"In terms of physical diversity, It can be imagined that the modern diversity to be found in Egypt. In terms of cranial facial features, skin color what have you! Would likely to have been very similar to that found in the past."
S.O.Y Keita
Anyone who like to hear it from the horse’s mouth can do so by watching
Shomarka Omar Keita: What Genetics Can Tell Us (EGYPT)
So long story short it was the white race. But lets just over look that. What the hell? Race is a big deal. To know where thes ppl came from. And just over looking it is crazy.
@Gulfporter archimedes was credited by eurocentrists for the invention of the screw , but then the screw had been in use at least 1000 years before archimedes's parent had intercourse . yet you all told bold faced lies to the world . suck on that one!
Archimedes is not credited with inventing the screw. He is credited with inventing a pump that uses a screw. Where do you get all this inferiority complex pumped into your heads? Are they teaching you this kind of crap in black schools?
@Gulfporter you suck at debates , simply because you don't know when to accept defeat . google archimedes screw and come back to tell me about that pump with a straight face .fucking moron !
I just googled "archimedes screw" and the very first result is the Wiki article about the SCREWPUMP that Archimedes is credited with designing. Not the screw itself, but the screw pump. The screw is a simple machine, and no one is credited with inventing the simple machines. The simple machines predate recorded history. Archimedes is credited with studying, understanding, explaining, and employing the simple machines. He is not credited with inventing any of them.
@Gulfporter no , you did a lazy job . all through that artcile it was constantly referred to as "archimedes's screw" yet you are saying it wasn't credited to him . he copied it from egypt but took the glory for it , just like plato ,arisitotle,thales,socrates , e.t.c all learnt from the egyptians but then went on to claim all they learnt for themselves .
whether it was a pump or a screw , fact is it was already in use at atleast 950BCE archimedes's white ass was not born until at least 270BCE .
See, this is why we don't like to engage you. You really aren't very intelligent. Archimedes Screw is what they call his pump. It doesn't mean he invented the screw, or that they are claiming he did. Your original claim was that the screw was invented long before he was born, and you were correct, but now you are claiming the screwpump is synonymous with the screw and that's simply not the case. Enough of you, the Bell Curve was right and you aren't worth the effort.
@thenewbreed2 you are foolish . the nubians don't speak english so they would not have been able to label whatever they put in their beer as "tetracycline". they would have had a name for it in their own language . benjamin duggar was the first to describe it , not the first to prepare it . it has always been present .
"yet we know that nubian mummies had high levels of tetracycline "
This technique of the afrocentrists is tires. You start off with a lie or a misrepresentation and then act like you have found and revealed the truth. Benjamin Duggar (whose race is unknown to me) is credited with isolating and identifying or discovering tetracycline, not inventing it. The nubians did not isolate or identify it, because they didn't have the knowledge and tech to do that.
@Gulfporter you know what's funny here , the fact that you ignore the fact that tetracycline was discovered in those mummies . how do you know that they didn't have a method of identifying this drug . what was the word that they used to describe what you are calling tetracyline ?
@Gulfporter yes you built machine guns , atomic bombs , what has this done to the lives of millions of people . if we look at it , you guys have invented the most destructive materials ever , there is always a major downside to most of your inventions .over 70% of the rainforests in gone because you guys are so smart .
You can use a tractor to kill people if you want to. As for rainforests, Pacific Islanders and South American Indians were doing a pretty good job on the forests all by themselves. They clear land for cultivation by burning. You also can't claim ancient African culture as negro without being responsible for the desertification of a good deal of Africa. But you keep on blaming white people, it really doesn't matter.
It seems like a lot of black Americans have a deep emotional need to latch onto a history which would put them in the position of being slave masters rather than slaves.
Well, assholes, that's what we've been telling you for decades: Get off the cross, because every culture has been enslaved at one time or another. But it's still a little sad that a people who whine endlessly about their ancestors being enslaved try to latch onto ancient aristocracies which held slaves.
@Gulfporter This is a silly comment. Why would African-Americans want to identify with slave masters? I don't think you know much about Ancient Egyptian history. They did not have a slave based economy. That idea was promoted by the Bible and has been discredited by mainstream Egyptology. The people you see in chains in the paintings were mainly prisoners of war. Slavery was not prominent in Egypt. Black American interest in African culture is perfectly sensible. We see Africa as our heritage.
I hear this "different kind of slavery" crap a lot, from Mexicans. Why? Because it fucks with their idea of their ancestors as living some kind of idyllic like before evil white people came along. GET REAL. You'll notice that the Orientals aren't out there saying, "Well, but ,, um our slavery was different."
So those guys were prisoners of war? What the fuck do you think Rome's slaves were? Go on back to your fantasy. You're all kings and queens, all Africans were. LOL.
@Gulfporter In case you didn't know a Prisoner of War is not necessarily a slave. I'm not defending any form of slavery or any culture that had slaves. I am saying that the Ancient Egyptians did not have a system of chattel slavery. Slaves made up a very small percentage of the population and workforce. People weren't enslaved for generations and rarely all of their lives. Your portrayal of Egypt as a state reliant on slavery is not factual. I deal with facts not myths. Go get an education.
You want to define slavery as a singular brutal system because it fits with your self image as World's Biggest Victim Class. But then you describe "different kind of slavery" which is nothing more than part of the definition of slavery. What you are afraid of is taking the evil out of slavery, and dealing with it objectively as a division of labor and class, which it was. Just as there were different models of slavery in the US so there were elsewhere. They were still slaves.
@Gulfporter First of all I just explained to you the nature and limit of slavery in Ancient Egypt which you obviously were not aware of beforehand. Don't try to tell me what I think. My knowledge of this subject is far beyond your own. It makes no difference to most Black people educated on the subject that Ancient Egyptians had some slaves. Slavery was practiced everywhere in different forms. That doesn't make it any less immoral. We identify with their achievement not oppression of others.
Saying "race doesn't exist" is ridiculous, regardless of how popular this particular meme is on college campuses at the moment. Moreover, racial classifications are not based solely on the exterior characteristics, and when you consider that they 18th/19th century scientists didn't have DNA to work with, they did a damned good job of classification. Despite the effort of some today to narrow caucasian to Germanic/Celt/Norse, the caucasian classification does include some dark skinned people.
@Gulfporter The Caucasian classification is garbage. Look at the origin of the word. It was coined by Blumenbach based on the idea that the Caucasus region was the birthplace of mankind because Blumebach was of the opinion that the people of the area were the most beautiful race of men. His idea was that Whites represented humans in their purest form and that other races deviated from the Caucasian ideal. Ofcourse we know today that humans started in Africa and morphology doesn't denote lineage.
"The Caucasian classification is garbage. Look at the origin of the word. "
William F Buckley wisely said (circa 1980) that Political Correctness was a corruption of discourse, that if allowed to continue it would reduce every debate to an argument over terminology. The Caucasian classification is no more garbage than any of the major races; they all represent a broad collection of ethnicities. Corrupt is trying to broaden one while narrowing another for political purposes.
@Gulfporter I'm not making an argument over terminology but rather explaining the fact that the term at its root is not scientific. There's no scientific basis for Caucasian or any racial label as the concept of biological races has been debunked by modern scientists. Racists hold on to this outdated concept for political reasons.
I am aware of the current effort to declare that race does not exist. Part of that effort is to falsely accuse racial classification of being something that it is not, ie based solely in biology. It has NEVER been based solely in biology. The biological aspect of race is that culture is preserved and expressed along with physical traits in a tribal structure. Does that mean that a negro adopted in Sweden won't have Swedish culture? No
Race itself is nothing more than a classification system. People want to tear it down because they object to how it can be used. But people will sort and be sorted one way or another. Of course the hilarious thing is black people who declare that race doesn't exist, but all day long they decide who is black and who isn't. If I go to Walmart and say "Thank you my nigga." to the cashier, you can believe she is going to decide that I am not negro.
@Gulfporter Are you implying that the cashier at Walmart is one of the Blacks who maintains that there are no biological races? Don't be silly. The average person in the real world believes in races and very few of them are familiar with scientific arguments about the applicability of race. The no biological race position does not maintain that racism does not exist nor will it prevent people from judging others based on skin color or ethnicity.
@Gulfporter Racial classification was conceived by 17th and 18th century naturalists and later formalized by 19th century anthropologists. The purpose of such classification was to explain the origin and nature of human biological variation. The concept very much has a root in natural science. It is from this biological perspective that modern scientists argue about the applicability of race to humans. The theory that race determines cultural traits is known as racialism.
What we call race now, the three to five major races, are not the origin of the idea of race. They are actually super-races or macro classifications. In antiquity there is plenty of recognition of race, but back then race and nation were pretty much synonymous. We now use these words indiscriminately, but it's the reason that we say "brought forth a new nation" rather than "a new country". A nation is a people, a country is political boundary.
@Gulfporter Race was not synonymous with nation in antiquity. The concept of biological races is only a few centuries old and dates back to the age of exploration when Europeans encountered people of diverse cultures and physical features on different continents. The purpose of racial classification was to explain this variation and group people based on anatomy. Over the years race has been used broadly to describe a variety of characteristics leading to confusion about proper usage.
See, you're fabricating a premise, attributing it to a school of thought, and then proving it wrong to no ones satisfaction but your own. It's a tiresome tactic, even if you aren't doing it deliberately, if it's simply how you have been educated.
The construct isn't that race determines cultural traits.
@Gulfporter I recommend that you look up an article authored by the man in this video titled, "Conceptualizing Human Variation". It's an excellent summary of what race actually means, how modern science has deconstructed the race concept and proposes other concepts that can accurately be ascribed to human variation. Racialism is indeed a school of thought which proposes that race determines the mental traits and capacities of people which are deemed to be culturally significant.
Again, you're projecting a false construct. Only an idiot thinks that skin color determines IQ. And BTW, that includes idiots like black prof. Len Jefferies and black Dr. Frances Welsing. The valid construct of race is nothing more than the outward expression of endogmous cultures. Those cultures can and do vary in all sorts of measurements.
Stop polluting science with politics. Again, if negroes had the highest average IQ I sincerely doubt you would be challenging the work.
@Gulfporter The idea behind the belief that race determines intelligence and personality is that certain traits are correlated with each other so that when you find one you can predict that you will find the other. Noone said anything about claiming that skin color itself causes people to be more or less intelligent. You can believe whatever you want. The fact is that I have investigated racialist research on IQ and concluded that it is a pseudoscience. Who is at the top makes no difference.
@Gulfporter "The more closely researchers examine the human genome- the complement of genetic material encased in the heart of almost every cell in the body- the more most of them are convinced that the standard labels used to distinguish people by "race" has little or no biological meaning". New York Times
"Race is a social concept, not a scientific one" Dr. J. Craig Venter Human Genome Project
@Gulfporter The IQ gap in my opinion is due to environmental and cultural factors. Brain size can be determined by environmental factors such as; nutrition, (tested on rats). However brain size doesn't necessarily matter, rather the way in which it develops. In my opinion most blacks live in poverty, with poor education, so how would you expect their brain to develop? Blacks raised by middle-class whites don't show any significant IQ drop than whites raised by whites. But blacks raised
@Gulfporter ... poor blacks do usually have lower IQs. So cultural and environmental factors play a dominant role in children. Blacks usually have to work 4 times harder than whites (up to 10 times for black women) because, believe it or not, the "system" is prejudice. And it's safe to say poverty greatly affects crime. No "race" is superior to another. You can also blame police :)
@Gulfporter "One of the most important issues in American policing is conflict between police and racial minorities. Individuals perception that police treat similarly situated people differently has led, in part to this conflict. Previous research suggests that citizens who perceive that police officers have behaved unfairly are more likely to hold unfavourable attitudes towards them". Criminal Law Bulletin Volume 45 number 2
From the legal literature Gia E. Barboza J.D., PH.D.
you've just heard it from the only high profile Afrocentric Scholar but it's all lies to a person like you.
I don't “think” what I want to “think” ... I process the evidence before me and then I come up with a conclusion.... the thinking is the minor part because Logic often hits you in the face and demands very little thinking:)
I know it makes you feel good to think that you're Egyptian but the truth is you'd feel far better knowing who you are
You also compare it to the hunter gatherer society in Australia that had no cities or large settlements but instead lived a nomadic or semi-nomadic lifestyle that limited their development and population growth.
You heard what SOY Keita has said, if you had any sense you would open your mind and stop attacking other cultures and denying their roots because in doing so you're just tarnishing black people reputation.
It is easy for a dreamer like you to look at Modern Egyptians and see Foreigners in their land because you deluded yourself long enough to believe that Ancient Egyptians are the Modern Nigerians, Ghanaians or Senegalese west africans who represent most of your roots and therefore by your logical deduction must be the true Egyptians.
Egypt's Population in Ancient times was Larger than the whole of Arabia and Greece combined and it is still the case today because the Nile delta has always supported a large population.
You compare that with Native Americas that were devastated by disease they weren't immune to and a flood of Humans from every corner of the world!
It's you who is unable to think and put one and one together to come up with a logical conclusion
Let's now hope American Black supremacists stop their deluded dreams of being Egyptians and instead concentrate their interests on Africa where the most part of their roots comes from.
It would be nice to see them actively promoting Sub Saharan West Africa cultures instead of dreaming of being Egyptians, Moors, Carthaginians ..etc
@Wassil29 Egypt is In Africa but your right there is more to Africa than just Egypt Google Great Kings of Africa, Google Mansa Musa, Google Mansa Musa's Pilgrimage, Google Taharka, Google History of Slavery, Google Did the Moors Have White Slaves.
You are in a state of denial and criminally insane...I can't say that I feel sorry for you because I don't. I understand that being in the caves of the Caucus mountains on all fours must have been very difficult. But white history goes back only 6000 years. There was no blonde hair in Ancient Kemet. And if there showing mummies like this they are re-productions by the same liars that you have become. Sorry son, but Kemet wrote their own history for all to see and your kind were not there...
"The Colchians, Ethiopians and Egyptians have thick lips,
broad nose, woolly hair and they are burnt of skin." -- Herodotus, 450 BC
This quote and others like it are ignored by today's scientist. Those that have misled us all will be exposed. Those of us who are victims have the opportunity to right what is wrong. That is life saving. Personally I have nothing against anyone and wish only truth, justice and peace in that order.
You may think Keita is stating the obvious but don't forget the centuries of racist thinking that tried to remove Egypt culturally and biologically from the continent of Africa. This is what his research is trying to refute.
That's what I'm saying. Keita and other scholars have refuted the racist views of the past of Egypt as non-African biologically and culturally. They've proven Ancient Egypt was an African civilization.
It honestly should've never even been in doubt to begin with. Hell, the Mesopatamians and Arabs share a very close affinity to the East African populations, even the Greeks do.
@godofthisshit Just Google History of Slavery, Google Did the Moors Have White Slaves, Google Taharka, Google Great Kings of Africa, Google Queens & Kings of Africa, Google Images of Imhotep, Google Why Do Some White People Calim to Invent Everything.
Still waiting for a response from a certain individual who I (hopefully mistakingly) believe sought to cast dispersion my way because of a statement I made concerning the Amhara.
absolutely NO IDEA what you are talking about when speaking of Admixture, genetics, and migration of East Africans populations. Ethiopians or Amhara, of which anyone IN Ethiopia will tell you is NOT even a true Ethnic group. I want to see PROOF. I want to see language studies, Cultural studies, Genetic studies, peer reviewed articles, anything that proves your point.
Populations found in Ethiopia, can also be closer related to populations found in joining populations from Asia, and Europe,rather than africa, so that is why I don't call people African,asian,or european, yet just mention where the population stands by political borders.
A lot of people say this but this not really the case. ALL AFRICANS primarily carry African uniparental markers:
A, B, E - Y-DNA
L0-L3, M1 - MTDNA
This would include Ethiopians. Ethiopians have ALWAYS plotted closest to any African ethnic group in any genetic study BEFORE any non-African groups as they are Africans first and foremost.
People in the Middle East, Near East and Mediterranean plot close TO Ethiopians because THEY have admixture FROM Ethiopians. --> see E-M35 marker.
Sorry,I thought Eritrea had been placed inbetween the mediterranian and west african populations.I absolutely agree that a population was based within the continental borders of Africa, but I am speaking present day. I am sure admixture goes both ways though, and the back migrations did happen. I find that you missed the point of my statement, and that was that I don't use "race" as a term of division, because of the gradiant flow of genes.
Thats true but people make take the mixing in East African to be a big thing.
Quite frankly the ratio of the non-Africans that have mixture FROM Ethiopia and East Africa is MUCH higher and OLDER than the actual admixture that has been sampled in Ethiopia.
Yemen for instance sampled around 25-30% Haplogroup E and have African Maternal DNA in some samples that is OVER 60%!
But forget East Africans, MANY North Africans have much more admixture than Ethiopia. Mainly on the Maternal side.
This is true. Geneticist state East Africans have a subset of African diversity and Non-Africans have a subset of East African genetic diversity.
When a study shows Chinese, Europeans, Paupans, etc grouping with Ethiopians some of it is actual admixture, while some of it is ancestral genetic diversity shown in each population. Its quite obvious Ethiopians are NOT 6% Chinese and 6% Paupan and 40% Norwegian of whatever some silly study attempted to imply - It just reinforces "Out of Africa."
is it also true that any 2 people from outside africa are genetically closer together than any 2 people from africa...lets say cherokee indian and swedish vs. igbo and zulu?
Exactly - Sarah A. Tishkoff [study : The Genetic Structure and History of Africans and African Americans] Identified 14 different genetic ancestral populations in Africa that are different from each other. I am going from memory but there was another large study that showed 13/14 different wold wide genetic populations 9 of which were in Africa. So yeah with that diversity even 2 Nigerians would be more genetically distant than a swede and Indian.
THATS CRAZY....i heard the san bushmen are getting wiped out....i think theyre the key to our past, or at least thats what this documentary said because they are the first, i wonder where they came from
To add to what AfricaTeacher has said, the genetic variations in European & Asian populations are actually subsets of the variation found in the African population.
Asians & Europeans share almost the same set of variations. Nearly all the variations found in Asians & Europeans are also found in Africans. However Africans also possess many variations that are not found outside of Africa.
Yes you're right, people have lived in Africa much longer than anywhere else, this allowed the African population to accumulate more of the small genetic mutations which make up our genetic variation.
Because only part of the African population migrated out of Africa toward Asia and Europe, only part of Africa's genetic variation moved with them. Much additional variation remained in Africa.
when are you people gong to get over the fact that modern day Ethiopians are not indigenous to the continent of Africa...the emmigrated from across the Red Sea in the first century AD. Very few of the original inhabitants are left there.....they migrated further West and South.....stop discussing the racial variants in Ethiopians THEY ARE NOT INDIGENOUS to the mainland of the continent...particularly the Amhara....they are a miscegenated peples mixed with Greek, Bulgarians and the Seba (Blacks)
When are you going to read comments before saying crap like "when are you people going to get over the fact that modern day Ethiopians..."
Read my comment, Mr. Jump to conclusions. I mentioned back migrations, so would that not just hint a little bit(sarcasm) that I am already aware of the back flow of haplogroups which bordered around the horn of africa.Also Who is talking about racial variance, when I don't see "race" as a valid term?
By your logic we are all indiginous to Africa, if we take the "out of Africa" theory into perspective. We as humans started from North Africa and migrated out and then back again, so what makes the people any less indiginous, mutations?
You also forgot to mention the back migration which happened over 20,000 years ago from haplogroup M.Oh and what about migrations that happened within the political borders of africa? People from North Africa that live in South Africa,are seen as immigrants.
is your name (know it all), suppose to be ironic. because you are grossly flat out wrong on the issue of Ethiopians in Africa. Don't you know that the people of Northeast Africa of which over 70 percent of Ethiopians (excluding the Amharic) are indigenous. The Oromo, Somali, Beja, Omotic, including people in Tanzania, are the people we call Cushites. They never left this region of Africa. Their basic Y chromosome is E3b, many having A
He knows NOTHING thats why. And you are correct but we cannot even exclude the Amhara becausae they are indigenous too. There is only ONE study of them that shows such foreign admixture but even then it is still out weighed by their Africa genetic input.
SURE they absorbed some foriegners - But NOT more than North Africans or the South African Cape.
And even then the Amhara STILL have very old and RARE Genetic markers such as E-M215* E-M35* E-P75, E-M75, P2* Haplogroup A etc. They are African
Let me say this....my last 3 relationships were with Amharic women and though they never said so explicitly it was intimated to me that they do not consider themselves to be 'black'.....they consider themselves to be 'African'. I was curious about the distintion which I myself thought foolish,and so I decided to research,as always. The infantile remarks made in reference to my assertion,is just that....infantile and inaccurate. I earned my name. As I will proceed to do so,upon your resonse.
in addition, were did you get this information that amharic are mixed with Bulgarians..were in Southern Arabia did this happen, and were is the genetic proof, are you saying Arabs are mixed with Greek and Bulgarian also. You say they are a miscegenated people mixed with Seba, no Mr. know it all, they and the people of Southern Arabia (lets use the name Seba), are the same genetic cultural people.
Again...the Cushites are the original people of Northeast Africa, this is like Basic Africa 101
Strong suggestion....reserve the name calling; 1) I never make a statement without knowing what I'm talking about....and two other extenuating circumstances not mentioned in my initial statement would make my statement seem reasonable even if 'incorrect'.
I like when dummies say things such as this. Its like they cant count. They dont understand how 1 comes before 2 which comes before 3. Or how A comes before B and then comes 'C'.
Now if :
-Ethiopians carry E1b1b
-Greeks / Bulgarians E1b1b1a2
How the hell do Africans with OLDER Genetic markers come FROM Greeks and Bulgarians who have YOUNGER Genetic mutations of the SAME MARKER!?
E1b1b1a2 comes FROM E1b1b which comes FROM E1b1 - WHICH IS ONLY FOUND IN ETHIOPIA AND OTHER AFRICANS DUMMY!
Actually your right, saying Ethiopians are not indigenous Africans is like saying African Americans who go back to Africa with the E3a genes of their ancestors are no longer genetically Africans because they were in America for 500 years.
It has been shown that the Tigryina and parts of Amhara came (back migration) into Africa from Saba (Southern Arabia), but that is actually just like the distance from Philadelphia to Washington D.C.
Or better yet its as if ALL African Americans migrate back to lets say Senegal and 1 to 3 THOUSAND YEARS LATER - in 5009 AD Someone is saying that "Senegalese" are NOT indigenous and they originally come form America...............All based on minor BACK migration that happend 1-3000 years ago.
Ur rational is appreciated & actually one that I prefer to suscribe 2 myself but 1) your tone in repudiating my remark was highly disrespectful particularly when aimed at a comrade;& 2) I still haven't been guaranteed my public apology in the event my immanent posts substatiate my assertion.The fact is I prefer 2 b wrong in some cases particularly if it adds 2 our unity as a people but if my research or my misinterpretation of my very accurate research proffers up another padigm then so be it.
Sure, i will apologize. AND explain WHY I was wrong and you were correct and Ethiopians are non indigenous. You DO understand that the evidence submitted by BOTH of us as "proof" is behond the "500 word count" right?
I was giving an example to someone else that say they were not indigenous. That person had said so because of the small amount of foreign admixture found in Ethiopia. I have been to Ethiopia a few times. Saying they are NOT indigenous is a laughable fairy tale. In Ethiopia there are NO Arabs/persons/turks or white people that call themselves "Ethiopians" this is much different from North Africa, Sudan and Egypt. Ethiopia HAS and IS 100% Indigenous Black African without a doubt.
and the name is 'knowitallification'. Don't disrespect it again....now.....am I guranteed my public apology....since you sought to humiliate and disrespect me in public on this page...Albeit....if you step into the ring one should be prepared to get knocked the f*ck out.....now...is my public apology guranteed? Or are you researching (smile)?
Good point, laying out the expansion of the E3b from Africans to Europeans. I didn't think to spell it out for these guy. But Africans as Herodotus explained, colonized and essentially founded ancient Greece, who thereafter included Bulgaria as part of the Greek and Byzantine empire.
The Greek/Byzantine gene is the younger version, so yes like you said, if you can count from 1 to 10, then it should not be that hard to understand
FYI to be caucasian doesn't mean you are white. It is used as a term for saying the region people come from. People can come from N.Africa, Europe, spain, & other places thats all it means. Not skin color. So if they say there caucasians ok fine then so what that doesn't mean their white LMAO, your just saying they come from N.Africa or some other region. besides the egyptians already said where they come from in the papyrus of hunifur
1807, from Caucasus Mountains, between the Black and Caspian seas; applied to the "white" race 1795 (in Ger.) by Ger. anthropologist Johann Blumenbach, because their supposed ancestral homeland lay there
They dont even use this in this reference anymore. I understand where you are coming from with this tho trust me lol.
According to dictionary:
Anthropology. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of one of the traditional racial divisions of humankind, marked by fair to dark skin, straight to tightly curled hair, and light to very dark eyes, and originally inhabiting Europe, parts of North Africa, western Asia, and India: no longer in technical use
O.E. fæger "beautiful, pleasant," from P.Gmc. *fagraz (cf. O.N. fagr, O.H.G. fagar "beautiful," Goth. fagrs "fit"), from PIE *fag-. The meaning in ref. to weather (c.1205) preserves the original sense (opposed to foul)
Fair does not mean white. Every country in the world still uses the term caucaisan as denoting white people, this is the area where the Khazars migrated to from Russian. People are named after land they inhabit originally.
Caucasians (as in whites) do not come from the Caucasus Mountains. It was only an assumption of the german guy. We dont really know where whites originated. But we do know the indo-european branch of the whites originated somewhere in the north region of the Black Sea (the Kurgan hypothesis).
The term caucasian is preety obsolete since the white race has the biggest diversity in skin colour and facial features, depending on every region.
You are correct we dont know where whites orignated from, well actually we do & we also know exactly when they came about looking the way they do currently. But yea I agree with you caucasian is pretty obsolete, all it means is what region you come from. There is no caucasian race.
And where did you get that the white race has the biggest diversity in skin cokor & facial features? No they dont, that achievement belongs to the africans my friend. We come in all shades of color & hair length
Obviously we are all related distantly with africans, so it's an african continent acheivement (but not black bantu if that's what you understand by african).
"Whites": pre-indo-europeans (basques?), indo-europeans, mediteranneans, nordics, central, western and eastern europeans, latin, germanic, slav, iranic, turanians, etc all have differences of skin colour and minor differences in facial features. Also we whites have inbreed with everyone from mongoloids to blacks, that's why it's diverse.
White people aren't diverse tho, they have recessive genes. And they are the last race to come about. First was negroid, then mongoloids, then came white people. I mean anthropologists have already proven this, they also have proven how long whites have exactly been around to date
Not true actually, I have the whole article from the unoted states anthropologists association whom have actually verified with other anthropologists around the world the wht white race is no older then 6-12,000yrs old. They even go into detail about what exactly caused the change & the difference between the white race compared to both asians & negroes
Well the oldest Homo Sapiens fossil in Europe was discovered in my country, dated to about 35-37000 years ago. It had mostly african features but it did also had signs of change due to the climate.
So I wouldnt give any date. We dont really know if it happened 6-12000 years ago. If people lived in Europe 20000 years before that date, at least the pigmentation should have already been changed before 15000 BC, if not even the facial features.
Actually the article can be found on wikipedia,I think its under"white people", its possible that the skin lightening mutation started about 20,000-50,000 years ago.I think Nuby was talking about the Jablonski and Chaplin's (2000) study, The evolution of human skin coloration. SLC24A5 gene deals with the palest of "white"skin that we see in Europe today.Still the changing of a phenotype does not mark the beggining of a"race", which is just one more arbitrary factor of trying to divide by "race."
Ah I understand that. If the study was made in 2000, then they didn't know of the Pestera cu Oase (Cave of Bones) discoveries made in 2002-2005.
The "whites" have different skin tones depending on region. Maybe the palest of skin tone did originate somwhere 12000 years ago, in northern europe, since it was one of the last populated regions in Europe after the glaciation retreated.
"The "whites" have different skin tones depending on region. "
Yes that is right, and skin tones have mutated seperately in all given populations.
Now about the (cave of bones), I am leary on this study because it hints that humans and neanderthal mixed, yet the census today 2009, tells us they have not.
No. It says that there is a possibility that they could have mixed. It does not give a definitive answer and it's only a supposition. I personally too belive they didnt mix or if they did it was rare.
But the cave of bones case is good because it offers us info on the oldest europeans.
Actually, Professor Paabo, from the Max Planck Institute, has started to determine that the Y chromosome is much different than humans Y chromosome, and of course with science their is only theory, yet like I said "the census" today, is that scientists are leaning away from the possibility, because so far the evidence supporting a connection, does not exist, and the evidence that does exist, is stating otherwise. Also check out, the recent articles of National Geo,on Neanderthal dna for sources.
You mean like the article from last year in October 2008, where it said the neanderthal had the MC1R gene which said they had red hair, freckles, & pale skin
Ya ya, mc1r and you forgot the foxp2 gene, yet both just mean that when humans and neaderthal shared a common ancestor about400,000 years ago. It does not mean they themselves were procreating with each other 37,000 years ago. Also the mc1r gene is used differently in neanderthals than for humans.
But humans are only dated at being 250,000 yrs old at the oldest, I personally believe we are older then that but that is what anthropologists claim. So how could both humans & neanderthals have a common ancestor about 400,000 yrs ago?
I said 400,000 thousand as a rough estimate, which is considered the latest, where studies have even said 660,000 years give or take 140,000 years. I also thought modern humans appeared 200,000 years ago, not 250,000. Besides the point, you can not let your personal beliefs dictate the actual truth in the matter. Why is it so hard to undertsand the possibilty in sharing a common ancestor?Are you saying there was not enough time for a large enough difference, to hinder procreation?
" the wht white race is no older then 6-12,000yrs old."
1) 50% of todays anthropologists and geneticists, don't even think "race" is a valid concept.
2) Just because one phenotype mutates, does not mark the beggining of a supposed "race" or what is considered a race by racialist scientists.
3) Today many anthropologists are questioning the ability for our genes to switch back and forth over "time"(time being an operative word.)Depending on what environmental factors are involved.
I mean this is all fine & dandy, but they have no other way to justify race colors. besides they already pinpointed the gene that caused white people to look the way they do while africans & asians have the same genes & allele. white people also have a different allele
Yes I am aware of the scl24a5 gene it is one of 100's of genes that deal with skin colour, yet it is not "the"one and only gene for skin colour. So a gene that deals with skin colour is the same between populations found in Asia, and populations found in Africa, what is your point?Your also misinterpreting the article you mentioned to substantiate your claim on humans and Neanderthal being mixed,because I asked you to google the article that explains otherwise.
Actually I wasnt using it to substantiate a claim on humans and Neanderthal being mixed, I used it to show how long europeans as we know them have been around. And since your a know it all dont take it up with me, tell it to the anthropologists who came up the article & came up with this information
If you were not trying to make that claim, then why did you mention the mc1r gene,freckles and red hair, in the first place?I mean, sorry if I assumed but you can understand why? Also you said the "white race began 6-12,000 years ago", and my question still stands valid and unanswered. Why mark the beginning of a "race" simply by a skin type phenotype, by that logic why don't we mark the beginning of "race" with every mutating phenotype, and not just skin colour?
Oh ok I misread you then, I thought you were saying I was linking humans together with neanderthals off of the SLC gene, my bad. Ok then you are correct I was linking humans together off of the MC1R gene because that is what the same scientist were trying to say. I mean dont you find it funny that the MC1R gene is what is responsible for giving them freckles, pale skin, & freckles. Who else matches that description? Even if other humans have the same gene it doesn't give those specifications
It is interesting that all humans share some dna with neanderthal, yet not suprising seeing how Neanderthal and homo sapien sapien were once connected to the same root.
Please check the article I mentioned from oct2009 by Dr.Barry Starr. He explains that they are genes that may have the same coding as all humans, yet these genes worked differently in Neanderthal.We also have to remember that genes can be dormant, like the "werewolf" gene, which is also found in all humans.
And yes I did say the white race is only 6-12,000yrs old because this is what the american association of anthroplogists said in 2007. I bring this up because this puts a big question mark on DNA, specifically eurasian DNA. If the white people are only that old then that means europeans as we know them aren't that old. Unless you wanna say the africans who left africa in the first place are europeans!!! but they couldnt be that. And I also agree with u on every mutating phenotype, we should!!!
I wasn't questioning the source of your data, yet just the arbitrary factor of division among humans. For instance,populations found in europe had darker skin at one point, and then a mutation happened in the gene SCL24A5. They are still the same population that was there before, yet with a mutated gene. This is why I prefer not to classify people by colours or phenotypes, for they do not coincide with racial taxonomy.
Its called the papyrus of hunifur, its in a museum in london. Dr.Ben spoke of it when he saw it in the museum. Now if your asking where can you find it written word for word on the internet, IDK. Never really looked for it on the internet
If you go through the video response above you will see how Dr.Keita words his presentation. I like what he has to say. Your right about the arabs. Yet haplogroup U6 if truely from Asia, was then a back migration before ancient Egypt, making the beginnings of Egypt a heterogenous population.
I was talking to someone on another video and he has corresponded with Dr.Keita, and Keita said that the phenotype for lighter skin may have been there aswell. My guess is the population was predominantly dark skin. Yet skin colour is just one part of phenotypes. There is still the question remaining about haplogroup U6 and a small frequency of U5 found in Northern and eastern Africa. Y haplogroup J is about 25,000 to 30,000 bp and has a place of origin of southwest asia.
Judging by your attitude and outdated sources, I can see you are Invasion2012, under a different forum name.
Since your too bullheaded to have a proper debate and don't want to accept a valid challenge, it pretty much means you lose the "debate"(arguement) by forfeit.
I told you that I do not believe in 2012 invasion, and based on what the Egypt wrote in their papyrus stating they came from the beginning of the Nile which is in Uganda... There is no need for me to listen to any video. Why not go right to the source and read the many papyrus written by the Egyptains themselves.....
Oh I just found that Y haplogroup J and some of its subclades can be found in north Africa aswell. You think you have the source yet its an outdated source where even the Papyras's you speak of are outdated and shows that even the Egyptians had myths of origin.
The Egyptian Papyrus are historical documents that speak of a place of origins that is written by their own hands stating their point of origins is from the beginning of the Nile which is in Uganda.
Comment removed
BonusCivis 2 months ago
"In terms of physical diversity, It can be imagined that the modern diversity to be found in Egypt. In terms of cranial facial features, skin color what have you! Would likely to have been very similar to that found in the past."
S.O.Y Keita
Anyone who like to hear it from the horse’s mouth can do so by watching
Shomarka Omar Keita: What Genetics Can Tell Us (EGYPT)
On youtube
Bulllseye2012 1 year ago
So long story short it was the white race. But lets just over look that. What the hell? Race is a big deal. To know where thes ppl came from. And just over looking it is crazy.
jackfire55 1 year ago
@jackfire55 did you even bother watching the video? lol
keepitmovingish 4 months ago
@Gulfporter archimedes was credited by eurocentrists for the invention of the screw , but then the screw had been in use at least 1000 years before archimedes's parent had intercourse . yet you all told bold faced lies to the world . suck on that one!
thenewbreed2 1 year ago
@thenewbreed2
Archimedes is not credited with inventing the screw. He is credited with inventing a pump that uses a screw. Where do you get all this inferiority complex pumped into your heads? Are they teaching you this kind of crap in black schools?
Gulfporter 1 year ago
@Gulfporter you suck at debates , simply because you don't know when to accept defeat . google archimedes screw and come back to tell me about that pump with a straight face .fucking moron !
thenewbreed2 1 year ago
@thenewbreed2
I just googled "archimedes screw" and the very first result is the Wiki article about the SCREWPUMP that Archimedes is credited with designing. Not the screw itself, but the screw pump. The screw is a simple machine, and no one is credited with inventing the simple machines. The simple machines predate recorded history. Archimedes is credited with studying, understanding, explaining, and employing the simple machines. He is not credited with inventing any of them.
Gulfporter 1 year ago
@Gulfporter no , you did a lazy job . all through that artcile it was constantly referred to as "archimedes's screw" yet you are saying it wasn't credited to him . he copied it from egypt but took the glory for it , just like plato ,arisitotle,thales,socrates , e.t.c all learnt from the egyptians but then went on to claim all they learnt for themselves .
whether it was a pump or a screw , fact is it was already in use at atleast 950BCE archimedes's white ass was not born until at least 270BCE .
thenewbreed2 1 year ago
@thenewbreed2
See, this is why we don't like to engage you. You really aren't very intelligent. Archimedes Screw is what they call his pump. It doesn't mean he invented the screw, or that they are claiming he did. Your original claim was that the screw was invented long before he was born, and you were correct, but now you are claiming the screwpump is synonymous with the screw and that's simply not the case. Enough of you, the Bell Curve was right and you aren't worth the effort.
Gulfporter 1 year ago
@Gulfporter The Bell Curve is garbage. Racism is stupid.
MysticNinjaJay 1 year ago
@thenewbreed2 you are foolish . the nubians don't speak english so they would not have been able to label whatever they put in their beer as "tetracycline". they would have had a name for it in their own language . benjamin duggar was the first to describe it , not the first to prepare it . it has always been present .
thenewbreed2 1 year ago
@thenewbreed2
"yet we know that nubian mummies had high levels of tetracycline "
This technique of the afrocentrists is tires. You start off with a lie or a misrepresentation and then act like you have found and revealed the truth. Benjamin Duggar (whose race is unknown to me) is credited with isolating and identifying or discovering tetracycline, not inventing it. The nubians did not isolate or identify it, because they didn't have the knowledge and tech to do that.
Gulfporter 1 year ago
@Gulfporter you know what's funny here , the fact that you ignore the fact that tetracycline was discovered in those mummies . how do you know that they didn't have a method of identifying this drug . what was the word that they used to describe what you are calling tetracyline ?
thenewbreed2 1 year ago
@Gulfporter yes you built machine guns , atomic bombs , what has this done to the lives of millions of people . if we look at it , you guys have invented the most destructive materials ever , there is always a major downside to most of your inventions .over 70% of the rainforests in gone because you guys are so smart .
thenewbreed2 1 year ago
@thenewbreed2
You can use a tractor to kill people if you want to. As for rainforests, Pacific Islanders and South American Indians were doing a pretty good job on the forests all by themselves. They clear land for cultivation by burning. You also can't claim ancient African culture as negro without being responsible for the desertification of a good deal of Africa. But you keep on blaming white people, it really doesn't matter.
Gulfporter 1 year ago
It seems like a lot of black Americans have a deep emotional need to latch onto a history which would put them in the position of being slave masters rather than slaves.
Well, assholes, that's what we've been telling you for decades: Get off the cross, because every culture has been enslaved at one time or another. But it's still a little sad that a people who whine endlessly about their ancestors being enslaved try to latch onto ancient aristocracies which held slaves.
Gulfporter 1 year ago
@Gulfporter This is a silly comment. Why would African-Americans want to identify with slave masters? I don't think you know much about Ancient Egyptian history. They did not have a slave based economy. That idea was promoted by the Bible and has been discredited by mainstream Egyptology. The people you see in chains in the paintings were mainly prisoners of war. Slavery was not prominent in Egypt. Black American interest in African culture is perfectly sensible. We see Africa as our heritage.
MysticNinjaJay 1 year ago
@MysticNinjaJay
I hear this "different kind of slavery" crap a lot, from Mexicans. Why? Because it fucks with their idea of their ancestors as living some kind of idyllic like before evil white people came along. GET REAL. You'll notice that the Orientals aren't out there saying, "Well, but ,, um our slavery was different."
So those guys were prisoners of war? What the fuck do you think Rome's slaves were? Go on back to your fantasy. You're all kings and queens, all Africans were. LOL.
Gulfporter 1 year ago
@Gulfporter In case you didn't know a Prisoner of War is not necessarily a slave. I'm not defending any form of slavery or any culture that had slaves. I am saying that the Ancient Egyptians did not have a system of chattel slavery. Slaves made up a very small percentage of the population and workforce. People weren't enslaved for generations and rarely all of their lives. Your portrayal of Egypt as a state reliant on slavery is not factual. I deal with facts not myths. Go get an education.
MysticNinjaJay 1 year ago
@MysticNinjaJay
You want to define slavery as a singular brutal system because it fits with your self image as World's Biggest Victim Class. But then you describe "different kind of slavery" which is nothing more than part of the definition of slavery. What you are afraid of is taking the evil out of slavery, and dealing with it objectively as a division of labor and class, which it was. Just as there were different models of slavery in the US so there were elsewhere. They were still slaves.
Gulfporter 1 year ago
@Gulfporter First of all I just explained to you the nature and limit of slavery in Ancient Egypt which you obviously were not aware of beforehand. Don't try to tell me what I think. My knowledge of this subject is far beyond your own. It makes no difference to most Black people educated on the subject that Ancient Egyptians had some slaves. Slavery was practiced everywhere in different forms. That doesn't make it any less immoral. We identify with their achievement not oppression of others.
MysticNinjaJay 1 year ago
Saying "race doesn't exist" is ridiculous, regardless of how popular this particular meme is on college campuses at the moment. Moreover, racial classifications are not based solely on the exterior characteristics, and when you consider that they 18th/19th century scientists didn't have DNA to work with, they did a damned good job of classification. Despite the effort of some today to narrow caucasian to Germanic/Celt/Norse, the caucasian classification does include some dark skinned people.
Gulfporter 1 year ago
@Gulfporter The Caucasian classification is garbage. Look at the origin of the word. It was coined by Blumenbach based on the idea that the Caucasus region was the birthplace of mankind because Blumebach was of the opinion that the people of the area were the most beautiful race of men. His idea was that Whites represented humans in their purest form and that other races deviated from the Caucasian ideal. Ofcourse we know today that humans started in Africa and morphology doesn't denote lineage.
MysticNinjaJay 1 year ago 3
@MysticNinjaJay
"The Caucasian classification is garbage. Look at the origin of the word. "
William F Buckley wisely said (circa 1980) that Political Correctness was a corruption of discourse, that if allowed to continue it would reduce every debate to an argument over terminology. The Caucasian classification is no more garbage than any of the major races; they all represent a broad collection of ethnicities. Corrupt is trying to broaden one while narrowing another for political purposes.
Gulfporter 1 year ago
@Gulfporter I'm not making an argument over terminology but rather explaining the fact that the term at its root is not scientific. There's no scientific basis for Caucasian or any racial label as the concept of biological races has been debunked by modern scientists. Racists hold on to this outdated concept for political reasons.
MysticNinjaJay 1 year ago 5
@MysticNinjaJay
I am aware of the current effort to declare that race does not exist. Part of that effort is to falsely accuse racial classification of being something that it is not, ie based solely in biology. It has NEVER been based solely in biology. The biological aspect of race is that culture is preserved and expressed along with physical traits in a tribal structure. Does that mean that a negro adopted in Sweden won't have Swedish culture? No
Gulfporter 1 year ago
@Gulfporter
Race itself is nothing more than a classification system. People want to tear it down because they object to how it can be used. But people will sort and be sorted one way or another. Of course the hilarious thing is black people who declare that race doesn't exist, but all day long they decide who is black and who isn't. If I go to Walmart and say "Thank you my nigga." to the cashier, you can believe she is going to decide that I am not negro.
Gulfporter 1 year ago
@Gulfporter Are you implying that the cashier at Walmart is one of the Blacks who maintains that there are no biological races? Don't be silly. The average person in the real world believes in races and very few of them are familiar with scientific arguments about the applicability of race. The no biological race position does not maintain that racism does not exist nor will it prevent people from judging others based on skin color or ethnicity.
MysticNinjaJay 1 year ago
@Gulfporter Racial classification was conceived by 17th and 18th century naturalists and later formalized by 19th century anthropologists. The purpose of such classification was to explain the origin and nature of human biological variation. The concept very much has a root in natural science. It is from this biological perspective that modern scientists argue about the applicability of race to humans. The theory that race determines cultural traits is known as racialism.
MysticNinjaJay 1 year ago
@MysticNinjaJay
What we call race now, the three to five major races, are not the origin of the idea of race. They are actually super-races or macro classifications. In antiquity there is plenty of recognition of race, but back then race and nation were pretty much synonymous. We now use these words indiscriminately, but it's the reason that we say "brought forth a new nation" rather than "a new country". A nation is a people, a country is political boundary.
Gulfporter 1 year ago
@Gulfporter Race was not synonymous with nation in antiquity. The concept of biological races is only a few centuries old and dates back to the age of exploration when Europeans encountered people of diverse cultures and physical features on different continents. The purpose of racial classification was to explain this variation and group people based on anatomy. Over the years race has been used broadly to describe a variety of characteristics leading to confusion about proper usage.
MysticNinjaJay 1 year ago
@MysticNinjaJay
See, you're fabricating a premise, attributing it to a school of thought, and then proving it wrong to no ones satisfaction but your own. It's a tiresome tactic, even if you aren't doing it deliberately, if it's simply how you have been educated.
The construct isn't that race determines cultural traits.
Gulfporter 1 year ago
@Gulfporter I recommend that you look up an article authored by the man in this video titled, "Conceptualizing Human Variation". It's an excellent summary of what race actually means, how modern science has deconstructed the race concept and proposes other concepts that can accurately be ascribed to human variation. Racialism is indeed a school of thought which proposes that race determines the mental traits and capacities of people which are deemed to be culturally significant.
MysticNinjaJay 1 year ago 5
@MysticNinjaJay
Again, you're projecting a false construct. Only an idiot thinks that skin color determines IQ. And BTW, that includes idiots like black prof. Len Jefferies and black Dr. Frances Welsing. The valid construct of race is nothing more than the outward expression of endogmous cultures. Those cultures can and do vary in all sorts of measurements.
Stop polluting science with politics. Again, if negroes had the highest average IQ I sincerely doubt you would be challenging the work.
Gulfporter 1 year ago
@Gulfporter The idea behind the belief that race determines intelligence and personality is that certain traits are correlated with each other so that when you find one you can predict that you will find the other. Noone said anything about claiming that skin color itself causes people to be more or less intelligent. You can believe whatever you want. The fact is that I have investigated racialist research on IQ and concluded that it is a pseudoscience. Who is at the top makes no difference.
MysticNinjaJay 1 year ago
@Gulfporter I think we can have a productive discussion if you answer this question. Why are you on this video? What about it interests you?
MysticNinjaJay 1 year ago
@Gulfporter "The more closely researchers examine the human genome- the complement of genetic material encased in the heart of almost every cell in the body- the more most of them are convinced that the standard labels used to distinguish people by "race" has little or no biological meaning". New York Times
"Race is a social concept, not a scientific one" Dr. J. Craig Venter Human Genome Project
zoobalac 1 year ago
@Gulfporter The IQ gap in my opinion is due to environmental and cultural factors. Brain size can be determined by environmental factors such as; nutrition, (tested on rats). However brain size doesn't necessarily matter, rather the way in which it develops. In my opinion most blacks live in poverty, with poor education, so how would you expect their brain to develop? Blacks raised by middle-class whites don't show any significant IQ drop than whites raised by whites. But blacks raised
zoobalac 1 year ago
@Gulfporter ... poor blacks do usually have lower IQs. So cultural and environmental factors play a dominant role in children. Blacks usually have to work 4 times harder than whites (up to 10 times for black women) because, believe it or not, the "system" is prejudice. And it's safe to say poverty greatly affects crime. No "race" is superior to another. You can also blame police :)
zoobalac 1 year ago
@Gulfporter "One of the most important issues in American policing is conflict between police and racial minorities. Individuals perception that police treat similarly situated people differently has led, in part to this conflict. Previous research suggests that citizens who perceive that police officers have behaved unfairly are more likely to hold unfavourable attitudes towards them". Criminal Law Bulletin Volume 45 number 2
From the legal literature Gia E. Barboza J.D., PH.D.
zoobalac 1 year ago
@Gulfporter So don't blame blacks blame the "system" for being so racist.
zoobalac 1 year ago
@Gulfporter
Why would the caucasian classification be any more garbage than Mongoloid or Negroid?
Gulfporter 1 year ago
@Gulfporter They're all garbage....You specifically mentioned Caucasian so I said it was garbage.
MysticNinjaJay 1 year ago
Excellent work, I would expect no less from you!
Belcher in Atlanta
Hotep!
Lugarurmsr 1 year ago
@FulMetaJakit
you've just heard it from the only high profile Afrocentric Scholar but it's all lies to a person like you.
I don't “think” what I want to “think” ... I process the evidence before me and then I come up with a conclusion.... the thinking is the minor part because Logic often hits you in the face and demands very little thinking:)
I know it makes you feel good to think that you're Egyptian but the truth is you'd feel far better knowing who you are
Wassil29 1 year ago
@FulMetaJakit
You also compare it to the hunter gatherer society in Australia that had no cities or large settlements but instead lived a nomadic or semi-nomadic lifestyle that limited their development and population growth.
You heard what SOY Keita has said, if you had any sense you would open your mind and stop attacking other cultures and denying their roots because in doing so you're just tarnishing black people reputation.
Wassil29 1 year ago
@FulMetaJakit
It is easy for a dreamer like you to look at Modern Egyptians and see Foreigners in their land because you deluded yourself long enough to believe that Ancient Egyptians are the Modern Nigerians, Ghanaians or Senegalese west africans who represent most of your roots and therefore by your logical deduction must be the true Egyptians.
Wassil29 1 year ago
@FulMetaJakit
Did you even bother to read what I have said?
Egypt's Population in Ancient times was Larger than the whole of Arabia and Greece combined and it is still the case today because the Nile delta has always supported a large population.
You compare that with Native Americas that were devastated by disease they weren't immune to and a flood of Humans from every corner of the world!
It's you who is unable to think and put one and one together to come up with a logical conclusion
Wassil29 1 year ago
Comment removed
Wassil29 1 year ago
cont
Let's now hope American Black supremacists stop their deluded dreams of being Egyptians and instead concentrate their interests on Africa where the most part of their roots comes from.
It would be nice to see them actively promoting Sub Saharan West Africa cultures instead of dreaming of being Egyptians, Moors, Carthaginians ..etc
Wassil29 1 year ago
@Wassil29
who cares about those other culture that you mention. They are really nothing.
Dramactica 1 year ago
@Wassil29 Egypt is In Africa but your right there is more to Africa than just Egypt Google Great Kings of Africa, Google Mansa Musa, Google Mansa Musa's Pilgrimage, Google Taharka, Google History of Slavery, Google Did the Moors Have White Slaves.
cgreenartpro1 1 year ago
you people are still arguing race .and i quote " 2:37-3:49"
Humanity1231 1 year ago
You are in a state of denial and criminally insane...I can't say that I feel sorry for you because I don't. I understand that being in the caves of the Caucus mountains on all fours must have been very difficult. But white history goes back only 6000 years. There was no blonde hair in Ancient Kemet. And if there showing mummies like this they are re-productions by the same liars that you have become. Sorry son, but Kemet wrote their own history for all to see and your kind were not there...
blacklifemedia 2 years ago
"The Colchians, Ethiopians and Egyptians have thick lips,
broad nose, woolly hair and they are burnt of skin." -- Herodotus, 450 BC
This quote and others like it are ignored by today's scientist. Those that have misled us all will be exposed. Those of us who are victims have the opportunity to right what is wrong. That is life saving. Personally I have nothing against anyone and wish only truth, justice and peace in that order.
blacklifemedia 2 years ago
Egyptians, not a particular race? Egyptians, an African civilization? As if they haven't echoed this for 5,000 years?
Say it ain't so!
EgyptianPlanet 2 years ago
You may think Keita is stating the obvious but don't forget the centuries of racist thinking that tried to remove Egypt culturally and biologically from the continent of Africa. This is what his research is trying to refute.
MysticNinjaJay 2 years ago
It hasn't refuted it, its already proven it.
EgyptianPlanet 2 years ago
Already proven what?
MysticNinjaJay 2 years ago
Egypt is of African origin.
EgyptianPlanet 2 years ago 2
That's what I'm saying. Keita and other scholars have refuted the racist views of the past of Egypt as non-African biologically and culturally. They've proven Ancient Egypt was an African civilization.
MysticNinjaJay 2 years ago
It honestly should've never even been in doubt to begin with. Hell, the Mesopatamians and Arabs share a very close affinity to the East African populations, even the Greeks do.
EgyptianPlanet 2 years ago
*into those regions not into the country
MysticNinjaJay 2 years ago
@MysticNinjaJay
Egypt is very action, but most blacks in the Americas and europe are from West Africa NOT egypt.
godofthisshit 1 year ago
@godofthisshit Just Google History of Slavery, Google Did the Moors Have White Slaves, Google Taharka, Google Great Kings of Africa, Google Queens & Kings of Africa, Google Images of Imhotep, Google Why Do Some White People Calim to Invent Everything.
cgreenartpro1 1 year ago
@cgreenartpro1
What's the point of Moors having white slaves, is that a great thing?
I know who Taharqa is. How about your google the great kings of West Africa.
Didn't know Imhotep took pictures. Was it on a iphone or a powershot?
White people did not invent everything. That's pretty well established. Asia has produced the most inventions.
godofthisshit 1 year ago
Still waiting for a response from a certain individual who I (hopefully mistakingly) believe sought to cast dispersion my way because of a statement I made concerning the Amhara.
knowitallification 2 years ago
Yeah that was me. I feel that you have
absolutely NO IDEA what you are talking about when speaking of Admixture, genetics, and migration of East Africans populations. Ethiopians or Amhara, of which anyone IN Ethiopia will tell you is NOT even a true Ethnic group. I want to see PROOF. I want to see language studies, Cultural studies, Genetic studies, peer reviewed articles, anything that proves your point.
AfricaTeacher 2 years ago
not a prob...and then I expect a public apology.
knowitallification 2 years ago
Populations found in Ethiopia, can also be closer related to populations found in joining populations from Asia, and Europe,rather than africa, so that is why I don't call people African,asian,or european, yet just mention where the population stands by political borders.
LIONOFTHEBRAVE 2 years ago
A lot of people say this but this not really the case. ALL AFRICANS primarily carry African uniparental markers:
A, B, E - Y-DNA
L0-L3, M1 - MTDNA
This would include Ethiopians. Ethiopians have ALWAYS plotted closest to any African ethnic group in any genetic study BEFORE any non-African groups as they are Africans first and foremost.
People in the Middle East, Near East and Mediterranean plot close TO Ethiopians because THEY have admixture FROM Ethiopians. --> see E-M35 marker.
AfricaTeacher 2 years ago 7
Sorry,I thought Eritrea had been placed inbetween the mediterranian and west african populations.I absolutely agree that a population was based within the continental borders of Africa, but I am speaking present day. I am sure admixture goes both ways though, and the back migrations did happen. I find that you missed the point of my statement, and that was that I don't use "race" as a term of division, because of the gradiant flow of genes.
LIONOFTHEBRAVE 2 years ago
west asians also migrated into ethiopia and mixed, there were thousands of years of trade and mixing between yemen and east africa
firemarshall007 2 years ago
Thats true but people make take the mixing in East African to be a big thing.
Quite frankly the ratio of the non-Africans that have mixture FROM Ethiopia and East Africa is MUCH higher and OLDER than the actual admixture that has been sampled in Ethiopia.
Yemen for instance sampled around 25-30% Haplogroup E and have African Maternal DNA in some samples that is OVER 60%!
But forget East Africans, MANY North Africans have much more admixture than Ethiopia. Mainly on the Maternal side.
AfricaTeacher 2 years ago
i heard that 2 ethiopians migrated out of east africa and populated the whole world...is that true?
firemarshall007 2 years ago
This is true. Geneticist state East Africans have a subset of African diversity and Non-Africans have a subset of East African genetic diversity.
When a study shows Chinese, Europeans, Paupans, etc grouping with Ethiopians some of it is actual admixture, while some of it is ancestral genetic diversity shown in each population. Its quite obvious Ethiopians are NOT 6% Chinese and 6% Paupan and 40% Norwegian of whatever some silly study attempted to imply - It just reinforces "Out of Africa."
AfricaTeacher 2 years ago 4
is it also true that any 2 people from outside africa are genetically closer together than any 2 people from africa...lets say cherokee indian and swedish vs. igbo and zulu?
firemarshall007 2 years ago
Exactly - Sarah A. Tishkoff [study : The Genetic Structure and History of Africans and African Americans] Identified 14 different genetic ancestral populations in Africa that are different from each other. I am going from memory but there was another large study that showed 13/14 different wold wide genetic populations 9 of which were in Africa. So yeah with that diversity even 2 Nigerians would be more genetically distant than a swede and Indian.
AfricaTeacher 2 years ago
THATS CRAZY....i heard the san bushmen are getting wiped out....i think theyre the key to our past, or at least thats what this documentary said because they are the first, i wonder where they came from
firemarshall007 2 years ago
To add to what AfricaTeacher has said, the genetic variations in European & Asian populations are actually subsets of the variation found in the African population.
Asians & Europeans share almost the same set of variations. Nearly all the variations found in Asians & Europeans are also found in Africans. However Africans also possess many variations that are not found outside of Africa.
PhineasGage22 2 years ago
that makes sense, because only a handful of people left africa to populate the rest of the world
firemarshall007 2 years ago
Yes you're right, people have lived in Africa much longer than anywhere else, this allowed the African population to accumulate more of the small genetic mutations which make up our genetic variation.
Because only part of the African population migrated out of Africa toward Asia and Europe, only part of Africa's genetic variation moved with them. Much additional variation remained in Africa.
PhineasGage22 2 years ago
when are you people gong to get over the fact that modern day Ethiopians are not indigenous to the continent of Africa...the emmigrated from across the Red Sea in the first century AD. Very few of the original inhabitants are left there.....they migrated further West and South.....stop discussing the racial variants in Ethiopians THEY ARE NOT INDIGENOUS to the mainland of the continent...particularly the Amhara....they are a miscegenated peples mixed with Greek, Bulgarians and the Seba (Blacks)
knowitallification 2 years ago
When are you going to read comments before saying crap like "when are you people going to get over the fact that modern day Ethiopians..."
Read my comment, Mr. Jump to conclusions. I mentioned back migrations, so would that not just hint a little bit(sarcasm) that I am already aware of the back flow of haplogroups which bordered around the horn of africa.Also Who is talking about racial variance, when I don't see "race" as a valid term?
LIONOFTHEBRAVE 2 years ago
By your logic we are all indiginous to Africa, if we take the "out of Africa" theory into perspective. We as humans started from North Africa and migrated out and then back again, so what makes the people any less indiginous, mutations?
You also forgot to mention the back migration which happened over 20,000 years ago from haplogroup M.Oh and what about migrations that happened within the political borders of africa? People from North Africa that live in South Africa,are seen as immigrants.
LIONOFTHEBRAVE 2 years ago
is your name (know it all), suppose to be ironic. because you are grossly flat out wrong on the issue of Ethiopians in Africa. Don't you know that the people of Northeast Africa of which over 70 percent of Ethiopians (excluding the Amharic) are indigenous. The Oromo, Somali, Beja, Omotic, including people in Tanzania, are the people we call Cushites. They never left this region of Africa. Their basic Y chromosome is E3b, many having A
you should know this basic fact.
mavinga 2 years ago
He knows NOTHING thats why. And you are correct but we cannot even exclude the Amhara becausae they are indigenous too. There is only ONE study of them that shows such foreign admixture but even then it is still out weighed by their Africa genetic input.
SURE they absorbed some foriegners - But NOT more than North Africans or the South African Cape.
And even then the Amhara STILL have very old and RARE Genetic markers such as E-M215* E-M35* E-P75, E-M75, P2* Haplogroup A etc. They are African
AfricaTeacher 2 years ago 2
I'd lke very much to know whether or not you are referring to me and comments I made concerning the Amhara of Ethiopia....before I commence...
knowitallification 2 years ago
Let me say this....my last 3 relationships were with Amharic women and though they never said so explicitly it was intimated to me that they do not consider themselves to be 'black'.....they consider themselves to be 'African'. I was curious about the distintion which I myself thought foolish,and so I decided to research,as always. The infantile remarks made in reference to my assertion,is just that....infantile and inaccurate. I earned my name. As I will proceed to do so,upon your resonse.
knowitallification 2 years ago
in addition, were did you get this information that amharic are mixed with Bulgarians..were in Southern Arabia did this happen, and were is the genetic proof, are you saying Arabs are mixed with Greek and Bulgarian also. You say they are a miscegenated people mixed with Seba, no Mr. know it all, they and the people of Southern Arabia (lets use the name Seba), are the same genetic cultural people.
Again...the Cushites are the original people of Northeast Africa, this is like Basic Africa 101
mavinga 2 years ago
Strong suggestion....reserve the name calling; 1) I never make a statement without knowing what I'm talking about....and two other extenuating circumstances not mentioned in my initial statement would make my statement seem reasonable even if 'incorrect'.
knowitallification 2 years ago
"....reserve the name calling"
That's laughable, coming from you, hypocrite. You're the biggest name caller and slanderer in youtube.
phoenician7 2 years ago
I like when dummies say things such as this. Its like they cant count. They dont understand how 1 comes before 2 which comes before 3. Or how A comes before B and then comes 'C'.
Now if :
-Ethiopians carry E1b1b
-Greeks / Bulgarians E1b1b1a2
How the hell do Africans with OLDER Genetic markers come FROM Greeks and Bulgarians who have YOUNGER Genetic mutations of the SAME MARKER!?
E1b1b1a2 comes FROM E1b1b which comes FROM E1b1 - WHICH IS ONLY FOUND IN ETHIOPIA AND OTHER AFRICANS DUMMY!
AfricaTeacher 2 years ago 6
Actually your right, saying Ethiopians are not indigenous Africans is like saying African Americans who go back to Africa with the E3a genes of their ancestors are no longer genetically Africans because they were in America for 500 years.
It has been shown that the Tigryina and parts of Amhara came (back migration) into Africa from Saba (Southern Arabia), but that is actually just like the distance from Philadelphia to Washington D.C.
mavinga 2 years ago 2
your clarification of the subject is appreciated
knowitallification 2 years ago
Or better yet its as if ALL African Americans migrate back to lets say Senegal and 1 to 3 THOUSAND YEARS LATER - in 5009 AD Someone is saying that "Senegalese" are NOT indigenous and they originally come form America...............All based on minor BACK migration that happend 1-3000 years ago.
AfricaTeacher 2 years ago 13
Ur rational is appreciated & actually one that I prefer to suscribe 2 myself but 1) your tone in repudiating my remark was highly disrespectful particularly when aimed at a comrade;& 2) I still haven't been guaranteed my public apology in the event my immanent posts substatiate my assertion.The fact is I prefer 2 b wrong in some cases particularly if it adds 2 our unity as a people but if my research or my misinterpretation of my very accurate research proffers up another padigm then so be it.
knowitallification 2 years ago
Sure, i will apologize. AND explain WHY I was wrong and you were correct and Ethiopians are non indigenous. You DO understand that the evidence submitted by BOTH of us as "proof" is behond the "500 word count" right?
AfricaTeacher 2 years ago
@AfricaTeacher What makes Ethiopians non indigenous?
123bigr 2 years ago
I was giving an example to someone else that say they were not indigenous. That person had said so because of the small amount of foreign admixture found in Ethiopia. I have been to Ethiopia a few times. Saying they are NOT indigenous is a laughable fairy tale. In Ethiopia there are NO Arabs/persons/turks or white people that call themselves "Ethiopians" this is much different from North Africa, Sudan and Egypt. Ethiopia HAS and IS 100% Indigenous Black African without a doubt.
AfricaTeacher 2 years ago 12
@AfricaTeacher Got it. Thanks for all the videos you share. You show proof of what you say, but others do not.
123bigr 2 years ago
@AfricaTeacher From what Dr. S.O.Y Keita and Spencer wells info on DNA;their is no true look for all the Indigenous groups North and south of Africa.
oramikleepunk 1 year ago
@AfricaTeacher I hate when White people try to separate us from other Africans.
90rashad 7 months ago
and the name is 'knowitallification'. Don't disrespect it again....now.....am I guranteed my public apology....since you sought to humiliate and disrespect me in public on this page...Albeit....if you step into the ring one should be prepared to get knocked the f*ck out.....now...is my public apology guranteed? Or are you researching (smile)?
knowitallification 2 years ago
I only ask - Please don't bring out Encyclopedias from 1967 or articles written 100 years ago. The more current your data is the better.
AfricaTeacher 2 years ago
dont panic....I agree with you 100% on EVERYSINGLE THING you said.....now it's just about saving face (smile). Were all family here.
knowitallification 2 years ago
F*ck you 'phoenician7'.... I'm talkin strictly to my comrades....f*ck crackers......and I stand on that sh*t !!!!
knowitallification 2 years ago
good way to put it
Mr1700 2 years ago
@AfricaTeacher Somalia = Land of PUNT - Ta'neteru....
CushiticSomalianMale 1 year ago
Good point, laying out the expansion of the E3b from Africans to Europeans. I didn't think to spell it out for these guy. But Africans as Herodotus explained, colonized and essentially founded ancient Greece, who thereafter included Bulgaria as part of the Greek and Byzantine empire.
The Greek/Byzantine gene is the younger version, so yes like you said, if you can count from 1 to 10, then it should not be that hard to understand
mavinga 2 years ago
FYI to be caucasian doesn't mean you are white. It is used as a term for saying the region people come from. People can come from N.Africa, Europe, spain, & other places thats all it means. Not skin color. So if they say there caucasians ok fine then so what that doesn't mean their white LMAO, your just saying they come from N.Africa or some other region. besides the egyptians already said where they come from in the papyrus of hunifur
NubiansRuledTheWorld 2 years ago
Caucasian
1807, from Caucasus Mountains, between the Black and Caspian seas; applied to the "white" race 1795 (in Ger.) by Ger. anthropologist Johann Blumenbach, because their supposed ancestral homeland lay there
SUPERIORcarbonL1L2L3 2 years ago
They dont even use this in this reference anymore. I understand where you are coming from with this tho trust me lol.
According to dictionary:
Anthropology. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of one of the traditional racial divisions of humankind, marked by fair to dark skin, straight to tightly curled hair, and light to very dark eyes, and originally inhabiting Europe, parts of North Africa, western Asia, and India: no longer in technical use
But I do think dey come from Caucasus Mts
NubiansRuledTheWorld 2 years ago
There is no such thing as FAIR skin.
fair (adj.)
O.E. fæger "beautiful, pleasant," from P.Gmc. *fagraz (cf. O.N. fagr, O.H.G. fagar "beautiful," Goth. fagrs "fit"), from PIE *fag-. The meaning in ref. to weather (c.1205) preserves the original sense (opposed to foul)
Fair does not mean white. Every country in the world still uses the term caucaisan as denoting white people, this is the area where the Khazars migrated to from Russian. People are named after land they inhabit originally.
SUPERIORcarbonL1L2L3 2 years ago
Caucasians (as in whites) do not come from the Caucasus Mountains. It was only an assumption of the german guy. We dont really know where whites originated. But we do know the indo-european branch of the whites originated somewhere in the north region of the Black Sea (the Kurgan hypothesis).
The term caucasian is preety obsolete since the white race has the biggest diversity in skin colour and facial features, depending on every region.
darkdanu89 2 years ago
You are correct we dont know where whites orignated from, well actually we do & we also know exactly when they came about looking the way they do currently. But yea I agree with you caucasian is pretty obsolete, all it means is what region you come from. There is no caucasian race.
And where did you get that the white race has the biggest diversity in skin cokor & facial features? No they dont, that achievement belongs to the africans my friend. We come in all shades of color & hair length
NubiansRuledTheWorld 2 years ago
Obviously we are all related distantly with africans, so it's an african continent acheivement (but not black bantu if that's what you understand by african).
"Whites": pre-indo-europeans (basques?), indo-europeans, mediteranneans, nordics, central, western and eastern europeans, latin, germanic, slav, iranic, turanians, etc all have differences of skin colour and minor differences in facial features. Also we whites have inbreed with everyone from mongoloids to blacks, that's why it's diverse.
darkdanu89 2 years ago
White people aren't diverse tho, they have recessive genes. And they are the last race to come about. First was negroid, then mongoloids, then came white people. I mean anthropologists have already proven this, they also have proven how long whites have exactly been around to date
NubiansRuledTheWorld 2 years ago
Well I wouldnt risk too much on saying how long whites have been to date. True they came last but when exactly we dont know for sure.
darkdanu89 2 years ago
Not true actually, I have the whole article from the unoted states anthropologists association whom have actually verified with other anthropologists around the world the wht white race is no older then 6-12,000yrs old. They even go into detail about what exactly caused the change & the difference between the white race compared to both asians & negroes
NubiansRuledTheWorld 2 years ago
Well the oldest Homo Sapiens fossil in Europe was discovered in my country, dated to about 35-37000 years ago. It had mostly african features but it did also had signs of change due to the climate.
So I wouldnt give any date. We dont really know if it happened 6-12000 years ago. If people lived in Europe 20000 years before that date, at least the pigmentation should have already been changed before 15000 BC, if not even the facial features.
darkdanu89 2 years ago
What bones were found in europe that are dated 35-37,000 years old? And check your inbox Im a send you the article
NubiansRuledTheWorld 2 years ago
But send me the article I'd like to read it :)
darkdanu89 2 years ago
Actually the article can be found on wikipedia,I think its under"white people", its possible that the skin lightening mutation started about 20,000-50,000 years ago.I think Nuby was talking about the Jablonski and Chaplin's (2000) study, The evolution of human skin coloration. SLC24A5 gene deals with the palest of "white"skin that we see in Europe today.Still the changing of a phenotype does not mark the beggining of a"race", which is just one more arbitrary factor of trying to divide by "race."
LIONOFTHEBRAVE 2 years ago
Ah I understand that. If the study was made in 2000, then they didn't know of the Pestera cu Oase (Cave of Bones) discoveries made in 2002-2005.
The "whites" have different skin tones depending on region. Maybe the palest of skin tone did originate somwhere 12000 years ago, in northern europe, since it was one of the last populated regions in Europe after the glaciation retreated.
darkdanu89 2 years ago
"The "whites" have different skin tones depending on region. "
Yes that is right, and skin tones have mutated seperately in all given populations.
Now about the (cave of bones), I am leary on this study because it hints that humans and neanderthal mixed, yet the census today 2009, tells us they have not.
LIONOFTHEBRAVE 2 years ago
No. It says that there is a possibility that they could have mixed. It does not give a definitive answer and it's only a supposition. I personally too belive they didnt mix or if they did it was rare.
But the cave of bones case is good because it offers us info on the oldest europeans.
darkdanu89 2 years ago
Actually, Professor Paabo, from the Max Planck Institute, has started to determine that the Y chromosome is much different than humans Y chromosome, and of course with science their is only theory, yet like I said "the census" today, is that scientists are leaning away from the possibility, because so far the evidence supporting a connection, does not exist, and the evidence that does exist, is stating otherwise. Also check out, the recent articles of National Geo,on Neanderthal dna for sources.
LIONOFTHEBRAVE 2 years ago
You mean like the article from last year in October 2008, where it said the neanderthal had the MC1R gene which said they had red hair, freckles, & pale skin
NubiansRuledTheWorld 2 years ago
Ya ya, mc1r and you forgot the foxp2 gene, yet both just mean that when humans and neaderthal shared a common ancestor about400,000 years ago. It does not mean they themselves were procreating with each other 37,000 years ago. Also the mc1r gene is used differently in neanderthals than for humans.
LIONOFTHEBRAVE 2 years ago
But humans are only dated at being 250,000 yrs old at the oldest, I personally believe we are older then that but that is what anthropologists claim. So how could both humans & neanderthals have a common ancestor about 400,000 yrs ago?
NubiansRuledTheWorld 2 years ago
I said 400,000 thousand as a rough estimate, which is considered the latest, where studies have even said 660,000 years give or take 140,000 years. I also thought modern humans appeared 200,000 years ago, not 250,000. Besides the point, you can not let your personal beliefs dictate the actual truth in the matter. Why is it so hard to undertsand the possibilty in sharing a common ancestor?Are you saying there was not enough time for a large enough difference, to hinder procreation?
LIONOFTHEBRAVE 2 years ago
And no I was talking about the article from the science magazine, from the AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGISTS MEETING
NubiansRuledTheWorld 2 years ago
" the wht white race is no older then 6-12,000yrs old."
1) 50% of todays anthropologists and geneticists, don't even think "race" is a valid concept.
2) Just because one phenotype mutates, does not mark the beggining of a supposed "race" or what is considered a race by racialist scientists.
3) Today many anthropologists are questioning the ability for our genes to switch back and forth over "time"(time being an operative word.)Depending on what environmental factors are involved.
LIONOFTHEBRAVE 2 years ago
Whom is your source, cause I got mine from the AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGISTS
NubiansRuledTheWorld 2 years ago
My source is from Stanford University, and you can find the article by Dr. Barry Starr.
LIONOFTHEBRAVE 2 years ago
I mean this is all fine & dandy, but they have no other way to justify race colors. besides they already pinpointed the gene that caused white people to look the way they do while africans & asians have the same genes & allele. white people also have a different allele
NubiansRuledTheWorld 2 years ago
Yes I am aware of the scl24a5 gene it is one of 100's of genes that deal with skin colour, yet it is not "the"one and only gene for skin colour. So a gene that deals with skin colour is the same between populations found in Asia, and populations found in Africa, what is your point?Your also misinterpreting the article you mentioned to substantiate your claim on humans and Neanderthal being mixed,because I asked you to google the article that explains otherwise.
LIONOFTHEBRAVE 2 years ago
Actually I wasnt using it to substantiate a claim on humans and Neanderthal being mixed, I used it to show how long europeans as we know them have been around. And since your a know it all dont take it up with me, tell it to the anthropologists who came up the article & came up with this information
NubiansRuledTheWorld 2 years ago
If you were not trying to make that claim, then why did you mention the mc1r gene,freckles and red hair, in the first place?I mean, sorry if I assumed but you can understand why? Also you said the "white race began 6-12,000 years ago", and my question still stands valid and unanswered. Why mark the beginning of a "race" simply by a skin type phenotype, by that logic why don't we mark the beginning of "race" with every mutating phenotype, and not just skin colour?
LIONOFTHEBRAVE 2 years ago
Oh ok I misread you then, I thought you were saying I was linking humans together with neanderthals off of the SLC gene, my bad. Ok then you are correct I was linking humans together off of the MC1R gene because that is what the same scientist were trying to say. I mean dont you find it funny that the MC1R gene is what is responsible for giving them freckles, pale skin, & freckles. Who else matches that description? Even if other humans have the same gene it doesn't give those specifications
NubiansRuledTheWorld 2 years ago
It is interesting that all humans share some dna with neanderthal, yet not suprising seeing how Neanderthal and homo sapien sapien were once connected to the same root.
Please check the article I mentioned from oct2009 by Dr.Barry Starr. He explains that they are genes that may have the same coding as all humans, yet these genes worked differently in Neanderthal.We also have to remember that genes can be dormant, like the "werewolf" gene, which is also found in all humans.
LIONOFTHEBRAVE 2 years ago
And yes I did say the white race is only 6-12,000yrs old because this is what the american association of anthroplogists said in 2007. I bring this up because this puts a big question mark on DNA, specifically eurasian DNA. If the white people are only that old then that means europeans as we know them aren't that old. Unless you wanna say the africans who left africa in the first place are europeans!!! but they couldnt be that. And I also agree with u on every mutating phenotype, we should!!!
NubiansRuledTheWorld 2 years ago
I wasn't questioning the source of your data, yet just the arbitrary factor of division among humans. For instance,populations found in europe had darker skin at one point, and then a mutation happened in the gene SCL24A5. They are still the same population that was there before, yet with a mutated gene. This is why I prefer not to classify people by colours or phenotypes, for they do not coincide with racial taxonomy.
LIONOFTHEBRAVE 2 years ago
where can i get that papyrus?
firemarshall007 2 years ago
Its called the papyrus of hunifur, its in a museum in london. Dr.Ben spoke of it when he saw it in the museum. Now if your asking where can you find it written word for word on the internet, IDK. Never really looked for it on the internet
NubiansRuledTheWorld 2 years ago
its on display? what book did dr ben write about it in?
firemarshall007 2 years ago
He says when he went it was on display, I'll send you the link
NubiansRuledTheWorld 2 years ago
If you go through the video response above you will see how Dr.Keita words his presentation. I like what he has to say. Your right about the arabs. Yet haplogroup U6 if truely from Asia, was then a back migration before ancient Egypt, making the beginnings of Egypt a heterogenous population.
LIONOFTHEBRAVE 2 years ago
I was talking to someone on another video and he has corresponded with Dr.Keita, and Keita said that the phenotype for lighter skin may have been there aswell. My guess is the population was predominantly dark skin. Yet skin colour is just one part of phenotypes. There is still the question remaining about haplogroup U6 and a small frequency of U5 found in Northern and eastern Africa. Y haplogroup J is about 25,000 to 30,000 bp and has a place of origin of southwest asia.
LIONOFTHEBRAVE 2 years ago
Judging by your attitude and outdated sources, I can see you are Invasion2012, under a different forum name.
Since your too bullheaded to have a proper debate and don't want to accept a valid challenge, it pretty much means you lose the "debate"(arguement) by forfeit.
LIONOFTHEBRAVE 2 years ago
I told you that I do not believe in 2012 invasion, and based on what the Egypt wrote in their papyrus stating they came from the beginning of the Nile which is in Uganda... There is no need for me to listen to any video. Why not go right to the source and read the many papyrus written by the Egyptains themselves.....
Caucasain do not come from Uganda
SUPERIORcarbonL1L2L3 2 years ago
I told you, you are the same person as Invasion2012.
LIONOFTHEBRAVE 2 years ago
Oh I just found that Y haplogroup J and some of its subclades can be found in north Africa aswell. You think you have the source yet its an outdated source where even the Papyras's you speak of are outdated and shows that even the Egyptians had myths of origin.
LIONOFTHEBRAVE 2 years ago
The Egyptian Papyrus are historical documents that speak of a place of origins that is written by their own hands stating their point of origins is from the beginning of the Nile which is in Uganda.
Nothing you can do or say will change this fact.
SUPERIORcarbonL1L2L3 2 years ago
Did you say something racist?
LIONOFTHEBRAVE 2 years ago
Y haplogroup J are the Arabs, and yes that was more recent, yet that does explain MtDNA haplogroups U.
LIONOFTHEBRAVE 2 years ago
The Ancient Egyptain according to their own words came from the beginning of the Nile which is in Uganda.
Arabs nor Caucasian come from Uganda.
SUPERIORcarbonL1L2L3 2 years ago
Your putting words into my comment. Your understanding is too limited to refute haplogroup U.
LIONOFTHEBRAVE 2 years ago
The Ancient Egyptian wrote in their own wolds that they came from the beginning of the Nile as their point of origins and this is located at Uganda.
Their are no Arabs, Caucasain that have Uganda as a point of origins.
SUPERIORcarbonL1L2L3 2 years ago
You still did not explain haplogroup u.
LIONOFTHEBRAVE 2 years ago