posted
LOL. DNA does not demonstrate Afro-Asiatic Family of languages ever existed.
The DNA represents the people living in the area where the so-called Afro-Asiatic speakers live, so it does not tell us anything about the origins of the alleged Afro-Asiatic language family. The DNA just tells us what haplogroups are carried by people in this part of Northeast Africa and the Levant.
Afro-Asiatic is a linguistic term. It has to be explained by linguistic evidence. A genetically related language can be reconstructed and show regular correspondence. Ehret and Orel/Stolbova were attempts at comparing Proto-Afro-Asiatic. The most interesting fact about these works is that they produced different results. If AfroAsiatic existed they should have arrived at similar results. If the linguistic evidence does not exist supporting this linguistic family as illustrated in Ehret,C. Reconstructing Proto-Afro-Asiatic; and Orel, Vladimir and Olga V. Stolbova, Hamito-Semitic Etymological Dictionary: Materials for a reconstruction the language family does not exist.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: a hypothesis about the place of origin of a language family or phylum must be based on linguistic evidence and methods, not on DNA or craniofacial patterns. --S.O.Y Keita
Are you saying someone here has not used linguistic evidence to identify the homeland of a language family?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Clyde, you're just repeating yourself. I'm assuming you want to argue your points instead of doing a hit and run. If I'm wrong about your intentions, just say so, so I don't have to waste my time.
Please answer the question. How come Afro-Asiatic makes accurate predictions if it doesn't exist?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: a hypothesis about the place of origin of a language family or phylum must be based on linguistic evidence and methods, not on DNA or craniofacial patterns. --S.O.Y Keita
Are you saying someone here has not used linguistic evidence to identify the homeland of a language family?
I threw that in, thought it might stick on somebody
Posts: 43006 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Researchers claim Afro-Asiatic is spoken predominantly in the the Horn of Africa, Middle East, North Africa,and parts of the Sahel. So of course the Y-DNA and mtDNA is going to line up consistent with where the so-called Afro-Asiatic speakers live.
posted
So, if I'm understanding you right, you say its only natural that this correlation exists. This assumes that you know of some sort of unknown reason (other than Afro-Asiatic) that these people are related in a way that resembles the structure of Afro-Asiatic. What is this unknown "self-evident" reason for this correspondence you seem to be hinting at?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Natural correlation exist because geneticist use Bayesian statistics to conduct their research.
In normal scientific research the researcher states a hypothesis and uses the scientific method to test his/her hypothesis. The validity and reliability of the piece of research is then determined by statistical significance tests focused on the interaction between the independent and dependent variable.
In the traditional evaluation of a piece of research literature you look at the researcher's hypothesis, results and statistical methods s/he used to determine the statistical significance of the research.
This is not the case in population genetics research; in this research you are evaluating statistical inferences based on the beliefs already held by the researcher about a set of data, instead of testing a hypothesis. This is why genetics research articles rarely test hypothesis, they only present a set of descriptive data which supports the point of view of the author.
As a result, the research contained in a population genetics article, reflects the views and beliefs already held by the researcher. Thusly, the statistical inferences will automatically support the views and beliefs held by that researcher; and any outliners that fail to support the researcher’s beliefs may not be mentioned in the resulting research.
As a result, the DNA data for Afro-Asiatic is going to automatically fit the regions where people speak these so-called languages because it matches the beliefs already held by the researchers relating to Afro-Asiatic language family.
posted
So, you're saying that everyone can take a genetic maker and build a linguistic narrative around it. So why are Obenga supporters struggling to do this with Negro-Egyptian? Where is the universal Negro-Egyptian marker (analogous to E-M35) with sublineages corresponding to different language groups within Negro-Egyptian? If what you're saying is true, you should have no shortage of lineages to pair Negro-Egyptian up with in this manner. What are they?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
lol I Don't quote Dr. Winters much but this...
quote: in this research you are evaluating statistical inferences based on the beliefs already held by the researcher about a set of data, instead of testing a hypothesis. This is why generic research articles rarely test hypothesis, they only present a set of descriptive data which supports the point of view of the author.
regardless though
the haplogroups have been periodically assigned to their language groups upon discovery, the "predictions" are weightless in validating the structure of the Language group. for instance, saying that an ancient sample probably spoke a proto-language cause their descendant speak the daughter language isn't really saying much. a good example of a prediction is assigning a parent between two siblings, only to see it being corroborated by DNA as well or vice versa. Eg. Which population spoke the egypto-Semitic language? - Based on DNA it should be some Pn2 group right...m215 no? if it has any weight linguistic evidence should somewhat support that...
In fact there should be a universal clear cut prediction of where ever this proto-AA tongue emerged. Considering we know so much about parental Hg lineage, Considering how "Well" these paternal groups fit into the AA "phylum"... the origin of protoAA should be no mystery.
Posts: 1782 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: I don't think there is a smoking gun for mass migration in the Nile Valley of the magnitude touted in some circles. In all my years, I've never seen evidence of mass migration of biblical proportions.
A lot of people cite mass migration as a reason for why modern Egyptians look the way they do but remain vague on the specifics. The argument goes "Egyptians were conquered many times" or "things changed with the arrival of Islam" but they make no attempt to correlate these periods with tangible data that supports demographic shifts radically different from other periods.
It might be that mass migration happened, but that we simply haven't detected it for various reasons. Also, as you point out, Oshun, one doesn't need mass migration to explain why the modern Egyptians shown in the media look different compared to the figures in regional rock art and the monuments.
Well instead of mass migration how about small scale invasion with later population expansions. We know that during dynastic times the majority of the population lived in the valley in contrast to modern times with the majority of the population living in the delta. Yes there were various invasions but it wasn't enough to change the native population persay through innundation and massive admixture. However, with demographic shifts due to massive population growth in the Delta one can see how the population can be skewed with those of foreign ancestry or admixture in the Delta being over-represented compared to those of the valley or even Baladi (natives of the Delta) who tend to be overshadowed economically and politically by the Afrangi (foreigners).
Oh and though Ausar was dishonest about his identity and heritage I did verify his knowledge about medieval Egypt to know that there were various invasions of Arab tribes during the Caliphates that reached well in the south of the valley.
Posts: 26352 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Incidentally, do you know if any skeletal remains have been uncovered from the Ethiopian region that date back to the probable origin of the Afrasan phylum (i.e. >10,000 BP)?
I think Charlie Bass did a couple of posts on ancient Ethiopian and Somali skeletal remains. They're all 'negroid' as far as I know. But I don't think these sites are old enough to be relevant to your question.
So what is your opinion on exactly where in Africa did proto-Afroasiatic originate? Do you believe it to be the Ethiopian interior (Blench's suggestion), somewhere along the Red Sea coast (Ehret's), or somewhere else entirely?
When I look at various proposals of reconstructed proto-Afro-Asiatic words, I think it's somewhere that included Egypt and Sudan. I never understood the appeal of the Ethiopian homeland proposal and I think that the argument for Ethiopia may actually be weaker than the argument for the Levant. Both, IMO, are weaker than the argument for the eastern Sahara.
Do you know of some good documents with an overview of the arguments of someone like Blench or Bernal and why they place Afroasiatic in Ethiopia? I want to make sure I still feel the same way about Afroasiatic in Ethiopia knowing what I know now.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Also, Badarians had little to no sign of sicklemia, further weakening your claim that negroid features and sicklemia were necessarily connected in the Nile Valley.
Why don't you post full quotes from Angel relevant to the discussion? Or are you quote mining?
Correction. Badarian skeletal remains do, in fact, have the physical signs of anemia, sometimes interpreted as evidence of sicklemia. The table in Angel 1972 I was basing this on said evidence of porotic hyperostosis in Badarians was likely absent. Subsequent analyses have confirmed Badarian skeletal remains also have it (see link above).
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Incidentally, do you know if any skeletal remains have been uncovered from the Ethiopian region that date back to the probable origin of the Afrasan phylum (i.e. >10,000 BP)?
I think Charlie Bass did a couple of posts on ancient Ethiopian and Somali skeletal remains. They're all 'negroid' as far as I know. But I don't think these sites are old enough to be relevant to your question.
So what is your opinion on exactly where in Africa did proto-Afroasiatic originate? Do you believe it to be the Ethiopian interior (Blench's suggestion), somewhere along the Red Sea coast (Ehret's), or somewhere else entirely?
When I look at various proposals of reconstructed proto-Afro-Asiatic words, I think it's somewhere that included Egypt and Sudan. I never understood the appeal of the Ethiopian homeland proposal and I think that the argument for Ethiopia may actually be weaker than the argument for the Levant. Both, IMO, are weaker than the argument for the eastern Sahara.
Do you know of some good documents with an overview of the arguments of someone like Blench or Bernal and why they place Afroasiatic in Ethiopia? I want to make sure I still feel the same way about Afroasiatic in Ethiopia knowing what I know now.
At the moment, this is the closest I could find. The Ethiopian homeland hypothesis he provides seems to be based on Omotic representing the most divergent and diversified branch of Afrasan.
Posts: 7112 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: I don't think there is a smoking gun for mass migration in the Nile Valley of the magnitude touted in some circles. In all my years, I've never seen evidence of mass migration of biblical proportions.
A lot of people cite mass migration as a reason for why modern Egyptians look the way they do but remain vague on the specifics. The argument goes "Egyptians were conquered many times" or "things changed with the arrival of Islam" but they make no attempt to correlate these periods with tangible data that supports demographic shifts radically different from other periods.
It might be that mass migration happened, but that we simply haven't detected it for various reasons. Also, as you point out, Oshun, one doesn't need mass migration to explain why the modern Egyptians shown in the media look different compared to the figures in regional rock art and the monuments.
Well instead of mass migration how about small scale invasion with later population expansions. We know that during dynastic times the majority of the population lived in the valley in contrast to modern times with the majority of the population living in the delta. Yes there were various invasions but it wasn't enough to change the native population persay through innundation and massive admixture. However, with demographic shifts due to massive population growth in the Delta one can see how the population can be skewed with those of foreign ancestry or admixture in the Delta being over-represented compared to those of the valley or even Baladi (natives of the Delta) who tend to be overshadowed economically and politically by the Afrangi (foreigners).
Oh and though Ausar was dishonest about his identity and heritage I did verify his knowledge about medieval Egypt to know that there were various invasions of Arab tribes during the Caliphates that reached well in the south of the valley.
Note also the unique geography of Egypt. Most Egyptians lived along the Nile river. There were few natural barriers in between population centers north to south; the barriers were mostly to the east and west. In times of an epidemic or invasions, the vast majority of the Egyptian population was basically sitting ducks. There were few places to hide without leaving their country (which, as you know, they were very reluctant to do). It seems to me that Egypt's geography makes it relatively easy for foreigners to disseminate along the Nile and change the native population compared to countries like Greece and Italy. These countries are insulated, spatially more spread out (as opposed to just in a narrow north-south direction) and have mountains and other refugia to retreat to.
It would be interesting to see someone model this and come up with statistics for different countries' susceptibility to migration and population change due to geography.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Incidentally, do you know if any skeletal remains have been uncovered from the Ethiopian region that date back to the probable origin of the Afrasan phylum (i.e. >10,000 BP)?
I think Charlie Bass did a couple of posts on ancient Ethiopian and Somali skeletal remains. They're all 'negroid' as far as I know. But I don't think these sites are old enough to be relevant to your question.
So what is your opinion on exactly where in Africa did proto-Afroasiatic originate? Do you believe it to be the Ethiopian interior (Blench's suggestion), somewhere along the Red Sea coast (Ehret's), or somewhere else entirely?
When I look at various proposals of reconstructed proto-Afro-Asiatic words, I think it's somewhere that included Egypt and Sudan. I never understood the appeal of the Ethiopian homeland proposal and I think that the argument for Ethiopia may actually be weaker than the argument for the Levant. Both, IMO, are weaker than the argument for the eastern Sahara.
Do you know of some good documents with an overview of the arguments of someone like Blench or Bernal and why they place Afroasiatic in Ethiopia? I want to make sure I still feel the same way about Afroasiatic in Ethiopia knowing what I know now.
At the moment, this is the closest I could find. The Ethiopian homeland hypothesis he provides seems to be based on Omotic representing the most divergent and diversified branch of Afrasan.
I agree with Swenet that the likely urheimat of Proto-Afrasian is somewhere in the eastern Sahara which does not exclude the Red Sea coast of Ehret's hypothesis. That said, I believe Omotic may indeed represent the most divergent member of the phylum but that doesn't mean that Omotic originated in Ethiopia let alone proto-Afrasian.
Just because a language or language group is found in an area today does not necessarily mean it originated there, and this is especially true for very ancient linguistic groups that were concieved during late paleolithic times.
My personal hypothesis is that the oldest or most divergent branches simply radiated out the furthest from the urheimat before historical expansions of other branches of course. Note I said branches (plural) as there is no doubt that there were other branches of Afrasian that went extinct. In fact, I personally believe that the first expansion of Afrasian into Southwest Asia probably wasn't pre-proto-Semitic but an entirely different branch of Afrasian.
Posts: 26352 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Note also the unique geography of Egypt. Most Egyptians lived along the Nile river. There were few natural barriers in between population centers north to south; the barriers were mostly to the east and west. In times of an epidemic or invasions, the vast majority of the Egyptian population was basically sitting ducks. There were few places to hide without leaving their country (which, as you know, they were very reluctant to do). It seems to me that Egypt's geography makes it relatively easy for foreigners to disseminate along the Nile and change the native population compared to countries like Greece and Italy. These countries are insulated, spatially more spread out (as opposed to just in a narrow north-south direction) and have mountains and other refugia to retreat to.
It would be interesting to see someone model this and come up with statistics for different countries' susceptibility to migration and population change due to geography.
Your point regarding Egypt is precisely my point. I have heard arguments that the oases may have been refugia but even these areas were not safe from foreign influence as we have seen from past genetic studies.
By the way, European nations like Greece and Italy were not as insulated as you think. Sure there were mountains for the natives to take refuge but foreign invasions in these nations is largely underrated and underestimated. I'll save that topic for another thread.
Posts: 26352 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Note the northern borders of Greece and Italy. Seems ideal to me from a military viewpoint (especially during the Bronze Age, when most powers invested in chariots and didn't have great navies), although not insurmountable as you pointed out DJ. I think Egyptian generals and kings knew their geography didn't provide enough protection. Hence, why they used the Levant as a buffer zone after the Hyksos invasion.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Well the invasions I was referring to in regards to Greece and Italy largely date from Medieval to modern times. But I get your point.
Posts: 26352 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Václav Blažek, argues in AFROASIATIC MIGRATIONS: LINGUISTIC EVIDENCE, that “ Regarding the tree-diagram above, the hypothetical scenario of disintegration of Afroasiatic and following migrations should operate with two asynchronic migrations from the Levantine homeland: Cushitic (& Omotic?) separated first c. 12 mill. BP (late Natufian) and spread into the Arabian Peninsula; next Egyptian, Berber and Chadic split from Semitic (the latter remaining in the Levant) c. 11-10 mill. BP and they dispersed into the Nile Delta and Valley “. .
. Václav Blažek hypothesis is unfounded because the Natufians originated in East Africa and spread to the Levant. As a result, the foundation of the hypothesis is faulty since it does not conform to the archaeological reality.
Add this to the fact that the Nilo-Saharan speakers founded the Aqualithic culture which is 12.5ky old. Yet, Václav Blažek believes that Cushitic separated from Afro-Asiatic in the Levant 7.5kya. As a result, the Proto-Cushitic speakers based on archaeology would have been in Africa, 5000 years before they allegedly separated from Proto-Afro-Asiatic in the Levant.
Finally, he has Egyptian breaking away from Afro-Asiatic in the Levant -7200. This is impossible, because the Egyptian civilization originated in the Sahara—not the Levant. In fact, there is no evidence of Levantines influencing the rise of Egypt.
In summary, the archaeological evidence disputes Václav Blažek’s theory. The presence of Proto-Nilo-Saharans and Proto-Egyptians in Africa nullifies the entire theory.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Well the invasions I was referring to in regards to Greece and Italy largely date from Medieval to modern times. But I get your point.
It's interesting you say that because I've been reading about the Renaissance lately. Now that you've said that I definitely know what you're talking about.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lol. I see what you did there, Clyde. If you can't answer the question just say so. What you're saying right now doesn't take away the thorn in the side of Obenga supporters: the structural correspondence between Afroasiatic language families and E-M35 sublineages (e.g. Semitic and E-M34). Even if you say Afroasiatic doesn't exist, the other fields still point to Afroasiatic-like relationships on all sides of the Red Sea and the Mediterranean. It's not like wishing away Afroasiatic clears ground for Negro-Egyptian. Saying Afroasiatic doesn't exist still doesn't get you a nanometer closer to establishing Negro-Egyptian genetic and archaeological relationships in areas where Afroasiatic is spoken. The African component of the Natufians, PPN and later groups is E-M35, not some universal Negro-Egyptian lineage Obenga supporters wish they could latch onto.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Afro-Asiatic does not exist.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Well the invasions I was referring to in regards to Greece and Italy largely date from Medieval to modern times. But I get your point.
It's interesting you say that because I've been reading about the Renaissance lately. Now that you've said that I definitely know what you're talking about.
Correction. At least since late Roman Empire times were there major incursions into Italy and Greece.
Posts: 26352 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You don't even understand what you posted. SMH.
Understand the context. More =in this instance means the share the SAME amount of SSA ancestry and no more.
In other words Natufians ***DO** have SSA ancestry.
They could not test modern Berbers...yeah right> Why? because it will screw they premise because the Natufians are Amazigh.
You are so dense ...sometimes.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [Q] Early Nile Valley-influenced ancient DNA speaks for itself:
quote:[P]resent-day sub-Saharan Africans do not share**** MORE*** alleles with Natufians than with other 192 ancient Eurasians. We [b]****could not test**** for a link to present-day North Africans, who owe most of their ancestry to back-migration from Eurasia.[/]
posted
That is not the point. I have said many times that the Natufians had a degree of SSA ancestry. I don't think that needs repeating every time I point out that the Africans who mixed with the Natufians had a northeast African YDNA and autosomal profile.
Why should I? Just because some people feel insecure if I don't slide in that extra side-note that Natufians' African side was northeast African + some SSA? Get a life gramps.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: That is not the point. I have said many times that the Natufians had a degree of SSA ancestry. I don't think that needs repeating every time I point out that the Africans who mixed with the Natufians had a northeast African YDNA and autosomal profile.
Why should I? Just because some people feel insecure if I don't slide in that extra side-note that Natufians' African side was northeast African + some SSA? Get a life gramps.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I said many times. There is No, nein, nada, zero genetic evidence that AE was invaded by Romans, Greeks, Steppes, Persians other than Modern Turks. I challenge anyone to provide the proof. ANYONE!!!!!!!!!
That leaves only one logical conclusion.....anyone?
Carry on with this nonsensical thread.
-------------------- 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
To the newbies who don't get it. That is why ALL, ALL, ALL published DNA of AEians have them DISTANTLY related to the people who currently occupy their land. And at the same time closely related to Africans further South and West. Modern Egyptians are heavily admixed West Asians (ie Turks).
---
caryy on.....SMH
-------------------- 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 xyyman: You don't even understand what you posted. SMH.
Understand the context. More =in this instance means the share the SAME amount of SSA ancestry and no more.
In other words Natufians ***DO** have SSA ancestry.
They could not test modern Berbers...yeah right> Why? because it will screw they premise because the Natufians are Amazigh.
You are so dense ...sometimes.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [Q] Early Nile Valley-influenced ancient DNA speaks for itself:
quote:[P]resent-day sub-Saharan Africans do not share**** MORE*** alleles with Natufians than with other 192 ancient Eurasians. We [b]****could not test**** for a link to present-day North Africans, who owe most of their ancestry to back-migration from Eurasia.[/]
The beauty of published aDNA is that it removes the need for middlemen who try to inject their own opinionated "take" on things.
[/QB]
The article is bs. the levantines were SSA.Trenton W. Holliday, tested the hypothesis that if modern Africans had dispersed into the Levant from Africa, "tropically adapted hominids" would be represented in the archaeological history of the Levant, especially in relation to the Qafzeh-Skhul hominids. This researcher found that the Qafzeh-Skhul hominids (20,000-10,000),were assigned to the Sub-Saharan population, along with the Natufians samples (4000 BP). Holliday also found African fauna in the area.
The genetic data only makes it clear these people were Africans and does nothing to support Afro-Asiatic.
Reference:
Holiday, T. (2000). Evolution at the Crossroads: Modern Human Emergence in Western Asia, American Anthropologist,102(1) .
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, one thing gramps 'forgot' to mention, is that SSA were apparently closer to some random Eurasians in some cases than they were to Natufians in one analysis. So, gramp's attempt to act like the comparison somehow still leaves room for a Niger-Congo interpretation fails completely.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Agreed Dr Winters. Swenet cannot read properly. Probably flunked out of high school and became a hustler? lol!
anyways.
-- Again to be clear the Natufians are Africans(Berbers). A mixture of SSA and North African DNA(ie basal Eurasian). They carry 'no" Neanderthal Ancestry just as modern SSAfricans. (Pssst!- in reality they do it is just in smaller genetic segments - sources cited). They carry no Hg-La Brana ancestry. Why? Because they just left Africa through the Levant. Also if you read and understand the paper Sardinians are MORE related to Africans than Natufians. Keeping in mind Sardinians are the closest "Europeans" to EEF. What does it all mean. The passage was NOT through the Levant but via Tunisia/Sardinia and upcoming papers will also show through Morocco/Iberia.
Excuse me for interjecting with common sense....carry on!
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
WTF did you just babble there....man! you are hopeless. Also WTF is "random'. SMH . What do you sell Swenet? Lol!
We know some modern populations OUTSIDE of Africa carry SSA ancestry . Yemenis is a prime example and it is not due to the supposed slave trade. Since the early Holocene SSA occupied the Arabian peninsular . Sources cited many times over.
QUOTE: "Also, one thing gramps 'forgot' to mention, is that SSA were apparently closer to some RANDOM Eurasians in some cases than they were to Natufians in one analysis. So, gramp's attempt to act like the comparison somehow still leaves room for a Niger-Congo interpretation fails completely."
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Also, one thing gramps 'forgot' to mention, is that SSA were apparently closer to some RANDOM Eurasians in some cases than they were to Natufians in one analysis. So, gramp's attempt to act like the comparison somehow still leaves room for a Niger-Congo interpretation fails completely.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Post the Fst values of the Natufians vis a vis the rest of the samples and let the readers make up their own mind. No need for all this extra chest thumping and hollow rhetoric.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: There is no deny modern Europeans are depigmented Africans. That is undeniable. That is clear now.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Agreed Dr Winters. Swenet cannot read properly. Probably flunked out of high school and became a hustler? lol! anyways. -- Again to be clear the Natufians are Africans(Berbers). A mixture of SSA and North African DNA(ie basal Eurasian).
quote: The beginning of the Neolithic culture is considered to be in the Levant (Jericho, modern-day West Bank) about 10,200–8800 BCE. It developed directly from the Epipaleolithic Natufian culture in the region
So xyyman why do you insist that the ancestors of modern Europeans went to Europe by crossing Gibraltar? Shouldn't you revise that to the Levant and the Natufians with the path out of Egypt and then coming from the middle east?
Posts: 43006 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again. To be clear this is not some rocket science high tech super intelligent requireming stuff. The pattern is very clear. Only the racist, racialist and delusional will conclude other than Modern Europeans are depigmented Africans. Rosenberg et al made it clear since his 2002 deep AIM analysis of modern Humans. He stated it was a continuum. His "Unsupervised" AIM analysis had shown modern Europeans were MORE African than non-African. That does not mean "non-African is not African also of course. There was essentially TWO major waves. Paleolithic and Neolithic. Close to 15years later Lazardis (his now famous paper) et al along with over 100 well-known genetic scientist concluded the same thing. Basal Eurasian is African. The continuum transcends North Africa to Southern Europe. And NOT through the Levant. So , obviously there were shallow waters or land masses between the two lands of North Africa and Southern Europe including Iberia. That is why Haplotypes of mtDNA H found in North Africa is similar to BOTH the Levant/Near east and Europe. And E1b1-sub-clades found in Europe and Levant is different yet ALL subclades is found in AFRICA. Both Levant /Near east is DIFFERENT to Europe. The Natufian analysis further confirms that. Natufians are North Africans who did NOT make it to Europe but will be similar to Eurasians in Turkey and points further East in Asia up to the Harrapan Valley.
As I said before the ONLY perplexing thing was R1b-M269. Why the sudden dominance? aDNA WILLshow that R1b-M269 is OLDER in Africa than Europe. You will see that eventually. That is why R1b-M269 was present in the ancient Canary Islanders BEFORE supposed "European" colonization.
This is not rocket science people.
BTW - it all goes back to the LWK. I said ti before and some scuffed. LWK(or similar popualtion0 are ancestral to Berbers who are in turn ancestral Europeans. This is too easy.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: There is no deny modern Europeans are depigmented Africans. That is undeniable. That is clear now.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Agreed Dr Winters. Swenet cannot read properly. Probably flunked out of high school and became a hustler? lol! anyways. -- Again to be clear the Natufians are Africans(Berbers). A mixture of SSA and North African DNA(ie basal Eurasian).
quote: The beginning of the Neolithic culture is considered to be in the Levant (Jericho, modern-day West Bank) about 10,200–8800 BCE. It developed directly from the Epipaleolithic Natufian culture in the region
So xyyman why do you insist that the ancestors of modern Europeans went to Europe by crossing Gibraltar? Shouldn't you revise that to the Levant and the Natufians with the path out of Egypt and then coming from the middle east?
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sergi ...and xyyman...were right. Sergi got it right over 125 years ago through cranium analysis.
Coon also.
See Dhoxie ...I give whites what is due to them! Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: [QB] Sergi ...and xyyman...were right. Sergi got it right over 125 years ago through cranium analysis.
Coon also.
So xyyman why do you insist that the ancestors of modern Europeans went to Europe by crossing Gibraltar? Shouldn't you revise that to the Levant with the Natufians, the path out of Egypt and then coming from the middle east to Europe?
Posts: 43006 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: As I said many times. There is No, nein, nada, zero genetic evidence that AE was invaded by Romans, Greeks, Steppes, Persians other than Modern Turks. I challenge anyone to provide the proof. ANYONE!!!!!!!!!
That leaves only one logical conclusion.....anyone?
Carry on with this nonsensical thread.
Are you saying that the historical texts of all those peoples you mentioned (Persians, Greeks, Romans) as well as Arabs are are not proof??! Are you saying all the archaeology showing the presence of all these peoples is not proof??!
Saying that the invasions of all theses peoples was not enough to change the native demographics is one thing, but to say these invasions "never occurred" is something else entirely. These are just historical facts verified not only by the texts, but archaeology, and even genetics.
I find it strange how you deny the invasions of all these groups except the Turks which only occurred during the Ottoman Empire. Exactly what is your fixation on the Turks anyway??
Posts: 26352 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
" the Pillars of Hercules" paper which I referenced many times made it clear. Kefi 2014 paper added fuel to the flame. This is not too difficult to understand. The Pillars paper made it clear. mtDNa H haplotypes found in Southern Europe which includes Iberia and Sardinia/Italy is only a SUB_SET found in North Africa like the Saharawis /Morocco and Tunisia. The Nile was Obviously a barrier...sources sited. SSA for some reason odd reason had full control of that land AFTER the Natufian migration. I am thinking remember E1b1b is 18,000years old!!! It is essentially Paleolithic unlike E1b1a which middle-late Neolithic. AEians are E1b1a. All are Africans.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: [QB] Sergi ...and xyyman...were right. Sergi got it right over 125 years ago through cranium analysis.
Coon also.
So xyyman why do you insist that the ancestors of modern Europeans went to Europe by crossing Gibraltar? Shouldn't you revise that to the Levant with the Natufians, the path out of Egypt and then coming from the middle east to Europe?
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: [qb] As I said many times. There is No, nein, nada, zero genetic evidence that AE was invaded by Romans, Greeks, Steppes, Persians other than Modern Turks. I challenge anyone to provide the proof. ANYONE!!!!!!!!!
That leaves only one logical conclusion.....anyone?
Carry on with this nonsensical thread.
Are you saying that the historical texts of all those peoples you mentioned (Persians, Greeks, Romans) as well as Arabs are are not proof??! Are you saying all the archaeology showing the presence of all these peoples is not proof??!
No, he's saying that genetics proves that to be fake history
A white so called scientist could easily plant a skull or stone artifacts and then say "see I found this here"
Posts: 43006 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
What Fuckging hsitorical text. Can you read latin?
Even in that recent ancient Canary Islander paper the WHITE Author admitted the lies perpetuated in academia. That Iberians, Canary Islanders and North Africans share archaeological connections through their scripts. But we are being lied to...
Look man! I am only the messenger. "books" can be doctored. Europeans lie. You need to understand that first and foremost. There is absolute NO!!! genetic evidence the Romans and Greeks occupied AE unless they are one and the same people Africans. GIVE ME THE GENETIC PROOF or stop BSing. GIVE ME the GENETIC Proof!!
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: As I said many times. There is No, nein, nada, zero genetic evidence that AE was invaded by Romans, Greeks, Steppes, Persians other than Modern Turks. I challenge anyone to provide the proof. ANYONE!!!!!!!!!
That leaves only one logical conclusion.....anyone?
Carry on with this nonsensical thread.
Are you saying that the historical texts of all those peoples you mentioned (Persians, Greeks, Romans) as well as Arabs are are not proof??! Are you saying all the archaeology showing the presence of all these peoples is not proof??!
Saying that the invasions of all theses peoples was not enough to change the native demographics is one thing, but to say these invasions "never occurred" is something else entirely. These are just historical facts verified not only by the texts, but archaeology, and even genetics.
I find it strange how you deny the invasions of all these groups except the Turks which only occurred during the Ottoman Empire. Exactly what is your fixation on the Turks anyway??
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am saying the effect and presence in Africa may be grossly exaggerated!!1 We already know modern Greeks carry African genes including sickle traits. We also know that Cleopatra was white, no black no white no black. lol! Sources cited.
-------------------- 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 |
There is absolute NO!!! genetic evidence the Romans and Greeks occupied AE unless they are one and the same people Africans. GIVE ME THE GENETIC PROOF or stop BSing. GIVE ME the GENETIC Proof!!
Why would you see any genetic evidence Europeans are depigmented Egyptians?
Posts: 43006 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have no idea. But based upon the genetic evidence it was long before what is "documented" in books. Lol! Why? Canary Islanders carry their own unique version of the North African mtDNA Hg U6. U6 is Paleolithic. So I will guess may be early Neolithic. Also keep in mind in that Cape Verde paper the people occupying Islands of the coast of Nigeria are NOT SSA. They are North Africans genetically. I am guessing that is another lie. Modern Europeans did meet Africans occupying those Islands when they "discovered" it.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: [QB] What Fuckging hsitorical text. Can you read latin?
Even in that recent ancient Canary Islander paper the WHITE Author admitted the lies perpetuated in academia.
when were the Canary Islands first inhabited by people?
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fool! The Nile was a barrier. Sources cited. I am thinking control of the water ways by the young upstarts E1b1a. Natufians are North Africans, we know that, North Africans are ...well..North Africans so why are the Egyptians SSA? Obviously All of North Africa and the Levant was controlled by the North African related peoples. IIRC 8000year old Neolithics of the Levant were mtDNA H, L, and K. Right?
Eva Fernadez et al?
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman:
There is absolute NO!!! genetic evidence the Romans and Greeks occupied AE unless they are one and the same people Africans. GIVE ME THE GENETIC PROOF or stop BSing. GIVE ME the GENETIC Proof!!
Why would you see any genetic evidence Europeans are depigmented Egyptians?
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Watch gramps go MIA or ignore what I said above.
Lol. One thing about xyyman is he knows when to be loud and when to pick his battles wisely.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Look man! I am only the messenger. "books" can be doctored. Europeans lie. You need to understand that first and foremost. There is absolute NO!!! genetic evidence the Romans and Greeks occupied AE unless they are one and the same people Africans. GIVE ME THE GENETIC PROOF or stop BSing. GIVE ME the GENETIC Proof!!
To what extent are modern Egyptians primarily the descendants of ancient Egyptians?
Posts: 43006 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic