Do Egyptian Consider Themselves To Be...
trollslayer

Hammond, IN

#133 Oct 20, 2013
Redefined wrote:
Europeans could NOT have had 'Blue Eyes' until only 6-10,000 years ago.
The blue colored eyes originated because of the genetic mutation that took place way back in time, almost 6 to 10 thousand years ago. According to a study published in,“Human Genetics”, this miracle happened in the region near Black Sea during Neolithic revolution.
http://humannhealth.com/blue-eyed-humans-have...
good job and good LINKED info. yes blue-eyes & white skin is mutative recessive.
trollslayer

Hammond, IN

#134 Oct 20, 2013
sh Tov wrote:
<quoted text>
Austronesians = Eurasians
Your concept of “race” is flawed. L2 and L3 Africans are closer to Eurasians than to Khoisan. L3 Africans are closer to Eurasians than to L2 Africans.
You Afronazis claim Africa is more diverse... well, that is what it means. Africans are further from each other geneologically than Eurasians are with each other.
You desperately try to state things so that you will make yourself superior, but your lack of knowledge about anthropology and history only makes you sound like a clown.
Redefined wrote:
<quoted text>
They may be Eurasian due to were they currently reside but they are still African descent. Just how African Americans are American but are still African descent. How can someone who is African descent NOT be closely related?? That makes absolutely no sense.
Redefined wrote:
How can someone who is African descent NOT be closely related?? That makes absolutely no sense.
Excellent point.

Khoisan are the African ancestors to Asians.
trollslayer

Hammond, IN

#135 Oct 20, 2013
look at the FLAG FYING and look at the racism

Israel's New Racism: The Persecution of African Migrants in the Holy Land

Ish Tov
Level 3

Since: Sep 13

Location hidden

#136 Oct 20, 2013
trollslayer wrote:
<quoted text>
fixed....African is fine (since we know they weren't non-black or 'euroasian'....lets not give the troll a inch) While we are at it, Lets "throw this log on the fire too"..........
Arabian Artifacts May Rewrite 'Out of Africa' Theory
Charles Choi, LiveScience Contributor | November 30, 2011 05:40pm ET
stone artifacts found in Oman were likely made by striking flakes off flint
[Pin It] The stone artifacts found in Oman were likely made by striking flakes off flint, leading to distinctive triangular shapes. This is the first time this particular stone tool technology has been found outside of Africa.
Credit: Yamandu Hilbert
View full size image
Newfound stone artifacts suggest humankind left Africa traveling through the Arabian Peninsula instead of hugging its coasts, as long thought, researchers say.
Modern humans first arose about 200,000 years ago in Africa. When and how our lineage then dispersed has long proven controversial, but geneticists have suggested this exodus started between 40,000 and 70,000 years ago. The currently accepted theory is that the exodus from Africa traced Arabia's shores, rather than passing through its now-arid interior.
However, stone artifacts at least 100,000 years old from the Arabian Desert, revealed in January 2011, hinted that modern humans might have begun our march across the globe earlier than once suspected.
Now, more-than-100 newly discovered sites in the Sultanate of Oman apparently confirm that modern humans left Africa through Arabia long before genetic evidence suggests. Oddly, these sites are located far inland, away from the coasts.
"After a decade of searching in southern Arabia for some clue that might help us understand early human expansion, at long last we've found the smoking gun of their exit from Africa," said lead researcher Jeffrey Rose, a paleolithic archaeologist at the University of Birmingham in England. "What makes this so exciting is that the answer is a scenario almost never considered."
http://www.google.com/url...
These Omani finds suggest that the evolution of the people who left in OOA occurred in Arabia, and that in fact OOA may mean Out of Arabia, rather than Out of Africa.

Ish Tov
Level 3

Since: Sep 13

Location hidden

#137 Oct 20, 2013
trollslayer wrote:
<quoted text>
Redefined......has blown this "Guanches were eurasians" ......b.s. to bits. if you don't think so SHOW YOUR LINKS
Wrong, afronazi boy. He established nothing.

And as with the Maghreb, the links for the Guanches were posted, they proved them to be Eurasians, and you ignored the links, putz.

Face it, the Maghreb has been predominantly Eurasian for 30,000 years.

Not “Euroasian”, you semi-literate, EURASIAN.

Ish Tov
Level 3

Since: Sep 13

Location hidden

#138 Oct 20, 2013
trollslayer wrote:
<quoted text>
good job and good LINKED info. yes blue-eyes & white skin is mutative recessive.
Wrong as always, Afronazi boy.

Light skin is not recessive. If it were, the skin of mixed children would be as dark as that of the darker parent, but that is not the case.

You simpleton.

Ish Tov
Level 3

Since: Sep 13

Location hidden

#139 Oct 20, 2013
trollslayer wrote:
sh Tov wrote:
<quoted text>
Austronesians = Eurasians
Your concept of “race” is flawed. L2 and L3 Africans are closer to Eurasians than to Khoisan. L3 Africans are closer to Eurasians than to L2 Africans.
You Afronazis claim Africa is more diverse... well, that is what it means. Africans are further from each other geneologically than Eurasians are with each other.
You desperately try to state things so that you will make yourself superior, but your lack of knowledge about anthropology and history only makes you sound like a clown.
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Excellent point.
Khoisan are the African ancestors to Asians.
Wrong as aways, Afronazi boy.

Eurasians are a branch off the L3 line, not the older Khoisan line.

Yet again you are confused, know nothing, and prove it with every post.

In fact, in terms of intellect and knowledge of this topic, I am vastly superior to you, Afronazi boy. You know virtually nothing, while I am well educated and informed.

How uncomfortable it must be to be you.

Ish Tov
Level 3

Since: Sep 13

Location hidden

#140 Oct 20, 2013
trollslayer wrote:
look at the FLAG FYING and look at the racism
Israel's New Racism: The Persecution of African Migrants in the Holy Land
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =dPxv4Aff3IAXX
Countries all over Europe are deporting African illegal immigrants, but you single out Israel for attention?

Obviously you're some kind of antisemitic Jew-hating racist Nazi scum, boy.

You're worth less than the average city rat, you scum.

“No Substitute For The Truth”

Level 8

Since: Jan 10

United States

#141 Oct 20, 2013
trollslayer wrote:
<quoted text>
fixed....African is fine (since we know they weren't non-black or 'euroasian'....lets not give the troll a inch) While we are at it, Lets "throw this log on the fire too"..........
Arabian Artifacts May Rewrite 'Out of Africa' Theory
Charles Choi, LiveScience Contributor | November 30, 2011 05:40pm ET
stone artifacts found in Oman were likely made by striking flakes off flint
[Pin It] The stone artifacts found in Oman were likely made by striking flakes off flint, leading to distinctive triangular shapes. This is the first time this particular stone tool technology has been found outside of Africa.
Credit: Yamandu Hilbert
View full size image
Newfound stone artifacts suggest humankind left Africa traveling through the Arabian Peninsula instead of hugging its coasts, as long thought, researchers say.
Modern humans first arose about 200,000 years ago in Africa. When and how our lineage then dispersed has long proven controversial, but geneticists have suggested this exodus started between 40,000 and 70,000 years ago. The currently accepted theory is that the exodus from Africa traced Arabia's shores, rather than passing through its now-arid interior.
However, stone artifacts at least 100,000 years old from the Arabian Desert, revealed in January 2011, hinted that modern humans might have begun our march across the globe earlier than once suspected.
Now, more-than-100 newly discovered sites in the Sultanate of Oman apparently confirm that modern humans left Africa through Arabia long before genetic evidence suggests. Oddly, these sites are located far inland, away from the coasts.
"After a decade of searching in southern Arabia for some clue that might help us understand early human expansion, at long last we've found the smoking gun of their exit from Africa," said lead researcher Jeffrey Rose, a paleolithic archaeologist at the University of Birmingham in England. "What makes this so exciting is that the answer is a scenario almost never considered."
http://www.google.com/url...
Interesting! Some scientists now feel Humans may have left Africa much earlier. This says evolution is much slower especially if 'Blue Eyes' appeared around 6-10,000 years ago. So how long can species survive within' an environment without adaption??
LION

Charlotte, NC

#142 Oct 20, 2013
If blacks would get off their azzes and build up their financial institutions and speak out against these racist acts, things may be better.
Obama has not said a thing against this.

“No Substitute For The Truth”

Level 8

Since: Jan 10

United States

#143 Oct 20, 2013
Ish Tov wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong, afronazi boy. He established nothing.
And as with the Maghreb, the links for the Guanches were posted, they proved them to be Eurasians, and you ignored the links, putz.
Face it, the Maghreb has been predominantly Eurasian for 30,000 years.
Not “Euroasian”, you semi-literate, EURASIAN.
You FAIL too understand some Eurasians are African descent as some Americans are African decent. The earliest settlers of The Maghreb were African descent. If African Americans migrated back to Africa, would AA's NOT still be of African descent?? You are dense. The fact there was no 'Blue eyes' until 6-10,000 years ago should tell you who are the recent occupants in Europe & The Middle East.

Ish Tov
Level 3

Since: Sep 13

Location hidden

#144 Oct 20, 2013
trollslayer wrote:
<quoted text>
Redefined......has blown this "Guanches were eurasians" ......b.s. to bits. if you don't think so SHOW YOUR LINKS
"La teoría hoy más dominante, y con más pruebas científicas, es que los primeros pobladores eran cromañoides y proto-mediterranoides, procedentes del Norte Occidental de África."

http://www.gevic.net/info/contenidos/mostrar_...

Yes, Cro-Magnon and proto-Mediterranean types, boy, who arrived from the Maghreb.

Guanches = Eurasians

Maghreb: predominantly Eurasian for 30,000 years.

Ish Tov
Level 3

Since: Sep 13

Location hidden

#145 Oct 20, 2013
"Según contaban los conquistadores europeos, los guanches eran "de raza blanca, altos, musculosos y de gran belleza". Actualmente, todos los historiadores están de acuerdo en que el origen de los Guanches estaba en un tronco común de antepasados de los antiguos bereberes norteafricanos."

http://users.skynet.be/sb275037/rancel/guanch...

Yep, of the "white race", said the conquistadores (they would know), and today agreed by ALL historians that their origin was among the Berbers of the Maghreb.

That same Maghreb that's been predominantly Eurasian for 30,000 years.

I'm sure you've heard of it.

Ish Tov
Level 3

Since: Sep 13

Location hidden

#146 Oct 20, 2013
Redefined wrote:
<quoted text>
You FAIL too understand some Eurasians are African descent as some Americans are African decent. The earliest settlers of The Maghreb were African descent. If African Americans migrated back to Africa, would AA's NOT still be of African descent?? You are dense. The fact there was no 'Blue eyes' until 6-10,000 years ago should tell you who are the recent occupants in Europe & The Middle East.
You babble. There are all kinds of people in America today. The last 3 Yanks I spoke with were a Cambodian, a “white” and a “black”. So what? Meaningless.

The fact is that the Maghreb was uninhabited when Eurasians migrated in 30,000 years ago. This is proven. There is no evidence of any Africans there at that time.

The evolution of blue eyes is irrelevant to this.

I fail to understand nothing, boy. Don't condescend to me, as you have no knowledge in this subject area, whereas I am well educated and unlike you Afronazi putzes can understand scientific literature when I read it.

Maghreb: predominantly Eurasian for 30,000 years.

Ish Tov
Level 3

Since: Sep 13

Location hidden

#147 Oct 20, 2013
Redefined wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting! Some scientists now feel Humans may have left Africa much earlier. This says evolution is much slower especially if 'Blue Eyes' appeared around 6-10,000 years ago. So how long can species survive within' an environment without adaption??
This has NOTHING to do with the speed of evolution, about which you obviously know nothing.

If Homo sapiens was in the Arabian Peninsula by 125k yrs ago, which is now proven, this increases the likelihood that the Eurasian mtDNA M and N evolved in Eurasia, as well as even L3 itself, and possibly Y-DNA E as well.

OOA may mean “Out of Arabia”.

“No Substitute For The Truth”

Level 8

Since: Jan 10

United States

#148 Oct 20, 2013
Ish Tov wrote:
<quoted text>
You babble. There are all kinds of people in America today. The last 3 Yanks I spoke with were a Cambodian, a “white” and a “black”. So what? Meaningless.
The fact is that the Maghreb was uninhabited when Eurasians migrated in 30,000 years ago. This is proven. There is no evidence of any Africans there at that time.
The evolution of blue eyes is irrelevant to this.
I fail to understand nothing, boy. Don't condescend to me, as you have no knowledge in this subject area, whereas I am well educated and unlike you Afronazi putzes can understand scientific literature when I read it.
Maghreb: predominantly Eurasian for 30,000 years.
No! You mean PREDOMINATELY African & African descent. Yes Africans were also in The Maghreb BEFORE 30,000 years ago because there was no barrier.

If fish could have crossed the Sahara, it is hard to imagine that humans didn't. Analysis of African languages and artifacts suggest that ancient waterways recently affected how humans occupied the Sahara. For instance, speakers of Nilo-Saharan languages once lived across central and southern Sahara, and may have once hunted aquatic creatures with barbed bone points and fish hooks. In addition, ancient lake sediments suggest the Sahara was green roughly 125,000 years ago, back when anatomically modern humans might have begun migrating out of Africa.
http://www.livescience.com/10944-fish-swam-sa...

“No Substitute For The Truth”

Level 8

Since: Jan 10

United States

#149 Oct 20, 2013
Ish Tov wrote:
<quoted text>
This has NOTHING to do with the speed of evolution, about which you obviously know nothing.
If Homo sapiens was in the Arabian Peninsula by 125k yrs ago, which is now proven, this increases the likelihood that the Eurasian mtDNA M and N evolved in Eurasia, as well as even L3 itself, and possibly Y-DNA E as well.
OOA may mean “Out of Arabia”.
M and N is present in African descendants such as those in Madagascar. African descended are related to Africans so I FAIL too understand ur point about being in Arabia 125K. This only confirms Humans left Africa much earlier, some going toward the East while others going toward The North & they would have virtually been the same PPL.

Ish Tov
Level 3

Since: Sep 13

Location hidden

#150 Oct 20, 2013
Redefined wrote:
<quoted text>
No! You mean PREDOMINATELY African & African descent. Yes Africans were also in The Maghreb BEFORE 30,000 years ago because there was no barrier.
If fish could have crossed the Sahara, it is hard to imagine that humans didn't. Analysis of African languages and artifacts suggest that ancient waterways recently affected how humans occupied the Sahara. For instance, speakers of Nilo-Saharan languages once lived across central and southern Sahara, and may have once hunted aquatic creatures with barbed bone points and fish hooks. In addition, ancient lake sediments suggest the Sahara was green roughly 125,000 years ago, back when anatomically modern humans might have begun migrating out of Africa.
http://www.livescience.com/10944-fish-swam-sa...
Get this straight in your befuddled brain, boy: whatever barrier you think did or didn't exist, the fact is that there is NO evidence of ANYONE living in the Maghreb when the Eurasians arrived 30,000 years ago.

And the Sahara desert often WAS a barrier. Unlike you, I've read the articles revealing the cycles of wet-and-dry in the Sahara... obviously you have not.

And so, ALL human remains in the Maghreb for the past 30,000 years were either entirely or predomninantly Eurasian. Nothing you can do about those facts.

And then there's those “white” Guanches... lol... whatchagonna?

“No Substitute For The Truth”

Level 8

Since: Jan 10

United States

#151 Oct 20, 2013
Ish Tov wrote:
<quoted text>
Get this straight in your befuddled brain, boy: whatever barrier you think did or didn't exist, the fact is that there is NO evidence of ANYONE living in the Maghreb when the Eurasians arrived 30,000 years ago.
And the Sahara desert often WAS a barrier. Unlike you, I've read the articles revealing the cycles of wet-and-dry in the Sahara... obviously you have not.
And so, ALL human remains in the Maghreb for the past 30,000 years were either entirely or predomninantly Eurasian. Nothing you can do about those facts.
And then there's those “white” Guanches... lol... whatchagonna?
You have no evidence showing 'Blue eyed' Europeans or Middle Easterners inhabited The Maghreb 30,000 years ago. The early settlers shared traits which are common among Africans. Plus the oldest Y-Chromosome in Morocco belongs too 'A'. A marker common among South African Bushman.

Ish Tov
Level 3

Since: Sep 13

Location hidden

#152 Oct 20, 2013
Redefined wrote:
<quoted text>
You have no evidence showing 'Blue eyed' Europeans or Middle Easterners inhabited The Maghreb 30,000 years ago. The early settlers shared traits which are common among Africans. Plus the oldest Y-Chromosome in Morocco belongs too 'A'. A marker common among South African Bushman.
The remains of the first immigrants 30,000 years ago were of Cro-Magnon type, their DNA also Eurasian. And so, you lie.

The first Y-DNA in the Maghreb was Eurasian. E arrived later. How old the marker is is irrelevant. It is old but not in the Maghreb... its origin was to the south.

The Maghreb has been a Eurasian cultural region for 30,000 years. In human terms, it is part of Eurasia, and of the Mediterranean world.

Historically, the Berber were involved with whom? Mediterraneans---Phoenicians, Greeks, Romans, etc.

And then there's those pesky Eurasian Guanches, described by the conquistadores as being of white race.

Whatchgonnado?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

African-American Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
black men are ulgy why they think they are han... (Nov '11) 5 min T-BOS 11
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 8 min DoesItMatter 1,395,014
I've slept with at least 25 white men 9 min kashka loves ir 1
I need proof that the Ancient Egyptians Were No... (Oct '07) 10 min Monitor 32,597
News Letter: Disheartening lack of judge diversity 12 min elmer gantry 2
News Talc linked to ovarian cancer risk in African-A... 13 min slick 13
News Crowd gathers to commemorate Biloxi wade-ins 20 min slick 2
5 stabbed @ white nationalist trump rally 27 min StinkyBlackBaboons 48
News African-Americans should start voting for Repub... 40 min Nopal 260
The UK has left the EU 47 min enoch powell 100
the moors were black africans not arabs!!! (Jun '08) 1 hr Moses 46,324
More from around the web