>>The flipside does the same.

>... supported by historical and scientific evidence, as opposed to unsubstantiated speculation

No need to. The proof is in this post. Look at the folks saying “look who’s there now. It’s obvious these are the same people from then”. The link you provided is attempting to indicate the same thing.

>>Simple. The “so-called semetic folks are not from deep in the
>>Arabian peninsula.

>That still wouldn't explain how they're genetically related to >European Jews, unless your arguing that the "so called semitic >folk" all originate in Europe.

Or the same area. Again Turks are closely related according to the chart. Also there is no data on the other surrounding areas that I pointed out. Pakistan, Afghanistan, and so on.

>>First you did not read Zewari’s post that I referenced to.
>>Secondly it doesn’t have to be a ethnic cleansing that took
>>place. The Arabs could have simply move the indigenous
>>Nubians further south in the country.

>First, that is ethnic cleansing by definition. Second, the Nubians >are indigenous to upper (south) Egypt, not lower (north) Egypt. >Third, I read Zewari's post but I don't see what it has to do with >your argument that "the Arabs of Egypt are not the original >population of Egypt".

I misread what you posted earlier. I took what you were saying about the Nubians that they were of lower Egypt also and was asking what happened to them. Regardless the indigenous peoples of lower Egypt still could have displaced. The point of mentioning Zewari’s post is referencing the multi-ethnicity in places like Saudi Arabia, Basra Iraq.

>You seem to be saying that the Arabs of Egypt are pure Arabs and >didn't intermingle with the native population of Egypt - if that >were the case they'd be basically identical to the Saudis on that >graph, instead of forming their own cluster with the other North >African populations.

>>Look at the Dhafur
>>situation. They Arabs sure do have them on the run.

>Those "Arabs" are of mostly African descent, they're really >only "Arab" by culture... and that is exactly the point. Just >because Arabs conquered a region does not mean they completely >replaced the original population.

You brought up Egypt and as you say just because Arabs conquered a region does not mean they completely replaced the original population as you point out. The Arabs in Egypt did more intermixing with the indigenous people then the others. But look at your chart. It’s a slight of hand, Egyptians, and Tunisians are just as close to those population as the Saudis. The circle around them makes them seem that much farther apart. Now look at the Lem (Lembas) which are marked as other than Jewish. There are studies using the same technology that show they are jewish . see: http://www.freemaninstitute.com/Gallery/lemba.htm provided by Ahkenaten in this post.

>>I don’t know from where. Pakistan area, Afghanistan
>>Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Turkey?? I don’t know, but it is
>>possible. There is not enough data in that chart to refute
>>that.

>There is zero evidence of any kind to even suggest this, let alone >support it as a viable theory

Where did the Persians, Hittites, Assyrians, all come from? These were invading peoples of that area at one time or another.

>>When? During invasions. Generally with invasions com a
>>influx of new peoples to the area. Australia, America ring a
>>bell? Not guaranteed but very probable and possible.

>When did Uzbekistanians invade Europe and the Levant in the early >first millenium AD? This just makes no sense whatsoever. Australia >and America we know from history, not just totally unfounded >speculation.

Come on man. Uzbekistan wasn’t founded until 1930. When I mentioned Uzbekistan I was pointing to the area as a possible place of origin for Arabs and todays Jews.

>>I lean towards the Arabs not originating in the Arabian
>>peninsula.

>Based on what?

Based on what you contend that they are? Because they are there now? That’s like saying jesus was obviously white. Look at the picture. Or taking Y-chromosomes from most the population of the east coast of North America and they are so closely related proves that these people didn’t do a lot of intermixing thus originated in this area well over two thousand years ago.

>>The Saudis are in relation to their location on the map. The
>>Turks are more closely related.

>It's a multidimensional chart; the Saudis are far enough away on >the X-axis to clearly seperate them from the European cluster. But >yeah the Turks are closer.

I’m talking Saudis by chart and their physical location on the map. Turks are close why could these people not be migrants from that area, Asia Minor? Greeks are close to the Ashkenazim again the illusion of a big separation given by the circle. All the chart proves is once in this area the people tent to breed amongst themselves for thousands of years. No more no less.

Not enough to prove definitely but enough to doubt reasonably. Besides I have skin like burnt brass and hair like lambs wool. Not these folks.


----------------------------
"...you cats are undercover like GAY rappers dealing with MYSTERY." -Talib Kweli This means you, from Reflection Eternal

"I don't blame Tiger Woods, but I overstand the mental poison that's even worse than drugs" -nas poison