...
EgyptSearch Forums
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
Post New Topic  New Poll  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
my profile | directory login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» EgyptSearch Forums » Egyptology » Egyptian Old Kingdom and New Kingdom Ancient DNA results (Page 8)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 10 pages: 1  2  3  ...  5  6  7  8  9  10   
Author Topic: Egyptian Old Kingdom and New Kingdom Ancient DNA results
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
the site is owned and by a white supremacist, it needed to die
Posts: 42937 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
Beyoku, what happened to forumbiodiversity? I can't
seem to access it.

Seems to be more than just things not working from
my end. I type in the forum name in Google and it
ranks at the bottom of the page. How can an
established forum, with no similar named competitors,
not rank high for its own domain name?

The domain name is still active and "alive".

There are no package loses during the Ping trace.


code:
Domain	                     Time To Live     IP Address	            Responding 
forumbiodiversity.com 1800 66.23.227.93 Online





Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
The reason why Horn Africa doesn't match Ancient Egyptians aDNA very much is because they used, rightly or wrongly, Horn Africans very much admixed for their study. Those Horn Africans samples have a great genetic distance between them and other Africans (personally I don't think that level of admixture is representative of the average Horn Africans). Both fact can be seen in their global study (STR) for 2010-2012. And as you know, the closer you are to other Africans the closer you are to Ancient Egyptians.

A few things here.

What do they consider "Eurasian"..."E1b"?

And from where did the samples come, during what time did "they sample", such abundance of population size" to come to certain "conclusions" as they do?


Last, the Horn is composed out of many different ethnic groups with different histories and traditions, some relate to each other, whereas others don't. Clustering them all together in one big bunch doesn't make any sense.


Here is another following of the paternal line:

 -

 -


E1b1b. M215

quote:

Ethiopia and Sudan harbor the highest levels (30-40%) of the E1b1b (M215) subclade. The information on the E1b1b (M215) subclade is generally superseded by the information from the descendant lineages. Based on the profile of its distribution and the degree of STR diversity in this subclade, it is believed to originate in East Africa. The TMRCA estimate is 20-26kya and by 17kya this subclade had migrated to Northeast Africa. It may be that the Nile River Valley acted as a migratory corridor for this subclade and some of its important descendants described below. This also fits with its higher prevalence among Nilo-Saharan language groups versus Afro-Asiatic language groups.

E1b1b1a. M78

quote:
The Northeast Africa-based E1b1b1a subclade is defined by SNP M78. Somalia, Sudan and Egypt are among the present day countries with very high frequencies (60-90%) of the E1b1b1a M78 subclade. The STR data also support its origin in this area with a TMRCA estimated at 14-23 kya.

E1b1b1a1b. V32

quote:
The E1b1b1a1b (V32) subclade is a descendant of E1b1b1a1 (V12). E1b1b1a1b/V32 is highest in Somalia (47-75%), Sudan (52%) and Ethiopia (40%). All these chromosomes detected to date fall into the East African M78 g microsatellite cluster, which is associated with Cushitic (Afro-Asiatic) language groups in Somalia, Ethiopia and Kenya. There is some notion that the Great Rift Valley acted as a barrier to isolate language and genetic groups in this region. This subclade is abundant in Somalia, although the STR diversity is rather low. This data would suggest that the E1b1b1a1b/V32 Somali population was shaped by a founder effect, somewhat recently.
E1b1b1e. V6

quote:
his somewhat rare haplogroup, E1b1b1e (V6), has only been observed in East Africa with the most appreciable levels seen in Ethiopia (4-17%). Kenya and Somalia also harbor a moderate frequency (5%) of this subclade.

 -

 -

Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
[qb] The reason why Horn Africa doesn't match Ancient Egyptians aDNA very much is because they used, rightly or wrongly, Horn Africans very much admixed for their study. Those Horn Africans samples have a great genetic distance between them and other Africans (personally I don't think that level of admixture is representative of the average Horn Africans). Both fact can be seen in their global study (STR) for 2010-2012. And as you know, the closer you are to other Africans the closer you are to Ancient Egyptians.

The South Africans had the highest MLI s in the DNATribes Amarna article.
Horn Africans were much lower. Do you think it's possible that a particular group in the Horn or North Africa might have MLI scores as high or higher than the South Africans?
Beja, Maasai, Copts or Toubou for instance

Posts: 42937 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:


So how does the Ancient Egyptians looked like? My answer: Like a mix of African people and lineages.

Well the region around Lake Victoria would include a more Eastern part of the Mix, Great Lakes region

???


Lake Victoria is located in East-Central Africa. Logically the region is and was inhabited by East-Central Africans.


Egyptian pottery was found as far as in Tanzania.


 -

I accidentally bumped into this one:


quote:
n.b. recent studies have identified a new SNP, M293 that account for many of the M35* paragroup. This new subclade, designated E1b1b1f, appears to have a concentration around Tanzania (43%), the country that harbored the highest reported frequency of M35* (37%). The E1b1b1f/M293 subclade has a TMRCA estimated at 10kya and is associated with a more recent migration (~2kya) and spread of pastoralism (livestock herding) southward to South Africa. Along with the E1b1a/M2/Bantu, this provides another instance of demic diffusion of new technologies in Africa.
--Genebase (2013)


quote:
The M215 polymorphism is a predecessor of the E-M35 mutation. Haplogroup E-M35 (E1b1b) contains a lineage undefined by a binary marker, as well as six derived sub-branches. Three additional haplogroups have also been added to the tree since 2002: E-M281 (E1b1b1d), E-V6 (E1b1b1e), and E-P72 (E1b1b1f).
--Tatiana M. Karafet, Hammer MF et al.
Genome Res. 2008 May; 18(5): 830–838.
doi: 10.1101/gr.7172008


quote:
The mutation M293 mutation [3] was shown to be positioned upstream of the P72 marker (Figure 1), which defines the E1b1b1f lineage in the tree by Karafet et al. [2]. All the sixteen Y chromosomes from southern Africa and 4/19 Y chromosomes from eastern Africa described by Cruciani et al. [8] as belonging to paragroup E-M35* turned out to carry the M293 mutation.
--Beniamino Trombetta et al. (2011)
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
[qb] The reason why Horn Africa doesn't match Ancient Egyptians aDNA very much is because they used, rightly or wrongly, Horn Africans very much admixed for their study. Those Horn Africans samples have a great genetic distance between them and other Africans (personally I don't think that level of admixture is representative of the average Horn Africans). Both fact can be seen in their global study (STR) for 2010-2012. And as you know, the closer you are to other Africans the closer you are to Ancient Egyptians.

The South Africans had the highest MLI s in the DNATribes Amarna article.
Horn Africans were much lower. Do you think it's possible that a particular group in the Horn or North Africa might have MLI scores as high or higher than the South Africans?
Beja, Maasai, Copts or Toubou for instance

The main question is, what MLI's are they speaking of....? Maybe you can elaborate on this? So we can create a pattern...

Hence: table 1. "each MLI score identifies the likelihood of occurance of an STR profile in that region VS the occurrence of likelihood in the world as a whole"


Is it that "some" South African "populations" are much older representatives? And perhaps they did not include certain Hg as African in origin. Ya' dig?


I propose:

 -



code:
                 Geography	               Founder Analysis


Migration Time (ka) % of L3 Lineages (SE)

East Africa 58.8 74.0 (0.5)

1.8 20.1 (2.6)
0.1 5.9 (2.5)


Central Africa 42.4 75.0 (2.7)
9.2 24.1 (2.8)
0.1 0.9 (0.2)

North Africa 35.0 7.4 (2.7)
6.6 67.0 (4.0)
0.6 25.7 (3.1)

South Africa 3.2 86.7 (4.3)
0.1 13.3 (4.3)

South Africa (southern)1.8 83.4 (3.7)
0.1 16.6 (3.7)

 -


 -



 -



Whole-mtDNA Genome Sequence Analysis of Ancient African Lineages


quote:
Evolutionary history of mtDNA haplogroup structure in African populations inferred from mtDNA d-loop and RFLP analysis.

(A) Relationships among different mtDNA haplogroup lineages inferred from mtDNA d-loop sequences and mtDNA coding region SNPs from previous studies (Kivisild, Metspalu, et al. 2006). Dashed lines indicate previously unresolved relationships.

(B) Relative frequencies of haplogroups L0, L1, L5, L2, L3, M, and N in different regions of Africa from mtDNA d-loop and mtDNA coding region SNPs from previous studies.

(C) Relative frequencies of haplogroups L0, L1, and L5 subhaplogroups (excluding L2 and L3) in different regions of Africa from mtDNA d-loop and mtDNA coding region SNPs from previous studies. Haplogroup frequencies from previously published studies include East Africans (Ethiopia [Rosa et al. 2004], Kenya and Sudan [Watson et al. 1997; Rosa et al. 2004]), Mozambique (Pereira et al. 2001; Salas et al. 2002), Hadza (Vigilant et al. 1991), and Sukuma (Knight et al. 2003); South Africans (Botswana !Kung [Vigilant et al. 1991]); Central Africans (Mbenzele Pygmies [Destro-Bisol et al. 2004], Biaka Pygmies [Vigilant et al. 1991], and Mbuti Pygmies [Vigilant et al. 1991]); West Africans (Niger, Nigeria [Vigilant et al. 1991; Watson et al. 1997]; and Guinea [Rosa et al. 2004]). L1*, L2*, and L3* from previous studies indicate samples that were not further subdivided into subhaplogroups.

--Sarah A. Tishkoff (2006)
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/24/3/757/F1.expansion


Volume 300, 25 June 2013, Pages 153–170

The Middle Palaeolithic in the Desert


The Middle Stone Age of the Central Sahara: Biogeographical opportunities and technological strategies in later human evolution


 -



 -

Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
 -  -

.

why do Horn Africans, closer to Egypt than South Africa, Great Lakes and West Africa have a significantly lower MLI scores?

Frankly it's not a big secret, it's a good question but we've already been over that a couples of times.


Yes, that part of the discussion has been covered already.


http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=005881;p=1#000018

Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
@ Beyoku & TP: noted.

quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
and this is on topic??? lol

I was trying to access the locked OP forumbiodiversity
thread, so yes, my question does relate to this
thread.

Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Amun-Ra The Ultimate
Member
Member # 20039

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Amun-Ra The Ultimate     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I think it's important to recall that DNA Tribes use autosomal STR DNA from mummies obtained in the JAMA and BMJ study of the mummies. Autosomal STRs are inherited from both maternal and paternal ancestors. While Beyoku's preview study use haplogroups which are non-recombinant and are on the Y-DNA and MtDNA chromosomes and have been extensively used for population structure study (with many studies posted and commented on this forum, like the latest on Mesopotamia). Same thing with the BMJ determination of Ramses III haplogroup (E-M2).

The good thing is that all 4 analysis, both DNA Tribes autosomal STR analysis of aDNA and Beyoku's preview study, as well as BMJ determination of Ramses III haplogroup, point to Africa (in fact, so called sub-sahara Africa, more like sub-coastal Africa).

DNA Tribes match "sub-Saharan" African population in 2 different royal family with different alleles. Ramses III BMJ study also match E1b1a(E-M2), prevalent in much of "sub-Sahara" Africa. While Beyoku's study also matches African population on both Y-DNA and mtDNA side.

So there's a lot of independent study, using different techniques (autosomal STR, Y-DNA STR for BMJ,haplogroups SNP), pointing in the same direction for the ancestry of the Ancient Kemetian mummies.

Taking independently those studies form a solid enough case for the ancestry of the ancient mummies under study. Put together they from even a stronger case. Confirming what they determined each others independently using different techniques and different alleles.

Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Amun-Ra The Ultimate
Member
Member # 20039

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Amun-Ra The Ultimate     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
As a side note, those are the African populations used in the DNA Tribes database (to which they compare the STR values of the mummies with):

African populations used by DNAtribes are listed below (posted in 2011-12 by Sundjata):


African (Cape Town, South Africa) (98)
Aka (Central African Republic) (20)
Angola (480)
Angola (100)
Angola (110)
Bakaka (Cameroon) (58)
Bamileke (Bamileke Plateau, Western Cameroon) (92)
Bamileke (Cameroon) (30)
Bantu (Northeast Kenya) (11)
Bantu (South Africa) (8)
Bassa (Cameroon) (58)
Berber (Asni, Morocco) (105)
Berber (Azrou, Morocco) (201)
Berber (Bouhria, Morocco) (104)
Berber (Chenini-Douiret, Tunisia) (52)
Berber (Matmata, Tunisia) (13)
Berber (Sened, Tunisia) (37)
Benin (102)
Botswana (150)
Bubi (Bioko Island, Equatorial Guinea) (125)
Central African (Mbuti, Biaka, Lisongo) (60)
Democratic Republic of São Tomé and Príncipe (61)
Egyptian (140)
Egyptian (28)
Egyptian Berber (Siwa, Egypt) (98)
Egyptian Copt (Adaima, Egypt) (100)
El-Minia, Egypt (300)
Egyptian Muslim (Adaima, Egypt) (99)
Equatorial Guinea (134)
Ewondo (Cameroon) (59)
Ewondo (Febe Village, Cameroon) (130)
Fali (Cameroon) (33)
Fulbe (Cameroon) (39)
Fang (Bioko Island, Equatorial Guinea) (129)
Gabon (108)
Guinea-Bissau (100)
Guinea-Bissau (92)
Guineau-Bissau (92)
Herero (Windhoek, Namibia) (13)
Hutu (Rwanda) (52)
Hutu (Rwanda) (95)
Karamoja, Uganda (218)
Kenya (65)
Kesra Berber (Central Tunisia) (44)
Khoe (Windhoek, Namibia) (26)
Khoisan (Republic of South Africa) (108)
Libya (103)
Libya (99)
Mada (Cameroon) (40)
Madagascar (67)
Maghrebi (118)
Mandara (Cameroon) (25)
Mandenka (Senegal) (21)
Maputo, Mozambique (144)
Mbenzele (Aka) (Southwestern Central African Republic) (96)
Mbuti (Dem. Repub. of Congo) (13)
Mozabite (Algeria) (44)
Mozambique (100)
Mozambique (110)
Nigeria (337)
Nigeria (96)
North Sotho (Northern Province, South Africa) (50)
Ovambo Bantu (Namibia) (195)
Podokwo (Cameroon) (41)
Saharawi (North Africa) (52)
San (Namibia) (6)
San (Southern Africa) (138)
Sanga (Salo Village, southwestern Central African Republic) (64)
Somalia (404)
Somalia (96)
South Sotho (South Africa) (227)
Southeastern Bantu (South Africa) (50)
Southern Morocco (Arabic speakers) (204)
Sudan (65)
Sudan (98)
Sudan (485)
Tanzania (225)
Tupuri (Cameroon) (25)
Tsonga (Shangaan) (220)
Tswana (South Africa) (532)
Tunisian (196)
Tutsi (Rwanda) (114)
Uldeme (Cameroon) (46)
Upper (Southern) Egypt (265)
Venda (South Africa) (289)
Xhosa (South Africa) (334)
Yoruba (Nigeria) (22)
Zimbabwe (104)
Zriba Arab (Central Tunisia) (45)
Zulu (South Africa) (222)

The latest list can be obtained here (you can also get the list of non-African populations used in the study):
http://www.dnatribes.com/pops-africa.html

Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
^^^ so they are missing all the groups I mentioned
Beja, Maasai, Copts or Toubou
Therefore if they had isolated one of these Horn or North African groups they could have had MLI scores higher than South Africans who had the highest score

Posts: 42937 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Amun-Ra The Ultimate
Member
Member # 20039

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Amun-Ra The Ultimate     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
[qb] The reason why Horn Africa doesn't match Ancient Egyptians aDNA very much is because they used, rightly or wrongly, Horn Africans very much admixed for their study. Those Horn Africans samples have a great genetic distance between them and other Africans (personally I don't think that level of admixture is representative of the average Horn Africans). Both fact can be seen in their global study (STR) for 2010-2012. And as you know, the closer you are to other Africans the closer you are to Ancient Egyptians.

The South Africans had the highest MLI s in the DNATribes Amarna article.
Horn Africans were much lower. Do you think it's possible that a particular group in the Horn or North Africa might have MLI scores as high or higher than the South Africans?
Beja, Maasai, Copts or Toubou for instance

I'm not sure, but I think it's impossible for populations already in their database. The groups are determined because of their strong genetic cohesion (small genetic distance between one another). For example, Levantine, African Great Lakes, etc. Don't form any political regions. They form genetic regions of similar STR values. It's really important to understand that. Those are not political regions but genetic regions of similar STRs values (alleles).

Said in another way, Horn Africa for example, is a region of similar and distinct enough STR values, while many people of different genetic region lives in Horn Africa (we have seen that they have a small red bar). So what the mummies are compared with is the red bar, their local and cohesive/similar component, if you know what I mean. [That's what I think anyway, even if I seem to contradict myself from what I said above. I still think they didn't pick the right non-admixed Horn Africans, less admixed people, for the record. See their SNP study for example, where Horn Africans -probably different samples- are closer to other African groups. Maybe their Horn African group form a cluster of STR of foreign origin locally mutated after their arrival in Horn Africa...].

Anyway, DNA Tribes provide further confirmation of the African locality of those STRs value:

quote:
Specifically, both of these ancient individuals inherited the alleles D21S11=35 and CSFIPO=7, which are found throughout Sub-Saharan Africa but are comparatively rare or absent in other regions of the world . These African related alleles are different from the African related alleles identified for the previously studied Amarna period mummies (D18S51=19 and D21S11=34).11 This provides independent evidence for African autosomal ancestry in two different pharaonic families of New Kingdom Egypt.
http://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2013-02-01.pdf

Also as I said above, other studies also seems to confirm what DNA Tribes determined 2 times using the JAMA and BMJ study.

Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Amun-Ra The Ultimate
Member
Member # 20039

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Amun-Ra The Ultimate     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
^^^ so they are missing all the groups I mentioned
Beja, Maasai, Copts or Toubou
Therefore if they had isolated one of these Horn or North African groups they could have had MLI scores higher than South Africans who had the highest score

I didn't see that reply before I replied to the other similar post of yours above.

The Egyptian copts seems to be there though. Egyptian Copt (Adaima, Egypt) (100)

As we already discussed, any populations not already in the database would need to be closer to so-called Sub-Saharan people than any other populations like (Europeans, West Asians, North African, etc) already in the DNA Tribes database.

The BMJ study also confirm the issue. Same for the Beyoku's preview study.

The only way any other populations/people (like anywhere in Africa, modern Egypt or the world) can match Ancient Egyptians is if they are more African than any populations already in the DNA Tribes database, because populations already in the DNA tribes database have already been "rejected" as being close to Ancient Egyptians (they have a low or absent MLI scores). For example, maybe the Tibu could be part of the Sahelian or Great Lakes regions genetic group (based on their STR alleles).

Try to absorb some knowledge the lioness (or find error in what I say, of course). I can't repeat the same thing over and over again.

Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Amun-Ra The Ultimate
Member
Member # 20039

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Amun-Ra The Ultimate     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
--
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
^^^ so they are missing all the groups I mentioned
Beja, Maasai, Copts or Toubou
Therefore if they had isolated one of these Horn or North African groups they could have had MLI scores higher than South Africans who had the highest score [/qb]

I didn't see that reply before I replied to the other similar post of yours above.

The Egyptian copts seems to be there though. Egyptian Copt (Adaima, Egypt) (100)


However they comprise only about 10% of the Egyptian population.
Similarly Beja, Maasai, or Toubou would also have to be isolated
to compare these particular ethnic groups to the Amarna mummies.
It is unreasonable to assume that while DNA Consultants a similar private testing firm found Copts to have the highest matching to AEs that DNA Tribes tested for Copts and found them so low in their charting of 12 separate categories on the they were beat out by North West Europans, too low to even make it on the chart!

quote:
Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:

As we already discussed, any populations not already in the database would need to be closer to so-called Sub-Saharanpeople than any other populations like (Europeans, West Asians, North African, etc) already in the DNA Tribes database.

The BMJ study also confirm the issue. Same for the Beyoku's preview study.

The only way any other populations/people (like anywhere in Africa, modern Egypt or the world) can match Ancient Egyptians is if they are more African than any populations already in the DNA Tribes database,


^false statement assumption, you are not being objective

any populations not already in the database would not need to be closer to so-called Sub-Saharan they would only need to match the Amarna

Secondly you make grand statements about The Egyptians when this is several particular mummies from a specific time period


quote:
Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:

because populations already in the DNA tribes database have already been "rejected" as being close to Ancient Egyptians (they have a low or absent MLI scores). For example, maybe the Tibu could be part of the Sahelian or Great Lakes regions genetic group (based on their STR alleles).

Try to absorb some knowledge the lioness (or find error in what I say, of course). I can't repeat the same thing over and over again. [/qb]

you don't have evidence that Tibu have been specifically rejected
-or considered at all
-or if considered isolated for matches

Posts: 42937 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Amun-Ra The Ultimate
Member
Member # 20039

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Amun-Ra The Ultimate     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
you don't have evidence that Tibu have been specifically rejected
-or considered at all
-or if considered isolated for matches

You're right the Tibu for example, or any population not already in the DNA Tribes database , could have the highest MLI scores, but they would need to be unrelated to Europeans, West Asians, North Africans, Native Americans, etc populations already in the DNA Tribes database(since those populations have a low MLI scores with the mummies). It's not an assumption, it's direct.

How many populations in the world are unrelated (thus doesn't share STR alleles) to populations already in the DNA Tribes database?

For example, the Tibu would probably be most related to Great Lakes or Sahelians Africans. Egyptian Copts to Levantines populations, population in Europe (not already in the DNA Tribes database) probably to other Europeans populations, etc. In short, any populations not in the DNA Tribes database should be related to populations already in the DNA Tribes database.

Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
or any population not already in the DNA Tribes database , could have the highest MLI scores, but they would need to be unrelated to Europeans, West Asians, North Africans, Native Americans, etc populations already in the DNA Tribes database .

First you said they had to be something first now you say the must not be something else first

This is a false statement and shows lack of objectivity

The only thing a population needs to do to match the Amarna is to match the Amarna
They don't have to not be something first

Whenever you say "needs to be"

realize you are about to make an bias error

Posts: 42937 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Amun-Ra The Ultimate
Member
Member # 20039

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Amun-Ra The Ultimate     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
or any population not already in the DNA Tribes database , could have the highest MLI scores, but they would need to be unrelated to Europeans, West Asians, North Africans, Native Americans, etc populations already in the DNA Tribes database .

First you said they had to be something first now you say the must not be something else first

This is a false statement and shows lack of objectivity

The only thing a population needs to do to match the Amarna is to match the Amarna
They don't have to not be something first

Whenever you say "needs to be"

realize you are about to make an bias error

It's not a lack of objectivity it's basic logic. The DNA Tribe study does 2 things.

1) Exclude populations like in Europe, West Asia, America (natives), North Africa already in their database (or related to those already in the database) from closeness to Ancient Egyptians mummies. Those populations have a low MLI scores with the Ancient Egyptians mummies.

2) It determined Africans from the Great Lakes, Southern Africa and Tropical West Africa, or people closely related to them, as being close to Ancient Egyptians. More than any populations (or related populations) on earth already in the DNA Tribes database. Those populations have a high MLI scores with the Ancient Egyptian mummies.

So both statements are true.

Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
It's cringing to still have to post this 2 years
after the fact, but to know the amount of West,
South and East African ancestry the sampled
individuals from the 18th and 19th dynasty had,
you need to see how many endemic haplotypes from
each of these respective regions Egyptians had.
The only thing these MLI scores show is the
haplotypes West, South, East African and Ancient
Egyptian regions have in common. There is big a
difference due to the classic dilemma of whether
population affinity between two given populations
is due to 1) common ancestors or 2) gene-flow.
Egyptians will not have haplotype contributions
from African populations in the order described by
DNA Tribes' MLI table, because these haplotypes
clearly transcend individual African populations;
they're ubiquitous in Africa. Don't take my word
for it, this is what DNA Tribes keeps saying in
their marketing materials. Anyone who has read
these reports and/or has been around during the
numerous discussions about what these results
mean, and who still thinks at this point that the
MLI scores mean that the Ancient Egyptians had
more contributions from, say, a Zulu-like
population than a Masai-like population, is
definitely wilfully reaching at this point.

Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
 -

 -

quote:
Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
or any population not already in the DNA Tribes database , could have the highest MLI scores, but they would need to be unrelated to Europeans, West Asians, North Africans, Native Americans, etc populations already in the DNA Tribes database .

First you said they had to be something first now you say the must not be something else first

This is a false statement and shows lack of objectivity

The only thing a population needs to do to match the Amarna is to match the Amarna
They don't have to not be something first

Whenever you say "needs to be"

realize you are about to make an bias error

It's not a lack of objectivity it's basic logic. The DNA Tribe study does 2 things.

1) Exclude populations like in Europe, West Asia, America (natives), North Africa already in their database (or related to those already in the database) from closeness to Ancient Egyptians mummies. Those populations have a low MLI scores with the Ancient Egyptians mummies.

2) It determined Africans from the Great Lakes, Southern Africa and Tropical West Africa, or people closely related to them, as being close to Ancient Egyptians. More than any populations (or related populations) on earth already in the DNA Tribes database. Those populations have a high MLI scores with the Ancient Egyptian mummies.

So both statements are true.

As observation is followed by a conclusion you had it backwards when you said "needs to be"

There shouldn't be a need

I mentioned Horn Africans.
You said they didn't take samples to you liking therefore had they results may have been different.
People have spent years in this forum talking about an affinity between the Egyptian and people to the South. That region is now called Sudan, it borders Egypt. Sudan is in the DNA TRibes database for African populations, Horn region according to DNATribes

How could Sudan which borders Egypt of which is along a river flowing up into Egypt have an MLI score around 14.65
while South Africa is 359.72 and West Africa 142.84

25 less times than SA, 10 times less than West Africa

tell me how this makes sense from either an ancestry or gene flow perspective

Posts: 42937 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Hmmm, I assumed all along "MLI" meant "Maternal Line Index"


DNA Tribes uses the acronym "MLI" as: "Match Likelihood Index".

ARTU's interpretation is correct.


Q: What are MLI scores?


A: Each DNA Tribes Native and Global Population Match and World Region Match is listed with a Match Likelihood
Index (MLI) score that indicates your odds of belonging to that population relative to your odds of belonging to a
generic human population. For instance, a Native Population Match with Macedonia scored 45.2 indicates your
genetic ancestry is 45.2 times as likely in Macedonia as in the world.

Population and world region match results are provided in a ranked listing, from most likely to least likely. Top
ranked scores indicate your best population or regional matches in the DNA Tribes database. All matches can be
compared against each other as odds ratios. For instance, if you obtain a score of 25.0 for Bavarian and 5.0 for
Macedonian, this means your genetic profile is 25.0/5.0 = 5.0 times as likely to be Bavarian as Macedonian.

Q: What are typical scores for my ethnic group? Are my scores very high or low?

A: Individuals within each population exhibit a characteristic range of world region scores. This range varies by
world region and ethnicity. For this reason, each MLI score in your population and world region rankings is
assigned a percentile-based TribeScore that expresses how your MLI score fits among members of that population
or region.

Q: What are TribeScores?

TribeScores are a unique scoring method developed by DNA Tribes that compares a person's match scores for a
population to the scores of actual members within that ethnic group or region. Each DNA Tribes match includes a
TribeScore in parentheses, listing your MLI score’s percentile in that population. TribeScores compares your MLI
scores to members of each ethnic group and world region. For instance, results listing “Switzerland (0.73)”
indicate that your MLI score is higher than 73% of scores from this Swiss reference population, and lower than 27%
of these Swiss individuals. TribeScores of (0.05) and above are within the expected range for a population, and
TribeScores between the (0.25) and above are ordinary or typical for members of that population. TribeScores
indicate how high or low your score is in the specific context of each population, providing the necessary point
of reference to explain each MLI score.


http://www.dnatribes.com/faq.html

Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
For instance, a Native Population Match with Macedonia scored 45.2 indicates your genetic ancestry is 45.2 times as likely in Macedonia as in the world.
Indeed, and could such shared ancestry be
interpreted?

quote:
DNA matches do not necessarily suggest a
recent family ancestor from each country listed

and can express the genetic traces of more
ancient relationships between populations through
shared origins
, migrations, and long term trade
contacts in each part of the world. For people
with mixed ancestry, DNA matches can also identify
populations where similar mixes have taken place
(such as native populations located near historical
trade and migration routes between continents).

--DNA Tribes
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
^ which indicates "Match Likelihood".
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
beyoku
Member
Member # 14524

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for beyoku     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
When looking at these DNA TRibes results it helps to be familiar with other results from DNA tribes samples. This quote in particular

quote:
DNA matches do not necessarily suggest a
recent family ancestor from each country listed
and can express the genetic traces of more
ancient relationships between populations through
shared origins, migrations, and long term trade
contacts in each part of the world. For people
with mixed ancestry, DNA matches can also identify
populations where similar mixes have taken place

I have seen on MULTIPLE occasions African American samples that have no known or TESTED genetic ties to Southern Moroccans, Horn Africans or Turareg match with these very sample populations. As far as STR analysis, in these specific instances it seems as if DNA Tribes is basically matching up some very simple ratios of what it considers generic Non-African/African Ancestry. This was the case with some of the older analysis, i dont know how this figures out in the Mummies tests.

Furthermore all these folks that can be grouped into "Great lakes" have very different NRY/Mtdna profiles. Southern Sudanese are promarirly A/B/E. The Anuak have a heavy dose of E1b1a7 (40%) which btw does not reflect in their autosomal makup as West African. ALur on the other had are mostly defined by A and E2a. The Bulala could be defined by E1b1a and V-88 similar to the regions.

Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Beyoku, can you see my post about the Bulala and
Alur being almost exclusively Great Lakes, or did
you read it earlier (before it got deleted)?

Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Swenet:

off topic


please read p 1745-175, (Keftiu)

also search Rekhmara (=Rekhmire)

http://books.google.com/books?id=DJgTAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA174&lpg=PA174&dq=

Posts: 42937 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
beyoku
Member
Member # 14524

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for beyoku     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
Beyoku, can you see my post about the Bulala and
Alur being almost exclusively Great Lakes, or did
you read it earlier (before it got deleted)?

Read it earlier. Wow.............
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Amun-Ra The Ultimate
Member
Member # 20039

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Amun-Ra The Ultimate     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
When looking at these DNA TRibes results it helps to be familiar with other results from DNA tribes samples. This quote in particular

quote:
DNA matches do not necessarily suggest a
recent family ancestor from each country listed
and can express the genetic traces of more
ancient relationships between populations through
shared origins, migrations, and long term trade
contacts in each part of the world. For people
with mixed ancestry, DNA matches can also identify
populations where similar mixes have taken place

I have seen on MULTIPLE occasions African American samples that have no known or TESTED genetic ties to Southern Moroccans, Horn Africans or Turareg match with these very sample populations. As far as STR analysis, in these specific instances it seems as if DNA Tribes is basically matching up some very simple ratios of what it considers generic Non-African/African Ancestry. This was the case with some of the older analysis, i dont know how this figures out in the Mummies tests.

Furthermore all these folks that can be grouped into "Great lakes" have very different NRY/Mtdna profiles.

It's what we want since DNA Tribes analyse the autosomal STR DNA. So not just one female or male line both the combination of the two as well as other lines. So it gives a better representation of African people as a group of interrelated people than the Y-DNA and to a lesser extend MtDNA, which (the MtDNA) already show a much bigger admixture pictures between different African people than Y-DNA, probably due to patrilocality. In patrilocality, Y-DNA male line appears to be more stable than MtDNA female line which show a higher level of admixture. The continuous interrelationship and admixture level between African people is even higher for autosomal STR DNA.

Let's recall that most modern African people have their genesis in Eastern Africa and the Sahara. It's later on that they colonized Western Africa and Southern Africa. Admixing further more with other (related or not related) Africans already there. Personally, I don't view it as one migration but has multiple migration events in both (multiple) direction (but more analysis are needed for that last part).

In the previous post that was deleted, that I will try to repost below, we can see from the DNA Tribes autosomal STR DNA analysis of African people that African people are very close to each other genetically. There's a relatively small genetic distance between African people.

Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:


In the previous post that was deleted, that I will try to repost below, we can see from the DNA Tribes autosomal STR DNA analysis of African people that African people are very close to each other genetically. There's a relatively small genetic distance between African people. [/QB]

where does the diversity come in?
Posts: 42937 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Amun-Ra The Ultimate
Member
Member # 20039

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Amun-Ra The Ultimate     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I already posted this before it got deleted, I will try to post it again from memory.

According to the DNA Tribes analysis of autosomal STR DNA of African people. All the African groups under study (beside Horn Africans), namely, the Great Lakes Africans, Southern Africans, Tropical West Africans and Sahelians Africans are very close to each other genetically. AKA all African people are very close to each other genetically.

Let's observe again the Euclidean genetic distance tree (from the 2010-2012 documents) from the DNA Tribes document already posted above. The tree is on scale:

 -

We can clearly see that the African groups (labelled Sub-Saharan Africans) mentioned above which happens to be the same groups matching the Ancient Egyptians mummies and which happens to constitute the majority of natives African people. That is Great Lakes, Tropical, Southern, Sahelians are very close to each other genetically and are put under the label Sub-Saharan African. We can see for example that the genetic distance between that Sub-Saharan African group and the group labelled Eurasian is relatively large, which we can use as a comparison.

So while the DNA Tribes results match some African regions more than others, it doesn't say much because all African people are very close to each other genetically (using autosomal STR). There's a small genetic distance between African populations of all regions.

DNA Tribes could easily have put all the labelled "Sub-Saharan African" into one group then analyse the proportion of autosomal STR DNA between that Sub-Saharan African group and the rest of the world. It would have change nothing about the results beside giving us a different MLI scores (bigger of course since African groups wouldn't compete with each other when doing the MLI calculation (proportion of STR frequency vs other groups)).

Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Amun-Ra The Ultimate
Member
Member # 20039

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Amun-Ra The Ultimate     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:


In the previous post that was deleted, that I will try to repost below, we can see from the DNA Tribes autosomal STR DNA analysis of African people that African people are very close to each other genetically. There's a relatively small genetic distance between African people.

where does the diversity come in? [/QB]
I already explained it like one year ago. It's basic logic. There's obviously no contradiction between being genetically diverse (having a lot of different genes) and being close to each other genetically (sharing those genes relatively equally between each others). That great quantity and diversity of genes shared by African people are absent or rare among other populations on earth. It's not related to genetics, it's basic logic.

It's probably due to shared origin (not shared with other populations on earth, since they are relatively genetically distant) and a relatively high level of admixture between African populations.

We know almost all modern African groups (aka a big part of their ancestry) comes genetically from East Africa (much after the common human origin course) which then spread to the Sahara, then West Africa and the rest of Africa. So that's the common origin part.

With a lot of admixture and back and forth movements (imo,for that second part) along the way. Which is the relatively high level of interrelationship and admixture part.

We also know that most modern African languages like Niger-Kordofanian (Niger-Congo, Bantu, Yoruba, Dogon, Wolof, etc), Nilo-Saharans, Cushitic/Chadic and even earlier on Khoisan languages, are said to all have their linguistic origin around the Eastern Africa region.

Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
Beyoku, can you see my post about the Bulala and
Alur being almost exclusively Great Lakes, or did
you read it earlier (before it got deleted)?

Read it earlier. Wow.............
Had me going there. Isn't there supposed to be a way
to still access deleted pages? Is there any way to
salvage what's lost? Anyone?

Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
beyoku
Member
Member # 14524

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for beyoku     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
@ Amun-Ra The Ultimate.

I think you missed my point. Let me state it again.

"I have seen on MULTIPLE occasions African American samples that have no known or TESTED genetic ties to Southern Moroccans, Horn Africans or Turareg match with these very sample populations. As far as STR analysis, in these specific instances it seems as if DNA Tribes is basically matching up some very simple ratios of what it considers generic Non-African/African Ancestry."

This is NOT a good thing nor what we want. This is at times what DNA Tribes will produce. IF you are from the Dominican Republic are are 60% Generic Iberian and 40% Generic Senegamibian DNA TRibes pointing you to a population of Southern Moroccans or Egyptians as a match is not a good thing just because they may have a similar breakdown of "African / Eurasian" ancestry.

Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Amun-Ra The Ultimate
Member
Member # 20039

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Amun-Ra The Ultimate     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
@ Amun-Ra The Ultimate.

I think you missed my point. Let me state it again.

"I have seen on MULTIPLE occasions African American samples that have no known or TESTED genetic ties to Southern Moroccans, Horn Africans or Turareg match with these very sample populations. As far as STR analysis, in these specific instances it seems as if DNA Tribes is basically matching up some very simple ratios of what it considers generic Non-African/African Ancestry."

This is NOT a good thing nor what we want. This is at times what DNA Tribes will produce. IF you are from the Dominican Republic are are 60% Generic Iberian and 40% Generic Senegamibian DNA TRibes pointing you to a population of Southern Moroccans or Egyptians as a match is not a good thing just because they may have a similar breakdown of "African / Eurasian" ancestry.

It's a good thing of course. People who don't come from the same population but share the same admixture between ancestral populations will show up as higher match.

Southern Moroccans, Horn Africans or Tuareg share some African genes as well as Eurasian genes and some African-American share some of those African genes with them as well as Eurasian genes. It may not show up on the Y-DNA and MtDNA analysis of those particular African-American individuals, but it shows on the autosomal STR analysis. Autosomal STR analysis check all the ancestral lineages not only one male and female lineage respectively.

Usually, when you're an African-American you mentally exclude admixed populations like Tuareg, Horn Africans, Southern Moroccans and, lets say, Afro-Brazilians. Since while they may share the same STR genetic profile with you, the same ancestral admixture, they don't constitute very ancient relatively un-admixed native populations, which is usually what we seek to know when we want to know from which "tribe(s)" we come from (BTW, most African-Americans usually come from many tribes, because at the very least, the inter-tribe admixture after their arrival in America. African-Americans, now in America, intermarry between ancestral African ethnic groups without knowing which African ethnic groups they originally come from. An African-American man from the Igbo, may intermarry with an African-American woman from the Kongo, without knowing about it. Same thing for their parents and grandparents in America.).

Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
This is the first time I've heard someone say
exceedingly low resolution is a good thing. But more
power to you if that's what you're in it for.

Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Amun-Ra The Ultimate
Member
Member # 20039

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Amun-Ra The Ultimate     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
This is the first time I've heard someone say
exceedingly low resolution is a good thing. But more
power to you if that's what you're in it for.

I never said that, and the relatively close genetic distance (using autosomal STR value) between African people was done at high resolution (of course).
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Son of Ra
Member
Member # 20401

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Son of Ra     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I see Bioforumdiversity is finally down. Good riddance!!!
Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Yes, you did suggest that low resolution is a good
thing (you may not think that you have, but that's
what your words boil down to), and no, the data
you're referring to, which gives the impression of
high degrees of similarity can't be high resolution
because in this particular analysis (the dendrogram
you posted) they're pooling Africa's tremendous
indigenous diversity up into four regions, hiding
each ethny's high inter variability compared to
other ethnies who belong to other divisions
( usually linguistic). What Beyoku is talking about may also be
a function of lower resolution. There they seem
to be mostly distinguishing between African vs
West Eurasian haplotypes, potentially leading to
matches that can be as eyebrow raising as Modern
Egyptian and African American (who aren't descended
from highly similar source populations).

Again, you may not understand this because this
is similar to what I and others have been telling
you for 1.5 years.

Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Amun-Ra The Ultimate
Member
Member # 20039

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Amun-Ra The Ultimate     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
Yes, you did suggest that low resolution is a good
thing (you may not think that you have, but that's
what your words boil down to),

I presume you will explain why you think that in your mind.

quote:

and no, DNA Tribes
can't be high resolution because they're lumping
Africa's indigenous diversity up into four regions. [/QB]

Of course DNA Tribes analysis in general (like the one used for making the genetic tree of the human population) are of high resolution. That's why they can pinpoint which tribes/ethnic groups you most likely come from (natives populations which you share autosomal STR value with) when you buy one of their DNA analysis kit.

The four regions we see in the tree is only a choice made by those who made the tree. The Euclidean distance would be ***exactly*** the same between the common 4 nodes of the tree if it was of higher solution. The tree would only be a bit more cluttered with those 4 nodes further subdividing between African sub-ethnic groups like Yoruba, Bantu, Dogon, Wolof, Dinka, Tibu, etc.

The only thing that is low resolution (beside the **appearance** of the graph) here is the DNA analysis of the mummies since it's only 8 STR location. Which can't pin-point exactly which African population is most likely the closest to Ancient Egyptians. But at the end of it, it doesn't matter since on their high resolution analysis of African people those groups are very close to each other (compared to other populations on earth like the labelled Eurasian group). And the common genetic origin of African and Ancient Egyptian people probably predates the formation of the current sub-ethnic groups in Africa like modern Yoruba, Zulu, Dogon, Wolof, Dinka, Fur, Ancient Egyptians, etc*

* It may also postdate the Ancient Egyptian empire for people who consider diffusion from Ancient Egypt toward Africa, which I don't consider much, since, for me at best those would be minor genetic events (in term of proportion of admixture from Ancient Egypt). I may be wrong about that last part.

Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
My thoughts are in the posts above. Looking at your
posts you form your own ideas without any self-
moderation and testing your own hypotheses with
other data. It's just self-indulgence; talking based
off what sounds good to you, and refusing to do the
hard work because it might not end up being what you
wanted it to be.

Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Amun-Ra The Ultimate
Member
Member # 20039

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Amun-Ra The Ultimate     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
My thoughts are in the posts above. Looking at your
posts you form your own ideas without any self-
moderation and testing your own hypotheses with
other data. It's just self-indulgence; talking based
off what sounds good to you, not actual corroborating
data.

That's fluff. If you look in the mirror, you will see the finger pointing right back at you.

If you don't offer proper explanations for you "belief", what can I say? I backed all my points with graph, data and facts. And you don't provide counter arguments points by points. Which I did for your post(s). People can easily verify things for themselves.

I encourage people to counter-argument me or ask for further explanations because I want my explanations to be as much clear as possible. I may even change opinion if I'm wrong. Leave the fluff aside for real counter argumentation.

Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
If you say so.

----------------

For those who don't know the difference, compare
low res DNA analysis where indigenous African
ancestry is partitioned into rather abstract
clusters like "Great Lakes", "Horn", "Central
African" and "Tropical West African", with higher
res findings, which clearly shows stratification
along Africa's many (sub)linguistic lines (especially
when assimilation is taken into account):

quote:
We studied 121 African populations, four
African American populations, and 60 non-African
populations for patterns of variation at 1327
nuclear microsatellite and insertion/deletion
markers. We identified 14 ancestral population
clusters in Africa that correlate with self-
described ethnicity and shared cultural and/or
linguistic properties.
We observed high
levels of mixed ancestry in most populations,
reflecting historical migration events across the
continent. Our data also provide evidence for
shared ancestry among geographically diverse
hunter-gatherer populations (Khoesan speakers and
Pygmies). The ancestry of African Americans is
predominantly from Niger-Kordofanian (~71%),
European (~13%), and other African (~8%) populations,
although admixture levels varied considerably
among individuals.

--Tishkoff et al, 2009

When you see DNA Tribes closely matching African
Americans not with other mixed Africans who are
composed of European and West African ancestry
(e.g. people from Cape Verde), but instead with
people who are composed of groups who are only
distantly similar (e.g. Indian Siddis), you can
be certain there isn't much resolution involved,
because if there was high res, African Americans
wouldn't be highly similar to Siddis. The latter's
source populations are Eastern Bantu speakers and
Indians, not West Africans and West Europeans.

Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Amun-Ra The Ultimate
Member
Member # 20039

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Amun-Ra The Ultimate     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
If you say so.

For those not in the know, compare low res DNA
analysis where indigenous African ancestry is
partitioned into rather abstract clusters "Great
Lakes", "Horn", "Central African" and "Tropical
West African", with higher res findings, which
clearly shows stratification along linguistic
lines (especially when assimilation is taken into
account):

That's ridiculous. You mistaken the presentation of a graph with the level of (high) resolutions DNA analysis used to make it (27 STR markers). Of course, if you perform a DNA genetic test using autosomal STR, DNA Tribes will show you which tribes you most likely come from. For example, Yoruba, Igbo, etc. Just like the Tishkoff study. DNA Tribes won't send you only "Great Lakes Africans" as your origin. That's crazy. You can't possibly believe that.

The tree ***presentation*** is at low resolution only as a convenience (the purpose of the paper is to show the relation between world regions, not sub-ethnic groups) but the genetic data used to make the tree are taken at high resolution (27 STR markers).

No matter what presentation the tree has, the data used to make it, that is the 27 STR markers used, are of high resolution enough to pin-point which tribes you most likely come from (the ones you share STR alleles with).

This tree below:
 -
Effectively shows that all those 4 African populations (labelled Sub-Saharan Africans in the tree) are relatively very close genetically to each other (compared to with Eurasian for example, which can be use as a comparison). All this using high resolution 27-markers STR profiles.

Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Amun-Ra The Ultimate
Member
Member # 20039

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Amun-Ra The Ultimate     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
You added that part after, I already replied to you.

quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:

When you see DNA Tribes closely matching African
Americans not with other mixed Africans who are
composed of European and West African ancestry
(e.g. people from Cape Verde), but instead with
people who are composed of groups who are only
distantly similar (e.g. Indian Siddis), you can
be certain there isn't much resolution involved,
because if there was high res, African Americans
wouldn't be highly similar to Siddis. The latter's
source populations are Eastern Bantu speakers and
Indians, not West Africans and West Europeans.

Beyoku only mentions "Southern Moroccans, Horn Africans or Tuareg". So I don't know what you on about.

African-American individuals who have none of their recent ancestors mixed with other people like Russians, Chinese, Finnish, and Siddis. Will have populations such as the Siddis appearing low on the list of matching tribes (it will have a low MLI scores). For various reasons like pre-OOA STR alleles shared between all humans, modern, or even ancient, "low level" admixtures, etc.

Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
You mistaken the presentation of a graph
with the level of (high) resolutions DNA analysis
used to make it (27 STR markers). Of course, if
you perform a DNA genetic test using autosomal
STR, DNA Tribes will show you which tribes you
most likely come from. For example, Yoruba, Igbo,
etc.

I've not mistaken anything. Your repeated inability
to grasp what just about anything someone is
telling you shows that you're way out of your
league. Even now, when I'm not even directing my
post at you, it's still not getting through what
I'm saying. There isn't a single thing in my post
that you didn't distort due to your inability to
understand the subject matter at hand; your reply
says it all.

Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
beyoku
Member
Member # 14524

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for beyoku     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
You added that part after, I already replied to you.

quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:

When you see DNA Tribes closely matching African
Americans not with other mixed Africans who are
composed of European and West African ancestry
(e.g. people from Cape Verde), but instead with
people who are composed of groups who are only
distantly similar (e.g. Indian Siddis), you can
be certain there isn't much resolution involved,
because if there was high res, African Americans
wouldn't be highly similar to Siddis. The latter's
source populations are Eastern Bantu speakers and
Indians, not West Africans and West Europeans.

Beyoku only mentions "Southern Moroccans, Horn Africans or Tuareg". So I don't know what you on about.

African-American individuals who have none of their recent ancestors mixed with other people like Russians, Chinese, Finnish, and Siddis. Will have populations such as the Siddis appearing low on the list of matching tribes (it will have a low MLI scores). For various reasons like pre-OOA STR alleles shared between all humans, modern, or even ancient, "low level" admixtures, etc.

I dont know if you are playing dumb or you just dont get it. African Americans, and predominant African descendant people in the Caribbean have no RECENT connections to Horn Africans, Southern Morroccans, Southern Egyptians, Tuareg etc. This is the EXTREME Majority of us. Only in some rare rare cases is this not the fact and usually then it is documented. If a person from the Dominican republic or better yet Chicago takes a test where they are Y-Dna E1b1a and mtdna H1- And they have known non-African admixture in the 30-50% range. Them getting a match for the above listed groups is not a good thing because it is not based on any reality regarding their OWN Ancestry.

It would be like Obama getting a match of Southern Egyptian based on the fact he is 50% Eurasian. Or Obama's children getting Southern Moroccan or Saharawi based simply on their generic composition of East African, West African and European. In NO WAY is this a good thing because it is not based on reality. If the MLI scores were LOW then I wouldn't be bringing this up then would I? Results like this would have ZERO VALUE to the person participating in the test. The fact that a generic ancestry COMPOSITION is similar has no bearing on an individuals recent Ancestry. This is the part you are missing. It could be when looking at these mummy results is the MLI scores just show where the COMBINATION of such ancestry that was in Egypt can NOW be found.

So the "Great lakes" region for example would have a high match simply because the MODERN population shows the best proxy of Combined Horn,Central,West African and Old Hunter Gather Ancestry. DNA Tribes algorithm is secret. You have to take these other results into consideration. You should analyze your OWN ancestry. It puts things into perspective.

Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Amun-Ra The Ultimate
Member
Member # 20039

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Amun-Ra The Ultimate     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
I dont know if you are playing dumb or you just dont get it. [/QB]

Maybe you're the one playing dumb or don't get it. I already answered you there, a few posts above, why is that so:

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=008622;p=8#000384

Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Amun-Ra The Ultimate
Member
Member # 20039

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Amun-Ra The Ultimate     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
@ Amun-Ra The Ultimate.

I think you missed my point. Let me state it again.

"I have seen on MULTIPLE occasions African American samples that have no known or TESTED genetic ties to Southern Moroccans, Horn Africans or Turareg match with these very sample populations. As far as STR analysis, in these specific instances it seems as if DNA Tribes is basically matching up some very simple ratios of what it considers generic Non-African/African Ancestry."

This is NOT a good thing nor what we want. This is at times what DNA Tribes will produce. IF you are from the Dominican Republic are are 60% Generic Iberian and 40% Generic Senegamibian DNA TRibes pointing you to a population of Southern Moroccans or Egyptians as a match is not a good thing just because they may have a similar breakdown of "African / Eurasian" ancestry.

It's a good thing of course. People who don't come from the same population but share the same admixture between ancestral populations will show up as higher match.

Southern Moroccans, Horn Africans or Tuareg share some African genes as well as Eurasian genes and some African-American share some of those African genes with them as well as Eurasian genes. It may not show up on the Y-DNA and MtDNA analysis of those particular African-American individuals, but it shows on the autosomal STR analysis. Autosomal STR analysis check all the ancestral lineages not only one male and female lineage respectively.

Usually, when you're an African-American you mentally exclude admixed populations like Tuareg, Horn Africans, Southern Moroccans and, lets say, Afro-Brazilians. Since while they may share the same STR genetic profile with you, the same ancestral admixture, they don't constitute very ancient relatively un-admixed native populations, which is usually what we seek to know when we want to know from which "tribe(s)" we come from (BTW, most African-Americans usually come from many tribes, because at the very least, the inter-tribe admixture after their arrival in America. African-Americans, now in America, intermarry between ancestral African ethnic groups without knowing which African ethnic groups they originally come from. An African-American man from the Igbo, may intermarry with an African-American woman from the Kongo, without knowing about it. Same thing for their parents and grandparents in America. This example make more sense in the far past during their arrival in America since most African-American individuals are *already* constituted by an admixture of many African Ethnic groups, so the expression "an African-American from the Igbo", makes usually only sense in the far past during their arrival in America).

Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
beyoku
Member
Member # 14524

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for beyoku     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
@ Amun-Ra The Ultimate.

I think you missed my point. Let me state it again.

"I have seen on MULTIPLE occasions African American samples that have no known or TESTED genetic ties to Southern Moroccans, Horn Africans or Turareg match with these very sample populations. As far as STR analysis, in these specific instances it seems as if DNA Tribes is basically matching up some very simple ratios of what it considers generic Non-African/African Ancestry."

This is NOT a good thing nor what we want. This is at times what DNA Tribes will produce. IF you are from the Dominican Republic are are 60% Generic Iberian and 40% Generic Senegamibian DNA TRibes pointing you to a population of Southern Moroccans or Egyptians as a match is not a good thing just because they may have a similar breakdown of "African / Eurasian" ancestry.

It's a good thing of course. People who don't come from the same population but share the same admixture between ancestral populations will show up as higher match.

Southern Moroccans, Horn Africans or Tuareg share some African genes as well as Eurasian genes and some African-American share some of those African genes with them as well as Eurasian genes. It may not show up on the Y-DNA and MtDNA analysis of those particular African-American individuals, but it shows on the autosomal STR analysis. Autosomal STR analysis check all the ancestral lineages not only one male and female lineage respectively.

Usually, when you're an African-American you mentally exclude admixed populations like Tuareg, Horn Africans, Southern Moroccans and, lets say, Afro-Brazilians. Since while they may share the same STR genetic profile with you, the same ancestral admixture, they don't constitute very ancient relatively un-admixed native populations, which is usually what we seek to know when we want to know from which "tribe(s)" we come from (BTW, most African-Americans usually come from many tribes, because at the very least, the inter-tribe admixture after their arrival in America. African-Americans, now in America, intermarry between ancestral African ethnic groups without knowing which African ethnic groups they originally come from. An African-American man from the Igbo, may intermarry with an African-American woman from the Kongo, without knowing about it. Same thing for their parents and grandparents in America.).

This is DUMB, you dont know what you are talking about. Not only have they been Y-DNA tested but they have been SNP Tested as well 500-800 THOUSAND SNPs.. I have been SNP tested as well. I can compare my DNA to ALL those other samples that are used the ADMIXTURE/STRUCTURE programs. Guess what, I am at most 1% North African and may a TENTH of a percent Horn African. 90% Sub Saharan, 7 or 8% European 2-3% Asian/Native American the the rest Noise. My first 3 matches are Yoruba, Bambara, Luhya....Oromo are 34th on the list. North Africans and Arabs are 50Th on the list. Someone more Significantly Admixed than myself may have 30-40% more European ancestry. The minor to non Existent North African/Horn African stays the same. They can analyze their genome on DOZENS of tests....all using different reference populations and different K's but they will be constantly West African/European. Taking an STR test that places you close to Horners/Egyptians/Moroccans just because of a mixture of Non-African/African is NOT a good thing....It says NOTHING about your recent ancestors if you dad is NIGERIAN and your mother is GERMAN.
Dont just talk just to talk....pay attention.

Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Amun-Ra The Ultimate
Member
Member # 20039

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Amun-Ra The Ultimate     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:
Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
@ Amun-Ra The Ultimate.

I think you missed my point. Let me state it again.

"I have seen on MULTIPLE occasions African American samples that have no known or TESTED genetic ties to Southern Moroccans, Horn Africans or Turareg match with these very sample populations. As far as STR analysis, in these specific instances it seems as if DNA Tribes is basically matching up some very simple ratios of what it considers generic Non-African/African Ancestry."

This is NOT a good thing nor what we want. This is at times what DNA Tribes will produce. IF you are from the Dominican Republic are are 60% Generic Iberian and 40% Generic Senegamibian DNA TRibes pointing you to a population of Southern Moroccans or Egyptians as a match is not a good thing just because they may have a similar breakdown of "African / Eurasian" ancestry.

It's a good thing of course. People who don't come from the same population but share the same admixture between ancestral populations will show up as higher match.

Southern Moroccans, Horn Africans or Tuareg share some African genes as well as Eurasian genes and some African-American share some of those African genes with them as well as Eurasian genes. It may not show up on the Y-DNA and MtDNA analysis of those particular African-American individuals, but it shows on the autosomal STR analysis. Autosomal STR analysis check all the ancestral lineages not only one male and female lineage respectively.

Usually, when you're an African-American you mentally exclude admixed populations like Tuareg, Horn Africans, Southern Moroccans and, lets say, Afro-Brazilians. Since while they may share the same STR genetic profile with you, the same ancestral admixture, they don't constitute very ancient relatively un-admixed native populations, which is usually what we seek to know when we want to know from which "tribe(s)" we come from (BTW, most African-Americans usually come from many tribes, because at the very least, the inter-tribe admixture after their arrival in America. African-Americans, now in America, intermarry between ancestral African ethnic groups without knowing which African ethnic groups they originally come from. An African-American man from the Igbo, may intermarry with an African-American woman from the Kongo, without knowing about it. Same thing for their parents and grandparents in America.). [/qb]

This is DUMB, you dont know what you are talking about.

Is that you best argument? I think we can disagree with each other without reverting to silly insults.

quote:

Not only have they been Y-DNA tested but they have been SNP Tested as well 500-800 THOUSAND SNPs.. I have been SNP tested as well. I can compare my DNA to ALL those other samples that are used the ADMIXTURE/STRUCTURE programs. Guess what, I am at most 1% North African and may a TENTH of a percent Horn African. 90% Sub Saharan, 7 or 8% European 2-3% Asian/Native American the the rest Noise. My first 3 matches are Yoruba, Bambara, Luhya....Oromo are 34th on the list. North Africans and Arabs are 50Th on the list. Someone more Significantly Admixed than myself may have 30-40% more European ancestry. The minor to non Existent North African/Horn African stays the same. They can analyze their genome on DOZENS of tests....all using different reference populations and different K's but they will be constantly West African/European. Taking an STR test that places you close to Horners/Egyptians/Moroccans just because of a mixture of Non-African/African is NOT a good thing....It says NOTHING about your recent ancestors if you dad is NIGERIAN and your mother is GERMAN.
Dont just talk just to talk....pay attention. [/QB]

Maybe you should pay attention too and think about what I said. I can't analyze the data you have in your head, it's something that must be proven by you, but in general: It's perfectly normal for people like Obama, who don't come from the same population to share genetic profile with populations who share the same ancestral admixture. The contrary would be strange. The guy is 50% admixed between Europeans and Africans, how can he matches Kenyans or Europeans tribes (who are not admixed) first before matching admixed ethnic groups like Tuareg, Horn Africans, Afro-Brazilians etc? His Kenyan and European lineages will show up at slightly lower MLI than those admixed populations, but it will be there down the list toward the top half (unless those Kenyan and European lineages were already admixed like the majority of African-American, but it's not the case with Obama since his father comes directly from Kenya, his mother is less clear (well I didn't check), probably from directly from England of course).
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 10 pages: 1  2  3  ...  5  6  7  8  9  10   

Post New Topic  New Poll  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
Open Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | EgyptSearch!

(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3