That's what I'm saying. These people are very calculated and sneaky in how they word things. They think "Sahara" is somehow better than "North Africa" even though it's the same damn thing as far as this discussion. Why would you or I exclude the Maghrebi coast apriori? They think Sahara sounds more sexy and have their own insecurities about certain parts of the North African coast, so they will waste your time trying to get you to say Sahara instead of North Africa. That is what they do. They playing these word game tactics to score imaginary points.
Not all of North Africa is Sahara. And not all of the Magrebi is Sahara.
That's what I'm saying. These people are very calculated and sneaky in how they word things. They think "Sahara" is somehow better than "North Africa" even though it's the same damn thing as far as this discussion. Why would you or I exclude the Maghrebi coast apriori? They think Sahara sounds more sexy and have their own insecurities about certain parts of the North African coast, so they will waste your time trying to get you to say Sahara instead of North Africa. That is what they do. They playing these word game tactics to score imaginary points.
Not all of North Africa is Sahara. And not all of the Magrebi is Sahara.
I seriously don't see why everything has to be such a conspiracy.
Posts: 288 | From: Asia | Registered: Mar 2016
| IP: Logged |
That's what I'm saying. These people are very calculated and sneaky in how they word things. They think "Sahara" is somehow better than "North Africa" even though it's the same damn thing as far as this discussion. Why would you or I exclude the Maghrebi coast apriori? They think Sahara sounds more sexy and have their own insecurities about certain parts of the North African coast, so they will waste your time trying to get you to say Sahara instead of North Africa. That is what they do. They playing these word game tactics to score imaginary points.
Not all of North Africa is Sahara. And not all of the Magrebi is Sahara.
I seriously don't see why everything has to be such a conspiracy.
Forreal right lol Whatever happened to exchanging information in a civil manner, regardless of differences.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
Horn Africans don't plot close to ancient Egyptians/Nubians in non-metric cranial/dental traits. In metric dental "Somalis from the Horn of East Africa sit right on the dividing line between mesodont and microdont" (Brace et al, 1993), while ancient Egyptians/Nubians are microdont - so there are also metric differences that clearly distinguish Saharan populations from Horn Africans.
Since Horn Africa is in SSA, Afrocentrists try to cluster Somalis/Ethiopians with ancient Egyptians, then they have a sneaky back-door to try to associate other SSA's with Egyptians. Their blunder is Horn Africans don't show close biological ties to ancient Egyptians.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes: Swenet's trolling would make a white supremacist pop it's collar. Elongated Africans?
Is she elongated?
Him?
I know I know
That most obvious truth that you are alluding to is blasphemy here, as it is "too simplistic". There is not enough confusion (obfuscation) in what you're saying. That's how these Devil's work.
Notice in all of these long thrown out "debates" (puppet shows), NOBODY IS SAYING ****. Notice how Dr. Winters states his facts (to which NO ONE acknowledges because they know that they will get intellectually swallowed), and exits the puppet show madness.
For example ask Beyoku or Swenet where did Niger-Congo speakers originate. Ask them were they on the Hapi Valley. This is what ALLL of this revolves around, and they have yet to make and stand by any stance.
Posts: 348 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
@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?
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).
If it's OOA, it's not Gate or tears OOA.....it's Sinai OOA. backmigrating from North Africa.
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?
Don't know what is True Negro about anything I said but I stand by it.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: Sudaniya says: It's hilarious because there are indigenous black populations on the North African coast like the Nafusa, the Masmuda and others, so the notion that black populations are restricted to his zones is laughable.
Apparently black people in Africa stay in certain "climatic apartheid" zones- "in dey place" so to speak. But according to recently revealed knowledge, any links they have with the AEs and due to "race mixes"...
Doug says: implying that mixture with these "African related" Eurasians is the best way to model the split
Could this be an indication of a racial split?
No. It is an indication of playing with the data to produce an invalid conclusion.
First, labels need to be consistent in definition and usage. For example, OOA are Africans. Period. The point being that when Africans left Africa there were no other humans and hence outside of mixture with neanderthals and other hominids (which is still yet sketchy and flimsy at best), those populations would have been identical to the Africans who stayed put in Africa genetically. But because nobody has any 60,000 year old DNA from outside Africa, it is all speculation based on theoretical models such as the "EEF" and "Basal Eurasian" framework. The problem with the framework is it implies that Africans leaving Africa magically became "Non African" (mixed with some other hominid species) with no actual proof of it. So it is nonsensical to start with.
The point being that Eurasians aren't some magical population that magically were split off and mixed with fairy tale creatures after leaving Africa and Hermetically Sealed off from later African gene flow. But this is exactly the kind of genetic apartheid game being played here. The borders of Africa being some magical genetic membrane that don't allow African DNA to leave and "contaminate" pure Eurasians but Eurasian DNA can come and go at will.... This is simply pure absurd silliness at this point.
The other silly talking point being that "sub saharan" is the only "true" black African in Africa, not only today but 100,000 years ago, because those magical Eurasian genes were floating around. Pure silliness and pure B.S.
Therefore, if folks are really serious about modelling INTRA AFRICAN gene flow over the last 50,000 years, they would do like Laziridis did and filter out the Eurasian genes and model Africa on a regional population basis, just as they did in the papers defining Basal Eurasian. Note there are no Northern Alpine or Southern Mediterranean type labels in those papers. Yet in Africa everything becomes a North African vs Sub Saharan delineation, again showing the same old pattern of hypocrisy and double standards in the European scientific community. Populations don't stay fixed and we know populations have been moving around Africa for hundreds of thousands of years. Making this idea of a fixed split between North Africa and Sub Saharan Africa stupid and disingenuous. Where was Sub Saharan Africa during the Saharan wet phase?
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
That's what I'm saying. These people are very calculated and sneaky in how they word things. They think "Sahara" is somehow better than "North Africa" even though it's the same damn thing as far as this discussion. Why would you or I exclude the Maghrebi coast apriori? They think Sahara sounds more sexy and have their own insecurities about certain parts of the North African coast, so they will waste your time trying to get you to say Sahara instead of North Africa. That is what they do. They playing these word game tactics to score imaginary points.
Not all of North Africa is Sahara. And not all of the Magrebi is Sahara.
I seriously don't see why everything has to be such a conspiracy.
What do you mean, conspiracy?
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Beyoku: 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).
^Charlie saw the map with Maghrebi peaking in the Maghreb and still tried to plead with you to say Sahara as opposed to North African. I'm glad you didn't fall for it, but picked up on this immediately and called him out.
Yet Sudan (including North Sudan, according to you the only Southern Africans tied to the AE) are in the tropics, the so-called "black area" of Africa per you, Nazi. Looks like you can't segregate Aegyptians from the "blacks" you hate so much even when all the evidence you don't like is ignored and we play by your rules. Pathetic. Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Those lineages and ancestries are "North African" in plenty of the ways you want to slice it. How about North of the Tropics = North Africa. There are plenty of definitions.....you know what I am getting at.
If they came from the Central and eastern Sahara why not say Saharan instead of North African? By that's same token I could east African ancestry "sub-Saharan" since the area in question is south of the Sahara.
Are you serious though? Why would I need to clarify what region of North Africa they come from if we are not discussing specifics. Now if you agree that those parts of the Sahara are in "North Africa" then what are you protesting about?
Come on now, you know as well as I know that geographical terms means a lot. Egypt is in North Africa proper, but genetically there is differentiation between Northeast Africans and Northwest Africans. People in the southernmost regions of both these areas overlap more with people to the south than to the north. When you say North African I think it should be specific for that reason. If the populations that mixed with Hema came from the Central and Eastern Sahara, why no just say that? I know what YOU mean when you say North Africa, but those not familiar with you may take it another way.
quote:What I see is a clash of ideas. At this point we should clearly understand that a group of language such as Cushitic and its associated autosomal "juice" does not originate in Sub Saharan African. We don't "lose" anything if these things come from the northern part of the continent. Once you agree that they do then you have to also agree that many African populations show a composite of different and heterogenous North African and Equitorial African ancestries with different genetic histories.
Never denied that part, and been knowing this since Tishkoff's study. For me its about being specific. When you say Hema have North African ancestry what exactly do you mean since as I said there is a degree of differentiation between Northwest and Northeast Africa.
quote:Where is the push back against this coming from? It is nonsensical.
My push back is with defining SSA is the narrow sense. Geneticists are defining these populations in a manner similar to the True Negro theory as a narrowly defined genetic population. West Africa in particular should NOT be treated as the pristine example of the "True unmixed" pre-OOA population or as the population with "true African" ancestry.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Horn Africans don't plot close to ancient Egyptians/Nubians in non-metric cranial/dental traits. In metric dental "Somalis from the Horn of East Africa sit right on the dividing line between mesodont and microdont" (Brace et al, 1993), while ancient Egyptians/Nubians are microdont - so there are also metric differences that clearly distinguish Saharan populations from Horn Africans.
Since Horn Africa is in SSA, Afrocentrists try to cluster Somalis/Ethiopians with ancient Egyptians, then they have a sneaky back-door to try to associate other SSA's with Egyptians. Their blunder is Horn Africans don't show close biological ties to ancient Egyptians.
Who said Horn Africa have to plot with ancient Egyptians? What was said is that they were a people similarly to them. There are many groups that haven't been plotted. Ethnic groups that live in Ethiopia to Southern Egypt. Nubians are Southern Egyptians and Nubian is a cluster name for many sub groups. But ancient Egyptians certainly had contact with contact with these southern groups from the Horn. Anther act is that in cases the Sudan is seen as sub Sahara, and Al Khiday is in Central Sudan Sahel region. You can cry yourself to sleep over this, it is and remains the same.
The paper spoke of "Erigavo District, Ogaden Somali". My question is why? Why especially them? So what if a difference was noticed in mandibles in parentheses in the Ogaden Somali? In broader terms they cluster and come closer to than your prompted groups.
What is said is the following, which eurocentricks love to ignore:
quote: There is now a sufficient body of evidence from modern studies of skeletal remains to indicate that the ancient Egyptians, especially southern Egyptians, exhibited physical characteristics that are within the range of variation for ancient and modern indigenous peoples of the Sahara and tropical Africa.
In general, the inhabitants of Upper Egypt and Nubia had the greatest biological affinity to people of the Sahara and more southerly areas […]
Any interpretation of the biological affinities of the ancient Egyptians must be placed in the context of hypothesis informed by the archaeological, linguistic, geographic or other data.
In this context the physical anthropological evidence indicates that the early Nile Valley populations can be identified as part of an African lineage, but exhibiting local variation. This variation represents the short and long term effects of evolutionary forces, such as gene flow, genetic drift, and natural selection influenced by culture and geography”
--Kathryn A. Bard (STEPHEN E. THOMPSON Egyptians, physical anthropology of Physical anthropology) (1999, 2005, 2015)
quote:"The ancient Egyptians were not 'white' in any European sense, nor were they 'Caucasian' … we can say that the earliest population of ancient Egypt included African people from the upper Nile, African people from the regions of the Sahara and modern Libya, and smaller numbers of people who had come from south-western Asia and perhaps the Arabian penisula."
--Robert Morkot (2005). The Egyptians: An Introduction. pp. 12-13
quote:"The Mahalanobis D2 analysis uncovered close affinities between Nubians and Egyptians. Table 3 lists the Mahalanobis D2 distance matrix. As there is no significance testing that is available to be applied to this form of Mahalanobis distances, the biodistance scores must be interpreted in relation to one another, rather than on a general scale. In some cases, the statistics reveal that the Egyptian samples were more similar to Nubian samples than to other Egyptian samples (e.g. Gizeh and Hesa/Biga) and vice versa (e.g. Badari and Kerma, Naqada and Christian).
These relationships are further depicted in the PCO plot (Fig. 2). Aside from these interpopulation relationships, some Nubian groups are still more similar to other Nubians and some Egyptians are more similar to other Egyptian samples. Moreover, although the Nubian and Egyptian samples formed one well-distributed group, the Egyptian samples clustered in the upper left region, while the Nubians concentrated in the lower right of the plot. One line can be drawn that would separate the closely dispersed Egyptians and Nubians. The predynastic Egyptian samples clustered together (Badari and Naqada), while Gizeh most closely groups with the Lisht sample. The first two principal coordinates from PCO account for 60% of the variation in the samples. The graph from PCO is basically a pictorial representation of the distance matrix and interpretations from the plot mirror the Mahalanobis D2 matrix."
--Godde K.
An Examination of Nubian and Egyptian biological distances: Support for biological diffusion or in situ development?
Homo. 2009;60(5):389-404. Epub 2009 Sep 19.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Never said anything about "West Africa". As explained Before: North Africa is not ONE thing. Sub Saharan Africa is not ONE thing... they both consist of different heterogenous genetic components with different genetic histories.
You making that complaint is like a Euroclown objecting to "Sub Saharan" ancestry in X population Eurasians because "you shoulda said East African or Hadza".......never mind the fact that those two ancestries are SSA.
You playing games man. So now that you know what North African is........are their North African genetic admixtures in HOA, Hema, Tutsi et al?
Some time ago I objected to the idea of Berber like admixure in Fulani.l. I argued they have no M81/H/U6........multiple studies shows the huge autosomal component. I couldn't ignore it after seeing further studies and personal results of Fulani far and wide.
AFAIAK iALL the data already EXISTS. There is no need for a "wait and see" approach when dealing with the biological affinity of MODERN human populations.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
Yet Sudan (including North Sudan, according to you the only Southern Africans tied to the AE) are in the tropics, the so-called "black area" of Africa per you, Nazi. Looks like you can't segregate Aegyptians from the "blacks" you hate so much even when all the evidence you don't like is ignored and we play by your rules. Pathetic.
Yes and its the same situation for Europe, dummy. Autosomal FST values are low between southern & northern Europeans (0.084 ~ Greeks/Swedes) meaning they are genetically very similar, however in terms of pigmentation there are large differences in eye, hair and skin colour. Northern Europeans have a high frequency of blue/green eye & light brown/blonde hair colours, while Southern Europeans are mostly dark brown haired and brown eyed. Northern Europeans are also lighter in skin colour, 'white', while Southern Europeans a light brown, so-called 'olive'.
Laughably you're calling me a white nationalist/Nazi when you are the one clinging to racial politics in how you categorize skin colours. I don't and never have said southern Europeans are 'white'. That's your white nationalist position, not mine. For you, Africa = black, Europe = white. You would fit right in at Stormfront.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
Horn Africans don't plot close to ancient Egyptians/Nubians in non-metric cranial/dental traits. In metric dental "Somalis from the Horn of East Africa sit right on the dividing line between mesodont and microdont" (Brace et al, 1993), while ancient Egyptians/Nubians are microdont - so there are also metric differences that clearly distinguish Saharan populations from Horn Africans.
Since Horn Africa is in SSA, Afrocentrists try to cluster Somalis/Ethiopians with ancient Egyptians, then they have a sneaky back-door to try to associate other SSA's with Egyptians. Their blunder is Horn Africans don't show close biological ties to ancient Egyptians.
Who said Horn Africa have to plot with ancient Egyptians? What was said is that they were a people similarly to them. There are many groups that haven't been plotted. Ethnic groups that live in Ethiopia to Southern Egypt. Nubians are Southern Egyptians and Nubian is a cluster name for many sub groups. But ancient Egyptians certainly had contact with contact with these southern groups from the Horn. Anther act is that in cases the Sudan is seen as sub Sahara, and Al Khiday is in Central Sudan Sahel region. You can cry yourself to sleep over this, it is and remains the same.
The paper spoke of "Erigavo District, Ogaden Somali". My question is why? Why specially them?
What is said is the following, which eurocentricks love to ignore:
quote: There is now a sufficient body of evidence from modern studies of skeletal remains to indicate that the ancient Egyptians, especially southern Egyptians, exhibited physical characteristics that are within the range of variation for ancient and modern indigenous peoples of the Sahara and tropical Africa.
In general, the inhabitants of Upper Egypt and Nubia had the greatest biological affinity to people of the Sahara and more southerly areas […]
Any interpretation of the biological affinities of the ancient Egyptians must be placed in the context of hypothesis informed by the archaeological, linguistic, geographic or other data.
In this context the physical anthropological evidence indicates that the early Nile Valley populations can be identified as part of an African lineage, but exhibiting local variation. This variation represents the short and long term effects of evolutionary forces, such as gene flow, genetic drift, and natural selection influenced by culture and geography”
--Kathryn A. Bard (STEPHEN E. THOMPSON Egyptians, physical anthropology of Physical anthropology) (1999, 2005, 2015)
quote:"The ancient Egyptians were not 'white' in any European sense, nor were they 'Caucasian' … we can say that the earliest population of ancient Egypt included African people from the upper Nile, African people from the regions of the Sahara and modern Libya, and smaller numbers of people who had come from south-western Asia and perhaps the Arabian penisula."
--Robert Morkot (2005). The Egyptians: An Introduction. pp. 12-13
quote:"The Mahalanobis D2 analysis uncovered close affinities between Nubians and Egyptians. Table 3 lists the Mahalanobis D2 distance matrix. As there is no significance testing that is available to be applied to this form of Mahalanobis distances, the biodistance scores must be interpreted in relation to one another, rather than on a general scale. In some cases, the statistics reveal that the Egyptian samples were more similar to Nubian samples than to other Egyptian samples (e.g. Gizeh and Hesa/Biga) and vice versa (e.g. Badari and Kerma, Naqada and Christian).
These relationships are further depicted in the PCO plot (Fig. 2). Aside from these interpopulation relationships, some Nubian groups are still more similar to other Nubians and some Egyptians are more similar to other Egyptian samples. Moreover, although the Nubian and Egyptian samples formed one well-distributed group, the Egyptian samples clustered in the upper left region, while the Nubians concentrated in the lower right of the plot. One line can be drawn that would separate the closely dispersed Egyptians and Nubians. The predynastic Egyptian samples clustered together (Badari and Naqada), while Gizeh most closely groups with the Lisht sample. The first two principal coordinates from PCO account for 60% of the variation in the samples. The graph from PCO is basically a pictorial representation of the distance matrix and interpretations from the plot mirror the Mahalanobis D2 matrix."
--Godde K.
An Examination of Nubian and Egyptian biological distances: Support for biological diffusion or in situ development?
Homo. 2009;60(5):389-404. Epub 2009 Sep 19.
The point is that "Sub Saharan Africa" is a nonsensical and meaningless distinction because Africans are diverse across ALL of Africa. All Africans South of the Sahara do not look the same, have the same features or same DNA. Hence it is a meaningless grouping. Somalis don't look like Ugandans and don't look like Nigerians. But somehow folks are falling into the trap of defending something nonsensical.
The question you should be asking is what distinguishes indigenous "North Africans" from so-called "Sub Saharan Africans". And when did this split arise. Because it sounds like some folks are claiming that indigenous North Africans don't carry L lineages and that those are "Sub Saharan" lineages.
That is dumb because:
quote: In human mitochondrial genetics, L is the mitochondrial DNA macro-haplogroup that is at the root of the human mtDNA phylogenetic tree. As such, it represents the most ancestral mitochondrial lineage of all currently living modern humans.[b]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macro-haplogroup_L_(mtDNA)
So what we are really talking about is the origin of the U lineages found in North Africa and whether they arose in Africa or in Eurasia.
quote: A research group has managed to retrieve the mitochondrial genome of a fossil 35,000 years old found in the Pestera Muierii cave in Romania. That woman was part of the first population of our species that inhabited Europe following the Eurasian expansion of Homo sapiens from Africa, and the lineage she belongs to reinforces the hypothesis of a back-migration to Africa during the Upper Palaeolithic, say investigators.
The Palaeogenomics study conducted by the Human Evolutionary Biology group of the Faculty of Science and Technology, led by Concepción de la Rua, in collaboration with researchers in Sweden, the Netherlands and Romania, has made it possible to retrieve the complete sequence of the mitogenome of the Pestera Muierii woman (PM1) using two teeth. This mitochondrial genome corresponds to the now disappeared U6 basal lineage, and it is from this lineage that the U6 lineages, now existing mainly in the populations of the north of Africa, descend from.
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.
"Right now, the research group is analyzing the nuclear genome the results of which could provide us with information about its relationship with the Neanderthals and about the existence of genomic variations associated with the immune system that accounts for the evolutionary success of Homo sapiens over other human species with whom it co-existed. What is more, we will be able to see what the phenotypic features of early Homo sapiens were like, and also see how population movements in the past influence the understanding of our evolutionary history," explained Prof Concepción de la Rúa.
But note that just because they found U6 in that cave in Romania doesn't mean it originated there.
quote: But "this is much older, much more basal, so we demonstrate that the origin of these populations from north Africa were basically from western Eurasia."
This back-migration wasn't a complete surprise, says Cosimo Posth, a PhD candidate in archaeogenetics at Tübingen University in Germany, who was not part of this new study. When the U6 haplogroup was spotted in the mitochondrial DNA of people living in northern and western Africa today that is almost absent everywhere else, some scientists proposed that a back-migration had carried these genetic markers into Africa.
Finding an older version of this lineage outside of Africa would confirm that. Mr. Posth and colleagues reported a basal version of haplogroup U6 in a different skull from the same site, Peștera Muierii, in a paper published earlier this month.
"This actually suggested that this haplogroup originated somewhere outside of Africa and then migrated back into Africa during the paleolithic time," Posth says. And this new paper "is a confirmation of those previous studies."
[b]The researchers aren't sure when exactly the U6 haplogroup first migrated into Africa, as the archeological DNA record between the Romanian individuals and modern-day people is spotty.
Note: the upper range of the age of U6 is 50,000 years ago, which puts it in the time frame of OOA.
Given that, why isn't it possible that U6 arose in Africa and migrated to Europe and that those in Africa are populations descended from those who never left? The last bit in bold above reinforces that possibility.
quote: 'Since the U6 haplogroup today is most common in North African populations we didn't expect to find it in such an ancient human from Romania.'
This surprising finding suggests people migrated back to Africa.
The researchers took DNA from two teeth and compared it to modern day genomes.
They found the man belonged to a genetic population which had not previously been identified in any ancient or present-day humans.
The modern lineage derived from this group is mainly in Africa, with a small presence in Europe that can be attributed to gene-flow from North Africa.
This means the remains can be traced to a reverse migration to North Africa.
In 2014, the skeleton of a man buried 4,500 years ago in an Ethiopian cave allowed scientists to sequence one of the first ancient African human genomes.
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Never said anything about "West Africa". As explained Before: North Africa is not ONE thing. Sub Saharan Africa is not ONE thing... they both consist of different heterogenous genetic components with different genetic histories.
You making that complaint is like a Euroclown objecting to "Sub Saharan" ancestry in X population Eurasians because "you shoulda said East African or Hadza".......never mind the fact that those two ancestries are SSA.
You playing games man. So now that you know what North African is........are their North African genetic admixtures in HOA, Hema, Tutsi et al?
Some time ago I objected to the idea of Berber like admixure in Fulani.l. I argued they have no M81/H/U6........multiple studies shows the huge autosomal component. I couldn't ignore it after seeing further studies and personal results of Fulani far and wide.
AFAIAK iALL the data already EXISTS. There is no need for a "wait and see" approach when dealing with the biological affinity of MODERN human populations.
The Berbers groups which some of the Fulani interact with closely are the Kel (Tuareg) (Masmuda / Zanata confederacy) and the Hausa.
posted
"Laughably you're calling me a white nationalist/Nazi when you are the one clinging to racial politics in how you categorize skin colours. I don't and never have said southern Europeans are 'white'. That's your white nationalist position, not mine. For you, Africa = black, Europe = white. You would fit right in at Stormfront."
Says the sh!t thats on record as hating "blacks" and does everything he can to call all of SSA black and shifts the goalposts whenever he's challenged. Kiss my @ss.
--------------------
Meet on the Level, act upon the Plumb, part on the Square. Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged |
"@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.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Never said anything about "West Africa". As explained Before: North Africa is not ONE thing. Sub Saharan Africa is not ONE thing... they both consist of different heterogenous genetic components with different genetic histories.
You making that complaint is like a Euroclown objecting to "Sub Saharan" ancestry in X population Eurasians because "you shoulda said East African or Hadza".......never mind the fact that those two ancestries are SSA.
You playing games man. So now that you know what North African is........are their North African genetic admixtures in HOA, Hema, Tutsi et al?
Some time ago I objected to the idea of Berber like admixure in Fulani.l. I argued they have no M81/H/U6........multiple studies shows the huge autosomal component. I couldn't ignore it after seeing further studies and personal results of Fulani far and wide.
AFAIAK iALL the data already EXISTS. There is no need for a "wait and see" approach when dealing with the biological affinity of MODERN human populations.
The Berbers groups which some of the Fulani interact with closely are the Kel (Tuareg) (Masmuda / Zanata confederacy) and the Hausa.
It also hard to believe that there are people who are a mix of these two, especially since I have met them.
Ps: I have tried to figure this one out, perhaps you know the answer to this?
U lineages arose from populations carrying haplogroup L,M, upwards of 50,000 years ago. The maps show an "echo" of the ancient evolution of those lineages. The issue is whether haplogroups M, N, R (and ultimately U) split within Africa or outside Africa. Even if they didn't the populations that carried those lineages were among populations that were for all intents and purposes African in phenotype and there would have been an overlap between L3,M, N and R within specific populations with bottlenecks occurring much later as folks moved away from Africa.
A good way of looking at this over time is as a fluid dynamics simulation:
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: "Laughably you're calling me a white nationalist/Nazi when you are the one clinging to racial politics in how you categorize skin colours. I don't and never have said southern Europeans are 'white'. That's your white nationalist position, not mine. For you, Africa = black, Europe = white. You would fit right in at Stormfront."
Says the sh!t thats on record as hating "blacks" and does everything he can to call all of SSA black and shifts the goalposts whenever he's challenged. Kiss my @ss.
I call people from the tropics black because they have pigmentation that falls in the 'chocolate-brown class' (Coon, 1965). People north of the tropics on average don't have dark brown ('black') skin. Not sure why you find this complicated. If Egyptians are dark brown, why are populations at their latitude light to medium brown (north Indians, south Chinese)? Simply google contrast north Indian versus south Indian. Just give up politicalizing "black". Furthermore you seem obsessed with skin colour. As other posters here pointed out its trivial when trying to determine overall biological relatedness.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mansamusa: I don't understand this obsession with the notion of Sub_Saharan Africa. Correct me if am wrong, but wasn't the Sahara colonized by Sub-Saharan Africans during the Saharan neolithic? I mean some researchers even speculate that the main reason why the Sahara changed from green to desert is because of over-grazing and over-farming on the part of prehistoric and historic African pastoralists and farmers, modeled culturally and I assume genetically after sub-Saharan cattle herders such as the Masai, Nilotes, Bantu, etc....
This results from the fact that in population genetics papers the Black Africans/Negroes are called Sub-Saharan Africans.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| 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
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: "Laughably you're calling me a white nationalist/Nazi when you are the one clinging to racial politics in how you categorize skin colours. I don't and never have said southern Europeans are 'white'. That's your white nationalist position, not mine. For you, Africa = black, Europe = white. You would fit right in at Stormfront."
Says the sh!t thats on record as hating "blacks" and does everything he can to call all of SSA black and shifts the goalposts whenever he's challenged. Kiss my @ss.
I call people from the tropics black because they have pigmentation that falls in the 'chocolate-brown class' (Coon, 1965).
Here he goes again with the eugenic Coon rubbish.
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: People north of the tropics on average don't have dark brown ('black') skin. Not sure why you find this complicated. If Egyptians are dark brown, why are populations at their latitude light to medium brown (north Indians, south Chinese)? Simply google contrast north Indian versus south Indian. Just give up politicalizing "black". Furthermore you seem obsessed with skin colour. As other posters here pointed out its trivial when trying to determine overall biological relatedness.
MIGRATION!!!!
Where is Al Khiday, Kerma, Naqada etc NUTJOB!
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
That's what I'm saying. These people are very calculated and sneaky in how they word things. They think "Sahara" is somehow better than "North Africa" even though it's the same damn thing as far as this discussion. Why would you or I exclude the Maghrebi coast apriori? They think Sahara sounds more sexy and have their own insecurities about certain parts of the North African coast, so they will waste your time trying to get you to say Sahara instead of North Africa. That is what they do. They playing these word game tactics to score imaginary points.
Man Honestly I dont even know what happened to this forum, sometimes I wonder how I even posted here....
quote:That's how these Devil's work.
quote:That is due to the albinoid corruption of the music obviously
This isnt academia or even attempts to learn but religious Fundamentalism, this is a religion to these people, maybe you were right about the early times being a fluke.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mansamusa: I don't understand this obsession with the notion of Sub_Saharan Africa. Correct me if am wrong, but wasn't the Sahara colonized by Sub-Saharan Africans during the Saharan neolithic? I mean some researchers even speculate that the main reason why the Sahara changed from green to desert is because of over-grazing and over-farming on the part of prehistoric and historic African pastoralists and farmers, modeled culturally and I assume genetically after sub-Saharan cattle herders such as the Masai, Nilotes, Bantu, etc....
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Never said anything about "West Africa". As explained Before: North Africa is not ONE thing. Sub Saharan Africa is not ONE thing... they both consist of different heterogenous genetic components with different genetic histories.
You making that complaint is like a Euroclown objecting to "Sub Saharan" ancestry in X population Eurasians because "you shoulda said East African or Hadza".......never mind the fact that those two ancestries are SSA.
You playing games man. So now that you know what North African is........are their North African genetic admixtures in HOA, Hema, Tutsi et al?
Some time ago I objected to the idea of Berber like admixure in Fulani.l. I argued they have no M81/H/U6........multiple studies shows the huge autosomal component. I couldn't ignore it after seeing further studies and personal results of Fulani far and wide.
AFAIAK iALL the data already EXISTS. There is no need for a "wait and see" approach when dealing with the biological affinity of MODERN human populations.
Not trying to attack Charlie Bass(trust me I'm not), but wasn't there a GIANT ass discussion on FOrumbiodiversity on the North African Berber admixture in narrow featured Africans like the Fulanis?
I mean he is a member of FBD for a long time and should have seen the discussion. This shouldn't be anything new.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
That's what I'm saying. These people are very calculated and sneaky in how they word things. They think "Sahara" is somehow better than "North Africa" even though it's the same damn thing as far as this discussion. Why would you or I exclude the Maghrebi coast apriori? They think Sahara sounds more sexy and have their own insecurities about certain parts of the North African coast, so they will waste your time trying to get you to say Sahara instead of North Africa. That is what they do. They playing these word game tactics to score imaginary points.
Man Honestly I dont even know what happened to this forum, sometimes I wonder how I even posted here....
quote:That's how these Devil's work.
quote:That is due to the albinoid corruption of the music obviously
This isnt academia or even attempts to learn but religious Fundamentalism, this is a religion to these people, maybe you were right about the early times being a fluke.
Charlie pleading to use the word Saharan instead of North African is cringing, but I've seen worse. Just stop by more often and read between the lines what these people are saying.
I'm going to keep calling it out, even if I have to burn bridges.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^Im telling you these people act like they are in a religious cult. Im reading these debates and its like if you dont abide by their "Sacraments" and established folklore/fairytales, suddenly you're an "evil white man" or a Hamiticist etc. Im starting wonder If I was like this back in the day....jeez
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
That's what I'm saying. These people are very calculated and sneaky in how they word things. They think "Sahara" is somehow better than "North Africa" even though it's the same damn thing as far as this discussion. Why would you or I exclude the Maghrebi coast apriori? They think Sahara sounds more sexy and have their own insecurities about certain parts of the North African coast, so they will waste your time trying to get you to say Sahara instead of North Africa. That is what they do. They playing these word game tactics to score imaginary points.
Man Honestly I dont even know what happened to this forum, sometimes I wonder how I even posted here....
quote:That's how these Devil's work.
quote:That is due to the albinoid corruption of the music obviously
This isnt academia or even attempts to learn but religious Fundamentalism, this is a religion to these people, maybe you were right about the early times being a fluke.
Charlie pleading to use the word Saharan instead of North African is cringing, but I've seen worse. Just stop by more often and read between the lines what these people are saying.
I'm going to keep calling it out, even if I have to burn bridges.
If such mixture came from the central and eastern Sahara I don't see the problem with saying Saharan. Get your panties out of a bunch and stop complaining being petty as hell. You guys think that attacking the so called "Afrocentrist" makes you look more objective when in reality your use of certain terms is just as subjective as anyone else. It seems to me that you are obsessed with restricting sub-Saharan to one specific thing, but then again as I said, your use of terms is just as subjective.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
The funny part is they want to deny they have collective beliefs. But look in this thread how they all come forward to the front of the congregation to betray their collective visceral reactions to this North African ancestry. They want to make bs claims and not be called out on them at the same time. When it's time to be called out, they get 'forgetful' and don't remember their collective visceral reactions.
Hence, their repeated cat and mouse game between denial that the AE were SSA:
quote:I've been on ES since 2003 and on FBF and I can say that it was never the position of any so called "Afrocentrist" that Ancient Egyptians were always or even fully SSA.
And rare moments of an unbridled and unfiltered window into what they're really thinking:
quote:Sub-Saharan to me never meant solely "Broad trend" Africans, it also included Elongated African types as well.
Logically, if you deny that the AE were SSA in ancestry, then you have to be of the view that they were (primarily) North African in ancestry. But these people are so stupid that they don't even realize that denying SSA ancestry leaves only a North African choice. Once they realize they only have a North African choice, they don't want to continue that line of thought and accuse you of being a Hamiticist and subscribing to the "True Negro fallacy". So which of the two is it? These people are so full of sh!t.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
The funny part is they want to deny they have collective beliefs. But look in this thread how they all come forward to the front of the congregation to betray their collective visceral reactions to this North African ancestry. They want to make bs claims and not be called out on them at the same time.
Hence, their repeated cat and mouse game between denial:
quote:I've been on ES since 2003 and on FBF and I can say that it was never the position of any so called "Afrocentrist" that Ancient Egyptians were always or even fully SSA.
And rare moments of an unbridled and unfiltered window into what they're really thinking:
quote:Sub-Saharan to me never meant solely "Broad trend" Africans, it also included Elongated African types as well.
According to Hiernaux Elongated African is just as much a sub-Saharan phenotype since it is found in sub-Saharan people irrespective of whatever mixture they have. The short stout phenotype is the other end of the spectrum. Hiernaux used Elongated East Africa for the Tutsi/Bahima, Maasai, Horners etc, and Elongated African for Fulani and Saharan peoples with narrow facial features and linear bodies. These are NOT terms I have made up with agendas.
You knee grows are hypocrites, you have a problem with me using the term Saharan to denote mixture from the central and Eastern Saharan(and distinguishing it from coastal African ancestry) yet you kneegrows use East Africa/Horner as a label to denote mixture from the Horn of Africa and to distinguish it from West African ancestry despite the fact that both places lie in "Sub-Saharan" Africa. The contradiction is well noted.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Akachi: That most obvious truth that you are alluding to is blasphemy here, as it is "too simplistic". There is not enough confusion (obfuscation) in what you're saying. That's how these Devil's work.
The problem is he is trying to pigeon hole diversity into absolutes. Diverse genetics, phenotypes, languages etc will give you diverse results. All you do is create a whole bunch of variables that don't fit without without some bizarre conspiracy narrative hence elongated Africans, and an elusive homeland to afro-Asiatic. That's why I would like to know what languages he thinks are closest to ME and Coptic. I would check to see if he trolling, on a wild goose chase or on the right track. It may take me a long as two years.
Maybe Ish Come on Ish. Give me two languages and no Kalenjin.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Wake up everybody. Ethiopia • is South of the Sahara • is not in North Africa
Timbuktu is farther north than Ethiopia.
Ethiopia is at the same latitude as • Senegambia • the Guineas • Mandingo Mali • Liberia • Cote d'Ivoire • Burkina Faso • Ghana • Togo • south Niger • Benin • Nigeria • south Chad • Cameroun • Central African Republic • southern Sudan • South Sudan • north half of Somalia.
Geno-hamiticists place Ethiopia in North Africa just like the old Hamiticists' Caucasian north&east Africa.
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Our Northwest Africa north of 15°N and west of 20°E started as three culture zones by the mid-Holocene.
Maybe an obstacle to most but the Sahara's been a home ever since. Desert agriculture is at least old as Garamantia and continues in the oases at this moment.
Note the Med Neo locale is our Maghreb proper. The Sahara remains a confluence of 'Gafsa' and 'Sudan'.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Wake up everybody. Ethiopia • is South of the Sahara • is not in North Africa
Timbuktu is farther north than Ethiopia.
Ethiopia is at the same latitude as • Senegambia • the Guineas • Mandingo Mali • Liberia • Cote d'Ivoire • Burkina Faso • Ghana • Togo • south Niger • Benin • Nigeria • south Chad • Cameroun • Central African Republic • southern Sudan • South Sudan • north half of Somalia.
Geno-hamiticists place Ethiopia in North Africa just like the old Hamiticists' Caucasian north&east Africa.
Yeah, I don't get some people's beef with geography.
Posts: 288 | From: Asia | Registered: Mar 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lol. Charlie Bass running off to other threads to hide his phuckups and lie about what happened. As I predicted all along:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: I know how you Afrocentrist are when you feel humiliated; you start holding a grudge and start lying and eventually you will start lying about why you are being mocked as well.
Honest readers will remember that this started in 2014 when Bass used Toubou and other Sahelians not fully SSA in ancestry, as stand ins for populations that are fully SSA in ancestry. When I called out what he was doing, Charlie Bass revealed his fairy tale belief that Toubou only differed in phenotype because of adaptation in the Sahel, and denounced that they had any non-SSA ancestry
Fast forward to 2017, when these populations have been sampled and we know for a fact they are not fully SSA in ancestry. It takes his dumb ass 9 thread pages of running, ducking and hiding to admit Toubou are not fully SSA in ancestry. When he finally gathers enough courage to admit it, he can't even do so without trying to do some sort of halfway compromise, like it's some sort of negotiation. He has to play word games like he did earlier with the aforementioned "no SSA", "yes SSA" cat and mouse game.
Not liking the mess he's gotten himself into, he starts lying about the point of contention. Now all of a sudden it's about geography and him teaching "the Hamiticists" a lesson in geography:
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: Its clear that when you guys are talking about "sub-Saharan" Africa that you are not talking about the Eastern part of sub-Saharan/Horn of Africa and you know it.
No Charlie. Stop lying before I start thrashing you around in your own thread again. Back in 2014 I said your "elongated Africans" in East Africa and the Sahel have North African ancestry. I never said East Africa does not lie in Sub-Saharan Africa. It's not my fault that you're stupid enough to dupe yourself into believing a lie for 14 years. You believed the lie that "elongated" is divorced of non-SSA ancestry for 14 years, questioned people's credibility and intention and now you still can't make proper adjustments without playing word games.
Damn you stupid.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Maybe the biggest lie put out by the Cult of Personality Charismatic and his Amen Corner Groupies is Afrocentric all black Egypt and the old ES monolithic 'we all'.
You consider the following Afrocentrics. • 1950s Diop - posited a partial mixed and foreign north • 1970s Ch Williams - taught a foreign and mixed north
And 'we all' my red rooster. You're a liar. Link the post where I in my 12 year ES history ever said prehistoric or ancient Egypt territory was all SSA . I have taken it on the lip forstating the fact of Libya derived northerners just like the fact of Sudan derived southerners, not to mention sprinklings of 'Asiatics'. (And I did a Narmer Palette analysis along that line.) Neither of these are sub-Saharan Africans.
My major position is Africa has local physical varieties. That the blacks in the pre-Sahara aren't the blacks of the wooded Savannah to the Sahara's south. That neither are the Nile's blacks. Nor any of the above north central African blacks.
But that they all can trace ancestry back to early and mid Holocene Sahara blacks, most dispersed southwest, south, and east as monsoon withdrawal recreated the Pleistocene desert. Most did. But some stayed put or went north.
The question is why are these haters who made their own FB group &anti-ES blogz, and those like a doe dazzled by their tinsel glow, pulling rabbits out they bankrupt ass to slander people who haven't done a thing to hurt them other than disagree with their ideas.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Never said anything about "West Africa". As explained Before: North Africa is not ONE thing. Sub Saharan Africa is not ONE thing... they both consist of different heterogenous genetic components with different genetic histories.
You making that complaint is like a Euroclown objecting to "Sub Saharan" ancestry in X population Eurasians because "you shoulda said East African or Hadza".......never mind the fact that those two ancestries are SSA.
You playing games man. So now that you know what North African is........are their North African genetic admixtures in HOA, Hema, Tutsi et al?
Some time ago I objected to the idea of Berber like admixure in Fulani.l. I argued they have no M81/H/U6........multiple studies shows the huge autosomal component. I couldn't ignore it after seeing further studies and personal results of Fulani far and wide.
AFAIAK iALL the data already EXISTS. There is no need for a "wait and see" approach when dealing with the biological affinity of MODERN human populations.
The Berbers groups which some of the Fulani interact with closely are the Kel (Tuareg) (Masmuda / Zanata confederacy) and the Hausa.
It also hard to believe that there are people who are a mix of these two, especially since I have met them.
Ps: I have tried to figure this one out, perhaps you know the answer to this?
U lineages arose from populations carrying haplogroup L,M, upwards of 50,000 years ago. The maps show an "echo" of the ancient evolution of those lineages. The issue is whether haplogroups M, N, R (and ultimately U) split within Africa or outside Africa. Even if they didn't the populations that carried those lineages were among populations that were for all intents and purposes African in phenotype and there would have been an overlap between L3,M, N and R within specific populations with bottlenecks occurring much later as folks moved away from Africa.
A good way of looking at this over time is as a fluid dynamics simulation:
Interesting view. I do notice that L1b has a similar trend in distribution.
This is what Sarah Tishkoff said in the "Whole-mtDNA Genome Sequence Analysis of Ancient African Lineages"
quote:Although 2 mtDNA lineages with an African origin (haplogroups M and N) were the progenitors of all non-African haplogroups, macrohaplogroup L (including haplogroups L0-L6) is limited to sub-Saharan Africa.
--Gonder MK1, Tishkoff SA et al.
Whole-mtDNA genome sequence analysis of ancient African lineages. (2007)
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Beyoku: 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).
^Charlie saw the map with Maghrebi peaking in the Maghreb and still tried to plead with you to say Sahara as opposed to North African. I'm glad you didn't fall for it, but picked up on this immediately and called him out.
What is the source of that map. It's a bit confusing.
Also, I read somewhere (for got the source/ paper) that M78 arose at the South of Egypt, near Sudan. Can you confirm this?
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: ^^^Im telling you these people act like they are in a religious cult. Im reading these debates and its like if you dont abide by their "Sacraments" and established folklore/fairytales, suddenly you're an "evil white man" or a Hamiticist etc. Im starting wonder If I was like this back in the day....jeez
Both scenarios are real. And modern day science does have a history in racism. To think it has ever stopped is unrealistic. And I understand how people love to fantasize about it not being real etc., but it is. Considering the rise of white supremacy in this "Trump era", you can expect a lot of weird and crazy conclusions in the upcoming years.
quote:“Scientific racism” is on the rise on the right. But it’s been lurking there for years.
Scientific racism has deep roots in American culture: progressives embraced it in the early 20th century, then conservatives picked up the torch
The funny part is they want to deny they have collective beliefs. But look in this thread how they all come forward to the front of the congregation to betray their collective visceral reactions to this North African ancestry. They want to make bs claims and not be called out on them at the same time.
Hence, their repeated cat and mouse game between denial:
quote:I've been on ES since 2003 and on FBF and I can say that it was never the position of any so called "Afrocentrist" that Ancient Egyptians were always or even fully SSA.
And rare moments of an unbridled and unfiltered window into what they're really thinking:
quote:Sub-Saharan to me never meant solely "Broad trend" Africans, it also included Elongated African types as well.
According to Hiernaux Elongated African is just as much a sub-Saharan phenotype since it is found in sub-Saharan people irrespective of whatever mixture they have. The short stout phenotype is the other end of the spectrum. Hiernaux used Elongated East Africa for the Tutsi/Bahima, Maasai, Horners etc, and Elongated African for Fulani and Saharan peoples with narrow facial features and linear bodies. These are NOT terms I have made up with agendas.
You knee grows are hypocrites, you have a problem with me using the term Saharan to denote mixture from the central and Eastern Saharan(and distinguishing it from coastal African ancestry) yet you kneegrows use East Africa/Horner as a label to denote mixture from the Horn of Africa and to distinguish it from West African ancestry despite the fact that both places lie in "Sub-Saharan" Africa. The contradiction is well noted.
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
The Human Lineage
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Why do you think he nearly always omit citations?
quote: Detailed references to the sources allow the reader to put the historical reconstruction to the test. ...
I am grateful to these eminent scholars and good friends for their detailed comments and thoughtful suggestions. They saved me from many errors of fact and interpretation; those left are my own responsibility.
Nehemia Levtzion 1973
Can you imagine Africanists afrolooning, turding, and Mike111ing, their peers whose comments and thoughtful suggestions corrected weak positions.
No. No bow down and grovel, only I know!
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Lol. Charlie Bass running off to other threads to hide his phuckups and lie about what happened. As I predicted all along:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: I know how you Afrocentrist are when you feel humiliated; you start holding a grudge and start lying and eventually you will start lying about why you are being mocked as well.
Honest readers will remember that this started in 2014 when Bass used Toubou and other Sahelians not fully SSA in ancestry, as stand ins for populations that are fully SSA in ancestry. When I called out what he was doing, Charlie Bass revealed his fairy tale belief that Toubou only differed in phenotype because of adaptation in the Sahel, and denounced that they had any non-SSA ancestry
Toubou not being fully "SSA" is ancestry means exactly what? What are you trying to say? I never said Toubou are Elongated Africans, stupid. Stop with BS strawmen arguments, because I never ever said Toubou were fully SSA. You are going through setting up a bunch of strawmen to knock down. Are you saying that only populations that are fully SSA are the only real SSAs as they are somehow supposedly "True Negroes?" I only stated that like AEs, Toubous shared a common origin with some peoples in the Sahara since the Badarians themselves are said to have originated in the Sahara and migrated into Egypt from the southwest. If you don't fck out of here with your strawmen grasping ass.
quote:Fast forward to 2017, when these populations have been sampled and we know for a fact they are not fully SSA in ancestry. It takes his dumb ass 9 thread pages of running, ducking and hiding to admit Toubou are not fully SSA in ancestry.
For the last damn time idiot, stop creating strawmen arguments, I never said that Toubou were ever fully SSA is ancestry so why TF are you beating on strawmen arguments? Post a quote where I ever said anything about Toubou being fully SSA. If anything I said these people black people period. To be black does not mean one must have to be fully SSA. Why are you treating "North African" ancestry as if its non-African, non-Black?
quote:When he finally gathers enough courage to admit it, he can't even do so without trying to do some sort of halfway compromise, like it's some sort of negotiation. He has to play word games like he did earlier with the aforementioned "no SSA", "yes SSA" cat and mouse game.
I never made the fcking caim that Toubou and Saharan peoples were fully SSA to begin with so get TF out of here beating on strawmen. You ignore alll the other quotes I posted and go back to one in 2014 where I never even made a claim about Toubou being fully SSA and then create a strawman
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
quote: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. If Brace says that groups like Fulani, Teda and Kanuri plot in between "Niger Congo" speakers and people's of the Mediteranean Coast you know full well AEs plot in the same position. Keita's study on Northeast Africa craniofacial Variation confirmed it, so the notion tht AEs don't overlap with SSAs is bogus and it makes no sense to cite a study thats loaded with geographically distant populations like Teita, Haya, Gabonese, etc proves there is no overlap.
Narrow head shape and narrow noses are a climatic adaptation. The fact that AEs plot in the same intermediate position does NOT mean I am saying they are climatically adapted SSA you jackass. I even quoted Keita's logic about what that means earlier in this topic which you ignored because your dumbass is all about trying to paint so called Afrocentrists is a negative light, read the part in red dumbass:
Now I am done,, stop with the crazy ass strawmen arguments and implying agendas that no one have. That quote I was talking about from 2014 was dealing with craniometrics and geography, NOT genetics and whether they are fully SSA
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
An often repeated lie soon becomes truth to the hearing ear.
No defense works against it. Denial only worsens things.
It's a Charismatic's tool/weapon of choice.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Lol. Charlie Bass running off to other threads to hide his phuckups and lie about what happened. As I predicted all along:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: I know how you Afrocentrist are when you feel humiliated; you start holding a grudge and start lying and eventually you will start lying about why you are being mocked as well.
Honest readers will remember that this started in 2014 when Bass used Toubou and other Sahelians not fully SSA in ancestry, as stand ins for populations that are fully SSA in ancestry. When I called out what he was doing, Charlie Bass revealed his fairy tale belief that Toubou only differed in phenotype because of adaptation in the Sahel, and denounced that they had any non-SSA ancestry
Toubou not being fully "SSA" is ancestry means exactly what? What are you trying to say? I never said Toubou are Elongated Africans, stupid. Stop with BS strawmen arguments, because I never ever said Toubou were fully SSA. You are going through setting up a bunch of strawmen to knock down. Are you saying that only populations that are fully SSA are the only real SSAs as they are somehow supposedly "True Negroes?" I only stated that like AEs, Toubous shared a common origin with some peoples in the Sahara since the Badarians themselves are said to have originated in the Sahara and migrated into Egypt from the southwest. If you don't fck out of here with your strawmen grasping ass.
quote:Fast forward to 2017, when these populations have been sampled and we know for a fact they are not fully SSA in ancestry. It takes his dumb ass 9 thread pages of running, ducking and hiding to admit Toubou are not fully SSA in ancestry.
For the last damn time idiot, stop creating strawmen arguments, I never said that Toubou were ever fully SSA is ancestry so why TF are you beating on strawmen arguments? Post a quote where I ever said anything about Toubou being fully SSA. If anything I said these people black people period. To be black does not mean one must have to be fully SSA. Why are you treating "North African" ancestry as if its non-African, non-Black?
quote:When he finally gathers enough courage to admit it, he can't even do so without trying to do some sort of halfway compromise, like it's some sort of negotiation. He has to play word games like he did earlier with the aforementioned "no SSA", "yes SSA" cat and mouse game.
I never made the fcking caim that Toubou and Saharan peoples were fully SSA to begin with so get TF out of here beating on strawmen. You ignore alll the other quotes I posted and go back to one in 2014 where I never even made a claim about Toubou being fully SSA and then create a strawman
Note:
The Toubou span from of North the Sahara to South of the Sahara, into the Sahel.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Lol. Charlie Bass running off to other threads to hide his phuckups and lie about what happened. As I predicted all along:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: I know how you Afrocentrist are when you feel humiliated; you start holding a grudge and start lying and eventually you will start lying about why you are being mocked as well.
Honest readers will remember that this started in 2014 when Bass used Toubou and other Sahelians not fully SSA in ancestry, as stand ins for populations that are fully SSA in ancestry. When I called out what he was doing, Charlie Bass revealed his fairy tale belief that Toubou only differed in phenotype because of adaptation in the Sahel, and denounced that they had any non-SSA ancestry
Toubou not being fully "SSA" is ancestry means exactly what? What are you trying to say? I never said Toubou are Elongated Africans, stupid. Stop with BS strawmen arguments, because I never ever said Toubou were fully SSA. You are going through setting up a bunch of strawmen to knock down. Are you saying that only populations that are fully SSA are the only real SSAs as they are somehow supposedly "True Negroes?" I only stated that like AEs, Toubous shared a common origin with some peoples in the Sahara since the Badarians themselves are said to have originated in the Sahara and migrated into Egypt from the southwest. If you don't fck out of here with your strawmen grasping ass.
quote:Fast forward to 2017, when these populations have been sampled and we know for a fact they are not fully SSA in ancestry. It takes his dumb ass 9 thread pages of running, ducking and hiding to admit Toubou are not fully SSA in ancestry.
For the last damn time idiot, stop creating strawmen arguments, I never said that Toubou were ever fully SSA is ancestry so why TF are you beating on strawmen arguments? Post a quote where I ever said anything about Toubou being fully SSA. If anything I said these people black people period. To be black does not mean one must have to be fully SSA. Why are you treating "North African" ancestry as if its non-African, non-Black?
quote:When he finally gathers enough courage to admit it, he can't even do so without trying to do some sort of halfway compromise, like it's some sort of negotiation. He has to play word games like he did earlier with the aforementioned "no SSA", "yes SSA" cat and mouse game.
I never made the fcking caim that Toubou and Saharan peoples were fully SSA to begin with so get TF out of here beating on strawmen. You ignore alll the other quotes I posted and go back to one in 2014 where I never even made a claim about Toubou being fully SSA and then create a strawman
Note:
The Toubou span from of North the Sahara to South of the Sahara, into the Sahel.
Toubou span from Niger to southern Libya Northern Chad and Northwest Sudan and also go by the name Teda. I knew beforehand they were not fully SSA as a group of former anthropologists thought of them as Negro looking with Berber bloog
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
The Toubou span from of North the Sahara to South of the Sahara, into the Sahel.
Toubou span from Niger to southern Libya Northern Chad and Northwest Sudan and also go by the name Teda. I knew beforehand they were not fully SSA as a group of former anthropologists thought of them as Negro looking with Berber bloog
That is correct.
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: "Negro looking with Berber bloog".
Probably because they closely interact with Berbers from the Fezzan.
posted
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.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| 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.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic