|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on Oct 14, 2004 11:04:58 GMT -5
<<Crimsonguard, it doesn't matter that Sicily has 'higher Negroid DNA' if it's still statistically insignificant. What the hell is the problem? >> The problem is that, simply Sicily does NOT have "higher levels of negroid DNA" !!! Why are u saying it does?  When it clearly does NOT! |
|
|
|
Post by Melnorme on Oct 14, 2004 11:09:03 GMT -5
Then just prove that it doesn't, instead of ranting about our evil accusations. Most people don't really care about having 0.3% Sub-Saharan genes, you know.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dobermann on Oct 14, 2004 11:11:41 GMT -5
Crimson Guard,
I totally agree that the "level" of so called negroid admixutre in Siccilians is misinformed propaganda from usually afro-centric circles.However saying that sicillians are less negroid then the english cannot be true.The English have many many negro's living amongst them and have done for over 50 years consequently any so called DNA "test" will show a 1% negroid marker.we have something like 10 million blacks in england that doesent include the mullatoes and 1/4 negro's or people of 1/8 negroid blood.As far as im aware Sicilly hasent had blacks living amongst the natives since the arab conquest? maybe recently some negro's or north-africans have come to find work but no way in the numbers that we have in Enlgland.I long for the day when these DNA "tests" are done only from the native population that as far as it knows doesent have negroid admixture in it.In fact I long for DNA and population markers that arent conducted to suit an agenda.
|
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on Oct 14, 2004 11:28:44 GMT -5
melnorm I already did!And I'am not ranting, You as a moderator should be familiar with racial Reality web-site,and should of been aware of the data atleast. Just go to Racial Reality: www.angeltowns.com/members/racialreal/italians.htmlwww.angeltowns.com/members/racialreal/sicily.html<<Romano et al. (2003) have detected sub-Saharan (Negroid) mtDNA sequences at a rate of 0.65% in another Sicilian sample, which is comparable to admixture levels for Western and Northern Europe. Asian mtDNA has been observed at a frequency of 2.2%, again consistent with Northern and Eastern European admixture levels. [15]>> again: In a sample of 465 Sicilians from all over the island, 10 mtDNA haplogroup M sequences of presumable proto-Asian origin were detected, while only 3 sub-Saharan L sequences were found, bringing the total non-Caucasoid maternal admixture in Sicily to 2.8%, with just 0.65% of this being Negroid (Note that Richards et al. 1998 found white Britons to have 1% black mtDNA). To date, no sub-Saharan Y-chromosomes have been discovered in Sicily. (Romano et al., Ann Hum Genet, 2003)>> I pointed this out about a dozens times.Negroid DNA is not higher than the rest of Europe,not at all.Its less than 1%.Its negligible.Its 0.65% percentage is comparable to Western and Northern europe. I would truely would like to know why I have to go over the same things so many times, and prove myself while these other's dont have to prove a thing. I have to sit here and point out,spell out and drag out the same Factual information and facts dozens of times over.Thats very funny! i dont like nor tolarate lies and exaggeration being said about my people.So i couldnt careless if you "think" iam ranting,which i was not, i proved my point and shot them down. i did not make up the 1% DNA found in England,its mentioned above.Also their was a Bryan Sykes Study a few years back,which he found the same level of 1% in England. Accept it or not,Like it or not its true. Please know,I'am not being sarcastic or being a dick,but its present,its their and much higher frequency than in Sicily or most of europe for that matter... |
|
|
|
Post by Dobermann on Oct 14, 2004 11:47:11 GMT -5
melnorm I already did!And I'am not ranting, You as a moderator should be familiar with racial Reality web-site,and should of been aware of the data atleast. Just go to Racial Reality: www.angeltowns.com/members/racialreal/italians.htmlwww.angeltowns.com/members/racialreal/sicily.html<<Romano et al. (2003) have detected sub-Saharan (Negroid) mtDNA sequences at a rate of 0.65% in another Sicilian sample, which is comparable to admixture levels for Western and Northern Europe. Asian mtDNA has been observed at a frequency of 2.2%, again consistent with Northern and Eastern European admixture levels. [15]>> again: In a sample of 465 Sicilians from all over the island, 10 mtDNA haplogroup M sequences of presumable proto-Asian origin were detected, while only 3 sub-Saharan L sequences were found, bringing the total non-Caucasoid maternal admixture in Sicily to 2.8%, with just 0.65% of this being Negroid (Note that Richards et al. 1998 found white Britons to have 1% black mtDNA). To date, no sub-Saharan Y-chromosomes have been discovered in Sicily. (Romano et al., Ann Hum Genet, 2003)>> I pointed this out about a dozens times.Negroid DNA is not higher than the rest of Europe,not at all.Its less than 1%.Its negligible. I would truely would like to know why I have to go over the same things so many times, and prove myself while these other's dont have to prove a thing. I have to sit here and point out,spell out and drag out the same Factual information and facts dozens of times over.Thats very funny! i dont like nor tolarate lies and exaggeration being said about my people.So i couldnt careless if you "think" iam ranting,which i was not, i proved my point and shot them down. i did not make up the 1% DNA found in England,its mentioned above.Also their was a Bryan Sykes Study a few years back,which he found the same level of 1% in England. Accept it or not,Like it or not its true. Please know,I'am not being sarcastic or being a dick,but its present,its their and much higher frequency than in Sicily or most of europe for that matter... Crimson Guard, Im not for a second implying you have made up the 1% figure on negroid admixture in the british isles.Im contesting it as highly improbable and a probably biased test in the first place.Not implying that YOU are a lair or anything of the sort ;D I think people tend to form predujices with there own eyes most people who see sicillians on TV or meet them in life find them as a rule to be darker than northern Italians hence they ask where did that come from? easy response from racist Northern Italians "there arabs or the spawn of "niggers" genetic's show otherwise of course ;D but thats the reason I think you have to defend yourselves more than say an Enlgishman or Norwegian in race theory the pasty faced man is always king  |
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on Oct 14, 2004 11:53:28 GMT -5
Crimson Guard, Im not for a second implying you have made up the 1% figure on negroid admixture in the british isles.Im contesting it as highly improbable and a probably biased test in the first place.Not implying that YOU are a lair or anything of the sort ;D I think people tend to form predujices with there own eyes most people who see sicillians on TV or meet them in life find them as a rule to be darker than northern Italians hence they ask where did that come from? easy response from racist Northern Italians "there arabs or the spawn of "niggers" genetic's show otherwise of course ;D but thats the reason I think you have to defend yourselves more than say an Enlgishman or Norwegian in race theory the pasty faced man is always king Oh trust me,you dont have tell me about the "Sicilian question" .I know! unforuntitly their will always be the ingnorant, the mis-informed and the A-Holes in this world. |
|
|
|
Post by buddyrydell on Oct 14, 2004 15:41:21 GMT -5
Crimson Guard,
I never contradicted myself when I spoke about North Africans. I said they are FUNDAMENTALLY Caucasoid with some of them probably having minor sub-Saharan admixture. I also know that North Africans didn't really contribute that much to the Sicilian gene pool (as in Iberia), but that the slight North African influence (probably around 3% or less), may have resulted in that MINISCULE 0.3% sub-Saharan DNA found in Sicilians. It doesn't matter! Crimson I said that as someone of Sicilian descent for goodness sake, you blew everything out of proportion here. If Sicilians have slightly higher levels of sub-Saharan ancestry than British people or vice versa, it doesn't matter as it's very low everywhere in Europe.
|
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on Oct 14, 2004 16:08:19 GMT -5
I dont know Buddy,I think where just two ships passing in the night then...
Failcind made a very ignortant and stupid remark,which i made a simple and factual answer to,which he then turned into a arguement and insult flame,and ran away from once i destroyed his creditabilty.
I never said you contradicted yourself..You just where assuming way to much about the North Africans and making faulty conclusions,and you seemed to have been wrongly implying/believing that Sicilians had Higher levels of Negroid DNA than the rest of europe based on nothing more than geography.I very clearly proved you where dead wrong as all my information indictates and illustrates.
See I backed up everything not with emotion or opinion ,but will data & facts.
I stated and proved my case,their nothing more for me to say or do. Its over,take care!
|
|
|
|
Post by Faelcind on Oct 16, 2004 15:49:22 GMT -5
You "destroyed my credibility" dude get a hold of your self. You made your self look like an stupid drama queen. "Never Speak to me Again". Did I hurt your feelings?
But if you going to accuse me of running away from the argument I suppose I'll resond.
You stated there is no admixture, you were wrong, its that simple. That alone invalidates your argument but the point you can't seem to wrap your head around is that you are taking about the result from a single genetic system, that simply does not tell the whole story. Take a genetics class. Genes move between populations. Like I said read relethford. You should be able to understand it.
|
|
|
|
Post by deuceswild on Oct 21, 2004 1:35:11 GMT -5
Carlos II of Spain, Oriental type: Wasn't he the product of generations of inbreeding? |
|
|
|
Post by SwordandCompass on Oct 21, 2004 1:54:59 GMT -5
|
|
When it clearly does NOT!
