posted
^ should be said that Mongolid people look like us and not the other way around.
-------------------- Across the sea of time, there can only be one of you. Make you the best one you can be. Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: So then this should shut your stupid ass up, you have people directly involved with DNA telling you whats up. Yuya Like the rest of Egypt was majority is not completly African.
How does it feel bitch!??!! Does it hurt...
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
Reply from Lucas Martin, DNATribe to my inquiry, Yuya ancestry
Egypt had non-African members of its population since pre-dynastic times.
Black is a political term.
Egypt was an African civilization.
1770 The US was nearly 20% black and today its 12.6% black and God only knows how much of the population was Native probably more than 1%. Asians are 4% IIRC and Native Americans ok today make about 1%. Today Nearly 1/5th of the US is made of people of color and I'm probably not even counting the hybrid Latino population YET. Despite this level of admixture whites would claim the United States was and is still an example of white/Euro civilization in what it produced. Whites would claim Greece and Rome the same even though they got some heritage from Asia and Africa (especially Greece). How come even when the population is mostly related to Africa just a little makes it non-"black" or African to be less political. People have suggested Yuya may be a Hyksos/Egyptian mulatto cause his body is different from most Egyptians and his name is written different. I would focus less on Yuya tbh
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: So then this should shut your stupid ass up, you have people directly involved with DNA telling you whats up. Yuya Like the rest of Egypt was majority is not completly African.
How does it feel bitch!??!! Does it hurt...
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
Reply from Lucas Martin, DNATribe to my inquiry, Yuya ancestry
Egypt had non-African members of its population since pre-dynastic times.
Black is a political term.
Egypt was an African civilization.
The Netherlands was mainly a white European civilization and equally Egypt was mainly a black African civilization just as Nubia was mainly a black African civilization. There may different groups of blacks in these regions at certain periods and a certain very small percentage of whites or non-Africans in both civilizations at their foundation. Highly developed or "complex civilizations tend to attract immigrant groups or they are sometimes others are brought in as slaves.
The hair on the ancient Egyptians was not wavy in the European sense of the word. Any mummified Woodabe Fulani would come out with the same hair as in ancient Egyptian mummies as indicated by the cortex of the hair.
You are only expressing opinion on this matter Osirion. And maybe u need to change ur name if you don't like being an African whose ancestors were mainly black until recently mixed with foreign settlers in North Africa. Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: So then this should shut your stupid ass up, you have people directly involved with DNA telling you whats up. Yuya Like the rest of Egypt was majority is not completly African.
How does it feel bitch!??!! Does it hurt...
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
Reply from Lucas Martin, DNATribe to my inquiry, Yuya ancestry
Egypt had non-African members of its population since pre-dynastic times.
Black is a political term.
Egypt was an African civilization.
1770 The US was nearly 20% black and today its 12.6% black and God only knows how much of the population was Native probably more than 1%. Asians are 4% IIRC and Native Americans ok today make about 1%. Today Nearly 1/5th of the US is made of people of color and I'm probably not even counting the hybrid Latino population YET. Despite this level of admixture whites would claim the United States was and is still an example of white/Euro civilization in what it produced. Whites would claim Greece and Rome the same even though they got some heritage from Asia and Africa (especially Greece). How come even when the population is mostly related to Africa just a little makes it non-"black" or African to be less political. People have suggested Yuya may be a Hyksos/Egyptian mulatto cause his body is different from most Egyptians and his name is written different. I would focus less on Yuya tbh
People of color in the U.S. are hardly 1/5th of the population - they are nearly half according to some counts. Where did you get that number?
U r right about your question to Osirion though if most of ancient Egyptian culture developed in the Great Lakes and among black people over ten thousand years the idea of suggesting Egypt shouldn't be called a black civilization is out of the question.
Earliest neolithic civilization in general was black as well before adopted by other peoples in Europe.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ I said I didnt count some groups like Latinos who are usually mixed with non white (tho some Latinos can be white). But my point is how come these civilizations can be white even though they've got other groups but Egypt cant be black?
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: So then this should shut your stupid ass up, you have people directly involved with DNA telling you whats up. Yuya Like the rest of Egypt was majority is not completly African.
How does it feel bitch!??!! Does it hurt...
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
Reply from Lucas Martin, DNATribe to my inquiry, Yuya ancestry
Egypt had non-African members of its population since pre-dynastic times.
Black is a political term.
Egypt was an African civilization.
The Netherlands was mainly a white European civilization and equally Egypt was mainly a black African civilization just as Nubia was mainly a black African civilization. There may different groups of blacks in these regions at certain periods and a certain very small percentage of whites or non-Africans in both civilizations at their foundation. Highly developed or "complex civilizations tend to attract immigrant groups or they are sometimes others are brought in as slaves.
Yes, aNd Nubians are the closest ethnically to the ancient Egyptians. The ancient Nile Valley settlers came from South of the Sahara as credible mainstream scholars show. In the Saharan zone for thousands of years, and the temperate band of Middle/northern Egypt they naturally adapted to these environments- narrower noses and brown-black skin, without needing any "race mix" to explain why. Desert occupation can cause narrower noses due to the need to moisten the dry arid air, and the Temperate, semi-tropical climate further north would reduce UV radiation leading to a wider range of skin shades- whether it be from brown or jet black. It is not rocket science at all. The people who settled the Nile Valley were tropical Africans who adapted to localized environments over time.
They had over ten millennia to adapt to a cooler temperate climate, and millennia as well to adapt to increased food production and agriculture. Lighter skin,or narrower noses, under cooler temperatures, or body changes under more agriculture and/or dietary changes is Evolution/Human Adaptation 101. Humans in Europe got lighter skin and saw body changes as diet changed. But when in comes to Africa why is a double-standard present? Why do people think that "true" Africans are static and will not adapt to local environments? What? They all still supposed to look like George Jefferson (pun) after over 10,000 years in the temperate Nile Valley, OR its adjacent desert zones?
No one thinks it is unusual that Europeans in hotter Mediterranean climates have darker brown skin compared to pale Northerners. SO why should it be "surprising" that people in Africa in a region with less UV should develop a lighter brown skin, or narrower noses to cope with a desert environment? People have been in the region tens of thousands of years back and forth. It is only when it comes to Africa that white hypocrisy suddenly appears. No problem for Italians to have skin shades darker than northern Nordics- no invading negores are needed to explain that away. But in Africa, the most diverse place on the planet, watch the white hypocrisy and double standards appear. Even more ludicrous are SOME modern "native Egyptians" (I say some, not all) who, anxious to suck up to whites, or have some whiteness "rub off" on them, go to great lengths to deny that the founders of Egypt were tropical Africans from south of the Sahara. According to these white wannabes, the ancients just "spontaneously" sprung up out of the Nile, miraculously "negro free." There seems to be an inferiority complex with some of them- with dissatisfaction unless they get the magic touch of "whiteness". They are willing to deny part of their history to suck up to Arab or white "role models."
Who then speaks for the originals? The tropical Africans who founded Kemet? Who speaks for these original sons of the soil?
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
tbh many of the meds are kinda mixed BUT its that they are still considered white just a different shade thats hypocrisy yea
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- Across the sea of time, there can only be one of you. Make you the best one you can be. Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
There have always been those that noted the Sub-Saharan culture and features of the Amarna period.
-------------------- Across the sea of time, there can only be one of you. Make you the best one you can be. Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist: Meds are not admixed, we've covered this before.
Afrocentric trolls claim Meds are 30% ''black''.
If they were, where are their afros, big lips and wide noses?
Morphologically Meds are identical to Nordids.
Modern EuroMediterraneans do have admixture as did the ancient Egyptians (though probably not as much as 20 percent like AFrican Americans) but obviously only the MODERN near white Afro-Mediterraneans would have at least 30 % admixture with Africans. That's where you'll find the kinky hair. However I doubt that some of them even have that much. Except for in Kabylia ancient land of the Vandals (Germanics) they are probably closer related to the Levant people than to east or west Africans. And of course Syrian people aren't closely related to Nordics, like were Vandals. Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
ancient amarna MLI scores for South Africa were the greatest 326.94
while North Africa only scored 6.55
That is radically different than what was previously hypothesized
.
Yes hypothesized by whom? Many great historians of all origin already knew Ancient Kemet was an African culture through and through. Especially those not biased by the necessity of colonial propaganda and the need to justify the slavery and colonisation of Africa. All geographical, cultural, religious, linguistic, historic, common sense evidences always pointed toward Ancient Egypt being 100% black Africans. A pure African culture at its apex for their time. A civilization that eventually was successfully invaded and occupied by many foreign invaders like the Hyksos, Assyrians, Ancient Greek, Romans, Persians, Muslim Arabs, British, French, etc. ). Eventually largely pushing the original inhabitants further down south. Fact acknowledge by the DNA Tribes genetic analysis.
From the DNA tribes analysis and what we know of the history of that part of the world (as the rest of Africa for that matter), we know that like America with the natives, the ethnic composition of the people in ancient sites such as Kemet, Ethiopia, Punt, Southern Africa is not the same than the one 5000 years earlier!! It's scientific and historically true but also just common sense.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
ancient amarna MLI scores for South Africa were the greatest 326.94
while North Africa only scored 6.55
That is radically different than what was previously hypothesized
.
From the DNA tribes analysis and what we know of the history of that part of the world (as the rest of Africa for that matter), we know that like America with the natives, the ethnic composition of the people in ancient sites such as Kemet, Ethiopia, Punt, Southern Africa is not the same than the one 5000 years earlier!! It's scientific and historically true but also just common sense.
This is not necessarily true. Yes, in the case of Southern Africa we are aware of recent migration to the area from parts further north. Egypt as well has historical conquests and migrations over the past 1000's of years...and Dry Sahara issues. But we have ANCIENT DNA and real skeletons to compare with the modern populations to see the differences.
On the other hand, in the case of East Africa / Punt there is evidence of VERY long term habitation of Humans. From AMH until today there is fossil records and Genetic evidence which promotes long termed continuity. That is one reason why the Maternal diversity in East Africa is so great. WHen much of the northern Half of Africa was extreme desert the Horn of Africa was always a refuge. There is no need at this point to hypothesize a genetic change or replacement of horners over a 5000 year period because Ancient DNA from the horn of Africa has not brought them into attention.
This issue that has all the Euro's panties in a bunch is that not only was the data Africa...it was not North African or even Horn African as they expected. They expected this because they are a bunch of wiki scholars that cannot think for themselves....too caught up on the visuals of shriveled up mummies. ANd they have olny approached the issue by looking at genetic studies from the last few years....all from a computer screen. In one of Keita's videos he says "Genetics tells is the least". This can be true because we when refer back to literature, people have had this figured out a long time ago.
The problems is though these results are a little to "Negroid" for these people to accept:
Look at the date on that! That was nearly 40 year ago and these Hamitic Union fools still dont get it. They are not even worth the breath. What the DNA tribes data supports is these works by Ehret. These words are in the VERY BEGINNING, the PREFACE of a book that is thinner than a pencil and cost 80.oo and was shipped from Germany. You probably will not find it anywhere else. - Ethiopians and East Africans - The problem of Contacts.
BTW Southern Sudanese are Eastern Sudanic speakers.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
ancient amarna MLI scores for South Africa were the greatest 326.94
while North Africa only scored 6.55
That is radically different than what was previously hypothesized
.
People are asking me "hypothesized by whom?"
-by just about anyone in the fireld of Egyptology or biology.
Find me one author that had hypothesized the ancestors of ancient Egyptians were largely South African.
.
This is remarkable and will zarahan to update many of his graphics.
What it says is the MLI scores for ancient Egyptians is largely South African, Great Lakes African and West African.
Who has said before that South Africans were such a large component of anceint Egyptian ancestry, in fact the one with the highest MLI score?
Who has said before that of the lesser ancestry of the ancient Egyptians tthey were more North West European and Mediterranean than they were North African?
That is something remarkable in this report as well as the South African component and if accepted many people on ES will have to revise their information
Posts: 42937 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ and who is now saying that Egyptians were largely South African? Thats not what the data says. The data says that there is a connection to people now living in South Africa. As in people who haven't always been living there.
-------------------- Across the sea of time, there can only be one of you. Make you the best one you can be. Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
MLI scores indicate the likelihood that a given STR profile is found somewhere, compared to the likelihood that it is found in the world, not that Yuya was part African, part non-African, dummy.
And then she comes in with more of her ''they were partly this, and partly that, because of the MLI matches'' bullshit:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: What it says is the MLI scores for ancient Egyptians is largely South African, Great Lakes African and West African.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [QB] Thanks for getting it back on topic Astenb
As for Lioness, I told her this previously:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by the lioness: What it says is the MLI scores for ancient Egyptians is largely South African, Great Lakes African and West African.
you told me that but I read it as soon as it came out far prior to your redundancy. That South Africans scored higher than North Africans is obviously surprising so stop being fake and pretending it's not Great lakes scoring high is not as surprising because some people already believed that was a primary component. You or anyone have not mentioned South Africa at all in discussions of ancient Egyptians so stop fronting
Posts: 42937 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [QB] Thanks for getting it back on topic Astenb
As for Lioness, I told her this previously:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by the lioness: What it says is the MLI scores for ancient Egyptians is largely South African, Great Lakes African and West African.
you told me that but I read it as soon as it came out far prior to your redundancy. That South Africans scored higher than North Africans is obviously surprising so stop being fake and pretending it's not Great lakes scoring high is not as surprising because some people already believed that was a primary component. You or anyone have not mentioned South Africa at all in discussions of ancient Egyptians so stop fronting
Stop talking smack. There isn't anything particularly South African, Great lakes or West African about these STR profiles. Of the samples groups, the Pharaonic STR profiles simply have the highest likelihood of being found in those regions, today (and DNA Tribes emphasized the today part as well, including in your mail to them).
But even that doesn't tell you how likely it is you'll find it those regions, since its all relative. The MLI scores cannot be read as the Amarna royals being part this region, part that region, ancestrally wise. Go and read a book, pesky insect.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: The MLI scores cannot be read as the Amarna royals being part this region, part that region, ancestrally wise. Go and read a book, pesky insect.
I'm sorry but it's exactly what the MLI scores says.
For example, the MLI scores says that King Tut is 1519.03 times more likely to share the same ancestors with Africans from the Southern Africa than any other people on earth.
Same for ethnic groups closely related to Southern Africans like Great lakes Africans and Tropical West African and other Africans like Sahelian and Horn Africans.
So for another ethnic group in the world to have higher scores than Southern Africans they would have to have no or limited ancestral linkage (sharing blood/genetic ancestors parents) with all the ethnic groups in the DNA Tribes database already.
quote: The MLI scores cannot be read as the Amarna royals being part this region, part that region, ancestrally wise. Go and read a book, pesky insect.
I'm sorry but it's exactly what the MLI scores says.
You say ''I'm sorry, but it's exactly what the MLO scores says'', but then you go on to say something different entirely, when you say:
For example, the MLI scores says that King Tut is 1519.03 times more likely to share the same ancestors with Africans from the Southern Africa than any other people on earth.
The two notions are nowhere even near the same, and the last one is not necessarily correct, either.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
A: Each DNA Tribes Native and Global Population Match and World Region Match is listed with a Match Likelihood Index (MLI) score that indicates your odds of belonging to that population relative to your odds of belonging to a generic human population. For instance, a Native Population Match with Macedonia scored 45.2 indicates your genetic ancestry is 45.2 times as likely in Macedonia as in the world.
Population and world region match results are provided in a ranked listing, from most likely to least likely. Top ranked scores indicate your best population or regional matches in the DNA Tribes database. All matches can be compared against each other as odds ratios. For instance, if you obtain a score of 25.0 for Bavarian and 5.0 for Macedonian, this means your genetic profile is 25.0/5.0 = 5.0 times as likely to be Bavarian as Macedonian.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Indeed, like I said to Lioness, its all relative, not definitive. On the basis of this data, it is impossible to say the Amarna family members were partly from this region, and partly from that region.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
MY OWN RESULTS OF COMPARING PHARAONIC ALLELES WITH NEW WORLD BLACKS, AND NEW WORLD WHITES
LEGEND:
- = allele occurs more in the European American sample, than the diasporal African samples
+ = allele occurs more in one or more diasporal African sample(s), than in the European American sample
(..) = allele inherited from one of the sampled family members
[..] = same as one of the earlier mentioned alleles, but this one is not inherited from the other sampled family members
? = No information on this particular STR allele in the used source
! = Allele does not occur in the European American sample, but is observed in New World blacks
x = No data on this particular STR loci
NOTES:
*I’ve only compared individual alleles, this is not the same as comparing the 8 alleles in the form of a profile. Many of the Pharaonic alleles occur in almost equally high freq in representatives of both sampled groups (New Word peoples of European and West African descent), but with New World blacks dominating in most cases. This is why there is a big difference in comparing alleles individually, vs comparing profiles
*I didn’t look at the Latino allele frequencies, for obvious reasons
*There are no Pharaonic alleles that only occur in the sampled New World Europeans. Some of the alleles, do occur exclusively in (some of) the sampled New World blacks (six to be exact).
*The alleles of the remaining mummies were not included, because they were either inherited (making reiteration redundant), inherited elsewhere, but shared with the matriarchs/patriarchs (Amenhotep III, Yuya and Thuya, Tiye), or, in the case of D18S51=10 (KV21A), not listed in the source pdf
posted
Well, the two notions aren't the same, because, like the DNA Tribes quote implies, MLI scores cannot be interpreted in a manner that suggests that the Pharaonic profile represents an amalgam of ancestry from the regions with relatively high MLI scores.
The alleles could have been (and according to all the evidence, they were) a part of the local indigenous heritage. The profile seems pretty wide spread, judging by the relatively high scores with samples from West, South and (portions of) East Africa. No reason why it couldn't have been indigenous in North Africa as well.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Well, the two notions aren't the same, because, like the DNA Tribes quote implies, MLI scores cannot be interpreted in a manner that suggests that the Pharaonic profile represents an amalgam of ancestry from the regions with relatively high MLI scores.
Nor did my reply to your post. It just mean the 18th Dynasty Royal Family mummies share the same ancestors (same parents population) than people from those regions in Africa. Obviously, people from Africa share the same ancestry too from one another. Ultimately as all humans. For example, Great lake Africans share the same ancestry with Tropical and West Africans (according to their data). As DNA Tribes did for Europe you could probably further subdivide "Great Lakes Africans" into subgroup as we did to humans, humans close to Africa, humans in Africa, Humans from West Africa and maybe even between Yoruba people or Igbo people which are Tropical West Africans. This would show that Igbo while sharing great amounth of DNA with other West African ethnic groups they would also have some specific DNA STR repetitions (combinations) more unique to the Igbo people. At the extreme, we can determine the specific parents of a person with a high confidence level (this is usually what those STR loci are used for. For paternity test.).
quote: The alleles could have been (and according to all the evidence, they were) a part of the local indigenous heritage. The profile seems pretty wide spread, judging by the relatively high scores with samples from West, South and (portions of) East Africa. No reason why it couldn't have been indigenous in North Africa as well.
It is indigenous to Ancient Kemet, it just that their share relatively close ancestors (DNA STR repetition) with Southern, Lake and Western Africans as well as other Africans such as Sahelian and Horn Africans (a bit to a lower degree). Thus showing they share the same relatively recent ancestors.
As I said for another ethnic group in the world to have closer relationship with the Ancient Egyptians they would have to be not closely related to all the world ethnic groups already in the DNA Tribes database (containing STR profiles of ethnic groups around the world).
--------------------------------
While the DNA Tribes analysis shows that Ancient Kemites share the same (relatively close) ancestry with people from African ethnic groups (more than any other people on earth). There's at least 2 scenarios this can be possible.
For example, people living close to the African Great Lakes region close to the mountain of the moon, at the beginning of the Nile River. Could have migrated in all direction of Africa, including toward the north in direction of the Nile flow as well as in other directions toward the Great Lakes and ultimately Southern Africa. In that scenario, Ancient Kemites would effectively share the same relatively recent ancestors with Great Lakes and Southern Africans.
Another scenario is that the Ancient Kemites population was effectively pushed further down south toward the Great Lakes and ultimately Southern Africa by successively invading foreign forces (Hyksos, Assyrians, Persians, British, Muslim Arabs, Romans, etc). Ultimately migrating and forming settlements along the way up to Southern Africa.
Both those scenarios are possible.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^So you are saying that Southern Africans would not have been part of the original Kemites but a later mass migration of Kemites after the civilization was formed went into Southern Africa?
Posts: 42937 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: ^^^So you are saying that Southern Africans would not have been part of the original Kemites but a later mass migration of Kemites after the civilization was formed went into Southern Africa?
I'm just giving up 2 general scenarios in ways ethnic group can share the same ancestry and apply it to what we know of Ancient Egyptians and African history. Both scenario are similar but both are possible from what we know.
One possible scenario, can involve Ancient Kemites pushed further sough by foreign invaders (and else) toward the Great Lake region and ultimately Southern African (obviously as most ancient migration it involve many generation and interaction). In that scenerio, Southern Africna people could have direct descendent of people who lived in Ancient Egypt.
In the other possible scenario, people living at the beginning of the Nile and close regions could have migrated further north along the flow of the Nile, founding the Ancient Kemet Dynasty, while another group from the same region could have migrated toward other region of Africa including the Great Lakes and Southern Africa.
Those are just two possible scenarios that can explain the shared ancestry between those African ethnic group.
The ancient Egyptians as anyone with a brain can see are the modern populations of
1) South Africa 2) Central Africa 3) West Africa
Only people that are willfully lying would even attempt to dispute this reality backed up by DNA science
Posts: 3642 | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: Nor did my reply to your post. It just mean the 18th Dynasty Royal Family mummies share the same ancestors (same parents population) than people from those regions in Africa.
But what do MLI scores have to do with having acquired ancestry from specific regions (which is the point of contention you responded to)? Having MLI matches in common with the Amarna family doesn’t automatically mean origin inferences can be made for the Ancient Egyptians, based off where those related people live today.
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: It is indigenous to Ancient Kemet, it just that their share relatively close ancestors (DNA STR repetition) with Southern, Lake and Western Africans as well as other Africans such as Sahelian and Horn Africans (a bit to a lower degree). Thus showing they share the same relatively recent ancestors.
How do you know there aren’t better, ancient matches? You don’t, because that is not what DNA Tribes’ analysis is capable of telling us. Better matches in the vicinity of Egypt negates the need to look further South. The bulk of the related people in the vicinity of Ancient Egypt certainly weren’t recent immigrants to North Africa, from Southern Africa, or the Great Lakes.
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: While the DNA Tribes analysis shows that Ancient Kemites share the same (relatively close) ancestry with people from African ethnic groups (more than any other people on earth). There's at least 2 scenarios this can be possible.
They are possible, but extremely unlikely, when you look to the other lines of evidence. Mainly, the osteological cline along which the Ancient Egyptians and certain Nubian groups were situated. Their features speak to them being long term residents of Northern Africa. It’s a stretch to suggest that the STR profiles were brought there by Ancient Egyptians. (Many of) the alleles were found even in San, and Pygmies populations. It’s much more likely that we’re dealing with very widespread genetic material, which existed in some of the aboriginal, pre-Berber/Afro-Asiatic speaking Northern Africans as well.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
somebody might conclude from this DNATribes report that most ancient Egyptians left Egypt
Posts: 42937 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: Nor did my reply to your post. It just mean the 18th Dynasty Royal Family mummies share the same ancestors (same parents population) than people from those regions in Africa.
But what do MLI scores have to do with having acquired ancestry from specific regions (which is the point of contention you responded to)?
That's a strange post. That's exactly what DNA Tribes company does. It takes your DNA STR profile (or the ones of the Ancient Kemites mummies) and matches it with geographical location of your ancestors. For example, you can learn that your ancestors comes from the Yoruba of West Africa or the Norse region in Europe or the Ojibwa native tribe in America. That is people with similar STR profiles than you.
As I said for another ethnic group in the world to have a closer relationship with the Ancient Egyptians than the African groups they would have to be not closely related, and thus not sharing DNA STRs profiles, with all the world ethnic groups already in the DNA Tribes database.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:That's exactly what DNA Tribes company does. It takes your DNA STR profile (or the ones of the Ancient Kemites mummies) and matches it with geographical location of your ancestors.
They don't. You're just making that up. Making inferences about the geographical location of someones ancestor is not what they do at all. I get the feeling you're more interested in your own opinions, rather than what is actually going on with these results. Did you, for instance, read the piece of information Beyoku cited a few posts ago, about the inferences one is capable of making with MLI scores? Those inferences don't include pin-pointing the location of your ancestors. In fact, MLI scores do the exact opposite, they show all the possible regions associated with the little bit of genetic material that the Pharaonic alleles embody. That Amenhotep III has a higher score for the Great Lakes doesn't mean he couldn't have come from Mesopotamia, although the chances of that being the case are greatly reduced.
quote:For example, you can learn that your ancestors comes from the Yoruba of West Africa or the Norse region in Europe.
You cannot learn your ancestors come from Yoruba or the Norse region of Europe with this kind of ambiguity. You do see there are several candidate regions among the MLI scores, do you not? How can you then speak of DNA Tribes being able to pin point things down to a single ethnic group? Do you see ethnic groups listed next to those MLI scores? Of course not, its because they can't do what you're saying they can, with the information they have at their disposal. And they never said they could either.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:That's exactly what DNA Tribes company does. It takes your DNA STR profile (or the ones of the Ancient Kemites mummies) and matches it with geographical location of your ancestors.
They don't. You're just making that up. Making inferences about the geographical location of someones ancestor is not what they do at all.
Sure it is what they do, they are a DNA ancestry company. They match your DNA with the geographical location of your ancestors.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:That's exactly what DNA Tribes company does. It takes your DNA STR profile (or the ones of the Ancient Kemites mummies) and matches it with geographical location of your ancestors.
They don't. You're just making that up. Making inferences about the geographical location of someones ancestor is not what they do at all.
Sure it is what they do, they are a DNA ancestry company. They match your DNA with the geographical location of your ancestors.
Well, what is taking you so long then? Quote them saying that this is the case.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, what is taking you so long then? Quote them saying that this is the case. [/QB]
It's just idiotic proving what is evident. It's like reducing the quality of the discussion.
quote: Q: What is DNA Tribes Genetic Ancestry Analysis?
A: DNA Tribes Genetic Ancestry Analysis is a service that uses genetic material inherited from both maternal and paternal ancestors to measure your genetic connections to individual ethnic groups and major world regions. Your top ranked results indicate places where your blend of ancestry is most frequent and where your genetic ancestors left the strongest traces.
So they match the DNA with the geographical location of people you share ancestry with. For example, you can learn your most likely match is the Ojibwe native ethnic group in America.
The 18th Dynasty Royal mummies DNA matches African ethnic groups from different regions: Great Lakes, Southern Africa and Tropical West Africa, as well as Sahelian and Horn Africans to a lower degree. Trying to look away from this is just being in denial of the results. For example, adding STR loci will most likely only increase the MLI index for African ethnic groups matches. I know those results are not what you wanted, but that is what is most likely. Although some people prefer to look at less likely matches for personal reasons. It's like being in court and holding on to that 0.1% probability that you're not the father of that child. It's absurd and non-scientific. You will lose your case.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
You have an incorrect idea about what this company can and cannot do. You are not seeing these results in the context of what DNATribes tells customers they can do. Have you seen any other results from MODERN people of African descent? I have, i have seen dozens in fact.
The fact that African Americans and people of the Caribbean have high matches in Egypt, Canary Islands, Southern Morocco, Saharawi, Ethiopia, Libya, Afro-Arabs in Qatar - Does not mean they have ancestry in these places NOR does it mean part of their ancestry has common ancestors with Libyans/Ethiopians/Egyptians.
This is getting pretty repetitive and what is being said has not already been said before. Most of the GOOD info is from page 1-15. Its pretty hard to evaluate these results without seen the results of other Africans and other people of African descent...It also helps being familiar with consumer genetic testing as a whole and the different projects that have come into existence to analyze the DNA of Africans and those of the Diaspora.
BTW I have plenty of wild theories regarding the results - Most times I try to note their are my PERSONAL opinions.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
By your inability to cite where DNA Tribes is parading the surreal accomplishments you attribute to them, I take it you have no evidence.
quote:A: DNA Tribes Genetic Ancestry Analysis is a service that uses genetic material inherited from both maternal and paternal ancestors to measure your genetic connections to individual ethnic groups and major world regions. Your top ranked results indicate places where your blend of ancestry is most frequent and where your genetic ancestors left the strongest traces.
This is what I've been saying all along, and it doesn't resemble your attribution of their capabilities at all.
DNA TRIBES SAYS:
Your top ranked results indicate places where your blend of ancestry is most frequent and where your genetic ancestors left the strongest traces.
is totally different from your statement, which was:
YOU SAY
they match your DNA with the geographical location of your ancestors.
They carefully worded their statement, so as to not mislead people into thinking they are in the business of discerning the feat of pinpointing the location of a some ancestor, and there you go, acting like you know it better than the company itself.
quote:The 18th Dynasty Royal mummies DNA matches African ethnic groups from different regions: Great Lakes, Southern Africa and Tropical West Africa, as well as Sahelian and Horn Africans to a lower degree. Trying to look away from this is just being in denial of the results.
I bet that if I ask you for evidence that I'm in denial of the results, you'll return with another piece of 'evidence' which doesn't say at all what you think it says.
quote:For example, adding STR loci will most likely only increase the MLI index for African ethnic groups matches.
False. This would be the case if the genetic heritage of the ethnic groups would be identical to the Pharaonic genome, but this is impossible. Since the genomes of the African groups are not identical to the genomes of the Pharaohs under examination, the points of divergence will reveal themselves whenever more STR loci are examined. Logic 101.
The amount of candidates with all the pharaonic alleles will get smaller and smaller, as the discrimination power is increased. Do you know what discrimination power means?
quote:I know those results are not what you wanted, but that is what is most likely. Although some people prefer to look at less likely matches for personal reasons. It's like being in court and holding on to that 0.1% probability that you're not the father of that child. It's absurd and non-scientific. You will lose your case.
Unbelievable how people can be so wrong, and yet so full of themselves. SMH.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
THE ONE THING THAT WE KNOW FOR CERTAIN IS THAT
Yuya= Queen Tyies father
Thuya= Queen Tyies mother
wE know that Queen Tyie was the wife of Amenhotep III and that Akhenaten was the son of Queen Tyie and Amenhotep III
And finially we know that King tut was the son of Akhenaten
So King Tuts grandparents were Queen Tyie and Amenhotep III and his father was Akhenaten
King tuts great grandparents where we are ANSOLUTELY positive that these are the ACTUAL mummies were
1) Thuya 2) Yuya
and the DNA analysis of Thuya and Yuya tells you all you need to know! Their DNA is even present in the americas!!!! and that is just the next shoe that will drop exposing the cracker as a filthy degenerate liar!
Posts: 3642 | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: This is what I've been saying all along, and it doesn't resemble your attribution of their capabilities at all.
DNA TRIBES SAYS:
Your top ranked results indicate places where your blend of ancestry is most frequent and where your genetic ancestors left the strongest traces.
is totally different from your statement, which was:
YOU SAY
they match your DNA with the geographical location of your ancestors.
They carefully worded their statement, so as to not mislead people into thinking they are in the business of discerning the feat of pinpointing the location of a some ancestor, and there you go, acting like you know it better than the company itself.
I wont discuss semantic with you. Let's agree that they say they can pinpoint where your genetic ancestors left the strongest traces .
Usually at their home land (in fact DNA tribes provide native population match), so they match your DNA with the descendants of your closest ancestors in many geographical location including in their homeland. For example, the Ojibwe homeland, Celtic homeland, Zulu homeland. Which are where the Ojibwe, Celtic and Zulu genetic STR profile is the strongest (vs the Ojibwe, Celtic and Zulu diaspora location).
But as explained in my post above at least 2 different scenarios can explain how Ancient Kemites share the same ancestors with the African ethnic group.
But what is sure (outside all probability of course) is that according to the DNA Tribes results, the Ancient Kemites and African ethnic groups site above share relatively recent ancestors.
quote:
quote:For example, adding STR loci will most likely only increase the MLI index for African ethnic groups matches.
False. This would be the case if the genetic heritage of the ethnic groups would be identical to the Pharaonic genome, but this is impossible. Since the genomes of the African groups are not identical to the genomes of the Pharaohs under examination, the points of divergence will reveal themselves whenever more STR loci are examined. Logic 101.
You have the right to your personal biased opinion but statistically this is not every likely. As I explained with the blue/green balls bags example earlier. If all the 7 mummies match 8 STR loci with certain ethnics group if you pick 7 other STR loci out of the bag their are statistically more likely to match again with the same groups. That's statistic 101. Unless your biased against the current results.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
LOL. They get more and more creative with their damage control. You knew what you was in for, ever since I repeatedly told you the two notions are totally different, after you came in disagreeing when you didn't even understand what was being said.
The fact that you reduce the issue to mere semantics (and that you think you're saying anything that is contradicting any position other than your own, by posting those maps) tells me you still don't understand how MLI scores work, and the fact that regions themselves have nothing to do with MLI scores (other than that they're associated with the people who happen to inhabit them today). You also seem to conveniently 'forget' the other part of how MLI scores work (the explanation of the occurance of a similar blend of ancestry), even after Beyoku and your own source reminded you of it.
Conclusion: the point of contention is far from a semantic issue; there is nothing supportive of the idea that the ancient Egyptians came from the Great Lakes or Southern Africa (or the other way around), simply because those African regions score most favorable, in terms of MLI scores.
quote:You have the right to your personal biased opinion but statistically this is not every likely. As I explained with the blue/green balls bags example earlier. If all the 7 mummies match 8 STR loci with certain ethnics group if you pick 7 other STR loci out of the bag their are statistically more likely to match again with the same groups. That's statistic 101. Unless your biased against the current results.
I have no idea what you just said. Fact is, the more STR loci you throw in, the more genomic similarity will be needed to maintain equally high MLI scores. The Pharaonic genomes and the Great Lakes/Southern African genomes aren't identical, and that is exactly what would become increasingly obvious as more loci are thrown in, hence, we'd see inflating MLI scores. Its as simple as that. You can go call that ''a biased opinion'', but everyone knowledgeable knows discrimination power increases (not decreases) with the inclusion of more polymorphic loci, whether those loci be cranio-facial, or genetic.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
They are not even worth the breath. What the DNA tribes data supports is these works by Ehret. These words are in the VERY BEGINNING, the PREFACE of a book that is thinner than a pencil and cost 80.oo and was shipped from Germany. You probably will not find it anywhere else. - Ethiopians and East Africans - The problem of Contacts.
Printer-friendly view of this topic