quote:Originally posted by Swenet: 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.
False sense of feel-good self-aggrandizement aside, you are demanding the impossible of yourself: you can try to get out of the bitch, but you can't get the bitch out of you.
quote: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.
Any idiot--you, case in point--can merely "answer". Actually delivering the requested is a whole another universe. It's obvious to any half-wit that you don't know what how means, and well, if it makes you feel good, call your cowering whatever you see fit.
quote: 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.
Ok. Staying true to character: your dumbass merely parroted a line from a study, whose underlying idea you are actdually clueless about.
You were absolutely clueless about the subject; all you knew, and which drives you, is to parrot anything that makes you feel good on the surface.
quote: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.
Reasoning that you have to date, still not identified, while purporting to be qualified to draw a conclusion.
quote: 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.
All your jokes aside, point to me, specifically--in detailed molecular explanation--what is the supposed "Eurasian ancestry" that Ethiopians have.
quote:Leaving aside the fact that this post doesn’t follow out of my previous post
Are you hereby trying to convince someone, supposedly, that you have not attributed a "Semitic origin" to what you dismiss as "Eurasian" mtDNA in Ethiopian ethnic groups?
quote: Start explaining what about this post vindicates your opinion that it ’’reaffirms the fact that you are a complete idiot’’.
No problem: when someone speaks of a south Arabian origin, you gratuitously mistake that for language, moron!
quote:Lie. I said that Ethio-Semitic languages, or even South Arabian languages for that matter, are ultimately of a South Arabian origin? Where?
Isn't that what you've been defending all along, with so much emotional fuss? If not, then let's make this interesting:
Given that you are implying Ethio-Semitic languages derive from outside of the continent's mainland, then precisely where did they come from?
quote: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.
Isolate these components into specifics, and tell me why they "would still be Eurasian"!
quote:You addressed the part where Pagani said that this genetic component became a part of the Ethiopian genome 3kya? Where?
I'm well aware that those authors were trying to match their dating with reference to some dubious research from a linguistic research team, which attributes Ethio-Semitic language to a south Arabian complex aka the Sabeam kingdom -- dated to approx. 3 kya as well. Coincidence? I think not. So, I'm addressing the "3 kya" aspect now: How was that 3kya solidly attained on the genome?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
^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.
Reading or using a brain is not your strength. So, let me straighten you up: It was actually said that you source bursts your south-Arabian origin copy-cat theory. Nothing mentioned on an "African origin" yet; your imagination is just messing with you.
quote: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
Try actually reading the study, rather than making up fairy tale stories from cartoon, dumbass!
Here is material from the said authors:
"Kitchen A, Ehret C, Assefa S, Mulligan CJ. Department of Anthropology, PO Box 103610, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32610-3610, USA.
The evolution of languages provides a unique opportunity to study human population history. The origin of Semitic and the nature of dispersals by Semitic-speaking populations are of great importance to our understanding of the ancient history of the Middle East and Horn of Africa. Semitic populations are associated with the oldest written languages and urban civilizations in the region, which gave rise to some of the world's first major religious and literary traditions. In this study, we employ Bayesian computational phylogenetic techniques recently developed in evolutionary biology to analyse Semitic lexical data by modelling language evolution and explicitly testing alternative hypotheses of Semitic history. We implement a relaxed linguistic clock to date language divergences and use epigraphic evidence for the sampling dates of extinct Semitic languages to calibrate the rate of language evolution. Our statistical tests of alternative Semitic histories support an initial divergence of Akkadian from ancestral Semitic over competing hypotheses (e.g. an African origin of Semitic). We estimate an Early Bronze Age origin for Semitic approximately 5750 years ago in the Levant, and further propose that contemporary Ethiosemitic languages of Africa reflect a single introduction of early Ethiosemitic from southern Arabia approximately 2800 years ago."
quote:
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.
That's a given, dummy. The so-called OOA peopling modern humans predates the origin of the Semitic branch.
What you should be proving, rather, is your shifty insinuations about the South Arabian population, that supposedly gave rise to Ethiopian elements, having been replaced!
quote:The evidence for this comes from archaeology, uniparental lineages, ancient texts that confirm the presence of populations in Southern Arabia prior to 3kya
What ancient texts are we talking about, and what do they say about South Arabian populations?
quote:--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
You are too dirt-stupid to even realize that you are the only one here, ever, to speak of "south Arabian speakers".
The reference to some supposed "aboriginal south Arabians" is utterly immaterial, a stupid diversion actually, as the discussion is about some supposed south-Arabian origin for Ethio-Semitic languages...which dunce, would make the "Semitic"-speaking south Arabians (around by the supposed 3kya date) the relevant subject here.
Now, you are shifty, but you have been toying with population replacement in south Arabia. Prove it!
quote: Talk about being a brick headed lunatic.
I'd say let's talk about that some time, but to have that talk, you'd have to actually be smarter than a brick...which you are undoubtedly not. Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: Any idiot--you, case in point--can merely "answer". Actually delivering the requested is a whole another universe.
I have delivered on everything you requested, other than the baiting that followed it. That you're now trolling and fishing for more because you can't refute what I said, will not be muddled up by flipping the script on me and making it seem like I did not deliver. As a matter of fact, not only are your replies to what I said still pending, you have yet to post source to back up your conjecture that ''genes under selection cannot be reliably dated''. The only way to make it clearer that you're trolling with those unilateral requests and lies that your original query was not delivered, would be to attach a sticker to your forehead with the word 'troll' on it.
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: Ok. Staying true to character: your dumbass merely parroted a line from a study, whose underlying idea you are actdually clueless about.
Here is the bottom line: paper says the genetic component of Ethiopians dates to 3kya. You can't refute that so you start trolling and make SLC24A5 an issue. I never broached the subtopic of SLC24A5; you did. That being the case, I have no intentions nor obligations to follow you in your manipulative distractions and baiting, other than calling you out for your bizarre mix-ups, which in this case, would be comparing San SLC24A5 and the Ethiopian counterparts. Apparently, you can't even justify your left-field mention of San SLC24A5, just like you couldn't justify your bizarre invocations of '''deep-rooted clades in Ethiopians''. I guess it’s just something we have to live with; that some people habitually talk out the side of their neck, and that even they don't know why they do it.
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: Reasoning that you have to date, still not identified, while purporting to be qualified to draw a conclusion.
As evidenced by what?
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: All your jokes aside, point to me, specifically--in detailed molecular explanation--what is the supposed "Eurasian ancestry" that Ethiopians have.
All bitching aside, you have several outstanding requests to oblige to, while some of the questions I've answered earlier were met with more baiting. What makes you think I'm going indulge in your trolling, when you yourself have admitted that Ethiopians share their Eurasian mtDNAs more with Levantines than with Yemenites?
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: Are you hereby trying to convince someone, supposedly, that you have not attributed a "Semitic origin" to what you dismiss as "Eurasian" mtDNA in Ethiopian ethnic groups?
WTF are you talking about? I'm telling you for the second time in a row that you've failed to produce where I said that mtDNAs ''cannot correlate to the language distribution while Y-DNA can’’.
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: No problem: when someone speaks of a south Arabian origin, you gratuitously mistake that for language, moron!
LMAO. By now it should be clear to everyone that you’re a troll. I ask you what vindicates your retarded opinion that the following is ’’idiotic’’:
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
And frankly, your answer sounds like you must’ve been high when you replied back.
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: Given that you are implying Ethio-Semitic languages derive from outside of the continent's mainland, then precisely where did they come from?
I refuse to take the fall for your phuckups. I ask you:
I said that Ethio-Semitic languages, or even South Arabian languages for that matter, are ultimately of a South Arabian origin? Where?
Answering a question with a question will not do. Produce the excerpt; where is it?
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: Isolate these components into specifics, and tell me why they "would still be Eurasian"!
Phuck outta here with those new baiting attemts. The post you’re responding to calls you out for telling a lie, because that’s exactly what it was. You’re not even denying it.
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: I'm well aware that those authors were trying to match their dating with reference to some dubious research from a linguistic research team
I don’t care what you’re aware of or not, I was calling you out for being a big fat liar when you said you had already addressed the said excerpt.
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: So, I'm addressing the "3 kya" aspect now: How was that 3kya solidly attained on the genome?
Are you saying you’re ignorant about the contents of the paper?
Posts: 8800 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Here is the bottom line: paper says the genetic component of Ethiopians dates to 3kya. You can't refute that so you start trolling and make SLC24A5 an issue. I never broached the subtopic of SLC24A5; you did. That being the case, I have no intentions nor obligations to follow you in your manipulative distractions and baiting, other than calling you out for your bizarre mix-ups, which in this case, would be comparing San SLC24A5 and the Ethiopian counterparts. Apparently, you can't even justify your left-field mention of San SLC24A5, just like you couldn't justify your bizarre invocations of '''deep-rooted clades in Ethiopians''. I guess it’s just something we have to live with; that some people habitually talk out the side of their neck, and that even they don't know why they do it.
In that heap of a mess, I still don't see a detailed demonstration on what makes SLC24A5 "non-African" as you parrot.
PS: I've got to apparently think for both me and you; so, here's how it works dumbass: If you say SLC24A5 gene is "non-African", then surely it must be serving the same role in the San. Obviously, you don't have the foggiest clue as to what would render SLC24A5 "non-African", other than just copy & paste other people's words.
quote:
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: All your jokes aside, point to me, specifically--in detailed molecular explanation--what is the supposed "Eurasian ancestry" that Ethiopians have.
All bitching aside, you have several outstanding requests to oblige to, while some of the questions I've answered earlier were met with more baiting. What makes you think I'm going indulge in your trolling, when you yourself have admitted that Ethiopians share their Eurasian mtDNAs more with Levantines than with Yemenites?
Why put it aside; bitching is your first and the only language you understand. You then don't have a detailedmolecular justification for your constant fussing about why supposed "Eurasian" Ethiopian mtDNA "would still be Eurasian"; good.
You are like a neutered barking dog; all noise, absolutely no substance!
quote:WTF are you talking about? I'm telling you for the second time in a row that you've failed to produce where I said that mtDNAs ''cannot correlate to the language distribution while Y-DNA can’’.
Here's what I'm talking about, based on your last response: You are clueless moron who obviously has no basis for attributing a "Semitic origin" to supposed "Eurasian" Ethiopian mtDNA! Comprendez?
quote:I refuse to take the fall for your phuckups.
You are a toasted fuckhead; you've been thoroughly owned: your copy-cat fairy tale "South Arabian" origin for Ethio-Semitic and Ethiopian gene pool will only fly when pigs actually fly.
quote: Phuck outta here with those new baiting attemts. The post you’re responding to calls you out for telling a lie, because that’s exactly what it was. You’re not even denying it.
Of course, other than outright bail out, what else can be expected of a dumbass sick puppy such as yourself: you have no detailed specifics for what is apparently a gratuitous dismissal of Ethiopian gene pool as "Eurasian".
quote:
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: So, I'm addressing the "3 kya" aspect now: How was that 3kya solidly attained on the genome?
Are you saying you’re ignorant about the contents of the paper?
Indeed, you don't have an ounce of clue about what "how" means. You are now dismissed. Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: So, let me straighten you up: It was actually said that you source bursts your south-Arabian origin copy-cat theory. Nothing mentioned on an "African origin" yet; your imagination is just messing with you.
Lying again. You're so lame. Everyone can see that you were arguing against the idea that Ethio-Semitic lanuages came from outside of Africa:
yep, and an obvious blow to speculators whose favorite ideological theories of the supposed "Semitic" coming into the Horn from outside --The Explorer
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: Try actually reading the study, rather than making up fairy tale stories from cartoon, dumbass!
Where does the paper say that the languages originate in Southern Arabia? I see I must also school you on the fact that passing through somewhere does not mean originating there.
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: What you should be proving, rather, is your shifty insinuations about the South Arabian population, that supposedly gave rise to Ethiopian elements, having been replaced!
You're such a troll. I bet you if I ask for elaboration on this your lying ass will be forced to take another loss. I can't prove that which does not exist; prove I insinuated that!
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: What ancient texts are we talking about
If you want more schooling, I can do that, too! You can start out by reading Mesopotamian text involving Makkan.
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: You are too dirt-stupid to even realize that you are the only one here, ever, to speak of "south Arabian speakers".
Apparently you do not know that South Arabian speakers are the population that we've been talking about the entire time, that would have introduced Ethio-Semitic languages to the Horn. Thanks for broadcasting to everyone how profoundly unlettered you are on the subject. You're doing me a big favor.
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: The reference to some supposed "aboriginal south Arabians" is utterly immaterial
Not at all; their separate identity from South Arabian speakers was brought up because your short term memory is too demented to grasp onto the idea that **only** South Arabian languages present immediate affinities with Ethio-Semitic languages, while the other Semitic languages spoken in Southern Arabia are more distantly related to both Ethio-Semitic languages and South Arabian languages. Yet, your misfiring neurones just can’t seem to hold on to this simple concept, without them snapping back into Alzheimer mode every five minutes.
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: would make the "Semitic"-speaking south Arabians (around by the supposed 3kya date) the relevant subject here.
Are you saying that all Semitic languages spoken in Southern Arabia ~3kya are said to have immediate affinities (i.e., residing in the same sub-clade) with Ethio-Semitic languages? LMAO.
Posts: 8800 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: In that heap of a mess, I still don't see a detailed demonstration on what makes SLC24A5 "non-African"
Perhaps that has something to do with me not taking your troll bait?
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: If you say SLC24A5 gene is "non-African", then surely it must be serving the same role in the San.
And I've committed myself in this thread to the view that SLC24A5 is non-African, where? To engage in a debate with you is to subject oneself to trolling, baiting and logical fallacies. You've proven that time after time again; there is no manipulative tactic you shun, to delay impending intellectual thrashings.
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: You are a toasted fuckhead; you've been thoroughly owned:
Yes, other than trolling and baiting, trying to flip the script when you're at the receiving end of intellectual thrashings is something you excel at; backing the said attempts up with actual demonstrations where you had the better of me, however, are never accompanied by such claims. I wonder why.
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: Indeed, you don't have an ounce of clue about what "how" means.
And you can learn that about me, from me asking you whether you're ignorant about the contents of the paper? If there is one thing I've learned from talking to trolls in the past couple of years, its that impending defeat is always apparent when trolls start to talk incoherent mumbo jumbo that has zero connectivity to what was asked!
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: You are now dismissed.
Running away, are we? LMAO.
Posts: 8800 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Lying again. You're so lame. Everyone can see that you were arguing against the idea that Ethio-Semitic lanuages came from outside of Africa:
yep, and an obvious blow to speculators whose favorite ideological theories of the supposed "Semitic" coming into the Horn from outside --The Explorer
queen of delirious, "African origin" is mentioned in the above, where?
BTW, if you are going to quote, why not try doing it with the complete thing, like this:
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.
PS: Not that I have qualms about an "African origin", but your crackhead is seeing things.
quote:]If you want more schooling, I can do that, too! You can start out by reading Mesopotamian text involving Makkan.
Before dreaming about schooling people, you might want to get schooled on words like "how" and "what", so you can start showing me what Mesopotamian text supposedly say about South Arabian populations prior to 3 kya.
quote:Apparently you do not know that South Arabian speakers are the population that we've been talking about the entire time, that would have introduced Ethio-Semitic languages to the Horn. Thanks for broadcasting to everyone how profoundly unlettered you are on the subject. You're doing me a big favor.
Instead of dreaming up a "big favor", how about you try a real one, as an advice: Get a brain. It'll make you see that pointless rambling-excuses are no substitute for the fact that you are the lonesome airhead who has spoken of South Arabian "speakers" throughout this entire thread.
quote:Not at all; their separate identity from South Arabian speakers was brought up because your short term memory is too demented to grasp onto the idea that **only** South Arabian languages present immediate affinities with Ethio-Semitic languages, while the other Semitic languages spoken in Southern Arabia are more distantly related to both Ethio-Semitic languages and South Arabian languages. Yet, your misfiring neurones just can’t seem to hold on to this simple concept, without them snapping back into Alzheimer mode every five minutes.
If shyt didn't fill up your head, you'd ditch the needles repetition of ideas I already hammered into your head, and give into the fact that your so-called "aboriginal South Arabians" is as immaterial as ever.
You're obviously too fuckheaded to get in touch, but I already clued you in on the fact that Semitic speakers are more relevant. Anyone who has ever heard of Sabeans will also be familiar with the implied language; so, I'll leave the pointless hairsplitting (designed to buy you time) about sorting out the Semitic speakers to you.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Perhaps that has something to do with me not taking your troll bait?
It definitely has something to do with you talking out of your ass, on subjects you least understand.
quote:And I've committed myself in this thread to the view that SLC24A5 is non-African, where?
It follows then that you are relinquishing your association with treating SLC24A5 as "non-African"...like your source says?
quote:And you can learn that about me, from me asking you whether you're ignorant about the contents of the paper? If there is one thing I've learned from talking to trolls in the past couple of years, its that impending defeat is always apparent when trolls start to talk incoherent mumbo jumbo that has zero connectivity to what was asked!
A lot of whining here; what isn't here, is your delivery of how--in your own words (not your usual copy & paste parroting crap)--the "effect of uncertainty inducing variables is minimized" in making it possible to get reliably-concrete dating on a gene(s) clearly under positive selection.
This request might be "mumbo jumbo" to you, but it makes sense to normal-thinking people.
On notice too: Absence of a detailed molecular layout for your justification for dismissing Ethiopian mtDNA as "Eurasian" and what renders them "still Eurasian"!
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Try actually reading the study, rather than making up fairy tale stories from cartoon, dumbass!
Here is material from the said authors:
"Kitchen A, Ehret C, Assefa S, Mulligan CJ. Department of Anthropology, PO Box 103610, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32610-3610, USA.
The evolution of languages provides a unique opportunity to study human population history. The origin of Semitic and the nature of dispersals by Semitic-speaking populations are of great importance to our understanding of the ancient history of the Middle East and Horn of Africa. Semitic populations are associated with the oldest written languages and urban civilizations in the region, which gave rise to some of the world's first major religious and literary traditions. In this study, we employ Bayesian computational phylogenetic techniques recently developed in evolutionary biology to analyse Semitic lexical data by modelling language evolution and explicitly testing alternative hypotheses of Semitic history. We implement a relaxed linguistic clock to date language divergences and use epigraphic evidence for the sampling dates of extinct Semitic languages to calibrate the rate of language evolution. Our statistical tests of alternative Semitic histories support an initial divergence of Akkadian from ancestral Semitic over competing hypotheses (e.g. an African origin of Semitic). We estimate an Early Bronze Age origin for Semitic approximately 5750 years ago in the Levant, and further propose that contemporary Ethiosemitic languages of Africa reflect a single introduction of early Ethiosemitic from southern Arabia approximately 2800 years ago."
Folks, that numbhead swenet says this above is talking about "passing through somewhere", as opposed to the obvious therein...and the numbnut thinks this is clear evidence that he/she/it is in a position to "school" someone else on what is being said. Who else thinks like this?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: queen of delirious, "African origin" is mentioned in the above, where?
Your approval of my reading of that sentence is not needed. Everyone with a healthy set of eyeballs can see for themselves that the following utterance indicates that you're arguing against an African origin for Ethio-Semitic languages:
yep, and an obvious blow to speculators whose favorite ideological theories of the supposed "Semitic" coming into the Horn from outside --The Explorer
Even more surprisingly, but not inconsistent with your trolling and desperate face-saving, you then even further prove that you were against a non-African origin of Ethio-Semitic languages, by taking issues with imaginary and unspecified proponents who are pin pointing the the origin of Ethio-Semitic languages in Southern Arabia:
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. --The Explorer
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: Before dreaming about schooling people, you might want to get schooled on words like "how" and "what", so you can start showing me what Mesopotamian text supposedly say about South Arabian populations prior to 3 kya.
Trolling again. Last time I checked, I don't owe you sh!t, other than backing up what I said, re: that there are ancient documents that testify to the existence of Southern Arabian populations prior to the arrival of South Arabian languages in Southern Arabia.
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: It'll make you see that pointless rambling-excuses are no substitute for the fact that you are the lonesome airhead who has spoken of South Arabian "speakers" throughout this entire thread.
**Prove** that the Semitic speakers that moved into Southern Arabia 3kya, and who speak languages that reside within the same linguistic clade with Ethio-Semitic languages, are called anything other than 'South Arabian speakers'. This would go a long way in substantiating your excretion that I'm ''the only one here, ever, to speak of "south Arabian speakers''.
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: you'd ditch the needles repetition of ideas I already hammered into your head, and give into the fact that your so-called "aboriginal South Arabians" is as immaterial as ever.
Your excretions aside, in your obtuseness it did not occur to you that Levantine emigres to Southern Arabia 3kya were a different entity from the pre-existing Southern Arabian populations, which then led me deem it appropriate that I called you out for equating the two:
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. --The Explorer
You equated a Levantine immigrant population with South Arabians in general, and you got called out for it. Stop the face-saving already.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: You're obviously too fuckheaded to get in touch, but I already clued you in on the fact that Semitic speakers are more relevant.
What Semitic languages are more relevant, compared to what?
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Anyone who has ever heard of Sabeans will also be familiar with the implied language
And the Sabaeans and their language(s) are going to help you out of this sticky mess (read: impending routing) you've immersed yourself in, how?
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: It follows then that you are relinquishing your association with treating SLC24A5 as "non-African"...like your source says?
No, troll. I posted Pagani et al in the context of a certain mtDNA lineage that a mummy was said to be a bearer of, and talks that this mtDNA might have been Ethiopian. Unless you think SLC24A5 is a part of this mtDNA haplogroup (I wouldn't be surprised of you're actually dumb enough to think this is the case), the above accusation would amount to trolling.
quote:A lot of whining here; what isn't here, is your delivery of how--in your own words (not your usual copy & paste parroting crap)--the "effect of uncertainty inducing variables is minimized" in making it possible to get reliably-concrete dating on a gene(s) clearly under positive selection.
^If anyone would be interested in what troll bait from a seasoned troll looks like, this would be a good place to start.
quote:that numbhead swenet says this above is talking about "passing through somewhere", as opposed to the obvious therein
LMAO! Prey tell, how is: ''introduction **from** Southern Arabia ~2.8kya'' consistent with ancestral Ethio-Semitic originating in Southern Arabia?
We estimate an Early Bronze Age origin for Semitic approximately 5750 years ago in the Levant, and further propose that contemporary Ethiosemitic languages of Africa reflect a single introduction of early Ethiosemitic from southern Arabia approximately 2800 years ago."
Also pertinent: where are Southern Arabian Ethio-Semitic languages if the clade originated there, rather than simply passing through?
Any particular reason why purposefully avoided answering the following?
quote: Originally posted by Swenet:
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: would make the "Semitic"-speaking south Arabians (around by the supposed 3kya date) the relevant subject here.
Are you saying that all Semitic languages spoken in Southern Arabia ~3kya are said to have immediate affinities (i.e., residing in the same sub-clade) with Ethio-Semitic languages? LMAO.
Even more surprisingly, but not inconsistent with your trolling and desperate face-saving, you then even further prove that you were against a non-African origin of Ethio-Semitic languages, by taking issues with imaginary and unspecified proponents who are pin pointing the the origin of Ethio-Semitic languages in Southern Arabia:
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. --The Explorer
Your own ass hole, and even feces at that, must have higher IQ than you do. Other than a rare complete dumbass specimen like you, who would think it's a smart strategy to use a recited correct version of a post you idiotically tried to misuse, only to then attempt to misuse that same post in the very same way you tried earlier, apparently in a fuckheaded bid to bail your ass out? LOL
quote: Trolling again. Last time I checked, I don't owe you sh!t, other than backing up what I said, re: that there are ancient documents that testify to the existence of Southern Arabian populations prior to the arrival of South Arabian languages in Southern Arabia.
You don't "owe me shyt", but you do owe it to yourself, to stop making an incredible shithead out of yourself, who can't tell your ass hole from your mouth, by broaching matters you clearly have no grounding on.
quote:**Prove** that the Semitic speakers that moved into Southern Arabia 3kya, and who speak languages that reside within the same linguistic clade with Ethio-Semitic languages, are called anything other than 'South Arabian speakers'. This would go a long way in substantiating your excretion that I'm ''the only one here, ever, to speak of "south Arabian speakers''.
Your "South Arabian speakers" obsession is as irrelevant as ever since you broached it; but I tell you what: How about you prove [with evidence of course] this "Semitic speakers moved into southern Arabia 3ky ago", supposedly for the first time, that you are now broaching!
quote:You equated a Levantine immigrant population with South Arabians in general, and you got called out for it. Stop the face-saving already.
This only exists in your crackhead. Lose the crack!
quote:What Semitic languages are more relevant, compared to what?
If only your fuckhead could read a word or two, I wouldn't have to repeat. The Semitic speakers are more relevant than your irrelevantly-broached "non-Semitic speaking aboriginal" south Arabians. Understand better?
quote:And the Sabaeans and their language(s) are going to help you out of this sticky mess (read: impending routing) you've immersed yourself in, how?
You stumped monkey, just thought I'd clue you in on the tidbit fact that Sabeans speaking a south Arabian language is supposed to be a given, and that your psychotic obsession with "south Arabian speakers"--as a diversion to buy you time--simply isn't going to work, to your frustration!
quote:No, troll. I posted Pagani et al in the context of a certain mtDNA lineage that a mummy was said to be a bearer of, and talks that this mtDNA might have been Ethiopian. Unless you think SLC24A5 is a part of this mtDNA haplogroup (I wouldn't be surprised of you're actually dumb enough to think this is the case), the above accusation would amount to trolling.
The dumbass finds the simple question incredibly challenging, and so goes off on a complete tangent. It's simple:
Are you relinquishing your association with treating SLC24A5 as "non-African"? Yes or No.
If you have to ask me whether this is an mtDNA marker, then clearly you are overstepping your boundaries. This is not a topic you should be indulging. The next thing I don't want to worry about, is for you to wonder if Y-DNA is also mtDNA.
quote:
quote:A lot of whining here; what isn't here, is your delivery of how--in your own words (not your usual copy & paste parroting crap)--the "effect of uncertainty inducing variables is minimized" in making it possible to get reliably-concrete dating on a gene(s) clearly under positive selection.
^If anyone would be interested in what troll bait from a seasoned troll looks like, this would be a good place to start.
Ok, I get it. You don't know the answer -- you are just too dumb to put it in English!
quote:LMAO! Prey tell, how is: ''introduction **from** Southern Arabia ~2.8kya'' consistent with ancestral Ethio-Semitic originating in Southern Arabia?
It's fortunate that as a total loser, you are not going to pass on your genes. You needed to be weeded out from any gene pool, let alone human. Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London
Vol. 61, No. 2 (1998), pp. 215-227 Published by: Cambridge University Press
Abstract
quote: That proto-Arabic had morphological case is an assumption which has hardly generated debate. Like all assumptions, however, it rests on concrete arguments. The two most important of these are probably (1), the existence of case in Classical Arabic and (2), the existence of case elsewhere in Semitic, particularly in Akkadian. However, applying standard comparative and philological methodology, one is equally led to the opposite conclusion, that proto-Arabic did not have case. Relevant arguments to support this position are:(1) most Semitic languages do/did not have case, nor probably did proto-Afroasiatic; (2) the oldest Arabic epigraphic record probably does not show case; (3) there are various problematic issues in the Arabic grammatical and many tradition which suggest the existence of caseless varieties parallel to Classical Arabic; (4) modern Arabic dialects do not have case. The present paper expanded upon points 1-3 in Part I. In Part II it incorporates point 4 and goes on to construct a model for the development of a case-based Classical Arabic out of an original caseless variety.
1). Arabian peoples have been held to be related to a variety of groups, with homelands in almost all directions outside Arabia: the view that sought to visualize all Arabians as a single race has never been valid.
The oldest evidence indicates the presence of Africans in the Red Sea coastal plain, Iranians in the southeastern tip of the peninsula, and peoples of Aramaean stock in the north. The racial affinities of the ancient Yemeni peoples remain unsolved; the marked similarity of their culture to the Semitic cultures that arose in the Fertile Crescent to the north of the peninsula can be attributed to cultural spread rather than to immigration.
2).
a. In the north and centre the dominant linguistic form is Old North Arabian (subclassified into Lihyanic, Thamudic, and Safaitic); despite close connections between this group and Arabic, the latter cannot be regarded as lineally descended from it.
b. The Yemenite inscriptions are in Old South Arabian (subclassified into Minaean, Sabaean, Qatabanian, and Hadhramautic), which is a wholly independent group within the Semitic family of languages. (The Old North Arabian and Old South Arabian inscriptions and graffiti are in scripts of a South Semitic type, of which Ethiopic is the only present-day survivor; modern Arabic script is of a North Semitic type.)
This large pre-Islamic inscription is depicted on a rock near a well in southern Arabia and consists of ten lines. It is popularly known as "the inscription of Abraha." The inscription is still in its original location; a replica is on display in the museum
نقش سبئي
(i) Transliteration b kh ya l / r h m n n / w m s ya h ha / m l k n / a b r ha / z ya b m n / m l k / s b a / w z r ya d n / w h dh r m d t
Transcription B'khail / ar-rahman / wmaseeha / malikan / Abraha / Zaybm / malik / sab'a / w zarydan / w hadarmaut
Translation With the power (help) of god, and the Jesus (=Christian) King Abraha Zeebman (King's title), the King of Saba'a, Zuridan and Hadrmaut.
(ii) w ya m n t / w r a a'in r b ha m r / ta w d m / w t ha m t / s ta r w / z n / s ta r n / k gh z ya w
w yement / wa r'a rab hamw / Twadam / w thamat / satro / zn / satran / K'ghazow
and Yemen and the tribes (on) the mountains and the coast wrote these lines on his battle
(iii) m a'in d m / gh z w t n / r b a'in t n / b w r kh n / z th b t n / k f s d w / k l / b n ya a'in m r m
against the tribe of Ma'ad ( in ) the battle of al-Rabiya in the month of "Dhu al Thabithan" (April) and fight (against) all the (tribes) of Bani A'amir.
(iv) w z k ya / m l k n / a b j b r / b a'in m / k d t / w a'in l / w b sh r m / b n h sa n m / b a'in / m
Wazaki/ malikn/ abjabar / b ainam/ kadat/ wain/ w basharm / bin hasahanm/ bainm
and appointed the King (the leader) "Abi Jabar" with (tribe) Kinda and (Qahtani tribe) Al (and the leader) "Bishar bin Hasan" with
(v) s a'in d m / w m r d m / w h dh r w / q d m ya / j ya sh n / a'in l ya b n ya a'in m r m / k d t / w a'in l / b w d / z m r kh / w m r d m / w s d m / b w d.
San dam/ wa mardam / wa hadaru/ qadami / jayshan/ alia bani yamram/ kadat/ wail/ b wad /samrakh / wa mardam/ wa sadam/ b wad..
(Tribe) Sa'ad ( and the tribe) Murad and ( the tribe) Hadarmaut (stand) in front of the army against Bani Amir of Kinda. and (the tribe) Al in wadi "zu markh" and Murad and Sa'ad in wadi
(vi) b m n ha j / t r b n / w z b h w / w a s r w / w gh n m w / z a'in s m / w m kh dh / m l k n / b h l b n / w d n w.
B manhaj / tarban/ w zabahow / wa sarw / w ghanamw / zaisam / wa makhdah/ malakin/ b halban/ wa danw
Manha on the way to Turban and killed and captured and took the booty in large quantities and the King and fought at Halban and reached
(vii) k za l / m a'in d m / w r ha n w / w b a'in d n ha w / w s a'in ha m w / a'in m r m / b n / m z r n..
Ka zalam/ maidam / wrahanw / wa badanahaw / nwa sa'aham mw / amram / bin/ mazran.
Ma'ad and took booty and prisoners, and after that, conquered (from the tribe of Ma'ad) Omro bin al-Munzir …
(viii) w r ha n m w / b n ha w / w s t kh l fa ha w / a'in l ya / m a'in d m / w q f l w / b n / h l
Wa rahanamw / bin haw / wa sata khalafw / ala/ ma'dam/ wa qafalw/ bin/ hal.
(and according to the agreement between Abrha and the tribe of Ma'ad) (Abrhas) appointed the son (of Omro) as the ruler and returned (Abraha) from Hal.
(ix) (b) n / (b) kh ya l / r h m n n / w r kh ha w / z a'in l n / z l th n ya / w s th ya / w s
( bi)n / (b) akhayal / rahman / wa rakhaw / zalan / salthany / w sathya/ ws
Ban (halban) with the power of the god in the month of Zu A'allan in the year sixty-two
(x) th / m a t m
Tha / matam
and six hundred
النص ب خ ى ل / ر ح م ن ن / و م س ى ح هـ / م ل ك ن / أ ب ر هـ / ز ى ب م ن / م ل ك / س ب أ / و ذ ر ي د ن / و ح ض ر م و ت
القراءة بقوة الرحمن ومسيحة الملك أبرهة زيبمان ملك سبأ وذو ريدان وحضرموت
ـ 2 ـ و ي م ن ت / و ر أ ع ر ب هـ م و / ط و د م / و ت هـ م ت / س ط ر و / ذ ن / س ط ر ن / ك غ ز ى و
.ويمنات وقبائلهم (في) الجبال والسواحل ، سطر هذا النقش عندما غزا
ـ 3 ـ م ع د م / غ ز و ت ن / ر ب ع ت ن / ب و ر خ ن / ذ ث ب ت ن / ك ف س د و / ك ل / ب ن ى ع م رم/
(قبيلة) معد (في) غزوة الربيع في شهر "ذو الثابة" (ابريل) عندما ثاروا كل (قبائل) بنى عامر
ـ 4 ـ و ذ ك ى / م ل ك ن / أ ب ج ب ر / ب ع م / ك د ت / و ع ل / و ب ش ر م / ب ن ح ص ن م / ب ع م
وعين الملك (القائد) "أبي جبر" مع (قبيلة) على (والقائد) "بشر بن حصن" مع
ـ 5 ـ س ع د م / و م ر د م / و ح ض ر و / ق د م ى / ج ي ش ن / ع ل ي / ب ن ي ع م ر م / ك د ت / و ع ل / ب و د / ذ م ر خ / و م ر د م / و س ع د م / ب و د
قبيلة) سعد (وقبيلة) مراد وحضروا أمام الجيش ـ ضد بنى عامر (وجهت) كندة وعلى في) وادي "ذو مرخ" ومراد وسعد في وادي
ـ 6 ـ ب م ن هـ ج / ت ر ب ن / و ذ ب ح و / و أ س ر و / و غ ن م و / ذ ع س م / و م خ ض / م ل ك ن / ب ح ل ب ن / و د ن و
على طريق تربن وذبحوا وأسروا وغنموا بوفرة وحارب الملك في حلبن واقترب
ـ 7 ـ ك ظ ل / م ع د م / و ر هـ ن و / و ب ع د ن هـ و / و س ع هـ م و / ع م ر م / ب ن / م ذ ر ن
كظل معد (وأخذ) اسرى، وبعد ذلك فوضوا (قبيلة معد) عمروا بن المنذر (في
ـ 8 ـ و ر هـ ن هـ م و / ب ن هـ و / و س ت خ ل ف هـ و / ع ل ى / م ع د م / و ق ف ل و / ب ن / ح ل
الصلح) فضمنهم ابنه (عروا) (عن أبرهة) فعينه حاكماً على) معد ورجع (أبرهة) من حلـ
ـ 9 ـ (ب) ن / ( ب ) خ ى ل / ر ح م ن ن / و ر خ هـ و / ذ ع ل ن / ذ ل ث ن ى / و س ث ى / و س
بن (حلبان) بقوة الرحمن في شهر ذو علان في السنة الثانية والستين وسـ
ـ 10 ـ ث / م أ ت م
ستمائة
مسند جنوبي
Transliteration ha z a'in n b t a l
Transcription/Translation Haza'a nabt al
(name of the deceased)
النص
ح ذ ع ن ب ت أ ل
القراءة حذع نبت أل
مسند جنوبي
Transliteration n ya a'in th t / k ya l / w m q m / sh ya m ha m w gh wa n ha m w / b n / a a'in r b n / w b z t t a t b / r ya m m / s a'in d / w ha w f ya n r ya m m / r dh w / w h sd ya / m r a ha m
Transcription Nai Asath/ Khail/ w maqam/ shai mahamo/ Ghawnham/bin/ A'araban/ w bazat/ Ta'atab/remom/sad/w hawfain Remom/ Rado/ wa hasiya/ mraham
Translation With the power of Naiqthat and his high position Ghawnaham from the Arabian tribe of Dhat Ta'atab - Raimam Sa'ad Fulfilled and pleased with the will of their Lord and his presence.
حجر عليه نقش مسند جنوبي مفقود جزء منه والجزء الواضح يتكون من اربعة أسطر كتبت بطريقة النقر وبخط غائر من اليمين إلى اليسار
النص 1- ن ي ع ث ت ، خ ي ل ، و م ق م ، ش ي م هـ م و ، 2- غ و ن هـ م و ، ب ن ، أ ع غ ب ن ، و ب ذ ت 3- ت أ ت ب ، ر ي م م ، س ع د ، و هـ و ف ي ن 4- ر ي م م ، ر ض و ، و ح ص ي ، م ر أ هـ م
القراءة نيعست خيل ومقام شيمهمو ونهمو بن (من) أعربن (بمعنى قبيلة) وبذت (وتأتتب ريمم سعد وهوفين (بمعنى وأوفى (ريمم بوصية المعبود رضو على مرآ هم (_على سمعهم
Posts: 22249 | From: Omni | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^The Old south Arabian (language) may be effectively defunct now, perhaps in part due to the role of Arabic in contemporary times, but that does not mean that genetic continuity from the time of Sabean complex to present should be non-existent. Ethiopian Semitic languages have also evolved over the ages since the decline of the ancient Ethio-Sabean contact, but that does not mean because there are language shifts or changes, that populations have undergone extinction. I'm not aware of any population "replacement" in South Arabia, but if there was, I'd like to know about its details. BTW: There is also such a thing as acculturation!
-------------------- 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: Other than a rare complete dumbass specimen like you, who would think it's a smart strategy to use a recited correct version of a post you idiotically tried to misuse, only to then attempt to misuse that same post in the very same way you tried earlier, apparently in a fuckheaded bid to bail your ass out?
Another non-reply. With every face-saving attempt, you can brainstorm three hours for the slickest sounding one-liners you can come up with all you want, but you’re see-through; none of your petty diversions take away the fact that you were using Pagani et al to argue against a non-African origin of Ethio-Semitic. Simply telling someone how stupid you think he/she is, without addressing what was said, is not a reply you dumb phuck.
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: You don't "owe me shyt", but you do owe it to yourself, to stop making an incredible shithead out of yourself, who can't tell your ass hole from your mouth, by broaching matters you clearly have no grounding on.
Troll! Another non-reply. This waste of hot air posing as a reply does not follow out of the fact that I just told you that your requests are troll bait.
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: Your "South Arabian speakers" obsession is as irrelevant as ever since you broached it
Another non-reply. Repeat:
**Prove** that the Semitic speakers that moved into Southern Arabia 3kya, and who speak languages that reside within the same linguistic clade with Ethio-Semitic languages, are called anything other than 'South Arabian speakers'. This would go a long way in substantiating your excretion that I'm ''the only one here, ever, to speak of "south Arabian speakers''. --Swenet
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: This only exists in your crackhead. Lose the crack!
Another troll non-reply. If you weren’t equating a Levantine immigrant population with South Arabians, why would you make the backwater claim that Levantine descent for the Semitic speakers we’re discussing does not absolve me of explaining why Ethiopians don’t have closer affinity with Yemenites than Yemenites? Skirting around the issue like a little b!tch, aren’t we?
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: The Semitic speakers are more relevant than your irrelevantly-broached "non-Semitic speaking aboriginal" south Arabians. Understand better?
Glad that I now have it on record that your dumbass is on the one hand schizophrenically calling aboriginal Southern Arabians ’’irrelevant’’, and on the other hand, using their (irrelevant) genome as mapped by Pagani et al, to make it stand in for the Semitic speakers you’re now calling ’’more relevant’’. Congratulations for the Donkey of the year award. You’re a true numbskull.
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: You stumped monkey, just thought I'd clue you in on the tidbit fact that Sabeans speaking a south Arabian language is supposed to be a given
I asked you a question, donkey; how is their language going to save your ass, given the many losses you’ve already taken, and are still taking, as we speak? Which one of my claims exactly, is the mere existence of the Sabaean language contracting? Speak up girl, and man up for once.
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: The dumbass finds the simple question incredibly challenging, and so goes off on a complete tangent.
Troll, do you have evidence that I’ve said something definitive about the origins of the SLC24A5 allele, or are you just living up to your reputation of a mega troll when you’re asking me whether I’m relinquishing my views on the topic?
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: It's fortunate that as a total loser, you are not going to pass on your genes. You needed to be weeded out from any gene pool, let alone human.
Another non-reply, perfectly consistent with your super troll reputation. Try as you may, I’m not going to get side tracked by your manipulations. The question was:
LMAO! Prey tell, how is: ''introduction **from** Southern Arabia ~2.8kya'' consistent with ancestral Ethio-Semitic originating in Southern Arabia? --Swenet
Oh yeah, and I’ve noticed that you’re running away from this question for the third time in a row:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Any particular reason why purposefully avoided answering the following?
quote: Originally posted by Swenet:
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: would make the "Semitic"-speaking south Arabians (around by the supposed 3kya date) the relevant subject here.
Are you saying that all Semitic languages spoken in Southern Arabia ~3kya are said to have immediate affinities (i.e., residing in the same sub-clade) with Ethio-Semitic languages? LMAO.
Any reason for this, that doesn’t involve you shitting your pants? LMAO.
Posts: 8800 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol: Now, Pusch and his colleagues, including Rabab Khairat, have carried out next-generation sequencing on five Egyptian mummified heads held at the University of Tübingen. The heads date from relatively late in ancient Egyptian history — between 806 bc and 124 ad.
The above time period corresponds with the 3rd Intermediate Period [the 23rd (Libyan) dynasty] up to Roman Imperial times. So how will that answer the following questions Pusch asks: “It would be nice to know more about the origins of the ancient Egyptians,” says Pusch. “Where did they come from? Where did they go? Are there still traces of ancestral DNA in today’s Egypt?”
One would think they would test mummies from earlier periods such as from the Old Kingdom if one wants to find 'origins'.
If Late Period samples, no surprise that more outside admixture may be present. But they only give data from one mummy- the Hap I. What about the other mummies Patrol?
Posts: 5935 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
Another non-reply. With every face-saving attempt, you can brainstorm three hours for the slickest sounding one-liners you can come up with all you want, but you’re see-through; none of your petty diversions
If a "petty diversion" pinched you right in your tranny ass hole, you wouldn't know it, and apparently, your "see-through" superpowers have failed you in the ability to understand simple text like this:
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.
Maybe in some alternate universe there's an answer to why you are a total klutz at quoting this plain piece just as it is. Obviously the answer is not in this universe.
quote:Troll! Another non-reply. This waste of hot air posing as a reply does not follow out of the fact that I just told you that your requests are troll bait.
Less bitchy, more fetchy! Provided you can grow even one tidbit of a ball, how about fetching the request around your own broached subject: what the supposed ancient texts tell us about supposed Southern Arabian populations prior to the arrival of Semitic speakers in Southern Arabia.
quote: Another non-reply. Repeat:
**Prove** that the Semitic speakers that moved into Southern Arabia 3kya, and who speak languages that reside within the same linguistic clade with Ethio-Semitic languages, are called anything other than 'South Arabian speakers'. This would go a long way in substantiating your excretion that I'm ''the only one here, ever, to speak of "south Arabian speakers''. --Swenet
Your "south Arabian speakers" is still irrelevant!...hussy-fuss aside.
quote:Another troll non-reply. If you weren’t equating a Levantine immigrant population with South Arabians, why would you make the backwater claim that Levantine descent for the Semitic speakers we’re discussing does not absolve me of explaining why Ethiopians don’t have closer affinity with Yemenites than Yemenites? Skirting around the issue like a little b!tch, aren’t we?
Let's see: Maybe it has to do with the facts, fuckface, that South Arabian Semitic--Sabean in particular--language was not spoken in the Levant to begin with, and 2)their descendants would not have disappeared out of thin air! Capish?...and you swear that you are not dirt retarded. LOL
The backwater that should worry you, is the one in which your brain is supposed to be.
quote:Glad that I now have it on record that your dumbass is on the one hand schizophrenically calling aboriginal Southern Arabians ’’irrelevant’’, and on the other hand, using their (irrelevant) genome as mapped by Pagani et al, to make it stand in for the Semitic speakers you’re now calling ’’more relevant’’. Congratulations for the Donkey of the year award. You’re a true numbskull.
Oh really, dickhead. 1) So you have the genome of your "aboriginal" South Arabians dated from prior to arrival of the Semitic speakers, do you?
2)Point out the details, wherein Pagani et al. managed to sift supposed "aboriginal South Arabians" from the predominant Semitic-speaking south Arabians, which--I'm to take it--you are convinced were not sampled. Let's learn who the true numbskull is, shall we.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
I asked you a question, donkey; how is their language going to save your ass, given the many losses you’ve already taken, and are still taking, as we speak? Which one of my claims exactly, is the mere existence of the Sabaean language contracting? Speak up girl, and man up for once.
stumped monkey, repeating that tired-ass spam filler only keeps you as stupid as ever about that you were just clued about.
quote:Troll, do you have evidence that I’ve said something definitive about the origins of the SLC24A5 allele, or are you just living up to your reputation of a mega troll when you’re asking me whether I’m relinquishing my views on the topic?
So fuckhead, are you hereby begging me to now inform you about the origin of the SLC24A5 gene, when in fact you were earlier defending a non-African origin for it?
quote: Another non-reply, perfectly consistent with your super troll reputation. Try as you may, I’m not going to get side tracked by your manipulations.
Instead of lamenting about getting "side tracked", you should be more alarmed at the fact that you cannot read an atrociously simple line in a quoted piece!
You should be panicking at the prospect of being this stupid.
quote:Any reason for this, that doesn’t involve you shitting your pants? LMAO.
Never mind me, numbnut; mind this, which certainly got you pissing all over yourself like a sick toddler in kindergarten:
The pending presentation of a detailed molecular layout for your justification for dismissing Ethiopian mtDNA as "Eurasian" and what renders them "still Eurasian"!
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does anyone have any predictions as to what sort of mtDNA haplogroups we might find in the New Kingdom (and earlier) mummies? I bet good money it'll be something along the lines of L2. From what I understand M1 and U6 are associated with those Africans that are closest genetically to Eurasians, yet it appears from the STR data that AEs did not belong to that branch but rather the one ancestral to all other Africans.
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 seem to be one of by way of the southern part of the Arabian peninsula.
You can repost it how often you want, with or without the rest of the sentence. Both excerpts--the longer and the shorter one--bespeak that you were making an argument against the non-African origin of Ethio-Semitic.
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: how about fetching the request around your own broached subject: what the supposed ancient texts tell us about supposed Southern Arabian populations prior to the arrival of Semitic speakers in Southern Arabia.
Trolling aint gonna cut it. This is what it stands, recap:
Troll! Another non-reply. This waste of hot air posing as a reply does not follow out of the fact that I just told you that your requests are troll bait. --Swenet
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: Your "south Arabian speakers" is still irrelevant!...hussy-fuss aside.
Repeating non-replies right after repeated requests to back up claims are the marks of true troll. Recap:
**Prove** that the Semitic speakers that moved into Southern Arabia 3kya, and who speak languages that reside within the same linguistic clade with Ethio-Semitic languages, are called anything other than 'South Arabian speakers'. This would go a long way in substantiating your excretion that I'm ''the only one here, ever, to speak of "south Arabian speakers''. --Swenet
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: Maybe it has to do with the facts, fuckface, that South Arabian Semitic--Sabean in particular--language was not spoken in the Levant to begin with, and 2)their descendants would not have disappeared out of thin air!
And these two random uncontested trivialities vindicate your claim that the ultimate origin of Semitic speakers in the Levant does not absolve me of explaining why Ethiopians have a closer affinity to Levantines than Yemenites, how?
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: 1) So you have the genome of your "aboriginal" South Arabians dated from prior to arrival of the Semitic speakers, do you?
Wasn't it the point of your intergalactic mumbo jumbo to argue that the original Yemenite populations didn't vanish into thin air? Phuckin cretin.
quote:2)Point out the details, wherein Pagani et al. managed to sift supposed "aboriginal South Arabians" from the predominant Semitic-speaking south Arabians
The ‘Eurasian’ genetic component in Ethiopians dates to admixture events of 3kya. The mtDNAs that were left behind in the Ethiopian genepool as a result of these admixture events aren’t particularly close to Yemenite versions. Seeing as though the said Ethiiopian mtDNAs would necessarily have to be a microcosm of the Levantine populations Ethiopians inherited these mtDNAs from, the same thing (little sharing of specific haplotypes compared to Yemenites) would hold true for the Levantine populations Ethiopians inherited the said mtDNAs from. Use your goddamn brain for once.
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: when in fact you were earlier defending a non-African origin for it?
Repeating non-replies right after repeated requests to back up claims are the hallmarks of true troll. Recap:
Troll, do you have evidence that I’ve said something definitive about the origins of the SLC24A5 allele, or are you just living up to your reputation of a mega troll when you’re asking me whether I’m relinquishing my views on the topic? --Swenet
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: you should be more alarmed at the fact that you cannot read an atrociously simple line in a quoted piece!
Repeating non-replies right after repeated requests to back up claims are the hallmarks of true troll. Recap:
LMAO! Prey tell, how is: ''introduction **from** Southern Arabia ~2.8kya'' consistent with ancestral Ethio-Semitic originating in Southern Arabia? --Swenet
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: Never mind me, numbnut; mind this, which certainly got you pissing all over yourself like a sick toddler in kindergarten:
Repeating non-replies right after repeated requests to back up claims are the hallmarks of true troll. Recap:
Are you saying that all Semitic languages spoken in Southern Arabia ~3kya are said to have immediate affinities (i.e., residing in the same sub-clade) with Ethio-Semitic languages? LMAO. --Swenet
You’ve been running away from this question for the fourth time in a row. Any reason for this, that doesn’t involve you shitting your pants? LMAO.
Posts: 8800 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: From what I understand M1 and U6 are associated with those Africans that are closest genetically to Eurasians, yet it appears from the STR data that AEs did not belong to that branch but rather the one ancestral to all other Africans.
You do realize that M1 and U6 clades are found in western through to eastern Africa, don't you?
The nuclear DNA STRs (xY-DNA) cannot predict what mtDNA are likely to be present in a given population. Heck, it can't even predict what specific Y-DNA are to be present in a given population.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
You can repost it how often you want, with or without the rest of the sentence.
Fock you kid! I am only re-posting it for the benefit of thinking readers (which you are obviously not), as an exposé of the absolute klutz you are, that you can't even parrot simple texts word for word. A kindergartener can teach you a lesson or two how to repeat after grown ups correctly.
quote:Trolling aint gonna cut it. This is what it stands
Figures; You are deeply stumped for a relevant answer. Your crying "troll" like a fat baby every time you are stumped is by now as transparent to anyone as day.
It's like the little lying boy who cries "wolf" that nobody minds, i.e. nobody in their right mind.
quote:And these two random uncontested trivialities vindicate your claim that the ultimate origin of Semitic speakers in the Levant does not absolve me of explaining why Ethiopians have a closer affinity to Levantines than Yemenites, how?
little hussy, if you have to ask how you getting schooled on the nobrainer fact South Arabian Semitic was not spoken in the Levant--nor was there a "magic disappearance" of their descendants in southern Arabia--vindicates a request for you to explain why Ethiopian gene pool is incompatible with your loony-tale "South Arabian origin" of Ethiopians, then you have no business being here. Get lost!
quote:Wasn't it the point of your intergalactic mumbo jumbo to argue that the original Yemenite populations didn't vanish into thin air? Phuckin cretin.
dumbass, I was not referring to your supposed non-Semitic "aboriginal south Arabians" when I said the descendants of ancient south Arabian Semitic speakers, you know--the fairies who were suppose to have taught Ethiopians how to speak Semitic, could not have simply vanished into thin air.
quote:
quote:2)Point out the details, wherein Pagani et al. managed to sift supposed "aboriginal South Arabians" from the predominant Semitic-speaking south Arabians
The ‘Eurasian’ genetic component in Ethiopians dates to admixture events of 3kya. The mtDNAs that were left behind in the Ethiopian genepool as a result of these admixture events aren’t particularly close to Yemenite versions. Seeing as though the said Ethiiopian mtDNAs would necessarily have to be a microcosm of the Levantine populations Ethiopians inherited these mtDNAs from, the same thing (little sharing of specific haplotypes compared to Yemenites) would hold true for the Levantine populations Ethiopians inherited the said mtDNAs from. Use your goddamn brain for once.
I'm glad that you noticed that I have a brain, a luxury you are clearly drooling after. fuckhead, where is the requested notes from Pagani et al. backing your fairy tale "aboriginal south Arabians" being sifted, and supposedly being used exclusive of the Semitic speaking Yemeni. Back it up, bitch!
quote: Repeating non-replies right after repeated requests to back up claims are the hallmarks of true troll. Recap:
Troll, do you have evidence that I’ve said something definitive about the origins of the SLC24A5 allele, or are you just living up to your reputation of a mega troll when you’re asking me whether I’m relinquishing my views on the topic? --Swenet
I still don't see a yes or no. Are you retracting from your defense of a non-African origin for SLC24A5? Your ability to simply say "yes" or "no", as monumentally hard as it may be for you, is a prerequisite to any prospect of you getting schooled on SLC24A5!
quote:Repeating non-replies right after repeated requests to back up claims are the hallmarks of true troll. Recap:
Are you saying that all Semitic languages spoken in Southern Arabia ~3kya are said to have immediate affinities (i.e., residing in the same sub-clade) with Ethio-Semitic languages? LMAO. --Swenet
Rubbish is abundantly visible in your post; what isn't visible, is an answer to this:
The pending presentation of a detailed molecular layout for your justification for dismissing Ethiopian mtDNA as "Eurasian" and what renders them "still Eurasian"!
Go fetch me answers, not non-stop unintelligible hussy-fuss spam fillers.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
LMAO. You're done. For several times in a row, you're not even addressing my posts anymore; you're just talking at them--the ones you had the balls to address that is. I don't need to debate you until you shut the phuck up, for the forum to know you had your ass handed to you; the proof is in the pudding (to everyone: just take a look at my last post and then at his last post, to see his non-replies). You stepped to me and got your ass handed to you, and you know it. Posts: 8800 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: LMAO. You're done. For several times in a row, you're not even addressing my posts anymore; you're just talking at them--the ones you had the balls to address that is. I don't need to debate you until you shut the phuck up, for the forum to know I send you off with your tail in between your legs; the proof is in the pudding (to everyone: just take a look at my last post and then at his last post, to see his non-replies). You stepped to me and got your ass handed to you, and you know it.
Cop-out! Did not expect anything less, of course.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're something else explorer, you truly are. Who the PHUCK do you think you're kidding? Do you think the forum isn't on to you, just because no one is jumping in?
posted
You could learn a lesson from all this: bitching and moaning gets you nowhere, nor does pretending to know a subject that is clearly too complex for you.
Were you hoping that some one would jump in to relieve you of some of that heat your ass-whooping had been getting you? Hate to pop your bubble, when I say that it has no bearing on my actions one way or another.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was absent for quite some time, can someone please explain what the argument between Explorer and Swenet is about? I take it, it has to do with the provenance of mtDNA hg I and its alleged Arabian origins, correct?
Posts: 26441 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
--He repeatedly spams the forum with straw-man bait, asking me to defend statements that I've never made, re: supposedly I said in this thread that the SLC24A5 is non-African. He's also quite fond of bizarrely demanding I present random data, re: after I mentioned the existence of early ancient texts describing Southern Arabian territories (i.e., Makkan), he then strangely spams the forum with questions about what these texts talk about as if simply mentioning the existence of texts about Makkan burden me with the responsibility to go off on an elaborate discourse about what these texts say.
--Current linguistic evidence says that original Ethio-Semitic speakers and South Arabian speakers come from the Levant, while Explorer keeps lying and manipulating Kitchen et al 2009 to say that the said languages originate in Southern Arabia. He lies and says that this map from Kitchen et al 2009 is somehow a cartoon, and that the actual contents of the paper posit that the Ethio-Semitic linguistic clade originates in Southern Arabia, rather than simply passing through there on their way to Ethiopia. He avoids repeated requests to back up his claim that the actual contents of Kitchen et al 2009 contradict their own map, which he bizarrely calls ''a cartoon''.
--He does this because he's in the dark about the linguistics of the area. He's fighting imaginary opponents who, according to him, posit that Ethio-Semitic originates in Southern Arabia, and so, he uses the following Pagani excerpt as evidence that the views of his imaginary opponents ''have suffered a blow'':
The non-African component was found to be more similar to populations inhabiting the Levant rather than the Arabian Peninsula --Pagani et al 2012
He maintains that, had these original Ethio-Semitic speakers come from Southern Arabia like his imaginary opponents say is the case, we'd expect the Eurasian component of Ethiopians to have a closer affinity to Yemenites than to Levantines. However, his imaginary opponents are neither here nor there. The data discussed in this thread says that the original Ethio-Semitic speakers originate in the Levant, and so, the aforementioned Pagani excerpt he is cluelessly sprinkling around, is actually in harmony with the linguistic evidence that I'm bringing to the table (Kitchen et al 2009).
--When I attempt to educate him on this fact (i.e., that the original Ethio-Semitic speakers originate in the Levant and not Southern Arabia) he keeps repeating the same thing like a chicken without a head. I'm not kidding you, with every reminder that the original Ethio-Semitic speakers didn't originate in Southern Arabia, he simply repeats the same debunked conjecture that the closer affinity of the Eurasian genetic component in Ethiopians to Levantines rather than Yemenites is ''a blow'' to his imaginary opponents. Look at this exchange, for instance:
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
What follows is his signature troll non-sequitor reply, where he's simply reiterating the same debunked view ad infinitum:
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.
--Explorer
--Having been schooled on the fact that the original Semitic speakers who moved towards Southern Arabia would have had Levantine ancestry (not aboriginal Southern Arabian ancestry), and that his perceived contradiction between Pagani et al and the linguistic evidence is therefore a figment of his imagination, he then switched his pitch from ''there is a contradiction between the origin of Ethio-Semitic languages in Yemen and the Ethiopian relative dissimilarity to Yemenites compared to Levantines'' to ''even though the original Semitic speakers who donated their languages to Ethiopians would have had Levantine ancestry, Ethiopians should still be closer to Yemenites than Levantines''.
The reason why he says this is because he's trolling and because he's totally in the dark about the existence of pre-Semitic speakers in Southern Arabia, and the fact that most Arabic speaking Yemenites are their descendants, while Yemenites who speak non-Arabic (i.e., South Semitic languages) are the descendants of the original waves of Semitic speakers from the Levant.
He knows the Levantine ancestry of the original Semitic speakers destroy his case, so ever since he was forced to admit that they would have Levantine ancestry, he's been trolling his ass off. Note the following exchange for instance, where I repeatedly attempt to clue him into the fact that the aboriginal Yemenite population and the later arriving speakers of South Arabian languages should be seen as distinct elements:
quote:It still hasn’t dawned on you that the Yemenite proper population pre-dates the South Arabian speakers, has it?
--Swenet
Note that he doesn't even know that South Arabian speakers refers to a linguistic clade, and strangely turns ''South Arabian speakers'' into a matter of geography:
quote:Well, apparently, it has not "dawned on you" that "Yemenites" ARE/were "south Arabians"!
--Explorer
I then repeat it to him that South Arabian speakers refers to a set of closely related languages that arrived in Southern Arabia from the Levant:
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
Note his trolling non-reply, which is totally devoid of any argument, because he simply cannot refute what I'm saying:
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.
--Explorer
I then, again, urge him to demonstrate why my post evinces that I don't have a clue:
quote: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. Start explaining what about this post vindicates your opinion that it ’’reaffirms the fact that you are a complete idiot’’.
--Swenet
On topic replies to this very simple request for clarification had him running with his tail between his legs. Instead of complying with my request to back his sh!t up, he switched his pitch again. Seeing that his whole case is disintegrating in front of his eyes, he all of a sudden starts yapping about how I'm supposedly the only one who is talking about the speakers of the South Arabian linguistic clade:
quote:You are too dirt-stupid to even realize that you are the only one here, ever, to speak of "south Arabian speakers".
--Explorer
Notice what happens when I tell him that we've been talking about the speakers of the said linguistic clade all along:
quote:Apparently you do not know that South Arabian speakers are the population that we've been talking about the entire time, that would have introduced Ethio-Semitic languages to the Horn. Thanks for broadcasting to everyone how profoundly unlettered you are on the subject. You're doing me a big favor.
--Swenet
He then reverts back to his trolling, by responding with non-replies that don't even address what I said:
quote:Instead of dreaming up a "big favor", how about you try a real one, as an advice: Get a brain. It'll make you see that pointless rambling-excuses are no substitute for the fact that you are the lonesome airhead who has spoken of South Arabian "speakers" throughout this entire thread.
--Explorer
I then gave him another opportunity to clarify his remarks that I'm ''the only one who's talking about South Arabian speakers'':
quote:**Prove** that the Semitic speakers that moved into Southern Arabia 3kya, and who speak languages that reside within the same linguistic clade with Ethio-Semitic languages, are called anything other than 'South Arabian speakers'. This would go a long way in substantiating your excretion that I'm ''the only one here, ever, to speak of "south Arabian speakers''.
--Swenet
But to no avail, all got was more non-reply trolling remarks where he's letting his opinions talk instead of the requested data:
quote:Your "South Arabian speakers" obsession is as irrelevant as ever since you broached it; but I tell you what: How about you prove [with evidence of course] this "Semitic speakers moved into southern Arabia 3ky ago", supposedly for the first time, that you are now broaching!
--Explorer
When asked him for the umpteenth time to clarify his remarks, all I got was more of the same opinionated troll non-replies:
quote:Your "south Arabian speakers" is still irrelevant!...hussy-fuss aside.
--Explorer
That is basically how it went with every claim of his that I destroyed; as soon as he's debunked, he simply starts giving ad-hominem non-replies, and then repeating them ad infinitum until the person he's talking to gets tired of his manipulations, fallacies and lies. Just look at my last post to him, to get an idea of how many outstanding requests were pending for on-topic replies, that he kept running away from, again and again and again. Then compare those outstanding requests to his latest non-reply response, which is in essence just a repeat of his past five debunked posts.
Posts: 8800 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Well you guys seem to be making mountains out of hills of beans. According to Kitchen et al. Proto-Semitic originated in the Levant but its various derivatives or dialects spawned the various sub-branches some of which traveled south to spawn South-Arabian. And wasn't all this discussed before in here??
But language speakers and whole scale populations are another thing. As far as non-Semitic languages in South Arabia we have from the same thread by Tukuler this:
"There is no real doubt that the ancestors of both epigraphic (ESA) and modernn South Arabian (MSA) were languages spoken in the Near East rather than Ethiopia. But the date and processes whereby the speakers of these languages migrated and diversified are unknown. Apart from inscriptions that can be read, some contain evidence for completely unknown languages co-existing with ESA. Beeston (1981: 181) cites an inscription from Marib which begins in Sabaean but then switches to an unknown language. He mentions several other texts which have similar morphology (a final –k suffix) and which may represent an unknown non-Semitic language (or possibly a Nilo-Saharan language such as Kunama, for which such a feature would be typical)."
But does any of this have to do with hg I or even the topic of this thread?? Posts: 26441 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, it aint my fault I got dragged into something because some weirdo doesn't know what he's talking about! On the 1st and 2nd page I was asked to back up on-topic references to Pagani et al and Kitchen et al. I was trying to stick to the topic of mtDNA I2 in Northeastern Africa, with my reference to both Pagani and Kitchen et al, but if some troll desperately tries to prostitute for my attention, I wont turn down the invitation to beat common sense into its brain pan. Posts: 8800 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: I was absent for quite some time, can someone please explain what the argument between Explorer and Swenet is about? I take it, it has to do with the provenance of mtDNA hg I and its alleged Arabian origins, correct?
Already commented on hg I, and requested a detailed account on the molecular specifics that determined the specimen's assignment into this clade, but no answer was forthcoming on that. Instead, a citation was offered on a study (Pagani et al.) around Ethiopian genome, referencing a linguistic study on a south Arabian origin for Ethio-Semitic, which the authors seemed keen on capitalizing, so as to make the same point. Problem with that, is that the authors own findings contradict that hypothesis. This is how the discussion on a south Arabian origin theory came about, with swenet very emotionally trying to defend that premise, but that was a colossal misjudgment on his/her/its part, as he/she/it would soon find out!
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
--He repeatedly spams the forum with straw-man bait, asking me to defend statements that I've never made, re: supposedly I said in this thread that the SLC24A5 is non-African.
This is for the lazy, but well-meaning learners out there, who might not make any sense of what's going on, and might assume that this is just a tit for tat orgy between me and a knucklehead, the mistake Ru2religious made for instance. Otherwise, I would not even bother. So here is how it went on this gene, SLC24A5:
I commented on a citation from a study (Pagani et al. 2012) with regards to the treatment of SLC24A5 as a "non-African" marker in African samples, including Ethiopians, who were the primary subjects of the study...
Quote:
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. - The Explorer
And here comes the clown, swenet, obviously not having the slightest clue why I objected to said treatment, interjects, for the sake of settling a score on sour grapes from past thrashings he/she/it apparently received from...none other than myself:
Which bars them from having non-African ancestry? What exactly is key about this random injection? - swenet
To which I then follow up with, in an apparent bid to clue the clueless on the underlying point that obviously took a flight over his/her/its empty head:
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. - The Explorer
Rather than directly reply the above, the request was greeted by the clueless clown as follows:
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. - swenet
Mind you, this was supposedly a response to an answer I submitted to a query, by none other than the clown itself, about a source which would have implicated the San in the distribution of SLC24A5 'derived' variant...which was offered as follow:
See, for example, Genetic Evidence for the Convergent Evolution of Light Skin in Europeans and East Asians, courtesy Norton et al. 2006. - The Explorer
Obviously the numbskull was taking the position of defending a gratuitous assumption that SLC24A5 allele--associated with light skin in European--is serving as a "non-African" DNA in Pagani et al.'s African samples, Ethiopians included!
The clown was thus put to task on this emotionally-driven defensive posture, an undertaking which proved to be a total disaster; the rest--as they say--is history!
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
As for swenet's longwinded bitch-talk, full of fairy tales, about the irrelevant "aboriginal" non-Semitic speaking south Arabians from prior to 3kya, whom the clown itself brought up but for some awkward reason, just as the clown--by its lonesome--made a mole hill out of "south Arabian speakers" apparently with no clear justification to show for it, other than to place some fictitious blame on me for the necessary reference to a "south Arabian origin", I won't get into a longwinded correction of every falsehood; the posts that I actually posted speak for themselves, without the clown's paraphrasing or re-interpretations. Anyone who allows the clown to do the interpreting for them, rather than reading the damn posts directly themselves, are needlessly setting themselves to be bamboozled by an idiot, which is actually worse than being the idiot itself!
My reference to south Arabian origin speaks directly to a geographical context, although the underlying linguistic context is also a given--and I pointed this out to the nutjob clown. So, it is not necessary for me to laboriously spell out that the transfer of language would have involved ancient "south Arabian Semitic speakers". I have long suspected that the reason the clown insisted on making a needless mole hill out of what should have been obvious, is to assume some shifty position whereby the clown can claim "a population replacement", as the reason for the apparent lack of compatibility of Ethiopian genome with a South Arabian origin, but at the same time deny a "population replacement", if put to task on the prospect. Hence, this talk of "aboriginal south Arabians" vs. "south Arabian speakers".
Dichotomizing south Arabians as such makes little to no sense, unless one is advocating "population replacement". That much of south Arabia speaks Arabic in contemporary times, speaks to the power of acculturation; it doesn't necessarily point to a population replacement. This is the nobrainer I have been trying to hammer into the clown's dense head.
Besides, Ethiopian genome comes closer to north coastal African counterparts than they do the Levant, which in turn comes closer than the south Arabian counterpart. None of this real world stuff seems to seep into that fairy land bubble of the clown.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: From what I understand M1 and U6 are associated with those Africans that are closest genetically to Eurasians, yet it appears from the STR data that AEs did not belong to that branch but rather the one ancestral to all other Africans.
You do realize that M1 and U6 clades are found in western through to eastern Africa, don't you?
The nuclear DNA STRs (xY-DNA) cannot predict what mtDNA are likely to be present in a given population. Heck, it can't even predict what specific Y-DNA are to be present in a given population.
True, but as I understand it there does seem to be a correlation between the presence of M1 and U6 and affinity to the Horner/Eurasian clade. That is to say, African populations with a large proportion of these haplogroups tend to have a closer relationship to Horners and Eurasians than Africans with lower proportions. Now we know from the STR data that the AEs' ancestry stems largely from the inner African rather than Horner/Eurasian side of the split, so the probability of them having M1 or U6 should be lower.
Posts: 7192 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
True, but as I understand it there does seem to be a correlation between the presence of M1 and U6 and affinity to the Horner/Eurasian clade. That is to say, African populations with a large proportion of these haplogroups tend to have a closer relationship to Horners and Eurasians than Africans with lower proportions.
I find this claim very questionable. You'll have to provide details of what you are basing it on.
I mean, I've long become accustomed to Eurocentrists claiming "Eurasian" closeness with Ethiopian groups, but that is because of the component these centrists like to dismiss as "Eurasian". Ethiopians are much more than that component--that Eurocentrists are so fixated on, to the exclusion of the even more important components of Ethiopian gene pool--of course.
And no, the only tangible correlation I see involving M1 and U6, and the said east Africans, is that of its dispersal serving as potential marker of proto-"Afro-Asiatic" movement within and out of the continent. Nothing more or less.
As for the so-called "Eurasian" components in groups that seem to have "higher" portions of "M1 and U6", there is good indication that many of these groups actually acquired said component on the African continent itself; this component appears to have had a good presence in the Sahara, whereupon the environmental fluctuations forced groups to seek other habitations. This component also appears to be far more phylogenetically complex than what Eurocentrists make it out to be!
quote:
Now we know from the STR data that the AEs' ancestry stems largely from the inner African rather than Horner/Eurasian side of the split, so the probability of them having M1 or U6 should be lower.
This is a weak probability, because as I just noted, the distribution of M1 and U6 appear to be more of a geographic factor, than the correlation between frequency of M1-U6 and "Eurasian" ancestry. As a matter of fact, the fact that northwest Africans who seem to have a higher component of so-called "Eurasian" genome, have much lower M1 prevalence than Ethiopians but with phylogenetically-deeper clades, weakens your correlation theory. Your theory would dictate a higher northwest African M1, just based on its correlation with the supposed "Eurasian" component. On the other hand, U6 prevalence in Ethiopia is comparable to those reported in west African samples with very high supposedly "African" component, at least according to one finding.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: From what I understand M1 and U6 are associated with those Africans that are closest genetically to Eurasians, yet it appears from the STR data that AEs did not belong to that branch but rather the one ancestral to all other Africans.
You do realize that M1 and U6 clades are found in western through to eastern Africa, don't you?
The nuclear DNA STRs (xY-DNA) cannot predict what mtDNA are likely to be present in a given population. Heck, it can't even predict what specific Y-DNA are to be present in a given population.
True, but as I understand it there does seem to be a correlation between the presence of M1 and U6 and affinity to the Horner/Eurasian clade. That is to say, African populations with a large proportion of these haplogroups tend to have a closer relationship to Horners and Eurasians than Africans with lower proportions. Now we know from the STR data that the AEs' ancestry stems largely from the inner African rather than Horner/Eurasian side of the split, so the probability of them having M1 or U6 should be lower.
I agree with Explorer, and this is why. M1 is among the ancient clades that made it to Western Eurasia, around the same time as E-M78. If its associated with E-M78 and late Pleistocene OOA expansions from Northeastern Africa, common sense dictates that it should then also have been present in (dynastic) Ancient Egypt. While I don't believe this clade is phylogenetically African, it, along with E-M78 are still Late Pleistocene North(east) African signatures, both in and outside of Africa.
Posts: 8800 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, it cannot be taken for granted that the Cushitic and Semitic speaking Ethiopian local genome would have been as pristine as it was when Egyptic speakers branched off of the early Afrasan community. As Pagani et al have demonstrated, most of the Eurasian elements in Horners date to 3kya. Therefore, the conclusions that can be drawn from the relatively low MLI scores of modern day Ethiopians to the Pharaohs are limited. The way I see it (and I've said it before), is that the STR allelles found in Egyptians are mostly (old) pan-African DNA, and so, the original Afrasan community (minus the 3kya Eurasian admixture) would likely have much higher MLI scores than modern day Afrasan speaking Ethiopians.
Posts: 8800 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
As Pagani et al have demonstrated, most of the Eurasian elements in Horners date to 3kya.
Explain to me, in your own words -- but does not mean you should shy away from corresponding citations that back you up, how they have determined this, the markers (meaning specific haplotypes or haplogroups) involved, and why you think it is accurate!
I look at Ethiopian mtDNA profile for instance, and I find it hard to conceive of a profile like that only dating to the magic date of 3kya, which suspiciously approximates that of the linguistic study Pagani et al. just so happened to reference! Even the Y-DNA profile by and large contradicts this date.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
While I don't believe this clade is phylogenetically African
Good thing that you're making it clear that this amounts to just a belief that you cling onto...because you will be up against an uphill battle in actually proving it, as I have amply demonstrated on several occasions.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
However hg U as far as I know is not common in Egyptians as a whole wheras M1 is
U6 is generally found in low frequencies in even other Tamazight-speaking groups, while M1 is usually found in moderate to low frequencies. So, U6's absence in Siwa samples may just be reflecting the effect of negative genetic drift on that clade.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
As Pagani et al have demonstrated, most of the Eurasian elements in Horners date to 3kya.
Explain to me, in your own words -- but does not mean you should shy away from corresponding citations that back you up, how they have determined this, the markers (meaning specific haplotypes or haplogroups) involved, and why you think it is accurate!
I look at Ethiopian mtDNA profile for instance, and I find it hard to conceive of a profile like that only dating to the magic date of 3kya, which suspiciously approximates that of the linguistic study Pagani et al. just so happened to reference! Even the Y-DNA profile by and large contradicts this date.
What, just because I agreed with what you said, you think that's a nod to you or something? You're a lying troll, guided by vested interests, lies, fallacies and manipulations. Even as we speak, you're again introducing fallacies like the mega troll that you are. Even way before Pagani 2012 and Kitchen 2009, Rosa & Brehm 2011 and Kivisild et al. 2004 had entertained the possibility that the lineages being referred to could very well have been introduced by Ethio-Semitic speakers:
quote:N1 is a minor mtDNA haplogroup that has been observed at marginal frequencies in European, Near Eastern, Indian and East African populations (Richards et al., 2000; Kivisild et al., 2004), mainly in Semitic speakers. Although with much older coalescences in the Near East and Southwest Asia (Richards et al., 2000), N1, U (non-U5 or U6) and W lineages may have been imported relatively recently, with the expansion of Semitic languages, at least in the Ethiopian pool (Kivisild et al., 2004).
--Rosa & Brehm, 2011
No one needs you to 'okay' or 'approve' any scientific observation, for those observations to be scientifically well founded, although I'm sure that is how you perceive things to be in your coo coo world.
Also, what I've been holding back, as it was way too funny seeing Explorer squirm, trying to defend a position of a predominantly local origin of the Ethiopian non-L mtDNAs, which has been crumbling far years: according to various researchers, the very recent G 13915 allele, perhaps associated with the Saudi Camel domestication event, made its way into Ethiopia at a time that could not have been much older that ~4kya. Enattah et al:
quote:Our age estimate of the G 13915 allele of ~4095 (+/- 2045) years in the Arabian Peninsula would suggest that the introduction of this LP variant might be associated with the domestication of the Arabian camel more than 6000 years ago.
--Enattah et al, 2008
Where this allele is found according to Ingram et al 2006:
quote:Of the populations tested, the -13915*G allele was found to be fairly widespread in eastern Africa and the Middle East. It was most common in the Saudi Bedouins
--Ingram et al 2006
I'd love to see the nutties pull the ''this is not due to Eurasian backflow, but due to OOA events'', or ''its not Eurasian because (insert African ethnic group) have it too!'' mumbo jumbo on this one.
As Pagani et al have demonstrated, most of the Eurasian elements in Horners date to 3kya.
Explain to me, in your own words -- but does not mean you should shy away from corresponding citations that back you up, how they have determined this [3kya], the markers (meaning specific haplotypes or haplogroups) involved, and why you think it is accurate!
I look at Ethiopian mtDNA profile for instance, and I find it hard to conceive of a profile like that only dating to the magic date of 3kya, which suspiciously approximates that of the linguistic study Pagani et al. just so happened to reference! Even the Y-DNA profile by and large contradicts this date.
What, just because I agreed with what you said, you think that's a nod to you or something?
dumbass, I could care less whether you agree with me on something or not. You are requested to deliver the above. Stop crying for made-up reasons, and start delivering!
quote:
You're a lying troll, guided by vested interests, lies, fallacies and manipulations. Even as we speak, you're again introducing fallacies like the mega troll that you are. Even way before Pagani 2012 and Kitchen 2009, Rosa & Brehm 2011 and Kivisild et al. 2004 had entertained the possibility that the lineages being referred to could very well have been introduced by Ethio-Semitic speakers
The fact that your supposed "Eurasian" mtDNA is not structured along linguistic lines in Ethiopian samples, makes mockery of your sad little tale about Ethio-Semitic speakers being the source of it. We've been through this. You failed, but danced around the issue every possible way you imagined you could to avoid substantiating the tale, and now you are it again.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
N1 is a minor mtDNA haplogroup that has been observed at marginal frequencies in European, Near Eastern, Indian and East African populations (Richards et al., 2000; Kivisild et al., 2004), mainly in Semitic speakers. Although with much older coalescences in the Near East and Southwest Asia (Richards et al., 2000), N1, U (non-U5 or U6) and W lineages may have been imported relatively recently, with the expansion of Semitic languages, at least in the Ethiopian pool (Kivisild et al., 2004).--Rosa & Brehm, 2011
How recent is "recently" here?
Elsewhere I posted this:
N1a is a minor mtDNA haplogroup that has been observed at marginal frequencies in European, Near Eastern, and Indian populations (Mountain et al. 1995; Richards et al.
But...
It occurs at a significant frequency in both Ethiopian and Yemeni populations.
Further...
Six Ethiopian N1a lineages, restricted to Semitic-speaking subpopulations, show low haplotype diversity and include an exact HVS-I sequence match with a published N1a sequence from Egypt (Krings et al. 1999). A related sequence, from southern Sudan (Krings et al. 1999), was misclassified as a member of the L1a clade (Salas et al. 2002).
Yemeni N1a sequences, on the other hand, display a high level of haplotype (h=0.89) and nucleotide (ρ=2.75±1) diversity, combined with the highest frequency (6.9%) of this haplogroup reported so far.
We see that the Ethiopian sequences show their closest matches with those of northern areas of Africa than with those in southern Arabia and the "Near East" and elsewhere, where as noted, save for Yemen, hg N1a markers are visibly lower than in Ethiopian populations.
quote:
Also, what I've been holding back, as it was way too funny seeing Explorer squirm
More like, you having scrambled for answers for a while, never being able to come up with rationale reasons for your cartoon-like claims. Now, something else grabs your eye, and you say to yourself, "let me bring it up to The Explorer".
quote: trying to defend a position of a predominantly local origin of the Ethiopian non-L mtDNAs, which has been crumbling far years
Throughout your exchanges, you have only managed to demonstrate that empty-headed talk is cheap.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
according to various researchers, the very recent G 13915 allele, perhaps associated with the Saudi Camel domestication event, made its way into Ethiopia at a time that could not have been much older that ~4kya. Enattah et al:
quote:Our age estimate of the G 13915 allele of ~4095 (+/- 2045) years in the Arabian Peninsula would suggest that the introduction of this LP variant might be associated with the domestication of the Arabian camel more than 6000 years ago.
--Enattah et al, 2008
Where this allele is found according to Ingram et al 2006:
quote:Of the populations tested, the -13915*G allele was found to be fairly widespread in eastern Africa and the Middle East. It was most common in the Saudi Bedouins
--Ingram et al 2006
I'd love to see the nutties pull the ''this is not due to Eurasian backflow, but due to OOA events'', or ''its not Eurasian because (insert African ethnic group) have it too!'' mumbo jumbo on this one.
You are on the verge of making the same mistake that you made with the SLC24A5 marker. You simply parrot whatever tickles your emotion, without thinking. Here's a little known trivia about lactose tolerance in east Africa:
After testing for lactose tolerance and genetic makeup among 43 ethnic groups in East Africa, she and her colleagues have found three new mutations all independent of one another and of the European mutation, that keep the lactase gene permanently switched on. - Tishkoff et al., courtesy of NY Times.
Few things to note about the above:
Unique mutations were found in east Africa.
Not only are these mutations different from say, those in Europeans, but they tend to be independent variants between east African groups themselves.
Lactose tolerance-associated alleles are the product of positive selection on the LCT gene.
Therefore, it is not inconceivable for the gene to either actually originate in Africa, and/or, for it to emerge on the backdrop of convergent evolution.
You have to demonstrate to me how lactose tolerance in east Africans is the product of non-African gene flow!
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
N1 is a minor mtDNA haplogroup that has been observed at marginal frequencies in European, Near Eastern, Indian and East African populations (Richards et al., 2000; Kivisild et al., 2004), mainly in Semitic speakers. Although with much older coalescences in the Near East and Southwest Asia (Richards et al., 2000), N1, U (non-U5 or U6) and W lineages may have been imported relatively recently, with the expansion of Semitic languages, at least in the Ethiopian pool (Kivisild et al., 2004).--Rosa & Brehm, 2011
How recent is "recently" here?
Elsewhere I posted this:
N1a is a minor mtDNA haplogroup that has been observed at marginal frequencies in European, Near Eastern, and Indian populations (Mountain et al. 1995; Richards et al.
But...
It occurs at a significant frequency in both Ethiopian and Yemeni populations.
Further...
Six Ethiopian N1a lineages, restricted to Semitic-speaking subpopulations, show low haplotype diversity and include an exact HVS-I sequence match with a published N1a sequence from Egypt (Krings et al. 1999). A related sequence, from southern Sudan (Krings et al. 1999), was misclassified as a member of the L1a clade (Salas et al. 2002).
Yemeni N1a sequences, on the other hand, display a high level of haplotype (h=0.89) and nucleotide (ρ=2.75±1) diversity, combined with the highest frequency (6.9%) of this haplogroup reported so far.
We see that the Ethiopian sequences show their closest matches with those of northern areas of Africa than with those in southern Arabia and the "Near East" and elsewhere, where as noted, save for Yemen, hg N1a markers are visibly lower than in Ethiopian populations.
Adding to the above...
As my contribution, here's a little more genetic substance to the discussion, mainly recounting some interesting findings I had come across years ago.
To piggyback on an observation Pagani et al. (2012) made...
The non-African component was found to be more similar to populations inhabiting the Levant rather than the Arabian Peninsula
I recount noting as follows, with reference to observations around Kivisild et al. (2004):
"Given what the authors say about mtDNA like pre-HV markers, attempt at correlation here can only hint on possible entertainment of back-migration involving "Afro-Asiatic" groups from the "Near East" through the Sinai corridor as opposed to the south Arabian peninsula [note here, that invocation of the low incidence of E-M78 in Yemeni samples fit into that theme]" - Explorer
On the mtDNA front, years ago I had noted as follows, courtesy of Kivisild et al. (2004)...
This pattern (below) was observed quite frequently for hg N and its sub-clades in the Ethiopian maternal gene pool:
"AGAIN, northern Africa is implicated. One confronts a situation wherein Ethiopian examples fail to find matches with those in the "Near East" or southern Arabia, and again, there doesn't seem to any structuring along linguistic lines." - Explorer
Furthermore...
...A specific haplotype match in haplogroup (preHV)1—which is also widely spread in the Near East—between Ethiopian Jews and non-Jews is more problematic, because it is also possible that the non-Jews obtained the lineage from the Jews. This particular (preHV)1 haplotype, with a rare transversion at np 16305, (1) has not been detected, so far, among other Semitic populations of the Near East; whereas, (2) in Ethiopia, it occurs both among Cushitic and Semitic speakers;
But...
and, (3) in Ethiopian Jews, there are many sub-Saharan African lineages from haplogroups L0–L3. It is more likely, therefore, that the matching haplotype does not represent the incursion of Jewish maternal lineages into the Ethiopian gene pool but that this haplotype instead substantiates the extent of Ethiopian admixture in the Falasha population.
Taken together, the influx of the elements of the Hebraic culture in the first centuries a.d. probably did not have a major impact on the genetic pool of Ethiopians,
and the present-day Jews of Ethiopian descent probably assimilated genes from the local non-Jewish populations through conversion of the latter to Judaism.
Importantly...
The other two episodes of intrusion of Semitic influence, related to contacts with southern Arabia, are weakly supported by our data.
This is because, among the haplogroup N lineages present in high frequency in the Tigrais and other Ethiopian ethnic groups, only a few revealed close relationships with equivalent lineages present in southern Arabia.
The pattern you see above, surfaces quite frequently in Ethiopian so-called "Eurasian" gene pool.
^A genetic profile starts to emerge that does not square with a 3ky ago age!
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Try again, troll, this time, actually refuting what I posted below, rather than throwing in a bunch of vague and general information, that doesn't even come close to bring into question what I posted:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
As Pagani et al have demonstrated, most of the Eurasian elements in Horners date to 3kya.
Explain to me, in your own words -- but does not mean you should shy away from corresponding citations that back you up, how they have determined this, the markers (meaning specific haplotypes or haplogroups) involved, and why you think it is accurate!
I look at Ethiopian mtDNA profile for instance, and I find it hard to conceive of a profile like that only dating to the magic date of 3kya, which suspiciously approximates that of the linguistic study Pagani et al. just so happened to reference! Even the Y-DNA profile by and large contradicts this date. [/qb]
What, just because I agreed with what you said, you think that's a nod to you or something? You're a lying troll, guided by vested interests, lies, fallacies and manipulations. Even as we speak, you're again introducing fallacies like the mega troll that you are. Even way before Pagani 2012 and Kitchen 2009, Rosa & Brehm 2011 and Kivisild et al. 2004 had entertained the possibility that the lineages being referred to could very well have been introduced by Ethio-Semitic speakers:
quote:N1 is a minor mtDNA haplogroup that has been observed at marginal frequencies in European, Near Eastern, Indian and East African populations (Richards et al., 2000; Kivisild et al., 2004), mainly in Semitic speakers. Although with much older coalescences in the Near East and Southwest Asia (Richards et al., 2000), N1, U (non-U5 or U6) and W lineages may have been imported relatively recently, with the expansion of Semitic languages, at least in the Ethiopian pool (Kivisild et al., 2004).
--Rosa & Brehm, 2011
No one needs you to 'okay' or 'approve' any scientific observation, for those observations to be scientifically well founded, although I'm sure that is how you perceive things to be in your coo coo world.
Also, what I've been holding back, as it was way too funny seeing Explorer squirm, trying to defend a position of a predominantly local origin of the Ethiopian non-L mtDNAs, which has been crumbling far years: according to various researchers, the very recent G 13915 allele, perhaps associated with the Saudi Camel domestication event, made its way into Ethiopia at a time that could not have been much older that ~4kya. Enattah et al:
quote:Our age estimate of the G 13915 allele of ~4095 (+/- 2045) years in the Arabian Peninsula would suggest that the introduction of this LP variant might be associated with the domestication of the Arabian camel more than 6000 years ago.
--Enattah et al, 2008
Where this allele is found according to Ingram et al 2006:
quote:Of the populations tested, the -13915*G allele was found to be fairly widespread in eastern Africa and the Middle East. It was most common in the Saudi Bedouins
--Ingram et al 2006
I'd love to see the nutties pull the ''this is not due to Eurasian backflow, but due to OOA events'', or ''its not Eurasian because (insert African ethnic group) have it too!'' mumbo jumbo on this one.
posted
This redundant re-posting of material that has either been rendered questionable or debunked is in keeping with your usual way of throwing in the towel. Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you say so. In the real world, however, level-headed posters will realize:
--that your vague comments about the independent origins of LP associated alleles do not even begin to address or contradict the post they're targeting. To the contrary, such a view is rather compatible with my posts. In fact, 13915*G having an independent origin is what makes it a useful polymorphic allele in the first place, that can be used to determined who Ethiopians inherited it from, and the upper bound of such an admixture date. Additionally, its also not clear from the article whether 13915*G was one of the newly detected mutations. But, as we all know, trolls are not particularly concerned with making sense of their dumb ass posts. Initially, when you first posted the irrelevant Tiskoff bit, I didn't want to say it, but, since you're denying the patently obvious conclusion that your post has zero relevancy, I'm going to go ahead and clue you in to the fact that your source says that all four LP associated alleles are dated and that the dates match with the archaeological record. This is another smack in the face of your theory that ''genes under selection cannot be reliably dated''.
--that the admixture event of 3kya cannot be falsified with the vague, mindless mumbo jumbo references you have in mind, since the said methods cannot distinguish between the split of Levantine ancestral Ethio-Semitic speakers from the Levantine Proto-Semitic community ~6kya, and the admixture event 3kya which led to Ethiopian populations inheriting the said varations. They will simply pick up on the former event, not the latter. Therefore, the TMCRA dates older than 3kya, but younger than ~7kya, of most non mtDNA L, U6 and M1 Ethiopian haplogroups cannot falsify the 3kya admixture event established by Pagani et al. Heck, even haplotype TMRCAs that are older than that don't necessarily refute Pagani et al's admixture date of 3kya. Pagani et al used another method to arrive at their conclusions, which you still haven't refuted, and CANNOT refute. Hence, you pathetically resort to the next best thing; troll baiting others into talking about their interpretations of/take on Pagani et al, rather than taking it up with the paper itself. No stalling, troll, do it right here! Bring into question the results obtained by Pagani et al, that left you butt hurt since the first page of this thread. Do it right here, for everyone to see.
--that irrelevant exact matches of Egyptian and Ethiopian mtDNAs do not even begin to address what was posted, since, like the rest of your shabby post, its not incompatible with what I posted. It wouldn't be more random if you were to randomly post a news article about the VMAs in response to my post.
Posts: 8800 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic