Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Chevdove

THIS JUST IN about 10 hours ago: A Denosovan—Neanderthal Hybrid Bone Found in Cave

Recommended Posts

THIS JUST IN about 10 hours ago:

A Denosovan—Neanderthal Hybrid Bone Found in Cave

_____________________________________________________________

Scientists Stunned By a Neanderthal Hybrid Discovered in a Siberian Cave

Sarah Zhang

10 hrs ago

 

Denisova_excavation-640x538.jpg

 

A remarkable new discovery—also in the Denisova cave—paints an even more interesting more picture,

telling us that Denisovans also interbred with Neanderthals. The evidence is as direct as it can be: a bone fragment

in the cave that, according to DNA analysis, belonged to the daughter of a Neanderthal mother and a Denisovan father. …

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/scientists-stunned-by-a-neanderthal-hybrid-discovered-in-a-siberian-cave/ar-BBMi9aL?li=BBnbfcL&ocid=AARDHP

==================================================================================================================================== 

 

This article just posted yesterday supports my research that I touched upon in  other recent threads in this community about our present existence today and that scientist have presented a lot of facts but they seem to deliberately mislead the public by not making conclusions in the form of publications. The conclusions that are published today in many respects seem to contradict the findings. For example, even in this article, a distinction is made regarding Neanderthals, Denisovans and ‘humans’ in statements made about reproduction, but nothing is clarified in that, in essence, what has been presented is that all three of these mentioned manifest that they represent a distinct species, one from another, and nevertheless, they did reproduce and as a result, there are hybrids! Now, they will admit as in this article that the reproduction of a Denisovan and Neanderthal offspring would scientifically be an hybrid, but scientist today won’t admit that this would be the same outcome regarding the reproductions of Neanderthals and modern humans. So, this obvious conclusion is not made clear in their many publications about the results of the Genome Project and so, this causes confusion and conflicts in getting a complete understanding of the facts and it causes contention in debate due to the unwillingness of scientist to tell the whole truth and make a complete conclusive scientific admission of the facts that they have presented. In the past, although it was concluded that the Neanderthals and the homo sapiens [ie. Modern humans] did reproduce, however, it was also stated at one point in the past that the Neanderthal and the modern humans were one species … Oh but no…. But then later, it was subtly corrected in that no, they are two different species of which is based on the same guidelines of any speciation determination process.

 

In the Smithsonian, Neanderthals are classed as a distinct species, at least when I visited and snapped a shot at the specimen and the description about two years ago. It is defined as ‘homo neanderthalensis’ and not homo sapien neanderthalensis’. That would be like saying a Neanderthal is a hybrid of two species. So therefore, if a Homo Neanderthalensis interbreeds with a Homo Sapien and produces an offspring, a successful offspring, would not that reproduction be defined scientifically as a hybrid? Therefore, as this very article states regarding the repeated findings of hybrids in the reproduction of a Denisovan father and a Neanderthal mother; the offspring from the reproduction of two species would therefore be ‘a hybrid’ in all regards--N’est pa? The reproduction of a hybrid would either be a hybrid Denisovan or, a hybrid Neanderthal with respect to the father. As I did post in another thread, the offspring of a male lion and a female tiger would be termed, A LIGER in respect to the male lion, and the letter ‘L’ includes this definition of a ‘Lion hybrid’. And so, a male tiger that reproduces with a female lion and produces an offspring, that offspring is termed ‘a TIGON’. The letter ‘T’ reflects that the hybrid is Tiger hybrid. Now as result of this kind of information, through research it may soon become evident that this kind of science has been understood regarding homonid interaction in the distant past and this may help us understand more about some pertinent issues today that negatively plague the humankind. It may help us to understand the origins of racism, White Supremacy and issues of Colorism and Color Supremacy.

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't say that I follow your reasoning here @Chevdove on how a Denisovan/Neanderthal Hybrid bone found in cave has anything to do with the origins of racism, white supremacy, issues of colorism, and color supremacy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Troy said:

I can't say that I follow your reasoning here @Chevdove on how a Denisovan/Neanderthal Hybrid bone found in cave has anything to do with the origins of racism, white supremacy, issues of colorism, and color supremacy. 

 

@Troy Well, that might be because I am jumping ahead of myself regarding research and making conclusions without references, and also, because it seems to me that scholars are deliberately offering part truths themselves and not making the conclusions that they should be too. So I will try to add more proof as to why I made these statements.

 

Even in this new report that almost every scientific community seems to be posting right now, there seems to be contradictions and ommitted statements of conclusions based on past findings about the presence of Neanderthals and Denisovans.

 

 The evidence is as direct as it can be: a bone fragment in the cave that, according to DNA analysis, belonged to the daughter of a Neanderthal mother and a Denisovan father.

 https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/08/a-neanderthal-and-a-denisovan-had-a-daughter/567967/

 

[1]  Okay what is not being clarified in this statement would be the distinct difference between the Denisovan father and the Neanderthal mother. Although they do state in this very aritcle that [parphrasing] traces of Denisovan DNA are found in living people today in Melanesia and elsewhere in tht region, what they don't admit is tht these people are very dark skinned. This would be one crucial issue with why ther are identifying the two distinct homonids in the hybrid bone of a female offspring. 

[2] Scholars make it clear that Neanderthals lack melanin in their skin but they don't clarify why they show a representation of Neanderthals with dark hair and this ommission too, is crucial in understanding the distinction of ancient Denisovans and Homo Sapiens of whom encompass the presence of Black African people. What they do is cleverly used the term 'TRACE AMOUNT OF DENISOVAN DNA' in Melanesians. Well, okay, this is obvious to me because of the PHENOTYPIC TRAIT of the heave brow ridge that I see in photos sometimes today. But without references and a detailed clarification, I guess I sound like I don't know what I am talking about. So for now, I am just dealing with the problems I recognize in the published reports. So, what  they are omitting is that Melanesian people are still showing a dominant presence of Homo Sapien DNA , a trace amount of Denisovan Dna and no NEANDERTHAL DNA. But here goes another contradiction.

 

[3] Scholars said in the past and in this very article tht the DENISOVAN split off from the Neanderthals a long time ago, but then they report now that this could not be. Also in the past they said that both the Denisovan and the Neanderthal shared a MRCA [Most Recent Common Ancestor] and as I said in another post and thread, obviously, they existed contemporaneously for this to be! And, because the Denisovans are dated first then, the Neanderthal would be a 'lesser' expression of the Denisovan. So then, now they bring up another contradiction without explaining;

 

[4] In this article they say that this particular DNA analysis shows that the Denisovan Dna also shows Neanderthal Dna too. That would mean that he was also a hybrid himself. But they don't conclude this in script. So now what does this mean in terms of what I concluded;

 

[5] What these scholars are not clarifying is that in the past, they had stated that they cannot find a Y-DNA HAPLOGROUP to analyze in the Neanderthal remains, but though, due to the living Melanesians, they can at least see that the DENISOVANS were indeed MALES!!! So, even though I have not presented any references yet, I am getting at something I did say before regarding INTERSEXED BEINGS. Scholars are not widely clarifying that Neanderthals were intersexed and although they could and DID reproduce and did so with modern humans, HOMO SAPIENS, however, they could NOT reproduce ANY VIABLE MALE OFFSPRING. So @Troy Whey you stated regarding the world being one 'race' I believe I can explain in more depth and give more information about this 'partial truth' that scientist don't seem to want to clarify. 

 

They say that Neanderthals are completely extinct, ... OH BUT NO.... In the case of a male presence.... absolutely, yes. That would be true, but not in the case of hybridization throught female reproduction. and one reference [general reference] would be my previous post about the RH NEGATIVE FACTOR and its' origins! 

 

I will hope to provide more references due to my statements about 'racism' as it applies to the earlier presence of Denisovans and the later presence of Neanderthals and then the presence of the modern humans, HOMO SAPIENS, but for now, I want to offer a reference that connects to the pre-African presence of humans. 

 

 

***** I want to make sure too, that I don't offend anyone about this science of rh negative by saying that this is just one of many references but based on my research, there is no such thing as people today being 'alien' LOL or purebred. This entire global planet shares traits in many various ways no matter what classification of hominids I speak about. So please, do not be offended about research coming from me. When I end my research it will be just that; a break down on topics that is not being presented about the past due to White Supremacist Movement coming from some source in this government. 

 

Edited by Chevdove
tag

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Chevdove you are trying to shove the artificial construct or race into the science of genetics.  Ascribing racial characteristics to Neanderthals makes even less sense than it does with Sapiens. 

 

This is like saying, Gorillas are members of the Black race and Orangutans are white. Since scientists are not saying that Orangutans are white they must be hiding something.  That sounds crazy right?

 

There is no objective criteria for determining one's race -- zero.  This is because there is no scientific basis for the racial categories we use.  In AmeriKKKa you can have all the phenotypic characteristics of a so called white person but be Black.  This is why people can "pass."  This is why a Rachel Dolezal can run a branch of the NAACP.  This is why @Pioneer1 does not believe Beyonce is Black. Don't you see "race," as we know it, is purely subjective.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Troy said:

Don't you see "race," as we know it, is purely subjective.

 

Yes, I do see that 'race' is subjective.

 

2 minutes ago, Troy said:

you are trying to shove the artificial construct or race into the science of genetics.

 

I don't want to do that 'shove artificial construct or race into the science of genetics

 

3 minutes ago, Troy said:

Ascribing racial characteristics to Neanderthals makes even less sense than it does with Sapiens. 

 

Don't mean to do that. Scientiest classify Neanderthals based on certain characteristics. I did mention the 'HEAVY BROW RIDGE' are you saying that I have done this or that scientist are doing this and it is wrong?

 

5 minutes ago, Troy said:

That sounds crazy right?

 

5 minutes ago, Troy said:

There is no objective criteria for determining one's race -- zero.

 

Yes, that does sound crazy. 

 

No, I am specifically NOT using 'race' I am referring to 'SPECIES'.

6 minutes ago, Troy said:

This is because there is no scientific basis for the racial categories we use. 

 

No, I am NOT using the term 'RACE'. I am responding to SPECIES, a scientific classification

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Troy I would never use the term 'RACE' to support scientific research. As you said, that is a construct by mankind. However, I am using the term SPECIES because this is a scientific classification of all things living or at one point existed on this earth. There is a basis for how 'species' are classified.  

 

This article uses the term SPECIES and HYBRID. This is what I am referring to. I am saying there is a contradiction and an omission based on the facts, scientific facts that has been presented and it does connect to the HOMO SAPIEN [modern human]. I am saying in regards to the GENOME PROJECT and the DNA analysis of the NEANDERTHAL, today this date there is no Y-DNA found from the Neanderthal, however, scientist do say that the Neanderthal did reproduce with the HOMO SAPIENS. That is two different species. 

 

My conclusion based on this omission as to the 'ORIGIN OF THE Y-DNA' that is being used in the study of the Neanderthal connects to why it is not reported or admitted that the Y-DNA being used comes from the MODERN HUMANS and that origin is OUT OF AFRICA. I am also saying that this is where the issue of 'racism' stems from among the MODERN HUMANS TODAY in that scholars are not willing to make this clarification.

 

 

21 minutes ago, Troy said:

This is like saying, Gorillas are members of the Black race

 

I remember the NEGATIVE PROPAGANDA decades ago about Black Africans coming from Apes, monkeys, gorrilas, and etc. And that is exactly why there was a discrepancy about the classification of the Neanderthal. That was why Black AFricans were given a SUB-CLASS called 'HOMO SAPIEN SAPIEN' but evetnually, scientiest admitted that was not a correct classification by scientific standards. Therefore all modern humans originate from the modern HOMO SAPIENS. This is the very problem today with the omission of the facts that reveal that all Y-DNA stem from one origin, the African man. White Supremacist don't want to admit this finding. Tlhey want to make it seem that Neanderthals reproduced to bring forth MALE OFFSPRING and this is not scientifically true at all. They put out a false suggestion:

 

The Scientific Evidence

Firstly, the RH factor is a blood protein that is found in the Rhesus monkey of Africa.

That same protein is present in most human beings, about 85%, but a staggering 15%

of humans test negative for RH factor. These RH negative blood types could not have

evolved from the same group of human beings that allegedly left Africa millions of years ago.

https://newearth.media/7573-2/

 

This would be 'negative propaganda' the same kind that was pushed decades ago. This author is suggesting that African people are related to monkeys. 

LIke other reports, he doesn't deny the distinct species that exist in hybridizations but, this is no different from the past:

 

12669437_1719115451645746_6506456705182858871_n.png

 

 

 

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Troy said:

Oh, OK I misunderstood you

 

3 hours ago, Troy said:

Your position is clearer now.

@Troy Thank you! Thank you for giving me a chance.

 

2 hours ago, Xeon said:

So, what is the point of posting this article?

 

@Xeon My reasons for posting this article is because [1] I believe that it is critical regarding understanding the global interest in the origins of mankind as it pertains to BLACK AFRICA and all humanity in its connection to Black Africans  and especially the origins of the Y-DNA that every malefactor contains in their DNA today, and also [2] because this subject might help to understand how negative propaganda about the origins of Black men is underhandedly used against their presence and existence.  And lastly, [3] because I have sons... Now why did the global science community become 'STUNNED' due to these findings to the point that this article is circulating; I don't know, except to say that maybe they have a vested interest in putting out some bits and pieces of truth.

2 hours ago, Xeon said:

What are we supposed to learn from it?

A lot. But my main focus for right now would begin with trying to understand what I see as still a partial publication of the truth. This reference material that was published back in 2016, by way of scholars from Stanford University, (about 4 years after the Genome Project was published), may help to shed light on my position:

 

Y chromosome genes from Neanderthals likely extinct in modern men

image.img.320.high.jpg

Carlos Bustamante and his colleagues found that

DNA from the Neanderthal Y chromosome, which

is passed from father to son, is likely extinct.

Steve Fisch

 

The study was published April 7 in The American Journal of Human Genetics, in English and in Spanish, and will be available to view for free. The senior author is Carlos Bustamante, PhD, professor of biomedical data science and of genetics at the School of Medicine, and the lead author is Fernando Mendez, PhD, a postdoctoral scholar at Stanford.

 

... Unlike the X chromosome, the Y chromosome is passed exclusively from father to son. This is the first study to examine a Neanderthal Y chromosome, Mendez said. Previous studies sequenced DNA from the fossils of Neanderthal women or from mitochondrial DNA, which is passed to children of either sex from their mother.

 

Other research has shown that the DNA of modern humans is from 2.5 to 4 percent Neanderthal DNA, a legacy of breeding between modern humans and Neanderthals 50,000 years ago. As a result, the team was excited to find that, unlike other kinds of DNA, the Neanderthal Y chromosome DNA was apparently not passed to modern humans during this time.

 

“We’ve never observed the Neanderthal Y chromosome DNA in any human sample ever tested,” Bustamante said. “That doesn’t prove it’s totally extinct, but it likely is.” ...

_____________________________________________________________

 

 

So what can we learn from this study? If they are saying there was once NEANDERTHAL MEN that reproduced then, obviously THEY DID EXIST, so why did they stop having the ability to produce viable MALE OFFSPRING LIKE THEMSELVES? So Oh! I get it, all mankind, even European men who can have malefactors had to have originated from who??? -- an Afcian male descendant!? So why are we enduring White Supremacy then? 

 

So then, if this is true then, why has so much attention been shifted away from this obvious conclusive origin regarding the MODERN HUMANS [HOMO SAPIENS] in connection with African men origins and so much attention given to the 'OUT OF AFRICA THEORY' as it pertains to mtEVE? This obvious ommission of AFrican origins of the Y-DNA seems like a serious issue. But, I am happy that some scholars are willing to publish some of their facts. What should we learn from this? Again, a lot! But certainly, this recent findings to reflect the past negative propaganda aimed against people of African descent both men and women. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chev

You talk a lot about the Rh negative.

That's interesting, because I was reading a book a few months ago by an author who seemed to be connecting the Rh negative blood type to space aliens who colonized earth and mixed their genes with humans.
He talked about how people with Rh negative blood had special powers.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

That's interesting, because I was reading a book a few months ago by an author who seemed to be connecting the Rh negative blood type to space aliens who colonized earth and mixed their genes with humans.
He talked about how people with Rh negative blood had special powers.

 

@Pioneer1 I read that too! I always tease my daughter that's she's an alien because her dad has 0-Negative- blood (he's black with "bad"  hair 😝)  When I was pregnant with her - I had this blood disorder called "coombs" but it corrected itself - My blood type is  A-Positive - so his blood and my blood was battling it out for supremacy - I guess. Our baby won.

On 8/23/2018 at 5:42 PM, Chevdove said:

So Oh! I get it, all mankind, even European men who can have malefactors had to have originated from who??? -- an Afcian male descendant!? So why are we enduring White Supremacy then? 


@Chevdove   This reminds me of the tiki-torch chant "We will not be replaced" ...It makes you wonder who are they actually talking about...

"Sorry Caveman, we didn't know you were still around." ~Geico

 

I+sorry+what+was+that+i+dont+speak+knuck

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chev

What scientists are calling "neaderthals" today are merely the product of Caucasians who were attempting to "breed" themselves back into the Black race while they were in the Caucasus mountains.

 

 

 

 

Mel

 

This reminds me of the tiki-torch chant "We will not be replaced" ...It makes you wonder who are they actually talking about...


I believe their words were "Jews will not replace us".

It shows you how ignorant and deceived many of these poor and angry Caucasians are who are out there marching and shouting.
They hate Jews....but Jews are the leaders of the Caucasian race.
They are responsible for much of discoveries of science and technology that the West enjoys today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

He talked about how people with Rh negative blood had special powers.

 

@Pioneer1 THANK YOU for your response! LOL. I don't know from that perspective but something is significant. Have you heard too, that most of the presidents and most of the royals in UK are Rh Negative? 

1 hour ago, Mel Hopkins said:

her dad has 0-Negative- blood (he's black with "bad"  hair 😝

 

@Mel HopkinsWow! LOL "bad hair"? Does that mean he has straight-type hair? or Afro-type hair? 

President Obama, former, also has an afro and he is RH NEGATIVE too!

I am glad the baby won! You sort of hinted that this topic in your book of incompatable blood!

I knew about if the female has the RH Negative and how it may cause problems, but I am just able to see from the Stanford project that scientist are considering the other way, meaning if the father is negative and the mother is positive. In that study it was suggest that it might be so that the Y-DNA cannot survive in a positive womb.

 

LOL. Well, I am going to give a preview about the subject of 'traits' and 'Blue eyes' and etc.... I am getting ready to share more research on this subject later. But for now, ...

 

My father and relatives still love to remind me that when I was born, i had BLUE EYES and RED HAIR, RED LIPS, RED SKIN! LOL!

But the blue turned gradually to brown. My baby picture at 4 months shows me with light brown eyes and yes, I was very red, even my hair. It runs in my family on both sides. So you daughter is not alone!!!!!!!

I get so tired of my father, still to this day, telling me "you were a White baby with blue eyes!" I am like, "Dad! will you stop! Man! I'm not white now! I don't have blue eyes now! okay!" 

 

Those Neanderthals! Man! or whatever! 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


I believe the particular book I read DID talk about  most of the world leaders and royal families having Rh negative blood.


Black people are usually White when they're born.....and White people usually turn Black after they die.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, excuse me while me and my type O, RH-negative blood revel in our uniqueness.  Fuck Africa.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Cynique said:

Well, excuse me while me and my type O, RH-negative blood revel in our uniqueness.  Fuck Africa.  

 

@Cynique No. Let us not revel in our recessiveness that we have inherited from our ancestors and/or from the slave yard! 

But let us share our uniqueness completely without being 'gatekeepers' and without trying to block and control other Black African American people to do what we only want to be discussed. How about that?

 

I don't want to have to sit my N-egro, A-pe,  A-lligator, C-oon, and P-ossum behind down while a worthy Jew or mixed-raced African speaks out and represents me, but would like to come to an African American forum, like AALBC, and do it myself.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ChevdoveWell, you do "you".  At my age i am not interested in celebrating anything but who i am today.  Because nothing else really matters but the here and now. The present is the present and the future yet to come.  The distant past is about what might've been. Not my thing.  But since it's yours, carry on.  We don't have to validate each other.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chev

Oh!
You'll have to excuse Cynique...lol.

You're still relatively new to the forum and I forgot to tell you to be careful when you agree with me because Cynique is INSANELY jealous for my attention when other women are around.

You've been agreeing with me a lot and just us communicating with eachother was probably enough to tweek her and set her off.

Don't take it personally, any woman who shows me attention or positivity will draw her ire.
And often times it will come straight out of nowhwere.
Her high intelligence and articulation mixed with her insane jealousy makes for a terrible combination toward whoever she focuses her wrath on.

Only when she gets TOO bad do I step in an "put it down" on her but other than that.....it just is what it is so don't let it get to you, LOL.



 

 

 

 

 


Cynique

Yeah right.

"at my age" my ass.....lol.


Personality doesn't change THAT much with age.
Something tells me you had the same attitude at 25 as you do at 85!

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Cynique said:

@ChevdoveWell, you do "you".  At my age i am not interested in celebrating anything but who i am today.  Because nothing else really matters but the here and now. The present is the present and the future yet to come.  The distant past is about what might've been. Not my thing.  But since it's yours, carry on.  We don't have to validate each other.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Cynique said:

The distant past is about what might've been. Not my thing.  But since it's yours, carry on.  We don't have to validate each other.  

 

AGE & BEAUTY BEFORE YOUTH.

 

@Cynique Thank you! But I am okay if you do not validate me, however, you strike me as very interesting and talented in the way that you write, so I may 'acknowledge' how you impact me, Plus, you,ve lived longer than me and for me, this is important-- to here the viewpoints of someone whose lived during times that a younger person has not. I don't see too many people that interest me of my culture that is willing to share as you have.  I'm not that young either, but I always am looking for more information from others to give me confirmation. 

 

14 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

You've been agreeing with me a lot

 

@Pioneer1True!

Edited by Chevdove
tag; spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ChevdoveI'm trying to figure out why this conversation is necessary. i have on numerous occasions expressed a disinterest in Africa and on other occasions  kidded about  my RH negative blood. You seemed to have taken my latest musings on this subject  personal, and pioneer, who is one of my least favorite people in the world, decided to inject his obnoxious self into the proceedings doing what he does best which is to spout his made-up versions of things, - lies that are rarely grounded in truth or fact.  But, rest assured that you can agree with him to your heart's content, because i couldn't care less, contrary to what he imagines.  

 

This site needs all the contributors it can attract and other people's approval is not required when it comes to posting things.  I'm glad when you and Mel come aboard because you both always have input of substance.  So keep on doing what you do, You're a welcome addition to this board.  And thank you for your kind words. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cynique said:

 i have on numerous occasions expressed a disinterest in Africa and on other occasions  kidded about  my RH negative blood. You seemed to have taken my latest musings on this subject  personal

 

@Cynique You're welcome and THANK YOU! But, I didn't take it personally. Funny yes, --but no, I didn't think you were spiteful because, Girl!, if you is alien.... well, I guess I need to check myself! 

 

1 hour ago, Cynique said:

and pioneer, who is one of my least favorite people in the world, ...

 

LOL, okay, but hopefully, things will smooth out... @Cynique He wished you Happy Birthday! 

 

1 hour ago, Cynique said:

I'm glad when you and Mel come aboard because you both always have input of substance.  So keep on doing what you do, You're a welcome addition to this board.  And thank you for your kind words.

 

Thank you so much!

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/26/2018 at 12:28 AM, Chevdove said:

Does that mean he has straight-type hair? or Afro-type hair? 

 

@Chevdove definitely, not fine hair but not even Afro-type hair...it just  wouldn't behave. Some folks are offended when we say "bad"  hair - but there's such a thing.  He finally shaved it all off.  It's funny that you mentioned, blue eyes. My baby girl had blue eyes and sandy brown hair for her first year.  - Her hair turned jet black and her eyes are honey-colored now.  (Lighter in the summer).  My mom said I also had blue eyes for my first year - I think blue eyes is an african trait...http://afritorial.com/black-people-with-blue-eyes/  but here's the daily mail with their version lol

15 hours ago, Cynique said:

 I'm glad when you and Mel come aboard because you both always have input of substance. 

 

@Cynique  Thank you! You know how I feel about your perspective!  It has helped me a great deal! Thank you!  BTW, I'm looking forward to more of your metaphysical experiences too!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Mel Hopkins Thank you for the link. I think the comments after the article are also interesting.

 

It is frustrating to see how White Europeans constantly attempt to offer suggestings so as to still claim that Bue eyes and Blonde hair come from them and not a Black African origin, for instance:

 

...Not only are Europeans far more likely to have blue eyes (95 per cent in some Scandinavian countries),

they also have a far greater range of skin tones and hair colour than any other ethnic grouping.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-511473/All-blue-eyed-people-traced-ancestor-lived-10-000-years-ago-near-Black-Sea.html#axzz2JygCna42

 

See, this statement is misleading. It may be true in the percentage, but this doesn't mean that they have the origin. It simply means that this is a recessive trait and through their constant inbreeding and selective breeding, they become the manifestation of this recessive trait. I posted thread on this subject, earlier, and so, this connects to what I posted.

 

Thanks again for the links. I will post this too, in my thread about Blue eye origin.

 

Also, the common phrase of 'good hair' and 'bad hair' definitely goes along with this subject in how our ideas stem from earlier origins. I now use this term for 'bad hair' but not in the sense of the yesteryears. I have a lot of 'bad hair' days! LOL.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chev

 

He wished you Happy Birthday!

 

She don't care....lol.
I'm do just as good driving into a zoo and wishing one of the elephants or lions a happy birthday and see what type of reaction I would get.

But like Antonio Montana would say...."dat's ok"... I know she doesn't know any better.
She can't help herself.
Infact, I think YOU'RE starting to learn how she is now too....lol.


You're talking about hair......
I've come to find out by observation that while the SHAPE of our hair may be different, actually Africans, Asians, and Native Americans all have the same HAIR STRUCTURE.

While some have straight, others wavy, and others nappy/kinky....we all have thick coarse strands of hair that consist of several layers including a MEDULLA

Most Caucasians have very thin wispy hair that DOES NOT include a medulla regardless of how it's textured. And usually if they do have one, it's very thin.

Like I keep saying, they are a copy of us but with less features.




Mel

 

I think blue eyes is an african trait...http://afritorial.com/black-people-with-blue-eyes/


It's not an African trait, it's simply a recessive trait that results from not enough melanin being in the iris to hid the blood veins inside.
The same reason some of your veins appear as blue under the lighter parts of your skin is the same reason some people's eyes appear blue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

She don't care....lol.
I'm do just as good driving into a zoo and wishing one of the elephants or lions a happy birthday and see what type of reaction I would get.

But like Antonio Montana would say...."dat's ok"... I know she doesn't know any better.
She can't help herself.

   

                                                                                                       ð´

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/29/2018 at 5:36 PM, Pioneer1 said:

She don't care....lol.

 

@Pioneer1 I read your conversations sometimes , and @Cynique cares enough to take the time to debate with you so, I hope you can respect that. Right? I think it is worth it to hear other viewpoints, even if we disagree.  

On 8/29/2018 at 5:36 PM, Pioneer1 said:

It's not an African trait, it's simply a recessive trait that results from not enough melanin being in the iris

 

@Pioneer1 Yes and no. Based on the facts through study, it has been proven to be 'A MUTATION'.

This mutation has been traced back to having occurred around 6000 years ago and the archeology points at an origin of

Africans. 

Therefore, it would be 'an African trait' that is RECESSIVE TRAIT based on the mutation steming from EUMELANIN, meaning Black pigment in 'brown eyes', and 

in which the gene blocked the pigmentation, causing for blue eyes.  

The Eumelanin and PHaemelanin [ie spelling] acts the same way in all living, and White people do NOT make EUMELANIN. Therefore it has become obvious

to scientist that BLUE EYES ARE INDEED, AN AFRICAN TRAIT in origin. 

You can't have Bue eyes without Eumelanin. This is why they have to admit its origin. Eumelanin is the same pigmentation that gives color to 

hair and also skin and etc.

So, it is not that it is 'not enough melanin' but that it is 'blocked pigmentation' at a specific point on the gene that gives eye color like

blue, grey, hazel, green and light brown. there are more than one type of 'blue eyes' but they all stem from this MUTATION that occurred about

6000 years ago. 

 

Prior to this, the primitive mankind, homonids, never expressed blue eyes!!! Their gene arrangement is significantly different from modern mankind!!!

 

 

Edited by Chevdove
correct tense

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/29/2018 at 5:36 PM, Pioneer1 said:

You're talking about hair......
I've come to find out by observation that while the SHAPE of our hair may be different, actually Africans, Asians, and Native Americans all have the same HAIR STRUCTURE.

 

@Pioneer1 Interesting. I like your break down on Medulla. 

Regarding HAIR STRUCTURE, that was my thesis, partly, for my college degree. I wrote my thesis on bird feather types and compared and contrasted with human hair fiber, especially that of African hair fiber.

Also, I was trained on the diffeent types of hair structure for my job at one of several naval bases and shipyards where I worked in radiation, nuclear science, and all types of environmental hazards.  

I was employed as in ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTIST [associate Industrial Hygienist] at one, and was trained on the various types of ASBESTOS FIBERS.

Part of my training included studying many prepared slides under the microscope on how to identify asbestos fibers and included in the

process was that I had to be able to identify and distinguish between the different types of HUMAN HAIR FIBER and ANIMAL FUR and hair fibers, and etc.

 

So, African hair fiber is absolutely unique from Asian hair fiber. the term 'NATIVE AMERICAN' is very subjective as my husband is Native American and also Negro [Black Indian].

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chev

Cynique cares enough to take the time to debate with you so, I hope you can respect that. Right?


My dear lady,
Please don't confuse "care" or concern with OBSESSION......LOL.

The woman is obsessed with me.
Like Michael Jackson said.....she's dangerous.


 


I'm not sure you're correct about blue eyes not being manifested prior to 6000 years ago.

Black people have been around for millions of years and different mutations from white skin on one person, to blue eyes on another, and blonde hair on another, pops up among us every so often.

Not in MASS NUMBERS, but it does happen.

When you say that Arican hair is different than Native American or Asian hair, I know the SHAPE of the hair is different in the sese that kinky hair is more of a flat or oval shape coming out of the scalp than the straight hair of Asians and Native Americans that tends to be more of a round shape.

But as far as the actual STRUCTURE or make-up of the actual hair shaft, are you saying the African hair has components that Asian and Native American hair doesn't have?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

My dear lady,
Please don't confuse "care" or concern with OBSESSION......LOL.

 

@Pioneer1 LOL! OKAY! i am going to leave well enough alone.

 

13 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Black people have been around for millions of years

 

Yes, I agree. But here is the issue with 'the blue eyes' regarding modern mankind--- It is the gene arrangement that is specific and can be seen under a microscope exacly where on the chromosome, the specific chromosome, that connects to EUMELANIN in the cells of the eye and the position of the mutation-gene that blocks this EUMELANIN causing for blue or other eye colors. This same arrangement can be seen in anthropology in BLACK AFRICAN MALE SKELETONS; The gene arrangement of the NEANDERTHALS and earlier HOMONIDS with the huge BROW RIDGE and SLOPING LOW SKULLS do not show this Blue Eye Mutation, at all. Believe me, if White people could own it, as coming from the Denisovans or other earlier Black hominids, they would. Tlhey would gladly separate themselves from the modern mankind and say that they do not come from the origin of Africa. But they can't, this mutation is specific. 

 

13 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

I'm not sure you're correct about blue eyes not being manifested prior to 6000 years ago.

 

Now, in this, you may be right! But so far, scientist have not detected this Blue eye mutation in the earlier hominids with the huge brow ridge, low sloping skulls, and etc. They do know, however, that Blue eyes stem from BLACKNESS. Albinos, pure albinos, have no blue eyes, and according to what has been reported, it was the Neanderthals that roamed the earth long after the other hominids had been extinct for a very long time. And for certain, Neanderthals did not have tht mutation. The re-creation of a specimen of the Neanderthal man- shows he has dark hair and eyes, and based on my research, this is partly true, but again, thier gene arrangement is specifice and very detailed and easy to see based on other proven facts. However, a true Neanderthal would have been a 'true Albino' mutation from a Denisovan typed earlier Black or darker skinned Hominid. 

 

It is a recessive trait though, because it is a mutation, meaning, an abnormality, and that is why it pops up from time to time and is not common among Black Africans. White Europeans show this recessive trait a lot because of 'sex selection' and interbreeding. What they did to express this correlates to a lot of other manifestations of recessive traits on thie eartn too. But again, I agree, in that it could have happened way before 6000 years ago.

 

Edited by Chevdove
spelling, clarity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/3/2018 at 5:34 PM, Pioneer1 said:

When you say that Arican hair is different than Native American or Asian hair, I know the SHAPE of the hair is different in the sese that kinky hair is more of a flat or oval shape coming out of the scalp than the straight hair of Asians and Native Americans that tends to be more of a round shape.

But as far as the actual STRUCTURE or make-up of the actual hair shaft, are you saying the African hair has components that Asian and Native American hair doesn't have?

 

@Pioneer1 I forgot to comment on your question about 'African hair'. I don't know about 'the components' about African hair. All I know is that when you study the microscopic slides, African hair is completely unique as opposed to any other hair type in the world.

 

I agree with you in that 'Native American or Asian hair' is somewhat distinct from European hair too. But the terms regarding 'race' makes this science of hair difficult to even explain. Even the slides I viewed during my training was wrong, IMO. The slides referenced what you call Native American, and what I call 'Asian' hair as MONGOLOID!

 

The 'Mongoloid' slides showed the hair fiber as being thicker than all hair types, very black in color, and rounded. Like I said, my husband is 'Black Indian' and he has this on both sides of his family origin. His mother is Blackfeet and she has nappy hair. His father is Sioux and he comes from a huge family. Some of his sisters, have straight, long, very black hair, and his hair is sandy brown and straight-typed. HIs mother's hair is very straight and sandy brown. One of his brother's hair is straight-curly and very black and stands up, but NO NAPS AT ALL. So Native Americans have a distinct presence and it's difficult to use the term 'race' for me, because that is so NOT SCIENTIFIC. 

 

My husbands hair is very, very black, and very bushy. HIs strands are rounded though and blunt. He can grow a beautiful afro that is so easy to cut and shape. HIs cornrows are thick. So, I just don't know how to really categorize 'MONGOLIANS', But African hair is the only kind of hair on this planet that NAPS--- as far as humans to. 

 

The only thing similar to AFrican hair is THE WOOLY SHEEP and CAMELS, a certain breed and then of course, I wonder about the extinct WOOLY MAMMOTH. This may seem kind of funny but, this is a significant issue. 

 

Edited by Chevdove
graphics

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...