I need proof that the Ancient Egyptia...

Since: May 14

Location hidden

#24897 Jul 4, 2014
trollslayer wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
don't worry, you will never get proof because these trolls know there is no proof
That seems to be the case. We are held by a double standard here. There is no mistake, be aware. Our rights and beliefs are being trampled on each day in these forums. Forums, for AA's, but yet individuals have the audacity to consistently flood these forums with theories that are often offensive to AA, or many "Blacks" as a whole. And they feel they have the authority, and superior knowledge to do so. Not understanding, or perhaps they do, that their actions in itself are behaviors inherited by a privileged, way of thought. "Black" people recognize this condescending attitude right away, and usually quickly dismiss all information shared from the tainted source, it's natural. AA, have the rights to their beliefs, as any other group in the world, like the Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Native Americans, Wiccans, etc. etc. There is no difference, why so much focuss on the beliefs of a minority in America?? Why so much hatred concentrated throughout Topixs, as a whole? Hmm.
African AE

Durban, South Africa

#24898 Jul 4, 2014
asho wrote:
The First European
http://realhistoryww.com/world_history/ancien...
So you know "The First European" could have belonged Ydna I, J, and other euro markers. Out the window goes your rapid evolution theory. The haplotypes may have evolved but the phenotype remained African for a long time.
NO THAT IS NOT the FIRST EUROPEANS! The FIRST EUROPEANS WERE NEANDERTHALS and that stupid pic is supposed to be a MIXED neanderthal! What a load of f--king SH*T!

THIS IS THE VERY FIRST MODERN EUROPEANS:
www.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cro-Magnon_man_-_...
CROMAGNONS carried MTDNA N and U!

Level 2

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#24899 Jul 4, 2014
asho wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet archaic Cro magnon were european race? Archaic European, archaic Sub Saharan or archaic Asia are still member of their respective races. Don't you love associating archaic cro magnon with northern europeans. "First European" was then archaic African as you can see the resemblance to Sub Saharan Africans clearly and that is why he labelled "First European" as in african who just made his way into europe from Africa.
The first European was not Sub Saharan African since Sub Saharan Africans show the least similarities to Paleolithic Europeans while Northern Europeans, who actually have the LEAST African admixture, show the the closest similarities to Paleolithic Europeans. As Brace's and other studies have shown Sub Saharan types showed the FURTHEST distances from Cro magnon. Not to mention Paleolithic Europeans already had features that were suited for cold adapted regions and that were not found in Paleolithic Africans. From Brace's study:

Posterior probability to Cro-Magnon (highest similarities w/Euros while Subs Saharan Africans showed ZERO similarities. lol):
ModEur: 0.49
LPEurasia: 0.39
P/RNEAfr: 0.01
N! gC on: 0.00

Squared Mahalanobis distance to Cro-Magnon (Closest Distance w/Euros whille Sub Saharan Africans showed to have the FURTHEST Distance lol):
ModEur: 21.72
LPEurasia: 22.15
P/RNEAfr: 30.10
N! gC on: 36.35

N. Euros showed the closest similarities to both Cro-Magnon types as well as to Paleolithic Eurasians while Sub Saharan Africans showed he LEAST similarities to both groups.
African AE

Durban, South Africa

#24900 Jul 4, 2014
trollslayer wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
don't worry, you will never get proof because these trolls know there is no proof
Bimbo brain, CROMAGNON was a swarthy Italian going back 40 000 years ago. Scientists say white SKIN CAME FROM THE MIDDLE EAST 8000-4000 years ago with the WHITE EURASIAN NEOLITHIC MIDDLE EASTERN FARMERS! So how the f--k was the Middle East black or afroAsiatic! Afronazis love to pretend that they played a major part outside Africa but in fact, EUROPEANS LOOK JUST LIKE THEIR CAUCASIAN ANCESTOR CROMAGNON going back 40 000 years ago!
African AE

Durban, South Africa

#24901 Jul 4, 2014
asho wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22308-e...
"The people who built Stonehenge 5000 years ago probably had the same pallid complexion of many modern inhabitants of the UK. Now it seems that the humans occupying Britain and mainland Europe only lost the darker skins of their African ancestors perhaps just 6000 years earlier, long after Neanderthals had died out. The finding confirms that modern Europeans didn't gain their pale skin from Neanderthals – adding to evidence suggesting that European Homo sapiens and Neanderthals generally kept their relationships strictly platonic."
keyword become white as we see them today about 6000 years ago. If that is the case then there is no way euros got whiteness in the middle east.
http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upl...
January 2014
"This is the first pre-agricultural European genome we have,” research Lalueza-Fox told New Scientist.“It will help us to understand how the arrival of the Neolithic era — farming, new diet and new diseases related to animals — has shaped the genome of modern Europeans.
Some of the results so far are surprising. The hunter-gatherer in question had genes for darkly pigmented skin and hair, like his African ancestors, but blue eyes, too, which is more more commonly European. That suggests that eye colour evolved before skin colour changed — a finding which runs counter to what researchers have believed in the past."
Um....The dark skin CAUCASIAN MAN WITH BLUE EYES WAS NOT A F--king AFRICAN but carried Haplogroup C6 FROM ASIA! EUROPEANS GOT THEIR WHITE SKINS FROM THE MIDDLE EAST 8000-4000 YEARS AGO!

MAJORITY OF SITES SAY THE NEANDERTHAL INTERBRED HOMO SAPIENS! Stop with your outdated Cr*p:
www.livescience.com/42933-humans-carry-20-per...

Afronazi imbeciles JUST LOVE OUTDATED LINKS!!!!!!!!!!

Level 2

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#24902 Jul 4, 2014
asho wrote:
<quoted text>
I thought all europeans of 40k were supposed to look like northern europeans after the neanderthal admixture and sh!t?^_^ What is the likelyhood that the person was white skinned? Isnt white skin like 6k years old? That guy's lot were the next batch of africans entering europe after cro magnon or another "version" of cro magnon.
You do realize that there is more then just one gene responsible for light skin in Eurasians, right? For one that wasn't a depiction of his/her skin color, the guy who reconstructed him/her even states as much. Secondly as the guy who reconstructed him/her said, he wasn't depicting an 'African' but an archaic type that could have term Caucasian, Black or Asians. Thirdly the remains of that skeleton showed him/her to be a mix of archaic homospecies: homosapien and Neanderthal. Lastly that is an old video, since then there have been many more genes discovered for light skin as well as studies that found not only did Early Paleolithic Eurasians have light skin that arose soon after the OOA migrations within their population, but Neanderthal ALSO contributed to genes that affected early Europeans skin and hair color. Add to that the light skin genes that arose in Neolithic farmers who brought them into Europe nearly 10,000 years ago, and you have Europeans who carry a high amount of various light skin genes, hence it was not just one gene nor one event that contributed to the white skin seen in Europeans today, but many.

Level 2

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#24903 Jul 4, 2014
Gmoney AKA Big G wrote:
<quoted text>
Definitely Africans
They cluster away from Africans. So Definitely Eurasians. Thanks for playing though.

Level 2

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#24904 Jul 4, 2014
asho wrote:
<quoted text>
So yes it is Afrocentrics who have taken his work and twisted it to fit your Afrocentric views. As it stands scientists have found genetically as well as cranofacial Early Europeans showed the LEAST similarities with Sub Saharan Africans and closest similarities to North Europeans."
Use your damn eyes, son. You do not need even god to tell you which race looks like that reconstruction. A lot euros protested calling Neaves names for making "The First european " african looking.
"
He does not look like a Sub Saharan African,'son'. Neaves specifically states that reconstruction COULD HAVE TURNED BLACK. Meaning he wasn't depicting a 'black' type. But then Afrocentrics see anything that isn't pale white and call it 'black'. The delusional opinions of Afrocentrics, trying to claim everyone as 'black African' and twisting yet again what the guy who has done the work says.
asho

Eskilstuna, Sweden

#24905 Jul 4, 2014
Eric456 wrote:
<quoted text>
The first European was not Sub Saharan African since Sub Saharan Africans show the least similarities to Paleolithic Europeans while Northern Europeans, who actually have the LEAST African admixture, show the the closest similarities to Paleolithic Europeans. As Brace's and other studies have shown Sub Saharan types showed the FURTHEST distances from Cro magnon. Not to mention Paleolithic Europeans already had features that were suited for cold adapted regions and that were not found in Paleolithic Africans. From Brace's study:
Posterior probability to Cro-Magnon (highest similarities w/Euros while Subs Saharan Africans showed ZERO similarities. lol):
ModEur: 0.49
LPEurasia: 0.39
P/RNEAfr: 0.01
N! gC on: 0.00
Squared Mahalanobis distance to Cro-Magnon (Closest Distance w/Euros whille Sub Saharan Africans showed to have the FURTHEST Distance lol):
ModEur: 21.72
LPEurasia: 22.15
P/RNEAfr: 30.10
N! gC on: 36.35
N. Euros showed the closest similarities to both Cro-Magnon types as well as to Paleolithic Eurasians while Sub Saharan Africans showed he LEAST similarities to both groups.
What similarities does "the first European" have with europeans? Point them out. Do not quote Rchard Neaves . Use your eyes. I do not buy Neaves' explanation entirely. He is trying to appease angry whites by giving first european neutral lebel.

This author sees what everybody sees except eurocentists.

"Much to the dismay of any would-be “White Supremacists,” scientists have recently revealed that the face of the first Europeans were surprisingly Sub-Saharan African in appearance."
http://politicalblindspot.com/scientists-reve...

Level 2

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#24906 Jul 4, 2014
Obsidian2xxx wrote:
Some Asians have some West African phenotypes, like some of my family members. Some Pacific Islanders have some West African phenotypes, heck there are a long list of " Eurasians" with African phenotypes. These people managed to go all over the world, maintaining their phenotypes, but totally
skipping Europe. Lol. Hypocrisy, as always. As the oldest OOA people have demonstrated, maintaining your phenotype and culture for thousands of years is possible.
Those Asians with 'African' phenotypes is due to environmental adaptations to tropical regions. Most of those Asians with 'African' phenotypes live among the tropics who evolved to having those features. Europe and many other N. Eurasian regions are AWAY from the tropics where African phenotypes would not have been cohesive for survival, hence why they do not have 'African' phenotypes, because they've already been living for tens of thousands of years AWAY from the tropics and evolved to having those features. Its human evolution and adaptation 101. Read:

"Background: The Andaman Islands in the Bay of Bengal are inhabited by hunter-gatherers of unknown origin, now on the verge of extinction. The Andamanese and other Asian small-statured peoples, traditionally known as N 3 gr !tos resemble African pygmies. However, it is generally believed that they descend from the early Australo-Melanesian settlers of Southeast Asia and that their resemblance to some Africans is due to adaptation to a similar environment, rather than shared origins.

Conclusions: Our data indicate that the Andamanese have closer affinities to Asian than to African populations and suggest that they are the descendants of the early Palaeolithic colonizers of Southeast Asia."
African AE

Durban, South Africa

#24907 Jul 4, 2014
THE REAL FIRST EUROPEANS looking exactly like modern Europeans:
www.sciencephoto.com/media/590842/view
www.sciencephoto.com/media/590848/view

Modern Humans AND NEANDERTHAL INTERBRED CREATING THE ONLY modern man LEFT standing in Europe,Middle East, the WHITE CAUCASIAN CROMAGNON!
asho

Eskilstuna, Sweden

#24908 Jul 4, 2014
African AE wrote:
<quoted text>Um....The dark skin CAUCASIAN MAN WITH BLUE EYES WAS NOT A F--king AFRICAN but carried Haplogroup C6 FROM ASIA! EUROPEANS GOT THEIR WHITE SKINS FROM THE MIDDLE EAST 8000-4000 YEARS AGO!
MAJORITY OF SITES SAY THE NEANDERTHAL INTERBRED HOMO SAPIENS! Stop with your outdated Cr*p:
www.livescience.com/42933-humans-carry-20-per...
Afronazi imbeciles JUST LOVE OUTDATED LINKS!!!!!!!!!!
Retard, my premise is the skin color not changing in 40k years expected of people living temperate regions and supposedly mixed with light skin neanderthal.
African AE

Durban, South Africa

#24909 Jul 4, 2014
asho wrote:
<quoted text>
What similarities does "the first European" have with europeans? Point them out. Do not quote Rchard Neaves . Use your eyes. I do not buy Neaves' explanation entirely. He is trying to appease angry whites by giving first european neutral lebel.
This author sees what everybody sees except eurocentists.
"Much to the dismay of any would-be “White Supremacists,” scientists have recently revealed that the face of the first Europeans were surprisingly Sub-Saharan African in appearance."
http://politicalblindspot.com/scientists-reve...
BIMBO BRAINLESS ONE, that pic is suppossedly A MIX WITH A NEANDERTHAL!
This is HOW A NEANDERTHAL looks:
www.sciencephoto.com/media/590848/view

How can he look like a Khoisan if he is mixed with a NEANDERTHAL??????????
www.politianblindspot.com/scientists-reveal-t...

NEANDERTHALS INTERBRED WITH HUMANS:
www.livescience.com/42933-humans-carry-20-per...
asho

Eskilstuna, Sweden

#24910 Jul 4, 2014
African AE wrote:
<quoted text>Um....The dark skin CAUCASIAN MAN WITH BLUE EYES WAS NOT A F--king AFRICAN but carried Haplogroup C6 FROM ASIA! EUROPEANS GOT THEIR WHITE SKINS FROM THE MIDDLE EAST 8000-4000 YEARS AGO!
MAJORITY OF SITES SAY THE NEANDERTHAL INTERBRED HOMO SAPIENS! Stop with your outdated Cr*p:
www.livescience.com/42933-humans-carry-20-per...
Afronazi imbeciles JUST LOVE OUTDATED LINKS!!!!!!!!!!
A gay flip flopper. LOL! So youve moved away from you position of africans mixing with neanderthal 60,000 years ago the moment they set foot in arabia? LOL!
African AE

Durban, South Africa

#24911 Jul 4, 2014
www.politicalblindspot.com/scientists-reveal-...

When this recreation of a supposedly neanderthal mix was done, scientists did NOT know neanderthals were WHITE and HAIRY! FACT!

THE FIRST REAL EUROPEAN AND ANCESTOR TO ALL EUROPEANS AND MIDDLE EASTERN PEOPLE:
www.sciencephoto.com/media/590848/view

Level 2

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#24912 Jul 4, 2014
asho wrote:
<quoted text>
from your link:
The First european
http://realhistoryww.com/world_history/ancien...
"Erik Trinkaus, professor of anthropology at Washington University in Missouri, said the jaw in particular is the oldest, modern human fossil that can be directly-dated, saying that,“Taken together, the material is the first that securely documents what modern humans looked like when they spread into Europe.”
Shouldn't neandethal and human mixed offspring look like cro magnon/ northern european according to your gay ass? Why should it look Sub Saharan African. It doesnt make sense.^_^
That is suppose to be an archaic mix of neandethal and homosapien. They were not depicted a Sub Saharan African since the scientists working on the project clearly state: "... the skull doesn't actually look European, or Asian, or African" and that it could evolved into either Caucasian, Black, or Asian. They showed to have the closest similarities to Northern Europeans and least similarities to Sub Saharan Africans. The only reason Afrocenrics are running around trying to claim this looks like a Sub Saharan African is because they didn't use pale clay for the skin color even though Neaves states the clay's color does not depicted skin color.
African AE

Durban, South Africa

#24913 Jul 4, 2014
asho wrote:
<quoted text>
A gay flip flopper. LOL! So youve moved away from you position of africans mixing with neanderthal 60,000 years ago the moment they set foot in arabia? LOL!
Um...there have been NO neanderthal skeletons found in Saudi Arabia! Those Africans went into Asia along the coast, where they met the Denisovan Neanderthal who f--ked them all! gayboy!

The Africans who went into the Middle East were all f--ked by white Neanderthals who made them all white and hairy looking just like swarthy Italians!
African AE

Durban, South Africa

#24914 Jul 4, 2014
Eric456 wrote:
<quoted text>
That is suppose to be an archaic mix of neandethal and homosapien. They were not depicted a Sub Saharan African since the scientists working on the project clearly state: "... the skull doesn't actually look European, or Asian, or African" and that it could evolved into either Caucasian, Black, or Asian. They showed to have the closest similarities to Northern Europeans and least similarities to Sub Saharan Africans. The only reason Afrocenrics are running around trying to claim this looks like a Sub Saharan African is because they didn't use pale clay for the skin color even though Neaves states the clay's color does not depicted skin color.
Neaves is a f--king ah*le. That sculpture came from a jawbone only! It looks just like a black South African to me! He must have looked at a pic of a black South African and copied him lol!
asho

Eskilstuna, Sweden

#24915 Jul 4, 2014
Can you imagine how dark europeans were before mixing with neanderthal who were snow white? If 6,000 they were as dark as their african ancestors? Too funny. I can see you guys squirm. LOL!

Level 2

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#24916 Jul 4, 2014
asho wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22308-e...
"The people who built Stonehenge 5000 years ago probably had the same pallid complexion of many modern inhabitants of the UK. Now it seems that the humans occupying Britain and mainland Europe only lost the darker skins of their African ancestors perhaps just 6000 years earlier, long after Neanderthals had died out. The finding confirms that modern Europeans didn't gain their pale skin from Neanderthals – adding to evidence suggesting that European Homo sapiens and Neanderthals generally kept their relationships strictly platonic."
keyword become white as we see them today about 6000 years ago. If that is the case then there is no way euros got whiteness in the middle east.
http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upl...
They are talking about the SLC24A5, and that was before the most recent discoveries that show Europeans carrying high percentage of Neanderthals BNC2 gene that influences skin colour. Different forms of the BNC2 gene can give someone olive-coloured skin, pale white skin and anywhere in between, which is what one finds in skin variations from Europe to the Middle East and Asia. BTW, that article you copy/pasted the above from shows light skin in Europeans the earliest nearly 19,000 years ago.

"The result suggested that the three genes associated with paler skin swept through the European population only 11,000 to 19,000 years ago."
asho wrote:
<quoted text>January 2014
"This is the first pre-agricultural European genome we have,” research Lalueza-Fox told New Scientist.“It will help us to understand how the arrival of the Neolithic era — farming, new diet and new diseases related to animals — has shaped the genome of modern Europeans.
Some of the results so far are surprising. The hunter-gatherer in question had genes for darkly pigmented skin and hair, like his African ancestors, but blue eyes, too, which is more more commonly European. That suggests that eye colour evolved before skin colour changed — a finding which runs counter to what researchers have believed in the past."
Like I said, you Afrocentrics hear 'dark skin' and you automatically make everyone 'black'. He was 'darker' then modern Europeans but he sure as heck was not 'black' skinned. For one, they were looking for the MCR1 gene which he did not carry, but that doesn't mean he was 'black' since there are many light skinned people who don't carry that gene and are still light. Secondly they found he did not carry the derived threonine allele (Ala111Thr; also known as A111T or Thr111) in the SLC24A5 gene that represented 98.7 to 100% of the alleles in European samples, while the ancestral or alanine form was found in 93 to 100% of samples of Sub-Saharan Africans, East Asians AND Native Americans. That STILL doesn't mean he was 'black' since many populations who AREN'T black but still light skinned though 'darker' then N. Europeans carry the ancestral or alanine ranging from Middle Easterners to East Asians and Native Americans. Lastly they did not test for the Neanderthal BNC2 gene that most Europeans have that is involved in skin pigmentation since BNC2 and UGT1A are NEW genes also responsible for light skinned that were just recently discovered.

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) 3 min Cheech the Conser... 1,460,392
the moors were black africans not arabs!!! (Jun '08) 4 min Barros 50,881
another mudshark murdered by Toby 4 min KIP 18
News White rage and racist thought: How history puts... 5 min Redefined 86
Are people p*ssng and sh*tting in procesed foods? 8 min Charlie 3
Caught the wife with a white boy 12 min Marcus Washington 27
News California will soon provide ethnic studies cla... 16 min Redefined 31
According to the one drop rule, white "people" ... 44 min KIP 127
The 'words' of Dylaan Roof... 1 hr Israelite Suprema... 33
More from around the web