quote: Figure 1. Y-Chromosomal Haplogroups in Iberian, North African, and Sephardic Jewish Samples Binary marker phylogeny of the Y chromosome, showing mutations on the branches of the tree, and shorthand haplogroup names40 immediately beneath. Haplogroups unobserved in any sample are indicated by dashed branches on the tree. Below the phylogeny are given the percentages of chromosomes carrying the observed haplogroup. Abbreviations are as follows: n, sample size; h, Nei’s unbiased estimator of gene diversity. Data on North African populations are from the literature (see footnotes). a Data from Bosch et al.34 b Data from Arredi et al.,47 with haplogroup prediction for hgG. c Subhaplogroups of R1b3 were not typed in the Sephardic Jewish sample.
quote: Figure 2. Haplogroup Distributions in Iberian, North African, and Sephardic Jewish Populations Haplogroup profiles of samples from the Iberian Peninsula and the Balearic Islands, published North African samples,34,47 and a Sephardic Jewish sample. Sectors in pie charts are colored according to haplogroup in the schematic tree to the right, and sector areas are propor- tional to haplogroup frequency. Sample names, abbreviations, and sizes (within pie charts) are indicated. Subhaplogroups of R1b3 were not typed in the Sephardic Jewish sample.
quote: Figure 4. Iberian, North African, and Sephardic Jewish Admixture Proportions among Iberian Peninsula Samples Mean North African, Sephardic Jewish, and Iberian admixture proportions among Iberian samples, based on the mY estimator and on Moroccan, Sephardic Jewish, and Basque parental populations, are represented on a map as shaded bars on bar charts. Error bars indicate standard deviations, and three-letter codes indicate populations, as given in Figure 1.
quote: Figure 6. Diversity of Y-STR Haplotypes Belonging to Haplogroup R1b3 Reduced median network53 containing the eight-locus Y-STR (DYS19, DYS389I, DYS389II-I, DYS390, DYS391, DYS392, DYS393, DYS439) haplotypes of 767 hgR1b3 chromosomes, from Iberian populations and the Sephardic Jewish and Moroccan parental samples used in admix- ture analysis. Circles represent haplotypes, with area proportional to frequency and colored according to population, as shown in the key. For Iberian data, hgs R1b3b, R1b3d, R1b3f, and R1b3g have been combined into hgR1b3, because these sublineages were not distin- guished in the Sephardic Jewish sample.
Susan M. Adams, Mark A. Jobling et al.
The Genetic Legacy of Religious Diversity and Intolerance: Paternal Lineages of Christians, Jews, and Muslims in the Iberian Peninsula
quote:Most studies of European genetic diversity have focused on large-scale variation and interpretations based on events in prehistory, but migrations and invasions in historical times could also have had profound effects on the genetic landscape.The geographical distribution of North African ancestry in the peninsula does not reflect the initial colonization and subsequent withdrawal and is likely to result from later enforced population movement—more marked in some regions than in others—plus the effects of genetic drift.
quote: The established population of the Iberian Peninsula prior to 711 CE has been estimated at 7–8 million people, ruled by about 200,000 Germanic Visigoths,19 who had entered from the north in the sixth century. Though the initial invading North African force was between 10,000 and 15,000 strong, the scale of subsequent migration and settlement is uncertain, with some claiming numbers in the hundreds of thousands. 20 Islamization of the populace after the invasion was certainly rapid, but it has been argued that this reflects an exponential social process of religious conversion rather than a substantial immigration;21 a sizeable proportion of the indigenous population (the so-called Mozarabs) was allowed to retain its Christian practices, as a result of the religious tolerance of the Muslim rulers.22 There is also doubt about the extent of intermarriage between indigenous people and settlers in the early phase.20 After the overthrow of Islamic rule in most of the peninsula, a period of tolerant coexistence (convivencia) ensued in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, but after 1492 (1496 in Portugal), religious intolerance forced Spanish Muslims to either convert to Christianity (as so-called moriscos) or leave.23 After the fifteenth century, moriscos were relocated across Spain on occasion, and, finally, during 1609–1616, over 200,000 were expelled, mostly from Valencia.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: If I'm "lying" stupid
Of course you're lying. The TMRCA dates I listed, are after all, based on nucleotide data.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: How would you know what said "matrix" looks like, when you base your thoughtlessness on thin air rather than nucleotide specifics?
Non-replies aside, I notice that your explanation regarding the imaginary fore-runners of Maghrebi H1, H3, V and U5 is still pending. You brought it up, cretin, and you fail to make a coherent case for it. Again, in what scenario could these four Iberian clades have evolved in the Maghreb, independant of Iberian admixture?
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: That's just it, chump: I can't think of any case in an mtDNA parent-offspring scenario where this much discordance
What do you mean ''this much discordance''. WTF are you talking about? This report is talking about shared sublineages occuring on both sides of the Mediterranean, which are only differentiated by their haplotypes or they share haplotypes and are differentiated at an even finer resolution. Prove that something is out of the ordinary here and that other haplogroups with a common ancestor 10kya don't have the same local differentiation bespeaking peculiarities at their phylogenetic tips.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Can you think of African-sourced European L clades that fit the bill?'
Yes, dumbass, this situation is exactly parallel to Casas et al's European specific L1b with the 16175 transition. That you can't even think of a single example without having to be held by hand just goes to show how out of touch with reality you are. I'm not even sure why I'm talking to your dumbass.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: lacks a male correspondence?
