quote: Price AL, Tandon A, Patterson N, Barnes KC, Rafaels N, et al. Department of Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA. Sensitive Detection of Chromosomal Segments of Distinct Ancestry in Admixed Populations. PLoS Genet 2009 Jun;5(6):e1000519
Author Summary The genomes of individuals from admixed populations consist of chromosomal segments of distinct ancestry. For example, the genomes of African American individuals contain segments of both African and European ancestry, so that a specific location in the genome may inherit 0, 1, or 2 copies of European ancestry. Inferring an individual’s local ancestry, their number of copies of each ancestry at each location in the genome, has important applications in disease mapping and in understanding human history.
Here we describe HAPMIX, a method that analyzes data from dense genotyping chips to infer local ancestry with very high precision. An important feature of HAPMIX is that it makes use of data from haplotypes (blocks of nearby markers), which are more informative for ancestry than individual markers. Our simulations demonstrate the utility of HAPMIX for local ancestry inference, and empirical applications to African American and Mozabite data sets uncover important aspects of the history of these populations.
We analyzed 29 HGDP samples from the Mozabite population of North Africa, which has previously been reported to inherit amixture of both European-related ancestry and ancestry related to sub-Saharan Africans [15,26] (see Materials and Methods). We therefore continued to use YRI and CEU as input reference populations, to identify segments of sub-Saharan African-related ancestry, and European-related segments. Our analysis aimed to shed light on the origins of the admixing populations, as well as the period in which historical admixture occurred. ... Different Mozabite individuals within our sample had different estimates of sub-Saharan African ancestry proportions, with a majority at close to 20%, but several individuals having a somewhat higher fraction. Exploration of the causes of this variation (Figure 7) revealed a systematic tendency for those individuals with higher proportions of sub-Saharan African ancestry to have large (tens of megabases) segments in their genome with an African origin. Such large segments are only consistent with admixture within the last 20–30 generations, showing the admixture process has continued into more recent times. In fact, the individual with the highest estimated proportion (75%) of sub-Saharan African ancestry had at least one inferred non-European chromosome throughout virtually their entire genome (Figure 7), consistent with admixture in the last generation, and demonstrating that the admixture process continues today in the Mozabite population.
Which modern-day populations are most closely related to the founder populations for the Mozabite? ...
For the African founder population, the West African Mandenka and Yoruba populations, and another HGDP Bantu population, "Bantu Kenya", had the smallest FST values (0.034–0.035).
For the European-related founder population, the Italians and Tuscans, closely followed by the Palestinians, had the smallest FST values (0.021–0.022), suggesting an origin in South Europe or the Middle East.
Apart from the 2 individuals with much higher African ancestry, the EIGENSOFT plot identifies a further set of 8 Mozabite individuals showing reduced genetic drift (i.e. second eigenvector coefficients), and much more variable ancestry estimates relative to the full set (Figure 8). For these 8 samples, HAPMIX gave a maximum likelihood estimate of 75 generations for the admixture event, again noticeably lower than 100 generations for the full dataset and demonstrating more recent admixture in these individuals.
Therefore, we observe a correlation between time since admixture across different individuals, and level of genetic drift relative to modern-day European and African populations.
A hypothesis consistent with this finding is that genetic drift has occurred in the Mozabite population itself, during or after admixture, in way that has affected both African and European ancestral segments. Alternatively, the founder populations may have gradually drifted during the thousands of years of admixture that have affected this group.
Analysis of other HGDP populations
To understand the performance of HAPMIX on real populations with a wider range of histories, we applied the method to 13 different HGDP populations that were of African, Middle Eastern, or European origin. Using YRI and CEU as ancestral populations, HAPMIX inferred that 5 of these populations had greater than 0% and less than 100% European related ancestry (Table 4). The estimates of European-related ancestry in these 5 populations range from 2%–97%, and the numbers of generations since mixture range from 60–120.
Finally, the Middle Eastern results contrast with results for the HGDP European populations, where we consistently estimate the African mixture proportions at close to 0%.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
Genomic Ancestry of North Africans Supports Back-to-Africa Migrations Brenna M. Henn equal contributor,
Multiple local ancestry assignment methods, including PCADMIX, require thinning genotype datasets to remove alleles in high linkage disequilibrium between populations [29], [36]; this step discards information regarding haplotype patterns that tend to be more informative than genotypes when using data biased by SNP ascertainment [37]. HAPMIX incorporates both LD information and uncertainty in phase inference for haplotypes [18], but the software is currently limited to a two-population model. Our ancestral proportions of European and sub-Saharan ancestry for many North Africans at k = 2 [Figure 1] are similar to those obtained with HAPMIX by Price et al. [18] for the HGDP Algerian Mozabites, assuming a two-population mixture of northern Europeans and Yoruba. However, our results show that increasing the number of possible ancestral populations reveals multiple, diverse ancestries [e.g. Maghrebi, Near Eastern, Nilotic] and that the proportion of sub-Saharan African assignment decreases as these other ancestries are accounted for. This decrease in assigned sub-Saharan ancestry in North African samples, from a k = 2 model, is consistent with an interpretation that Maghrebi or Near Eastern diversity that is not present in the panel populations is more likely to be assigned to the more diverse, Sub-Saharan African ancestry. Using a two-population admixture model, Price et al. [18] estimated the time of migration from sub-Saharan Africa into the Mozabites to have begun about 100 generations ago [or more]. Our results suggest that sub-Saharan African and Maghreb admixture is considerably more recent, 24–41 generations ago [and even the upper 95% CI estimate under either model is 55ga, Table 1]. The discrepancy between these two estimates may result from our incorporation of multiple source populations, our use of non-linear models to estimate migration timing and the elimination, in Price et al. [18], of individuals with megabase long African segments.
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Price et al acknowledged HAPMIX's allowance of only two proposed mixture elements and note tha HAPMIX told there were more than two elements involved
quote:... the Mozabite [] are not perfectly modeled as a linear combination of European and African ancestry.
Careful perusal, or better yet study, of Price indicates HAPMIX's dependability to ascertain accurate number of generations.
quote:Inference of date of admixture. By comparing the overall likelihoods produced by HAPMIX at various parameter settings, it is possible to evaluate which parameters provide the best fit to the data, irrespective of whether or not the choice of parameter settings significantly impacts the accuracy of local ancestry inference. We investigated how effectively the number of generations l since admixture can be inferred in this way by running HAPMIX at various values of T and computing overall likelihoods, using the data sets simulated at ʎ=6, ʎ=20 and ʎ=100. We also simulated a double-admixture scenario in which a 50%/50% admixture of Yoruba and French occurred at ʎ = 100 followed by a 50%/50% admixture of that population and French at ʎ= 6 (we call this the ʎ=6+100 run (with a =75%)). We optimized T at a granularity of 1 for the ʎ=6 and ʎ=20 simulations and a granularity of 5 for the ʎ=100 and ʎ=6▫100 simulations.
Henn's elimination of individuals with megabase long African segments would increase not decrease number of generations and Price carefully delineates different number of generations for those individuals and even others in the Mzabi samples giving their various ng and corresponding dates as in the posted exerpts.
Henn's dates contradict known ancient Egyptian and Greco-Latin written and plastic documentation for SSA's in the Mediterranean world well before 800 CE. Additionally Henn never considered the Mandenka. North Soninke are historically known as Sahara interactive. She also seems unknowing of the SSA contribution to Levantine populations over 3000 years ago. Did they bypass Egypt and North Africa to get there?
Differing views are normal between experts. Price appears more exacting then Henn and doesn't buck against known historical facts. So I rely on Price more so than Henn who's raw data id fine except where she tweaks it to fit a certain interpretation.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
According to the Henn study (and common sense) all non black African population in North Africa are the products of a back to Africa migration movement (in 3 phases the study reveals).
All this hamitic race quack is bull.
Berbers are not some hamitic race or locally grown race out of nowhere, but the products of a back to Africa migration from the middle east/levant/west asia some very long time ago. In fact, there was no separation between North Africa and the rest of Africa as at that time the Sahara was still green.
Ancient populations didn't have a bird eye view of Africa. For them North Africa was part of the same landmass as the Western Asia, as it is for African people (with added distance and some other natural obstacles). The desertification of the Sahara probably pushed the original African population in North Africa further south and toward oases and the Nile. Allowing Western Asian population (ironically also motivated by desertification) more accustomed to this climate to migrate in the North African region. Still many black African ethnic groups inhabit North African countries usually toward the south of those countries (but above the Sahara).
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dating the Admix to between 2-4kya support the view that Europeans entered the Levant during the Peoples of the Sea (PoS) invasion. The PoS came in cantact with the Mande when this population occupied the Fezzan.
It does not support the view these Middle Eastern populations are native to the Levant.
quote:Although care should be taken in interpreting these values, they indicate that the ancestral segments of Mozabite are significantly diverged from extant Bantu-African and European related populations. ... the Mozabite are not perfectly modeled as a linear combination of European and African ancestry.
^Essentially the same as Henn et al 2012's solid reasoning for why the predominant Maghrebi component detected in Berber populations doesn't predate the Holocene (they have alleles that are unique to them and bespeak divergence times from Eurasians that are >10kya):
A scenario where North African Maghrebi ancestry is the result of in situ population absorbing Near Eastern migrants would likely need the following premises to explain the results here and elsewhere: a) an Out-of-Africa migration [concurrent with bottleneck] occurs 50–60 Kya, geographically dividing North African and Near Eastern populations; b) North Africans experience a separate bottleneck; c) gene flow maintains similarity between the two geographically distinct populations; d) the gene flow then ceases or slows roughly between 12–40 Kya in order to allow sufficiently distinct allele frequency distributions to form. --Henn et al 2012
^Berber populations have Eurasian ancestry that is clearly unaccounted for by the confused ''historic female slave trade'' fairytale pushers, who are motivated only by their hidden agenda to not have to admit that the Eurasian genetic component in Berbers--which is embodied by what's left over when historic Arab and historic European and slightly older West African ancestry is subtracted--can be traced back to Ibero-maurusians.
The afronut bogus ''female Eurasian slaves'' excuse, when applied to what's CLEARLY prehistoric, non-recent ancestry in Berbers, needs to be called out for the crackpot emotion-driven quackery that it is. As pointed out by Price et al 2009, Henn et al 2012, Achilli et al 2005, Kefi et al 2005, Frigi et al 2011, and many others, Berbers are NOT a blend of a Sub-Saharan component and a recent (common era), Eurasian component.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
^Berber populations have Eurasian ancestry that is clearly unaccounted for by the confused ''historic female slave trade'' fairytale pushers, who are motivated only by their hidden agenda to not have to admit that the Eurasian genetic component in Berbers--which is embodied by what's left over when historic Arab and historic European ancestry is subtracted--can be traced back to Ibero-maurusians.
The afronut bogus ''female Eurasian slaves'' excuse, when applied to what's CLEARLY prehistoric, non-recent ancestry in Berbers, needs to be called out for the crackpot emotion-driven quackery that it is. As pointed out by Price et al 2009, Henn et al 2012, Achilli et al 2005, Kefi et al 2005, Frigi et al 2011, and many others, Berbers are NOT a blend of a Sub-Saharan component and a recent (common era), Eurasian component. [/QB]
dana, Djehootie, et al
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Notice unlike some Afro-centric - I maintain the light skin(not white) IS indigenous to Africa. So to are the so called Caucasoid features. That is why I have no problem with the word,Caucasoids, now. Hell..look at the AEians, Black Caucasoids from Sub-sahara Africa.
"Genetic structure of nw africa by Str. Bosch, Comas et al " . Read and get back to me!
Hint: Ignore the bs conclusion and reinterpret the published data. Show us how smart you are. And please, no pics. I was not sure who these people are. They may be Turks living in Germany for all I know.
-------------------- 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 |
posted
We know that Black Africans have always lived in North (NA). As a result, if the Berbers were ancient in N.A. the admix for these populations would be earlier. The fact they date to 2-4kya indicate a recent origin of these populations in N.A.
quote:
The three Middle Eastern populations (Bedouin, Palestinian, and Druze) all show a substantial African-related mixture (3%–9% African-related ancestry). The inferred dates of 60–90 generations correspond to about 2,000–4,000 years ago –- contemporaneous with our estimate of the oldest admixture time for the North African Mozabite population –- taking into account the fact that HAPMIX systematically underestimate mixture dates by up to 25% for mixtures this old (see simulations above).
Dating the Admix to between 2-4kya support the view that Europeans entered the Levant during the Peoples of the Sea (PoS) invasion. The PoS came in cantact with the Mande when this population occupied the Fezzan.
It does not support the view these Middle Eastern populations are native to the Levant.
Genetic structure of north-west Africa revealed by STR analysis
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
From the Study: The two strongest genetic boundaries in the geographical area comprised by NW Africa and the Iberian Peninsula (see Figure 3) were found to encircle single populations.
STR diversityAMONG populations Genetic differentiation among the populations of both the extended and basic sets was analysed by computing Fst genetic distances and representing them by means of neighbour- joining trees (Figures 1a and 1b). We also computed other genetic distances (data not shown): the NW African populations cluster together, although with short and not very statistically robust branches among them. In the basic analysis, the Mozabites stand out from the rest of the NW Africans
It should be noted that the most robust branch (77%) in the tree is that separating NW Africans(AND AFRAMS) from Europeans. Among the Iberians, Andalusians and Portuguese are closest to NW Africa.
Afrrican-Americans appear linked to NW Africa through a long branch.
Notice the distance between Aframs and Berbers are 16 and 33. The distance between ALL AFRICANS and EUROPEANS is 77. Quote: It should be noted that the most robust branch (77%) in the tree is that separating NW Africans from Europeans.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Get to work guys...
Genetic structure of north-west Africa revealed by STR analysis
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Notice the distance between Aframs and Berbers are 16 and 33. The distance between ALL AFRICANS and EUROPEANS is 77. Quote: It should be noted that the most robust branch (77%) in the tree is that separating NW Africans from Europeans.
The diagram makes perfect sense. ….geographic sense. Distance BETWEEN EACH branch. Notice all Africans are on the same side of the tree
Of course the Mazabite are distinct. That is how it works. They are stating the obvious not something profound. The Mozabite will be different from the other Berber groups. Why? Geographic distance. They are thousands of miles away from Morocco. Siwas of Egypt will give the same pattern. Similarly for West Africans(Aframs). The length of the branch is a representation of isolation and genetic "variation" NOT genetic distance . Yes, West Africans are genetically different(not distant) to NWAians, they have a largest branch because they have more differentiation i.e. variance. The Mazabite are different because of isolation. BUT, the distance between them at the main trunk is extremely close.
In other words they are the same stock i.e. indigenous Africans. So always consider geographic location when you interpret these studies, forget your modern day political views. Demic diffusion is a fact but teleportation is not.
ALSO!! Notice Iberians are next closest to Africans then also Italians. Why? Geography. It is really not that difficult.
Now let me get back to posting on ESR. … where the newbie's are really interested in learning.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Get to work guys...
Genetic structure of north-west Africa revealed by STR analysis
There's also the DNA Tribes graphs which have the same advantage of being easy to read:
There's also the map from the popular Tishkoff study here:
While those studies (as all genetic studies yet) are limited by the size of the sample for each populations (how can 50 people be representative of the whole populations?) and what people they choose to take their DNA samples from (indigenous black Africans in North Africa are often not sampled), they are really interesting.
Generally, the closer you get to the Middle East, Asia and Europe the closer Africans are genetically to those populations. Probably the effect of borderlines admixture. Obviously the reverse is also true. Palestinians are the closer to Africans than lets say Basque but further than Mozabite for example.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well I was under the impression that the Berber's MtDNA was the result of a long period admixture rather than just from recent slave markets?? Am I wrong? Ive always upheld that Coastal Areas of North Africa harbored "Eurasian" Leukoderm as well as darker skinned populations as one goes more into the interior as seen in Carthage and Egyptian and Roman art.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Although care should be taken in interpreting these values, they indicate that the ancestral segments of Mozabite are significantly diverged from extant Bantu-African and European related populations. ... the Mozabite are not perfectly modeled as a linear combination of European and African ancestry.
^Essentially the same as Henn et al 2012's solid reasoning for why the predominant Maghrebi component detected in Berber populations doesn't predate the Holocene (they have alleles that are unique to them and bespeak divergence times from Eurasians that are >10kya):
A scenario where North African Maghrebi ancestry is the result of in situ population absorbing Near Eastern migrants would likely need the following premises to explain the results here and elsewhere: a) an Out-of-Africa migration [concurrent with bottleneck] occurs 50–60 Kya, geographically dividing North African and Near Eastern populations; b) North Africans experience a separate bottleneck; c) gene flow maintains similarity between the two geographically distinct populations; d) the gene flow then ceases or slows roughly between 12–40 Kya in order to allow sufficiently distinct allele frequency distributions to form. --Henn et al 2012
^Berber populations have Eurasian ancestry that is clearly unaccounted for by the confused ''historic female slave trade'' fairytale pushers, who are motivated only by their hidden agenda to not have to admit that the Eurasian genetic component in Berbers--which is embodied by what's left over when historic Arab and historic European and slightly older West African ancestry is subtracted--can be traced back to Ibero-maurusians.
The afronut bogus ''female Eurasian slaves'' excuse, when applied to what's CLEARLY prehistoric, non-recent ancestry in Berbers, needs to be called out for the crackpot emotion-driven quackery that it is. As pointed out by Price et al 2009, Henn et al 2012, Achilli et al 2005, Kefi et al 2005, Frigi et al 2011, and many others, Berbers are NOT a blend of a Sub-Saharan component and a recent (common era), Eurasian component.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
This study IMO seems more explosive and devastating to Eurocentrics than to us Africanists(I know Al-takruri among others upheld what this is saying for a while now)many Eurocentrics claim any black admixture in North Africa is due to slavery..
"Genetic structure of nw africa by Str. Bosch, Comas et al " . Read and get back to me!
Hint: Ignore the bs conclusion and reinterpret the published data. Show us how smart you are. And please, no pics. I was not sure who these people are. They may be Turks living in Germany for all I know.
The Ibāḍī movement, Ibadism or Ibāḍiyya (Arabic: الاباضية al-Ibāḍiyyah) is a form of Islam distinct from the Sunni and Shī'ah denominations. It is the dominant form of Islam in Oman and Zanzibar. Ibāḑīs can also be found in Algeria, Tunisia, East Africa as well as Libya. Believed to be an off-shoot of one of the earliest schools, the Khawārij, it is said to have been founded 60 years after the death of the prophet Muḥammad.
^^^^ xyyman your article from 2000, obsolete, update to 2009
_______________________________
2009
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: [QB] Exerpts from a highly scientific report http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19543370 [QUOTE] Price AL, Tandon A, Patterson N, Barnes KC, Rafaels N, et al. Department of Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA. Sensitive Detection of Chromosomal Segments of Distinct Ancestry in Admixed Populations. PLoS Genet 2009 Jun;5(6):e1000519
I am not sure we talking the same thing. Remember, as I said earlier.. . .or in another thread. There are three (3) methods used to determine population grouping. 1. Lineage 2. STR 3. SNP.
That is the game these Eurocentric geneticist play. When they talk "affinity" are they referencing which of the three.
If they are refrering to Lineage, ie eg HG-E1b1b, Berbers are undoubtedly African. If it is STR , see NJ dendogram above. Undoubtedly African. When they use SNP's then.... Caucasoids.
Keep in mind there are 13 Million SNPs in the genome. The selective choose the ones that will give them the conclusion they want.
On the contrary, as I said, a black geneticist may chose a set, of the 13 million SNPs, that serves their purpose. But we are not there yet. ie Black geneticist. He! He!
@ So at the Lioness crew. Come again!! The STR study is NOT outdated.
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Get to work guys...
Genetic structure of north-west Africa revealed by STR analysis
There's also the DNA Tribes graphs which have the same advantage of being easy to read:
There's also the map from the popular Tishkoff study here:
While those studies (as all genetic studies yet) are limited by the size of the sample for each populations (how can 50 people be representative of the whole populations?) and what people they choose to take their DNA samples from (indigenous black Africans in North Africa are often not sampled), they are really interesting.
Generally, the closer you get to the Middle East, Asia and Europe the closer Africans are genetically to those populations. Probably the effect of borderlines admixture. Obviously the reverse is also true. Palestinians are the closer to Africans than lets say Basque but further than Mozabite for example.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
"Genetic structure of nw africa by Str. Bosch, Comas et al " . Read and get back to me!
Hint: Ignore the bs conclusion and reinterpret the published data. Show us how smart you are. And please, no pics. I was not sure who these people are. They may be Turks living in Germany for all I know.
^^^^ a quote from the below PDFlink of the same study which xxxyman has been posting from.
posted
Last time I looked. Algeria is NOT in Morocco.
Quote: "The Mozabites are a very well defined Berber population in Algeria:"
And, yes, there are contradictions between both papers...finally catching on!!!
That is the game you people play. Henn et al talks SNPs. Comas et al talks STRs.
STRs may be classified as the "race" genes. That is why it is used in forensics. But more specifically the "geographic likeness" genes.
SNPs are really phenotype genes.
So I stand by the statement. Caucasoids features are indigenous to Africa. Europeans are NOT indigenous to Africa. The lineage(HGs) and STRs don't lie.
Selective testing of SNPs is misleading.
Just to make it clear to you. SNPs are really phenotype genes. STRs tells the geographic location they historically belong to. As demonstrated by their STRs and Lineage. But they may have SOME physical features(SNPs) similar to Europeans.
now....YAAAWWWNNN!!!
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
It doesn't take rocket science to figure out what happened. See Green Sahara and other similar studies.
1. AMH lives in the green Sahara. . .twice!!
2. Slow Desertification. Some moved south others moved north. Few stayed where they were.
3. All adapted to live in their specific environment. eg lighter north Berbers. Darker tropical africans.
4. Same African stock. That is why their STRs are on the same branch. Of course there was spill over into entry point to Europe. ie Iberia , Italy and Greece.
BTW: remember 500yrs of Ottoman occupation, etc. It is remarkable they still retained their Africaness.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| 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 |
posted
I wonder what they look like these Mozabites
look xy, your article said they settled in the 11th century the one AlTak posted says 2,800 years ago, big diff
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: It doesn't take rocket science to figure out what happened. See Green Sahara and other similar studies.
1. AMH lives in the green Sahara. . .twice!!
2. Slow Desertification. Some moved south others moved north. Few stayed where they were.
3. All adapted to live in their specific environment. eg lighter north Berbers. Darker tropical africans.
4. Same African stock. That is why their STRs are on the same branch. Of course there was spill over into entry point to Europe. ie Iberia , Italy and Greece.
BTW: remember 500yrs of Ottoman occupation, etc. It is remarkable they still retained their Africaness.
Well if the separation between the north Berbers and tropical Africans is so big that it allowed them to have lighter skin color and other physiological changes then they are not African anymore.
It's like saying Europeans are Africans because we all come from Africa.
That theory doesn't make sense in the light of the Henn (2012) study which characterized non-African ancestry in north Africa as being the product of 3 distinct phases of migration from west asia.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
@ A-Ra . You have made great contribution with the photos you uploaded. So....
1. What is an African? 2. What is a European? 3. Is a negro and African? Caucasoids are Europeans?
As I said, To understand you have to divorce yourself from current political views. Just look at the scientific facts.
Because someone carry PN2 does'nt mean they should be black. One does NOT relate to the other. skin pigmentation correlates to latitude. Unfortunately or fortunately that is how nature/evolution works.
Think you are still missing it. What "ancestry" is Henn et al referring to? It is NOT E1b1b. E1b1b is UNDOUBTEDLY African. Henn et al chose , what, 1000 SNPs out of 13 000 000. ie 0.007% If I was a genecist I would chose the "black genes", SNP, to conduct my studies. Get it?
I know it is difficult to follow.
The Khoisan occupies a "higher" latitude also...so...they should be lighter. Trust me....nature don't lie. People do. Especially Europeans
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
@ A-Ra - There is nothing wrong with being white or light. Heck, half my family is. But when they lie to steal other peoples history, make themselves feel good, etc . . .well. Cass, Lioness, etc
I am out. next time.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
There you go again. Can't help yourself. More pictures. What makes you think this is not faded as many others. However many retained their darkness. or should I say Blackness.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: the Khoisans are somewhat light however
If it's only somewhat then it's ok.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
Mozabites in an unsupervised ADMIXTURE analysis are generally modal for their own component, which then dominates fellow North Africans, and is present in small amounts in some East Mediterranean populations with no likely contact with Northwest Africa (its presence in Iberians has likely other reasons explored later). Under a theory of Neolithic Replacement, this doesn't make sense, since North Africans are agricultural peoples since ancient times... Thus I decided to try to break them up into Neolithic source components using the supervised mode in ADMIXTURE.
Three likely sources of Neolithic techs and genes are present in the region:
1. Northern Fertile Crescent: In order to distinguish a first wave from secondary waves from other regions in the Fertile Crescent area, I decided to use Basques as a pole. In retrospect maybe Basques absorbed some small but not insignificant secondary wave component too, but since it was likely much less important than in North Africa and the Middle East, the choice is still valid (may have to use populations from further North as a first wave pole next time though).
2. Northeast Africa: Egypt is obviously a major candidate for a secondary "Southern Fertile Crescent" wave. Their fast appearing shining civilization indicates extra surplus food production allowing exceptionally large elites. Surplus food techs would likely expand along with the people using them, since they would allow for higher densities of
agriculturalists versus less advanced "first wave"-tech using peoples. However it's expected that secondary wave people (but not techs or seeds) will travel much less far than first wave ones, since already agricultural peoples will effectively resist and learn since they share a similar mindset already. A complication to use Egypt as a pole is that Egypt very likely received high genetic flow from the Northern Fertile Crescent as it was perhaps a more peripheral but integral part of the West Eurasian Neolithic Core Area from the start of the Revolution. Thing is, Egyptians also have very significant non-Western Asian components they share with other East-Africans, namely Ethiopians and Maasai. Since Ethiopians also seem to have received major influence from the Arabian Peninsula in ancient times, a more southern pole must be sought to make things clearer with less overlapping. If North African populations have East African components, we can use Egyptians directly later, but in this analysis I chose the Maasai.
3. Western Africa: Western Africa's Neolithic Revolution seems to have happened later than the Fertile Crescent one (which failed to expand into the region due to seed-package maladaptation to tropical conditions). Still, there was likely much gene flow between both regions so I included them as the third pole (Yoruba+Mandenka).
Here are the results:
A possible interpretation: Mozabites may be a compound of an earlier Southeastern-subset Fertile Crescent Egyptian wave superimposed by a dominant more advanced Northern- subset Fertile Crescent one. As seeds, cultural practices and genes mixed in the Nile, a second (or third for North Africa) Fertile Crescent wave would expand and Egyptian Civilization would arise in the Nile itselfit. It's interesting that populations from more arid areas have more "West African" (Mozabites themselves, Libyans, South Moroccans). It may seem more likely that the West-African minor component is derived from later expansion of West Africans and the caravan trade. However little is known, as far as I'm aware of local Forager genetics since no forager populations remain in North Africa today. Foragers likely remained in regions not congenial to agriculture until development of desert Pastoralist (camels, goats) lifestyles in Arabia much later. One tantalizing possibility is that it was more West African-like from the very beginning. The Saharan pump theory may offer some clues, since the Sahara during the Ice Age was much more congenial to (forager) gene flow from the south than today...
The model predicts this "Egyptian wave" would spread to Europe and the more distant Near East using the obvious expansion routes already travelled by first waves. It would however petter out relatively quickly as Egyptian colonists failed to completely overwhelm numerically already neolithic first wave peoples and would become more "first-wave-like" genetically the further one travels from Egypt. I will analyse European populations for evidence of Egyptian/East African admixture next.
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
The three Middle Eastern populations (Bedouin, Palestinian, and Druze) all show a substantial African-related mixture (3%–9% African-related ancestry). The inferred dates of 60–90 generations correspond to about 2,000–4,000 years ago – contemporaneous with our estimate of the oldest admixture time for the North African Mozabite population – taking into account the fact that HAPMIX systematically underestimate mixture dates by up to 25% for mixtures this old (see simulations above). These results are historically interesting, allowing us to conclude that there is likely to be African ancestry in Middle Eastern populations today that dates to population mixture that occurred in Biblical times.
This is, however, contradicted, by the finding of virtually no "Yoruba" ancestry in the same Middle Eastern populations the best study to date. It is not really difficult to see what went wrong. By using CEU and YRI populations as parentals, the authors were unable to discover the true ancestral components. Middle Eastern populations are composed primarily of Middle Eastern Caucasoids, not Northwestern Europeans; moreover, their African influences are mainly Northeastern, not West African.
As we know (see previous link), Caucasoids from Europe, Central/South Asia and the Near East are not uniform, but form separate clusters. Indeed, even Europeans themselves are not uniform.
Nor are Africans themselves uniform, according to the latest study of Tishkoff et al, and Middle Eastern populations (see Table S8) have no significant admixture from West Africa, but a noticeable "Cushitic" admixture.
This paper could serve as a warning to the limitations of statistical inference. A good tool (and HAPMIX is indeed such), can lead to erroneous results (biblical-era admixture with Sub-Saharan Africans), if it is used with the wrong input data.
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is, however, contradicted, by the finding of virtually no "Yoruba" ancestry in the same Middle Eastern populations the best study to date.
^^There is no "contradiction". Yorbua ancestry would not be needed as some sort of "Litmus test" to show substantial African-related mixture. There are other sub-Saharan populations besides the Yorbua.
By using CEU and YRI populations as parentals, the authors were unable to discover the true ancestral components. Middle Eastern populations are composed primarily of Middle Eastern Caucasoids, not Northwestern Europeans; moreover, their African influences are mainly North eastern, not West African. ^^If they be West African or NE African they are still tropical Africans.
Nor are Africans themselves uniform, according to the latest study of Tishkoff et al, and Middle Eastern populations (see Table S8) have no significant admixture from West Africa, but a noticeable "Cushitic" admixture. ^^Most "Cushitic" speakers are located below the Sahara and are thus "sub-Saharan" Africans.
This paper could serve as a warning to the limitations of statistical inference. A good tool (and HAPMIX is indeed such), can lead to erroneous results (biblical-era admixture with Sub-Saharan Africans), if it is used with the wrong input data.
^^It is not at all "established" that the results are "erroneous." Sub-Saharan gene flow in the Middle East circa Biblical times would be nothing unusual. Sources include Egypt, the Sudan and the Horn at varying levels.
Debunking Mozabites
Mozabites in an unsupervised ADMIXTURE analysis are generally modal for their own component,
^^The only problem with this technical "analysis" is that it is your manipulated amateur one, versus the mouch more credible peer reviewed research of professionals.
Under a theory of Neolithic Replacement, this doesn't make sense, since North Africans are agricultural peoples since ancient times..
Actually BEFORE they were agricultural peoples they were foraging and pastoral peoples. WHy is this conveniently forgotten?
In order to distinguish a first wave from secondary waves from other regions in the Fertile Crescent area, I decided to use Basques as a pole. In retrospect maybe Basques absorbed some small but not insignificant secondary wave component too, but since it was likely much less important than in North Africa and the Middle East, the choice is still valid (may have to use populations from further North as a first wave pole next time though).
^^The self-styled "poles" are pitiful- worse than an aging pole dancer squeezing out one more payday amid ripples of sagging cellulite. And why would the "secondary wave" (so-called) be "less likely"? FOlks just supposed to take your word for it?
2. Northeast Africa: Egypt is obviously a major candidate for a secondary "Southern Fertile Crescent" wave. Their fast appearing shining civilization indicates extra surplus
The only problem is that these alleged "waves" have no basis in any credible reality, and unsurprisingy, no empirical data is offered in support of the "waves."
agriculturalists versus less advanced "first wave"-tech using peoples.
But the alleged "first wave" peoples were themselves agriculturalists according to your analysis. How could they be "versus" themselves?
However it's expected that secondary wave people (but not techs or seeds) will travel much less far than first wave ones, since already agricultural peoples will effectively resist and learn since they share a similar mindset already.
WHy would the mystical "techs and seeds" not travel with the "secondary wave people"? If mysterious "second wave" people who were agriculturalists moved into Africa they would show up empty handed, not bringing their seeds, animals or tools with them?
.
A complication to use Egypt as a pole is that Egypt very likely received high genetic flow from the Northern Fertile Crescent ^^BUt earlier you claimed that Egypt received mostly "second wave" folk from the "Southern Fertile Crescent" Two paragraphs on you say northern crescent. Which is it?
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^^ not my words, "A possible interpretation" is a continuation of Artimis blog
Basic issue: Tukuler's article on Mozab admix ratios , Euro to African are near reverse of xxxyman's other peer reviewed article. xxxyman has acknoledeged these two articles don't fit
Which blog comments, Dienekes and Artimis blogs support Tukuler article and which xxxyman's paper I haven't looked closely yet The more articles that come out the less we know it seems
If Mozabites are Ibadites I would suspect some evidence of Yemen/Oman ancestry also, the topic seems very confusing
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Said to have been posted by Dienekes: This is, however, contradicted, by the finding of virtually no "Yoruba" ancestry in the same Middle Eastern populations the best study to date.
This is patently false. Jews all over the diaspora have a genetic signal that is different from what many associate with ''Northeast African'' ancestry. This ancestry is today found in sub-Saharan Africans, but had to be present in Egypt in prehistoric times for it to be found in Levantines. Uniparentally, the said ancestry is found in diasporial Jewish communities in the form of mtDNA L2a1 and L2a. Its recurrent across Jewish populations, indicating it was present in the proto-population from which they all hail. It shows up in their nuclear DNA, as well as in the aDNA of their regional predecessors (Mari and pre pottery Neolithic aDNA) which would extend the admixture event(s) back to at least 8.8kya.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Hi all,
Well, I just got the previously-discussed FGS results back. I've now gone from being mis-assigned to a Scots-Irish cluster in mtDNA haplogroup H2* to...drumroll please...an all-Ashkenazic cluster in mtDNA haplogroup L2a1 !
Yes, the L's are nearly all sub-Saharan African haplogroups, and L2a is the most common mtDNA haplogroup among African-Americans at 18%. But my only matches at the HVR1+HVR2 level are all Ashkenazim.
In the merely "L2" group at the HVR1+HVR2 level, I have two matches from Germany, and one each from Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Russia, and Ukraine. All have the user-directed comment "Ashkenazi" next to them except for the Romania result, but that one might be an oversight, as not everyone knows they can request to add comments to their results. At the "L2a" HVR1+HVR2 level, I have one match each from Germany, Lithuania, and Russia, all Ashkenazic, and at the most precise "L2a1" HVR1+HVR2 level, I have one match each from Latvia and Poland, again both Ashkenazic. Obviously, those two are of the most interest to me, since my lineage is from Poland...
If I go back to the HVR1-only level, then there's a large number of matches listed, but split quite obviously between Jewish and African groups -- a number of different specific tribes from Cameroon, Guinea-Bissau, and Sierra Leone, in particular, are listed. There are *no* matches listed from Egypt, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somalia, or Sudan, which is the area of the world where you'd expect to see an African/Jewish overlap. So how this Jewish L2a and L2a1 group split off from the much larger African L2a community is a mystery.
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Artemis blog
MONDAY, 28 MARCH 2011
Debunking Mozabites
Ummm, not dissin' Artemis -- more power to her -- but I don't critique amateurs.
quote:
Don't look now but essentially the same Africa sub-Saharan to Europe southwest by west ratio as Price, no? Some "Mzab debunk" that, eh?
Not that this next guy below is a pro but he does speak directly to Price's report and HAPMIX tool.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Here is a Dienekes commenatry on HAPMIX:
The authors claim:
The three Middle Eastern populations (Bedouin, Palestinian, and Druze) all show a substantial African-related mixture (3%–9% African-related ancestry). The inferred dates of 60–90 generations correspond to about 2,000–4,000 years ago – contemporaneous with our estimate of the oldest admixture time for the North African Mozabite population – taking into account the fact that HAPMIX systematically underestimate mixture dates by up to 25% for mixtures this old (see simulations above). These results are historically interesting, allowing us to conclude that there is likely to be African ancestry in Middle Eastern populations today that dates to population mixture that occurred in Biblical times.
This is, however, contradicted, by the finding of virtually no "Yoruba" ancestry in the same Middle Eastern populations the best study to date.
HAPMAP's only got four pops YRI CEPH JPT HCB so YRI was the only choice for SSA. But why no complaint on CEPH for west Eurasian source? French ancestry of those same SW Asians is as nill as Yoruba. I smell anti-African bias around this guy's atmosphere.
HAPMAP is short on geo-pops yet super robust in their genetic data. It well serves the purpose of "a random collection without a priori strategy" as Zheng would put it.
quote:It is not really difficult to see what went wrong. By using CEU and YRI populations as parentals, the authors were unable to discover the true ancestral components.
Nothing went wrong. It was never the geneticists goal to uncover Mzabi "true ancestral components." The aim was to check out admixture/gene flow/miscegenation in North Africa's Mzab via sub-Sahara related and Europe related genetics.
quote:Middle Eastern populations are composed primarily of Middle Eastern Caucasoids, not Northwestern Europeans; moreover, their African influences are mainly Northeastern, not West African.
As we know (see previous link), Caucasoids from Europe, Central/South Asia and the Near East are not uniform, but form separate clusters. Indeed, even Europeans themselves are not uniform.
Nor are Africans themselves uniform, according to the latest study of Tishkoff et al, and Middle Eastern populations (see Table S8) have no significant admixture from West Africa, but a noticeable "Cushitic" admixture.
Well, if the admixture is African and it ain't supra-Sahara and it ain't Saharan then, c'mon you can guess, it's sub-Sahara.
quote: This paper could serve as a warning to the limitations of statistical inference. A good tool (and HAPMIX is indeed such), can lead to erroneous results (biblical-era admixture with Sub-Saharan Africans), if it is used with the wrong input data.
So now we see what's really eating this fast and loose slinger of the C-word -- don't nobody dare tarbrush my sacred holy biblical caucasoids. To paraphrase the Godfather: I don't want no Tiggers in my Family Bible.
Though not in agreement with Price read Moorjabi (2011)
This pattern has not been detected in previous analyses of mitochondrial DNA and Y chromosome data [7], and although it can be seen when re-examining published results of STRUCTURE- like analyses of autosomal data, it was not highlighted in those studies, or shown to unambiguously reflect sub-Saharan African admixture [15,38]. We estimate that the average date of the mixture of 72 generations (~2,000 years assuming 29 years per generation [30]) is older than that in Southern Europeans or other Levantines.
I do agree HAPMIX is a damn good tool. Price got results from it corresponding to known history without loading the dice as Mr. D would like to do. He who mistakes genetic profiles for racial ethnicity.If he didn't do that then he'd know YRI must have some to many loci, haplotypes, haplogroups, in common with other Africans.
Anyway Lioness thanks for being true to the Price/Mzab/HAPMIX game.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
Sensitive detection of chromosomal segments of distinct ancestry in admixed populations. Price AL, Tandon A, Patterson N, Barnes KC, Rafaels N, Ruczinski I, Beaty TH, Mathias R, Reich D, Myers S.
Mozabite people are characterized by a very high level of North African haplogroups E1b1b1b (M81) (86%) and U6 (28%).
History
According to tradition the Ibadites, after their overthrow at Tiaret (Central Algeria) by the Fatimites, they took refuge during the 10th century in the country to the southwest of Ouargla (Southern Algeria), where they founded an independent state.
In 1012, owing to further persecutions, they fled to their present location (Northern Algeria) where they long remained invulnerable.
_____________
wikipedia
Ibadi
The Ibāḍī movement, Ibadism or Ibāḍiyya (Arabic: الاباضية al-Ibāḍiyyah) is a form of Islam distinct from the Sunni and Shī'ah denominations. It is the dominant form of Islam in Oman and Zanzibar. Ibāḑīs can also be found in Algeria, Tunisia, East Africa as well as Libya.
Believed to be an off-shoot of one of the earliest schools, the Khawārij, it is said to have been founded 60 years after the death of the prophet Muḥammad.
Kharijites
Kharijites (Arabic: خوارج Khawārij, literally "those who went out";[singular, Khārijī ) is a general term embracing various Muslims who, while initially supporting the authority of the final Rashidun Caliph Ali ibn Abi Talib, the son-in-law and cousin of the Islamic prophet Muhammad, then later rejected his leadership. They first emerged in the late 7th century, concentrated in today's southern Iraq, and are distinct from Sunni Muslims and Shiʿa Muslims They form a significant part of the population of Oman (where they first settled in 686), and there are smaller concentrations of them in the M'zab of Algeria, Jerba in Tunisia, Jebel Nafusa in Libya, and Zanzibar.
basic questions for Tukuler et al
1) Big issue here. Ibadi are Kharijites. Kharijites were Iraqi. Ibadi seem to have some Southern Iraq roots and proably Yemne/Oman additions after settling there.Most accounts say that Mozabites are Ibadi who settled to M'zab Algeria 11th century AD.
Are Mozbites primarily 11th century non-Africans who settled in Algeria in the 11th century?
Or are the primarily a 78% ancestry European-related population from 787 BC ???
2) If they are primarily a 78% ancestry European-related population from 787 BC ??? What are they Iberians? What European-related population ? If this is the case Ibadi who came there were small in number and merely introduced Ibadi Islam culture to a 78% ancestry European-related population
3) If the Mozabites are a people who lived in Algeria 2,800 year ago, 787 BC and they are a 78% European-related population if they are E1b1b1b (M81) (86%) and U6 (28%) what does that say about them ??
In Europe, E-M81 is found everywhere but mostly in the Iberian Peninsula, frequency from 100% in some isolated Berber populations to approximately 10% to the east of this range in Egypt.[1][6][7] Because of its prevalence among these groups and also others such as Mozabite, Middle Atlas, Kabyle and other Berber groups, it is sometimes referred to as a genetic "Berber marker". Pereira et al. (2010) report high levels among Tuareg in two Saharan populations - 77.8% near Gorom-Gorom, in Burkina Faso, and 81.8% from Gosi in Mali. There was a much lower frequency of 11.1% in the vicinity of Tanut in the Republic of Niger.
__________________________________
E-M81 is the most common Y-chromosome haplogroup in the Maghreb, dominated by its subclade E-M183. It is thought to have originated in the area of North Africa 5,600 years ago Cruciani et al. (2004) Arredi et al. (2004)
We show that the Mozabite have inherited roughly 78% ancestry from a European-related population {Price) ^^^^ how can it be ? Unless you thimk M81 originated in Iberia and then later had a higher frequency in the Maghreb
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Well I was under the impression that the Berber's MtDNA was the result of a long period admixture rather than just from recent slave markets?? Am I wrong? Ive always upheld that Coastal Areas of North Africa harbored "Eurasian" Leukoderm as well as darker skinned populations as one goes more into the interior as seen in Carthage and Egyptian and Roman art.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Although care should be taken in interpreting these values, they indicate that the ancestral segments of Mozabite are significantly diverged from extant Bantu-African and European related populations. ... the Mozabite are not perfectly modeled as a linear combination of European and African ancestry.
^Essentially the same as Henn et al 2012's solid reasoning for why the predominant Maghrebi component detected in Berber populations doesn't predate the Holocene (they have alleles that are unique to them and bespeak divergence times from Eurasians that are >10kya):
A scenario where North African Maghrebi ancestry is the result of in situ population absorbing Near Eastern migrants would likely need the following premises to explain the results here and elsewhere: a) an Out-of-Africa migration [concurrent with bottleneck] occurs 50–60 Kya, geographically dividing North African and Near Eastern populations; b) North Africans experience a separate bottleneck; c) gene flow maintains similarity between the two geographically distinct populations; d) the gene flow then ceases or slows roughly between 12–40 Kya in order to allow sufficiently distinct allele frequency distributions to form. --Henn et al 2012
^Berber populations have Eurasian ancestry that is clearly unaccounted for by the confused ''historic female slave trade'' fairytale pushers, who are motivated only by their hidden agenda to not have to admit that the Eurasian genetic component in Berbers--which is embodied by what's left over when historic Arab and historic European and slightly older West African ancestry is subtracted--can be traced back to Ibero-maurusians.
The afronut bogus ''female Eurasian slaves'' excuse, when applied to what's CLEARLY prehistoric, non-recent ancestry in Berbers, needs to be called out for the crackpot emotion-driven quackery that it is. As pointed out by Price et al 2009, Henn et al 2012, Achilli et al 2005, Kefi et al 2005, Frigi et al 2011, and many others, Berbers are NOT a blend of a Sub-Saharan component and a recent (common era), Eurasian component.
You're correct. The problem is that the black populations described in Greco-Roman literature aren't necessarily descendants of Berber speakers. There is an interval in between the terminal Ibero-Maurusian and the arrival of Berber speakers, which was bridged with the arrival of agriculturalists, as well as pre-neolithic people looking to have come from the Sudan, among other incursions. Aside from the Southern Maghrebi émigrés I've just mentioned, there would also have been coastal incursions into the Maghreb from the Egypto-Nubia area, as evidenced by E-V68 and its dominant E-M78 subclade in Southwestern Europe, which are independent of European E-V13, and are thought to have been brought to Southern Europe through maritime expansions from the Maghreb. Had these incursions into the Maghreb never happened, the Greco-Roman writings in question would have been a valuable asset in ascertaining Berber phenotypes.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ha! Ha! Ha! Really? Do you really believe that. Africans admixed with European but Europeans are not admixed with African
Quote: Finally, the Middle Eastern results contrast with results for the HGDP European populations, where we consistently estimate the African mixture proportions at close to 0%Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
quote: "A striking finding from our study is the consistent detection of 3–5% sub-Saharan African ancestry in the 8 diverse Jewish groups we studied, * Ashkenazis (from northern Europe), * Sephardis (from Italy, Turkey and Greece), and * Mizrahis (from Syria, Iran and Iraq).
This pattern has not been detected in previous analyses of mitochondrial DNA and Y chromosome data [7], and although it can be seen when re-examining published results of STRUCTURE- like analyses of autosomal data, it was not highlighted in those studies, or shown to unambiguously reflect sub-Saharan African admixture [15,38]. We estimate that the average date of the mixture of 72 generations (~2,000 years assuming 29 years per generation [30]) is older than that in Southern Europeans or other Levantines.
The point estimates over all 8 populations are between 1,600–3,400 years ago, but with largely overlapping confidence intervals. It is intriguing that the Mizrahi Irani and Iraqi Jews— who are thought to descend at least in part from Jews who were exiled to Babylon about 2,600 years ago [39,40]—share the signal of African admixture. (An important caveat is that there is significant heterogeneity in the dates of African mixture in various Jewish populations.) A parsimonious explanation for these observations is that they reflect a history in which many of the Jewish groups descend from a common ancestral population which was itself admixed with Africans, prior to the beginning of the Jewish diaspora that occurred in 8th to 6th century BC [41]." --Moorjani 2011
^^Indeed. This debunks the claim that there was no sub-Saharan gene flow into Palestine/Middle East during Biblical times.
"Here, we apply genomic methods to show that the proportion of African ancestry in many Southern European groups is 1%–3%, in Middle Eastern groups is 4%–15%, and in\ Jewish groups is 3%–5%. " --Moorjani
^^It would be more accurate to say that the proportion of African ancestry being referred to is primarily WEST AFRICAN ancestry, specifically centered on the Yorbua. But the Yorbua are not the only "sub Saharan" group of Africans. Peoples of Ethiopia and Somalia and large parts of Chad and the Sudan are located below the Sahara and are thus "sub-Saharan" Africans. Studies using them to trace gene flow into Europe or the Middle East are just as valid as using West African Yorbua.
SOme racists in Hitler's time did charge Jews with having the blood of "inferior stocks", specifically "negro blood." Well their latter day racist "aryan" brethren could no doubt claim a link of Jews with said "negro blood" and cite the above as "proof." “[Nazi] Lectures, films, and history books taught these girls about a political and biological danger posed by Jews.. All told, there was "racial degeneration" during the Republic, resulting from the presence and dominance of Jews. Since his time in Palestine, the Jew was said to have absorbed Negro blood and to have a particular affinity to those French colonial Negroes.." --Michael Kater 2006 Hitler Youth, pg 100
"In his Foundations of the Nineteenth Century (1899) .. Houston Chamberlain classified Jews as "a mongrel race, which always retains this mongrel character." For Chamberlain, who was also admired by Hitler, the most recent “hybridization” of the Jews was the “admixture of Negro blood with Jewish in the Diaspora of Alexandria— of which many a man of Jewish persuasion at this day offers living proof" (CHamberlain as cited in Gilman 1986,7). --Baum and Samuels, 2011. Antisemitism Explained. p 19
Dienekes said:
Another idea is to see whether frequency differences between A and B are correlated with frequency differences between Sub-Saharans and another Eurasian population unrelated to either A or B. Differences between Caucasoids and Sub-Saharans are (in part) due to divergence between Sub-Saharans and ancestral Eurasians. Suppose, for example, that we've identified a group (e.g., Papuans) unlikely to have admixed with Caucasoids. If B differs from A (over many markers) in the same direction that Sub-Saharans differ from Papuans, this is consistent with the notion that B has some Sub-Saharan admixture that A lacks. This is the basis of the 4-population test.
Note that because of symmetry, a highly negative value in their 4-population test (x, CEU, Papuan, YRI) indicates Sub-Saharan admixture, while a highly positive one would indicate "Papuan" admixture! The authors do observe positive values, suggesting that some northern European populations are Papuan-shifted even with respect to CEU, most notably Russia with a Z-score of 11.4. Thankfully, we are spared a paper on Papuan admixture in Russia.
^^Irrelevant. The study did not focus on Papuans but Africans. The comparison falls flat and does not change the fact of the African admixture. And a positive shift would not at all have anything to do with a direct "Papuan admix" towards Europeans, but rather a signal towards Asian genetic elements. Europeans, depending on the measure used, signal genetically more towards Asians as Cavalli Sforza and others show, in terms of being a hybrid population.
Dienkes says: Much more can be said, but let's summarize: the model of Moorjani et al. (2011) fails because:
1 It does not account for the West-East Eurasian axis, folding everything onto the North European-Sub-Saharan African one 2 It undersamples African diversity by excluding both North African and East African populations
Perhaps I'll add more in the future, but I believe I've already said enough to cast serious doubt on this paper'
^^Wrong. It did not have to account for any West-East axis. The study question relates to the level of African admixture in different European and Middle Eastern populations, and samples Palestinians, Jews, Mediterranean's (like Italians and Spaniards) and Swiss-French. The study is not concerned with distant East Eurasians like Chinese and does not need to sample them to be valid. Far from failing, the study is confirmed by others that show clear African gene flow into Europe and the Middle East from ancient times.
And sure it undersamples African diversity, but that does not change the fact of the African admixture which cannot be airbrushed away.
DIenkes has "serious doubts" because it shows his beloved "Caucasoids" to be "mixed" - using classical race schema he subscribes to- a hybrid population as also shown by Cavalli-Sforza previously. Moorjani has not "failed" in showing the presence of admixture.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
xxyman your article is mentioning something here about "no sufficient DNA"
Regardless they point out that they are isolated form both Europeans and other Africans. The fact that the article says the are 11 AD settlers implies heavily they are not native to NA prior to 11 AD. You have misinterpreted events due to the effects of drift and founder effect. How did they become isolated? Tukuler's article at the top of the thread indicates they were in Algeria at least 2,800 years "probably much longer" yet they were European originally ( and 17% admix with native Africans). I have gone back over this article. You have misconstured it. They have become an isolated population in the STR analysis but nowhere in the article do they say or imply they were always a population indigneous to Africa. In fact they indicate relativley much more recent aath c migration compared to Tukulers article with says 2,800 years ago at least. Long enough for people originally European to show in SNP analysis but not STR. Long enough for them to become genetically isolated from a more direct affinty to Europeans and from that smaller part of their African admix ancestry. Your genius has been defeated. nice try
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic