posted
This goes along with the greatest physical diversity and phenotype diversity as well.
quote: Africans have world's greatest genetic variation Buzz Up Send Email IM Share Delicious Digg Facebook Fark Newsvine Reddit StumbleUpon Technorati Yahoo! Bookmarks Print By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID, AP Science Writer Randolph E. Schmid, Ap Science Writer – 42 mins ago WASHINGTON – Africans have more genetic variation than anyone else on Earth, according to a new study that helps narrow the location where humans first evolved, probably near the South Africa-Namibia border.
The largest study of African genetics ever undertaken also found that nearly three-fourths of African-Americans can trace their ancestry to West Africa. The new analysis published Thursday in the online edition of the journal Science.
"Given the fact that modern humans arose in Africa, they have had time to accumulate dramatic changes" in their genes, explained lead researcher Sarah Tishkoff, a geneticist at the University of Pennsylvania.
People have been adapting to very diverse environmental niches in Africa, she explained in a briefing.
Over 10 years, Tishkoff and an international team of researchers trekked across Africa collecting samples to compare the genes of various peoples. Often working in primitive conditions, the researchers sometimes had to resort to using a car battery to power their equipment, Tishkoff explained.
The reason for their work? Very little was known about the genetic variation in Africans, knowledge that is vital to understanding why diseases have a greater impact in some groups than others and in designing ways to counter those illnesses.
Scott M. Williams of Vanderbilt University noted that constructing patterns of disease variations can help determine which genes predispose a group to a particular illness.
This study "provides a critical piece in the puzzle," he said. For example, there are clear differences in prevalence of diseases such as hypertension and prostate cancer across populations, Williams said.
"The human genome describes the complexity of our species," added Muntaser Ibrahim of the department of molecular biology at the University of Khartoum, Sudan. "Now we have spectacular insight into the history of the African population ... the oldest history of mankind.
"Everybody's history is part of African history because everybody came out of Africa," Ibrahim said.
Christopher Ehret of the department of history at the University of California, Los Angeles, compared genetic variation among people to variations in language.
There are an estimated 2,000 distinct language groups in Africa broken into a few broad categories, often but not always following gene flow.
Movement of a language usually involves arrival of new people, Ehret noted, bringing along their genes. But sometimes language is brought by a small "but advantaged" group which can impose their language without significant gene flow.
Overall, the researchers were able to study and compare the genetics of 121 African groups, 60 non-African populations and four African-American groups.
The so-called "Cape-colored" population of South Africa has highest levels of mixed ancestry on the globe, a blend of African, European, East Asian and South Indian, Tishkoff said.
"This will be a great population for study of diseases" that are more common in one group than another, she said.
The study also found that about 71 percent of African-Americans can trace their ancestry to western African origins. They also have between 13 percent and 15 percent European ancestry and a smaller amount of other African origins. There was "very little" evidence for American Indian genes among African-Americans, Tishkoff said.
Ehret added that only about 20 percent of the Africans brought to North America made the trip directly, while most of the rest went first to the West Indies.
And, he added, some local African-American populations, such as the residents of the sea islands off Georgia and South Carolina, can trace their origins to specific regions such as Sierra Leone and Guinea.
The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute, the National Institutes of Health, the Advanced Computing Center for Research and Education at Vanderbilt University, the L.S.B. Leakey and Wenner Gren Foundation, the National Science Foundation, the David and Lucile Packard and Burroughs Wellcome foundations.
posted
I put a fly in the ointment and argue that the study is logically very problematic. The reason is that the researchers have naively conflated geographical labelings with genetic profiling.
The logical error made is that if the geographical African populations are the most diverse in the world then [b] that applies also to all of the world's populations because all populations that developed outside of Africa necessarily have their antecedents in Africa making them no less diverse than Africa's populations".
Ehret's claim that there are 2000 langauge groups in Africa is also problematic because he might be classifying dialects as languages. For example: there is the lingustic thesis that there are a set of languages in Africa called Bantu languages, yet many of these languages are mutually unintelligible. So why classify them as a distinct linguistic group.
Using this same logic one could also say that there are at least 3,000 language groups in Eurasia; and not to mention the multiplicity of languages of East Asia.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm having trouble understanding their claims concerning the "cape-coloureds". How can they assign them group membership without assuming off-hand that said groups represent discrete units that one can actually belong to? This seems to me to be yet another case of group thinking rather than a progressive step forward. .................
@ lamin. I don't understand your criticism. How can non-Africans be as diverse when they only represent (based on descent) one variant of African diversity in those that left recently just 50-70,000 years ago? How long do you suppose AMH have resided in Africa? This is like comparing the diversity of one's immediate family to an entire village.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
[EDIT]Sorry for the triple post. Either my computer froze or this server was acting up.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lamin: The logical error made is that if the geographical African populations are the most diverse in the world then [b] that applies also to all of the world's populations because all populations that developed outside of Africa necessarily have their antecedents in Africa making them no less diverse than Africa's populations".
You just don't learn, the reason non Africans don't have as much diversity as Africans, despite the fact that non Africans descend from Africans, is due to populations bottlenecks this has been explained to you over and over in the thread about the farther one goes from Africa the less diversity present in said population.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
You can see that diversity in African Americans. They are the descendants of Africans.
From "North Africa" to "Southern Africa" to "East Africa" to "West Africa".
From Kabyles to Khoisan to Zulu to Xhosa to Fulani to Hausa to Tuaregs to Somalis to Amhara.
From Moroccans to Libyans to Egyptians to Ethiopians to Eritreans to Zimbabwaens.
You can see it all in African Americans.
As a side note Italians, Turks, Persians, Arabs, non-Arab West Asians, South Asians were also brought to the Americas as well.
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
upset on the contrary it was funny when you guys realize e3a is the ultimate slaves genetically and also in there nature they are the only one fitt for slavery all the populations as turks arabs were rulers and master not the slaves e3a get it as somalid v13 said there is a genetic gaps between us so i am not expacting you to understand it e3b1c1
posted
you didnt create a link what do i expect from a nigger to much for you negros are stubrn but this fact didnt stop them from going on ships as slaves e3a true genetic slaves e3b1c1
posted
e3b1c1 wrote: ----------------------------- when you guys realize e3a is the ultimate slaves genetically and also in there nature they are the only one fitt for slavery -----------------------------
Folks, this is the same thing that MindoverMatter718, Sundjata, Djehuti, Freehand, Jari-Ankhamun, and lamin have all said.
Here is the synopsis to the above posters pathology:
"These people like their white masters believe in eurocentric pseudoscience where Africans are on the bottom of the world's hierarchy and then within Africa they believe in an intra African hierarchy."
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
so whats your point the mantion the barbary pirates in the link you gave they were from the somalid race e1b1b1 they were masters your link just proved thta e3b are masters as oposed to e3a slaves e3b1c1
But there were[and must have been] large numbers of bottlenecks within Africa itself.
What you fail to understand is that all the groups that migrated out of Africa must have had direct lineage antecedents in Africa for at least 140K before they migrated out.
The mistake that the evolutionary anthropologists make is to lump together all the groups in Africa that must have been bootlenecked as one continental group while they each of the groups that migrated out separately--as if such groups had no lineal antecedents in Africa.
To assume such would be tantamount to supporting some version of the multiregional hypothesis. Sorry, if you can't follow the reasoning here.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I support my point further with the observation that the the Tishkoff study argued that there are 14 distinct Africa cluster groups-even though there has been significant lineal interchange between such.
So if we take each cluster as a distict entity then each one would have its own limited diversity.
In this regard, each cluster would be as independent as the other clusters that migrated out of Africa.
So the argument that Africans are more diverse genetically than other groups stands only on the assumption that the products of its bottlenecks are all lumped together.
I speculate that if similar kinds of cluster analyses are carried out throughout the rest of the world but at the same time linking them with their African antecedents one would note that the African groups taken singly would not be significantly different in terms of diversity from the others.
Tishkoff also makes the same Eurocentric error when she and her team argue that any genetic isomorphism between African groups and no-African groups must be due to "back migrations".
I also take issue with the paper's establishing the Fulani as a separate cluster. This is clearly an error given the very extensive migratory profile of this group--and their obvious phenotypical heterogeneity.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Its interesting to note how you don't even refute the debased racialism of e3b1c1.
Then again why should one expect you to. I remember giving you a scholarly beatdown because you said the same exact things he did.
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Error: Tishkoff's observation on the "back migration" issue was only a possible alternative explanation for levels of genotypical isomorphism between African groups and others.
The persistent Euro error is to forget that all human groups origined from Africa--and that therefore genetic and phneotypical isomorphism between African and non-African groups must have derived from African sources.
It's somewhat nonsensical to say that a father resembles his son rather than the converse.
Interesting observation: That African Americans--are predominantly what she calls "Niger-Kordofian"[a linguistic classification] in cluster identity. And that they are more Africa-lineaged than previous studies have claimed.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Originally posted by lamin: I support my point further with the observation that the the Tishkoff study argued that there are 14 distinct Africa cluster groups-even though there has been significant lineal interchange between such.
So if we take each cluster as a distict entity then each one would have its own limited diversity.
1-- Why would you take each "cluster as a distict entity then each one would have its own limited diversity"? Human groups can always cluster on some level or on some measure. But they can also be closely related. The key testing ground as always is East and NE Africa, and in that area tons of scholarship show the relatedness of the peoples there- Somalians, Egyptians, Nubians, Ethiopians, Sudanics, Saharans, etc..
In this regard, each cluster would be as independent as the other clusters that migrated out of Africa.
2-- Why and on what basis do you make this claim? How do we know "independent" groups or "clusters" of people with narrow noses for example were independent, discrete groups that migrated out? ANy source to back up what you say?
So the argument that Africans are more diverse genetically than other groups stands only on the assumption that the products of its bottlenecks are all lumped together.
3-- No. Study after study from cranial (Hanihara 2003) to DNA (Tishkoff 2000, 2006, 2009, Keita 2005) show Africans are the most genetically diverse. Narrow noses for example are a routine part of the African inheritance, without the need for any "race mix" or "backflow" to explain it.
I speculate that if similar kinds of cluster analyses are carried out throughout the rest of the world but at the same time linking them with their African antecedents one would note that the African groups taken singly would not be significantly different in terms of diversity from the others.
4-- Proof?
Tishkoff also makes the same Eurocentric error when she and her team argue that any genetic isomorphism between African groups and no-African groups must be due to "back migrations".
5-- Agreed, if indeed this is what she said as a categorical statement. Africans do not need "backflow" to vary genetically. All their genetic diversity is built-in. Some backflow did occur and did introduce some population change in various parts of Africa, but as we are often told, ancient Egytians show continuity, and there has been no major influx of "Mediterranean" or "Middle eastern" peoples until relatively recent times. In any event, the people bringing the "backflow", were only bringing a subset of the original african diversity to begin with, and LOOKED LIKE Africans. As hanihara 1996 notes "early West Asians looked like Africans." This holds even for Europe depending on the population matches you want to make. Older Europeans LOOKED LIKE Africans, more so thatn modern "white" Europeans as Brace 2005 notes.
I also take issue with the paper's establishing the Fulani as a separate cluster. This is clearly an error given the very extensive migratory profile of this group--and their obvious phenotypical heterogeneity.
6-- perhaps.. but her clusters are also based on things like language too. And why can't the Fulani be ONE group AND vary phenotypically? Since when do all Fuklani have to look alike to be "really" Fulani? Fulani have narrow noses and broad noses. Some have brown skin, and ome have very dark skin. They vary, yeah, just like other human groups vary, but they can still be one grouping.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
You have to understand lamin is one of those people who believes in Eurocentrism except when the Euros try to keep Ancient Egypt all to themselves.
Anything else they say about Africans he accepts and disseminates at their will.
lamin, do you want me to post links? : )
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: The largest study of African genetics ever undertaken also found that nearly three-fourths of African-Americans can trace their ancestry to West Africa. The new analysis published Thursday in the online edition of the journal Science.
lamin wrote:
quote: Interesting observation: That African Americans--are predominantly what she calls "Niger-Kordofian"[a linguistic classification] in cluster identity. And that they are more Africa-lineaged than previous studies have claimed.
Notice people how whenever these crackpot scientists initiate their racial mythology with African Americans they always use words like most, predominately, or some made up figure they pulled from the air.
Think about it, if African Americans are mostly, or predominately, or three-fourths "west" African or "Niger-Kordofian", why don't they give the rest of their African make-up?
Is that sound science? It seems rather shoddy to me. Or is it another one of their race ruses.
For example, you have a presentation at your company breaking down sales for vehicles and in your presentation to your supervisor and colleagues you say Vehicle A accounted for 75% of sales. That's it.
Well what about the other supposed 25% of sales? Aren't you going to give the rest? What idiot would not do so?
Why didn't they give out the rest? What is the motive?
This is how you know these scientist are racialist nut jobs promoting their own brand of race mythology.
They have to make sure that African Americans are connected to "west" Africans or some group in "west" Africa. Again white Americans or for that matter white Euros do not want African Americans to be associated with any region outside of "west" Africa. For if they are they feel it would negate their claims to the rest of Africa.
Remember "west" Africa is to Africa what the Dravidians are to India and the non-Ainu Japanese are to Japan. "west" Africans, like the Dravidians and the non-Ainu Japanese are the group that Euros use to establish a juxtaposition in order to claim history and culture that isn't theirs.
In this case it is Ancient Egypt.
If African Americans are associated with "north" Africa or "east" Africa, it would mean the death nell of the Euros claim to Ancient Egypt.
If they are associated with southern Africans it would mean association with Zimbabwe and the Zulus, both groups have been claimed to be caucasoid. A laughable fantasy by eurocentrists to boost themselves.
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Zarahan, The Tishkoff study claims that the African populations studied formed 14 distinct clusters. The articles words, not mine.
So if the clusters are distinct what then is the basis for lumping them together?
Maybe this would explain things better: take any living African in African any living European in Europe, and the same for an East Asian from Japan. The question is: which one would have the most direct ancestors?
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: @ lamin. I don't understand your criticism. How can non-Africans be as diverse when they only represent (based on descent) one variant of African diversity in those that left recently just 50-70,000 years ago? How long do you suppose AMH have resided in Africa? This is like comparing the diversity of one's immediate family to an entire village.
It's not even as much that as it is the fact that only a small band of people populated the whole of the Earth outside of Africa relative to the amount of people that existed at the time (and were still in "Africa").
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again, people are mixing geography with genetics.
Suppose that instead of the 6 continents that have been arbitrarily so defined by European cartographers--there was only one continuous landmass that was 6 times the size of Africa but with the same configuration.
What would happen to the "Africans show most diversity" thesis?
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I get that people naively conflate geographical labelings with genetic profiling.
Everyone is just as much a descendant of the same ancestral population as the next person, regardless on what the "piece" of earth they stand on is labeled.
This doesn't mean that all groups are going to be just as diverse as the next.
In general, for instance, tropical areas harbour more diversity.
As a mental excercise, say a few different families from Chinatown, New York (USA) immigrate to some uninhabited barren land six times the size of New York which their descendants eventually fill.
Are hypothetical futuristic non-New Yorkers automatically as diverse than their NY counterparts?
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lamin: Mind Over Matter,
But there were[and must have been] large numbers of bottlenecks within Africa itself.
Ok, you know you've said this same dumb **** before right?
Anyway, again a bottleneck in an African population affects only that single population, not all of Africa, it doesn't affect any other African population, as a bottleneck did indeed affect the non African population since they are descended from a sub-set of east Africans.
humans have been evolving in Africa for a long time, yes the original population that left Africa would have also had immense genetic diversity, but what happened was decreases in population size I.e, bottlenecks which affected this subset of east Africans (which would decrease their diversity everytime they experienced population bottlenecks) who would one day become ancestors of all non Africans.
ex;
If you were trapped on an island with your family, and for 200 years were subject to inbreeding just to survive and keep the family alive, do you think if your family would make it back and get tested that you'd have more genetic and phenotypic diversity, or less?
Of course both would be less and you'd most likely all look alike due to this bottleneck, and carry identical genes with decreased diversity.
quote:Originally posted by lamin: What you fail to understand is that all the groups that migrated out of Africa must have had direct lineage antecedents in Africa for at least 140K before they migrated out.
All groups; how many groups is this?
quote:Originally posted by lamin: The mistake that the evolutionary anthropologists make is to lump together all the groups in Africa that must have been bootlenecked as one continental group
Actually this would be your illogical doing, whereas you think a bottleneck in one African population, would have affect on all of Africa.
quote:Originally posted by lamin: while they each of the groups that migrated out separately--as if such groups had no lineal antecedents in Africa.
Not really, since we know non Africans carry but a subset of genetic diversity from east Africa, the reason we know about bottlenecks etc.. is because the farther one goes from Africa, the lower the genetic and phenotypic diversity is.
quote:Originally posted by lamin: To assume such would be tantamount to supporting some version of the multiregional hypothesis. Sorry, if you can't follow the reasoning here.
False, since showing that non Africas descend from a subset of east Africans, and that Africa has the greatest genetic diversity, while also showing that the further one gets from Africa this diversity decreases both genetically and phenotypically, is strong confirmation for OOA.
Sorry if you can't follow.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know why you think you grasp things faster than anybody else gringo. It still flies over your head that OOA and related decreasing genetic variation explains why Europeans and Asians have essentially same set of genetic variations compared to Africans, which contradicts Bowcock (1991) racial divergence and "hybridisation" theory.
posted
What should be recognised is that when Tiskoff et al. talk about "genetic diversity" they mean only SNP diversity that is derived from mutational shuffling along AGCT codings. The mutations that are responsible for such occur at the same approximate regularity everywhere
This has nothing to do with the phenotypical surface traits of people.
Thus if there have been bottlenecks outside the African continent you bet there will be bottlenecks within the continent.
The genetic diversity within Africa only indicates that people have lived in Africa longer than they have lived elsewhere.
But the people who migrated out Africa also had lineage links with those of their kin who migrated within Africa.
The error made in analysis is to assume that once those groups left Africa they somehow broke all links with the groups that remained in Africa. The groups that moved out of Africa are simply continuation of their lineages that remained in Africa.
And that is why the amount of diversity that applies to the groups that remained in Africa also apply to the groups that left.
To return to the Tishkoff findings: thus it will be observed that the diversity within each of the 14 units the paper mentions would match in-group diversity anywhere else in the world.
The point is that if the diversity in Africa is measured accross 200,000 years then the same should also be done for all other groups within and outside Africa. The error made is to measure the diversity of groups outside of Africa only for the length of time they have lived outside of Africa.
So let me answer the question I posed above: the number of human ancestors a living Japanese would have would equal approximately the same number of ancestors any living African would have.
The only refutation of what I argue is the assumption of the multiregional hypothesis.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lamin: The genetic diversity within Africa only indicates that people have lived in Africa longer than they have lived elsewhere.
...and indicates it's the point of origin for all humans.
Further confirmed by the fact that there is more diversity in one African village than outside of Africa combined.
Do you know why?
Yes, because of the many population bottlenecks the humans who migrated OOA experienced while populating the world, which is why we know non Africans are descended from but a subset of east Africans.
This has nothing to do with the rest of Africa, if there were a bottleneck in a population in south Africa, it would have no affect on the diversity in the rest of Africa, just that one population experiencing a bottleneck in south Africa would be affected, hence your question about some Africans experiencing bottlenecks is irrelevant to the fact that regardless there is more diversity in Africa than outside.
If the world were populated by many different populations migrating OOA, then there would much more diversity, but instead, as noted by many studies as one gets further from Africa the diversity decreases and is in accordance with OOA and the fact all non Africans descend from a sub-set of east Africans.
Plain and simple not hard to understand all non Africans descend from a sub-set of east Africans, and due to population bottlenecks when they were populating the world lossed genetic and phenotypic diversity the further they went, and bottlenecks they endured.
Ad Nauseum!!!!
quote:Originally posted by lamin: The point is that if the diversity in Africa is measured accross 200,000 years then the same should also be done for all other groups within and outside Africa. The error made is to measure the diversity of groups outside of Africa only for the length of time they have lived outside of Africa.
No, the error you make is that you fail to understand that all non Africans descend from a sub-set of east Africans, and hence are all from one group of Africans migrating OOA, why would you compare diversity of descendants from one group of Africans who endured bottlenecks to the rest of Africa?
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lamin: What should be recognised is that when Tiskoff et al. talk about "genetic diversity" they mean only SNP diversity that is derived from mutational shuffling along AGCT codings. The mutations that are responsible for such occur at the same approximate regularity everywhere
This has nothing to do with the phenotypical surface traits of people.
I don't understand your objections here Lamin aren't phenotypical traits related to genetics anyway? Therefore greatest genetic diversity would relate to greatest phenotypic diversity as well which we know is the case among Africans.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: This goes along with the greatest physical diversity and phenotype diversity as well.
[QUOTE] The study also found that about 71 percent of African-Americans can trace their ancestry to western African origins. They also have between 13 percent and 15 percent European ancestry and a smaller amount of other African origins. There was "very little" evidence for American Indian genes among African-Americans, Tishkoff said.
"And while most of today's African American ancestors originated from West Africa during the infamous slave trade, Ehret and Tishkoff found strong evidence that many of those West African people came from groups that had migrated from the continent's eastern areas."
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
They have to make sure that African Americans are connected to "west" Africans or some group in "west" Africa. Again white Americans or for that matter white Euros do not want African Americans to be associated with any region outside of "west" Africa. For if they are they feel it would negate their claims to the rest of Africa.
Remember "west" Africa is to Africa what the Dravidians are to India and the non-Ainu Japanese are to Japan. "west" Africans, like the Dravidians and the non-Ainu Japanese are the group that Euros use to establish a juxtaposition in order to claim history and culture that isn't theirs.
In this case it is Ancient Egypt.
If African Americans are associated with "north" Africa or "east" Africa, it would mean the death nell of the Euros claim to Ancient Egypt.
If they are associated with southern Africans it would mean association with Zimbabwe and the Zulus, both groups have been claimed to be caucasoid. A laughable fantasy by eurocentrists to boost themselves. [/QB]
True enough, but it is getting harder for Eurocentrics (and this doesnt mean only white people) to maintain it. The cat has been let out of the bag so to speak. Black Americans are often 'dissed' for any interest in Ancient Egypt as if somehow the Nile Valley is "reserved" for white people. But in head to head comparisons between Black Americans, White Americans, Southern Europeans and Norther Europeans on limb length proportions, it turns out that those "unrelated" Black Americans are closer physically to the ancient Egyptians than whites, and that's using northern Egyptian samples, an area were trhere was supposedly more white people.
Furthermore Europeans are massive appopriators of Egyptian art, symbols and culture, from icons on money to art, to music to literature
so indignant claims about Black Americans "interference" smack of yet another hypocritical double standard. But Black Americans are also Africans, and are part of that bigger group of OTHER Africans closely relasted to Egyptians- the tropically adapted Nilotics- Somalians, Sudanese, Ethiopians, Nubians, Saharans etc PLUS they share the genreal Hapolgroup E, the most common in Africa. If anything, it could be well argued that they have more right than Euros Or "Middle Easterners" to explore or comment on Ancient Egypt.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lamin: Zarahan, The Tishkoff study claims that the African populations studied formed 14 distinct clusters. The articles words, not mine.
So if the clusters are distinct what then is the basis for lumping them together?
You can still have distinct clusters, but at another greater level, have unity. Languages are an example. The Afro Asiatic speakers can be splitinto distinct groups, but as speaking the Afro Asiatic language there is unity. Also DNA could show clusters at one level, but where the level is kicked up another notch, there is commonality among clusters. Some North Africans might show some distinctive DNA patterns, but if you look at it from the level of Haplogroup E, then a lot of African groups link together. It all depends how you scale up or scale down the analysis.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
You people place a whole lot of faith in these white geneticists. Has it not been demonstrated before on this forum how these geneticist lie or fix their studies?
Are they anymore honest than white anthropologists and archaeologists?
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic