My question I have is is this. Why is it that black politicians running for public office like Obama did have to be post racial? No one asks white politicians to be post racial.
@HeCameHeSawGROID LOL! Oh I haven't even started yet. You are looking at the basic timeline, it doesn't tell you everything nor does complete the findings of exactly how much control that the Moors had over Europe. You see like all people of barbaric mindset. You only understand military control, you have forgotten the economic control and the control of knowledge and with the Catholic church hoarding knowledge at the time, Europeans had no choice but to learn from the Moors.
Oh I am not changing the subject at all. Since you don't know history and I have to teach it, I decided to answer your question about where the mathematics Europeans take credit for actually comes from. Not the Indians I assure you. Then I will answer the history of the Moorish control over lower Europe. There are things that timeline left out.
@NappyHeadedHoe90210 Would you want to live in a warzone? It's the same reason Europeans want to come to the US. They want to live in a place where they can live in peace and prosperity. The sad part is like the Yin/Yang. Africa has been stripped so those in the west can live well and in opulance.
@Ryooken BULLSHIT. I hear this again and again and again. Europe has always been prosperous due to WHITE INDUSTRY. Believe me, there are many white countries that never had colonies and they are at the same standard. The industrial revolution was built on the backs of WHITE COAL MINERS. Sure, afrocentrics and bleeding heart liberals would love to credit the poor black with modern civilization. Fact is they contributed FUCK ALL.
@HeCameHeSawGROID You need to grow up and learn real history and stop listening to propaganda. Do you remember the Dark Ages? Do you know why they didn't affect lower Europe? Because they were conquered by the Moors for 800 years. Do you remember Russia? Do you realize they got a great deal of their knowledge from the Chinese. In fact, the gun that made you all able to steal the knowledge from other people came from China. So don't tell me that you have always had anything, it's a lie.
@Ryooken I thought we were taking about niggers? Oh, we were. Where were we? Oh, yes, I asked you to back up your claim that niggers are in the condition they are because of white installed dictators, with reference to Mandela and Mugabe. And your response was.....babbling about the dark ages in everywhere except Africa.
@HeCameHeSawGROID My what a scintillation wit you have. Pay attention junior. Europe was poor and impoverished during the middle ages, and desperate for trade as their resources were all but depleted due to wars, famine etc. It was at that point that they decided to invade Africa and take the wealth of Africa to renew their resources. This is a process that continues today. I suggest you look at these.
@Ryooken Wrong. European wealth is mainly because of industrialization. The environment has not been destroyed in South Africa or Europe. Your BS is transparent. You are just repeating Afro centric myths which are detached from reality. How did you calculate that most of European wealth is from Africa? Or do you just have a feeling it is true?
@HeCameHeSawGROID If that's true then tell me something why did the Europeans during the 16-18th century get millions of dollars by promoting wars in Africa and selling opium in China? If that's true then how come the East India trading company become so wealthy? If that's true then why do most of the mineral rights in Africa belong to European and American companies? If all this is true then how is it that Europeans are over living and working in Africa?
@Ryooken I never said Europeans didn't make any money. But you presented it as if MOST of the wealth of Europe was at the expense of colonies. The truth is that it was a small proportion. Europeans are wealthy because of their inventions. If you disagree please show me the figures. And you try to claim that Europeans arrested development in Africa. Truth is the place was already fucked, and will be fucked anytime Africans run it.
@HeCameHeSawGROID Again you seem to be back peddling. You don't know history plain and simple and I ask you questions and I want the answers. How much did Europeans steal from Africa? Why are most of the resources controlled by Europe? How much gold was taken out of Africa and South America? You don't know history and this is why you say such ignorant things. Europe didn't make their money through industry but through the theft of Africa and Americas.
@HeCameHeSawGROID Did you bother to read my comment above you? Let me repeat it. why did the Europeans during the 16-18th century get millions of dollars by promoting wars in Africa and selling opium in China? If that's true then how come the East India trading company become so wealthy? If that's true then why do most of the mineral rights in Africa belong to European and American companies? If all this is true then how is it that Europeans are over living and working in Africa?
@Ryooken Wikipedia "Some have stressed the importance of natural or financial resources that Britain received from its many overseas colonies or that profits from the British slave trade between Africa and the Caribbean helped fuel industrial investment. It has been pointed out, however, that slave trade and the West Indian plantations provided less than 5% of the British national income during the years of the Industrial Revolution."
@Ryooken From the mid-15th to the late-19th century, European and American slave traders purchased approximately 12 million slaves from West and west central Africa.
@Ryooken A small percentage of these slaves, particularly in the early years of the trade, were sent to Europe, especially to Spain and Portugal. Most, however, were shipped across the Atlantic for sale in Portuguese-administered Brazil; the British, French, Dutch, and Danish islands of the Caribbean; Spanish-controlled South and Central America; and the British North American mainland (later the United States and Canada).
@Ryooken The Atlantic crossing, known as the Middle Passage, was nightmarish for slaves, who were poorly fed, subject to abuses at the hands of the crew, and confined to cramped storage holds in which diseases spread easily. Historians estimate that between 1.5 and 2 million slaves died during the journey to the New World.
That's a little more than 5%. You also only used one country in Europe which was England. Now let's continue
@Ryooken WTF are you babbling on about? You have presented no data regarding proportion of the contribution of slavery to Europe. For England (the main colonizer) it was under 5%, so it won't be higher for Europe as a whole.
"2 million slaves died at sea, so their contribution was much more than 5%"
@Ryooken You failed to mention the gold taken on the Spanish Main from the Americas. Tons of gold and silver mined by native Indians cast into ingots and coins. While some coins were made from rolled sheets and fancy dies, others were made from chiseled slices of cast round bars and struck with hand dies. These are called "Cobs" (cut of the bar).
@Ryooken By 1875 European possessions in Africa consisted of some forts and trading posts along the coast and a few tiny colonies. Between 1880 and 1910, however, Africa was divided up among the Europeans. For the next 50 years decisions affecting Africa and its people were made not in Africa, but in London, Paris, Lisbon and other European capitals. France acquired a huge empire in North and West Africa.
@Ryooken Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco, Ivory Coast, Dahomey, Mali and other areas in West Africa came under French rule. Britain's colonies were scattered throughout the continent. Although the French controlled the most territory, Britain ruled the greatest number of people. Gambia, Sierra Leone, Gold Coast, Nigeria, South Africa, Rhodesia, Uganda, Kenya, Egypt, the Sudan and others were taken over Eritrea, a large part of Somaliland and Libya. Southwest Africa, Tanganyika,
@Ryooken Togoland and Cameroon were ruled by Germany until Germany's defeat in World War I. By 1914 there were two independent countries left in Africa-Liberia and Ethiopia. And even Ethiopia was taken over by Italy in 1935. (Italy controlled Ethiopia until 1942 when the British drove the Italians out.)
@Ryooken There are several reasons why the European nations competed with each other to gain colonies in Africa. They all wanted to gain power and prestige. The more territory that they were able to control in Africa the more powerful and important they thought they could become. Africa was tremendously rich in natural resources, which could be brought to Europe and turned into manufactured goods. Europeans also needed markets for their manufactured goods.
@Ryooken These goods could be sold in Africa for large profits. Often a European nation would take over territory in Africa simply to prevent another European country from taking it.
Like I said before. Europeans used Africa on multiple levels. First they made money on the slave trade. Which was about 5%, then they made money on the resources taken from Africa which built most of their industries, then they colonized Africa which again garnered wealth, finally they sold their goods there.
@Ryooken Rubbish. Indigenous European coal and iron built most of the industries. England got rich selling machine woven woolen cloth. You are in a world of your own.
@HeCameHeSawGROID Wrong again England got rich because they required the Americas to ship goods to England to be processed then shipped back to the Americas for sale hence the revolutionary war. England got rich because of the drugs, alcohol, guns, and gold they stole from other places. England is an Island. English has never had good steel, that's why they imported it from other places Damascas being one of them.
@Ryooken Europeans got rich because of conquest, theft and murder. For 800 years lower Europe was ruled by Africa specifically the Mali Empire. Through Islamic science (African non-white) lower Europe prospered and thus sparked the Renassiance period. Europe parleyed that wealth into more advancements. Europe is still stealing oil this is why there is European interests in the natural resources of other places.
@Ryooken Just so you know. The description Moors has referred to several historic and modern populations of Berber, Arab and Black African descent from Northern Africa, some of whom came to conquer and occupy the Iberian Peninsula for nearly 800 years.
@Ryooken The moors were north african and invaded spain for a short time before being kicked out by combined French and German forces, just like the the Mongols were kicked out of Europe by combined Polish and German forces.
In the delusional world of Ryooken, that equals "Africans ruled Europe for 800 years"
I see so you are claiming that North Africans were white. LOL! Not hardly. Also I see that you didn't look at the video I posted again not suprising. Here are the facts for 800 years Europeans were ruled by Africans which is one of the 5 times that this has happened. Africa was the center of trade for Europeans for 800 years. That is more than a short time. :D
@Ryooken No, obviously I didn't waste my time looking at your ridiculous videos. I am in the university of london now, why not recommend a book, catalogue online.
@HeCameHeSawGROID I thought you were in the UK. I suggest you review the video. There are several books that show the history of how Europeans got their wealth. There are also other books that show the history of the moors and what they look like. I suggest you review both videos and thus you will not have to waste time trying to refute actual history for the sake of your own bigotry.
@Ryooken Sure dude. Black Africans ruling Europe for 800 years is history. Do you even realise how stupid that sounds? Are you joking? The teutonic knights were taking orders from some jigaboo with a bone through his nose?
@HeCameHeSawGROID Oh it's not stupid the fact is that white people have been spreading white superiority propaganda for centuries. For example, the myth that Egypt was white. Tell me something how can a country that is white live in the desert without melanin in their skin? That's scientically impossible. There was no sun block back then but you want to propagate the theory. Just like you want to propagate the myth that Africa was primative. It's BS.
@HeCameHeSawGROID Oh no, not only did Africans rule lower Europe for 800 years but Africa was the center of European trade for that same period of time. You should have learned this in school but since you didn't you're learning it now.
@HeCameHeSawGROID I have already sent you the video detailing the history of lower Europe. You refuse to view it. As I said before you knowledge of history is non-existent. If you actually understood history, you would know that the Europeans were ruled by Africa for 800 years. However, if you would like I will post this again. I doubt you will look at it but that's not my problem.
@HeCameHeSawGROID Then I suggest you look up on youtube white man tells the truth 2 of 3 and you look up when the moors ruled Europe. That should help you. Both describe why it is not taught that Black people ruled Europe for 800 years.
@Ryooken I told you the audio doesn't work. Check your own links. It is obvious that blacks didn't rule Europe EVER. The north african moors conquered spain and that's it. You are just another internet crackpot.
@HeCameHeSawGROID Correction you claim the audio doesn't work. It works fine for everyone I have sent it to. I always review things before I suggest it. However, I will look up the documentary for you, it's probably on the history channel you can look it up online. What's obvious is you don't know history and this is why you speak such nonsense.
@HeCameHeSawGROID LOL! Oh my so now that you have been proven wrong you resort to threats of violence. What a shame. By the way young man I wouldn't make those kinds of threats youngster, the repercussions could be most severe. You have a good day but I suggest you google those links and find a way to view them. It's quite facinating the lengths Europeans went through to eliminate all evidence of African domination.
@Ryooken You are probably the most retarded person I have ever encountered. You make an obviously false claim, and back it up with inaudible youtube videos. I can only hope you are joking.
@HeCameHeSawGROID What false claims even if you couldn't listen to the documentary, you saw the title. It states when the moores controlled Europe. The Moors were black people. You are upset because your history is a lie. Count Constatine De Volney stated upon seeing the head of the Spinx On seeing that head, typically Negro in all its features, I remembered the remarkable passage where Herodotus says:
@Ryooken "As for me, I judge the Colchians to be a colony of the Egyptians because, like them, they are black with woolly hair. Just think, that this race of black men, today our slaves and the object of our scorn, is the very race to which we owe our arts, sciences, and even the use of speech! Just imagine, finally, that it is in the midst of people.
@Ryooken (i.e. Catholic church, western gov't, etc.) who call themselves the greatest friends of liberty and humanity that one has approved the most barbarous slavery, and questioned whether black men have the same kind of intelligence as whites!”
Now you can look that up too. As I said before you need to learn your history and stop lying to yourself as you are clearly doing.
@HeCameHeSawGROID LOL! In other words you have no evidence and you have been busted again. Please continue. This should be good. You wish blacks were not intellegent as whites but your BS is exactly why you are angry and threatened. Sad really but not my problem. The history speaks for itself.
@Ryooken Here is another video that shows the art of the Moors it's called Moorish Rulers - Black Kings / White Slaves pt 1. You can look that up. As you will see the Sultans were black negros if you will and the slaves are white. Do you remember the play Othello? He was a Moor and black as anyone could see. So again you not only proven that you are lying about your history but you have ignored the basics of your own Shakespearian plays to do it.
@HeCameHeSawGROID So in other words you came here to lie when you knew the history already. You knew that Africans controlled Europe for 800 years, you knew that Heroditous attributed the development of European science to Africa and you knew this all along but you reject it because it doesn't fit the myth you have fashioned for yourself. That's really sad. This means your whole presentation here is a lie. Again really sad.
@HeCameHeSawGROID Riiight and all this evidence I posted I just made up right? I told De Volney to say that Egypt was black, I told Herodotus to write blacks taught Europeans, The opinion of all the ancient writers on the Egyptian race is more or less summed up by Gaston Maspero (1846-1916): "By the almost unanimous testimony of ancient historians, they belonged to an African race [read: Negro] I wrote all of this right? I told Shakespear to make Othello black? LOL! Uh huh :D
@HeCameHeSawGROID Queen Elizabeth the first...was black? The teutonic knights that stopped the mongols....were black? What you are saying is so laughable I don't even need to provide all of the pictorial evidence.
@HeCameHeSawGROID LOL! Again what does that have to do with from 711 to 1492 that Africans controlled lower Europe? Queen Elizabeth ruled England in 1533 again that was 44 years after the Moors fell out of power. Not only did I not claim that Queen Elizabeth was black I also didn't claim Shakespear was black. What I said was the play Othello referred to the Moors of Italy. Remember or are you still too busy lying? Hey keep it up this is truly entertaining.
@HeCameHeSawGROID When did William the Conqueror go to France or Italy or Spain? Yep black Africans controlled Europe. That's a fact. You may not like it but hey that's not my problem. If that's unsettling for you, you do realize that white people originally came from Africa? You do realize that Africans are the progenators of the human race right? But hey that's just a sideline. I suggest you look up the human genome project if you don't believe me. :D
@Ryooken "When did William the Conqueror go to France"
He was french. LMAO.
"black Africans controlled Europe."
Lie. The moors were not black and controlled southern spain, launching a failed attack on france.
"Africans are the progenators of the human race right"
Why do you change the subject? Clearly your main aim is to annoy me. Actually the multi regional hypothesis is more accurate, neanderthal admixture not found in SS africa. Bacteria originated humans along the line, so what?
"711 Moors cross into Spain. Tariq ibn-Ziyad brings Moorish army
[...]
732 Moors defeated by Charles Martel at Poitiers in France – the limit of their northern advance"
You understand that the moors launched a military incursion through the centre of france and at no time controlled france. They did not even control spain. South spain has a low population density. I estimate the moors controlled 2-3% of Europes people for 400 years.
@HeCameHeSawGROID Nope they controlled lower Europe i.e. Spain, Italy, some of France but they were the cultural centers of Europe. In fact, if you remeber Vlad the Impaler was responsible for keeping them out of Romania largely because of the brutality toward his own people. LOL!
@HeCameHeSawGROID Phillip of Spain 21 May 1527 – 13 September 1598. Again 34 years after the rule of the Moorish kings. Wow you're batting 1000. Please keep it up. This is facinating none of which has to do with the reason why Spain, lower Italy, and lower France didn't experience their own personal dark age orchestrated by the Catholic church because they were living under Moorish rule and this is why the arts and sciences ressurgence stemmed from there and not from England. :D
@Ryooken Hey, allow me a little slack. You are "Blacks africans controlled Europe" man so it's difficult to know what you are talking about. Oh the moorish occupation of spain. That would be different.
"Queen Elizabeth ruled England in 1533 again that was 44 years after the Moors fell out of power."
The moors were NEVER in power in England, or the vast majority of Europe, so basically, you were wrong.
Moorish spain is not notable for scientific progress.
@HeCameHeSawGROID I never said they were in power in England. Is England in lower Europe? Nope. Actually it was. It was the Moors that created most of the European changes. The funny thing is that the printing of draft bank notes etc and the new mathematics came from the Moors and not England. Most of the English couldn't read at all. LOL!
@Ryooken Actually the Indians made the main developments in mathematics at that time and it was transmitted through arabs. They didn't invent it. And of course, they weren't black.
@HeCameHeSawGROID Oh? What does that have to do with Spain and the fact that the mathematical system based on 10 and the concept of 0 came from the Moors? Every group could count and every group had mathematics, how does that change what I said? Did the Indians have a mathematical system based on 10? You're funny keep it up?
@Ryooken Yes the indians invented zero and algebra not the moors. The moors just happened to be in the middle and passed it on. Not much of an achievement. And of course, they weren't black.
@HeCameHeSawGROID Recent research paints a new picture of the debt that we owe to Arabic/Islamic mathematics. Certainly many of the ideas which were previously thought to have been brilliant new conceptions due to European mathematicians of the sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth centuries are now known to have been developed by Arabic/Islamic mathematicians around four centuries earlier.
@Ryooken In many respects the mathematics studied today is far closer in style to that of the Arabic/Islamic contribution than to that of the Greeks. There is a widely held view that, after a brilliant period for mathematics when the Greeks laid the foundations for modern mathematics, there was a period of stagnation before the Europeans took over where the Greeks left off at the beginning of the sixteenth century.
@Ryooken The common perception of the period of 1000 years or so between the ancient Greeks and the European Renaissance is that little happened in the world of mathematics except that some Arabic translations of Greek texts were made which preserved the Greek learning so that it was available to the Europeans at the beginning of the sixteenth century. That such views should be generally held is of no surprise.
@Ryooken Don't change the subject loser. I you agree that "black africans controlled europe for 800 years" is an absolute steaming pile of horse manure, I MAY discuss other things.
@Ryooken Many leading historians of mathematics have contributed to the perception by either omitting any mention of Arabic/Islamic mathematics in the historical development of the subject or with statements such as that made by Duhem in [3]:- ... Arabic science only reproduced the teachings received from Greek science. Other authors try the description "Arabic mathematics", see for example [10] and [11].
@Ryooken However, certainly not all the mathematicians we wish to include were Muslims; some were Jews, some Christians, some of other faiths. Nor were all these mathematicians Arabs, but for convenience we will call our topic "Arab mathematics".The regions from which the "Arab mathematicians" came was centred on Iran/Iraq but varied with military conquest during the period.
@Ryooken At its greatest extent it stretched to the west through Turkey and North Africa to include most of Spain, and to the east as far as the borders of China. The background to the mathematical developments which began in Baghdad around 800 is not well understood. Certainly there was an important influence which came from the Hindu mathematicians whose earlier development of the decimal system and numerals was important.
@Ryooken There began a remarkable period of mathematical progress with al-Khwarizmi's work and the translations of Greek texts. This period begins under the Caliph Harun al-Rashid, the fifth Caliph of the Abbasid dynasty, whose reign began in 786. He encouraged scholarship and the first translations of Greek texts into Arabic, such as Euclid's Elements by al-Hajjaj, were made during al-Rashid's reign.
@Ryooken The next Caliph, al-Ma'mun, encouraged learning even more strongly than his father al-Rashid, and he set up the House of Wisdom in Baghdad which became the centre for both the work of translating and of of research. Al-Kindi (born 801) and the three Banu Musa brothers worked there, as did the famous translator Hunayn ibn Ishaq.
@Ryooken We should emphasise that the translations into Arabic at this time were made by scientists and mathematicians such as those named above, not by language experts ignorant of mathematics, and the need for the translations was stimulated by the most advanced research of the time. It is important to realise that the translating was not done for its own sake, but was done as part of the current research effort.
@Ryooken The most important Greek mathematical texts which were translated are listed in [17]:- Of Euclid's works, the Elements, the Data, the Optics, the Phaenomena, and On Divisions were translated. Of Archimedes' works only two - Sphere and Cylinder and Measurement of the Circle - are known to have been translated, but these were sufficient to stimulate independent researches from the 9th to the 15th century.
@Ryooken On the other hand, virtually all of Apollonius's works were translated, and of Diophantus and Menelaus one book each, the Arithmetica and the Sphaerica, respectively, were translated into Arabic.
Finally, the translation of Ptolemy's Almagest furnished important astronomical material. The more minor Greek mathematical texts which were translated are also given in [17]:- ... Diocles' treatise on mirrors, Theodosius's Spherics,
@Ryooken Pappus's work on mechanics, Ptolemy's Planisphaerium, and Hypsicles' treatises on regular polyhedra (the so-called Books XIV and XV of Euclid's Elements) ...
Perhaps one of the most significant advances made by Arabic mathematics began at this time with the work of al-Khwarizmi, namely the beginnings of algebra.
@Ryooken It is important to understand just how significant this new idea was. It was a revolutionary move away from the Greek concept of mathematics which was essentially geometry. Algebra was a unifying theory which allowed rational numbers, irrational numbers, geometrical magnitudes, etc., to all be treated as "algebraic objects".
@Ryooken It gave mathematics a whole new development path so much broader in concept to that which had existed before, and provided a vehicle for future development of the subject. Another important aspect of the introduction of algebraic ideas was that it allowed mathematics to be applied to itself in a way which had not happened before.
I will paraphrase here because it takes to long to post everything and I want to get back to your next statement of the control of lower Europe.
@Ryooken In short the Arabs developed what would be modern mathematics. Now like all history understanding is a 3 edged sword your side our side and the truth. Here is the truth. During the 9th century there were 3 systems in use for mathematics in the Moorish kingdoms. 1. Finger-reckoning arithmetic.
This system derived from counting on the fingers with the numerals written entirely in words; this finger-reckoning arithmetic was the system used by the business community.
@Ryooken As you should know this system is based on the number 10.
2. Sexagesimal system.
The second of the three systems was the sexagesimal system, with numerals denoted by letters of the Arabic alphabet. It came originally from the Babylonians and was most frequently used by the Arabic mathematicians in astronomical work.
The third system was the arithmetic of the Indian numerals and fractions with the decimal place-value system. The numerals used were taken over from India, but there was not a standard set of symbols. Different parts of the Arabic world used slightly different forms of the numerals.
@Ryooken At first the Indian methods were used by the Arabs with a dust board. A dust board was needed because the methods required the moving of numbers around in the calculation and rubbing some out as the calculation proceeded. The dust board allowed this to be done in the same sort of way that one can use a blackboard, chalk and a blackboard eraser.
@Ryooken However, al-Uqlidisi (born 920) showed how to modify the methods for pen and paper use. Al-Baghdadi also contributed to improvements in the decimal system.
Now we can get back to the Moorish control of Lower Europe.
@Ryooken Source wikipedia. The description Moors has referred to several historic and modern populations of Berber, Arab and Black African[citation needed] descent from Northern Africa, some of whom came to conquer and occupy the Iberian Peninsula for nearly 800 years. At that time they were Muslim, although earlier the people had followed other religions. They called the territory Al Andalus, comprising most of what is now Spain and Portugal.
@Ryooken The Islamic conquest and rule of Sicily and Malta was a process which started in the 9th century.[1] Islamic rule over Sicily was effective from 902, and the complete rule of the island lasted from 965 until 1061; by 1091 the Muslims had been completely evicted, following the Norman conquest of southern Italy.[2]
The Islamic presence on the Italian Peninsula was ephemeral and limited mostly to semi-permanent soldier camps. The conquest of Sicily and the subsequent Christian (Norman) reconquest was the major event in the history of Islam in southern Italy. .[3] The conquests of the Normans established Roman Catholicism firmly in the region, where Eastern Christianity had been prominent during the time of Byzantine rule and even under the Muslim overlords.[4][5]
@Ryooken Widespread conversion ensued, which, coupled with the re-latinisation of the inhabitants, led to the disappearance of Islam in Sicily by the 1280s. However, during the Moorish occupation, it became a prosperous emirate, and Palermo was a brilliant center of Islamic culture.
There is more but I have run out of time and I will pick this up later.
@HeCameHeSawGROID Actually it's not. Europe was controlled both directly and indirectly through Africa. The moors not only controlled all the knowledge and economics in Europe but they established a pressence throughout southern Europe. The Moors were black and were directly controlled by Mali. In other words they were negroes. That's what you have a problem with.
@HeCameHeSawGROID Then you must really hate yourself because your claims of white superiority when the Moors were black and controlled Europe is a matter of historical fact. You claiming anything else is utter nonsense.
@HeCameHeSawGROID LOL! Actually the Nazis were not black but during WWI the Brittish sent an African regiment into Germany to devistate the population and change the racial dynamic. Hitler actually wrote about that and his anger towards the Brittish in his book. Like I said before, yeah you can make up stories while I just post actual historical events. You claim they are made up because you are uneducated and Eurocentric.
@HeCameHeSawGROID In fact, I did back it up. To date I have sent you two links stating this including a Brittish documentary. I have posted thousands of characters of text where you said you didn't disagree with and then I even posted sources. So yeah I did back it up. Not only did they not get kicked out the same year in France but it took them 30 years to repulse the Moors. So yeah the Moors controlled Europe and you got your knowledge from them. Deal with it and stop whinning.
@Ryooken In fact, you got your knowledge from black people, you got education from black people and oh yeah, you even came from black people. So again I say deal with it. We have to deal with the fact that we spawn people like you, so you have to deal with the fact that you came from us end of story.
@HeCameHeSawGROID Nope black didn't evolve from monkeys. If you looked at the characteristics of monkeys facial features, hair type hair texture and length, you will discover that there is no relation to monkeys. Nice try but no cigar.
@Ryooken "Nope black didn't evolve from monkeys. If you looked at the characteristics of monkeys facial features, hair type hair texture and length, you will discover that there is no relation to monkeys. Nice try but no cigar."
But if you look at the self replicating molecule that started life on earth, it wouldn't resemble black people either. But they evolved from it. I think blacks evolved from monkeys. And then into whites.
@Ryooken If you observe chimps in the wild, they are quite peaceful and civilized. My theory is black people evolved from monkeys, and then split into white people and chimps. But some black people were left behind and now whites have to feed them. Chimps, who are more evolved, can feed themselves.
@HeCameHeSawGROID All organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor or ancestral gene pool.[183][254] Current species are a stage in the process of evolution, with their diversity the product of a long series of speciation and extinction events.[255] The common descent of organisms was first deduced from four simple facts about organisms: First, they have geographic distributions that cannot be explained by local adaptation.
@HeCameHeSawGROID The eukaryotic cells emerged between 1.6 – 2.7 billion years ago. The next major change in cell structure came when bacteria were engulfed by eukaryotic cells, in a cooperative association called endosymbiosis.[267][268] The engulfed bacteria and the host cell then underwent co-evolution, with the bacteria evolving into either mitochondria or hydrogenosomes.[269]
@HeCameHeSawGROID Genetic and fossil evidence is interpreted to show that archaic Homo sapiens evolved to anatomically modern humans solely in Africa, between 200,000 and 150,000 years ago,[3] that members of one branch of Homo sapiens left Africa by between 125,000 and 60,000 years ago, and that over time these humans replaced earlier human populations such as Neanderthals and Homo erectus.
@Ryooken The date of the earliest successful "out of Africa" migration (earliest migrants with living descendents) has generally been placed at 60,000 years ago as suggested by genetics, although attempts at migration out of the continent may have taken place as early as 125,000 years ago according to Arabian archaeology finds of tools in the region [5].
@Ryooken By 2010, however, detailed DNA sequencing of the Neanderthal specimens from Europe indicated that the contribution was nonzero, with Neanderthals sharing 1-4% more genetic variants with living non-Africans than with living humans in sub-Saharan Africa, supporting regional continuity outside of Africa.[48][49]
@HeCameHeSawGROID Interesting but it's a competing theory. The primary competing scientific hypothesis is currently recent African origin of modern humans, which proposes that modern humans arose as a new species in Africa around 100-200,000 years ago, moving out of Africa around 50-60,000 years ago to replace existing human species such as Homo erectus and the Neanderthals without interbreeding.[52][53][54][55]
@Ryooken This differs from the multiregional hypothesis in that the multiregional model predicts interbreeding with preexisting local human populations in any such migration.[55]. According to Cavalli-Sforza's work, all non-African populations are more closely related to each other than to Africans; supporting the hypothesis that all non-Africans descend from a single old-African population. The genetic distance from Africa to Europe (16.6)
@Ryooken was found to be shorter than the genetic distance from Africa to East Asia (20.6), and much shorter than that from Africa to Australia (24.7). He explains...both Africans and Asians contributed to the settlement of Europe, which began about 40,000 years ago.
@Ryooken It seems very reasonable to assume that both continents nearest to Europe contributed to its settlement, even if perhaps at different times and maybe repeatedly. It is reassuring that the analysis of other markers also consistently gives the same results in this case. Moreover, a specific evolutionary model tested, i.e., that Europe is formed by contributions from Asia and Africa, fits the distance matrix perfectly (6).
@Ryooken In this simplified model, the migrations postulated to have populated Europe are estimated to have occurred at an early date (30,000 years ago), but it is impossible to distinguish, on the basis of these data, this model from that of several migrations at different times. The overall contributions from Asia and Africa were estimated to be around two-thirds and one-third, respectively".
@HeCameHeSawGROID You should have read more. Here is what you missed. The Denisova hominin (/dɨˈniːsəvə/) is the remains (a finger bone and tooth) of a member of the genus Homo that may belong to a previously unknown species based on an analysis of their mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA). In March 2010, discovery was announced of a finger bone fragment of a juvenile that lived about 41,000 years ago found in Denisova Cave (Altai Krai, Russia),
@Ryooken a region also inhabited at about the same time by Neanderthals and modern humans.12 The mtDNA of the Denisova hominin is distinct from the mtDNAs of Neanderthals and modern humans.3 In December 2010, an international team of scientists determined the sequence from the nuclear genome of this group (known as the Denisovans) from this finger bone.
@Ryooken According to their analysis, this group shares a common origin with the Neanderthals and interbred with the ancestors of modern Melanesians.4 In 2011 a toe bone was discovered which may belong to a Neanderthal-Denisovan hybrid.5
The DNA analysis further indicated that this new hominin species was the result of an early migration out of Africa, distinct from the later out-of-Africa migrations associated with Neanderthals and modern humans, but also distinct from the earlier
@Ryooken African exodus of Homo erectus.3 Professor Chris Stringer, human origins researcher at London's Natural History Museum and one of the leading proponents of the recent single-origin hypothesis, remarked: "This new DNA work provides an entirely new way of looking at the still poorly understood evolution of humans in central and eastern Asia." Pääbo noted that the existence of this distant branch creates a much more complex picture of humankind during the Late Pleistocene.
In the same second 2010 paper, the authors report the isolation and sequencing of nuclear DNA from the Denisova finger bone. This specimen showed an unusual degree of DNA preservation and low level of contamination. They were able to achieve near-complete genomic sequencing, allowing a detailed comparison with Neanderthal and modern humans.
@Ryooken From this analysis, they concluded that in spite of the apparent divergence of their mitochondrial sequence, the Denisova population along with Neanderthal shared a common branch from the lineage leading to modern African humans. The estimated time of divergence between Denisovans and Neanderthals is 640,000 years ago, and that between both these groups and modern Africans is 804,000 years ago.
@Ryooken They suggest that the divergence of the Denisova mtDNA results either from the persistence of a lineage purged from the other branches of humanity through genetic drift or else an introgression from an older hominin lineage.
Next time you use wikipedia as a resource, you should review it more thoroughly.
@Ryooken Funny, I write "Your sources are old and do not account for 2010 Neanderthal admixture discovery." you go off on one about Denisova, and then tell me to read more carevully.
@Ryooken "The estimated time of divergence between Denisovans and Neanderthals is 640,000 years ago, and that between both these groups and modern Africans is 804,000 years ago"
If Neanderthal DNA (1-4%) is found in modern Europeans and Asians, and not Africans, that means modern Europeans and Asians evolved OUTSIDE AFRICA. What is difficult to understand about that?
@HeCameHeSawGROID Oh the simple fact that it states that Denisovans came out of Africa. Did you miss that part?
They suggest that the divergence of the Denisova mtDNA results either from the persistence of a lineage purged from the other branches of humanity through genetic drift or else an introgression from an older hominin lineage.
@HeCameHeSawGROID Actually it does and here is why. What you are trying to say is that the contributing factors to European development was a one shot deal. The evidence shows that it wasn't. What you also failed to deal with is the natural progression over time where Africans at various periods in history interbreeded with this subgroup and thus the DNA shows that 1/3 of the DNA was African. So as much as you would like for it not to be true, you still came from Africa.
@Ryooken No. SOME of the DNA came from africa. SOME came from outside africa. So Europeans didn't come from africa. They developed outside. They evolved.
@HeCameHeSawGROID LOL! You are making assumptions again. I don't believe I mentioned mutations but the albino gene responsible for caucasians has showed up in all the subgroups of humans throughout history. That's not what I was talking about. I was specifically stating that whether you like it or not you came from Africa. Homonid development into human species still cross breed with other species of humans even until the modern era and the genetics don't dispute that.
@Ryooken So I ask you about whether mutations only happened in Africa, and you pick a gene a gene which is found everywhere. Which proves nothing and is irrelevant.
What about CCR5-Δ32 gene? This alone proves non Africans evolved outside Africa.
@HeCameHeSawGROID Yes, it can be found everywhere now. Before the albino gene was originally Denisova. Which came out of Africa.
What about CCR5-Δ32 gene?
This is the gene that developed because of small pox. How does this gene prove that white people were not African. As I said before you think genetic development is a one shot deal. It wasn't. Yes, mutations happen everyday and everywhere. However, if white people are the original then why are their gene recessive?
@Ryooken No I don't think "genetic development is a one shot deal". I don't even know what that means. I am very well versed in genetic theory thank you. I studied under John Maynard Smith. Obviously evolution is a long complex process, with many small steps. It is YOU that is claiming everything happened in Africa. I am proving again and again it didn't. So suck it up and fuck off.
@HeCameHeSawGROID First name dropping really means nothing to me. Second if you don't know what a one shot deal is then how can you claim that you don't think genetic mutation is a one shot deal? Finally, you still didn't answer my question. If white people are original unto themselves, then why are their genes recessive? Where did I say everything happened in Africa. Genetic migration is based upon adaptation through environment.
@Ryooken Genetic mutation are sudden changes in the genome that produces uniquely divergent results. Whether those genes stabilize and create a stable divergence remains to be seen. That doesn't change the facts of what I said. For example, the blue eye gene is 10,000 years old, it didn't start in Africa but that doesn't change that black people came from Africa and adapted and became white, red, yellow, and brown. The human genome project as you should know state there is one race.
@HeCameHeSawGROID Right but you are the expert right? So answer the questions and don't hide behind rhetoric. I know quite a bit about genetics myself. So explain the human genome's point that there is no such thing as races and that as humans we are all the same species. Can you explain that or are you going to hide behind more rhetoric?
"Finally, you still didn't answer my question. If white people are original unto themselves, then why are their genes recessive? "
This is the first time you brought up recessive genes, which are irrelevant to the point. You lose a point, change the subject, then claim *I* am the one that cannot answer. What a waste of time.
"Finally, you still didn't answer my question. If white people are original unto themselves, then why are their genes recessive? "
This is the first time you brought up recessive genes, which are irrelevant to the point. You lose a point, change the subject, then claim *I* am the one that cannot answer. What a waste of time.
@Ryooken "Finally, you still didn't answer my question. If white people are original unto themselves, then why are their genes recessive?"
Huh? This is the first time you mentioned recessive genes. You lose a point, and rather than admit it, bring up an irrelevant new one, and claim *I* am avoiding the issues. Loser. If recessive genes are prevalent in a population, they have been under heavy selection and are for something useful.
My question I have is is this. Why is it that black politicians running for public office like Obama did have to be post racial? No one asks white politicians to be post racial.
Mr40acresandamule 2 months ago
Comment removed
HeCameHeSawGROID 5 months ago
Comment removed
HeCameHeSawGROID 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It pretty much goes without saying, but if you are reading this, flag all of Ryooken's spam.
(he just lost an argument on moorish control of europe so now he is changing the subject by copy pasting from a muslim centrist blog on arab maths)
HeCameHeSawGROID 5 months ago
It pretty much goes without saying, but if you are reading this, flag all of Ryooken's spam.
(he just lost an argument on moorish control of europe so now he is changing the subject by copy pasting from a muslim centrist blog on arab maths)
HeCameHeSawGROID 5 months ago
@HeCameHeSawGROID LOL! Oh I haven't even started yet. You are looking at the basic timeline, it doesn't tell you everything nor does complete the findings of exactly how much control that the Moors had over Europe. You see like all people of barbaric mindset. You only understand military control, you have forgotten the economic control and the control of knowledge and with the Catholic church hoarding knowledge at the time, Europeans had no choice but to learn from the Moors.
Ryooken 5 months ago
Oh I am not changing the subject at all. Since you don't know history and I have to teach it, I decided to answer your question about where the mathematics Europeans take credit for actually comes from. Not the Indians I assure you. Then I will answer the history of the Moorish control over lower Europe. There are things that timeline left out.
Ryooken 5 months ago
@NappyHeadedHoe90210 Would you want to live in a warzone? It's the same reason Europeans want to come to the US. They want to live in a place where they can live in peace and prosperity. The sad part is like the Yin/Yang. Africa has been stripped so those in the west can live well and in opulance.
Ryooken 5 months ago
@Ryooken BULLSHIT. I hear this again and again and again. Europe has always been prosperous due to WHITE INDUSTRY. Believe me, there are many white countries that never had colonies and they are at the same standard. The industrial revolution was built on the backs of WHITE COAL MINERS. Sure, afrocentrics and bleeding heart liberals would love to credit the poor black with modern civilization. Fact is they contributed FUCK ALL.
HeCameHeSawGROID 5 months ago
@HeCameHeSawGROID You need to grow up and learn real history and stop listening to propaganda. Do you remember the Dark Ages? Do you know why they didn't affect lower Europe? Because they were conquered by the Moors for 800 years. Do you remember Russia? Do you realize they got a great deal of their knowledge from the Chinese. In fact, the gun that made you all able to steal the knowledge from other people came from China. So don't tell me that you have always had anything, it's a lie.
Ryooken 5 months ago
@Ryooken I thought we were taking about niggers? Oh, we were. Where were we? Oh, yes, I asked you to back up your claim that niggers are in the condition they are because of white installed dictators, with reference to Mandela and Mugabe. And your response was.....babbling about the dark ages in everywhere except Africa.
HeCameHeSawGROID 5 months ago
@Ryooken "You need to grow up and learn real history and stop listening to propaganda. Do you remember the Dark Ages?"
WTF? LMAO
HeCameHeSawGROID 5 months ago
@HeCameHeSawGROID My what a scintillation wit you have. Pay attention junior. Europe was poor and impoverished during the middle ages, and desperate for trade as their resources were all but depleted due to wars, famine etc. It was at that point that they decided to invade Africa and take the wealth of Africa to renew their resources. This is a process that continues today. I suggest you look at these.
watch?v=3TRBVMGugx8
watch?v=lJCJZNAAXJc
Ryooken 5 months ago
@Ryooken Wrong. European wealth is mainly because of industrialization. The environment has not been destroyed in South Africa or Europe. Your BS is transparent. You are just repeating Afro centric myths which are detached from reality. How did you calculate that most of European wealth is from Africa? Or do you just have a feeling it is true?
I suggest you watch this watch?v=kGex0kLgNok
HeCameHeSawGROID 5 months ago
@HeCameHeSawGROID If that's true then tell me something why did the Europeans during the 16-18th century get millions of dollars by promoting wars in Africa and selling opium in China? If that's true then how come the East India trading company become so wealthy? If that's true then why do most of the mineral rights in Africa belong to European and American companies? If all this is true then how is it that Europeans are over living and working in Africa?
Ryooken 5 months ago
@Ryooken How old are you really? 17 or 18?
Ryooken 5 months ago
@Ryooken I never said Europeans didn't make any money. But you presented it as if MOST of the wealth of Europe was at the expense of colonies. The truth is that it was a small proportion. Europeans are wealthy because of their inventions. If you disagree please show me the figures. And you try to claim that Europeans arrested development in Africa. Truth is the place was already fucked, and will be fucked anytime Africans run it.
HeCameHeSawGROID 5 months ago
@HeCameHeSawGROID Again you seem to be back peddling. You don't know history plain and simple and I ask you questions and I want the answers. How much did Europeans steal from Africa? Why are most of the resources controlled by Europe? How much gold was taken out of Africa and South America? You don't know history and this is why you say such ignorant things. Europe didn't make their money through industry but through the theft of Africa and Americas.
Ryooken 5 months ago
@Ryooken Hey wait a second! YOU were the one who claimed the wealth of Europe was from Africa, and I asked YOU to back that up with figures.
But I can do your homework for you:
HeCameHeSawGROID 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HeCameHeSawGROID Did you bother to read my comment above you? Let me repeat it. why did the Europeans during the 16-18th century get millions of dollars by promoting wars in Africa and selling opium in China? If that's true then how come the East India trading company become so wealthy? If that's true then why do most of the mineral rights in Africa belong to European and American companies? If all this is true then how is it that Europeans are over living and working in Africa?
continued
Ryooken 5 months ago
@Ryooken Wikipedia "Some have stressed the importance of natural or financial resources that Britain received from its many overseas colonies or that profits from the British slave trade between Africa and the Caribbean helped fuel industrial investment. It has been pointed out, however, that slave trade and the West Indian plantations provided less than 5% of the British national income during the years of the Industrial Revolution."
Oooh, under 5%.
HeCameHeSawGROID 5 months ago
@Ryooken
"Was slavery the engine of economic growth?"
ww.digitalhistory.uh.edu/historyonline/con_economic.cfm
HeCameHeSawGROID 5 months ago
@HeCameHeSawGROID The link doesn't work. Birmingham (England) gun-
smiths alone were exporting muskets to Africa at the rate of
between 100,000 and 150,000 a year.
[432] JOURNAL OF BLACK STUDIES/ JUNE 1976.
continued
Ryooken 5 months ago
@Ryooken From the mid-15th to the late-19th century, European and American slave traders purchased approximately 12 million slaves from West and west central Africa.
continued
Ryooken 5 months ago
@Ryooken A small percentage of these slaves, particularly in the early years of the trade, were sent to Europe, especially to Spain and Portugal. Most, however, were shipped across the Atlantic for sale in Portuguese-administered Brazil; the British, French, Dutch, and Danish islands of the Caribbean; Spanish-controlled South and Central America; and the British North American mainland (later the United States and Canada).
continued
Ryooken 5 months ago
@Ryooken The Atlantic crossing, known as the Middle Passage, was nightmarish for slaves, who were poorly fed, subject to abuses at the hands of the crew, and confined to cramped storage holds in which diseases spread easily. Historians estimate that between 1.5 and 2 million slaves died during the journey to the New World.
That's a little more than 5%. You also only used one country in Europe which was England. Now let's continue
continued
Ryooken 5 months ago
@Ryooken WTF are you babbling on about? You have presented no data regarding proportion of the contribution of slavery to Europe. For England (the main colonizer) it was under 5%, so it won't be higher for Europe as a whole.
"2 million slaves died at sea, so their contribution was much more than 5%"
Huh?
HeCameHeSawGROID 5 months ago
@Ryooken You failed to mention the gold taken on the Spanish Main from the Americas. Tons of gold and silver mined by native Indians cast into ingots and coins. While some coins were made from rolled sheets and fancy dies, others were made from chiseled slices of cast round bars and struck with hand dies. These are called "Cobs" (cut of the bar).
continued
Ryooken 5 months ago
@Ryooken By 1875 European possessions in Africa consisted of some forts and trading posts along the coast and a few tiny colonies. Between 1880 and 1910, however, Africa was divided up among the Europeans. For the next 50 years decisions affecting Africa and its people were made not in Africa, but in London, Paris, Lisbon and other European capitals. France acquired a huge empire in North and West Africa.
continued
Ryooken 5 months ago
@Ryooken Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco, Ivory Coast, Dahomey, Mali and other areas in West Africa came under French rule. Britain's colonies were scattered throughout the continent. Although the French controlled the most territory, Britain ruled the greatest number of people. Gambia, Sierra Leone, Gold Coast, Nigeria, South Africa, Rhodesia, Uganda, Kenya, Egypt, the Sudan and others were taken over Eritrea, a large part of Somaliland and Libya. Southwest Africa, Tanganyika,
continued
Ryooken 5 months ago
@Ryooken Togoland and Cameroon were ruled by Germany until Germany's defeat in World War I. By 1914 there were two independent countries left in Africa-Liberia and Ethiopia. And even Ethiopia was taken over by Italy in 1935. (Italy controlled Ethiopia until 1942 when the British drove the Italians out.)
continued
Ryooken 5 months ago
@Ryooken There are several reasons why the European nations competed with each other to gain colonies in Africa. They all wanted to gain power and prestige. The more territory that they were able to control in Africa the more powerful and important they thought they could become. Africa was tremendously rich in natural resources, which could be brought to Europe and turned into manufactured goods. Europeans also needed markets for their manufactured goods.
continued
Ryooken 5 months ago
@Ryooken These goods could be sold in Africa for large profits. Often a European nation would take over territory in Africa simply to prevent another European country from taking it.
Like I said before. Europeans used Africa on multiple levels. First they made money on the slave trade. Which was about 5%, then they made money on the resources taken from Africa which built most of their industries, then they colonized Africa which again garnered wealth, finally they sold their goods there.
Ryooken 5 months ago
@Ryooken Rubbish. Indigenous European coal and iron built most of the industries. England got rich selling machine woven woolen cloth. You are in a world of your own.
HeCameHeSawGROID 5 months ago
@HeCameHeSawGROID Wrong again England got rich because they required the Americas to ship goods to England to be processed then shipped back to the Americas for sale hence the revolutionary war. England got rich because of the drugs, alcohol, guns, and gold they stole from other places. England is an Island. English has never had good steel, that's why they imported it from other places Damascas being one of them.
Ryooken 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Ryooken "English has never had good steel, that's why they imported it from other places Damascas being one of them."
HAHAHAHAAHAHAH
You are funny I give you that. So how much steel did England import? I want an answer to this. You know how steel is made right?
HeCameHeSawGROID 5 months ago
@Ryooken Europeans got rich because of conquest, theft and murder. For 800 years lower Europe was ruled by Africa specifically the Mali Empire. Through Islamic science (African non-white) lower Europe prospered and thus sparked the Renassiance period. Europe parleyed that wealth into more advancements. Europe is still stealing oil this is why there is European interests in the natural resources of other places.
Ryooken 5 months ago
@Ryooken "Europeans got rich because of conquest, theft and murder."
Constantly repeating a lie doesn't make it true. Europeans got rich from industrialization.
"For 800 years lower Europe was ruled by Africa specifically the Mali Empire. "
Wow, you have whole worlds of crazy. So during the crusades and Mongol wars, Europe was ruled by Africa?
Excuse me: HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA
Europe made oil valuable. These shitty arab countries are lucky they get anything.
HeCameHeSawGROID 5 months ago
@HeCameHeSawGROID You projecting again and practicing revisionist history. I suggest you watch this.
watch?v=XOBTG7AHlDc
LOL! I see so the fact that Europe exploited other countries to gain oil isn't wrong? LOL! Morally bankrupt as usual.
Ryooken 5 months ago
@Ryooken Just so you know. The description Moors has referred to several historic and modern populations of Berber, Arab and Black African descent from Northern Africa, some of whom came to conquer and occupy the Iberian Peninsula for nearly 800 years.
Ryooken 5 months ago
@Ryooken The moors were north african and invaded spain for a short time before being kicked out by combined French and German forces, just like the the Mongols were kicked out of Europe by combined Polish and German forces.
In the delusional world of Ryooken, that equals "Africans ruled Europe for 800 years"
HeCameHeSawGROID 5 months ago
@HeCameHeSawGROID
LOL!
I see so you are claiming that North Africans were white. LOL! Not hardly. Also I see that you didn't look at the video I posted again not suprising. Here are the facts for 800 years Europeans were ruled by Africans which is one of the 5 times that this has happened. Africa was the center of trade for Europeans for 800 years. That is more than a short time. :D
Ryooken 5 months ago
@Ryooken No, obviously I didn't waste my time looking at your ridiculous videos. I am in the university of london now, why not recommend a book, catalogue online.
HeCameHeSawGROID 5 months ago
@HeCameHeSawGROID I thought you were in the UK. I suggest you review the video. There are several books that show the history of how Europeans got their wealth. There are also other books that show the history of the moors and what they look like. I suggest you review both videos and thus you will not have to waste time trying to refute actual history for the sake of your own bigotry.
Ryooken 5 months ago
@Ryooken Sure dude. Black Africans ruling Europe for 800 years is history. Do you even realise how stupid that sounds? Are you joking? The teutonic knights were taking orders from some jigaboo with a bone through his nose?
HeCameHeSawGROID 5 months ago
@HeCameHeSawGROID Oh it's not stupid the fact is that white people have been spreading white superiority propaganda for centuries. For example, the myth that Egypt was white. Tell me something how can a country that is white live in the desert without melanin in their skin? That's scientically impossible. There was no sun block back then but you want to propagate the theory. Just like you want to propagate the myth that Africa was primative. It's BS.
Ryooken 5 months ago
@Ryooken So you admit that Black Africans never ruled Europe or 800 years?
HeCameHeSawGROID 5 months ago
@HeCameHeSawGROID Oh no, not only did Africans rule lower Europe for 800 years but Africa was the center of European trade for that same period of time. You should have learned this in school but since you didn't you're learning it now.
Ryooken 5 months ago
@Ryooken Africa was the centre of European trade? 800 years ago? What you write is not just bullshit. It isn't even logically possible.
What is your source for these claims. Are you just making this up? This is a joke right?
HeCameHeSawGROID 5 months ago
@HeCameHeSawGROID I have already sent you the video detailing the history of lower Europe. You refuse to view it. As I said before you knowledge of history is non-existent. If you actually understood history, you would know that the Europeans were ruled by Africa for 800 years. However, if you would like I will post this again. I doubt you will look at it but that's not my problem.
watch?v=XOBTG7AHlDc
watch?v=QCSqkhLIapM&feature=related
Ryooken 5 months ago
@Ryooken You may also want to look at this documentary. It's put out by the Brits so I am sorry you will give it credence.
watch?v=PM8HnvuKbAo
Ryooken 5 months ago
@Ryooken None of your links work. Two have broken audio and the other is blocked on copyright.
HeCameHeSawGROID 5 months ago
@HeCameHeSawGROID Then I suggest you look up on youtube white man tells the truth 2 of 3 and you look up when the moors ruled Europe. That should help you. Both describe why it is not taught that Black people ruled Europe for 800 years.
Ryooken 5 months ago
@Ryooken I told you the audio doesn't work. Check your own links. It is obvious that blacks didn't rule Europe EVER. The north african moors conquered spain and that's it. You are just another internet crackpot.
HeCameHeSawGROID 5 months ago
@HeCameHeSawGROID Correction you claim the audio doesn't work. It works fine for everyone I have sent it to. I always review things before I suggest it. However, I will look up the documentary for you, it's probably on the history channel you can look it up online. What's obvious is you don't know history and this is why you speak such nonsense.
Ryooken 5 months ago
@Ryooken If you were in front of me I would stomp on your retarded face.
HeCameHeSawGROID 5 months ago
@HeCameHeSawGROID LOL! Oh my so now that you have been proven wrong you resort to threats of violence. What a shame. By the way young man I wouldn't make those kinds of threats youngster, the repercussions could be most severe. You have a good day but I suggest you google those links and find a way to view them. It's quite facinating the lengths Europeans went through to eliminate all evidence of African domination.
Ryooken 5 months ago
@Ryooken You are probably the most retarded person I have ever encountered. You make an obviously false claim, and back it up with inaudible youtube videos. I can only hope you are joking.
HeCameHeSawGROID 5 months ago
@HeCameHeSawGROID What false claims even if you couldn't listen to the documentary, you saw the title. It states when the moores controlled Europe. The Moors were black people. You are upset because your history is a lie. Count Constatine De Volney stated upon seeing the head of the Spinx On seeing that head, typically Negro in all its features, I remembered the remarkable passage where Herodotus says:
continued
Ryooken 5 months ago
@Ryooken "As for me, I judge the Colchians to be a colony of the Egyptians because, like them, they are black with woolly hair. Just think, that this race of black men, today our slaves and the object of our scorn, is the very race to which we owe our arts, sciences, and even the use of speech! Just imagine, finally, that it is in the midst of people.
continued
Ryooken 5 months ago
@Ryooken (i.e. Catholic church, western gov't, etc.) who call themselves the greatest friends of liberty and humanity that one has approved the most barbarous slavery, and questioned whether black men have the same kind of intelligence as whites!”
Now you can look that up too. As I said before you need to learn your history and stop lying to yourself as you are clearly doing.
Ryooken 5 months ago
@Ryooken "questioned whether black men have the same kind of intelligence as whites"
Of course they don't.
HeCameHeSawGROID 5 months ago
@HeCameHeSawGROID LOL! In other words you have no evidence and you have been busted again. Please continue. This should be good. You wish blacks were not intellegent as whites but your BS is exactly why you are angry and threatened. Sad really but not my problem. The history speaks for itself.
Ryooken 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Ryooken "You wish blacks were not intellegent(sic) as whites but your BS is exactly why you are angry and threatened."
No, the minessota trans racial adoption study suggests at least a partial genetic etiology to the persistent black white IQ gap.
HeCameHeSawGROID 5 months ago
@Ryooken Here is another video that shows the art of the Moors it's called Moorish Rulers - Black Kings / White Slaves pt 1. You can look that up. As you will see the Sultans were black negros if you will and the slaves are white. Do you remember the play Othello? He was a Moor and black as anyone could see. So again you not only proven that you are lying about your history but you have ignored the basics of your own Shakespearian plays to do it.
Ryooken 5 months ago
@Ryooken Yeah, thanks or the "north africans were negro" lecture. I've heard it all before and it is simply stupid. Don't waste my time.
HeCameHeSawGROID 5 months ago
@HeCameHeSawGROID So in other words you came here to lie when you knew the history already. You knew that Africans controlled Europe for 800 years, you knew that Heroditous attributed the development of European science to Africa and you knew this all along but you reject it because it doesn't fit the myth you have fashioned for yourself. That's really sad. This means your whole presentation here is a lie. Again really sad.
Ryooken 5 months ago
@Ryooken It is you who is lying.
HeCameHeSawGROID 5 months ago
@HeCameHeSawGROID Riiight and all this evidence I posted I just made up right? I told De Volney to say that Egypt was black, I told Herodotus to write blacks taught Europeans, The opinion of all the ancient writers on the Egyptian race is more or less summed up by Gaston Maspero (1846-1916): "By the almost unanimous testimony of ancient historians, they belonged to an African race [read: Negro] I wrote all of this right? I told Shakespear to make Othello black? LOL! Uh huh :D
Ryooken 5 months ago
@Ryooken So for 800 years, negroes controlled England, Poland, Greece, Italy and Germany (among other places)? This is what you are saying?
HeCameHeSawGROID 5 months ago
@HeCameHeSawGROID Queen Elizabeth the first...was black? The teutonic knights that stopped the mongols....were black? What you are saying is so laughable I don't even need to provide all of the pictorial evidence.
HeCameHeSawGROID 5 months ago
@HeCameHeSawGROID LOL! Again what does that have to do with from 711 to 1492 that Africans controlled lower Europe? Queen Elizabeth ruled England in 1533 again that was 44 years after the Moors fell out of power. Not only did I not claim that Queen Elizabeth was black I also didn't claim Shakespear was black. What I said was the play Othello referred to the Moors of Italy. Remember or are you still too busy lying? Hey keep it up this is truly entertaining.
Ryooken 5 months ago
@Ryooken OK, got the time period of your fantasy. So was William the Conqueror black?
I'm finding your claims wildly exaggerated. Muslims conquered Sicily, that's about it. Most of Spain was changing hands in that period.
For you to say "Black Africans controlled Europe" is a lie.
HeCameHeSawGROID 5 months ago
@HeCameHeSawGROID When did William the Conqueror go to France or Italy or Spain? Yep black Africans controlled Europe. That's a fact. You may not like it but hey that's not my problem. If that's unsettling for you, you do realize that white people originally came from Africa? You do realize that Africans are the progenators of the human race right? But hey that's just a sideline. I suggest you look up the human genome project if you don't believe me. :D
Ryooken 5 months ago
@Ryooken "When did William the Conqueror go to France"
He was french. LMAO.
"black Africans controlled Europe."
Lie. The moors were not black and controlled southern spain, launching a failed attack on france.
"Africans are the progenators of the human race right"
Why do you change the subject? Clearly your main aim is to annoy me. Actually the multi regional hypothesis is more accurate, neanderthal admixture not found in SS africa. Bacteria originated humans along the line, so what?
HeCameHeSawGROID 5 months ago
@Ryooken You know, it's funny. You posted this:
"711 Moors cross into Spain. Tariq ibn-Ziyad brings Moorish army
[...]
732 Moors defeated by Charles Martel at Poitiers in France – the limit of their northern advance"
You understand that the moors launched a military incursion through the centre of france and at no time controlled france. They did not even control spain. South spain has a low population density. I estimate the moors controlled 2-3% of Europes people for 400 years.
HeCameHeSawGROID 5 months ago
@HeCameHeSawGROID Nope they controlled lower Europe i.e. Spain, Italy, some of France but they were the cultural centers of Europe. In fact, if you remeber Vlad the Impaler was responsible for keeping them out of Romania largely because of the brutality toward his own people. LOL!
Ryooken 5 months ago
@Ryooken Phillip the second of spain who sent an armada to england in 1588..................black?
Check his picture.
HeCameHeSawGROID 5 months ago
@HeCameHeSawGROID Phillip of Spain 21 May 1527 – 13 September 1598. Again 34 years after the rule of the Moorish kings. Wow you're batting 1000. Please keep it up. This is facinating none of which has to do with the reason why Spain, lower Italy, and lower France didn't experience their own personal dark age orchestrated by the Catholic church because they were living under Moorish rule and this is why the arts and sciences ressurgence stemmed from there and not from England. :D
Ryooken 5 months ago
@Ryooken Hey, allow me a little slack. You are "Blacks africans controlled Europe" man so it's difficult to know what you are talking about. Oh the moorish occupation of spain. That would be different.
"Queen Elizabeth ruled England in 1533 again that was 44 years after the Moors fell out of power."
The moors were NEVER in power in England, or the vast majority of Europe, so basically, you were wrong.
Moorish spain is not notable for scientific progress.
HeCameHeSawGROID 5 months ago
@HeCameHeSawGROID I never said they were in power in England. Is England in lower Europe? Nope. Actually it was. It was the Moors that created most of the European changes. The funny thing is that the printing of draft bank notes etc and the new mathematics came from the Moors and not England. Most of the English couldn't read at all. LOL!
Ryooken 5 months ago
@Ryooken Actually the Indians made the main developments in mathematics at that time and it was transmitted through arabs. They didn't invent it. And of course, they weren't black.
HeCameHeSawGROID 5 months ago
@HeCameHeSawGROID Oh? What does that have to do with Spain and the fact that the mathematical system based on 10 and the concept of 0 came from the Moors? Every group could count and every group had mathematics, how does that change what I said? Did the Indians have a mathematical system based on 10? You're funny keep it up?
Ryooken 5 months ago
@Ryooken Yes the indians invented zero and algebra not the moors. The moors just happened to be in the middle and passed it on. Not much of an achievement. And of course, they weren't black.
HeCameHeSawGROID 5 months ago
@HeCameHeSawGROID Recent research paints a new picture of the debt that we owe to Arabic/Islamic mathematics. Certainly many of the ideas which were previously thought to have been brilliant new conceptions due to European mathematicians of the sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth centuries are now known to have been developed by Arabic/Islamic mathematicians around four centuries earlier.
continued
Ryooken 5 months ago
@Ryooken In many respects the mathematics studied today is far closer in style to that of the Arabic/Islamic contribution than to that of the Greeks. There is a widely held view that, after a brilliant period for mathematics when the Greeks laid the foundations for modern mathematics, there was a period of stagnation before the Europeans took over where the Greeks left off at the beginning of the sixteenth century.
continued
Ryooken 5 months ago
@Ryooken The common perception of the period of 1000 years or so between the ancient Greeks and the European Renaissance is that little happened in the world of mathematics except that some Arabic translations of Greek texts were made which preserved the Greek learning so that it was available to the Europeans at the beginning of the sixteenth century. That such views should be generally held is of no surprise.
continued
Ryooken 5 months ago
Comment removed
HeCameHeSawGROID 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Ryooken Don't change the subject loser. I you agree that "black africans controlled europe for 800 years" is an absolute steaming pile of horse manure, I MAY discuss other things.
HeCameHeSawGROID 5 months ago
@Ryooken Many leading historians of mathematics have contributed to the perception by either omitting any mention of Arabic/Islamic mathematics in the historical development of the subject or with statements such as that made by Duhem in [3]:- ... Arabic science only reproduced the teachings received from Greek science. Other authors try the description "Arabic mathematics", see for example [10] and [11].
continued
Ryooken 5 months ago
@Ryooken However, certainly not all the mathematicians we wish to include were Muslims; some were Jews, some Christians, some of other faiths. Nor were all these mathematicians Arabs, but for convenience we will call our topic "Arab mathematics".The regions from which the "Arab mathematicians" came was centred on Iran/Iraq but varied with military conquest during the period.
continued
Ryooken 5 months ago
@Ryooken At its greatest extent it stretched to the west through Turkey and North Africa to include most of Spain, and to the east as far as the borders of China. The background to the mathematical developments which began in Baghdad around 800 is not well understood. Certainly there was an important influence which came from the Hindu mathematicians whose earlier development of the decimal system and numerals was important.
continued
Ryooken 5 months ago
@Ryooken There began a remarkable period of mathematical progress with al-Khwarizmi's work and the translations of Greek texts. This period begins under the Caliph Harun al-Rashid, the fifth Caliph of the Abbasid dynasty, whose reign began in 786. He encouraged scholarship and the first translations of Greek texts into Arabic, such as Euclid's Elements by al-Hajjaj, were made during al-Rashid's reign.
continued
Ryooken 5 months ago
@Ryooken The next Caliph, al-Ma'mun, encouraged learning even more strongly than his father al-Rashid, and he set up the House of Wisdom in Baghdad which became the centre for both the work of translating and of of research. Al-Kindi (born 801) and the three Banu Musa brothers worked there, as did the famous translator Hunayn ibn Ishaq.
continued
Ryooken 5 months ago
@Ryooken We should emphasise that the translations into Arabic at this time were made by scientists and mathematicians such as those named above, not by language experts ignorant of mathematics, and the need for the translations was stimulated by the most advanced research of the time. It is important to realise that the translating was not done for its own sake, but was done as part of the current research effort.
continued
Ryooken 5 months ago
@Ryooken The most important Greek mathematical texts which were translated are listed in [17]:- Of Euclid's works, the Elements, the Data, the Optics, the Phaenomena, and On Divisions were translated. Of Archimedes' works only two - Sphere and Cylinder and Measurement of the Circle - are known to have been translated, but these were sufficient to stimulate independent researches from the 9th to the 15th century.
continued
Ryooken 5 months ago
@Ryooken On the other hand, virtually all of Apollonius's works were translated, and of Diophantus and Menelaus one book each, the Arithmetica and the Sphaerica, respectively, were translated into Arabic.
Finally, the translation of Ptolemy's Almagest furnished important astronomical material. The more minor Greek mathematical texts which were translated are also given in [17]:- ... Diocles' treatise on mirrors, Theodosius's Spherics,
continued
Ryooken 5 months ago
@Ryooken Pappus's work on mechanics, Ptolemy's Planisphaerium, and Hypsicles' treatises on regular polyhedra (the so-called Books XIV and XV of Euclid's Elements) ...
Perhaps one of the most significant advances made by Arabic mathematics began at this time with the work of al-Khwarizmi, namely the beginnings of algebra.
continued
Ryooken 5 months ago
@Ryooken It is important to understand just how significant this new idea was. It was a revolutionary move away from the Greek concept of mathematics which was essentially geometry. Algebra was a unifying theory which allowed rational numbers, irrational numbers, geometrical magnitudes, etc., to all be treated as "algebraic objects".
continued
Ryooken 5 months ago
@Ryooken It gave mathematics a whole new development path so much broader in concept to that which had existed before, and provided a vehicle for future development of the subject. Another important aspect of the introduction of algebraic ideas was that it allowed mathematics to be applied to itself in a way which had not happened before.
I will paraphrase here because it takes to long to post everything and I want to get back to your next statement of the control of lower Europe.
continued
Ryooken 5 months ago
@Ryooken In short the Arabs developed what would be modern mathematics. Now like all history understanding is a 3 edged sword your side our side and the truth. Here is the truth. During the 9th century there were 3 systems in use for mathematics in the Moorish kingdoms. 1. Finger-reckoning arithmetic.
This system derived from counting on the fingers with the numerals written entirely in words; this finger-reckoning arithmetic was the system used by the business community.
continued
Ryooken 5 months ago
@Ryooken As you should know this system is based on the number 10.
2. Sexagesimal system.
The second of the three systems was the sexagesimal system, with numerals denoted by letters of the Arabic alphabet. It came originally from the Babylonians and was most frequently used by the Arabic mathematicians in astronomical work.
continued
Ryooken 5 months ago
@Ryooken 3. Indian numeral system.
The third system was the arithmetic of the Indian numerals and fractions with the decimal place-value system. The numerals used were taken over from India, but there was not a standard set of symbols. Different parts of the Arabic world used slightly different forms of the numerals.
continued
Ryooken 5 months ago
@Ryooken At first the Indian methods were used by the Arabs with a dust board. A dust board was needed because the methods required the moving of numbers around in the calculation and rubbing some out as the calculation proceeded. The dust board allowed this to be done in the same sort of way that one can use a blackboard, chalk and a blackboard eraser.
continued
Ryooken 5 months ago
@Ryooken However, al-Uqlidisi (born 920) showed how to modify the methods for pen and paper use. Al-Baghdadi also contributed to improvements in the decimal system.
Now we can get back to the Moorish control of Lower Europe.
Ryooken 5 months ago
@Ryooken Source wikipedia. The description Moors has referred to several historic and modern populations of Berber, Arab and Black African[citation needed] descent from Northern Africa, some of whom came to conquer and occupy the Iberian Peninsula for nearly 800 years. At that time they were Muslim, although earlier the people had followed other religions. They called the territory Al Andalus, comprising most of what is now Spain and Portugal.
continued
Ryooken 5 months ago
@Ryooken The Islamic conquest and rule of Sicily and Malta was a process which started in the 9th century.[1] Islamic rule over Sicily was effective from 902, and the complete rule of the island lasted from 965 until 1061; by 1091 the Muslims had been completely evicted, following the Norman conquest of southern Italy.[2]
continued
Ryooken 5 months ago
@Ryooken
The Islamic presence on the Italian Peninsula was ephemeral and limited mostly to semi-permanent soldier camps. The conquest of Sicily and the subsequent Christian (Norman) reconquest was the major event in the history of Islam in southern Italy. .[3] The conquests of the Normans established Roman Catholicism firmly in the region, where Eastern Christianity had been prominent during the time of Byzantine rule and even under the Muslim overlords.[4][5]
continued
Ryooken 5 months ago
@Ryooken Widespread conversion ensued, which, coupled with the re-latinisation of the inhabitants, led to the disappearance of Islam in Sicily by the 1280s. However, during the Moorish occupation, it became a prosperous emirate, and Palermo was a brilliant center of Islamic culture.
There is more but I have run out of time and I will pick this up later.
Ryooken 5 months ago
@Ryooken I dispute none of that. However, that is a far cry from "black africans controlled europe for 800 years"
Idiot
HeCameHeSawGROID 5 months ago
@HeCameHeSawGROID Actually it's not. Europe was controlled both directly and indirectly through Africa. The moors not only controlled all the knowledge and economics in Europe but they established a pressence throughout southern Europe. The Moors were black and were directly controlled by Mali. In other words they were negroes. That's what you have a problem with.
Ryooken 5 months ago
@Ryooken What I really have a problem with is people talking utter shit.
HeCameHeSawGROID 5 months ago
@HeCameHeSawGROID Then you must really hate yourself because your claims of white superiority when the Moors were black and controlled Europe is a matter of historical fact. You claiming anything else is utter nonsense.
Ryooken 5 months ago
@Ryooken The Nazis were black and controlled Saturn for 9 million years.
See, I can do it too.
HeCameHeSawGROID 5 months ago
@HeCameHeSawGROID LOL! Actually the Nazis were not black but during WWI the Brittish sent an African regiment into Germany to devistate the population and change the racial dynamic. Hitler actually wrote about that and his anger towards the Brittish in his book. Like I said before, yeah you can make up stories while I just post actual historical events. You claim they are made up because you are uneducated and Eurocentric.
Ryooken 5 months ago
@Ryooken No moron. If you were accurate you could back it up. You have not:
A) Demonstrated the moors were black.
B) Set criteria for "control of Europe" and demonstrated that the Moors achieved it.
You won't be able to because any historian knows:
A) The moors were olive skinned Berbers under muslim Arab leadership.
B) The furthest they got was France and they were kicked out the SAME YEAR.
So carry on repeating your crap. I am through listening.
HeCameHeSawGROID 5 months ago
@HeCameHeSawGROID In fact, I did back it up. To date I have sent you two links stating this including a Brittish documentary. I have posted thousands of characters of text where you said you didn't disagree with and then I even posted sources. So yeah I did back it up. Not only did they not get kicked out the same year in France but it took them 30 years to repulse the Moors. So yeah the Moors controlled Europe and you got your knowledge from them. Deal with it and stop whinning.
Ryooken 5 months ago
@Ryooken In fact, you got your knowledge from black people, you got education from black people and oh yeah, you even came from black people. So again I say deal with it. We have to deal with the fact that we spawn people like you, so you have to deal with the fact that you came from us end of story.
Ryooken 5 months ago
@Ryooken Oh, you're black?
HeCameHeSawGROID 5 months ago
@Ryooken Did black people get their knowledge from monkeys?
HeCameHeSawGROID 5 months ago
@HeCameHeSawGROID Since blacks aren't related to monkeys I wouldn't know. Done yet?
Ryooken 5 months ago
@Ryooken But black people evolved from monkeys right?
HeCameHeSawGROID 5 months ago
@HeCameHeSawGROID Nope black didn't evolve from monkeys. If you looked at the characteristics of monkeys facial features, hair type hair texture and length, you will discover that there is no relation to monkeys. Nice try but no cigar.
Ryooken 5 months ago
@Ryooken Chimps?
HeCameHeSawGROID 5 months ago
@Ryooken I must admit I am confused. You are saying that black people represent an earlier stage of human evolution......and that's a positive?
HeCameHeSawGROID 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Ryooken "Nope black didn't evolve from monkeys. If you looked at the characteristics of monkeys facial features, hair type hair texture and length, you will discover that there is no relation to monkeys. Nice try but no cigar."
But if you look at the self replicating molecule that started life on earth, it wouldn't resemble black people either. But they evolved from it. I think blacks evolved from monkeys. And then into whites.
HeCameHeSawGROID 5 months ago
@Ryooken If you observe chimps in the wild, they are quite peaceful and civilized. My theory is black people evolved from monkeys, and then split into white people and chimps. But some black people were left behind and now whites have to feed them. Chimps, who are more evolved, can feed themselves.
HeCameHeSawGROID 5 months ago
@Ryooken So my theory is :
Molecules - Bacteria - Black people - Monkeys - Chimps - Neanderthals - Gooks - White People
HeCameHeSawGROID 5 months ago
@HeCameHeSawGROID All organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor or ancestral gene pool.[183][254] Current species are a stage in the process of evolution, with their diversity the product of a long series of speciation and extinction events.[255] The common descent of organisms was first deduced from four simple facts about organisms: First, they have geographic distributions that cannot be explained by local adaptation.
HeCameHeSawGROID 5 months ago
@HeCameHeSawGROID The eukaryotic cells emerged between 1.6 – 2.7 billion years ago. The next major change in cell structure came when bacteria were engulfed by eukaryotic cells, in a cooperative association called endosymbiosis.[267][268] The engulfed bacteria and the host cell then underwent co-evolution, with the bacteria evolving into either mitochondria or hydrogenosomes.[269]
HeCameHeSawGROID 5 months ago
@HeCameHeSawGROID Genetic and fossil evidence is interpreted to show that archaic Homo sapiens evolved to anatomically modern humans solely in Africa, between 200,000 and 150,000 years ago,[3] that members of one branch of Homo sapiens left Africa by between 125,000 and 60,000 years ago, and that over time these humans replaced earlier human populations such as Neanderthals and Homo erectus.
continued
Ryooken 5 months ago
@Ryooken The date of the earliest successful "out of Africa" migration (earliest migrants with living descendents) has generally been placed at 60,000 years ago as suggested by genetics, although attempts at migration out of the continent may have taken place as early as 125,000 years ago according to Arabian archaeology finds of tools in the region [5].
Ryooken 5 months ago
@Ryooken So there is 1000 characters of text so I am right.
HeCameHeSawGROID 5 months ago
@HeCameHeSawGROID LOL! Nice try but again no cigar.
Ryooken 5 months ago
@Ryooken By 2010, however, detailed DNA sequencing of the Neanderthal specimens from Europe indicated that the contribution was nonzero, with Neanderthals sharing 1-4% more genetic variants with living non-Africans than with living humans in sub-Saharan Africa, supporting regional continuity outside of Africa.[48][49]
HeCameHeSawGROID 5 months ago
@HeCameHeSawGROID Interesting but it's a competing theory. The primary competing scientific hypothesis is currently recent African origin of modern humans, which proposes that modern humans arose as a new species in Africa around 100-200,000 years ago, moving out of Africa around 50-60,000 years ago to replace existing human species such as Homo erectus and the Neanderthals without interbreeding.[52][53][54][55]
continued
Ryooken 5 months ago
@Ryooken This differs from the multiregional hypothesis in that the multiregional model predicts interbreeding with preexisting local human populations in any such migration.[55]. According to Cavalli-Sforza's work, all non-African populations are more closely related to each other than to Africans; supporting the hypothesis that all non-Africans descend from a single old-African population. The genetic distance from Africa to Europe (16.6)
continued
Ryooken 5 months ago
@Ryooken was found to be shorter than the genetic distance from Africa to East Asia (20.6), and much shorter than that from Africa to Australia (24.7). He explains...both Africans and Asians contributed to the settlement of Europe, which began about 40,000 years ago.
continued
Ryooken 5 months ago
@Ryooken It seems very reasonable to assume that both continents nearest to Europe contributed to its settlement, even if perhaps at different times and maybe repeatedly. It is reassuring that the analysis of other markers also consistently gives the same results in this case. Moreover, a specific evolutionary model tested, i.e., that Europe is formed by contributions from Asia and Africa, fits the distance matrix perfectly (6).
continued
Ryooken 5 months ago
@Ryooken In this simplified model, the migrations postulated to have populated Europe are estimated to have occurred at an early date (30,000 years ago), but it is impossible to distinguish, on the basis of these data, this model from that of several migrations at different times. The overall contributions from Asia and Africa were estimated to be around two-thirds and one-third, respectively".
Out of Africa wasn't falsified.
Ryooken 5 months ago
@Ryooken Your sources are old and do not account for 2010 Neanderthal admixture discovery.
HeCameHeSawGROID 5 months ago
@HeCameHeSawGROID You should have read more. Here is what you missed. The Denisova hominin (/dɨˈniːsəvə/) is the remains (a finger bone and tooth) of a member of the genus Homo that may belong to a previously unknown species based on an analysis of their mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA). In March 2010, discovery was announced of a finger bone fragment of a juvenile that lived about 41,000 years ago found in Denisova Cave (Altai Krai, Russia),
continued
Ryooken 5 months ago
@Ryooken a region also inhabited at about the same time by Neanderthals and modern humans.12 The mtDNA of the Denisova hominin is distinct from the mtDNAs of Neanderthals and modern humans.3 In December 2010, an international team of scientists determined the sequence from the nuclear genome of this group (known as the Denisovans) from this finger bone.
continued
Ryooken 5 months ago
@Ryooken According to their analysis, this group shares a common origin with the Neanderthals and interbred with the ancestors of modern Melanesians.4 In 2011 a toe bone was discovered which may belong to a Neanderthal-Denisovan hybrid.5
The DNA analysis further indicated that this new hominin species was the result of an early migration out of Africa, distinct from the later out-of-Africa migrations associated with Neanderthals and modern humans, but also distinct from the earlier
continued
Ryooken 5 months ago
@Ryooken African exodus of Homo erectus.3 Professor Chris Stringer, human origins researcher at London's Natural History Museum and one of the leading proponents of the recent single-origin hypothesis, remarked: "This new DNA work provides an entirely new way of looking at the still poorly understood evolution of humans in central and eastern Asia." Pääbo noted that the existence of this distant branch creates a much more complex picture of humankind during the Late Pleistocene.
continued
Ryooken 5 months ago
@Ryooken Nuclear genome analysis
In the same second 2010 paper, the authors report the isolation and sequencing of nuclear DNA from the Denisova finger bone. This specimen showed an unusual degree of DNA preservation and low level of contamination. They were able to achieve near-complete genomic sequencing, allowing a detailed comparison with Neanderthal and modern humans.
continued
Ryooken 5 months ago
@Ryooken From this analysis, they concluded that in spite of the apparent divergence of their mitochondrial sequence, the Denisova population along with Neanderthal shared a common branch from the lineage leading to modern African humans. The estimated time of divergence between Denisovans and Neanderthals is 640,000 years ago, and that between both these groups and modern Africans is 804,000 years ago.
continued
Ryooken 5 months ago
@Ryooken They suggest that the divergence of the Denisova mtDNA results either from the persistence of a lineage purged from the other branches of humanity through genetic drift or else an introgression from an older hominin lineage.
Next time you use wikipedia as a resource, you should review it more thoroughly.
Ryooken 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Ryooken Funny, I write "Your sources are old and do not account for 2010 Neanderthal admixture discovery." you go off on one about Denisova, and then tell me to read more carevully.
HeCameHeSawGROID 5 months ago
@Ryooken "The estimated time of divergence between Denisovans and Neanderthals is 640,000 years ago, and that between both these groups and modern Africans is 804,000 years ago"
If Neanderthal DNA (1-4%) is found in modern Europeans and Asians, and not Africans, that means modern Europeans and Asians evolved OUTSIDE AFRICA. What is difficult to understand about that?
HeCameHeSawGROID 5 months ago
@HeCameHeSawGROID Oh the simple fact that it states that Denisovans came out of Africa. Did you miss that part?
They suggest that the divergence of the Denisova mtDNA results either from the persistence of a lineage purged from the other branches of humanity through genetic drift or else an introgression from an older hominin lineage.
Remember this?
Ryooken 5 months ago
@Ryooken It doesn't matter where the contributing organisms came from. Modern non Africans evolved outside Africa, and are distinct.
HeCameHeSawGROID 5 months ago
@HeCameHeSawGROID Actually it does and here is why. What you are trying to say is that the contributing factors to European development was a one shot deal. The evidence shows that it wasn't. What you also failed to deal with is the natural progression over time where Africans at various periods in history interbreeded with this subgroup and thus the DNA shows that 1/3 of the DNA was African. So as much as you would like for it not to be true, you still came from Africa.
Ryooken 5 months ago
@Ryooken No. SOME of the DNA came from africa. SOME came from outside africa. So Europeans didn't come from africa. They developed outside. They evolved.
HeCameHeSawGROID 5 months ago
@Ryooken You really expect anyone to believe that mutations only happened in Africa? Why?
HeCameHeSawGROID 5 months ago
@HeCameHeSawGROID LOL! You are making assumptions again. I don't believe I mentioned mutations but the albino gene responsible for caucasians has showed up in all the subgroups of humans throughout history. That's not what I was talking about. I was specifically stating that whether you like it or not you came from Africa. Homonid development into human species still cross breed with other species of humans even until the modern era and the genetics don't dispute that.
Ryooken 5 months ago
@Ryooken So I ask you about whether mutations only happened in Africa, and you pick a gene a gene which is found everywhere. Which proves nothing and is irrelevant.
What about CCR5-Δ32 gene? This alone proves non Africans evolved outside Africa.
HeCameHeSawGROID 5 months ago
@HeCameHeSawGROID Yes, it can be found everywhere now. Before the albino gene was originally Denisova. Which came out of Africa.
What about CCR5-Δ32 gene?
This is the gene that developed because of small pox. How does this gene prove that white people were not African. As I said before you think genetic development is a one shot deal. It wasn't. Yes, mutations happen everyday and everywhere. However, if white people are the original then why are their gene recessive?
Ryooken 5 months ago
@Ryooken No I don't think "genetic development is a one shot deal". I don't even know what that means. I am very well versed in genetic theory thank you. I studied under John Maynard Smith. Obviously evolution is a long complex process, with many small steps. It is YOU that is claiming everything happened in Africa. I am proving again and again it didn't. So suck it up and fuck off.
HeCameHeSawGROID 5 months ago
@HeCameHeSawGROID First name dropping really means nothing to me. Second if you don't know what a one shot deal is then how can you claim that you don't think genetic mutation is a one shot deal? Finally, you still didn't answer my question. If white people are original unto themselves, then why are their genes recessive? Where did I say everything happened in Africa. Genetic migration is based upon adaptation through environment.
continued
Ryooken 5 months ago
@Ryooken Genetic mutation are sudden changes in the genome that produces uniquely divergent results. Whether those genes stabilize and create a stable divergence remains to be seen. That doesn't change the facts of what I said. For example, the blue eye gene is 10,000 years old, it didn't start in Africa but that doesn't change that black people came from Africa and adapted and became white, red, yellow, and brown. The human genome project as you should know state there is one race.
Ryooken 5 months ago
@Ryooken You are basically just babbling nonsense now.
HeCameHeSawGROID 5 months ago
@HeCameHeSawGROID Right but you are the expert right? So answer the questions and don't hide behind rhetoric. I know quite a bit about genetics myself. So explain the human genome's point that there is no such thing as races and that as humans we are all the same species. Can you explain that or are you going to hide behind more rhetoric?
Ryooken 5 months ago
@Ryooken Why did you write:
"Finally, you still didn't answer my question. If white people are original unto themselves, then why are their genes recessive? "
This is the first time you brought up recessive genes, which are irrelevant to the point. You lose a point, change the subject, then claim *I* am the one that cannot answer. What a waste of time.
HeCameHeSawGROID 5 months ago
@Ryooken Why did you write:
"Finally, you still didn't answer my question. If white people are original unto themselves, then why are their genes recessive? "
This is the first time you brought up recessive genes, which are irrelevant to the point. You lose a point, change the subject, then claim *I* am the one that cannot answer. What a waste of time.
HeCameHeSawGROID 5 months ago
@Ryooken "Finally, you still didn't answer my question. If white people are original unto themselves, then why are their genes recessive?"
Huh? This is the first time you mentioned recessive genes. You lose a point, and rather than admit it, bring up an irrelevant new one, and claim *I* am avoiding the issues. Loser. If recessive genes are prevalent in a population, they have been under heavy selection and are for something useful.
HeCameHeSawGROID 5 months ago