posted
Upon following various blogs and videos I have noticed 3 streams of thought among black people when analyzing and interpreting genetic data. Although many black people all around the world are beginning to learn about how fraudulent and conjecture based most European and Eurocentric papers on genetics are. There are still a large group of black people that take everything that Europeans interpret at face value. For me this group is comprises the first stream of thought.
Eurocentrists The Eurocentric stream of Black scholastic knowledge and understanding regarding genetics take everything that white and eurocentric scholars say about genetics at face value. An example of the beliefs that this stream of thought hold include but are not limited to:
1. The Back Migration Fallacy; genetic markers that are shared by Eurasians and Africans entered Africa as a result of a back migration
2. The R Haplogroup originated outside of Africa
3. Archeology and Linguistics have little to no bearing on analysis of genetic data
4. When Black people migrated outside of Africa they became less African and any population that is found outside of Africa after the Out of Africa migration is completely disqualified from the classification of African and black.
This stream of thought mainly uses genetics for two main reasons:
1. To seem updated with the latest information coming out of Eurocentric universities.
2. To combat social ideological enemies that they consider are toxic to the legacy of African people; mainly Hebrew Isrealites and Moors. They use Genetic data to try to debunk the beliefs of these ideologues.
The "We Aint African" Crowd
This stream consists of self hating black people who believe that genetics is a hoax because it connects African American people to African people. They hate Africa and African people because they believe that Africa has no redeeming qualities no civilizations, no writing, no culture of horse domestication, no culture of inventing the wheel, no burial rites, and no agricultural technology. This stream of thought is usually connected to religious and social ideological movements in the US such as the Moors and the Hebrew Isrealites or other groups with anti African motives, views, and opinions. Ultimately the hatred of all things African and ignorance of African history is what leads this stream of thought to take their position against modern mainstream genetics.
Archeogenticists
These are scholars that combine archeology and linguistics in genetics from an African centered prospective and seek to understand genetic data from the perspective of the original African blueprint of humanity.
Posts: 87 | From: California | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
These are scholars that combine archeology and linguistics in genetics from an African centered prospective and seek to understand genetic data from the perspective of the original African blueprint of humanity. [/QB]
Afrocentrists are not calling themselves Archeogenticists
The people that are actually using this terms are organizations like the Max Planck Institute, They have an archaeogenetics department
________________________
Archaeogenetics
Archaeogenetics, a term coined by British archaeologist and paleolinguist Colin Renfrew, refers to the application of the techniques of molecular population genetics to the study of the human past. This can involve:
the analysis of DNA recovered from archaeological remains, i.e. ancient DNA; the analysis of DNA from modern populations (including humans and domestic plant and animal species) in order to study human past and the genetic legacy of human interaction with the biosphere; and the application of statistical methods developed by molecular geneticists to archaeological data.
History[edit] Archaeogenetics has its origins in the study of human blood groups and the realisation that this classical genetic marker provides information about the relationships between linguistic and ethnic groupings. Early work in this field included that of Ludwik and Hanka Hirszfeld, William Boyd and Arthur Mourant. From the 1960s onwards, Luca Cavalli-Sforza used classical genetic markers to examine the prehistoric population of Europe, culminating in the publication of The History and Geography of Human Genes in 1994.
Since then, the genetic history of all of our major domestic plants (e.g., wheat, rice, maize) and animals (e.g., cattle, goats, pigs, horses) has been analysed. Models for the timing and biogeography of their domestication and subsequent husbandry have been put forward, mainly based on mitochondrial DNA variation, though other markers are currently being analysed to supplement the genetic narrative (e.g., the Y chromosome for describing the history of the male lineage).
The same expression was also used by Antonio Amorim (1999) and defined as: getting and interpreting [genetic] evidence of human history. A similar concept (even in a more ambitious form, as it included the recreation of inferred extinct states) has been developed in the pre-DNA era by Linus Pauling and Emile Zuckerkandl (1963).
Archaeogenetics can shed light on the origins and geographical spread of prehistoric languages,[1] as well as assist archaeologists in answering questions regarding the influence of population growth in the archaeological record. In a recent study, results of the examination of mtDNA of modern populations of South Asia, East Asia and Oceania found a large expansion in population growth before the advent of microlith technology. A molecular clock was used to measure a jump in population growth dating to 38-28 ka. The proliferation of microlith technology followed soon after from 35–30 ka to the Holocene. While studies like this cannot offer a single cause for microlith technology, it does give archaeologists a window into the past that is otherwise unavailable.
Posts: 42924 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Njii: Upon following various blogs and videos I have noticed 3 streams of thought among black people when analyzing and interpreting genetic data. Although many black people all around the world are beginning to learn about how fraudulent and conjecture based most European and Eurocentric papers on genetics are. There are still a large group of black people that take everything that Europeans interpret at face value. For me this group is comprises the first stream of thought.
Well analyzed.
Archaeogenetics: The study of the past using the techniques of molecular genetics. The application of genetics to archeology. The term "archaeogenetics" was coined in the 1990s by the archeologist Colin Renfrew from the Greek archaios (ancient) + genetics = archaeogenetics, literally, ancient genetics.
In archaeogenetics, information on the DNA of different ethnic groups from around the world is used to analyze prehistoric events and corroborate accounts from historical sources. The DNA data are reconciled with the findings of archeologists, linguists, and paleoanthropologists to shed light on the past.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
He,he,he: Of which generation are you - Millennial Generation or Generation Y, X, or Generation Z?
Interesting though, that you put time and effort into categorizing various thinking on genetics by the simple-minded, but show no effort to provide insight into the actual discipline, or it's nefarious uses.
As an example; You were correct in deriding the nonsense Albino back-migration claims about Y-dna "R". But you made no effort to explain why it was Albino nonsense.
It seems to me that people would have better use for that knowledge, than they do for how many categories there is.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: He,he,he: Of which generation are you - Millennial Generation or Generation Y, X, or Generation Z?
Interesting though, that you put time and effort into categorizing various thinking on genetics by the simple-minded, but show no effort to provide insight into the actual discipline, or it's nefarious uses.
As an example; You were correct in deriding the nonsense Albino back-migration claims about Y-dna "R". But you made no effort to explain why it was Albino nonsense.
It seems to me that people would have better use for that knowledge, than they do for how many categories there is.
Some people left Africa
for some reason some people think it was impossible for people to go back into Africa, go figure
quote:Originally posted by Njii:
The "We Aint African" Crowd
This stream consists of self hating black people who believe that genetics is a hoax because it connects African American people to African people. They hate Africa and African people because they believe that Africa has no redeeming qualities no civilizations, no writing, no culture of horse domestication, no culture of inventing the wheel, no burial rites, and no agricultural technology. This stream of thought is usually connected to religious and social ideological movements in the US such as the Moors and the Hebrew Isrealites or other groups with anti African motives, views, and opinions. Ultimately the hatred of all things African and ignorance of African history is what leads this stream of thought to take their position against modern mainstream genetics.
Ok I do see people like that.
I wonder who he's talking about. Mike, any ideas? I was thinking of one particular website, the name escapes me
Posts: 42924 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Njii: Upon following various blogs and videos I have noticed 3 streams of thought among black people when analyzing and interpreting genetic data. Although many black people all around the world are beginning to learn about how fraudulent and conjecture based most European and Eurocentric papers on genetics are. There are still a large group of black people that take everything that Europeans interpret at face value. For me this group is comprises the first stream of thought.
These are scholars that combine archeology and linguistics in genetics from an African centered prospective and seek to understand genetic data from the perspective of the original African blueprint of humanity.
Well analyzed.
Archaeogenetics: The study of the past using the techniques of molecular genetics. The application of genetics to archeology. The term "archaeogenetics" was coined in the 1990s by the archeologist Colin Renfrew from the Greek archaios (ancient) + genetics = archaeogenetics, literally, ancient genetics.
In archaeogenetics, information on the DNA of different ethnic groups from around the world is used to analyze prehistoric events and corroborate accounts from historical sources. The DNA data are reconciled with the findings of archeologists, linguists, and paleoanthropologists to shed light on the past.
why are you saying it's well analyzed when none of the people identifying themselves as archaeogeneticists including the originator of the term Colin Renfrew say that they have an "African centered prospective "
Stop being stupid and cheerleading without thinking
quote:Originally posted by Njii:
Eurocentrists.....
This stream of thought mainly uses genetics for two main reasons:
1. To seem updated with the latest information coming out of Eurocentric universities.
2. To combat social ideological enemies that they consider are toxic to the legacy of African people; mainly Hebrew Isrealites and Moors. They use Genetic data to try to debunk the beliefs of these ideologues.
So the second reason that Eurocentrics use genetics is to combat social ideological enemies that they consider are toxic to the legacy of African people; mainly Hebrew Isrealites and Moors. They use Genetic data to try to debunk the beliefs of these ideologues.
^ So Eurocentrics want to remove the toxicity to the legacy of the African people
and they want to combat Hebrew Isrealites and Moors
Ish Gebor you are calling this a good analysis ????
Posts: 42924 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
3. Archeology and Linguistics have little to no bearing on analysis of genetic data
This seems rather dubious- another strawman set up to later "refute" as to what the alleged "Afrocentrics believe"?
Precisely what Eurocentric academics think Archeology and Linguistics have little to no bearing on analysis of genetic data? To the contrary they often try to shoehorn archaeology and linguistic data into their genetic constructs. Some of their attempt fail, but not for lack of trying. Cavalli-Sforza's Genes, People, Language is a classic example and he tried to work in archaeo and linguistic data aplenty. So where are these reputed "Eurocentrcs" who say it has "no bearing"?
So the second reason that Eurocentrics use genetics is to combat social ideological enemies that they consider are toxic to the legacy of African people; mainly Hebrew Isrealites and Moors. They use Genetic data to try to debunk the beliefs of these ideologues.
Equally dubious. "Genetic data" is not needed to debunk notions about black "Hee-brew Israelites" originating in ancient West Africa. It doesn't even pass the smell test with basic historic and archaeo data. Likewise exactly what "genetic data" supposedly "combats" that some Moors were from North Africa and that among them were persons with common DNA markers found in African populations? XYZ's posted studies on the Iberian peninsula's profile on into the historic era confirm the case. So exactly what does alleged genetic data "combat" as to these two items?
Archeogenticists These are scholars that combine archeology and linguistics in genetics from an African centered prospective and seek to understand genetic data from the perspective of the original African blueprint of humanity.
^^This is shaky too for many so-called "archaeogenticists" are not operating from any African centered perspective, and are manipulating data and models to maintain stereotypical racial constructs. Cavalli-Sforza again is a classic example. He is a legit scholar with some credible info but also falls into certain stereotypical thinking traps. Some in this alleged stream of archaeogenetic thought are very Eurocentric. The article below debunks notions of "archaeogenticists" necessarily providing any more balanced treatment of Africa and Africans. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10768880
Curr Anthropol. 2000 Jun;41(3):357-384. Genes, Tribes, and African History. MacEachern S. Abstract
Over the past 40 years, traditional perspectives on the constitution of human groups have been subjected to stringent critique within anthropology. This began with the dismantling of accepted "race" divisions after World War II and continued with analyses of the meaning and reality of African "tribal" distinctions from the 1960s until the present. Archaeologists, ethnographers, linguists, and historians of Africa now work within a research milieu where social interactions, cultural exchange, and the dynamic nature of group identifications are accepted as a normal part of the human experience. At the same time, new techniques have been developed for the examination of human history, techniques based upon an expanding repertoire of tools for the analysis of genetic variability in human populations. Perhaps the most striking result of this research has been Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi, and Piazza's The History and Geography of Human Genes. Rather less attention has been paid, however, to the conceptual relationships between the human groups defined through such analyses, in Africa and elsewhere, and those defined through other kinds of research. This paper is a preliminary examination of the fit between genetic, archaeological, and ethnographic data on the African past."
^^ANd there are plenty of archaeogenetic games being played with Africa and Africans..
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- 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 Njii: Upon following various blogs and videos I have noticed 3 streams of thought among black people when analyzing and interpreting genetic data. Although many black people all around the world are beginning to learn about how fraudulent and conjecture based most European and Eurocentric papers on genetics are. There are still a large group of black people that take everything that Europeans interpret at face value. For me this group is comprises the first stream of thought.
These are scholars that combine archeology and linguistics in genetics from an African centered prospective and seek to understand genetic data from the perspective of the original African blueprint of humanity.
Well analyzed.
Archaeogenetics: The study of the past using the techniques of molecular genetics. The application of genetics to archeology. The term "archaeogenetics" was coined in the 1990s by the archeologist Colin Renfrew from the Greek archaios (ancient) + genetics = archaeogenetics, literally, ancient genetics.
In archaeogenetics, information on the DNA of different ethnic groups from around the world is used to analyze prehistoric events and corroborate accounts from historical sources. The DNA data are reconciled with the findings of archeologists, linguists, and paleoanthropologists to shed light on the past.
why are you saying it's well analyzed when none of the people identifying themselves as archaeogeneticists including the originator of the term Colin Renfrew say that they have an "African centered prospective "
Stop being stupid and cheerleading without thinking
quote:Originally posted by Njii:
Eurocentrists.....
This stream of thought mainly uses genetics for two main reasons:
1. To seem updated with the latest information coming out of Eurocentric universities.
2. To combat social ideological enemies that they consider are toxic to the legacy of African people; mainly Hebrew Isrealites and Moors. They use Genetic data to try to debunk the beliefs of these ideologues.
So the second reason that Eurocentrics use genetics is to combat social ideological enemies that they consider are toxic to the legacy of African people; mainly Hebrew Isrealites and Moors. They use Genetic data to try to debunk the beliefs of these ideologues.
^ So Eurocentrics want to remove the toxicity to the legacy of the African people
and they want to combat Hebrew Isrealites and Moors
Ish Gebor you are calling this a good analysis ????
Dumb asshole, this is what I mean: "I have noticed 3 streams of thought among black people when analyzing and interpreting genetic data."
This is in MY opinion well analyzed. Why you think you're even a match?
I don't follow any of these groups. But I do remember seeing a video years ago by the moorish society, where they spoke of genetics extensively.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Njii: Upon following various blogs and videos I have noticed 3 streams of thought among black people when analyzing and interpreting genetic data. Although many black people all around the world are beginning to learn about how fraudulent and conjecture based most European and Eurocentric papers on genetics are. There are still a large group of black people that take everything that Europeans interpret at face value. For me this group is comprises the first stream of thought.
These are scholars that combine archeology and linguistics in genetics from an African centered prospective and seek to understand genetic data from the perspective of the original African blueprint of humanity.
Well analyzed.
Archaeogenetics: The study of the past using the techniques of molecular genetics. The application of genetics to archeology. The term "archaeogenetics" was coined in the 1990s by the archeologist Colin Renfrew from the Greek archaios (ancient) + genetics = archaeogenetics, literally, ancient genetics.
In archaeogenetics, information on the DNA of different ethnic groups from around the world is used to analyze prehistoric events and corroborate accounts from historical sources. The DNA data are reconciled with the findings of archeologists, linguists, and paleoanthropologists to shed light on the past.
why are you saying it's well analyzed when none of the people identifying themselves as archaeogeneticists including the originator of the term Colin Renfrew say that they have an "African centered prospective "
Stop being stupid and cheerleading without thinking
quote:Originally posted by Njii:
Eurocentrists.....
This stream of thought mainly uses genetics for two main reasons:
1. To seem updated with the latest information coming out of Eurocentric universities.
2. To combat social ideological enemies that they consider are toxic to the legacy of African people; mainly Hebrew Isrealites and Moors. They use Genetic data to try to debunk the beliefs of these ideologues.
So the second reason that Eurocentrics use genetics is to combat social ideological enemies that they consider are toxic to the legacy of African people; mainly Hebrew Isrealites and Moors. They use Genetic data to try to debunk the beliefs of these ideologues.
^ So Eurocentrics want to remove the toxicity to the legacy of the African people
and they want to combat Hebrew Isrealites and Moors
Ish Gebor you are calling this a good analysis ????
Good work Ish.
lioness you are wrong my genetics research has always been based on archaeogenetics. I believe I have even mentioned this method in my articles.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: What's your theory?
I bet you're not going to getting any answer, as usually that is.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: He,he,he: Of which generation are you - Millennial Generation or Generation Y, X, or Generation Z?
Interesting though, that you put time and effort into categorizing various thinking on genetics by the simple-minded, but show no effort to provide insight into the actual discipline, or it's nefarious uses.
As an example; You were correct in deriding the nonsense Albino back-migration claims about Y-dna "R". But you made no effort to explain why it was Albino nonsense.
It seems to me that people would have better use for that knowledge, than they do for how many categories there is.
Some people left Africa
for some reason some people think it was impossible for people to go back into Africa, go figure
quote:Originally posted by Njii:
The "We Aint African" Crowd
This stream consists of self hating black people who believe that genetics is a hoax because it connects African American people to African people. They hate Africa and African people because they believe that Africa has no redeeming qualities no civilizations, no writing, no culture of horse domestication, no culture of inventing the wheel, no burial rites, and no agricultural technology. This stream of thought is usually connected to religious and social ideological movements in the US such as the Moors and the Hebrew Isrealites or other groups with anti African motives, views, and opinions. Ultimately the hatred of all things African and ignorance of African history is what leads this stream of thought to take their position against modern mainstream genetics.
Ok I do see people like that.
I wonder who he's talking about. Mike, any ideas? I was thinking of one particular website, the name escapes me
Go figure that some reason you have a major problem with blacks entering Europe or any other place for that matter, early or late in history. LOL SMH
Go figure that the crazy claim being made is hordes of "back migrations" (with no evince at many cases). LOL SMH
Go figure that the claim is that Some people left Africa migrated out of Africa 40+ Kya. And after that no more. For some reason you think it was not possible after that time. However, some reason multiple "back migrations" were possible. LOL SMH
Go figure for some reason there is no evidence for those claims.
Go figure you even believe/ belief that blacks in Africa itself did not/ couldn't manage to move to North Africa (by themselves), but for some reason "back migrations" from who the hell knows where did manage to inhabit North Africa, then moving all over Africa. Yes, it's that funny.
You truly are shits for brains.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: 3. Archeology and Linguistics have little to no bearing on analysis of genetic data
This seems rather dubious- another strawman set up to later "refute" as to what the alleged "Afrocentrics believe"?
Precisely what Eurocentric academics think Archeology and Linguistics have little to no bearing on analysis of genetic data? To the contrary they often try to shoehorn archaeology and linguistic data into their genetic constructs. Some of their attempt fail, but not for lack of trying. Cavalli-Sforza's Genes, People, Language is a classic example and he tried to work in archaeo and linguistic data aplenty. So where are these reputed "Eurocentrcs" who say it has "no bearing"?
So the second reason that Eurocentrics use genetics is to combat social ideological enemies that they consider are toxic to the legacy of African people; mainly Hebrew Isrealites and Moors. They use Genetic data to try to debunk the beliefs of these ideologues.
Equally dubious. "Genetic data" is not needed to debunk notions about black "Hee-brew Israelites" originating in ancient West Africa. It doesn't even pass the smell test with basic historic and archaeo data. Likewise exactly what "genetic data" supposedly "combats" that some Moors were from North Africa and that among them were persons with common DNA markers found in African populations? XYZ's posted studies on the Iberian peninsula's profile on into the historic era confirm the case. So exactly what does alleged genetic data "combat" as to these two items?
Archeogenticists These are scholars that combine archeology and linguistics in genetics from an African centered prospective and seek to understand genetic data from the perspective of the original African blueprint of humanity.
^^This is shaky too for many so-called "archaeogenticists" are not operating from any African centered perspective, and are manipulating data and models to maintain stereotypical racial constructs. Cavalli-Sforza again is a classic example. He is a legit scholar with some credible info but also falls into certain stereotypical thinking traps. Some in this alleged stream of archaeogenetic thought are very Eurocentric. The article below debunks notions of "archaeogenticists" necessarily providing any more balanced treatment of Africa and Africans. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10768880
Curr Anthropol. 2000 Jun;41(3):357-384. Genes, Tribes, and African History. MacEachern S. Abstract
Over the past 40 years, traditional perspectives on the constitution of human groups have been subjected to stringent critique within anthropology. This began with the dismantling of accepted "race" divisions after World War II and continued with analyses of the meaning and reality of African "tribal" distinctions from the 1960s until the present. Archaeologists, ethnographers, linguists, and historians of Africa now work within a research milieu where social interactions, cultural exchange, and the dynamic nature of group identifications are accepted as a normal part of the human experience. At the same time, new techniques have been developed for the examination of human history, techniques based upon an expanding repertoire of tools for the analysis of genetic variability in human populations. Perhaps the most striking result of this research has been Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi, and Piazza's The History and Geography of Human Genes. Rather less attention has been paid, however, to the conceptual relationships between the human groups defined through such analyses, in Africa and elsewhere, and those defined through other kinds of research. This paper is a preliminary examination of the fit between genetic, archaeological, and ethnographic data on the African past."
^^ANd there are plenty of archaeogenetic games being played with Africa and Africans..
There are no archaeogenetics games being played against Black people. The article you cite fail to support you proposition. Below is the abstract
quote:
Format: AbstractSend to Curr Anthropol. 2000 Jun;41(3):357-384. Genes, Tribes, and African History. MacEachern S. Abstract Over the past 40 years, traditional perspectives on the constitution of human groups have been subjected to stringent critique within anthropology. This began with the dismantling of accepted "race" divisions after World War II and continued with analyses of the meaning and reality of African "tribal" distinctions from the 1960s until the present. Archaeologists, ethnographers, linguists, and historians of Africa now work within a research milieu where social interactions, cultural exchange, and the dynamic nature of group identifications are accepted as a normal part of the human experience. At the same time, new techniques have been developed for the examination of human history, techniques based upon an expanding repertoire of tools for the analysis of genetic variability in human populations. Perhaps the most striking result of this research has been Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi, and Piazza's The History and Geography of Human Genes. Rather less attention has been paid, however, to the conceptual relationships between the human groups defined through such analyses, in Africa and elsewhere, and those defined through other kinds of research. This paper is a preliminary examination of the fit between genetic, archaeological, and ethnographic data on the African past.
As you can see this paper supports archeogenetics.
The vast majority of geneticists use Bayesian statistics to "prove" their hypothesis.
Bayesian is based on the personal belief of the researcher.
quote: Bayesian probability is one interpretation of the concept of probability. In contrast to interpreting probability as the "frequency" or "propensity" of some phenomenon, Bayesian probability is a quantity that we assign for the purpose of representing a state of knowledge, or a state of belief.
This means that researchers using Bayesian statistics are just confirming what they already believe. As a result, when Eurocentrist, and 'go-along' AA geneticist make claims about the phylogeography of Afro-Americans and Africans their results are going to be biased, an infer that Black people are isolated and retricted to Africa; and that if black haplogroups appear outside Africa they are the result of slavery.
Archaeogenetics is the only way you can support any hypothesis relating to population migrations and admixture studies.
Ray and Excoffier argue that to build a reliable model of population dispersal researchers must combine genetic data and archaeological (or historical and linguistic) data . Using the method of research advocated by Ray and Excoffier demands that we reconsider the origin of the Dravidian and Aryan populations of India. The methods of Ray and Excoffier are in conformity with basic archaeogenetic research methods. The Archaeogenetic method suggest that coupling the archaeological data with genetic data is a powerful way to infer population migration .
In summary you don't know what you're talking about. Bayesian studies discriminate against Blacks, not archaeogenetics. Bayesian just confirm every evidence of Black genes outside Africa, date to the European spread of African people during slavery.It is due to archaeogenetics that we can prove/confirm that the Paleoamericans and first Europeans were Black.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: He,he,he: Of which generation are you - Millennial Generation or Generation Y, X, or Generation Z?
Interesting though, that you put time and effort into categorizing various thinking on genetics by the simple-minded, but show no effort to provide insight into the actual discipline, or it's nefarious uses.
As an example; You were correct in deriding the nonsense Albino back-migration claims about Y-dna "R". But you made no effort to explain why it was Albino nonsense.
It seems to me that people would have better use for that knowledge, than they do for how many categories there is.
White Geneticists just want to make the people of the past as white as possible. They paint historical figures white just like they paint genes white. It has nothing to do with any sovereign citizen conspiracy theories or isrealite religion fallacies.
Posts: 87 | From: California | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
This how the different streams of thought would respond to R Haplography data.
Eurocentrist:
Evidence from most laboratories shows that the R Haplogroup originated in Eurasia and is classified as a European marker by most mainstream geneticists. That means wherever it is found in non-europeans came as a result of mixing with europeans or an ancient back migration into Africa.
We Aint Africa Crowd: R is the most common gene in the Americas. R is found in African Americans. R is not as prevalent in Africa. This is solid proof that African Americans AINT African!!!!
Archeogeneticists:
Due to the diversity of the RV88 branch of R in Central Africa and the historical migration patterns of African people into Europe that is seen in the archeological record, it is safe to assume that R originated in Africa and was spread to Europe.
Posts: 87 | From: California | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
Due to the diversity of the RV88 branch of R in Central Africa and the historical migration patterns of African people into Europe that is seen in the archeological record, it is safe to assume that R originated in Africa and was spread to Europe. [/QB]
No peer reviewed scientific article says that R originated in Africa. Archeogeneticists have analyzerd 24,000 year old human remains carrying R found in Siberia ( the Mal'ta boy)
RV88 ( R1b1c ) as well as R1b and R2 are subclades of R which came later. They are variant mutations, splits from of the R* parent ancestor
RV88 originates in the Cameroon and part of Chad region and is dated 9200–5600 years old.
So what you are saying is 100% wrong Archeogeneticists and Eurcentrists both believe haplogroup R originates in Eurasia
there is no term for a "black genetics paradigm"
Posts: 42924 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Due to the diversity of the RV88 branch of R in Central Africa and the historical migration patterns of African people into Europe that is seen in the archeological record, it is safe to assume that R originated in Africa and was spread to Europe.
No peer reviewed scientific article says that R originated in Africa. Archeogeneticists have analyzerd 24,000 year old human remains carrying R found in Siberia ( the Mal'ta boy)
RV88 ( R1b1c ) as well as R1b and R2 are subclades of R which came later. They are variant mutations, splits from of the R* parent ancestor
RV88 originates in the Cameroon and part of Chad region and is dated 9200–5600 years old.
So what you are saying is 100% wrong Archeogeneticists and Eurcentrists both believe haplogroup R originates in Eurasia
there is no term for a "black genetics paradigm"
That for some reason would bring problems, however, the conflicting part.
quote: ‘‘Out of Africa’’ haplogroups.
All Y-clades that are not exclusively African belong to the macro-haplogroup CT, which is defined by mutations M168, M294 and P9.1 [14,31] and is subdivided into two major clades, DE and CF [1,14].
In a recent study [16], sequencing of two chromosomes belonging to haplogroups C and R, led to the identification of 25 new mutations, eleven of which were in the C-chromosome and seven in the R-chromosome.
Here, the seven mutations which were found to be shared by chromosomes of haplogroups C and R [16], were also found to be present in one DE sample (sample 33 in Table S1), and positioned at the root of macro-haplogroup CT (Figure 1 and Figure S1)
Structure of the macro-haplogroup CT. For details on mutations see legend to Figure 1. Dashed lines indicate putative branchings (no positive control available). The position of V248 (haplogroup C2) and V87 (haplogroup C3) compared to mutations that define internal branches was not determined. Note that mutations V45, V69 and V88 have been previously mapped (Cruciani et al. 2010; Eur J Hum Genet 18∶800–807).
Molecular Dissection of the Basal Clades in the Human Y Chromosome Phylogenetic Tree (2011)
quote:This branching pattern, along with the geographical distribution of the major clades A, B, and CT, has been interpreted as supporting an African origin for anatomically modern humans,10 with Khoisan from south Africa and Ethiopians from east Africa sharing the deepest lineages of the phylogeny.15 and 16
[...]
The deepest branching separates A1b from a monophyletic clade whose members (A1a, A2, A3, B, C, and R) all share seven mutually reinforcing derived mutations (five transitions and two transversions, all at non-CpG sites).
[...]
How does the present MSY tree compare with the backbone of the recently published “reference” MSY phylogeny?13 The phylogenetic relationships we observed among chromosomes belonging to haplogroups B, C, and R are reminiscent of those reported in the tree by Karafet et al.13 These chromosomes belong to a clade (haplogroup BT) in which chromosomes C and R share a common ancestor (Figure 2).
--Fulvio Cruciani et al A Revised Root for the Human Y Chromosomal Phylogenetic Tree: The Origin of Patrilineal Diversity in Africa (2011)
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Njii: Upon following various blogs and videos I have noticed 3 streams of thought among black people when analyzing and interpreting genetic data. Although many black people all around the world are beginning to learn about how fraudulent and conjecture based most European and Eurocentric papers on genetics are. There are still a large group of black people that take everything that Europeans interpret at face value. For me this group is comprises the first stream of thought.
These are scholars that combine archeology and linguistics in genetics from an African centered prospective and seek to understand genetic data from the perspective of the original African blueprint of humanity.
Well analyzed.
Archaeogenetics: The study of the past using the techniques of molecular genetics. The application of genetics to archeology. The term "archaeogenetics" was coined in the 1990s by the archeologist Colin Renfrew from the Greek archaios (ancient) + genetics = archaeogenetics, literally, ancient genetics.
In archaeogenetics, information on the DNA of different ethnic groups from around the world is used to analyze prehistoric events and corroborate accounts from historical sources. The DNA data are reconciled with the findings of archeologists, linguists, and paleoanthropologists to shed light on the past.
why are you saying it's well analyzed when none of the people identifying themselves as archaeogeneticists including the originator of the term Colin Renfrew say that they have an "African centered prospective "
Stop being stupid and cheerleading without thinking
quote:Originally posted by Njii:
Eurocentrists.....
This stream of thought mainly uses genetics for two main reasons:
1. To seem updated with the latest information coming out of Eurocentric universities.
2. To combat social ideological enemies that they consider are toxic to the legacy of African people; mainly Hebrew Isrealites and Moors. They use Genetic data to try to debunk the beliefs of these ideologues.
So the second reason that Eurocentrics use genetics is to combat social ideological enemies that they consider are toxic to the legacy of African people; mainly Hebrew Isrealites and Moors. They use Genetic data to try to debunk the beliefs of these ideologues.
^ So Eurocentrics want to remove the toxicity to the legacy of the African people
and they want to combat Hebrew Isrealites and Moors
Ish Gebor you are calling this a good analysis ????
Those are classifications within the paradigm of black genetic thought, meaning that the classifications are talking about black people who follow this particular line of thinking.
What was posted is not that hard to grasp unless you are intentionally being misleading.
Posts: 87 | From: California | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
Due to the diversity of the RV88 branch of R in Central Africa and the historical migration patterns of African people into Europe that is seen in the archeological record, it is safe to assume that R originated in Africa and was spread to Europe.
No peer reviewed scientific article says that R originated in Africa. Archeogeneticists have analyzerd 24,000 year old human remains carrying R found in Siberia ( the Mal'ta boy)
RV88 ( R1b1c ) as well as R1b and R2 are subclades of R which came later. They are variant mutations, splits from of the R* parent ancestor
RV88 originates in the Cameroon and part of Chad region and is dated 9200–5600 years old.
So what you are saying is 100% wrong Archeogeneticists and Eurcentrists both believe haplogroup R originates in Eurasia
there is no term for a "black genetics paradigm" [/QB]
Most geneticists use the greater diversity paradigm to establish the origin of modern haplogroups and genetic markers. The greatest diversity of R is found in Central Africa. According to this particular line of reasoning R originated in Africa and not Eurasia.
Posts: 87 | From: California | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
Due to the diversity of the RV88 branch of R in Central Africa and the historical migration patterns of African people into Europe that is seen in the archeological record, it is safe to assume that R originated in Africa and was spread to Europe.
No peer reviewed scientific article says that R originated in Africa. Archeogeneticists have analyzerd 24,000 year old human remains carrying R found in Siberia ( the Mal'ta boy)
RV88 ( R1b1c ) as well as R1b and R2 are subclades of R which came later. They are variant mutations, splits from of the R* parent ancestor
RV88 originates in the Cameroon and part of Chad region and is dated 9200–5600 years old.
So what you are saying is 100% wrong Archeogeneticists and Eurcentrists both believe haplogroup R originates in Eurasia
there is no term for a "black genetics paradigm" [/QB]
My peer reviewed articles claim R1 is of African origin:
The 3 streams of thought within the Black Genetics paradigm » Post
(3)
Archeogenticists
These are scholars that combine archeology and linguistics in genetics from an African centered prospective and seek to understand genetic data from the perspective of the original African blueprint of humanity. [/QB]
First of all spell the word correctly:
Archaeogenetics, "a" before "e"
Archaeogenetics, a term coined by British archaeologist and paleolinguist Colin Renfrew, is not research practiced by scholars it is practiced by scientists in laboratories using scientific equipment.
Archaeogentics is a term is not specific to "Black genetics" or an "African centered perspective" The term was invented by a white man and is most frequently used in referring to the Max Planck institute in Germany who has a department called the Department of Archaeogentics although is of course not specific to it.
Look at the term "genetics" and the term "archaeology" Both are science. Neither are supposed to be biased toward Eurocentric or Afrocentric.
Therefore a Eurocentric or an Afrocentric can use archaeogenetics in their arguments as a tool but archaeology and genetics or combining the two as " archaeogenetics"
quote:Originally posted by Njii:
Most geneticists use the greater diversity paradigm to establish the origin of modern haplogroups and genetic markers. The greatest diversity of R is found in Central Africa. According to this particular line of reasoning R originated in Africa and not Eurasia.
Clyde Winters is not a geneticist and has no training in biology.
There is no professional geneticist or archaeogenticist that says Haplogroup R has greater diversity in Central Africa or any part of Africa.
As regards to Haplogroup R, it has LESS diversity in Central Africa than in Western Asia and anatolia.
Try to find one single peer reviewed non-Clyde Winters scientific article that says R has it's greatest diversity anywhere in Africa to substantiate your claim. Your statement is false
To Clyde and others: please don't try to save him. He made the claim so he should be the one responsible for backing it with references. Let's give him a couple of days to come up with something
posted
My research skills are a bit lacking but I came across a video talking about black Indians,its not the video,the narrator of video is reading a documentation of a guys research of the people through the Americas and if you heard or came across it. https://youtu.be/fxGX7Bmon5IPosts: 1123 | From: New York | Registered: Feb 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Njii: Upon following various blogs and videos I have noticed 3 streams of thought among black people when analyzing and interpreting genetic data. Although many black people all around the world are beginning to learn about how fraudulent and conjecture based most European and Eurocentric papers on genetics are. There are still a large group of black people that take everything that Europeans interpret at face value. For me this group is comprises the first stream of thought.
Eurocentrists The Eurocentric stream of Black scholastic knowledge and understanding regarding genetics take everything that white and eurocentric scholars say about genetics at face value. An example of the beliefs that this stream of thought hold include but are not limited to:
1. The Back Migration Fallacy; genetic markers that are shared by Eurasians and Africans entered Africa as a result of a back migration
2. The R Haplogroup originated outside of Africa
3. Archeology and Linguistics have little to no bearing on analysis of genetic data
4. When Black people migrated outside of Africa they became less African and any population that is found outside of Africa after the Out of Africa migration is completely disqualified from the classification of African and black.
This stream of thought mainly uses genetics for two main reasons:
1. To seem updated with the latest information coming out of Eurocentric universities.
2. To combat social ideological enemies that they consider are toxic to the legacy of African people; mainly Hebrew Isrealites and Moors. They use Genetic data to try to debunk the beliefs of these ideologues.
The "We Aint African" Crowd
This stream consists of self hating black people who believe that genetics is a hoax because it connects African American people to African people. They hate Africa and African people because they believe that Africa has no redeeming qualities no civilizations, no writing, no culture of horse domestication, no culture of inventing the wheel, no burial rites, and no agricultural technology. This stream of thought is usually connected to religious and social ideological movements in the US such as the Moors and the Hebrew Isrealites or other groups with anti African motives, views, and opinions. Ultimately the hatred of all things African and ignorance of African history is what leads this stream of thought to take their position against modern mainstream genetics.
Archeogenticists
These are scholars that combine archeology and linguistics in genetics from an African centered prospective and seek to understand genetic data from the perspective of the original African blueprint of humanity.
you need to re-think this thread
quote:Originally posted by Njii:
b]The "We Aint African" Crowd[/b]
This stream consists of self hating black people who believe that genetics is a hoax
These are not people who are part of a genetics paradigm because they don't believe in genetics
Here is a more clear thought, in my opinion:
What are the more common modes of thought coming from black people in forums in regard to genetics?:
1) People who discuss genetics in an objective scientific manner without regard to "racial" political issues
2) Afrocentrics who discuss genetics from an African centered political perspective (including some who speak of blacks not only in Africa but other parts of the world and their ancient roots)
3) People who think genetics is not reliable to make conclusions with
4) People who think genetics is not reliable to make conclusions with because it contradicts their religious beliefs
5) Uniformed people who don't know the basis of genetics
6) People who look at genetics from a black is superior perspective
7) People who use genetics science to defend politically against what they see as genetics tainted by Eurocentric racism
_______________________________
we also have the "we aint African crowd"
a) People of African ancestry who prefer to think their ancestry is really mainly from the Americas.
b) People of African ancestry who prefer to think their ancestry is really mainly from Europe
c) People of African ancestry who prefer to think their ancestry is really mainly from Israel or the land of the Canaanites
but they actually fit into:
3) People who think genetics is not reliable to make conclusions with
Posts: 42924 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
The 3 streams of thought within the Black Genetics paradigm » Post
(3)
Archeogenticists
These are scholars that combine archeology and linguistics in genetics from an African centered prospective and seek to understand genetic data from the perspective of the original African blueprint of humanity.
First of all spell the word correctly:
Archaeogenetics, "a" before "e"
Archaeogenetics, a term coined by British archaeologist and paleolinguist Colin Renfrew, is not research practiced by scholars it is practiced by scientists in laboratories using scientific equipment.
Archaeogentics is a term is not specific to "Black genetics" or an "African centered perspective" The term was invented by a white man and is most frequently used in referring to the Max Planck institute in Germany who has a department called the Department of Archaeogentics although is of course not specific to it.
Look at the term "genetics" and the term "archaeology" Both are science. Neither are supposed to be biased toward Eurocentric or Afrocentric.
Therefore a Eurocentric or an Afrocentric can use archaeogenetics in their arguments as a tool but archaeology and genetics or combining the two as " archaeogenetics"
quote:Originally posted by Njii:
Most geneticists use the greater diversity paradigm to establish the origin of modern haplogroups and genetic markers. The greatest diversity of R is found in Central Africa. According to this particular line of reasoning R originated in Africa and not Eurasia.
Clyde Winters is not a geneticist and has no training in biology.
There is no professional geneticist or archaeogenticist that says Haplogroup R has greater diversity in Central Africa or any part of Africa.
As regards to Haplogroup R, it has LESS diversity in Central Africa than in Western Asia and anatolia.
Try to find one single peer reviewed non-Clyde Winters scientific article that says R has it's greatest diversity anywhere in Africa to substantiate your claim. Your statement is false
To Clyde and others: please don't try to save him. He made the claim so he should be the one responsible for backing it with references. Let's give him a couple of days to come up with something
The 3 streams of thought within the Black Genetics paradigm » Post
(3)
Archeogenticists
These are scholars that combine archeology and linguistics in genetics from an African centered prospective and seek to understand genetic data from the perspective of the original African blueprint of humanity.
First of all spell the word correctly:
Archaeogenetics, "a" before "e"
Archaeogenetics, a term coined by British archaeologist and paleolinguist Colin Renfrew, is not research practiced by scholars it is practiced by scientists in laboratories using scientific equipment.
Archaeogentics is a term is not specific to "Black genetics" or an "African centered perspective" The term was invented by a white man and is most frequently used in referring to the Max Planck institute in Germany who has a department called the Department of Archaeogentics although is of course not specific to it.
Look at the term "genetics" and the term "archaeology" Both are science. Neither are supposed to be biased toward Eurocentric or Afrocentric.
Therefore a Eurocentric or an Afrocentric can use archaeogenetics in their arguments as a tool but archaeology and genetics or combining the two as " archaeogenetics"
quote:Originally posted by Njii:
Most geneticists use the greater diversity paradigm to establish the origin of modern haplogroups and genetic markers. The greatest diversity of R is found in Central Africa. According to this particular line of reasoning R originated in Africa and not Eurasia.
Clyde Winters is not a geneticist and has no training in biology.
There is no professional geneticist or archaeogenticist that says Haplogroup R has greater diversity in Central Africa or any part of Africa.
As regards to Haplogroup R, it has LESS diversity in Central Africa than in Western Asia and anatolia.
Try to find one single peer reviewed non-Clyde Winters scientific article that says R has it's greatest diversity anywhere in Africa to substantiate your claim. Your statement is false
To Clyde and others: please don't try to save him. He made the claim so he should be the one responsible for backing it with references. Let's give him a couple of days to come up with something
If not, I'm putting another scratch on my belt.
______________________________________
You don't have to be a genericist to write and publish genetics articles. Iosif Lazaridis is a Computer Scientist--not a geneticist, and he has authored several articles you guys have accepted as genetics research on this forum: http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009467;p=9 . [/QB]
It's not just losif Lazaridis it's a research team that includes trained geneticists and who do the primary analysis
The genetic structure of the world's first farmers
Iosif Lazaridis, Dani Nadel, Gary Rollefson, Deborah C. Merrett, Nadin Rohland, Swapan Mallick, Daniel Fernandes, Mario Novak, Beatriz Gamarra, Kendra Sirak, Sarah Connell, Kristin Stewardson, Eadaoin Harney, Qiaomei Fu, Gloria Gonzalez-Fortes, Songül Alpaslan Roodenberg, Gyorgy Lengyel, Fanny Bocquentin, Boris Gasparian, Janet M. Monge, Michael Gregg, Vered Eshed, Ahuva-Sivan Mizrahi, Christopher Meiklejohn, Fokke Gerritsen, Luminita Bejenaru, Matthias Blueher, Archie Campbell, Gianpero Cavalleri, David Comas, Philippe Froguel, Edmund Gilbert, Shona M. Kerr, Peter Kovacs, Johannes Krause, Darren McGettigan, Michael Merrigan, D. Andrew Merriwether, Seamus O'Reilly, Martin B. Richards, Ornella Semino, Michel Shamoon-Pour, Gheorghe Stefanescu, Michael Stumvoll, Anke Tonjes, Antonio Torroni, James F. Wilson, Loic Yengo, Nelli A. Hovhannisyan, Nick Patterson, Ron Pinhasi, David Reich doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/059311Posts: 42924 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
The 3 streams of thought within the Black Genetics paradigm » Post
(3)
Archeogenticists
These are scholars that combine archeology and linguistics in genetics from an African centered prospective and seek to understand genetic data from the perspective of the original African blueprint of humanity.
First of all spell the word correctly:
Archaeogenetics, "a" before "e"
Archaeogenetics, a term coined by British archaeologist and paleolinguist Colin Renfrew, is not research practiced by scholars it is practiced by scientists in laboratories using scientific equipment.
Archaeogentics is a term is not specific to "Black genetics" or an "African centered perspective" The term was invented by a white man and is most frequently used in referring to the Max Planck institute in Germany who has a department called the Department of Archaeogentics although is of course not specific to it.
Look at the term "genetics" and the term "archaeology" Both are science. Neither are supposed to be biased toward Eurocentric or Afrocentric.
Therefore a Eurocentric or an Afrocentric can use archaeogenetics in their arguments as a tool but archaeology and genetics or combining the two as " archaeogenetics"
quote:Originally posted by Njii:
Most geneticists use the greater diversity paradigm to establish the origin of modern haplogroups and genetic markers. The greatest diversity of R is found in Central Africa. According to this particular line of reasoning R originated in Africa and not Eurasia.
Clyde Winters is not a geneticist and has no training in biology.
There is no professional geneticist or archaeogenticist that says Haplogroup R has greater diversity in Central Africa or any part of Africa.
As regards to Haplogroup R, it has LESS diversity in Central Africa than in Western Asia and anatolia.
Try to find one single peer reviewed non-Clyde Winters scientific article that says R has it's greatest diversity anywhere in Africa to substantiate your claim. Your statement is false
To Clyde and others: please don't try to save him. He made the claim so he should be the one responsible for backing it with references. Let's give him a couple of days to come up with something
It's not just losif Lazaridis it's a research team that includes trained geneticists and who do the primary analysis
The genetic structure of the world's first farmers
Iosif Lazaridis, Dani Nadel, Gary Rollefson, Deborah C. Merrett, Nadin Rohland, Swapan Mallick, Daniel Fernandes, Mario Novak, Beatriz Gamarra, Kendra Sirak, Sarah Connell, Kristin Stewardson, Eadaoin Harney, Qiaomei Fu, Gloria Gonzalez-Fortes, Songül Alpaslan Roodenberg, Gyorgy Lengyel, Fanny Bocquentin, Boris Gasparian, Janet M. Monge, Michael Gregg, Vered Eshed, Ahuva-Sivan Mizrahi, Christopher Meiklejohn, Fokke Gerritsen, Luminita Bejenaru, Matthias Blueher, Archie Campbell, Gianpero Cavalleri, David Comas, Philippe Froguel, Edmund Gilbert, Shona M. Kerr, Peter Kovacs, Johannes Krause, Darren McGettigan, Michael Merrigan, D. Andrew Merriwether, Seamus O'Reilly, Martin B. Richards, Ornella Semino, Michel Shamoon-Pour, Gheorghe Stefanescu, Michael Stumvoll, Anke Tonjes, Antonio Torroni, James F. Wilson, Loic Yengo, Nelli A. Hovhannisyan, Nick Patterson, Ron Pinhasi, David Reich doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/059311 [/QB]
Iosif Lazaridis is credited as the lead author so he did just about all the work. The fact remains, as usual you don't know what you're talking about. Non geneticist do write genetics articles. Just admit it you were wrong.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The genetic structure of the world's first farmers
Iosif Lazaridis, Dani Nadel, Gary Rollefson, Deborah C. Merrett, Nadin Rohland, Swapan Mallick, Daniel Fernandes, Mario Novak, Beatriz Gamarra, Kendra Sirak, Sarah Connell, Kristin Stewardson, Eadaoin Harney, Qiaomei Fu, Gloria Gonzalez-Fortes, Songül Alpaslan Roodenberg, Gyorgy Lengyel, Fanny Bocquentin, Boris Gasparian, Janet M. Monge, Michael Gregg, Vered Eshed, Ahuva-Sivan Mizrahi, Christopher Meiklejohn, Fokke Gerritsen, Luminita Bejenaru, Matthias Blueher, Archie Campbell, Gianpero Cavalleri, David Comas, Philippe Froguel, Edmund Gilbert, Shona M. Kerr, Peter Kovacs, Johannes Krause, Darren McGettigan, Michael Merrigan, D. Andrew Merriwether, Seamus O'Reilly, Martin B. Richards, Ornella Semino, Michel Shamoon-Pour, Gheorghe Stefanescu, Michael Stumvoll, Anke Tonjes, Antonio Torroni, James F. Wilson, Loic Yengo, Nelli A. Hovhannisyan, Nick Patterson, Ron Pinhasi, David Reich doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/059311
^^^ the difference between this and a Clyde Winters article is despite who actually wrote the article it is based on the contributions of over 50 people including several well known geneticists. It has primary data in it including DNA testing and is published in a well regarded a peer revived journal.
In contrast Clyde Winters has done no DNA testing, has no team of geneticists assisting him has only done secondary research and has not published any articles in peer reviewed biology journals and has zero co-authors signing on the conclusions
That's the difference
Posts: 42924 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: The genetic structure of the world's first farmers
Iosif Lazaridis, Dani Nadel, Gary Rollefson, Deborah C. Merrett, Nadin Rohland, Swapan Mallick, Daniel Fernandes, Mario Novak, Beatriz Gamarra, Kendra Sirak, Sarah Connell, Kristin Stewardson, Eadaoin Harney, Qiaomei Fu, Gloria Gonzalez-Fortes, Songül Alpaslan Roodenberg, Gyorgy Lengyel, Fanny Bocquentin, Boris Gasparian, Janet M. Monge, Michael Gregg, Vered Eshed, Ahuva-Sivan Mizrahi, Christopher Meiklejohn, Fokke Gerritsen, Luminita Bejenaru, Matthias Blueher, Archie Campbell, Gianpero Cavalleri, David Comas, Philippe Froguel, Edmund Gilbert, Shona M. Kerr, Peter Kovacs, Johannes Krause, Darren McGettigan, Michael Merrigan, D. Andrew Merriwether, Seamus O'Reilly, Martin B. Richards, Ornella Semino, Michel Shamoon-Pour, Gheorghe Stefanescu, Michael Stumvoll, Anke Tonjes, Antonio Torroni, James F. Wilson, Loic Yengo, Nelli A. Hovhannisyan, Nick Patterson, Ron Pinhasi, David Reich doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/059311
^^^ the difference between this and a Clyde Winters article is despite who actually wrote the article it is based on the contributions of over 50 people including several well known geneticists. It has primary data in it including DNA testing and is published in a well regarded a peer revived journal.
In contrast Clyde Winters has done no DNA testing, has no team of geneticists assisting him has only done secondary research and has not published any articles in peer reviewed biology journals and has zero co-authors signing on the conclusions
That's the difference
Jealousy and envy will get you no where. Ain't I a bad Mother.....,I have proved you don't have to be a geneticists to write a genetics research paper.
. .
LOL. You don't have to do any testing most of the material is already collected and all you have to do is decide on the research topic, choose the appropriate Computer Program and run the data.
Most people just sign on to a research paper as a co-contributor to increase their number of publications and have contributed nothing to the paper. You just hate the fact that Europeans no longer control access to peer reviewed publications.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: ^^^ see all of this?
None of it proves R originated in Africa, so stop it
LOL
Here, the seven mutations which were found to be shared by chromosomes of haplogroups C and R [16], were also found to be present in one DE sample (sample 33 in Table S1), and positioned at the root of macro-haplogroup CT (Figure 1 and Figure S1)
These chromosomes belong to a clade (haplogroup BT) in which chromosomes C and R share a common ancestor (Figure 2).
LOL
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: ^ LOL, Again, this phylogeny does not prove Haplogroup R originated in Africa
LOL
quote: All Y-clades that are not exclusively African belong to the macro-haplogroup CT, which is defined by mutations M168, M294 and P9.1 [14,31] and is subdivided into two major clades, DE and CF [1,14].
chromosomes of haplogroups C and R [16], were also found to be present in one DE sample (sample 33 in Table S1)
Molecular Dissection of the Basal Clades in the Human Y Chromosome Phylogenetic Tree (2011) LOL
quote:"haplogroup CF and DE molecular ancestors first evolved inside Africa and subsequently contributed as Y chromosome founders to pioneering migrations that successfully colonized Asia. While not proof, the DE and CF bifurcation (Figure 8d ) is consistent with independent colonization impulses possibly occurring in a short time interval."
Use of Y Chromosome and Mitochondrial DNA Population Structure in Tracing Human Migrations
--Peter A. Underhill , Toomas Kivisild - 2007
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote: The Y chromosome Alu polymorphism (YAP, also called M1) defines the deep-rooted haplogroup D/E of the global Y-chromosome phylogeny [1]. This D/E haplogroup is further branched into three sub-haplogroups DE*, D and E (Figure 1). The distribution of the D/E haplogroup is highly regional, and the three subgroups are geographically restricted to certain areas, therefore informative in tracing human prehistory (Table 1). The sub-haplogroup DE*, presumably the most ancient lineage of the D/E haplogroup was only found in Africans from Nigeria [2], supporting the "Out of Africa" hypothesis about modern human origin. The sub-haplogroup E (E-M40), defined by M40/SRY4064 and M96, was also suggested originated in Africa [3-6], and later dispersed to Middle East and Europe about 20,000 years ago [3,4]. Interestingly, the sub-haplogroup D defined by M174 (D-M174) is East Asian specific with abundant appearance in Tibetan and Japanese (30–40%), but rare in most of other East Asian populations and populations from regions bordering East Asia (Central Asia, North Asia and Middle East) (usually less than 5%) [5-7]. Under D-M174, Japanese belongs to a separate sub-lineage defined by several mutations (e.g. M55, M57 and M64 etc.), which is different from those in Tibetans implicating relatively deep divergence between them [1]. The fragmented distribution of D-M174 in East Asia seems not consistent with the pattern of other East Asian specific lineages, i.e. O3-M122, O1-M119 and O2-M95 under haplogroup O [8,9].
quote: Further refinement awaits the finding of new markers especially within paragroup E3a*-M2. The microsatellite profile of the DE* individual is one mutational step away from the allelic state described for Nigerians (DYS390*21, DYS388 not tested; [37], therefore suggesting a common ancestry but not elucidating the phylogenetics.
Haplogroup DE* in Guinea-Bissau:
Y-chromosomal diversity in the population of Guinea-Bissau: a multiethnic perspective
quote: There has been considerable debate on the geographic origin of the human Y chromosome Alu polymorphism (YAP). Here we report a new, very rare deep-rooting haplogroup within the YAP clade, together with data on other deep-rooting YAP clades. The new haplogroup, found so far in only five Nigerians, is the least-derived YAP haplogroup according to currently known binary markers. However, because the interior branching order of the Y chromosome genealogical tree remains unknown, it is impossible to impute the origin of the YAP clade with certainty. We discuss the problems presented by rare deep-rooting lineages for Y chromosome phylogeography.
Haplogroup DE* in Nigerians:
Rare Deep-Rooting Y Chromosome Lineages in Humans: Lessons for Phylogeography
All Y-clades that are not exclusively African belong to the macro-haplogroup CT, which is defined by mutations M168, M294 and P9.1 [14,31] and is subdivided into two major clades, DE and CF [1,14].
In a recent study [16], sequencing of two chromosomes belonging to haplogroups C and R, led to the identification of 25 new mutations, eleven of which were in the C-chromosome and seven in the R-chromosome.
Here, the seven mutations which were found to be shared by chromosomes of haplogroups C and R [16], were also found to be present in one DE sample (sample 33 in Table S1), and positioned at the root of macro-haplogroup CT (Figure 1 and Figure S1)
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: LOL, Again, the phylogeny does not prove Haplogroup R originated in Africa
remember, quality of argument over quantity
The quality was highlighted in the quantity.
The >>>Molecular Dissection of the Basal Clades<<< have proven you wrong. lol
" seven mutations which were found to be shared by chromosomes of haplogroups C and R [16], were also found to be present in one DE sample "
chromosomes of haplogroups C and R [16], were also found to be present in one DE sample
I understand all this DE found in Africa is overwhelming for you. All you can do now is repeat your same delusional racist opt. But that argument doesn't boil now, it is completely meaningless here. It just shows that you are a retarded racist. This is a common denominator you have with other racists.
Remember you're a fake, a racist a black woman impostor.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: [qb] LOL, Again, the phylogeny does not prove Haplogroup R originated in Africa
remember, quality of argument over quantity
The quality was highlighted in the quantity.
The >>>Molecular Dissection of the Basal Clades<<< have proven you wrong. lol
seven mutations which were found to be shared by chromosomes of haplogroups C and R [16], were also found to be present in one DE sample
chromosomes of haplogroups C and R [16], were also found to be present in one DE sample
I understand all this DE found in Africa is overwhelming for you.
I understand your attempts to quote scientific terms and charts
but none of the above means Haplogroup R originates in Africa
YOu really have no understanding of how the location of the origin of a haplogroups is determined
Posts: 42924 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: [qb] LOL, Again, the phylogeny does not prove Haplogroup R originated in Africa
remember, quality of argument over quantity
The quality was highlighted in the quantity.
The >>>Molecular Dissection of the Basal Clades<<< have proven you wrong. lol
seven mutations which were found to be shared by chromosomes of haplogroups C and R [16], were also found to be present in one DE sample
chromosomes of haplogroups C and R [16], were also found to be present in one DE sample
I understand all this DE found in Africa is overwhelming for you.
I understand your attempts to quote scientific terms and charts
but none of the above means Haplogroup R originates in Africa
YOu really have no understanding of how the location of the origin of a haplogroups is determined
LOL It means that seven mutations which were found to be shared by chromosomes of haplogroups C and R [16], were also found to be present in one DE sample" originated in Africa, found in Africans. IRONICALLY these are the basals! LOL
This basal was then taken to outside of Africa. Hence the plethora of studies, posted (of which you complained). LOL
You have no other argument, but "it is not not not not not...". LOL
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again, none of what you said represents the location of the origin Haplogroup R
You need to find some quotes which talk about how the location of origin of a haplogroup is dtermined
Posts: 42924 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote: The Y chromosome Alu polymorphism (YAP, also called M1) defines the deep-rooted haplogroup D/E of the global Y-chromosome phylogeny [1]. This D/E haplogroup is further branched into three sub-haplogroups DE*, D and E (Figure 1). The distribution of the D/E haplogroup is highly regional, and the three subgroups are geographically restricted to certain areas, therefore informative in tracing human prehistory (Table 1). The sub-haplogroup DE*, presumably the most ancient lineage of the D/E haplogroup was only found in Africans from Nigeria [2], supporting the "Out of Africa" hypothesis about modern human origin. The sub-haplogroup E (E-M40), defined by M40/SRY4064 and M96, was also suggested originated in Africa [3-6], and later dispersed to Middle East and Europe about 20,000 years ago [3,4]. Interestingly, the sub-haplogroup D defined by M174 (D-M174) is East Asian specific with abundant appearance in Tibetan and Japanese (30–40%), but rare in most of other East Asian populations and populations from regions bordering East Asia (Central Asia, North Asia and Middle East) (usually less than 5%) [5-7]. Under D-M174, Japanese belongs to a separate sub-lineage defined by several mutations (e.g. M55, M57 and M64 etc.), which is different from those in Tibetans implicating relatively deep divergence between them [1]. The fragmented distribution of D-M174 in East Asia seems not consistent with the pattern of other East Asian specific lineages, i.e. O3-M122, O1-M119 and O2-M95 under haplogroup O [8,9].
quote: Further refinement awaits the finding of new markers especially within paragroup E3a*-M2. The microsatellite profile of the DE* individual is one mutational step away from the allelic state described for Nigerians (DYS390*21, DYS388 not tested; [37], therefore suggesting a common ancestry but not elucidating the phylogenetics.
Haplogroup DE* in Guinea-Bissau:
Y-chromosomal diversity in the population of Guinea-Bissau: a multiethnic perspective
quote: There has been considerable debate on the geographic origin of the human Y chromosome Alu polymorphism (YAP). Here we report a new, very rare deep-rooting haplogroup within the YAP clade, together with data on other deep-rooting YAP clades. The new haplogroup, found so far in only five Nigerians, is the least-derived YAP haplogroup according to currently known binary markers. However, because the interior branching order of the Y chromosome genealogical tree remains unknown, it is impossible to impute the origin of the YAP clade with certainty. We discuss the problems presented by rare deep-rooting lineages for Y chromosome phylogeography.
Haplogroup DE* in Nigerians:
Rare Deep-Rooting Y Chromosome Lineages in Humans: Lessons for Phylogeography
All Y-clades that are not exclusively African belong to the macro-haplogroup CT, which is defined by mutations M168, M294 and P9.1 [14,31] and is subdivided into two major clades, DE and CF [1,14].
In a recent study [16], sequencing of two chromosomes belonging to haplogroups C and R, led to the identification of 25 new mutations, eleven of which were in the C-chromosome and seven in the R-chromosome.
Here, the seven mutations which were found to be shared by chromosomes of haplogroups C and R [16], were also found to be present in one DE sample (sample 33 in Table S1), and positioned at the root of macro-haplogroup CT (Figure 1 and Figure S1)
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: LOL, Again, the phylogeny does not prove Haplogroup R originated in Africa
remember, quality of argument over quantity
The quality was highlighted in the quantity.
The >>>Molecular Dissection of the Basal Clades<<< have proven you wrong. lol
" seven mutations which were found to be shared by chromosomes of haplogroups C and R [16], were also found to be present in one DE sample "
chromosomes of haplogroups C and R [16], were also found to be present in one DE sample
I understand all this DE found in Africa is overwhelming for you. All you can do now is repeat your same delusional racist opt. But that argument doesn't boil now, it is completely meaningless here. It just shows that you are a retarded racist. This is a common denominator you have with other racists.
Remember you're a fake, a racist a black woman impostor.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Again, none of what you said represents the location of the origin Haplogroup R
You need to find some quotes which talk about how the location of origin of a haplogroup is dtermined
LOL This is getting funny. It represents that the basal of "R" has origin in Africa and was taken outside of Africa. LOL
>>>seven mutations which were found to be shared by chromosomes of haplogroups C and R [16], were also found to be present in one DE sample"<<<
quote: How does the present MSY tree compare with the backbone of the recently published “reference” MSY phylogeny?13 The phylogenetic relationships we observed among chromosomes belonging to haplogroups B, C, and R are reminiscent of those reported in the tree by Karafet et al.13
--Fulvio Cruciani et al A Revised Root for the Human Y Chromosomal Phylogenetic Tree: The Origin of Patrilineal Diversity in Africa (2011)
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: [qb] Again, none of what you said represents the location of the origin Haplogroup R
You need to find some quotes which talk about how the location of origin of a haplogroup is dtermined
LOL This is getting funny. It represents that the basal of "R" has origin in Africa and was taken outside of Africa. LOL
Again, haplogroup R is a mutation that occured after people carried earlier haplogroups outside of Africa.
This is genetics 101 and you still don't get it
This is genetics 101 Molecular Dissection of the Basal Clades says: >>>seven mutations which were found to be shared by chromosomes of haplogroups C and R [16], were also found to be present in one DE sample"<<< LOL SMH You still don't get it, simple mind. This occurred within Africa, and was taken outside Africa.
quote:"haplogroup CF and DE molecular ancestors first evolved inside Africa and subsequently contributed as Y chromosome founders to pioneering migrations that successfully colonized Asia. While not proof, the DE and CF bifurcation (Figure 8d ) is consistent with independent colonization impulses possibly occurring in a short time interval."
Use of Y Chromosome and Mitochondrial DNA Population Structure in Tracing Human Migrations
--Peter A. Underhill , Toomas Kivisild - 2007
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: [qb] Again, none of what you said represents the location of the origin Haplogroup R
You need to find some quotes which talk about how the location of origin of a haplogroup is dtermined
LOL This is getting funny. It represents that the basal of "R" has origin in Africa and was taken outside of Africa. LOL
Again, haplogroup R is a mutation that occured after people carried earlier haplogroups outside of Africa.
This is genetics 101 and you still don't get it
101 says: >>>seven mutations which were found to be shared by chromosomes of haplogroups C and R [16], were also found to be present in one DE sample"<<< LOL SMH
Again, shared mutations between C or DE and R do not mean Haplogroup R origintated in Africa, stop being stupid. You don't understand what you are reading
Posts: 42924 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: [qb] Again, none of what you said represents the location of the origin Haplogroup R
You need to find some quotes which talk about how the location of origin of a haplogroup is dtermined
LOL This is getting funny. It represents that the basal of "R" has origin in Africa and was taken outside of Africa. LOL
Again, haplogroup R is a mutation that occured after people carried earlier haplogroups outside of Africa.
This is genetics 101 and you still don't get it
101 says: >>>seven mutations which were found to be shared by chromosomes of haplogroups C and R [16], were also found to be present in one DE sample"<<< LOL SMH
Again, shared mutations between C or DE and R do not mean Haplogroup R orientated in Africa, stop being stupid
Piece of ****, can you not read. BASAL. DE was found in Africa. So that means that this BASAL for "R" was already in Africa. LOL SMH
As per Fulvio Cruciani et al.
Molecular Dissection of the Basal Clades in the Human Y Chromosome Phylogenetic Tree (2011)
>>>seven mutations which were found to be shared by chromosomes of haplogroups C and R [16], were also found to be present in one DE sample"
>>>seven mutations which were found to be shared by chromosomes of haplogroups C and R [16], were also found to be present in one DE sample"
>>>seven mutations which were found to be shared by chromosomes of haplogroups C and R [16], were also found to be present in one DE sample"
>>>seven mutations which were found to be shared by chromosomes of haplogroups C and R [16], were also found to be present in one DE sample"
>>>seven mutations which were found to be shared by chromosomes of haplogroups C and R [16], were also found to be present in one DE sample"
>>>seven mutations which were found to be shared by chromosomes of haplogroups C and R [16], were also found to be present in one DE sample"
>>>seven mutations which were found to be shared by chromosomes of haplogroups C and R [16], were also found to be present in one DE sample"
quote:"haplogroup CF and DE molecular ancestors first evolved inside Africa and subsequently contributed as Y chromosome founders to pioneering migrations that successfully colonized Asia. While not proof, the DE and CF bifurcation (Figure 8d ) is consistent with independent colonization impulses possibly occurring in a short time interval."
Use of Y Chromosome and Mitochondrial DNA Population Structure in Tracing Human Migrations
--Peter A. Underhill , Toomas Kivisild - 2007
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sill you don't understand what you are reading.
you can type it over and over again like a maniac, shared mutations are not all mutations involved, Haplogroup R did not originate in Africa, try to find ANY article stating that it did, stop bullshitting
Posts: 42924 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote: The regional distribution of an ancient Y-chromosome haplogroup C-M130 (Hg C) in Asia provides an ideal tool of dissecting prehistoric migration events. We identified 465 Hg C individuals out of 4284 males from 140 East and Southeast Asian populations. We genotyped these Hg C individuals using 12 Y-chromosome biallelic markers and 8 commonly used Y-short tandem repeats (Y-STRs), and performed phylogeographic analysis in combination with the published data. The results show that most of the Hg C subhaplogroups have distinct geographical distribution and have undergone long-time isolation, although Hg C individuals are distributed widely across Eurasia. Furthermore, a general south-to-north and east-to-west cline of Y-STR diversity is observed with the highest diversity in Southeast Asia. The phylogeographic distribution pattern of Hg C supports a single coastal 'Out-of-Africa' route by way of the Indian subcontinent, which eventually led to the early settlement of modern humans in mainland Southeast Asia. The northward expansion of Hg C in East Asia started approximately 40 thousand of years ago (KYA) along the coastline of mainland China and reached Siberia approximately 15 KYA and finally made its way to the Americas.
--Zhong H1, Shi H, Qi XB, Xiao CJ, Jin L, Ma RZ, Su B.
Global distribution of Y-chromosome haplogroup C reveals the prehistoric migration routes of African exodus and early settlement in East Asia.
quote: The regional distribution of an ancient Y-chromosome haplogroup C-M130 (Hg C) in Asia provides an ideal tool of dissecting prehistoric migration events. We identified 465 Hg C individuals out of 4284 males from 140 East and Southeast Asian populations. We genotyped these Hg C individuals using 12 Y-chromosome biallelic markers and 8 commonly used Y-short tandem repeats (Y-STRs), and performed phylogeographic analysis in combination with the published data. The results show that most of the Hg C subhaplogroups have distinct geographical distribution and have undergone long-time isolation, although Hg C individuals are distributed widely across Eurasia. Furthermore, a general south-to-north and east-to-west cline of Y-STR diversity is observed with the highest diversity in Southeast Asia. The phylogeographic distribution pattern of Hg C supports a single coastal 'Out-of-Africa' route by way of the Indian subcontinent, which eventually led to the early settlement of modern humans in mainland Southeast Asia. The northward expansion of Hg C in East Asia started approximately 40 thousand of years ago (KYA) along the coastline of mainland China and reached Siberia approximately 15 KYA and finally made its way to the Americas.
--Zhong H1, Shi H, Qi XB, Xiao CJ, Jin L, Ma RZ, Su B.
Global distribution of Y-chromosome haplogroup C reveals the prehistoric migration routes of African exodus and early settlement in East Asia.
Again , shared mutations between Asian Haplogroup C and Haplogroup R doesn't mean Haplogroup R originated in Africa. Stop the ongoing lies and deceit
Posts: 42924 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic