posted
Go back, slow down, and take another look at the figures I posted. Makes me wonder how it engendered such a response.
The figures I use from Arredi say that E3b-M35 is older than E3b1-M78. So far I've seen no one make any statement that their initial expansion ages were contemporaneous. Looks like something made up and put down by yourself.
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: Heck M78, the derivative of M35, has expansion dates of 6ky ago or so [and older] in the “Near East”[ Semino et al. 2004, Cruciani et al. 2004, and Underhill et al.]. Naturally, M78 cannot be contemporaneous with its father lineage E-M35 in initial expansion ages - this understanding is consistently communicated in the bulk of genetic studies referenced herein.
posted
No. The other sources in my Guessing Game NA NRY Marker TMRCAs table -- namely: Arredi, Cruciani, and Semino -- all do very explicitly disagree with Bosch over E3b2-M81 "youth" compared to E3b1-M78.
Again, buttressing my point that the ages of the markers is an 'educated guess' between the geneticists. Take your pick, or, judiciously draw your own conclusions (as you have already done).
I chose Arredi's genetics to dovetail with Williamson's linquistics. They fit hand in glove. The others' gloves are the kind the Cochran firm would love.
But I invite the use of any other geneticist than Arredi and any other linguist than P. Behren whose figures are really within the same near hit range of each other in explanation of both the genetic expansion of North African markers and lingual spread of the "Berber" language.
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: If Bosch et al. posit a younger age for M81 than that of E-M35 and E-M78, then this would be in agreement with many of the other cited sources, not in disagreement. As for the Bosch et al.'s supposed "Upper Paleolithic" extraction of "Berber" paternal lineages, I've already taken issue with that multiple times now, including in that thread you started about 'Tamazight language being Afrasan'. Outside of Bosch et al., I've rarely seen genetic studies posit an Upper Paleolithic expansion age for E-M81, as opposed to being of a Neolithic one.
posted
No. It implies there were no proto-North "Berber" derived languages in coastal northeast Africa not that there were no "Berber" speakers at all already there.
It's not age of the speakers it's the age of the speech. The youth of a language can belie the hoariness of its speakers genetics.
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
there is no evidence that coastal North East African Tamazight speakers are younger than those from coastal North West Africa, which was implied in your original post, by way of migration from first Saharan/sahel East Africa in westward direction [and reaching coastal north west Africa], and from thereon an eastward movement occurred, reaching coastal north east Africa. For instance, when you said:
spreading west by northwest then back east but to further north than its point of origin -al Takruri
^This implies that there were no Tamazight speakers already inhabiting coastal northeast Africa, prior to the ‘eastward’ migration of coastal northwest African Tamazight speakers from west Africa [pending clarification to the contrary]. I haven’t seen any genetic evidence backing up such a scenario. Genetic evidence for such would demonstrate older expansion ages for west African Tamazight groups than those in coastal Northeast Africa; however to date, I’ve seen genetic evidence to the contrary.
posted
From me somewhere around March of 2006: The Africans and Europeans of Crete were of one culture and people. The founding culture was North African but the population hailed from other Aegean islands, the Pelopenese mainland, and the Levant as well. Africans were not the majority. The majority population was the unique comingling that produced the disctinct Minoans.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: To Takruri, I thought that the idea of predominantly black male Cretans was your idea. Crete was initially settled by North Africans and then peoples from Western Asia (the Levant and Asia Minor). What is your premise?
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
You fail to tabulize the various geneticist and blur them all together not differentiating when one is citing another making it appear one is postulating the same date as te other.
I've sufficiently shown by direct citation of figures without interjection that there is a wide spread and most obvious disagreement in the dates for M35, M78, & M81.
Besides the raw dates, the text I posted shows you there is no agreement "general" or otherwise as to the North African marker NRY TMRCAs.
Even you recognize the contradiction but only when you want to make an unscholarly non-academic barb and introduce descriptors like "smokescreen" which ends my responsa to you on this subject due to your lack of respect which, judging by past performance, is bound to escalate the more you are shown to be in error.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: RE: the post of 12 June, 2007 05:56 PM
You fail to tabulize the various geneticist and blur them all together not differentiating when one is citing another making it appear one is postulating the same date as te other.
You have failed to read my last post, which specifically 'cites' the various geneticists in question, who have noted in their own very words, that were in 'general' agreement with a few or the other geneticists that you cited but proclaimed as having 'no' general agreement. Their statement contradicts yours.
quote:al Takruri:
I've sufficiently shown by direct citation of figures without interjection that there is a wide spread and most obvious disagreement in the dates for M35, M78, & M81.
I've provided specific citations from the very same authors you mentioned, where they proclaim to be in 'general' agreement with the other. See my last post before this one, which you never replied or read, judging from your empty charge that I haven't produced any.
quote:al Takruri:
Besides the raw dates, the text I posted shows you there is no agreement "general" or otherwise as to the North African marker NRY TMRCAs.
See above.
quote:al Takruri:
Even you recognize the contradiction but only when
Unspecific - please specify with citation?
quote:al Takruri:
you want to make an unscholarly non-academic barb
Citation?
quote:al Takruri:
and introduce descriptors like "smokescreen" which ends my responsa to you on this subject due to your lack of respect which, judging by past performance
I guess I could have used 'red herring' or 'non-sequitur', which would have appropriately described your tendency to talk about something which wasn't said or an issue to begin with.
quote:al Takruri:
is bound to escalate the more you are shown to be in error.
Error - citation? You've posted much, but you haven't said much.
I'll deal with the rest of your posts later.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:thee various geneticists in question, who have noted in their own very words, that were in 'general' agreement
Yes, there is a general concensus on the datation of E3b, E3b1 and E3b2.
Just citing different studies done at different times with different dates may in fact only be showing different levels of knowledge, and different degrees of specificity.
If there is a real dispute, it should be stated as such in peer review, a great and pertinent example follows from Keita, concerning the origin, and labeling [but not the datation] of haplotypes associated with E3b1 and E3b2:
It is important to address the appellation of "Arabic" for haplotype V, due to names being interpreted as indicators of origins, and the inconsistencies found in the literature. This variant is found in very high frequencies [End Page 224] in supra-Saharan countries and Mauretania (collective average 55.0%), and in Ethiopia (average 45.8%) (Table 2A). In specific groups its highest prevalence is in samples from Moroccan Amazigh (Berbers) (68.9%) and Ethiopian Falasha (60.5%). Its frequency is considerably less in the Near East, and decreases from west (Lebanon, 16.7%) to east (Iraq, 7.2%) (Table 2A). The label "Arabic" for V is therefore misleading because it suggests a Near Eastern origin. In fact this variant has been called "African" (Lucotte et al. 1993:839, Lucotte et al. 1996:469), and "Berberian" (Lucotte et al. 2001:887).
Keita also makes mention of earlier likely erroneous estimates by Bosch:
The caveat to the above scenario is that if the M35 mutation is a lot older—50,000 years in one unlikely scenario considered by Bosch et al (2001), then it may have originally reached northwest Africa at an earlier time; this would not, of course, negate later migrations http://muse.jhu.edu/demo/history_in_africa/v032/32.1keita.htmlPosts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
The widespread distribution of the PN2 clade in the major language phyla of Africa, its existence in the Levantine-Iraq region and even in the Aegean, and its likely post-glacial maximum date are significant and show how numerous bioculturally diverse peoples can be connected, even at relatively shallow time depths. This should give pause to those who have trouble escaping racial thinking. The diversification and early expansion of PN2 bearing populations likely started in the northeast quadrant of Africa (defined by bisecting the continent along its north-south axis and at the equator). This region is postulated to be the ancestral home of two of the three major language phyla of supra-equatorial Africa: Nilosaharan and Afroasiatic (Blench 1993, Ehret 1984, personal communication).
It is significant that bearers of the PN2 mutation are geographically widespread and diverse in external morphology and language family affiliation. There is also biological diversity even within the speakers of language families (in their "homelands") that could be seen by some as problematic. The range of external morphologies in the continental African speakers of Afroasiatic cannot be viewed as problematic from an evolutionary [End Page 229] (versus racio-typological) perspective, and indicates the richness and complexity of indigenous African biocultural microevolution and its diversity (Hiernaux 1974, Keita and Kittles 1997, Kittles and Keita 1999).
^ I almost feel sorry for anthropology 'students' who can't deal with the post DNA revolution, and attempt to seek shelter in the now laughable legacy of Blumenbach and Carelton Coon.
Again from Keita:
Conceptual racio-typological approaches that only interpret variation in terms of the interaction of primordial pre-existing distinct biocultural units will not easily explain phenomena like the PN2 distribution.
^ This is summation of recent debate on ES concerning both Berber and Afro-Asiatic.
Who can grow and learn?
Who is stuck repeating the dead end race-ideologies of Eurocentrists?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Go back, slow down, and take another look at the figures I posted. Makes me wonder how it engendered such a response.
Linguist propose taMazight speech to have originated somewhere near Darfur 8000 years ago (E3b-M35; TMRCA ~6300 BCE) spreading west by northwest then back east but to further north than its point of origin. This would coincide with the Gafsa (Capsian) industry/culture. - al Takruri
^This was the point of inquiry, as to whether the date reflected E3b2 or E-M35, and you implied it was reflecting the latter [via Arredi et al.] in a follow up to the question. That is what the following response is addressing:
Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
Heck M78, the derivative of M35, has expansion dates of 6ky ago or so [and older] in the “Near East”[ Semino et al. 2004, Cruciani et al. 2004, and Underhill et al.]. Naturally, M78 cannot be contemporaneous with its father lineage E-M35 in initial expansion ages - this understanding is consistently communicated in the bulk of genetic studies referenced herein.
quote: al Takruri:
The figures I use from Arredi say that E3b-M35 is older than E3b1-M78.
If you place E3b TMRCA age in ~ 6300 BCE, this would essentially make it contemporaneous with its offspring E3b1, which has been noted to have expansion ages within that vicinity, and even older.
quote:al Takruri: So far I've seen no one make any statement that their initial expansion ages were contemporaneous. Looks like something made up and put down by yourself.
The keywords in your statement is “looks like” according to yourself, but reality says that “it ins’t” what you think it looks like, it is the contrary of that. The TMCA date you attributed to E-M35 is highlighted above for everyone to see.
quote:al Takruri:
I chose Arredi's genetics to dovetail with Williamson's linquistics. They fit hand in glove. The others' gloves are the kind the Cochran firm would love.
…but, as I said in my last post, your sole focus on Arredi et al.’s lower bound expansion age estimation for E-M35, is misleading, because they do provide the upper bound TMRCA as well. This is why I asked the question pertaining to your dating, whether it was in reference to E-M81 or E-M35.
quote:al Takruri:
But I invite the use of any other geneticist than Arredi and any other linguist than P. Behren whose figures are really within the same near hit range of each other in explanation of both the genetic expansion of North African markers and lingual spread of the "Berber" language.
Yes, the said 8 ky ago upper bound expansion age estimation of “Proto-Berber” speaker(s) approximates the date provided by Semino et al., and specifically in reference to E-M81, as opposed to your selection of Arredi et al.’s lower bound estimation expansion age for E3b-M35 chromosomes, which as I said, from Arredi et al.’s work in question, is reflective of their analysis of mainly derivative E3b lineages in northeast Africa, the places they directly studied.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
No. It implies there were no proto-North "Berber" derived languages in coastal northeast Africa not that there were no "Berber" speakers at all already there.
It's not age of the speakers it's the age of the speech. The youth of a language can belie the hoariness of its speakers genetics.
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
there is no evidence that coastal North East African Tamazight speakers are younger than those from coastal North West Africa, which was implied in your original post, by way of migration from first Saharan/sahel East Africa in westward direction [and reaching coastal north west Africa], and from thereon an eastward movement occurred, reaching coastal north east Africa. For instance, when you said:
spreading west by northwest then back east but to further north than its point of origin -al Takruri
^This implies that there were no Tamazight speakers already inhabiting coastal northeast Africa, prior to the ‘eastward’ migration of coastal northwest African Tamazight speakers from west Africa [pending clarification to the contrary]. I haven’t seen any genetic evidence backing up such a scenario. Genetic evidence for such would demonstrate older expansion ages for west African Tamazight groups than those in coastal Northeast Africa; however to date, I’ve seen genetic evidence to the contrary.
Please clarify your statement: Are you saying that “there were ‘Berber’ speakers already living there’, but yet that there were no ‘proto-North Berber” derived speakers in coastal northeast Africa prior to the eastward movement of Tamazight/“Berber” speakers from west Africa?
Pending your clarification of the above, if the coastal Northeast African Tamazight/“Berber” groups’ language didn’t derive from “proto-Berber” language, then what? They certainly have older expansion age estimations for the characteristic “Berber” expansion lineage of E-M81 than northwest African Tamazight speakers based on published genetic material.
Ps - Please make sure you read the most up-do-date post as well, pertaining to the matter at hand, before making avoidably-invalid charges about 'no' research publication citations having been provided for your reading. If you don't bother reading and/or pay attention to something, how are you supposed to know if it is there or not?!
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:thee various geneticists in question, who have noted in their own very words, that were in 'general' agreement
Yes, there is a general concensus on the datation of E3b, E3b1 and E3b2.
Just citing different studies done at different times with different dates may in fact only be showing different levels of knowledge, and different degrees of specificity.
If there is a real dispute, it should be stated as such in peer review, a great and pertinent example follows from Keita, concerning the origin, and labeling [but not the datation] of haplotypes associated with E3b1 and E3b2:
It is important to address the appellation of "Arabic" for haplotype V, due to names being interpreted as indicators of origins, and the inconsistencies found in the literature. This variant is found in very high frequencies [End Page 224] in supra-Saharan countries and Mauretania (collective average 55.0%), and in Ethiopia (average 45.8%) (Table 2A). In specific groups its highest prevalence is in samples from Moroccan Amazigh (Berbers) (68.9%) and Ethiopian Falasha (60.5%). Its frequency is considerably less in the Near East, and decreases from west (Lebanon, 16.7%) to east (Iraq, 7.2%) (Table 2A). The label "Arabic" for V is therefore misleading because it suggests a Near Eastern origin. In fact this variant has been called "African" (Lucotte et al. 1993:839, Lucotte et al. 1996:469), and "Berberian" (Lucotte et al. 2001:887).
Keita also makes mention of earlier likely erroneous estimates by Bosch:
The caveat to the above scenario is that if the M35 mutation is a lot older—50,000 years in one unlikely scenario considered by Bosch et al (2001), then it may have originally reached northwest Africa at an earlier time; this would not, of course, negate later migrations http://muse.jhu.edu/demo/history_in_africa/v032/32.1keita.html
quote:Originally posted by ausar: Most high caste Tuaregs would not mix with enslaved populations bvecause of the strict matrilineal sucession. The Tuaregs mixing with Arabs is definately out of the question considering that Tuaregs put up fierce resistance against the Arabs.
There is a policy that often masks tribal social ecology because we that that Taureg integration of other groups depends on the area/location and perhaps socioeconomic reality. In modern parlance the slave master may hates his slaves but through his power he can choose any female slave he wishes, as long as the madam (wife) doesn't figure it out! The master will not say I hav a right to my female slaves because that would upset the social economy so he says the opposite knowing he can command as he wishes! Look at the Janjaweed talk about the 'abid' as their inferiors but the first thing they do is rape! OR the Hemmings/Jefferson controversy and most recently the Strom Thurmond affair!
But Yazid, what does any of what you say have to do with Ausar's claim? The Janjaweed are Arabized (Arab-crazed) people who hate and deny their black African identity and so target their kinsmen who don't. Thomas Jefferson like many white males of his day in America were still racist and still thought blacks were inferior. Non of this has to do with the simple fact in Tuareg society that the high clans do not mix with slaves not because of racial or even racist reasons but for simple class/status reasons. Or that it has nothing to do with the fact that the high clans are matrilineal- descent is reckoned through the mother and not the father.
Posts: 26349 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But Yazid, what does any of what you say have to do with Ausar's claim? The Janjaweed are Arabized (Arab-crazed) people who hate and deny their black African identity and so target their kinsmen who don't. Thomas Jefferson like many white males of his day in America were still racist and still thought blacks were inferior. Non of this has to do with the simple fact in Tuareg society that the high clans do not mix with slaves not because of racial or even racist reasons but for simple class/status reasons. Or that it has nothing to do with the fact that the high clans are matrilineal- descent is reckoned through the mother and not the father.
In no way, shape or manner have I mentioned race! All I say is that despite that societal admonition, the contact is there but it is not acknowledged. I use Strom Thurmond because he was recent. During the day he was spouting the party line and at night he was doing his 'thang' but despite that, he acknowledge his ways and took care of his offspring to the best way he could so as not to offend his brethren. One can have a child by abid but it is treated like a dog while the main wife is kept like a wife! One can have his cake and eat it! I realize it is status but there are many exceptions.
Posts: 1290 | From: usa | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can you please tell me how a consensus can have so much variance? When I looked at Luis' figures I found yet another set of dates to add to the geneticists whose figures I've already posted.
I'm continuing compiling data for a table much more complete than the one I hastil drew up which wasn't as specific as I wanted it to be.
Never should've let myself chase after comments on it to start with (but the figures are accurate and wide ranging).
One reason the figures differ is due to the precise populations used to arrive at them.
Semino 2004 uses a berth of populations.
So does Cruciani 2004 and he gives an overall date for M78 then gives dates for each of his clusters (alpha, beta, gamma, delta).
Bosch 2001 used Moroccan and Saharawi populations.
Arredi's 2004 sampled populations included Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Egypt.
Luis 2004 has (for continental Africa) only Egyptian samples samples
The poles of confidence intervals may only represent at best a slight handful out of hundreds of samples. The date preceding the CI presents the point consistent with the preponderance of the samples and is why in works likes Wells' book he dispenses with CIs (and I notice posters here often enough dispense with them too).
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:thee various geneticists in question, who have noted in their own very words, that were in 'general' agreement
Yes, there is a general concensus on the datation of E3b, E3b1 and E3b2.
Just citing different studies done at different times with different dates may in fact only be showing different levels of knowledge, and different degrees of specificity.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Can you please tell me how a consensus can have so much variance?
Rasol has done what you chose not to do:
He actually bothered to read the extracts [and likely the full studies of the extracts] I posted, wherein the researchers in their very own words, proclaim to be in 'general' agreement with the other group, while taking into consideration the deviations born out of contexts in which respective studies were conducted, particularly in terms of sampling range and diversity, and the methodology utilized in dating chromosomal haplotypes, which have naturally gotten better with newer studies conducted than older ones [as I have exemplified in the Cruciani extract in the post that you chose not to read].
quote:al Takruri:
Never should've let myself chase after comments on it to start with (but the figures are accurate and wide ranging).
Hence, your comments shall remain questionable and unsubstantiated. Not sure how that helps you.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Where in these figures, posted at least twice already, is M35 contemporaneous with its offspring? If anything, its the offspring who are contemporaries by Arredi.
Only by mixing the Arredi M35 date with that of some other geneticist's M78 or M81 dates could one arrive at their own conclusion that the father is no older than the son. My post certainly did no such thing.
quote:posted 10 June, 2007 07:38 AM . . . .
Linguist propose taMazight speech to have originated somewhere near Darfur 8000 years ago (E3b-M35; TMRCA ~6300 BCE) spreading west by northwest then back east but to further north than its point of origin. This would coincide with the Gafsa (Capsian) industry/culture.
Geneticist find the main North African male markers (E3b2-M81, E3b1-M78; TMRCAs ~2300 BCE) moved from East Africa west by northwestward then back eastward. This is around the time the map accompanying Williamson's text places south Temehu divergence from proto-'Berber' and Cyrenaica to Western Egyptian Delta offshoots of proto-North 'Berber.'
. . . .
* NRY data - Arredi 2004, Table 2
So that's just making an argument for the sake of arguing since nothing I posted leads to any such thought.
Where I may've gone wrong is the movement back eastward. Linguistics posits it but I may have inaccurately recalled geneticists doing so.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Where in these figures, posted at least twice already, is M35 contemporaneous with its offspring? If anything, its the offspring who are contemporaries by Arredi.
1)Wherein in your post, was Arredi et al.'s upper bound E-M35 mentioned?
2) Wherein Arredi et al.'s post do the suggest that E-M35 TMRCA is ~ 6300 BC, with the implication that an upperbound TMRCA hasn't been provided?
3)Wherein Arredi et al.'s post, have they studied ancestral E3b-M35?
Only by mixing the Arredi M35 date with that of some other geneticist's M78 or M81 dates could one arrive at their own conclusion that the father is no older than the son. My post certainly did no such thing.
Goes back to this:
3)Wherein Arredi et al.'s post, have they studied ancestral E3b-M35?
If you can answer this question, perhaps you'll also understand the context of the answer given to you earlier, where you got the idea that your claim would make "E3b-M35 contemporaneous with its offspring".
quote:al Takruri:
quote:Linguist propose taMazight speech to have originated somewhere near Darfur 8000 years ago (E3b-M35; TMRCA ~6300 BCE) spreading west by northwest then back east but to further north than its point of origin. This would coincide with the Gafsa (Capsian) industry/culture.
Geneticist find the main North African male markers (E3b2-M81, E3b1-M78; TMRCAs ~2300 BCE)
Lacks context: which geneticist's and what study? As I told you earlier, and likely so that you hadn't bothered reading, Semino et al. provide TMRCA age estimation that comes close to the said 8ky ago timeframe. Semino et al. said this specifically in reference to E-M81, while you on the other hand, chose to focus on Arredi et al.'s lower bound estimation of E3b-M35 chromosomes, the 'ancestral lineages' of which they never actually studied.
quote:al Takruri: moved from East Africa west by northwestward then back eastward. This is around the time the map accompanying Williamson's text places south Temehu divergence from proto-'Berber' and Cyrenaica to Western Egyptian Delta offshoots of proto-North 'Berber.'
So that's just making an argument for the sake of arguing since nothing I posted leads to any such thought.
Where I may've gone wrong is the movement back eastward. Linguistics posits it but I may have inaccurately recalled geneticists doing so.
You have yet to clarify this statement:
This implies that there were no Tamazight speakers already inhabiting coastal northeast Africa, prior to the ‘eastward’ migration of coastal northwest African Tamazight speakers from west Africa [pending clarification to the contrary]. I haven’t seen any genetic evidence backing up such a scenario. Genetic evidence for such would demonstrate older expansion ages for west African Tamazight groups than those in coastal Northeast Africa; however to date, I’ve seen genetic evidence to the contrary. - al Takruri
^To which I asked:
Please clarify your statement: Are you saying that “there were ‘Berber’ speakers already living there’, but yet that there were no ‘proto-North Berber” derived speakers in coastal northeast Africa prior to the eastward movement of Tamazight/“Berber” speakers from west Africa?
Pending your clarification of the above, if the coastal Northeast African Tamazight/“Berber” groups’ language didn’t derive from “proto-Berber” language, then what? They certainly have older expansion age estimations for the characteristic “Berber” expansion lineage of E-M81 than northwest African Tamazight speakers based on published genetic material.Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Wherein in your post, was Arredi et al.'s upper bound E-M35 mentioned?
Whether dealing with molecular or any other method of datation, upper and lower bound estimates can be more specific or less so, depending on method of dating and quality of data sample - which by definition will be different with each study.
If scientist #1 states based on his data that X occured between 1000 to 2000 years ago, and scientist #2 states that same X occured between 1000 and 5000 years ago, they do not necessarily contradict each other.
One has produced a more specific result than the other.
Note: No comment per se is made for the accuracy of the more specific result - if the scientist did shoddy work than the more specific result might be completely wrong.
The only point denoted here is that it isn't reasonable to expect every study producing and upper and lower bound date to show the same the number.
In fact, it would be odd if they did.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Wherein in your post, was Arredi et al.'s upper bound E-M35 mentioned?
Whether dealing with molecular or any other method of datation, upper and lower bound estimates can be more specific or less so, depending on method of dating and quality of data sample - which by definition will be different with each study.
and hence, goes along with the understanding, as noted earlier,...
...I posted, wherein the researchers in their very own words, proclaim to be in 'general' agreement with the other group, while taking into consideration the deviations born out of contexts in which respective studies were conducted, particularly in terms of sampling range and diversity, and the methodology utilized in dating chromosomal haplotypes, which have naturally gotten better with newer studies conducted than older ones [as I have exemplified in the Cruciani extract in the post that you chose not to read].
Arredi et al.'s estimations for E3b-M35 has to be assessed within the estimation boundaries provided, i.e. both lower and upper, to glean anything meaningful from the dating, because it is almost consistently maintianed in well known genetic publications, as cited in this board and elsewhere, that E3b-M35 is of upper Paleolithic extraction. So, when someone just cites only a piece of a bigger picture that suggests otherwise about E3b-M35, the idea generated from this amongst sections of well-meaning but relatively less-read folks where population genetics is concerned, can be misleading.
On an additional note:
Fact is, Arredi et al.'s 2004 dating estimations are largely reflective of mutational rate estimations of derivative E3b-M35 chromosomes of the Northernmost African populations they actually studied, rather than the more older M35 chromosomes [perhaps presenting themselves as an undifferentiated paragroup] found in the more southerly regions of the continent. Any further guesswork about the age of E3b-M35 by Arredi et al. would have to most certainly be based on studies that have actually analyzed these older chromosomes, not to mention the much broader spectrum of the M35 macro-haplogroup. To this end, it doesn't appear to be of any coincidence that Semino et al., Underhill et al., or Cruciani et al.'s estimations fall relatively much more closely within the same general ranges when it comes to E3b-M35, and its derivatives like E-M78 and E-M81, respectively, than they do vis-ŕ-vis estimations by other researchers who had either not done as extensive a study on E3b-M35 chromosomes as the former, or utilized dating methods that had more recently given way to better approaches to attaining relative precision.
If there is a better fit for genetic citation, as far as Tamazight movement is concerned, Semino et al.'s estimation specifically for E-M81, rather than the ambiguous half-citation [not to mention out-of-context citation] of Arredi et al.'s estimation for E3b-M35 chromosome expansions, would be an appropriate exemplary one.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
The paleolithic/neolithic thing isn't my argument and I don't appreciate trying to make it so. It's the opinion of Bosch 2001 and was referenced as evidence showing there are differences of opinion.
Do you have her recanting her decision in any later report of hers as team leader or member of some other geneticists team? If not then I take it she stands by her 2001 findings and publication.
Again my point is that geneticists differ on the TMRCAs of the NA markers and choosing Arredi's dates was supportive of the map based on Behrens in Willamson's article out of Vogel's book .
Whether anyone accepts it or not has no bearing on its valdity. For those who don't like it I invite you to use whichever geneticists' TMRCAs you prefer and any linguists' material whose dates for proto-"Berber" and its branches matches it.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see you refuse to answer my question and substitute questions for lack of answers.
Wherein in your post was any CI given for you 24kya figure?
I've already explained the CI is not the gist of the date because very few if more than one of the samples will have either CI extreme.
The main date on the otherhand will have the preponderance of samples within close range of it.
And until you answer my questions I have no intent of answering yours.
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
Where in these figures, posted at least twice already, is M35 contemporaneous with its offspring? If anything, its the offspring who are contemporaries by Arredi.
1)Wherein in your post, was Arredi et al.'s upper bound E-M35 mentioned?
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Supercar aka MysterySolver giving dates w/o CI. But that's OK. He can do it but I can't.
quote:Originally posted by Supercar:
If Luis et al. are anything to go by, the possible appearance of E-M81 in Northwest Africa, came about ~ 2ky:
"E3b2-M81, which is present in relatively high levels in Morocco, dispersed mainly to the west. This proposal is in acordance with a population expansion involving E3b2-M81 believed to have occurred in northwestern Africa ~ 2 KY ago. The considerably older linear expansion estimate of the Egyptian E3b2-M81 (5.4 KY ago)..." - Luis et al. 2004
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rasol using Luis w/o including CI but MysterySolver doesn't mind.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: "This proposal is in accordance with a population expansion involving E3b2-M81 believed to have occurred in northwestern Africa 2 ky. The CONSIDERABLY OLDER linear expansion estimate of the Egyptian E3b2-M81 (5.4 ky ago) is also compatible with this scenario." - Luis
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: Test of E-M81 marker [a characteristic Tamazight expansion marker] in Tamazight speakers point to an expansion of about 8 ky ago northward, and the lesser tmrca expansion ages show a pattern of expansion moving westward.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Other than personal taste nothing's been presented to show anything is wrong with my postulation. And I still stand by it except for the sentence saying "geneticists [posit the three NA markers] moved from East Africa west by northwestward then back eastward."
I'm moving on from the hair splitting commentary which doesn't effect the validity of what I wrote.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: If you can forgive my interuption with historical materials in a thread for anthropometric and genetic evidence, I'll say this.
Linguist propose taMazight speech to have originated somewhere near Darfur 8000 years ago (E3b-M35; TMRCA ~6300 BCE) spreading west by northwest then back east but to further north than its point of origin. This would coincide with the Gafsa (Capsian) industry/culture.
Geneticist find the main North African male markers (E3b2-M81, E3b1-M78; TMRCAs ~2300 BCE) moved from East Africa west by northwestward then back eastward. This is around the time the map accompanying Williamson's text places south Temehu divergence from proto-'Berber' and Cyrenaica to Western Egyptian Delta offshoots of proto-North 'Berber.'
The Meshwesh moved from the west to the east near 1250 BCE. Then, some 500 years later. Herodotus records the westward migration of his Libyans (E3b2-M81 backflow?).
Another 400 to 600 years later we read of blond Libyan women in the east not the west (Callimachus; Lucan).
I find it hard to accept that only far northwest North Africans are miscegenated with Euros just because they show the heaviest incidence of Eurasian mtDNA when there are indications from other fields that from Cyrenaica westward miscegenation has been ongoing since at least 1600 BCE.
* NRY data - Arredi 2004, Table 2
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Rasol using Luis w/o including CI but MysterySolver doesn't mind.
The above sarcasm would seem irrelevant to the fact that Arredi's data on E3b2 does not contradict Luis. Nor does it suffice as any kind of critique of Luis methodology or disputation of his conclusions.
This is the point where I have learned that discussion with you comes to and end.
It's the point where you take trivial matters as a personal front, and communication becomes impossible.
At this point, I leave you be,and move on to the next topic. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Why are you saying I didn't post a table showing a variety of TMRCAs for the three markers NA markers
Citation?
This was the point in contention >
Originally posted by alTakruri:
Linguist propose taMazight speech to have originated somewhere near Darfur 8000 years ago (E3b-M35; TMRCA ~6300 BCE) spreading west by northwest then back east but to further north than its point of origin. This would coincide with the Gafsa (Capsian) industry/culture.
Common sense deduces that, that date places E3b-M35 in the Neolithic timeframe as opposed to the Upper Paleolithic that the majority of geneticists place it, including Arredi et al., whom you misleadingly quoted out of context.
quote:al Takruri:
The paleolithic/neolithic thing isn't my argument and I don't appreciate trying to make it so.
Your post cited above again, makes your post questionable. Call it an argument or what not, but that’s the reality of your claim.
quote: al Takruri:
It's the opinion of Bosch 2001 and was referenced as evidence showing there are differences of opinion.
Bosch made no mention of E3b-M35 being just ~ 6300. That is your claim; you are putting your own words in the researchers’ mouths.
quote:al Takruri:
Do you have her recanting her decision in any later report of hers as team leader or member of some other geneticists team? If not then I take it she stands by her 2001 findings and publication.
Firstly, what relevance does this question have on the fact that you misquoted her?
Secondly, if another study renders Arredi et al.’s work dated or relatively less significant in light of additional or new material , since when does Arredi et al. have to officially admit to this, in order for well-read [genetically speaking] and alert folks to arrive at that conclusion for themselves about the status quo? Should Carlton Coon have recanted his now discredited claims, before you would realize that his claims no longer hold water?
quote: al Takruri:
Again my point is that geneticists differ on the TMRCAs of the NA markers and choosing Arredi's dates was supportive of the map based on Behrens in Willamson's article out of Vogel's book .
Your point is pointless because:
1)It has been shown to you that several geneticists are in general agreement with one another on their estimations, while being well aware of the distinct circumstances with which respective studies had been undertaken. You chose not to read it, and hence, start to sound like a broken record, repeating the same discredited line over and over again.
2)You also misquoted Arredi et al. out of context. Moreover, E3b-M35 isn’t characteristic of Berber expansion.
quote:al Takruri:
Whether anyone accepts it or not has no bearing on its valdity.[/quotre]
Whether you accept it or not, your post about E3b-M35 is misleading and invalid.
quote: al Takruri:
For those who don't like it I invite you to use whichever geneticists' TMRCAs you prefer and any linguists' material whose dates for proto-"Berber" and its branches matches it.
Yes, this has been done already, in the posts you chose not to read, and so I reiterate:
Semino et al.’s expansion dating for specifically E-M81, which is considered ‘characteristic’ of ‘Berber’ expansion, most approximates the date [of c. 8 ky ago] suggested by the 'linguist'/author cited herein. Arredi et al.’s lower bound estimation for E3b-M35 has no specific bearings on ‘Berber’ expansions; they were quoted out of context by yourself, leaving out the upper bound estimations, thus giving a false impression of a Neolithic TMRCA for E3b-M35.
quote:al Takruri:
I see you refuse to answer my question and substitute questions for lack of answers.
Wherein in your post was any CI given for you 24kya figure?
The question is immaterial to begin with, because the ~ 23 ky ago or so, approximation fits well within the upper Paleolithic expansion TMRCA generally agreed upon about E3b-M35. It isn’t an extraordinary claim as your's is about the ~ 6300 BC M35 TMRCA. You obviously don’t know the difference between a questionable claim, and one that is generally understood.
“On the basis of robust phylogeographic considerations, an eastern African origin has been proposed for E-M215 (Underhill et al. 2001; Cruciani et al. 2004), with a coalescence time of 22.4ky (95% C.I. 20.9-23.9ky; recalculated from Cruciani et al. 2004, see Materials and Methods). A north-eastern African origin for Haplogroup E-M78 implies that E-M215 chromosomes were introduced in north-eastern Africa from eastern Africa in the Upper Paleolithic, between 23.9ky ago (the upper bound for E-M215 TMRCA in eastern Africa) and 17.3ky ago (the lower bound for E-M78 TMRCA here estimated, fig. 1). In turn, the presence of E-M78 chromosomes in eastern Africa can be explained through a back migration of chromosomes that had acquired the M78 mutation in north-eastern Africa. The nested arrangement of Haplogroups E-V12 and E-V32 defines an upper and lower bound for this episode, i.e. 18ky and 5.9ky, respectively. These were probably not massive migration/s, since the present high frequencies of E-V12 chromosomes in eastern Africa are entirely accounted for by E-V32, which most likely underwent subsequent geographically restricted demographic expansions involving well differentiated molecular types (fig. 3A). Conversely, the absense of E-V12* chromosomes in eastern Africa is compatible with loss by drift.” - Cruciani et al. 2007
^Case in point.
quote:al Takruri:
I've already explained the CI is not the gist of the date because very few if more than one of the samples will have either CI extreme.
For E3b-M35, the upper bound Paleolithic, is more significant than any lower bound Neolithic TMRCA, because from common sense, M35 is understood to be of Paleolithic extraction, not Neolithic. Any young TMRCA citation of M35, has to be accompanied by the upper bound expansion, to give the more complete and realistic picture. And again, your choice of M35 to explain ‘Berber’ expansion, is peculiar to say the least.
quote:al Takruri: And until you answer my questions I have no intent of answering yours.
Well, you’ve already chosen to not read my posts, as these late replies of your's ascertain. Instead, you incessantly recite your discredited lines, and go off on a tangent from the issue at hand. Goes without saying, you post remains as questionable, as it was from the time I initially questioned it. You choice, if you wish to leave it in that status quo.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
Supercar aka MysterySolver giving dates w/o CI. But that's OK. He can do it but I can't.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Supercar:
If Luis et al. are anything to go by, the possible appearance of E-M81 in Northwest Africa, came about ~ 2ky:
"E3b2-M81, which is present in relatively high levels in Morocco, dispersed mainly to the west. This proposal is in acordance with a population expansion involving E3b2-M81 believed to have occurred in northwestern Africa ~ 2 KY ago. The considerably older linear expansion estimate of the Egyptian E3b2-M81 (5.4 KY ago)..." - Luis et al. 2004
Broken logic. As anyone can see [or in your case, cannot see], a full citation of the primary text showing the dates was provided, to support what was said.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Rasol using Luis w/o including CI but MysterySolver doesn't mind.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by rasol: "This proposal is in accordance with a population expansion involving E3b2-M81 believed to have occurred in northwestern Africa 2 ky. The CONSIDERABLY OLDER linear expansion estimate of the Egyptian E3b2-M81 (5.4 ky ago) is also compatible with this scenario." - Luis
Another broken logic.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Solve this mystery. Where's your CI?
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: Test of E-M81 marker [a characteristic Tamazight expansion marker] in Tamazight speakers point to an expansion of about 8 ky ago northward, and the lesser tmrca expansion ages show a pattern of expansion moving westward.
Lol. It isn’t a mystery; It just requires simple/effortless reading of what has already been posted.
Semino et al. E-M81 ~ 8.6 +/- 2.3 ky ago.
And again,…
"E3b2-M81, which is present in relatively high levels in Morocco, dispersed mainly to the west. This proposal is in acordance with a population expansion involving E3b2-M81 believed to have occurred in northwestern Africa ~ 2 KY ago. The considerably older linear expansion estimate of the Egyptian E3b2-M81 (5.4 KY ago)..." - Luis et al. 2004
In both cases, E-M81 is the specific marker in question, which has been deemed to correlate with “Berber” speaking groups’ movements.
quote:al Takruri:
Other than personal taste nothing's been presented to show anything is wrong with my postulation.
Other than personal lack of taste for simple reading, or opening up your mind, specifics have already been laid out, as far as your questionable claim is concerned. Your incapacity to read, is nobody else’s problem.
quote:al Takruri: And I still stand by it except for the sentence saying "geneticists [posit the three NA markers] moved from East Africa west by northwestward then back eastward."
And your claim shall still be questionable and invalid.
quote:al Takruri:
I'm moving on from the hair splitting commentary which doesn't effect the validity of what I wrote.
Running away from a questionable claim and posts that specifically address it, doesn’t lend it anymore legitimacy. In fact, it makes its status even more acute to see.
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Rasol using Luis w/o including CI but MysterySolver doesn't mind.
The above sarcasm would seem irrelevant to the fact that Arredi's data on E3b2 does not contradict Luis. Nor does it suffice as any kind of critique of Luis methodology or disputation of his conclusions.
This is the point where I have learned that discussion with you comes to and end.
It's the point where you take trivial matters as a personal front, and communication becomes impossible.
At this point, I leave you be,and move on to the next topic.
posted
Oh, I see. A simple statement on my part that "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" amounts to sarcasm but you have nothing to say to MS regarding sarcasm when he uses smokescreen to describe my writings.
Do I detect what the British call "old boy"-ism here?
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Rasol using Luis w/o including CI but MysterySolver doesn't mind.
The above sarcasm would seem irrelevant to the fact that Arredi's data on E3b2 does not contradict Luis. Nor does it suffice as any kind of critique of Luis methodology or disputation of his conclusions.
This is the point where I have learned that discussion with you comes to and end.
It's the point where you take trivial matters as a personal front, and communication becomes impossible.
At this point, I leave you be,and move on to the next topic.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Strawmen and smug opinionated personal drivel unworthy of further comment.
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: Common sense deduces misleadingly quoted out of context putting your own words in the researchers’ mouths what relevance does this question have alert folks Your point is pointless The question is immaterial to begin with You obviously don’t know the difference As anyone can see [or in your case, cannot see], personal lack of taste for simple reading, or opening up your mind Your incapacity to read
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Oh, I see. A simple statement on my part that "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" amounts to sarcasm but you have nothing to say to MS regarding sarcasm when he uses smokescreen to describe my writings.
You bet - I call it how it is; in fact, I was rather polite by calling your tactic a ‘smokescreen’.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
Strawmen
Specifics - citation, & explanation?
quote:al Takruri:
and smug opinionated personal drivel unworthy of further comment.
Specifics? - looks like a gutless way out of addressing the specifics of the real issue(s) at hand, wouldn't you say?
quote:al Takruri:
quote:A hodgepodge gathered from here and there by al Takruri, presumably "citing" Mystery Solver:
Common sense deduces misleadingly quoted out of context putting your own words in the researchers’ mouths what relevance does this question have alert folks Your point is pointless The question is immaterial to begin with You obviously don’t know the difference As anyone can see [or in your case, cannot see], personal lack of taste for simple reading, or opening up your mind Your incapacity to read
^This is just another prime example of how you habitually misquote people, and then call it a 'citation'. Thanks for providing more examples.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: [QB] Oh, I see. A simple statement on my part that "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" amounts to sarcasm
It was sarcasm, and *inappropriate* as well, because it was a reply to me, and by name, but the sarcasm pertained more to Supercar and so was completely irrelevant to addressing me.
However, the non-response did allow you to actually not address any of the information that I shared with you, which seemed to me to be your intent.
quote:you have nothing to say to MS regarding sarcasm when he uses smokescreen to describe my writings.
What you describe is a dispute between you and him.
Your mistake was in spitting your venom at me.
Your approach appears geared towards keeping and increasingly pointless argument going.
Well, continue then.....just leave me out of it, please. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
...goes along with the understanding, as noted earlier,...
...I posted, wherein the researchers in their very own words, proclaim to be in 'general' agreement with the other group, while taking into consideration the deviations born out of contexts in which respective studies were conducted, particularly in terms of sampling range and diversity, and the methodology utilized in dating chromosomal haplotypes, which have naturally gotten better with newer studies conducted than older ones [as I have exemplified in the Cruciani extract in the post that you chose not to read].
Arredi et al.'s estimations for E3b-M35 has to be assessed within the estimation boundaries provided, i.e. both lower and upper, to glean anything meaningful from the dating, because it is almost consistently maintianed in well known genetic publications, as cited in this board and elsewhere, that E3b-M35 is of upper Paleolithic extraction. So, when someone just cites only a piece of a bigger picture that suggests otherwise about E3b-M35, the idea generated from this amongst sections of well-meaning but relatively less-read folks where population genetics is concerned, can be misleading.
On an additional note:
Fact is, Arredi et al.'s 2004 dating estimations are largely reflective of mutational rate estimations of derivative E3b-M35 chromosomes of the Northernmost African populations they actually studied, rather than the more older M35 chromosomes [perhaps presenting themselves as an undifferentiated paragroup] found in the more southerly regions of the continent. Any further guesswork about the age of E3b-M35 by Arredi et al. would have to most certainly be based on studies that have actually analyzed these older chromosomes, not to mention the much broader spectrum of the M35 macro-haplogroup. To this end, it doesn't appear to be of any coincidence that Semino et al., Underhill et al., or Cruciani et al.'s estimations fall relatively much more closely within the same general ranges when it comes to E3b-M35, and its derivatives like E-M78 and E-M81, respectively, than they do vis-ŕ-vis estimations by other researchers who had either not done as extensive a study on E3b-M35 chromosomes as the former, or utilized dating methods that had more recently given way to better approaches to attaining relative precision.
If there is a better fit for genetic citation, as far as Tamazight movement is concerned, Semino et al.'s estimation specifically for E-M81, rather than the ambiguous half-citation [not to mention out-of-context citation] of Arredi et al.'s estimation for E3b-M35 chromosome expansions, would be an appropriate exemplary one. Why?
Well for one, E-M81 has been deemed as the marker that correlates with Tamazigh/Berber expansion, and it is a derivative of E-M35; E-M35 isn't considered to be particularly 'characteristic' of "Berber"/Tamazight expansion. UEP M35 mutation is of Paleolithic extraction, not otherwise. Thus, any young non-Paleolithic proposal for M35 TMRCA dating is questionable, pending explanation of the specific context placing the expansion age in that young age, wherein a more complete expansion timeframe is provided; these age ranges have been determined, precisely because of the presence of derivative chromosomes, representing younger TMRCAs. In studies where the ancestral M35 chromosomes haven't been studied, upper bound ages are largely extrapolations from mutation rate estimations made for the derivative chromosomes [differentiated from ancestral M35 chromosomes] under study, rather than the M35 mutation itself. In some instances, some geneticists simply cite other geneticists who had actually studied more ancestral lineages, and the broader spectrum of the macro-haplogroup in question. On the other hand, in studies where actual ancestral [which likely express themselves as undifferentiated chromosomes sans later-derived UEPs] M35 chromosomes have been analyzed along with derivative M35 chromosomes, the results produced for the TMRCA ages will quite likely be different from those studies which didn't analyze the ancestral M35 chromosomes, and will likely also attain more precision where upper bound TMRCA is concerned, provided that an adequately comprehensive dating technique had been utilized to address potential irregularities inherent in mutation occurrences in the loci under study.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find nothing sarcastic about the sentence "Rasol using Luis w/o including CI but MysterySolver doesn't mind." which is a mere statement of fact.
However, since it offended you, as a man to a man accept my sincere apologies and please understand my intent was nothing more than to show the lack of evenhanded criticism on MS' part.
As for the moot topic, I'm quite content with my dovetailing of Arredi and Behrens regarding the expansion of North African NRY markers and spread of "Berber" language(s). I stand by my proposition reposted 15 June, 2007 12:44 PM with its caveat pending further research on the possibility of a circa 1250 BCE eastflow of (an) NA marker(s) that corresponds to linguistics (North "Berber" spread from Tunisie/Tripolitania to Cyrenaica/western Egyptian Delta) and history (Meshwesh march on Egypt). Studies of Libyan genetics would prove helpful but I cannot presently uncover any.
None of the hair splitting eledes either scholars' dates and they do so well match each other.
I highly value your insight Rasol. I again extend the offer to you, and all who write in the spirit of collaboration between colleagues, to present data from any geneticists and linguists whose dates lineup so well as the two I chose.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: [QB] Oh, I see. A simple statement on my part that "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" amounts to sarcasm
It was sarcasm, and *inappropriate* as well, because it was a reply to me, and by name, but the sarcasm pertained more to Supercar and so was completely irrelevant to addressing me.
However, the non-response did allow you to actually not address any of the information that I shared with you, which seemed to me to be your intent.
quote:you have nothing to say to MS regarding sarcasm when he uses smokescreen to describe my writings.
What you describe is a dispute between you and him.
Your mistake was in spitting your venom at me.
Your approach appears geared towards keeping and increasingly pointless argument going.
Well, continue then.....just leave me out of it, please.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: I find nothing sarcastic about the sentence "Rasol using Luis w/o including CI but MysterySolver doesn't mind." which is mere.....
...whiny sarcasm, in the absence of material fact, and a complete non-sequitur, which failed to address my post, due to preoccupation with your anger at Supercar. ... which you are now reduced to wildly venting in every direction.
Continue your pointless tantrum then....
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, it's certainly a fact you posted a date w/o a CI. And it's also a fact MS did not go after you about it. Now if that's sarcasm to you then I don't give a hydro-electric.
OK I tried apologizing to you but since you don't accept it then keep to your word and steer clear of me as your whining far outdrones anything coming from me. I did continue to cement my case with yet another explanatory table while all you've done is sulk about a misunderstanding I tried to set right. So who's really carrying on a pointless tantrum?
You guys do this all the time. Turn a discussion into a debate then drag the debate from the topic down into the gutter of taking pot shots at people.
You need to outgrow this so that the forum can attract and retain professionals but maybe you fear that the most.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
I find nothing sarcastic about the sentence "Rasol using Luis w/o including CI but MysterySolver doesn't mind." which is a mere statement of fact.
It's what a person backed into the corner does, i.e. direct his/her frustration at other discussants for his/her incapacity to back up spurious claims, as if he/she is fooling anyone else but him/herself.
quote:al Takruri:
...show the lack of evenhanded criticism on MS' part.
Specifics & relevance to your obligation to support your spurious claim?
quote:al Takruri:
As for the moot topic, I'm quite content with my dovetailing of Arredi and Behrens regarding the expansion of North African NRY markers and spread of "Berber" language(s).
Being content with a spurious claim, makes it no less illegitimate.
quote:al Takruri:
I stand by my proposition reposted 15 June, 2007 12:44 PM
Trolls stand by the bogus propagation in the face of being bombarded with facts, but what is bogus shall remain bogus. It doesn't help them. Your post reveals signs of this troll trait.
quote: al Takruri:
with its caveat pending further research on the possibility of a circa 1250 BCE eastflow of (an) NA marker(s) that corresponds to linguistics (North "Berber" spread from Tunisie/Tripolitania to Cyrenaica/western Egyptian Delta) and history (Meshwesh march on Egypt).
E-M35 isn't a characteristic Tamazight expansion marker, nor is it of Neolithic extraction; nor was any such case put forward by the researchers you intentionally misquoted.
quote:al Takruri: Studies of Libyan genetics would prove helpful but I cannot presently uncover any.
You bet studies have been "uncovered" for you; all you have to now do, is to make the effortless task of simply reading, which you've thus far either chosen not to do, and/or else incapable of doing.
quote:al Takruri:
None of the hair splitting eledes either scholars' dates and they do so well match each other.
Given that you've misquoted Arredi et al., which scholar supports your spurious claim about E-M35?
quote:al Takruri:
I highly value your insight Rasol. I again extend the offer to you, and all who write in the spirit of collaboration between colleagues, to present data from any geneticists and linguists whose dates lineup so well as the two I chose.
Already done. What remains to be done, is your ability to read it. Misquoting Arredi et al. is just sheer abuse of logic.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Well, it's certainly a fact you posted a date w/o a CI.
It is certainly a fact that you have failed the reading test; you cannot tell the difference between your spurious misquotation about E-M35 [the real issue at hand, which you've tried to divert from by needlessly babbling on about CIs] and direct citation of the authors [like rasol's recitation of Luis et al.].
quote:al Takruri:
And it's also a fact MS did not go after youabout it.
Because unlike you, I can tell a direct/precise and in-context quotation of the researchers when I see one.
quote: al Takruri:
Now if that's sarcasm to you then I don't give a hydro-electric.
Trolls think that by attempting to anger other discussants, that they'll some how therapeutically relieve themselves off their frustration with their own underacheivements. Your post shows signs of this troll trait.
quote:al Takruri:
I did continue to cement my case with yet another explanatory table while all you've done is sulk about a misunderstanding I tried to set right. So who's really carrying on a pointless tantrum?
All the table represents, is your response to a question directed at your spurious claim/misquotation about E-M35. The table itself is a regurgitated incomplete citations of Arredi et al.'s datings. If you really weren't misquoting Arredi et al., how come you refused to use the dating you posted for E-M81, which is the correlative 'Tamazight' expansion marker, but went onto use lower bound expansion estimates of E-M35 chromosomes made from derivative E-M35 lineages? E-M35 is not specifically correlative of Tamazight expansion. Your own table works against you.
quote:al Takruri:
You guys do this all the time. Turn a discussion into a debate then drag the debate from the topic down into the gutter of taking pot shots at people.
What else can be done, when this is all what you do: troll and "then drag the debate from the topic down into the gutter of taking pot shots at people." You then proceed to proclaim yourself victim, and complain about why you aren't being taken seriously?
Case in point:
Originally posted by al Takruri:
You need to outgrow this so that the forum can attract and retain professionals but maybe you fear that the most.
If you can't handle scrutiny and criticism, it is any wonder why you even hangout in forums, or any debate for that matter!
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Mystery Solver writes: It is certainly a fact that you have failed the reading test; you cannot tell the difference between your spurious misquotation about E-M35 [the real issue at hand, which you've tried to divert from by needlessly babbling on about CIs] and direct citation of the authors [like rasol's recitation of Luis et al.].
Correct.
quote:Mystery Solver writes: It's what a person backed into the corner does, i.e. direct his/her frustration at other discussants for his/her incapacity to back up spurious claims, as if he/she is fooling anyone else but him/herself.
Correct again, and he's done this before, so....I just ignore his tantrums myself. Can't reason with someone whose best judgement has been sublimated by a raging wounded-ego. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
More of the dumb stuff MS. If I can't read then you're doubly illiterate to bother writing me.
You two little boys can pretend to ignore it while you continue playing the personal attack card but apparently others have noticed the tables I've compiled and the response to your "critiques" and seem satisfied.
Your methodology is to abandon all semblance of academic approach to a topic when material you don't agree with is presented and devolve to debaters' demagoguery. You've done it before and you'll do it again as tired and played out as it is now you'd think you'd give it up.
So keep patting each other on the back in your personality attack on me as your best effort to overlook the challenges put to you to present linquist and geneticist interwoven data that precisely match each other.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
If I can't read then you're doubly illiterate to bother writing me.
^Incoherent use of words, other than assuming that this is your retarded way of trying to tell me that, the act of responding to the super-retard that you are, is a stupid thing to do. If so, perhaps you may be right for the first time in our entire exchange under this topic.
quote:al Takruri:
You two little boys can pretend to ignore it while you continue playing the personal attack card
As eloquent as an infantile coward can possibly be.
quote:al Takruri:
but apparently others have noticed the tables I've compiled and the response to your "critiques" and seem satisfied.
Your responses addressed what specifics? Certainly your last post hasn't done that, or the ones before that.
quote:al Takruri:
Your methodology is to abandon all semblance of academic approach to a topic when material you don't agree
Specifics & citations?
quote:al Takruri:
with is presented and devolve to debaters' demagoguery.
Man, you only falsely and insecurely feel that, because you don't have the balls to address specifics thrown at you, thereby discrediting and making you look foolish.
quote:al Takruri:
You've done it before and you'll do it again as tired and played out as it is now you'd think you'd give it up.
Specifics & citations [vis-a-vis issue at hand]?
quote:al Takruri: So keep patting each other on the back in your personality attack on me as your best effort to overlook the challenges put to you to present linquist and geneticist interwoven data that precisely match each other.
This is the best you can come back at my substantive-laden demolitions of your spurious misquotations? No specifics, substance or answers - basically 'zip'. You are a joke.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Guys, all of this mud-slinging will no doubt lead to the close of this thread! I even forgot what the argument was about!
Posts: 26349 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^That's the modus operandi of characters who have no answers, to distract from criticism & scrutiny of their propagation, by focusing on individuals rather than the issues under consideration. Those who allow themselves to be distracted, have essentially played into the hands of the distracter in question; this is precisely what the distracter hoped for - make people forget about his/her underachievements in standing up to the challenges and specifics offered on the real issue at hand.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
Guys, all of this mud-slinging will no doubt lead to the close of this thread! I even forgot what the argument was about!
Printer-friendly view of this topic