YES!!!! Nubia-Kemet (aka Egypt) Is Where We ("Niger-Congo"-Bantus) Came From..Own It

K.O.N.Y

Superstar
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
10,811
Reputation
2,339
Daps
37,132
Reppin
NEW YORK CITY
If we’re from Egypt great. If we’re not, also great. The ugly truth is some of y’all seem to be fighting so hard to cling to Egypt because without it you feel that there aren’t many other noteworthy black civilizations to talk about in history. Certainly none with the innovations, inventions and overall allure of Egypt. White people can see that from a mile away and it makes us look sad and pathetic. Instead of fighting tooth and nail to prove Egypt was ours, let’s make the history of other ancient African civilizations mainstream. :yeshrug:
I never got this notion. Modern blacks talk about west African civilizations all the time. Mansa musa is a bigger name than any Pharoah, in the black community

And lol at what white people see from a mile away. These people are clout chasing to the point, they're trying to convince an ancient African civilization-was caucasian:mjlol:
 

Asante

All Star
Joined
Apr 3, 2014
Messages
1,867
Reputation
90
Daps
5,392
I never got this notion. Modern blacks talk about west African civilizations all the time. Mansa musa is a bigger name than any Pharoah, in the black community

And lol at what white people see from a mile away. These people are clout chasing to the point, they're trying to convince an ancient African civilization-was caucasian:mjlol:

:leon:
 

Dafunkdoc_Unlimited

Theological Noncognitivist Since Birth
Joined
Jul 25, 2012
Messages
44,031
Reputation
8,069
Daps
120,240
Reppin
The Wrong Side of the Tracks
Asante said:
No actually the ancient Kemites themselves said that their civilization dates back to at least 25,000 years ago.

But it doesn't. Archaeology shows it only appears around the 4th Millenium. Prior to that, there were disparate, autonomous villages.​
Asante said:
Also Graham is perhaps the most prevalent researcher on that topic given his exposure,

He's not a researcher. He's a journalist and a pseudoscience purveyor.
Asante said:
Graham was one of the first to make a constellation argument to base it's age, which is what your sources were attacking.

False....again.....on both statements.

Asante said:
Again....the basic question that YOU cannot answer about the Sphinx is how did the Sphinx get water erosion, but none of the other monuments from the same period have that type of erosion

That's because water isn't the sole source of erosion and isn't the answer. Also, the Sphinx's location and composition isn't the same as the surrounding buildings. Man, you just keep skipping over that part.....because it invalidates your (and Hancock's) entire argument.

:snooze:
 

Asante

All Star
Joined
Apr 3, 2014
Messages
1,867
Reputation
90
Daps
5,392
That's because water isn't the sole source of erosion and isn't the answer. Man, you just keep skipping over that part.....because it invalidates your (and Hancock's) entire argument.

:snooze:


schoch_sphinx_overview_with_water_illustration.jpg


Robert M. Schoch: Research Highlights
The Great Sphinx

The Great Sphinx of Egypt (at Giza)

Many people know me best for my work on the Great Sphinx of Giza, Egypt. The Great Sphinx sits near the Great Pyramid on the western bank of the Nile, outside of modern Cairo. According to standard Egyptological thinking, the Great Sphinx was carved from the limestone bedrock on the orders of the Old Kingdom Pharaoh Khafre around 2500 BCE.

In 1990 I first traveled to Egypt with John Anthony West (for background information see Forgotten Civilization and Origins of the Sphinx), with the sole purpose of examining the Great Sphinx from a geological perspective. I assumed that the Egyptologists were correct in their dating, but soon I discovered that the geological evidence was not compatible with what the Egyptologists were saying. On the body of the Sphinx, and on the walls of the Sphinx Enclosure (the pit or hollow remaining after the Sphinx’s body was carved from the bedrock), I found heavy erosional features that I concluded could only have been caused by rainfall and water runoff. The thing is, the Sphinx sits on the edge of the Sahara Desert and the region has been quite arid for the last 5000 years. Furthermore, various structures securely dated to the Old Kingdom show only erosion that was caused by wind and sand (very distinct from the water erosion). To make a long story short, I came to the conclusion that the oldest portions of the Great Sphinx, what I refer to as the core-body, must date back to an earlier period (at least 5000 BCE, and my latest research now points to the end of the last ice age, circa 10,000 BCE), a time when the climate was very different and included more rain.

schoch_rain_wind_erosion_comparisons.jpg

You keep saying that there is more than one kind of erosion without acknowledging that water erosion (not sand, not wind erosion) is what is specifically noted as the case for the Sphinx.
 

Goat poster

KANG LIFE
Joined
May 13, 2012
Messages
19,043
Reputation
3,195
Daps
82,284
I never got this notion. Modern blacks talk about west African civilizations all the time. Mansa musa is a bigger name than any Pharoah, in the black community

And lol at what white people see from a mile away. These people are clout chasing to the point, they're trying to convince an ancient African civilization-was caucasian:mjlol:
Agreed

Any Black person that acts like it’s not a big deal that they lie to us about OUR HISTORY is a lame in my opinion.:yeshrug:

we can appreciate West Afrika and not let them take Ancient Egypt From us as well.
 

Goat poster

KANG LIFE
Joined
May 13, 2012
Messages
19,043
Reputation
3,195
Daps
82,284
Also so many ppl on this site are quick to prop up WEST AFRICA not realizing that MANY African-Americans roots are from CENTRAL AFRICA.

Mike Tyson just found out his ancestors was from Congo.
 

Dafunkdoc_Unlimited

Theological Noncognitivist Since Birth
Joined
Jul 25, 2012
Messages
44,031
Reputation
8,069
Daps
120,240
Reppin
The Wrong Side of the Tracks
Asante said:
Robert Schoch

The major fact disputing Dr. Schoch's conclusion, Dr. Lehner said, is the absence of any evidence that a civilization advanced enough to carve the Great Sphinx existed in Egypt from 7000 to 5000 B.C. "If the Sphinx was built by an earlier culture, where is the evidence of that civilization?" he said. "Where are the pottery shards? People during that age were hunters and gatherers. They didn't build cities."

Dr. Schoch suggested that evidence of the earlier culture might have disappeared when later civilizations "cleaned up the area." Dr. Lehner scoffed.

The Sphinx water erosion hypothesis is currently rejected by the archaeological community because of lack of any other supporting evidence for a civilization sufficiently old as well as other arguments. Mark Lehner looked at that the way several structures in the area incorporate elements from older structures, and based on the order in which they were constructed concludes that the archaeological sequencing does not allow for a date older than the reign of Khafra.Archaeologists and geologists have also challenged his geological claims.

Use pseudoscience to support your arguments, brehs.

:coffee:
 
Last edited:

frush11

Superstar
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
20,714
Reputation
2,748
Daps
46,918
Reppin
NULL
Also so many ppl on this site are quick to prop up WEST AFRICA not realizing that MANY African-Americans roots are from CENTRAL AFRICA.

Mike Tyson just found out his ancestors was from Congo.

I think for most us, when we say West Africa, we are pretty much saying everything till Angola really.

Most of us West Africans always lump Congolese with Us.
 
Joined
Jul 24, 2018
Messages
6,467
Reputation
703
Daps
16,152
bytch PRE- Olmec culture, is NOT the formative period of Olmec culture. The Wikipedia article that you used exclusively for your evidence of an Olmec timeline (for which they even only had one source) doesn't even have an article for "PRE-Olmec" culture, because it's some shyt that some Wiki editor made up to expand the time frame of the civilization. See what real source have to say about the Xi/Olmec timeline

"Olmec, the first elaborate pre-Columbian civilization of Mesoamerica (c. 1200–400 BCE) and one that is thought to have set many of the fundamental patterns evinced by later American Indian cultures of Mexico and Central America, notably the Maya and the Aztec."

Olmec | Definition, History, Art, Artifacts, & Facts


"Evolution of Maya culture
Olmec 1200-1000 B.C.
Early Preclassic Maya 1800-900 B.C.
Middle Preclassic Maya 900-300 B.C."

Civilization.ca - Mystery of the Maya - Maya civilization timeline


"The Archaic Period: 7000-2000 BCE – During this time a hunter-gatherer culture began to cultivate crops such as maize, beans and other vegetables and the domestication of animals (most notably dogs and turkeys) and plants became widely practiced. The first villages of the region were established during this period which included sacred spots and temples dedicated to various gods. The villages excavated thus far are dated from 2000-1500 BCE.

The Olmec Period: 1500-200 BCEThis era is also known as the Pre-Classic or Formative Period when the Olmecs, the oldest culture in Mesoamerica, thrived. The Olmecs settled along the Gulf of Mexico and began building great cities of stone and brick. The famous Olmec heads strongly suggest highly sophisticated skill in sculpture and the first indications of Shamanic religious practices date from this period. The enormous size and scope of Olmec ruins gave birth to the idea that the land was once populated by giants. Though no one knows where the Olmecs came from, nor what happened to them, they lay the foundation for all the future civilizations in Mesoamerica."

Maya Civilization

The typical dating for the Olmec civilization is 1,200 BC, while the formulation period of the Olmec civilization has been postulated to stretch back to 19th century BC at the most.



ancient-history-the-egyptian-ankh-cross-found-in-mexico-7351250.png




Another piece of little known evidence of the "Niger-Congo" strain of Africans coming to the America's is the finding of sickle cell anemia in ancient Mayan remains. Sickle Cell Originated in Sudanese Nubia, just like the Niger-Congo/Bantu Speakers;

EVIDENCE

j7gs60_zps0cuukynm.jpg

bantu%204_zpslyippjo6.jpg

2ab1eadc71faaaac3dcd289a5c6e5952.gif


Once again notice how the distribution of sickle cell correlates almost perfectly with the location of Niger-Congo speaking populations, whom Sarah Tishkoff's massive study acknowledges as a genetic entity rather than an arbitrary linguistic grouping.

Niger-Congo_map_zpsnmd4ofu5.png



A.6' 7,11 X-ray findings of the
skulls in Mayan Indians were suggestive of sickle
cell disease.20 It has also been described in Mexicans.

The sickle cell trait was found in 7.3 per cent
of a series of over eight thousand Negroes,9 with
a higher percentage in South African natives.10

link


2rolrwx_zpsfzytfpde.jpg



You are so full of shyt. Sickle Cell is an inherited blood disorder dumbass. It does not appear statically, as Cac's want us to believe in face of sickle cell and sickle cell related blood disorders being seen throughout the black populations of Africa (Niger-Congo), the Near East, the America, South & Southeast Asia, Australia and the mulattoes of Europe;

slide_8.jpg

The Cac's cannot deny our obvious relatedness when inherited blood disorders are present in all of these black populations around the World. As shown above sickle cell clearly is associated with the Niger-Congo speaking populations of Africa, and that being the case as my source presented above also states Sickle Cell Originated in the Sudan-Nubia (which is ironically where the Niger-Congo) population originated.

E1b1a-and-Sickle-Cel-disease.jpg




So Kush and Nubia were not synonymous according to you, but the expansive domain of Kush that Wallis Budge acknowledge extended into Asia in ancient times having ASIAN locations NAMED AFTER KUSH is not evidence that Kush and Nubia were synonymous according to you?

It appears that the locus for this distribution of cultural traditions and technology was the Saharan-Nubian zone or Kush. This would explain why the Sumerians and Elamites often referred to themselves as “ksh”. For example the ancient Sumerians called their dynasty “Kish”. The words “kish”, “kesh” and “kush” were also names for ancient Nubia-Sudan.
The Elamites also came from Kush. According to the classical writer Strabo, Susa the centre of the Elamite civilization was founded by Tithonus, king of Kush.

List of Sources
You've been getting your ass beat point by point throughout this entire thread. Give it up Cac agent. You're not fooling anyone in this thread. That's why no one has yet to your replies any real love.
By god this is stupid.
Confusing Olmecs and Maya? The Olmecs and Maya aren't the same dumbarse. A miscellaneous shaped building is not proof of cultural exchange. Also, the Mesoamerican and Egyptian pyramids have different functions.
Oh btw your 'rebuttal' of the formation of Olmec culture is in my favour of Ancient Africans having nothing to do with forming Olmec civilisation. You fukked up when you mentioned the crops grown in Mesoamerica at the time.

I suggest you stop going on about sickle cell as it's clear you know nothing about it. Sickle cell arose in Arab and Indian populations independently from Africans. And shame on you for lying about the ancient Maya (not Olmecs) having sickle cell. The link you posted said that it has been suggestive, not proven.
Many scientists have done extensive studies and tests on this. If your hypothesis is true, it would fundamentally change how we view blood disorders around the world. Why don't you show hypothesis to science and get it peer reviewed? Oh right... You'll get laughed at

Give up and get a fukking job.
 
Last edited:

Asante

All Star
Joined
Apr 3, 2014
Messages
1,867
Reputation
90
Daps
5,392
So you read the title and got excited without even reading the fukking article. The classic markers of a dumbass. What were the reasons given for their dispute over the earlier dating of the Sphinx?

"Dr. Schoch noted that a nearby tomb, also carved out of limestone, was thought to have been built at the same time as the Sphinx. But, he said, his studies clearly show that the Sphinx is so much more weathered than the tomb that it has to be more than 2,000 years older. So if the tomb is dated at 2500 B.C., the Great Sphinx has to be dated no later than 5000 B.C., he said.

That assertion has enraged scholars of Egyptian history, who say it disputes generations of archeological research into the Great Sphinx and the civilization that built it.

Dr. Mark Lehner of the University of Chicago, a leading expert on the Sphinx, heatedly rejected Dr. Schoch's findings. "You don't overthrow Egyptian history based on one phenomenon like a weathering profile," Dr. Lehner said. "That is how pseudoscience is done, not real science."

The major fact disputing Dr. Schoch's conclusion, Dr. Lehner said, is the absence of any evidence that a civilization advanced enough to carve the Great Sphinx existed in Egypt from 7000 to 5000 B.C. "If the Sphinx was built by an earlier culture, where is the evidence of that civilization?" he said. "Where are the pottery shards? People during that age were hunters and gatherers. They didn't build cities."

The main gripe between "mainstream" scholars and this proposal is that this finding if accepted would overthrow their 200 year Western paradigm based model of ancient history. That's basically saying that yeah they would make us to start from scratch about their agreed upon lies. These Egyptologist were comfortable with the lies! It would take a lot of hard work to rewrite a correct history of ancient civilization that they were not willing to put in. Those lies from that generation of Egyptologist most likely also included the notion that ancient Kemet was "multi-racial" from it's origin. It's not counter evidence, but loyalty to Western rhetoric that keeps them on that paradigm.

Secondly this is during a time when findings like Gobekli Tepe in Turkey were not widely known. Dating back to 9,000 BC.

According to your dated sources however this is not possible, because populations were too primitive at this point. The notion that pre-Neolithic populations did not ever settle to build (and complex structures at that) has been completely shattered by his finding. Again note that the main critic could only essentially argue that the populations this early in history were too "primitive" to build" advanced" structures. He is therefore completely debunked.

AND AGAIN there is NO ARGUMENT in that article that can refute the issue of the water erosion that only affects the Sphinx, but not structures built of the same material during the supposed same Dynastic time frame as the Sphinx are eroded by water. You nor any of your sources have answer to this water erosion issue with the Sphinx. You can only run from it.

 

Dafunkdoc_Unlimited

Theological Noncognitivist Since Birth
Joined
Jul 25, 2012
Messages
44,031
Reputation
8,069
Daps
120,240
Reppin
The Wrong Side of the Tracks
Asante said:
So you read the title and got excited without even reading the fukking article.

I did and you fell for the trap I set......

Asante said:
The main gripe between "mainstream" scholars and this proposal is that this finding if accepted would overthrow their 200 year Western paradigm based model of ancient history.

If there were evidence to support it, sure, but there isn't. Nothing you've posted thus far comes close and actually makes your entire argument laughably naive.

Asante said:
According to your dated sources however this is not possible, because populations were too primitive at this point.

It wasn't possible IN EGYPT since there is no evidence of any civilization capable of building them IN EGYPT at the time. Turkey isn't Egypt and your objection fails.
Asante said:
AND AGAIN there is NO ARGUMENT in that article that can refute the issue of the water erosion

And again water isn't the primary/sole force of erosion on the Sphinx so there's no reason to 'refute' that issue.​

:snooze:
 
Last edited:

Asante

All Star
Joined
Apr 3, 2014
Messages
1,867
Reputation
90
Daps
5,392
By god this is stupid.
Confusing Olmecs and Maya? The Olmecs and Maya aren't the same dumbarse.

You dumb bytch you specifically asked for genetic evidence of the Maya to Africans, see;

Mhofu - "Where's the 16th century BCE Egyptian genetics among the Maya?"

https://www.thecoli.com/posts/38422218/
You were given evidence that the Mayan remains were found to have sickle cell, which originated in the Sudan.
A miscellaneous shaped building is not proof of cultural exchange

No it's not "miscellaneous" it's an Egyptian Ankh;

aztec-tau-egyptian-tau-side-by-side-300x205.jpg

Left: Aztec Tree of Life. Right: Egyptian Ankh cross of Life. Both depict tau crosses.
In both images there are twin deities facing inward, toward the cross. The
positions of their arms, hands, feet and legs are almost perfectly parallel

mexico-oo.jpg

cassaror4_html_m10400886.jpg

Also, the Mesoamerican and Egyptian pyramids have different functions.

You're telling on yourself! Nobody even mentioned the pyramids yet.

Richard-Cassaro-Triptych-3.png

The most damning question to your denial of this obvious connection is why in the fukk would completely unrelated people construct pyramids, and those pyramids according to some analysis have parallel latitudes.

Oh btw your 'rebuttal' of the formation of Olmec culture is in my favour of Ancient Africans having nothing to do with forming Olmec civilisation. You fukked up when you mentioned the crops grown in Mesoamerica at the time.

So is that a claim of yours or are you actually going to offer proof?

I suggest you stop going on about sickle cell as it's clear you know nothing about it. Sickle cell arose in Arab and Indian populations independently from Africans.

What the fukk are you talking about?


The Sudan is the home of sickle cell PERIOD dumbass. Arab and Indian sickle cell CAME FROM this Sudanese origin you fukking retard.

And shame on you for lying about the ancient Maya (not Olmecs) having sickle cell. The link you posted said that it has been suggestive, not proven.

The only other disorder that it could confused with is CO

Conclusions: Our results suggest a complex pattern of causality in relation to the pathologies that may lead to the formation of porotic lesions on the vault and the roof of the orbits. A form of ane-mia may be behind the osteological changes observed in PH and CO, but it is unlikely to be thesame type of anemic condition that underlies both types of osteological lesions. We suggest that CO may be associated to anemias that lead to diploic bone hypocellularity and hypoplasia, such as those caused by anemia of chronic disease and, to a lesser extent, of renal failure, a plastic anemia,protein deficiency, and anemia of endocrine disorders, and not those that lead to bone marrowhypercellularity and hyperplasia and potential PH. This leads us to the conclusion that the termsPH and CO should be used to reflect different underlying conditions
So it was no doubt sickle cell (an African disease formed in the Sudan) found in the Mayans.
Many scientists have done extensive studies and tests on this. If your hypothesis is true, it would fundamentally change how we view blood disorders around the world. Why don't you show hypothesis to science and get it peer reviewed?

You don't know what the fukk you're talking about.

"Hemoglobin C, S-C, and E diseases are inherited conditions characterized by gene mutations that affect the hemoglobin (the protein that carries oxygen) in red blood cells, causing the cells to shape themselves abnormally and clump together. These red blood cells are destroyed more quickly than others, resulting in chronic anemia."

Hemoglobin C, S-C, and E Diseases - Blood Disorders - MSD Manual Consumer Version.

But look at what your dumb ass stated;

Mhofool stated - "2. Sickle cell gene mutations arose spontaneously in different geographic areas, as suggested by restriction endonuclease analysis. In other words, populations in the Gulf Penninsular and Indian Sub-Continent that have sickle cell didn't get from Africans."

https://www.thecoli.com/posts/38422218/

The above is what you wrote in response to me. It is ALL THE PROOF that you are here to talk out of your ass. Repeating typical Eurocentric tropes to disconnect the black populations around the World. You are clearly beneath me in this dude. Stay the fukk out of way you Cac agent gas lighter.

Give up and get a fukking job.


 
Last edited:

Asante

All Star
Joined
Apr 3, 2014
Messages
1,867
Reputation
90
Daps
5,392
It wasn't possible IN EGYPT since there is no evidence of any civilization capable of building them IN EGYPT at the time. Turkey isn't Egypt and your objection fails.​
Where did the Neolithic populations Turkey who build Gobekli Tepe come?

28hpe0j_zpsjethoo9n.png

2vlqv7t_zpstkvbmmkl.png

34h6ss2_zpsfqjlhuda.png


rucs3q_zpsqp7cvs5q.png
They came from Kemet dumbass. The Neolithic populations who built Gobekli Tepe came from Nubia-Kemet. The order makes complete sense. The Sphinx was dates to at least 12,000 BC, which was around the time of the expansion of the Natufians from the same Northeast African region (likely Nubia) who spread from the Levant into Turkey by the 10 millennium BC, where they built this 12 pillar structure (indicating the same zodiac that is first studied in African populations) while still currently defined as a "primitive" population. Here's what the Neolithic Turks (black Africans) looked and dressed dressed like;

erfiv7_zpseq9njr0q.jpg

hunter_zpsuige0j34.jpg



And again water isn't the primary/sole force of erosion on the Sphinx so there's no reason to 'refute' that issue.
You're lying, and you do not have ONE VALID SOURCE that attributes the erosion of the Sphinx to the wind rather than the water;

schoch_rain_wind_erosion_comparisons.jpg

Left: Plate 7 from Forgotten Civilization. The southern wall of the Sphinx Enclosure showing water (via rainfall) erosion. Center: Screen capture illustration from the documentary The Mystery of the Sphinx showing rain versus wind erosion. Right: Plate 11 from Origins of the Sphinx. Structures on the Giza Plateau dated by Egyptologists to Old Kingdon times showing only wind erosion.​
 

Dafunkdoc_Unlimited

Theological Noncognitivist Since Birth
Joined
Jul 25, 2012
Messages
44,031
Reputation
8,069
Daps
120,240
Reppin
The Wrong Side of the Tracks
Asante said:
Where did the Neolithic populations Turkey who build Gobekli Tepe come?
They came from Kemet

Kemet didn't exist until about 5,000 BCE so there's at least a 7,000 year gap between the migrations and the settlement of the area that was to become Kemet. Calling me names doesn't prove your assertion. Next.....
Asante said:
The Neolithic populations who built Gobekli Tepe came from Nubia-Kemet.

Neither Nubia or Kemet existed so they couldn't have come from there. That's like someone in 1300's France telling a neighbor they came from New York City.
Asante said:
The order makes complete sense. The Sphinx was dates to at least 12,000 BC,

No, it doesn't. It dates to about 4,500 BCE.

Asante said:
You're lying, and you do not have ONE VALID SOURCE that attributes the erosion of the Sphinx to the wind rather than the water;

False. I NEVER lie and ALWAYS have receipts......​


Schoch's ideas ignore several things. "Precipitation-induced weathering" versus "wind-induced weathering" producing different weathering morphologies is not an accepted idea, rather variations in the rock usually account for the different weathering morphologies. Schoch does not test his idea to determine if the rounded and straight morphologies result from precipitation and wind respectively. He just states that they do. If the "precipitation-induced weathering" occurred 7000 years ago and the "wind-induced weathering" occurred on structures 4500 years old, why didn't the "wind-induced weathering" obliterate the older "precipitation-induced weathering?" Schoch also ignores the possibility that other processes could cause the weathering morphology.

Geologists have been working on the Sphinx for years studying its rapid weathering and have found that the rapid weathering (which predates high atmospheric acid content) is due to formation of salt crystals in the rock pores which causes exfoliation due to hydrostatic pressure (see papers by Punuru et al., 1990; Chowdhury et al., 1990; Guari et al., 1990; and Guari et al., 1995). This exfoliation results in a rounded profile similar to that which Schoch indicates could only be due to "precipitation-induced weathering." All in all, Schoch seems to have focused on one explanation and ignored several other working hypotheses which explain the phenomenon much more concisely than having to resort to the Sphinx being carved 2500 years before there is a well recognized civilization in Egypt (not to mention the Atlanteans). Because, an additional point to consider is: how did a civilization capable of carving a monolithic structure come into being, which vanished without any other trace? As many other people have pointed out: what happened to their pots and pot sherds, stoneworking tools, and evidence for their residences? I'd suggest reviewing the Gauri et al. (1995) paper for a more detailed explanation of the controversey and the evidence.

Salt crystal exfoliation isn't a wind induced process. The salts (halite and gypsum) are naturally present in the pores of the rock probably from when the rocks were originally deposited in sea water. The naturally present salts are dissolved when dew condenses on the rock at night. The pores help draw water into them by capillary action (like how water rises slightly higher in a drinking straw when a straw is placed in liquid; as the straw or pore gets smaller the capillary action gets greater). Also salts like halite are hygroscopic, a property which allows the salts to condense water at a moisture level which would be insufficient for dew to form.

During the cooler nights the water in the atmosphere condenses it is drawn into the pores and dissolves the salts. When day time comes and temperatures rise this liquid with the dissolved salts starts to evaporate. The salts crystallize as the water evaporates. The crystals push against the side of the pore and the crystals also push against the remaining liquid causing the liquid to push against the walls of the pore. This repeated process causes the rock to beak down when the pressure exceeds the strength of the stone. This processes occurs above ground.

There are numerous sources/attributions included in the link. ALL peer-reviewed.​

:snooze:
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 24, 2018
Messages
6,467
Reputation
703
Daps
16,152
Dumb Dusty Hotep Buffoonery​
This is a great way to show that you don't know the fukk you're talking about. As per usual.
Your link about sickle cell among the Maya was suggestive, not proof. The rest of your dumb shyt about Mesoamerican civilisations being founded by Egyptians isn't worth debunking anymore.

Yet again, it's clear you don't know anything about sickle cell. One scientific paper doesn't negate the years of amassed evidence... Indian Tribal groups (unrelated to Africans) also have a high prevalence of Sickle Cell.
Btw I've read the paper and once again you don't know that you fukked up yet again.
The Green Sahara is before the time frame of Ancient Egypt. Not to mention the Green Sahara encompasses a massive area, so it could literally be anywhere within the Sahara. Yet you say that Africans spread it sickle cell during Ancient Egyptian times. Doesn't seem to be the case. But there's more.

https://www.cell.com/ajhg/fulltext/S0002-9297(18)30048-X

There are two models of the origins of the sickle allele. The multicentric model posits five independent occurrences of the same mutation within the last few thousand years. The unicentric model posits a single occurrence and an older age. We used whole-genome-sequence data to provide insight into this issue. Using haplotypic classification and phylogenetic network analysis, we found clear and consistent evidence for a single origin of the sickle mutation. After accounting for recombination, we estimated that the sickle mutation is 259 [123,395]" role="presentation">[123,395]
generations old.
Starting from first principles of population genetics, we defined haplotypes on the basis of phased sequence data. In contrast, the classical haplotypes were based on patterns of restriction sites seen in individuals with sickle cell anemia.
3
,
4
By molecularly mapping restriction sites to the sequence data, we found that the restriction sites correlated poorly with rs334, such that none of the canonical sites were included in our sequence-based haplotypes. This discrepancy can be explained by the fact that the RFLP-defining markers circulate on both βS- and βA-carrying chromosomes, even though the restriction sites were originally used for defining types of βS-carrying chromosomes. In contrast, our haplotypes correlate strongly with rs334 and simultaneously correlate moderately with the restriction sites conditional on the presence of the βS allele, thereby capturing the classical patterns.
There are four lines of evidence regarding the age of the sickle mutation: historical data, the simulations of balancing selection, the patriline data, and the analysis of the ancestral recombination graph. Although historical records are sparse, the earliest recorded cases of fevers that could have been caused by malaria were ∼5,000 years ago in China and were possibly due to Plasmodium vivax.
2
,
43
,
44
The earliest recorded case of illness that could have been malaria specifically caused by Plasmodium falciparum could have been ∼4,000 years ago in Egypt and Sumer; however, Plasmodium falciparum could have been present in Africa several thousand years earlier.
2
The first recorded cases of sickle cell anemia or, more broadly, sickle cell disease were in Egypt during the predynastic period (∼3200 BC
45
), in the Persian Gulf during the Hellenistic period (2,130 years before present
46
), and in Ghana in 1670 AD.
47
The existence of the sickle allele in predynastic Egypt constrains the lower bound of the age of the sickle mutation to be 5,200 years. On the basis of these limited data, it is historically plausible that the selective environment preceded the sickle mutation, consistent with our balancing-selection simulations, which showed that the sickle allele would have been lost almost immediately without a heterozygote advantage (under the assumption of recessive lethality).
The patriline data corroborate the age of the sickle mutation. Given a single origin, the sickle mutation most likely arose either in a population containing both E1b1a1a1f-L485 (also known as E1b1a1a1a1c-L485) and E1b1a1a1g-U175 (also known as E1b1a1a1a2a-U175) or in a population containing their common ancestor. Thus, the time of origin of the common ancestor of these two haplogroups is a plausible upper bound on the age of the sickle mutation. The common ancestor E1b1a1a1a-M4732 arose 10,500 (95% confidence interval between 9,200 and 12,000) years ago, consistent with the upper credible interval of 11,100 years ago that we estimated for the age of the sickle mutation.
The Bantu expansions started ∼5,000 years ago and took ∼2,000 years to cross from present-day Cameroon to the Great Lakes region.
48
The wide credible interval (3,400 to 11,100 years) of the age of the sickle mutation does not rule out the possibility that the mutation coincided with the onset of the Bantu expansions. However, our results support the hypothesis that the origin of the βS allele predated the onset of the Bantu expansions. First, the βS allele could have been at or near its equilibrium frequency when the Bantu expansions occurred ∼5,000 years ago, according to our estimation that the sickle mutation originated ∼7,300 years ago and that balancing selection ensued immediately and reached equilibrium in ∼2,400 years in an environment where malaria preexisted. Second, the likelihood that the βS allele is carried by migrating individuals increases with the frequency of that allele in the source population.
Our results provide some suggestions as to where the sickle mutation might have originated. Descendants of the Y chromosome haplogroup E1b1a-V38 migrated across the Sahara from east to west,
49
possibly around 19,000 years ago.

50
E1b1a1-M2 most likely did not originate in eastern or northeastern Africa, but where it originated in either western or central Africa is unclear.
49
Accordingly, the sickle mutation most likely did not occur in eastern or northeastern Africa. Our results indicate that the origin of the sickle mutation was in the middle of the Holocene Wet Phase, or Neolithic Subpluvial, which lasted from ∼7,500–7,000 BC to ∼3,500–3,000 BC. This time was the most recent of the Green Sahara periods, during which the Sahara experienced wet and rainy conditions.
51
Our results thus support the Green Sahara as a possible place of origin of the sickle mutation. An alternative hypothesis is that the sickle allele arose in west-central Africa,
13
,
52
possibly in the northwestern portion of the equatorial rainforest.

Our results also provide some suggestions as to where the three clusters might have originated. Two splits occurred early in the original βS-carrying population. The first split defined one cluster containing HAP1 and accounting for the Cameroon and CAR haplotypes. It is plausible that HAP1 was carried from an area in or around present-day Cameroon to the area that is presently the CAR, as well as to areas east and south, as part of the Bantu expansions. However, the Bantu expansions did not extend west and north. The second split subsequently separated the clusters containing HAP16 and HAP20, the modal haplotypes accounting for the Benin and Senegal haplotypes, respectively. HAP16 and HAP20 shared one derived mutation, consistent with an early split. Furthermore, given the subsequent accumulation of derived mutations not shared between HAP16 and HAP20, effectively no gene flow occurred between these two descendant populations, consistent with geographic separation. We therefore hypothesize that the common ancestor of these two clusters existed north of Cameroon among non-Bantu-speaking peoples in or around present-day Nigeria. From this common ancestral population, a group of migrants separated and traveled west and north to the area around present-day Senegal and the Gambia. These migrants could have taken a coastal or an inland route. The finding that the Senegal haplotype was the predominant haplotype in the sample of Mende from Sierra Leone is consistent with a coastal route. We do not have data to investigate an inland route, but we note that the frequency of the sickle allele is higher along the coast than inland.
53
Classical haplotypes in eastern Arabia tend to have the Arabian/Indian designation, whereas those in western Arabia tend to have the Benin designation.
18
,
21
The Arabian/Indian haplotype has been hypothesized to have originated in either east Saudi Arabia or India.
5
Although our samples include only one predicted instance of the Arabian/Indian haplotype, the occurrence of this haplotype in the Luhya in Kenya and its clustering with the predominant haplotype found in Kenya and Uganda are consistent with the hypothesis that the Arabian/Indian haplotype originated in Africa and had an overseas migration route from eastern Africa to eastern Arabia and India.
13
,
19
In contrast, the absence of the Benin haplotype in the Luhya in Kenya and the Baganda in Uganda provides evidence against an overseas migration route from eastern Africa to western Arabia. Instead, the presence of the Benin haplotype in western Arabia is consistent with an African origin and an overland migration route through northeast Africa.
33
Together, our results suggest the following evolutionary history of the sickle mutation. The presence of African ancestry, an African patriline, and/or an African matriline in all sickle carriers, combined with the absence of Arabian or Indian ancestries in the five continental African samples in the 1000 Genomes Project,
33
supports an African origin of the sickle mutation. The sickle mutation occurred once approximately 7,300 years ago either in the Sahara or in west-central Africa. In an environment where malaria preexisted, balancing selection took approximately 2,400 years to drive the βS allele to an equilibrium frequency of 12.0%. A population split occurred, possibly in the area around present-day Cameroon. Starting approximately 5,000 years ago, the Bantu expansions resulted in the spread of HAP1 to the CAR, the Great Lakes region, and South Africa. After acquiring one derived allele, the population split into one carrying a haplotype that evolved into HAP16 and another carrying a haplotype that evolved into HAP20. In both clusters, hitchhiking of the derived alleles with the βS allele resulted in similar derived allele frequencies.
Our study includes sequence data from western, west-central, and eastern Africa but lacks comparable data from northern, central, and southern Africa. A haplotype has been identified among Sudanese individuals that was classified as atypical but might be a fifth African haplotype.
54
It is possible that sampling additional populations could provide more evidence regarding when, where, and in whom the sickle mutation arose.
Our findings support classification of sickle haplotypes based on three clusters. Notably, we found that the Senegal haplotype is substructured into two clusters, one containing only Senegal haplotypes and one containing Benin and Senegal haplotypes. This substructuring of haplotypes might have confounded previous assessments of clinical phenotype or disease severity. At the same time, the identification of markers linked to the sickle allele provides an opportunity to investigate possible cis-effects, such as differential expression of HBD, HBE1, and HBG2, on disease severity.
The dumb hotep keeps going on about the Niger-Congo people left Ancient Egypt and populated the rest of Africa and uses sickle cell haplotypes for proof yet he posts a study that contradicts his assertions. :mjlol:
Nearly all the bolded parts of the 'Discussion' of the study debunks his bullshyt.:mjlol:
Way to shoot yourself in the foot.

The last bolded part of the 'discussion' I already posted a study about Indian Tribals having sickle cell.

Get a job.
 
Top