Who says they lack a ''male correspondence'', cretin? I'm not sure that they do, but since you're apparently convinced of this unsubstantiated belief, prove that all coastal R1b(xV88) lineages in the Maghreb are ruled out from representing such a male contribution.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Many clades of Europe (as Y-DNA also shows) rarely originate in Europe, including these very clades you name here
Strawman. Stop lying, pig. No one is talking about ultimate origin. Since you say you're not implicating Franco-Cantabrian lineages in your medieval European slave trade fairytale, post examples of other lineages in the Maghrebi mtDNA pool that share haplotypic similaries with Europe over the Near East, and let's see how much of a list your dumbass will end up with. Don't forget to include sources, pig.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: By showing me that you have figured it out of a lack of thinking since you merely repeated what was questioned only moments ago?
This shows how truly retarded you are. If I'm basing an observation on a piece of material, how is asking me the same question going to change that reality? Am I supposed to fetch your dumbass new lines of reasoning because you ask the same question twice? Talk about being a complete airhead.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Get a new line; incomplete quotation directed at refuting your bungled understanding of Casas et al is old and tired
So it's settled then. In your feeble mind, TMRCA estimates point to specific periods of immigration whenever they agree with your beliefs, but whenever they disagree with your beliefs, they are mere ''assumptions''.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: By contrast, like the fuckheaded sucker you are, you actually believed/believe in the idea that solid dates could accurately be attained from these simulations.
No lying ass troll. I actually know, unlike you, that the assumptions implicated in TMRCA estimates have been largely nullified since they sandwich their dates in between confidence intervals. I also know that well calibrated TMRCAs equations almost always independently yield dates that are perfectly correlatable with other scientific data. The estimated admixture date of a significant portion of Eurasian ancestry in Ethiopians, for instance, perfectly agrees with the glottochronological dates associated with the seperation of Ethio-Semitic languages. Both dates, in turn, correlate with archaeologically attested Arabian features in the Axum kingdom. Of course, this just so happens to be another situation where your flip flopping between acceptance and dismissal of TMRCA dates is entirely wilful and tied to whatever is convenient for you at that moment. Talk about being a slippery ass snake.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Dancing around "the issue" that only makes about as much sense (per your thinking-retardant skull) as your "extra-TMRCA"?
Dancing around the issue for a second time, pig! Again, you phucked up when you marginalized the independently established old age of the H1 and H3 clades as merely based on ''assumptions''. You totally phuched up!
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: There cannot be "continuity" between illusionary DNA and real DNA
Non-reply. I asked your lying ass how your false accusation about confounding Taforalt specimen with modern Berbers applies to my statement that there is mtDNA continuity between the two.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Then you must not have compared this imagined "retardation" against your silly usage of a discredited material as supporting evidence.
''list the accuracies about them''--Explorer
^As if anyone can vouch for the accuracy of the empirical results of ANY authors' data. Yet, that's what you asked of me. This is how monstrously retarded you are.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Had you said that this is the "most retarded nondescript question I've ever read" instead of its irrelevant application above
Blablabla. Filthy pig, I know it pains you to no end to see your ''slave trade'' fairy-tale disintegrate in front of your eyes like that, but stop running away from the inevitable, for once. What are supposedly ''slave trade'' lineages doing in the aDNA of isolated Canary Island communities?
Posts: 8791 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Of course you're lying. The TMRCA dates I listed, are after all, based on nucleotide data.
You are too stupid to even tell the difference between a supposed date and nucleotide sequence. They are all the same to you, chump.
quote:Non-replies aside, I notice that your explanation regarding the imaginary fore-runners of Maghrebi H1, H3, V and U5 is still pending. You brought it up, cretin, and you fail to make a coherent case for it.
I brought up "fore-runners of Maghreb" in this thread, where, fuckhead? And no fake paraphrasing, just quotes, and complete at that.
quote:What do you mean ''this much discordance''. WTF are you talking about? This report is talking about shared sublineages occuring on both sides of the Mediterranean, which are only differentiated by their haplotypes or they share haplotypes and are differentiated at an even finer resolution.
Yes dud-head, they were undoubtedly referring to different clusters (subclades) of a single lineage (clade). However, they were also referring to different haplogroups. So, it's not an either/or. You are too fuckheaded to understand that, no doubt.
quote: Prove that something is out of the ordinary here and that other haplogroups with a common ancestor 10kya don't have the same local differentiation bespeaking peculiarities at their phylogenetic tips.
shythead, it's the question of the degree of discordance between a supposed parental population and the derivative population. Given the limited geographical range of contemporary Maghrebi populations and given the time depth, that level of discordance is too stark. The only way for a discordance like that to happen in a relatively short time span, is for the derivative population to undergo extraordinary expansion events. Dig it now, idiot?
quote: Yes, dumbass, this situation is exactly parallel to Casas et al's European specific L1b with the 16175 transition.
fuckhead, you base the level of discordance between a parental population and a derivative one on a single clade, and a single transition, and have the nerve to call somebody else dumb?
quote:That you can't even think of a single example without having to be held by hand just goes to show how out of touch with reality you are. I'm not even sure why I'm talking to your dumbass.
You are too retarded to know why are discussing with me, and even more retarded about the subject you are discussing with me.
quote:Who says they lack a ''male correspondence'', cretin?
DNA sequencing results says so, Mrs. dufus!
quote:I'm not sure that they do, but since you're apparently convinced of this unsubstantiated belief, prove that all coastal R1b(xV88) lineages in the Maghreb are ruled out from representing such a male contribution.
R1b distribution is negligible in the Maghreb, whereas the maternal gene pool that you love to call "Eurasian" makes up a substantial component of certain coastal Maghrebi samples. Only a dickhead will use a negligible to non-existent distribution of R1b as evidence of the paternal correspondence of such a gene pool.
To top that, the burden is on YOU to prove that the minuscule R1b that you find here and there are in fact prehistoric clades that supposedly came with said maternal gene pool, supposedly from Iberia.
quote:Strawman. Stop lying, pig. No one is talking about ultimate origin. Since you say you're not implicating Franco-Cantabrian lineages in your medieval European slave trade fairytale
As implied where, douche-bag? Quotes -- not your brainless snippets of incomplete quotes.
quote:This shows how truly retarded you are. If I'm basing an observation on a piece of material, how is asking me the same question going to change that reality? Am I supposed to fetch your dumbass new lines of reasoning because you ask the same question twice? Talk about being a complete airhead.
It's easy to blame me for your brainless regurgitated non-replies to a question you were too thick in the skull to answer, which again was this:
How have you figured that the H clades that have been implicated in Ennafaa et al.'s report came from the "same refuge area" as the supposedly European U5b1b? Of course, other than just parroting what you were told by someone else, without having any deep insight?
Ask a literate friend to help you with the reading, fuckhead.
quote:So it's settled then. In your feeble mind, TMRCA estimates point to specific periods of immigration whenever they agree with your beliefs, but whenever they disagree with your beliefs, they are mere ''assumptions''.
What's settled, is that you are too fucked in the head to know when you are being refuted for your mangled up understanding of Casas et al., which is why you are incessantly using the same incomplete quote as a supposed inconsistency on my part, with regards to knowing the subjective aspect of age estimations. In fact, I was correcting you then as well, in relation to this subjective nature. Of course, correcting you is a wasteful undertaking, unless one is doing it for the benefit of readers who have working brains.
quote:No lying ass troll.
"NO", my ass, fuckhead. So you are now self-convinced that you were never too suckered and dead in the head to have believed in a solid date ascribed to a skin pigmentation allele, namely SLC24A5? LOL
quote:Again, you phucked up when you marginalized the independently established old age of the H1 and H3 clades as merely based on ''assumptions''. You totally phuched up!
Tell me how goldie locks, by explaining to a numb head like you that age estimations generally rely on certain assumptions made by the researchers, I am supposed to have fucked up?
quote:
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: There cannot be "continuity" between illusionary DNA and real DNA
Non-reply. I asked your lying ass how your false accusation about confounding Taforalt specimen with modern Berbers applies to my statement that there is mtDNA continuity between the two.
Your brain is simply too rotted to tell when you have been answered. So, I'll try a different way, knowing that it too will not work: You cannot use erroneous or questionable DNA information as evidence of "continuity", idiot! But you do, because you imagine it helps advance your ideological zealotry.
quote:''list the accuracies about them''--Explorer
^As if anyone can vouch for the accuracy of the empirical results of ANY authors' data. Yet, that's what you asked of me. This is how monstrously retarded you are.
You are stinking retarded to know when not to use information that has specifically been discredited. How then can you not be able to effortlessly prove otherwise, now that someone else did the heavy lifting of examining the veracity of the work (which you claim is an impossible undertaking) you fuckheaded monkey?
quote:Blablabla. Filthy pig, I know it pains you to no end to see your ''slave trade'' fairy-tale disintegrate in front of your eyes like that, but stop running away from the inevitable, for once. What are supposedly ''slave trade'' lineages doing in the aDNA of isolated Canary Island communities?
I thought I told you to be a good little puppy and do this: dig up what I noted about H clades for instance, only moments ago.
You couldn't even handle something that intellectually effortless, only to instead, repeat a mindless immaterial question?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- 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 |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: You are too stupid to even tell the difference between a supposed date and nucleotide sequence.
I'm sure that that's the lie you tell yourself. In the real world, however, you denied that my observations regarding H1, H3, V and U5 involved nucleotide specifics, which, as it turns out, was a lie as well, given the fact that I cited the TMRCA estimates of some of them.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: I brought up "fore-runners of Maghreb" in this thread, where
You'll just keep lying won't you? I'm telling your dumbass that your explanation is pending, right after you said ''I have a different take on their data'' and that Ennafaa is supposedly also consistent with the H clades being discussed here, originating ''outside of Europe''. Speak up, lying ass troll. Where are the Maghrebi fore-runners, or are these ''originating outside of Europe'' H clades the product of some form of hocus pocus?
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: However, they were also referring to different haplogroups.
Stop lying, sicko. The piece you cited, which I responded to, only made mention of shared sublineages with a measure of variability at their tips on both sides of the Mediterranean. The piece you quoted the last time speaks of a single coding region mutation. Again, dumbass, how does this evince ''much discordance''.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Given the limited geographical range of contemporary Maghrebi populations and given the time depth, that level of discordance is too stark.
When I ask you to prove that the discordance is out of the ordinary, relative to parallel situations, you ''can't think of anything'', yet, your profoundly retarded dumbass still thinks it's on to something and that ''that level of discordance is too stark''. In other words, you postulated the existence of a anomalous degree of differentiation based on a comparative situation you can't even think of. What is keeping me and other readers from making the observation that you're not just full of sh!t, but habitually so?
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: you base the level of discordance between a parental population and a derivative one on a single clade, and a single transition
Dishonest lying piece of sh!t. The piece I'm responding to with a parallel example is no different in the characteristics you mention. The imaginary extraordinary discordance you noted in the H1 clade with the 10257 mutation is all but a figment of your imagination. As is your figment that these specifics warrant ''another take of Ennafaa et al''.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: R1b distribution is negligible in the Maghreb, whereas the maternal gene pool that you love to call "Eurasian" makes up a substantial component of certain coastal Maghrebi samples.
Moving the goal post. The original issue that stumped your misfiring neurones was why there was a supposed lack of male lineages, that are consistent with fulfilling this complementary role. Lineages capable of fulfilling this role are not, as you've stated, absent. Game over.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: To top that, the burden is on YOU to prove that the minuscule R1b that you find here and there are in fact prehistoric clades that supposedly came with said maternal gene pool, supposedly from Iberia.
^Misplacing your own responsibilities onto others. The burden is on you since you denied such complementary male lineages exist; I merely offered R1b(xV88) up as potential hitch-hikers of this Franco-Cantabrian migration to the Maghreb.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: As implied where, douchebag?
Lying pig, when it downed on you that the very ''discordance'' between European and Maghrebi H clades are utterly inconsistent with Medieval female slave trade, you switched your pitch and said that you weren't implicating the H clades we were discussing. The same molecular factors that made you buckle in that instant pertain to Maghrebi H3, V, and U5 as well. So yes, your flip flopping regarding H would ultimately have to pertain to V and U5 as well, causing you to find yourself in the compromising position you're in right now. With Maghrebi H1, H3, V and U5 all bearing the ''discordant'' (your word) polymorphisms compared to Iberian examples, your case that the Maghrebi mtDNA pool was significantly impacted by your fairy-tale female slaves from Europe, increasingly seems to belong to the realm of figments.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: It's easy to blame me for your brainless regurgitated non-replies to a question you were too thick in the skull to answer
You have to seriously be phuched in the head to think that what you're saying here undermines what I just told your lying pig face: If I'm basing an observation on a piece of material, how is asking me the same question going to change that reality?
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: In fact, I was correcting you then as well, in relation to this subjective nature.
LMAO. You were resisting Cerezo et al's revision of this clade's TMRCA based on whole genome sequencing, and latching onto Casas et al's much weaker TMRCA, which was just a lazy generalized inference based on the discovery of a single transition. STOP LYING, immoral lying ass pig. You injected yourself into the discussion from out of nowhere, and showed an unwavering sheep-like support for Casas et al's TMRCA because it tickled your fancy, while you had reservations with Ennafaa's TMRCAs because they didn't tickle your fancy:
The coalescent age of European L1b clade has been estimated to be around 20,180 +/- 16,144 years, according Casas et al. (2005), which had already been cited. Again, pointing to Paleolithic African contribution. Not sure what led to equation of Cerezo et al.'s (2012) L1b1a8 with Casas et al.'s transition 16175- bearing L1b clades, besides the presence of a Russian L1b1a8 haplotype. --Explorer
Yet, when Ennafaa et al 2009 cite TMRCAs of mtDNA H1, H3, V and U5 that are the product of much more advanced methodology than what Casas et al 2006 used, your flip flopping ass is ready as ever to perform verbal acrobatics:
That aside, dating estimates are just that, estimates, and are a subject to the methodology applied and assumptions that went along with that, by the authors. --Explorer
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: by explaining to a numb head like you that age estimations generally rely on certain assumptions made by the researchers, I am supposed to have fucked up?
Lying again. What that piece that you're responding to is telling you, is that you phucked up when you marginalized the old age of the H1 and H3 clades as merely based on ''assumptions'', even though local differentiation in the Maghreb is another independent clue testifying to their old age.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Your brain is simply too rotted to tell when you have been answered.
Non-reply. **How** does my earlier statement fit your empty lying ass accusation that I'm of the mindset that the Taforalt and Berbers are the same?
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: You are stinking retarded to know when not to use information that has specifically been discredited.
Yeah, they are discredited and inauthentic al right. They just ''happen'' to occur in modern day Berbers. Tell me how inauthentic aDNA essentially replicates the mtDNA pool of modern day inhabitants of that area, rather than randomly showing hgs that have no or little regional attestation.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: I thought I told you to be a good little puppy and do this: dig up what I noted about H clades for instance, only moments go.
LMAO. It pains you so much that the pre-Medieval slave trade Maghrebi Berbers were more or less the same as the Canary Islands aboriginals with >75% Eurasian mtDNA lineages, that you randomly start to go off on a tangent about what you had written earlier about H clades.
Posts: 8791 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
I'm sure that that's the lie you tell yourself. In the real world, however, you denied that my observations regarding H1, H3, V and U5 involved nucleotide specifics, which, as it turns out, was a lie as well, given the fact that I cited the TMRCA estimates of some of them.
Your "real world" is a make-believe chump world. In the real world, you were asked to produce nucleotide specifics, and you give me some numb-minded bullshit about "dates". A cockroach can do a better job of understanding and answering that request.
quote: You'll just keep lying won't you? I'm telling your dumbass that your explanation is pending, right after you said ''I have a different take on their data'' and that Ennafaa is supposedly also consistent with the H clades being discussed here, originating ''outside of Europe''.
fuckhead, saying that I have a different take from your emotionally fanatic interpretation of the same data, is not "bring up fore-bearers of the Maghreb".
quote: Stop lying, sicko. The piece you cited, which I responded to, only made mention of shared sublineages with a measure of variability at their tips on both sides of the Mediterranean. The piece you quoted the last time speaks of a single coding region mutation. Again, dumbass, how does this evince ''much discordance''.
Read and learn, dickhead:
The relative affinities among regions are based on subhaplogroup frequencies, which do not take into account differences between haplotypes assorted in the same subgroup, or in haplotypic matches, whose identity is based only on partial HVSI sequences. **In addition**, it has to be taken into account that half of the H lineages detected in North Africa are not shared with other regions and that this percentage is even greater in the putative source regions of the Near East (70%) and the Iberian Peninsula (76%). These facts point to a higher differentiation among regions and between populations than those observed previously. - Ennafaa et al.
You are a filthy brain-dead maggot that cannot read if its life depended on it.
And fussing about the prospect of sharing clades but not their sub-clades does not make the discordance go away; rather, it only reinforces the discordance, numbnut.
quote:When I ask you to prove that the discordance is out of the ordinary, relative to parallel situations, you ''can't think of anything'', yet, your profoundly retarded dumbass still thinks it's on to something and that ''that level of discordance is too stark''. In other words, you postulated the existence of a anomalous degree of differentiation based on a comparative situation you can't even think of. What is keeping me and other readers from making the observation that you're not just full of sh!t, but habitually so?
You are a complete dead headed piece of shyt. The situation would only be anomalous, if the "parent-derivative" theory was considered, numbnut, and I already described why. So, it is not as if, there cannot be other theories about the Maghreb maternal gene pool. The aforementioned wouldn't be anomalous, if there are many other instances like it, fuckhead...which is what you are asking of me, jackass.
quote:Dishonest lying piece of sh!t. The piece I'm responding to with a parallel example is no different in the characteristics you mention.
Yeah fuckhead, a single haplotype with a single transition is "no different" from a gene pool of multiple haplogroups and their sub-clades. LOL
quote:
The imaginary extraordinary discordance you noted in the H1 clade with the 10257 mutation is all but a figment of your imagination. As is your figment that these specifics warrant ''another take of Ennafaa et al''.
It's ironic that you mention "figment", because any prospect of "discordance" being "noted in H1 clade" with said polymorphism is your figment.
quote:Moving the goal post. The original issue that stumped your misfiring neurones was why there was a supposed lack of male lineages, that are consistent with fulfilling this complementary role. Lineages capable of fulfilling this role are not, as you've stated, absent. Game over.
You have your head right up your ass, talking about some insignificant negligible clade (Maghrebi context) as the embodiment of male correspondence for astronomically larger maternal gene pool. If this is not a shining indicator of the state of your utter desperation, I don't know what else is. You are obviously looking at something as absurdly insignificant as R1b, because it by chance, happens to be one of clades that are frequent in Europe. Unlike normal people, you never consider a genetic basis for your retarded speculations. LOL
Dare I even mention that you are too absent-minded to deliver tangible evidence that this infinitesimal R1b has any remote connection to the origin(s) of the Maghrebi maternal gene pools, as was asked of you.
quote: ^Misplacing your own responsibilities onto others.
Sure dick pirate. You bring up the negligible R1b as the corresponding male gene pool to Maghrebi gene pools, and it's my job to prove it for you! LOL
Sometimes I feel like I have got to be dreaming about coming across anything as retarded as you are, because quite frankly, there is nothing that dumb. Not even the chair I sit on is that dumb.
quote:The burden is on you since you denied such complementary male lineages exist
You imagined that I "denied such complementary male gene pool exists", simply because I didn't stoop to taking you seriously, as opposed to anything more than a fat joke, on your buffoonery about the negligible R1b being that gene pool?
quote:
; I merely offered R1b(xV88) up as potential hitch-hikers of this Franco-Cantabrian migration to the Maghreb.
Then you were merely not doing what was specifically asked of you, shithead.
quote:Lying pig, when it downed on you that the very ''discordance'' between European and Maghrebi H clades are utterly inconsistent with Medieval female slave trade, you switched your pitch and said that you weren't implicating the H clades we were discussing.
Since there is apprently no actual quote for this brainless accusation, I'll take it that you are full of hot air.
quote: With Maghrebi H1, H3, V and U5 all bearing the ''discordant'' (your word) polymorphisms compared to Iberian examples
I'd ask you to produce an actual quote, not an imaginary gobbledygook that you love to offer in lieu, mentnioning "discordant polymorphisms", but I know you'll only offer more of that imaginary gobbledygook hot-air.
quote:You have to seriously be phuched in the head to think that what you're saying here undermines what I just told your lying pig face: If I'm basing an observation on a piece of material, how is asking me the same question going to change that reality?
So then, you are hereby admitting that your post was a substance-free and anecdotal gobbledygook, which reflects on a lack of your independent and critical thinking?
quote:LMAO. You were resisting Cerezo et al's revision of this clade's TMRCA based on whole genome sequencing, and latching onto Casas et al's much weaker TMRCA, which was just a lazy generalized inference based on the discovery of a single transition. STOP LYING, immoral lying ass pig.
Even though this is just another bullshit pulled right outta your ass, it nevertheless serves as a falsifier of your original use of the incomplete quote as supposed evidence of inconsistency in my mindfulness of the subjective aspect of age estimations.
Now to the correct sequence of events: In the Casas et al. exchange, I was correcting your mindless claim that Casas et al.'s dating was wrong, on the account of Cerezo et al.'s own, which was not a "revision" or put forth as such even by the authors. I tried then to school you on the fact that Casas et al.'s estimation was based on the entire range of European L1b clades they considered in their study, which is not duplicitous of the range of clades Cerezo et al. considered in their work, thereby eliciting the subjective aspect of the age estimations.
Nor does what your fat ass said just now apply to Casas et al., fuckhead, about the supposed dating of L1b being based on a single transition, which is something that only a dickhead like you would do.
And shithead, "whole genome" sequencing has no bearing on L1b's age; the polymorphic sites of L1b across the clade are the only relevant items for L1b's age simulation.
quote:That aside, dating estimates are just that, estimates, and are a subject to the methodology applied and assumptions that went along with that, by the authors. --Explorer
Thanks for reminding me, douchebag, what I said in this thread. Now, why is the statement wrong?
quote:Lying again. What that piece that you're responding to is telling you, is that you phucked up when you marginalized the old age of the H1 and H3 clades as merely based on ''assumptions'', even though local differentiation in the Maghreb is another independent clue testifying to their old age.
The only things that are fucked up, is your mind and your interpretation of what was said. So I noted that age estimations are as I described; big deal! H1 was not even specifically mentioned in the actual quote, numbnut [even though you still manage to "quote" me otherwise], and rightly so, since it was not meant to apply just to H1.
Find something else to cry about, you stupid baboon.
quote:Non-reply. **How** does my earlier statement fit your empty lying ass accusation that I'm of the mindset that the Taforalt and Berbers are the same?
Idiot, you can't even remember the stupid crap you do. You used discredited material as evidence of "continuity". How can I make this any clearer; by shoving it up your fat ass, since your thick skull does not work? LOL
quote:Yeah, they are discredited and inauthentic al right.
You bet they are! And there is nothing your dumbass can do about it, other than just use discredited material anyway, to advance your zealotry.
quote: They just ''happen'' to occur in modern day Berbers. Tell me how inauthentic aDNA essentially replicates the mtDNA pool of modern day inhabitants of that area, rather than randomly showing hgs that have no or little regional attestation.
What "happens" to "occur" in modern day "Berbers" is not substitute for what authentic DNA reading for the Taforalt specimens should be. The Taforalt group is NOT the source population of modern day "Berbers" at that, as you were told countless times. Do I have to shove this too up your fat ass, to make you understand?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know when ''The Explorer'' is feeling the impending cloud of defeat hovering above his microcephalic head, when he starts going in full blown non-reply mode. There can be no debate if there is no mutual understanding from both parties that resorting to lying, non-replies and deliberate fallacies is off limits. This is where it stands:
--''The Explorer'' obsessively cites high frequencies of E-M81 in Maghrebi populations as representing a realistic amount of African ancestry. However, when prompted to replicate this with other, autosomal, ancestry informative markers, ''The Explorer'' runs off with his tail tucked between his legs. He does this because it's commonly understood that the high frequency of East African NRY chromosomes in Berbers speakers is misleading and not representative of their real amount of East African ancestry, which is closer to ~10%.
quote:Many studies have attempted to describe the genetic structure of Tunisian populations using different autoso-mal markers: the GM and KM allotypes (Chaabani et al., 1984; Loueslati et al., 2001; Fadhlaoui-Zid et al., 2004a), HLA class II polymorphisms (Guenounou et al., 2006; adhlaoui-Zid et al., 2010), autosomal short tandem repeats (STRs) (Bosch et al., 2001a; hodjet-El-Khil et al., 2008), and polymorphic Alu insertions (Ennafaa et al., 2006; Frigi et al., 2010). These results have suggested a certain inter-population diversity in Tunisia compared with Europe and sub-Saharan Africa, with migrations from both neighboring regions but with a greater Eurasian contribution.
He is deliberately lying and deliberately misleading everyone when he talks about the Berber NRY pool being ''lopsidedly African'', without the side-note that high levels of E-M81 in Maghrebi populations are only due to drift:
quote:The E1b11b1b/M81 subclade has a TMRCA of 4-9kya and expansion around 2kya. It is therefore relatively new or perhaps recently emerged from a bottleneck and is subject to genetic drift (high frequency of genetic signature, low complexity or variation) in its isolation.
To keep his ''lopsidedly African'' male pool fairy-tale from crumbling in front of his eyes, by the genetic drift explanation, he deliberately lies about the proto- Berber having large effective population sizes. The data on the ground is very clear:
quote:Small effective sizes, founder effects, and isolation processes followed by genetic drift have been postulated as the main factors contributing to current population differentiation of these Berber samples
--Fadhlaoui-Zid et al 2011
--When he was told that uni-parental analysis is inherently inferior to autosomal analysis when it comes to guaging admixture, due to the fact that the former is uni-variate and the latter is (usually) multi-variate, ''The Explorer'' vehemently denied that uniparental analysis is uni-variate. When prompted to explain what uni/multi-variate analysis is, and why I'm wrong in applying the term the way I did, he proceeded to spout the incoherent mumbo jumbo about uniparental markers sporting various degrees of variation, and that the terms should only be applied to cranio-facial analysis, indicating that the idiot doesn't even know that the difference is merely the amount of distinct measurable variables that researchers take into account. When he was confronted with the fact that he was just making it all up as he went along, he went into full-blown lie mode, and somehow managed to accuse me of not knowing what the difference is.
--''The Explorer'' promotes his female slave trade fairy tale as an explanation for why Berber populations have lighter skin today, but consistently ignores, evades and dodges the earth shattering fact that populations who have preserved their ancestral Berber profile (e.g., aboriginal Canary Island aDNA) have >75% Eurasian mtDNA, which includes the lineages ''The Explorer'' maintains were the result of chronologically much later female European slavery. Instead of the aboriginal Canary Island population sporting more African mtDNA and less Eurasian mtDNA, they do the exact opposite. If anything, Berber aDNA shows that African female slave trade had much more of an impact the female European slave trade.
--''The Explorer'' keeps talking about how locally differentiated H clades on both sides of the Mediteranean are, which is his way of pseudo- scientifically making the case that these lineages didn't arrive there via European migration 10kya. However, to prove that this date of 10kya is at odds with the amount of accumulated mutations, he'd have to show that other lineages with coalescent ages of 10kya don't harbour similar amounts of accumulated variation. He admits to being totally ignorant of such a reference sample, but still maintains such low levels of accumulated variation are inconsistent with the 10kya date. When I posted a parallel case of other mtDNA lineages with just as much accumulated variations, the pathological liar moved the goal post to ''yes, the accumulated variation is not out of the ordinary with other mtDNAs that coalesce to 10kya, but in this case we're currently discussing, there is more than one mtDNA with such accumulated variations''.
--Despite the fact that ''The Explorer'' tacitly admitted that the parallel L1b example from Europe indicates that Maghrebi H1 bears locally differentiated mutations consistent with a 10kya split from Iberian samples, ''The Explorer'' still promotes his lying ass fairy-tale that the locally differentiated mutations in mtDNA H1 on both sides of the Mediterranean lend credence to his preposterously weak DIY alternative explanation that these mtDNAs originate ''outside of Europe''. He admits to not actually making the argument that ''outside of Europe'' means ''originating in the Maghreb'', which puts him in even more hot water considering the fact that the supposed ''high discordance'' that led him to come up with this alternative interpretation of Ennafaa et al 2009 in the first place, occurs within sub-haplogroups that make these two regions (Maghreb and Europe) cluster, as evidenced by fig 1 in Ennafaa. What a phucking loser.
--''The Explorer'' continues to harp on the ''discordant'' nature of H clades in Maghrebi populations, relative to Iberian populations, not realizing that this only reduces the amount of H clades the fool is eliminating as props for his European slave trade fairy tale. When confronted with his self-defeating actions, the lying dog's answer was that it was never his lying ass intention to assign all Maghrebi H clades to this European slave trade fantasy. One thing the charlatan didn't take into account either was that dismissing H1 as Medieval slave trade associated lineages, because of their discordant nature, means that H3, U5 and V also become off-limits, due to the fact that the latter three mtDNAs are equally ''discordant''. When I confronted the charlatan with the fact that he doesn't have a choice when it comes to dismissing mtDNAs as slave trade associated because of their discordant nature (most non-H1, H3, V and U5 Eurasian mtDNAs appear to be closer to Near Eastern varieties, making them equally unsuitable props for his European slave trade fairy-tale fantasy), the charlatan flip-flopped back into re-considering the ''discordant'' H1, H3, V and U5 Franco-Cantabrian lineages he just implicitly rejected, saying ''prove where I said I rejected these lineages''.
--''The Explorer'' is lying his ass off when he says that the prehistoric age of Maghrebi H lineages is not based on nucleotide specifics, or that this observation is merely based on ''assumptions''.
quote:Although there is no archaeological evidence to justify such a demic flow from Iberia to North Africa, based on the phylogeographic range, comparative gene diversity and ages of several mitochondrial haplogroups such as V, H1, H3, and U5b1b [25,37,26], the presence of these haplogroups in North Africa is thought to be the result of a southward expansion of Palaeolithic hunter-gatherers from the Franco- Cantabrian refuge after the Last Glacial Maximum.
--Ennafaa 2009
Note that ''The Explorer'' has relied on TMRCA estimates on numerous occasions when they supported his position, as shown here:
quote:The coalescent age of European L1b clade has been estimated to be around 20,180 +/- 16,144 years, according Casas et al. (2005), which had already been cited. Again, pointing to Paleolithic African contribution. Not sure what led to equation of Cerezo et al.'s (2012) L1b1a8 with Casas et al.'s transition 16175- bearing L1b clades, besides the presence of a Russian L1b1a8 haplotype.
--Explorer
''The Explorer'' is also known for showing unwavering support for TMRCA estimates when they agree with him elsewhere, such as the late emergence of Berber languages and NRY E-M81, which he has used in the past to rule out a Berber identity for the Ibero-Maurusian and Capsian specimen:
quote:^Given that microsatellite Y-DNA analysis suggested that the population ancestral to contemporary northwest African Imazighen ("Berbers") emerged ca. 8.2 kya or so in northeast Africa, the northwest African samples here are all too old to be associated with them. The Mechta-el-Arbi specimen is the only set that comes close to any age associated with contemporary Imazighen speakers, just based on the age given to it; but even here, it is questionable, given that Imazighen expansion in northwest Africa is dated even more recently than the 8 kya time frame -- that expansion dates to ca. 2.3 kya or so. The point is, although some find it tempting to associate contemporary Imazighens with these EpiPaleolithic and early Holocene Neolithic era northwest African specimens, available data suggest otherwise.
--The Explorer
Yet, the very instant TMRCA estimates disagree with his postion, like when Ennafaa cite TMRCA estimates of mtDNA H1, H3, V and U5, showing them to have a very ancient presence in the Maghrebi, he marginalizes them as mere ''assumptions'', like the two-faced snake that he is:
quote:That aside, dating estimates are just that, estimates, and are a subject to the methodology applied and assumptions that went along with that, by the authors.
--Explorer
^Note that all post from ''The Explorer'' henceforth will proceed to everything but refute what I've just said. He will whine, give temper tantrums, deny, lie, distort, manipulate, etc, etc.
Posts: 8791 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
--''The Explorer'' obsessively cites high frequencies of E-M81 in Maghrebi populations as representing a realistic amount of African ancestry. However, when prompted to replicate this with other, autosomal, ancestry informative markers, ''The Explorer'' runs off with his tail tucked between his legs.
I can get a more intelligent response from a brick wall in discussing genetics than I apparently can with you, chump. I reckon that the chump discusses something as way over the chump's thinking-retardant skull as molecular genetics, because the chump is a chat room attention-whore par excellence; without the internet chat room, the chump realizes that its existence is much worth less than even the fecal matter that comes out of the chump's fat ass.
The chump is confusing apples for oranges. E-M81 is a Y-DNA, meaning uniparental. E-M81 has info intact from the very first male, a single person, who carried that marker/mutation. Other DNA are biparental. Biparental genetic profile for individuals from the same population, and even from the same family, are not going to be the same. Try telling this to the fuckheaded monkey.
With regards to these biparental markers, when the retarded fuckhead gratuitously and emotionally applies terms like "Eurasian", on the supposed grounds that an African population bears DNA sequences that appear to be more similar to certain non-Africans than to other segments of the African populace, it is impossible to reason with the fuckhead.
I've told the knucklehead many times, that it is not inconceivable for non-Africans to have DNA profiles that resembles some African groups more than others, quite simply, because non-Africans emerged out of just a subset of Africans. Naturally, this is too complicated of an idea for the fuckhead to grasp.
I've told this fuckheaded monkey time and again, that E-M81 is unique to the African continent. The only reason the clade is even found in small doses anywhere else, is because it's serving as telltale sign of migration from coastal North Africa.
E-M81 derives from E-M35, which is virtually rare to non-existent outside Africa. Yet this butthead thinks that E-M81 just magically appeared outside Africa.
So I say to the super retarded monkey: where is your proof, against conventional wisdom, that E-M81 emerged outside Africa?
While at it, I've even asked the fuckhead to explain why coastal Maghrebi have a unique to Africa and a unique to Tamazight ethnicity language that has no fundamental substratum of a different language group? The only response I could get from the numbnut, is the foolish emotional claim that they were "taught" by E-M81 carriers, the very same people the fuckhead is now implying were not African either! Go figure!
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
He does this because it's commonly understood that the high frequency of East African NRY chromosomes in Berbers speakers is misleading and not representative of their real amount of East African ancestry, which is closer to ~10%.
By "East African", who even knows what the dumb fat ass is referring to. East Africa covers the entire span of coastal north Africa to the south of the equator.
quote:
quote:Many studies have attempted to describe the genetic structure of Tunisian populations using different autoso-mal markers: the GM and KM allotypes (Chaabani et al., 1984; Loueslati et al., 2001; Fadhlaoui-Zid et al., 2004a), HLA class II polymorphisms (Guenounou et al., 2006; adhlaoui-Zid et al., 2010), autosomal short tandem repeats (STRs) (Bosch et al., 2001a; hodjet-El-Khil et al., 2008), and polymorphic Alu insertions (Ennafaa et al., 2006; Frigi et al., 2010). These results have suggested a certain inter-population diversity in Tunisia compared with Europe and sub-Saharan Africa, with migrations from both neighboring regions but with a greater Eurasian contribution.
Staying true to form, the dumbass chump merely parrots what others say, with no modicum of independent or critical thinking.
I suppose "sub-Saharan" here could just as well be some group from below the Sahel in western Africa, like the case was for a lone sample from Ivory Coast, which was treated as the embodiment of "sub-Saharan" Africa.
quote:He is deliberately lying and deliberately misleading everyone when he talks about the Berber NRY pool being ''lopsidedly African'', without the side-note that high levels of E-M81 in Maghrebi populations are only due to drift
Every nuclear DNA can attribute "drift" as a factor in frequency, moron. That's besides the point, as I have already told your numb head. I am not going to go over those points endlessly, which is where this will go, if I let your stupidity drag me along. The outstanding questions holding your feet to the fire are still on these pages. Keep me posted when you are not too yellow and dumb to finally confront them.
quote:
quote:The E1b11b1b/M81 subclade has a TMRCA of 4-9kya and expansion around 2kya. It is therefore relatively new or perhaps recently emerged from a bottleneck and is subject to genetic drift (high frequency of genetic signature, low complexity or variation) in its isolation.
This too has been covered, with regards to the diversity of Maghrebi E-M35 derived gene pool, and how its correlation to the Maghrebi maternal gene pool argues against "genetic drift" as the prime reason for the lopsided "African" paternal gene pool, which doubtlessly, was simply ignored, i.e. the easy way out of hot waters. If the primary paternal ancestry of the Maghrebi populations was not "African", no amount of genetic drift is going to magically turn it into "African". None of this, of course, is going to soak into that dickhead's impenetrable skull.
quote: --When he was told that uni-parental analysis is inherently inferior to autosomal analysis when it comes to guaging admixture, due to the fact that the former is uni-variate and the latter is (usually) multi-variate, ''The Explorer'' vehemently denied that uniparental analysis is uni-variate.
Just as you are confused about what and what not "univariate" is, you are unable to distinguish between when someone is schooling you and when someone is denying something.
I'll humor myself, and ask this with futility:
What specifically makes uniparental markers "univariate" and biparental markers "multivariate"? FYI: I'll recall your original post, if and when I get an answer to this.
quote:
quote:Although there is no archaeological evidence to justify such a demic flow from Iberia to North Africa, based on the phylogeographic range, comparative gene diversity and ages of several mitochondrial haplogroups such as V, H1, H3, and U5b1b [25,37,26], the presence of these haplogroups in North Africa is thought to be the result of a southward expansion of Palaeolithic hunter-gatherers from the Franco- Cantabrian refuge after the Last Glacial Maximum.
--Ennafaa 2009
The knucklehead forgot to highlight this bit, in the post above:
Although there is no archaeological evidence to justify such a demic flow from Iberia to North Africa, based on the phylogeographic range, comparative gene diversity and ages of several mitochondrial haplogroups such as V, H1, H3, and U5b1b [25,37,26], the presence of these haplogroups in North Africa is thought to be the result of a southward expansion of Palaeolithic hunter-gatherers from the Franco- Cantabrian refuge after the Last Glacial Maximum.--Ennafaa 2009
What some person(s) "thought" has no bearing on what actual evidence suggests, numbnut.
quote:the very instant TMRCA estimates disagree with his postion, like when Ennafaa cite TMRCA estimates of mtDNA H1, H3, V and U5, showing them to have a very ancient presence in the Maghrebi
Only an idiot will take you seriously, given your shitheaded Casas et al. fiasco, which you tried to use as "proof" of inconsistency with miserable results...when in fact it spoke squarely to your utter mindlessness even when people are merely correcting your fucked-in-the-head understanding of real world things. Get a brain, sucker!
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic