Controversey surrounds the phylogeography and origin of the R haplotype among Native Americans. Some researchers have suggested that Europeans spread this haplotype among Native Americans. The purpose of this study was to determine the origin of the R-M173 y-chromosome among Native Americans . It is the third most frequent y-chromosome possessed by Native Americans. Native Americans with the highest frequency of R-M173 haplotypes like the Ojibwa and Seminoles mated frequently with African males. Our findings indicate that the African male, Native American female pattern of mating in the United States probably led to the introduction and spread of R-M173 among Native Americans during slavery.
posted
Oh for ****'s sake!!! You make black people to look like we have no shame with our self-hate! You are unbelievable, dude!
Posts: 1340 | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are tons of problems with this publication.
-The most common R type in Native americans is R-M269 also known as R1b1a2 - The most common type in Western Europeans.
-Native Americans DO NOT have high levels of R1* -they carry european subclades.
quote: The pristine form of R1*M173 is found only in Africa (Cruciani et al., 2010). In 2010, the name for the African R*1-M173 paragroup R-P25* was changed into haplogroup V88 or R1b1c
^ You are confusing 3 separate things. THe name was not "Changed". The "pristine "R1* = M173*. R1b1* = P25* which did not "change to V88" but was further resolved to this. - Africa carries all three lineages.
quote: R1*-M173 in Africa range between 7-95% and averages 39.5%
OLD data. Africa no longer has High frequencies if R-M173* as most of them we further resolved down to V88 and V69. See the example with South Africa no longer having High E-M35* because most of this was further resolved to E-M293.
quote: Haplotypes R1b1,R1b12, R1a and R-M269 is common among Niger- Congo speakers including the Fulani and Bantu, in addition to pygmy populations
R-M269 - (The most common lineage in Western Europeans) is pretty much non-existant in Africa. NOT ONE SAMPLE from Gemna et al., 2009; In wood et al the frequency in Niger Congo speakers doesn't go over .04%......Not even a half of a Percent.
You should take a pause from publishing articles and get more familiar with the data.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by astenb: There are tons of problems with this publication.
-The most common R type in Native americans is R-M269 also known as R1b1a2 - The most common type in Western Europeans.
-Native Americans DO NOT have high levels of R1* -they carry european subclades.
quote: The pristine form of R1*M173 is found only in Africa (Cruciani et al., 2010). In 2010, the name for the African R*1-M173 paragroup R-P25* was changed into haplogroup V88 or R1b1c
^ You are confusing 3 separate things. THe name was not "Changed". The "pristine "R1* = M173*. R1b1* = P25* which did not "change to V88" but was further resolved to this. - Africa carries all three lineages.
quote: R1*-M173 in Africa range between 7-95% and averages 39.5%
OLD data. Africa no longer has High frequencies if R-M173* as most of them we further resolved down to V88 and V69. See the example with South Africa no longer having High E-M35* because most of this was further resolved to E-M293.
quote: Haplotypes R1b1,R1b12, R1a and R-M269 is common among Niger- Congo speakers including the Fulani and Bantu, in addition to pygmy populations
R-M269 - (The most common lineage in Western Europeans) is pretty much non-existant in Africa. NOT ONE SAMPLE from Gemna et al., 2009; In wood et al the frequency in Niger Congo speakers doesn't go over .04%......Not even a half of a Percent.
You should take a pause from publishing articles and get more familiar with the data.
You need to refer to my citations instead of expressing your own personal opinion, I mention Wood et al, not Gemna.
quote:Originally posted by astenb: There are tons of problems with this publication.
-The most common R type in Native americans is R-M269 also known as R1b1a2 - The most common type in Western Europeans.
-Native Americans DO NOT have high levels of R1* -they carry european subclades.
quote: The pristine form of R1*M173 is found only in Africa (Cruciani et al., 2010). In 2010, the name for the African R*1-M173 paragroup R-P25* was changed into haplogroup V88 or R1b1c
^ You are confusing 3 separate things. THe name was not "Changed". The "pristine "R1* = M173*. R1b1* = P25* which did not "change to V88" but was further resolved to this. - Africa carries all three lineages.
quote: R1*-M173 in Africa range between 7-95% and averages 39.5%
OLD data. Africa no longer has High frequencies if R-M173* as most of them we further resolved down to V88 and V69. See the example with South Africa no longer having High E-M35* because most of this was further resolved to E-M293.
quote: Haplotypes R1b1,R1b12, R1a and R-M269 is common among Niger- Congo speakers including the Fulani and Bantu, in addition to pygmy populations
R-M269 - (The most common lineage in Western Europeans) is pretty much non-existant in Africa. NOT ONE SAMPLE from Gemna et al., 2009; In wood et al the frequency in Niger Congo speakers doesn't go over .04%......Not even a half of a Percent.
You should take a pause from publishing articles and get more familiar with the data.
You need to refer to my citations instead of expressing your own personal opinion, I mention Wood et al, not Gemna.
.
Page 2
quote: In addition to R1b1c, we also find R1b1*. Haplotypes R1b1,R1b12, R1a and R-M269 is common among Niger- Congo speakers including the Fulani and Bantu, in addition to pygmy populations -->(Gemna et al., 2009;<-- Wood et al., 2005). Although some researchers have suggested an Eurasian origin for the Fulani, their origin lies in Africa (Winters, 2010).
Sloppy. Its so sloppy you are not even sure about what you reference. Even in the data by Wood et al R-M269 is .04% In Niger Congo speakers.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by astenb: There are tons of problems with this publication.
-The most common R type in Native americans is R-M269 also known as R1b1a2 - The most common type in Western Europeans.
-Native Americans DO NOT have high levels of R1* -they carry european subclades.
quote: The pristine form of R1*M173 is found only in Africa (Cruciani et al., 2010). In 2010, the name for the African R*1-M173 paragroup R-P25* was changed into haplogroup V88 or R1b1c
^ You are confusing 3 separate things. THe name was not "Changed". The "pristine "R1* = M173*. R1b1* = P25* which did not "change to V88" but was further resolved to this. - Africa carries all three lineages.
quote: R1*-M173 in Africa range between 7-95% and averages 39.5%
OLD data. Africa no longer has High frequencies if R-M173* as most of them we further resolved down to V88 and V69. See the example with South Africa no longer having High E-M35* because most of this was further resolved to E-M293.
quote: Haplotypes R1b1,R1b12, R1a and R-M269 is common among Niger- Congo speakers including the Fulani and Bantu, in addition to pygmy populations
R-M269 - (The most common lineage in Western Europeans) is pretty much non-existant in Africa. NOT ONE SAMPLE from Gemna et al., 2009; In wood et al the frequency in Niger Congo speakers doesn't go over .04%......Not even a half of a Percent.
You should take a pause from publishing articles and get more familiar with the data.
You need to refer to my citations instead of expressing your own personal opinion, I mention Wood et al, not Gemna.
.
Page 2
quote: In addition to R1b1c, we also find R1b1*. Haplotypes R1b1,R1b12, R1a and R-M269 is common among Niger- Congo speakers including the Fulani and Bantu, in addition to pygmy populations -->(Gemna et al., 2009;<-- Wood et al., 2005). Although some researchers have suggested an Eurasian origin for the Fulani, their origin lies in Africa (Winters, 2010).
Sloppy. Its so sloppy you are not even sure about what you reference. Even in the data by Wood et al R-M269 is .04% In Niger Congo speakers.
Jealousy will get you no where. Eurocentric researchers maintain that their is no M269 found among Africans, this shows that they are liars.
The fact remains that if it exist among African people it shows a greater diversity of haplogroup R in Africa than in Europe. Your problem is that you are waiting for Europeans to lead you into the 'white'/right direction and you feel safe following the European line.
I do review articles because I look at what geneticist have found and make my own interpretation of the research literature. Sometimes they make 'mistakes' and don't follow the Eurocentric line.
The fact remains. Given the genocidial relationship between Europeans and Native Americans in North America, haplogroup R had to have been passed on to NA people by Africans.
posted
I am not jealous, i am just showing where your scholarship is sloppy. You can see this yourself by answering these questions.
1 - What Africans Ethnic groups have R-M269 that passed them on in High numbers? SOURCE?
2 - How high would the frequency of R-M269 need to be in these Africans to pass them on to Native Americans at the tune nearly 80%?
3 - What Haplogroup A, B, and E lineages were also passed on to those Native Americans.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by astenb: I am not jealous, i am just showing where your scholarship is sloppy. You can see this yourself by answering these questions.
1 - What Africans Ethnic groups have R-M269 that passed them on in High numbers? SOURCE?
2 - How high would the frequency of R-M269 need to be in these Africans to pass them on to Native Americans at the tune nearly 80%?
3 - What Haplogroup A, B, and E lineages were also passed on to those Native Americans.
These questions have nothing to do with my paper. Moreover, the frequency of a haplogroup in an area today can tell us nothing about the frequency of the same haplogroup 600 years ago. The fact that R1-M173 is found in various African populations from Khoisan and Pygymy up to the Fulani today, highlight the widespread presence of this haplogroup in Africa hundreds of years ago.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Is there even a haplogroup that you do not claim for Africans, Clyde? Dude, your obsessive disorder has driven you to insanity. I really wish you could see this.
Posts: 816 | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by astenb: There are tons of problems with this publication.
-The most common R type in Native americans is R-M269 also known as R1b1a2 - The most common type in Western Europeans.
-Native Americans DO NOT have high levels of R1* -they carry european subclades.
quote: The pristine form of R1*M173 is found only in Africa (Cruciani et al., 2010). In 2010, the name for the African R*1-M173 paragroup R-P25* was changed into haplogroup V88 or R1b1c
^ You are confusing 3 separate things. THe name was not "Changed". The "pristine "R1* = M173*. R1b1* = P25* which did not "change to V88" but was further resolved to this. - Africa carries all three lineages.
quote: R1*-M173 in Africa range between 7-95% and averages 39.5%
OLD data. Africa no longer has High frequencies if R-M173* as most of them we further resolved down to V88 and V69. See the example with South Africa no longer having High E-M35* because most of this was further resolved to E-M293.
quote: Haplotypes R1b1,R1b12, R1a and R-M269 is common among Niger- Congo speakers including the Fulani and Bantu, in addition to pygmy populations
R-M269 - (The most common lineage in Western Europeans) is pretty much non-existant in Africa. NOT ONE SAMPLE from Gemna et al., 2009; In wood et al the frequency in Niger Congo speakers doesn't go over .04%......Not even a half of a Percent.
You should take a pause from publishing articles and get more familiar with the data.
Good post, I can't believe Clyde posted that, I wonder did he submit it for peer review?
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by astenb: There are tons of problems with this publication.
-The most common R type in Native americans is R-M269 also known as R1b1a2 - The most common type in Western Europeans.
-Native Americans DO NOT have high levels of R1* -they carry european subclades.
quote: The pristine form of R1*M173 is found only in Africa (Cruciani et al., 2010). In 2010, the name for the African R*1-M173 paragroup R-P25* was changed into haplogroup V88 or R1b1c
^ You are confusing 3 separate things. THe name was not "Changed". The "pristine "R1* = M173*. R1b1* = P25* which did not "change to V88" but was further resolved to this. - Africa carries all three lineages.
quote: R1*-M173 in Africa range between 7-95% and averages 39.5%
OLD data. Africa no longer has High frequencies if R-M173* as most of them we further resolved down to V88 and V69. See the example with South Africa no longer having High E-M35* because most of this was further resolved to E-M293.
quote: Haplotypes R1b1,R1b12, R1a and R-M269 is common among Niger- Congo speakers including the Fulani and Bantu, in addition to pygmy populations
R-M269 - (The most common lineage in Western Europeans) is pretty much non-existant in Africa. NOT ONE SAMPLE from Gemna et al., 2009; In wood et al the frequency in Niger Congo speakers doesn't go over .04%......Not even a half of a Percent.
You should take a pause from publishing articles and get more familiar with the data.
Good post, I can't believe Clyde posted that, I wonder did he submit it for peer review?
LOL. You are pathetic. You read only what you want to see in a text.
I did not confuse anything. I make it clear that P25 was resolved into V88, yet , you believe that this was not said.
Moreover the majority of Native America haplogroup R is M-173, not M269.
You are very ignorant of the world of peer review. You really believe that articles are published without the referees checking your citations. If you believe this, you are sadly mistaken.
Sometimes when you support stupid statements made by others, makes me believe you don't really understand the literature you are exposed too.
posted
You inaccurate cited Gemma et al who didn't find R-M269 to be abundant in Africans
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: You inaccurate cited Gemma et al who didn't find R-M269 to be abundant in Africans
LOL. You just don't get it. I never said R-M269 was abundant in Africa. I said it existed in Africa. Eurocentric researchers claim it only exist in Europe. This means that every African that has R-M269, does not have to have had relationships with Europeans to carry the haplotype.
.
You are a very foolish person. Gemna et al is not only researcher to discuss y-chromosomes in Africa.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by astenb: I am not jealous, i am just showing where your scholarship is sloppy. You can see this yourself by answering these questions.
1 - What Africans Ethnic groups have R-M269 that passed them on in High numbers? SOURCE?
2 - How high would the frequency of R-M269 need to be in these Africans to pass them on to Native Americans at the tune nearly 80%?
3 - What Haplogroup A, B, and E lineages were also passed on to those Native Americans.
These questions have nothing to do with my paper. Moreover, the frequency of a haplogroup in an area today can tell us nothing about the frequency of the same haplogroup 600 years ago. The fact that R1-M173 is found in various African populations from Khoisan and Pygymy up to the Fulani today, highlight the widespread presence of this haplogroup in Africa hundreds of years ago.
These questions make a HUGE difference. How can "Africans" pass so much R-M173* to Native Americans if these same African did not pass high R-M173* to African Americans? If the male mediated gene flow from Africans to Native Americans was THAT HIGH why dont these same Native Americans have high or even moderate frequences of YAP+ or PN2 lineages which are the most common lineages found in African Americans......and the most common lineages found in Africa where most of African American's Ancestors came from?
You reference "Malhi et al. (2008)**" but Malhi et al pulls pretty much ALL those sources for R-M173 from Bolnick et al where most of these R lineages were found in the Algonquian and Iroquois. Bolnick et al does NOT classify these lineages as R-M173*. NOTE that ASTERISK *. Sure they ARE R-M173 lineages but they are not in their ancestral state. In that same study she notes the VERY small presense of YAP lineages. ONLY ZERO POINT TWO PERCENT - 0.2% DO you think these lineages too are YAP*? Of course not, both lineages have been further resolved in other studies. Still need proof - Take a look at their autosomal DNA and see how Niger-Congo African it is. Moving on.
quote: I did not confuse anything. I make it clear that P25 was resolved into V88, yet , you believe that this was not said.
I didnt make believe Clyde - I quoted you and will do it again:
quote: In 2010, the name for the African R*1-M173 paragroup R-P25* was changed into haplogroup V88 or R1b1c
The "NAME" was not changed. IN the above you are calling "R*1-M173" "R-P25*" and "V88 or R1b1c" the same thing when they are not. M173* represents the "R1" SNP. P25* Represents the "R1b1" SNP and V88* represents what is now "R1b1c." - Africans have all 3. A "Name Being changed" represents the exact same thing : Like the Move from E3a to E1b1a which BOTH represent the E-M2 SNP. The E-M2 SNP has now been RESOLVED TO "E1b1a1" which is downsream to E1b1a WHICH is now represented by newly found SNP "V38". Now that I have explained that to you, I am a E1b1a carrier as are most African American Males. That does not mean I AM A E1b1a* carrier. I have a subclade which is E1b1a1g* represented by the SNP U175.
Moving to Native Americans - Yes some carry R-M173, some Ethincities are 100%. That does NOT mean they are R-M173*, R-P25*, or R1b1c* or R1b1c4.
From the article itself They tell you its R-M269 in the actual paper:
quote: the R-M173 network (fig. 6) shows no clear-cut patterns. Haplotypes in this network do not cluster by population, culture area, language family, or geography (fig. 6a). This lack of structure is consistent with the hypothesis that haplogroup R-M173 represents recent (post-1492) European admixture in eastern North America l rather than a founding Native American lineage (Tarazona-Santos and Santos 2002; Bosch et al. 2003; Zegura et al. 2004). Comparative data from the YHRD, Zegura et al. (2004), and Bortolini et al. (2003) further support this conclusion: the most common R-M173 haplotype in eastern North America is also the most common R-M173 haplotype in Europe, but this haplotype is rare in Asia (and therefore unlikely to be a founding lineage). In addition, the 62 other R-M173 haplotypes found in eastern North America appear to be rare or absent in Asia, whereas 43 of them are common in Europe and 14 others are one mutational step away from known European haplotypes (fig. 6b). Five haplotypes are 4–8 mutational steps away from European haplotypes, but they probably also stem from recent European admixture: the median-joining network suggests that they derive from separate European haplotypes (fig. 6b), whereas one would expect them to cluster together in a distinct clade if they represented a founding lineage from Asia.
In case you missed it:
quote:the most common R-M173 haplotype in eastern North America is also the most common R-M173 haplotype in Europe
This same haplotype is rare to non-existent in Sub Saharan Africa. YOU DONT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Clyde, basically your article is as silly as saying "E1b1a found in African Americans comes from Europeans."
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by astenb: There are tons of problems with this publication.
-The most common R type in Native americans is R-M269 also known as R1b1a2 - The most common type in Western Europeans.
-Native Americans DO NOT have high levels of R1* -they carry european subclades.
quote: The pristine form of R1*M173 is found only in Africa (Cruciani et al., 2010). In 2010, the name for the African R*1-M173 paragroup R-P25* was changed into haplogroup V88 or R1b1c
^ You are confusing 3 separate things. THe name was not "Changed". The "pristine "R1* = M173*. R1b1* = P25* which did not "change to V88" but was further resolved to this. - Africa carries all three lineages.
quote: R1*-M173 in Africa range between 7-95% and averages 39.5%
OLD data. Africa no longer has High frequencies if R-M173* as most of them we further resolved down to V88 and V69. See the example with South Africa no longer having High E-M35* because most of this was further resolved to E-M293.
quote: Haplotypes R1b1,R1b12, R1a and R-M269 is common among Niger- Congo speakers including the Fulani and Bantu, in addition to pygmy populations
R-M269 - (The most common lineage in Western Europeans) is pretty much non-existant in Africa. NOT ONE SAMPLE from Gemna et al., 2009; In wood et al the frequency in Niger Congo speakers doesn't go over .04%......Not even a half of a Percent.
You should take a pause from publishing articles and get more familiar with the data.
Good post, I can't believe Clyde posted that, I wonder did he submit it for peer review?
Most of the papers he is posting have been published in journals from India or Pakistan which are post-reviewed i.e. no one reviews them before publication (no, they don't check the references either). People reading the paper are supposed to write and critique it afterwards LOL. It' not worth the effort. Winter has yet to publish a peer-reviewed publication in a recognized mainline scientific journal. BTW letters to the editor and comments to other published articles are NOT peer-reviewed. People, who have published in peer-reviewed journals and are familiar with the process know the difference.
Before, Winters' acolytes chime in with insults, I want to point out that I have published in a couple of papers in Science and Current Anthropology as well as papers in Journal of the American Anthropological Society. Journal of the American Chemical Society, Ethnohistory, Medical Anthropology,Advances in Nursing Science,Yearbook of Physical Anthropology,Journal of Ethnomedicine, Ethnomedizin among others as well as peer reviewing dozens of papers for mainline peer-reviewed journals.
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by astenb: There are tons of problems with this publication.
-The most common R type in Native americans is R-M269 also known as R1b1a2 - The most common type in Western Europeans.
-Native Americans DO NOT have high levels of R1* -they carry european subclades.
quote: The pristine form of R1*M173 is found only in Africa (Cruciani et al., 2010). In 2010, the name for the African R*1-M173 paragroup R-P25* was changed into haplogroup V88 or R1b1c
^ You are confusing 3 separate things. THe name was not "Changed". The "pristine "R1* = M173*. R1b1* = P25* which did not "change to V88" but was further resolved to this. - Africa carries all three lineages.
quote: R1*-M173 in Africa range between 7-95% and averages 39.5%
OLD data. Africa no longer has High frequencies if R-M173* as most of them we further resolved down to V88 and V69. See the example with South Africa no longer having High E-M35* because most of this was further resolved to E-M293.
quote: Haplotypes R1b1,R1b12, R1a and R-M269 is common among Niger- Congo speakers including the Fulani and Bantu, in addition to pygmy populations
R-M269 - (The most common lineage in Western Europeans) is pretty much non-existant in Africa. NOT ONE SAMPLE from Gemna et al., 2009; In wood et al the frequency in Niger Congo speakers doesn't go over .04%......Not even a half of a Percent.
You should take a pause from publishing articles and get more familiar with the data.
Good post, I can't believe Clyde posted that, I wonder did he submit it for peer review?
Most of the papers he is posting have been published in journals from India or Pakistan which are post-reviewed i.e. no one reviews them before publication (no, they don't check the references either). People reading the paper are supposed to write and critique it afterwards LOL. It' not worth the effort. Winter has yet to publish a peer-reviewed publication in a recognized mainline scientific journal. BTW letters to the editor and comments to other published articles are NOT peer-reviewed. People, who have published in peer-reviewed journals and are familiar with the process know the difference.
Before, Winters' acolytes chime in with insults, I want to point out that I have published in a couple of papers in Science and Current Anthropology as well as papers in Journal of the American Anthropological Society. Journal of the American Chemical Society, Ethnohistory, Medical Anthropology,Advances in Nursing Science,Yearbook of Physical Anthropology,Journal of Ethnomedicine, Ethnomedizin among others as well as peer reviewing dozens of papers for mainline peer-reviewed journals.
Show us. I am interested in reading your publications.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by astenb: I am not jealous, i am just showing where your scholarship is sloppy. You can see this yourself by answering these questions.
1 - What Africans Ethnic groups have R-M269 that passed them on in High numbers? SOURCE?
2 - How high would the frequency of R-M269 need to be in these Africans to pass them on to Native Americans at the tune nearly 80%?
3 - What Haplogroup A, B, and E lineages were also passed on to those Native Americans.
These questions have nothing to do with my paper. Moreover, the frequency of a haplogroup in an area today can tell us nothing about the frequency of the same haplogroup 600 years ago. The fact that R1-M173 is found in various African populations from Khoisan and Pygymy up to the Fulani today, highlight the widespread presence of this haplogroup in Africa hundreds of years ago.
These questions make a HUGE difference. How can "Africans" pass so much R-M173* to Native Americans if these same African did not pass high R-M173* to African Americans? If the male mediated gene flow from Africans to Native Americans was THAT HIGH why dont these same Native Americans have high or even moderate frequences of YAP+ or PN2 lineages which are the most common lineages found in African Americans......and the most common lineages found in Africa where most of African American's Ancestors came from?
You reference "Malhi et al. (2008)**" but Malhi et al pulls pretty much ALL those sources for R-M173 from Bolnick et al where most of these R lineages were found in the Algonquian and Iroquois. Bolnick et al does NOT classify these lineages as R-M173*. NOTE that ASTERISK *. Sure they ARE R-M173 lineages but they are not in their ancestral state. In that same study she notes the VERY small presense of YAP lineages. ONLY ZERO POINT TWO PERCENT - 0.2% DO you think these lineages too are YAP*? Of course not, both lineages have been further resolved in other studies. Still need proof - Take a look at their autosomal DNA and see how Niger-Congo African it is. Moving on.
quote: I did not confuse anything. I make it clear that P25 was resolved into V88, yet , you believe that this was not said.
I didnt make believe Clyde - I quoted you and will do it again:
quote: In 2010, the name for the African R*1-M173 paragroup R-P25* was changed into haplogroup V88 or R1b1c
The "NAME" was not changed. IN the above you are calling "R*1-M173" "R-P25*" and "V88 or R1b1c" the same thing when they are not. M173* represents the "R1" SNP. P25* Represents the "R1b1" SNP and V88* represents what is now "R1b1c." - Africans have all 3. A "Name Being changed" represents the exact same thing : Like the Move from E3a to E1b1a which BOTH represent the E-M2 SNP. The E-M2 SNP has now been RESOLVED TO "E1b1a1" which is downsream to E1b1a WHICH is now represented by newly found SNP "V38". Now that I have explained that to you, I am a E1b1a carrier as are most African American Males. That does not mean I AM A E1b1a* carrier. I have a subclade which is E1b1a1g* represented by the SNP U175.
Moving to Native Americans - Yes some carry R-M173, some Ethincities are 100%. That does NOT mean they are R-M173*, R-P25*, or R1b1c* or R1b1c4.
From the article itself They tell you its R-M269 in the actual paper:
quote: the R-M173 network (fig. 6) shows no clear-cut patterns. Haplotypes in this network do not cluster by population, culture area, language family, or geography (fig. 6a). This lack of structure is consistent with the hypothesis that haplogroup R-M173 represents recent (post-1492) European admixture in eastern North America l rather than a founding Native American lineage (Tarazona-Santos and Santos 2002; Bosch et al. 2003; Zegura et al. 2004). Comparative data from the YHRD, Zegura et al. (2004), and Bortolini et al. (2003) further support this conclusion: the most common R-M173 haplotype in eastern North America is also the most common R-M173 haplotype in Europe, but this haplotype is rare in Asia (and therefore unlikely to be a founding lineage). In addition, the 62 other R-M173 haplotypes found in eastern North America appear to be rare or absent in Asia, whereas 43 of them are common in Europe and 14 others are one mutational step away from known European haplotypes (fig. 6b). Five haplotypes are 4–8 mutational steps away from European haplotypes, but they probably also stem from recent European admixture: the median-joining network suggests that they derive from separate European haplotypes (fig. 6b), whereas one would expect them to cluster together in a distinct clade if they represented a founding lineage from Asia.
In case you missed it:
quote:the most common R-M173 haplotype in eastern North America is also the most common R-M173 haplotype in Europe
This same haplotype is rare to non-existent in Sub Saharan Africa. YOU DONT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!
First of all, as you can see from the illustration above most of the African R-P25 is now called V88. This makes it clear that what I said was correct.
It is obvious from the above that most Native American R lineages are not R-M269. And even you note that they are majority R-M173. This makes your entire argument bogus.
You still keep saying that R269 is rare to non-existent in Africa. The fact remains that Khoisan, Pgymy , Fulani and etc., carry M269. This indicates that this y-chromosome was widespread in Africa.
It would have been easy for Africans to pass on R-M173 to Native Americas. They could have done this because many carriers of R-M173 were probably brought to America in the early days of Slavery.In fact most of the African Native Americans who lived in the South and Northeast established communities before 1799, some as early as the 1500's in the Carolinas and Florida.
1799 is an important date for Afro-Americans. It was after this date that the InterState Slavetrade began. During this slave trade the average slave was sold to another plantation and/or part of the United States by the age of 5. This meant a lot of intramarriage This Interstate slave trade made the Afro-American population more "homogenous" than the pre-1799 population. It was during this period that the number of Afro-Americans carrying R-M173 probably declined.
Eventhough the Interstate slave trade probably made the Afro-American population more "homogenous" today around 14.30% Afro-Americans carry R-M269.
Finally there was never extensive intermarriage between Northeastern Native Americans and Europeans so they can not account for the spread of R-M173 among Native Americans .
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: Most of the papers he is posting have been published in journals from India or Pakistan which are post-reviewed i.e. no one reviews them before publication (no, they don't check the references either). People reading the paper are supposed to write and critique it afterwards LOL. It' not worth the effort. Winter has yet to publish a peer-reviewed publication in a recognized mainline scientific journal. BTW letters to the editor and comments to other published articles are NOT peer-reviewed. People, who have published in peer-reviewed journals and are familiar with the process know the difference.
Before, Winters' acolytes chime in with insults, I want to point out that I have published in a couple of papers in Science and Current Anthropology as well as papers in Journal of the American Anthropological Society. Journal of the American Chemical Society, Ethnohistory, Medical Anthropology,Advances in Nursing Science,Yearbook of Physical Anthropology,Journal of Ethnomedicine, Ethnomedizin among others as well as peer reviewing dozens of papers for mainline peer-reviewed journals.
You are such a liar. The only papers I have had published that are post-reviewed are my papers at WebmedCentral.com. The rest are peer reviewed.
quote:Originally posted by astenb: From the article itself They tell you its R-M269 in the actual paper:
quote: the R-M173 network (fig. 6) shows no clear-cut patterns. Haplotypes in this network do not cluster by population, culture area, language family, or geography (fig. 6a). This lack of structure is consistent with the hypothesis that haplogroup R-M173 represents recent (post-1492) European admixture in eastern North America l rather than a founding Native American lineage (Tarazona-Santos and Santos 2002; Bosch et al. 2003; Zegura et al. 2004). Comparative data from the YHRD, Zegura et al. (2004), and Bortolini et al. (2003) further support this conclusion: the most common R-M173 haplotype in eastern North America is also the most common R-M173 haplotype in Europe, but this haplotype is rare in Asia (and therefore unlikely to be a founding lineage). In addition, the 62 other R-M173 haplotypes found in eastern North America appear to be rare or absent in Asia, whereas 43 of them are common in Europe and 14 others are one mutational step away from known European haplotypes (fig. 6b). Five haplotypes are 4–8 mutational steps away from European haplotypes, but they probably also stem from recent European admixture: the median-joining network suggests that they derive from separate European haplotypes (fig. 6b), whereas one would expect them to cluster together in a distinct clade if they represented a founding lineage from Asia.
In case you missed it:
quote:the most common R-M173 haplotype in eastern North America is also the most common R-M173 haplotype in Europe
This same haplotype is rare to non-existent in Sub Saharan Africa. YOU DONT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!
Please provide the time frame and numbers when this admixture took place between Europeans and Native Americans. History indicates that Europeans usually committed genocide/war--not love in relation to Native Americans.
Please detail a record of intermarriage between Northeastern Native Americans and Europeans, comparable to the record of Native American--African intermarriage.
Show us. I am interested in reading your publications. [/QUOTE]
I have been on both ends of publication- published in peer-reviewed journals, served as a peer-reviewer for journals and served on the editorial board of peer-reviewed journals.
Books Aztec Medicine, Health, and Nutrition (New Brunswick: University of Rutgers Press 1990).
Medicina, nutrición, y salud de los aztecas (Mexico: Siglo XXI, 1993). Spanish translation of 1990.
Some articles in refereed journals
METAL-AMMONIA REDUCTION OF NONCONJUGATED DIENES AND ENONES, J. Am. Chem. Soc.,89, 3365 (1967) with B.A. Loving, T.C. Shields and P.D. Gardner.
ANALYSIS OF PESTICIDE RESIDUES BY A DUAL-ELECTRON CAPTURE DETECTOR METHOD, J. Agric. Food Chem.,17, 264 (1969), with L. J. Purdue and J. Bryant.
REACTION OF 3-CYCLOHEXENYL RADICAL WITH NUCLEOPHILES, J. Am. Chem. Soc.,95, 5832 (1973), with D.Y. Myers, C.G. Stroebel and P.D. Gardner.
COUPLING OF RADICALS WITH NUCLEOPHILES: SCOPE OF THE REACTION, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 96, 1981 (1974), with D.Y. Myers, C.G. Stroebel and P.D. Gardner
EMPIRICAL AZTEC MEDICINE, Science, 188, 215 (1975); REPRINTED in the following: Katunob, 9 (#3) (1976); N. Klein, Ed., Culture Curers and Contagion (San Francisco: Chandler Sharp, 1979).
AZTEC CANNIBALISM; AN ECOLOGICAL NECESSITY?, Science, 200, 611 (1978).
LAS YERBAS DE TLALOC, Estudios de Cultura Nahuatl ( Natl Univ. of Mexico), 14, 287 (1980).
COUNTING SKULLS: COMMENT ON THE AZTEC CANNIBALISM THEORY OF HARNER-HARRIS, American Anthropologist, 45; 403 (1983).
THE ANTIBACTERIAL PROPERTIES OF AN AZTEC WOUND REMEDY, J. of Ethnopharmacology, 8, 149 (1983), with J. Davidson.
BASES FOR THE CHOICE OF HERBAL MEDICINES IN OAXACA, MEXICO, J. of Ethnopharmacology, 13, 57-88 (1985), with C. Browner.
CAIDA DE MOLLERA: AZTEC SOURCES FOR A DISEASE OF SUPPOSED SPANISH ORIGIN, Ethnohistory, 34 (#4), 381-399 (1987).
A METHODOLOGY FOR CROSS-CULTURAL ETHNOMEDICAL RESEARCH, Cultural Anthropology, with A. Rubel and C. Browner Current Anthropology, 29, 681-702 (1988).
FALLEN FONTANELLE IN THE SPANISH SOUTHWEST: ITS ORIGIN, EPIDEMIOLOGY, AND POSSIBLE ORGANIC CAUSES, Medical Anthropology 10 (#4): 207-217 (1988) with M. Logan and R. Trotter.
PAIN: A MESOAMERICAN VIEW. Advances in Nursing Science, 15 (#1), 21-32 1992. (with T. Villaruel).
AFROCENTRICITY, MELANIN AND PSEUDOSCIENCE. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 36, 33-58 (1993).
ROBBING NATIVE AMERICAN CULTURES: VAN SERTIMA AND THE OLMECS. Current Anthropology (with Gabriel Haslip-Viera and Warren Barbour), 38(#3): 419-441 (1997).
THEY WERE NOT HERE BEFORE COLUMBUS: AFROCENTRIC DIFFUSIONISM IN THE 1990’S. Ethnohistory 44 (#2) 1997(with Gabriel Haslip-Viera and Warren Barbour): 199-234.
ETHNOPHARMACOLOGY OF MEXICAN ASTERACEAE (COMPOSITAE), Annual Review of Pharmacology and Toxicology 38 :539-565 (1998)(with E. Rodríguez, M. Heinrich., M. Robles, J. West).
MULTICULTURAL SCIENCE: WHO BENEFITS? Science Education 85: 77-79 (2001).
Invited Encyclopedia articles
ETHNOPHARMACOLOGY in S. P. Parker, ed., McGraw-Hill Yearbook of Science and Technology 1988 (NY:McGraw-Hill, 1987)pp. 311-313.
DISEASE, ILLNESS AND CURING. The Archaeology of Ancient Mexico and Central America: An Encyclopedia. S.L. Evans and D. L. Webster, eds. New York: Garland Publishing. 2001.
LA MEDICINA AZTECA. Storia della Sciezia, Sandro Petruccioli, ed. Vol II, pp. 1019-1026. Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana. 2001.
THE HUMAN BODY. D. Carrasco, ed. Oxford Encyclopedia of Mesoamerican Cultures, vol II, pp. 23-27 Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2001
1978-1985 Editorial Board of Medicina Tradicional (Mexico)
1991-94 Editorial Board of Medical Anthropology Quarterly
Manuscript Reviewer for:
Ethnohistory American Anthropologist Current Anthropology Estudios de Cultura Nahuatl Medical Anthropology Quarterly Society for Latin American Anthropology Newsletter Journal of Ethnobiology Social Science & Medicine Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry University of Arizona Press University of California Press National University of Mexico Press Rutgers University Press Oklahoma University Press University of North Carolina Press University of Texas Press Westview Press University of Pennsylvania Press Yale University Press Ethnobiology
pdfs of some of these can be found in academia.edu
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: Most of the papers he is posting have been published in journals from India or Pakistan which are post-reviewed i.e. no one reviews them before publication (no, they don't check the references either).
He's published peer-reviewed material but in bogus journals. For example he's published several articles for the Journal of Black Studies (peer reviewed), an example -
Afrocentrism: A Valid Frame of Reference Clyde Ahmad Winters Journal of Black Studies, Vol. 25, No. 2 (Dec., 1994), pp. 170-190.
In this article all he does is attack white people and criticizes anyone who rejects Afrocentrism as being apart of a white biased elite (i have access to JSTOR and have read it).
So the sort of peer-reviewed journals he's published in are strickly bogus african-american social science related.
Mainstream historical/anthropological etcetc journals would reject his pseudo-history.
Posts: 2408 | From: My mother's basement | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: Most of the papers he is posting have been published in journals from India or Pakistan which are post-reviewed i.e. no one reviews them before publication (no, they don't check the references either).
He's published peer-reviewed material but in bogus journals. For example he's published several articles for the Journal of Black Studies (peer reviewed), an example -
Afrocentrism: A Valid Frame of Reference Clyde Ahmad Winters Journal of Black Studies, Vol. 25, No. 2 (Dec., 1994), pp. 170-190.
In this article all he does is attack white people and criticizes anyone who rejects Afrocentrism as being apart of a white biased elite (i have access to JSTOR and have read it).
So the sort of peer-reviewed journals he's published in are strickly bogus african-american social science related.
Mainstream historical/anthropological etcetc journals would reject his pseudo-history.
You're liar and a racist. It is racism to claim that a peer reviewed journal published by non-Europeans is inferior to one published by Europeans.
Secondly, in my paper on Afrocentrism I do not attack white people. I provide the creditable foundations of Afrocentrism which van Sertima and Hunter Adams couldn't, when Eurocentrist began their attack on Afrocentrism.
It is interesting to note that although Afrocentrism a Valid Frame of Reference was published back in the late 1990's, the content of the paper, has been discussed in several books--yet the evidence I present in the article has not been disputed. You can see/read the article here;
I suppose they must be really desperate for any articles that will "fill space", as well as their pockets (yes, you have to pay a fee to get an article published in that journal.)
Posts: 695 | From: وكان المصريون القدماء القوقازين | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
I suppose they must be really desperate for any articles that will "fill space", as well as their pockets (yes, you have to pay a fee to get an article published in that journal.)
Man shut your dumbass up! I dont see you dropping any knowledge to debunk his theory. Move along idiot retard.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Clyde listen up because I am only going to do this once. What you have is a fundimental problem with knowledge.
quote: It is obvious from the above that most Native American R lineages are not R-M269. And even you note that they are majority R-M173. This makes your entire argument bogus.
Pay CLOSE attention so you can see where you are making your mistake. ALL R1 carriers are "positive" R-M173 SNP. It doesn't matter if they carry ancestral R1*, R1b, R1a, R1a1, R1b1a, R1b1b, or "R1b1a2a1a1b4h" - The most common lineage in Irish. Being positive for R-M173 does NOT mean you have the lineage in its Ancestral state. 80% of Africans are Pn2 carriers. PN2* or E1b1* is NOT found in its ancestral state in 80% of Africans.
IN the above Example the M-60 SNP represents Haploroup B. NONE of these Lineages are B-M60* - IN their ancestral state. They are instead positive for B-M109 which takes us to B2a1a - I know this from OTHER STUDIES. "Pygmies" in Central Africa ALSO have high frequencies of positive B-M60 lineages. But they carry B2b noted by the M-112 SNP. Both groups are positive for M60, each group has DIFFERENT subclades.
NOW - IF AN ARTICLE DIDNT FULLY RESOLVE EGYPTIANS HAPLOGROUP B LINEAGES, BUT STATED "THE SAME HAPLOTYPE THAT IS FOUND IN EGYPTIANS IS THE SAME HAPLOTYPE IN PYGMIES - THEN I KNOW EGYPTIANS CARRY B2B.
Also looking at that image ALL the Egyptian samples are positive for M89 SNP which represents Haplogroup F. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THEY ARE F*. We know that their M89 lineages are mostly Haplogroup J.
Also from this article NOTICE the ancestral state of PN2* (E1b1*) and M96* (E*) - WHILE ALL of the M2 and M35 lineages are positive for Pn2 and M96 since they are upstream markers - NONE of the Egyptians carry E1b1* (Pn2*) and only ONE carries Ancestral E* Also notice they have High frequency of M35. VERY FEW of them are M35* Ancestral! Notice Kietas notes in the bottom "In Egypt M35 are also primarily M35/M78 and some M35/M81" - Pay Attention Clyde, you will need this example for later - If we are told the most common haplotype in Egypt is the same as the Magreb that would mean E-M81. If you are told they are the same as those in Somalia that would mean E-M78.
NOW moving on to your Haplogroup R nonsense.
This image Shows you when it comes to "P-25*" or "R1b1*" - IN ITS ANCESTRAL STATE (What Africans Carry) - It is very very low at only .03%. in Hammer et al 2004 - That there is your potential African linage. R-M269 On the other hand....the most common lineage in Western Europeans is at 21.9%
Moving on to your Malhi et al reference where you have R-M173 at 73.0% - Mahli et al data comes from Bolnick et al - AND JUST AS IN THE INFORMATION BY KEITA THEY DID NOT RESOLVE THE LINEAGES FURTHER. But they do give you other informations (STR analysis) and refer to other publications that tells you about the haplotype :
quote:The most common R-M173 haplotype in eastern North America is also the most common R-M173 haplotype in Europe,
What haplotype would that be? R-M269, What is that also found in African Americans? You should be smart enough to figure that out. How frequent is that found in Sub Saharan Africa - Rare as hell: They didnt tell you the "The most common R-M173 haplotype in eastern North America is also the most common R-M173 haplotype in Central Africa"......NO they said it was the European subclade of R-M173..........R-M269.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by astenb: Clyde listen up because I am only going to do this once. What you have is a fundimental problem with knowledge.
quote: It is obvious from the above that most Native American R lineages are not R-M269. And even you note that they are majority R-M173. This makes your entire argument bogus.
Pay CLOSE attention so you can see where you are making your mistake. ALL R1 carriers are "positive" R-M173 SNP. It doesn't matter if they carry ancestral R1*, R1b, R1a, R1a1, R1b1a, R1b1b, or "R1b1a2a1a1b4h" - The most common lineage in Irish. Being positive for R-M173 does NOT mean you have the lineage in its Ancestral state. 80% of Africans are Pn2 carriers. PN2* or E1b1* is NOT found in its ancestral state in 80% of Africans.
IN the above Example the M-60 SNP represents Haploroup B. NONE of these Lineages are B-M60* - IN their ancestral state. They are instead positive for B-M109 which takes us to B2a1a - I know this from OTHER STUDIES. "Pygmies" in Central Africa ALSO have high frequencies of positive B-M60 lineages. But they carry B2b noted by the M-112 SNP. Both groups are positive for M60, each group has DIFFERENT subclades.
NOW - IF AN ARTICLE DIDNT FULLY RESOLVE EGYPTIANS HAPLOGROUP B LINEAGES, BUT STATED "THE SAME HAPLOTYPE THAT IS FOUND IN EGYPTIANS IS THE SAME HAPLOTYPE IN PYGMIES - THEN I KNOW EGYPTIANS CARRY B2B.
Also looking at that image ALL the Egyptian samples are positive for M89 SNP which represents Haplogroup F. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THEY ARE F*. We know that their M89 lineages are mostly Haplogroup J.
Also from this article NOTICE the ancestral state of PN2* (E1b1*) and M96* (E*) - WHILE ALL of the M2 and M35 lineages are positive for Pn2 and M96 since they are upstream markers - NONE of the Egyptians carry E1b1* (Pn2*) and only ONE carries Ancestral E* Also notice they have High frequency of M35. VERY FEW of them are M35* Ancestral! Notice Kietas notes in the bottom "In Egypt M35 are also primarily M35/M78 and some M35/M81" - Pay Attention Clyde, you will need this example for later - If we are told the most common haplotype in Egypt is the same as the Magreb that would mean E-M81. If you are told they are the same as those in Somalia that would mean E-M78.
NOW moving on to your Haplogroup R nonsense.
This image Shows you when it comes to "P-25*" or "R1b1*" - IN ITS ANCESTRAL STATE (What Africans Carry) - It is very very low at only .03%. in Hammer et al 2004 - That there is your potential African linage. R-M269 On the other hand....the most common lineage in Western Europeans is at 21.9%
Moving on to your Malhi et al reference where you have R-M173 at 73.0% - Mahli et al data comes from Bolnick et al - AND JUST AS IN THE INFORMATION BY KEITA THEY DID NOT RESOLVE THE LINEAGES FURTHER. But they do give you other informations (STR analysis) and refer to other publications that tells you about the haplotype :
quote:The most common R-M173 haplotype in eastern North America is also the most common R-M173 haplotype in Europe,
What haplotype would that be? R-M269, What is that also found in African Americans? You should be smart enough to figure that out. How frequent is that found in Sub Saharan Africa - Rare as hell: They didnt tell you the "The most common R-M173 haplotype in eastern North America is also the most common R-M173 haplotype in Central Africa"......NO they said it was the European subclade of R-M173..........R-M269.
I agree R-M269 is the most common haplogroup in Europe.
But in relation to R-M173, the samples associated with Mahli et al were not resolved into R-M269. As a result, he never declared they were R-M269. Moreover, African R-M269 is the same as European R-M269.
My point is:
1) R-M269 is also found among Africans of diverse backgrounds;
2) there is no evidence of extensive European and native American intermarriage;
3) In relation to those Native Americans who carry R-M269, there is abundant evidence of African male and Native American female mating.
Conclusion, it is most likely that African males spread R-M173 among Native Americans--not Europeans.
I suppose they must be really desperate for any articles that will "fill space", as well as their pockets (yes, you have to pay a fee to get an article published in that journal.)
Firstly, I am proud to be an Afrocentric scholar. I have been one all my academic life.
LOL. You have to pay a fee to publish in just about all online journals. In most cases as much as $1400 or more .
Moreover, most papers in genetics are published in open access journals.
You are a joke. I have had articles published in BioEssay, PNAS, Science and etc., these are 'mainstream journals'. Where are your publications?
You can find my population genetics articles here:
posted
Clyde, ignore Perahu the troll. Your theory that African males spread R-M269 to Native Americans makes no sense since the most common Y haplogroup for African and African Americans males is haplogroup E/E3a. If there was extensive mixing between African males and native American women, why do African Americans have low to negligible levels of native American mtDNA and why do Native Americans have nearly nonexistent levels of haplogroup E, the most common male African haplogroup? It doesn't add up Clyde.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: Clyde, ignore Perahu the troll. Your theory that African males spread R-M269 to Native Americans makes no sense since the most common Y haplogroup for African and African Americans males is haplogroup E/E3a. If there was extensive mixing between African males and native American women, why do African Americans have low to negligible levels of native American mtDNA and why do Native Americans have nearly nonexistent levels of haplogroup E, the most common male African haplogroup? It doesn't add up Clyde.
Bass your argument seems legit. The only problem with it is that you have accepted the view that the only African y-chromosome haplogroup is E/E3a etc. You accept this view because it is what Eurocentrics teach you.
Bass you fail to understand that Eurocentric researchers generally lie. The fact that Pgymy, Khoisan, Afro-Asiatic speakers, Nilo-Saharan speakers and Niger-Congo speakers carry R-M173/M269 make it clear that this y-chromosome was formerly widespread in Africa, from North to South
In addition, you have to show a pattern of interaction between Native Americans and Europeans that would have facilitated this exchange.
I show a consistant and regular pattern of Native American and African interactions which encourage mating in my paper.
posted
As Much as I disagree with Clyde at least Clyde is doing something instead of running around the internet distorting info and repeating tired racist arguments.
At least Clyde is doing something and in academia. All you do is hide behind the computer and troll internet forums, where you end up being banned for your outdated bogus arguments..
Try publishing an article that no civilization existed in SSA in a Peer Reviewed mainstream history/Archeology/Antro publication
Watch your ass get laughed out the Room...
Stormfront and Wikipedia don't count..
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides:
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: Most of the papers he is posting have been published in journals from India or Pakistan which are post-reviewed i.e. no one reviews them before publication (no, they don't check the references either).
He's published peer-reviewed material but in bogus journals. For example he's published several articles for the Journal of Black Studies (peer reviewed), an example -
Afrocentrism: A Valid Frame of Reference Clyde Ahmad Winters Journal of Black Studies, Vol. 25, No. 2 (Dec., 1994), pp. 170-190.
In this article all he does is attack white people and criticizes anyone who rejects Afrocentrism as being apart of a white biased elite (i have access to JSTOR and have read it).
So the sort of peer-reviewed journals he's published in are strickly bogus african-american social science related.
Mainstream historical/anthropological etcetc journals would reject his pseudo-history.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
To Clyde and Quetzacotl how do you get your work in to Peer reviewed Journals, and how do you end up serving on Boards that do the Peer Reviewing...
Do you have to become affiliated with a certian academic institution?? And what level of degree do you need for people to even consider your work worth reading.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: To Clyde and Quetzacotl how do you get your work in to Peer reviewed Journals, and how do you end up serving on Boards that do the Peer Reviewing...
Do you have to become affiliated with a certian academic institution?? And what level of degree do you need for people to even consider your work worth reading.
Back in the day it was easy. All you had to do was study how articles are written in a particular journal. Once you did this the editors would assume you were qualified to write a particular article, since it was structured like previous articles they had published . Since I had a background in History, Anthropology and Linguistics this was easy.
Once editors see you have published a number of articles in a particular discipline they may invite you to review articles. This is how you get to be a peer reviewer.
Today you probably have to be a graduate student or faculty at a College/University or a Research Institute before a journal will consider your paper for publication.
Lately, I have been invited to send articles for review to journals to be considered for publication. After review they are either accepted or rejected.
Each discipline has its own jargon. Read articles on the subject you wish to write. Next write down the usual terms that are used in the articles you enjoy reading and hope to contribute too.
Each journal has its own method of citation. Most anthropology, linguistic and science journals may use APA style, so learn APA style. But some science journals use the number method; some journals expect you to fully cite the publication title,while others want the journal names abbreviated. As a result, study carefully the style of citation.
Jari if you study carefully how articles are presented in journals and then write them accordingly, you have a 45% chance of getting published.
Please don't lie about your credentials. Hunter Adams, had a BA. Hunter was a janitor at Argon Lab. He made good money and drove an Audi. I told him to get his Master's degree, because the Univ. of Chicago paid for employees to get their degree at UC.
Because he could not read French, I translated material for him and helped him write a number of articles on the Dogon. Hunter refused to listen to me and kept pretending that he was a Physicist. In 1994/95 they discovered Hunter was a fraud and the New York Times and Times Magazine outed him.
Hunter lost his family, home and Audi. Last time I saw him he was walking aimlessly on 55th Street in Chicago.
As a result, of Hunter lying, Eurocentrists were able to claim Afrocentrism was a fraud based on Hunter's big lie and the Portland Essays, which were written by Hunter and Ivan van Sertima. Much of what they wrote about they learned from others, including me, so when it was time to defend the Essays they couldn't because neither one of them had done any basic research. I wrote my paper "Afrocentrism a Valid Frame of Reference", to attempt to clean up this mess.
This should be a cautionary tale. Never claim false credentials.
. My motto is "Education is Good, Boldness is Better". In other words if you are a graduate student or serious researcher take a chance on getting published you may be surprised.
I suppose they must be really desperate for any articles that will "fill space", as well as their pockets (yes, you have to pay a fee to get an article published in that journal.)
Firstly, I am proud to be an Afrocentric scholar. I have been one all my academic life.
LOL. You have to pay a fee to publish in just about all online journals. In most cases as much as $1400 or more .
Moreover, most papers in genetics are published in open access journals.
Not true, most of the influential and cited articles in genetics are published in mainline peer-reviewed journals for instance just a few of the ones I look at American Journal of Human Genetics,{b]Annals of Human Genetics[/b],[Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, PNAS[/b], [European Journal of Genetics[/b], Nature,Science,Nature Genetics,Nature Reviews-Genetics;[BMC Genetics[/b],BMC Genomics,Molecular Biology and Evolution,American Journal of Physical Evolution, etc. etc. this is just a tiny sample of the peer-reviewed journals on genetics- take a look at the list in "Entrez PubMed."
quote:You are a joke. I have had articles published in BioEssay, PNAS, Science and etc., these are 'mainstream journals'. Where are your publications?
You can find my population genetics articles here:
Analyzing Winters’ list of publications confirms my previous statement that he has not published a refereed article in a mainline refereed journal. There were a number of broken links in his list, but all of his contributions to mainline journals i.e. Bioassay, PNAS, Science, and PLoS Genetics were letters commenting on someone else’s article. Letters and comments are NOT peer-reviewed, and are mostly ignored by the author’s of the original papers. Winters is probably counting on the fact that most people are not familiar with academic publishing and can be bamboozled into thinking that his contributions to prestigious journals are peer-reviewed articles. Don’t take my word, go to his list and verify that these contributions are letters: “Were the First Americans Africans?” In this Winters drags in publications that have been refuted over and over here (Green, Lisker, Wierciski, Underhill); “The Fulani were not from the Middle East” the authors of the original paper point out that Winters attributes to them things that they did not say; “Literacy in the Indus Valley” Essentially Winters writes that he agrees with the article; “Did the Dravidian Speakers Originate in Africa” In a familiar pattern, the authors of the article Winters was commenting on point out that he is not familiar with genetics:
quote: Chaubey, G. et al. 2007 “Reply to Winters,” BioAssays 29: 499. MtDNA-based genetic arguments provided by Dr. Winters in favor of gene flow from Africa to Dravidian-speaking Indians are, however, entirely erroneous. The author has been, unfortunately, confused by overlooking changes in mtDNA haplogroup (hg) nomenclature. Namely hg, M1 in Kivisild et al.(4) has been later changed to hg M3, in order to avoid parallel nomenclatures.(5) Furthermore, a recent dedicated paper on phylogeography of mtDNA hg M1(6) as well as an extensive comparative mapping of autosomal genetic markers among many Indian populations relative to global populations elsewhere, including Africans,(7) do not provide any clues for a putative recent gene flow, from Africa, to Dravidian-speaking populations in South Asia.
Most his stuff, as I wrote is published in new open-access journals that are not really peer reviewed prior to publication. Some go through the motions, others claim post-review, which is a joke. Of these papers, 7 came out in publications by Maxwell (a post review open access) 6 in Current Research Journal of Biological Sciences and 1 in Current Research Journal of Science. Two papers in International Internet Journal (of hematology, and of Biological Anthropology). one in International Journal of Genetics and Molecular Biology, and one in Indian Journal of Human Genetics (this paper has been cited a grand total of one time—by Winters himself. None of these are prestigious or mainline. It's also interesting that Winters has been pushing the R*-M173 line in several of these papers
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: [QB] As Much as I disagree with Clyde at least Clyde is doing something instead of running around the internet distorting info and repeating tired racist arguments.
At least Clyde is doing something and in academia. All you do is hide behind the computer and troll internet forums, where you end up being banned for your outdated bogus arguments..
Clyde is not qualified in the areas he discusses.
Clyde's Education:
* Ph.D. Educational Psychology * M.S. Special Education * M.A. Social Science * B.A. Sociology
- He has no degree in legitimate areas. He's a psychologist. His degrees are completely bogus and irrelevant to genetics/history/anthropology etc. This is obvious if you read his works or go to his website. As Perahu says, he is a charlatan/retard.
Clyde loves to have Ph.D appear next to his name, that's fine if he's talking about psychological issues but he's a complete retard at history & anthropology and is not qualified in these areas.
Clyde is so retarded he claims the Royal Standard of Ur is GUTIAN... plus many other crackpot claims or absurdities, these stem from his extreme hatred for white people. He's so deluded he has to claim Sumerian artefact are Gutian in attempt to dismiss the appearance of whites from ancient history.
^ Fruitcake.
quote:Try publishing an article that no civilization existed in SSA in a Peer Reviewed mainstream history/Archeology/Antro publication
I said no civilization has been created by negroids in sub-sahara africa. Great Zimbabwe etc was created by white semitic colonists.
I have peer-reviewed/scholarly sources for this claim. I gave you the chart before? Remember? That was from John Baker (look him up).
Posts: 2408 | From: My mother's basement | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Prior to contact with other races, Black Africans never invented the wheel and axle (Baker, 1974, pp 372-373), never smelted metals, never domesticated a plant or animal, never constructed buildings other than out of plant products and mud (Baker, 1974, pp 368-371), never developed a written language, and could not count beyond their fingers and toes. (Baker, 1974, pp 395-396).
Blacks who do make significant contributions, or at least rise to prominence (other than in sports and entertainment), are almost always mulattos with a large percentage of white heritage. (e.g., Colin Powell, Barack Obama).
Posts: 2408 | From: My mother's basement | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your dumbass comes at me with stuff from 1974 and think you are qualified for academic discussion. And you try to talk about Clyde..LMAO.
As I said I DARE YOU...Hell I will pay you if you get published any Modern Peer Reviewed Historical/Anthro/Archeology Journal with that tired b.s.
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: Prior to contact with other races, Black Africans never invented the wheel and axle (Baker, 1974, pp 372-373), never smelted metals, never domesticated a plant or animal, never constructed buildings other than out of plant products and mud (Baker, 1974, pp 368-371), never developed a written language, and could not count beyond their fingers and toes. (Baker, 1974, pp 395-396).
Blacks who do make significant contributions, or at least rise to prominence (other than in sports and entertainment), are almost always mulattos with a large percentage of white heritage. (e.g., Colin Powell, Barack Obama).
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
I suppose they must be really desperate for any articles that will "fill space", as well as their pockets (yes, you have to pay a fee to get an article published in that journal.)
Firstly, I am proud to be an Afrocentric scholar. I have been one all my academic life.
LOL. You have to pay a fee to publish in just about all online journals. In most cases as much as $1400 or more .
Moreover, most papers in genetics are published in open access journals.
Not true, most of the influential and cited articles in genetics are published in mainline peer-reviewed journals for instance just a few of the ones I look at American Journal of Human Genetics,{b]Annals of Human Genetics[/b],[Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, PNAS[/b], [European Journal of Genetics[/b], Nature,Science,Nature Genetics,Nature Reviews-Genetics;[BMC Genetics[/b],BMC Genomics,Molecular Biology and Evolution,American Journal of Physical Evolution, etc. etc. this is just a tiny sample of the peer-reviewed journals on genetics- take a look at the list in "Entrez PubMed."
quote:You are a joke. I have had articles published in BioEssay, PNAS, Science and etc., these are 'mainstream journals'. Where are your publications?
You can find my population genetics articles here:
Analyzing Winters’ list of publications confirms my previous statement that he has not published a refereed article in a mainline refereed journal. There were a number of broken links in his list, but all of his contributions to mainline journals i.e. Bioassay, PNAS, Science, and PLoS Genetics were letters commenting on someone else’s article. Letters and comments are NOT peer-reviewed, and are mostly ignored by the author’s of the original papers. Winters is probably counting on the fact that most people are not familiar with academic publishing and can be bamboozled into thinking that his contributions to prestigious journals are peer-reviewed articles. Don’t take my word, go to his list and verify that these contributions are letters: “Were the First Americans Africans?” In this Winters drags in publications that have been refuted over and over here (Green, Lisker, Wierciski, Underhill); “The Fulani were not from the Middle East” the authors of the original paper point out that Winters attributes to them things that they did not say; “Literacy in the Indus Valley” Essentially Winters writes that he agrees with the article; “Did the Dravidian Speakers Originate in Africa” In a familiar pattern, the authors of the article Winters was commenting on point out that he is not familiar with genetics:
quote: Chaubey, G. et al. 2007 “Reply to Winters,” BioAssays 29: 499. MtDNA-based genetic arguments provided by Dr. Winters in favor of gene flow from Africa to Dravidian-speaking Indians are, however, entirely erroneous. The author has been, unfortunately, confused by overlooking changes in mtDNA haplogroup (hg) nomenclature. Namely hg, M1 in Kivisild et al.(4) has been later changed to hg M3, in order to avoid parallel nomenclatures.(5) Furthermore, a recent dedicated paper on phylogeography of mtDNA hg M1(6) as well as an extensive comparative mapping of autosomal genetic markers among many Indian populations relative to global populations elsewhere, including Africans,(7) do not provide any clues for a putative recent gene flow, from Africa, to Dravidian-speaking populations in South Asia.
Most his stuff, as I wrote is published in new open-access journals that are not really peer reviewed prior to publication. Some go through the motions, others claim post-review, which is a joke. Of these papers, 7 came out in publications by Maxwell (a post review open access) 6 in Current Research Journal of Biological Sciences and 1 in Current Research Journal of Science. Two papers in International Internet Journal (of hematology, and of Biological Anthropology). one in International Journal of Genetics and Molecular Biology, and one in Indian Journal of Human Genetics (this paper has been cited a grand total of one time—by Winters himself. None of these are prestigious or mainline. It's also interesting that Winters has been pushing the R*-M173 line in several of these papers
You're such a liar. BMC and PLoS are both open access journals. They cost between $1600-2000+ to publish. Many authors in these publications have published more than one article.
Instead of talking about the quality of the journals where my work is published why don't you prove me wrong. In every one of my articles I show that Dravidians came from Africa recently and they carry African haplogroups and y-chromosomes.
LOL. You're a joke. My articles are review articles and as a result, I present citations /references supporting my claims. Until you disconfirm the studies I report your comments are lacking any foundation.
Finally, if a letter is published in a peer reviewed journal, as you know the references are reviewed, and up until now no one has disputed my sources.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: [Firstly, I am proud to be an Afrocentric scholar. I have been one all my academic life.
LOL. You have to pay a fee to publish in just about all online journals. In most cases as much as $1400 or more .
Moreover, most papers in genetics are published in open access journals.
Not true, most of the influential and cited articles in genetics are published in mainline peer-reviewed journals for instance just a few of the ones I look at American Journal of Human Genetics,{b]Annals of Human Genetics[/b],[Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, PNAS[/b], [European Journal of Genetics[/b], Nature,Science,Nature Genetics,Nature Reviews-Genetics;BMC Genetics,BMC Genomics,Molecular Biology and Evolution,American Journal of Physical Evolution, etc. etc. this is just a tiny sample of the peer-reviewed journals on genetics- take a look at the list in "Entrez PubMed."
quote:You are a joke. I have had articles published in BioEssay, PNAS, Science and etc., these are 'mainstream journals'. Where are your publications?
You can find my population genetics articles here:
Analyzing Winters’ list of publications confirms my previous statement that he has not published a refereed article in a mainline refereed journal. There were a number of broken links in his list, but all of his contributions to mainline journals i.e. Bioassay, PNAS, Science, and PLoS Genetics were letters commenting on someone else’s article. Letters and comments are NOT peer-reviewed, and are mostly ignored by the author’s of the original papers. Winters is probably counting on the fact that most people are not familiar with academic publishing and can be bamboozled into thinking that his contributions to prestigious journals are peer-reviewed articles. Don’t take my word, go to his list and verify that these contributions are letters: “Were the First Americans Africans?” In this Winters drags in publications that have been refuted over and over here (Green, Lisker, Wierciski, Underhill); “The Fulani were not from the Middle East” the authors of the original paper point out that Winters attributes to them things that they did not say; “Literacy in the Indus Valley” Essentially Winters writes that he agrees with the article; “Did the Dravidian Speakers Originate in Africa” In a familiar pattern, the authors of the article Winters was commenting on point out that he is not familiar with genetics:
quote: Chaubey, G. et al. 2007 “Reply to Winters,” BioAssays 29: 499. MtDNA-based genetic arguments provided by Dr. Winters in favor of gene flow from Africa to Dravidian-speaking Indians are, however, entirely erroneous. The author has been, unfortunately, confused by overlooking changes in mtDNA haplogroup (hg) nomenclature. Namely hg, M1 in Kivisild et al.(4) has been later changed to hg M3, in order to avoid parallel nomenclatures.(5) Furthermore, a recent dedicated paper on phylogeography of mtDNA hg M1(6) as well as an extensive comparative mapping of autosomal genetic markers among many Indian populations relative to global populations elsewhere, including Africans,(7) do not provide any clues for a putative recent gene flow, from Africa, to Dravidian-speaking populations in South Asia.
Most his stuff, as I wrote is published in new open-access journals that are not really peer reviewed prior to publication. Some go through the motions, others claim post-review, which is a joke. Of these papers, 7 came out in publications by Maxwell (a post review open access) 6 in Current Research Journal of Biological Sciences and 1 in Current Research Journal of Science. Two papers in International Internet Journal (of hematology, and of Biological Anthropology). one in International Journal of Genetics and Molecular Biology, and one in Indian Journal of Human Genetics (this paper has been cited a grand total of one time—by Winters himself. None of these are prestigious or mainline. It's also interesting that Winters has been pushing the R*-M173 line in several of these papers
quote:You're such a liar. BMC and PLoS are both open access journals. They cost between $1600-2000+ to publish. Many authors in these publications have published more than one article.
Instead of talking about the quality of the journals where my work is published why don't you prove me wrong. In every one of my articles I show that Dravidians came from Africa recently and they carry African haplogroups and y-chromosomes.
LOL. You're a joke. My articles are review articles and as a result, I present citations /references supporting my claims. Until you disconfirm the studies I report your comments are lacking any foundation.
Finally, if a letter is published in a peer reviewed journal, as you know the references are reviewed, and up until now no one has disputed my sources..
The original claim you made was that most genetics articles were published in open access journals. I pointed out that 1) most genetics articles were published in peer-reviewed journals, of which I listed a miniscule number and 2) that articles in peer-reviewed journals are the ones that have impact and are cited and used by other researchers. It's not just the question of open-access, its a question of PRIOR well-conducted peer review. Thus the PLoS journals, despite being open access are influential because they are peer reviewed. Your Maxwell journals have zero impact. You just made up the idea that I said these authors had only published one article-- never said it.
Your standard answer is "prove me wrong"-- Why I have done this dozens of times on this forum (your misusing Wulsin, misquoting Green, misquoting Lisker, misquoting Underhill, misquoting Lipp, misquoting, Coe, claiming that the Mojarra Stela did not have Long Count Maya dates, erroneously claiming an early date for Dogon gourds cited in Weiner, misquoting Kivisild as shown in Chaubey's reply to you above, misquoting Tozzer and Landa, misquoting Brown on Maya painting, erroneously claiming that Vai writing did not change over time, misquoting Jelinek about the C-group, Welmers on the homeland of the Mande, which is not the Nile, your distortion of the Gebel Sheik Suleiman image, as well as repeated showing that you are in error in comparing Mande words with Maya, Otomi and other languages etc.). However, you never admit error or ever correct what you write. The Green, Lisker, and Underhill misquotes are even in the article you submit for publication. Your linguistic errors in Mande-Maya and misquotes of Brown were clearly exposed as far back as 1998 is sci.archaeology.mesoamerica-- but you used them in this thread,
Clyde, any reader of this group can verify that letters to the editor of BioAssay, Science, PLoS are not edited (or references checked) by writing to the journal and asking them. You can be exposed so easily, or are you counting on the acolytes never checking your statements. Just in case, Winters "publication" in PLoS Genetics was a "Reader Response here is the e-mail I received about how these are treated:
Thanks for your message – good question. Reader Responses are intended to be more informal and to encourage community dialogue. As such, they do not undergo peer review by our editors or by external referees (whereas correspondence is treated differently and is peer reviewed).
Instead, Reader Responses are reviewed by staff (to check they are not obscene, abusive, defamatory, libelous, or in some other way illegal or discriminatory; otherwise, we will post them). I hope this helps.
Of course people have questioned your sources-- what do you think Chaubey's searing response to your comment was?
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: [Firstly, I am proud to be an Afrocentric scholar. I have been one all my academic life.
LOL. You have to pay a fee to publish in just about all online journals. In most cases as much as $1400 or more .
Moreover, most papers in genetics are published in open access journals.
Not true, most of the influential and cited articles in genetics are published in mainline peer-reviewed journals for instance just a few of the ones I look at American Journal of Human Genetics,{b]Annals of Human Genetics[/b],[Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, PNAS[/b], [European Journal of Genetics[/b], Nature,Science,Nature Genetics,Nature Reviews-Genetics;BMC Genetics,BMC Genomics,Molecular Biology and Evolution,American Journal of Physical Evolution, etc. etc. this is just a tiny sample of the peer-reviewed journals on genetics- take a look at the list in "Entrez PubMed."
quote:You are a joke. I have had articles published in BioEssay, PNAS, Science and etc., these are 'mainstream journals'. Where are your publications?
You can find my population genetics articles here:
Analyzing Winters’ list of publications confirms my previous statement that he has not published a refereed article in a mainline refereed journal. There were a number of broken links in his list, but all of his contributions to mainline journals i.e. Bioassay, PNAS, Science, and PLoS Genetics were letters commenting on someone else’s article. Letters and comments are NOT peer-reviewed, and are mostly ignored by the author’s of the original papers. Winters is probably counting on the fact that most people are not familiar with academic publishing and can be bamboozled into thinking that his contributions to prestigious journals are peer-reviewed articles. Don’t take my word, go to his list and verify that these contributions are letters: “Were the First Americans Africans?” In this Winters drags in publications that have been refuted over and over here (Green, Lisker, Wierciski, Underhill); “The Fulani were not from the Middle East” the authors of the original paper point out that Winters attributes to them things that they did not say; “Literacy in the Indus Valley” Essentially Winters writes that he agrees with the article; “Did the Dravidian Speakers Originate in Africa” In a familiar pattern, the authors of the article Winters was commenting on point out that he is not familiar with genetics:
quote: Chaubey, G. et al. 2007 “Reply to Winters,” BioAssays 29: 499. MtDNA-based genetic arguments provided by Dr. Winters in favor of gene flow from Africa to Dravidian-speaking Indians are, however, entirely erroneous. The author has been, unfortunately, confused by overlooking changes in mtDNA haplogroup (hg) nomenclature. Namely hg, M1 in Kivisild et al.(4) has been later changed to hg M3, in order to avoid parallel nomenclatures.(5) Furthermore, a recent dedicated paper on phylogeography of mtDNA hg M1(6) as well as an extensive comparative mapping of autosomal genetic markers among many Indian populations relative to global populations elsewhere, including Africans,(7) do not provide any clues for a putative recent gene flow, from Africa, to Dravidian-speaking populations in South Asia.
Most his stuff, as I wrote is published in new open-access journals that are not really peer reviewed prior to publication. Some go through the motions, others claim post-review, which is a joke. Of these papers, 7 came out in publications by Maxwell (a post review open access) 6 in Current Research Journal of Biological Sciences and 1 in Current Research Journal of Science. Two papers in International Internet Journal (of hematology, and of Biological Anthropology). one in International Journal of Genetics and Molecular Biology, and one in Indian Journal of Human Genetics (this paper has been cited a grand total of one time—by Winters himself. None of these are prestigious or mainline. It's also interesting that Winters has been pushing the R*-M173 line in several of these papers
quote:You're such a liar. BMC and PLoS are both open access journals. They cost between $1600-2000+ to publish. Many authors in these publications have published more than one article.
Instead of talking about the quality of the journals where my work is published why don't you prove me wrong. In every one of my articles I show that Dravidians came from Africa recently and they carry African haplogroups and y-chromosomes.
LOL. You're a joke. My articles are review articles and as a result, I present citations /references supporting my claims. Until you disconfirm the studies I report your comments are lacking any foundation.
Finally, if a letter is published in a peer reviewed journal, as you know the references are reviewed, and up until now no one has disputed my sources..
The original claim you made was that most genetics articles were published in open access journals. I pointed out that 1) most genetics articles were published in peer-reviewed journals, of which I listed a miniscule number and 2) that articles in peer-reviewed journals are the ones that have impact and are cited and used by other researchers. It's not just the question of open-access, its a question of PRIOR well-conducted peer review. Thus the PLoS journals, despite being open access are influential because they are peer reviewed. Your Maxwell journals have zero impact. You just made up the idea that I said these authors had only published one article-- never said it.
Your standard answer is "prove me wrong"-- Why I have done this dozens of times on this forum (your misusing Wulsin, misquoting Green, misquoting Lisker, misquoting Underhill, misquoting Lipp, misquoting, Coe, claiming that the Mojarra Stela did not have Long Count Maya dates, erroneously claiming an early date for Dogon gourds cited in Weiner, misquoting Kivisild as shown in Chaubey's reply to you above, misquoting Tozzer and Landa, misquoting Brown on Maya painting, erroneously claiming that Vai writing did not change over time, misquoting Jelinek about the C-group, Welmers on the homeland of the Mande, which is not the Nile, your distortion of the Gebel Sheik Suleiman image, as well as repeated showing that you are in error in comparing Mande words with Maya, Otomi and other languages etc.). However, you never admit error or ever correct what you write. The Green, Lisker, and Underhill misquotes are even in the article you submit for publication. Your linguistic errors in Mande-Maya and misquotes of Brown were clearly exposed as far back as 1998 is sci.archaeology.mesoamerica-- but you used them in this thread,
Clyde, any reader of this group can verify that letters to the editor of BioAssay, Science, PLoS are not edited (or references checked) by writing to the journal and asking them. You can be exposed so easily, or are you counting on the acolytes never checking your statements. Just in case, Winters "publication" in PLoS Genetics was a "Reader Response here is the e-mail I received about how these are treated:
Thanks for your message – good question. Reader Responses are intended to be more informal and to encourage community dialogue. As such, they do not undergo peer review by our editors or by external referees (whereas correspondence is treated differently and is peer reviewed).
Instead, Reader Responses are reviewed by staff (to check they are not obscene, abusive, defamatory, libelous, or in some other way illegal or discriminatory; otherwise, we will post them). I hope this helps.
Of course people have questioned your sources-- what do you think Chaubey's searing response to your comment was?
LOL. You're such a liar.PloS,;BMC Genetics,BMC Genomics are all open access journals; and like the journals where my papers are published are peer reviewed. To have a paper published in these open access journals once it is accepted it cost between $1500-$2500.
No one has questioned my sources including Chaubey. To this day Chaubey can not explain what happened to the 26 M1 carriers in the 1999 study.
Moroever they have never disconfirmed any of the evidence I present in my articles. Don't you think if they could counter my research they would.
You are nothing but a liar.
.People in the know do not take chaubey's comments serious. He is a known Hindutva, who is trying to deny the Aryan Invasion theory by maintaining that the aryan and dravidian speakers are the same people.
posted
This thread is a perfect example of how academia has eroded in some areas the same time it has improved. Again it is nothing more than proof that anyone can have a paper published. It is NOT proof that such a publishing is valid or accurate. As Asten has stated, his research is sloppy since it is full of confusing misidentified clades and hgs. Blaccentric is right, that Clyde's obsession to claim an African presence among Native Americans has clouded his methodology as is usually the case! It's this kind of work that gives Afrocentrism a horrible name. In fact, if I didn't know any better I'd say the only reason why these journals allow Clyde to publish his nonsense is to exploit him as a strawman example of Afrocentric studies and thus easily dismissible. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I write about the Black civilizations of the Americas and Eurasia. These historical themes are fully in the tradition of modern Afrocentrism which was founded by W.E.B. DuBpois.
W.E.B. DuBois firmly placed the presence of Blacks in ancient America and Greece as legitimate research areas. In The Gift of Black Folks (1924), he discussed the Black presence in ancient America, including European references to Pre-Columbian Blacks, and the influence of Africans on the Amerindian religions. In The World and Africa, DuBois (1965) provides a full explanation of the role of Blacks in the early world. He explains the history of Blacks in China and India (pp.176-200); Blacks in Europe(the Pre-Indo-European Greeks and during the Dark Age of Greece), and Asia Minor (pp. 115-127), and the Egyptian foundation of Grecian thought (pp. 125-126).
Given this foundation established by DuBois my publications on the Blacks of India, China, Japan, the Americas and etc., are the normal social science themes of Afrocentric researchers. My research, and that of Ironlion, Marc and Mike is mainstream Afrocentrism.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
You can not allow people to teach you your history who do not respect the ancient History of African people and their many travels throughout the world in ancient times.
Knowledge is cumulative. In other words we build new knowledge on the research of the giants in our field. From your lack of knowledge about DuBois' it is clear you have no recognition of the fact that what you guys are writing about has already been discussed formerly, and your job should be confirming or disconfirming what these giants wrote.
I teach educational philosophy on occasion. In this class I just don't talk about contemporary educators I also talk about the Greek philosophers.
You have to begin to recognize that what Mike, Marc and I write about is part of a 200 year tradition of Afro-American scholarship. Afro-Americans must learn to respect their own scholars. Don't let white supremacy continue to blind you to the truths of OUR history.
Afrocentrism, is a mature social science that was founded by Afro-Americans almost 200 years ago.
These men and women provided scholarship based on contemporary archaeological and historical research the African/Black origination of civilization throughout the world. These Afro-American scholars, mostly trained at Harvard University (one of the few Universities that admitted Blacks in the 19th Century) provide the scientific basis the global role played by African people in civilizing the world.
Afrocentrism and the africalogical study of ancient Black civilizations was began by Afro-Americans.
Edward Blyden
The foundation of any mature science is its articulation in an authoritive text (Kuhn, 1996, 136). The africalogical textbooks published by Hopkins (1905), Perry (1893) and Williams (1883) provided the vocabulary themes for further afrocentric social science research.
The pedagogy for ancient africalogical research was well established by the end of the 19th century by African American researchers well versed in the classical languages and knowledge of Greek and Latin. Cornish and Russwurm (1827) in the Freedom Journal, were the first African Americans to discuss and explain the "Ancient Model" of history.
These afrocentric social scientists used the classics to prove that the Blacks founded civilization in Egypt, Ethiopia, Babylon and Ninevah. Cornish and Russwurm (1827) made it clear that archaeological research supported the classical, or "Ancient Model" of history.
Edward Blyden (1869) also used classical sources to discuss the ancient history of African people. In his work he not only discussed the evidence for Blacks in West Asia and Egypt, he also discussed the role of Blacks in ancient America (Blyden, 1869, 78).
By 1883, africalogical researchers began to publish book on African American history. G.W. Williams (1883) wrote the first textbook on African American history. In the History of the Negro Race in America, Dr. Williams provided the schema for all future africalogical history text.
Dr. Williams (1883) confirmed the classical traditions for Blacks founding civilization in both Africa (Egypt, Ethiopia) and West Asia. In addition, to confirming the "Ancient Model" of history, Dr. Williams (1883) also mentioned the presence of Blacks in Indo-China and the Malay Peninsula. Dr. Williams was trained at Howard.
A decade later R.L. Perry (1893) also presented evidence to confirm the classical traditions of Blacks founding Egypt, Greece and the Mesopotamian civilization. He also provided empirical evidence for the role of Blacks in Phoenicia, thus increasing the scope of the ASAH paradigms.
Pauline E. Hopkins (1905) added further articulation of the ASAH paradigms of the application of these paradigms in understanding the role of Blacks in West Asia and Africa. Hopkins (1905) provided further confirmation of the role of Blacks in Southeast Asia, and expanded the scope of africalogical research to China (1905).
This review of the 19th century africalogical social scientific research indicate confirmation of the "Ancient Model" for the early history of Blacks. We also see a movement away from self-published africalogical research, and publication of research, and the publication of research articles on afrocentric themes, to the publication of textbooks.
It was in these books that the paradigms associated with the "Ancient Model" and ASAH were confirmed, and given reliability by empirical research. It was these texts which provided the pedagogic vehicles for the perpetuation of the africalogical normal social science.
The afrocentric textbooks of Hopkins (1905), Perry (1893) and Williams (1883) proved the reliability and validity of the ASAH paradigms. The discussion in these text of contemporary scientific research findings proving the existence of ancient civilizations in Egypt, Nubia-Sudan (Kush), Mesopotamia, Palestine and North Africa lent congruency to the classical literature which pointed to the existence of these civilizations and these African origins ( i.e., the children of Ham= Khem =Kush?).
The authors of the africalogical textbooks reported the latest archaeological and anthropological findings. The archaeological findings reported in these textbooks added precision to their analysis of the classical and Old Testament literature. This along with the discovery of artifacts on the ancient sites depicting Black\African people proved that the classical and Old Testament literature, as opposed to the "Aryan Model", objectively identified the Black\African role in ancient history. And finally, these textbooks confirmed that any examination of references in the classical literature to Blacks in Egypt, Kush, Mesopotamia and Greece\Crete exhibited constancy to the evidence recovered from archaeological excavations in the Middle East and the Aegean. They in turn disconfirmed the "Aryan Model", which proved to be a falsification of the authentic history of Blacks in early times.
The creation of africalogical textbooks provided us with a number of facts revealing the nature of the afrocentric ancient history paradigms. They include a discussion of:
1) the artifacts depicting Blacks found at ancient sites
recovered through archaeological excavation;
2) the confirmation of the validity of the classical and Old
Testament references to Blacks as founders of civilization in Africa and Asia;
3) the presence of isolated pockets of Blacks existing outside Africa; and
4) that the contemporary Arab people in modern Egypt are not the descendants of the ancient Egyptians.
The early africalogical textbooks also outlined the africalogical themes research should endeavor to study. A result, of the data collected by the africalogical ancient history research pioneers led to the development of three facts by the end of the 19th century, which needed to be solved by the afrocentric paradigms: (1) What is the exact relationship of ancient Egypt, to Blacks in other parts of Africa;
(2) How and when did Blacks settle America, Asia and Europe;
(3) What are the contributions of the Blacks to the rise, and cultural expression ancient Black\African civilizations;
(4) Did Africans settle parts of America in ancient times.
As you can see Afro-Americans have be writing about the Global history of ancient Black civilizations for almost 200 years. It was Afro-Americans who first mentioned the African civilizations of West Africa and the Black roots of Egypt. These Afro-Americans made Africa a historical part of the world.
Afro-American scholars not only highlighted African history they also discussed the African/Black civilizations developed by African people outside Africa over a hundred years before Bernal and Boas.
It was DuBois who founded Black/Negro Studies, especially Afro-American studies given his work on the slave trade and sociological and historical studies of Afro-Americans. He mentions in the World and Africa about the Jews and other Europeans who were attempting to take over the field. Hansberry There is no one who can deny the fact that Leo Hansberry founded African studies in the U.S., not the Jews.Hansberry was a professor at Howard University.
Moreover, Bernal did not initiate any second wave of "negro/Blackcentric" study for ancient Egyptian civilization. Credit for this social science push is none other than Chiek Diop, who makes it clear that he was influenced by DuBois.
DuBois
These scholars recognized that the people of ancient Greece, Southeast Asia and Indo-China were African people. When giants in study of Afrocentrism discussed Blacks in Asia they were talking about people of African descent. So when you claim that these civilizations should be outside the study area of Afrocentric scholars you don't know what you're talking about.
These researchers used anthropological, archaeological historical and linguistic evidence to support their conclusions. It is only natural that these well founded hypotheses developed by these scholars can be supported by population genetics.
REFERENCES
Anselin, A. (1982). Le mythe d' Europe. Paris: Editions Anthropos.
Bernal, M. (1996, Spring). The Afrocentric interpretation of history: Bernal replies to Lefkowitz. Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, 86-95.
Bernal,M. (1987). Black Athena. New York: Free Association Press. Volume 1.
________. (1991). Black Athena. New York: Free Association Press. Volume 2.
Blyden, E.W. ( January, 1869). The Negro in ancient history.
Methodist Quarterly Review, 71-93.
Blyden, E.W. (1887). Christianity, Islam and the Negro Race. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
_____________. (1890). The African Problem and the method for
its solution. Washington, D.C.: Gibson Brothers.
_______________.(1905). West Africa before Europe. London:
C.M. Phillips.
Clegg, L.H. (1975). Who were the first Americans? The Black
Scholar, 7(1), 32-41.
Coleman, B.E. (1971). A history of Swahili, The Black Scholar,
2 (6), 13-25.
Cornish, S. & Russwurm, J.B. (1827). European colonies in America, Freedom Journal, 1.
Carruthers, J. (1977). Writing for Eternity, black book bulletin,
5 (2), 32-35.
Carruthers, J. (1980). Reflections on the history of afrocentric
worldview, black book bulletin, 7(1), 4-13, 25.
Delany, M.R. (1978). The origin of races and color. Baltimore, M.D.: Black Classic Press.
Diop,C.A. (1974). The African Origin of Civilization. (ed. & Trans) by Mercer Cook, Westport:Lawrence Hill & Company.
_________.(1977). Parente genetique de l'Egyptien Pharaonique et
des Languaes Negro-Africaines. Dakar: IFAN ,Les Nouvelles
Editions Africaines.
__________.(1978) The Cultural Unity of Black Africa. Chicago: Third World Press.
__________. (1981). A Methodology for the study of migration.
UNESCO (Ed.), African Ethnonyms and Toponyms, (pp.87-110).
Paris: UNESCO.
___________.(1986). "Formation of the Berber Branch". In Libya
Antiqua. (ed.) by Unesco,(Paris: UNESCO) pp.69-73.
____________.(1987). Precolonial Black Africa. (trans. ) by
Harold Salemson, Westport: Lawrence Hill & Company.
____________.(1988). Nouvelles recherches sur l'Egyptien ancient
et les langues Negro-Africaines Modernes. Paris: Presence
Africaine.
_____________(1991). Civilization or Barbarism: An Authentic Anthropology. (trans.) by Yaa-Lengi Meema Ngemi and (ed.) by
H.J. Salemson and Marjoliiw de Jager, Westport:Lawrence
Hill and Company.
Douglas, F. (1966). The claims of the Negro ethnologically considered. In H. Brotz (Ed.), Negro social and political
thought (pp. 226-244). New York: Basic Books, Inc., Pub.
DuBois, W.E.B. (1924). The Gift of Black Folks. Boston.
DuBois, W.E.B. (1970). The Negro. New York: Oxford University
Press.
DuBois, W.E.B. (1965). The world and Africa. New York :
International Publishers Co., Inc.
Ferris, W.H. (1913). The African abroad. 2 vols. New Haven,CT
:Tuttle, Morehouse and Taylor.
Garvey, M. (1966). Who and What is a Negro. In H. Brotz (Ed.), Negro social and political thought (pp. 560-562).New York: Basic Books, Inc. Publishers.
Graves, Robert. (1980). The Greek Myths. Middlesex:Peguin Books
Ltd. 2 volumes.
Hansberry, L.H. (1981). Africa and Africans: As seen by classical
writers (Vol. 2). Washington, D.C.: Howard University Press.
Hopkins, P.E. (1905). A Primer of Facts pertaining to the early greatness of the african race and the possibility of restoration by its descendants-with epilogue. Cambridge: P.E. Hopkins & Com.
Hume, D. (1875). Essays: Moral political and literary. T.H. Green
and T.H. Grose. 2 Vols. London.
Jackson, J. (1974). Introduction to African civilization.
Secaucus, N.J.: Citadel Press.
James, G.M. (1954). Stolen legacy. New York: Philosophical Library.
Kuhn, T.S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolution.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lacouperie, Terrien de. (1891). The black heads of Babylonia and ancient China, The Babylonian and Oriental Record, 5 (11), 233-246.
Lawrence, H.G. (1962). African explorers of the New World,
The Crisis, 321-332.
Merton, R.K. (1957). Social theory aand social structure.
Glencoe, Ill. : The Free Press.
Moitt,B. (1989). "Chiekh Anta Diop and the African Diaspora:
Historical Continuity and Socio-Cultural Symbolism".
Presence Africaine, no. 149-150:347-360.
Parker,G.W. (1917) . "The African Origin of Grecian Civilization
".Journal of Negro History, 2(3):334-344.
___________. (1981). The Children of the Sun. Baltimore,Md.:
Black Classic Press.
Perry, R.L. (1893). The Cushite. Brooklyn: The Literary Union.
Rawlinson, George. (1928).The History of Herodutus. New York
: Tudor.
Schomburg, A.A. (March, 1925).The Negro digs up his past.
Thompson, Jr. A.A. (1975). Pre-Columbian [African] presence
in the Western Hemisphere,Negro History Bulletin, 38 (7), 452-456.
Williams, G.W. (1869). History of the Negro Race in America. New York: G.P. Putnam.
Wimby, D. (1980). The Greco-Roman Tradition concerning Ethiopia and Egypt, black books bulletin, 7(1), 14-19, 25.
Winters, C.A. (1977). The influence of the Mande scripts on ancient American writing systems", Bulletin l'de IFAN, T39, serie B, no. 2 (1977), pp.941-967.
Winters, C.A. (1979). Manding Scripts in the New World", Journal of African Civilizations, l(1), 80-97.
Winters,C.A. (December 1981/ January 1982). Mexico's Black Heritage. The Black Collegian, 76-84.
Winters, C.A. (1983a). "The Ancient Manding Script". In Blacks
in Science:Ancient and Modern. (ed.) by Ivan van Sertima, (New Brunswick: Transaction Books) pp.208-215.
__________. (1983b). "Les Fondateurs de la Grece venaient d'Afrique en passant par la Crete". Afrique Histoire (Dakar), no.8:13-18.
_________. (1983c) "Famous Black Greeks Important in the development of Greek Culture". Return to the Source,2(1):8.
________.(1983d). "Blacks in Ancient China, Part 1, The Founders
of Xia and Shang", Journal of Black Studies 1 (2), 8-13.
________. (1984a). "Blacks in Europe before the Europeans".
Return to the Source, 3(1):26-33.
Winters, C.A. (1984b). Blacks in Ancient America, Colorlines, 3(2), 27-28.
Winters, C.A. (1984c). Africans found first American Civilization , African Monitor, l , pp.16-18.
_________.(1985a). "The Indus Valley Writing and related
Scripts of the 3rd Millennium BC". India Past and
Present, 2(1):13-19.
__________. (1985b). "The Proto-Culture of the Dravidians,
Manding and Sumerians". Tamil Civilization,3(1):1-9.
__________. (1985c). "The Far Eastern Origin of the Tamils",
Journal of Tamil Studies , no.27, pp.65-92.
__________.(1986). The Migration Routes of the Proto-Mande.
The Mankind Quarterly,27 (1), 77-96.
_________.(1986b). Dravidian Settlements in Ancient Polynesia.
India Past and Present, 3 (2), 225-241.
__________. (1988). "Common African and Dravidian Place Name
Elements". South Asian Anthropologist, 9(1):33-36.
__________. (1989a). "Tamil, Sumerian, Manding and the Genetic
Model". International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics,18(1):98-127.
__________. (1989b). "Review of Dr. Asko Parpola's 'The Coming of the Aryans'",International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics, 18(2):98-127.
__________. (1990). "The Dravido-Harappan Colonization of Central Asia". Central Asiatic Journal, 34(1/2):120-144.
___________. (1991). "The Proto-Sahara". The Dravidian Encyclopaedia, (Trivandrum: International School of Dravidian Linguistics) pp.553-556. Volume l.
----------.(1994). Afrocentrism: A valid frame of reference, Journal of Black Studies, 25 (2), 170-190.
_________.(1994b). The Dravidian and African laguages, International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics, 23 (1), 34-52.
________.2007. Afrocentrism Myth or Science.www.lulu.com Here
Woodson, C.G. & Wesley, C.H. (1972). The Negro in Our History. Washington, D.C. Associated Publisher.
Get up off your knees and learn from the Afro-American scholars who began the study of Blacks in ancient history.
In conclusion, Afrocentrism is a mature social science. A social science firmly rooted in the scholarship of Afro-American researchers lasting almost 200 years. Researchers like Marc Washington, Mike and I are continuing a tradition of scholarship began 20 decades ago. All we are doing is confirming research by DuBois and others, that has not been disconfirmed over the past 200 years.
Aluta continua.....The struggle continues.....
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Researchers like Marc Washington, Mike and I are continuing a tradition of scholarship began 20 decades ago.
No True Afrocentrist claimed every single person from the Chinese to the Vikings, Anglo Saxons etc being black or that whites were an albino colony. You, Mike and Marc give Afrocentrism a bad name, esp. Mike his double Standards and sloppy scholarship is notorious..
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Researchers like Marc Washington, Mike and I are continuing a tradition of scholarship began 20 decades ago.
No True Afrocentrist claimed every single person from the Chinese to the Vikings, Anglo Saxons etc being black or that whites were an albino colony. You, Mike and Marc give Afrocentrism a bad name, esp. Mike his double Standards and sloppy scholarship is notorious..
You can't read. How can we be giving Afrocentrism a bad name when we do confirmation studies that support the earlier research of DuBois, J.A. Rogers and etc.
You can only make this claim because you have not read the prior research in Afrocentrism outlined above. You repeat a Euronut mantra which they can not support.
None of us claim that all Chinese or Vikings were Black. For example, I specicifically say the Xia and Shang were Blacks.
In relation to ancient America, I have made it clear that the Olmec were from Africa, while the Ocos, were Black native Americans.
I write about the Black civilizations of the Americas and Eurasia. These historical themes are fully in the tradition of modern Afrocentrism which was founded by W.E.B. DuBpois.
W.E.B. DuBois firmly placed the presence of Blacks in ancient America and Greece as legitimate research areas. In The Gift of Black Folks (1924), he discussed the Black presence in ancient America, including European references to Pre-Columbian Blacks, and the influence of Africans on the Amerindian religions. In The World and Africa, DuBois (1965) provides a full explanation of the role of Blacks in the early world. He explains the history of Blacks in China and India (pp.176-200); Blacks in Europe(the Pre-Indo-European Greeks and during the Dark Age of Greece), and Asia Minor (pp. 115-127), and the Egyptian foundation of Grecian thought (pp. 125-126).
Given this foundation established by DuBois my publications on the Blacks of India, China, Japan, the Americas and etc., are the normal social science themes of Afrocentric researchers. My research, and that of Ironlion, Marc and Mike is mainstream Afrocentrism.
Your argument that we claim everyone as Black is without foundation.
Read the Afrocentric literature for yourself instead of parroting what you have heard.
Analyzing Winters’ list of publications confirms my previous statement that he has not published a refereed article in a mainline refereed journal. There were a number of broken links in his list, but all of his contributions to mainline journals i.e. Bioassay, PNAS, Science, and PLoS Genetics were letters commenting on someone else’s article. Letters and comments are NOT peer-reviewed, and are mostly ignored by the author’s of the original papers. Winters is probably counting on the fact that most people are not familiar with academic publishing and can be bamboozled into thinking that his contributions to prestigious journals are peer-reviewed articles. Don’t take my word, go to his list and verify that these contributions are letters: “Were the First Americans Africans?” In this Winters drags in publications that have been refuted over and over here (Green, Lisker, Wierciski, Underhill); “The Fulani were not from the Middle East” the authors of the original paper point out that Winters attributes to them things that they did not say; “Literacy in the Indus Valley” Essentially Winters writes that he agrees with the article; “Did the Dravidian Speakers Originate in Africa” In a familiar pattern, the authors of the article Winters was commenting on point out that he is not familiar with genetics:
quote: Chaubey, G. et al. 2007 “Reply to Winters,” BioAssays 29: 499. MtDNA-based genetic arguments provided by Dr. Winters in favor of gene flow from Africa to Dravidian-speaking Indians are, however, entirely erroneous. The author has been, unfortunately, confused by overlooking changes in mtDNA haplogroup (hg) nomenclature. Namely hg, M1 in Kivisild et al.(4) has been later changed to hg M3, in order to avoid parallel nomenclatures.(5) Furthermore, a recent dedicated paper on phylogeography of mtDNA hg M1(6) as well as an extensive comparative mapping of autosomal genetic markers among many Indian populations relative to global populations elsewhere, including Africans,(7) do not provide any clues for a putative recent gene flow, from Africa, to Dravidian-speaking populations in South Asia.
Most his stuff, as I wrote is published in new open-access journals that are not really peer reviewed prior to publication. Some go through the motions, others claim post-review, which is a joke. Of these papers, 7 came out in publications by Maxwell (a post review open access) 6 in Current Research Journal of Biological Sciences and 1 in Current Research Journal of Science. Two papers in International Internet Journal (of hematology, and of Biological Anthropology). one in International Journal of Genetics and Molecular Biology, and one in Indian Journal of Human Genetics (this paper has been cited a grand total of one time—by Winters himself. None of these are prestigious or mainline. It's also interesting that Winters has been pushing the R*-M173 line in several of these papers
quote:You're such a liar. BMC and PLoS are both open access journals. They cost between $1600-2000+ to publish. Many authors in these publications have published more than one article.
Instead of talking about the quality of the journals where my work is published why don't you prove me wrong. In every one of my articles I show that Dravidians came from Africa recently and they carry African haplogroups and y-chromosomes.
LOL. You're a joke. My articles are review articles and as a result, I present citations /references supporting my claims. Until you disconfirm the studies I report your comments are lacking any foundation.
Finally, if a letter is published in a peer reviewed journal, as you know the references are reviewed, and up until now no one has disputed my sources..
The original claim you made was that most genetics articles were published in open access journals. I pointed out that 1) most genetics articles were published in peer-reviewed journals, of which I listed a miniscule number and 2) that articles in peer-reviewed journals are the ones that have impact and are cited and used by other researchers. It's not just the question of open-access, its a question of PRIOR well-conducted peer review. Thus the PLoS journals, despite being open access are influential because they are peer reviewed. Your Maxwell journals have zero impact. You just made up the idea that I said these authors had only published one article-- never said it.
Your standard answer is "prove me wrong"-- Why I have done this dozens of times on this forum (your misusing Wulsin, misquoting Green, misquoting Lisker, misquoting Underhill, misquoting Lipp, misquoting, Coe, claiming that the Mojarra Stela did not have Long Count Maya dates, erroneously claiming an early date for Dogon gourds cited in Weiner, misquoting Kivisild as shown in Chaubey's reply to you above, misquoting Tozzer and Landa, misquoting Brown on Maya painting, erroneously claiming that Vai writing did not change over time, misquoting Jelinek about the C-group, Welmers on the homeland of the Mande, which is not the Nile, your distortion of the Gebel Sheik Suleiman image, as well as repeated showing that you are in error in comparing Mande words with Maya, Otomi and other languages etc.). However, you never admit error or ever correct what you write. The Green, Lisker, and Underhill misquotes are even in the article you submit for publication. Your linguistic errors in Mande-Maya and misquotes of Brown were clearly exposed as far back as 1998 is sci.archaeology.mesoamerica-- but you used them in this thread,
Clyde, any reader of this group can verify that letters to the editor of BioAssay, Science, PLoS are not edited (or references checked) by writing to the journal and asking them. You can be exposed so easily, or are you counting on the acolytes never checking your statements. Just in case, Winters "publication" in PLoS Genetics was a "Reader Response here is the e-mail I received about how these are treated:
Thanks for your message – good question. Reader Responses are intended to be more informal and to encourage community dialogue. As such, they do not undergo peer review by our editors or by external referees (whereas correspondence is treated differently and is peer reviewed).
Instead, Reader Responses are reviewed by staff (to check they are not obscene, abusive, defamatory, libelous, or in some other way illegal or discriminatory; otherwise, we will post them). I hope this helps.
Of course people have questioned your sources-- what do you think Chaubey's searing response to your comment was?
LOL. You're such a liar.PloS,;BMC Genetics,BMC Genomics are all open access journals; and like the journals where my papers are published are peer reviewed. To have a paper published in these open access journals once it is accepted it cost between $1500-$2500.
No one has questioned my sources including Chaubey. To this day Chaubey can not explain what happened to the 26 M1 carriers in the 1999 study.
Moroever they have never disconfirmed any of the evidence I present in my articles. Don't you think if they could counter my research they would.
You are nothing but a liar.
.People in the know do not take chaubey's comments serious. He is a known Hindutva, who is trying to deny the Aryan Invasion theory by maintaining that the aryan and dravidian speakers are the same people.
Like most Euronuts, YOU ARE A LIAR.
.
Once more, since I did this some time ago in this group, let’s explore Winters’ error in claiming that Dravidians came recently from Africa because there is mtDNA haplotype M1 in India. As Chaudbey pointed out in his response to Winters I quoted above, Winter’s was not aware that the nomenclature of the Indian haplotype had been changed because the name would cause confusion with the haplotype found in Eastern Africa. As usual, Winters refuses to admit error and attacks Chaudbey personally. However, here are the signers of the letter refuting Winters:
Gyaneshwer Chaubey* Mait Metspalu Richard Villems Department of Evolutionary Biology Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology University of Tartu and Estonian Biocentre Tartu, Estonia
Toomas Kivisild Leverhulme Centre of Human Evolutionary Studies The Henry Wellcome Building University of Cambridge
Kivisild is the author of the 1999 paper that Winters cites as his evidence, but it was Kivisild himself that changed the nomenclature of the Indian haplogroup from M1 to M3. Is Winters claiming that Kivisild does not know what he writes in his own papers?
Here is the evidence:
In this paper Kivisil, T. et al. 1999 “The Place of the Indian mtDNA Variants in the Global Network of Maternal Lineages and the Peopling of the Old World, In: Genomic Diversity. 1999 Edited by Deka, R. Papiha NY: S.S. Kluwer/Academic/Plenum Publishers, pp. 135-152. Kivisild writes:
quote: Also, an interesting association of sub-cluster M1 with high caste Indians should be mentioned. Our search among the sequences from Kerala and Karnataka populations (Mountain et al. 1995) shows that only Brahmin caste Haviks, but not the lower caste Mukris, have a characteristic to[sic] M1 motif (transitions at nps 16,126 and 16,223)[/b]
Kivisild’s Indian M1 is identified by mutation at 16,126 REMEMBER THIS
That same year Quintana-Murci, L. et al. 1999 “Genetic Evidence of an Early exit of Homo sapiens sapiens from Africa through eastern Africa,” Nature Genetics 23: 437-441 says
p. 437 “eastern Africa M1 is defined by 16,129,16,189, 16,249, 16,311”
since you can’t have the same name for two different haplogroups one of them had to change and Kivisild changed the name of the Indian haplogroup characterized by 16,126 to M3 see
Metspalu, M., T. Kivisild, et al. 2004 “Most of the extant mtDNA boundaries in South and Southwest Asia were likely shaped during the initial settlement of Eurasia by anatomically modern humans,“ BMC Genetics 5:26
quote: p. 2 The majority of Indian mtDNAs belong to macro-haplogroup M [8,12-21]. While the topology of the M sub-haplogroups that are common in mainland East Asia (M7, M8 (including C, Z), M9 (including E), D, G [7,22,23]) and in Africa (M1 [24]) is established in detail, the internal haplogroup structure of M in India has remained largely undefined. We have previously demonstrated that transitions at nps. 477G, 1780, 8502 and 16319 designate Indian-specific haplogroup M2, the most frequent M clade in India [15]. Another Indian-specific M clade supported by HVS-I variation as well as coding region markers, is M6 [15]. Haplogroups M3, M4 and M5 have been discriminated preliminarily by their characteristic HVS-I mutations [19], but since their defining positions, 16126, 16311, and 16129, respectively, are phylogenetically unstable [25,26], it is unlikely that the proposed haplogroups are monophyletic.
Table 3a find that mutation at 16,223 is found in M2, M3a, M4a, M6, M18 and M25
Table 3a M3a characteristic is 16126, coalesce 17.3 KYA
and Kivisild, T., et al. 2003 “The Genetic Heritage of the Earliest Settlers Persists Both in Indian Tribal and Caste Populations.” Am. J. Hum. Genet. 72:313–332.
quote:p. 317 Table 1 M3 defined by 126 p. 321 In addition to M2, two other major clades, M3 and M6 (Bamshad et al. 2001), were found in Chenchus and Koyas in common with the caste groups
and Bamshad, M., et al. 2001 “Genetic Evidence on the Origin of Indian Caste Populations,” Genome Research pp. 1-11
quote:p. 3 Most of the common haplotypes found in Telugu- and Hindi-speaking caste populations belong to haplogroup M (Table 2) and do not differentiate into language-specific clusters in a phylogenetic reconstruction (Fig. 1). Furthermore, these Indian haplogroup-M haplotypes are distinct from those found in other Asian populations (Fig. 2) and indicate the existence of Indian-specific subsets of haplogroup M (e.g., M3). As expected if the lowercastes are more similar to Asians than to Europeans, and the upper castes are more similar to Europeans than to Asians, the frequencies of M and M3 haplotypes are inversely proportional to caste rank (Table 2).. .
p. 6-7 The majority of Indian mtDNA restriction-site haplotypes belong to Indian-specific subsets (e.g., M3) of a predominantly Asian haplogroup M, although a substantial minority of mtDNA restriction site haplotypes belong to West Eurasian haplogroups. A higher proportion of proto-Asian mtDNA restriction-site haplotypes is found in lower castes compared to middle or upper castes, whereas the frequency of West Eurasian haplotypes is positively correlated with caste rank, that is, is highest in the upper castes.
One of the keys to science is the ability to replicate. There is NO M1 in India, and Winters’ claim that Dravidians came to India from Africa a few thousand years ago because they have haplogroup M1 is not true
see
Roychoudhury, S. et al. 2001 “Genomic structures and population histories of linguistically distinct tribal groups of India,” Hum. Genet 109: 339–350
quote:p. 346 Quintana-Murci et al. (1999) discovered that HVS1 motif defined by four transitions at nt 16129, 16189, 16249 and 16311 characterised haplogroup M (clade M1) in East Africa. This motif has not been found in the tribal populations of India. . .
and Sun, C. et al. 2006 “The Dazzling Array of Basal Branches in the mtDNA Macrohaplogroup M from India as Inferred from Complete Genomes,” Mol. Biol. Evol. 23(3):683–690.
[QUOTE p. 688-689 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.[/QUOTE]
BTW the "missing" 26 16.126 haplotgroups M1 in the 1999 paper by Kivisild (not Chaubey) are 26 16, 26 haplogroups called M3Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: To Clyde and Quetzacotl how do you get your work in to Peer reviewed Journals, and how do you end up serving on Boards that do the Peer Reviewing...
Do you have to become affiliated with a certian academic institution?? And what level of degree do you need for people to even consider your work worth reading.
Sorry about the delay. I was tied up composing replies on M1. Winters wrote you mainly about the mechanics of publication. Things like footnote style are things you worry about at the end. In any case editors in good journals will iron out errors in footnoting, grammar etc.
First, you need to get trained in the area you want to write about. The easiest way is to get graduate training in the area-- this will also get you affiliated with an academic institution and will introduce you to the "jargon." However, you can educate yourself by reading widely in the area. At first you can read well reviewed popular books in the area, then standard textbooks, eventually you really have to start reading the "primary literature" usually journals but in some fields these are books. Starting out with journals, specially in science, is very difficult because of the extensive specialized vocabulary. It wouod also be useful to read some books on methods and philosophy of science as well as logical thinking. I did this in shifting fields. My PhD is in Organic Chemistry and I took courses equivalent to a BA and MA in political science. After some years teaching chemistry, I felt that I could make a bigger impact combining my training in chemistry and pharmacognosy with knowledge of Mesoamerica to publish on Aztec medicine. I read a lot on Mesoamerica, the Aztecs, the Maya, etc. I audited courses in anthropology, linguistics, Nahuatl (the language of the Aztecs) and eventually became recognized by other Aztec scholars as a contributing member.
Let's assume you are now knowlegeable. In the process of getting there you will have encountered specific problems where the explanation does not seem correct to you or where little is known and that you are interested in. This is where you begin. You need to formulate questions that would provide evidence for or against the proposed answer. Again an example- Two famous anthropologists published papers proposing that the Aztecs sacrificed people because they needed the protein since there were no domesticated herbivores (sheep, cattle, pigs). So I asked myself 1) What did the Aztecs eat, how much food was available, was the diet balanced- including protein? 2) What were the sources of protein used, including non-traditional ones (birds, deer, insects, etc.)? 3) I already knew that only nobles got to eat the sacrificed, so what did the rest of the population do? 4) I already knew that sacrifices were not regular year-round, so when did sacrificed take place in relation to harvest times. I found answers to these questions and others and the result was a paper published in Science. An useful general approach to lots of proposals is to ask "Assuming that this proposal (hypothesis) is true, what are the consequences? How exactly would it be done." Once you have done this you need to do a really good literature search to see what has been written about this before, and you need to search out the answers to questions you have formulated. As you proceed other questions or the need for further data will come up.
Lets assume that you have done the research and you have a lot of material (be super good about writing down exactly where you got a piece of information. among other things a complete bibliographic entry for papers and books (you'll need it later and it is very hard to retrieve old stuff jotted down on loose pieces of paper). Be sure that you are scrupulous about exact quoting and attributing even paraphrasing when you write your notes. There are a lot of programs that keep your note and citations, bibliography on order. Go ahead and write the paper, try to be very critical about it-- where is the argument weak? what objections could be raised against it? It is very useful to get some informed criticism. Here, again, being in a graduate program is an advantage because you can use your fellow students and professors as critics. At Wayne State we had our graduate students practice their presentations before us before they tried to give the papers at an Anthropology meeting.
You now have a paper. Where to publish? If you have been reading the literature all along, you should have an idea about what kind of papers and topics particular journals usually publish. You need to find one that publishes papers of the type and the topic of your paper. I also tried to figure out which would be the most prestigious journal I thought might accept my paper. Journals describe their standards in the published instructions for authors and this is a convenient source. There is a wide variation in the rate of acceptance of papers. It's like acceptances at colleges- Harvard accepts 5%, U Michigan 20-30%, Wayne State 70-80%, Austin Community College 90-95%. Journals like Science,Nature accept 10% or less. Medical Anthropology 30%, Current Journal of Biological Science 70% ?. Just like college admissions you have a preferred journal and a safety journal. It's useful to know what kind of questions peer-reviewers are asked when evaluating a manuscript. 1) How novel are the ideas in this paper? 2) How well defended and argued are the hypotheses of the paper defended, 3) How thoroughly is the appropriate literature covered, 4) How well does this paper fit the goals and purposes of this journal, 5) Should we publish this paper a) with minor revisions. b) with major revisions? 6) What problems of questions should the author deal with before we publish. Reviewers may have questions or problems with some data or arguments in the paper, and you will get a chance to deal with them if you can. If the answers are satisfactory publication will ensue, sometimes you get rejected because your paper does not fit the mission of the journal and iyou will get a suggestion to try elsewhere. Sometimes you get rejected, but the reviewers will point out why. You can go back for further research. etc.
You do not need an academic or institutional affiliation in order to publish. You can submit papers as an "independent researcher." Decent peer-reviewed journals send out manuscripts without a name in order to focus on the ideas in the paper without the possible bias of knowing the author's name. As a reviewer you sometimes can guess who the author is by the topic. The crucial point is how good are your ideas, how well and how clearly do you state and defend your points. Once you get papers published in peer-reviewed journals, people read your work and get an opinion about your qualifications and knowledge. One measure is how often people cite your work in their papers. You get a reputation in a certain area and journals then start to send you papers to review. If a journal feels that you have done a good job reviewing papers (i.e. you are prompt, you are critical but fair, you are thorough) you may be asked to be on the board of editors. Often it also depends on personal contacts in addition to the other stuff.
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic