...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Deshret
»
Classic Greece and its population's origins
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718: Courtesy of Refuting "Racial Reality" re Greeks http://www.onedroprule.org/about1335.html There is a fraudulent claim, promulgated by Racial Reality and Dienekes Pontikos, that the Arnaiz-Villena study HLA genes in Macedonians and the sub-Saharan origin of the Greeks (abstract and link to full study below) has been retracted or scientifically refuted. Rest assured, the study is perfectly valid. It would be helpful here to discuss the study that was retracted, and the reason why. It is The origin of Palestinians and their genetic relatedness with other Mediterranean populations (which contained some cross-referenced Greek data in a neighbor-joining dendogram and a correspondence analysis), and it was retracted solely and strictly for political reasons, as this Observer article makes crystal clear: (Keep in mind we are dealing with the study on the relatedness of Jews and Palestinians at the moment, which was retracted, and not the one on the Greek-sub-Saharan relatedness, which was not retracted. The two must not be confused.) http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4307083,00.html Observer wrote: Journal axes gene research on Jews and Palestinians Robin McKie, science editor Observer Sunday November 25, 2001 A keynote research paper showing that Middle Eastern Jews and Palestinians are genetically almost identical has been pulled from a leading journal. Academics who have already received copies of Human Immunology have been urged to rip out the offending pages and throw them away. Such a drastic act of self-censorship is unprecedented in research publishing and has created widespread disquiet, generating fears that it may involve the suppression of scientific work that questions Biblical dogma. 'I have authored several hundred scientific papers, some for Nature and Science, and this has never happened to me before,' said the article's lead author, Spanish geneticist Professor Antonio Arnaiz-Villena, of Complutense University in Madrid. 'I am stunned.' British geneticist Sir Walter Bodmer added: 'If the journal didn't like the paper, they shouldn't have published it in the first place. Why wait until it has appeared before acting like this?' The journal's editor, Nicole Sucio-Foca, of Columbia University, New York, claims the article provoked such a welter of complaints over its extreme political writing that she was forced to repudiate it. The article has been removed from Human Immunology's website, while letters have been written to libraries and universities throughout the world asking them to ignore or 'preferably to physically remove the relevant pages'. Arnaiz-Villena has been sacked from the journal's editorial board. Dolly Tyan, president of the American Society of Histocompatibility and Immunogenetics, which runs the journal, told subscribers that the society is 'offended and embarrassed'. The paper, 'The Origin of Palestinians and their Genetic Relatedness with other Mediterranean Populations', involved studying genetic variations in immune system genes among people in the Middle East. In common with earlier studies, the team found no data to support the idea that Jewish people were genetically distinct from other people in the region. In doing so, the team's research challenges claims that Jews are a special, chosen people and that Judaism can only be inherited. Jews and Palestinians in the Middle East share a very similar gene pool and must be considered closely related and not genetically separate, the authors state. Rivalry between the two races is therefore based 'in cultural and religious, but not in genetic differences', they conclude. But the journal, having accepted the paper earlier this year, now claims the article was politically biased and was written using 'inappropriate' remarks about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Its editor told the journal Nature last week that she was threatened by mass resignations from members if she did not retract the article. Arnaiz-Villena says he has not seen a single one of the accusations made against him, despite being promised the opportunity to look at the letters sent to the journal. He accepts he used terms in the article that laid him open to criticism. There is one reference to Jewish 'colonists' living in the Gaza strip, and another that refers to Palestinian people living in 'concentration' camps. 'Perhaps I should have used the words settlers instead of colonists, but really, what is the difference?' he said. 'And clearly, I should have said refugee, not concentration, camps, but given that I was referring to settlements outside of Israel - in Syria and Lebanon - that scarcely makes me anti-Jewish. References to the history of the region, the ones that are supposed to be politically offensive, were taken from the Encyclopaedia Britannica, and other text books.' In the wake of the journal's actions, and claims of mass protests about the article, several scientists have now written to the society to support Arnaiz-Villena and to protest about their heavy-handedness. One of them said: 'If Arnaiz-Villena had found evidence that Jewish people were genetically very special, instead of ordinary, you can be sure no one would have objected to the phrases he used in his article. This is a very sad business.' It is worth exploring a few quotes from the above article, as they are very revealing: Observer wrote: Such a drastic act of self-censorship is unprecedented in research publishing and has created widespread disquiet, generating fears that it may involve the suppression of scientific work that questions Biblical dogma. This shows the politics at work in certain circles of genetic research. Sir Walter Bodmer wrote: British geneticist Sir Walter Bodmer added: 'If the journal didn't like the paper, they shouldn't have published it in the first place. Why wait until it has appeared before acting like this?' The fact that the journal initially published the paper shows the journal found nothing wrong with it scientifically. Indeed, all papers must pass peer review to be published. It also, apparently, saw nothing politically objectionable, until it received all those letters from people objecting to the supposedly politically incorrect wording. Apparently, later on, in an attempt to discredit the study "scientifically," three scientists wrote in to Nature Magazine. Racial Reality and Pontikos claim it somehow "challenges" that the study was pulled for political reasons. This is utter nonsense, as the Observer article makes the political reasons for the withdrawal very plain. The three scientists are expressing their own opinions only, and their "lack of scientific merit" idea, which falls very weakly and definitely untrue, was not the reason for the retraction. This can be seen when viewing their own comment at the end of the article: "We believe that the paper should have been refused for publication on the simple grounds that it lacked scientific merit." In actuality, this "scientific refutation" is a thinly veiled and weak attempt, containing nonsensical and straw-man arguments, to discredit the study solely and strictly because of its politically controversial remarks. Here is the article. Note that what Dienekes Pontikos quotes on his site is only a portion of the article, and this is done to make it seem, to the unsuspecting reader, as though it pertains to the Greek study, or to Arnaiz-Villena's methodology in general, which it most certainly does not; if the scientists truly had a problem with the Greek study, they would have written specifically about it, and if they truly had a problem with Arnaiz-Villena's methodology in all his studies, they would have written about that. They didn't, and to reiterate, their comments about the Palestinian/Jewish study are invalid, and this will be explained below. This deception is also found on Racial Reality's own site, and he has added it to Wikipedia's article on admixture in Europe, calling it the "Arnaiz-Villena Controversy." Note also that there is no controversy in the scientific community over the study on Greeks at all; such controversy exists only in the minds of the two aforementioned southern European White Nationalists. I have made requests to have the misinformation removed from Wiki, but it hasn't happened yet. Racial Reality dodges the bullet by rewording it slightly, while still saying essentially the same thing. So, I have given up. Dear Reader, please take what you find on Wiki with several grains of salt; it is notorious for falsification, and I frankly don't think this problem will ever be resolved: http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v415/n6868/full/415115b_r.html Quote: Nature 415, 115 (10 January 2002); doi:10.1038/415115b Dropped genetics paper lacked scientific merit Sir – Even though the controversial withdrawal of a paper on the genetic relatedness of Palestinians and Jews by the journal Human Immunology (see Nature 414, 382; 2001) is a minor episode compared with the tragedies caused by ethnic/religious conflicts over past decades, the issues involved are worth revisiting. The stated purpose of the paper by Antonio Arnaiz-Villena et al. was to "examine the genetic relationships between the Palestinians and their neighbours (particularly the Jews) in order to: (1) discover the Palestinian origins, and (2) explain the historic basis of the present ... conflict between Palestinians and other Muslim countries with Israelite Jews". They conclude: "Jews and Palestinians share a very similar HLA genetic pool that supports a common ancient Canaanite origin. Therefore, the origin of the long-lasting Jewish–Palestinian hostility is the fight for land in ancient times." It is difficult to believe that knowledge of genes may help to explain the present conflict. Although population genetics can address issues of relatedness of populations, mating patterns, migrations and so on, obviously it cannot provide evidence about reasons for conflicts between people. Our primary concern, however, is that the authors might be perceived to have been discriminated against for political, as opposed to legitimate scientific, reasons. Even a cursory look at the paper's diagrams and trees immediately indicates that the authors make some extraordinary claims. They used a single genetic marker, HLA DRB1, for their analysis to construct a genealogical tree and map of 28 populations from Europe, the Middle East, Africa and Japan. Using results from the analysis of a single marker, particularly one likely to have undergone selection, for the purpose of reconstructing genealogies is unreliable and unacceptable practice in population genetics. The limitations are made evident by the authors' extraordinary observations that Greeks are very similar to Ethiopians and east Africans but very distant from other south Europeans; and that the Japanese are nearly identical to west and south Africans. It is surprising that the authors were not puzzled by these anomalous results, which contradict history, geography, anthropology and all prior population-genetic studies of these groups. Surely the ordinary process of refereeing would have saved the field from this dispute. We believe that the paper should have been refused for publication on the simple grounds that it lacked scientific merit. Neil Risch Department of Genetics, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California 94305, USA Alberto Piazza Department of Genetics, Biology and Biochemistry, University of Torino, Via Santena 19, 10126 Torino, Italy L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza Department of Genetics, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California 94305, USA -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- © 2002 Nature Publishing Group Privacy Policy It is clear that the three above scientists are catering to popular political sentiments, and that is a damned shame. Let's examine what they say: Three Scientists wrote: Even a cursory look at the paper's diagrams and trees immediately indicates that the authors make some extraordinary claims. They used a single genetic marker, HLA DRB1, for their analysis to construct a genealogical tree and map of 28 populations from Europe, the Middle East, Africa and Japan. Using results from the analysis of a single marker, particularly one likely to have undergone selection, for the purpose of reconstructing genealogies is unreliable and unacceptable practice in population genetics. The DRB1 locus is apparently a good one to research, since it is used quite often by different researchers. It may only be one locus, but a relationship between populations at even one locus is still a relationship. Arnaiz-Villena, et al., say data obtained by using this locus is informative and discriminating, indeed more discriminating than data from mtDNA and Y-chromosomes. However, Arnaiz-Villena et al. always use other loci in addition to DRB1, and draw conclusions from all the data. So, the claim that conclusions are drawn from testing one locus (even though it is a good one) is false and a straw-man argument. The claim the locus is under selection is vague and indefinite. Which alleles are under selection at this locus? There is no information stating that any of the ones tested are. Are all alleles found at this locus under selection? There isn't enough information to regard this seriously. At any rate, selection plays no role in the Arnaiz-Villena studies, since the frequency of the alleles are not being used to estimate level of admixture. For example, no one is saying that allele from Population B exists in Population A at a rate of 4%, therefore there is admixture of Population B into Population A at a rate of 4%. This is the only case selection can have an adverse effect, because if an allele is expanded due to its being beneficial, its rate in a population will likely exceed the true admixture rate. If one is calculating admixture rate, one is likely to get inflated results. However, the mere presence of any allele specific to one population in another cannot occur by any other means than admixture. Selection can never cause the presence of such an allele. The study we are dealing with here, the one on Palestinian / Jewish relatedness, apparently included calculations of genetic distances at the DRB1 locus. Genetic distances are calculated by comparing the frequencies of alleles in various populations. The aim of calculating genetic distances is to determine relatedness of populations. Again, alleles under selection would have no effect on calculating relatedness, only on calculating level of admixture. If a certain foreign allele is introduced into a given population and becomes very beneficial in it, it causes those with the allele to survive, at the expense of those who don't have it. Eventually, many people will have this allele, even though it may have been introduced via a very small admixing population. However, as people without the allele die off, and those with it increase in number, it follows that the relatedness of the population to the population from which the beneficial allele came increases, of course, without the admixture increasing. Therefore, a calculation of genetic relatedness would reflect this elevated relatedness, without revealing true admixture. But if one is only calculating relatedness, it is not a problem and is quite accurate. This is precisely what Arnaiz-Villena, et al. are doing in this and their other studies. The "DRB1 locus is under selection" attempt to discredit the study goes out the window. Interestingly, Y-chromosome and mtDNA analysis is essentially the same as using a single HLA locus with its respective alleles, as mentioned to me by Dr. Arnaiz-Villena in private correspondence. Even more interestingly, Y Chromosomes and mtDNA are also subject to selection, since they are linked to diseases. Yet these are frequently used to calculate admixture estimates, and no one seems to complain: Arnaiz-Villena, et al., in 'Population genetic relationships between Mediterranean populations determined by HLA allele distribution and a historic perspective' (abstract below) wrote: Other molecular markers, like mtDNA and Y Chr. are widely used for this type of research. They are also subject to selection since they are linked to diseases [...]. At any rate, the role selection plays is not necessarily significant in all cases, according a geneticist I recently spoke to. He explained that the four west African strains of HbS, which are definite indicators of sub-Saharan admixture when found elsewhere, are beneficial to those with malaria, and so selection would increase the frequency of the gene in malarial areas without the admixture increasing. However, in places like Sicily and southern Italy, the frequency of the HbS gene is still quite low, and generally not significantly different from estimates of African admixture using mtDNA, Y-chromosomes, or autosomal genes. Let's face it: genetecists aren't going to use a marker or locus that isn't reliable. Period. To reiterate, Dr. Arnaiz-Villena has pointed out (in private correspondence) that HLA DRB1 is more discriminating than mtDNA or Y-chromosomes are. Continuing with the dissection of the three scientists' article: Three Scentists wrote: The limitations are made evident by the authors' extraordinary observations that Greeks are very similar to Ethiopians and east Africans but very distant from other south Europeans; Indeed, as shown by the neighbor-joining dendogram and correspondence analysis at the DRB1 locus shown in this Palestinian/Israeli study, Greeks are closely related to sub-Saharans. This is beyond question or challenge. This does not necessarily mean that overall, Greeks and sub-Saharans are similar. But a close relationship at even only one locus (already shown so far by two distinct methods of analyzing that locus) shows that admixture occurred. However, apparently the three scientists decided to ignore the actual study on Greeks (abstract & link below), because that study shows a relatedness in the samples between Greeks and sub-Saharans using several methods (including two ways of analyzing another locus entirely -- DQ), not just the neighbor-joining dendogram and correspondence analysis of DRB1 shown in the study on Palestinians and Jews, although those would certainly be sufficient; indeed, either one at the DRB1 locus alone would be sufficient. (This deliberate negligence on the part of the three scientists isn't surprising, because, as mentioned above, they criticized the basing of the main conclusions in the Israeli/Palestinian study -- that Palestinians and Israelis are related -- on only the DRB1 locus; this was most certainly not the case, since other loci were tested, and the conclusions were based on the similarities of all results.) Most convincingly, in the actual Greek study, several sub-Saharan-specific alleles were clearly found in the Greek population at the DRB1 locus when a direct search for alleles was undertaken. There is absolutely no getting around this. Sub-Saharan alleles could not be present in the Greek population without admixture having occurred. Anyone with the slightest knowledge of genetics and an ounce of common sense can see this. Alleles specific to one population do not appear in another by magic; only by admixture (as stated above). Three Scientists wrote: and that the Japanese are nearly identical to west and south Africans. Firstly, according to another study, HLA Genes in Arabic-speaking Morrocans, the scientists (including Arnaiz-Villena) create what is definitely a similar tree to the one in the retracted study, and never mention that Japanese are related to sub-Saharan Africans, only that they are outliers together (along with Greeks, who really do have a relationship with sub-Saharans): Quote: Greeks are almost outliers together with Japanese and San (Bushmen).. . In fact, a gradient from Western (both African and European) to Middle Eastern Mediterraneans is observed, placing distinctly Greeks, Japanese and San (Bushmen) as outliers. Three Scientists wrote: It is surprising that the authors were not puzzled by these anomalous results, which contradict history, geography, anthropology and all prior population-genetic studies of these groups. Often, genetics will reveal something we didn't previously know about a population. This isn't so puzzling. In fact, it happens all the time, on both individual and populational levels. But in the case of the Greeks having sub-Saharan admixture and Jews / Palestinians being related, the studies are in concord with others. There will be more on the Greek study itself below. It is only being mentioned here because of the cross-referenced data in the study on Palestinians and Jews. Three Scientists wrote: Surely the ordinary process of refereeing would have saved the field from this dispute. This is a very silly and ignorant thing to say, since, as mentioned above, all studies must pass peer review before being published in scientific journals. As mentioned, the study on Palestinians and Jews passed peer review, proving it contained no glaring scientific errors, contrary to what the three scientists who wrote to Nature want us to believe. An e-mail reply to my query to one of the three claiming a scientific weakness for the study is as follows: One of the three scientists, in an e-mail reply wrote: Thanks for writing. I was rather surprised by the following statement in the article you recommend that I read : 'If Arnaiz-Villena had found evidence that Jewish people were genetically very special, instead of ordinary, you can be sure no one would have objected to the phrases he used in his article”. I am not a Jew, but I have great respect for them, and I don’t think they are so ordinary, but I am one of those few geneticists that look at culture rather than genes. I am also scared by the amount of antisemitism I see around. Is the sentence above another bit of it? If so, it is better to not spread it around. The Arnaiz article was refused on the basis of a mistake made by Arnaiz Villena or his colleagues that introduced into a scientific article politics about a very sad conflict that has been going on for decades now, and that we would all like to come to a reasonable end as soon as possible, ideally one dignified for both sides. Arnaiz apologized, and so I suppose he has been forgiven for it and I am not sure the issue deserves continuing comment. Quite surprising and revealing, isn't it? The scientist, who confirms the retraction of the study was political, actually thinks culture should be included in genetic investigations. Doing this can certainly prevent one from learning the truth about a population's genetic structure, since given genes do not necessarily correspond to a given culture. I must confess I am quite disappointed in this well-respected scientist, and will henceforth be somewhat wary of his work. As mentioned above, that the study passed peer review shows nothing was wrong with it. This, together with the facts that: the study was indeed not pulled for scientific reasons; that no other scientists complained about the study scientifically; that no other scientists complained about other similar studies employing the DRB1 locus; and that the three scientists themselves complained about no other similar studies using the DRB1 locus, helps to show the study is scientifically sound. The fact that other scientists had written in to support Arnaiz-Villena after the retraction, further proves the study's validity: Observer wrote: In the wake of the journal's actions, and claims of mass protests about the article, several scientists have now written to the society to support Arnaiz-Villena and to protest about their heavy-handedness. One of them said: 'If Arnaiz-Villena had found evidence that Jewish people were genetically very special, instead of ordinary, you can be sure no one would have objected to the phrases he used in his article. This is a very sad business.' Sad business, indeed. Interestingly, the scientist who wrote the e-mail reply above thinks the above quote is Anti-Semitic, and should not be spread around. It is not, and is simply factual. This would equally apply to any other group (or individual) else with an ideological interest in the outcome of a genetics study. So, to summarize, the study on the relatedness of Jews and Palestinians is perfectly valid from a scientific standpoint. The retraction was for political reasons, and the supposedly scientific objections by a few scientists are easily taken apart, and indeed are merely disguised attempts to show their dislike of the study for political reasons only. ----- Now, it is time to move on to the study on the Greeks, which is called HLA genes in Macedonians and the sub-Saharan origin of the Greeks. Again, keep in mind that this study has not been retracted or challenged. Here is the abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11260506&query_hl=20&itool=pubmed_docsum Quote: Tissue Antigens. 2001 Feb;57(2):118-27. Related Articles, Links HLA genes in Macedonians and the sub-Saharan origin of the Greeks. Arnaiz-Villena A, Dimitroski K, Pacho A, Moscoso J, Gomez-Casado E, Silvera-Redondo C, Varela P, Blagoevska M, Zdravkovska V, Martinez-Laso J. Department of Immunology and Molecular Biology, H. 12 de Octubre, Universidad Complutense, Madrid, Spain. aarnaiz@eucmax.sim.ucm.es HLA alleles have been determined in individuals from the Republic of Macedonia by DNA typing and sequencing. HLA-A, -B, -DR, -DQ allele frequencies and extended haplotypes have been for the first time determined and the results compared to those of other Mediterraneans, particularly with their neighbouring Greeks. Genetic distances, neighbor-joining dendrograms and correspondence analysis have been performed. The following conclusions have been reached: 1) Macedonians belong to the "older" Mediterranean substratum, like Iberians (including Basques), North Africans, Italians, French, Cretans, Jews, Lebanese, Turks (Anatolians), Armenians and Iranians, 2) Macedonians are not related with geographically close Greeks, who do not belong to the "older" Mediterranenan substratum, 3) Greeks are found to have a substantial relatedness to sub-Saharan (Ethiopian) people, which separate them from other Mediterranean groups. Both Greeks and Ethiopians share quasi-specific DRB1 alleles, such as *0305, *0307, *0411, *0413, *0416, *0417, *0420, *1110, *1112, *1304 and *1310. Genetic distances are closer between Greeks and Ethiopian/sub-Saharan groups than to any other Mediterranean group and finally Greeks cluster with Ethiopians/sub-Saharans in both neighbour joining dendrograms and correspondence analyses. The time period when these relationships might have occurred was ancient but uncertain and might be related to the displacement of Egyptian-Ethiopian people living in pharaonic Egypt. PMID: 11260506 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Here is the link to the full article of the above abstract: http://www.makedonika.org/processpaid.aspcontentid=ti.2001.pdf The study found a clear relationship between Greeks and sub-Saharan populations. A neighbor-joining dendogram at the DRB1 locus shows this. Correspondence analyses using HLA-DRB1 allele frequencies data and low resolution HLA-DR and DQ (DQ, incidentally, is another locus) allele frequencies data support this. Genetic distances with HLA-DR and DQ generic typings support this. HLA-DRB1 genetic distance calculations support this. And finally, eleven DRB1 alleles were found to be shared by Greeks and sub-Saharans when a direct allele search was undertaken. These alleles, when not found in any real quantities in other populations geographically close to Greece, were searched for in other locations, and were found to exist mainly in Ethiopian and West African populations. Some are only found in Greeks and sub-Saharans, while a few are sporadically found in other populations, mainly around the Mediterranean (the Croatian island of Hvar and Lebanon) and Hungary. African ancestry in any of these populations should not be surprising. (Incidentally, two are found in Amerindians, who have been shown by other methods to have sub-Saharan admixture. One is found in Pacific peoples, who have also been shown to have low levels of sub-Saharan admixture by other methods.) This shows an introgression of sub-Saharan alleles into the Greek population. Again, the only way for alleles from one population to enter another one is by admixture. Selection cannot cause this. The DRB1 locus' being subject to selection has no bearing on these results (see above). (It should also be noted that the idea put forth by one individual that the HLA alleles in question are Greek alleles and the sub-Saharan populations carrying them do so because of Greek admixture doesn't hold even a drop of water. This is because Greece's neighbours were tested for the alleles and were found not to have them to any significant degree. Since Greek colonists settled in many parts of the Mediterranean, if the alleles had been Greek in origin, they would be present in Greece's neighbours, like Italians, Turks, etc., at appreciable rates. Also, there is no historical evidence of significant Greek settlement in these sub-Saharan areas, particularly the West African ones. But there is indeed evidence of significant presence and settlement of sub-Saharans in Greece.) Other tests that show other results should not surprise. There is another study, called High-resolution typing of HLA-DRB1 locus in the Macedonian population, by Petlichkovski, et al., 2004, which tests the same DRB1 locus and apparently doesn't report sub-Saharan material (see below on this), and finds Greeks to be similar to Macedonians and other southern Europeans (using genetic distance calculations). In the study itself (not in the abstract) the Arnaiz-Villena study is addressed, and it is mentioned that their results are not in agreement with those of Arnaiz-Villena, and the reasoning used is that the sampled populations were different. This makes perfect sense. The authors didn't try to discredit the Arnaiz-Villena study, which they couldn't do, anyway, because results are results. But isn't it strange that those with ideological investments in the purity of Greeks or other Mediterraneans who claim to object to the use of the DRB1 locus don't object to this study, and freely quote it, conveniently ignoring, of course, what is stated in boldface above? If that doesn't make things clear, nothing will! Incidentally, Racial Reality, who frequently berates those who don't look beyond abstracts into the studies themselves, should have taken his own advice in this case, as he is one of those who fraudulently quotes this study as "proof" of a lack of African ancestry in Greeks. Petlichkovski, et al. wrote: The observed closest standard genetic distance between the studied Macedonian population and the Greek population (SGD = 2.777, GD = 6.35) is not in concord with that published by Arnaiz-Villena et al. (21), who point out the close genetic relatedness of the Macedonian population to that of the Cretans and to the great genetic distance between the Macedonians and the Greeks coming from Attica, Cyprus, and northern Greece. Papassavas et al. (22) reveal a significant decrease of both DRB1*1104 and *1601 allele frequencies in the Cretan population used for the genetic distance analysis by Arnaiz-Villena et al., compared to their results. Bearing in mind the differences in the allele frequencies in the Macedonians in our study and those in the study of Arnaiz-Villena et al., we believe that the discordance of the observations in both the studies investigating the HLA polymorphism is probably due to the selection of different subject populations. Specifically, this sentence from the abstract is used by Greek white nationalists in an attempt to fraudulently "prove" there is no sub-Saharan admixture in Greeks (as if this could really be done, since the Arnaiz-Villena Greek study, amongst others, has shown conclusively the opposite) is as follows: Petlichkovski, et al. wrote: The included African populations grouped on the opposite side of the tree. The key word here is included, since the included African populations were not the sub-Saharan ones Arnaiz-Villena mentioned had a relationship with Greeks (Oromo, Amhara, Nuba, Fulani, Rimaibe, Mossi), but instead, were Egyptians, Moroccans, Algerians (all North Africans), and Mandenka (sub-Saharan, but from Senegal) -- populations which Arnaiz-Villena also found to be distant from Greeks. Quoting from inside the actual Petlichkovski study: Petlichkovski, et al. wrote: As expected, the included African populations (Moroccans, Egyptians, Mandenka, and Algerians) were grouped on the opposite side of the tree. As we can see, Pontikos and Racial Reality are distorting things once again! Now it is time to address additional claims made by some that the words of M.A. Jobling, M.E. Hurles, and C. Tyler-Smith, from their book Human Evolutionary Genetics, Garland Publishing: New York, 2004 (as quoted by Greek Nationalist Dienekes Pontikos) somehow refute the Greek study (which they don't). Once again, we are being misled, since the study being referred to is the one on Palestinians and Jews, even though they specifically refer to the Greek correspondence analysis reproduced in it from the original Greek study. I have this textbook, and the only mentioning of Arnaiz-Villena in the references is with regard to the Palesinians/Jews study. I am keeping this discussion in the Greek section of this article, incidentally, since it deals with Greek data, despite its coming from the other study. Jobling, et al. [according to Dienekes] write: Quote: As an example, Figure 1.5 illustrates the arbitrariness of different possible population groupings based upon DNA sequence diversity at an HLA locus. Often an objective way to choose between different interpretations is not obvious (though objective methods are discussed later in this book), and in its absence, simple assertion often fills the vacuum. Figure 1.5: Grouping populations – take your pick. Relationships between populations based on DNA sequence diversity data at the HLA-DRB1 locus, displayed as a correspondence analysis plot (similar to principal components analysis; see Chapter 6) in which clustered populations are genetically similar. (a) Populations, with names indicated; (b, c, d) Three alternative groupings of the populations (there are others). The grouping chosen by Arnaiz-Villena et al. (2001) is (d) (adduced as support for a sub-Saharan origin for the Greeks) but is essentially arbitrary. Why is it preferred to alternative groupings shown in (b) and (c)? If the population origins were unknown when the groupings were made, would it affect the outcome? Note that this locus is generally regarded as being under strong selection. Adapted from Arnaiz-Villena et al. (2001).[Q1] Click here for larger version. In actuality, Dienekes leaves out much of the text (surprise, surprise) so that the true reason of the inclusion of the correspondence analysis is not revealed, which is to show how different interpretations are often (not just with this diagram or this study) possible when it comes to results, with opposing camps going at it, as it were. Here is the full quote from that particular section, from pages 11-12: Quote: 1.2.3 Interpretation, interpretation, interpretation In many fields, as time passes, opinion upon how data should be interpreted changes. Indeed, there are often differences in opinion about data interpretation at any one time. This is particularly true of genetic data on human diversity. Debates described in Chapters 8 and 10, on the origins of modern humans and the genetic impact of the spread of agriculture in Europe, illustrate this. Particular methods of analysis, with different underlying paradigms, can be adopted by opposing "camps" within a particular field, and reconciliation becomes difficult. Some methods for analyzing diversity data seem particularly open to different interpretations. As an example, Figure 1.5 illustrates the arbitrariness of different possible population groupings based upon DNA sequence diversity at an HLA locus. Often an objective way to choose between different interpretations is not obvious (though objective methods are discussed later in this book), and in its absence, simple assertion often fills the vacuum. [the following is the caption under the correspondence analysis] Figure 1.5: Grouping populations – take your pick. Relationships between populations based on DNA sequence diversity data at the HLA-DRB1 locus, displayed as a correspondence analysis plot (similar to principal components analysis; see Chapter 6) in which clustered populations are genetically similar. (a) Populations, with names indicated; (b, c, d) Three alternative groupings of the populations (there are others). The grouping chosen by Arnaiz-Villena et al. (2001) is (d) (adduced as support for a sub-Saharan origin for the Greeks) but is essentially arbitrary. Why is it preferred to alternative groupings shown in (b) and (c)? If the population origins were unknown when the groupings were made, would it affect the outcome? Note that this locus is generally regarded as being under strong selection. Adapted from Arnaiz-Villena et al. (2001).[Q1] Let me reiterate that the correspondence analysis being questioned is the one that contains Greek data in the retracted (for political reasons) study on Palestinians on Jews, not anything from the actual Greek study, even though the correspondence analysis is identical. Jobling, et al. do not (and cannot) take issue with Arnaiz-Villena's findings of sub-Saharan alleles in the Greek population, as shown in the Greek study itself. The alleles don't lie. Also, they don't (and can't) question the fact that the population distances were closest between Greeks and sub-Saharans at that and another locus, as shown in the Greek study itself. This, too, does not lie. The issue of the DRB1 locus being under selection has been addressed above, and is a non-issue, since Arnaiz-Villena was not attempting to actually quantify sub-Saharan admixture in Greeks or influx of sub-Saharans to Greece; he merely points out that admixture occurred, and that it is more than just an infinitessimal amount, since in the Greek study itself genetic distances show closeness at a few loci, and since quite a few (eleven) sub-Saharan alleles at the DRB1 locus were reported in Greeks in that study. Jobling, et al. are only using the Greek correspondence analysis in the Palestinians/Jews study to illustrate how groups are chosen in diagrams, and they mention that choosing them objectively is not always done. They use Arnaiz-Villena, et al. as an example because they feel that since A-V knew the population origins, it may have skewed their objectivity with regard to a single diagram based on the DRB1 locus (this is their opinion only, and by no means are they stating this is the only time elements of studies have been called into question by those who happen to have different opinions). As stated above, this correspondence analysis is but one of many methods A-V use to determine sub-Saharan admixture in Greeks in the actual Greek study itself. But Jobling, et al. themselves admit that the population origins were known beforehand, which proves they aren't questioning the Greek-sub-Saharan relatedness at all. They are only questioning the supposed non-objectivity of the population groupings of one correspondence analysis. (In the Greek study itself, as stated above, there is another correspondence analysis, using HLA-DR and DQ [another locus] allele frequencies data, that isn't mentioned at all by Jobling, et al., since they aren't addressing that study at all, yet it comes up with essentially the same results.) Jobling, et al. actually aren't specifically questioning the grouping of Greeks with sub-Saharans in the correspondence analysis under scrutiny, either, since one of the alternative groupings they show, (b), also does this. Furthermore, since Greeks and sub-Saharans cluster together in the charts, it makes sense to group them together. This part really isn't arbitrary, and there is nothing wrong with Arnaiz-Villena's grouping them together. This aside, the Jobling, et al. book, incidentally, is an excellent book, and I highly recommend it. No one is saying Greeks are primarily sub-Saharan in their overall genetic makeup. They are Europeans, after all. But that sub-Saharan admixture has been shown to exist genetically in Greeks (here at the HLA level) should not arouse skepticism. In fact, owing to Greece's former empire and contact with Egypt and other parts of Africa during this time; the mingling of various peoples in Roman-era Greece; the same mingling of peoples of different ethnicities (including sub-Saharans) in Greece during the Turkish period; and Greece's geographical location near Africa, the finding of a relatedness between Greeks and sub-Saharans due to the former's absorption of the latter does not by any stretch of the imagination contradict geography and history. Other studies using markers other than HLA have also found sub-Saharan genetic material in Greeks. This flatly contradicts the claim by Racial Reality and Pontikos that sub-Saharan admixture in Greeks is unsupported by other studies. The study Clinal patterns of human Y chromosomal diversity in continental Italy and Greece are dominated by drift and founder effects finds sub-Saharan Y-haplogroup A in a sample of 27 Greeks from the island of Lesvos (Mitilini) (data in full study, not in abstract). Also, the Benin-originating strain of the HbS (sickle-cell) marker (#19) is found in Greeks. It could only have gotten there through admixture, whether indirect (through North Africans, for example, as the authors of the study suggest) or direct (through the influx of sub-Saharans at various times in Greek history). Either way, the end result is irrefutable post-Diasporic sub-Saharan ancestry: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1687685&query_hl=25&itool=pubmed_docsum Quote: Hemoglobin. 1991;15(6):459-67. Related Articles, Links The origin of the sickle mutation in Greece; evidence from beta S globin gene cluster polymorphisms. Boussiou M, Loukopoulos D, Christakis J, Fessas P. Unit for Prenatal Diagnosis, Laikon Hospital, Athens, Greece. Study of the Hpa I polymorphism 3' to the beta-globin gene in the Greek population revealed absence of the site in 238 beta S chromosomes, in contrast to a much larger sample of chromosomes carrying the beta A gene, where this site was consistently positive. Subsequent haplotype analysis of the beta-globin gene cluster in 82 beta S chromosomes demonstrated that 79 (96%) belonged to haplotype #19, while the three exceptions (all Hpa I negative) could be explained by a delta-beta recombination event. Haplotype #19 was never encountered in a parallel study of the 83 beta A chromosomes. Comparison of the above results with similar surveys in other parts of the world and consideration of various historical events suggest that the beta S mutation was introduced into Greece over the last few centuries by the Saracen raids and/or by settlements of North African slaves brought in by the Arabs, Franks, Venetians, or Ottoman Turks, who have occupied the country over the last millennium. PMID: 1687685 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Here is yet another study that finds a beta-thalassaemia allele specific to Africans in Greeks: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=3620356&query_hl=3&itool=pubmed_docsum Quote: Br J Haematol. 1987 Jul;66(3):379-83. Links DNA haplotype heterogeneity of beta-thalassaemia in Greece: feasibility of prenatal diagnosis. Athanassiadou A, Zarkadis I, Papahadjopoulou A, Maniatis GM. We have carried out DNA haplotype analysis of 69 beta-thalassaemia patients in Greece and 42 of the parents using seven standard polymorphic sites. Our data show a high degree of heterogeneity of the chromosomal background in which beta-thalassaemia occurs in Greece, suggesting a high degree of heterogeneity in the beta-thalassaemia mutations involved. Haplotype I is found here to represent 45% of total beta-thalassaemia mutations detected, a proportion well below the 67% reported in earlier studies with Greek-American patients. Nine different haplotypes are detected and the ones carrying beta(+) mutations are the majority, including those which are linked to beta(+) mutations associated with a thalassaemia intermedia phenotype, and which constitute 11% of all haplotypes. One of these haplotypes (---- ) has never before been reported to occur in non-Africans, whether in beta thal or beta A chromosomes, and it is found here to be of African origin rather than the product of recombination. In 21 families haplotype analysis showed that prenatal diagnosis for a second child was feasible in 81% of the cases. Use of the AvaII-psi beta polymorphic site as well as the seven standard ones brought this proportion up to 90%. PMID: 3620356 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] In addition, sub-Saharan Chromosome 7 markers have been found in Greeks. These Chromosome 7 markers are cystic fibrosis mutations that are specific to sub-Saharans; Greeks are the only Europeans in which these sub-Saharan mutations are found: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12392505&query_hl=20&itool=pubmed_docsum Quote: Tissue Antigens. 2002 Aug;60(2):111-21. Related Articles, Links Population genetic relationships between Mediterranean populations determined by HLA allele distribution and a historic perspective. Arnaiz-Villena A, Gomez-Casado E, Martinez-Laso J. Department of Immunology and Molecular Biology, Universidad Complutense, Madrid, Spain. aarnaiz@eucmax.sim.ucm.es HLA genes allele distribution has been studied in Mediterranean and sub-Saharan populations. Their relatedness has been tested by genetic distances, neighbour-joining dendrograms and correspondence analyses. The population genetic relationships have been compared with the history of the classical populations living in the area. A revision of the historic postulates would have to be undertaken, particularly in the cases when genetics and history are overtly discordant. HLA genomics shows that: 1) Greeks share an important part of their genetic pool with sub-Saharan Africans (Ethiopians and west Africans) also supported by Chr 7 Markers. The gene flow from Black Africa to Greece may have occurred in Pharaonic times or when Saharan people emigrated after the present hyperarid conditions were established (5000 years B.C.). 2) Turks (Anatolians) do not significantly differ from other Mediterraneans, indicating that while the Asians Turks carried out an invasion with cultural significance (language), it is not genetically detectable. 3) Kurds and Armenians are genetically very close to Turks and other Middle East populations. 4) There is no HLA genetic trace of the so called Aryan invasion, which has only been defined on doubtful linguistic bases. 5) Iberians, including Basques, are related to north-African Berbers. 6) Present-day Algerian and Moroccan urban and country people show an indistinguishable Berber HLA profile. Publication Types: Historical Article PMID: 12392505 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE The above study is another by Arnaiz-Villena, using the data from his main study on Greeks. The information on the Chromosome 7 markers comes from Dork, et al., 1998. Here is the quote from inside the above Arnaiz-Villena study: Quote: Other Negroid genes have also been found in Greeks. They are the only Caucasoid population who bears cystic fibrosis mutations typical of Black Africans (Chromosome 7). See Dork, et al. In Am. J. Hum. Genet., 1998: 63: 656-682. Anthropologists, studying old remains of Greeks, sometimes found sub-Saharan-like individuals: J. Lawrence Angel, in American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 74, No. 1/2 (Feb. - Apr., 1972) [review of Frank Snowden's "Blacks in Antiquity" book] reports: Quote: In my own skeletal samples from Greece I note apparent negroid nose and mouth traits in two of fourteen Early Neolithic (sixth millenium B.C.), only two or three more among 364 from fifth to second millenium B.C., one among 113 Early Iron Age, one or two among 233 Classic and Hellenistic skeletons, but four clear Negroids (all from one area of Early Christian Corinth) among ninety-five Roman period, two among eighty-five Medieval, and of course ten among fifty-two Turkish period Greeks, yet none among 202 of Romantic (nineteenth century) date. An interesting quote from Biological Relations of Egyptians and Eastern Mediterranean Populations during pre-dynastic and Dynastic Times, Journal of Human Evolution, 1972 (1) pp. 307-313: Quote: Against this background of disease, movement and pedomorphic reduction off body size one can identify Negroid (Ethiopic or Bushmanoid?) traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters (McCown, 1939) and in Anatolian and Macedonian first farmers (Angel, 1972), probably from Nubia via the predecesors of the Badarians and Tasians [. . .] Frank Snowden, who passed away in 2007 at age 96, had researched the presence of blacks in the ancient Greece from the standpoint of art and literature. His findings include: Quote: Both the literary and archaeological evidence points to a not infrequent crossing between blacks and whites. Nothing in the observations on such unions, whether marriage or concubinage, resembles certain modern strictures on racial mixture. Of course one reason for the color bar which recently existed in the West was the belief that it was race mixing which led to the collapse of Greek, Roman, and other civilizations. . . . No laws in the Greco-Roman world prohibited unions of blacks and whites. Ethiopian blood was interfused with that of Greeks and Romans. No Greek or Roman author condemned such racial mixture. . . . The scientists Aristotle and Pliny, like Plutarch, commented as scientists on the physical appearance of those born of black-white racial mixture but included nothing resembling certain modern strictures on miscegenation. . . . It is safe to assume, therefore, that in course of time many Ethiopians were assimilated into a predominantly white population. (Blacks in Antiquity, 193-195) With respect to the number of blacks in ancient Greece, Snowden states: Quote: Even though we cannot state, in the manner of modern sociologists and historians,the ratio of Blacks to Whites in either Greece or Italy, we can say that Ethiopians were by no means few or rare sights and that their presence, whatever their numbers, constituted no color problem. (Blacks in Antiquity, 186) Snowden also mentions: Quote: Black-white sexual relations were never the cause of great emotional crises and many blacks were physically assimilated into the predominantly white populations of the Mediterranean world. ...the number of references to Ethiopians in Greek literature of the fifth century BC, on the appearance of mulatto children following the presence of blacks in Greece in the army of Xerxes, and on the many artistic representations of the mid- and late-fifth century BC reflecting this anthropological evolution. It is worth clicking on his name above and reading the article. His two books, Blacks in Antiquity and Before Color Prejudice, are excellent works and are highly recommended. They do not contain Afrocentric drivel, and Snowden cites all his sources and makes logical conclusions. In fact, the Arnaiz-Villena study's results of Ethiopian alleles in the Greek population correlate to Snowden's research, since most of the sub-Saharans Snowden speaks of originated in the Ethiopian region. So, history is corroborated by genetics, and vice-versa. Even most of the specific geographical regions match up, e.g., the Athens area, Cyprus, Aegean Islands, etc. Snowden has been studying this field since the 1940's, and wrote a few articles at that time. One is called The Negro in Ancient Greece and is available online in PDF form. (I have the original article, as well as The Negro in Classical Italy, and will soon scan them both in.) Here is another Arnaiz-Villena study mentioning the Greek-sub-Saharan relatedness: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11543906&query_hl=20&itool=pubmed_docsum Quote: Hum Immunol. 2001 Sep;62(9):1051-61. Related Articles, Links The correlation between languages and genes: the Usko-Mediterranean peoples. Arnaiz-Villena A, Martinez-Laso J, Alonso-Garcia J. Department of Immunology and Molecular Biology, H. 12 de Octubre, Universidad Complutense, 28041, Madrid, Spain. aarnaiz@eucmax.sim.ucm.es The usko-Mediterraneans peoples are defined as ancient and present day populations that have lived in the Mediterranean/Middle-East/Caucasus area and have spoken a Basque related language. The present day existing populations show an HLA genetic relatedness which is more or less close according to geographical distance. The Greek sample is an outlying in all genetic analyses, because Greeks have a significant genetic input from sub-Saharan Ethiopians and Blacks. This probably occurred in Pharaonic times. Present day comparisons between genes and languages show a lack of correlation: Macedonian, Palestinians, Kurds, part of Berbers, Armenians, and Turks belong to the old Mediterranean substratum, but they do not speak a language included in the old Mediterranean Dene-Caucasian group. This is due to an "elite"-imposed culture and language. Other ethnic groups speak an "old Mediterranean language" or "usko-Mediterranean language" modified by Roman Latin (i.e., Spanish, Italians), or by other not fully explained processes (Jews). Therefore, the correlation between genes and languages may exist at a macrogeographical level, but not when more precise microgeographical studies are done, as shown in the present "usko-Mediterranean" peoples model. PMID: 11543906 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] The following study was done by other scientists and confirms the relatedness of the Greeks to sub-Saharans by calculating genetic distances at the DRB1 locus (this study, incidentally, and the Petlichkovski (2004) study above, show that the Greek study is indeed cited by other scientists, and not merely northern European White Nationalists and Afrocentrists, contrary to what Racial Reality and Pontikos would have us believe; the fact that we site it here on our respectable site also disproves those claims, since we are a group who seek the truth and demand all sources): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16473309&query_hl=25&itool=pubmed_docsum Quote: Eur J Med Genet. 2006 January - February;49(1):43-56. Epub 2005 Feb 10. Related Articles, Links HLA genes in Southern Tunisians (Ghannouch area) and their Relationship with other Mediterraneans. Hajjej A, Hmida S, Kaabi H, Dridi A, Jridi A, El Gaa1ed A, Boukef K. National Blood Transfusion Centre, Tunis, Tunisia. South Tunisian HLA gene profile has studied for the first time. HLA-A, -B, -DRB1 and -DQB1 allele frequencies of Ghannouch have been compared with those of neighboring populations, other Mediterraneans and Sub-Saharans. Their relatedness has been tested by genetic distances, Neighbor-Joining dendrograms and correspondence analyses. Our HLA data show that both southern from Ghannouch and northern Tunisians are of a Berber substratum in spite of the successive incursions (particularly, the 7th-8th century A.D. Arab invasion) occurred in Tunisia. It is also the case of other North Africans and Iberians. This present study confirms the relatedness of Greeks to Sub-Saharan populations. This suggests that there was an admixture between the Greeks and Sub-Saharans probably during Pharaonic period or after natural catastrophes (dryness) occurred in Sahara. PMID: 16473309 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher] There is more. AncestryByDNA, using autosomal markers, mentions that the average Greek and Italian type with approximately 5% sub-Saharan genetic material. Even though in some cases with respect to certain population groups, for an individual, a low reading such as this may be negated by the confidence interval, in Greeks and Italians low levels of sub-Saharan admixture are consistenly found, making them signature results for these populations. This means they are not stastical "noise," but true results. That Greeks have some sub-Saharan admixture isn't open to question. The HLA alleles and genetic distance calculations (and neighbor-joining dendograms and correspondence analyses) speak for themselves, as do the other sub-Saharan markers described above, along with the cranial and skeletal, as well as historic, data. But there is even more. Sub-Saharan-originating Y-group E-M78 (a derivative of sub-Saharan-originating E3b) is found at relatively high levels in Greeks (and some other Mediterraneans), which suggests, in addition to the more recent admixture, a very ancient sub-Saharan contribution to the Greek genepool (Semino, 2004 and Cruciani, 2004). The fact that the most prevalent form of E-M78 found in Greeks is a later, mainly local (Mediterranean) variation is irrelevant, since the parental E-M78 originated in eastern Africa, as did all of its ancestral markers. Various descendants of E3b, E-M78's ancestor, are shown to exist in many Mediterraneans in this study (though all are simply marked "E3b"), which also shows sub-Saharan Y-group A in Cypriots (although it isn't specified whether these are Greek or Turkish, so, perhaps it is a cross-section; Greek-identified Cypriots are far more numerous). East-African-Specific M1 has also been reported in Greeks (Richards, 2000 and supplementary data). We rest our case. It must be remembered, this posting is not about "proving" Greeks are "really Black" because of a minor amount of sub-Saharan ancestry. This is about showing sub-Saharan admixture occurred in Greece, and this is evidenced by different kinds of genetic research and supported by history and anthropology. More importantly, it is about refuting fraudulent claims (by those with ideological investments in Greece's "Whiteness") that Arnaiz-Villena's Greek information is invalid or unsound, or that the study on Greeks has been refuted or retracted. Arnaiz-Villena's study on Greeks is perfectly sound scientifically, as are all of his others. And, despite that there are some geneticists (usually those who specialize in mtDNA or Y Chr.) who don't have much faith in HLA studies, there are a great deal of geneticists who find HLA to be a very reliable and discriminating tool for studying population relationships, and the number of studies employing HLA for this purpose are legion. Indeed, some of those who specialize in HLA find mtDNA and Y Chr. to be less reliable. [/QB][/QUOTE] [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3