent population events.
The most commonly seen sub-groups of haplogroup A are A2 (A-M6), A3b1 (A-M51), and A3b2 (A-M13). Sub-groups A2 and A3b1 are seen in South Africa, with A3b1 seen exclusively among the Khoisan. The range of A3b2 is restricted to Eastern Africa and at lower frequencies among Cameroonians. About 1.1% of African-Americans belong to the sub-group A3b2.
Y-DNA haplogroup B, like Y-DNA haplogroup A, is seen only in Africa and is scattered widely, but thinly across the continent. B is thought to have arisen approximately 50,000 years ago. These haplogroups have higher frequencies among hunter-gather groups in Ethiopia and Sudan, and are also seen among click language-speaking populations. The patchy, widespread distribution of these haplogroups may mean that they are remnants of ancient lineages that once had a much wider range but have been largely displaced by more recent population events.
Some geographic structuring is seen between the sub-groups B2a (B-M150) and B2b (B-M112). Sub-group B2b is seen among Central African Pygmies and South African Khoisan. Sub-group B2a is seen among Cameroonians, East Africans, and among South African Bantu speakers. B2a1a (B-M109) is the most commonly seen sub-group of B2a. About 2.3% of African-Americans belong to haplogroup B - with 1.5% of them belonging to the sub-group B2a1a.
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: ^ Capoids are not Negroids.
Your people have been committing acts of genocide long before European colonists arrived. In fact it is white people who are trying to save them.
Google: khoisan/bushman genocide
Negroids also hunt down pygmies and cook them for dinner.
Yet the afronuts on ES want to claim pygmies and bushmanoids are their own race or ''black brothers'' LOL.
In Africa your people are butchering and committing acts of genocide against them...
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
To that I add, recap.
Dr Spencer Wells, Harvard evolutionary geneticist:There is more genetic diversity in any single African village than in the whole world outside Africa.
Why is this?
Because modern humans originate in Africa and lived only in Africa for much of our genetic history.
Today Africans make up only a fraction of the population but still retain the majority of genetic diversity.
quote:Originally posted by asante-Korton:
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: ^ Capoids are not Negroids.
Your people have been committing acts of genocide long before European colonists arrived. In fact it is white people who are trying to save them.
Google: khoisan/bushman genocide
Negroids also hunt down pygmies and cook them for dinner.
Yet the afronuts on ES want to claim pygmies and bushmanoids are their own race or ''black brothers'' LOL.
In Africa your people are butchering and committing acts of genocide against them...
quote:Wells says. "Race, in terms of deep-seated biological differences, doesn't exist scientifically. We are 99.9 per cent identical roughly, at the genetic level. That's actually a remarkably low level of genetic diversity compared to other species of large primates. It represents a population bottleneck event some 70,000 years ago when the population dropped down to as few as 2,000 people. We came back from that, and our genome reflects that."
Posted by asante-Korton (Member # 18532) on :
cassi bitch says:
quote: durrrr i don't understand a thing you guys just said
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by asante-Korton:
cassi bitch says:
quote: durrrr i don't understand a thing you guys just said
Here is one of his black cacasiod brothers. Word is, he is going to be his brother in law. Then join the extreme white/ right wing club.
quote:
The boy reads bigot crap by folks such as c.coon etc...No serious anthropologist reasons like that nowadays. It's only uneducated nazi like types, who still follow such bigot doctrines, obviously.
Bantu is a collective name for people who speak a language phylum, they are from Central-South Africa. Banu is a parental language of Chadic. West Africans aren't Bantu. West Africans moved from (North)East Africa to West about 15-9 thousand years ago.
Here is more of the author, without any credentials.
Arthur Kemp (1962/3–) is a white supremacist, and a former member of the South African secret police. In 1993 (or 1996, according to the sauce), Kemp re-located to (Really) Great Britain, from which vantage point he praises the virtues of the British National Party (BNP).
In the picture above you can see his certification, it's on his left side, in the picture (right side of him).
He used to kill black South Africans for sport, and was a secret police during the rule of a extreme racist governmental age...But he is not a fascists. lol
His bio speaks loud and clear all over the place. Fascism!
And the idiot claims for others not to be educated on this matter, has quoted eugenic books. lol
Including c. coon. Who is considered a rasict...he was part of the spin off and influence of hitlers nazi ideology.
c.coon had direct family members who were part of the early eugenic movement. This is no secret. lol
Posted by asante-Korton (Member # 18532) on :
or one of his caucasoid ethiopian brothers
Posted by Hersi_Yusuf (Member # 20078) on :
It is a shame no other group on this earth has to fight to prove their history like we have to.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hersi_Yusuf: It is a shame no other group on this earth has to fight to prove their history like we have to.
Yes,
quote:Morphological characteristics ...like skin color, hair form, bone traits, eyes, and lips tend to follow geographic boundaries coinciding often with climatic zones . This is not surprising since the selective forces of climate are probably the primary forces of nature that have shaped human races with regard not only to skin color and hair form but also the underlying bony structures of the nose, cheekbones, etc. (For example, more prominent noses humidify air better.) As far as we know, blood-factor frequencies are not shaped by these same climatic factors
Gill, George W. Does Race Exist? A Proponent's Perspective. University of Wyoming, 2000
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol: Here is one of his black cacasiod brothers. Word is, he is going to be his brother in law. Then join the extreme white/ right wing club.
They obviously aren't Caucasoid, they just have Caucasoid genes. Ethiopians are an 'intermediate' race between Negroid and Caucasoid -
They are inbetween Caucasoids and Negroids. No one is claiming they are pure Caucasoid. As usual you are setting up straw man.
^ Btw, i find these mutts hideous, and i wouldn't want them anywhere near my sisters.
quote:The boy reads bigot crap by folks such as c.coon etc...No serious anthropologist reasons like that nowadays. It's only uneducated nazi like types, who still follow such bigot doctrines, obviously.
Bantu is a collective name for people who speak a language phylum, they are from Central-South Africa. Banu is a parental language of Chadic. West Africans aren't Bantu. West Africans moved from (North)East Africa to West about 15-9 thousand years ago.
Here is more of the author, without any credentials.
Arthur Kemp (1962/3–) is a white supremacist, and a former member of the South African secret police. In 1993 (or 1996, according to the sauce), Kemp re-located to (Really) Great Britain, from which vantage point he praises the virtues of the British National Party (BNP).
In the picture above you can see his certification, it's on his left side, in the picture (right side of him).
He used to kill black South Africans for sport, and was a secret police during the rule of a extreme racist governmental age...But he is not a fascists. lol
His bio speaks loud and clear all over the place. Fascism!
And the idiot claims for others not to be educated on this matter, has quoted eugenic books. lol
Including c. coon. Who is considered a rasict...he was part of the spin off and influence of hitlers nazi ideology.
c.coon had direct family members who were part of the early eugenic movement. This is no secret. lol
Seriously how old are you? Are you in your teens? Have you ever read Coon?
Why not just educate yourself with a good anthropology book and stop all the nonsense.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Is this what Egyptsearch is reduced to?? The Egyptology section is swamped by ad spam threads but this section has reverted back to its most degenerate race threads such as this?! Where ignorant trolls continue to spew their debunked nonsense... WTF?! Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
Originally posted by cassiterides: The fact of the matter is Negroids have the least phenotypic diversity.
So called ''race deniers'' like Brace and Keita end up proving races exist.
Brace's/Keita's genetic clustering:
^^Bwa ha aha aha ah. Your diagram is bogus. Below is the actual screenshot from Madilda's site, of the actual diagram from Brace, page 10. As can be seen, Europeans do not group with Indians per Brace, which the bogus diagram above tries to claim Brace says. And in fact, Brace specifically disavows race," contradicting your so-called "agreement" with Carleton Coons. And Keita does not subscribe to any race categories. You are caught out once again in another lie, unsupported by bogus "references."
As for Brace 93, his study on CERTAIN counts leaves out a lot, and skews categories, to in part, present a distorted picture of African diversity.
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
^ The diagram i posted is real, its that by mistake i assumed it was genetics. Turns out its based on craniofacial inter-landmark distances. Indians cluster with Europeans obviously because of the heavy Caucasoid admixture in India. Just google bollywood model. Most can pass as southern europeans.
Btw, Brace claims white europeans evolved from Neanderthals yet he is a race denier and leftist. Weren't you claiming though that white supremacists and nazis believed in the neanderthal-european theory?
-
quote:Loring Brace argues instead that Neanderthals simply evolved into modern northern Europeans. His skull measurements show that Neanderthals cluster with one and only one modern population: that of Britain and Scandinavia. Robust features of the skeleton, such as brow ridges, simply vanish when the selective force of evolution is no longer active. That the process of that reduction in robustness by which modern appearance arose, he argues, is why virtually all early Upper Paleolithic groups present a kind of 'mixed' appearance.
quote:“To produce a modern European out of a Neanderthal, all you have to do is reduce the robustness,” Brace said.''
Even his white friends cant believe how dumb this guy is
One of the comments
quote:ergo
Typically, when people don't know what the **** they're talking about they will either admit ignorance and just don't say anything. This idiot decided to keep talking while showing everyone he doesn't know what the **** he's talking about.
sounds familiar doesn't it
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
^^The racists contradict themselves. Earlier they claimed tbat the San, their so called "Capoids" were more related to "Mongoloids" than Africans, but in the diagram they proffer above, they clearly are more related to OTHER Africans, on the African continent, not distant Asiatics. This is confirmed by physical and archaeological evidence. They fail again, with their own references. They just debunked their own claims within the same page.
Furthermore the intermediate position of Ethiopians has to do with their place in the Out oF Africa migration, not notions of biological "race" as credible mainstream scholars like Tishkoff show. MTDNA from "Caucasians" is minor in Ethiopians, less than 6%, and Y-DNA, is only about 25%, and it is that high because of skewed sampling such as overrepresented peoples like the Amahara, as conservative Passarino and Sforza themselves admit.
In addition, using their own "race mix" approach, then it is just as valid to say that Greeks are "mixed race" - as clear data show them having sub-Saharan DNA on certain markers (Arnaiz Villenna, 2001).
Indeed white people themsleves are not "pure" but mixed race
Using the approach of white race proponent scholars, we can see that early white lineages could only produce savage Neanderthals, whereas Africans produced anatomically modern humans. African and Asian lineages of these more advanced humans, mixed to produce hybrids now inhabiting Europe. Europeans are mixed race hybrids for the most part, although still carrying Neanderthal traces
quote: ""This in turn could be explained by Europeans arising from just a single admixture event between ancestral Africans and Chinese populations occurring in Europe about 30,000 years ago.." A. Templeton 2006. Population genetics and microevolutionary theory
First modern Europeans looked like Africans- were depigmented Africans, but early Caucasoid whites are from a failed genetic lineage- the brutish NEanderthals. Traces of Neanderthal genes however, still linger in today's whites, product of race mixing with Neanderthals
Scientists reveal face of the first European The face of the first European has been recreated from bone fragments by scientists.
By Urmee Khan, Digital and Media Correspondent Published: 8:22PM BST 04 May 2009
The first modern European Forensic artist Richard Neave reconstructed the face based on skull fragments from 35000 years ago. Photo: BBC The head was rebuilt in clay based on an incomplete skull and jawbone discovered in a cave in the south west of the Carpathian Mountains in Romania by potholers.
Using radiocarbon analysis scientists say the man or woman, it is still not possible to determine the sex, lived between 34,000 and 36,000 years ago.
Europe was then occupied by both Neanderthal man, who had been in the region for thousands of years, and anatomically-modern humans – Homo sapiens.
Modern humans first arrived in Europe from Africa.
The skull appears very like humans today, but it also displays more archaic traits, such as very large molar teeth, which led some scientists to speculate the skull may belong to a hybrid between Homo sapiens and Neanderthals – an idea discounted by other experts.
Erik Trinkaus, professor of anthropology at Washington University in Missouri, said the jaw was the oldest, directly-dated modern human fossil. "Taken together, the material is the first that securely documents what modern humans looked like when they spread into Europe," he said.
The model was created by Richard Neave, a forensic artist, for a BBC programme about the origins of the human race and evolution.
QUOTE BY CONSERVATIVE CAVALLI-SFORZA ON EURO HYBRIDIZATION
"In addition, they allow one to hypothesize that the European population underwent substantial hybridization about 30 kya. The phenomenon may also have happened repeatedly at different times, before and after 30 kya.. the shortness of the European branch is most probably the response of the method of tree reconstruction to admixture." --Cavalli-Sfoirza, 1994. Genes, Peoples and Languages
Posted by asante-Korton (Member # 18532) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hersi_Yusuf: It is a shame no other group on this earth has to fight to prove their history like we have to.
it doesn't help when idiots like yourself make stupid threads like this
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
IF WE ARE GONNA TALK ABOUT "MIXED RACES" AND USE RACE CATEGORIES, THEN USING THAT VERY SAME APPROACH THE GREEKS ARE A MIXED, HYBRID RACE, "INTERMEDIATE" BETWEEN AFRICANS AND ASIANS.
1--A. HLA gene markers are limited as comprehensive expositors of gene flow, but they do show some gene flow between Africa and Greece and the Northern Mediterranean. They are not needed however, as numerous other lines of evidence show the same.
These include: mtDNA M1a and various L lineages, nrY E-M215 and subclades, AIM full genome autosomes, HLA full haplotype A*30:02 Cw*05:01 B*18:01 DRB1*03:01 DQA1*05:01 DQB1*02:01, chr 7 CFTR 3120+1G->A mutation chr 8p23 YRI haplotypes, Benin Hb S, GM*1,17 23' 5*, cDe allele of the Rh gene, Fy*O allele of the Duffy blood group locus and V (Rh10) and Jsa (K6) antigens. [/i]
1B-- Villena's Greek-Macedonian-African study has nothing to do with the Jew-Palestinian controversy. The study was withdrawn for political reasons, and offended sensibilities of various Jewish and other groups. Assorted "biodiversity" types try to use that to advance a bogus claim that the Greek data was "withdrawn." Total BS. It is alive and well and appears specifically in Vilenna's Greek study: HLA genes in Macedonians and the sub-Saharan origin of the Greeks Tissue Antigens 2001: 57: 118–127 Jewish - Palestinian controversies have nothing to do with it.
2-- The Palestinian study also notes that CERTAIN Aegean Greeks are related to Africans via cystic fibrosis mutations.
3-- HLA genes are limited, however the presence of Japanese clustering with south Africans is not as far fetched as it seems. HLA genes are useful in analyzing certain arthritis conditions. There is hard medical data in various HLA studies that indeed show Japanese and south African blacks grouping together in relation to arthritis conditions. See the data below.
4-- Anthro/Archaeo data show the early presence of African traits (and remember Africans have a wide variety of traits) in the Neolithic data. The full info has already been posted but here is some anthro/archaeo data affirming the presence of "negroid" traits from early times: quote: "The female of forty-plus years of age from Grave 2 was examined by J. L. Angel who noted what he interpreted as a number of 'negroid' .. traits in the face." The skull is fairly complete, but not enough so for discriminant function analysis." There is marked maxillary prognathism and the orbits may be described as rectangular, traits frequently used in forensic diagnosis of Negro crania... " -- Skeletons of Lerna Hollow. Al B. Wesolowsky. Hesperia, Vol. 42, No. 3. (Jul. - Sep., 1973), pp. 340-351.
"Early Neolithic Macedonia centered on a Dinaric-Mediterranean (type F) average but with an extremely broad nose, more prognathism, and a little more mouth tilt than expected (all, perhaps from negroid development of the incisor region.." -- The people of Lerna: analysis of a prehistoric Aegean population. J.L Angel 1971
"The portrayal on the 'minature fresco' from Thera, and on the other, very fragmentary Aegean frescoes, of diverse stylistic elements- flora a nd fauna, 'negroid' human representations, the riverine setting, of the 'minature fresco,' etc- that seem to be north African, 'Libyan' or Egyptian in origin." --The Aegean and the Orient in the second millennium: proceedings of the 50th anniversary symposium, Cincinnati, 18-20 April 1997
"The inhabitants of the Aegean area in the Bronze Age may have been much like many people in the Mediterranean basin today, short and slight of build with dark hair and eyes and sallow complexions. Skeletons show that the population of the Aegean was already mixed by Neolithic times, and various facial types, some with delicate features and pointed noses, others pug-nosed, almost negroid, are depicted in wall paintings from the 16th century BC..." -- The Home of the Heroes: The Aegean Before the Greeks (1967)
Scholars also link the Negroid elements to sickle-cell anemia QUOTE: "The female from Grave 2 is among those with thickened parietals. It should be pointed out that maxillary prognathsm, one of the skeleton's "Negroid" features, is characteristic both of thalassemia and sickle-cell anemia." -- Skeletons of Lerna Hollow. Al B. Wesolowsky. Hesperia, Vol. 42, No. 3. (Jul. - Sep., 1973), pp. 340-351.
5-- Other elements like Benin Sickle Cell traits are also found among the Greeks and various Africans and some skeletal/cranial studies find African elements in Greece (Angel 1972 for example) QUOTE:
"A late Pleistocene-early Holocene northward migration (from Africa to the Levant and to Anatolia) of these populations has been hypothesized from skeletal data (Angel 1972, 1973; Brace 2005) and from archaeological data, as indicated by the probable Nile Valley origin of the "Mesolithic" (epi-Paleolithic) Mushabi culture found in the Levant (Bar Yosef 1987). This migration finds some support in the presence in Mediterranean populations (Sicily, Greece, southern Turkey, etc.; Patrinos et al.; Schiliro et al. 1990) of the Benin sickle cell haplotype. This haplotype originated in West Africa and is probably associated with the spread of malaria to southern Europe through an eastern Mediterranean route (Salares et al. 2004) following the expansion of both human and mosquito populations brought about by the advent of the Neolithic transition (Hume et al 2003; Joy et al. 2003; Rich et al 1998). This northward migration of northeastern African populations carrying sub-Saharan biological elements is concordant with the morphological homogeneity of the Natufian populations (Bocquentin 2003), which present morphological affinity with sub-Saharan populations (Angel 1972; Brace et al. 2005). In addition, the Neolithic revolution was assumed to arise in the late Pleistocene Natufians and subsequently spread into Anatolia and Europe (Bar-Yosef 2002), and the first Anatolian farmers, Neolithic to Bronze Age Mediterraneans and to some degree other Neolithic-Bronze Age Europeans, show morphological affinities with the Natufians (and indirectly with sub-Saharan populations; Angel 1972; Brace et al 2005), in concordance with a process of demic diffusion accompanying the extension of the Neolithic revolution (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994)."
-- F. X. Ricaut, M. Waelkens. (2008). Cranial Discrete Traits in a Byzantine Population and Eastern Mediterranean Population Movements Human Biology - Volume 80, Number 5, October 2008, pp. 535-564
6-- Greeks, Africans and African-influenced Arab populations share a unique common cystic fibrosis mutation
"The observed identity of extended CFTR haplotypes for the 312011GrA alleles in the Arab, African, and African American patients strongly suggests that this mutation has a common origin in these groups. This finding is not surprising in the case of Africans and African Americans, since the latter group has originated mostly from the western African coast and came to North America between the 16th and 19th centuries, which is too recent to allow origination of significant CFTR-mutation haplotype changes restricted to African Americans. It is not quite so simple to explain the presence of the 312011GrA mutation in African and Saudi Arab patients.
However, a continuous gene flow between Arab and African populations probably has persisted for many centuries, in association with trading and with the spread of the Islamic religion. Thus far, the Greeks are the only Caucasian population in which the 312011GrA mutation has been identified. A recurrent mutational event seems to be unlikely, because the Greek haplotype differs from the others in only two minor respects..
Greek and Arab/African haplotypes of the 312011GrA mutation thus may have diverged from a common ancestor and then evolved separately in the respective populations. In summary, our present analysis provides the first evidence for a common origin of CF among African, Arab, Greek, and African American populations. The shared extra- and intragenic 312011GrA–associated haplotype is most easily explained by the assumption of a single origin for this mutation. 312011GrA appears to be an ancient mutation that may be more common than previously thought, in populations of the tropical and subtropical belt, where CF probably is an underdiagnosed disorder." --Dörk, et al. (August 1998). "Evidence for a common ethnic origin of cystic fibrosis mutation
7-- Other cultural/archaeo data testify to the African presence, africans again having a wde range of features
QUOTES "THE FORERUNNERS During the Early Minoan period the population of southern Crete may have included a Negroid element. The presence of such an element from Libya in the Cretan population has been argued on the basis of an inlay of shell now in the Ashmolean Museum. This inlay may have come from an early circular tomb at Ayios Onouphrios. It depects a bearded face, with thick lips and snub nose. Other objects might lead to the same observaton for later periods. Among the faiences showing house fronts (Middle Minoan II)15 there is one in which are seen the prow of a ship and swarthy, prognathous, clearly Negroid people, some steatopygic...
It is uncertain, however, what role to assign to the non-Minoan figures in this scene, which it has been suggested, may represent the represent the siege of a seacoast town. Scholars are in greater agreement with respect to their interpretations of the coal black spearmen who appear in a fragment of a fresco, which Evans called The Captain of the Blacks, belonging to Late Minoan 145 II.18 The fresco depicts a Minoan captain, wearing a yellow kilt and a horned cap of skin, who leads, at the double, a file of black men similarly dressed." -- The image of the Black in Western art: Volume 4, Part 1 Jean Vercoutter, Ladislas Bugner, Jean Devisse. 1976
"The Theran is a young man whose black wavy hair, rather thick lips, and nose with reduced platyrrniny are clearly shown. Although he acknowledges that these traits suggest a NEgrito or Nubian, Marinatos avoids precise anthropological definition and concludes that the characteristics seem to indicate an "African".
"An intrepretation of NEgroes in Crete and Pylos as soldiers would have some support in the example of Egypt, with its long tradition of Nubian mercenaries. A striking example, belonging somewhat earlier period that that of the Minoan Captain of the Blacks fresco, is provided by the wooden models of forthy black archers in Cairo, found in a tomb of a prince of Assiut." pg 138
L. Bertholon and E. Chantre have analyzed results of black-white crossings in their detailed anthropoligical study of ancient and modern Tripolitiana, Tunisia, and Algeria. They call attention to the degrees of Negro admixture as evidenced by the extent to which Negroid features appear in mixed North African peoples. R. Bartoccini in his study of the somatic characteristics of anciet Libyans, illustrates his observations on racial crossings between Libyans and Negroes from the interior by pointing to the Negroid nose (broad) and hair (curly or wooly) .."
"Some of the physical features of this type are: dark or black color expressed in a variety of ways, tightly curled platyrrhine nose, and thick, often everted lips. '
"In a scene on a red-figured calyx-krater of the peropd from Canicattoni, now in Syracuse, a female dancer, fully draped, stands on tiptoe. The treatment of the nose, the lips and the tightly curled hair indicates that Negroid features were intended.. the realism and anthropological fidelity of those cited above leave no doubt as to the artists' intent.." pg 171 -- The image of the Black in Western art: Volume 4, Part 1 Jean Vercoutter, Ladislas Bugner, Jean Devisse. 1976
"Memnon was a favorite subject of Greek vase painting in the 500s and 400s B.C. Like other mythological figues from Ethiopia, he was sometimes shown with distinctly negroid facial features." --David Sacks, Oswyn Murray, Margaret Bunson, 1995. A Dictionary of the Ancient Greek World -------------------------------
ADDITIONAL DATA: AFRICAN HAPLOGROUP E FOUND IN GREEKS
QUOTE: "Underhill et al. (2001) showed that the frequency of the YAP+ Y haplogroup commonly referred to as haplogroup E or (III) is relatively high (about 25%) in the Middle East and Mediterranean. This haplogroup E is the major haplogroup found in sub-Saharan Africa (over 75% of all Y chromosomes). SPecifically, Europeans contain the E3b subhaplogroup, which was derived from haplogroup E in sub-Saharan Africa and currently is distributed along the North and East of Africa.. It appears that the 171 AIM test subject of this chapter may recognize the haplogroup E character as West African."
--T. Frudakis. 2008. Molecular photofitting: predicting ancestry and phenotype using DNA
Even, steven. If we are gonna play the race category game, then whites themselves are mixed racial breeds, with some Neanderthal traces from old European evolution.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides:
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol: Here is one of his black cacasiod brothers. Word is, he is going to be his brother in law. Then join the extreme white/ right wing club.
They obviously aren't Caucasoid, they just have Caucasoid genes. Ethiopians are an 'intermediate' race between Negroid and Caucasoid -
They are inbetween Caucasoids and Negroids. No one is claiming they are pure Caucasoid. As usual you are setting up straw man.
^ Btw, i find these mutts hideous, and i wouldn't want them anywhere near my sisters.
quote:The boy reads bigot crap by folks such as c.coon etc...No serious anthropologist reasons like that nowadays. It's only uneducated nazi like types, who still follow such bigot doctrines, obviously.
Bantu is a collective name for people who speak a language phylum, they are from Central-South Africa. Banu is a parental language of Chadic. West Africans aren't Bantu. West Africans moved from (North)East Africa to West about 15-9 thousand years ago.
Here is more of the author, without any credentials.
Arthur Kemp (1962/3–) is a white supremacist, and a former member of the South African secret police. In 1993 (or 1996, according to the sauce), Kemp re-located to (Really) Great Britain, from which vantage point he praises the virtues of the British National Party (BNP).
In the picture above you can see his certification, it's on his left side, in the picture (right side of him).
He used to kill black South Africans for sport, and was a secret police during the rule of a extreme racist governmental age...But he is not a fascists. lol
His bio speaks loud and clear all over the place. Fascism!
And the idiot claims for others not to be educated on this matter, has quoted eugenic books. lol
Including c. coon. Who is considered a rasict...he was part of the spin off and influence of hitlers nazi ideology.
c.coon had direct family members who were part of the early eugenic movement. This is no secret. lol
Seriously how old are you? Are you in your teens? Have you ever read Coon?
Why not just educate yourself with a good anthropology book and stop all the nonsense.
lol at that Mathilda homemade crap sheet. Who happens to be another irrelevant individual.
And here we have more the bullsh*t this boy believes.
All you know is about nazi doctrine, such as c.coon material a eugenicsist and foundation of the nazis themselves.
And I, btw am old enough to beat the chickensh*t out of you.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
lol, at htos hilarious Neanderthaler. Now Indians have cacasiod admixture too.
This boy really is something. lol
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: ^ The diagram i posted is real, its that by mistake i assumed it was genetics. Turns out its based on craniofacial inter-landmark distances. Indians cluster with Europeans obviously because of the heavy Caucasoid admixture in India. Just google bollywood model. Most can pass as southern europeans.
Btw, Brace claims white europeans evolved from Neanderthals yet he is a race denier and leftist. Weren't you claiming though that white supremacists and nazis believed in the neanderthal-european theory?
-
quote:Loring Brace argues instead that Neanderthals simply evolved into modern northern Europeans. His skull measurements show that Neanderthals cluster with one and only one modern population: that of Britain and Scandinavia. Robust features of the skeleton, such as brow ridges, simply vanish when the selective force of evolution is no longer active. That the process of that reduction in robustness by which modern appearance arose, he argues, is why virtually all early Upper Paleolithic groups present a kind of 'mixed' appearance.
quote:“To produce a modern European out of a Neanderthal, all you have to do is reduce the robustness,” Brace said.''
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol: [QB] lol, hilarious. Now Indians have cacasiod admixture too.
Many Indians have White admixture.
You only have to look at most Indian models. The fairer traits in India are considered the most attractive (as they are globally).
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides:
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol: [QB] lol, hilarious. Now Indians have cacasiod admixture too.
Many Indians have White admixture.
You only have to look at most Indian models. The fairer traits in India are considered the most attractive (as they are globally).
simple mind, let's get a bit deeper, how did Europeans got white?lol
And who are the most fair skinned Asians?lol
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
quote:simple mind, let's get a bit deeper, how did Europeans got white?lol
Caucasoids and Mongoloids evolved their bone structure through the Eurasian environment (which caused greater sexual selection) which also changed their diet. It's also why they have higher intelligence.
Negroids in contrast have retained very primitive, bestial features - especially in the face. This isn't racism, its just anthropology. I could give you tuns and tuns and data, but you would just reject it. Truth is though, you know i'm right. Based on your picture spams, i can see you admit Caucasoid traits (thinner noses, wavy-straight hair) are the most attractive. Have you noticed that Truthandright's threads on ''black beauty'' get no replies?
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides:
quote:simple mind, let's get a bit deeper, how did Europeans got white?lol
Caucasoids and Mongoloids evolved their bone structure through the Eurasian environment (which caused greater sexual selection) which also changed their diet. It's also why they have higher intelligence.
Negroids in contrast have retained very primitive, bestial features - especially in the face. This isn't racism, its just anthropology. I could give you tuns and tuns and data, but you would just reject it. Truth is though, you know i'm right. Based on your picture spams, i can see you admit Caucasoid traits (thinner noses, wavy-straight hair) are the most attractive. Have you noticed that Truthandright's threads on ''black beauty'' get no replies?
Bullsh*t answer. It has completely nothing to do with the question addressed.
Now, answer the question how did Europeans got white, and who of the Asian populations is most fair skinned?lol
And yes, I am sure you have "tuns" of eugenics crap in your possession.
Based on my picture spamming I prove that your ideology is bogus nonsense. And completely outdated crap.
And no, I have not noticed the responses on the thread by Truth and Rights. Because we aren't here for that purpose, we are here to talk and share scientific finding on Africa. You dumbo.
Now, be brave and go to Brixton and tell what you think. I will watch the BBC news how it ended.
Posted by Hersi_Yusuf (Member # 20078) on :
quote:it doesn't help when idiots like yourself make stupid threads like this
@asante-korton
No need for the hostility i'm new to these forums and I just wanted to ask a question I had no idea it would turn into this.
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
Troll Patrol, you haven't yet realised pigmentation is not an important factor of racial identification. There is an overlap in pigmentation among the races. Some Mongoloids for example are lighter than some Caucasoids, but that doesn't make them the same race.
You are colour obsessed. In fact most people on this forum are. Very few people here understand racial anthropology. Races are not defined by their skin colour, and never have been.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides:
quote:simple mind, let's get a bit deeper, how did Europeans got white?lol
Caucasoids and Mongoloids evolved their bone structure through the Eurasian environment (which caused greater sexual selection) which also changed their diet. It's also why they have higher intelligence.
Too funny. Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: Troll Patrol, you haven't yet realised pigmentation is not an important factor of racial identification. There is an overlap in pigmentation among the races. Some Mongoloids for example are lighter than some Caucasoids, but that doesn't make them the same race.
You are colour obsessed. In fact most people on this forum are. Very few people here understand racial anthropology. Races are not defined by their skin colour, and never have been.
Blah blah blah.....lol
Bullsh*t answer. It has completely nothing to do with the question addressed.
Now, answer the question how did Europeans got white, and who of the Asian populations is most fair skinned?lol For obvious reason you "try" to dance around the question.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides:
quote:simple mind, let's get a bit deeper, how did Europeans got white?lol
Caucasoids and Mongoloids evolved their bone structure through the Eurasian environment (which caused greater sexual selection) which also changed their diet. It's also why they have higher intelligence.
Negroids in contrast have retained very primitive, bestial features - especially in the face. This isn't racism, its just anthropology. I could give you tuns and tuns and data, but you would just reject it. Truth is though, you know i'm right. Based on your picture spams, i can see you admit Caucasoid traits (thinner noses, wavy-straight hair) are the most attractive. Have you noticed that Truthandright's threads on ''black beauty'' get no replies?
So, how did two different phenotypes develop in the same region under the same diet and circumstances?lol
How is it that we have much older groups in Africa, with similair bone structures, who belong to Hg A and B.lol
What is a negroid? I have asked this many times? But the illogical response keeps appearing.
Now, where do these fit?lol
Recap,
Posted by TruthAndRights (Member # 17346) on :
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: Have you noticed that Truthandright's threads on ''black beauty'' get no replies?
First off, you renk filthy pale ugly Down's Syndrome hobbit come offa mi name....
Secondly, the Black Beauty thread is just that: to post Black Beauty...is not meant for 'replies' because any replies other than posting Black Beauty in that thread are irrelevant for the most part...
Lastly, go cut your greasy lank hair, suck Confirmed Eediat-Bwoy with a straw, and drop sleep ina hog pen...
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides:
quote:simple mind, let's get a bit deeper, how did Europeans got white?lol
Caucasoids and Mongoloids evolved their bone structure through the Eurasian environment (which caused greater sexual selection) which also changed their diet. It's also why they have higher intelligence?
lol. West Africa vs West Europe.
Augustin F.C. Holl et al.
Museum of Anthropology, The University of Michigan, 2009.
Coping with uncertainty: Neolithic life in the Dhar Tichitt-Walata, Mauritania, (ca. 4000–2300 BP)
Abstract
The sandstone escarpment of the Dhar Tichitt in South-Central Mauritania was inhabited by Neolithic agropastoral communities for approximately one and half millennium during the Late Holocene, from ca. 4000 to 2300 BP. The absence of prior evidence of human settlement points to the influx of mobile herders moving away from the “drying” Sahara towards more humid lower latitudes. These herders took advantage of the peculiarities of the local geology and environment and succeeded in domesticating bulrush millet – Pennisetum sp. The emerging agropastoral subsistence complex had conflicting and/or complementary requirements depending on circumstances. In the long run, the social adjustment to the new subsistence complex, shifting site location strategies, nested settlement patterns and the rise of more encompassing polities appear to have been used to cope with climatic hazards in this relatively circumscribed area. An intense arid spell in the middle of the first millennium BC triggered the collapse of the whole Neolithic agropastoral system and the abandonment of the areas. These regions, resettled by sparse oasis-dwellers populations and iron-using communities starting from the first half of the first millennium AD, became part of the famous Ghana “empire”, the earliest state in West African history.
For more, here is an excellent thread by Jari, elaborating on this particular aspect.
England not too long ago, prior and during the Roman invasion and enslavement. Traditional Celtic huts.
Posted by TruthAndRights (Member # 17346) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hersi_Yusuf:
No need for the hostility i'm new to these forums and I just wanted to ask a question I had no idea it would turn into this.
I didn't get a vibe from you that you were doing anything other than that; and no, you wouldn't have known it would, so I agree that comment made to you was unnecessary smh....
I'm sorry, unfortunately you won't find too many people around here with real manners (you know how it is with people and computer screens); you won't find much if any Black Unity here; you will find one or two maybe three self-appointed ambassadors of Blackness as well...among other things, smh lol...ijs....
Posted by Neferefre (Member # 13793) on :
Even his white friends cant believe how dumb this guy is
One of the comments
quote:ergo
Typically, when people don't know what the **** they're talking about they will either admit ignorance and just don't say anything. This idiot decided to keep talking while showing everyone he doesn't know what the **** he's talking about.
sounds familiar doesn't it
LOL! Seriously why do you all debate this dummy. He or She is stuck on stupid. He or She see the world with racist eyes, already has its mind made up. " Don't argue with fools, because from a distant you can't tell who is who." Even his own kin call him a dummy.
Posted by TruthAndRights (Member # 17346) on :
Who doesn't know that INDIANS ARE SOME AH DI BIGGEST BLEACHERS!
PLEASE NOTE THE PICTURE ABOVE SAYS: ASIAN AND ARABIC SKIN (the 'Arabs' dem are bleaching too)...
smh
Its a dam shame, the lengths people go, when they lose a sense of self. The white social construct is bleeding the world of all its purity
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
"Pure white evolution led to Neanderthals both in terms of paler skin and cold-adaptive limb proportions. African evolution led to anatomically modern humans.
QUOTE: "What was different about the Neanderthals? What did the Cro- Magnons think when they saw them for the first time? To begin with, the Neanderthals were very light-skinned and the Cro- Magnons were less so. " --Juan Luis Arsuaga, Andy Klatt. 2004. The Neanderthal's Necklace: In Search of the First Thinkers
"This finding suggests that Neanderthals evolved a functional variant of the MC1R gene independently from modern humans as they dispersed into northerly latitudes, and thus supports the inference for the convergent evolution of depigmented skin in the Neanderthals lineage.." --Michael P. Muehlenbein. 2010. Human Evolutionary Biology
"Regarding environmental buffering, Trinkaus (1986 and this volume) reiterates that while Neanderthal limb proportions are suggestive of cold adaptation, no such indications are shown by Eurasian early modern humans. Their distinct limb proportions are instead indicative of an equatorial ancestry and better culturally based thermal protection.. the limb proportions of the Eurasian early modern samples are retentions of the African ancestral morphology of long limbs with long distal segments.." -- Erik Trinkaus (ed), 'The Emergence of Modern Humans", (C. Stringer p. 88). School of American Research, Santa Fe, New Mexico, 1989.
Modern scholarship shows a great 3-way evolutionary split in hominid lineages s several hundred thousand years ago. European hominids evolved into Neanderthals. Asians into Homo Erectus. Africans went on to evolve into today's advanced anatomically modern humans.
QUOTE: "Following the initial Out-of-Africa event, natural selection and random genetic drift began to drive populations in Africa, Europe, and eastern Asia in different morphological directions. Morphological differentiation was particularly clear by 500,000–400,000 years ago, and from this time onwards, there were at least three evolving human lineages. These may always have been able to exchange genes, but distance and small population size probably limited gene flow, and the composite fossil and archeological records indicate that the African lineage spread to replace or swamp the others beginning roughly 50,000 years ago. It is thus r easonable to supply the lineages with biological species labels: Homo sapiens in Africa, Homo neanderthalensis in Europe, and Homo erectus in the eastern Asia.
.. Many details of Out-of-Africa remain to be worked out, and disagreement persists, for example, on the extent to which dispersing modern Africans and archaic Eurasians may have interbred and especially on what promoted the relatively sudden Out-of-Africa expansion. Most authorities attribute the expansion to behavioral changes that conferred a substantial Darwinian fitness advantage, that is, that allowed modern humans of African descent t o survive and reproduce at a significantly higher rate than the archaic humans they encountered in Eurasia. "
-- Richard G. Klein. 2009. Darwin and the recent African origin of modern humas Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009 September 22; 106(38): 16007–16009.
Some white "Racial Reality" or "biodiversity" proponents argue for European descent from NEanderthals "untainted" by Africa- a lily white "pure" line of white evolution.
Fine. Lets go with their approach for a moment. ----------------------------------------------------
Using the biodiversity approacht, we see then that the first whites were cold-adapted Neanderthals that failed to progress beyond the Stone Age despite a sometimes favorable environment with rich resources available (Lewin 1994). Ice Age Europe was not a cold hell but had variable climate and rich forest, woodland and aquatic resources, including ancient variants of wheat-like spelt and chick peas in place that could have been domesticated, along with ancestors of sheep, cattle and pigs, and a favorable East-West climatic axis that could have aided domestication. Despite tens of thousands of years with these advantages and resources however, white lineages failed to move beyond the Stone Age.
Thus, using the "biodiversity" approach, the first great "racial" split in the humanoid line involved white Neanderthals who colonized Europe, and Africans, who colonized Africa and went on to become anatomically modern humans.
The first “pure” white genetic output was thus brutish, primitive, dead end Neanderthals. By contrast, it was Africa that produced the future of humanity- anatomically modern humans, not cold-climate Europe. White NEanderthals survived, until they were supplanted by more advanced, modern tropically adapted humans from Africa that mingled with and replaced them. This would be the first instance of the hybridization that produced today's white Europeans. It was the coming of tropically adapted African variants into Europe that caused Europe to progress beyond the brutish “pure” white Neanderthal lineages. Continuing migrations from Africa and a mixture of African and Asian OOA migrants- all anatomically modern humans- caused a second round of mixed breeding in EUrope, and was to eventually replace the pure white Neanderthal lineages to yield today's European hybrid population. QUOTE:
^^"There is wide agreement on a speciation event in Africa at around 0.8 or 0.9 mya when Homo erectus (or Homo ergaster) gave rise to a species named Homo heidelbergensis, or Homo rhodesiensis, or Homo sapiens. The new species expanded into Europe leading to the Neanderthal lineage, whereas in Africa it evolved into anatomically modern humans. The lineage of anatomical modernization can be subdivided into three groups, morphs, or grades: an early one including Bodo, Saldanha, Kabwe, Salé, a subsequent one including Florisbad, Laetoli H 18, Ileret (ER 3884), Jebel Irhoud, and early anatomically moderns with Omo Kibish, Herto and others." --Günter Bräuer, "Middle Pleistocene Diversity in Africa and the Origin of Modern Humans". IN: Modern Origins: A North African Perspective. 2012. Series: Vertebrate Paleobiology and Paleoanthropology Hublin, Jean-Jacques; McPherron, Shannon P. (Eds.)
And
” Holliday (2000) examined postcranial morphology of the varied Levantine hominids from Qafzeh and Skhul(anatomically modern) and from Amud, Kebara and Tabun (Neanderthal). He determined that they were morphologically distinct; the anatomically moderns had tropically adapted body proportions, suggesting African origins, while the Neanderthals had cold adapted body proportions, suggesting European origins.” --Holliday 2000
This then could be another source of the Eurocentric inferiority complex. Pure white genetics produced only the savage Neanderthals. Africa by contrast, produced a better, more advanced human than white lineages. Today's whites still show some traces of Neanderthal genes, a throwback to their savage evolution. Some white writers argue that this Neanderthal remnant, could account for the white penchant for violence and murder. R. Bradley, advances this this theory in "The Iceman Inheritance."
So under this biodiversity approach, why then didn't pure white Europeans stay as NEanderthals? According to Bradley, they were replaced with the more advanced Africans and Asians. This diluted the savage white NEanderthal lineages, producing a better level of humanity. However the violent, savage nature of whites still remains, due to remnants of Neanderthal genes. Recent scientific findings showing European whites have traces of Neanderthal genes have been used by some claimants to support the Iceman theory. Some disagree with Bradley. Others argue that his theory of white ice age adaptation is true. Racial "biodiversity" proponents share general agreement along a spectrum with its central holding of pure white evolutionary lineages, "untainted" by "negro blood."
White European lineages [Neanderthals] were the first humans to engage in cannibalism
"Cannibalism is a good example. Several Mousterian sites, along which Moula-Guercy (France) stands out, have provided reasonably firm evidence of anthropic action on Neanderthal bones.. Defleur and colleagues (1999) compared the patters of ungulate and Neanderthal bones, the skeletal parts that were found and the tool marks on the bone fragments. They concluded that all the fragments with marks indicate prey that had been subject to butchery. This suggests that cannibalistic oractices existed among the Neanderthals.. But the question of cannibalism can be understood in another way. When Wolpoff was asked about the meaning of the evidence found at Moula-Guercy, he replied with a question: why should modern humans be the only violent ones? Arsuaga went even further in believing that Neanderthal cannibalistic behavior actually constituted a very human behavior, which revealed a human mind (Both cited by Culotta, 1999). " --Camilo J. Cela-Conde, Francisco José Ayala, 2007. Human evolution: trails from the past.
"But recent excavation by Alban Delfeur and Tim White at the 100,000 year old French cave of Moula-Guercy has demonstrated cannibalism beyond any reasonable doubt. The site contains butchered animal remains, predominantly red deer. Among the bones are the skulls of two young Neanderthals, their masseter muscles filleted and the tongue removed from at least one of them; the cut marks on the inner face of the mandible are virtually identical with those mode on the inside of the 12,5000-year-old modern human mandible from Gough's (New) Cave, [England] described in Chapter 3 (see p. 80). Crania of both deer and Neanderthals were broken open to get at the marrow.." --Timothy Taylor. 2005. The Buried Soul: How Humans Invented Death
[b]Pure white lineages failed to move beyond the stone Age in Europe, despite the supposed greater ":challenges" of "cold climate" "evolution."
QUOTE: [i]The last Ice Age was by no means a period of unrelieved cold, millennium after millennium. Temperatures fluctuated, sometimes coming close to today's balmy interglacial climes, and the animal and plant communities fluctuated in concert with them. Warmer climes brought woodland and forest where only open grassland had existed previously. At the same time, the horses and bison- animals of the plains, were replaced with red deer, wild boar and other confines of a forest habitat..
".. Opportunities for cultivation and animal husbandry surely existed earlier than the Neolithic. Yet no evidence has emerged that any plant or animal domestication occurred before this time.." -- Lewin, Roger (1988). In the Age of Mankind. Smithsonian. pp. 193
Posted by GOMTUU (Member # 19606) on :
Where are you casselrides....It it too much for you,Now we are getting light skin people from India,Bleach please. How sad that people hate themselves and their skin color just to be part of the mixed hybrid world of european nuts.
Posted by TruthAndRights (Member # 17346) on :
quote:Originally posted by GOMTUU: Where are you casselrides....It it too much for you,Now we are getting light skin people from India,Bleach please. How sad that people hate themselves and their skin color just to be part of the mixed hybrid world of european nuts.
him run gone like most mangy curr when dem get ah good kick tuh dem rass....
Posted by asante-Korton (Member # 18532) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hersi_Yusuf:
quote:it doesn't help when idiots like yourself make stupid threads like this
@asante-korton
No need for the hostility i'm new to these forums and I just wanted to ask a question I had no idea it would turn into this.
you know that race doesn't exist yet you still asked a question on whether it did? im sorry but that is just plain stupid
Posted by Hersi_Yusuf (Member # 20078) on :
quote:you know that race doesn't exist yet you still asked a question on whether it did? im sorry but that is just plain stupid
first I was wondering that if all africans are gentically closer to each other annd have mostly the same features shouldn't that be classified as race.
Besides i said forgive for any unintentional stupidty.
Posted by GOMTUU (Member # 19606) on :
I have a question ,does this chart clusters Native Americans, Oceanic people and East Asians the FURTHEST away from Africans because they do not have African markers? http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/8458/eurohybridstext.jpg Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides:
quote:simple mind, let's get a bit deeper, how did Europeans got white?lol
Caucasoids and Mongoloids evolved their bone structure through the Eurasian environment (which caused greater sexual selection) which also changed their diet. It's also why they have higher intelligence.
Negroids in contrast have retained very primitive, bestial features - especially in the face. This isn't racism, its just anthropology. I could give you tuns and tuns and data, but you would just reject it. Truth is though, you know i'm right. Based on your picture spams, i can see you admit Caucasoid traits (thinner noses, wavy-straight hair) are the most attractive. Have you noticed that Truthandright's threads on ''black beauty'' get no replies?
The above reply was apparently written under lioness' account, but note the typical "Abaza" style- quote: "Negroids in contrast have retained very primitive, bestial features.." Posted by Narmerthoth (Member # 20259) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: What is clear there is confusion on WHEN humans became depigmented. Dr. Wells proposes 40ky. Jablonski proposes about 6-12kya. Clearly there is disagreement among white scholars. There is also disagreement on WHY and HOW.
In others words they do NOT know. But as I said many times. I am with Dr. Mekova, Kittles(current)etc.
It is also clear the Steppes played an important part.
BTW - we know now that cited study(above) is outdated. SLCA45 is just ONE of many genes that interact to produce depigementation .. . or pigmentation.
Original albinism did not occur naturally by selection. If it did, it was due to some extraordinary environmental change such as what Dr. Winters has proposed, I.E, Long term subterranean dwelling, or hundreds of years living in a deep dark cave.
One thing is certain and that is the Vitamin D nonsense is pure BS. Blacks have been living in UK, US, and Europe for many hundreds of years, yet they have not lost their pigment and acquire Vitamin D in these environments just fine.
OCA originates from Africa, which strongly suggests the mutation is the result of some extraordinary past cosmic event (Massive Solar flare, Meteor impact, etc) with energy released that exceeded the maximum radiation threshold of DNA's melanin protection shell. African history probably had verbal records of such an event, but unfortunately verbal recording of history is a piss poor method of long term storage.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides:
quote:simple mind, let's get a bit deeper, how did Europeans got white?lol
Caucasoids and Mongoloids evolved their bone structure through the Eurasian environment (which caused greater sexual selection) which also changed their diet. It's also why they have higher intelligence.
Negroids in contrast have retained very primitive, bestial features - especially in the face. This isn't racism, its just anthropology. I could give you tuns and tuns and data, but you would just reject it. Truth is though, you know i'm right. Based on your picture spams, i can see you admit Caucasoid traits (thinner noses, wavy-straight hair) are the most attractive. Have you noticed that Truthandright's threads on ''black beauty'' get no replies?
The above reply was apparently written under lioness' account, but note the typical "Abaza" style- quote: "Negroids in contrast have retained very primitive, bestial features.."
No it's not written under my account
my only account is the lioness,
The above is written under an account called
_______________
the lioness is a guy IRL
Member Member # 18409
______________
^^^ not my account obviously
If somebody made an account called " zarahan is a homo" is it a good assumption that you made it or is it a good assumption that somebody else made it?
If you see somebody quoting "cass" look at the source of remark. It's under "the lioness is a guy IRL "
that means originally the post was made by cass and he changed his member name to "the lioness is a guy IRL "
That was when cassisertides returned briefly as "cass" but was using his old account the was originally the ful name "Cassisertides"
Around that time I made a thread detailing all the old cassertides aka Anglo_pyramidologist aliases
He got mad and changed his cassidertides account to "the lioness is a guy IRL " to get revenge on me
Then months later he came back as a new name"Gor" and then quickly changed it to "Dead" That was a new account not the old cassidertides account that he changed to "the lioness is a guy IRL "
In summary if you wnat to see all the old cassiertides posts go to "the lioness is a guy IRL "
You will notice there is nobody quoting "the lioness is a guy IRL " to reply. The replies are to "cass" but you won't see cass in the thread. What happens is that the new name changes all the old threads --BUT when people reply and they use a quote from the member who changed their name the name remains the same because they own the post not the person who is quoted.
And no cass aka Dead aka Anglo_Pyramidologist is not ABAZA
Dead, cass and Anglo_Pyramidologist are all the same person
The cass account as I have shown is "the lioness is a guy IRL " His other separate account is Thule
^^^ Again, notice when a person quotes Thule it says "Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist:"
That is beacause Dead has a lot of separate accounts on ES His cass account is now "the lioness is a guy IRL " His Anglo_Pyramidologist account is now Thule
Take a note of this
and stop the " I think he may be ABAZA" or the " I think he may be White Nubian"
He has other names as well but not those So please don't start rumors without proof I looked into those people, they are not him
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
] 
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
like most mangy curr when dem get ah good kick tuh dem rass....