|
Post by Miguel Antunes on Nov 9, 2005 5:59:55 GMT -5
J Lineage is found at its highest rate in Bedouins and other ME populations, we can even call it Arab lineage,and...since they are predominantly caucasoid...they have some negroid of course, it can be very reasonable be called an caucasian lineage... Even in Europe it is found in great percentanges among Italians, Greeks, Romanians, and in smaller but still significant quantities in Iberia and even Denmark and other European populations...
|
|
|
Post by asdf on Nov 9, 2005 6:06:30 GMT -5
I didn't say SSAs were all negrid, rather the opposite. How does not all SSA being negrid make "negrid" invalid?
Exactly. Its origin is Caucasoids.
|
|
|
Post by Mike the Jedi on Nov 9, 2005 6:58:08 GMT -5
Didn't haplogroup J spring from the Middle East about 10,000 years ago, during the Neolithic period? If it's that young and found only in Europid or Europid-mixed areas, then I guess it can be called Caucasoid.
|
|
|
Post by dplacid1 on Nov 9, 2005 8:13:06 GMT -5
cant comment on this halogroup j i dont know nothing about genetics but the ancient ethiopians were sudanese
|
|
king
Junior Member
Posts: 68
|
Post by king on Nov 9, 2005 10:16:58 GMT -5
Did anybody read the link that I posted? It said in the link that haplogroup J1 is semetic. Why would it say semetic if semites are caucasoid. haplogroup J1 is what is found in ethiopia. Again read the link. www.jogg.info/coffman.htm again read from:The DNA Evidence for Israelite Ancestry: The Jewish Priests and Cohanim DNA Study.
|
|
king
Junior Member
Posts: 68
|
Post by king on Nov 9, 2005 10:30:35 GMT -5
why anodyne do you care about how I post. But just to make you happy I will from now on modify my posts. Even though I don't know what the big deal is.
|
|
|
Post by Miguel Antunes on Nov 9, 2005 13:26:55 GMT -5
"Did anybody read the link that I posted? It said in the link that haplogroup J1 is semetic."
Yes...and semites are caucasoid..so?? They probably wanted to stress that haplogroup J comes from Middle Eastern Caucasoids... Semitic doesn't mean anything..only that you speak a language of semitic origin...of course..those languages originated among caucasoid populations of the middle east... A black man from the USA could be considered Germanic..since he speaks a Germanic language...
|
|
|
Post by anodyne on Nov 9, 2005 16:18:46 GMT -5
"why anodyne do you care about how I post. But just to make you happy I will from now on modify my posts. Even though I don't know what the big deal is."
It's annoying because it makes a thread a mile long. Even you know it's annoying since in one of your earlier posts in this thread you apologized for making a bunch of posts rather than putting it all under the same one... but you do it anyway.
"Did anybody read the link that I posted? It said in the link that haplogroup J1 is semetic. Why would it say semetic if semites are caucasoid. haplogroup J1 is what is found in ethiopia. Again read the link."
This is why I stopped arguing with you. Your reasoning skills are shot. The Caucasoid race has many groups under their umbrella and Semites happens to be one. I've never heard of any respectable anthropologist consider Semites anything other than Caucasoid. If you read a study that discussed Halotypes common among Swedes and uses the term Nordic, but not Caucasoid, does that mena they are not Caucasoids? That's basically your reasoning.
|
|
king
Junior Member
Posts: 68
|
Post by king on Nov 9, 2005 16:35:25 GMT -5
What evidence do we have that Semites evolved their features in the Caucus? The semites are not indoeuropeans so how can they be caucasoid. Also they never said anything about caucasoid so you cannot jump to conclusion and say they probably meant middle eastern caucasoid. I am not trying to cause a problem over this I just want to know why I should consider haplogroup J a caucasoid ancestry and not asiatic/semetic ancestry. I also got some information on arabs. The ancestors of the Amhara and Tigre-- the Sabaeans, came from southern Arabia. Southern Arabs look quite different from northern Arabs. There are two different divisions of Arabs-- the Qatani or true Arabs from the south and the Adanaan or Arabized Arabs from the north. The southern Arabs are much darker compared to the northern Arabs who are light-skinned. The largest southern Arab group in East Africa today are the Rashaida people in Eritrea. If anybody is interested in this info.There are actually more semitic languages in Ethiopia, than in any other country. I am not trying to argue over this I just want to find out why I should consider it Caucasoid and not asiatic/semetic. If their is a good reason for it to be caucasoid then just tell me and I will give it a rest. It has to be more then just peoples emotional plea for me to just call it caucasoid.
|
|
|
Post by anodyne on Nov 9, 2005 18:24:09 GMT -5
"What evidence do we have that Semites evolved their features in the Caucus?"
You have to be kidding me. Are you living in the 19th century? No one believes that Caucasians (in the racial sense) came from the Caucus. That was an error made over a century ago. The term Caucasoid simply stuck as a term for classification.
"The semites are not indoeuropeans so how can they be caucasoid. Also they never said anything about caucasoid so you cannot jump to conclusion and say they probably meant middle eastern caucasoid."
Your ignorance is amazing. Not all caucasoids are indo- European. Basques are not Indo- Europeans but they are racially similar to other Europeans, for example. There were people living in Europe before the Aryans and yes the were of the same race.
"am not trying to argue over this I just want to find out why I should consider it Caucasoid and not asiatic/semetic. If their is a good reason for it to be caucasoid then just tell me and I will give it a rest. It has to be more then just peoples emotional plea for me to just call it caucasoid.
emotional plea? dude, you're completely ignorant of the basics. You don't even know the history of the term Caucasoid.
|
|
king
Junior Member
Posts: 68
|
Post by king on Nov 9, 2005 21:57:54 GMT -5
What is the reason to consider haplogroup J caucasoid. I still think that J is asiatic/semetic. I just want valid reason to call haplogroup J caucasoid that is all I am asking for. Just give me a good reason. Since anodyne is to busy being a smart ass, can someone else tell me please. I am not trying to argue over this. I am willing to change my mind.
|
|
|
Post by asdf on Nov 9, 2005 22:02:35 GMT -5
King--what's uncaucasian about Asia and Semitic languages? Honestly?
|
|
|
Post by Matrix Reloaded on Nov 10, 2005 0:14:59 GMT -5
I didn't say SSAs were all negrid, rather the opposite. How does not all SSA being negrid make "negrid" invalid? Exactly. Its origin is Caucasoids. If haplogroup J is “Caucasoid” what racial typology should be applied to haplogroup E? Calling a lineage “Caucasoid” or by any name indicative of racial typologies tells us essentially nothing about its geographic distribution. Its suffice enough to say that haplogroup J is indicative of southwest Eurasian ancestry. The Mesolithic and Late Pleistocene inhabitants of the Levant like the Natufians were partially sub-Saharan influenced skeletally and possessed haplogroup J, will you call a population that partially sub-Saharan influenced skeletally “Caucasoid”?
|
|
|
Post by Miguel Antunes on Nov 10, 2005 4:48:45 GMT -5
Yes...if they are only partially negroid..then they are predominanlty caucasoid..duh! The J they had probably came from that.... I mean..wichever group has the highest percentage of a given haplogroup...then that haplogroup becomes a sign of that group...until proven otherwise of course... Since those of have the biggest percentage of J are middle eastern peoples....almost exclusivelly caucasoid..and when they aren´t...it isn´t atributed to J... So...J..is caucasoid.. How hard can it be to understand something so simple???
|
|
king
Junior Member
Posts: 68
|
Post by king on Nov 10, 2005 8:58:37 GMT -5
Hear is a family tree DNA that did a study on the canary island population they said in the study that haplogroup J was semetic in origin: www.familytreedna.com/public/Guanches%2DCanaryIslandsDNA/ J does not seem caucasoid to me praetorian. but I could be wrong. Does anybody have any thing to say on this study? also Caucasian or Caucasoid is a misnomer and should only be used to describe people of IndoEuropean ancestry (R*) and no one else.
|
|