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

Status
Closed
Jun 2013
854
Universe
Yes I remember that. I never had a chance to fully respond due to the thread being locked. I remember you saying the results being "contaminated"...Excuse me but what do you mean by that?

I posted you the DNAtribes results to show you how Autosomal results look like, since I wanted you to post me Autosomal DNA results of the Ancient Egyptians since that actually tells admixture since you claim their was mixture going on since the stone age. With Autosomal DNA results that would actually give us our answer. Now wouldn't it?

Hawass et al were the ones who actually obtained the STR values from the mummies. All DNA Tribes did was run this data through their software to determine population affinity. So you have to take this up with Zahi Hawass himself and not DNAtribes, because all they did was run the data in their software.
......
 
Mar 2012
2,347
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...
Ra- in the other thread you used the falsified date from DNA Tribes/JAMA in post 86:

http://historum.com/middle-eastern-...-open-thread-ancient-egypt-race-debate-6.html

I just want anyone following this to see as much, because I am getting tired of the "know I didn't say that/do that" game.

Everything that is being presented here by the other side is a falsification.
 
Mar 2012
2,347
AGAIN go back to my post and read why i posted dnatribes.
It is immaterial why you posted it- it is a known falsification.

We are getting into a lot of gibberish here, including the misrepresentation of Couadray (to go with Babiker, Lucotte, etc) so I am going to break it off for the moment, and then later, with new studies added (including Couadray, who Asante so graciously turned me on to) we are just going to post the totality of the genetic studies YET AGAIN.

We have to hit the reset button periodically- for all the attempts at falsification, there is not really one of them out there that says what you guys want it to say, and we are going to keep reminding those who might be reading along.
 
Last edited:
Mar 2012
2,347
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?
Ra, the dishonesty has to stop.

You clearly said in this thread that M1 and U6 are now African, and posted a study that says no such thing. No you are claiming that you never said it. The thread still exists. People can still see it.

http://historum.com/middle-eastern-african-history/58860-open-thread-ancient-egypt-race-debate-4.html

You also told me that you are not arguing that Egyptians were black, and then turned around an posted pictures of Egyptians that were supposedly "black" in another argument.

You have also misrepresented the conclusions of Babiker and other studies- again, ANYONE CAN LOOK ON THE THREAD.

You did cite Lucotte, and then told me that I cannot use it because it only covers Y-chromosome DNA. then why post it in the first place? It happened. It is there for posterity to see.

You posted the falsified DNA Tribes/JAMA date, when I had already posted in the thread that is a known falsification.

And on, and on, and on.

All I can do is try and shame you. The entire cyberworld can see this. Do you think that you are going to convert one unbiased person to your cause behaving like this.

Asante's falsification of the results of Couadray and his assistance on humping the dead carcass that is DNA tribes is not your fault, but is sure goes with the theme.

And Jari comically telling me that he has "addressed" the avalanche of DNA evidence I have posted, as if an advocationist on the internet was qualified to critique the consensus opinion of geneticists.

Really?
 
Jun 2013
149
Germany
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
 
Jun 2013
854
Universe
Ra, the dishonesty has to stop.

You clearly said in this thread that M1 and U6 are now African, and posted a study that says no such thing. No you are claiming that you never said it. The thread still exists. People can still see it.

http://historum.com/middle-eastern-african-history/58860-open-thread-ancient-egypt-race-debate-4.html

You also told me that you are not arguing that Egyptians were black, and then turned around an posted pictures of Egyptians that were supposedly "black" in another argument.

You have also misrepresented the conclusions of Babiker and other studies- again, ANYONE CAN LOOK ON THE THREAD.

You did cite Lucotte, and then told me that I cannot use it because it only covers Y-chromosome DNA. then why post it in the first place? It happened. It is there for posterity to see.

You posted the falsified DNA Tribes/JAMA date, when I had already posted in the thread that is a known falsification.

And on, and on, and on.

All I can do is try and shame you. The entire cyberworld can see this. Do you think that you are going to convert one unbiased person to your cause behaving like this.

Asante's falsification of the results of Couadray and his assistance on humping the dead carcass that is DNA tribes is not your fault, but is sure goes with the theme.

And Jari comically telling me that he has "addressed" the avalanche of DNA evidence I have posted, as if an advocationist on the internet was qualified to critique the consensus opinion of geneticists.

Really?

Again its clear that you don't read what I post. So I'm going to stress myself.
 
Jun 2013
854
Universe
Ra, the dishonesty has to stop.

You clearly said in this thread that M1 and U6 are now African, and posted a study that says no such thing. No you are claiming that you never said it. The thread still exists. People can still see it.

http://historum.com/middle-eastern-african-history/58860-open-thread-ancient-egypt-race-debate-4.html

You also told me that you are not arguing that Egyptians were black, and then turned around an posted pictures of Egyptians that were supposedly "black" in another argument.

You have also misrepresented the conclusions of Babiker and other studies- again, ANYONE CAN LOOK ON THE THREAD.

You did cite Lucotte, and then told me that I cannot use it because it only covers Y-chromosome DNA. then why post it in the first place? It happened. It is there for posterity to see.

You posted the falsified DNA Tribes/JAMA date, when I had already posted in the thread that is a known falsification.

And on, and on, and on.

All I can do is try and shame you. The entire cyberworld can see this. Do you think that you are going to convert one unbiased person to your cause behaving like this.

Asante's falsification of the results of Couadray and his assistance on humping the dead carcass that is DNA tribes is not your fault, but is sure goes with the theme.

And Jari comically telling me that he has "addressed" the avalanche of DNA evidence I have posted, as if an advocationist on the internet was qualified to critique the consensus opinion of geneticists.

Really?


Again its clear that you don't read what I post. So I'm going to stress myself.

And I don't CARE what people see but what YOU don't try to see.
 
Jun 2013
149
Germany
Originally Posted by Son Of RA

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...148-12-234.pdf


this the up.. have we not debate that subject
 
Last edited:
Status
Closed