• The overall contributions from Asia and Africa were estimated to be around two-thirds and one-third, respectively

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
Yes I once posted a chart exampling that
deep rooting's not necessarily indicative
of overall genome. It showed the scenario
where a Black American could by haplogroup
be a mustee (American for mestizo) of 4th
generation direct Skins maternity and 4th
generation direct Euro paternity. All his
14 other 4th generation African ancestry
only shows in recombinational autosomes.
Overall they make him what he is.

---

Right.
When non-African is defined as:

"Ancestry that arrived in Eurasia AFTER the OOA
populations left Africa"

Instead of:

"Everything that doesn't resemble the ancestry
carried by West and Central African proxy samples"

You can get analysis that looks like this, where
north Africans are more or less 50% African, and
West Eurasians ~25-47% African:

http://ethiohelix.blogspot.nl/2012/07/world-at-k2.html

So, why aren't researchers universally adopting
this much more scientifically accurate method?
Why do they KNOWINGLY keep using dubious proxy
samples to define what constitutes African
ancestry when they can use straight forward cut
off points to distinguish between African and
non-African ancestry? They know this cannot be
viable because they themselves admit there was
sub-structure in deep time in n.Africa and
e.Africa before and after OOA, which may have
never reached the African interior, but which is
African nonetheless. [/qb]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Estimates of divergence times between
European–African and East Asian–African
populations are inconsistent with its simplest
manifestation: a single dispersal from the
continent followed by a split into Western and
Eastern Eurasian branches. Rather, population
divergence times are consistent with substantial
ancient gene flow to the proto-European
population after its divergence with proto-East
Asians, suggesting distinct, early dispersals of
modern H. sapiens from Africa.

---

Link

"Proto-European" here INCLUDES West Asia BTW.

---

quote:

---

We characterized the level of genetic
similarity between populations by the magnitude
of their haplotype sharing. Examining the
patterns of haplotype sharing at a regional level,
we confirmed earlier observations of asymmetry
between African and non-African populations in
haplotype sharing, as reflected in the greater
‘‘outward’’ than ‘‘inward’’ haplotype flow from
Africa to other geographic regions [Conrad et
al., 2006].

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:

• The overall contributions from Asia and Africa were estimated to be around two-thirds and one-third, respectively

Who's got the full in context quote?
Who knows what he means by Euros as
1/3 African and 2/3 Asian?
Based on measuring what?


EDIT: see Genes, peoples, and languages
L. LUCA CAVALLI-SFORZA

---

Damn, you're taking it pretty far back with that Sforza 1997 paper 'Genes, Peoples, and Languages'.

Here is the full pdf:

http://www.ddl.ish-lyon.cnrs.fr/Fulltext/philippson/Cavalli-Sforza_GenesPeoples&Languages.pdf

But to answer your question, Sforza uses STRs as well as blood groupings and immunohistochemical assays. BOTH show the same results namely 1. that Europeans are essentially Asians (no surprise since Europe is a subcontinent of Asia) and 2. they have admixture from Africa at approximately one-third. All of this data was reaffirmed years later with Y-DNA.
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
"Europeans are essentially Asians"

"All of this data was reaffirmed years later with Y-DNA."

Really


 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Good you brought this up! Now I have to look at the paper closely. Did he really say 2/3 Asians?

Will post more on ESR.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 


excerpt from

AN ANTAGONIST'S PERSPECTIVE
by C. Loring Brace
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
What? Getting on the xyyman wagon? He!
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Reading and understanding within context.

===\\

Quote:

estimated to have occurred at an early date (30,000 years ago), but it is impossible to DISTINGUISH, on the basis of these data, this model from that of several migrations at different times. The overall contributions
from Asia and Africa were estimated to be around
two-thirds and one-third, respectively. Simulations have shown (7) that this hypothesis explains quite well the discrepancy
between trees obtained by maximum likelihood and neighbor joining.
 

---

Posted by Son of Ra (Member # 20401) on :
 
I noticed around the net that A LOT of Eurocentrics really hate this statement.

But yeah Europeans are definitely a mixed people. Like the subcontinent of Indian, Europe was populated by people from different locations and time periods.
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
OK so far nobody has been able to finger what the
infamous statement is based on. Like XXYman I saw
the reference to classic markers and DNA was about
Table 1 in particular which is genetic distance not
admixture.


I've always wondered why ES drummed up the statement
because to me the statement makes no sense at all.

It isn't rooted in time and its scientific basis is undiscernable.
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
OK so far nobody has been able to finger what the
infamous statement is based on. Like XXYman I saw
the reference to classic markers and DNA was about
Table 1 in particular which is genetic distance not
admixture.


I've always wondered why ES drummed up the statement
because to me the statement makes no sense at all.

It isn't rooted in time and its scientific basis is undiscernable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
BOTH show the same results namely 1. that Europeans are essentially Asians (no surprise since Europe is a subcontinent of Asia) and 2. they have admixture from Africa at approximately one-third.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
Also:

quote:

---

We characterized the level of genetic
similarity between populations by the magnitude
of their haplotype sharing. Examining the
patterns of haplotype sharing at a regional level,
we confirmed earlier observations of asymmetry
between African and non-African populations in
haplotype sharing, as reflected in the greater
‘‘outward’’ than ‘‘inward’’ haplotype flow from
Africa to other geographic regions [Conrad et
al., 2006].

---

Huang et al 2011

Basal "Eurasian", anyone?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Truthcentric:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
Also:

quote:

---

We characterized the level of genetic
similarity between populations by the magnitude
of their haplotype sharing. Examining the
patterns of haplotype sharing at a regional level,
we confirmed earlier observations of asymmetry
between African and non-African populations in
haplotype sharing, as reflected in the greater
‘‘outward’’ than ‘‘inward’’ haplotype flow from
Africa to other geographic regions [Conrad et
al., 2006].

---

Huang et al 2011

Basal "Eurasian", anyone?

---

Makes you wonder about the Euronut fixation on back-migrations to Africa vis-a-vis their downplaying of recent African immigration to West Eurasia. It's like the Eurocentric party line turned on its head.

---

quote:

---

For many of the individuals for which we have obtained DNA, we also collected phenotype data for traits likely to play a role in adaptation, some of which demonstrate a complex pattern of inheritance and are likely influenced by multiple loci and environmental factors. In addition to case/control analyses of variation at candidate genes, we are using whole-genome association studies to identify novel genes that are associated with these traits. Together with collaborators, we are also developing methods for mapping complex traits (including disease) in highly structured African populations.

---

quote:

---

Although the study's main focus was on Africa, Tishkoff and her colleagues studied DNA markers from around the planet, identifying 14 "ancestral clusters" for all of humanity. Nine of those clusters are in Africa. "You're seeing more diversity in one continent than across the globe," Tishkoff said.

---

quote:

---

---

--Dr Spencer Wells, Harvard evolutionary geneticist
The Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey (page 39)



Micheal Novacak. Notice his stating, multiple migrations...:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=b_-Zss2dYuM
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
both Africans and Asians contributed to the settlement of Europe, which began about 40,000 years ago. It seems very reasonable to assume that both continents nearest to Europe contributed to its settlement, even if perhaps at different times and maybe repeatedly. It is reassuring that the analysis of other markers also consistently gives the same results in this case. Moreover, a specific evolutionary model tested, i.e., that Europe is formed by contributions from Asia and Africa, fits the distance matrix perfectly (6). In this simplified model, the migrations postulated to have populated Europe are estimated to have occurred at an early date (30,000 years ago), but it is impossible to distinguish, on the basis of these data, this model from that of several migrations at different times. The overall contributions from Asia and Africa were estimated to be around two-thirds and one-third, respectively"
Cavalli-Sforza 1997




DNATribes Euclidian distance chart with non-Africans removed

_______________________________



 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
.the actual later infamous statement:
____________________________________________


L. Cavalli-Sforza:

"it appears that Europeans are about two-thirds Asians and one-third African."
--(2001) Genes, Peoples and Languages.


_____________________________________________________


C. Loring Brace:

"if we test the distribution of the widely known ABO blood-group system, then Europeans and Africans are closer to each other than either is to Chinese."
--Does Race Exist? An antagonist's perspective


_______________________________________________

So if a European is closer to an African than a Chinese person
can this European at the same time be only one third African but two thirds Asian?
I suppose it's possible if they are two thirds Asian but less than a third of that is specific to Chinese but I don't think Brace meant that. I think he meant to say Europeans and Africans are closer to each other than either are to Asians. If this is the case it seems to contradict Cavalli-Sforza
 

---

Posted by Son of Ra (Member # 20401) on :
 
Sforza's claims are not ridiculous at all if you look at this...

"The FIRST modern humans to reach Europe arrived [B}FROM AFRICA 35,000 to 40,000 years ago. By about 30,000 years ago[/, they were widespread throughout the area[/B] while their close cousins, the Neanderthals, disappeared. HARDLY any of these early hunter-gatherers carried the H haplogroup in their DNA."

Next:
"About 7,500 years ago during the early Neolithic period, ANOTHER wave of humans expanded into Europe, this time from the Middle East. They carried in their genes a variant of the H haplogroup, and in their minds knowledge of how to grow and raise crops"

"But the team's genetic analysis revealed a surprise: About 6,500 years ago in the mid-Neolithic, the LBK culture was itself displaced. Their haplogroup H types suddenly became very rare, and they were subsequently replaced by populations bearing a different set of haplogroup H variations."
Source:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/13/130423-european-genetic-history-dna-archaeology-science/

Like I said Europeans are mixed like the people from the Subcontinent of India. Different people from different places/time periods. Its also interesting that they mention the first people who entered Europe DID NOT carry Haplogroup H. Puts a nail in the coffin for Eurocentric claims that Africans were not the first people who entered into Europe.

Also backs this...


The questionable contribution of the Neolithic and the Bronze Age to European craniofacial form

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1325007/

"Many human craniofacial dimensions are largely of neutral adaptive significance, and an analysis of their variation can serve as an indication of the extent to which any given population is genetically related to or differs from any other. When 24 craniofacial measurements of a series of human populations are used to generate neighbor-joining dendrograms, it is no surprise that all modern European groups, ranging all of the way from Scandinavia to eastern Europe and throughout the Mediterranean to the Middle East, show that they are closely related to each other. The surprise is that the Neolithic peoples of Europe and their Bronze Age successors are NOT CLOSELY RELATED to the MODERN inhabitants, although the prehistoric/modern ties are somewhat more apparent in southern Europe. It is a further surprise that the Epipalaeolithic Natufian of Israel from whom the Neolithic realm was assumed to arise has a CLEAR LINK to Sub-Saharan Africa. Basques and Canary Islanders are clearly associated with modern Europeans. When canonical variates are plotted, NEITHER sample ties in with Cro-Magnon as was once suggested. The data treated here support the idea that the Neolithic moved out of the Near East into the circum-Mediterranean areas and Europe by a process of demic diffusion but that subsequently the in situ residents of those areas, derived from the Late Pleistocene inhabitants, absorbed both the agricultural life way and the people who had brought it."

I agree with Swenents claim from another thread that lighter toned people of today most definitely have ancestry of people who were darker toned. There's no way around it or escaping it.
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
^
Your (Son of Ra) citation of Brace et al is on-point.
I would even go as far as to say that one cannot
explain E-M78, E-M34, E-M123 et al in the Middle
East and Europe, without invoking Cavalli. You
can't do it. What SSA ancestry is there, if we
are to take most of these genome wide studies
literally? The meagre 3% in Jews Moorjani et al
2011 talk about? Please. You won't find any
noteworthy SSA, unless you invoke Sforza. ALL the
genome-wide studies are pointing it out. You just
have to know where and how to look, and look past
what the authors want you to believe.

quote:

---

Intensity of the colors reflects the number of haplotype chunks donated to the Levantines.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Truthcentric:
Makes you wonder about the Euronut fixation on back-migrations to Africa vis-a-vis their downplaying of recent African immigration to West Eurasia. It's like the Eurocentric party line turned on its head. [/qb]

---

quote:

---

If the Late Pleistocene Natufian sample from Israel is the source from which that Neolithic spread was derived, then there was clearly a SubSaharan African element present of almost equal importance as the Late Prehistoric Eurasian element. At the same time, the failure of the Neolithic and Bronze Age samples in central and northern Europe to tie to the modern inhabitants supports the suggestion that, while a farming mode of subsistence was spread westward and also north to Crimea and east to Mongolia by actual movement of communities of farmers, the indigenous foragers in each of those areas ultimately absorbed both the agricultural subsistence strategy and also the people who had brought it. The interbreeding of the incoming Neolithic people with the in situ foragers diluted the Sub-Saharan traces that may have come with the Neolithic spread so that no discoverable element of that remained.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
[QB] .the actual later infamous statement:
____________________________________________


L. Cavalli-Sforza:

"it appears that Europeans are about two-thirds Asians and one-third African."
--(2001) Genes, Peoples and Languages.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
Son of Ra what is the region that the first humans in Europe were in before they reached Europe?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Son of Ra:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
Son of Ra what is the region that the first humans in Europe were in before they reached Europe?

---

Click on the link I posted, the touch base on that in more detail.

Also I already said the first humans in Europe came from Africa around 30-40k years ago, it correlates with past studies. But those people were replaced by a different group from the Middle East.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Son of Ra:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
Son of Ra what is the region that the first humans in Europe were in before they reached Europe?

---

Click on the link I posted, the touch base on that in more detail.

Also I already said the first humans in Europe came from Africa around 30-40k years ago, it correlates with past studies. But those people were replaced by a different group from the Middle East.

---

That Nat Geo article doesn't answer the question and it's a very important question.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
[QB] .the actual later infamous statement:
____________________________________________


L. Cavalli-Sforza:

"it appears that Europeans are about two-thirds Asians and one-third African."
--(2001) Genes, Peoples and Languages.

---

In other words there are two races in the world, Africans and Asians

So called white people are merely Asioafriatics

It's a wrap for the Euronuts, they're mutts

.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:

Good you brought this up! Now I have to look at the paper closely. Did he really say 2/3 Asians?

Will post more on ESR.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
[QB] .the actual later infamous statement:
____________________________________________


L. Cavalli-Sforza:

"it appears that Europeans are about two-thirds Asians and one-third African."
--(2001) Genes, Peoples and Languages.

---

In other words there are two races in the world, Africans and Asians

So called white people are merely Asioafriatics

It's a wrap for the Euronuts, they're mutts

.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
OK so far nobody has been able to finger what the
infamous statement is based on. Like XXYman I saw
the reference to classic markers and DNA was about
Table 1 in particular which is genetic distance not
admixture.


I've always wondered why ES drummed up the statement
because to me the statement makes no sense at all.

It isn't rooted in time and its scientific basis is undiscernable.

---

A set of AIMs are means to an end, not the end
itself. If figuring out if Cavalli-Sforza statement
is accurate is what you're after, why would it
matter what his classical markers are based on,
given that his results are reproduced across the
board, using various AIMs?

You didn't read the papers that were posted, which
were, in fact, posted precisely because I suspected
someone from the Euronut corner would desperately
register an ES account to fight the inevitable,
saying "genetic distance doesn't mean admixture".
Indeed, I've seen many a Euronut scramble to come
to grips with this data. Dienekes has particularly
pathetic way of coping with this data on his blog,
knowing that none of his lackeys will call him
out on it.

The only way I can see someone look at Sforza and
say admixture is not at work, is if the dissenting
party disagrees with (the implications of) OOA
and subscribes to one of various multi-regional
origin hypotheses. Which, in that case, that
person would still have to answer to Huang et al
2011, which is specifically about actual haplotype
sharing--which can't be explained by things that
don't involve interactions between the implicated
populations.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
BOTH show the same results namely **1. that Europeans are essentially Asians** (no surprise since Europe is a subcontinent of Asia) and 2. they have admixture from Africa at approximately one-third.

---

100% correct. OOA predicts that ancestral East
Asians and Europeans are sister populations and
split ~30-40kya. Hence, all things being equal,
any pull of either meta population towards
Africans in multivariate space, while the other
OOA populations maintain their predicted distance
from Africans, can only be explained by means of
geneflow from Africa. DNA Tribes proved beyond a
doubt that Europeans have a lot of African
admixture which is normally not accounted for, by
showing that, when you treat European ancestry as
an unknown and remove all West Eurasian comparative
samples, Horners will act as a stand-in population
for a whopping >46% of European ancestry, even
though all eastern Eurasian OOA populations, like
Siberians, South Asians or East Asians or native
Americans are available as stand-ins. I'm not
saying that Europeans are >46% African, but
clearly, one would have to violate OOA to explain
why Africans cluster with Europeans before other
OOA populations, if said explanation doesn't
involve post-OOA African ancestry in West Eurasia
(which, as you've said, is well-documented in
archaeology and other disciplines).

---

Absolutely.

The division between Europe and Asia is totally artificial and culturally contrived.



The borders that separate Europe from Asia are specifically the Caucasus Mountains and the Ural Mountains, yet geologically speaking Europe is a subcontinent like India and hasn't been a separate continent since the Paleocene but even then it began colliding and merging with Europe long before India which was farther away. Yet the Indian subcontinent is never viewed as anything separate from Asia while Europe is segregated geographically for obvious culturally biased reasons.



What's more, the lyinass displays (either out of genuine ignorance or fake stupidity) the common misconception that 'Asian' means east Asian, when that is obviously not the case. Note that we not only have South Asia (Indian subcontinent) but land-locked Central Asia to contend with not to mention Southwest Asia which also has significant African genetic influence as well for the same obvious reason of geographic proximity as does Europe!
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Eurocentric doctrine #?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^^

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:

Good you brought this up! Now I have to look at the paper closely. Did he really say 2/3 Asians?

Will post more on ESR.

---

Yes take a look and misinterpret as usual. As you are doing right now.

[

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Truthcentric:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
Also:

quote:

---

We characterized the level of genetic
similarity between populations by the magnitude
of their haplotype sharing. Examining the
patterns of haplotype sharing at a regional level,
we confirmed earlier observations of asymmetry
between African and non-African populations in
haplotype sharing, as reflected in the greater
‘‘outward’’ than ‘‘inward’’ haplotype flow from
Africa to other geographic regions [Conrad et
al., 2006].

---

Huang et al 2011

Basal "Eurasian", anyone?

---

Makes you wonder about the Euronut fixation on back-migrations to Africa vis-a-vis their downplaying of recent African immigration to West Eurasia. It's like the Eurocentric party line turned on its head.

---

Indeed. The FACT that Europeans have recent African mixed heritage is the exact reason why Euronuts are obsessing over back-migrations to Africa. It is the typical psychological neurosis known as projection where they try to turn around their own perceived "affliction" (admixture from Africans) around to Eurasian admixture in Africans! Hence, trolls like lyinass.
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
Of course nowhere in Sforza's statement did it say anything about "race" you are just playing the Afronut fool even though we all know you are really a Euronut fool who is just unnerved by this old finding that is proven right by newer findings.

---

quote:

---

Passive-aggressive behavior is the indirect
expression of hostility, such as through
procrastination, sarcasm, hostile jokes,
stubbornness, resentment, sullenness, or deliberate
or repeated failure to accomplish requested tasks
for which one is (often explicitly) responsible

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Son of Ra:

Sforza's claims are not ridiculous at all if you look at this...

"The FIRST modern humans to reach Europe arrived [B}FROM AFRICA 35,000 to 40,000 years ago. By about 30,000 years ago[/, they were widespread throughout the area[/B] while their close cousins, the Neanderthals, disappeared. HARDLY any of these early hunter-gatherers carried the H haplogroup in their DNA."

Next:
"About 7,500 years ago during the early Neolithic period, ANOTHER wave of humans expanded into Europe, this time from the Middle East. They carried in their genes a variant of the H haplogroup, and in their minds knowledge of how to grow and raise crops"

"But the team's genetic analysis revealed a surprise: About 6,500 years ago in the mid-Neolithic, the LBK culture was itself displaced. Their haplogroup H types suddenly became very rare, and they were subsequently replaced by populations bearing a different set of haplogroup H variations."
Source:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/13/130423-european-genetic-history-dna-archaeology-science/

Like I said Europeans are mixed like the people from the Subcontinent of India. Different people from different places/time periods. Its also interesting that they mention the first people who entered Europe DID NOT carry Haplogroup H. Puts a nail in the coffin for Eurocentric claims that Africans were not the first people who entered into Europe.

---

quote:

---

Also backs this...

The questionable contribution of the Neolithic and the Bronze Age to European craniofacial form

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1325007/

"Many human craniofacial dimensions are largely of neutral adaptive significance, and an analysis of their variation can serve as an indication of the extent to which any given population is genetically related to or differs from any other. When 24 craniofacial measurements of a series of human populations are used to generate neighbor-joining dendrograms, it is no surprise that all modern European groups, ranging all of the way from Scandinavia to eastern Europe and throughout the Mediterranean to the Middle East, show that they are closely related to each other. The surprise is that the Neolithic peoples of Europe and their Bronze Age successors are NOT CLOSELY RELATED to the MODERN inhabitants, although the prehistoric/modern ties are somewhat more apparent in southern Europe. It is a further surprise that the Epipalaeolithic Natufian of Israel from whom the Neolithic realm was assumed to arise has a CLEAR LINK to Sub-Saharan Africa. Basques and Canary Islanders are clearly associated with modern Europeans. When canonical variates are plotted, NEITHER sample ties in with Cro-Magnon as was once suggested. The data treated here support the idea that the Neolithic moved out of the Near East into the circum-Mediterranean areas and Europe by a process of demic diffusion but that subsequently the in situ residents of those areas, derived from the Late Pleistocene inhabitants, absorbed both the agricultural life way and the people who had brought it."

I agree with Swenents claim from another thread that lighter toned people of today most definitely have ancestry of people who were darker toned. There's no way around it or escaping it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Truthcentric:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
Also:

quote:

---

We characterized the level of genetic
similarity between populations by the magnitude
of their haplotype sharing. Examining the
patterns of haplotype sharing at a regional level,
we confirmed earlier observations of asymmetry
between African and non-African populations in
haplotype sharing, as reflected in the greater
‘‘outward’’ than ‘‘inward’’ haplotype flow from
Africa to other geographic regions [Conrad et
al., 2006].

---

Huang et al 2011

Basal "Eurasian", anyone?

---

Makes you wonder about the Euronut fixation on back-migrations to Africa vis-a-vis their downplaying of recent African immigration to West Eurasia. It's like the Eurocentric party line turned on its head.

---

Indeed. The FACT that Europeans have recent African mixed heritage is the exact reason why Euronuts are obsessing over back-migrations to Africa. It is the typical psychological neurosis known as projection where they try to turn around their own perceived "affliction" (admixture from Africans) around to Eurasian admixture in Africans! Hence, trolls like lyinass.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

Correct. I've always maintained the theory that Europe's population was similar to India (except with significant recent African ancestry). In fact this was theory put forth by a number of anthropologists who have noted that Europe like India had a cul-de-sac effect on incoming populations who entered the region.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

"The inhabitants of the Aegean area in the Bronze Age may have
been much like many people in the Mediterranean basin today,
short and slight of build with dark hair and eyes and sallow
complexions. Skeletons show that the population of the Aegean
was already mixed by Neolithic times, and various facial types,
some with delicate features and pointed noses, others pug-nosed,
almost negroid, are depicted in wall paintings from the 16th century BC..."[/i]
-- The Home of the Heroes: The Aegean Before the Greeks (1967)

"One can identify Negroid traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters (McCown, 1939) and in Anatolian and Macedonian first farmers , probably from Nubia via the predecesors of the Badarians and Tasians"
--Larry Angel (1972)

"The female of forty-plus years of age from Grave 2
was examined by J. L. Angel who noted what he interpreted as
a number of 'negroid' .. traits in the face." The skull is fairly
complete, but not enough so for discriminant function analysis."
There is marked maxillary prognathism and the orbits may be
described as rectangular, traits frequently used in forensic
diagnosis of Negro crania...
The female from Grave 2 is among those with thickened parietals.
It should be pointed out that maxillary prognathsm, one of the skeleton's
"Negroid" features, is characteristic both of thalassemia and sickle-cell anemia. "
-- Skeletons of Lerna Hollow. Al B. Wesolowsky. Hesperia, Vol. 42, No. 3. (1973), pp. 340-351.

"The portrayal on the 'minature fresco' from Thera, and on the other,
very fragmentary Aegean frescoes, of diverse stylistic elements- flora a
nd fauna, 'negroid' human representations, the riverine setting, of the
'minature fresco,' etc- that seem to be north African, 'Libyan' or Egyptian in origin."
--The Aegean and the Orient in the second millennium:
proceedings of the 50th anniversary symposium, Cincinnati, 18-20 April 1997

Africa is after all right on the other side of the Mediterranean.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Son of Ra:
^^^Nobody takes you seriously to even care what you have to say. I also agree with everyone else who wonders why the mods on ESR haven't banned you as of yet...


And when I meant Europe is more complex than India I meant by it being a continent or subcontinent. And the fact that many people see Europe as a continent of its own. When its really part of Asia hence "Eurasia".

DJ also pointed out the limit/borders of Europe/Asia.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:

But Sforza did not clearly state where the 1/3, 2/3 came from. He references an external source that seems ambigous. But based upon the data he/Sforza compiled and provided. It is the reverse. His numbers matches what current researchers are proposing. He cross referenced a 1993 paper as his source of the 2/3 1/3 hypothesis…which he co-authored.

Table 2 is also mis-leading. Table 1 clearly states it is based upon 120 classical polymorphism.between continents. But Table 2 is based upon what? What was did the 2/3, 1/3 based on? Before I fully understood this stuff I used to re-gurgitate the same garbage. I know better now.

Good that you brought that up. Hope some of the “afro-centrics” (sic) learn from the discussion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:

• The overall contributions from Asia and Africa were estimated to be around two-thirds and one-third, respectively

Who's got the full in context quote?
Who knows what he means by Euros as
1/3 African and 2/3 Asian?
Based on measuring what?


EDIT: see Genes, peoples, and languages
L. LUCA CAVALLI-SFORZA

---

• .
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

• The overall contributions from Asia and Africa were estimated to be around two-thirds and one-third, respectively

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:

Eurocentric doctrine #?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^^

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:

Good you brought this up! Now I have to look at the paper closely. Did he really say 2/3 Asians?

Will post more on ESR.

---

Yes take a look and misinterpret as usual. As you are doing right now.

[

---

---

And exactly what did I write was Eurocentric, lunatic?? You think pointing out your nonsense is "Eurocentric" now? LOL

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:

"Europe is a more complex India", 6000miles away and genetically very distinct!!!On two very different branches of the Macro Haplogroup. . Riiiight! Two Hindus jerking themselves off. That is what they teach at Hindu schools? Sorry Sage. Couldn't help it. I am out. He! He! He!

---

So you assume because we invoke India or rather make analogies with that geographic region, that we ourselves must be Indian or even 'Hindu'??! LMAO You see, that is exactly the habit of quickly jumping to the wrong conclusions that I and others have constantly berated you about! This is why I'm against banning you as lyinass. I prefer to keep your dumbass as an example of the troll nonsense only from the Afronut side.

Meanwhile SonofRa is correct that Europe is similar to India in that it has experienced multiple founder-effect events except in this case it has not only experienced events from the rest of Asia but Africa as well.
 

---

Posted by Son of Ra (Member # 20401) on :
 
Actually I am part South Asian descent on my mothers side whose families from Trinidad.

@Djehuti

I don't get why its so hard for him to see the comparison between Europe and India, which are really just two subcontinents. You even said Europe is its own continent due to cultural reasons.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ Well I myself am of Filipino descent and have no South Asian ancestry. The closest thing to a Hindu in my family is a cousin of mine who joined some guru's cult! LOL So let the xynut think whatever he wants to.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Son of Ra:

Yep. Which is why they are so desperate to use mtDNA U6 30,000 to Eurasianize all of Northwest Africa to try in combat African DNA in them. Yet obvious to them U6 could have mutated in Africa.

---

The theory is that U6 entered Africa 30,000 ybp from the 'Near East' or Southwest Asia which again was right next door to Africa. What's more is that this supposedly took place just 10,000 after the first AM humans colonized Europe and who still possessed tropical adapted features judging from some of the Cro-magnon remains, so you can only imagine how the U6 colonists from Southwest Asia right next door looked like.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
.


" One reasonable hypothesis is that the genetic distance between Asia and Africa is shorter than that between Africa and the other continents in Table 1 because both Africans and Asians contributed to the settlement of Europe, which began about 40,000 years ago."
L. LUCA CAVALLI-SFORZA

Genes, peoples, and languages
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
Vol. 94, pp. 7719 –7724, July 1997


________________________


This is what current anthroplogy says:





______________________________________

^^^^

Note:

1) No OOA crossing the Mediterranean from Morocco to Spain

2) The migration path coming into to Europe marked M 172 is dated under 10K, coming from Anatolia, before that the Mid east
-this is "the farmers 7,500 ya

3)>> Earliest entry into Europe by humans marked M 173 on map (M 343)
comes from across South Russia, before that Central Asia, before that also the Mid east M 89 common root of these branches

therefore the earliest humans who came from across Russia 30-45 Kya would correspondingly be called by Cavalli-Sforza
"Africans" and "Asians"
who fucked and produced the early dark skinned Europeans and these dark skinned Europeans, the earliest ones mated with some neanderthals


_________________________________











to further resolve this matter we must look to the 2001
239 page book also by Cavalli-Sforza and it has the same title as the article:

Genes, Peoples, and Languages

http://www.amazon.com/Genes-Peoples-Languages-Luigi-Cavalli-Sforza/dp/0520228731/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

^^^ I haven't seen it and am not sure that the relevant topic is simply the 97 article copied into the book or not. However the book has the more radically phrased statement:

"it appears that Europeans are about two-thirds Asians and one-third African."

I think I recall this maybe being on the back cover of the book but I'm not sure.
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
Meanwhile ...

About C-S's 1/3 African and 2/3 Asian.

How many 3rds African is Asia?

How many 3rds Asian is Africa?



When posting maps, graphs, tables, etc.,
please cite who and where they are from
so as to gauge their reliability and age.

 

---

Posted by Son of Ra (Member # 20401) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ Well I myself am of Filipino descent and have no South Asian ancestry. The closest thing to a Hindu in my family is a cousin of mine who joined some guru's cult! LOL So let the xynut think whatever he wants to.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Son of Ra:

Yep. Which is why they are so desperate to use mtDNA U6 30,000 to Eurasianize all of Northwest Africa to try in combat African DNA in them. Yet obvious to them U6 could have mutated in Africa.

---

The theory is that U6 entered Africa 30,000 ybp from the 'Near East' or Southwest Asia which again was right next door to Africa. What's more is that this supposedly took place just 10,000 after the first AM humans colonized Europe and who still possessed tropical adapted features judging from some of the Cro-magnon remains, so you can only imagine how the U6 colonists from Southwest Asia right next door looked like.

---

Exactly. Which is why I also cited that brace study, which said exactly what you said.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
Europeans don't exist

We can no longer call them that

They are Afrasians
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
You do understand that 1/2 the guys here don't understand what you are talking about.

But there are lukers willing to learn ...so continue.

Lioness? maybe, but, he is not here to enlighten


BTW- You do know why the two trees don't agree? Don't you? (a) unweighted ..arithmetic mean.

Significance?
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
For those interested in the topic
I uncovered this from the book I
no longer own. It explains who
are the Africans and Asians of
the quote but omits which
Europeans are meant and
what's measured.






Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, Paolo Menozzi, Alberto Piazza
The History and Geography of Human Genes
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994
p.92-3
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Go slowly. You will get it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
Meanwhile ...


How many 3rds African is Asia?

How many 3rds Asian is Africa?



.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
[

1st off. There are no races only geographic populations. Geography! Geography! Geography! is the end all prior to the dawn of intercontinental travel. ****ALL population are a subset of Africans. That includes Asians.***** \

. There were essentially only TWO migration period FROM Africa. That is the underlying point. The first wave involved huntergatherers(Black).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:


1st off. There are no races only geographic populations. Geography! Geography! Geography! is the end all prior to the dawn of intercontinental travel. ****ALL population are a subset of Africans. That includes Asians.***** \

. There were essentially only TWO migration period FROM Africa. That is the underlying point. The first wave involved huntergatherers(Black). [/qb]

---

xyyman you start off saying there are no races only geographic populations.
Then you say "The first wave involved huntergatherers(Black)"
If there are no races then why when talking about a first wave of hunter gatherers do you mention their skin color "black" ?
What does some random superficial physical trait have to do with anything?

Anyway "Africans" and "Asians" discussed in this way are obviously proxy terms for race
similarly "white", "black"
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
L. LUCA CAVALLI-SFORZA

Genes, peoples, and languages
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
Vol. 94, pp. 7719 –7724, July 1997

article version (not book)

in html


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC33682/

The Ethiopians genotype is more than 50% African. It is difficult to say if they originated in Arabia and are therefore Caucasoids who, like Lapps, had substantial gene flow after they migrated to East Africa, or if they originated in Africa and had substantial gene flow from Arabia, but not enough to pass the 50% mark. We are not helped by knowledge of the origin of Afro-Asiatic languages, which are by far the most common ones spoken in Ethiopia but are also spoken in North Africa, Arabia, and the Middle East.....


Gene and language replacement can to some extent blur the congruence expected between the two types of evolution, but not completely. The accumulation of further genetic and linguistic data will facilitate the study of the relationship between the two evolutions, making it easier to use the genetic tree for predicting the history of linguistic evolution. Charles Darwin had precisely anticipated this development in his first book, The Origin of Species, published in 1859. But the opposite can also happen, and we look forward to linguistic data for ideas about still undetected genetic relationships. Above all we need an increase in genetic data, which modern molecular techniques such as microsatellite analysis and chip hybridization make possible and unusually powerful. The generation of a world collection of stored DNAs for distribution to scientists is the aim of the Human Genome Diversity Project, the feasibility of which is currently being investigated by the National Research Council and by the National Science Foundation.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 




 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
Well after all the roorag posts it's good to see
someone leave emotion behind and try to assess
what Cavalli-Sforza actually published without
going anachronistic even invoking proprietary
(thus non-scientific) filler that cannot muster
peer review and no geneticists ever reference,
cite, nor quote.

Some people will not turn a critical eye toward
that which pleases them as they say from time
to time about a report that is pro-Africa(n).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:


1st off. There are no races only geographic populations. Geography! Geography! Geography! is the end all prior to the dawn of intercontinental travel. ****ALL population are a subset of Africans. That includes Asians.***** \

. There were essentially only TWO migration period FROM Africa. That is the underlying point. The first wave involved huntergatherers(Black).

---

xyyman you start off saying there are no races only geographic populations.
Then you say "The first wave involved huntergatherers(Black)"
If there are no races then why when talking about a first wave of hunter gatherers do you mention their skin color "black" ?
What does some random superficial physical trait have to do with anything?

Anyway "Africans" and "Asians" discussed in this way are obviously proxy terms for race
similarly "white", "black" [/QB]

---

 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
BTW: Again there are so many wheels turning here it can be confusing to the lurkers. But may be the Anthroplogist types can jump in and/or start another thread. Mary touched on it earlier in the thread. But the osteological pieces are now starting to make sense. Remember Europeans seemed to be tropical, then went to cold adapted then back again to tropical then …from Paleolithic, late Paleolothic, Neolithic etc.

With these new developments Z-Man and others can try to frame this.
 

---

Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
 
What is important to understand from scientific studies is that African people and Ancient Egyptians don't just share a common skin color or geographical location, but they share a common origin, history, archaeological continuity, culture, language, religion, etc.

So I don't find it surprising that people like Tukuler, Swenet, Djehuti, xyyman, etc (who are not even black Africans btw, they are undercover racists) prefer to talk only about skin color or geography.

For example, most Cushitic, Chadic and Niger-Congo speakers are carrier of the E-P2/PN2 Y-DNA haplogroup, and thus share a common origin (after the OOA). At that time, they spoke one common language. The language spoken by their common E-P2 ancestor (maybe Obenga's Negro-Egyptian).

Here below we can see most African languages like Yoruba, Somali, Afar, Dogon, Wolof, Zulu, Dinka, etc have their common origin in the same region in (north) Eastern Africa (post dating the OOA migration of non-Africans of course):


Reconstructing Ancient Kinship in Africa by Christopher Ehret (From Early Human Kinship, Chap 12)

There also have been a lot of admixture between African population throughout history.

We can also see it genetically (autosomal DNA):


- From The Genetic Structure and History of Africans and African Americans (2009)

Link to bigger and clearer image

From the graph above for example, you can see Yoruba are much closer genetically to lets say Kikuyu than Palestinians or Basque. My contentious is that Ancient Egyptians in general would be closer to African populations than to non-African populations, especially at the formative stage (because there's been a lot of invasions and immigration afterwards even in dynastic time).

This is supported by some mainstream sources too:

quote:

---

Any interpretation of the biological affinities of the ancient Egyptians must be placed in the context of hypothesis informed by the archaeological, linguistic, geographic or other data. In this context the physical anthropological evidence indicates that the early Nile Valley populations can be identified as part of an African lineage, but exhibiting local variation. This variation represents the short and long term effects of evolutionary forces, such as gene flow, genetic drift, and natural selection influenced by culture and geography. -From Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt (1999) pp 328-332

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
[QB] .the actual later infamous statement:
____________________________________________


L. Cavalli-Sforza:

"it appears that Europeans are about two-thirds Asians and one-third African."
--(2001) Genes, Peoples and Languages.

---

In other words there are two races in the world, Africans and Asians

So called white people are merely Asioafriatics

It's a wrap for the Euronuts, they're mutts

.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
Black is not a race. White is not a race.

Africans have no ownership on blackness. Europeans have no ownership on light skin. Many East Asians are lighter than Europeans. Many South Asians are darker than Africans.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
[QB]
BTW: Please. Don’t put me in the same group as DJ/Mary. Sides she says she is Philippino which I doubt very much.

---

quote:

---

I am not “recent” African but what should it matter. My line is L2a1a and E1b1a.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
Black is not a race. White is not a race.

Africans have no ownership on blackness. Europeans have no ownership on light skin. Many East Asians are lighter than Europeans. Many South Asians are darker than Africans.

---

You said black is not a race and Africans have no ownership on blackness.

Then you said white is not a race.

But instead of saying Europeans have no ownership on whiteness you said they had no ownership on "light skin"
Does this mean they still own whiteness ?

---

quote:

---

So I don't find it surprising that people like Tukuler, Swenet, Djehuti, xyyman , etc (who are not even black Africans btw, they are undercover racists ) prefer to talk only about skin color

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
Fruedian? You caught that huh? That was deliberate. Like Hindu., I am trying to flush out some cockroaches. (wink).

---

Racist-->check
Pretend to be black-->check
prefer to talk about skin color-->check
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
(Throwing my hands in the air). Sweetness you have a go. But take it someplace else. Let's not derail the thread.


I am offended by ONLY two. Racist and Pretend to be black. Yes, I unashamedly talk about skin color but I am offended by the other two. I have white relatives that I am close to and happy to see progress and I get PO defending my blackness(that is my touch point). We can be comfortable with white people and still be black. Last person to that waaaas ....Mary. She created a stink about it with Marc and a few others years ago.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
Let's review my post above, with the new facts from this thread:

quote:

---

So I don't find it surprising that people like Tukuler, Swenet, Djehuti, xyyman , etc (who are not even black Africans btw, they are undercover racists ) prefer to talk only about skin color

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
Fruedian? You caught that huh? That was deliberate. Like Hindu., I am trying to flush out some cockroaches. (wink).

---

Racist-->check
Pretend to be black-->check
prefer to talk about skin color-->check

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
(Throwing my hands in the air). Sweetness you have a go. But take it someplace else. Let's not derail the thread.


I am offended by ONLY two. Racist and Pretend to be black. Yes, I unashamedly talk about skin color but I am offended by the other two. I have white relatives that I am close to and happy to see progress and I get PO defending my blackness(that is my touch point). We can be comfortable with white people and still be black. Last person to that waaaas ....Mary. She created a stink about it with Marc and a few others years ago.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
Let's review my post above, with the new facts from this thread:

quote:

---

So I don't find it surprising that people like Tukuler, Swenet, Djehuti, xyyman , etc (who are not even black Africans btw, they are undercover racists ) prefer to talk only about skin color

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
Fruedian? You caught that huh? That was deliberate. Like Hindu., I am trying to flush out some cockroaches. (wink).

---

Racist-->check
Pretend to be black-->check
prefer to talk about skin color-->check

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:

For the record, Djehuti , Tukuler and typeZeiss while having the right to believe foolish things if they want are not black Africans. They are fake. Their point of view is not the point of view of most Maghrebian people either as they don't consider themselves black Africans for the most part.


. . . .


So I don't find it surprising that people like Tukuler, Swenet, Djehuti, etc (who are not even black Africans btw, they are undercover racists) prefer to talk only about skin color or geography.

---

• 
  South of the Sahara in the Sahel and Savannah
  we call Maghrebis, and even Berber or "Arab"
  Saharans white but we totally separate them
  from a category that includes most Spaniards,
  Italians, Albanians, Greeks, French, and all
  British Islanders, Scandinavians, Central
  Europeans, Baltics, and Rus Vik Russians.
  

ARtU lies about it and says I
call iMazighen Black African.
Totally preposterous. ARtU's
problem is obvious, his head's
stuck up his ass, ergo his
excuse for brain cells have
suffocated from the gas.

African Heritage is inclusive
of all autochthonous/indigenous
Africans.


As far as it goes for white
people of ARtU's ilk? Well ...
who could be more fake than
a person afraid to declare
their ethnicity and copping
the moniker of AE's greatest
compound nTr then declaring
himself ultimate? I'll leave
DJ to diagnose that psychosis.
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
Here is the actual figure F1 from Tishkoff et al., 2009, Science 324, 1035–1044


 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
???

The idea should not be personalities.
Anyone who loves African Studies is
free to post whatever.

The decision to contribute or withdraw
is all your own. I have no responsibility
for your choices.

I asked for specific things that went
essentially directly unaddressed. I
had to go find them myself because at
best only 1 or 2 peripherals got posted.
I needed a bullseye not a mere target hit.

Were some post previous to what you
just replied to informative? Sure.
However there were emotionally based
posts that made for "entertaining"
reading or venting or what have you.

Which do you imagine I call roorag?

And there are posters who exclaim how
this or that report is "pleasing" to
them. What the hell??? Do they reject
science that isn't pleasing? Is that
anyway to conduct "objective" African
Studies?

Things are what they are. For whatever
reason we did not initiate long distant
sea trade amongst ourselves. That is not
pleasent knowledge yet its a fact. Should
it be rejected because it is not pleasing?


I hope you can post here without needing a
pat on the back for doing so or expecting
no critical comment or disagreement.

African Studies don't need favors just
people who realize there is in fact a
struggle going on and intend for Africa
and Africans at home and abroad not to
lose the struggle or give up struggling
everywhere possible for whatever excuse.


Me? I can't help the way I write or the
tones some fell I invoke, nor would I
ever want to. Breeding does tell and
many other African ethnies feel those
of my ethny are intractable. Can't help
it. Nothing can be done about it. It's
in the genes. We only ask try to bear us.
We have worthy contributions to make.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
Well after all the roorag posts it's good to see
someone leave emotion behind and try to assess
what Cavalli-Sforza actually published without
going anachronistic even invoking proprietary
(thus non-scientific) filler that cannot muster
peer review and no geneticists ever reference,
cite, nor quote.

Some people will not turn a critical eye toward
that which pleases them as they say from time
to time about a report that is pro-Africa(n).

---

A little tip: when someone goes out of his way to
post information, even though that person made a
commitment to stop contributing to filling Sammies'
pockets, to help you out, a little bit of
appreciation, or at least, not dismissing something
on sight because you don't find it fancy enough,
is not much to ask. Good luck with your thread!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
I would guess and hope, like any population, they (North African people) are proud of their West Asian, European and African heritage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
[QB]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:

For the record, Djehuti , Tukuler and typeZeiss while having the right to believe foolish things if they want are not black Africans. They are fake. Their point of view is not the point of view of most Maghrebian people either as they don't consider themselves black Africans for the most part.


. . . .


So I don't find it surprising that people like Tukuler, Swenet, Djehuti, etc (who are not even black Africans btw, they are undercover racists) prefer to talk only about skin color or geography.

---

.


I'm having a hard time not
saying ARtU is a snivelling
piece of **** liar but try
to console myself knowing
that in 9 years and 7 months
on ES never once have I said
Maghrebis or even central to
west Saharans are Black Africans.
I don't even use the term

---

quote:

---

African Heritage is inclusive
of all autochthonous/indigenous
Africans.

---

Those terms always depend on the context. Anybody who's citizen of an African country is an African, this include people of Arab and European origins.

For example, this man is Vice-President of Zambia and he's an African:


Of course, he's an African of European origin and I would guess he's proud of his origin as any people. In other context like for police reports, archeological studies, history or for medical studies, like genetic studies, you would classify him as somebody of European descent.

Evidently everybody nowadays is admixed to some degree. But Ancient Egyptians were mostly black Africans in similar way Ancient Greeks or Romans were mostly Europeans. They are not the products of Eurasian people migrating in Africa (a dynastic race). They were for the most part indigenous Africans. People from the Y-DNA haplogroup A, B, E and MtDNA L, people who cluster closer to African populations than Eurasians populations, at least considering the current genetic (Ramses III E1b1a, 18th Dynasty mummies, etc) and archaeological evidences.
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
ARtU stfu nobody's buying into your mad ravings
especially nonsense that colonizers are Africans
less lone that myself, Swenet, and TypeZeiss are
not African. Citizenship is not biology nor is it heritage.

You sound like the white fools who say a Boer
that immigrates to the USA is African American
thus entitled to the former affirmative action
set asides explicitly made for African Americans.

No African and only white-minded blacks even
begin to think that people of ethnic groups
neither autochthonous nor indigenous to the
African continent are African no matter how
big a picture you post of your white boyfriend
who has no African full genome.

You sir, besides having mental issues, are an
out the cover anti-African racist placing Euros
above Africans right on our very homelands of
the African continent.


Even worse you've made no intelligent contribution
to the actual topic of this thread only posts that
lead away from the subject of discussion.


And why do you do all this? Simply because somewhere
in the past I disagreed with something you posted or
made a precision to it. How childish.
 

---

Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
Here is the actual figure F1 from Tishkoff et al., 2009, Science 324, 1035–1044

---

Thanks for posting it. We all can see African populations cluster together in term of genetic distance (autosomal STR). Non-African population are at the top, African populations cluster at the bottom. There's a ruler (black bar with 0.01 beside of it), showing us this graph is on scale. Ancient Egyptians would cluster with other black African populations. People who stayed back in Africa during the OOA migration. They are Africans. In term of genetic distance, they would be closer to other African populations than non-African populations.
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
To bring the thread back to its topic, which scares most who have
posted judging by the low percentage of on topic posts, let's see
how much current genetics support or disconfirm Cavalli-Sforza's
20 year old statement by examining ADMIX or STRUCTURE skylines
at the K=2 level (which reflects Africa vs Out-of-Africa components)
for Europe, paying particular attention to increasing Ks vis a vis East
Asian and African contributions to Europeans:


Noah A Rosenberg (2005), Saurabh Mahajan, Sohini Ramachandran, Chengfeng Zhao, Jonathan K Pritchard, Marcus W Feldman
Clines, Clusters, and the Effect of Study Design on the Inference of Human Population Structure
PLoS Genet 1(6): e70. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.0010070



adapted from
Miao He (2009), Jane Gitschier, Tatiana Zerjal, Peter de Knijff, Chris Tyler-Smith, Yali Xue
Geographical Affinities of the HapMap Samples
PLoS ONE 4(3): e4684. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0004684



Doron M. Behar (2010), with the Metspalus,
Rootsi, Semino, Pereira, Comas, Bonne-Tamir, Parfitt, Hammer, Skorecki, Villems, et al
Genome-wide structure of Jews
Nature 466, 238–242 (08 July 2010) doi:10.1038/nature09103


None of the above full genome skylines support C-S's statement about Europe:
"overall contributions from Asia and Africa were estimated to be around two-thirds and one-third, respectively"
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
@Tukuler

I tried to get you up to speed with the things I've
posted. You've rejected everything I've said because
it wasn't strictly Sforza. I try to tell you why
Sforza itself doesn't matter if you want to get to
the bottom of whether Sforza is right or not. You
reject that, too, and still want to analyze Sforza,
as if the only way to finding out the true amount
of African ancestry of western Eurasia is through
Sforza or the markers he used. Mark my words; when
it's all set and done and Basal Eurasian gets
untangled, you WILL have to revisit the sources
I've posted and understand why I tried to give
you a shortcut to what you're after, and directed
you to them instead of Sforza and his obsolete
AIMs. For now I'm done posting, because you're
interested in Sforza, whereas I'm interested in
all the other sources that observed this phenomenon
and why traditional interpretations of autosomal
and uniparental studies seem incongruent with it.

I've already answered why Sforza is seemingly not
reproduced by traditional autsomal genetic studies
in this very thread. I gave you and the forum
plenty of short-cuts, but, of course, everyone is
free to dismiss these short cuts, at the risk of
wasting time to re-invent explanations that were
already given.
 

---

Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:

---

• "This is a book that, five or 10 years from now, will have to be rewritten, analyzing the new data -- I hope."
  

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
Anyway you are perfectly welcome to present an
interpretive deconstructionist argument refuting
the graphs or to present other graphs or other
raw data with clear components or numbers showing
Europe is 2/3 ancestral Chinese and 1/3 ancestral
African.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Intensity of the colors reflects the number of haplotype chunks donated to the Levantines.

---

-- Haber et al 2013

^Just like DNA Tribes, they're treating the Levant
as an unknown. Now go look and see which population
has donated the most haplotypes/have brightest
colours underneath each Levantine population.
ETHIOPIANS, while inner Africans like the Yoruba
only have minor (but very intense) affinity with
the southern Levantines (i.e. Palestinians and
Jordanians), perhaps corresponding with Moorjani
2011's 3% SSA in Jews. Mind you, these Levantine
people are the partial descendants of the proto-
Afroasiatic populations that spread agriculture
all over the place, hence, this ancestry is
implicated in Europe, as well.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
How can Cavalli-Sforza not matter when my explicit
intent is to examine his statement re what he based
it on?

You are the one trying to get to the bottom of if
it is right or not. In other words side stepping
precisely what I asked for.

All human populations not living in isolation areadmixed.

No. Europeans are not 2/3 ancestral Chinese and 1/3 ancestral European.


I understood your interest but it was not the same
as mine.
I dug up exactly what I asked for, the full context of the
statement. Today I posted full genome raw data that nowhere
graphs any Europeans as 2/3 ancestral Chinese and 1/3 African
no matter which K level is viewed.

C-S made that statement 20 years ago and I doubt he holds
it today. Why? Even way back in 1999 he made it known

• "This is a book that, five or 10 years from now, will have to be rewritten, analyzing the new data -- I hope."
  

Of course I will revisit any and every genetic
topic of my fancy as new more up to date data
and methodologies become available.


Anyway you are perfectly welcome to present an
interpretive deconstructionist argument refuting
the graphs or to present other graphs or other
raw data with clear components or numbers showing
Europe is 2/3 ancestral Chinese and 1/3 ancestral
African.


We all know of African and so-called SW Asian
contributions to the formation of the European
people but the bulk of their genome is derived
in situ which is why they at K=3 already display
a color code of their own (partially shared with
N. Africans, Mid-Easters, and Central&South Asians). What is nearly absent in total are sharings
with Far East Asia.


Please continue.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Estimates of divergence times between
European–African and East Asian–African
populations are inconsistent with its simplest
manifestation: a single dispersal from the
continent followed by a split into Western and
Eastern Eurasian branches. Rather, population
divergence times are consistent with substantial
ancient gene flow to the proto-European
population after its divergence with proto-East
Asians, suggesting distinct, early dispersals of
modern H. sapiens from Africa.

---

Link

"Proto-European" here INCLUDES West Asia BTW.

---

[/QB]

---

 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
I think you misunderstand or deliberately distort
my purpose for this thread. It's not about Swenet
its about Cavalli-Sforza's statement, cheerleader.


See your main problem is thinking something bothers
me. It's not about what please or displeases. It's
about the statement in full context and its basis
which I found and posted.

If you weren't so busy playing favorites with your
buddy boy you'd see that I said Europeans have
extra African ancestry. Just look at the last
paragraph of mine that you quoted. Back off
your emotions.

Your emotions blind you from seeing I made no such
thing as being derisive about Chinese. If you had
paid the slightest attention to my series of posts
instead of looking to defend your friend you'd see
Cavalli-Sforza is the one employing the term
ancestral Chinese.

Here it is again for those of attention deficit.



Your post is just a failed attempt to defame me.

I expect an apology.
 

---

Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
What do you mean ninja'd you? I was just about to
say how you're totally on-point, in regard to your
interpretation of what I was saying!!

---

quote:

---

ninja'd
When posting on a forum, you submit a post only to find that someone has posted the same thing only seconds earlier.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
What do you mean ninja'd you? I was just about to
say how you're totally on-point, in regard to your
interpretation of what I was saying!!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
I think you misunderstand or deliberately distort
my purpose for this thread. It's not about Swenet
its about Cavalli-Sforza's statement, cheerleader.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
I don't see any quantities here
nor any FE Asia to Europe arrow.
You've merely posted the obvious
which I think no one disagrees.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
I think you misunderstand or deliberately distort
my purpose for this thread. It's not about Swenet
its about Cavalli-Sforza's statement, cheerleader.


See your main problem is thinking something bothers
me. It's not about what please or displeases. It's
about the statement in full context and its basis
which I found and posted.

If you weren't so busy playing favorites with your
buddy boy you'd see that I said Europeans have
extra African ancestry. Just look at the last
paragraph of mine that you quoted. Back off
your emotions.

Your emotions blind you from seeing I made no such
thing as being derisive about Chinese. If you had
paid the slightest attention to my series of posts
instead of looking to defend your friend you'd see
Cavalli-Sforza is the one employing the term
ancestral Chinese.


Your post is just a failed attempt to defame me.

I expect an apology.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
You have proven you cannot actually reply
to my opening post.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
Anyway you are perfectly welcome to present an
interpretive deconstructionist argument refuting
the graphs or to present other graphs or other
raw data with clear components or numbers showing
Europe is 2/3 ancestral Chinese and 1/3 ancestral
African.

---

Already did:

Which populations contributed most to Levantines?

In turn, Levantines contributed most to Europeans
(Basal Eurasian)

Both images from: Haber et al 2013

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Intensity of the colors reflects the number of haplotype chunks donated to the Levantines.

---

-- Haber et al 2013

^Just like DNA Tribes, they're treating the Levant
as an unknown. Now go look and see which population
has donated the most haplotypes/have brightest
colours underneath each Levantine population.
ETHIOPIANS, while inner Africans like the Yoruba
only have minor (but very intense) affinity with
the southern Levantines (i.e. Palestinians and
Jordanians), perhaps corresponding with Moorjani
2011's 3% SSA in Jews. Mind you, these Levantine
people are the partial descendants of the proto-
Afroasiatic populations that spread agriculture
all over the place, hence, this ancestry is
implicated in Europe, as well.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
No. You are the one misinterpreting things.

I replied but you don't like my reply.
It doesn't make you feel pleased.

You have proven you cannot actually reply
to my opening post. Nonetheless I invited
you to go ahead with your tangential stuff
since you have no reply to the Cavalli-Sforza
quotes nor the graphs of Rosenberg, Behar,
and Mei.


Cavalli-Sforza's statement is untenable.
Europe is not 2/3 ancestral Chinese and
1/3 ancestral African. You have presented
nothing that supports such a noion.

But carry on with whatever tickles your fancy.
Maybe you will post some raw data eventually
if you can find any in support of C-S instead
of whatever it is you seek to turn this thread
into something of your own connivance.


Here's your problem. You posted that C-S statement.
I examined the statement in full context and basis
and showed its shortcomings.


But since you posted the statement you feel my
trashing of it is a trashing of you. Emotion
and ego make you defend the unsupportable
simply because you posted it. All your
following posts are just ego driven
not concerned with the validity of
C-S's statement.

You need to rid yourself of emotional attachment
to what you did not author and admit that it is
down level and obsolete.

---

• The overall contributions from Asia and Africa were estimated to be around two-thirds and one-third, respectively

• .
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

L. LUCA CAVALLI-SFORZA
Genes, peoples, and languages
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
Vol. 94, pp. 7719 –7724, July 1997
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
relocated
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
I uncovered this from the book I
no longer own. It explains who
are the Africans and Asians of
the quote but omits which
Europeans are meant and
what's measured.






Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, Paolo Menozzi, Alberto Piazza
The History and Geography of Human Genes
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994
p.92-3
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
let's see
how much current genetics support or disconfirm Cavalli-Sforza's
20 year old statement by examining ADMIX or STRUCTURE skylines
at the K=2 level (which reflects Africa vs Out-of-Africa components)
for Europe, paying particular attention to increasing Ks vis a vis East
Asian and African contributions to Europeans:


Noah A Rosenberg (2005), Saurabh Mahajan, Sohini Ramachandran, Chengfeng Zhao, Jonathan K Pritchard, Marcus W Feldman
Clines, Clusters, and the Effect of Study Design on the Inference of Human Population Structure
PLoS Genet 1(6): e70. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.0010070



adapted from
Miao He (2009), Jane Gitschier, Tatiana Zerjal, Peter de Knijff, Chris Tyler-Smith, Yali Xue
Geographical Affinities of the HapMap Samples
PLoS ONE 4(3): e4684. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0004684



Doron M. Behar (2010), with the Metspalus,
Rootsi, Semino, Pereira, Comas, Bonne-Tamir, Parfitt, Hammer, Skorecki, Villems, et al
Genome-wide structure of Jews
Nature 466, 238–242 (08 July 2010) doi:10.1038/nature09103


None of the above full genome skylines support C-S's statement about Europe:
"overall contributions from Asia and Africa were estimated to be around two-thirds and one-third, respectively"
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Since everyone one is catchng on...slowly. We are still getting caught up in the labels. Especially two - "admixture" and "ancestry".

Since most of us have caught up and catching on (DNAtribes BASAL being a good example), let us move on.

We need to get beyond the current labels to a new, clearer and scitifically more accurate label. Labels based upon modern geopolitics is the problem.

Trex got that. The kid is coming along.

Coming up with a better descriptive is next. I like one proposed by DTribes. "Related" eg European related genes vs European genes or Euroepan ancestry genes.

Where am I going with this? Relation to OP? 2/3 1/3 numbers may be correct. The label is the problem.


2/3=OOA, 1/3 "modern' circa 4000bc Africans. That is all he meant.


We are getting caught up in the labels. But the science makes sense then and now.

There is no "admixture", only drift.
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Point is, the data hasn't changed over the last 25 years. The interpretation of the data has.

And will some more.
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
The closest thing to any true mixture/admixture event are the colored lines. Also supported by the Lazaridis report. ANE/HG(Lazaridis)=Asians(Sforza)

This is 2014 technology!!!



Notice the chart uses new deisgnation label "EVENTS".

Events are color coded(non-black) . Black = drift
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
The only TRUE mixture event/admixture are non-black lines.

Tic! Toc!

We will catch on eventually(wink)

EDIT

To the lurkers who still don't get it. The SNP charts shown by Sage is informative but shows RELATED genes, erroneously called AIM/Ancestry Informative Markers. It should be better labeled as related genetic markers (RGM). The K2, K4 K6 etc ONLY shows SHARED genes.

This new technology, eg TreeMix shows, direction ie mixture events. I finally understand what DNATribes used is NOT unique. DNATribes is using similar algorithm. This has been out since 2012. It is being refined.

Reading the feedback on other forums, it is causing a lot of unease. Why? Take a guess. Dienekess has been discussing it since it came out. He and a few others don't like it....
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Truthcentric:
I believe you either misunderstand or are deliberately distorting what Swenet's saying. I don't think he means that Europeans are 2/3 East Asian (what you derisively call "Chinese"). Rather, European autosomal ancestry comes ~2/3 from an indigenous Eurasian (but not East Asian specifically) source and ~1/3 from subsequent African migrations. Generalized Eurasian or non-African is not the same as East Asian or Chinese as you misconstrue.

Why does the prospect of West Eurasians having partial extra African ancestry bother you?

EDIT: Damn, Swenet himself ninja'd me.

---

quote:

---

C. Loring Brace:

"if we test the distribution of the widely known ABO blood-group system, then Europeans and Africans are closer to each other than either is to Chinese."
--Does Race Exist? An antagonist's perspective

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
[QB]
BTW: Please. Don’t put me in the same group as DJ/Mary. Sides she says she is Philippino which I doubt very much.

---

On this we can agree, he is definitely not who he says he is. which is a shame.

---

Of course there are those on the internet who lie about who they are such as lyinass who claims to be African American but is really a Euronut in disguise. I on the other hand am NOT one of those idiots. Nor do I have any reason to lie. Exactly why would I lie about my Asian heritage which has absolutely NOTHING to do with any discussions on Egypt or Africa in this forum anyway?? Better yet, who are you to even question or attack me personally? I remember you accusing me before of being a "Horner" or "East African supremacist" which was quickly dispelled.

Now we are on thread discussing Europeans' mixed ancestry and you bring up African languages and cultures which has NOTHING to do with the topic. I'm beginning to think that you, like xyyman, are another neurotic nutcase who just uses this forum as self-therapy and vent whatever issues you have on posters like myself. If that's the case I will follow Tukuler's suite and no longer indulge in it any further. I will just address the topic and ignore you and your kindred nutbag xyzman.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:

Get focused Mr. Emotion and distracter.

The Levant is not Far East Asia.

You just don't want to get it.

Europeans are not 2/3 ancestral Chinese and 1/3 ancestral African.


You can whine, sing and dance, or even post
a funny image of chimps or comedians but you
cannot post any evidence that Europe is 2/3
ancestral Asian and 1/3 ancestral African.

Again, we all know of African and Levantine
genetic contributions to Europe. That is not
the issue and people can see you worming your
way out of the actual topic. Nobody believes
your distortions are even remotely linked to
anything I've posted.

What I posted is totally objective and requires
no interpretation: full context of statement,
basis of statement, STRUCTURE and ADMIX
skylines vs rabbits you pulled out of your
hat to detract and try to bury them in order
for you to save face for posting that
embarrassing statement.

Sorry you should have looked into it before
associating your name with it and later on
refusing to admit it is mistaken and cannot
be supported by modern genetic studies.

Until you can answer my clippings from Mei,
Behar, Rosenberg, Cavalli-Sforza, and
Bowcock its later for you.

Is there anybody else who would like a word?
I think the forum has heard enough from you
until you come up with some raw data (yes, I
know you despise raw data and prefer your own
interpretation instead because raw data cuts
through the bullshit).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:

• The overall contributions from Asia and Africa were estimated to be around two-thirds and one-third, respectively

Who's got the full in context quote?
Who knows what he means by Euros as
1/3 African and 2/3 Asian?
Based on measuring what?


EDIT: see Genes, peoples, and languages
L. LUCA CAVALLI-SFORZA

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:

Get focused Mr. Emotion and distracter.

The Levant is not Far East Asia.

You just don't want to get it.

Europeans are not 2/3 ancestral Chinese and 1/3 ancestral African.


You can whine, sing and dance, or even post
a funny image of chimps or comedians but you
cannot post any evidence that Europe is 2/3
ancestral Asian and 1/3 ancestral African.

Again, we all know of African and Levantine
genetic contributions to Europe. That is not
the issue and people can see you worming your
way out of the actual topic. Nobody believes
your distortions are even remotely linked to
anything I've posted.

What I posted is totally objective and requires
no interpretation: full context of statement,
basis of statement, STRUCTURE and ADMIX
skylines vs rabbits you pulled out of your
hat to detract and try to bury them in order
for you to save face for posting that
embarrassing statement.

Sorry you should have looked into it before
associating your name with it and later on
refusing to admit it is mistaken and cannot
be supported by modern genetic studies.

Until you can answer my clippings from Mei,
Behar, Rosenberg, Cavalli-Sforza, and
Bowcock its later for you.

Is there anybody else who would like a word?
I think the forum has heard enough from you
until you come up with some raw data (yes, I
know you despise raw data and prefer your own
interpretation instead because raw data cuts
through the bullshit).

---

Perhaps there is a misunderstanding when it comes to "ancestral Chinese". Note the ancestors of the first Europeans and the ancestors of Chinese and other East Asians diverged from a common ancestral population in Central Asia. This was stated by Spencer Wells in his Journey of Man book based on Y-chromosomal data. The key was this divergence took place BEFORE (Anatomically Modern Human) Europeans and East Asians existed.

---

 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
For those of you who don't want to get it
that Cavalli-Sforza knows ancestral Chinese
from non-African (OoA) please note below his
usage of the term and distinction between it
and Chinese.

Pay attention to how C-S whittles down of non-
Africans from Melanesians or Chinese to Chinese.









 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
I don't think anyone is denying that Sforza said
2/3 East Asians. Others are denying the aspect in
your argument that it's not only strange for
Europeans to be 1/3 African, but also 2/3 East
Asian. You were told time after time again
that, with today's knowledge, the 2/3 East Asian
is simply one of the epithets available to define
the 2/3 OOA aspect to Europeans.

What you're omitting is that Sforza himself didn't
even know how to put it in context. He dated OOA
to 100kya. He dated the 1/3 African component to
30kya. He restricted the 1/3 component to just
Europeans, when it included all of western Eurasia.
These are all errors. It makes no sense hanging
on the lip of someone who can't even explain his
own data. Hence me trying to help you with short
cuts to what it means since p1. You've rejected
everything I said, dove face-first into Sforza,
and what are you left with? Rope-tugging over the
exact words of a man who was at a loss of his own
data? What have you gained?
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 

quote:

---

I don't think anyone is denying that Sforza said
2/3 East Asians. Others are denying the aspect in
your argument that it's not only strange for
Europeans to be 1/3 African, but also 2/3 East
Asian. You were told time after time again
that, with today's knowledge, the 2/3 East Asian
is simply one of the epithets available to define
the 2/3 OOA aspect to Europeans.

What you're omitting is that Sforza himself didn't
even know how to put it in context. He dated OOA
to 100kya. He dated the 1/3 African component to
30kya. He restricted the 1/3 component to just
Europeans, when it included all of western Eurasia.
These are all errors. It makes no sense hanging
on the lip of someone who can't even explain his
own data. Hence me trying to help you with short
cuts to what it means since p1. You've rejected
everything I said, dove face-first into Sforza,
and what are you left with? Rope-tugging over the
exact words of a man who was at a loss of his own
data? What have you gained?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
Bottomline
Europeans are not 2/3 Asian and 1/3 African
and there's no population geneticist today
who posits any such non-sense. Your ship
isn't sinking, it's already sunk. Time
you shut up and learn and admit you
goofed big time posting a statement
that you now realize holds no water.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
The Levant is not Far East Asia.

You just don't want to get it.

Europeans are not 2/3 ancestral Chinese and 1/3 ancestral African.

---

quote:

---

There is one important exception to the rule in
Table 1, namely that in the first column of the
matrix Europe shows a shorter distance from
Africa than do all the other continents. The
difference is statistically significant and is
consistently found with all markers, ranging from
‘‘classical’’ ones based on gene products [blood
groups and protein polymorphisms (1)] to DNA
markers such as restriction polymorphisms (4) and
microsatellites (5). For incompletely understood
reasons, discussed later, mtDNA trees of non-
African populations are not as informative as
desired

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ I apologize if I've come across as patronizing or chiding if that's how you feel, since that was never my intention. I noticed things are getting pretty heated up in this forum with AmunRa attacking us and now you and Swenet getting into it. Trust, me the last thing I want is any conflict between us. I'm just saying that the early data by Sforza utilized traditional blood groupings immunological assays i.e. HLA and STRs. SNP data was taken into account later on.

---

Look man I ownd that book for like 10 years.
The 2nd half of it is chockfull of the markers
you're talking about but fig 2.4.7 is in the
DNA section and the man clearly wrote the
model was based on DNA polymorphisms.

If you haven't actually held the book in your
hands and used it extensively yourself why do
you keep going on?

Do yourself a favor and read pp91-93 I provided.
Please reply to this post by quoting the last
sentence of paragraph c on p.92, thank you.
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
Swenet doesn't even know the difference
between Table 1 and Fig 2.4.7, neither of
which he knew existed before XYYman posted
the former and I posted the both of them
(the latter in its full context, the former
being irrelevant to the thread's header).
Table 1 is clearly based on "120 classic
polymorphisms" (XYYman understood that).
Fig 2.4.7

Swenet's good at imprecision and jumbling
everything up and using examples that
don't fit the bill (like a "skyline" full of
Africans and Mid-Easters plus one west
Asian but no central, south, east, or
southeast Asians) and only one European,
then claiming it satisfies C-S's 35% Africans
and 65% Asians to a T when C-S was explicit
about Far East Asia.

How retarded.

Swenet doesn't know how to be exacting
and precise like a scientist who must employ
high-end math, boolean logic, and requirement
gathering. Swenet hasn't got that kind of
mentality behind his postings in these two
threads.

Hey Swenet! I know you're not stupid. You
have a face saving objective. Keep trying
to reroute my thread to your destination.
It ain't happening. You'll never cover up
that you goofed big time quoting Cavalli-
Sforza. Just be a man, admit it, and move on.


Though STRs are DNA polymorphisms, DJ's
statement is an AND GATE of three legs,
* blood groups
* HLA
* STRs
C-S's statement is based on DNA polymorphisms
alone not in tandem with any classical markers.

I no longer own the book and cannot verify if
C-S's "DNA polymorphisms" he also referred to
as "full DNA data," which Fig 2.4.7 and the
35%/65% split statement are derived from,
are nry UEPs, STRs, or autosomal SNPs, or ...

To compare CS's 23 year old DNA polymorphisms
/full DNA data with what's available today I chose
STRUCTURE and ADMIXTURE K graphs (which
look like big city skylines) because they are
touted as full genome and employ hundreds or
tens of thousands of SNPs. SNPs are DNA single
nucleotide polymorphisms.

Only if restricting to UEP Y-SNP haplogroup
defining markers can we come close to a 35%
African component for Europeans. but nrY Hgs
fall short of the description "full DNA data."

When I look at some reports of Euro composition
published over the last eight years the high
percentages I see for African contribution
to Europe is under ~7% max (Auton, MoorJani.
leaving a more than 93% non-African bulk not
specified as either Chinese or Asian but as
EurAsian i.e., Europe and Asia.

Quotes forthcoming, then back to life offline.
It's L"g la`Omer.
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 


Figure S5 Geographic gradient of African ancestry in Europeans.
Sub-Saharan African ancestry proportions were estimated using f4
Ancestry Estimation. Populations in grey are estimated to have sub-
Saharan African ancestry between 1–4%. The * in Switzerland
indicates that the three populations available from this country have
variable estimates: Swiss-Germans show no evidence of African
mixture, Swiss-French 0.5±0.2% and Swiss-Italians 1.6±0.2%.
The ‘+’ sign in Italy indicates that multiple samples were available
but all show evidence of African mixture. No data are available from
countries filled with diagonal lines. The map was downloaded from
http://www.ecozon.com/images/europe_map.jpg
Found at: doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1001373.s005 (0.22 MB DOC)




Figure S6 Estimation of African ancestry using STRUCTURE.
We applied STRUCTURE 2.2 to estimate the mixture proportions
using ~13,900 markers (selected to not be in LD with each
other) and K=2. Each individual is represented by a single line
with the length of the different colors reflecting the individual
ancestry proportions.
Found at: doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1001373.s006 (0.18 MB DOC)

Priya Moorjani (2011) et al.
The History of African Gene Flow into Southern Europeans, Levantines, and Jews
PLoS Genet 7(4): e1001373. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1001373

code:

---

                
Population     % YRI Hts   -CI 95%   +CI 95%
                                            
Europe (SW)    5.52%       5.25%     5.79%
Europe (S)     5.22%       4.96%     5.48%
Europe (W)     5.19%       4.93%     5.46%
Europe (SE)    5.17%       4.91%     5.43%
Europe (C)     5.15%       4.88%     5.42%
Europe (NW)    5.10%       4.84%     5.37%
Europe (NNE)   5.10%       4.84%     5.37%

Table S5: Percentage of HapMap YRI haplotypes 
found in the European sample. This table is
based on 25 SNP haplotypes in 2,925 windows of 
0.5cM. The data was thinned to 114 chromosomes
in each populations (to equal the YRI sample size).

---

Adam Auton (2009), with Katarzyna Bryc, Carlos D. Bustamante et al.
Global distribution of genomic diversity underscores rich complex history of continental human populations
Genome Res. 2009 19: 795-803 doi:10.1101/gr.088898.108


Auton's data verifies that STRUCTURE accurately
shows African contribution to European genomes
though structure-like analyses do underestimate
the percentage a tad.
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
Another ADMIXTURE analysis to add to all the other K analyses.
BTW - now why didn't Swenet post this Haber? It corroborates.


Haber f s6

http://i59.tinypic.com/24pwdw0.jpg


Figure S6 World population structure inferred by ADMIXTURE
analysis of >240K autosomal SNPs. A) Each horizontal
line represents ancestry probabilities of an individual in 2–10
constructed ancestral populations. Levantine population names
are shown in blue. B) Cross-validation plot for the world dataset.


Marc Haber (2013), with Moorjani, Botigue, Wells, Comas, et al.
Genome-Wide Diversity in the Levant Reveals Recent Structuring by Culture
PLoS Genet 9(2): e1003316. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1003316
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
Rosenberg repost


Noah A Rosenberg (2005), Saurabh Mahajan, Sohini Ramachandran, Chengfeng Zhao, Jonathan K Pritchard, Marcus W Feldman
Clines, Clusters, and the Effect of Study Design on the Inference of Human Population Structure
PLoS Genet 1(6): e70. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.0010070




Figure 2. Inferred Population Structure Based on 1,048 Individuals and
993 Markers, Assuming Correlations among Allele Frequencies across
Clusters

Each individual is represented by a thin line partitioned into K colored
segments that represent the individual’s estimated membership fractions
in K clusters. Each plot, produced with DISTRUCT [23], is based on the
highest-likelihood run of ten runs: the two runs that were used in further
analysis, and the eight runs described under ‘‘Cluster Analysis using
STRUCTURE.’’ As in [3], four of ten runs with K=3 separated a cluster
corresponding to East Asia instead of one corresponding to Europe, the
Middle East, and Central/South Asia. Two of ten runs with K=5 separated
Surui instead of Oceania. The highest-likelihood run of the ten runs with
K=6, shown in the figure, had a different pattern from the other nine runs
(not shown). These other runs, instead of subdividing native Americans
into two clusters, subdivided a cluster roughly similar to the Kalash cluster
seen in [3], except with a less pronounced separation of the Kalash
population. The clusteredness scores for the plots shown with K=2, 3, 4,
5, and 6 are 0.50, 0.76, 0.84, 0.86, and 0.87, respectively.
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgen.0010070.g002
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
Europeans are 44% African here's the proof:

quote:

---

losif Lazaridis, Nick Patterson, Alissa Mittnik, et al., Ancient human genomes suggest three ancestral populations for present-day Europeans. BioArxiv 2013 (preprint). Freely accessible → LINK [doi:10.1101/001552]
Abstract

Analysis of ancient DNA can reveal historical events that are difficult to discern through study of present-day individuals. To investigate European population history around the time of the agricultural transition, we sequenced complete genomes from a ~7,500 year old early farmer from the Linearbandkeramik (LBK) culture from Stuttgart in Germany and an ~8,000 year old hunter-gatherer from the Loschbour rock shelter in Luxembourg. We also generated data from seven ~8,000 year old hunter-gatherers from Motala in Sweden. We compared these genomes and published ancient DNA to new data from 2,196 samples from 185 diverse populations to show that at least three ancestral groups contributed to present-day Europeans. The first are Ancient North Eurasians (ANE), who are more closely related to Upper Paleolithic Siberians than to any present-day population. The second are West European Hunter-Gatherers (WHG), related to the Loschbour individual, who contributed to all Europeans but not to Near Easterners. The third are Early European Farmers (EEF), related to the Stuttgart individual, who were mainly of Near Eastern origin but also harbored WHG-related ancestry. We model the deep relationships of these populations and show that about ~44% of the ancestry of EEF derived from a basal Eurasian lineage that split prior to the separation of other non-Africans.

---

basal Eurasian lineage is pre OOA African

lioness Swenet Team
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
He repost

adapted from
Miao He (2009), Jane Gitschier, Tatiana Zerjal, Peter de Knijff, Chris Tyler-Smith, Yali Xue
Geographical Affinities of the HapMap Samples
PLoS ONE 4(3): e4684. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0004684



Figure 1. STRUCTURE analysis of the HapMap and HGDP-CEPH panels using 5,254 unlinked SNPs.
A. Full dataset.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0004684.g001
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
Behar repost

Doron M. Behar (2010), with the Metspalus,
Rootsi, Semino, Pereira, Comas, Bonne-Tamir, Parfitt, Hammer, Skorecki, Villems, et al
Genome-wide structure of Jews
Nature 466, 238–242 (08 July 2010) doi:10.1038/nature09103


Supplementary Figure 4| ADMIXTURE analysis of the Old World and West Eurasian
samples at K=2 through K=10. a, Jewish communities are shown in colour and in bold. The
letters T and B further specify Sephardi Jews from Turkey and Bulgaria, respectively.
Populations introduced in this study for the first time and analysed together with the HGDP18
data are marked by an asterisk. See Supplementary note 3 and 4 for more details.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
Swenet presented DNATribes

DNATribes' article is based on Lazaridis whom they credit

this whole discussion is based on semantics of this term "basal European"

semantic antics
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!

Try presenting DNAtribes or DNAconsultants at a genetics conference.





Now back to business. Examine those ADMIX or STRUCTURE analyses
at the K=2 level (which reflects Africa vs Out-of-Africa components)
for Europe, paying particular attention to increasing Ks vis a vis East
Asian and African contributions to Europeans.


None of the "full genome" "skylines" above support C-S's statement about Europe:
"The overall contributions from Asia and Africa were estimated to be around two-thirds and one-third, respectively."
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 


this is what Swenet is basing his argument on

I'm looking at it again and I find the way that blue oval is labeled "non African" to be confusing

How can somebody use DNA Tribes as an argument for Africaness in Eurasians when this chart shows "Basal Eurasian" rooted in the blue oval marked "Non African" ???

And this is far prior to DNA Consultants so called "Akhenaten gene"
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
wrong thread
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
zarahan's got this Sforza quote spread all over the internet
but he's completely awol on this thread
I suppose he hopes "it will blow over"
 

---

Posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
Europeans are 44% African here's the proof:

quote:

---

losif Lazaridis, Nick Patterson, Alissa Mittnik, et al., Ancient human genomes suggest three ancestral populations for present-day Europeans. BioArxiv 2013 (preprint). Freely accessible → LINK [doi:10.1101/001552]
Abstract

Analysis of ancient DNA can reveal historical events that are difficult to discern through study of present-day individuals. To investigate European population history around the time of the agricultural transition, we sequenced complete genomes from a ~7,500 year old early farmer from the Linearbandkeramik (LBK) culture from Stuttgart in Germany and an ~8,000 year old hunter-gatherer from the Loschbour rock shelter in Luxembourg. We also generated data from seven ~8,000 year old hunter-gatherers from Motala in Sweden. We compared these genomes and published ancient DNA to new data from 2,196 samples from 185 diverse populations to show that at least three ancestral groups contributed to present-day Europeans. The first are Ancient North Eurasians (ANE), who are more closely related to Upper Paleolithic Siberians than to any present-day population. The second are West European Hunter-Gatherers (WHG), related to the Loschbour individual, who contributed to all Europeans but not to Near Easterners. The third are Early European Farmers (EEF), related to the Stuttgart individual, who were mainly of Near Eastern origin but also harbored WHG-related ancestry. We model the deep relationships of these populations and show that about ~44% of the ancestry of EEF derived from a basal Eurasian lineage that split prior to the separation of other non-Africans.

---

basal Eurasian lineage is pre OOA African

lioness Swenet Team

---

quote:

---

For many of the individuals for which we have obtained DNA, we also collected phenotype data for traits likely to play a role in adaptation, some of which demonstrate a complex pattern of inheritance and are likely influenced by multiple loci and environmental factors. In addition to case/control analyses of variation at candidate genes, we are using whole-genome association studies to identify novel genes that are associated with these traits. Together with collaborators, we are also developing methods for mapping complex traits (including disease) in highly structured African populations.

---

quote:

---

Although the study's main focus was on Africa, Tishkoff and her colleagues studied DNA markers from around the planet, identifying 14 "ancestral clusters" for all of humanity. Nine of those clusters are in Africa. "You're seeing more diversity in one continent than across the globe," Tishkoff said.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:

• The overall contributions from Asia and Africa were estimated to be around two-thirds and one-third, respectively

Who's got the full in context quote?
Who knows what he means by Euros as
1/3 African and 2/3 Asian?
Based on measuring what?


EDIT: see Genes, peoples, and languages
L. LUCA CAVALLI-SFORZA

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:

Cavalli-Sforza's analysis is correct as far as it goes.
Based on his sampling of ancestral populations-
he used Africans, East Asians, Melanesians and
Europeans- and found that the Europeans are intermediate
between the Africans and Asians, with more Asian
weight (two-thirds), compared to Africans, (one-third),
based on the maximum likelihood methodology he was using.
This analysis, based on his sampling set, and methodology
at the time, is a fair one. He admits he is using
a particular admixture model and that ancestral
estimates are one-third African- two thirds Asian.
This does not mean that one can take a Nigerian,
mate him with a Chinese, and produce an instant European.
We are talking ancestral blends going back tens of
thousands of millennia, and the divergences in the
OOA populations.


Furthermore the greater weight of Asian contributions
to the European gene pool is confirmed by other
data such as the already referenced McEvoy et al.
2011 paper-Human population dispersal Out of
Africa. quote:

"Rather, population divergence times are consistent with substantial ancient gene flow to
the proto-European population after its divergence with proto-East Asians..

As subsequent analysis shows, Europeans are closer
to Asians. If Asians are on one side, then Africans
are on the other, even if mediated thru other OOA variants
from the Middle East.

Again, neither Swenet or Sforza is claiming some sort of
instant "shake and bake" European produced by a
quickie from say between West Africa and China. The
particular mix is an ancestral range going back
tens of thousands of years. There is nothing saying
that WITHIN this ancient blend, other variants did
not develop. As the initial divergencies and blends
took place, all sub-populations would over time
develop other distinctive lineages. This does not
contradict the overall Cavalli-Sforza African-Asian
blend/divergence umbrella.

Initial blends- followed by subsequent variants,
over a span of tens of thousands of years.

The process is dynamic not static- and there is
nothing saying that the blends have to originate
from a single approved point in either Africa or
Asia to be "official." African genes can be transmitted
to Europe via the Middle East, just as Asian genes can
be transmitted to Europe via the Turkic regions.
Why are Asiatic genes from say the Central Asian or Russian steppe
into Europe OK< but African genes via the Levant are not OK,
one may ask the distorters of African diversity?


Nothing in Cavalli-Sforza's model means the initial
blends of peoples had to begin in what is now Burkina Faso,
or what is now Beijing. And nothing says any initial
blends or divergencies has to remain static- locked in place for 10000-40000
years without any other variants developing on other continents.
If Hapo N for example developed in Northern Europe
after the initial ancestral blends and divergencies
Cavalli-Sforza noes, fine- doesn't change the fact of
the initial ancestral blend. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:

This does not mean that one can take a Nigerian,
mate him with a Chinese, and produce an instant European.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:

---

.


zarahan, as shown in the map below, current anthropology
indiacates that the earliest people to enter Europe came from Central Asia, therefore they were Asians.
This is 30-45 K
If you go back far enough Asians were African according to OOA theory but at this 30-45K point they are regarded as Asians.

Now looking below at the map an corresponding to many articles is a migration route that comes in to Europe much later form Anatolia marked there at 10 K.
This corresponds to many articles talking about the influx of farmers around that time, 7,500 years ago.

So is the African component much more recent.

In other words people keep ignoring me on this point but it seems to me that this 2/3 + 1/3 statement must correspond to what is known about OOA migration routes
and that is important because those routes may coordinate with people we regard as "Asian" or "African"

Swenet used the non peer reviewed DNA Tribes article to try to remove from Mepotamians who are believed by them a large contributer to Euroepans a middle East component and render them 1/3 indigenous pre OOA Horners.

However Mespotamians would already be assigned by Sforza to the 2/3 Asian. He would have established them as Asian despite the fact that we can back track on any popualtion and they are 100% African if you go back in time to M 168.

So we have to go back and look at the earliest migrations into Europe. From what I see those are Asians at that point and if one is to argue 1/3 Africans than one would have to assign that to the Middle Eastern farmers.
People in ES often talk about early Eurasians but they seldom put up maps to put it in contexr.
Some of this maps vary but they also have strong correspondnces








Also what do you make of this:


C. Loring Brace:

"if we test the distribution of the widely known ABO blood-group system, then Europeans and Africans are closer to each other than either is to Chinese."
--Does Race Exist? An antagonist's perspective


^^^ is this a contrdiction with Sforza? I'm not sure about it





above in a 35K Romanian skull (Oase 2) and a forensic artist's reconstruction. There is some debate about whether he had neanderthal skeletal traits or not

Is he an Asian or African or European, Austrailoid perhaps?
Is it based on skull type or geography?


.

.
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
Obviously ES posters are unfamiliar
with the work of Cavalli-Sforza
directly pertinent to his statement.

I'm going to broach another thread
defining from the start precisely
stating the thread's objective
and will hopefully focus on
the specifics rather than
posters' personalities
and flamings.

C-S's statement is one issue.

Percentages of the initial
Europeans' genetic contribution
from Africans and Asians through
all time is another.

One should not be confused
for the other.

The former is a minute
subset of the latter.
 

---

Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
 
lioness says:
zarahan, as shown in the map below, current anthropology
indiacates that the earliest people to enter Europe came from Central Asia, therefore they were Asians.
This is 30-45 K
If you go back far enough Asians were African according to OOA theory but at this 30-45K point they are regarded as Asians.

Now looking below at the map an corresponding to many articles is a migration route that comes in to Europe much later form Anatolia marked there at 10 K.
This corresponds to many articles talking about the influx of farmers around that time, 7,500 years ago.

So is the African component much more recent.

In other words people keep ignoring me on this point but it seems to me that this 2/3 + 1/3 statement must correspond to what is known about OOA migration routes
and that is important because those routes may coordinate with people we regard as "Asian" or "African"

Swenet used the non peer reviewed DNA Tribes article to try to remove from Mepotamians who are believed by them a large contributer to Euroepans a middle East component and render them 1/3 indigenous pre OOA Horners.

However Mespotamians would already be assigned by Sforza to the 2/3 Asian. He would have established them as Asian despite the fact that we can back track on any popualtion and they are 100% African if you go back in time to M 168.

So we have to go back and look at the earliest migrations into Europe. From what I see those are Asians at that point and if one is to argue 1/3 Africans than one would have to assign that to the Middle Eastern farmers.
People in ES often talk about early Eurasians but they seldom put up maps to put it in contexr.
Some of this maps vary but they also have strong correspondnces


How could people in Europe 30-45K ago, who look like tropical
Africans and have similar tropical limb proportions be regarded as
"Asian"? And what peer reviewed scholarship says these people
are "Asians"?


quote:
"As with all the other limb/trunk indices, the recent Europeans evince
lower indices, reflective of shorter tibiae, and the recent sub-Saharan
Africans have higher indices, reflective of their long tibiae... The Dolno
Vestonice and Pavlov humans.. have body proportions similar to those of
other Gravettian specimens. Specifically, they are characterized by high
bracial and cural indices, indicative of distal limb segment elongation..
.. as a whole, in body shape the Gravettian sample (including most of the
specimens from Dolni Vestonice and Pavlov) are morphologically closer to
the recent Africans than to the recent Europeans. In many cases, recent
Europeans of the same sex with index values identical to the Dolni
Vestonice and Pavlov individuals are rare indeed. Therefore the overall
pattern that emerges is that the Gravettian humans, despite living in
Europe during a glacial period, evince relatively tropically adapted
physiques (Trinkhaus, 1981; Ruff, 1994; Holliday, 1997a, 1999). The
limb and body proportions of the Dolni Vestonice and (to a lesser degree)
Pavlov fossils conform well to this overall pattern."
--Trinkaus and Svoboda. 2005. Early Modern Human Evolution in Central
Europe]


- AND--

"Body proportions of early European H. sapiens fossils suggest a tropical
adaptation and support an African origin (Holliday & Trinkaus, 1991;
Ruff, 1994; Pearson, 1997, 2000; Holliday, 1997, 1998, 2000).”
--McBrearty and Brooks 2000. The Revolution that Wasn’t. Jrn Hu Evo
39, 453-563
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:


How could people in Europe 30-45K ago, who look like tropical
Africans and have similar tropical limb proportions be regarded as
"Asian"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:



^^^ is this a contrdiction with Sforza? I'm not sure about it





above in a 35K Romanian skull (Oase 2) and a forensic artist's reconstruction. There is some debate about whether he had neanderthal skeletal traits or not

Is he an Asian or African or European, Austrailoid perhaps?
Is it based on skull type or geography?

---

quote:

---

Between 2003 and 2005, the Peştera cu Oase, Romania yielded a largely complete early modern human cranium, Oase 2, scattered on the surface of a Late Pleistocene hydraulically displaced bone bed containing principally the remains of Ursus spelaeus. Multiple lines of evidence indicate an age of ≈40.5 thousand calendar years before the present (≈35 ka 14C B.P.). Morphological comparison of the adolescent Oase 2 cranium to relevant Late Pleistocene human samples documents a suite of derived modern human and/or non-Neandertal features, including absence of a supraorbital torus, subrectangular orbits, prominent canine fossae, narrow nasal aperture, level nasal floor, angled and anteriorly oriented zygomatic bones, a high neurocranium with prominent parietal bosses and marked sagittal parietal curvature, superiorly positioned temporal zygomatic root, vertical auditory porous, laterally bulbous mastoid processes, superiorly positioned posterior semicircular canal, absence of a nuchal torus and a suprainiac fossa, and a small occipital bun. However, these features are associated with an exceptionally flat frontal arc, a moderately large juxtamastoid eminence, extremely large molars that become progressively larger distally, complex occlusal morphology of the upper third molar, and relatively anteriorly positioned zygomatic arches. Moreover, the featureless occipital region and small mastoid process are at variance with the large facial skeleton and dentition. This unusual mosaic in Oase 2, some of which is paralleled in the Oase 1 mandible, indicates both complex population dynamics as modern humans dispersed into Europe and significant ongoing human evolution once modern humans were established within Europe.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
You didn't read the papers that were posted, which
were, in fact, posted precisely because I suspected
someone from the Euronut corner would desperately
register an ES account to fight the inevitable,
saying "genetic distance doesn't mean admixture".
Indeed, I've seen many a Euronut scramble to come
to grips with this data. Dienekes has particularly
pathetic way of coping with this data on his blog,
knowing that none of his lackeys will call him
out on it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
"lioness" said:
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Have you studied the 2010 to 2014 reports of the Max Planck Institute?
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v468/n7327/pdf/nature09710.pdf
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v505/n7481/full/nature12886.html
According to their findings no human race evolved out of another human race.
Those who left South Africa 70kya were members of the white race, They interbred with Neanderthals in the near East and then dispersed to the East and the West.
Now, Eurasians seem to be hybrids between Homo sapiens sapiens (Hss) and so much Neanderthals as Denisovans leaving as pure Hss only the Africans.

Moreover, the Africans reached the stage of modern human some 200k years before the Eurasians did. One more fact about races is that whites are killers. They commenced with the Neanderthals and tried to eliminate any other race they came across, fortunately succeeding fully only with Neanderthals and Tasmanians. I am however of the opinion that they failed to exterminate all other races because a large percentage of the members of the white race hate and fight their racist brothers.

This is so obviously you, you are not fooling anyone.
You gotta be more creative. Switch to "raving black militant"
next time...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
[QB] "lioness" said:
This is a genetics thread. You can't suddenly switch to physical morphology in order to avoid genetic inconveniances.

But the physical morphology refutes your "Asian" claim.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dtango:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
[qb] "lioness" said:
[b]]The above was written by me, not by the Lioness. I am a… white boy, so shoot at me if you have the knowledge the refute the findings of the Max Plank Institute.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
"lioness" said:
This is a genetics thread. You can't suddenly switch to physical morphology in order to avoid genetic inconveniances.

But the physical morphology refutes your "Asian" claim.

---

No it doesn't
again the example>

Oceanic people are not Africans
> neither are ancient Europeans

This is a genetics thread. You can't suddenly switch to physical morphology in order to avoid genetic inconveniances, besides already endorsed them as 2/3 Asian

---

.
This is my thread. You can't tell people what to post.
Readers themselves can see and decide how relevant to
the subject header and how strong or weak somebody's
presentation is and whether it supports or disconfirms.

You can point out strength weakness support or
disconfirmation of what is posted no matter it
veers from the selected discipline. Detouring,
of course, is a weak "support" tending rather
to disconfirm.
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Here is point, I just need to repeat it. Wow, you uncovered a gem, . There is so much in there.

Reading this over and over makes me realize Lazaridis et al already know the “WHEN AND WHERE”. They are sandbagging.


McEvoy et al
--
Quote :
However, these Y chromosomes are concentrated in southern Europe (Cruciani et al. 2004), whereas the smaller average divergence times between Europe and Africa relative to East Asia and Africa are still readily apparent across each individual northern European sample population (Supplemental Table 2). This suggests that the discrepancy has, at least partially, an even earlier and more pervasive origin, being established prior to the appearance, and consequent migration tagging ability, of the current range of mtDNA and Y-chromosome haplogroups
--


Lazaridis/Henn/Paabo etc are BSing with that 44%(+-10)

They are saying even Northern Euroepans and Africans have a closer divergence time than Africans and East Asians. What does that mean you ask? Sweetness?
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
This makes sense now...(b)




The percentage depends on the European popualtion.
======
McEvoy et al
--
Quote :
However, these Y chromosomes are concentrated in southern Europe (Cruciani et al. 2004), whereas the smaller average divergence times between Europe and Africa relative to East Asia and Africa are still readily apparent across each individual northern European sample population (Supplemental Table 2). This suggests that the discrepancy has, at least partially, an even earlier and more pervasive origin, being established prior to the appearance, and consequent migration tagging ability, of the current range of mtDNA and Y-chromosome haplogroups
--
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Almost 20 years later based upon LD analysis Sforza has hypothesis still stands. Lazaridis puts it closer to 80% in some populations(to the south)
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
At Z-man. You answer is here..

======
McEvoy et al
--
Quote :
However, these Y chromosomes are concentrated in southern Europe (Cruciani et al. 2004), whereas the smaller average divergence times between Europe and Africa relative to East Asia and Africa are still readily apparent across each individual northern European sample population (Supplemental Table 2). This suggests that the discrepancy has, at least partially, an even earlier and more PERVASIVE origin, being established prior to the appearance, and consequent migration tagging ability, of the current range of mtDNA and Y-chromosome haplogroups
--
 

---

Posted by Ponsford (Member # 20191) on :
 
This means "Basal Eurasian" in Laziridis et al is African.Of course other forums like Anthroscope are in denial.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ponsford:
This means "Basal Eurasian" in Laziridis et al is African.Of course other forums like Anthroscope are in denial.

---

Laziridis did not just invent the Out of Africa theory
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 



^^^ there is charting here a and b. It seems each method leads to a different conclusion
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
Yes, we know that. That's what the actual C-S
text says, you know, the text posted here days
ago. Hell, the figure caption explains why,

methodology.

[Hence why materials and methods sections
in scientific reports woefully lacking from the
"digests" of marketplace statisticians and
copywriters who make believe they are
geneticists.]


Care to expand on what you're signifying?
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
BASAL EURASIAN IS AFRICAN. See the title of the chart.

"Basal Eurasian OUT of Africa"

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ponsford:
This means "Basal Eurasian" in Laziridis et al is African.Of course other forums like Anthroscope are in denial.

---

Laziridis did not just invent the Out of Africa theory

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
From Henn. She is basing this on autosomal SNP.

This suggests that gene flow occurred from Africa to Europe rather than the other way around.


DNATribes supports this view also. Basal Eurasian in Africa...YES!!! I can go on and on and on

Thread close.

---

It's funny how xyyman uses this ridiculous new DNA Tribes map as argument.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
BASAL EURASIAN IS AFRICAN.

---

So what, modern Eurasians are not basal Eurasians

after tens of thousands of years of in situ mutation and selection they Eurasian are no longer African.
They can be distinguished from Africans genteically

Or are Chinese people Africans?

According to OOA theory the ancestors of Chinese people were African.

Does this mean modern Chinese people are African? No
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 


people be aware ^^^^

xyyman has added his blue arrows on the left of this chart
without saying "blue arrows added by xyyman"

People could easily be lead to believe that was the DNATribes map as it appeared originally but it is an xyyman doctored map

_______________________

here is the original DNA Tribes map

http://www.dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2014-03-01.pdf





^^^According to DNA Tribes

1) Modern Homo Sapiens are basal to both

--Mbiti (pygmies) and

--Non-Africans

[indicated in blue ovals]

_________________________________

2) Non-Africans (blue oval at Ethiopia/Yemen) are basal to

--Basal Eurasians
(indicated in red oval)

and

--Eastern non-Africans
(indicated in green)

__________________________________
 

---

Posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by dtango:
The above was written by me, not by the Lioness. I am a… white boy, so shoot at me if you have the knowledge the refute the findings of the Max Plank Institute.

---

Sure,

quote:

---

Originally posted by dtango:
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Have you studied the 2010 to 2014 reports of the Max Planck Institute?
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v468/n7327/pdf/nature09710.pdf
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v505/n7481/full/nature12886.html
According to their findings no human race evolved out of another human race.
Those who left South Africa 70kya were members of the white race, They interbred with Neanderthals in the near East and then dispersed to the East and the West.
Now, Eurasians seem to be hybrids between Homo sapiens sapiens (Hss) and so much Neanderthals as Denisovans leaving as pure Hss only the Africans.

Moreover, the Africans reached the stage of modern human some 200k years before the Eurasians did. One more fact about races is that whites are killers. They commenced with the Neanderthals and tried to eliminate any other race they came across, fortunately succeeding fully only with Neanderthals and Tasmanians. I am however of the opinion that they failed to exterminate all other races because a large percentage of the members of the white race hate and fight their racist brothers.

---

Your interpretation is a bit off, rather completely off.

What it says is that the predecessors are the Homo heidelbergensis

Homo heidelbergensis gave rise to the Neanderthals, this is seen as splitting.

And the Homo heidelbergensis gave rise to modern human population known as Homo Sapiens Sapiens. And later intermingled with remnants of Neanderthals.

The Homo heidelbergensis was in Africa and Europe from which Neanderthals split in eurasia and from which Homo Sapiens split in Africa, eventually mankind emerged from these Homo Sapiens.



Here see:

quote:

---

Less than 200,000 years ago, anatomically modern humans (that is, humans with skeletons similar to those of present-day humans) appeared in Africa.

---

quote:

---

This branching pattern, along with the geographical distribution of the major clades A, B, and CT, has been interpreted as supporting an African origin for anatomically modern humans,10 with Khoisan from south Africa and Ethiopians from east Africa sharing the deepest lineages of the phylogeny.15 and 16

[...]





The deepest branching separates A1b from a monophyletic clade whose members (A1a, A2, A3, B, C, and R all share seven mutually reinforcing derived mutations (five transitions and two transversions, all at non-CpG sites).

[...]





How does the present MSY tree compare with the backbone of the recently published “reference” MSY phylogeny?13 The phylogenetic relationships we observed among chromosomes belonging to haplogroups B, C, and R are reminiscent of those reported in the tree by Karafet et al.13 These chromosomes belong to a clade (haplogroup BT) in which chromosomes C and R share a common ancestor (Figure 2).

---

--Fulvio Cruciani et al
A Revised Root for the Human Y Chromosomal Phylogenetic Tree: The Origin of Patrilineal Diversity in Africa (2011)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929711001649

quote:

---

We report the discovery of an African American Y chromosome that carries the ancestral state of all SNPs that defined the basal portion of the Y chromosome phylogenetic tree. We sequenced ∼240 kb of this chromosome to identify private, derived mutations on this lineage, which we named A00. We then estimated the time to the most recent common ancestor (TMRCA) for the Y tree as 338 thousand years ago (kya) (95% confidence interval = 237–581 kya). Remarkably, this exceeds current estimates of the mtDNA TMRCA, as well as those of the age of the oldest anatomically modern human fossils. The extremely ancient age combined with the rarity of the A00 lineage, which we also find at very low frequency in central Africa, point to the importance of considering more complex models for the origin of Y chromosome diversity. These models include ancient population structure and the possibility of archaic introgression of Y chromosomes into anatomically modern humans. The A00 lineage was discovered in a large database of consumer samples of African Americans and has not been identified in traditional hunter-gatherer populations from sub-Saharan Africa. This underscores how the stochastic nature of the genealogical process can affect inference from a single locus and warrants caution during the interpretation of the geographic location of divergent branches of the Y chromosome phylogenetic tree for the elucidation of human origins.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
BASAL EURASIAN IS AFRICAN.

---

So what, modern Eurasians are not basal Eurasians

after tens of thousands of years of in situ mutation and selection they Eurasian are no longer African.
They can be distinguished from Africans genteically

Or are Chinese people Africans?

According to OOA theory the ancestors of Chinese people were African.

Does this mean modern Chinese people are African? No

---

quote:

---

Although the study's main focus was on Africa, Tishkoff and her colleagues studied DNA markers from around the planet, identifying 14 "ancestral clusters" for all of humanity. Nine of those clusters are in Africa. "You're seeing more diversity in one continent than across the globe," Tishkoff said.

---

quote:

---

For many of the individuals for which we have obtained DNA, we also collected phenotype data for traits likely to play a role in adaptation, some of which demonstrate a complex pattern of inheritance and are likely influenced by multiple loci and environmental factors. In addition to case/control analyses of variation at candidate genes, we are using whole-genome association studies to identify novel genes that are associated with these traits. Together with collaborators, we are also developing methods for mapping complex traits (including disease) in highly structured African populations.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
Europeans are 44% African here's the proof:

quote:

---

losif Lazaridis, Nick Patterson, Alissa Mittnik, et al., Ancient human genomes suggest three ancestral populations for present-day Europeans. BioArxiv 2013 (preprint). Freely accessible → LINK [doi:10.1101/001552]
Abstract

Analysis of ancient DNA can reveal historical events that are difficult to discern through study of present-day individuals. To investigate European population history around the time of the agricultural transition, we sequenced complete genomes from a ~7,500 year old early farmer from the Linearbandkeramik (LBK) culture from Stuttgart in Germany and an ~8,000 year old hunter-gatherer from the Loschbour rock shelter in Luxembourg. We also generated data from seven ~8,000 year old hunter-gatherers from Motala in Sweden. We compared these genomes and published ancient DNA to new data from 2,196 samples from 185 diverse populations to show that at least three ancestral groups contributed to present-day Europeans. The first are Ancient North Eurasians (ANE), who are more closely related to Upper Paleolithic Siberians than to any present-day population. The second are West European Hunter-Gatherers (WHG), related to the Loschbour individual, who contributed to all Europeans but not to Near Easterners. The third are Early European Farmers (EEF), related to the Stuttgart individual, who were mainly of Near Eastern origin but also harbored WHG-related ancestry. We model the deep relationships of these populations and show that about ~44% of the ancestry of EEF derived from a basal Eurasian lineage that split prior to the separation of other non-Africans.

---

basal Eurasian lineage is pre OOA African

lioness Swenet Team

---

Population replacement?

quote:

---

We then estimated the time to the most recent common ancestor (TMRCA) for the Y tree as 338 thousand years ago (kya) (95% confidence interval = 237–581 kya).

---

An African American Paternal Lineage Adds an Extremely Ancient Root to the Human Y Chromosome Phylogenetic Tree

The American Journal of Human Genetics, Volume 92, Issue 3, 454-459, 28 February 2013







Remarkable, isn't it?


Loose pearl.
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Still don't get it? The Lazaridis report and DNATribes. Listen I can not dumb it down any further.

10's of thousand. Ha! Ha!. AMH has been only been in Europe about 40,000y.

To be clear to you and AMRTU. Basal Eurasian=African Saharans.

TIMING? = Farmers=Neolithic=circa 8000ya.

I can not dumb it down any further.


They met older AMH that left Africa 30,000ya.

So yes, modern Europeans are NOT Africans. They are an admixture of 3 groups of Africans that left Africa at differents times.

Asians and Europeans are a sub-set of Africans. Got it Get it?

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
BASAL EURASIAN IS AFRICAN.

---

So what, modern Eurasians are not basal Eurasians

after tens of thousands of years of in situ mutation and selection they Eurasian are no longer African.
They can be distinguished from Africans genteically

Or are Chinese people Africans?

According to OOA theory the ancestors of Chinese people were African.

Does this mean modern Chinese people are African? No

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
DNATribes New Update...April 2014!!

Quote: "Step 5 (Remove North African percentages): However, removing the North African component does not result in new components expressed. This suggests that European genetic relationships with North Africa are either ****local to the Maghreb ***or else better represented by other components (such as Arabian and/or Mesopotamian percentages).


Quote:Conclusion
Sequential analyses of non-local genetic components in Europe using both autosomal STR and SNP data express ancestral components related to Middle Eastern and North Eurasian populations. Subsequent steps in each iterative analysis reveal deeper genetic relationships to populations of the Indian Subcontinent and Horn of Africa, possibly related to Early European Farmer (EEF) populations that first emerged near the Fertile Crescent as a synthesis integrating migratory hunter-gatherer and sedentary cultures from West Eurasia (possibly Anatolia) withi Basal Eurasian populations (possibly the Nile Valle).

-----

close thread. Damn, I should be paid for this shyte.

Oh - I don't think it is near the Nile Valley...think Luhya. Ha! Ha! Give them more time... [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
@ Lioness. That modified chart was used as an illustration. Understand the context. See bolded section and asterix. DNATribes is saying that migration was possibly through the Maghreb!!!! This is what I was illustrating in context.

---

lets look at tha actual chart rather than the one modified by you




why are you claiming DNATribes is saying that migration was possibly through the Maghreb ???

It doesn't


The map shows a migration of EEF farmers into Western Europe
but the other branch of basal Eurasian, the red arrow going across North Africa is not shown migrating into Europe.

So no, as per this map DNA Tribes is not suggesting a possible migration from North Africa to Spain

Only you are suggesting that with your altered map with added blue arrows , here>

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:

Basal Eurasian=African Saharans.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
@ Lioness. That modified chart was used as an illustration. Understand the context. See bolded section and asterix. DNATribes is saying that migration was possibly through the Maghreb!!!! This is what I was illustrating in context.

---

lets look at tha actual chart rather than the one modified by you




why are you claiming DNATribes is saying that migration was possibly through the Maghreb ???

It doesn't


The map shows a migration of EEF farmers into Western Europe
but the other branch of basal Eurasian, the red arrow going across North Africa is not shown migrating into Europe.

So no, as per this map DNA Tribes is not suggesting a possible migration from North Africa to Spain

Only you are suggesting that with your altered map with added blue arrows , here>

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:

Basal Eurasian=African Saharans.

---

wrong

"basal" means "ancestor of " in this context

not "="

These popualtions are set apart by thousands of years

According to this map Basal Eurasians are a Nile valley and Eastern Mediterranean population (this is what it says above the picture)

According to this map Basal Eurasians are ancestors of both Saharans and Levantines.

According to this map the farmers (EEF) who entered Europe came from a migration of Basal Eurasians North into the Levant and from ther migrated to to Eastern Europe and then Western Europe

xyyman, you need to follow the arrows. some migrate out of Africa others do not

Furthermore this map indicates that the people who are Basal to Basal Eurasian are Non-African (It's not my fault that's what this map you and Swenet keep hyping says)

---

quote:

---

1
a : relating to, situated at, or forming the base
b : arising from the base of a stem <basal leaves>

2
a : of or relating to the foundation, base, or essence : fundamental
b : of, relating to, or being essential for maintaining the fundamental vital activities of an organism : minimal <a basal diet>

---

quote:

---

The geographic and quantitative analyses of haplogroup and microsatellite diversity is strongly suggestive of a northeastern African origin of E-M78, with a corridor for bidirectional migrations between northeastern and eastern Africa [at least 2 episodes between 23.9–17.3 ky and 18.0–5.9 ky ago], trans-Mediterranean migrations directly from northern Africa to Europe [mainly in the last 13.0 ky], and flow from northeastern Africa to western Asia between 20.0 and 6.8 ky ago.

---

quote:

---

Within E-M35, there are striking parallels between two haplogroups, E-V68 and E-V257. Both contain a lineage which has been frequently observed in Africa (E-M78 and E-M81, respectively) [6], [8], [10], [13]–[16] and a group of undifferentiated chromosomes that are mostly found in southern Europe (Table S2). An expansion of E-M35 carriers, possibly from the Middle East as proposed by other Authors [14], and split into two branches separated by the geographic barrier of the Mediterranean Sea, would explain this geographic pattern. However, the absence of E-V68* and E-V257* in the Middle East (Table S2) makes a maritime spread between northern Africa and southern Europe a more plausible hypothesis. A detailed analysis of the Y chromosomal microsatellite variation associated with E-V68 and E-V257 could help in gaining a better understanding of the likely timing and place of origin of these two haplogroups.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
Originally posted by xyyman:
DNATribes New Update...April 2014!!

Quote: "Step 5 (Remove North African percentages):


This suggests that European genetic relationships with North Africa are either ****local to the Maghreb ***or.....).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
thank you for what I see articles quotes on hap E which on average for Euroepans is under 5%

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
thank you for what I see articles quotes on hap E which on average for Euroepans is under 5%

---

There is more than just E, indeed.


--The Lancet, Volume 379, Issue 9819, Pages 915-922

quote:

---

The DE haplogroup appeared approximately 50,000 years bp in North East Africa and subsequently split into haplogroup E that spread to Europe and Africa and haplogroup D that rapidly spread along the coastline of India and Asia to North Asia. The IJ haplogroup characterizes part of the second wave of emigration from Africa that occurred via the Middle East 45,000 years bp and defines two branches I and J that emigrated northwards and eastwards into Europe

---

http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_YDNATreeTrunk.html

quote:

---

The estimates of their dates overlap (around fifth thousand years ago) and they both probably lived in northeast Africa. Africa? Yes, Africa. Although nearly all EUrasian mtDNA and Y chromosomes currently existing can be traced back to L3 and M168 respectively, M168 and L3 also had African descendants."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
thank you for what I see articles quotes on hap E which on average for Euroepans is under 5%

---

Population replacement, or not?


Here, we describe a system for the molecular dissection of haplogroup E-M78 (E1b1b1a), consisting of multiplex polymerase chain reaction and minisequencing of M78 and nine population-informative Y-SNPs (M148, M224, V12, V13, V19, V22, V27, V32, V65) in a single reaction.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/907v531h2757w162/?MUD=MP




Phylogeny of Y-chromosome haplogroups and their frequencies (%) in the examined populations. Nomenclature and haplogroup labelling according to the Y Chromosome Consortium (http://ycc.biosci.arizona.edu/) updated according to Karafet et al. 32 *Paragroups: Y chromosomes not defined by any phylogenetic downstream-reported and -examined mutation. aIntrapopulation haplogroup diversity. The terminal markers of haplogroups E-V12 and E-V13 (V32 and V27, respectively) were typed but did not show any variation.




Frequency (left) and variance (right) distributions of the main Y-chromosome haplogroups, I-M423, E-V13 and J-M241, observed in this survey. Frequency data are reported in Figure 2, variance data are relative to the examined microsatellite reported in the Supplementary Table S2. We acknowledge that interpolated spatial frequency surfaces should be viewed with caution because of sample size.41 Data from this study. Frequency and variance values were assigned to sample-collection places (dots). Population samples (geographically close) with less than five observations were pooled and the corresponding variance assigned to a middle position of the pooled sample locations. +Data from the literature.13, 23, 27, 28, 36, 45, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v17/n6/fig_tab/ejhg2008249ft.html
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
Troll, you have a quote from me in wto separate posts, a claim that modern Europeans on average are under 5 % Hap E.

So why after that quote do you have cahrst and article quotes which do not speak of Hap E percenatges ?

Why bother quoting me on a percentage and then put up info not pertaining to percentage?
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:


There is no other word for the inhabitants and
emmigrating peoples from the Caucasus Mountains
other than the word Caucasian because that is
precisely what they are, CAUCASIANS.

Caucasians passed down through the Daryal Gorge
to enter Mesopotamia and the Levant to influx
resident populations and to form new ethnies
of their own.

[list]
[*]The eastern Mediterranean is a nexus of three
continents. It and the Arabian Peninsula were
peopled by other migrant invaders who didn't
originally speak in Afrisian. Semitic speakers
were among the first but weren't the only
inhabitants of the region. Chadic and/or
Nilo-Saharan speakers likely preceded them.
Indo-Europeans, Caucasics, Altaics, etc., came
after them probably via Daryal Gorge through the
Caucasus.

---

Swenet are Caucasians 1/3 African ?
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
Ancient human genomes suggest three ancestral populations for present-day Europeans

Iosif Lazaridis,et al 2013

We sequenced genomes from a ~7,000 year old early farmer from Stuttgart in G e rmany, an ~8,000 year old hunter-gatherer from Luxembourg, and seven ~8,000 year old hunter- gatherers from southern Sweden. We analyzed these data together with other ancient
genomes and 2,345 contemporary humans to show that the great majority of present-day Europeans derive from at least three highly differentiated populations: West European Hunter-Gatherers (W H G), who contributed ancestry to all Europeans but not to Near
E aste rne rs; A ncient North E urasians (A N E), who we re most closely r elated to Upper
Paleolithic Sibe rians and contributed to both Europeans and Near Easterners; and Early European Farme rs (E E F), who were mainly of Near Eastern origin but also harbored
W H G-related ancestry. We model these populations’ deep relationships and show that E E F had ~44% ancestry from a “Basal Eurasian” lineage that split prior to the
diversification of all othe r non-A frican lineages.


“Basal Eurasian” lineage that split prior to the separation of eastern non-Africans from the common ancestor of WHG and ANE. If this model is accurate, the ANE/WHG split must have occurred >24,000 years ago since this is the age6 of MA1 and this individual is on the ANE lineage. The WHG must then have split from eastern non-Africans >40,000 years ago, as this is the age of the Chinese Tianyuan sample which clusters with eastern non-Africans to the exclusion of Europeans28. The Basal Eurasian split would then have to be even older. A Basal Eurasian lineage in the Near East is plausible given the presence of anatomically modern humans in the Levant [29]


Stuttgart belongs to mtDNA haplogroup T2, typical of Neolithic Europeans9, while Loschbour and all Motala individuals belong to haplogroups U5 and U2, typical of pre-agricultural Europeans1,7 (SI4). Based on the ratio of reads aligning to chromosomes X and Y, Stuttgart is female, while Loschbour and five of seven Motala individuals are male10 (SI5). Loschbour and the four Motala males whose haplogroups we could determine all belong to Y-chromosome haplogroup I, suggesting that this was a predominant haplogroup in pre-agricultural northern Europeans analogous to mtDNA haplogroup U11


Three questions seem particularly important to address in follow-up work. Where did the EEF obtain their WHG ancestry? Southeastern Europe is a candidate as it lies along the path from Anatolia into central Europe39. When and where the ancestors of present-day Europeans first acquire their ANE ancestry? Based on discontinuity in mtDNA haplogroup frequencies, this may have occurred ~5,500-4,000 years ago40 in Central Europe. When and where did Basal Eurasians mix into the ancestors of the EEF? An important aim for future work should be to collect DNA from additional ancient samples to illuminate these transformations.



 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
However the EEF farmers were replaced

_________________________________

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130423134037.htm

"The record of this maternally inherited genetic group, called Haplogroup H, shows that the first farmers in Central Europe resulted from a wholesale cultural and genetic input via migration, beginning in Turkey and the Near East where farming originated and arriving in Germany around 7,500 years ago," says joint lead author Dr Paul Brotherton, formerly at ACAD and now at the University of Huddersfield, UK.
ACAD Director Professor Alan Cooper says: "What is intriguing is that the genetic markers of this first pan-European culture, which was clearly very successful, were then suddenly replaced around 4,500 years ago, and we don't know why. Something major happened, and the hunt is now on to find out what that was."

"We have established that the genetic foundations for modern Europe were only established in the Mid-Neolithic, after this major genetic transition around 4,000 years ago," says Dr Haak. "This genetic diversity was then modified further by a series of incoming and expanding cultures from Iberia and Eastern Europe through the Late Neolithic."
"The expansion of the Bell Beaker culture (named after their pots) appears to have been a key event, emerging in Iberia around 2800 BC and arriving in Germany several centuries later," says Dr Brotherton. "This is a very interesting group as they have been linked to the expansion of Celtic languages along the Atlantic coast and into central Europe."

The team has been working closely on the genetic prehistory of Europeans for the past 7-8 years.

____________________________________


http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v4/n4/full/ncomms2656.html

Neolithic mitochondrial haplogroup H genomes and the genetic origins of Europeans

Paul Brotherton,
 

---

Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
Troll, you have a quote from me in wto separate posts, a claim that modern Europeans on average are under 5 % Hap E.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ I apologize if I've come across as patronizing or chiding if that's how you feel, since that was never my intention. I noticed things are getting pretty heated up in this forum with AmunRa attacking us and now you and Swenet getting into it. Trust, me the last thing I want is any conflict between us. I'm just saying that the early data by Sforza utilized traditional blood groupings immunological assays i.e. HLA and STRs. SNP data was taken into account later on.

---

Look man I ownd that book for like 10 years.
The 2nd half of it is chockfull of the markers
you're talking about but fig 2.4.7 is in the
DNA section and the man clearly wrote the
model was based on DNA polymorphisms.

If you haven't actually held the book in your
hands and used it extensively yourself why do
you keep going on?

Do yourself a favor and read pp91-93 I provided.
Please reply to this post by quoting the last
sentence of paragraph c on p.92, thank you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
Troll, you have a quote from me in wto separate posts, a claim that modern Europeans on average are under 5 % Hap E.

So why after that quote do you have cahrst and article quotes which do not speak of Hap E percenatges ?

Why bother quoting me on a percentage and then put up info not pertaining to percentage?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
E M78 is the most common variety of haplogroup E among Europeans and Near Easterners.

____________________________

Tracing Past Human Male Movements in Northern/Eastern Africa and Western Eurasia: New Clues from Y-Chromosomal Haplogroups E-M78 and J-M12
Fulvio Cruciani*, Roberta La Fratta*, Beniamino Trombetta*


"Considering both these E-M78 sub-haplogroups (present study) and the E-M81 haplogroup (Cruciani et al. 2004), the contribution of northern African lineages to the entire male gene pool of Iberia (barring Pasiegos), continental Italy and Sicily can be estimated as 5.6%, 3.6%, and 6.6%, respectively."

These haplogroups are common in northern Africa, where they likely originated, and are observed almost exclusively in Mediterranean Europe, as opposed to central and eastern Europe (table 1, fig. 2). Also, among the Mediterranean populations, they are more common in Iberia and south-central Europe than in the Balkans, the natural entry-point for chromosomes coming from the Levant. Such findings are hardly compatible with a south-eastern entry of E-V12, E-V22 and E-V65 haplogroups into Europe."

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/24/6/1300.full

see the Tables:

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/24/6/1300/T1.expansion.html

---

quote:

---

"The Masalit possesses by far the highest frequency of the E-M78 and of the E-V32 haplogroup, suggesting either a recent bottleneck in the population or a proximity to the origin of the haplogroup. Both E-V13, which is believed to originate in western Asia with its low frequency in North Africa, and E-V65 of North African origin (Cruciani et al., 2007), were not found among Sudanese."

---

quote:

---

Mesolithic of southern Anatolia.60 This archaeological congruence between the Mesolithic of the Balkans and southern Anatolia may mirror the similar E-V13 expansion times observed for Konya, Franchthi Cave and Macedonian Greece, all approximately 9000 years ago. Moreover, E-V13 YSTR-related data from Bulgaria and Macedonia,28 both with a variances of 0.28, suggest an expansion time of approximately 10 000 years ago. It is likely that the origin of V13 occurred somewhere within the zone of these sample collections.

---

quote:

---

"Firstly, haplogroup E-M2 (former E1b1a) and haplogroup E-M329 (former E1b1c) are now united by the mutations V38 and V100, reducing the number of E1b1 basal branches to two. The new topology of the tree has important implications concerning the origin of haplogroup E1b1. Secondly, within E1b1b1 (E-M35), two haplogroups (E-V68 and E-V257) show similar phylogenetic and geographic structure, pointing to a genetic bridge between southern European and northern African Y chromosomes. Thirdly, most of the E1b1b1* (E-M35*) paragroup chromosomes are now marked by defining mutations, thus increasing the discriminative power of the haplogroup for use in human evolution and forensics."

[...]

Within E-M35, there are striking parallels between two haplogroups, E-V68 and E-V257. Both contain a lineage which has been frequently observed in Africa (E-M78 and E-M81, respectively) [6], [8], [10], [13]–[16] and a group of undifferentiated chromosomes that are mostly found in southern Europe (Table S2). An expansion of E-M35 carriers, possibly from the Middle East as proposed by other Authors [14], and split into two branches separated by the geographic barrier of the Mediterranean Sea, would explain this geographic pattern. However, the absence of E-V68* and E-V257* in the Middle East (Table S2) makes a maritime spread between northern Africa and southern Europe a more plausible hypothesis. A detailed analysis of the Y chromosomal microsatellite variation associated with E-V68 and E-V257 could help in gaining a better understanding of the likely timing and place of origin of these two haplogroups.

---

--Beniamino Trombetta, Fulvio Cruciani et al. (2011)

A New Topology of the Human Y Chromosome Haplogroup E1b1 (E-P2) Revealed through the Use of Newly Characterized Binary Polymorphisms
See tables:
http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchSingleRepresentation.action?uri=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0016073.s001

http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchSingleRepresentation.action?uri=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0016073.s002

quote:

---

Principal Component Analysis for a) several African populations and b) Guinea-Bissau ethnic clusters, based on haplogroup frequencies. a) The 1st PC captures 42.6% of the variance and 16.9% are under the responsibility of the 2nd PC. For details on populational datasets see Additional file 2. The codes in italic refer to the following populations: Morocco Arabs: Ar [1,34], Mar [33]; Morocco Berbers: Bb [33], MBb [34]; Algeria: Alg [80], Aar-Algerian Arabs [35]; Tunisia-Tun1 [35], Tun2 [7]; West Sahara: Sah-Saharawis [33]; Egypt: Egy1 [35], Egy2 [7]; Sudan: Sud [2]; Ethiopia: Eth [2], Or-Oromo, Amh-Amhara [5,7]; Kenya: K&K-Kikiu & Kamba, Maa-Maasai [7]; Uganda: Gan-Ganda [7]; North Cameroon: Po-Podokwo, Mad-Mandara [7], Ou-Ouldeme, Daba [1,7,26], NCAdaw-Fali, Tali [1,26], Fca-Fulbe [1,26]; South Cameroon: SCBantu-Bassa, Ngoumba [7], Bak-Bakaka, [1,7], Bam-Bamileke [1,26], Ewo-Ewondo [1,26], Bko-Bakola Pygmies [7]; CAR: Bik-Biaka Pygmies [2,7]; DRC: DRCBantu-Nande, Herna [7]; Mb-Mbuti Pygmies [2,7]; Guinea-Bissau: EJA-Felupe-Djola, BJG-Bijagós, BLE- Balanta, PBO-Papel, FUL-Fulbe, MNK-Mandenka, NAJ-Nalú (Present study); Burkina Faso: Mo-Mossi [1,26], Ri-Rimaibe [1,26], FBF-Fulbe [1,26]; Gambia/Senegal: Wo-Wolof [7], Mak-Mandinka [7]; Mali: Mal [2], Do-Dogon [7]; Ghana: Ewe, Ga, Fan-Fante [7]; Senegal: Se [5]; Namibia: Her-Herero, Amb-Ambo [7], Ku-!Kung, Sekele [1,7,26], CKh-Tsumkwe San, Dama, Nama [7]; South Africa: ST-Sotho-Tswana, Zu-Zulu, Xh-Xhosa, Sh-Shona [7], Kho-Khoisan [2]. b) The PCA captures 87.0% of the variance with 74.0% and 13.0% attributed to the 1st and 2nd PC, respectively. The 1st PC reflects an axial proportion of E3a* vs. E1* where Papel and Felupe-Djola retain the higher proportions of the later. E3a* is again a main influence in the 2ndaxis against that of R1b and E3b1, placing Mandenka apart from Bijagós and Fulbe.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
Troll, you have a quote from me in wto separate posts, a claim that modern Europeans on average are under 5 % Hap E.

So why after that quote do you have cahrst and article quotes which do not speak of Hap E percenatges ?

Why bother quoting me on a percentage and then put up info not pertaining to percentage?

---

L'ass, I've put in that info to reinforce what ARTU stated to you before about E-V13. And that particular info was also posted by me prior to that, posted 23 May, 2014 13:30.


Then I also asked you...population replacement or not? You've never answered that question.



 

---