quote:Originally posted by Rigaud: Undehill email reply on the issue:
Hi Charles, I agree with your views concerning E3b1-M78. It cannot be used as an index of black african ancestry. Every non-african person traces ancestry to Africa. There is no proof that Africans were always 'black'.Who knows?
clusters refer to distinctive Y chromosome microsatellite grouping or clusters diverging from M78 binary node. These clusters have very recently been further defined (3 out of 4 cases) by new downstream Y binary markers. This will be published by my colleagues soon. best, Peter U
End of story, the matter is closed, now whine about how unfair it is.
Nope, it isn't end of story. Where is your "non-black" prehistoric tropical Africans, in the tropics where the E3b lineages arose?
Clusters have never been clades, and they will never be one. I am sure even Underhill could have told you this very basic stuff, if you cared to ask.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rigaud: Undehill email reply on the issue:
Hi Charles, I agree with your views concerning E3b1-M78. It cannot be used as an index of black african ancestry. Every non-african person traces ancestry to Africa. There is no proof that Africans were always 'black'.Who knows?
clusters refer to distinctive Y chromosome microsatellite grouping or clusters diverging from M78 binary node. These clusters have very recently been further defined (3 out of 4 cases) by new downstream Y binary markers. This will be published by my colleagues soon. best, Peter U
End of story, the matter is closed, now whine about how unfair it is.
Nope, it isn't end of story. Where is your "non-black" prehistoric tropical Africans, in the tropics where the E3b lineages arose?
Clusters have never been clades, and they will never be one. I am sure even Underhill could have told you this very basic stuff, if you cared to ask.
It is over, E3b1 is not an index for black ancestry. Quit repeating the same straw argument, no one ever stated clades are clusters.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
It is over, E3b1 is not an inde for black ancestry.
I agree it's over for you, i.e., if you concede that there is no such thing as indigenous "non-black" tropical Africans. If you have material to suggest that tropical Africa had been inhabitated by indigenous "non-black" folks, please produce it, and how this relates to the timeline of the E3b lineage. Until then, E3b is tropical/black African. Now, we can say that it is over. Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
Quit repeating the same straw argument, no one ever stated clades are clusters.
Unless you or anyone else for that matter, can show that a E3b1 cluster is a standalone clade, meaning not E3b1, then of course your claim that it isn't a tropical African lineage, is intellectually bankrupt.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:There is no proof that Africans were always 'black'. Who knows?
This is the key point in this particular argument.
If there is no proof that the ancestors of tropical Africans were Black, then the argument makes some sense.
But of course THERE IS PROOF that the ancestors of Black Africans were also Black, and have always been.
Therefore Charles argument makes no sense.
Here then is the answer to Underhill's question:
quote:Rogers, Iltis, and Wooding (2004) examined Harding's data on the variation of MC1R nucleotide sequences for people of different ancestry to determine the most probable progression of the skin color of human ancestors over the last 5 million years.
Based on MC1R nucleotide sequences, the human ancestors in Africa began to lose their hair and they came under increasing evolutionary pressures that killed off the progeny of individuals that retained the inherited whiteness of their skin.
By 1.2 million years ago, all people having descendants today had exactly the receptor protein of today's Africans; their skin was black,
The intense sun killed off the progeny with any whiter skin that resulted from mutational variation in the receptor protein (Rogers 2004:107).
However, the progeny of those humans who migrated North away from the intense African sun were not under the evolutionary constraint that keeps human skin black generation after generation in Africa.
Charles please produce evidence from Underhill or anyone elese that Rogers, Wooding et. al are wrong and that the ancestors of Black Africans were not Black.
Underhill's comments suggest that he is not aware of the evidence here.
While we see, there is proof that Black Africans have always been Black.
There is - absolutely no proof - to the contrary.
Charles feel free to write Underhill and have him address it, or address it yourself - if you are inclined.
Until you do, it is fair to dismiss your argument as empty posturing with no basis in evidence.
If you have material to suggest that tropical Africa had been inhabitated by indigenous "non-black" folks, please produce it,
Of course he doesn't.
quote: Now, we can say that it is over.
Correct.
The frequency of underived E3b1 in Somali males is the highest observed in any populations to date, and we suggest that the Somali male population is the origin of this haplogroup. Furthermore, the results are in agreement with a gene flow from Eastern to Northern Africa from a homeland in Somalia." - Sanchez et al.
Charles is implying that the Somali male popluation among whom E3b1 originated - were not Black.
Implying, but not stating - because there is no proof for such a far-fetched assertion - and he knows it.
Prepare for distractions then from Charles, as a substitute for a complete lack of proof of his disingenuous position.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Supercar writes: I am sure even Underhill could have told you this very basic stuff, if you cared to ask.
It seems that Underhil was trying to, but Charles omits his original letter.
Charles please post your email to Underhill as well as his reply.
Underhill's comments on clusters is correct, in distinguishing cluster from a clade, and denoting that a derivitive cluster of clade M78 remains within clade M78.
We have been trying to teach you this for months now:
clusters refer to distinctive Y chromosome microsatellite grouping or "clusters" diverging *FROM M78* binary node. - Peter Underhill.
Do you understand this any better now?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
My ofriginal email to Underhill, I have nothing to hide:
hello Dr Underhill, this is Charles Rigaud again. I have a question about the E3b1-M78 clade. I have read that this clade has up to as many as 4 "clusters", exactly how does one define what a cluster is? I would like to know because some have taken the extreme position that since E3b1-M78 originated in East Africa, all E3b1-M78 bearing people have "black African" ancestry since they share s lineage in the same clade, a position that I've argued against[that all E3b1-M78 bearers have "black African ancestry"]. I have seen it been argued that E3b1-M78 alpha is proof of "black African" lineages in Greeks simply because E-M78 traveled north from East Africa and left Africa via the Levant. My position is that E-M78 has undergone much variation and thus not all E-M78 can be considered as "black African", if at all. The problem is some are sying that since the clusters of E-M78 don't constitute a separate clade all E3b1-M78 is closely related which I don't think is true, thus calling E-M78 a "black African" lineage or African Neolithic is inaccurate. I would like to hear your opinion on this Dr. Underhill. Thanks in advance
Best Regards,
Charles Rigaud
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Charles thanks for posting the email, and thanks as always for email scholars directly.
In spite of the question begging - Underhill's explanation of the difference between a clade and cluster should be helpful to you.
You should now be able to see that this has no bearing on the issue of the origins of the E3b1 clade in Black Africa.
Underhill properly then moved on the REAL ISSUE, the one which you have been using alpha cluster to evade.
Was this original E3b1 East African population Black, or not?
Underhill asks but does not answer, because he has done no work on the biohistory of skin color.
But others have, and have answered this question: yes, as we have shown.
In order to object to the Black African origins of E3b1 - you must be able to answer this question - no, and back it with support evidence.
No more "alpha" distractions please - no non sequiturs or ad-hominems either, just prove that the original E3b1 bearing Africans were not Black. If you can't do this, then you have nothing to quarrel about, and the matter is settled.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Indeed, quite predictable, how he tries to influence a desired response from Underhill, by telling him how "extreme" the position of the unspecified "some" are, and how "he" happens to be against the said "extreme" position. No matter, I would like to see what Underhill thinks of E3b's sister clade E3a, whether it too, cannot be "index" of "black African" ancestry, based on the notion that there is "no proof that Africans were always black". And then, It would be interesting to see whether he thinks either lineage is "tropical African" or "even sub-Saharan"; whether "European" maternal lineages in coastal West Afrasan ["Berbers"]speakers is "index" of "European ancestry", or whether any lineage for that matter, should be referenced in the sense of any bio-geographic origin. As you can see, it gets interesting from there.
Charles claims since a "cluster" of a said lineage is rare in the region of origin of the lineage, it should be a standalone entity.
He's been told that "cluster" simply implicates "when" the said "lineage" arrived, and "where". A cluster doesn't dissolve ties with the "lineage" it is associated with; far from it, it signifies "close" relationship.
A "Lineage" is the "what" or "Who" the ancestry is. He's been told this fact ad nauseam, but still cannot grasp it, only to debate those who do understand this.
Charles claims that there is no evidence that "Blacks" could have spread these lineages, and yet, he was provided evidence of skeletal remains that suggest that "Blacks" and/or people they intermingled with made it into not only the Levant, but into Anatolia, where the said cluster seems to have radiated. Matter of fact, "telltale" delta clusters are in all the regions surveyed for the E3b1 lineage.
And then Charles goes onto claim that, the remains were too small. He is informed that larger samples have been examined, and the same conclusions have been reached.
"Archeology" is presented as further support, and he glosses over this.
Keita mentions "tropical African" lineages in "Northern" Berbers, and Charles' translatiion of this amounts to implicating this to "maternal" lineages, since he rules out the prevalent E3b1 lineages in the those "Northern" Berbers; yet we know, the "northern" Berbers don't carry "sub-Saharan" maternal lineages any more than the various southern European groups.
Now, Underhill mentions that E3b-M78 cannot be an "index" of "Black African" ancestry, on the account that there is no proof that Africans were always "Black". On that occasion, Charles was asked to provide proof for "indigenous" leucoderm tropical Africans, since E3b1 originates in the tropics; he produces none.
Underhill, on the other hand, does attempt to explain to him, what everyone else has been trying to, that you can't separate a "cluster" from its "lineage".
Case closed, unless he feels that Underhill or any other person, can prove such for him.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The cluster vs clade argument is a srrawman both of you are setting up to avoid the obvious and don't even try to turn around things and make me look like the one whose out of touch here. Underhill explained exactly what I said and agreed with me, E3b1 is not an index for black ancestry, that was my argument the entire time, both of you were wrong. No one ever suggested that that the original bearers of underived E3b1 were not black so don't put words in my mouth to get off the defensive. When the words "black African" are used in here you both know full damn wel we're not just talking about skin color, so using this:
'By 1.2 million years ago, all people having descendants today had exactly the receptor protein of today's Africans; their skin was black,'
Is ridiculous and silly, there were no modern humans 1.2 million years ago.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
In spite of the question begging - Underhill's explanation of the difference between a clade and cluster should be helpful to you.
No, it should be helpful to *YOU* that way you'll quit your delusional notions of the alpha cluster being proof of 'black African' ancestry in Greeks and or being "African Neolithic".
quote:You should now be able to see that this has no bearing on the issue of the origins of the E3b1 clade in Black Africa.
This was never the argument so don't attempt to try and change things, the argument was whether the alpha cluster constituted proof of black African ancestry in Greeks and it does not
quote:Underhill properly then moved on the REAL ISSUE, the one which you have been using alpha cluster to evade.
BS, the issue has been the alpha cluster because you and your sidekick keep stating that the alpha cluster of E3b1-M78 is proof of black African ancestry in Greeks and or "African Neolithic" which is false and out of touch with reality.
quote:Was this original E3b1 East African population Black, or not?
You don't know and no one knows for that matter so why do you keep begging the question yourself? Besides this was never the question, the question was whether the alpha cluster of E3b1-M78 proof of black African ancestry in Greeks, quit sidetracking and deliberately changing the subject to avoid being on the defensive.
quote:Underhill asks but does not answer, because he has done no work on the biohistory of skin color.
But others have, and have answered this question: yes, as we have shown.
Wrong as usual with you, there were no black people 1.2 million years and black as used in the context here has nothing to do with skin color only since no one really literally has black skin. Black is a social term not a biological one.
quote:In order to object to the Black African origins of E3b1 - you must be able to answer this question - no, and back it with support evidence.
Nonsense, the questions *YOU* must answer is whether the alpha cluster of E3b1-M78 is proof of black African ancestry in Greece and did black Africans bring the alpha cluster into Greece during the Neolithic since you ignorantly and stubbornly keep calling it "African Neolithic".
quote:No more "alpha" distractions please - no non sequiturs or ad-hominems either, just prove that the original E3b1 bearing Africans were not Black. If you can't do this, then you have nothing to quarrel about, and the matter is settled.
STRAWMAN! The alpha cluster has been the source of contention here because you stated it was proof of "black African" ancestry in Greece, so don't avoid the issue. The argument was never about whether the original bearers of underived E3b1 and whether they were black or not so quit setting up strawmen to knock down. Even if the original bearers of underived E3b1 were black what does this have to do with the alpha cluster of E-M78 being proof of black African ancestry and or being "African Neolithic" in Greece?
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
The cluster vs clade argument is a srrawman both of you are setting up to avoid the obvious and don't even try to turn around things and make me look like the one whose out of touch here. Underhill explained exactly what I said and agreed with me, E3b1 is not an index for black ancestry, that was my argument the entire time, both of you were wrong. No one ever suggested that that the original bearers of underived E3b1 were not black so don't put words in my mouth to get off the defensive. When the words "black African" are used in here you both know full damn wel we're not just talking about skin color, so using this:
'By 1.2 million years ago, all people having descendants today had exactly the receptor protein of today's Africans; their skin was black,'
Is ridiculous and silly, there were no modern humans 1.2 million years ago.
Your whining to Underhill doesn't make you jack; it highlights how uneducated with the basics you are. Case in point, Underhill had sensed you are one who couldn't tell a clade from a cluster, if it knocked you senseless, and hence, attempted to explain it to you yet again. We wouldn't even be having this circular exchange with you, if you knew what clusters or clades are in the first place.
Now let's see how the premises put forth by Underhill, with regards to “index of black ancestry”, has assisted you as you proclaim - based on the notion “that there is no proof that Africans were always black“; where then, are those elusive indigenous prehistoric leucoderms of tropical Africa?
-------------------- Truth - a liar penetrating device! Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
Underhill's comments on clusters is correct, in distinguishing cluster from a clade, and denoting that a derivitive cluster of clade M78 remains within clade M78.
The cluster vs clade argument is a red herring because even clusters can diverge from a clade and accumulate variation. Thats what Underhill stated so your point is moot. You argument is since clusters are not clades all clusters of a clade are all black African[in the context of this debate] and still basically the same, when in fact they are *NOT*.
quote:
clusters refer to distinctive Y chromosome microsatellite grouping or "clusters" diverging *FROM M78* binary node. - Peter Underhill.
Pay particular close attention to the words distinctive and diverging from, because you basically ignore their use in the passage. All non-African lineages diverged from a subset of those found in East Africans, just like E3b1* so using your logic everyone of the whole entire planet has black African genes since Africans have always been black according to what you posted so why shouldn't the original OOA migrants have not been black too, of course I'm using your logic here. Undehill said the same thing esentially.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: Your whining to Underhill doesn't make you jack; it highlights how uneducated with the basics you are. Case in point, Underhill had sensed you are one who couldn't tell a clade from a cluster, if it knocked you senseless, and hence, attempted to explain it to you yet again. We wouldn't even be having this circular exchange with you, if you knew what clusters or clades are in the first place.
**SIGH** skip the nonsense, the question still remains, is E3b1-M78 alpha proof of black African ancestry in Greeks and or "African Neolithic? The answer is no. Does everyone who carries derivates and clusters of E3b1 have black African ancestry? No. Have you proven otherwis`? No! I asked Underhill myelf what clusters were to get a professional answer from a bonafide geneticist mostly for your benefit. The clade vs cluster red herring you keep bringing up doesn't change the fact that the alpha cluster itself is not proof of black African ancestry in Greeks, thats the meat of the argument right there.
quote:Now let's see how the premises put forth by Underhill, with regards to “index of black ancestry”, has assisted you as you proclaim - based on the notion “that there is no proof that Africans were always black“; where then, are those elusive indigenous prehistoric leucoderms of tropical Africa?
Point blank, Underhill said its does *NOT* denote an index of black African ancestry so why the hell are you still rambling on creating all these strawmen to knock down?
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
SIGH** skip the nonsense, the question still remains, is E3b1-M78 alpha proof of black African ancestry in Greeks and or "African Neolithic?
Yes.
quote:Rigaud:
Does everyone who carries derivates and clusters of E3b1 have black African ancestry?
Yes.
quote:Rigaud: Have you proven otherwis`?
Quite abundantly, point by point; you don't seem to have any material to the contrary, despite your emotional whining over the fact of Tropical/Black African lineages in the Balkans!
Guess, who else agrees amongst the many experts,…
"Epipaleolithic "mesolithic" Nile Valley remains have these characteristics and diverge notably from their Maghreban and European counterparts in key cranio-facial characteristics (see comments in Keita 1990) although late Natufian hunters and early Anatolian farmers (Angel 1972) shared some of these traits, suggesting late Paleolithic migration out of Africa, as supported by archeology **(Bar Yosef 1987)**. - Keita, 1993.
quote:Rigaud:
I asked Underhill myelf what clusters were to get a professional answer from a bonafide geneticist mostly for your benefit.
Your email shows your whining about how your position is against some “extreme” position of some vague opponents; nothing more.
quote:Rigaud: The clade vs cluster red herring you keep bringing up doesn't change the fact that the alpha cluster itself is not proof of black African ancestry in Greeks, thats the meat of the argument right there.
The meat of this argument is your lack of understanding of what “ancestry” is, aka Clade.
quote:Rigaud: Point blank, Underhill said its does *NOT* denote an index of black African ancestry so why the hell are you still rambling on creating all these strawmen to knock down?
Point blank, you have no clue what you are talking about, since you obviously don’t know what a clade or a cluster is, nor do you have an answer to the point raised about “there’s no proof Africans were always black”, the drive behind the statement you parrot like a broken record without any semblance of understanding. Perhaps, Underhill’s indirect way of making you reach the conclusion of that question, without openly criticizing your whining, i.e. if it is obvious to him that there never has been prehistoric tropical African leucoderms. Who knows.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rigaud: The cluster vs clade argument is a red herring
Agreed - but you introduced it.
quote:even clusters can diverge from a clade and accumulate variation.
All genes accumulate variation - but that does not define a clade - and so is irrelevant.
quote: Thats what Underhill stated so your point is moot.
What Underhill mooted was your "point" about alpha cluster.
quote: You argument is since clusters are not clades all clusters of a clade are all black African
Incorrect. What is stated is that your comments about clusters are a distraction and have no bearing on the origins of a clade. Your current stream of irrelevant remarks continue to demonstrate this point.
The fact is, clade E3b1 is of Black African origin.
You are still babbling about clusters to no avail, you simply attempt to evade this fact.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rigaud: that way you'll quit your delusional notions of the alpha cluster
lol. once again your habbit of transferring guilt.
That alpha cluster purges Europe of it's Black African ancestry is your delusion, which is why you keep repeating it in every sentense, even after it's been shown to you to be of no relevance to the fact of E3b1's origin in Black Africa.
quote: being proof of 'black African' ancestry in Greeks and or being "African Neolithic".
Again incorrect
What IS correct - E3b lineages would have been *introduced into southern Europe* by immigrant farmers in the Neolithic. - Cruciani.
The assessment of prehistoric and recent human craniofacial dimensions supports the picture documented by genetics that the extension of Neolithic agriculture was accomplished by aprocess of demic diffusion (11–15)....there was clearly a Sub-Saharan African element present of almost equal importance asthe Late Prehistoric Eurasian element. - CL Brace
quote:rasol writes: You should now be able to see that this has no bearing on the issue of the origins of the E3b1 clade in Black Africa.
quote:Charles writes: This was never the argument
It is our position.
You refuse to address it because you can't dispute it.
quote:BS, the issue has been the alpha cluster because you and your sidekick keep stating that the alpha cluster of E3b1-M78 is proof of black African ancestry in Greeks and or "African Neolithic" which is false and out of touch with reality.
I don't have a "sidekick", but I don't blame you for running away from what I am saying, in order to "debate" - "some other argument."
Just more evasion from you.
Keep running Charles....
quote:rasol asks: Was this original E3b1 East African population Black, or not?
quote:Charles non-answers: You don't know
Of course I do and have presented the evidence.
You have no evidence to the contrary, and that's why you present none, and so fail to answer the question.
quote:Besides this was never the question
It is my question - you just run away from it because you have no answer.
And when given and answer, you run away from that as well......
quote:'By 1.2 million years ago, all people having descendants today had exactly the receptor protein of today's Africans; their skin was black,' -[Wooding/ Rogers, 2000
quote:Charles writes: Is ridiculous and silly, there were no modern humans 1.2 million years ago.
Another irrelevant nonsensical remark from you:
1.2 million years is the origin of the MC1R receptor for black skin - it IS relevant to modern Black Africans because that the orignal gene Black Africans have.
It's the gene that denotes the antiquity of the Black skin phenotype.
Hence: the evolutionary constraint that keeps human skin black generation after generation in Africa.
Hence answering the question: Black Africans have always been Black.
The only thing that is silly and ridiculous then, is your defensive, obtuse non-responsive and ineffective, replies.
BOTTOM LINE:
E3b1 is a Black African clade because it originated in Black Africa and among Black Africans.
These Black Africans migrated out of Africa [Mashabian/Natufian] into the Levant and thence into Europe in the Neolithic.
This is why Brace found Neolithic remains in Europe differ from modern Europeans in the direction of Black Africans.
And this why East African Y chromsome clade E3b1, and West/Central African Hbs autosome are preponderant in Greece to this day.
The fact stands that the modern Europeans have Neolithic Black African ancestry.
Some may feel intimidated or insulted by this, so - they scream alpha cluster - and hope no one notices that they are only trying to distract from the fact of Black African ancestry - and not refuting it, in the least.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Quite abundantly, point by point; you don't seem to have any material to the contrary, despite your emotional whining over the fact of Tropical/Black African lineages in the Balkans!
The alpha cluster isn't found in tropical Africa so no, E3b1-M78 alpha isn't proof of tropical African genes in Greeks, try again.
quote:"Epipaleolithic "mesolithic" Nile Valley remains have these characteristics and diverge notably from their Maghreban and European counterparts in key cranio-facial characteristics (see comments in Keita 1990) although late Natufian hunters and early Anatolian farmers (Angel 1972) shared some of these traits, suggesting late Paleolithic migration out of Africa, as supported by archeology **(Bar Yosef 1987)**. - Keita, 1993.
Keita's entire quote:
"However, it is important to be wary of assuming an obligatory association of linguistic affiliation, molecular genetic variants, and morphometric patterns of skeletal variation, although sometimes there is congruence for some of these (see e.g., Poloni et al. 1997). Furthermore, the archeological industries in these regions are not the same, and would not be necessarily so, even if the peoples who created them were biologically related."
quote:Your email shows your whining about how your position is against some “extreme” position of some vague opponents; nothing more.
No, my email shows an ability to get information from experts and professionals who actually study these genes instead of making up layman ad-hoc false appellations such as "tropical African" and Neolithic African E3b1-M78 alpha, which which has never been stated in published data. Why can't you do the same? Quit being lazy and stubborn and email a geneticist, hell even email Keita and ask if you feel so confident.
quote:The meat of this argument is your lack of understanding of what “ancestry” is, aka Clade.
No it is you who cannot understand the relationships among clades and clusters. Underhill explained it and still agreed with me, not your ad-hoc false premise.
quote: Point blank, you have no clue what you are talking about, since you obviously don’t know what a clade or a cluster is, nor do you have an answer to the point raised about “there’s no proof Africans were always black”, the drive behind the statement you parrot like a broken record without any semblance of understanding. Perhaps, Underhill’s indirect way of making you reach the conclusion of that question, without openly criticizing your whining, i.e. if it is obvious to him that there never has been prehistoric tropical African leucoderms. Who knows.
You're grasping for straws again I see, no one said there were Leucoderm Africans in prehistoric tropical Africa, so quit setting up that strawman. You full well that skin color isn't an indicator of race at least thats the stuff you feed Dr Winters when you argue with him about Dravidians right? Point blank the alpha cluster isn't tropical African, black African nor African Neolithic, end of story.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Agreed - but you introduced it.
No, it was Supercar that keeps talking about that, so you lie.
quote:All genes accumulate variation
Which is why not all E3b1-M78 is tropical African
quote: What Underhill mooted was your "point" about alpha cluster.
No your lie that all E3b1 is black African was mooted.
quote: Incorrect. What is stated is that your comments about clusters are a distraction and have no bearing on the origins of a clade. Your current stream of irrelevant remarks continue to demonstrate this point.
quote:The fact is, clade E3b1 is of Black African origin.
You are still babbling about clusters to no avail, you simply attempt to evade this fact.
Whoever denied that underived E3b1 is East African in origin? Strawman argument once again. The topic is about the alpha cluster and whether its black African, Neolithic and or tropical African, it is not case closed!
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rigaud: that way you'll quit your delusional notions of the alpha cluster
lol. once again your habbit of transferring guilt.
No, thats your habit.
quote:That alpha cluster purges Europe of it's Black African ancestry is your delusion, which is why you keep repeating it in every sentense, even after it's been shown to you to be of no relevance to the fact of E3b1's origin in Black Africa.
Strawman once again, no one denied that E3b1 has an East African origin, however not all of the variation accumulated under E3b1 is East African in origin, a fact you keep running from.
quote: Again incorrect
What IS correct - E3b lineages would have been *introduced into southern Europe* by immigrant farmers in the Neolithic. - Cruciani.
These immigrant farmers didn't come from Africa, they came from the Middle East:
Iraqi Y-chromosomes fall into haplogroups, E, F, G, I, J, K, and R. Haplogroup E is mainly African, but its clade E-M35 is also present in Europe where it is believed to have arrived from the Middle East in Neolithic times (Hammer et al., 1998; Semino et al., 2000a).
Y-chromosome and mtDNA polymorphisms in Iraq, a crossroad of the early human dispersal and of post-Neolithic migrations
quote:Charles: Which is why not all E3b1-M78 is tropical African
Incorrect, a clade is by definition - denoted by a single point of origin in a common ancestor.
No single point of origin = therefor not a clade.
In the case of E3b1 the origin lies in Black Africa.
It's clear that SuperCar is correct, and you still don't understand this.
How can you debate population genetics Charles, without understanding what a clade is?
This irrelevant, not all of the variation accumulated under E3b1 is African in origin, your rambling about clades vs cluster is a red herring and Underhill agrees with my position so your point is even still moot.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rigaud: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by rasol: Agreed - but you introduced it.
quote:No, it was Supercar that keeps talking about that, so you lie.
tsk tsk Charles: still tranferrring guilt I see.
It's true that Supercar has refuted your nonsense, but he is hardly responsible for it.
Stop blaming others for your behavior.
I haven't been refuted, both of your nonsense has been refuted. E3b1 isn't an index for black ancestry, black meaning Negroid, not skin color black which you know and tried to evade by focusing on skin color. Your point is mooted.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: [qb] [QUOTE]Charles: Which is why not all E3b1-M78 is tropical African
Incorrect, a clade is by definition - denoted by a single point of origin in a common ancestor.
No single point of origin = therefor not a clade.
In the case of E3b1 the origin lies in Black Africa.
It's clear that SuperCar is correct, and you still don't understand this.
How can you debate population genetics Charles, without understanding what a clade is?
quote:Charles writes: This irrelevant
Actually your lack of understanding of what a clade is, is the main point at issue, since it prevents you from intelligently addressing the fact of Black African ancestry in Europeans.
quote:Charles writes: not all of the variation accumulated under E3b1 is African in origin
Every son's Y chromosome varies genetically from his father's. This is irrelevant to the question of lineage - ie - who his father is.
You still don't get it. All those abstracts you have access to, but still molecular genetics 101 flies right over your head. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Charles writes: no one denied that E3b1-M78 has an East African origin
lol. You just did.
Not only are you stubborn, you're also projecting statements to me that I never made. The art of double-think doesn't work on me.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I haven't been refuted, both of your nonsense has been refuted.
It's worse than you think. You've succeeding in demonstrating a woeful lack of understanding of the topic at hand.
quote: E3b1 isn't an index for black ancestry
Never said it was - lots of Blacks have non Pn2 lineages. And Blacks of Australia, South Asia and the Pacific Islands have no African ancestry at all.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Look. email a geneticist like I did and ask if E3b1 is an index for black ancestry. See what the answer will be, lol. Of course minus your ad-hoc appellations.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Yes, per Bar Yosef, Keita, Cruciani, Semino, Hammer, Richard and more, as exemplified by, and as Rasol correctly observes,...
"E3b originated in sub-Saharan Africa and expanded into the Near East and northern Africa at the end of the Pleistocene (Underhill et al. 2001). E3b lineages would have then been introduced from the Near East into southern Europe by immigrant farmers, during the Neolithic expansion." - Cruciani et al.
quote:Rigaud:
The alpha cluster isn't found in tropical Africa so no, E3b1-M78 alpha isn't proof of tropical African genes in Greeks, try again.
...so you keep ranting about, however, the above belies you.
quote:Rigaud
quote:"Epipaleolithic "mesolithic" Nile Valley remains have these characteristics and diverge notably from their Maghreban and European counterparts in key cranio-facial characteristics (see comments in Keita 1990) although late Natufian hunters and early Anatolian farmers (Angel 1972) shared some of these traits, suggesting late Paleolithic migration out of Africa, as supported by archeology **(Bar Yosef 1987)**. - Keita, 1993.
Keita's entire quote:
"However, it is important to be wary of assuming an obligatory association of linguistic affiliation, molecular genetic variants, and morphometric patterns of skeletal variation, although sometimes there is congruence for some of these (see e.g., Poloni et al. 1997). Furthermore, the archeological industries in these regions are not the same, and would not be necessarily so, even if the peoples who created them were biologically related."
You can lie to yourself all you want, as signified by the fact that firstly, you are referring to two different Keita publications, but passing it off as a citation from the same paper; secondly, posting the latter, in no way contradicts Keita's apparent agreement in the former. Get your reading skills straight.
quote:Rigaud:
No, my email shows an ability to get information from experts and professionals who actually study these genes instead of making up layman ad-hoc false appellations such as "tropical African" and Neolithic African E3b1-M78 alpha, which which has never been stated in published data. Why can't you do the same? Quit being lazy and stubborn and email a geneticist, hell even email Keita and ask if you feel so confident.
The usual cry of helplessness, when your illiteracy on the basics of the science are exposed, time and again. I don't have to prove anything, when your whining-filled e-mail to Underhill is there for everyone to see for themselves.
quote:Rigaud: No it is you who cannot understand the relationships among clades and clusters.
Underhill explained it and still agreed with me, not your ad-hoc false premise.
Then, why is it that is you, who can't see that your constant babblings of a cluster, has nothing to do with the origins of the lineage in question, which signifies ancestry. Underhill simply told you what all of us have been trying to get you to see; you can't separate a cluster from the lineage...and so, treating the alpha cluster like a whole new creature, is intellectually bankrupt.
If Underhill agrees with you, then we will like to see either your's or Underhill's substantiation for the premises used for the said "agreement", i.e. the ever-existence of indigenous "non-black" tropical Africans.
quote:Rigaud:
You're grasping for straws again I see, no one said there were Leucoderm Africans in prehistoric tropical Africa, so quit setting up that strawman.
Your are moving into insanity; if Africans of the tropics [where E3b1 originated] have not always been "black", then what should we assume them to be, green, or orange? Lol.
quote:Rigaud:
You full well that skin color isn't an indicator of race at least thats the stuff you feed Dr Winters when you argue with him about Dravidians right?
Exactly, that is why this is a strawman, as nobody mentioned "race" here.
quote:Rigaud:
Point blank the alpha cluster isn't tropical African, black African nor African Neolithic, end of story.
Yeap; pigs fly, and the alpha cluster is NOT E3b1. I get it.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
Humans skin is the most visible aspect of the human phenotype.
It is distinguished mainly by its naked appearance, greatly enhanced abilities to dissipate body heat through sweating, and the great range of genetically determined skin colors present within a single species.
Many aspects of the evolution of human skin and skin color can be reconstructed using comparative anatomy, physiology, and genomics.
Dark skin evolved pari passu with the loss of body hair and was the original state for the genus Homo.
Melanin pigmentation is adaptive and has been maintained by natural selection. Because of its evolutionary lability, skin color phenotype is useless as a unique marker of genetic identity..
Yet the two sidekicks keep using skin color to denote that Africans have always been black as a sly way of trying to prove that E3b1 alpha is proof of black ancestry in Greeks, the contradictions are amusing.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:These immigrant farmers didn't come from Africa, they came from the Middle East
Obviously to get from East Africa to Europe you'd have to cross the Levant or Arabia, so I don't see your point.
Neither does historian Christopher Ehret:
We actually have DNA evidence which fits very well with an intrusion of people from northEast African into southwestern Asia. The early Semites were Africans arriving to find other people already in the area.
The Y-chromosome markers, associated with the male, fade out as you go deeper into the Middle East.
Maybe should whine to him about alpha cluster, and see if it gets you any further than it did with Underhill. lol.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Agreed - but you introduced it.
No, it was Supercar that keeps talking about that, so you lie.
Let's see...retracting, who brought up the alpha issue in this thread, and keeps whining about why people associate it with the tropical African lineage of E3b1, only to call others a troll, when he bears all the classic features of such. You are even miserable at lying, as we can see.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:These immigrant farmers didn't come from Africa, they came from the Middle East
Obviously to get from East Africa you'd have to across the Levant or Arabia, so I don't see your point.
Neither does historian Christopher Ehret:
We actually have DNA evidence which fits very well with an intrusion of people from northEast African into southwestern Asia. The early Semites were Africans arriving to find other people already in the area.
The Y-chromosome markers, associated with the male, fade out as you go deeper into the Middle East.
Maybe should whine to him about alpha cluster, and see if it gets you any further than it did with Underhill. lol.
The PN2 clade arrived in the Middle East during the Late Pleistocene/Early Mesolithic and arrived in Europe via the Middle East during the Neolithic, thats the truth you hide from.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rigaud: THE EVOLUTION OF HUMAN SKIN AND SKIN COLOR
Nina G. Jablonski
Humans skin is the most visible aspect of the human phenotype.
It is distinguished mainly by its naked appearance, greatly enhanced abilities to dissipate body heat through sweating, and the great range of genetically determined skin colors present within a single species.
Many aspects of the evolution of human skin and skin color can be reconstructed using comparative anatomy, physiology, AND GENOMICS.
Dark skin evolved pari passu with the loss of body hair and was the original state for the genus Homo.
Melanin pigmentation is adaptive and has been maintained by natural selection. Because of its evolutionary lability, skin color phenotype is useless as a unique marker of genetic identity.
Too bad you don't understand that it invalidates your attempts to translate skin color into a racial catagory...
quote:Charles writes: black meaning Negroid
...only to you Charles.
Which leads us back to your inability to counter the evidence that tropical Africans have always been Black.
We're still waiting. Apparently you're too busy with irrelevant rants to actually answer the the only relevant question in this discussion.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Obviously to get from East Africa you'd have to across the Levant or Arabia, so I don't see your point.
Neither does historian Christopher Ehret:
We actually have DNA evidence which fits very well with an intrusion of people from northEast African into southwestern Asia. The early Semites were Africans arriving to find other people already in the area.
The Y-chromosome markers, associated with the male, fade out as you go deeper into the Middle East.
Maybe should whine to him about alpha cluster, and see if it gets you any further than it did with Underhill. lol.
quote:Charles writes: The PN2 clade arrived in the Middle East during the Late Pleistocene/Early Mesolithic and arrived in Europe via the Middle East during the Neolithic, thats the truth you hide from.
Also incorrect, as the Pn2 clade also entered Europe from NorthWest Africa, along with other tropical African linages also in the Neolithic, thru a process that CL Brace denotes as demic diffusion, and of which he attributes substanially to Black Africans, because it is directly associated with population change in Europe - thats the truth you are frantically running away, but cannot hide, from. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Obviously to get from East Africa you'd have to across the Levant or Arabia, so I don't see your point.
Neither does historian Christopher Ehret:
We actually have DNA evidence which fits very well with an intrusion of people from northEast African into southwestern Asia. The early Semites were Africans arriving to find other people already in the area.
The Y-chromosome markers, associated with the male, fade out as you go deeper into the Middle East.
Maybe should whine to him about alpha cluster, and see if it gets you any further than it did with Underhill. lol.
quote:Charles writes: The PN2 clade arrived in the Middle East during the Late Pleistocene/Early Mesolithic and arrived in Europe via the Middle East during the Neolithic, thats the truth you hide from.
Also incorrect, as the Pn2 clade also entered Europe from NorthWest Africa, along with other tropical African linages also in the Neolithic, thru a process that CL Brace denotes as demic diffusion, and of which he attributes substanially to Black Africans - that the truth you are frantically running away, but cannot hide, from.
True, although, not that any of this would have bearings on what E3b1 is, i.e. tropical African lineage - and will still be so, even a thousand more years or beyond from now...with even more clusters.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:These immigrant farmers didn't come from Africa, they came from the Middle East
Obviously to get from East Africa you'd have to across the Levant or Arabia, so I don't see your point.
Neither does historian Christopher Ehret:
We actually have DNA evidence which fits very well with an intrusion of people from northEast African into southwestern Asia. The early Semites were Africans arriving to find other people already in the area.
The Y-chromosome markers, associated with the male, fade out as you go deeper into the Middle East.
Maybe should whine to him about alpha cluster, and see if it gets you any further than it did with Underhill. lol.
I guess the supposed point would be that, hence, they couldn't possibly have been "black"; we know better though, with skeletal remains found in the Levant and Anatolia.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Indeed the first evidence of Neolithic migration from Africa into Europe was actually skeletal and archeological.
The first blood evidence was actually sickle cell trait - which was argued to be a unique Southern European adaptive response to malaria - until it was proven to be a west African inherited haplotype - Benin Hbs.
The East African origins of E3b1-M-78 [Semino] simply affirms this fact.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
The first blood evidence was actually sickle cell trait - which was argued to be a unique Southern European adaptive response to malaria - until it was proven to be a west African inherited haplotype - Benin Hbs.
I am not sure you want to say the latter, it might offend someone, who will claim that it no longer reflects tropical African ancestry. LOL.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ Indeed the first evidence of Neolithic migration from Africa into Europe was actually skeletal and archeological.
The first blood evidence was actually sickle cell trait - which was argued to be a unique Southern European adaptive response to malaria - until it was proven to be a west African inherited haplotype - Benin Hbs.
The East African origins of E3b1-M-78 [Semino] simply affirms this fact.
Bottom line is, "multiple" disciplines [not just genetics] and lines of evidence has been provided to establish the above - all of which still stand, meaning not contradicted by material from anyone in this thread. There is thus, interdisciplinary harmony on this issue.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rigaud: THE EVOLUTION OF HUMAN SKIN AND SKIN COLOR
Nina G. Jablonski
Humans skin is the most visible aspect of the human phenotype.
It is distinguished mainly by its naked appearance, greatly enhanced abilities to dissipate body heat through sweating, and the great range of genetically determined skin colors present within a single species.
Many aspects of the evolution of human skin and skin color can be reconstructed using comparative anatomy, physiology, AND GENOMICS.
Dark skin evolved pari passu with the loss of body hair and was the original state for the genus Homo.
Melanin pigmentation is adaptive and has been maintained by natural selection. Because of its evolutionary lability, skin color phenotype is useless as a unique marker of genetic identity.
Too bad you don't understand that it invalidates your attempts to translate skin color into a racial catagory...
Then why are you using skin color to rebuff Underhill's statement about whether Africans have always been black? You're a walking contradiction. One minute you're using skin color to prove that Africans have always been black[ie, as a genetic identity] the next minute you're using it to inavlidate skin color as a marker of identity, make up your mind.
quote:Charles writes: black meaning Negroid
Which leads us back to your inability to counter the evidence that tropical Africans have always been Black.
Since 1.2 million years[a time when AMH didn't exist, but using your logic, according to skin color then did] ago tropical Africans have always been black...according to skin color, though skin color is meaningless as a marker of genetic identity according to Jablonski[yet you are using it as a genetic identity based on skin color], a person you have cited. You contradict yourself and used information selectively when it suits you, thats your mantra.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Obviously to get from East Africa you'd have to across the Levant or Arabia, so I don't see your point.
Neither does historian Christopher Ehret:
We actually have DNA evidence which fits very well with an intrusion of people from northEast African into southwestern Asia. The early Semites were Africans arriving to find other people already in the area.
The Y-chromosome markers, associated with the male, fade out as you go deeper into the Middle East.
Maybe should whine to him about alpha cluster, and see if it gets you any further than it did with Underhill. lol.
quote:Charles writes: The PN2 clade arrived in the Middle East during the Late Pleistocene/Early Mesolithic and arrived in Europe via the Middle East during the Neolithic, thats the truth you hide from.
Also incorrect, as the Pn2 clade also entered Europe from NorthWest Africa, along with other tropical African linages also in the Neolithic, thru a process that CL Brace denotes as demic diffusion, and of which he attributes substanially to Black Africans, because it is directly associated with population change in Europe - thats the truth you are frantically running away, but cannot hide, from.
Post evidence
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ankhenaten2: wow!! hot debate but ahem:
"Brace found Neolithic remains in Europe differ from modern Europeans in the direction of Black Africans"
nothing more needs to be said lol!
When did Brace find that Neolithic remains in Europe differed in the direction of Black Africans? A bunch of lies!
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
My point still remains, E3b1 M78 alpha is not proof of black African ancestry in modern Europeans
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Originally posted by Rigaud: Originally posted by ankhenaten2: wow!! hot debate but ahem:
"Brace found Neolithic remains in Europe differ from modern Europeans in the direction of Black Africans"
ankhenaten2 may be referring to the study published in late 2005 in which Brace and his team conclude that modern Europeans inherit their looks/ancestry not from Neolithic settlers but from a much earlier population.
The assessment of prehistoric and recent human craniofacial dimensions supports the picture documented by genetics that the extension of Neolithic agriculture from the Near East westward to Europe and across North Africa was accomplished by a process of demic diffusion (11–15). If the Late Pleistocene Natufian sample from Israel is the source from which that Neolithic spread was derived, then there was clearly a Sub- Saharan African element present of almost equal importance as the Late Prehistoric Eurasian element. At the same time, the failure of the Neolithic and Bronze Age samples in central and northern Europe to tie to the modern inhabitants supports the suggestion that, while a farming mode of subsistence was spread westward and also north to Crimea and east to Mongolia by actual movement of communities of farmers, the indigenous foragers in each of those areas ultimately absorbed both the agricultural subsistence strategy and also the people who had brought it. The interbreeding of the incoming Neolithic people with the in situ foragers diluted the Sub-Saharan traces that may have come with the Neolithic spread so that no discoverable element of that remained. This picture of a mixture between the incoming farmers and the in situ foragers had originally been supported by the archaeological record alone (6, 9, 33, 34, 48, 49), but this view is now reinforced by the analysis of the skeletal morphology of the people of those areas where prehistoric and recent remains can be metrically compared.Posts: 72 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Doctor Shomarka Keita writes: Professor Angel also found evidence for a "Black" (if such exists) genetic influence -> in neolithic and later Aegean populations, racialists models based on non-overlapping gene pools are clearly negated by Angels work.
Negroid traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters (McCown, 1939) and in Anatolian and Macedonian first farmers....probably FROM NUBIA via the predessors of the Badarians. - Larry Angel.
Handwringings over uncontested facts are mere distraction.
In order to dispute Keita, Angel, Mcgown, Bar Yossif and others....the following legitimate avenue are available.
* show that the Greeks do not have E3b.
* show that the Greeks do not have Benin Hbs.
* show that E3b and/or Benin Hbs did not originate in and among Black African[s].
Stop stalling and answer the questions.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
The question in fact answers itself for any thinking person - who is not hopelessly confused.
Printer-friendly view of this topic