posted
The question is what was his measuring tool. I or maybe some experts here can dig it up. IIRC he based it upon Alu which is an old outdated method. Genome wide methods was not available then. Even better with the TreeMix Algorithm the picture is getting clearer.
Maybe the experts can take it from there(sic).
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
^Better make screen shots while you still can, before the Wiki trolls discover this page and wipe out all the info that's damning to their little narrative of racial purity. For more analogous data, see text and link:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Yes I once posted a chart exampling that deep rooting's not necessarily indicative of overall genome. It showed the scenario where a Black American could by haplogroup be a mustee (American for mestizo) of 4th generation direct Skins maternity and 4th generation direct Euro paternity. All his 14 other 4th generation African ancestry only shows in recombinational autosomes. Overall they make him what he is.
Right. When non-African is defined as:
"Ancestry that arrived in Eurasia AFTER the OOA populations left Africa"
Instead of:
"Everything that doesn't resemble the ancestry carried by West and Central African proxy samples"
You can get analysis that looks like this, where north Africans are more or less 50% African, and West Eurasians ~25-47% African:
So, why aren't researchers universally adopting this much more scientifically accurate method? Why do they KNOWINGLY keep using dubious proxy samples to define what constitutes African ancestry when they can use straight forward cut off points to distinguish between African and non-African ancestry? They know this cannot be viable because they themselves admit there was sub-structure in deep time in n.Africa and e.Africa before and after OOA, which may have never reached the African interior, but which is African nonetheless. [/qb]
As well as this:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Estimates of divergence times between European–African and East Asian–African populations are inconsistent with its simplest manifestation: a single dispersal from the continent followed by a split into Western and Eastern Eurasian branches. Rather, population divergence times are consistent with substantial ancient gene flow to the proto-European population after its divergence with proto-East Asians, suggesting distinct, early dispersals of modern H. sapiens from Africa.
quote:We characterized the level of genetic similarity between populations by the magnitude of their haplotype sharing. Examining the patterns of haplotype sharing at a regional level, we confirmed earlier observations of asymmetry between African and non-African populations in haplotype sharing, as reflected in the greater ‘‘outward’’ than ‘‘inward’’ haplotype flow from Africa to other geographic regions [Conrad et al., 2006].
But to answer your question, Sforza uses STRs as well as blood groupings and immunohistochemical assays. BOTH show the same results namely 1. that Europeans are essentially Asians (no surprise since Europe is a subcontinent of Asia) and 2. they have admixture from Africa at approximately one-third. All of this data was reaffirmed years later with Y-DNA.
Posts: 26311 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good you brought this up! Now I have to look at the paper closely. Did he really say 2/3 Asians?
Will post more on ESR.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
estimated to have occurred at an early date (30,000 years ago), but it is impossible to DISTINGUISH, on the basis of these data, this model from that of several migrations at different times. The overall contributions from Asia and Africa were estimated to be around two-thirds and one-third, respectively. Simulations have shown (7) that this hypothesis explains quite well the discrepancy between trees obtained by maximum likelihood and neighbor joining.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I noticed around the net that A LOT of Eurocentrics really hate this statement.
But yeah Europeans are definitely a mixed people. Like the subcontinent of Indian, Europe was populated by people from different locations and time periods.
Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
OK so far nobody has been able to finger what the infamous statement is based on. Like XXYman I saw the reference to classic markers and DNA was about Table 1 in particular which is genetic distance not admixture.
I've always wondered why ES drummed up the statement because to me the statement makes no sense at all.
It isn't rooted in time and its scientific basis is undiscernable.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: OK so far nobody has been able to finger what the infamous statement is based on. Like XXYman I saw the reference to classic markers and DNA was about Table 1 in particular which is genetic distance not admixture.
I've always wondered why ES drummed up the statement because to me the statement makes no sense at all.
It isn't rooted in time and its scientific basis is undiscernable.
A set of AIMs are means to an end, not the end itself. If figuring out if Cavalli-Sforza statement is accurate is what you're after, why would it matter what his classical markers are based on, given that his results are reproduced across the board, using various AIMs?
You didn't read the papers that were posted, which were, in fact, posted precisely because I suspected someone from the Euronut corner would desperately register an ES account to fight the inevitable, saying "genetic distance doesn't mean admixture". Indeed, I've seen many a Euronut scramble to come to grips with this data. Dienekes has particularly pathetic way of coping with this data on his blog, knowing that none of his lackeys will call him out on it.
The only way I can see someone look at Sforza and say admixture is not at work, is if the dissenting party disagrees with (the implications of) OOA and subscribes to one of various multi-regional origin hypotheses. Which, in that case, that person would still have to answer to Huang et al 2011, which is specifically about actual haplotype sharing--which can't be explained by things that don't involve interactions between the implicated populations.
quote: Originally posted by Djehuti: BOTH show the same results namely 1. that Europeans are essentially Asians (no surprise since Europe is a subcontinent of Asia) and 2. they have admixture from Africa at approximately one-third.
100% correct. OOA predicts that ancestral East Asians and Europeans are sister populations and split ~30-40kya. Hence, all things being equal, any pull of either meta population towards Africans in multivariate space, while the other OOA populations maintain their predicted distance from Africans, can only be explained by means of geneflow from Africa. DNA Tribes proved beyond a doubt that Europeans have a lot of African admixture which is normally not accounted for, by showing that, when you treat European ancestry as an unknown and remove all West Eurasian comparative samples, Horners will act as a stand-in population for a whopping >46% of European ancestry, even though all eastern Eurasian OOA populations, like Siberians, South Asians or East Asians or native Americans are available as stand-ins. I'm not saying that Europeans are >46% African, but clearly, one would have to violate OOA to explain why Africans cluster with Europeans before other OOA populations, if said explanation doesn't involve post-OOA African ancestry in West Eurasia (which, as you've said, is well-documented in archaeology and other disciplines).
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
These people are doing good on the truthseeker labels and are not afraid to post things that jive with the euro establishments ideologies.
Cavili really threw a monkey wrench into the subject and basically started the trend that Dna Tribe is setting.
For an euro(an Italian at that) to say what he said back when genes was little known, and take the heat for it and still plug away shows that free thinkers don't just come in Black skin brothas.
It's all coming to head and coming home to roost and people of all backgrounds are righting the wrongs. Can't say I aint impressed. I just know that more will come out of these healthy debates and questions.
I even read where Beyoko emailed 1 study leader and asked them key questions of genes for AE.
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:We characterized the level of genetic similarity between populations by the magnitude of their haplotype sharing. Examining the patterns of haplotype sharing at a regional level, we confirmed earlier observations of asymmetry between African and non-African populations in haplotype sharing, as reflected in the greater ‘‘outward’’ than ‘‘inward’’ haplotype flow from Africa to other geographic regions [Conrad et al., 2006].
Makes you wonder about the Euronut fixation on back-migrations to Africa vis-a-vis their downplaying of recent African immigration to West Eurasia. It's like the Eurocentric party line turned on its head.
Posts: 7094 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:We characterized the level of genetic similarity between populations by the magnitude of their haplotype sharing. Examining the patterns of haplotype sharing at a regional level, we confirmed earlier observations of asymmetry between African and non-African populations in haplotype sharing, as reflected in the greater ‘‘outward’’ than ‘‘inward’’ haplotype flow from Africa to other geographic regions [Conrad et al., 2006].
Makes you wonder about the Euronut fixation on back-migrations to Africa vis-a-vis their downplaying of recent African immigration to West Eurasia. It's like the Eurocentric party line turned on its head.
Yes, and that's why I'm wondering 'bout this:
Genotype/Phenotype Association Studies
quote: For many of the individuals for which we have obtained DNA, we also collected phenotype data for traits likely to play a role in adaptation, some of which demonstrate a complex pattern of inheritance and are likely influenced by multiple loci and environmental factors. In addition to case/control analyses of variation at candidate genes, we are using whole-genome association studies to identify novel genes that are associated with these traits. Together with collaborators, we are also developing methods for mapping complex traits (including disease) in highly structured African populations.
quote: Although the study's main focus was on Africa, Tishkoff and her colleagues studied DNA markers from around the planet, identifying 14 "ancestral clusters" for all of humanity. Nine of those clusters are in Africa. "You're seeing more diversity in one continent than across the globe," Tishkoff said.
posted
both Africans and Asians contributed to the settlement of Europe, which began about 40,000 years ago. It seems very reasonable to assume that both continents nearest to Europe contributed to its settlement, even if perhaps at different times and maybe repeatedly. It is reassuring that the analysis of other markers also consistently gives the same results in this case. Moreover, a specific evolutionary model tested, i.e., that Europe is formed by contributions from Asia and Africa, fits the distance matrix perfectly (6). In this simplified model, the migrations postulated to have populated Europe are estimated to have occurred at an early date (30,000 years ago), but it is impossible to distinguish, on the basis of these data, this model from that of several migrations at different times. The overall contributions from Asia and Africa were estimated to be around two-thirds and one-third, respectively" Cavalli-Sforza 1997
DNATribes Euclidian distance chart with non-Africans removed
"if we test the distribution of the widely known ABO blood-group system, then Europeans and Africans are closer to each other than either is to Chinese." --Does Race Exist? An antagonist's perspective
_______________________________________________
So if a European is closer to an African than a Chinese person can this European at the same time be only one third African but two thirds Asian? I suppose it's possible if they are two thirds Asian but less than a third of that is specific to Chinese but I don't think Brace meant that. I think he meant to say Europeans and Africans are closer to each other than either are to Asians. If this is the case it seems to contradict Cavalli-Sforza
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sforza's claims are not ridiculous at all if you look at this...
"The FIRST modern humans to reach Europe arrived [B}FROM AFRICA 35,000 to 40,000 years ago. By about 30,000 years ago[/, they were widespread throughout the area[/B] while their close cousins, the Neanderthals, disappeared. HARDLY any of these early hunter-gatherers carried the H haplogroup in their DNA."
Next: "About 7,500 years ago during the early Neolithic period, ANOTHER wave of humans expanded into Europe, this time from the Middle East. They carried in their genes a variant of the H haplogroup, and in their minds knowledge of how to grow and raise crops"
Like I said Europeans are mixed like the people from the Subcontinent of India. Different people from different places/time periods. Its also interesting that they mention the first people who entered Europe DID NOT carry Haplogroup H. Puts a nail in the coffin for Eurocentric claims that Africans were not the first people who entered into Europe.
Also backs this...
The questionable contribution of the Neolithic and the Bronze Age to European craniofacial form
"Many human craniofacial dimensions are largely of neutral adaptive significance, and an analysis of their variation can serve as an indication of the extent to which any given population is genetically related to or differs from any other. When 24 craniofacial measurements of a series of human populations are used to generate neighbor-joining dendrograms, it is no surprise that all modern European groups, ranging all of the way from Scandinavia to eastern Europe and throughout the Mediterranean to the Middle East, show that they are closely related to each other. The surprise is that the Neolithic peoples of Europe and their Bronze Age successors are NOT CLOSELY RELATED to the MODERN inhabitants, although the prehistoric/modern ties are somewhat more apparent in southern Europe. It is a further surprise that the Epipalaeolithic Natufian of Israel from whom the Neolithic realm was assumed to arise has a CLEAR LINK to Sub-Saharan Africa. Basques and Canary Islanders are clearly associated with modern Europeans. When canonical variates are plotted, NEITHER sample ties in with Cro-Magnon as was once suggested. The data treated here support the idea that the Neolithic moved out of the Near East into the circum-Mediterranean areas and Europe by a process of demic diffusion but that subsequently the in situ residents of those areas, derived from the Late Pleistocene inhabitants, absorbed both the agricultural life way and the people who had brought it."
I agree with Swenents claim from another thread that lighter toned people of today most definitely have ancestry of people who were darker toned. There's no way around it or escaping it.
Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Your (Son of Ra) citation of Brace et al is on-point. I would even go as far as to say that one cannot explain E-M78, E-M34, E-M123 et al in the Middle East and Europe, without invoking Cavalli. You can't do it. What SSA ancestry is there, if we are to take most of these genome wide studies literally? The meagre 3% in Jews Moorjani et al 2011 talk about? Please. You won't find any noteworthy SSA, unless you invoke Sforza. ALL the genome-wide studies are pointing it out. You just have to know where and how to look, and look past what the authors want you to believe.
quote:Intensity of the colors reflects the number of haplotype chunks donated to the Levantines.
^Just like DNA Tribes, they're treating the Levant as an unknown. Now go look and see which population has donated the most haplotypes/have brightest colours underneath each Levantine population. ETHIOPIANS, while inner Africans like the Yoruba only have minor (but very intense) affinity with the southern Levantines (i.e. Palestinians and Jordanians), perhaps corresponding with Moorjani 2011's 3% SSA in Jews. Mind you, these Levantine people are the partial descendants of the proto- Afroasiatic populations that spread agriculture all over the place, hence, this ancestry is implicated in Europe, as well.
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: Makes you wonder about the Euronut fixation on back-migrations to Africa vis-a-vis their downplaying of recent African immigration to West Eurasia. It's like the Eurocentric party line turned on its head. [/qb]
Indeed. Hence the damage control antics. The funny thing is, that when Brace 2005 hit the scene, Euronuts took solace in the following:
quote:If the Late Pleistocene Natufian sample from Israel is the source from which that Neolithic spread was derived, then there was clearly a SubSaharan African element present of almost equal importance as the Late Prehistoric Eurasian element. At the same time, the failure of the Neolithic and Bronze Age samples in central and northern Europe to tie to the modern inhabitants supports the suggestion that, while a farming mode of subsistence was spread westward and also north to Crimea and east to Mongolia by actual movement of communities of farmers, the indigenous foragers in each of those areas ultimately absorbed both the agricultural subsistence strategy and also the people who had brought it. The interbreeding of the incoming Neolithic people with the in situ foragers diluted the Sub-Saharan traces that may have come with the Neolithic spread so that no discoverable element of that remained.
--Brace 2005
With this coping crutch removed, where will they hide now?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Son of Ra what is the region that the first humans in Europe were in before they reached Europe?
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Son of Ra what is the region that the first humans in Europe were in before they reached Europe?
Click on the link I posted, the touch base on that in more detail.
Also I already said the first humans in Europe came from Africa around 30-40k years ago, it correlates with past studies. But those people were replaced by a different group from the Middle East.
Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Native Americans are one of groups at greatest genetic distance from Africans. Europeans are much blacker on the genetic level, Eminem, Clinton etc
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Son of Ra what is the region that the first humans in Europe were in before they reached Europe?
Click on the link I posted, the touch base on that in more detail.
Also I already said the first humans in Europe came from Africa around 30-40k years ago, it correlates with past studies. But those people were replaced by a different group from the Middle East.
That Nat Geo article doesn't answer the question and it's a very important question.
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Son of Ra what is the region that the first humans in Europe were in before they reached Europe?
Click on the link I posted, the touch base on that in more detail.
Also I already said the first humans in Europe came from Africa around 30-40k years ago, it correlates with past studies. But those people were replaced by a different group from the Middle East.
That Nat Geo article doesn't answer the question and it's a very important question.
Actually it does. It states the first Europeans came from Africa. Wasn't that your question?
Also Lioness there's no such thing as "blacker" genes...
Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: [QB] .the actual later infamous statement: ____________________________________________
L. Cavalli-Sforza:
"it appears that Europeans are about two-thirds Asians and one-third African." --(2001) Genes, Peoples and Languages.
In other words there are two races in the world, Africans and Asians
So called white people are merely Asioafriatics
It's a wrap for the Euronuts, they're mutts
.
You are a trouble maker aren’t you? (smirk).
1st off. There are no races only geographic populations. Geography! Geography! Geography! is the end all prior to the dawn of intercontinental travel. ALL population are a subset of Africans. That includes Asians. Acording to the latest TreeMix chart which agrees with some of the contemporary studies. There were essentially only TWO migration period FROM Africa. That is the underlying point. The first wave involved huntergatherers(Black). It looks like they expanded and dominated the ENTIRE old world(including Europe) up to Neolithic period. A new kind of African appeared on the scene, EEF/Basal Eurasian/Saharans. These Saharans/EEF spread and admixed with older population. Again, due to geographic distance they have closer genetic influence in Europe and the Near East than to South East(Indus Valley). And East Asia(Cambodia etc).. DNATribes used the term “agricultural Belt”. Obviously the HG maintained low numbers because of their mobil life-style compared the farmers and sedentary life style..
There are still big pices of the puzzle. Eg What happened in the Far East. More research is needed there. If these Chinese can get off the Denisovan circus and do some serious work. How did R-M269 come into the picture. What is up with the “longitudinal” slc24A5 line near the Indus Valley. Etc.
But back to the topic. To OP, Many of you have repeated the quote(dogma). What Sage is asking is where did Sforza get the 2/3, 1/3 from?
Apparently it is not clear. Can someone clarify it? Mary spurted BS as usual. Oh! Is that dis-respectful? To call out someone when they are BSing.
Compared to modern data Sforza is correct. I said that before. But his percentage is off. “Asian” is the equivalent “HG/ANE” per Lazaridis et al report. HG/ANE is also African. The new breed of African (EEF/Saharans) is his 1/3 African. This number is more applicable to Northern Europe. Anyone knows what European population he sampled?
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Good you brought this up! Now I have to look at the paper closely. Did he really say 2/3 Asians?
Will post more on ESR.
Yes take a look and misinterpret as usual. As you are doing right now.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: [QB] .the actual later infamous statement: ____________________________________________
L. Cavalli-Sforza:
"it appears that Europeans are about two-thirds Asians and one-third African." --(2001) Genes, Peoples and Languages.
In other words there are two races in the world, Africans and Asians
So called white people are merely Asioafriatics
It's a wrap for the Euronuts, they're mutts
.
Of course nowhere in Sforza's statement did it say anything about "race" you are just playing the Afronut fool even though we all know you are really a Euronut fool who is just unnerved by this old finding that is proven right by newer findings.
Posts: 26311 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You remind of those used-car salemen I like to toy with. I ask them a question about a car knowing fully well they don’t have a clue. Then sit back and watch them try to BS their way through it. But I give you props you don’t get tired. Nonstop smoke coming from your azz.. I hate being the odd man out but I can’t sit on the sideline when BS is being spread across the board(@ thread starter). With you it is pure unadulterated ignorance. I can dig it with Mary it is intentional. She is playing you.
==== QUOTE:
1. what his classical markers are based on, given that his results are reproduced across the board, using various AIMs.
2. genetic distance doesn't mean admixture".
3. The only way I can see someone look at Sforza and say admixture is not at work, is if the dissenting party disagrees with (the implications of) OOA and subscribes to one of various multi-regional origin hypotheses. Which, in that case, that person would still have to answer to Huang et al 2011, which is specifically about actual haplotype sharing--which can't be explained by things that don't involve interactions between the implicated populations.
3. Horners will act as a stand-in population for a whopping >46% of European ancestry, eve
==== 1= BS, 2=BS, 3.=WTF are you saying here, ?? 4=not Horners azzhole. Tribes put EEF/Basal Eurasian near the middle Nile. Horners=ANE/HG? Lazaridis et al hasthe Bedoiuns of Arabia asa proxy for YRI. Lazaridis et al confirmed the African(proxy) population was NOT San groups nor Pygmy. It may not be YRI either but clearly related to them.
But even as a side note. The labels “Basal Eurasian” , non-African DNA, EEF=Early European farmers is still perpetuating the EuroCentric game. “Basal” is misleading. Basal implies first or majority which is not the case in either. This genotype was not the first in Europe and not the majority in Northern Europe.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: OK so far nobody has been able to finger what the infamous statement is based on. Like XXYman I saw the reference to classic markers and DNA was about Table 1 in particular which is genetic distance not admixture.
I've always wondered why ES drummed up the statement because to me the statement makes no sense at all.
It isn't rooted in time and its scientific basis is undiscernable.
A set of AIMs are means to an end, not the end itself. If figuring out if Cavalli-Sforza statement is accurate is what you're after, why would it matter what his classical markers are based on, given that his results are reproduced across the board, using various AIMs?
You didn't read the papers that were posted, which were, in fact, posted precisely because I suspected someone from the Euronut corner would desperately register an ES account to fight the inevitable, saying "genetic distance doesn't mean admixture". Indeed, I've seen many a Euronut scramble to come to grips with this data. Dienekes has particularly pathetic way of coping with this data on his blog, knowing that none of his lackeys will call him out on it.
The only way I can see someone look at Sforza and say admixture is not at work, is if the dissenting party disagrees with (the implications of) OOA and subscribes to one of various multi-regional origin hypotheses. Which, in that case, that person would still have to answer to Huang et al 2011, which is specifically about actual haplotype sharing--which can't be explained by things that don't involve interactions between the implicated populations.
quote: Originally posted by Djehuti: BOTH show the same results namely **1. that Europeans are essentially Asians** (no surprise since Europe is a subcontinent of Asia) and 2. they have admixture from Africa at approximately one-third.
100% correct. OOA predicts that ancestral East Asians and Europeans are sister populations and split ~30-40kya. Hence, all things being equal, any pull of either meta population towards Africans in multivariate space, while the other OOA populations maintain their predicted distance from Africans, can only be explained by means of geneflow from Africa. DNA Tribes proved beyond a doubt that Europeans have a lot of African admixture which is normally not accounted for, by showing that, when you treat European ancestry as an unknown and remove all West Eurasian comparative samples, Horners will act as a stand-in population for a whopping >46% of European ancestry, even though all eastern Eurasian OOA populations, like Siberians, South Asians or East Asians or native Americans are available as stand-ins. I'm not saying that Europeans are >46% African, but clearly, one would have to violate OOA to explain why Africans cluster with Europeans before other OOA populations, if said explanation doesn't involve post-OOA African ancestry in West Eurasia (which, as you've said, is well-documented in archaeology and other disciplines).
Absolutely.
The division between Europe and Asia is totally artificial and culturally contrived.
The borders that separate Europe from Asia are specifically the Caucasus Mountains and the Ural Mountains, yet geologically speaking Europe is a subcontinent like India and hasn't been a separate continent since the Paleocene but even then it began colliding and merging with Europe long before India which was farther away. Yet the Indian subcontinent is never viewed as anything separate from Asia while Europe is segregated geographically for obvious culturally biased reasons.
What's more, the lyinass displays (either out of genuine ignorance or fake stupidity) the common misconception that 'Asian' means east Asian, when that is obviously not the case. Note that we not only have South Asia (Indian subcontinent) but land-locked Central Asia to contend with not to mention Southwest Asia which also has significant African genetic influence as well for the same obvious reason of geographic proximity as does Europe!
Posts: 26311 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:We characterized the level of genetic similarity between populations by the magnitude of their haplotype sharing. Examining the patterns of haplotype sharing at a regional level, we confirmed earlier observations of asymmetry between African and non-African populations in haplotype sharing, as reflected in the greater ‘‘outward’’ than ‘‘inward’’ haplotype flow from Africa to other geographic regions [Conrad et al., 2006].
Makes you wonder about the Euronut fixation on back-migrations to Africa vis-a-vis their downplaying of recent African immigration to West Eurasia. It's like the Eurocentric party line turned on its head.
Indeed. The FACT that Europeans have recent African mixed heritage is the exact reason why Euronuts are obsessing over back-migrations to Africa. It is the typical psychological neurosis known as projection where they try to turn around their own perceived "affliction" (admixture from Africans) around to Eurasian admixture in Africans! Hence, trolls like lyinass. Posts: 26311 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Of course nowhere in Sforza's statement did it say anything about "race" you are just playing the Afronut fool even though we all know you are really a Euronut fool who is just unnerved by this old finding that is proven right by newer findings.
^Exacty. It's just passive aggressiveness. Best thing is just to ignore her.
quote:Passive-aggressive behavior is the indirect expression of hostility, such as through procrastination, sarcasm, hostile jokes, stubbornness, resentment, sullenness, or deliberate or repeated failure to accomplish requested tasks for which one is (often explicitly) responsible
posted
This is the last I have to post on the topic until new developments. No mentally stimulating inputs.
But Sforza did not clearly state where the 1/3, 2/3 came from. He references an external source that seems ambigous. But based upon the data he/Sforza compiled and provided. It is the reverse. His numbers matches what current researchers are proposing. He cross referenced a 1993 paper as his source of the 2/3 1/3 hypothesis…which he co-authored.
Table 2 is also mis-leading. Table 1 clearly states it is based upon 120 classical polymorphism.between continents. But Table 2 is based upon what? What was did the 2/3, 1/3 based on? Before I fully understood this stuff I used to re-gurgitate the same garbage. I know better now.
Good that you brought that up. Hope some of the “afro-centrics” (sic) learn from the discussion.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Son of Ra: Sforza's claims are not ridiculous at all if you look at this...
"The FIRST modern humans to reach Europe arrived [B}FROM AFRICA 35,000 to 40,000 years ago. By about 30,000 years ago[/, they were widespread throughout the area[/B] while their close cousins, the Neanderthals, disappeared. HARDLY any of these early hunter-gatherers carried the H haplogroup in their DNA."
Next: "About 7,500 years ago during the early Neolithic period, ANOTHER wave of humans expanded into Europe, this time from the Middle East. They carried in their genes a variant of the H haplogroup, and in their minds knowledge of how to grow and raise crops"
"But the team's genetic analysis revealed a surprise: About 6,500 years ago in the mid-Neolithic, the LBK culture was itself displaced. Their haplogroup H types suddenly became very rare, and they were subsequently replaced by populations bearing a different set of haplogroup H variations." Source: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/13/130423-european-genetic-history-dna-archaeology-science/ Like I said Europeans are mixed like the people from the Subcontinent of India. Different people from different places/time periods. Its also interesting that they mention the first people who entered Europe DID NOT carry Haplogroup H. Puts a nail in the coffin for Eurocentric claims that Africans were not the first people who entered into Europe.
Correct. I've always maintained the theory that Europe's population was similar to India (except with significant recent African ancestry). In fact this was theory put forth by a number of anthropologists who have noted that Europe like India had a cul-de-sac effect on incoming populations who entered the region.
quote:Also backs this...
The questionable contribution of the Neolithic and the Bronze Age to European craniofacial form
"Many human craniofacial dimensions are largely of neutral adaptive significance, and an analysis of their variation can serve as an indication of the extent to which any given population is genetically related to or differs from any other. When 24 craniofacial measurements of a series of human populations are used to generate neighbor-joining dendrograms, it is no surprise that all modern European groups, ranging all of the way from Scandinavia to eastern Europe and throughout the Mediterranean to the Middle East, show that they are closely related to each other. The surprise is that the Neolithic peoples of Europe and their Bronze Age successors are NOT CLOSELY RELATED to the MODERN inhabitants, although the prehistoric/modern ties are somewhat more apparent in southern Europe. It is a further surprise that the Epipalaeolithic Natufian of Israel from whom the Neolithic realm was assumed to arise has a CLEAR LINK to Sub-Saharan Africa. Basques and Canary Islanders are clearly associated with modern Europeans. When canonical variates are plotted, NEITHER sample ties in with Cro-Magnon as was once suggested. The data treated here support the idea that the Neolithic moved out of the Near East into the circum-Mediterranean areas and Europe by a process of demic diffusion but that subsequently the in situ residents of those areas, derived from the Late Pleistocene inhabitants, absorbed both the agricultural life way and the people who had brought it."
I agree with Swenents claim from another thread that lighter toned people of today most definitely have ancestry of people who were darker toned. There's no way around it or escaping it.
"The inhabitants of the Aegean area in the Bronze Age may have been much like many people in the Mediterranean basin today, short and slight of build with dark hair and eyes and sallow complexions. Skeletons show that the population of the Aegean was already mixed by Neolithic times, and various facial types, some with delicate features and pointed noses, others pug-nosed, almost negroid, are depicted in wall paintings from the 16th century BC..." -- The Home of the Heroes: The Aegean Before the Greeks (1967)
"One can identify Negroid traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters (McCown, 1939) and in Anatolian and Macedonian first farmers , probably from Nubia via the predecesors of the Badarians and Tasians" --Larry Angel (1972)
"The female of forty-plus years of age from Grave 2 was examined by J. L. Angel who noted what he interpreted as a number of 'negroid' .. traits in the face." The skull is fairly complete, but not enough so for discriminant function analysis." There is marked maxillary prognathism and the orbits may be described as rectangular, traits frequently used in forensic diagnosis of Negro crania... The female from Grave 2 is among those with thickened parietals. It should be pointed out that maxillary prognathsm, one of the skeleton's "Negroid" features, is characteristic both of thalassemia and sickle-cell anemia. " -- Skeletons of Lerna Hollow. Al B. Wesolowsky. Hesperia, Vol. 42, No. 3. (1973), pp. 340-351.
"The portrayal on the 'minature fresco' from Thera, and on the other, very fragmentary Aegean frescoes, of diverse stylistic elements- flora a nd fauna, 'negroid' human representations, the riverine setting, of the 'minature fresco,' etc- that seem to be north African, 'Libyan' or Egyptian in origin." --The Aegean and the Orient in the second millennium: proceedings of the 50th anniversary symposium, Cincinnati, 18-20 April 1997
Africa is after all right on the other side of the Mediterranean.
Posts: 26311 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:We characterized the level of genetic similarity between populations by the magnitude of their haplotype sharing. Examining the patterns of haplotype sharing at a regional level, we confirmed earlier observations of asymmetry between African and non-African populations in haplotype sharing, as reflected in the greater ‘‘outward’’ than ‘‘inward’’ haplotype flow from Africa to other geographic regions [Conrad et al., 2006].
Makes you wonder about the Euronut fixation on back-migrations to Africa vis-a-vis their downplaying of recent African immigration to West Eurasia. It's like the Eurocentric party line turned on its head.
Indeed. The FACT that Europeans have recent African mixed heritage is the exact reason why Euronuts are obsessing over back-migrations to Africa. It is the typical psychological neurosis known as projection where they try to turn around their own perceived "affliction" (admixture from Africans) around to Eurasian admixture in Africans! Hence, trolls like lyinass.
Yep. Which is why they are so desperate to use mtDNA U6 30,000 to Eurasianize all of Northwest Africa to try in combat African DNA in them. Yet obvious to them U6 could have mutated in Africa.
Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
Correct. I've always maintained the theory that Europe's population was similar to India (except with significant recent African ancestry). In fact this was theory put forth by a number of anthropologists who have noted that Europe like India had a cul-de-sac effect on incoming populations who entered the region.
I've been actually saying this for the longest on many sites. Europe is basically a more complex India IMO. Agreed.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
"The inhabitants of the Aegean area in the Bronze Age may have been much like many people in the Mediterranean basin today, short and slight of build with dark hair and eyes and sallow complexions. Skeletons show that the population of the Aegean was already mixed by Neolithic times, and various facial types, some with delicate features and pointed noses, others pug-nosed, almost negroid, are depicted in wall paintings from the 16th century BC..."[/i] -- The Home of the Heroes: The Aegean Before the Greeks (1967)
"One can identify Negroid traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters (McCown, 1939) and in Anatolian and Macedonian first farmers , probably from Nubia via the predecesors of the Badarians and Tasians" --Larry Angel (1972)
"The female of forty-plus years of age from Grave 2 was examined by J. L. Angel who noted what he interpreted as a number of 'negroid' .. traits in the face." The skull is fairly complete, but not enough so for discriminant function analysis." There is marked maxillary prognathism and the orbits may be described as rectangular, traits frequently used in forensic diagnosis of Negro crania... The female from Grave 2 is among those with thickened parietals. It should be pointed out that maxillary prognathsm, one of the skeleton's "Negroid" features, is characteristic both of thalassemia and sickle-cell anemia. " -- Skeletons of Lerna Hollow. Al B. Wesolowsky. Hesperia, Vol. 42, No. 3. (1973), pp. 340-351.
"The portrayal on the 'minature fresco' from Thera, and on the other, very fragmentary Aegean frescoes, of diverse stylistic elements- flora a nd fauna, 'negroid' human representations, the riverine setting, of the 'minature fresco,' etc- that seem to be north African, 'Libyan' or Egyptian in origin." --The Aegean and the Orient in the second millennium: proceedings of the 50th anniversary symposium, Cincinnati, 18-20 April 1997
Africa is after all right on the other side of the Mediterranean.
Wow...I'll be sure to save this.
Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Europe is a more complex India", 6000miles away and genetically very distinct!!!On two very different branches of the Macro Haplogroup. . Riiiight! Two Hindus jerking themselves off. That is what they teach at Hindu schools? Sorry Sage. Couldn't help it. I am out. He! He! He!
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^Nobody takes you seriously to even care what you have to say. I also agree with everyone else who wonders why the mods on ESR haven't banned you as of yet...
Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
And when I meant Europe is more complex than India I meant by it being a continent or subcontinent. And the fact that many people see Europe as a continent of its own. When its really part of Asia hence "Eurasia".
DJ also pointed out the limit/borders of Europe/Asia.
Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't explain to me kiddo, explain to your inner self. lol! Shrug. Hindu's!
So you want me banned also from ESR. hmmmm!. Why not here on ES? That makes the most sense. No one pays attention to ESR.
I would love to be banned from ES.
Do you post on ESR? No, never mind. bye.
who is in the Facebook group, I forgot?
quote:Originally posted by Son of Ra: ^^^Nobody takes you seriously to even care what you have to say. I also agree with everyone else who wonders why the mods on ESR haven't banned you as of yet...
And when I meant Europe is more complex than India I meant by it being a continent or subcontinent. And the fact that many people see Europe as a continent of its own. When its really part of Asia hence "Eurasia".
DJ also pointed out the limit/borders of Europe/Asia.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
Good that you brought that up. Hope some of the “afro-centrics” (sic) learn from the discussion.
. Well after all the roorag posts it's good to see someone leave emotion behind and try to assess what Cavalli-Sforza actually published without going anachronistic even invoking proprietary (thus non-scientific) filler that cannot muster peer review and no geneticists ever reference, cite, nor quote.
Some people will not turn a critical eye toward that which pleases them as they say from time to time about a report that is pro-Africa(n).
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
The overall contributions from Asia and Africa were estimated to be around two-thirds and one-third, respectively
Who's got the full in context quote? Who knows what he means by Euros as 1/3 African and 2/3 Asian? Based on measuring what?
Since what I asked remains unanswered I will give the infamous statement in full context unless some body else beats me to it.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
At first I was going to post the text and charts as two units for clarity but decided to leave intact as published except the foot notes are truncated.
.
L. LUCA CAVALLI-SFORZA Genes, peoples, and languages Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA Vol. 94, pp. 7719 –7724, July 1997
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
NOTE: despite the two trees don't agree many in the ES AE&E past have posted them in proof of Oceania being farthest genetically from Africa whereas tree a shows Oceania closer than all the rest.
The overall contributions from Asia and Africa were estimated to be around two-thirds and one-third, respectively
S-C's statement seems a bit typological, Euros are 0% contributory to themselves. Surely some Euro genetics are in situ developments. Who are C-S's monolithic Africans and Asians? Are Maghrebis and NE/Horn Africans included in the former? What about Asians? The Chinese/Japanes stereotype? Southeast Asians? South Asians? Central Asians? West Asians? So-called SW Asians (continental boundary of Africa vs SW Asia is more artificial than the Europe-Asia boundary)?
And of course we're talking genetics here not phenotypes as ignorant Lyin'Asses will propose.
Genetic skyline charts at K=2 level reflect Africa vs initial Out-of-Africa frequencies. Usually by the time K=7 or K>7 that initial Out-of-Africa color at K=2 turns out to be the Americas.
BTW none of these geneticists and molecular biologists are infallible requiring anyone to answer to them as if they are gods.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Eurocentric doctrine #?
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^^
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Good you brought this up! Now I have to look at the paper closely. Did he really say 2/3 Asians?
Will post more on ESR.
Yes take a look and misinterpret as usual. As you are doing right now.
[
And exactly what did I write was Eurocentric, lunatic?? You think pointing out your nonsense is "Eurocentric" now? LOL
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: "Europe is a more complex India", 6000miles away and genetically very distinct!!!On two very different branches of the Macro Haplogroup. . Riiiight! Two Hindus jerking themselves off. That is what they teach at Hindu schools? Sorry Sage. Couldn't help it. I am out. He! He! He!
So you assume because we invoke India or rather make analogies with that geographic region, that we ourselves must be Indian or even 'Hindu'??! LMAO You see, that is exactly the habit of quickly jumping to the wrong conclusions that I and others have constantly berated you about! This is why I'm against banning you as lyinass. I prefer to keep your dumbass as an example of the troll nonsense only from the Afronut side.
Meanwhile SonofRa is correct that Europe is similar to India in that it has experienced multiple founder-effect events except in this case it has not only experienced events from the rest of Asia but Africa as well.
Posts: 26311 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually I am part South Asian descent on my mothers side whose families from Trinidad.
@Djehuti
I don't get why its so hard for him to see the comparison between Europe and India, which are really just two subcontinents. You even said Europe is its own continent due to cultural reasons.
Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Well I myself am of Filipino descent and have no South Asian ancestry. The closest thing to a Hindu in my family is a cousin of mine who joined some guru's cult! LOL So let the xynut think whatever he wants to.
quote:Originally posted by Son of Ra: Yep. Which is why they are so desperate to use mtDNA U6 30,000 to Eurasianize all of Northwest Africa to try in combat African DNA in them. Yet obvious to them U6 could have mutated in Africa.
The theory is that U6 entered Africa 30,000 ybp from the 'Near East' or Southwest Asia which again was right next door to Africa. What's more is that this supposedly took place just 10,000 after the first AM humans colonized Europe and who still possessed tropical adapted features judging from some of the Cro-magnon remains, so you can only imagine how the U6 colonists from Southwest Asia right next door looked like.
Posts: 26311 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic