posted
DNA study supports African origin of man WASHINGTON - A new genetic analysis of people from around the world adds further confirmation to the African origin of humans. The study of genetic details from 938 individuals from 51 populations provides evidence of how people are related and different, researchers led by Richard M. Myers of Stanford University report in Friday's issue of the journal Science.
The team looked at variations in 650,000 sections of each of the DNA samples, providing a view of the similarities and differences between people in greater detail than had been available previously.
Scientists have long believed that modern humans first developed in Africa and spread from there to populate the rest of the world, a theory strongly supported by the new analysis, the researchers said.
In addition, they noted that residents of the Middle East can trace their ancestry to both Africa and Europe, which they said is logical since the region formed a bridge for movement back and forth between the areas.
Also, they noted, they found a close a relationship between the Yakut population of Siberia and native Americans, who are believed to have migrated from Siberia via a land bridge at a time of lower sea levels.
quote:Originally posted by With a name like Smuckers: [b] In addition, they noted that residents of the Middle East can trace their ancestry to both Africa and Europe, which they said is logical since the region formed a bridge for movement back and forth between the areas.
Evergreen Writes:
If taken within context this is a very progressive admission by this research team. Often researchers will admit that humans migrated out of Africa during the Upper Paleolithic. They are hard-pressed to admit that Africans have made significant genetic contributions to the European gene pool after the onset of the Holocene (recent epoch). There is still a lingering Eurocentrism in the scientific community uncomfortable with the fact that African people were pivotal to the development of settled/complex society in the Eastern Mediterranean.
However, we now know via the presence of African specific HLA, haplogroup E3b and the Benin Sickle Cell variant that Africans migrated out of Africa (both East and West Africa) and around the circum-Meditteranean Basin post African Holocene and pre-European Neolithic.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:they noted that residents of the Middle East can trace their ancestry to both Africa and Europe
Also moves the 'zone of mixture' so called to where it is most logically located - the Levantine.
I caution everyone again though regarding the term 'Middle East'.
It is not clear where this -false- entity is, nor is there any manner of enforcing a particular definition of it.
In other words - you can't be sure they are saying what you think they are saying.
Middle East was invented by America and Britain in the 19th/20th century, to justify imperialism, it is not a valid historical reference.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting how this study coincides with the other one stating the relative genetic fitness of africans in comaprison to europeans in the sample study.
then watch how its "sensationalized" all over the web: here being a prime example
Bear in mind the study does'nt state that blacks are "superior" to whites at all, and I believe its authors were careful in their assessment of the findings. What it means though, is basically what has been known for some time already: Africans are gentically more diverse and therefore "fit" than europeans who comprise a subset population of africans.
Really the study has'nt said anything new. But the special interest groups (i.e eurocentrics) and naysayers go on the attack anyway. For what? Nothing.
Posts: 426 | From: Cali-for-nia | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: There is still a lingering Eurocentrism in the scientific community uncomfortable with the fact that African people were pivotal to the development of settled/complex society in the Eastern Mediterranean.
Which is why I find it not to be any accident that E3b1-M78 is the only Y-chromosone that has all of these "clusters" and so forth that are suppose to "differentiate" between Africans, Europeans and Middle Easterns. Notice that E3a has no clusters, that haplogroups R, J, I G and so forth have no "clusters" like E3b1-M78. I think the reason why M78 has clusters and none of the others have it is because this lineages appears in significant frequencies in Europe. To label it as African would totally shatter the myth of European "racial" purity.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
You bring an interesting point. Maybe the more knowledgeable one can help me on this.
Since a lot of "Europeans" have this haplogroup how can they make that statements- Europeans are "weaker". You would think that those(Europeans) that carry the E3b are "stronger", like africans.
Did they make that distinction? Or I suggested in the European thread - MtDNA and Y- haploGroups don't mean dick. Has little, if any, impact on phenotype.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting somebody brings this up. In this E3b forum an European man tested E3b1a3, after viewing his picture in his Avatar I wondered how many generations does it take to alter a phenotype if we were to judge by Haplogroup?
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: There is still a lingering Eurocentrism in the scientific community uncomfortable with the fact that African people were pivotal to the development of settled/complex society in the Eastern Mediterranean.
Which is why I find it not to be any accident that E3b1-M78 is the only Y-chromosone that has all of these "clusters" and so forth that are suppose to "differentiate" between Africans, Europeans and Middle Easterns. Notice that E3a has no clusters, that haplogroups R, J, I G and so forth have no "clusters" like E3b1-M78. I think the reason why M78 has clusters and none of the others have it is because this lineages appears in significant frequencies in Europe. To label it as African would totally shatter the myth of European "racial" purity.
^ Precisely so. Indeed without E3b I doubt there would be much discussion of clusters within lineages.
Of course this doesn't mean clusters are not valid and informative per se.
However in the case of E3b, Eurocentric laymen uses clusters to obscure and not to inform.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Indulge if you will, more on faux-middle-east:
To understand the difference between the term - Middle East, and terms such as 'Africa, Europe, Asia, Polynesia, Australia', etc., one must simply know the meaning of -> ad hoc.
->created to serve a specific agenda.
Middle East is not a geography, it is not a geology, it is not a culture.
Middle East is and agenda and ideology specifically created to service the imperialist interest of the US and Britain in the 19th century.
Middle-East is therefore and ad hoc term.
Therefore it follows that when we repeat this term - we subconsciously bolster it's agenda.
Most progressive history texts no longer propagate the falsehood of middle-east in ancient history.
They correctly contextualize this maleviolent term as something fabricated by 19th/20th century Europeans.
Thus....
The term - Middle East - when examined in cultural, anthropological and cultural terms makes very little sense. Allow me to state this bluntly: the construct "Middle East" is a geopolitical invention - void of any scientific basis. The term was first invented by American lecturer and Anglophile Alfred Thayer Mahan (1840-1914): ^ Europeans who make stuff up, for weak-willed non Europeans to parrot after.
The definition of the term Middle East is defined by geopolitical strategists who reside outside of the so-called 'Middle East'.
So much for the 'origins' of the so-called 'Middle East'. It is important for Iranians to understand the overtly racist and geopolitical origins of this term. It is comical to see gullible Arabs, Iranians and to a lesser extent Turks (many who now wish to be 'European' actually) saying that they are 'Middle Eastern'. http://www.rozanehmagazine.com/MarchApril06/AmiddleEast.htmlPosts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic