quote:

---

Originally posted by Truthcentric:
If you must have a non-Sforza source, here it goes again:
The World At K=2

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
None of the above full genome skylines support C-S's statement about Europe:

---

Since you're oh so sure that those ks refute Sforza,
let's hear why, first. Can you explain to me what
ks are and how they work?
 

---

Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
 
From what I could pick up from all the genetic papers and these debates, k = genetic cluster. The greater the value for k, the greater the division of clusters. Is this correct?
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
Exactly! K simply means that you're giving the
program a certain amount of categories to categorize
the sequenced SNPs. The more ks one introduces, the
more devisions of ancestry you get. In Tukulers
pseudo-scientific DIY book this means that these
clusters automatically are continentally circumscribed
(i.e. that the blue clusters here, here and here are
automatically devoid of the 1/3d African ancestry
Sforza mentions, simply because they're blue).

We already know that Tukuler's forced and totally
unsubstantiated juxtaposition of Ethiohelix's Ks
against the ones he posted, is patently false and
rests solely on him simply not knowing what ks
are. You can see this in the fact that, when you
break down the blue component, you just may find
that Levantine blue, at least, is mostly made up
of contributions from African populations and
minor contributions from Europeans:


 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
Old boy system at work.

Old boy one: I do say!
Old boy two: Hip hip!

Of course whatever
Swenet, TC and the
Old Boy network say
is always right!

And nobody knows
anything nor what
they're talking
about except the
super intelligent
Mr. Swenet.


Only Swenet can
know that K is
the number of
populations
in a given run
of STRUCTURE or
ADMIXTURE that
the submitted
data are made
to fit.


But Swenet proves
himself a liar and
distorter who can
nowhere in my 10
years of ES posts
quote me saying
anything remotely
resembling West
Eurasians are
devoid of African
ancestry.

His Old Boy TC
fabricated that
lie and Swenet
now swears to it.


Why is it all these guys feel they have to trash
me in order to be acceptable to the ES readership?

Now you finally have been taught what Ks are but
since you didn't know and wanted to find out what
they are you could have simply asked.

In either Global or Compared-to-Africa implementations
K=2 reflects Africa vs Out-of-Africa fittings of the
listed geo-ethnies.


Now since Swenet never intends this thread to be
objective or informative just a trashing of me,
nothing I say even if directly quoted from manuals
or articles will ever be correct in his eyes.

This thread will just be more of Swenet's mental
masturbation making him feel good to himself but
totally unproductive.
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
But Swenet proves himself a liar and distorter who
can nowhere in my 10 years of ES posts quote me
saying anything remotely resembling West Eurasians
are devoid of African ancestry.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Truthcentric:
From what I could pick up from all the genetic papers and these debates, k = genetic cluster. The greater the value for k, the greater the division of clusters. Is this correct?

---

• 
  The World At K=2
  
  The most basic Autosomal genetic division of the world is between Africans and Out of Africans (OOA), this is not only seen on global PCA or MDS maps , where the first PC separates Africans from non Africans, but can also be observed with model based statistical (Bayesian) Analysis as well, where the first model iteration, i.e. K=2 distinguishes Africans from non-Africans.
  

quote:

---

you've given more than enough clues
that show your glaring inability to synthesize
this data and/or test Sforza's observation for
merit

---

Kangaroo court.
Condemned before trial.
Mockery of inquiry.

Go on and keep stroking each other.

You do not cut&paste quote me.
You lied and mangled what I wrote.
You don't listen to my clarification
and precision to your distortions of
what I wrote. I don't call that respect.

Your objective is not science.
Your objective is to be right
regardless and against all odds.

I can't recall you ever admitting
to error or retracting anything
others outside your Old Boy network
reprove you.

I'm Audi, bye.
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
I asked you to not abuse this thread with your
baseless and off-topic accusations. You evidently
don't even know what ks are, or you would not have
disagreed with Truthcentric, and then proceeded to
say essentially the same thing. You're simply using
supposed misrepresentations on my part as a copout
to squirm out of answering my questions.

If you don't want to answer my questions, don't
let the doorknob... You've given more than enough
clues that you have a glaring inability to synthesize
this data and/or test Sforza's observation for
merit. Do you, though!

As for the others in the forum, when you instruct
the program to define ks in a manner that mimicks
OOA and non-OOA (rather than simply ask it to place
all sequenced SNPs in undefined ks), you'll
something that matches Sforza to a T and is
seemingly distinct from stereotypical autosomal
genetic studies:




Source: Pagani et al 2012
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 

quote:

---

something that matches Sforza to a T

---

What a fraud.

You think people are so stupid they can't see
that graph includes no Far East Asians who can
proxy Cavalli-Sforza's ancestral Chinese?

Moral bankruptcy

As I said you must be right at all costs.
Distort Tukuler. Distort Cavalli-Sforza.
Do anything to make yourself right.

Good show Old Boy!



OK I shrunk your big ass image but retain it
before you switcg to something else since I
showed it can't possibly support C-S's old
dwn level obsolete statement that Europeans
are 2/3 ancestral Chine and 1/3 African.
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
Can you please remove that big image? Thank you.
 

---

Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
You can see this in the fact that, when you
break down the blue component, you just may find
that Levantine blue, at least, is mostly made up
of contributions from African populations and
minor contributions from Europeans:

---

quote:

---

Raw coancestry matrix shows relationships between the Levantines and the world populations. A) Intensity of the colors reflects the number of haplotype chunks donated to the Levantines. The vertical line is a visual aid to reflect the Levantine split observed in the tree. Horizontal lines distinguish the major geographic regions. B) coancestry matrix with an alternative color scale.

---

quote:

---

ChromoPainter's coancestry matrix (Figure 3B, Figure S4) shows the haplotype chunks donated from the world populations to the Levantines and shows that Jordanians, Palestinians, and Syrians receive more chunks from sub-Saharan Africans and from Middle Easterners compared with other Levantines.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Truthcentric:
^ Understood. Nonetheless Haber et al say this:

quote:

---

ChromoPainter's coancestry matrix (Figure 3B, Figure S4) shows the haplotype chunks donated from the world populations to the Levantines and shows that Jordanians, Palestinians, and Syrians receive more chunks from sub-Saharan Africans and from Middle Easterners compared with other Levantines.

---

Isn't this indeed saying that Arabized Levantines received more haplotype chunks than the rest?

(Personally I question the appropriateness of the sub-Saharan samples used. Ethiopians do appear to have greater influence on all the Levantines, but the rest of the SSA are populations geographically distant from the Levant. They should have sampled more East Africans like Nilotes IMO.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:

quote:

---

something that matches Sforza to a T

---

What a fraud.

You think people are so stupid they can't see
that graph includes no Far East Asians who can
proxy Cavalli-Sforza's ancestral Chinese?

Moral bankruptcy

As I said you must be right at all costs.
Distort Tukuler. Distort Cavalli-Sforza.
Do anything to make yourself right.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Truthcentric:
^ Understood. Nonetheless Haber et al say this:

quote:

---

ChromoPainter's coancestry matrix (Figure 3B, Figure S4) shows the haplotype chunks donated from the world populations to the Levantines and shows that Jordanians, Palestinians, and Syrians receive more chunks from sub-Saharan Africans and from Middle Easterners compared with other Levantines.

---

Isn't this indeed saying that Arabized Levantines received more haplotype chunks than the rest?

(Personally I question the appropriateness of the sub-Saharan samples used. Ethiopians do appear to have greater influence on all the Levantines, but the rest of the SSA are populations geographically distant from the Levant. They should have sampled more East Africans like Nilotes IMO.)

---

quote:

---

BETHESDA, MD – November 30, 2012 -- Using genetic analyses, scientists have discovered that Northern European populations—including British, Scandinavians, French, and some Eastern Europeans—descend from a mixture of two very different ancestral populations, and one of these populations is related to Native Americans. This discovery helps fill gaps in scientific understanding of both Native American and Northern
European ancestry, while providing an explanation for some genetic similarities among what would otherwise seem to be very divergent groups.

---

quote:

---

According to Nick Patterson, a researcher at The Broad Institute and first author of the report, “There is a genetic link between the paleolithic population of Europe and modern Native Americans. The evidence is that the population that crossed the Bering Strait from Siberia into the Americas more than 15,000 years ago was likely related to the ancient population of Europe.”

---

Interesting.

Also correlates with Dana's theory about Europeans coming from Central Asia. I know certain people were not fond of that theory.
 

---

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

This image depicts things in a simple way (and it
still was misinterpreted when I posted it in the
other thread). CEU would be a rough approximation
for West Eurasians, and it splits away relatively
recently from other OOA populations:

http://i57.tinypic.com/72eyas.png

Sforza's "2/3 East Asian" should be interpreted as
2/3s of whatever Europeans were genetically at the
moment when the depicted split between HAN and CEU
occurred. Then, presumably during the Neolithic,
autosomal correlates of European E-M33, E-M78,
E-V68, E-M34 and other Y chromosomes delivered
this additional 1/3 African component to Levantines,
who then would have brought it to Europe.

European prehistoric hunter-gatherers have some
back flow from a Siberian-like component (not
depicted in the image above, but see Lazaridis et
al 2013). That could explain at least some of the
Native-American and European affinity observed
in the article you link to.
 

---

Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
But Swenet proves
himself a liar and
distorter who can
nowhere in my 10
years of ES posts
quote me saying
anything remotely
resembling West
Eurasians are
devoid of African
ancestry.

His Old Boy TC
fabricated that
lie and Swenet
now swears to it.

---

quote:

---

In Step 2D, all Middle Eastern components
are removed; the Mesopotamian related component
of European genetic structure is then instead
expressed as Indus Valley (68.3%), Horn of Africa
(29.3%), and Siberian (2.5%). Of these, the Indus
Valley component might reflect more than one
ancestral Eurasian population (such as EEF, ANE,
and/or ENA ancestry; see Figures 1 and 2).
However, the Horn of African component might more
specifically reflect EEF ancestry and the deeper
Basal Eurasian component of the First Farmers in
Europe.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
[QB] @SonofRa

This image depicts things in a simple way (and it
still was misinterpreted when I posted it in the
other thread). CEU would be a rough approximation
for West Eurasians, and it splits away relatively
recently from other OOA populations:

http://i57.tinypic.com/72eyas.png

Sforza's "2/3 East Asian" should be interpreted as
2/3s of whatever Europeans were genetically at the
moment when the depicted split between HAN and CEU
occurred. Then, presumably during the Neolithic,
autosomal correlates of European E-M33, E-M78,
E-V68, E-M34 and other Y chromosomes delivered
this additional 1/3 African component to Levantines,
who then would have brought it to Europe.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Truthcentric:
If you must have a non-Sforza source, here it goes again:
The World At K=2

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
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"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Truthcentric:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
But Swenet proves
himself a liar and
distorter who can
nowhere in my 10
years of ES posts
quote me saying
anything remotely
resembling West
Eurasians are
devoid of African
ancestry.

His Old Boy TC
fabricated that
lie and Swenet
now swears to it.

---

Apologies for my misunderstanding in that other thread, but I cannot for the life of me fathom why you're so intent on confusing our ancestral OOA with East Asians. The distinction was explained to you time and time again, and yet you still cling to the same accusation that anyone with half a brain can see is a distortion. It's like you see something threatening about the argument we're putting forth. What would that be?

---

• 
  ... Bayesian or maximum likelihood (ML) methods share a common principle in which population structure is inferred as differential membership of individuals in specified number (K) of hypothetical ancestral populations (genetic clusters) characterized by ML estimates for allele frequencies at each loci. When a world-wide sample of individuals is analyzed, the assumed number of clusters can correspond to a reference number of distinct divisions, such as continents. Thus individuals can be members of one cluster (e.g. continent) or their genotypes may reflect joint membership in many clusters (e.g. admixture from two or more continents). Because such subdivisions are established geographically or historically, genetic clusters and cluster membership are often discussed in terms of ancestral populations and ancestry admixture proportions.
  
  supplementary note 3

• Inference of true K (number of populations)

• To use ADMIXTURE, you need an input file and an idea of K, your belief of the number of ancestral populations.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

when you
remove all West Eurasian components and give the
program a choice between Horner and Asian (i.e.
relatively pristine OOA), ~1/3 of Europeans'
ancestry clusters with the Horner comparative
sample:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Son of Ra:

@Swenet/Truthcentric/Tukuler

Does the study I posted in anyway connect dots to this discussion? And when I mean discussion I mean the one about Europeans having Asian/African ancestry. IMO I think it does.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
Since dissenters have repeatedly been unable to
come with on-topic or even logically coherent
replies, I consider it settled.

1) ks don't tell you how much African ancestry
someone has, anyone who says otherwise is a big
fat liar or doesn't understand what ks are. Ks
will only make distinctions at very obvious levels.
West Eurasian ancestry (i.e. the component that
typically shows up as the blue "Mediterranean"
component) is heavily entangled with African
ancestry and unlikely to be acknowledged as such
in most k-based analyses. For this reason, ks are
NOT continentally circumscribed, but simply
unlabelled categories which the program was able
to distinguish.

2) in order to find out how much African ancestry
West Eurasian have, one has to treat them as unknowns,
and remove all the white noise (i.e. remove other
West Eurasian comparative samples who have the
same 1/3 African Sforza talked about). Haber et
al 2013 did this to some extent, and their
analysis showed that most haplotypes in southern
Levantines come from Ethiopians, or better yet,
an Ethiopian-like population. DNA Tribes performed
this analysis as well and found that when you
remove all West Eurasian components and give the
program a choice between Horner and Asian (i.e.
relatively pristine OOA), ~1/3 of Europeans'
ancestry clusters with the Horner comparative
sample:

quote:

---

In Step 2D, all Middle Eastern components
are removed; the Mesopotamian related component
of European genetic structure is then instead
expressed as Indus Valley (68.3%), Horn of Africa
(29.3%), and Siberian (2.5%). Of these, the Indus
Valley component might reflect more than one
ancestral Eurasian population (such as EEF, ANE,
and/or ENA ancestry; see Figures 1 and 2).
However, the Horn of African component might more
specifically reflect EEF ancestry and the deeper
Basal Eurasian component of the First Farmers in
Europe.

---

The DNA Tribes report

Like I said several times over, if you wish to
retain the logical coherence of OOA, you can't
simultaneously dismiss Sforza's observation and
explain why, at this step, 29.3% of the Horn of
Africa component clusters with Europeans, over
non-western Eurasian populations, who are OOA.

No ifs, buts and maybes about it. Either refute
the above in a logically coherent way or stop
whining, nagging, b!tching, lamenting, accusing,
trolling, fabricating, and get with the program.

---

 

---

Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
 
^^You're only fooling yourself Sweety!
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
So the brain dead flat-earther says. Fortunately,
science will always have the last word over a high
off glue fumes, canary yellow toothed bum on the
corner screaming "over here", "believe me", "he's
wrong", "I'm right", "the earth is flat", "it's
the end of days", "so says my prophet"!

The canary yellow toothed bum above me aside, the
below depicts K-based analysis in grey and an
Africa-OOA gradient in orange, reproducing Sforza's
usually undetected African admixture in Europeans
(compare the orange African gradient in the Greek
sample with their supposedly negligent amount of
African dark grey k1). Also look at image C to
the right. Like the Greeks, the French also have
seemingly no African ancestry in k-based analysis;
showing that the blue component is an artificial,
compound construct, which is not at all homogeneous.
Hence, anyone who says that the lack of overlap
between Africans and Europeans in most k-based
analyses, refutes Sforza or Ethio-Helix' world at
K=2 is either a big fat liar, or doesn't have the
faintest clue what they're talking about and what
ks are.

All three images co-exist in the exact same paper,
proving they're not mutually exclusive, as some
faith-based proponents make them out to be. Note
that the orange OOA in the African populations
does not distinguish between in "OOA ancestry
that never left Africa" and "OOA that came back
from Eurasia". Hence, explaining the larger than
expected "OOA component" in all of the African
samples.



All from:

Pagani et al 2012
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Scratching my head. He had me up to that last extensive rant.

It sounds like jibberish and lack of cohesion. Is he falling back to his days of selling used cars. I will re-read again. Don't want to judge.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
^^You're only fooling yourself Sweety!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
^^^The point being that by analysing uniparental and other genetic data, it is clear that borderlines states in Eastern Africa received some F-Descendants (Out of Afica) Y-DNA genetic contributions.

Many languages like Ge'ez, Amharic, Tigrinya and Tigre spoken there are of Semitic origin and many of them practice the muslim religion originating in Arabia.

All showing us the direction* of genetic contributions accompanied by cultural transmission. Modern populations in West Asia don't have as much African ancestry, much less than West Asian ancestry in Eastern Africa.

*Uniparental DNA gives us a better idea of the direction of gene flows.

---

Sorry I misunderstood you.

But I disagree about there being a conquest.
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
More on Sforza's 1/3 African in Europe, but not or
rare in Asia. According to some faith-based
proponents, these markers don't exist, simply
because ks don't depict them, because it's
"proprietary", or because we only see these patterns
because, quote: "Horners themselves are admixed".

quote:

---

Named for the pharaoh who attempted to convert Egypt to monotheism, this autosomal ancestry marker like most of the Amarna family group’s DNA is clearly African in origin. Akhenaten received it from his mother, Queen Tiye. Today, it is the gene type carried by a majority (52%) of the Copts living in the Pre-dynastic site of Adaima near Thebes or Luxor and the Valley of the Kings on the Nile River in Upper (southern) Egypt. The ancient marker makes a good showing in the Middle East and in Jews as well as parts of southern Europe close to Africa, such as southern Italy and Spain, but it is reduced to low levels in Asia and the Americas (except where brought there by Africans or people carrying some African ancestry). About 2 in 5 Africans or African Americans has it. Among Melungeons, the figure is 1 in 3.

---

http://dnaconsultants.com/akhenaten-gene

quote:

---

Tutankhamun (also spelled Tutenkhamen) is the most famous of all pharaohs. He was the son and successor of Akhenaten, grandson of Amenhotep III and Queen Tiye and great-grandson of the royal matriarch Queen Thuya. Archeologist Howard Carter’s opening of his intact tomb in the Valley of the Kings in 1922 ranks among the most splendid discoveries of history. In 2010, genetic fingerprinting of his mummy determined that he died at the early age of 19 as the result of violence or an accident to which the incestuous relationship of his parents and several genetic defects contributed. Tutankhamun actually carries a “double dose” of the allele named for him. Like most of the other genes in the family, it is Central African in ancient origin, but unlike the other markers it has a sparse distribution outside Africa with a worldwide average frequency of 4%. Still, Africans and African-influenced populations (1 in about 10) are about twice or three times as likely to have it as non-Africans.

---

http://dnaconsultants.com/king-tut-gene

quote:

---

One of the autosomal ancestry markers prominent in the Royal Egyptian families of the New Kingdom, this not-so-rare gene is Central African in origin and was passed to Thuya from her forebears, Queens of Upper and Lower Egypt and High Priestesses of Hathor, the Mother Goddess. Thuya passed it to her grandson Akhenaten and great-grandson Tutankhamun, among others, as documented in a forensic study of the Amarna mummies by Zahi Hawass, head of the Supreme Council of Antiquities in Cairo, in 2010. Today, its highest incidence is in Somalians at nearly 50%. It is found in 40% of Muslim Egyptians. On average, 1 in 3 Africans or African Americans carries it. It crops up in high concentrations in many places around the world such as the Basque region (41%) and in Melungeons (31%, similar to Middle Easterners), but is present at only low levels in East and South Asia, as well as Native America. Its lowest frequency is in the Chukchi of Siberia (3%).

---

http://dnaconsultants.com/thuya-gene

quote:

---

Although not detected in the royal mummies whose DNA has been examined so far, this autosomal ancestry marker is also clearly African in origin. Today it enjoys its greatest spread in Egyptians. About 1 in 10 Africans or African Americans have it, but a sharp spike occurs in Copts, today’s successor population in the Land of the Nile, where up to 27% possess it. About 7% of European Americans have it. Tellingly perhaps, East Coast Indians and Melungeons have it at elevated levels. It is hardly noticeable in Asia, suggesting that it did not form a significant part of the Great Migration of Humanity out of Africa about 100,000 years ago but spread to Eurasian populations primarily from Egypt and the Middle East in historical times.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by a random nobody:
So if you remove, West Asians, some Horner populations will show clusters with the closest populations to West Asians which are Europeans

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by a random nobody:
The Ethiopians genotype is more than 50% African (...blablablabla...)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

Since dissenters have repeatedly been unable to
come with on-topic or even logically coherent
replies, I consider it settled.

1) ks don't tell you how much African ancestry
someone has, anyone who says otherwise is a big
fat liar or doesn't understand what ks are. Ks
will only make distinctions at very obvious levels.
West Eurasian ancestry (i.e. the component that
typically shows up as the blue "Mediterranean"
component) is heavily entangled with African
ancestry and unlikely to be acknowledged as such
in most k-based analyses. For this reason, ks are
NOT continentally circumscribed, but simply
unlabelled categories which the program was able
to distinguish.

2) in order to find out how much African ancestry
West Eurasian have, one has to treat them as unknowns,
and remove all the white noise (i.e. remove other
West Eurasian comparative samples who have the
same 1/3 African Sforza talked about). Haber et
al 2013 did this to some extent, and their
analysis showed that most haplotypes in southern
Levantines come from Ethiopians, or better yet,
an Ethiopian-like population. DNA Tribes performed
this analysis as well and found that when you
remove all West Eurasian components and give the
program a choice between Horner and Asian (i.e.
relatively pristine OOA), ~1/3 of Europeans'
ancestry clusters with the Horner comparative
sample:

quote:

---

In Step 2D, all Middle Eastern components
are removed; the Mesopotamian related component
of European genetic structure is then instead
expressed as Indus Valley (68.3%), Horn of Africa
(29.3%), and Siberian (2.5%). Of these, the Indus
Valley component might reflect more than one
ancestral Eurasian population (such as EEF, ANE,
and/or ENA ancestry; see Figures 1 and 2).
However, the Horn of African component might more
specifically reflect EEF ancestry and the deeper
Basal Eurasian component of the First Farmers in
Europe.

---

The DNA Tribes report

Like I said several times over, if you wish to
retain the logical coherence of OOA, you can't
simultaneously dismiss Sforza's observation and
explain why, at this step, 29.3% of the Horn of
Africa component clusters with Europeans, over
non-western Eurasian populations, who are OOA.

No ifs, buts and maybes about it. Either refute
the above in a logically coherent way or stop
whining, nagging, b!tching, lamenting, accusing,
trolling, fabricating, and get with the program.

---

Indeed, this clarifies the Tishkoff findings especially in regards to certain African populations.



http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Osw-8-R9VmU/T7Cr1yt9XHI/AAAAAAAAAQc/yFto3mdCRcc/s1600/Africa.JPG
 

---

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:

Can't say or don't know what dots you mean but
yes any valid peer reviewed article or report
in a standard molecular genetics journal or
magazine is always helpful for something.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
Didn't read it yet but I do remember maternal Hg
X (iirc) is east or north central Asian in origin and
connects Asia proper with Europe and the Americas. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
I notice that I'm getting carried away in posting
here on ES, more and more often. Due to the backward
state of this forum, I find myself getting dragged
into plain as day arguments for which there either
already is a consensus, or it's starting to become
a consensus, as we speak. I also find myself posting
evidence, which people just seem to ignore or
reject at will and somehow still think they have
a point. Then you have the new imposter trolls who
are at the genetic learning level of thinking that
Y chromosome information resides in the autosomes,
but then want to go toe to toe with seasoned ES
vets on the same topic and try to dictate the
conversation, by telling them what they can and
can't talk about.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

LOL. You don't know anything about Afrocentrism.

I write about the Black civilizations of the Americas and Eurasia. These historical themes are fully in the tradition of modern Afrocentrism which was founded by W.E.B. DuBpois.



W.E.B. DuBois firmly placed the presence of Blacks in ancient America and Greece as legitimate research areas. In The Gift of Black Folks (1924), he discussed the Black presence in ancient America, including European references to Pre-Columbian Blacks, and the influence of Africans on the Amerindian religions.

In The World and Africa, DuBois (1965) provides a full explanation of the role of Blacks in the early world. He explains the history of Blacks in China and India (pp.176-200); Blacks in Europe(the Pre-Indo-European Greeks and during the Dark Age of Greece), and Asia Minor (pp. 115-127), and the Egyptian foundation of Grecian thought (pp. 125-126).

Given this foundation established by DuBois my publications on the Blacks of India, China, Japan, the Americas and etc., are the normal social science themes of Afrocentric researchers. My research, and that of Ironlion, Marc and Mike is mainstream Afrocentrism.

.

---

The blacks of India and China are aboriginal Eurasians NOT Africans and that is the problem! To identify them as Africans or as the same so-called 'race' is just as erroneous and fallacious as the global "Caucasoid" race once espoused by Western scholarship but long abandoned by its error. For Afrocentric scholars like yourself to espouse such nonsense again is the reason why your are left in the dirt while the Euronuts step on you.

---

Nobody is steping on us. I rebuke you and your racist intent to denigrate our scholars when they have PhDs--when you don't have the credentials they hold--and present no counter evidence falsifying the work of DuBois.

This Asian, is just jealous that his people don't have an ancient history and his Daddy--the founder of Asian civilization was Negroes.

.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
LOL. Outsiders have always tried to deny the ancient history of Negro and African people.

The modern foundation of Afrocentrism was begun by W.E.B. DuBois. His book the Negro, was the guiding light of researchers like J.A. Rogers.


DuBois also inflenced Anta Diop. His book Africa and the world documented the ancient African Diaspera.




I believe that there are at least three races: African, Mongoloid and European. These races can be differentiated by distinctive characteristics that include facial features, especially the noses and nasal cavities; head shape/form, hair type and etc. These features that distinguish each race can be recognized by simply eyeballing members of the different races. As a result members of each race can get tanned, or have dark skin and still be disguished as belonging to different races.





When I refer to Negroes I am talking about Black people who originated in Africa, who later migrated out of Africa and retained their Negro features. I recognize that Negro features include varying phenotypes that include facial features from the 'true negro'type to negroes having thin lips and noses.

In the past they claimed Negro/African people did not have a history. Afro-American former slaves learned to read and discovered the truth.

They learned two things: 1) the classical literature and 2) Bible claimed that Black/African people founded the first civilizations. They began to inform other AAs that we had a history.

The Euronuts changed the script to counter this literacy.Formerly, the Classical literature was accepted as having historical value--when AAs used it to illustrate our ancient history--the Euronuts claimed the Classical literature was a collection of myths. To imply that when AAs recognized our participation and founding the first civilizations.

By the middle to late 1800's Blacks began to attend University, usually Harvard. At Harvard they learned that physical antropologist were able to study skeletal remains, especially skulls and pelvises and differentiate these skeletal remains into four races. Studying the literature, AAs discovered that the physical anthropologists identified skeletons from ancient civilizations. The findings indicated that they were Negroes.

This finding confirmed the Classical literature's identification of the founders civilization as Negroes of varying sizes, but phenotypically negro.

AAs collected this data and researchers wrote papers and books illustrating that Blacks had an ancient history based/supported by contemporary anthropological and archaeological sources. Euronuts claim that Afrocentric researchers use old data to support their work, this is false, if you check these works you will find they current with times they were written.

Euronuts became fed up with AAs proving that they had an ancient history. So in the 1980's, after it was established man originated in Africa, some anthropologists began to claim races do not exist. And that anyone who claimed people can be divided into races--are racist.

This was a fallacy.Although most physical anthropologist, parroted this line, forensic anthropologist continued to admit that races existed because police needed them to expertly identify the skeletal remains of people who had been murdered.

During this period anthropologists moved away from identifying the skeletal remains along racial lines. But they continued to imply that the ancient river valley civilizations were found by 'whites'. These anthropologist used a relativist view to explain who founded this or that civilization. This relativist view implied that the people living in a particular region today have always been resident in that region eventhough the skeletal record proved otherwise. By promoting this view, anthropologists were able to claim that the history of Black people began and ended in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Geneticist accepted the relativist view. They spread the idea that genome from contemporary groups represented the genome of ancient populations. They claimed that African male and female lineages were E and L respectively, while European ,lineages varied J,H, R, N, M and etc. Using this analogy they began to claim that any African carrying M or R, must carry this gene as a result of a back migration.

There are two problems with this theory. First there is no evidence of a back migration. And 2) the DNA recovered from ancient skeletons is not related to the people presently living in this areas. Moreover, in Eurasian many of the excavated skeletons are of negroes--not Europoid or Mongoloid.

This evidence confirmed the research of DuBois that Blacks founded the major ancient civilization. These findings made it clear J.A. Rogers and W.E.B. DuBois were right.

As a result of this, Afrocentric researchers don't care what non-Afrocentric nuts say about our history. We say to people who deny this history to prove us wrong.

Just as Europeans lie, fake Asian researchers,also lie because they don't have an ancient history .

.
 

---

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Europeans and Asians are always trying to tell African people what their history is and how to write African ancient history.

These Asians and Europeans attempt to tell us what our history is. For example, a regular fake Asian researcher who post here at ES is always trying to tell us what OUR history is, and put down African scholars like Diop and DuBois.

This fake wrote:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

LOL. You don't know anything about Afrocentrism.

I write about the Black civilizations of the Americas and Eurasia. These historical themes are fully in the tradition of modern Afrocentrism which was founded by W.E.B. DuBpois.



W.E.B. DuBois firmly placed the presence of Blacks in ancient America and Greece as legitimate research areas. In The Gift of Black Folks (1924), he discussed the Black presence in ancient America, including European references to Pre-Columbian Blacks, and the influence of Africans on the Amerindian religions.

In The World and Africa, DuBois (1965) provides a full explanation of the role of Blacks in the early world. He explains the history of Blacks in China and India (pp.176-200); Blacks in Europe(the Pre-Indo-European Greeks and during the Dark Age of Greece), and Asia Minor (pp. 115-127), and the Egyptian foundation of Grecian thought (pp. 125-126).

Given this foundation established by DuBois my publications on the Blacks of India, China, Japan, the Americas and etc., are the normal social science themes of Afrocentric researchers. My research, and that of Ironlion, Marc and Mike is mainstream Afrocentrism.

.

---

The blacks of India and China are aboriginal Eurasians NOT Africans and that is the problem! To identify them as Africans or as the same so-called 'race' is just as erroneous and fallacious as the global "Caucasoid" race once espoused by Western scholarship but long abandoned by its error. For Afrocentric scholars like yourself to espouse such nonsense again is the reason why your are left in the dirt while the Euronuts step on you.

---

Nobody is steping on us. I rebuke you and your racist intent to denigrate our scholars when they have PhDs--when you don't have the credentials they hold--and present no counter evidence falsifying the work of DuBois.

This Asian, is just jealous that his people don't have an ancient history and his Daddy--the founder of Asian civilization was Negroes.

.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:


I believe that there are at least three races: African, Mongoloid and European. [QUOTE]

---

• K is
  the number of
  populations
  in a given run
  of STRUCTURE or
  ADMIXTURE that
  the submitted
  data are made
  to fit.

• In either Global or Compared-to-Africa implementations
  K=2 reflects Africa vs Out-of-Africa fittings of the
  listed geo-ethnies.

• The World At K=2
  The most basic Autosomal genetic division of the world is between Africans and Out of Africans (OOA), this is not only seen on global PCA or MDS maps , where the first PC separates Africans from non Africans, but can also be observed with model based statistical (Bayesian) Analysis as well, where the first model iteration, i.e. K=2 distinguishes Africans from non-Africans.

• ... Bayesian or maximum likelihood (ML) methods share a common principle in which population structure is inferred as differential membership of individuals in specified number (K) of hypothetical ancestral populations (genetic clusters) characterized by ML estimates for allele frequencies at each loci. When a world-wide sample of individuals is analyzed, the assumed number of clusters can correspond to a reference number of distinct divisions, such as continents. Thus individuals can be members of one cluster (e.g. continent) or their genotypes may reflect joint membership in many clusters (e.g. admixture from two or more continents). Because such subdivisions are established geographically or historically, genetic clusters and cluster membership are often discussed in terms of ancestral populations and ancestry admixture proportions.

• Inference of true K (number of populations)

• To use ADMIXTURE, you need an input file and an idea of K, your belief of the number of ancestral populations.

quote:

---

I don't care about your faith-based interpretation
of what ks are

---

quote:

---

Now since Swenet never intends this thread to be
objective or informative just a trashing of me,
nothing I say even if directly quoted from manuals
or articles will ever be correct in his eyes.

---

quote:

---

some
Johnny come lates, who've just decided to look into
Sforza a couple of seconds ago,

---

quote:

---

As usual, you got it all jacked up. 'Ks' aren't populations.

---

quote:

---

LMAO at ''SNP alleles values'', when the 'S' in SNP means SINGLE. Does ''single'' strike you as compatible with values?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
only for that somebody to reply

quote:

---

I don't care about your faith-based interpretation
of what ks are

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
whereas it's known that a single nucleotide polymorphism
has at least two alleles which of necessity have values that
can be compared between individuals. Swenet did not know
SNP and biallelic marker are synonymous.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
]^This, of course, refers to your unsubstantiated
claim that k-based analysis refutes Sforza, even
though I posted, plenty of times, that Haber et
al's predominance of African haplotypes in Arabic
speaking Levantines, doesn't appear in k-based
analysis. You just kept on repeating, falsely,
that k-based analysis refutes Sforza. If that's
how you're going to openly wish away Sforza's
African haplotypes in western Eurasia, then yes,
I'm going to question if you know what ks are and
yes, I'm going to not care about your interpretation
of what ks are.

Review your own thread unbiasedly, see how I left
when you started abusing k-based analysis and then
look at this thread's OP and see how both events
are causually connected. You opened this thread,
and distorted the context in which it was created
("you're trying to trash me"). My saying that you
don't know how to interpret ks is directly related
to how you wish all evidence of Sforza's 1/3
African haplotypes away, by using k-based analysis.

As I've said a thousand times, k-based analysis is
NOT mutually exclusive with Sforza. Haber 2013
proves that, and you have YET to reply to that. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
Discussing topics with Swenet, if you have the
gall to disagree, will lead to an ugly scene
where, in Jeckyl and Hyde fashion, he divorces
himself from rational thought and social propriety
unless you are one of the people he likes. Only
then will he behave cordially without becoming
uppity and make due consideration for any
disagreement.

---

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:
Get focused Mr. Emotion and distracter.

The Levant is not Far East Asia.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
[QB] Tukuler's bizarre, gibberish reply to the uncomfortable
fact that west Eurasians have Sforza-like African
haplotypes that don't register in his "skylines":

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
[QB] Tukuler's bizarre, gibberish reply to the uncomfortable
fact that west Eurasians have Sforza-like African
haplotypes that don't register in his "skylines":

---

"Eurasians" is much broader than "Europeans", Arabia a part of the former

---

It doesn't matter you dumbass:



As I've been saying all along with Haber et al
2013, the Sforza phenomenon is not exclusive to
Europe, but to western Eurasia. Both you and
Tukuler argue retrogressively, like bunch of
demented alzheimer patients. Someone posts
evidence 10.000 times, and somehow you end up
arguing backwards as if that evidence was never
posted. Get out my face. I'm not interested in
talking to peanut brains such as yourself.
 

---

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
[QB] Tukuler's bizarre, gibberish reply to the uncomfortable
fact that west Eurasians have Sforza-like African
haplotypes that don't register in his "skylines":

---

"Eurasians" is much broader than "Europeans", Arabia a part of the former

---

It doesn't matter you dumbass:



As I've been saying all along, the Sforza phenomenon
is not exclusive to Europe. Both you and Tukuler
argue retrogressively, like bunch of alzheimer
patients. Someone posts evidence, and some how
you end up arguing backwards as if that evidence
was never posted. Get out my face. I'm not
interested in talking to peanut brains such as
yourself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted the lioness,:
where do you get that percentage?

---

Your question assumes that your and Tukuler's
figments about European population genetics, are
consistent with the data. The real question is,
where don't you get that percentage? Can
you post Fst analysis where Europeans aren't ~1/3
in the direction of the Ethiopian-like population
of which I speak, relative to the OOA stem from
which they departed? Of course you can't. Neither
can Tukuler. Hence, his clueless attempt to resort
to k-based analysis, like the fool who throws
gasoline on fire thinking that that's the way to
safety.




Omran et al 2009

quote:

---

In Step 2D, all Middle Eastern components
are removed; the Mesopotamian related component
of European genetic structure is then instead
expressed as Indus Valley (68.3%), Horn of Africa
(29.3%), and Siberian (2.5%). Of these, the Indus
Valley component might reflect more than one
ancestral Eurasian population (such as EEF, ANE,
and/or ENA ancestry; see Figures 1 and 2).
However, the Horn of African component might more
specifically reflect EEF ancestry and the deeper
Basal Eurasian component of the First Farmers in
Europe.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted the lioness,:
where do you get that percentage?

---

The DNA Tribes report

I never said Eurasian, I said western Eurasian,
ever since thread page 1 on Tukuler's Sforza
thread. No scrap that. Every since Tukuler's
Berbers are 50% African thread--both of which you
frequented. Like a demented alzheimer patient, it
just never gets in. Explains your lethargic, sloth-
like development ever since you registered here.

---

seems real simple, according to DNATribes Europeans are 10.7% African, North to be exact

22% less than your 33% claim (1/3)

Contemporary anthropology accounts no early OOA migrations in either direction across Gibralter
Therefore this 10.7% may be due to the Muslim conquest and occupation of Iberia
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
Man, get the **** out of my face, you demented troll.
I don't care about what you think.

quote:

---

In Step 2D, all Middle Eastern components
are removed; the Mesopotamian related component
of European genetic structure is then instead
expressed as Indus Valley (68.3%), Horn of Africa
(29.3%), and Siberian (2.5%). Of these, the Indus
Valley component might reflect more than one
ancestral Eurasian population (such as EEF, ANE,
and/or ENA ancestry; see Figures 1 and 2).
However, the Horn of African component might more
specifically reflect EEF ancestry and the deeper
Basal Eurasian component of the First Farmers in
Europe.

---

The DNA Tribes report




Omran et al 2009


 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
It's not my opinion. It's the opinion of DNATribes plainly indicated on the map from the link YOU posted

Europeans 10.7 % African (North)

That is not my figure it's theirs fool
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
It's not my opinion. It's the opinion of DNATribes plainly indicated on the map from the link YOU posted

Europeans 10.7 % African (North)

That is not my figure it's theirs fool

---

quote:

---

the Horn of African component might more
specifically reflect EEF ancestry and the deeper
Basal Eurasian component of the First Farmers in
Europe.

---

quote:

---

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.

---

quote:

---

In Step 2D, all Middle Eastern components
are removed; the Mesopotamian related component
of European genetic structure is then instead
expressed as Indus Valley (68.3%), Horn of Africa
(29.3%), and Siberian (2.5%). Of these, the Indus
Valley component might reflect more than one
ancestral Eurasian population (such as EEF, ANE,
and/or ENA ancestry; see Figures 1 and 2).
However, the Horn of African component might more
specifically reflect EEF ancestry and the deeper
Basal Eurasian component of the First Farmers in
Europe.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

In Step 2D, all Middle Eastern components
are removed; the Mesopotamian related component
of European genetic structure is then instead
expressed as Indus Valley (68.3%), Horn of Africa
(29.3%), and Siberian (2.5%). Of these, the Indus
Valley component might reflect more than one
ancestral Eurasian population (such as EEF, ANE,
and/or ENA ancestry; see Figures 1 and 2).
However, the Horn of African component might more
specifically reflect EEF ancestry and the deeper
Basal Eurasian component of the First Farmers in
Europe.

---

The DNA Tribes report

---

So you think this is saying Europeans are 29% horner,

wrong

you messed up here look:




^^^^ Europeans are 25.6% Mesopotamian according to this

The 29% of the quote is saying of that 25.6% Mesopotamian that Europeans are>
that Mesopotamian element is 29.3% horner
You are not understanding the math

It's 29.3% of 25.6%

that's about 7%

Both you and in an earlier thread xyyman, have made erroneous math assumptions based on this complicated removal proceedures that DNATribes came up with in that report.
I don't blame you it's tricky the way they lay it out

lioness productions
in full effect
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 

quote:

---

2D (Remove Arabian): Horn of Africa (29.3%), Indus Valley (68.3%), Siberian (2.5%);
Total 100.0%.

---

The DNA Tribes report

Translation: when you remove the western Eurasian
populations who have these exact same Sforza haplo-
types, 2/3s of the European genome clusters with
OOA populations, and 1/3 of their ancestry is
unaccounted for, unless you invoke Africans.


 

---

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

2D (Remove Arabian): Horn of Africa (29.3%), Indus Valley (68.3%), Siberian (2.5%);
Total 100.0%.

---

The DNA Tribes report

Translation: when you remove the western Eurasian
populations who have these exact same Sforza haplo-
types, Europeans are 2/3 OOA, and 1/3 of their
ancestry is unaccounted for.

---

quote:

---

1 (Begin Iteration): North African (10.1%), Levantine (19.8%), Mesopotamian (68.4%);
Total 98.3%.
► 2A (Remove Mesopotamian): North African (10.0%), Levantine (75.8%), Indus Valley (11.1%); Total 96.9%.
► 2B (Remove Levantine): Arabian (18.2%), North African (51.0%), Indus Valley (22.5%), Siberian (6.8%); Total 98.5%.
► 2C (Remove North African): Arabian (60.9%), Indus Valley (32.3%), Siberian (3.8%);
Total 38.3%.
► 2D (Remove Arabian): Horn of Africa (29.3%), Indus Valley (68.3%), Siberian (2.5%);
Total 100.0%.
► 2E (Remove Indus Valley): Horn of Africa (46.6%), South India (28.7%), Siberian (23.3%); Total 98.5%.

---

Since your lying to the public prevents me from
leaving, I will keep stomping your dumbass claims
in the ground, until you secede and leave with
your tail between your hind paws.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
Why have you bolded 2D
instead of 2E ?

(2E:
46.6% Horn)

Listen, I was going by the SNP
you are going by the STR
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
Because I'm not a dumbass ideologue such as yourself
who only cares about grabbing as much as he/she
can get, without being critical. I'm only interested
in this in as far as it documents African migrations
and in as far as it's an extension of African history.
It's not a "contest" where you try to get the
highest percentage and have some sort of kumbaya
moment. I don't know what you take me for.

It suffices to say, that Europeans have more or
less 1/3 African component, no matter how much you
and Tukuler dread, lament and fight it with tooth
and nail. Are you done trolling? Good. Now get the
hell off my thread, so your thrashing can remain
on the forefront as a reminder for the other Johnny
come lates on ES who have looked into Sforza a day
ago and think they can just dismiss it as false,
because it doesn't appeal to their pre-conceived
pseudo-scientific agendas.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
OK I see my error
their whole removal process is based on the STR not SNP

wait....


On the SNP map they indicate
25.6% Mesoptamian
and
47.1% Caucus

However on the STR
they do not have Caucus
only Mespotamian 68.4

Ok now dealing with STR Mesopotamian
68.4

"the Mesopotamian related component
of European genetic structure is then instead
expressed as Indus Valley (68.3%), Horn of Africa
(29.3%), and Siberian (2.5%)."

this means of the 68.4% Mesoptoamian 29.3% of it is Horn

North African (10.1%), Levantine (19.8%), Mesopotamian (68.4%);

and therefore since Euroepans are 29.3% Mesoptamian and Mespotamians are 29.3% Horn
Therefore Europeans are 29.3% Horn

If I'm understanding it it right now

OK Swenet wins, Tukular fails

only problem I see is an STR basis that doesn't seem to correspond to the SNP which had a separate Caucus component
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by lioness,:
OK Swenet wins, Tukular fails

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lioness,:
OK Swenet wins, Tukular fails

---

Why? Because you say so? When you give the word, it
because accepted fact?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
For both you and Tukuler to
dismiss and misinterpret everything I've been saying
without even once coming with legitimate
counter-evidence,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
shows you're both intellectually
lazy and have no competence when it comes to testing
hypotheses and coming to your own conclusions as
opposed to dismissing ideas out of hand because you
don't like them. This must be a new record. More
than 4 thread pages worth of exchanges, and only
understanding the main tenets (let alone the whole
idea) of what someone is saying on the fourth
page. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

This must be a new record. More
than 4 thread pages worth of exchanges,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lioness,:
As Tukular stated earlier you can't get 1/3 out of averaging the overall European population's African haplogroup percentages

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lioness,:
And are Mesopotamians 29% African or are
Africans basal to Mesopotamians but they still
100% Mesopotamians?

---

This is what I mean with being intellectually lazy.
The report has been cited numerous times, you've
went as far as making screenshots of what you
think it says, but you're still completely in the
dark. When you're told what it is, you neither go
and verify it in the report, nor refute what others
say about it. You just sit there like Tukuler and
vehemently deny it, like a child who is determined
to to get his candy, crosses his arms and antagonizes
people who say he's not going to get it.

Your refusal to take responsibility and verify
your claim that the DNA Tribes report says "30%
Mesopotamian" is the same as your refusal earlier
to verify your claims that there is no 30% at all
and that Sforza is wrong in principle. Like an
ape dangling from tree to tree, you're dangling
from fallacy to fallacy. Only difference is that
the ape actually gets where (s)he's going. You're
dangling in limbo and aren't going anywhere, as
your whole intention is to run away from the
uncomfortable truth, like the Ostrich in urban
legends.


 

---

Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
 
Talking of hiding his head in the sand. Here's one of the posts Swenet avoided answering and thus hiding his head in the sand like the picture above:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

when you
remove all West Eurasian components and give the
program a choice between Horner and Asian (i.e.
relatively pristine OOA), ~1/3 of Europeans'
ancestry clusters with the Horner comparative
sample:

---

It's not a big surprise, since modern Horner populations received, as any borderline states, "European" genes from their West Asians "intermediary" during different recent (and past) conquests and immigration in East Africa.

So if you remove, West Asians, Horner individuals will show clusters with the closest populations to West Asians which are Europeans*

*as Europeans and West Asians are closer to each other than they are to East Asian.


Is this a self picture Sweetnet?

 

---

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
Some trolls just don't know when to stop lying.
When it gets to step 2D, and Sforza's 1/3 African
component emerges, the Mesopotamian samples have
long been removed:

quote:

---

1 (Begin Iteration): North African (10.1%), Levantine (19.8%), Mesopotamian (68.4%);
Total 98.3%.
► 2A (Remove Mesopotamian): North African (10.0%), Levantine (75.8%), Indus Valley (11.1%); Total 96.9%.
► 2B (Remove Levantine): Arabian (18.2%), North African (51.0%), Indus Valley (22.5%), Siberian (6.8%); Total 98.5%.
► 2C (Remove North African): Arabian (60.9%), Indus Valley (32.3%), Siberian (3.8%);
Total 38.3%.
► 2D (Remove Arabian): Horn of Africa (29.3%), Indus Valley (68.3%), Siberian (2.5%);
Total 100.0%.
► 2E (Remove Indus Valley): Horn of Africa (46.6%), South India (28.7%), Siberian (23.3%); Total 98.5%.

---

Since your lying to the public prevents me from
leaving, I will keep stomping your dumbass claims
in the ground, until you secede and leave with
your tail between your hind paws.

---

quote:

---

1 (Begin Iteration): North African (10.1%), Levantine (19.8%), Mesopotamian (68.4%);
Total 98.3%.
► 2A (Remove Mesopotamian): North African (10.0%), Levantine (75.8%), Indus Valley (11.1%); Total 96.9%.
► 2B (Remove Levantine): Arabian (18.2%), North African (51.0%), Indus Valley (22.5%), Siberian (6.8%); Total 98.5%.
► 2C (Remove North African): Arabian (60.9%), Indus Valley (32.3%), Siberian (3.8%);
Total 38.3%.
► 2D (Remove Arabian): Horn of Africa (29.3%), Indus Valley (68.3%), Siberian (2.5%);
Total 100.0%.
► 2E (Remove Indus Valley): Horn of Africa (46.6%), South India (28.7%), Siberian (23.3%); Total 98.5%.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by a nobody:
It's not a big surprise, since modern Horner
populations received, as any borderline states,
"European" genes from their West Asians
"intermediary" during different recent (and past)
conquests and immigration in East Africa.

---

I already posted the alleles that are at work in
the 1/3 African observation, and they are, indeed,
African. That it matters whether or not they were
brought there by mixed populations is about as
factual as you saying that Y haplogroups can be
found in the autosomes!



 

---

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
I already posted the alleles that are at work in
the 1/3 African observation, and they are, indeed,
African. Whether they were brought there by mixed
populations is about as relevant as you saying
that Y haplogroups can be found in the autosomes!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
Swenet you didn't follow through to the
final stage and remove Indus valley.

Europeans are 46% African, in other words mulattoes

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
Swenet you didn't follow through to the
final stage and remove Indus valley.

Europeans are 46% African, in other words mulattoes

---

Lol. Europeans not clustering with eastern OOA is
as extremely as they do in the DNA tribes report
is a problem for your or my claims?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
(...) even invoking proprietary (thus non-scientific)
filler that cannot muster peer review and no
geneticists ever reference, cite, nor quote.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by a nobody:
It's not a big surprise, since modern Horner
populations received, as any borderline states,
"European" genes from their West Asians
"intermediary" during different recent (and past)
conquests and immigration in East Africa.

---

Dumbass troll, exactly how "mixed" would the
following, quote: "broad nosed, subnasal
prognathism" having Natufians, who are implicated
in the 1/3 African figure, be? Care to give it a
percentage? I'm very interested in your opinion,
given that you've already blessed us with your
discovery that Y haplogroup information resides
in the autosomes.




 

---

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
Talking of hiding his head in the sand. Here's one of the posts Swenet avoided answering and thus hiding his head in the sand like the picture above:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
[qb]
when you
remove all West Eurasian components and give the
program a choice between Horner and Asian (i.e.
relatively pristine OOA), ~1/3 of Europeans'
ancestry clusters with the Horner comparative
sample:

---

It's not a big surprise, since modern Horner populations received, as any borderline states, "European" genes from their West Asians "intermediary" during different recent (and past) conquests and immigration in East Africa.

So if you remove, West Asians, Horner individuals will show clusters with the closest populations to West Asians which are Europeans*

*as Europeans and West Asians are closer to each other than they are to East Asian.


Is this a self picture Sweetnet?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
I didn't answer what? This worthless excuse for a
post?

quote:

---

It's not a big surprise, since modern Horner
populations received, as any borderline states, "European" genes from their West Asians "intermediary" during different recent (and past) conquests and immigration in East Africa.

---

I already posted the alleles that are at work in
the 1/3 African observation, and they are, indeed,
African.

---

We already talked about how admixture ks graph can't give you the direction of gene flows. So you can't know if they are African. For that, you must use other genetic data. You know it and only try to fool people on this forum.

We already established that East Africans, as any borderline states, received a lot of F-Descendants (Out of Africa) haplogroups (like J). With the uniparental DNA you can see the direction of genes flow.



Here we can see Ethiopians got about 22.2% of F-Descendant (Out of Africa) haplogroups.

We can see know the direction of genes flows because we know the F-descendants haplogroups originated outside Africa and thus have been spread from outside Africa toward East Africa (Ethiopia in this case).

We also know many Ethiopians speak many languages like Ge'ez, Amharic, Tigrinya and Tigre languages of Semitic origin.

All showing us the direction of genetic contributions accompanied by cultural transmission. As a whole modern populations in West Asia and Europe don't have as much African ancestry, as Eurasian ancestry in Eastern African population.

So clearly most of the 1/3 of DNA shared between East Africans and Europeans was brought by Eurasian people toward Ethiopia, mostly through West Asian intermediary. There's E descendant haplogroups in Europe too, thus originating in Africa, but it's certainly not at the height of 1/3 of the European genome.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

---

This graph doesn't do any good to your point of view. For one, it shows an allele shared between West Africans, East Africans, African-Americans. So it's not only East Africans, E-215 carriers or something like that but West Africans and African-Americans too. This allele is even present in North Europeans, Native Americans, Siberians, and Native Australians.

Since every human populations has this particular allele, including Native Americans, to a substantial level apparently, it's clear this particular allele was present in human populations **before** their OOA migration and then drifted to different frequencies. It shows us nothing beside that all humans comes from Africa, which everybody knows. You should feel shame of presenting it as a proof of your foolish ideas.


Note: for mtDNA it's even higher at about 48.6% of non-L Out of Africa haplogroups among Ethiopians:



Again clearly we can see the direction of the genes flow. Ethiopians have about 48.6% of MtDNA from non-African populations. As already noted many Ethiopians speak languages of Semitic origin, so it's not a big surprise.

So it's not Europeans that are a third Eastern Africans, it's Eastern Africans which are a third Eurasian. The larger part of the shared ancestry between East Africans and Europeans when the West Asians intermediary genetic contributions are removed is mostly due to this. There's some African and East Africans genetic contributions to Europe, but it's not as high as 1/3. Europeans in general are not 1/3 Africans. Only foolish Sweety believes that (or try to make us believe).
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
Notice how Tukuler just keeps on ignoring everything
I've said in his thread. He says the following, even
though I've already addressed what he referred to
days ago:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
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%.

---

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 Amun-Ra The Ultimate:


So it's not Europeans that are a third Eastern Africans, it's Eastern Africans which are a third Eurasian.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by a nobody:
It's not a big surprise, since modern Horner
populations received, as any borderline states,
"European" genes from their West Asians
"intermediary" during different recent (and past)
conquests and immigration in East Africa.

---

Dumbass troll, exactly how "mixed" would the
following, quote: "broad nosed, subnasal
prognathism" having Natufians, who are implicated
in the 1/3 African figure, be? Care to give it a
percentage? I'm very interested in your opinion,
given that you've already blessed us with your
discovery that Y haplogroup information resides
in the autosomes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
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" 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 Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
This is what Tukuler tries to do. By manipulating
Sforza to mean West African, he tries to, AGAIN,
invalidate Sforza with material that CANNOT
invalidate Sforza. Just like with his "skylines",
the poor guy just keeps abusing scientific reports.
This is what he tries to do. He takes West or
Central African DNA in Europe, which we all know
is relatively minor:



But Sforza never said his 1/3 African come from a
West or Central African source population. Indeed,
when you take West or Central African polymorphisms,
some analyses will show that they're rare in
Europe and the rest of Asia. However, when you
take African DNA from Ancient Egypt, you'll see
that it's all over western Eurasia, mirroring
Sforza a 100%, since it's not or rare in East
Asia.


 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
Swenet you are posting charts from private for profit DNA tetsing companies trying to sell stuff
They are not peer reviewed

no scientific journal talks about an "Akhenaten gene"
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
It's not like I just gave you one thing to reply to.
Tukuler is more than welcome to reply to this, but
we all know that he's been running away from this
since it was posted on p1 of his thread:

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 the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:


So it's not Europeans that are a third Eastern Africans, it's Eastern Africans which are a third Eurasian.

---

What you are not understanding is that when they refer to Eastern Africans in this contetx they are referring to Eastern Africans before the OOA migrations at a time when they were 100% African

These are the people that DNATribes is calling "basal Eurasians"> people who existed before Eurasia was even populalted
aka Horners

---

I'm not talking about the basal eurasian thing. Before the OOA migration everybody was 100% African including future Europeans, East Asians, Polynesian and Native Americans. So basal eurasian is 100% African.

At that point and later on, West Africans and East Africans were the same people sharing the E haplogroup (not shared with the OOA migrants) as well as eventually YAP, M96 and the E-P2/PN2 haplogroup. So West Africans and East Africans shared at that time the same language for example. All while Out of African populations also developed their own haplogroups (mutations), F descendants haplogroup as well as the Indo-European languages and other cultural thing.



What is sure is that there was not a massive migration of African people **after** the OOA migration toward West Asia and Europe to the point of constituting 1/3 of modern European their DNA.
 

---

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:


But Sforza never said his 1/3 African come from a
West or Central African source population. Indeed,
when you take West or Central African polymorphisms,
some analyses will show that they're rare in
Europe and the rest of Asia. However, when you
take African DNA from Ancient Egypt, you'll see
that it's all over western Eurasia, mirroring
Sforza a 100%, since it's not or rare in East
Asia.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by a nobody:
It's not a big surprise, since modern Horner
populations received, as any borderline states,
"European" genes from their West Asians
"intermediary" during different recent (and past)
conquests and immigration in East Africa.

---

Dumbass troll, exactly how "mixed" would the
following, quote: "broad nosed, subnasal
prognathism" having Natufians, who are implicated
in the 1/3 African figure, be? Care to give it a
percentage? I'm very interested in your opinion,
given that you've already blessed us with your
discovery that Y haplogroup information resides
in the autosomes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
Swenet you are way out of line Sforza never said
anything about Egyptians He was talking about pre
OOA populations as was DNATribes and they are
talking about Horners being basal to Europeans
aka the seed of Eurasians before anybody even
left Africa

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
It's not like I just gave you one thing to reply to.
Tukuler is more than welcome to reply to this, but
we all know that he's been running away from this
since it was posted on p1 of his thread:

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 Amun-Ra The Ultimate:


What is sure is that there was not a massive migration of African people **after** the OOA migration toward West Asia and Europe to the point of constituting 1/3 of modern European their DNA. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
Amun Ra the Anticlimax, using Tukuler's strategy
of ignoring what I said so you can bolster your
argument with strawmen isn't going to work.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by a nobody:
It's not a big surprise, since modern Horner
populations received, as any borderline states,
"European" genes from their West Asians
"intermediary" during different recent (and past)
conquests and immigration in East Africa.

---

Dumbass troll, exactly how "mixed" would the
following, quote: "broad nosed, subnasal
prognathism" having Natufians, who are implicated
in the 1/3 African figure, be? Care to give it a
percentage? I'm very interested in your opinion,
given that you've already blessed us with your
discovery that Y haplogroup information resides
in the autosomes.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
He is arguing that if Europeans are 68%
Mesoptamian according to DNATribes STR (not SNP)
and Mesoptamians are by nature 29% pure Horners
(not later admixted horners, original pre OOA
Horners ) then therefore Euroepans are 29% Horner
African

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
^^ Swenet and xyyman use this chart form DNA
Tribes which is their interpretation of Lazaridis

---

I have no problem schooling, you, Amun Ra the
Anticlimax and Tukuler at the same time. If you're
soliciting another thrashing, I'll gladly accommodate
you. I've never said anything to that effect. I've
never even said anything about Sforza specifically
pertaining to Mesopotamians.
 

---

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



Swenet look at this, DNATribes

the root of West Eurasians is Basal Eurasians
The root of Basal Eurasians is a blue oval marked "Non African"


.
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun Ra the Anticlimax:
Sure Natufians may as well be part African, it doesn't
mean they constitute a third of the European DNA.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun Ra the Anticlimax:
It's not a big surprise, since modern Horner
populations received, as any borderline states,
"European" genes from their West Asians
"intermediary" during different recent (and past)
conquests and immigration in East Africa.

---

Dumbass troll, exactly how "mixed" would the
following, quote: "broad nosed, subnasal
prognathism" having Natufians, who are implicated
in the 1/3 African figure, be? Care to give it a
percentage? I'm very interested in your opinion,
given that you've already blessed us with your
discovery that Y haplogroup information resides
in the autosomes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:



^^ Swenet and xyyman use this chart form DNA Tribes which is their interpretation of Lazaridis

This is where the whole argument stems from

What DNA Tribes calls "basal Eurasian" is a 100% African population pre-OOA

Sforza may be referring to this African population when he talks about 1/3

---

I think it's pretty obvious that Basal Eurasian is 100% African before the OOA migration. At that time, for example, most modern East African and West African (E carriers) were one people and spoke the same language. Haplogroup E is not part of the OOA migration.


 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun Ra the Anticlimax:
I think it's pretty obvious that Basal Eurasian is 100% African before the OOA migration.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
[QB]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun Ra the Anticlimax:
Sure Natufians may as well be part African, it doesn't
mean they constitute a third of the European DNA.

---

Troll! I specifically posted the Natufian bit as
a rebuttal to your bankrupt reasoning that the
Ethiopian-like haplotypes in Arabic speaking
Levantines represents admixed Horners; I didn't post
it to say that it means that Europeans are 1/3
African. Do you have any evidence that the Ethiopian-
like component captured by Haber et al was as mixed
as you made it out to be, or was it just another
of your fabrications?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Amun Ra the Anticlimax:
It's not a big surprise, since modern Horner
populations received, as any borderline states,
"European" genes from their West Asians
"intermediary" during different recent (and past)
conquests and immigration in East Africa.

---

Dumbass troll, exactly how "mixed" would the
following, quote: "broad nosed, subnasal
prognathism" having Natufians, who are implicated
in the 1/3 African figure, be? Care to give it a
percentage?

---

quote:

---

I'm very interested in your opinion,
given that you've already blessed us with your
discovery that Y haplogroup information resides
in the autosomes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun Ra the Anticlimax:
I don't know what percentage of Natufians were
Africans, it may be 100% as far as I care.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun Ra the Anticlimax:
You still have cop out from that post:

---

How would I cop out from that post, when you've
just admitted that the Ethiopian-like source
population which you called "admixed", doesn't match
your description of modern day Ethiopians?
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
Since Tukuler has proven himself to be a coward who
repeatedly runs away from my posts, only to attack
positions which I nor Sforza necessarily hold
(e.g. Sforza 1/3 comes from Moorjani et al's SSA
Hapmap samples), I'll take volunteers. Who is
willing to make up for Tukulers blatant incompetence
and be an advocate for his shaky "Sforza is wrong"
case? Help a brother out guys, his already shaky
case is about to fall apart even more.


Lawson et al 2012-----------Haber et al 2013

Why is the largest contribution to the Middle East
from Africa. If, as Tukuler says, k-based analysis
has the last word and refute Sforza, why does
African component in the Middle East not show up
in k-based analysis?
 

---

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
[QB] Since Tukuler has proven himself to be a coward who
repeatedly runs away from my posts,

---

you ran away from his whole thread!
 

---

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

^^^ xyyman check this out, basal neanderthal (black)
 

---

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
[QB]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun Ra the Anticlimax:
I don't know what percentage of Natufians were
Africans, it may be 100% as far as I care.

---

Then you've just admitted that the relevancy of your
claim that the predominance of Egyptian and Ethiopian
haplotypes in Arabic speaking Levantines is due to
admixture, is non-existent and something you've made
up.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun Ra the Anticlimax:
They were later absorbed (or wiped out) by non-African migrants who now form the majority of the populations in those regions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun Ra the Anticlimax:
You're trying to fool us, distract us, but nothing show
that Europeans are a third African.

---

Nothing stops you from dropping your emotional
denialist pleas and to start refuting what I'm
saying. Since Tukuler failed misarably, you're
more than welcome to start explaining things.
What are these African haplotypes doing in the
Middle East, and why don't they match your claims
that the percent of African ancestry in the Levant
is small?


Lawson et al 2012-----------Haber et al 2013

Bear in mind that the "admixed Horn" fallacy isn't
going to work, since:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun Ra the Anticlimax:
I think it's pretty obvious that Basal Eurasian is 100% African before the OOA migration.

---

Talk about "fooling the forum". The person who taught
us that Y chromosomes can be inferred from autosomal

---

Well, Y chromosomes can be inferred from autosomal chromosomes even if it's not actually done and it was not the case with Ramses III. But I know it's technically possible, although not a good idea because of the possibility of false positive and false negative, to estimate the Y-DNA haplogroup of someone using autosomal genes. It would be only useful if you don't have access to any Y-DNA chromosome data.

Each humans are born with about 60-100 mutations. Those mutations are on the Y-DNA chromosome as well as the autosomal chromosomes. So during the same event(same new born person) the Y-DNA mutations defining an haplogroup appeared (like M96, PN2/P2), it was also accompanied by autosomal mutations. If you detect those autosomal mutations in an individual you can generate an estimation of his Y-DNA haplogroups (especially if you can find a couples of them, more the better).

Although it's technically possible to do it as an estimation (prediction), it shouldn't be done, unless you really don't have the choice at all, because of the possibility false positive and false negative. Even if it's not done, it is technically possible to do it. So nothing wrong in believing that before reading how it was done actually. Somebody could create a Y-dna haplogroup predictor using autosomal genes. Of course, it would only be a prediction, an estimation like 98% chance of being E1b1a. Just another type of haplogroup predictor than the Whit Athey's one used for Ramses III.

Hope you have learned something.
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun Ra the Anticlimax:
Each humans are born with about 60-100 mutations. Those mutations are on the Y-DNA chromosome as well as the autosomal chromosomes. So during the same event(same new born person) the Y-DNA mutations defining an haplogroup appeared (like M96, PN2/P2), it was also accompanied by autosomal mutations. If you detect those autosomal mutations in an individual you can generate an estimation of his Y-DNA haplogroups (especially if you can find a couples of them, more the better).

---

So, do you actually have evidence for this or did
you pull it out of your behind?
 

---

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun Ra the Anticlimax:
Each humans are born with about 60-100 mutations. Those mutations are on the Y-DNA chromosome as well as the autosomal chromosomes. So during the same event(same new born person) the Y-DNA mutations defining an haplogroup appeared (like M96, PN2/P2), it was also accompanied by autosomal mutations. If you detect those autosomal mutations in an individual you can generate an estimation of his Y-DNA haplogroups (especially if you can find a couples of them, more the better).

---

So, do you actually have evidence for this or did
you pull it out of your behind?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun Ra the Anticlimax:
They were later absorbed (or wiped out) by non-African migrants who now form the majority of the populations in those regions.

---

Sources? Or did you just make this up, like your
claim that Ramses' haplogoup was inferred from
his autosomal DNA?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun Ra the Anticlimax:
You're trying to fool us, distract us, but nothing show
that Europeans are a third African.

---

Nothing stops you from dropping your emotional
denialist pleas and to start refuting what I'm
saying. Since Tukuler failed misarably, you're
more than welcome to start explaining things.
What are these African haplotypes doing in the
Middle East, and why don't they match your claims
that the percent of African ancestry in the Levant
is small?


Lawson et al 2012-----------Haber et al 2013

Bear in mind that the "admixed Horn" fallacy isn't
going to work, since:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
[QB] no doubt as copout
to dodge more pressing matters:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun Ra the Anticlimax:
I'm still waiting for you to answer the main
arguments of this post and many other posts in
this thread

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun Ra the Anticlimax:
If you can't explain why both African Y-DNA and
MtDNA percentage is relatively low Europe, then
your theory is as good as nothing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun Ra the Anticlimax:
I will come back to your study after I read
them completely.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun Ra the Anticlimax:
We all know African borderline states (including
modern Egypt) received substantial Eurasian and
F-descendant haplogroups genetic contribution.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
[QB]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun Ra the Anticlimax:
I don't know what percentage of Natufians were
Africans, it may be 100% as far as I care.

---

Then you've just admitted that the relevancy of your
claim that the predominance of Egyptian and Ethiopian
haplotypes in Arabic speaking Levantines is due to
admixture, is non-existent and something you've made
up.

---

Why do you say that? Even if Natufians were 100% Africans. They were later absorbed (or wiped out) by non-African migrants who now form the majority of the populations in those regions. Nowadays current Levantine populations are mostly non-Africans (F-descendants hg, etc). The percentage of E carriers (mtDNA L carriers) in the Levant is small. The bottom line is always the same. You're trying to fool us, distract us, but nothing show that Europeans are a third African. No current scientists believe that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
[
^^^ xyyman check this out, basal neanderthal (black)

---

with this




and DNATribes analysis

From DNATribes(April 2014)- quote::
====
Ancient Eurasian and African Ancestry in Europe Background: New Genomes from Ancient Europe
Recently published ancient genomes from Europe, Siberia, and North America have provided new insights about the early migrations that have shaped the genetic structure of Europe. In particular, a new tree analysis of Eurasian population history models modern Europeans as a mixture of at least three ancient populations: Early European Farmers (EEF), Western European Hunter-Gatherers (WHG), Ancient North Eurasians (ANE), and Eastern Non-Africans (ENA).2
Some of these ancient populations (such as WHG hunter-gatherers) did not leave genomic traces outside of Europe; other ancient populations (such as the EEF “First Farmers”) left traces across a wider range of territories in both Europe and the Middle East (illustrated in Figure 1).
Within this agricultural zone range, EEF farmers came in contact with other ancient populations: In Europe and West Asia, EEF populations mixed with North Eurasians (including Siberian relatives of WHG hunter-gatherers). In the Arabian Peninsula, EEF farmers mixed with ancestral Sub-Saharan Africans RELATED to modern Nigerian, Gambian, and Botswanan populations. In Armenia and Georgia, EEF farmers mixed with South Asian (Indian Subcontinent) populations.
 

---

Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
 
I don't get it, beside you trying to fool people. You start with 1/3 of Europeans are East Africans now it's 46%? Why not go for 100% if we remove Siberia and South India? That way Europeans will be 100% East Africans. It shows how your line of thinking is moronic and you only try to fool people here. The guy goes from 1/3 to 46% in the same thread. What a dumbass.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun Ra the Anticlimax:
I'm still waiting for you to answer the main
arguments of this post and many other posts in
this thread

---

This is exactly what I mean when I say that you're
talking out of your ass a 100% of the time. YOU
have to answer why as much as 46% of the European
genome can cluster with Africans--not me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
Why have you bolded 2D
instead of 2E ?

(2E:
46.6% Horn)

---

Because I'm not a dumbass ideologue such as yourself
who only cares about grabbing as much as he/she
can get, without being critical.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun Ra the Anticlimax:
You start with 1/3 of Europeans are East Africans
now it's 46%? Why not go for 100% if we remove
Siberia and South India?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun Ra the Anticlimax:
I don't have to disprove something you haven't proven yet and his not the position of current scientists

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

when you
remove all West Eurasian components and give the
program a choice between Horner and Asian (i.e.
relatively pristine OOA), ~1/3 of Europeans'
ancestry clusters with the Horner comparative
sample:

---

It's not a big surprise, since modern Horner populations received, as any borderline states, "European" genes from their West Asians "intermediary" during different recent (and past) conquests and immigration in East Africa.

So if you remove, West Asians, Horner individuals will show clusters with the closest populations to West Asians which are Europeans*

*as Europeans and West Asians are closer to each other than they are to East Asian.


Is this a self picture Sweetnet?

 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
^Cop out as expected, given your lying charlatan
track record. You can run, but you can't hide:

quote:

---

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.

---

quote:

---

The
ratios of average Europe–Africa to East
Asia–Africa divergence times are 0.82 and
0.89 by TF and TLD, respectively, using LD
information over pairs of SNPs #0.1 cM
apart. However, a deviation from 1 in TLD
estimates over smaller distances (#0.05
cM) corresponding to a more ancient
timeframe (>25 KYA) is still apparent
(0.89).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
this is my selfie

---

 

---

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
^Cop out as expected, given your lying charlatan
track record. You can run, but you can't hide:

quote:

---

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.

---

--McEvoy 2011

---

quote:

---

The Basal Eurasian split would then have to be even older [Edit:than >40,000 years ago]. A Basal Eurasian lineage in the Near East is plausible given the presence of anatomically modern humans in the Levant29 ~100 thousand years ago and African-related tools likely made by modern humans in Arabia30,31. Al

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun Ra the Anticlimax
They talking about the early dispersals of modern H. sapiens from Africa. Not the Natufian period.

---

quote:

---

However, the coalescent time and geographic
distribution of the Y-chromosome E3b (E-M215)
haplogroup points to a late Pleistocene migration
from Eastern Africa to Western Eurasia via the Nile
Valley and Sinai Peninsula ;20–25 KYA (Cruciani et
al. 2004, 2007; Luis et al. 2004).

---

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.

---

--McEvoy 2011

Either way, you're still exposed as the fraud that
you are. You know nothing of the subject. You
haven't read an iota in the literature, but you
act like you're qualified to speak on the matter.
You just woke up one day and decided to pretend
that you can speak on stuff and make it up as you
go along and dismiss whatever scientific source
you feel like, all the while accusing others of
doing this. You're a troll, in the same boat as
the Lioness.


 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
So Basal Eurasian is about an Out of Africa
population structure, much before the
differentiation of African and non-African.
Much before the Natufian period of course, much
before E-P2/PN2 even existed, etc. At that time
period, everybody was African.

---

quote:

---

Alternatively, evidence for gene flow
between the Near East and Africa32, and
African morphology in pre-farming Natufians33
from Israel, may also be consistent with the
population representing a later movement of
humans out of Africa and into the Near East.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
this is my selfie

---

 

---

Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
Since you go on and on about it like a fool, I'll to address that and make you learn something at the same time (hopefully other people learn something too).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun Ra the Anticlimax:
I think it's pretty obvious that Basal Eurasian is 100% African before the OOA migration.

---

Talk about "fooling the forum". The person who taught
us that Y chromosomes can be inferred from autosomal

---

Well, Y chromosomes can be inferred from autosomal chromosomes even if it's not actually done and it was not the case with Ramses III. But I know it's technically possible, although not a good idea because of the possibility of false positive and false negative, to estimate the Y-DNA haplogroup of someone using autosomal genes. It would be only useful if you don't have access to any Y-DNA chromosome data.

Each humans are born with about 60-100 mutations. Those mutations are on the Y-DNA chromosome as well as the autosomal chromosomes. So during the same event(same new born person) the Y-DNA mutations defining an haplogroup appeared (like M96, PN2/P2), it was also accompanied by autosomal mutations. If you detect those autosomal mutations in an individual you can generate an estimation of his Y-DNA haplogroups (especially if you can find a couples of them, more the better).

Although it's technically possible to do it as an estimation (prediction), it shouldn't be done, unless you really don't have the choice at all, because of the possibility false positive and false negative. Even if it's not done, it is technically possible to do it. So nothing wrong in believing that before reading how it was done actually. Somebody could create a Y-dna haplogroup predictor using autosomal genes. Of course, it would only be a prediction, an estimation like 98% chance of being E1b1a. Just another type of haplogroup predictor than the Whit Athey's one used for Ramses III.

Hope you have learned something.

---

WHAT? Pulling Y-dna from autosomal genes?
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
^

Mr Sardinian/Bedoiuns/Facebook

I knew SW was too dumb to know what he was talking about. Partners in crime....?

======
Quote by AMRTU:

Well, Y chromosomes can be INFERRED from autosomal chromosomes even if it's not actually done and it was not the case with Ramses III.


===


Autosomal=STR INFER lineage. It can be done with sophisticated software.
 

---

Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
 
It cannot. That is about as simplistic of thinking you can INFER autosomal dna by using skin color or phenotype. Please provide a SOURCE or some PROOF. DO TELL. What Y-dna lineages would be "INFERRED" by high "Southern African", "Sahelian" and "Great Lakes" Scores via DNA Tribes?
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
I said nothing about skin color or phenotype. Agreed it may be simplistic. AMRTU used the word inferred which people ignored.


I "assume" what AMRTU meant by INFER is that autosome > geographic STR(CODIS etc) > phenotype.
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
^

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
Hey Sweetnes. Did you come up with this by your self or are you coached? Just curious. You have done a 180 over the last week. That is highly unusual. It is rear to see a person go from super dumb to a twinkle of intelligence within 1 week. Is Beyoku helping you out? He some understanding but falls short in a few areas.

Good to see you taking DNATrbies work seriously. March and April issue was the bomb.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
I said nothing about skin color or phenotype. Agreed it may be simplistic. AMRTU used the word inferred which people ignored.


I "assume" what AMRTU meant by INFER is that autosome > geographic STR(CODIS etc) > phenotype.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
It can be done with sophisticated software.

---

Don't be the next contestant on that summer jam
screen. NRY goes back >200kya and is
useful precisely because it doesn't recombine,
unlike autosomes. The autosomal mutations he
referenced will become associated with all sorts of
mtDNAs and Y chromosomes and mess his would-be
predictions up, every generation.
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
@BK.

I am putting together a post on U6. Seen the recently discovered U6 sub-clade unique to equatorial West Africa? I am putting together a post for ESR. Should be ready in a day or so. This U6 sub-clade although unique to equatorial Africa was also found in some Italians!!! There is now an East African and West African(North) branch of U6 clade.!!!
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
??? what did I tell you. Can you decipher the nonsense here.

hg-E is what about 35kyo, what does meosis have to do with anything in context of the statement, predicted up? (scratching head)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
[QUOTE] Y-hap trees goes back >200kya and is useful
precisely because it doesn't recombine, unlike
autosomes. The autosomal mutations he referenced
will become associated with all sorts of mtDNAs
and Y chromosomes mess his would-be predictions up,
every generation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
Have it your way gramps. You're right, there is no
recombination in Y-hap E carriers, so the general
principle I mentioned doesn't apply to us.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
As I said...quite while you are ahead...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
Have it your way gramps. You're right, there is no
recombination in Y-hap E carriers, so the general
principle I mentioned doesn't apply to us.

---

---

Indeed. Because we all know Y E is 35kya. Who would
want to go against that?
 

---

Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
 
We are waiting. Xyyman and AMRTU.
Please show how autsomal data infers Y-dna.

Y-dna is one marker...yall somehow think yall could pull that from the autsome of:


 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
I don’t want ot get into it…

But if I was a betting man…I would look at the BMJ and how they came up with E1b1a for Rameses III based upon …STR. (working from memory).

CODIS uses , what 13 autosomal STR’s? I am only assuming now, but, as I said before, the STR disclosed for Rameses III most likely was specific to a certain region in SSA with high frequency of E1b1a.

This argumenyt is not worth my time..really.
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Got a problem..."yall?"...with my blackness.
 

---

Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
 
Sigh. Xyyman and AMRTU.

The STR in question were the STR from the Y-chromosome! This is what happens when you dive first into the science but dont understand the fundamental basics because you are too high on a horse thinking you have it all figured out.

The study can be found here.

READ the FULL study.

-On page 4 of 9 they show the Y-CHROMOSOME STR data! This STR data is pulled ONLY from the Y-chromosome. Y-does not recombine.

-on page 5 of 9 they show the Autsomal STR data! This has nothing to do with the Y-chromosome and does not infer information about the Y-Chromosome. I dont know exactly which Chromosomes these STR sit on but I assume they are a combination of a few of them.


Get it? Got it? Good!

EDIT: IN the last study on Tut et al they only gave 2 of his Y-chromosome STR figures. 2!. There is nothing to be Inferred from the rest of the autosomal STR's of the 18th dynasty. Africans with a combination of such STR's configurations based on where they peak run the full gamut of African Y-dna lineages from E1a, E2a, E2b, M35, a3b, B2a, B2b, A2, M2, and anything that is left out..including R1, J1 and K2.


Edit 2: Tutsis whith High E3a have a different STR profile than their high E3a neighbors. The same is seen with Central Africans of lake chad that have Y-chromosome profiles all over the place. Northern and Central Ethiopians with High M35 sit right next to Southern Ethiopian high m35 carriers that look similar to Southern Sudanese high A/B carriers. The examples of African Y-chromosome/physical discontinuity can be seen across the continent. The only thing that can be "INFERRED" is the likely distribution of these lineages based on Regional and linguistic patterns based on multiple studies.
 

---

Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
 
DP.
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
As I said...speaking from memory.

So if it is from the y-STR then that is a different story.


I said repeatedly, speaking from memory,so don't think you are all that. lol!.

I showed yall how to verify it through BMJ. Don't get ahead of your self.

If I was interested I would of done it myself.
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Forget it. Let me read the thread fully and paper. I just did a Mary on yall.
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Thanks for the link BTW. I have the paper but good to have the link close at hand.
 

---

Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
 
So speaking from "memory" you thought you could pull Y-Chromosome data from autosomal data? BTW, i never get ahead of myself but I DO research. I ask questions and make contacts. DNA Tribes didnt even know about BMJ until I introduced them to BMJ and hinted they should report on BMJ. I would say like 90% of Egyptology folks dont know about DNA Tribes and how it relates to BMJ and JAMA.

Ultimately this is not a "mistake" to be made from memory.


Above are the 23 pairs of Chromosomes. the X and Y are sex chromosomes. The other 22 dont infer information about the Y. Speaking of which. How could Autosomal DNA show information about the Y if women dont even have a Y chromosome....yall do know that women dont have a Y chromosome right?
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
I told you not to become the next contestant on
that summer jam screen.... lol. Sorry, couldn't
resist the temptation.. Carry on, gramps. NRY E
being 35k years old, you were saying?
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
As I said. One should read then discuss. I am done reading. From the paper quote:


==
Revisiting the harem conspiracy and death of- Hawass BMJ 2012

Methods

We did a genetic kinship analysis to investigate a possible family relationship between Ramesses III and unknown man E.

1. We amplified 16 Y chromosomal, short tandem repeats (AmpF\STR Yfiler PCR amplification kit; Applied Biosystems).
2. Eight polymorphic microsatellites of the nuclear genome were also amplified (Identifiler and AmpF\STR Minifiler kits; Applied Biosystems).
3. The Y chromosomal haplogroups of Ramesses III and unknown man E was screened using the Whit Athey’s haplogroup predictor.9


Genetic kinship analyses revealed identical haplotypes in both mummies (table 1⇓); using the Whit Athey’s haplogroup predictor, we determined the Y chromosomal haplogroup E1b1a. The testing of polymorphic autosomal microsatellite loci provided similar results in at least one allele of each marker (table 2⇓).


===
Now I am not sure what the argument is about. Oh! Autosomal STR is in table 2, y-STR is in tabl 1

Conclusion? – Rameses III and man/boy -E is Sub-Saharan African with Hg- E1b1a.

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
Forget it. Let me read the thread fully and paper. I just did a Mary on yall.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
[QB] At issue is Cavalli-Sforza's ancestral umbrella of
European genetic makeup- two thirds Asian, one third African.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
You're a troll, in the same boat as
the Lioness.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

Lioness' post proves both of you wrong,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
he calls me a troll and then uses my post to prove his posiiton

---

Yeah, making your own posts backfire against you
is really making me a hypocrite.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
nothing is backfiring, I'm the only person around here that can consider valid points on both sides
 

---

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

quote:

---

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

L. Cavalli-Sforza:
Genes, Peoples and Languages 1997

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
Preaching to the choir. As I said, “from memory”. The argument was on autosomal STR hand geographic origin. What I pointed still stand. Predicting geographic location from Autosomal STR is possible. E1b1a is SSA. So what is the argument about with AMRTU then?

---

quote:

---

Autosomal=STR INFER lineage. It can be done with sophisticated software.

---

Which is nonsense. Right now AMun ra is furiously googling something that he will not find. This is like very basic basic info that you do not understand that is why you are so confused with STRUCTURE and ADMIXTURE analysis.

Lean something:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayWQGYHG2GQ
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Ok Beyoku. Convince yourself about that.....


You know this is not a pissing contest..right? Sweetness is a little screwed up but I expect more from you. I don't really enjoy beating a brotha down.

Quit while you are ahead.

Btw; E1b1a infer SSA autosomal STR OR SSA Autosomal STR infer E1b1a.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
beyoku, Swenet is just echoing what granpa xyyman has been saying for a while now,
Europeans are closet Africans
 

---

Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
 
Yall theme song.

http://youtu.be/iFiPANvxfDg
 

---

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
^Cop out as expected, given your lying charlatan
track record. You can run, but you can't hide:

quote:

---

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.

---

--McEvoy 2011

---

quote:

---

The Basal Eurasian split would then have to be even older [Edit:than >40,000 years ago]. A Basal Eurasian lineage in the Near East is plausible given the presence of anatomically modern humans in the Levant29 ~100 thousand years ago and African-related tools likely made by modern humans in Arabia30,31. Al

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
This study is about characterizing the Out Of
Africa migrants into 2 groups. They're talking
about the early dispersals of modern H. sapiens
from Africa. Not the Natufian period.

---

quote:

---

However, the coalescent time and geographic
distribution of the Y-chromosome E3b (E-M215)
haplogroup points to a late Pleistocene migration
from Eastern Africa to Western Eurasia via the Nile
Valley and Sinai Peninsula ;20–25 KYA (Cruciani et
al. 2004, 2007; Luis et al. 2004).

---

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.

---

--McEvoy 2011

Either way, you're still exposed as the fraud that
you are. You know nothing of the subject. You
haven't read an iota in the literature, but you
act like you're qualified to speak on the matter.
You just woke up one day and decided to pretend
that you can speak on stuff and make it up as you
go along and dismiss whatever scientific source
you feel like, all the while accusing others of
doing this. You're a troll, in the same boat as
the Lioness.


 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
So Basal Eurasian is about an Out of Africa
population structure, much before the
differentiation of African and non-African.
Much before the Natufian period of course, much
before E-P2/PN2 even existed, etc. At that time
period, everybody was African.

---

quote:

---

Alternatively, evidence for gene flow
between the Near East and Africa32, and
African morphology in pre-farming Natufians33
from Israel, may also be consistent with the
population representing a later movement of
humans out of Africa and into the Near East.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
this is my selfie

---

 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
To be clear. Basal Eurasian are from Africa are circa 6000ya. And not very old. Basal Eurasian are EEF. Ie Farmers. “Maybe” related to Natufians but NOT Paleolithic. Oldest being about 8000ya.


---


Oh! on the age of E1b1a -

Quote:
It is possible that soon after the evolution of E-V38, trans-Saharan migrants carried the E-V38 marker to northern Central Africa and/or West Africa where the more common E-M2 marker later arose and became prolific within the last 20,000-30,000 years.[1][3]
 

---

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Alternatively, evidence for gene flow
between the Near East and Africa32, and
African morphology in pre-farming Natufians33
from Israel, may also be consistent with the
population representing a later movement of
humans out of Africa and into the Near East.

---

--Lazaridis et al 2013

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
Basal Eurasian are EEF. Ie Farmers. “Maybe” related to Natufians but NOT Paleolithic. Oldest being about 8000ya.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
To be clear. Basal Eurasian are from Africa are circa 6000ya. And not very old. Basal Eurasian are EEF. Ie Farmers. “Maybe” related to Natufians but NOT Paleolithic. Oldest being about 8000ya.

---

Basal Eurasians is much older than 6000ya. Maybe around 100 000 ya!!!

We can read about it in the Lazaridis study (also used by DNA Tribes):

quote:

---

The Basal Eurasian split would then have to be even older [Edit:than >40,000 years ago]. A Basal Eurasian lineage in the Near East is plausible given the presence of anatomically modern humans in the Levant29 ~100 thousand years ago and African-related tools likely made by modern humans in Arabia30,31. Al

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Alternatively, evidence for gene flow
between the Near East and Africa32, and
African morphology in pre-farming Natufians33
from Israel, may also be consistent with the
population representing a later movement of
humans out of Africa and into the Near East.

---

--Lazaridis et al 2013

---

What part of "later movement" you don't understand?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
Much before the Natufian period of course, much
before E-P2/PN2 even existed, etc. At that time
period, everybody was African.

---

quote:

---

Alternatively, evidence for gene flow
between the Near East and Africa32, and
African morphology in pre-farming Natufians33
from Israel, may also be consistent with the
population representing a later movement of
humans out of Africa and into the Near East.

---

quote:

---

You just woke up one day and decided to pretend that you can speak on stuff and make it up as you go along and dismiss whatever scientific source you feel like, all the while accusing others of doing this

---

THIS. And then they have this prideful attutude where they dont even want to admin when they are wrong.....OR EVEN ASK QUESTIONS. Nobody asks any questions, everyone knows it all.

Wasnt always like this. I learned a lot from the members before me and when I was around folks asked tons of questions.
 

---

Posted by Child Of The KING (Member # 9422) on :
 
From reading this informative thread.

I gather that people seem obsessed with taking Africans out of the levent and claming they couldn't sail across the little sea in the middle and LIVE IN THE MIDDLE EAST???

WHAT STUPIDNESS IS THIS!!!!!....People actually believe that ME could live in Africa, but Africans couldn't make the short trip over to Live in the ME??

How can any self professed A|frican actually believe this, and even attack other members because there precious Europeans are actually 33% African as Linked by Cavelli and shown in other threads by not 1 but several members?

People please don't fall for the "Africans be to dumb to travel a little bit over da sea but dem Middle Easterners be smart and travelled to Africa and Europe" blah blah blah. What foolishness is that.

FACT That has been discussed since before many a members were on this forum.

Africans and African like people in the Middle East emigrated to Europe as early farmers and established the Revolution of FARMING and crops in Greece and places close to it. In turn there genes are linked to be STILL 24% E in Greeks and 25% J in Greeks.

What I gather from this thread is the Hate for horners is back so we as members got to be cautious about these kind of nonsense since Horners are as Pure African, as West Africans, South Africans etc.

The one good thing though is that The Forum is JUMPING Again and you learn more quicker.

We even have a greek on here with his non evolving People and that Whites are killers who killed others as they feel. Thank the Creator he realizes that not all whites are like that and that there is some that are defenders like EVERY OTHER RACE.

This is Fun Again Bros and Sis...ITS GOING DOWN YOU CAN'T ESCAPE EGYPTSEARCH SONNYS GROW AND KNOW WELCOME BACK BROTHERS AND LETS BRING THIS PLACE UP AGAIN:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdNu5NXgRyE
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
In english.

-====

From DNATribes(April 2014)- quote::
====
Ancient Eurasian and African Ancestry in Europe Background: New Genomes from Ancient Europe
Recently published ancient genomes from Europe, Siberia, and North America have provided new insights about the early migrations that have shaped the genetic structure of Europe. In particular, a new tree analysis of Eurasian population history models modern Europeans as a mixture of at least three ancient populations: Early European Farmers (EEF), Western European Hunter-Gatherers (WHG), Ancient North Eurasians (ANE), and Eastern Non-Africans (ENA).2
Some of these ancient populations (such as WHG hunter-gatherers) did not leave genomic traces outside of Europe; other ancient populations (such as the EEF “First Farmers”) left traces across a wider range of territories in both Europe and the Middle East (illustrated in Figure 1).
Within this agricultural zone range, EEF farmers came in contact with other ancient populations: In Europe and West Asia, EEF populations mixed with North Eurasians (including Siberian relatives of WHG hunter-gatherers). In the Arabian Peninsula, EEF farmers mixed with ancestral Sub-Saharan Africans RELATED to modern Nigerian, Gambian, and Botswanan populations. In Armenia and Georgia, EEF farmers mixed with South Asian (Indian Subcontinent) populations. [/QB][/QUOTE]
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
To those who still don't get it. EEF are the last group that entered Europe circa 6000ya. They are one of three ancestral groups of modern Europeans. EEF are NOT ANE/HG, the latter arrived as the first OOA migrants(30-40kya?).

I can't break it down any further.
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
This is not up for debate. EEF are ~44% basal
Eurasian (i.e. an approximation of Sforza's African),
and ~56% comprised of the original OOA component
(i.e. what Sforza's Asian is):


 

---

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Child Of The KING:
From reading this informative thread.

I gather that people seem obsessed with taking Africans out of the levent and claming they couldn't sail across the little sea in the middle and LIVE IN THE MIDDLE EAST???

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
In english.

-====

From DNATribes(April 2014)- quote::
====
Ancient Eurasian and African Ancestry in Europe Background: New Genomes from Ancient Europe
Recently published ancient genomes from Europe, Siberia, and North America have provided new insights about the early migrations that have shaped the genetic structure of Europe. In particular, a new tree analysis of Eurasian population history models modern Europeans as a mixture of at least three ancient populations: Early European Farmers (EEF), Western European Hunter-Gatherers (WHG), Ancient North Eurasians (ANE), and Eastern Non-Africans (ENA).2
Some of these ancient populations (such as WHG hunter-gatherers) did not leave genomic traces outside of Europe; other ancient populations (such as the EEF “First Farmers”) left traces across a wider range of territories in both Europe and the Middle East (illustrated in Figure 1).
Within this agricultural zone range, EEF farmers came in contact with other ancient populations: In Europe and West Asia, EEF populations mixed with North Eurasians (including Siberian relatives of WHG hunter-gatherers). In the Arabian Peninsula, EEF farmers mixed with ancestral Sub-Saharan Africans RELATED to modern Nigerian, Gambian, and Botswanan populations. In Armenia and Georgia, EEF farmers mixed with South Asian (Indian Subcontinent) populations.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Child Of The KING:
From reading this informative thread.

I gather that people seem obsessed with taking Africans out of the levent and claming they couldn't sail across the little sea in the middle and LIVE IN THE MIDDLE EAST???

---

Unless you claim modern Jewish and Palestinian people are mostly African people nobody is taking out nobody from anywhere.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Child Of The KING:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Child Of The KING:
From reading this informative thread.

I gather that people seem obsessed with taking Africans out of the levent and claming they couldn't sail across the little sea in the middle and LIVE IN THE MIDDLE EAST???

---

Unless you claim modern Jewish and Palestinian people are mostly African people nobody is taking out nobody from anywhere.

---

Brother Amun, so what your stating is that Africans were not living in the ME during ancient Times?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by beyoku:

quote:

---

You just woke up one day and decided to pretend that you can speak on stuff and make it up as you go along and dismiss whatever scientific source you feel like, all the while accusing others of doing this

---

THIS. And then they have this prideful attutude where they dont even want to admin when they are wrong.....OR EVEN ASK QUESTIONS. Nobody asks any questions, everyone knows it all.

Wasnt always like this. I learned a lot from the members before me and when I was around folks asked tons of questions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by beyoku:

quote:

---

You just woke up one day and decided to pretend that you can speak on stuff and make it up as you go along and dismiss whatever scientific source you feel like, all the while accusing others of doing this

---

THIS. And then they have this prideful attutude where they dont even want to admin when they are wrong.....OR EVEN ASK QUESTIONS. Nobody asks any questions, everyone knows it all.

Wasnt always like this. I learned a lot from the members before me and when I was around folks asked tons of questions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Child Of The KING:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Child Of The KING:
From reading this informative thread.

I gather that people seem obsessed with taking Africans out of the levent and claming they couldn't sail across the little sea in the middle and LIVE IN THE MIDDLE EAST???

---

Unless you claim modern Jewish and Palestinian people are mostly African people nobody is taking out nobody from anywhere.

---

Brother Amun, so what your stating is that Africans were not living in the ME during ancient Times?

---

I did mention the Natufian here.

Are you saying modern Jewish and modern Palestinian people now living in the Levant are African?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Child Of The KING:
[qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
[qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Child Of The KING:
[qb]
Are you saying modern Jewish and modern Palestinian people now living in the Levant are African?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Child Of The KING:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Child Of The KING:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Child Of The KING:
From reading this informative thread.

I gather that people seem obsessed with taking Africans out of the levent and claming they couldn't sail across the little sea in the middle and LIVE IN THE MIDDLE EAST???

---

Unless you claim modern Jewish and Palestinian people are mostly African people nobody is taking out nobody from anywhere.

---

Brother Amun, so what your stating is that Africans were not living in the ME during ancient Times?

---

I did mention the Natufian here.

Are you saying modern Jewish and modern Palestinian people now living in the Levant are African?

---

Also How do you look at America...500 years ago ONLY..the people were All Native American NOW its majority White people and African types, If that can happen in less then a 1000 years, then why can't the people who live in Palestine now not be really related to the ancient and color never really tells the story.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
Come on bros. Really??!!! Arguing with me about Basal Eurasaian.

"Basal Eurasian" are Saharan Farmers!!! ROTFLMAO

EEF farmers are at most 8000yo. As I said, don't get caught in the labels "basal" and "Eurasain".

Come on guys.


But I am happy to see us discussing this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
You got to keep your emotion in check my man. Forget about the images on TV and what you have been told or educated on since birth.

You keep citing the Lazaridis paper and DNATribes obviously you did not read and/or understand it.


Check the SUPPL. There are 3 populations that have about 80% EEF/Basal Eurasian. They are Iberians, Italians, Greece. And to a lesser extent. Palestinians and ….Jews(not Khazar). So the next questions an intelligent person would ask is “what is the connection” , “where is the correlation”. “Why these four”

The answer is what? AFRICA!!! Geographic proximity to AFRICA. Geography! Geography! Geography!. All three populations have closest proximity to AFRICA! Even the fourth. The Levant.

This is not rocket science.

Notice also that the frequency is about the same for ALL three. Why? If it was demic diffusion from the Levant one would expect a trailing off from East to West, which is NOT observed. The Levant was NOT the source of EEF/Basal Eurasian.

This is not rocker science.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Child Of The KING:
[qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
[qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Child Of The KING:
[qb]
Are you saying modern Jewish and modern Palestinian people now living in the Levant are African?

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Child Of The KING:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Child Of The KING:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Child Of The KING:
From reading this informative thread.

I gather that people seem obsessed with taking Africans out of the levent and claming they couldn't sail across the little sea in the middle and LIVE IN THE MIDDLE EAST???

---

Unless you claim modern Jewish and Palestinian people are mostly African people nobody is taking out nobody from anywhere.

---

Brother Amun, so what your stating is that Africans were not living in the ME during ancient Times?

---

I did mention the Natufian here.

Are you saying modern Jewish and modern Palestinian people now living in the Levant are African?

---

Also How do you look at America...500 years ago ONLY..the people were All Native American NOW its majority White people and African types, If that can happen in less then a 1000 years, then why can't the people who live in Palestine now not be really related to the ancient and color never really tells the story.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
You got to keep your emotion in check my man. Forget about the images on TV and what you have been told or educated on since birth.

You keep citing the Lazaridis paper and DNATribes obviously you did not read and/or understand it.


Check the SUPPL. There are 3 populations that have about 80% EEF/Basal Eurasian. They are Iberians, Italians, Greece. And to a lesser extent. Palestinians and ….Jews(not Khazar). So the next questions an intelligent person would ask is “what is the connection” , “where is the correlation”. “Why these four”

The answer is what? AFRICA!!! Geographic proximity to AFRICA. Geography! Geography! Geography!. All three populations have closest proximity to AFRICA! Even the fourth. The Levant.

This is not rocket science.

Notice also that the frequency is about the same for ALL three. Why? If it was demic diffusion from the Levant one would expect a trailing off from East to West, which is NOT observed. The Levant was NOT the source of EEF/Basal Eurasian.

This is not rocker science.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Child Of The KING:
[qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
[qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Child Of The KING:
[qb]
Are you saying modern Jewish and modern Palestinian people now living in the Levant are African?

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
Some may ask why did DNATribes spend so much resources analyzing the Lazaridis Report. There is information in the Lazaridis Report that blew some of the traditional thinking out of the water. They had to get to the bottom of it.


----
Here are some quotes: From the Lazaridis Report.
Quote:
Recognizing the challenge posed by the lack of accurate surrogates for the ancestral populations, we hypothesized that Stuttgart is a mixture of an unknown hunter-gatherer population that forms a clade with Loschbour and an unknown Near Eastern population (NE) in proportions 1-_ and _. We do not know the exact NE population contributing ancestry to Stuttgart. However, we explored using BedouinB as a surrogate, as this is the population that appears at the southern end of the Near Eastern cline (Fig. 1B) and appears to have no Asian ancestry (SI 9). A complication of using the BedouinB population is that it has some African admixture, as indicated by the ADMIXTURE analysis (SI 9). We estimated a lower bound (4.2 �} 0.3%) on this admixture proportion using ALDER1 using the Yoruba as a reference population. The advantage of this linkage-disequilibrium based method is that, unlike f4-ratio estimation2 no explicit model of population relationships is needed. We can also use the 5.1% estimate from ADMIXTURE K=3, or 7.2% from ADMIXTURE K=4 (SI 9). The two estimates differ because the Yoruba are inferred to have low levels of West Eurasian admixture at K=3, but to belong 100% to their own ancestral component at K=4. We choose Yoruba as a source of the African admixture in Stuttgart, as the source of the admixture in BedouinB appears to be African-farmer related (K=4, SI 9), and Yoruba are the population of African farmers with the highest sample size in the Human Origins dataset

===


EEF are African Farmer related. This is what DNATribes was after.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
This is not up for debate. EEF are ~44% basal
Eurasian (i.e. an approximation of Sforza's African),
and ~56% comprised of the original OOA component
(i.e. what Sforza's Asian is):

---

 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
You and your fantasies. There are three ancestral populations in Europe. Of course there may be minor ones during historical times. African EEF replaced ENE/HG during Neolithic time !!! It is that simple. ENE never returned. Not from the Refugia nd not from anywhere!!!!!

As I said the only enigma is the white male line(R-M269).


Quote by Lioness:
____________________________________


Now people read the following and tell me which population
they are referring to when they talk about 4500 years.



xyyman the earliest Euros (WHG) were replaced by EEF
farmers from the Mid East as you stated BUT...
They in turn were replaced by Bell Beakers


My theory is that the Bell Beakers were former ANF who had since evolved


guess what, these scientists are probably as confused as ES members, stay tuned


--------
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
And it is NOT through the Middle East/Levant. Just as everyone is finally catching up, time will show that it was from North Africa. Give them time to get over their ego..(the researchers) and admit it..

All the evidence is overwhelming showing a North African point entry to Europe. . Even the cattle was African(see ESR).

DNATribes has already suggested that entry of EEF/BASAL EURASIAN/SAHARA AFRICANS/EURAFRICANS was either from the Levant OR North Africa. But they are not absolutely sure which. I have been saying that all along. This is the first time DNATribes has admiited to the possibility.


That TreeMIx chart is displaying the same premise. Get it Got It
 

---

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


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

Ancient DNA reveals Europe's dynamic genetic history
Date:
April 23, 2013
Science Daily

The international team also included the University of Mainz in Germany and the National Geographic Society's Genographic Project.
"This is the first high-resolution genetic record of these lineages through time, and it is fascinating that we can directly observe both human DNA evolving in 'real-time', and the dramatic population changes that have taken place in Europe," says joint lead author Dr Wolfgang Haak of ACAD.
"We can follow over 4,000 years of prehistory, from the earliest farmers through the early Bronze Age to modern times."
"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."

________________________________________

^^^ SOURCE

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

Neolithic mitochondrial haplogroup H genomes and the genetic origins of Europeans

Paul Brotherton et al 2013


Haplogroup H dominates present-day Western European mitochondrial DNA variability (>40%), yet was less common (~19%) among Early Neolithic farmers (~5450 BC) and virtually absent in Mesolithic hunter-gatherers. Here we investigate this major component of the maternal population history of modern Europeans and sequence 39 complete haplogroup H mitochondrial genomes from ancient human remains. We then compare this ‘real-time’ genetic data with cultural changes taking place between the Early Neolithic (~5450 BC) and Bronze Age (~2200 BC) in Central Europe. Our results reveal that the current diversity and distribution of haplogroup H were largely established by the Mid Neolithic (~4000 BC), but with substantial genetic contributions from subsequent pan-European cultures such as the Bell Beakers expanding out of Iberia in the Late Neolithic (~2800 BC). Dated haplogroup H genomes allow us to reconstruct the recent evolutionary history of haplogroup H and reveal a mutation rate 45% higher than current estimates for human mitochondria.
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
Notice how the Sforza dismissers have gone silent,
some are still twitching around, though, going
through their last spasms of denialism.

As shown in the figure below, Lazaridis et al
2013 demonstrate the existence of 44% non-native
component in western Asia back in the time of
EEF. This non-native component is generally not
detected by k-based analysis, showing the inadequacy
of said technique in solving this matter--something
I've said all along. The blatant abuse of k-based
analysis as false counter-evidence of Sforza
then led to the creation of this thread, which,
not accidentally, bears the title: "Do you even
know what ks are? Prove it!". In this thread,
readers were able to weigh and review the evidence
for themselves, without being bombarded with a
never ending supply of fallacies (e.g., "Forget
about judging something on it's merits; DNA Tribes
and DNAconsultants are proprietary and not peer-
reviewed, and so I can dismiss all damning data
they publish, out of hand") and facing barrages of
pseudo counter-evidence falsely dubbed as "raw
data".



Today the non-native component in western Eurasia
is more or less 1/3, per Sforza. The only question
that remains is, is it African? According to
McEvoy et al 2011, the answer is a resounding YES.
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Do you read the article before you post it? They agree with what I have been saying all along.


--------
Posted by Lioness

Ancient DNA reveals Europe's dynamic genetic history
Date:
April 23, 2013
Science Daily

The international team also included the University of Mainz in Germany and the National Geographic Society's Genographic Project.
"This is the first high-resolution genetic record of these lineages through time, and it is fascinating that we can directly observe both human DNA evolving in 'real-time', and the dramatic population changes that have taken place in Europe," says joint lead author Dr Wolfgang Haak of ACAD.
"We can follow over 4,000 years of prehistory, from the earliest farmers through the early Bronze Age to modern times."
"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."
 

---

Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by beyoku:

quote:

---

You just woke up one day and decided to pretend that you can speak on stuff and make it up as you go along and dismiss whatever scientific source you feel like, all the while accusing others of doing this

---

THIS. And then they have this prideful attutude where they dont even want to admin when they are wrong.....OR EVEN ASK QUESTIONS. Nobody asks any questions, everyone knows it all.

Wasnt always like this. I learned a lot from the members before me and when I was around folks asked tons of questions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:

quote:

---

Originally posted by beyoku:
[qb] [QUOTE] You just woke up one day and decided to pretend that you can speak on stuff and make it up as you go along and dismiss whatever scientific source you feel like, all the while accusing others of doing this

---

THIS. And then they have this prideful attutude where they dont even want to admin when they are wrong.....OR EVEN ASK QUESTIONS. Nobody asks any questions, everyone knows it all.

Wasnt always like this. I learned a lot from the members before me and when I was around folks asked tons of questions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

As shown in the figure below, Lazaridis et al
2013 demonstrate the existence of 44% non-native
component in western Asia back in the time of
EEF.

---

quote:

---

The Basal Eurasian split would then have to be even older [Edit:than >40,000 years ago]. A Basal Eurasian lineage in the Near East is plausible given the presence of anatomically modern humans in the Levant29 ~100 thousand years ago and African-related tools likely made by modern humans in Arabia30,31. Al

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
Notice how the Sforza dismissers have gone silent,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

As shown in the figure below, Lazaridis et al
2013 demonstrate the existence of 44% non-native
component in western Asia back in the time of
EEF.

---

Lies and manipulation again by our favorite racist undercover, Sweety (Swenet=racist white person, a fake, a liar).

Nobody is buying it, so why even bother?

Basal Eurasian is native to West Asia, according to Lazaridis, as it is there since the Out of Africa migration(OOA). You can read in the Lazaridis study: Basal Eurasian lineage in the Near East is plausible given the presence of anatomically modern humans in the Levant ~100 thousand years ago . So Basal Eurasian lineage in West Asia 100 000 years ago. Which correspond to the OOA migration of non-African.

quote:

---

The Basal Eurasian split would then have to be even older [Edit:than >40,000 years ago]. A Basal Eurasian lineage in the Near East is plausible given the presence of anatomically modern humans in the Levant29 ~100 thousand years ago and African-related tools likely made by modern humans in Arabia30,31. Al

---

This is from Lazaridis et al

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
Notice how the Sforza dismissers have gone silent,
[/qb]

---

Trite. Maybe some dummy thinks
he of the last word is right.
Rational folk bank on he of the
pertinent peer reviewed data in
support (without manipulative
interpretation the author him
self would not recognize and
without substituting from the
target populations to others).

When the data supports there's
no need to desperately repeat
it in the hope that hearing
it many times will make it
true as in the case of bait
and switch, moving goal posts,
strawmen, red herrings and
non-sequitors employed by
those relying on debate
tricks to impress unwary
and inattentive readers.

When I'm ready and when
I feel like it more on what
Cavalli-Sforza and his
sources actually put down
will be posted, sophmoric
goading notwithstanding
and certainly not within
a thread of polemic rhetorical
title.

---

 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
Then you woke up from your psychosis and realize
that the basal Eurasian branch is much closer to the
Dinka branch than your 100.000 year isolation from
Africa could ever produce. 100.000 year out of
range from Africa(ns), but still closer to Africans
than OOA populations? How would your oxygen deprived
neurones explain that?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:

Basal Eurasian is native to West Asia, according to Lazaridis, as it is there since the Out of Africa migration(OOA).

---

 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
Hahahah - you're really funny.

This whole thread from the OP forward is you making
one big vent in frustration from not being able to
pull off derailing and non-sequitors elsewhere in
the face of data and reports that knocked the
stuffing out of Scarecrow You.
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
Got any more venting posts? Keep 'em coming.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
Hahahah - you're really funny.

This whole thread from the OP forward is you making one big vent in frustration from not being able to pull off derailing and non-sequitors elsewhere in
the face of data and reports that knocked the stuffing out of Scarecrow You.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
Beside coming off as a pompous ass, insulting people who don't' agree with them, Sweetnet..

..]At K=2, for the top graph, it seems Europe and the Middle East/West Asia are 2/3 (or more) African and 1/3 East Asian. ..

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
Tukler says:
My thread was about
* a full contextual viewing of C-S's statement
* the basis of that statement
* the statement's validity today after 20 years.

My conclusion, with reasoning presented in my thread,
is that there is no evidence that Europeans are simply
an ancestral Chinese ancestral African 65% 35% composite.


Question: xyz? what's your alternative as to an overall percent?


^^.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
Tukler says:
My thread was about
* a full contextual viewing of C-S's statement
* the basis of that statement
* the statement's validity today after 20 years.

My conclusion, with reasoning presented in my thread,
is that there is no evidence that Europeans are simply
an ancestral Chinese ancestral African 65% 35% composite.

^^Keep in mind that Sforza is using Chinese as a proxy for "Asians." His
statement does not say Europeans are one-third African, two-thirds
Chinese, but two-thirds ASIAN- meant to represent a wide
category. In similar manner, the "African" category only samples Pygmy
populations- who subsequently stand-in for "Africans" as a category.
Sforza does not narrow the category and say Europeans are one-third
Pygmy. The context in which he is making his claim is clearly is of BROAD
CONTINENTAL POPULATIONS.

IN his "The History and Geography of Human Genes" he lays out his model:

"We tested the hypothesis of the origin of Europeans by admixture
using various admixture hypotheses (between African ancestors
and ancestors of Melanesians, of Chinese, or of both."

It is pretty clear that for anyone to assert Europeans are "two-thirds
Chinese" or "one-third Pygmy" would be on untenable ground. The broader category
"Asian" or "African" is obviously more defensible.

Can Sforza's proxy populations used in his and Bowcock's sampling be
criticized as incomplete? Sure. Proxy stand-ins have been the bane of
a full picture of African diversity with distant sampling thousands of
miles distant used in some studies versus other African populations
a few hundred away. But the central point is that he is not playing
a specific "Chinese card" - the context of his model- which he states,
is obviously dealing with ANCESTRAL Asians and Africans as broad
categories.

And WITHIN those broad continental categories, nothing says that
specific or unique lineages do not develop on each continent from
whatever level of admixture is studied in whatever era. Nor does it mean
gene flow to create that admixture cannot be mediated thru intermediate
populations- whether via the "Middle East" or on the Asiatic end, the
Turkic/Central Asian/Russian steppe zone.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
Basal Eurasians are not modern Eurasians

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
Modern Eurasians are not Basal Eurasians They are
Eurasian

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
Modern Eurasians are not Basal Eurasians They are
Eurasian

---

YOU need to explain why "Eurasian" ancestry would
register as African in the analysis of McEvoy,
Sforza and DNA Tribes. To everyone with even half
a brain, this is a contradiction that cannot even
begin to make sense of what is observed.

In uniparental terms, when you go more basal than
Eurasian, you encounter African. When you go more
basal than mtDNA M and N, you find African L3, L4
and L6. When you get more basal than Eurasian NRY
CF, you stumble on NRY YAP and B-M60. There is
nothing in between M and N and L3 for there to be
a basal Eurasian, independent of African ancestry.
Besides, basal Eurasian is distant from Australians,
who themselves are the most basal currently known
OOA clade. If basal Eurasian is somehow not African,
affiliated, we expect it to have affinity with
Australian and Melanesian populations.

---

quote:

---

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,:
Results from applying MSMC to genome sequences from
nine populations across the world suggest that the
genetic separation of non-African ancestors from
African Yoruban ancestors started long before
50,000 years ago,

---

quote:

---

Our results suggest that Maasai ancestors
were well mixing with Non-African ancestors until
about 80kya, much later than the YRI/Non-African
separation. This is consistent with a model where
Maasai ancestors and Non-African ancestors formed
sister groups, which together separated from West
African ancestors and stayed well mixing until
much closer to the actual out-of-Africa migration.

---

--Schiffels & Durbin

Not that this is relevant to the topic at hand,
lyin'ass. Actual explanations of why African
contributions--that mirror basal Eurasian--to the
Middle East exceed that of any other group are
still pending. Running to Schiffels & Durbin for
help, like a chicken without a head, isn't going
to get you out of hot water:


Lawson et al 2012-----------Haber et al 2013

In addition to the African haplotype peak in the
Middle East, notice how, in the image to the left,
Africa is on the same branch as Europe and the
Middle East, and eastern OOA populations on the
other branch? Gee, what could be responsible for
that, Lyin'ass?
 

---

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
Notice how the Sforza dismissers have gone silent,

---

Trite. Maybe some dummy thinks he of the last word is right .
Rational folk bank on he of the
pertinent peer reviewed data in
support (without manipulative
interpretation the author him
self would not recognize and
without substituting from the
target populations to others).

When the data supports there's
no need to desperately repeat
it in the hope that hearing
it many times will make it
true as in the case of bait and switch, moving goal posts, strawmen, red herrings and non-sequitors employed by
those relying on debate tricks to impress unwary and inattentive readers .

---

Nifty description of Sweetnet's debating style. Using debate tricks is the style of a manipulator and a liar.

If you can see it and I can see it, I wonder who he's trying to fool here on this forum? How many unwary and inattentive readers can there be at this level and at this point?
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
How does it feel to have received such a thrashing
that you know you can only make appearances here
when you have something off-topic to say? You bums
just don't get it, do you? Every post where you
fail to refute what pains you so much, is a glaring
testament to the fact that the severity of your
thrashing has left you with nothing on-topic to
say! I encourage both you and Tukuler to vent your
little emotional hearts out all you want. So long
as you don't delude yourselves into thinking that
the evidence on the table is going away:





Lawson et al 2012-----------Haber et al 2013
 

---

Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
 
^^^ Sweety, you're only fooling yourself!
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
Every post where you
fail to refute what pains you so much, is a glaring
testament to the fact that the severity of your
thrashing has left you with nothing on-topic to
say! I encourage both you and Tukuler to troll and
vent your little emotions out all you want. So
long as you don't delude yourselves into thinking
that the evidence on the table is going away.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
^^^ Sweety, you're only fooling yourself!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

As shown in the figure below, Lazaridis et al
2013 demonstrate the existence of 44% non-native
component in western Asia back in the time of
EEF.

---

quote:

---

The Basal Eurasian split would then have to be even older [Edit:than >40,000 years ago]. A Basal Eurasian lineage in the Near East is plausible given the presence of anatomically modern humans in the Levant29 ~100 thousand years ago and African-related tools likely made by modern humans in Arabia30,31. Al

---

This is from Lazaridis et al
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
Every post where you
fail to refute what pains you so much, is a glaring
testament to the fact that the severity of your
thrashing has left you with nothing on-topic to
say! I encourage both you and Tukuler to troll and
vent your little emotions out all you want. So
long as you don't delude yourselves into thinking
that the evidence on the table is going away:




Lawson et al 2012-----------Haber et al 2013

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

As shown in the figure below, Lazaridis et al
2013 demonstrate the existence of 44% non-native
component in western Asia back in the time of
EEF.

---

Lies and manipulation again by our favorite racist undercover, Sweety (Swenet=racist white person, a fake, a liar).

Nobody is buying it, so why even bother?

Basal Eurasian is native to West Asia, according to Lazaridis, as it is there since the Out of Africa migration(OOA). You can read in the Lazaridis study: Basal Eurasian lineage in the Near East is plausible given the presence of anatomically modern humans in the Levant ~100 thousand years ago . So Basal Eurasian lineage in West Asia 100 000 years ago. Which correspond to the OOA migration of non-African.

quote:

---

The Basal Eurasian split would then have to be even older [Edit:than >40,000 years ago]. A Basal Eurasian lineage in the Near East is plausible given the presence of anatomically modern humans in the Levant29 ~100 thousand years ago and African-related tools likely made by modern humans in Arabia30,31. Al

---

This is from Lazaridis et al

---