As usual, we can see the relatively close genetic distances between African populations. Also true for Eurasian, East Asian and Native American populations within themselves. This is due to the common origin of modern African populations in Eastern Africa at a relatively pretty recent period, after the OOA migration of non-African. For example, E-P2 carriers, the most common haplogroup in Africa, all originate in Eastern Africa at relatively recent period (after the OOA migrations of non-Africans) then they repopulated Africa (absorbing -completely in West Africa- small groups of hunter gatherers along the way).
We know Eurasian also have a relatively recent common origin post dating the main OOA migrations with the OOA migration itself and the later spread of the neolithic in Europe (from West Asia).
We can see all African populations (Khoisan, East/West African, Nilotic, etc) cluster together under the node called "Sub-Saharan African" which is at a pretty good distance from other major groupings like Eurasian and Native Americans in term of genetic distance.
Berber population cluster autosomally with Eurasian populations despite having a good proportion of uniparental African E Y-DNA haplogroups (uniparental is only one single line of descents among many). Hence the importance of evalutating both Y-DNA and MtDNA uniparental line of descents as well as autosomal dna (SNP, STR) when possible to evaluate accurately population affiliations.
On this forum, I'm always wondering how close Ancient Egyptians (especially royal families) are to the "Sub-Saharan African" cluster compared to the Eurasian cluster. Taking into account the Ramses III analysis (E1b1a, etc) as well as the 18th dynasty Royal family aDNA analysis. It must be pretty close. As both those royal families match Great Lakes, Southern, West, Sahelian and Horn Africans in that order the most which are all populations part of the Sub-Saharan African cluster on the graph above.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
Amun Ra above is the same exact same chart twith most of the chart edited out to focus on some details
The distance scale on the left of the chart shows there is no genetic distance between African Nilotes and some of the Siberian peoples at the right of the chart yet there is distance between Nilotes and West Africans How can this be ?
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^ You're not reading the map right...again. In term of vertical distance undertaken to get from one point to another Nilotic and West African populations are much closer to one another than with Yeniseian and West Siberian populations. You can see the Euclidean distance ruler on the side.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Like that they ACTUALLY put the horn in Sub Sahara Africa. DNAtribes is showing improvements.
Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: ^^^ You're not reading the map right...again. In term of vertical distance undertaken to get from one point to another Nilotic and West African populations are much closer to one another than with Yeniseian and West Siberian populations. You can see the Euclidean distance ruler on the side.
For Nilotes please indicate which blue horizontal line a, b, c, or d would represent their Euclidean postion
and
for West Africans please indicate which blue horizontal line a, b, c, or d would represent their Euclidean postion
posted
^^ you can PM me about it, as I already explained it to you a couple of times on this forum. It is placed there by DNA Tribes to be easy to understand if you use a little logic.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
As usual, we can see the relatively close genetic distances between African populations. Also true for Eurasian, East Asian and Native American populations within themselves. This is due to the common origin of modern African populations in Eastern Africa at a relatively pretty recent period, after the OOA migration of non-African. For example, E-P2 carriers, the most common haplogroup in Africa, all originate in Eastern Africa at relatively recent period (after the OOA migrations of non-Africans) then they repopulated Africa (absorbing -completely in West Africa- small groups of hunter gatherers along the way).
We know Eurasian also have a relatively recent common origin post dating the main OOA migrations with the OOA migration itself and the later spread of the neolithic in Europe (from West Asia).
We can see all African populations (Khoisan, East/West African, Nilotic, etc) cluster together under the node called "Sub-Saharan African" which is at a pretty good distance from other major groupings like Eurasian and Native Americans in term of genetic distance.
Berber population cluster autosomally with Eurasian populations despite having a good proportion of uniparental African E Y-DNA haplogroups (uniparental is only one single line of descents among many). Hence the importance of evalutating both Y-DNA and MtDNA uniparental line of descents as well as autosomal dna (SNP, STR) when possible to evaluate accurately population affiliations.
On this forum, I'm always wondering how close Ancient Egyptians (especially royal families) are to the "Sub-Saharan African" cluster compared to the Eurasian cluster. Taking into account the Ramses III analysis (E1b1a, etc) as well as the 18th dynasty Royal family aDNA analysis. It must be pretty close. As both those royal families match Great Lakes, Southern, West, Sahelian and Horn Africans in that order the most which are all populations part of the Sub-Saharan African cluster on the graph above.
First off, one needs no chart from DNA Tribes to know the obvious fact that Africans are closely related. Secondly, while there is obvious improvement in this chart compared to the older ones, there is still discrepancies. For example what is 'Omotic-Ari Ethiopia' and why is it separate from 'Horn of Africa' since Omotic speakers of Ethiopia as well as Ethiopia itself is in the Horn?? Also note the branch labeled 'Kannadi-Kurumba South India' and its separation from the cluster labeled 'Indian Subcontinent' let alone from the branch labeled 'Dravidian South India'. Last time I checked, Kannadi and Kurumba peoples are Dravidian South Indians. Again, since their labels are tenuous this makes me question the accuracy of the chart although the chart is for the more or less accurate. I still wonder about the 'Berber-North African' label as well since Berbers are diverse specifically in maternal lineages. Some Berbers especially in the northern coastal areas have European lineages while others further south do not so again the labels distort the issue. Also in regards to PN2, while it is the majority Y-chromosome clade in Africa it is certainly not the only which makes me wonder about other clades like A and B which are equally African or even other clades like F or R which are labeled as 'Eurasian' but have African origins as well.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Finally, a reply from our third favorite undercover racist Djehuti . The others being Swenet and Beyoku . More like a long knee-jerk reaction in his quest to prop-up proxy Eurasian population in Africa (borderline states in North Africa and East Africa with recent influx, postdating the dynastic era, of foreign conquerors, immigrants and haplogroups) as representative of AE more than indigenous black Africans (Y-DNA A, B and E, mtDNA L).
Would you place Ancient Egyptians under the "Sub-Saharan African" cluster or under the West Eurasian genetic cluster beside Berber and North African?
As usual, we can see the relatively close genetic distances between African populations. Also true for Eurasian, East Asian and Native American populations within themselves. This is due to the common origin of modern African populations in Eastern Africa at a relatively pretty recent period, after the OOA migration of non-African. For example, E-P2 carriers, the most common haplogroup in Africa, all originate in Eastern Africa at relatively recent period (after the OOA migrations of non-Africans) then they repopulated Africa (absorbing -completely in West Africa- small groups of hunter gatherers along the way).
We know Eurasian also have a relatively recent common origin post dating the main OOA migrations with the OOA migration itself and the later spread of the neolithic in Europe (from West Asia).
We can see all African populations (Khoisan, East/West African, Nilotic, etc) cluster together under the node called "Sub-Saharan African" which is at a pretty good distance from other major groupings like Eurasian and Native Americans in term of genetic distance.
Berber population cluster autosomally with Eurasian populations despite having a good proportion of uniparental African E Y-DNA haplogroups (uniparental is only one single line of descents among many). Hence the importance of evalutating both Y-DNA and MtDNA uniparental line of descents as well as autosomal dna (SNP, STR) when possible to evaluate accurately population affiliations.
On this forum, I'm always wondering how close Ancient Egyptians (especially royal families) are to the "Sub-Saharan African" cluster compared to the Eurasian cluster. Taking into account the Ramses III analysis (E1b1a, etc) as well as the 18th dynasty Royal family aDNA analysis. It must be pretty close. As both those royal families match Great Lakes, Southern, West, Sahelian and Horn Africans in that order the most which are all populations part of the Sub-Saharan African cluster on the graph above. [/qb]
First off, one needs no chart from DNA Tribes to know the obvious fact that Africans are closely related.
Knee-jerk reaction. Yes, it's obvious if you consider the cultural unity of African and if you look at them for 5 seconds or consider the multiple other genetic studies but still even the obvious must stand on solid footing scientifically (of course I posted many similar genetic results before, so this is a repeat in that sense). And I know for a fact, it's not so obvious to Djehuti since he always tries to prop-up proxy Eurasian populations (like modern Egyptians, North Africans) as black Africans which are demonstrated to be not so closely related to indigenous black African populations.
Beyond the cultural unity, knowledge of history, the obvious physical similarities between Africans and other genetic studies demonstrating the same thing; It is not beforehand so obvious that black indigenous African populations are closely related. Africa is a big continent with an ancient population, and it would have been technically possible that Bantu/Zulu in South Africa are not so closely related to Nilotic in Northeastern Africa. For example Bantu could have been as far to Nilotic or even Khoisan or West Africa as Bantu are to Eurasian. Technically speaking. We must explain WHY this is not the case (of course I did it a couples of times in this forum).
In fact, technically speaking, I would say it's pretty spectacular that Africans are so closely related.
The reason why African are so closely related is because they had so to say a second common origin in Eastern Africa. Much later than the common origin of all humans of course (AMHS) and later than the OOA migrations of non-Africans out of Africa. This is combined with extensive admixture between African populations (Bantu, East, West, Nilotic, Khoisan, Aka-Mbuti, etc) throughout history. This is also accentuated by the bottleneck effect of the OOA migrations (only a small groups of people left Africa during the OOA migration, dramatically changing the allele frequencies).
So the reason why indigenous African people are so closely related is because of 3 main reasons:
1)"Recent" common origin of African populations in eastern Africa, post-dating the AMHS and the main OOA migrations.
2)Extensive admixture between African populations throughout history (and pre-history)
3) Bottleneck effect reducing the allele diversity and frequency of the OOA migrants. Thus increasing the distance with populations who stayed in Africa.
quote: Secondly, while there is obvious improvement in this chart compared to the older ones, there is still discrepancies.
Not because genetic results don't satisfy your prejudice that they can be called discrepancies. Instead you should analyze them and adjust your prejudice accordingly.
quote: For example what is 'Omotic-Ari Ethiopia' and why is it separate from 'Horn of Africa' since Omotic speakers of Ethiopia as well as Ethiopia itself is in the Horn??
It's like you don't understand how this works at all.
All populations like Omotic-Ari, Horn of Africa, West Africans, Nilotic, Basque, Central European are genetic groupings . The reason why they are grouped together is because they form their own genetic cluster. Their own genetic family of closely related populations genetically speaking. If it was the admixture software, we would see that at a certain elevated K value (44 in this case), they would have their own different colors. One color for Omotic-Ari Ethiopia and one color for Horn of Africa. Any genetic groupings would have their own color at K sufficiently large (as we can always subdivide populations into 2 or more groups).
This Euclidean distance tree is more convenient than a mere admixture graph with the different K and colors we used to see on this forum because we can see the genetic distances between the various "K" populations groupings. For example, Omotic-Ari Ethiopia and Horn of Africa are genetically distinguishable populations but closely related populations At the same time they are not closely related to Central European populations. The genetic distance between Omotic-Ari/Horn of Africa and Central European is relatively very large. Much larger than between Omotic-Ari and Horn of Africa. Or Omotic-Ari and any African populations for that matter.
quote: Also note the branch labeled 'Kannadi-Kurumba South India' and its separation from the cluster labeled 'Indian Subcontinent' let alone from the branch labeled 'Dravidian South India'. Last time I checked, Kannadi and Kurumba peoples are Dravidian South Indians. Again, since their labels are tenuous this makes me question the accuracy of the chart although the chart is for the more or less accurate.
It's obviously not the accuracy of the chart which is the problem. It is your understanding of it that is the problem.
quote: I still wonder about the 'Berber-North African' label as well since Berbers are diverse specifically in maternal lineages. Some Berbers especially in the northern coastal areas have European lineages while others further south do not so again the labels distort the issue.
Sorry about your favorite proxy-Eurasian population. They are definitely in the West Eurasian cluster. Not something that surprises me considering their population history.
quote: Also in regards to PN2, while it is the majority Y-chromosome clade in Africa it is certainly not the only which makes me wonder about other clades like A and B which are equally African or even other clades like F or R which are labeled as 'Eurasian' but have African origins as well. [/QB]
Y-DNA F and R are Eurasian clades, this is well known in the population genetic field, only someone retarded or seeking to lie to people on this forum would say otherwise. On this graph, F and R carriers are represented by the Eurasian and Asian clusters. In other word, OOA populations.
As for the A and B clades, we can see on the DNA Tribes graph that their carriers are closely related to other African populations too. We can see for example, Nilotic populations, often A carriers, closely related to all the other African populations under the sub-Saharan African genetic cluster. We can see them close to West African and Bantu on the genetic distance tree. Same thing with Khoisan and Aka-Mbuti-Hadza which are often carriers of A and B haplogroups. Again like Nilotic people they are related to other Africans like West Africans and Horn Africans which are often E-P2(e1b1) carriers. Of course, all indigenous Africans are closely related in general because of the 3 main reasons stipulated above (common origin, extensive admixture, bottleneck effect of OOA migrations).
This great genetic distance between African and non-African population makes it easy to distinguish non-admixed African populations from non-African populations. Which fit our purpose on this forum to seek how closely related or not are Ancient Egyptians to African populations. I would place AE under the Sub-Saharan African clusters considering our current genetic and archeological knowledge.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Figure S1. Map Showing Location of the Population Samples Considered in This Study Populations are represented by circles and numbered as in Table S5. Sectors within circles are proportional to the frequency of haplogroup A1a (green), A1b (red) and A2-T (black). Green asterisks indicate countries were haplogroup A1a has previously been observed.10,30-32
A Revised Root for the Human Y Chromosomal Phylogenetic Tree: The Origin of Patrilineal Diversity in Africa
Fulvio Cruciani, Beniamino Trombetta, Andrea Massaia, Giovanni Destro-Bisol, Daniele Sellitto, and Rosaria Scozzari
See, Table S1. Haplogroup Affiliation of the Seven Chromosomes that Were Re-sequenced.
And; Table S5: Populations considered for the mutations defining major clades A1b, A1a and A2-T.
The American Journal of Human Genetics, Volume 88 Supplemental Data
This branching pattern, along with the geographical distribution of the major clades A, B, and CT, has been interpreted as supporting an African origin for anatomically modern humans,10 with Khoisan from south Africa and Ethiopians from east Africa sharing the deepest lineages of the phylogeny.15 and 16
[...]
The deepest branching separates A1b from a monophyletic clade whose members (A1a, A2, A3, B, C, and R) all share seven mutually reinforcing derived mutations (five transitions and two transversions, all at non-CpG sites).
[...]
How does the present MSY tree compare with the backbone of the recently published “reference” MSY phylogeny?13 The phylogenetic relationships we observed among chromosomes belonging to haplogroups B, C, and R are reminiscent of those reported in the tree by Karafet et al.13 These chromosomes belong to a clade (haplogroup BT) in which chromosomes C and R share a common ancestor (Figure 2).
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: ^^ you can PM me about it, as I already explained it to you a couple of times on this forum. It is placed there by DNA Tribes to be easy to understand if you use a little logic.
Who are the out of Africa populations? By that I mean, those who left Africa.
And why are you calling Djehuti, Swenet and Beyoku undercover racist ?
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Son of Ra: Like that they ACTUALLY put the horn in Sub Sahara Africa. DNAtribes is showing improvements.
quote: Principal Component Analysis for a) several African populations and b) Guinea-Bissau ethnic clusters, based on haplogroup frequencies. a) The 1st PC captures 42.6% of the variance and 16.9% are under the responsibility of the 2nd PC. For details on populational datasets see Additional file 2. The codes in italic refer to the following populations: Morocco Arabs: Ar [1,34], Mar [33]; Morocco Berbers: Bb [33], MBb [34]; Algeria: Alg [80], Aar-Algerian Arabs [35]; Tunisia-Tun1 [35], Tun2 [7]; West Sahara: Sah-Saharawis [33]; Egypt: Egy1 [35], Egy2 [7]; Sudan: Sud [2]; Ethiopia: Eth [2], Or-Oromo, Amh-Amhara [5,7]; Kenya: K&K-Kikiu & Kamba, Maa-Maasai [7]; Uganda: Gan-Ganda [7]; North Cameroon: Po-Podokwo, Mad-Mandara [7], Ou-Ouldeme, Daba [1,7,26], NCAdaw-Fali, Tali [1,26], Fca-Fulbe [1,26]; South Cameroon: SCBantu-Bassa, Ngoumba [7], Bak-Bakaka, [1,7], Bam-Bamileke [1,26], Ewo-Ewondo [1,26], Bko-Bakola Pygmies [7]; CAR: Bik-Biaka Pygmies [2,7]; DRC: DRCBantu-Nande, Herna [7]; Mb-Mbuti Pygmies [2,7]; Guinea-Bissau: EJA-Felupe-Djola, BJG-Bijagós, BLE- Balanta, PBO-Papel, FUL-Fulbe, MNK-Mandenka, NAJ-Nalú (Present study); Burkina Faso: Mo-Mossi [1,26], Ri-Rimaibe [1,26], FBF-Fulbe [1,26]; Gambia/Senegal: Wo-Wolof [7], Mak-Mandinka [7]; Mali: Mal [2], Do-Dogon [7]; Ghana: Ewe, Ga, Fan-Fante [7]; Senegal: Se [5]; Namibia: Her-Herero, Amb-Ambo [7], Ku-!Kung, Sekele [1,7,26], CKh-Tsumkwe San, Dama, Nama [7]; South Africa: ST-Sotho-Tswana, Zu-Zulu, Xh-Xhosa, Sh-Shona [7], Kho-Khoisan [2]. b) The PCA captures 87.0% of the variance with 74.0% and 13.0% attributed to the 1st and 2nd PC, respectively. The 1st PC reflects an axial proportion of E3a* vs. E1* where Papel and Felupe-Djola retain the higher proportions of the later. E3a* is again a main influence in the 2ndaxis against that of R1b and E3b1, placing Mandenka apart from Bijagós and Fulbe.
--Rosa et al. BMC Evolutionary Biology 2007 7:124 doi:10.1186/1471-2148-7-124
posted
I just want to add that it's important to consider those graph are on a population level. Generally speaking they analyse the allele frequency at location of DNA we know are different between humans (they are polymorphic) then make graph out of them. Somehow maybe it seems to accentuate the differences between humans. IIRC, we know that humans are genetically 99.9% similar . So the number of polymorphic sites is maybe something close to 0.1%. There's only a 0.1% variation between human individuals. But somehow when we analyse allele frequency, for example the M89 mutation, we can see that some population got 2% of it or even less while others have 85% of it or something. There's a huge difference of 85-2=83%, when in reality the difference between any humans is around 0.1%. Of course, analyzing frequency distribution of allele between human populations has benefits for population genetics, medecine, etc.
On the other hand, such population genetic studies. Especially haplogroup distribution, but also Euclidean genetic distance tree posted above. Demonstrate that all humans are closely related. For example, it's really surprising that we're all descendant of the same mtDNA "Eve" or Y-DNA "Adam". It's not what we would expect from a random mating process without genetic drift or natural selection.
Even at a higher resolution it is still surprising. If you look at this low resolution Y-DNA tree:
It means all humans are descendants of only 7 great-great grandfather!! Only 7!! After more than 200 000 years (and even before that considering we are only an evolution of previous hominids). The 7 grandfathers on the graph above are the A, B, E, DE*, C and F grandfathers.
Same thing at a higher resolution, it's surprising somehow that all non-African OOA populations are almost all descendants of the single F grandfather. They must have been at least 20 "unrelated" males who left Africa, but still the only one who left living descendants is the F grandfather carrying the M89 mutation. So all non-African populations are closely related from at least that point in time in history.
Even at a higher resolution, it's still surprising that after the OOA migration all non-African are only descendants of dozens of so grandfathers (haplogroups G, H, I, J, K, L, M, P, Q, R ). Similar observations could be said with African populations, who stayed back in Africa, as stated in my post above. Of course, those are only uniparental, one line of ancestry, autosomal analysis actually show we are descendant of multiple lines of ancestry (genetic drifting made many other uni-parental lines of ancestry disappear but still part of our autosomal and overall genome. For example, we carry about 1/4 of our grandfather genes on our mother side, even if we don't have his uniparental haplogroup. Thus the same proportion than our father's father, our actual Y-DNA haplogroup/sex chromosome).
So beside knowing we are all descendant of a common ancestor (mtDNA eve for example), we're making a big deal (eg. 83% differences in allele frequency between populations) of what is actually 0.1% of differences between humans. We do that because it has a purpose to analyse population history, disease risks, forensics, place people in their correct ancestral populations, establish parenthood, etc.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor: And why are you calling Djehuti, Swenet and Beyoku undercover racist ? [/QB]
Because they are undercover racists and I want people to be aware of it. With that awareness then people can analyse their posts and make that determination for themselves.
I find it ridiculous to have people pretending to be black African, twisting theories and scientific results for their own racists purpose. Trying to rob black African people of their historical heritage. It's very lame of them and without actual purpose, so I will make sure to continue to keep calling a spade a spade. I judge people by their posts content. Djehuti, Swenet and Beyoku are 3 racists people pretending to be black and twisting theories and scientific results for their own racists purpose on this forum. Trying to rob black African people of their historical heritage. They are only fooling themselves.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: ^^ you can PM me about it, as I already explained it to you a couple of times on this forum. It is placed there by DNA Tribes to be easy to understand if you use a little logic.
Who are the out of Africa populations? By that I mean, those who left Africa.
And why are you calling Djehuti, Swenet and Beyoku undercover racist ?
why do you have a quote by me that has zero to do with Amun-Ra's reply and commentary on Djehuti, Swenet and Beyoku?
That makes no sense
You do this a lot. you quote somebody and the comment below it has nothing to do with the quote.
Amun Ra said "Finally, a reply from our third favorite undercover racist Djehuti . The others being Swenet and Beyoku "
That was after Djehuti's post not mine
My post was asking him how to read the chart properly and he told me how. It has nothing to do with his remarks on Djehuti, Swenet and Beyoku.
also note:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Thanks to Kefi's actual Maurusian era Taforalt mtDNA study there's no doubt Eurasian lineage existed in coastal and tell Mechta-Afalou ages well before Islamic white slave trade or even chalcolithic trade in non-human goods between North Africa and South Europe.
Message to Amun Ra: In case you didn't know, Djehuti is "Filipino"
Also Trollkillah thinks that haplogroup H is African origin and that you can't distinguish berber mtDNA haplogroups from Africans
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Message to Amun Ra: In case you didn't know, Djehuti pretend he is "Filipino"
Corrected that for you. For the record, Djehuti is **not** filipino. Undercover, means fakes, which means liars. You can't believe anything Swenet, Beyoku or Djehuti say. They are pathetic racists (probably pretty old in age and white americans I would venture to guess).
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
I printed out the chart and measured If I undertsood you correctly the distance between two populations is measured by starting at the name of the first population going up and following the line path across going down to the next population,
-recording only vertical up and down movements, disregarding the horizontal measure
tell me if this is correct according to this chart the OOA populations at shortest distance to Africans are, in descending order- (#1 being the shortesy distance to Africans)
1) Melanisians
2) Native Americans
3) Kannadi-Kurumba South India
4) Polynesian
Looking at one population Native Americans there is a new DNATribes digest on them
Paleolithic Migrations Out of Africa and the First Native Americans
This month’s article explores new evidence for shared ancestry between Native Americans, Europeans, and Middle Eastern populations based on ancient genome evidence from Siberia.
Digest articles have examined the Siberian related ancestry in Native Americans, as well as European and Native American related components in Northeast Asia. This month’s article will delve deeper, with a sequential analysis of genetic components that link Paleo-Indians with early migrations out of Africa and into Eurasia and the Americas.
but this digest article doesn't seem to suggest a close genetic distance to Africans as does the chart seems to Why is that?
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
but this digest article doesn't seem to suggest a close genetic distance to Africans as does the chart seems to Why is that?
Keep in mind that as far as the OOA MIGRATION FLOW the Melenasian and Indic types would be closer to Africans. These areas would receive migrants earlier than say more distant Russia, or South America. This flow may not hold for today's population lineup.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: but this digest article doesn't seem to suggest a close genetic distance to Africans as does the chart seems to Why is that?
Keep in mind that as far as the OOA MIGRATION FLOW the Melenasian and Indic types would be closer to Africans. These areas would receive migrants earlier than say more distant Russia, or South America. This flow may not hold for today's population lineup.
The chart Genetic Distance chart in the first post that we have been discussing is today's population. Therefore the reverse of what you are saying is true: populations who left Africa earlier than other populations have been out of Africa longer, therefore they have had more time to evolve a greater genetic distance from Africans
"indic" pertains to India Native Americans aren't indic types, they are about 6000 miles away from India
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
This map is a lie. The South Indians, especially the Tribals are closely related to West Africans. The Dravidians belonged to the C-Group. As a result, this map can tell us very little about the ancient world and relatinships among these populations.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: ^^ you can PM me about it, as I already explained it to you a couple of times on this forum. It is placed there by DNA Tribes to be easy to understand if you use a little logic.
Who are the out of Africa populations? By that I mean, those who left Africa.
And why are you calling Djehuti, Swenet and Beyoku undercover racist ?
He is calling us "Racist" because we call him out of the fact that he doesnt know what the fvck he is talking about. Hence the entire nonsense about African be "genetically Close" to each other. And the special concentration on "PN2" when in fact many of the populations he obsesses about are NOT defined primarily by PN2.
The supposed recent origin of "All Africans" from East Africa is for the most part a Myth that he cannot get through his pea brain. He cannot for instance explain the long term presence of E* and DE* and even Haplogroup A (A1a, A1b, A00) in West Africa....where they may have an origin....totally divorce from anything to do with some Recent horn origin. In fact the SEPARATION of the three geographically different..........and phylogenetically different Haplogroups of A in West, East and Southern Africa could be a split that goes back over 100,000 years.....way prior to even out of Africa. Y-DNA B2a vs B2b - Split possibly prior to OOA.
The L0 distinctive lineages that separate East and Southern Africans is an event that goes back possibly 100-200 THOUSAND Years. L1 Lineages....same thing... The lineages specific to Pygmies (L1c1) and those that spread into the Sahel to East Africa (L1b1a)speaks of splits going back over 100 thousand years.
Amun Ra is ignoring these events and talking about very recent events extrapolating them back through time.
I remember some time Ago I asked if African are so close why the Horner of Africa twig was not among the Sub Saharan and was placed with the Eurasians. From what I remember his answer was absent or insufficient.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor: And why are you calling Djehuti, Swenet and Beyoku undercover racist ?
Because they are undercover racists and I want people to be aware of it. With that awareness then people can analyse their posts and make that determination for themselves.
I find it ridiculous to have people pretending to be black African, twisting theories and scientific results for their own racists purpose. Trying to rob black African people of their historical heritage. It's very lame of them and without actual purpose, so I will make sure to continue to keep calling a spade a spade. I judge people by their posts content. Djehuti, Swenet and Beyoku are 3 racists people pretending to be black and twisting theories and scientific results for their own racists purpose on this forum. Trying to rob black African people of their historical heritage. They are only fooling themselves.
I don't know about Beyoku, Djehuti has never stated that he's "black", Tukuler is a name for Fulani substratum. With parcels in Eastern Africa. Fulani's are most widespread amongst all Africans.
And what do you mean by "black Africans"?
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: ^^ you can PM me about it, as I already explained it to you a couple of times on this forum. It is placed there by DNA Tribes to be easy to understand if you use a little logic.
Who are the out of Africa populations? By that I mean, those who left Africa.
And why are you calling Djehuti, Swenet and Beyoku undercover racist ?
why do you have a quote by me that has zero to do with Amun-Ra's reply and commentary on Djehuti, Swenet and Beyoku?
That makes no sense
You do this a lot. you quote somebody and the comment below it has nothing to do with the quote.
Amun Ra said "Finally, a reply from our third favorite undercover racist Djehuti . The others being Swenet and Beyoku "
That was after Djehuti's post not mine
My post was asking him how to read the chart properly and he told me how. It has nothing to do with his remarks on Djehuti, Swenet and Beyoku.
also note:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Thanks to Kefi's actual Maurusian era Taforalt mtDNA study there's no doubt Eurasian lineage existed in coastal and tell Mechta-Afalou ages well before Islamic white slave trade or even chalcolithic trade in non-human goods between North Africa and South Europe.
Message to Amun Ra: In case you didn't know, Djehuti is "Filipino"
Also Trollkillah thinks that haplogroup H is African origin and that you can't distinguish berber mtDNA haplogroups from Africans
Why bother about such small "patty thing"? Anyway the initial question had surely to do with what you've posted. Try to comprehend, even thou it's hard for you.
What I think, "you know not".
But what you do a lot (allot) is, alter people's posts. And make it appear as if they said/ wrote something, which they actually did not! Why do you do that? Why do you lie so much, that people even despise you for it, calling you lying ass aka lioness? Why aren't you able to show "incoming industries"? Why do you reinforce a African stereotype, while you barely know about African ethnology.
quote: The dates for subhaplogroups H1 and H3 (13,000 and 10,000 years, respectively) in Iberian and North African populations allow for this possibility. Kefi et al.’s (2005) data on ancient DNA could be viewed as being in agreement with such a presence in North Africa in ancient times (about 15,000–6,000 years ago) and with the fact that the North African populations are considered by most scholars as having their closest relations with European and Asian populations (Cherni et al. 2008; Ennafaa et al. 2009; Kefi et al. 2005; Rando et al. 1998). However, considering the general understanding nowadays that human settlement of the rest of the world emerged from eastern northern Africa less than 50,000 years ago, a better explanation of these haplogroups might be that their frequencies reflect the original modern human population of these parts of Africa as much as or more than intrusions from outside the continent. The ways that gene frequencies may increase or decrease based on adaptive selection, gene flow, and/or social processes is under study and would benefit from the results of studies on autosomal and Y-chromosome markers.
--Frigi et al.
quote: Regular Middle Paleolithic inventories as well as Middle Paleolithic inventories of Aterian type have a long chronology in Morocco going back to MIS 6 and are interstratified in some sites. Their potential for detecting chrono-cultural patterns is low. The transition from the Middle to Upper Paleolithic, here termed Early Upper Paleolithic—at between 30 to 20 ka—remains a most enigmatic era. Scarce data from this period requires careful and fundamental reconsidering of human presence. By integrating environmental data in the reconstruction of population dynamics, clear correlations become obvious. High resolution data are lacking before 20 ka, and at some sites this period is characterized by the occurrence of sterile layers between Middle Paleolithic deposits, possibly indicative of a very low presence of humans in Morocco. After Heinrich Event 1, there is an enormous increase of data due to the prominent Late Iberomaurusian deposits that contrast strongly with the foregoing accumulations in terms of sedimentological features, fauna, and artifact composition. The Younger Dryas again shows a remarkable decline of data marking the end of the Paleolithic. Environmental improvements in the Holocene are associated with an extensive Epipaleolithic occupation. Therefore, the late glacial cultural sequence of Morocco is a good test case for analyzing the interrelationship of culture and climate change.
--Late Pleistocene Human Occupation of Northwest Africa: A Crosscheck of Chronology and Climate Change in Morocco
quote: The dramatic variation in climate, diet, and exposure to infectious disease across the continent has also resulted in novel genetic and phenotypic adaptations in extant Africans.
[...]
The timing and duration of some of these demographic events were often correlated with known major environmental changes and/or cultural developments in Africa [6].
A number of novel genetic and phenotypic adaptations have also evolved in Africans in response to dramatic variation in environment, diet, and exposure to infectious disease across the continent.
In some cases, these adaptations have occurred in the last several thousand years, exemplifying the ongoing evolution of human populations.
Thus, present-day patterns of variation in African genomes are a product of both demographic and selective events.
If one on Egyptsearch is to bolster that ancient Egypt isn't due to indigenous Africans, then it is done so by the lioness, "your sister"!
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: ^^ you can PM me about it, as I already explained it to you a couple of times on this forum. It is placed there by DNA Tribes to be easy to understand if you use a little logic.
Who are the out of Africa populations? By that I mean, those who left Africa.
And why are you calling Djehuti, Swenet and Beyoku undercover racist ?
He is calling us "Racist" because we call him out of the fact that he doesnt know what the fvck he is talking about. Hence the entire nonsense about African be "genetically Close" to each other. And the special concentration on "PN2" when in fact many of the populations he obsesses about are NOT defined primarily by PN2.
The supposed recent origin of "All Africans" from East Africa is for the most part a Myth that he cannot get through his pea brain. He cannot for instance explain the long term presence of E* and DE* and even Haplogroup A (A1a, A1b, A00) in West Africa....where they may have an origin....totally divorce from anything to do with some Recent horn origin. In fact the SEPARATION of the three geographically different..........and phylogenetically different Haplogroups of A in West, East and Southern Africa could be a split that goes back over 100,000 years.....way prior to even out of Africa. Y-DNA B2a vs B2b - Split possibly prior to OOA.
The L0 distinctive lineages that separate East and Southern Africans is an event that goes back possibly 100-200 THOUSAND Years. L1 Lineages....same thing... The lineages specific to Pygmies (L1c1) and those that spread into the Sahel to East Africa (L1b1a)speaks of splits going back over 100 thousand years.
Amun Ra is ignoring these events and talking about very recent events extrapolating them back through time.
I remember some time Ago I asked if African are so close why the Horner of Africa twig was not among the Sub Saharan and was placed with the Eurasians. From what I remember his answer was absent or insufficient.
quote: The DE haplogroup appeared approximately 50,000 years bp in North East Africa and subsequently split into haplogroup E that spread to Europe and Africa and haplogroup D that rapidly spread along the coastline of India and Asia to North Asia. The IJ haplogroup characterizes part of the second wave of emigration from Africa that occurred via the Middle East 45,000 years bp and defines two branches I and J that emigrated northwards and eastwards into Europe
quote:Originally posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor:
If one on Egyptsearch is to bolster that ancient Egypt isn't due to indigenous Africans, then it is done so by the lioness, "your sister"! [/QB]
^^^ this is BS look at my recent remark on Sudanese Copts in the U6 thread as well as the article I posted on Sudanese Y
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Hence the entire nonsense about African be "genetically Close" to each other.
It's not nonsense as we can see in the genetic distance tree posted at the start of this thread (I also posted similar study results before and explained why that is). There's a big elephant in the room. You're just mad because I exposed you, Swenet and Djehuti for the pathetic racists clowns you are.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Reconstructing Ancient Kinship in Africa by Christopher Ehret (From Early Human Kinship, Chap 12)
Clearly all modern African language families are said to have originated in (north-)Eastern Africa (at a period later than the OOA migrations, but before the Ancient Egyptian dynastic era).
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Hence the entire nonsense about African be "genetically Close" to each other.
It's not nonsense as we can see in the genetic distance tree posted at the start of this thread (I also posted similar study results before and explained why that is). There's a big elephant in the room. You're just mad because I exposed you, Swenet and Djehuti for the pathetic racists clowns you are.
Sure dude - Debunk this:
quote: The supposed recent origin of "All Africans" from East Africa is for the most part a Myth that he cannot get through his pea brain. He cannot for instance explain the long term presence of E* and DE* and even Haplogroup A (A1a, A1b, A00) in West Africa....where they may have an origin....totally divorce from anything to do with some Recent horn origin. In fact the SEPARATION of the three geographically different..........and phylogenetically different Haplogroups of A in West, East and Southern Africa could be a split that goes back over 100,000 years.....way prior to even out of Africa. Y-DNA B2a vs B2b - Split possibly prior to OOA.
The L0 distinctive lineages that separate East and Southern Africans is an event that goes back possibly 100-200 THOUSAND Years. L1 Lineages....same thing... The lineages specific to Pygmies (L1c1) and those that spread into the Sahel to East Africa (L1b1a)speaks of splits going back over 100 thousand years.
Amun Ra is ignoring these events and talking about very recent events extrapolating them back through time.
I remember some time Ago I asked if African are so close why the Horner of Africa twig was not among the Sub Saharan and was placed with the Eurasians. From what I remember his answer was absent or insufficient.
Also you cannot explain the significance of this:
quote: But lets put this in context to understand what it really means. Take that highest MLI score of 326.94.
Compare the Global MLI scores to that of an African American that range from 70,000 to 11,000.. OR BETTER YET - The High Resolution World Region Match Results as used for the Mummies: -9740 Tropical West African. -154 - Horn of Africa -48 - POLYNESIA
What information cam you get from the idea that the An African Americans genome is about 10 times as likely to be found in the Horn of Africa...than these Mummies genome is to be found in the Horn of Africa? Or an African Americans Genome is about 3 times as likely to be found in POLYNESIA than these mummies genome is to be found in Ethiopia?
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Hence the entire nonsense about African be "genetically Close" to each other.
It's not nonsense as we can see in the genetic distance tree posted at the start of this thread (I also posted similar study results before and explained why that is). There's a big elephant in the room. You're just mad because I exposed you, Swenet and Djehuti for the pathetic racists clowns you are.
Sure dude - Debunk this:
Lame attempt by a stupid racist to turn the table on me before addressing my main argument in this thread, which happens to be the topic of this thread, which is the genetic distance tree and document I posted in the original post. The genetic distance tree, based on autosomal SNP, debunk you before you even posted anything in this thread. If you don't address it, you don't address my main argument of this thread.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor:
If one on Egyptsearch is to bolster that ancient Egypt isn't due to indigenous Africans, then it is done so by the lioness, "your sister"!
^^^ this is BS look at my recent remark on Sudanese Copts in the U6 thread as well as the article I posted on Sudanese Y
As predicted, you've altered my post, and made a complete new "line".
As was shown and stated before by archeology and anthropology, the migration pattern of the Tamazight (Berbers) is within Africa, via the Sudan into Northwest Africa.
Thanks for your support.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Hence the entire nonsense about African be "genetically Close" to each other.
It's not nonsense as we can see in the genetic distance tree posted at the start of this thread (I also posted similar study results before and explained why that is). There's a big elephant in the room. You're just mad because I exposed you, Swenet and Djehuti for the pathetic racists clowns you are.
Sure dude - Debunk this:
quote: The supposed recent origin of "All Africans" from East Africa is for the most part a Myth that he cannot get through his pea brain. He cannot for instance explain the long term presence of E* and DE* and even Haplogroup A (A1a, A1b, A00) in West Africa....where they may have an origin....totally divorce from anything to do with some Recent horn origin. In fact the SEPARATION of the three geographically different..........and phylogenetically different Haplogroups of A in West, East and Southern Africa could be a split that goes back over 100,000 years.....way prior to even out of Africa. Y-DNA B2a vs B2b - Split possibly prior to OOA.
The L0 distinctive lineages that separate East and Southern Africans is an event that goes back possibly 100-200 THOUSAND Years. L1 Lineages....same thing... The lineages specific to Pygmies (L1c1) and those that spread into the Sahel to East Africa (L1b1a)speaks of splits going back over 100 thousand years.
Amun Ra is ignoring these events and talking about very recent events extrapolating them back through time.
I remember some time Ago I asked if African are so close why the Horner of Africa twig was not among the Sub Saharan and was placed with the Eurasians. From what I remember his answer was absent or insufficient.
Also you cannot explain the significance of this:
quote: But lets put this in context to understand what it really means. Take that highest MLI score of 326.94.
Compare the Global MLI scores to that of an African American that range from 70,000 to 11,000.. OR BETTER YET - The High Resolution World Region Match Results as used for the Mummies: -9740 Tropical West African. -154 - Horn of Africa -48 - POLYNESIA
What information cam you get from the idea that the An African Americans genome is about 10 times as likely to be found in the Horn of Africa...than these Mummies genome is to be found in the Horn of Africa? Or an African Americans Genome is about 3 times as likely to be found in POLYNESIA than these mummies genome is to be found in Ethiopia?
quote:Evolutionary history of mtDNA haplogroup structure in African populations inferred from mtDNA d-loop and RFLP analysis.
(A) Relationships among different mtDNA haplogroup lineages inferred from mtDNA d-loop sequences and mtDNA coding region SNPs from previous studies (Kivisild, Metspalu, et al. 2006). Dashed lines indicate previously unresolved relationships.
(B) Relative frequencies of haplogroups L0, L1, L5, L2, L3, M, and N in different regions of Africa from mtDNA d-loop and mtDNA coding region SNPs from previous studies.
(C) Relative frequencies of haplogroups L0, L1, and L5 subhaplogroups (excluding L2 and L3) in different regions of Africa from mtDNA d-loop and mtDNA coding region SNPs from previous studies. Haplogroup frequencies from previously published studies include East Africans (Ethiopia [Rosa et al. 2004], Kenya and Sudan [Watson et al. 1997; Rosa et al. 2004]), Mozambique (Pereira et al. 2001; Salas et al. 2002), Hadza (Vigilant et al. 1991), and Sukuma (Knight et al. 2003); South Africans (Botswana !Kung [Vigilant et al. 1991]); Central Africans (Mbenzele Pygmies [Destro-Bisol et al. 2004], Biaka Pygmies [Vigilant et al. 1991], and Mbuti Pygmies [Vigilant et al. 1991]); West Africans (Niger, Nigeria [Vigilant et al. 1991; Watson et al. 1997]; and Guinea [Rosa et al. 2004]). L1*, L2*, and L3* from previous studies indicate samples that were not further subdivided into subhaplogroups.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic