|
|
Post by Igu on May 11, 2005 11:42:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Faelcind on May 11, 2005 13:52:18 GMT -5
Human2 and Igu I deleted your post because this type of flaming is not acceptable. Human2 your posts did not contain the types of personal insults that I genereal delete but replying to thread simpley to insulting the authors insecurities is not appropriate. I agree with your point that this sort of thread is tired but next time say it without resorting to personal insults.
Igu, your insults were far more inflammatory and downright racebaiting there is not place on this forum for that sort of generalized insult.
|
|
|
|
Post by Curious6 on May 11, 2005 13:54:16 GMT -5
I would say they are representative of North Africans as I have seen many. They are generally dark, a few skin tones darker than southern Europeans, but there are a few lighter types and also some darker types, especially nearer the south of Morocco in the areas of Marrakech and around that region. My question to Igu is: do you believe the lighter types are the result of European admixture? I ask this because I have read that 1/3 of Mozabite Berber mtDNA belongs to a haplogroup of European origin.
|
|
|
|
Post by topdog on May 11, 2005 14:33:58 GMT -5
Threads like these are becoming very mundane.
|
|
|
|
Post by Meddish on May 12, 2005 4:12:32 GMT -5
The Egyptians look like they have more SSA dna then the Algerians going by the pictures above only....
|
|
|
|
Post by Emouzzar on May 12, 2005 13:58:24 GMT -5
The Egyptians look like they have more SSA dna then the Algerians going by the pictures above only.... I see just one egyptian with possible SS dna, Most of the others are just tanned; How could this indicate any subsahran admixture!? |
|
|
|
Post by gulereatie on May 12, 2005 20:01:05 GMT -5
I see just one egyptian with possible SS dna, Most of the others are just tanned; How could this indicate any subsahran admixture!? how are they tanned if they are indoor senator people? |
|
|
|
Post by alexandrian on May 12, 2005 20:05:15 GMT -5
how are they tanned if they are indoor senator people? Even if they're of dark skin naturally, it's not indicative of any SSA ancestry. Look at India or Arabia. Plus, I see quite a few fellahin among the mix seeing as the council is supposed to by law include people from all walks of life. I too, like Berter, see only one, maybe two people with SSA ancestry. |
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on May 12, 2005 20:09:48 GMT -5
The third Egyptian deputy in the first row is the only one that stands out as having Negroid mixture to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by alexandrian on May 12, 2005 20:11:58 GMT -5
The third Egyptian deputy in the first row is the only one that stands out as having Negroid mixture to me. yeah, he was the same one for me too |
|
|
|
Post by gulereatie on May 12, 2005 20:12:01 GMT -5
Even if they're of dark skin naturally, it's not indicative of any SSA ancestry. Look at India or Arabia. Plus, I see quite a few fellahin among the mix seeing as the council is supposed to by law include people from all walks of life. I too, like Berter, see only one, maybe two people with SSA ancestry. i think it's a lot more then 1 or 2. but besides, they are poor pictures. and we need to see more then 1 pic of the same person to get an idea what they look like. preferably when (prime age) younger. |
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on May 12, 2005 20:13:38 GMT -5
i think it's a lot more then 1 or 2. but besides, they are poor pictures. and we need to see more then 1 pic of the same person to get an idea what they look like. preferably when (prime age) younger. That's true. I'm sure many of them have a negroid ancestor. It just doesn't show in their phenotype as much. It's always preferable to compare notes when the people are in their prime, not when their faces are sagging.  |
|
|
|
Post by alexandrian on May 12, 2005 20:21:46 GMT -5
i think it's a lot more then 1 or 2. but besides, they are poor pictures. and we need to see more then 1 pic of the same person to get an idea what they look like. preferably when (prime age) younger. Why do you think they have a negroid ancestor? Just because they're Egyptian? The pictures are fine- we can make out their features pretty damn well, and only one shows a sign of negroid phenotype. Why is it that even if Egyptians show absolutely no sign of Negroid influence in their phenotype people just assume they're part Negroid? These people look typically Middle Eastern, not East African or what not. I think the only people on this board who show any sign of knowing what Egyptians look like without being restrained by predisposed biases are Berter and Igu. Would any of you just automatically assume Morrocans, Saudis, or Yemenis have negroid ancestors even if their phenotypes don't show it? And keep in mind, Yemenis have been shown to have far more Negroid blood than Egyptians. Such hypocrisy. We know what we can see. And from what we can see these Egyptians are Caucasian. Period. |
|
|
|
Post by alexandrian on May 12, 2005 20:22:52 GMT -5
That's true. I'm sure many of them have a negroid ancestor. It just doesn't show in their phenotype as much. It's always preferable to compare notes when the people are in their prime, not when their faces are sagging. First you say only one shows Negroid ancestry, and then you just jump on the bandwagon and say a lot of them must have it. Why? |
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on May 12, 2005 20:28:31 GMT -5
First you say only one shows Negroid ancestry, and then you just jump on the bandwagon and say a lot of them must have it. Why? By simple rationale of geography. And I don't mean recent ancestor. Just because they're Egyptian, they're likely to have at least one partially negroid ancestor somewhere back there. Same with most Americans having black and American Indian ancestors. I fit in that niche, for instance. |
|
