posted
I know I've been MIA off and on, but I want to get back to the old ways of things like it was 12 years ago when I joined this forum, so let's talk about genetics.
I've observing, mostly these bloggers who download software, analysing data from genetic studies as well as raw data of individuals. I can't help but notice how too much stock is put into these software runs, in fact I think they are overstated. The clusters they come up with to me make sense at times, especially when it can be coroborrated with archeology and known historical events like the trans-Atlantic slave trade, and at other times they seem useless when assessing what happened in the ancient, prehistoric times.
In essence, what were the sub-Saharans of 30000, 20000, 10000, even 8000 years ago, genetically speaking? We know the genetics of MODERN sub-Saharans to a better degree, but how reliable is that data in interpreting, explaining, and answering questions about the African past? The same with so called "Eurasians," what were they like genetically? I find myself skeptical in believing that autosomal genetic data of today can explain the past, the distant past, at best all you have are crude approximations. Look at Horners for example, we know that as far as recent history there was no mass settlement of the Horn by a group of Eurasians, even if you go back further than that there are NO proof of it. There was trade contacts, things of that nature, thats all we see. Yet in some studies its proposed they show upwards of +50% "Eurasian" ancestry. Some say the admixture happened 10,000 or 20,000 years ago, ok, can we corroborate this with archeology or some kind of proof of population movement? Also, what was teh genetics of these Eurasians 10,000-20,000 years ago? Were they more African influenced-shifted genetically at that time?
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: Look at Horners for example, we know that as far as recent history there was no mass settlement of the Horn by a group of Eurasians
On the contrary EVERYTHING points to mass settlement of the horn by Eurasians.
1- Logically: Neighboring people always mix to each others at various degrees. The Horn of Africa (and coastal North Africa) just happenned to be right beside Eurasia. So logically admixture will happens in both directions.
2- Genetically: Autosomally they have a lot of Eurasian admixture at K=2 (between 1%-60% depending on the ethnic group). In term of haplogroup they also have a lot of Eurasian admixture (F descendant haplogroups, M/N descendants haplogroups).
2- Linguistically: Many Horn populations speak a Semitic language. Those who don't probably still have admixed with them at various degrees.
3- Culturally: Many Horn populations practice Christianity and Islam. Imports from Eurasia.
Eurasian admixtures are dated to around 3000 years ago. This is well after the foundation of Ancient Egypt. 3000-2015 = 985BC. So around 1000 BC. Related to the Semitic (called ethio-semitic) migrations. So while Ancient Egyptians were according to current genetic and archaeological results truly indigenous Africans in every way (for the most part). Modern Egypt and the Horn of Africa received a lot of Eurasian people afterward (migrations, conquests, etc) in recent times.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: Look at Horners for example, we know that as far as recent history there was no mass settlement of the Horn by a group of Eurasians
On the contrary EVERYTHING points to mass settlement of the horn by Eurasians.
1- Logically: Neighboring people always mix to each others at various degrees. The Horn of Africa (and coastal North Africa) just happenned to be right beside Eurasia. So logically admixture will happens in both directions.
2- Genetically: Autosomally they have a lot of Eurasian admixture at K=2 (between 1%-60% depending on the ethnic group). In term of haplogroup they also have a lot of Eurasian admixture (F descendant haplogroups, M/N descendants haplogroups).
2- Linguistically: Many Horn populations speak a Semitic language. Those who don't probably still have admixed with them.
3- Culturally: Many Horn populations practice Christianity and Islam.
Eurasian admixtures are dated to around 3000 years ago. This is well after the foundation of Ancient Egypt. 3000-2015 = 985BC. So around 1000 BC. Related to the Semitic (called ethio-semitic) migrations. So while Ancient Egyptians were according to current genetic and archaeological results truly indigenous Africans in every way (for the most part). Modern Egypt and the Horn of Africa received a lot of Eurasian people afterward (migrations, conquests, etc) in recent times.
Amun, there is no proof of mass settler colonisation of the Horn by Eurasians, plus all of those studies tend to focus on Afro-Asiatic Horners, predominately Semitic speakers, yet you see similar levels of "Eurasian" mixture in Cushitic speakers and they don't even give proper consideration to Nilo-Saharan speakers in the Horn.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
What's with the obsession with the Horn anyway? Are you not African-American? If you are most of your ancestry is from West Africa (from Senegal to Angola). Modern West Africans came in large part from East Africa (maybe around Sudan/Ethiopia) but that was a long time ago. E-P2 West African populations probably left East Africa somewhere before 10 000 years ago.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: What's with the obsession with the Horn anyway? Are you not African-American? If you are most of your ancestry is from West Africa (from Senegal to Angola). Modern West Africans came in large part from East Africa (maybe around Sudan/Ethiopia) but that was a long time ago. E-P2 West African populations probably left East Africa somewhere before 10 000 years ago.
Actually some of my ancestry is authentically East African, lol. But this is not really about the Horn, its about the reliability of these programs like STRUCTURE and ADMIXTURE and other similar software and the results they spit out relative to samples used along with time frame consideration.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: Amun, there is no proof of mass settler colonisation of the Horn by Eurasians, plus all of those studies tend to focus on Afro-Asiatic Horners, predominately Semitic speakers, yet
you see similar levels of "Eurasian" mixture in Cushitic speakers
and they don't even give proper consideration to Nilo-Saharan speakers in the Horn.
So if you see similar levels of Eurasian mixture in Cushitic speakers it could be the result of trading contact and small settlements of Arabs and Indians. It doesn't have to be "mass settler colonisation"
There is undisputed evidence of such communities and trade along the Eastern coast of Africa and that is why their DNA has higher frequencies of certain haplogroups than people living in Central Africa
So deal with the trade and settlements along the East coast and set aside this qualification "mass settler colonisation"
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
That would make sense for a small amount of teh population but not for the majority of a population being at or near +50%. You have always had trade in numerous African countries, especially on teh West coast of Africa but you don't see high levels of admixture. My conjecture is that that so called Eurasian mixture represents a cluster that isn't fully Eurasian or is just intermediate in origin
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ignoring the fact AMRTU has a fetish for Horners being Asiatics😂.
All your concerns have been answered Bass. There are only a few pieces remaining to be resolved .
One of which you touched on in your OP. Mike and Clyde has spent time recently discussing it. "Who actual sailed to the Americas ". The other is origin of the modern European male.
Recent studies on "slaves" remain now have me questioning who really were these slaves and really what is "documented " correct . It is true?. Agreed some of post seem wacky, but for example, one recent study showed some sailors on the ship with Columbus were indeed probably Africans . And slavery wasn't "invented" as yet.
-------------------- 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
Point being if the genetic study (using ancient skeletal material) does NOT match what is “written” in the history books. One of the two is incorrect. Most likely, what is “documented”, is a lie.
If you are serious about “deep” discussion AND YOU HAVE KEPT UP then let us talk.
Here is an example. It is a little dated2004 but there isn’t anything more up-to-date on the subject. Tell me what YOU think? We are talking aDNA here NOT modern populations.
================== Quote:
From: Ancient mtDNA analysis and the origin of the Guanches - Nicole Maca-Meyer1(2004)
For both admixture estimates, the Canarian sequences4 have been compared with published and unpublished sequences from the Iberian Peninsula,7 – 9,12,16,22,24 Northwest sub-Saharan Africa2,6,25 – 27 and the aboriginal sequences obtained in this work, as the three most probable parental populations.
Results Informative mtDNA sequences were obtained from a total of 71 individuals, accounting for an efficiency of 55%. The two replications from the laboratory of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria gave identical sequences to those of our lab. A total of 31 different haplotypes were found among these individuals giving a gene diversity of 0.9370.02, slightly lower, but not significantly different to that found in the actual Canarian population (0.9770.01), Iberian Peninsula (0.9670.00) or Berbers (0.9570.01).
Table 2). CRS sequences are the most abundant, accounting for 21.12% of the sample. However, not all could be RFLP assigned to concrete haplogroups. The Canarianspecific U6b1 sequences are also found in high frequency (8.45%), corroborating the fact that these lineages were already present in the aboriginal population. Three additional founder haplotypes4 were also detected (260, 069 126 and 126 292 294), all of them showing equal or higher frequencies than in the present day Canarian population. In addition, six private haplotypes have been detected. Two of them (145 213 and 126 224 292 294) belong to Caucasic haplogroups, and the other four to the African macrohaplogroup L (Table 2).
also Quote :
From: Demographic history of the canary islands male gene pool – Fregel(2009)
similar frequency has been found in the historical sample, again points to a strong European replacement of the male indigenous pool since the early conquest period. Surprisingly, R-M269 was also found in the indigenous sample in a moderate frequency (10%). Its presence in the indigenous people could be explained in two ways: (a) RM269 was introduced into NW Africa in prehistoric not historical times, or (b) the presence of this marker in the aborigines was due to a prehispanic European gene flow
A sub-Saharan component is detected in both indigenous (3.3%) and historical (7.1%) samples. E-M33 was the only sub-Saharan marker found in aborigines. In Africa, its highest frequencies have been detected in Southern (51%) and Central areas (57%) [17,36]. However, as its frequencies in North-Central Moroccan Berbers (3.2%) and in Saharan people (3.5%) [34] are similar to that found in the indigenous sample, its prehispanic presence in the islands could be due to the same NW African colonization that brought E-M81. E-M33 was also detected in the historical population (2.4%) which, together with EM81, could indicate a moderate indigenous Y-lineage persistence in the 17th–18th centuries. Although its presence could also be the result of the later sub-Saharan slave trade, its limited frequency in the Gulf of Guinea [17], the main source of slaves, makes this second option less probable
E-M2 is also present in NW African populations [17,34] so, although this marker was not detected in our small indigenous sample, a prehispanic NW African origin cannot be ruled out.
Due to the low variance of J-M267 in N Africa compared to that in the Middle East, its presence in the former has been related to the Arab expansion in the 7th century A.D. [36]. However, if the arrival of the indigenous people in the islands was around 1,000 years B.C. [48], the presence of J-M267 in NW Africa could be previous to the Arab expansion. Alternatively, this marker might have reached the islands with a second wave of colonists
NW African colonization, the detection in the indigenous sample of markers like I-M170 and R-M269 of clear European ascription ??????might suggest that other secondary waves also reached the Archipelago, most likely from the Mediterranean basin. This would again be in agreement with the multiple settlement theory proposed to explain the physical and cultural diversity found between and within the different islands [3,52]. However, as these markers are also present in N Africa, albeit in low frequencies, it could be that they arrived in the islands DURING THE SAME AFRICAN WAVE(s) that brought E-M81 and reached relatively high frequencies there due to founder and genetic-drift effects. If so, THE PRESENCE OF THESE MARKERS IN N AFRICA MAY BE OLDER THAN PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED [17].
==================
I will jump the gun and make one point. Then the floor is yours. JM267 is not a sign of “arbas’ entering Africa. It was present in Africa since 1000BC. Before “Arabs” were even invented. The floor is yours or anyone. Please…. No BS.
-------------------- 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
On the aDNA on the slave thing. For those who don’t know what I am talking about. IIRC – The “slave” remains from the Caribbean were aDNA tested. Three of them. One was assigned to East African, the other R-V88 BUT more related to Sardinians and the other was not disclosed for some odd reason. (Usually where there is smoke there is unpublished fire lol!).
I agree Bass. aDNA gives us an unbiased and real time view of the past. No cheating or lying included. Lol!
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: I know I've been MIA off and on, but I want to get back to the old ways of things like it was 12 years ago when I joined this forum, so let's talk about genetics.
I've observing, mostly these bloggers who download software, analysing data from genetic studies as well as raw data of individuals. I can't help but notice how too much stock is put into these software runs, in fact I think they are overstated. The clusters they come up with to me make sense at times, especially when it can be coroborrated with archeology and known historical events like the trans-Atlantic slave trade, and at other times they seem useless when assessing what happened in the ancient, prehistoric times.
In essence, what were the sub-Saharans of 30000, 20000, 10000, even 8000 years ago, genetically speaking? We know the genetics of MODERN sub-Saharans to a better degree, but how reliable is that data in interpreting, explaining, and answering questions about the African past? The same with so called "Eurasians," what were they like genetically? I find myself skeptical in believing that autosomal genetic data of today can explain the past, the distant past, at best all you have are crude approximations. Look at Horners for example, we know that as far as recent history there was no mass settlement of the Horn by a group of Eurasians, even if you go back further than that there are NO proof of it. There was trade contacts, things of that nature, thats all we see. Yet in some studies its proposed they show upwards of +50% "Eurasian" ancestry. Some say the admixture happened 10,000 or 20,000 years ago, ok, can we corroborate this with archeology or some kind of proof of population movement? Also, what was teh genetics of these Eurasians 10,000-20,000 years ago? Were they more African influenced-shifted genetically at that time?
Thoughts?
Exactly my question:
"ok, can we corroborate this with archeology or some kind of proof of population movement?"
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: Look at Horners for example, we know that as far as recent history there was no mass settlement of the Horn by a group of Eurasians
On the contrary EVERYTHING points to mass settlement of the horn by Eurasians.
1- Logically: Neighboring people always mix to each others at various degrees. The Horn of Africa (and coastal North Africa) just happenned to be right beside Eurasia. So logically admixture will happens in both directions.
2- Genetically: Autosomally they have a lot of Eurasian admixture at K=2 (between 1%-60% depending on the ethnic group). In term of haplogroup they also have a lot of Eurasian admixture (F descendant haplogroups, M/N descendants haplogroups).
2- Linguistically: Many Horn populations speak a Semitic language. Those who don't probably still have admixed with them.
3- Culturally: Many Horn populations practice Christianity and Islam.
Eurasian admixtures are dated to around 3000 years ago. This is well after the foundation of Ancient Egypt. 3000-2015 = 985BC. So around 1000 BC. Related to the Semitic (called ethio-semitic) migrations. So while Ancient Egyptians were according to current genetic and archaeological results truly indigenous Africans in every way (for the most part). Modern Egypt and the Horn of Africa received a lot of Eurasian people afterward (migrations, conquests, etc) in recent times.
Amun, there is no proof of mass settler colonisation of the Horn by Eurasians, plus all of those studies tend to focus on Afro-Asiatic Horners, predominately Semitic speakers, yet you see similar levels of "Eurasian" mixture in Cushitic speakers and they don't even give proper consideration to Nilo-Saharan speakers in the Horn.
quote:Khoisan hunter-gatherers have been the largest population throughout most of modern-human demographic history
The Khoisan people from Southern Africa maintained ancient lifestyles as hunter-gatherers or pastoralists up to modern times, though little else is known about their early history. Here we infer early demographic histories of modern humans using whole-genome sequences of five Khoisan individuals and one Bantu speaker. Comparison with a 420 K SNP data set from worldwide individuals demonstrates that two of the Khoisan genomes from the Ju/’hoansi population contain exclusive Khoisan ancestry. Coalescent analysis shows that the Khoisan and their ancestors have been the largest populations since their split with the non-Khoisan population ~100–150 kyr ago. In contrast, the ancestors of the non-Khoisan groups, including Bantu-speakers and non-Africans, experienced population declines after the split and lost more than half of their genetic diversity. Paleoclimate records indicate that the precipitation in southern Africa increased ~80–100 kyr ago while west-central Africa became drier. We hypothesize that these climate differences might be related to the divergent-ancient histories among human populations.
[...]
Yet Khoisan populations have maintained the greatest nuclear-genetic diversity among all human populations3, 4, 5 and the most ancient Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA lineages 6, 7, implying relatively larger effective population sizes for ancestral Khoisan populations.
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: What's with the obsession with the Horn anyway? Are you not African-American? If you are most of your ancestry is from West Africa (from Senegal to Angola). Modern West Africans came in large part from East Africa (maybe around Sudan/Ethiopia) but that was a long time ago. E-P2 West African populations probably left East Africa somewhere before 10 000 years ago.
Actually some of my ancestry is authentically East African, lol. But this is not really about the Horn, its about the reliability of these programs like STRUCTURE and ADMIXTURE and other similar software and the results they spit out relative to samples used along with time frame consideration.
1) its funny how Internet surfers always assume everybody is an African American when speaking on African history. The second part is then, to force you back to learn about West Africa solely. Not the whole of Africa. This one is a classic.
2) none black should ever question a study on these abusred admixture claims, simply accept it and shut up.
quote:Genetic genealogy is more within reach of the average person than ever, thanks to advances in sequencing technology that have helped the cost of genome sequencing dramatically plummet from nearly $3 billion in 2000 to near $1,000 nowadays. That sort of price reduction is mind-boggling, Ball said. “It’s as if, 15 years from now, I could get my own Mars rover.”
posted
To those who don’t get it. The two citations highlight several things.
1. R-M269 has been in West Africa and the Canaries long before the Romans. Most likely also of African Origin(sic). 2. J1-M267 has been in Africa before the Islamic “invasion” proving Moslem Arabs did NOT invade Africa. Furthermore to the geographically challenged. The Canaries is on the “ass end” of earth from Arabia. An Island over 4000miles away from Arabia including crossing by sea. 3. SSA genes were present in the Canaries before Europeans and Arabian slavery (sic). 4. Since there are UNIQUE SSA haplotypes on an island in the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Africa and Europe 1000bc my guess is they have been there a since early Neolithic or even late Paleolithic depending on the mutation rate of the haplogroups in question. 5. Oddly the author prefer to use the word “ascription” and not origin. Do you wonder why? 6. Another odd word used by the author. “Caucasic” group. Why ? Indecision on the origin of CRS (ie mtDNA H). She reverts back to an archaic description. Including North Africans and Europeans of Caucasoids. She was wiggin out. Coward! 7. The author acknowledge that SSA Africans carry haplogroups within mtDNA U exclusive to them and the indigenous population of the Canary Islands. Quote see below.: `
===
Quote:
Islands, the probability that this clade has not been detected in North Africa is negligible. This could indicate that either the exact region has not been sampled yet, or that the actual U6b1 frequency in Africa is lower than that of the Canary Islands. Today, U6b lineages have only been sporadically found in two Moroccans,2,11 a Wolof,2 a Fulbe27 and in the Iberian Peninsula.7 – 9,23 This wide distribution could be compatible with the idea that U6b lineages were present, in the past, in all of this Western area, but posterior demographic movements reshaped its genetic landscape. The fact that four of the six private aboriginal haplotypes belong to the African L cluster reinforces this idea. These facts difficult the search for an exact geographic origin of the Canarian aborigines. However, molecular relationships point to the Moroccan Berbers as the most related African population to the Guanches, confirming, at a genetic level, the previous general supposition of the strong cultural and anthropological affinities between the Guanches and the westernmost African Berbers.1,28
===========
Where are we going with this? MORE PROOF OF THE CONTINUUM.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: I know I've been MIA off and on, but I want to get back to the old ways of things like it was 12 years ago when I joined this forum, so let's talk about genetics.
I've observing, mostly these bloggers who download software, analysing data from genetic studies as well as raw data of individuals. I can't help but notice how too much stock is put into these software runs, in fact I think they are overstated. The clusters they come up with to me make sense at times, especially when it can be coroborrated with archeology and known historical events like the trans-Atlantic slave trade, and at other times they seem useless when assessing what happened in the ancient, prehistoric times.
In essence, what were the sub-Saharans of 30000, 20000, 10000, even 8000 years ago, genetically speaking? We know the genetics of MODERN sub-Saharans to a better degree, but how reliable is that data in interpreting, explaining, and answering questions about the African past? The same with so called "Eurasians," what were they like genetically? I find myself skeptical in believing that autosomal genetic data of today can explain the past, the distant past, at best all you have are crude approximations. Look at Horners for example, we know that as far as recent history there was no mass settlement of the Horn by a group of Eurasians, even if you go back further than that there are NO proof of it. There was trade contacts, things of that nature, thats all we see. Yet in some studies its proposed they show upwards of +50% "Eurasian" ancestry. Some say the admixture happened 10,000 or 20,000 years ago, ok, can we corroborate this with archeology or some kind of proof of population movement? Also, what was teh genetics of these Eurasians 10,000-20,000 years ago? Were they more African influenced-shifted genetically at that time?
Thoughts?
The above is in part the old "back-migration" thing so often thrown about in ES over the years. Some points to consider:
1) Indeed there would be no mass settler colonization in the sense of mass waves displacing and replacing the indigenous folk. But there would be substantial movement in SOME historic times, such as via the Arab incursions, or the movement from Yemen to the Horn historically. Amun -Ra would be right on this score re 3000kya to more recent times.
2) Whatever "backmigration"or "backflow" in play, the people involved would still look like indigenous Africans.
3) "Back-flow" or "back migration" does not automatically mean "Eurasian." This is a LABEL Eurocentrics put on it, but ancient tribes circa 30-40kya crossing over the Red Sea or thru Sinai and returning a few centuries later in the course of their wanderings- whether it be nomads, fisherfolk, people moving because of climate change etc, do not automatically become "Eurasian" because they wander back into Africa a few centuries or even millennia later. See #2 above, and Keita below.
4) A lot of the DNA studies advance crude approximations and guesstimates, but they have a scientific veneer because of the DNA statistics involved. Many are informed guesses.
5) The claim of massive "Eurasian" movement is in part a product of manipulated and skewed sampling. Thus for example studies that undersample the Oromo downplay some common DNA elements represented in many African peoples. Y0u could create a "Eurasian" heavy picture by running this game.
6) One question to ask those who seem to push the "Eurasian race mix" theme is if they are likewise willing to accept then that white Greeks ar themselves a "race mix" for said Greeks have substantial levels of African DNA. How come the Ethiopians are "mixed" but not your precious white Greeks? WHy the double standard?
^^african haplogroup e- europe greeks - how come Ethiopians are "mixed" but not white Greeks?
XYZ says: Point being if the genetic study (using ancient skeletal material) does NOT match what is “written” in the history books. One of the two is incorrect. Most likely, what is “documented”, is a lie.
7) Not necessarily, and in holding this you may fall into the trap of relying on DNA guesstimates without parallel corroboration, guesses which can change from month to month. Point 7 would also be in relation with what XYZ says. DNA should be correlated with OTHER evidence including skeletal and cultural. If not, then what you have are many guesstimates and estimations, some of which are all over the place. Keep in mind that Keita himself recommends a BALANCED PACKAGE of data- DNA, skeletal, cranial, dental, cultural, etc. If there are wide discrepancies something is wrong.
This is why some people in the "Biodiversity" forums who rush out waving the latest DNA are often on shaky ground when they come up with these sweeping claims about the Nile Valley or Africans. Their bold claims often fall flat when measured against a package of corroborating data.
Bass I think you ought to lay out the various studies where people are claiming all this mass movement. What are they? Put the on the table, as well as assorted claims, up for examination.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: What's with the obsession with the Horn anyway? Are you not African-American? If you are most of your ancestry is from West Africa (from Senegal to Angola). Modern West Africans came in large part from East Africa (maybe around Sudan/Ethiopia) but that was a long time ago. E-P2 West African populations probably left East Africa somewhere before 10 000 years ago.
Bass does not have any "obsession" about things. Don't fall into the Eurocentric trap of trying to dice up Africa into cultural "apartheid" zones that African- Americans aren't "supposed" to study or comment on. This is the hypocritical game Lefkowitz and others have been playing for years. How come white British of cold northern Europe can embrace "the glory that was Greece" and "the grandeur that was Rome", but black Americans supposed to remain silent from studying and discussing the Nile Valley or the Horn? How come white Americans get to talk abut Greek heritage and use Greek symbols and motifs throughout their cultures, but black Americans supposed to remain muted on Africa?
I am NOT, repeat NOT saying you PERSONALLY do this far from it, but in your phrasing on such, keep in mind that this is a frequent Eurocentric tactic to "apartheid" off West Africans from the rest of Africa, as if West Africans had no right to talk about, study or discuss other parts, and should "confine" themselves to "the West."
Diop spoke of the Nile Basin as a geographic basis for culturally linking many areas of Africa. the Sahara offers another geographic basis- being a true "Pan African" physical entity. Likewise the culture of ancient Egypt has roots deep in so-called "Black African" culture, and places like Kush are in part as "sub-Saharan" as anything else.
Again, NOT saying you personally are running this apartheid debate tactic just be aware of what the opponents of a balanced African bio-history are doing. It's like the "sub-Saharan" labeling game they keep running.
NILE RIVER BASIN - taking in a good slice of Africa
KUSH - a SUB-SAHARAN ENTITY Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: I know I've been MIA off and on, but I want to get back to the old ways of things like it was 12 years ago when I joined this forum, so let's talk about genetics.
I've observing, mostly these bloggers who download software, analysing data from genetic studies as well as raw data of individuals. I can't help but notice how too much stock is put into these software runs, in fact I think they are overstated. The clusters they come up with to me make sense at times, especially when it can be coroborrated with archeology and known historical events like the trans-Atlantic slave trade, and at other times they seem useless when assessing what happened in the ancient, prehistoric times.
In essence, what were the sub-Saharans of 30000, 20000, 10000, even 8000 years ago, genetically speaking? We know the genetics of MODERN sub-Saharans to a better degree, but how reliable is that data in interpreting, explaining, and answering questions about the African past? The same with so called "Eurasians," what were they like genetically? I find myself skeptical in believing that autosomal genetic data of today can explain the past, the distant past, at best all you have are crude approximations. Look at Horners for example, we know that as far as recent history there was no mass settlement of the Horn by a group of Eurasians, even if you go back further than that there are NO proof of it. There was trade contacts, things of that nature, thats all we see. Yet in some studies its proposed they show upwards of +50% "Eurasian" ancestry. Some say the admixture happened 10,000 or 20,000 years ago, ok, can we corroborate this with archeology or some kind of proof of population movement? Also, what was teh genetics of these Eurasians 10,000-20,000 years ago? Were they more African influenced-shifted genetically at that time?
Thoughts?
Exactly my question:
"ok, can we corroborate this with archeology or some kind of proof of population movement?"
There is no archaeology supporting an Eurasian migration into Africa but their is evidence of Khoisan entering Eurasia 44kya. Eurasians are just showing remnants of the genes left behind by the Khoisan Cromagnon people etc.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Agreed. And there is no genetic evidence
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
If Bass wants deep discussion he needs to post the studies in question that people are using to claim this mass Eurasian movement. What studies? Who is arguing thus? Break it down so it can be critiqued in detail.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: If Bass wants deep discussion he needs to post the studies in question that people are using to claim this mass Eurasian movement. What studies? Who is arguing thus? Break it down so it can be critiqued in detail.
I will have to reference those studies, mostly those from Pagani(sp?) et al. I mean three thousand years ago there was some trade contact which would have been restricted to certain peoples but those few trade contacts would have been absorbed by the population as a whole and not show up in near +50% amount
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: [ Look at Horners for example, we know that as far as recent history there was no mass settlement of the Horn by a group of Eurasians, even if you go back further than that there are NO proof of it. There was trade contacts, things of that nature, thats all we see. Yet in some studies its proposed they show upwards of +50% "Eurasian" ancestry.
name the article
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
They are getting in his head. They still don't get it. ADMIXTURE and how it works. There was never isolation of populations. Never! there is however "isolation by distance".
That is why Native American, Papaun, Indian, European "ancestry" show up in Tropical Africans.
Native Americans did not back-migrate to Central Africa. (tsk! tsk!).
Only a retard or racialist will believe that. Good God.! Move on man!
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The man does not know 50% Eurasian ancestry is correct. It is 50% Eurasian ancestry by some estimates and depending on what SNPs are included in the study. It is labeled “Eurasian because of the “ascription” by the researcher( I like the word …ascription lol!). Europeans carry more of it. It does not mean Europeans or Eurasian ‘back-migrated’ to anywhere in Africa. The more important genetic signal does NOT support that theory. ie Haplogroups. Don’t you understand that? Trust me Tishkoff, Pagani, Henn etc all the major players know it.
Only the looney bloggers hold on to that belief. Not only AMRTU. If you read between the lines and understand the relevance of my citations you will get the message. But I am getting off track.
Carry on with the entertainment………..let me grab my popcorn
Oh! And we have moved on from 12years ago. Technology, knowledge and the debate have shifted. We know for a fact the AEians are indigenous Africans that carry SSA lineage. We know for a fact AEians had absolutely no connection to modern Europeans. Only a fool will continue to argue against that.
Move on! Have we become our parents?
==
Mike and EgMonde are debating Black Europeans. THAT! is an interesting discussion. It may be a little wacky but there is some interesting stuff in there.
The African presence in Europe.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
They are getting in his head. They still don't get it. ADMIXTURE and how it works. There was never isolation of populations. Never! there is however "isolation by distance".
That is why Native American, Papaun, Indian, European "ancestry" show up in Tropical Africans.
Native Americans did not back-migrate to Central Africa. (tsk! tsk!).
Only a retard or racialist will believe that. Good God.! Move on man!
The problem is that most people believe that there was only one OoA event and that there is only one Black population that originated in Africa. Although this is their opinion the fact remains that the skeletal evidence indicates that a variety of Black populations originated in Africa, existed there for a while in a mountainous area and then they migrated out of Africa into Eurasia and the Americas at specific times. Other populations originated in mountainous areas and replaced the Blacks living in the lowlands. After mating with the Blacks these other populations acquired haplogroups which they carry today--first carried by the Blacks.
Bass like most Blacks knows in his heart that what he has been taught by white scholars is a lie, thusly this thread. But, because he refuses to accept the fact that Afro-Americans , especially you and I, have any intelligence, he is waiting for some white person to tell him what we are saying so he can then accept what we teach as the truth.
LOL. As Egmond says the enemy of the black man is the black man. Most blacks are enemies of black scholars not recognized by whites, because they have an inferiority complex, that does not allow them to respect Blacks who think independently. Due to white supremacy even when some AAs like the posters here at Egyptsearch call themselves fighting whites, they still wait for whites to tell them what is right.
That is why I have not commented in detail on what Bass has requested. He has read our post about these issues in recent years but he refuses to accept our conclusions. Face it, many people here are brainwashed.You have to post info in the hope people with open minds will acknowledge it. I know there are many opened minded people out there look at the wealth of books published in recent years based our post we have made on the Ancient Egypt forum. This thread will soon end because there are no articles you can post for Bass to see where white researchers support what we have wrote.
posted
zarahan: "How come the Ethiopians are "mixed" but not your precious white Greeks?"
Ancient Greeks (Plato...) are usually portrayed with curly hair, (though not frizzy), implying to me a mixture, which fits with the usual "swarthy"/"olive" skin tone description.
- - -
Iron making originated in Japan by a mix of (pygmy-descended) Jomon Ama divers and (from Crimea-Central Asia) Ainu who then transferred the tech westward via Aynu kin in Tarim Basin to Egypt etc.
They are getting in his head. They still don't get it. ADMIXTURE and how it works. There was never isolation of populations. Never! there is however "isolation by distance".
That is why Native American, Papaun, Indian, European "ancestry" show up in Tropical Africans.
Native Americans did not back-migrate to Central Africa. (tsk! tsk!).
Only a retard or racialist will believe that. Good God.! Move on man!
The problem is that most people believe that there was only one OoA event and that there is only one Black population that originated in Africa. Although this is their opinion the fact remains that the skeletal evidence indicates that a variety of Black populations originated in Africa, existed there for a while in a mountainous area and then they migrated out of Africa into Eurasia and the Americas at specific times. Other populations originated in mountainous areas and replaced the Blacks living in the lowlands. After mating with the Blacks these other populations acquired haplogroups which they carry today--first carried by the Blacks.
Bass like most Blacks knows in his heart that what he has been taught by white scholars is a lie, thusly this thread. But, because he refuses to accept the fact that Afro-Americans , especially you and I, have any intelligence, he is waiting for some white person to tell him what we are saying so he can then accept what we teach as the truth.
LOL. As Egmond says the enemy of the black man is the black man. Most blacks are enemies of black scholars not recognized by whites, because they have an inferiority complex, that does not allow them to respect Blacks who think independently. Due to white supremacy even when some AAs like the posters here at Egyptsearch call themselves fighting whites, they still wait for whites to tell them what is right.
That is why I have not commented in detail on what Bass has requested. He has read our post about these issues in recent years but he refuses to accept our conclusions. Face it, many people here are brainwashed.You have to post info in the hope people with open minds will acknowledge it. I know there are many opened minded people out there look at the wealth of books published in recent years based our post we have made on the Ancient Egypt forum. This thread will soon end because there are no articles you can post for Bass to see where white researchers support what we have wrote.
.
Clyde, if you wasn't an elder I'd really rip you for this, but, my topic has nothing to do with accepting Eurocentric thinking, in fact I am questioning their methodology as to how they label what is "African" and what is "Eurasian." I believe that "Eurasians" 10,000-20,000 years ago were more African shifted than todays Eurasians which is why I scratch my head when they say North Africans have "Eurasian" mixture from 40,000 years ago when in all likelihood that population was significantly African-shifted in their ancestry.
I long ago questioned that study in 2007 that said U6 and M1 were Eurasian haplogroups that arrived 45,000 years ago with the Gravettian culture, so-called with no corresponding male Y chromosones still present in the same population. How likely is it that a bunch of females from two different haplogroups decided to migrate into Northest and Northeast Africa with no males and why? Why the attention on Afro-Asiatic speaking groups in the Horn and in Northeast Africa(mostly the Semitic and Cushitic speakers) and no attention on teh Nilo-Saharan and CHADIC speakers? The Nilo-Saharans hav more in common genetically with the Horners and Northeast Africans than the Afro-Asiatic Chadic speakers which is something these genetcists either ignore or never address.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yep! As I thought. Sadly time has past him by.
-------------------- 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 |
I long ago questioned that study in 2007 that said U6 and M1 were Eurasian haplogroups that arrived 45,000 years ago with the Gravettian culture, so-called with no corresponding male Y chromosones still present in the same population. How likely is it that a bunch of females from two different haplogroups decided to migrate into Northest and Northeast Africa with no males and why?
I see this "wandering females" type of question come up and it is a question based on false presumption.
A popualtion can derive from a single set of ancestors,
The assumption is that the females traveled to a new place by themselves, no that is wrong and people like to use that to insert improbability. In reality a small group or larger migrates to a new area and is comprised of BOTH males and females In this new place the one or more of the locals has sex with one or more of the foreign women. A single instance of this can turn into a new populaltion that has male ancestry from one place and female ancestry from another place but it was probably several instances in each situation but add to this one woman could have had multiple children from multiple 'fathers'. These encountes could be from peaceful relations or violent conflict where the men are killed and some females taken and raped. But the result is the same. Children are born a mixture of the two
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Serious discussion" on hypotheticals. Oxymoron?
-------------------- 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
Time hasn't passed me by, I've been lurking in the background watching things, especially here and on forumbiodiversity. I don't particularly take much stock in discussion there because they are mostly Horner-centric and leave out Chadic speakers and Nilotic people.
[img]I see this "wandering females" type of question come up and it is a question based on false presumption.
A popualtion can derive from a single set of ancestors,
The assumption is that the females traveled to a new place by themselves, no that is wrong and people like to use that to insert improbability. In reality a small group or larger migrates to a new area and is comprised of BOTH males and females In this new place the one or more of the locals has sex with one or more of the foreign women. A single instance of this can turn into a new populaltion that has male ancestry from one place and female ancestry from another place but it was probably several instances in each situation but add to this one woman could have had multiple children from multiple 'fathers'. These encountes could be from peaceful relations or violent conflict where the men are killed and some females taken and raped. But the result is the same. Children are born a mixture of the two [/quote]
We're talking about 45,000 years ago they proposed this, they can date haplogroups maternally to that time but have none in North African on the male side that old they ever dated, why?
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
We're talking about 45,000 years ago they proposed this, they can date haplogroups maternally to that time but have none in North African on the male side that old they ever dated, why?
^^ nobody respond to this please until he quotes an article with link
Look at how he's moving the goal post of his intial post
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
Look at Horners for example, we know that as far as recent history there was no mass settlement of the Horn by a group of Eurasians, even if you go back further than that there are NO proof of it.
so now we're only supposed to look 45,000 years ago, thats the new goal Again, this is a straw man thread unless the fill sentence article quotes making these claims are up
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
BASS said: I long ago questioned that study in 2007 that said U6 and M1 were Eurasian haplogroups that arrived 45,000 years ago with the Gravettian culture, so-called with no corresponding male Y chromosones still present in the same population. How likely is it that a bunch of females from two different haplogroups decided to migrate into Northest and Northeast Africa with no males and why? Why the attention on Afro-Asiatic speaking groups in the Horn and in Northeast Africa(mostly the Semitic and Cushitic speakers) and no attention on teh Nilo-Saharan and CHADIC speakers? The Nilo-Saharans hav more in common genetically with the Horners and Northeast Africans than the Afro-Asiatic Chadic speakers which is something these genetcists either ignore or never address.
Indeed. It is questionable. Even if the females were war captives there likely would have been male captives as well, such as children or adults. Another thing that makes the claim shaky, is that the Grevettian culture is marked by people with tropical skeletal affinities. So if the people in Europe were tropical types around that time, why would contemporaries in Africa be "Eurasians" with LESS of such tropical affinities?
"Finally, all of the European early modern humans show some degree of tropical linear body proportions, including the Mladec 27 femur as indicated by biomechanical modeling of its diaphysical robusticity.. Given the stability of such body proportions over extended periods of time, despite their ecogeographic variation among recent human populations, they can be used for shedding light on what are essentially populational processes. This is reinforced by the preservation of tropical cural indices in high latitude Gravettian skeletons, including Paviland I and the very cold climate Sunghir 1 and 2." -- Trinkhaus E. Late Neanderthals and Early Modern Humans. 2011 in Condemni and Weniger 2011. Continuity and Discontinuity in the Peopling of Europe.
"As with all the other limb/trunk indices, the recent Europeans evince lower indices, reflective of shorter tibiae, and the recent sub-Saharan Africans have higher indices, reflective of their long tibiae... The Dolno Vestonice and Pavlov humans.. have body proportions similar to those of other Gravettian specimens. Specifically, they are characterized by high bracial and cural indices, indicative of distal limb segment elongation.." --Trinkaus and Svoboda. 2005. Early Modern Human Evolution in Central Europe
------------- They are trying to dismiss or downplay the "African types" in Europe. Having failed to do it with the skeletal or cranial record, now they are trying to use DNA labeling games to do the job- simply label away the "colored types" and reclassify them as "Eurasian." As we saw with our data on Cro-Magnon the skeletal/cranial record refuses to cooperate so they are running other games.
The nice thing about the physical record is that it represents people and artifacts that were actually there, materially real, and are not guesses or speculative DNA estimates based on a particular author. Hence the importance of not relying solely on DNA, but a balanced package of data. So it remains unclear ho the ancient Eiros are tropical people, or at least showing many such affinities, yet back in Africa, the point of origin for Europe and Asia groups, we got different "Eurasian" types floating in and out? Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
Indeed. It is questionable. Even if the females were war captives there likely would have been male captives as well, such as children or adults.
They never learn. I just explained this two posts back and zarahan keeps using the same faulty reasoning
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Charlie_Bass (the original not the impostor): this is the same crackpot syndrome I see on Ta-Seti all the time where fools this haplogroup M is "black African". Clearly some people don't understand the process of phylogenetically mapping genes. On a phylogenetic map, E3b1 alpha would *NOT* be mapped to "black Africa", another erroneous construct name designed to separate Africans north and south.
Funny how this impostor is clearly one of those crackpot the real Charlie Bass was talking about. And now gullible Zarahan is joining him (the impostor that is). Shameful.
quote: I've shared some great information and had some good debates here, but I have to leave.
The real Charlie Bass is gone. Of course he's right, it is a waste of time discussing with racist idiots who don't even have science on their side.
quote:Originally posted by Charlie_Bass: North Africans and Europeans carry E3b lineages, are they black also? Keita even says the PN2 clade shatters so-called distinct racial boundaries because the people who share in this clade look different in terms of morphological traits.
The real Charlie Bass is right. PN2 (also called haplogroup P2) unites most African populations. Eurasian lineages and Eurasian autosomal DNA are mostly restricted to North and Eastern Africa. Their presence in those regions are reflective of the Semitic migrations in those regions (ethio-semites and muslim arabs). The admixtures still present in extant modern populations are dated to around 3000 years ago by different studies in Eastern Africa, so this is well AFTER the foundation of Ancient Egypt. It is why modern Egyptians don't look like black Africans for the most part. Is is also why the DNA analysis of Ancient Egyptian mummies show us Sub-Saharan affiliations (E1b1a, autosomal STR, DNA Tribes, JAMA, BMJ, Paabo, etc) not Eurasians.
Be careful not to fall into the trap of obvious racist trolls like Charlie Bass with 2 periods aka most (ex)posters on this forum
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ahmanut the Ultimate is proving once again how psychotic he is! He accuses others of dividing Africans when that is exactly what he is doing himself!! I agree with Charlie Bass that the whole autosomal admixture at K=2 seems to be a little off in that there is dissonance with NRY and mtDNA. For example, the autosomal studies make it seem as if Horn populations are the result of significant Eurasian influence when NRY studies on the same populations show they overwhelmingly carry PN2 (E) derived clades. Even the lioness theory of foreign traders settling along the coasts do not account for such autosomal admixture in the rural hinterland parts of the region.
What's more is that Ahmanut keeps blabbing about PN2 being the be all end all, yet what are we to make of populations in West Africa who carry R clades that are presumably 'Eurasian' in origin??!! He NEVER talks about this and for obvious reasons. So are we to presume that West Africa, and in particular Cameroon was the site of "mass settlement by Eurasians" as well???
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doesnt matter if it was the "real" Bass or not. It was a valid question, but when I asked for specifics as to who and what little was forthcoming. And xyz noted how curiously behind the times "bass" was. But doesn;t matter. The above is simply another chance for good data to be posted- in turn to be picked up by Google- in turn to bypass/end run the bogus "stealth" moles on Wiki. And talk about so called "obsessions" with the Nile Valley, as if folk should only "confine" discussion to West Africa, while Europeans get to discuss all and everything ought to be recognized for the Eurocentric trap it is. And it gives another opportunity to restate a key principle of studying African bio-history, one Keita mentions in his Cambridge videos- the need for a balanced package of evidence and multiple lines of evidence corroborating and confirming each other, not relying solely on DNA with its expansive guesstimates, skewed sampling and occasional researcher bias- a problem even Keita mentions in the scientific literature.
Djehuti says: What's more is that Ahmanut keeps blabbing about PN2 being the be all end all, yet what are we to make of populations in West Africa who carry R clades that are presumably 'Eurasian' in origin??!! He NEVER talks about this and for obvious reasons. So are we to presume that West Africa, and in particular Cameroon was the site of "mass settlement by Eurasians" as well???
Why does he keep skipping these examples? And aren;t some of the "R" clades older in the African specimens than purported Eurasian "ancestors" or "originators"? What's that citation again where this is so?
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: Why does he keep skipping these examples?
It doesn't mean anything. I'm sure even Ancient Egyptians had some Eurasian lineages (like F and M, N) among their populations even at their foundation stage (so before the Hyksos/Aamu/Asian invasion), even if most of them would be African lineages (like Ramses III who was P2/E1b1a). In term of most Y-DNA, MtDNA and autosomally they would still be mostly black Africans (if we take into account the current ancient DNA results like BMJ, JAMA, DNA Tribes, Paabo). Said in another way, we must check all 3:
1) Y-DNA 2) Mt-DNA 3) Autosomal (STR/SNP)
To determine the ethnic affiliations and history of populations (or individuals).
But you Zarahan, know it, so I wonder why you lie to us again? On the reverse side, Einstein was also from the African haplogroup P2/PN2 (e1b1b). Was he African? nope. Because his mtDNA and autosomal DNA would say otherwise. So why the lying and the deception Zarahan? Because this is obvious and you still lie about it to people reading this forum.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: Doesnt matter if it was the "real" Bass or not.
By the way it DOES matter if a racist imposter takes the name of one of the good poster of the past. In what context does an imposter doesn't matter? And no it wasn't a valid question. It's all part of the lying and deception.
For saying it doesn't matter, it means you're either one of those racist idiots (multiple ids) or you're seriously stupid (I mean beyond what is conceivable for a human being).
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
BTW R-V88 in central African is common knowledge . First discovered by Cruciani. Now observed in other Africans including pygmies , Siwa and other Berbers, later analysis show that central Africans version is OLDER than Berbers. You do know where R-V88 fit in the Phylotree ?
-------------------- 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
I am the real Bass and I had two accounts on here, one was banned and this one is still good.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: Doesnt matter if it was the "real" Bass or not. It was a valid question, but when I asked for specifics as to who and what little was forthcoming. And xyz noted how curiously behind the times "bass" was. But doesn;t matter. The above is simply another chance for good data to be posted- in turn to be picked up by Google- in turn to bypass/end run the bogus "stealth" moles on Wiki. And talk about so called "obsessions" with the Nile Valley, as if folk should only "confine" discussion to West Africa, while Europeans get to discuss all and everything ought to be recognized for the Eurocentric trap it is. And it gives another opportunity to restate a key principle of studying African bio-history, one Keita mentions in his Cambridge videos- the need for a balanced package of evidence and multiple lines of evidence corroborating and confirming each other, not relying solely on DNA with its expansive guesstimates, skewed sampling and occasional researcher bias- a problem even Keita mentions in the scientific literature.
Djehuti says: What's more is that Ahmanut keeps blabbing about PN2 being the be all end all, yet what are we to make of populations in West Africa who carry R clades that are presumably 'Eurasian' in origin??!! He NEVER talks about this and for obvious reasons. So are we to presume that West Africa, and in particular Cameroon was the site of "mass settlement by Eurasians" as well???
Why does he keep skipping these examples? And aren't some of the "R" clades older in the African specimens than purported Eurasian "ancestors" or "originators"? What's that citation again where this is so?
European Journal of Human Genetics (2010) 18, 800–807; doi:10.1038/ejhg.2009.231; published online 6 January 2010
Human Y chromosome haplogroup R-V88: a paternal genetic record of early mid Holocene trans-Saharan connections and the spread of Chadic languages
Fulvio Cruciani1, Beniamino Trombetta
Abstract Although human Y chromosomes belonging to haplogroup R1b are quite rare in Africa, being found mainly in Asia and Europe, a group of chromosomes within the paragroup R-P25* are found concentrated in the central-western part of the African continent, where they can be detected at frequencies as high as 95%. Phylogenetic evidence and coalescence time estimates suggest that R-P25* chromosomes (or their phylogenetic ancestor) may have been carried to Africa by an Asia-to-Africa back migration in prehistoric times. Here, we describe six new mutations that define the relationships among the African R-P25* Y chromosomes and between these African chromosomes and earlier reported R-P25 Eurasian sub-lineages. The incorporation of these new mutations into a phylogeny of the R1b haplogroup led to the identification of a new clade (R1b1a or R-V88) encompassing all the African R-P25* and about half of the few European/west Asian R-P25* chromosomes. A worldwide phylogeographic analysis of the R1b haplogroup provided strong support to the Asia-to-Africa back-migration hypothesis. The analysis of the distribution of the R-V88 haplogroup in >1800 males from 69 African populations revealed a striking genetic contiguity between the Chadic-speaking peoples from the central Sahel and several other Afroasiatic-speaking groups from North Africa. The R-V88 coalescence time was estimated at 9200–5600 kya, in the early mid Holocene. We suggest that R-V88 is a paternal genetic record of the proposed mid-Holocene migration of proto-Chadic Afroasiatic speakers through the Central Sahara into the Lake Chad Basin, and geomorphological evidence is consistent with this view.
According to the phylogeography of macro-haplogroup K-M9 (which contains haplogroup R1b), an ancient Asia-to-Africa back migration has been hypothesized to explain the puzzling presence of R-P25* in sub-Saharan Africa.18 This hypothesis is strongly supported by the present data.
in contrast to the mtDNA, a strong connection between Chadic and other Afroasiatic populations from Northern Africa is revealed by the Y chromosome data. This finding would indicate the trans-Saharan47 a more likely scenario than the inter-Saharan hypothesis,48 at least as far as the male component of gene pool is concerned. In this view, it is tempting to speculate that the Y chromosome haplogroup R-V88 represents a preserved genetic record of gene flow along the same axis as the proposed spread of proto-Chadic languages.47 Indeed, geomorphological evidence4 from the paleolakes that existed in the Sahara during the mid-Holocene indicates that these lakes could have covered an area as large as about 10% of the Sahara, providing an important corridor for human migrations across the region.5
our data indicate a significant male contribution from northern Africa (and ultimately Asia) to the gene pool of the central Sahel. The trans-Saharan population movements resulting in this genetic pattern would seem to mirror the spread of the proto-Chadic languages, and most likely took place during the early mid Holocene, a period when giant paleolakes may have provided a corridor for human migrations across what is now the Sahara desert.
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
SO you are saying Djehuti and XYZ are wrong? R1b is of Eurasian origin?
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: Why does he keep skipping these examples?
It doesn't mean anything. I'm sure even Ancient Egyptians had some Eurasian lineages (like F and M, N) among their populations even at their foundation stage (so before the Hyksos/Aamu/Asian invasion), even if most of them would be African lineages (like Ramses III who was P2/E1b1a). In term of most Y-DNA, MtDNA and autosomally they would still be mostly black Africans (if we take into account the current ancient DNA results like BMJ, JAMA, DNA Tribes, Paabo). Said in another way, we must check all 3:
1) Y-DNA 2) Mt-DNA 3) Autosomal (STR/SNP)
To determine the ethnic affiliations and history of populations (or individuals).
But you Zarahan, know it, so I wonder why you lie to us again? On the reverse side, Einstein was also from the African haplogroup P2/PN2 (e1b1b). Was he African? nope. Because his mtDNA and autosomal DNA would say otherwise. So why the lying and the deception Zarahan? Because this is obvious and you still lie about it to people reading this forum.
Baloney. I didn't say you were skipping said examples, Djehuti implied you were- let's QUOTE him:
"What's more is that Ahmanut keeps blabbing about PN2 being the be all end all, yet what are we to make of populations in West Africa who carry R clades that are presumably 'Eurasian' in origin??!! He NEVER talks about this and for obvious reasons. So are we to presume that West Africa, and in particular Cameroon was the site of "mass settlement by Eurasians" as well???
^^So why have you not replied specifically to Djehuti's comments? AND why did YOU YOURSELF hypocritically reply to the "impostor" "Bass?
And why would you say people African Americans who study/comment on the Nile Valley or the Horn are "obsessed"? Why is it an "obsession" for black Americans to study their own continent of origin? Are some things only "reserved" for white people? Why is it OK for white people to do it, but when black folk show up they are allegedly "obsessed"?
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: And why would you say people African Americans who study/comment on the Nile Valley or the Horn are "obsessed"?
Did I say that? Nope,so shut up please. That was between me and .Bass.. I said Basswith2periods was obsessed with Horners. I said it because you can see it in all his posts on this forum: African populations with (substantial) Eurasian admixtures is all he ever post about. If I was wrong, I'm sure he could have said the contrary himself but he couldn't and didn't (the idiot said he was partly horner, pure bullshit). I don't think this idiot needs you to come to rescue him.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
@Lioness. You are good , dog. Two studies you cited on R-V88. And you left out the 3rd and most important and recent one. Agent provocateur at his best. 👎
Listen, if you don't know what I am talking about then why continue? Lioness knows but he was being his cunning self. You go boy . Confuse and mislead .
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: And why would you say people African Americans who study/comment on the Nile Valley or the Horn are "obsessed"?
Did I say that? Nope,so shut up please. That was between me and .Bass.. I said Basswith2periods was obsessed with Horners. I said it because you can see it in all his posts on this forum: African populations with (substantial) Eurasian admixtures is all he ever post about. If I was wrong, I'm sure he could have said the contrary himself but he couldn't and didn't (the idiot said he was partly horner, pure bullshit). I don't think this idiot needs you to come to rescue him.
Why are you replying to "Bass" when you yourself condemn him as an impostor but then turn around and hypocritically criticizes people for replying to "Bass"? And even in your reply you ask why he is "obsessed" as an African American? What does being an African American have to do with it? You keep avoiding this question again and again. Why would black people have some sort of negative "obsession" to study and comment on their own continent of origin? Are there only "approved" areas they should "confine themselves" to?
And how come you are still avoiding a direct reply to Djehuti's specific critique? QUOTE:
"What's more is that Ahmanut keeps blabbing about PN2 being the be all end all, yet what are we to make of populations in West Africa who carry R clades that are presumably 'Eurasian' in origin??!! He NEVER talks about this and for obvious reasons. So are we to presume that West Africa, and in particular Cameroon was the site of "mass settlement by Eurasians" as well???
XYZ says: [lioness] And you left out the 3rd and most important and recent one. Agent provocateur at his best. 👎
What did he leave out?
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic