posted
I don’t have to prove it, its already been proven. Studies in Y-chromosome lineages and autosomal polymorphisms are the proof you’re looking for.
I found this paper from Oxford helpful in attempting to understand much of the discussion on this forum including the question you’re asking.
Evolutionary genetic studies …. Provide substantial support for an African origin of modern humans
posted
Assumptions are only as good as the information base from which one is working.
In order to make the claim that they know the origins of the human specie, they would have to have the remains of the very first person, as in origins. The oldest human remains to date was found in African, but that does not mean they are the oldest or that the oldest will ever be found. To be able to make the assertion to know of the origin of anything, one has to have been there.
Posts: 63 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Yeap. Would explain why contemporary non-African gene pools are a subset of contemporary African gene pool. Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ lol. According to Jennifer, I can rightfully assert to being her daddy, having 'been there' when she was conceived.
Her assertions to the contrary would be meaningless by her own "mis"-logic, as by defintion she would not have existed [other than as a mindless sperm tadpole] at the time that I impregnated her mother.
Nor can she appeal to her mother's "opinion" - equally meaningless, as Jennifer cannot personally verify it based her own observation.
At best she can 'assume' her mother is telling the truth.
Paternity test?
Nah, that's back to genetics again, and genetics cannot be utilized: to make the assertion to know of the origin of anything, because one has to have been there.
^So sayeth the troll squad of Jennifer and MIke.
Glad we settled that. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Too bad, I was looking forward to your explanation of what that has to do with genetics and molecular dating.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ lol. According to Jennifer, I can rightfully assert to being her daddy, having 'been there' when she was conceived.
Her assertions to the contrary would be meaningless by her own "mis"-logic, as by defintion she would not have existed [other than as a mindless sperm tadpole] at the time that I impregnated her mother.
Nor can she appeal to her mother's "opinion" - equally meaningless, as Jennifer cannot personally verify it based her own observation.
At best she can 'assume' her mother is telling the truth.
Paternity test?
Nah, that's back to genetics again, and genetics cannot be utilized: to make the assertion to know of the origin of anything, because one has to have been there.
^So sayeth the troll squad of Jennifer and MIke.
Glad we settled that.
^^ROTFLH Rasol, that cracked me up until I almost had tears!
quote: ^ Too bad, I was looking forward to your explanation of what that has to do with genetics and molecular dating.
LOL Ras, I think they've had enough.
Unless Jen finds it discomforting to have black ancestry or worse, Jewish ancestry...
or worst of all BLACK JEWISH ancestry!
Perhaps you can get a genetics test, Jen. Posts: 26280 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
The same logic behind the DNA code that created your eye created a dog's eye. Do you find it discomforting to know that you are related to a dog?
Posts: 63 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ lol. According to Jennifer, I can rightfully assert to being her daddy, having 'been there' when she was conceived.
lololol Thats jokes.
i think my first response (to just laugh) answers jenitroll’s comments. Because its just comedy.
She can’t really take herself seriously can she?
Posts: 112 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jenifer Johnson: Djehuti,
The same logic behind the DNA code that created your eye created a dog's eye. Do you find it discomforting to know that you are related to a dog?
No, I don't. Of course I'm far closer related to chimpanzee than a dog and far closer related to a black African than that!
Better yet, how do YOU feel about being related to a black African? Do YOU find it discomforting to know that you are related to a black person??
Are you comparing somehow comparing being related to a dog with being related to a black person??
quote: Why, I was just showing the reality that every living organism is related through our DNA code.
Of course, but some things are related MORE than others. Again, do you deny being far more related to a black person than a dog or an ape??
Posts: 26280 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Djehuti : how do YOU feel about being related to a black African?
The question is meaningless, because I am related to every living organism which is DNA based, so naturally I am related to Every black African. I'm even related to you.
The only thing that separates us all, is our standards, values, and beliefs.
Posts: 63 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^LOL Your answer is meaningless, because you are CLOSER related to some organisms than others, and CLOSEST related to other humans still. It's been proven that all non-African human DNA is descended from a small subset of East African DNA. So you can self medicate yourself by claiming relations to dogs, mushrooms, and amoeba all you want. As far as YOUR standards, values, and beliefs, we know where you stand.
Oh, and I'm not black by the way (or Jewish). Posts: 26280 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Djehuti: It's been proven that all non-African human DNA is descended from a small subset of East African DNA.
The fact that all humans can procreate, means there are no mutually exclusive group (races) and that we all have a common origin. The human specie, as a group, contains 100% of all genetic variation. To make a claim that a specific sub-group is the origin of all other groups, that sub-group would have to contain 100% of all genetic variation.
Where is the proof?
By their own claim of the human population into subdivisions according to Africa, Asia, Europe : 85 to 90% of genetic variation exists within in these subdivisions and only 10 to 15% variation exists between them; an African does not contain 100% of all genetic variation. Therefore, group dynamics does not support an African origin of modern humans.
The same problem with claiming the concept of race is true, is with the claim "a race" African is the origin of the human specie.
Posts: 63 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
Guess you weren't aware that the paternal lines of all non-African groups lead back to M168 mutation from African migrants into Eurasia, AND that all non-African materal lines are derivatives of the African L3.
Hint: The aforementioned are but a subset of African gene pool.
Proof enough - no? What do you have to offer to the contrary?
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Group dynamics proves that the genetic evidence does not support that African is the origins of the human specie and to be able to make the assertion to know of the origin of anything, one has to have been there. Conclusions are only as good as the input.
"Paternal lines" is based on the assumption of having all the paternal lines, derived from bones found. What about the bones that haven't been found and will never be found?
Posts: 63 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is this supposed to challenge or address what I just mentioned...how do explain the phenomenon I just brought to your attention, presuming you understand the implications?
-------------------- Truth - a liar penetrating device! Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
redShift, it doesn't surprise me of your lack of understanding that to know the truth of a phenomenon, one has to have been there, beings the liar that you are.
redShift : person who actually created that picture stopped posting here so I doubt he agrees with that cartoon or anything written by her. ...he found this picture posted by her
Redshift, you are inferring that I created that picture and posted it on individual rights. Both are false, which means you are a liar.Posts: 63 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Supercar, sorry, I had edited my post while you were posting your reply.
"Paternal lines" is based on the assumption of having all the paternal lines, derived from bones found. What about the bones that haven't been found and will never be found?
Making conclusions about a puzzle with having only a small percentage of the pieces only makes a liar out of you. Take Moses for an example; In his pure ignorance time has proved him to be a Liar!
Posts: 63 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jenifer Johnson: Supercar, sorry, I had edited my post while you were posting your reply.
"Paternal lines" is based on the assumption of having all the paternal lines, derived from bones found. What about the bones that haven't been found and will never be found?
Wrong; Lol. Paternal and maternal lines are based on DNA samplings of contemporary global human populations, comprising individuals who are descendants of a male human ancestor and a female human ancestor, who in turn have their respective ancestors likewise.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Paternal and maternal lines are due to genealogical information and bones. Without the genealogical information and bones, paternal and maternal lines are incomplete and give false conclusions.
Going back only 20 generations, there are 1,048,576 contributors to one's DNA. Lineage back to the beginning of time is impossible.
Posts: 63 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Djehuti : As far as YOUR standards, values, and beliefs, we know where you stand.
Yes, I promote in individualism, where the individual has the right and freedom to establish their own standards and values in the pursuit of the truth.
It is only a sick hate-mongering tyrant that uses their group mentality claiming to represent a group to subvert truth and the individual rights and sovereignty of the individual, for their own personal benefit.
Posts: 63 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jenifer Johnson: Paternal and maternal lines are due to genealogical information and bones. Without the genealogical information and bones, paternal and maternal lines are incomplete and give false conclusions.
How so? Y-chromosomes are only transmitted through males, and mtDNA only through females. So, please explain how this would be incomplete, when these can lead us to singular specific lines of ancestry! I mean, everyone has to have a mother and a father - no?
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
Going back only 20 generations, there are 1,048,576 contributors to one's DNA which means there are 1,048,576 lines. mtDNA represents only one line in a pedigree chart. Just as your "Last Name" represents only one line in the pedigree chart. Every line is as important as another line to tell the whole story. Again, to tell the whole truth and nothing but the whole truth is important.
It would be like reading a 1,048,576 paged book with only 40 pages.
Posts: 63 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again, everyone has a mother and a father. Everyone has mtDNA, but which leads us to a singular ancestor, since it is only transmitted through the mother. Similarly for a male, the Y-chromosome leads to a singular line of ancestry, since only a father transmits this. So a sampled population, naturally comprising males and females, will be able to track ancestral lines through these singular lines of ancestry. You have not still explained how this would be incomplete. If there were other lines of male ancestry in a given population, it will be revealed through the available Y chromosomes in the samples. The same can be said of mtDNA.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Supercar, I'm not claiming that the Y-chromosome and mtDNA doesn't provide important information. I'm claiming it doesn't provide 100% of the information to be able to make the claimes they make. Have you ever seen a pedigree chart? 2 lines out of 1,048,576 lines in only 20 generations is incomplete in anyone's book.
Posts: 63 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
Supercar, I'm not claiming that the Y-chromosome and mtDNA doesn't provide important information. I'm claiming it doesn't provide 100% of the information to be able to make the claimes they make. Have you ever seen a pedigree chart? 2 lines out of 1,048,576 lines in only 20 generations is incomplete in anyone's book.
I initially edited this into my earlier post, but taking into consideration your last post, I decided to make a new post out of it.
This is the point you are missing:
If we were to assume that one male produced four female offsprings with one female, and no male offsprings, and then, each of these four female offsprings produced both male and female offsprings with males bearing Y chromosomes of different mrca from that of the father of the aforementioned four female offsprings, the Y-chromosome line of the father of the four female offsprings will be drifted out in their offsprings, but their mtDNA line can be traced back to the mother of those four female offspring. The male offsprings of those four female offsprings will reveal both the male line of ancestry of the males with whom the four females produced those offsprings, as well as the mtDNA of those four females.
World Wide non-African native population samples have thus far shown Y-chromosomes and mtDNA that can be traced to singular lines of ancestry, ultimately leading back to a subset of African gene pool. If there were Y-chromosome line of ancestry that couldn't ultimately be traced to Africa, then this particular Y-chromosome has not been found, and thus has no bearings on contemporary populations that apparently do. The burden of proof, is on you to show us such a lineage.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If two people have the same Mitochondrial DNA, all it means is, they had one common female ancestor, with no evidence of who all the other progenitors are. Example: Two half sisters can have different mtDNA.
Posts: 63 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jenifer Johnson: If two people have the same Mitochondrial DNA, all it means is, they had one common female ancestor, with no evidence of who all the other progenitors are. Example: Two half sisters can have different mtDNA.
Needless to say, that you have not read my last post, but I'll repeat this portion of it to you, and see if you'll deliver:
World Wide non-African native population samples have thus far shown Y-chromosomes and mtDNA that can be traced to singular lines of ancestry, ultimately leading back to a subset of African gene pool. If there were Y-chromosome line of ancestry that couldn't ultimately be traced to Africa, then this particular Y-chromosome has not been found, and thus has no bearings on contemporary populations that apparently do. The burden of proof, is on you to show us such a lineage.Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
Important to this discussion is to have seen a pedigree chart and to understand the representation of the Y-chromosome and mtDNA to the chart. Have you seen a pedigree chart?
No, the burden of proof, is for you to show us a pedigree chart that represents 100% of one's lineage.
Posts: 63 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jenifer Johnson: Supercar,
Important to this discussion is to have seen a pedigree chart and to understand the representation of the Y-chromosome and mtDNA to the chart. Have you seen a pedigree chart?
Lol. Have you seen Y-chromosome charts, and mtDNA charts constructed from world wide human population samplings? Have you seen a male that cannot be traced back to a singular line of male ancestry, or human, that cannot be traced back to a singular line of maternal ancestry?
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jenifer Johnson: Check one out and get back to me.
...on what has been addressed two posts ago of mine, which you haven't apparently either read or simply did not understand to realize that your so-called request had been addressed even before you thought of it - Why? If you didn't understand, simply ask.
"If we were to assume that one male produced four female offsprings with one female, and no male offsprings, and then, each of these four female offsprings produced both male and female offsprings with males bearing Y chromosomes of different mrca from that of the father of the aforementioned four female offsprings, the Y-chromosome line of the father of the four female offsprings will be drifted out in their offsprings, but their mtDNA line can be traced back to the mother of those four female offspring. The male offsprings of those four female offsprings will reveal both the male line of ancestry of the males with whom the four females produced those offsprings, as well as the mtDNA of those four females."
What does the above mean?
How about now addressing what was requested of you, i.e.:
World Wide non-African native population samples have thus far shown Y-chromosomes and mtDNA that can be traced to singular lines of ancestry, ultimately leading back to a subset of African gene pool. If there were Y-chromosome line of ancestry that couldn't ultimately be traced to Africa, then this particular Y-chromosome has not been found, and thus has no bearings on contemporary populations that apparently do. The burden of proof, is on you to show us such a lineage.
Where is that burden of proof?
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's been an awfully long time, for our scientifically illiterate Jen to deliver. I knew a copout was in order, sooner or later. In this case, it has been sooner. Lol.
-------------------- Truth - a liar penetrating device! Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
Supercar : mtDNA that can be traced to singular lines of ancestry
Exactly, based on bones claimed to be the oldest. The only problem is, there are more than "only one" example of Mitochondrial DNA, which is what they claim can be traced to singular lines of ancestry.
Example: Take only three generations of a female. There are a possibility of three different mtDNA, but only one is reflected in the female. All three are as relevant as the one.
Again, check out a pedigree chart to see all the information that is lost, by claiming that only the Y-chromosome and mtDNA are the important links.
Posts: 63 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jenifer Johnson: Supercar : What does the above mean?
You tell me, you wrote it.
Thanks for finally acknowledging that you have no clue, and hence, no need to even go further.
Ps - Familiarize yourself with Y chromosome and mtDNA charts, and basics [clades and clusters] involved. Then, come and discuss, to see if you still can't comprehend.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
All you have proved is you haven't made any sense to me and you can't or won't clarity yourself, so I can. If you don't care why should I?
If two half sisters can have different mtDNA. then how can anyone make the claim there is only one single mtDNA ( a singular lines of ancestry)?
Posts: 63 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Intelligence is the ability to take a complex topic and make them simple for anyone to understand.
Just as it is physically impossible to be in two places at one time, it is physically impossible for the mtDNA of every female to be represented in one singular lines of ancestry (only one mtDNA).
BTW, that is check mate. Posts: 63 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^Lol! Boy, you crack me up with the therapeutic satifaction you hope to gain from mental instability, thinking that a false-sense of accomplishment or lying to yourself, will hide your embarrassing utter illiteracy on the the subject matter at hand. But no matter...
quote:Originally posted by Jenifer Johnson: Intelligence is the ability to take a complex topic and make them simple for anyone to understand.
No one else but you, has a problem of understanding what was said, unless of course, one [like you] is too scientifically illiterate to do so. However, let's test your intelligence, while I explain in the most basic terms or dumb things down for you:
Step 1: You have a man (Y1) and a female(X1)...you with me? I hope so.
Step 2: Male Y1 produces four daughters with female X1. Now, Male Y1's Y-chromosome happens to be of E3b1, while the mtDNA of his female partner, X1, happens to be L1a2.
Step 3: The four daughters of male Y1 and female X1 are termed as d1, d2, d3, and d4.
Step 4: Daughters d1, d2, d3, and d4 don't carry Y-chromosomes, since they are females, and therefore cannot transmit their fathers Y-chromosome of E3b1.
But d1, d2, d3 and d4 will carry female X1's mtDNA of L1a2, since they can only receive from their mother, female X1, and NOT that of their father, male Y1.
Males Y2, Y3, Y4, and Y5 carry R1a, R1b, J2, and E3a respectively.
Step 6:
Supposing the couple male Y2 and daughter d1 had one male offspring (b1), and one female offspring (g1).
Male offspring b1 will carry R1a as well as L1a2. The R1a of this male offspring, was transmitted from Y2, while the L1a2 was transmitted from female d1.
Female Offspring g1, will only carry an X chromosome from male Y2, but will still receive mtDNA only from female d1, which again, is L1a2.
Repeating the same senarios with the other females, i.e. d2, d3, and d4 with males Y3, Y4 and Y5, it is clear that their respective male offsprings will only carry the respective Y-chromosomes of Y3, Y4 and Y5, while mtDNA will exclusively come from their respective female partners, d1, d3 & d4.
Hence, none of these male offsprings of Y3, Y4 and Y5 will carry the E3b1 of male Y1, the father of their female partners. But these male offsprings will carry L1a2, from male Y1 and female X1's daughters. The L1a2 can easily be traced back to female X1, since she is the one who transmitted it to daughter d1, d2, d3 and d4.
The end result: Genetic drift has ensured that Male Y1's E3b1, has been lost in his 4 grandsons, but female X1's L1a2 have been preserved in those 4 male grandson offsprings.
On the same token, the Y-chromosomes of the fathers of the 4 males, i.e. Y2, Y3, Y4 and Y5 have been preserved in the son's of Y2, Y3, Y4 and Y5. But the respective mtDNA of Y5, Y3, Y4 and Y5 have not been preserved, since they cannot transmit mtDNA.
The respective daughters and sons of Y2, Y3, Y4 and Y5 will all trace their mtDNA back to female X1, since they all produced offsprings with the four daughters of female X1.
In the end, entire populations will reveal the prevalent Y-chromosomes and mtDNA; All such Y-chromosomes and mtDNA have been shown to have derived from an ancestor in Africa. So, even if male X1's E3b1 was not perserved because he only had daughters, his male siblings who do have male offsprings, will have preserved E3b1.
If you still can't understand what was just said, you might want to take up elementary school reading lessons. Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic