...
EgyptSearch Forums Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» EgyptSearch Forums » Egyptology » Ancient Egyptian DNA from 1300BC to 426 AD (Page 14)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 25 pages: 1  2  3  ...  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  ...  23  24  25   
Author Topic: Ancient Egyptian DNA from 1300BC to 426 AD
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
[QB] Horn Africans are obviously not going to be as close to the ancient ancient Egyptians-"Nubians" as modern Egyptians-"Nubians" are, but they are not too far removed and I have posted citations in support of this. Ancient Egyptians were Northeast Africans and the Afro-Asiatic phylum (to which ancient Egyptian belongs) has its origins in Northeast Africa or the Sahara.

Horn Africans don't plot close. Cranial metric, non-metric & dental has to be taken into account. Afrocentrists only use one of these and ignore the other two. Look at the great distance between Somalis and ancient Egyptians below in dental-

https://mathildasanthropologyblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/hanihara5bi2.jpg

Perhaps the keyword here, the magical word is in SITU! Or biological continuity, or local adaption. Does that ring a bell, euroloon?


And perhaps you can highlight where we are supposed to see Somalis on that plot?



quote:
Haplogroups A-M13
was found at high frequencies among Neolithic samples. Haplogroup F-M89 and YAP
appeared to be more frequent among Meroitic, Post-Meroitic and Christian periods.

--Hassan 2009


 -

Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sudanese
Member
Member # 15779

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for sudanese     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
[QB] Horn Africans are obviously not going to be as close to the ancient ancient Egyptians-"Nubians" as modern Egyptians-"Nubians" are, but they are not too far removed and I have posted citations in support of this. Ancient Egyptians were Northeast Africans and the Afro-Asiatic phylum (to which ancient Egyptian belongs) has its origins in Northeast Africa or the Sahara.

Horn Africans don't plot close. Cranial metric, non-metric & dental has to be taken into account. Afrocentrists only use one of these and ignore the other two. Look at the great distance between Somalis and ancient Egyptians below in dental-

https://mathildasanthropologyblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/hanihara5bi2.jpg

Perhaps the keyword here, the magical word is in SITU! Or biological continuity, or local adaption. Does that ring a bell, euroloon?


quote:
Haplogroups A-M13
was found at high frequencies among Neolithic samples. Haplogroup F-M89 and YAP
appeared to be more frequent among Meroitic, Post-Meroitic and Christian periods.

--Hassan 2009


 -

Oh my, it seems that "Ethiopics" plot closer to the ancient Egyptians than those from the "Near East". How can this be when a certain somebody insists that the ancient Egyptians are a Levantine transplant?
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The above is the overall plotting. No running from this one.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
Horn Africans are obviously not going to be as close to the ancient ancient Egyptians-"Nubians" as modern Egyptians-"Nubians" are, but they are not too far removed and I have posted citations in support of this. Ancient Egyptians were Northeast Africans and the Afro-Asiatic phylum (to which ancient Egyptian belongs) has its origins in Northeast Africa or the Sahara.


You're insane for pushing for a Levantine origin of Egypt, and since you can't find evidence for ancient Egypt being a Levantine transplant in the Neolithic, you're desperately hoping that evidence somehow turns up further in the past in support of the widely discredited "Hamitic" *myth*.

More hilarious stuff they wrote. And it does shoot a hole in Cass and cohort euroloon's theory.


 -


Ethnology in Two Parts by A.H. Keane. Cambridge Geographical Series pub. 1909

Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Concerned member of public
Banned
Member # 22355

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Concerned member of public   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
All data from an old friend of mine-
http://archhades.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/caucasoid-racial-affinities-of-ancient.html

Look at cranial non-metric, dental non-metric and metric. In all of these: Horn Africans do not plot close to ancient Egyptians & Nubians.

Only in cranial metric do Horn Africans plot close to ancient Egyptians & Nubians. However, there are still some (mean) differences between North Africans and Horn Africans, as are visible today-

"When all the North African groups ([Tunisians, Libyans, Egyptians], Canarians and Sahara Libyans) are pooled together, some differences characterising the East Africans [Ethiopians, Somalis] sample are evidenced. This group shows mainly a marked flattening of the nasal bones, with an antero-inferior maxillary development and a slight widening of the whole face. According to the previous hypothesis, the East African morphology might be interpreted as an "elongated" sub-Saharan face, in which the sub-Saharan features do not match a vertical facial shortening." - Emiliano Bruner & Giorgio Manzi (2004) Variability in facial size and shape
among North and East African human populations, Italian Journal of Zoology: 71(1): 51-56

Afrocentrists of course will just latch onto the cranial metrics, but ignore cranial non-metric, dental non-metric and metric that shows Horn African populations do not plot close to ancient Egyptians or Nubians. This is like how Afrocentrists fixate on limb metrics to try to show Egyptians as "tropically adapted", but ignore body-breadths which show Egyptians were not. Furthermore, the limb metric data actually shows a clinal pattern that doesn't even support the idea Egyptians had tropically adapted limbs.

Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
Afrocentrists of course will just latch onto the cranial metrics, but ignore cranial non-metric, dental non-metric and metric that shows Horn African populations do not plot close to ancient Egyptians or Nubians.

Hmm, the plot by Kemp says the opposite from what you claim.


quote:
"...sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty (Merimda, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a south-north cline variation along the Nile valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into southern Palestine. The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans."

--Barry Kemp, Ancient Egypt Anatomy of a Civilisation.( Routledge. p. 52-60)(2005)
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
This is like how Afrocentrists fixate on limb metrics to try to show Egyptians as "tropically adapted", but ignore body-breadths which show Egyptians were not. Furthermore, the limb metric data actually shows a clinal pattern that doesn't even support the idea Egyptians had tropically adapted limbs..

Actually Raxter says about body-breadths:

quote:


"Ancient Egyptians have more tropically adapted limbs in comparison to body breadths, which tend to be intermediate when plotted against higher and lower latitude populations."

"Consequently, regardless of stature, groups living in regions with similar climates will have similar body breadths."

"Populations in colder regions have wider bodies and smaller SA/BM and those in warmer areas possess narrower bodies and larger SA/BM."

The above intermediacy makes sense, since Northeast Africa is between the region of the Sahel and Mediterranean.


She closes with:


quote:
These results may reflect that limb length is more plastic compared to body breadth.
While it is more likely the opposite. Body breadth adapts due to influences of the environment and other conditions.


quote:
"Furthermore bi-iliac breadth appears to change slowly over time, likely due to multiple factors (thermoregulation, obstetrics, locomotion) influencing its shape   (Ruff 1994; Auerback 2007) …"


"Generally narrower body breaths of the foragers contrast markedy with the wider-bodied agriculturalists. Although bi-iliac breadth has been argued to be stable over long periods of time (Auerbach, 2007), this shift in mean body breath may be indicative of changes correlated with subsistence economy."

—Pihasi & Stock. 2011. Human Bioarchaeology of the Transition to Agriculture


quote:
"Thus he concluded that it must take more than 15,000 years for modern humans to fully adapt to a new environment (see also Trinkaus, 1992).

This suggests that body proportions tend not to be very plastic under natural conditions, and that selective rates on body shape are such that evolution in these features is long-term."

—Holliday T. (1997). Body proportions
in Late Pleistocene Europe and modern
human origins. Jrnl Hum Evo. 32:423-447


quote:
Tropically adapted groups also have relatively longer distal limb elements (tibia and radius, as compared to femur and humerus) than groups in colder climates.
—Matt Cartmill, ‎Fred H. Smith - 2011 - ‎Social Science

How does this translate:


quote:


The Paleolithic

The Terminal Paleolithic (21000-9000 BCE) in the Nile Valley was marked by considerable changes in lithic technology and a widening of dietary breadth when compared to previous periods. During this period, microblade techniques in stone tool making became widespread. Several lithic industries used the same basic bladelet technology but great variability existed on a local level in use of different tool types. Such variability suggests seasonal or specialized activities, most probably organized around fishing and the hunting of large game (Clark 1971, 1980, Hassan 1980). One of the longest-lived lithic industries was the Qadan (13000-4500 BCE) in Lower Nubia.


Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Concerned member of public
Banned
Member # 22355

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Concerned member of public   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Has been explained to you before, but you ignore and just spam. If you read Raxter (2011) you will see the cline in limb metrics: northern Egyptians plot closer to populations above Egypt, while southern Egyptians plot closer to populations below Egypt. Like with skin colour ("black"), its not going to work to try to pigeon-hole Egyptians as "tropically adapted"; its an inappropriate way to analyse the variation.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
northern Egyptians plot closer to populations above Egypt, while southern Egyptians plot closer to populations below Egypt.

Well, there you have it.

However, when plotted the Northern samples cluster closer to the Africans. Logically since they originated from the "Central Sudan".


The Northern samples are from the Delta region, which has a Mediterranean climate. What you call spam is an analyses into why the body breadth adapted. You don't accept what others post, so why should others accept what you have to say? That makes no sense.



quote:
"When the Elephantine results were added to a broader pooling of the physical characteristics drawn from a wide geographic region which includes Africa, the Mediterranean and the Near East quite strong affinities emerge between Elephantine and populations from Nubia, supporting a strong south-north cline."
—Barry Kemp. (2006) Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a Civilization. p. 54


 -

Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
[QB] Has been explained to you before, but you ignore and just spam. If you read Raxter (2011) you will see the cline in limb metrics: northern Egyptians plot closer to populations above Egypt, while southern Egyptians plot closer to populations below Egypt.

Some srgue that dynastic Egypt was more "advanced" in the South
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Concerned member of public
Banned
Member # 22355

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Concerned member of public   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
 -
 -

Both these are not applicable to human evolution. Crazy that people in 2017 (even some intellectual posters here) are posting things like this...

The idea Eurasians split from Africans has been falsified by genetics. For that to have happened, that must mean Eurasians are exclusively derived from Africans, i.e. single unique ancestry. This latter hypothesis has been disproven since 2010 with Neanderthal autosomal DNA-

quote:
Modern Humans Are Not Simply or Uniquely the Descendants of Recent Africans

It is now widely recognized that a phylogenetic origin of modernity—that is, the explanation
that modern humans are the taxon that descended from the recent appearance of a modern human species of unique African origin—is demonstrably incorrect. No matter what species definition is used to describe the diversity of ancient humans—interbreeding human species or interbreeding populations of a single species—the issue of importance to us is whether or not there is a single recent unique ancestry for modern populations. There is wide agreement that there was no bottleneck at the origin of modern humans (Sjödin et al., 2012), and modern humans do not have a single unique ancestry in a recent African (or any other) population.

- Caspari & Wolpoff, 2013 "The Process of Modern Human Origins"
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
capra
Member
Member # 22737

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for capra     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In 2017 we have ways of incorporating gene flow into our trees! Crazy but true!
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Concerned member of public
Banned
Member # 22355

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Concerned member of public   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by capra:
[QB] In 2017 we have ways of incorporating gene flow into our trees! Crazy but true!

Then they aren't "trees"; there is no branching.

With gene flow you can only have a trellis.

Franz Weidenrich's trellis-

 -

Some of these fossils are placed wrong such as the African fossils, and there are many blanks for fossils to be filled in, but this is basically what human evolution looks like: my emphasis is just the trellis.

Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Concerned member of public
Banned
Member # 22355

Rate Member
Icon 2 posted      Profile for Concerned member of public   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Bad example... as Mr.Capra likes his sources modern.

Here's geneticist Alan Templeton in a 2013 research paper saying exact same thing as me-

quote:
A trellis or a tree?

The imagery of recent human evolution is dominated by evolutionary trees of human populations. Human populations are shown again and again as separate branches on an evolutionary tree, related to other human populations by splits that occurred at specific times in the past. Even papers that document genetic interchange among human populations, such as the recent papers on admixture with archaic populations (Green et al., 2010; Reich et al., 2010), place human populations on an evolutionary tree with only weak arrows indicating isolated events of admixture that minimally violate
an otherwise tree-like structure (see Fig. 4, adapted from Reich et al., 2010). In particular, as is typical of the human population genetic
literature, Africans are portrayed in Fig. 4 as having ‘‘split’’ from the rest of humanity a long time ago with not one episode of genetic interchange being portrayed since that ancient ‘‘population separation’’ (Reich et al., 2010, p. 1058). Contrast Fig. 4 to Fig. 3, which also depicts recent human evolution. All aspects of Fig. 3 are supported by explicit hypothesis testing and statistically significant inferences. Indeed, as shown in this paper, our evolutionary history has been dominated by gene flow and admixture that unifies humanity into a single evolutionary lineage, as shown by the trellis structure and arrows of expansion that overlay upon, not replace, earlier populations.

In contrast, the evolutionary trees found
throughout the human genetic literature, such as that portrayed in Fig. 4, are simply invoked. There is no hypothesis testing, even though treeness or multiple lineages are testable hypotheses. Simply invoking conclusions without testing them is scientifically indefensible; yet, that is the norm for population trees in much
of the human evolution literature. Many of the papers that portray human population trees caution
in the text that the populations are not truly genetically isolated, but this makes the tree portrayal even less defensible as the authors are knowingly portraying human evolution in a false
fashion. Moreover, it is socially irresponsible.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.397.4618&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Read especially that last paragraph - which is why as I said: why are intellectual posters here doing this? They should know better.

Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sudanese
Member
Member # 15779

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for sudanese     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
[QB] Has been explained to you before, but you ignore and just spam. If you read Raxter (2011) you will see the cline in limb metrics: northern Egyptians plot closer to populations above Egypt, while southern Egyptians plot closer to populations below Egypt.

Some srgue that dynastic Egypt was more "advanced" in the South
It was more advanced in the South; the civilization undoubtedly started in the South; it was actually united, far more organised, sophisticated and wealthier than the North. The North was quite fortunate that Narmer (Southerner) conquered and established the Egyptian State with the North as an integral part of the State instead of just being a Satrap.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
the civilization undoubtedly started in the South

what is the proof?
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug M
Member
Member # 7650

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Doug M     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
^I think he's too new to understand the inside joke. Also, some people who said the same things as Doug in 2014-2016 have recently changed their position and are now acting like it's self-evident. So now it looks like Doug is an anomaly and that majority of the forum wasn't against it and dismissing it as racist.

No Swenet, I am not calling it racist. I am saying the people who created the term didn't create it to link it to Africans. That is self evident in any papers or discussion of said papers. You are the one who seems to not see that or don't want to see that. I can't claim to know the intent of these authors but we know that European scholars have a long history of claiming European history and DNA as being "special and different" from Africans and OOA.....

But go ahead and keep pretending that their papers which have little or no African populations in ANY part of Africa means that the really meant that these populations were tied to Africa in some way.

That is what I am rejecting. Your inane attempts to validate something that is invalid in the first place.

But of course, the only way to show me wrong would be to show me where these people did otherwise and of course you cant.

The only reason you aren't calling out this contradiction is because you have already made a claim that this is some sort of "superior understanding" on the part of the original researchers that somehow us lowly folks won't understand. But I understand English. And if they don't link those folks to Africa then no amount of "superior analysis" will make it be there.


quote:

The secrets of ancient DNA

Over the past decade, modern DNA sequencing techniques have allowed scientists to recover strands of genetic material from decayed bones that have been infused with microbes over thousands of years. Now, those techniques are widely accessible and highly refined. It starts with how researchers pick their bones. If possible, they'll extract DNA from the petrous bone in the inner ear, a goldmine for genetic material that can yield roughly 100 times more ancient DNA than other parts of the skeleton. Then researchers use a process called in-solution hybridization, which uses special probes made from DNA or RNA that attach to the desired ancient human DNA, fishing it out of a soup of other genetic material from other organisms that accumulated in the decomposing bone. Techniques like these are making it easier than ever for us to sequence ancient DNA and reconstruct the human past.


Looking at ancient DNA from farmers, researchers found a marked genetic divide between the ancient peoples of the Fertile Crescent, a region that arcs across the Middle East from today's Egypt, through Jordan and southern Turkey, across Iraq, and down into western Iran. "Probably the biggest surprise news about this study is just how genetically different the eastern and western Fertile Crescent early farmers were," evolutionary geneticist Mark Thomas told BBC News. Farming arose simultaneously in these groups despite their genetic and geographic distance from each other. In other words, we have solid proof that farming evolved twice, roughly at the same time in two communities that had almost no contact with each other.

The offspring of the two farming groups spread in different directions, too. The western Fertile Crescent farmers' progeny can be found throughout the Middle East and Europe. Meanwhile, the Iranian farmers from Zagros spread north to the steppes and south to India and Pakistan. Some also stayed put. There are strong genetic ties between the ancient Zagros farmers and a group of Zoroastrians living in Iran today. What's clear is that most people in both groups of early farmers were part of great migrations and mixed with many other peoples along the way.

These ancient farmers also seem to share a common ancestral group known as Basal Eurasians, an ancient lineage that split off from other Eurasian groups roughly 40,000 to 50,000 years ago. Unlike other early human groups in Eurasia, the Basal Eurasians didn't mate very often with Neanderthals—very little Neanderthal DNA made it into their population. But the Basal Eurasians seem to have mated with everyone else. We find traces of Basal Eurasian DNA in people across the continent. Still, we have yet to find the skeleton from an individual whose DNA is distinctly Basal Eurasian. For that reason, Basal Eurasians are called a "ghost population." We can only see their genetic legacy in modern populations and have to guess at where they came from and how they reached so many parts of Eurasia.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/07/welcome-to-the-age-of-ancient-dna-sequencing/

No Africans in that study.

But don't worry, Swenet will tell us this is really saying these folks are linked to Africans......... We aren't reading English correctly.

[Roll Eyes]

And yes, what I am saying is they are, but the way they did this analysis is to by filtering out so much "unwanted contamination" that they have basically removed most of the meaningful African relationships. Hence the illogical concept of "ghost DNA" and "ghost populations" and "magical development of farming" as opposed to a slow continuous process starting with OOA and repeated flows out of Africa with modern behaviors and toolkits that eventually led to the development of farming....... But hey, that is the simple answer. But whatever, maybe believing in ghosts is 'superior' science.

Posts: 8895 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Swenet I'm trying to understand the Doug position.
Iosef Lazaridis came out with an article called

"Ancient human genomes suggest three ancestral populations for present-day Europeans"

So if the topic is present day Europeans and their ancestors, why is Doug, who dislikes
Europeans anyway, so hell bent in finding some Africaness in them?
It's sort of like what that character xyyman says.
Is this like a new thing?

Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug M
Member
Member # 7650

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Doug M     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
All humans came from Africa. Either that is true or it is not.

That means all DNA of original humans is African or it is not.

But the joke is that these Africans had orgies with Neanderthals right after leaving Africa. The problem is the scientists cant find where that happened (or if it really happened at all) so that they can claim all Eurasians are a different "special" branch of humans from Africans. So the new joke is they came from "ghosts" wandering in Eurasia.

But sure. I made that up.

And the punchline is terminology like "ghost populations" is superior to calling Africans Africans and black folks black....... That's evil and gets folks triggered.

Posts: 8895 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elmaestro
Moderator
Member # 22566

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Elmaestro     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Anywayz..so this thread was supposed to be about Krause "leaked" aDNA samples or whatever right.

I haven't followed up on any links but I realized OMW home from work that ...I didn't know the amount of samples belonging to each group.

So to add on to what tukuler started...
 -
 -

4 H.groups in the chart based on the leaked images represent 2 indistinguishable (for me) Haplogroups separated by '-'.

You can download and edit/make corrections to the excel file to re-upload or whatever here...
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bzi0D1lrmvbEaVhmbWJZeWNZWE0/view?

General question, in regards to the U-Haplogroup carriers found in this study; are they representative of a pre OOA population or backmigration? ..answer wisely. 90% sure we aren't ever getting Y-Dna to go along with these groups.

Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
Swenet I'm trying to understand the Doug position.
Iosef Lazaridis came out with an article called

"Ancient human genomes suggest three ancestral populations for present-day Europeans"

So if the topic is present day Europeans and their ancestors, why is Doug, who dislikes
Europeans anyway, so hell bent in finding some Africaness in them?
It's sort of like what that character xyyman says.
Is this like a new thing?

Half of the time I was just addressing Doug's original point, which was that I'm supposedly wrong for relating EEF groups to Africans. The two reason Doug gave initially for why I supposedly can't relate them to Africans is that they were 1) a mixed and 2) a "theoretical" population. You'd have to ask Doug about his many fringe beliefs. But I have a feeling if you ask him, he will just go into one of these holes and pop up elsewhere.

 -

Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:

Half of the time I was just addressing Doug's original point, which was that I'm supposedly wrong for relating EEF groups to Africans. The reason Doug gave initially for why I supposedly can't relate them to Africans is that they were a mixed population.

Well if they were a mixed population and they were mixed with Africans then you could relate then to Africans.

So have I got it backwards? Doug wants the EEF to be African free?

Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
When Doug isn't dissing EEF populations by saying they're hypothetical and theoretical, he admits they're admixed with Africans. But he says that the actual African ancestry has been maliciously masked out by the authors (complete bs). So he thinks Basal Eurasian is not actually African, but that there is something else there that he relates to Wadi Kubbaniya. But Wadi Kubbbaniya is morphologically distinct from early farmer groups. Kind of strange to forward such a population as the partial ancestor of early farming groups when they don't even look alike. But then again, in Doug's world everything is possible.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Look at your own screenshot.

Look at the morphological rift between the Jebel Sahaba Nubian sample (pre-Holocene) and predynastic Egyptian samples. Keep that dissimilarity in mind and now look at the relative closeness of predynastic Egyptians and early farmers from Anatolia and Greece. Doug and other people here are in complete denial. This is not even ignorance anymore. This is pure denial and misinformation. You simply can't trust these people to speak the truth.

Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
When Doug isn't dissing EEF populations by saying they're hypothetical and theoretical, he admits they're admixed with Africans. But he says that the actual African ancestry has been maliciously masked out by the authors ]

[
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:

Half of the time I was just addressing Doug's original point, which was that I'm supposedly wrong for relating EEF groups to Africans.

I don't get it . Doug says EEF are mixed with Africans.
And he says the scientists are covering up that relation to Africans by masking them out.
Then you, who relate EEF to Africans, are doing the proper thing by not masking them out.
So why are you arguing about that? You are doing what he wants the scientists to do, not mask out the Africaness

Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Askia_The_Great
Administrator
Member # 22000

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Askia_The_Great     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
@Beyoku

What the hell happened to Forumbiodiversity? Do you know?

Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
@Lioness

Exactly. Doug says I'm wrong for relating them to Africans. But he himself also thinks they're related to Africans. So how does one reconcile this glaring flip flop? You read between the lines and deduce what Doug is deliberately not telling you. What Doug is not telling you is that he simply doesn't like the affinity of Basal Eurasian and only accepts African ancestry in early farmers if that ancestry is Sub-Saharan African in affinity. If it's not, there has to be foul play at work and someone must have masked the "real" African ancestry.

Little to no SSA-specific ancestry in Stuttgart is why people here suddenly stopped spamming Angel's descriptions of early farmers in Anatolia and Greece:

 -

When you confront him about his hidden agenda (which many here have), he denies it. That's when he does his lip service routine that "Africans can have all sorts of ancestry, and I never disputed that". This is also why Doug dislikes the term SSA ancestry. Again, he denies it, but he's simply salty about the fact that there was a lot of non-SSA ancestry in North Africa and that early farmer groups, and therefore, Egyptians, turn out to have a lot of this.

Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
the civilization undoubtedly started in the South

what is the proof?
SMH These places and many more are in the South.

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)."
http://egyptology.yale.edu/expeditions/past-and-joint-projects/theban-desert-road-survey-and-yale-toshka-desert-survey
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Concerned member of public
Banned
Member # 22355

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Concerned member of public   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Its what I already said... The Afrocentrists like Doug cannot get their head around the idea "Basal Eurasian" ancestry might be (more) North African specific, not pan-African. They ignore population structure inside Africa. Funnily enough these Afrocentric loons do the exact same thing for Europe. All Europeans to them must be white in pigmentation; when I pointed southern Europeans are a faint light brown they got into a hissy-fit, just like they get mega butt-hurt when you point out northern Saharans like Egyptians (above the tropics) are not "black".
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elmaestro
Moderator
Member # 22566

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Elmaestro     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
Its what I already said... The Afrocentrists like Doug cannot get their head around the idea "Basal Eurasian" ancestry might be (more) North African specific, not pan-African. They ignore population structure inside Africa. Funnily enough these Afrocentric loons do the exact same thing for Europe. All Europeans to them must be white in pigmentation; when I pointed southern Europeans are a faint light brown they got into a hissy-fit, just like they get mega butt-hurt when you point out northern Saharans like Egyptians (above the tropics) are not "black".

Cool story bro, but how do you feel about these diverse lower ancient Egyptian mitochondrial halogroups?

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009626;p=14#000670

 -
 -

Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Concerned member of public
Banned
Member # 22355

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Concerned member of public   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Cool story bro, but how do you feel about these diverse lower ancient Egyptian mitochondrial halogroups?

Nothing. MtDNA history is not population history. All Afrocentrists seem to gloss over this. Why do living humans have Neanderthal autosomal DNA but not Neanderthal MtDNA?
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BrandonP
Member
Member # 3735

Icon 1 posted      Profile for BrandonP   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
@ Swenet

Aren't EEF mostly descended from Neolithic Anatolian populations? I would think that early Levantine rather than Anatolian/European farmers would be even better models for the "Eurasian" ancestral component on AEs. And didn't you say that Neolithic Levantines had a little SSA ancestry as shown by certain mtDNA haplogroups uncovered from their remains?

Posts: 7080 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elmaestro
Moderator
Member # 22566

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Elmaestro     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Cool story bro, but how do you feel about these diverse lower ancient Egyptian mitochondrial halogroups?

Nothing. MtDNA history is not population history. All Afrocentrists seem to gloss over this. Why do living humans have Neanderthal autosomal DNA but not Neanderthal MtDNA?
Uniparental Markers not susceptible to crossover says nothing about population history..? Interesting...?

"All Afrocentrist ______" spare me the flamebait, I'm not wired that way, generalizations are meaningless as it relates to me especially ones poorly put together. This has jack-**** to do with what we're talking about.

And the Mitochondrion is peculiar, but I know what you're getting at, and it is a valid question as it relates to nuclear - Y-DNA, so tell me mr. Mulitregionalist, Neanderthal introgression expert? where is the Neanderthal Sex-based Haplogroups in humans?

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009648

And here I am, thinking the problack ES elitists were "dodging data", so to speak... sigh*

Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Tukuler   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
PPNB mtDNA is
* K 43%
* RO 21%
* H 14%
per Fernández (2014).

In LBK-AVK
* K 23%

Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BrandonP
Member
Member # 3735

Icon 1 posted      Profile for BrandonP   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tukuler:
PPNB mtDNA is
* K 43%
* RO 21%
* H 14%
per Fernández (2014).

I think Swenet was referring to findings discussed here.
Posts: 7080 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Concerned member of public
Banned
Member # 22355

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Concerned member of public   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
@ Elmaestro

...that study made the headlines last year, but if you read what it actually says-

quote:
Dr Mendez stressed this was still only a hypothesis.

"The amount of Neanderthal DNA in modern humans nowadays is relatively low so it could have been lost by drift," he said.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2016-04-08/neanderthal-y-chromosome-disappeared-from-modern-men/7308982

It wasn't a proven hypothesis and the most parsimonious theory is still drift:

"mtDNA is inherited maternally and transmitted from a mother to her children, while the NRY is inherited paternally passing down from father to son... Uniparental loci are, however, sex-specific and experience strong drift, providing a limited view of the complex human history. For example, Neanderthal mtDNA analysis shows no evidence of admixture with modern humans, although admixture has occurred and is detectable when the whole genome is considered." (Haber et al. 2017)

"The effective population size of autosomal variants is expected to be four times that of mtDNA and NRY, making autosomal variants less prone to drift and providing insight further back into human history." (Haber et al. 2017)

There's also a number of studies on MtDNA selection (Hawks et al. 2006; Wolpoff, 2009), especially in regards to Neanderthals. I'm not sure for Y-DNA, but MtDNA isn't even a 'neutral' genetic marker?!

Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
@ Swenet

Aren't EEF mostly descended from Neolithic Anatolian populations? I would think that early Levantine rather than Anatolian/European farmers would be even better models for the "Eurasian" ancestral component on AEs. And didn't you say that Neolithic Levantines had a little SSA ancestry as shown by certain mtDNA haplogroups uncovered from their remains?

True. PPN folks should be a better fit when it comes to a starting point from which to model AE. In my view, though, it's like making a choice between Rihanna or Alicia keys as a starting point to model African Americans. Though their parentage is different in several respects, for our intents and purposes, it doesn't really matter. The point is, African Americans are better modeled by using hybrid African Americans (Rihanna, Alicia Keys) as a starting point than by using, say, YRI or LWK as a starting point. Or did you meant to address something else?

EDIT
Actually Sade is not such a good example. An islander or mainland Afram is what I was going for.

Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Tukuler   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Carl Sagan

“What counts is
not what sounds plausible,
not what we’d like to believe,
not what one or two witnesses claim,
but only what is supported by hard evidence, rigorously and skeptically examined."

I'm not into polemics or trying to bolster
a priori convictions at all costs. I'm showing
data relevant to unreleased conjectured
Schuenemann haplogroups (tabled by
El Maestro) and early farmers.

Please help fill the gaps with the other HGs.

That's an open invitation to all.

It could take up to 2 years before publication
though the leaks say the symposium
presentation is in press.


BTW people can speak for themselves, let 'em.

quote:
Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
quote:
Originally posted by Tukuler:
PPNB mtDNA is
* K 43%
* RO 21%
* H 14%
per Fernández (2014).

I think Swenet was referring to findings discussed here.

Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
Its what I already said... The Afrocentrists like Doug cannot get their head around the idea "Basal Eurasian" ancestry might be (more) North African specific, not pan-African. They ignore population structure inside Africa. Funnily enough these Afrocentric loons do the exact same thing for Europe. All Europeans to them must be white in pigmentation; when I pointed southern Europeans are a faint light brown they got into a hissy-fit, just like they get mega butt-hurt when you point out northern Saharans like Egyptians (above the tropics) are not "black".

What do you think of this?


Early Catal-Huyuk.

 -
http://tudasbazis.sulinet.hu/hu/tarsadalomtudomanyok/tortenelem/eletmodtortenet-oskor-es-okor/ritusok-a-korai-termelo-kulturakban/gimszarvasvadaszatot-abrazolo-festmeny-catal-huyuk -i-e-5800-k

Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 

Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Concerned member of public
Banned
Member # 22355

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Concerned member of public   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What about them? If you're arguing those painted human figures represent actual skin colours, why are Nordic Bronze Age human figures dark red & dark brown in rock art, when ancient Scandinavians were white skinned?

Here's "The King's Grave" c. 1400 BCE from Sweden.

 -

Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elmaestro
Moderator
Member # 22566

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Elmaestro     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
@Cass

There's a very underrated thing not often considered in debates called context, when separating batches of paragraphs and passages it can be lost and manipulated. I give you credit for at the very least citing the author though. [Wink]

quote:
The first widely used molecular markers were variants of the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and the non-recombining region of the Y-chromosome (NRY). mtDNA is inherited maternally and transmitted from a mother to her children, while the NRY is inherited paternally passing down from father to son. These uniparental markers are transmitted from one generation to the next intact (apart from new mutations) and have known mutation rates, allowing straightforward construction of phylogenies and inference of some aspects of population relationships. Uniparental loci are, however, sex-specific and experience strong drift, providing a limited view of the complex human history. For example, Neanderthal mtDNA analysis shows no evidence of admixture with modern humans [50], although admixture has occurred and is detectable when the whole genome is considered.
Absolutely everyone on here knows that Autosomal DNA gives better insight on population relatedness, and complex history... but, ...really?

--"Nothing. MtDNA history is not population history. ...Why do living humans have Neanderthal autosomal DNA but not Neanderthal MtDNA?"--

^this statement/rebuttal is nothing more than a literary evasive maneuver... Gymnastics.

And although I don't really understand what you mean by a 'neutral' marker... you answered your own question in regards to where's the Neanderthal DNA.

See when you practice bending and twisting you get flexible. & Upon getting more limber you'll eventually develop the ability to kick yourself in the head. ...You don't even need another (me) to do it for you.

Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Concerned member of public
Banned
Member # 22355

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Concerned member of public   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"MtDNA history is not population history"... I never came up with this phrase. Milford Wolpoff did and John Hawks has also been using it on his paleo-anthropology blog.

"Mitochondrial history is not population history, just as the history of names mentioned earlier is not the same as the history of populations."
- Thorne, A.G.; Wolpoff, M.H. (2003). "The Multiregional Evolution of Humans". Scientific American. 13(2): 46–53.

The points you're raising to try to disprove Multiregionalism were addressed by Wolpoff and colleagues a decade or more ago. There's no genetic data that has falsified the Multiregional model of human origins; Wolpoff is still publishing research papers defending the theory. What was actually falsified was the Out-of-Africa model, hence Stringer in 2011 had to concede that:

"The recent finding that significant interbreeding occurred between Neanderthals and modern populations refutes the long-standing model that proposes all living humans trace their ancestry exclusively back to a small African population that expanded and completely replaced archaic human species, without any interbreeding." (d’Errico and Stringer, 2011)

Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BrandonP
Member
Member # 3735

Icon 1 posted      Profile for BrandonP   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:
Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
@ Swenet

Aren't EEF mostly descended from Neolithic Anatolian populations? I would think that early Levantine rather than Anatolian/European farmers would be even better models for the "Eurasian" ancestral component on AEs. And didn't you say that Neolithic Levantines had a little SSA ancestry as shown by certain mtDNA haplogroups uncovered from their remains?

True. PPN folks should be a better fit when it comes to a starting point from which to model AE. In my view, though, it's like making a choice between Rihanna or Alicia keys as a starting point to model African Americans. Though their parentage is different in several respects, for our intents and purposes, it doesn't really matter. The point is, African Americans are better modeled by using hybrid African Americans (Rihanna, Alicia Keys) as a starting point than by using, say, YRI or LWK as a starting point. Or did you meant to address something else?

EDIT
Actually Sade is not such a good example. An islander or mainland Afram is what I was going for.

Fair enough. The components of ancestry involved are probably too similar for it to matter.
Posts: 7080 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^Yes, for our intents and purposes the basic ingredients shared between these Mediterranean farmers are too similar to be picky. But, as I'm sure you'll agree, these populations weren't homogeneous. Although recurring around the eastern and northeastern Mediterranean, we don't want to create the impression that these basic ingredients didn't have a regional distinctiveness to them when you zoom in on the details.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
What about them? If you're arguing those painted human figures represent actual skin colours, why are Nordic Bronze Age human figures dark red & dark brown in rock art, when ancient Scandinavians were white skinned?

Here's "The King's Grave" c. 1400 BCE from Sweden.

 -

Not sure what you mean by that image you posted. I'm talking about Anatolia, Gobekli Tepe.

The King's Grave is nice image anyway, though it puts your pigmentation theory in discrepancy.


quote:
"This area was like a paradise," says Schmidt, a member of the German Archaeological Institute. Indeed, Gobekli Tepe sits at the northern edge of the Fertile Crescent—an arc of mild climate and arable land from the Persian Gulf to present-day Lebanon, Israel, Jordan and Egypt—and would have attracted hunter-gatherers from Africa and the Levant.

And partly because Schmidt has found no evidence that people permanently resided on the summit of Gobekli Tepe itself, he believes this was a place of worship on an unprecedented scale—humanity's first "cathedral on a hill."

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/gobekli-tepe-the-worlds-first-temple-83613665/

 -

Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug M
Member
Member # 7650

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Doug M     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
Swenet I'm trying to understand the Doug position.
Iosef Lazaridis came out with an article called

"Ancient human genomes suggest three ancestral populations for present-day Europeans"

So if the topic is present day Europeans and their ancestors, why is Doug, who dislikes
Europeans anyway, so hell bent in finding some Africaness in them?
It's sort of like what that character xyyman says.
Is this like a new thing?

Half of the time I was just addressing Doug's original point, which was that I'm supposedly wrong for relating EEF groups to Africans. The two reason Doug gave initially for why I supposedly can't relate them to Africans is that they were 1) a mixed and 2) a "theoretical" population. You'd have to ask Doug about his many fringe beliefs. But I have a feeling if you ask him, he will just go into one of these holes and pop up elsewhere.

 -

No Swenet, I said it is wrong to use those terms because they are based on 'filtering out' African populations. I have been saying this since multiple threads ago but folks keep trying to "reinterpret" my words as if I can't speak for myself. If these scientists were TRULY trying to link Basal Eurasian and EEF to Africa, then there would be African population clusters in their studies across different parts of Africa, like Tukulur and other "amateurs" are doing. That is the point. But they didn't. In fact, they did the opposite and explicitly removed MOST African "contamination" by focusing solely on Eurasian population clusters. But sure, you will keep spinning this no matter how much those studies blatantly contradict you. How can you compare something that has removed the elements that would be the basis of any comparison? If they filtered out the African component, how on earth can you claim it has a relationship to Africa in any meaningful sense? This is ridiculous. Yet it is the amateurs trying hard to make this nonsense seem applicable to African DNA history. Like I said earlier, if it is OK for Eurasians to focus on Eurasian DNA history by filtering out African DNA, then why isn't it OK to focus on African DNA history by filtering out Eurasians.... Hmmmm. I am sure nobody is going to comment on that. Too much like hypocrisy. Not to mention how can you compare something to Africa with all the African DNA elements that would be useful for such a comparison removed in the first place? Totally silly and backwards logic.

Not to mention the reason they came up with the "Non African" branch of the human family DNA tree is because they really thought that mixture with Neanderthals was the basis of the split between Africans and all other populations in the world. The problem is they cant find where that happened, especially not right after OOA in the Levant. So that is where "Basal Eurasian" comes in, which is a "ghost population" because they are still trying to find something that defines the split between Africans and all other populations. If it isn't neanderthals they will use Basal Eurasian. But really at that point it is simply African as Africans are Basal to all other humans genetically and splitting them off at the earliest timeframe of OOA into some "other" population is a contradiction of logic. So Eurasian genes can stay Eurasian no matter how many later mutations ocurred and generations after migrating to other places, but African genes magically disappear after leaving Africa...... Right.

And just so people understand the context of this discussion about semantics and the hypocrisy of some folks on this thread and in the scientific community in general here is another post talking of the exact same thing from last year where I asked Swenet where the "split" ocurred between Africans vs Non Africans in a DNA sense.

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:
Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet

I'm not really interested right now in getting embroiled in a contest between who is closer. Especially not in a forum where preOOA doesn't mean the same thing to me as it does to the 'race-activists' here. Sensitivities are known to go through the roof when I put ancient Egyptian and Eurasian in the same sentence, even when I make it clear that any likeness is mostly due to the Egyptian ancestry in both and the fact that OOA populations look like robust versions of ancient Egyptians, anyway.

I think that the AE can be modeled as EEF + various types of African ancestry added to it. I also think that a subset of the Natufians and the earliest EEF samples (e.g. Nea Nikomedea) have retained phenotypes that look a lot like ancient Egyptians and Nubians more so than any Africans you mentioned.

I'm curious how you came to the conclusion of EEF primacy with some African ancestry on top when their progenitors originated from SSA and the Western Desert. Shouldn't it be Various types of African ancestry with some EEF added to it? I'm not even trying to be funny here genuinely asking
I was asked a question and instead of going with the choices I was given I answered it on my own terms. The sentence after it gives a clarification as well: in subsets of samples like Nea Nikomedea and the Natufians I can find matches with typically predynastic Egyptian phenotypes that I can't find as easily or at all among the populations that were mentioned. And I'm not the only one:

quote:
Against this background of disease, movement and pedomorphic reduction of the body size one can identify Negroid (Ethiopic or Bushmanoid?) traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters and in Anatolian and Macedonian first farmers, probably from Nubia via the unknown predecessors of Badarians and Tasians, and travelling in the opposite direction sicklemia and thalassemia (porotic hyperostotis) and hence also falciparum malaria from Greece (perhaps also Italy) and Anatolia to Mesopotamia, the Levant, Egypt and Africa.
—Angel 1972

^He hit the nail on its head as far as the source of the earliest EEF, but may have dropped the ball in the end of the quote.

Perfect example of Swenet's penchant for dissembling and moving goalposts when challenged.

He said:
quote:
I think that the AE can be modeled as EEF + various types of African ancestry added to it.
Now we are talking in the context of identifying populations using appropriate labels. So what does EEF imply in the context of whether a specific population is African or Non African? By its name, Early European Farmer implies a population outside of Africa. Hence the problem of using it the way it was used in the sentence. Reading that sentence it sounds like the AE base population was made up of Early European Farmers with some African mixture on top.

Yes that is what was said. Now he tries to backtrack and claim we are asking for too much when we challenge him. And this isn't necessarily about trying to insult anybody it is making sure we have clarity and understanding when we talk.

And that ties in perfectly with the overall theme of the thread, where Swenet believes that "his way" of describing populations and affinities is more clear and consistent than simple terms like black or white and African/Non African. Yet we see his way of explaining things is just as incoherent and flawed as anything. But he refuses to admit that you cant pretend that there are some clear non overlapping values that have to be clearly delineated for the sake of clarity. Calling a population African versus Non African in terms of affinities and genetic lineages is a perfect example. It establishes key markers and mileposts on the journey of human evolution. But to him he thinks this is "racial obsession". No, it is clearly delineating the process by which humans evolved on the planet and ascribing appropriate labels to intermediate populations on the way to humanity on the way we see it today. The point being that every population, in the first wave of OOA migration, even as much as 10,000 years after leaving Africa was still primarily physically African in appearance and genetic lineages, even with the random DNA variations identified with drift and natural selection. And my reason for saying this is in the fact that most of these populations stayed in tropical/subtropical areas as they migrated out. Later waves of OOA populations are the ones who eventually moved north into areas formerly covered by ice giving rise to the Eurasians we see today.

When I say genetic mutation, I am referring to random changes to DNA codes. However there is a distinction in science made between mutation and other forms of changes to the genetic code. It is more along the line of mutation indicating some kind of negative change... as in "mutant". Either way, it is still a reference to random genetic changes that occur in each and every individual born on earth. Genetic drift and founder effect exist on top of this fundamental process.

quote:

In summary
DNA provides the instructions for the cells that make up our body

Everyone’s DNA is somewhat different; variations in our DNA make us unique

Some DNA variations are inherited from our parent/s, some appear from birth while others are acquired throughout life

DNA variations that have no adverse effects on our cells and occur frequently in the population are called polymorphisms

DNA variations that do affect the function of the protein made from a gene and occur less often are called mutations

http://www.genetics.edu.au/Publications-and-Resources/Genetics-Fact-Sheets/FactSheetVariationsinCode
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=reply;f=8;t=009335;replyto=001862

In fact, the only issue I have is with people being consistent in the sense of using terminology, especially when they are challenging other folks to have a certain standard of consistency that they don't apply to others.....

Posts: 8895 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Back in the day some black people would say that white people were an ice people bourne of caves , different from the original black man

Now black people say white people are closet Africans !

Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Akachi
On Vacation
Member # 21711

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Akachi         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
Its what I already said... The Afrocentrists like Doug cannot get their head around the idea "Basal Eurasian" ancestry might be (more) North African specific, not pan-African. They ignore population structure inside Africa. Funnily enough these Afrocentric loons do the exact same thing for Europe. All Europeans to them must be white in pigmentation; when I pointed southern Europeans are a faint light brown they got into a hissy-fit, just like they get mega butt-hurt when you point out northern Saharans like Egyptians (above the tropics) are not "black".

No one should be entertaining this pasty pink Devil's trivial arguments. These "arguments" of his are an attempt to place Egyptsearch back in the same cycle of senseless arguments over the obvious facts, that these Devil's do not wish to be obvious (i.e. black Kemet; their humble cave man origins;that we civilized their nomadic asses after 2,000 B.C.E.). Prime example is the Devil is playing dumb (tricknology) about the well known fact that the original Europeans (Grimaldi) and the proceeding waves into the continent were black Africans, and he is using the modern term for the region "Nordic" and the implications of that word to obfuscate what we know happened. Caucasins attempt to historically root themselves to areas that they have overran throughout the World. The Caucasian did not enter Europe until after 2,000 B.C.E., and this fact needs not be let up on for the purpose of entertaining their bullshit.

“The surprise is that the Neolithic peoples of Europe and their Bronze Age successors are not closely related to the modern inhabitants... It is a further surprise that the Epipalaeolithic Natufian of Israel from whom the Neolithic realm was assumed to arise has a clear link to Sub-Saharan Africa.” (Brace et. al. (2006). The questionable contribution of the Neolithic and the Bronze Age to European craniofacial form. Read more:

 -

Think about how pathetic they have to be to KNOW that they were speechless nomadic savages for their entire existence prior to after 2,000 B.C.E., so for pride purposes that have to MANUFACTURE a false history which attaches themselves to the civilizations or areas that they usurp. He should be banned and these Devils need not have a voice in our consciousness from this point forward.

Posts: 348 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
No Swenet, I said it is wrong to use those terms because they are based on 'filtering out' African populations. I have been saying this since multiple threads ago but folks keep trying to "reinterpret" my words as if I can't speak for myself. If these scientists were TRULY trying to link Basal Eurasian and EEF to Africa, then there would be African population clusters in their studies across different parts of Africa, like Tukulur and other "amateurs" are doing. That is the point. But they didn't. In fact, they did the opposite and explicitly removed MOST African "contamination" by focusing solely on Eurasian population clusters. But sure, you will keep spinning this no matter how much those studies blatantly contradict you. How can you compare something that has removed the elements that would be the basis of any comparison?

Lol. Only on ES do you see people write whole paragraphs literally filled with figments of the imagination and have it go unchecked. Self-serving bs thrives here.

"Filtering out African populations". [Confused]

"then there would be African population clusters in their studies across different parts of Africa" [Confused]

"But they didn't" [Confused]

"In fact, they did the opposite and explicitly removed MOST African "contamination" by focusing solely on Eurasian population clusters" [Confused]

"How can you compare something that has removed the elements that would be the basis of any comparison?" [Confused]

--------------

And remember, the image below shows some of Lazaridis et al's African samples—the same African samples Doug insist were manipulatively excluded from the study he's talking about:

 -

Doug is too deep down the rabbit hole of mental figments and beyond saving.

Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 25 pages: 1  2  3  ...  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  ...  23  24  25   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | EgyptSearch!

(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3