posted
*And your reference says that the contents of Djehuti's post constitute a "leap of faith", where?
*What does Trombetta 2011 even have to do with any of this?
*Where do Trombetta et al say that "West Africans and East Africans can trace their descent from a common E-P2 ancestor present in Eastern Africa"?
*Why would modern day Y Chromosome trees rule out/ confirm human activity in the Nile Valley?
*How exactly would SNP ascertainment bias pull various Afro-Asiatic speaking towards Eurasia, and why would such a random process always be in the direction of Eurasia, but never towards other Africans?
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: For textual reference you can use this:
quote: Using the principle of the phylogeographic parsimony, the resolution of the E1b1b trifurcation in favor of a common ancestor of E-M2 and E-M329 strongly supports the hypothesis that haplogroup E1b1 originated in eastern Africa, as previously suggested [10], and that chromosomes E-M2, so frequently observed in sub-Saharan Africa, trace their descent to a common ancestor present in eastern Africa .
Basically it says the chromosomes E-M2, so frequently observed in sub-Saharan Africa [for example over 80% of West Africans and African-Americans are from that haplogroup], trace their descent to a common ancestor present in eastern Africa.
So Sub-Saharan Africans like West Africans and East Africans can trace their descent from a common E-P2 ancestor present in Eastern Africa .
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: @ Amun Ra you have some explaining to do.
Amun - I never said that. I said BOTH modern East and West Africans, descendants of the CT and L3 haplogroups,share a common ancestry with OOA migrants.
Beyoku - What back-migration are found in Mbuti, San, Anuak, Dinka, Biaka? What does "OOA" stand for in that image?
Amun - You don't even know what you're talking about yourself. Even Bantu-Niger-Congo got orange color in your graph (which btw are not always similar).
LULZ.
Youre Silent though. .
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amanutcase The Ultimate: The older mythical clade mentioned by Djehuti below supposedly splitting modern East and West Africans:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
I for one believe that predominant Sub-Saharan clades such as PN2 did expand into the Nile Valley region post OOA but that there were some remnant peoples if not individuals who carry the older clades . As such this would give the peoples of East Africa including the Nile Valley an intermediate positioning between OOA peoples and other Africans
The belief in this mythical clade which is not based on science. Can be compared to a "leap of faith", "Magical Thinking" among racist people on this site (Swenet, Djehuti, Beyoku and Truthcentric). The idea is to promote the splittism approach mentionned by zarahan, to disconnect Ancient Egypt from the rest of Africa pulling it toward Eurasia, and promote the debunked hamitic race myth based on racist pseudo-science from the 19th century.
The older clades I speak of have NOTHING to do with "splitting" Africans by any geographic basis such as East vs. West but are simply very old clades like CT, BT, or even A! In fact the original topic of this thread proves my point because neolithic Nubians were found to carry A derived lineages!
But as usual the nutcase distorts my words by projecting his own paranoid racialized fears of "Hamitic" or "Caucasoid" even though the very genetics we discuss debunks all racial typology!!
As Tukuler posted...
Therefore I'm no longer responding to the idiocy that he is.
Posts: 26285 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: But really my actual point is overall WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?? Whether more recent PN2 descendant or ancestral OOA, the point is these populations were *all* equally African. I mean really if one wants to nitpick all the nuances go ahead, but I noticed it is Euronut racialists who tend to do this while Afrocentrics like Ahmanut try to downplay it. As if such genetic differences take away from their African or even black identity.
To be fair, guys like Hawass and Kemp (the scholars whom Claus was arguing against) strike me as the sort who don't want Egyptians to be connected to other Africans in any sense. They'll take advantage of any distinction between Egyptians and the so-called "sub-Saharan" norm to justify the rift they've established in their minds. Even if Nile Valley Africans were perfect genetic clones of any extant sub-Saharan population, the orthodoxy will look for something else that they believe sets Egypt apart.
That Kemp, Hawass, and the rest weren't completely off-base when they suggested population substructure throughout Africa doesn't mean their underlying mentality can be excused.
You bring up a valid point. There are Euronuts who are desperate to divorce Egypt [and all of eastern Africa for that matter] from the rest of Africa and connect them to Eurasia. The ultimate idiot in his psychosis thinks WE are somehow guilty of this, but forget him. The issue is so-called scholars or people in high positions of academia doing this for they are the gate-keepers of thought. They've been doing this for decades with skeletal evidence now they attempt to do so with genetic evidence! As Tukuler points out they try to distort ancestral OOA genetic elements with 'Eurasian' and therefore "Caucasoid" in the minds of the most demented Euronuts. This is why I noticed they are desperate to look for ancestral OOA lineages in Egypt in other parts of East Africa even though modern PN2 derived clades predominate. Fortunately not only are there scholars who will call these distortions out but knowledgeable people like us ES folks and others who do so.
Posts: 26285 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Indeed, we've been here a thousand times before. Put his claims to the test and he'll have fled the scene a few posts later. SMH.
Notice how he will pop up elsewhere tomorrow and continue where he left off with his propaganda, as if he was never confronted with the laughable defects in his posts and glaring inability to reconcile them with actual scientific citations..
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: That dude is gone.
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: ^^^Trite. Maybe some dummy thinks he of the last word is right. - Tukuler
It wasnt about getting a last word. It was about you making up bullshiit on the fly and then trying to wiggle you way out of it. Let me explain to the board exactly what is going on.
First this guy said that substructure in Africa is defined by A/B and L0-L2 vs L3 and M168 Africans. This is his MO. And the former group AB/L0-L2 or for the sake of accuracy "Pygmies and San" are divergent and dont share OOA Ancestry with the East and West Africans. See Below
quote: I said BOTH modern East and West Africans, descendants of the CT and L3 haplogroups, share a common ancestry with OOA migrants.
For example, modern Khoisan and Aka-Mbuti related people don't share this common ancestry with OOA migrants (since they are mostly from non-CT and non-L3 haplogroups) beside through recent admixtures.
Notice he is distinguishing two groups. For the sake of simplicity lets use colors to represent the two groups......i dont know how about Orange for the "OOA Group" and Red for the Africa Specific group. Wait a minute...these colors looks somewhat fimiliar.
Amun ra is now shaking in his boots as he is called on the nonsense idea that Pygmies and San dont share OOA Ancestry. Clearly We can see they do when looking at the Chart....ALL African populations share Orange. Amun Ra was then asked "what does "OOA" mean (Orange Component)?" on the Chart above. Of course he does not want to answer cause its just more self ownage...but anyone that has been paying attention to this Baffoon knows he makes it all up as he goes along....case and point one minute he says this:
quote:For example, modern Khoisan and Aka-Mbuti related people don't share this common ancestry with OOA migrants (since they are mostly from non-CT and non-L3 haplogroups) beside through recent admixtures.
But a second later he spans this:
quote:After the OOA migrations, African populations who stayed back in Africa were not static, fixated in time. They continued to interact, admix with each others as well as migrating in different directions, sharing cultures, developing new languages. For example, creating the E, E-P2, L3eikx, L3bf haplogroups as well as many downstream A and B haplogroups and admixing with each others (especially through patrilocality). Source
Those two ideas are totally at odds with each other. But it doesn't stop here. He goes off the deep end...drowning in stupidity. He says the OOA image cannot be used because populations back migrate:
quote: You can't use the admixture K=2 graph to demonstrate the OOA substructure since those K=2 graphs (which are not always similar btw) are based on modern populations and also take into account RECENT back migrations of non-Africans into Africa.
When asked what populations back-migrated into the San and Pygmies he is MUTE. Take Note - If there are multiple populations in Africa OOA and non OOA that "continued to interact, admix with each others" obviously the San and Pygmies SHOULD show composite ancestry according to his quote. BUT since he is making it up he wants them to be pure to go back to his other idea that San and Pygmies didnt mix with OOA. What is his solution....more nonsense:
quote: You don't even know what you're talking about yourself. Even Bantu-Niger-Congo got orange color in your graph (which btw are not always similar).
So he highlights the even the "Bantu-Niger-Congo got orange color" in the grapgh. Well of COURSE they do. And this goes back to him not wanting to even say what "OOA" means in the graph. And leads back to something he is saying but doesnt even understand:
quote: I said BOTH modern East and West Africans, descendants of the CT and L3 haplogroups, share a common ancestry with OOA migrants.
If Orange is "OOA migrants." why would Amun Ra protest that "Even Bantu-Niger-Congo got orange color in your graph" According to Amun ra they SHOULD have Orange as they "hare a common ancestry with OOA migrants".
What it is is a clusterfvck from an individual that doesnt know what he is talking about, full of contradictions and just makes it up as he goes along. The ownage of Amun ra has been broken down so even a caveman reading the page can understand this guys tomfoolery. This is why ES is a laughing stock. The things above have become part and parcel of this site because these bozos are the most vocal and nobody seems to be correcting them.
You should be able to explain these inconsistencies and contradictions. We dont need you to simply repeat them.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Beyoku says: The ownage of Amun ra has been broken down so even a caveman reading the page can understand this guys tomfoolery. This is why ES is a laughing stock.
Why would Amun-Ra be "representative" of ES? Many here have already taken him to task on several issues. And why is your "anthro-sphere" which itself is filled with trolls, racists, distorters and crimson "guardsmen" be any kind of standard or role model so much better than ES? If this is indeed the case, and things are so much better elsewhere, why do you keep coming back to this forum? You yourself spend loads of time in these other venues debating people with the most laughable, racist claims. Are they also "laughing stocks" or is your view of what's "representative" selective?
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
How often do you think i actually post on those sites? I had never been a regular poster on antrhoscape (crimson et al board.)
ForumBiodiversity was good but it got hacked. The people of African origin/descent were leages above what is found here as far as analyzing African DNA. That site has a much higher caliber of participation as far as understanding simple things like population structure and autosomal dna and how it relates to Uni-Parental markers........Why is that the case??? Because, many of the users have gotten their own DNA tested and can understand the science from a first person view. Anyone that has tested their own DNA with the various "Calculators" from K=3 all the way to K=36 can understand that they get different output although their DNA is not changing. Because of this they dont make stupid ideas about insufficient sampling and are familiar with "What a K is"........and how dumb it is to make higher inferences using skin tone or uni-parental markers. Because of that and moderation of course....my posting transitioned from here to there. But that was a few years ago, for the most part I go back to clown the admin on Ancient Egyptian dna and Afroasiatic articles that come out.
ES is a laughing stock because it is not cutting edge compared to any other site out there, we dont post new data here. At ES we have a clown arguing over BASIC ideas about DNA....riddled with contradictions and inconsistencies and he will go on unchallenged. Some of the other jackasses you named that go out on the web to "do battle" from an ES Background say and do some of the same stuff. Ideas grounded in Dogma....not knowledge. People can see that a mile away. Years ago I changed my name, for the same reason as stated by another user.....didnt want to be associated with this site. Anthroscape is shiit too, but i go there. I go to plenty of shiit sites. Sometimes a i stumble upon something I haven't read before.
EDIT. Let me state that in Highschool I went to a **** school. In 1996 Ice T came to my home town and said "What is the worst school in the state...that is where i want to go"......he came to our school. Although that is my home school and I show my face there even 10 and 15 years later when I am in town...........I can still admit the fact that the school was ****. If I had time I would volunteer at the school, even though it is ****. Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^And you haven't even mentioned the ancient Egypt forum where anti-Semitism and scientific racism reign freely.
Fact is, the membership count on this site is almost(?) 18000 and the vast majority of the Anthro enthusiasts who (used to) fit in that huge number have no idea what they're talking about when it comes to genetics, linguistics, physical anthropology, etc. and/or systematically misrepresent and marginalize inconvenient things they do understand. The people who know what they're talking about and have been honest can be counted on a couple of hands and, for the most part, aren't even here any more. As for members that can say intelligent things about recent trends in population genetics without resorting to Google.... well.. uhmm... hmm... let me think..... (crickets).
ES' collective strong point has been history, i.e. merely reiterating memorized facts about AE, Nubia and various other African cultures and polities. In any other important facet it simply can't compete and it's about time it stopped being in denial. I know it, you know it, the lurkers know it and the blogosphere knows it.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Obviously the 'Ancient Egypt' section of the forum is what makes Egyptsearch the laughing stock of the anthro-blogosphere. I don't even post in that madhouse section anymore as it is too sunken in as you say anti-Jewish anti-white depravity. It is literally the area of the Afronuts.
I've also heard that one or two of those nuts are actually Euronuts in disguise looking to discredit this forum (and I'm not talking about lioness LOL). All of this has put me on edge as I really want to make some valid contributions but I'm worried these trolls would pollute my threads.
Posts: 26285 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have no problem with people pointing out assorted errors AmunRa has made. Go for it. However they need not do so in every thread, nor in threads Beyoku et al frequent to be "validated" either. Many have taken him to task on multiple topics, and his approach. I would also dispute Beyoku's blanket notion that sheer dogma drives all ES members when they do battle on other web venues. This is not the case at all. To the contrary, their arguments are grounded in hard fact and scholarship which most often defeats the other side. This is why assorted biased moderators often try to sandbag them, even a low-key, careful guy like Morpheus. Trying to make out that these ES vets are blinkered ideologues who know nothing is a clear distortion and misrepresentation of many posters here.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Who is Morpheus and where is Morpheus? Does Morpheus post here?
Morpheus is another handle for the ES poster once called Mansa Musa. Morph still works as an admin on MootStormfront (albeit that website is only active at sporadic moments), but on most other forums he now calls himself "EgalitarianJay".
Posts: 7083 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
So he is not on this forum anymore. I wonder why? This forum needs more posters like evergreen. A poster that is always bringing new data to the table.... Naw wallowing in and or misinterpreting data from 20 years ago.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I remember him. From what I recall he was a solid guy. I think he was the one who was in contact with Keita and told him about the Mekota & Vermehren paper
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: I remember him. From what I recall he was a solid guy. I think he was the one who was in contact with Keita and told him about the Mekota & Vermehren paper
Yeps. Anyone else on ES email folks in academia?
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
I have, to get clarity and see what they'll say off the record and I never use leading questions nor mention any internet fora or websites.
Most will correspond but a few won't. I wait a season before re-emailing a non-respondant but usually get the same result, no reply.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
For the record, I don't believe European hunter-gatherers were black and all of a sudden became 'white'. Obviously there was a process of *gradual lightening* that first began even before they entered Europe. Dr. Jablonski made this clear in her works on the evolution of human skin. During the late Pleistocene much of Central Asia and Anatolia which are already at higher latitudes were cloudy regions at that time receiving less sun-light. The hypothesis was that European hunter-gatherers were at least 'brown' in color if not lighter and of course we have Khoisan of southern Africa as an example of less than the typical black complexion of Sub-Saharans so obviously the selective pressures for lighter color were already active. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Hello,
It seems that pale skin may have evolved in Europeans as recently as 6,000 years ago. Since genetic mutations for lighter skin only occurred ( separately) in two populations, East Asians and Europeans, as recently as 6,000 years ago ( at least in Europeans), when and how did ( some) Middle Easterners become lighter skinned? I'd have to assume that it occurred very, very recently but I'm hoping that someone here has a more definite answer. I don't mean to derail this thread. If my question is too far off from the original subject of this thread please feel free to move it to a more appropriate thread.
European Skin Turned Pale Only Recently, Gene Suggests
posted
Correct me as a the guy, but the argument on this thread is that one person doesn't understand that Eurasians are a subset of East Africans and because of that he/she believes East Africans are mixed? Again that is the argument that I am getting. And if that's the case; East Africans showing more genetic distant towards Eurasian's compared to other Africans does not mean East Africans are admixed or less Africans, but that Eurasians come from East Africans.
Because of that Eurasians have less genetic variations compared to Africans, since a small group only migrated out from East Africa. Again does not mean East Africans are any less African.
IMO I like to this is like with Greeks. Compared to most Europeans they are closer to Africans in terms of genetic distance, but are still wholly European.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
Looking forward to more from you but 2007 was a long time ago and more current study disputes the 6k origin of pink skin.
Looking forward to more from you but 2007 was a long time ago and more current study disputes the 6k http://www.g3journal.org/content/3/11/2059.full.pdf+html origin of pink skin iirc although not from aDNA as in your 2014 article.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
For all intents and purposes some Ethiopians ARE "Mixed". Ethiopians are not the only Africans that have "mixture" and the "Mixture" comes from South West Asians and they themselves are also "mixed."
The fact that some Ethiopians are Mixed does not exempt the fact that East Africans are closer to Eurasian populations. All one need to do is look at an East African population that we assume is not "Mixed". That brings us here:
quote: " These results mean that we have not identified any sub-Saharan African sample that we are confident has no evidence of back-to-Africa migration. Our best candidate at present is the Dinka.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ardo: Welcome to ES Somner!
Looking forward to more from you but 2007 was a long time ago and more current study disputes the 6k origin of pink skin.
Looking forward to more from you but 2007 was a long time ago and more current study disputes the 6k http://www.g3journal.org/content/3/11/2059.full.pdf+html origin of pink skin iirc although not from aDNA as in your 2014 article.
from the article
Can we date the A111T mutation?
The preceding analysis is consistent with a wide range of possible dates for the origin of A111T, including the period before the initial colonization of Europe by anatomically modern humans >40 thousand years ago (kya) (Mellars 2006). An estimate for the date of origin of A111T based on microsatellites (Beleza et al. 2012) places the origin at 19 kya (95% confidence interval 6−38 kya), for a dominant model, or 11 kya (95% confidence interval 1−56 kya), for a more plausible additive model. To create an independent estimate, we applied a molecular clock approach to 1000 Genomes data by using the combined C and D subregions. Because proportions of different classes of nucleotide substitutions in the C11 + D4 variants and in the human-chimpanzee alignment are not significantly different (χ2 = 4.42, df = 5, P = 0.49; Table S15), we combined these classes for analysis. For the combined population samples, before making corrections for undercounts in the source data, we obtained an estimate of 7.8 kya for the most recent common ancestor of the C11 + D4 haplotype combination (Table 3). Corresponding 95% confidence limits are 4.8−12.2 kya, whereas uncorrected estimates derived from individual European samples or the combined New World samples (also of European origin) ranged from 5.2 to 10.4 kya (Table 3). These values are clearly underestimates as a result of low sequence depth (1000 Genomes Project Consortium 2012). Adjustment for undercounting is substantial, increasing the estimated age for the combined samples to 12.4 (95% confidence interval 7.6−19.2) kya. If mutation rates in recent humans are lower than predicted from the human-chimpanzee divergence (Scally and Durbin 2012), true ages will be even older. Our adjusted dates overlap those previously reported (Beleza et al. 2012) and are also consistent with the lower limit for the origin of A111T set by the finding that the Alpine “iceman” dated to 5.3 kya was homozygous for this variant (Keller et al. 2012). This date range implies an origin clearly preceding the Neolithic transition in Europe. These dates are later than the initial colonization of Europe but are consistent with an A111T origin before or after post-glacial population expansions.
_________________________
^^ this is in the realm of the earlier article which did not say only 6,000 years It said 6-12,000 years
Looking at La Brana, a sample described as dark skinned and blue eye is 7000 years old
Posts: 42937 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:
quote: " These results mean that we have not identified any sub-Saharan African sample that we are confident has no evidence of back-to-Africa migration. Our best candidate at present is the Dinka.
Full context please. Also the goal of the study would be helpful if not the full study itself. I'd like to know what precise biological evidence that statement is based on and the timeframe each and every African ethnic group received these Eurasian migrants.
This could smack of an Hamiticism that far outdoes anything Speke, Seligman, or that other guy ever posited and projected back to deep pre-history to boot.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: Correct me as a the guy, but the argument on this thread is that one person doesn't understand that Eurasians are a subset of East Africans and because of that he/she believes East Africans are mixed? Again that is the argument that I am getting. And if that's the case; East Africans showing more genetic distant towards Eurasian's compared to other Africans does not mean East Africans are admixed or less Africans, but that Eurasians come from East Africans.
Yes, but it's ***BOTH*** modern East and West Africans which share a common origin with Eurasians in Eastern Africa, not only modern Eastern Africans. Basically, both modern East and West Africans share a common origin in Northeastern Africa *after* the OOA migrations.
quote: Using the principle of the phylogeographic parsimony, the resolution of the E1b1b trifurcation in favor of a common ancestor of E-M2 and E-M329 strongly supports the hypothesis that haplogroup E1b1 originated in eastern Africa, as previously suggested [10], and that chromosomes E-M2, so frequently observed in sub-Saharan Africa, trace their descent to a common ancestor present in eastern Africa .
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate : ^^^It's written black on white. Clear as water.
It's not at all written black on white. What's black on white is that you're a propagandist who has never read a population genetics paper in his life.
E-M2 being the most important Y haplogroup in West Africa doesn't mean that the E-M2 people were aboriginal to West Africa or that West Africans and East Africans split after OOA.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: Correct me as a the guy, but the argument on this thread is that one person doesn't understand that Eurasians are a subset of East Africans and because of that he/she believes East Africans are mixed? Again that is the argument that I am getting. And if that's the case; East Africans showing more genetic distant towards Eurasian's compared to other Africans does not mean East Africans are admixed or less Africans, but that Eurasians come from East Africans.
Yes, but it's ***BOTH*** modern East and West Africans which share a common origin with Eurasians in Eastern Africa, not only modern Eastern Africans. Basically, both modern East and West Africans share a common origin in Northeastern Africa *after* the OOA migrations.
quote: Using the principle of the phylogeographic parsimony, the resolution of the E1b1b trifurcation in favor of a common ancestor of E-M2 and E-M329 strongly supports the hypothesis that haplogroup E1b1 originated in eastern Africa, as previously suggested [10], and that chromosomes E-M2, so frequently observed in sub-Saharan Africa, trace their descent to a common ancestor present in eastern Africa .
So would you say its black and white that East Africans like Kikuyu, or East Africans like Hutu or Oromo are closer to Eurasians than Africans?
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: Correct me as a the guy, but the argument on this thread is that one person doesn't understand that Eurasians are a subset of East Africans and because of that he/she believes East Africans are mixed? Again that is the argument that I am getting. And if that's the case; East Africans showing more genetic distant towards Eurasian's compared to other Africans does not mean East Africans are admixed or less Africans, but that Eurasians come from East Africans.
Yes, but it's ***BOTH*** modern East and West Africans which share a common origin with Eurasians in Eastern Africa, not only modern Eastern Africans. Basically, both modern East and West Africans share a common origin in Northeastern Africa *after* the OOA migrations.
quote: Using the principle of the phylogeographic parsimony, the resolution of the E1b1b trifurcation in favor of a common ancestor of E-M2 and E-M329 strongly supports the hypothesis that haplogroup E1b1 originated in eastern Africa, as previously suggested [10], and that chromosomes E-M2, so frequently observed in sub-Saharan Africa, trace their descent to a common ancestor present in eastern Africa .
So would you say its black and white that East Africans like Kikuyu, or East Africans like Hutu or Oromo are closer to Eurasians than Africans?
Certainly not. Those people (Kikuyu, Hutu, Oromo, East Africans) are obviously African and they share a common origin with most other Africans like West Africans and Bantu at a time period after the OOA migrations. Your question doesn't even make sense. Are Kikuyu not Africans? Why do you say "than Africans", which they are themselves?
I said ***BOTH*** modern East and West Africans which share a common origin with Eurasians.
In other word, and as an example, Yoruba, Somali, Oromo, kikuyu, Igbo, Zulu, Kongo and Bantu people share a common origin with Eurasian. As they are from the Y-DNA CT and mtDNA L3 lineages in large part of their populations (lineages they share with OOA migrants). They also share other African lineages (L2a, L0a, etc).
Africans like Aka-Mbuti-Twa-like people as well as Khoisan don't share those common CT and L3 lineages for the most part so are not related to OOA migrants beside through more recent admixtures.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: and they share a common origin with most other Africans like West Africans and Bantu at a time period after the OOA migrations.
Oh lord. Here we go again. Dirty job, but someone has to check these loony propagandists.
Where is your evidence for this bs claim?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
So would you say its black and white that East Africans like Kikuyu, or East Africans like Hutu or Oromo are closer to Eurasians than Africans?
Certainly not. Those people (Kikuyu, Hutu, Oromo, East Africans) are obviously African and they share a common origin with most other Africans like West Africans and Bantu at a time period after the OOA migrations. Your question doesn't even make sense. Are Kikuyu not Africans? Why do you say "than Africans", which they are themselves?
I said ***BOTH*** modern East and West Africans which share a common origin with Eurasians.
In other word, and as an example, Yoruba, Somali, Oromo, kikuyu, Igbo, Zulu, Kongo and Bantu people share a common origin with Eurasian. As they are from the Y-DNA CT and mtDNA L3 lineages in large part of their populations (lineages they share with OOA migrants). They also share other African lineages (L2a, L0a, etc).
Africans like Aka-Mbuti-Twa-like people as well as Khoisan don't share those common CT and L3 lineages for the most part so are not related to OOA migrants beside through more recent admixtures.
You can keep saying the same thing over and over if you want. It has been debunked and you have not provided a sufficient sourced explanation to remove it from "Debunked Status".
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^In what ways does this debunk what I said? You lost your own plot a long time ago in this thread.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: ^^^In what ways does this debunk what I said? You lost your own plot a long time ago in this thread.
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: ^^^Trite. Maybe some dummy thinks he of the last word is right. - Tukuler
.............
First this guy said that substructure in Africa is defined by A/B and L0-L2 vs L3 and M168 Africans. This is his MO. And the former group AB/L0-L2 or for the sake of accuracy "Pygmies and San" are divergent and dont share OOA Ancestry with the East and West Africans. See Below
quote: I said BOTH modern East and West Africans, descendants of the CT and L3 haplogroups, share a common ancestry with OOA migrants.
For example, modern Khoisan and Aka-Mbuti related people don't share this common ancestry with OOA migrants (since they are mostly from non-CT and non-L3 haplogroups) beside through recent admixtures.
Notice he is distinguishing two groups. For the sake of simplicity lets use colors to represent the two groups......i dont know how about Orange for the "OOA Group" and Red for the Africa Specific group. Wait a minute...these colors looks somewhat fimiliar.
Amun ra is now shaking in his boots as he is called on the nonsense idea that Pygmies and San dont share OOA Ancestry. Clearly We can see they do when looking at the Chart....ALL African populations share Orange. Amun Ra was then asked "what does "OOA" mean (Orange Component)?" on the Chart above. Of course he does not want to answer cause its just more self ownage...but anyone that has been paying attention to this Baffoon knows he makes it all up as he goes along....case and point one minute he says this:
quote:For example, modern Khoisan and Aka-Mbuti related people don't share this common ancestry with OOA migrants (since they are mostly from non-CT and non-L3 haplogroups) beside through recent admixtures.
But a second later he spans this:
quote:After the OOA migrations, African populations who stayed back in Africa were not static, fixated in time. They continued to interact, admix with each others as well as migrating in different directions, sharing cultures, developing new languages. For example, creating the E, E-P2, L3eikx, L3bf haplogroups as well as many downstream A and B haplogroups and admixing with each others (especially through patrilocality). Source
Those two ideas are totally at odds with each other. But it doesn't stop here. He goes off the deep end...drowning in stupidity. He says the OOA image cannot be used because populations back migrate:
quote: You can't use the admixture K=2 graph to demonstrate the OOA substructure since those K=2 graphs (which are not always similar btw) are based on modern populations and also take into account RECENT back migrations of non-Africans into Africa.
When asked what populations back-migrated into the San and Pygmies he is MUTE. Take Note - If there are multiple populations in Africa OOA and non OOA that "continued to interact, admix with each others" obviously the San and Pygmies SHOULD show composite ancestry according to his quote. BUT since he is making it up he wants them to be pure to go back to his other idea that San and Pygmies didnt mix with OOA. What is his solution....more nonsense:
quote: You don't even know what you're talking about yourself. Even Bantu-Niger-Congo got orange color in your graph (which btw are not always similar).
So he highlights the even the "Bantu-Niger-Congo got orange color" in the grapgh. Well of COURSE they do. And this goes back to him not wanting to even say what "OOA" means in the graph. And leads back to something he is saying but doesnt even understand:
quote: I said BOTH modern East and West Africans, descendants of the CT and L3 haplogroups, share a common ancestry with OOA migrants.
If Orange is "OOA migrants." why would Amun Ra protest that "Even Bantu-Niger-Congo got orange color in your graph" According to Amun ra they SHOULD have Orange as they "hare a common ancestry with OOA migrants".
What it is is a clusterfvck from an individual that doesnt know what he is talking about, full of contradictions and just makes it up as he goes along. The ownage of Amun ra has been broken down so even a caveman reading the page can understand this guys tomfoolery. This is why ES is a laughing stock. The things above have become part and parcel of this site because these bozos are the most vocal and nobody seems to be correcting them.
You should be able to explain these inconsistencies and contradictions. We dont need you to simply repeat them.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: ^^^You're a racist idiot. The evidences are obviously discussed in the part of my post above YOU decided not to quote.
I see not a single shred of evidence that East and West Africans diverged following OOA. All I see is a garbage post you manufactured and wrote yourself. Passing your own fairy tales as evidence might fly where you live, but not here.
Where is your evidence for that claim?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: ^^^You're a racist idiot. The evidences are obviously discussed in the part of my post above YOU decided not to quote.
I see not a single shred of evidence that East and West Africans diverged following OOA.
Not a single shred of evidence?!? Shut up racist idiot, for your own good.
For example, East and West Africans share the common E-P2 lineage which appeared after the OOA migrations. They also share various MtDNA lineages we can see in this study for example: http://drum.lib.umd.edu/handle/1903/11443
quote: Using the principle of the phylogeographic parsimony, the resolution of the E1b1b trifurcation in favor of a common ancestor of E-M2 and E-M329 strongly supports the hypothesis that haplogroup E1b1 originated in eastern Africa, as previously suggested [10], and that chromosomes E-M2, so frequently observed in sub-Saharan Africa, trace their descent to a common ancestor present in eastern Africa .
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: For example, East and West Africans share the common E-P2 lineage which appeared after the OOA migrations.
According to which reliable piece of evidence? And even IF E was younger than OOA, how would it prove that East and West Africans split after OOA?
Yes, this is the part where you sh!t your pants and flee the scene (as you always have), isn't it?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
It proves that East and West Africans (and most sub-Saharan Africans in general) and I quote " trace their descent to a common ancestor present in eastern Africa . "
E-P2 wasn't part of the OOA migrations (OOA migrants were from the upstream CT haplogroup as all OOA populations are descendant from the upstream CT haplogroup).
posted
The discussed East and West Africans being dominant In Y E proves that that these males trace their descent to E? So? The critical pieces you're desperately trying to avoid:
1) explain how any of the bs you blurted out above proves that E is younger than OOA.
2) explain how merely being dominant in a particular haplogroup confines a population's history to the age and other specifics of that haplogroup. For instance, some Berber populations are 100% E-M81. Does that mean their ancestral population would poof out of existence if one were to time travel to slightly before the emergence of E-M81
posted
You're grasping at straws and wasting my time.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
1) explain how any of the bs you blurted out above proves that E is younger than OOA.
Are you saying E is NOT younger than the OOA migrations? Are you saying E was part of the OOA migrations? What is your opinion about it?
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: You're grasping at straws and wasting my time.
Then you should have no problems addressing my questions one by one. What are you waiting for?
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: Are you saying E is NOT younger than the OOA migrations?
You made the claim, you prove it. Here, let me help you out and put you back on track to proving your bs:
1) explain how any of the bs you blurted out above proves that E is younger than OOA.
2) explain how merely being dominant in a particular haplogroup confines a population's history to the age and other specifics of that haplogroup. For instance, some Berber populations are 100% E-M81. Does that mean their ancestral male population would poof out of existence if one were to time travel to slightly before the emergence of E-M81
posted
^^^Don't be ridiculous. I'm not here to answer all you're stupid questions.
You're the one who must prove that E is NOT younger than the OOA migrations? And that E was part of the OOA migrations? Or that East and West Africans don't share the E-P2 haplogroup. Which you can't. OOA migrants were from the upstream CT haplogroup. Most East and West Africans from the downstream E haplogroups (over 80% of their populations).
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: ^^^Don't be ridiculous. I'm not here to answer all you're stupid questions.
So there you have it. You're full of bs. Not a single reference in support of your crackpot claims. You failed to prove
1) that E is younger than OOA 2) that haplogroup profiles necessarily preserve all deep ancestry
hence:
3) your unintelligible gibberish why E is somehow a sound basis to say that the East and West African populations under discussion split before OOA is exactly that: gibberish.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^You're the one who is full of bs. It's obvious you're trying to waste my time by making me answer stupid questions while not providing any evidence to contradict what I posted. Are you're saying ridiculously that E was part of the OOA migrations and is older than CT or not? I guess it's easier ask empty questions over and over again than prove somebody is wrong.
Look at this graph. It's pretty simple to understand even for a racist like you:
You're the one desperate to prove I'm wrong and thus must prove so with evidences. I'm perfectly comfortable with what I posted above and in those following threads.
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: Blablablabla
Meanwhile, in the real world, Y E and/or the branch it sits on is older than any Eurasian clade in any current Y phylogenetic tree. Of course, the clown above me wouldn't know that because he's never read a single population genetics paper in his life.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic