Level 3

Since: Sep 13

Location hidden

#19831 Jan 16, 2014
Gaymoney the gurgling nitwit wrote:
And even these scientist are that using comparison of "physical features" proves to identify the people rather than the bull shyt haplogroups. You guys need to get a clue. The original Homo sapiens were the Africans. Eurasians is a dumb cracker term used to describe a world of Africans that mixed with various human species. All Eurasians are not the same and some Eurasians are more like their African ancestors rather than their European descendents who are last in the evolutionary path as of today. The only reason why Eurasians are any different from Africans is because of the amount of Neanderthal and Denisovans genes they have retained. Had these Africans went to the Middle East, East Asia and Europe and mixed with heidelbergensis in those locations, there would not be much difference in anyone.
What a load of gibberish. Your sentences are twisted, make no sense, and your only argument seems to be “cracker”! LOL!!!

What a fool you are, boy. What an idiot. What a clown.

You think you can come in here and debate anthropology with me, boy? That is immensely comical.

You're a compete fool.
African AE

Cape Town, South Africa

#19832 Jan 16, 2014
trollslayer wrote:
<quoted text>
they never deal with the who was originally in these countries:
...and that's all I'm saying is that it's all a modern euro "perception". For example, one can say "white" N.Africa or "white" S.Africa. We know the original PPL. were African. It's like when trolls say "Maghreb" as though it's some "magical area" on N.Africa "reserved for non-Blacks". As we know the "Maghreb" is comprised of these countries, although it varies depending on what map one is viewing:
http://www.webdo.tn/wp-content/uploads/2012/0 ...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons ...(orthographic_projection).s vg/ 553px-Arab_Maghreb_Union_(orth ographic_projection).svg.png
https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images ...
......so the bottom line, originally these were all Black or simply African countries. As you and others have pointed out, the invaders and white slave of Moors came later.
Also as you've pointed out the original inhabitants of Europe & Asia were AfroAsians, who originally came from the San/Khosian PPL.
I guess I've just become a intense stickler for not accepting "western perceptions" & "western separatist perceptions / divisions". However, your points are well taken.
Nope these were the ORIGINAL people of North Africa!
www.sciencephoto.com/media/481366/view

Level 3

Since: Sep 13

Location hidden

#19833 Jan 16, 2014
trollslayer wrote:
<quoted text>
they never deal with the who was originally in these countries:
...and that's all I'm saying is that it's all a modern euro "perception". For example, one can say "white" N.Africa or "white" S.Africa. We know the original PPL. were African. It's like when trolls say "Maghreb" as though it's some "magical area" on N.Africa "reserved for non-Blacks". As we know the "Maghreb" is comprised of these countries, although it varies depending on what map one is viewing:
http://www.webdo.tn/wp-content/uploads/2012/0 ...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons ...(orthographic_projection).s vg/ 553px-Arab_Maghreb_Union_(orth ographic_projection).svg.png
https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images ...
......so the bottom line, originally these were all Black or simply African countries. As you and others have pointed out, the invaders and white slave of Moors came later.
Also as you've pointed out the original inhabitants of Europe & Asia were AfroAsians, who originally came from the San/Khosian PPL.
I guess I've just become a intense stickler for not accepting "western perceptions" & "western separatist perceptions / divisions". However, your points are well taken.
Wrong, boy.

1. human remains 30k bp, morphologically and genetically Eurasian
2. Maghreb remains all or mostly Eurasian throughout the 30k years
3. ancient Egyptian, Phoenician and Roman depiction of Berbers as Eurasians
4. contemporary eyewitness depictions by Medieval Iberians of Moors as Eurasians
5. Guanches isolated 6k yrs on Canaries with Berber DNA, Eurasians

Deal with these FACTS or shut up, boy.

Your BS Afronazi rhetoric is meaningless.
African AE

Cape Town, South Africa

#19834 Jan 16, 2014
Basically what it comes down to is scientists dont know with any certainty which ancient hominid was the ancestor of modern man! One thing is for certain, lots of different hominids left Africa so we are probably related to them all! Its known that neanderthals interbred with the Denisovan neanderthal and the Homo-Erectus so that means that modern Europeans ancestors include these hominids! The only human left standing in Europe was Cromagnon. Also DNA taken from an African American named Albert Perry showed he was related to an extinct hominid in Africa. He had completely different Y-DNA to any humans alive today. Also Mungo Man was found to have DNA from an extinct hominid and not related to any modern humans and carrying NONE of their MtDNA or Y-DNA! Thats why some scientists are turning to the Multiregional theory!

Level 3

Since: Sep 13

Location hidden

#19835 Jan 16, 2014
Gaymoney the drooling dunce wrote:
<quoted text>
They have not lived in North Africa for no damn 35,000 years. If they did, they would have DNA that is more similar original Africans rather having Neanderthal DNA in their genes. They have been there only since 5-6,000 bc. Had they been there longer, people would be way more integrated also the climate and environment would have take a toll on the people after 35,000 years. Your confused and don't know what you are talking about.
What a cretin.

You think that if they were there long enough, their DNA would turn African? LOL!!!

Do you even know what DNA is, boy?
Almoravid

Rotterdam, Netherlands

#19838 Jan 16, 2014
The Uan Muhuggia Mummy

For years, Italian Anthropologist Fabrizio Mori has been trekking into the Libyan Desert to look for graffiti, ancient inscriptions on rocks. Near the oasis of Ghat, 500 miles south of the Mediterranean coast, he found on his last expedition a shallow cave with many graffiti scratched on its walls. When he dug into the sandy floor, he found a peculiar bundle: a goatskin wrapped around the desiccated body of a child. The entrails had been removed and replaced by a bundle of herbs.

Such deliberate mummification was practiced chiefly by the ancient Egyptians. But when Dr. Mori took the mummy back to Italy and had its age measured by the carbon 14 method, it proved to be 5,400 years old—considerably older than the oldest known civilization in the valley of the Nile 900 miles to the east.

The discovery suggested a clue to one of the great puzzles of Egyptology: Where was the birthplace of Egyptian culture? Although many authorities believe it is the world's oldest, they have been perplexed by the fact that it did not develop gradually in the Nile Valley. About 3200 B.C. the First Dynasty appeared there suddenly and full grown, with an elaborate religion, laws, arts and crafts, and a system of writing. Until that time the Nile Valley was apparently inhabited by neolithic people on a low cultural level. Dr. Mori's mummy provides support for the theory that Egyptian culture grew by slow stages in the Sahara, which was not then a desert. When the climate grew insupportably dry, the already civilized Egyptians took refuge in the Nile Valley, and the sands of the Sahara swept over their former home.

The mummy does not prove that there is a civilization buried in the Sahara but it does mean that, in the next few years, the desert will be swarming with anthropologists looking for one.

Sourced by:

http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article...
Almoravid

Rotterdam, Netherlands

#19839 Jan 16, 2014
http://i51.tinypic.com/11l63j7.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-i5J_zdezwLQ/UGesszg...



The Middle Holocene climatic transition

The Middle Holocene, and more precisely the period from around 6400 BP and 5000 BP, was a period of profound environmental change, during which the global climate underwent a systematic reorganisation as the warm, humid post-glacial climate of the Early Holocene gave way to a climatic configuration broadly similar to that of today (Brooks, 2010; Mayewski et al., 2004). The most prominent manifestations of this transition were a cooling at middle and high latitudes and high altitudes (Thompson et al., 2006), a transition from relatively humid to arid conditions in the NHST (Brooks, 2006, 2010; deMenocal et al., 2000) and the establishment of a regular El Niño after a multimillennial period during which is was rare or absent (Sandweiss et al., 2007).
This “Middle Holocene Climatic Transition”(MHCT) represented a stepwise acceleration of climatic trends that had commenced in the 9th millennium BP in some regions (Jung et al., 2004), and entailed a long-term shift towards cooler and more arid conditions, punctuated by episodes of abrupt climatic change. Around 6400–6300 BP, palaeo-environmental evidence indicates abrupt lake recessions and increased aridity in northern Africa, western Asia, South Asia and northern China, and the advance of glaciers in Europe and elsewhere (Damnati, 2000; Enzel et al., 1999; Jung et al., 2004; Linstädter & Kröpelin, 2004; Mayewski et al., 2004; Zhang et al., 2000).

[...]

The above evidence indicates that the MHCT was associated with a weakening of monsoon systems across the globe, and the southward retreat of monsoon rains in the NHST (Lézine, 2009). However, these changes coin- cided with climatic reorganisation outside of the global monsoon belt, as indicated by the onset of El Niño and evidence of large changes in climate at middle and high latitudes. The ultimate driving force behind these changes was a decline in the intensity of summer solar radiation outside the tropics, resulting from long-term changes in the angle of the Earth’s axis of rotation relative to its orbital plane. This was translated into abrupt changes in climate by non-linear feedback processes within the climate system (Brooks, 2004; deMenocal et al., 2000; Kukla & Gavin, 2004).

[...]

In the Sahara, population agglomeration is also evident in certain areas such as the Libyan Fezzan, which (albeit much later) also saw the emergence of an indigenous Saharan “civili- zation” in the form of the Garamantian Tribal Confedera- tion, the development of which has been described explicitly in terms of adaptation to increased aridity (Brooks, 2006; di Lernia et al., 2002; Mattingly et al., 2003).
--Nick Brooks (2013): Beyond collapse: climate change and causality during the Middle Holocene Climatic Transition, 6400–5000 years before present, Geografisk Tidsskrift-Danish Journal of Geography, 112:2, 93-104
Almoravid

Rotterdam, Netherlands

#19840 Jan 16, 2014
African AE wrote:
<quoted text>Nope these were the ORIGINAL people of North Africa!
www.sciencephoto.com/media/481366/view
Dullard. That cosmetic funny stuff again. lol

Look at the bare model,

http://www.sciencephoto.com/media/481367/view

Now let's try actual science,

http://www.academia.edu/677017/Human_Skeletal...

Have we stumbled upon the elusive Neolithic E-M81 carrying Proto-Berber speakers?

LOOOOOOOOOOOL
Almoravid

Rotterdam, Netherlands

#19841 Jan 16, 2014
To enclose this,

Successes and failures of human dispersals from North Africa

http://origin-ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1...

http://origin-ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1...

http://origin-ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1...

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/...

RESEARCH ARTICLE
A New Topology of the Human Y Chromosome Haplogroup E1b1 (E-P2) Revealed through the Use of Newly Characterized Binary Polymorphisms
Beniamino Trombetta,
Fulvio Cruciani,
Daniele Sellitto,
Rosaria Scozzari mail

Published: Jan 06, 2011DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0016073

http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchObject.ac...

http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchObject.ac...

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_P02sYth2nQ0/TOFQCCu...

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-RFDBC3MrhRc/TwSONGT...

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/26/7/15...

Level 3

Since: Sep 13

Location hidden

#19842 Jan 16, 2014
Wannabe Almoravid wrote:
The Uan Muhuggia Mummy
For years, Italian Anthropologist Fabrizio Mori has been trekking into the Libyan Desert to look for graffiti, ancient inscriptions on rocks. Near the oasis of Ghat, 500 miles south of the Mediterranean coast, he found on his last expedition a shallow cave with many graffiti scratched on its walls. When he dug into the sandy floor, he found a peculiar bundle: a goatskin wrapped around the desiccated body of a child. The entrails had been removed and replaced by a bundle of herbs.
Such deliberate mummification was practiced chiefly by the ancient Egyptians. But when Dr. Mori took the mummy back to Italy and had its age measured by the carbon 14 method, it proved to be 5,400 years old—considerably older than the oldest known civilization in the valley of the Nile 900 miles to the east.
The discovery suggested a clue to one of the great puzzles of Egyptology: Where was the birthplace of Egyptian culture? Although many authorities believe it is the world's oldest, they have been perplexed by the fact that it did not develop gradually in the Nile Valley. About 3200 B.C. the First Dynasty appeared there suddenly and full grown, with an elaborate religion, laws, arts and crafts, and a system of writing. Until that time the Nile Valley was apparently inhabited by neolithic people on a low cultural level. Dr. Mori's mummy provides support for the theory that Egyptian culture grew by slow stages in the Sahara, which was not then a desert. When the climate grew insupportably dry, the already civilized Egyptians took refuge in the Nile Valley, and the sands of the Sahara swept over their former home.
The mummy does not prove that there is a civilization buried in the Sahara but it does mean that, in the next few years, the desert will be swarming with anthropologists looking for one.
Sourced by:
http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article...
This is true except that I think the notion that Egyptian civilization is entirely attributable to the Saharan culture is overstatement.

Egypt, as well as Nubia, was undergoing consolidation of social organization to kingdoms and early state formations without Saharan impetus.

It is true that aspects of later Egyptian culture are found in southern Libya, including Anubis images and mummification techniques.

The idea that the Sahara had a civilization during its wet phase is not at all far-fetched. There was civilization in SE Europe for several millennia before Egypt, and likely in India/Iran/Afghanistan as well, so the likelihood of an analogous civilization in northern Africa is not negligible.

The Saharan culture was spread over a very large area, and such widespread societies as this as well as that to which Aratta (Jiroft) was a part may necessitate a revision of the definition of “civilization”, but then we don't know what will be found in the Sahara...

Satellite imagery should reveal a lot of things there in the near future.
Gmoney

Woodbridge, VA

#19843 Jan 16, 2014
Ish Tov wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong as always, boy.
The first eurasians arrived in the Maghreb over 30k bp.
All modern human types came out of Ethiopia, not all of Africa.
Who needs to leave the Maghreb is the Arabs, leaving the original indigenous Eurasian Berbers.
The dates of migration into the Maghreb are proved by human remains, boy.
You're uneducated and don't understand these matters, boy. Maghreb people I did not say have no African DNA.
And DNA confirms that Andamanese are 100% Eurasian.
Not theories. Simple facts, boy.
Cry.
The Haplogroup DNA confirms that the Adamanese have been living in Asia for a very long time. It proves that they were one of the first people to walk into Asia from AFRICA leaving these people to be afroasiatic people. The Eurasians "Berbers" are not the original Berbers and need to get the boot right along with the Arabs who both migrated to Africa some 7-8,000 years ago. They have not been in the Maghreb for 35,000 years. They are invaders and are not the Berbers. The true Berbers were black. Migration in and out of Ethiopia in all direction was done in Africa before migrations out of Africa had begun. The Maghreb was occupied when whiter first came and they had to fight to live on the land fool.
Gmoney

Woodbridge, VA

#19844 Jan 16, 2014
African AE wrote:
Basically what it comes down to is scientists dont know with any certainty which ancient hominid was the ancestor of modern man! One thing is for certain, lots of different hominids left Africa so we are probably related to them all! Its known that neanderthals interbred with the Denisovan neanderthal and the Homo-Erectus so that means that modern Europeans ancestors include these hominids! The only human left standing in Europe was Cromagnon. Also DNA taken from an African American named Albert Perry showed he was related to an extinct hominid in Africa. He had completely different Y-DNA to any humans alive today. Also Mungo Man was found to have DNA from an extinct hominid and not related to any modern humans and carrying NONE of their MtDNA or Y-DNA! Thats why some scientists are turning to the Multiregional theory!
Basically what it comes down to is you like most scientist in this field are full of shyt and waste your time telling lies to people who don't believe you. Pathetic
Gmoney

Woodbridge, VA

#19845 Jan 16, 2014
Ish Tov wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong, boy.
1. human remains 30k bp, morphologically and genetically Eurasian
2. Maghreb remains all or mostly Eurasian throughout the 30k years
3. ancient Egyptian, Phoenician and Roman depiction of Berbers as Eurasians
4. contemporary eyewitness depictions by Medieval Iberians of Moors as Eurasians
5. Guanches isolated 6k yrs on Canaries with Berber DNA, Eurasians
Deal with these FACTS or shut up, boy.
Your BS Afronazi rhetoric is meaningless.
If physical description doesn't define who people are then how can someone be depicted as a Eurasian? Shut up you lying sack of shytz.
Gmoney

Woodbridge, VA

#19846 Jan 16, 2014
Ish Tov wrote:
<quoted text>
What a cretin.
You think that if they were there long enough, their DNA would turn African? LOL!!!
Do you even know what DNA is, boy?
Those are by your standards. That is what you claimed happened to the people of ooa. Now you wanna say this concept doesn't apply here for what??? Because white people will remain white but black people easily turn white??? Shut up fool. Those people who migrated into the Middle East were African for thousands of years after they left African and those Eurasians just got to the Maghreb recently in referrence to historical events. They are invaders.

Level 3

Since: Sep 13

Location hidden

#19847 Jan 16, 2014
[QUOTE who="Gaymoney's mascara streaked with tears"]<quoted text>
The Haplogroup DNA confirms that the Adamanese have been living in Asia for a very long time. It proves that they were one of the first people to walk into Asia from AFRICA leaving these people to be afroasiatic people. The Eurasians "Berbers" are not the original Berbers and need to get the boot right along with the Arabs who both migrated to Africa some 7-8,000 years ago. They have not been in the Maghreb for 35,000 years. They are invaders and are not the Berbers. The true Berbers were black. Migration in and out of Ethiopia in all direction was done in Africa before migrations out of Africa had begun. The Maghreb was occupied when whiter first came and they had to fight to live on the land fool.[/QUOTE]

Their DNA is all Eurasian.

The Eurasian Berbers (not the Arabs) are the indigenous people of the Maghreb going back over 30k years. It's the Arabs who should get the boot.

You make statements with no evidence. I've already posted the evidence for eurasians indigenous to the Maghreb. Nobody has been able to contradict it. And so the fact stands:

The Maghreb has been inhabited by Eurasians for over 30k years.

Nothing you can do about it but

CRY CRY CRY

Level 3

Since: Sep 13

Location hidden

#19848 Jan 16, 2014
Gaymoney the sissy racist wrote:
<quoted text>
Basically what it comes down to is you like most scientist in this field are full of shyt and waste your time telling lies to people who don't believe you. Pathetic
That's right, all science is lies, but cultists like you know the truth you learned on www.afronazisgonewild.com .

Right.

Level 3

Since: Sep 13

Location hidden

#19849 Jan 16, 2014
Gaymoney the unlearned wrote:
<quoted text>
If physical description doesn't define who people are then how can someone be depicted as a Eurasian? Shut up you lying sack of shytz.
Because, halfwit, as you've been told repeatedly, relationships between human groups are best revealed by DNA!

Andamanese are Eurasians. They are among the peoples who spread out from Arabia subsequent to OOA.

You don't know this? Damn... you're ignorant.
Gmoney

Woodbridge, VA

#19850 Jan 16, 2014
Ish Tov wrote:
<quoted text>
Because, halfwit, as you've been told repeatedly, relationships between human groups are best revealed by DNA!
Andamanese are Eurasians. They are among the peoples who spread out from Arabia subsequent to OOA.
You don't know this? Damn... you're ignorant.
Yea and those people that came from Arabia came from Africa. Do you not know this??? Damn your dumb. And since they look a lot like African still to this day, it's common sense that these people have looked the way they look before leaving Africa. You don't get African features this close in comparison all over the world. These are distinct African look which belong to Afroasiatic people. These haplogroup DNA shyt is only confirming that people who arrived in east Asia first resembled them and other Africans. Thank you again for the proof butt boy.
Gmoney

Woodbridge, VA

#19851 Jan 16, 2014
Ish Tov wrote:
<quoted text>
Their DNA is all Eurasian.
The Eurasian Berbers (not the Arabs) are the indigenous people of the Maghreb going back over 30k years. It's the Arabs who should get the boot.
You make statements with no evidence. I've already posted the evidence for eurasians indigenous to the Maghreb. Nobody has been able to contradict it. And so the fact stands:
The Maghreb has been inhabited by Eurasians for over 30k years.
Nothing you can do about it but
CRY CRY CRY
You posted no facts. All you have posted was white cracker Eurocentric opinions. Blow that shyt up your ass puss.
Gmoney

Woodbridge, VA

#19852 Jan 16, 2014
Ish Tov wrote:
<quoted text>
That's right, all science is lies, but cultists like you know the truth you learned on www.afronazisgonewild.com .
Right.
Most scientist are liars. Some actually tell the truth. Oh but to you those scientist aren't scientist either. They are cultist. Shut up boy. These are theories we are discussing. You have no facts. All the material that is buried in the ground has t even been dug up. I wouldn't even say we have 10%. So there are only theories since many facts are still out there. Now go cry about you not being respected in here some where else bytch.

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
Whites afraid their culture could become extinct ? 6 min Funny 27
Is Spotted Girl a spy? 12 min ThatBlackGuy 6
Why do I hate white people so much? 24 min mein kampf 196
Freddie Gray's knife 29 min Sankofa 50
Efficiently and humanely shipping blacks back t... 31 min Buddy Boy 33
Hebrew Israelite (Feb '11) 42 min johnplustwomore 118,687
News They were told their babies had died. Now, thes... 44 min Spotted Girl 1
the moors were black africans not arabs!!! (Jun '08) 47 min Sankofa 33,209
News 5 Reasons The American Dream Is Eluding Black P... 4 hr SadButTrue 1,259
More from around the web