quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: This is what I said back in 2014 about about Toubou, about Toubou, where at any point did I say at any point that they are fully SSA?
You didn't deny that the Toubou's craniofacial position is influenced by their North African ancestry? Please continue to lie and prove me right about your duplicitousness.
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: The Teda and Fulani are NOT native sub-Saharans? Man come on with that, you're losing credibility, bioanthropology is NOT a nasal science, those things are mostly influenced by climate, not geographic specific ancestry.
posted
And notice the duplicitousness of Egyptturds.com posters. They cry foul when Ethiopia is not treated as a Sub-Saharan African country. But they have no problem referring to geographically North African groups like the Teda as Sub-Saharan African.
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: The Teda and Fulani are NOT native sub-Saharans?
Academics get flak for not treating Ethiopians as geographically residing in Sub-Saharan Africa, but Afrocentrics get free reign to call geographically Saharan groups Sub-Saharan African. Somehow one is wrong, but the other is allowed. Talk about intellectual dishonesty. These are exactly the type of duplicitous word games I'm calling out. But when I call it out, the plasticity crew wants no accountability and denies this collective political agenda from which they make these biased statements.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: This is the conversation from 2014 Charlie is lying about and trying to spin. Charlie said in reference to Sahelian samples with substantial non-SSA ancestry that they should be used proxies for SSA samples:
quote:Originally posted by Charlie Bass: I like for you to tell me that if those samples were used in his 1993 study would AEs really be as distant from SSAs?
My response was that is that they should not be used as proxies for SSA samples, because:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: The Teda, Fulani, Somali, Naqada etc. are either not native SSA populations, or (as in the case of the Fulani and Teda) a sizeable chunk of their ancestry doesn't originate there.
Charlie's response, clearly indicating that he thinks Sahelians owe their intermediateness to climate and that it has nothing to do with their non-SSA component:
quote:Originally posted by Charlie Bass: The Teda and Fulani are NOT native sub-Saharans? Man come on with that, you're losing credibility, bioanthropology is NOT a nasal science, those things are mostly influenced by climate, not geographic specific ancestry.
In 2016 a paper came proving my point that Charlie's Sahelians can't be used the way he used them, because they have the ancestry that people are attributing to Egyptians. How can you say Egyptians cluster with SSA groups, when the purported "SSA groups" are unique from other SSA samples in having the same ancestry that is in Egyptians? This is fallacious and stupid. When comparing representatives from two regions you're not supposed to have one representative that is mixed with the other region.
Admit it. You just don't understand this (despite many explanations) because you're not fit to be having these discussions in the first place. You're simply incompetent and incredibly slow, just as your fellow turds. This is why you were duped for 14 years, spreading the lie that your "elongated Africans" are climate adapted groups and that it has nothing to do with "geographic specific" ancestry.
There are NO pure SSAs to begin with,, and there definitely are NOT pure "North African" populations, so this obsession with purity is retarded. You sound like Racial Reality/Racial Myths from 12 years ago when he said Ancient Egyptians and Nubians should not be black because they are not "pure" SSA, its the same kind of ridiculous argument. Regardless of whatever ancestry they have their origins are from SSA, those Fulanis and Somalis, that they absorbed some mixture doesn't change this and in 2014 I was talking about craniometrics #
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: There are NO pure SSAs to begin with,, and there definitely are NOT pure "North African" populations, so this obsession with purity is retarded.
Typical Egyptturd.com comeback. You can keep lying all you want. You know you blundered when you used 20-30% non-SSA Toubou as stand ins for Sub-Saharan Africans and then turned around and said geographic ancestry has nothing to do with how they cluster.
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: Somalis, that they absorbed some mixture doesn't change this
Stop lying to yourself. The Somali paternal line is almost entirely non-SSA. Of course this influences their "craniometrics".
quote:The data suggest that the male Somali population is a branch of the East African population – closely related to the Oromos in Ethiopia and North Kenya – with predominant E3b1 cluster italic gamma lineages that were introduced into the Somali population 4000–5000 years ago, and that the Somali male population has approximately 15% Y chromosomes from Eurasia and approximately 5% from sub-Saharan Africa.
Keep the lies coming so I can disect and expose them one by one. I can't do this by myself. I need your very generous supply of blunders to point out what Egyptturds.com is all about.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Listen for the last damn time you idiot, I NEVER said TOUBOU were pure SSA, that's in YOUR damn fantasy world in your brain so I didn't blunder on anything. I know your penis probably gets hard going after so called Afrocentrists you feel are making extremist claims and you can repeat the same damn lies over and over again, but I never said Toubou were pure SSA genetically.
And again you damn idiot, I never said the Somali paternal line was pure anything, we on egyptsearch discussed that study on here well over close to 10-11 years and at not point am I making any claims of purity. My position has always been that lack of purity does not mean one is not black or African. I said that Somalis ARE sub-Saharan Africans despite any mixture they absorbed, that's not the same god damned thing as saying they are pure SSA, so get the hell out of here making attacking positions and claims that I never made. If I said Somalis absorbed mixture that's exactly what meant, how tf do you get that I'm stating their paternal line is pure?
Does anybody see the retarded strawmen arguments this guy keeps bringing up? In none of the posts of mine he attacks do I state any claims of genetic purity.
And stop this TOUBOU BS, I was NOT talking about genetics when I made that quote, I was talking about craniometrics, that's stated in my quote.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lol. I'm going to let people decide for themselves whether you're lying and simply don't want accountability for your political agenda. No need for me to keep pointing out the sneaky games you play whenever you try to disown your previous comments. Of course you're going to deny, disown, and flip flop; you realize how profoundly stupid your attempts were to use non-representative samples as stand ins. No doubt you will try it again when you think no one is looking. You love to play both sides of the fence.
But make no mistake about it. We know why you insisted on using the Toubou sample as a stand in. You are very calculated and deliberate with your duplicitous games. The North African ancestry Toubou have is influencing their craniofacial position, which you thought made them an excellent pawn in your word games.
quote:The morphology of some Tubu Crania was fully biologically sub-Saharan. Others displayed combinations of biologically sub-Saharan and North African expressions of the scored traits. The Kanembu and Kanuri specimens were characterised by a similar degree of variability. The presence of individuals with more or less pronounced biologically sub-Saharan or North African morphological characteristics in these prehistoric and modern comparative samples was assumed to simply reflect the composition of the populations they were drawn from. The Tubu, for instance, can be described as a predominantly biologically sub-Saharan population with varying amounts of biologically North African admixture (see I.D.2.d. and for example: Charpin 1961; Fuchs 1961, 1978; Hassanein Bey 1924; Nachtigal 1879: 420-464; Peel 1942; Thesiger 1939). Consequently, that the Tubu Crania were morphologically quite varied was not at all unexpected. The same was true for the inspected Kanembu, Kanuri and A-Group specimens (see I.D.1.a.3. and I.D.2.d.).
—Becker 2011
Charlie Bass' plan was to use this broad affinity and misleadingly call it "Sub-Saharan African", like duplicitous turd he is.
quote:The same was true for the inspected Kanembu, Kanuri and A-Group specimens.
Too bad for you I'm not one of your friends on Zetaboards who buys into your bs.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Lol. I'm going to let people decide for themselves whether you're lying and simply don't want accountability for your political agenda. No need for me to keep pointing out the sneaky games you play whenever you try to disown your previous comments. Of course you're going to deny, disown, and flip flop; you realize how profoundly stupid your attempts were to use non-representative samples as stand ins. No doubt you will try it again when you think no one is looking.
But make no mistake about it. We know why you insisted on using the Toubou sample as a stand in. You are very calculated and deliberate with your duplicitous games. The North African ancestry Toubou have is influencing their craniofacial position, which you thought made them an excellent pawn in your word games.
quote:The morphology of some Tubu Crania was fully biologically sub-Saharan. Others displayed combinations of biologically sub-Saharan and North African expressions of the scored traits. The Kanembu and Kanuri specimens were characterised by a similar degree of variability. The presence of individuals with more or less pronounced biologically sub-Saharan or North African morphological characteristics in these prehistoric and modern comparative samples was assumed to simply reflect the composition of the populations they were drawn from. The Tubu, for instance, can be described as a predominantly biologically sub-Saharan population with varying amounts of biologically North African admixture (see I.D.2.d. and for example: Charpin 1961; Fuchs 1961, 1978; Hassanein Bey 1924; Nachtigal 1879: 420-464; Peel 1942; Thesiger 1939). Consequently, that the Tubu Crania were morphologically quite varied was not at all unexpected. The same was true for the inspected Kanembu, Kanuri and A-Group specimens (see I.D.1.a.3. and I.D.2.d.).
—Becker 2011
Too bad for you I'm not one of your friends on Zetaboards who buys into your bs.
Elongated African traits, if they are talking abut those traits, are just as sub-Saharan, but when they say sub-Saharan in most studies they mean stereotypically Broad trend Africans. Rightmire ran into this problem East African crania.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not going to go over the fact that your "elongated African" is not "climate adapted Sub Saharan African". I'm not doing that again. Stop wasting my time.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are the Dinka, Nuer and Shilluk in the "elongated" category? If so, did they get their "elongated" morphology from Eurasian admixture?
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nah they aren't, they look too much like n!ggers to have any admixture ....Uniparentals selectively have meaning, right now we elect that they mean nothing.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: "-" :Originally posted by beyoku:
"@Elmaestro. Phenotypes are crocks of shiit. I am talking about the movements of groups of people across the continent and their genetic associations. I don't really care what they looked like nor how dark they were. All that talk leads to people chasing Cass and skin color plates from 100 years ago when we have bigger fish to fry. Why while I worry about that nonsense when I have 90 mummies?"
-Wym? 88% of the posts in this thread are about phenotype. Elongated Africans and whatever... Folks are Equating variable phenotype (observed by physical Anthropologists) to Genetic components here, where have you been?
"In reference to Cushitic speakers. The main lineages associated with their language come in the form of M78 and 1515. M78 is North African. V1515 derived lineages are found in Egypt but the consensus is that it's probably Eritrean, Sudanese or Egyptian. Cushitic language show a north-south distribution with the oldest ones in North Africa (Egypt)."
-How does this explain the young age of OOA-like or N.African (post bottleneck) recombination in cushitic speakers?
"If it's OOA, it's not Gate or tears OOA.....it's Sinai OOA. backmigrating from North Africa."
-Possibly with the Neolithic expansion southwards explained by Laz 2016 right?
"When you take that quote from Pagani et al about Egyptian and Ethiopian African specific ancestries.........how are people expecting such ancestry to look TODAY if a population was homogenous with it? "
-Ok, we're back to phenotype, ...I'll give a simple answer, but you will know what I mean according to Laz, Kilinc, & R-Florez: ..Bedouins
"Don't know what is True Negro about anything I said but I stand by it."
-And I don't even know what you're TRULY trying to say but as far as THIS discussion in THIS thread is concerned you have been cosigning the narrative that any OOA population that fall in the range of "Elongated" have recent OOA admixture. The thing is, IDK if the Bambara, or Kaba are truly considered elongated African, but most of the Africans that fall into this criteria have 1 thing in common and it isn't the source population for their Admixture, It's the fact that they HAVE admixture. ...so what does that leave us in the absence of post-Bottleneck recombination? "Regular Bantus"? monomorphic YRI like Africans? And it's even more fuckd up once you realize that Most of the Africans, our non-Admixed PN2 folks for example, are not descendant from Mbuti or San. What is truly being said here.
I made a list of things I learned here as a Joke but I was hoping it wouldn't fly over heads like it did.
1 - That is why i spend 88% of my research time OUTSIDE of ES. This discussion, regarding the maternal diversity and autosomal Affinity of the 90 Mummies is not a phenotype discussion.....its quite obvious the mummy they showed was nearly pitch black. Fools following Cass turned it into one. Peopel posting pictures turned it into one. Right now in my research I am not worried about the way certain Africans LOOK.....those are Minnows...I'm hungry....bigger fish.....frying pan.
2 - Not sure yet. The figure given for that ancestry is generally the midpoint. Also all these estimates are underrated - WHen you go through a global population list of admixture events this one will be one of the oldest on the list. I am sorry to not have the time to find the source but there was a specific website associated with these samples and others that modeled the admixture events all across the planet. By and large MOST TMCRA you will see for anything Africa will have a few dates unsurprisingly corresponding with climactic events. 4-5kya, 8-9kya 12-13kya - These numbers will keep popping up.
3 - Ethiopia and Arabia (Yemen) has some very old bidirectional migration. The most recent being Islam, before that Axum annexed Yemen, before that Early cultural complexes that spanned both regions. Before that the Obsidian trade. I dont yet know how all of these layers will be summed in as far as autosomal affinity. There are plenty of opportunities to mix if the ME was the contributor.
4 - Take note I said "how are people expecting such ancestry to look TODAY"......I am speaking of conceptualizing the ancestral component, not the phenotype of the people carrying it. Take a look at lineages like Z827 / Z830 which represent humans migration north out of the horn. We can hypothesize it as having an early signature of Sub Saharan autosomal ancestry : a Generic East African that peaks among Nilotics, Hadza, Sandawe, Omotic...whatever one, take your pick, doesn't really matter. By 13000 years ago, its seems to be the major lineage in Natufian which only seem to have a nominal affinity with any of the aforementioned east African groups....and stead shows an affinity with North African and levantine/Arabian contemporaries. When and where did this transition occur? Had it already occurred prior to these humans leaving the continent? Did it have an original SSA Autosomal signature in the first place? Did the transition or divergence occur prior or subsequent to the back-migration of downstream lineages like M34, V6 and V1515? Is the autosomal component found in those 13000 year old Natufian remains local and unaffected by the Z830 carriers from Africa? Did it come WITH the Z830 lineages from Africa....or did it EMERGE from the blending of African migrants resident Southern Levantines? Some of these answers can only be gotten through ancient DNA analysis.
5 - I have come to the conclusion (as evidence indicates) that continental Africa has a number of Genetic autosomal components : Think Tishkoffs The 14 clusters: Mbugu, Chadic, Saharan Cushitic, Eastern Bantu, NiloSaharan, Saharan/Dogon, Fulani, Western Bantu, S.African Khoesan/Mbuti, Niger Kordofanian, Sandawe, Central Sudanic, Hadza, W.Pygmy.
Some of these represent migration of humans form "North Africa" into Areas below the Sahara. Some contemporary Africans can be modeled as a combination of Northern and Sub Saharan ancestries just as some Sub Saharans can be modeled as a combination of Eastern and Western African ancestries. Notice i said its a MODEL, some times the ancestry is quite clear and represents a real event, other times its just a conceptual model and you will need Ancient DNA or other modern samples to clarify.
Folks want to play games. For years we have been talking about SSA Affinities in Egyptians. Now if someone hypothesizes Egyptian affinities in SSA based on human migration from Egypt ( "North Africa") There seems to be a problem? The assumption seemed to be that "Sub Saharan" or "Equatorial" or whatever yall want to call it ancestry would be concordant with skin tone in Egypt, Ancient DNA told us that may not be quite the case. Some folks just didn't catch on or are in denial. The double standard is killing me.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Nah they aren't, they look too much like n!ggers to have any admixture ....Uniparentals selectively have meaning, right now we elect that they mean nothing.
I'm trying to understand this because I keep reading that the Dinka are the least "admixed" Africans.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some times I call out "ES" but know that ES is a spawning pool for folks far as wide that learn, lurk, spam, and data mine. ES aint getting 1000's from ad revenue based on 12 active members, Trust.
Plenty of cowards right now throwing dirt on folks names and calling folks TO ES as like its a "battle Ground" challenging some to say HERE something like what I just wrote above a la "You wont go on ES and say that because"...
This is whats going on, this is a taste of the background. Some of these arguments right now are just bordering on being anti-intellectual.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Nah they aren't, they look too much like n!ggers to have any admixture ....Uniparentals selectively have meaning, right now we elect that they mean nothing.
I'm trying to understand this because I keep reading that the Dinka are the least "admixed" Africans.
Sometimes folks are talking about body types. Sometimes they are talking about cranial features. Sometimes both.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
I mean it really shouldnt be a problem to certain people. Now I remember! Don't most of Horners paternal clades come from the area of Egypt??? Especially E-v32???
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: @Beyoku
I mean it really shouldn't be a problem to certain people. Now I remember! Don't most of Horners paternal clades come from the area of Egypt??? Especially E-v32???
Yeps. Many do As do Cushitic languages. ES posters know that These lineages back migrated from Egypt. BUT some ES posters are mad at me when I say certain people carrying these lineages have North African Ancestry. GO figure.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: So the study has not only made it possible to confirm the Eurasian origin of the U6 lineage but also to support the hypothesis that some populations embarked on a back-migration to Africa from Eurasia at the start of the Upper Palaeolithic, about 40-45,000 years ago. The Pestera Muierii individual represents one branch of this return journey to Africa of which there is no direct evidence owing to the lack of Palaeolithic fossil remains in the north of Africa..
I remember the claim to U6 goes back a long time, early 2000 and perhaps before that time.
It was "Around 39,000–52,000 years ago, the western Asian branch (U6 and M1 mtDNA groups) spread radially, bringing Caucasians to North Africa and Europe..." Maca-Meyer et al; 2001
Which of course is funny, since euronuts claim that the first caucasian traits are recently in Africa.
Eurocentricks theories are shaky like a House of Cards.
Anyway:
quote:Introduction
After the dispersal of modern humans Out of Africa, around 50–70 ky cal BP1,2,3,4 or earlier based on fossil evidence5, hominins with similar morphology to present-day humans appeared in the Western Eurasian fossil record around 45–40 ky cal BP, initiating the demographic transition from ancient human occupation [Neandertals] to modern human [Homo sapiens] expansion on to the continent1"
[...]
The haplogroup of PM1 falls within the U clade [Fig. 1B and Supplementary Table 3], which derived from the macro-haplogroup N possibly connected to the Out of Africa migration around 60–70 ky cal BP1,2,3,4. In line with this, the Peştera cu Oase individual that lived on the current territory of Romania, albeit slightly earlier than PM1 [37–42 ky cal BP] also displays haplogroup N9.
—Hervella et al. 2016
Europeans are consistent. They consistently promote the idea that Eurasia is "special" in terms of human evolution. Originally they did it with physical anthropology and the definition of 'races', now they are doing it with genetics. The key here is they never label any of the genes associated with the first human populations in Eurasia as "African". This is a key point behind everything being discussed here. African populations 60,000 years ago "magically" mutate overnight and all their genes become Eurasian and then these Eurasians go on to populate the rest of the planet. Or the alternate theory is Africans cross the red sea or walk into the Levant and immediately have orgies with neanderthals producing a new species of humans that go on to populate the rest of the planet. Somehow or some way they have to make up some reason why these original populations of Africans who settled Eurasia can't be called African after leaving Africa. Yet the opposite is true in reverse. Eurasians are the reason for the features and diversity in Africans as a result of ancient back migrations thousands of years ago. It is absurd and hypocritical.
EEF and Basal Eurasian are simply the latest example of the same old game they have been playing for a long time. The difference here is that instead of using MTDNA lineages and haplogroups as markers, they use alleles and very cumbersome algorithms and theorized population constructs to extract out relationships over thousands of years in order remove the key bits of data that would usually indicate African affinity among these populations.
But why are they doing this now? If they have the ability to extract the DNA of ancient remains going back 30,000 or 40,000 years, then why are they making up these convoluted algorithms rather than simply providing the raw MTDNA and Haplogroup Data? So they can hide the African genetic relationships in Eurasia. They are basically trying to maintain this charade that all these genetic lineages arose in Eurasia and hence are not African. And this is why they are selectively sampling certain mummies and certain remains instead of comprehensively sampling ALL ancient remains to get a more accurate picture. Having that data is far better and more accurate than these hypothetical models and formulas. But that runs the risk of exposing their fraudulent methodologies so they wont do it. Hint: they wont find any mixed Neanderthal/human populations and as far as I know none have yet been found.
And as far as North Africa vs SSA goes, unless North Africans originated outside Africa, then they ultimately came from SSA, which makes the argument stupid to begin with and goes back to the point I made earlier. If humans first emerged in Kenya and points South then all African diversity originates in SSA. Which means singling out SSA from the rest of Africa is stupid. But of course the only reason this debate is going on is because some folks see North Africa as being a proxy for Eurasian back flow and therefore not really African. Because if it was simply African there is no point debating SSA vs North Africa.
Still waiting for the "elongated Eurasians" that gave Africans elongated features.
It is good to see someone who has opened their eyes to reality.
posted
^ Doug simply does know what those terms actually mean because he hasn't properly digested the publications in question. (Intellectually Lazy)
Just as you are confused by the ISOGG R1b nomenclature and why it changed at what it means.
You don't know why E3b "Changed" to E1b1b1 which is also goes by the SNP name "E-M35" and is currently called E2a'd.(Intellectual Incompetence)
Nah' It's all one big Eurocentric conspiracy + Beyoku and Swenet are Racist sellouts.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not quite sure we can that those Abu Sir mummies were black in the multitude.
The Mathilda crowed would say that Herishef Hotep of Abu Sir is like 2300 BC. I dismissed this as them rolling back the Grecko-Roman dates and had no idea Abu Sir was Fayum. Remember Tut and Seti's mummies were also jet black.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stupid Coconuts can't see the truth. Yea, the nomenclature of African haplogroups has changed but researchers know the truth. For example, samples from Samara and Spain recognized as R-V88, are not cited as the new nomenclature of V88, i.e., R1b1a2, they were classified as R1b1, called R-L278 was named in 2010; as noted in Table S4.2: Y-Haplogroup assignments for 34 ancient European males, published in the Biorxiv copy of the Haak paper: Massive migration from the steppe is a source for Indo-European languages in Europe, http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2015/02/10/013433 .
.
As a result, I am not confused about the nomenclature of African R1 haplogroups. I recognize that while names change they remain the same, because of a "Eurocentric conspiracy" to maintain the status quo.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by capra: They didn't list the Iberian sample as V88 because they hadn't found out it was V88 at that time. The Samara sample isn't V88 at all.
You are just plain full of ****, Clyde.
Stupid Euroloon, you don't know what you're talking about.
Kivisild (2017) claimed the V88 samples from Samara and Spain was in Haak et al 2015.
Haak et al (2015) had only two samples from Samara and Spain, i.e., named R1b1. The R1b1 samples can be the only representation of V88 from Samara and Spain, cited by Kivisild (2017)
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Nope buddy, we have you on RECORD. First and foremost The issue a hand is NOT CASS. The issue at hand is 90 mummies of which only 2 have mtdna L. Mtdna L is at much greater frequency NOW in northern Egypt than it was in these mummies. The issue at hand is figuring out WHY the Sub Saharan autosomal ancestry and maternal ancestry has increased since dynastic times when much of this increase seems unrelated to Slavery. This is directly at odds with a basic Afrocentric narrative That we ALL followed and that many follow today basically theorizing that Equatorial ancestry should only increase the further we go back in time REGARDLESS of region in Egypt.
Everyone of those image spams argues a basic narrative that Egypt became MORE Eurasian over time. [/b]
There is nothing wrong with this chart. There is Nothing wrong with this narrative regarding mtdna.
YOU say the issue is not Cass, but that is what I address firstly, and then YOUR false "spin" about some sort of mystical, monolithic 'Afrocentric" ES mindset. You are on ON RECORD for at least the past 2 years as running down ES and its members, spinning your own bogus strawman of monolithic "Afroloons on ES," whereby "ya'll," meaning ES members, are supposed to be arguing for some sort of pristine pure "sub-Saharan" Egypt. That is at issue, along with how you are trying to further insinuate this alleged "mindset" as supposedly "denying" gene flow from outside Egypt having an impact. That is the issue- and it will remain at issue as long as your continue these antics.
You also find some sort of "error" in saying that Egypt became more Eurasian over time, but this alleged "error" in confirmed by multiple scholars quoted in graphics for years, including Keita. So, it seems that you are now posturing as knowing more than Keita, as well as credible Egyptologists, who indeed affirm that Eurasian gene flow increased on Egypt over time. LOL..
And why wouldn't SSA related ancestry increase in Egypt as well over time? What so "mysterious" about that? For years around here it has been noted that Egypt was never isolated from peoples and cultures further south and had links ranging from trade, to warfare, to captives, and no doubt had routine back and forth by nomads, and others from the south and elsewhere. Why would such "contradict" the growth of Eurasian influence over time? What? Only "Eurasians" move back and forth but SSA people "stay put"? Your reasoning here seems like more shaky spin.
Your "spin" is also contradictory. If the evil ES monolithic "mindset" is "denying" Eurasian influence, how then can the same evil "mindset" affirm the presence of Eurasian influence early on, particularly in the North (as shown by use of Keita's cranial studies around here for years) and then the growth of said Eurasian influences in later stages of Egyptian civ? How can the 'Afrocentric" "monoliths" deny Eurasian influence, but yet affirm it at the same time?
Your spin is both false and contradictory and unless it is retracted you are on shaky grounds to come accusing ES folk of this and that.
Originally posted by Ish Gabor: Those groups aren't the only "Nilotid". [Roll Eyes] It's funny to see people talk about a region and ethnography of which they have no understanding.
LOL He also has "Somalids" and "Ethiopids" on hand. No indication yet of "Swedids"..
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
No, O delusional one, Kivisild didn't say Samara was V88. He said V88 has distant relatives in ancient DNA from Europe. Note how in Fig 7 those lineages are shown on the same phylogenetic level as P297 and V88, *not* as part of the V88 branch.
But as with everything else, you'll just keep repeating that it means what you want it to mean, not what it says.
Because you are full of ****. I guess you can fool yourself, but it's pretty hilarious that you think you can fool anyone else.
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: ^ Doug simply does know what those terms actually mean because he hasn't properly digested the publications in question. (Intellectually Lazy)
Just as you are confused by the ISOGG R1b nomenclature and why it changed at what it means.
You don't know why E3b "Changed" to E1b1b1 which is also goes by the SNP name "E-M35" and is currently called E2a'd.(Intellectual Incompetence)
Nah' It's all one big Eurocentric conspiracy + Beyoku and Swenet are Racist sellouts.
What terms don't I know what they mean?
Pray tell please clue me in.
Because right now I am enjoying this silliness of nothingness.
You guys keep beating strawmen to death and missing the whole point.
1) What "features" did the first humans to evolve in Africa possess and where did they evolve at?
2) How did populations get to other parts of Africa after the first humans evolve and where did they come from at specific time periods?
3) Did those populations in Africa stay fixed in one location after humans arose and how much did they move around?
4) Were populations in Africa subject to environmental adaptation before leaving Africa giving rise to variable traits across different locations?
5) What were the main population centers in Africa over the course of time from 200,000 years ago and how did the populations vary in features across time and place?
6) And last but not least, did local adaption of African populations to environmental factors start before humans left Africa or are variation in features in Africans mainly the result of back flow from outside of Africa?
7) And if the answer to 6 is the result of back flow, which populations in Africa are indicative of ancient "unmixed" features found in Africa before such back flow?
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Plenty of cowards right now throwing dirt on folks names and calling folks TO ES as like its a "battle Ground" challenging some to say HERE something like what I just wrote above a la "You wont go on ES and say that because"...
This is whats going on, this is a taste of the background. Some of these arguments right now are just bordering on being anti-intellectual.
Some of this raises questions based on your own previous narrative. Who is throwing this dirt and where? Anthroscape? ForBiodiversity? Where? What is strange is why they would be throwing dirt, since you and others are careful to "disavow" ES in these other places. This is certainly your prerogative, but are you saying that ES is "hurting" your own personal brand or image among the white people in these places? Kind of those negroes embarrassing you in front of de white folk?
But if you have already disavowed the negroes, and have been posting heavy levels of content and time on white forums for years that you would not bother to post on ES, ES should not matter at all to you. Which is why as I asked before how come you are still here?
And certainly in this business you always have to fend off extreme types and claims- its par for the course.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
No, O delusional one, Kivisild didn't say Samara was V88. He said V88 has distant relatives in ancient DNA from Europe. Note how in Fig 7 those lineages are shown on the same phylogenetic level as P297 and V88, *not* as part of the V88 branch.
But as with everything else, you'll just keep repeating that it means what you want it to mean, not what it says.
Because you are full of ****. I guess you can fool yourself, but it's pretty hilarious that you think you can fool anyone else.
.
' Stupid Euroloon, you don't know what you're talking about.
Kivisild (2017) claimed the V88 samples from Samara and Spain was in Haak et al 2015.
Haak et al (2015) had only two samples from Samara and Spain, i.e., named R1b1. The R1b1 samples can be the only representation of V88 from Samara and Spain, cited by Kivisild (2017)
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Plenty of cowards right now throwing dirt on folks names and calling folks TO ES as like its a "battle Ground" challenging some to say HERE something like what I just wrote above a la "You wont go on ES and say that because"...
This is whats going on, this is a taste of the background. Some of these arguments right now are just bordering on being anti-intellectual.
Some of this raises questions based on your own previous narrative. Who is throwing this dirt and where? Anthroscape? ForBiodiversity? Where? What is strange is why they would be throwing dirt, since you and others are careful to "disavow" ES in these other places. This is certainly your prerogative, but are you saying that ES is "hurting" your own personal brand or image among the white people in these places? Kind of those negroes embarrassing you in front of de white folk?
But if you have already disavowed them, and have been posting heavy levels of content and time on their forums for years that you would not bother to post on ES, ES should not matter at all to you. Which is why as I asked before how come you are still here?
And certainly in this business you always have to fend off extreme types and claims- its par for the course.
Either they are black folks just sucking up to whites to get a pat on the head or they are simply white folks pretending to be black just like Ausar.
They have finally fried a circuit trying to keep the charade going and are now barfing stupidity all over the forum.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Clyde, you just posted Figure 7, which shows exactly what I said. Do you need help with learning how to read a phylogenetic tree? It's something you should have learned before spouting off about genetics but better late than never.
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by capra: Clyde, you just posted Figure 7, which shows exactly what I said. Do you need help with learning how to read a phylogenetic tree? It's something you should have learned before spouting off about genetics but better late than never.
As you can see in the above R1-P297 is also found in Africa and is V88 as illustrated on the map. .
' Stupid Euroloon, you don't know what you're talking about.
Kivisild (2017) claimed the V88 samples from Samara and Spain was in Haak et al 2015.
Haak et al (2015) had only two samples from Samara and Spain, i.e., named R1b1. The R1b1 samples can be the only representation of V88 from Samara and Spain, cited by Kivisild (2017)
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Either they are black folks just sucking up to whites to get a pat on the head or they are simply white folks pretending to be black just like Ausar.
They have finally fried a circuit trying to keep the charade going and are now barfing stupidity all over the forum.
Unlike how they are trying to misrepresent ES and its members, I never denied that they have done some good work in countering some Eurocentrics and have said that on ES, and even took Amun-Ra to task for making extreme accusations. But now, one has to wonder. Maybe like you say, setting up "Afrocentric" monolith and then "refuting" it, gets a pat on the back from de white folk. Still this does not require wholesale misrepresentation of the forum and members, and in some respects, seems to play into the hands of hostile Eurocentrics, who engage in some of the same cynical tactics.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
M269 is a subclade of P297. That on the map will be M269. It can be native African M269 originated with magical Khoisan if you like, baby steps now, but P297 is not V88.
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by capra: P297 isn't V88, man. Holy crap.
M269 is a subclade of P297. That on the map will be M269. It can be native African M269 originated with magical Khoisan if you like, baby steps now, but P297 is not V88.
' Stupid Euroloon, you don't know what you're talking about.
Kivisild (2017) claimed the V88 samples from Samara and Spain was in Haak et al 2015. Kivisild (2017) wrote:"Interestingly, the earliest offshoot of extant haplogroup R1b-M343 variation, the V88 subclade, which is currently most common in Fulani speaking populations in Africa (Cruciani et al. 2010) has distant relatives in Early Neolithic samples from across wide geographic area from Iberia, Germany to Samara (Fig. 7)." .
. Haak et al (2015) had only two samples from Samara and Spain, i.e., named R1b1. The R1b1 samples can be the only representation of V88 from Samara and Spain, cited by Kivisild (2017).
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
You don't have to repost everything every time you reply, Clyde.
"Interestingly, the earliest offshoot of extant haplogroup R1b-M343 variation, the V88 subclade, which is currently most common in Fulani speaking populations in Africa (Cruciani et al. 2010) has distant relatives in Early Neolithic samples from across wide geographic area from Iberia, Germany to Samara (Fig. 7)."
Right. So... in the English language, Clyde, are the "distant relatives" of a group members of the group itself?
For instance, if "the British royal family are distant relatives of the Romanovs", does this mean the British royal family are the czars of Russia? If "snails and slugs are distant relatives of the octopus", are gastropods classified as cephalopods? Are members of R1b-M343 which aren't V88 not distant relatives of V88?
Since Kivisild does not say that any of the samples were V88, nor does the tree show that they are V88, where did you get the information that any of them was V88?
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
Ok cool, but It seems as if you underestimate the great bottleneck and it's Effect on SSA affinity, What you said in terms of African geneflow Outside of the continent about migratory direction (via natufian Uniparentals) can be, or might be correct, but whatever the explanation, it doesn't matter, the drop in SSA affinity is a result of post OOA migration African recombination (followed by a possible African selection event etc.). These populations were Isolated from the source populations for 1000's of years, possibly/most likely OOA. To a contemporary Geneticist or observer, that's all the reason to consider a population Eurasian. Almost everyone has North Africans represented as Eurasians who reentered the continent, the only saving grace are the west North African groups who could have probably inhabited Oases and the scrub-like landmass above the Sahara pre-holocene, but the coalescent age of the E1b1b group wide spread in that region suggests possible early Backmigration or geneflow from the east-(levant?)... And don't get me started on the MtDna, thank god for Berber Languages only being found on the continent but linguistics is another story.
Admittedly Basal Eurasian, like Cass says may very well be Arabian, also, according to Anthropological sites and dating, the nile region have been inhabited for over 10Kya. So where is the post OOA-Eurasian Affinity dating before that in Eastern & Saharan Africa, in the time period AFTER the Natufian Exit but BEFORE the Northward Nile valley expansion (into the delta etc.)? We HAVE Eurasian-like geneflow detected in west-central African populations Dating to Around >9Kya, (and maybe even beyond) this shows there has been North African Activity in the west, but, what about the east? (If you find that source with a more Ancient Cushitic Admixture date can you run that by me?)
It seems obvious to me that Natufians branched of from an OOA ancestral population to both them and westward North Africans. but reentered the continent much much later or not at all, along with similar ME groups. There seems to be multiple waves of migration (possibly bidirectional) into the continent, I never argued against that, infact I littered recent threads with these Ideas... but the source population varies. I am pretty sure that the East African source population for Admixture comes from the ME. I'm sorry, but I see no other way around it right now and these 90 mummies lock that **** down for me. They leave no room for a lingering North East African Indigenous component. If they are indicative of the Egyptian population, then Km.t was a levantine-Near East transplant +/- some neighboring NorthWest African Admixture DOCUMENTED IN THAT REGION. All the years of research and Info gathering from YOU GUYS, and those before you goes against that. So I'm holding out.
There's a reason why I was the only one who was able to guess almost to a tee what these Abusir mummies would look like before they dropped, there's a reason why I kept stressing a clarified consensus on a genetic placeholder for "SSAness." -Non Admixed East African are technically more "SSA than Any non HG African group including YRI, its just that East Africans hold a basal position to Eurasian populations.
^So Imagine a world were possibly un-admixed East Africans travel northward to later mix with North Africans from the Western desert, then Eastern Levantine inhabitants even later but be defined as North African or EEF which are subsequently defined as Eurasian, the latter moreso... That's like a slap to the face.
I appreciate the response though, thanks for clearing up your position. People read your post's and make up a position based on what they *think* you are saying. from the little interactions I had w/ you I knew where you are coming from, others kinda don't, even if they appear to agree w/ you on the spot. They'll eventually push a narrative that is either contradictory or straight up wrong/harmful. It's seen when they paraphrase you and "other" posters. I told you before, that the faction like mentality on ES is more harmful then any "Afrolunacy" or Eurocentricity... We came to a point where we have blacks/Africans arguing that variation in Africans comes solely from Eurasian Admixture, you might not have been saying that but that WAS the central theme in this thread.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Either they are black folks just sucking up to whites to get a pat on the head or they are simply white folks pretending to be black just like Ausar.
They have finally fried a circuit trying to keep the charade going and are now barfing stupidity all over the forum.
Unlike how they are trying to misrepresent ES and its members, I never denied that they have done some good work in countering some Eurocentrics and have said that on ES, and even took Amun-Ra to task for making extreme accusations. But now, one has to wonder. Maybe like you say, setting up "Afrocentric" monolith and then "refuting" it, gets a pat on the back from de white folk. Still this does not require wholesale misrepresentation of the forum and members, and in some respects, seems to play into the hands of hostile Eurocentrics, who engage in some of the same cynical tactics.
The Eurocentrics aren't dumb. They know their game is garbage but they are consistent with the garbage.
As if to say the first people to use fire were Europeans.... and from that came civilization. But hey that's what they do.
If they can lie about that or lie about the first cave men being Europeans then they can lie about anything. Early hominids were living in caves before humans and early humans doing the same before they even left Africa.
quote: Archaeologists Find Earliest Evidence of Humans Cooking With Fire
A cave in South Africa may be the site of the world's oldest barbecue — and a clue to early humans' development.
At the base of a brush-covered hill in South Africa’s Northern Cape province, a massive stone outcropping marks the entrance to one of humanity’s oldest known dwelling places. Humans and our apelike ancestors have lived in Wonderwerk Cave for 2 million years — most recently in the early 1900s, when a farm couple and their 14 children called it home. Wonderwerk holds another distinction as well: The cave contains the earliest solid evidence that our ancient human forebears (probably Homo erectus) were using fire.
quote:Originally posted by capra: You don't have to repost everything every time you reply, Clyde.
"Interestingly, the earliest offshoot of extant haplogroup R1b-M343 variation, the V88 subclade, which is currently most common in Fulani speaking populations in Africa (Cruciani et al. 2010) has distant relatives in Early Neolithic samples from across wide geographic area from Iberia, Germany to Samara (Fig. 7)."
Right. So... in the English language, Clyde, are the "distant relatives" of a group members of the group itself?
For instance, if "the British royal family are distant relatives of the Romanovs", does this mean the British royal family are the czars of Russia? If "snails and slugs are distant relatives of the octopus", are gastropods classified as cephalopods? Are members of R1b-M343 which aren't V88 not distant relatives of V88?
Since Kivisild does not say that any of the samples were V88, nor does the tree show that they are V88, where did you get the information that any of them was V88?
' Stupid Euroloon, you don't know what you're talking about.
Kivisild (2017) claimed the V88 samples from Samara and Spain was in Haak et al 2015. Kivisild (2017) wrote:"Interestingly, the earliest offshoot of extant haplogroup R1b-M343 variation, the V88 subclade, which is currently most common in Fulani speaking populations in Africa (Cruciani et al. 2010) has distant relatives in Early Neolithic samples from across wide geographic area from Iberia, Germany to Samara (Fig. 7)." .
. Haak et al (2015) had only two samples from Samara and Spain, i.e., named R1b1. The R1b1 samples can be the only representation of V88 from Samara and Spain, cited by Kivisild (2017).
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:The data suggest that the male Somali population is a branch of the East African population – closely related to the Oromos in Ethiopia and North Kenya – with predominant E3b1 cluster italic gamma lineages that were introduced into the Somali population 4000–5000 years ago, and that the Somali male population has approximately 15% Y chromosomes from Eurasia and approximately 5% from sub-Saharan Africa.
Admittedly this is somehow a bit confusing from a geographical point of view. In terms of sub Sahara vs East Africa. They do not consider Somali sub Sahara African (in this paper), but rather an East African population.
quote: The Y chromosome haplogroup E3a is found at high frequencies in the sub-Saharan, Bantu-speaking populations but at low frequencies in East Africa,
quote: The network of the E3b1 lineages in the present Somali population sample (Figure 3a) displayed star-like features and we observed a low Y STR haplotype diversity and a very limited spread in the sizes of the STR alleles (Table 3), suggesting a coherent, common, recent ancestry. The network of the E3b1 lineages of previously published data of East African populations and our data (Figure 3b) demonstrate that the E3b1 cluster italic gamma lineages of the present Somali population sample are part of the East African E3b1 lineages.
quote:Cruciani et al10 suggested that the E3b1 cluster italic gamma lineages originated in East Africa and estimated that the TMRCA was approximately 9600 years.
We estimated that the E3b1 cluster italic gamma DYS392-12 lineages of the present Somali population sample originated 4000–5000 years ago, and that the expansion of the E3b1 cluster italic gamma DYS392-12 lineages in these Somalis involved a relatively small number of Y chromosomes (around 1000 males).
Also Hg K2 seems to have a relation with Aboriginal Australians., which they suggest has a back migration into Africa. But why do the Cameroonian score the highest ? How did it get back into Africa, while scoring low in surrounding places.
quote: The haplogroup K2 was found in 10.4% of Somali males. Haplogroup K2 was suggested to have arisen in Eurasia.4, 9 K2 has a patchy distribution in Cameroon (18.0%), Egypt (8.2%), Ethiopia (4.8%), Tanzania (3.8%) and Morocco (3.6%), probably due to back migration.3, 7, 8, 9 Luis et al9 estimated an expansion time of 13.7–17.5 ky for the K2 lineages in Egypt. The BATWING expansion time estimated for K2 in our Somali population (3.3 ky) is consistent with an African southward dissemination of the K2 haplogroup.
Lastly, the Somali with admixture will claim to have lineage from Yemeni. As Beyoku mentioned before. "Ethiopians" and and Yemen bidirectional history. This goes for most of the Horn including Southwest Saudi Arabia and Oman.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
That Somali K2 is currently called T1a-M70; the Australian K2 is K2-M526, something completely different. When reading old papers you have to translate the haplogroup names.
The 18% T1a in Cameroon is from a small sample of Fulbe (n=17). It's not typical of either Fulbe or Cameroonians, most samples have little to none of it. There's a smattering in different Sahara-Sahel groups: some Kanuri, some Fulbe, some Chadic people, Baggara; Toubou from recent Chad paper had tons, 30%.
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by capra: That Somali K2 is currently called T1a-M70; the Australian K2 is K2-M526, something completely different. When reading old papers you have to translate the haplogroup names.
The 18% T1a in Cameroon is from a small sample of Fulbe (n=17). It's not typical of either Fulbe or Cameroonians, most samples have little to none of it. There's a smattering in different Sahara-Sahel groups: some Kanuri, some Fulbe, some Chadic people, Baggara; Toubou from recent Chad paper had tons, 30%.
I have heard this often how they change the name of the suggested genes. But thanks for explaining.
So why did they change it into T1a, T1a-M70 and K2-M526?It's a serious question.
Btw, the Baggara are pastoralist Arabs (Bedouin) from the Levant.
Till this very day they undeniable look similar to these ancient artifacts.
Head of a Syrian KhM 3896a TILE; RAMESSES III/USERMAATRE-MERIAMUN
Ok cool, but It seems as if you underestimate the great bottleneck and it's Effect on SSA affinity, What you said in terms of African geneflow Outside of the continent about migratory direction (via natufian Uniparentals) can be, or might be correct, but whatever the explanation, it doesn't matter, the drop in SSA affinity is a result of post OOA migration African recombination (followed by a possible African selection event etc.). These populations were Isolated from the source populations for 1000's of years, possibly/most likely OOA. To a contemporary Geneticist or observer, that's all the reason to consider a population Eurasian. Almost everyone has North Africans represented as Eurasians who reentered the continent, the only saving grace are the west North African groups who could have probably inhabited Oases and the scrub-like landmass above the Sahara pre-holocene, but the coalescent age of the E1b1b group wide spread in that region suggests possible early Backmigration or geneflow from the east-(levant?)... And don't get me started on the MtDna, thank god for Berber Languages only being found on the continent but linguistics is another story.
Admittedly Basal Eurasian, like Cass says may very well be Arabian, also, according to Anthropological sites and dating, the nile region have been inhabited for over 10Kya. So where is the post OOA-Eurasian Affinity dating before that in Eastern & Saharan Africa, in the time period AFTER the Natufian Exit but BEFORE the Northward Nile valley expansion (into the delta etc.)? We HAVE Eurasian-like geneflow detected in west-central African populations Dating to Around >9Kya, (and maybe even beyond) this shows there has been North African Activity in the west, but, what about the east? (If you find that source with a more Ancient Cushitic Admixture date can you run that by me?)
It seems obvious to me that Natufians branched of from an OOA ancestral population to both them and westward North Africans. but reentered the continent much much later or not at all, along with similar ME groups. There seems to be multiple waves of migration (possibly bidirectional) into the continent, I never argued against that, infact I littered recent threads with these Ideas... but the source population varies. I am pretty sure that the East African source population for Admixture comes from the ME. I'm sorry, but I see no other way around it right now and these 90 mummies lock that **** down for me. They leave no room for a lingering North East African Indigenous component. If they are indicative of the Egyptian population, then Km.t was a levantine-Near East transplant +/- some neighboring NorthWest African Admixture DOCUMENTED IN THAT REGION. All the years of research and Info gathering from YOU GUYS, and those before you goes against that. So I'm holding out.
There's a reason why I was the only one who was able to guess almost to a tee what these Abusir mummies would look like before they dropped, there's a reason why I kept stressing a clarified consensus on a genetic placeholder for "SSAness." -Non Admixed East African are technically more "SSA than Any non HG African group including YRI, its just that East Africans hold a basal position to Eurasian populations.
^So Imagine a world were possibly un-admixed East Africans travel northward to later mix with North Africans from the Western desert, then Eastern Levantine inhabitants even later but be defined as North African or EEF which are subsequently defined as Eurasian, the latter moreso... That's like a slap to the face.
I appreciate the response though, thanks for clearing up your position. People read your post's and make up a position based on what they *think* you are saying. from the little interactions I had w/ you I knew where you are coming from, others kinda don't, even if they appear to agree w/ you on the spot. They'll eventually push a narrative that is either contradictory or straight up wrong/harmful. It's seen when they paraphrase you and "other" posters. I told you before, that the faction like mentality on ES is more harmful then any "Afrolunacy" or Eurocentricity... We came to a point where we have blacks/Africans arguing that variation in Africans comes solely from Eurasian Admixture, you might not have been saying that but that WAS the central theme in this thread.
What you are saying is convoluted and makes no sense. First, all humans originated in areas South of the modern day Sahara long before such a thing as the Sahara existed. You keep trying to treat this concept of SSA as a fixed monolithic quantity across time and space that doesn't exist. SSA is irrelevant in Africa 200,000 years ago because no other humans existed in Africa 200,000 years ago. By the time of OOA, there were many other populations all over Africa that had moved around, likely multiple times since then. Therefore, only those populations involved in the OOA migration would be related closely to those downstream populations who left.
The issue becomes where the major DNA lineage splits occurred. This is where all the confusion lies. And the only way to find out what splits arose where and when are to sample more remains in Africa. All these theoretical models are garbage in my opinion because they are weighted down by faulty logic and missing data. Get DNA samples of all the early human remains in and outside of Africa and stop playing guessing games.
My argument is that the so-called Eurasian 'back migration' never happened and is simply a reflection of the ancestral populations in East Africa who migrated to the Levant and helped usher in farming. Because I don't believe these populations were 'cutoff' from each other and migrations have been ongoing to a smaller degree since OOA.
But ultimately the issue is hypocrisy and double standards in terminology. Genes from the OOA populations who left Africa magically disappear immediately after leaving Africa and are not called African, but "Eurasian" genes are super genes and live on many thousands of years later? Seriously? And why are these folks so focused on trying to find Eurasian back flow into North East Africa but not talking about African geneflow into Eurasia and labeling it as African?
Hypocrisy and double standards.
It is odd that they find an ancient Ethiopian and get a full DNA set, but instead of showing how that Ethiopian has genes that are partly ancestral to all other modern humans, they propose the opposite. And doesn't it just seem a bit too convenient to say that out of all the populations in Africa, the one most ancestral to all other humans is the only one most affected by back migration? I mean why didn't these Eurasians back migrate into other parts of Africa and affect them? It just sounds too good to be true that the downstream children of the parent magically come back later and "magically" erase all the parents genes with their own. What on earth are the odds of that happening? But people still believe this garbage. And this is where understanding where certain DNA lineage splits arose come into play.
quote: Characterizing genetic diversity in Africa is a crucial step for most analyses reconstructing the evolutionary history of anatomically modern humans. However, historic migrations from Eurasia into Africa have affected many contemporary populations, confounding inferences. Here, we present a 12.5× coverage ancient genome of an Ethiopian male ("Mota") who lived approximately 4,500 years ago. We use this genome to demonstrate that the Eurasian backflow into Africa came from a population closely related to Early Neolithic farmers, who had colonized Europe 4,000 years earlier.
Like I keep saying, if folks REALLY want to understand the history of population evolution in Africa they need to do like Lazaridis did and filter out all non African DNA and focus on finding the "basal African" gene and all the "basal Splits" that occurred in Africa.
But they wont do that and by now we should know why. Out of all the places on earth, the population history of Africa is the least understood but whenever they claim to want to unravel it, they come up with "ancient Eurasians" as the explanation for everything..... Seriously?
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
@Doug M. You are running the tired old game of ignoring non African human divergence. YES we understand that ALL humans are African and Humanity is an African species. You like others are falling back on the "We are all African...everything is African because it came from Africa" in order to NOT place a genetic descriptor or draw a line on what is "African" and what is NOT. Its cowardice.
The main reason folks do this is to lay claim to worldwide populations of dark skinned folks IE
Clown - "The first native Americans were Black". Reason - They are not African, they were more related to Siberians. Clown - All humans come from Africa and the first Eurasians come from Africa.
They dont want to face the fact that those populations they are claiming are all the way on the other end of the genetic spectrum. Too stuck on race.
As to your Second half, if you dont think a major back-migration from Arabia happened. That is even MORE Reason for you to understand that such OOA ancestry you are talking about would look more "North African" than it would "Horn African". You are left in the DUST. As for Removing all Eurasian and Isolating African specific OOA type ancestry PAGANI already attempted to do that, hence the quote you keep ignoring.
quote:West Eurasian components were masked out, and the remaining African haplotypes were compared with a panel of sub-Saharan African and non-African genomes. We showed that masked Northeast African haplotypes overall were more similar to non-African haplotypes and more frequently present outside Africa than were any sets of haplotypes derived from a West African population. Furthermore, the masked Egyptian haplotypes showed these properties more markedly than the masked Ethiopian haplotypes', pointing to Egypt as the more likely gateway in the exodus to the rest of the world.
Is Egypt in "North Africa." If populations carry this ancestry migration below the Sahara would that leave some popualtions as a mix of SSA and NA Ancestry?
NOW what exactly is your contention? They just did exactly what you are requesting and discovered that Egyptians are "more OOA" than Ethiopians. Also this Egyptian African type ancestry was widespread outside of the continent compared to any other type of African Ancestry. Like I said before, you are not too familiar with the DATA...running your mouth and saying "They" need to do things that they have already DONE.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
It is odd that they find an ancient Ethiopian and get a full DNA set, but instead of showing how that Ethiopian has genes that are partly ancestral to all other modern humans, they propose the opposite. And doesn't it just seem a bit too convenient to say that out of all the populations in Africa, the one most ancestral to all other humans is the only one most affected by back migration? I mean why didn't these Eurasians back migrate into other parts of Africa and affect them? It just sounds too good to be true that the downstream children of the parent magically come back later and "magically" erase all the parents genes with their own. What on earth are the odds of that happening? But people still believe this garbage. And this is where understanding where certain DNA lineage splits arose come into play.
quote: Characterizing genetic diversity in Africa is a crucial step for most analyses reconstructing the evolutionary history of anatomically modern humans. However, historic migrations from Eurasia into Africa have affected many contemporary populations, confounding inferences. Here, we present a 12.5× coverage ancient genome of an Ethiopian male ("Mota") who lived approximately 4,500 years ago. We use this genome to demonstrate that the Eurasian backflow into Africa came from a population closely related to Early Neolithic farmers, who had colonized Europe 4,000 years earlier.
Like I keep saying, if folks REALLY want to understand the history of population evolution in Africa they need to do like Lazaridis did and filter out all non African DNA and focus on finding the "basal African" gene and all the "basal Splits" that occurred in Africa.
But they wont do that and by now we should know why. Out of all the places on earth, the population history of Africa is the least understood but whenever they claim to want to unravel it, they come up with "ancient Eurasians" as the explanation for everything..... Seriously?
The problem is that there are no non-African genes, As a result, if researchers write a program that name African mtDNA genes as solely haplogroups L, and maybe M1, and African Y-Chromosomes as haplogroups A,B and E, there will always appear mtDNA L3(M,N) and Y-Chromosomes R,I,G and J found among the subjects of any study. These so-called Eurasian haplogroups will appear because, they had already existed in Africa before the various OOA events. This would explain why we see the ancient Khoisan who introduced the Aurignacian and Solutrean cultures carrying haplogroups mtDNA M,N, and U and Y-Chrmosome R into Europe between 44-20kya; and the reentry of Y-Chromosome R with the Kushites, who introduced the Bell Beaker via Morocco to Iberia and, the Yamnaya migration from the Levant, into the Steppe and thence across Europe.
They had to claim the Mota man article was an error, because the researchers reported that 6-7% of the West and Central Africans were admixed with Eurasians. Reich of Harvard University had to encourage the authors of the article to change this finding because there is no way you can explain this admixture of Eurasians and, Central and West Africans who live 5000-10,000 miles away from Eurasians.
Any thinking researcher would have had to admit that given the Geographical distance between Central and West Africans, and Eurasians the so-called Eurasian genes representing this 6-7%, must in reality be African genes carried by Eurasians. Couple this with the archaeological evidence of a migration of Sub-Saharan Africans into Europe between 44-4kya, a back migration never took place. And therefore the Eurasian genes are really African genes.
Researchers can maintain that Ethio-Semitic and Cushitic speakers are admixed with Eurasians because they live in close proximity to the Arabs/Turks who today are lighter skinned. But this is really untenable, because as late as the Tihama culture the main centers of civilization in Ethiopia and Arabia were settled by Nubians.
Doug, glad to see your eyes are wide opened.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Sure what you say about geneticists calling it "Eurasian" is exactly that.....But I dont really get caught up on labels at this time. I DONT call it that and dont see it as such. IT looks like African mediated Gene flow to me. I do think that Some SSA populations are better modeled as Various SSA+ Various North African instead of ME. This is what Ancient DNA will resolve. We have the physical remains and they look localized to the region. The culture looks local as well. What we DONT KNOW is how things will look as far as African genetic substructure. Here is an extreme example of what we could be looking at.
quote: an extremely narrow definition based on genetic diversity were "Eurasians" start NOT at a geographical point but instead a figurative genetic cornerstone (All the way at the bottom.)
Yes in this narrow definition the diagonal line from Khoisan all the way to the bottom would represent African diversity with genetic "Eurasians" starting at Sardinians and ancient farmer samples.
While its funny, I am not quite ready to say that, instead i think and old enough sample from Egypt would show something different....somewhat how the Natufian was modeled as part North West Africa in Oracle. Egyptology just doesnt support mass migration in antiquity. We have to account for African substructure. The ancient DNA from Kenya and Sudan may help a lot with it.
They are calling it Eurasian based on what they assume about geographic populations and NOT based on some Isolated ROOT population on that PCA. IN the Above PCA "Basal Eurasian" would be on the African cline, "Natufian" would be on the African Cline.....and definitely Any Egyptian population that contributed to Natufian. As for a lingering NE African component, we could find it but we likely need Ancient DNA that will split a population multiple ways in the way it did for Europeans removing their genetically "Homogeneous" status.....NO instead they are a combination of 3-4 different groups. BE was conceptualized a long time ago. Who was thinking of something like ANE though that links far spread Native Americans with Old World populations?....Only Ancient DNA brought that out.
People read my post and dont really know whats going on because a lot of the talk has been outside of ES, also some folks haven't been really reading papers. Then there is this stupid race talk that have folks arguing "North East African" ancestry is ok below the Sahara but "North African" ancestry is not They fine with a E1b1a prediction of Ramesess III from an online calculator but have beef with an E-V22 prediction from a different online calculator. ITs really bad on facebook, you will have clowns arguing that the plants and animals that came into Egypt form the East...that whole Neolithic package are not Native to West Asia.
Me : Africa Cattle are North African in origin, Sheep and Goats are West Asian. Them : Arguing about sheep and goats. Me: Muthafukka we cant even agree on KNOWN facts!
There is a battle between those looking to be Centrists and those looking for TRUTH. Everybody got that bias, i can deal with that bias. But its the hyping up the E1b1 while ignoring the K2/J1/J2 The hyping up the Nilotic pottery/Sudanic crops while ignoring the West Asian agro-pastoral package. I used to do it. I used to counter the Eurasian by hyping up the African.
Once I put all that race bullshiit to rest, I just sat back and talked about them BOTH. TO the centrists that feel like I am giving Euros credit...so be it.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Out of all the places on earth, the population history of Africa is the least understood but whenever they claim to want to unravel it, they come up with "ancient Eurasians" as the explanation for everything..... Seriously?
Seriously... no they don't. Do you even read frigging papers about African population history? Do you even *care* about it? Because all I see from you is obsessing about labels.
Hey man, they can't just waltz in, get permission to destructively test precious ancient remains, then recover DNA that's been sitting in a hot climate for tens of thousands of years just because they want to! They would *love* to be able to do that.
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
posted
I give Capra three more months on this forum before his patience with these people starts wearing thin. Only Afrocentrics can stomach this denial month in, month out and still walk away feeling enlightened.
Explains why there are very few ethnicities here.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Out of all the places on earth, the population history of Africa is the least understood but whenever they claim to want to unravel it, they come up with "ancient Eurasians" as the explanation for everything..... Seriously?
Seriously... no they don't. Do you even read frigging papers about African population history? Do you even *care* about it? Because all I see from you is obsessing about labels.
Hey man, they can't just waltz in, get permission to destructively test precious ancient remains, then recover DNA that's been sitting in a hot climate for tens of thousands of years just because they want to! They would *love* to be able to do that.
Doug M has an unhealthy obsession with white people aka "They". If a study comes out he doesn't read it, He just complains about White people and what they have done to erase/reduce African affinities in whatever population is being studied. Look at nearly every one of his posts, they all show an obsession with white people, white racism, white folks interpretation of science etc. Doug Peeks his head and hands out of a white persons asshole, types a post and then goes right back in.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
They fine with a E1b1a prediction of Ramesess III from an online calculator but have beef with an E-V22 prediction from a different online calculator. ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
ITs really bad on facebook, you will have clowns arguing that the plants and animals that came into Egypt form the East...that whole Neolithic package are not Native to West Asia. 
Printer-friendly view of this topic