quote:He says people from the same region.. wouldn't that imply relationships?
Sorry. You're right, I misread it :/
quote:You mean when he said ''hint of Sub Saharan''? Brace did include them as Sub Saharan in his 93 paper.
=
Yeah How can Somalis have only a "hint" of a sub-Saharan component when they are sub-Saharan his wording is bad
Yeah, he did include Somalis as sub-Saharan in his '93 paper. Which really doesn't make sense because he said there isn't a sub-Saharan component when Somalis are shown close to predynastic in one dendrogram.
quote:^the meassurements involving the nasal region. I don't know the meaning of width at .. meassurements, but it would surprise me if those pertain to the nasal region as well
It is weird lol
Posts: 1502 | From: Dies Irae | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:How can Somalis have only a "hint" of a sub-Saharan component when they are sub-Saharan his wording is bad
Indeed. With all the things he has cooked up, I think we might have enough material for a vid.
His most peculiar 93 assertion, is that Predynastic Naqadans and late dynastic Egyptians are more closely related than all others, and elsewhere he notes closer relationships with the former and Somali's, and the latter and North Africans.
Or that he is able to isolate a German from Egyptian material
posted
^^ Therein lies the problem with Brace. He attempts to utilize 'newer' methods like his 'clines & clusters' yet at the same time rehashing outdated biases like "true negroid" which for him is "Sub-Saharan". This is the reason why he considers Somalis as having "Sub-Saharan" tendencies even though they ARE Sub-Saharans. All of this was explained by Zarahan many times before. Brace merely skews his clines and clusters in a way to obfuscate the continuity of black African phenotypic diversity. I still remember years ago when I was in high school and research first led me to the conclusion that ancient Egyptians were black, that one of the papers I read was a thesis paper from 1966 criticizing Brace and the inconsistencies in his findings. This thesis was written by the brilliant M.D. and scifi-author Michael Crichton when he was still an undergrad. Crichton details how Brace would cluster Egyptians and other northeast Africans away from other neighboring Africans and instead with Southwest Asians and Europeans. This was done simply because he collected no data from contiguous populations in so-called Sub-Sahara. The only other Sub-Saharan populations he sampled were those of the stereotyped "true negro" in West and Central Africa. It was when Crichton analyzed skulls from Kenya such as the Teita that he found affinities to Naqada crania and Somali crania both as well as affinities to the other "Sub-Saharan" types. If you want to read it you can look up: "A Multiple Discriminant Analysis of Egyptian and African Negro Crania," Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archeology and Ethnology.
As for Smiths findings of modern Egyptians' resemblance to Sub-Saharans, well one would think it depended on the samples studied like these Egyptians below.
Posts: 26322 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Somali thing is laughable. As Walker (1995) pointed out, any quick comparison of Brace' dendrograms with nuclear DNA studies will reveal a major disconnect. Keita (2005) specifically made Brace look silly. Direct quote:
quote:One approach, although limited, with which to explore the possibility of migration in earlier times, is through analysis of craniometric affinities. Previous studies have not specifically addressed the immigration of farmers from Europe into the Nile Valley. However, Brace et al. (1993) find that a series of upper Egyptian/Nubian epipalaeolithic crania affiliate by cluster analysis with groups they designate “sub-Saharan African” or just simply “African” (from which they incorrectly exclude the Maghreb, Sudan, and the Horn of Africa), whereas post-Badarian southern predynastic and a late dynastic northern series (called “E” or Gizeh) cluster together, and secondarily with Europeans. In the primary cluster with the Egyptian groups are also remains representing populations from the ancient Sudan and recent Somalia. Brace et al. (1993) seemingly interpret these results as indicating a population relationship from Scandinavia to the Horn of Africa, although the mechanism for this is not clearly stated; they also state that the Egyptians had no relationship with sub-Saharan Africans, a group that they nearly treat (incorrectly) as monolithic, although sometimes seemingly including Somalia, which directly undermines aspects of their claims. Sub-Saharan Africa does not define/delimit authentic Africanity.
--S.O.Y. Keita
Here's Walker chastising Brace over his disingenuous double talk concerning limb proportions:
quote:Reviews of metric, nonmetric, and morphological studies of early southern Egyptian crania reveal that their strongest ties are with groups south of Egypt (see Keita, 1993). The limb proportions are those of tropical people. This is not trivial, considering Brace et al.'s attempt to dismiss it by bringing up the irrelevancy of the limb proportions of south Indians and Australian aborigines. These peoples do not live in Africa, nor do they speak African languages. Limb proportions have been shown to be broadly correlated with climate. Allen's rule is the name given to this observation. Jacobs (1985, 1993), after establishing the timing of cold adaptation in northern Europe, has used limb ratios to help assess migration. Most certainly the purported flow of northern European genes into the Nile Valley (and into Somalia) should have altered limb proportions at the northern port of entry. Instead the limb ratios are "super" tropical.
---Walker (1995)
^Furthermore, Brace' reliance on what he calls "neutrally adaptive traits" have lead to some bazaar conclusions, such as his idea that modern Europeans in the main, are not descendants of Cro-Magnon but rather Neanderthal who were absorbed into the emerging modern human population (a lot of people don't talk about this).
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
These characteristics include head form, facial and nasal characteristics, jaw relationships, tooth size, morphology and upper/lower limb proportions. In all these features, Modern Egyptians resemble Sub-Saharan Africans (Howells 1989, Keita 1995)
Smith, P. (2002) The palaeo-biological evidence for admixture between populations in the southern Levant and Egypt in the fourth to third millennia BCE [/QB]
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: Of course there is a resemblance between Modern Egyptians and Sub Saharan Africans you idiot. They are hybrids, which means that they are intermediate between Africans and others.
Nothing any of us have been denying.
The statement above does not say that modern Egyptians are "intermediate" or "hybrid" between SSAs and Eurasians.
The statement above from Patrica Smith with citations from Howells and Keita plainly says that Modern Egyptians have traits, including limb proportions that resemble Sub Saharan Africans no mention of "intermediate" or "hybrid". Perhaps you need to read it again and not try to add things to it.
If you think her study says something about "intermediate" or "hybrid" limb ratios then you will have to quote that. Otherwise shut up
posted
^Where exactly is the claim made that they haven't changed? Have you even read through more than just this snippet?
Since when has "resemble" become a stand-in for "identical" or "unchanged"? You did this before with your lack of comprehension in defining basic terms like "intermediate", which you still believe equates "hybrid". Your general mode of thinking is where there's a disconnect as overall you have what seems to be a very poor education.
P.S. Also, if we are to take your interpretation of the Smith statement at face value, then the "Black" Egypt argument is over since Egyptians haven't changed and are identical to "sub-saharan" Africans. Can't have your cake and eat it too, right?
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do me a favor, and dig up the relevant references, with the relevant meassurements of both Howells and Keita. Your bias shows, in that you will accept anything and any statement that corroborates your views, without checking the references first. But when it comes to things that don't agree with you - like Lower Egyptian predynastic limb proportions vs those of the Levant - all of a sudden you do know how to request and inspect the specific meassurements. <--- The characteristics of someone who is biased and desperate for anything that agrees with their position.
You're afraid to request - or better yet, post - the specifics, because you KNOW it'll amount to just another dead end.
quote:It was when Crichton analyzed skulls from Kenya such as the Teita that he found affinities to Naqada crania and Somali crania both as well as affinities to the other "Sub-Saharan" types. If you want to read it you can look up: "A Multiple Discriminant Analysis of Egyptian and African Negro Crania," Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archeology and Ethnology.
When you add this all up, it becomes increasingly hard to think of Brace's behavior as unconcious bias, or unintentional. Which is what I was tending towards, because of his rather comical sequential invocation both the typological approach and the adaptive approach, his criticism of early Anthropologists for finding wandering Caucasoids in East Africa yet hinting towards being a firm subscriber of such concepts himself, without a raised eyebrow of anyone in his team, including himself.
His infatuation with meassurements that involve the nasal region, combined with his reluctance to use African samples that he knows are varied enough to close the gap he envisions between Sub-Saharans vs Ancient Egyptians and Somali's, - a constant theme throughout his studies - the way he calls traits in common with Africans ''trivial traits'', while he uses the words ''ties'' and ''relationship'' when shared traits are shown with people as far off as Norway. His free floating definition of what constitutes Sub Sahara. His find of a ''palpable German'' in his Egyptian series. It's rather ironic that someone who would later become a sci-fi author, corrects his fantastic views.
CB, if you can find the time to DL the referenced Crichton study, that would be great.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Having read both the Smith paper and some of the studies she references (particularly the Keita ones), I think she is misconstruing or misrepresenting studies on ancient Egyptians as pertaining to modern ones. I know for a fact that Keita has never done a study on modern Egyptians despite Smith's claim otherwise.
As for Brace, I suspect he comes from an old school of anthropological thought that over-emphasized nasal traits, and for some reason it's never occurred to him that this approach is outdated. Old habits don't die easily.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Therein lies the problem with Brace. He attempts to utilize 'newer' methods like his 'clines & clusters' yet at the same time rehashing outdated biases like "true negroid" which for him is "Sub-Saharan". This is the reason why he considers Somalis as having "Sub-Saharan" tendencies even though they ARE Sub-Saharans. All of this was explained by Zarahan many times before. Brace merely skews his clines and clusters in a way to obfuscate the continuity of black African phenotypic diversity. I still remember years ago when I was in high school and research first led me to the conclusion that ancient Egyptians were black, that one of the papers I read was a thesis paper from 1966 criticizing Brace and the inconsistencies in his findings. This thesis was written by the brilliant M.D. and scifi-author Michael Crichton when he was still an undergrad. Crichton details how Brace would cluster Egyptians and other northeast Africans away from other neighboring Africans and instead with Southwest Asians and Europeans. This was done simply because he collected no data from contiguous populations in so-called Sub-Sahara. The only other Sub-Saharan populations he sampled were those of the stereotyped "true negro" in West and Central Africa. It was when Crichton analyzed skulls from Kenya such as the Teita that he found affinities to Naqada crania and Somali crania both as well as affinities to the other "Sub-Saharan" types. If you want to read it you can look up: "A Multiple Discriminant Analysis of Egyptian and African Negro Crania," Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archeology and Ethnology.
Brace isn't the only person guilty of equating "sub-Saharan Africa" with the "true Negro". I remember someone on another message board claiming that Northeast Africans like Ethiopians and Somalis weren't considered genuine sub-Saharan Africans and that instead the term only applied to the likes of West and Central Africans!
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: Of course there is a resemblance between Modern Egyptians and Sub Saharan Africans you idiot. They are hybrids, which means that they are intermediate between Africans and others.
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata:
You did this before with your lack of comprehension in defining basic terms like "intermediate", which you still believe equates "hybrid". Your general mode of thinking is where there's a disconnect as overall you have what seems to be a very poor education.
lol moment
.
^^^authentic black Africans
Posts: 42955 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: Of course there is a resemblance between Modern Egyptians and Sub Saharan Africans you idiot. They are hybrids, which means that they are intermediate between Africans and others.
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata:
You did this before with your lack of comprehension in defining basic terms like "intermediate", which you still believe equates "hybrid". Your general mode of thinking is where there's a disconnect as overall you have what seems to be a very poor education.
lol moment
.
You're in a perpetual state of ignorance, aren't you? Did I equate intermediacy with being hybrid? Let me rephrase that. If one says that a car is a vehicle, does that mean that all vehicles are cars? If I say light skinned North Africans are intermediate because they are hybrids, does that mean that all intermediacy is caused by geneflow?
Also, to birdbrain Lioness. I'm waiting for the specifics meassurements that say modern light skinned Egyptians are not intermediate like all other North Africans.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Google scholar is a wonderful resource so if the paper is available then some type of link should show. The only obstacle then would be access but even in that case no link appears, only citation which I believe suggests that this article requires a paid subscription or access through a Harvard-specific credential.
It would be nice to read but only for historical context. Kalonji is right that Brace' insistence is intentional and that he previously ignored such criticism as Keita cites this same paper in his 1990 study on North African crania and uses the same Teita sample to once again debunk Brace in 2005. Brace is a dinosaur.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
Intermediate does not necessarily equate to hybrids
quote:^Google scholar is a wonderful resource so if the paper is available then some type of link should show. The only obstacle then would be access but even in that case no link appears, only citation which I believe suggests that this article requires a paid subscription or access through a Harvard-specific credential.
It would be nice to read but only for historical context. Kalonji is right that Brace' insistence is intentional and that he previously ignored such criticism as Keita cites this same paper in his 1990 study on North African crania and uses the same Teita sample to once again debunk Brace in 2005. Brace is a dinosaur.
Oh right lol. Forgot about Google Scholar
-------------------- L Writes: Posts: 1502 | From: Dies Irae | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by L': [QB] ^Don't think you understood Lioness:
Hybrids=intermediate
Intermediate does not necessarily equate to hybrids
I see what you are clarifying between larger category, intermediate, and sub category of intermediate, hybrid. However some traits are more dominant than others so you do not always have an intermediate result of a specific trait due to admixture.
Posts: 42955 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Add to that the fact that the dumb Liar still does not know the difference between resemble and identical.
quote:Originally posted by L': ...At least according to DJ.
Where did you access it from DJ?
It was years ago, when I first heard of it. I haven't been able to access the entire paper but only excerpts of it from a 2nd hand source. The paper is quite old so I don't know where you can find a full text version. J-STOR perhaps?
Posts: 26322 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: Having read both the Smith paper and some of the studies she references (particularly the Keita ones), I think she is misconstruing or misrepresenting studies on ancient Egyptians as pertaining to modern ones. I know for a fact that Keita has never done a study on modern Egyptians despite Smith's claim otherwise.
As for Brace, I suspect he comes from an old school of anthropological thought that over-emphasized nasal traits, and for some reason it's never occurred to him that this approach is outdated. Old habits don't die easily.
It's strange though how Brace one hand criticizes the 'old school' for their biased and outdated ideas while on the other hand is guilty of perpetuating that himself. Perhaps Brace is going through some kind of scholarly identity crisis(?)
quote:Brace isn't the only person guilty of equating "sub-Saharan Africa" with the "true Negro". I remember someone on another message board claiming that Northeast Africans like Ethiopians and Somalis weren't considered genuine sub-Saharan Africans and that instead the term only applied to the likes of West and Central Africans!
Yes unfortunately ignorance is very pervasive indeed. Just look what happened to Iman.
She was one of the first generation of high-profile black supermodels and although attitudes have changed since 1975, she insists that the fashion industry is inherently racist. Then, she was treated as some kind of exotic alien. 'Oh, you're so beautiful,' was one comment, 'you must be half-white.' Her reply? 'I don't have a drop of white blood in me. I'm beautiful because I am black and I am Somali.'
Brandon, maybe you should ask that person from that other message board what he has to say about West Africans like the Fulani and Central Africans like the Tutsi?
Posts: 26322 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Indeed, that study was discussed several times before. I have yet to see the point the Simpleton is making. Let her write what she thinks this study is saying before we rattle her microcephalic mind.
In the meantime, it's funny how she accuses us of jumping at any conclusion or study that we "think" supports our point! LOLPosts: 26322 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ This study is kind of a vindication for Brace is it not? I mean, he knows what he's saying and means it. Go ahead and try to refute it thimble head.lol
Posts: 676 | From: the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thimble is hard at it yall. Please be patient as the thimble is gathering its resources.lol
Posts: 676 | From: the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by L': [QB] ^Don't think you understood Lioness:
Hybrids=intermediate
Intermediate does not necessarily equate to hybrids
I see what you are clarifying between larger category, intermediate, and sub category of intermediate, hybrid.
The term "Hybrid" is a "sub category" of the term intermediate?
The issue is that you are so slow that you do not understand the difference between being a hybrid causing one to be intermediate as opposed to being intermediate because one is a hybrid (or due to some other reason). Kalonji said hybrids are intermediate not that every one who is intermediate is a hybrid! You do not understand basic cause and effect which is pitiful.
Umm, ok, people there is nothing else to see here. This girl is just not smart.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by A Simple Girl: ^ This study is kind of a vindication for Brace is it not? I mean, he knows what he's saying and means it. Go ahead and try to refute it thimble head.lol
What do you think Brace said?
Brace stated that narrow features are not the result of admixture, but indigenous.
You do know that R-P25 has its highest frequencies in central Africa but low elsewhere in Africa?
Now, R-M343 in particular is associated with African admixture I wouldn't be surprised if R1b had an independent African origin. Or if it has such high frequencies in central Africa due to genetic drift
Posts: 1502 | From: Dies Irae | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lioness balances on the edge of retardation. She is just barely maintaining in daily life, mostly unconcious and on auto pilot. If lioness had to conciously think about breathing I think she would forget and kill herself. We should seriously consider to demote Lioness even further from her already good for nothing image, if there are lower ranks available that is. She can't even get the basics right, how is she ever going to get the things that require the combined effort of more than three brain cells?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
R-P25 is associated with people in Central Africa who look like this:
Notice they are of the stereotyped "true negroid" look and not the "Mediterranean/Hamitic Caca-soid" features. They look no different from other Central Africans who don't carry R lineages.
In the mean time R-P25 is found at minimal frequencies in other parts of Africa. So how is this lineage Eurasian?? The only reason why it is being considered a possible Eurasian origin is because it is of the R clade which was traditionally associated with Eurasians. The same is true for mitochondrial M lineages with M1 associated with Africans only while other M lineages are Eurasian. Both Hg R and mt M are Paleolithic in origin meaning they originated around the time when Eurasia was being settled by modern humans from Africa.
It's easy to do the math unless you're a microcephalic simpleton. Posts: 26322 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Also, I was reading a most recent article:
quote:We have shown that R-M343 STR haplotypes clearly discriminate between Lebanese and African origins, unlike other common haplogroups, which also are not represented in the African populations. This enables identification of African chromosomes that have migrated to Lebanon. Further, SCD among R-M343 Lebanese subjects is largely confined to African haplotypes. The strong association of the sickle gene with the African R-M343 would suggest the source populations carried a high frequency of both markers. The sickle mutation is very common to African populations unlike R-M343, which is rare in Africa and found mainly in Europe and Asia. However, R-M343 has been found in high concentration in some populations from Central-West Africa where it reaches very high frequencies (up to 95%) in populations in the central Sahel; northern Cameroon, northern Nigeria, Chad and Niger.27, 28 For many centuries African slaves were drawn from those populations and driven across the central Sahara to the Mediterranean ports, a regular trade seems to have been established in the early Islamic era29 and continued until the 1840's29, 30 confined then to the central and eastern basins of the Mediterranean still under Ottoman influence.29 Deviations from Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium of diploid SCD in both genders with haploid male African markers in a Wright–Fisher model decay by a factor of 2 per generation. Therefore, an unstructured population would have SCD nearly uniformly distributed among Lebanese R-M343 haplotypes, however the R-M343 SCD subjects were mainly of African haplotypes, and found only among Lebanese Muslims.
--Marc Haber et al., (2010)
The abstract of the paper:
quote:Y-chromosome R-M343 African lineages and sickle cell disease reveal structured assimilation in Lebanon
Marc Haber et al., (2010)
Abstract:
We have sought to identify signals of assimilation of African male lines in Lebanon by exploring the association of sickle cell disease (SCD) in Lebanon with Y-chromosome haplogroups that are informative of the disease origin and its exclusivity to the Muslim community. A total of 732 samples were analyzed, including 33 SCD patients from Lebanon genotyped for 28 binary markers and 19 short tandem repeats on the non-recombinant segment of the Y chromosome. Genetic organization was identified using populations known to have influenced the genetic structure of the Lebanese population, in addition to African populations with high incidence of SCD. Y-chromosome haplogroup R-M343 sub-lineages distinguish between sub-Saharan African and Lebanese Y chromosomes. We detected a limited penetration of SCD into Lebanese R-M343 carriers, restricted to Lebanese Muslims. We suggest that this penetration brought the sickle cell gene along with the African R-M343, probably with the Saharan caravan slave trade.
posted
The coalescence age of the African haplogroup M1 is younger than those for other M Asiatic clades. In contradiction to the hypothesis of an eastern Africa origin for modern human expansions out of Africa, the most ancestral M1 lineages have been found in Northwest Africa and in the Near East, instead of in East Africa. The M1 geographic distribution and the relative ages of its different subclades clearly correlate with those of haplogroup U6, for which an Eurasian ancestor has been demonstrated.
posted
^ LOL I see you have no answer to Hg R in Africa so you moved on to mitochondrial M1.
But L' has already cited a more recent study by the same author which rectifies its African origins.
Macrohaplogroup M in Arabia Macrohaplogroup M is particularly abundant and diverse in South and Southeast Asia, reaching frequencies above 60% in some regions (Metspalu et al., 2004). However, it is practically absent in western Asia (Quintana-Murci et al., 2004). In Africa, only one autochthonous basal branch of M, named M1, has been detected (Quintana-Murci et al., 1999). In this continent it has a predominant northern distribution. M1 is particularly abundant in Ethiopia (20%). From there, frequencies significantly diminish forming decreasing gradients westwards and southwards. It has been proposed that the presence of M1 in Africa and surrounding Mediterranean areas can be explained as result of two expansion centers situated in East and Northwest Africa which are marked by the radiation of subhaplogroups M1a and M1b respectively (Olivieri et al., 2006; González et al., 2007). Although the coalescence age of M1 is Paleolithic it seems that the most important expansions occurred in Neolithic times when the Sahara was a more hospitable region. Some authors consider that the presence of M1 in Africa supports the idea that macrohaplogroup M originated in eastern Africa and was carried towards Asia with the out of Africa expansion (Quintana-Murci et al., 1999), others think that the distribution of M1 in Africa traces an early human backflow to this Continent from Asia (Maca-Meyer et al., 2001; Olivieri et al., 2006; González et al., 2007).
In Arabia, M lineages account for 7% of the total and half of them belong to the M1 African clade. M1 frequencies are significantly greater in western Arabian regions than in the East (Abu-Amero et al., 2008). As the majority of the M1 haplotypes in Arabia belong to the East African M1a subclade, it seems that, likewise L lineages, [b]the M1 presence in the Arabian peninsula signals a predominant East African influence since the Neolithic onwards--Vicente M. Cabrera et al. 2009
Keep whining micro!
Posts: 26322 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You must really have a vacuum between those two ears attached to your little dented thimble. I thought maybe you might have at least one brain cell attached to two threads suspending it right smack dead in the center of your very little thimble. But no,you don't even have that.lol
You can't even see the point the paper I presented is even trying to make. This is too funny.lol....You two crack me up. It's becoming obvious at this point that you two are desperate for any kind of handout.lol
Posts: 676 | From: the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:You can't even see the point the paper I presented is even trying to make. This is too funny.lol....You two crack me up. It's becoming obvious at this point that you two are desperate for any kind of handout.lol
The study you posted is less recent than the article posted here before. Not only that, but the author of the article you posted was a co-author in the article Sundjata, Djehuti and I have posted.
Furthermore, an ancestor to M1 in either south Asia or southwest Asia has not been found.
I suggest you see the response Explorer made to Gonzalez et al. 2007 Here
quote:The majority of the resting M lineages found in Arabia has matches or are related to Indian clades. In addition, some M sequences point to rare links with more remote geographic regions as Central Asia, West New Guinea and even Australia (Abu-Amero et al., 2008). Although more ancient connections cannot be discarded, it seems that this rare M component in the Arabian populations could be the result of trade and military links among those regions in Arabia during and after the British role. As all the M lineages found in Arabia belong to haplogroups that have deeper roots and diversities in other geographic regions, its presence in the Arabian peninsula is better explained as external genetic inputs. Therefore, there are no traces of autochthonous M lineages in Arabia that could support the exit of modern humans from Africa across the Bab al Mandab strait.
--Vicente M. Cabrera et al. 2009
Note: The comment on a relationship to Indian clades. Then we have:
quote:Based on the high frequency and diversity of haplogroup M in India and elsewhere in Asia, some authors have suggested (versus [3]) that M may have arisen in Southwest Asia [16,17,31]. Finding M1 or a lineage ancestral to M1 in India, could help to explain the presence of M1 in Africa as a result of a back migration from India. Yet, to date this has not been achieved [15], this study). Therefore, one cannot rule out the still most parsimonious scenario that haplogroup M arose in East Africa [3]. Furthermore, the lack of L3 lineages other than M and N (indeed, L3M and L3N) in India is more consistent with the African launch of haplogroup M. On the other hand, one also observes that: i) M1 is the only variant of haplogroup M found in Africa; ii) M1 has a fairly restricted phylogeography in Africa, barely penetrating into sub-Saharan populations, being found predominantly in association with the Afro-Asiatic linguistic phylum – a finding that appears to be inconsistent with the distribution of sub-clades of haplogroups L3 and L2 that have similar time depths.
— Mait Metspalu et al.
Then we have:
Source: Mitochondrial DNA geneflow indicates preferred usage of the Levant Corridor over the Horn of Africa passageway D. J. Rowold Ć J. R. Luis Ć M. C. Terreros Ć Rene J. Herrera (2007)
"In contrast, given the possible East African or South Asian origin, the data of the current study suggests that the Horn of Africa may have been the major intercontinental thoroughfare for M1 in a much earlier episode (late Middle to early Upper Paleolithic)."--Rowold et al. 2007
-------------------- L Writes: Posts: 1502 | From: Dies Irae | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
You need to reread your study and compare information from other studies instead of cherrypicking from each one. Your very last statement is even more telling of your desperation to cling on to anything that supports your point of view. In fact in its very essence we may draw more than one conclusion from its very wording.
The fact that M1 is somewhat limited, and a very outlying subclade of M found in East Africa is but one clue.
Either my two rats are in complete denial, or they are surely lost in the maze.lol
Posts: 676 | From: the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by A Simple Girl: You need to reread your study and compare information from other studies instead of cherrypicking from each one. Your very last statement is even more telling of your desperation to cling on to anything that supports your point of view. In fact in its very essence we may draw more than one conclusion from its very wording.
Tell me your "conclusion" then. What I get is that The Horn of Africa was the passage M1 traveled through continents. Which the authors state is in contrast to the other lineages studied, as they spread from the Levant Corridor. Simply put, their data supports an Ethiopian origin. This they state clearly in the image I posted.
Which is further supported by Kivislid et al. 2003:
"Also, the lack of L3 lineages other than M and N in India and among non-African mitochondria in general (Ingman et al. 2000; Herrnstadt et al. 2002; Kivisild et al. 2002) suggests that the earliest migration(s) of modern humans already carried these two mtDNA ancestors, via a departure route over the horn of Africa (i.e., the southern route migration [Nei and Roychoudhury 1993; Quintana-Murci et al. 1999; Stringer 2000])."--Kivislid et al. 2003
The quote I posted is saying the same thing as the above article- i.e., that M1 spread via the Horn of Africa
Lack of L3 lineages other than M and N in India is significant...
quote:The fact that M1 is somewhat limited, and a very outlying subclade of M found in East Africa is but one clue.
To address the above:
According to Sun et al.:
quote:A particular case in question is the origin of haplogroup M1, which is mainly found in Northeast Africa and the Near East (Quintana-Murci et al. 1999). Due to the fact that M1 bears variant nucleotides, for example, at site 16311 in common with haplogroup M4, at 16129 with M5, and at 16249 with haplogroup M34, it has been proposed that M1 might have some affinity with Indian M haplogroups (Roychoudhury et al. 2001). This inference, however, could not receive support from our complete sequencing information. Indeed, the reconstructed ancestral motifs of all Indian M haplogroups turned out to be devoid of those variations that characterized M1, that is, 6446, 6680, 12403, and 14110 (Maca-Meyer et al. 2001; Herrnstadt et al. 2002). Therefore, those common mutations in the control region rather reflect random parallel mutations. There is no evidence whatsoever that M1 originated in India.
What we can get from the above is that similarities between haplogroup M1 and the Indian-specific sub-clades of macrohaplogroup M are the result of random parallel mutations because the variations that characterize M1 are not found in M (6446, 6680, 12403, and 14110)
Recall the lack of L3 lineages other than M and N in India
quote:Either my two rats are in complete denial, or they are surely lost in the maze.lol
You have failed on limb ratios, Haplogroup R1b in Africa, and now you fail here Posts: 1502 | From: Dies Irae | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the mentally challenged microcephalic Simpleton:
Either my two rats are in complete denial, or they are surely lost in the maze.lol
You have failed on limb ratios, Haplogroup R1b in Africa, and now you fail here
Indeed. The slow-witted Simpleton in a desperate bid would jump from one topic to another after being debunked.
In the case of phylogenetic clades, she fails to realize that because Africa is the very source of all humanity, naturally Africans would carry the most genetic diversity. It's because of this that many geneticists would often mistake certain clades in Africa as having Eurasian origin simply because either Eurasians carry those lineages OR they in some way resemble lineages carried by Eurasians. Explorer or Charles created an entire thread based on this topic namely hg R1, L, K, F, and mitochondrial M1, N1, U6 etc., I hope someone could dig it up. Anyway, L' I was wondering do you have that passage from Keita about how geneticists should be cautious at naming certain clades of paleolithic origin to be Eurasian when they likely could have easily been African??
Posts: 26322 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Anyway, L' I was wondering do you have that passage from Keita about how geneticists should be cautious at naming certain clades of paleolithic origin to be Eurasian when they likely could have easily been African??
Is the following what you mean:
quote:The more recent upheavals in the Sudan may also have altered patterns. The social context/circumstances of gene flow must always be considered, and ideally understood. The historical linguistic data reported earlier would apply in the case of maternal lineages as well. It can also be argued that it is not likely that the "northern" genetic profile is simply due to "Eurasians" having colonized supra-Saharan regions from external African sources. It might be likely that the greater percentage of haplotypes called "Eurasian" are predominantly, although not solely, of indigenous African origin. As a term "Eurasian" is likely misleading, since it suggests a single locale of geographical origins. This is because it can be postulated that differentiation of the L3* haplogroup began before the emigration out of Africa, and that there would be indigenous supra- Saharan/Saharan or Horn-supra-Saharan haplotypes. More work and careful analysis of mtDNA and the archeological data and likely probabilities is needed. Early hunting and gathering paleolithic populations can be modeled as having roamed between northern Africa and Eurasia, leaving an asymmetrical distribution of various derivative variants over a wide region, giving the appearance of Eurasian incursion.
quote:Originally posted by A Simple Girl: ^ This study is kind of a vindication for Brace is it not? I mean, he knows what he's saying and means it. Go ahead and try to refute it thimble head.lol
What do you think Brace said?
Brace stated that narrow features are not the result of admixture, but indigenous.
You do know that R-P25 has its highest frequencies in central Africa but low elsewhere in Africa?
Now, R-M343 in particular is associated with African admixture I wouldn't be surprised if R1b had an independent African origin. Or if it has such high frequencies in central Africa due to genetic drift
Sorry... I didn't realize what I was saying when I wrote the above. To my knowledge, hg R1b in Africa has quite some diversity while genetic drift causes a loss in genetic variation. My mistake, just realized that Posts: 1502 | From: Dies Irae | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: The matter of alleged Egyptian similarities to Nubains is irrelevant to the matter of ethnic/ phenotypical continuity in Egypt. Also, there are Nubians and Nubians. Some are very black and negroid, some look more caucasoid, or shall we say Hamitic? Dynastic Egyptians used the former type as the stereotype, and clearly differentiated the Nubians physically from themselves. The unpleasant experience of these negroid nubians at Egyptian colonial hands does not appear to have been vastly different from the experience of other black Africans at later Arab and European hands, which poses the question why black people should wish to be associated with Ancient Egyptians!
Uploaded with ImageShack.us Alleged tropical adaptation is also irrelevant, as predynastic Egypt had a tropical climate, supporting lions and hippos and probably ostriches.
Also these undeniably negroid Nubians are found in the land that lies between the Egyptians and the other narrow-featuered populations of Africa, i.e. Ethiopia and Somalia, which rather shows the geographical and ethnic disconnect between Egyptians and Horn Africans.
The image shows Nuba people as captives, not Nubians. Nubian by the way is a cluster name. The Nuba are from central Africa/ South Sudan. Whereas Nubians are usually from Southern Egypt, Northern Sudan.
Posts: 22244 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: The matter of alleged Egyptian similarities to Nubains is irrelevant to the matter of ethnic/ phenotypical continuity in Egypt. Also, there are Nubians and Nubians. Some are very black and negroid, some look more caucasoid, or shall we say Hamitic? Dynastic Egyptians used the former type as the stereotype, and clearly differentiated the Nubians physically from themselves. The unpleasant experience of these negroid nubians at Egyptian colonial hands does not appear to have been vastly different from the experience of other black Africans at later Arab and European hands, which poses the question why black people should wish to be associated with Ancient Egyptians!
Uploaded with ImageShack.us Alleged tropical adaptation is also irrelevant, as predynastic Egypt had a tropical climate, supporting lions and hippos and probably ostriches.
Also these undeniably negroid Nubians are found in the land that lies between the Egyptians and the other narrow-featuered populations of Africa, i.e. Ethiopia and Somalia, which rather shows the geographical and ethnic disconnect between Egyptians and Horn Africans.
I also wonder if you are aware of how large the African continent is. In all it's diversity in landscapes and climates.
The Nuba region is closer central African, which has a different climate.
For Ethiopia, Southern Ethiopians have different feutures from those at coastal or mountain areas and the North. Are you aware how large the landmass of Ethiopia is, in all its diversity. I guess not.
Posts: 22244 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
So only the people who look like Mubarak are ''real'' Egyptians?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Exactly. What are you trying to say Ish? The people I posted are non-Arab folks from rural Upper Egypt. What makes you think they are 'Nubian' as opposed to just Egyptian??
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
The image shows Nuba people as captives, not Nubians. Nubian by the way is a cluster name. The Nuba are from central Africa/ South Sudan. Whereas Nubians are usually from Southern Egypt, Northern Sudan.
How do you know these were Nuba? True their features look obviously central to southern Sudanese and some even have the same facial scarring as modern Sudanese but how can you tell the exact ethnicity??
Posts: 26322 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
his wording is bad 
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Can't have your cake and eat it too, right?
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic