They didn't sample any Egyptian populations, but I doubt they purposely skipped Egypt in order to avoid controversy since they sampled a northern Saharan Algerian group.
In regard to Egypt, the Cushitic ancestral group is likely one of the most dominant genetic components in regard to most Egyptian populations, i.e. Lower Egyptians, Upper Egyptians, Nubians, Beja, Siwa Berbers etc. I'll quess a national average of 55% + ~35% Saharan/Dogon and Nilo-Saharan and/or Central Sudanic + 15% other African.
Posts: 341 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: were they trying to avoid controversy?
Why dont you exert the same energy that you do trolling to emailing her and asking yourself? Unless of course this is just another troll thread... Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
They should have sampled more populations in NA and the Horn. Egyptians would probably be similar in admixture to Palestinians, Bedouins, Mozabites, Beta Israel or Beja. Maybe some average composite of some or all of these groups.
Posts: 644 | Registered: May 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Saharan Dogon samples should have been discarded due to various concerns and they also tested the Dogon at 49% shared Eurasian admixture!
"It should be noted that the DNA for the Dogon population extracted from blood spots appeared to be of lower quality and microsatellite markers did not amplify as well as other samples obtained from whole blood (43% of markers had missing data)."
posted
The general Egyptian population is likely intermediate between the Beja, Chad/Sudan, and Mozabite samples tested by Tishkoff.
More "Cushitic" than the Mozabite, i.e. ~35% Cushitic, but less so than the Beja, i.e. ~65% Cushitic... so likely on average ~50% Cushitic.
Less "Saharan/Dogon" than the Mozabite, i.e. 51% Saharan/Dogon, but more so than the Beja, i.e. ~20% Saharan/Dogon. But they're also likely going to have high frequencies of the Central Sudanic and/or Nilo-Saharan clusters due to they're partial origin in the Central Sudan.
Therefore the other ~50% is likely a composition of all three of the above + small frequencies of the other African clusters.
-------------------- Doctoris Scientia Posts: 341 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by NonProphet: The Saharan Dogon samples should have been discarded due to various concerns and they also tested the Dogon at 49% shared Eurasian admixture!
"It should be noted that the DNA for the Dogon population extracted from blood spots appeared to be of lower quality and microsatellite markers did not amplify as well as other samples obtained from whole blood (43% of markers had missing data)."
The inclusion of "Dogon" can be argued due to the condition of the samples, but the cluster itself can not. Even without the Dogon samples, the cluster possess a mixed identity... being both African and Eurasian, the question is how much of the 51% of the Mozabite is actually North African and/or Eurasian. In regard to the plots used by Tishkoff the Mozabite slightly move in the direction of Eurasia, while the Beja samples cluster towards the same "indigenous" direction in regard to the other African groups tested, who lack the the possibly Eurasian Saharan/Dogon cluster... for example the Oromo and Rendille samples.
The medium would be 25% indigenous North African and 25% Eurasian, making the Mozabite 75% African and 25% Eurasian.
Posts: 341 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by anguishofbeing: What are Eurasian African admixture like?
The Saharan/Dogon cluster, one of the 14 African ancestral populations, is the only African cluster which CAN indicate Western Eurasian admixture. Saharan/Dogon admixture equals either indigenous North African/Saharan and/or Western Eurasian admixture.
Posts: 341 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, I was asking how much *African admixture* do the Eurasians have. We always hear of Africans having this or that mixture from nonAfricans as if Eurasians and Asians didnt have African admixtures too.
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by anguishofbeing: No, I was asking how much *African admixture* do the Eurasians have. We always hear of Africans having this or that mixture from nonAfricans as if Eurasians and Asians didnt have African admixtures too.
quote:Originally posted by anguishofbeing: No, I was asking how much *African admixture* do the Eurasians have. We always hear of Africans having this or that mixture from nonAfricans as if Eurasians and Asians didnt have African admixtures too.
The Europeans range from barely detectable (0.1% AAC to 0.7 and 0.8% for Cushitic and N-K.
Those are from the unsupervised Global STRUCTURE, were the Mozabite were reported to be only 8% Cushitic. Accurate results in regard to the Mozabite increased Cushitic admixture to 35%. Saddly, non-Africans were not run in the above seperate test, since in regard to the focus on Africa and Africans.
But looking at how the Cushitic ancestry increased among the Mozabite, the same is likely true in regard to other samples mentioned, i.e. Western Eurasians.
African-Americans in regard to the 2009 Tishkoff supervized African run, more accurate, are only 6-11% European. 89-94% African.
Posts: 341 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
Controversy??? Only to the politically motivated who don't care about Science. Notice this interesting quote from the paper-
"The Fulani and Cushitic AACs which likely reflect Saharan African and East African ancestry, respectively, are closest to the non-African(Eurasian)AACs, consistent with an East African migration of modern humans out of Africa or a back-migration of non-Africans(Eurasians)into Saharan and Eastern Africa."
Tishkoff said the Fulani and Mozabite Berbers share a Lactose Persistance Gene(Adults able to digest milk)with prehistoric Eurasians who migrated from Iberia(Spain) and/or the Middle East and the mutation is 8-10K yrs old. The Cushitic groups like the Beja share some LP genes with many SW Eurasians too.
Posts: 644 | Registered: May 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by anguishofbeing: No, I was asking how much *African admixture* do the Eurasians have. We always hear of Africans having this or that mixture from nonAfricans as if Eurasians and Asians didnt have African admixtures too.
The Europeans range from barely detectable (0.1% AAC to 0.7 and 0.8% for Cushitic and N-K.
Those are from the unsupervised Global STRUCTURE, were the Mozabite were reported to be only 8% Cushitic. Accurate results in regard to the Mozabite increased Cushitic admixture to 35%.
No you're mixing Apples & Oranges. The most 'Accurate' Structure is the one were all the AACs for a sampled population total 1.00 or 100%. Supervised or not is a different concept. See my explaination in the Beja/Mozabite threads. The 35% Mozabite Cushitic value is ONLY RELATIVE to other African AACs. There is no justification to average the separate data sets like you're doing. The Structure AACs are only relative to the populations they sample at the time.
Posts: 644 | Registered: May 2010
| IP: Logged |
Controversy??? Only to the politically motivated who don't care about Science. Notice this interesting quote from the paper-
"The Fulani and Cushitic AACs which likely reflect Saharan African and East African ancestry, respectively, are closest to the non-African(Eurasian)AACs, consistent with an East African migration of modern humans out of Africa or a back-migration of non-Africans(Eurasians)into Saharan and Eastern Africa."
Tishkoff said the Fulani and Mozabite Berbers share a Lactose Persistance Gene(Adults able to digest milk)with prehistoric Eurasians who migrated from Iberia(Spain) and/or the Middle East and the mutation is 8-10K yrs old. The Cushitic groups like the Beja share some LP genes with many SW Eurasians too.
The Cushitic and Fulani clusters are the closes African ancestral groups in regard to the four non-African clusters, but are much more closer in regard the other African ancestral groups identified.
Here's a post from a friend of mine on another forum, Aware-Dog, his input should be inciteful in regard to the situation.
"Doctoris Scientia, they used the data from the unsupervised structure runs to identify the populations having a high frequency of distinct ancestral clusters, in order to be used as training populations to run the supervised structure analysis. (read pg.7 in the supp. material)
Also, in the main paper (not the supplementary material), the results of the Supervised structure run for Africa were the only ones reported by Tishkoff and her team(fig. 5b), this is the only data pertinent to Africa.
And even if you want to play it safe, in regard to the Beja and Beta Israel by taking into account the averages of both the supervised and unsupervised structure run results; the possibly North African and/or Eurasian Saharan/Dogon cluster would only obviously account for 23-27% of their ancestry. Take away about half for ancient common ancestry with non-Africans that Northeast and North Africans possess and you would be left with approximately 12-14% of what can be described as potential Non-African admix in northerly Northeast Africans, not as significant." In regard to the 2 paragraph... optimized? I'm going to have to ask him.
^The Mozabite, 70-75% (medium of 73%) African. In regard to a medium of the Western Eurasian/"Saharan/Dogon" cluster from the Global + African runs.
The Global Unsupervized STRUCTURE only includes 10 African cluster, the African optimized (the last table) includes 14. Those results are not unsupervised. My numbers are from chart not labeled as unsupervised by the way.
i.e., in both the Global and African run, the blue color indicates ambiguous admixture, in regards Africans in particular. Either indicating indigenous North African/Saharan and/or Eurasian admixture.
The plots make it more obvious in regard to the fact that the Beja and Beta-Israel cluster with other Northeast Africans who lack the possibly Eurasian Saharan/Dogon cluster. While the Mozabite, being North African slightly moves in the direction of Eurasia.
-------------------- Doctoris Scientia Posts: 341 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Eventually Africans will do their own sampling and testing and stop relying on these fugking Europeans.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
No, I was asking how much *African admixture* do the Eurasians have. We always hear of Africans having this or that mixture from nonAfricans as if Eurasians and Asians didnt have African admixtures too.
Here are some interesting Admixture analysis comparing Africans and Eurasians of both Jewish and non-Jewish origin that destroys the Anti-Semitic race myths. This is at K=8 clusters and at K=10 clusters, the Mozabites formed a unique cluster which was detected in the Ethiopians, Egyptians, Moroccans and some Eurasians.
"Most Jewish samples form a remarkably tight subcluster that overlies Druze and Cypriot samples but not samples from other Levantine populations or paired Diaspora host populations. In contrast, Ethiopian Jews (Beta Israel) and Indian Jews (Bene Israel and Cochini) cluster with neighbouring autochthonous populations in Ethiopia and western India, respectively, despite a clear paternal link between the Bene Israel and the Levant. These results cast light on the variegated genetic architecture of the Middle East, and trace the origins of most Jewish Diaspora communities to the Levant."
quote:Originally posted by NonProphet: European ancestry for AA in this study is about 22%.
Some studies have it down to 13.
quote:Here are some interesting Admixture analysis comparing Africans and Eurasians of both Jewish and non-Jewish origin that destroys the Anti-Semitic race myths
How does it "destroy" the "anti-Semitic race myths"?
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by NonProphet: European ancestry for AA in this study is about 22%.
Some studies have it down to 13.
quote:Here are some interesting Admixture analysis comparing Africans and Eurasians of both Jewish and non-Jewish origin that destroys the Anti-Semitic race myths
How does it "destroy" the "anti-Semitic race myths"?
The Khazar conversion origin of Jews Mythology. The Black Hebrew Israelite Retards' favorite propaganda. Also spread by the Catholic Boy Raping Nazis and British Israelites.
Posts: 644 | Registered: May 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
If people say white Jews **aren't** Semites how the fock is that "antisemitic" you retard? LOL!
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^ Because Antisemitism literally means hatred for Jews. Are you pretending to be this stupid or are you just another StormFront Nazi troll?
Posts: 644 | Registered: May 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
That so silly cause White Jews arent Semites, they are Europeans. And no, Semitic is not synonymous with "Jew" you uneducated nincompoop. lol
I'm waiting for you to tell me how much Jews suffered and the myth about them losing six million in Nazi gas chambers during WW2. Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe Turkish people did have some contact with Jews as evidence from what Istakhri the Central Asian says about the first people to be named "Khazars'. The Sebi, Savara or Sabari people also known to the Armenians as the Sievordik or Sevartek and to the east Europeans and Jordannes as Sabartu-Asfaloi or black Huns probably were according to late Assyrian texts extending from Magan and Meluhha (North Arabia). Thus the Sebi also called Subh there may have had some connections with those names of the blacks in the Caucasus.
An Armenian patriarch named John supposedly wrote that they derived their name from their ancestor Siev or Syev son of Kush and that Siev ortek meant the black sons.
That is why there are still Jews in Kiev that have woolly hair and look more mulatto than white. however most of the blood of East European jews is Turkish like those of many Palestinians who brought great numbers of Circassians into that area both as concubines and as mercenaries.
That is, in part, how "admixture" is defined argyle.
Many tribes in Palestine with names of Arabs of Hijaz and Jordan are nearly white in color today due to ADMIXTURE WITH TURKS, SYRIANS and other people while those with some of THE SAME NAMES further south in Jordan and Hijaz are near black or completely black.
-------------------- D. Reynolds-Marniche Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
No, I was asking how much *African admixture* do the Eurasians have. We always hear of Africans having this or that mixture from nonAfricans as if Eurasians and Asians didnt have African admixtures too.
posted
I forgot to mention Istakhri said the Sabara/Savara/Sevartek (Sephardic) were the first to be called "Khazars".
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Dana where is the evidence that all those names are related? Don't they all have different etymologies steming from different origins?
Posts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Speaking of evidence, wheres the evidence the Jew Boas debunked the 'true negro' stereotype?
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
the lioness wrote: ------------------------------------
------------------------------------
What's wrong with white women? Are they that ugly, wrinkly, and old looking? Can you tell us the answers? Since according to you white men were having all of this sex with black women, then they must find white women very unappealing and unsatisfying.
You never answered this question when I asked it earlier.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Dana where is the evidence that all those names are related? Don't they all have different etymologies steming from different origins?
No - not all, and I'm writing something that will be posted on my web-site when it is up in the next few weeks.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
Why according to you do white men have more of an affinity for African women than their own white women?
Folks, lioness has just proven once again that the haggard, badly aging, caked makeup wearing white woman look pales (pun intended, LOL) in comparison to the beauty of African women.
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic