Why do Afrocentrists obsess over Egyp...
Bigsmoke

London, UK

#1367 Nov 14, 2012
bozino wrote:
<quoted text>
Lord Barros Serrano,
I have done research on West Africa. The civilizations created there are not of the same rank as those created by the other races of man. For you to claim that Negroes are no different than anyone else is a blatant falsehood. Negroes are the least intelligent of the races of man and their cultural and historical achievements clearly bear this fact out. It is not some accident that they continue to live like animals in sub-Saharan Africa. Please do some research on how Negroes have failed to progress one iota since the heady days of the indepenence movement of the 1960's. Here is a good place to start.
http://www.southerntimesafrica.com/news_artic...
A pleasure conversing with you yet once again legatus legionis.
Well what about the Australian Aborigines, Negrito of Southeast Asia , various Native American tribes etc which never produced a single civilization or left the stone age?

Unlike Europeans west African independently started farming and entered the Iron Age. Asiatics introduced both along with the Bronze Age to Europeans.

Still it is all due to a complex array of circumstances which explain the differences of development between regions.

Your understanding of humanity is really low.

bozino
Level 6

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#1368 Nov 14, 2012
Bigsmoke wrote:
<quoted text>
Racial classifications fail to be biologically defined.
There really is nothing else to it. So you wasted your time with this entire comment.
Sire,

I don't know where you obtained your education from, but it certainly was not at Eaton. Race is the same thing as subspecies. In the old days before the advent of Dna testing if a biologist could identify the differences between two populations of the same species with 75 percent accuracy they were classified as subspecies. Today the accepted threshold for classifying organisms into subspecies is if their genetic distance (Fst) is .25 or greater. Even if this threshold is not reached it in no way means that the genetic distance is meaningless. That is what ignorant race denialist people such as yourself just can't seem to wrap your heads around. Here is an short, but interesting article for you to read my lord.

http://wiki.majorityrights.com/race#what_is_a...

bozino
Level 6

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#1369 Nov 14, 2012
Barros Serrano wrote:
<quoted text>
The notion of “races” among Homo sapiens is not sustained by science or logic.
Humans don't lump into a half dozen color-coded categories.
Racism exists; race does not.
Lord Barros Serrano,

The notion of races among Homo sapiens is sustained by science and logic.

Humans lump into five races according to geography, which is once again both logical and scientific.

Racism exists because race exists.

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to clear this matter up for the forum vice admiral of the white.
Bigsmoke

London, UK

#1370 Nov 14, 2012
bozino wrote:
<quoted text>
Sire,
I don't know where you obtained your education from, but it certainly was not at Eaton. Race is the same thing as subspecies. In the old days before the advent of Dna testing if a biologist could identify the differences between two populations of the same species with 75 percent accuracy they were classified as subspecies. Today the accepted threshold for classifying organisms into subspecies is if their genetic distance (Fst) is .25 or greater. Even if this threshold is not reached it in no way means that the genetic distance is meaningless. That is what ignorant race denialist people such as yourself just can't seem to wrap your heads around. Here is an short, but interesting article for you to read my lord.
http://wiki.majorityrights.com/race#what_is_a...
Sorry but you can not try to spin this with me.

Racial groups are not biologically defined. Changing your definition of race wont change the fact that we're talking about ''black, white'' etc here.

This is not about the existence of races, social constructs exist, we in society construct them. The point is they're not defined by science in the form of biology. They're not biological taxonomies (classifications).

I have strong reasons to believe you do not even understand a thing called the ''human genome''.

bozino
Level 6

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#1371 Nov 14, 2012
Bigsmoke wrote:
<quoted text>
Well what about the Australian Aborigines, Negrito of Southeast Asia , various Native American tribes etc which never produced a single civilization or left the stone age?
Unlike Europeans west African independently started farming and entered the Iron Age. Asiatics introduced both along with the Bronze Age to Europeans.
Still it is all due to a complex array of circumstances which explain the differences of development between regions.
Your understanding of humanity is really low.
Sire,

I do not mention the Australoid race normally because they are numerically insignificant. You are correct in stating that the Australoid race is even more backward than the Negro. They are also the only race of man that is of lower average intelligence than the Negro, but like I said they are numerically insignificant.

The Native Americans achieved much higher levels of cultural and historical achievement than the Negro. There is nothing in sub-Saharan Africa to compare with the Inca, Aztec, or Mayan civilizations. To compare the Nok with them is comical.

I don't care if Africans entered the Iron Age independently or not. They did not achieve anything of note in their entire history. We do not read about West Africans writing the Magna Carta. We do not read about West African Bantu Negroes writing glorious Shakespearean plays. We do not make movies about the Knights Negro!! LOL. We do not read about West African slag building the Cathedral of Notre Dame. Catch my drift here fuzztop?

bozino
Level 6

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#1372 Nov 14, 2012
Bigsmoke wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry but you can not try to spin this with me.
Racial groups are not biologically defined. Changing your definition of race wont change the fact that we're talking about ''black, white'' etc here.
This is not about the existence of races, social constructs exist, we in society construct them. The point is they're not defined by science in the form of biology. They're not biological taxonomies (classifications).
I have strong reasons to believe you do not even understand a thing called the ''human genome''.
Sire,

I am not trying to spin anything. The definition of race is subspecies. If you don't know that then you are way, way, way out of your league trying to engage me in a scientific conversation.

I have already told you what the accepted definition of race is. Look it up. It is a genetic distance of .25 or greater. If you have any further questions about the definition of race then please ask. Don't embarrass yourself by parroting the usual race denialist rubbish though.

I don't know what the human genome is? LOL. What does that have to do with the existence of race? What you can't seem to understand is that even if the genetic distance is not .25 it does not render the difference meaningless. You don't have to have that great of a Fst to render one population group significantly different from another.

Therefore, let me ask you a question. Do you believe that the frequencies of genes are the same in every human population?

Don't dodge the question. Good day to you viceroy.
Bigsmoke

London, UK

#1373 Nov 14, 2012
bozino wrote:
<quoted text>
Sire,
I do not mention the Australoid race normally because they are numerically insignificant. You are correct in stating that the Australoid race is even more backward than the Negro. They are also the only race of man that is of lower average intelligence than the Negro, but like I said they are numerically insignificant.
The Native Americans achieved much higher levels of cultural and historical achievement than the Negro. There is nothing in sub-Saharan Africa to compare with the Inca, Aztec, or Mayan civilizations. To compare the Nok with them is comical.
I don't care if Africans entered the Iron Age independently or not. They did not achieve anything of note in their entire history. We do not read about West Africans writing the Magna Carta. We do not read about West African Bantu Negroes writing glorious Shakespearean plays. We do not make movies about the Knights Negro!! LOL. We do not read about West African slag building the Cathedral of Notre Dame. Catch my drift here fuzztop?
You go from ''negro'' to ''sub-Saharan Africa'' to ''Africa''.

Clearly you're one confused individual.

Inca, Aztecs and Mayans never left the stone age... Nok were smelting Iron before most of their existences.

Inca can be compared to Kongo, Aztecs to Aksum.
Bigsmoke

London, UK

#1374 Nov 14, 2012
bozino wrote:
<quoted text>
Sire,
I am not trying to spin anything. The definition of race is subspecies. If you don't know that then you are way, way, way out of your league trying to engage me in a scientific conversation.
I have already told you what the accepted definition of race is. Look it up. It is a genetic distance of .25 or greater. If you have any further questions about the definition of race then please ask. Don't embarrass yourself by parroting the usual race denialist rubbish though.
I don't know what the human genome is? LOL. What does that have to do with the existence of race? What you can't seem to understand is that even if the genetic distance is not .25 it does not render the difference meaningless. You don't have to have that great of a Fst to render one population group significantly different from another.
Therefore, let me ask you a question. Do you believe that the frequencies of genes are the same in every human population?
Don't dodge the question. Good day to you viceroy.
Sorry but you've failed to express how negro aka black, white etc are biologically defined races. Race means a kind, stock, breed etc so it can apply to all taxonomic ranks from animal to subspecies. Clearly you didn't know that. Point is we're talking about racial classification used in society and you've been expressing on here eg ''negro''. So yes you can't try to spin things here.

You clearly don't know what the human genome is and what it applies otherwise you wouldn't be trying to peddle this pseudoscience.

Genetic diversity varies most on the regional level not these racial groups we go by in society. The highest being found between regions of Africa, between populations for the most part you'd all call ''negro''. So.....?

This is something you clearly never knew.

So what was your point again? Anymore questions you want answering?
trollslayer

Midlothian, IL

#1375 Nov 14, 2012
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong, trollingass, Haplogroup T and Haplogroup C both have ASIAN origins. Halogroup T is found at low levels in Africa because of BACK MIGRATIONS from Asia. There is NO Haplogroup C found anywhere in Africa, you identity confused trolling jackass thief.
"Unlike some other human Y-DNA clades of a similar age depth,---> ALL clades of Haplogroup CF are NONE-African <---. Haplogroup C in particular appears to be one of the Y-DNA clades which dispersed especially early towards the east; its phylogeographic distribution supports a single coastal Out-of-Africa route by way of the Indian subcontinent, which eventually led to the early settlement of modern humans in mainland Southeast Asia.
The distribution of Haplogroup C is generally limited to populations of northern Asia, eastern Asia, Oceania, and the Americas. There is a tendency for Haplogroup C to appear as the minor component of Y-chromosome diversity among a population in which the major component is accounted for by subclades of Haplogroup K (M9)."
"Haplogroup T (K2-M70) is believed to have originated in Asia after the emergence of the K-M9 polymorphism (45–30 ky)(Underhill et al. 2001''a''). Haplogroup T (M70, M184, M193, M272) is found in an insignificant majority of Kurru, Bauris & Lodha in South Asia; and in a significant minority of Rajus and Mahli in South Asia"
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>

Haplogroup T (K2-M70) is believed to have originated in Asia
"believed"
__________
Global distribution of Y-chromosome haplogroup C reveals the prehistoric migration routes of African exodus and early settlement in East Asia.
Haplogroup T is present at a low level throughout Africa, Southwest Asia and Southern Europe. Both have African origins. Africa is always the base for us all

Look ya' euro butt wiper....I found the info. from ur favorite source wiki. Now will you provide the full link from where you copied & pasted your erogenous origins of Halo. C & T.
__________

Now here's MY LINKS.....you African history stealing, putz.

group T: is defined by mutation M70. This was originally Haplogroup K2, and has now been reassigned to T. This is a low frequency group with a spotty distribution, occurring in small numbers across various parts of Asia and Europe. Some regions include:

Southern India: specially among a few Dalit tribes of Dravidian people in the south ( these PPL. originally came from N.E. Africa)

Sicily: about 18% of Sicilians
Spain: about 16% of Spaniards in the Ibiza region
>>> Africa: found in Somalia, Cameroon, and Egypt<<<<
Smaller frequencies are found in isolated regions of Europe, including southwestern Russia, Kuban Cossacks, etc.

Next......

Haplogroups CT and CF: Everyone who doesn't belong to Haplogroup A or B belongs to the super-group CT, which is defined by mutations M168 and M294. This is the branch of humanity that first left >>>>>Africa, <<<<< although the mutation that led to CT probably >>>>>happened in Africa<<<<< about 50,000 - 60,000 years ago, in a man from East Africa, who's been called the "Eurasian Adam", since his descendents include all Eurasian and Asian people today.
Haplogroup C: emerged from CT

READ IT AGAIN

http://www.google.com/url...
__________

Don't respond w/o LINKS . I do not wanna read "a opinionated book from you" JUST PROVIDE A LINK.
trollslayer

Midlothian, IL

#1376 Nov 14, 2012
dragonpat wrote:
There are guys walking around with hair cuts like that today.

I can bring up other omages where the Olmecs had afros.
trollslayer

Midlothian, IL

#1377 Nov 14, 2012
I can bring up other images where the Olmecs had Afros.
Barros Serrano

United States

#1378 Nov 14, 2012
bozino wrote:
<quoted text>
Lord Barros Serrano,
I have done research on West Africa. The civilizations created there are not of the same rank as those created by the other races of man. For you to claim that Negroes are no different than anyone else is a blatant falsehood. Negroes are the least intelligent of the races of man and their cultural and historical achievements clearly bear this fact out. It is not some accident that they continue to live like animals in sub-Saharan Africa. Please do some research on how Negroes have failed to progress one iota since the heady days of the indepenence movement of the 1960's. Here is a good place to start.
http://www.southerntimesafrica.com/news_artic...
A pleasure conversing with you yet once again legatus legionis.
And how was this ranking established?

West Africa was one of only two places known on earth where ironworking independently developed. Where does that rank on your list of civilizations?
Barros Serrano

United States

#1379 Nov 14, 2012
trollslayer wrote:
I can bring up other images where the Olmecs had Afros.
No you can't. Because those images depict Native Americans who had straight black hair.

You are lacking evidence of Africans in America... you have nothing but your racist supremacist pipe dreams, Afronazi boy.
Barros Serrano

United States

#1380 Nov 14, 2012
Bigsmoke wrote:
<quoted text>
Well what about the Australian Aborigines, Negrito of Southeast Asia , various Native American tribes etc which never produced a single civilization or left the stone age?
Unlike Europeans west African independently started farming and entered the Iron Age. Asiatics introduced both along with the Bronze Age to Europeans.
Still it is all due to a complex array of circumstances which explain the differences of development between regions.
Your understanding of humanity is really low.
A bit duplicitous to claim “Asiatics” introduced ironworking to Europeans, because the people who did it were Aryans, who are considered white. I know you're trying to make white people look inferior, but that one doesn't work.

Your point is correct, however, all sorts of historical factors have caused a wide variety of human social and cultural responses around the globe...

Civilization ain't all that in any case. Big pain in the ass. Anthropologists studied hunter-gatherers and found they had more leisure time and far less stressful lives than us civilized farts.
trollslayer

Midlothian, IL

#1381 Nov 14, 2012
dragonpat wrote:
Here ya' go....whatta' think about this guy's hair cut D-Pat
http://www.carnaval.com/columbus/Mauri_16.GIF

http://www.bing.com/images/search...

you have to open the link to get the true story of the Olmecs. If you can't get it...I'll paste it for you.
karmaISbliss

Australia

#1382 Nov 14, 2012
this is a recontruction of Luzia face
http://www.andaman.org/BOOK/chapter54/text-La...

this is a reconstruction of an early european
http://mathildasanthropologyblog.files.wordpr...

anyone else notice a slight similarity?
Jeff

Framingham, MA

#1383 Nov 14, 2012
trollslayer wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
"believed"
__________
Global distribution of Y-chromosome haplogroup C reveals the prehistoric migration routes of African exodus and early settlement in East Asia.
Haplogroup T is present at a low level throughout Africa, Southwest Asia and Southern Europe. Both have African origins. Africa is always the base for us all
Look ya' euro butt wiper....I found the info. from ur favo
Haplogroups CT and CF: Everyone who doesn't belong to Haplogroup A or B belongs to the super-group CT, which is defined by mutations M168 and M294. This is the branch of humanity that first left >>>>>Africa, <<<<< although the mutation that led to CT probably >>>>>happened in Africa<<<<< about 50,000 - 60,000 years ago, in a man from East Africa, who's been called the "Eurasian Adam", since his descendents include all Eurasian and Asian people today.
Haplogroup C: emerged from CT
READ IT AGAIN
http://www.google.com/url...
__________
Don't respond w/o LINKS . I do not wanna read "a opinionated book from you" JUST PROVIDE A LINK.
Wrong, dingleberry. Haplogroup CF (P143) is Found outside of Africa, throughout Eurasia, Oceania, and the Americas cause Haplogroup CF arose in ASIA.---> ALL clades of Haplogroup CF (including Haplogroup T and Haplogroup C) are NONE-African <---. Haplogroup T and Haplogroup C both have ASIAN origins. Halogroup T is found at low levels in North and Northeast Africa because of BACK MIGRATIONS from Asia. There is NO Haplogroup C found anywhere in Africa.

"Unlike some other human Y-DNA clades of a similar age depth,---> ALL clades of Haplogroup CF are NONE-African <---. Haplogroup C in particular appears to be one of the Y-DNA clades which dispersed especially early towards the east; its phylogeographic distribution supports a single coastal Out-of-Africa route by way of the Indian subcontinent, which eventually led to the early settlement of modern humans in mainland Southeast Asia."

The deepest polychotomy in the YCC tree has now been resolved by virtue of a new binary marker, P143, which unites haplogroups C and FT (Fig. 1). This supercluster contains lineages that are not typically found in sub-Saharan Africa, suggesting that the ancestral C-FR chromosome may have been carried out of Africa very early in the modern human diaspora (Hammer et al. 1998; Ke et)

"Haplogroup C still has not been detected in sub-Saharan African populations, suggesting an Asian origin after anatomically modern humans migrated out of Africa. The ancestral paragroup of haplogroup C, as well as many downstream lineages, are commonly found among Asian, Australian, and Oceanic populations.
http://www.familytreedna.com/pdf/Karafet-et-a...

"Estimates of the timing of the branching events within haplogroup T, along with a comprehensive geographic survey of the major T subclades, suggest that this haplogroup began to diversify in the Near East 25 kya. Our survey also points to a complex history of dispersal of this rare and informative haplogroup within the Near East and from the Near East to Europe and sub-Saharan Africa." ~ F.L. Mendez et al
http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.3378/027.083...
trollslayer

Midlothian, IL

#1384 Nov 14, 2012
dragonpat wrote:
<quoted text>
makes you mad don't it? LOL!!!
the debt has been paid, its time to ^
Whatta' ya' think D-PAT

http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/7a6cf1c...

Level 4

Since: Aug 12

Poughquag, NY

#1385 Nov 14, 2012
karmaISbliss wrote:
this is a recontruction of Luzia face
http://www.andaman.org/BOOK/chapter54/text-La...
this is a reconstruction of an early european
http://mathildasanthropologyblog.files.wordpr...
anyone else notice a slight similarity?
LOL Cro Magnon man didn't have a nose like that.

This is just more proof of Liberal Anti Racists desperately trying to make the first Europeans out as Black Negroes when in reality this isn't true.

__

Quite the opposite Cro Magnon 1 in France 30,000 years ago came out closest to Finland of all of modern populations.

The North African Cro Magnon Taforalt-Afalou 20,000-30,000 years ago also came out closest to Finland of all modern populations.

http://racialreality.blogspot.com/2011/02/cro...

This is interesting of course because Finland is even more blonde haired & blue eyed than Sweden is.

Finland is also the furthest Europeans from Africans genetically.
trollslayer

Midlothian, IL

#1386 Nov 14, 2012
Barros Serrano wrote:
<quoted text>
No you can't. Because those images depict Native Americans who had straight black hair.
You are lacking evidence of Africans in America... you have nothing but your racist supremacist pipe dreams, Afronazi boy.
LOL.....nope kinky hair...like this guy.....the truth will melt you down...lol

http://www.carnaval.com/columbus/Mauri_16.GIF

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
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 8 min Yeah 1,548,253
Why are my opioid epidemic threads being deleted? 12 min Just a thought 7
Why all the hates here? 1 hr T-BOS 15
Why blacks share so many different Women so much 1 hr Rich stars of the... 2
Does anyone else here feel bad for blacks whom ... 1 hr Harrisson 2
black men i know why u bash ur women! 1 hr Harrisson 14
African-American Culture Is Backwards! 2 hr Truthcentric 16
Will Democrats ever win another election? 2 hr Reymundo Mejia Gu... 111
Are liberals getting too unstable? 4 hr Redefined 57
Why Do White People Love Dogs So Much (Aug '14) 8 hr misfit 0676 128
Italians are NOT White!!!! (Feb '12) 12 hr jjohnson00 6,733
More from around the web