posted
^ More Eurocentric attempts to 'mix-up' or white-wash Africans. First of all what is their basis for non-African, since we all know non-Africans are a subset of East African immigrants likely from the Horn region (Ethiopia) anyway. Second, that a migration of people from the Levant into Ethiopia from 1,000 BCE seems improbable judging from the historical records of that time as well as archaeology.
Posts: 26280 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
A good genetic study. Usually these deal with junk genes which have nothing to do with phenotype/race, but SLC24A5 is associated with the skin coloration in Western Eurasians (Caucasoids).
Horners and North Africans possess the same Ala111Thr/rs1426654 allele of SLC24A5.
quote:First of all what is their basis for non-African
SLC24A5.
If the Human Genome Project identified the genes for hair texture, bone structure etc the data would show exactly the same: That Ethiopians are Caucasoid admixed.
Posts: 873 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:First of all what is their basis for non-African
SLC24A5.
No. Don't comment unless you can answer the question he asked: namely, "what is their basis for non-African".
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: what is their basis for non-African
"We implemented the following approach, modified from published chromosome-painting methodology, to partition each individual genome into windows that were more similar to the African and non-African populations, respectively. To obtain a list of SNPs that were independent in each of the reference populations, we LD pruned the data in three steps, using 20 French, 20 Han Chinese, and 20 Yoruba samples, sequentially. The pruned markers were then divided into 40-SNP, nonoverlapping windows covering the whole genome. Every window was then phased independently within each population with the PHASE program, and the phased haplotypes were used in the following steps.
Each test haplotype was compared with haplotypes from the corresponding genomic window taken from 20 individuals from each of the three reference populations (Han Chinese, French, and Yoruba). The comparison was performed by running a PCA with the use of the “princomp” function of the R package. Three reference clouds (Han Chinese, French, and Yoruba) were defined by the median and 50% confidence radius, calculated from the relevant haplotypes. The Euclidean distance between the principal component (PC) coordinates of the test haplotype and the confidence perimeter of each cloud were then calculated. Due to the similarity between the European and Asian haplotypes relative to the African haplotypes and the consequent difficulty in drawing a clear separation between the two non-African clouds, we then labeled each test 40-SNP haplotype as either “African” or “non-African” according to its position in the PCA plot, or “NA” if there was no separation between the reference clouds. The “NA” haplotypes (less than 1% of the total) were removed from the downstream analyses" (Pagani et al., 2012).
Posts: 495 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Faheemdunkers is too much of a cretin to understand what a deathblow this is to his theory. No one denies or gives a sh!t about whether or not these Ethiopians have non-African lineages. The point of contention is whether or not their facial traits have been the result of this mixing.
Long, narrow nosed and narrow faced Africans along the Central/Southern Red Sea coast predate the postulated date (~3-2.5 kya) of the introduction of these Levantine SNPs by 10s of thousands of years. Puntites, for example, can be seen depicted with those facial traits way before 1000bc. Before them the Eburrans carried those traits. It undermines his retarded claims that those facial traits indicate admixture.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Are you serious? Most of what we know about the Puntites comes from the Egyptians and their physical appearance can be seen in tomb walls like those of Hatshepsut.
Note despite the long narrow noses they were definitely NOT light skinned.
As for physical remains, it was shown last year that a likely candidate for Punt would be the Gash Culture of Eritrea.
As for the Eburrans, do you even know who they are?? The Eburran industry a.k.a. the Kenyan Capsian which predates the Capsian culture was a culture dating 13,000-9,000 BCE. in the area of Kenya, Uganda, southern Ethiopia and southeastern Sudan. How does Swenet know they had narrow noses prior to 3kya? Apparently you forgot that Gamble's Cave is an example of Eburran Culture!
Jean Hiernaux The People of Africa (Peoples of the World Series) 1975 The oldest remains of Homo sapiens sapiens found in East Africa were associated with an industry having similarities with the Capsian. It has been called Upper Kenyan Capsian, although its derivation from the North African Capsian is far from certain. At Gamble's Cave in Kenya, five human skeletons were associated with a late phase of the industry, Upper Kenya Capsian C, which contains pottery. A similar associationis presumed for a skeleton found at Olduvai, which resembles those from Gamble's Cave. The date of Upper Kenya Capsian C is not precisely known (an earlier phase from Prospect Farm on Eburru Mountain close to Gamble's Cave has been dated to about 8000 BC); but the presence of pottery indicates a rather later date, perhaps around 400 BC. The skeletons are of very tall people. They had long, narrow heads, and relatively long, narrow faces. The nose was of medium width; and prognathism, when present, was restricted to the alveolar, or tooth-bearing, region......all their features can be found in several living populations of East Africa, like the Tutsi of Rwanda and Burundi, who are very dark skinned and differ greatly from Europeans in a number of body proportions............. From the foregoing, it is tempting to locate the area of differentiation of these people in the interior of East Africa. There is every reason to believe that they are ancestral to the living 'Elongated East Africans'. Neither of these populations, fossil and modern, should be considered to be closely related to the populations of Europe and western Asia.
And then we have these.
Mesolithic Sudan
Omo 1 (195,000 years ago)Posts: 26280 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It cannot be argued that the narrow nose evolved due to hot dry conditions because of the Austrailian Aborignees and Khoisans
We see the map, we see the arid regions. In order for a narrow nose to be an adaptation to hot dry climates it should be vastly predominant in all these arid regions, not just in minority case examples.
The more believable theory is that the narrow nose prevents cold air from rushing into the lungs too quickly. As I had pointed out earlier Ethiopia has some uniquly varied climate conditions which set it apart from other parts of Africa even though it is close to the equator. As we can see on the map some parts of Ethiopia get colder like a temperate zone in defiance of the general latitudinal trend. This could have led to a narrower nose. At the same time it is a region with a trade history whith non-Africans as this most comprehensive so far study shows So it becomes very difficult to distinguish waht caused this narrow nose. It could also be argued that prehistoric back migrations form outside of Africa could have caused it.
Nobody knows until further research is done. I think that is fair.
Posts: 42935 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lioness: It cannot be argued that the narrow nose evolved due to hot dry conditions because of the Austrailian Aborignees and Khoisans
Too dumb to understand that ''broad correlation'' or even ''correlation'' doesn't mean the proposed relationship has to be found in every single instance. There just has to be a statistically significant correlation. Now, go assemble your pictures and carry along with your eyeball anthropology slash spam session. Leave science to people who at least have a elementary grasp of anthropology.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: As for the Eburrans, do you even know who they are?? The Eburran industry a.k.a. the Kenyan Capsian which predates the Capsian culture was a culture dating 13,000-9,000 BCE. in the area of Kenya, Uganda, southern Ethiopia and southeastern Sudan. How does Swenet know they had narrow noses prior to 3kya? Apparently you forgot that Gamble's Cave is an example of Eburran Culture!
Jean Hiernaux The People of Africa (Peoples of the World Series) 1975 The oldest remains of Homo sapiens sapiens found in East Africa were associated with an industry having similarities with the Capsian. It has been called Upper Kenyan Capsian, although its derivation from the North African Capsian is far from certain. At Gamble's Cave in Kenya, five human skeletons were associated with a late phase of the industry, Upper Kenya Capsian C, which contains pottery. A similar associationis presumed for a skeleton found at Olduvai, which resembles those from Gamble's Cave. The date of Upper Kenya Capsian C is not precisely known (an earlier phase from Prospect Farm on Eburru Mountain close to Gamble's Cave has been dated to about 8000 BC); but the presence of pottery indicates a rather later date, perhaps around 400 BC. The skeletons are of very tall people. They had long, narrow heads, and relatively long, narrow faces. The nose was of medium width; and prognathism, when present, was restricted to the alveolar, or tooth-bearing, region......all their features can be found in several living populations of East Africa, like the Tutsi of Rwanda and Burundi, who are very dark skinned and differ greatly from Europeans in a number of body proportions............. From the foregoing, it is tempting to locate the area of differentiation of these people in the interior of East Africa. There is every reason to believe that they are ancestral to the living 'Elongated East Africans'. Neither of these populations, fossil and modern, should be considered to be closely related to the populations of Europe and western Asia.
Indeed. And what's more, the Eburran remains are grouped in what Pinhasi et al call LSA (late stone age Africa), and we all know the mandible affinities of this group:
Similarly, the Epipaleolithic populations from Site 117 and Wadi Halfa are also affiliated with sub-Saharan LSA, Iron Age and modern Negroid groups --Vermeersch 2002
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
There just has to be a statistically significant correlation.
yet you have no correlation statistics wtf are you talking about ???
Hiernaux and Froment (1976), and Carey and Steegman (1981) find a positive and significant correlation between nasal index and humidity andlor vapor pressure, and a negative correlation between nasal height and temperature. --Keita 1988
^Just shut the phuck up and walk away. Didn't I just tell your bum ass to stick to projecting subjective opinions on images of Will Smith and Turkic folks? Just stick to subject matter that goes easy on your grey matter, because you already know you don't have much of it.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Cold has nothing to do with it, dumbass.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
There just has to be a statistically significant correlation.
yet you have no correlation statistics wtf are you talking about ???
Hiernaux and Froment (1976), and Carey and Steegman (1981) find a positive and significant correlation between nasal index and humidity andlor vapor pressure,and a negative correlation between nasal height and temperature. --Keita 1988
^Just shut the phuck up and walk away. Didn't I just tell your bum ass to stick to projecting subjective opinions on images of Will Smith and Turkic folks? Just stick to subject matter that goes easy on your grey matter, because you already know you don't have much of it. [/QB]
Only when pressed do these fools fess up to their edits.
Posts: 42935 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ What edits, dumbass?! Yes, positive correlation was largely with humidity and/or vapor pressure more so than temperature, meaning narrow noses ARE largely correlated with dry arid areas!!
"An important function of the nose is to warm and moisten inspired air. When air is exhaled, some heat and moisture are lost to the surroundings. The longer the nasal passage, the more efficient the nose is for warming and moistening incoming air and also the less heat and moisture are lost on exhalation. A narrow, high nose gives a longer nasal passage than a low, broad nose. Therefore, in cold or dry conditions, a high, narrow nose is preferable for warming and moistening air before it reaches the lings, and for reducing loss of heat and moisture in expired air. In hot, humid conditions a low, broad nose serves to dissipate heat (Wolpoff 1968; Franciscis and Long 1991)... The pattern of variation in nasal index corresponds very broadly to that expected if nasal form is indeed an adaptation to regional climate. The highest nasal index values, representing broad, low noses, tend to be those of populations in humid tropical regions of Africa and south-east Asia. Populations with low mean nasal indices (high, narrow noses) tend to be found in the cold, northern latitudes, and also in arid regions, such as the desert areas of east Africa and the Arabian peninsula. ..Davies found the nasal index taken in the living was closely correlated with skeletal nasal index. This suggests that there should likewise be an association between skeletal nasal index and climatic zone, and indeed other workers have found this to be the case." Mays. S., The Archaeology of Human Bones. (2010)
It's obvious your bias has driven you to the point of insanity and/or pure stupidity! LOLPosts: 26280 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Notice how the retarded bum changed the Keita excerpt to highlight the part where it talks about nasal height instead of what this discussion has been about all along: nasal index.
Hey retarded bum, prey tell, how is it relevant here that nasal height correlates negatively with temperature? LMAO, the retarded bum now runs into the problem that higher latitude populations have larger bodies, and thus, larger faces, and thus more capacity for more nasal height (though not necessarily more capacity for a lower nasal index [narrower nose]). Horner populations have smaller facial dimensions than Northern populations (another variable that testifies to their Equatorial adaptation), and so it makes sense that they have correspondingly lower nasal heights than European and other cold adapted populations, while still having narrow noses.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ LOL Indeed. Nasal height and nasal width are two different things. A person can have great nasal height and at the same time great nasal width (broad nose). In fact this can be observed among many Natufian remains which have a high nasal index (broad nose) but at the same time have high bridge noses.
quote:Originally posted by the lyinass: It cannot be argued that the narrow nose evolved due to hot dry conditions because of the Austrailian Aborignees and Khoisans
And I told her lyinass before that broad noses are also found among populations indigenous to cold humid conditions as well!
^ All these people above live in the subarctic to tundra zones of Asia which has high precipitation as well as freezing temperatures.
Posts: 26280 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
K=8/9 seems to be more representative of the populations and their specific ethno linguistic history
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^What is the scientific justification for the priority Pagani et al give to K=7 instead of K=8 and K=9? K=7 suggest that Horners are an amalgam of Nilotes, Eurasians and Omotic populations. Needless to say, this isn't supported by the data that has accumulated so far. It's interesting that K=7 is similar to DNA Tribes SNP allocation of Horner ancestry before they assigned Horner ancestry their own category:
while K=8 and K=9 are more similar to DNA Tribes current views:
posted
^ Indeed, I was just about to say that about k=7 being similar to the DNA Tribes SNP results.
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish: Each test haplotype was compared with haplotypes from the corresponding genomic window taken from 20 individuals from each of the three reference populations (Han Chinese, French, and Yoruba). The comparison was performed by running a PCA with the use of the “princomp” function of the R package. Three reference clouds (Han Chinese, French, and Yoruba) were defined by the median and 50% confidence radius, calculated from the relevant haplotypes. The Euclidean distance between the principal component (PC) coordinates of the test haplotype and the confidence perimeter of each cloud were then calculated. Due to the similarity between the European and Asian haplotypes relative to the African haplotypes and the consequent difficulty in drawing a clear separation between the two non-African clouds, we then labeled each test 40-SNP haplotype as either “African” or “non-African” according to its position in the PCA plot, or “NA” if there was no separation between the reference clouds. The “NA” haplotypes (less than 1% of the total) were removed from the downstream analyses" (Pagani et al., 2012).
This brings me back to the point of the Tishkoff study that East Africans especially Horn people are most related to Eurasians than other Africans are related to Eurasians because Eurasians descend from a subset of Horn people. Therefore, which specific SNP markers are they using to distinguish the non-Africans from Africans? There are two main Y-chromosome SNP haplogroups in Ethiopians that come to mind as being 'Eurasian', hg J and hg T. The latter is actually predominant. There are three main mitochondrial haplogroups in Ethiopia that are labeled 'Eurasian'-- N1, R0, and X.
Posts: 26280 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually no Ethiopians, excluding those from the Tigray region have narrow noses. If you check Hiernaux (1975) you will see the most narrow nosed Ethiopians are still mesorrhine.
Those with true narrow noses are only found in the Tigray plateau and Somalia -- because they are free from Negroid admixture because of their geographical isolation:
"the modern Hamite Ethiopian series (Tigre) and even Somali-Galla remain virtually exempt of any black contribution. The Ethiopian plateaus must therefore have remained far from the currents of black immigration" (Billy, 1977)
Also note, despite large sections being arid, as just noted very few populations have narrow noses (excluding Horners and Tigray):
"This phenomenon of nasal enlargement is not, in Nubia, related to the humidification of the climate since on the contrary it has gotten more arid, and thus highlights genetic exchanges, in the sense of a greater contribution from Black Africa" (Froment, 1992)
Posts: 873 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Cercopithecus lomamiensis, (Caucasoidus Simianus) African monkey found in central Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).
Hamlyn's monkey (Cercopithecus hamlyni), also known as the owl-faced monkey, is a species of Old World monkey that inhabits the bamboo and primary rainforests of the Congo.
An argument could be made that narrow noses are unrelated to climate.
Posts: 42935 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^What is the scientific justification for the priority Pagani et al give to K=7 instead of K=8 and K=9? K=7 suggest that Horners are an amalgam of Nilotes, Eurasians and Omotic populations.
I have only used the programe a few times and not really in depth. With ADMIXTURE and STRUCTURE you can of course tell the computer how ever many K's you want to output. Within the program there is a way for the COMPUTER to tell you the optimum number of K. Also you could just go by hand and increase the number of K until the results become uninformative. IE : African Americns become their OWN cluster.
From K=7 to K=8 it is very informative. I think this is a good explanation.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
It makes sense that allowing for too many ancestry brackets produces over-discrimination, at which point you're just arbitrarily restricting common sense boundaries for relatedness (as you explained with your African American example). Are you saying Pagani et al had objective indications k=8 and k=9 reflect that point?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Those with true narrow noses are only found in the Tigray plateau and Somalia -- because they are free from Negroid admixture because of their geographical isolation:
You obviously don't know what the phuck you're talking about. A mesorrhine populational average doesn't mean that many individuals within that sample don't have ''true narrow noses''.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: because they are free from Negroid admixture because of their geographical isolation:
This extra ''negroid'' ancestry in non-Tigray and non-Somali Horners is evident in which colored component?
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: It makes sense that allowing for too many ancestry brackets produces over-discrimination, at which point you're just arbitrarily restricting common sense boundaries for relatedness (as you explained with your African American example). Are you saying Pagani et al had objective indications k=8 and k=9 reflect that point?
Thats the thing. I have no idea, in the full data from the study they dont SAY that the computer gave the optimal K. Looking the results I have no idea why the settled on K=7 when at K=8 all most of the CORE populations of the area differentiate: Cushitic/Nilotic/Omotic/Eurasian Also at K=8 the populations are at the point where the Clusters are familiar with a specific known narrative and are also in concordance with past data and Y-dna mtdna results. WHo knows, i would not be surprised if they are trolling, they are italian.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^They definitely think they've reached that point since they call K=7 ''the best fit'', but I don't recall an explicit statement as to what they're basing it on.
I have a feeling that they were just basing this on their own pre-conceived notions. In the study they refer to the Horner mtdna pool as 50% Eurasian, showing that they fail to realize that OOA DNA cannot be seen as inherently non-African.
They give this impression again when they say that they tried to pigeon hole their SNPs as either African or non-African (just like with the Horner mtdna pool), not realizing they can be both because of the aforementioned reason.
Tiskoff 2009 accounted for this, though I suspect (I could be wrong though) that the inexplicably large blue component of the Dogon, who are otherwise known as stereotypically Sub Saharan African, forced her to admit that her blue component cannot be seen as non-African per se.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ This is precisely what I and others like Explorer and Takruri have been saying all along as per Keita's findings-- that it is virtually impossible to claim with certainty whether clades called 'Eurasian' really arose in Eurasia as opposed to Africa and if they did in fact arise in Eurasia, it was in Southwest Asia at a remote time when the populations were relatively recent African immigrants, and what's more is that there were constant migrations back-and-forth between Southwest Asia and East Africa which can best explain the clade distributions we see today.
The Dogon are just one example, but what are we to make of the Y-chromosome SNP of many West and Central Africans who carry R1 clade? Funny how you never see as many studies looking to claim West Africans as Eurasian-mixed peoples as you do East Africans.
Posts: 26280 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Fatheadbonkers: Actually no Ethiopians, excluding those from the Tigray region have narrow noses. If you check Hiernaux (1975) you will see the most narrow nosed Ethiopians are still mesorrhine.
As Swenet has told your dumbass, Hiernaux simply finds mesorrhine to be the population average or mean. That doesn't mean there are no high numbers of individuals with narrow noses among Ethiopians, twit.
quote:Those with true narrow noses are only found in the Tigray plateau and Somalia -- because they are free from Negroid admixture because of their geographical isolation...
There is a sizable Bantu minority living in southern Somalia while very few Bantu live in Ethiopia. Also northern Ethiopians in general including Tigray show alleged Eurasian ancestry via Arabia and according to the thread article the Levant, yet Somalis do not! Somalis by and large show preponderantly African lineages. So how does this plausibly explain your theories? Answer: it doesn't.
Posts: 26280 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ This is precisely what I and others like Explorer and Takruri have been saying all along as per Keita's findings-- that it is virtually impossible to claim with certainty whether clades called 'Eurasian' really arose in Eurasia as opposed to Africa and if they did in fact arise in Eurasia, it was in Southwest Asia at a remote time when the populations were relatively recent African immigrants, and what's more is that there were constant migrations back-and-forth between Southwest Asia and East Africa which can best explain the clade distributions we see today.
The Dogon are just one example, but what are we to make of the Y-chromosome SNP of many West and Central Africans who carry R1 clade? Funny how you never see as many studies looking to claim West Africans as Eurasian-mixed peoples as you do East Africans.
Yes, and I am starting to lain more to that too.
quote:Evolutionary history of mtDNA haplogroup structure in African populations inferred from mtDNA d-loop and RFLP analysis.
(A) Relationships among different mtDNA haplogroup lineages inferred from mtDNA d-loop sequences and mtDNA coding region SNPs from previous studies (Kivisild, Metspalu, et al. 2006). Dashed lines indicate previously unresolved relationships.(
B) Relative frequencies of haplogroups L0, L1, L5, L2, L3, M, and N in different regions of Africa from mtDNA d-loop and mtDNA coding region SNPs from previous studies.
(C) Relative frequencies of haplogroups L0, L1, and L5 subhaplogroups (excluding L2 and L3) in different regions of Africa from mtDNA d-loop and mtDNA coding region SNPs from previous studies. Haplogroup frequencies from previously published studies include East Africans (Ethiopia [Rosa et al. 2004], Kenya and Sudan [Watson et al. 1997; Rosa et al. 2004]), Mozambique (Pereira et al. 2001; Salas et al. 2002), Hadza (Vigilant et al. 1991), and Sukuma (Knight et al. 2003); South Africans (Botswana !Kung [Vigilant et al. 1991]); Central Africans (Mbenzele Pygmies [Destro-Bisol et al. 2004], Biaka Pygmies [Vigilant et al. 1991], and Mbuti Pygmies [Vigilant et al. 1991]); West Africans (Niger, Nigeria [Vigilant et al. 1991; Watson et al. 1997]; and Guinea [Rosa et al. 2004]). L1*, L2*, and L3* from previous studies indicate samples that were not further subdivided into subhaplogroups.
Whole-mtDNA Genome Sequence Analysis of Ancient African Lineages
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: A good genetic study. Usually these deal with junk genes which have nothing to do with phenotype/race, but SLC24A5 is associated with the skin coloration in Western Eurasians (Caucasoids).
Horners and North Africans possess the same Ala111Thr/rs1426654 allele of SLC24A5.
Such modern studies are confirming Seligman, Coon etc.
With what gene does this allele consist, what the Hg?
And why do they speak of a "fixed" or "nearly fixed" version of Ala111Thr/rs1426654?
Last but not least, why is it that Afrcian and Asian populations carry the ancestral allele?
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: As Swenet has told your dumbass, Hiernaux simply finds mesorrhine to be the population average or mean. That doesn't mean there are no high numbers of individuals with narrow noses among Ethiopians, twit.
There are few (if any) Ethiopians outside of the plateau regions who are leptorrhine. I have tables from Huntington and others which include the deviation ranges from the mean. As usual you are clueless.
Also Swenet dimisses oral traditions since they speak of "white men", but the Ethiopians with low NI's all have legends they they descend from these "white people". Just a coincidence? I think not. Coon (1939) mentions these on page 449.
Posts: 873 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
^You're just a lying, data fabricating faggot. Your habit of repeatedly running from real debate is duly noted. Even the source you cited, namely Hiernaux 1975, of which you said that he contradicts us, shows data of non-tigray Ethopians (Oromos) with leptorrhine nasal indices.
Mesorrhine nasal indices in Ethiopians only phuck your claims up, not ours, since mesorrhine Horners have just as much West or Central African specific ancestry as leptorrhine Horners--they all uniformly have almost none. Additionally, Somali's have the least Eurasian ancestry among Horners, yet they have the most incidences of narrow noses and wavy hair.
quote:I have tables from Huntington and others which include the deviation ranges from the mean. As usual you are clueless.
I dare your retarded ass to post it, and watch how you'll be made the laughing stock once again.
Being the dishonest bastard that you are, lying about the data is your M.O. Both Coon and Hiernaux say Leptorrhine population averages are not confined to Tigray and Somali's.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
"[T]he modern Hamite Ethiopian series (Tigre) and even Somali-Galla remain virtually exempt of any black contribution. The Ethiopian plateaus must therefore have remained far from the currents of black immigration" (Billy, 1977)
Tigray have the lowest nasal indices, typically in the leptorrhine range. Oromo have a different deviation range and mean. Their lowest NI's are mesorrhine, or borderline -- while their average is 76. Thin noses among the Oromo are confined to the minority aristocracy class, who like the Tigray are mostly exempt from Negroid admixture. They have seperate racial origins. Coon (1939) discusses the class divisions among the Oromo, its clear when he is describing the Hamitic (Mediterranean) average (69) he is not meaning the other classes who all data shows are mesorrhine-platyrrhine, nowhere near thin nosed.
As far as the data goes, true leptorrhine indices are only observed in the Tigray region which was mostly free historically from Negroid admixture, while only occurring among a few individuals outside that region, which is noticable when you take the Hamitic caste system into account.
Posts: 873 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: "[T]he modern Hamite Ethiopian series (Tigre) and even Somali-Galla remain virtually exempt of any black contribution. The Ethiopian plateaus must therefore have remained far from the currents of black immigration" (Billy, 1977)
Have you ever actually SEEN anyone from Tigray? Do you know how any individual with stereotypical Tigray features look? I had someone from Tigray sitting in my living room yesterday.
Ideas like this are utterly retarded. You might as well be saying "African Americans remain virtually exempt of any black contribution."
Just plain DUMB!
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ LMAOH Indeed, I had schoolmates who were Tigray as well. The point of the matter is the deranged dummy says Tigray have no black influence or contribution yet the Tigray ARE themselves black!!
^ This last photo may show individuals of 'Australoid' ancestry according to the Anglo-idiot. LOL
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Also Swenet dismisses oral traditions since they speak of "white men", but the Ethiopians with low NI's all have legends they they descend from these "white people". Just a coincidence? I think not. Coon (1939) mentions these on page 449.
ROTFLOL Mothafucka, please cite from a primary source anything Tigray tradition of having "white people" as ancestors!! I already debunked your dumbass here, when you made the claim that the Tutsi have a tradition that they have Cacasoid ancestors from Ethiopia when in reality this was a tradition adopted from their Euronut Belgian colonizers! LOLPosts: 26280 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: "[T]he modern Hamite Ethiopian series (Tigre) and even Somali-Galla remain virtually exempt of any black contribution. The Ethiopian plateaus must therefore have remained far from the currents of black immigration" (Billy, 1977)
Dumbass, your own source generalizes his statements over Ethiopians in general, other Ethiopians are not excluded (his Galla-Somali sample is Ethiopian [Oromo], you dumb phuck).
Furthermore, he clearly restricts his comments to the samples he has at his disposal. He talks about the modern hamite ethiopian series, not that all Tigreans uniformly conform to his Tigre sample.
You're just fabricating as usual.
Furthermore, the Tigrean sample measured by Sergi 1912, and later used by Morant and Mukherjee is platyrrhine.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ LMAOH Indeed, I had schoolmates who were Tigray as well. The point of the matter is the deranged dummy says Tigray have no black influence or contribution yet the Tigray ARE themselves black!!
His excerpt is translated from french. What Billy means with ''black'' is the Central Africans West from the Horn, who, as he correctly notes, really did have little influence on Horners. This is a moot point though. Central Africans had little influence on many African populations seen as Negroid (remember how Angho' struggled to explain away the indigenous negroid Ethiopians whom he couldn't classify as Niger Congo, lol).
As always, Angho' 'forgets' to post the rest of what Billy says in his studies. Among other things, Billy says that Horners acquired their morphology through local adaptation to their hot-dry climate, NOT from outside sources.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Of course. Posting partial quotes and/or taking said quotes out of context is the habit of the Anglo-Idiot. But you're right, the Billy statement was made about ALL Ethiopians in general and not just Tigray or Somalis. LOL
You are also correct about many people exhibiting "true negroid" morphology who have nothing to do with Bantus and this includes folks in Sudan, Chad, Niger etc.-- all the countries of the Sahel and south Saharan regions. Yet the dummy associates such morphology only with Bantus and Niger-Congo speakers only.
He still has yet to explain why such negroid morphology including platyrhinny was found farther north in ancient times including northern Egypt and the Levant. Oh wait, maybe he did explain them as being actually 'Australoid' did he not? LOLPosts: 26280 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Too bad for him all those ''Australoid'' (pre)Mesolithic Northeast African folks are correlated with prehistoric Central African alleles:
Take the Thuya Gene, for instance. Like most of the other Rare Genes from History, it has an African origin in deep time. But it experienced its greatest expansion in ancient Egypt, where it was carried by the queens of Upper and Lower Egypt and High Priestesses of the temples.
How do we know those (pre)Mesolithic Northeast African ''Australoid'' skeletal series are correlated with those alleles? Because:
We can imagine that Autosomal Thuya started out in East Africa about 100,000 years ago, and that her descendants were prominent in the first out-of-Africa group as well as in the Middle Easterners who helped spread agriculture, animal husbandry, religion and settled town life to Europe.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ And how do these 'Thuya' people fit in the racial schema of Anglo-Idiot?
Where in Coon's map are they represented? LOL
According to Coon the above =
before the Pleistocene
The Pleistocene has been dated from 2.588 million to 11,700 years before present (BP), with the end date expressed in radiocarbon years as 10,000 carbon-14 years BP.
Khoisans[purple] originated and lived in North Africa. Caucasians [green] lived in Europe, Anatolia, the Middle East and part of South Asia
According to Coon After the Pleistocene Caucasians [green] not indigenous to North Africa migrated there and pushed the Capoid (Khoisans) [purple] out, the Capoid (Khoisans) migrating to Southern Africa Posts: 42935 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Razib Khan, gene expression blog, Discover magazine:
Genetic Affinities of Ethiopians
In the open thread someone asked: “Any recent stuff on the genetics of Ethiopians.” That prompted me to look around, because I’m curious too. Poking around Wikipedia I couldn’t find anything recent. A lot of the studies are older uniparental lineage based works (NRY and mtDNA). Ethiopia is interesting because unlike almost all other Sub-Saharan African nations it has a long written history. Culturally and linguistically it has both Sub-Saharan African, and non-Sub-Saharan African, affinities. The languages of highland Ethiopia are clearly Semitic. Those of lowland Ethiopia are Cushitic, a branch of the broader Afro-Asiatic language family concentrated around the Horn of Africa (Somali is a Cushitic language, though most Ethiopian nationals who speak a Cushitic dialect are of the Oromo group). From a human evolutionary genetic perspective, Ethiopia also has specific interest. It is likely that the main recent pulse of humans Out of Africa traversed this region. Additionally, there is some evidence of deep time connections between the groups ancestral to Ethiopians and the Khoisan of southern Africa. It may be that Ethiopians and Khoisan are reservoirs of ancient genetic variation in Sub-Saharan Africa which as been overlain by Bantu in most other regions outside of West Africa. Finally, Ethiopians are known to have high altitude adaptations. This could be due to long term residence in the region, or, assimilation of favorable alleles from the long term residents by later populations. Fortunately we can get a sense of the genetic affinities of Ethiopians thanks to a paper published last spring, The genome-wide structure of the Jewish people. The focus was clearly on Jews, but they surveyed Amhara & Tigray (Semitic speaking highlanders), Ethiopian Jews (similar ethnically to the Amhara & Tigray, but religiously non-Christian), and Oromo. In the PCA the Oromo and Semitic speaking populations are pretty obviously distinct clusters.
This just means that when you take worldwide genetic variation, and pull out the biggest independent dimensions, and then visualize individuals on the two largest dimensions in terms of how they explain variance, the Oromo and other Ethiopians don’t really intersect. Interestingly the Amhara and Tigray are almost indistinguishable, but the Ethiopian Jews are in their own cluster. There are, for the record, 7 Oromo, 7 Amhara, 5 Tigray, and 13 Ethiopian Jews in the sample. Now let’s look at the genetic variation in ADMIXTURE. Remember this assigns the genomes of individuals in proportions to K ancestral units. As an example, if you had African Americans, Yoruba, and White Americans, in a total pool, and did K = 2, you might have a tendency where Yoruba and White Americans are in two totally different ancestral populations of K, while African Americans are 80% in one ancestry and 20% in another. The interpretation of this is straightforward, but when it comes to populations whose backgrounds we don’t know as well, one should be careful. The selection of a particular value for K is going to be really important, and we shouldn’t confuse the method from the reality which the method is trying to plumb. First, K = 8 from Behar et al. I’ve reedited to highlight populations which might inform the variation of Ethiopians.
Now let’s look at a series of K’s. Note the changes.
Luckily for us, we don’t need to stop here. Dienekes included Behar’s Ethiopians (non-Jews) for Dodecad. Additionally, he included the Masai population from the HapMap. This turns out to be important because he found that Ethiopian Sub-Saharan ancestry is similar to that of the Masai, not the other African groups.
Dienekes also provided individual outputs. I’ve stitched together Ethiopians with Egyptians and Saudis. The color coding is the same as above.
[IMG]You should be able to tell where the three groups start and stop pretty easily. I’m 99% sure that the six individuals with more East African and less Southwest Asian ancestry are all Oromo. Ethiopians, in particular highland Ethiopians, seem to me likely an ancient stabilized hybrid population between a population from Arabia, and a local Sub-Saharan population. This population seems unlikely to have been related to the peoples of West-Central Africa, who are associated with the Bantus across eastern and southern Africa. The Bantu agricultural toolkit runs into ecological constraints in various regions, and it is in those regions that non-Bantu populations have persisted. Ethiopia, with its unique climate and topography, naturally remains non-Bantu (as well as the Horn of Africa as a whole). The possible connections between Khoisan and Ethiopia may be a function of the fact that these areas harbor genetic variants which have disappeared in the intervening regions because of the Bantu expansion. I have a hard time accepting that the Bantu expansion was particular eliminationist, but I am starting to suspect that outside of Ethiopia population densities were very, very, low. The antiquity of this ancient hybridization event to me is attested by the fact that Ethiopians lack any of the other Middle Eastern components besides the one modal in Saudi Arabia. There is a great deal of intra-population variance in the Saudi data set. Why? Part of this must be the slave trade, as well as pilgrims who remained in places like Mecca. But, I think part of the untold story here is that there may have been a larger genetic impact on Arabia after the rise of Islam from the Levant than vice versa! Probably the gene flow precedes Islam, as Arabia was hooked into worldwide trade and population movements, which Ethiopia was relatively insulated from. The Saudi data set has several people who are “pure” Southwest Asian, but also several who have a great deal of West Asian + South European. These seem likely to be people who have some background in the Fertile Crescent.[/IMG]
In the post yesterday I reported what was generally known about the Horn of Africa, that its populations seem to lie between those of Sub-Saharan African and Eurasia genetically. This is totally reasonable as a function of geography, but there are also suggestions that this is not simply a function of isolation by distance (i.e., populations at position 0.5 on the interval 0.0 to 1.0 would presumably exhibit equal affinities in both directions due to gene flow). For example, you observe the almost total lack of “Bantu” genetic influence on the Semitic and Cushitic populations of the Horn of Africa, and the lack of Eurasian influence in groups to the south and west of the Horn except to some extent the Masai. Tacking horizontally in terms of discipline, over the past few generations there has been a veritable cottage industry making the case for the recent origin of many ethno-linguistic populations through a process of cultural self-creation. Clearly there are many cases of this, some of them studied in depth by anthropologists (e.g., the shift from Dinka to Nuer identity). But there has been an unfortunate tendency to over-generalize in this direction. In some ways this is peculiar insofar as these models presuppose the infinite plasticity of culture without observing the sharp and strong norms which those very same phenomenon can enforce. The genetic isolation of non-Muslims in the Middle East after the rise of Islam seems rather well validated by the evidence from genomics. The norms of both Muslims and non-Muslims strongly biased them toward endogamy, and nature of Islamic hegemony and domination was such that Muslims were the ones who were likely to have cosmopolitan affinities with the “Islamic international.” In contrast, non-Muslim minorities began a long process of involution after the Islamic Arab conquests, only disrupted in the past century by emigration and to a lesser extent emancipation. So back to the Horn of Africa. The vast majority of the people of the Horn of Africa speak an Afro-Asiatic language. Arabic and Hebrew are the most famous members of this group, but it is a very broad classification, ranging from the dialects of the Berbers in the Maghreb all the way to ancient Akkaddian. There are two large subfamilies of particular note and interest here: Semitic and Cushitic. The map above shows the distribution within the Horn of Africa. One can “quick & dirty” summarize the pattern here by observing that Semitic languages in Ethiopia tend to be concentrated in the north-central Christian highlands, while Cushitic is found everywhere else. Additionally, there is the confluence between religion and ethnicity, as there are Cushitic Muslims (Somalis, Afar, etc.) and Cushitic Christians (many Oromo, etc.). From what I can gather many Cushitic social and political elites have had a tendency toward assimilating into an Amhara Semitic identity (Haile Selassie’s mother was a Muslim Oromo). We could therefore generate a possible model where Semitic langauges arrived late to Ethiopia and spread through elite emulation, so the difference between Semitic and Cushitic peoples should be marginal in the genomic dimension (such as the marginal differences between Hausa and Yoruba in Nigeria). Or, we could posit that the Semitic element is distinctive from a pre-existent Cushitic substratum. To make a long story short by running more ADMIXTURE with a Horn of Africa centered data set I have discerned that one can actually differentiate Cushitic and Semitic elements in the Horn and tentatively identify them with different ancestral components. First, the technical details….
I began with the data set I started with in the runs I posted yesterday. Strange outliers in the Masai were removed. These are a few sets of individuals who “fix” for minority ancestral components. This is a tell that there’s structure within the Masai being picked up, but more like distantly related individuals, not ethnic level differences. After running this I noticed that a lot of the same then popped up in the non-Jewish Yemeni and Saudi samples. To some extent this is like “whack-a-mole.” If you remove one problem others simply pop out of the woodwork. So I removed all the non-Jewish Yemenis and Saudis. The number of markers remained the same, 210,000 SNPs. There were still a few issues with outliers, especially with the Bantu Kenya, and to a lesser extent the Levantine samples. But at this point I decided to go with it, since these are marginal to the story of the Horn of Africa in any case. I stated yesterday that in general Horn of Africa populations don’t present their own clusters, but are a composite of others, mostly East African and Arabian. After I removed some of the spurious Masai components and ran ADMIXTURE up to K = 10 I did finally get a Horn of Africa cluster, “HoAc”. Additionally, I also found that you can see systematic differences between Cushitic Oromo and Somalis, and the Semitic Ahmara, Ethopian Jews, and Tigray. Below are bar plots of K = 7 and K = 9. The lower K’s aren’t too different from what I posted yesterday, while K = 8 and K = 10 has too many minor components. I’ve posted only fine-grained and Horn of Africa focused plots, instead of the more general summary plots which show average ancestral quanta. Also, below these I’ve posted two dimensional representations of genetic distances between inferred ancestral groups for K = 7 and K = 9. I’ve removed several components though, in the case of one because it was clearly a spurious “extended family” cluster, and in some cases to better visualize relationships.
Posts: 42935 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
To cut to the chase, it looks like all Horn of Africa populations share a HoAc base, which one might term “Cushitic,” though that is not totally accurate. On top of that base you see differences based on language family. The Semitic speaking groups have an ancestral component which is identical to the one fixed in Yemeni Jews, while the Cushitic speaking ones tend to lack this. But observe that the Semitic speaking populations generally have the component found in the Cushitic speaking groups, and especially the Somalis in which it often fixes. This is why I put the sequence of language-population expansions so that the Semitic is overlain upon a Cushitic base. Additionally, there does seem to be admixture from Nilotic groups into Ethiopian, but not Somali, populations. This is most consistent and evident in the Oromo, and where an isolation by distance model seems plausible, as the Oromo are geographically the most likely to have interacted with Nilo-Saharan populations and the Somali the least. Finally, please keep in mind that if the Somalis are 100% cluster X, that does not mean that the Somalis are derived from some real homogeneous ancestral cluster X. These ADMIXTURE components are very interesting in helping to flesh out relationships horizontally across populations today, but we should be cautious about what they can tell us about relationships vertically in terms of how populations emerged over time. A thoroughly admixed group can break out into its own distinctive cluster if it exhibits a level of internal homogeneity and the ancestral “reference” populations themselves no longer exist. This seems to be what has occurred in South Asia, where certain groups shake out as “100% South Asian,” but themselves on the deeper genomic level seem to be stabilized admixtures of ancient fusions between two ancestral groups which were very diverged. A South Asian analogy to the Horn of Africa might lead us to infer that Somalis are the equivalent of these populations, where they lack admixture with more recent arrivals to the region after the initial admixture event between “Ancestral East Africans” (AEA) the Arabians of yore. This may simply be a function of geography and historical contingency, as the position of Somalis is more “sheltered” because of the quasi-peninsular nature of their region of the Horn. Additionally, Somalia is relatively dry and unsuitable for agriculture, making it perhaps less ecologically friendly than the highlands of Ethiopia to Semitic populations bringing a new agricultural toolkit. There’s plenty more you can say, but I’ll hold off, and add a word of caution: it is very possible that I was looking for these specific clusters and arrived at them via confirmation bias. As I’ve noted before, if you tune ADMIXTURE’s parameters in the proper fashion you can “arrive” at the answers you want. How to protect against this? If I keep performing ad hoc runs and going by intuition, lots of repetition often helps. You naturally arrive at a sense of the underlying distribution of possibilities, can guard against anchoring upon an outlier result, because you know that it is atypical (this is though on reason that ground-breaking results are ignored, as they don’t fit the paradigm, so there’s a flip-side to this bias). I also run cross-validation now and then to find the optimal number of K’s, but that really slows down the program, so I this is a matter of trade offs for me. I’m rather sure that the differences between Ethiopian and Somali groups are robust, because the same pattern of relationships (e.g., the Amhara tendency to resemble the Tigray more than the Somali) reoccurs over and over. But I’m not so confident about the inference I’ve drawn here about the Afro-Asiatic language families and the partitioning of the Cushitic and Semitic groups.
Posts: 42935 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ And how do these 'Thuya' people fit in the racial schema of Anglo-Idiot?
They don't. LMAO. According to the mentally crippled Angho', phenotype is more important and informative than phylogenetic positioning. In order for the Coonian school of thought to be consistent, it has to update its map to include Australoids in the Americas ~12 ky ago:
Her [Luzia] facial features include a narrow, oval cranium, projecting face and pronounced chin, strikingly dissimilar to most native Americans and their indigenous Siberian forebears. Anthropologists have variously described Luzia's features as resembling those of Africans, Indigenous Australians, Melanesians and the Negritos of Southeast Asia. Walter Neves, an anthropologist at the University of Săo Paulo, suggests that Luzia's features most strongly resemble those of Australian Aboriginal peoples.
Yet, their skeletal remains yield lineages that are no different from today's Amerindians and Southern Siberians (the latter are the putative source population of Amerindians), namely, mtDNA A, B, C, D, X and M, while no Australian specific lineages are found. That's the reliability of the ''phenotype equals race'' fallacy for ya.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ And how do these 'Thuya' people fit in the racial schema of Anglo-Idiot?
They don't. LMAO. According to the mentally crippled Angho', phenotype is more important and informative than phylogenetic positioning. In order for the Coonian school of thought to be consistent, it has to update its map to include Australoids in the Americas ~12 ky ago:
Her [Luzia] facial features include a narrow, oval cranium, projecting face and pronounced chin, strikingly dissimilar to most native Americans and their indigenous Siberian forebears. Anthropologists have variously described Luzia's features as resembling those of Africans, Indigenous Australians, Melanesians and the Negritos of Southeast Asia. Walter Neves, an anthropologist at the University of Săo Paulo, suggests that Luzia's features most strongly resemble those of Australian Aboriginal peoples.
Yet, their skeletal remains yield lineages that are no different from today's Amerindians and Southern Siberians (the latter are the putative source population of Amerindians), namely, mtDNA A, B, C, D, X and M, while no Australian specific lineages are found. That's the reliability of the ''phenotype equals race'' fallacy for ya.
This is precisely why mtDNA has no link to race. Those haplogroups you mention, Australoids historically carried. The Zhoukoudian Upper Cave 101 cranium, and Liujiang among other Chinese crania are Australoid (Coon, 1962; Wolpoff, 1984). Australoids or any other race can easily carry those linaeges through gene flow. This is why MtDNA has no relation to race or proper population lineage.
-- The fact Amerindian crania are showing those haplogroups in no way dismisses Coon or Wolpoff, it merely supports their theories.
Posts: 873 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
I personally love it when you use forensic artwork with respect to what Luzia may have looked like, and the only thing that makes it better is when you begin to throw around haplogroups in conjunction with that
In the obama age you become more of a joke as each day passes monkey!
Not only do we have the DNA analysis of Luzia, but we have thousands of bones from the Paleolithic age in ALL of the americas and guess what you filthy monkey!
THEY ALL POSSESS ZERO% NEANDERTHAL AND ZERO% DENISOVAN DNA
Everyone already knows that Carleton Coon was a racist and a liar and now you use an out of Africa denier like Milford Wolpoff WHO ABSOLUTELY NOONE TAKES SERIOUSLY ANYMORE to support your fallacious arguments, and believe me we all love it when you do that because it alllows my people to connect the dots you filthy piece of shiit.
Luiza possessed ZERO% Neanderthal and ZERO% denisovan DNA white makes her 100% sub saharan African according to your own cracker definition
Posts: 3642 | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Those haplogroups you mention, Australoids historically carried.
LMAO. Of course Australoids historically carried those lineages--in your imaginary world that is. In your crippled mind, 'Australoid' is just a basket in which you throw all skeletal remains with palaeo features. From Australian aboriginals, to Natufians in the Levant, to Iberomaurusians in the Maghreb, to Sahabans/Halfans in Northern Sudan, to palaeolithic Chinese, to Palaeo-americans, to Veddoid groups in Arabia and India, to European Eurafricans, to Mesopotamian Eurafricans, and the list goes on. When you group so many genetically distant remains, you're bound to find--at some point--that your false Australoids cluster includes folks who carry A, B, C D and X (duhh). Its no different from someone who says that 100% indigenous Africans historically have had pasty skin colors, who then 'proves' himself correct by retardedly using South African Boers, invading Vandals, Phoenicians, Assyrians, Arabs etc. as examples.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Australoids or any other race can easily carry those linaeges through gene flow. This is why MtDNA has no relation to race or proper population lineage.
Oh, so now Australoids may carry 100% Amerindian/Siberian lineages without compromising their Australoid status, but Mediterraneans cannot carry ''minor negroid affinities'', without compromising their Mediterranean status (you've repeatedly claimed that the slightest amount of exotic ancestry in Mediterranean remains rules out their Mediterranean status)? African Americans cannot carry exotic ancestry without jeopardizing their Negroid status (you called them non-negroid for carrying little amounts of non-African ancestry)? Just give it up Angho', you're a phucking fraud who is full of sh!t.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: The fact Amerindian crania are showing those haplogroups in no way dismisses Coon or Wolpoff, it merely supports their theories.
Of course it dismisses their theories. What this data shows is that populations (e.g., Palaeo-Americans and modern Amerindians) don't have to look alike in order to be strongly related, genetically:
The results obtained show that morphological variation in East Central Argentina does not correlate with mtDNA differences. The oldest samples from the region under study, dated on ca. 8,000–2,000 years BP, present more elongated crania than the Later Late Holocene samples, but both groups have the same mtDNA haplogroups (and even haplotypes). --S. Ivan Perez et al. 2009
This in turn obliterates the idea that ''phenotype equals race'', since both genetically related parties (Palaeo-Americans and modern Amerindians) would have been appropriated (by Coon) to different ''races'' (Australoid and Amerindian), when there is absolutely no genetic basis for doing so.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Not only do we have the DNA analysis of Luzia, but we have thousands of bones from the Paleolithic age in ALL of the americas and guess what you filthy monkey!
THEY ALL POSSESS ZERO% NEANDERTHAL AND ZERO% DENISOVAN DNA
You are a chronic and pathological liar.
Fabricio Rodrigues dos Santos, a biologist from the Federal University of Minas Gerais. As for Luzia, the human fossil found in the 1970s by French archaeologist Annette Laming-Emperaire in Lagoa Santa, State of Minas Gerais, this is the oldest human fossil found in the Americas; archaeologists estimate that it is between 11,400 to 16,400 years old. "In the case of Luzia, I would say that analyzing her DNA is impossible; various researchers have already tried; they sent material to the United States and Europe, but were never able to generate any DNA sequencing," Of all the Homo sapiens that radiated out of Africa and settled into the vast regions of the Indopacific 50 kya- only the Austro-Melanesians in Mindanao Philippines and west of the Wallace Line show traces (about 6 percent) of Denisovan DNA suggesting relatives of present-day East Asians were not in Southeast Asia when the Denisova gene flow occurred. This occured no earlier than 30,000 years sgo since Denisova died out by then.
Posts: 42935 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Denisovan DNA that you see in the modern populations in Austrailia, the Americas (the so called native american is packed with denisovan DNA) the Philippines and wherever it is found, was brought there by IMMIGRANTS you filthy lying white piece of shiit! the ORIGINAL populations EVERYEHERE except for the mongol and cracker possess ZERO% Neanderthal or Denisovan DNA monkey
I personally love it when you use forensic artwork with respect to what Luzia may have looked like, and the only thing that makes it better is when you begin to throw around haplogroups in conjunction with that
In the obama age you become more of a joke as each day passes monkey!
Not only do we have the DNA analysis of Luzia, but we have thousands of bones from the Paleolithic age in ALL of the americas and guess what you filthy monkey!
THEY ALL POSSESS ZERO% NEANDERTHAL AND ZERO% DENISOVAN DNA
Everyone already knows that Carleton Coon was a racist and a liar and now you use an out of Africa denier like Milford Wolpoff WHO ABSOLUTELY NOONE TAKES SERIOUSLY ANYMORE to support your fallacious arguments, and believe me we all love it when you do that because it alllows my people to connect the dots you filthy piece of shiit.
Luiza possessed ZERO% Neanderthal and ZERO% denisovan DNA white makes her 100% sub saharan African according to your own cracker definition
Posts: 3642 | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic