posted
Brace the expert on the subjecthas always maintained that Niger-Congo populations are biologically distinct from all other world populations, not to mention that according to Fig. 4 of Brace's 2005 study, prehistoric and recent Northeast African populations group a considerable distance away from the Niger-Congo population:
When the samples used in Fig. 1 are compared by the use of canonical variate plots as in Fig. 2, the separateness of the Niger-Congo speakers is again quite clear. Interestingly enough, however, the small Natufian sample falls between the Niger-Congo group and the other samples used. Fig. 2 shows the plot produced by the first two canonical variates, but the same thing happens when canonical variates 1 and 3 (not shown here) are used. This placement suggests that there may have been a Sub-Saharan African element in the make-up of the Natufians (the putative ancestors of the subsequent Neolithic), although in this particular test there is no such evident presence in the North African or Egyptian samples. As shown in Fig. 1, the Somalis and the Egyptian Bronze Age sample from Naqada may also have a hint of a Sub-Saharan African component. That was not borne out in the canonical variate plot (Fig. 2), and there was no evidence of such an involvement in the Algerian Neolithic (Gambetta) sample.
Hint!
All of the most recent genetic research clearly demonstrates that the Egyptians are an indigenous African people who are related genetically to other North Africans and European Mediterraneans, but are absolutely not related to sub-Saharan Negroids. According to Bosch et. al. (1997):
After an intensive bibliographic search, we compiled all the available data on allele frequencies for classical genetic polymorphisms referring to North African populations and synthesized the data in an attempt to reconstruct the populations' demographic history using two complementary methods: (1) principal components analysis and (2) genetic distances represented by neighbor-joining trees. In both analyses the main feature of the genetic landscape in northern Africa is an east-west pattern of variation pointing to the differentiation between the Berber and Arab population groups of the northwest and the populations of Libya and Egypt. Moreover, Libya and Egypt show the smallest genetic distances with the European populations, including the Iberian Peninsula. The most plausible interpretation of these results is that, although demic diffusion during the Neolithic could explain the genetic similarity between northeast Africa and Europe by a parallel process of gene flow from the Near East, a Mesolithic (or older) differentiation of the populations in the northwestern regions with later limited gene flow is needed to understand the genetic picture. The most isolated groups (Mauritanians, Tuaregs, and south Algerian Berbers) were the most differentiated and, although no clear structure can be discerned among the different Arab- and Berber-speaking groups, Arab speakers as a whole are closer to Egyptians and Libyans. By contrast, the genetic contribution of sub-Saharan Africa appears to be small .Posts: 17 | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pointless proclaimations...see numerous threads started by equally pointless trolls like yourself...next you are going to pretend to be Egyptian who care sooo much about Afrocentrxs stealing your history...begone Dirk,abaza and now your latest manifistation unreal one.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: Pointless proclaimations...see numerous threads started by equally pointless trolls like yourself...next you are going to pretend to be Egyptian who care sooo much about Afrocentrxs stealing your history...begone Dirk,abaza and now your latest manifistation unreal one.
He is a troll because he is kicking your ignorant Jamaican ass? let me guess, he is going to be racist pretty soon, right? Posts: 380 | From: USA | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well watch him...soon enough he gonna come up Afro-centrxs with low selfesteem...and blah blah blah. And ass kicking...sh!!!t I got enough skills to put that cartalage in his nose straight into his brain causing instant "DEATH" or twist his head a full 360 degrees so he can where he just came from. OR I can just ask him...like I have always done what is tropical body plans and did ancient Kemities have them...where was Gods Land and land of the ancestors located and on and on..but get no reply. just like I ask you and Simpleton Girl.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Originally posted by realone: Brace the expert on the subjecthas always maintained that Niger-Congo populations are biologically distinct from all other world populations, not to mention that according to Fig. 4 of Brace's 2005 study, prehistoric and recent Northeast African populations group a considerable distance away from the Niger-Congo population:
When the samples used in Fig. 1 are compared by the use of canonical variate plots as in Fig. 2, the separateness of the Niger-Congo speakers is again quite clear. Interestingly enough, however, the small Natufian sample falls between the Niger-Congo group and the other samples used. Fig. 2 shows the plot produced by the first two canonical variates, but the same thing happens when canonical variates 1 and 3 (not shown here) are used. This placement suggests that there may have been a Sub-Saharan African element in the make-up of the Natufians (the putative ancestors of the subsequent Neolithic), although in this particular test there is no such evident presence in the North African or Egyptian samples. As shown in Fig. 1, the Somalis and the Egyptian Bronze Age sample from Naqada may also have a hint of a Sub-Saharan African component. That was not borne out in the canonical variate plot (Fig. 2), and there was no evidence of such an involvement in the Algerian Neolithic (Gambetta) sample.
-----------------
yawn. All this has already been dealt with an length on ES. Your argument simply recycles the old 'true negro' model, using Niger-COngos as the stereotypial strawman. Niger-Congo speakers are but one group of black Africans, who, gasp, do not all look alike. Brace 2005 shows that in any event, Egyptians group first with other Africans before Europeans or Middle Easterners. Second, Brace 2005 shows that early peoplein Europe looked like Africans, so studies alleging mass Caucasoid influxes, invasions whatever based on older Euros are really comparing African looking people in Europe to Africans in Africa. Whichever way you slice it- the primary grouping is Africans. The reason European populations appear to group with Egyptians is that OLDER Euros are being used, who as Brace notes, looked like Africans to begin with.. Sorry ..
And as for Brace 1993, various aspects have already been thoroughly debunked:
Limb proportion studies also show that no matter how you slice it, ancient or modern, Egyptians link closer with dark-skinned tropically adapted Africans, than whites. People can run all the percentages they want- modern or ancient- doesn't make a bit of difference in terms of limb proportions- its the tropically adapted people that bear the closest resemblance.
All of the most recent genetic research clearly demonstrates that the Egyptians are an indigenous African people who are related genetically to other North Africans and European Mediterraneans, but are absolutely not related to sub-Saharan Negroids. According to Bosch et. al. (1997):
After an intensive bibliographic search, we compiled all the available data on allele frequencies for classical genetic polymorphisms referring to North African populations and synthesized the data in an attempt to reconstruct the populations' demographic history using two complementary methods: (1) principal components analysis and (2) genetic distances represented by neighbor-joining trees. In both analyses the main feature of the genetic landscape in northern Africa is an east-west pattern of variation pointing to the differentiation between the Berber and Arab population groups of the northwest and the populations of Libya and Egypt. Moreover, Libya and Egypt show the smallest genetic distances with the European populations, including the Iberian Peninsula. The most plausible interpretation of these results is that, although demic diffusion during the Neolithic could explain the genetic similarity between northeast Africa and Europe by a parallel process of gene flow from the Near East, a Mesolithic (or older) differentiation of the populations in the northwestern regions with later limited gene flow is needed to understand the genetic picture. The most isolated groups (Mauritanians, Tuaregs, and south Algerian Berbers) were the most differentiated and, although no clear structure can be discerned among the different Arab- and Berber-speaking groups, Arab speakers as a whole are closer to Egyptians and Libyans. By contrast, the genetic contribution of sub-Saharan Africa appears to be small .
lol.. Bosch's study selectively sampled small bits of North Africa, then compared that to distant "sub-Saharan" populations- another typical example of skewed sampling. They were careful to exclude large parts of the Saharan zone incorporating Mali, Chad, Niger and the Sudan to obtain the "results" they wanted. This sort of selective manipulation of samples to generate a non-representative picture is seen also in Poloni, Hammer and Cavalli-Sofrza. Been there... seen that already... What else you got?
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Who is proclaming a Niger-Congo origin of the ancient egyptians?
Mr. or Ms. Realone can u explain what u mean by black egypt, and if u are arguing that there was no black egypt than u are proclaming there was a white egypt or brown egypt how about green egypt i dont understand what u mean by black egypt is a afrocentric lie.
Its funny for some one who brings up charts and genetic research papers still thinking in a box u still think that africa is homogenous full of dark africans with broad noses typical african sterotypes.
What u need to understand realone what ever that look u claim the ancient egyptians had that was not "black african" or "Niger-Congo" or what ever u call it originated in AFRICA. If Egypt was anything Other than AFRICAN it would not be ANCient
Posts: 410 | From: Al-Ard | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
People,people,people...It's our old Nonfriend and hater Dirk8 aka Abaza of a thousand names...how do I know what I know ??? no one else shows up out of the blue makes three consecutive threads talking about Afro this and Afro that...a guarnteed time waster.treat him like the intellectual leper that he is. ps don't say I didn't warn-yall. Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
You'll notice in Brace's chart that the closet modern population to the Ancient Egyptians are the Somali. A Black African people. Brace notes a morphological inconsistency between Neolithic and modern Europeans. That's the whole point of the study! His comment about a "hint" of Sub-Saharan component is in reference to the relationship between Naqadan and Niger-Congo Africans, but as has been noted by anthropologists such as Keita numerous times West Africans are not the only Sub-Saharan Africans nor is the Broad morphology of West Africans characteristic of any "true" African type:
In general there is also a need to recognize the range of natural variability. This can be determined by the fossil and subfossil record. The time-depth of variation is important in establishing biogeographical units. Saharo-tropical variant (or Africoid), as used here, refers to African populations which have the range of currently observable characteristics which can be traced back to the early holocene or earlier in Saharo-tropical Africa. Archeology helps in the validation by indicating if there was population intrusion from outside.- Keita (1993)
One approach, although limited, with which to explore the possibility of migration in earlier times, is through analysis of craniometric affinities. Previous studies have not specifically addressed the immigration of farmers from Europe into the NileValley. However, Brace et al. (1993) find that a series of upper Egyptian/Nubian epipalaeolithic crania affiliate by cluster analysis with groups they designate “sub-Saharan African” or just simply “African” (from which they incorrectly exclude the Maghreb, Sudan, and the Horn of Africa), whereas post-Badarian southern predynastic and a late dynastic northern series (called “E” or Gizeh) cluster together, and secondarily with Europeans. In the primary cluster with the Egyptian groups are also remains representing populations from the ancient Sudan and recent Somalia. Brace et al. (1993) seemingly interpret these results as indicating a population relationship from Scandinavia to the Horn of Africa, although the mechanism for this is not clearly stated; they also state that the Egyptians had no relationship with sub-Saharan Africans, a group that they nearly treat (incorrectly) as monolithic, although sometimes seemingly including Somalia, which directly undermines aspects of their claims. Sub-Saharan Africa does not define/delimit authentic Africanity.- Keita (2005)
Additionally while there is wide variation in craniofacial morphology across Africa the skeletons of tropical Africans differ notably from cold-adapted Eurasians. The Ancient Egyptians were found to have tropical body plans confirming the biogeographic origin of their ancestors and destroying the myth that their ancestors migrated to the Nile Valley from Eurasia:
Scientists have been studying remains from the Egyptian Nile Valley for years. Analysis of crania is the traditional approach to assessing ancient population origins, relationships, and diversity. In studies based on anatomical traits and measurements of crania, similarities have been found between Nile Valley crania from 30,000, 20,000 and 12,000 years ago and various African remains from more recent times (see Thoma 1984; Brauer and Rimbach 1990; Angel and Kelley 1986; Keita 1993). Studies of crania from southern predynastic Egypt, from the formative period (4000-3100 B.C.), show them usually to be more similar to the crania of ancient Nubians, Kushites, Saharans, or modern groups from the Horn of Africa than to those of dynastic northern Egyptians or ancient or modern southern Europeans.
Another source of skeletal data is limb proportions, which generally vary with different climatic belts. In general, the early Nile Valley remains have the proportions of more tropical populations, which is noteworthy since Egypt is not in the tropics. This suggests that the Egyptian Nile Valley was not primarily settled by cold-adapted peoples, such as Europeans. - Keita
The raw values in Table 6 suggest that Egyptians had the “super-Negroid” body plan described by Robins (1983). The values for the brachial and crural indices show that the distal segments of each limb are longer relative to the proximal segments than in many “African” populations (data from Aiello and Dean, 1990). This pattern is supported by Figure 7 (a plot of population mean femoral and tibial lengths; data from Ruff, 1994), which indicates that the Egyptians generally have tropical body plans. Of the Egyptian samples, only the Badarian and Early Dynastic period populations have shorter tibiae than predicted from femoral length. Despite these differences, all samples lie relatively clustered together as compared to the other populations. - Zakrzewski (2003)
So it should be crystal clear to any objective researcher that the skeletal evidence indicates that the Ancient Egyptians were Black Africans (Africoid). Their crania overlap with tropical East Africans and their limb ratios indicate tropical African affinity. Brace himself has acknowledged in email correspondence that the Elongated morphology ascribed to narrow-nosed and narrow-faced Africans by Jean Hiernaux is a valid biological concept. His data do not debunk the research of Keita on Ancient Egyptian crania his models of classification were simply conceptually flawed.
Posts: 647 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hahaha, the same old pictures over and over and over again!! stupid losers!!
-------------------- "Behind every great fortune,there is a crime!" Charlie "Lucky" Luciano Posts: 380 | From: USA | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's amazing that everyone is "Troll" and "RACIST" just because they thought you guys have a little bit of brains left to actually have a discussion with you!! he was called "Troll" right off the bat because he didn't agree with your theory considering the norm is to agree with the myth you guys are creating?!!
Posts: 380 | From: USA | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't call him a troll or a racist. I addressed the material he put fourth. I called YOU a cheerleader and a troll for your behavior.
Some posters are weary of new posters who pop up and make threads like this. We did have a notorious troll here named Abaza who was repeatedly banned for trolling. Abaza would make random hit and run threads making grandiose proclamations and never back up his arguments.
I tend to assume good faith in posters until they give me a reason not to.
Posts: 647 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Morpheus: I didn't call him a troll or a racist. I addressed the material he put fourth. I called YOU a cheerleader and a troll for your behavior.
Some posters are weary of new posters who pop up and make threads like this. We did have a notorious troll here named Abaza who was repeatedly banned for trolling. Abaza would make random hit and run threads making grandiose proclamations and never back up his arguments.
I tend to assume good faith in posters until they give me a reason not to.
I didn't call you or your buddies cheerleaders when you were coming at my posts like flies over sh!t, did i? Posts: 380 | From: USA | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
A cheerleader, in case you didn't know, is someone who stands on the sidelines and roots for a team.
Responding to you doesn't make anyone a cheerleader.
Making comments in support of this thread without actually participating in the discussion does.
Posts: 647 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
wish these guys will be a little more original. They are so idiotic and like pest.
Their first post is always the same BS.
Got to respect E3b1c1(?) at least his strategy had an "original" touch.
Where is the semi-professor TAP.
Osirion strategy was pretty good too with E not being African since very little DE was found in Africa. Nice try. Problem with that is > 70% of Africans are E and their downstream lineage. Plus E*/E3a/E3b is greater than 20kyo. So it doesn't matter. Plus Melanisians are not E but M(?). Goes to show there is very realtionship between HG and Phenotype. The DICKS can't get that thorugh their heads.
Come on Luciano/Simple girl no more pictures. They have long been played out. Intelligent people need more than pictures and name calling. In case you haven't realize it. We don't react to the N word as before.
And most of us love being black. At least I do. Wish I could lose a few pounds though. 6-1 and 215lb is a little too big.
quote:Originally posted by Morpheus:
Some posters are weary of new posters who pop up and make threads like this.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
LOL not only that, speaking of "Natufian" : What kind of Cranial pattern do you think is IN BETWEEN that of someone from Angola (Niger Congo) and someone from Somalia (Recent North East Africa)?
And didnt Lucotte et al. find The "West African/True Negro/Niger Congo/Bantu GENE" you love to hate: E3a - IN THE NILE VALLEY:
Upper Egypt 27.3% Lower Nubia 39.1%
They tested positive for more of the "Bantu gene" than any ALL OTHER NON AFRICAN Y-Chromosome lineages COMBINED!
FUTHERMORE: Lets see what happens when a study with NO BIAS as its not EVEN ABOUT EGYPT NOR AFRICA clusters worldwide populations using the SAME similar Africans samples we are used to: Egypt Dogon, Teita, Zulu, Bushman:
Taken from the study: Cranial morphology of early Americans from Lagoa Santa, Brazil.
In ALL FOR PLOTS Egypt Clusters FIRST with Sub Saharan Africans or Black Aboriginal groups who IN TURN ALSO cluster with Sub Saharan Africans.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Morpheus: A cheerleader, in case you didn't know, is someone who stands on the sidelines and roots for a team.
Responding to you doesn't make anyone a cheerleader.
Making comments in support of this thread without actually participating in the discussion does.
I'm glad you're explaining to me what cheerleaders are!! Do you have a job by any chance?!!!!!
Posts: 380 | From: USA | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Xyyman...you are too funny,But for real though I called this Mf-out as he is not even trying to hide that he is the same ol MF...it was waaay tooo easy.
btw @ 6-1 215...pump some irons for 6-month if you don't have a gland problem you should have great results...just don't be a slacker and use the holydays as excuse not to gym-out. Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
BLACK EGYPT IS IMPOSSIBLE!! CT is the ancestral haplogroup from which DE eventually diverged, but CT, CF, and C have never been detected in Africa, with these haplogroups only reaching their highest frequencies and greatest diversity in Asia. How could CT be ancestral to DE, but CT/CF/C be completely absent from the continent of Africa? Therefore, it should be obvious that E is of Asian origin. Similarly, D is much older than E and is geographically restricted only to Asia; it is impossible that DE originated in Africa, because D has never been detected in Africa; on the other hand, Asia has the greatest amount of YAP(+) diversity, with all three forms of YAP(+) being present, meaning that Asia is the likely birthplace of DE.
Now let's look at what Underhill et. al. said about the conditions necessary for an Asian origin of YAP(+) with the full quotation before us, from his 2001 paper: One prediction of this model is that the ancestral state of this lineage, which would be YAP(+) but ancestral for both the eastern (M174C) and western (M96C) sublineages , should be found in the Asian population(s) where the insertion originally occurred.
Then there was this discovery made by Shi et. al. in 2008, sometime after the Underhill et. al. paper:
In surprise, we observed two DE* in the Tibetan samples, which was previously only observed in Africa (Nigerians), but not in other world populations.
North eastern Africans share the same Eurasian mtDNA/Y-DNA sequences (such as Y-DNA Hg J and T, mtDNA Hg M and U) with North Africans and other white Mediterraneans, much of which dates from long after the OOA migration, up until the Neolithic period. The fact that North eastern Africans are more related to Caucasoids than Negroids clearly demonstrates that they belong to the Caucasoid race. Even Hanihara et. al. (2003) admits that sub-Saharan African populations are biologically distinct from all other populations including Egyptians.
Posts: 17 | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
decade past college age.. . . was in good shape while in school though.
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi:
btw @ 6-1 215...pump some irons for 6-month if you don't have a gland problem you should have great results...just don't be a slacker and use the holydays as excuse not to gym-out.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thread starter brought up a point a previously brought to you all's attention. Yes the Northeast Africans are most closely related to Northeast Africans (Somalians Ethiopians) but study after study have confirmed that they are most closely related to non Africans. Then they throw in the "PN2 clade" as evidence of African genetic unity never minding the fact that E3b is found in non Africans, SO would that make them essentially as related to other Africans as Northeast Africans are. The PN2 clade is just one genetic marker any way. Which proves how flimsy the claim on a "Black" or "African" Egypt really is. Not all indigneous Africans are Negroid (northeast Africans).
Posts: 219 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by White Nord: The thread starter brought up a point a previously brought to you all's attention. Yes the Northeast Africans are most closely related to Northeast Africans (Somalians Ethiopians) but study after study have confirmed that they are most closely related to non Africans. Then they throw in the "PN2 clade" as evidence of African genetic unity never minding the fact that E3b is found in non Africans, SO would that make them essentially as related to other Africans as Northeast Africans are. The PN2 clade is just one genetic marker any way. Which proves how flimsy the claim on a "Black" or "African" Egypt really is. Not all indigneous Africans are Negroid (northeast Africans).
Tropical Northeast Africans are indigenious. Many of the populations have un-derived lineages upwards to 80-90% reflecting their indigenious genetic continuity and variation. They are not Negroid-Caucasoid hybrids.
An earlier generation of anthropologists tried to explain face form in the Horn of Africa as the result of admixture from hypothetical “wandering Caucasoids,” (Adams, 1967, 1979; MacGaffey, 1966; Seligman, 1913, 1915, 1934), but that explanation founders on the paradox of why that supposedly potent “Caucasoid” people contributed a dominant quantity of genes for nose and face form but none for skin color or limb proportions. It makes far better sense to regard the adaptively significant features seen in the Horn of Africa as solely an in situ response on the part of separate adaptive traits to the selective forces present in the hot dry tropics of eastern Africa. From the observation that 12,000 years was not a long enough period of time to produce any noticeable variation in pigment by latitude in the New World and that 50,000 years has been barely long enough to produce the beginnings of a gradation in Australia (Brace, 1993a), one would have to argue that the inhabitants of the Upper Nile and the East Horn of Africa have been equatorial for many tens of thousands of years.- Brace (1993)Posts: 647 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
White-Nord could a somali marry your sister...Oh forget it an Ethiopean..the Christian thingy ...marry your sister assuming your are not a wondering -waief. or mother-less f!..ck.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
"All of the most recent genetic research clearly demonstrates that the Egyptians are an indigenous African people who are related genetically to other North Africans and European Mediterraneans, but are absolutely not related to sub-Saharan Negroids. According to Bosch et. al. (1997):"
Get your hints straight.
Brace's study showed " Negroids" as in certain members of the Niger -ongo speaking group, were closely related to Natufians. It never said anything about ancient Egyptians being related to modern fair-skinned North Africans or their European relatives. In fact it showed the opposite.
Fair-skinned North Africans as the Kabyles of TiziOuzou were unrelated to earlier Bronze Age North Africans or neolithic and Mesolithic and MOST BRONZE AGE EUROPEANS. The study confirmed Naqqada and other Bronze Age North Africans are represented by the Somali and other East African types and not modern European related peoples now living in North Africa or Europe for that matter.
Said Loring Brace 2005 and 2006, "“Modern Europeans ranging all of the way from Scandinavia to Eastern Europe and throughout the Mediterranean on to the Middle East show that they are closely related to each other. The surprise is that the Neolithic peoples of Europe and their Bronze Age successors are NOT closely related to the modern inhabitants..."
And that was after this study: “the fact that so many European Neolithic groups in Figure 4 tie more closely to the Late Dynastic Egyptians near the Mediterranean coast than they do with modern Europeans provides suggestive support for an eastern Mediterranean source for the people of the European Neolithic at an even earlier time level than Bernal suggests for the Egyptian-Phoenician colonization and influence on Greece early in the second millennium BC (Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza, 1973, 1979; Bernal, 1987:2; Cavalli-Sforza et al., 1993; “Sokal et al. 1991).” Clines and Clusters versus “Race:” A Test in Ancient Egypt and the Case of a Death on the Nile, Year book of Physical Anthropology, 36:1-33, 1993
Cro-Magnons were not you. Somalis and Fulanis are not you - and neither were THEIR ANCESTORS the ancient Egyptians and Bronze Age North African "Mediterranean" relatives.
-------------------- D. Reynolds-Marniche Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
White Nord
A banned big lipped primate
Member # 14093
quote:Originally posted by White Nord: The thread starter brought up a point a previously brought to you all's attention. Yes the Northeast Africans are most closely related to Northeast Africans (Somalians Ethiopians) but study after study have confirmed that they are most closely related to non Africans. Then they throw in the "PN2 clade" as evidence of African genetic unity never minding the fact that E3b is found in non Africans, SO would that make them essentially as related to other Africans as Northeast Africans are. The PN2 clade is just one genetic marker any way. Which proves how flimsy the claim on a "Black" or "African" Egypt really is. Not all indigneous Africans are Negroid (northeast Africans).
Tropical Northeast Africans are indigenious. Many of the populations have un-derived lineages upwards to 80-90% reflecting their indigenious genetic continuity and variation. They are not Negroid-Caucasoid hybrids.
An earlier generation of anthropologists tried to explain face form in the Horn of Africa as the result of admixture from hypothetical “wandering Caucasoids,” (Adams, 1967, 1979; MacGaffey, 1966; Seligman, 1913, 1915, 1934), but that explanation founders on the paradox of why that supposedly potent “Caucasoid” people contributed a dominant quantity of genes for nose and face form but none for skin color or limb proportions. It makes far better sense to regard the adaptively significant features seen in the Horn of Africa as solely an in situ response on the part of separate adaptive traits to the selective forces present in the hot dry tropics of eastern Africa. From the observation that 12,000 years was not a long enough period of time to produce any noticeable variation in pigment by latitude in the New World and that 50,000 years has been barely long enough to produce the beginnings of a gradation in Australia (Brace, 1993a), one would have to argue that the inhabitants of the Upper Nile and the East Horn of Africa have been equatorial for many tens of thousands of years.- Brace (1993)
Yes while they may be "indigenous" to Africa they are a seperate population than Sub Saharan African Negroids.
Posts: 219 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by White Nord: The thread starter brought up a point a previously brought to you all's attention. Yes the Northeast Africans are most closely related to Northeast Africans (Somalians Ethiopians) but study after study have confirmed that they are most closely related to non Africans. Then they throw in the "PN2 clade" as evidence of African genetic unity never minding the fact that E3b is found in non Africans, SO would that make them essentially as related to other Africans as Northeast Africans are. The PN2 clade is just one genetic marker any way. Which proves how flimsy the claim on a "Black" or "African" Egypt really is. Not all indigneous Africans are Negroid (northeast Africans).
Your logic is flimsy. If Northeast Africans are more related to other northeast Africans, then their closest relations are, wait for it, African. Then having said the above, you go on to contradict yourself asserting that NE Africans are more related to Non-Africans.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by White Nord: The thread starter brought up a point a previously brought to you all's attention. Yes the Northeast Africans are most closely related to Northeast Africans (Somalians Ethiopians) but study after study have confirmed that they are most closely related to non Africans. Then they throw in the "PN2 clade" as evidence of African genetic unity never minding the fact that E3b is found in non Africans, SO would that make them essentially as related to other Africans as Northeast Africans are. The PN2 clade is just one genetic marker any way. Which proves how flimsy the claim on a "Black" or "African" Egypt really is. Not all indigneous Africans are Negroid (northeast Africans).
Tropical Northeast Africans are indigenious. Many of the populations have un-derived lineages upwards to 80-90% reflecting their indigenious genetic continuity and variation. They are not Negroid-Caucasoid hybrids.
An earlier generation of anthropologists tried to explain face form in the Horn of Africa as the result of admixture from hypothetical “wandering Caucasoids,” (Adams, 1967, 1979; MacGaffey, 1966; Seligman, 1913, 1915, 1934), but that explanation founders on the paradox of why that supposedly potent “Caucasoid” people contributed a dominant quantity of genes for nose and face form but none for skin color or limb proportions. It makes far better sense to regard the adaptively significant features seen in the Horn of Africa as solely an in situ response on the part of separate adaptive traits to the selective forces present in the hot dry tropics of eastern Africa. From the observation that 12,000 years was not a long enough period of time to produce any noticeable variation in pigment by latitude in the New World and that 50,000 years has been barely long enough to produce the beginnings of a gradation in Australia (Brace, 1993a), one would have to argue that the inhabitants of the Upper Nile and the East Horn of Africa have been equatorial for many tens of thousands of years.- Brace (1993)
Yes while they may be "indigenous" to Africa they are a seperate population than Sub Saharan African Negroids.
NE Africans are Africans and what you also fail to realize is that places like Ethiopia and Somalia, both in NE Africa are themselves "sub-Saharan". Your logic doesn't hold up. As for so-called "separate populations" the point is really irrelevant because all these people are INDIGENOUS Africans, sharing common genetic markers and defined by the Out of Africa model. NE Africans are simply another variant of Africans in a particular place, and related to other Africans in several ways- cultirally, genetically, physically etc.. just as Italians are simply another variant of European populations culturally, genetically, etc. You attempt to create (or inflate) some sort of supposed major talking point over this falls flat. NE Africans themselves derived as a sub-set of sub-Saharan Africans further south, amd Africa has the highest genteic diversity in the world with the highest variation ins skull shape, physical features and genetic data. Modern DNA research shows this, calling into question your bogus attempt at creating some kind of artificial "racial" separation between them and the rest of Africa. quote:
The fact that the Ethiopians and Somalis have a subset of the sub-Saharan African haplotype diversity and that the non-African populations have a subset of the diversity present in Ethiopians and Somalis makes simple-admixture models less likely.. -- Tishkoff 2000
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by White Nord: The thread starter brought up a point a previously brought to you all's attention. Yes the Northeast Africans are most closely related to Northeast Africans (Somalians Ethiopians) but study after study have confirmed that they are most closely related to non Africans. Then they throw in the "PN2 clade" as evidence of African genetic unity never minding the fact that E3b is found in non Africans, SO would that make them essentially as related to other Africans as Northeast Africans are. The PN2 clade is just one genetic marker any way. Which proves how flimsy the claim on a "Black" or "African" Egypt really is. Not all indigneous Africans are Negroid (northeast Africans).
Tropical Northeast Africans are indigenious. Many of the populations have un-derived lineages upwards to 80-90% reflecting their indigenious genetic continuity and variation. They are not Negroid-Caucasoid hybrids.
An earlier generation of anthropologists tried to explain face form in the Horn of Africa as the result of admixture from hypothetical “wandering Caucasoids,” (Adams, 1967, 1979; MacGaffey, 1966; Seligman, 1913, 1915, 1934), but that explanation founders on the paradox of why that supposedly potent “Caucasoid” people contributed a dominant quantity of genes for nose and face form but none for skin color or limb proportions. It makes far better sense to regard the adaptively significant features seen in the Horn of Africa as solely an in situ response on the part of separate adaptive traits to the selective forces present in the hot dry tropics of eastern Africa. From the observation that 12,000 years was not a long enough period of time to produce any noticeable variation in pigment by latitude in the New World and that 50,000 years has been barely long enough to produce the beginnings of a gradation in Australia (Brace, 1993a), one would have to argue that the inhabitants of the Upper Nile and the East Horn of Africa have been equatorial for many tens of thousands of years.- Brace (1993)
Yes while they may be "indigenous" to Africa they are a seperate population than Sub Saharan African Negroids.
Well actually perhaps not. West Africans such as the Bantu along with East Africans such as the Somali people may indeed not be indigenous to Africa at all.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Well actually perhaps not. West Africans such as the Bantu along with East Africans such as the Somali people may indeed not be indigenous to Africa at all.
According to whom? Posts: 647 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by White Nord: Yes the Northeast Africans are most closely related to Northeast Africans (Somalians Ethiopians) but study after study have confirmed that they are most closely related to non Africans.
Doofball, as stated so many times over and over, Somalians and Ethiopians are not more closely related to non Africans, what the studies that you misinterpret actually say is that all non Africans descend from East Africans, and hence when genetic tests are ran East Africans lie inbetween the rest of Africa and non Africans.
This doesn't have anything to do with non African admixture, especially since the diversity of the father (East Africa) can not be increased by one of his children (non Africans).
quote:Originally posted by White Nord: Then they throw in the "PN2 clade" as evidence of African genetic unity never minding the fact that E3b is found in non Africans,
Yea it is a united clade as both are descendants of E, and the reason non Africans carry said marker is because as explained to you ad nauseum these individual non African populations received this admixture from Africans dating back to neolithic times.
Unless you can show me E3b underived in non Africans greater than its presence in Africa; can you?
quote:Originally posted by White Nord: SO would that make them essentially as related to other Africans as Northeast Africans are.
Sure, as far as the Y chromosome is concerned, what is so hard to understand about this?
Or is it simply your bigoted feeble mind that can't accept this fact because it destroys your ideology?
quote:Originally posted by White Nord: The PN2 clade is just one genetic marker any way. Which proves how flimsy the claim on a "Black" or "African" Egypt really is.
Actually the Y chromosome is great at determining direct paternal ancestry, its a genetic signature/marker that is used (along with Mtdna) to trace all non Africans alive today back to Africa, and what the whole recent African origin is based on dummy!
This has been genetically proven over and over again.
So If the Y chromosome was unreliable then OOA would have been thrown out the window along time ago buddy, so nice try but you lose again.
In this sense Y chromosome E1b1b being the brother of Y chromosome E1b1a, all individuals carrying said marker are genetically more related to each other than any other...
quote:Originally posted by White Nord: Not all indigneous Africans are Negroid (northeast Africans).
Yes thanks for stepping into the real world, anthropologists have noticed this same thing along time ago, and hence why they choose not to adhere to this old outdated notion that indigenous Africans only look a certain way.
Now remember especially since Africa is the place where all humans come from and have been evolving over 100,000 years this genetic and phenotypic diversity would be expected, as has been shown numerously in the recent scientific era with every new genetic and antropological study that comes forward about Africa.
In fact all individuals who are considered non Africans represent only but a small subset of actual African diversity.
As explained there is more diversity in one African village than all non Africans combined.
Do you know why this is?
Well, in case you don't, this is due to the fact that non Africans are again nothing but a subset of Africans who left East Africa, and due to population bottlenecks (decreases in population size) non Africans now exhibit less diversity genetically and phenotypically than that single band of Africans who went and populated the world to then become non Africans.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Well actually perhaps not. West Africans such as the Bantu along with East Africans such as the Somali people may indeed not be indigenous to Africa at all.
According to whom?
Study the origins of PN2, it is still quite possible it is from back migration from Asia which would mean that most African Americans are really not African. Unless you are Capsoid (San, Pygmy). Interesting theory no doubt.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by realone: Brace the expert on the subjecthas always maintained that Niger-Congo populations are biologically distinct from all other world populations, not to mention that according to Fig. 4 of Brace's 2005 study, prehistoric and recent Northeast African populations group a considerable distance away from the Niger-Congo population:
When the samples used in Fig. 1 are compared by the use of canonical variate plots as in Fig. 2, the separateness of the Niger-Congo speakers is again quite clear. Interestingly enough, however, the small Natufian sample falls between the Niger-Congo group and the other samples used. Fig. 2 shows the plot produced by the first two canonical variates, but the same thing happens when canonical variates 1 and 3 (not shown here) are used. This placement suggests that there may have been a Sub-Saharan African element in the make-up of the Natufians (the putative ancestors of the subsequent Neolithic), although in this particular test there is no such evident presence in the North African or Egyptian samples. As shown in Fig. 1, the Somalis and the Egyptian Bronze Age sample from Naqada may also have a hint of a Sub-Saharan African component. That was not borne out in the canonical variate plot (Fig. 2), and there was no evidence of such an involvement in the Algerian Neolithic (Gambetta) sample.
Hint!
All of the most recent genetic research clearly demonstrates that the Egyptians are an indigenous African people who are related genetically to other North Africans and European Mediterraneans, but are absolutely not related to sub-Saharan Negroids. According to Bosch et. al. (1997):
After an intensive bibliographic search, we compiled all the available data on allele frequencies for classical genetic polymorphisms referring to North African populations and synthesized the data in an attempt to reconstruct the populations' demographic history using two complementary methods: (1) principal components analysis and (2) genetic distances represented by neighbor-joining trees. In both analyses the main feature of the genetic landscape in northern Africa is an east-west pattern of variation pointing to the differentiation between the Berber and Arab population groups of the northwest and the populations of Libya and Egypt. Moreover, Libya and Egypt show the smallest genetic distances with the European populations, including the Iberian Peninsula. The most plausible interpretation of these results is that, although demic diffusion during the Neolithic could explain the genetic similarity between northeast Africa and Europe by a parallel process of gene flow from the Near East, a Mesolithic (or older) differentiation of the populations in the northwestern regions with later limited gene flow is needed to understand the genetic picture. The most isolated groups (Mauritanians, Tuaregs, and south Algerian Berbers) were the most differentiated and, although no clear structure can be discerned among the different Arab- and Berber-speaking groups, Arab speakers as a whole are closer to Egyptians and Libyans. By contrast, the genetic contribution of sub-Saharan Africa appears to be small .
Might not have noticed but of all the modern samples the Somalians are the closer to the Egyptian in the chart you provided. That means that all of the Aethiopid people ( Oromo, Afar, Beja, Somali, etc) are the closest to the Ancient Egyptians. These are your Cushitic people of East Africa and traditionally the Nubians. Another term for them is elongated African with super-Negroid body plans. The group of people the closest to the Ancient Egyptians are the Haratins of the Sahara. They are closer than even modern day Coptic Egyptians.
Groups mentioned are all traditional Black people and even considered part of the so called Negro race (when such race theories were considered scientific). If you are going to use outdated terminology such as Negroid at least try to avoid double standards so you can sound marginally scientific.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Study the origins of PN2, it is still quite possible it is from back migration from Asia which would mean that most African Americans are really not African. Unless you are Capsoid (San, Pygmy). Interesting theory no doubt.
Can you list any studies that support this theory?
Posts: 647 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by qoucela: Cro-Magnons were not you. Somalis and Fulanis are not you - and neither were THEIR ANCESTORS the ancient Egyptians and Bronze Age North African "Mediterranean" relatives.
How do you know whom the who is? This is the internet and people with all kinds of ancestry. I for one have Oromo ancestry and Fulani.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Study the origins of PN2, it is still quite possible it is from back migration from Asia which would mean that most African Americans are really not African. Unless you are Capsoid (San, Pygmy). Interesting theory no doubt.
Can you list any studies that support this theory?
Come on, you have access to Wikipedia just like me.
Minority view on the origins of DE:
Chandrasekar A, Saheb SY, Gangopadyaya P, et al. (2007). "YAP insertion signature in South Asia".
Implications are rather interesting and one should explore the Oriental origins of African Americans as a consequence. Maybe Tiger Woods should just consider himself Asian after all.
;-)
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Hmmmmm. I've often wondered why I'm so preternaturally talented with a Ginsu knife. Posts: 1038 | From: Franklin Park, NJ | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
osirion how do u know that u have Fulani and Oromo ancestry. I thought that DNA doesnt work that way. DNA doesnt say u are Oromo,Persian,or Fulani those are terms used and created by humans i dont think DNA speaks that way.
If i did a DNA test i dont think it would say i am Egyptian or Sudanese so How do u know that u are Oromo and Fulani.
Posts: 410 | From: Al-Ard | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, I understand Realone being debunked immediately after his first retarded post and WhiteNerd being debunked several posts down, but Osirion?! What is this nonsense you speak?? After how many years of being in this forum where do you get off trying to say E and PN2 in general is not African and that all black Africans as we know it are Eurasian??! Don't tell me your Jewish faith has clouded your mind again and you revert to 'Near Eastern' origins and Africa being populated only after the 'Deluge'??! LOLPosts: 26237 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Okay, I understand Realone being debunked immediately after his first retarded post and WhiteNerd being debunked several posts down, but Osirion?! What is this nonsense you speak?? After how many years of being in this forum where do you get off trying to say E and PN2 in general is not African and that all black Africans as we know it are Eurasian??! Don't tell me your Jewish faith has clouded your mind again and you revert to 'Near Eastern' origins and Africa being populated only after the 'Deluge'??! LOL
No, but it is a possibility. There has been DE* found in Tibet. You can't simply dismiss this because it doesn't fit with our preconceived ideas. I am not saying this is my opinion, it is not, but I am saying that we should keep an open mind.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by AswaniAswad: osirion how do u know that u have Fulani and Oromo ancestry. I thought that DNA doesnt work that way. DNA doesnt say u are Oromo,Persian,or Fulani those are terms used and created by humans i dont think DNA speaks that way.
If i did a DNA test i dont think it would say i am Egyptian or Sudanese so How do u know that u are Oromo and Fulani.
3 generation of African missionaries is my heritage. Starting with a Scottish man in Niger. Its an interesting story if you want to hear about it. I am still an American citizen since the Sott happened to be 2nd generation American. I am also part Jewish. Perhaps you didn't know that some missionaries married Africans?
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Okay, I understand Realone being debunked immediately after his first retarded post and WhiteNerd being debunked several posts down, but Osirion?! What is this nonsense you speak?? After how many years of being in this forum where do you get off trying to say E and PN2 in general is not African and that all black Africans as we know it are Eurasian??! Don't tell me your Jewish faith has clouded your mind again and you revert to 'Near Eastern' origins and Africa being populated only after the 'Deluge'??! LOL
No, but it is a possibility. There has been DE* found in Tibet. You can't simply dismiss this because it doesn't fit with our preconceived ideas. I am not saying this is my opinion, it is not, but I am saying that we should keep an open mind.
Look here remedial one, there are more findings in Africa of the genetic DE* than outside of Africa.
You do know that Africa is the continent where modern humans have been living for about 200kya or more?
Why would you take all this into account, being that you've been on this forum as long as you have
Yet you still posit this nonsense - of which I thought was a joke at first - as some sort of fork in the road on the African origin for DE*?
Do you read any of the posts when it comes to your delusions, in specific, as per your latest, DE*?
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Recap:
"haplogroup CF and DE molecular ancestors first evolved inside Africa and subsequently contributed as Y chromosome founders to pioneering migrations that successfully colonized Asia. While not proof, the DE and CF bifurcation (Figure 8d ) is consistent with independent colonization impulses possibly occurring in a short time interval."
Use of Y Chromosome and Mitochondrial DNA Population Structure in Tracing Human Migrations
Peter A. Underhill , Toomas Kivisild - 2007
A nutshell!...of what has essentially been more elaborately demonstrated about said markers several times before on this site. Oh, yeah -- I have not come across a single genetic journal yet the says different about CF origin...
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Okay, I understand Realone being debunked immediately after his first retarded post and WhiteNerd being debunked several posts down, but Osirion?! What is this nonsense you speak?? After how many years of being in this forum where do you get off trying to say E and PN2 in general is not African and that all black Africans as we know it are Eurasian??! Don't tell me your Jewish faith has clouded your mind again and you revert to 'Near Eastern' origins and Africa being populated only after the 'Deluge'??! LOL
No, but it is a possibility. There has been DE* found in Tibet. You can't simply dismiss this because it doesn't fit with our preconceived ideas. I am not saying this is my opinion, it is not, but I am saying that we should keep an open mind.
Look here remedial one, there are more findings in Africa of the genetic DE* than outside of Africa.
You do know that Africa is the continent where modern humans have been living for about 200kya or more?
Why would you take all this into account, being that you've been on this forum as long as you have
Yet you still posit this nonsense - of which I thought was a joke at first - as some sort of fork in the road on the African origin for DE*?
Do you read any of the posts when it comes to your delusions, in specific, as per your latest, DE*?
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Recap:
"haplogroup CF and DE molecular ancestors first evolved inside Africa and subsequently contributed as Y chromosome founders to pioneering migrations that successfully colonized Asia. While not proof, the DE and CF bifurcation (Figure 8d ) is consistent with independent colonization impulses possibly occurring in a short time interval."
Use of Y Chromosome and Mitochondrial DNA Population Structure in Tracing Human Migrations
Peter A. Underhill , Toomas Kivisild - 2007
A nutshell!...of what has essentially been more elaborately demonstrated about said markers several times before on this site. Oh, yeah -- I have not come across a single genetic journal yet the says different about CF origin...
Because I believe in the scientific method and avoid making conclusions based on your reasoning above.
It is still possible that DE* did not originate in Africa. It is statistically unlikely, based on current evidence, but it is still a possibility.
Obviously it is clear that there is certainly a relationship between Orientals and Melanesian people by way of DE. Where these people split is an interesting question. It is almost as if there is a missing landmass between Southern India and East Africa.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Because I believe in the scientific method and avoid making conclusions based on your reasoning above.
Actually if you were to use the scientific method you would realize this DE* haplogroup is most prominent in Africa.
Both descendent's of the E (E1b1b & E1b1a) lineage are most prominent in Africa, with also the most ancient underived lineage of E* being also found in Africa.
"haplogroup CF and DE molecular ancestors first evolved inside Africa and subsequently contributed as Y chromosome founders to pioneering migrations that successfully colonized Asia. While not proof, the DE and CF bifurcation (Figure 8d ) is consistent with independent colonization impulses possibly occurring in a short time interval."
Use of Y Chromosome and Mitochondrial DNA Population Structure in Tracing Human Migrations
Peter A. Underhill , Toomas Kivisild et al..
quote:Originally posted by osirion: It is still possible that DE* did not originate in Africa.
How? Please give an alternate and elaborate example to the contrary with the genetic data to counter the one above, will you?
quote:Originally posted by osirion: It is statistically unlikely, based on current evidence, but it is still a possibility.
Yes it is statistically unlikely, and has yet to be proven, actually as you know all findings point to Africa, no modern geneticist has found any new evidence to the contrary.
Yet you hang on to what a few fringe Euro-centrists or just plain numskulls promote.
Since this is simply something those who look to make the E Pn2 clade lineages of Africa, non African, adhere to, regardless of all the genetic evidence to the contrary....
Yet here YOU are.. go figure!
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Obviously it is clear that there is certainly a relationship between Orientals and Melanesian people by way of DE.
Uh yea, they're both Asian, and both derive from African migration OOA, this is proven genetically.
Melanesians carry ancestral lineages to NE Asians....
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Where these people split is an interesting question. It is almost as if there is a missing landmass between Southern India and East Africa.
This has been thoroughly explained repetitively on E.S, you can also find this information in numerous books, videos, and scholarly written literature, and this is called OOA.....
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Indeed. I also find it strange that Osirion brings up the fact that DE was found in Tibet only in among 2 individuals but seems unaware thad DE is also found in West Africa among 7 individuals! Like I said, all of this was discussed before. Posts: 26237 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Because I believe in the scientific method and avoid making conclusions based on your reasoning above.
Actually if you were to use the scientific method you would realize this DE* haplogroup is most prominent in Africa.
Both descendent's of the E (E1b1b & E1b1a) lineage are most prominent in Africa, with also the most ancient underived lineage of E* being also found in Africa.
"haplogroup CF and DE molecular ancestors first evolved inside Africa and subsequently contributed as Y chromosome founders to pioneering migrations that successfully colonized Asia. While not proof, the DE and CF bifurcation (Figure 8d ) is consistent with independent colonization impulses possibly occurring in a short time interval."
Use of Y Chromosome and Mitochondrial DNA Population Structure in Tracing Human Migrations
Peter A. Underhill , Toomas Kivisild et al..
quote:Originally posted by osirion: It is still possible that DE* did not originate in Africa.
How? Please give an alternate and elaborate example to the contrary with the genetic data to counter the one above, will you?
quote:Originally posted by osirion: It is statistically unlikely, based on current evidence, but it is still a possibility.
Yes it is statistically unlikely, and has yet to be proven, actually as you know all findings point to Africa, no modern geneticist has found any new evidence to the contrary.
Yet you hang on to what a few fringe Euro-centrists or just plain numskulls promote.
Since this is simply something those who look to make the E Pn2 clade lineages of Africa, non African, adhere to, regardless of all the genetic evidence to the contrary....
Yet here YOU are.. go figure!
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Obviously it is clear that there is certainly a relationship between Orientals and Melanesian people by way of DE.
Uh yea, they're both Asian, and both derive from African migration OOA, this is proven genetically.
Melanesians carry ancestral lineages to NE Asians....
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Where these people split is an interesting question. It is almost as if there is a missing landmass between Southern India and East Africa.
This has been thoroughly explained repetitively on E.S, you can also find this information in numerous books, videos, and scholarly written literature, and this is called OOA.....
Indeed. Excellent analysis as usual..
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here is a more representative selection of the Ethiopian population, clearly showing that the vast majority of Ethiopians are half-white, half-negro mongrels:
Even Haile Selassie (pictured above) never identified himself as a negro, despite the ridiculous claims of Rastafarians. He always spoke of himself as a Semite.
More evidence that Ethiopians are mongrels:
The most distinct separation is between African and non-African populations. The northeastern-African—that is, the Ethiopian and Somali—populations are located centrally between sub-Saharan African and non-African populations.
(S. A. Tishkoff et al., Am. J. Hum. Genet., 67:901-925, 2000)
Posts: 69 | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic