|
Post by sundiata on Apr 5, 2010 16:37:26 GMT -5
I believe V correlates to e1b1b2, which is a Berber haplotype.
|
|
|
Post by truthcentric on Apr 5, 2010 16:59:02 GMT -5
All right, Sundiata, you win. Uniparental markers don't reliably indicate phenotype, and a multidisciplinary approach suggests a southern origin for the Egyptians. Count me back on the "black Egypt" team. I wasn't that eager to be on the opposing team anyway.
|
|
|
Post by globalafrikanpower on Apr 5, 2010 17:19:05 GMT -5
Truthcentric changes his position on the race of the ancient Kemetians just about every month.
|
|
|
Post by truthcentric on Apr 5, 2010 18:24:58 GMT -5
Truthcentric changes his position on the race of the ancient Kemetians just about every month. Changing your mind is a sign of critical thinking.
|
|
|
Post by anansi on Apr 5, 2010 20:42:10 GMT -5
Truthcentric changes his position on the race of the ancient Kemetians just about every month. globalafrikanpower one can have doubts especially if new information is thrown at you remember this is not maths,and a non scientific concept called race there is no reason to believe in it at all...the questions should always be!!were they biologically and culturally African. "Race" is at anybody's whim.
|
|
|
Post by olehint on Oct 20, 2010 15:59:01 GMT -5
quote author=anansi " one can have doubts especially if new information is thrown at you remember this is not maths,and a non scientific concept called race there is no reason to believe in it at all...the questions should always be!!were they biologically and culturally African. Race; is at anybody's whim. "
one of the races of man according to anansi:
biologically African people
|
|
|
Post by doctorisscientia on Oct 20, 2010 20:40:07 GMT -5
I believe V correlates to e1b1b2, which is a Berber haplotype. V correlates to the downstream lineages of E-M35, i.e. anything from E-M81 to the various branch's of E-M78. In regard to Egypt, Sudan, and Ethiopia... V for the most part = E-M78. E-M81 isn't found in Egypt in significant frequencies outside the Siwa Oasis and so fourth. In regard to Egypt. V = E-M78 XI = E-M35 IV = B-M60 Indicating obvious ancestry via the Central Sahara, Central Sudan, and Northeast Africa (Eastern Sudan).
|
|
|
Post by anansi on Oct 22, 2010 5:32:12 GMT -5
quote author=anansi " one can have doubts especially if new information is thrown at you remember this is not maths,and a non scientific concept called race there is no reason to believe in it at all...the questions should always be!!were they biologically and culturally African. Race; is at anybody's whim. " one of the races of man according to anansi: biologically African people Biologically African do not a race make it just means people who are more closely related to each other on the continent in terms of genetics and "sometimes" physique Ie tropical body plans..example The Prime-minister of the Solomon Islands look just like another person of recent OAA decent Like this Former Jamaican Prime-minister but the two are the most distant in terms on genetics than their phenotype revealed Both are in fact blackmen but one is Asiatic perhaps the oldest form of Asiatic and the other of recent African decent much like him The former prime^minister of Gabon
|
|
|
Post by beyoku on Oct 22, 2010 15:45:33 GMT -5
I believe V correlates to e1b1b2, which is a Berber haplotype. V correlates to the downstream lineages of E-M35, i.e. anything from E-M81 to the various branch's of E-M78. In regard to Egypt, Sudan, and Ethiopia... V for the most part = E-M78. E-M81 isn't found in Egypt in significant frequencies outside the Siwa Oasis and so fourth. In regard to Egypt. V = E-M78 XI = E-M35 IV = B-M60 Indicating obvious ancestry via the Central Sahara, Central Sudan, and Northeast Africa (Eastern Sudan). Haplogroup IV is supposed to be PN2 related though. exploring-africa.blogspot.com/2008/01/lucotte-et-als-haplotype-iv.html
|
|
|
Post by zarahan on Oct 22, 2010 22:32:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by olehint on Oct 25, 2010 0:06:04 GMT -5
quote author=anansi one of the races of man according to anansi: "Biologically African do not a race make it just means people who are more closely related to each other on the continent in terms of genetics "
--race is whatever somebody decide to make it. Now race is gon be even more set because you could measure in the lab You might not like to call it race, but they gon use exactly what you said to measure race with genetics
who is close to who and who is not
mark my words, the same thing is gon be used with new tech
|
|
|
Post by anansi on Oct 25, 2010 2:40:04 GMT -5
quote author=anansi one of the races of man according to anansi: "Biologically African do not a race make it just means people who are more closely related to each other on the continent in terms of genetics " --race is whatever somebody decide to make it. Now race is gon be even more set because you could measure in the lab You might not like to call it race, but they gon use exactly what you said to measure race with genetics who is close to who and who is not mark my words, the same thing is gon be used with new tech Well you could be right but using genetics to reinforce the current definition of race is unlikely but something else could happen..I will make a post in the General topics folder as this likely will go too much O.T
|
|
|
Post by clydewin98 on Oct 27, 2010 9:10:55 GMT -5
quote author=anansi one of the races of man according to anansi: "Biologically African do not a race make it just means people who are more closely related to each other on the continent in terms of genetics " --race is whatever somebody decide to make it. Now race is gon be even more set because you could measure in the lab You might not like to call it race, but they gon use exactly what you said to measure race with genetics who is close to who and who is not mark my words, the same thing is gon be used with new tech Correct. Researchers are using genetics to lable the Egyptians as Eurasians by implying that the genetic evidence corresponds to the Eurocentric literature base that promote the idea a back migration of genes originating in Africa from Eurasia has led to this phenomena.
|
|
|
Post by imhotep06 on Oct 27, 2010 11:24:46 GMT -5
Imphotep98 says: Not only that, they are trying to reinforce it with the Nostratic "super-family" of languages hypothesis by trying to include Afro-Asiatic into this mix of Eurasia; including the Indo-European, Uralic and Altaic as well as Kartvelian languages. By making the language "related" to languages found in the so-called Middle East, they can reintroduce a Caucasian Egypt. CLydewin98 says: Correct. Researchers are using genetics to lable the Egyptians as Eurasians by implying that the genetic evidence corresponds to the Eurocentric literature base that promote the idea a back migration of genes originating in Africa from Eurasia has led to this phenomena.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Indeed. Its the old bald-faced hypocrisy, double standards and grasping appropriation of as much as possible. It is also the same manipulative use of language and labels, with 'Eurasian" now a catch-all stand in for the old racial models. They no longer argue for pristine whiteness, versus some "Other". Now the approach is a more cunning. The "Other" is still there, but now they say, "Eurasians" can look like Louie Armstrong, and they still remain "Eurasian" The grasping appropriation has been relabeled, with 'Eurasian" serving as an umbrella to appropriate even more. But in ultra diverse africa, with the most genetic diversity in the world, when peole with narrow noses, loose hair etc appear, they can't be "African" - they must be part of some 'Eurasian" "mix". On the languages it is the same type of double standards. There is debate on the origin of Semitic which some see as coming from the Near East. However even when arguing this approach, one 2009 study STILL puts the origin of the Afrasan language family in Africa. And even under their Near east umbrella, they dismiss much movement from the Arabian peninsula, holding that any spread in Africa is via African populations primarily and is not due to gene flow from the Arabian peninsula.
|
|
|
Post by clydewin98 on Oct 27, 2010 13:19:55 GMT -5
^^^ Not only that, they are trying to reinforce it with the Nostratic "super-family" of languages hypothesis by trying to include Afro-Asiatic into this mix of Eurasia; including the Indo-European, Uralic and Altaic as well as Kartvelian languages. By making the language "related" to languages found in the so-called Middle East, they can reintroduce a Caucasian Egypt. The Nostratic theory has little support because we can't really say what languages were spoken 10kya. In relation to Indo-European group we are beginning to determine that this group probably never existed. www.docstoc.com/docs/51826628/Marcantonio-Salem-Repudiating-linguistic-evidence-Aryan-hypothesis-_1_This results from the fact that the relationship between Greek and Indian can be explained by the Greek presence in India since Persian times, and the reality that when Panini wrote Sanskrit, Greeks were already in the area. Since Indian and Greek languages were in contact the relationship between these languages can be explained as a result of contact and possible bilingualism.
|
|