|
Post by Planet Asia on Jan 20, 2006 15:06:08 GMT -5
Answer for what? Brace and Irish have clearly demonstrated that when examing ancient skulls and teeth of Ancient Egyptians on non-adaptive traits they show no Negroid affinity but cluster with other Caucasoid (West Eurasian and North African) groups. Moreover, Egyptians clearly show an absence of Negroid Y chromosomes and a small incidence of Negroid mtDNA. Even if we neglect the slave trade and consider Negroid markers to be of prehistoric origin, it would still take a population replacement of enormous proportions to turn the Egyptian into its present-day form. Needless to say, there is no evidence whatsoever for massive population replacement in Egypt. Those who dream of Somali-like ancient Egyptians, let alone Negroid-like ones are simply deluding themselves. Egyptians were/are a North African Mediterranean Caucasoid population. You saw Brace's new study and the Egyptians clustered with Nubians and Somalis. What *YOU* define as "Negroid"[E1,E2,E3a, L0-L6] DNA is ambiguous in its definition because DNA isn't Negroid nor Caucasoid and you conveniently avoided answering my question put forth in the "Labelling Lineages" thread under the genetics forum here. You basically have no argument, this is a closed issued as far as I'm concerned.
|
|
|
Post by Planet Asia on Jan 20, 2006 15:11:28 GMT -5
Those who dream of Somali-like ancient Egyptians, let alone Negroid-like ones are simply deluding themselves. Egyptians were/are a North African Mediterranean Caucasoid population. Again, since you're misrepresenting Brace: "Combining samples When groups that are close to each other in the dendrogram in Fig. 1 are combined to make a single dendrogram twig, the picture is simplified, but much the same conclusion is supported.....Algeria, Berber, Greece, Iran/Iraq, Italy, Morocco, Sicily and Tunisia samples were combined to generate a “Modern Mediterranean” twig....Next the Portuguese Mesolithic, Greek Neolithic, Italy Eneolithic, and Swiss Neolithic samples and the Italian and Greek Bronze Age samples were combined to make a “Prehistoric Mediterranean” twig. Then Naqada Bronze Age Egyptian, the Nubian, Nubia Bronze Age, Israeli Fellaheen (Arabic farmers) and Somali samples were lumped as “Prehistoric/Recent Northeast Africa.”There you have it again for the second time since you ignored it, Egyptians clustered with other Northeast Africans, not Medits, no matter how ambiguously you define it. They don't even cluster with Prehistoric nor Modern Medits, so why misrepresent Brace's study?
|
|
|
Post by galton on Jan 20, 2006 15:24:47 GMT -5
There is a lot of evidence that it's the Middle Easterners are adopted an African language.. to be fair. It may seem fair, but is it correct. Either the middle easterners adopted an African Language or not.
|
|
|
Post by Planet Asia on Jan 20, 2006 15:42:43 GMT -5
There is a lot of evidence that it's the Middle Easterners are adopted an African language.. to be fair. It may seem fair, but is it correct. Either the middle easterners adopted an African Language or not. Afro-Asiatic languages originated in Africa, what more evidence do you need?
|
|
|
Post by Arthur_Eld on Jan 20, 2006 16:02:17 GMT -5
It may seem fair, but is it correct. Either the middle easterners adopted an African Language or not. Afro-Asiatic languages originated in Africa, what more evidence do you need? Still africa is a geographical term, not a racial one. Its clear that the largest afro-asiatic speaking groups where caucasoid.
|
|
|
Post by Ras-Xafun on Jan 20, 2006 16:43:10 GMT -5
Afro-Asiatic languages originated in Africa, what more evidence do you need? Still africa is a geographical term, not a racial one. Its clear that the largest afro-asiatic speaking groups where caucasoid. Lol@caucasoid, most people outside united states and also England don't give a damn about this term. Caucasoid is a debunked term. I'm sure you and a Iraqi wouldnt't feel close to each other just because of caucasoidness, right ;D C. loring Brace www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/first/brace.html
|
|
|
Post by Planet Asia on Jan 20, 2006 16:49:24 GMT -5
Afro-Asiatic languages originated in Africa, what more evidence do you need? Still africa is a geographical term, not a racial one. Its clear that the largest afro-asiatic speaking groups where caucasoid. Such as? Who are these "Caucasoids" ? This is just more Europhile trash!
|
|
|
Post by galton on Jan 20, 2006 16:58:53 GMT -5
It may seem fair, but is it correct. Either the middle easterners adopted an African Language or not. Afro-Asiatic languages originated in Africa, what more evidence do you need? That wasn't the point of my remark. Pay attention, please. Don't respond without thinking. It would be appreciated. My point was if Afro-Asiatic languages originated in Africa, it has nothing to do with fairness. It is a fact. It has nothing to do with fairness.
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on Jan 20, 2006 17:05:20 GMT -5
Galton,your argueing with morons obsessed with their Negrohile propaganda. Their braindead and one sided.
Just keep on stating your accurate points,and pay these vermin no heed.
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Jan 20, 2006 17:45:01 GMT -5
You saw Brace's new study and the Egyptians clustered with Nubians and Somalis. What *YOU* define as "Negroid"[E1,E2,E3a, L0-L6] DNA is ambiguous in its definition because DNA isn't Negroid nor Caucasoid and you conveniently avoided answering my question put forth in the "Labelling Lineages" thread under the genetics forum here. You basically have no argument, this is a closed issued as far as I'm concerned. You must be developing eyesight difficulties. Brace clearly shows Egyptians grouping with Morocco and then Italy/Sicily and Algeria/Tunisia (Figure 1).
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Jan 20, 2006 17:50:44 GMT -5
Again, since you're misrepresenting Brace: "Combining samples It is you who is misrepresenting Brace. "Combining samples" does not mean "clustering", it means grouping regional samples together to create larger geographical groupings. Moreover, Brace is clear that Somalis only have a hint of a Sub-Saharan component, so your jubiliation that the clustering pattern of Naqada with Somalis clearly is unwarranted. Furthermore, prehistoric/recent NE Africa is closer to Modern Europe (5.16) than to the Niger-Congo group (6.67). The data speak for themselves. Your insistence that the data support any sort of "Negroid" component in Egypt is remarkable.
|
|
|
Post by Planet Asia on Jan 20, 2006 17:59:42 GMT -5
Again, since you're misrepresenting Brace: "Combining samples It is you who is misrepresenting Brace. "Combining samples" does not mean "clustering", it means grouping regional samples together to create larger geographical groupings. Moreover, Brace is clear that Somalis only have a hint of a Sub-Saharan component, so your jubiliation that the clustering pattern of Naqada with Somalis clearly is unwarranted. Furthermore, prehistoric/recent NE Africa is closer to Modern Europe (5.16) than to the Niger-Congo group (6.67). The data speak for themselves. Your insistence that the data support any sort of "Negroid" component in Egypt is remarkable. Somalis are Negroid, period, not some cosmic outer space Caucasoid group, and they are black. Negroid isn't limited to Gabon, Dahomey and Tanzania, ala Brace's study. NE Africans have no "Modern European" mixture, but "Modern Europeans" do have lineages that are derived from East Africa so who's actually closer to whom? The data speak for themselves. Your insistence that the data support any sort of "Mediterranean Caucasoid" component in Egypt is remarkable.
|
|
|
Post by Planet Asia on Jan 20, 2006 18:02:25 GMT -5
You saw Brace's new study and the Egyptians clustered with Nubians and Somalis. What *YOU* define as "Negroid"[E1,E2,E3a, L0-L6] DNA is ambiguous in its definition because DNA isn't Negroid nor Caucasoid and you conveniently avoided answering my question put forth in the "Labelling Lineages" thread under the genetics forum here. You basically have no argument, this is a closed issued as far as I'm concerned. You must be developing eyesight difficulties. Brace clearly shows Egyptians grouping with Morocco and then Italy/Sicily and Algeria/Tunisia (Figure 1). You must be developing eyesight difficulties, Brace clearly groups Naqada with with Prehistoric/Recent Northeast Africans, not with any Medits, modern nor prehistoric.
|
|
|
Post by Planet Asia on Jan 20, 2006 18:11:20 GMT -5
it means grouping regional samples together to create larger geographical groupings. Oh yeah, its all geographic: "Then Neolithic samples from Denmark, England, France, Germany and Portugal were combined with Bronze Age samples from England, Jericho and Mongolia to make a “Late Prehistoric Eurasia” sample. Mongolia is a long way east of any of the other samples used, but it has previously been shown that the Mongolian Bronze Age sample is unrelated to modern Mongols and has more in common with prehistoric Europeans and the Native Americans of the US–Canada border "It has everything to do with metric similarity and clustering. In quite literal terms all that means is that Somalis don't closely resemble Haya from Tanzania, Dahomey, and Gabon people, not all "sub-Saharans". Furthermore, prehistoric/recent NE Africa is closer to Modern Europe (5.16) than to the Niger-Congo group (6.67). The data speak for themselves. Your insistence that the data support any sort of "Negroid" component in Egypt is remarkable.
|
|
|
Post by Planet Asia on Jan 20, 2006 18:17:25 GMT -5
You saw Brace's new study and the Egyptians clustered with Nubians and Somalis. What *YOU* define as "Negroid"[E1,E2,E3a, L0-L6] DNA is ambiguous in its definition because DNA isn't Negroid nor Caucasoid and you conveniently avoided answering my question put forth in the "Labelling Lineages" thread under the genetics forum here. You basically have no argument, this is a closed issued as far as I'm concerned. You must be developing eyesight difficulties. Brace clearly shows Egyptians grouping with Morocco and then Italy/Sicily and Algeria/Tunisia (Figure 1). Please post figure 1 and look at it again and see where Naqada is grouped, those are *MODERN* Egyptians you are talking about, not the Naqada sample which is ancient Egyptians.
|
|