Was there morphological changes between these two populations that contributed to the formation of a new population European, according to Bowcock?
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
Was there morphological changes between these two populations that contributed to the formation of a new population European, according to Bowcock?
This kid is too damn slow.
Two populations Asian and African. Paleolithic Asians resembled Australians and Africans, yes. But, at the time of admixture with the incoming migrants from Africa, these ancestral Paleolithic Asians in Europe, were already morphologically changing due to adaptation in their environments, I.e gradually becoming cold adapted(Europeans). You want me to explain it again???Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: these ancestral Paleolithic Asians in Europe, were already morphologically changing
So what? Bowcock et al. did not say Mesolithic Europeans or "morphologically changing" Asians and Africans came together to form a new population. They said two populations, Asian and African, came together to form a new: European.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: these ancestral Paleolithic Asians in Europe, were already morphologically changing
So what? Bowcock et al. did not say Mesolithic Europeans or "morphologically changing" Asians and Africans came together to form a new population. They said two populations, Asian and African, came together to form a new: European.
Lmao @ what a squirming jackass you are...... Bowcock tells us Asians and Africans came together to form a new population, yes. When we look at the genetic and skeletal record of migrations and admixture from post OOA Africans into Europe, we see it was well after Paleolithic Asians had already settled Europe, and were already gradually adapting to their environments.
Now, this is where your argument via two black populations not being able to form a hybrid population since there was no morphological differentiation. Well, now I point out that there was morphological differentiation at the time of admixtures between the Paleolithic Asians in Europe, and the incoming migrants from post OOA Africa. Will you now address this???
quote:Originally posted by rasol: there it is again,
that awful smell!!!
^^^Yup I still smell it, a rotting carcass of a jackassoben.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: Well, now I point out that there was morphological differentiation at the time of admixtures between the Paleolithic Asians in Europe, and the incoming migrants from post OOA Africa. Will you now address this???
Oh my god, this is the worse form of face saving straw man rambling I have ever seen in my entire life! LOL
It doesn't matter what face saving rambles you come up with. According to Bowcock et al. Europeans are descendants of a population that arose due to admixture between two ancestral populations .... two divergent populations contribute in specified proportions to form a new population.
They are not saying that Mesolithic Europeans or "morphologically changing" Asians and Africans formed/produced a "new" population.
come again so I can throw your BS back in your face!
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: According to Bowcock et al. Europeans are descendants of a population that arose due to admixture between two ancestral populations .... two divergent populations contribute in specified proportions to form a new population.They are not saying that Mesolithic Europeans or "morphologically changing" Asians and Africans formed/produced a "new" population.
Ok?? lol Yes this is exactly what this means. When we look at the genetic and skeletal record of migrations and admixture from post OOA Africans into Europe, we see it was well after Paleolithic Asians had already settled Europe, and were already gradually adapting to their environments.
It doesn't matter what you want to argue ms. semantic strawman. Bowcock and Cavalli inform us that Europeans are result of Africans and Asians coming together to create Europeans.
It's not my fault you don't understand OOA, or understand when these migrations, and admixture took place, to know that there was already morphological differentiation. This is your own remedial fault that you don't understand that we are able to know when these migration and admixture took place due to genetic and skeletal evidential facts.
Therefore your silly semantic strawman via "they didn't mention that the populations were morphologically differentiated" doesn't matter since I am proving to you that they were. Will you address this now? Stop running, because you can't run forever....
1) Europeans are result of Paleolithic Asians and post OOA Africans, all lineages present in Europeans are either Asian derived, or post OOA African derived.
2) At the time of admixture between Paleolithic Asians and incoming post OOA African migrants, the ancestral Asian population was already morphologically differentiated therefore were not black like their Paleolithic ancestors who resembled Australians and Africans more than modern inhabitants. Therefore as proven, it wasn't two black populations.
You're debunked again as usual....according to your own logic Europeans are hybrids. Mixing of two populations with morphological differentiation.
Another case closed on the dead rotting carcass of the jackassoben........
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Oh my god, this is the worse form of face saving straw man rambling I have ever seen in my entire life
^ Don't you have a mirror?
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ lack of answers is making your "attention deficit disorder" even worse.
take your ritalin please, and then answer the questions.....
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ the jackass suffers from attention deficit disorder, so we have to remind him of his failure to address...
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:My god, you're just all over the place
^ gosh akoben, you're going nowhere at all, because you have no answers.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ jackass factor....
quote:Originally posted by Alive-(What Box):
The overall contributions from **Asia** and Africa** were estimated to be around two-thirds and one-third, respectively. Simulations have shown (7) that this hypothesis explains quite well the discrepancy between trees obtained by maximum likelihood and neighbor joining.
The genetic information for this work came from a very large collection of gene frequencies grouped from 42 populations studied for 120 alleles.
Information from this table was adapted from refs. 1 and 2.
Reference 1 ↵Cavalli-Sforza L L, Menozzi P, Piazza A (1994) The History and Geography of Human Genes (Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ).
Reference 2 ↵Cavalli-Sforza L L (1996) Genes Peoples et Langues (Odile Jacob, Paris).
quote: or understand when these migrations, and admixture took place, to know that there was already morphological differentiation.
So the Europeans at the time of post OOA African migrants were not black (like early Paleolithic Asian settlers) but morphed into the modern inhabitants of today, they were what we call today "white" right?
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ ROTFL @ the idiot above who claims to know what he's talking about enough to make an argument but is (again) reduced to asking questions!
quote:Jackassoben angrily types: Where does he give credence to the racial divergence theories of your white masters with whom you seek to constantly validate your mongrel Puerto Rican ass?
My oh my, I see you share the same penchant as all other retard trolls-- resorting to ad-hominem attacks on people via presumed ethnicities. First you call Rasol a 'Jew' now 'Puerto-Rican'?? LOL He is neither but it doesn't matter because you're still fried up!
Hey guys, I smell that sh*t too! It's the smell of burnt donkey meat!
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: or understand when these migrations, and admixture took place, to know that there was already morphological differentiation.
So the Europeans at the time of post OOA African migrants were not black (like early Paleolithic Asian settlers) but morphed into the modern inhabitants of today, they were what we call today "white" right?
Oh man, again, humans in Europe were gradually becoming cold adapted to what we see today, when post OOA African migrations took place. Morphological differentiation is noted from tropically adapted in the Paleolithic, and gradually towards cold adaption during the Mesolithic. You know damn well as much as it is explained on this board that Europeans only turned pale recently in order to allow UV in to produce Vitamin D through synthesis.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ African migrates to Europe were slowly adapting to the climate, while African Albinos were not able to adapt, but found the Europeans climate much more suitable to their mutated state, relative to the African climate which was far more hostile and lead to certain early fatalities amongst them. Over time, following admixture, the modern European emerged. Posts: 3595 | From: Moved To Mars. Waiting with shotgun | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^You try so hard, but yet you always fail miserably... Poor kid.
quote: while African Albinos were not able to adapt, but found the Europeans climate much more suitable to their mutated state,
Albinism is recessive and is not something that becomes permanent because a climate fits well this recessive mutated state. Albinos who would live in Europe, would not produce ongoing albino children you dumbass.
Then you stupidly say albinos mixed and mixed with others to create Europeans, so basically you're saying this genetic recessive rarely occurring state of albinism became dominant over Africans and Asians who weren't albinos and carried no recessive genes?
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh my god, I hope for your sake that you're only face saving. I really hope you're not this stupid.
Clueless718, there was no "admixture" between Paleolithic Asians and incoming post OOA African migrants to produce any new population. By the time post OOA Africans came Europeans were not paleolithic, Asian or black.
And these modern inhabitants (whites) didn't merge with incoming Africans to produce a new population, which would be a "hybrid". You see, hybrids are not the "Mixing of two populations with morphological differentiation" you silly illiterate child. Hybrids are products of two or more of the alleged racial groups; or to put it another way, products of two populations with morphological differentiation.
So Bowcock et al. argues: Europeans are hybrids, products of already differentiated Asian (not post Paleolithic Europeans) and Africans; arose as a result of admixture between two already differentiated populations Asian (not post Paleolithic Europeans) and Africans. You still fail to prove this. In fact, what you actually show is not two differentiated populations merging to produce a new, not racial divergence, but simple population expansion and evolution. Precisely what Keita argues, not Bowcock! So in the end, what all your face saving dribble actually did was to debunk Bowcock! Which I suspect you subconsciously wanted to do a long time ago when you realized how much of a liability they had become!
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^That post is so imbecilic, contradicting and evasive, I don't even know where to start. I really shouldn't even waste my time with your strawmen, but hey let's go.....
quote:Jackassoben brays: there was no "admixture" between Paleolithic Asians and incoming post OOA African migrants to produce any new population. By the time post OOA Africans came Europeans were not paleolithic, Asian or black.
Lmao, now you're acting like you're telling me this? Anyway, as we look at the genetic and skeletal record of migrations and admixture from post OOA Africans into Europe, we see it was well after Paleolithic Asians had settled Europe, and were already gradually adapting to their environments.
quote: : writes: And these modern inhabitants (whites) didn't merge with incoming Africans to produce a new population, which would be a "hybrid".
Of course when post OOA Africans mixed with Asians in Europe the Asians weren't white, but they were considerably cold adapted, during the LUP and Mesolithic, Europeans matched up closer to recent Europeans in limb proportions indicating cold adaptations. Whereas their Paleolithic ancestors were tropically adapted and matched closely to recent Africans.
quote: : writes: You see, hybrids are not the "Mixing of two populations with morphological differentiation" you silly illiterate child. Hybrids are products of two or more of the alleged racial groups; or to put it another way, products of two populations with morphological differentiation.
Lmao, did you just say that? Wow, talk about contradictions, this is the worst.
Remember: Anything you say, can, and will be used against you.... Bwahahahahahahaahahahaahaa
quote: : writes: So Bowcock et al. argues: Europeans are hybrids, products of already differentiated Asian (not post Paleolithic Europeans) and Africans; arose as a result of admixture between two already differentiated populations Asian (not post Paleolithic Europeans) and Africans. You still fail to prove this.
Post paleolithic Europeans are Asian derived humans who received admixture from post OOA Africans to create the modern day European gene pool. Of course Bowcock argues that Europeans are a result of Asians and Africans coming together to create the modern European gene pool, which has been thoroughly validated many times.
quote: : writes: In fact, what you actually show is not two differentiated populations merging to produce a new, not racial divergence, but simple population expansion and evolution.
Girl shutup. I proved Europeans are result of Asians and Africans. Point blank.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Jackassoben debunks himself: Hybrids are products of two or more of the alleged racial groups; or to put it another way, products of two populations with morphological differentiation.
The two contributing populations were morphologically differentiated, you jackass. Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
Know matter how many times the jackass is smashed and burned, it keeps going! My, this is the most stubborn and stupidest ass in the world. Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The two contributing populations were morphologically differentiated
^ Yes it is clear that European phenotype is the produce of both in situ and admixture based differentiations.
Hybrid also exists at the genetic, as opposed to morphological level.
Europeans have African paternal haplotypes E and A and maternal haplotypes L2, and L3.
These haplotypes are not found in East Asia, Australia or the Pacific Island natives.
This is because they did not exist in the original OOA populations.
Europeans also have Benin Haplotype which causes sickle cell morphology, which is endemic in parts of Europe - neither Benin Haplotype nor Sickle Cell is found in East Asia, Australia or the Pacific Islands.
These genotypes and phenotypes are characteristic of Europeans, but not their OOA cousins because Europeans are hybrid - genetically, and phenetically.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
akoben is now so dumbstruck that he doesn't even *try* to respond.......
Very well then.
I leave the defeated jackass smouldering carcass for the rest of you to kick around.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ lack of answers is making your "attention deficit disorder" even worse.
take your ritalin please, and then answer the questions.....
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ the jackass suffers from attention deficit disorder, so we have to remind him of his failure to address...
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:My god, you're just all over the place
^ gosh akoben, you're going nowhere at all, because you have no answers.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ jackass factor....
quote:Originally posted by Alive-(What Box):
The overall contributions from **Asia** and Africa** were estimated to be around two-thirds and one-third, respectively. Simulations have shown (7) that this hypothesis explains quite well the discrepancy between trees obtained by maximum likelihood and neighbor joining.
The genetic information for this work came from a very large collection of gene frequencies grouped from 42 populations studied for 120 alleles.
Information from this table was adapted from refs. 1 and 2.
Reference 1 ↵Cavalli-Sforza L L, Menozzi P, Piazza A (1994) The History and Geography of Human Genes (Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ).
Reference 2 ↵Cavalli-Sforza L L (1996) Genes Peoples et Langues (Odile Jacob, Paris).
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ...Hybrid also exists at the genetic, as opposed to morphological level.
Europeans have African paternal haplotypes E and A and maternal haplotypes L2, and L3.
These haplotypes are not found in East Asia, Australia or the Pacific Island natives.
This is because they did not exist in the original OOA populations.
Europeans also have Benin Haplotype which causes sickle cell morphology, which is endemic in parts of Europe - neither Benin Haplotype nor Sickle Cell is found in East Asia, Australia or the Pacific Islands.
These genotypes and phenotypes are characteristic of Europeans, but not their OOA cousins because Europeans are hybrid - genetically, and phenetically.
All the above is correct. So the question is what the hell is the jack ass arguing about, then?
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
akoben is now so dumbstruck that he doesn't even *try* to respond.......
Very well then.
I leave the defeated jackass smouldering carcass for the rest of you to kick around.
Since when did he really even respond coherently and directly towards a question asked to him?
Anyway, the jackass been at its wits end, beaten to a pulp, pretty much obliterated, but yet still comes back for more..........
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718:
quote:Jackassoben debunks himself: Hybrids are products of two or more of the alleged racial groups; or to put it another way, products of two populations with morphological differentiation.
The two contributing populations were morphologically differentiated, you jackass.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is the nature for a packass to brey. It is the nature of an open ass to fart (at the least). What else would you expect from one who is at once a jackass and an open ass except stubborn repetitive ****?
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ... what the hell is the jack ass arguing about, then?
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Of course Bowcock argues that Europeans are a result of Asians and Africans coming together
We've gone way past what Bowcock et al. actually argues boy. At this point I'm merely humoring your bullshit red herrings. For instance, when do "Asians" stop being "Asians" and start being "Europeans"? How can you argue incoming Africans mixed with "Asians" when they were in Europe for thousands of years and at this time were no longer black as you say? You said there was morphological differentiation, they were not black anymore. Now you say they were not white. So to justify the use of the word "hybrid", are you saying Africans "mixed" with these people who were not quite white as yet and not quite black anymore to produce whites (Europeans), hence Europeans are a hybrid products of two populations with morphological differentiation? LOL And if this is what you're arguing then wouldn't this come right back to Keita's argument against your masters assuming the independence of human populations to support his geographical tree branching?
quote:akoben is now so dumbstruck that he doesn't even *try* to respond.......
You're too stupid to even realize that I have rendered you totally irrelevant. I am now bored with replying to your spams. Until you post that page and quote, stay irrelevant.
quote:It is the nature for a packass to brey. It is the nature of an open ass to fart (at the least). What else would you expect from one who is at once a jackass and an open ass except stubborn repetitive ****?
It is in the nature of the Jew to hold a grudge on those who exposes him. I suspect you are still upset with me for exposing you as the hypocrite that you are for pointing fingers at "bigoted Christians".
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
"Europeans appear as a genetic mixture, 2/3 Asian, 1/3 African". Reference 1 ↵Cavalli-Sforza L L, Menozzi P, Piazza A (1994) The History and Geography of Human Genes (Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ).
Reference 2 ↵Cavalli-Sforza L L (1996) Genes Peoples et Langues (Odile Jacob, Paris).
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
^ apparently the difference between the anti-semitic jackass, and a jew, is the he believes the jewish rabbi jesus christ....is God.
quote:akoben: It is in the nature of the Jew to hold a grudge
^ It is in the nature of the Jackass to fail to answer questions, but continue to brey on, anyway.
46 pages: Not a single study, source or item of data to refute the fact the Europeans are mixed, as denoted by Keita, and Sforza, and Templeton and Wetton, and Bowcock.
100's of posts of your jackass breying, anti semitic babble while at the same time envoking your jewish god.... but no substance whatsoever.
Hence...
quote:AlTakruri writes: It is the nature for a packass to brey. It is the nature of an open ass to fart (at the least). What else would you expect from one who is at once a jackass and an open ass except stubborn repetitive ****?
^
"Europeans appear as a genetic mixture, 2/3 Asian, 1/3 African".
Reference 1 ↵Cavalli-Sforza L L, Menozzi P, Piazza A (1994) The History and Geography of Human Genes (Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ).
Reference 2 ↵Cavalli-Sforza L L (1996) Genes Peoples et Langues (Odile Jacob, Paris). Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: : writes: For instance, when do "Asians" stop being "Asians" and start being "Europeans"?
They're Asian, since their lineages arose and are specific to Asia, regardless of living in Europe, Africa, America wherever. This is what is being explained to you over and over, Europeans are product of Asian and post OOA Africans. They're European since they live in Europe but as explained their uni-parental haplogoups arose in Asia and post OOA Africa. Native Americans carry Asian specific haplogroups, but they're referred to as Native Americans, despite there being no specific American haplotypes, that actually arose in the Americas. Just like their are no specific underived lineages attributable to Europe, but yet we still call people in Europe, Europeans.
quote: : writes: How can you argue incoming Africans mixed with "Asians" when they were in Europe for thousands of years and at this time were no longer black as you say?
As explained above, regardless of where a population is, if their lineages tie them to a specific land of which this lineages arose. These lineages are, and will always remain tied to that land. So...Paleolithic Asians in Europe, were still Asians(carrying Asian derived lineages) until incoming Africans came and mixed to create the modern gene pool of the people in Europe. Which is totally Asian and post OOA African derived.
quote: : writes:
You said there was morphological differentiation, they were not black anymore.
Yes there was differentiation in the form of cold adaptation, LUP and Mesolithic humans in Europe were gradually becoming cold adapted, and did not match up to their Paleolithic ancestors, instead matched closely to recent Europeans.
quote: : writes: Now you say they were not white.
Of course they were not white, and I never said otherwise....
quote: : writes: So to justify the use of the word "hybrid", are you saying Africans "mixed" with these people who were not quite white as yet and not quite black anymore to produce whites (Europeans), hence Europeans are a hybrid products of two populations with morphological differentiation?
As explained ad Nauseum........humans in Europe didn't become white until farming spread(Neolithic), during their millenia in Europe, humans were becoming cold adapted. The reason they didn't turn white is because, as noted with Inuit. Early humans in Europe were hunter gatherers and retained this status until 6-8kya, when they adopted farming from incoming migrants. If there were no morphological differentiation, then how would we be able to tell skeletally that migrations took place?
Obviously there was morphological differentiation already taking place, as noted cold adaptation.
quote: : writes: LOL And if this is what you're arguing then wouldn't this come right back to Keita's argument against your masters assuming the independence of human populations to support his geographical tree branching?
Nope, it comes right back to UNI-PARENTALS. Asian specific, post OOA Africa specific etc.......
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ It's simple, the ancestors of Europeans originated in *Asia*. Europe is itself a subcontinent of Asia and not really seperate if anyone can look on a map. Europeans are mixed in the sense that about a third of them (especially those living along the Mediterranean) carry post OOA African lineages since as early as the Mesolithic.
Watch, Assopen (LOL good one, Takruri!) will come back with more idiotic strawmen and nonsequitors.
You can't teach an old dog new tricks, and apparently you can't teach a jackass anything.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
White Nord
A banned big lipped primate
Member # 14093
posted
As far as the title pertains here is unrefuted sivence about Eb1 and Somalians Earth your freaking hearts you Afronuts
It is also important to point out that just because a haplotype is found at a high frequency in a population that doesn't make it from that population's geographic area or indicative of that population alone. For instance Haplotype R1b1 finds it highest frequency in Ireland. If a person has this DNA it is not indicative of an Irish race or an Irish origin. In fact most people that have it are not from Ireland. It is simply where this DNA is found at a high frequency.
The current population of Somalia is not known to be accurate. The last estimate put the population at around 9,800,000. I will round that up to ten million. million. So there are about five million men in Somalia. If we were to take about ten percent of that population we would come to the conclusion that Somali men that carry the Y chromosome markers for Haplogroup T number at about 500,000. Since this Y chromosome group is only about 9,000 years old and clearly has a non-African origin we can conclude that it entered into Somalia in recent years. The truth about that Haplogroup is that it is not found in 10% of the Somali population. This was a northern population they were testing and populations in other parts of Somalia did not have this haplotype.
Now let us study the Y chromosome Haplogroup E. Always a favorite it seems. We should begin by looking at the study you so often use. Let us read the introduction.
[I]East Africans are more related to Eurasians than to other African populations.1, 2, 3 Investigations of Y chromosome markers have shown that the East African populations were not significantly affected by the east bound Bantu expansion that took place approximately 3500 years ago, while a significant contact to Arab and Middle East populations can be deduced from the present distribution of the Y chromosomes in these areas.4, 5 The Y chromosome haplogroup E3a is found at high frequencies in the sub-Saharan, Bantu-speaking populations but at low frequencies in East Africa, while Eurasian haplogroups like J and K are found at various frequencies in East Africa.3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 However, the majority of Y chromosomes found in populations in Egypt, Sudan, Ethiopia and Oromos in Somalia and North Kenya (Boranas) belong to haplogroup E3b1 defined by the Y chromosome marker M78.9, 10 A special branch of E3b1, cluster , which was defined by the presence of the otherwise rare Y STR allele 11 in DYS19, was observed in high frequencies in small samples of male Boranas (Oromos) in North Kenya, Ethiopian Oromos and Somali males, while the E3b1 cluster was found in low frequencies in non-Oromos from Ethiopia, Bantus from Kenya, North Egyptians10 and was almost absent in populations outside the Horn of Africa. Other clusters of haplogroup E3b1 (, and ) that are found in European, Arab, North and East African populations were not found in Oromos from North Kenya (Boranas) or Ethiopia, and found in only one of 23 Somali males.10[I/]
There is no unique marker about E3b that would make anyone believe that it belongs to a race of Somalian people.
I suspect that you have a psychological issue with Somalis having a clearly mixed race ancestry. Their Y chromsome markers indicate an origin outside of Africa and the study you so often use confirms that yet you come on here and try to put, not one, but two Y chromosome haplogroups into a made up race category. The study states that J and K2 (now T) are Eurasian markers that came to Somalia in recent years. It then goes on to focus on E3b and the difference between the markers they found. While some were unique to Africa other E3b markers apear to have an origin outside of Africa.
While the origin of E is debated still the origin of the E haplotypes in Somalia can trace back to the middle east and all the T and J haplotypes certainly trace back to the middle east and have a non-African origin. You do not claim that J has an African origin? Haplogroup J is found in Africa at a higher rate than T yet you focus on this. By numbers alone Italian men have more T markers. It is clearly Eurasian. The population of Egypt has about eighty million people. The frequency of Haplogroup T is about 8% in Egypt. It would appear that T has been in Egypt much longer than Somalia yet you want to put this haplogroup in a race category called Somalian. Most geneticists put its origin in Iran by the way.
Posts: 219 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
You cannot reason with these guys Nord. This board gets wilder every month. One of them claimed that henry VIII was actually black but that evil white people have covered it up. Most of the posts here come from a computer in a mental institution.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by White Nord: As far as the title pertains here is unrefuted sivence about Eb1 and Somalians Earth your freaking hearts you Afronuts
It is also important to point out that just because a haplotype is found at a high frequency in a population that doesn't make it from that population's geographic area or indicative of that population alone. For instance Haplotype R1b1 finds it highest frequency in Ireland. If a person has this DNA it is not indicative of an Irish race or an Irish origin. In fact most people that have it are not from Ireland. It is simply where this DNA is found at a high frequency.
The current population of Somalia is not known to be accurate. The last estimate put the population at around 9,800,000. I will round that up to ten million. million. So there are about five million men in Somalia. If we were to take about ten percent of that population we would come to the conclusion that Somali men that carry the Y chromosome markers for Haplogroup T number at about 500,000. Since this Y chromosome group is only about 9,000 years old and clearly has a non-African origin we can conclude that it entered into Somalia in recent years. The truth about that Haplogroup is that it is not found in 10% of the Somali population. This was a northern population they were testing and populations in other parts of Somalia did not have this haplotype.
Now let us study the Y chromosome Haplogroup E. Always a favorite it seems. We should begin by looking at the study you so often use. Let us read the introduction.
[I]East Africans are more related to Eurasians than to other African populations.1, 2, 3 Investigations of Y chromosome markers have shown that the East African populations were not significantly affected by the east bound Bantu expansion that took place approximately 3500 years ago, while a significant contact to Arab and Middle East populations can be deduced from the present distribution of the Y chromosomes in these areas.4, 5 The Y chromosome haplogroup E3a is found at high frequencies in the sub-Saharan, Bantu-speaking populations but at low frequencies in East Africa, while Eurasian haplogroups like J and K are found at various frequencies in East Africa.3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 However, the majority of Y chromosomes found in populations in Egypt, Sudan, Ethiopia and Oromos in Somalia and North Kenya (Boranas) belong to haplogroup E3b1 defined by the Y chromosome marker M78.9, 10 A special branch of E3b1, cluster , which was defined by the presence of the otherwise rare Y STR allele 11 in DYS19, was observed in high frequencies in small samples of male Boranas (Oromos) in North Kenya, Ethiopian Oromos and Somali males, while the E3b1 cluster was found in low frequencies in non-Oromos from Ethiopia, Bantus from Kenya, North Egyptians10 and was almost absent in populations outside the Horn of Africa. Other clusters of haplogroup E3b1 (, and ) that are found in European, Arab, North and East African populations were not found in Oromos from North Kenya (Boranas) or Ethiopia, and found in only one of 23 Somali males.10[I/]
There is no unique marker about E3b that would make anyone believe that it belongs to a race of Somalian people.
I suspect that you have a psychological issue with Somalis having a clearly mixed race ancestry. Their Y chromsome markers indicate an origin outside of Africa and the study you so often use confirms that yet you come on here and try to put, not one, but two Y chromosome haplogroups into a made up race category. The study states that J and K2 (now T) are Eurasian markers that came to Somalia in recent years. It then goes on to focus on E3b and the difference between the markers they found. While some were unique to Africa other E3b markers apear to have an origin outside of Africa.
While the origin of E is debated still the origin of the E haplotypes in Somalia can trace back to the middle east and all the T and J haplotypes certainly trace back to the middle east and have a non-African origin. You do not claim that J has an African origin? Haplogroup J is found in Africa at a higher rate than T yet you focus on this. By numbers alone Italian men have more T markers. It is clearly Eurasian. The population of Egypt has about eighty million people. The frequency of Haplogroup T is about 8% in Egypt. It would appear that T has been in Egypt much longer than Somalia yet you want to put this haplogroup in a race category called Somalian. Most geneticists put its origin in Iran by the way.
"Nuclear DNA studies also contribute to the deconstruction of received racial entities. Ann Bowcock and her colleague's interpretation (Bowcock et al. 1991; Bowcock et al. 1994) of analyses of restriction-site polymorphisms and microsatellite polymorphisms (STRPs) suggests that Europeans, the defining Caucasians, are descendants of a population that arose as a consequence of admixture between already differentiated populations ancestral to (some) Africans and Asians. Therefore, Caucasians would be a secondary type of race due to its hybrid origin and not a primary race".
Short lengths for European and related branches have been observed previously for trees constructed from classical genetic data (1, 8, 30). Two possible explanations for the short European branch are (a) that after the fission, Europeans diverged at a much lower evolutionary rate, or (b) that Europeans are descendants of a population that arose due to admixture between two ancestral populations. The ad hoc hypothesis of a lower evolutionary rate in Europe is not further testable. We can, however, rule out one possible cause of such a reduction of evolutionary rates: the increase in population density due to agriculture. This was of such magnitude (31) that it may have frozen genetic drift in Europe. However, because this increase in density occurred fairly recently relative to the time of settlement of moderm humans in Europe, it cannot have caused a reduction of more than 20-25% in the evolutionary rate of Europeans; trees such as that of Fig. 2 indicate a reduction of the order of 80-90%o. In contrast to the lower evolutionary rate hypothesis, the hypothesis that the shorter branch leading to Europeans is due to admixture is testable. This hypothesis was suggested earlier for the analysis of three populations (Africans, Europeans, and Northeast Asians; ref. 7) but was not quantitatively analyzed. One can show that a branch to a population resulting from admixture tends to be shorter than other branches when methods are used that do not require constant evolutionary rates, by a simple extension of the theoretical treatment of admixture between branches of a tree (22).......The data were found to be consistent with admixture between the branch leading to Chinese after their separation from Melanesians and the branch leading to the two African populations (Fig. lb). From maximum likelihood estimates the European admixture consisted of 65% Chinese ancestors and 35% African ancestors (with a standard error of ±8%) and took place at a time =70% of the total since the origin, or 30 ± 6 kiloyears (kyr) ago.
Proc. Nati. Acad. Sci. USA Vol. 88, pp. 839-843, February 1991 Evolution Drift, admixture, and selection in human evolution: A study with DNA polymorphisms
Genes, peoples, and languages L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza
One reasonable hypothesis is that the genetic distance between Asia and Africa is shorter than that between Africa and the other continents in Table 1 because both Africans and Asians contributed to the settlement of Europe, which began about 40,000 years ago. It seems very reasonable to assume that both continents nearest to Europe contributed to its settlement, even if perhaps at different times and maybe repeatedly. It is reassuring that the analysis of other markers also consistently gives the same results in this case. Moreover, a specific evolutionary model tested, i.e., that Europe is formed by contributions from Asia and Africa, fits the distance matrix perfectly (6). In this simplified model, the migrations postulated to have populated Europe are estimated to have occurred at an early date (30,000 years ago), but it is impossible to distinguish, on the basis of these data, this model from that of several migrations at different times. The overall contributions from Asia and Africa were estimated to be around two-thirds and one-third, respectively. Simulations have shown (7) that this hypothesis explains quite well the discrepancy between trees obtained by maximum likelihood and neighbor joining.
Basically, the idea of European "racial purity" is shot, attempting to preserve so called "racial purity" is futile since it doesn't exist for Europeans due to their origin from a mixing of two already differentiated populations. "Pure mutts" don't exist.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
How convenient that as Assoben is silent, (dumb) White Nerd comes in with some silly b.s. about East African Somalis being more closely related to white Irish than to other black Africans, and then (dumber) 'professor' comes right after with his amoral support! Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by White Nord: As far as the title pertains here is unrefuted sivence about Eb1 and Somalians Earth your freaking hearts you Afronuts
It is also important to point out that just because a haplotype is found at a high frequency in a population that doesn't make it from that population's geographic area or indicative of that population alone. For instance Haplotype R1b1 finds it highest frequency in Ireland. If a person has this DNA it is not indicative of an Irish race or an Irish origin. In fact most people that have it are not from Ireland. It is simply where this DNA is found at a high frequency.
The current population of Somalia is not known to be accurate. The last estimate put the population at around 9,800,000. I will round that up to ten million. million. So there are about five million men in Somalia. If we were to take about ten percent of that population we would come to the conclusion that Somali men that carry the Y chromosome markers for Haplogroup T number at about 500,000. Since this Y chromosome group is only about 9,000 years old and clearly has a non-African origin we can conclude that it entered into Somalia in recent years. The truth about that Haplogroup is that it is not found in 10% of the Somali population. This was a northern population they were testing and populations in other parts of Somalia did not have this haplotype.
Now let us study the Y chromosome Haplogroup E. Always a favorite it seems. We should begin by looking at the study you so often use. Let us read the introduction.
East Africans are more related to Eurasians than to other African populations.1, 2, 3 Investigations of Y chromosome markers have shown that the East African populations were not significantly affected by the east bound Bantu expansion that took place approximately 3500 years ago, while a significant contact to Arab and Middle East populations can be deduced from the present distribution of the Y chromosomes in these areas.4, 5 The Y chromosome haplogroup E3a is found at high frequencies in the sub-Saharan, Bantu-speaking populations but at low frequencies in East Africa, while Eurasian haplogroups like J and K are found at various frequencies in East Africa.3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 However, the majority of Y chromosomes found in populations in Egypt, Sudan, Ethiopia and Oromos in Somalia and North Kenya (Boranas) belong to haplogroup E3b1 defined by the Y chromosome marker M78.9, 10 A special branch of E3b1, cluster , which was defined by the presence of the otherwise rare Y STR allele 11 in DYS19, was observed in high frequencies in small samples of male Boranas (Oromos) in North Kenya, Ethiopian Oromos and Somali males, while the E3b1 cluster was found in low frequencies in non-Oromos from Ethiopia, Bantus from Kenya, North Egyptians10 and was almost absent in populations outside the Horn of Africa. Other clusters of haplogroup E3b1 (, and ) that are found in European, Arab, North and East African populations were not found in Oromos from North Kenya (Boranas) or Ethiopia, and found in only one of 23 Somali males.10
There is no unique marker about E3b that would make anyone believe that it belongs to a race of Somalian people.
I suspect that you have a psychological issue with Somalis having a clearly mixed race ancestry. Their Y chromsome markers indicate an origin outside of Africa and the study you so often use confirms that yet you come on here and try to put, not one, but two Y chromosome haplogroups into a made up race category. The study states that J and K2 (now T) are Eurasian markers that came to Somalia in recent years. It then goes on to focus on E3b and the difference between the markers they found. While some were unique to Africa other E3b markers apear to have an origin outside of Africa.
While the origin of E is debated still the origin of the E haplotypes in Somalia can trace back to the middle east and all the T and J haplotypes certainly trace back to the middle east and have a non-African origin. You do not claim that J has an African origin? Haplogroup J is found in Africa at a higher rate than T yet you focus on this. By numbers alone Italian men have more T markers. It is clearly Eurasian. The population of Egypt has about eighty million people. The frequency of Haplogroup T is about 8% in Egypt. It would appear that T has been in Egypt much longer than Somalia yet you want to put this haplogroup in a race category called Somalian. Most geneticists put its origin in Iran by the way.
^ Seriously we have deconstructed this study and the associated ridiculous claim about a dozen times in this forum with our old top troll Evil-Euro. The study is inaccurate in that it is a distortion on the fact that since *all* non-Africans descend from a subset of East Africans that left Africa over 60,000 years ago, then it is only natural that non-Africans (pure ones at least) are more closely related to East Africans than they are to Africans from other parts of the continent. But this in NO way means that East Africans themselves are somehow not closely related to other Africans! LOL
Again, just earlier I and other intelligent posters mentioned how the African origins of humankind disturb racists so much they are willing to make these ancient Africans "cacazoid" and low and behold White Nerd pops up with his b.s.!
Have you heard of Omo I, the earliest modern human remains found? Here's what anthropologists say about it:
"Taken together, the remains show that these early modern humans were...much like the people in southern Ethiopia and the southern Sudan today," Pearson said."
Wow very cacazoid these people must have looked then! Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by White Nord: As far as the title pertains here is unrefuted sivence about Eb1 and Somalians Earth your freaking hearts you Afronuts
Don't you mean "eat" your heart out? Nevermind.
quote:It is also important to point out that just because a haplotype is found at a high frequency in a population that doesn't make it from that population's geographic area or indicative of that population alone. For instance Haplotype R1b1 finds it highest frequency in Ireland. If a person has this DNA it is not indicative of an Irish race or an Irish origin. In fact most people that have it are not from Ireland. It is simply where this DNA is found at a high frequency.
But usually, highest frequency means point of origin or close to point of origin. By the way, R1b1 highest frequency is not just in Ireland, moron but around the Northwestern Europe in general.
quote:The current population of Somalia is not known to be accurate. The last estimate put the population at around 9,800,000. I will round that up to ten million. million. So there are about five million men in Somalia. If we were to take about ten percent of that population we would come to the conclusion that Somali men that carry the Y chromosome markers for Haplogroup T number at about 500,000. Since this Y chromosome group is only about 9,000 years old and clearly has a non-African origin we can conclude that it entered into Somalia in recent years. The truth about that Haplogroup is that it is not found in 10% of the Somali population. This was a northern population they were testing and populations in other parts of Somalia did not have this haplotype.
Okay, and this non-African lineage is still found only in a minority of the population as expected. Your point?
quote:Now let us study the Y chromosome Haplogroup E. Always a favorite it seems. We should begin by looking at the study you so often use. Let us read the introduction.
East Africans are more related to Eurasians than to other African populations.1, 2, 3 Investigations of Y chromosome markers have shown that the East African populations were not significantly affected by the east bound Bantu expansion that took place approximately 3500 years ago, while a significant contact to Arab and Middle East populations can be deduced from the present distribution of the Y chromosomes in these areas.4, 5 The Y chromosome haplogroup E3a is found at high frequencies in the sub-Saharan, Bantu-speaking populations but at low frequencies in East Africa, while Eurasian haplogroups like J and K are found at various frequencies in East Africa.3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 However, the majority of Y chromosomes found in populations in Egypt, Sudan, Ethiopia and Oromos in Somalia and North Kenya (Boranas) belong to haplogroup E3b1 defined by the Y chromosome marker M78.9, 10 A special branch of E3b1, cluster , which was defined by the presence of the otherwise rare Y STR allele 11 in DYS19, was observed in high frequencies in small samples of male Boranas (Oromos) in North Kenya, Ethiopian Oromos and Somali males, while the E3b1 cluster was found in low frequencies in non-Oromos from Ethiopia, Bantus from Kenya, North Egyptians10 and was almost absent in populations outside the Horn of Africa. Other clusters of haplogroup E3b1 (, and ) that are found in European, Arab, North and East African populations were not found in Oromos from North Kenya (Boranas) or Ethiopia, and found in only one of 23 Somali males.10
There is no unique marker about E3b that would make anyone believe that it belongs to a race of Somalian people.
Nobody said E3b was "unique" to Somalis you idiot! We are merely saying that it is common to them as it is to many other East African populations as your study above shows!
quote:I suspect that you have a psychological issue with Somalis having a clearly mixed race ancestry. Their Y chromsome markers indicate an origin outside of Africa and the study you so often use confirms that yet you come on here and try to put, not one, but two Y chromosome haplogroups into a made up race category. The study states that J and K2 (now T) are Eurasian markers that came to Somalia in recent years. It then goes on to focus on E3b and the difference between the markers they found. While some were unique to Africa other E3b markers apear to have an origin outside of Africa.
Yes, the Somali population may have a little mixed ancestry but the vast majority do NOT. And well, they certainly are not as mixed as Europeans who one-third of which have African ancestry. Which means you as a 'white' person has a much higher chance of having African ancestry than does a Somali! LOL
quote:While the origin of E is debated still the origin of the E haplotypes in Somalia can trace back to the middle east and all the T and J haplotypes certainly trace back to the middle east and have a non-African origin. You do not claim that J has an African origin? Haplogroup J is found in Africa at a higher rate than T yet you focus on this. By numbers alone Italian men have more T markers. It is clearly Eurasian. The population of Egypt has about eighty million people. The frequency of Haplogroup T is about 8% in Egypt. It would appear that T has been in Egypt much longer than Somalia yet you want to put this haplogroup in a race category called Somalian. Most geneticists put its origin in Iran by the way.
Again, Haplogroup T is a non-African lineage which unsurprisingly has low frequency among Africans, unlike E3b1 which is African and is found among Europeans as a whole at 33%. As far as "Middle Eastern" origins of E, many white racist obfuscate its African origins simply by calling Northeast Africa i.e. Egypt and even Sudan as "Middle East"! LOLPosts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Clueless718, So basically according to your interpretation of what Bowcock et al. are really saying would read something like this: already differentiated populations Asians (i.e. Mesolithic cold adapting Europeans, a people not black and not white either...Yellow/Chinese? LOL) mixed with blacks to create a "hybrid", white Europeans? And as aboriginal representations for these populations they choose a Chinese for the cold adapting Europeans (the Asians) and a Pygmy for the incoming blacks (the Africans) and "Caucasoids of European origin" for the "hybrid" population? Please come back with more comic relief, you could go on Def Comedy Jam! LOL
Hey, high priest instead of resorting to cut and paste from rasolwoitz, with his mistakes and all (secondary type of race), you should actually read Keita, especially what he has to say about the notion of racial divergence (two already differentiated populations: Chinese and Pygmy), continental tree branching and the idea of pygmies as proto African.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:While the origin of E is debated still the origin of the E haplotypes in Somalia can trace back to the middle east
You clearly have no idea of what you're talking about. Among other things you confuse M78, E3b, with M96 E.
There is no debate over the origin of either haplotype.
They are African.
This was denoted on the 1st page of this thread.
This being said, Your comments do not contest or debate any fact. They are just worthless stupid remarks from someone who does not pay attention and cannot comprehend.
In essence, you're the new jackass in town.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Charlie Bass: Lets set Evil Euro turd up for a trap about his E3b is K-Zoid mania:
Damn, look at all those areas where E3b appears in high frequencies in SSA, by Evil Euroturd's logic SSA should be overwhelmingly Levantine K-Zoid looking
According to this study, Datog, who are Nilotic speaking people have 43% E3b1-M293, but since E3b is Caucasoid, why don't they look like so-called "mulattoes" and instead look like this:
Almost forgot those darfur people too, damn another study said this about Darfur males:
"Haplogroup E-M78, however, is more widely distributed and is thought to have an origin in eastern African. More recently, this haplogroup has been carefully dissected and was found to depict several well-established subclades with defined geographical clustering (Cruciani et al., 2006, 2007). Although this haplogroup is common to most Sudanese populations, it has exceptionally high frequency among populations like those of western Sudan (particularly Darfur) and the Beja in eastern Sudan."
And those Masalit
"The Masalit possesses by far the highest frequency of the E-M78 and of the E-V32 haplogroup, suggesting either a recent bottleneck in the population or a proximity to the origin of the haplogroup. Both E-V13, which is believed to originate in western Asia with its low frequency in North Africa, and E-V65 of North African origin (Cruciani et al., 2007), were not found among Sudanese."
quote:Basically, the idea of European "racial purity" is shot, attempting to preserve so called "racial purity" is futile since it doesn't exist for Europeans due to their origin from a mixing of two already differentiated populations. "Pure mutts" don't exist.
^ Exactly, and it's important to understand the racial dialectic [even when it is advocated by misguided students of African history] is inherently Eurocentric.
It places Europeans at the root. Uses them to define an imaginary race [Aryan/C-zoid/White/etc.], then postulates that other peoples are mongrelized versions of this European race; ie Indians, North Africans, Ainu Japanese, Native Americans, even Australian Aborigines....
All these peoples would be adjuged by their degree of Europid-ness, or Euro-pid influence.
This is pure transgressive propaganda, and it falls apart completely when tested via population genetics. "Europeans appear as a genetic mixture, 2/3 Asian, 1/3 African". Reference 1 ↵Cavalli-Sforza L L, Menozzi P, Piazza A (1994) The History and Geography of Human Genes (Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ).
Reference 2 ↵Cavalli-Sforza L L (1996) Genes Peoples et Langues (Odile Jacob, Paris).
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems jackass Assopen thinks he can escape his utter disgrace and humiliation here by escaping to another thread! LMAO
But to avail! B.S. is b.s. no matter where you type it. I just prefer to have b.s. isolated in one thread or section of the forum at a time. Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
KIK718 Akoben is making you look like a fool.
You just don't get it. How could the OOA population mix with Asians to form Europeans, when you have failed to explain how the OOA population became Asian in the first place.
Akoben plays you guys like a fiddle because you are so disrespectful you don't even think about what the opposition writes and look like fools to everyone except your supporters.
If Europeans can not find the transition skeletal remains between homo erectus, homo habilis and etc., how do you think your febble mind can show the origination of Europeans or Asians.
Akoben and the rest of us are laughing at you because you don't think and become rude and disrespectful to others instead of listening and extending your knowledge base.
Sad boy.
.
You just don't get it.
.
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718: ^^^That post is so imbecilic, contradicting and evasive, I don't even know where to start. I really shouldn't even waste my time with your strawmen, but hey let's go.....
quote:Jackassoben brays: there was no "admixture" between Paleolithic Asians and incoming post OOA African migrants to produce any new population. By the time post OOA Africans came Europeans were not paleolithic, Asian or black.
Lmao, now you're acting like you're telling me this? Anyway, as we look at the genetic and skeletal record of migrations and admixture from post OOA Africans into Europe, we see it was well after Paleolithic Asians had settled Europe, and were already gradually adapting to their environments.
quote: : writes: And these modern inhabitants (whites) didn't merge with incoming Africans to produce a new population, which would be a "hybrid".
Of course when post OOA Africans mixed with Asians in Europe the Asians weren't white, but they were considerably cold adapted, during the LUP and Mesolithic, Europeans matched up closer to recent Europeans in limb proportions indicating cold adaptations. Whereas their Paleolithic ancestors were tropically adapted and matched closely to recent Africans.
quote: : writes: You see, hybrids are not the "Mixing of two populations with morphological differentiation" you silly illiterate child. Hybrids are products of two or more of the alleged racial groups; or to put it another way, products of two populations with morphological differentiation.
Lmao, did you just say that? Wow, talk about contradictions, this is the worst.
Remember: Anything you say, can, and will be used against you.... Bwahahahahahahaahahahaahaa
quote: : writes: So Bowcock et al. argues: Europeans are hybrids, products of already differentiated Asian (not post Paleolithic Europeans) and Africans; arose as a result of admixture between two already differentiated populations Asian (not post Paleolithic Europeans) and Africans. You still fail to prove this.
Post paleolithic Europeans are Asian derived humans who received admixture from post OOA Africans to create the modern day European gene pool. Of course Bowcock argues that Europeans are a result of Asians and Africans coming together to create the modern European gene pool, which has been thoroughly validated many times.
quote: : writes: In fact, what you actually show is not two differentiated populations merging to produce a new, not racial divergence, but simple population expansion and evolution.
Girl shutup. I proved Europeans are result of Asians and Africans. Point blank.
quote:KIK718 Akoben is making you look like a fool.
^ Actually Knowledge is making perfect sense. All discussions of genetics make you look like a fool, as you don't even know the difference between mtdna and Y chromosome and confuse them.
Not just once, but over and over again.
Tell us how that is -not- foolish?
Tell us why we should take you seriously, when you can't even understand the basics?
Or just, don't reply, since there is really nothing you can say, is there?
Just run away, or change the subject or spam like you always do, when you lose [most of] your debates, on virtually ever topic, Dravidian, Olmec, Fijian, and Europeans.
As to your attempts to refute Knowledge, consider that for all the facts he presented you [just like jackass akoben], did not refute even - a single one -.
For the same reason... because you can't.
All you do, by way of feeble argument, is ask a frankly [dumb] question, which has already been answered.
quote:You just don't get it. How could the OOA population mix with Asians to form Europeans, when you have failed to explain how the OOA population became Asian in the first place.
^ This question [to the degree to which it is intelligible] was already answered.
It is no ones fault but yours that fail to comprehend basic anthropology.
-> Asia was settled from Africa - before Europe.
Europe was settled from Asia.
Europeans mixed with Africans repeatedly and subsequently to the settlement of Europe from Asia.
quote:If Europeans can not find the transition skeletal remains between homo erectus, homo habilis and etc., how do you think your febble mind can show the origination of Europeans or Asians.
Non homo-sapien are completely irrelevant to genetic facts of European origins.
Intelligent conversation requires that one stay on topic,and not introduce strawmen. [all losers, with no data, no facts, and no 'sense' resort to strawmen to give 'flava' to their intellectual bankrupcty]
All Europeans have paternal and maternal linages that lead directly back to African homo sapiens sapiens and withing the last 70 kya.
There is not a single European ever tested for DNA of whom this is not true.
quote:you are disrespectful
Respect is earned.
Your comments on genetics are laughable.
It's almost as if the topic is somehow - beyound - your grasp, which is amazing since, unlike jackass akoben, you are clearly intelligent.
quote:KIK718 Akoben is making you look like a fool.
^ Actually Knowledge is making perfect sense.
Of course it makes perfect sense. Europeans are the products of two already differentiated populations: Asians (i.e. Mesolithic cold adapting Europeans, a people not black and not white either) and blacks. Thus they are a "hybrid". And as aboriginal representations for these populations Bowcock et al. choose a Chinese for the cold adapting Europeans and a Pygmy for the incoming blacks (the Africans) and "Caucasoids of European origin" for the "hybrid" population.
Not even you, with all your artful dodging, could come up with a better face saving bullshit! LOL
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: jackass writes: Of course it makes perfect sense.
^ Of course you are a jackass, who has no answers......
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Oh my god, this is the worse form of face saving straw man rambling I have ever seen in my entire life
^ Don't you have a mirror?
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ lack of answers is making your "attention deficit disorder" even worse.
take your ritalin please, and then answer the questions.....
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ the jackass suffers from attention deficit disorder, so we have to remind him of his failure to address...
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:My god, you're just all over the place
^ gosh akoben, you're going nowhere at all, because you have no answers.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ jackass factor....
quote:Originally posted by Alive-(What Box):
The overall contributions from **Asia** and Africa** were estimated to be around two-thirds and one-third, respectively. Simulations have shown (7) that this hypothesis explains quite well the discrepancy between trees obtained by maximum likelihood and neighbor joining.
The genetic information for this work came from a very large collection of gene frequencies grouped from 42 populations studied for 120 alleles.
Information from this table was adapted from refs. 1 and 2.
Reference 1 ↵Cavalli-Sforza L L, Menozzi P, Piazza A (1994) The History and Geography of Human Genes (Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ).
Reference 2 ↵Cavalli-Sforza L L (1996) Genes Peoples et Langues (Odile Jacob, Paris).
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718: Jackassoben and Clyde can learn from and should note the following post......
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718:
quote:Clyde types: This is a contradiction. First there were no OOA people who settled Europe. The first homo spapien sapiens came via Iberia 20kya after the OOA population settled Asia. Between the Cro-Magnon people and OOA population were the Neanderthal population.
Clyde you have the worst understanding of OOA, and it's still apparent. Since humans did not populate Europe, directly from Africa.. Please learn the OOA model instead of making these things up.
Note the following, that all populations found around the ancient world represent original man leaving Africa over 60kya, and all people around the world are descended from this original subset of East African people. Lineages carried around the world, are called **non African** lineages, because they are lineages that arose outside of Africa, after the subset of East Africans left more than 60kya to populate the world(Whom all non-Africans descend from). Now, Australia, Asia, Europe etc... as all other continents, was originally settled by the descendants of this original migration out of East Africa. All non Africans carry M168,(which represents a subset of East African diversity) as does the population they descend from, in East Africa. Which is how we know that the people who populated the world (60+kya) was a subset of East Africans, represented by this marker which indicates all non Africans carry a small subset of African diversity.
The original OOA population who left to populate the world over 60kya, also went through subsequent population bottlenecks, and hence the loss of phenotypic and genetic diversity, AGAIN, which is represented by and proves the fact yet again, that all non Africans descend from a small subset of East Africans. Note, if the continents were populated by subsequent migrations directly from Africa(as you propose), than the genetic diversity of non Africans would be much greater than what it is, but this is not the case, and all non Africans lose diversity phenotypically, and genetically, the farther the population is from Africa.
Distance from Africa, not climate, explains within-population phenotypic diversity in humans
quote: The new findings show that a loss in genetic diversity the further a population is from Africa is mirrored by a loss in variation in physical attributes.
Lead researcher, Dr Andrea Manica from the University's Department of Zoology, explained: "The origin of anatomically modern humans has been the focus of much heated debate.*** Our genetic research shows the further modern humans have migrated from Africa the more genetic diversity has been lost within a population. ***
"However, some have used skull data to argue that modern humans originated in multiple spots around the world. We have combined our genetic data with new measurements of a large sample of skulls to show definitively that modern humans originated from a single area in Sub-saharan Africa."
The research team found that *genetic diversity decreased in populations the further away from Africa they were* - a result of *'bottlenecks'* or events that temporarily reduced populations during human migration. They then studied an exceptionally large sample of human skulls. Taking a set of measurements across all the skulls the team **showed that not only was variation **highest** amongst the sample from **south eastern Africa** but that it did **decrease** at the same rate as the **genetic data** the further the skull was away from Africa.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Two populations Asian and African.
My god, you're just all over the place 
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
: writes: ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic