posted
Until now. A paper published online this week in Science (http://scim.ag/MGLlorente) reveals the first prehistoric genome from Africa: that of Mota, a hunter-gatherer man who lived 4500 years ago in the highlands of Ethiopia. Named for the cave that held the remains, the Mota genome “is an impressive feat,” says Hodgson, who was not involved in the work. It “gives our first glimpse into what an African genome looked like prior to many of the recent population movements.” And when compared with the genomes of living Africans, it implies something startling. Africa is usually seen as a source of outward migrations, but the genomes suggest a major migration into Africa by farmers from the Middle East, possibly about 3500 years ago. These farmers' DNA reached deep into the continent, spreading even to groups considered isolated, such as the Khoisan of South Africa and the pygmies of the Congo.
posted
This is a stupid study. It is based on the proposition that Africans have been isolated on the African continent. This is a myth there were numerous Out of Africa exits. As a result, many Eurasians carry genes introduced to Eurasia by African people, not the other way around.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
By comparing 250,000 base pairs from Mota's genome with the same sites in individuals from 40 populations in Africa and 81 populations from Europe and Asia, the team found that Mota was most closely related to the Ari, an ethnic group that still lives nearby in the Ethiopian highlands. They zeroed in on the DNA that the Ari carry but Mota doesn't, which was presumably added during the past 4500 years. They found that Mota lacks about 4% to 7% of the DNA found in the Ari and all other Africans examined. This new DNA most closely matches that of modern Sardinians and a prehistoric farmer who lived in Germany. Hints of these early farmers' DNA previously had turned up in some living Africans, but Mota helped researchers zero in on the farmer's genetic signature in Africa, and to establish when it arrived.
Ancient Ethiopian genome reveals extensive Eurasian admixture throughout the African continent
Abstract
Characterizing genetic diversity in Africa is a crucial step for most analyses reconstructing the evolutionary history of anatomically modern humans. However, historic migrations from Eurasia into Africa have affected many contemporary populations, confounding inferences. Here, we present a 12.5x coverage ancient genome of an Ethiopian male (‘Mota’) who lived approximately 4,500 years ago. We use this genome to demonstrate that the Eurasian backflow into Africa came from a population closely related to Early Neolithic farmers, who had colonized Europe 4,000 years earlier. The extent of this backflow was much greater than previously reported, reaching all the way to Central, West and Southern Africa, affecting even populations such as Yoruba and Mbuti, previously thought to be relatively unadmixed, who harbor 6-7% Eurasian ancestry.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Material like this clearly demonstrates why the Albinos should be forced to have their material reviewed by Afrocentrics before publication.
The Albinos are clearly confusing and jumbling together, two separate phenomenon.
The first phenomenon was the MANY WAVES of Africans migrating to the middle East and Asia, circa 100,000+ and Europe beginning circa 45,000 B.C.
AND THE MANY EVENTS THAT FORCED THESE AFRICANS TO RETURN TO AFRICA "OR" GO "DEEPER" INTO AFRICA!
The Egyptian invasion by the Sea People would be one of those events. (This represents a return of Africans from Europe).
The various Albino invasions of North Africa would be others.
The Capture of Egypt would be another.
The destruction of Israel would be another.
The Turk capture of Turkey (the Byzantine Empire) and the middle East, would be another.
The Mongol destruction of Persia would be another.
All of these events, and more, would have caused "SOME" Blacks to seek refuge in Sub-Sahara Africa.
.
. Mike you have touched on an issue that is never discussed by any researchers I have read so far. That is the forced migration of Black and African people from Eurasia due to the expansion of mongoloids and white europeans into regions formerly inhabited by Blacks.
I will repeat what I wrote earlier:
quote: Geneticists make inferences denying the agency of Negroes or Blacks in world history to protect the self-esteem of white people. To protect the self-esteem of whites researchers have to make Negroes only live in Sub-Saharan Africa.
This is all part of the [ white] Academy's goal to decrease the number of negro races, by declaring that only Blacks in Africa, are negroes, and Blacks in Eurasia and Australia are different races entirely. This idea is falsified by anthropology, archaeology, craniometrics and linguistics, so scientist are using genetics to isolate the negro in Africa.
The major problem with using genetics is that if a researcher reads the literature that discover that the DNA always points back to Africans. So they continually have to give the DNA new nomenclatures to pretend that Africans have not influenced certain populations. The best example is the R clade.
Europeans are predominately, R1-M173 and R2. The pristine form of M173 is found in Africa, to separate Africans from the rest of the world that said all African M173, was V88. They they claimed that , a sister clade M269, was evidence of European background, but this haplogroup is carried by just about every African population including Khoisan, Anu (pygmies) and numerous sub-Saharan groups. This indicated that Europeans were not unique carriers of R1. This along with the Dravidians being the major carriers of R2, indicate that this haplogroup is also evidence of African ancestry. This indicates that whites carrying the R haplogroup are descendants of Africans.
This reality does not sit well with Europeans--whites--so the scientific community has attempted to move away from the idea that all Blacks are negroes, so they can pretend that certain Blacks, like the Dravidians who carry the Europeans precious R2, are not negroes--but black skinned whites. The mainland Asians, carry Melanesian DNA, so the Melanesians must also be forced out of the classification of Negro. Making Sub-Saharan Africans, the only Negroes, is the only model that make Europeans and Asians unique populations, rather than having to teach the truth, that modern Europeans and Asians are white and yellow skinned NEGROES.
It is interesting that Europeans can recover the ancient DNA, of 20-32,000 year old Europeans, but they can only recover the DNA of a 4500 year old African, when there are 100's of much older skeletal and tooth remains recovered in Africa. I believe they have analysed the DNA of these remains but they didn't like the results.
Today DNA is the holy grail of Eurocentric research. They use genetics research to declare that white and mongoloid Eurasians have existed prior to 2000 BC.They need genetics to give them a history, because the craniometrics of ancient populations indicate that these people belonged to the Black Variety: Australian , Khoisan, Pgymy and contemporary Niger-Congo and Nilo-Saharan speakers. Mongoloid and caucasian people fail to date earlier than 2000 BC.
As a result, you find that Academics and the Euronuts attack craniometrics and are trying to claim that this science lacks validity because caucasian and mongoloid people don't appear in the archaeological record until after 2000 BC.
This is why geneticists use a non-scientific method: Bayesian Statistics to describe their data.Science is based on hypothesis testing via experimentation. In any experiment, you have a control group and experimental group to determine the effect of a treatment on an experimental group. Geneticists use Bayesian Statistics to prove whatever they already believe.
quote:
Geneticists can use Bayesian statistics to fake population movements because this method is used to make inferences about a data set. An inference is a conclusion reached on the basis of a researcher’s evaluation and interpretation of the evidence. This is counter to the scientific method. The scientific method is a method of inquiry based on empirical or measurable evidence gathered as a result of experimentation.
The scientific method is based on hypotheses testing. Hypotheses testing means that a researcher forms a hypothesis and test the hypothesis using a series of quantitative or qualitative statistical methods to determine the statistical significance of the hypothesis being tested. The scientific method is based on experimentation to test a hypothesis .
Population geneticists usually do not test hypotheses. They make inferences about data based on Bayesian statistical inferences. They do not use statistical methods to determine the statistical significance of a hypothesis, they use statistics to describe data being reviewed by the researcher based on the beliefs the researcher already holds about the data being reviewed.
The fact that the statistics are used to support the beliefs of the researcher, means that the results will confirm the opinion/inference/hypothesis the researcher already holds about the data. Thusly, there is no testing of a hypothesis, the research just confirms what they already believe to be true about a data set.
Population genetics is a type of Expost facto research. Expost facto research design is a quasi-experimental type of study examining how an independent variable, present prior to the research study, affects a dependent variable.
Whereas the subjects in experimental research are randomly selected, the participants in Expost facto research , are not randomly selected or assigned.The genome of the research subjects is examined to determine the haplotypes and haplogroups carried by the participants in the study.
In population genetics research the researcher uses the Bayesian inference method of statistical inference. Bayesian statistical method, is a subjective research design/method that provides a rational method of updating the researcher's beliefs.
Since, the results of a Bayesian statistical analysis are a series of beliefs based on statistical inferences, the results can not stand alone. This is due to the reality, that any results, reported by a researcher are only a series of inferences based on the researcher’s belief about a phenomena backed up by a series statistical results. If the results are published without corresponding evidence from archaeology, anthropology, linguistics and or craniometrics the inferences are pure conjecture, because they reflect the attitudes already held by the researcher, confirmed by data selected by the researcher to support his or her beliefs.
This means that when a geneticists’s provides their statistics supporting a line of reasoning, they are “proving” inferences they already hold about the data. This means that any data not supporting the inferences a researcher already made about the data, will be left out of the study.
This is one of the reasons some geneticists fail to support their Bayesian statistics with craniometric, linguistic and archaeological evidence. Failure to use this evidence to confirm the statistics, mean that you have to accept the data based upon hypothetical statistical measurements which may have little to do with natural conditions and phenomena. Thusly, you can fake the genetic history of a population and region by basing the history of a region solely on the haplogroups of the people who live in the area today, instead of the ancient DNA from ancient skeletons.
In other words, you can fake the history of contemporary groups using Bayesian Statistics. .
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The entire premise of the article is wrong. The authors make several unfounded assumptions:
1) L3(M,N) is only found among Ethiopian populations;
2) Afro-Asiatic speakers are a single uniform population;
3) Semitic speakers are native to Ethiopia.
These assumptions are unfounded because 1) the linguistic evidence proves that Cushitic speakers were the original inhabitants of Ethiopia, not Semitic speakers. Secondly, haplogroups M and N, are found throughout Africa, not just among Afro-Asiatic speakers.
The major rule in determining the lack of validity for an article on population genetics attempting to determine historical events is the lack of non-genomic evidence supporting the genomic evidence.
If the results are published without corresponding evidence from archaeology, anthropology, linguistics and or craniometrics the inferences are pure conjecture, because they reflect the attitudes already held by the researcher, confirmed by data selected by the researcher to support his or her beliefs.
If you notice this article has beautiful graphics and charts, but no archaeological evidence supporting the results. This makes the paper full of statistics and conjecture.
posted
This study is garbage because they are claiming that Africans have Eurasian ancestry but where are they claiming that Eurasians have African ancestry? If all humans came from Africa then don't all humans have African ancestry historically? Meaning don't all genetic lineages ultimately at some point imply African ancestry? Of course, but you can't show me one single publication saying that such and such lineage in Europe or Asia represent African ancestry. But here they are claiming Eurasian ancestry for Africans. Note the following summary:
quote: By comparing 250,000 base pairs from Mota's genome with the same sites in individuals from 40 populations in Africa and 81 populations from Europe and Asia, the team found that Mota was most closely related to the Ari, an ethnic group that still lives nearby in the Ethiopian highlands. They zeroed in on the DNA that the Ari carry but Mota doesn't, which was presumably added during the past 4500 years. They found that Mota lacks about 4% to 7% of the DNA found in the Ari and all other Africans examined. This new DNA most closely matches that of modern Sardinians and a prehistoric farmer who lived in Germany. Hints of these early farmers' DNA previously had turned up in some living Africans, but Mota helped researchers zero in on the farmer's genetic signature in Africa, and to establish when it arrived.
Also, note what the data says and then what the summary claims it says. First it DOES NOT say that 4500 years ago there was a Eurasian back migration into Africa. If anything it says that there was no Eurasian admixture in this individual from 4500 years ago or prior. Secondly, it does not say when this introduction of some genes arrived. It is all speculated and nowhere are the specific sequences listed. The only thing it says is that AT SOME POINT after 4500 years ago these genes were introduced. To then jump from the DNA samples of one skeleton and a few Africans that there was widespread Eurasian admixture is ridiculous. That is a nonsensical statement. It implies waves and waves of white Eurasians swarming into Africa which is simply not the case. Africans are not descended from Eurasians. 6% is not hardly enough to claim that Africans descent from Eurasians yet this is what they are trying to claim. Yet the 99.9% of DNA lineages from Africa among all other humans are not called African ancestry in the rest of humanity.
Note the play on words here. 6% in relatively recent times that could have come from anywhere are called "Eurasian" ancestry but African DNA in all humans is not called African ancestry. These people are ridiculous. They claim that 6% represents "widespread" mixing. How on earth is that when 94% of the DNA is not Eurasian? HOw does that represent widespread mixing? These clowns are simply retarded.
Note how in this entire article nowhere do they mention that European genetic lineages ultimately descend from Africans. They also play up the "middle East" lineages but conveniently ignoring that most of those lineages also arose first in Africa. This whole study implies that DNA lineages can be assigned to a specific region or population of origin based on sampling and comparison, yet how come it is only in Africa that you see these labels thrown around. Nowhere in any study of European DNA is any percentage breakdown shown of where European DNA originate in terms of Africa, Asia and elsewhere. They always use "middle East" as some generic catchall term in order to omit Africa direct contribution to Europe DNA. Yet they are so quick to play up any miniscule amount of DNA that they can claim as "Eurasian" in Africa. Silly clowns.
And that is just taking things at surface value. If you actually look at the specific lineages within that 6% you will see that most of them probably are African. But that is what you get with Europeans who are so dam desparate to put themselves as the origins of humans when they aren't. Humans have been around for over 200,000 years and more than HALF of that was in Africa alone yet these clowns want to play daddy.
They still are up to the same old game of trying to claim Ethiopia as somehow Eurasian instead of African so they can arbitrarily lump certain features with Europe when the overwhelming evidence is that these features have NOTHING to do with Europe.
Africans are the first Eurasians so by all logic all lineages and features originate with Africans:
posted
Mike cut the albino crap, Whites are NOT albinos you stupid moron. Another thing why the heck would we allow a bunch of White people hating, Black racist, Black supremacists and all around horrid people like you, Clyde,Doug,Zarahan,Troll Patrol, Narmer,Mena7,Jantavanta,Xy-YT-hater,Kdolo,Habsburg,Egghead who are hell bent on harming White children anywhere near our work?
Posts: 3257 | From: Madisonville, KY USA | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by CelticWarrioress: Mike cut the albino crap, Whites are NOT albinos you stupid moron. Another thing why the heck would we allow a bunch of White people hating, Black racist, Black supremacists and all around horrid people like you, Clyde,Doug,Zarahan,Troll Patrol, Narmer,Mena7,Jantavanta,Xy-YT-hater,Kdolo,Habsburg,Egghead who are hell bent on harming White children anywhere near our work?
Doxie dear, us Blacks are here to try and collectively "RE-CREATE" accurate history. A history that Albinos have corrupted with lies and fake artifacts. You are here to see what we come up with, because instinctively you know that your Albino history is a lie.
As to your "Canned" diatribe, I ask you this: Who but Albinos would want, much less NEED a fake history? As far as I know, there are no other humans on the planet engaging in this behavior - only Albinos. So what does that tell you about you people?
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Also, note what the data says and then what the summary claims it says. First it DOES NOT say that 4500 years ago there was a Eurasian back migration into Africa. If anything it says that there was no Eurasian admixture in this individual from 4500 years ago or prior. Secondly, it does not say when this introduction of some genes arrived. It is all speculated and nowhere are the specific sequences listed. The only thing it says is that AT SOME POINT after 4500 years ago these genes were introduced. To then jump from the DNA samples of one skeleton and a few Africans that there was widespread Eurasian admixture is ridiculous. That is a nonsensical statement. It implies waves and waves of white Eurasians swarming into Africa which is simply not the case. Africans are not descended from Eurasians. 6% is not hardly enough to claim that Africans descent from Eurasians yet this is what they are trying to claim. Yet the 99.9% of DNA lineages from Africa among all other humans are not called African ancestry in the rest of humanity.
Note the play on words here. 6% in relatively recent times that could have come from anywhere are called "Eurasian" ancestry but African DNA in all humans is not called African ancestry. These people are ridiculous. They claim that 6% represents "widespread" mixing. How on earth is that when 94% of the DNA is not Eurasian? HOw does that represent widespread mixing? These clowns are simply retarded.
Note how in this entire article nowhere do they mention that European genetic lineages ultimately descend from Africans. They also play up the "middle East" lineages but conveniently ignoring that most of those lineages also arose first in Africa. This whole study implies that DNA lineages can be assigned to a specific region or population of origin based on sampling and comparison, yet how come it is only in Africa that you see these labels thrown around. Nowhere in any study of European DNA is any percentage breakdown shown of where European DNA originate in terms of Africa, Asia and elsewhere. They always use "middle East" as some generic catchall term in order to omit Africa direct contribution to Europe DNA. Yet they are so quick to play up any miniscule amount of DNA that they can claim as "Eurasian" in Africa. Silly clowns.
And that is just taking things at surface value. If you actually look at the specific lineages within that 6% you will see that most of them probably are African. But that is what you get with Europeans who are so dam desparate to put themselves as the origins of humans when they aren't. Humans have been around for over 200,000 years and more than HALF of that was in Africa alone yet these clowns want to play daddy.
They still are up to the same old game of trying to claim Ethiopia as somehow Eurasian instead of African so they can arbitrarily lump certain features with Europe when the overwhelming evidence is that these features have NOTHING to do with Europe.
Africans are the first Eurasians so by all logic all lineages and features originate with Africans:
Thoughtful post Doug. The putative Eurasian migration is dated to around 3000-3,500 yrs ago in some quarters, about 1000 years after Mota man. But let's now apply some actual data.
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: This study is another great news for the ancient peopling of the Nile Valley and the region. Before this study we had the Hassan study as well as the DNA of Ancient Egyptian mummies (BMJ, JAMA, old Paabo).
Kadruka is a neolithic site in Sudan near the Egyptian border. We can see the Eurasian haplogroups start to appear during the christian era.
We also have this study dating the Eurasian admixture in modern Egyptians to 750 years ago.
quote:Using ADMIXTURE and principal-component analysis (PCA) (Figure 1A), we estimated the average proportion of non-African ancestry in the Egyptians to be 80% and dated the midpoint of the admixture event by using ALDER20 to around 750 years ago (Table S2), consistent with the Islamic expansion and dates reported previously.
Good chart and Hassan link which I lost sometime back. You are correct. Hassan shows the dominance of Nilotic elements along with Nubian elements in Nile Valley history as well as the relatively recent arrival of Eurasian elements, who nevertheless are secondary to in-situ indigenous developments, and migration from within Africa as far as the Sudan. QUOTE:
"Accordingly, through limited on number of aDNA samples, there is enough data to suggest and to tally with the historical evidence of the dominance by Nilotic elements during the early state formation in the Nile Valley, and as the states thrived there was a dominance by other elements particularly Nuba/Nubians. In Y-chromosome terms this mean in simplest terms introgression of the YAP insertion (haplogroups E and D), and Eurasian Haplogroups which are defined by F-M89 against a background of haplogroup A-M13. The data analysis of the extant Y-chromosomes suggests that the bulk of genetic diversity appears to be a consequence of recent migrations and demographic events mainly from Asia and Europe, evident in a higher migration rate for speakers of Afro- Asiatic as compared to the Nilo-Saharan family of languages, and a generally higher effective population size for the former. While the mtDNA data suggests that regional variation and diversity in mtDNA sequences in Sudan is likely to have been shaped by a longer history of in-situ evolution and then by human migrations form East, west-central and North Africa and to a lesser extent from Eurasia to the Nile Valley." -- Hassan 2009.
Mota is dated around 4500 years ago (so around 2000 BC) and there's no evidence of Eurasian DNA. If there was some it must have been in small proportion.
Yes, the Eurasian elements seem rather small. Per the above articles:
"they found that the Mota man had brown eyes and dark skin, as well as three gene variants associated with adaptation to high altitudes; some peaks in the highlands reach 4500 meters, as high as the Matterhorn.. the team found that Mota was most closely related to the Ari, an ethnic group that still lives nearby in the Ethiopian highlands. They zeroed in on the DNA that the Ari carry but Mota doesn’t, which was presumably added during the past 4500 years. They found that Mota lacks about 4% to 7% of the DNA found in the Ari and all other Africans examined." --Gibbons, 2015
and
Quote: "That’s what makes the Ethiopian man so special. His body was found face-down in Mota cave, which is situated in the highlands in the southern part of the country. The cool, dry conditions in the cave preserved his DNA, and scientists extracted a sample from the petrous bone at the base of his skull. The resulting sequence is the first nuclear genome from an ancient African, according to a report published Thursday in the journal Science.
Radiocarbon dating revealed that the bone was 4,500 years old. That meant Mota (as the researchers called him) lived before Eurasians returned to the African continent
Consistent with that timeline, Mota did not have any of the genetic variants for light-colored eyes or skin that evolved in the populations that left Africa. Nor did he have variants that arose in Eurasian farmers that allowed them to digest milk as adults." -- Kaplan. K. 2015. --------------------------------------------------------------
The haplogroup of Mota:
Y-DNA = E-P2 Mt-DNA = L3x2
quote: Mitochondrial DNA haplogroup assignment
The mitochondrial haplogroup was determined following the analysis described by Skoglund et al in 2014 (48). In brief, this involved generating a consensus mitochondrial sequence using SAMtools (38) and assigning a haplogroup using HAPLOFIND (46) (Table S3). Depth of coverage was calculated using bedtools (Table S3), and mutations are reported with respect to the Reconstructed Sapiens Reference Sequence (49). Mota was assigned to haplogroup L3x2a. Haplogroup L3 arose 60-70 kya (50) in Eastern Africa where the richest present-day haplogroup diversity is found (51). All mitochondrial haplogroups found outside Africa descend from the L3 lineage and hence this haplogroup is associated with the spread of Homo sapiens out of Africa to the rest of the world (52). The subhaplogroup L3x2 is restricted to the Horn of Africa and the Nile Valley in modern Ethiopian samples (12), suggesting a degree of maternal continuity in Ethiopia over the past 4,500 years.
Y chromosome haplogroups
We used a maximum likelihood based approach to determine the Y chromosome haplogroup of Mota. We called genotypes along the Y chromosome with a minimum base threshold of 20 using GATK and employed YFitter (53) to predict the most likely haplogroup. Mota was assigned to haplogroup E1b1. We verified this haplogroup by looking for mutations in Mota that were described by the International Society of Genetic Genealogy (ISOGG) as defining the branches leading to haplogroup E1b1 (Table S4). Macrohaplogroup E is the most prevalent haplogroup found in Africa with reduced frequencies in Europe and the Middle East (54, 55). It is proposed to have originated in the Eastern Africa 21,000-32,000 years ago (54–56). Mutation E-P2 (Table S4), present in Mota, represents the most widespread subclade of haplogroup E and has been found at high frequency in modern Ethiopians (57). --Gallego-Llorente 2015 [/i]
Long-standing indigenous development in Ethiopia- per Troll Patrol quote
"From various kinds of evidence it can now be argued that agriculture in Ethiopia and the Horn was quite ancient, originating as much as 7,000 or more years ago, and that its development owed nothing to South Arabian inspiration. Moreover, the inventions of grain cultivation in particular, both in Ethiopia and separately in the Near East, seem rooted in a single, still earlier subsistence invention of North-east Africa, the intensive utilization of wild grains, beginning probably by or before 13,000 b.c. The correlation of linguistic evidence with archaeology suggests that this food-collecting innovation may have been the work of early Afroasiatic-speaking communities and may have constituted the particular economic advantage which gave impetus to the first stages of Afroasiatic expansion into Ethiopia and the Horn, the Sahara and North Africa, and parts of the Near East." --Ehret
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doug says: This study is garbage because they are claiming that Africans have Eurasian ancestry but where are they claiming that Eurasians have African ancestry? If all humans came from Africa then don't all humans have African ancestry historically? Meaning don't all genetic lineages ultimately at some point imply African ancestry? Of course, but you can't show me one single publication saying that such and such lineage in Europe or Asia represent African ancestry. But here they are claiming Eurasian ancestry for Africans.
Hmm, well these same LBK samples may be similar to those Brace 2005 used to show how older Euros, who tend to look like tropical Africans in general, match those Africans in his writeup. If this is correct, then the people that match up most closely with Mota Man, are people who already bear some similarity to Africans. The Sardinian DNA also shows that the closest match is with people already having some African influences. The "Eurasian" migration might be thus by people already looking like Africans. Will readjust once I can see full pdf.
[/QB][/QUOTE]
And no DOug, they would not like so much to stress AFRICAN admixture in Europe because that would put a damper on allegedly "pure" Caucasian races- tainted by "the culluds." Why Greece has significant influences of African DNA but how come they are not running around calling the Greeks "mixed race"?
Here's the thread where actual data in detail is being discussed.
-------------------- 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 Mike111: Material like this clearly demonstrates why the Albinos should be forced to have their material reviewed by Afrocentrics before publication.
Preach Sometimes I read stuff like that and I think, are they so self centered that they have literally broken their intellect? I give them too much credit. I had to read that several times because I could not believe it. I tell people who are not into genetics and anthropology that it doesn't take much of an education to challenge the lunacy in these fields. You remember the Negroid/Caucasoid siblings
That should have been a wakeup call but it wasn't
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
Hmm, well these same LBK samples may be similar to those Brace 2005 used to show how older Euros, who tend to look like tropical Africans in general, match those Africans in his writeup. If this is correct, then the people that match up most closely with Mota Man, are people who already bear some similarity to Africans. The Sardinian DNA also shows that the closest match is with people already having some African influences. The "Eurasian" migration might be thus by people already looking like Africans. Will readjust once I can see full pdf.
LATimes
quote: When the researchers compared Mota’s genome to those of contemporary humans, the closest match was with the Ari people of southern Ethiopia.
With this information, the research team was able to investigate the mysterious group of Eurasians that came to Africa 3,000 years ago. They created a model that assumed the Ari genome was a mixture of DNA from Mota and an unknown population from west Eurasia. Then they “plugged in” DNA from several candidate populations to see if they could get a combination that looked like Ari DNA.
Consistent with that timeline, Mota did not have any of the genetic variants for light-colored eyes or skin that evolved in the populations that left Africa. Nor did he have variants that arose in Eurasian farmers that allowed them to digest milk as adults.
Southern European groups (SEE, SCE, SDN, SWE, and BA) on the other hand derive ancestry from African and Near Eastern World Regions. In particular, ancestry from groups most similar to contemporary populations from in and around the Levant (lev; which we define as the World Region containing individuals from Syria, Palestine, Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi, Yemen, and Egypt) is present across Italy (SCE), Sardinia (SDN), France and Spain (SWE), and Armenia (IA; Figure 2B). Interestingly, North (nafII) and West (waf) African ancestry is also seen entering Southern Europe, suggesting a key role for the Mediterranean in supporting gene flow back into Europe [8, 26, 27]. Dates for the influx of this admixture are broad and generally fall within the first millennium CE (Figure 3B) although are more recent in BA and SWE, including French (frenc24: 728 CE [424–1011 CE]) and Spanish (spani27: 1042 CE [740–1201 CE]; spani9: 668 CE [286–876 CE]) clusters, consistent with migrations associated with the Arabic Conquest of the Iberian peninsula [8, 11, 28] and earlier movements in and around Italy [29].
(A) For each geographic sampling location, we estimated the proportion of ancestry coming from outside of West Eurasia by averaging GLOBETROTTER’s admixture inference across individuals from a sampling location. The sampling locations of each point are shown in Figure S4A; Caucasus populations are spread out to aid visibility. Points are stacked vertically in cases where multiple ancestries are present in a population.
(B) Copying vectors of 82 West Eurasian fineSTRUCTURE clusters projected onto PCA based on the copying vectors of 1,000 West Eurasian individuals (faded colors; symbols and colors are as in Figure 1B); lines link World Region admixture sources to the clusters in which admixture from them is inferred.
(C) Gene flow within West Eurasia is shown by lines linking the best-matching donor group to the sources of admixture with recipient clusters (arrowhead). Line colors represent the regional identity of the donor group, and line thickness represents the proportion of DNA coming from the donor group. Ranges of the dates (point estimates) for events involving sources most similar to selected donor groups are shown.
.
.OTHER ARTICLES
Moorjani P, Patterson N, Hirschhorn JN, Keinan A, Hao L, et al. (2011). McVean G, ed. "The History of African Gene Flow into Southern Europeans, Levantines, and Jews". PLoS Genet 7 (4):
King TE, Parkin EJ, Swinfield G, et al. (March 2007). "Africans in Yorkshire? The deepest-rooting clade of the Y phylogeny within an English genealogy". European Journal of Human Genetics 15 (3): 288–93.
Frudakis, Tony (2007). "West African ancestry in Southeastern Europe and the Middle East". Molecular photofitting: predicting ancestry and phenotype using DNA. Amsterdam: Elsevier/Academic Press. p. 326
Pereira L, Cunha C, Alves C, Amorim A (April 2005). "African female heritage in Iberia: a reassessment of mtDNA lineage distribution in present times". Human Biology 77 (2): 213–29.
Alvarez; et al. (2010). "Mitochondrial DNA Patterns in the Iberian Northern Plateau: Population Dynamics and Substructure of the Zamora Province".
Cerezo M, Achilli A, Olivieri A, et al. (May 2012). "Reconstructing ancient mitochondrial DNA links between Africa and Europe". Genome Res. 22
Cruciani F, La Fratta R, Santolamazza P, et al. (May 2004). "Phylogeographic analysis of haplogroup E3b (E-M215) y chromosomes reveals multiple migratory events within and out of Africa". American Journal of Human Genetics 74 (5): 1014–22. doi:10.1086/386294. PMC 1181964. PMID 15042509.
Underhill PA, Passarino G, Lin AA, et al. (January 2001). "The phylogeography of Y chromosome binary haplotypes and the origins of modern human populations". Annals of Human Genetics 65 (1): 43–62.
Halder I, Shriver M, Thomas M, Fernandez JR, Frudakis T (May 2008). "A panel of ancestry informative markers for estimating individual biogeographical ancestry and admixture from four continents: utility and applications". Human Mutation 29 (5): 648–58.
Bar-Yosef O (1987) Pleistocene connections between Africa and Southwest Asia: an archaeological perspective. The African Archaeological Review; Chapter 5, pg 29-38.
Underhill and Kivisild; Kivisild, T (2007). "Use of Y Chromosome and Mitochondrial DNA Population Structure in Tracing Human Migrations". Annu. Rev. Genet. 41 (1): 539–64.
Ramachandran, S.; et al. (2005). "Support from the relationship of genetic and geographic distance in human populations for a serial founder effect originating in Africa". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 102 (44): 15942–7.
Richter, Tobias; et al. (2011). "Interaction before Agriculture: Exchanging Material and Sharing Knowledge in the Final Pleistocene Levant". Cambridge Archaeological Journal 21 (1): 95–114.
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mike, that would be you & your White people hating, Black racist, Black supremacist ilk (Clyde,Zarahan,Narmer, Fourty2Tribes,Troll Patrol, Xy-YT-hater,Kdolo, Habsburg,Kikuyu,Mena7, Egghead,etc). Trying to create a false history for yourselves at the expense of others. You are all all around bad people with no feeling hearts, no consciences. Why else would you seek to harm White children Mike?? Why else would you want to try to teach White children that they are diseased inferior non-humans? Why else would you want to teach them that they have no history, no heritage, no identity. Why else would you not want them to know who they are, where they come from, who their ancestors are? Why else would you want to teach them that they have no place on earth they belong (no homeland)?? Why else would you want them to think they have no right to exist? Why else would you want them to think that they have no right to knowledge of self? Why else would you want them to think that their ancestors built/accomplished nothing? Why else would you want them to think that they have no right to any kind of racial pride? Why else would you want to try to make White children ashamed of being White? Its simple you hate them & want to harm them.
Posts: 3257 | From: Madisonville, KY USA | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^ Mike hates white people but why do you keep bringing children up like he has some special hate for children ?
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Ohhh he doesn't have a special hate for children, only White ones, they are White after all.
Posts: 3257 | From: Madisonville, KY USA | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Albus Warrioress: Mike cut the albino crap, Whites are NOT albinos you stupid moron. Another thing why the heck would we allow a bunch of White people hating, Black racist, Black supremacists and all around horrid people like you, Clyde,Doug,Zarahan,Troll Patrol, Narmer,Mena7,Jantavanta,Xy-YT-hater,Kdolo,Habsburg,Egghead who are hell bent on harming White children anywhere near our work?
According the classical Latin literature you are!
[Ultimately (perhaps via Portuguese) from Spanish, from albo, white, from Latin albus; see albho- in Indo-European roots.]
quote:
The map to the right shows the migrations of the celtic (or proto-celtic) groups around 1000 BC.
The standard theory is that the Celts were an Indo-European group that gradually migrated across Europe and Asia, with an identifiable, distinct culture by 750 BC.
posted
Troll Patrol, that map does not prove that Whites are Albinos you idiot. Give me the proof.
Posts: 3257 | From: Madisonville, KY USA | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
The extent of this backflow was much greater than previously reported, reaching all the way to Central, West and Southern Africa, affecting even populations such as Yoruba and Mbuti, previously thought to be relatively unadmixed, who harbor 6-7% Eurasian ancestry.
If the average African-American is 73.2% African, 24% European and 0.8% Native American, (2015, Bryc et al, The American Journal of Human Genetics)
why get upset over the paltry 6-7% Eurasian ancestry in Africans?
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
The extent of this backflow was much greater than previously reported, reaching all the way to Central, West and Southern Africa, affecting even populations such as Yoruba and Mbuti, previously thought to be relatively unadmixed, who harbor 6-7% Eurasian ancestry.
If the average African-American is 73.2% African, 24% European and 0.8% Native American, (2015, Bryc et al, The American Journal of Human Genetics)
why get upset over the paltry 6-7% Eurasian ancestry in Africans?
Because it's' white supremacy hogwash?
quote: Breton et al. analyze lactase persistence variants and genome-wide SNPs among southern African groups and show that Khoe pastoralists have partial East African ancestry. This finding suggests that an East African group migrated south, brought pastoralism to southern Africa, and admixed with local hunter-gatherers to form the ancestors of Khoe.
--Gwenna Breton et al.
Lactase Persistence Alleles Reveal Partial East African Ancestry of Southern African Khoe Pastoralists
Received: November 26, 2013; Received in revised form: December 20, 2013; Accepted: February 15, 2014; Published Online: April 03, 2014 Published: April 3, 2014 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2014.02.041
The extent of this backflow was much greater than previously reported, reaching all the way to Central, West and Southern Africa, affecting even populations such as Yoruba and Mbuti, previously thought to be relatively unadmixed, who harbor 6-7% Eurasian ancestry.
If the average African-American is 73.2% African, 24% European and 0.8% Native American, (2015, Bryc et al, The American Journal of Human Genetics)
why get upset over the paltry 6-7% Eurasian ancestry in Africans?
Because it's' white supremacy hogwash?
quote: Breton et al. analyze lactase persistence variants and genome-wide SNPs among southern African groups and show that Khoe pastoralists have partial East African ancestry. This finding suggests that an East African group migrated south, brought pastoralism to southern Africa, and admixed with local hunter-gatherers to form the ancestors of Khoe.
--Gwenna Breton et al.
Lactase Persistence Alleles Reveal Partial East African Ancestry of Southern African Khoe Pastoralists
Received: November 26, 2013; Received in revised form: December 20, 2013; Accepted: February 15, 2014; Published Online: April 03, 2014 Published: April 3, 2014 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2014.02.041
why is it if Greeks had 6-7% African ancestry you would be jumping for joy but if Khosians have 6-7% Eurasian ancestry it's "white supremacy"
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
"why is it if Greeks had 6-7% African ancestry you would be jumping for joy but if Khosians have 6-7% Eurasian ancestry it's "white supremacy"
Stop typing nonsense. There were no "eurasians" in Southern Africa 3-4 thousand years ago.
The Khoisans make up many sub-tribes who roam the region as they have done for tens of thousands of years. The Khoisans don't show any "Eurasian affinities and affiliates". Btw... lol
These people have strong culture awareness. And it never occurred anywhere in their living pattern.
Greeks went into Northeast African 500-1000 BC. So yes, there is a bidirectional influence at the last few dynasties. Duh. lol SMHl
However, the funny part comes now. You euronuts then make it into African slaves. They were there because of slavery. lol
The only reason why you euronuts try to make these claims on Khoisans, is because some Khoisan tribes have light skin. This is your way of explaining such.lol
Why you leave out/ ignore the Abyssinian Empire? Why you leave out/ ignore that on both sides of the read Sea the same people resided?
It's because of your euronut agenda which you try to pass of as "science". lol Eurasian ancestry? lol What it Eurasian in the first place?
Some mythical political fantasy land. lol
"Eurasia is the combined continental landmass of Europe and Asia.[1][2][3] The term is a portmanteau of its two constituents. "
Your ignorance is beyond everything imaginable. Of which Khoisans do you speak, liar?
You try to compare the tiny landmass of Greece to the landmass Khoisan's inhabit, which is hundreds of times larger. lol
(land) 50,443 sq miles (130,647 sq km)
South Africa is a medium-sized country, with a total land area of slightly more than 1.2-million square kilometres, making it roughly the same size as Niger, Angola, Mali, and Colombia.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
[/QB][/QUOTE]
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic