Why does so much of Africa's history have to revolve around race?

Status
Closed
Dec 2012
157
I think the fantasy is believing that no one from Eurasia ever set foot on African soil until after the onset of Dynastic Egypt.
This is what you just did:

Strawman-[SIZE=+3]this fallacy includes any lame attempt to "prove" an argument by overstating, exaggerating, or over-simplifying the arguments of the opposing side.[/SIZE]
At this point your entire argument has been debunked and dismissed so you are you are now frustrated and must result to logical fallacies. I believe logical fallacies against forum rules.
[SIZE=+3][/SIZE]
 

dreamregent

Ad Honorem
Feb 2013
4,349
Coastal Florida
At this point your entire argument has been debunked and dismissed so you are you are now frustrated and must result to logical fallacies. I believe logical fallacies against forum rules.
Logical fallacies? That's nonsense. Do you not claim there was no admixture from Eurasia prior to the onset of Dynastic Egypt? My view is the opposite...that there was prior admixture and that's basically all I've ever asserted. It's that simple.
 

cachibatches

Ad Honorem
Mar 2012
2,354
U6 was most likely Eurasian, but due to mutation, it no longer is...

QUOTE:
We report here 24 M1 and 33 U6 new complete mtDNA
sequences that allow us to refine the existing
phylogeny of these haplogroups. The resulting
phylogenetic information was used to genotype a
further 131 M1 and 91 U6 samples to determine the
geographic spread of their sub-clades. No southwest
Asian specific clades for M1 or U6 were discovered. U6
and M1 frequencies in North Africa, the Middle East and
Europe do not follow similar patterns, and their sub-
clade divisions do not appear to be compatible with
their shared history reaching back to the Early Upper
Palaeolithic.

http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2148-12-234.pdf
Once again, you have not read through the study. the study does not say that it is not Eurasian, just that it disagrees with the previous timeframes for its expanse out of Asia.

We have done this before and are now finished.

now, why did you source Lucotte and tell me that it is not a good study when I used it against you?

Why did you use DNA tribes, a known falsification?
 
Jun 2013
865
Universe
Why did you only respond to half my post?

Once again, you have not read through the study. the study does not say that it is not Eurasian, just that it disagrees with the previous timeframes for its expanse out of Asia.
Me or the study never said it was not Eurasian, the study obviously indicates a mutation happened. Reading...Try it.


now, why did you source Lucotte and tell me that it is not a good study when I used it against you?
When the heck did I say it was not a good study? When it obviously goes against your claims but since you don't like really reading most what I say(like always), it goes over my head. Again actually read my post then you would know I addressed all of this a million times(literally)

Why did you use DNA tribes, a known falsification?
No...Why don't you actually go back to my post and actually address everything in it and then you'll get your answer. Deal?
 

cachibatches

Ad Honorem
Mar 2012
2,354
This
You're entire premise is built on nothing more than fallacy. The maternal root for the entire North African region is the Sub Saharan African L3:

That being said how on Earth can the Sub Saharan element increase if it was the genetic basis for the entire North African region? That logically means that the Sub Saharan African element could only DECREASE as a result of the known Iberian migration in the Maghreb and the Near Eastern/European input in the Eastern portion of the region. Therefore your claim that the high frequency of Sub Saharan mtdna in Egypt/North Africa is the result a recent slave trade from Sub Saharan Africa is moot.

Yes as Keita has noted many times African genetic markers are falsely assumed and labeled as non African.

Yes Batches we all know that you spam the same jumble of largely debunked and uncontextualized sources in which you don't understand. That's why you never go in dept about what your sources imply during a discussion. You just post the abstract since you admitted that you don't have access to most of your sources....YOU'VE NEVER EVEN READ THEM THROUGH....

Translation you don't have anything valuable to say so you're nitpicking at my use of interchangeable relative terms to describe one's color.

No batches just no...

It's common knowledge to people who study this that Lower Egypt was sparse in population until Kingdom times when again there are noted foreign immigration who primarily settled in that region.

Your source from Raxter NEVER HAD ANY MERIT! Why, because IT IS A THESIS PAPER, NOT PUBLISHED, NOT PEER REVIEWED, JUST AN OPINION PIECE. What's funny about the Thesis paper however is that it DOES NOT dispute the consistent finding that the limb proportions for BOTH Upper AND Lower Egyptians groups them with tropically adapted Africans (black). What was in dispute was the erroneous conclusion that they rapidly obtained these tropical limb proportions by simply migrating into a SUB-tropical environment. As stated in the new study that I posted on the previous page that as PROVEN by previous research is takes TENS OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS to adapt to a new environment.

This has been pointed out to you in previous futile discussions between us. As usual however you display that you don't understand any of this in that you cannot engage anyone in an indebt discussion about the evidence, but rather you just repost the same wall of debunked sources.

Again this is what a PEER REVIEWED STUDY has to say about body width's which completely debunked yet another erroneous claim in her THESIS PAPER:

No Eurasian input...changes were a result of agricultural development.

Actually limb proportions and skin color (phenotype) do correlate. Tropically adapted mammals (Egyptians, Nubians, aboriginal Australians, Kenyans ect) have dark skin as a result of long term residence in the Tropics.

No Batches just no..You are acting immature about this. You have no logical basis to dismiss the results of DNAtribes, absolutely NONE! The Central African affinities of the Amarna period pharaohs was duplicated by another genetics company DNACONSULTANT:

The Thuya Gene. One of the autosomal ancestry markers that ran strong in the Royal Egyptian families of the New Kingdom, this not-so-rare gene is Central African in origin and was passed to Thuya from her forbears, Queens of Upper and Lower Egypt and High Priestesses of Hathor, the Mother Goddess. Thuya passed it to her grandson Akhenaten and great-grandson Tutankhamun, among others, as documented in a study of the Amarna mummies by Zahi Hawass, head of the Supreme Council of Antiquities in Cairo, in 2010. It is found in 1 in 6 Egyptians and 1 in 8 Africans or African Americans. It crops up in unlikely places around the world such as the Basque region and in Melungeons but is virtually unknown in East and South Asia, as well as Native America. - See more at: Rare Genes from History
link

The other genes from the Amarna period analysis are in the link and what do you think that they all point to? You think you have something on DNAtribes who found a Central African (Nilotic) match with the pharaohs, but what is your excuse for not accepting DNAconsultant that indicated the same Sub Saharan African affinities? Are they just lying Batches :notrust: or is it just another finding that you would rather brush under the rug?

Why do you lie about what takes place in these discussions so much? You know that this is not the first time that I have presented this study. In fact in one of our first debates on this forum I presented this same source on to you and NEVER responded to it or any of my other sources which ALL CORRELATE WITH ONE ANOTHER TO FORM A NARRATIVE FOR THE PEOPLING OF THE NILE VALLEY.

No it has NOTHING TO DO WITH EGYPT, but instead focuses on the OPPOSITE corner of Northern Africa (separated by thousands upon thousands of miles) which is called the Maghreb. We know that Northeastern Africa (Egypt) is genetically DISTINCT from the Maghreb:

That's my and everyone else point Batches..You are posting studies that you clearly do not understand and most of which are either debunked/dated or have nothing to do with this subject/does support what you are arguing.
is all jibberish, so lets us post yet again for the sake of anyone reading though the thread the falsification that is DNA tribesDNA Tribes,


"Zink has stated that the tests did not get the same results each time they were run and the results reported in the JAMA paper are those the team adjudged "most likely" based on "majority rule" (Curse of the Pharaoh's DNA AWT Conference Review, Marchant; 2011)
The same team (including Zink) that worked on the 2010 study also worked 2012 study "Revisiting the harem conspiracy and death of Ramesses III: anthropological, forensic, radiological, and genetic study".

You own cited study:
Couadray et al 2009
North Africa is considered a distinct geographic and ethnic entity within Africa. Although modern humans originated in this Continent, studies of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and Y-chromosome genealogical markers provide evidence that the North African gene pool has been shaped by the back-migration of several Eurasian lineages in Paleolithic and Neolithic times. More recent influences from sub-Saharan Africa and Mediterranean Europe are also evident. The presence of East-West and North-South haplogroup frequency gradients strongly reinforces the genetic complexity of this region. However, this genetic scenario is beset with a notable gap, which is the lack of consistent information for Algeria, the largest country in the Maghreb. To fill this gap, we analyzed a sample of 240 unrelated subjects from a northwest Algeria cosmopolitan population using mtDNA sequences and Y-chromosome biallelic polymorphisms, focusing on the fine dissection of haplogroups E and R, which are the most prevalent in North Africa and Europe respectively. The Eurasian component in Algeria reached 80% for mtDNA and 90% for Y-chromosome. However, within them, the North African genetic component for mtDNA (U6 and M1; 20%) is significantly smaller than the paternal (E-M81 and E-V65; 70%). The unexpected presence of the European-derived Y-chromosome lineages R-M412, R-S116, R-U152 and R-M529 in Algeria and the rest of the Maghreb could be the counterparts of the mtDNA H1, H3 and V subgroups, pointing to direct maritime contacts between the European and North African sides of the western Mediterranean. Female influx of sub-Saharan Africans into Algeria (20%) is also significantly greater than the male (10%). In spite of these sexual asymmetries, the Algerian uniparental profiles faithfully correlate between each other and with the geography......From the beginning, a prominent mtDNA Euroasiatic genetic component was observed in the Northern areas occupied by Morocco [5] and Egypt [6], with gradual sub-Saharan African influences moving southwards to the Western Sahara and Mauritania, or to Nubia and the Sudan respectively

And, Keita's conclusions:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZssWb4MmGM


Everything you say is false. Everything.
 
Last edited:

cachibatches

Ad Honorem
Mar 2012
2,354
Shouldn't he know that Mathilda is not a balanced blog and she is not even a anthropologist.

I tried explaining to him that at least the Ancient Egyptian culture started in Upper Egypt among Africans.
Plain dishonest. I have not posted anything from Matilda except the Lucotte chart, which is where google led me. And you know this.
 
Jun 2013
865
Universe
This is all jibberish, so lets us post yet again for the sake of anyone reading though the thread the falsification that is DNA tribesDNA Tribes,

"Zink has stated that the tests did not get the same results each time they were run and the results reported in the JAMA paper are those the team adjudged "most likely" based on "majority rule" (Curse of the Pharaoh's DNA AWT Conference Review, Marchant; 2011)
The same team (including Zink) that worked on the 2010 study also worked 2012 study "Revisiting the harem conspiracy and death of Ramesses III: anthropological, forensic, radiological, and genetic study".

You own cited study:
Couadray et al 2009
North Africa is considered a distinct geographic and ethnic entity within Africa. Although modern humans originated in this Continent, studies of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and Y-chromosome genealogical markers provide evidence that the North African gene pool has been shaped by the back-migration of several Eurasian lineages in Paleolithic and Neolithic times. More recent influences from sub-Saharan Africa and Mediterranean Europe are also evident. The presence of East-West and North-South haplogroup frequency gradients strongly reinforces the genetic complexity of this region. However, this genetic scenario is beset with a notable gap, which is the lack of consistent information for Algeria, the largest country in the Maghreb. To fill this gap, we analyzed a sample of 240 unrelated subjects from a northwest Algeria cosmopolitan population using mtDNA sequences and Y-chromosome biallelic polymorphisms, focusing on the fine dissection of haplogroups E and R, which are the most prevalent in North Africa and Europe respectively. The Eurasian component in Algeria reached 80% for mtDNA and 90% for Y-chromosome. However, within them, the North African genetic component for mtDNA (U6 and M1; 20%) is significantly smaller than the paternal (E-M81 and E-V65; 70%). The unexpected presence of the European-derived Y-chromosome lineages R-M412, R-S116, R-U152 and R-M529 in Algeria and the rest of the Maghreb could be the counterparts of the mtDNA H1, H3 and V subgroups, pointing to direct maritime contacts between the European and North African sides of the western Mediterranean. Female influx of sub-Saharan Africans into Algeria (20%) is also significantly greater than the male (10%). In spite of these sexual asymmetries, the Algerian uniparental profiles faithfully correlate between each other and with the geography......From the beginning, a prominent mtDNA Euroasiatic genetic component was observed in the Northern areas occupied by Morocco [5] and Egypt [6], with gradual sub-Saharan African influences moving southwards to the Western Sahara and Mauritania, or to Nubia and the Sudan respectively

And, Keita's conclusions:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZssWb4MmGM


Everything you say is false. Everything.


What does this have to do with anything? And what does DNAtribes have to do with anything? Are you copping out?

Anyways I'm done because I really can tell this isn't going to get anywhere. And I don't remember citing that study...
 

cachibatches

Ad Honorem
Mar 2012
2,354
Why did you only respond to half my post?


Me or the study never said it was not Eurasian, the study obviously indicates a mutation happened. Reading...Try it.



When the heck did I say it was not a good study? When it obviously goes against your claims but since you don't like really reading most what I say(like always), it goes over my head. Again actually read my post then you would know I addressed all of this a million times(literally)



No...Why don't you actually go back to my post and actually address everything in it and then you'll get your answer. Deal?
You used DNA tribes/JAMA- a known falsification. Are you now denouncing DNA tribes? That would be great.
 
Status
Closed