Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 23

Thread: Why Europeans are Almost 1/3 African

  1. #11
    Banned
    Posts
    59
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    Archaic African
    Nationality
    East African
    Y-DNA
    E M96 ( Basal )

    African Union
    So till about 45KY Homo sapience had not ventured in to ice cold Europe and northern Siberia. We don't know for sure what the other Humanoids looked liked , but Skin pigmentation and Body hair are traits of adoptation just like by other animals. An Asian steppe Camel has more hair than a desert camel.

    WE humans are not different and how we look and appear is a product of our environmental adoption, Nature optimizes for best survival possibilities . 40+KYT he southern steppes of the Caucasus was the point of interaction of two types of spices ,one that was adopted to ice and cold , its Hair, it´s skin and its body structure was adopted to its harsh climate and the other one a savannah grass land type . Fact is the Australian Aborigines , the Kapauns, The Negritos of Philippine, and The Jarawa of the adamanese are remittances of the first people to live African.

    The Papuans , and Australian aboriginals Admixed with a Siberian Spieces Acquiring some traits notably their hair. The Jarawa who due to their Isolation looked much like modern Africans so much so that When the Europeans first met them they came to the usual conclusion (Slaves) it was not until the development of DNA technology that confirmed nativeness and their Genetic link to Asians.


    The Basal Population must have looked like the Nilo Saharan People or all of them (populations found between the Nile and the Atlantic)
    Tall dark smooth skinned People. The offsprings of these Basal Africans and Neandertaler musst have made up the first proto Modern Europeans , who might have looked like modern horn Africans , South Indian or Aboriginal (intermediate Populations) The levels of admixing and population size of these Basal communities changed the phenotypes.

    Sexual selection plays an important role in Populations , Attractive people have more mating chances than less attractive People. the Neandertaler might have fallen out of favor overtime with populations that didn't identify with them .The Basal population was also erased by natural selection and replaced by another phenotype the proto white none African Human who in his/her formative years looked like modern cushites ,the intermediate between North Africans , Europeans, south Asins and Africans.

    It is this intermidiate Population (CUSHITIC) that Cultivates and Herdes that expands to Central Asia , south Asia, Europe , North Africa and southwards Along the nile with its Cattle, Goats ,Wheat

  2. #12
    Registered Users
    Posts
    882
    Sex
    Location
    Earth
    Ethnicity
    Italian Slavic Jew
    Y-DNA
    E-V12*Egypt Natufian
    mtDNA
    I5a Levant

    Italy Poland Germany Palatinate Israel
    Quote Originally Posted by MTU View Post
    So till about 45KY Homo sapience had not ventured in to ice cold Europe and northern Siberia. We don't know for sure what the other Humanoids looked liked , but Skin pigmentation and Body hair are traits of adoptation just like by other animals. An Asian steppe Camel has more hair than a desert camel.

    WE humans are not different and how we look and appear is a product of our environmental adoption, Nature optimizes for best survival possibilities . 40+KYT he southern steppes of the Caucasus was the point of interaction of two types of spices ,one that was adopted to ice and cold , its Hair, it´s skin and its body structure was adopted to its harsh climate and the other one a savannah grass land type . Fact is the Australian Aborigines , the Kapauns, The Negritos of Philippine, and The Jarawa of the adamanese are remittances of the first people to live African.

    The Papuans , and Australian aboriginals Admixed with a Siberian Spieces Acquiring some traits notably their hair. The Jarawa who due to their Isolation looked much like modern Africans so much so that When the Europeans first met them they came to the usual conclusion (Slaves) it was not until the development of DNA technology that confirmed nativeness and their Genetic link to Asians.


    The Basal Population must have looked like the Nilo Saharan People or all of them (populations found between the Nile and the Atlantic)
    Tall dark smooth skinned People. The offsprings of these Basal Africans and Neandertaler musst have made up the first proto Modern Europeans , who might have looked like modern horn Africans , South Indian or Aboriginal (intermediate Populations) The levels of admixing and population size of these Basal communities changed the phenotypes.

    Sexual selection plays an important role in Populations , Attractive people have more mating chances than less attractive People. the Neandertaler might have fallen out of favor overtime with populations that didn't identify with them .The Basal population was also erased by natural selection and replaced by another phenotype the proto white none African Human who in his/her formative years looked like modern cushites ,the intermediate between North Africans , Europeans, south Asins and Africans.

    It is this intermidiate Population (CUSHITIC) that Cultivates and Herdes that expands to Central Asia , south Asia, Europe , North Africa and southwards Along the nile with its Cattle, Goats ,Wheat
    So many errors in this statement.
    DNA Tribes

    Balto - North Slavic 22.4%
    Northwest European 18.8%
    Italian Greek 18.1%
    Persian Jewish 9%
    Iberian 6.3%
    Ashkenazi Jewish 5.9%
    Basque 4.3%
    Sephardic Jewish 4.1%
    Balochi Punjab 3.7%
    Caucasus 2.5%
    Urals 1.3%
    Finnish 1.2%
    Lebanese Cypriot 1%
    Other 1.4%

    Sephardic Jewish Turkey 18.8%
    Argyll and Bute Scottish Highlands 18.6%
    Sardinia 18.4%
    Lithuania 15.7%
    Russia Voronezh 7%
    Belgium 5.6%
    Syrian Jewish 4.9%
    Libyan Jewish 4.4%
    Russia Tver 2.4%
    Azerbaijani Jewish 2.2%

  3. #13
    Registered Users
    Posts
    204
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Tz85 View Post
    So many errors in this statement.
    That guy is a troll. He does not even believe the Bantu expansion happened while is a Bantu from Kenya. He has agendas and is not open to science.

  4. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to NetNomad For This Useful Post:

     drobbah (10-11-2018),  Hando (05-28-2019),  K33 (05-28-2019)

  5. #14
    Banned
    Posts
    59
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    Archaic African
    Nationality
    East African
    Y-DNA
    E M96 ( Basal )

    African Union
    Point them out....

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to MTU For This Useful Post:

     JosephK (10-11-2018)

  7. #15
    Registered Users
    Posts
    204
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by MTU View Post
    Point them out....
    The burden of proof is on you with all your nonsense.

  8. #16
    Banned
    Posts
    59
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    Archaic African
    Nationality
    East African
    Y-DNA
    E M96 ( Basal )

    African Union
    I have no Agenda .....and i am no troll....science is not religion its not about believing is about factual truths and truths do not contradict themselves .

    Truth is absolute so you either believe that The JARAWA ( some of the blackest people in the world ) are the Ancestors of Modern non African together with their cousins the E Y DNA male branch. The DE and CT groups moved out interbred with Humanoids that war outside africa and gave rise to the variety of Humans outside Africa . The Characteristics of the Humanoids is what developed to Physical differences between Asians and Caucasian . While the Asians retained the characteristic look of the C-D Humans e.g HIGH CHEEK BONE STRUCTURE , The Change in Body mass and structure of Basal Euroasians in the Middle East and invention of Agriculture might be related to the limited availability of Wild animals available for Hunting . The structure of the body might have changed due to the lack of abundance of food. These structural adjacent reduced the body mass for purpose of Metabolism changed how Humans who stayed in these area looked .

    One of the most visible change was the shape of the skull which had to adopted to a slimmer Body , the Narrowed Jaws resulted to a characteristic only observed in Cushitic and Nilotic People , the Protuding frontal teeth Teeth. It is a fact that Africans have larger teeth that none Africans hence lager Jaw and these intermediate caucasoid populations had not fully adopted to a small Jaw , hence they tend to have Protruding frontal teeth as their Teeth and in average larger than those of other caucasoids.

    The shape of the body dictates the shape of the skull Short staunch People will tend to have wider face , Tall slim people have smaller faces . People of an average body size and heavily build will have wieder faces . These are selections done by nature for purposes of esthetic for mating purposes. That which looks attractive has more chances of survival.

    The power of sexual pre selection is often underestimated, broader larger strong Males have more chances of mating than small , slim males , a Female with a Plenty full back side is attractive to males and these is the oder of natural selections even today . These Physical differences cause completion in mating this is what made Humans create territories. In these territories Humans could mate and multiply without fear of completion. The African continent is an example of sexual bias in population distribution and expansion. The same in the Middle East and much of Asia the native dark-skinned population was sexually out selected just as the neanderthal was sexually out selected in Europe and Asia ...

  9. #17
    Banned
    Posts
    59
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    Archaic African
    Nationality
    East African
    Y-DNA
    E M96 ( Basal )

    African Union
    make an argument not a statement ....

  10. #18
    If Europeans have African in them, then they are not European, they are mixed.

    I feel like this is nothing more than a troll thread.
    Last edited by ianz91; 10-12-2018 at 06:50 PM.

  11. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ianz91 For This Useful Post:

     Hando (05-28-2019),  NetNomad (10-14-2018)

  12. #19
    Banned
    Posts
    59
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    Archaic African
    Nationality
    East African
    Y-DNA
    E M96 ( Basal )

    African Union
    What we know as Europeans Today did not exist 50KYs ago in the History of man Modern Europeans can be termed a "Recent" Human evolution in the HOMO SAPIENCE tree . Human evolution is like Apple Inc I phone as you go up the evolution tree you get all kings of updated hard and soft ware . The shape of the Human Skull tells the tale of a biological update as the necessity of Larger jaws become irrelevant the face changes with every generation of new Humans as we no longer eat tumbers and crash bones with out teeth we need less profound jaws . Profound Jaws require strong broad facial bones to support the heavy muscles , this feature disappear with the appearance proto European as natural selection deems it unnecessary .

    The further you go down the Human tree the more Profound and are the facial bone structures and muscles by Humans. The modern European is Mans Youngest and just like a teenager he is the one who comes up with the latest craziest Ideas .....our restless youngest Brother....

  13. #20
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,119
    Sex
    Omitted

    Quote Originally Posted by Brandon S. Pilcher View Post
    I wanted to promote a little article I typed up near the beginning of this year. It's possible that some information in it is a few months out of date, but I believe the general thesis still holds up. Thoughts from this community?

    (This has been copied and pasted from elsewhere on the Internet, but unfortunately it seems that I cannot post any of the links from the original article into this post for some reason.)

    Why Europeans are Almost 1/3 African

    It should be common knowledge by now that human beings in their modern form, Homo sapiens, first evolved in Africa. Exactly when we emerged on the scene remains uncertain (recent fossil discoveries suggest it may have happened over 300,000 years ago, a hundred millennia earlier than we originally thought), but whenever it was, most of our species’s history of existence would have played out on the so-called “Dark Continent”. It would have been no earlier than 70,000 years ago — and possibly as soon as 55,000 years ago — when the ancestors of all people outside of Africa would wander out of the continent and colonize the rest of the habitable world.

    This would not have been the first dispersal of hominin apes out of Africa, mind you. Much in the press has been made of the fact that between 1–7% of modern human ancestry outside our ancestral continent comes from the descendants of earlier emigrants such as the Neanderthals and Denisovans. What may not be so widely publicized, however, is that the famous “Out of Africa” migration between 70–55,000 years ago would not have been the last movement of Homo sapiens from Africa into Eurasia and beyond, either. There is in fact a plethora of compelling evidence that humans from Africa continued to venture out and leave a permanent genetic mark on the ancestry of their Eurasian kin— even the “white” peoples of Europe.

    I don’t mean a light dash, either. Almost one third of European ancestry descends from African admixture within the last 55,000 years.

    As early as 1997, population geneticist Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza observed in Genes, peoples, and languages that the ancestry of Europeans could be characterized as 2/3 Asian and 1/3 African. More recently, Jeffrey D. Wall and colleagues reported in 2013 that East Asian people had a higher proportion of ancestry from Neanderthals than did Europeans. Since Neanderthals are known to have lived in Europe and the Middle East but not East Asia, it seems unlikely that the ancestors of East Asians had any more contact with Neanderthals than those of Europeans. It would, however, make sense if the proportion of Neanderthal ancestry in Europeans got driven down by admixture with people with little to no such ancestry — namely, people from Africa.

    In 2012, a population genetics blogger with the pseudonym “Ethio Helix” ran the ancestry of almost 3,000 individuals around the world through the program ADMIXTURE, measuring how much of their ancestry was of relatively recent African origin versus how much of it descended from the initial “Out of Africa” migration. His results revealed that between 28–29% of his European subjects’ ancestry was of recent African origin. This held true for European nationalities as different from one another as the Spanish, Italians, French, Slovenians, Lithuanians, and White American citizens from Utah.

    In addition, African genetic haplogroups pop up quite often in some European populations. For example, almost 25% of Greek men carry the originally African Y-chromosomal haplogroup E.

    That such discoveries would surprise most people of European descent is a given. It would certainly be ironic given the infamous history of white supremacists (or white nationalists, or alt-rightists, or whatever euphemism they want to be called these days) decrying “racial miscegenation” and “non-white immigration” as threats to Western civilization. However, even those who don’t subscribe to such ideological racism might still wonder when and how this African ancestry would have entered the European gene pool.

    Most of it probably happened sometime before the first appearance of agriculture in Europe during the Neolithic period (7000–1700 BC).

    Back in 1971, physical anthropologist J. Lawrence Angel wrote in The People of Lerna that the skeletal remains of Neolithic peoples in Greece and Macedonia showed “Negroid” physical traits common to African people, which he speculated had arrived in the region from the Nile Valley of Egypt and Sudan. More recently in 2005, C. Loring Brace claimed that the remains of a prehistoric Middle Eastern people called the Natufians — among the immediate predecessors to the first farmers in the Fertile Crescent and then Europe— showed “unexpected ties” to African populations.

    Such ties between the Natufians and African populations may not be limited to skeletal features. Archaeologists such as Ofer Bar-Yosef and Graeme Barker describe the primitive tools the Natufians used as similar to those of earlier populations along Africa’s northern coast, even speculating that these similarities could attest to African technological influences if not a full-blown migration.

    If the skeletal and archaeological data hinted at recent African admixture in the first farmers of the Fertile Crescent and their European offshoots, later genetic data from remains such as these would confirm it — even if the geneticists haven’t always realized it.

    When analyzing ancient DNA extracted from various prehistoric remains in 2014, Iosif Lazaridis concluded that the first farmers to appear in Europe had 44% of their ancestry derived from a population he called “Basal Eurasian”, characterized by an almost complete absence of the Neanderthal ancestry that all non-African people have inherited today. He would later find in a second study that approximately half of the ancestry in Natufian and early Neolithic Middle Eastern populations came from this “Basal Eurasian” heritage.

    Common sense alone would imply that this so-called “Basal Eurasian” component must actually be African. After all, it is the indigenous peoples of Africa, not anywhere in Eurasia or the rest of the habitable world, who have little to no Neanderthal ancestry. Yet, in a sense, Lazaridis’s label might only be partly wrong. One of the ramifications of the “Out of Africa” theory is that not all African people will be equally related to those outside the continent. Instead, those Africans from whom non-Africans splintered off (i.e. populations in the northeastern region of the continent) would have a greater genetic affinity to those non-Africans than would other Africans. And indeed, genetic research has revealed that native Northeast African ancestry is genetically closer to that of non-Africans than is ancestry from, say, West or Central Africa (the ancestry of aboriginal peoples from southernmost Africa, who speak Khoisan languages, is the furthest removed of all). This means that Northeast Africans really would represent a population basal to non-Africans (hence “Basal Eurasian”).

    It is very likely, then, that the “Basal Eurasian” ancestry identified by Lazaridis and his colleagues actually comes from a native Northeast African population that stayed home on the continent for tens of millennia before moving into the Middle East and giving rise to the Natufians between 12,500 and 9500 BC. This African ancestry would have been absorbed and inherited by the Fertile Crescent’s Neolithic populations before they spread into Europe. With them would have arrived farming, animal husbandry, and the majority of the recent African ancestry that all modern Europeans possess.

    This is not to say that Africans did not influence European ancestry after that point in the Neolithic. For example, skeletal remains with African characteristics have been uncovered in Roman-era sites in Britain, such as Leicester and York. We have also found a skull with a mixture of African and European features in a tomb in Ephesus, Turkey — it may belong to the famous Cleopatra’s (half?) sister Arsinoe. Given the influence of the Hellenistic and Roman civilizations around the Mediterranean basin in classical antiquity, it is not surprising that native Africans would have entered their population upon being incorporated into their empires.

    For that matter, the Middle East may have also received influential African immigration even long after the time of the Natufians. Genetic data indicates the introgression of African ancestry into populations in Armenia around 3800 BC. It is around this same time period that linguists believe the Semitic languages (e.g. Hebrew, Arabic, and ancient Phoenician) would have appeared in the region. Since we know that Semitic is one branch of the larger “Afroasiatic” language phylum which first emerged in Northeast Africa, it seems likely that ancestral Semitic’s development in the Middle East is linked to the contemporaneous influx of additional African ancestry as far north as Armenia. In other words, it would have been yet another wave of Africans who brought the progenitor language of Semitic there.

    And then, of course, there’s the historical incorporation of the Syro-Palestinian coast into two African empires, those of ancient Egypt and its Sudanese neighbor Kush.

    All this history is important not only for its potential use for trolling white supremacists and eugenicists. It also attests to a little-appreciated influence of African people on the cultures of ancient Europe and the Middle East. Too often, Eurocentric accounts of history have regulated Africa and its indigenous peoples to the sidelines of importance, with one of the few exceptions being a de-Africanized misrepresentation of Egypt. The knowledge that Africa was not only the birthplace of all humankind, but also a major influence on the so-called cradles of Western civilization, should be one of many reasons to push it back into the spotlight of history that it deserves.
    Basal isn't African. Lazaridis proved that.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art...ort=objectonly

  14. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to epoch For This Useful Post:

     Hando (05-28-2019),  Targum (05-28-2019)

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 23
    Last Post: 06-06-2017, 03:52 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-18-2016, 06:28 PM
  3. African admixture in ancient Europeans
    By sciencediver in forum Ancient (aDNA)
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 03-08-2016, 04:34 PM
  4. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-13-2015, 12:51 AM
  5. Replies: 43
    Last Post: 01-18-2015, 02:11 PM

Posting Permissions

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