Amujale:
The true chronology of human history has it that everyone starts in Africa and later migrate to all the four corners of the globe.

Africans are the first people to arrive in the Americas populate and build communities.

Africans are the first people to arrive in Asia populate and build communities.

Africans are the first people to arrive in Australasia populate and build communities.

Africans are the first people to arrive in Europe populate and build communities.

Africans are the first ever Eskimos

Conclusion, every single ethnic group on our planet are a product of the first generation of humans; the first generation of humans are Africans.

Any other theory or hypothesis in living memory does not stand up to these simple truths.

Let's be clear on your above statement. You are correct in your assertion however what must be made clear is that these migrations started 150,000 to 200,000 years ago so the "Africans" you are referring to may have not looked liked or shared the same genetic lineage as contemporary Africans today. so Contemporary Africans you see today and People outside of the continent share the same lineage or descent but one did not emanate from the other.

In other words the Africans that remained in Africa also experienced a transformative morphological change both genetically and phenotypically. What I am trying to say is that the Africans that left the continent would resemble the Africans that still live in Africa today but they are not us now both phenotypically and genetically speaking. As Africans we have evolved too over that length of time to become what we are today.

morpheus24:


When you say "Black Americans" have nothing to do with the American continent I am not sure your statement is all that correct. Africans who were brought to the Americas at the same time Europeans settled in the Americas heavily influenced the racial makeup of today's "Americans" as a continent, therefore they have had a strong influence on the cultural, linguistic and genetic identity of the people that inhabit the Americas today.

The remaining Indigenous or Native Americans exist in smaller pockets today and their gene pool has been diluted and spread across the peoples they encountered i.e Europeans and Africans to create the new so called racial identity of today's "Latinos" or "Hispanics". The African inclusion is however downplayed a lot in this new racial makeup due to the origins of the Africans as slaves and thus the anger within the Black American groups so in a way these AA are justified in their anger and their reason for propping up the African identity within the Americas.

First of all i said Africans have nothing to do with the American continent , not Black Americans , even though they are not indigenous and don't own any land. And nobody calls the United States "The Americas" you're stupid.
If you are talking America the continent then you're spewing nonsense because how can they have linguistic influence when English is a European language and most countries on the American continent don't speak English?
And when it comes to culture Latinos have their own cultures and it's the same in the Carribean.
The genetic influence you talk about comes from Africans , not Black Americans.
Lastly , how are they propping up the African identity when they hate Africans?

NileValley:


First of all i said Africans have nothing to do with the American continent , not Black Americans even though they are not indigenous and don't own any land. And nobody calls the United States "The Americas" you're stupid.

Laughing in Yoruba

Insults will get you no where, just state facts.

The United states is included in the definition and geographical space known as "The Americas".

If you dispute please provide evidence that speaks otherwise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americas

NileValley:

If you are talking America the continent then you're spewing nonsense because how can they have linguistic influence when English is a European language and most countries on the American continent don't speak English?

Laughing in Igbo.


African linguistic influences in the Americas specifically in "North America" English is attested to in the Gullah peoples of South Carolina.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/African-American-English

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gullah


There is also evidence of African linguistic influence in "South America" as well aka Brazilian Portugese spoken by many Afro-Brazilian groups in the country.

http://www.jpanafrican.org/docs/vol5no5/5.5Afro-Brazilian.pdf

NileValley:

And when it comes to culture Latinos have their own cultures and it's the same in the Carribean.
The genetic influence you talk about comes from Africans , not Black Americans.
Lastly , how are they propping up the African identity when they hate Africans?

I don't know what you are yapping on about here but if you have a personal issue with Black Americans I am not really concerned about how much they hate Africans or not. What I am concerned about is factual information that carries a topic forward.

When Black Americans speak of their identity or influence it is inescapably intertwined and an extension of African identity, they or you for that matter cannot escape this reality no matter how much they cry about it.

morpheus24:


What I am trying to say is that the Africans that left the continent would resemble the Africans that still live in Africa today but they are not us now both phenotypically and genetically speaking. As Africans we have evolved too over that length of time to become what we are today.

That is totally incorrect, most Africans have retained their genetics almost entirely intact throughout the ages as the source for what is now known as the multi-cultural world of today, God endowed the African woman with the capacity to give birth to all ethnic groups available to human kind.

Without a shadow of doubt Africans are indigenous to mainland Africa, however, all and every other African community that exists outside of Africa prior to 1400 B.C.E. are said to have circumnavigate the oceans and seas in order to transport themselves.

The earliest examples are given in line with the Indigenous Americans, Indigenous Australians, Indigenous European e.t.c (not meant as a chronology rather alphabetic in order)

They circumnavigated the oceans and seas, depicted themselves similar to present mainland Africans, they described themselves the same way
as well.

All people of the world can trace their roots to African history.

Simply put, all the communities in the world are born from Africa.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/tech/astonishing-3d-face-10000-year-10561797?fbclid=IwAR1U_5z0ABKkXQThJVjpf0_mRycSbUwqllWL1ZtOhLjr7YDLrEsMnGqCWa0

The image depicts a 3D reconstruction of an early African settler in the Americas said to be 10000 years old.

In antiquity, there’s evidence to suggest that during a certain point in time, all humans on our planet are African; black, brown and bronze.

Two distinct phenomenon occur simultaneously:

(1)Geological phenomena i.e. Ice Age

(2)Biological phenomena i.e African women are granted a unique special ability that allows giving birth to non-African looking offspring.

These two distinct phenomenon are said to have combined to create the environment for the new ethnic groups that would later join the African on planet Earth.

Most African communities haven’t changed their genetic make-up even after marrying outside of the continent. Naturally most Africans have over-powering genes, attributes gained and retained from their rich ancestry.

[flash=250,250]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYk8cm_aREA[/flash]

The Origins Of Humanity: featuring Dr Cheikh Anta Diop (Senegalese historian, anthropologist, physicist who studied the human race’s origin and pre- colonial African culture)

morpheus24:



Laughing in Yoruba

Insults will get you no where, just state facts.

The United states is included in the definition and geographical space known as "The Americas".

If you dispute please provide evidence that speaks otherwise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americas




Laughing in Igbo.


African linguistic influences in the Americas specifically in "North America" English is attested to in the Gullah peoples of South Carolina.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/African-American-English

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gullah


There is also evidence of African linguistic influence in "South America" as well aka Brazilian Portugese spoken by many Afro-Brazilian groups in the country.

http://www.jpanafrican.org/docs/vol5no5/5.5Afro-Brazilian.pdf



I don't know what you are yapping on about here but if you have a personal issue with Black Americans I am not really concerned about how much they hate Africans or not. What I am concerned about is factual information that carries a topic forward.

When Black Americans speak of their identity or influence it is inescapably intertwined and an extension of African identity, they or you for that matter cannot escape this reality no matter how much they cry about it.

Stupidity wil get you nowhere either , only your retarded ass calls the United States "the Americas" you clown and no Black Americans are not an extension of Africa at all , they are just Black Americans.


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


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otfMcwb9kCs


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzbWr151NTQ

Amujale:

most Africans have retained their genetics almost entirely intact throughout the ages as the source for what is now known as the multi-cultural world of today

1. Africa is the reservoir of Human genetics -What this means is that People who lived have the most genetic diversity between two people than amongst the larger group. The further to move from the continent the less the genetic diversity which is how scientist are able to reverse engineer how old a gene is. So yes people who live in Africa carrying the oldest genetic elements

2. African genes continued to mutate long after the first adventurers left the continent to populate the rest of the world.

3. Because someone looks like an African does not mean they still have the same genes as Contemporary Africans. Case in point the Andaman islanders and the Papua new guineans look very similar to Africans yet they are the most genetically distant to Africans. They retain the phenotypical traits of Africans which is an arbitrary attribute of humans, however they diverged so much so genetically that they very distant from contemporary Africans today. If you want to understand this more I urge you to read through several articles in the Journal of Human genetics concerning this people I have mentioned.

Amujale:
God endowed the African woman with the capacity to give birth to all ethnic groups available to human kind.

I am not sure what you mean here. The contemporary African carries the oldest human mutations that exist today therefore they are usually dominant in physical expression. An African and a European child would express phenotypically more similar to the African because of the dominance of the older mutation, however nature strives for perfection in its design so even though the child expresses more as the African physically, they are a perfect 50% in genetic material from both parents so they have a perfect 50% european gene distribution as they do African.

Europeans mutations are said to be some of the most recent therefore they may have the most recessive of genetical material and will be dominated physically if they mate with people with older mutations. This is not the case 100% of the time though

[/quote]

NileValley:


Stupidity wil get you nowhere either , only your retarded ass calls the United States "the Americas" you clown

1.Yes me and every other anthropologist,, archaeologist and paleoanthropologist.

2. No rebuttal with no evidence just more abusive language to digress away from providing any evidence of his assertion.

NileValley:

and no Black Americans are not an extension of Africa at all , they are just Black Americans.


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


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otfMcwb9kCs


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzbWr151NTQ

Ahhh the hebrew Israelites my favorite delusional gibberish ranting maniacs running around the streets spreading nonsensical diatribes about black peoples origins. So what part of their gibberish do you want me to attack first?

Amujale:
[flash=250,250]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYk8cm_aREA[/flash]

The Origins Of Humanity: featuring Dr Cheikh Anta Diop (Senegalese historian, anthropologist, physicist who studied the human race’s origin and pre- colonial African culture)

Dr Cheikh Anta Diop's works are a little old and some of it has been debunked and and updated.

Morpheus24,
I have been reading through the majority of your posts on this thread...which have been very enlightening and appear factually accurate. I say "appears" cause I like to do personal research (on certain things which I don't know about) to confirm their accuracy.

I see, though, intelligence hasn't escaped you.
Well written...

Mobilia:
Morpheus24,
I have been reading through the majority of your posts on this thread...which have been very enlightening and appear factually accurate. I say "appears" cause I like to do personal research (on certain things which I don't know about) to confirm their accuracy.

I see, though, intelligence hasn't escaped you.
Well written...

You must always do your research and ascertain if what someone is saying holds any water. Debate expands ones knowledge base. I share knowledge to teach and learn at the same time.

NileValley:


This skin tone probably comes from their Aboriginal Australian ancestors , we Africans know that we have nothing to do with the American continent. Black Americans are the biggest hypocrites they complain about cultural appropriation yet they try to steal the Native American identity , not just the culture , the entire identity. Disgusting slaves.


A DNA Search for the First Americans Links Amazon Groups to Indigenous Australians:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dna-search-first-americans-links-amazon-indigenous-australians-180955976/

There is nothing wrong in the indigenous Australian contribution to the population of Southern America or to the population of Japan.

There is no disconnecting Africa from the founding population of any continent.

It is still Africa populating the entire World, via land and sea, #WhenTheWorldWasBlack.

morpheus24:


Dr Cheikh Anta Diop's works are a little old and some of it has been debunked and and updated.

Debunked by whom? And what part of his work are you referring to here?

jantavanta:


There is nothing wrong in the indigenous Australian contribution to the population of Southern America or to the population of Japan.

There is no disconnecting Africa from the founding population of any continent.

It is still Africa populating the entire World, via land and sea, #WhenTheWorldWasBlack.

Here you state absolute facts that can never be denied.

Those who argue against true African history haven’t read “They Came before Columbus” by Ivan Van Sertima or books like the “Black Athena” by Martin Bernal.

[flash=250,250]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fj8NAg9qfr4#searching[/flash]

[flash=250,250]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVQa2XXM6Zk[/flash]

Ivan Van Sertima (Guyanese-born associate professor of African Studies); Professor Martin Gardiner Bernal (also
wrote the book Cadmean Letters, devoted to the origins of the Greek alphabet., respectively.

Amujale:


Debunked by whom? And what part of his work are you referring to here?

Dr Anta Diop challenged a lot of the Eurocentric view points on race that characterized the study of Anthropology, race in ancient Egypt and racial categories in Africa as a whole during much of the 19th century.

Though most of his studies were a welcome rebuttal to many a Eurocentric pseudo science that flew around at that time, such as the concept of the "True Negro theory" advanced by Carltoon coon and the likes, Diop died in 1986 and was not privileged to see the advancements and contributions of human genetics into the field of Anthropology. This new data debunks a good number of his ascertions about the relevance of how genetics plays into the origins of "Black African peoples" and so called "black peoples" that populate or populated the rest of the world at one time.

He was very much an anthropologist and historian at heart and discarded the genotypical contributions to the idea of the human identity for the more arbitrary social classification of humans as they interact in physical spaces.

jantavanta:


There is nothing wrong in the indigenous Australian contribution to the population of Southern America or to the population of Japan.

There is no disconnecting Africa from the founding population of any continent.

It is still Africa populating the entire World, via land and sea, #WhenTheWorldWasBlack.

I am weary of the above language because it smells of undertones of ethnocentric and racial bias, a 16th century invention by euro-centrics to control a narrative of nature and biological diversity.

The "people" that left "Africa" are both ancestors of Modern day Africans and the rest of the populations in the world so it would be more scientifically accurate to state that "it is Homo Sapien or MAN who is populating the entire World via land and sea"

morpheus24:

Dr Anta Diop challenged a lot of the Eurocentric view points on race that characterized the study of Anthropology, race in ancient Egypt and racial categories in Africa as a whole during much of the 19th century.

Though most of his studies were a welcome rebuttal to many a Eurocentric pseudo science that flew around at that time, such as the concept of the "True Negro theory" advanced by Carltoon coon and the likes, Diop died in 1986 and was not privileged to see the advancements and contributions of human genetics into the field of Anthropology. This new data debunks a good number of his ascertions about the relevance of how genetics plays into the origins of "Black African peoples" and so called "black peoples" that populate or populated the rest of the world at one time.

He was very much an anthropologist and historian at heart and discarded the genotypical contributions to the idea of the human identity for the more arbitrary social classification of humans as they interact in physical spaces.

In a way, Diop’s findings did not talk only about the genetics of Africans, but the genetic derivatives of the early humans and that has a huge significance.

What year is this new findings suppose to have been published? Who are the authors? What is the subject of debate specifically?

morpheus24:



1.Yes me and every other anthropologist,, archaeologist and paleoanthropologist.

2. No rebuttal with no evidence just more abusive language to digress away from providing any evidence of his assertion.





Ahhh the hebrew Israelites my favorite delusional gibberish ranting maniacs running around the streets spreading nonsensical diatribes about black peoples origins. So what part of their gibberish do you want me to attack first?

I ddn't ask you to attack anything,stop calling non-African people Africans you sound like a fool.

NileValley:


I ddn't ask you to attack anything,stop calling non-African people Africans you sound like a fool.

More insults from an infantile who has not made one iorta of sense through all his write ups.

African Americans are invariably African people both in phenotype and genotype. All African Americans cluster the closest to African peoples because the separation is a mere 500 years old, not long enough to change the genotype in A.American DNA.

In aggregate AA's are in most DNA tests expressive of 75% to 99% African in genotype.

The fool is you my friend. Go back to school you've been drinking too much of that Nile river water.

Morphues : 1

Nile Valley Infant: 0 points

Amujale:


In a way, Diop’s findings did not talk only about the genetics of Africans, but the genetic derivatives of the early humans and that has a huge significance.

I don't understand what you mean in the bolded part. Please elaborate.

Amujale:

What year is this new findings suppose to have been published? Who are the authors? What is the subject of debate specifically?

You are going to make me dig through my journals now to find this for you but I will. A note to you, Anta Diop was not a very conventional scholar so in other words he did not publish his works for peer review as he was suspect of the methodologies of those who were supposed to review and critic his works but there are critics on his writings.

In a way, Diop’s findings did not talk only about the genetics of Africans, but the genetic derivatives of the early humans and that has a huge significance.

morpheus24:


I don't understand what you mean in the bolded part. Please elaborate.

I think it’s self explanatory if you read into Diop’s works. He derives from his scientific conclusions the fact that the early humans (Africans) has all the building blocks of the genes present in the world today.

morpheus24:

A note to you, Anta Diop was not a very conventional scholar so in other words he did not publish his works for peer review as he was suspect of the methodologies of those who were supposed to review and critic his works but there are critics on his writings.

And? What is the precise point you are trying to make here. All historians are deemed by thier peers to be unconventional, most African academics take it as a compliment.

Name me one African historian that your type considers conventional? Socrates was unconventional during his time, yet he makes better sense in 2019.

Furthermore, Africans don’t need to proof our theories and hypothesis to anyone, because Africans academics in most cases are THE authority on their given course of study, e.g Dr Anta Diop

Before the likes of Anta Diop one of a team of academics that are still considered today the most qualified team ever to have been assembled to look into pre-colonial Africa, the only other studies been done into pre - colonial Africa was that of some mediocre scholars that had little or no background in archeology, anthropology or any of the earth sciences.

Even though Anta Diop and his team are considered unconventional, that is because they explored concepts and made use of genuine scientific aparatuses other academia refuse to , in time, you will find that they are rightfully considered the leading authorities.

Amujale:




I think it’s self explanatory if you read into Diop’s works. He derives from his scientific conclusions the fact that the early humans (Africans) has all the building blocks of the genes present in the world today.

1.Most scientists are in agreement with the fact that modern humans aka Homo sapiens evolved in Africa and contributed to the genes inherited by their modern counter parts. Diop is neither the originator nor only source of this knowledge or scientific conclusion.

2. These Anatomically Modern humans that evolved in Africa possessed the building blocks that made "Modern AfricanS" and "NON African" peoples alike

3. All African people today do not have the same genetic material but have the most diverse. In other words those early Modern Humans that remained in Africa are closer to proximity to us than to NON Africans.

4. Africans today are not the same people as early or Modern Humans both phenotypically and Genotypical. We also evolved into different looking types of people as our NON African cousins. There are some African who are much closer in proximity in terms of genetics to the early humans that that older mutations and there are some that carry younger versions much like people outside of the continent.

5. The oldest recorded MTDNA_Mitrochondial DNA_ L0 passed on from daughter to daughter is found in Africa and present in the oldest known peoples in Africa, the Khoisan. The divergence continues throughout Africa with L1, L2, L3, M, N etc.

6. West and Central Africans carry the L2 frequency at the highest level which means an ancestor of Mdtna L or L0 diverged and produced the females that inhabit West and Central Africa today producing genetic variation between the two groups which sometimes can correlate to Physical attributes.

7. This phenomena is what happened as Humans migrated out of Africa. L2 to L3 then all the subclades of L to M in the middle east back to Africa againthen to N and so on.

8. These changes correlate with certain physical traits in Humans but is not necessarily the cause of the differences in the differing physical traits.

Conclusion the earliest Humans in Africa gave rise to all of us today Africans and NON Africans. The first humans very likely are more similar in appearance to what you refer to as "Black people" today but that does not mean they looked exactly like we do today. I don't know if you understand what that points to.

Amujale:

And? What is the precise point you are trying to make here. All historians are deemed by there peers to be unconventional, most African academics take it as a compliment.

Name me one African historian that your type considers conventional? Socrates was unconventional during his time, yet he makes better sense in 2019.

Furthermore, Africans don’t need to proof our theories and hypothesis to anyone, because Africans academics in most cases are THE authority on their given course of study, e.g Dr Anta Diop

Before the likes of Anta Diop one of a team of academics that are still considered today the most qualified team ever to have been assembled to look into pre-colonial Africa.

The only other studies been done into pre - colonial Africa was that of some mediocre scholars that had little or no background in archeology, anthropology or any of the earth sciences.

Even though Anta Diop and his team are considered unconventional, that is because they explored concepts and made use of genuine scientific aparatuses other academia refuse to , in time, you will find that they are rightfully considered the leading authorities.

The point is to show that Diop did not follow conventional protocol in publishing his works that were reviewed as is required by the consensus of Most scientist. If you do no use scientific agreed upon methods then your work is outside the sphere of Journal review. It does not mean your works are not sound.

Again Diops work is a welcome addition to the anthropological and archaeological information that is available today, however as I said earlier, many of his conclusions have been debunked today, particular concerning ancient Egypt and the origins of its people.

Diops interpretation was tancient Africans (specifically the Natufians) were an African peoples who originated with customs from the interior of Africa who moved up the Nile and co-mingled with peoples and cultures from the Levant and West Asia. This is true to an extent but the DNA evidence collected from mummies and present in a number of Egyptians ( not Arabs) is in contention to this assertion.

Amujale:




I think it’s self explanatory if you read into Diop’s works. He derives from his scientific conclusions the fact that the early humans (Africans) has all the building blocks of the genes present in the world today.

Africans are not a Monolith of phenotypes and genotypes much like every other group of peoples outside the continent and this is what Diop was trying to convey in his writings. That the suggestion that there is not a continuum of gradation of humans up to Ancient Egypt and all through the world as postulated by anthropologist and scientists of his time that separated peoples in terms of races and gave certain superior attributes to some was Ludacris and incorrect science. He has been justified in his works but again not all he wrote was correct. He mis-interpreted the complexity of the contributions of genetics by dismissing its relevance in his study of "social" interactions and

continued

morpheus24:


Africans are not a Monolith of phenotypes and genotypes much like every other group of peoples outside the continent and this is what Diop was trying to convey in his writings. That the suggestion that there is not a continuum of gradation of humans up to Ancient Egypt and all through the world as postulated by anthropologist and scientists of his time that separated peoples in terms of races and gave certain superior attributes to some was Ludacris and incorrect science. He has been justified in his works but again not all he wrote was correct. He mis-interpreted the complexity of the contributions of genetics by dismissing its relevance in his study of "social" interactions and

Kindly stop trying to convey your warped interpretation of African academia to us. Instead provide us with the evidence of your initial claims.

morpheus24:

Dr Anta Diop died in 1986 and was not privileged to see the advancements and contributions of human genetics into the field of Anthropology. This new data debunks a good number of his ascertions about the relevance of how genetics plays into the origins of "Black African peoples" and so called "black peoples" that populate or populated the rest of the world at one time.

He was very much an anthropologist and historian at heart and discarded the genotypical contributions to the idea of the human identity for the more arbitrary social classification of humans as they interact in physical spaces.

morpheus24:


1.Most scientists are in agreement with the fact that modern humans aka Homo sapiens evolved in Africa and contributed to the genes inherited by their modern counter parts. Diop is neither the originator nor only source of this knowledge or scientific conclusion.

Most modern day scientist agree with Diop on that point.

morpheus24:

2. These Anatomically Modern humans that evolved in Africa possessed the building blocks that made "Modern AfricanS" and "NON African" peoples alike

That is just a nonsensical statement.

morpheus24:


3. All African people today do not have the same genetic material but have the most diverse. In other words those early Modern Humans that remained in Africa are closer to proximity to us than to NON Africans.

In my opinion that is one of greatest allegorical statements ever to make it to the publishers. The statement is true but insignificant compared to the TRUTH, which is that early humans are closer to proximity to us Africans.

morpheus24:

4. Africans today are not the same people as early or Modern Humans both phenotypically and Genotypical. We also evolved into different looking types of people as our NON African cousins. There are some African who are much closer in proximity in terms of genetics to the early humans that that older mutations and there are some that carry younger versions much like people outside of the continent.

According to African studies, that statement is completely and utterly false. Untrue.

morpheus24:

7. This phenomena is what happened as Humans migrated out of Africa. L2 to L3 then all the subclades of L to M in the middle east back to Africa again then to N and so on.

Again, according to African studies, that statement is completely and utterly false. Untrue.

morpheus24:

Conclusion the earliest Humans in Africa gave rise to all of us today Africans and NON Africans. The first humans very likely are more similar in appearance to what you refer to as "Black people" today but that does not mean they looked exactly like we do today. I don't know if you understand what that points to.

Another one of greatest allegorical statements ever to make it to the publishers. Try reading that back to yourself a few times and maybe you will understand my point.

Since much of the body of contents are based on floored assertions, the conclusion is deemed false. Your arguments are based on floored intelligence and anti-African rhetoric.

Amujale:


Kindly stop trying to convey your warped interpretation of African academia to us. Instead provide us with the evidence of your initial claims.

Here are summaries of Cheik Anta diops findings on Ancient Egyptian DNA that tie them Anthropologically, linguistically and genetically.


http://worldhistoryandanthropology..com/2014/02/10-arguments-from-cheik-anta-diop-that.html.



Here is genetic studies today that supercedes some of his assertions

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929707631826:
"mtDNA Analysis of Nile River Valley Populations: A Genetic Corridor or a Barrier to Migration?"

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929707624173:
"A Predominantly Neolithic Origin for Y-Chromosomal DNA Variation in North Africa"


You are a big boy, read through them but so you don't get confused basically what the articles refer to in relation to Anta diops analysis is that on a genetic level the origins of Egyptians and Africans by extension are far more complex that simply blood group tests and thus the designation of "Egyptians as black people"

Amujale:



Most modern day scientist agree with Diop on that point.

That is what I just said, Diop is not the originator of that premise.

Amujale:


That is just a nonsensical statement.

What specifically is nonsensical and why?

Amujale:


The statement is true but insignificant compared to the TRUTH, which is that early humans are closer to proximity to us Africans.

You are running round in circles her, what is true then insignificant then is now compared again to the TRUTH

Amujale:


According to African studies, that statement is completely and utterly false. Untrue.

What do you mean by according to African studies., Does the only information that you deem true come from African studies?

Amujale:

Since much of the body of contents are based on floored assertions, the conclusion is deemed false. Your arguments are based on floored intelligence and anti-African retric.

What is floored intelligence, there are floored points, floored information, floored conclusions but not floored intelligence.

Facts are verifiable and tested, if the conclusions are the same after repetition again and again there are factual so I don't know what you mean here.

As far as the anti African rhetoric, that's neither here nor there. If information emanates from and African, is tested and shown to be true I will accept and likewise anyone on this planet. Truth is truth no matter who it emanates from.

Maybe you are trying to explain what is know as "Confirmation bias" is science where before the experiment is conducted the person performing the test already has an intrinsic bias and taints the data with his own bias.