" One reasonable hypothesis is that the genetic distance between Asia and Africa is shorter than that between Africa and the other continents in Table 1 because both Africans and Asians contributed to the settlement of Europe, which began about 40,000 years ago." L. LUCA CAVALLI-SFORZA
Genes, peoples, and languages Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA Vol. 94, pp. 7719 –7724, July 1997
________________________
This is what current anthroplogy says:
______________________________________
^^^^
Note:
1) No OOA crossing the Mediterranean from Morocco to Spain
2) The migration path coming into to Europe marked M 172 is dated under 10K, coming from Anatolia, before that the Mid east -this is "the farmers 7,500 ya
3)>> Earliest entry into Europe by humans marked M 173 on map (M 343) comes from across South Russia, before that Central Asia, before that also the Mid east M 89 common root of these branches
therefore the earliest humans who came from across Russia 30-45 Kya would correspondingly be called by Cavalli-Sforza "Africans" and "Asians" who fucked and produced the early dark skinned Europeans and these dark skinned Europeans, the earliest ones mated with some neanderthals
_________________________________
to further resolve this matter we must look to the 2001 239 page book also by Cavalli-Sforza and it has the same title as the article:
^^^ I haven't seen it and am not sure that the relevant topic is simply the 97 article copied into the book or not. However the book has the more radically phrased statement:
"it appears that Europeans are about two-thirds Asians and one-third African."
I think I recall this maybe being on the back cover of the book but I'm not sure.
Posts: 43016 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Meanwhile ...
About C-S's 1/3 African and 2/3 Asian.
How many 3rds African is Asia?
How many 3rds Asian is Africa?
When posting maps, graphs, tables, etc., please cite who and where they are from so as to gauge their reliability and age. Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ 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.
Exactly. Which is why I also cited that brace study, which said exactly what you said.
Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
You do understand that 1/2 the guys here don't understand what you are talking about.
But there are lukers willing to learn ...so continue.
Lioness? maybe, but, he is not here to enlighten
BTW- You do know why the two trees don't agree? Don't you? (a) unweighted ..arithmetic mean.
Significance?
-------------------- 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 |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
For those interested in the topic I uncovered this from the book I no longer own. It explains who are the Africans and Asians of the quote but omits which Europeans are meant and what's measured.
Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, Paolo Menozzi, Alberto Piazza The History and Geography of Human Genes Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994 p.92-3
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
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.***** \
. There were essentially only TWO migration period FROM Africa. That is the underlying point. The first wave involved huntergatherers(Black).
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
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.***** \
. There were essentially only TWO migration period FROM Africa. That is the underlying point. The first wave involved huntergatherers(Black). [/qb]
xyyman you start off saying there are no races only geographic populations. Then you say "The first wave involved huntergatherers(Black)" If there are no races then why when talking about a first wave of hunter gatherers do you mention their skin color "black" ? What does some random superficial physical trait have to do with anything?
Anyway "Africans" and "Asians" discussed in this way are obviously proxy terms for race similarly "white", "black"
Posts: 43016 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
The Ethiopians genotype is more than 50% African. It is difficult to say if they originated in Arabia and are therefore Caucasoids who, like Lapps, had substantial gene flow after they migrated to East Africa, or if they originated in Africa and had substantial gene flow from Arabia, but not enough to pass the 50% mark. We are not helped by knowledge of the origin of Afro-Asiatic languages, which are by far the most common ones spoken in Ethiopia but are also spoken in North Africa, Arabia, and the Middle East.....
Gene and language replacement can to some extent blur the congruence expected between the two types of evolution, but not completely. The accumulation of further genetic and linguistic data will facilitate the study of the relationship between the two evolutions, making it easier to use the genetic tree for predicting the history of linguistic evolution. Charles Darwin had precisely anticipated this development in his first book, The Origin of Species, published in 1859. But the opposite can also happen, and we look forward to linguistic data for ideas about still undetected genetic relationships. Above all we need an increase in genetic data, which modern molecular techniques such as microsatellite analysis and chip hybridization make possible and unusually powerful. The generation of a world collection of stored DNAs for distribution to scientists is the aim of the Human Genome Diversity Project, the feasibility of which is currently being investigated by the National Research Council and by the National Science Foundation.
Posts: 43016 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: 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).
A little tip: when someone goes out of his way to post information, even though that person made a commitment to stop contributing to filling Sammies' pockets, to help you out, a little bit of appreciation, or at least, not dismissing something on sight because you don't find it fancy enough, is not much to ask. Good luck with your thread!
Posts: 8791 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Africans have no ownership on blackness. Europeans have no ownership on light skin. Many East Asians are lighter than Europeans. Many South Asians are darker than Africans.
AMH left Africa black skinned. They remainned black skinned in Europe for over 30,000yrs!!!
La Brana being the last black European(sic). Confused?
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman:
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.***** \
. There were essentially only TWO migration period FROM Africa. That is the underlying point. The first wave involved huntergatherers(Black).
xyyman you start off saying there are no races only geographic populations. Then you say "The first wave involved huntergatherers(Black)" If there are no races then why when talking about a first wave of hunter gatherers do you mention their skin color "black" ? What does some random superficial physical trait have to do with anything?
Anyway "Africans" and "Asians" discussed in this way are obviously proxy terms for race similarly "white", "black" [/QB]
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
BTW: Again there are so many wheels turning here it can be confusing to the lurkers. But may be the Anthroplogist types can jump in and/or start another thread. Mary touched on it earlier in the thread. But the osteological pieces are now starting to make sense. Remember Europeans seemed to be tropical, then went to cold adapted then back again to tropical then …from Paleolithic, late Paleolothic, Neolithic etc.
With these new developments Z-Man and others can try to frame this.
-------------------- 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
What is important to understand from scientific studies is that African people and Ancient Egyptians don't just share a common skin color or geographical location, but they share a common origin, history, archaeological continuity, culture, language, religion, etc.
So I don't find it surprising that people like Tukuler, Swenet, Djehuti, xyyman, etc (who are not even black Africans btw, they are undercover racists) prefer to talk only about skin color or geography.
For example, most Cushitic, Chadic and Niger-Congo speakers are carrier of the E-P2/PN2 Y-DNA haplogroup, and thus share a common origin (after the OOA). At that time, they spoke one common language. The language spoken by their common E-P2 ancestor (maybe Obenga's Negro-Egyptian).
Here below we can see most African languages like Yoruba, Somali, Afar, Dogon, Wolof, Zulu, Dinka, etc have their common origin in the same region in (north) Eastern Africa (post dating the OOA migration of non-Africans of course):
Reconstructing Ancient Kinship in Africa by Christopher Ehret (From Early Human Kinship, Chap 12)
There also have been a lot of admixture between African population throughout history.
We can also see it genetically (autosomal DNA):
- From The Genetic Structure and History of Africans and African Americans (2009)
From the graph above for example, you can see Yoruba are much closer genetically to lets say Kikuyu than Palestinians or Basque. My contentious is that Ancient Egyptians in general would be closer to African populations than to non-African populations, especially at the formative stage (because there's been a lot of invasions and immigration afterwards even in dynastic time).
This is supported by some mainstream sources too:
quote:Any interpretation of the biological affinities of the ancient Egyptians must be placed in the context of hypothesis informed by the archaeological, linguistic, geographic or other data. In this context the physical anthropological evidence indicates that the early Nile Valley populations can be identified as part of an African lineage, but exhibiting local variation. This variation represents the short and long term effects of evolutionary forces, such as gene flow, genetic drift, and natural selection influenced by culture and geography. -From Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt (1999) pp 328-332
So I don't find it surprising that people like Tukuler, Swenet, Djehuti, xyyman, etc (who are not even black Africans btw, they are undercover racists) prefer to talk only about skin color or geography.
Come on man. Who is arguing that the AEians are any else but Black and Africans. Developed, nurtured and sustained by the peoples of the Sahara, Nile Valley and inner Africa for close to 5000years.! There is no more debate about that. That has been played out. It is old. Only an ignorant fool who knows nothing about the peoples and land will start an argument about that. And someone like that it is not worth ..at least my time.
Calling me a racist and under cover is childish. They don’t come blacker than me my man. I love my blackness(figuratively). But I wont bury my head in the sand. I am a realist. I find the study of Europeans more fascinating…..now
Continue your fine work. ESR has nice threads on the discovery of all those mummies in one tomb. See. I read up. What is also interesting. Why and how they got there there vs what they look like is fascinating. They are Africans and black end of story. But there are also light skinned Africans. Deal with it!
BTW: Please. Don’t put me in the same group as DJ/Mary. Sides she says she is Philippino which I doubt very much. I am not “recent” African but what should it matter. My line is L2a1a and E1b1a. 23andMe has my relatives 5 generation mapped throughout the US( a few white) and a few islands in the Caribbean. Obviously some nefarious activity went on in the past. Some poor black woman paid a horrible price. Think of me as Colin Powell. A black Republican (not wacky Tea-partiers)as most with connection to that part of the world.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Black is not a race. White is not a race.
Africans have no ownership on blackness. Europeans have no ownership on light skin. Many East Asians are lighter than Europeans. Many South Asians are darker than Africans.
You said black is not a race and Africans have no ownership on blackness.
Then you said white is not a race.
But instead of saying Europeans have no ownership on whiteness you said they had no ownership on "light skin" Does this mean they still own whiteness ?
Posts: 43016 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: [QB] BTW: Please. Don’t put me in the same group as DJ/Mary. Sides she says she is Philippino which I doubt very much.
On this we can agree, he is definitely not who he says he is. which is a shame.
quote: I am not “recent” African but what should it matter. My line is L2a1a and E1b1a.
If both uniparental lines are Africans (YNA A,B,E, mtDNA L) then you are probably mostly African autosomally and thus African. But you're right, what you say you are is not important since anybody can lie about that. I judge people by their posts. I'm sorry but no real black African would waste time trying to prove North African or West Asian are "black" too. Sure, in general, North African and West Asian are usually the closest world populations to black African populations. But there's no point in going overboard about it. Even most North African themselves don't consider themselves black Africans (although there's a lot of black African people, in the south of those countries especially, they don't form the majority of the country as far as we know). I would guess and hope, like any population, they (North African people) are proud of their West Asian, European and African heritage. There's no doubt there's been a lot of interrelations and admixture between sub-saharan African countries (especially borderline states like Somalia) and neighboring North African and West Asian countries, in both directions. Natufian. Muslim conquests. Sultanates. Etc.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
My point still stands, African people like Yoruba, Somali, Dinka, Zulu, etc and Ancient Egyptians don't just share a common skin color or geographical location, but they share a common origin, history, biology, archaeological continuity, culture, language, religion, etc.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fruedian? You caught that huh? That was deliberate. Like Hindu., I am trying to flush out some cockroaches. (wink).
Test paper on my psychology 101 class.....
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Black is not a race. White is not a race.
Africans have no ownership on blackness. Europeans have no ownership on light skin. Many East Asians are lighter than Europeans. Many South Asians are darker than Africans.
You said black is not a race and Africans have no ownership on blackness.
Then you said white is not a race.
But instead of saying Europeans have no ownership on whiteness you said they had no ownership on "light skin" Does this mean they still own whiteness ?
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whitenss is a political term. "Light skin" is scientific. No one is really white.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let's review my post above, with the new facts from this thread:
quote:So I don't find it surprising that people like Tukuler, Swenet, Djehuti, xyyman , etc (who are not even black Africans btw, they are undercover racists ) prefer to talk only about skin color
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Fruedian? You caught that huh? That was deliberate. Like Hindu., I am trying to flush out some cockroaches. (wink).
Racist-->check Pretend to be black-->check prefer to talk about skin color-->check
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
(Throwing my hands in the air). Sweetness you have a go. But take it someplace else. Let's not derail the thread.
I am offended by ONLY two. Racist and Pretend to be black. Yes, I unashamedly talk about skin color but I am offended by the other two. I have white relatives that I am close to and happy to see progress and I get PO defending my blackness(that is my touch point). We can be comfortable with white people and still be black. Last person to that waaaas ....Mary. She created a stink about it with Marc and a few others years ago.
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: Let's review my post above, with the new facts from this thread:
quote:So I don't find it surprising that people like Tukuler, Swenet, Djehuti, xyyman , etc (who are not even black Africans btw, they are undercover racists ) prefer to talk only about skin color
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Fruedian? You caught that huh? That was deliberate. Like Hindu., I am trying to flush out some cockroaches. (wink).
Racist-->check Pretend to be black-->check prefer to talk about skin color-->check
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: (Throwing my hands in the air). Sweetness you have a go. But take it someplace else. Let's not derail the thread.
I am offended by ONLY two. Racist and Pretend to be black. Yes, I unashamedly talk about skin color but I am offended by the other two. I have white relatives that I am close to and happy to see progress and I get PO defending my blackness(that is my touch point). We can be comfortable with white people and still be black. Last person to that waaaas ....Mary. She created a stink about it with Marc and a few others years ago.
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: Let's review my post above, with the new facts from this thread:
quote:So I don't find it surprising that people like Tukuler, Swenet, Djehuti, xyyman , etc (who are not even black Africans btw, they are undercover racists ) prefer to talk only about skin color
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Fruedian? You caught that huh? That was deliberate. Like Hindu., I am trying to flush out some cockroaches. (wink).
Racist-->check Pretend to be black-->check prefer to talk about skin color-->check
This obsession with skin color is mark of a deranged man or a phoney person too. When we say Ancient Egyptians are black African people, we just don't mean they share the same skin color. That's ridiculous. They share a common origin as well as many other historic, archaeological, biological, genetic, linguistic and cultural linkage.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| 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 |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
For the record, Djehuti , Tukuler and typeZeiss while having the right to believe foolish things if they want are not black Africans. They are fake. Their point of view is not the point of view of most Maghrebian people either as they don't consider themselves black Africans for the most part.
. . . .
So I don't find it surprising that people like Tukuler, Swenet, Djehuti, etc (who are not even black Africans btw, they are undercover racists) prefer to talk only about skin color or geography.
.
I'm having a hard time not saying ARtU is a snivelling piece of **** liar but try to console myself knowing that in 9 years and 7 months on ES never once have I said Maghrebis or even central to west Saharans are Black Africans. I don't even use the term Black Africa(ns) (link).
I don't like it. It's stupid and no other continent is broken down by colour.
No White Europe. No Yellow Asia. Only Black Africa.
Hence my caustic coinage of White Europe and Olive Europe.
Long time back I disagreed with ARtU on some point or other and since then his emotions run away with him, poor fellow. Whenever I post something ARtU's knee jerk reflex reaction is to go ad hominem and outright lie.
For example after I post
South of the Sahara in the Sahel and Savannah we call Maghrebis, and even Berber or "Arab" Saharans white but we totally separate them from a category that includes most Spaniards, Italians, Albanians, Greeks, French, and all British Islanders, Scandinavians, Central Europeans, Baltics, and Rus Vik Russians.
ARtU lies about it and says I call iMazighen Black African. Totally preposterous. ARtU's problem is obvious, his head's stuck up his ass, ergo his excuse for brain cells have suffocated from the gas.
African Heritage is inclusive of all autochthonous/indigenous Africans.
As far as it goes for white people of ARtU's ilk? Well ... who could be more fake than a person afraid to declare their ethnicity and copping the moniker of AE's greatest compound nTr then declaring himself ultimate? I'll leave DJ to diagnose that psychosis.
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
???
The idea should not be personalities. Anyone who loves African Studies is free to post whatever.
The decision to contribute or withdraw is all your own. I have no responsibility for your choices.
I asked for specific things that went essentially directly unaddressed. I had to go find them myself because at best only 1 or 2 peripherals got posted. I needed a bullseye not a mere target hit.
Were some post previous to what you just replied to informative? Sure. However there were emotionally based posts that made for "entertaining" reading or venting or what have you.
Which do you imagine I call roorag?
And there are posters who exclaim how this or that report is "pleasing" to them. What the hell??? Do they reject science that isn't pleasing? Is that anyway to conduct "objective" African Studies?
Things are what they are. For whatever reason we did not initiate long distant sea trade amongst ourselves. That is not pleasent knowledge yet its a fact. Should it be rejected because it is not pleasing?
I hope you can post here without needing a pat on the back for doing so or expecting no critical comment or disagreement.
African Studies don't need favors just people who realize there is in fact a struggle going on and intend for Africa and Africans at home and abroad not to lose the struggle or give up struggling everywhere possible for whatever excuse.
Me? I can't help the way I write or the tones some fell I invoke, nor would I ever want to. Breeding does tell and many other African ethnies feel those of my ethny are intractable. Can't help it. Nothing can be done about it. It's in the genes. We only ask try to bear us. We have worthy contributions to make.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: 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).
A little tip: when someone goes out of his way to post information, even though that person made a commitment to stop contributing to filling Sammies' pockets, to help you out, a little bit of appreciation, or at least, not dismissing something on sight because you don't find it fancy enough, is not much to ask. Good luck with your thread!
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
Pure horseshit and shows you don't personally know any North Africans and so just base yourself on Wishology. North Africans, in general, never speak of themselves as a triple heritage.
The iMazighen think of themselves as a people with a 10-20,000 year history as autochthonous indigenous Africans. In general they are at odds with Gnawa Africans, Arabs (peninsular or Arabized fellow Maghrebis), and Europeans.
The least you could do is visit iMazighen blogs, websites, and fora since you obviously don't know any in real life.
Also what is very telling about what you wrote is that you placed Africa last. How colonialist minded of you.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
For the record, Djehuti , Tukuler and typeZeiss while having the right to believe foolish things if they want are not black Africans. They are fake. Their point of view is not the point of view of most Maghrebian people either as they don't consider themselves black Africans for the most part.
. . . .
So I don't find it surprising that people like Tukuler, Swenet, Djehuti, etc (who are not even black Africans btw, they are undercover racists) prefer to talk only about skin color or geography.
.
I'm having a hard time not saying ARtU is a snivelling piece of **** liar but try to console myself knowing that in 9 years and 7 months on ES never once have I said Maghrebis or even central to west Saharans are Black Africans. I don't even use the term
I never said or cared if you call Maghrebi people or whoever "Black Africans" or not. I said you are undercover racist who prefer to talk only about skin color or geography. Then you idiot talk about geography.
I'm not playing a semantic game with you fake idiots. I don't care what you call Africans, black Africans, Sub-Saharan Africans, people from the Y-DNA:A,B,E and MtDNA L haplogroups, people who stayed back during the OOA migration, indigenous Africans, etc. Those are all the same things in this context. Ancient Egyptians and African populations (Yoruba, Somali, Dinka, Zulu, Wolof, Kongo, etc) don't just share a skin color or their geography. That's ridiculous. They share the same origin, history, culture, biology, language, etc. Of course there's some foreign admixture but they are mostly Africans in a similar way you can say Ancient Greek or Rome were Europeans. In term of genetic distance, Ancient Egyptians, especially at their formative stage, would be closer to other African populations than to Eurasians populations (for example on the Tiskkoff tree you posted).
I hope people can see what Tukuler, Swenet and other racist are trying to do here. It's the same trickery used by horn supremacists before (probably from the same people).
1- They find a proxy caucasian populations in Africa (admixed, back migrations, etc) 2- Declare them African, black or whatever 3- Then claim Ancient Egyptians are closer to them but not to other Africans like West Africans or Great Lakes people. It's like there's 2 races of African or something. Then it's just a etymological trickery about what we call African, not truly about the shared history and culture of African people and Ancient Egyptians. Ancient Egyptians becomes only Africans because they are on the same continent (geography) or because they had black skins. Which is ridiculous.
Ancient Egyptians are Africans in every sense of the word. It wouldn't even be argued, if it weren't for the racism of past historians, until proof of the contrary. The burden of proving they are not black Africans should be on the racists people.
quote: African Heritage is inclusive of all autochthonous/indigenous Africans.
Those terms always depend on the context. Anybody who's citizen of an African country is an African, this include people of Arab and European origins.
For example, this man is Vice-President of Zambia and he's an African:
Of course, he's an African of European origin and I would guess he's proud of his origin as any people. In other context like for police reports, archeological studies, history or for medical studies, like genetic studies, you would classify him as somebody of European descent.
Evidently everybody nowadays is admixed to some degree. But Ancient Egyptians were mostly black Africans in similar way Ancient Greeks or Romans were mostly Europeans. They are not the products of Eurasian people migrating in Africa (a dynastic race). They were for the most part indigenous Africans. People from the Y-DNA haplogroup A, B, E and MtDNA L, people who cluster closer to African populations than Eurasians populations, at least considering the current genetic (Ramses III E1b1a, 18th Dynasty mummies, etc) and archaeological evidences.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
ARtU stfu nobody's buying into your mad ravings especially nonsense that colonizers are Africans less lone that myself, Swenet, and TypeZeiss are not African. Citizenship is not biology nor is it heritage.
You sound like the white fools who say a Boer that immigrates to the USA is African American thus entitled to the former affirmative action set asides explicitly made for African Americans.
No African and only white-minded blacks even begin to think that people of ethnic groups neither autochthonous nor indigenous to the African continent are African no matter how big a picture you post of your white boyfriend who has no African full genome.
You sir, besides having mental issues, are an out the cover anti-African racist placing Euros above Africans right on our very homelands of the African continent.
Even worse you've made no intelligent contribution to the actual topic of this thread only posts that lead away from the subject of discussion.
And why do you do all this? Simply because somewhere in the past I disagreed with something you posted or made a precision to it. How childish.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Here is the actual figure F1 from Tishkoff et al., 2009, Science 324, 1035–1044
Thanks for posting it. We all can see African populations cluster together in term of genetic distance (autosomal STR). Non-African population are at the top, African populations cluster at the bottom. There's a ruler (black bar with 0.01 beside of it), showing us this graph is on scale. Ancient Egyptians would cluster with other black African populations. People who stayed back in Africa during the OOA migration. They are Africans. In term of genetic distance, they would be closer to other African populations than non-African populations.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
To bring the thread back to its topic, which scares most who have posted judging by the low percentage of on topic posts, let's see how much current genetics support or disconfirm Cavalli-Sforza's 20 year old statement by examining ADMIX or STRUCTURE skylines at the K=2 level (which reflects Africa vs Out-of-Africa components) for Europe, paying particular attention to increasing Ks vis a vis East Asian and African contributions to Europeans:
Noah A Rosenberg (2005), Saurabh Mahajan, Sohini Ramachandran, Chengfeng Zhao, Jonathan K Pritchard, Marcus W Feldman Clines, Clusters, and the Effect of Study Design on the Inference of Human Population Structure PLoS Genet 1(6): e70. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.0010070
adapted from Miao He (2009), Jane Gitschier, Tatiana Zerjal, Peter de Knijff, Chris Tyler-Smith, Yali Xue Geographical Affinities of the HapMap Samples PLoS ONE 4(3): e4684. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0004684
Doron M. Behar (2010), with the Metspalus, Rootsi, Semino, Pereira, Comas, Bonne-Tamir, Parfitt, Hammer, Skorecki, Villems, et al Genome-wide structure of Jews Nature 466, 238–242 (08 July 2010) doi:10.1038/nature09103
None of the above full genome skylines support C-S's statement about Europe: "overall contributions from Asia and Africa were estimated to be around two-thirds and one-third, respectively" Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
I tried to get you up to speed with the things I've posted. You've rejected everything I've said because it wasn't strictly Sforza. I try to tell you why Sforza itself doesn't matter if you want to get to the bottom of whether Sforza is right or not. You reject that, too, and still want to analyze Sforza, as if the only way to finding out the true amount of African ancestry of western Eurasia is through Sforza or the markers he used. Mark my words; when it's all set and done and Basal Eurasian gets untangled, you WILL have to revisit the sources I've posted and understand why I tried to give you a shortcut to what you're after, and directed you to them instead of Sforza and his obsolete AIMs. For now I'm done posting, because you're interested in Sforza, whereas I'm interested in all the other sources that observed this phenomenon and why traditional interpretations of autosomal and uniparental studies seem incongruent with it.
I've already answered why Sforza is seemingly not reproduced by traditional autsomal genetic studies in this very thread. I gave you and the forum plenty of short-cuts, but, of course, everyone is free to dismiss these short cuts, at the risk of wasting time to re-invent explanations that were already given.
Posts: 8791 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
No surprise here. You kick the ball on the sideline, racist undercover style, blabbering about nonsense instead of answering the main argumentation of my post(s) above.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
How can Cavalli-Sforza not matter when my explicit intent is to examine his statement re what he based it on?
You are the one trying to get to the bottom of if it is right or not. In other words side stepping precisely what I asked for.
All human populations not living in isolation are admixed.
No. Europeans are not 2/3 ancestral Chinese and 1/3 ancestral African. Europeans are not even 2/3 Out-of-African and 1/3 African in quantity.
I understood your interest but it was not the same as mine. I dug up exactly what I asked for, the full context of the statement and its basis. Today I posted full genome raw data that nowhere graphs any Europeans as 2/3 ancestral Chinese and 1/3 ancestral African no matter which K level is viewed.
C-S made that statement 20 years ago and I doubt he holds it today. Why? Even way back in 1999 he made it known
"This is a book that, five or 10 years from now, will have to be rewritten, analyzing the new data -- I hope."
Of course I will revisit any and every genetic topic of my fancy as new more up to date data and methodologies become available.
Anyway you are perfectly welcome to present an interpretive deconstructionist argument refuting the graphs or to present other graphs or other raw data with clear components or numbers showing Europe is 2/3 ancestral Chinese and 1/3 ancestral African.
We all know of African and so-called SW Asian contributions to the formation of the European people but the bulk of their genome is derived in situ which is why they at K=3 already display a color code of their own (partially shared with N. Africans, Mid-Easters, and Central&South Asians).
What is nearly absent, in total, are sharings with Far East Asia re full genomes i.e., any set of tens or hundreds of thousands of markers -- not uniparentals alone.
Please continue.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Anyway you are perfectly welcome to present an interpretive deconstructionist argument refuting the graphs or to present other graphs or other raw data with clear components or numbers showing Europe is 2/3 ancestral Chinese and 1/3 ancestral African.
^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 Tukuler: How can Cavalli-Sforza not matter when my explicit intent is to examine his statement re what he based it on?
You are the one trying to get to the bottom of if it is right or not. In other words side stepping precisely what I asked for.
All human populations not living in isolation areadmixed.
No. Europeans are not 2/3 ancestral Chinese and 1/3 ancestral European.
I understood your interest but it was not the same as mine. I dug up exactly what I asked for, the full context of the statement. Today I posted full genome raw data that nowhere graphs any Europeans as 2/3 ancestral Chinese and 1/3 African no matter which K level is viewed.
C-S made that statement 20 years ago and I doubt he holds it today. Why? Even way back in 1999 he made it known
"This is a book that, five or 10 years from now, will have to be rewritten, analyzing the new data -- I hope."
Of course I will revisit any and every genetic topic of my fancy as new more up to date data and methodologies become available.
Anyway you are perfectly welcome to present an interpretive deconstructionist argument refuting the graphs or to present other graphs or other raw data with clear components or numbers showing Europe is 2/3 ancestral Chinese and 1/3 ancestral African.
We all know of African and so-called SW Asian contributions to the formation of the European people but the bulk of their genome is derived in situ which is why they at K=3 already display a color code of their own (partially shared with N. Africans, Mid-Easters, and Central&South Asians). What is nearly absent in total are sharings with Far East Asia.
Please continue.
I believe you either misunderstand or are deliberately distorting what Swenet's saying. I don't think he means that Europeans are 2/3 East Asian (what you derisively call "Chinese"). Rather, European autosomal ancestry comes ~2/3 from an indigenous Eurasian (but not East Asian specifically) source and ~1/3 from subsequent African migrations. Generalized Eurasian or non-African is not the same as East Asian or Chinese as you misconstrue.
Why does the prospect of West Eurasians having partial extra African ancestry bother you?
EDIT: Damn, Swenet himself ninja'd me.
Posts: 7145 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
What do you mean ninja'd you? I was just about to say how you're totally on-point, in regard to your interpretation of what I was saying!! CUE and HAN split off relatively recently somewhere in between East Asia and Europe, hence, OOA predicts that Europeans and other West Eurasians SHOULD be equidistant from Africans. The fact that they're not equidistant from Africans, while all the other OOA populations maintain the distance from Africans, means that, quote (see bolded part):
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
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.
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
I think you misunderstand or deliberately distort my purpose for this thread. It's not about Swenet its about Cavalli-Sforza's statement, cheerleader.
See your main problem is thinking something bothers me. It's not about what please or displeases. It's about the statement in full context and its basis which I found and posted.
If you weren't so busy playing favorites with your buddy boy you'd see that I said Europeans have extra African ancestry. Just look at the last paragraph of mine that you quoted. Back off your emotions.
Your emotions blind you from seeing I made no such thing as being derisive about Chinese. If you had paid the slightest attention to my series of posts instead of looking to defend your friend you'd see Cavalli-Sforza is the one employing the term ancestral Chinese.
Here it is again for those of attention deficit.
Your post is just a failed attempt to defame me.
I expect an apology.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: What do you mean ninja'd you? I was just about to say how you're totally on-point, in regard to your interpretation of what I was saying!!
From UrbanDictionary.com:
quote:ninja'd When posting on a forum, you submit a post only to find that someone has posted the same thing only seconds earlier.
What I meant to convey is that you posted your rebuttal to Tukuler while I was typing mine, even though they're essentially saying the same thing.
Posts: 7145 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
I don't see any quantities here nor any FE Asia to Europe arrow. You've merely posted the obvious which I think no one disagrees.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: What do you mean ninja'd you? I was just about to say how you're totally on-point, in regard to your interpretation of what I was saying!!
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: I think you misunderstand or deliberately distort my purpose for this thread. It's not about Swenet its about Cavalli-Sforza's statement, cheerleader.
I did not want to say it due to goodwill, but you did misinterpret me. I never said what you said I said back there. On the other hand, you DID say you wanted to get to the bottom of Sforza, and you even said it's scientific basis could not be discerned. The sources I posted were relevant to this thread, as is testified by the fact that the conversation naturally progressed (by your own posting of what you call skylines) to what I tried to get you to talk about back then (i.e. post-Sforza corroboration of his observations).
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: I don't see any quantities here nor any FE Asia to Europe arrow. You've merely posted the obvious which I think no one disagrees.
Can you actually reply to what I posted (i.e. Haber et al 2013)?
Posts: 8791 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: I think you misunderstand or deliberately distort my purpose for this thread. It's not about Swenet its about Cavalli-Sforza's statement, cheerleader.
See your main problem is thinking something bothers me. It's not about what please or displeases. It's about the statement in full context and its basis which I found and posted.
If you weren't so busy playing favorites with your buddy boy you'd see that I said Europeans have extra African ancestry. Just look at the last paragraph of mine that you quoted. Back off your emotions.
Your emotions blind you from seeing I made no such thing as being derisive about Chinese. If you had paid the slightest attention to my series of posts instead of looking to defend your friend you'd see Cavalli-Sforza is the one employing the term ancestral Chinese.
Your post is just a failed attempt to defame me.
I expect an apology.
"Ancestral Chinese" = Non-African. I don't understand why you insist on confusing the OOA component in West Eurasian ancestry with East Asians specifically.
Would it make more sense to you if the statement said that West Eurasians are 2/3 non-African and 1/3 African (as in later out of Africa)?
Posts: 7145 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree. I think West Eurasian would be a better term and it would be less confusing. That's just my opinion.
Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
No. You are the one misinterpreting things.
I replied but you don't like my reply. It doesn't make you feel pleased.
You have proven you cannot actually reply to my opening post. Nonetheless I invited you to go ahead with your tangential stuff since you have no reply to the Cavalli-Sforza quotes nor the graphs of Rosenberg, Behar, and Mei.
Cavalli-Sforza's statement is untenable. Europe is not 2/3 ancestral Chinese and 1/3 ancestral African. You have presented nothing that supports such a noion.
But carry on with whatever tickles your fancy. Maybe you will post some raw data eventually if you can find any in support of C-S instead of whatever it is you seek to turn this thread into something of your own connivance.
Here's your problem. You posted that C-S statement. I examined the statement in full context and basis and showed its shortcomings.
But since you posted the statement you feel my trashing of it is a trashing of you. Emotion and ego make you defend the unsupportable simply because you posted it. All your following posts are just ego driven not concerned with the validity of C-S's statement.
You need to rid yourself of emotional attachment to what you did not author and admit that it is down level and obsolete.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: You have proven you cannot actually reply to my opening post.
No? Let's examine the opening post then:
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? --Tukuler
Anyone can see that the sources I posted on p1 of this thread answer your query regarding what Sforza means with his statement. It may not have been Sforza's own words but they do help answer what he means with his view that one component is ancestral Asian and the other African.
No need to get in angry accusation-mode, now. Come back when you've calmed down your emotions and can give an on-topic reply to what you yourself asked me to reply to:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Anyway you are perfectly welcome to present an interpretive deconstructionist argument refuting the graphs or to present other graphs or other raw data with clear components or numbers showing Europe is 2/3 ancestral Chinese and 1/3 ancestral African.
^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 Tukuler: No. You are the one misinterpreting things.
I replied but you don't like my reply. It doesn't make you feel pleased.
You have proven you cannot actually reply to my opening post. Nonetheless I invited you to go ahead with your tangential stuff since you have no reply to the Cavalli-Sforza quotes nor the graphs of Rosenberg, Behar, and Mei.
Cavalli-Sforza's statement is untenable. Europe is not 2/3 ancestral Chinese and 1/3 ancestral African. You have presented nothing that supports such a noion.
But carry on with whatever tickles your fancy. Maybe you will post some raw data eventually if you can find any in support of C-S instead of whatever it is you seek to turn this thread into something of your own connivance.
Here's your problem. You posted that C-S statement. I examined the statement in full context and basis and showed its shortcomings.
But since you posted the statement you feel my trashing of it is a trashing of you. Emotion and ego make you defend the unsupportable simply because you posted it. All your following posts are just ego driven not concerned with the validity of C-S's statement.
You need to rid yourself of emotional attachment to what you did not author and admit that it is down level and obsolete.
Wait, if you acknowledge that later migrations out of Africa contributed 1/3 of ancestry to extant West Eurasian populations, exactly what is your point of contention with us? It's not like Swenet or I maintain that the 2/3 non-African must be conflated specifically with Chinese or any other East Asians. Sforza could have labeled that 2/3 "ancestral Papuan" or "ancestral Mesoamerican" for all we care.
The point is, West Eurasian autosomal ancestry is 2/3 descended from the first Out-of-Africa migration and 1/3 from later African dispersals. Now stop whinging about what to call the 2/3 and start asking just when in prehistory did the 1/3 contribution come from. That's far more interesting to us.
If you must have a non-Sforza source, here it goes again: The World At K=2 Posts: 7145 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
So let the xynut think whatever he wants to.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Sweetness you have a go. But take it someplace else. Let's not derail the thread.
Printer-friendly view of this topic