Based on these analyses, we can propose a model for the spread of west Eurasian ancestry in southern and eastern Africa as follows. First, a large-scale movement of people from west Eurasia into Ethiopia around 3,000 y ago (perhaps from southern Arabia and associated with the D’mt kingdom and the arrival of Ethiosemitic languages) resulted in the dispersal of west Eurasian ancestry throughout eastern Africa. [...]
History of West Asian admixtures in Northeastern Africa:
1- First, a large-scale movement of people from west Eurasia into Ethiopia around 3,000 y ago (perhaps from southern Arabia and associated with the D’mt kingdom and the arrival of Ethiosemitic languages)
3000 years ago correspond to (2014-3000=) 986 BC. We can note the presence of Semitic (ethio-semitic) language in the region as evidence of cultural admixtures between West Asia and Northeastern Africa long with the genetic evidence of course.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
So basically West Eurasian influence in Northeastern Africa always has been heavy at least since 986 BC. So it's no wonder they have been the first Africans converted to Christianity and Islam respectively.
People interested in Ancient Egyptian bio-history must note that the first evidence of substantial admixture in Northeastern Africa is 986 BC.
986 BC which is well after the foundation of Ancient Egypt and even much more later than the Naqada, Badarian, Tasian culture which preceded it.
986 BC correspond to Third Intermediate/Late Period history of Ancient Egypt, which correspond to foreign conquests of Ancient Egypt (Assyrians, Greeks, Romans, etc). (although there's been the Hyksos/Aamu foreign conquest before in Ancient Egyptian history but it is said they have been expelled to some degree by the 18th Dynasty)
The African Genome project study posted above also shows us similar results (for the earliest evidence of West-Eurasian admixtures in Northeastern Africa).
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Truth of God: The Bible, The Quran and the Secret of the Black God by Wesley Muhammad (True Isam)
This is the historical backdrop against which we must view the ongoing dispute, if you will, between Elijah Muhammad and the Nation of Islam on the one hand, and Christian and orthodox Muslim theologians on the other, regarding the question. Who is God? Elijah Muhammad, very boldly and unapologetically condemned this "ignorant belief that God is "a formless something" ^^ and declared in fact that "God is a man, and we just can't make Him other than a man."....
It is therefore our intension here, in this Introduction to the 'Truth of God',' to provide only some of the overwhelming evidence that the God of the scriptures is a man...
A close reading of these Hebrew passages do not support the use that has been made of them; the passages do not contradict the more numerous affirmations that God is a man.
The KJV of this verse reads, "God is not a man that He should lie, nor a son of man that he should repent." Fidelity to the Hebrew syntax requires a different translation, however. Both versets are better translated as relative clauses. The waw (1) followed by a verb reflected for number and gender (3TD\ Dn^D"') can have the sense of a relative particle "that/who. "'^° The better translation is therefore, "God is not a man who lies, nor a son of man who repents." This small syntactical clarification produces a significant change in meaning. Num. 23:19 is not an absolute denial that God is a man; it only denies that God is a man who lies or repents. Similar is the statement, "I, True Islam, am not a man who smokes." I am denying in this statement not my manhood or humanity, but that I smoke.,,,,,
He is anthropopathic: he has human feelings. And, importantly, he is called a man repeatedly in the HB, a fact lost in the various English translations.
__________________________________________
The Book of God: An Encyclopedia of Proof That the Black Man Is God by TRUE ISLAM (Wesley Muhammad)
True Islam's 1997 cult classic is back in print in a new, revised edition. The Book of God has been called 'the bible of the Black God,' as it presents a wide range of scientific, historical, and scriptural evidence demonstrating that the Original Black Man is the God of the world's religious traditions, from the religious traditions of the Ancient Near and Far East such as Kemet (Egypt) and India to the Biblical religions and Islam. The Book of God answers such questions as: How is the Black Man God and what does this mean? What is God's relationship to spirit and matter? What does Albert Einstein's mathematical revelation E=mc2 have to do with the Reality of God? If the Original Black Man is God, Who is the Original Black Woman? Is there evidence of the reality of the Twenty Four Scientists? Who is Master Fard Muhammad? Was he actually an ex-con named Wallie Ford who served time in San Quentin on a drug charge? And more. The Book of God also demonstrates that: The God of the ancient religious traditions around the world was a self-created Black God. The Six Days of Creation in the book of Genesis chronicles the Black God's Six Trillion year evolution. The ancient sacred texts of the Original Man and Woman from around the world agree with the Hon. Elijah Muhammad's Teaching on God. The fields of Genetics and Hebrew Sacred Tradition converge to reveal that the Essence of the Creator inhabits the very genetic makeup of the Original Man and Woman. The Secret of the ancient Mysteries, the Masonic Lodge and Shrine, and the Church of Rome is the Reality of the Black God. Astrophysical evidence and ancient tradition converge to support the Hon. Elijah Muhammad's teaching on the Deportation of the Moon by a Black God. And much more.
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
What's the use Enrique?
Teenagers know it all, no matter they just discovered what grown ups have known longer than they've been alive.
And the ideologues, well, they don't care for facts except to manipulate them for propaganda.
There just ain't no nuff registered users of ES who are down with their business not their egos.
Same with troll fighters. What good are they? What people base their history etc on countering roorag?
Never picked up on a history of any people other than us Afrikans who constantly harp on the negatives thus keeping all that **** alive in memory instead of flushed out of mind.
My history culture spirituality language way of living is not a protest literature as too many would make it.
It must be passed to its inheritors in a positive self-centered manner not a reflex in effect centered on another people's interaction with me and mine.
Been sayin' this too long now, like since 2005. I'm tired and finally see why the people we need to turn ES around are gone never to return or lurking and shaking their head at the low life who frequent the site. I mean what halfway decent halfway serious forum presents itself as disgustingly childish rude racist and hateful as ES?
All that GOOGLE caching and ranking wasted on posts that are little more than parodies or on threads that are simple cut n paste jobbies.
And when you and others give kudos to the one who drove the old rank and file away I gotta wonder what are you under? You think her posts make up for the discord she brought to disrupt ES? Disrupt and replace! Mission accomplished. Yeah, atta girl!!
Maybe it's me too blind to see how great these dregs are (and I thank the Eternal for that).
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
A-Ra, Somalia is due East Africa--right next to Kenya and Ethiopia. It is hardly "North East Africa".
Plus, the idea of "Eurasian genes" is highly problematic. There is nothing in the Somali phenotype that says Europe or Asia. I have seen many Somalis and they are some of the blackest people in Africa and they tend to very lean--quite distinct from the more muscled and squat West Asian types one finds in Iran, Iraq, Lebanon and Syria.
The film "Captain Phillips" offers a good example of what the generic Somali looks like.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
lamin: I admit, I was a bit surprised by the amount of Eurasian admixtures in Somali people. As you say the phenotype of many of them, which kind of looks like the majority by looking at various media, doesn't show much West-Eurasian admixtures while the phenotype of some other Somali do show heavy West-Eurasian admixtures (they may be "recent" migrants). It must be noted also that Somali is a Cushitic language, thus not a Semitic language like ethio-semitic languages.
As I noted before, it is always possible that the individuals Somali used as samples for those studies are taken from Somalian urban centers which may be more admixed than the countryside.
Nevertheless, the study we have show us a large proportion of West-Eurasian admixtures in Somali (above 40%). This is what science shows us in various studies at the moment.
There's no doubt in my mind that Northeastern Africans (in which I include Somali) are heavily admixed with Eurasians. For Somali and other people, is it 40%, 30%, 25%. We can't be 100% sure but above 40% are the current results. Even at 30% it would show definitive West-Eurasian admixtures in Somali. We also know the influence of Islam in that region.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
Again you are not following what I am saying. I am saying that Mintsa is pushing an absurd line when he says that the true map of Africa is a linguistic map.To have 3,000 nations in Africa is just absurd. Only a fool would see nothing wrong with that.
The solution to the problem of Africa's weakness--both in economics and politics in this world--is to use more brain work and less laziness to create an Africa with just one or two languages excluding Arabic. Mintsa stupidly hands over the vast expanses of North Africa to the invader Arabs. They don't belong there and at some point should be expelled.
With a few unifying languages the foundatiosn would be set to establish regional and Pan African economies and political structures. The point is that organisations such as ECOWAS, AU, and SADEC have little influence on African economic and political life.
An European linguist created Esperanto many years ago but there were already the dominant languages of English, French, and German on the continent--with most educated Europeans especially Scandinavians very fluent in English. So Esperanto didn't progress very far.
It is a fact that the world's dominant nations are monolingual with indigenous languages being used. The only exception is the U.S. where the ancestors of more than 85% of the population did not speak English.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You just repeated what you said before. Look at a world map. Somalia is not "North East Africa" I am making a simple point of geography.
And what exactly is a "Eurasian"? Asia is a huge expanse of landmass inhabited mostly by East and South Asians. West Asians are a tiny portion of the Asian population--so the idea of "Eurasian genes" is highly problematic and smacks of illogical Eurocentrism.
I go mostly on what people look like. The generic Somali looks nothing like a European or an Asian. Again, check out the film "Captain Phillips".
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Again you are not following what I am saying. I am saying that Mintsa is pushing an absurd line when he says that the true map of Africa is a linguistic map.To have 3,000 nations in Africa is just absurd. Only a fool would see nothing wrong with that.
As I said both Mintsa and you view the world through European eyes. You may not realize it but somewhow you want to mimic Europe when in reality Europe and Asia always have been their own people, using their own reality, languages and culture for development. As should Africa of course. Ironically, the best way to mimic Europe would be to use our own languages and cultures as a foundation to our nations as Europeans did.
African nations are made of various languages. It is exactly similar than Europe? Maybe not. So what? Does Africa needs to be exactly like Europe in every way?
Europeans at the moment, are made of various people and languages, are uniting themselves under the European Union (they already have one currency). I don't see much people saying this is bad since they have so many languages in Europe.
Unity in diversity can apply to Europe as well to Africa and even individual countries in Africa.
The use of multilingualism (people knowing 2 or more languages including one national language) can easily resolve all the issues of inter-communication (as it is already the case since even before colonization). Europe, Africa and the whole world is multilingual.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lamin: You just repeated what you said before. Look at a world map. Somalia is not "North East Africa" I am making a simple point of geography.
I understand you point of view. This is just semantic. The important part for me is that they are neighboring Arabia and West Asia. It would be very surprising if 2 neighboring populations never admixed with each others at any point in their history. Genetic studies clearly show admixtures with West-Eurasian, what they look like, less so depending on the individual.
Don't tell me you seriously think there is 0% Eurasian admixtures in Somali? It would be ridiculous. Genetic research says above 40%. The same genetic research showing much lower percentages of Eurasian admixtures in other African populations from other regions (as posted above in this thread). So, they can't be that much biased in favor of Eurasian admixtures beside by what I said above about the representativity of the samples.
quote: I go mostly on what people look like. The generic Somali looks nothing like a European or an Asian. Again, check out the film "Captain Phillips".
Some do look a bit like Arab people but I agree they mostly look African and distinct. As I said above, I prefer to use science and go with quantifiable data not eye-balling images or people on the street.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Some do look a bit like Arab people but I agree they mostly look African and distinct. As I said above, I prefer to use science and go with quantifiable data not eye-balling images or people on the street.
But when human beings and human interests are involved the science is often tailored to fit ideological interests. So one has to be careful when so-called "scientific studies" are put out claiming so and so.
"Eye-balling": well, that kind of casual sociology is what determines whether you get searched at an European airport or whether some person gets pulled over by the Police in the U.S. The U.S. cops don't walk with genetic test kits when they are out patrolling.
And "Arab people"? That would include white Lebanese[I see them all the time in Africa], Syrians[ Assad of Syria and his wife look white to me], many Iraqis, Jordanians--all are mainly white. But on the Arabian peninsula the people there are darker and obviously not white. "Arab" includes a wide range of phenotypes--from white to African.
And don't forget that Africans crossed over first into West Asia and other contiguous parts before moving on. So what may be called Eurasian or "Arab" may just be an African phenotypical variant.
Truth is Somalis are phenotypically akin to the Nilotioc types stretching from Upper Egypt down to Uganda and Rwanda-Burundi.
Note that though genetic tests are useful they don't factor in all those environmental elements that eventually produce a particular phenotype. Haplogroup analysis only tells us the extent of random mutational distance and connection within the context of some mutation time frame.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Some do look a bit like Arab people but I agree they mostly look African and distinct. As I said above, I prefer to use science and go with quantifiable data not eye-balling images or people on the street.
But when human beings and human interests are involved the science is often tailored to fit ideological interests. So one has to be careful when so-called "scientific studies" are put out claiming so and so.
"Eye-balling": well, that kind of casual sociology is what determines whether you get searched at an European airport or whether some person gets pulled over by the Police in the U.S. The U.S. cops don't walk with genetic test kits when they are out patrolling.
And "Arab people"? That would include white Lebanese[I see them all the time in Africa], Syrians[ Assad of Syria and his wife look white to me], many Iraqis, Jordanians--all are mainly white. But on the Arabian peninsula the people there are darker and obviously not white. "Arab" includes a wide range of phenotypes--from white to African.
And don't forget that Africans crossed over first into West Asia and other contiguous parts before moving on. So what may be called Eurasian or "Arab" may just be an African phenotypical variant.
Truth is Somalis are phenotypically akin to the Nilotioc types stretching from Upper Egypt down to Uganda and Rwanda-Burundi.
Note that though genetic tests are useful they don't factor in all those environmental elements that eventually produce a particular phenotype. Haplogroup analysis only tells us the extent of random mutational distance and connection within the context of some mutation time frame.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Some do look a bit like Arab people but I agree they mostly look African and distinct. As I said above, I prefer to use science and go with quantifiable data not eye-balling images or people on the street.
But when human beings and human interests are involved the science is often tailored to fit ideological interests. So one has to be careful when so-called "scientific studies" are put out claiming so and so.
"Eye-balling": well, that kind of casual sociology is what determines whether you get searched at an European airport or whether some person gets pulled over by the Police in the U.S. The U.S. cops don't walk with genetic test kits when they are out patrolling.
And "Arab people"? That would include white Lebanese[I see them all the time in Africa], Syrians[ Assad of Syria and his wife look white to me], many Iraqis, Jordanians--all are mainly white. But on the Arabian peninsula the people there are darker and obviously not white. "Arab" includes a wide range of phenotypes--from white to African.
And don't forget that Africans crossed over first into West Asia and other contiguous parts before moving on. So what may be called Eurasian or "Arab" may just be an African phenotypical variant.
Truth is Somalis are phenotypically akin to the Nilotioc types stretching from Upper Egypt down to Uganda and Rwanda-Burundi.
Note that though genetic tests are useful they don't factor in all those environmental elements that eventually produce a particular phenotype. Haplogroup analysis only tells us the extent of random mutational distance and connection within the context of some mutation time frame.
Consigned.
quote: Oman and the adjoining districts, in shape of head, color, length and slenderness of limbs and scantiness of hair, point to an African origin." The first inhabitants of Arabia were known to the national traditions as Adites. The Scriptures called Ad a descendant of Ham.
I also wonder why the authors never mentioned the Abyssinian empire. As if it never existed.
quote: In any case, an antiquity of the root greater than that previously estimated is evident from the present tree structure. It is worth noting that A1b, long neglected in previous large-scale resequencing studies of theMSY, contributes to the older TMRCA and high nucleotide diversity values that we observe, highlighting the importance of targeted studies on rare haplogroups.
quote:Some do look a bit like Arab people but I agree they mostly look African and distinct. As I said above, I prefer to use science and go with quantifiable data not eye-balling images or people on the street.
But when human beings and human interests are involved the science is often tailored to fit ideological interests. So one has to be careful when so-called "scientific studies" are put out claiming so and so.
It's ok to question science but I based my analysis on a wide variety of studies and common sense (since they are neighboring territories).
Don't forget that those who ask you to renounce science also have their own ideological interests. So people must be careful about those too.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Some do look a bit like Arab people but I agree they mostly look African and distinct. As I said above, I prefer to use science and go with quantifiable data not eye-balling images or people on the street.
But when human beings and human interests are involved the science is often tailored to fit ideological interests. So one has to be careful when so-called "scientific studies" are put out claiming so and so.
It's ok to question science but I based my analysis on a wide variety of studies and common sense (since they are neighboring territories).
Don't forget that those who ask you to renounce science also have their own ideological interests. So people must be careful about those too.
The supplementary tables are most remarkable. These do not speak of neighboring territories. See "reference populations".
Supplementary information for: Ancient west Eurasian ancestry in southern and eastern Africa
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's ok to question science but I based my analysis on a wide variety of studies and common sense (since they are neighboring territories).
Neighbours do not necessarily marry each other. Kenya, Ethiopia, and Somalia are close neighbours but they marry each other only very rarely.
In the case of Somalia: some Arab types may have traveled over to Somalia with the Qur'an as their main ideological tool and decided to settle there. That could probably explain your so-called "Eurasian genes". But your numbers seem too high. The vast majority of the Somali population in no way resemble the Arab populations of the Levant and even the Arabian peninsula.
Question: would you say that the people of the Andaman Islands carry Asian genes--same for the people of New Guinea?
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's ok to question science but I based my analysis on a wide variety of studies and common sense (since they are neighboring territories).
Neighbours do not necessarily marry each other. Kenya, Ethiopia, and Somalia are close neighbours but they marry each other only very rarely.
In the case of Somalia: some Arab types may have traveled over to Somalia with the Qur'an as their main ideological tool and decided to settle there. That could probably explain your so-called "Eurasian genes". But your numbers seem too high. The vast majority of the Somali population in no way resemble the Arab populations of the Levant and even the Arabian peninsula.
Question: would you say that the people of the Andaman Islands carry Asian genes--same for the people of New Guinea?
Again you are not following what I am saying. I am saying that Mintsa is pushing an absurd line when he says that the true map of Africa is a linguistic map.To have 3,000 nations in Africa is just absurd. Only a fool would see nothing wrong with that.
The solution to the problem of Africa's weakness--both in economics and politics in this world--is to use more brain work and less laziness to create an Africa with just one or two languages excluding Arabic. Mintsa stupidly hands over the vast expanses of North Africa to the invader Arabs. They don't belong there and at some point should be expelled.
With a few unifying languages the foundatiosn would be set to establish regional and Pan African economies and political structures. The point is that organisations such as ECOWAS, AU, and SADEC have little influence on African economic and political life.
An European linguist created Esperanto many years ago but there were already the dominant languages of English, French, and German on the continent--with most educated Europeans especially Scandinavians very fluent in English. So Esperanto didn't progress very far.
It is a fact that the world's dominant nations are monolingual with indigenous languages being used. The only exception is the U.S. where the ancestors of more than 85% of the population did not speak English.
Your reveal your racist Taliban/ISIS mindset at every turn. White people who pretend to be black people and label everything in economic terms. The whole of African culture must be reduced to economic necessities, of which linguistic monocultures are a necessity. You may not realize it but English and French already serve that purpose, so why adopt other languages? Which African languages do you have in mind anyway?
Africans have were doing quite well until their governments were corrupted by banking and financial interests. Why don't you consider the condition of Greece and Spain today? What is happening there is what has been happening in Africa when governments are seduced by aid loans and grants which bankrupt the nation and undermine the governments abilities to set their own priorities.
Languages don't exist for economic purposes only. They are ways in which the human mind and spirit expresses itself, and according to you they have to be whittled down to a minimum in service of alleged economic needs. I wouldn't be surprised if people like you were the ones behind ISIS. Languages don't exist to serve economic needs, and African is not going to be like another EU or the US where banks take over the whole political system in the name of economic cooperation. Stop fronting and shilling for white supremacist banking cartels and take a hike.
Posts: 890 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's ok to question science but I based my analysis on a wide variety of studies and common sense (since they are neighboring territories).
Neighbours do not necessarily marry each other. Kenya, Ethiopia, and Somalia are close neighbours but they marry each other only very rarely.
In the case of Somalia: some Arab types may have traveled over to Somalia with the Qur'an as their main ideological tool and decided to settle there. That could probably explain your so-called "Eurasian genes". But your numbers seem too high. The vast majority of the Somali population in no way resemble the Arab populations of the Levant and even the Arabian peninsula.
Question: would you say that the people of the Andaman Islands carry Asian genes--same for the people of New Guinea?
Considering the geography of the region itself it is not lot logic a foreign people entered there in mass numbers. What may have happened was a genetic drift in the region.
And we know Arab ethnic groups have settled in the Horn, during the expel, 700 A.D.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's what science says about the proportion of Eurasian admixture in various African populations (alleles which appeared in Eurasia after the OOA migrations). They used 3 different methods which convey slightly different percentages. Of course we could do the same thing and show the percentage of African admixtures in Eurasians (alleles which appeared in Africa after the OOA migrations). As I said in another thread, Einstein is said to be from the African E haplogroups, which is an haplogroup which appeared in Africa well after the OOA migrations. There's a lot of African E haplogroups carriers in the Balkans for example too (probably due to genetic drift considering MtDNA and autosomal DNA but this is still evidence of admixtures).
posted
I asked for the meaning of "Eurasian gene" and I am waiting for an answer.
I also asked whether the Andaman Islanders and New Guineans also carry Asian genes to the maximum or even "Eurasian genes".
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your reveal your racist Taliban/ISIS mindset at every turn. White people who pretend to be black people and label everything in economic terms. The whole of African culture must be reduced to economic necessities, of which linguistic monocultures are a necessity. You may not realize it but English and French already serve that purpose, so why adopt other languages? Which African languages do you have in mind anyway?
Africans have were doing quite well until their governments were corrupted by banking and financial interests. Why don't you consider the condition of Greece and Spain today? What is happening there is what has been happening in Africa when governments are seduced by aid loans and grants which bankrupt the nation and undermine the governments abilities to set their own priorities.
Languages don't exist for economic purposes only.
quote:They are ways in which the human mind and spirit expresses itself, and according to you they have to be whittled down to a minimum in service of alleged economic needs. I wouldn't be surprised if people like you were the ones behind ISIS. Languages don't exist to serve economic needs, and African is not going to be like another EU or the US where banks take over the whole political system in the name of economic cooperation. Stop fronting and shilling for white supremacist banking cartels and take a hike.
Mostly illiterate gibberish from an infantile mind. Waste of time to mix intellectually with morons. Sorry.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
So that would include Andaman Island and New Guinean genes? Right?
But let's get down to the "hidden meaning" behind all this Eurasian talk. It's just the old discredited Seligman hypothesis dressed up in fancy biological language.
Seligman(1930)claimed that civilisation arose in Africa only when "quicker witted" West Asian Hamites invaded Africa to inject "better genes" into the resident "negro"[the colonial term au courant at the time]. These quicker witted West Asian types were dubbed as Hamites--thereby giving rise to the "Hamitic hypothesis" which included the so-called "dynastic race" invading from West Asia that gave rise to the AE civilisation.
This Seligman thesis is still at work under the guise of "Eurasian genes entering Africa" hypothesis.
But let's assume there is such a thing as an "Eurasian gene" then what is its significance? The Somalis and Foulahs who are reported to carry the most are only 2 of Africa's very varied phenotypical and genotypical terrain.
Many Cameroonians carry the R1b gene which is shared with West Europeans and South East Asians. OK, but what does that confer on those Cameroonians who are carriers? Nothing really.
So this Eurocentric obsession with Eurasian genes in African populations is not much more than pseudo-racial narcissism--the modern version of the Seligman hypothesis.
The point is that the non-African rest of the world all carry variants of African genes--whether one touts the OOA or Multiregional hypothesis for the peopling of the world. Yet that obvious fact does not excite racial juices as the "Eurasian gene" hypothesis.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, we are all humans and all siblings. Population genetics makes a big case out of the few genetic variations among humans. My interest in it is to study history and the movements of people. Humans are about I think 99.9% similar genetically. Population genetics seems to make a big case out of the 0.01% or so. Each humans are born with about 60-100 new mutations. So we are also all unique in a way.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lamin: I asked for the meaning of "Eurasian gene" and I am waiting for an answer.
The answer is there you just didn't notice it.
Eurasian "gene": alleles which appeared in Eurasia after the OOA migrations
Haplo E-V13 they say originated in the Cresent/ Eurasia And is associated with the spread of farming. The Balkan carries this E-V13.
And one point in time, they claimed that entire Hg E* arose at Eurasia. How about that one!
On multiple occasions we have noticed that so-called eurians allleles had their root in nuclear resolutions found in Africa.
Ps, you don't study history and movements, otherwise you would have answered questions addressed on archeology, anthropology assemblages. As we know you always considered it as irrelevant. Your background in history is laughable, since you only came to know about Seligman's thesis until today.
quote: Y-DNA haplogroup F is the parent of all Y-DNA haplogroups G through T and contains more than 90 percent of the world's population. Haplogroup F was in the original migration out of Africa, or else it was founded soon afterward, because F and its sub-haplogroups are primarily found outside, with very few inside, sub-Saharan Africa. The founder of F could have lived between 60,000 and 80,000 years ago, depending on the time of the out-of-Africa migration.
quote:The IJ haplogroup characterizes part of the second wave of emigration from Africa that occurred via the Middle East 45,000 years bp and defines two branches I and J that emigrated northwards and eastwards into Europe. The J branch subsequently split again and contributed to the current North African population.
quote:Originally posted by lamin: So that would include Andaman Island and New Guinean genes? Right?
But let's get down to the "hidden meaning" behind all this Eurasian talk. It's just the old discredited Seligman hypothesis dressed up in fancy biological language.
Seligman(1930)claimed that civilisation arose in Africa only when "quicker witted" West Asian Hamites invaded Africa to inject "better genes" into the resident "negro"[the colonial term au courant at the time]. These quicker witted West Asian types were dubbed as Hamites--thereby giving rise to the "Hamitic hypothesis" which included the so-called "dynastic race" invading from West Asia that gave rise to the AE civilisation.
This Seligman thesis is still at work under the guise of "Eurasian genes entering Africa" hypothesis.
But let's assume there is such a thing as an "Eurasian gene" then what is its significance? The Somalis and Foulahs who are reported to carry the most are only 2 of Africa's very varied phenotypical and genotypical terrain.
Many Cameroonians carry the R1b gene which is shared with West Europeans and South East Asians. OK, but what does that confer on those Cameroonians who are carriers? Nothing really.
So this Eurocentric obsession with Eurasian genes in African populations is not much more than pseudo-racial narcissism--the modern version of the Seligman hypothesis.
The point is that the non-African rest of the world all carry variants of African genes--whether one touts the OOA or Multiregional hypothesis for the peopling of the world. Yet that obvious fact does not excite racial juices as the "Eurasian gene" hypothesis.
Consigned!
All this obsesses is over ancient Egypt, eventually.
quote: Seligman acknowledged varying degrees of Negroid admixture amongst the Hamitic groups, but emphasized throughout his major works the essential racial and cultural unity of the various Hamitic peoples. In his Some Aspects of the Hamitic Problem in the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan (1913), he writes that the Northern and Eastern Hamitic "groups shade into each other, and in many parts a Negro admixture has taken place, nevertheless, culturally if not always physically, either division stands apart from its fellow."[11]
Ps, don't really expect an answer, from AR the Ultimate. Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here is more on the paper pushed by AR the Ultimate.
They have found away to claim populations responsible for the rise of ancient Egypt. By populations who gave rise the Walata, Kerma, Nabta Playa, Naqada. Because they inhabited these regions "actually", as they claim.
quote: Specifically, ancient Eurasian admixture was observed in central West African populations (Yoruba; ~7,500–10,500 years ago), old admixture among Ethiopian populations (~2,400–3,200 years ago) consistent with previous reports10, 12, and more recent complex admixture in some East African populations (~150–1,500 years ago) (Fig. 2, Extended Data Fig. 7 and Supplementary Note 5).
Our finding of ancient Eurasian admixture corroborates findings of non-zero Neanderthal ancestry in Yoruba, which is likely to have been introduced through Eurasian admixture and back migration, possibly facilitated by greening of the Sahara desert during this period 13, 14.
The African Genome Variation Project shapes medical genetics in Africa
Nature 517, 327–332 (15 January 2015) doi:10.1038/nature13997
posted
No, this African Genome Variation Project is very good for recognizing the African ethnic affiliation of Ancient Egyptians since the earliest substantial trace of Eurasian admixtures in this Northeastern part of Africa is said to be 986 BC (see my post above in this thread). Which correspond roughly to Assyrians and other late period foreign conquest of Ancient Egypt (Greeks, Romans, etc).
Of course, only Ancient DNA taken from actual Ancient Egyptian mummies can confirm the thing. But as you know it is the case considering Ramses III is determined to be E1b1a (BMJ study) and the JAMA/BMJ and DNA Tribes analysis of the autosomal DNA of the Ancient Egyptian mummies. AKA they are all Africans related to so-called Sub-Saharan Africans more than any other people.
As you know, I always considered as very probable that they must have been low level of Eurasian admixtures in Ancient Egyptians probably even at its foundation stage. That is even much before the Hyksos/Aamu conquest during the second intermediate period. But the African Genome Variation Project, if we extend the results to the whole Northeastern African region, and the ancient DNA taken from actual AEians mummies all indicate that this admixture would be very minimal. Ancient Egyptians mummies, according to current results, are mostly black Africans (See BMJ, JAMA and DNA Tribes studies).
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: No, this African Genome Variation Project is very good for recognizing the African ethnic affiliation of Ancient Egyptians since the earliest substantial trace of Eurasian admixtures in this Northeastern part of Africa is said to be 986 BC (see my post above in this thread). Which correspond roughly to Assyrians and other late period foreign conquest of Ancient Egypt (Greeks, Romans, etc).
Of course, only Ancient DNA taken from actual Ancient Egyptian mummies can confirm the thing. But as you know it is the case considering Ramses III is determined to be E1b1a (BMJ study) and the JAMA/BMJ and DNA Tribes analysis of the autosomal DNA of the Ancient Egyptian mummies. AKA they are all Africans related to so-called Sub-Saharan Africans more than any other people.
As you know, I always considered as very probable that they must have been low level of Eurasian admixtures in Ancient Egyptians probably even at its foundation stage. That is even much before the Hyksos/Aamu conquest during the second intermediate period. But the African Genome Variation Project, if we extend the results to the whole Northeastern African region, and the ancient DNA taken from actual AEians mummies all indicate that this admixture would be very minimal. Ancient Egyptians mummies, according to current results, are mostly black Africans (See BMJ, JAMA and DNA Tribes studies).
In craniometric studies, ancient Egyptians don't cluster/pool or closely match with modern West/Central African (i.e. "Negroid") means, they are fairly close though to Somali or Horn populations (Froment, 1991, 1992, 1994):
Also claiming that "Somalis" are part of "black phenotypic diversity" (as those with the ESR pan-African political agenda claim) is false, since Sub-Saharan Africans/"blacks" do not cluster together. So despite Froment writing: "Horn of Africa (Tigré and Somalia) fit well into Egyptian variations", this does not mean you can extend this to West Africa.
Posts: 504 | From: No longer here | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
Amun Ra keep in mind that Troll Patrol like xyyman think that no new haplogroups formed after humans left Africa
Ask TP to name a haplogroup that is Eurasian. He will say there are none.
That is the philosophy of xyyman and Troll Patrol so all their argumenataion is built on that premise
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
AngloBuffoon says: In craniometric studies, ancient Egyptians don't cluster/pool or closely match with modern West/Central African
^^Laughably Bogus as usual, and Froment shows that indeed the Egyptians match with other African populations. Sure, but that's only one African population at hand. His data shows the Horn especially but other studies debunk your claim.
Yawn.
And why would West and Central Africans be the only "true" representatives of Africans, while you do not apply the same standard in white Europe? Take your hypocritical double standards out of here.
But in any event, the closest match with the Egyptians are fellow Africans, Nubians to be exact, an unmistakably "black" population. Sorry. You lose again.
And as for craniometric studies, others show just such links with "West/Central" Africans.
As always, you lose again.
AngloBuffoon/Pyramido/Dead/"Thule" says: Also claiming that "Somalis" are part of "black phenotypic diversity" (as those with the ESR pan-African political agenda claim) is false, since Sub- Saharan Africans/"blacks" do not cluster together.
^Hapless buffoon, must we again school you? Here are the sub-Saharan Somalians and notice they DO cluster with other sub-Saharan blacks. Don't you get tired of being debunked on the same nonsense? What? You think by running the same BS claims every few months that it will change anything?
No matter what screen name you reappear under to retail your rubbish, it is already "dead" on arrival.
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dead: In craniometric studies
Those things have been discussed countless times on this forum. Your argument only works (edit:well not really if you consider Zarahan's post above for example) if you ignore DNA studies and post-cranial analysis. You must take all lines of argumentation into account.
Population Affinities of the Jebel Sahaba Skeletal Sample by Trenton Holliday 2013
Ancient Egyptians are their own people different from modern West/East/South Africans. But they are related to Sub-Saharan black Africans (Zulu, Yoruba, Somali, Karrayyu, Wolof, Kongo, etc) much more than they are related to Eurasians or West Asians. This is what DNA, limb proportion/post-cranial analysis and craniometric analysis says. Of the 3, DNA provides the best discriminative power.
This is just to say racist people in the past were wrong when they tried to claim AE was founded by a dynastic race coming from outside the continent to create Ancient Egypt in Africa. AEians were truly indigenous black Africans. Made of people who stayed back in Africa during the OOA migrations. Related and in continuity with the Green Sahara, Nabta Playa, Tasian, Badarian, Naqada culture.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
They don't cluster/overlap/pool with any modern population - they are just closer to Somalis than West/Central Africans ("Negroids") in Africa. However they are as close as Somalis, as to southern Mediterranean's (above I was only discussing Africa). The post-cranial data shows the same.
"Le physique des egyptiens anciens est exactement a equidistance de celiu des europeens et se celui des negro-africains; certaines populations de la mediterranee d'une part de la corne de l'afrique (Tigre, Somalie) de l'autre, tombent a l'interieur de la gamme de variation des egyptiens anciens". (Froment, 1992)
trans:
"Physically the ancient ancient Egyptians are exactly equal distance of European and that of the African Negro; some populations of the mediterranean on one hand the Horn of Africa (Tigre, Somalia) on the other, fall in the interior of the range of variation of the ancient Egyptians."
They are 'intermediate', un gradient de forme régulier (trans. “a regular gradient form”) between Europeans and Sub-Saharan Africans, but closest to southern Mediterraneans in the north, and Somalis to their south).
Crappy images spams won't save you. Educated people can read and see this clinal data. You guys are like 5-10 years behind on this stuff.
Posts: 504 | From: No longer here | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
Show me a genetic study that supports continental or "racial" clustering. The idea there is an "African" genetic cluster is totally bogus. This is discredited racialism plain and simple. You guys support it because you're driven by a political pan-African or "black" nationalist agenda (which is what that ESR forum is), but this has no support from science whatsoever.
"Zones of discontinuity in human gene frequency distributions are present, but the local gradients are so small that they can be identified only by simultaneously studying many loci using complex statistical techniques. In addition, such regions of relatively sharp genetic change do not surround large clusters of populations, on a continental or nearly continental scale. On the contrary, they occur irregularly, within continents and even within single countries." - Barbujani et al. 1997
Without an "African" cluster, the stuff you are posting totally collapses. "Don't you get tired of being debunked on the same nonsense?" yet when Zaharan is at the level of a Stormfront poster who thinks there are races/genetic continental clusters. lol. Wasn't he meant to be an ES veteran? Yet he's not learnt the basics of clines in all these years.
Posts: 504 | From: No longer here | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: well not really if you consider Zarahan's post above for example
Post directly out of Keita 2005 and try to debunk what Dead says and you will fail, just like your string of failures ever since you started meddling in anthro conversations you don't know anything about.
Keep on hammering 'em Dead. Apparently they're still in need of a full fledged intellectual ass-whoopin'.
The data in Keita 2005 comes to the exact same conclusion as Froment, only thing is both don't explicitly account for the fact that most/all the Med samples have "Egyptian" ancestry (although both authors may be aware of it), causing the northern and eastern Mediterranean samples to gravitate towards the NE African series. The dynastic Egyptian samples that diverge from the predynastic Naqada samples also have non-local ancestry.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
AngloBufoon/Thule says: "Physically the ancient ancient Egyptians are exactly equal distance of European and that of the African Negro; some populations of the mediterranean on one hand the Horn of Africa (Tigre, Somalia) on the other, fall in the interior of the range of variation of the ancient Egyptians."
Sure in Froment's sample they may be "equal distance" but as he himself admits "Horn of Africa (Tigré and Somalia) fit well into Egyptian variations". The primary cluster is STILL with sub-Saharan Africans, a point confirmed by other studies more current than Froment 1992. You fail again.
The idea there is an "African" genetic cluster is totally bogus.
But, you your yourself say they cluster with Africans in the south, and produce a writer that says just that. If the cluster is "non-existent," as you now claim, after having on the same page asserted that it does, then you are not only a very confused individual, but again, have contradicted your own claim, with your own "supporting" reference.
"Zones of discontinuity in human gene frequency distributions are present, but the local gradients are so small that they can be identified only by simultaneously studying many loci using complex statistical techniques. In addition, such regions of relatively sharp genetic change do not surround large clusters of populations, on a continental or nearly continental scale. On the contrary, they occur irregularly, within continents and even within single countries." - Barbujani et al. 1997
lol, you fail again. Up above Barbjuani says "they occur" within continents, and we are talking populations inside Africa's Nile Valley. You are trying to divert attention from your earlier failure by "broadening" into a strawman query, but you still fail. Barbujani himself acknowledged clustering of Africans found in other studies, noting that sampling schemes, loci chosen, etc impact results, a point made to you by Badmuntish or whatever he is called now almost 2 years ago. You were debunked then and still are now. Posting the same BS 2 years later in the hope people have forgotten won't save you. Even recent arrival Amun-ra has pointed out glaring errors and contradictions in your claims. But let's take your own writer elsewhere. Quote:
With k=6 Rosenberg et al. [49] found genetic clusters corresponding to (1) Africa, (2) Europe, Western Asia and part of Central Asia; (3) the Kalash of Pakistan; (4) East Asia and part of Central Asia; (5) Oceania; and (6) South America. Bamshad et al. [68] observed a separation between Africa and Eurasia with k=2, a split between Asia and Europe with k=3, and two African clusters with k=4, confirming that variation within Africa exceeds that among other continents [57, 69, 70]. EXCERPT FROM: Human Races: Classifying People vs Understanding Diversity. Current Genomics, 2005, 6, 000-000 Guido Barbujani*
Barbjuani noted results can be mixed based on sampling, beginning assumptions, etc but once again, someone you used as a "supporting" reference, debunks your claim that there is no support for such clusters. Your own guy which you referenced says there is.
Hapless buffoon! When are you going to learn that the very same "supporting" references you keep using undermine your position? lmao..
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
What Keita 2005 actually says, if you can get past the tendentious misrepresentations of the Keita parasites, who, for some reason, still can't be trusted to paraphrase him correctly after ten years:
quote:At another level, the morphometric patterns of Egyptian crania in general, although highly variable, exhibit a position intermediate to stereotypical tropical Africans and Europeans in multivariate analyses (see review in Keita, 1993).
--Keita 2005
quote:The results are not supportive of European agriculturalists colonizing el-Badari in the early- to mid-Holocene. The Badarian series evinces greater phenetic affinity with the tropical African comparative groups and, notably, the east African Teita. This affinity is relative and not to be taken as indicating identity. This finding can only be interpreted as showing a particular broad similarity in the morphometric space circumscribed by the particular groups used
--Keita 2005
quote:The Badarians were a local Saharo-Nile Valley population, based on archaeological and other data (see below).
--Keita 2005
quote: The dendrograms of Brace et al. (1993) would seem to illustrate in the main a facet of indigenous African diversity observed elsewhere: a subset of African series evincing similarity to non-African groups not primarily due to gene flow, analogous to individual Africans (even with the socially constructed stereotypical African morphophenotype) being found throughout mtDNA of trees of world samples, in some analyses
--Keita 2005
quote:Additional analyses using 22 variables and including additional material from Sudan, late dynastic northern Egypt (Gizeh), Somalia, Asia, and the Pacific islands, show the Badarian series to be most similar to a series from the northeast quadrant of Africa and then to other Africans.
--Keita 2005
quote:The evidence indicates early Egypt to foundationally belong to a northeast African biocultural descendant community.
--Keita 2005
^There is no fundamental discrepancy between Froment's and Keita's results, despite shaky attempts to insinuate otherwise.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kdolo: hahahahahahahahaha
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers/Mikemiev: posted 07 February, 2013 04:30 PM [Forensic anthropologists, osteologists and paleo-anthropologists who use craniometry still exist and their research is valid.
You're just setting up a well known fallacy to try and portray physical racial anthropology as "obsolete", when it isn't, and never will be.
^^2 years ago he argued for racial clustering based on craniometry. Now up above he says clusters are invalid, or "totally bogus." Which is it? He can't have it both ways. Can't he keep track of his many bogus or contradictory claims which too often are "dead" on arrival?
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's little wrong with that old quote of mine. There is a systematic structure (i.e. geographical patterning) to cranial variation. If there wasn't - a forensic scientist wouldn't be able to determine someone's ancestry with 70-80% success rate. However, while there are populations that differ in terms of (mean) skeletal measurements, they don't cluster or form a nested hierarchy at the continental or sub-continental level (this is why if I use terms like "Negroid" I now always highlight them) hence:
"We can only concur with Howells modification of Livingstone’s 1962 quote: ‘There are no races, only populations." (Ousley et al. 2009)
I abandoned race/clustering for the populationist approach in 2013, as well as recognising the strong clinal pattern of human biological variation. But in forensic science, "race" is synonymous with population or ancestry. That's more a semantics issue though.
What I have stated though is correct: populations in Africa don't cluster together as a continent.
Posts: 504 | From: No longer here | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
Note also that Amun Ra's repeated botched attempts at citing out of Holliday's work shows how truly cosmically confused he is. He and his fellow ideologues try to create a fictive rift between OOA and non-OOA populations, but it will get the looney toons nowhere.
In full accordance with OOA, it has already been demonstrated by Holliday that the AMHs that excited Africa after 70kya had a bodyplan that was an extension of the NE African bodyplan (Holliday 1997a), further demonstrating the patent absurdity of trying to create a fictive Africa-nonAfrica boundary, or a continentally circumscribed cluster of Africans vs Eurasians using Holliday's work (or anyone else', for that matter).
quote:As in the NJ tree, the EUP are closest to the Sub-Saharan Africans. In this case, they share closest morphological affinity with the Sudanese [Kerma]. Interestingly, the LUP and MES sample are closest to each other, but are connected to the recent humans via a North African group (Nubia)—a result similar to that obtained in the NJ cluster.
--Holliday 1997a
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: You must take all lines of argumentation into account.
Population Affinities of the Jebel Sahaba Skeletal Sample by Trenton Holliday 2013
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Some folk will never understand the game.
The times and the techniques change but the Hamite and/or Caucasian N&E Africa mentality by the academy remains the same despite new shoes and clothes.
It is important to push Eurasian Nigeria in the best Speke Seligman Baker mode because of
* Iwo Eleru * Dafuna canoe * Nok (terra cotta et al * Ife (lost wax et al)
how could the dull witted negroes accomplish what those items represent without superior the Eurasian Hamite Caucasian N&E Africa "genes?"
Seligman (1930) claimed that civilisation arose in Africa only when "quicker witted" West Asian Hamites invaded Africa to inject "better genes" into the resident "negro"[the colonial term au courant at the time]. These quicker witted West Asian types were dubbed as Hamites--thereby giving rise to the "Hamitic hypothesis" which included the so-called "dynastic race" invading from West Asia that gave rise to the AE civilisation. This Seligman thesis is still at work under the guise of "Eurasian genes entering Africa" hypothesis.
But let's assume there is such a thing as an "Eurasian gene" then what is its significance? ...
[...]
So this Eurocentric obsession with Eurasian genes in African populations is not much more than pseudo-racial narcissism--the modern version of the Seligman hypothesis.
Our finding of ancient Eurasian admixture corroborates findings of non-zero Neanderthal ancestry in Yoruba, which is likely to have been introduced through Eurasian admixture and back migration, possibly facilitated by greening of the Sahara desert during this period 13, 14.
Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:Originally posted by lamin: I asked for the meaning of "Eurasian gene" and I am waiting for an answer.
The answer is there you just didn't notice it.
Eurasian "gene": alleles which appeared in Eurasia after the OOA migrations
Haplo E-V13 they say originated in the Cresent/ Eurasia And is associated with the spread of farming. The Balkan carries this E-V13.
And one point in time, they claimed that entire Hg E* arose at Eurasia. How about that one!
On multiple occasions we have noticed that so-called eurians allleles had their root in nuclear resolutions found in Africa.
Ps, you don't study history and movements, otherwise you would have answered questions addressed on archeology, anthropology assemblages. As we know you always considered it as irrelevant. Your background in history is laughable, since you only came to know about Seligman's thesis until today.
quote: Y-DNA haplogroup F is the parent of all Y-DNA haplogroups G through T and contains more than 90 percent of the world's population. Haplogroup F was in the original migration out of Africa, or else it was founded soon afterward, because F and its sub-haplogroups are primarily found outside, with very few inside, sub-Saharan Africa. The founder of F could have lived between 60,000 and 80,000 years ago, depending on the time of the out-of-Africa migration.
quote:The IJ haplogroup characterizes part of the second wave of emigration from Africa that occurred via the Middle East 45,000 years bp and defines two branches I and J that emigrated northwards and eastwards into Europe. The J branch subsequently split again and contributed to the current North African population.
posted
"Badumtish" is/was a philosopher. I debated him from 2011-early 2013. He didn't understand about science. Also despite him claiming his philosophy was "individualistic" he just robbed it from Nelson Goodman. All his arguments were from Goodman, a nominalist and critic of set theory who argued similarity is a flawed concept - so absolutely nothing can be categorized.
His favourite quote he used to spam was this:
"Suppose that one is to list the attributes that plums and lawnmowers have in common in order to judge their similarity. It is easy to see that the list could be infinite: Both weigh less than 10,000 kg (and less than 10,001 kg), both did not exist 10,000,000 years ago (and 10,000,001 years ago), both cannot hear well, both can be dropped, both take up space, and so on. Likewise, the list of differences could be infinite… any two entities can be arbitrarily similar or dissimilar by changing the criterion of what counts as a relevant attribute.”
Though, this is pretty good to troll people with.
Posts: 504 | From: No longer here | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Note also that Amun Ra's repeated botched attempts at citing out of Holliday's work shows how truly cosmically confused he is. He and his fellow ideologues try to create a fictive rift between OOA and non-OOA populations, but it will get the looney toons nowhere.
It has already been demonstrated by Holliday that the AMHs that excited Africa after 70kya had a bodyplan that was an extension of the NE African bodyplan (Holliday 1997a), further demonstrating the patent absurdity of trying to create a fictive Africa-nonAfrica boundary, or a continentally circumscribed cluster of Africans vs Eurasian, using Holliday's work (or anyone else', for that matter).
quote:As in the NJ tree, the EUP are closest to the Sub-Saharan Africans. In this case, they share closest morphological affinity with the Sudanese [Kerma]. Interestingly, the LUP and MES sample are closest to each other, but are connected to the recent humans via a North African group (Nubia)—a result similar to that obtained in the NJ cluster.
--Holliday 1997a
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: You must take all lines of argumentation into account.
Population Affinities of the Jebel Sahaba Skeletal Sample by Trenton Holliday 2013
FROMENT (A.) 1998, Le peuplement de l’Afrique Centrale : contribution de la paléoanthropologie, in M. Delneuf, J.-M. Essomba, A. Froment (éds), Paléoanthropologie en Afrique centrale : un bilan de l’Archéologie au Cameroun.
quote:With k=6 Rosenberg et al. [49] found genetic clusters corresponding to (1) Africa, (2) Europe, Western Asia and part of Central Asia; (3) the Kalash of Pakistan; (4) East Asia and part of Central Asia; (5) Oceania; and (6) South America. Bamshad et al. [68] observed a separation between Africa and Eurasia with k=2, a split between Asia and Europe with k=3, and two African clusters with k=4, confirming that variation within Africa exceeds that among other continents [57, 69, 70]. EXCERPT FROM: Human Races: Classifying People vs Understanding Diversity. Current Genomics, 2005, 6, 000-000 Guido Barbujani*
Barbjuani noted results can be mixed based on sampling, beginning assumptions, etc but once again, someone you used as a "supporting" reference, debunks your claim that there is no support for such clusters. Your own guy which you referenced says there is.
Barbujani does quote Rosenberg, but he/she debunks his continental clusters. See also Serre and Pääbo (2004).
Serre and Pääbo (2004) argued that sampling often concentrates on “the extremes of continental land masses” (p. 1680), maximizing the geographic and therefore genetic distance between individuals presumed to belong to distinct continental clusters. Without “a sampling strategy that maximizes the geographic distribution of samples and keeps similar sample size for each geographical area,” they warned, researchers risked falsely creating “apparent substructures” (Serre and Pääbo 2004:1681). In contrast, when these researchers designed a study that sampled individuals “such that their geographic distribution around the world approximates the distribution of the human population as a whole and includes areas where Africa, Asia, and Europe meet,” the pattern of genetic variation they found was “one of gradients of allele frequencies that extend over the entire world, rather than discrete clusters” (Serre and Pääbo 2004:1679-1680)
Rosenberg just took samples from distant locations (with few or no samples between those extremes). Its no wonder he produces clusters, since he polarized the data by missing lots of populations.Barbujani warns against this. So my "supporting reference" does not go against what I posted.
Posts: 504 | From: No longer here | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sure in Froment's sample they may be "equal distance" but as he himself admits "Horn of Africa (Tigré and Somalia) fit well into Egyptian variations".
When you look at the means (as central tendencies/probabilities) they don't exactly "fit well"; look at the diagram. While Somalis are the closest modern African population to Egyptians in his study, they still don't pool together or sit on top of each other as an average. But they "fit well" in the sense of variation/range overlap.
Anyway, if you look you have "Proto-Meds" as close as the Somalis. Those are the Mediterraneans he mentions:
"Physically the ancient ancient Egyptians are exactly equal distance of European and that of the African Negro; some populations of the Mediterranean on one hand the Horn of Africa (Tigre, Somalia) on the other, fall in the interior of the range of variation of the ancient Egyptians."
quote: The primary cluster is STILL with sub-Saharan Africans, a point confirmed by other studies more current than Froment 1992. You fail again.
No, this is false. See above.
quote:But, you your yourself say they cluster with Africans in the south, and produce a writer that says just that. If the cluster is "non-existent," as you now claim, after having on the same page asserted that it does, hence you are not only a very confused individual, but again, have contradicted your own claim, with your own "supporting" reference.
Neither me or the study states they cluster with Africans. A breakdown:
1. Ancient Egyptians fall intermediate as a mean between Sub-Saharan Africans and Europeans.
2. Ancient Egyptians are closest as a mean to southern Mediterraneans and Somalis.
3. Given morphological overlap in the range of variation among populations, these closest populations "fit well" into the Egyptian morphological variation, despite not overlapping in means.
There's no clustering here whatsoever.
Posts: 504 | From: No longer here | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:At another level, the morphometric patterns of Egyptian crania in general, although highly variable, exhibit a position intermediate to stereotypical tropical Africans and Europeans in multivariate analyses (see review in Keita, 1993).
--Keita 2005
quote:There is no fundamental discrepancy between Froment's and Keita's results, despite shaky attempts to insinuate otherwise. [/QB]
Good quote. Virtually everyone seems to have missed Krantz (1980) (even, Keita 1993) who labelled Egyptians as just Saharans or Saharanoids. He described them as having a mix of Negroid and Caucasoid features but contra Coon, argued this was not the result of race mixture, so he was along the same lines of Froment and Keita. Krantz' book though is very simplistic and he only discusses a small number of climatic (i.e. adaptive) traits. The only reason Krantz' book is ignored is because he believed in bigfoot, do he basically isolated himself in academia and then all other scientists ignored him. Howeber this is unfortunate because regardless of his fringe views on cryptozoology, he was one of the best physical anthropologists of the mid-late 20th century.
Posts: 504 | From: No longer here | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic