quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Beyoku, what happened to this study?
OK A-M13 L3f Ok A-M13 L0a1 OK B-M150 L3d OK E-M2 L3e5 OK E-M2 L2a1 OK E-M123 L5a1 OK E-M35 R0a OK E-M41 L2a1 OK E-M41 L1b1a OK E-M75 M1 OK E-M78 L4b OK J-M267 L3i OK R-M173 L2 OK T-M184 L0a
Maybe beyoku was trying to see how ES would react if people told them AE had mostly L lineages. I figured if Beyoku believed the data was true, even without the computer, that data would at least offer confidence to the presence a bunch of L lineages (in Egypt's past). The irony of this, is that some still had faith in these lineages representing AE (because of their belief beyoku was being honest). But the person that posted it is now telling them to consider this as a broken collective ES narrative.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Son of Ra got it from Beyoku, who said the data was on a computer h/she lacked access to.
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: ^ OK but i dont think anyone would have argued those northerners would have been that little in mtdna L. No if the southerners ALSO come up that way THEN what are we going to say?
Why the lack of confidence? Weren't many people probably given some confidence to theorize in that direction because of beyoku's data?
quote:Originally posted by Son of Ra: Credit actually goes to beyoku for presenting this to everyone. And also credit to Firewall for actually PMing me this in the first place.
Anyways...This is really interesting and the fight for an African Ancient Egypt is starting to come to a close..
quote: OK A-M13 L3f Ok A-M13 L0a1 OK B-M150 L3d OK E-M2 L3e5 OK E-M2 L2a1 OK E-M123 L5a1 OK E-M35 R0a OK E-M41 L2a1 OK E-M41 L1b1a OK E-M75 M1 OK E-M78 L4b OK J-M267 L3i OK R-M173 L2 OK T-M184 L0a
He makes some really good points. It appears its not the full study and I think beyoku states he is not able to post the full one for some reason. [/QB]
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: did YOU see the data? Or the your hear about it from "someone"?
Read what I wrote. Yall want to know where the data came from. If you knew it was on a computer, but didnt have access to the computer how COULD you get the data?
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. [i]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 lineages6, 7, implying relatively larger effective population sizes for ancestral Khoisan populations.
This study only reaffirms my point even more about loss of genetic diversity through time as well as not stereotyping Africans much less 'Sub-Saharans'. Here you have the Khoisan who are a Sub-Saharan group yet their DNA profile is distinct from other more typical Sub-Saharan groups.
By the way, this study seems to support Ehret and other linguists who hypothesize an overall linguo-genetic split of click-speakers from non click-speaking peoples that took place in Africa well before initial OOA.
Posts: 26285 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Anyone hypothesize the Y-DNA will be equally low in PN2? If it is does that mean they are foreign?
Actually I think foreign is the wrong word for people who were there before Narmer. I would rephrase it as atypical.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
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. [i]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 lineages6, 7, implying relatively larger effective population sizes for ancestral Khoisan populations.
This study only reaffirms my point even more about loss of genetic diversity through time as well as not stereotyping Africans much less 'Sub-Saharans'. Here you have the Khoisan who are a Sub-Saharan group yet their DNA profile is distinct from other more typical Sub-Saharan groups.
By the way, this study seems to support Ehret and other linguists who hypothesize an overall linguo-genetic split of click-speakers from non click-speaking peoples that took place in Africa well before initial OOA.
That is exactly why I post it.
quote: Human genetic variation particularly in Africa is still poorly understood. This is despite a consensus on the large African effective population size compared to populations from other continents. Based on sequencing of the mitochondrial Cytochrome C Oxidase subunit II (MT-CO2), and genome wide microsatellite data we observe evidence suggesting the effective size (Ne) of humans to be larger than the current estimates, with a foci of increased genetic diversity in east Africa, and a population size of east Africans being at least 2-6 fold larger than other populations. Both phylogenetic and network analysis indicate that east Africans possess more ancestral lineages in comparison to various continental populations placing them at the root of the human evolutionary tree. Our results also affirm east Africa as the likely spot from which migration towards Asia has taken place. The study reflects the spectacular level of sequence variation within east Africans in comparison to the global sample, and appeals for further studies that may contribute towards filling the existing gaps in the database. The implication of these data to current genomic research, as well as the need to carry out defined studies of human genetic variation that includes more African populations; particularly east Africans is paramount.
--Jibril Hirbo, Sara Tishkoff et al.
The Episode of Genetic Drift Defining the Migration of Humans out of Africa Is Derived from a Large East African Population Size
PLoS One. 2014; 9(5): e97674. Published online 2014 May 20. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0097674
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: This study only reaffirms my point even more about loss of genetic diversity through time as well as not stereotyping Africans much less 'Sub-Saharans'. Here you have the Khoisan who are a Sub-Saharan group yet their DNA profile is distinct from other more typical Sub-Saharan groups.
By the way, this study seems to support Ehret and other linguists who hypothesize an overall linguo-genetic split of click-speakers from non click-speaking peoples that took place in Africa well before initial OOA.
Further more: Brenna Henn, in this interview on population genetics and population structure, considering African populations.
“African populations have the most genetic diversity in the world,” Henn said. “If you compared people from the Kalahari Desert to people from Mali, they’d be as different from each other [genetically] as Italians and Chinese people.”
Why are other populations of humans so much less genetically varied than Africans? The answer, Henn explains, lies in our ancestors’ history; the groups of people that migrated out of Africa and spread throughout other continents were smaller subsets of that original, genetically diverse population.
"AND WITHIN EACH OF THESE GROUPS THERE IS AN AMAZING AMOUNT OF DIVERSITY, [...] THE DIVERSITY IS INDIGNIOUS TO AFRICAN POPULATIONS”:
Tracing Family Trees, And Human History, With Genetics
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: Son of Ra got it from Beyoku, who said the data was on a computer h/she lacked access to.
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: ^ OK but i dont think anyone would have argued those northerners would have been that little in mtdna L. No if the southerners ALSO come up that way THEN what are we going to say?
Why the lack of confidence? Weren't many people probably given some confidence to theorize in that direction because of beyoku's data?
quote:Originally posted by Son of Ra: Credit actually goes to beyoku for presenting this to everyone. And also credit to Firewall for actually PMing me this in the first place.
Anyways...This is really interesting and the fight for an African Ancient Egypt is starting to come to a close..
quote: OK A-M13 L3f Ok A-M13 L0a1 OK B-M150 L3d OK E-M2 L3e5 OK E-M2 L2a1 OK E-M123 L5a1 OK E-M35 R0a OK E-M41 L2a1 OK E-M41 L1b1a OK E-M75 M1 OK E-M78 L4b OK J-M267 L3i OK R-M173 L2 OK T-M184 L0a
He makes some really good points. It appears its not the full study and I think beyoku states he is not able to post the full one for some reason.
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: did YOU see the data? Or the your hear about it from "someone"?
Read what I wrote. Yall want to know where the data came from. If you knew it was on a computer, but didnt have access to the computer how COULD you get the data?
I am going to leave it at that.
It was because of political reasons back then, as it is now with this paper. Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
maybe political reasons would explain why the name of the study, etc wasn't released. But why lack confidence in L lineages being present? If I saw a study and knew it was real, I'd still anticipate to see a lot of L lineages even if I couldn't release it. I did NOT expect Beyoku of many of the posters to move in this direction. I'm not saying I know AE will contain a lot of L material. But Beyoku wasn't someone I expected to be prepping for a reverse scenario.
Genetic data of ancient remains is one of the most difficult things for people to reproduce because there's not much chance to really do it. When I read what beyoku posted and compare it to what's being said now, it feels like a shift in gears. Why? Will the powers that be eventually make genetic data whatever they want it to look like, or was the study never real?
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
You people need to read and understand the words "ancient"Near East ie Natufians. Not "modern" Near East.
Also. ancient Romans , Greeks are African Natufians. I always Said that their is no genetic evidence of Greek and Romans invading Africa unless they are one and the same.
20% 'increase' in SSA not that there was 'no' SSA. So modern Egyptians are heavily SSA. Which "modern Egyptians" since they are also classifed as the most admixed of "North Africans".
''+'' 20% means an increase of 20% not that there wasn't SSA. lol. Didn't I say so. It is a play on words. Like "there wasn't MORE SSA in basal Eurasian".
Some of you vets still haven't caught on the "word games". Modern Near Easterns will align with AEians because they are not Africans but Turks that is why many researchers like Henn don't use them in studies. They use Bedouins whi are essentially Africans closely related to Natufians.
So again we have to wait un the full paper
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Zarahan. Please go ahead and post some of the photoshops you have made that talk about Egyptian cranial "African" affinity. I will wait.
You have been here on and off for almost 10 years. Look them up yourself and then tell me why there are no affinities to sub-Saharan Africans. I'll wait..
Also explain this mystical ES "collective consciousness" you keep insisting on. I'll wait for that too.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
You people need to read and understand the words "ancient"Near East ie Natufians. Not "modern" Near East.
Also. ancient Romans , Greeks are African Natufians. I always Said that their is no genetic evidence of Greek and Romans invading Africa unless they are one and the same.
20% 'increase' in SSA not that there was 'no' SSA. So modern Egyptians are heavily SSA. Which "modern Egyptians" since they are also classifed as the most admixed of "North Africans".
''+'' 20% means an increase of 20% not that there wasn't SSA. lol. Didn't I say so. It is a play on words. Like "there wasn't MORE SSA in basal Eurasian".
Some of you vets still haven't caught on the "word games". Modern Near Easterns will align with AEians because they are not Africans but Turks that is why many researchers like Henn don't use them in studies. They use Bedouins whi are essentially Africans closely related to Natufians.
So again we have to wait un the full paper
okay maybe I'm not properly following what you're saying, but if I've got you right you're sayin that ancient Near Easterners had African lineages. What were those lineages that we should be seeing on there?
Does ones ascribed haplogroup provide insight to their admixture levels?
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Note that Abusir el Meleq is not the entire of Egypt. In fact it is lower Egypt and a Roman colony, Euronut! lol smh
quote:To substantiate those speculations, molecular analyses were carried out on sixteen mummified heads recovered from the necropolis of Abusir el Meleq (Fayum) dating from the 3rd Intermediate Period (1064- 656 BC) to the Roman Period (30 BC- 300 AD).
. —Albert Lalremruata
Molecular Identification of Falciparum Malaria and Human Tuberculosis Co-Infections in Mummies from the Fayum Depression (Lower Egypt)
OK. Thanks to you we maybe got a heads up, no pun intended, on the Abusir el Meleq materials.
This Abusir is between the Fayum and the Nile, 21st Nome of ancient Upper Egypt now called Middle Egypt. It goes back to Naqada 2, per Baines & Malek, the farthest north such site.
I think those in that table are a subset of what 'Max Planckers' Krause and Schuenemann are using.
Some have radio carbon dates but most don't. All of them are later than Dynasty 20 (Ramesside). Dynasty 18 was imperialist and enslaved 'Asiatics.' Dynasty 19 saw Sea Peoples yoked to the empire. Then there were the Levantine merchants and the Sinai Bedouin.
I see a big hodge podge of over 14 pre-Ptolemaic mtDNAs in Schuenemann's 90 genomes graph. I don't know but looks like a mosaic of mothers in Abusir. Conservatively by L M1 and U, as far as I can make out, only ~20% is African (N & NE).
Can anybody make out what that haplogroup is that's around 15% of the total? Is that U at ~10%? And that brownish ... ?
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
You people need to read and understand the words "ancient"Near East ie Natufians. Not "modern" Near East.
Also. ancient Romans , Greeks are African Natufians. I always Said that their is no genetic evidence of Greek and Romans invading Africa unless they are one and the same.
20% 'increase' in SSA not that there was 'no' SSA. So modern Egyptians are heavily SSA. Which "modern Egyptians" since they are also classifed as the most admixed of "North Africans".
''+'' 20% means an increase of 20% not that there wasn't SSA. lol. Didn't I say so. It is a play on words. Like "there wasn't MORE SSA in basal Eurasian".
Some of you vets still haven't caught on the "word games". Modern Near Easterns will align with AEians because they are not Africans but Turks that is why many researchers like Henn don't use them in studies. They use Bedouins whi are essentially Africans closely related to Natufians.
So again we have to wait un the full paper
okay maybe I'm not properly following what you're saying, but if I've got you right you're sayin that ancient Near Easterners had African lineages. What were those lineages that we should be seeing on there?
Does ones ascribed haplogroup provide insight to their admixture levels?
This is what the actual "debate" has been about. What is Eurasian. What do they call Eurasian? Many of these lineages have or may have arisen at East Africa, but are called Eurasian for convenience because they show continuation outside of Africa. However the root levels are in Africa.
When they claim the have found some unexpected genetic sequence in Africa, it is claimed as being foreign to Africa and therefore due to back migration. That is the game being played.
I also find it odd that science always had a "beef" with "sub Sahara" Africans. This has a odd history when truly start thinking about it.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Speaking of reconstructions, why is it whenever a medieval or ancient African's skeletal remains are discovered in Europe, and especially if it exhibits typical "negroid" features the individual is automatically labeled "sub-Saharan". How do they know the individual in question is not "North African" instead if one were to ascribe to the divisive if not specific descriptions of North African or Sub-Saharan. This especially should be the case as obviously North Africa is closer in proximity to Europe than Sub-Sahara.
Beachy Head Lady of Medieval England
modern Egyptian man
And then you have modern non-Arab baladi (indigenous) Egyptians especially from al sa'id (the south) who best resemble their ancient ancestors.
reconstruction of 22nd dynasty priest Nesperennub
modern baladi boy of Upper Egypt
Of course in the twisted minds of Euronuts like Cass, the above indigenous Egyptian are not black but rather tanned or bronze skin Caucasoids. LOLPosts: 26285 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: [QB] Speaking of reconstructions, why is it whenever a medieval or ancient African's skeletal remains are discovered in Europe, and especially if it exhibits typical "negroid" features the individual is automatically labeled "sub-Saharan". How do they know the individual in question is not "North African" instead if one were to ascribe to the divisive if not specific descriptions of North African or Sub-Saharan. This especially should be the case as obviously North Africa is closer in proximity to Europe than Sub-Sahara.
Why deny the obvious? North Africans have a lower frequency of "Negroid" traits; their morphology is intermediate between "Negroid" and "Caucasoid" with the latter predominate in the northernmost North Africa populations, while those in the south, are visibly more towards "Negroid". Physical anthropologists have always recognised this from Blumenbach, to Seligman, to Angel.
There's a North African population sample [Egyptian, 664-343 BCE] in the FORDISC worldwide database (Howells). A small number of Roman British skulls have been identified as North African. The "Negroid"/Sub-Saharan African samples in FORDISC are Zulu, Dogon and Teita; a small number of Roman British skulls also match those. These are though as noted a small percentage of the total, and as expected the overwhelming majority of Roman British crania resemble the Norse, Zalavar and Berg population samples from Europe. Of those, Roman British crania show the strongest ties to the Norse, which again is expected since Britain is closer to Norway than the other two samples from Europe (Zalavar is Hungary and Berg, Austria).
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
*correction above... modern Levantines are NOT the same as the ancients. That is why it says ANCIENT Near East. Many researchers do NOT use Turks as the Near East they are classified as West Asians. Bedoiuns are the indigenous Levantines. Again we still need to see WHO they classify as SSA.
Notice AE remained through Greek and Roman period. There is no GENETIC proof that AE was invaded modern European peoples related to Greeks and Roman.
Keep in mind the Ancient Near East farmers(8K bc) carried mtDNA L. Fernandez/gonzalez? et al So it is impossible for the AEians to geographically anything but Africans.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
The problem is that whites have been passing this eurocentric doctrine as the ultimate truth for centuries. And you'll except us the follow this doctrine blindly?
Here is a thread on North African women. The guys over at The Coli love pictures.
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: Roman British crania show the strongest ties to the Norse.
Logically, since Romans took germanic slaves to Briton and Vikings later sold Norse slaves to Briton.
It is no mystery nor mystical.
No, its the fact Norse is the closest geographical population sample to Roman British; the FORDISC world database has limited samples. We would expect (based on isolation-by-distance) that populations score nearest in craniometric means to geographical neighbouring populations. Williams et al. 2005 tested this for Nubians and classified only 10/42 (23.8%) with the nearest geographical neighbour in the database (Egyptians). However, Williams et al. only used 11 measurements of the standard 57 (Howells, 1973). When more measurements are used classification accuracy increases, and FORDISC can sometimes be more than 90% successful when all 57 measurements are used:
"It is clear that the number of variables selected strongly affected the discriminatory capacity of the analysis. There was more than a 30% difference between the classifications based on 57 variables and the ones based on 11. In the first case the mean correct classifications were always higher than 90%." (Hubbe & Neves, 2007)
Someone should have done another study on the Nubian crania using more measurements.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Zarahan. Please go ahead and post some of the photoshops you have made that talk about Egyptian cranial "African" affinity. I will wait.
You have been here on and off for almost 10 years. Look them up yourself and then tell me why there are no affinities to sub-Saharan Africans. I'll wait..
Also explain this mystical ES "collective consciousness" you keep insisting on. I'll wait for that too..
There's no cranial studies showing ancient Egyptians are closely related to Sub-Saharan Africans. Nubians/north Sudanese aren't SSA's (look at a map), so you can't include them.
Observe distance between North Africans (including ancient Egyptians) to Sub-Saharan Africans-
You speak of "distances" between modern SSA and North Africans. But what about ancient Africans? Most of the land east of the Nile hadn't become desert by 5000 BP. Wouldn't mean much if Egypt's population were fairly dispersed away from the Nile, but most were gathering there. Also look at Northern Sudan's climate. There was no "distance" between "SSA" and Egypt. Even if the lack of aridity around the Nile didn't count, what would then be the distance between Southern Egypt and Northern Sudan? That's "too far" now? Or are we just going to pretend that modern maps of the Sahara are representative of how it looked in ancient times?
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only populations that are closely related to ancient Egyptians (including modern Egyptians of course) are their geographical neighbours. So that excludes Sub-Saharan Africans. Give it up. Even the intellectual blacks posters on this forum stay away from the "Egypt = SSA" theory. The people still trying to connect Egypt to SSA's are pan-Africanists - a political ideology, not science. Again, the intellectual black posters here also realise this.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
The problem is that whites have been passing this eurocentric doctrine as the ultimate truth for centuries. And you'll except us the follow this doctrine blindly?
Do you agree there is population structure inside Africa? If so what's the problem with trying to divide/label/categorize it for analysis? Some Afrocentrists like Zaharan and Oshun are hostile to this because they want to treat Africans as a monolithic group for their pan-African politics. If anyone points out the biological differences between say Saharan [North African] and Sub-Saharan Africans, or on a more local regional level, these Afroloons take offence and scream "racism".
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: The only populations that are closely related to ancient Egyptians (including modern Egyptians of course) are their geographical neighbours. So that excludes Sub-Saharan Africans. Give it up. Even the intellectual blacks posters on this forum stay away from the "Egypt = SSA" theory. The people still trying to connect Egypt to SSA's are pan-Africanists - a political ideology, not science. Again, the intellectual black posters here also realise this.
That's funny as per this map of Sub-Saharan Africa and what you spat out
The AE's geographical neighbors do indeed include Sub-Saharan Africans.
Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
North Sudan is not Sub-Saharan Africa though-
Nubians/north Sudanese show close ties to ancient Egyptians, but south Sudanese populations do not. You're moving too far away with geography by that point.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Where were the 'to be' northern Sudanese and ancient Egyptians during the dry phase over 9000 years ago on that map, cass. Why is the Nile considered a corridor Cass?
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: ^Where were the 'to be' northern Sudanese and ancient Egyptians during the dry phase over 9000 years ago on that map, cass. Why is the Nile considered a corridor Cass?
In the same region. When there was desertification - eastern Saharan populations (Egyptians, north Sudanese) concentrated along the Nile valley, but when the Sahara became more green, inhabitants concentrated in the open spaces (the former desert), away from the Nile valley.
I'm not sure why Afrocentrists think there was some sort of migration or population replacement. Anything to desperately try to bring Sub-Saharan Sfrican populations into it...
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: North Sudan is not Sub-Saharan Africa though-
Nubians/north Sudanese show close ties to ancient Egyptians, but south Sudanese populations do not. You're moving too far away with geography by that point.
Ok so we're ignoring Egyptians clustering with not only Northern Sudanese, but also Southern Sudanese, Ethiopians, and Somalians. We're also going to ignore their ties to Nilotic peoples who range all throughout the Nile and parts of Sub-Saharan East Africa. We're ALSO going to ignore the connectons to Chadic peoples who are also partly below the current Saharan line. Cool.
What a joke.
Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: Roman British crania show the strongest ties to the Norse.
Logically, since Romans took germanic slaves to Briton and Vikings later sold Norse slaves to Briton.
It is no mystery nor mystical.
No, its the fact Norse is the closest geographical population sample to Roman British; the FORDISC world database has limited samples. We would expect (based on isolation-by-distance) that populations score nearest in craniometric means to geographical neighbouring populations. Williams et al. 2005 tested this for Nubians and classified only 10/42 (23.8%) with the nearest geographical neighbour in the database (Egyptians). However, Williams et al. only used 11 measurements of the standard 57 (Howells, 1973). When more measurements are used classification accuracy increases, and FORDISC can sometimes be more than 90% successful when all 57 measurements are used:
"It is clear that the number of variables selected strongly affected the discriminatory capacity of the analysis. There was more than a 30% difference between the classifications based on 57 variables and the ones based on 11. In the first case the mean correct classifications were always higher than 90%." (Hubbe & Neves, 2007)
Someone should have done another study on the Nubian crania using more measurements.
"No, its the fact Norse is the closest geographical population sample to Roman British; the FORDISC world database has limited samples. "
So you are claiming that Romans didn't take Germanic slaves to Briton and Vikings later sold Norse slaves to Briton? This did not happen?
Are you serious? Do you relay want me to cite sources?
We already have gone over these FORDISC and Howells classifications. It was debunked.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Zarahan. Please go ahead and post some of the photoshops you have made that talk about Egyptian cranial "African" affinity. I will wait.
You have been here on and off for almost 10 years. Look them up yourself and then tell me why there are no affinities to sub-Saharan Africans. I'll wait..
Also explain this mystical ES "collective consciousness" you keep insisting on. I'll wait for that too..
There's no cranial studies showing ancient Egyptians are closely related to Sub-Saharan Africans. Nubians/north Sudanese aren't SSA's (look at a map), so you can't include them.
Observe distance between North Africans (including ancient Egyptians) to Sub-Saharan Africans-
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: The only populations that are closely related to ancient Egyptians (including modern Egyptians of course) are their geographical neighbours. So that excludes Sub-Saharan Africans. Give it up. Even the intellectual blacks posters on this forum stay away from the "Egypt = SSA" theory. The people still trying to connect Egypt to SSA's are pan-Africanists - a political ideology, not science. Again, the intellectual black posters here also realise this.
You tell people to give up on something you believe?
You still have not explained yourself here:
quote:Morphological variation of the skeletal remains of ancient Nubia has been traditionally explained as a product of multiple migrations into the Nile Valley. In contrast, various researchers have noted a continuity in craniofacial variation from Mesolithic through Neolithic times. This apparent continuity could be explained by in situ cultural evolution producing shifts in selective pressures which may act on teeth, the facial complex, and the cranial vault.
A series of 13 Mesolithic skulls from Wadi Halfa, Sudan, are compared to Nubian Neolithic remains by means of extended canonical analysis. Results support recent research which suggests consistent [b]trends of facial reduction and cranial vault expansion from Mesolithic through Neolithic times.
--Meredith F. Small* et al.
The nubian mesolithic: A consideration of the Wadi Halfa remains
quote:“Pleistocene through to the Christian periods, reveals a break in population continuity between the Pleistocene (Jebel Sahaba) and the Final Neolithic (Gebel Ramlah, dating to the first half of the fifth millennium BC) samples. The dental traits from Jebel Sahaba align more closely with modern sub-Saharan populations, while Gebel Ramlah and later align closer to Egypt specifically and to the Sahara in general.”
--Michael Brass
Reconsidering the emergence of social complexity in early Saharan pastoral societies, 5000 – 2500 B.C.
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: North Sudan is not Sub-Saharan Africa though-
Nubians/north Sudanese show close ties to ancient Egyptians, but south Sudanese populations do not. You're moving too far away with geography by that point.
Of course North Sudan is Northeast Africa. And yes they do show ties to people from further down south. Sorry to disappoint you.
quote: Haplogroup frequencies in 15 Sudanese populations are given in Figure 2 following YCC nomenclature (2002). Haplogroups A-M13 and B-M60 are present at high frequencies in Nilo-Saharan groups except Nubians, with low frequencies in Afro-Asiatic groups although notable frequencies of B-M60 were found in Hausa (15.6%) and Copts (15.2%). Haplogroup E (four different haplo- types) accounts for the majority (34.4%) of the chromosome and is widespread in the Sudan. E-M78 represents 74.5% of haplogroup E, the highest frequencies observed in Masalit and Fur populations. E-M33 (5.2%) is largely confined to Fulani and Hausa, whereas E-M2 is restricted to Hausa. E-M215 was found to occur more in Nilo-Saharan rather than Afro-Asiatic speaking groups.
This cluster is defined by the predominance of the ancestral haplogroups A-M13 and B-M60, as well as the common and most widely distributed haplogroup (E-M78). The second grouping encompasses populations who are essentially speakers of languages belonging to the Afro-Asiatic family, with the exception of Nubians. The placement of the Oromo, who speak a language of the Afro-Asiatic family, in the first cluster is probably because of their possession of high frequencies of A-M13.
Both A-M13 and B-M60 are haplogroups that are deeply rooted within the human Y-chromosome tree, and they are known to be common among populations in eastern Africa (Underhill et al., 2000; Semino et al., 2002).
--Hassan HY1, Underhill PA, Cavalli-Sforza LL, Ibrahim ME.
Y-Chromosome Variation Among Sudanese: Restricted Gene Flow, Concordance With Language, Geography, and History
Am J Phys Anthropol. 2008 Nov;137(3):316-23. doi: 10.1002/ajpa.20876.
Back to the drawing table for you, lie some more. I know you can do it.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: ^Where were the 'to be' northern Sudanese and ancient Egyptians during the dry phase over 9000 years ago on that map, cass. Why is the Nile considered a corridor Cass?
In the same region. When there was desertification - eastern Saharan populations (Egyptians, north Sudanese) concentrated along the Nile valley, but when the Sahara became more green, inhabitants concentrated in the open spaces (the former desert), away from the Nile valley.
I'm not sure why Afrocentrists think there was some sort of migration or population replacement. Anything to desperately try to bring Sub-Saharan Sfrican populations into it…
Umm, it is you who is constantly talking the sub Sahara, perhaps you have not noticed yet. Btw Afrocentrists are also from above the sub Sahara, contrary your believes.
quote: Early Neolithic to Predynastic/A-Group:
"Remains in the immediate eastern foreland of Kurkur, just east of the Sinn el-Kiddab escarpment, are sparse. Numerous and widely distributed hearth mounds18 occur in the area. Pottery, though sparse, further demonstrates the association of early Nile Valley and Western Desert cultures. "
--John Coleman Darnell and Deborah Darnell
The Archaeology of Kurkur Oasis, Nuq‘ Maneih, and the Sinn el-Kiddab
quote:”Many of the sites reveal evidence of important interactions between Nilotic and Saharan groups during the formative phases of the Egyptian Predynastic Period (e.g. Wadi el-Hôl, Rayayna, Nuq’ Menih, Kurkur Oasis). Other sites preserve important information regarding the use of the desert routes during the Protodynastic and Pharaonic Periods, particularly during periods of political and military turmoil in the Nile Valley (e.g. Gebel Tjauti, Wadi el-Hôl)."
[…]
Within a broad concession bounded essentially by the Girga Road to the north and the region of Aniba to the south, the Theban Desert Road Survey (TDRS) and Yale Toshka Desert Survey (YTDS) explore the caravan routes of the Western Desert, principally those connecting the Thebaďd with Kharga Oasis, the small oases of the Nubian Western Desert, and points beyond.
--John Coleman Darnell and Deborah Darnell
Theban Desert Road Survey and Yale Toshka Desert Survey
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: I'm not sure why Afrocentrists think there was some sort of migration or population replacement. [Confused] Anything to desperately try to bring Sub-Saharan Sfrican populations into it…
Perhaps because of this?
quote: “The Late Period is often singled out as the time when mass immigration into Egypt altered the character of the country”
—A Companion to Ancient History Edited by Andrew Erskine (2009)
quote: “As a consequence the many invasions of ancient Egypt, the population has changed over the years. There were Hyksos (Heka Khasut) from Asia, who melted into the Delta Region around 1500 B.C.E., and then a series of invasions by the Assyrians, Persians and Greeks. With the arrival of large groups of Arabians in the seventh century C.E., the racial character of Egypt began to change.
The resultant mixtures of Africans, Arabs, Greeks and Persians were to be jointed with Turks, Russians, Albanians, British, and French to create a different population that there had been during the ancient times.
One cannot say that today's Egypt is the same as the Egypt of antiquity anymore than one can say that today's North America is the same as it was 5000 years ago.”
—The Oxford Encyclopedia of African Thought, Volume 1 by Molefi K. Asante (2010)
quote: “With the passage of time, each wave of new immigrants has assimilated into the local mix of peoples , making modern Egypt a combination of Libyans, Nubians, Syrians, Persians, Macedonians, Romans, Arabs, Turks, Circassians, Greeks, Italians, and Armenians, along with the descendants of the people of ancient Egypt.”
—From A Brief History of Egypt by Jr. Goldschmidt Arthur (2007)
quote:“Alexander the Great’s conquest of Egypt, in 332 BCE, precipitated a period of mass immigration”
—Ethnicity (Riggs, 2012)
quote: The Muslim conquerors did not attempt a mass conversion of Christianity to Islam, if only because that would have reduced the taxes non-Muslims were compelled to pay, but a number of other factors were at work. Arab “men could marry Christian women and their children would become Muslim. Large-scale Arab immigration into Egypt began during the eighth century.”
—A History of Egypt: From Earliest Times to the Present by Jason Thompson (2009)
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^ Hell even THIS study says before it presents it's results:
quote:Egypt, located on the isthmus of Africa, is an ideal region to study historical population dynamics due to its geographic location and documented interactions with ancient civilizations in Africa, Asia, and Europe. Particularly, in the first millennium BCE Egypt endured foreign domination leading to growing numbers of foreigners living within its borders possibly contributing genetically to the local population. Here we mtDNA and nuclear DNA from mummified humans recovered from Middle Egypt that span around 1,300 years of ancient Egyptian history from the Third Intermediate to the Roman Period.
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: The only populations that are closely related to ancient Egyptians (including modern Egyptians of course) are their geographical neighbours. So that excludes Sub-Saharan Africans. Give it up.
So basically:
What is "closest related" and what is "related enough" is going to be different and subjective. Ancient southern Egypt, regions east of the Nile and northern Sudan were at the time part of "SSA." There was little to no "distance" from southern Egypt and people south of the Sahara because southern Egypt and Northern Sudan hadn't fully become deserts. You will need to come up with some other label to divide Africa because you're applying modern geographical concepts to ancient people and land. There's nothing to "give up." I didn't make that map.
Also SSA in spite of how utterly big it is accepted as a region by the same dumb@ss using the label. It is fine to insist they are a group of related people. Oh pay no mind how much genetic diversity SSA contains or IT'S size. But nono they cannot apply the same concepts north. Even by modern terms you fools keep insisting that the coasts of southern Africa to the Sahel aren't too much distance to classify Africans as one monolithic group. But even modern Egypt to say the Sahel is just TEW FAR!
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Hey Bro If your going to be leaving the Forum could you PM me your Email or a way to keep in contact.
I'm not leaving this site permanently, yet. I was talking about wrapping up here, i.e. in this thread.
It's good I'm not posting here in this thread though. I'd just be mocking people for trying to peddle their BS over the years and trying to pretend these aDNA results are "business as usual". To the outside mocking people looks unwarranted but if you weren't here during all the discussions and pretty much the whole forum siding with retards like Amun Ra you wouldn't understand why certain people are mocked. I definitely understand where Beyoku is coming from. I'm just holding back because the outside won't understand and the people who sided with Amun Ra will lie vehemently about how they resisted certain facts that are coming to light now.
In 2013 me and Beyoku already embraced Basal Eurasian before there was a Basal Eurasian (Lazaridis popularized the concept and coined the term in 2014). There is a whole conversation on the FB group where we basically inferred it ourselves. When we came back here people would antagonize our posts and question our motives, like this is some sort of sect where you can have heretics and traitors. Now they want to hop on board and act like we're supposed to forget how they shitted on what we said. Look at an example of how people are shape shifting now:
^Charlie Bass always sided with Amun Ra and his pan-African politics. Now he wants to do the "knews it alls along" routine and distance himself from Amun Ra. If they'd just leave the fake routine behind I'd ignore it and say nothing. But if people are going to fake pretend then they shouldn't be surprised when Beyoku starts mocking the crap out of people. I'm definitely entertained by it and I'm not coming to anyone's defense.
Of course, you weren't here for years Jari, so you missed all of this and a lot isn't going to make sense. But I know you would see our posts back then as common sense. Because that's exactly what it is: common sense. Plus you had already publicly and formally (if not informally) moved away from the racial use of 'black' way before I did, so you always had that foundation.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^Okay I admit I obviously wasn't here at that time either. So the mocking came off as taboo to me. Which is why me and Jari kept questioning Beyoku's mocking.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
How soon we forget. The 'black' thread you created is filled to the brim with examples of what Beyoku was talking about. But in the end, it doesn't matter. It's not Beyoku they have to worry about. Just like Henry Louis Gates, the posters in question have sidelined themselves forever in this conversation. ES is an isolated island in the larger blogosphere that no authority fears/respects anymore.
Example: anyone with basic sense could have predicted that one needs some sort of EEF-like component to be able to fully explain dynastic Egyptian genetics. When I said it, I caught flak. Doug's response:
quote:Originally posted by Doug: Perfect example of Swenet's penchant for dissembling and moving goalposts when challenged.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: No Swenet, Africans who never left Africa are not European. No matter how you try and say it. If the Basal population came from the Sahara and some of that same population became the base of later European farmers, that does not make the basal population a European Farmer. It is like saying my Grand Daddy is German if I moved to Germany and had kids with a German wife. You make no sense and it shows how your attempts at claiming a "superior" way to communicate population ancestry are blatantly bogus.
^This is a typical butthurt reaction you can expect when discussing things of this nature on ES, so I just stopped talking about it. Now look at what has happened. This dynastic Abusir sample is, what? It can clearly be partly modeled as EEF. Shared drift highest with EEF and EEF-like groups:
Look how people here are going to explain it. They're going to say that the early dynastic Abusir population was originally a transplant from the Great Lakes and that all EEF-like affinity is the result of late dynastic migration. They're just further sidelining themselves from the conversation and isolating themselves.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
From what I've seen it was mostly Doug M and Xym doing that in the black thread I created. I remember me, Jari, Djehuti, Sudaniya, Nodnard being on board with what you were saying.
But what you brought up since 2013 I was not here and so I guess I didn't understand where you and Beyoku were coming from.
But I agree ES does seem very isolated. VERY isolated.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: How soon we forget. The 'black' thread you created is filled to the brim with examples of what Beyoku was talking about. But in the end, it doesn't matter. It's not Beyoku they have to worry about. Just like Henry Louis Gates, the posters in question have sidelined themselves forever in this conversation. ES is an isolated island in the larger blogosphere that no authority fears/respects anymore.
Example: anyone with basic sense could have predicted that one needs some sort of EEF-like component to be able to explain dynastic Egyptian genetics. When I said it, I caught flak. Doug's response:
quote:Originally posted by Doug: Perfect example of Swenet's penchant for dissembling and moving goalposts when challenged.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: No Swenet, Africans who never left Africa are not European. No matter how you try and say it. If the Basal population came from the Sahara and some of that same population became the base of later European farmers, that does not make the basal population a European Farmer. It is like saying my Grand Daddy is German if I moved to Germany and had kids with a German wife. You make no sense and it shows how your attempts at claiming a "superior" way to communicate population ancestry are blatantly bogus.
^This is a typical butthurt reaction you can expect when discussing things of this nature on ES, so I just stopped talking about it. Now look at what has happened.
This dynastic Abusir sample is, what? It can clearly be partly modeled as EEF. Shared drift highest with EEF and EEf-like groups:
Here is a good example of changing goal posts. So according to Swenet, Early European Farmers as a label is somehow a better "model" for Nile Valley populations as opposed to "African" and "Non African". Please explain. Why is it BETTER? How are labels like "African" vs "Non African" less valid? I don't understand this logic. Note NOBODY is claiming that Eurasian is less valid than EEF because EEF includes the word Eurasian. But suddenly African is no longer valid. Now understand I am not saying that there were no Eurasian genes ever in the ancient Nile Valley. What I have been saying is that there African genes always present in the Nile Valley since prehistory and even if some of those African populations branched off into "Eurasia" meaning the Levant, that doesn't mean those original parent populations DISSAPPEARED from the Nile Valley. Lumping groups of various DNA lineages under an umbrella term like EEF only MASKS the fact that EEF included SOME African DNA lineages along with NON African DNA lineages. That has been my point all along. I am saying it here again, yet you are simply trying to play mental gymnastics to try and pretend not to understand that. No matter if some of those Eurasian genes from the Levant made their way into the Nile Valley it does not make the Nile Valley into EEF because the combination of DNA is not the SAME. That is not an accurate way of modelling DNA that is African. Now if you are suggesting that the Nile Valley was replaced purely by Eurasian DNA at some time in ancient history, that is a whole different topic. You may or may not be, but I would rather stick to the terms "African" and "Non African" or "Eurasian" even on this point because it is CLEAR and to the point. EEF is not interchangeable with African.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Look how people here are going to explain it. They're going to say that the early dynastic Abusir population was originally a transplant from the Great Lakes and that all EEF-like affinity is the result of late dynastic migration. They're just further sidelining themselves from the conversation and isolating themselves.
Please Swenet stop putting my name in your mouth using straw men to justify your position. "Basal Eurasian" is no better a label than African is in Africa. I don't understand what it is with you trying to claim sanctuary when challenged purely on logical and rational grounds. You keep swearing by this "holy grail" of superior language that you believe clarifies things better than certain other terms. You haven't shown me how "Basal Eurasian" is better than "African" when it comes to labeling DNA that was present in and OUTSIDE Africa during OOA. I have already explained my logic behind why I dislike the term. It has been presented on this very thread. Yet instead of actually specifically talking about that, you simply use straw men not associated with anything I specifically stated to avoid the actual point.
So if you aren't going to address the specific points then stop responding to me and putting my name in your posts. You aren't trying to actually discuss anything as opposed to grand standing. You didn't create "Basal Eurasian" it isn't YOUR concept and the people that created it are actually the ones I disagree with. I am not in anybody's camp, I follow my own mind where it leads me.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: @Swenet
From what I've seen it was mostly Doug M and Xym doing that in the black thread I created. I remember me, Jari, Djehuti, Sudaniya, Nodnard being on board with what you were saying.
But what you brought up since 2013 I was not here and so I guess I didn't understand where you and Beyoku were coming from.
But I agree ES does seem very isolated. VERY isolated.
I already said what my disagreement with Swenet was. Stop trying to put me in a "camp". That When to use black and not to thread is sill there and anybody can read what I wrote.
If you think other sites are so much more relevant than ES why do you post here?
I mean what is the point?
What I said in that thread is no different than what I am saying now. For example:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^People who insist that typically dynastic Lower Egyptians were 100% African hurt themselves because it means that modern Egyptians, who tend to overlap strongly with these dynastic Lower Egyptians, already had a strong presence in ancient Egypt since the beginning.
Plus they just look ridiculous because typically dynastic Lower Egyptian samples (again, not all samples from the north, but those that are typically Lower Egyptian) can be discriminated from samples with an Upper Egyptian affinity with 100% accuracy in some analyses. For instance:
quote:The other dramatic result seen in Table 3 is that the Late period group is easily defined morphologically, and stands as a distinct cluster apart from the other Egyptian populations studied. Other studies of Egyptian cranial variation have frequently placed this series as standing apart from other Nile Valley population clusters, but not always separate from 'Africans' as a whole (Keita 1995).
—Zakrzewski 2002
This difference is explained by Zakrzewski as based on the fact that this sample is late dynastic, but this sample (E-series) doesn't differ much from earlier typically Lower Egyptian samples, so this difference should be interpreted as due to the fact that the E series is dominated by individuals with a typically Lower Egyptian affinity.
People like that don't seem to realise that by insisting on such racial fantasy they make it remarkably easy for their opponents to dismiss everything else of merit they may put forward.
I thought Lower Egyptians were biracial like Barack Obama and would only overlap with modern Egyptians based on their common African ancestry.
No, I don't think that it is black people or "Afrocentrics" engaging in racial fantasies at all. Remember the whole historical context. White people will tell you that these same scientific studies prove Egypt was primarily a mixed population with blacks being the lowest rung of the ladder and the lighter skinned people on top. So the problem is they like to use "weasel words" in their scientific reports to justify this perception. Hence a term like EEF becomes a way for them to de-Africanize the entire population of the Nile Valley even before the dynastic period and likewise much of the Sahara. Thereby they can claim that during the dynastic era the AE were already mixed and hence mostly light skinned mulattoes. This is the reason we should be precise in our language on the subject and not wittingly or unwittingly fall into their traps. Nobody is saying that there was "no mixture" in ancient Egypt, rather than the mixture did occur but it didn't replace the indigenous black populations, even in Lower Egypt until much later. That is absurd.
Keep in mind that if Egypt was open to mixture from Africa then why isn't Greece or the Near East open to mixture from Africa? Note the contradiction here, considering the discussion of "basal Eurasian" and "EEF". In reality as already discussed, EEF and Basal Eurasian really represent African mixture and influence leading to the development of farming in the Near east. But the terminology and wording downplays that and totally erases that influence and semantically makes it a pristine "Eurasian" phenomena. Likewise, this has been known since the analysis of Natufian remains, but they have figured out a way to erase the African element in these populations not only genetically and physically but also behaviorally. The Neolithic rise of farming is directly related to patterns of subsistence that arose in Africa including grinding wild seed and tubers that went on to lead to the farming revolution. But all of this is minimized and omitted by the words and phrases being used here. Similarly this distinctly African pattern of subsistence plays an important role in the development of the distinct African pastoral tradition which is UNLIKE Eurasian patterns of cattle raising which would become the hallmark of African Neolithic farming and sustenance across the Sahara and Nile Valley. These would truly be your populations identified as "EEF" but such a term totally obliterates that fundamental distinct African pattern of subsistence and the influence of said Africans on the development of farming in the first place. In fact I can go even further on how the images of cow jumping in Minoan art could truly be an example of this influence as this is still a tradition found in parts of the Sahara and Nile Valley and the dark skinned Minoans being an example of said ancient African mixture and influence in Europe.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: I think that the AE can be modeled as EEF + various types of African ancestry added to it.
My original post vindicated (note the dark brown shapes in Central Europe, Anatolia and Palestine [all EEF and EEF-like samples] are closer to the Abusir sample):
Yet this clown still thinks he has a point. There definitely seems to be some sort of mental problem here. SMH.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: My original post:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: I think that the AE can be modeled as EEF + various types of African ancestry added to it.
My original post vindicated (note the dark brown shapes in Central Europe, Anatolia and Palestine [all EEF and EEF-like samples] are closer to the Abusir sample):
Yet this clown still thinks he has a point. There definitely seems to be some sort of mental problem here. SMH.
Man. So you are saying that "African" and "Non African" or "African" and "Eurasian" are worse than saying "African" + EEF?
Have you lost your mind? Don't you see they mean the same dam thing logically? EEF is a mixture of different DNA anyway. It is not monolithic and includes various amounts of different lineages across different populations. That is why I don't like it.
What the hell is it with you and your silly semantic arguments over nothing.
Please. This is absurdly silly. Stop bringing my name up. There is nothing useful to be gained from this.
I don't need weasel words to say what I mean. Either the AE were primarily Africans or they were not. Period. But maybe some folks like weasel words so they can fit in with different groups even if they don't all have the same common definition of what those words mean or implications by using them.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What's this? Tut is R1b video screen shot again. Don't you people ever learn? That is why Trump is in power today. Because of people like you.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: My original post:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: I think that the AE can be modeled as EEF + various types of African ancestry added to it.
My original post vindicated (note the dark brown shapes in Central Europe, Anatolia and Palestine [all EEF and EEF-like samples] are closer to the Abusir sample):
Yet this clown still thinks he has a point. There definitely seems to be some sort of mental problem here. SMH.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Have you lost your mind? Don't you see they mean the same dam thing logically? EEF is a mixture of different DNA anyway. It is not monolithic and includes various amounts of different lineages across different populations. That is why I don't like it.
Lol. The dynastic Abusir sample is closest to EEF and EEF-like groups and he's still pulling all sorts of distractions out of his ass. This clown keeps running away from the fact that he has been thoroughly debunked and reduced to a wobbly shape-shifting mess.
posted
The results are to be released this month, right? It would be great if they also got samples from Southern Egypt and early dynastic Northern Egypt samples in order to contrast the results. It would also be great to get detailed information on the family backgrounds of all these mummies.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic