Nubia birthed Egypt

[cachibatches]

Originally Posted by cpg35223

King Tut actually had far more European genetics. Half of European men share King Tut's DNA | Reuters

Don't believe Unbreakable's lies. Everything he says is afrocentric nonsense. The "study" he keeps posting was falsified on a number of levels, but all you really have to know about it is that the scientist who collected the original data for the Journal Of American Medicine Papers admitted that he could not duplicate the results and published his team's best guess.

In other words, he falsified.

Here is that tidbit and a few more probelms to boot, all of which Unbreakable/Asante/Sirshawn/fraud/liar/cheat/culturalthief...whatever he wants to call himself...has been told a number of times in multpile forums:

PROBLEMS WITH DNA TRIBES AND RAMSES STUDIES IS THAT THEY WERE BOTH BASED ON JAMA WORK BY ALBERT ZINK, WHO HAS ADMITTED THAT HE FALSIFIED:
"Zink has stated that the tests did not get the same results each time they were run and the results reported in the JAMA paper are those the team adjudged "most likely" based on "majority rule" (Curse of the Pharaoh's DNA AWT Conference Review, Marchant; 2011)
The same team (including Zink) that worked on the 2010 study also worked 2012 study "Revisiting the harem conspiracy and death of Ramesses III: anthropological, forensic, radiological, and genetic study".
PROBLEMS WITH DNA EXTRACTION METHODS AND CONTAMINATION
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110427/full/472404a.html
ALSO, THERE IS THE PROBLEM IN BOTH STUDIES OF USING TOO FEW AUTOSOMAL MARKERS:
http://hamiticunion.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=print&thread=38
"Thus the answer to the question “How often is a pair of individuals from one population genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?” depends on the number of polymorphisms used to define that dissimilarity and the populations being compared. The answer, can be read from Figure 2. Given 10 loci, three distinct populations, and the full spectrum of polymorphisms (Figure 2E), the answer is ≅ 0.3, or nearly one-third of the time. With 100 loci, the answer is ∼20% of the time and even using 1000 loci, ≅ 10%. However, if genetic similarity is measured over many thousands of loci, the answer becomes “never” when individuals are sampled from geographically separated populations." This DNA Tribes paper uses even fewer loci than 10, so its margin of error is considerably higher than 30%. What good are genetic 'findings' that are around 40% likely to be wrong? Not especially useful let alone accurate.


The fool is even lying about what the article that started this thread. It talks about Nubian and Egyptian cutlure being related in pre-dynastic, but but specifically talks about how Egypt consciously becomes something very different later. It in no way applies that "ancient Egypt" as this liar says, was Nubian influenced, but "pre-dynastic" culture.

[The Unbreakable]

Originally Posted by cachibatches

"Zink has stated that the tests did not get the same results each time they were run and the results reported in the JAMA paper are those the team adjudged "most likely" based on "majority rule" (Curse of the Pharaoh's DNA AWT Conference Review, Marchant; 2011) the same team (including Zink) that worked on the 2010 study also worked 2012 study "Revisiting the harem conspiracy and death of Ramesses III: anthropological, forensic, radiological, and genetic study".PROBLEMS WITH DNA EXTRACTION METHODS AND CONTAMINATION
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110427/full/472404a.html
ALSO, THERE IS THE PROBLEM IN BOTH STUDIES OF USING TOO FEW AUTOSOMAL MARKERS:
http://hamiticunion.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=print&thread=38

The above statements are NOT in the nature.com link that you just cited, but rather appear to be the erroneous conclusions of a person posing as a "hamite" from a lonely message board that you apparently copy pasted from. According to the ACTUAL article on nature.com:

"There are a number of things right about the paper," says David Lambert, an ancient-DNA researcher and evolutionary biologist at Griffith University in Nathan, Queensland. Lambert points out that the Tutankhamun team was not able to amplify Y-chromosome markers from the female mummies, which argues against contamination from modern archaeologists, who are generally male....The newest techniques can read much shorter fragments — easily down to the 30 base pairs that might be found in a 2,000-year-old Egyptian mummy. "That pushes the [DNA] survival time a long way back," says Gilbert...."I think it is really time to bring together the different sides and stop arguing about each other's work," he says. "With next-generation sequencing, people can't just say 'I don't like it'. People have to discuss the work based on the data themselves." Willerslev agrees, offering a rare olive branch. "I think we will find that the believers have been too uncritical," he says. "But the sceptics have probably been too conservative."

link

So apparently the methodology used is the LATEST method. The contention appears to come from the old heads in the field worried about cross contamination when it's clearly not the case. The fact that every mummy tested by DNAtribes thus far (including the latest Ramside mummies) are showing the same CONSISTENT genetic matches is in itself confirmation that this is not a fluke. Oh and there is also a gem in that article aswell:

And there is concern, says Zink, that such work might yield politically sensitive information about the genetic origin of the pharaohs, and whether any of their descendants are alive today. "This goes right to their history."

Translation: The Arabs now running Egypt simply don't want the truth to come out in regards to their Egyptian ancestors being "Negroes"

which is the same thing that the "crank" Robert Bauval has stated:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5wLC...e=results_main

Originally Posted by cachibatches

it in no way applies that "ancient Egypt" as this liar says, was Nubian influenced, but "pre-dynastic" culture.

Yes...by all means continue to talk and make a complete fool of yourself.

[cachibatches]

Originally Posted by The Unbreakable

The above statements are NOT in the nature.com link that you just cited, but rather appear to be the erroneous conclusions of a person posing as a "hamite" from a lonely message board that you apparently copy pasted from. According to the ACTUAL article on nature.com:

link

So apparently the methodology used is the LATEST method. The contention appears to come from the old heads in the field worried about cross contamination when it's clearly not the case. The fact that every mummy tested by DNAtribes thus far (including the latest Ramside mummies) are showing the same CONSISTENT genetic matches is in itself confirmation that this is not a fluke. Oh and there is also a gem in that article aswell:



Translation: The Arabs now running Egypt simply don't want the truth to come out in regards to their Egyptian ancestors being "Negroes"

which is the same thing that the "crank" Robert Bauval has stated:


Black Ancient Egypt cover up conspiracy, racist Zahi Hawass exposed - Robert Bauval, Third Eye TV - YouTube





Yes...by all means continue to talk and make a complete fool of yourself.

Jesus Christ in heaven...Albert Zink admitted that he could not duplicate his results. It is a complete fraud. What part of that do you not get? He was measuring contamination.

I have posted dozens of the best DNA studies out there...you have posted garbage. You are an embarrassement to yourself and to your people. You are not smarter than the hundreds of geneticists who have worked on these studies. In fact, you are an idiot.

You cite Robert Bauval and think I am embarrassing myself? You are a bonafide idiot pure and simple.

Show me one extant genetic model that makes your "black Egypt" possible.

You are not an Egyptian. You have no ancestor who helped buils a pyramid. No one in your line ever put hieroglyphics on papyrus. You are jealous of someone else's ancestors, and are disrespecting your own. You are a fraud, a liar, and a cultural thief.

And to anyone following the arguments POST 127, POST 127, POST 127.

[Snowball7]

I don't know what all the controversy is about.
Nubia was downstream the Nile of Cairo and Egypt central.
Nubia is not the "Egypt" we think of at all.
Apples and oranges. Negroes were slaves in Egypt, Roman Empire,
and so were the Hebrews.

[HoodsofATL]

Originally Posted by cachibatches

Jesus Christ in heaven...Albert Zink admitted that he could not duplicate his results. It is a complete fraud. What part of that do you not get? He was measuring contamination.

I have posted dozens of the best DNA studies out there...you have posted garbage. You are an embarrassement to yourself and to your people. You are not smarter than the hundreds of geneticists who have worked on these studies. In fact, you are an idiot.

You cite Robert Bauval and think I am embarrassing myself? You are a bonafide idiot pure and simple.

Show me one extant genetic model that makes your "black Egypt" possible.

You are not an Egyptian. You have no ancestor who helped buils a pyramid. No one in your line ever put hieroglyphics on papyrus. You are jealous of someone else's ancestors, and are disrespecting your own. You are a fraud, a liar, and a cultural thief.

And to anyone following the arguments POST 127, POST 127, POST 127.

You sound defeated. There really is a lot of evidence to support his/our claim, yet you can't step up to the plate.

[cachibatches]

Originally Posted by HoodsofATL

You sound defeated. There really is a lot of evidence to support his/our claim, yet you can't step up to the plate.

Uh, you have no evidence what-so-ever. I have posted ALL of the genetic evidence on post 127.

I have won this argument. Anyone who comes to this thread with a desire to learn will look at post 127, maybe read the studies for themselves, and know that you are frauds.

The fact that you talk of "thieving Arabs" and the "the superiority of people with melanin" will not help your case. In fact, it is kind of sad.

In the end, most already know that you are frauds...everyone has seen that largely Egyptians did not depict themselves as "black." But there are a few that take the question seriously, and I just want to make sure that they have good sources to draw on.

You and your pal are advocationists, and nothing is going to dissuade you from your nonsense. That is all right. You simply don't matter. You have removed yourself from the mainstream.

Post 127 my friend. You have no ancestor that built a pyramid. You have no ancestor that put hieroglyphic on papyrus. Egyptians looked different than you, they depicted themselves as different than you, they spoke a different language group, they were genetically very different, they lived on the opposite side of the continent.

You should study your own ancestors instead of trying to steal someone else's.

[PJSaturn]

People, knock it off with the personal attacks. You may attack ideas but not the integrity of persons posting them. Play nice, or the thread will be locked.

Edited to add: On second thought, I'm locking the thread now.