four
Senior Member
four
Senior Member
Joined: December 31st, 2009, 2:35 am

January 13th, 2010, 4:15 pm #16

Flashrad wrote:where are your high frequencies??? :lol:



Neither of those maps are from scientific published articles. But since you tried:
1 - I will not even comment on the Genetic Atlas map, obviously it is WRONG because the highest frequency is in Cameroon and not Mali.

2 - The wikipedia photo is correct but did you look at the KEY? GREY = NO DATA
All Sub Saharan countries in which they DO have data you can see the frequency is HIGHER than it is in North Africa - Except for Ethiopia which has low frequency of E-M33. I am not sure what you are trying to say about E-M33, please state your case and put for an argument.....Read the Sources before you do so. posting 2 images of MAPS without knowing what they mean is not helping your case.
Quote
Like
Share

ShadowStriker
New Member
ShadowStriker
New Member
Joined: January 15th, 2010, 10:49 am

January 15th, 2010, 10:56 am #17

why people don't make such big deal for R1b and R1a, i mean people are so DUMB both of them (E1b1b-E1b1a) are related
wrote:typical black monkey ! keep misinforming the genetic papers by ur own sub-saharid theories
North east africa is southern Egypt and Libya Not horn africa !!! retards

Cruciani said :
E1b1b1 probably evolved either in Northeast Africa or the Near East and then expanded to the west--both north and south of the Mediterranean Sea. Eb1b1 clusters are seen today in Western Europe, Southeast Europe, the Near East, Northeast Africa and Northwest Africa.

and shet up when u discuss with ur masters ,u dirty slave
0 Proof, all you want is to claim something isn't yours E1b1 comes from Sub-Saharan Africa (Highlands of Ethiopia) : Berbers are from subsaharan origins not the other way around :D
Quote
Like
Share

Sampr
Senior Member
Sampr
Senior Member
Joined: December 1st, 2008, 7:20 pm

January 15th, 2010, 9:06 pm #18

ShadowStriker wrote:why people don't make such big deal for R1b and R1a, i mean people are so DUMB both of them (E1b1b-E1b1a) are related
The problem is that some individuals don't want to be related to anything black.
Quote
Like
Share

samysamy25
Senior Member
samysamy25
Senior Member
Joined: July 5th, 2009, 12:49 pm

January 15th, 2010, 9:23 pm #19

Sampr wrote:
ShadowStriker wrote:why people don't make such big deal for R1b and R1a, i mean people are so DUMB both of them (E1b1b-E1b1a) are related
The problem is that some individuals don't want to be related to anything black.
:rolleyes: from where u get this Idea ?
by the way they are related but the bantuid/congoid marker have a North african origin and before this the Eurasid Paleo-asianid roots according to the recent genetic papers
their blackness is possibly a recent mutation and Evolution AKA the caucasians exist in africa before the bantuid presence :cool: No problem there
Arabs And East African Sub-Saharan Ancestory

[youtube][/youtube]
Quote
Like
Share

Sampr
Senior Member
Sampr
Senior Member
Joined: December 1st, 2008, 7:20 pm

January 15th, 2010, 9:25 pm #20

samysamy25 wrote: :rolleyes: from where u get this Idea ?
by the way they are related but the bantuid/congoid marker have a North african origin and before this the Eurasid Paleo-asianid roots according to the recent genetic papers
their blackness is possibly a recent mutation and Evolution AKA the caucasians exist in africa before the bantuid presence :cool: No problem there
Nope, blacks are the more old human race, caucasians and mongoloids came after.
Quote
Like
Share

samysamy25
Senior Member
samysamy25
Senior Member
Joined: July 5th, 2009, 12:49 pm

January 15th, 2010, 9:33 pm #21

Sampr wrote:
samysamy25 wrote: :rolleyes: from where u get this Idea ?
by the way they are related but the bantuid/congoid marker have a North african origin and before this the Eurasid Paleo-asianid roots according to the recent genetic papers
their blackness is possibly a recent mutation and Evolution AKA the caucasians exist in africa before the bantuid presence :cool: No problem there
Nope, blacks are the more old human race, caucasians and mongoloids came after.
there u have a problem ,what a blacks u meant ?
there is a several sub-saharan peoples wich are Not the same !!!! by the way this is another subject
but sorry they aren't the first neither the old !! at all :cool:
Arabs And East African Sub-Saharan Ancestory

[youtube][/youtube]
Quote
Like
Share

Sampr
Senior Member
Sampr
Senior Member
Joined: December 1st, 2008, 7:20 pm

January 15th, 2010, 9:37 pm #22

samysamy25 wrote:there u have a problem ,what a blacks u meant ?
there is a several sub-saharan peoples wich are Not the same !!!! by the way this is another subject
but sorry they aren't the first neither the old !! at all :cool:
The Sub-Saharan Africans, who range from dark chocolate to reddish-brown, those black Africans, they are the first and more ancient modern human race to date.
Quote
Like
Share

samysamy25
Senior Member
samysamy25
Senior Member
Joined: July 5th, 2009, 12:49 pm

January 15th, 2010, 9:43 pm #23

Sampr wrote:
samysamy25 wrote:there u have a problem ,what a blacks u meant ?
there is a several sub-saharan peoples wich are Not the same !!!! by the way this is another subject
but sorry they aren't the first neither the old !! at all :cool:
The Sub-Saharan Africans, who range from dark chocolate to reddish-brown, those black Africans, they are the first and more ancient modern human race to date.
Nop ! Not for the first Homo-sapiens they aren't ,majority are so youngest according to their bantu neolithic expansion ... the anthroplogy confirm that they weren't the major or the ancient people of africa during the Paleoltihic and Holocene Era ....and I have facts about this ! Not only some genetic papers
and it seems that u don't know some sub-saharan african races ....
Arabs And East African Sub-Saharan Ancestory

[youtube][/youtube]
Quote
Like
Share

Sampr
Senior Member
Sampr
Senior Member
Joined: December 1st, 2008, 7:20 pm

January 15th, 2010, 9:55 pm #24

samysamy25 wrote:Nop ! Not for the first Homo-sapiens they aren't ,majority are so youngest according to their bantu neolithic expansion ... the anthroplogy confirm that they weren't the major or the ancient people of africa during the Paleoltihic and Holocene Era ....and I have facts about this ! Not only some genetic papers
and it seems that u don't know some sub-saharan african races ....
The Pygmies were the fisrt homo-sapiens(whom the Eurasian Adam is related to), then they are the ancestors of the Bantuid or modern Black Africans, Modern Europeans, Cro-Magnons, and Mongoloids)But what does it have to do to E3a(E1b1a} and E3b(E1b1b) being related?(as they are both descendants ofE1b1.
Quote
Like
Share

four
Senior Member
four
Senior Member
Joined: December 31st, 2009, 2:35 am

January 16th, 2010, 4:10 am #25

Sampr wrote:
samysamy25 wrote:Nop ! Not for the first Homo-sapiens they aren't ,majority are so youngest according to their bantu neolithic expansion ... the anthroplogy confirm that they weren't the major or the ancient people of africa during the Paleoltihic and Holocene Era ....and I have facts about this ! Not only some genetic papers
and it seems that u don't know some sub-saharan african races ....
The Pygmies were the fisrt homo-sapiens(whom the Eurasian Adam is related to), then they are the ancestors of the Bantuid or modern Black Africans, Modern Europeans, Cro-Magnons, and Mongoloids)But what does it have to do to E3a(E1b1a} and E3b(E1b1b) being related?(as they are both descendants ofE1b1.
Correct, and what this BRAIN DEAD ZOMBIE cannot understand is E1b1* - YES, the mutation that unites East and West Africans is found ONLY in sub Saharan Africa and as high as 18% in Ethiopia. The case is CLOSED!
Quote
Like
Share

ShadowStriker
New Member
ShadowStriker
New Member
Joined: January 15th, 2010, 10:49 am

January 16th, 2010, 9:35 am #26

wrote:The problem is that some individuals don't want to be related to anything black.
E1b1a is not a black marker africa is not neceserly BLACK OR NEGRO

(Olympic-gold-medalist swimmer Anthony Ervin may be E1b1a because of his african american father)

Don't confuse phenotype with haplogroup

for example: Wentworth Miller, Vin Diesel, David Blaine, Derek Jeter, The Rock (Dwayne Johnson), Ryan Nece, Tim Howard, Rick Fox, Kevin Michael all of them don't look black but likely latino or mediterraneans by the way Berbers are mixed.

(Kevin Michael) (Wentworth Miller) (Vin Diesel) (Cory Bell) (Derek Jeter)
wrote: from where u get this Idea ?
by the way they are related but the bantuid/congoid marker have a North african origin and before this the Eurasid Paleo-asianid roots according to the recent genetic papers
their blackness is possibly a recent mutation and Evolution AKA the caucasians exist in africa before the bantuid presence No problem there
:lol:
Quote
Like
Share

Sampr
Senior Member
Sampr
Senior Member
Joined: December 1st, 2008, 7:20 pm

January 16th, 2010, 11:05 am #27

E1b1a is found in African American and in West Africa in great percentages, as E1b1b is found in East Africa also in great percentages, the founders of these markers were probably brothers who moved in different ways to establish their families(E1b1a to the west and E1b1b to the east respectively).
Quote
Like
Share

Grasshoppa
Full Member
Grasshoppa
Full Member
Joined: December 30th, 2009, 10:35 pm

January 16th, 2010, 11:26 am #28

Sampr wrote:
samysamy25 wrote:there u have a problem ,what a blacks u meant ?
there is a several sub-saharan peoples wich are Not the same !!!! by the way this is another subject
but sorry they aren't the first neither the old !! at all :cool:
The Sub-Saharan Africans, who range from dark chocolate to reddish-brown, those black Africans, they are the first and more ancient modern human race to date.
Proof? You are using skin color to specify, which I don't think is very accurate, nor does it really specify who are the most "ancient" modern human population to date. I've read conflicting data regarding this. A couple things that I've read around the net:

1. Khoi-san and related groups are the most "ancient" group. Now, when they say they are the most ancient genetically, I am not sure that it means phenotypically as well.

2. I've read that the oldest "Caucasoid" skull was dated 30,000 kya and the oldest "Negroid" only 14,000 kya, which was a surprise to me.

3. Based on skull measurements, native Australians are the most similar to non-modern humans.

Of course, take into account that I currently have no proof of these, but I've read them on a couple of occasions.
Quote
Like
Share

Sampr
Senior Member
Sampr
Senior Member
Joined: December 1st, 2008, 7:20 pm

January 16th, 2010, 11:46 am #29

Grasshoppa wrote:Proof? You are using skin color to specify, which I don't think is very accurate, nor does it really specify who are the most "ancient" modern human population to date. I've read conflicting data regarding this. A couple things that I've read around the net:

1. Khoi-san and related groups are the most "ancient" group. Now, when they say they are the most ancient genetically, I am not sure that it means phenotypically as well.

2. I've read that the oldest "Caucasoid" skull was dated 30,000 kya and the oldest "Negroid" only 14,000 kya, which was a surprise to me.

3. Based on skull measurements, native Australians are the most similar to non-modern humans.

Of course, take into account that I currently have no proof of these, but I've read them on a couple of occasions.
Interesting info, grasshopa.
Quote
Like
Share

Racial Reality
Advanced Member
Racial Reality
Advanced Member
Joined: March 25th, 2008, 9:42 am

January 16th, 2010, 12:34 pm #30

Cut out the name-calling samysamy25 and four.

Berbers don't have a Sub-Saharan origin. They entered North Africa from the Middle East during the Neolithic:

http://racialreality.blogspot.com/2005/ ... somes.html
_______________________________________
Racial Reality (Blog) | Italianthro (Blog)
Quote
Like
Share