No way. There were no pale skinned Africans until the introduction of the People of the Sea and Vandals.
Clyde why are you calling the Sea people Africans if they didn't come from Africa?
The Sea People were probably Indo-European speakers. They introduced pale skin to Africa.
Eurocentrists and Africanists claimed that these pale skin people in Libya were Africans and called them Berbers and pretended that they are native to Africa, just like people claim the Amazigh are native to Africa.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Excellent come back – retort (sic) Translation – You are right but I don’t want to admit I am wrong. BTW – AEians are black and African. Just like many Africans North, West And East of the continent. But the fact is they also spoke an Afro_asiatic language which is sourced near the Nile. So , No, they were not Berbers in the modern sense. But like all Africans, the Berbers(and Language) ancestral land is near the Nile, just as the Bantus.
Why do you keep saying the Berbers came from the Nile Valley when they claim they originated in Northwest Africa?
The Blacks who lived near Egypt were called Tehenu--not Berbers.
Europeans preferred to call them Berber. This has led to confusion--many people due to this confusion believe the Tehenu and modern Berbers are the same populations. They are two different populations.
The contemporary Berbers have nothing to do with the original Berbers. These Berbers, especially the Kabyle in most of North Africa and Siwa are the result of the Vandal invasion. That’s why these Berbers are white.
The Vandals mated with the Black Berbers in Northwest Africa, who mainly live in Morocco and the Atlas Mountains.
The present day Berbers did not come from East Africa or the Nile Valley. The contemporary Berbers or Amazigh are all in the West. They are descendants of the Vandals who formerly ruled Africa.
The Berbers in Siwa are not native to the area. These Berbers are Amazigh and came to Siwa to settle the region due to a drought. Once they found the Siwa Oasis they returned to Algeria and Morocco to invite other Amazigh to settle the area. (See: http://www.siwaoasis.com/ ). The Amazigh dominate the area and the original Siwans are a minority.
Tuareg and Berbers were not Northeast African people, like the Tehenu. The Tuareg did not come from the Fezzan, they originated in the West. According to Tuareg tradition they originated in the Tafilalt or Tafilet (Arabic: تافيلالت) a important oasis of the Morocco )
In conclusion,the Berbers did not originate in the Sudan and Egypt. Berbers came from NorthWest Africa.
posted
Co –Signed Excellent synosis!! There is hope for you yet.(wink)
Still need you as a tag team....
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: @ Amun ra. .
The UNIPARENTAL position of CT-M168 lineages like E1b1....And L3 lineages shared between all Africans have nothing to do with the AUTOSOMAL position and genetic Sub Structure of Sub Saharan Africans. You are missing the forest for the trees. You are like the confused White american on 23andme aksing "I am 100% European, how am I E1b1a or L1b1a?"
Uni-parental position and autosomal position are two different things. Obviously Berbers at 80 to 100% Haplogroup E are "Closer" as far as Y-chromosomes to central African Bantu than Europeans or Arabs. This is a totally different case when we are talking about their AUTOSOMAL profile.
You, in your infinite stupidity are arguing as if uniparental will override and influence the Autosome. That is what the entire argument is about. YOU were saying that Africans have no substructure. YOU were saying that All Aficans derive recently and can be used as genetic proxies for each other. YOU were saying that NO specific group of Africans were closer to Eurasians and they all that the same genetic distance to Eurasians. ALL These ideas are speaking of AUTOSOMAL Genetics and have nothing to do with Y-dna or mtDNA.
In relation to Africans being closer to Africans than Eurasians that actually may NOT be the case. That is the entire idea about substructure and ideas like "Basal Eurasian". It really depends on what SNP's you are looking at because APPARENTLY my wife's SNP profile was close to Europeans than the West/Central/South Africa populations present in the database. And THAT is the issue at hand. The cline of what is considered "African" vs "Eurasian" can be a cline that runs SMOOTHLY into the Levant and Arabia....there is no reason to believe there would be a sharp cutoff. This is the entire idea of Basal Euraisan. A component representing something that originated in Africa but it closer to the Eurasians it went on to represent.
Put your thinking cap on.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
@ Dr Winters. You are the History expert, so I not going to pretend to be one. But there are different points of view on who the Sea Peoples were. Maybe you can enlighten me.
Genetics is my pivotal point of reference.
That said. IIRC Sergi suggested that the Sea Peoples were Sardinians. Sardinian is currently classified as "European" based upon geopolitics but it's Neolithic civilization is EurAfrican. Meaning what? Sardinia and Crete were the only civilizations to the west of Egypt that had the fortitude and technology to challenge AE at that time.
The older European Barbarian tribes had not conquered Crete and Sardinia at that point in time.
I do know SOME history.
If you know your archeology. Sardinia and Crete are Islands ie Naval, they were more technologically advance than the peoples on main land Europe. There is a reason they were called Sea Peoples. And there is a reason why the current population carry such a high frequency of PN2 – ie hg-E. They were EurAfricans. African Neolithic Peoples.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: @ Dr Winters. You are the History expert, so I not going to pretend to be one. But there are different points of view on who the Sea Peoples were. Maybe you can enlighten me.
Genetics is my pivotal point of reference.
That said. IIRC Sergi suggested that the Sea Peoples were Sardinians. Sardinian is currently classified as "European" based upon geopolitics but it's Neolithic civilization is EurAfrican. Meaning what? Sardinia and Crete were the only civilizations to the west of Egypt that had the fortitude and technology to challenge AE at that time.
The older European Barbarian tribes had not conquered Crete and Sardinia at that point in time.
I do know SOME history.
The Sea People were nomadic people who sailed into the Egyptian Delta and began to occupy centers of civilization around the Mediterranean Sea after 1400.
It appears that the eruption of the volcanoe at Thera led to a decline in many civilizations, that allowed the Indo-Europeans to begin to push Blacks from centers of civilization. The Sea People were a mixed group, but many of the warriors appear to have been Hittites given their headdresses.
Researchers claim that "soon after Thera blew its top. Tsunamis spawned by the eruption would have swamped its naval fleet and coastal villages first off, historians think. A drop in temperatures caused by the massive amounts of sulphur dioxide spouted into the atmosphere then led to several years of cold, wet summers in the region, ruining harvests. The lethal combination overran every mighty Minoan stronghold in less than 50 years."
These tectonic events left the Black civilization centers in disarray, ripe for conquering by the I-E speaking people who overran most civilizations along the Mediterranean Sea. The Sea People lost the war to the Egyptians but they had no where to go so they stayed in the Levant and Delta. Overtime, these Sea People took control of the area. They were known as Philistines in the Levant, Meshwqesh, Soped and Sea People in Egyptian Delta . The Peleset and Tjeker later became known as the "Philistines" after they had settled in Southern Canaan.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Badro DA, Douaihy B, Haber M, Youhanna SC, Salloum A, et al. (2013) Y-Chromosome and mtDNA Genetics Reveal Significant Contrasts in Affinities of Modern Middle Eastern Populations with European and African Populations. PLoS ONE 8(1): e54616. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0054616 http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0054616
First I'm very glad you implicitly agree with me about the uniparental substructure in Africa. I guess it's hard to keep denying what is evident without looking like a fool.
So there was indeed a substructure in Africa before the OOA migrations which affected OOA migrants but it was between the Y-DNA CT carriers and the non-CT carriers (A and B haplogroup carriers). As well as between MtDNA L3 carriers and non-L3 carriers.
CT and L3 haplogroup carriers unites East and West Africans as well as the majority of the African populations. So it can't constitute the basis to say that modern East Africans were particularly closer to Eurasian at the moment of the OOA migrations before any back migrations.
Basically, both modern Eastern and Western African population (E-P2 haplogroup carriers) originate in Eastern Africa at a time period after the OOA migrations.
This we can see graphically here for Y-DNA:
And here for MtDNA (other L haplogroups were obviously not part of the OOA migrations so I didn't include them in the graph):
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That said, I agree with you about the need to use both uniparental and autosomal DNA to analyse the situation and population substructures. But you seem to want to ignore uniparental now that I kicked your ass about it. Changing the subject to talk about autosomal only.
Me and you, already discussed this issue many times in different fora. African populations are genetically close to each others in a similar way Eurasian populations are close to each others, mitigated by the amount of Eurasian back migration they possess. Bi-directional migrations must also be taken into account. Before the OOA migrations the E and even E-P2 haplogroups didn't even exist as East and West Africans (the greater part of their ancestry) were still part of the same population in North-East Africa. Where they eventually developed the E and E-P2 haplogroups. Eventually spreading E-P2 across Africa along with its MtDNA haplogroups counterparts (like L2a, L3f, L3d, etc). As well as along their language family which also originated in North-Eastern Africa. For example, Yoruba is a Niger-Congo language, which is a family which originated in North-East Africa.
Which we can see here: Taken from:Reconstructing Ancient Kinship in Africa by Christopher Ehret (From Early Human Kinship, Chap 12)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
We can also see the common origin of East and West African E-P2 haplogroups in North-Eastern Africa here below. Let's recall populations like Yoruba and Somali carry more than 80% of E-P2:
quote: Using the principle of the phylogeographic parsimony, the resolution of the E1b1b trifurcation in favor of a common ancestor of E-M2 and E-M329 strongly supports the hypothesis that haplogroup E1b1 originated in eastern Africa, as previously suggested [10], and that chromosomes E-M2, so frequently observed in sub-Saharan Africa, trace their descent to a common ancestor present in eastern Africa .
Autosomally, we can also see African populations clustering close to each others (like Europeans, Native Americans and East Asians too respectively) in term of genetic distance only mitigated by the amount of Eurasian back migration into those populations.
For example, on this genetic distance tree from Tishkoff we can clearly see African population clustering on one side and non-African populations clustering on the other side. We can measure the genetic distance too since the genetic distance tree is on scale.
We can notice among other populations Maasai, Yoruba, Fulani, African-Americans clustering close to each others compared to Eurasian populations. That is despite, for example, Fulani having some substantial level of Eurasian admixture.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
We can also see it here below, although not a true genetic distance tree (I think Beyoku like this one for some reason): Here we can see Dinka, Yoruba, Mandenka, etc cluster closer to each others than they do with Eurasians populations like French or Sardinians.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There's also the DNA Tribes genetic distance tree between population clusters: We can see West Africans, East Africans, Nilotic, etc clustering with each other under the Sub-Saharan African label.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
We can also see it here too (I guess I could post hundreds of similar graphs: From the same Tishkoff (2009) study linked above.
Here we can see again, African populations like Fulani, Cushitic, Nilo-Saharan, Niger-Congo clustering closer to each others than they do with Eurasian populations.
I guess I could post many more similar genetic distance graphs with similar results.
In general, African populations cluster closer to each others than they do with Eurasian populations. Some African populations especially in African borderline state cluster closer to Eurasian than other African populations due mainly to recent migration of Eurasians in Africa (post OOA at the very least). (Random genetic drift also have a small effect for populations with limited evidence of bi-directional admixture with Eurasian populations.)
Eurasian back migrations in Africa seem to have happened as early as before 10000BC in North-West Africa through the Iberia routes and 3000BC in Eastern Africa. We can see it here:
So the reason why Beyoku's fake wife would be more Eurasian, is because she (aka her ancestors) would be admixed with Eurasians to a high level. There's a lot of individual in Eastern Africa which are admixed with Eurasian due mainly to the Ethio-semitic and Muslim migrations in the region in the last 3000 years. Some are in fact very recent from a couple hundreds years ago or even later.
As for Basal Eurasian, this has nothing to do with it. Since Basal Eurasian are non-Africans. Basal Eurasian is the name given to one group of Out of Africa migrants from 650000 years ago who migrated out of Africa and now form part of the basal ancestry of European and Eurasian people. Of course, it is implied by the name. They were from haplogroups Y-DNA F and MtDNA M, N since those are the haplogroups of the OOA migrants from which descends modern European and Eurasian populations. During that time, 63000 years (65000-3000) in Eastern Africa, African populations continued to evolve, interact and admixed with each others. Developing on the genetic front among other thing the E-P2 Y-DNA haplogroups which they eventually spread across Africa along its MtDNA haplogroups counterparts like L2a, L3f, L3d, L0a, etc.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: @Beyoku @ES Readers
So there was indeed a substructure in Africa before the OOA migrations which affected OOA migrants but it was between the Y-DNA CT carriers and the non-CT carriers (A and B haplogroup carriers). As well as between MtDNA L3 carriers and non-L3 carriers.
Dumbass....If the substructure was between L3 and M168 please explain why L0/A/B populations sit a both ends of that substructure in reference to Nigerians, Senegalese, and Mbuti??
Think of these twigs has highways....how long would it take you to "drive" from the end of "French" to "Sardinian"......................Now how long would it take you to drive from SAN to Mbuti.....what about from SAN to DINKA? How many times is that distance between the Africans compared to the Europeans? Bonus question...compare the length from Dinka to Sardinian with that of San to Dinka.
Where do you think the AFRICAN specific ancestry from Ethiopia to the Egypt would fit on this map? From Dinka going toward the Eurasians right....because of substructure right?
Now since this is the case where would Levantines and Arabians sit? If there are progressive twigs all along the way can you conceptualize how one of these African twigs will be a shorter distance away from a Eurasian on than another African one? If you cannot conceptualize it then you have a problem with Brain power.
This is what you cannot understand. I have no idea why. You are a fcking flip flop. On one end you are saying the genetic substructure exists prior to OOA...and prior to any of the Y-dna or mtdna even originating. In the next sentence you turn around a say something totally contrary pending an entire argument on M168 and L3. This is because you dont know what the fvck you are talking about and you make up as you go along. take a trip to Ethiopia...better yet go to Somalia, these folks dont even look remotely "mixed". These populations dont have the signture of recent Arab and definitely EUROPEAN admixture. You are a Euroclown in negro clothing for that.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^ Don't blame me because you can't understand basic population genetics. I don't have to explain everything to you again. All was duly explained in my post above but you choose to ignore most of my post, head in ass again. That way we can't move the discussion forward.
Out of Africa: 65 000 years ago Back migration into Africa: 3 000 years ago Gap between the two: 62 000 years
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
ABSTRACT: The history of click-speaking Khoe-San, and African populations in general, remains poorly understood. We genotyped ∼2.3 million single-nucleotide polymorphisms in 220 southern Africans and found that the Khoe-San diverged from other populations ≥100,000 years ago, but population structure within the Khoe-San dated back to about 35,000 years ago. Genetic variation in various sub-Saharan populations did not localize the origin of modern humans to a single geographic region within Africa; instead, it indicated a history of admixture and stratification. We found evidence of adaptation targeting muscle function and immune response; potential adaptive introgression of protection from ultraviolet light; and selection predating modern human diversification, involving skeletal and neurological development. These new findings illustrate the importance of African genomic diversity in understanding human evolutionary history.
-------------------- 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
So the Dinka have Eurasian admixture? Do you REALLY thing my wife as an Oromo is 85% European? You do know Somali were showing the same thing right?
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Beyoku, what part of this you don't understand? Thanks.
Out of Africa: 65 000 years ago Back migration into Africa: 3 000 years ago Gap between the two: 62 000 years
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
GENOMIC VARIATION IN SEVEN KHOE-SAN GROUPS REVEALS ADAPTATION AND COMPLEX AFRICAN HISTORY
ABSTRACT: The history of click-speaking Khoe-San, and African populations in general, remains poorly understood. We genotyped ∼2.3 million single-nucleotide polymorphisms in 220 southern Africans and found that the Khoe-San diverged from other populations ≥100,000 years ago, but population structure within the Khoe-San dated back to about 35,000 years ago]. Genetic variation in various sub-Saharan populations did not localize the origin of modern humans to a single geographic region within Africa; instead, it indicated a history of admixture and stratification. We found evidence of adaptation targeting muscle function and immune response; potential adaptive introgression of protection from ultraviolet light; and selection predating modern human diversification, involving skeletal and neurological development. These new findings illustrate the importance of African genomic diversity in understanding human evolutionary history.
xyyman, you only read the abstract and suppliment, Dienekes snippets again right?
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: Beyoku, what part of this you don't understand? Thanks.
Out of Africa: 65 000 years ago Back migration into Africa: 3 000 years ago Gap between the two: 62 000 years
I understand you are a retard if you think a back migration of Arabs 3000 years ago can account for the bulk of the ancestry in 30 million Oromos ...who are not even Semitic speakers....or the Somali...who are even further removed from Semitic speakers. And obviously you arent paying attention to the recent works by Hodgeson that state the non-African component in Horners indicate back-migrtion of at least 23kya. new data will push that further back no doubt.
posted
Schlebusch et al 2012. Sub-Structure has always existed in Africa. South African Bantus are turning “white”. No Admixture needed. The same has been observed in AFRAMS. Did the Bantu Expansion really occur?. West African Bantus are younger than East African Bantus!! --------- QUOTE from the study and these patterns of African genetic variation have also been used to suggest a southern African origin (5, 10), although the fossil record suggests an East African origin (2).
Although the descendants of the Bantu expansion in eastern and southern Africa sometimes had greater levels of genetic diversity than populations closer to their West African origin, ….
the Ju/'hoansi, it was also found in other groups, including non-African populations, suggesting that the sweep was either old or reoccurring. A particular variant found in another muscle gene (ACTN3) associated with “fast-twitching” muscles and elite athletic performance (22) has greater frequencies (>90%) in all the investigated Khoe-San groups than in other African populations (fig. S81). The most prominent peak across the genome and among all populations was found on chromosome 6 near the major histocompatibility complex
regulate the ERCC4 gene (some 200 kb further downstream), which is linked to pigmentation and sensitivity to ultraviolet light (xeroderma pigmentosum). Individuals with mutations in the ERCC4 gene display pigmented freckles, mild skin lesions, and an elevated risk of skin cancer (23). When a supervised genome-local clustering strategy was used (24), this region showed an extraordinary fraction of ancestry from Bantuspeakers (South Africa) in the Nama (Fig. 4D and figs. S68 to S71), which is probably the result of introgression and, potentially, ensuing selection.
Our study demonstrates substantial stratification among sub-Saharan populations, including among Khoe-San, and both population structure and the geographic distribution of genetic variation suggest a complex human population history within Africa. It remains unclear whether modern humans originated from a single randomly mating population or emerged from a geographically structured population (2, 30), potentially exchanging genetic material with archaic humans (6). The finding of several genes involved in skeletal development as candidates for selection in the ancestral human population of Khoe-San and
-------------------- 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
You got jokes....?! But, no! Dienekess did not have this one. Although my MO recently is for him to find and post and for me to critique. Much less work for me. He! He!
It is fun to disassembly his crap. I need a tag team memeber. How about it Beyoku?
GENOMIC VARIATION IN SEVEN KHOE-SAN GROUPS REVEALS ADAPTATION AND COMPLEX AFRICAN HISTORY
ABSTRACT: The history of click-speaking Khoe-San, and African populations in general, remains poorly understood. We genotyped ∼2.3 million single-nucleotide polymorphisms in 220 southern Africans and found that the Khoe-San diverged from other populations ≥100,000 years ago, but population structure within the Khoe-San dated back to about 35,000 years ago]. Genetic variation in various sub-Saharan populations did not localize the origin of modern humans to a single geographic region within Africa; instead, it indicated a history of admixture and stratification. We found evidence of adaptation targeting muscle function and immune response; potential adaptive introgression of protection from ultraviolet light; and selection predating modern human diversification, involving skeletal and neurological development. These new findings illustrate the importance of African genomic diversity in understanding human evolutionary history.
xyyman, you only read the abstract and suppliment, Dienekes snippets again right?
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
@Beyoku. Yeah, I'm the retard because you can't understand this:
Out of Africa: 65 000 years ago Back migration into Africa: 3 000 years ago Gap between the two: 62 000 years
^^^I think, it's pretty clear and easy to understand.
Btw, the back migration in Eastern Africa is from ethio-semitic speakers not Arabs you dimwit.
Arabic/Muslim migrations in Eastern Africa is probably much later in the last few hundred years. You would know from reading the research posted below or reading the article I posted above and taking it into account.
No matter what study you like there's still about a 40 000 year gaps between the OOA migrations and the back migrations of Eurasians into Eastern Africa. A back migration you even denied this whole thread. You're a total racist moron. Not that I expected anything else from that type of person.
Large image. Notice the genetic position of the Afar. Ethio Somali Somali Oromo Wolyata.
None of them are Ethio Semeitc speakers. Some of them are separated from Ethio Semitic speakers by thousands of years. Have you ever seen some of these Africans? I have been to the region.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^So? Did you at least read the study that I posted because the study mentions ethio-semitic speakers as the source of early back migration into Africa. Where they obviously admixed with other populations in Eastern Africa and elsewhere like the Afar and the Khoisan to various degree, directly or through intermediaries. But since you're a racist retard you ignore what the study says.
You still didn't tell me what you don't understand about this:
Out of Africa: 65 000 years ago Back migration into Africa: 3 000 years ago Gap between the two: 62 000 years
Beyoku denied any kind of Eurasian back migrations into Eastern Africa this whole thread!!!Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
GENOMIC VARIATION IN SEVEN KHOE-SAN GROUPS REVEALS ADAPTATION AND COMPLEX AFRICAN HISTORY
ABSTRACT: The history of click-speaking Khoe-San, and African populations in general, remains poorly understood. We genotyped ∼2.3 million single-nucleotide polymorphisms in 220 southern Africans and found that the Khoe-San diverged from other populations ≥100,000 years ago, but population structure within the Khoe-San dated back to about 35,000 years ago]. Genetic variation in various sub-Saharan populations did not localize the origin of modern humans to a single geographic region within Africa; instead, it indicated a history of admixture and stratification. We found evidence of adaptation targeting muscle function and immune response; potential adaptive introgression of protection from ultraviolet light; and selection predating modern human diversification, involving skeletal and neurological development. These new findings illustrate the importance of African genomic diversity in understanding human evolutionary history.
xyyman, you only read the abstract and suppliment, Dienekes snippets again right?
posted
I did a quick glance of the paper. They are trying to split up the Khoisan groups. The hilarious part is they removed almost all SSA groups because they are admixed with "Eurasian genes". All Bantus have "Eurasian" genes. Ha! Ha! Basically they corroborated Lazaridis et al and DNATribes.
So this is the 3rd paper showing "basal Eurasian" is found throughout Africa. Ha! Ha!
It is all in the supplementals
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
My apologies to ARtU on Tishkoff's NJT.
I was working from the below which has no such NJT whereas the two sided (Eurasian vs African) version is in a later corrected reissue.
In the main article S. Africa and Pygimes appear like this
Figure 1. Neighbor-joining tree from pairwise D2 genetic distances between populations (65). African population branches are color-coded according to language family classification. Population clusters by major geographic region are noted; bootstrap values above 700 out of 1000 are indicated by thicker lines and bootstrap number.
But the updated supplement has them separated like so ...
Notice the treeing and distances do not agree probably due to the basis each NJT was built on.
Thanks ARtU, I will add the revised SOM to my db.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: I did a quick glance of the paper. They are trying to split up the Khoisan groups. The hilarious part is they removed almost all SSA groups because they are admixed with "Eurasian genes". All Bantus have "Eurasian" genes. Ha! Ha! Basically they corroborated Lazaridis et al and DNATribes.
So this is the 3rd paper showing "basal Eurasian" is found throughout Africa. Ha! Ha!
It is all in the supplementals
either you have quotes or you don't Ha! Ha!
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: @Amun-Ra The Ultimate. What about berber culture is Eurasian and middle Easetern?
Is it their language? Their music? Their dance? Their food and customs? Their facial tattoos and clothing? Their pastoralism?
Berbers are their own people, differentiated genetically, historically and culturally from black Africans, but still great people as any people of course.
I'm always interested into tracing the real history of the people, not typologically separating them.
Thus far you haven't done a great job. It actually sounded ridiculous.
I'm doing a great job, your stupid undercover ass just don't like it. Even Swenet and Beyoku had to admit I was right about the common origin of East and West Africans on both MtDNA and Y-DNA sides. Now Beyoku and you are just trying to distract us with some other proxy Eurasian populations in Africa.
The one who is the undercover racist is you. Trying to segregate African populations. This is a very old racist way of enactment, from centuries ago.
And instead of typing your notorious shyt, you could have answered to question.
Why doesn't M1 doesn't follow the same pattern.
quote: "No southwest Asian specific clades for M1 or U6 were discovered. U6 and M1 frequencies in North Africa, the Middle East and Europe DO NOT FOLLOW similar patterns, and their sub-clade divisions do not appear to be compatible with their shared history reaching back to the Early Upper Palaeolithic."
--Erwan Pennarun, Toomas Kivisild et al.
How come chromosomes C and R share a common ancestor in BT? In large parts of west Africa and this haplotype is being carried. Don't be shocked if you carry this as well.
quote:
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).
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: @Beyoku. Yeah, I'm the retard because you can't understand this:
Out of Africa: 65 000 years ago Back migration into Africa: 3 000 years ago Gap between the two: 62 000 years
^^^I think, it's pretty clear and easy to understand.
Btw, the back migration in Eastern Africa is from ethio-semitic speakers not Arabs you dimwit.
Arabic/Muslim migrations in Eastern Africa is probably much later in the last few hundred years. You would know from reading the research posted below or reading the article I posted above and taking it into account.
No matter what study you like there's still about a 40 000 year gaps between the OOA migrations and the back migrations of Eurasians into Eastern Africa. A back migration you even denied this whole thread. You're a total racist moron. Not that I expected anything else from that type of person.
What is even easer to understand is that ancestral alleles were already present in African populations, many have tried to explain this to you, but for some funny reason you just don't get it. Awkward, isn't it?
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: stop the nonsense the 'ancestral allele' doesn't prove origin/locus
you don't know what you're talking about
quote: 9. Genetics, Biochem. the linear order of monomers in a polymer, as nucleotides in DNA or amino acids in a protein. v.t. 10. to place in a sequence. 11. Genetics, Biochem. to determine the order of (chemical units in a polymer chain), esp. nucleotides in DNA or RNA or amino acids in a protein. 1350–1400; Middle English ...Late Latin sequentia= Latin sequ- (s. of sequī to follow) + -entia -ence
quote: al·lele (-ll) n. One member of a pair or series of genes that occupy a specific position on a specific chromosome. German Allel, short for Allelomorph, allelomorph, from English allelomorph. al·lelic (-llk, -llk) adj. al·lelism n.
With regards to the 16174T mutation, also mentioned in the notes from 2010 (main entry), L0f1 clade has tested positive for 16174T [2], as did L3 [4], which is worth pointing out, as it appears that Kefi et al. treated that mutation [not to dismiss the record that it has been located in U6-identified DNA] as another primary identifying polymorphism for U6 consideration in DNA assignment, although it is otherwise rarely treated as such in many other publications. So, it appears that all three polymorphisms, namely 16126C, 16172C, and 16174T have appeared in L3 clades [4]; in other words, the DNA assigned to U6 by Kefi et al., could just as well be outright placed in L3.
Mutation 16124T/C, as noted in the main entry, could allow for assignment into hg L3, with 16124T reported in L3b1a [2], and 16124C reported in L3e2 (L3e2a [4]), L3d and L3b, for example.
The earlier notes of the main entry also briefly noted possible assignment into L3, with regards to the alleged transition to T polymorphism at np 16239; possible L3 candidates for this are reportedly L3d again, and L3e (L3e2 and L3e2b [4]), while the mutation is found across other L-type clades, namely hg L0 (L0f2, L0d1), L1b ( L1b2), L2a (L2a1c2 [2]), L2e and L4b (L4b1).
Retarded troll. You keep citing authors who beat the dogsh!t out of your fairy tales about most African populations having an origin in the expansions of E. First you cited Ehret, then you cited Tishkoff, and now you're citing Hirbo. They all contradict your dumbass in not so subtle terms. Talk about completely in the dark. Post directly out of Hirbo and show where they endorse your fairy tales.
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: I should thank *you* for admitting I was right, since I've been saying this all along.
Lying ass troll, if you're so right about West/ Central Africans having the same amount of diversity and frequency of L3, start explaining inconvenient data like this instead of laughably skirting around the issue like a little helpless troll.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
As I told you several days ago, your math is as obtuse as half of your posts here.
1) you didn't reduce the Somali mtDNA pool to L types before you started counting their ratio of L3 against their mtDNA pool--which you did for the Yorubans. Had your incompetent dumbass done this, you would have arrived at 60% L3 types in the Somali mtDNA L pool, not 44.68%.
2) you forgot to mention that the lack of endemic East African lineages like L4, L5 and L6 and the presence of local West/Central African L2 and L1 types in Yorubans doesn't jibe with your wacky fairy tale of the Yoruba population being wholesale colonists from East Africa in some recent epoch.
3) you forgot to demonstrate that the frequency of L3b, L3e and L3d in West/Central Africans is reflective of the magnitude of the genetic contribution from Upper Palaeolithic East Africa that coincides with the introduction of L3e, L3b and L3d to the Yoruban mtDNA pool. Prove this didn't inflate through sexual selection or founder effect. Did you account for this, troll? Do you even know how to account for this, troll? Of course you don't.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yep...also M and N ARE L3 lineages so he would have to add that to the figure.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^His argument to that tho would be that M and N back-migrated and therefore are irrelevant to investigating the notion that certain Africans can be naturally closer (i.e. independent of back-migrations) to non-Africans than other Africans are to non-Africans.
That's where he tried to pull a fast one. His argument all along has been that M and N are foreign to the African mtDNA pool, but he deliberately neglected to treat M and N accordingly in his sham analysis. If M and N are as foreign as he so adamantly claims, he can't just recklessly post ratios of L3 from populations whose natural L3 levels have declined as a result of the same M and N back migrations he normally likes to emphasize (i.e. when it suits him). Despite me prompting him earlier, he has yet to address his snaky move, which further adds to the impression that that's exactly what he is--a snaky little troll.
Under his assumption that all M and N arrived 3kya, with Ethio-Semitic speakers, it speaks for itself that if he wants to compare the ratios of L3 of these five Ethiopian populations to West African ratios of L3, he has to filter out M and N, at which point you get an average ratio of roughly 59% L3. Needless to say, that doesn't exactly gel with his half-baked claim that West/Central Africans have the same amount of L3 as African populations along the Red Sea, since the L3 ratio of the former is typically around 30%, far from the 45% his lying ass tried to parade around as a typical West African ratio of L3.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Where are you at, lying ass charlatan? You've got some s'plainin' to do:
quote:The haplogroup distribution in Sudan (Fig. 1) was: 22.5% of Eurasian ancestry; 4.9% of the East African M1 lineage; 72.5% of sub-Saharan affiliation. In the sub-Saharan pool, a proportion of 44.6% is represented by the haplogroup L3, the ancestor of the worldwide mtDNA diversity outside Africa.
After accounting for the backmigration of M and N that Amun Ra the Anticlimax likes to draw attention to, the original L3 level of this Sudanese population would have been approximately 44.6 / 72.5 = 61%.
More:
quote: The haplogroup distribution in Ethiopia was: 21.8% of Eurasian ancestry; 9.4% of the East African M1 lineage; and 64.1% of sub-Saharan affiliation. In the sub-Saharan pool, a proportion of 48.8% is represented by the haplogroup L3,the ancestor of the worldwide mtDNA diversity outside Africa. Given the recent interest in the alternative routes for Out-of-Africa migration(s) (Levant versus Southern), these L3 Ethiopian haplotypes w ill contribute information to shed light on this issue.
After accounting for the M and N backmigrations the L3 in this African population is 48.8% / 64.1% = 76%.
Since your lying dumbass already admitted that Eurasians emerge out of L3, you know what these relatively high ratios of L3 relative to other L types means in terms of these populations' natural closeness to OOA populations and what that holds in store for your half-baked claim that these Red Sea coast Indigenes can only be closer to non- Africans due to backmigrations, right?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Note that the above calculations are redundant. The authors above already seem to have calculated these populations' L3 freqs against the backdrop of their mtDNA L pools, re: "in the sub-Saharan pool, a proportion of L3 (...)", so it seems that L3 ratios proper for our intents and purposes were already provided. The respective ratios of L3 among these populations' L pools are:
posted
Well looky here, if it isn't Beroku and Gaynet. Gaynet must be "recruiting" over here. You think the afronuts here will help you but they can't. You two are leeching off my Anthro forum on your Facebook where its only 3 or 4 afronuts taking to one another, then you come over here talking big. You may have the negroes here thinking you hot stuff but you ain't shi#*t. You disappeared when confronted with this new evidence, so you are here for help? ROTFLMAO!
Posts: 4 | From: usa | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Your mother's a negro you cracker you
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Crimson Guard: Well looky here, if it isn't Beroku and Gaynet. Gaynet must be "recruiting" over here. You think the afronuts here will help you but they can't. You two are leeching off my Anthro forum on your Facebook where its only 3 or 4 afronuts taking to one another, then you come over here talking big. You may have the negroes here thinking you hot stuff but you ain't shi#*t. You disappeared when confronted with this new evidence, so you are here for help? ROTFLMAO!
Do I know you? I'm pretty sure I've never conversed with you anywhere on the net, nor would I be capable of telling your site apart from the other sub-par fora. Why even give off the false impression that I know you or your site from a hole in the wall?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
BTW, just for the record in case these laughable claims come up again, I'm not interested in recruiting anyone. Certainly not anyone from this board. If anything, we've been deleting some duds and inactive members. Amun Ra hates my guts, especially since he was kicked out of the FB group, but he'll tell you that your crackpot forum doesn't get an iota of attention in the FB group. Like I said, I don't know you from a hole in wall. I do vaguely recall seeing a "banned" notification beneath a forum account that bore your name in some other sub-par forum, but whether you and your views command enough respect among your fellow Euronut peers so as to not get ostracised in front of the entire Anthro blogosphere is a whole nother matter.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
Bantus are the youngest African yet they think they own Africa.
.
Yes, but specific to N Afr only, in Arredi (2004), which is a tad outdated in places, and based on only eight chromosomes. I have it that less than 10 samples weakens TMRCA accuracy, iirc. Her M81 age is based a full complement of 165 chromosomes.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
Based on these analyses, we can propose a model for the spread of west Eurasian ancestry in southern and eastern Africa as follows. First, a large-scale movement of people from west Eurasia into Ethiopia around 3,000 y ago (perhaps from southern Arabia and associated with the D’mt kingdom and the arrival of Ethiosemitic languages) resulted in the dispersal of west Eurasian ancestry throughout eastern Africa. This was then followed by a migration of an admixed population (perhaps pastoralists related to speakers of Khoe–Kwadi languages) from eastern Africa to southern Africa, with admixture occurring ∼1,500 y ago. Advances in genotyping DNA from archaeological samples may allow aspects of this model to be directly tested.
posted
^^^ As explained here, usually such admixture model-based analysis suffer from SNP ascertainment bias due to the use of European biased microarrays for the SNPs tested, overestimating the percentage of Eurasian admixture in any populations. Taking this into account, this still provide a good general idea of the level of Eurasian admixtures in various Eastern African and Khoisan populations.
quote:The Semitic-Cushitic and North African populations showed the highest values of heterozygosity worldwide, which may reflect a combination of SNP ascertainment bias and the mixture of African and non-African components in these populations.
- From:"Ethiopian Genetic Diversity Reveals Linguistic Stratification and Complex Influences on the Ethiopian Gene Pool"Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
You think I don't see you squirming your way out of answering the L3 issue? Answer the questions, fraudulent troll:
1) Are there some African populations whose African ancestry consists mostly, or to a significantly larger degree, of the ancient L3'4'6 population, as opposed to the more early L1 and L0 off-shoot populations?
2) Would the African autosomal component in these African populations have a natural, non-admixture mediated closeness to non-Africans (who also descent from the aforementioned L3'4'6 population)?
3) If not, why? Document your answer with textual support.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: The respective ratios of L3 among these populations' L pools are:
posted
Amun Ra, we're waiting for you to rear your head and latch onto your next predictable face saving excuse for not having to answer my questions and address the fact that all your sources, from Hirbo, to Tishkoff, to Ehret, explicitly make observations that refute the crap you're fraudulently ascribing to them. They're not just doing so on some obscure medium which requires beyond basic familiarity with their work; they refute the crap you're talking about IN THE EXACT same papers your lying fraud ass is putting up as supposedly supportive of your case.
What was that crackpot fairytale you were spouting about all Africans supposedly being being equally close to non-Africans? What is your source for this fairytale, troll? Or did you make it all up, like 95% of the sh!t you talk about on a daily basis?
quote:With the full set of 18 mtDNA SNPs used in our genome-wide data set, Egyptians and Moroccans proved to be the closest African population to any non-African population examined (Table 2A). However, when we first partitioned the mtDNA lineages into African and non-African (i.e., L and non-L) and considered only the L component, a different pattern emerged: Ethiopians were the closest population to the non-Africans (Table 2B), consistent with inferences drawn from more detailed mtDNA analyses.
--Pagani et al 2012
Oh what, are Pagani et al racist now too, because they don't endorse your moronic "all African genetic diversity not shared with/closely related to West/ Central Africans is Eurasian admixture" crap?
posted
Amun Ra the Ultimate. The ultimate what, the ultimate face, saving coward? Lol. Taking little shots in posts elsewhere instead of addressing pending matters, right here, where your scary ass fled the scene with your tail between your legs. This is not what grown men do. Looks like I'm going to have to lecture you on growing a pair, too.
I'm not letting off on you. I'm going to be on your bumper until you feel ashamed to rear your troll head again. All that little sneak shot taking about half the forum being liars, racists, not being "real Africans", hamitic race theorists, race supremacists, "fooling the people"; all that sh!t ends right now; either with proof that you're right or with an apology to the forum. I'm going to be on your bumper until you retract those accusations or prove that you're right for making them. Like the little snake that you are, the past has proven you'll temporarily cede when the fire is held to your ass, only to later continue your snaky campagn of taking sneak shots at people and reviving the same dead claims about Africans. All of this after you were proven wrong and completely incapable of providing literary support for your fairy rales. So no, I'm not going away. I'm going to stay on your bumper until you stfu, for once and for all.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by Amun Ra the ultimate: So there was indeed a substructure in Africa before the OOA migrations which affected OOA migrants but it was between the Y-DNA CT carriers and the non-CT carriers (A and B haplogroup carriers). As well as between MtDNA L3 carriers and non-L3 carriers.
Amun Ra the ultimate cowardly clown. Known on ES for popping sh!t, fleeing the scene when it gets too hot under your feet, only to later resurface with the same fraudulent, thoroughly debunked fairy tales and fake snake act of not remembering the previous time you were forced to abandon your fabricated claims the last time you brought them up.
Let's continue exposing your lies concerning Ehret, Hirbo and Tishkoff, shall we? Let's start with your moronic attempt to cite Hirbo in support of your fabrication that the only substructure in pre- historic Africa was between CT and non CT carriers and L3 and non-L3 carriers (which you've pulled out of your ass, as usual) or that West/central African populations coalesce recently with East African populations. Let's see what Hirbo actually states when we start fact-checking your faith- based crap:
quote:However, based on results from the present study there might have been as many as three ancestral clusters. Both Y chromosome and mtDNA lineages clearly show restricted geographical distribution (Appendix 6, Table 3.3.3, Table 3.4.2, Table A15.1). Derived variants of the putatively most ancestral Y chromosome haplogroup, A, form three separate geographical distributions. The A1 haplotype lineage is observed only in Central/West Africa, the A3b2 is observed commonly in East Africa while A2 and A3b1 lineages are observed only in southern African populations (Table A15.1, Appendix 6a, Table 3.3.3). Moreover, the slightly younger Y chromosome B haplogroup shows a distribution consistent with three different ancestral population clusters corresponding to the same geographical clusters as observed for the A haplogroup (Table A15.1, Appendix 6a, Table 3.3.3). Y chromosome haplotype lineages B* and B1 are observed mostly in Central Africa, while B2a is observed mostly in East African populations. However, the ancestral variant of B2b, B2b* is found in all the three regions (Central/western, eastern and southern Africa) but is at highest frequency in East African hunter-gatherers (Table A15.1, Appendix 6a, Table 3.3.3).
--Hirbo
quote:Mitochondrial haplotypes with deep lineages, specifically L0d and L0k (southern Africa), L1 and L2 (Central/west Africa) and L0b, L0f, L5 and L4 (East Africa) mirror what is observed for Y chromosome haplogroup A (Table A15.1, Appendix 6b, Table 3.4.2). Similar to what is observed for the Y chromosome lineages, the younger mtDNA L3 lineages are mostly observed in Central/West Africa (L3b, L3d, L3e) and in East Africa (L3a, L3h, L3i & L3x, L6) (Table A15.1, Appendix 6b, Table 3.4.2).
posted
Sorry for the very tardiness of this response but...
quote:Originally posted by the lyinass,:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Secondly, the earliest known F-89 at least in Africa comes from the 2009 Mohamed et al. study of Sudanese remains particularly in Nubia.
I find it funny that you mention your belief in the indigenous existence of what some might perceive to be decidedly non-African hgs in the Sudan,
Yes the behavior pattern is predictable, with Trollkillah same thing
Ask them if any haplogroup/ allele did not evolve in Africa They will either say none did or they never mention such an example and will give none if asked (J1, J2, H etc sweep under the rug) They will ignore Northern Sudan populations as if they don't exist
That's the political dogma at work, African purity concepts It's not mainstream genetics it's alternative genetics
More nonsensical lies. I don't know what individuals you were referring to in your above post, but I for one never denied that there were clades that evolved outside of Africa. I mean that is just common sense. And YES some of these clades did back-migrate into Africa later on. My argument was about certain early clades whose 'Eurasian' identity is questionable.
Genetic variation and population structure of Sudanese populations as indicated by 15 Identifiler sequence-tagged repeat (STR) loci Hiba MA Babiker12, Carina M Schlebusch1, Hisham Y Hassan3 and Mattias Jakobsson1* The lowest number of private alleles for pairs of populations were typically found when we compared a western group (for example, the Zagawa) with a northern (for example, the Nubian) or a central (for example, the Arab) group. When the Sudanese populations were compared with their neighboring populations (sample size of 58 chromosomes), three of the four highest numbers of private alleles for population pairs were seen between the Karamoja population (from Uganda) and either the Zagawa (0.055 ± 0.026), the Nilotic (0.034 ± 0.012) or the Nubian (0.029 ± 0.021) populations (Figure 4), indicating gene flow and/or shared ancestry between the Karamoja population and Nilo-Saharan populations. For smaller sample sizes (10-44 chromosomes), the Zagawa-Nuba pair also has a high number of private alleles. A similar result was found in a previous Y-chromosome study [6], in which all Nilo-Saharan populations (which included the Zagawa, the Nilotic and the Nubian) had little evidence of gene flow with other Sudanese populations. The second largest value for the number of private alleles for population pairs in our study was for the Arab-Somali pair (0.036 ± 0.029; Figure 4), which may be a result of the influence of Arab groups in east Africa as the product of continuous migrations from the Arabian Peninsula across the Gate of Tears over the past three millennia [31]. Among pairs of populations that included the Egyptian population, the Egyptian-Copt pair had the greatest number of private alleles (0.012 ± 0.008) indicating a connection between the Coptic and the Egyptian population (Figure 4). [/QB]
Okay, and how does the study above contradict anything I have said? What does the Arab-Somali or any Somali group have to with F-89 in Africa???
As usual you are just quick to throw anything out your lyinass as a response. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
But, no! Dienekess did not have this one. Although my MO recently is for him to find and post and for me to critique. Much less work for me. He! He! 
[/QB]![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic