posted
Phylogeographic distribution of mitochondrial DNA macrohaplogroup M in India
SUVENDU MAJI, S. KRITHIKA and T. S. VASULU∗
Biological Anthropology Unit, Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata 700 108, India
quote: Macrohaplogroup M (489-10400-14783-15043), excluding M1 which is east African, is distributed among most south, east and north Asians, Amerindians (containing a mi- nority of north and central Amerindians and a majority of south Amerindians), and many central Asians and Melane- sians.
On the other hand, macrohaplogroup N (8701-9540- 10398-10873-15301) has been reported among nearly all Europeans, west Asians, North Africans and Australian aborigines as well as among east Asians, South Asians, Amerindians (containing a majority of north and central Amerindians and a minority of south Amerindians), and Polynesians (Schurr et al. 1990; Ballinger et al. 1992; Chen et al. 1995; Torroni et al. 1996, 2001; Finnila ̈ et al. 2001; In- gman and Gyllensten 2001; Maca-Meyer et al. 2001, 2003; Salas et al. 2002; Kong et al. 2003; Mishmar et al. 2003).
posted
Ethiopian Mitochondrial DNA Heritage: Tracking Gene Flow Across and Around the Gate of Tears
Am J Hum Genet. 2004 November; 75(5): 752–770. Published online 2004 September 27. PMCID: PMC1182106
Toomas Kivisild et al.
quote:
Haplogroup M Lineages in Ethiopians and Yemenis
Haplogroup M1 lineages constitute 17% of the Ethiopian mtDNA sequences, consistent with their high frequency in the region (Passarino et al. 1998; Quintana-Murci et al. 1999; Richards et al. 2003). Two subclades, which can be distinguished by coding-region RFLPs (Quintana-Murci et al. 1999)—M1a by 12345 RsaI (12346T) and M1b by 15883 AvaII (15884A)—together account for 56% of its variation. M1a is further characterized by a transition at np 16359 in HVS-I and is also present in the single Yemeni M1 sample (fig. 2B). M1a can be found together with M1* lineages in populations from the Near East, the Caucasus, and in Europe at marginally low frequencies (Corte-Real et al. 1996; Macaulay et al. 1999; Richards et al. 2000). The minor group M1b, defined by the motif 15884-16260-16320, is restricted to East Africans, having been observed, so far, only in Ethiopians (Quintana-Murci et al. 1999) and in Egypt (authors' unpublished results). It is interesting that the variable noncoding nucleotide 15884 also carries the derived A allele in one Moroccan M1* complete sequence, yet without the characteristic M1b HVS-I pattern (Maca-Meyer et al. 2001). M1a and M1b sequences are rare or absent in North Africans (Corte-Real et al. 1996; Rando et al. 1998; Brakez et al. 2001; Plaza et al. 2003). Instead, a third clade, M1c, defined by a transition at np 16185, covers most of haplogroup M1 variation in northwestern Africa, the Canary Islands, and the Near East. M1c has not been sampled yet among Ethiopians. It is intriguing that a Moroccan M1c complete sequence (Maca-Meyer et al. 2001) lacks the 813-6671-12950C mutations that define a common branch holding the M1a and M1b clades (fig. 4). It is notable that the other Moroccan M1 sequence with the 15884 mutation also lacks the 6671-12950C signature. In light of these data and because of the lack of other distinctive East African–specific mtDNA haplogroups in northwestern Africa, it is difficult to interpret the northwestern African haplogroup M1 variation as a derivative from the East African mtDNA pool.
^ ^ I agree, though actually proto-Semitic was said to have developed in 'Asia' (the Levant) among proto-Afrisian speakers from Africa.
I'd urge you to provide proof for this assertion, but then you are more than likely going to buckle under pressure from just a mildly complicated--if even that--question and bail out again. Repeating empty opinions over and over do not magically turn them into fact.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
As far as I know, Afrasan speaking Ethiopians, whether Semitic speakers or Cushitic speakers, cannot be differentiated based on mtDNA.
Hence, goes to reaffirm just how much of a klutz you are for struggling to tie a "Semitic origin" to the origin of Ehtiopian mtDNA gene pools, which you self-convincingly call "Eurasian", apparently for nothing more than to just satisfy a silly emotional hunger.
quote:They generally all have a very similar mtDNA profile. This, to me, hints at the scenario that most of their Eurasian mtDNAs derive from the same Semetic speaking population.
The "same" fairy-tale "Semitic speaking population" which I'm pretty sure you are just dying to reveal to us, with substantive proof than toothless barking, aren't you? LOL
quote:Why? Kinda hard to imagine all these different Eurasian mtDNAs reaching seperate Ethiopian etnhic groups one by one, in very similar frequencies.
Let me clue you in on what's really hard to imagine: That you are anything but dumber than a brick for even entertaining something as profoundly stupid as you are above.
As for the quote, the copy & paste parrot posts...
quote:The Eurasian signal in Ethiopians (of course, not including much older Eurasian M1 and U6) has been has been dated to 3kya by Pagani et al 2012:
The non-African component, which includes the SLC24A5 allele associated with light skin pigmentation in Europeans, may represent gene flow into Africa, which we estimate to have occurred ∼3 thousand years ago (kya).
1. The notion that SLC24A5 allele is unequivocally "non-African", is nothing more than subjective opining by the source above. Ethiopian populations and southern African San hunter-gatherers have both tested positive for the gene variant, on top of other sub-Saharan groups; the key here, is that both populations are reputed to represent the living remnants of relatively deep-rooted ancestry, when compared to other populations.
2. Perhaps the source were relying on other components of the gene pool outside of the SLC24A5 marker, but it is almost next to impossible to have any concrete or reliable dating of pigmentation gene variants.
quote: The non-African component was found to be more similar to populations inhabiting the Levant rather than the Arabian Peninsula
Yep, and an obvious blow to speculators whose favorite ideological theories of the supposed "Semitic" coming into the Horn from outside seem to be one of by way of the southern part of the Arabian peninsula. I've made a note of this for years and years; only now, has this dawned on the source cited above!
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
The idea that Ethiopians are UNIFORMLY mixed with a recent migration of "Eurasian" populations is strictly nonsensical. Which tells me that some of the genes that they call "Eurasian" are actually African as we have discussed many times before. It is impossible to believe that such a large population of Africans is UNIFORMLY MIXED with some Eurasian population which is only 3,000 years old, but the Ethiopians as the paper studied are Millions of years old.
Try cluing swenet with some common sense, but it is an uphill battle to tell you the truth.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol: Phylogeographic distribution of mitochondrial DNA macrohaplogroup M in India
SUVENDU MAJI, S. KRITHIKA and T. S. VASULU∗
Biological Anthropology Unit, Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata 700 108, India
quote: Macrohaplogroup M (489-10400-14783-15043), excluding M1 which is east African, is distributed among most south, east and north Asians, Amerindians (containing a mi- nority of north and central Amerindians and a majority of south Amerindians), and many central Asians and Melane- sians.
On the other hand, macrohaplogroup N (8701-9540- 10398-10873-15301) has been reported among nearly all Europeans, west Asians, North Africans and Australian aborigines as well as among east Asians, South Asians, Amerindians (containing a majority of north and central Amerindians and a minority of south Amerindians), and Polynesians (Schurr et al. 1990; Ballinger et al. 1992; Chen et al. 1995; Torroni et al. 1996, 2001; Finnila ̈ et al. 2001; In- gman and Gyllensten 2001; Maca-Meyer et al. 2001, 2003; Salas et al. 2002; Kong et al. 2003; Mishmar et al. 2003).
No, they didn't!...in any way just associate M1 with African ancestry! LOL
Lightheartedness aside, the piece you cited following this one hones in on the matter around M1 African phylogeny. Indeed, as I also directed attention to both here and on my blog, M1's origin was likely not in eastern Africa, but rather, in either the western part or the middle regions of the Sahara, before subsequently diversifying in eastern Africa, and spilling over to the so-called "Near East".
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Hence, goes to reaffirm just how much of a klutz you are for struggling to tie a "Semitic origin" to the origin of Ehtiopian mtDNA gene pools, which you self-convincingly call "Eurasian", apparently for nothing more than to just satisfy a silly emotional hunger.
And the part that is inconsistent about my noting the resemblance of the mtDNA profiles of Cushitic and Semitic speaking horners is, what exactly?
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: That you are anything but dumber than a brick for even entertaining something as profoundly stupid as you are above.
Same applies here: lay out what's inconsistent about me stating that the similarity of the mtDNA profiles of Cushitic and Semitic speaking Ethiopians is due to both having split off from the same community.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Ethiopian populations and southern African San hunter-gatherers have both tested positive for the gene variant, on top of other sub-Saharan groups
Sources please.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: the key here, is that both populations are reputed to represent the living remnants of relatively deep-rooted ancestry, when compared to other populations.
Which bars them from having non-African ancestry? What exactly is key about this random injection?
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: but it is almost next to impossible to have any concrete or reliable dating of pigmentation gene variants.
Source?
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Yep, and an obvious blow to speculators whose favorite ideological theories of the supposed "Semitic" coming into the Horn from outside
So, are you saying that the Semetic language didn't spread from the Levant, per the linguistic evidence? Exactly how is Pagani et al's genetically based observation that the Eurasian componant in the Ethiopian genome fits this linguisitc expectation, a ''blow'' to the idea that these languages came from the outside?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
My comment about your excessively silly attempt at painting what you self-convincingly call “Eurasian” in Ethiopian mtDNA profile as “Semitic in origin” is pretty self-explanatory to anyone who can do something as basic as assemble alphabets together. As for the incessant red-herring about “inconsistency”, not an issue; rather, it’s more a matter of your conclusion not following the inbuilt logic of a certain fact which you are forced to acknowledge.
quote:lay out what's inconsistent about me stating that the similarity of the mtDNA profiles of Cushitic and Semitic speaking Ethiopians is due to both having split off from the same community.
You know “same community”--which you just introduced--is not the issue; amateurish deception is futile; the fairy-tale “Semitic origin” of the Ethiopian gene pool is, of course.
quote:
quote:Ethiopian populations and southern African San hunter-gatherers have both tested positive for the gene variant, on top of other sub-Saharan groups
Sources please.
See, for example, Genetic Evidence for the Convergent Evolution of Light Skin in Europeans and East Asians, courtesy Norton et al. 2006.
quote:Which bars them from having non-African ancestry? What exactly is key about this random injection?
Do you have proof that the San bushmen got lighter primarily because of “admixture” from “Eurasia”. If so, post it! The ball is really in your court.
quote:
quote:but it is almost next to impossible to have any concrete or reliable dating of pigmentation gene variants.
Source?
Tell me how, a gene that is very likely under selective pressure, is a reliable candidate for solid dating? The fact that you even have to question me on this, shows just how out of touch you are with the genetics discipline.
quote:
quote:Yep, and an obvious blow to speculators whose favorite ideological theories of the supposed "Semitic" coming into the Horn from outside
So, are you saying that the Semetic language didn't spread from the Levant, per the linguistic evidence? Exactly how is Pagani et al's genetically based observation that the Eurasian componant in the Ethiopian genome fits this linguisitc expectation, a ''blow'' to the ''speculators'' you're referring to?
It’s clear you have trouble understanding the English language, as I just provided the reason as to why the so-called “Arabian” origins of Ethio-Semitic suffers a blow from genetic information; duh: the Ethiopian gene pool, that you love to gratuitously dismiss as “Eurasian”, is relatively closer to that in area north of Arabia than it is to southern Arabia, which is where most speculators love to stake their ideological theories on. For you, I’ll spell out the otherwise obvious: if their gene pool is from Semitic speakers of such ancestry, then their gene pool should be more similar to south Arabians than it does people north of the Arabian peninsula. Do you get it now, kiddo?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: As for the incessant red-herring about “inconsistency”, not an issue; rather, it’s more a matter of your conclusion not following the inbuilt logic of a certain fact which you are forced to acknowledge.
Typical. Denies that inconsistency is the issue, and then goes on to point out there is an inconsistency between my conclusion and ''a certain fact''. Again, what is this inconsistent about my conclusion and the fact that Cushitic and Semitic mtDNA profiles are similar?
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: See, for example, Genetic Evidence for the Convergent Evolution of Light Skin in Europeans and East Asians, courtesy Norton et al. 2006.
Thought so. Your objection that SLC24A5 isn't ''unequivocally non-African'' is predicated on the existence of a few Africans here and there who carry the allele, which, if this bankrupt reasoning is applied across the board, no alleles have a single origin. After all, in this day and age, there is always some individual somewhere who carries a marker that isn't from that locale.
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: If so, post it! The ball is really in your court.
You can't even justify your random invocation of the presence of ''relatively deep-rooted ancestry'' in Ethiopians, without further embarrassing yourself with a lame attempt to let others take the fall for a random claim you felt the need to interject--from out of nowhere.
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: Tell me how, a gene that is very likely under selective pressure, is a reliable candidate for solid dating?
Genes under selective pressure are dated all the time. You provide no source that this is generally frowned upon, or seen as unreliable in academic circles, as expected. On top of that, the fact that your criticisms against Pagani et al are confused and incoherent is further indicated by the fact that the Ethiopian SLC24A5 alleles themselves weren't even dated by Pagani et al.
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: if their gene pool is from Semitic speakers of such ancestry, then their gene pool should be more similar to south Arabians than it does people north of the Arabian peninsula.
Again, your reasoning is very confused, and sounds like something someone would say who is in the dark about demographic changes that have impacted Yemenites since the settlement of South Arabian speakers ~3kya. Note also that it isn't a given that the average Arabic speaking Yemenite, or even the modern descendants of the South Arabian speakers with which Ethio-Semitic languages form a clade within the Semitic family, retain the ancestry of this Semitic wave as well as modern Levantines have.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Genes under selective pressure are dated all the time. You provide no source that this is generally frowned upon, or seen as unreliable in academic circles, as expected. On top of that, the fact that your criticisms against Pagani et al are confused and incoherent is further indicated by the fact that the Ethiopian SLC24A5 alleles themselves weren't even dated by Pagani et al.
Perhaps the source were relying on other components of the gene pool outside of the SLC24A5 marker, but it is almost next to impossible to have any concrete or reliable dating of pigmentation gene variants. - Explorer
Is your eyesight sharp enough to enable you to tell the difference between this and the nonsense you wrote above, or is it too failing you like what is supposed to be your brain?
As for the gratuitous begging for a source on genes under selection, my friend, it is simply something that anybody with even a slight understanding of genetics would know.
quote: Again, your reasoning is very confused, and sounds like something someone would say who is in the dark about demographic changes that have impacted Yemenites since the settlement of South Arabian speakers ~3kya. Note also that it isn't a given that the average Arabic speaking Yemenite, or even the modern descendants of the South Arabian speakers with which Ethio-Semitic languages form a clade within the Semitic family, retain the ancestry of this Semitic wave as well as modern Levantines have.
[Ps: Well spoken...that is, about as well as a dullard who is "in the dark" about actual Ethiopian mitochondrial genetic profiles] Let me guess where the cool "Yemenites" must have gone: to another, unknown galaxy, in the universe; ain't that so? Translation: You are full of shyt...and you know it! Give it a rest, baby. Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: Is your eyesight sharp enough to enable you to tell the difference between this and the nonsense you wrote above
Yes it is, and judging by your acute amnesia regarding some of the other criticism you levied against Pagani et al, and confusion as to how they play into what I told you, you on the other hand, seem to have more to worry about than a fairly innocent lacking eyesight.
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: As for the gratuitous begging for a source on genes under selection, my friend, it is simply something that anybody with even a slight understanding of genetics would know.
Without further stalling and giving me another round of hot air, where is your source that genes under selection can’t be reliably dated?
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: Let me guess where the cool "Yemenites" must have gone: to another, unknown galaxy, in the universe; ain't that so?
That you see well established Yemenite demographic changes after and immediate before the common era (e.g., influx of Bantu speakers, South Asians, Jews) as so surprising that you see the discussion of such facts as akin to random science fiction is obviously a function of your complete bewilderedness when it comes to the subject matter at hand, and possibly shabby mental faculties in general. Indeed, you’re so bewildered that you can’t even explain perceived inconsistencies in my writings nor were you able to explain your own random invocation of deep-rooted clades in Ethiopians.
Yes it is, and judging by your acute amnesia regarding some of the other criticism you levied against Pagani et al, and confusion as to how they play into what I told you, you on the other hand, seem to have more to worry about than a fairly innocent lacking eyesight.
When you are stupid enough to mistake a direct quote for "amnesia", then kid, it's a warning sign to stop sweating it -- this stuff is way over your head. Let loose damage control, pick up a book and learn how to read a word or two.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Without further stalling and giving me another round of hot air, where is your source that genes under selection can’t be reliably dated?
blockhead, you need a “source” to clue you, rather than from common sense--a “luxury” you clearly ought to seek out, in on? … the propensity of these genes to LACK neutrality towards time or rate of mutation!…or other words, munchkin, that they throw off track any predictability factor about either the pace or temporal inclinations of mutation (hint: even the hyper-polymorphic and seemingly more neutral sites, like say--tandem repeats, have their own challenging polymorphic-irregularities to contend with, so as to make any appropriation of concrete dating attainable, let alone sites under pressure). Tell me how something of that nature is a candidate for concrete dating?
Try your hand at learning the rudimentary stuff before getting wasted on copy & past parroting, and thereby begging the same of others!
PS: As for the concept of stalling…realizations of those imaginary "Semitic origins" of Ethiopian "Eurasian"-mtDNA gene pool that you alone seem to see, the supposed "Eurasian" contribution of the SLC24A5 allele into San hunter-gatherer [and other sub-Saharan Africans] gene pool, or your nowhere-to-be-found molecular basis of "Eurasian" genesis of either U6 or M1...come to mind when you bring up the whining about "stall" -- no, why wouldn't I do that.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
That you see well established Yemenite demographic changes after and immediate before the common era (e.g., influx of Bantu speakers, South Asians, Jews) as so surprising
I'd say the disappearance of the Yemenites and their subsequent replacement, which you now simply term "demographic changes", is something to be surprised about. Where did they go; were they exterminated, migrate to another galaxy; what?
quote: that you see the discussion of such facts as akin to random science fiction is obviously a function of your complete bewilderedness when it comes to the subject matter at hand, and possibly shabby mental faculties in general.
So, your understanding of a "fact" is act of saying something without the ability of offering its material foundation. Did you come from some sort of a parallel universe where this is the case?
quote: Indeed, you’re so bewildered that you can’t even explain perceived inconsistencies in my writings nor were you able to explain your own random invocation of deep-rooted clades in Ethiopians.
Now there, cut the all-day weeping about "inconsistencies"; if you want some, try these...again:
1. the idea that "Semitic origins" is responsible for Ethiopian mtDNA, which you have no way of showing to be demarcated along linguistic lines, does NOT follow from the fact you were forced to acknowledge: that there is no such demarcation!
2. the idea that the alternative to the above, can only be to imagine different "Eurasian" groups introducing different "Eurasian" mtDNA "uniformly" into Ethiopian groups is not only profoundly stupid, it too does NOT follow from the fact you were forced to acknowledge: that there is no such demarcation!
Happy yet, kid?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Genome-Wide Diversity in the Levant Reveals Recent Structuring by Culture 2013 Marc Haber,Dominique Gauguier, Sonia Youhanna,
The population tree (Figure 3A) splits Levantine populations in two branches: one leading to Europeans and Central Asians that includes Lebanese, Armenians, Cypriots, Druze and Jews, as well as Turks, Iranians and Caucasian populations; and a second branch composed of Palestinians, Jordanians, Syrians, as well as North Africans, Ethiopians, Saudis, and Bedouins. The tree shows a correlation between religion and the population structures in the Levant: all Jews (Sephardi and Ashkenazi) cluster in one branch; Druze from Mount Lebanon and Druze from Mount Carmel are depicted on a private branch; and Lebanese Christians form a private branch with the Christian populations of Armenia and Cyprus placing the Lebanese Muslims as an outer group. The predominantly Muslim populations of Syrians, Palestinians and Jordanians cluster on branches with other Muslim populations as distant as Morocco and Yemen.
ADMIXTURE identifies at K = 10 an ancestral component (light green) with a geographically restricted distribution representing ~50% of the individual component in Ethiopians, Yemenis, Saudis, and Bedouins, decreasing towards the Levant, with higher frequency (~25%) in Syrians, Jordanians, and Palestinians, compared with other Levantines (4%–20%). The geographical distribution pattern of this component (Figure 4A, 4B) correlates with the pattern of the Islamic expansion, but its presence in Lebanese Christians, Sephardi and Ashkenazi Jews, Cypriots and Armenians might suggest that its spread to the Levant could also represent an earlier event.
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
lioness, so how do you think these findings above tie into Ethiopian mtDNA and Y-DNA gene pool, when it comes to their supposed relationship with Yemeni gene pool?
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: When you are stupid enough to mistake a direct quote for "amnesia",
When you’re stupid enough to not realize that ’’criticisms’’ is in plural, and that it therefore includes your other criticism of Pagani et al as well, I’d say you not only have a pretty severe case of amnesia, but that the ‘stupid’ appellation fits you to a t.
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: you need a “source” to clue you, rather than from common sense--a “luxury” you clearly ought to seek out, in on?
No source I see. Good boy. You realize that dating genes under selective pressure is commonplace, and you opted to bail out of citing a source that says ’’ it is almost next to impossible’’ to reliably date genes under selection.
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: I'd say the disappearance of the Yemenites and their subsequent replacement, which you now simply term "demographic changes", is something to be surprised about. Where did they go; were they exterminated, migrate to another galaxy; what?
I see your severe case of amnesia is coming up again. Let me put those misfiring and dementing neurones back on track again: your bizarre ’’disappearance’’ figment came out of nowhere, after I told you that the said demographic changes occurred. If you then bizarrely think it bespeaks proper mental functioning to address this readily observable fact by going off on a tangent about intergalactic travel, that’s something you have to deal with, perhaps with professional mental help--not me.
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: So, your understanding of a "fact" is act of saying something without the ability of offering its material foundation.
The ‘fact’ bit that you’re talking about here, was originally meant to refer to post 3kya admixture events in Yemen. Are you saying that this is without material foundation?
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: the idea that "Semitic origins" is responsible for Ethiopian mtDNA, which you have no way of showing to be demarcated along linguistic lines, does NOT follow from the fact you were forced to acknowledge: that there is no such demarcation!
The notion that that’s a non-sequitor only makes sense if mtDNAs necessarily travel with languages. Since that isn’t the case, it follows that you then must not make sense.
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: the idea that the alternative to the above, can only be to imagine different "Eurasian" groups introducing different "Eurasian" mtDNA "uniformly" into Ethiopian groups is not only profoundly stupid, it too does NOT follow from the fact you were forced to acknowledge: that there is no such demarcation!
Where your first statement would have been correct if the premise was correct (which it isn't), this here is a total figment of your imagination. I've never said anything about ''different Eurasian groups'' introducing ''different Eurasian mtDNA". No doubt a function of your degrading mental faculties.
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: is not only profoundly stupid
What is profoundly stupid is that you embrace the Pagani et al's bit where they say that the Ethiopian component with questionable origins has more affinity with Levantines than Yemenites, with the intention of arguing against the Eurasian origin of Ethio-Semitic languages, even though the South Arabian linguistic clade would originally have Levantine ancestry, and hence, the Ethiopian component in Ethiopians would therefore not even need to be closer to Yemenite ancestry. Even that aside, relatively closer to Levantines than Yemenites is STILL Eurasian, and therefore, not inconsistent with this linguistic clade having origins in Eurasia. Beyond profoundly stupid.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: lioness, so how do you think these findings above tie into Ethiopian mtDNA and Y-DNA gene pool, when it comes to their supposed relationship with Yemeni gene pool?
I thought there might be something in this article pertinant to your debate with Sweetnet. I could be wrong
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
When you’re stupid enough to not realize that ’’criticisms’’ is in plural
dumbfuck, the direct quote was produced in response to this absent-minded gratuitous allegation:
On top of that, the fact that your criticisms against Pagani et al are confused and incoherent is further indicated by the fact that the Ethiopian SLC24A5 alleles themselves weren't even dated by Pagani et al. - swenet
And you convince yourself that it is others who suffer from "a severe case of amnesia". LOL
quote:No source I see. Good boy. You realize that dating genes under selective pressure is commonplace, and you opted to bail out of citing a source that says ’’ it is almost next to impossible’’ to reliably date genes under selection.
I realize people saying Ethiopians are "caucasoid", or hear of a "white" ancient Egypt, are a common place, dummy, but I also realize that it is not accurate. That you have to ask for a source for something that should have been a given, says that you are straining the capacity of your brain, taking part in a topic that is obviously too steep for your intellectual exercise.
Speaking of "bailing out", why is it that silence is your only capable response to this: Tell me how something of that nature is a candidate for concrete dating?...[recap--given that non-neutral genes throw off track any predictability factor about either the pace or temporal inclinations of mutation]
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
I see your severe case of amnesia is coming up again. Let me put those misfiring and dementing neurones back on track again: your bizarre ’’disappearance’’ figment came out of nowhere, after I told you that the said demographic changes occurred.
Oh, so, your sudden broaching of "demographic changes", after having been informed of the fact that the finding of your own source actually serves as a blow to your ideology, was not just an underhanded way of trying to explain away the incompatibility of Ethiopian gene pool with a south Arabian source, supposedly dating to just 3kya, that backfired?
Prey tell, how "demographic changes" then, are supposed to erase considerable genealogical harmony between the prime living descendants of a source population (supposedly ancient Yemenites) and a supposed satellite "descendant" population (Ethiopian/Ethio-Semites) in the African Horn, without insinuating that the genetic imprint of that source has been effectively erased in what is supposed to be the prime descendant populations, while said imprint supposedly survives on in the Ethiopian populations?
Here's something to think about: if you are saying that the genetic imprint of a source population is "erased" in what should be its prime descendant offshoot, then whether or not you realize it, you are advocating population replacement.
quote: If you then bizarrely think it bespeaks proper mental functioning to address this readily observable fact by going off on a tangent about intergalactic travel, that’s something you have to deal with, perhaps with professional mental help--not me.
There is no "readily observable fact" about your science fiction theories of what supposedly came of the Yemeni populations.
quote: The ‘fact’ bit that you’re talking about here, was originally meant to refer to post 3kya admixture events in Yemen. Are you saying that this is without material foundation?
Yes, I'm saying that your underhanded insinuation that the living Yemeni populations do not preserve ancestry of their forebears as well as living Ethiopians supposedly do, presumably because migrations to the area from elsewhere had taken place, is without material foundation.
quote:The notion that that’s a non-sequitor only makes sense if mtDNAs necessarily travel with languages. Since that isn’t the case, it follows that you then must not make sense.
Then you are guilty of a non-sequitur, since the inherent message of your placement of a "Semitic origin" onto Ethiopia's supposedly "Eurasian"-derived mtDNA, is predicated on the spread of that language phylum with said genes. Otherwise, you would not have made the connection between "Semitic" origin and the supposed "Eurasian" mtDNA in Ethiopia.
quote:Where your first statement would have been correct if the premise was correct (which it isn't), this here is a total figment of your imagination. I've never said anything about ''different Eurasian groups'' introducing ''different Eurasian mtDNA". No doubt a function of your degrading mental faculties.
You may have used clumsier terms, but I effectively captured your logic: you essentially spoke of the only other alternative to your first theory, a supposed "Semitic orgin", could only be to have "different" sources (supposedly "Eurasian"] contributing "different elements" of "Eurasian" mtDNA in "similar" capacity across the main Ethiopian populations.
A goat is a goat, no matter how many different ways you dress it, or not. LOL
quote:What is profoundly stupid is that you embrace the Pagani et al's bit where they say that the Ethiopian component with questionable origins has more affinity with Levantines than Yemenites, with the intention of arguing against the Eurasian origin of Ethio-Semitic languages, even though the South Arabian linguistic clade would originally have Levantine ancestry, and hence, the Ethiopian component in Ethiopians would therefore not even need to be closer to Yemenite ancestry.
You indulge in yet another profound stupidity even as you humorously charge me of the same. LOL
It stumps you, to dawn on you that the Yemeni gene pool would be more likely to show strong correspondence with Ethiopians, if your nutty south Arabian origins were in fact, closer to fact than fiction. Saying that the south Arabians would have ultimately derived from the Levant, does not absolve you from the embarrassing misfortune of having to contend with a lack of strong genetic correspondence between south Arabian populations and Ethiopians.
You are more than willing to say that Yemeni languages possess strong correspondence with the Ethiopians, implying that they managed to preserve that, while they supposedly managed to have done away with the genetic component of the responsible heritage.
quote:Even that aside, relatively closer to Levantines than Yemenites is STILL Eurasian, and therefore, not inconsistent with this linguistic clade having origins in Eurasia. Beyond profoundly stupid.
dumbass, the "relatively closer" does not by default turn something into Eurasians. You talk as if you have never ever heard of such a thing as genetic exchange, or gene flow, which can go either way!
You are truly a dumbass. Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't help but also get the resounding impression that you are oblivious to actual Ethiopian mtDNA, AND Y-DNA gene pools. While certain Ethiopian elements may show close ties with those in the Levant, it is also known that Ethiopian Y-DNA and mtDNA gene pools do not find duplicity in even the Levant, which is said to show closer correspondence than the Arabian peninsula. I've recaptured specific examples on this in a different bu somewhat related thread. Rather, in many cases, Ethiopian gene pools find their immediate or closer matches in northern coastal Africa than they do either the Levant or the Arabian peninsula.
Also, you are not making sense, when you tie "Semitic origin" with the genesis of so-called Ethiopian "Eurasian" maternal gene pool, given that elements in the Y-DNA are better at featuring gradients along linguistic lines...thereby implying that somehow the imprint of the "Semitic" source population managed to structure itself relatively better along linguistic lines across Ethiopian populations in one type of gene pool but not the other.
This also tacitly implies that the migrant "Semitic" source population came in with more female company than it could handle, thereby presumably making them available to other non-Semitic speaking segments of the Ethiopian population, and paving way to the lack of discernible structuring of the maternal line along linguistic grounds.
The above in turn would tacitly imply that the females of the "Semitic" source population must have been very hot in demand, such that their lineage would find such wide distribution across core Ethiopian populations.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is funny how white folks are so concerned about "Eurasians" in Africa thousands of years ago as if they really think Africa was overrun by white folks that far back in history, yet they ignore the proof of their own genetic history and being overrun by the same Eurasians and "Africans" in multiple waves. Eurasian being any person from the Levant to India.
quote: DNA sequenced from nearly 40 ancient skeletons has shed light on the complex prehistoric events that shaped modern European populations.
A study of remains from Central Europe suggests the foundations of the modern gene pool were laid down between 4,000 and 2,000 BC - in Neolithic times.
These changes were likely brought about by the rapid growth and movement of some populations.
The work by an international team is published in Nature Communications.
Decades of study of the DNA patterns of modern Europeans suggests two major events in prehistory significantly affected the continent's genetic landscape: its initial peopling by hunter-gatherers in Palaeolithic times (35,000 years ago) and a wave of migration by Near Eastern farmers some 6,000 years ago. (in the early Neolithic)
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: the direct quote was produced in response to this absent-minded gratuitous allegation
You must be one of those weirdoes who like talking to no one in particular, since you’re reiterating something no one is denying and was already acknowledged when I said that ’criticisms’ is in plural.
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: I realize people saying Ethiopians are "caucasoid", or hear of a "white" ancient Egypt, are a common place, dummy, but I also realize that it is not accurate.
With the difference being that an infinitely stronger case can be made for the contrary, which you have, and still fail to do when it comes to ’’it is almost next to impossible to reliably date genes under selection’’. Stop b!tching and produce a source already.
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: Tell me how something of that nature is a candidate for concrete dating?
As with any scientific discipline, there can be models devised for this, where the effect of uncertainty inducing variables is minimized by including them into the TMRCA equation. You obviously have no idea how science works, that you’d ask me such a preposterous question.
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: Prey tell, how "demographic changes" then, are supposed to erase
That’s a question YOU need to ask yourself, dummy. I get the feeling that you still don’t understand how retarded you sound when you equate the assimilation of new groups with the elimination of population segments. Any repeat of the said incoherent mumbo jumbo henceforth will be taken to mean that you must be mentally dysfunctional.
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: Then you are guilty of a non-sequitur, since the inherent message of your placement of a "Semitic origin" onto Ethiopia's supposedly "Eurasian"-derived mtDNA, is predicated on the spread of that language phylum with said genes. Otherwise, you would not have made the connection between "Semitic" origin and the supposed "Eurasian" mtDNA in Ethiopia.
You’re simply rephrasing your earlier garbage, which I had already flushed down the toilet by schooling you on the fact that the connection I made still stands despite the mtDNA conformity of the speakers in question, since the spread of mtDNAs need not co-vary with the languages of the migrating parties. You deliberately confound the two (which makes your argument a non-sequitor [not mine]) in your pathetic need to keep the Ethiopian genepool free of outside influences--lame.
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: but I effectively captured your logic:
That I’m right in that you distorted what I said can be easily seen in that your paraphrase of what I allegedly said doesn’t even conform to what you’re accusing me of elsewhere (i.e., on one occasion you say I supposedly spoke of different mtDNA bearing Eurasian groups impacting Ethiopian groups and on the other occasion [when you see non-sequitors where there are none] you say I argue that the mtDNA profiles of Ethiopian Cushitic and Semitic speakers are interchangeable). You can’t even get your sh!t together. You’re being called out for more than enough phuckups to be tripping over your own words. Keep you pants up, bwoy.
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: that the Yemeni gene pool would be more likely to show strong correspondence with Ethiopians, if your nutty south Arabian origins were in fact, closer to fact than fiction.
It still hasn’t dawned on you that the Yemenite proper population pre-dates the South Arabian speakers, has it? Otherwise it would have occurred to you that using Yemenites as a proxy for the said South Arabian speakers is self-expository of your rather marginal understanding of the issue at hand, without me having to clue you into this fact 4 times in a row.
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: of having to contend with a lack of strong genetic correspondence between south Arabian populations and Ethiopians.
This just proves the above, i.e., that your cosmic unsophistication in these matters is what leads you to conclude that all Yemenites are South Arabian speakers, and that you, in your astronomic obtuseness, even try to turn a linguistic clade into a geographic population (i.e., South Arabian languages).
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: the "relatively closer" does not by default turn something into Eurasians.
He-who-takes-the-cake-in-obtuseness, stop being such a knuckle head. The Ethiopian component in question shows genetic traces of admixture events that can be dated to less than 3kya—a conclusion you’ve been pathetically trying to avoid ever since that abstract was posted. It’s a wrap, bwoy, you’re done.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
You must be one of those weirdoes who like talking to no one in particular, since you’re reiterating something no one is denying and was already acknowledged when I said that ’criticisms’ is in plural.
You are the dumbass wierdo who makes dense-headed gratuitous accusations, and then forget what those accusations were, in just mere seconds after making them. Brain activity is not one of your strong suits.
quote: With the difference being that an infinitely stronger case can be made for the contrary, which you have, and still fail to do when it comes to ’’it is almost next to impossible to reliably date genes under selection’’. Stop b!tching and produce a source already.
No can do, until you are able to get past being a numbnut and actually cater to this, other than resounding silence of ignorance on the topic:
1. Tell me how something of that nature is a candidate for concrete dating?...[recap--given that non-neutral genes throw off track any predictability factor about either the pace or temporal inclinations of mutation]
2. While at it, when will you grow the balls to substantiate what makes the SLC24A5 gene, as found in Ethiopians, and the San bushmen, "non-African", other than this being nothing more than ideological hotair that makes you feel good?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: As with any scientific discipline, there can be models devised for this, where the effect of uncertainty inducing variables is minimized by including them into the TMRCA equation.
Good, mr. goofball, who supposedly knows "how science works" more than anybody: start by telling me how the "effect of uncertainty inducing variables is minimized" in making it magically possible to get reliably-concrete dating on a gene(s) clearly under positive selection
quote: That’s a question YOU need to ask yourself, dummy. I get the feeling that you still don’t understand how retarded you sound when you equate the assimilation of new groups with the elimination of population segments.
LOL. I need to ask myself a question around some dumb allegation that none other than you had made. What warped up planet do you come from, seriously?
Besides, if you are not advocating "replacement", then why does Ethiopian mtDNA and Y-DNA gene pool profile not fit into your south Arabian-origin fairy tale?
quote:
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: Then you are guilty of a non-sequitur, since the inherent message of your placement of a "Semitic origin" onto Ethiopia's supposedly "Eurasian"-derived mtDNA, is predicated on the spread of that language phylum with said genes. Otherwise, you would not have made the connection between "Semitic" origin and the supposed "Eurasian" mtDNA in Ethiopia.
You’re simply rephrasing your earlier garbage, which I had already flushed down the toilet by schooling you on the fact that the connection I made still stands despite the mtDNA conformity of the speakers in question, since the spread of mtDNAs need not co-vary with the languages of the migrating parties.
Facts are not generated magically, because you call any nonsense that comes out of you as such. You'll have to do a lot more than just empty barking. Who says that mtDNA cannot correlate to the language distribution, while Y-DNA can, and why! Dummy, do these markers come with people...who speak a language?
quote:
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: but I effectively captured your logic:
That I’m right in that you distorted what I said can be easily seen in that your paraphrase of what I allegedly said doesn’t even conform to what you’re accusing me of elsewhere
Cutting off my post, and then completing them with phantom acknowledgements isn't going to magically remove them from the realm of fiction of your own making. LOL
quote:(i.e., on one occasion you say I supposedly spoke of different mtDNA bearing Eurasian groups impacting Ethiopian groups and on the other occasion [when you see non-sequitors where there are none] you say I argue that the mtDNA profiles of Ethiopian Cushitic and Semitic speakers are interchangeable).
So, who's doing the paraphrasing now, eh? Where do I apply the word "interchangeable"?
Furthermore, it's not mutually exclusive for you to be forced to acknowledge the lack of differentiation of content in Ethiopian Cushitic and Semitic speakers gene pools, where the supposed "non-African" lineages are concerned, and for you to suggest--as you actually have--that this could have come about, as the only other alternative to your frivolous "Semitic origin" theory, through different Eurasian groups supposedly indiscriminately introducing different types of so-called "non-African" lineages into and across the diverse language-speaking Ethiopian populations.
quote: You can’t even get your sh!t together. You’re being called out for more than enough phuckups to be tripping over your own words. Keep you pants up, bwoy.
The problem isn't me; it's your inability to understand plain English.
quote:
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: that the Yemeni gene pool would be more likely to show strong correspondence with Ethiopians, if your nutty south Arabian origins were in fact, closer to fact than fiction.
It still hasn’t dawned on you that the Yemenite proper population pre-dates the South Arabian speakers, has it?
Well, apparently, it has not "dawned on you" that "Yemenites" ARE/were "south Arabians"!
Unless, you are advocating "replacement", you haven't a leg to stand on, as to why Ethiopian DNA profiles are incompatible with your goofy South Arabian origin theory, that you merely parrot without the foggiest idea of why, other than just being a good sap for psychological conditioning by other ideologues.
quote: Otherwise it would have occurred to you that using Yemenites as a proxy for the said South Arabian speakers is self-expository of your rather marginal understanding of the issue at hand, without me having to clue you into this fact 4 times in a row.
The loon takes it for granted that living Ethiopians, whose DNA we talk about, are "proxy" for the ancient Semitic-speaking Ethiopians, but that living Yemeni, are somehow transplanted aliens from somewhere else, who have no relevance to the dynamics of the history of cultural interaction across the Red Sea...all this in the name of being stumped and frustrated by the fact that Ethiopian gene profiles do not sit well with a south-Arabian origin.
quote:
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: of having to contend with a lack of strong genetic correspondence between south Arabian populations and Ethiopians.
This just proves the above, i.e., that your cosmic unsophistication in these matters is what leads you to conclude that all Yemenites are South Arabian speakers, and that you, in your astronomic obtuseness, even try to turn a linguistic clade into a geographic population (i.e., South Arabian languages).
1. Cite where I "conclude that all Yemenites are "South Arabian" speakers", and thus show me how much of your "cosmic sophistication" in reading is doing good by you.
2. Do you know what "South Arabians" are? Did you know that South Arabia is geography? Did you know that "Yemenites" live(d) on what is called South Arabia?
3. Use your supposed "cosmic sophistication" to show me why Ethiopian gene pool profiles don't fit your goofy South Arabian origin.
quote:He-who-takes-the-cake-in-obtuseness, stop being such a knuckle head. The Ethiopian component in question shows genetic traces of admixture events that can be dated to less than 3kya—a conclusion you’ve been pathetically trying to avoid ever since that abstract was posted. It’s a wrap, bwoy, you’re done.
numbnut, explain how "being relatively closer to" a group, magically turns the former into the latter...and you are quite convince that you have some "cosmic sophistication" in matters of genetics that I supposedly lack, and not the numb-nutted blockhead that you actually conform to, to the letter? This, I've got to see.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
It is funny how white folks are so concerned about "Eurasians" in Africa thousands of years ago as if they really think Africa was overrun by white folks that far back in history, yet they ignore the proof of their own genetic history and being overrun by the same Eurasians and "Africans" in multiple waves.
They do this, consciously or not, because Africa, generally being considered the "cradle of humanity", has an obvious importance in human biology, and so, designating lineages "non-African" or "Eurasian", even when there is no actual clear evidence to justify such classification policy, gives a certain importance or monopoly to "Eurasians" that they would not otherwise have in the biological development of modern humanity. Pagani et al. (2012) for example, yeah the folks cited here, gratuitously just divided genetic mtDNA markers into "African" and "non-African" on the grounds of hg L-types vs. the non-L types. This is the kind of "solid" science we are dealing with!
Eurasians are given exclusivity/importance and are gratuitously appointed monopoly over certain groups of markers, even as it is acknowledged that those very markers derive from African ancestry, because Europeans see themselves as extensions of "Eurasians", hence the name "Eur-Asians"--specially emphasizing Europe in the name, and would like to assign greater importance to themselves in a matter(s) than they otherwise actually deserve. If a whole group of lineages were not put in the exclusive domain of "Eurasians", then greater importance is attached to Africa....rather than Europe!
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: No can do
Exactly. Was not so bad to admit your gaping failure, now was it?
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: While at it, when will you grow the balls to substantiate what makes the SLC24A5 gene, as found in Ethiopians, and the San bushmen, "non-African"
LMAO. ’’found in Ethiopians and the San bushmen'', as if the incidence of finding it in other African groups (for whatever reason, i.e., even if indigenous) discounts an Eurasian origin of the allele in the case of Ethiopians who indeed have Eurasian input dating to 3kya. There is really no reason to mention San SLC24A5, unless you can clue me in to the evidence you’re withholding from me, that shows that the allele has a related history in both cases. I suspect this rather straightforward request will undergo the same fate as my earlier queries; you'll either misplace it as someone else’s responsibility, or frame your inability to back up your insinuations and claims as ’’its common knowledge’’.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: start by telling me how the "effect of uncertainty inducing variables is minimized" in making it magically possible to get reliably-concrete dating on a gene(s) clearly under positive selection
No refutation of what I said, because you can’t. That’s why you’re desperately fishing for more things to refute. Either you refute what I said in your next post, or I will take it to mean you simply can’t.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: LOL. I need to ask myself a question around some dumb allegation that none other than you had made.
It’s really an issue you’re struggling with, eh? I mean, lying chronically? Produce this allegation by quoting me (watch this request go unanswered).
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: if you are not advocating "replacement", then why does Ethiopian mtDNA and Y-DNA gene pool profile not fit into your south Arabian-origin fairy tale?
Uniparental evidence doesn’t show that Ethiopia's foreign ancestry is primarily from groups other than Yemenites, who live more towards West Asia? Prove it (this is going to be hilarious)!
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Who says that mtDNA cannot correlate to the language distribution, while Y-DNA can, and why
Either this is another incidence of you lying, or its your amnesia rearing its head again. Produce a citation where I said that mtDNA ’’cannot correlate to the language distribution while Y-DNA can’’.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Furthermore, it's not mutually exclusive for you to be forced to acknowledge the lack of differentiation of content in Ethiopian Cushitic and Semitic speakers gene pools, where the supposed "non-African" lineages are concerned, and for you to suggest--as you actually have--that this could have come about, as the only other alternative to your frivolous "Semitic origin" theory, through different Eurasian groups supposedly indiscriminately introducing different types of so-called "non-African" lineages into and across the diverse language-speaking Ethiopian populations.
Blablabla. That this messy turd, posing as an English sentence is actually saying something, is a product of the psychedelic figments in your head. Recap:
--there is a special kind of cretin needed to see a contradiction in the notion that the gene pools of groups were impacted similarly by foreign immigrants, but that most of the said groups preserved their language, while others did not.
--no ’’only alternatives’’ were spoken of. Again, either a flat-out lie, or your neurones are misfiring again.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: The problem isn't me; it's your inability to understand plain English.
Of course it is you. It’s all in your posts: first you’re (correctly) stating that I’m saying that their mtDNAs are interchangeable, the next moment you’re adamant that I’ve said that different groups introduced different mtDNAs to Ethiopian populations.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Well, apparently, it has not "dawned on you" that "Yemenites" ARE/were "south Arabians"!
In the face of knowing South Arabian speakers came from the Levant, and are a separate entity from the older Yemenite population, simply their sharing of the same land (South Arabia) in modern times, means they can just recklessly be used as proxies for one another? Say it aint so Explorer, I knew you were in the clinch with your mental faculties, but you can’t be that astronomically stupid!
quote:[quote]Originally posted by The Explorer: The loon takes it for granted that living Ethiopians, whose DNA we talk about, are "proxy" for the ancient Semitic-speaking Ethiopians, but that living Yemeni, are somehow transplanted aliens from somewhere else
Firstly, I recently schooled you on the fact that the isolated Ethiopian component was relatively closer to Levantines, vis a vis Yemenites; not absolutely closer. Secondly, this repeated talk of ’’intergalactic travel’’ and ’’aliens’’ is, as already noted, indicative of your mental figments, which we know by now, have quite a stronghold on your dementing neurones.
quote:Cite where I "conclude that all Yemenites are "South Arabian" speakers"
Why else would you drool and get over-zealous over Pagani et al’s observation that the Ethiopian component evinces greater affinity to Levantines than Yemenites? Had you known that South Arabians speakers are said to have originated in/near the Levant, and that Pagani et al’s quote therefore would be consistent with the Levantine origin of Ethio-Semitic languages, you would have recognized this as a great opportunity to leave that excerpt alone, and act like you never read it. But no, you repeatedly and boldly used the aforementioned Pagani citation as evidence, yes, you used it as evidence for christ sake (even proudly citing your newfound wisdom in other threads), to conclude that Ethio-Semitic languages don’t have a foreign origin, without realizing, until after I drummed in into your head, that Yemenites cannot stand in for South Arabian speakers.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: numbnut, explain how "being relatively closer to" a group, magically turns the former into the latter
I will. Right after you catch me saying this is so. In the meantime, while you’re searching for something that doesn’t exist, you can prove this observation about you doesn’t hold weight:
The Ethiopian component in question shows genetic traces of admixture events that can be dated to less than 3kya— a conclusion you’ve been pathetically trying to avoid ever since that abstract was posted. --Swenet
Oops, forgot. You already proved it to be true when you ignored it when I said it the first time around.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Exactly. Was not so bad to admit your gaping failure, now was it?
Now that you've got those clown urges out of your system, take another look--these still remain at large:
1. Tell me how something of that nature is a candidate for concrete dating?...[recap--given that non-neutral genes throw off track any predictability factor about either the pace or temporal inclinations of mutation]
2. While at it, when will you grow the balls to substantiate what makes the SLC24A5 gene, as found in Ethiopians, and the San bushmen, "non-African", other than this being nothing more than ideological hotair that makes you feel good?
These matters aren't going to disappear, just because your idea of competence is to cut posts and paste them onto your fairy tales.
quote:LMAO. ’’found in Ethiopians and the San bushmen'', as if the incidence of finding it in other African groups (for whatever reason, i.e., even if indigenous) discounts an Eurasian origin of the allele in the case of Ethiopians who indeed have Eurasian input dating to 3kya.
You are obviously milking time to obscure your frivolous allegation about the SLC24A5 genes--found in said African--being "non-African". Your tooth-fairy rendition as to why they are "discounted" isn't going to get you off the hook; that's to say: deliver the answers with less whiny, more fetchy, bitch!
quote: There is really no reason to mention San SLC24A5, unless you can clue me in to the evidence you’re withholding from me, that shows that the allele has a related history in both cases.
There's an obvious reason, but you are notoriously absentminded: you treated the SLC24A5 gene as "non-African". Hence, the overdue of your demonstration as to how the gene in either the San or Ethiopians serve as such.
quote:
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: start by telling me how the "effect of uncertainty inducing variables is minimized" in making it magically possible to get reliably-concrete dating on a gene(s) clearly under positive selection
No refutation of what I said, because you can’t.
You are right, I can't refute empty gobbledygook made apparently by an empty-headed goofball. Let me know when you don't have an air-headed reply to the highlighted request above.
quote:Uniparental evidence doesn’t show that Ethiopia's foreign ancestry is primarily from groups other than Yemenites, who live more towards West Asia? Prove it (this is going to be hilarious)!
LOL, "prove it"? dumbmass, your own source has been reapplied to penetrate that very point into your blockhead, with regards to shutting down your goofy south Arabian origin story; that's # 1. As for me "proving it", that ship had sailed more than 3 years ago, long before your source caught on. I just recaptured involved-material in a remotely-related thread days ago: I'll grant you that it's going to be "hilarious" to see you fumble with addressing that with potent counter-feedback.
quote:Either this is another incidence of you lying, or its your amnesia rearing its head again. Produce a citation where I said that mtDNA ’’cannot correlate to the language distribution while Y-DNA can’’.
Good. Since, we've now establish that you are not saying the above, then explain why you attribute a "Semitic origin" to Ethiopian mtDNA gene pool, when you obviously have no material groundwork to base it on?
quote:In the face of knowing South Arabian speakers came from the Levant, and are a separate entity from the older Yemenite population, simply their sharing of the same land (South Arabia) in modern times, means they can just recklessly be used as proxies for one another?
This post only reaffirms the fact that you are a complete idiot who has neither a clue as to what south Arabia is or what Yemenites are. Maybe you should learn what either are first, before jumping the gun on goofy stories of a "south Arabian" origin.
quote:Say it aint so Explorer, I knew you were in the clinch with your mental faculties, but you can’t be that astronomically stupid!
I can't say you are not an absentminded fuckhead; doing so, would be lying.
quote: Firstly, I recently schooled you on the fact that the isolated Ethiopian component was relatively closer to Levantines, vis a vis Yemenites; not absolutely closer.
LOL. Now you try to convince yourself of the prospect of "schooling" people on self-incriminating material from your own source, which obviously caught you off-guard. Hence, all the panicky scrambling for fruitless excuses.
quote: Secondly, this repeated talk of ’’intergalactic travel’’ and ’’aliens’’ is, as already noted, indicative of your mental figments, which we know by now, have quite a stronghold on your dementing neurones.
I call it as it is; your nutty stories are as good as fiction. You should actually consider it a gratuitous compliment, that I'm equating it with anything as remotely coherent as "intergalactic travel".
quote:
quote:Cite where I "conclude that all Yemenites are "South Arabian" speakers"
Why else would you drool and get over-zealous over Pagani et al’s observation that the Ethiopian component evinces greater affinity to Levantines than Yemenites?
Ok. You are coming clean on the fact that you are not in possession of an actual quote to the effect of your fairy tale allegation.
quote:I will. Right after you catch me saying this is so.
Then I'll get right to it: You in effect said that the idea of Ethiopians positioning relatively closer to the Levantines, even though it busts your myth about a south Arabian origin, still renders them "Eurasian". Demonstrate how so!
quote:
In the meantime, while you’re searching for something that doesn’t exist, you can prove this observation about you doesn’t hold weight:
The Ethiopian component in question shows genetic traces of admixture events that can be dated to less than 3kya— a conclusion you’ve been pathetically trying to avoid ever since that abstract was posted. --Swenet
Oops, forgot. You already proved it to be true when you ignored it when I said it the first time around.
"forgeting" is the least of your ineptitude problems; you are too stumped to even recognize that our whole exchange revolves around this very goofy spam in your fruitless re-copy & paste effort. A brick can put in more brain effort than you can possibly ever imagine achieving.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Son of Ra: Man I love the discussion going on here.
Not me - there is nothing substantial being given. We have to great thinkers going at each others throat yet there has been absolute no substance submitted by either to to justify each other claim.
What we have here is a stand off where two people fighting says "hit me first, hit me first". I'm sure they both have information - but they are waiting on each other to throw the first blow - which is a fighting style tactic.
I'm curious as to how why Eurasian becomes the destination to gene-pools which seems to be indigenous to Africa and have spread out through migration vs. back migration. One is claiming migration and the other is claiming back migration. One is claiming African origins and other other is giving to white people. I'm looking for proof as to which is more accurate. I'm looking for the documentation and not the battle of ego's.
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ha. Ha. Ha. ...SLC24A5...is not Africans?!!!! Sweet and simple mind. Sugar does not know it is as African as melanin. SLC24A5 correlates with latitude. Source cited. ...
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Son of Ra: Man I love the discussion going on here.
Not me - there is nothing substantial being given. We have to great thinkers going at each others throat yet there has been absolute no substance submitted by either to to justify each other claim.
What we have here is a stand off where two people fighting says "hit me first, hit me first". I'm sure they both have information - but they are waiting on each other to throw the first blow - which is a fighting style tactic.
I'm curious as to how why Eurasian becomes the destination to gene-pools which seems to be indigenous to Africa and have spread out through migration vs. back migration. One is claiming migration and the other is claiming back migration. One is claiming African origins and other other is giving to white people. I'm looking for proof as to which is more accurate. I'm looking for the documentation and not the battle of ego's.
I've seen much worse arguments than the arguments seen on this thread.
Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
What the dummy don’t understand is that when a gene correlates with latitude (environment) like that it has nothing to do with admixture.
In addition, skin pigmentation is affected by SEVERAL genes, not just one; SLC45A2(high frequency in Europeans), SLC24A5 (high frequency in Hindus), ASIP(high frequency East Asians and Native Americans), OCA2(high frequency in Sans), OCA3/4(high frequency in light skinned South African groups). Also TYR, MTAP etc. Europeans carry a high frequency of ALL light pigmentation gene. Africans carry a low frequency of ALL light coloring gene. East Asians carry zero frequency of SLC45A2.
ALL humans carry a relatively high frequency of MC1R, the so called darkening(tanning) gene. Even Europeans.
What does that tell you genius? Tic! Toc! Clock is ticking. Are you a pretender?
BTW: Otzi iceman tested negative for SLC45A2!!!! I guess he wasn’t European. He! He! What a jackass! Your boyfriend probably rolls his eye a lot when you are among friends.
Added to that – I am messing with Dhoxie on Europeans being from Central Asia. I always contend there is no race. All humans are essential Africans adpted to live in their specific environment combined with genetic drift. It is called adaptation and bio-diversity, Europeans are a blend of continuously migrating Africans and Asians. All were recent African migrants at one time.
-------------------- 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 |
Not me - there is nothing substantial being given. We have to great thinkers going at each others throat yet there has been absolute no substance submitted by either to to justify each other claim.
This is obviously your opinion, as I have posted specific guiding principles by which I'm approaching the subject under discussion. If you don't understand what these say or do, why not simply just ask, rather than making unfounded conclusions about what they mean.
If you disagree, I'd urge you to identify what it is from me, that you supposedly consider "absolute no substance", but I'm fairly certain your reply will not be forthcoming. It never fails.
quote:
I'm curious as to how why Eurasian becomes the destination to gene-pools which seems to be indigenous to Africa and have spread out through migration vs. back migration. One is claiming migration and the other is claiming back migration. One is claiming African origins and other other is giving to white people. I'm looking for proof as to which is more accurate. I'm looking for the documentation and not the battle of ego's.
As I said, if you want to learn what I'm relating, then just come out and ask me what or where specifically you are lost, and I'll brief you to the best of my ability. It certainly beats making frivolous accusations about that, which you admit you have very little understanding to begin with.
As for the tit-for-tat name calling in discussions in venues like Egyptsearch, you should know this all too well by now; you've been here long enough to know how that works out.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
For those who can get any substance out of it, here's something to chew on; those who can't, then just assume I'm rambling on with "absolutely no substance"...
With respect to the SLC24A5 pigmentation-associated gene, Pagani et al. (2012) note as follows:
"we noted one that contained SLC24A5 (MIM 113750). This gene is a major contributor to the pigmentation differences between Africans and Europeans and a strong candidate for positive selection in Europe.44,45
Given that SLC24A5 is one of the most highly differentiated genes between African and European populations, we then looked for other highly differentiated genes among the outlier windows, but found none.
To further investigate the effect of admixture on the genetic landscape of skin pigmentation in Ethiopia, we also looked at other genes associated with pigmentation in Europe; however, none were found in our outlier regions." - Pagani et al. (2012)
Significance of this, if any?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: For those who can get any substance out of it, here's something to chew on; those who can't, then just assume I'm rambling on with "absolutely no substance"...
With respect to the SLC24A5 pigmentation-associated gene, Pagani et al. (2012) note as follows:
"we noted one that contained SLC24A5 (MIM 113750). This gene is a major contributor to the pigmentation differences between Africans and Europeans and a strong candidate for positive selection in Europe.44,45
Given that SLC24A5 is one of the most highly differentiated genes between African and European populations, we then looked for other highly differentiated genes among the outlier windows, but found none.
To further investigate the effect of admixture on the genetic landscape of skin pigmentation in Ethiopia, we also looked at other genes associated with pigmentation in Europe; however, none were found in our outlier regions." - Pagani et al. (2012)
Significance of this, if any?
What's the name of this study? Posts: 21 | From: Mars | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ethiopian Genetic Diversity Reveals Linguistic Stratification and Complex Influences on the Ethiopian Gene Pool
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Ethiopian Genetic Diversity Reveals Linguistic Stratification and Complex Influences on the Ethiopian Gene Pool
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: For those who can get any substance out of it, here's something to chew on; those who can't, then just assume I'm rambling on with "absolutely no substance"...
With respect to the SLC24A5 pigmentation-associated gene, Pagani et al. (2012) note as follows:
"we noted one that contained SLC24A5 (MIM 113750). This gene is a major contributor to the pigmentation differences between Africans and Europeans and a strong candidate for positive selection in Europe.44,45
Given that SLC24A5 is one of the most highly differentiated genes between African and European populations, we then looked for other highly differentiated genes among the outlier windows, but found none.
To further investigate the effect of admixture on the genetic landscape of skin pigmentation in Ethiopia, we also looked at other genes associated with pigmentation in Europe; however, none were found in our outlier regions." - Pagani et al. (2012)
Significance of this, if any?
What's the name of this study?
Thank sir - this I can comprehend ... and let me re-word the "no substance" part. There has been substance given but I was looking for some documentations as you have provided here.
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Son of Ra: Man I love the discussion going on here.
Not me - there is nothing substantial being given. We have to great thinkers going at each others throat yet there has been absolute no substance submitted by either to to justify each other claim.
What we have here is a stand off where two people fighting says "hit me first, hit me first". I'm sure they both have information - but they are waiting on each other to throw the first blow - which is a fighting style tactic.
Most of this is a pretty fair assessment, but this discussion did not arose out of a question that was being asked from someone with an open mind. If you know anything from Explorer's history of posts is that he never admits he's wrong, he'll simply endlessly question the data you put up, no matter its legitimacy. If you notice, he'll even have the audacity to demand you to back up something he has claimed. This passive role by definition will always lead to openings for him to **look** like he has a point, due to the fact that every piece of research can be questioned in some way, shape or form.
If you want to know something, ask away and I will try to answer it to the best of my ability, as I've always done with some of the more genuine posters.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
To be honest, I didn’t expect others to be reading this, I was just enjoying putting a smackdown on Explorer as usual. To make things more easy to follow for those who are reading this, I will tone it down a notch.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Tell me how something of that nature is a candidate for concrete dating?...[recap--given that non-neutral genes throw off track any predictability factor about either the pace or temporal inclinations of mutation]
Already answered this question. BTW, if you don’t see me responding to some of the things you keep reiterating, it’s because they’re already dealt with, and it’s your turn to refute what I said, rather than asking for another round of answers.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: While at it, when will you grow the balls to substantiate what makes the SLC24A5 gene, as found in Ethiopians, and the San bushmen, "non-African", other than this being nothing more than ideological hotair that makes you feel good?
See above. Already answered. Amnesia is not an excuse.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: You are obviously milking time to obscure your frivolous allegation about the SLC24A5 genes--found in said African--being "non-African".
Call it what you want. I still expect you to explain what San SLC24A5 has to do with the Ethiopian counterparts, if you’re going to bring San into this, since the virtue of the San having it (even if indigenous), won't make it so that Ethiopians have it because of the same reason.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: There's an obvious reason, but you are notoriously absentminded: you treated the SLC24A5 gene as "non-African". Hence, the overdue of your demonstration as to how the gene in either the San or Ethiopians serve as such.
As expected, your reason(ing) doesn’t make sense. You keep trying to simplify matters, and taking them out of their context, to make what I’m saying seem unreasonable. In the context of 1) the questionable component of Ethiopians isolated by Pagani et al, 2) the similarly aged (~3kya) subfamily Ethio-Semetic languages are rooted in, together with the youngest Semitic languages (which is indicative of backflow), the SLC24A5 alleles in San clearly have a different history compared to Ethiopians.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: You are right, I can't refute
I agree.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: your own source has been reapplied to penetrate that very point into your blockhead
Pagani et al was reapplied to corroborate the point that uniparental lineages already pointed out, namely, that Ethiopians have Eurasian ancestry? Thanks for admitting that Ethiopians indeed have West Asian ancestry. LMAO.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Good. Since, we've now establish that you are not saying the above, then explain why you attribute a "Semitic origin" to Ethiopian mtDNA gene pool, when you obviously have no material groundwork to base it on?
Leaving aside the fact that this post doesn’t follow out of my previous post (me saying that you were lying when you claimed that I said ’’that mtDNA cannot correlate to the language distribution, while Y-DNA can’’), this post flies in the face of the fact that you just admitted that you posted Pagani et al as corroboration of the relatively old discovery that Ethiopians share more Eurasian uniparentals with Levantines, than Yemenites.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: This post only reaffirms the fact that you are a complete idiot who has neither a clue as to what south Arabia is or what Yemenites are.
A familiar habit of yours: substituting arguments with a non-reply semi-insult when you get your nose slammed in the facts, and there is no way out. Again:
In the face of knowing South Arabian speakers came from the Levant, and are a separate entity from the older Yemenite population, simply their sharing of the same land (South Arabia) in modern times, means they can just recklessly be used as proxies for one another? --Swenet
Start explaining what about this post vindicates your opinion that it ’’reaffirms the fact that you are a complete idiot’’.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Ok. You are coming clean on the fact that you are not in possession of an actual quote to the effect of your fairy tale allegation.
Everyone can see that you’re, to this moment, clamping desperately to the assumption that South Arabian speakers can stand in for Yemenites. This assumption only makes sense if you dumb enough to think they’re the same, duh.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: even though it busts your myth about a south Arabian origin
Lie. I said that Ethio-Semitic languages, or even South Arabian languages for that matter, are ultimately of a South Arabian origin? Where?
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: still renders them "Eurasian". Demonstrate how so!
I was saying that their **genetic component**, which comprises of only a part of their genome, would still be Eurasian, given the other arguments that were posted, not that Ethiopians in general were rendered Eurasian, you dumb phuck.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: you are too stumped to even recognize that our whole exchange
You addressed the part where Pagani said that this genetic component became a part of the Ethiopian genome 3kya? Where?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Maybe someone is willing to discuss this …?. This is one of many such papers. Skin pigmentation isn’t as simple as the presence or absence ONE gene. Besides SLC45A2 shows gradation with latitude, from Africa to Europe. It is not a “white” gene. Sheeesssh! And therefore NOT an indicator of admixture.
As I pointed out in another post.…Mike is onto something but I will let him do his Albino thing.
To those who are capable, here is something to sink your teeth into. This table tells the story. It essentially corroborates that famous paper by Norton/Kittles... Hopefully some of the less simple minds can grasp it.
Some of you may know what the HAPMAP is? That project is going to change the way we view things. Anyone can freely access it, but it is a bear to use. It was used to help isolate the K-haplogroup of Otzi.
As I said no gene or phenotype is unique to Europeans. Nada, All genes came from Africans. Every, single one.
========
Molecular genetics of human pigmentation diversity .
Richard A. Sturm
Notably, a recent knockout of Slc24a5 in the mouse has given a phenotype of ocular albinism with no gross changes in pigmentation of the coat colour apparent. However, microscopic differences were seen in the melanosomes, and exposed skin surfaces of the mice were paler than normal (28). An ancestral allele of SLC24A5 was found in non-European groups using information from the HapMap database to examine the frequency of SNPs reported in this locus, an Ala111Thr polymorphism reaching near fixation in Europeans. THIS POPULATION-BASED DIFFERENCE IN FREQUENCY stimulated investigations into genotype–phenotype correlations using a skin melanin-index scale in African-American and African- Caribbean admixed populations (7), which indicated that 25–38% of variation was due to this single SLC24A5 polymorphism within the study group.
Miller et al. then turned their attention to KITLG variation in humans (9–12) to test for association between skin colour and an ancestral SNP allele in West Africans and strong linkage for the derived allele within Europeans and East Asians. By sampling an African-American population for a highly conserved and potential regulatory SNP, it was found that individuals carrying two ancestral alleles were associated with _20% higher melanin index scores than individuals carrying two European/East Asian alleles. Finally, a list of all known loci influencing pigmentation is available from the ESPCR web site (www.espcr.org/micemut/), which currently lists 279 colour loci in mice and their human and zebrafish homologues (29)
This reflects the fact that skin colour as a selectable trait has likely occurred multiple times at diverse geographical sites around the globe in ancestral as well as presently distributed human populations. NO ADMIXTURE NEEDED!!!!
In Europeans, genetic selection has been confirmed for SLC24A5 (7,34) and SLC45A2 (34,35) in relation to the evolution of pale skin colour. A range of other genes showing signs of selection in at least one population include: TYR, TYRP1, DCT, OCA2, MC1R, ASIP, KITL, MITF, SILV, MYO5A, DTNBP1 (HPS7), RAB27A, ATRN, LYST, MLPH, HPS6, TRPM1, ADAM17, ADAMTS20 (33,36–38) etc.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Notice Europeans are homologous(base pair) for almost each allele for each pigmentation gene.
However, Africans have a similar pairing. The difference is, Europeans have a higher frequency(bold) in many categories. Hence the term "fixation" or selective sweep.
ALL humans carry the genes for light skin. That is why I said about 2 ya. ..light skin is ancestral...right Lioness...I know you were slow to grasp the concept.
Per Heather Norton...remove the constraint(high UV) and humans revert back to their natural/ancestral state.
Notice the author speculated that it happened SEVERAL times throughout human history(200,000years) at different geographical location.
Excuse me...but I hate sitting on the side-lines and witness my black people mislead and mis-educated.
-------------------- 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
in order words..the order is light skin>dark skin>light skin for Europeans.
Skin pigmentation changes depending on environment..ie UV adaptation.
That is why Tunisians are lightest of Africans...why...lowest UV region(highest latitude) on the African continent. No admixture needed.
Note: also Sergi speculated that ALTITUDE may also effect pigmentation. Some researchers have speculated on that....more work is needed.
......and please no more food made them white Vit D Jablonski pop culture nonsense.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I said no gene or phenotype is unique to Europeans. Nada, All genes came from Africans. Every, single one.
This still hold true
We are the first man ......and will always be.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
To onlookers, notice how Explorer is deliberately manipulating data by repeating falsehoods I have shown to be false since my earliest post. He knows he's wrong, and he also knows that hanging on to this deliberate misinterpretation of Pagani et al and other data is what creates the impression that he just may have a point. Note the following exchanges:
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: yep, and an obvious blow to speculators whose favorite ideological theories of the supposed "Semitic" coming into the Horn from outside
^Here he's saying that the closer genetic affinity the Ethiopian genetic component (see Pagani et al) has to Levantines, rather than Yemenites, is evidence that Ethio-Semitic languages have an African origin. He reasons, if Ethio-Semitic languages were indeed from Yemen, Ethiopians would have more affinity with Yemenites than with Levantines. He repeats this here:
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: It’s clear you have trouble understanding the English language, as I just provided the reason as to why the so-called “Arabian” origins of Ethio-Semitic suffers a blow from genetic information; duh: the Ethiopian gene pool, that you love to gratuitously dismiss as “Eurasian”, is relatively closer to that in area north of Arabia than it is to southern Arabia, which is where most speculators love to stake their ideological theories on. For you, I’ll spell out the otherwise obvious: if their gene pool is from Semitic speakers of such ancestry, then their gene pool should be more similar to south Arabians than it does people north of the Arabian peninsula. Do you get it now, kiddo?
and here:
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: It stumps you, to dawn on you that the Yemeni gene pool would be more likely to show strong correspondence with Ethiopians, if your nutty south Arabian origins were in fact, closer to fact than fiction.
Note, however, that evidence from the field of Linguistics (e.g., Kitchen et al 2009), as well as other fields (e.g., archaeology) have demonstrated that South Arabian and Ethio-Semitic languages are very recent arrivals from the area North of the Arabian peninsula, and so, that the Ethiopian genetic component in question shows more affinity with Levantines, rather than Yemenites, should be expected! Note the flow of Semitic languages from the Levant to Southern Arabia (map is from Kitchen et al 2009):
It should be noted here that the migrations of South Arabian speakers depicted in the Arabian peninsula post date the emergence of populations in (Southern) Arabia. The evidence for this comes from archaeology, uniparental lineages, ancient texts that confirm the presence of populations in Southern Arabia prior to 3kya (3kya is the approximate date of the arrival of the ancestors of Ethio-Semitic and South Arabian speakers from the Levant, see that map from Kitchen et al 2009, above). So then, what is Explorer's response to my constant reminder that Yemenites and South Arabian speakers are different entities? Absolutely nothing, other than denial, lying, ignoring and stalling the inevitable, which would be, being forced to admit that Ethio-Semitic languages come from outside of Africa and that the closer genetic affinity of Levantines to Ethiopians, rather than Yemenites, is fully consistent with the emergence of Ethio-Semitic languages outside of Africa!
My question to him, days ago:
quote:So, are you saying that the Semetic language didn't spread from the Levant, per the linguistic evidence? [he ignored this question] Exactly how is Pagani et al's genetically based observation that the Eurasian componant in the Ethiopian genome fits this linguisitc expectation, a ''blow'' to the idea that these languages came from the outside?
--Swenet
Note the redherrings, strawmen, and other distracting antics in his reply, i.e., I've just told him that, according to current Linguistic data, South Arabian and Ethio-Semitic come from the Levant, not Southern Arabia, yet he continues to push the same tired bullsh!t that these languages originate in (Southern) Arabia:
quote:It’s clear you have trouble understanding the English language, as I just provided the reason as to why the so-called “Arabian” origins of Ethio-Semitic suffers a blow from genetic information; duh: the Ethiopian gene pool, that you love to gratuitously dismiss as “Eurasian”, is relatively closer to that in area north of Arabia than it is to southern Arabia, which is where most speculators love to stake their ideological theories on. For you, I’ll spell out the otherwise obvious: if their gene pool is from Semitic speakers of such ancestry, then their gene pool should be more similar to south Arabians than it does people north of the Arabian peninsula. Do you get it now, kiddo?
--The Explorer
Look where it leads to, when I repeated it to him, that South Arabian speakers are said to have a recent origin North of Arabia:
quote: What is profoundly stupid is that you embrace the Pagani et al's bit where they say that the Ethiopian component with questionable origins has more affinity with Levantines than Yemenites, with the intention of arguing against the Eurasian origin of Ethio-Semitic languages, even though the South Arabian linguistic clade would originally have Levantine ancestry, and hence, the Ethiopian component in Ethiopians would therefore not even need to be closer to Yemenite ancestry.
--Swenet
As usual, he’s just being redundant, and repeating his bullsh!t:
quote: It stumps you, to dawn on you that the Yemeni gene pool would be more likely to show strong correspondence with Ethiopians, if your nutty south Arabian origins were in fact, closer to fact than fiction.
--The Explorer
Here, the cat comes out of the bag:
quote:Saying that the south Arabians would have ultimately derived from the Levant, does not absolve you from the embarrassing misfortune of having to contend with a lack of strong genetic correspondence between south Arabian populations and Ethiopians.
--Explorer
He says ''Saying that the south Arabians would have ultimately derived from the Levant'', but note that I never said that Southern Arabians come from the Levant; I said that South Arabian speakers are from the Levant, with the difference being that the former are the aboriginal populations of Southern Arabia, while the latter are recent arrivals from the Levant!
By accidentally misconstruing my words as saying that the latter equal the former, he’s showing how little he knows about the topic; he’s confusing the spread of South Arabian speakers from the Levant 3kya, with the aboriginal population in Southern Arabia, who, as stated earlier, pre-date the arrival of South Arabian speakers (i.e., Levantines) in Southern Arabia ~3kya.
He, however, denies that he is doing this:
quote:Cite where I "conclude that all Yemenites are "South Arabian" speakers"
--The Explorer
Yet, look where another reminder (how many reminders can one need for the fact the penetrate) of mine that the term 'South Arabian speakers' does not equal 'aboriginal Southern Arabian', takes us:
quote:In the face of knowing South Arabian speakers came from the Levant, and are a separate entity from the older Yemenite population, simply their sharing of the same land (South Arabia) in modern times, means they can just recklessly be used as proxies for one another?
--Swenet
His reply:
quote:This post only reaffirms the fact that you are a complete idiot who has neither a clue as to what south Arabia is or what Yemenites are.
--The Explorer
Which then brings me back to my earlier observation about him:
quote:This just proves the above, i.e., that your cosmic unsophistication in these matters is what leads you to conclude that all Yemenites are South Arabian speakers, and that you, in your astronomic obtuseness, even try to turn a linguistic clade into a geographic population (i.e., South Arabian languages).
--Swenet
He's saying that he's not confusing the name of a linguistic clade (South Arabian speakers), with a general, geographical population with multiple distinct ethnies (Southern Arabians), yet, he describes the post where I'm saying something he supposedly isn't denying, as:
quote:This post only reaffirms the fact that you are a complete idiot who has neither a clue as to what south Arabia is or what Yemenites are.
--The Explorer
Talk about being a brick headed lunatic.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
If you know anything from Explorer's history of posts is that he never admits he's wrong, he'll simply endlessly question the data you put up, no matter its legitimacy.
If this was not mere fiction, then surely you would have a very easy time actually showing how I'm supposedly wrong, without requiring some sort of platitude from me, rather than just being reduced to a copying & pasting parrot who hardly understands what is being parroted.
Many here [e.g. like Ru2religious] are obviously not that well acquainted with the subject (genetics), and so, they assume that just because I'm exchanging notes with you, that this graduates you to some sort of a knowledgeable character. Those who do have a clue, instantly get the given:
You are a mere copy & paste parrot vs. me--who has the indepth insight. As clear as the difference between day and night.
quote: If you want to know something, ask away and I will try to answer it to the best of my ability
Staying true to your only talent as a mere copy & paste parrot, you can't even resist ripping off a line from my response to the very same poster that you are supposedly trying to clue in on about me, a poster who no less, has been on ES much longer than you. LOL
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic