Donate Now
Goal amount for this month: 180 EUR, Received: 10 EUR (6%)
By donating, you not only support the continued existence of this site, you also improve this site in various ways, by making it affordable for ForumBiodiversity to upgrade the server with better hardware and licensed non-free proprietary software, but also motivating the staff to work harder. ABF will always be free of charge (gratis) to use. However, if everyone donates a small monthly amount, it makes a tremendous difference for the forum's overall quality in the long haul.
Where Ethiopia is located?
Where is list of genetic samples - information?
Ducks, geese, swans, pigeons, what are they? Birds, and within each is a category.
Genotypes are good to have, but must be done correctly. Where is information collected that indicates these people not having non-black, or should should non Sub Saharan African lineages?
Ahem.. visit the Africa genetics section of this forum. There are loads of threads on it. You sound uninformed.
Unlike you, my quest for information regard this topic is not limited to this forum.
Obviously mine isn't either, but I don't see the point in providing you a list of studies of something you can find easily yourself. You sound pretty ignorant on African anthropology anyway, so I'll stop wasting my time on you.
Obviously mine isn't either, but I don't see the point in providing you a list of studies of something you can find easily yourself. You sound pretty ignorant on African anthropology anyway, so I'll stop wasting my time on you.
You cannot say that these people are completely Negroid/black. Some may have less than others. They are still dominant in SSA influences, with swipe of 'something' else. I am saying that these have a variations in appearance as do Somalians. Oh, I took a lot at these thread. Seems interesting to me...
Nearly half of the material on these forum is babble, some is useful. That's anywhere you go on the Web.
You cannot say that these people are completely Negroid/black. Some may have less than others. They are still dominant in SSA influences, with swipe of 'something' else. I am saying that these have a variations in appearance as do Somalians. Oh, I took a lot at these thread. Seems interesting to me...
Nearly half of the material on these forum is babble, some is useful. That's anywhere you go on the Web.
Putting East Africans under any subcategory doesn't work. A better view would be that both Caucasoids and Negroids fall under the East African category because everyone was East African first. I guess it's under which lens you want to view things. After all - people left East Africa first to populate rest of the world first and then some returned to their ancient homeland of Ethiopia. East Africans have a subset of variations found in Africans and non-Africans because both groups branched off of East Africans first.
Putting East Africans under any subcategory doesn't work. A better view would be that both Caucasoids and Negroids fall under the East African category because everyone was East African first. I guess it's under which lens you want to view things. After all - people left East Africa first to populate rest of the world first and then some returned to their ancient homeland of Ethiopia. East Africans have a subset of variations found in Africans and non-Africans because both groups branched off of East Africans first.
I did not say putting East Africans in a subcategory. Like I said, I if you read 2 previous posts, they have diversity in appearance. What would you call these appearances? Nothing? How do you people look at photos and say that they are Masai, Igbo, Horn or any other groups? That's contradictory, don't you think? I fucking repeating myself over and over again people who are challenged. What more can't I say? You grouping goes back to what I've done and that's not all.
In red is quite confusing to me because people of this nationality has set of phenotypes. Each is shared amongst other groups in SSA.
Assuming there was no Eurasian addmixture in East Africans is just stupid. They speak an Afro-Asiatic language, which means there was at least some Afro-Asiatic genetic influence (true, languages often spread much faster than genes, but some genetic exchange is inevitable in situations of complete language displacement like this). And the original Afro-Asiatic speakers where obviously Eurasian, since the vast majority of their descendants today are pred. Caucasoid, assuming anything else would be grossly against the Occam's razor. Plus, each and every attempt at macrofamily-level linguistics connects Afro-Asiatic with Eurasian language families, not Bantoid or Nilo-Saharan.
Arabs were and are caucasoid but the native arabs were a dark caucasoid type. The white looking people found in lebanon and turkey came via admixture from trade with from romans greeks, crusades and european slaves brought via arabs and ottomans. the word slave originates from slavic people because ottomans enslaved so many of them. Arabs enslaved many types of people including africans europeans, Indians, central asians and even their own people.
Here are pictures of bedouins who are what native arabs looked liked
Originally Posted by Jason
I guess it's under which lens you want to view things. After all - people left East Africa first to populate rest of the world first and then some returned to their ancient homeland of Ethiopia. East Africans have a subset of variations found in Africans and non-Africans because both groups branched off of East Africans first.
Reply With Quote
