posted
Here's the post Swenet desperately tries to avoid since it demonstrates that East and West Africans, for example, were one people after the OOA migrations and before any back migration of Eurasian people in the last 3000 years.
While isolated from OOA migrants for more than 60-40 000 years, Africans who stayed back in Africa continued to interact with one another. Developing among other thing the E and then the E-P2 haplogroups. Haplogroups common to both East and West Africans. As well as intermixing and developing many L haplogroups like L2a, L3bf, L3eijx, etc. Same as developing languages and culture like the Green Saharan and Tasian/Badarian culture cited above, and obviously Ancient Egypt too. This is all before the back migrations of any Eurasians in the region which started with the ethio-semitic speakers 3000 years ago. Even if people tries to move the date the Ancient Egyptian culture has its foundation in the Green Saharan, Tasian, Badarian and Naqada cultures. All indigenous African cultures with no substantial element of Eurasian back migrations.
@Beyoku @ES Readers
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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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 |
posted
Took you weeks to muster up the cojones to make an appearance, but apparently still a few balls short of being able to stand your ground like a grown man and answer a few questions without shitting your pants.
-----------
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:
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: Here's the post Swenet desperately tries to avoid since it demonstrates that East and West Africans, for example, were one people after the OOA migrations
Not that it's not already clear that you're lying, but since I love to call your bluff to show that you're making it all up, where is your source for this claim?
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: and before any back migration of Eurasian people in the last 3000 years.
^As well as your source for this claim.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: Here's the post Swenet desperately tries to avoid since it demonstrates that East and West Africans, for example, were one people after the OOA migrations and before any back migration of Eurasian people in the last 3000 years.
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: Basically, both modern Eastern and Western African population (E-P2 haplogroup carriers) originate in Eastern Africa at a time period after the OOA migrations.
^False:
quote:Our results suggest that Maasai ancestors were well mixing with Non-African ancestors until about 80kya, much later than the YRI/Non- African separation. This is consistent with a model where Maasai ancestors and Non-African ancestors formed sister groups, which together separated from West African ancestors and stayed well mixing until much closer to the actual out-of- Africa migration.
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: This is all before the back migrations of any Eurasians in the region which started with the ethio-semitic speakers 3000 years ago.
^False:
quote:The presence of haplogroup X in West Eurasia dates back to pre-Holocene at about 30 kya (Reidla et al., 2003), soon after it had diverged from superhaplogroup N as did its W, N1 (and I) sister clades (Fig.1). Nowadays, it is present at low frequencies among West Eurasian, North Africa and Near East, with specific sub-clades in Native Americans (Reidla et al., 2003 and references therein). Clade X1 is largely restricted to Afro- Asiatic populations in North Africa (particularly Moroccans) and Ethiopians (Kivisild et al., 2004), suggesting a diffusion along the Mediterranean and Red Seas (Reidla et al., 2003). The coalescence age of this clade in North Africa is contemporary to M1 and U6 Paleolithic mtDNA lineages (Reidla et al., 2003).
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: 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:
^Completely irrelevant to the issue of when core African populations split off from the AMH branch. The emergence of ancestral West/Central Africans and other ancestral populations has nothing to do with E. Shared E cannot be used to argue against population substruture in Middle Palaeolithic Africa, way before the OOA migration:
quote:We find extensive population structure in Africa extending back to before the Out-of-Africa event. The Ethiopian populations, Amhara and Oromo, show evidence of mixing beyond 15 kya. The Maasai and Luhye merge with the Ethiopian populations to form a panmictic East African population ~40kya. We find evidence for extensive mixing between east and west African populations before 50kya. Among the pygmy populations, we see recent gene flow between the Batwa and Mbuti. All African populations except the San merge into a single population around 110 kya. The San exchange migrants with the other African populations beginning ~120 kya. We estimate the Out-of-Africa event to have occurred ~75kya and the European- Asian split to ~25kya.
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: Before the OOA migrations the E and even E-P2 haplogroups didn't even exist
^Patently false as evidenced by the existence of DE and D in OOA populations.
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: Autosomally, we can also see African populations clustering close to each others (like Europeans, Native Americans and East Asians too respectively)
^This is false, as evidenced by Fst values and other methods of computing genetic distance:
quote:We characterize the extent of whole-genome and exome diversity among the five men, reporting 1.3 million novel DNA differences genome-wide, including 13,146 novel amino acid variants. In terms of nucleotide substitutions, the Bushmen seem to be, on average, more different from each other than, for example, a European and an Asian.
--Schuster et al 2010
quote: 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.
posted
^^^It's pretty pathetic from you 2 clowns to get mad at me just because I've shown that East and West Africans share common ancestors (after the OOA migration of non-Africans).
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nobody is arguing against the fact that they "share ancestors" they also share post OOA ancestors with Tibetan, Japanese and Andaman Islanders but this says little about the autosomal aspects and their genetic distinction.
Each one of your points were countered.... One by one with a clear quote to a source. furthermore you keep using Pagani and a data of 3kya when hodgeson.....You know the guy and study this thread is about..... Used the same data and did a much more comprehensive analysis and came to a different conclusion.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
Early Back-to-Africa Migration into the Horn of Africa Jason A. Hodgson, 2014 Connie J. Mulligan,Ali Al-Meeri, Ryan L. Raaum mail
Abstract
Genetic studies have identified substantial non-African admixture in the Horn of Africa (HOA). In the most recent genomic studies, this non-African ancestry has been attributed to admixture with Middle Eastern populations during the last few thousand years. However, mitochondrial and Y chromosome data are suggestive of earlier episodes of admixture. To investigate this further, we generated new genome-wide SNP data for a Yemeni population sample and merged these new data with published genome-wide genetic data from the HOA and a broad selection of surrounding populations. We used multidimensional scaling and ADMIXTURE methods in an exploratory data analysis to develop hypotheses on admixture and population structure in HOA populations. These analyses suggested that there might be distinct, differentiated African and non-African ancestries in the HOA. After partitioning the SNP data into African and non-African origin chromosome segments, we found support for a distinct African (Ethiopic) ancestry and a distinct non-African (Ethio-Somali) ancestry in HOA populations. The African Ethiopic ancestry is tightly restricted to HOA populations and likely represents an autochthonous HOA population. The non-African ancestry in the HOA, which is primarily attributed to a novel Ethio-Somali inferred ancestry component, is significantly differentiated from all neighboring non-African ancestries in North Africa, the Levant, and Arabia. The Ethio-Somali ancestry is found in all admixed HOA ethnic groups, shows little inter-individual variance within these ethnic groups, is estimated to have diverged from all other non-African ancestries by at least 23 ka, and does not carry the unique Arabian lactase persistence allele that arose about 4 ka. Taking into account published mitochondrial, Y chromosome, paleoclimate, and archaeological data, we find that the time of the Ethio-Somali back-to-Africa migration is most likely pre-agricultural.Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Either you provide counter-arguments for each of my points by quoting me or you shut it. Your strawman arguments get boring after a while even if you write long crazy post about it. --Amun Ra the ultimate liar
No emotional appeals now. Post counter evidence or STFU for all eternity and admit that you were wrong and got your ass handed to you. Which one is it going to be, jackass?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^That's not providing counter-arguments for all my main points by quoting me. That's partially quoting me while leaving out the main points of my argumentations. It's stupid and pathetic even coming from you 2 clowns.
At the end of it, you can't change the basic fact that most East and West Africans share a common E-P2 grandfather after the OOA migrations of non-Africans as well as many common MtDNA L grandmothers.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: The Ethio-Somali ancestry [...] does not carry the unique Arabian lactase persistence allele that arose about 4 ka.
This in and of itself just shows how astronomically retarded this bum (Amun Ra) is. He keeps talking about pre-3kya as some nirvana epoch when Africans were 'pure', yet this thread was started based off clear evidence that the same component which he sees as entirely derived from a 3kya admixture event, does not harbour the 4kya 13915 LP variant we'd expect to see in the Ethio-Somali construct, if his claims were more than a bunch of sick, faith-based fairytales.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: That's not providing counter-arguments for all my main points by quoting me. That's partially quoting me while leaving out the main points of my argumentations.
Prey tell, lying ass troll, what would those imaginary "main points" be, which I supposedly left unaddressed?
Early Back-to-Africa Migration into the Horn of Africa Jason A. Hodgson, 2014 Connie J. Mulligan,Ali Al-Meeri, Ryan L. Raaum mail
Abstract
Genetic studies have identified substantial non-African admixture in the Horn of Africa (HOA). In the most recent genomic studies, this non-African ancestry has been attributed to admixture with Middle Eastern populations during the last few thousand years. However, mitochondrial and Y chromosome data are suggestive of earlier episodes of admixture. To investigate this further, we generated new genome-wide SNP data for a Yemeni population sample and merged these new data with published genome-wide genetic data from the HOA and a broad selection of surrounding populations. We used multidimensional scaling and ADMIXTURE methods in an exploratory data analysis to develop hypotheses on admixture and population structure in HOA populations. These analyses suggested that there might be distinct, differentiated African and non-African ancestries in the HOA. After partitioning the SNP data into African and non-African origin chromosome segments, we found support for a distinct African (Ethiopic) ancestry and a distinct non-African (Ethio-Somali) ancestry in HOA populations. The African Ethiopic ancestry is tightly restricted to HOA populations and likely represents an autochthonous HOA population. The non-African ancestry in the HOA, which is primarily attributed to a novel Ethio-Somali inferred ancestry component, is significantly differentiated from all neighboring non-African ancestries in North Africa, the Levant, and Arabia. The Ethio-Somali ancestry is found in all admixed HOA ethnic groups, shows little inter-individual variance within these ethnic groups, is estimated to have diverged from all other non-African ancestries by at least 23 ka, and does not carry the unique Arabian lactase persistence allele that arose about 4 ka. Taking into account published mitochondrial, Y chromosome, paleoclimate, and archaeological data, we find that the time of the Ethio-Somali back-to-Africa migration is most likely pre-agricultural.
The funny part is, that it is the other way arround. Thus Africans carry the ancestral alleles. Recap those.
quote: Although the study's main focus was on Africa, ishkoff and her colleagues studied DNA markers from around the planet, identifying 14 "ancestral clusters" for all of humanity. Nine of those clusters are in Africa. "You're seeing more diversity in one continent than across the globe," Tishkoff said.
quote: We can also see that the oldest lineages are the ones shown in orange, and they are all specific to Africa, so oldest lineages are in Africa. The non-Africans have a subset of the African genetic diversity and tend to have much more recent lineages.
Bones, Stones, and Genes: The Origin of Modern Humans Lecture 2- Genetics of Human Origins and Adaptation Sarah A. Tishkoff, Ph.D.
quote: This is an absolute landmark. It's incredible," said Alison Brooks, a professor of anthropology and international affairs at George Washington University. "It's the most comprehensive document ever published describing the very complex issue of African genetic variation." She added, "There's been so much genetic analysis that's been so Eurocentric."
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: @ amun ra. Then why are Eurasians closer to Southern Sudanese considering southern Sudanese have an abundance of haplogroup A and B.(non CT m168 lineages) Some being exclusively A and B. As well as southern Sudanese have primarily L lineages other than L3?
Bro you were wasting your time trying to explain this, anyone hwo studies African genetics knows that there is some much inner African diversity that all Africans do not cluster together, thats why Pygmy and San sit very deep on some trees and modern West Africans sit "closer" to Eurasians on the same trees, I don't see why Amun Ra isn't getting this. Dienekes saw this and tried proposing that Yoruba for example were highly Eurasian admixed because of their position on the tree relative to Eurasians and Pygmy and San.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Have you seen the Tishkoff genetic distance tree. Or the other ones I posted?
If you don't want to discuss things scientifically or by ignoring argumentation. SHUT THE HELL UP! You can disagree with me like a little bitch off a knee jerk reaction if you want. Everybody can have its own misinformed opinion. But don't come here and say you don't know why. You KNOW why. You just don't like it for some reason.
What I'm saying is frankly pretty basic, almost common knowledge: African populations are closer to other African populations than they are to non African populations. Which is the same thing for most Europeans and East Asians populations. Of course, Mbuti, Khoisan, etc, and A and B carriers in general, are a bit further away, but they are still closer to most other African populations than they are to Eurasian ones (due to admixture). Of course recent immigrants in Africa or descendants of them would be closer to Eurasians than other African populations at the degree they are admixed with Eurasians. By recent immigrants, I'm considering Eurasian immigrants post-dating the OOA migrations (aka back migrations) and those post-dating Ancient Egypt (because on this site we want to determine and qualify the ethnic affiliations of Ancient Egyptians).
This is because of 3 main reasons: 1-Common origin of most African populations post-dating the OOA migrations (think E or E-P2 for example). 2-Extensive admixtures between African populations 3-The founder effect/bottleneck created by the OOA migrations (as well as Bering Strait migrations for Native Americans).
The genetic distance between Igbo, Fulani and Yoruba is NOT zero, but they are still closer to each others than they are to German or Syrian people.
Ultimately, the reason to discuss genetic distance on this site, is to verify, and based on current genetic analysis of Ancient Egyptian aDNA it seems that they are, if Ancient Egyptians are genetically closer to most African populations (especially not too admixed with Eurasians post dynastic times or I should say post OOA times too) than they are to most Eurasian populations (not too admixed with Africans too in post post dynastic times).
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: modern West Africans sit "closer" to Eurasians on the same trees, I don't see why Amun Ra isn't getting this.
Just for the record, this is true of course, but you can't say I don't see it since I already discussed it on this very thread, CT carriers were closer to each others than non-CT carriers (like Khoisan or Mbuti people for example) at the moment of the OOA migrations. West Africans like East Africans are CT carriers. So it's BOTH West Africans and East Africans, among others, not just East Africans like Swenet and Beyoku are trying to claim.
African populations are closer to other African populations than they are to non African populations. Which is the same thing for most Europeans and East Asians populations. Of course, Mbuti, Khoisan, etc, and A and B carriers in general, are a bit further away, but they are still closer to most other African populations than they are to Eurasian ones (due to admixture)..
The genetic distance between Igbo, Fulani and Yoruba is NOT zero, but they are still closer to each others than they are to Finnish or Syrians people. . [/QB]
This is the mind fvckery I am talking about. Lets take a look at these two statements. I am going to keep teaching session really simple.
In the first one you state :"Of course, Mbuti, Khoisan, etc, and A and B carriers in general, are a bit further away." Further away from WHAT exactly???
I am going to assume you mean further away from Eurasians. When that is the case, how to do you explain the position of Sudanese....closer to Eurasians than Niger-Kordofanian speakers? Remeber that last study that said even the YORUBA had some type of "Eurasian" type ancestry and the presence of Neanderthal yet the DINKA were the best African population as representatives of No Neanderthal?
"These results mean that we have not identified any sub-Saharan African sample that we are confident has no evidence of back-to-Africa migration. Our best candidate at present is the Dinka"
Furthermore Haplogroups A and B as well as old Maternal lineages like L0, L4 and L5 are WIDESPREAD and very frequent in East Africa. But East Africans are still closer to Eurasians than Niger-Kordofanian speakers. These issues debunk your statement and you need to go back to the drawing board.
2 - You state "genetic distance between Igbo, Fulani and Yoruba is NOT zero" - This contradicts your idea that 'All Africans are the same and they can all be proxies for each other'...........as well as the whole "East and West Africans were One people prior to 3000 years ago".
If they were "one people" then their genetic distance WOULD be zero dumbo. I dont know about Yoruba and Igbo, but Fulani definitely diverge from the other two prior to 3000 years ago....they would have already been differentiated long ago.
This is what you have to understand. There is a CLINE in Africa. The Mbuti and Khoisan are usually an anchor to that CLINE. This cline has multiple dimensions and and the spread African populations from Mbuti/San to "Arabians", "Europeans" or "Japanese" is not always based on the Mixture of Sub Saharans with "Arabians" "Europeans" or "Japanese"............OR alternatively "Arabians" "Europeans" or "Japanese" admixture with Sub Saharan Africans. Its not all "Admixture".
IE Nigerians being closer to San compared to Dinka does not mean Nigerians are mixed with Khoisan. In Uniparental markers we know Dinka and other East Africans have more of a Shared history with Khoisan. East Africa also has the presence of Actual click speakers.
Moving on. As far as African Ancestry its usually something like : Huntergatherers > West > Central Africans > East Africans > Eurasians. With East Africans broken down: Hunter Gatherers > Eastern Bantu > Nilotics > Omotics > Cushitics > Afro-Semites..........then Magrebi >Egyptian > Palestinian
The above is the common knowledge part. This is what most folks understand that you seem to miss. This is perhaps why you argued that All ("pure")Sub Saharans are as equally close to themselves as they are to Eurasians....and no SSA is closer to a specific Euraisan than another is. I then countered that nonsense with a modified image of Tishkoff:
From the data we have NOW. The African SPECIFIC ancestry of Northern and Central Sudanese..........and the African SPECIFIC ancestry of Egyptians has NOT be analyzed in relation to Eurasians and placed on a plot. We dont yet know how / where they will sit. And we dont know how their subsequent longterm/short term bi-directional admixture with Neighboring distinct populations will affect their position on a PCA plot.
What we DO know about modern Egyptians.....even modern southern Egyptians as far as autosomal STR and some SNP data is that they cluster with Eurasians....This though does not mean they DNA is actually Eurasian in ORIGIN. All one needs to do is look at the STR and SNP data from Egyptians in DNA Tribes.
Compare the Northern and Southern Samples. From memory I dont think in any way were the Southern Egyptian samples "North East African". And these are black people we are talking about. Go ahead and give the dna tribes stuff a glance. I could be wrong but I am going from memory...what I remember is their genome not being representative of how the populations looks and being pretty similar to Northern Egyptians. Not surprising IMO.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
African populations are closer to other African populations than they are to non African populations. Which is the same thing for most Europeans and East Asians populations. Of course, Mbuti, Khoisan, etc, and A and B carriers in general, are a bit further away, but they are still closer to most other African populations than they are to Eurasian ones (due to admixture)..
The genetic distance between Igbo, Fulani and Yoruba is NOT zero, but they are still closer to each others than they are to Finnish or Syrians people. .
This is the mind fvckery I am talking about. Lets take a look at these two statements. I am going to keep teaching session really simple.
In the first one you state :"Of course, Mbuti, Khoisan, etc, and A and B carriers in general, are a bit further away." Further away from WHAT exactly???
I am going to assume you mean further away from Eurasians. [/QB]
I didn't read the rest but it's further away from other African populations of course (E haplogroup carriers). Your premise is false.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
2 - You state "genetic distance between Igbo, Fulani and Yoruba is NOT zero" - This contradicts your idea that 'All Africans are the same and they can all be proxies for each other'...........as well as the whole "East and West Africans were One people prior to 3000 years ago".
Another strawman argument. As most of your post for that matter. Directly quote me or SHUT THE **** UP already.
You don't even have the guts to quote me completely, leaving the second part of my sentence out of your ranting:
I said: The genetic distance between Igbo, Fulani and Yoruba is NOT zero, but they are still closer to each others than they are to German or Syrian people.
I guess you could have placed Dinka in there too.
The genetic distance between Igbo, Fulani, Dinka and Yoruba is NOT zero, but they are still closer to each others than they are to German or Syrian people.Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
The spread is wide enough that SOME African diversity will be closer to Eurasians than it is are to certain Africans.
See image: This is tishkoff:
See the alphabet at the bottom. "O" - represents "Europe and the Middle East". "M/N" - Is North East Africa, "A" and "B" likely represent hunter gatherers at the root of the tree....SAN and TWA.
Can you see where the distance from "O" to M" or "N" is SHORTER than the Distance from "O" to "A" "B" or "C" ? Yes you can....?
Now look at the distance from M/N (Africanas) to A and B. (Other Africans)...........what about "A" (Africans) to "C" (Other Africans)..............understand me now?
Also note that Africans with A/B and L0 sit at BOTH ends of the spectrum.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: ^^^This is not a genetic distance tree. LOL
That is not the point. It is a tree based on divergence though TIME that lets you conceptualize what is going on with the specific clusters she found.
Other RAW genetic data DOES indeed talk about the populations splits between Africans happening over a hundred or Tens of thousands of years.
The data was posted.....before:
quote: Our results suggest that Maasai ancestors were well mixing with Non-African ancestors until about 80kya, much later than the YRI/Non- African separation. This is consistent with a model where Maasai ancestors and Non-African ancestors formed sister groups, which together separated from West African ancestors and stayed well mixing until much closer to the actual out-of- Africa migration.
You have to wrap your mind around the concept. Uni-parentals are somewhat secondary.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: ^^^This is not a genetic distance tree. LOL
That is not the point. It is a tree based on divergence though TIME that lets you conceptualize what is going on with the specific clusters she found.
Other RAW genetic data DOES indeed talk about the populations splits between Africans happening over a hundred or Tens of thousands of years.
The data was posted.....before:
quote: Our results suggest that Maasai ancestors were well mixing with Non-African ancestors until about 80kya, much later than the YRI/Non- African separation. This is consistent with a model where Maasai ancestors and Non-African ancestors formed sister groups, which together separated from West African ancestors and stayed well mixing until much closer to the actual out-of- Africa migration.
You have to wrap your mind around the concept. Uni-parentals are somewhat secondary.
I see your point here and you are right bro, but seriously, I think if they analyzed enough ancient samples of SSAs those divergence trees by Tishkoff would be shattered since diversity could have been even more plentiful, but based on modern samples that data is about right.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: You have to wrap your mind around the concept. Uni-parentals are somewhat secondary.
It's not about uni-parental (the Tishkoff genetic distance tree is about autosomal STR anyway, not uniparental, as mentioned in my post ), it's about following population history and migrations.
There's about a 40-60 000 year gaps between OOA migrants and African people who stayed back in Africa in Eastern Africa.
African populations who stayed back in Africa, continued to interact with each others after the OOA migrations. Exchanging all kind of DNA including autosomal and developing new haplogroups like E, E-P2, L3eikx, among other things.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
By every measure we know - Phenotype, linguistic, cultural and more importantly Genetic diversity has been lost in Africa over time. This is particularly the case when looking at Physical remains.
This is also the case we found with Ancient....published Egyptian mtdna that could infact be extinct. Who knows. Also just found a study that has L0d.....yes the "South african" L0d in North East Africa.....all other L0d that had existed between there and Tanzania has been lost or not sampled.
WIth the inclusion of MORE Modern Sub Saharan samples......and the presence of Ancient Sub Saharan samples: -There is no telling now WIDE the cline between these Africans would be. -There is no telling what Africans would be close to which Eurasians...obviously geography gives us a hint. -There is no telling where Egyptian would fit on this cline....even with the limited DNA tribes stuff there is no way to take that data even if interpreted literally and place it on a plot....It is Equally split between 2 to 3 wildly divergent groups.
Tishkoff found all those African clusters....she even gives dates on whene they diverged and mixed with each other....yet some dumbo is in the thread talking about all negroes where the same around 1000BC.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
We can see that while Fulani are closer to Eurasians (because of admixture) than other African clusters, they are still closER to other African populations.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: You have to wrap your mind around the concept. Uni-parentals are somewhat secondary.
It's not about uni-parental (the Tishkoff genetic distance tree is about autosomal STR anyway, not uniparental, as mentioned in my post ), it's about following population history and migrations.
There's about a 40-60 000 year gaps between OOA migrants and African people who stayed back in Africa in Eastern Africa.
African populations who stayed back in Africa, continued to interact with each others after the OOA migrations. Exchanging all kind of DNA including autosomal and developing new haplogroups like E, E-P2, L3eikx, among other things.
Dude you keep saying the same ****. There are Africans that split PRE OOA....the diversity what already there. Some Africans split 100,000 thousand or more years ago IE KHOISAN. Proto Eurasians split off from East Africans but it was an ever changing East Africa population.....not some genetically stagnant one. The Eurasians that left would be more similar to the parent group than other East Africans. Think of it this way:
A mother has 4 kids over 10 years and breastfed them all. Genetically the closest child to the mother will be the youngest............WHY? Because over that 10 years as the mother has different genetic conditions and gets different diseases and viruses etc... her immune system changes. When a child receives its first "milk" - Colostrum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colostrum
The child is protected and temporarily immune to pretty much everything the mothers immune system has taken out. So the last child gets all the immunities over the full 10 years. None of other children get this as they were born earlier prior to the mothers immune system beating whatever virus it beat. Now what if the mom could spontaneously develop genetic traits for skin tone...metabolism, eye color. or just all kind of junk genes that dont do anything we know or are not expressed physically....all of this would be passed to the lats child and its offspring.
Extrapolate that over 10's of thousands of populations and 10's of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of years.....with Billions of SNPs.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Amun ra...Very simple exercise:
In the tishkoff image above....compare the distance from Fulani to Europeans.
Now Compare that to the distance of Hadza to Western pygmies. Which one is longer and what would that mean???
Whos argument would it help if Arabians were on that plot?
You must calculate the distances between the nodes, the colored bar for each ethnic groups is about within population genetic distance/"diversity" (not nucleotide diversity) in their population samples. That's why you can see the African clustering closer to each others at the bottom of the image than to Eurasian populations.
The gap, the distance, between the Fulani cluster and the Oceania cluster, represent the distance between the African clusters and the non-African clusters. You can see, it is much larger than between the distance between Fulani and other African clusters like Niger-Congo and Hadza.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
No you must calculate the distance from the END of the NODE to the END of the other Node.
When you do that Which has the longer distance and what does it mean?
Whos argument would it help if Omotics or Arabians were included? I cannot possibly imaging how you can get around this question.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
A bonus questions....the twig in between Oceania and Fulani.....Where does Africa began or end?
Does Africa end right at "Fulani".......does it end somewhere in the middle? Interesting huh?....what exactly is that large middle space?
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: A bonus questions....the twig in between Oceania and Fulani.....Where does Africa began or end?
Does Africa end right at "Fulani".......does it end somewhere in the middle? Interesting huh?....what exactly is that large middle space?
The gap, the distance, between the Fulani cluster and the Oceania cluster, represent the distance between the African clusters and the non-African clusters. You can see, it is much larger than between the distance between Fulani and other African clusters like Niger-Congo and Hadza.
This is similar to the DNA Tribes genetic distance tree (using autosomal SNP), although they don't show within population genetic distance:
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: By every measure we know - Phenotype, linguistic, cultural and more importantly Genetic diversity has been lost in Africa over time. This is particularly the case when looking at Physical remains.
This is also the case we found with Ancient....published Egyptian mtdna that could infact be extinct. Who knows. Also just found a study that has L0d.....yes the "South african" L0d in North East Africa.....all other L0d that had existed between there and Tanzania has been lost or not sampled.
WIth the inclusion of MORE Modern Sub Saharan samples......and the presence of Ancient Sub Saharan samples: -There is no telling now WIDE the cline between these Africans would be. -There is no telling what Africans would be close to which Eurasians...obviously geography gives us a hint. -There is no telling where Egyptian would fit on this cline....even with the limited DNA tribes stuff there is no way to take that data even if interpreted literally and place it on a plot....It is Equally split between 2 to 3 wildly divergent groups.
Tishkoff found all those African clusters....she even gives dates on whene they diverged and mixed with each other....yet some dumbo is in the thread talking about all negroes where the same around 1000BC.
I don't think anyone can make the claim that SSAs were one static population at any time, that would argue against SSA diversity which would go against published data.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: I don't think anyone can make the claim that SSAs were one static population at any time, that would argue against SSA diversity which would go against published data.
This is something we can agree with.
African populations who stayed back in Africa, continued to interact with each others after the OOA migrations. Up to today. Exchanging all kind of DNA including autosomal and developing new haplogroups like E, E-P2, L3eikx, among other things.
For example, the Niger-Congo languages, as well as the E-P2 haplogroup (the most common haplogroup among Niger-Congo speakers as well as Cushitic speakers for that matter) are said to have their origin in (North)Eastern Africa.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
Therefore these various tree charts and dendograms on genetic distance won't resolve the issue because they don't include ancient Egyptians- the DNA is only beginning to be analyzed more comprehensively
Amarna for instance is a period that lasted less than 20 years and the kings of the period had been striken off of the king's list Only be excavation were they found out about
Ramesses III is one individual
Coming soon will be a new methods of DNA analysis applied to Tutankhamun and new mummies have been discovered in the past few years
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Amun ra. You are purposefully reading the Chart incorrectly. You start from the end of the twig and measure the FULL distance. you would include the colored and non colored twigs in the measurement.
Of course you know this but are beating around the bush.
quote: The gap, the distance, between the Fulani cluster and the Oceania cluster, represent the distance between the African clusters and the non-African clusters
And this is issue number 2 that you cannot even conceptualize. We cannot say EXACTLY where on that twig Africa with stop and start. You could place it right in the middle to be fair but perhaps there are populations that exist somewhere on that twig that have not been samples. Omotics could sit somewhere on that twig. Extinct populations could sit on that twig.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Amun ra. You are purposefully reading the Chart incorrectly. You start from the end of the twig and measure the FULL distance. you would include the colored and non colored twigs in the measurement.
You're only a clown. Tell me how you calculate the genetic distance on this graph for example:
Notice the numbers in the "DISTANCE" Matrix. you want those number to match up with the tree : A to B = 5. You can only come to 5 by measuring the full length of the tree. Under your idea i really dont know what number you will come up with because I dont fully understand what you are measuring. Basically you are telling me the highest number is a 3. I am saying no...the greatest distance you cane measure is 10.
All you need to do is scroll down under the image and look at the distance matrix.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, I was going to ignore your post since it's too stupid and I already explained how to read the tree. But considering how ready and willing to disseminate your "knowledge". How do you read this genetic distance tree then:
How much did you pay to get into clown school?
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: No, I was going to ignore your post since it's too stupid and I already explained how to read the tree. But considering how ready and willing to disseminate your "knowledge". How do you read this genetic distance tree then:
How much did you pay to get into clown school?
Nope, your explanation is incorrect. You must count the full distance of the twig. I actually went though the trouble of finding a good explanation for you. It even has numbers and an attached "DISTANCE" matrix for measuring...........................................................THE DISTANCE!
But you dont really know what a distance matrix is. This is the difference between you and I. I can explain why you are incorrect and even post a source showing exactly why and what you should be doing to correct your measurement. Why can you do this?
You, like the idiot you are will only ignore it with your fingers in your ears singing "I am smart"
, the colored bar for each ethnic groups is about within population genetic distance/"diversity" (not nucleotide diversity) in their population samples.
Amun Ra would it therfore be correct to say based on this chart that Native Americans have more diversity than East Asians, Indians and Europeans combined?
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also we must keep in mind a dendogram is not read in the same manner as a tree chart The horizontal orientation of dendograms is irrelevant and not measured
posted
Amun Ra....you are even getting owned by Lioness:
quote: The height of the vertical lines, highlighted in red, indicate the degree of differences between branches. The longer the line, the greater the difference.
quote: Figure 5. Phylogenomic analysis of M. ap and M. avium strains. (A) A dendrogram displaying an un-rooted, Neighbor-joining tree of the concatenated SNPs from all eight mycobacterial isolates under study. (B) A rooted Neighbor-joining tree using M. ah 104 genome as out group. The bootstrap consensus tree inferred from 1,000 replicates is taken to represent the evolutionary history of the taxa analyzed.
Amun Ra....look at the image. Both are dendograms. Do you know how to read a dendrogram ?
ES Board....everyone remember the quote from KEMP where he tells us EXACTLY how to read a dendrogram?
quote: Dendrogram which shows the relative closeness to or distance from one another of fourteen human populations from Africa and the Mediterranean region. The 'ancient Egyptian' group is a pooling of data from twenty-one cemeteries including those at Elaphantine and the Late Period cemetery at Giza. The Egypt, Nubia and Africa (Ethiopic) groups form a cluster at some distance from others. But although the Africa ("Negroid") group is placed next to 'Canary Islands (pre-spanish)' group, the substantial difference between them is indicated by how far one has to travel to the right along the branches of the dendrogram before meeting a linkage line. Indeed, the bottom two African groups could more reasonably (and without violating the overall arrangement) be rotated to the top of the diagram. If a three dimensional display were to be adopted this oddity would be lost.
Knock knock.....anyone..... anybody home? Poor Amun Ra thinks the length of the branch...and how long you have to travel on it before meeting a linkage line doesn't matter in Rooted or un rooted trees. Amun ra thinks all those number on the distance matrix has nothing to do with the tree that is created using the distance matrix.....................poor Amun Ra cannot support his position using published peer reviewed sources.....or simply anything on the web that says how to properly view a tree.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
however the orientation of chart b) in this example is horizontal only therefore vertical measurements in chart b) are disregarded for distance
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic