User Tag List

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4
Results 31 to 36 of 36

Thread: Original pure Maghrebi type unaltered41 days old

  1. #31
    Junior Member
    Last Online
    2019-06-12 @ 21:43
    Join Date
    2019-05-08
    Posts
    24
    Gender

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tsarcastic View Post
    i) Again, taforalt is not "pure ANA," and there is legit no academic paper out there that stipulates the two being mutually exchangeable.

    ii) Consider that taforalt carried: Less (NOT more) basal eurasian than early neolithic iranians (iran_n), and additionally carried slightly more (NOT fewer) neanderthal (altai) alleles than iran_n. Throw in the fact that they carried fewer altai alleles than natufians (who also carried MORE basal eurasian than taforalt), and it becomes easy to deduce that the DUAL NATURE of taforalt is what is responsible for their decreased basal eurasian and decreased altai (relative to natufians), owing to aboriginal african ancestry that was utimately absorbed (most likely) by an ancient levantine HG population (related to natufians---I don't even feel we should be calling the component "natufian" anymore, since it's clear the proposed admixture event would pre-date the natufian culture). Everything here should be a dead giveaway (but I doubt you'll be smart enough to put two and two together).

    iii) So you're going to just ignore the fact that Coon noted that badarian skulls were more prognathous than those of their successors? And had higher nasal indices (with the nasal index being "just on the line between mesorrhiny and chamaerrhiny")? Which he argued could be suggestive of "negroid tendencies" (his words, not mine). He went on to ultimately disestablish a potential link on the basis that the hair was non-"negroid." Furthermore, you're going to ignore Strouhal positing that both the "caucasoid" and "negroid" elements appeared balanced in badarians (with there being a slight proclivity towards "caucasoid" tendencies)? As for afalou (who are related to taforalt), they are often described as having been intermediate, and NOT having been completely devoid of traits typically attributable to "negroids." (Briggs, Chamla, Groves, et al.)

    And iv) I frankly could actually give a fuck about hypothesized cranio-facial descriptions of ancient cultures (based on cephalometric measurements). We have autosomal results of remains from the terminal pleistocene that legitimately correspond to iberomaurusians (I suspect the genomic makeup of neighboring mechta-afalou, will be somewhat similar---though we'll need sampling to ultimately confirm this).



    What's your point? That was never anything truly groundbreaking when it was revealed. As a matter of fact, I think a lot more people (that can exercise a decent amount of forethought) expected it.

    For the record, yri is not a model for ancient african ancestry, if that's where you were going with your statement? yri (or any present day sub-saharan african population for that matter) is going to be a less optimal fit for any LSA population, given the amount of epistasis they would have very likely undergone (related to admixture events, time depth isolation, drift, etc). Unfortunately, we don't have too many ancient african genomes we can refer to, so the model runs are naturally using mostly modern populations as a baseline.
    Im smarter than you to begin with, you dont seem to understand that im aware that ANA is different from Taforalt, ive known that since the beginning. And like I said ANA has nothing to do with SSA. Pure ANA is still within the Eurasian cluster of diversity and not the SSA part. Your argument about Neolithic iranians having more basal eurasian but less neanderthal admixture is irrelevant, since the current main theory is that basal eurasian didnt mix with neanderthals. We also dont fully understand the relationship betwen ANA and basal eurasian but they must be relatively close to each other considering the affinity between taforalt and natufian.

    Neither ANA and basal eurasian is related to SSA though and they didnt look sililar to them. I put very little value into those early craniofacial studies considering they made the claim that natufians were negroid based on a skull that was so damaged it barely had any facial features intact, Also the fact that we got that study which proved natufians didnt have any SSA admixture.

    Badarians assuming they are the primary ancestors of ancient egyptians must also be part of the natufian/ANA/taforalt genepool, and based on that along with that archeological find of a race war in sudan 13000 years ago between a northern ”mediterranean” like group and a southern negroid like group makes it obvious that if those skulls you mentioned were negroid they must have been some mixed offspring of these two populations from the race war article. And not a badarian with pure ANA/natufian ancestry.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Drogon For This Useful Post:

    Nebro (2019-05-18)

  3. # ADS
    Advertisement bot
    Join Date
    2013-03-24
    Posts
    All threads
       
     

  4. #32
    Junior Member
    Last Online
    2019-06-12 @ 21:43
    Join Date
    2019-05-08
    Posts
    24
    Gender

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Roseai View Post
    Original humans most likely resembled black people more than any other group on this planet.
    Nope. The original humans did not resemble black people. They would have resembled caucasoid/australoid people bit with medium skin tones, also being covered in body hair and they definitely did not have kinky hair.

  5. #33
    Established Member
    Molecular Biologist Roseai's Avatar
    Last Online
    Today @ 13:01
    Join Date
    2016-08-09
    Posts
    345
    Gender
    United States

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drogon View Post
    Nope. The original humans did not resemble black people. They would have resembled caucasoid/australoid people bit with medium skin tones, also being covered in body hair and they definitely did not have kinky hair.
    Delusional wishful thinking on your part. We both know that if you put early modern humans (which is who tf I was actually referring to because you're clearly not as you just claimed they were hairy) that they would look like regular black people you see on the street. I can almost guarantee you they looked much closer to me in phenotype than you.

  6. #34
    Junior Member
    Last Online
    2019-06-12 @ 21:43
    Join Date
    2019-05-08
    Posts
    24
    Gender

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Roseai View Post
    Delusional wishful thinking on your part. We both know that if you put early modern humans (which is who tf I was actually referring to because you're clearly not as you just claimed they were hairy) that they would look like regular black people you see on the street. I can almost guarantee you they looked much closer to me in phenotype than you.
    Nope, its you who are delusional and wrong. What I said is factually true. Early modern humans at the time of OOA (and the first original humans in general) did not look like black people at all. We had alot of bodyhair and skintones were medium dark, and facial features were not even remotely negroid.

    The modern black people phenotype (negroid/SSA) is the result of the group of humans staying behind in africa after OOA mixing with basal humans and other archaics there, and then thousands od years of isolation and sexual selection which made those traits become fixated in SSA.

    So no, the first humans would have looked much closer to me in phentype than you. Thats factual.

  7. #35
    Established Member
    Molecular Biologist Roseai's Avatar
    Last Online
    Today @ 13:01
    Join Date
    2016-08-09
    Posts
    345
    Gender
    United States

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drogon View Post
    Nope, its you who are delusional and wrong. What I said is factually true. Early modern humans at the time of OOA (and the first original humans in general) did not look like black people at all. We had alot of bodyhair and skintones were medium dark, and facial features were not even remotely negroid.

    The modern black people phenotype (negroid/SSA) is the result of the group of humans staying behind in africa after OOA mixing with basal humans and other archaics there, and then thousands od years of isolation and sexual selection which made those traits become fixated in SSA.

    So no, the first humans would have looked much closer to me in phentype than you. Thats factual.
    This is literally your opinion of what you THINK happened but it has no basis in reality. Black people have the oldest haplogroups, and thus the oldest group so I am going to assume the earliest humans looked like us. Not to mention, we evolved from hominids who looked like literal fucking apes. Not a shocker that black people are called monkey when people want to be racist huh? Take your opinion and shove it up your ass bruh.

  8. #36
    Junior Member
    Last Online
    2019-06-12 @ 21:43
    Join Date
    2019-05-08
    Posts
    24
    Gender

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Roseai View Post
    This is literally your opinion of what you THINK happened but it has no basis in reality. Black people have the oldest haplogroups, and thus the oldest group so I am going to assume the earliest humans looked like us. Not to mention, we evolved from hominids who looked like literal fucking apes. Not a shocker that black people are called monkey when people want to be racist huh? Take your opinion and shove it up your ass bruh.
    No, its not opinion. What I said is factual given the evidence we have. You are objectively 100% wrong though.
    The oldest haplogroups does not matter because the haplogroups do not mutate at the same rate as the genes responsiblefor the phenotype. Take your pathetic assumption and show it up your ass, its wrong. The earliest humans did not look like you blacks at all.
    And in case you didnt know, chimpanzes our closest relatives, dont even have black skin and they dont look like africans at all. However africans do resemble Gorillas the most but that means nothing. And monkeys and apes are not the same thing, so the people who say that are probably as stupid as you are.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4

Similar Threads

  1. Amerindian body type vs. Southern European body type
    By CrazyDaisy in forum Physical Anthropology
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: 2016-05-22, 12:45
  2. Al Maghrebi Berbers
    By Awall in forum Race & Ethnicity in Society
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 2014-06-27, 22:26
  3. Replies: 64
    Last Post: 2012-07-06, 22:25
  4. French Maghrebi cutie: Sarah Riani
    By Ekarfi in forum Classification Requests
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 2011-10-26, 01:29
  5. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 2011-06-10, 23:53

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
<