posted
This table from Wilson et al. 2001 confirms that Ethiopians* are a heterogeneous group, sharing about 2/3 of their heritage with Europeans and Middle Easterners, 1/4 with Bantus, and 1/8 with various peoples from Asia:
Their make-up reflects indigenous proto-Caucasoid elements, ancient proto-Asian back migrations, and more recent incursions by Niger-Congo- and Semitic-speakers.
*Amharic- and Oromo-speaking Ethiopians from Shewa and Wollo provinces collected in Addis Ababa (48)
quote:Originally posted by Stupid Euro: This table from Wilson et al. 2001 confirms that Ethiopians* are a heterogeneous group, sharing about 2/3 of their heritage with Europeans and Middle Easterners, 1/4 with Bantus, and 1/8 with various peoples from Asia:
LOL this common heritage with some Europeans and Middle Easterners is E3b, which we all know originated in East Africa and is black African in origin!
quote:Their make-up reflects indigenous proto-Caucasoid elements, ancient proto-Asian back migrations, and more recent incursions by Niger-Congo- and Semitic-speakers.
*Amharic- and Oromo-speaking Ethiopians from Shewa and Wollo provinces collected in Addis Ababa (48)
"proto-caucasoid", "proto-Asian", are all actually black, since all Eurasians descended from black Africans.
Sorry Euro, but the only one stupid enough to fall for antics here is Giza. The rest of us are informed (educated) enough not to.
Posts: 26280 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting how the Neo-Nazis have to go so far as call Ethiopians Caucasian just to keep their sense of feeble superiority. They realize that the East Africans were superior to them in terms of ancient historical achievements in civilization and as a result they need to call them Caucasian in order to deal to maintain their racist ideaologies. That makes sense and keeps with the fact that Hitler actually helped the Ethiopians against the Italians.
So the Aryan nut heads are calling this Caucasian?
Whatever. Who cares what EvilE or any of his occult buddies say. Everything he posts just backfires. The only reason why Ethiopians are anywhere close to SouthEast Europeans is because it was Ethiopians that migrated into those areas. And it in those areas the people have mixed and gone through climatic adaptation.
E3b is about as Caucasian as the bust of that Ethiopian Philosopher I posted. If you call him Caucasoid then you make the term pointless which it is anyways.
[This message has been edited by osirion (edited 22 September 2005).]
"proto-caucasoid", "proto-Asian", are all actually black, since all Eurasians descended from black Africans.
Thought Posts:
Ancient teeth and modern human origins: an expanded comparison of African Plio-Pleistocene and recent world dental samples. J Hum Evol. 2003 Aug;45(2):113-44. Irish et al.
" .....sub-Saharan Africans again exhibit the ****closest phenetic similarity*** to various African Plio-Pleistocene hominins-through their shared prevalence of morphologically complex crown and root traits."
Thought Posts:
Science. 2005 May 13;308(5724):965-6.
Reconstructing the origin of Andaman Islanders.
Thangaraj et al.
The origin of the Andaman "Negrito" and Nicobar "Mongoloid" populations has been ambiguous. Our analyses of complete mitochondrial DNA sequences from Onges and Great Andaman populations revealed two deeply branching clades that share their most recent common ancestor in founder haplogroup M, with lineages spread among India, Africa, East Asia, New Guinea, and Australia. This distribution suggests that these two clades have likely survived in genetic isolation since the initial settlement of the islands during an out-of-Africa migration by anatomically modern humans.
[This message has been edited by Thought2 (edited 23 September 2005).]
quote:LOL this common heritage with some Europeans and Middle Easterners is E3b ... The only reason why Ethiopians are anywhere close to SouthEast Europeans is because it was Ethiopians that migrated into those areas.
LOL. If that were the case then Ethiopians, Bantu and Caribbeans would all be in the African group C, and so would a significant portion of the "E3b" Ashkenazi Jews. Instead, most Ethiopians and almost all Ashkenazi join Caucasoid cluster A along with Armenians and Norwegians, who have very little E3b.
[This message has been edited by Salpierre (edited 23 September 2005).]
posted
Ethiopia: between Sub-Saharan Africa and Western Eurasia
Lovell et al., Annals of Human Genetics (2005) 69,275–287
PC plot
Same plot again, color-coded for clarity...
"Certainly our data are not incompatible with the argument from Tishkoff et al. (1996) that an element of the contemporary Ethiopian population may be descendants of the ancestral population that spawned the migration out of Africa. We also argue, however, that in addition to this early bottleneck event, later periods of admixture have played a major role in shaping the gene pool of Ethiopia, and its populations display both Eurasian and Sub-Saharan genetic influences."
posted
All Non African are descendant from NorthEast Africans. [TishKoff]
"Europeans appear as a mix of 2/3 Asian 1/3 African" [Cavelli Sforza]
Gene flow FROM Black Africa TO Greece may have occurred in Pharaonic times or when Saharan people emigrated after the present hyperarid conditions were established (5000 years B.C.) -Arnaiz-Villena A et al
Europeans are mixed with Black Africans.
From East Africa:
And West Africa:
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 23 September 2005).]
posted
^^^^^ You know the Afronuts are utterly defeated when all they can muster is a repost of refuted nonsense. How humiliating for them.
quote:"Europeans appear as a mix of 2/3 Asian 1/3 African" [Cavelli Sforza]
"The color map of the world shows...the unity of...Caucasoids from Europe." (Cavalli-Sforza)
quote:Gene flow FROM Black Africa TO Greece may have occurred in Pharaonic times or when Saharan people emigrated after the present hyperarid conditions were established (5000 years B.C.) -Arnaiz-Villena A et al
If Arnaiz-Villena's HLA-DRB1 study on Greek-Ethiopian affinities is anything more than junk science, then why has it been rejected by not one, not two, not three, but FOUR world-renownedgeneticists? And why have its results never been duplicated by a singleothergeneticstudy -- even those conducted using the same HLAgenes that Arnaiz-Villena analyzed? This is quite remarkable indeed, but I'm sure the Negroes have a very good explanation. We're all waiting to hear it.
quote:And West Africa:
"Blood groups are not now considered a good marker for population relationships, and they provide very little information about individual ancestry." (David Goldstein)
"African admixture in Sicily has been long suspected because of the presence of the sickle gene. Nevertheless, the degree of African admixture cannot be derived from the study of HbS frequency, since this gene was most likely expanded by the selective pressure of malaria, for a long time endemic to the region. We have examined 142 individuals from the Sicilian town of Butera (12% sickle trait) to search for other markers of the globin gene cluster less likely to be selected for by malaria. The TaqI polymorphism in the intervening sequences between the two gamma genes is informative. We have found only two instances of this African marker (TaqI(-)) among 267 normal chromosomes, demonstrating that the admixture occurred at a much lower level than previously thought." (Ragusa et al. 1992)
Ethiopia: between Sub-Saharan Africa and Western Eurasia
Lovell et al., Annals of Human Genetics (2005) 69,275–287
Thought Writes:
1) Everyone knows that Ethiopians such as the Amhara have recieved RECENT gene flow from Yemen. However the highest frequency of E3b-M78 is found in Somalia and NOT Ethiopia. Your post is irrelevent to the issue of gene flow from Sub-Saharan Africa to Greece.
2) The study is possibly statistically insignificant due to the fact that the sample sizes are so small and the Amhara sample is weighted higher than the Oromo sample. At any rate even with a study weighted more heavily with Amhara than Oromo the results are still of interest....
Thought Posts:
"The values characterizing Ethiopians are CLOSER to the remaining Sub-Saharan Africans than to the non-African groups..."
"African admixture in Sicily has been long suspected because of the presence of the sickle gene.....demonstrating that the admixture occurred at a much lower level than previously thought." (Ragusa et al. 1992)
[/B]
Thought Writes:
This study is a bit old, but generally I agree. The gene flow from West Africa to Southern Europe was less than the gene flow from East Africa to Southern Europe. So!
posted
We know Erroneous Euro is utterly defeated when the best he can do is spam irrelevant graphs with distorted interpretations parroted from Dienkes Pontikos, meant to imply that East Africans are not Black - in a FUTILE attempt to RUN AWAY from hard fact of Black African ancestry in Europeans.
[PN2-Y chromsome, A, E1 Y chromosome, L mtdna, M1, Hla antigens, Benin Hbs autosomes]
Take your pick, "bro"...because you've got it all, and it is part of the reason why Europeans appear as 2/3 Asian 1/3 African mix, a fact which 'your' data reinforces, in spite of Dienekes distortions.
Your thread is just another failed effort to distract from painful facts that you cannot refute.
Not good Defeated Euro. Try again.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 24 September 2005).]
quote:Originally posted by Thought2: Thought Writes: Please tell us why you believe that group C is the "African" group?
I didn't say that. I said that *if* you peoples' point of view were correct -- if Africans were one big family and Europeans were split between two families -- then that would be reflected in the results of the study at the top of this thread. We would see one pan-African cluster, one European cluster, with "E3b" populations (such as the Ashkenazi) split between them. That's not what we're seeing here. Instead there is one Caucasoid cluster, one sub-Saharan cluster, with Ethiopians split between them.
posted
Using a sufficient number of genetic loci, we can see that Greeks and other southern Europeans have negligible sub-Saharan ancestry.
In a study of eight independent loci (http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/full/7/11/1061), ethnic Greeks from Cyprus clustered closely with other Europeans:
reconstructing the PC plot from the data in Table 2 shows that the Greeks are slight outliers, but in the direction *away* from Africans.
Generally, the more loci the better. Below is the neighbor-joining tree of Cavalli-Sforza's Fst genetic distances derived from 120 allele frequencies. Africans are heterogeneous; Europeans are relatively homogeneous. Ethiopians are racially intermediate; Greeks and Italians are not.
An analysis of 377 microsatellite markers (Rosenberg et al., 2002) establishes that southern Europeans have negligible sub-Saharan influence:
quote:Originally posted by Salpierre: Ethiopians, Bantu and Caribbeans would all be in the African group C.
quote:Thought Writes: Please tell us why you believe that group C is the "African" group?
quote:Originally posted by Salpierre: I didn't say that.
????
quote:Salpierre: I said that *if* you peoples' point of view were correct -- if Africans were one big family and Europeans were split between two families
Lol, not what was said earlier, but anyway...
I am unfamiliar with any discussant positing the viewpoint that Africans were one big happy family and Europeans are split into two families.
Instead of making a strawman can you simply *quote* whatever it is you are trying to refute?
I think it's a fair request.
Otherwise you end up talking 'around' the comments of others rather than addressing them.
Also you quote Lovell's study, yet you seem to be in opposition to the conclusion:
Ethiopians are closer to other Sub-Saharan Africans than to the non-African groups..." - Lovell.
Do you accept the above or not?
Thanks.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 23 September 2005).]
quote: An analysis of 377 microsatellite markers (Rosenberg et al., 2002) establishes that southern Europeans have negligible sub-Saharan influence:
Explain how this graph can show that southern Europeans have negligible genetic influence from Black Africans harboring E3b1 lineages when the graph uses San, Pygme, Bantu and Yoruba, but not Borana, Oromo and Somali?
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 23 September 2005).]
posted
Can anyone just be honest and call E3b Sub-Saharan instead of playing these STUPID GAMES! I just don't understand the racist mentality of these so called experts.
And there has never been indigenous Sub-Saharan Caucasians! That is a ridiculous concept. The Caucus region is thousands of miles to the North.
[This message has been edited by osirion (edited 23 September 2005).]
In the sense that most of the genetic diversity in the world is African, due to the fact that all non-Africans are descendant from a small group of Africans and so only have a fraction of Africa's native diversity, {tishkoff, s. wells} this is correct
quote: Europeans are relatively homogeneous.
Genetic distances are low in Europe due to the fact that Europe was one of the last places on earth settled by modern humans, and it's population is the product of recent bottlenecks.
This does not alter the fact that Europeans have post OOA admixtures from Black Africa, that result in their appearing as a 1/3 African 2/3 Asian mix genetically.
For example:
A 1/2 West African 1/2 Nordic population bred together on an Island from a small founder group - will also show 'homogeniety' and little in-situ genetic distance after several generations.
Indeed they may be more 'homogeneous' than either their Nordic or West African founder populations, however, they will still show as a 1/2 West African and 1/2 Nordic mix.
They are still mixed, and they will still show as genetically intermediate between West Africans and Nordics because of it.
Likewise, Europeans show as genetically intermediate between Africans and East Asians.
note: any reference made to 'caucaZoids' or race typologies must be specifically quoted from the studies in question, ad-hoc race classifications amount to **distortion** and are so disgregarded.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 23 September 2005).]
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Explain how this graph can show that southern Europeans have negligible genetic influence from Black Africans harboring E3b1 lineages when the graph uses San, Pygme, Bantu and Yoruba, but not Borana, Oromo and Somali?
He apparently has forgotten about the East African groups or is purposefully limiting what is "Sub-Saharan".
Posts: 26280 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Can anyone just be honest and called E3b Sub-Saharan instead of playing these STUPID GAMES! I just don't understand the racist mentality of these so called experts.
What else can they do(?), to hide as best they can, the reality of sub-saharan African lineages in European populations. Doesn't work though.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 23 September 2005).]
Your ability to read maps is hampered by your lack of objectivity and tendancy to graft irrelevant and false racial fallacies onto your interpretations.
In spite of its flaws, this map does show Europeans as intermediate between East Asians and Africans.
C Sforza - Europeans appear as 2/3 Asian 1/3 African genetic mix.
The Berber are intermediate between East Africa and Europe.
Perhaps illustrating that NorthWest African Berber combine European lineages with East African ones.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 23 September 2005).]
* East Africa is always between the rest of Africa and the rest of the world -> New Guinea, China, Sweden...doesn't matter, as this is not, as Eurocentrists fantasize - relevant to 'caucaZoids', whatever that is meant to refer to.
** Europeans are more closely related to Africans than **pristine** non Africans [Chinese, New Guinea, etc], because Europeans are mixed with Africans - post OOA.
*** Europeans are closer to West Africans than New Guinea populations are , because New Guinea populations, unlike Europeans... are *not* mixed with West Africans.
**** Greeks connect to Africans - all Africans - on that map - before any other Europeans do, even though the relative genetic distances between Europeans are low.
**** Furthest points of distance on that map are the M'buti/Pygme and New Guinea. Genetic distance *refutes* and does not support the notion of typological race.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 23 September 2005).]
quote: quote:Originally posted by Salpierre: Ethiopians, Bantu and Caribbeans would all be in the African group C.
quote:Thought Writes: Please tell us why you believe that group C is the "African" group?
quote:Originally posted by Salpierre: I didn't say that.
????
You quoted me out of context. When I described an "African group" consisting of all Africans including Ethiopians, I didn't mean there was really such a group; I was describing a hypothetical situation.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Also you quote Lovell's study, yet you seem to be in opposition to the conclusion:
Ethiopians are closer to Sub-Saharan Africans than to the non-African groups..." - Lovell
Do you accept the above or not?
That is a misrepresentation, quoted horribly out of context. The author was talking about *variability*:
"As shown in Table 3 there is a gradient of variance from Sub-Saharan Africa, through Northern Africa and the Middle East, to Eurasia. The values characterizing Ethiopians are closer to the remaining Sub-Saharan Africans than to the non-African groups and this is also true for the Saharawi"
(The values in Table 3 are variance values. In other words, Ethiopians were more variable than non-African groups, but not quite as variable as Sub-Saharans. This had nothing to do with haplotype similarity, in which Ethiopians were more similar to WestEurasians/NorthAfricans.)
but somehow the words you conveniently picked out were:
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Ethiopians are closer to Sub-Saharan Africans than to the non-African groups..." - Lovell
which would have been an odd conclusion, given the results:
posted
^^ Do you consdider the Biaka and M'buti Pygme's a reasonable representation of African genetic diversity?
quote:As shown in Table 3 there is a gradient of variance from Sub-Saharan Africa, through Northern Africa and the Middle East, to Eurasia. The values characterizing Ethiopians are closer to the remaining Sub-Saharan Africans than to the non-African groups and this is also true for the Saharawi"
I stand corrected and agree with that distinction.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 23 September 2005).]
Notably, 62% of the Ethiopians fall in the first cluster, which encompasses the majority of the Jews, Norwegians and Armenians, indicating that placement of these individuals in a ‘Black’ cluster would be an inaccurate reflection of the genetic structure.
[This message has been edited by Salpierre (edited 23 September 2005).]
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Explain how this graph can show that southern Europeans have negligible genetic influence from Black Africans harboring E3b1 lineages when the graph uses San, Pygme, Bantu and Yoruba, but not Borana, Oromo and Somali?
Well, if a population related to modern sub-Saharan Africans left a strong genetic imprint on Southern Europe, it should have been detectable in the 377-locus study of Rosenberg. That is, there should have been a lot more *orange* in the Italian groups in the graphs above. There is none. So the people who carried E3b into Europe must have been unrelated to WestAfricans/CentralAfricans/San/Kenyans. Which rules out a population like modern Ethiopians, who are at least partly related to the aforementioned groups.
[This message has been edited by Salpierre (edited 23 September 2005).]
quote:Originally posted by Salpierre: Here was Wilson's conclusion, by the way:
Notably, 62% of the Ethiopians fall in the first cluster, which encompasses the majority of the Jews, Norwegians and Armenians, indicating that [b]placement of these individuals in a ‘Black’ cluster would be an inaccurate reflection of the genetic structure.
More fully:
(Table 2) broadly corresponds to four geographical areas: Western Eurasia, Sub-Saharan Africa, China and New Guinea. Notably, 62% of the Ethiopians fall in the first cluster, which encompasses the majority of the Jews, Norwegians and Armenians, indicating that placement of these individuals in a `Black' cluster would be an inaccurate reflection of the genetic structure. Only 24% of the Ethiopians are placed in the cluster with the Bantu and most of the Afro-Caribbeans; however, 21% of the Afro-Caribbeans are placed in a cluster with the West Eurasians (presumably reflecting genetic exchange with Europeans). Finally, China and New Guinea are placed almost entirely in separate clusters, indicating that the ethnic label `Asian' is also an inaccurate description of population structure.
Indeed, the overall differentiation for the ethnic groups is not significant after correction for multiple comparisons.
Table (iii) show that commonly used ethnic labels (such as Black, Caucasian and Asian) are insufficient and inaccurate descriptions of human genetic structure.
Given this, your insistence on labeling clusters by race, via...
quote:Instead there is one Caucasoid cluster
....would appear to be in direct ** contradiction** to Wilson.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 24 September 2005).]
quote:Originally posted by Salpierre: Here was Wilson's conclusion, by the way:
Notably, 62% of the Ethiopians fall in the first cluster, which encompasses the majority of the Jews, Norwegians and Armenians, indicating that [b]placement of these individuals in a ‘Black’ cluster would be an inaccurate reflection of the genetic structure.
[This message has been edited by Salpierre (edited 23 September 2005).][/B]
Salpierre, Where do you want to go with your principal components graphs? The fact is that Europeans have a special place in genetics just because many studies were written by Westerners, but scientifically it's more relevant to compare Asians with Africans, because they are more distinct genetically. It's sad to realize that Europeans are 1/3 African and 2/3 Asian, but whether from Southern Europe or Northern Europe, Europeans are just part of non African people who came originally from Eastern Africa. Eastern Africans are the link between Non Africans and Africans. That's why they are genetically located between non Africans and Africans. Europeans are a mix of Africans and Asians. And many Eastern Africans (like me) laugh when they hear some Europeans claiming that they are Caucasian or something like that, because they appear to be mixed (morphologically) from an African perspective. Relaxx
quote:Explain how this graph can show that southern Europeans have negligible genetic influence from Black Africans harboring E3b1 lineages when the graph uses San, Pygme, Bantu and Yoruba, but not Borana, Oromo and Somali?
quote:Originally posted by Salpierre: Well, if a population related to modern sub-Saharan Africans left a strong genetic imprint on Southern Europe, it should have been detectable in the 377-locus study of Rosenberg.
^^Badly broken logic.
It's like saying that Hebrew language is unrelated to African languages, such as West African Hausa and Mandara {Afrasan}, because you compared it to click speaking Khoisan and M'buti Pygme and found little relation.
For your conclusion to be valid you MUST compare to the African groups whose Y chromsome lineages Southern Europeans bear.
That's exactly what Arnaiz-Villena did, and concluded: Gene flow FROM Black Africa TO Greece may have occurred in Pharaonic times or when Saharan people emigrated after the present hyperarid conditions were established (5000 years B.C.)
Note: the greeks are far away from the Bushmen here to...but they cluster with the Oromo, Fulani and others.
Rosenberg's comparison's do *not* address the point at issue.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 23 September 2005).]
quote:Originally posted by Salpierre: Well, if a population related to modern sub-Saharan Africans left a strong genetic imprint on Southern Europe, it should have been detectable in the 377-locus study of Rosenberg. That is, there should have been a lot more *orange* in the Italian groups in the graphs above. There is none. So the people who carried E3b into Europe must have been unrelated to WestAfricans/CentralAfricans/San/Kenyans. Which rules out a population like modern Ethiopians, who are at least partly related to the aforementioned groups.
[This message has been edited by Salpierre (edited 23 September 2005).]
Genetic Distance Between Autochthonous Human Populations "Genetic drift" is the phenomenon by which small mutations in DNA (or RNA, and the proteins that are coded by them) add random variations over time to genetic material, resulting in differences between isolated groups of animals, whether of different species or of the same species that are not inter-breeding. Thus there is about a 5% difference in DNA between humans and our closest Primate relations, Chimpanzees. Between human populations, there is always much less than 0.1% difference. What these differences are and how much they vary can be used to construct a tree showing the relationships between human populations. The following tree is the result of such research, reported by Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza. The numbers across the top show the percentage difference in DNA, which is thus no more than 0.03% for all human beings. The most dramatic characteristic of the tree is the division between populations in sub-Saharan Africa and the rest of humanity. This is usually interpreted to mean that modern humans originated in Africa and that the population from which the rest of humanity descended left Africa somewhat less than 300,000 years ago, ultimately replacing earlier humans, like the Pithecanthropines (Homo erectus, like Peking Man, etc.), who had also evolved in Africa but left many thousands of years earlier.
Part of this research was the theory of "Eve," a single female in Africa, around 200,000 years ago, from whom every living human being is now descended. This does not mean that there were not other human females -- there were -- or that we are not descended from them too -- we are. The theory is based on the circumstance that some human genetic material is contained in the mitochondria, little organs in a cell outside the nucleus (where most genetic material is contained). Sperm cells do not pass on their mitochondria to a fertilzed egg and so all human mitochondrial DNA is inherited from the mother. If a woman has only sons (a highly desirable result in many traditional cultures), then her own mitochondrial DNA is actually lost. Over time, this seems to have happened to all lines of descent of mitochrondiral DNA, except one, the line from "Eve." Another interesting feature of the chart is the closeness of American Indians to modern population across Europe, the Middle East, and northern East Asia. Thus, curiously, Europeans are more closely related to American Indians than to Polynesians. Finally, it is noteworthy that skin color is not at all helpful is providing clues to genetic affinity. The darkest colored people on earth, in Africa, India, Melanesia, and Australia, are scattered between groups that are only distantly related. Dark skin color is certainly a function of living under the equatorial sun for many generations, but all human populations have the genetic wherewithal to make that adaptation.
As you can see, in genetics, Europeans are closer to Pygmies, Ethiopian, Nilotic, Bantus, West Africans than anyone else on earth. Asians are more relevant in terms of "racial" and genetical differences...and please note Ethiopians are not considered as Caucasoid...Cavalli Sforza and other well informed geneticists probably lean towards Hierniaux when it comes to Eastern Elongated Africans Relaxx
[This message has been edited by relaxx (edited 23 September 2005).]
Table (iii) show that commonly used ethnic labels (such as Black, Caucasian and Asian) are insufficient and inaccurate descriptions of human genetic structure.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^^Badly [b]broken logic.
It's like saying that Hebrew language is unrelated to African languages, such as West African Hausa and Mandara {Afrasan}, because you compared it to click speaking Khoisan and M'buti Pygme and found little relation.
For your conclusion to be valid you MUST compare to the African groups whose Y chromsome lineages Southern Europeans bear.
That's exactly what Arnaiz-Villena did, and concluded: Gene flow FROM Black Africa TO Greece may have occurred in Pharaonic times or when Saharan people emigrated after the present hyperarid conditions were established (5000 years B.C.)
Note: the greeks are far away from the Bushmen here to...but they cluster with the Oromo, Fulani and others.
Rosenberg's comparison's do *not* address the point at issue.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 23 September 2005).][/B]
I think I am going to go out and buy a few of Arnaiz-Villena books. At least he is being honest about E3b. How can a population have a gene that is Sub-Sarahan and yet most of the genetic studies do not show any Sub-Saharan admixture. It is simply racism.
posted
Arnaiz-Villena A, Gomez-Casado E, Martinez-Laso J.
Department of Immunology and Molecular Biology, Universidad Complutense, Madrid, Spain. aarnaiz@eucmax.sim.ucm.es
HLA genes allele distribution has been studied in Mediterranean and sub-Saharan populations. Their relatedness has been tested by genetic distances, neighbour-joining dendrograms and correspondence analyses. The population genetic relationships have been compared with the history of the classical populations living in the area. A revision of the historic postulates would have to be undertaken, particularly in the cases when genetics and history are overtly discordant. HLA genomics shows that: 1) Greeks share an important part of their genetic pool with sub-Saharan Africans (Ethiopians and west Africans) also supported by Chr 7 Markers. The gene flow from Black Africa to Greece may have occurred in Pharaonic times or when Saharan people emigrated after the present hyperarid conditions were established (5000 years B.C.). 2) Turks (Anatolians) do not significantly differ from other Mediterraneans, indicating that while the Asians Turks carried out an invasion with cultural significance (language), it is not genetically detectable. 3) Kurds and Armenians are genetically very close to Turks and other Middle East populations. 4) There is no HLA genetic trace of the so called Aryan invasion, which has only been defined on doubtful linguistic bases. 5) Iberians, including Basques, are related to north-African Berbers. 6) Present-day Algerian and Moroccan urban and country people show an indistinguishable Berber HLA profile.
quote:Originally posted by osirion: I think I am going to go out and buy a few of Arnaiz-Villena books. At least he is being honest about E3b. How can a population have a gene that is Sub-Sarahan and yet most of the genetic studies do not show any Sub-Saharan admixture. It is simply racism.
The problem here is that there is more than E3b, basically European and other Western Asians are intermediate between Africans and Asians genetically, it goes beyond E3b. The reason why people pay closer attention to Southern Europeans is because of the likes of Euro Evil who suffers from severe insecurity syndrome...you will rarely see someone from an English background on this forum or Eastern European background, because they are more self confident, although they are still 'hybrid' genitically. But latin people, whether French or Mediterranean....no comment. I mean they don't even know who they are, Middle Eastern, European....who knows... Relaxx
[This message has been edited by relaxx (edited 23 September 2005).]
quote: How can a population have a gene that is Sub-Sarahan and yet most of the genetic studies do not show any Sub-Saharan admixture.
They can't.
Mitochondrial DNA Affinities at the Atlantic Fringe of Europe [Ana M. Gonza´ lez,1* Antonio Brehm,2 Jose´ A. Pe´ rez,1 Nicole Maca-Meyer,1 Carlos Flores,1 and Vicente M. Cabrera1 1Departamento de Gene´tica, Universidad de La Laguna, 38271 La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain 2Human Genetics Laboratory, Center of Macaronesian Studies, University of Madeira, 9000]:
An important gene flow from Africa was detected in the Atlantic Iberia. Specific sub-Saharan lineages appeared mainly restricted to southern Portugal, and could be attributed to historic Black slave trade in the area and to a probable Saharan Neolithic influence. In fact, U6 haplotypes of specific North African origin have only been detected in the Iberian peninsula northwards from central Portugal. Based on this peculiar distribution and the high diversity pi value (0.014 +/- 0.001) in this area compared to North Africa (0.006 +/- 0.001), we reject the proposal that only historic events such as the Moslem occupation are the main cause of this gene flow, and instead propose a pre-Neolithic origin for it.
The haplogroup frequencies and sample sizes for the populations analyzed are given in Table 1. The haplotype with the reference sequence (CRS, Anderson et al., 1981) is the most abundant haplotype in all samples, although values range from 11.7% in northwest Africa to 21.7% in north Portugal.
As expected, sub-Saharan African influence, represented by baplotypes classified in L and Ml clusters, is important in northwest Africa (26.1%) but negligible in Europe, with the exception of south Portugal (11.7%).
The differential geographic distributions of these sub-Saharan African and northwest African haplogroups in the Iberian Peninsula are statistically significant: L and Ml clusters are more abundant in south Portugal (x = 9.81; P < 0.01), and U6 in northern areas (x = 5.83; P < 0.05).
With respect to northwest Africa, the geographically localized distribution of matches and haplotypes of sub-Saharan African and northwest African origin in the Iberian Peninsula is noteworthy. This distribution cannot be totally explained by a historic genetic influence from the Moslem occupation (Pereira et. al., 2000). During that time, the haplotype composition of northwest Africa had to be similar to that of the present, and for this reason, sub-Saharan African L and northwest African U6 haplotypes should be uniformly distributed in the Iberian peninsula.
However, with respect to the sub-Saharan Africa lineages, the recent history of the Black slave trade carried out by the Portuguese (mainly in the 15th and 16th centuries), with a well-documented import in southern Portugal (Godinho, 1983), could also be a plausible alternative to explain the presence of these African haplotypes in this region. (Pereira et al 2000) To test this possibility we compared the proportion of sub-Saharan Africa haplotype matches between the Iberian Peninsula and northwest Africa (0.75%) with those of the Iberian Peninsula and a sample of sub-Saharan Africans from the Gulf of Guinea.
These results suggest that, although both prehistoric and historical influences likely contributed to the sub-Saharan African haplotype pool present in the Iberian peninsula, the former seems to be more important.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 23 September 2005).]
LAIKON General Hospital, Center for Thalassemia, Unit of Prenatal Diagnosis, Athens, Greece.
There are at least four distinct African and one Asian chromosomal backgrounds (haplotypes) on which the sickle cell mutation has arisen. Additionally, previous data suggest that the beta(S)/Bantu haplotype is heterogeneous at the molecular level. Here, we report the presence of the (A)gamma -499 T-->A variation in sickle cell anemia chromosomes of Sicilian and North African origin bearing the beta(S)/Benin haplotype. Being absent from North American beta(S)/Benin chromosomes, which were studied previously, this variation is indicative for the molecular heterogeneity of the beta(S)/Benin haplotype. Am. J. Hematol. 80:79-80, 2005.
Thought Writes:
Interesting that the Benin Haplotype had time to diversify in North Africa or Southern Europe. More evidence of the ancient West African connection for Southern Europeans.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 23 September 2005).]
quote:Originally posted by osirion: I think I am going to go out and buy a few of Arnaiz-Villena books. At least he is being honest about E3b. How can a population have a gene that is Sub-Sarahan and yet most of the genetic studies do not show any Sub-Saharan admixture. It is simply racism.
Right, because when fifty studies come to the same conclusion, and a single rejected study comes to a different conclusion, it's always good to go with the single rejected study and ignore all the others.
I expect this kind of idiocy from the Negroes, but Jews are supposed to be smart. You certainly refute that stereotype.
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Arnaiz-Villena A, Gomez-Casado E, Martinez-Laso J.
Department of Immunology and Molecular Biology, Universidad Complutense, Madrid, Spain. aarnaiz@eucmax.sim.ucm.es
HLA genes allele distribution has been studied in Mediterranean and sub-Saharan populations. Their relatedness has been tested by genetic distances, neighbour-joining dendrograms and correspondence analyses. The population genetic relationships have been compared with the history of the classical populations living in the area. A revision of the historic postulates would have to be undertaken, particularly in the cases when genetics and history are overtly discordant. HLA genomics shows that: 1) Greeks share an important part of their genetic pool with sub-Saharan Africans (Ethiopians and west Africans) also supported by Chr 7 Markers. The gene flow from Black Africa to Greece may have occurred in Pharaonic times or when Saharan people emigrated after the present hyperarid conditions were established (5000 years B.C.). 2) Turks (Anatolians) do not significantly differ from other Mediterraneans, indicating that while the Asians Turks carried out an invasion with cultural significance (language), it is not genetically detectable. 3) Kurds and Armenians are genetically very close to Turks and other Middle East populations. 4) There is no HLA genetic trace of the so called Aryan invasion, which has only been defined on doubtful linguistic bases. 5) Iberians, including Basques, are related to north-African Berbers. 6) Present-day Algerian and Moroccan urban and country people show an indistinguishable Berber HLA profile.
The Arnaiz-Villena study is not the be-all and end-all of genetic studies, but his essential conclusion - that Greeks have sub-saharan DNA is supported by Y chomosome and Benin Hbs studies, by skeletal anthropology and historic record.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 24 September 2005).]
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^^Badly [b]broken logic.
It's like saying that Hebrew language is unrelated to African languages, such as West African Hausa and Mandara {Afrasan}, because you compared it to click speaking Khoisan and M'buti Pygme and found little relation.
No, your logic is badly broken. Khoisan and Afro-Asiatic languages are completely unrelated, whereas Ethiopians and sub-Saharan Africans are partially genetically related. So your analogy is useless.
Look at it this way: Ethiopians have a sub-Saharan component to their genetic makeup. If they migrated en masse to southern Europe, there would be a strong sub-Saharan imprint. Here is a diagram (I can't believe I'm having to draw pictures to explain this):
i.e., there would be a significant amount of *orange* in southern Europe, carried there via Ethiopians. But as you can see that's not the case. There are two possible explanations: (1) The original Ethiopians had no sub-Saharan component, or (2) by the time PN2/E3b got to Southern Europe, via the Middle East, it had undergone a large amount of genetic drift which boosted its frequency relative to other "African" genes. Like haplogroup R (which originated in Asia, and is a major component in the European Y chromosome pool) there is little meaningful connection with point of geographical origin.
Quoting Rosser et al. (2000):
"Use of the Y chromosome to investigate human population histories (Jobling and Tyler-Smith 1995) is increasing as convenient polymorphic markers become available. However, the effective population size of this chromosome is one-quarter that of any autosome, and this means that it is particularly influenced by drift. Effective population size may be further reduced through the variance in the number of sons that a father has and perhaps by selective sweeps (Jobling and Tyler-Smith 2000). Conclusions about populations on the basis of this single locus must therefore be made with caution."
[This message has been edited by Salpierre (edited 24 September 2005).]
posted
Evil Euro: Devastating refutation of Arnaiz-Villena. Not only is the study flawed as is, but is directly contradicted by another study based on the same gene. So imagine my surprise when I open this thread and see the Arnaiz-Villena cited *again*... and again, and again... Posts: 30 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Explain how this graph can show that southern Europeans have negligible genetic influence from Black Africans harboring E3b1 lineages when the graph uses San, Pygme, Bantu and Yoruba, but not Borana, Oromo and Somali?
quote:Originally posted by Salpierre: Well, if a population related to modern sub-Saharan Africans left a strong genetic imprint on Southern Europe, it should have been detectable in the 377-locus study of Rosenberg.
quote: ^^Badly broken logic.
It's like saying that Hebrew language is unrelated to African languages, such as West African Hausa and Mandara {Afrasan}, because you compared it to click speaking Khoisan and M'buti Pygme and found little relation.
For your conclusion to be valid you MUST compare to the African groups whose Y chromsome lineages Southern Europeans bear.
Rosenberg's comparison's do *not* address the point at issue.
quote:Originally posted by Salpierre: No, your logic is badly broken. Khoisan and Afro-Asiatic languages are completely unrelated,
Bad start because that is an *extreme* statement and also false, as such statements usually are:
Linguist, Hans-Joachim Alscher The [click-speaking ] feature is not limited to the Khoisan languages as there are click languages in Eastern Africa too, one of them nowadays added to the Afroasiatic (Cushitic) family!
Furthermore the central branch of Khoisan shows gender unsimiliar to other branches of Khoisan but similiar to Afroasiatic (and Indoeuropean) languages. The common origin of gender in Central Khoisan, Afroasiatic and Indoeuropean already has been maintained, as this feature is a rare one among the world's language families.* * probably refering to Dahalo, southern Cushitic language of Kenya.
All languages are related and there are some specific relationships between Khoisan and Afrasan. The point is that they are distant enough to obscure the much closer relationshiops that exist between Hebrew and Hausa, for example. You can't assess that by studying Khoisan or MBaka and then pronouncing Hebrew unrelated to African languages.
Common sense alone should suffice here, so i'm doubtful that you sincerely cannot fathom the point.
Again, your logic is faulty, and you should consider retracting your blanket statement about Khoisan being "completely unrelated" to Afrasan. Distantly yes [that's the point], completely, no.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 24 September 2005).]
quote:There are two possible explanations: (1) The original Ethiopians had no sub-Saharan component, or (2) by the time PN2/E3b got to Southern Europe, via the Middle East, it had undergone a large amount of genetic drift which boosted its frequency relative to other "African" genes.
The later, of course.
Yet we know that other African genes are present as well, such as Benin Hbs. And we know that these genes have effected European morphology, such as sickle cell which is endemic to parts of southern Europe.
Finally take note of the possibility that Europeans have undergone subsequent morphological change as well.
It's interesting to note that in the notorious Brace skull map, neolithic Europe, particularly Greece, was much closer to Africa than modern Europe is today.
What we don't know is the extent of African admixture in Southern Europeans, or the degree to which it has effected European morphology throughout history.
Other than that, it seems that we agree, or at least, I'm not sure what specific you are disagreeing with?
quote: Quoting Rosser et al. (2000):
"Use of the Y chromosome to investigate human population histories (Jobling and Tyler-Smith 1995) is increasing as convenient polymorphic markers become available. However, the effective population size of this chromosome is one-quarter that of any autosome, and this means that it is particularly influenced by drift. Effective population size may be further reduced through the variance in the number of sons that a father has and perhaps by selective sweeps
lol.
I couldn't agree more. We have spent entire threads trying to explain to your Erroneous partner the error inherent in attempting to translate Y chromosome into 'race catagory', or bone morphology
Clearly there is no direct relationship between physical anthropological data (bone morphology) and Y chromosome haplogroup catagory. There are no known genes on the Y that dictate bone morphology. Someday, geneticists will probably identify genes on other chromosomes that play a role in shaping phenotype, but there is no evidence that the Y harbors such genes. Hence Y chromosomes and bone type are best viewed as independent types of evidence describing relatedness amongst populations - Peter Underhill.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 24 September 2005).]
quote:salpierre: There are two possible explanations: (1) The original Ethiopians had no sub-Saharan component, or (2) by the time PN2/E3b got to Southern Europe, via the Middle East, it had undergone a large amount of genetic drift which boosted its frequency relative to other "African" genes.
Can you explain how these original Sub-Sharans [original Ethiopians] could have had no sub-Sharan component? The answer will be interesting, no doubt.
quote:Originally posted by Evil Euro: Right, because when fifty studies come to the same conclusion, and a single rejected study comes to a different conclusion, it's always good to go with the single rejected study and ignore all the others.
I expect this kind of idiocy from the Negroes, but Jews are supposed to be smart. You certainly refute that stereotype.
Your desperate attempts to try to reclassifiy Ethiopians and East Africans in general as Caucasoid clearly indicates to me that you are quite aware of the admixture in Greeks from these areas. You are quite transparent and so are many of the researchers who just happen to fail to mention the origins of E3b.
As far as the Jew bait stuff, frankly, we are all related anyways so this discussion is mute. We turn the clock backwards on time and we see a convergence of traits back to the original man (generalized traits).
As noted earlier Erroneous Parrot-master Dienekes made the same foul-up on Dodona:
quote:I found this comment from him, from the Dodona website amusing:
Of course, western geneticists no longer talk about Caucasoids and Negroids. Let's leave it at that: Somalis patrilineages are more related to Greeks. - Dienekes
Of course they are 'related' paternally, they spread from sub-saharan East Africa TO Greece, just as A Arnaiz-Villena, suggested.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 24 September 2005).]
posted
Wilson et tal's charts are based on drug response, indeed the whole article is about drug response, it has nothing to do with autosomal DNA. I've already shot Dr Wilson an e-mail and I will post the response as soon as I receive it.
Posts: 200 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Salpierre: Evil Euro: Devastating refutation of Arnaiz-Villena. Not only is the study flawed as is, but is directly contradicted by another study based on the same gene. So imagine my surprise when I open this thread and see the Arnaiz-Villena cited *again*... and again, and again...
Afrocentrists and Nordicists are Arnaiz-Villena's biggest (and only) fans, making strange bedfellows of rasol, osirion and Arthur Kemp.
quote:Originally posted by Babbling Ape: The Arnaiz-Villena study is not the be-all and end-all of genetic studies, but his essential conclusion - that Greeks have sub-saharan DNA is supported by Y chomosome and Benin Hbs studies, by skeletal anthropology and historic record.
How about his conclusion that the Japanese are really Negroes?
quote:^^ Nusapiens is a notorious distortionist please do not post any of his maps. I ignore them, and do not address them.
Post maps from legitimate and credentialed sources. Thank you.
That map is a visualization of the data from Rosenberg et al. (2002). Nothing more, nothing less. You attack the messenger because the message terrifies you.
quote:Originally posted by Charlie_Bass: Wilson et tal's charts are based on drug response, indeed the whole article is about drug response, it has nothing to do with autosomal DNA.
It's an autosomal DNA study that uses the same method as Rosenberg. But your desperation to make it go away has been duly noted.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic