posted
Evil Euro likes saying that West and central Africans are true Negroes and East Africans are hybrids, so lets compare the Dogon of Mali to East Africans using STRUCTURE, the program that Evil Euro says identifies "racial" clusters and examine
The blue color represents alleged "Eurasian" ancestry from the Middle East or Europe, but Evil Euro's logic Dogon from Mali and Mozabite Berbers should look exactly alike or should look like mulattoes, but Dogon from Mali possess so called "true Negro" traits and look distinct from Mozabite Berbers. Notice that the Dogon from Mali have more blue than East Africans, so if STRUCTURE indicates "racial clusters" as you claim explain this Evil Euro.
argyle104 Member # 14634
posted
Why don't you do your own research and quit relying on the some crack pot why man to do it for you?
Do you actually think those people don't lie?
But then again that is what keyboard scholars like you do isn't it?
argyle104 Member # 14634
posted
Fool many quack white scientists and arm chair racialists have written and said many times that Malians are admixed with "caucasians/hamites".
Charlie Bass. Member # 10328
posted
Note to argay the white troll, the author said the blue color could represent either recent admixture, ancestry to the first humans who migrated OOA and or both, so Dogon from Mali most likely are not mixed. The study says they also share some ancestry with Khoisan and Sandawe from East Africa so put two and two together and stop trolling.
argyle104 Member # 14634
posted
Learn to read, you moron. I said "quack white scientists and arm chair racialists have written and said many times that Malians are admixed with "caucasians/hamites".
argyle104 Member # 14634
posted
Why is it that you rely so heavily on whites to do a study and tell you about Africans?
On one hand you say there are racists among them and then on the other hand you run to these same people to give you your identity, culture, and history.
It makes absolutely no sense.
You're a pitiful person Charlie.
Debunker Member # 15669
posted
Here's what that study says about East Africans:
"The Fulani and Cushitic (an eastern Afroasiatic subfamily) AACs, which likely reflect Saharan African and East African ancestry, respectively, are closest to the non-African AACs [Associated Ancestral Clusters], consistent with an East African migration of modern humans out of Africa or a back-migration of non-Africans into Saharan and Eastern Africa."
Charlie Bass. Member # 10328
posted
quote:Originally posted by Debunker: Here's what that study says about East Africans:
"The Fulani and Cushitic (an eastern Afroasiatic subfamily) AACs, which likely reflect Saharan African and East African ancestry, respectively, are closest to the non-African AACs [Associated Ancestral Clusters], consistent with an East African migration of modern humans out of Africa or a back-migration of non-Africans into Saharan and Eastern Africa."
So what are *YOU* saying? You quote something that totally avoids answering the original question put forth, coward.
Sundjata Member # 13096
posted
quote:So what are *YOU* saying? You quote something that totally avoids answering the original question put forth, coward.
LOL.. These kind of evasion tactics are pathetic. I saw his post and was curious as to what creative method he'd use to explain his way out of this dilemma but behold, he merely tucks his tail between his legs and starts rambling on about something else. Debunked loses again.
Charlie Bass. Member # 10328
posted
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata:
quote:So what are *YOU* saying? You quote something that totally avoids answering the original question put forth, coward.
LOL.. These kind of evasion tactics are pathetic. I saw his post and was curious as to what creative method he'd use to explain his way out of this dilemma but behold, he merely tucks his tail between his legs and starts rambling on about something else. Debunked loses again.
Yes, he's being a coward. In fact, he merely begging the question because a look at the study reveals that all of East African samples, especially the Ethiopian groups, have very low levels of ancestry assigned to Eurasian ancestry. The Dogon from Mali have "more Eurasian" ancestry than the all the East African groups, nearly as much as the Mozabites, whom Evil Euro would call "Caucasoids." If STRUCTURE groups people by racial clusters as Evil Euro and Neil Risch claim, The Dogon would be mulattoes as well as the Mozabite Berbers.
Freehand Member # 10819
posted
Markers only tell related ancestry, not point of origination.
So just because alot of people in Sudan and in Central and Southern Africa have very old lineages doesn't mean that was where they originated. These are all areas straddling Eastern Africa.
It could mean that newer lineages moved in on their original turf forcing them out.
I had it humans developed in Kenya near the Rift Valley and that "the location" the first anatomically modern people originate in is being debated.
akoben Member # 15244
posted
quote:Originally posted by Charlie Bass.: Evil Euro likes saying that West and central Africans are true Negroes and East Africans are hybrids,
He's merely echoing Sforza. If you didnt speed read him so much – hence missing what he is really saying - you would have realised this by now.
Djehuti Member # 6698
posted
quote:Originally posted by Charlie Bass.: Note to argay the white troll, the author said the blue color could represent either recent admixture, ancestry to the first humans who migrated OOA and or both, so Dogon from Mali most likely are not mixed. The study says they also share some ancestry with Khoisan and Sandawe from East Africa so put two and two together and stop trolling.
You know very well that Argay nothing more than white racist--hence his tendency to distract discussions with his sub-retarded trolling--and nothing less than a sock-puppet of Stupid-Euro-- thus being the first one to attack the findings of this thread!
Hey Argay, must be nice having Evil-Euro's hand up your bottom isn't it?!
The Explorer Member # 14778
posted
quote:Originally posted by Charlie Bass.:
quote:Originally posted by Debunker:
Here's what that study says about East Africans:
"The Fulani and Cushitic (an eastern Afroasiatic subfamily) AACs, which likely reflect Saharan African and East African ancestry, respectively, are closest to the non-African AACs [Associated Ancestral Clusters], consistent with an East African migration of modern humans out of Africa or a back-migration of non-Africans into Saharan and Eastern Africa."
So what are *YOU* saying? You quote something that totally avoids answering the original question put forth, coward.
Yeap, he isn't saying anything, as his "citation", like you put it, simply begs but does not answer questions about the most logical conclusions that it lays out there. As you note in your later response, the latter is certainly not the most logical, which would thus leave out the first in debunked's piece: an East African migration of modern humans out of Africa
quote:Originally posted by Freehand:
Markers only tell related ancestry, not point of origination.
Depends on the type of markers; uniparental markers are good indicators of point of origin.
The Explorer Member # 14778
posted
For clarity, what specific markers are being tested here?
Charlie Bass. Member # 10328
posted
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: For clarity, what specific markers are being tested here?
We genotyped a panel of 1,327 polymorphic markers, consisting of 848 microsatellites, 476 in-dels (insertions/deletions) and 3 SNPs (single nucleotide polymorphisms), in 2,432 Africans from 113 geographically diverse populations (fig. S1), 98 African Americans, and 21 Yemenites (table S1). To incorporate pre-existing African data and to place African genetic variability into a worldwide context, these data were integrated with data from the panel of markers genotyped in 952 worldwide individuals from the CEPH-HGDP (Centre d'Étude du Polymorphisme Humain- Human Genome Diversity Panel) (8–10), in 432 individuals of Indian descent (11) and in 10 Native Australians (tables S1 and S2).
The Explorer Member # 14778
posted
^Yeah, but this still falls short of specifying whether the discussion involves Y-DNA, X-DNA, mtDNA or atDNA respectively, and/or any combination of said types.
Debunker Member # 15669
posted
That study goes up to K=14. Obviously, there are not 14 different races, so what we're seeing here are a lot subdivisions within races.
Charlie Bass. Member # 10328
posted
quote:Originally posted by Debunker: That study goes up to K=14. Obviously, there are not 14 different races, so what we're seeing here are a lot subdivisions within races.
But you said STRUTURE clusters people into racial clusters, obviously the data doesn't fit that scheme, nor does it fit a sub-race scheme, if it is all these subdivisions are subs of the "Negroid" race using your choice of racial terms.
Debunker Member # 15669
posted
The data does fit the racial scheme. The first split at K = 2 is between Africans and non-Africans, and then at K = 3, Eastern Eurasians split from Western Eurasians.
Charlie Bass. Member # 10328
posted
quote:Originally posted by Debunker: The data does fit the racial scheme. The first split at K = 2 is between Africans and non-Africans, and then at K = 3, Eastern Eurasians split from Western Eurasians.
It does not for populations have multiple membership is multiple clusters, why ignore the other K?
Debunker Member # 15669
posted
The higher values of K show subdivisions within races.
Charlie Bass. Member # 10328
posted
quote:Originally posted by Debunker: The higher values of K show subdivisions within races.
BS, the pape doesn't fit the schema of racial clusters via Structure, you simply looked at K=2 and ignored the rest. K=2 means the samples are being run only as two clusters.
Debunker Member # 15669
posted
The first few clusters correspond to geographical races, just as in every other global STRUCTURE analysis.
posted 
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)