quote: A new paper presents a very detailed view of mtDNA variation in Ethiopia and Yemen. In agreement with previous genetic work and traditional physical anthropology, which saw Ethiopians as representatives of a subequatorial "Ethiopid" race combining Caucasoid and Negroid characters, this new research affirms the "intermediate" composition of the Ethiopian gene pool:
Though present-day Ethiopia is a land of great ethnic diversity, the majority of Ethiopians speak different Semitic, Cushitic, and Omotic languages that belong to the Afro-Asiatic linguistic phylum. Maternal lineages of Semitic- (Amharic, Tigrinya, and Gurage) and Cushitic- (Oromo and Afar) speaking populations studied here reveal that their mtDNA pool is a nearly equal composite of sub-Saharan and western Eurasian lineages. This finding, consistent with classic genetic-marker studies (Cavalli-Sforza 1997) and previous mtDNA results, is also in agreement with a similarly high proportion of western Asian Y chromosomes in Ethiopians (Passarino et al. 1998; Semino et al. 2002), which supports the view (Richards et al. 2003) that the observed admixture between sub-Saharan African and, most probably, western Asian ancestors of the Ethiopian populations applies to their gene pool in general.
Am. J. Hum. Genet., 75:000, 2004
Ethiopian Mitochondrial DNA Heritage: Tracking Gene Flow across and around the Gate of Tears
Toomas Kivisild et al.
Approximately 10 miles separate the Horn of Africa from the Arabian Peninsula at Bab-el-Mandeb (the Gate of Tears). Both historic and archaeological evidence indicate tight cultural connections, over millennia, between these two regions. High-resolution phylogenetic analysis of 270 Ethiopian and 115 Yemeni mitochondrial DNAs was performed in a worldwide context, to explore gene flow across the Red and Arabian Seas. Nine distinct subclades, including three newly defined ones, were found to characterize entirely the variation of Ethiopian and Yemeni L3 lineages. Both Ethiopians and Yemenis contain an almost-equal proportion of Eurasian-specific M and N and African-specific lineages and therefore cluster together in a multidimensional scaling plot between Near Eastern and sub-Saharan African populations. Phylogeographic identification of potential founder haplotypes revealed that approximately one-half of haplogroup L0–L5 lineages in Yemenis have close or matching counterparts in southeastern Africans, compared with a minor share in Ethiopians. Newly defined clade L6, the most frequent haplogroup in Yemenis, showed no close matches among 3,000 African samples. These results highlight the complexity of Ethiopian and Yemeni genetic heritage and are consistent with the introduction of maternal lineages into the South Arabian gene pool from different source populations of East Africa. A high proportion of Ethiopian lineages, significantly more abundant in the northeast of that country, trace their western Eurasian origin in haplogroup N through assorted gene flow at different times and involving different source populations.
My understanding was that the amhara showed the most significant percentage of admixture but not the oromo. Interesting.
Posts: 426 | From: Cali-for-nia | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oromo have more elongated features(often long limbs, extremely fine features and very dark) as other Africans who live in hot and dry area, especially southern Oromos...it's almost impossible sometime to differentiate them from Somalis, Afars and other elongated Africans, however many Amhara or Northern Ethiopians have less Elongated features because they mixed a little bit more with Yemeni and some Nilo-Saharans of Ethiopia...but that's not scientific, since it's based on casual observations on my part...but if you dig deeper in genetics...there is some correlation with my observations...they carry a lot of J haplogroups...
Posts: 461 | From: Kilimanjaro | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dr Winters once asked me what was wrong with Dienekes Pontikos racist pseudo-anthropology blog.
I explained that Medicentrist Pontikos is essentially and amatuer distortion artist who gets off on systemically perverting anthropology studies, and watching as naive' people quote his ill-informed lying racist garbage as if it came from the scientists themselves.
What amazes me is how *utterly gullible* some folks are in continuing to site this fool.
Here then is *my* question:
"Who's more foolish, the fool, or the fool who cites him?"
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
As for Kivisild's study, it's from 2004 and hardly new.
Phylogeographic identification of potential founder haplotypes revealed that approximately one-half of haplogroup L0–L5 lineages in Yemenis have close or matching counterparts in southeastern Africans, compared with a minor share in Ethiopians.
^ Yes, Yemeni have African ancestry, from East Africa south of Ethiopia, and elsewhere.
Newly defined clade L6, the most frequent haplogroup in Yemenis, showed no close matches among 3,000 African samples.
Perhaps the key to Pontikos is that he knows that many people are lazy and will allow him to dumb down and destort rather than take the time to read the actual studies themselves?
Continuing...
These results highlight the complexity of Ethiopian and Yemeni genetic heritage and are consistent with the introduction of maternal lineages INTO the South Arabian gene pool FROM different source populations of East Africa.
^ Again, yes.
Anyone who reads the above and concludes that it supports the notion of Ethiopians being half Eurasian is either dyslexic or dense.
contd.....
A high proportion of Ethiopian lineages, significantly more abundant in the northeast of that country, trace their western Eurasian origin in haplogroup N through assorted gene flow at different times and involving different source populations.
^ This is the only thing worth contesting in Kivisild 2004, once we cleanse it of Dienekes urine.
My reply to this would be also from Tishkoff and Kivisild:
Although two mtDNA lineages with an African origin (haplogroups M and N) were the progenitors of all non-African haplogroups, macrohaplogroup L (including haplogroups L0-L6) is limited to sub-Saharan Africa. - Tishkoff and Kivisild 2006
N lineages diverge from African L3.
It simply isn't clear which N lineages originated in East Africa to begin with, and which may have diverged somewhere outside of Africa, and then come back, and at what time.
One thing is clear - N lineages are found all the way from Norway to Australia, so either this lineage developed *immediately* after outmigration of the ancestors of non Africans, or...as stated above, developed in East Africa, prior to said outmigration.
If the later is the case, then.....what is the basis of the rheotrical question that forms this topic?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Dr Winters once asked me what was wrong with Dienekes Pontikos racist pseudo-anthropology blog.
I explained that Medicentrist Pontikos is essentially and amatuer distortion artist who gets off on systemically perverting anthropology studies, and watching as naive' people quote his ill-informed lying racist garbage as if it came from the scientists themselves.
What amazes me is how *utterly gullible* some folks are in continuing to site this fool.
Here then is *my* question:
"Who's more foolish, the fool, or the fool who cites him?"
LOL. I'm sure that was a subtle jab directed at me. It was'nt taken from "dienekes", from another forum. I just wanted to know what was everyones take on it. In all fairness it can't simply just be dissmissed just because. lets not get distracted from the original question.
But yes "eurasian" influence on certain african groups is a favorite theme of that idealogue dienikies.
For those interested watch his pointless debates with abiola at foreign dispatches.
posted
^ Let's be constructive then, and make something useful out of the misinformation in the parent post:
We propose that a large and diverse human population(s) has persisted in eastern Africa and that eastern Africa may have been an ancient source of dispersion of modern humans both within and outside of Africa.
posted
^ Excellent work Rasol dispelling the Dienekes nonsense as usual. That reminds me, I remember you mentioning at one time that Dienekes even admitted to purposely distorting studies and other data. When did he do this, and what exactly did he say?? Just out of curiosity. Posts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
He was challenged over his phony practise of inserting "commentary" into abstracts, which implied that geneticists applied racial catagories to DNA haplotypes.
He answered by admitting.... "western geneticists no longer assign haplotypes to races, so let's just leave it at that".
^ translation: I admit to distorting studies to trick stupid people. it's not my fault they are stupid. i'm going to keep doing it then, too bad.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is true that Dieniekes misleads people in his blog/forums to deflect the fact that Southern Europeans have substantial Black African ancestry; however Ethiopians are diverse, although the vast majority of Ethiopians don't carry Asians haplogroups,it is important to notice that the Amhara seems to have a high proportion of paternal J haplogroup ...I agree with the previous analysis that the alleged Asian mtdna might actually be African...but by studying the Amhara population one can notice a hight proportion of J haplogroup whereas the biggest ethnic group: the Oromos have almost none...Is the J haplogroup an Asian gene(meaning it originated in Asia) or is it African? Asian here doesn't necessaraly equate with leucoderm since early West Asian who lived near Africa might have been as dark as their African counterpart...
Posts: 461 | From: Kilimanjaro | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Oh yeah, I forgot to point out that you, Habari, are non other than AFRICA I. Posts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: agree with the previous analysis that the alleged Asian mtdna might actually be African...but by studying the Amhara population one can notice a hight proportion of J haplogroup whereas the biggest ethnic group: the Oromos have almost none.
This is quite true.
But before this can be addressed, it needs to be pointed out, that the study referenced is only of maternal mtdna, not of Y chromosome male.
Then we can denote the fact that Ethiopia is a modern country, not a homogeneous genetic entity.
This is another reason why the rhetorical question/topic is a fallacy.
So we would need to discuss the individual ethnic groups in order to *understand* their genetic profiles, as opposed to lumping them together in order to distort the same.
We've done this before on the forum as pertains to other studies.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: This is quite true.
But before this can be addressed, it needs to be pointed out, that the study referenced is only of maternal mtdna, not of Y chromosome male.
Then we can denote the fact that Ethiopia is a modern country, not a homogeneous genetic entity.
This is another reason why the rhetorical question/topic is a fallacy.
So we would need to discuss the individual ethnic groups in order to *understand* their genetic profiles, as opposed to lumping them together in order to distort the same.
We've done this before on the forum as pertains to other studies.
Such is a favorite tactic of distortionists to use the genetic studies of one particular ethnic group and say that it represents the whole country.
quote:Originally posted by Habari: Please address the above...it's kind of a childish answer...
It was already addressed by Rasol, but I can see judging by your tone as well as your style of writing you are 'AFRICA I'. Posts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Is Ethiopia more 'Eurasian' or is Yeman more 'African'. (??)
Languages of Yemen:
While the national language is Arabic (spoken in several regional dialects), Yemen is one of the main homelands of the South Semitic family of languages, which includes the non-Arabic language of the ancient Sabaean Kingdom.
Its modern Yemeni descendants are closely related to the modern Semitic languages of Eritrea and Ethiopia.
However, only a small remnant of those languages exists in modern Yemen, notably on the island of Socotra and in the back hills of the Hadhramaut coastal region.
Modern South Arabian languages spoken in Yemen include Mehri, with 70,643 speakers, Soqotri, with an estimated 43,000 speakers in the Socotra archipelago (2004 census) and 67,000 worldwide, and Bathari (with an estimated total of only 200 speakers).
Languages of Ethiopia:
The number of languages listed for Ethiopia is 89. There are six sub catagories:
Central Cushitic languages East Cushitic languages Ethiopian Semitic languages Komuz [Nilo Saharan] languages Omotic languages Tigrinya language
Most of Ethiopia's peopleas speak among dozens of langauges that are from families that are found only in Africa.
Yemen has a limited number of languages almost soley contricted to one Afro-"Asiatic" family - Semitic.
Where are the Eurasian languages of Yemen?
Was Yemen 'ever' primarily Eurasian, genetically or culturally?
If so...at what time?
Why aren't there more descernable ancient "Eurasian" elements native to Yemen, and equivelant to Oromo/Hamar/etc. and other undeniably ancient and undeniably African primary components of Ethiopia?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
We propose that a large and diverse human population(s) has persisted in eastern Africa and that eastern Africa may have been an ancient source of dispersion of modern humans both within and outside of Africa. -Tishkoff.
Can the same be proposed for Yemen, or no?
Are modern Yemeni descendant from a diverse and large population of native Eurasian, that have -persisted-. (??)
If the answer is no, then can Yemen be objectively equated to Ethiopia?
Or is Yemin the product of a native population closely related to East Africans, and a more recent and intrusive Eurasian element, the combination of which helps define "Arab". (??)
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
In Figure 3 of Kivisild 2004, East African cluster together in mtdna frequency:
Tigrai, Egyptian, Oromo, Afar, Amhara, Gurage, and Yemini.
Yemini are closer to all the above than to any Eurasian.
Modern Egyptian is closest to Tigray.
No African group is closer to a Eurasian group than it is to its closest African relative.
Objectively speaking - Yemen is outlier with respect to the rest of "eurasia", but Ethiopia is not outlier with respect to the rest of Africa.
The effort to focus on the 'suspect' ancestry of Ethiopia with respect to Yemen is backwards.
Ethiopia is primarily African.
But Yemen cannot be claimed to be primarily "Eurasian". At least not based on mtdna.... or language.
Only by constricting Africa to 'sub-sahara' and leaving Eurasian vaguely or non defined can this fact be obscurred.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Or is Yemin the product of a native population closely related to East Africans, and a more recent and intrusive Eurasian element, the combination of which helps define "Arab". (??)
Pretty close according to the following that was posted by Evergreen:
BMC Evol Biol. 2008 Feb 12;8(1):45
Mitochondrial DNA structure in the Arabian Peninsula
ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Two potential migratory routes followed by modern humans to colonize Eurasia from Africa have been proposed. These are the two natural passageways that connect both continents: the northern route through the Sinai Peninsula and the southern route across the Bab al Mandab strait. Recent archaeological and genetic evidence have favored a unique southern coastal route. Under this scenario, the study of the population genetic structure of the Arabian Peninsula, the first step out of Africa, to search for primary genetic links between Africa and Eurasia, is crucial. The haploid and maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) molecule has been the most used genetic marker to identify and to relate lineages with clear geographic origins, as the African Ls and the Eurasian M and N that have a common root with the Africans L3. RESULTS: To assess the role of the Arabian Peninsula in the southern route, we genetically analyzed 553 Saudi Arabs using partial (546) and complete mtDNA (7) sequencing, and compared the lineages obtained with those present in Africa, the Near East, central, east and southeast Asia and Australasia. The results showed that the Arabian Peninsula has received substantial gene flow from Africa (20%), detected by the presence of L, M1 and U6 lineages; that an 18% of the Arabian Peninsula lineages have a clear eastern provenance, mainly represented by U lineages; but also by Indian M lineages and rare M links with Central Asia, Indonesia and even Australia. However, the bulk (62%) of the Arabian lineages has a Northern source. CONCLUSIONS: Although there is evidence of Neolithic and more recent expansions in the Arabian Peninsula, mainly detected by (preHV)1 and J1b lineages, the lack of primitive autochthonous M and N sequences, suggests that this area has been more a receptor of human migrations, including historic ones, from Africa, India, Indonesia and even Australia, than a demographic expansion center along the proposed southern coastal route.Posts: 461 | From: Kilimanjaro | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
First off: The cited piece attributes both M and N to Eurasia.
"Although two mtDNA lineages with an African origin (haplogroups M and N) were the progenitors of all non-African haplogroups, macrohaplogroup L (including haplogroups L0-L6) is limited to sub-Saharan Africa." - Tishkoff and Kivisild 2006
^Indeed.
My view, considering all the evidence: M and N are African, and lineages like African M1 don't necissarily denote Asian ancestry in Africans.
"Mitochondrial M lineages in Ethiopia were first detected by RFLP analyses. To explain its presence in that area the authors suggested two possibilities: 1) the marker was acquired by Ethiopians through interchanges with Asians or 2) it was present in the ancient Ethiopian population and was carried to Asia by groups who migrated out of Africa. Later, the second hypothesis was favored and a single origin of haplogroup M in Africa was suggested, dating the split between Asian and African M branches older than 50,000 ya. Although not completely discarding this last scenario other authors considered that the disjunctive was unsettled. The vast diversity of haplogroup M in Asia compared to Africa pointed to the possibility that M1 is a branch that traces a backflow from Asia to Africa." Gonzales et al 2007
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
One thing is clear - N lineages are found all the way from Norway to Australia, so either this lineage developed *immediately* after outmigration of the ancestors of non Africans, or...as stated above, developed in East Africa, prior to said outmigration.
If the later is the case, then.....what is the basis of the rheotrical question that forms this topic?
M is found in India, the "near east", East Africa, North Africa, and the Iberian peninsula.
Concerning Africa and the areas around it, from the same (Ganzales) study :
"In Africa, haplogroup M1 has supra-equatorial distribution. As previously reported its highest frequencies and diversities are found in Ethiopia in particular and in East Africa in general. Two appreciable gradients exist. Frequencies significantly diminished from East to West and also going South to sub-Saharan areas. M1 is not uncommon in the Mediterranean basin showing a peak in the Iberian Peninsula. However, it is rare in continental Europe. Although in low frequencies, its presence in the Middle East has been well established from the South of the Arabian Peninsula to Anatolia and from the Levant to Iran."
Elsewhere...
"As an outgroup of the M1 genomic phylogenetic tree we used a published Indian M30 complete sequence. When this M30 lineage is compared to the rare M sequence previously detected in two Palestinians, it is evident that it belongs to the Indian super-clade M4'30, as it shares the basal mutation 12007. More specifically it belongs to the M30 branch because it also has transition 15431. M30 has a broad geographic, ethnic and linguistic range in India."
...and...
"Due to the scarcity of M lineages in the Near East and its richness in India, this region was proposed as the most probable origin of the M1 ancestor. However, recent studies based on Indian mtDNA sequences have not found any positive evidence that M1 originated in India."
...from earlier...
"in two recent studies in which 24 and 56 Indian M complete sequences were analyzed no ancestral M1 lineages have been found."
posted
So M is Asiatic in origin and not African? M1c is older than M1a and M1c is found in North Africa and not East Africa like M1a?
So migrations from Asia went all the way to North West Africa before the left over of the original migration into East Africa had mutated further hcne the reason M1c is older than M1a?
Posts: 343 | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Habari: It is true that Dieniekes misleads people in his blog/forums to deflect the fact that Southern Europeans have substantial Black African ancestry; however Ethiopians are diverse, although the vast majority of Ethiopians don't carry Asians haplogroups,it is important to notice that the Amhara seems to have a high proportion of paternal J haplogroup ...I agree with the previous analysis that the alleged Asian mtdna might actually be African...but by studying the Amhara population one can notice a hight proportion of J haplogroup whereas the biggest ethnic group: the Oromos have almost none...Is the J haplogroup an Asian gene(meaning it originated in Asia) or is it African? Asian here doesn't necessaraly equate with leucoderm since early West Asian who lived near Africa might have been as dark as their African counterpart...
J is Asian though the original inhabitants who carried it were derive from Cushitic tribes.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
So if there is a connection to North West Africa, Ethiopia, Asia and India is Clyde Winter's theories correct then?
Posts: 343 | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Wolofi: So if there is a connection to North West Africa, Ethiopia, Asia and India is Clyde Winter's theories correct then?
I don't know anything about Clyde Winter theories. Also, I don't know anything about a "connection" to North West Africa, Ethiopia, Asia, and India. The "J" DNA is "Asian" in origin.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The incidence of J in Turkey, and it's geographical redistribution, which closes resembles the Ottoman Empire. Suggests that it is fundamentally a Turkish gene, and was introduced by one of the many Turkish tribes which migrated from central Asia. The power and size of the Ottoman Empire occasioned crossbreeding between Turks and many people. Speaking to the Cushite issue, the northern part of Sudan considers itself Arab.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ I'm a little confused. So underived M* originated in Africa and spread to Asia with the initial OOA migration, but M* in Africa developed into M1 whereas that in Asia through parallel mutation developed into different derivatives?
No, the studies I posted, suggest that the basal motifs characteristic of the M macrohaplogroup arose in Africa, perhaps ~ 60,000 years ago or so. Sometime between 60 ky and 50 ky ago, these L3 offshoots were carried outside of Africa, amongst early successful a.m.h migrations, which resulted in the populations now living in the Indian-subcontinent, Melanesia and Australia who have these lineages. Not all the basal African L3M lineages, as Semino et al. convincingly put it, left the continent, as indicated by the basal L3a-M motif detected in Senegal, M1 diversity in Africa, particularly East Africa, both M1 and other M lineages detected in Ugandan samples, and lack of descendancy of M1 from older-coalescent Asian macrohaplogroup. Rather, it appears that the basal L3M lineages which remained in Africa, underwent a relatively limited demographic intra-African expansion until relatively recently, i.e. between 30-10 ky ago, compared to the Asian L3M derivatives, which underwent major expansions, naturally within the quantatively smaller founder immigrant groups, i.e. the founder effect.
M1 is likely the culmination of relatively more recent demographic expansions of basal L3M lineages in the African continent, with M1 derivative being a successful candidate, in what could have possibly involved other derivatives which might not have expanded to the same level intra-continentally, and subsequently, extra-continently as well.
M1 has strongly been correlated with the upper Paleolithic expansion of proto-Afrasan groups across the Sahara to coastal north Africa, and further eastward via the Sinai peninsula.
quote:Originally posted by Wolofi: SO IS IT SAFE TO SAY THAT "M" IS ASIAN IN ORIGIN?
No, but is safe to say that Haplogroup M and Narose from African L3. Indeed they are properly referenced as L3M and L3N.
There are two big problems with trying to originate M and N in Asia.
1) There are actually no underived M or N lineages in Asia, only downstream derivities. Therefore there is no hard proof of and Asian origin.
2) Ancient derivitives of M and N are found in places like Melanesia [and island in the middle of the Indian Ocean], and Australia, as well Asia, so the question is - if these lineages developed independently - some unspecified place - which is somehow required to be in Asia - how did they spread jointly to desparate areas of the globe and in extremely ancient times, and also whilst leaving no evidence of the proginators, either L3, or M*/N*?
If on the other hand the originating African populations harboured L3M and L3N.....that would better explain the range of both of these lineages.
To put it another way East African lineage L3 offers a plausible point and place of origin for M and N.
quote: As for Kivisild's study, it's from 2004 and hardly new.
Phylogeographic identification of potential founder haplotypes revealed that approximately one-half of haplogroup L0–L5 lineages in Yemenis have close or matching counterparts in southeastern Africans, compared with a minor share in Ethiopians.
^ Yes, Yemeni have African ancestry, from East Africa south of Ethiopia, and elsewhere.
Newly defined clade L6, the most frequent haplogroup in Yemenis, showed no close matches among 3,000 African samples.
At present L6 is considered a possible L2 derivition.
But here is the most important part and indicator of Pontikos bankruptcy.
From the very Kivisild 2004 study he supposedly cites, and chooses to omit:
*And East African origin of L6 seems most likely*
Perhaps the key to Pontikos is that he knows that many people are lazy and will allow him to dumb down and destort rather than take the time to read the actual studies themselves?
Continuing...
These results highlight the complexity of Ethiopian and Yemeni genetic heritage and are consistent with the introduction of maternal lineages INTO the South Arabian gene pool FROM different source populations of East Africa.
^ Again, yes.
Anyone who reads the above and concludes that it supports the notion of Ethiopians being half Eurasian is either dyslexic or dense.
contd.....
A high proportion of Ethiopian lineages, significantly more abundant in the northeast of that country, trace their western Eurasian origin in haplogroup N through assorted gene flow at different times and involving different source populations.
^ This is the only thing worth contesting in Kivisild 2004, once we cleanse it of Dienekes urine.
My reply to this would be also from Tishkoff and Kivisild:
Although two mtDNA lineages with an African origin (haplogroups M and N) were the progenitors of all non-African haplogroups, macrohaplogroup L (including haplogroups L0-L6) is limited to sub-Saharan Africa. - Tishkoff and Kivisild 2006
N lineages diverge from African L3.
It simply isn't clear which N lineages originated in East Africa to begin with, and which may have diverged somewhere outside of Africa, and then come back, and at what time.
One thing is clear - N lineages are found all the way from Norway to Australia, so either this lineage developed *immediately* after outmigration of the ancestors of non Africans, or...as stated above, developed in East Africa, prior to said outmigration.
If the later is the case, then.....what is the basis of the rheotrical question that forms this topic?
Excellent stuff!This is what we need,clear, short and on target.
Posts: 96 | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Ethnocentric Europeans who have had to recently come to grips with Europe's heterogeneous origins.
^ Confused Mongrels - who vent against their weak sense of ethnic identity, by attempting to ridicule the identities of others.
^ Punked Black Africans - who think any identification with any non African non Black identity [European, Arab, Hebrew, etc..] is better than being African and Black.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ Ethnocentric Europeans who have had to recently come to grips with Europe's heterogeneous origins.
^ Confused Mongrels - who vent against their weak sense of ethnic identity, by attempting to ridicule the identities of others.
^ Punked Black Africans - who think any identification with any non African non Black identity [European, Arab, Hebrew, etc..] is better than being African and Black.
White Nerd represents the first group, Jaimie the second, and gargoyle and other supposedly black trolls the last group. LOLPosts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
These writings from Rasol belong here as well...
specifically aimed at the likes of 'White Nord'!
quote:Originally posted by rasol: "Europeans appear genetically as 2/3 Asian, 1/3 African" - Geneticist Cavelli Sforza.
^ Why is that Tryo?
PR middleEast:
Can you name examples of Asians who appear as 1/3 African and 2/3 European?
Can you name examples of Africans who appear as 1/3 Asian and 2/3rds Europeans.
Then why do you deny Europeans are mixed?
African lineages found throughout Europe:
E3b, E3a, L1, L2, L3, A1.........
But according to you, Europeans are not mixed... only Africans can be mixed.
You're a stinking racist hypocrite, who gets his ideas about genetics from racist white losers who you let tell you what to think. [which shows your low level of intellect and low self esteem].
And whom you believe as long as they tell you any lie you want to hear.
You know that don't you?
"Europe shows a shorter distance from Africa than do all the other continents"
^ As and example of how desparate is the racist vanity of Eurocentrist-ego wounded, when ES troll Evil-Euro was confronted with this reality, he tried to argue that this simply reflected geographic distance.
In other words Europe is closer to Africa genetically because it is physically closer than other continents.
This is a priceless bit of child psychology since of course it is *true* that Europe is closer to Africa than East Asia or Australia - but this only explains 'how' Europeans have come to be mixed. [since so many Africans from so many eras have migrated their, much more easily than to East Asia or Australia]
Admixture is the cause.
Geography facilitates genetic admixture, which is what causes genetic proximity.
Geography is not and excuse.
Europeans are more "mixed" with Africans, than the other way around.
That's a fact. Geneticists have stated so, and *NO GENETICIST* will deny this.
And that's why those who would deny this resort to unsubstantiated claims proferred for "reasons unknown".
So White Nerd, how can you call East Africans or any Africans for that matter 'mixed' when Africa has less foreign lineages than Europe??
Perhaps despite your white 'Nordish' exterior you may very well have black African ancestors! Posts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Wolofi: SO IS IT SAFE TO SAY THAT "M" IS ASIAN IN ORIGIN?
No, but is safe to say that Haplogroup M and Narose from African L3. Indeed they are properly referenced as L3M and L3N.
There are two big problems with trying to originate M and N in Asia.
1) There are actually no underived M or N lineages in Asia, only downstream derivities. Therefore there is no hard proof of and Asian origin.
2) Ancient derivitives of M and N are found in places like Melanesia [and island in the middle of the Indian Ocean], and Australia, as well Asia, so the question is - if these lineages developed independently - some unspecified place - which is somehow required to be in Asia - how did they spread jointly to desparate areas of the globe and in extremely ancient times, and also whilst leaving no evidence of the proginators, either L3, or M*/N*?
If on the other hand the originating African populations harboured L3M and L3N.....that would better explain the range of both of these lineages.
To put it another way East African lineage L3 offers a plausible point and place of origin for M and N.
No other place does.
AHHHH good point thanks
I have never heard it put that way.
Posts: 343 | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic