quote: Price AL, Tandon A, Patterson N, Barnes KC, Rafaels N, et al. Department of Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA. Sensitive Detection of Chromosomal Segments of Distinct Ancestry in Admixed Populations. PLoS Genet 2009 Jun;5(6):e1000519
Author Summary The genomes of individuals from admixed populations consist of chromosomal segments of distinct ancestry. For example, the genomes of African American individuals contain segments of both African and European ancestry, so that a specific location in the genome may inherit 0, 1, or 2 copies of European ancestry. Inferring an individual’s local ancestry, their number of copies of each ancestry at each location in the genome, has important applications in disease mapping and in understanding human history.
Here we describe HAPMIX, a method that analyzes data from dense genotyping chips to infer local ancestry with very high precision. An important feature of HAPMIX is that it makes use of data from haplotypes (blocks of nearby markers), which are more informative for ancestry than individual markers. Our simulations demonstrate the utility of HAPMIX for local ancestry inference, and empirical applications to African American and Mozabite data sets uncover important aspects of the history of these populations.
We analyzed 29 HGDP samples from the Mozabite population of North Africa, which has previously been reported to inherit amixture of both European-related ancestry and ancestry related to sub-Saharan Africans [15,26] (see Materials and Methods). We therefore continued to use YRI and CEU as input reference populations, to identify segments of sub-Saharan African-related ancestry, and European-related segments. Our analysis aimed to shed light on the origins of the admixing populations, as well as the period in which historical admixture occurred. ... Different Mozabite individuals within our sample had different estimates of sub-Saharan African ancestry proportions, with a majority at close to 20%, but several individuals having a somewhat higher fraction. Exploration of the causes of this variation (Figure 7) revealed a systematic tendency for those individuals with higher proportions of sub-Saharan African ancestry to have large (tens of megabases) segments in their genome with an African origin. Such large segments are only consistent with admixture within the last 20–30 generations, showing the admixture process has continued into more recent times. In fact, the individual with the highest estimated proportion (75%) of sub-Saharan African ancestry had at least one inferred non-European chromosome throughout virtually their entire genome (Figure 7), consistent with admixture in the last generation, and demonstrating that the admixture process continues today in the Mozabite population.
Which modern-day populations are most closely related to the founder populations for the Mozabite? ...
For the African founder population, the West African Mandenka and Yoruba populations, and another HGDP Bantu population, "Bantu Kenya", had the smallest FST values (0.034–0.035).
For the European-related founder population, the Italians and Tuscans, closely followed by the Palestinians, had the smallest FST values (0.021–0.022), suggesting an origin in South Europe or the Middle East.
Apart from the 2 individuals with much higher African ancestry, the EIGENSOFT plot identifies a further set of 8 Mozabite individuals showing reduced genetic drift (i.e. second eigenvector coefficients), and much more variable ancestry estimates relative to the full set (Figure 8). For these 8 samples, HAPMIX gave a maximum likelihood estimate of 75 generations for the admixture event, again noticeably lower than 100 generations for the full dataset and demonstrating more recent admixture in these individuals.
Therefore, we observe a correlation between time since admixture across different individuals, and level of genetic drift relative to modern-day European and African populations.
A hypothesis consistent with this finding is that genetic drift has occurred in the Mozabite population itself, during or after admixture, in way that has affected both African and European ancestral segments. Alternatively, the founder populations may have gradually drifted during the thousands of years of admixture that have affected this group.
Analysis of other HGDP populations
To understand the performance of HAPMIX on real populations with a wider range of histories, we applied the method to 13 different HGDP populations that were of African, Middle Eastern, or European origin. Using YRI and CEU as ancestral populations, HAPMIX inferred that 5 of these populations had greater than 0% and less than 100% European related ancestry (Table 4). The estimates of European-related ancestry in these 5 populations range from 2%–97%, and the numbers of generations since mixture range from 60–120.
Finally, the Middle Eastern results contrast with results for the HGDP European populations, where we consistently estimate the African mixture proportions at close to 0%.
Genomic Ancestry of North Africans Supports Back-to-Africa Migrations Brenna M. Henn equal contributor,
Multiple local ancestry assignment methods, including PCADMIX, require thinning genotype datasets to remove alleles in high linkage disequilibrium between populations [29], [36]; this step discards information regarding haplotype patterns that tend to be more informative than genotypes when using data biased by SNP ascertainment [37]. HAPMIX incorporates both LD information and uncertainty in phase inference for haplotypes [18], but the software is currently limited to a two-population model. Our ancestral proportions of European and sub-Saharan ancestry for many North Africans at k = 2 [Figure 1] are similar to those obtained with HAPMIX by Price et al. [18] for the HGDP Algerian Mozabites, assuming a two-population mixture of northern Europeans and Yoruba. However, our results show that increasing the number of possible ancestral populations reveals multiple, diverse ancestries [e.g. Maghrebi, Near Eastern, Nilotic] and that the proportion of sub-Saharan African assignment decreases as these other ancestries are accounted for. This decrease in assigned sub-Saharan ancestry in North African samples, from a k = 2 model, is consistent with an interpretation that Maghrebi or Near Eastern diversity that is not present in the panel populations is more likely to be assigned to the more diverse, Sub-Saharan African ancestry. Using a two-population admixture model, Price et al. [18] estimated the time of migration from sub-Saharan Africa into the Mozabites to have begun about 100 generations ago [or more]. Our results suggest that sub-Saharan African and Maghreb admixture is considerably more recent, 24–41 generations ago [and even the upper 95% CI estimate under either model is 55ga, Table 1]. The discrepancy between these two estimates may result from our incorporation of multiple source populations, our use of non-linear models to estimate migration timing and the elimination, in Price et al. [18], of individuals with megabase long African segments.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Price et al acknowledged HAPMIX's allowance of only two proposed mixture elements and note tha HAPMIX told there were more than two elements involved
quote:... the Mozabite [] are not perfectly modeled as a linear combination of European and African ancestry.
Careful perusal, or better yet study, of Price indicates HAPMIX's dependability to ascertain accurate number of generations.
quote:Inference of date of admixture. By comparing the overall likelihoods produced by HAPMIX at various parameter settings, it is possible to evaluate which parameters provide the best fit to the data, irrespective of whether or not the choice of parameter settings significantly impacts the accuracy of local ancestry inference. We investigated how effectively the number of generations l since admixture can be inferred in this way by running HAPMIX at various values of T and computing overall likelihoods, using the data sets simulated at ʎ=6, ʎ=20 and ʎ=100. We also simulated a double-admixture scenario in which a 50%/50% admixture of Yoruba and French occurred at ʎ = 100 followed by a 50%/50% admixture of that population and French at ʎ= 6 (we call this the ʎ=6+100 run (with a =75%)). We optimized T at a granularity of 1 for the ʎ=6 and ʎ=20 simulations and a granularity of 5 for the ʎ=100 and ʎ=6▫100 simulations.
Henn's elimination of individuals with megabase long African segments would increase not decrease number of generations and Price carefully delineates different number of generations for those individuals and even others in the Mzabi samples giving their various ng and corresponding dates as in the posted exerpts.
Henn's dates contradict known ancient Egyptian and Greco-Latin written and plastic documentation for SSA's in the Mediterranean world well before 800 CE. Additionally Henn never considered the Mandenka. North Soninke are historically known as Sahara interactive. She also seems unknowing of the SSA contribution to Levantine populations over 3000 years ago. Did they bypass Egypt and North Africa to get there?
Differing views are normal between experts. Price appears more exacting then Henn and doesn't buck against known historical facts. So I rely on Price more so than Henn who's raw data id fine except where she tweaks it to fit a certain interpretation.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol: Interesting, especially in this light.
According to the Henn study (and common sense) all non black African population in North Africa are the products of a back to Africa migration movement (in 3 phases the study reveals).
All this hamitic race quack is bull.
Berbers are not some hamitic race or locally grown race out of nowhere, but the products of a back to Africa migration from the middle east/levant/west asia some very long time ago. In fact, there was no separation between North Africa and the rest of Africa as at that time the Sahara was still green.
Ancient populations didn't have a bird eye view of Africa. For them North Africa was part of the same landmass as the Western Asia, as it is for African people (with added distance and some other natural obstacles). The desertification of the Sahara probably pushed the original African population in North Africa further south and toward oases and the Nile. Allowing Western Asian population (ironically also motivated by desertification) more accustomed to this climate to migrate in the North African region. Still many black African ethnic groups inhabit North African countries usually toward the south of those countries (but above the Sahara).
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Dating the Admix to between 2-4kya support the view that Europeans entered the Levant during the Peoples of the Sea (PoS) invasion. The PoS came in cantact with the Mande when this population occupied the Fezzan.
It does not support the view these Middle Eastern populations are native to the Levant.
.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Although care should be taken in interpreting these values, they indicate that the ancestral segments of Mozabite are significantly diverged from extant Bantu-African and European related populations. ... the Mozabite are not perfectly modeled as a linear combination of European and African ancestry.
^Essentially the same as Henn et al 2012's solid reasoning for why the predominant Maghrebi component detected in Berber populations doesn't predate the Holocene (they have alleles that are unique to them and bespeak divergence times from Eurasians that are >10kya):
A scenario where North African Maghrebi ancestry is the result of in situ population absorbing Near Eastern migrants would likely need the following premises to explain the results here and elsewhere: a) an Out-of-Africa migration [concurrent with bottleneck] occurs 50–60 Kya, geographically dividing North African and Near Eastern populations; b) North Africans experience a separate bottleneck; c) gene flow maintains similarity between the two geographically distinct populations; d) the gene flow then ceases or slows roughly between 12–40 Kya in order to allow sufficiently distinct allele frequency distributions to form. --Henn et al 2012
^Berber populations have Eurasian ancestry that is clearly unaccounted for by the confused ''historic female slave trade'' fairytale pushers, who are motivated only by their hidden agenda to not have to admit that the Eurasian genetic component in Berbers--which is embodied by what's left over when historic Arab and historic European and slightly older West African ancestry is subtracted--can be traced back to Ibero-maurusians.
The afronut bogus ''female Eurasian slaves'' excuse, when applied to what's CLEARLY prehistoric, non-recent ancestry in Berbers, needs to be called out for the crackpot emotion-driven quackery that it is. As pointed out by Price et al 2009, Henn et al 2012, Achilli et al 2005, Kefi et al 2005, Frigi et al 2011, and many others, Berbers are NOT a blend of a Sub-Saharan component and a recent (common era), Eurasian component.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
^Berber populations have Eurasian ancestry that is clearly unaccounted for by the confused ''historic female slave trade'' fairytale pushers, who are motivated only by their hidden agenda to not have to admit that the Eurasian genetic component in Berbers--which is embodied by what's left over when historic Arab and historic European ancestry is subtracted--can be traced back to Ibero-maurusians.
The afronut bogus ''female Eurasian slaves'' excuse, when applied to what's CLEARLY prehistoric, non-recent ancestry in Berbers, needs to be called out for the crackpot emotion-driven quackery that it is. As pointed out by Price et al 2009, Henn et al 2012, Achilli et al 2005, Kefi et al 2005, Frigi et al 2011, and many others, Berbers are NOT a blend of a Sub-Saharan component and a recent (common era), Eurasian component. [/QB]
dana, Djehootie, et al
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
and then there's: this point of view
quote:Originally posted by xyyman:
Notice unlike some Afro-centric - I maintain the light skin(not white) IS indigenous to Africa. So to are the so called Caucasoid features. That is why I have no problem with the word,Caucasoids, now. Hell..look at the AEians, Black Caucasoids from Sub-sahara Africa.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Will post on.
"Genetic structure of nw africa by Str. Bosch, Comas et al " . Read and get back to me!
Hint: Ignore the bs conclusion and reinterpret the published data. Show us how smart you are. And please, no pics. I was not sure who these people are. They may be Turks living in Germany for all I know.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
We know that Black Africans have always lived in North (NA). As a result, if the Berbers were ancient in N.A. the admix for these populations would be earlier. The fact they date to 2-4kya indicate a recent origin of these populations in N.A.
quote:
The three Middle Eastern populations (Bedouin, Palestinian, and Druze) all show a substantial African-related mixture (3%–9% African-related ancestry). The inferred dates of 60–90 generations correspond to about 2,000–4,000 years ago –- contemporaneous with our estimate of the oldest admixture time for the North African Mozabite population –- taking into account the fact that HAPMIX systematically underestimate mixture dates by up to 25% for mixtures this old (see simulations above).
Dating the Admix to between 2-4kya support the view that Europeans entered the Levant during the Peoples of the Sea (PoS) invasion. The PoS came in cantact with the Mande when this population occupied the Fezzan.
It does not support the view these Middle Eastern populations are native to the Levant.
.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Get to work guys...
Genetic structure of north-west Africa revealed by STR analysis
Posted by Vansertimavindicated (Member # 20281) on :
Folks come here to laugh at you monkey! LOL This is what it has come to!
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
From the Study: The two strongest genetic boundaries in the geographical area comprised by NW Africa and the Iberian Peninsula (see Figure 3) were found to encircle single populations.
STR diversityAMONG populations Genetic differentiation among the populations of both the extended and basic sets was analysed by computing Fst genetic distances and representing them by means of neighbour- joining trees (Figures 1a and 1b). We also computed other genetic distances (data not shown): the NW African populations cluster together, although with short and not very statistically robust branches among them. In the basic analysis, the Mozabites stand out from the rest of the NW Africans
It should be noted that the most robust branch (77%) in the tree is that separating NW Africans(AND AFRAMS) from Europeans. Among the Iberians, Andalusians and Portuguese are closest to NW Africa.
Afrrican-Americans appear linked to NW Africa through a long branch.
Notice the distance between Aframs and Berbers are 16 and 33. The distance between ALL AFRICANS and EUROPEANS is 77. Quote: It should be noted that the most robust branch (77%) in the tree is that separating NW Africans from Europeans.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Get to work guys...
Genetic structure of north-west Africa revealed by STR analysis
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Notice the distance between Aframs and Berbers are 16 and 33. The distance between ALL AFRICANS and EUROPEANS is 77. Quote: It should be noted that the most robust branch (77%) in the tree is that separating NW Africans from Europeans.
The diagram makes perfect sense. ….geographic sense. Distance BETWEEN EACH branch. Notice all Africans are on the same side of the tree
Of course the Mazabite are distinct. That is how it works. They are stating the obvious not something profound. The Mozabite will be different from the other Berber groups. Why? Geographic distance. They are thousands of miles away from Morocco. Siwas of Egypt will give the same pattern. Similarly for West Africans(Aframs). The length of the branch is a representation of isolation and genetic "variation" NOT genetic distance . Yes, West Africans are genetically different(not distant) to NWAians, they have a largest branch because they have more differentiation i.e. variance. The Mazabite are different because of isolation. BUT, the distance between them at the main trunk is extremely close.
In other words they are the same stock i.e. indigenous Africans. So always consider geographic location when you interpret these studies, forget your modern day political views. Demic diffusion is a fact but teleportation is not.
ALSO!! Notice Iberians are next closest to Africans then also Italians. Why? Geography. It is really not that difficult.
Now let me get back to posting on ESR. … where the newbie's are really interested in learning.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Get to work guys...
Genetic structure of north-west Africa revealed by STR analysis
There's also the DNA Tribes graphs which have the same advantage of being easy to read:
There's also the map from the popular Tishkoff study here:
While those studies (as all genetic studies yet) are limited by the size of the sample for each populations (how can 50 people be representative of the whole populations?) and what people they choose to take their DNA samples from (indigenous black Africans in North Africa are often not sampled), they are really interesting.
Generally, the closer you get to the Middle East, Asia and Europe the closer Africans are genetically to those populations. Probably the effect of borderlines admixture. Obviously the reverse is also true. Palestinians are the closer to Africans than lets say Basque but further than Mozabite for example.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
Well I was under the impression that the Berber's MtDNA was the result of a long period admixture rather than just from recent slave markets?? Am I wrong? Ive always upheld that Coastal Areas of North Africa harbored "Eurasian" Leukoderm as well as darker skinned populations as one goes more into the interior as seen in Carthage and Egyptian and Roman art.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Although care should be taken in interpreting these values, they indicate that the ancestral segments of Mozabite are significantly diverged from extant Bantu-African and European related populations. ... the Mozabite are not perfectly modeled as a linear combination of European and African ancestry.
^Essentially the same as Henn et al 2012's solid reasoning for why the predominant Maghrebi component detected in Berber populations doesn't predate the Holocene (they have alleles that are unique to them and bespeak divergence times from Eurasians that are >10kya):
A scenario where North African Maghrebi ancestry is the result of in situ population absorbing Near Eastern migrants would likely need the following premises to explain the results here and elsewhere: a) an Out-of-Africa migration [concurrent with bottleneck] occurs 50–60 Kya, geographically dividing North African and Near Eastern populations; b) North Africans experience a separate bottleneck; c) gene flow maintains similarity between the two geographically distinct populations; d) the gene flow then ceases or slows roughly between 12–40 Kya in order to allow sufficiently distinct allele frequency distributions to form. --Henn et al 2012
^Berber populations have Eurasian ancestry that is clearly unaccounted for by the confused ''historic female slave trade'' fairytale pushers, who are motivated only by their hidden agenda to not have to admit that the Eurasian genetic component in Berbers--which is embodied by what's left over when historic Arab and historic European and slightly older West African ancestry is subtracted--can be traced back to Ibero-maurusians.
The afronut bogus ''female Eurasian slaves'' excuse, when applied to what's CLEARLY prehistoric, non-recent ancestry in Berbers, needs to be called out for the crackpot emotion-driven quackery that it is. As pointed out by Price et al 2009, Henn et al 2012, Achilli et al 2005, Kefi et al 2005, Frigi et al 2011, and many others, Berbers are NOT a blend of a Sub-Saharan component and a recent (common era), Eurasian component.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
This study IMO seems more explosive and devastating to Eurocentrics than to us Africanists(I know Al-takruri among others upheld what this is saying for a while now)many Eurocentrics claim any black admixture in North Africa is due to slavery..
xyyman who are more African generally Mozabites or African Americans?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
the images are too big it messes up the format of the thread
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Will post on.
"Genetic structure of nw africa by Str. Bosch, Comas et al " . Read and get back to me!
Hint: Ignore the bs conclusion and reinterpret the published data. Show us how smart you are. And please, no pics. I was not sure who these people are. They may be Turks living in Germany for all I know.
The Ibāḍī movement, Ibadism or Ibāḍiyya (Arabic: الاباضية al-Ibāḍiyyah) is a form of Islam distinct from the Sunni and Shī'ah denominations. It is the dominant form of Islam in Oman and Zanzibar. Ibāḑīs can also be found in Algeria, Tunisia, East Africa as well as Libya. Believed to be an off-shoot of one of the earliest schools, the Khawārij, it is said to have been founded 60 years after the death of the prophet Muḥammad.
^^^^ xyyman your article from 2000, obsolete, update to 2009
_______________________________
2009
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: [QB] Exerpts from a highly scientific report http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19543370 [QUOTE] Price AL, Tandon A, Patterson N, Barnes KC, Rafaels N, et al. Department of Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA. Sensitive Detection of Chromosomal Segments of Distinct Ancestry in Admixed Populations. PLoS Genet 2009 Jun;5(6):e1000519
I am not sure we talking the same thing. Remember, as I said earlier.. . .or in another thread. There are three (3) methods used to determine population grouping. 1. Lineage 2. STR 3. SNP.
That is the game these Eurocentric geneticist play. When they talk "affinity" are they referencing which of the three.
If they are refrering to Lineage, ie eg HG-E1b1b, Berbers are undoubtedly African. If it is STR , see NJ dendogram above. Undoubtedly African. When they use SNP's then.... Caucasoids.
Keep in mind there are 13 Million SNPs in the genome. The selective choose the ones that will give them the conclusion they want.
On the contrary, as I said, a black geneticist may chose a set, of the 13 million SNPs, that serves their purpose. But we are not there yet. ie Black geneticist. He! He!
@ So at the Lioness crew. Come again!! The STR study is NOT outdated.
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Get to work guys...
Genetic structure of north-west Africa revealed by STR analysis
There's also the DNA Tribes graphs which have the same advantage of being easy to read:
There's also the map from the popular Tishkoff study here:
While those studies (as all genetic studies yet) are limited by the size of the sample for each populations (how can 50 people be representative of the whole populations?) and what people they choose to take their DNA samples from (indigenous black Africans in North Africa are often not sampled), they are really interesting.
Generally, the closer you get to the Middle East, Asia and Europe the closer Africans are genetically to those populations. Probably the effect of borderlines admixture. Obviously the reverse is also true. Palestinians are the closer to Africans than lets say Basque but further than Mozabite for example.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
You are like an infant... with your infantile games. As I said. You are no match for me. I am light years ahead of you.
Quote: who is MORE African?
GTFOH! You know what. The Berbers are more African than Aframs. He! He!
All groups on the bottom half of the dendogram are just as African as the other. All are PN2!!
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: xyyman who are more African generally Mozabites or African Americans?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Will post on.
"Genetic structure of nw africa by Str. Bosch, Comas et al " . Read and get back to me!
Hint: Ignore the bs conclusion and reinterpret the published data. Show us how smart you are. And please, no pics. I was not sure who these people are. They may be Turks living in Germany for all I know.
^^^^ a quote from the below PDFlink of the same study which xxxyman has been posting from.
^^^ read this and notice how xxxyman is misinterpreting the data. xxxyman you are in big trouble
nevertheless there are some contradictions going on between the two articles
xxxyman is a covert Caucocentric. He's claiming Caucasoids are indigenous to Africa
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Last time I looked. Algeria is NOT in Morocco.
Quote: "The Mozabites are a very well defined Berber population in Algeria:"
And, yes, there are contradictions between both papers...finally catching on!!!
That is the game you people play. Henn et al talks SNPs. Comas et al talks STRs.
STRs may be classified as the "race" genes. That is why it is used in forensics. But more specifically the "geographic likeness" genes.
SNPs are really phenotype genes.
So I stand by the statement. Caucasoids features are indigenous to Africa. Europeans are NOT indigenous to Africa. The lineage(HGs) and STRs don't lie.
Selective testing of SNPs is misleading.
Just to make it clear to you. SNPs are really phenotype genes. STRs tells the geographic location they historically belong to. As demonstrated by their STRs and Lineage. But they may have SOME physical features(SNPs) similar to Europeans.
now....YAAAWWWNNN!!!
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman:
STRs may be classified as the "race" genes. But more specifically the "geographic likeness" genes.
SNPs are really phenotype genes.
phenotype is a fancy word for likeness
of course there are those who think SNPs are mor accurate
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
It doesn't take rocket science to figure out what happened. See Green Sahara and other similar studies.
1. AMH lives in the green Sahara. . .twice!!
2. Slow Desertification. Some moved south others moved north. Few stayed where they were.
3. All adapted to live in their specific environment. eg lighter north Berbers. Darker tropical africans.
4. Same African stock. That is why their STRs are on the same branch. Of course there was spill over into entry point to Europe. ie Iberia , Italy and Greece.
BTW: remember 500yrs of Ottoman occupation, etc. It is remarkable they still retained their Africaness.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
The end
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
I wonder what they look like these Mozabites
look xy, your article said they settled in the 11th century the one AlTak posted says 2,800 years ago, big diff
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: It doesn't take rocket science to figure out what happened. See Green Sahara and other similar studies.
1. AMH lives in the green Sahara. . .twice!!
2. Slow Desertification. Some moved south others moved north. Few stayed where they were.
3. All adapted to live in their specific environment. eg lighter north Berbers. Darker tropical africans.
4. Same African stock. That is why their STRs are on the same branch. Of course there was spill over into entry point to Europe. ie Iberia , Italy and Greece.
BTW: remember 500yrs of Ottoman occupation, etc. It is remarkable they still retained their Africaness.
Well if the separation between the north Berbers and tropical Africans is so big that it allowed them to have lighter skin color and other physiological changes then they are not African anymore.
It's like saying Europeans are Africans because we all come from Africa.
That theory doesn't make sense in the light of the Henn (2012) study which characterized non-African ancestry in north Africa as being the product of 3 distinct phases of migration from west asia.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
the Khoisans are somewhat light however
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: the Khoisans are somewhat light however
If it's only somewhat then it's ok. Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
@ A-Ra . You have made great contribution with the photos you uploaded. So....
1. What is an African? 2. What is a European? 3. Is a negro and African? Caucasoids are Europeans?
As I said, To understand you have to divorce yourself from current political views. Just look at the scientific facts.
Because someone carry PN2 does'nt mean they should be black. One does NOT relate to the other. skin pigmentation correlates to latitude. Unfortunately or fortunately that is how nature/evolution works.
Think you are still missing it. What "ancestry" is Henn et al referring to? It is NOT E1b1b. E1b1b is UNDOUBTEDLY African. Henn et al chose , what, 1000 SNPs out of 13 000 000. ie 0.007% If I was a genecist I would chose the "black genes", SNP, to conduct my studies. Get it?
I know it is difficult to follow.
The Khoisan occupies a "higher" latitude also...so...they should be lighter. Trust me....nature don't lie. People do. Especially Europeans
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: the Khoisans are somewhat light however
If it's only somewhat then it's ok.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
@ A-Ra - There is nothing wrong with being white or light. Heck, half my family is. But when they lie to steal other peoples history, make themselves feel good, etc . . .well. Cass, Lioness, etc
I am out. next time.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
There you go again. Can't help yourself. More pictures. What makes you think this is not faded as many others. However many retained their darkness. or should I say Blackness.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: the Khoisans are somewhat light however
If it's only somewhat then it's ok.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Artemis blog
MONDAY, 28 MARCH 2011
Debunking Mozabites
Mozabites in an unsupervised ADMIXTURE analysis are generally modal for their own component, which then dominates fellow North Africans, and is present in small amounts in some East Mediterranean populations with no likely contact with Northwest Africa (its presence in Iberians has likely other reasons explored later). Under a theory of Neolithic Replacement, this doesn't make sense, since North Africans are agricultural peoples since ancient times... Thus I decided to try to break them up into Neolithic source components using the supervised mode in ADMIXTURE.
Three likely sources of Neolithic techs and genes are present in the region:
1. Northern Fertile Crescent: In order to distinguish a first wave from secondary waves from other regions in the Fertile Crescent area, I decided to use Basques as a pole. In retrospect maybe Basques absorbed some small but not insignificant secondary wave component too, but since it was likely much less important than in North Africa and the Middle East, the choice is still valid (may have to use populations from further North as a first wave pole next time though).
2. Northeast Africa: Egypt is obviously a major candidate for a secondary "Southern Fertile Crescent" wave. Their fast appearing shining civilization indicates extra surplus food production allowing exceptionally large elites. Surplus food techs would likely expand along with the people using them, since they would allow for higher densities of
agriculturalists versus less advanced "first wave"-tech using peoples. However it's expected that secondary wave people (but not techs or seeds) will travel much less far than first wave ones, since already agricultural peoples will effectively resist and learn since they share a similar mindset already. A complication to use Egypt as a pole is that Egypt very likely received high genetic flow from the Northern Fertile Crescent as it was perhaps a more peripheral but integral part of the West Eurasian Neolithic Core Area from the start of the Revolution. Thing is, Egyptians also have very significant non-Western Asian components they share with other East-Africans, namely Ethiopians and Maasai. Since Ethiopians also seem to have received major influence from the Arabian Peninsula in ancient times, a more southern pole must be sought to make things clearer with less overlapping. If North African populations have East African components, we can use Egyptians directly later, but in this analysis I chose the Maasai.
3. Western Africa: Western Africa's Neolithic Revolution seems to have happened later than the Fertile Crescent one (which failed to expand into the region due to seed-package maladaptation to tropical conditions). Still, there was likely much gene flow between both regions so I included them as the third pole (Yoruba+Mandenka).
Here are the results:
A possible interpretation: Mozabites may be a compound of an earlier Southeastern-subset Fertile Crescent Egyptian wave superimposed by a dominant more advanced Northern- subset Fertile Crescent one. As seeds, cultural practices and genes mixed in the Nile, a second (or third for North Africa) Fertile Crescent wave would expand and Egyptian Civilization would arise in the Nile itselfit. It's interesting that populations from more arid areas have more "West African" (Mozabites themselves, Libyans, South Moroccans). It may seem more likely that the West-African minor component is derived from later expansion of West Africans and the caravan trade. However little is known, as far as I'm aware of local Forager genetics since no forager populations remain in North Africa today. Foragers likely remained in regions not congenial to agriculture until development of desert Pastoralist (camels, goats) lifestyles in Arabia much later. One tantalizing possibility is that it was more West African-like from the very beginning. The Saharan pump theory may offer some clues, since the Sahara during the Ice Age was much more congenial to (forager) gene flow from the south than today...
The model predicts this "Egyptian wave" would spread to Europe and the more distant Near East using the obvious expansion routes already travelled by first waves. It would however petter out relatively quickly as Egyptian colonists failed to completely overwhelm numerically already neolithic first wave peoples and would become more "first-wave-like" genetically the further one travels from Egypt. I will analyse European populations for evidence of Egyptian/East African admixture next.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Here is a Dienekes commenatry on HAPMIX:
The authors claim:
The three Middle Eastern populations (Bedouin, Palestinian, and Druze) all show a substantial African-related mixture (3%–9% African-related ancestry). The inferred dates of 60–90 generations correspond to about 2,000–4,000 years ago – contemporaneous with our estimate of the oldest admixture time for the North African Mozabite population – taking into account the fact that HAPMIX systematically underestimate mixture dates by up to 25% for mixtures this old (see simulations above). These results are historically interesting, allowing us to conclude that there is likely to be African ancestry in Middle Eastern populations today that dates to population mixture that occurred in Biblical times.
This is, however, contradicted, by the finding of virtually no "Yoruba" ancestry in the same Middle Eastern populations the best study to date. It is not really difficult to see what went wrong. By using CEU and YRI populations as parentals, the authors were unable to discover the true ancestral components. Middle Eastern populations are composed primarily of Middle Eastern Caucasoids, not Northwestern Europeans; moreover, their African influences are mainly Northeastern, not West African.
As we know (see previous link), Caucasoids from Europe, Central/South Asia and the Near East are not uniform, but form separate clusters. Indeed, even Europeans themselves are not uniform.
Nor are Africans themselves uniform, according to the latest study of Tishkoff et al, and Middle Eastern populations (see Table S8) have no significant admixture from West Africa, but a noticeable "Cushitic" admixture.
This paper could serve as a warning to the limitations of statistical inference. A good tool (and HAPMIX is indeed such), can lead to erroneous results (biblical-era admixture with Sub-Saharan Africans), if it is used with the wrong input data.
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
This is, however, contradicted, by the finding of virtually no "Yoruba" ancestry in the same Middle Eastern populations the best study to date.
^^There is no "contradiction". Yorbua ancestry would not be needed as some sort of "Litmus test" to show substantial African-related mixture. There are other sub-Saharan populations besides the Yorbua.
By using CEU and YRI populations as parentals, the authors were unable to discover the true ancestral components. Middle Eastern populations are composed primarily of Middle Eastern Caucasoids, not Northwestern Europeans; moreover, their African influences are mainly North eastern, not West African. ^^If they be West African or NE African they are still tropical Africans.
Nor are Africans themselves uniform, according to the latest study of Tishkoff et al, and Middle Eastern populations (see Table S8) have no significant admixture from West Africa, but a noticeable "Cushitic" admixture. ^^Most "Cushitic" speakers are located below the Sahara and are thus "sub-Saharan" Africans.
This paper could serve as a warning to the limitations of statistical inference. A good tool (and HAPMIX is indeed such), can lead to erroneous results (biblical-era admixture with Sub-Saharan Africans), if it is used with the wrong input data.
^^It is not at all "established" that the results are "erroneous." Sub-Saharan gene flow in the Middle East circa Biblical times would be nothing unusual. Sources include Egypt, the Sudan and the Horn at varying levels.
Debunking Mozabites
Mozabites in an unsupervised ADMIXTURE analysis are generally modal for their own component,
^^The only problem with this technical "analysis" is that it is your manipulated amateur one, versus the mouch more credible peer reviewed research of professionals.
Under a theory of Neolithic Replacement, this doesn't make sense, since North Africans are agricultural peoples since ancient times..
Actually BEFORE they were agricultural peoples they were foraging and pastoral peoples. WHy is this conveniently forgotten?
In order to distinguish a first wave from secondary waves from other regions in the Fertile Crescent area, I decided to use Basques as a pole. In retrospect maybe Basques absorbed some small but not insignificant secondary wave component too, but since it was likely much less important than in North Africa and the Middle East, the choice is still valid (may have to use populations from further North as a first wave pole next time though).
^^The self-styled "poles" are pitiful- worse than an aging pole dancer squeezing out one more payday amid ripples of sagging cellulite. And why would the "secondary wave" (so-called) be "less likely"? FOlks just supposed to take your word for it?
2. Northeast Africa: Egypt is obviously a major candidate for a secondary "Southern Fertile Crescent" wave. Their fast appearing shining civilization indicates extra surplus
The only problem is that these alleged "waves" have no basis in any credible reality, and unsurprisingy, no empirical data is offered in support of the "waves."
agriculturalists versus less advanced "first wave"-tech using peoples.
But the alleged "first wave" peoples were themselves agriculturalists according to your analysis. How could they be "versus" themselves?
However it's expected that secondary wave people (but not techs or seeds) will travel much less far than first wave ones, since already agricultural peoples will effectively resist and learn since they share a similar mindset already.
WHy would the mystical "techs and seeds" not travel with the "secondary wave people"? If mysterious "second wave" people who were agriculturalists moved into Africa they would show up empty handed, not bringing their seeds, animals or tools with them?
.
A complication to use Egypt as a pole is that Egypt very likely received high genetic flow from the Northern Fertile Crescent ^^BUt earlier you claimed that Egypt received mostly "second wave" folk from the "Southern Fertile Crescent" Two paragraphs on you say northern crescent. Which is it?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
^^^^ not my words, "A possible interpretation" is a continuation of Artimis blog
Basic issue: Tukuler's article on Mozab admix ratios , Euro to African are near reverse of xxxyman's other peer reviewed article. xxxyman has acknoledeged these two articles don't fit
Which blog comments, Dienekes and Artimis blogs support Tukuler article and which xxxyman's paper I haven't looked closely yet The more articles that come out the less we know it seems
If Mozabites are Ibadites I would suspect some evidence of Yemen/Oman ancestry also, the topic seems very confusing
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Said to have been posted by Dienekes: This is, however, contradicted, by the finding of virtually no "Yoruba" ancestry in the same Middle Eastern populations the best study to date.
This is patently false. Jews all over the diaspora have a genetic signal that is different from what many associate with ''Northeast African'' ancestry. This ancestry is today found in sub-Saharan Africans, but had to be present in Egypt in prehistoric times for it to be found in Levantines. Uniparentally, the said ancestry is found in diasporial Jewish communities in the form of mtDNA L2a1 and L2a. Its recurrent across Jewish populations, indicating it was present in the proto-population from which they all hail. It shows up in their nuclear DNA, as well as in the aDNA of their regional predecessors (Mari and pre pottery Neolithic aDNA) which would extend the admixture event(s) back to at least 8.8kya.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Hi all,
Well, I just got the previously-discussed FGS results back. I've now gone from being mis-assigned to a Scots-Irish cluster in mtDNA haplogroup H2* to...drumroll please...an all-Ashkenazic cluster in mtDNA haplogroup L2a1 !
Yes, the L's are nearly all sub-Saharan African haplogroups, and L2a is the most common mtDNA haplogroup among African-Americans at 18%. But my only matches at the HVR1+HVR2 level are all Ashkenazim.
In the merely "L2" group at the HVR1+HVR2 level, I have two matches from Germany, and one each from Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Russia, and Ukraine. All have the user-directed comment "Ashkenazi" next to them except for the Romania result, but that one might be an oversight, as not everyone knows they can request to add comments to their results. At the "L2a" HVR1+HVR2 level, I have one match each from Germany, Lithuania, and Russia, all Ashkenazic, and at the most precise "L2a1" HVR1+HVR2 level, I have one match each from Latvia and Poland, again both Ashkenazic. Obviously, those two are of the most interest to me, since my lineage is from Poland...
If I go back to the HVR1-only level, then there's a large number of matches listed, but split quite obviously between Jewish and African groups -- a number of different specific tribes from Cameroon, Guinea-Bissau, and Sierra Leone, in particular, are listed. There are *no* matches listed from Egypt, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somalia, or Sudan, which is the area of the world where you'd expect to see an African/Jewish overlap. So how this Jewish L2a and L2a1 group split off from the much larger African L2a community is a mystery.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Artemis blog
MONDAY, 28 MARCH 2011
Debunking Mozabites
Ummm, not dissin' Artemis -- more power to her -- but I don't critique amateurs.
quote:
Don't look now but essentially the same Africa sub-Saharan to Europe southwest by west ratio as Price, no? Some "Mzab debunk" that, eh?
Not that this next guy below is a pro but he does speak directly to Price's report and HAPMIX tool.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Here is a Dienekes commenatry on HAPMIX:
The authors claim:
The three Middle Eastern populations (Bedouin, Palestinian, and Druze) all show a substantial African-related mixture (3%–9% African-related ancestry). The inferred dates of 60–90 generations correspond to about 2,000–4,000 years ago – contemporaneous with our estimate of the oldest admixture time for the North African Mozabite population – taking into account the fact that HAPMIX systematically underestimate mixture dates by up to 25% for mixtures this old (see simulations above). These results are historically interesting, allowing us to conclude that there is likely to be African ancestry in Middle Eastern populations today that dates to population mixture that occurred in Biblical times.
This is, however, contradicted, by the finding of virtually no "Yoruba" ancestry in the same Middle Eastern populations the best study to date.
HAPMAP's only got four pops YRI CEPH JPT HCB so YRI was the only choice for SSA. But why no complaint on CEPH for west Eurasian source? French ancestry of those same SW Asians is as nill as Yoruba. I smell anti-African bias around this guy's atmosphere.
HAPMAP is short on geo-pops yet super robust in their genetic data. It well serves the purpose of "a random collection without a priori strategy" as Zheng would put it.
quote:It is not really difficult to see what went wrong. By using CEU and YRI populations as parentals, the authors were unable to discover the true ancestral components.
Nothing went wrong. It was never the geneticists goal to uncover Mzabi "true ancestral components." The aim was to check out admixture/gene flow/miscegenation in North Africa's Mzab via sub-Sahara related and Europe related genetics.
quote:Middle Eastern populations are composed primarily of Middle Eastern Caucasoids, not Northwestern Europeans; moreover, their African influences are mainly Northeastern, not West African.
As we know (see previous link), Caucasoids from Europe, Central/South Asia and the Near East are not uniform, but form separate clusters. Indeed, even Europeans themselves are not uniform.
Nor are Africans themselves uniform, according to the latest study of Tishkoff et al, and Middle Eastern populations (see Table S8) have no significant admixture from West Africa, but a noticeable "Cushitic" admixture.
Well, if the admixture is African and it ain't supra-Sahara and it ain't Saharan then, c'mon you can guess, it's sub-Sahara.
quote: This paper could serve as a warning to the limitations of statistical inference. A good tool (and HAPMIX is indeed such), can lead to erroneous results (biblical-era admixture with Sub-Saharan Africans), if it is used with the wrong input data.
So now we see what's really eating this fast and loose slinger of the C-word -- don't nobody dare tarbrush my sacred holy biblical caucasoids. To paraphrase the Godfather: I don't want no Tiggers in my Family Bible.
Though not in agreement with Price read Moorjabi (2011)
This pattern has not been detected in previous analyses of mitochondrial DNA and Y chromosome data [7], and although it can be seen when re-examining published results of STRUCTURE- like analyses of autosomal data, it was not highlighted in those studies, or shown to unambiguously reflect sub-Saharan African admixture [15,38]. We estimate that the average date of the mixture of 72 generations (~2,000 years assuming 29 years per generation [30]) is older than that in Southern Europeans or other Levantines.
I do agree HAPMIX is a damn good tool. Price got results from it corresponding to known history without loading the dice as Mr. D would like to do. He who mistakes genetic profiles for racial ethnicity.If he didn't do that then he'd know YRI must have some to many loci, haplotypes, haplogroups, in common with other Africans.
Anyway Lioness thanks for being true to the Price/Mzab/HAPMIX game.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
Sensitive detection of chromosomal segments of distinct ancestry in admixed populations. Price AL, Tandon A, Patterson N, Barnes KC, Rafaels N, Ruczinski I, Beaty TH, Mathias R, Reich D, Myers S.
Mozabite people are characterized by a very high level of North African haplogroups E1b1b1b (M81) (86%) and U6 (28%).
History
According to tradition the Ibadites, after their overthrow at Tiaret (Central Algeria) by the Fatimites, they took refuge during the 10th century in the country to the southwest of Ouargla (Southern Algeria), where they founded an independent state.
In 1012, owing to further persecutions, they fled to their present location (Northern Algeria) where they long remained invulnerable.
_____________
wikipedia
Ibadi
The Ibāḍī movement, Ibadism or Ibāḍiyya (Arabic: الاباضية al-Ibāḍiyyah) is a form of Islam distinct from the Sunni and Shī'ah denominations. It is the dominant form of Islam in Oman and Zanzibar. Ibāḑīs can also be found in Algeria, Tunisia, East Africa as well as Libya.
Believed to be an off-shoot of one of the earliest schools, the Khawārij, it is said to have been founded 60 years after the death of the prophet Muḥammad.
Kharijites
Kharijites (Arabic: خوارج Khawārij, literally "those who went out";[singular, Khārijī ) is a general term embracing various Muslims who, while initially supporting the authority of the final Rashidun Caliph Ali ibn Abi Talib, the son-in-law and cousin of the Islamic prophet Muhammad, then later rejected his leadership. They first emerged in the late 7th century, concentrated in today's southern Iraq, and are distinct from Sunni Muslims and Shiʿa Muslims They form a significant part of the population of Oman (where they first settled in 686), and there are smaller concentrations of them in the M'zab of Algeria, Jerba in Tunisia, Jebel Nafusa in Libya, and Zanzibar.
basic questions for Tukuler et al
1) Big issue here. Ibadi are Kharijites. Kharijites were Iraqi. Ibadi seem to have some Southern Iraq roots and proably Yemne/Oman additions after settling there.Most accounts say that Mozabites are Ibadi who settled to M'zab Algeria 11th century AD.
Are Mozbites primarily 11th century non-Africans who settled in Algeria in the 11th century?
Or are the primarily a 78% ancestry European-related population from 787 BC ???
2) If they are primarily a 78% ancestry European-related population from 787 BC ??? What are they Iberians? What European-related population ? If this is the case Ibadi who came there were small in number and merely introduced Ibadi Islam culture to a 78% ancestry European-related population
3) If the Mozabites are a people who lived in Algeria 2,800 year ago, 787 BC and they are a 78% European-related population if they are E1b1b1b (M81) (86%) and U6 (28%) what does that say about them ??
In Europe, E-M81 is found everywhere but mostly in the Iberian Peninsula, frequency from 100% in some isolated Berber populations to approximately 10% to the east of this range in Egypt.[1][6][7] Because of its prevalence among these groups and also others such as Mozabite, Middle Atlas, Kabyle and other Berber groups, it is sometimes referred to as a genetic "Berber marker". Pereira et al. (2010) report high levels among Tuareg in two Saharan populations - 77.8% near Gorom-Gorom, in Burkina Faso, and 81.8% from Gosi in Mali. There was a much lower frequency of 11.1% in the vicinity of Tanut in the Republic of Niger.
__________________________________
E-M81 is the most common Y-chromosome haplogroup in the Maghreb, dominated by its subclade E-M183. It is thought to have originated in the area of North Africa 5,600 years ago Cruciani et al. (2004) Arredi et al. (2004)
We show that the Mozabite have inherited roughly 78% ancestry from a European-related population {Price) ^^^^ how can it be ? Unless you thimk M81 originated in Iberia and then later had a higher frequency in the Maghreb
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Well I was under the impression that the Berber's MtDNA was the result of a long period admixture rather than just from recent slave markets?? Am I wrong? Ive always upheld that Coastal Areas of North Africa harbored "Eurasian" Leukoderm as well as darker skinned populations as one goes more into the interior as seen in Carthage and Egyptian and Roman art.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Although care should be taken in interpreting these values, they indicate that the ancestral segments of Mozabite are significantly diverged from extant Bantu-African and European related populations. ... the Mozabite are not perfectly modeled as a linear combination of European and African ancestry.
^Essentially the same as Henn et al 2012's solid reasoning for why the predominant Maghrebi component detected in Berber populations doesn't predate the Holocene (they have alleles that are unique to them and bespeak divergence times from Eurasians that are >10kya):
A scenario where North African Maghrebi ancestry is the result of in situ population absorbing Near Eastern migrants would likely need the following premises to explain the results here and elsewhere: a) an Out-of-Africa migration [concurrent with bottleneck] occurs 50–60 Kya, geographically dividing North African and Near Eastern populations; b) North Africans experience a separate bottleneck; c) gene flow maintains similarity between the two geographically distinct populations; d) the gene flow then ceases or slows roughly between 12–40 Kya in order to allow sufficiently distinct allele frequency distributions to form. --Henn et al 2012
^Berber populations have Eurasian ancestry that is clearly unaccounted for by the confused ''historic female slave trade'' fairytale pushers, who are motivated only by their hidden agenda to not have to admit that the Eurasian genetic component in Berbers--which is embodied by what's left over when historic Arab and historic European and slightly older West African ancestry is subtracted--can be traced back to Ibero-maurusians.
The afronut bogus ''female Eurasian slaves'' excuse, when applied to what's CLEARLY prehistoric, non-recent ancestry in Berbers, needs to be called out for the crackpot emotion-driven quackery that it is. As pointed out by Price et al 2009, Henn et al 2012, Achilli et al 2005, Kefi et al 2005, Frigi et al 2011, and many others, Berbers are NOT a blend of a Sub-Saharan component and a recent (common era), Eurasian component.
You're correct. The problem is that the black populations described in Greco-Roman literature aren't necessarily descendants of Berber speakers. There is an interval in between the terminal Ibero-Maurusian and the arrival of Berber speakers, which was bridged with the arrival of agriculturalists, as well as pre-neolithic people looking to have come from the Sudan, among other incursions. Aside from the Southern Maghrebi émigrés I've just mentioned, there would also have been coastal incursions into the Maghreb from the Egypto-Nubia area, as evidenced by E-V68 and its dominant E-M78 subclade in Southwestern Europe, which are independent of European E-V13, and are thought to have been brought to Southern Europe through maritime expansions from the Maghreb. Had these incursions into the Maghreb never happened, the Greco-Roman writings in question would have been a valuable asset in ascertaining Berber phenotypes.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
^^^^ case in point: Numidians
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Ha! Ha! Ha! Really? Do you really believe that. Africans admixed with European but Europeans are not admixed with African
Quote: Finally, the Middle Eastern results contrast with results for the HGDP European populations, where we consistently estimate the African mixture proportions at close to 0% Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
quote: "A striking finding from our study is the consistent detection of 3–5% sub-Saharan African ancestry in the 8 diverse Jewish groups we studied, * Ashkenazis (from northern Europe), * Sephardis (from Italy, Turkey and Greece), and * Mizrahis (from Syria, Iran and Iraq).
This pattern has not been detected in previous analyses of mitochondrial DNA and Y chromosome data [7], and although it can be seen when re-examining published results of STRUCTURE- like analyses of autosomal data, it was not highlighted in those studies, or shown to unambiguously reflect sub-Saharan African admixture [15,38]. We estimate that the average date of the mixture of 72 generations (~2,000 years assuming 29 years per generation [30]) is older than that in Southern Europeans or other Levantines.
The point estimates over all 8 populations are between 1,600–3,400 years ago, but with largely overlapping confidence intervals. It is intriguing that the Mizrahi Irani and Iraqi Jews— who are thought to descend at least in part from Jews who were exiled to Babylon about 2,600 years ago [39,40]—share the signal of African admixture. (An important caveat is that there is significant heterogeneity in the dates of African mixture in various Jewish populations.) A parsimonious explanation for these observations is that they reflect a history in which many of the Jewish groups descend from a common ancestral population which was itself admixed with Africans, prior to the beginning of the Jewish diaspora that occurred in 8th to 6th century BC [41]." --Moorjani 2011
^^Indeed. This debunks the claim that there was no sub-Saharan gene flow into Palestine/Middle East during Biblical times.
"Here, we apply genomic methods to show that the proportion of African ancestry in many Southern European groups is 1%–3%, in Middle Eastern groups is 4%–15%, and in\ Jewish groups is 3%–5%. " --Moorjani
^^It would be more accurate to say that the proportion of African ancestry being referred to is primarily WEST AFRICAN ancestry, specifically centered on the Yorbua. But the Yorbua are not the only "sub Saharan" group of Africans. Peoples of Ethiopia and Somalia and large parts of Chad and the Sudan are located below the Sahara and are thus "sub-Saharan" Africans. Studies using them to trace gene flow into Europe or the Middle East are just as valid as using West African Yorbua.
SOme racists in Hitler's time did charge Jews with having the blood of "inferior stocks", specifically "negro blood." Well their latter day racist "aryan" brethren could no doubt claim a link of Jews with said "negro blood" and cite the above as "proof." “[Nazi] Lectures, films, and history books taught these girls about a political and biological danger posed by Jews.. All told, there was "racial degeneration" during the Republic, resulting from the presence and dominance of Jews. Since his time in Palestine, the Jew was said to have absorbed Negro blood and to have a particular affinity to those French colonial Negroes.." --Michael Kater 2006 Hitler Youth, pg 100
"In his Foundations of the Nineteenth Century (1899) .. Houston Chamberlain classified Jews as "a mongrel race, which always retains this mongrel character." For Chamberlain, who was also admired by Hitler, the most recent “hybridization” of the Jews was the “admixture of Negro blood with Jewish in the Diaspora of Alexandria— of which many a man of Jewish persuasion at this day offers living proof" (CHamberlain as cited in Gilman 1986,7). --Baum and Samuels, 2011. Antisemitism Explained. p 19
Dienekes said:
Another idea is to see whether frequency differences between A and B are correlated with frequency differences between Sub-Saharans and another Eurasian population unrelated to either A or B. Differences between Caucasoids and Sub-Saharans are (in part) due to divergence between Sub-Saharans and ancestral Eurasians. Suppose, for example, that we've identified a group (e.g., Papuans) unlikely to have admixed with Caucasoids. If B differs from A (over many markers) in the same direction that Sub-Saharans differ from Papuans, this is consistent with the notion that B has some Sub-Saharan admixture that A lacks. This is the basis of the 4-population test.
Note that because of symmetry, a highly negative value in their 4-population test (x, CEU, Papuan, YRI) indicates Sub-Saharan admixture, while a highly positive one would indicate "Papuan" admixture! The authors do observe positive values, suggesting that some northern European populations are Papuan-shifted even with respect to CEU, most notably Russia with a Z-score of 11.4. Thankfully, we are spared a paper on Papuan admixture in Russia.
^^Irrelevant. The study did not focus on Papuans but Africans. The comparison falls flat and does not change the fact of the African admixture. And a positive shift would not at all have anything to do with a direct "Papuan admix" towards Europeans, but rather a signal towards Asian genetic elements. Europeans, depending on the measure used, signal genetically more towards Asians as Cavalli Sforza and others show, in terms of being a hybrid population.
Dienkes says: Much more can be said, but let's summarize: the model of Moorjani et al. (2011) fails because:
1 It does not account for the West-East Eurasian axis, folding everything onto the North European-Sub-Saharan African one 2 It undersamples African diversity by excluding both North African and East African populations
Perhaps I'll add more in the future, but I believe I've already said enough to cast serious doubt on this paper'
^^Wrong. It did not have to account for any West-East axis. The study question relates to the level of African admixture in different European and Middle Eastern populations, and samples Palestinians, Jews, Mediterranean's (like Italians and Spaniards) and Swiss-French. The study is not concerned with distant East Eurasians like Chinese and does not need to sample them to be valid. Far from failing, the study is confirmed by others that show clear African gene flow into Europe and the Middle East from ancient times.
And sure it undersamples African diversity, but that does not change the fact of the African admixture which cannot be airbrushed away.
DIenkes has "serious doubts" because it shows his beloved "Caucasoids" to be "mixed" - using classical race schema he subscribes to- a hybrid population as also shown by Cavalli-Sforza previously. Moorjani has not "failed" in showing the presence of admixture.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
^^^^^ notice the suggestion by zarahan here that Africans and Asians are races
of course, nothing to do with Mozabites, more self promos
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
xxyman your article is mentioning something here about "no sufficient DNA"
Regardless they point out that they are isolated form both Europeans and other Africans. The fact that the article says the are 11 AD settlers implies heavily they are not native to NA prior to 11 AD. You have misinterpreted events due to the effects of drift and founder effect. How did they become isolated? Tukuler's article at the top of the thread indicates they were in Algeria at least 2,800 years "probably much longer" yet they were European originally ( and 17% admix with native Africans). I have gone back over this article. You have misconstured it. They have become an isolated population in the STR analysis but nowhere in the article do they say or imply they were always a population indigneous to Africa. In fact they indicate relativley much more recent aath c migration compared to Tukulers article with says 2,800 years ago at least. Long enough for people originally European to show in SNP analysis but not STR. Long enough for them to become genetically isolated from a more direct affinty to Europeans and from that smaller part of their African admix ancestry. Your genius has been defeated. nice try
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
test
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Bebugging posting issues
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
I'm having coherency issues with this post. Each piece, however accurate or not, doesn't tie into the rest to make a corelated whole so please correct me if I misconstrue you.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
Sensitive detection of chromosomal segments of distinct ancestry in admixed populations. Price AL, Tandon A, Patterson N, Barnes KC, Rafaels N, Ruczinski I, Beaty TH, Mathias R, Reich D, Myers S.
Yes, Price places his beginning of admixture for Mzab no later than that year.
quote: wikipedia:
Mozabite people are characterized by a very high level of North African haplogroups E1b1b1b (M81) (86%) and U6 (28%).
History
According to tradition the Ibadites, after their overthrow at Tiaret (Central Algeria) by the Fatimites, they took refuge during the 10th century in the country to the southwest of Ouargla (Southern Algeria), where they founded an independent state.
In 1012, owing to further persecutions, they fled to their present location (Northern Algeria) where they long remained invulnerable.
Mzab is easy to locate by its capital Ghardaia. Ouargla is southeast of Ghardaia. That's northern Algeria. Getting to south Algeria from Wargla requires movement through Tuat central Algeria. Blind cut n paste without checking the facts first is for debate not serious discussion to round out knowledge.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
quote:wikipedia
Ibadi
The Ibāḍī movement, Ibadism or Ibāḍiyya (Arabic: الاباضية al-Ibāḍiyyah) is a form of Islam distinct from the Sunni and Shī'ah denominations. It is the dominant form of Islam in Oman and Zanzibar. Ibāḑīs can also be found in Algeria, Tunisia, East Africa as well as Libya.
Believed to be an off-shoot of one of the earliest schools, the Khawārij, it is said to have been founded 60 years after the death of the prophet Muḥammad.
Kharijites
Kharijites (Arabic: خوارج Khawārij, literally "those who went out";[singular, Khārijī ) is a general term embracing various Muslims who, while initially supporting the authority of the final Rashidun Caliph Ali ibn Abi Talib, the son-in-law and cousin of the Islamic prophet Muhammad, then later rejected his leadership. They first emerged in the late 7th century, concentrated in today's southern Iraq, and are distinct from Sunni Muslims and Shiʿa Muslims They form a significant part of the population of Oman (where they first settled in 686), and there are smaller concentrations of them in the M'zab of Algeria, Jerba in Tunisia, Jebel Nafusa in Libya, and Zanzibar.
basic questions for Tukuler et al
What I write and post here are my own analyses and interpretations independent of what anybody contributes and requires no meshing or dove tailing with others' opinions. So forget trying to make me fit in with some presumed group-think or alliance. With that in mind, some ESers post valid facts and sensible original thought useful to me and the world.
quote: 1) Big issue here. Ibadi are Kharijites. Kharijites were Iraqi. Ibadi seem to have some Southern Iraq roots and proably Yemne/Oman additions after settling there.Most accounts say that Mozabites are Ibadi who settled to M'zab Algeria 11th century AD.
Mzabi are an ethnic group or a geographic population found in Mzab. Ibadites are a religious sect as are Kharijites. In this case the followers' ethnicity is unrelated to the founders of the religious sects.
quote:Are Mozbites primarily 11th century non-Africans who settled in Algeria in the 11th century?
Or are the primarily a 78% ancestry European-related population from 787 BC ???
Nobody lived in the Mzab before Islam? No comment or appraisal necessary, but ...
The Mzab is a region in northern Algeria in the highlands south of the Ouled Nail part of the Saharan Atlas range around Ghardaia roughly above the word Algeria on this map.
What's currently Mzab was known to Ptolemy c.150 CE as his Usargala mountains. Its people were the Subupores with Natembes to their north and west, MelanoGaetuli further west and Nigritae Ethiops immediately to their south.
This is closest in time to Price's 8 Mzabi's with "a maximum likelihood estimate of 75 generations for the admixture event" which he sees as ongoing from at least ~800 BCE to today still ongoing.
quote: Or are the primarily a 78% ancestry European-related population from 787 BC ???
Again, Price cleary states "the Mozabite [] are not perfectly modeled as a linear combination of European and African ancestry." This means other variables are ignored because he's specifically looking into sub-Saharan Africa related and Europe-related components. Between those two and those two only do the 22% and 78% estimates apply. We don't know what percent of the whole the target represents.
quote:2) If they are primarily a 78% ancestry European-related population from 787 BC ??? What are they Iberians? What European-related population ? If this is the case Ibadi who came there were small in number and merely introduced Ibadi Islam culture to a 78% ancestry European-related population
3) If the Mozabites are a people who lived in Algeria 2,800 year ago, 787 BC and they are a 78% European-related population if they are E1b1b1b (M81) (86%) and U6 (28%) what does that say about them ??
In Europe, E-M81 is found everywhere but mostly in the Iberian Peninsula,
E-M81 has no microsatellite diversity in South Europe, so it came from NW Africa.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
quote:frequency from 100% in some isolated Berber populations to approximately 10% to the east of this range in Egypt.[1][6][7] Because of its prevalence among these groups and also others such as Mozabite, Middle Atlas, Kabyle and other Berber groups, it is sometimes referred to as a genetic "Berber marker". Pereira et al. (2010) report high levels among Tuareg in two Saharan populations - 77.8% near Gorom-Gorom, in Burkina Faso, and 81.8% from Gosi in Mali. There was a much lower frequency of 11.1% in the vicinity of Tanut in the Republic of Niger.
E-M81 is found at 41% in some Cantabrians, < 4% sporadic in South Europeans, 3-9% in some Anatolians, 9% in Tamasheq of Tanout Niger and 30% in Tamasheq in Gossi Mali both in the Sahel, and in Sudan at 5% ancestry/ethnic group undisclosed.
quote:E-M81 is the most common Y-chromosome haplogroup in the Maghreb, dominated by its subclade E-M183. It is thought to have originated in the area of North Africa 5,600 years ago Cruciani et al. (2004) Arredi et al. (2004)
Because of its ubiquity and frequency in North Africa declining eastward E-M81 is called a "Berber" marker. It's origin is * 2600-4300 BCE (from Cruciano) * 4300-8900 BCE (from Semino) * _800-6200 BCE (from Arredi) and "Berber" is Afrasian's latest language family.
quote:We show that the Mozabite have inherited roughly 78% ancestry from a European-related population {Price) ^^^^ how can it be ? Unless you thimk M81 originated in Iberia and then later had a higher frequency in the Maghreb
E-M81 has no microsatellite diversity in South Europe, so it came from NW Africa.
The HAPMAP data includes much much more than nrY polymorphisms. It also factors in mtDNA X chromosomes and the 22 other non-sex or autosomal chromosomes. That's the 2 uniparental SNPs plus all the sex chromosomes' recombinant positions too and the multitude of autosome SNPs. See this page at HAPMAP. As Price notes in his materials and methods section HapMap provides phased haplotypes from the CEU (N&W European descendents in Utah), YRI (Yoruba) and JPT+CHB (Tokyo+Beijing Han) populations genotyped at over 3 million markers.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
I'm glad you addressed these details. The wikipedia might not have been accurate in all points but it is a starting point for a historical sketch on how history relates or doesn't relate to this genetic information.
My basic question is
Did the Mozabites come from a place outside of Africa?
xxyman thinks they did not. I tend to think they did come from outside of Africa and then became isolated genetically over time but far prior to Islam. Based on your above comments, correct me if I'm wrong, your opinion is that you are uncertain as to the answer to this question.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Your crew got jokes.
Listen bro(s)..if you can't interpret this NJ dend you shouldn't be involved in the discussion. There is common sense/logic and then there is BS pushed out by EuroCentrics.
Africans(ALL OF THEM are at the bottom of the tree) - Europeans are at the top(no pun intended). The thickest branch is ...77%.
Just like all deluded Europeans your rational is all screwed up. What about the Basque, they are just like the Mazabites in relation to Berber Africans. Are they(Basque) not Europeans? LOL!!
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Also keep in mind, the study I am referencing is based upon STRs NOT SNPs. STRs are still the current standard used by ALL international law enforcement authorities to identify ..point of origin...ie "race"...not right choice of words..but to make a point. CODIS uses 13 STRs but some groups uses 1O STRs. The "basic" STRs used in this study pretty standard.
SNPs are a long way off from being used....why?...because of shady manipulation. There are over 13 million SNPs. Those to be used for geographic identification are still be debated.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: [QB] Your crew got jokes.
Listen bro(s)..if you can't interpret this NJ dend you shouldn't be involved in the discussion. There is common sense/logic and then there is BS pushed out by EuroCentrics.
Africans(ALL OF THEM are at the bottom of the tree) - Europeans are at the top(no pun intended). The thickest branch is ...77%.
I'm am not clear on if you are on the same page as Tukuler or not.
In fact your position could be construed as more Eurocentric than what I have said. The tradiional Afrocentric position is that berbers, the ones who are lighter, for example Kabyles and many Mozabites, are mainly descended from white slaves of the Barbary pirates and other non African migrations, Romans etc. You however believe that these berbers some who look a large part relativley light skinned and a large part "Caucasian" looking are indigenous Africans. The psoition is not exactly Eurocentric or Afrocentric. If it has to be a centric it could be Caucocentric
I am not even sure how the Africentric/Eurocentic paradigms apply to these to artcles. So stop fronting skully
The obvious question is
Did the Mozabites come from a place outside of Africa?
your position is clear Tukuler's is not
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Ok! I am not a historian... . so. . . I will let others speak their point of view. I rely on scientific facts FIRST . . . then what the history books say.
BTW- I am not saying there is absolutely no European influence in the Berbers. More female then male. Looking at the table I cited earlier or in another thread. R-M269 is less than 2% present in Berber groups.
In fact these Euros are so illogical they are really idiotic. Aframs are ...what...10% European ie R-M269. It follows they should be classifed as Caucasians..He! He!
That means Aframs are genetically closer to Europeans than Berbers. Right?! Simple logic...no pictures needed.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
I'm glad you addressed these details. The wikipedia might not have been accurate in all points but it is a starting point for a historical sketch on how history relates or doesn't relate to this genetic information.
Wiki is a good start with leads to actual competent recognized sources. Next step? Read up on authors' whose field of study is Maghrebi history and religion.
quote:My basic question is
Did the Mozabites come from a place outside of Africa?
xxyman thinks they did not. I tend to think they did come from outside of Africa and then became isolated genetically over time but far prior to Islam. Based on your above comments, correct me if I'm wrong, your opinion is that you are uncertain as to the answer to this question.
Your position is Mozabites "come from outside of Africa and then became isolated genetically over time but far prior to Islam."
You can't ask "Did the Mozabites come from a place outside of Africa?" when you've a priori posited they're grafted foreigners.
What's going on here is you're stating Mozabites aren't native African then looking for challenges.
Thing is, I want to see your propositions leading to your conclusion of pre-Islamic non-African heritage of Mozabite ancestry and if they're something to "challenge" or not.
So, I'm not answering what I see as a rhetorical question but my take on Mzabi origins is implicit in my last set of posts. Maybe later I'll post my data interpretations synthesized with historical analyses from reading Ptolemy, Briggs, Welch, and UNESCO on Oued Mzab inhabitants over time.
Everyone's entitled to their opinions and their interpretation of data and synthesis of analyses but to back a position need the data and sources analyzed behind your synthesis statement that's masquerading as a question.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman:
Also keep in mind, the study I am referencing is based upon STRs NOT SNPs. STRs are still the current standard used by ALL international law enforcement authorities to identify ..point of origin...ie "race"...not right choice of words..but to make a point. CODIS uses 13 STRs but some groups uses 1O STRs. The "basic" STRs used in this study pretty standard.
SNPs are a long way off from being used....why?...because of shady manipulation. There are over 13 million SNPs. Those to be used for geographic identification are still be debated.
Are you sure about all that? Y chromosome haplogroup assignment's only unambiguously determined by SNP after predictions based on Y STR haplotypes.
So Whit Athey's program herepredicts 96.4% E1b1a Y-SNP biallelic marker over _3.4% E1b1b for RIII's Y STR haplotype profile, a humbling admission for Mr. "no relation to blacks" Zahi Hawass, national security nonwithstanding.
After narrowing down STR haplogroup possibilities to avoid negative results, appropriate SNP tests'll show the singular defining mutation, whether E-M2 or E-M35. Since probability is 94%, why bother? Just to keep that grant money rolling in?
But haplogroup isn't what forensic STR profiling's about. Uniparental haplogroup is about useless in forensics because it can't tell cousins apart but a STR profile is damn near a fingerprint and not even twins are likely to have the exact same STR profile as in some tests.
Do you know how many STRs there are in total? Amazingly, as little as 8 aSTRs show geography.
It's a research team's own choice what they use. Bosch 2000 was back before the YCC established the discipline standard alphabetic Y chromosome tree. Her data is valid. One year later in 2001 Bosch published a paper using Y SNPS instead of autosomal STRs. She also applied HVS evaluation in Brakez 2001 and she has used other traditional genetic markers too.
Uniparental's show deep ancestry but may not tell where the individual's latest generations sprang. That's where the STRs shine. With them we see the most likely places. Like you say, can't beat 'em that's for sure.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
I'm am not clear on if you are on the same page as Tukuler or not.
...
Did the Mozabites come from a place outside of Africa?
your position is clear Tukuler's is not
Lioness - hold on a minute. Again, what people write is independent, from their own brains, and don't require my page check pass. I like it that Xyyman has his own niche not "on the same page" I don't look to draw others onto some "same page."
Different pages make for a faceted book.
For me it's not about US vs THEM personalities. It's about what population genetics and historical accounts add up to from applied personal perspectives.
Carry on 'cos I like it you got your own page too!.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
I was trying to get the link to Hawass stating the no relation to black thing, and about the noise and lips. Attach it to Zaharan's thread on ESR. The link I had is dead.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
I'm glad you addressed these details. The wikipedia might not have been accurate in all points but it is a starting point for a historical sketch on how history relates or doesn't relate to this genetic information.
Wiki is a good start with leads to actual competent recognized sources. Next step? Read up on authors' whose field of study is Maghrebi history and religion.
quote:My basic question is
Did the Mozabites come from a place outside of Africa?
xxyman thinks they did not. I tend to think they did come from outside of Africa and then became isolated genetically over time but far prior to Islam. Based on your above comments, correct me if I'm wrong, your opinion is that you are uncertain as to the answer to this question.
Your position is Mozabites "come from outside of Africa and then became isolated genetically over time but far prior to Islam."
You can't ask "Did the Mozabites come from a place outside of Africa?" when you've a priori posited they're grafted foreigners.
What's going on here is you're stating Mozabites aren't native African then looking for challenges.
Thing is, I want to see your propositions leading to your conclusion of pre-Islamic non-African heritage of Mozabite ancestry and if they're something to "challenge" or not.
So, I'm not answering what I see as a rhetorical question but my take on Mzabi origins is implicit in my last set of posts. Maybe later I'll post my data interpretations synthesized with historical analyses from reading Ptolemy, Briggs, Welch, and UNESCO on Oued Mzab inhabitants over time.
This is a reasonable question
Did the Mozabites come from a place outside of Africa?
This is a question that should be asked regardless of if I have an opinion in it. And when I stated my opinion I even said "I tend to think" Even if I had said Mozabites do not orginally come from Africa people should still debate the obvious question and take their own point of view. It's not a rhetorical question xxyman did that, he understood the question being implied and the answer you seem to imply by highlighting a portion of the text
^^^^ This is talking about 78% ancestry from a European-related population. And this is why xxyman came out wit a different article to dispute that.
But since then, after a lot of other remarks in the thread you said:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Again, Price cleary states "the Mozabite [] are not perfectly modeled as a linear combination of European and African ancestry." This means other variables are ignored because he's specifically looking into sub-Saharan Africa related and Europe-related components. Between those two and those two only do the 22% and 78% estimates apply. We don't know what percent of the whole the target represents.
this, your interpretation, show you are uncertain that this artcicle is saying the Mozabite have mosty European ancestry. I say it's your interpretation beacause you interpret:
"not perfectly modeled as a linear combination of European and African ancestry."
as meaning they might not have mostly European ancestry. You said: " other variables are ignored.... We don't know what percent of the whole the target represents"
What could be a possible scenario in which a "whole target" transform the conclusion "78% ancestry from a European-related population" into something mainly African?
I don't undertsand how this could be possible.
" We show that the Mozabite have inherited roughly 78% ancestry from a European-related population and 22% ancestry from a population related to sub-Saharan Africans. Our analysis also shows that the Mozabite admixture has occurred over a period that began at least 100 generations ago (~2,800 years ago), and that has continued into the present day."
They said "we show" They did not say "strongly suggest" They did not say " further research is needed" or "until a broader target is analyzed"
you are raising possible doubts about that conclusion but I have no problem with that, everybody has an opinion. Your opinion is you are not convinced that the Mozabites are primarily Euroepan in ancestry until a broader target is made. Xxyman is convinced that they are primarily African dud to a different articles's STR based analysis
_________________________________
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Price et al:
Although most of our simulations focused on individuals of mixed African and European ancestry, we also considered a more general set of two-way mixtures of African, European, Chinese and/or Japanese populations. We again observed that HAPMIX outperformed other methods (see Text S1). Furthermore, although HAPMIX is currently implemented assuming only two reference populations, we were able to attain accurate results in a more complex scenario of three-way admixture, by running HAPMIX in a two-way mode using different choices of reference populations ..
We simulated individuals of admixed African and European ancestry by constructing their genomes from a mosaic of real Yoruba and French individuals genotyped on the Illumina 650Y chip as part of the Human Genome Diversity Panel (HGDP) ..
We repeated our simulations at λ=6 and λ=100 using Mandenka from HGDP as the African ancestral population and Basque from HGDP as the European ancestral population for simulating admixed individuals. We simulated 20 admixed individuals using Mandenka and Basque data..
We note that these discrepancies between the ancestral populations used to construct these simulated data and the reference populations used as input to HAPMIX are substantially larger than the discrepancy between the true African ancestral population of African Americans and YRI, or the true European ancestral population of African Americans and CEU..
We ran HAPMIX on a total of 13 populations from the HGDP data that were of African, European, or Middle Eastern ancestry. For each population, we used YRI and CEU as the input reference populations, and estimated the European-related mixture proportion. For populations with European-related ancestry that was estimated to be more than 0% and less than 100%, we also estimated the number of generations since mixture...
These simulation results suggest that our method is likely to provide near optimal ancestry reconstruction in African Americans: the squared correlation between predicted and true number of European copies (across all samples) was equal to 0.98, and discernment of ancestry transitions was extremely sharp, as seen in a plot of the predicted vs. true number of European copies for an admixed sample on chromosome 1 (Figure 2A).
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Let's recap what Price was up to. He used Mzabi as an ancient admixed population to test HAPMIX's ability to "infer ancestry for even very small segments with exquisite accuracy"
Your question is reasonable but, in the light of known N African genetics and history, hardly one that should be asked. Is it a question or a round about way to state Mozabites aren't Africans without bothering any facts or documentaion at all from any qualified sources.
Thinking Mozabites are foreigners is based on what thing? I ask you again since you refused sharing your set of propositions leading to your erroneous position.
Gut feeling isn't enough and all things are possible. I can accept conclusions directly at odds IF those statements are backed by serious supporting source material.
Price tested explicitly for Africa sub-Sahara related and Europe-related components in Mzabis. What does that mean? In the test dichotomy Africa non-subSahara would be seen as Europe-related and so would SW Asia. I will confirm that in my next post.
Be respectful. Ask me what I mean if you don't get what I'm saying. Your understanding of what I said are your words not mine. I'm trying to take you at your word and give you the benefit of the doubt. Most ESers would say I'm a fool to do that but I'm trying to be fair.
I don't expect you to agree with me but I expect you to accept viable alternatives Even experts don't always agree.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
I'm glad you addressed these details. The wikipedia might not have been accurate in all points but it is a starting point for a historical sketch on how history relates or doesn't relate to this genetic information.
Wiki is a good start with leads to actual competent recognized sources. Next step? Read up on authors' whose field of study is Maghrebi history and religion.
quote:My basic question is
Did the Mozabites come from a place outside of Africa?
xxyman thinks they did not. I tend to think they did come from outside of Africa and then became isolated genetically over time but far prior to Islam. Based on your above comments, correct me if I'm wrong, your opinion is that you are uncertain as to the answer to this question.
Your position is Mozabites "come from outside of Africa and then became isolated genetically over time but far prior to Islam."
You can't ask "Did the Mozabites come from a place outside of Africa?" when you've a priori posited they're grafted foreigners.
What's going on here is you're stating Mozabites aren't native African then looking for challenges.
Thing is, I want to see your propositions leading to your conclusion of pre-Islamic non-African heritage of Mozabite ancestry and if they're something to "challenge" or not.
So, I'm not answering what I see as a rhetorical question but my take on Mzabi origins is implicit in my last set of posts. Maybe later I'll post my data interpretations synthesized with historical analyses from reading Ptolemy, Briggs, Welch, and UNESCO on Oued Mzab inhabitants over time.
This is a reasonable question
Did the Mozabites come from a place outside of Africa?
This is a question that should be asked regardless of if I have an opinion in it. And when I stated my opinion I even said "I tend to think" Even if I had said Mozabites do not orginally come from Africa people should still debate the obvious question and take their own point of view. It's not a rhetorical question xxyman did that, he understood the question being implied and the answer you seem to imply by highlighting a portion of the text
^^^^ This is talking about 78% ancestry from a European-related population. And this is why xxyman came out wit a different article to dispute that.
But since then, after a lot of other remarks in the thread you said:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Again, Price cleary states "the Mozabite [] are not perfectly modeled as a linear combination of European and African ancestry." This means other variables are ignored because he's specifically looking into sub-Saharan Africa related and Europe-related components. Between those two and those two only do the 22% and 78% estimates apply. We don't know what percent of the whole the target represents.
this, your interpretation, show you are uncertain that this artcicle is saying the Mozabite have mosty European ancestry. I say it's your interpretation beacause you interpret:
"not perfectly modeled as a linear combination of European and African ancestry."
as meaning they might not have mostly European ancestry. You said: " other variables are ignored.... We don't know what percent of the whole the target represents"
What could be a possible scenario in which a "whole target" transform the conclusion "78% ancestry from a European-related population" into something mainly African?
I don't undertsand how this could be possible.
" We show that the Mozabite have inherited roughly 78% ancestry from a European-related population and 22% ancestry from a population related to sub-Saharan Africans. Our analysis also shows that the Mozabite admixture has occurred over a period that began at least 100 generations ago (~2,800 years ago), and that has continued into the present day."
They said "we show" They did not say "strongly suggest" They did not say " further research is needed" or "until a broader target is analyzed"
you are raising possible doubts about that conclusion but I have no problem with that, everybody has an opinion. Your opinion is you are not convinced that the Mozabites are primarily Euroepan in ancestry until a broader target is made. Xxyman is convinced that they are primarily African dud to a different articles's STR based analysis
_________________________________
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
A European-related population isn't necessarily a European population. Let me develop it further via Henn's STRUCTURE skyline as applied to Price. You will see I have no doubts about Price's conclusion.
Price already told us Mzabis can't be a linear combination of only European and African ancestry. He was looking for those two components to the exclusion of other components.
Look at Henn's STRUCTURE skyline for Algeria at K=2 level. K is the number of postulated ancestral populations. In this case Yoruba vs Basque.
See the SSA-related and European-related components are roughly the same as Price's HAPMIX results, 22% and 78%.
But understanding Mzabis aren't composed bilinearly we'd expect to see other populations arise when allowing for more than two postulated ancestral population components.
Here's Henn's STRUCTURE skyline for Algeria with my added text comments right of the skylines. My text synthesizes Price, Henn, and others for an overview of my interpretation of the data.
Thus at K=4 we see SSA-related breaks down to Maasai and Yoruba while the European-related component splits into "Berbers" and Basque.
Berber is an ancestry and language group that developed in situ in NW Africa with genetic features showing up more in South Europe than in Africa south of 14° north, so seen as European-related instead of SSA-related.
When K=6 presumed ancestral populations the bulk of the SSA related component is like East African baNtu genetics with only a smattering of genetic matter found in Nilo-Saharan or Benue-Congo speakers.
At K=6 Qataris, Afro-Asiatic speaking SW Asians, emerge out from the European-related component.
Finally, assuming 8 ancestral components to Algeria, a further and distinctive Tunisia "Berber" signature (European-related) and Bulala Nilo-Saharan trait (SSA-related) appear.
Notice this refined level clearly shows Algeria is predominantly "Berber" with substantial SW Asian and European elements and some diverse SSA elements.
European-related elements (which include Africans of Tunisia and Algeria are the greater percentage but 6 of the 8 postulated ancestral populations are African.
"Berbers" are native North Africans with considerable South European and SW Asian admixture which is no new news and what I've always said they were here on ES.
I've explained this now to my best ability Ask me to expand or clarify where you don't understand what I write.
Now please flesh out your gut level statement about Mzabi foreigness with facts and research.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
Did the Mozabites come from a place outside of Africa?
My question was redundant because they showed that the Mozabites have inherited roughly 78% ancestry from a European-related population and 22% sub-Saharan ancestry. They could be wrong but they claimed to have showed this. I am tempted to email Price and ask if it is correct to assume that the article says Mozabites are primarily non-African just to prove the obvious
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: [QB] Let's recap what Price was up to. He used Mzabi as an ancient admixed population to test HAPMIX's ability to "infer ancestry for even very small segments with exquisite accuracy"
Your question is reasonable but, in the light of known N African genetics and history, hardly one that should be asked. Is it a question or a round about way to state Mozabites aren't Africans without bothering any facts or documentaion at all from any qualified sources.
You say the question is reasonable but then suggest it's not worth asking because of what we knew. What we know is constantly being revised and updtated by new technology. What we knew is sometimes proven wrong. This study says very clearly that the Mozabites were 78% European-related. That means not African, they use a pretty detailed state of the art methodology. I find it fairly convincing. I would only add that they have been living in North Africa long enough to take on some unique genetic characteristics, unique from other Africans as well as Europeans. Is it more afrocentric to suggest they are an indigenous to Africa population? If they have relatively lighter skin in that latitude it would also suggest that that other people, such as Northern ancient Egyptians at that latitude would have similar relativly light skin. I submit my position is more afrocentric, that these people were originally outsiders
(-wait, continued in next post)
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted byTukuler:
Thinking Mozabites are foreigners is based on what thing? I ask you again since you refused sharing your set of propositions leading to your erroneous position.
Thinking that is based on the study you posted and in particular what you highlighted. xxyman and others undertood this and tried to counter Price conclusions with different articles.
quote:Originally posted by the Tukuler:
Price tested explicitly for Africa sub-Sahara related and Europe-related components in Mzabis. What does that mean? In the test dichotomy Africa non-subSahara would be seen as Europe-related and so would SW Asia. I will confirm that in my next post.
If you mean including non-SSA but still African you cannot support that with quotes from Price.
I'm dealing with Price, Henn is a different article. This is from the Price article :
Results Simulations
Simulations of local ancestry inference We began by examining the performance of HAPMIX in a set of 20 simulated admixed individuals, with an average of 80% African ancestry and 20% European ancestry, and generated with admixture occurring 6 generations ago (λ=6; see Materials and Methods)....
To investigate whether the probabilities of 0, 1, or 2 copies of European ancestry reported by HAPMIX are well-calibrated, we binned the predicted probabilities into bins of size 0.05 and compared, for each x=0,1,2 and for each bin, the average predicted probability vs. the actual frequency in simulations of having x copies of European ancestry.
^^^ "related" is not even mentioned. Nowhere do they say or imply "European related" really means indigenous North African.
more:
We simulated individuals of admixed African and European ancestry by constructing their genomes from a mosaic of real Yoruba and French individuals genotyped on the Illumina 650Y chip as part of the Human Genome Diversity Panel (HGDP) [15]. We downloaded data from 20 Yoruba and 20 French individuals from the HGDP data set and jointly phased them using the fastPHASE program [18] to form 40 haploid Yoruba and 40 haploid French genomes
In many real-world settings, the true reference populations for a particular admixture event may not have had suitable genetic data gathered, or may no longer exist. To test for the effect of this situation on HAPMIX, we repeated our simulations at λ=6 and λ=100 using 20 admixed samples that were simulated using Mandenka and Basque individuals but modeled using reference populations YRI and CEU, which are inaccurate reference populations (see Materials and Methods).
^^^ Obviously when they say European related they mean related to Europe and there are numerous exmaples of it in the text. They don't even bother to say "related" attached to "European" in many instances. The meaning is clear from the examples
quote:Originally highlighted by Tukuler:
I don't expect you to agree with me but I expect you to accept viable alternatives Even experts don't always agree.
I leave a little room for doubt because of the other Bosch article xxyman posted. He understood and acknowledged that it was at odds with Price et al. So that means I am not crazy. In fact you even defended SNPs from his preference for STR results. Don't get all sensitive. You are simply uncertain about Price's results because they go against what you knew about North Africa.
But how can any of this be shocking? The Greeks and Phoenicans had trading colonies in Algeria. Isn't this what we knew?
_________________________________
annoying knew thing I notice, posts with a lot of quotes are not going through, I have to break one post into two posts and edits are slower speed as well
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
You say I defended SNPs over STRs. I showed SNPs are as good as STRs pending what one is looking for. You don't want to see that. You want to make stuff up instead of asking for clarification of what you don't understand about what I write. You're not stupid You're deliberately making stuff up behind me but intelligent readers see right through that. I also said other genetic indicators are good too and Bosch used all of them between 1997 and 2001 not just STRs.
You deliberately made up something else and posted it in my name. You don't want to swap knowledge on Mzab you want to win an argument resorting to dirty tricks. I'm not playing your game, you win, I could care less about debate and I'll post what I want to, it's my thread.
Now away from your personal persuits and back to the topic (because knowing very little about the topic you can only talk about what you think this one says or what the other one thinks and so on).
quote:What could be a possible scenario in which a "whole target" transform the conclusion "78% ancestry from a European-related population" into something mainly African?
I don't undertsand how this could be possible.
Another statement dressed up as a phony question. I gave the explanation but you didn't want to hear it. Your so-called question is just a cowardly way for you to say an African can't be Europe-related again without having to back it up with any facts or data just like your other rhetorical question.
To put it in simplicities
E-M2 and E-M35 are cousin haplogroups from E-P2. E-M2 basically flourished in the south of Africa E-M35 expanded towards the north and east in Africa.
E-M81 derives from E-M35
E-M2 is Sub-Saharan is one kind of African hg. E-M81 is Northwestern is another African hg variety.
Both are African but E-M81 is not sub-Saharan and could not fit into the SSA-related category. The only other alternative in Prices bilinear test is European-related. And there you have 78% European-related and still African because Berber is the lion's share.
You can play like you don't get it but you know Mzabis are African that's why you can't present propositions for your hypothesis of non-Africa originating Mzabis or Imazighen in general.
You can't present propositions leading to your conclusion because there aren't any genetic or historical facts behind it.
A simple P1 + P2 + Pn = C list will do. We've waited two days, you can't do it. On the other hand I've given my back-up.
Come now. No more buck passing distractions.
I want to see your propositions leading to your conclusion of pre-Islamic non-African heritage for the Mozabite ancestral group.
Mozabites are foreigners is based on what? Wishology? Produce your set of propositions leading to your erroneous position. No more simplistic misinterpretation of Price.
Prove you know how to flesh out your gut level statement about Mzabi foreigness with facts and research.
BTW do you think no one's written Reich and Myers for clarification already? Then think again. So go ahead and show them my figure and explanations.
Pick any one of them Henn, Behar, Tishkoff, etc. Every STRUCTURE skyline for Mzabis/Algerians with K=4 shows ~20% SSA with ~80% non-SSA "remainder" and as K increases the ~80% non-SSA is revealed as Berber, one of the many locally in situ developed African populations.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
EDIT
E-M2 and E-M35 are cousin haplogroups from E-P2. E-M2 basically flourished in Africa from Sahara southward E-M35 expanded towards the north and east in Africa.
E-M81 derives from E-M35
E-M2 is mostly Sub-Saharan is one kind of African hg. E-M81 is Northwestern is another African hg variety.
Both are African but E-M81 is not in sub-Sahara and could not fit into the SSA-related category.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
why don't you just argue that Price was wrong to use the word "European-related" and "European ancestry" which is also used in the article ??
why aren't you mad about that being Eurocentric ?
_______________________________________________________________ Sensitive Detection of Chromosomal Segments of Distinct Ancestry in Admixed Populations
Alkes L. Price, Arti Tandon, Nick Patterson, Kathleen C. Barnes, Nicholas Rafaels, Ingo Ruczinski, Terri H. Beaty, Rasika Mathias, David Reich mail, Simon Myers mail
Which modern-day populations are most closely related to the founder populations for the Mozabite? Following the promising results of our simulation study, we used inferred segments of African-related or European-related ancestry to estimate FST values between the true ancestral populations of the Mozabite and the two reference populations (YRI and CEU). We obtained estimates of 0.034 for the FST between the true African ancestral population and YRI, and 0.026 for the FST between the true European ancestral population and CEU. Substituting various HGDP Bantu-African and European/West Asian populations for YRI and CEU in the FST computations yielded similar results, with FST values ranging between 0.02 and 0.04. For the African founder population, the West African Mandenka and Yoruba populations, and another HGDP Bantu population, “BantuKenya”, had the smallest FST values (0.034–0.035). For the European-related founder population, the Italians and Tuscans, closely followed by the Palestinians, had the smallest FST values (0.021–0.022), suggesting an origin in South-East Europe or the Middle East. Although care should be taken in interpreting these values, they indicate that the ancestral segments of Mozabite are significantly diverged from extant Bantu-African and European-related populations. To verify this, we ran principal components analysis on the Mozabite samples together with French and Yoruba samples from HGDP, using the EIGENSOFT software [27]. Results are displayed in Figure 8. The first eigenvector indicates, as expected, that the Mozabite samples are intermediate between Europeans and sub-Saharan Africans, consistent with the admixture detected by HAPMIX, and identifying the same two outlier samples with much higher African ancestry. In support of our FST analysis on the ancestry segments, the second eigenvector appears mainly to separate the Mozabite from the other populations, indicating that they are not perfectly modeled as a linear combination of European and African ancestry. Apart from the 2 individuals with much higher African ancestry, the EIGENSOFT plot identifies a further set of 8 Mozabite individuals showing reduced genetic drift (i.e. second eigenvector coefficients), and much more variable ancestry estimates relative to the full set (Figure 8). For these 8 samples, HAPMIX gave a maximum likelihood estimate of 75 generations for the admixture event, again noticeably lower than 100 generations for the full dataset and demonstrating more recent admixture in these individuals. Therefore, we observe a correlation between time since admixture across different individuals, and level of genetic drift relative to modern-day European and African populations. A hypothesis consistent with this finding is that genetic drift has occurred in the Mozabite population itself, during or after admixture, in way that has affected both African and European ancestral segments. Alternatively, the founder populations may have gradually drifted during the thousands of years of admixture that have affected this group.
_______________________________________________
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Just came across an "Afrocentric" SNP study involving over 100,000 SNPs. Proving the Afrricanist of Southern Europeans . Lol! They just can't make up their minds. Modern politics!!
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Distribution of Y haplotype EM-81 E1b1b1b in North Africa, West Asia and Europe. Data psuedocolored based on data in Table 1. from (Am J Hum Genet. 2004 May; 74(5): 1023–1034.) Regions with stripes indicate data given twice of a region but substantively different values. For albania, the colors indicate Calabrian Albanians or Albanians, For Israel the colors are either Ashkenazi or Sephardic Jews. The map from which the boundaries were derived was rebordered black, bodies of water were recolored blue
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Kabyle Genetics:
Y-Dna haplogroups, passed on exclusively through the paternal line, were found at the following frequencies in Kabylie:
E1b1b1b (E-M81) (47.36%),
R1*(xR1a) (15.78%) (later tested as R1b3/R-M269 (now R1b1a2),
J1 (15.78%), F*(xH, I, J2,K) ( 10.52% )
and E1b1b1c (E-M123) (10.52%).
The North African pattern of Y-chromosomal variation (including both E1b1b and J haplogroups) is largely of Semitic origin.
__________________________________ MtDNA Haplogroups, by contrast, inherited only from the mother, were found at the following frequencies:
H (32.23%), U* (29.03% with 17.74% U6), preHV (3.23%), preV (4.84%),
V (4.84%), T* (3.23%),
J* (3.23%), L1 (3.23%),
L3e (4.84%), X (3.23%), M1 (3.23%),
N (1.61%) and R (3.23%).
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Listen, I have never been to Africa, but I would like to. My brother has been to Namibia with his wife and kids. He has been to Egypt also. Sigh! The benefits of having your own business.
Anyways. I am not sure what a Berber look like, nevertheless the different Berber ethnic groups. Unfortunately, I have to rely on National Geographic and Hollywood etc. Which I know is stereotypically biased.
So to truly understand what is going on I have to look at the data to come to a conclusion about indigenous Africans. I look at the genetic data, geography distance(including topography), language, craniometry, limb proportion, timeline, environment, ancient art or pictures, older history books…and lastly modern pictures. Anyone can claim to belong to any ethnic group these days. This senior level guy I work with claims to be Taino. He doesn’t really look Native American but at most he may be, what, 1/10th. He has a Hispanic name, and he is proud to be Taino. Point is anyone can post a picture of themselves on the web…photobucket.. claiming to be anything. Look at what aDNA is proving…Paleolithic Europeans and Neolithic Europeans are NOT really the ancestors of modern Europeans. So all that limb proportion conclusion about tropical Europeans adapting to become modern European is all…BS!!!. I always knew it was. Just not enough time!!!
I assume these researchers do due diligence and vet these test subjects when they pull samples. In some cases they do, in others, they do not. That is why it is important to read the “Material and Methods” section in these published papers.
BTW – Anyone has a picture of a Basque, please post? I once worked with an engineer from Spain. I asked her about the Basque(by the way, she was probably a Nordic Spaniard, tall blond etc). She said that anyone in Spain can tell a Basque just by looking at them. She said, just look at their face and you know instantly they are Basque. Any input? I tried photobucket but I am not sure what I am looking at or for, or if these people were authentic pure blood Basque.
Looking at the NJ I posted they(Basque) are obviously genetically unique, albeit they are Europeans. Just as the Mazabites and Aframs are unique but are as African as the Berbers.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
The History of African Gene Flow into Southern Europeans, Levantines, and Jews 4 Abstract Previous genetic studies have suggested a history of sub-Saharan African gene flow into some West Eurasian populations after the initial dispersal out of Africa that occurred at least 45,000 years ago. However, there has been no accurate characterization of the proportion of mixture, or of its date. We analyze genome-wide polymorphism data from about 40 West Eurasian groups to show that almost all Southern Europeans have inherited 1%-3% African ancestry with an average mixture date of around 55 generations ago, consistent with North African gene flow at the end of the Roman Empire and subsequent Arab migrations. Levantine groups harbor 4%-15% African ancestry with an average mixture date of about 32 generations ago, consistent with close political, economic, and cultural links with Egypt in the late middle ages. We also detect 3%-5% sub-Saharan African ancestry in all eight of the diverse Jewish populations that we analyzed. For the Jewish admixture, we obtain an average estimated date of about 72 generations. This may reflect descent of these groups from a common ancestral population that already had some African ancestry prior to the Jewish Diasporas.
Results
We assembled data on 6,529 individuals drawn from 107 populations genotyped at hundreds of thousands of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) (Table S1). This included 3,845 individuals from 37 European populations in the Population Reference Sample (POPRES) [9], [10], 940 individuals from 51 populations in the Human Genome Diversity Cell Line Panel (HGDP-CEPH) [11], [12],
1,115 individuals from 11 populations in the third phase of the International Haplotype Map Project (HapMap3) [13], 392 individuals who self reported as having Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry from the InTraGen Population Genetics Database (IBD) [14] and 237 individuals from 7 populations in the Jewish HapMap Project [15]. For most analyses, we used HapMap3 Utah European Americans (CEU) to represent Northern Europeans and HapMap3 Yoruba Nigerians (YRI) to represent sub-Saharan Africans, although we also verified the robustness of our inferences using alternative populations. We curated these data using Principal Components Analysis (PCA) [16] (Table S2), with the most important steps being: (i) Removal of 140 individuals as outliers who did not cluster with the bulk of samples of the same group, (ii) Removal of all 8 Greek samples as they separated into sub-clusters in PCA so that it was not clear which of these clusters was most representative, (iii) Splitting the Bedouins into two genetically discontinuous groups, and (iv) Reclassifying the 5 Italian groups into three ancestry clusters (Sardinian, Northern-Italy, and Southern-Italy) (see details in Text S1, Figure S1). A comparison of results before and after this curation is presented in Table S3, where we show that this data curation does not affect our qualitative inferences. To study the signal of African gene flow into West Eurasian populations, we began by computing principal components (PCs) using San Bushmen (HGDP-CEPH- San) and East Eurasians (HapMap3 Han Chinese- CHB), and plotted the mean values of the samples from each West Eurasian population onto the first PC, a procedure called “PCA projection” [17], [18]. The choice of San and CHB, which are both diverged from the West Eurasian ancestral populations [19], [20], ensures that the patterns in PCA are not affected by genetic drift in West Eurasians that has occurred since their common divergence from East Eurasians and South Africans. We observe that many Levantine, Southern European and Jewish populations are shifted towards San compared to Northern Europeans, consistent with African mixture, and motivating formal testing for the presence of African ancestry (Figure 1, Figure S2).
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Look at what aDNA is proving…Paleolithic Europeans and Neolithic Europeans are NOT really the ancestors of modern Europeans. So all that limb proportion conclusion about tropical Europeans adapting to become modern European is all…BS!!!. I always knew it was. Just not enough time!!!
Then who are the ancestors of Europeans that were tropical where did they come from? At what point backtracking modern Europeans is there a tropically proportioned ancestor?
Or maybe you are a multi-regionalist ?
Also there may be littel or no data currently on the limb ratios of Southern Europeans
__________________________________
origins of the Basque people are still a mystery.
The Basques are considered by some to be direct descendants of the Iberians, people who once inhabited Spain. Their ancient culture is filled with undated legends and customs. They are friendly, independent people who were known in the middle ages as skilled boat makers and courageous whale hunters and frequently went far across the Atlantic Ocean in their boats. Later generations grew up in an agrarian society and worked with their livestock on isolated mountain farms throughout the Pyrenees Mountains.
The connection between the Basque people and their culture has helped in the free trade and open door to the neighbouring developing countries. They also have a large-scale fishing trading and the best finest fishermen traders.
After re-reading this paper I have to admit this is much to do about nothing. It is all extreme speculation. Almost laughable. In fact the title is mis-leading and written out of context of what is documented in the paper. I guess it was titled like most things these days with the intent to create controversy and draw attention. The conclusion section says it all. The authors don’t really believe this back-migration nonsense. See highlighted sections.
Note their non-African reference population- Basque and Qatari.
I needed to read this several times to get it. Some of you may understand. But let me break it down.
Please read and understand before replying. Sage, Swenet..maybe Lioness..others give me some feedback.
Key things that jump out at you.
1. Tunisian Berbers are 100% pure indigenous. Minor “recent” near east input in other groups. 2. They used an “outlier” reference populations. Basque that are known to have Berber admixture. And Qatari which is on the other side of the Arabian peninsular. 3. The admit the result is inconclusive. They recommend that ….STR!!!…studies be performed to confirm their speculation. STRs were posted by me already. 4. They are suggesting that the Qatari came from a similar but DIFFERENT source population. 5. They are suggesting that the Berber ancestral population left Africa spent ~1Kyrs in Arabia returned to Africa for another 38-40,000yrs!!! That is like someone spending first 25yrs of their life in one city, left and spent 1 yr in the neighboring city, then returned to their home town and spent another 40yrs. Does that make them non-African? 6. They confirmed there were NO migration from the Middle-East since then ie that initial OOA, short stay and back. 7. They confirmed a decreasing West to East gradient of genetic material. Nothing new here. 8. They confirmed the initial ancestral source MAY be along the Nile. No Shyte!! Can anyone say E1b1b or Sergi. 9. They admit other Africans were in the North Africa since 65,000ya. As posted by Troll Patrol, Hublin et al. Yet they BS!! LOL!
Genomic Ancestry of North Africans Supports Back-to-Africa Migrations Brenna M. Henn1
Prior genetic studies, largely from uniparentally inherited markers(ie Haplogroups), have not resolved the location origin of North African populations or the timing of human dispersal(s) into North Africa. Analyses based on the frequencies of a small number of autosomal genetic polymorphisms(ie SNPs) and uniparental markers(ie Haplogroups) have shown that the genetic landscape follow an east-west pattern with little to no difference between Berber- and Arab-speaking populations [6,7].
Initial autosomal SNP analysis of the Algerian Mozabites indicated they carry ancestry from Europe, the Near East and sub-Saharan Africa; neighbor-joining phylogenetic analysis suggested that Mozabites branch off with Out-of-African populations, but are an outgroup to all Near Eastern populations in the Human Genome Diversity Panel (HGDP-CEPH) [17]. In short, the origins of North African populations and the number of subsequent migrations from neighboring regions have been poorly resolved.
there is a cline of putative autochthonous North African ancestry decreasing in frequency from Western Sahara eastward to Egypt. We refer to this North African ancestral component as the ‘‘Maghrebi’’ throughout the remainder of the paper, reflecting the primary geographic distribution of this ancestry in the Maghreb: West Sahara, Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia. The west-to-east decline in Maghrebi assignment is only interrupted by the Tunisian Berbers, who are assigned nearly 100% Maghrebi ancestry. The Tunisian Berbers further separate as a distinct population cluster at k=8. An opposite cline of ancestry appears to originate in the Near East (i.e. Qatari Arabs) and decreases into Egypt and westward across North Africa (k= 6, 8). Islam!!
Discussion Out of Africa and Back Again?
By sampling multiple populations along an approximate transect across North Africa, we were able to identify gradients in ancestry along an east-west axis
We can reject a simple model of long-term continuous gene flow between the Near East and North Africa, as evidenced by clear geographic structure
After accounting for putative recent admixture (Figure 1), the indigenous Maghrebi component (k-based) is estimated to have diverged from Near Eastern/Europeans between 18–38 Kya (Figure 3), under a range of Ne and k values. We hence suggest that the ancestral Maghrebi population separated from Near Eastern/Europeans prior to the Holocene, and that the Maghrebi populations do not represent a large-scale demic diffusion of agropastoralists from the Near East. No shyte!! With model parameters for divergence approximately estimated, we then ask whether North African ancestral populations were part of the initial OOA exit and then returned to Africa [8], or if an in situ model of population persistence for the past 50 Kya is more likely (with variable episodes of migration from the Near East)? We can address this question only indirectly with contemporary samples; however, several auxiliary observations point toward the former hypothesis.
In contrast, we find it more parsimonious to describe model where: a) an OOA migration occurs [concurrent with a bottleneck]; b) OOA populations and North Africans diverge between 12–40 Kya when a migration back-to-Africa occurs. *****These models should be further tested with genomic sequence data, STRs!! which have better power to detect magnitude and timing of bottlenecks, and to estimate the true joint allele frequency spectrum. ****The less than 25% European ancestry in populations like Algerians and northern Moroccans could trace back to maritime migrations throughout the Mediterranean [34]. Alternatively, the Qatari could represent a poor proxy for an Arabic source population, causing additional diversity to be assigned European (e.g. European ancestry tracts were not reliably assigned as European with PCADMIX).
In summary, although paleoanthropological evidence has established the ancient presence of anatomically modern humans in northern Africa prior to 60,000 ya [35], the simplest interpretation!!!!!! of our results is that the majority of ancestry in modern North Africans derives from populations outside of Africa, through at least two episodes of increased gene flow during the past 40,000 years (Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3).
Materials and Methods Samples and Data Generation
A total of 152 individuals representing seven different North African locations and the Basque Country were included in the present study. Informed consent was obtained from all of them. Samples were genotyped on the Affymetrix 6.0 chip, and after quality control filtering for missing loci and close relatives, 125 individuals remained: 18 from North Morocco, 16 from South Morocco, 18 from Western Sahara, 19 from Algeria, 18 from Tunisia, 17 from Libya and 19 from Egypt. Further information on the samples may be found in Table S1. Moreover, 20 individuals from the Spanish Basque country were included in the analysis. Data are publicly available at: bhusers.upf.edu/dcomas/. In order to study the population structure and the genetic influence of migrants in the region a database was built including African and European populations from HapMap3 [43], western Africa [20], and 20 Qatari from the Arabian Peninsula [44] as Near Eastern representatives.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
.
And now for someone who completely ignores genetics:
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: Mozabites as most people who've bothered study Berber history already know are descendants of Iranic Eurasian peoples with Berbers. For that reason the fairer skin Mozabites claim descent from Persians. They are a mixture of Persians who've abosrbed Berber blood so most likely that Eurasian import is about 1,300 years ago when Eurasians settled the region.
.
.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
@ Dana. Hats off to you and the knowledge displayed on Afro-Asian History...to Sage also.
But I rely on hard science first.....then use the history books to supplement.
As I said. Never been to the continent so I can tell a Berber from modern day Arab. Fulani from a ...whatever. I realy on published scientic data, geography, craniometry, linguistics , etc
BTW - Lioness(s). That Basque link is not working.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
^^^^ the Basque link was just a google images tab search on Basque It's a starting point and then check the rest of each page to judge credibility
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
