Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's funny that you argued with gwillyfromphilly's uncontroversial claim that Berbers, Tuaregs, and Egyptians are African by posting links to a whole host of studies that conclude that there are mitochondrial DNA sequences in present-day North Africans that originated in North Africa, West Asia, West Africa, East Africa, western Europe, and other points in sub-Saharan Africa.
And you insinuated that present-day Egyptians are European. Most Egyptians identify as Arab (Berbers, regardless of nationality, identify as Berbers).
Saddest of all, you conflate America's black/white racial construct with the genetic origin of people of the world. That makes no sense.
And then you resorted to ad hominem attacks inconsistent with debate, learning, and civilization. To quote:
"You are an uneducated nobody"
"they cry racism"
"Look crybaby"
"You are a completely uneducated Afrocentrist who foolishly challenges"
"I have amassed dozens if not hundreds of studies in my debunking of Afro-loons."
Let's not forget, this is the post you were responding to:
Originally Posted by gwillyfromphillyI don't get too caught up in skin color because African people can vary in skin tone. Also when you put too much emphasis on skin color, the argument usually turns into "The blacker you are, the more African you are". What's ironic is that we don't really do that with other racial groups but when it comes to African people it always narrowed down to "how dark or how light your skin color is". At the core of it, I feel like it's a divide and conquer tactic, similar to what racist slave masters did in North America. As someone who is of African ancestry, I find it very offensive that people look down on certain African ethnic groups because they don't fit a certain stereotypical viewpoint of what an African should look like. If people can view Spaniards, Italians, and Greeks as European people despite their darker complexion compared to Northern Europeans than Berbers, Tuaregs and Egyptians should have that same respect when it comes to being viewed as African people.
So a person "cries racism" by pointing out that Berbers, Tuaregs, and Egyptians should be viewed as African people? Take a look at a world map before you start foaming at the mouth.
If you want to talk genetics, from your own links:
"The results of this study point to a genetic structure of the Gurna population similar to that of the Ethiopian one. This population structure has probably been conserved in some other Egyptian populations even though those which have already been analyzed, such as Mansoura, Assiout and Cairo, failed to show the same characteristics. Mansoura, Assiout and Cairo are very big cities with much continuous and current admixture of individuals from several other regions and countries forming great melting pots." Mitochondrial DNA Sequence Diversity in a Sedentary Population from Egypt - Stevanovitch - 2004 - Annals of Human Genetics - Wiley Online Library
Note that R is prevalent in western Europe. J is prevalent in Western Asia. E3 is prevalent in much of the African continent. When you look at the circle in Egypt, you can see (surprise!) a mixture of E3 and J, and to a lesser extent, other binary markers, including R.
So much for your white Berber theory (although Siwa Berbers show R commonly, it is considerably less frequent in all other Berber groups; Siwa Berbers also show markers from western Asia, North Africa, and sub-Saharan Africa)
"Assuming a 30-year generation time [41], the proposed migration of sub-Saharans to southern Morocco at about 1,200 years ago coincides with the rise of the Ghana Empire, involved in the trans-Saharan slave trading, and the “Great Berber Uprising” which established Berber kingdoms throughout Morocco. We use a Bantu-speaking population from Kenya as a source population for this migration, as North African individuals with sub-Saharan ancestry appeared to be closer to the Luhya than the Nigerian Yoruba (Figure 1, Figure 2 and Figure S2). However, there are likely other western African populations genetically similar to Kenyan Bantu-speakers. We do not interpret this association as an explicit migration from Kenya to southern Morocco. We also use the length of Nilotic tracts in Egyptians to ask if sub-Saharan ancestry (apparent in Figure 1 and Figure 6) also appears to be a recent introduction. Under a pulse model of migration, a significant increase in gene flow likely occurred ~700 ya, after the Arabic expansion into North Africa 1,400 ya. Our migration results are in agreement with previous studies based on mtDNA analysis where gene flow into eastern and western North Africa appeared to have different sub-Saharan population sources[10], [16]." PLOS Genetics: Genomic Ancestry of North Africans Supports Back-to-Africa Migrations
"Egypt and Nubia have low and similar amounts of divergence for both mtDNA types, which is consistent with historical evidence for long-term interactions between Egypt and Nubia. Spatial autocorrelation analysis demonstrates a smooth gradient of decreasing genetic similarity of mtDNA types as geographic distance between sampling localities increases, strongly suggesting gene flow along the Nile, with no evident barriers. We conclude that these migrations probably occurred within the past few hundred to few thousand years and that the migration from north to south was either earlier or lesser in the extent of gene flow than the migration from south to north." mtDNA analysis of Nile River Valley populatio... [Am J Hum Genet. 1999] - PubMed - NCBI
It is funny that the thread is not about whether they are "African" but black. It is funny that you don't understand that a mixed and diverse population is not "black." It is funny that you didn't get that they are blacker today due to the Arab slave trade. It is funny that you don't care in the least about all of the Ad Hominem's directed at me.
Lets get back on point...do you understand that North Africa has been mixed since the Paleolitic? Do you understand that the diversity that we see today is ancient? Do you understand that that is what all of the studies I have posted and dozens of others say? do you understand that several that you have posted say the same thing?
Let us re-examine my statement, as true now as when I first posted it:
As you have been shown now at least half a dozen times, Eurasians have been back-migrating into Africa at least since the paleolithic. The Egyptians are virtually the same people as always they were in historic times. In fact, insofar as they are different, they are now "blacker" due to the the Arab slave trade, which input far more Sub-Saharan DNA than the meager garrisons of conquering armies. These are not my conclusions, these are the conclusions of scientists around the world. Funny thing abou the truth...it doesn't go away. You cannot wait it out because you don't like it.
Not to be rude...but why do people care what they are? They're still human wouldn't matter if they were tickle me pink.
It seems that starting in the 15th century people looked at the various biological differences between different ethnic groups and decided they belonged to a limited number of human subspecies denoted as "races".
As more and more ethnic groups were discovered they expanded the number of races from white-black-yellow to include red and brown. Rather than expand the number of races, they struggle to fit in the unusual ethnic groups without a clear color.
Nearly every reputable scientist will tell you the fault was with the original assumption. There are no neat biological criteria for division of the human population.
It is funny that the thread is not about whether they are "African" but black. It is funny that you don't understand that a mixed and diverse population is not "black." It is funny that you didn't get that they are blacker today due to the Arab slave trade. It is funny that you don't care in the least about all of the Ad Hominem's directed at me.
Lets get back on point...do you understand that North Africa has been mixed since the Paleolitic? Do you understand that the diversity that we see today is ancient? Do you understand that that is what all of the studies I have posted and dozens of others say? do you understand that several that you have posted say the same thing?
Let us re-examine my statement, as true now as when I first posted it:
As you have been shown now at least half a dozen times, Eurasians have been back-migrating into Africa at least since the paleolithic. The Egyptians are virtually the same people as always they were in historic times. In fact, insofar as they are different, they are now "blacker" due to the the Arab slave trade, which input far more Sub-Saharan DNA than the meager garrisons of conquering armies. These are not my conclusions, these are the conclusions of scientists around the world. Funny thing abou the truth...it doesn't go away. You cannot wait it out because you don't like it.
What part of this are you disputing?
Assuming that you read my post, you would have seen that I specifically bolded statements indicating exactly that. I included my own summary, "Note that R is prevalent in western Europe. J is prevalent in Western Asia. E3 is prevalent in much of the African continent. When you look at the circle in Egypt, you can see (surprise!) a mixture of E3 and J, and to a lesser extent, other binary markers, including R."
What you failed to understand is that North Africans (including Berbers) are, by definition, African. That was gwillyfromphilly's point that got you so worked up in the first place.
It is also completely inaccurate to state, from a genetic standpoint, that ancient Egyptians are essentially the same people as contemporary Egyptians. Continued migration has, obviously, left its genetic mark on the population of Egypt.
You have evinced a belief that only "black" people are African. You try to ground that belief in genetics, but it is inherently nonsensical. I do not care about "Ad-Hominems directed at" you because you have been the primary culprit (and there really have not been ad-hominems directed at you, but it would not change the analysis even if there were).
In a single post, you attempted to put forth a genetic basis for blackness or non-blackness by discussing studies of the DNA of contemporary Egyptians. But then you undermined it when you stated that "it [sic] they look white, then they aren't black." Perhaps you undermined your own analysis because the E3 marker (from Africa) is more common in Egypt than the R1 marker (from Europe), and your "genetic race" conclusions would be undermined by analyzing the actual genetics Egyptians. So you resorted to 19th century physiognomy.
Assuming that you read my post, you would have seen that I specifically bolded statements indicating exactly that. I included my own summary, "Note that R is prevalent in western Europe. J is prevalent in Western Asia. E3 is prevalent in much of the African continent. When you look at the circle in Egypt, you can see (surprise!) a mixture of E3 and J, and to a lesser extent, other binary markers, including R."
The chart you posted show Lower Egyptians to be about a third E, a third J, and a third various other Eurasian haplotypes. That makes them...Surprise... 2/3 Eurasian (at least...E is not proven to be African in origin). There are massive numbers of studies out there that prove that this admixture is pre-historic. This is the main idea of the studies I have posted. Not at all hard to understand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge
What you failed to understand is that North Africans (including Berbers) are, by definition, African. That was gwillyfromphilly's point that got you so worked up in the first place.
"African" does not mean anything. They are not "black" which is what the thread is about. They are mostly Eurasian with African mix. That "African" is not necessarily "black." North Africa is on the same latitude as the Middle East, and so the people there evolved phenotypically similar.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge
It is also completely inaccurate to state, from a genetic standpoint, that ancient Egyptians are essentially the same people as contemporary Egyptians. Continued migration has, obviously, left its genetic mark on the population of Egypt.
Correct. the Dakleh oasis mummy studies show that they are a smidge blacker today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge
You have evinced a belief that only "black" people are African. You try to ground that belief in genetics, but it is inherently nonsensical. I do not care about "Ad-Hominems directed at" you because you have been the primary culprit (and there really have not been ad-hominems directed at you, but it would not change the analysis even if there were).
I have posted genetic studies that show that the diversity and complexity of modern Egyptians mirrors that of the ancients. Nothing can change that, and anyone reading along can see that it is absolutely correct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge
In a single post, you attempted to put forth a genetic basis for blackness or non-blackness by discussing studies of the DNA of contemporary Egyptians. But then you undermined it when you stated that "it [sic] they look white, then they aren't black." Perhaps you undermined your own analysis because the E3 marker (from Africa) is more common in Egypt than the R1 marker (from Europe), and your "genetic race" conclusions would be undermined by analyzing the actual genetics Egyptians. So you resorted to 19th century physiognomy.
I have undermined nothing. Again, you do not understand that North Africans, even of African haplotypes, are not "black." Skin color and facial features are determined primarily by latitude. Because north Africa is on the same latitude as the Middle East, the people there evolved to be more Middle eastern looking.
You are beating a dead horse. The Egyptians have always been a mixed and diverse race, much more leaning towards Caucasian/Eurasian than Sub-Saharan. The studies that I have posted have said exactly that. I have made no mistake. There is no other interpretation.
The chart you posted show Lower Egyptians to be about a third E, a third J, and a third various other Eurasian haplotypes. That makes them...Surprise... 2/3 Eurasian (at least...E is not proven to be African in origin). There are massive numbers of studies out there that prove that this admixture is pre-historic. This is the main idea of the studies I have posted. Not at all hard to understand.
"The chart [i] posted" is from one of your links. J is from the Levant. It is a Middle Eastern marker. E3 is an African marker (note its prevalence below the Sahara. R1 is a western European marker--in the chart from your article it represents a tiny sliver of Egyptian Arab binary markers. The markers in that chart are ~1/3 African, ~1/3 Middle Eastern, and about 1/3 a mix of other Afroeurasian markers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cachibatches
"African" does not mean anything. They are not "black" which is what the thread is about. They are mostly Eurasian with African mix. That "African" is not necessarily "black." North Africa is on the same latitude as the Middle East, and so the people there evolved phenotypically similar.
Correct. the Dakleh oasis mummy studies show that they are a smidge blacker today.
"They are mostly Eurasian with African mix" should actually be "they are afroeurasian mix." Your claim appears to be that skin color depends on latitude, which is demonstrably incorrect. For example, Papua New Guinea shares its latitude with the Congo and Peru. The early people of those three areas do not share skin color. Likewise, Portugal, California, and Japan share latitudes, but the early people of those three areas do not share skin color. The same is true of Egypt, India, and China.
The contemporary hypothesis for the development of human skin color variation is that it depends on the need for vitamin D absorption from the sun. Lighter skin reflects less sunlight and therefore absorbs more vitamin D from the sun. There is a correlation between the need for more vitamin D absorption and latitude, but it is one factor of many. For example, a coastal population with a high percentage of seafood in its diet would obtain more dietary vitamin D, which would mean less need for vitamin D from the sun (and thus) a tendency towards darker skin (see, e.g., Inuit, who live extremely far from the equator but tend to have dark skin). A population living in an area with less ozone protection would, by virtue of that low ozone protection, absorb more vitamin D from the sun, and would thus need darker skin to protect against UV (see, e.g., aboriginal Australians, who live far from the equator but tended to have dark skin). Note also that people living in areas with dense forest canopies, like the Amazon basin, would likely develop lighter skin than a person in an otherwise similar area because less sunlight would reach the forest floor (even though the Amazon straddles the equator).
These factors mattered for the early development of human skin color, but they are of decreased importance, because technologies like clothing and semi-permanent structures have provided shelter from the sun for thousands of years. Thus we have millenia of migrations and commerce where latitude is of limited importance for skin color.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cachibatches
I have posted genetic studies that show that the diversity and complexity of modern Egyptians mirrors that of the ancients. Nothing can change that, and anyone reading along can see that it is absolutely correct.
Egyptians are certainly diverse, but you have presented no study that shows that the contemporary genetics of Egyptians is the same as that of ancient Egyptians. The only study you have that indicates anything of the sort is about an isolated group of people in Egypt, whom the study specifically contrasts with most Egyptians, who live on the major trade and migration corridors of the country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cachibatches
I have undermined nothing. Again, you do not understand that North Africans, even of African haplotypes, are not "black." Skin color and facial features are determined primarily by latitude. Because north Africa is on the same latitude as the Middle East, the people there evolved to be more Middle eastern looking.
There is no evidence whatsoever that facial features are determined primarily by latitude. As I discussed above, latitude is one of multiple factors in the emergence of skin color (a factor that has not been a barrier to gene diffusion for thousands of years).
Quote:
Originally Posted by cachibatches
You are beating a dead horse. The Egyptians have always been a mixed and diverse race, much more leaning towards Caucasian/Eurasian than Sub-Saharan. The studies that I have posted have said exactly that. I have made no mistake. There is no other interpretation.
Caucasian and Eurasian are two different things. Eurasia is a massive landmass that includes more than 70% of the world's contemporary population and roughly 35% of the world's landmass. Egypt is in Africa, which is a landmass connected to Eurasia to form the largest continental landmass on Earth, comprising roughly 55% of the Earth's landmass and 85% of its contemporary human population. As I discussed above, modern Egyptians have genetic markers that are ~1/3 from Africa, 1/3 from the Levant, and 1/3 that are a mix from other parts of the Afro-eurasian landmass. Egyptian Arab genetic markers lean equally heavily to the Middle East and to sub-Saharan Africa, and they lean much less significantly to western Europe. All of this is relatively unimportant, because contemporary Egyptian Arabs identify themselves as Arabs.
Last edited by TheCityTheBridge; 09-15-2014 at 02:53 PM..
"The chart posted" is from one of your links. J is from the Levant. It is a Middle Eastern marker. E3 is an African marker (note its prevalence below the Sahara. R1 is a western European marker--in the chart from your article it represents a tiny sliver of Egyptian Arab binary markers. The markers in that chart are ~1/3 African, ~1/3 Middle Eastern, and about 1/3 a mix of other Afroeurasian markers..
Yes, which makes them about 2/3 Eurasian. not hard to understand. What is more, some of that E comes from the Arab slave trade. What is more, not all E= "black."
the thread is about whether they are black, and clearly they are not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge
" "They are mostly Eurasian with African mix" should actually be "they are afroeurasian mix." ..
Say it how you like, they're not black and you have done your best to show as much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge
" Your claim appears to be that skin color depends on latitude, which is demonstrably incorrect. For example, Papua New Guinea shares its latitude with the Congo and Peru.
Which is why black Africans, New Guineans, and Peruvians without Spanish mix are extremely dark. There is no doubt what-so-ever that UV radiation determines skin tone. None.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge
" The early people of those three areas do not share skin color. Likewise, Portugal, California, and Japan share latitudes, but the early people of those three areas do not share skin color. The same is true of Egypt, India, and China.
A lot of these people migrated to their areas after clothing was invented and natural selection stopped. NO scientist would argue that skin tone comes from anything other than UV radiation, which is why we find blondes in the far north and black people in the far south. You are beating a dead horse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge
" [i]The contemporary hypothesis for the development of human skin color variation is that it depends on the need for vitamin D absorption from the sun. Lighter skin reflects less sunlight and therefore absorbs more vitamin D from the sun. There is a correlation between the need for more vitamin D absorption and latitude, but it is one factor of many. For example, a coastal population with a high percentage of seafood in its diet would obtain more dietary vitamin D, which would mean less need for vitamin D from the sun (and thus) a tendency towards darker skin (see, e.g., Inuit, who live extremely far from the equator but tend to have dark skin). A population living in an area with less ozone protection would, by virtue of that low ozone protection, absorb more vitamin D from the sun, and would thus need darker skin to protect against UV (see, e.g., aboriginal Australians, who live far from the equator but tended to have dark skin). Note also that people living in areas with dense forest canopies, like the Amazon basin, would likely develop lighter skin than a person in an otherwise similar area because less sunlight would reach the forest floor (even though the Amazon straddles the equator).
This is all a canard anyway. You have done your best to show that Egyptians are 2/3 Eurasian. Even if all of the remaining E represents pure black peoples, they would still look more Eurasian. But these are not sub-Saharan phenotypes. Those are North African E haplotypes primarily, which are not black. That is the meaning behind the work of such men as Keita, which I included. There are E haplotype people in the Balkans, for example. The answer remains the same.
Put is in any terms you want. They primarily do not have extremely dark skin and fleshy features, and never did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge
" These factors mattered for the early development of human skin color, but they are of decreased importance, because technologies like clothing and semi-permanent structures have provided shelter from the sun for thousands of years. Thus we have millenia of migrations and commerce where latitude is of limited importance for skin color.
But as the studies all show, the Eurasian got in there in prehistoric times, when technologies would not have been such a factor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge
" Egyptians are certainly diverse, but you have presented no study that shows that the contemporary genetics of Egyptians is the same as that of ancient Egyptians. The only study you have that indicates anything of the sort is about an isolated group of people in Egypt, whom the study specifically contrasts with most Egyptians, who live on the major trade and migration corridors of the country.
Indeed, I presented studies that show that they are a bit blacker due to the Arab slave trade. They are primarily the same, only a bit darker.
There is no evidence whatsoever that facial features are determined primarily by latitude. As I discussed above, latitude is one of multiple factors in the emergence of skin color (a factor that has not been a barrier to gene diffusion for thousands of years).
Caucasian and Eurasian are two different things. Eurasia is a massive landmass that includes more than 70% of the world's contemporary population and roughly 35% of the world's landmass. Egypt is in Africa, which is a landmass connected to Eurasia to form the largest continental landmass on Earth, comprising roughly 55% of the Earth's landmass and 85% of its contemporary human population. As I discussed above, modern Egyptians have genetic markers that are ~1/3 from Africa, 1/3 from the Levant, and 1/3 that are a mix from other parts of the Afro-eurasian landmass. Egyptian Arab genetic markers lean equally heavily to the Middle East and to sub-Saharan Africa, and they lean much less significantly to western Europe. All of this is relatively unimportant, because contemporary Egyptian Arabs identify themselves as Arabs.[/quote]
Yes, which makes them about 2/3 Eurasian. not hard to understand. What is more, some of that E comes from the Arab slave trade. What is more, not all E= "black."
You have no idea where the E comes from. There has been substantial mixing of the people of the Nile for thousands of years, including of people south of Egypt. You can ignore the "Eur" part of eurasian and describe Egyptian Arabs as almost 2/3 Asian, if you like. Egyptians are Arabs. Their genetic markers come from the entirety of the Afro-eurasian landmass, with 2/3 coming from Africa and the Middle East.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cachibatches
the thread is about whether they are black, and clearly they are not.
And they are clearly not white.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cachibatches
Say it how you like, they're not black and you have done your best to show as much.
I have described that their genetics are mixed. They are Arabs (except for the Berbers, who are Berber).
Quote:
Originally Posted by cachibatches
Which is why black Africans, New Guineans, and Peruvians without Spanish mix are extremely dark. There is no doubt what-so-ever that UV radiation determines skin tone. None.
Do you have any idea what an indigenous Peruvian looks like?
"UV radiation determines skin tone" is too simplistic. It was a factor in the development of skin tone, and not the only one. How about Egypt/India/China and California/Portugal/Japan? In ancient times people traded and migrated across long distances. Even with the emergence of light skin tones about 25,000 to 50,000 years ago, subsequent migration and commerce is a major factor in even ancient skin tones.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cachibatches
A lot of these people migrated to their areas after clothing was invented and natural selection stopped. NO scientist would argue that skin tone comes from anything other than UV radiation, which is why we find blondes in the far north and black people in the far south. You are beating a dead horse.
No scientist would argue that skin tone comes only from UV radiation. You also do not understand that UV radiation is typically highest at the equator, and decreases with distance from the equator (not decreases north and increases south). If your theory held true, you would find equally as many native blonds with fair skin in New Zealand as you would find in France (or equally as many in South Africa as you would find in Algeria).
Your understanding of the development of clothing is also flawed. There is evidence for neanderthals tanning animal skins approximately 100,000 years ago, which was before light skin emerged. One theory holds that hominid development of clothing must have predated the adaptation of body lice to live in clothing, which is estimated to have occurred about 170,000 years ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cachibatches
This is all a canard anyway. You have done your best to show that Egyptians are 2/3 Eurasian. Even if all of the remaining E represents pure black peoples, they would still look more Eurasian. But these are not sub-Saharan phenotypes. Those are North African E haplotypes primarily, which are not black. That is the meaning behind the work of such men as Keita, which I included. There are E haplotype people in the Balkans, for example. The answer remains the same.
Sub-Saharan people have various phenotypes. There are no "pure black peoples." There are many diverse people, both within Africa and beyond it. The E haplogroups are found primarily in Africa, though E3b is found mostly in East Africa and around the Mediterranean. However, the parent to this haplogroup is thought to have emerged in East Africa. Haplotypes are not the equivalent of races, but mark paternal lineage.
Your own academic hero is a racial deconstructionist?
I happened across your blog, by the way. And I take it you were banned from Historum for the kind of activity you've engaged in here. You have taken a lot of time to look at (mostly) abstracts of academic articles and argue that they support your racial ideology. They do not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cachibatches
Put is in any terms you want. They primarily do not have extremely dark skin and fleshy features, and never did.
Not very scientific.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cachibatches
But as the studies all show, the Eurasian got in there in prehistoric times, when technologies would not have been such a factor.
"The Eurasian" encompasses a wide variety of people with vastly different cultures and genetic markers. If you can't be more specific, then it is unclear if you have a point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cachibatches
Indeed, I presented studies that show that they are a bit blacker due to the Arab slave trade. They are primarily the same, only a bit darker.
You should read those studies more closely, I am getting tired of doing it for you.
You have no idea where the E comes from. There has been substantial mixing of the people of the Nile for thousands of years, including of people south of Egypt. You can ignore the "Eur" part of eurasian and describe Egyptian Arabs as almost 2/3 Asian, if you like. Egyptians are Arabs. Their genetic markers come from the entirety of the Afro-eurasian landmass, with 2/3 coming from Africa and the Middle East.
.
Egyptians are not Arabs. You don't understand the studies. The J admixture is largely pre-historic, before there was a such things as "Arabs."
By the very chart you are citing, they are about a third Middle Eastern and a third European. They are a third African, but E does not equal black.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge
And they are clearly not white
Some are. Ramses had red hair and Semitic features. The hair is proven to be natural.
Most would be more properly said to be "brown" if you are describing skin tones, but they cluster much more closely with Caucasians than black Africans, and there isn't any way around this. We can keep going around in these circles forever as far as I am concerned, because I would like as many people as possible to read through the studies I have posted and see the truth. I can even turn them on to more if anyone cares to contact me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge
I have described that their genetics are mixed. They are Arabs (except for the Berbers, who are Berber).
They are not Arabs. this is a delusion, pure and simple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge
Do you have any idea what an indigenous Peruvian looks like?
Since my wife is Peruvian, I would say so. Native Peruvians are very dark.
Part of the game you are playing is that a lot of these groups have not had the time in what we think of in their native lands to completely evolce, and as you yourself mentioned, technology slows the progress of evolution. It is not what we are talking about. These being factored out, in a state of nature, UV radiation does determine skin color. Much evolution towards lighter skin and finer features happened in Situ in Africa, which is why even North Africans that carry E markers are not phenotypically "black." that is basically what Keita and his followers are saying. If you want to keep arguing the point, then I will just respond by posting Keita's lectures.
but all of this is a canard anyway...the Egyptians are largely Eurasian.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge
"UV radiation determines skin tone" is too simplistic. It was a factor in the development of skin tone, and not the only one. How about Egypt/India/China and California/Portugal/Japan? In ancient times people traded and migrated across long distances. Even with the emergence of light skin tones about 25,000 to 50,000 years ago, subsequent migration and commerce is a major factor in even ancient skin tones.
Repeat above. Factoring out migrations, technology, etc, UV causes skin tone. All of this is pointless arguing...the bottom line is that not all people who carry E haplotypes are black. The people who carry the Berber gene- a sublcade of E- are largely brown. "black" is a phenotype, and Egyptians are no and never were overwhelmingly black, although of course there was diversity and mixture, especially through the Arab slave trade.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge
No scientist would argue that skin tone comes only from UV radiation. You also do not understand that UV radiation is typically highest at the equator, and decreases with distance from the equator (not decreases north and increases south). If your theory held true, you would find equally as many native blonds with fair skin in New Zealand as you would find in France (or equally as many in South Africa as you would find in Algeria).
Again, completely pointless. The point is that native North Africans with E-subclades have brown skin and fine features. Evolution towards lighter skin and finer features happened in Situ in Africa in pre-historic times, amongst people who carry E markers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge
Your understanding of the development of clothing is also flawed. There is evidence for neanderthals tanning animal skins approximately 100,000 years ago, which was before light skin emerged. One theory holds that hominid development of clothing must have predated the adaptation of body lice to live in clothing, which is estimated to have occurred about 170,000 years ago.
At this point I can only keep repeating the same things to you until you stay on point and address them:
The chart you yourself like shows Egyptians are 2/3 Eurasian. ALL of the studies I posted show that the admixture is pre-historic. In addition, there is no doubt what-so-ever that even amongst the "African" E markers there are people who evolved with lighter skin and finer features...dare I say it...more Caucasian features, in Africa.
So there is really no way that they people we in ever a mysterious "black" people. Indeed, they are the same people that they have always been.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge
Sub-Saharan people have various phenotypes. There are no "pure black peoples." There are many diverse people, both within Africa and beyond it. The E haplogroups are found primarily in Africa, though E3b is found mostly in East Africa and around the Mediterranean. However, the parent to this haplogroup is thought to have emerged in East Africa. Haplotypes are not the equivalent of races, but mark paternal lineage.
Just as with your posting the chart, you are arguing against yourself and you don't even know. Yes, even people who carry the E marker,, even those who carry it in Africa, are not all "black." Black is a phenotype. So was are left with a people that are 2/3 Eurasian, and 1/3 African with markers that mostly entail North African, who evolved in Situ to look similar to Middle Easterners. Thanks you for proving my point.
I could care less what Keita would appreciate as he presents things in an entirely dishonest fashion, but when he is cornered, he tells the truth, and since you seem to like him so much, if we have to carry on with these pointless diversions, he is going to come up quite a bit. For now, lets just again cite the clip in which he comes out and admits the truth...the diversity we see in Egypt today is similar to what was always there:
Your own academic hero is a racial deconstructionist?
no hero of mine. He just sometimes tells the truth when forced.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge
I happened across your blog,
I don't have a blog. What are you on about?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge
by the way. And I take it you were banned from Historum for the kind of activity you've engaged in here.
I am a member in good standing on Historum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge
You have taken a lot of time to look at (mostly) abstracts of academic articles and argue that they support your racial ideology. They do not.
They say what they say and I hope a lot of people who come to this thread read them. The more that want to debate, the better, because debate brings the truth out. The Egyptians are a diverse and mixed people, but very little of that mix is sub-Saharan African. What is more, the mix we see today is largely pre-historic, and would have been largely in place in the most ancient of times.
Great thing about science, it say what it says.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge
Not very scientific.
Based on your vast misunderstandings of the studies posted, I do not believe you are qualified to tell me what is "scientific." But the studies say what they say...I POSTED THEM WITH THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE AUTHORS. So all I have to say is... be waiting on the next round of non-sequiturs .
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge
"The Eurasian" encompasses a wide variety of people with vastly different cultures and genetic markers.
None of which are black.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge
If you can't be more specific, then it is unclear if you have a point.
The point is that none of them are black.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge
You should read those studies more closely, I am getting tired of doing it for you.
A comical projection.
Last edited by cachibatches; 09-16-2014 at 05:17 AM..
Berbers can be of any race or any religion. Berbers have become a pan cultural group and term.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
(although Siwa Berbers show R commonly, it is considerably less frequent in all other Berber groups; Siwa Berbers also show markers from western Asia, North Africa, and sub-Saharan Africa)
