posted 24 September 2005 12:07 PM            

quote:

---

What's funny about this graph from Sforza is that it was originally designed to show clear genetic distinctions between North/East/West Africans.

Evil Euro:
It does show that, you retarded savage. North Africans are Caucasoid. West/Central/Southern Africans are Negroid. And the people in-between (Sahara Desert and East Africa) are hybrids of the two. That's why they're genetically close. Get your head out of ass, monkey.

---

Yes, that's obvious from the NJ tree

"In summary, the information available on individual groups in Ethiopia and North Africa is fairly limited but sufficient to show that they are all separate from sub-Saharan Africans and that North Africans and East Africans (Ethiopian and neighbors) are also clearly separate." (Cavalli-Sforza, p.174)

It's sort of funny that people of West African descent make Ethiopids and North Africans, such distantly related peoples, their central source of pride.

"...the only North African population not found in the Northern cluster is the Algerians, who join the Eastern cluster; the only East African population not found in the Eastern cluster is the Somali, who join the sub-Saharan cluster."

posted 24 September 2005 12:14 PM            

quote:

---

It's sort of funny that people of West African descent make Ethiopids and North Africans, such distantly related peoples, their central source of pride.

---

What's funny is your use of ad hominems as method for deflecting the point at hand, which is the East African origins of the Tuareg.

Moreover by stating that the Tuareg are distant from West Africans you actually affirm this point with your misguided attempt at insult.

Tuareg genetic relatedness to:
a) Beja 135
b) Sudanese 240
c) Amhara 278
d) Tigri 320
e) Cushitic 352

Your map also shows the same relationships between the East Africans in question **including the Tuareg**:

posted 24 September 2005 01:01 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
What's funny is your use of ad hominems as method for deflecting the point at hand, which is the East African origins of the Tuareg.

---

I didn't deflect the point at hand, in fact, I directly addressed it by quoting Cavalli-Sforza himself after you lied about his views. Again, here's what you said:

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
No, the 135 genetic distance between the Tuareg and Beja is a product of a common origin between the two, according to Cavelli Sforza, and **not** to mixtures with others, who are less related. [a genetic imposibility]

---

Here's what Cavalli-Sforza actually wrote (p.173):

"The Tuareg have dark-skinned slaves, and there is a considerable variation in skin color from the nobility to the servants. It is possible that their genetic similarity to the Beja and Ethiopians is a consequence of their having some black admixture; but Tuareg slaves have usually not been sampled, or were sampled seperately. Although the Tuareg are classified with Berbers on linguistic grounds, it is clear that they show important ethnic distinctions from Berbers and have a developed culture of their own."

posted 24 September 2005 01:53 PM            

quote:

---

Although the Tuareg are classified with Berbers on linguistic grounds, it is clear that they show important ethnic distinctions from Berbers and have a developed culture of their own.

---

I quite agree, and this relates the reality of Berber as a multi-ethnic linguistic group, as stated in the parent article and repeatedly throughout this discussion.

Having said that, Sforza's a fine population geneticist, but get's in trouble when he veers into matters of linguistics or history where he is not particularly well informed, the following speculation....

quote:

---

"It is possible that their genetic similarity to the Beja and Ethiopians is a consequence of their having some black admixture; but Tuareg slaves have usually not been sampled, or were sampled seperately."

---

It does not alter Sforza's findings which genetically link the Tuareg with other East Africans. Which you yourself have shown us, and for all your fanfare, are not actually disputing....at all.

posted 24 September 2005 02:32 PM            

It's a tree showing genetic relationships. It shows the Tuareg are more closely related to all the other East Africans than they are to *any* non-East African group.

It is essentially the same information as presented earlier shown in different form.

It answers this question which you asked earlier about the Tuareg:

quote:

---

Mazigh writes: don't you think you are so far from the eastern berbers who are the point of this topic

---

The answer is no, because the taureg have an Eastern origin, and are so related to all other East Africans [shown] in that graph.

This is significant, as we agree that Berber language itself has an East African origin, and the NW African Berber have East African lineages and so - [their linguistic forebearers] must have come from East Africa.

The Tuareg, and possibly the Siwa, are more closely related to the their East African forebearers than any other Berber Group.

Genetically, and physically....

The Egyptians called neighboring Libya Tehenu. Its inhabitants had dark skin and curly hair. - Ahmed Fakhry, `Siwa Oasis', p. 76.

tehenu - blue-people EW Budge.
tuareg, aka - blue men of the desert

posted 24 September 2005 03:22 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mazigh:
how can that chart be read, please?

---

Look at the distances between any two populations, such as the Beja and the Tuareg, who are very close together - or the Nilotic and Tunesians who are very far apart.

This distance can be related to the point in time in which two populations have a common origin.

For example, if you imagine the Tuareg and Beja as brothers and you trace the common vertix connecting them, ie - the joining point of the V, you would find their common parents. The closer together the populations are, the more recent this would have been. In the case of the Tuareg/Beja, it is about 5,000 years ago, which does correspond nicely to old kingdom references of the Tehenu.

There are 3 groups -> genetic West Africans at the top, genetic East Africans in the middle, and genetic North Africans at the bottom of the tree.

The Tuareg are genetically East African, even though they live today predominently in West Africa. If you trace the connections you can see that all the East Africans and the Tuareg connect to each other much sooner than they connect to *any* other North or West African group.

Notice, North Africans are closer to East Africans and further from West Africans.

There are two reasons for this:

1) North Africans tend to combine East African ancestry [as represented by their linguistic origins for example - or more properly E3b Y chromosome], with West European and West Asian ancestry.

2) All non Africans descend from a small group of East Africans so any non African ancestry in North Africans pulls them away from East Africans and even moreso from West Africans.

Perhaps what is most important is that, none of the above should be viewed in the context of 'race typologies', as even Sforza no longer references population genetics in terms of 'race'.

None of the groups, Berber or non-Berber, are 'pure' nor can any concept of racial purity be inferred from the map.

Every group on that map combines lineages from the other groups to at least a small degree.

Race classifications are the biggest red herrings of all time.

posted 24 September 2005 03:29 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mazigh:

---

Thought Writes:

posted 24 September 2005 04:05 PM            

quote:

---

Salpierre posts:
the only East African population not found in the Eastern cluster is the Somali, who join the sub-Saharan cluster

---

Outdated and obviously/frankly in error when the Somali link to other Sub-saharan groups before they link to Oromo....see Sanchez 2004.

However, it is also hilarious, since the Somali have been sighted as the origin of the E3b1 lineage harbored by the Greeks.

Sanchez, J. J., Borsting, C. Hallenberg, C. Hernandez, A. Morling, N. (2003). Y chromosome analysis of the Somali population suggests the origin of haplogroup E3b1.

Does this mean you are now admitting that a sub-saharan genetic cluster is from whence Greeks get their primary Y chromosome lineage?

If not, I don't see how this helps you.

posted 24 September 2005 05:58 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

Rasol, your response to Mazigh's question was completly accurate. I would just like to add that the graph is incomplete in that some Bantus carry substantial frequencies of upstream R1*, linking them with Eurasians. Some Berbers carry substantial mtDNA lineages from West Africa and some Nilo-Saharans, Bantus and Khosian speakers carry substantial lineages of E3b. There are few linear charts that can totally capture the picture of Africa bio-divesity.

---

Correct. A full and proper genetic chart of Africa's people, which has yet to be created, will examine each ethnic group individually, and will show an unbroken cline in genetic distances from East to West Africa with Red sea groups linked with East central Chadic groups like the Teda, in turn linked to West Central Haratin and West Africans like the Fulani and Wolof.

Salpierre hopes that Africa's genetic diversity can be used to obscure the reality of African bloodlines and genes in Europeans.

But not for knowledgeable person it won't.

Africa has most of genetic diversity in the world. [this is true even within individual ethnic groups]

posted 25 September 2005 06:24 AM            

tunesia, libya and egypt are just political beings, and they have nothing to do with the genetical analyses, since egypt- as example- is inhabited by arabs, nubians, berbers, descendensts of the ancient egyptians..., so what means "egypt" .... in this sense ?
we also see that bedouin is style of life that has nothing to do with genetic analyses, so, what means that in this sense ?
the owner of that map use "berber" as independent subject in that map among "egypt" "tunesia"..., while the berber might be "libyan" "tunesian" "egyptian"..., so how have i to understand it?

the owner of that map/chart use the term berber, while the genes of the berbers deffer of region to another one. so, how can i trust it ?

in the middle of the chart/map we find: beja, tuareg...

the distance between the berbers and the twareg are less close that it is between "beja" and "berber". while the twareg are berbers, so, what does he mean ?

posted 25 September 2005 06:50 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Salpierre:

Here's what Cavalli-Sforza actually wrote (p.173):

"The Tuareg have dark-skinned slaves, and there is a considerable variation in skin color from the nobility to the servants. It is possible that their genetic similarity to the Beja and Ethiopians is a consequence of their having some black admixture; but Tuareg slaves have usually not been sampled, or were sampled seperately. Although the Tuareg are classified with Berbers on linguistic grounds, it is clear that they show important ethnic distinctions from Berbers and have a developed culture of their own."

---

posted 25 September 2005 06:57 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro: Of course people throughout the Sahara are Caucasoid-Negroid hybrids.

---

That is a *complete distortion* of the above quote. Lousy work Erroneous, as usual.

posted 25 September 2005 11:09 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mazigh:
hi thanks for the answers/explanation,
i still can't understand that chart, since it seems to be a chaos [in my meaning]. we see that the north africans are devided -according to the map above- into five elemenets/groups:
-tunesia -libya -egypt -bedouin -berber.

tunesia, libya and egypt are just political beings, and they have nothing to do with the genetical analyses,

---

You are right, and so it's important to keep in mind that not all North, East or West Africans are sampled, and the groupings are inconsistant - some by ethnicity, some by nationality.

quote:

---

since egypt- as example- is inhabited by arabs, nubians, berbers, descendensts of the ancient egyptians..., so what means "egypt" .... in this sense ?

---

Your reservation here is absolutely justified.

quote:

---

the owner of that map use "berber" as independent subject in that map among "egypt" "tunesia"..., while the berber might be "libyan" "tunesian" "egyptian"..., so how have i to understand it?

---

I will post more information about Sforza's data sampling strategy, but the abriged volume of Sforza's work also does not contain all the information within his several thousand page hardcover.

Good questions and valid observations though, Mazigh.

posted 25 September 2005 11:20 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Salpierre:
Yes, that's obvious from the NJ tree

It's sort of funny that people of West African descent make Ethiopids and North Africans, such distantly related peoples, their central source of pride.

---

It's sort of funny that people of Southern European descent make Ethiopids and North Africans, such distantly related peoples, the same race as southern Europeans.

posted 25 September 2005 11:28 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Salpierre:
Here's what Cavalli-Sforza actually wrote (p.173):

"The Tuareg have dark-skinned slaves, and there is a considerable variation in skin color from the nobility to the servants. [b]It is possible that their genetic similarity to the Beja and Ethiopians is a consequence of their having some black admixture; but Tuareg slaves have usually not been sampled, or were sampled seperately. Although the Tuareg are classified with Berbers on linguistic grounds, it is clear that they show important ethnic distinctions from Berbers and have a developed culture of their own."[/B]

---

posted 25 September 2005 02:43 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charlie_Bass:

It's sort of funny that people of Southern European descent make Ethiopids and North Africans, such distantly related peoples, the same race as southern Europeans.

---

Hey, it is interesting that northern Europeans and outlier Meds. are put into the same camp or "race", given greater genetic distances between lineages they carry and obvious physical distinctions between them [a point made in Thought's thread], while Africans who share the far much closer PN2-derived lineages, are divided into almost different "species" by grotesque distorters and frauds!

posted 25 September 2005 03:03 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charlie_Bass:

Berbers are going to vary in genetic studies according which Tuareg group is studied.

---

Thought Writes:

Great point C.B., Berber is a language group, not a "Race". Berbers do indeed vary based upon lineage...

Thought Posts:

Female gene pools of Berber and Arab neighboring communities in central Tunisia: microstructure of mtDNA variation in North Africa.

Hum Biol. 2005 Feb;77(1):61-70

Cherni et al.

"North African populations are considered genetically closer to Eurasians than to sub-Saharans. However, they display a considerably high mtDNA heterogeneity among them, namely in the frequencies of the U6, East African, and sub-Saharan haplogroups. In this study, we describe and compare the female gene pools of two neighboring Tunisian populations, Kesra (Berber) and Zriba (non-Berber), which have contrasting historical backgrounds. Both populations presented lower diversity values than those observed for other North African populations, and they were the only populations not showing significant negative Fu's F(S) values. Kesra displayed a much higher proportion of typical sub-Saharan haplotypes (49%, including 4.2% of M1 haplogroup) than Zriba (8%). With respect to U6 sequences, frequencies were low (2% in Kesra and 8% in Zriba), and all belonged to the subhaplogroup U6a. An analysis of these data in the context of North Africa reveals that the emerging picture is complex, because Zriba would match the profile of a Berber Moroccan population, whereas Kesra, which shows twice the frequency of sub-Saharan lineages normally observed in northern coastal populations, would match a western Saharan population except for the low U6 frequency. The North African patchy mtDNA landscape has no parallel in other regions of the world and increasing the number of sampled populations has not been accompanied by any substantial increase in our understanding of its phylogeography. Available data up to now rely on sampling small, scattered populations, although they are carefully characterized in terms of their ethnic, linguistic, and historical backgrounds. It is therefore doubtful that this picture truly represents the complex historical demography of the region rather than being just the result of the type of samplings performed so far."

posted 26 September 2005 06:25 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charlie_Bass:
Berbers are going to vary in genetic studies according which Tuareg group is studied.

---

Yes, the farther south you go, the more they're admixed with Negroes.

Substantially Berber:

Middle Atlas - 71% E-M81
Kabyle - 48% E-M81

Marginally Berber:

Tuareg (Mali) - 30% E-M81

Essentially non-Berber:

Tuareg (Niger) - 9% E-M81

posted 26 September 2005 07:13 AM            

quote:

---

Thought writes: Great point C.B., Berber is a language group, not a "Race".

---

posted 26 September 2005 07:18 AM            

quote:

---

Thought writes: Berbers do indeed vary based upon lineage...

---

Rando et al.
1998
"The majority of maternal ancestors of the NW African Berbers must have COME FROM EUROPE and the Near East SINCE the Neolithic."

posted 26 September 2005 12:03 PM            

serious question so don't patronize me......

I read (sorry can't quote where or when)that there is more and has been more, since we began to walk upright, genetic variation amongst so called negroes of "sub saharan(oh how it mains me to write that) Africa than in the whole world combined and that any single african (of all the ridiculous classifications europeans give them) would be more likely to have a similar genetic makeup to someone in europe or asia than in africa because it is so genetically diverse
help me out ......let me know if that is an oversimplification......
....if that is the case, would not there be very extinuating circumstances involving migration and mixing of so called races.

can you show a different example of this level of genetic similarity and variation amongst so called caucasians......

how about a coastal european nation with a high volume of traffic and or foreigners from africa. This is ofcourse after the land has been colonized for hundreds of years by said africans. keep in mind that europeans are to have left europe(western asia) to populate most of the world africa specifically.....then try to convince the europeans that they are actually africans with very little genetic similarity to people in europe (who they were genetically dissimilar from to begin with-while phenotypically similar).....

so we speak about ethiopians to prove that they are genetically dissimilar to other africans for the purpose of "What"? you assume africans want compensation for the injuries done to our collective egos...
we like abused children while being abused were made to think that our abuse was the result of our color who we are as people - and not the result of the insane people doing the abuse.
when one(in this case collectively) is abused often those doing the abuse seek to convince us that our pain is the result of being and thinking differently from them. and if we talked like them looked like them and thought like them, we would not suffer......it is only our differentness our skin color and emotion causing the problem......not their psychopathology and their madness and their illness

GENETIC INFERIORITY COMPLEX

it is at the root of all arguments about egypt and africa which africans do not have have never had with other africans and will never have with other africans.
these people Non black negrophobes(define bantu and or negro in an absolute academic sense - you can't because it's bullshit are using defense mechanism to reduce the pain of their egos and while your pain relief may sooth you but the truth at the root of your pain will ultimately destroy your arguments

posted 26 September 2005 12:32 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mazigh:
who were the white ethiopians who were know to the greeks ?

---

Interesting question. The term "Leuko-aethiopes" or 'white ethiopians' was used to describe a people in North Africa, I believe somewhere in the vicinity of the Magreb.

The confusion comes in the term "Ethiopian" which is often mistaken for the modern-day country of Ethiopia. However, the designation of 'ethiopia' as used by the ancient Greeks was a reference to all lands of Africa in general (including Egypt)! So the term 'Leuko-aethiopes' essentially means 'white Africans', and these people are no doubt the ancestors of the white Berbers you speak in so high regard Mazigh!!

posted 26 September 2005 12:43 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
...Rasol knows this. He just doesn't like it, so he lies, evades and distorts. Pathetic.

---

ROTFLMAOH

This has got to be the stupidest yet most hilarious joke in a while! Lying-Distorting-Euro accusing honest members like Rasol of behaving like him!!!

posted 26 September 2005 12:48 PM            

quote:

---

read (sorry can't quote where or when)that there is more and has been more, since we began to walk upright, genetic variation amongst so called negroes of "sub saharan(oh how it pains me to write that) Africa than in the whole world combined and that any single african (of all the ridiculous classifications europeans give them) would be more likely to have a similar genetic makeup to someone in europe or asia than in africa because it is so genetically diverse
help me out ......let me know if that is an oversimplification......

---

The basic idea is correct.

What is most helpful is to understand why.

genome - an organism's genetic material or total genetic content.

Modern man originated in Africa, and lived in Africa and only in Africa for 10's of thousands of years.

This means the human genome was for much of human history - 100% African. [S. Wells, tishkoff]

About 50 thousand years ago, a small group of humans migrated out of Africa.

These humans had a fraction of the genetic diversity that was found in East Africa at that time. [tishkoff]

At this time the human genome would have been 99.9% African. Meaning - all the genetic material found in Africa, which would have included most the genetic material found in the early non Africans + whatever tiny fraction of unique non-African genes that would have been found only in the small,non African founder population.

Genetically, the most pristine relation to early non Africans are the Andaman Islanders who live off the coast of South Asia.

These Black Asians migrated out of Africa, and have remained largely isolated ever since. [Macaulay]

Once non Africans migrate Out of Africa they begin to accumulate their own genetic uniqueness....however, so does Africa continue to accumulate genetic uniqueness and from a far larger population base with far more diverse and ancient lineages.

A good example of the above is th Pn2 clade.

This is a genetic lineage which originated in Ethiopia after Non Africans migrated out and it is the main lineage carried by the majority of Africans today - including modern Upper Egyptians.

Genetically they Africans - with a common bloodline with virtually all other indigenous Africans.

Therefore genetics has played a major role in proving that the ancient Egyptians were primarily native Africans, and not Eurasian emigrees'.

Back to genetic diversity:

During much of the paleolithic Africa, especially Ethiopia was the most populous part of the world, only during post Neolithic era {recently} did Eurasian populations begin to expand.

Because this expansion is recent, it has only added to genetic diversity to a somewhat limited degree.

The end result is even today, when Africa has only a fraction of the population, it has the overwhelming majority of the worlds genetic diversity.

Hope this helps.

posted 26 September 2005 12:50 PM            

quote:

---

read (sorry can't quote where or when)that there is more and has been more, since we began to walk upright, genetic variation amongst so called negroes of "sub saharan(oh how it pains me to write that) Africa than in the whole world combined and that any single african (of all the ridiculous classifications europeans give them) would be more likely to have a similar genetic makeup to someone in europe or asia than in africa because it is so genetically diverse
help me out ......let me know if that is an oversimplification......

---

The basic idea is correct.

What is most helpful is to understand why.

genome - an organism's genetic material or total genetic content.

Modern man originated in Africa, and lived in Africa and only in Africa for 10's of thousands of years.

This means the human genome was for much of human history - 100% African. [S. Wells, tishkoff]

About 50 thousand years ago, a small group of humans migrated out of Africa.

These humans had a fraction of the genetic diversity that was found in East Africa at that time. [tishkoff]

At this time the human genome would have been 99.9% African. Meaning - all the genetic material found in Africa, which would have included most the genetic material found in the early non Africans.

Whatever tiny fraction of unique non-African genes that would have been found only in the small,non African founder population, would make up the other .1%.

Genetically, the most pristine relation to early non Africans are the Andaman Islanders who live off the coast of South Asia.

These Black Asians migrated out of Africa, and have remained largely isolated ever since. [Macaulay]

Once non Africans migrate Out of Africa they begin to accumulate their own genetic uniqueness....however, so does Africa continue to accumulate genetic uniqueness and from a far larger population base with far more diverse and ancient lineages.

A good example of the above is the Pn2 clade.

This is a genetic lineage or bloodline which originated in Ethiopia after Non Africans migrated out and it is the main lineage carried by the majority of Africans today - including modern Upper Egyptians, as well as East West and South Africans, in addition to Berber groups. PN2 is a common native African lineage.

Therefore genetics has played a major role in proving that the ancient Egyptians were primarily native Africans, and not Eurasian emigrees'.

Back to genetic diversity:

During much of the paleolithic Africa, especially Ethiopia was the most populous part of the world, only during Neolithic era {recently} did Eurasian populations begin to expand and overtake Africans - numerically.

Because this expansion is recent, it has only added to genetic diversity to a somewhat limited degree.

The end result is even today, when Africa has only a fraction of the population, it has the overwhelming majority of the worlds genetic diversity.

Hope this helps.

posted 26 September 2005 12:52 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Salpierre:
...It's sort of funny that people of West African descent make Ethiopids and North Africans, such distantly related peoples, their central source of pride.

---

quote:

---

Charlie responds: It's sort of funny that people of Southern European descent make Ethiopids and North Africans, such distantly related peoples, the same race as southern Europeans.

---

quote:

---

and Supercar responds: Hey, it is interesting that northern Europeans and outlier Meds. are put into the same camp or "race", given greater genetic distances between lineages they carry and obvious physical distinctions between them [a point made in Thought's thread], while Africans who share the far much closer PN2-derived lineages, are divided into almost different "species" by grotesque distorters and frauds!

---

Yes and keeping in mind that not only blacks of East and North Africa were/(some cases) still are classified as "caucasoid", but even groups around Asia to the Pacific have been at one time classified as having "caucasoid" ancestry!!

LOL Sorry Salpierre but the funny joke is on YOU!

posted 26 September 2005 01:07 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

During much of the paleolithic Africa, especially Ethiopia was the most populous part of the world, only during post Neolithic era {recently} did Eurasian populations begin to expand.

Because this expansion is recent, it has only added to genetic diversity to a somewhat limited degree.

The end result is even today, when Africa has only a fraction of the population, it has the overwhelming majority of the worlds genetic diversity.

---

Thought Posts:

Human Genetics (online first)

Genetic variability in a genomic region with long-range linkage disequilibrium reveals traces of a bottleneck in the history of the European population

Claudia Schmegner et al.

"Together, the data lead to a model that the recent European population went through a bottleneck during the last 150,000 years of its history. Regarding the given timeframe, this bottleneck could either reflect a speciation event which led to the anatomically modern human (AMH), .....

***or a severe reduction of the population size during the emigration of AMHs out of Africa or the immigration into Europe.*****..."

posted 26 September 2005 01:19 PM            

Identical twins borne of a San and Swede have a genetic distance of Zero - between them.

posted 26 September 2005 05:06 PM            

I don't think it's unusual for blacks to take pride in knowing that no natural or unnatural barriers existed between blacks of alkebulan........ most of the pseudo pride we feel comes from being challenged by the academic world to show that any blacks anywhere had done anything significant......we like dummies take the bait........but if a few who didn't previously have interest now do sobeit.