Actually, you have no idea which test they used on Bass. SNPs are different from STRs. You use these terms interchangeably with "marker" as if you had no clue what you were talking about. The 15 STR test is the base standard. The SNP test is an upgrade used for "deep ancestry" analysis.
quote:Both DNA Tribes® SNP and DNA Tribes® 15, 21, and 27 Marker STR tests are based on autosomal DNA, which you inherited from both your maternal and paternal ancestors. However, STR and SNP tests differ based on the type of genetic markers used (SNP or STR) and the world populations referenced.
At present, STR testing allows a detailed comparison of your genotype to over a thousand world populations, including many populations for which SNP data are not yet available. In contrast, SNP testing uses relatively new technology to perform a substantially finer comparison of your DNA to each population based on tens of thousands of SNP markers.
^LOL..
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:DNA Tribes® SNP analysis identifies your geographical “deep ancestry” using more than 29,000 autosomal SNPs (Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms). The number of SNPs used in your analysis can vary depending on the data available from your prior SNP microarray testing. This autosomal DNA is inherited 50% from your paternal and 50% from your maternal ancestors, including genetic material from all four grandparents. This geographical analysis emphasizes ancient relationships between world populations, rather than a more limited search for family relatives or modern nationality or ethnicity. Your report includes both admixture analysis based on DNA Tribes® proprietary analysis of world population structure, as well as total similarity analysis based on how your genotype as a whole compares to sampled ethnic groups around the world.
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by NonProphet:
You need glasses and a working brain. If this was a PC/MDS plot, the Hadandawa/Banuamir Beja diamonds would be next to or overlapping with the Beta Israel closest.
No one's saying the Tishkoff is a PC/MDS plot but it is nonetheless a graph with x & y axes and the Beta Israel are next to the Beja.
Insults aside I couldn't care less how related Beja and Nilots are nor how admixed the former are with Arabian peninsulars. Some may partially descend from the Midianites.
Both Bibiker and Tishkoff arrive at a Beja/Nilot cluster.
15 STRs or 848 microsatellites, resolution didn't change population placement/identity.
The best way to test this is to plug each ethny's Mini or Identi filer STRs into a match finder and see the discrimination. If the Mini or Identi filer STRs delineate each ethny then the resolution issue dies.
Either way I'd like to see the miniSTR results Beja vs Nilot and/or the subgroups of they both..
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
That graph you keep showing us has NOTHING to do with genetic distance. Stop making the same mistake over and over. It's embarrassing.
Posts: 424 | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am lost here. What is the argument about. Has an civil war started. Which Africans has ownership of the Amarna's? LOL!
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by Manu:
That graph you keep showing us has NOTHING to do with genetic distance. Stop making the same mistake over and over. It's embarrassing. [/QB]
NonProphet explained how it does. Here, reread what he wrote.
Again to validate or disconfirm low resolution, as in 8 - 27 STRs, capable of identifying regions and sometimes ethnic groups in one region, we can use Beja and Nilots. We need but process each one's profile and compare the results.
Got the loci values? Let's test 'em. I'm willing, ready, and want to learn
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
HG-A was my gut feeling. But now being South African it is becoming more highly likely.
But if I am to make an educated guess I will say he is E1b1b(?)
I will try to post screen shots. But the spreadsheet can give a visual display or text.
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman:
You know what??!! I have a gut feeling that Tut and his male line is Y-DNA Haplogroup A. In that Hassan et al study I believe there was 10% Hg-A in Northern Sudan. If these people came from so far south, most likely they are HG-A.
Now that is a going to be a bitch!!! Hope that don’t cause no beef with us PN2. LOL!!
I still don’t get it. Why it took so long to find this out, the data and all the tools and info was out there since Feb 2010. Is was as simple as taking the publish data (JAMA) and plugging it into one of the many “free” profiler software out there. And bingo!! Tut’s population identity.
What were Kieta and all these top level experts on AEians identity doing all this time??
First, ups for OmniPop. Could you post some screen shots from it so's to get an idea of its results pages.
Omo Baba could probably confirm via ALFRED if D7S820=6 CSF1PO=6
hi freqs are among the Aka-Twa (Mini-Africans).
Being shorties, like the Denq "Dancer of God", the Anu, and Bes -- even historic AE's were a little short on average -- they may be holding on to DNA from a founder and from spiritualist influential AE castes.
I think the A and B Y-SNP haplogroups is right inline (alligns) with the 2 autosome alleles, if those alleles are indeed Aka-Twa informative.
I also think the CSF1PO=6 entered the south of the continent via Khoe or San immigration there.
XYYman -- why YOU didn't do the aDNA before now? Yeah, right under our noses but it was DNAtribes who brainstormed it.
Happy New Year -- Tukuler al~Takruri
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:DNA Tribes® SNP analysis identifies your geographical “deep ancestry” using more than 29,000 autosomal SNPs (Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms). The number of SNPs used in your analysis can vary depending on the data available from your prior SNP microarray testing. This autosomal DNA is inherited 50% from your paternal and 50% from your maternal ancestors, including genetic material from all four grandparents. This geographical analysis emphasizes ancient relationships between world populations, rather than a more limited search for family relatives or modern nationality or ethnicity. Your report includes both admixture analysis based on DNA Tribes® proprietary analysis of world population structure, as well as total similarity analysis based on how your genotype as a whole compares to sampled ethnic groups around the world.
Correction noted. However, it makes no difference as they're still able to do the same thing with the standard STR analysis. The SNP analysis only clarifies what the standard 15 STR kit results already show.
quote:Hello, and welcome to the September 2011 issue of DNA Tribes® Digest. This month’s issue features two articles based on two different types of analysis. The first article, “STR Analysis of the Ojibwa World Region,” explores genetic relationships of the Ojibwa world region (characterizing Algonquian speaking populations of northeastern North America) based on autosomal STR data (used in DNA Tribes® 15, 21, and 27 Marker Kit tests). The second article, “Gradual Transitions between Europe, the Middle East and North Asia,” highlights the genetic continuity between these continental zones based on our current SNP database (used in DNA Tribes® SNP analysis).
^So my point remains the same. Clearly you have no real rebuttal to the Amarna results, you just don't like them. Indeed, initially the only argument you had at all was that the results "make no sense". You are scrambling for anything obviously but the data has spoken.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have my reservations about the dnatribes results and have been reading this back and forth with keen interest. I'm far from an expert on genetics but from the arguments made it seems Manu doesn't have much to stand on. Further, he doesn't seem to be versed enough in his understanding of genetics as takrur and sundjata's retorts have owned him several times in this thread. This debate is good though because at least Manu tries to debate the science (unlike the troll who will remain nameless) and we can learn something .
Posts: 214 | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Manu is associating Bantu with True negro, if he would discard that he would have no problem here, its just that he equated Bantu with True Negro and all deviations from it mixture with Hamites and Caucasians etc.
Other than that I don't see why people are putting this up, DNAtribes seems a little off to me.
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-: I think Manu is associating Bantu with True negro, if he would discard that he would have no problem here, its just that he equated Bantu with True Negro and all deviations from it mixture with Hamites and Caucasians etc.
Other than that I don't see why people are putting this up, DNAtribes seems a little off to me.
Incorrect. The low resolution STR data on the Amarna mummies is better suited for paternity/maternity cases NOT population genetics (especially regional analyses).
Some people are taking the regional analysis way too serious, which is what bothers me.
The Ancient Egyptians are in no way genetically closer to South-Central Africans before Northeast Africans.
Posts: 424 | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
So you would not be singing the same tune about Low Res. STRs if they had linked the Armarna Mummies to Levantines and Arabs??
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Populations on both sides of the Red Sea are related.
However, if the analysis showed the AEs to be much much closer to Northern Europeans or Central Asians I would question it just as much.
Posts: 424 | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Its funny though how you people never talk about populations on the Arabian side of the Red Sea being related to Africans, If I recall you almost lost your mind when it came to blacks being native to Southern Arabia, you went into a spamming fit trying to prove your people were Leukoderm Caucasians and all blacks in Yemen etc being of recent slave origin, but when it comes to Africa you have no problem with those Back Migrations going back thousands of years..LOL.
I can see where you are coming from but you still have an agenda IMO.
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-: Its funny though how you people never talk about populations on the Arabian side of the Red Sea being related to Africans, If I recall you almost lost your mind when it came to blacks being native to Southern Arabia, you went into a spamming fit trying to prove your people were Leukoderm Caucasians and all blacks in Yemen etc being of recent slave origin, but when it comes to Africa you have no problem with those Back Migrations going back thousands of years..LOL.
I can see where you are coming from but you still have an agenda IMO.
Nope. Some were trying to pass clearly non-natives as native people, which bothered me. I can easily tell the difference between dark-skinned (deep brown) biologically native Arabians and Bantu slave-descendant (non-native) Arabians. There is a large slave descendant population in those regions, which should not be confused with the actual natives. This is equal to trying to pass the Rashaida tribe as native Eritreans.
Posts: 424 | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata:
... still able to do the same thing with the standard STR analysis. The SNP analysis only clarifies what the standard 15 STR kit results already show.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^ The fact of the matter is the same DNA studies you and your peeps love to parade as proof of Arabian admixture in Horners says Arabians and Levantines have admixture as well. Those migrations went both ways. As I said you and people like you talk a good game but deep down you have an agenda. You jump out of your skin to proclaim every African who doesnt have blubbery lips and nappy hair as mixed with Non Africans but pretend that the only signifigant mixture with Africans in Arabia is through slavery...
LMAO....how absurd.
BTW, majority of the Slaves who went to Arabia were Habeshi, Sudani and Swahili, or as you call them "Hamitic" "Nilotic" and "Kushitic" while a few were Bantu. Plus majority were castrated and left few descendants so in all probablity many of those you think are "Bantus" are not Bantu at as I said before Bantu is a language group.
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-: Majority of the Slaves who went to Arabia were Habeshi, Sudani and Swahili, or as you call them "Hamitic" "Nilotic" and "Kushitic" while a few were Bantu. Plus majority were castrated and left few descendants so in all probablity many of those you think are "Bantus" are not Bantu at as I said before Bantu is a language group.
Wrong. The African slaves to Arabia mainly came from Bantu regions and Southern Sudan.
Take the Akhdam of South Arabia for example (an exogenous amalgamation of Negroid groups).
"We examined two groups of people in Southern Arabia: the Arabs themselves (iii), and the Achdam (I04) and we found the sickle cell trait among the latter at a high frequency[...] The Africans who live nearest to Arabia are the Somali. They are a very proud people who regard themselves as of Arab origin, and it is inconceivable that any of them, or their descendants, should have fallen to the low social level of the Achdam. They have no sickle cells (we examined fifty of them and found none) as one would expect from an African population of the Hamitic type. Thus the Achdam are unlikely to have descended either from imported African slaves or from the Somali. There is a possibility that they are the last remains of pre Mohammedan Abyssinian camp-followers. The armies of Abyssinia finally expelled in the early days of Mohammedan rule, had with them Sudanese and it is just possible that some of these might have been left behind. If the Achdam were derived and had inherited their sickling gene from such Sudanese Africans, they might be expected to resemble the Nilotic speaking tribes with high sickling frequency."
quote:Originally posted by Manu: Nope. Some were trying to pass clearly non-natives as native people, which bothered me. I can easily tell the difference between dark-skinned (deep brown) biologically native Arabians and Bantu slave-descendant (non-native) Arabians. There is a large slave descendant population in those regions, which should not be confused with the actual natives. This is equal to trying to pass the Rashaida tribe as native Eritreans. [/QB]
Apart from the "Bantu slave-descendant (non-native) Arabians", which other slave descendant non-native Arabians are there? I am sure slavery didn't started and ended with the Bantu slaves alone. Care to tell us of other slave descended Arabians you're tracking?
Posts: 314 | From: Home | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are not very bright are you, from your own source..
quote:"We examined two groups of people in Southern Arabia: the Arabs themselves (iii), and the Achdam (I04) and we found the sickle cell trait among the latter at a high frequency[...] The Africans who live nearest to Arabia are the Somali. They are a very proud people who regard themselves as of Arab origin, and it is inconceivable that any of them, or their descendants, should have fallen to the low social level of the Achdam. They have no sickle cells (we examined fifty of them and found none) as one would expect from an African population of the Hamitic type. Thus the Achdam are unlikely to have descended either from imported African slaves or from the Somali. There is a possibility that they are the last remains of pre Mohammedan Abyssinian camp-followers. The armies of Abyssinia finally expelled in the early days of Mohammedan rule, had with them Sudanese and it is just possible that some of these might have been left behind. If the Achdam were derived and had inherited their sickling gene from such Sudanese Africans, they might be expected to resemble the Nilotic speaking tribes with high sickling frequency."
BTW, the Sudanese are not Bantu but Nilo Saharan..
It should be clear by now your bias is equating Bantu with the True Negro..
A Previous post..
quote:Originally posted by Manu: There's nothing grotesque about the South Sudanese.
IMO, They look better than West Africans and Pygmies. It's well known that West Africans are the most grotesque looking in Africa.
You are too emotional Manu, your bias lends me to not take your arguments serious.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Its not really off topic, all Im saying is that you seem to have a bias. I was with you on the DNAtribes findings based on location, but when it comes down to it you seem to have a problem with the true negro sterotype, this simply from my observation makes your arguments less credible.
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-: You are not very bright are you, from your own source..
The point was that many black looking Arabians are not true natives.
Anyway, this is off-topic. I will not address this topic here anymore.
^Don't run now. Address the below.
Apart from the "Bantu slave-descendant (non-native) Arabians", which other slave descendant non-native Arabians are there? I am sure slavery didn't started and ended with the Bantu slaves alone. Care to tell us of other slave descended Arabians you're tracking?
Posts: 314 | From: Home | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: I think Manu is associating Bantu with True negro, if he would discard that he would have no problem here, its just that he equated Bantu with True Negro and all deviations from it mixture with Hamites and Caucasians etc.
Other than that I don't see why people are putting this up, DNAtribes seems a little off to me.
Incorrect. The low resolution STR data on the Amarna mummies is better suited for paternity/maternity cases NOT population genetics (especially regional analyses).
Some people are taking the regional analysis way too serious, which is what bothers me.
The Ancient Egyptians are in no way genetically closer to South-Central Africans before Northeast Africans.
The issue IS though you cannot PROVE IT. Your only rebuttal cannot be "Well that evidence is bad"...."and that evidence is bad too"........"that evidence is no good either"
EVEN IN THIS ARTICLE SOme of the Nilotic speakers sit right along with the Iraqw (who had the MOST Cushitic ancestry) and the Borana of Ethiopia.
You can hypothesize all you want. In order to PROVE what you are saying you have to get some DNA from some Ancient Egyptians samples and compare those to modern populations. Wait a minute - THIS HAS JUST BEEN DONE! Your conclusion is believable but your argument is invalid due to a LACK OF EVIDENCE that the opposition actually has. Like I have asked you before. Why dont YOU compare The Soutern Egyptian STR data with that of the Karamoja and Southern Africans? U mad Bro?
Let us know what you find. You dont want to do this because you are intellectually lazy and have no real interest in the subject other than to troll around here. WHen was the last time you opened up a book? Have you research the absorption of Eastern Sudanic Nilo-Saharans by the Beja?
See the Beja. It is obvious based on the archaeology that we have and what we know about the Nile Valley that MODERN Nubians will have more Nilo Saharan (Red), Central Sudanic (Maroon), and Chadic (Tan) ancestry than MODERN Beja. 3500 years ago Mbugu, Eastern Bantu, Western Bantu and some of these other cluster by Tishkoff had not even been distinct long enough for them to EXIST. You cannot THINK of it that way. Linguistics and archaeology does not support "Bantu" in South Africa during king Tut's days 3300 years ago.
NOW Its quite obvious that MODERN Beja AND Modern Nubians have absorbed admixture from non-Africans. This can be seen particularly in their Sub-Clades of Haplgroup J that have VERY VERY low diversity indicating a recent Entry....the same can be said for SOME Egyptians J lineages. WITH THIS REMOVED from an ANCIENT SAMPLE some 3300 years PRIOR....it could be the Ancients in the Nile Valley - Both "Nubians" and "Egyptians" could ALSO have more Nilo Saharan (Red), Central Sudanic (Maroon) and Chadic (Tan) ancestry than MODERN counterparts.....SOME of this ancestry travels WEST in ANTIQUITY and coalesced into Autosomal "West African" ancestry. MEANWHILE the Beja and their ancestors were not (and still are not) in the Nile Valley AT ALL but rather mainly in the Red Sea Hills/Coast and Eastern Deserts.
Its OBVIOUS this is the case. NOW you can compound this with the fact that some few thousand years ago (During the Time of King tut Even) there were populations migrating SOUTH out of the Nile Valley. WHY THE FVCK do you think the "Nubians" have some type of strong allele sharing with the Karamojong of UGANDA? Why dont you question the issue why when there are geographically MUCH CLOSER populations to Nubians but that article does not speak of that allele sharing....with say the Dinka. NO The Allele sharing was between the NORTHERN MOST Nilo-Saharan speakers in the Valley (Nubians) and the SOUTHERN most Nilo-Saharan speakers in the Nile Valley (Karamojong)..................and not the groups in between..........Sit down and think REAL hard about that.
Back to the Ancients. Its obvious that the Nubians were are discussing and the Egyptians carried MORE of the clusters I spoke of. Now research the origins of the 18th Dynasty and how more SOUTHERN they are. Also research the idea about YAM basically being in the HEARTLAND of what Tishkoff shows very high in the Central Sudanic and Chadic ancestry.
You are going to have to do some homework....and read a **** load of books. I have spent my time doing so and I damn sure am not about the spoon feed Euroclowns who "Dont want to believe" the results. The results are results - It is how you INTERPRET them that matters. Now run those STR's though a data based and question why they come up "African American" Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Its not really off topic, all Im saying is that you seem to have a bias. I was with you on the DNAtribes findings based on location, but when it comes down to it you seem to have a problem with the true negro sterotype, this simply from my observation makes your arguments less credible.
I do not have a bias. I am familiar with the population movements in this regions and simply do not see any evidence for strong South-Central African ancestry in Egypt.
Just look at the hair type of those mummies in question!
Posts: 424 | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah but how is it "Strong Central African" influence, it could very well be that Central Africans and Egyptians share a common ancestor correct. I agree that it should at least be Horners or Sahrans/Sahelians who should be closer given other studies but you never know. I don't see this as Armana mummies looking like the ave. Central African.
I think that is what everyone is trying to tell you, that the origin of the STRs are before the historical period where the Egyptians and Southern Africans shared a common ancestor.(Before the Egyptians became enlongated Africans)
If Im not mistaken, I have not been following this topic much.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by astenb: The issue IS though you cannot PROVE IT. Your only rebuttal cannot be "Well that evidence is bad"...."and that evidence is bad too"........"that evidence is no good either"
EVEN IN THIS ARTICLE SOme of the Nilotic speakers sit right along with the Iraqw (who had the MOST Cushitic ancestry) and the Borana of Ethiopia.
You can hypothesize all you want. In order to PROVE what you are saying you have to get some DNA from some Ancient Egyptians samples and compare those to modern populations. Wait a minute - THIS HAS JUST BEEN DONE! Your conclusion is believable but your argument is invalid due to a LACK OF EVIDENCE that the opposition actually has. Like I have asked you before. Why dont YOU compare The Soutern Egyptian STR data with that of the Karamoja and Southern Africans? U mad Bro?
As you can clearly see according to this high resolution PCA analysis the Beja do NOT overlap with South Sudanese people. [1]
While according to the shitty 15 STR analysis from Babiker et al. they do. This just shows that low res STR analyses (like the one on the Amarna mummies) can NOT be trusted for population genetics purposes.
Posts: 424 | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Manu do you think the Egyptians and Africans further south shared a common origin??
You seem to be avoiding this.
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-: Yeah but how is it "Strong Central African" influence, it could very well be that Central Africans and Egyptians share a common ancestor correct. I agree that it should at least be Horners or Sahrans/Sahelians who should be closer given other studies but you never know. I don't see this as Armana mummies looking like the ave. Central African.
I think that is what everyone is trying to tell you, that the origin of the STRs are before the historical period where the Egyptians and Southern Africans shared a common ancestor.(Before the Egyptians became enlongated Africans)
If Im not mistaken, I have not been following this topic much.
Again, there is no evidence for this.
The low resolution STR data on the Amarna mummies is better suited for paternity/maternity cases NOT population genetics (especially regional analyses).
Some people are taking the regional analysis way too serious, which is what bothers me.
The Ancient Egyptians are in no way genetically closer to South-Central Africans before Northeast Africans. Posts: 424 | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Manu do you think the Egyptians and Africans further south shared a common origin??
You seem to be avoiding this.
He is also avoiding the question about whether there are other slave descended Arabians, outside the Bantus, that he can easily recognized.
Posts: 314 | From: Home | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by astenb: ....it could be the Ancients in the Nile Valley - Both "Nubians" and "Egyptians" could ALSO have more Nilo Saharan (Red), Central Sudanic (Maroon) and Chadic (Tan) ancestry than MODERN counterparts.....SOME of this ancestry travels WEST in ANTIQUITY and coalesced into Autosomal "West African" ancestry.
Anthropometric data shows that the 'Negroid' element is INTRUSIVE to this region.
"More recent is the fact, already suspected at Soleb by G. Billy and M.C. Chamla, that in Nubia, the nasal index, originally identical to European values, then increases considerably to attain the figures observed in Central Africa. This phenomenon of nasal enlargement is not, in Nubia, related to the humidification of the climate since on the contrary it has gotten more arid, and thus highlights genetic exchanges, in the sense of a greater contribution from Black Africa; leave it to archaeology to correlate this change with cultural developments."
Alain Froment, Race et Histoire : la recomposition idéologique de l'image des Égyptiens anciens.
Posts: 424 | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Manu: [b]The low resolution STR data on the Amarna mummies is better suited for paternity/maternity cases.
And to do this they always have to narrow it down to a specific populations/regions first. Likely match profile for Tut and his family showed Southern Africa/Great Lakes/Tropical WA etc in that order. This is forensic. The Amarna mummies are however from 3000 years ago. African population structure was different 3000 years ago from what it is today.
Posts: 314 | From: Home | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
^This is hard for Manu to comprehend apparently. Jari was right about his "True Negro" bias, as seen above. Indeed, Manu is exposing himself as someone very outdated and clueless about how to interpret data within a multidisciplinary framework. As Astenb points out, when he starts picking up books and peer reviewed articles and stop relying on internet bloggers he'll begin to make more sense.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Manu: Anthropometric data shows that the 'Negroid' element is INTRUSIVE to this region.
"More recent is the fact, already suspected at Soleb by G. Billy and M.C. Chamla, that in Nubia, the nasal index, originally identical to European values, then increases considerably to attain the figures observed in Central Africa. This phenomenon of nasal enlargement is not, in Nubia, related to the humidification of the climate since on the contrary it has gotten more arid, and thus highlights genetic exchanges, in the sense of a greater contribution from Black Africa; leave it to archaeology to correlate this change with cultural developments."
Alain Froment, Race et Histoire : la recomposition idéologique de l'image des Égyptiens anciens.
Meanwhile Tut's forensic most likely match is Southern Africa/Great Lakes/Tropical WA.
-------------------- It was high time Posts: 314 | From: Home | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged |
It seems what you say about Manu sadly seems to be the case.
He is crying about Negroids and Bantus, yet these are the matches that TUT and Co are linked closely with.
Bantu like people 1000+ years ago were probably living closer to the Nile valley like the rest of Africa and travelled to there present destination.
Not really surprised at these findings because we have the Benin sickel genes in Egypt that is from WA so to find even more links should not shock anyone but the racists and people like kola who detest the Bantus.
Peace
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Yeah he is highly emotional on the topic. He confuses genotype with phenotype. He confuses ancient population structure with the modern one. He thinks that people with certain features are slave descendants or intrusive. He uses outdated references. He whines about few STR...
Forensic Short Tandem Repeat (STR) loci are effective for the purpose of individual identification, and other forensic applications. Most of these markers have high allelic variability and mutation rate because of which they have limited use in the phylogenetic reconstruction. In the present study, we have carried out a meta-analysis to explore the possibility of using only five STR loci (TPOX, FES, vWA, F13A and Tho1) to carry out phylogenetic assessment based on the allele frequency profile of 20 world population and north Indian Hindus analyzed in the present study.
Results Phylogenetic analysis based on two different approaches – genetic distance and maximum likelihood along with statistical bootstrapping procedure involving 1000 replicates was carried out. The ensuing tree topologies and PC plots were further compared with those obtained in earlier phylogenetic investigations. The compiled database of 21 populations got segregated and finely resolved into three basal clusters with very high bootstrap values corresponding to three geo-ethnic groups of African, Orientals, and Caucasians.
Conclusion Based on this study we conclude that if appropriate and logistic statistical approaches are followed then even lesser number of forensic STR loci are powerful enough to reconstruct the recent human phylogenies despite of their relatively high mutation rates.
-------------------- It was high time Posts: 314 | From: Home | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
So far Manu has only touched DNA Tribes' results in the context of the MLI scores Horners were supposed to be having in higher amounts than Inner Africans (as if his flip flopping behind ever believed AE were Africans prior to this thread) but what poor Manu hasn't touched on yet, is the big question: why are there no high MLI scores for Modern Egyptians?
DNA Tribes' Inner African results are not suffering a lack of STR data, and this can be seen in the fact that Modern Egyptians lag behind tremendously
In other words, the argument of lower resolution cannot be sustained because the Modern Egyptians aren't even contenders, per the supplied MLI scores
If low resolution was the sole and only culprit, and no strong overal Inner African ancestry was implied underneath the used 8 STRs, the Levantine regional cluster, which includes Egypt, would be running toe to toe with over African regions.
In such a scenario I could see other Sub-Saharan Africans being filtered out and Modern Egyptians, Horners et al still standing after more and more STRs are added.
Such a scenario wherein Egypt has a high MLI score, however, is not what the results demonstrate
Low resolution cannot be used as an argument for why Modern Egyptians lag behind, because the use of more discrimination power will not compensate for what is not already there; most modern Egyptian simply don't have the Pharaonic alleles/STR profiles, and no higher resolution is going to change that. Their already low MLI scores will only shrink further.
Besides, DNA Tribes' have already made it clear that several of the Pharaonic alleles have an Inner African origin
This too, is an inconveniency Manu can't use his "low resolution" excuse on
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Stop using the Tutsi as an example of the Bantu phenotype, you know this is highly unrepresentative. The Tutsi even have been persecuted by other Bantus for their deviant looks.
There's nothing rational about racism. The Irish were discriminated by the British for example, and this was also supposedly attributed to their "deviant physiological looks".
You ought to read up on how the Hutu/Tutsi conflict started. Hint: European invaders.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by astenb: The "Beja" live in Egypt, Sudan, Eritrea AND Ethiopia.
We are talking about Sudanese and Eritrean Bejas (95% of all Beja) here, who have mostly been tested.
They are extremely homogeneous, but according to shitty low res STR studies they are 100% Nilotic.
I believe the same error is happening to these Amarna mummies.
You make no sense. Your own study is arguing against what you're saying. The Nuba, Karamoja, Somali, Zagawa, Egyptian, Coptic, and all other groups were properly discriminated, and all are in line with what would be expected, with the exception of the Beja. The STR's performed just fine, and as a sidenote, DNA tribes didn't compare the Pharaonic data at the ethnie level, but at the regional level. The issues you complain about cannot occur at this broad regional level because it isn't going to significantly change the positioning of the entire regional cluster if one regional sample positions itself a bit counter to what is expected.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Manu: Low resolution STR analyses have shown the Beja to be unmixed Southern Sudanese Nilotes. [1]
While High(er) resolution STR analyses show them to be typical Northern Cushites. [2]
We can conclude from this that low resolution STR studies (i.e. this recent DNAtribes analysis [3] on the amarna mummies) AREN'T RELIABLE).
You people only continue to believe they are highly accurate for dogmatic/ideological reasons.
What constitutes a "high" resolution STR analysis to you? Describe the specifics of the locus that meets this description.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by astenb: The issue IS though you cannot PROVE IT. Your only rebuttal cannot be "Well that evidence is bad"...."and that evidence is bad too"........"that evidence is no good either"
EVEN IN THIS ARTICLE SOme of the Nilotic speakers sit right along with the Iraqw (who had the MOST Cushitic ancestry) and the Borana of Ethiopia.
You can hypothesize all you want. In order to PROVE what you are saying you have to get some DNA from some Ancient Egyptians samples and compare those to modern populations. Wait a minute - THIS HAS JUST BEEN DONE! Your conclusion is believable but your argument is invalid due to a LACK OF EVIDENCE that the opposition actually has. Like I have asked you before. Why dont YOU compare The Soutern Egyptian STR data with that of the Karamoja and Southern Africans? U mad Bro?
As you can clearly see according to this high resolution PCA analysis the Beja do NOT overlap with South Sudanese people. [1]
While according to the shitty 15 STR analysis from Babiker et al. they do. This just shows that low res STR analyses (like the one on the Amarna mummies) can NOT be trusted for population genetics purposes.
YOu cannot counter everything that I have written with a little snipped of bullshiit. INTELLECTUAL LAZINESS. WHY ARE YOU ASS-UMING THE EGYPTIANS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE CLOSE TO THE BEJA? Should the Beja also be close to the Nubians? Why aren't either of these groups close to the Somali? That other dumb **** you posted has NOTHING To do with GENETICS. There WERE no "Caucasians" in the Nile Valley.............Cranially speaking There are only Horners and Nilotes and their respective Kin. Dont confuse what you are looking at. That is what LIMB proportion data is for. Your snippet of bullshiit basically explains the absorption of Afrasian speakers by Nilo-Saharans coming directly from the Sahara. Some of these people with West in Antiquity and were pushed south with the aridity of the Sahara. Dont let E-M78 fool you, that highest frequency is to be found in WESTERN SUDAN among Nilo-Saharan speakers. Some of these ancestors went south and concentrated along the White Nile.......another branch kept going south to the tip of African where "Nilotic" type lineages can be found today.
B2a1a reaches its highest freqency in Nilo-Saharan groups of South Sudan. Notice the other population center peaks : Great lakes region, the Presumbed "Bantu" homeland in Cameroon , and the terminal stop for the Bantu in South Africa. You still think Nilotic people have no connection to South Africa? Dont let phenotype fool you either, in Tishkoff et al dont the Southern Ethiopian groups that look "Nilotic" have just as much "Cushitic" ancestry as Northern Beja?
Beja removed from the discussion, Why again do the Nubians share high amounts of private allels with Ugandans? Dont you think this was higher in the past? Were not the Egyptians closer to the Nubians 3500 years ago? Maybe these alleles are being picked up in the STR analysis? Have you compared the STR of Amarna in the Karamojong vs Southern Egyptians fashion? Please add some substance to your argument.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^According to several sources, the Karamojong are recent migrants from the Horn region. If that is true, it probably explains their ties to Nubians. You say ''Ugandans''. Does this relationship you speak of extend to other Ugandan populations, besides the Karamojong?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Manu: Low resolution STR analyses have shown the Beja to be unmixed Southern Sudanese Nilotes. [1]
While High(er) resolution STR analyses show them to be typical Northern Cushites. [2]
We can conclude from this that low resolution STR studies (i.e. this recent DNAtribes analysis [3] on the amarna mummies) AREN'T RELIABLE).
You people only continue to believe they are highly accurate for dogmatic/ideological reasons.
What constitutes a "high" resolution STR analysis to you? Describe the specifics of the locus that meets this description.
^Based on what he's written several times before it seems he's confusing/equating STR with SNP and wants a similar amount of STR's analysed as SNP's. Thus he talks about "low resolution STR", smh.
Posts: 214 | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^According to several sources, the Karamojong are recent migrants from the Horn region. If that is true, it probably explains their ties to Nubians. You say ''Ugandans''. Does this relationship you speak of extend to other Ugandan populations, besides the Karamojong?
I dont think they come from the Horn. Maybe Southern Sudan by way of the horn. They have paternal lineage indicative of common ancestry with some horn groups though. (E-M35, E-m78, K2)
Looking over what dienekes wrote he has the same flaws as kokakola and manu :
quote:Pictorial evidence in Egyptian art, as well as the statements of classical Greco-Roman authors strongly suggest that the ancient Egyptians occupied an intermediate position in the phenotypic continuum between Near Eastern and "Ethiopian" people. It is also clear that there was variation within ancient Egypt itself: geographic, temporal, and even perhaps social aspects of this variation may have existed. But these qualitative observations are no substitute for the harder type of evidence that can be provided by authentic ancient DNA.
Hopefully, the debate on the genetic identity of the ancient Egyptians can proceed on the basis of new data,
The "intermediate position in the phenotypic continuum between Near Eastern and "Ethiopian" people." does NOT take into account of Nilotic ancestry which is a HUGE portion of Ancient Egyptian ancestry...and even in all surrounding Sudanese groups. Taking a look at Tishkoff K=3 on the 2 Beja grouops and Mozabite leaves one nearly fully Nilo-Saharan. (Page 44)
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^According to several sources, the Karamojong are recent migrants from the Horn region. If that is true, it probably explains their ties to Nubians. You say ''Ugandans''. Does this relationship you speak of extend to other Ugandan populations, besides the Karamojong?
I dont think they come from the Horn. Maybe Southern Sudan by way of the horn. They have paternal lineage indicative of common ancestry with some horn groups though. (E-M35, E-m78, K2)
The nry data is interesting, but if you already know for a fact that they're not indigenous to the great lakes region, as evidenced by their lineages and other data, why would you then try to explain the great lakes MLI score by focusing on them?
I mean, they would presumably fit in more with those in DNA Tribes' ''The African Horn'' regional cluster, genetically speaking, and look at that regions MLI score.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
You are scrambling for anything obviously but the data has spoken.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic