Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Not taking DNAtribes' word for everything, try running Yuya's profile on popSTR. He turns out of both African and possible Western European extraction via what some call CeltIberian in keeping with what little is known of the ancient western end of the "Libyan" range of habitat.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can you elaborate on this dual ancestry, and their CeltIberian sample?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
When I ran global African, SW Asian, and European population sets for Yuya's profile, Europe slightly dominated split between Galacia and, of all places, the Orkneys. Africa made nearly as strong a showing.
I make the connection between Galacia and Orcadia as "Celtiberian" lacking a better term describing an ancient ethny inhabiting Spain and the British Isles. The term is a hangover from way back to my Massey, Churchward, Higgans and Mac Ritchie days. Please update.
There is known Spain <---> Morocco bi-di flow of many things from genes to trade items going back into pre-history.
Once in Maroc the possibilities for Egypt entry lies in travel toward and across the "Libyans", i.e., Meshwesh -> Lebu -> Tjehenu -> Egypt.
Anyway that is how I'd account for Galacia/Orkney alleles in Yuya, if indeed they can be considered such.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
I find it unlikely your match indicates real ancestry from that location, but I see where you're coming from.
Why? Because DNA Tribes' matches have already been processed so that they went from the raw data popSTR works with, to the MLI scores we see in Table 1. They didn't just find matches, they went a step further and ranked all the regions with matches, according to the likelihood that you'll find those STR profiles in those locations. Some regions in DNA Tribes' database (eg, Southern Africa) have much more samples than PopSTR's entire database of just 1000 genomes.
Yuya's STR profile is 149 likelier to occur in Southern Africa, than in the region in which they placed Iberia.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
DNAtribes privately defined Northwest European and Mediterranean (Iberia + France) are low scorers but not absent from their MLI table.
Actually since it is proprietary we have no idea what process DNAtribes uses to arrive at its MLI scores. I presume any place not on their Table 1 did not receive a score higher than the last place listed.
I am not trying to pretend that popSTR's database is anywhere near as robust as DNAtribes. That'd be foolishness.
I'm using popSTR as the only online profile matcher available to me to simulate DNAtribes World Regions. Once I compare shared alleles I assess the number of shared profile loci, number of hi freq alleles and number of hi freq loci each population set has to derive their order.
I find it works fine mostly paralleling DNAtribes' MLI ranking but not so for Yuya. At least I'm trying to do something with the raw data with what's available to me and it's allowed me to confirm DNAtribes general conclusions on the Tut and progenitors Armarna mummies.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
We have to keep in mind those regional MLI scores were dictated by DNA Tribes samples, not necessarily by the dna that actually resides in those regions. If popSTR happens to have African samples with low similarity to Yuya, and Eurasian samples with equally low (or slightly higher) matches, one might arrive at the Yuya result you're getting right now. I'm guessing Yuya and Tjuya are particularly vurnerable to this, because their STR profile scores aren't as high (probably because they're rarer (today).
You got good results with Tut because his STR profile is more common in most of the continent below the Sahel. It makes sense that you wouldn't need a ethnic groups similar to DNA Tribes' database to get Sub Saharan matches with his profile; any database with Inner African samples will probably do.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
I got Africa as a direct match of Thuya's profile thus eliminating other global regions. Within the continent, and excluding SW Asia, I got Southern Africa with Sahel as nearly neck and neck 2nd.
Out of the three non-relatives
Thuya
Yuya
Amenhotep III
Yuya was the only partial African standout. While Amenhotep III had no exact African match his African qualifiers were 2 - 4 times higher than Europe and SW Asia. Southern Africa and Sahel ranked highest as internal African regions.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
And with SW Asia included, what are the results then?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
I used SW Asia as a global region vs Africa as a global region.
Since Africa as a global region was an exact Thuya match SW Asia was excluded from internal African comparison.
Including it within an internal African comparison SW Asia is the bottom rung loosing its only global hi freq locus and all its global hi freq alleles which then spread out amongst - Southern Africa (3 allele hi freqs), - North Africa (2 allele hi freqs), and - Tropical West Africa (1 allele hi freq) whose individual hi freqs are no longer pared by pooling.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Speaking to a sista over the weekend about the DNATribes piece she mentioned that her father always argued that the ancient ones came from South Africa. Her mother is from the Louisiana area and her father is South African San(now deceased). Anyways, he spoke several languages and based upon his linguistic acumen he came to that conclusion.
He was saying that The San languages has some relationship to AEian.
Any truth in the language similarity between San and AEian?
I know per the linguistic experts there are basically five African Language groups.
San/click and Afrasan is different.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by xyyman:
Are we talking EurAfricans here?
You know Sergi. CeltIber - according to Sergi has origins like all Eurafricans in the Great Lakes region(?)
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
Can you elaborate on this dual ancestry, and their CeltIberian sample?
Should I be "objective" when it comes to pro-Africa findings and be less than parsimonious when it comes to pro-Europe findings?
The global popSTR run distinguished Yuya's Africa and Europe modern populations by these two alleles - D2S1338=27 - D18S51=22.
Crosschecking with ALFRED, the former is absent from Africa save one population but was ubiquitous in Europe. The latter was sporadic in Africa and prolific in Europe.
Being African, should I allow ethnocentrism to invent some ingenious convoluted spin to make D2S1338=27 African specific?
If I did so would I be any better than those who have been distorting the facts about Africa the last 500 years?
The only thing I can say is what Swenet alluded. Results will vary from db to db and the relative tally of one region vs others. Eg., a database top heavy with Southern African samples and meager to sparse in Sahelien ones will return a higher likelihood of positive hits for the former than the latter simply because the former have skewed numerical preponderance.
BTW - the Celtiberian thing, forget it. I was hasty in proferring it. It's anachronistic by some 700 years. But I stand by the flow of D2S1338=27 from Europe to Africa. D18S51=22 can be argued but considering it's panEuropean and limited by region in Africa I tend to think Yuya got it from the same parentage as his D2S1338=27.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm confused al, I got the impression you matched Yuya's entire profile to those Euro's, not two alleles...
Not sure if I'm missing something in my interpretation of how STRs work, but assuming MLI is obtained exactly how DNA Tribes says it is (by simply turning the Pharaonic STR profiles into worldwide frequency expressing ratios), wouldn't those alleles popSTR deems European, also be present in DNA Tribes' African samples?
We've already discussed similar findings (eg, Truth referenced a board poster who ran 2 alleles through a database and found one of the pharaonic alleles [D21S11=34] to be present in Asia (ie, Balinese) apparently more than in Africa. The other allele [D18S51=19] allegedly had high frequencies in both Asia (Tibet and India) and in Africa, with certain Africans dominating slightly.
My answer to Truth back then was that those individual allele matches are like populations who share a likeness in a single cranial character, eg nasal breadth, and that the inclusion of more characters would show both groups to be distinct.
Why would this Euro match be any different than the aforementioned Asia match?
quote:I had a look at global frequency tables for alleles D18S51=19 and D21S11=34. These were used in the article as examples of alleles found in the mummies that are more frequent in Africa than in other parts of the world, so presumably these alleles contributed significantly to the high MLI scores with certain African regions.
The D21S11=34 allele is rare in West Eurasians (it is found in 0.4% of modern Egyptians). The highest frequency among Africans and West Eurasians is found among the Mbenzele, who are Central African Pygmies. The D21S11=34 allele was found in 5.5% of the Mbenzele Pygmies. The second highest frequency of this allele among Africans and West Eurasians is found in the Venda, a Bantu-speaking group from Southern Africa who have absorbed significant Khoisan admixture according to Tishkoff's study on Africa from 2009. But the highest frequency of this allele around the world is actually found in the Southeast Asian Balinese, where it is found in 8.2% of the population! This allele is also relatively common in South Asia. However, South Asians and Southeast Asians were not included in the DNA Tribes analysis. Only Africans and West Eurasians.
The D18S51=19 allele (found in 1.1% of modern Egyptians) has a similar pattern. This allele also peaks in the Mbenzele Pygmies, where its frequency is 16.7%. The second highest frequency among Africans (13.8%) is found among the Xhosa. The Xhosa are Southern African Bantus who possess significant Khoisan admixture, just like the Venda. The second highest global frequency (13.8%) is found in the Balti, a group of Tibetan descent.
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
I'm confused al, I got the impression you matched Yuya's entire profile to those Euro's, not two alleles... . . . . . .
Why would this Euro match be any different than the aforementioned Asia match?
Let me repost my method as a refresher
quote: I compare (1)shared alleles I (2)assess the number of shared profile loci, (3)number of highest frequency alleles and (4)number of highest frequency loci for each population set
Yuya's profile had no match. Europe had 5 loci matches and Africa had 4. One of Europe's matching loci had the highest frequency of its kind. Africa had no highest frequency loci. Both Europe and Africa had 7 highest frequency alleles. . . .
It's a matter of state vs descent.
To get a better grasp of things try simulating the regions/populations and gathering the STR data then making assessments from the findings for yourself.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
Btw, The old world hits are still odd to me. I've read Swenet's explanation on this but am still not sure what it means or if that truly reconciles it. There's been speculation concerning the foreign or partially foreign ancestry of Yuya before these data were brought to our attention.
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
Yuya's profile had no match. Europe had 5 loci matches and Africa had 4. One of Europe's matching loci had the highest frequency of its kind. Africa had no highest frequency loci. Both Europe and Africa had 7 highest frequency alleles.
^Interesting.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Damn Sundji
Please recover and post your explanation.
I saw you had one but before reading it I continued editing my above post.
quote:Yuya's profile had no match. Europe had 5 loci matches and Africa had 4. One of Europe's matching loci had the highest frequency of its kind. Africa had no highest frequency loci. Both Europe and Africa had 7 highest frequency alleles.
I will open myself to data counter to DNA Tribes' results concerning Yuya, but I will add that due to DNA Tribes' statistical methods, mixed people will typically show MLI scores that are consistent with their mixed ancestry. They will typically either match with populations that are mixed with the same donating sources, show significant matches in both donating regions or their maps will show peaks located in regions that are intermediate between both population sources. We don't see none of this with Yuya in a way that is consistent with popSTR.
Look at this:
DNA Tribes does not perform a percentage of admixture calculation. DNA Tribes is a statistical likelihood analysis based on actual allele (gene) frequencies scientifically measured in hundreds of world population samples.
In light of the highlighted^^^, would you agree that DNA Tribes inner African samples had those alleles popSTR deems European in origin?
quote:It's a matter of state vs descent.
What do you mean with this?
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: To get a better grasp of things try simulating the regions/populations and gathering the STR data then making assessments from the findings for yourself.
One of the reasons why I haven't already done that, outside of the reasons I've already mentioned, is because I feel those self-help apps are not powerful enough to add or take away from DNA Tribes' results. Very early on in this thread, the board poster I mentioned showed this to me when the app he was using led him to conclude that D21S11=34 has the highest freq in Asia, when this is actually one of the alleles DNA Tribes lists as occurring the most in Africans. The results you got from Tut using Non-Prophets tool also wasn't as conclusive as one might have expected after soaking in Table 1. Even if DNA Tribes is wrong, for whatever reason, and the tools I mentioned were right in both cases, there is no way to confirm it.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: There's been speculation concerning the foreign or partially foreign ancestry of Yuya before these data were brought to our attention.
What is your opinion about those speculations, and why?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: The Old Doctore is by no stretch a Eurocentrist so he seems to just be parroting in this case.
I can certainly vouch that he is *NOT* a Eurocentrist. Most of his claims parallel and are in agreement with most of the claims we make here. My only quirk is that thing about Tutsis, I don't believe we can extrapolate anything on a larger scale based on two Tutsi samples from 23andme, we need more research and more sampling.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Hutu are in the same linguistic branch as the Luhya, Mashariki-Kaskazi sub-group Great Lakes.
So the Luhya can indeed be used as a proxy for the Hutu gene pool. And compared to the Luhya (proxy Hutus), the Tutsi have significantly more Northeast African autosomal ancestry.
Ironically, the Luhya live much closer to the Horn than the Tutsi.
Posts: 424 | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Manu: The Hutu are in the same Bantu branch as the Luhya, Mashariki-Kaskazi sub-group Great Lakes.
So the Luhya can indeed be used as a proxy for the Hutu gene pool. And compared to the Luhya (proxy Hutus), the Tutsi autosomal samples have significantly more Northeast African blood.
Ironically, the Luhya live much closer to the Horn than the Tutsi.
You're talking about *TWO* Tutsi samples, that can't be extrapolated to all Tutsis.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
We now know how full-blooded Tutsis are like autosomally. If there are more Bantu admixed Tutsis it doesn't negate that full-blooded/aristocrat Tutsis are autosomally mostly Northeast African.
Posts: 424 | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Hutu are in the same linguistic branch as the Luhya, Mashariki-Kaskazi sub-group Great Lakes.
So the Luhya can indeed be used as a proxy for the Hutu gene pool.
Fulani are in the same linguistic branch as Wolof and Serer but cannot be used as a proxy the the others genepool. Therefore your argument is null and proves nothing.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Manu: We now know how full-blooded Tutsis are like autosomally. If there are more Bantu admixed Tutsis it doesn't negate that full-blooded/aristocrat Tutsis are autosomally mostly Northeast African.
How do you know what a full blooded Tutsi is autosomomally? Every study I've referenced shows them to be no different than other Bantus, you're basically rehashing the Hamitic Hypothesis nonsense about Tutsis. You make a conclusion based on two people rom 23andme, well I can post a study on Mozabites where one of the people are 75% African in ancestry, supposed I used him as proxy for all Mozabites, doesn't make sense does it?
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: Fulani are in the same linguistic branch as Wolof and Serer but cannot be used as a proxy the the others genepool.
The Luhya are relatively pure Great Lakes Bantus and therefore great proxies for the original Great Lake Bantu gene pool, without the Hamitic input.
Posts: 424 | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: Fulani are in the same linguistic branch as Wolof and Serer but cannot be used as a proxy the the others genepool.
The Luhya are relatively pure Great Lakes Bantus and therefore great proxies for the original Great Lake Bantu gene pool, without the Hamitic input.
Now this hamitic BS again, I'm done, I don't argue with people who post outdated nonsense.
Luhya share 13.5% of their ancestry with Nilo-Saharans and 6.5% with Cushitics, where is this Bantu purity?
I said relatively pure. Nobody is really pure in that region. The Luhya are very close to the original Great Lake Bantu gene pool.
Those Tutsi samples on 23andMe are still significantly more Northeast African compared to the Kenyan Bantu reference samples (who ironically live CLOSER to the Horn than the Tutsi).
Posts: 424 | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
I said relatively pure. Nobody is really pure in that region. The Luhya are very close to the original Great Lake Bantu gene pool.
Those Tutsi samples on 23andMe are still significantly more Northeast African compared to the Kenyan Bantu reference samples (who ironically live CLOSER to the Horn than the Tutsi).
Hamitic is a debunked term and didn't apply solely to Afro-Asiatic speakers when it was used. Those Tutsi samples consist of only two people, two people cannot be extrapolated for an entire population of Tutsi. Luhya share over 30% of their ancestry with non-Bantus, they cannot be used as a proxy for Hutus, that crap science.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't get why you guys are so against my hypothesis on the Tutsis.
As if there aren't enough predominantly Bantu groups in Africa. I thought you promoted African diversity.
Posts: 424 | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Notice that absolutely no background data is given for the two Tutsi's that were analysed
For all we know, those two samples were related, which would reduce their sample from an already meagre two, to one, as population genetic studies usually control for their samples being related.
I'm not directing this at the obnoxious racist troll Manu, one cannot get intelligent answers out of him anyway, but one cannot help but notice how desperate supporters of this notion are
They don't control for other factors; all they look at and are obsessed with is typology and explaining variation in terms of grand scale immigration and admixture
Did it, for example, ever cross their mind that the slightly elevated extra Bantu ancestry simply reflects pre colonial inter-elite contact with one or more Northern contemporary polities?
However, one would expect such ancestry to be present in both Hutu's and Tutsi's, given their historically relatively high intermarriage rates, and in fact we do see this pattern.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
I'm not here to argue about terminology. My use of NE African is in reference to African ancestry that is largely found within the vicinity of the African Horn and peaks among groups like the Oromo and Somali; while Nilo-Saharan donates exactly what it implies.
You should be prepared to argue about anything that you bring up, since you thought it necessary to bring it up that way. Your terminologies are a big deal, because it exposes flaws in your thinking and allows you to fudge data according to your personal liking as opposed to that of an objective analysis.
What does, "Nilo-Saharan donates exactly what it implies", mean? The traditional, and much, of the residency of Nilo-Saharan speakers is precisely North-eastern Africa. Most of Nilo-Saharan speakers actually live further north than the group that you are calling "NE African". How does excluding them from this territory make sense?
And just to determine how flawed your thinking is, would you consider someone from Nigeria as "Northwest African"?
quote:Tishkoff et al. 2009 simply sampled a group of Rwandans; the purpose of the study wasn't to differentiate the two groups.
You said this...like a number of times now. Tishkoff et al. would have been compelled to differentiate the Hutu and Tutsi, if they thought like you, that there was a marked genetic difference between the two. They have separated samples from the same country in other instances; so, why could the same not have been applied to the Rwandans? They could have just as well called them "Rwandans", going by your logic.
quote:But if you were to actually analyze the accessible 8 samples from the aforesaid study you would recognize that a minority of the samples are much more closer to the African Horn than they are to largely "pristine" Bantu speaking groups in Central Africa, in contrast to their counterparts.
The Hutu/Tutsi sample isn't the only Bantu sample that was allocated a visible proportion of the so-called "Cushitic AAC". And how does that differentiate the Hutu/Tutsi sample into Hutu and Tutsi anyhow, even if your premise were true?
quote: Please explain the results of the two Tutsi samples from 23andme and the results of the Hima which recognizes mark differences between the former and the Luhya (Kenyans who lack significant NE African admixture, about only ~6% on average) and other West/Central African groups?
I don't have to explain anything about two Tutsi samples, other than to say that the results you claim to glean from them, are not reflective of repeated results found in *much bigger* Tutsi samples. How do you explain that?
As for the Hima sample, again the explanation priority is on your end: why use them interchangeably with Rwandan Tutsi?
For the record, and again, what you call "admixture" is misleading. I'd already clued you in on that.
quote:Even if you were to make the argument that the Tutsi and Hutu were essentially the same, you would have to accept significant NE African in that particular population.
Why?
quote:It's not a coincidence that both of these two aforesaid Tutsi samples from 23andme cluster in the direction of the Somali, in comparison to peoples in Nigeria or the DRC (even when considering that they both possess yDNA E1b1a).
It depends on the sample, i.e. the socio-ethnic and subsistence background of the sampled. There are samples from say, Nigeria, that don't necessarily cluster with other populations from Nigeria.
quote: There have only been a handful studies in reference to unipaternal lineages on the basis of Rwandan genetic diversity, but recent results regarding the autosomal affinities of the Rwandan population is being to depict a different picture indeed
Really? Where; in the one Tutsi individual with Hutu ancestry, or the two 23andme Tutsi individuals that you claim have "NE African ancestry"?
quote:according to results regarding the yDNA diversity in Rwanda, you would expect no NE African admixture at all... but according to Tishkoff et al. 2009, Rwandans are collectively near ~20% NE African.
Then you must not have seen the Y-DNA data that I have seen, if you would not expect any possible "NE African" component.
Given the volume of microsatellites and indels, it is safe to assume that these likely transcend the Y-DNA, but I'm not sure how you know that data from Y-DNA is not included, when you refer to Tishkoff et al. (2009).
quote:I'm not following? How else would you explain the predominant affinity to the African Horn in contrast to S.Sudan or West/Central Africa of the Maasai? Besides admixture? Please explain...
It could be any number of things: convergent evolution, common ancestry, drift, and/or admixture. The thing is, you have no way of knowing definitively, without additional material. All we know, is that "observed" clusters are formed around certain markers (which could have entailed more than one type for all we know, and found in other groups outside of the entities after which an AAC was designated), which were arbitrarily named after language or geographic entities said to show the highest incidences.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Did I not clearly state that the figures that I had posted previously were in reference to the average Maasai results and that Nilotic and Bantu ancestry contained the collective results of a handful of very similar clusters that were in references to the aforementioned ancestries?
And did I not clearly state that your figures don't match up with those reported on the Tishkoff et al. (2009) supplementary material?
quote: The Maasai groups sampled by Tishkoff are listed as:
quote:The Maasai results regarding their "Cushitic" ancestry is exactly as is, as stated previously according to the African run the 4 Maasai groups where in the range of 45.9-50.5%. The Nilotic and Bantu affinities are in reference to the collective accounting of various similar clusters.
How do you get an "average" with a range, for starters, for hard figures given per sample? The last I checked, Tishkoff et al. did not present "Cushitic ancestry" for the Maasai in the form of an average, but rather, individual figures for respective samples. The authors saw no need for pooling them; why do you?
quote:I'm beginning to realize that your simply wasting my time.
You are wasting your own time, if anybody is doing that. It is you who interjected the ongoing discussion, gratuitously accusing all those who posted prior to said interjection, of bias. Did you expect to get a pass on that kind of accusation, and did you think that your claims would go said unscrutinized? If you did expect these sort of results, then you were/are wasting your own time.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Notice that absolutely no background data is given for the two Tutsi's that were analysed
For all we know, those two samples were related, which would reduce their sample from an already meagre two, to one, as population genetic studies usually control for their samples being related.
I'm not directing this at the obnoxious racist troll Manu, one cannot get intelligent answers out of him anyway, but one cannot help but notice how desperate supporters of this notion are
They don't control for other factors; all they look at and are obsessed with is typology and explaining variation in terms of grand scale immigration and admixture
Did it, for example, ever cross their mind that the slightly elevated extra Bantu ancestry simply reflects pre colonial inter-elite contact with one or more Northern contemporary polities?
However, one would expect such ancestry to be present in both Hutu's and Tutsi's, given their historically relatively high intermarriage rates, and in fact we do see this pattern.
Good post, this was something I was trying to point out. I feel that some people look at the physical features of the Tutsis and the old myths about them being originally Ethiopians and look at those two Tutsi samples from 23andme to make conclusions, two samples from 23andme are insufficent to draw a conclusion about an entire ethnic group. This isn't to say that such a component doesn't exist in most Tutsi, just that 2 samples can't be extrapolated to make a conclusion about an entire group.
Most certainly the Hutu would have such ancestry given their intermixture with Tutsis over the years so your observation makes good sense.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
I saw you had one but before reading it I continued editing my above post.
Boy am I sorry. Will I ever know what I missed?
Awe shoot, don't worry about it. If I recall I was simply clarifying what you happened to revise in your edits and since you're the one who performed the analysis it was just better that you explained it. Twas nothing major. Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
You can clearly recognize the regional affinities of these various clusters; the Nilo-Saharan cluster peaks among groups within or very close to South Sudan decreases as you move way from S. Sudan (the S. Sudanese samples possess the highest collective Nilotic ancestry, followed by near by groups in the SE Africa, and secondly Nilo-Saharan and Chadic speakers in the vicinity of Lake Chad and the Central Sahara.
Actually, some groups in Kenya showed even higher proportions of the so-called "Nilo-Saharan AAC" than Nilo-Saharan groups from Sudan.
quote:There are two Tutsi samples from 23andme; one of them happens to 1/4th Hutu and is therefore less NE African than the other Tutsi with no known Hutu ancestry. The mixed individual is a 1/4 mix of the "pure" Tutsi and the sampled Bantu-Kenyans; The "pure" Tutsi sample is about ~60% NE African, while the other Tutsi is roughly ~50% NE African, in comparison to the core Bantu Kenyan cluster at roughly ~10%.
You don't find it bizarre that your over-reaching claims of Tutsi gene pool hinges on two samples, one of which, according to yourself, has known Hutu ancestry?
quote:The Hima are Tutsi as previously mentioned; there's mutually understanding between both groups that they are in fact one and the same; the Hima are assumed to have migrated to southern Uganda from Rwanda relatively recently.
That doesn't explain why you are ignoring repeat genetic data on actual Rwandan Tutsi, and instead, choosing to use some Hema data as a proxy for them.
quote:Tishkoff et al. (2009) simply sampled a random group of Rwandans and made no effort to differentiate the 8 Rwandan samples; but if you would actually analyze the samples, a minority possess NE African admixture simpler to that of the two Tutsi individuals from 23andme.
Spoken like a broken record.
quote: Both of the Tutsi samples possess yDNA lineage E1b1a (E1b1a7a and E1b1a8a1), while their mtDNA lineages vary ( L0a2d and L2a-d).
So, they tested for Y-DNA, did they? I thought you were latching onto these two specimens, because of their atDNA analysis.
quote:Nigerian, Zimbabwean, whatever... any group that's predominantly West/Central African. The mixed Tutsi is exactly intermediate between relatively "pure" Bantu Kenyans like the Luhya and Somalis and Oromos from the Horn of Africa, while the "pure" Tutsi is closer to the latter than the former besides his intermediate position.
You don't get it. You can't just take it for granted that a Nigerian, Zimbabwean, or South African sample is a proxy for some other population located in central African.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
I'm confused al, I got the impression you matched Yuya's entire profile to those Euro's, not two alleles... . . . . . .
Why would this Euro match be any different than the aforementioned Asia match?
Let me repost my method as a refresher
quote: I compare (1)shared alleles I (2)assess the number of shared profile loci, (3)number of highest frequency alleles and (4)number of highest frequency loci for each population set
Yuya's profile had no match. Europe had 5 loci matches and Africa had 4. One of Europe's matching loci had the highest frequency of its kind. Africa had no highest frequency loci. Both Europe and Africa had 7 highest frequency alleles. . . .
It's a matter of state vs descent.
To get a better grasp of things try simulating the regions/populations and gathering the STR data then making assessments from the findings for yourself.
I think that if the results you found are confirmed in other studies then yes there could be traces of European genes in Yuya's ancestry. However, that does not mean, as some folks have been claiming since the discovery of his mummy, that he was "European" or "Asiatic" looking. These people often parrot stories about how mummies "look" European but fail to point out that these mummies are dried out and shriveled up and in no way match their real life appearances. And in Yuya's case, it has already been posted before that there are many Africans in the Nile Valley with features matching the mummy, including beards without the need to impose "European" looks on them. The point being that having some "Eurasian" genes does not mean that one has to look Eurasian and African Americans as a population prove that quite well, for example Barack Obama.
From wikipedia:
quote: It sometimes is suggested that Tiye's father, Yuya, was of Asiatic or Nubian descent due to the features of his mummy and the many different spellings of his name, which might imply it was a non-Egyptian name in origin.[3] Some suggest that the queen's strong political and unconventional religious views might have been due not just to a strong character, but to foreign descent
Which is the same sort of logic I have found in almost every book on Egypt and Amarna I have read including on various Egyptian web sites.
And if you look up web sites about Tiye's mummy invariably you will come across many "official" websites promoting pictures of the mummy with false colored "brown" hair implying this is a mummy of some red haired "eurasian" queen...
quote: Located between the eyes, the small protuberance was found on the mummy of the so-called Elder Lady (KV35EL). Boasting long reddish hair falling across her shoulders, the mummy was identified in February 2010 by DNA testing as Queen Tiye, the daughter of Yuya and Thuya, wife of Amenhotep III, and mother of Akhenaten.
So when you see these clowns coming on this forum spouting their nonsense, keep in mind that this is the "official" garbage seen on TV and in the media which is promoted by the so-called "experts" in the field. And they are determined to do whatever they can and use any tricks they can to turn Egypt into the land of the "white" pharaohs by any means necessary.
Which is why a full analysis of the DNA results of the Amarna mummies has not been published, except for this from DNA tribes and why many years after it has been published, the "XRay Atlas of the Royal mummies" from Egypt showing strong affinities to "Nubians" is not often referenced by those so-called "experts" who want to identify the ancestry of these individuals, despite the work being done by Europeans at the Oriental institute in Chicago.
So at this point you have multiple sources of evidence from cranial to genetic and artistic pointing to the AE being black African people but the "official" community has yet to catch up with its own research! LOL! But keep in mind most of what you see about AE on Discovery Channel, the History Channel or even BBC is by design propaganda designed to appeal to a European audience. It is not designed for Egyptians in Egypt today, because they don't even see these shows and it is most certainly not designed for Africans in General. Therefore you cannot expect such programs to reflect reality.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Old Doctore: @ Explorer
Your post regarding Egypt is insightful, but given that your response is in way related to my objection to the DNAtribes analysis; in fact some of your statements are positions that I've taken in this vary same thread, for example the fact that modern Egyptians possess African ancestry divergent (yet overlapping)with the African Horn and that African ancestry increases (where it likely peaks in places like Luxor and Aswan) as you move south and reaches a minimum in places like the Delta and Sinai. I may take some time to honestly reply to the most in the future, but I don't have the energy to do so as of now.
If you have seen the same things contained in my reply post to you, about the demography of Egypt, then the DNAtribe report should not have struck you as an enigma.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
This Tutsi samples mtDNA is L3a, which I'm positive is East African; the other Tutsi samples also seem to possess interesting mtDNA lineages (but I'm not exactly positive if they are East African or not); the Hutu sample is L3f1b4a.
L3a is a pan-African haplogroup. You are going to have to be more specific.
quote: Lets end the discussion here. We currently have 4 Rwandan samples from 23andme who follow the trend I had advocated in previous posts, and further discussion regarding this topic is therefore pointless. We're going to have to wait for a peer-reviewed study that compares the genetic affinities of the two groups to lay this topic to rest.
We already have repeat genetic studies on large Rwandan samples specifically on Tutsi and the Hutu. None of them markedly distinguishes the two. So, there is actually no genetic controversy on this issue. The burden is on you to come up with a study that dramatically distinguishes between the two, rather than hinging your argument on amateur work on two or three Tutsi individuals, some of whom have known Hutu ancestry at that.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: L3a is a pan-African haplogroup. You are going to have to be more specific.
That's incorrect. Under the current phylogenetic tree L3a is only found in Eastern Africa. It's a minor basal clade.
Posts: 424 | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Searchable STR Database for Human Cell Lines As part of our continuing efforts to characterize and authenticate the cell lines in the Cell Biology collection, ATCC is developing a comprehensive database of short tandem repeat (STR) DNA profiles for all of our human cell lines. Background Short tandem repeat (STR) loci are among the most informative polymorphic markers in the human genome. Studies have shown that a minimum of eight STR markers are required to positively identify human cell lines. Use of 8 core STR loci enables a 1 in 108 discrimination rate for unrelated individuals.1 ATCC generates human STR profiles by simultaneously amplifying eight STR loci (D5S818, D13S317, D7S820, D16S539, vWA, TH01, TPOX, CSF1PO) and
For each query, enter either (1) an ATCC catalog number, OR (2) at least 7 of the 8 STR loci
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
(Excuse me for posting this here, but I just don't feel like creating another thread and going back and forth. Just want to get it out there and stop talking about it)
Had to wait a few days, but the answer is in.
According to DNA Tribes, both the Tutsi and the Hutu are similar to other Great Lake populations. Asked them a host of questions, but received no direct answers. Aside from the formalities, all I got was a two sentence reply, similar to how they replied back to Astenb.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Manu: That's incorrect. Under the current phylogenetic tree L3a is only found in Eastern Africa. It's a minor basal clade.
Who made this remarkably stupid claim that L3a is only found in eastern Africa?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Manu: That's incorrect. Under the current phylogenetic tree L3a is only found in Eastern Africa. It's a minor basal clade.
Who made this remarkably stupid claim that L3a is only found in eastern Africa?
It has only been detected in Eastern Africa. Under the current nomenclature it is a small lineage seemingly restricted to Eastern Africa. L3a is one of the few basal clades (branching off at the root) which supports the Eastern origin of L3.
Additionally, all the L3a sequences in GenBank (largest mtDNA database in the world) are Ethiopian/Somalian.
Posts: 424 | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
You keep saying that, but you never answered my question as to whom, who calls him/herself some sort of "authority", came up with that ridiculous idea, other than yourself, of course?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again look at that spreadsheet which was posted previously. It is from Behar et al. which combined a huge collection of African maternal data from the past couple of years.
There is nothing pan-African about it when it has only been observed in Eastern Africa, mostly in the Horn. Also, all the samples in GenBank belonging to this clade are strictly East African.
You claimed it was pan-African, which isn't the case. I corrected you and you still keep on arguing without providing a shred of evidence. The burden of proof is on you.
Posts: 424 | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Manu: Again look at that spreadsheet which was posted previously. It is from Behar et al. which combined a huge collection of African maternal data from the past couple of years.
Maybe its on my end, but your spreadsheet is incomprehensible to me.
Just give me the name and citation of the "authority" who told you that L3a is only found in eastern Africa, and nowhere else.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic