birdman:

Maybe you should. Just in case I sound paranoid, this is a good place to post a goodie. Even "distinguisehd" bodies will fudge numbers for political gain, especially if it works to their advantage eg Google using a 400 year old imperialistic map even today: http://commonsensekiller..com/2010/06/map-is-lie.html

This fake map is a psychological trick that the pale skinned people use as propaganda tool

*Kails*:


i haven't checked it out just yet.
i am still watching a documentary related to the video horus posted...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6IrMjfbh6E

^^ i am interested in hearing their POV in full.
but as soon as i am done with that i promise i will check out your info on african coins in aussie land.

You dont have to watch the vid. This article posted by me is the SAME THING as the video.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/430944.stm
^^^They say Lucia and the first Americans came from Malaysia and Australia, not Africa..

This place smells like an afrocentric took a shid in it.

KidStranglehold:

Caucasian=/=Caucasoid. Caucasoid use to mean a race, but now it just means a phenotype. Caucasian=white.

then by that logic some of the olmecs were negroid then.

i mean seriously.
the idea of Caucasoid cranial shape is a joke.

THIS MAN RIGHT HERE
is the perfect example of why its all a load of hot cow s---t.

KidStranglehold:

You dont have to watch the vid. This article posted by me is the SAME THING as the video.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/430944.stm
^^^They say Lucia and the first Americans came from Malaysia and Australia, not Africa..

AAAAHH!

*Kails*:


then by that logic some of the olmecs were negroid then.

i mean seriously.
the idea of Caucasoid cranial shape is a joke.

THIS MAN RIGHT HERE
is the perfect example of why its all a load of hot cow s---t.

Agreed.

KidStranglehold:
Sorry but I am well versed in anthropology and genetics, more than you. So I KNOW what I am talking about. In anthropology we don't use terms such as caucasian, black or white because they are NOT genetically defined just like Negroid is not genetically defined. Yet a certain Somali loves using that word.

You see yourself? So because they taught you that black is not "genetically defined", you too, a black man swallowed this and just nodded in agreement. Fela was right. Book sense is not belle sense. Anyways sha, on to a few references:

David Imhotep: The First Americans Were Africans. I'm actually still reading this.
Ivan van Sertima - Africans in Early America - my favorite
Dr Wiercinski - An anthropological study of the olmecs the nost thorough and most peer reviewed. Fortunately, my life is not boring enough to find the full text

Your first paragraph doesn't even make sense so I just decided to ignore it. If you truly think indigenous Malaysians or Australian aboriginals are African then please post me a genetic study that CONFIRMS they have recent African roots and not this melanin garbage. I'll wait.

Of course it wouldn't make sense to you. Not only are you a trained anthropologist (nothing wrong with that), but you obviously refuse to see any framework outside of what you have been taught, as evidenced by your blithe discounting of the term "black". If you want an understanding of the first paragraph, I recommend

Dr Cress Welsing - The Isis papers . she's a psychologist by the way so it should be quite an education for you I hope

At this point its really not about what kind of expert you are. Its about how open minded you are to questioning "auhtoritative" professors who tell you black is white and vice versa. And if it suits you to believe that a Caucasian is closer to an African than an Australian aboriginal, go ahead. I'm not joining you on the short bus.

birdman:

You see yourself? So because they taught you that black is not "genetically defined", you too, a black man swallowed this and just nodded in agreement. Fela was right. Book sense is not belle sense. Anyways sha, on to a few references:

No...Again in Anthropology its accepted that black is not genetically defined and neither is white. Race as a whole is not really genetically defined. Please learn more about Anthropology and then come back to men.

birdman:
David Imhotep: The First Americans Were Africans. I'm actually still reading this.
Ivan van Sertima - Africans in Early America - my favorite
Dr Wiercinski - An anthropological study of the olmecs the nost thorough and most peer reviewed. Fortunately, my life is not boring enough to find the full text

Neither David Imhotep or Ivan Van Seritma are Anthropologist. And Ivan never even said the first Americans were African, he just said they influenced the Meso-American people. Seriously people always post him out of context. And Wiercinski's claims are not even accepted by most by the vast majority of Mesoamerican scholars....

birdman:
Of course it wouldn't make sense to you. Not only are you a trained anthropologist (nothing wrong with that), but you obviously refuse to see any framework outside of what you have been taught, as evidenced by your blithe discounting of the term "black". If you want an understanding of the first paragraph, I recommend

Dr Cress Welsing - The Isis papers . she's a psychologist by the way so it should be quite an education for you I hope

At this point its really not about what kind of expert you are. Its about how open minded you are to questioning "auhtoritative" professors who tell you black is white and vice versa. And if it suits you to believe that a Caucasian is closer to an African than an Australian aboriginal, go ahead. I'm not joining you on the short bus.

Nobody is close minded and nobody is trying to act like an expert. You're just not getting the point. You're the one that does not understand that race is not that defined. Africans are closer to Europeans than Australian Aboriginals is because they actually had constant gene flow between the two ever since the Neolithic. There were actually Africans in Europe during the neolithic. Both Africans and Near easterners influenced the European people during the neolithic whether it be cattle, agriculture,etc. I'll would post the paper, but too lazy. Europe has been populated by different people like India. There basically mixed...Pacific Islanders on the other hand have been ISOLATED from Africans...Ever since the Out of Africa. About 80-60k years!!! So of course they would be genetically distant from Africa. Just because some pacific islanders look similar to Africans do not mean they are related.

Like I said if Australian Aborigines or the indigenous Malaysians truly do have African ancestry then please post me a an actually peer reviewed study that actually states they carry African genes or haplogroup. I'll patiently wait.

KidStranglehold:
No...Again in Anthropology its accepted that black is not genetically defined and neither is white. Race as a whole is not really genetically defined. Please learn more about Anthropology and then come back to men.

You still dont get my point. I dont care that its genetically defined or not. Becasue I know you can play semantic games all day. Your genetic definition is not the sum of all truth. What does genetic definition do for you when someone is robbing you and ravaging your loved ones in front of you based your skin color. Tell them its not genetically right?

Neither David Imhotep or Ivan Van Seritma are Anthropologist. And Ivan never even said the first Americans were African, he just said they influenced the Meso-American people. Seriously people always post him out of context. And Wiercinski's claims are not even accepted by most by the vast majority of Mesoamerican scholars....

Well, a few folks at Harvard had issues with him, even though he produced the skeletal remains that they requested was needed to look at his point of view. Like the Jewish scholars who cant accept the equality of ethiopian Jews because it doesnt fit into their world view, we all know the motivations of why they kept moving the goal post on Wiercinski

As far as van Sertima is concerned, you are the one mis quoting him - listen to this carefully

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FqbXLgIXx0

Nobody is close minded and nobody is trying to act like an expert. You're just not getting the point. You're the one that does not understand that race is not that defined. Africans are closer to Europeans than Australian Aboriginals is because they actually had constant gene flow between the two ever since the Neolithic. There were actually Africans in Europe during the neolithic. Both Africans and Near easterners influenced the European people during the neolithic whether it be cattle, agriculture,etc. I'll would post the paper, but too lazy. Europe has been populated by different people like India. There basically mixed...Pacific Islanders on the other hand have been ISOLATED from Africans...Ever since the Out of Africa. About 80-60k years!!! So of course they would be genetically distant from Africa. Just because some pacific islanders look similar to Africans do not mean they are related.

Like I said if Australian Aborigines or the indigenous Malaysians truly do have African ancestry then please post me a an actually peer reviewed study that actually states they carry African genes or haplogroup. I'll patiently wait.

Dont muddy the waters and shift the goal posts bro. I'm not falling for that ish. I have listed credible research that is at least on par with your point of view. You keep saying race is not defined. Maybe you can prove it genetically, but just remember to come down from that high into reality.

When we are dealing with Anthropology, Science, Genetic, Geography , History ,etc..,we have to be very carefull with words. Present day authorities, theologians, philosophers, and so-called linguistics of European birth use several of their own languages to control your mind and entrap you in their definitions. Remember that their first holy book is the Bible or the Koran, and their second and most holy book is their dictionary; with these tools, they rule. They can decide what is true and what is false, and they can make a learnt man, look like a fool, or a liar, because they are unquestionable. The format used is author, authentic, authority. With those three principles, everybody retreats to them to check themselves and their own culture. Whenever you look up the root of a word, and where it originated, you are always led to Greek, French, Old English, Latin, and Arabic. Most of your definitions are coming from these languages. They have you controlled by these languages to keep your mind trapped and make themselves the authorities, the authors, and thus appear to be authentic.

^well put.

Horus: When we are dealing with Anthropology, Science, Genetic, Geography , History ,etc..,we have to be very carefull with words. Present day authorities, theologians, philosophers, and so-called linguistics of European birth use several of their own languages to control your mind and entrap you in their definitions. Remember that their first holy book is the Bible or the Koran, and their second and most holy book is their dictionary; with these tools, they rule. They can decide what is true and what is false, and they can make a learnt man, look like a fool, or a liar, because they are unquestionable. The format used is author, authentic, authority. With those three principles, everybody retreats to them to check themselves and their own culture. Whenever you look up the root of a word, and where it originated, you are always led to Greek, French, Old English, Latin, and Arabic. Most of your definitions are coming from these languages. They have you controlled by these languages to keep your mind trapped and make themselves the authorities, the authors, and thus appear to be authentic.

Your self hating African brothers will then ask you " so why can't you come up with your own language and stop cussing people who had already made some efforts" hehehe
A guy was telling his friend that Europeans discovered everything, they discovered the pyramids,the river Niger, they discovered Africa and America. though i was not part of the discussion i can not hold back any further so i said to the guy " Who knows had it been that they did not discover us we might not have discovered ourselves"

birdman:

You still dont get my point. I dont care that its genetically defined or not. Becasue I know you can play semantic games all day. Your genetic definition is not the sum of all truth. What does genetic definition do for you when someone is robbing you and ravaging your loved ones in front of you based your skin color. Tell them its not genetically right?

Fool you're the one playing the semantics. Why the heck are you comparing scientific anthropology to what a racist robber That just shows you are clueless on this subject. Did the racist robber an anthropologist? Did he/she study genetics No. It doesn't matter what you or a racist thinks, race is NOT genetically defined. Now stop with this Afrocentrics cr*p. If race is genetically defined then why do

If race is genetically defined then why do people like the Australian Aboriginals cluster farthest from Africans?


Race is ONLY based on the groupings of certain phenotypes.

birdman:
Well, a few folks at Harvard had issues with him, even though he produced the skeletal remains that they requested was needed to look at his point of view. Like the Jewish scholars who cant accept the equality of ethiopian Jews because it doesnt fit into their world view, we all know the motivations of why they kept moving the goal post on Wiercinski

Again his views are not accepted by most people for obvious. One against all...Who wins? And I don't care if Jewish people do not want equality.

birdman:
As far as van Sertima is concerned, you are the one mis quoting him - listen to this carefully

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FqbXLgIXx0

Umm...In the video Sertima doesn't actually state the original Americans were African.

birdman:

Dont muddy the waters and shift the goal posts bro. I'm not falling for that ish. I have listed credible research that is at least on par with your point of view. You keep saying race is not defined. Maybe you can prove it genetically, but just remember to come down from that high into reality.

I don't care what you're falling for because you're wrong. Most of yours and Horus credible research was debunked which you and him continue to be denial about. I already proved with an genetic chart that race is not defined and how different races are genetically linked which you and horus of course ignored.


If race is really genetically defined then explain why almost EVERYONE on this Earth descends from African L3.
[img]http://openi.nlm.nih.gov/imgs/rescaled512/3119552_IJEB2011-615094.003.png[/img]

People who argue for genetically defined races do NOT agree with the OOA and do NOT agree that Africans were the first humans. If they didn't then they wouldn't disagree with the OOA> If you can't debunk that chart then your argument(like those OOA deniers) is lost.

you know i really don't understand what that guy means by race is not genetically defined, then i will ask him,
How is it that when DNAs are picked off evidence they will tell you it is of a Negro,Asian or Caucasian ?
How is it that you never see Blacks suddenly giving births to whites since their genes do not carry their features ?
How is it certain drugs has been designed that work for certain race but not for the other due to DNA compositions ?

I am not an anthropologist though, but i am making my assumptions on common sense.
Africans should really be careful of how they borrow white mans education and brainwash their own kind.

thoth: you know i really don't understand what that guy means by race is not genetically defined, then i will ask him,
How is it that when DNAs are picked off evidence they will tell you it is of a Negro,Asian or Caucasian ?

They do NOT say that. They say either African, Asian or European. They don't say Negro or Caucasian unless.

thoth:
How is it that you never see Blacks suddenly giving births to whites since their genes do not carry their features ?

Africans have more dominant genes than Europeans, due to Africans being older. When a black or Asian person has a kid, the kids asian features are visible sometimes more visible than black side.

thoth:
How is it certain drugs has been designed that work for certain race but not for the other due to DNA compositions ?

Moot point. Why were the Meso Americans less adapted(now this definitely pokes a hole in the original Americans being African) to smallpox, yet Africans and Europeans were...Its called adaptation...Some Africans are lactose intolerance, while some are not.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MeyMEi-QCk

thoth:
I am not an anthropologist though, but i am making my assumptions on common sense.
Africans should really be careful of how they borrow white mans education and brainwash their own kind.

People really need to stop with this white man nonsense and excuses. Its getting ridiculous...

The white man also said and proved with science that Africans/black were the first humans.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGr9VSZwlRk

KidStranglehold:
They do NOT say that. They say either African, Asian or European. They don't say Negro or Caucasian unless.

Please don't tell me that, i worked with the forensic department for internal investigations in France for 2years and 8 months. results always come in as : white male/female, negro female/male, asian(middle east) male\female, eastern(Chinese,Korean etc) male\female. that is also the format for the results in many countries.

KidStranglehold:
Africans have more dominant genes than Europeans, due to Africans being older. When a black or Asian person has a kid, the kids asian features are visible sometimes more visible than black side.

By this really twisted logic of yours that means having Europeans giving birth to babies with African features and even black skins will be a common occurrence because of the negroid ultra dominance genes. right ?
Now Twist it again....waiting.

KidStranglehold:
Moot point. Why were the Meso Americans less adapted(now this definitely pokes a hole in the original Americans being African) to smallpox, yet Africans and Europeans were...Its called adaptation...Some Africans are lactose intolerance, while some are not.

People really need to stop with this white man nonsense and excuses. Its getting ridiculous...

The white man also said and proved with science that Africans/black were the first humans.

You don't make sense, i am talking about drugs which were chemically engineered to work with specific genes. people adapting to certain illness is about having the right genetic makeup to build body immunity against such disease. it has nothing to do with your anthropological wrangling of facts.

thoth:

Please don't tell me that, i worked with the forensic department for internal investigations in France for 2years and 8 months. results always come in as : white male/female, negro female/male, asian(middle east) male\female, eastern(Chinese,Korean etc) male\female. that is also the format for the results in many countries.

Are they actual anthropologist/geneticist? Who studied the origins of humans? No...

When there is a genetic tree there is NO black,white,negro,etc.


Those pacific islanders like the Australian aborigines are still distant from Africans.

thoth:
By this really twisted logic of yours that means having Europeans giving birth to babies with African features and even black skins will be a common occurrence because of the negroid ultra dominance genes. right ?
Now Twist it again....waiting.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2008/02/22/whites-genetically-weaker-than-blacks-study-finds/

Now STFU.

thoth:
You don't make sense, i am talking about drugs which were chemically engineered to work with specific genes. people adapting to certain illness is about having the right genetic makeup to build body immunity against such disease. it has nothing to do with your anthropological wrangling of facts.

Yeah engineered, which does NOT prove that races exist! All you're basically saying is that they can make certain chemicals for certain genes.

Genes are not race defined. Now are they? You people still haven't found out why this Malaysian girl looks black yet carries no African genes.


I asked you people to prove that she does carry African genes. You guys say these people are black, yet Malaysians do not carry African genes. Which proves race is only socially defined and NOT genetically. The only one that doesn't make sense here is you.

Where is that Royal character when you need him

i simply ask questions which you refused to answer instead you sidelined it and went on to makes irrelevant claims.
how many whites has given birth to black babies ?
can a crime perpetrators race be exposed by DNA samples taken from the crime scene ?

all the other charts and map and anthropological whiffs you keep throwing up does not really interest me since all that puzzled me and forced me to become part of your discussion was that you stated that race is not defined by genes.

thoth: i simply ask questions which you refused to answer instead you sidelined it and went on to makes irrelevant claims.
how many whites has given birth to black babies ?
can a crime perpetrators race be exposed by DNA samples taken from the crime scene ?

1. What do you mean how many whites have given birth to black babies Please don't tell me you're going on about that whites descend from Albino nonsense.

2. Yes...DNA associated with certain groups, but that doesn't mean race exist or genetically defined.

thoth:
all the other charts and map and anthropological whiffs you keep throwing up does not really interest me since all that puzzled me and forced me to become part of your discussion was that you stated that race is not defined by genes.

Those genetic charts prove it isn't genetically defined. But since you're clueless about anthropology(which is the STUDY OF FREAKING HUMANS IN THE FIRST PLACE) you remain clueless. race as we know it was created based on groups with certain phenotypes. Australian Aboriginals and other Pacific Islanders share similar phenotypes to Africans, yet are genetically DISTANT. That right there pokes a hole in the race theory.

Again with my post to birdman I asked if race does exist then why does almost every non African and African descendants from African L3 which originated in East Africa. People who argue that race exist can never get around.

You're clearly clueless on this subject.

And why have you sidelined. I asked you to prove that Malaysian girl has African genes since she can pass for African...

KidStranglehold:
1. What do you mean how many whites have given birth to black babies Please don't tell me you're going on about that whites descend from Albino nonsense.

2. Yes...DNA associated with certain groups, but that doesn't mean race exist or genetically defined.



Those genetic charts prove it isn't genetically defined. But since you're clueless about anthropology(which is the STUDY OF FREAKING HUMANS IN THE FIRST PLACE) you remain clueless. race as we know it was created based on groups with certain phenotypes. Australian Aboriginals and other Pacific Islanders share similar phenotypes to Africans, yet are genetically DISTANT. That right there pokes a hole in the race theory.

Again with my post to birdman I asked if race does exist then why does almost every non African and African descendants from African L3 which originated in East Africa. People who argue that race exist can never get around.

You're clearly clueless on this subject.

And why have you sidelined. I asked you to prove that Malaysian girl has African genes since she can pass for African...

The forceful nature of your repetitions is simply an evidence that you have no other information apart from the racially insidious ones that was imparted on you nor are you willing to think for yourself outside of what you have been instructed.

Sorry, None of what you state above comes in line to what i have witnessed in real life and i have lived really long. all those anthropological rubbish like western philosophy is farce and useless if it does not help us in anyway to solve our most realistic problems. I have lived long enough to know that you CAN NOT divide me and my brother, put a wedge between me and my ally, create a basis for future division with any of those glorified chavaunistic tools.

The above may not make sense to you but i believe that others that read it understands what it means.

Genes define our race, and you are either a Negro(austrailian Aborigines included), Mongoloid, or Caucasoid?

anybody can confuse himself as much as he wants.

KidStranglehold:

Fool you're the one playing the semantics. Why the heck are you comparing scientific anthropology to what a racist robber That just shows you are clueless on this subject. Did the racist robber an anthropologist? Did he/she study genetics No. It doesn't matter what you or a racist thinks, race is NOT genetically defined. Now stop with this Afrocentrics cr*p. If race is genetically defined then why do

If race is genetically defined then why do people like the Australian Aboriginals cluster farthest from Africans?


Race is ONLY based on the groupings of certain phenotypes.



Again his views are not accepted by most people for obvious. One against all...Who wins? And I don't care if Jewish people do not want equality.



Umm...In the video Sertima doesn't actually state the original Americans were African.




I don't care what you're falling for because you're wrong. Most of yours and Horus credible research was debunked which you and him continue to be denial about. I already proved with an genetic chart that race is not defined and how different races are genetically linked which you and horus of course ignored.


If race is really genetically defined then explain why almost EVERYONE on this Earth descends from African L3.
[img]http://openi.nlm.nih.gov/imgs/rescaled512/3119552_IJEB2011-615094.003.png[/img]

People who argue for genetically defined races do NOT agree with the OOA and do NOT agree that Africans were the first humans. If they didn't then they wouldn't disagree with the OOA> If you can't debunk that chart then your argument(like those OOA deniers) is lost.

Yawns. I understand your anger. They told you your degree implied your authority on origins and anthropology. I think, at least subconsciously, you now realize you were at least gullible not to have engaged your reasoning faculties in challenging what you were taught. You probably now realize how foolish it was to have someone else tell you what you are and are not. Dont worry, its ok to have your ego bruised every now and then. It sure needs it.

racist robber? ima keep this one for use one day. with your permission of course

thoth:

The forceful nature of your repetitions is simply an evidence that you have no other information apart from the racially insidious ones that was imparted on you nor are you willing to think for yourself outside of what you have been instructed.

Sorry, None of what you state above comes in line to what i have witnessed in real life and i have lived really long. all those anthropological rubbish like western philosophy is farce and useless if it does not help us in anyway to solve our most realistic problems. I have lived long enough to know that you CAN NOT divide me and my brother, put a wedge between me and my ally, create a basis for future division with any of those glorified chavaunistic tools.

The above may not make sense to you but i believe that others that read it understands what it means.

Genes define our race, and you are either a Negro(austrailian Aborigines included), Mongoloid, or Caucasoid?

anybody can confuse himself as much as he wants.

And yet non of this even touches base or even fully address what I posted. Keep cheerleading by like each others posts.

You guys still have not addressed this.
[img]http://3.bp..com/-tNSFOhb_cGM/TxiojlPkBvI/AAAAAAAAAKQ/1nhGEbGkNpQ/s1600/Fig.3.PNG[/img]

^^^If you even know anything about this subject you would know the above debunks your whole argument about the exiestance of separate races.

lol.

--edited--
we are all human but there is a such thing as race.

its like canines.
they are all canines but there are different breeds.

[img]http://www.the-dogs.info/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/dogbreeds.jpg[/img]

Mr Anthropolocology was told by his White Anthropological Masters that he is the Scum of the earth, then He came running to Anthropolocologicalise Us...Sorry Mr Ant but we humbly refused to be POOR[size=16pt]LOGIC[/size]ALISED

yall still arguing about this?

agree to disagree and move on.

life is too short blud

birdman:

Yawns. I understand your anger. They told you your degree implied your authority on origins and anthropology. I think, at least subconsciously, you now realize you were at least gullible not to have engaged your reasoning faculties in challenging what you were taught. You probably now realize how foolish it was to have someone else tell you what you are and are not. Dont worry, its ok to have your ego bruised every now and then. It sure needs it.

racist robber? ima keep this one for use one day. with your permission of course

thoth: Mr Anthropolocology was told by his White Anthropological Masters that he is the Scum of the earth, then He came running to Anthropolocologicalise Us...Sorry Mr Ant but we humbly refused to be POOR[size=16pt]LOGIC[/size]ALISED

^^^^LMAO! Yet still more projection and side stepping without even fully addressing my main points. If race is truly genetically defined, then why is everyone genetically linked to Africans like this?
[img]http://openi.nlm.nih.gov/imgs/rescaled512/3119552_IJEB2011-615094.003.png[/img]

HA!

So let me ask you something...so by your logic africans ("black africans" are not the same race?

*Kails*:
So let me ask you something...so by your logic africans ("black africans" are not the same race?

You guys are not understanding me...I never said race does not exist. I just said its not genetically DEFINED. Meaning its not that deep as everyone thinks it is. You have me out of context. All Africans are related and binded together by the PN2 clade I already stated that many times on this forum. Africans have a more RECENT common ancestor than EUropeans, Asians or pacific islanders. Which is why they are all related to each other. People who argue for the existence of race genetically DO NOT agree with the OOA and do NOT agree that Africans were the first humans. People who created race didn't even add Ethiopians and other horners to the black race or even the Khoisans.

Again Africans are more closely related to each other due to PN2 and recent common ancestor. Why do you think they overlap more with each other.

Stranglehold:

You guys are not understanding me...I never said race does not exist. I just said its not genetically DEFINED. Meaning its not that deep as everyone thinks it is. You have me out of context. All Africans are related and binded together by the PN2 clade I already stated that many times on this forum. Africans have a more RECENT common ancestor than EUropeans, Asians or pacific islanders. Which is why they are all related to each other. People who argue for the existence of race genetically DO NOT agree with the OOA and do NOT agree that Africans were the first humans. People who created race didn't even add Ethiopians and other horners to the black race or even the Khoisans.

Again Africans are more closely related to each other due to PN2 and recent common ancestor. Why do you think they overlap more with each other.

aaaaah ok i get you.
i feel you. and i do agree with the bolded.

Stranglehold:

You guys are not understanding me...I never said race does not exist. I just said its not genetically DEFINED. Meaning its not that deep as everyone thinks it is. You have me out of context. All Africans are related and binded together by the PN2 clade I already stated that many times on this forum. Africans have a more RECENT common ancestor than EUropeans, Asians or pacific islanders. Which is why they are all related to each other. People who argue for the existence of race genetically DO NOT agree with the OOA and do NOT agree that Africans were the first humans. People who created race didn't even add Ethiopians and other horners to the black race or even the Khoisans.

Again Africans are more closely related to each other due to PN2 and recent common ancestor. Why do you think they overlap more with each other.

You know i have really held myself from saying this for a long time,but at last maybe i will ask you the simple question, if race is not defined genetically why is there specific features associated with certain race and they keep reproducing these same features for generations ?

Your Malaysian example did not hit any cord with me and i ignored it because nobody in his right mind; if the girl is stood side by side with an African girl will ever say she is African. i just looked at that as a distraction and a cheap attempt to twist reality and score points which is not the object of this discussion. we are here to learn not to win arguments and by that we make use of our common sense and perception.
that somebody has African negroid features....who exactly is a negro, is it a certain feature like flat nose or the constituent of features. people like you never think of such and you let yourself to be confused by people who keeps crafting ways to dominate you.
If the Malaysian girl was standing side by side with a Massai girl who will you say is more negroid ? considering the the physical features of the massai people.
The Question you should ask yourself is, will the massai receive the same treatment as a negro in today's world or will he be considered something different. when things somebody tells you does not relate to your physical world then you are either being caged psychologically or you are listening to a very mad man.You should please free your mind of those silly notions.

That post wasn't even for you. Why didn't you respond to the post that was for YOU. Couldn't refute it?

thoth:

You know i have really held myself from saying this for a long time,but at last maybe i will ask you the simple question, if race is not defined genetically why is there specific features associated with certain race and they keep reproducing these same features for generations ?

Your Malaysian example did not hit any cord with me and i ignored it because nobody in his right mind; if the girl is stood side by side with an African girl will ever say she is African. i just looked at that as a distraction and a cheap attempt to twist reality and score points which is not the object of this discussion. we are here to learn not to win arguments and by that we make use of our common sense and perception.
that somebody has African negroid features....who exactly is a negro, is it a certain feature like flat nose or the constituent of features. people like you never think of such and you let yourself to be confused by people who keeps crafting ways to dominate you.
If the Malaysian girl was standing side by side with a Massai girl who will you say is more negroid ? considering the the physical features of the massai people.
The Question you should ask yourself is, will the massai receive the same treatment as a negro in today's world or will he be considered something different. when things somebody tells you does not relate to your physical world then you are either being caged psychologically or you are listening to a very mad man.You should please free your mind of those silly notions.

Again as of yet have been able to refute my claim. But more side stepping and projection. Again its obvious you know nothing on this subject. Again if race is genetically defined then why can every group on this earth trace their roots back to Africa



Why have you guys not been able to refute that with sources but ignore it? And I also already stated that phenotypes(different looks) are due to adaptation to environment.
http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/phenotypic-range-of-gene-expression-environmental-influence-581

And I took you people if that Malaysian girl is African then post a genetic study that shows negrito Malaysians carry African admixture or haplogroups. You guys still have not done that as of yet. You can ignore it as you said, but its not going to help your argument.

Just give up...You know very little of this subject yet you're trying to combat someone who knows more on it than you. Physical features are just adaptations to environments. The first Europeans looked like Africans or Indians but due to living in cold environments. Their tropical body plans were not needed so they adapted to a colder one. Pale skin is needed in cold environments. That Malaysian girl and other Negrito Malaysians live in tropical environment like Africans so they retained their physical features unlike Europeans.

Again if race IS genetically defined than why can all groups of the world trace their roots back to Africa Back to those first OOA migrates.

Again you know little of this subject. Stop trying to combat me.

genetics talks on sundaaay
that's the sh--t i don't like!

*shakes dreads*