|
Post by mhagneto on Jan 26, 2006 16:01:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by mhagneto on Jan 26, 2006 16:02:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Jan 26, 2006 16:36:14 GMT -5
The difference between me and Charlie is that I accept what Brace writes in his research published in a peer-reviewed journal, whereas Charlie tries to dance around it.
Brace:
"This placement suggests that there may have been a Sub-Saharan African element in the make-up of the Natufians (the putative ancestors of the subsequent Neolithic), although in this particular test there is no such evident presence in the North African or Egyptian samples. As shown in Fig. 1, the Somalis and the Egyptian Bronze Age sample from Naqada may also have a hint of a Sub-Saharan African component. "
|
|
|
Post by mhagneto on Jan 26, 2006 17:50:45 GMT -5
The difference between me and Charlie is that I accept what Brace writes in his research published in a peer-reviewed journal, whereas Charlie tries to dance around it. Brace: "This placement suggests that there may have been a Sub-Saharan African element in the make-up of the Natufians (the putative ancestors of the subsequent Neolithic), although in this particular test there is no such evident presence in the North African or Egyptian samples. As shown in Fig. 1, the Somalis and the Egyptian Bronze Age sample from Naqada may also have a hint of a Sub-Saharan African component. " / Bass goes vacant when he sees evidence against him, for example, the intermediate position of Ethiopians, etc., which is not even controversial any more. Also, Charlie has trouble discriminating between words and concepts (i e like the word "africa); he'll conflate the geographical and the biological: he likes meaningless phrases like "authentic Africanicity" from his hero the not-very-impressive Keita. He doesnt seem able to think logically; you can see it in the way he misuses and misunderstands language. I don't think Charlie is stupid -- though he's not smart either--- but he's obsessed, like so many American blacks,with finding a grandiose history for the "black race" that just isnt there. At bottom it's based on envy and resentment.
|
|
|
Post by Soomaal on Jan 26, 2006 19:25:28 GMT -5
The difference between me and Charlie is that I accept what Brace writes in his research published in a peer-reviewed journal, whereas Charlie tries to dance around it. Brace: "This placement suggests that there may have been a Sub-Saharan African element in the make-up of the Natufians (the putative ancestors of the subsequent Neolithic), although in this particular test there is no such evident presence in the North African or Egyptian samples. As shown in Fig. 1, the Somalis and the Egyptian Bronze Age sample from Naqada may also have a hint of a Sub-Saharan African component. " Are not Somalis sub-saharan African, that statement doesn't make sense.
|
|
|
Post by asdf on Jan 26, 2006 19:27:54 GMT -5
Sub-Saharan African = politically-correct term for Negroid.
Political-correctness generally makes language less clear.
|
|
|
Post by Soomaal on Jan 26, 2006 19:29:44 GMT -5
That does not make sense it says Somalis have hint of Sub-saharan component, when they are actually wholly sub-saharan.
am I understanding this wrong or what?
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Jan 26, 2006 20:20:19 GMT -5
Sub-Saharan African = politically-correct term for Negroid. Political-correctness generally makes language less clear. Well said.
|
|
|
Post by Planet Asia on Jan 27, 2006 1:42:43 GMT -5
The difference between me and Charlie is that I accept what Brace writes in his research published in a peer-reviewed journal, whereas Charlie tries to dance around it. Brace: "This placement suggests that there may have been a Sub-Saharan African element in the make-up of the Natufians (the putative ancestors of the subsequent Neolithic), although in this particular test there is no such evident presence in the North African or Egyptian samples. As shown in Fig. 1, the Somalis and the Egyptian Bronze Age sample from Naqada may also have a hint of a Sub-Saharan African component. " The difference between you and I is that I actually emailed Brace and asked for his clarification of his writings in peer-reviewed work and I under what he says. When I asked Brace about Fulanis, he said they would craniometrically group with Northeast Africans like Nubians and Somalis and he said the Wadi Halfa Mesolithic population craniometrically groups with Niger-Congo speakers, which according to him by the samples he has are Gabon, Haya from Tanzania, and Dahomey. When he says "sub-Saharan" he's speaking of those three groups only. You fail to understand what he says in the context within his study. You don't have the slightest understanding of anything he has written. Regardless, he said Naqada and Nubians group in the their Northeast African cluster and not with Medits or West Asians, modern or recent. That perfectly made clear, no one here stated that AEs looked like West or Central Africans so you're beating on a strawman, the issue is whether they resemble East/Northeast Africans like Somalis and Nubians more than they do West Asians or Medits and they do resemble NubĂans and Somalis more. End of Story.
|
|
|
Post by Planet Asia on Jan 27, 2006 1:48:42 GMT -5
The difference between me and Charlie is that I accept what Brace writes in his research published in a peer-reviewed journal, whereas Charlie tries to dance around it. Brace: "This placement suggests that there may have been a Sub-Saharan African element in the make-up of the Natufians (the putative ancestors of the subsequent Neolithic), although in this particular test there is no such evident presence in the North African or Egyptian samples. As shown in Fig. 1, the Somalis and the Egyptian Bronze Age sample from Naqada may also have a hint of a Sub-Saharan African component. " / Bass goes vacant when he sees evidence against him, for example, the intermediate position of Ethiopians, etc., which is not even controversial any more. Also, Charlie has trouble discriminating between words and concepts (i e like the word "africa); he'll conflate the geographical and the biological: he likes meaningless phrases like "authentic Africanicity" from his hero the not-very-impressive Keita. He doesnt seem able to think logically; you can see it in the way he misuses and misunderstands language. I don't think Charlie is stupid -- though he's not smart either--- but he's obsessed, like so many American blacks,with finding a grandiose history for the "black race" that just isnt there. At bottom it's based on envy and resentment. Tell me, have you even read the new study by Brace orhave you even personally communicated with him for clarification of the things posted in his peer-reviewed study? Let me tell you something, that recently published study was sent to me via email from Brace four months *BEFORE* it was published so don't tell what I don't understand in your moronic assessment of me. I've also communicated with Colin Groves, Shomarka Keita, Peter Underhill, Sara Tiskkoff, Kenneth Kidd, Ornella Semino, Jim Wilson and a host of other geneticists and or anthropologists and I only post what they tell me, I don't give my own layman interpretation what i think they mean. I haven't seen Pontikos nor his cronies[which includes you since you're jumping of the bandwagon to defend him] do any of this. Now tell me who has the better position on things?
|
|
|
Post by Planet Asia on Jan 27, 2006 1:52:13 GMT -5
The difference between me and Charlie is that I accept what Brace writes in his research published in a peer-reviewed journal, whereas Charlie tries to dance around it. Brace: "This placement suggests that there may have been a Sub-Saharan African element in the make-up of the Natufians (the putative ancestors of the subsequent Neolithic), although in this particular test there is no such evident presence in the North African or Egyptian samples. As shown in Fig. 1, the Somalis and the Egyptian Bronze Age sample from Naqada may also have a hint of a Sub-Saharan African component. " Are not Somalis sub-saharan African, that statement doesn't make sense. Somalis are sub-Saharan and have been described as such by other anthropologists such and Hiernaux, Gabel, Brandt, Rightmire and others. Dienekes and the Europhiles often side with Brace's interpetation because they wish to separate so-called "True Negroes away from the rest of Africa and make East Africans something of a special kind of ambiguos race because so-called Medits have lineages that ultimately descend from people in this region.
|
|
|
Post by Planet Asia on Jan 27, 2006 1:56:44 GMT -5
How do you know that I am even Black Mahgneto. Just because I don't try to hide the fact that E3b is African does not mean I have to be Black. As for egyptsearch it is a much better run Forum then Dodona at least they don't ban you for not agreeing with Dienekes. If you anybody from dodona thinks what they say over at ES is wrong then why do the posters on ES own those who don't agree with them. Usually people do what Mahgneto does and rant on about people being Afrocentric when they have no arguements. I challenge anybody from dodona to go over to egyptsearch and put down what you think is right. The problem is that most people from dodona would get owned. From what I have seen from this forum Planet Asia owns Dodona so I don't think that people from dodona would be able to hang with the people at Egyptsearch. / Wanna bet a million bucks you're not black? Gee, you must wonder how I know?! This is what your whole argument against people who don't side Dienekes here is all based on. Wow, a guy disagrees with Dienekes on smething so he must be black, way to go. The whole of stormfront disagrees with Pontikos as well as two Russians that used to post here, are they also blacks posing as something else? I've seen human2, a Chinese guy here, disagree with Pontikos, do you mean to tell me that everyone who disagrees with Pontikos is some internet troll with a racist ideological agenda? Your arguments are just silly ad-hominem attacks and snothing more.
|
|
|
Post by mhagneto on Jan 27, 2006 2:15:24 GMT -5
/ Bass goes vacant when he sees evidence against him, for example, the intermediate position of Ethiopians, etc., which is not even controversial any more. Also, Charlie has trouble discriminating between words and concepts (i e like the word "africa); he'll conflate the geographical and the biological: he likes meaningless phrases like "authentic Africanicity" from his hero the not-very-impressive Keita. He doesnt seem able to think logically; you can see it in the way he misuses and misunderstands language. I don't think Charlie is stupid -- though he's not smart either--- but he's obsessed, like so many American blacks,with finding a grandiose history for the "black race" that just isnt there. At bottom it's based on envy and resentment. Tell me, have you even read the new study by Brace orhave you even personally communicated with him for clarification of the things posted in his peer-reviewed study? Let me tell you something, that recently published study was sent to me via email from Brace four months *BEFORE* it was published so don't tell what I don't understand in your moronic assessment of me. I've also communicated with Colin Groves, Shomarka Keita, Peter Underhill, Sara Tiskkoff, Kenneth Kidd, Ornella Semino, Jim Wilson and a host of other geneticists and or anthropologists and I only post what they tell me, I don't give my own layman interpretation what i think they mean. I haven't seen Pontikos nor his cronies[which includes you since you're jumping of the bandwagon to defend him] do any of this. Now tell me who has the better position on things? / Charlie, It doesn't matter who you communicate with if you cant understand what they're saying. OK,post the Brace study here and I'll read it. By the way, tell me about that "big time" science education you've had!
|
|
|
Post by Planet Asia on Jan 27, 2006 2:27:14 GMT -5
Tell me, have you even read the new study by Brace orhave you even personally communicated with him for clarification of the things posted in his peer-reviewed study? Let me tell you something, that recently published study was sent to me via email from Brace four months *BEFORE* it was published so don't tell what I don't understand in your moronic assessment of me. I've also communicated with Colin Groves, Shomarka Keita, Peter Underhill, Sara Tiskkoff, Kenneth Kidd, Ornella Semino, Jim Wilson and a host of other geneticists and or anthropologists and I only post what they tell me, I don't give my own layman interpretation what i think they mean. I haven't seen Pontikos nor his cronies[which includes you since you're jumping of the bandwagon to defend him] do any of this. Now tell me who has the better position on things? / Charlie, It doesn't matter who you communicate with if you cant understand what they're saying. Apparently you must be hard of reading what I posted, I said I have emailed Brace about his study and he has given me clarification and who the heck are you to tell me what i don't understand, are you some kind of a big shot who knows me better than myself? my communications with Brace do matter because the nonsense Pontikos says regarding Brace's study is not the understanding that Brace himself has.
|
|
|
Post by Planet Asia on Jan 27, 2006 2:33:35 GMT -5
Sub-Saharan African = politically-correct term for Negroid. Political-correctness generally makes language less clear. But all are all sub-Saharans Negroid in the sense of having extreme the features often stereo-typically associated with it? No. What about the Khoisan and the peoples of the Sahel? Your interpretation of what a "sub-Saharan" is, is just as arbitrary as Brace's interpretation.
|
|