posted
Hi I'm new here and I was wondering is it set in stone that U6 and R1 is Eurasian, or is there a chance that these haplotypes could be African?
Posts: 78 | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hi, I'm new here too how are you? To answer your question Y-R1 is definitely Eurasian, there seems to have been a back migration into Africa during the Stone Age. It was descendend from Hg P-M45 which is also Eurasian. African Y-DNA has five hgs. A,B,CF,& DE. Also, they have mtDNA Hg L as the main African lineage. But, when the first Africans migrated into Asia 65,000 y.a. they were the basal M,N,and R Hgs, until 50,000 years ago when Caucasians and Mongoloids evolved from the African types. And that's how the newer races became associated with M,N,& R mtDNA. The Native Andaman Islanders are a good example of this they have mtDNA M31 and M32 just like the people of southern India who look different.
Posts: 171 | From: Florida | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
OP, you are on the wrong forum if you are searching for an unbiased response. On this forum, "everybody and they mama" is Black.
Posts: 1340 | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rainingburntice: Hi, I'm new here too how are you? To answer your question Y-R1 is definitely Eurasian, there seems to have been a back migration into Africa during the Stone Age. It was descendend from Hg P-M45 which is also Eurasian. African Y-DNA has five hgs. A,B,CF,& DE. Also, they have mtDNA Hg L as the main African lineage. But, when the first Africans migrated into Asia 65,000 y.a. they were the basal M,N,and R Hgs, until 50,000 years ago when Caucasians and Mongoloids evolved from the African types. And that's how the newer races became associated with M,N,& R mtDNA. The Native Andaman Islanders are a good example of this they have mtDNA M31 and M32 just like the people of southern India who look different.
R1 originated in Africa. It was taken to Eurasia when the Kushites spread civilization there after 3200 BC. See:
To Clyde Winters: I am aware of your work and find it very hard to believe. R-V88 is far younger than the clades in Eurasia and P-M45 is definitely older since it is the ancestor. Even K-M9 is even older and also a Eurasian Hg. Your point of view is considered fringe among scientists because it doesn't explain the disappearance of the above clades which are older.
Posts: 171 | From: Florida | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
The ancestor of hg R is M207 P-M45. This haplotype is found in Africa. As a result it is shared by all R haplogroups.
There is a great diversity of the macrohaplogroup R in Africa . Y-chromosome R is characterized by M207/V45. The marker M45 is found among African groups because it is a marker for M207/V45.
The V45 mutation is found among African populations ( Cruciani et al ,2010). ISOGG 2010 Y-DNA haplogroup tree makes it clear that V45 is phylogenetically equivalent to M207.
V88 is older than M209. The TMRCA of V88 was 9200 kya (Cruciani et al, 2010).
Most Eurasians carry the younger M269 (R1b1b2) mutation. The subclades of R1b1b2 include Rh1b1b2g (U106) (TMRCA 8.3kya) and R1b1b2h (U152) (TMRCA 7.4kya).
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
^The topic is still open, and you can add your reply, it's just a suggestion to read and respond respectively so as to not have to repeat what's already explained therein...
P.S.
Note that when one starts utilizing outdated terminology to describe humans, in essence placing them into categories which are limited and overlap across and within the same categories created based on cranio-facial characteristics to separate humans, I.e. "Caucasoid", "Negroid" "Mongoloid" etc... they're themselves defeating their own arguments as this categorization is out of date and shows the lack of progress in their approach and analysis of their studies to begin with.
One who is up to date with biological anthropology knows it's not that simple to simply categorize humans by specific phenotypes.
Because in reality the limited phenotypes are not found in all individuals in the group it's supposed to be in, and is not at all absent from another group who has been ascribed another category, hence there's immediately an overlap leading to a misleading categorization.
The same example above can be shown on the genetic level using haplogroups leading to the same result, overlap.
There are those who wish to ignore this, and continue promoting their racial propaganda, but in bio-anthropology wherein the above is taken into account the description of races amongst anatomically modern humans worldwide is not that simple and has all but been thrown into the garbage (where it belongs), due to the immediate discrepancies and non-uniformity amongst those who promote it, its apparent to anyone who understands with an ounce of logic presided in them that the idea of race is then fallacious.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718): @ the OP you might want to persue the following thread for a better understanding into the answer of your query if you're interested...
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: [QB] R1* is found mostly in Central Africa, NorthEast Africa and to a lesser to degree, the Levantine.
There is no R1* in northern Europe. Europeans have only later derived R1b and R1a... not R1*. There is no R1a or R1b in Africa hence there is no Eurasian admixture!
"...M173 chromosomes (group R) are observed in the Bantu of southern Cameroon (14.3%), Oman (10.7%), Egypt (6.8%), and the Hutu (1.4%). Whereas the R1*-M173 undifferentiated lineage is present in all four populations, the two downstream mutations, M17 and M269, are confined to Egypt and Oman."
I thinking either Lady of Doom or rainingburtice might change their avatar, they have the same one
ausar, it's about time people could upload their own avitars to this site,
lioness productions
however LP will keep it's
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718): [qb] @ the OP you might want to peruse the following thread for a better understanding into the answer of your query if you're interested...
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: R1* is found mostly in Central Africa, NorthEast Africa and to a lesser to degree, the Levantine.
There is no R1* in northern Europe. Europeans have only later derived R1b and R1a... not R1*. There is no R1a or R1b in Africa hence there is no Eurasian admixture!
"...M173 chromosomes (group R) are observed in the Bantu of southern Cameroon (14.3%), Oman (10.7%), Egypt (6.8%), and the Hutu (1.4%). Whereas the R1*-M173 undifferentiated lineage is present in all four populations, the two downstream mutations, M17 and M269, are confined to Egypt and Oman."
^Thanks.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
R1* with an asterisk after is rare and found mainly in Turkey Pakistan and India
R1 (without the asterisk) R1 is associated with the M173 mutation. It is dominated in practice by two very common Eurasian clades, R1a and R1b, which together are found all over Eurasia except in Southeast Asia and East Asia.
R1b1* is found in West-central Africa, as in the north of Cameroon and is believed to reflect a prehistoric back-migration of an ancient proto-Eurasian population into Africa. AGÜEYBANÁ had confused R1b1* with R1* in the earlier quote. Again R1* is not found mostly in Africa ________________________________________________ The question in the original thread pertains to Haplogroup R1 This contains the majority of representatives of haplogroup R They are in the form of its subclades, R1a and R1b
Dr. Winters had mentioned the M207 mutation The M207 mutation Is associated with West Asia R He also mention M45 which is part of P, and R is a subclade of P M45 is associated with Europe, Central Asia, North-East Asia, North America, South America, the mutation is not associated with Africa P is the ancestor of R and P is also of West Central Asian origin
U6 is associated with Africa, paticularly the Maghib, in high frequencies amoung Berbers., 29% in Algerian Berbers. Also found in the Canary Islands and Morocco . It's greatest diversity is found in the Iberian peninsula including Spain and Portugal.
DNA sequence is suggested a West Asian origin for the autochthonous North African lineage U6.
Conclusions The most probable origin of the proto-U6 lineage was the Near East. Around 30,000 years ago it spread to North Africa where it represents a signature of regional continuity. S (Mitochondrial DNA transit between West Asia and North Africa inferred from U6 phylogeography
Nicole Maca-Meyer1 , Ana M González1 , José Pestano2 , Carlos Flores1 , José M Larruga1 and Vicente M Cabrera1
Published: 16 October 2003
quote:Originally posted by lady of doom: Hi I'm new here and I was wondering is it set in stone that U6 and R1 is Eurasian, or is there a chance that these haplotypes could be African?
^^^^ It's funny how you word this "is there any chance" instead of "what are the origins of" You seem to want these haplogroups to be African for some reason.
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again, for the OP and those interested they can peruse the thread linked to and everything that comes with it, the corrections and further discussion therein explained. Which lionass disregarded (as usual) instead of reading the thread or even the first page in its entirety. Afterwards if they feel up to it they can respond. No sense of a new thread with the pre-existing one...
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
"the Andamanese are not related to South Indians. They originated in Northeast India."
To Clyde Winters: "Multiplexed SNP Typing of Ancient DNA Clarifies the Origin of Andaman mtDNA Haplogroups amongst South Asian Tribal Populations." Endicott, Phillip et. al. PLoS ONE, (2006).
According to this study mtDNA M31a is found in both South Indians and the Andamanese. Along the Coastal Route (Migration OOA 65,000 years ago).
Posts: 171 | From: Florida | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
To Clyde Winters: R-M207 has highest diversity/frequency as well as R1, in Eurasia. R-M207* is found at highest frequency among people of Pakistan and India. The R-M207* in Central Africa is explained by both R-V88 and the former migrating to Africa together. R1-M173* has also highest frequency in Iran as well as moderate frequencies in Turkey, Pakistan and India, the same general location as R-M207*. Another descendent of M207 is R2-M479 found only in Eurasia in the same general location as all the others with highest frequency/diversity. And P-M45 the parent haplogroup of all these is found at highest frequency in India. This obvious pattern of descent of all the above haplogroups in the same general area in Asia is what caused scientists to conclude that R1-V88 in Africa is the result of Back Migration, not a biased opinion. Even the latest studies on this subject prove Back Migration correct, "A major Y-chromosome haplogroup R1b Holocene era founder effect in Central and Western Europe." Myres, Natalie M. et. al. European Journal of Human Genetics. 2010.
Posts: 171 | From: Florida | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rainingburntice: To Clyde Winters: R-M207 has highest diversity/frequency as well as R1, in Eurasia. R-M207* is found at highest frequency among people of Pakistan and India. The R-M207* in Central Africa is explained by both R-V88 and the former migrating to Africa together. R1-M173* has also highest frequency in Iran as well as moderate frequencies in Turkey, Pakistan and India, the same general location as R-M207*. Another descendent of M207 is R2-M479 found only in Eurasia in the same general location as all the others with highest frequency/diversity. And P-M45 the parent haplogroup of all these is found at highest frequency in India. This obvious pattern of descent of all the above haplogroups in the same general area in Asia is what caused scientists to conclude that R1-V88 in Africa is the result of Back Migration, not a biased opinion. Even the latest studies on this subject prove Back Migration correct, "A major Y-chromosome haplogroup R1b Holocene era founder effect in Central and Western Europe." Myres, Natalie M. et. al. European Journal of Human Genetics. 2010.
M207 is in Africa because this is where the haplotype originated. No one has claimed that V88 is the result of a back migration. Most researchers today claim that this clade is Africa specific.
The Myres et al article does not support a back migration for R1.
Myres et al note the maritime spread of neolithic farming communities using impressed cardial pottery to coastal Mediterranean populations and Crete 9kya . They interpret the phylogeography as an indication of the probable spread of M269 from Anatolia. This is contrary to the archaeological data which recognize the migration of populations around this time period from Africa, not Anatolia .
The early coalescent estimate of M269*+L23 (x M412) chromosome between 8.5-12 kya (1) , suggest an African genesis for M269, rather than Southwest Asia, since we see not only Sub-Saharan populations entering the area around this time they also bring with them Sub-Saharan fauna (4) ; and African groups who carry R1b are not of Middle eastern Origin (5).
Many of the African populations that carry R1* M173 are associated with the the Kushite people of Nubia (6) . As a result we find many Eurasian ethnonyms of Anatolia and Mesopotamia that indicate a Kushite presence including the Ksaka tribe (7) ; and Kings of Kish/Kush (6) .
The reason I have decided to comment on this forum is because of the many intuitive rather than logical statements made here. For the preservation of true history in the most minute detail as possible I must speak out, and for the sake of those who come to this forum, possibly even our children who might stubble upon racism in action, they must also be exposed to the truth. I really believe that if a person is constantly reminded of the truth they will eventually accept it.
Posts: 171 | From: Florida | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rainingburntice: "the Andamanese are not related to South Indians. They originated in Northeast India."
To Clyde Winters: "Multiplexed SNP Typing of Ancient DNA Clarifies the Origin of Andaman mtDNA Haplogroups amongst South Asian Tribal Populations." Endicott, Phillip et. al. PLoS ONE, (2006).
According to this study mtDNA M31a is found in both South Indians and the Andamanese. Along the Coastal Route (Migration OOA 65,000 years ago).
The paper claims that they are related based on the A08108G mutation which may have originated in Southeast Asia or Northeast India.
The finding of M31a2 among Dravidian speakers is quite interesting because the Dravidians only recently settled in India. The discovery of A08108G mutation may relate to the fact that M31 and M32 carry the 2156insA mutation which is common to African mtDNA haplogroups including hg L1c2b1.
This suggest to me that the A08108G mutation is probably present among many African haplogroups, just like 2156insA. Since Dravidians only recently settled India, a Myammar or Andamanese back migration is probably the origin of M31a2 among Dravidian speakers.
The Myammar back migration is the most probable origin of this gene given the Dravdian tradition of a migration of Dravidian speakers from Southeast Asia back into South India.
Most researchers believe M41 may be the most ancient M lineage in region since it connects the Australians and andamanese.
posted
To Mr. Winters: In order to understand your position in more detail, Do you disagree with the scientific research which indicates that R-M207* is more frequent in the Middle East? Do you disagree that R1-M173 is more frequent in the Middle East (other than that which is the result of genetic drift in Central Africa), and do you disagree that all the sibling clades for R1 (except for V88) is also found in Eurasia?
Posts: 171 | From: Florida | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged |
To Mr. Winters: In order to understand your position in more detail, Do you disagree with the scientific research which indicates that R-M207* is more frequent in the Middle East?
Yes M207 is found in Africa it is the same as V45
Do you disagree that R1-M173 is more frequent in the Middle East
R1-M173 is more frequent in Africa than the Middle East
and do you disagree that all the sibling clades for R1 (except for V88) is also found in Eurasia?
V88 is found in Eurasia and all R1 sibling clades are found in Africa
posted
Africans carry all the R1 lineages. The oldest R1 clade is found in Africa—not Eurasia.
Most Eurasians carry M209 and M269.
V88 is older than M209. The TMRCA of V88 was 9200 kya (Cruciani et al, 2010).
Most Eurasians carry the younger M269 (R1b1b2) mutation. The subclades of R1b1b2 include Rh1b1b2g (U106) (TMRCA 8.3kya) and R1b1b2h (U152) (TMRCA 7.4kya).
V88 is older than M269. The TMRCA of V88 was 9200 kya (Cruciani et al, 2010).
posted
M343 is older than V88 it is found in Turkey, Jordan, Dead Sea area
Technically a French white person has ancetsry from black Africans if you go back far enough. But they are not called African Neither is most of R1
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lady of doom: 4 Icon 1 posted 22 August, 2011 12:34 Profile for Marc Washington Send New Private Message Edit/Delete Post Reply With Quote . .
Lady of Doom and Rainingburntice
Huummmmm.
Two new members one introducing the thread the other being the first to comment and then there is a third comment soon following.
Sounds like a scam to me.
This trinity will be interesting to watch unfold over the days and weeks ahead -------------------------------------------
What the heck are you talking about??
I asked cause I wanted to know will their ever be a peer reviewed study that says other wise..
And I wonder why Kieta isn't picking up on this..
IF R1 underived is in central Africa, then how could it be from a back migration??
also U6 is mainly found in North Africa..
If you were looking for a peer reviewed article that said otherwise all you had to do was ask. See article below :
posted
To Mr. Winters: The R1-M173* in Central Africa has the same effect of that which occurs on island populations, which explains why it is only found in a small confined area of Africa at such a high frequency. In fact, the only places where a haplogroup occurs close to 100% is on island populations, or places that were secluded from newer migrations through time. It is the result of genetic drift according to scientists. If the R-M207* and R-M173* had been in Africa greater than 20,000 years (which is about the age of R-M207* minus the age of R-V88) then it would be spread more evenly throughout Africa and would not be confined to a specific language group. Which is also why any R1-M173* found elsewhere in Africa is of very low frequency. This also explains why R1-M173* in Eurasia has more moderate frequencies in more than one place of this haplogroup throughout the Middle East, and why R-M207* is more frequent in Eurasia. The R1b-M343* cases that were originally thought to represent clades in Central Africa is now considered to belong to the V88 clade that was more recently discovered. Also, my original first question was about whether or not you disagree with the scientific conclusion that R-M207* is more FREQUENT in Eurasia, sorry if you misunderstood me.....
Posts: 171 | From: Florida | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
.....To Mr. Winters: I'm pretty sure that you would agree with the fact that Y-DNA E1b1b1a1 (E-M78) which is found in both Europe and Africa has an obvious sub-Saharan African origin, which migrated out of Africa during the Late Natufian period c. 9500 BC. Also, E-M78 has been in Europe since c. 7000 BC long before your Kushite Migration Hypothesis of c. 3000 BC. Yet, E-M78 in Europe which has some isolated pockets of very high frequency in the Balkans Region, but most of which is spread out in that general region, and drops significantly outside of this region. It doesn't follow that a haplogroup such as E-M78 would be in Europe for 9,000 years and barely make a dent in the total genome in Europe, but that R1 which was supposedly in Europe for only 5,000 years at the most (according to your hypothesis) would affect 50-60% of the entire genome of Europe, how is your hypothesis vindicated in view of this?
Posts: 171 | From: Florida | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rainingburntice: To Mr. Winters: The R1-M173* in Central Africa has the same effect of that which occurs on island populations, which explains why it is only found in a small confined area of Africa at such a high frequency. In fact, the only places where a haplogroup occurs close to 100% is on island populations, or places that were secluded from newer migrations through time. It is the result of genetic drift according to scientists. If the R-M207* and R-M173* had been in Africa greater than 20,000 years (which is about the age of R-M207* minus the age of R-V88) then it would be spread more evenly throughout Africa and would not be confined to a specific language group. Which is also why any R1-M173* found elsewhere in Africa is of very low frequency. This also explains why R1-M173* in Eurasia has more moderate frequencies in more than one place of this haplogroup throughout the Middle East, and why R-M207* is more frequent in Eurasia. The R1b-M343* cases that were originally thought to represent clades in Central Africa is now considered to belong to the V88 clade that was more recently discovered. Also, my original first question was about whether or not you disagree with the scientific conclusion that R-M207* is more FREQUENT in Eurasia, sorry if you misunderstood me.....
Your opinion on the reasons behind the distribution of M207=V45 is speculation. If M207 and V45 are identical you can not claim that R1 in Africa is the result of genetic drift.
We don't really know the distribution of M207/V45 so I can not conclusively say the frequentcy is higher in Eurasia than Africa.
As I have pointed out elsewhere there is a variety of R1 lineages in Africa in addition to V88. Since all R1 lineages are descendant from M207/V45 you can not make the claim that the highest frequentcy is in Eurasia when R1 is widespread in Africa and V45 is the same as M207.
Moreover, how can you say V88 is found in a small area when it is also found in Western, East, and Southeast Asia.
posted
"Moreover, how can you say V88 is found in a small area when it is also found in Western, East, and Southeast Asia."
I was talking about the areas in Cameroon and Nigeria, if you look at the map of R1 in Africa there is a concentration of V88 in that area at 90+ percentage. That is the result of genetic drift. The other areas in Africa with V88 is much lower in frequency.
Posts: 171 | From: Florida | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
"As I have pointed out elsewhere there is a variety of R1 lineages in Africa in addition to V88."
Read this part again: "The R1b-M343* cases that were originally thought to represent clades in Central Africa is now considered to belong to the V88 clade that was more recently discovered."
R1b in Africa is now considered to be exclusively of V88, the previous studies weren't yet aware of V88.
Posts: 171 | From: Florida | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
To Mr. Winters: P-M45* (the ancestor of R) IS higher in frequency in India and Central Asia and spreads throughout Eurasia, R-M207* is spread throughout Eurasia in very low frequencies but spikes in Pakistan, R1-M173* is spread throughout Eurasia in moderate frequencies but spikes in Iran, R1-M343* is rare everywhere but has a low frequency in Turkey. If you are beginning to see the east to west movement of subsequent haplotypes that would be logical. Now all of these lineages are older than V88, which means there was a migration from Central Asia which continued all the way to the Near East, and only then came V88 right when it approaches Africa. This is why V88 is found in the Near East because it mutated from R-P25 with the approach to Africa at this point in the migration. Furthermore, haplogroup R2-M479 is only found in the region of India, which means that the R-M207* that stayed behind in Asia begat R2-M479 at 25,000 years ago. So there is no way that the R-M207* that left Africa with V88 in 3000 BC could have begat R2-M479 in India. This is proof that R-M207* mutated in a P-M45* individual in Central Asia and not in Africa. The common ancestor of R1-M173* and R2-M479* is Eurasian R-M207*.
Posts: 171 | From: Florida | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rainingburntice: "Moreover, how can you say V88 is found in a small area when it is also found in Western, East, and Southeast Asia."
I was talking about the areas in Cameroon and Nigeria, if you look at the map of R1 in Africa there is a concentration of V88 in that area at 90+ percentage. That is the result of genetic drift. The other areas in Africa with V88 is much lower in frequency.
You are making your own conclusions. R1 is found throughout Africa. R1b or V88 is widespread in Africa so it can not be the result of genetic drift.
It appears that you have the mistaken idea that V88 is the only R1 haplogroup in Africa. It is not the only R1 clade in Africa.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rainingburntice: To Mr. Winters: P-M45* (the ancestor of R) IS higher in frequency in India and Central Asia and spreads throughout Eurasia, R-M207* is spread throughout Eurasia in very low frequencies but spikes in Pakistan, R1-M173* is spread throughout Eurasia in moderate frequencies but spikes in Iran, R1-M343* is rare everywhere but has a low frequency in Turkey. If you are beginning to see the east to west movement of subsequent haplotypes that would be logical. Now all of these lineages are older than V88, which means there was a migration from Central Asia which continued all the way to the Near East, and only then came V88 right when it approaches Africa. This is why V88 is found in the Near East because it mutated from R-P25 with the approach to Africa at this point in the migration. Furthermore, haplogroup R2-M479 is only found in the region of India, which means that the R-M207* that stayed behind in Asia begat R2-M479 at 25,000 years ago. So there is no way that the R-M207* that left Africa with V88 in 3000 BC could have begat R2-M479 in India. This is proof that R-M207* mutated in a P-M45* individual in Central Asia and not in Africa. The common ancestor of R1-M173* and R2-M479* is Eurasian R-M207*.
Discussing R2 does not help your case at all. R2 is carried by Dravidian people in India. Dravidians came from Nubia. They arrived in India only 5kya so there was no carriers in Central Asia 20kya, if this date is based on R2.
Recent African origin Dravidians see:
Winters, C.(2007). Did the Dravidian Speakers Originate in Africa? BioEssays,27(5):497-498.
quote:Originally posted by rainingburntice: "As I have pointed out elsewhere there is a variety of R1 lineages in Africa in addition to V88."
Read this part again: "The R1b-M343* cases that were originally thought to represent clades in Central Africa is now considered to belong to the V88 clade that was more recently discovered."
R1b in Africa is now considered to be exclusively of V88, the previous studies weren't yet aware of V88.
I don't understand what you are trying to get at.
Researchers knew M-173 was in Africa. They just had not resolved M-173*.once it was resolved R1b-M343 = R1b1a (V88) and R1b1b2 (M269). The fact remains that V88 is older than M269.
quote:Originally posted by lady of doom: Hi I'm new here and I was wondering is it set in stone that U6 and R1 is Eurasian, or is there a chance that these haplotypes could be African?
Evergreen Writes:
It's likely that late stone age hunters traveled between NE Africa and SW Asia during the time frame these haplogroups derived so in reality it would be hard to pin down an exact point of origin. Though it should be noted that Europeans of this time frame physically resembled recent Africans in many ways.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
It's likely that late stone age hunters traveled between NE Africa and SW Asia during the time frame these haplogroups derived so in reality it would be hard to pin down an exact point of origin. Though it should be noted that Europeans of this time frame physically resembled recent Africans in many ways.
quote:
Aww I was hoping it wasant true.. Right now I'm debating this guy name Jeff and I wanted some solid proof that its not so Posts: 78 | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey Evergreen how would the back migrators look like Africans if R1 only arrived 5000 thousand years ago?
Posts: 78 | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey Mr.Winters I think you are a great man and you provide good info unfouranatley if I use your paper, no one will take me seriously, as you have been labeled a hardcore afrocentric sorry..
posted
"They just had not resolved M-173*.once it was resolved R1b-M343 = R1b1a (V88) and R1b1b2 (M269). The fact remains that V88 is older than M269."
This does not agree with the facts, R1b*(M343) is the ancestor of R1b1-P25, and P25 is the ancestor of R1b1c-V88. R1b-M343 does not equal R1b1c-V88 they are not the same thing. That V88 is older than M269 makes no difference because R-M207* is far older and has been present in Eurasia for over 25,000 years as evidenced by the presence of R2-479* in Eurasia and its complete absence in Africa. In order for R2-M479 to descend from R-M207* 25,000 years ago in Cenral Asia, R-M207* had to be present in Central Asia before this. None of this is explained by a Kushite Migration 5,000 years ago. Also, Dravidians have a high frequency of Y-DNA haplogroups F and H none of which are found in Africa, and R2-479 isn't found in Africa either.
Posts: 171 | From: Florida | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lady of doom: Hey Mr.Winters I think you are a great man and you provide good info unfouranatley if I use your paper, no one will take me seriously, as you have been labeled a hardcore afrocentric sorry..
Euronuts hate me because they can not debate me. They have been convinced that Afrocentricism lacks science that every Tom Dick and Harry Euronut believe they can argue with me an win. They always lose because the structure of Afrocentrism is based on falsification.
Back in the 1980’s-1990’s it appeared that I lost debates. I didn’t lose debates back then-I was banned and dropped from the talkgroups.
At Egyptsearch people are not banned. Debates reach a conclusion. And if you notice when people enter a debate with MK, Mike and myself they lose because what we write about is based on fact.
Knowing your history will reinvigorate your mind and spirit. Europeans are against Afrocentrism because it teaches historical truths, while concensus history sustains White Supremacy.
Amos Wilson in The Falsification of Afrikan consiousness: Eurocentric history, psychiatry and the politics of white supremacy believes that the African spirit and mind can be healed through the advancement of African centered historiagraphic, social and natural sciences. Wilson wrote "Apparently the rewriting, the distortion and the stealing of our history must serve vital economic, political and social functions for the Europeans or slse he would not bother and try so hard to keep our history away from us, and to distort it in our own minds" (p.15).
To Wilson we should see history as psychohistory, since the aim of writing Black people out of history is to destroy any sense of intelletual or social self-esteem for African people. Wilson noted that" In the final analysis, European history's principal function is to first separate us from ourselves and separate us from the reality of the world; to separate us from the reality of our history and to separate us from its ramifications"(p.24).
Wilson maintains that we must study Afrocentric History, because Europeans use history as a way of maintaining white supremacy; and the study of history by Blacks is a threat to the status quo. Some Black people beliew that the writing of history is neutral. Writing history is not neutral. Michael Parenti, in History as Mystery (1999), believes that history is not neutral. In his opinion history is written by the ruling class to solidify their position. He observed that "much written history is an ideologically safe comodity. It might best be called "mainstream history", "orthodox history", "conventional history" and even "ruling-class history" because it presents the dominant perspective of the affluent people who preside over the major institutions of society" (Perenti, p.xi).
Parenti, supports Wilsons' view on the impact of Eurocentrism on education when he noted that " many history and political science programs offered in middle and higher education rest on a Eurocentric bias" (p.xiv). As a result, Parenti argues that we learned a "disinformational history" which represents the viwes of the ruling class rather than real history (p.10). As a result, Parenti claims that we have "consensus history textbooks" that teach history from a distorted base.
The comments of Wilson and Parenti,make it clear that history is not written from a neutral perspective, it is written by historians who define what history is or is not. This means that due to doxa, the personality and preconceptions of the historians determine how he writes history. As a result, we find that "establishment" historians usually write history which supports the dominant view of the ruling class, which primarially support institutions of higher learning through well funded endowments. The allegience of a particular historian to a class or "association" means that when the historian identifies, selects and interprets facts, and the framework used to appraise the facts will be guided by the truths accepted by the "association" or social class. This is why Jacques Berlinerblau, in Heresy in the University: The Black Athena controversy and the responsibilities of American intellectuals (1999), observed that "How can a social-scientist, a historian, a literary criticm etc., claim that his or her conclusion are in any way true when it is so abundantly clear that these conclusions are inextricably bound with the social and political contexts in which he or she works and lives?"(p.192).
Since history is written from the perspective of the person writing history, an Afrocentric scholar's work should be respect just as much as the writing of a Eurocentric or "establishment" historian, but this is not the case.
This is why both Eurocentric and so-called Liberal historians will usually agree that Blacks lack any type of ancient history, or association with Egyptian history. They agree, because both groups do not believe that Blacks have a ancient history due to their absorption of "concensus history", that deny any role of blacks in ancient history except as "Ethiopian" or "Nubian" slaves among the Creeks, Romans and Egyptians.
Afrocentric researchers correct this myth by writing about the history of Blacks in ancient times.
posted
To Mr. Winters: Every clade of R1 that is found in Africa is also found in Eurasia, so to claim R1 was descended in Africa is speculation on your part, and the high frequency of R1 in Africa is indeed the result of genetic drift. Consider the Ainu and the Andaman Islanders where Y-DNA haplogroup D is over 85% in both and all the lesser haplogroups can be traced to migrations in the past couple thousand years. In these populations Hg D must have been over 95% before the more recent migrations took place. Such high frequencies don't occur in populations that have had great waves of continuous migrations through time, and this is not the pattern we see in Central Africa, which was not even affected by the influx from Muslims. To ignore the significance of this would be a gross error.
Posts: 171 | From: Florida | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lady of doom: Hey Mr.Winters I think you are a great man and you provide good info unfouranatley if I use your paper, no one will take me seriously, as you have been labeled a hardcore afrocentric sorry..
LOL. They are just jealous that eventhough they tryu to use the term Afrocantrist as a bad word I continue to get my papers published in peer reviewed journals.
If you notice I am never attacked by "established academics", its only people on forums that dispute my work. Academics may not like my work but since it is based on solid scholarship they don't want to get involved in an arguement with me--in which I might be allowed journal time to respond.
Euronuts hate the truth. Afrocentric studies is based on 200 years of research. They attack Afrocentrism because Hunter Adams and Ivan van Sertima could not defend the work they talked about back in the 1990's. This should not have caused Afrocentrism to be disparaged because Ivan made it clear he was not an Afrocentric researcher. He popularized many Afrocentric themes through the Journal of African Civilization and the many books he edited.
Moreover, up until this day no one has been able to falsify the work of the major Afrocentric researchers: Diop, DuBois, J.A. Rogers and etc. These scholars knew anthropology, history and archaeology. Their work, like mine was basd on the latest research so its almost impossible to falsify.
Most people don't know anything about Afrocentrism because of College Afro-American Studies programs (AASP).Universities when they established AASF programs they usually hired AAs with degrees in literature to direct the programs e.g., Asante and Gates. Asa Hillard was a great man--but his background was Eduational Psychology. These guys were great advocates of Afrocentrism, administrators and loved AASF--but they failed to have a background in the social sciences: Anthropology, history or linguistics, so they were unable to do original research.
Although my PhD is in Ed Psych and Curriculum, I majored in History and Anthropolgy for my BA, and Linguistics and Social Science for my MA--both of which I earned at the Univ. of Illinois-Urbana. This is why I was publish articles in Afrocentric studies since 1973 in French, Swahili and English. For number of years my research ienterst was basically epigraphy back in the late 1980's . I only returned to writing on anthropology and history after Ivan and Hunter ruined the good name of Arocentrism. As a result, of their false flag activities I published Afrocentrism a Valid Frame of Reference to point out the validity of Afrocentric study. See:
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic