And likewise the discussions mentioned on "sub-saharan admixture in europe". This really isn't the first time I've seen this said about e3b, but I'm really not sure... Has anybody come across the studies mentioned? Likewise for these kinds of opposing views on e3b? Has there ever been a final word reached?
And really, has anybody seen any "decent" evidence for a semetic/arab origin of AE? African or arab are the only 2 possible origins of AE as of now, but I haven't seen any myself.
EDIT: Why was my link edited out at first?
Posts: 8 | From: gsfg | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
The current concensus on E3b is that it originated in Africa.
The wikipedia article you cited is not from a scientist but rather a lay-person.
It's typical of European E3b apologia replies, filled with inaccuracy and distortion predicated on hereasay - ie - "Many think, etc, etc." never specifying who "many" is supposed to be.
As for the Ethiopia.
The largest Ethnic Group is the Oromo. They have primarily east African E3b1 gamma, E3b delta and E3b underived. They have very little Arabian J.
No geneticist thinks that E3b1 or E3b originate in Arabia.
The writer gets his nonsense off in the usual way -
He makes the Amhara proxy for Ethiopia. Amhara have multiple E3b and J lineages including E3b3, which is common in Africa and Arabia.
Given this it's likely that some Amhara E3b3 comes from back migration via Arabia, *and* that some Arabian J comes from back Migration of J into Arabia *from* Africa.
RAther than reinvent the wheel, I will later add some links to some of the many conversation threads ES has had concerning E3b. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Zorn next time don't post discussions from other sites this is not allowed
Off-topic to Rasol i remember you making a topic something along the lines of ''Finally in Africa'' i asked Ausar what happened to it and he didn't know so there is only one logical explanation and that is during those annoying bag advertisment topics i accidently clicked on your topic instead of the one about the bags and subsequently deleted it, if this is the case i apologize it was not my intention!
Posts: 107 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: I've seen e3b pushed off very often as hard evidence of an SS african origin of AE- but I've seen some odd dissent, some people saying it points to a different origin:
Excellent point Zorn I agree with you, DNA analysis for historical purpose IS A WASTE OF TIME FOR ANY STUDENT OF AFRIKAN HISTORY. Eurocentrics usually re-classify away the Afrikan elements when ever they pop up.
I have seen L3g found amongst Afrikan American women mtDNA analysis, only to see other geneticist come along and RE-classify Afrikan American mtDNA L3g as L3g2 while the L3g found in modern day Egypt gets RE-classified as L3g1 proving that any L3g found in Afrikan American mtDNA came from Central and West Afrika of course Soy Keita claimed E3a was found in Lower Kemet, though no other geneticist has confirmed that finding.
Eurocentrics have a disease called LYING and it can't be cured, so whenever they pop up with the latest so called scientific data on Afrikan history seek immunization via the use of common sense.
Eurocentrics CONTROL genetical studies, they do the testing, they do the analysis of the results and they report what they want to be reported of the findings, next them and their PEERS REVIEW the findings and edit away any truth that doesn't conform to Eurocentric mythology, all this renders genetics a modern day pseudo-science.
The latest claim is that E3b originated in the Middle East where ever that is.
I'm happy that many Native Afrikans are getting hip to the game and as a result are not submitting samples for their so called test.
quote:Eurocentrics have a disease called LYING and it can't be cured, so whenever they pop up with the latest so called scientific [Wink] data on Afrikan history seek immunization via the use of common sense.
Eurocentrics CONTROL genetical studies, they do the testing
Assuming what you say is true...doesn't this logically suggest a need for more African involvement.
Don't you want to wrest control from them, as opposed to surrendering it to them?
In what way does advocating ignorance and apathy impower you?
quote:The latest claim is that E3b originated in the Middle East where ever that is.
Really? Name one geneticist who currently claims that E3b originated in the Middle East.
You hold a rock, you discover your enemy wields a machine gun.
Soy Keita claimed E3a was found in Lower Kemet, though no other geneticist has confirmed that finding.
Keita was actually citing other geneticists who had come across the findings, and so, naturally it had to have been confirmed by other geneticists. As I said elsewhere, on E3a:
"...this can be seen from Maca Meyer et al's studies on the Nile Valley populations, and Luis et al.'s "The Levant versus the Horn of Africa: Evidence for Bidirectional Corridors of Human Migrations" [and this was in "Northern Egyptians" that Luis et al. sampled] as examples amongst others."
posted
Zorn, everything Rasol stated about haplogroup studies on E3b is correct. Mind you that such is not the only evidence for the African identity of the Egyptians. Well before genetics we had evidence from ancient artwork, physical anthropology, and cultural comparison and analysis.
To Hotep, I hope you realize that not all white Western scholars are racist or bias. There are plenty of white scholars that have exposed the sham of Eurocentric scholars. Your paranoia of white scholars is very unbecoming and unscholarly and unscientific itself. You disprove using science and logic, which is different than being skeptical due to simple distrust.
Posts: 26267 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another thing Zorn, I notice you use the term 'sub-Saharan' to implicitly mean 'black' as if only blacks only inhabit Africa south of the Sahara. I hope you realize that the Sahara was not always a desert, but even when it did dry out and become desert was it in no way a barrier and black Africans have always lived north of the desert as well as inside it.
Posts: 26267 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hotep2u: I have seen L3g found amongst Afrikan American women mtDNA analysis, only to see other geneticist come along and RE-classify Afrikan American mtDNA L3g as L3g2 while the L3g found in modern day Egypt gets RE-classified as L3g1 proving that any L3g found in Afrikan American mtDNA came from Central and West Afrika of course Soy Keita claimed E3a was found in Lower Kemet, though no other geneticist has confirmed that finding.
Eurocentrics have a disease called LYING and it can't be cured, so whenever they pop up with the latest so called scientific data on Afrikan history seek immunization via the use of common sense.
Eurocentrics CONTROL genetical studies, they do the testing, they do the analysis of the results and they report what they want to be reported of the findings, next them and their PEERS REVIEW the findings and edit away any truth that doesn't conform to Eurocentric mythology, all this renders genetics a modern day pseudo-science. Hotep
je suis d'accord avec Hotep! True dat. Whenever genetic findings (DNA) results map to other groups, there is a LYING trait that permeates this type of research finds to either assign outlier status to African genetic or reassign value(s) /nomenclature to separate out the Afrikan part! It is classical merde that interestingly few can see through!
Posts: 1290 | From: usa | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hotep2u: I have seen L3g found amongst Afrikan American women mtDNA analysis, only to see other geneticist come along and RE-classify Afrikan American mtDNA L3g as L3g2 while the L3g found in modern day Egypt gets RE-classified as L3g1 proving that any L3g found in Afrikan American mtDNA came from Central and West Afrika of course Soy Keita claimed E3a was found in Lower Kemet, though no other geneticist has confirmed that finding.
Eurocentrics have a disease called LYING and it can't be cured, so whenever they pop up with the latest so called scientific data on Afrikan history seek immunization via the use of common sense.
Eurocentrics CONTROL genetical studies, they do the testing, they do the analysis of the results and they report what they want to be reported of the findings, next them and their PEERS REVIEW the findings and edit away any truth that doesn't conform to Eurocentric mythology, all this renders genetics a modern day pseudo-science. Hotep
je suis d'accord avec Hotep! True dat. Whenever genetic findings (DNA) results map to other groups, there is a LYING trait that permeates this type of research finds to either assign outlier status to African genetic or reassign value(s) /nomenclature to separate out the Afrikan part! It is classical merde that interestingly few can see through!
Also if you read the articles on population movements and mtDNA carefully, you may find that certain results are not mentioned in the article if they relate to molecular results not associated with the theme of the piece.
posted
^ The above arguments are lacking in logic and reason, the foundations of intelligent discourse, because they simply denote the reality of bias in scientific research, but do not specify why/or how this would pertain only to genetics.
They then contrive to conclude that genetics is s 'pseudo-science'.
So we must now reduce discussion to and elementary pedantic level.
Certainly geneticists can lie. All people can.
Lnguists for example, can and do on occassion lie.
A professional linguist who claims Dravidian is and African language is lying.
However, this does not invalidate linguistics.
It only invalidates the work of that particular linguist.
We can't dismiss linguistics as a pseudo-science simply because some linguists tell lies.
The inability of Yazid, Winters and Hotep2 to make such elementary distinctions is disappointing.
But it explains why you can't tell the difference between science and pseudo-science.
Dr. Winters problem with genetics is not with the theoretical foundations or methodologies of the science.
Dr. Winters problem is that genetics has helped to destroy his pseudo-scientific fantasies of mythical population origins and migrations.
It's really just and apologia, or and attempt to rationalise sour grapes as genetics has shown that Dravidians are not Africans and Winters has no means of disputing this reality.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ The above arguments are lacking in logic and reason, the foundations of intelligent discourse, because they simply denote the reality of bias in scientific research, but do not specify why/or how this would pertain only to genetics. They then contrive to conclude that genetics is s 'pseudo-science'. Certainly geneticists can lie. All people can. Lnguists for example, can and do on occassion lie. A professional linguist who claims Dravidian is and African language is lying. However, this does not invalidate linguistics. It only invalidates the work of that particular linguist. We can't dismiss linguistics as a pseudo-science simply because some linguists tell lies. The inability of Yazid, Winters and Hotep2 to make such elementary distinctions is disappointing. But it explains why you can't tell the difference between science and pseudo-science. Dr. Winters problem with genetics is not with the theoretical foundations or methodologies of the science. Dr. Winters problem is that genetics has helped to destroy his pseudo-scientific fantasies of mythical population origins and migrations.
rasol, I work in science (pharmaceutical industry) and most of the results, most of time are correct based on the actual samples measured/tested. The problem is how do we extropolate the the specific population. For example, some results of a test show person X has sickle cell anemia, born in the Ukraine and living in Oregon. A lot of things go through one's mind liek how is this possible when you see a photo since he appears European? One would expect someone from Greece or Sicily to show the SCD trait but no! A bunch of flags start to show themselves. Likely source>>Turkey>Yugoslavia OR since someone liek Peter Ustinov stated his grandmother or grandfather was African (location unknown) one may see a viable link to Africa?
Language and genetic point to opposites where DNA of the main language speak will not match the DNA associated by the ethnicity of the language. For example a Polish family who migrated to the Basque region (Spain) in the 1900's will have ancestors who are entrenched in Spain but whose DNA will reflect an Eastern European background! Same with Germanic background in Northern Italy! Spanish and Portuguese share the same roots and so do Dutch and German but that does not imply Spanish is Portuguese or Dutch is German!
How did Rumanian get to be entrenched within a Slavic language sphere? Bias has and will continue to exist in scientific research but many times ideological and personal gains go far beyond and stretch results to such a degree that the research seems but sensible people can find answers on their own.
allahu akbar
Posts: 1290 | From: usa | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:rasol, I work in science (pharmaceutical industry) and most of the results, most of time are correct based on the actual samples measured/tested.
So the drug industry is scientific, but genetics is not?
There are two ways to prove this.
1) Present data showing the relative accuracy of the pharmaceutical as a opposed to genetic disciplines.
2) Tell us exactly how the drug industry is contrained to specifically scientific methods that genectists generally do not adhere to.
quote:The problem is how do we extropolate the the specific population.
^ How is the *problem* of extrapolation from the general to the specific unique to genetics?
In what way does this *problem* denote pseudo-science?
Ex:
Modern medicine and it's procedures of examination, documentation, diagnosis and treatment is based on extropolating from the general to the specific.
Does this mean that medicine is a pseudo-science?
What science is *immune* to this problem?
If you can't answer the above, can you at least name a scientist from outside the discipline of genetics who will support your statement that genetics is a pseudoscience, and who can explain.....how so?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:For example, some results of a test show person X has sickle cell anemia, born in the Ukraine and living in Oregon.
A lot of things go through one's mind liek how is this possible when you see a photo since he appears European?
In logic, the above should be qualified in terms of a difference between the results acheived by geneticists and a fact that can be attested to by another dicipline.
Instead you offer the qualifier of "what goes thru ones mind", which is non-sequitur.
Analogy:
Mathamaticians say that 2x2 is 4, but they also say that 2x2x2 is 8...when what goes thru one's mind is -> 6.
^ I did not just show that mathamatics is invalid or 'pseudo', I simply showed a flawed understanding of mathamatics.
Similarly, is it possible that your understanding of genetics that is flawed, and not the discipline itself?
Otherwise can you specific *exactly* what the systemic flaw is supposed to be?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Language and genetic point to opposites where DNA of the main language speak will not match the DNA associated by the ethnicity of the language.
You mean like the way African Americans speak English, but their DNA shows they come from West Africa? And by which you would have us disregard genes and pronounce them as having and English origin?
Language is culture, not biology.
Genetics is biology, not culture.
The expectation that biology will *always* correlate to culture is known as 'biological determinism'.
If genetics shows that this is not always so, the case is that genetics invalidates biological determinism.
It is not the case that failure to validate biological determinism - somehow invalidates genetics.
This is because genetics and linguistics are the disciplines.
Determinism is not a discipline.
It is and ideology, like Eurocentrism, or India-centrism masquerading as Afro-centrism.
It is not the responsibility of the science-discipline to concord with or affirm and ideology, nor is ideology a check on science.
This is important to remember because a common mistake of ideologues is rooted in this error of reasoning.
Such as -> If linguistics or genetics doesn't provide evidence of how Dravidans are actually Africans on the down low, then linguistics or genetics must be pseudo-science.
Actually pseudo-science can be defined as ideology contradicting evidence.
Genetics is not pseudo-science.
Linguistics is not pseudo-science.
The belief that Dravidians are African who migrated to India across a lost continent that sank to the bottom of the ocean however.... is most certainly pseudoscience.
It is contradicted by every discipline and all evidence.
Genetics simply frustrates pseudos because it devastates their beliefs in ways which make it difficult or impossible to rationalise away.
After all....genetics is actually the *core* of geneology.
Modern science has simply made it possible for us to begin to *directly* address this reality as opposed to relying on myths, skull measurements, crystal balls, and cult leaders.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lmao well said! I feel Clyde winters and his fan groups pain though. It's not easy to just leave something you've devoted your whole life to make real without a form of fight, but better late than never to realize what's right and more real than what was previously thought.
Posts: 1420 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:rasol, I work in science (pharmaceutical industry) and most of the results, most of time are correct based on the actual samples measured/tested.
So the drug industry is scientific, but genetics is not?
There are two ways to prove this.
1) Present data showing the relative accuracy of the pharmaceutical as a opposed to genetic disciplines.
2) Tell us exactly how the drug industry is contrained to specifically scientific methods that genectists generally do not adhere to.
Thank you.
1. My preference is to use the term 'pharmaceutical industry' instead of 'drug industry' but nevertheless that is just one segment of science that comes under the umbrella of science, to wit, there are many scientific disciplines.
2. All scientific disciplies start with a hypothesis and thence begins the journey. a. What is the hypothesis? b. What is the alternative hypothesis?
3. One measures a sample (blood) and based on ranges, the individual is said to have a disease or shows affinity for a disease. The sample (what one is measuring) never lies! That being said the following is usually at fault: a. The tools (calibration, wrong tool) b. the individual not having skill or ability to read the values. c. Idealogical bias (usually explicit) in ignoring the results and inferring non result idealogies onto the specific test.
You stated
quote:Originally posted by rasol: [QUOTE]You mean like the way African Americans speak English, but their DNA shows they come from West Africa? And by which you would have us disregard genes and pronounce them as having and English origin? Language is culture, not biology. Genetics is biology, not culture.
I would not use your hypothesis in that manner so we differ in our approach. It is obvious langauge is not biology but they only overlap, depending on the cultural sphere. For a place like Wales, language, culture and biology are close to being in unison only in that realm. African Americans and the English language would never fit that criteria so I would not use it. Turkey is another place that would not fit your model/hypothesis because although language is culture, the base is Slavic in many quarters, with sufficient frequency to say, biology can determine which group form the foundation of said society.
Take the metabolism of alcohol: Asians become quickly inebriated with alcohol and so do native Americans. Are they related? Languages are different so what do these seemingly phenotypically similar groups share!!! By certain objective criteria (testing)we see they share an insertion/deletion of a CYP isoenzyme.
Posts: 1290 | From: usa | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
In logic, the above should be qualified in terms of a difference between the results acheived by geneticists and a fact that can be attested to by another dicipline.
Stop using this term logic for science. Logic has nothing to do with . Science is based on hypothesis testing.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually I was referring to the process of logical thinking as might be applied to and argument as opposed to a non-sequitur.
That's why I used a math analogy.
If you say that math is invalid, you need to use and outside discipline to invalidate it.
If you simply say - math states the answer is "X" but a different answer, "Y", goes thru one's mind...then the case may be that math is valid, but that your understanding of math is wrong.
The method of Yazid argument was not logical and so did not invalidate genetics.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:rasol, So the drug industry is scientific, but genetics is not?
There are two ways to prove this.
1) Present data showing the relative accuracy of the pharmaceutical as a opposed to genetic disciplines.
2) Tell us exactly how the drug industry is contrained to specifically scientific methods that genectists generally do not adhere to.
Thank you. [/qb]
quote:1. My preference is to use the term 'pharmaceutical industry' instead of 'drug industry' but nevertheless that is just one segment of science that comes under the umbrella of science, to wit, there are many scientific disciplines.
Ok, but you claimed that pharmaceutical is science and genetics is pseudo-science, are you now retracting this claim?
quote:2. All scientific disciplies start with a hypothesis and thence begins the journey. a. What is the hypothesis? b. What is the alternative hypothesis?
3. One measures a sample (blood) and based on ranges, the individual is said to have a disease or shows affinity for a disease. The sample (what one is measuring) never lies! That being said the following is usually at fault: a. The tools (calibration, wrong tool) b. the individual not having skill or ability to read the values. c. Idealogical bias (usually explicit) in ignoring the results and inferring non result idealogies onto the specific test.
Again, I asked you to show the scientific methods adhered to in pharmaceutical industry which are systematically violoated by genetics.
You did not do so, so are you withdrawing this claim as well?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:rasol, So the drug industry is scientific, but genetics is not?
There are two ways to prove this.
1) Present data showing the relative accuracy of the pharmaceutical as a opposed to genetic disciplines.
2) Tell us exactly how the drug industry is contrained to specifically scientific methods that genectists generally do not adhere to.
Thank you.
quote:1. My preference is to use the term 'pharmaceutical industry' instead of 'drug industry' but nevertheless that is just one segment of science that comes under the umbrella of science, to wit, there are many scientific disciplines.
Ok, but you claimed that pharmaceutical is science and genetics is pseudo-science, are you now retracting this claim?
quote:2. All scientific disciplies start with a hypothesis and thence begins the journey. a. What is the hypothesis? b. What is the alternative hypothesis?
3. One measures a sample (blood) and based on ranges, the individual is said to have a disease or shows affinity for a disease. The sample (what one is measuring) never lies! That being said the following is usually at fault: a. The tools (calibration, wrong tool) b. the individual not having skill or ability to read the values. c. Idealogical bias (usually explicit) in ignoring the results and inferring non result idealogies onto the specific test.
Again, I asked you to show the scientific methods adhered to in pharmaceutical industry which are systematically violoated by genetics.
You did not do so, so are you withdrawing this claim as well? [/QB]
I have never said genetics is not science. I have stated that all science is based on some type of hypothesis. Pharmaceuticals, genetics, etc are all part of science.
Per pharmaceutical research, one may wonder why clacium channel blockers work better in African Americans than ACE inhibitors! It does not mean for all in the group. The concept of regression to mean represents a middling average (for lack of a better term right now) or better yet, a central tendency of the data. For something like this to be ascertained, we go to DNA testing (genetics??) to find out why African AMerican respond better than Euro-AMericans. Our hypothesis there is no response difference between AA and EA OR, ALT hypothesis is that there is a response difference?? WHo knows! We test and see what comes up. Emotional and ideological bias is the most pronounced problem in all science regarldess of field. Most people (mean) are honest in their purported representation of the sample results while based on the ubiquitious Bell Curve, the left side are honest, the right side downright dishonest (coon et al) and the rest will get away with what they can! Human nature!
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: You may laugh all you wish. The article was published in a referred journal, by Japanese scholars who know their language.
They may know their own language, but I seriously doubt they attribute their language to West African Manding! LMFO
What's funny is that most Japanese are too ethnocentric to even attribute their language to closely related people like Koreans. Rather I'd say that paper by Koreans was to show global language typology and how similarities such as monosyllabics and tonal forms can overlap among languages disparate along the world.
quote:Originally posted by Yonis: Lmao well said! I feel Clyde winters and his fan groups pain though. It's not easy to just leave something you've devoted your whole life to make real without a form of fight, but better late than never to realize what's right and more real than what was previously thought.
Or they could continue their nonsense and end up like Marc Washington, a bald aging nutcase who clings on to Clydes heels. LOLPosts: 26267 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
HEY could someone show me the studies of how E3b was shown to be Asian in origin and the geneticists that made this claim and how it has more recently been refuted? I would like to come to my own conclusion of which geneticists are correct or not because I can't decide.
Posts: 336 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ I don't know of any studies that specifically claimed E3b to originate outside of Africa.
The case is as follows.
View the graph below.
- 1st the Yap marker was identified in Asia, and then in Africa. Yap is a marker founded on all D and E derivitives.
- Further investigation breaks Yap down into D and E.
- Then it's discovered that D exists soley in Asia, whereas E is found in Asia and Africa.
- At this point it is possible to imagine YAP originating in Asia, with E and D remaining in Asia whereas E migrates from Asia to Africa.
[this time period, roughly late 90's is from whence most misleading citations are derived]
- M35 [E3b] is found also in Eurasia, especially where adajacent to Africa. In theory M35 could derive from YAP in Asia and thence migrate into Africa.
- E is further refined into E1, E2 found in Africa as well along with PN1 which is E3a, these variations are found only in Africa, casting doubt on a non African origin.
- Pn2 transition is discovered which unites E3a and E3b. This means that E3b, which is found in Eurasia as well, cannot be the parent lineage for the other E lineages, casting further doubt on Eurasian origin.
- E3b is further defined so that underived E3b* [M35] is located in East and SouthEast Africa, to a lesser degree up the nile valley, and then fading to neglible across the Levantine or Horn/Gulf.
- Eurasia is shown to have late derived E3b1 and E3b3 lineages.
- North West Africa is shown to have E3b2 lineage.
- The common underived from of E3* [PN2] is found in Senegal, and again in Ethiopia and nowhere else.
- The possible progenitor of E and D YAP DE*, is discovered in Nigeria, and nowhere else.
^ Hence at present, all geneticists assign E3b to and African origin, specially this includes, Underhill, Cruciani, Tishkoff, Sanchez, Luis, Wells, etc..
This concensious was built at around 2002, and has not been seriously challenged by any geneticist or data, subsequent to this.
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Anyway for those who would like a scorecard, shows relationshiop of lineages to mutations....
Groups I II and III are A, B and E and originate in AFrica.
Note by reading down the tree you can see the relationship between YAP [DE], M96 [E], PN2 [E3], and thence E3a and E3b.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ I don't know of any studies that specifically claimed E3b to originate outside of Africa.
The case is as follows.
View the graph below.
- 1st the Yap marker was identified in Asia, and then in Africa. Yap is a marker founded on all D and E derivitives.
- Further investigation breaks Yap down into D and E.
- Then it's discovered that D exists soley in Asia, whereas E is found in Asia and Africa.
- At this point it is possible to imagine YAP originating in Asia, with E and D remaining in Asia whereas E migrates from Asia to Africa.
[this time period, roughly late 90's is from whence most misleading citations are derived]
- M35 [E3b] is found also in Eurasia, especially where adajacent to Africa. In theory M35 could derive from YAP in Asia and thence migrate into Africa.
- E is further refined into E1, E2 found in Africa as well along with PN1 which is E3a, these variations are found only in Africa, casting doubt on a non African origin.
- Pn2 transition is discovered which unites E3a and E3b. This means that E3b, which is found in Eurasia as well, cannot be the parent lineage for the other E lineages, casting further doubt on Eurasian origin.
- E3b is further defined so that underived E3b* [M35] is located in East and SouthEast Africa, to a lesser degree up the nile valley, and then fading to neglible across the Levantine or Horn/Gulf.
- Eurasia is shown to have late derived E3b1 and E3b3 lineages.
- North West Africa is shown to have E3b2 lineage.
- The common underived from of E3* [PN2] is found in Senegal, and again in Ethiopia and nowhere else.
- The possible progenitor of E and D YAP DE*, is discovered in Nigeria, and nowhere else.
^ Hence at present, all geneticists assign E3b to and African origin, specially this includes, Underhill, Cruciani, Tishkoff, Sanchez, Luis, Wells, etc..
This concensious was built at around 2002, and has not been seriously challenged by any geneticist or data, subsequent to this.
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Anyway for those who would like a scorecard, shows relationshiop of lineages to mutations....
Groups I II and III are A, B and E and originate in AFrica.
Note by reading down the tree you can see the relationship between YAP [DE], M96 [E], PN2 [E3], and thence E3a and E3b.
Can you help me with what the mutation abbreviations stand for:
PN2=? Yap=? Rps4y=?
..and on the populations what do these abbreviations stand for:
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
while the L3g found in modern day Egypt gets RE-classified as L3g1 ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
proving that any L3g found in Afrikan American mtDNA came from Central and West Afrika of course ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
Or they could continue their nonsense and end up like Marc Washington, a bald aging nutcase who clings on to Clydes heels. LOL
Printer-friendly view of this topic