quote: Originally posted by Truthcentric: If you must have a non-Sforza source, here it goes again: The World At K=2
He clearly does not know what ks mean. He dismisses the source you cite, and cites others that suit his fancy. What he doesn't realize is that they're both right. Only difference is, the k=2 image you posted (Ethiohelix) detangles the West Eurasian ancestry as a compound cluster of both African and non-African ancestry, whereas Tukulers images don't detangle it and present it as a blue compound entity, here, here and here.
According to Tukuler, this difference (which is really just a matter of presentation) must mean that Sforza is wrong. We'll see that I'm right when Tukuler will post his definition of what ks are, and won't be able to sustain his fabricated notion that the West Eurasian component is devoid of African ancestry, mark my words:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: None of the above full genome skylines support C-S's statement about Europe:
Since you're oh so sure that those ks refute Sforza, let's hear why, first. Can you explain to me what ks are and how they work?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
From what I could pick up from all the genetic papers and these debates, k = genetic cluster. The greater the value for k, the greater the division of clusters. Is this correct?
posted
Exactly! K simply means that you're giving the program a certain amount of categories to categorize the sequenced SNPs. The more ks one introduces, the more devisions of ancestry you get. In Tukulers pseudo-scientific DIY book this means that these clusters automatically are continentally circumscribed (i.e. that the blue clusters here, here and here are automatically devoid of the 1/3d African ancestry Sforza mentions, simply because they're blue).
We already know that Tukuler's forced and totally unsubstantiated juxtaposition of Ethiohelix's Ks against the ones he posted, is patently false and rests solely on him simply not knowing what ks are. You can see this in the fact that, when you break down the blue component, you just may find that Levantine blue, at least, is mostly made up of contributions from African populations and minor contributions from Europeans:
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Old boy system at work.
Old boy one: I do say! Old boy two: Hip hip!
Of course whatever Swenet, TC and the Old Boy network say is always right!
And nobody knows anything nor what they're talking about except the super intelligent Mr. Swenet.
Only Swenet can know that K is the number of populations in a given run of STRUCTURE or ADMIXTURE that the submitted data are made to fit.
But Swenet proves himself a liar and distorter who can nowhere in my 10 years of ES posts quote me saying anything remotely resembling West Eurasians are devoid of African ancestry.
His Old Boy TC fabricated that lie and Swenet now swears to it.
Why is it all these guys feel they have to trash me in order to be acceptable to the ES readership?
Now you finally have been taught what Ks are but since you didn't know and wanted to find out what they are you could have simply asked.
In either Global or Compared-to-Africa implementations K=2 reflects Africa vs Out-of-Africa fittings of the listed geo-ethnies.
Now since Swenet never intends this thread to be objective or informative just a trashing of me, nothing I say even if directly quoted from manuals or articles will ever be correct in his eyes.
This thread will just be more of Swenet's mental masturbation making him feel good to himself but totally unproductive.
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: But Swenet proves himself a liar and distorter who can nowhere in my 10 years of ES posts quote me saying anything remotely resembling West Eurasians are devoid of African ancestry.
As everyone can see, I only said that you think that the BLUE/West Eurasian component is devoid of African, which is true, otherwise you would not have posted the said "skylines" as some sort of refutation of Sforza.
I'm not interested in back and forth accusations. I give you the benefit of the doubt and will not accuse you back and say you're lying/trolling and will accept that you could have misinterpreted what I said.
I left your thread out of respect (you clearly don't see my post-Sforza posts as belonging there) so I ask you do the same and don't bring anything here that doesn't belong here.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: From what I could pick up from all the genetic papers and these debates, k = genetic cluster. The greater the value for k, the greater the division of clusters. Is this correct?
No. K does not equal genetic cluster. K means number of populations. No need to argue about it. Just look it up.
Even GOOGLE "k=2" "out of africa" and follow the genetic report links.
Did you even look at your source which you claim proves me wrong?
The World At K=2
The most basic Autosomal genetic division of the world is between Africans and Out of Africans (OOA), this is not only seen on global PCA or MDS maps , where the first PC separates Africans from non Africans, but can also be observed with model based statistical (Bayesian) Analysis as well, where the first model iteration, i.e. K=2 distinguishes Africans from non-Africans.
Nope. The idea isn't to learn what Ks are. The objective is to trash Tukuler no matter what you have to twist out of shape to do it.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
preview quote proving what I write below it
quote: you've given more than enough clues that show your glaring inability to synthesize this data and/or test Sforza's observation for merit
Kangaroo court. Condemned before trial. Mockery of inquiry.
Go on and keep stroking each other.
You do not cut&paste quote me. You lied and mangled what I wrote. You don't listen to my clarification and precision to your distortions of what I wrote. I don't call that respect.
Your objective is not science. Your objective is to be right regardless and against all odds.
I can't recall you ever admitting to error or retracting anything others outside your Old Boy network reprove you.
posted
I asked you to not abuse this thread with your baseless and off-topic accusations. You evidently don't even know what ks are, or you would not have disagreed with Truthcentric, and then proceeded to say essentially the same thing. You're simply using supposed misrepresentations on my part as a copout to squirm out of answering my questions.
If you don't want to answer my questions, don't let the doorknob... You've given more than enough clues that you have a glaring inability to synthesize this data and/or test Sforza's observation for merit. Do you, though!
As for the others in the forum, when you instruct the program to define ks in a manner that mimicks OOA and non-OOA (rather than simply ask it to place all sequenced SNPs in undefined ks), you'll something that matches Sforza to a T and is seemingly distinct from stereotypical autosomal genetic studies:
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:something that matches Sforza to a T
What a fraud.
You think people are so stupid they can't see that graph includes no Far East Asians who can proxy Cavalli-Sforza's ancestral Chinese?
Moral bankruptcy
As I said you must be right at all costs. Distort Tukuler. Distort Cavalli-Sforza. Do anything to make yourself right.
Good show Old Boy!
OK I shrunk your big ass image but retain it before you switcg to something else since I showed it can't possibly support C-S's old dwn level obsolete statement that Europeans are 2/3 ancestral Chine and 1/3 African.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: You can see this in the fact that, when you break down the blue component, you just may find that Levantine blue, at least, is mostly made up of contributions from African populations and minor contributions from Europeans:
Pardon me, but from that graph it looks like only the Arabic-speaking Levantines have any affinity with sub-Saharan Africans, as opposed to the rest (Druze, Jews, etc.). Or am I misunderstanding the pink element?
Posts: 7080 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^The description that belongs with that image was posted in Tukuler's thread. For simplicity's sake I'll repost it's full description here:
quote:Raw coancestry matrix shows relationships between the Levantines and the world populations. A) Intensity of the colors reflects the number of haplotype chunks donated to the Levantines. The vertical line is a visual aid to reflect the Levantine split observed in the tree. Horizontal lines distinguish the major geographic regions. B) coancestry matrix with an alternative color scale.
In other words, one cannot extract any direct information from that image concerning whom SSAs are the closest to (it pertains strictly to the Levantines and Near Easterners listed at the top. Any population to the left shows, by the intensity of the colors in their horizontal rows, how much they've donated to each Near Eastern population.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Understood. Nonetheless Haber et al say this:
quote:ChromoPainter's coancestry matrix (Figure 3B, Figure S4) shows the haplotype chunks donated from the world populations to the Levantines and shows that Jordanians, Palestinians, and Syrians receive more chunks from sub-Saharan Africans and from Middle Easterners compared with other Levantines.
Isn't this indeed saying that Arabized Levantines received more haplotype chunks than the rest?
(Personally I question the appropriateness of the sub-Saharan samples used. Ethiopians do appear to have greater influence on all the Levantines, but the rest of the SSA are populations geographically distant from the Levant. They should have sampled more East Africans like Nilotes IMO.)
EDIT: I see from later posts that Swenet was referring to Ethiopian rather than West/Central African contributions to the Levantine gene pool. I think I get it now.
Posts: 7080 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: ^ Understood. Nonetheless Haber et al say this:
quote:ChromoPainter's coancestry matrix (Figure 3B, Figure S4) shows the haplotype chunks donated from the world populations to the Levantines and shows that Jordanians, Palestinians, and Syrians receive more chunks from sub-Saharan Africans and from Middle Easterners compared with other Levantines.
Isn't this indeed saying that Arabized Levantines received more haplotype chunks than the rest?
(Personally I question the appropriateness of the sub-Saharan samples used. Ethiopians do appear to have greater influence on all the Levantines, but the rest of the SSA are populations geographically distant from the Levant. They should have sampled more East Africans like Nilotes IMO.)
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
Posts: 42932 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
You think people are so stupid they can't see that graph includes no Far East Asians who can proxy Cavalli-Sforza's ancestral Chinese?
Moral bankruptcy
As I said you must be right at all costs. Distort Tukuler. Distort Cavalli-Sforza. Do anything to make yourself right.
Hence, further demonstrating the merit of Truth- centric's observation that you're blatantly misinterpreting my posts. As Truthcentric tried to tell you (but, to no avail) the Asian (or East Asian) is entirely independent of Chinese. For some reason, it just doesn't seem to get through to you that "ancestral Asian" or "Proto-Asian" or whatever you want to call the complement ancestry to Sforza's 1/3 African, is simply a relatively pure preservation of the original OOA component. This is precisely why Truthcentric corrected you. You can throw a fit all you want but you just keep demonstrating that you don't even know what's going on. Instead of reading what he actually said, you went into childish accusation mode and turned it into "everyone is cheerleeding".
No fraud at all. You're simply too ill-equipped to even begin to understand the material you're dealing with. From your false and fabricated conflict between what you call "skylines" and Ethiohelix' world at k=2, to your glaring inability to explain why Haber 2013's demonstration of the existence of a predominance of Ethiopian haplotypes in Levantines, is not reproduced in your "skylines", all the way to your complete opacity when it to understanding what "Asian", in this context, means. Djehuti understood right away, Son of Ra understood it right away, Truthcentric understood it right away. The only one who, for some reason, doesn't seem to understand it is YOU. Your childish answer to this? The whole world is wrong and I'm right.
quote: Originally posted by Truthcentric: 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.
Out of goodwill I didn't reply in kind when you kept disrespecting this thread. When you made it clear you didn't see my posts as relevant to your OP, I left. You always demand others respect your threads but think you somehow have a pass for not doing the same. Keep on trolling and see with how much respect I will treat your threads from now on. Hypocrisy I will not tolerate.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, I misunderstood you. You're completely right to say that, according to Haber et al's figure S4, the Niger-Congo, Pygmy and San samples' affinity with Levantines fades sharply as you get to the north. But this is the entire catch. When you construe African to mean San, Pygmies and Niger Congo speakers, you may or may not replicate Sforza's results (Sforza succeeded with his Senegalese and Pygmy comparative samples). I think, to get consistent results, one must use comparative samples of Africans who are closest to the Africans who donated these haplotypes. These would be Proto-Afro-Asiatic speaking people, given what we know about the Africans that participated in the Natufian. One of the PDFs I posted in Tukuler's thread (Luang et al) speaks on why certain African samples are poor stand-in samples for each other.
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: ^ Understood. Nonetheless Haber et al say this:
quote:ChromoPainter's coancestry matrix (Figure 3B, Figure S4) shows the haplotype chunks donated from the world populations to the Levantines and shows that Jordanians, Palestinians, and Syrians receive more chunks from sub-Saharan Africans and from Middle Easterners compared with other Levantines.
Isn't this indeed saying that Arabized Levantines received more haplotype chunks than the rest?
(Personally I question the appropriateness of the sub-Saharan samples used. Ethiopians do appear to have greater influence on all the Levantines, but the rest of the SSA are populations geographically distant from the Levant. They should have sampled more East Africans like Nilotes IMO.)
posted
I'm not trying to get into this. Its not my place or business. But on the forumbiodiversity site someone posted an interesting study showing Europeans and Native Americans actually have a common ancestors from people from Siberia. I don't think Siberia is "Far East"/"East Asia", but don't the ancestors of East Asians come from Siberia? And didn't the ancestors of the people of Meso-America from East Asia?
Anyways. I believe this was the study:
NATIVE AMERICANS AND NORTHERN EUROPEANS MORE CLOSELY RELATED THAN PREVIOUSLY THOUGHT Statistical tools used to show Neanderthals mixed with modern humans also show that Native Americans and Northern Europeans share a common ancestor, according to new research in the journal GENETICS
quote:BETHESDA, MD – November 30, 2012 -- Using genetic analyses, scientists have discovered that Northern European populations—including British, Scandinavians, French, and some Eastern Europeans—descend from a mixture of two very different ancestral populations, and one of these populations is related to Native Americans. This discovery helps fill gaps in scientific understanding of both Native American and Northern European ancestry, while providing an explanation for some genetic similarities among what would otherwise seem to be very divergent groups.
Now I don't know if this connects dots in this discussion, but I thought it was worth mentioning.
Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:According to Nick Patterson, a researcher at The Broad Institute and first author of the report, “There is a genetic link between the paleolithic population of Europe and modern Native Americans. The evidence is that the population that crossed the Bering Strait from Siberia into the Americas more than 15,000 years ago was likely related to the ancient population of Europe.”
Interesting.
Also correlates with Dana's theory about Europeans coming from Central Asia. I know certain people were not fond of that theory. Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
This image depicts things in a simple way (and it still was misinterpreted when I posted it in the other thread). CEU would be a rough approximation for West Eurasians, and it splits away relatively recently from other OOA populations:
Sforza's "2/3 East Asian" should be interpreted as 2/3s of whatever Europeans were genetically at the moment when the depicted split between HAN and CEU occurred. Then, presumably during the Neolithic, autosomal correlates of European E-M33, E-M78, E-V68, E-M34 and other Y chromosomes delivered this additional 1/3 African component to Levantines, who then would have brought it to Europe.
European prehistoric hunter-gatherers have some back flow from a Siberian-like component (not depicted in the image above, but see Lazaridis et al 2013). That could explain at least some of the Native-American and European affinity observed in the article you link to.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: But Swenet proves himself a liar and distorter who can nowhere in my 10 years of ES posts quote me saying anything remotely resembling West Eurasians are devoid of African ancestry.
His Old Boy TC fabricated that lie and Swenet now swears to it.
Apologies for my misunderstanding in that other thread, but I cannot for the life of me fathom why you're so intent on confusing our ancestral OOA with East Asians. The distinction was explained to you time and time again, and yet you still cling to the same accusation that anyone with half a brain can see is a distortion. It's like you see something threatening about the argument we're putting forth. What would that be?
Posts: 7080 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Does the study I posted in anyway connect dots to this discussion? And when I mean discussion I mean the one about Europeans having Asian/African ancestry. IMO I think it does.
Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since dissenters have repeatedly been unable to come with on-topic or even logically coherent replies, I consider it settled.
1) ks don't tell you how much African ancestry someone has, anyone who says otherwise is a big fat liar or doesn't understand what ks are. Ks will only make distinctions at very obvious levels. West Eurasian ancestry (i.e. the component that typically shows up as the blue "Mediterranean" component) is heavily entangled with African ancestry and unlikely to be acknowledged as such in most k-based analyses. For this reason, ks are NOT continentally circumscribed, but simply unlabelled categories which the program was able to distinguish.
2) in order to find out how much African ancestry West Eurasian have, one has to treat them as unknowns, and remove all the white noise (i.e. remove other West Eurasian comparative samples who have the same 1/3 African Sforza talked about). Haber et al 2013 did this to some extent, and their analysis showed that most haplotypes in southern Levantines come from Ethiopians, or better yet, an Ethiopian-like population. DNA Tribes performed this analysis as well and found that when you remove all West Eurasian components and give the program a choice between Horner and Asian (i.e. relatively pristine OOA), ~1/3 of Europeans' ancestry clusters with the Horner comparative sample:
quote:In Step 2D, all Middle Eastern components are removed; the Mesopotamian related component of European genetic structure is then instead expressed as Indus Valley (68.3%), Horn of Africa (29.3%), and Siberian (2.5%). Of these, the Indus Valley component might reflect more than one ancestral Eurasian population (such as EEF, ANE, and/or ENA ancestry; see Figures 1 and 2). However, the Horn of African component might more specifically reflect EEF ancestry and the deeper Basal Eurasian component of the First Farmers in Europe.
Like I said several times over, if you wish to retain the logical coherence of OOA, you can't simultaneously dismiss Sforza's observation and explain why, at this step, 29.3% of the Horn of Africa component clusters with Europeans, over non-western Eurasian populations, who are OOA.
No ifs, buts and maybes about it. Either refute the above in a logically coherent way or stop whining, nagging, b!tching, lamenting, accusing, trolling, fabricating, and get with the program.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nice seeing you guys getting in-depth in this...as black people .....and a white. For the record, K = more specifcally is cluster. ie grouping of specific SNPs.
However the researchers are trying to identify(isolate) population(and events) using this technique.
So by some measure both are correct. But more accurately K = cluster.
For the record.
-------------------- 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
Got to give Sweetness his props. And Sage for broaching the discussion and keeping us on track. Sweetness has done some agreesive reading this last couple of days. He is finally on the right track. Let's hope he does not regress.
However he will eventually realize "cluster" does not equate to admixture. Cluster = "similar", eg for East Africans and Yemen area . Why? OOA exit location.
Geography!, Geography!, Geography!, my friends.
Yet, East Africans are still related to inner Africans, Why? Geography!, Geography!, Geography!, my friends
Why are North Africans similar to Europeans? Geography!, Geography!, Geography!, my friends.
Why are North Africans yet still similar to lower Africans. Geography!, Geography!, Geography!, my friends
Why are North Africans classified as "negro" in Classical STR databases(CODIS). Geography!, Geography!, Geography!, my friends. I can go on and on and on.
Clustering (K's) does NOT determine migration routes, it shows, relatedness.
There are several methods to determine migration ruote. Haplotye diversity comes to mind. Frequency is outdated and no longer used. It should have NEVER been used.
The newest technique is TreeMix Algorithm and similar models which shows migration direction. It takes the same observed K=2, K-3 values etc , filter it and gives a clearer picture of true migration routes/events.
You all will get it eventually. stay tuned. But I like what I am seeing.
You will will get it eventually. Great discussion
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
This image depicts things in a simple way (and it still was misinterpreted when I posted it in the other thread). CEU would be a rough approximation for West Eurasians, and it splits away relatively recently from other OOA populations:
Sforza's "2/3 East Asian" should be interpreted as 2/3s of whatever Europeans were genetically at the moment when the depicted split between HAN and CEU occurred. Then, presumably during the Neolithic, autosomal correlates of European E-M33, E-M78, E-V68, E-M34 and other Y chromosomes delivered this additional 1/3 African component to Levantines, who then would have brought it to Europe.
I thought it was 3% not 33%
Posts: 42932 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey Sweetnes. Did you come up with this by your self or are you coached? Just curious. You have done a 180 over the last week. That is highly unusual. It is rear to see a person go from super dumb to a twinkle of intelligence within 1 week. Is Beyoku helping you out? He some understanding but falls short in a few areas.
Good to see you taking DNATrbies work seriously. March and April issue was the bomb.
-------------------- 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
sometimes one notices a Swenet postion on an early page in a thread that in a later page of the same thread he takes the opposite position and pretends he had been saying that all along (just sayin.)
Posts: 42932 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
But I can dig it. Once the work is done.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I noticed many bloggers stayed away from DNATribes interpretation. Instead they talk themselves in circles, jerking each other off on what they IMAGINED the Lazaridis Report means. As I said, the Lazaridis report is the biggest breakthrough since the JAMA Amarna. I think it is is even bigger because the impact it has on the entire region of Africa., Asia and Europe.
DNATribes did not hold back. They went straight for the jugular vein. Straight for the kill. ie “what does the Lazaridis Report mean by Basal European”? Within the Lazaridis Report itself the author were toying around. with proxy this and that. Tentatively implying EEF were Bedioun rooted who in turn had strong YRI links. DNATribes cut the BS and tried to resolve it. In their March Issue they placed Basal Eurasian near the Nile which migrated to the Levant/Bedoiuns then unto Europe with another branch migrating to the Maghreb.
In the April Issue they refined that. Stickiing with the Basal Eurasian near the Nile. However, they slightly modified the migration route. They NOW entertained the possibility of two scenarios. The first, and also North Africa directly to Europe. They implied it could NOT be both which the first time I seen they agreed with me. They weren’t sure which is correct. Oh. Henn/Bogue? solved that already. Lol!
In addition they saw evidence of ancestral Bantus occupying Arabia and “Basal Eurasian” fanning out into other regions, like Pakistan/India etc.
I do NOT like the label “Basal Eurasian” if it originated IN Africa. A better label may be Saharan or even ……….EurAfrican(wink)
-------------------- 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
Beside coming off as a pompous ass, insulting people who don't' agree with them, Sweetnet and his acolyte Truthcentric got nothing good for us.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote: Originally posted by Truthcentric: If you must have a non-Sforza source, here it goes again: The World At K=2
Unfortunately, we don't get to pick and choose the graph with K=2 we like more.
This post is perfectly fine:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: 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"
At K=2, for the top graph, it seems Europe and the Middle East/West Asia are 2/3 (or more) African and 1/3 East Asian. The second graph, the proportion of would be admixture are switched (5% African,95% East Asian). The last graph, it seems European and West Asians are 95% African, 5% East Asian. So none of those graphs are similar. That's not how you must interpret those admixture data and you must not interpret them in isolation from other genetic data. The graph at the bottom is more talkative since it includes more African populations. Those graph don't give up any clue about how real or significative the different clusters are and it doesn't give by itself any idea of the genetic distance between the different possible clusters or the direction of the genes flow. But in all manner it shows a completely different thing than what Truthcentric is talking about. So, it's important to be careful about the interpretation. They must not rely only on the naive interpretations of some specific admixture graph at k=2 or k=whatever. In general, we must take into account all the genetic data (from uniparental to SNPs).
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: But Swenet proves himself a liar and distorter who can nowhere in my 10 years of ES posts quote me saying anything remotely resembling West Eurasians are devoid of African ancestry.
His Old Boy TC fabricated that lie and Swenet now swears to it.
Apologies for my misunderstanding in that other thread, but I cannot for the life of me fathom why you're so intent on confusing our ancestral OOA with East Asians. The distinction was explained to you time and time again, and yet you still cling to the same accusation that anyone with half a brain can see is a distortion. It's like you see something threatening about the argument we're putting forth. What would that be?
. Apology accepted.
Slow down a minute and read, with analysis in mind, my C-S clippings, the words of the man himself not those who arrogantly want to speak for him or substitute their own ideas while claiming them to be his.
C-S was exact. He didn't say OOA he said Asian which was further reduced to East Asian and pin pointed to ancestral Chinese.
I am not allowed to interject or precision C-S. I must accept that C-S, a scientist, says just precisely what he means.
I don't know what your argument is. Everyone knows all extra-African populations derive from outward migrating Africans. That is not what my thread was about.
Everyone knows Europeans, especially Olive ones, have Holocene African ancestry in addition to their OOA one(s). Again, my thread was not about that.
My thread was about * a full contextual viewing of C-S's statement * the basis of that statement * the statement's validity today after 20 years.
My conclusion, with reasoning presented in my thread, is that there is no evidence that Europeans are simply an ancestral Chinese ancestral African 65% 35% composite.
I've tried my best to clarify and strip away all add ons to my position so readers can see it as I presented it not as someone else wants to tell me what I mean.
I can only hope you understand what I mean. No one has to accept it but neither should anyone distort it into something unrecognizable to me its author.
As far as what K is, it is simply the number of populations for a given run of programs like STRUCTURE, ADMIXTURE, or FRAPPE. Only an ignoramus would propose that any bar having more than one color in the resultant graph is not indicative of that individual having more than one ancestral population in their background.
I mean, really, that's exactly what the programs are about, to ascertain if there is admixture and to what extent.
I would gladly expand on this but not here in a thread whose very title is polemic, accusatory, prejudgemental, pompous, and self-righteous.
PS - your assessment of K as genetic clusters is accurate if you preface it by the words "number of." Behar 2010 says as much:
... Bayesian or maximum likelihood (ML) methods share a common principle in which population structure is inferred as differential membership of individuals in specified number (K) of hypothetical ancestral populations (genetic clusters) characterized by ML estimates for allele frequencies at each loci. When a world-wide sample of individuals is analyzed, the assumed number of clusters can correspond to a reference number of distinct divisions, such as continents. Thus individuals can be members of one cluster (e.g. continent) or their genotypes may reflect joint membership in many clusters (e.g. admixture from two or more continents). Because such subdivisions are established geographically or historically, genetic clusters and cluster membership are often discussed in terms of ancestral populations and ancestry admixture proportions.
supplementary note 3
The user manuals for STRUCTURE and ADMIXTURE only say K is the number of populations, no mention of genetic clusters per se:
Inference of true K (number of populations)
To use ADMIXTURE, you need an input fi le and an idea of K, your belief of the number of ancestral populations.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: when you remove all West Eurasian components and give the program a choice between Horner and Asian (i.e. relatively pristine OOA), ~1/3 of Europeans' ancestry clusters with the Horner comparative sample:
It's not a big surprise, since horner received, as any borderline states, "European" genes from their West Asians "intermediary" during the Muslims/Sultanate conquests/immigration in East Africa for example, as well as other times in history.
So if you remove, West Asians, some Horner populations will show clusters with the closest populations to West Asians which are Europeans*
*as Europeans and West Asians are closer to each other than they are to East Asian.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
When was there a Muslim/Sultanate conquest of the Horn??? The Horm(Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somalia, Djibouti) has no history of being conquered by Western Asians. History tells us the opposite.
Also West Asians also have "Horner" DNA since not only Horners conquered them but because they and other Eurasians descend from them in the first place.
Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^The point being that by analysing uniparental and other genetic data, it is clear that borderlines states in Eastern Africa received some F-Descendants (Out of Afica) Y-DNA genetic contributions.
Many languages like Ge'ez, Amharic, Tigrinya and Tigre spoken there are of Semitic origin and many of them practice the muslim religion originating in Arabia.
All showing us the direction* of genetic contributions accompanied by cultural transmission. Modern populations in West Asia don't have as much African ancestry, much less than West Asian ancestry in Eastern Africa.
*Uniparental DNA gives us a better idea of the direction of gene flows.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
AMRTU is on board, Sweetness, TRex and even the Hindu kid.
I am thirsty....
-------------------- 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 Son of Ra:
@Swenet/Truthcentric/Tukuler
Does the study I posted in anyway connect dots to this discussion? And when I mean discussion I mean the one about Europeans having Asian/African ancestry. IMO I think it does.
. Can't say or don't know what dots you mean but yes any valid peer reviewed article or report in a standard molecular genetics journal or magazine is always helpful for something.
Didn't read it yet but I do remember maternal Hg X (iirc) is east or north central Asian in origin and connects Asia proper with Europe and the Americas.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's amazing how a set of people can be so wrong, yet feel so adamant about being right, lol! Guess what? No refutation? Then your silly objections can, and will be, dismissed out of hand! Not even worth the time of day! Not even on my radar! You've reduced your comments to irrelevancy, all by yourself! You flat-earthers aren't even close to understanding how you are pre-defeated by the literature! In my 5 years here I know trolling when I see it! I've got ammunition for days when it comes to the topic topic of Sforza's observations. I already showed ya'll by pulling out Pagani.
Bottom line: OOA & Africa gradient depicted by Ethio-Helix and observed by Sforza is not mutually exclusive with k-based analysis--if you understand what ks are, that is. If you use one to discredit the other, I will stop arguing with you and thank you for being so forthcoming with this big fat clue that you have no idea what you're talking about, whatsoever.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Since dissenters have repeatedly been unable to come with on-topic or even logically coherent replies, I consider it settled.
1) ks don't tell you how much African ancestry someone has, anyone who says otherwise is a big fat liar or doesn't understand what ks are. Ks will only make distinctions at very obvious levels. West Eurasian ancestry (i.e. the component that typically shows up as the blue "Mediterranean" component) is heavily entangled with African ancestry and unlikely to be acknowledged as such in most k-based analyses. For this reason, ks are NOT continentally circumscribed, but simply unlabelled categories which the program was able to distinguish.
2) in order to find out how much African ancestry West Eurasian have, one has to treat them as unknowns, and remove all the white noise (i.e. remove other West Eurasian comparative samples who have the same 1/3 African Sforza talked about). Haber et al 2013 did this to some extent, and their analysis showed that most haplotypes in southern Levantines come from Ethiopians, or better yet, an Ethiopian-like population. DNA Tribes performed this analysis as well and found that when you remove all West Eurasian components and give the program a choice between Horner and Asian (i.e. relatively pristine OOA), ~1/3 of Europeans' ancestry clusters with the Horner comparative sample:
quote:In Step 2D, all Middle Eastern components are removed; the Mesopotamian related component of European genetic structure is then instead expressed as Indus Valley (68.3%), Horn of Africa (29.3%), and Siberian (2.5%). Of these, the Indus Valley component might reflect more than one ancestral Eurasian population (such as EEF, ANE, and/or ENA ancestry; see Figures 1 and 2). However, the Horn of African component might more specifically reflect EEF ancestry and the deeper Basal Eurasian component of the First Farmers in Europe.
Like I said several times over, if you wish to retain the logical coherence of OOA, you can't simultaneously dismiss Sforza's observation and explain why, at this step, 29.3% of the Horn of Africa component clusters with Europeans, over non-western Eurasian populations, who are OOA.
No ifs, buts and maybes about it. Either refute the above in a logically coherent way or stop whining, nagging, b!tching, lamenting, accusing, trolling, fabricating, and get with the program.
posted
So the brain dead flat-earther says. Fortunately, science will always have the last word over a high off glue fumes, canary yellow toothed bum on the corner screaming "over here", "believe me", "he's wrong", "I'm right", "the earth is flat", "it's the end of days", "so says my prophet"!
The canary yellow toothed bum above me aside, the below depicts K-based analysis in grey and an Africa-OOA gradient in orange, reproducing Sforza's usually undetected African admixture in Europeans (compare the orange African gradient in the Greek sample with their supposedly negligent amount of African dark grey k1). Also look at image C to the right. Like the Greeks, the French also have seemingly no African ancestry in k-based analysis; showing that the blue component is an artificial, compound construct, which is not at all homogeneous. Hence, anyone who says that the lack of overlap between Africans and Europeans in most k-based analyses, refutes Sforza or Ethio-Helix' world at K=2 is either a big fat liar, or doesn't have the faintest clue what they're talking about and what ks are.
All three images co-exist in the exact same paper, proving they're not mutually exclusive, as some faith-based proponents make them out to be. Note that the orange OOA in the African populations does not distinguish between in "OOA ancestry that never left Africa" and "OOA that came back from Eurasia". Hence, explaining the larger than expected "OOA component" in all of the African samples.
posted
Scratching my head. He had me up to that last extensive rant.
It sounds like jibberish and lack of cohesion. Is he falling back to his days of selling used cars. I will re-read again. Don't want to judge.
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: ^^You're only fooling yourself Sweety!
Edit:
Quote: K-based analysis in grey and an Africa-OOA gradient in orange, reproducing Sforza to some extent, co-existing in the exact same paper
Some of what he says here makes sense. I just can't get a handle on this guy. More to come
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: ^^^The point being that by analysing uniparental and other genetic data, it is clear that borderlines states in Eastern Africa received some F-Descendants (Out of Afica) Y-DNA genetic contributions.
Many languages like Ge'ez, Amharic, Tigrinya and Tigre spoken there are of Semitic origin and many of them practice the muslim religion originating in Arabia.
All showing us the direction* of genetic contributions accompanied by cultural transmission. Modern populations in West Asia don't have as much African ancestry, much less than West Asian ancestry in Eastern Africa.
*Uniparental DNA gives us a better idea of the direction of gene flows.
Sorry I misunderstood you.
But I disagree about there being a conquest.
Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
More on Sforza's 1/3 African in Europe, but not or rare in Asia. According to some faith-based proponents, these markers don't exist, simply because ks don't depict them, because it's "proprietary", or because we only see these patterns because, quote: "Horners themselves are admixed".
quote:Named for the pharaoh who attempted to convert Egypt to monotheism, this autosomal ancestry marker like most of the Amarna family group’s DNA is clearly African in origin. Akhenaten received it from his mother, Queen Tiye. Today, it is the gene type carried by a majority (52%) of the Copts living in the Pre-dynastic site of Adaima near Thebes or Luxor and the Valley of the Kings on the Nile River in Upper (southern) Egypt. The ancient marker makes a good showing in the Middle East and in Jews as well as parts of southern Europe close to Africa, such as southern Italy and Spain, but it is reduced to low levels in Asia and the Americas (except where brought there by Africans or people carrying some African ancestry). About 2 in 5 Africans or African Americans has it. Among Melungeons, the figure is 1 in 3.
quote:Tutankhamun (also spelled Tutenkhamen) is the most famous of all pharaohs. He was the son and successor of Akhenaten, grandson of Amenhotep III and Queen Tiye and great-grandson of the royal matriarch Queen Thuya. Archeologist Howard Carter’s opening of his intact tomb in the Valley of the Kings in 1922 ranks among the most splendid discoveries of history. In 2010, genetic fingerprinting of his mummy determined that he died at the early age of 19 as the result of violence or an accident to which the incestuous relationship of his parents and several genetic defects contributed. Tutankhamun actually carries a “double dose” of the allele named for him. Like most of the other genes in the family, it is Central African in ancient origin, but unlike the other markers it has a sparse distribution outside Africa with a worldwide average frequency of 4%. Still, Africans and African-influenced populations (1 in about 10) are about twice or three times as likely to have it as non-Africans.
quote:One of the autosomal ancestry markers prominent in the Royal Egyptian families of the New Kingdom, this not-so-rare gene is Central African in origin and was passed to Thuya from her forebears, Queens of Upper and Lower Egypt and High Priestesses of Hathor, the Mother Goddess. Thuya passed it to her grandson Akhenaten and great-grandson Tutankhamun, among others, as documented in a forensic study of the Amarna mummies by Zahi Hawass, head of the Supreme Council of Antiquities in Cairo, in 2010. Today, its highest incidence is in Somalians at nearly 50%. It is found in 40% of Muslim Egyptians. On average, 1 in 3 Africans or African Americans carries it. It crops up in high concentrations in many places around the world such as the Basque region (41%) and in Melungeons (31%, similar to Middle Easterners), but is present at only low levels in East and South Asia, as well as Native America. Its lowest frequency is in the Chukchi of Siberia (3%).
quote:Although not detected in the royal mummies whose DNA has been examined so far, this autosomal ancestry marker is also clearly African in origin. Today it enjoys its greatest spread in Egyptians. About 1 in 10 Africans or African Americans have it, but a sharp spike occurs in Copts, today’s successor population in the Land of the Nile, where up to 27% possess it. About 7% of European Americans have it. Tellingly perhaps, East Coast Indians and Melungeons have it at elevated levels. It is hardly noticeable in Asia, suggesting that it did not form a significant part of the Great Migration of Humanity out of Africa about 100,000 years ago but spread to Eurasian populations primarily from Egypt and the Middle East in historical times.
posted
All the above is consistent with Haber et al, figure S4, demonstrating that Ethiopian-like populations donated the most haplotypes to Arabic speaking Levantines, since the purple is most concentrated in the parts of their horizontal row that is below the columns of Jordanians, Syrians and Palestinians.
So no, I don't care about your faith-based interpretation of what ks are, I don't care about whether you believe this pattern emerges because Ethiopians are mixed, or whatever your incoherent faith-based objection is. Keep your opinions to yourself. I only care about evidence. I've looked into this for months, trying to synthesize this data, only for some Johnny come lates, who've just decided to look into Sforza a couple of seconds ago, to swear they know for a fact that Sforza is wrong and anyone who cites him is posting something that "doesn't make sense".
quote: Originally posted by Tukuler: You can whine, sing and dance, or even post a funny image of chimps or comedians but you cannot post any evidence that Europe is 2/3 ancestral Asian and 1/3 ancestral African.
quote:Originally posted by a random nobody: So if you remove, West Asians, some Horner populations will show clusters with the closest populations to West Asians which are Europeans
quote:Originally posted by a random nobody: The Ethiopians genotype is more than 50% African (...blablablabla...)
Since dissenters have repeatedly been unable to come with on-topic or even logically coherent replies, I consider it settled.
1) ks don't tell you how much African ancestry someone has, anyone who says otherwise is a big fat liar or doesn't understand what ks are. Ks will only make distinctions at very obvious levels. West Eurasian ancestry (i.e. the component that typically shows up as the blue "Mediterranean" component) is heavily entangled with African ancestry and unlikely to be acknowledged as such in most k-based analyses. For this reason, ks are NOT continentally circumscribed, but simply unlabelled categories which the program was able to distinguish.
2) in order to find out how much African ancestry West Eurasian have, one has to treat them as unknowns, and remove all the white noise (i.e. remove other West Eurasian comparative samples who have the same 1/3 African Sforza talked about). Haber et al 2013 did this to some extent, and their analysis showed that most haplotypes in southern Levantines come from Ethiopians, or better yet, an Ethiopian-like population. DNA Tribes performed this analysis as well and found that when you remove all West Eurasian components and give the program a choice between Horner and Asian (i.e. relatively pristine OOA), ~1/3 of Europeans' ancestry clusters with the Horner comparative sample:
quote:In Step 2D, all Middle Eastern components are removed; the Mesopotamian related component of European genetic structure is then instead expressed as Indus Valley (68.3%), Horn of Africa (29.3%), and Siberian (2.5%). Of these, the Indus Valley component might reflect more than one ancestral Eurasian population (such as EEF, ANE, and/or ENA ancestry; see Figures 1 and 2). However, the Horn of African component might more specifically reflect EEF ancestry and the deeper Basal Eurasian component of the First Farmers in Europe.
Like I said several times over, if you wish to retain the logical coherence of OOA, you can't simultaneously dismiss Sforza's observation and explain why, at this step, 29.3% of the Horn of Africa component clusters with Europeans, over non-western Eurasian populations, who are OOA.
No ifs, buts and maybes about it. Either refute the above in a logically coherent way or stop whining, nagging, b!tching, lamenting, accusing, trolling, fabricating, and get with the program.
Indeed, this clarifies the Tishkoff findings especially in regards to certain African populations.
Can't say or don't know what dots you mean but yes any valid peer reviewed article or report in a standard molecular genetics journal or magazine is always helpful for something.
I thought I said what I meant? With Europeans being part Asians and African. Wouldn't Europeans and Native Americans having a common ancestor in Siberia indicate that Europeans are really part Asian?
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Didn't read it yet but I do remember maternal Hg X (iirc) is east or north central Asian in origin and connects Asia proper with Europe and the Americas. [/QB]
Interesting!
Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
I notice that I'm getting carried away in posting here on ES, more and more often. Due to the backward state of this forum, I find myself getting dragged into plain as day arguments for which there either already is a consensus, or it's starting to become a consensus, as we speak. I also find myself posting evidence, which people just seem to ignore or reject at will and somehow still think they have a point. Then you have the new imposter trolls who are at the genetic learning level of thinking that Y chromosome information resides in the autosomes, but then want to go toe to toe with seasoned ES vets on the same topic and try to dictate the conversation, by telling them what they can and can't talk about.
It's a complete waste of my time. A win/lose situation where trolls win both by getting kick out of antagonizing you and eventually learning from you and accepting whatever they were antagonizing all those years. Lioness is a big case in point. When the DNA Tribes results dropped, she was silent as a church mouse, after years of antagonizing the forum, saying AE were Indians. Complete waste of time arguing with that for all those years; win for her, loss for us.
My posting here is not a sign that I'm back full-time posting here in this backward forum. So if you reply to one of my posts and I don't get back, you know why.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: I notice that I'm getting carried away in posting here on ES, more and more often. Due to the backward state of this forum, I find myself getting dragged into plain as day arguments for which there either already is a consensus, or it's starting to become a consensus, as we speak. I also find myself posting evidence, which people just seem to ignore or reject at will and somehow still think they have a point. Then you have the new imposter trolls who are at the genetic learning level of thinking that Y chromosome information resides in the autosomes, but then want to go toe to toe with seasoned ES vets on the same topic and try to dictate the conversation, by telling them what they can and can't talk about.
^^^ funny how he makes no mention of Tukular the seasoned vet who's been throwing him around like a rag doll perhaps he's too scared to name anybody but me including unamed "new imposter trolls"
Posts: 42932 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
^^^The point being that by analysing uniparental and other genetic data, it is clear that borderlines states in Eastern Africa received some F-Descendants (Out of Afica) Y-DNA genetic contributions.
Many languages like Ge'ez, Amharic, Tigrinya and Tigre spoken there are of Semitic origin and many of them practice Abrahamic religions originating in Arabia and the Levant respectively.
All showing us the direction* of genetic contributions accompanied by cultural transmission. Modern populations in West Asia don't have as much African ancestry, much less than there is West Asian ancestry in Eastern Africa.
*Uniparental DNA gives us a better idea of the direction of gene flows.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Europeans and Asians are always trying to tell African people what their history is and how to write African ancient history.
These Asians and Europeans attempt to tell us what our history is. For example, a regular fake Asian researcher who post here at ES is always trying to tell us what OUR history is, and put down African scholars like Diop and DuBois.
This fake wrote:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: LOL. You don't know anything about Afrocentrism.
I write about the Black civilizations of the Americas and Eurasia. These historical themes are fully in the tradition of modern Afrocentrism which was founded by W.E.B. DuBpois.
W.E.B. DuBois firmly placed the presence of Blacks in ancient America and Greece as legitimate research areas. In The Gift of Black Folks (1924), he discussed the Black presence in ancient America, including European references to Pre-Columbian Blacks, and the influence of Africans on the Amerindian religions. In The World and Africa, DuBois (1965) provides a full explanation of the role of Blacks in the early world. He explains the history of Blacks in China and India (pp.176-200); Blacks in Europe(the Pre-Indo-European Greeks and during the Dark Age of Greece), and Asia Minor (pp. 115-127), and the Egyptian foundation of Grecian thought (pp. 125-126).
Given this foundation established by DuBois my publications on the Blacks of India, China, Japan, the Americas and etc., are the normal social science themes of Afrocentric researchers. My research, and that of Ironlion, Marc and Mike is mainstream Afrocentrism.
.
The blacks of India and China are aboriginal Eurasians NOT Africans and that is the problem! To identify them as Africans or as the same so-called 'race' is just as erroneous and fallacious as the global "Caucasoid" race once espoused by Western scholarship but long abandoned by its error. For Afrocentric scholars like yourself to espouse such nonsense again is the reason why your are left in the dirt while the Euronuts step on you.
Nobody is steping on us. I rebuke you and your racist intent to denigrate our scholars when they have PhDs--when you don't have the credentials they hold--and present no counter evidence falsifying the work of DuBois.
This Asian, is just jealous that his people don't have an ancient history and his Daddy--the founder of Asian civilization was Negroes.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic