quote:Originally posted by Oshun: There isn't a haplogroup that is subject to some geological apartheid barrier
You clearly haven't seen any maps of L4, E-M35, U6, M1, L6, etc. Apartheid is your words, but these haplogroups show a clear geography-based distribution pattern.
What do you call these largely uncorrelated distributions?
Peaks in 2-3 main areas: West African coast line (peaking in equitorial West African coast and staying steady into the Mauritania coastline where it starts tapering off). There's another peak area or two in east Africa. We also do not see a tapering effect that relies exclisvely on distance from the sahara. South Africa and east African coastlines as well as the distance from the Sahel show a tapering effect. I guess people can say that the peak points are in SSA but it's like injecting science into a preexisting construct. A lot of the genetic data is found in this sociopolitical area called "SSA" but it doesn't validate SSA as a ecological or genetic cluster (which I was not arguing that you or beyoku were saying, Doug was).
figure A (M1?) has peak points in areas north and south of the Sahara (like the horn). A nice example of some haplogroups not fitting neatly within sociopolitical lines.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are posters on this forum who have been here nearly a decade and haven't yet realised climatic boundaries are not genetic boundaries.
"a single population can consist of multiple overlapping ecotypes."
and:
"gene flow between different ecotypes is relatively common (see Futuyma 1998, and cites therein); if there is sufficient selective pressure to maintain the genetic differences associated with the different adaptive phenotypes, other genes, not so associated, may flow freely between the populations"
and:
"in the case of ecotypes, adaptive genetic differentiation can be maintained between populations by natural selection even where there is significant gene flow between the populations."
and:
"skin color’’ is an ecologically important—not a phylogenetically significant—trait"
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: A lot of the genetic data is found in this sociopolitical area called "SSA" but it doesn't validate SSA as a ecological or genetic cluster (which I was not arguing that you or beyoku were saying, Doug was).
SSA is a socio-political construct, but Africa isn't? You're the person who has used a pan-African political concept of Africa for years to try to cluster SSA's with North Africans. Your hypocrisy is through the roof since you're now trying to criticize socio-politicalizing geographical regions when that is your agenda.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: There are posters on this forum who have been here nearly a decade and haven't yet realised climatic boundaries are not genetic boundaries.
"a single population can consist of multiple overlapping ecotypes."
and:
"gene flow between different ecotypes is relatively common (see Futuyma 1998, and cites therein); if there is sufficient selective pressure to maintain the genetic differences associated with the different adaptive phenotypes, other genes, not so associated, may flow freely between the populations"
and:
"in the case of ecotypes, adaptive genetic differentiation can be maintained between populations by natural selection even where there is significant gene flow between the populations."
and:
"skin color’’ is an ecologically important—not a phylogenetically significant—trait"
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: A lot of the genetic data is found in this sociopolitical area called "SSA" but it doesn't validate SSA as a ecological or genetic cluster (which I was not arguing that you or beyoku were saying, Doug was).
SSA is a socio-political construct, but Africa isn't?
Africa is a geological construct. I already explained this. Calling Egypt "African" was more a nod to Egypt having numerous ecosystems throughout the location and period.
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: [QB] There are posters on this forum who have been here nearly a decade and haven't yet realised climatic boundaries are not genetic boundaries.
"a single population can consist of multiple overlapping ecotypes."
LMAO so now you've gone from trying to one ecosystem to "a single population can consist of multiple ecotypes." It's true that an Africa American and a Nigerian can be adapted to the same ecosystem. That does not mean that he, A zulu and a San are going to be designed the same.
quote: "gene flow between different ecotypes is relatively common (see Futuyma 1998, and cites therein); if there is sufficient selective pressure to maintain the genetic differences associated with the different adaptive phenotypes, other genes, not so associated, may flow freely between the populations"
Of course that puts a bit of a foot in your mouth when the same haplogroup can peak in a few areas both inside and outside of the Sahara. Womp womp. (PLEASE nobody try to make that sound like I'm arguing west Africans are the descendants of Egypt)
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: A lot of the genetic data is found in this sociopolitical area called "SSA" but it doesn't validate SSA as a ecological or genetic cluster (which I was not arguing that you or beyoku were saying, Doug was).
SSA is a socio-political construct, but Africa isn't? You're the person who has used a pan-African political concept of Africa for years to try to cluster SSA's with North Africans. Your hypocrisy is through the roof since you're now trying to criticize socio-politicalizing geographical regions when that is your agenda.
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: ^ do you not understand how ADMIXTURE works? There SURELY is the differentiation of Eurasian/African groups in these studies. What do you think they have been doing with all of their ancient DNA studies?
What you are saying sounds as if you stepped out some ES time machine from 2010 and don't really know what is going on. We already brought up Pagani. What are you repeating the same argument when someone mentioned Pagani?
Actually I do know how ADMIXTURE works and I also know that Africans being the oldest human population on the planet didn't become diverse because of ADMIXTURE with Eurasians. I have been saying this since you guys started running this nonsense and you havent addressed it.
Just like you haven't addressed why it is OK to REMOVE admixture in European DNA in order to identify where EEF came from but it is not OK to remove Eurasian admixture in Africa to understand how African populations migrated. If it is OK to do it in Eurasia to get insights on ancient INTRA Eurasian population movements then it is OK in Africa as well to understand ancient INTRA African population movements, such as where did North Africans come from within Africa.
Some how you just want to ignore this point.
Or you are going to claim that doing such a thing is too "Afrocentric"?
So why isn't doing the same in Eurasia "Eurasiacentric"?
quote: Although the African origin of AMH is now largely accepted, debate has continued over whether the anatomically modern form first arose in East, South, or North Africa.
Southern or East African origin
Support for an East African origin is provided by the discovery of the oldest unequivocally modern human fossils to date in Ethiopia: the Omo I from Kibish first discovered by Richard Leakey in 1967 dated to 190 and 200 kya44,45 and the Herto fossils dated to between 160 and 154 kya (Fig. 1).46
Evidence for a Southern origin has largely been provided by genetic rather than archeological studies. Henn et al analyzed genomes from extant hunter-gatherers from sub-Saharan Africa: pygmies of central Africa, click-speaking populations of Tanzania in East Africa (Hazda and Sandawe), and the Khomani Bushmen of Southern Africa.47 Their analyses of LD and heterozygosity patterns suggested Southern hunter-gatherers were among the most genetically diverse of all human populations, lending support to a Southern African origin of AMH. Schlebusch et al also considered patterns of LD in South Africa, observing the same high levels of genetic diversity, low levels of LD, and shorter runs of heterozygosity as mentioned in the previous studies. However, by incorporating additional samples throughout the rest of Africa, they showed that LD-based statistics fail to pinpoint a specific origin point, as LD levels were similarly low in other parts of the continent besides South Africa, indicating that different groups of individuals within different regions are important. This suggests that the population history within sub-Saharan Africa is likely too complex to localize the origins of H. sapiens using these approaches and available data.48 Similarly, Pickrell et al showed an ancient link between the Southern African Khoe-San and the Hadza and Sandawe of East Africa, suggesting that both Eastern and Southern Africa are equally consistent candidates as an origin locality of modern humans.49
A more recent study jointly analyzed paleo-climatic records and estimates of effective population size from the whole-genome sequences of five Khoe-Sans and one Bantu individual along with 420,000 Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNPs) from worldwide groups.50 Although unable to resolve a Southern or Eastern origin, using coalescent-based modeling, they suggest that Southern African populations have had high effective population sizes throughout their history, which might result in lower levels of LD relative to other parts of Africa, irrespective of where AMH arose. This corresponds well with climatic records, which find that Western and central Africa were affected by a dry climate with increasing aridity, around 100 kya, leading to a decline in the effective population size of West African populations (ancestors of the Bantu-speaking and non-African populations) but not vastly altering the effective size of South Africans (ancestors of the Khoe-San).51 The incorporation of climatic data has also been important in mtDNA analyses aiming to resolve a clear location of origin. In a paper focusing on the distribution of mtDNA haplogroups, Rito et al propose that the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of modern mtDNA likely arose in Central Africa before splitting into Southern African groups such as the Khoe-San (L0) and central/East African groups (L1’6).52 This is in good agreement with the aforementioned autosomal studies, which postulated an early split between the Khoe-San and more Northern African populations,48,49 although they did not advocate a MRCA in Central Africa.
Northern African origin
Up until recently, little focus has been given to North Africa as a potential origin point of the AMH form, despite the discovery of early AMH, Jebel Irhoud remains in Morocco dated to 160 kya (Fig. 1).53 Focus on the region changed with the publication of a revised Y chromosomal phylogenetic tree based on resequencing of male-specific regions of the Y chromosome from four relevant clades.54 The revised phylogeny found that the deepest clades were rooted in central and Northwest Africa, suggesting this region was more important than previously thought. Fadhlaoui-Zid et al went on to analyze both Y chromosome and genome-wide data from North Africa, the Middle East, and Europe. They found some evidence for a recent origin of human populations in North Africa but stressed how high levels of migration, admixture, and drift in North Africans make interpretation extremely challenging.55
It is important to note that many genetic-based approaches such as these are limited in their ability to answer questions of this nature given that extant human populations are likely poor representatives of populations residing in these regions during pre-AMH time periods. For instance, populations can be quite mobile, and thus the geographic location of modern humans groups may differ from that of their ancestors in the past. Archeological and paleontological approaches, as well as DNA from ancient human remains, can go some way to guiding inference but are also limited given the scarcity of sites. For example, an origin of AMH in Western or central Africa cannot be ruled out but to our knowledge, there is currently no archeological data available to address this as a candidate region.
Potential Routes out of Africa
One of the most intriguing questions regarding the exit of modern humans out of Africa is which geographical route was taken. The consensus view is that if modern humans did exit Africa via a single dispersal, there were two possible routes (not mutually exclusive) at the time: a Northern route, through Egypt and Sinai, and a Southern route, through Ethiopia, the Bab el Mandeb strait, and the Arabian Peninsula (Fig. 1 and Table 1). So far, neither archeological nor genetic evidence has been able to resolve this question with confidence.
Northern route
Some of the earliest remains of AMH anywhere outside of Africa, the Skhul and Qafzeh hominins, were found in the Levant (present-day Israel) and dated to 120 and 100–90 kya, respectively (Fig. 1).56,57 It has been suggested that these fossils represent an early exit of modern humans approximately 120 kya, traveling across the Sinai Peninsula to the Levant.58 The next human remains found in the region include the Manot1 cranium, which was dated to around 55 kya,59 demonstrating a considerable gap in the fossil record of AMH occupation in the Levant. This, in conjunction with climatic records, indicating a global glacial period 90 kya,60 has led some authors to suggest that if the first humans did exit early via the Levant they did not survive, and that the Skhul and Qafzeh hominins are the remnants of this failed exodus.58 Other authors emphasize the possibility that this group could have already left the Levant before the glacial period 90 kya.61 That said, the recent presentation of archeological material, primarily stone tools and assemblages dated to 100–80 kya, from an empty corner of the Arabian Peninsula suggests early settlements may have been widely distributed and that even if Skhul and Qafzeh do represent a failed exodus, it was broader and more complex than previously thought.62
In addition to the evidence from the archeological and climatic record, genetic studies have also suggested some support for a Northern route. A study of Y chromosome haplogroup distributions together with 10 microsatellite loci and 45 binary markers in different African and Near Eastern populations found that the Levant was the most supported route for the primary migratory movements between Africa and Eurasia.63 In a more recent paper, Pagani et al sequenced the genomes of 100 Egyptians and 125 individuals from five Ethiopian ethnic groups (Amhara, Oromo, Ethiopian Somali, Wolayta, and Gumuz).64 After attempting to mask West Eurasian genetic components inherited via recent non-African admixture within the last 4 kya, they showed that modern non-African haplotypes were more similar to Egyptian haplotypes than to Ethiopian haplotypes, thus suggesting that Egypt was the more likely route in the exodus out of Africa migration, assuming the efficacy of their masking procedure. However, as noted earlier, one limitation of such studies that analyze modern DNA is that extant populations may not be good representatives of past populations due to factors such as population replacement, migrations, admixture, and drift.
Southern route
In contrast, mtDNA studies have traditionally favored a Southern route across the Bab el Mandeb strait at the mouth of the Red Sea.65–67 From there, modern humans are thought to have spread rapidly into regions of Southeast Asia and Oceania.68,69 For example, two studies have concluded that individuals assigned to haplogroup L3 migrated out of the continent via the Horn of Africa.67,70 Furthermore, Fernandes et al.71 analyzed three minor West-Eurasian haplogroups and found a relic distribution of these minor haplogroups suggestive of ancestry within the Arabian cradle, as expected under a Southern route. That being said, many mtDNA studies, including these, are based on the premise that haplogroup L3 represents a remnant Eastern African haplogroup. Groucutt et al have recently theorized that L3 does not provide conclusive evidence for a shared African ancestor, given human demographic history is likely to be less “tree-like” than has been consistently assumed by mtDNA analyses.72 As an example, they showed that L3 could have arisen inside or outside of Africa if gene flow occurred between the ancestors of Africans and non-Africans following their initial divergence.
Short Tandem Repeats (STR) and analysis of LD decay in combination with geographic data have also been used to support a Southern route via a single wave serial bottleneck model.73 Under this model, it is thought that a group crossed the mouth of the Red Sea and traveled along the Southern coast of the Arabian Peninsula toward India as “beachcombers,” exploiting shellfish and other marine products.74 Migrations then continued in an iterative wave as populations dispersed and expanded into uninhabited areas. This is consistent with a glacial maximum occurring during this time period, which caused sea levels to fall allowing potential passage across the mouth of the Red Sea.
From an archeological perspective, evidence indicative of maritime exploitation is extremely limited. The discovery of artifacts from the Abdur Reef Limestone in the Red Sea and archeological sites in the Gulf Basin that indicate long-standing human occupation earlier than 100 kya may offer some evidence; however, whether these represent the activities of the ancestors of modern-day human groups is still an open question.75,76 Furthermore, Boivin et al caution that while coastal regions may have been important, a coastal-focused dispersal would still have been problematic and not necessarily conducive to rapid out of Africa dispersal.77
posted
@ Oshun can you stop trying to mask your dishonest pan-African intentions and politics?
Back in February, 2017 I posted this to you:
quote:Afrocentrists* have also modified their position to realise the Egyptians were Saharan [North] Africans, not Sub-Saharan Africans. My only issue with the latter is that they still call Saharan Africans "black"; the average skin colour of northern Saharan peoples, including modern Egyptians, is too light to be labelled black and living Egyptians do not consider themselves to be black either.
*Those Afrocentrists I had in mind were the more intellectual ones on this forum, who modified their views as now has Nodarb (this thread creator). They no longer argue ancient Egyptians were SSA's or had strong biological ties to SSA's, but were Saharan [North] Africans.
Your response to the above was rejecting this intellectual-honest shift and to criticize those posters arguing for the Saharan theory. Secondly like Bass did to Swenet, you bogusly accused me of "true negro stereotyping" for merely pointing out Saharan's do not cluster biologically with populations below the Sahara.
One of your pan-African arguments is since the Sahara desert today once had a different climate (for short interval periods), somehow that means there is no biological distinction between SSA's and North Africans. It's completely erroneous because the genetic distance of these populations to SSA's in response to climatic desertification or humidification would not have changed. You constantly confuse adaptation with genetic distance. Even if the Saharan desert was once more lush and humid, its inhabitants were still thousands of km away from SSA's.
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: For thousands of years there had been NO Sahara. The Sahara had just started coming back, which forced many populations that made kemet to move towards the Nile in the first place. Its so amazingly stupid that African Americans are called sub saharans despite being centuries removed from Sub Saharan Africa.
In conclusion, you're in the same boat as Charlie Bass, Zaharan etc. Pan-Africanist. You're purely in this for the politics, no science. If not, you would be doing what Nodard has done and changed his views.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: @ Oshun can you stop trying to mask your dishonest pan-African intentions and politics?
Back in February, 2017 I posted this to you:
quote:Afrocentrists* have also modified their position to realise the Egyptians were Saharan [North] Africans, not Sub-Saharan Africans. My only issue with the latter is that they still call Saharan Africans "black"; the average skin colour of northern Saharan peoples, including modern Egyptians, is too light to be labelled black and living Egyptians do not consider themselves to be black either.
*Those Afrocentrists I had in mind were the more intellectual ones on this forum, who modified their views as now has Nodarb (this thread creator). They no longer argue ancient Egyptians were SSA's or had strong biological ties to SSA's, but were Saharan [North] Africans.
Your response to the above was rejecting this intellectual-honest shift and to criticize those posters arguing for the Saharan theory. Secondly like Bass did to Swenet, you bogusly accused me of "true negro stereotyping" for merely pointing out Saharan's do not cluster biologically with populations below the Sahara.
One of your pan-African arguments is since the Sahara desert today once had a different climate (for short interval periods), somehow that means there is no biological distinction between SSA's and North Africans. It's completely erroneous because the genetic distance of these populations to SSA's in response to climatic desertification or humidification would not have changed. You constantly confuse adaptation with genetic distance. Even if the Saharan desert was once more lush and humid, its inhabitants were still thousands of km away from SSA's.
quote:For thousands of years there had been NO Sahara. The Sahara had just started coming back, which forced many populations that made kemet to move towards the Nile in the first place. Its so amazingly stupid that African Americans are called sub saharans despite being centuries removed from Sub Saharan Africa.
In conclusion, you're in the same boat as Charlie Bass, Zaharan etc. Pan-Africanist. You're purely in this for the politics, no science. If not, you would be doing what Nodard has done and changed his views.
Pan-Africa is wrong but pan-Europe is okay. lol
You ignore basic facts like: "For thousands of years there had been NO Sahara.".
quote: Thus, arguably, a considerable amount of genetic and phenotypic diversity may have been present at an early stage of modern human evolution.
—Michael C. Campbell1 and Sarah A. Tishkoff
The Evolution of Human Genetic and Phenotypic Variation in Africa
quote: Over the course of the Holocene the Sahara underwent major climatic changes, marking the beginning of the African Humid Period (AHP) approximately 12,000 years ago (Gasse et al., 1990; Street-Perrott and Perrott, 1990; deMenocal et al., 2000; Adkins et al., 2006; McGee et al., 2013; Tierney and deMenocal, 2013), and what has been referred to as the ‘Green Sahara’ (Sereno et al., 2008; Drake et al., 2011; Dunne et al., 2012). Whilst the Holocene AHP is perhaps one of the most thoroughly documented and well-dated climate change events, its implications for ancient human settlement is less well understood.
Occupation is clearly testified in the frequent rock engravings that are scattered throughout the upland regions of the desert, illustrating a lush environment with Sahelian and riverine fauna and scenes of large-game hunting, livestock herding and religious cer- emony (Mori, 1965; di Lernia and Gallinaro, 2010). Settlement studies from the Fezzan (Cremaschi and Zerboni, 2009; Cancellieri and di Lernia, 2013), Tenere (Sereno et al., 2008; Garcea, 2013) and Eastern Sahara (Wendorf et al., 2001; Hoelzmann et al., 2002; Kuper
[…]
Although there is increasing evidence to suggest the Sahara may have been more populated during the AHP, our null hypothesis must assume no prior knowledge of this in order to formally test the magnitude of demographic change, and whether the fluctuations in our SPD could be merely due to random sam- pling. The underlying principle of this method assumes a mono- tonic relationship between the population size and the amount of radiocarbon dates recovered, which is reliant on the law of large numbers to overcome small-scale temporal and spatial biases. Therefore by combining all 14C dates in a region, the fluctuation in the density of dates through time can be used as a demographic proxy to investigate the timing of population change in northern Africa. Full details on the method can be found in Shennan et al. (2013) and Timpson et al. (in press), and all dates are calibrated using the IntCal09 curve (Reimer et al., 2009). Our initial analysis uses 3287 published radiocarbon dates from 1011 Neolithic archaeological sites (Fig. 1). Further details about the data and the full radiocarbon date list can be found in Appendix A.
Conclusion The analysis presented here offers a first insight into the de- mographic response to Holocene climate change in the Sahara. Over a relatively short period of time climatic amelioration allowed human populations to colonize a vast region of the African conti- nent, and yet within less than 6000 years, they were gone. More generally, this analysis offers greatly improved temporal resolution on effective carrying capacity, providing critical insight into the terrestrial response to changing atmospheric conditions, and a complementary proxy for the timing of Holocene climate change in northern Africa. We find evidence for a temporal delay of around 1000 years in the terrestrial recovery of the Saharan ecosystem at the start of the Holocene AHP. Our results also highlight a sub- stantial and broad-scale demographic decline between 7500 and 6500 years BP, which is in accordance with major cultural and economic changes, but has yet to be identified in any current palaeoclimate proxies although recent work by He ly et al. (2014) suggests a possible synchronous dip in Saharan biodiversity, providing a potential source of corroboration. Further work is needed to explore the implications of this event, nevertheless it seems likely, based on the broad scale synchronicity between our sub-regions, that an exogenous force such as climate must have played a role.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would have no problem with Eurocentric propagandists (like Cass) if Europeans were simply arguing that the ancient Egyptians were merely derivatives of the North African environment and that they are most biologically and culturally intimated with North African groups like "Nubians" in Egypt and Sudan, the Beja and other black North Africans.
Cass is not arguing that position; he asserts that the ancient Egyptians were a Levantine transplant before the Holocene.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Pan-Europeanism" is falsified by genetics, just like pan-Africanism.
Greeks are closer genetically to Levant populations like Druze, than Swedes [although the genetic distances between all these are small].
I've also from day 1 recognised two ecotypes in Europe: a Mediterrnanean and Nordic. I'm not the one claiming all Europeans are "white". In fact, that's what you Afrocentrists on this forum argue: Africa = black, Europe = white. You're politicalizing skin colours to fit racial politics. I've been here for the past 5 years or more pointing out North Africans are not black and Southern Europeans are not white in pigmentation.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: You're politicalizing skin colours to fit racial politics.
I have been politicalizing skin colours to fit racial politics? lol
Nah boy, it is you who has been doing this. Your obsession with skin-color is sick!
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: You're politicalizing skin colours to fit racial politics.
But your opinion is NOT RELEVANT TO US! Especially since you have know knowledege on our ethnography and consolidation of original settlers. You are just another airhead on the internet no more no less.
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: "Pan-Europeanism" is falsified by genetics, just like pan-Africanism.
Greeks are closer genetically to Levant populations like Druze, than Swedes [although the genetic distances between all these are small].
I've also from day 1 recognised two ecotypes in Europe: a Mediterrnanean and Nordic. I'm not the one claiming all Europeans are "white".
Okay,
quote: Haplogroup E, defined by mutation M40, is the most common human Y chromosome clade within Africa. To increase the level of resolution of haplogroup E, we disclosed the phylogenetic relationships among 729 mutations found in 33 haplogroup DE Y-chromosomes sequenced at high coverage in previous studies. Additionally, we dissected the E-M35 subclade by genotyping 62 informative markers in 5,222 samples from 118 worldwide populations. The phylogeny of haplogroup E showed novel features compared with the previous topology, including a new basal dichotomy. Within haplogroup E-M35, we resolved all the previously known polytomies and assigned all the E-M35* chromosomes to five new different clades, all belonging to a newly identified subhaplogroup (E-V1515), which accounts for almost half of the E-M35 chromosomes from the Horn of Africa.
Phylogeographic Refinement and Large Scale Genotyping of Human Y Chromosome Haplogroup E Provide New Insights into the Dispersal of Early Pastoralists in the African Continent
quote: Y-chromosome haplogroup tree
The Y-chromosome haplogroup tree has been constructed manually following YCC 2008 nomenclature20 with some modifications.35 The tree (Supplementary Figure S1) contains the E haplogroups of Eritrean populations from this study and those reported in the literature.22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 Genotyping results for E-V13, E-V12, E-V22 and E-V32 reported for Eritrean samples and elsewhere23, 27 were retracted to E-M78 haplogroup level. All the analyses in this study were done at the same resolution using the following 17 bi-allelic markers: E-M96, E-M33, E-P2, E-M2, E-M58, E-M191, E-M154, E-M329, E-M215, E-M35, E-M78, E-M81, E-M123, E-M34, E-V6, E-V16/E-M281 and E-M75.
[...]
Median-joining (MJ) network. Network manipulated to fit the geography of the extant populations. MJ network was constructed using E haplogroup frequencies. Group represented by ITAL contains all the Italian samples pooled. Populations’ descriptions are given in Supplementary Table S1.
NJ tree based on FST values generated from Arlequin 3.11. Population names are as given in Supplementary Table S1. Population life style: circle – agriculturalists; square – pastoralists; triangle – nomads; inverted triangle – nomadic pastoralists; diamond – agro-pastoralists. The populations are colored according to their language family: red – Afro-asiatic; blue – Nilo-Saharan; green – Niger-Kordofanian; yellow – Khoisan; black – Italic and Basque.
[...]
Interestingly, this ancestral cluster includes populations like Fulani who has previously shown to display Eastern African ancestry, common history with the Hausa who are the furthest Afro-Asiatic speakers to the west in the Sahel, with a large effective size and complex genetic background.23 The Fulani who currently speak a language classified as Niger-Kordofanian may have lost their original tongue to as sociated sedentary group similar to other cattle herders in Africa a common tendency among pastoralists. Clearly cultural trends exemplified by populations, like Hausa or Massalit, the latter who have neither strong tradition in agriculture nor animal husbandry, were established subsequent to the initial differentiation of haplogroup E. For example, the early clusters within the network also include Nilo-Saharan speakers like Kunama of Eritrea and Nilotic of Sudan who are ardent nomadic pastoralists but speak a language of non-Afro-Asiatic background the predominant linguistic family within the macrohaplogroup.
[...]
The Sahel, which extends between the Atlantic coast of Africa and the Red Sea plateau, represents one of the least sampled areas and populations in the domain of human genetics. The position of Eritrea adjacent to the Red Sea coast provides opportunities for insights regarding human migrations within and beyond the African landscape.
--Eyoab I Gebremeskel1,2 and Muntaser E Ibrahim1
European Journal of Human Genetics (2014) 22, 1387–1392; doi:10.1038/ejhg.2014.41; published online 26 March 2014
Y-chromosome E haplogroups: their distribution and implication to the origin of Afro-Asiatic languages and pastoralism EJHGOpen
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: There isn't a haplogroup that is subject to some geological apartheid barrier
You clearly haven't seen any maps of L4, E-M35, U6, M1, L6, etc. Apartheid is your words, but these haplogroups show a clear geography-based distribution pattern.
What do you call these largely uncorrelated distributions?
Peaks in 2-3 main areas: West African coast line (peaking in equitorial West African coast and staying steady into the Mauritania coastline where it starts tapering off). There's another peak area or two in east Africa. We also do not see a tapering effect that relies exclisvely on distance from the sahara. South Africa and east African coastlines as well as the distance from the Sahel show a tapering effect. I guess people can say that the peak points are in SSA but it's like injecting science into a preexisting construct. A lot of the genetic data is found in this sociopolitical area called "SSA" but it doesn't validate SSA as a ecological or genetic cluster (which I was not arguing that you or beyoku were saying, Doug was).
figure A (M1?) has peak points in areas north and south of the Sahara (like the horn). A nice example of some haplogroups not fitting neatly within sociopolitical lines.
Again, trying to obscure clear hg distribution patterns with irrelevant bi-directional migrations. You're not addressing what anyone is saying. You're too busy trying to push back against things you don't like based on pure wishful thinking.
This is what you said:
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: There isn't a haplogroup that is subject to some geological apartheid barrier
Based on the distribution of M1, U6 and the other aforementioned hgs, your claim is not supported. There is a clear geographical pattern over large regions, local contradictions (due to migrations) notwithstanding. So how can you insist there is no geographical structure in hgs?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: I would have no problem with Eurocentric propagandists (like Cass) if Europeans were simply arguing that the ancient Egyptians were merely derivatives of the North African environment and that they are most biologically and culturally intimated with North African groups like "Nubians" in Egypt and Sudan, the Beja and other black North Africans.
Cass is not arguing that position; he asserts that the ancient Egyptians were a Levantine transplant before the Holocene.
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: [QB] @ Oshun can you stop trying to mask your dishonest pan-African intentions and politics?
Back in February, 2017 I posted this to you:
quote:Afrocentrists* have also modified their position to realise the Egyptians were Saharan [North] Africans, not Sub-Saharan Africans. My only issue with the latter is that they still call Saharan Africans "black"; the average skin colour of northern Saharan peoples, including modern Egyptians, is too light to be labelled black and living Egyptians do not consider themselves to be black either.
Most commonly "black" as a social construct is not (edit:strictly) referring to people with jet black or dark brown skin. People throughout the diaspora are being treated as black with the same complexions they see that people have North Africa. With comparable admixture as well. Please STFU, you're not going to overtalk what black people experience because of what you and your idiot white supremacist brethren find inconvenient.
quote:Your response to the above was rejecting this intellectual-honest shift and to criticize those posters arguing for the Saharan theory.
I just said that if people were going to discuss people by ecological constructs when discussing the Sahara (particularly in comparative terms), they should do it for the areas south of it. SSA is not an ecological construct. You've been trying (and failing) repeatedly to force SSA as a legitimate construct. Accepting that the various ecosystems are probably more valid to compare (than SSA) doesn't make the people living and adapting to those areas any more genetically related. It does not create a backdoor avenue to argue west Africans share the same haplogroup or something. In fact I would think it actually makes it harder. Because horners that may share M1 with some Egyptians don't risk being averaged against a west African. But you want a "Pan SSA" identity because it suits your interests.
quote: Secondly like Bass did to Swenet, you bogusly accused me of "true negro stereotyping" for merely pointing out Saharan's do not cluster biologically with populations below the Sahara.
Stop riding Swenet's jock. To repeat myself: Saharans NOT clustering (genetically) with many (if not most) of the populations south of the Sahara does not mean the "SSA" is suddenly a justifiable construct. If Saharans do not cluster with populations outside of their biome, it doesn't mean that everyone outside of it are one group.
quote: One of your pan-African arguments is since the Sahara desert today once had a different climate (for short interval periods), somehow that means there is no biological distinction between SSA's and North Africans.
I'm not even saying that there aren't distinctions between SSA, much less them and people living in the Sahara. Lower the dose of whatever you're on. Egyptians did have different ecological niches depending on where they lived and it DID seem to create differentiation among earlier period Egyptians. Some of the adaptions they had included tropical characteristics.
quote: Morant (1925) and Batrawi (1946) also found significant differences between Predynastic Upper Egyptians and, represented by Naqada and those from Lower Egypt, represented by Giza. Subsequent investigations using different sets of variables and more sophisticated statistical analysis, have confirmed that marked differences existed between Predynastic and Early Dynastic samples from the north and south of Egypt, and that these differences decreased in later period (Chichton 1966; Hillson 1978; Keita 1002, 1995, 1996).
quote:The findings presented here indicate that the north-south differences reported for Predynastic and Early Dynastic populations in Egypt were not due to large-scale population movements out of the southern Levant in the Neolithic or Predynastic period. Rather, they appear to reflect the long-term effect of differentiation between small, localized groups of hunters and gatherers exploiting different ecological niches. Having said this, it must be emphasized that these results are constrained by the small sample sizes available for the sites discussed here, and the limited number of sites represented.
The Palaeo-Biological Evidence for Admixture between Populations in the Southern Levant and Egypt in the Fourth to Third Millennia BCE
quote:[QUOTE]For thousands of years there had been NO Sahara. The Sahara had just started coming back, which forced many populations that made kemet to move towards the Nile in the first place. Its so amazingly stupid that African Americans are called sub saharans despite being centuries removed from Sub Saharan Africa.
In conclusion, you're in the same boat as Charlie Bass, Zaharan etc. Pan-Africanist.
You're crying pan africanism but pan Africanism would only be feasibly built on common histories or economic interests, not genetic closeness. That is largely irrelevant. And "blackness" isn't scientific either, so that's another irrelevant conversation. When we look at the adaptations Egyptians had, they had adaptions sufficient for the tropics, the Sahara and even Mediterranean. It is reflected in their remains. This isn't saying that Egyptians were related to modern west Africans and that all people that lived outside of a Saharan environment were related back then, but they didn't all live in a Sahara climate for the entire period of Egyptian history. Egyptians for this reason had tropical adaptations.
And as irrelevant as this is, I'm going to say this so that I can hopefully paste it whenever you next decide you're going to derail what I've said on cries of political woe: I don't really -need- to be in this for any anti white supremacist motive. White Supremacists judge people based on appearances, and the variability of the average upper Egyptian is fairly attuned with people being judged as black. In the States people being classified as black look like Egyptians in terms of skin tone and hair texture.
I don't really have to care about genetic distances because white supremacists don't care what your genetic composition is. If you look a certain way, you're getting treated a certain way with assumptions of your character made left and right. Diasporan blacks do not have to look like Nigerians, can have mixed Eurasian ancestry and still get treated as black. So "black" as a sociopolitical construct can encompass Egyptian features. You will of course deny what millions of blacks are experiencing as though you being a white guy with smug ass opinion is going to suddenly wash away a lifetime of experience. The sociopolitical craziness is pretty much over except for those stupid race realists who are so hung up on trying to make race real they'll distort anything they can get their hands onto.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: There isn't a haplogroup that is subject to some geological apartheid barrier
You clearly haven't seen any maps of L4, E-M35, U6, M1, L6, etc. Apartheid is your words, but these haplogroups show a clear geography-based distribution pattern.
What do you call these largely uncorrelated distributions?
Peaks in 2-3 main areas: West African coast line (peaking in equitorial West African coast and staying steady into the Mauritania coastline where it starts tapering off). There's another peak area or two in east Africa. We also do not see a tapering effect that relies exclisvely on distance from the sahara. South Africa and east African coastlines as well as the distance from the Sahel show a tapering effect. I guess people can say that the peak points are in SSA but it's like injecting science into a preexisting construct. A lot of the genetic data is found in this sociopolitical area called "SSA" but it doesn't validate SSA as a ecological or genetic cluster (which I was not arguing that you or beyoku were saying, Doug was).
figure A (M1?) has peak points in areas north and south of the Sahara (like the horn). A nice example of some haplogroups not fitting neatly within sociopolitical lines.
Again, trying to obscure clear hg distribution patterns with irrelevant bi-directional migrations.
What are you talking about? M1 peaks in the horn AND in North East Africa. These are the two largest distributions. There are two distribution patterns, one in the Sahara, one outside. Even if we're going to say migrations are the reason, those people are not "Saharan" people. They are Native to a different location and are adapting to that areas ecosystem.
quote: You're not addressing what anyone is saying. You're too busy trying to push back against things you don't like based on pure wishful thinking.
This is what you said:
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: There isn't a haplogroup that is subject to some geological apartheid barrier
Based on the distribution of M1, U6 and the other aforementioned hgs, your claim is not supported. There is a clear geographical pattern over large regions, local contradictions (due to migrations) notwithstanding.
Some haplogroups will peak in areas north and south of the Sahara, but this doesn't make the idea of assigning genetics to this dichotomy valid in my opinion. U6's distribution is very localized within the Sahara. It's an example of a haplogroup inside of the Sahara, but it doesn't justify "Sub Saharan Africa" as an ecological or genetic cluster. M1 has distribution with peak points reaching inside and outside of the Sahara.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
You went from disputing haplogroup geographical barriers to acknowledging a northeast + East African distribution pattern of at least some hgs. I think I've made my point.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was disputing Sub Saharan Africa/ Saharan Africa as a dichotomy. M1 shows peak points inside and outside of the Sahara. I was not arguing that haplogroups are evenly distributed throughout Africa or that they are of one group.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: I don't really have to care about genetic distances because white supremacists don't care what your genetic composition is. If you look a certain way, you're getting treated a certain way with assumptions made left and right. Diasporan blacks do not have to look like Nigerians and can have mixed Eurasian ancestry while still treated as black. Black can encompass Egyptian features. The sociopolitical craziness is pretty much over except for those stupid race realists who are so hung up on trying to make race real they'll distort anything they can get their hands onto..
This is so real.
Black Texas congressman Al Green says he has been threatened with LYNCHING after calling for Trump's impeachment
So how do you know most M1 in the Horn and areas south didn't arrive there relatively recently?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Are these ecologists, botanists and zoologists "waycists" and "white supremacists" because they separate the northernmost of African continent (above the tropics) to the rest?
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
Even if we're going to say migrations are the reason, those people are not "Saharan" people.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
That answers my question. This may be the first time you saw that map, yet you jumped to conclusions as far as the meaning of this haplogroup's distribution. You are the only one doing this:
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: I guess people can say that the peak points are in SSA but it's like injecting science into a preexisting construct.[
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: A nice example of some haplogroups not fitting neatly within sociopolitical lines.
Oh Sub Saharan includes now: the southern and eastern fringes of the Arabian Peninsula, southern Iran, extreme southwestern Pakistan and the islands of the western Indian Ocean. And I do find it a bit odd that the subtropics of Southern Africa are included but not of northern Africa. It's still not SSA. Struggling so hard to make SSA work.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: That answers my question. This may be the first time you saw that map, yet you jumped to conclusions as far as the meaning of this haplogroups distribution. You are the only one doing this:
Whatever conclusions you're concluding I jumped to, M1 is in both the Sahara, and outside of it.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Which no one disputed. So, as has been observed before, you're attacking strawmen.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: [QB] @ Oshun can you stop trying to mask your dishonest pan-African intentions and politics?
Back in February, 2017 I posted this to you:
quote:Afrocentrists* have also modified their position to realise the Egyptians were Saharan [North] Africans, not Sub-Saharan Africans. My only issue with the latter is that they still call Saharan Africans "black"; the average skin colour of northern Saharan peoples, including modern Egyptians, is too light to be labelled black and living Egyptians do not consider themselves to be black either.
Most commonly "black" as a social construct is not (edit:strictly) referring to people with jet black or dark brown skin. People throughout the diaspora are being treated as black with the same complexions they see that people have North Africa. With comparable admixture as well. Please STFU, you're not going to overtalk what black people experience because of what you and your idiot white supremacist brethren find inconvenient.
quote:Your response to the above was rejecting this intellectual-honest shift and to criticize those posters arguing for the Saharan theory.
I just said that if people were going to discuss people by ecological constructs when discussing the Sahara (particularly in comparative terms), they should do it for the areas south of it. SSA is not an ecological construct. You've been trying (and failing) repeatedly to force SSA as a legitimate construct. Accepting that the various ecosystems are probably more valid to compare (than SSA) doesn't make the people living and adapting to those areas any more genetically related. It does not create a backdoor avenue to argue west Africans share the same haplogroup or something. In fact I would think it actually makes it harder. Because horners that may share M1 with some Egyptians don't risk being averaged against a west African. But you want a "Pan SSA" identity because it suits your interests.
quote: Secondly like Bass did to Swenet, you bogusly accused me of "true negro stereotyping" for merely pointing out Saharan's do not cluster biologically with populations below the Sahara.
Stop riding Swenet's jock. To repeat myself: Saharans NOT clustering (genetically) with many (if not most) of the populations south of the Sahara does not mean the "SSA" is suddenly a justifiable construct. If Saharans do not cluster with populations outside of their biome, it doesn't mean that everyone outside of it are one group.
quote: One of your pan-African arguments is since the Sahara desert today once had a different climate (for short interval periods), somehow that means there is no biological distinction between SSA's and North Africans.
I'm not even saying that there aren't distinctions between SSA, much less them and people living in the Sahara. Lower the dose of whatever you're on. Egyptians did have different ecological niches depending on where they lived and it DID seem to create differentiation among earlier period Egyptians. Some of the adaptions they had included tropical characteristics.
quote: Morant (1925) and Batrawi (1946) also found significant differences between Predynastic Upper Egyptians and, represented by Naqada and those from Lower Egypt, represented by Giza. Subsequent investigations using different sets of variables and more sophisticated statistical analysis, have confirmed that marked differences existed between Predynastic and Early Dynastic samples from the north and south of Egypt, and that these differences decreased in later period (Chichton 1966; Hillson 1978; Keita 1002, 1995, 1996).
quote:The findings presented here indicate that the north-south differences reported for Predynastic and Early Dynastic populations in Egypt were not due to large-scale population movements out of the southern Levant in the Neolithic or Predynastic period. Rather, they appear to reflect the long-term effect of differentiation between small, localized groups of hunters and gatherers exploiting different ecological niches. Having said this, it must be emphasized that these results are constrained by the small sample sizes available for the sites discussed here, and the limited number of sites represented.
The Palaeo-Biological Evidence for Admixture between Populations in the Southern Levant and Egypt in the Fourth to Third Millennia BCE
quote:[QUOTE]For thousands of years there had been NO Sahara. The Sahara had just started coming back, which forced many populations that made kemet to move towards the Nile in the first place. Its so amazingly stupid that African Americans are called sub saharans despite being centuries removed from Sub Saharan Africa.
In conclusion, you're in the same boat as Charlie Bass, Zaharan etc. Pan-Africanist.
You're crying pan africanism but pan Africanism would only be feasibly built on common histories or economic interests, not genetic closeness. That is largely irrelevant. And "blackness" isn't scientific either, so that's another irrelevant conversation. When we look at the adaptations Egyptians had, they had adaptions sufficient for the tropics, the Sahara and even Mediterranean. It is reflected in their remains. This isn't saying that Egyptians were related to modern west Africans and that all people that lived outside of a Saharan environment were related back then, but they didn't all live in a Sahara climate for the entire period of Egyptian history. Egyptians for this reason had tropical adaptations.
And as irrelevant as this is, I'm going to say this so that I can hopefully paste it whenever you next decide you're going to derail what I've said on cries of political woe: I don't really -need- to be in this for any anti white supremacist motive. White Supremacists judge people based on appearances, and the variability of the average upper Egyptian is fairly attuned with people being judged as black. In the States people being classified as black look like Egyptians in terms of skin tone and hair texture.
I don't really have to care about genetic distances because white supremacists don't care what your genetic composition is. If you look a certain way, you're getting treated a certain way with assumptions of your character made left and right. Diasporan blacks do not have to look like Nigerians, can have mixed Eurasian ancestry and still get treated as black. So "black" as a sociopolitical construct can encompass Egyptian features. You will of course deny what millions of blacks are experiencing as though you being a white guy with smug ass opinion is going to suddenly wash away a lifetime of experience. The sociopolitical craziness is pretty much over except for those stupid race realists who are so hung up on trying to make race real they'll distort anything they can get their hands onto.
White supremacist this, white supremacist that, racist this, racist that. You're a typical race obsessed African-American loon with gigantic chip on your shoulder.
When I mention skin pigmentation, it has ~nothing~ to do with your race obsession. I'm simply talking about skin colour (measurable by Luschan's colorimetric tiles and reflectance spectroscopy), not a socio-political theory of race. I don't care about the latter, never have done. If we went to the Arctic and asked Eskimos what race the ancient Egyptians were, they would have their own classification. This is called folk biology. The Bushmen have their own classification of humans, they only recognise two divisions, themselves and everyone else. Should we take this serious? No one cares how African-Americans define "black" in the social sense, especially considering how stupid the one-drop rule can label someone who looks like Britney Spears or Melania Trump as "black".
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
We're talking about how African Americans define "black" and what that means with respect to how blacks recognize each other and are treated (not the one drop rule). Most blacks don't use the one drop rule anymore. Let's not pretend that the concept of "blackness" and the treatment of blacks isn't far reaching in impact (ex: neocolonialism and pillaging of blacks justified by racism). The scale of how this effects billions of people is not comparable to the Bushman's classifications of humans. You are not slick. Most African American's visually recognized as black fit the phenotypes of people they see in Egypt.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: White supremacist this, white supremacist that, racist this, racist that. You're a typical race obsessed African-American loon with gigantic chip on your shoulder.
Afrocentrist this Afrocentrist that. C. Coon this C. Coon that. It's funny to read that you are blaming people for being "race obsessive". lol smh Do you have any idea how ridiculous that reads / sounds?
Come and expose yourself again:
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: When I mention skin pigmentation, it has ~nothing~ to do with your race obsession. I'm simply talking about skin colour (measurable by Luschan's colorimetric tiles and reflectance spectroscopy), not a socio-political theory of race. I don't care about the latter, never have done.
LOL This one is one is the most ridiculous claims by you. All you do is fragment people based on supposed biological race-theories. These come straight out of the white supremacy dorm room. You are a detriment individual with a colonial-mindset, of the worse kind.
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: If we went to the Arctic and asked Eskimos what race the ancient Egyptians were, they would have their own classification.
Exactly, so that crushes your: we the "white decide" theories.
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: This is called folk biology.
Of which you understand very little. With all this arbitrary, fragmented data and arguments you use to create your own white narative on how things should be.
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: The Bushmen have their own classification of humans, they only recognise two divisions, themselves and everyone else.
quote:FIG. 3.— Schematogram of phylogency of major mtDNA haplotype lineages based on Gonder et al. (2007) and frequencies (%) of major mtDNA haplogroups in a set of African populations. mtDNA haplotype fequencies determined within the current study are shown in bold: Burunge, Datog, Hadza, Sandawe, Sukuma, Turu, !Xun/Khwe, and Bakola Pygmies. Locations of populations are abbreviated as: Bo, Botswana; CA, Central Africa; Et, Ethiopia; Mz, Mozambique; Nm, Namibia; SA, South Africa; Tz, Tanzania; and WA, western Africa. Haplogroup designations for samples produced for this study follow Salas et al. (2002; 2004) and Kivilsild et al. (2004). Samples classified as EA (column heading) were defined as Eurasian by Rosa et al. (2004); these sequences are all non-L's, M1, or U6 sequences. L1*, L2*, and L3* from previous studies indicate samples that were not further subdivided into subhaplogroups. L2* and L3* from this study indicate samples that were tested for SNP variation but did not fit into known haplogroup classifications. Samples labeled Sukuma I (Knight et al. 2003) were combined with Sukuma II samples for additional analyses by MDIV.
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: Should we take this serious? No one cares how African-Americans define "black" in the social sense, especially considering how stupid the one-drop rule can label someone who looks like Britney Spears or Melania Trump as "black".
This is your dumbest and most hateful argument thus far.
My advice is to go to NY, Malcolm-X Boulevard and rant that stuff over there. I will read the backend story in the New York Times.
See here is where it is at, big blister of ignorance.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Which no one disputed. So, as has been observed before, you're attacking strawmen.
I didn't say anyone disputed M1 was found below and above the Sahara, it's called reemphasizing data that relates to a previous point.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: Oh Sub Saharan includes now: the southern and eastern fringes of the Arabian Peninsula, southern Iran, extreme southwestern Pakistan and the islands of the western Indian Ocean. And I do find it a bit odd that the subtropics of Southern Africa are included but not of northern Africa. It's still not SSA. Struggling so hard to make SSA work.
Even better is the fact that several conceptions of "Afrotropics" are out there.
From his own wiki link
As expected everything but North Africa is included...but wait, as you pointed out so are the Arabian peninsula states. So are Gulf Arabs black now?
From BBC nature, the furthest thing from an afrocentrist publication if I've ever seen one.
Funny how on this one most of the Sahara-Sahel region is excluded on this one.
From Rhodes University
I think my point has been made. Also funny how these bioregions are demarcated by environmental, floral, and faunal factors among others yet numerous organisms found in the "Afrotropics" are also present in North Africa and are even depicted in Ancient Egyptian art.
*p.s. also note how the wiki article states the Afrotropics includes Africa south of the Sahara yet the wiki image includes African states that are partially Saharan such as Sudan.
Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Which no one disputed. So, as has been observed before, you're attacking strawmen.
I didn't say anyone disputed M1 was found below and above the Sahara, it's called reemphasizing data that relates to a previous point.
What is the point of "reemphasizing data" when you're not addressing anyone's point? You still haven't addressed anyone's point. All you've done is repeatedly spammed the irrelevant fact that SSA populations are diverse, pointed out that M1 occurs in the Horn, stressed that mtDNA L is not a single marker, etc. None of these things you keep raising have anything to do with the subject matter at hand. Nor are they disputed by the people you're supposedly addressing.
Let me just withdraw from this discussion.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Which no one disputed. So, as has been observed before, you're attacking strawmen.
I didn't say anyone disputed M1 was found below and above the Sahara, it's called reemphasizing data that relates to a previous point.
What is the point of "reemphasizing data" when you're not addressing anyone's point? You still haven't addressed anyone's point. All you've done is repeatedly spammed the irrelevant fact that SSA populations are diverse, pointed out that M1 occurs in the Horn, stressed that mtDNA L is not a single marker, etc. None of these things you keep raising have anything to do with the subject matter at hand. Nor are they disputed by the people you're supposedly addressing.
You said:
quote:It's easy to swap what people are actually saying (the genetic rift between North Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa being one of the most informative axes of variation in Africa), for something that's an easy target to take down, like "there was no apartheid as there was bi-directional migration".
You seem to essentially be arguing that Saharan and Sub Saharan Africa are valid genetic constructs, insisting that it is an "informative axes" of variation. But then if we were to view the distribution of Haplogroup M1 with respect to modern Egypt and neighboring areas south of the Sahara, it's not. You can argue whatever you want with respect to "recent migrations" but it doesn't change that with respect to haplogroup distributions and geological/ecological locations they will not always neatly fit within a Sahara/Sub Saharan dichotomy.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
Did African-Americans come up with the one drop rule? Yeah, that's right. Condemn them for not having any involvement in its creation.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's easy to swap what people are actually saying (the genetic rift between North Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa being one of the most informative axes of variation in Africa), for something that's an easy target to take down, like "there was no apartheid as there was bi-directional migration".
You seem to essentially be arguing that Saharan and Sub Saharan Africa are valid genetic constructs, insisting that it is an "informative axes" of variation. But then if we were to view the distribution of Haplogroup M1 with respect to modern Egypt and neighboring areas south of the Sahara, it's not. You can argue whatever you want with respect to "recent migrations" but it doesn't change that with respect to haplogroup distributions and geological/ecological locations they will not always neatly fit within a Sahara/Sub Saharan dichotomy. [/qb]
Wow. You just took my quote to a whole 'nother galaxy. And you're proving my point that you're not responding to what people are saying. Look what I say about bi-directional migration in that excerpt you just quoted:
quote:ORiginally posted by Swenet: for something that's an easy target to take down, like "there was no apartheid as there was bi-directional migration"
^When you talk about M1 in the Horn you're doing exactly that; you're using recent migrations as an easy target to distract from what people are saying. Lol.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Did African-Americans come up with the one drop rule? Yeah, that's right. Condemn them for not having any involvement in its creation.
White Americans are as bad as African-Americans. I don't like either of them. Like African-Americans, White Americans have an identity crisis. Afrocentrism, white nationalism, KKK, black Hebrew Israelites, nation of Islam, are all American. America is the land of mental illness. Don't also forget the hick Christian evangelical nuts who think the world is 6000 years.
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: Oh Sub Saharan includes now: the southern and eastern fringes of the Arabian Peninsula, southern Iran, extreme southwestern Pakistan and the islands of the western Indian Ocean. And I do find it a bit odd that the subtropics of Southern Africa are included but not of northern Africa. It's still not SSA. Struggling so hard to make SSA work.
Even better is the fact that several conceptions of "Afrotropics" are out there.
From his own wiki link
As expected everything but North Africa is included...but wait, as you pointed out so are the Arabian peninsula states. So are Gulf Arabs black now?
From BBC nature, the furthest thing from an afrocentrist population if I've ever seen one.
Funny how on this one most of the Sahara-Sahel region is excluded on this one.
From Rhodes University
I think my point has been made. Also funny how these bioregions are demarcated by environmental, floral, and faunal factors among others yet numerous organisms found in the "Afrotropics" are also present in North Africa and are even depicted in Ancient Egyptian art.
*p.s. also note how the wiki article states the Afrotropics includes Africa south of the Sahara yet the wiki image includes African states that are partially Saharan such as Sudan.
The part these folks missed is the Sahel. They need to stop with their ridiculous misguided nonsense. And the Northern coastal, nor the the Atlas is part of the desert (Sahara). It is very important to understand this in terms of genetic-mutation, adaption, situ-development. etc.
quote:Our results demonstrate an ancient local evolution in Tunisia of some African haplogroups (L2a, L3*, and L3b). […]
—Frigi et al.
Ancient Local Evolution of African mtDNA Haplogroups in Tunisian Berber Populations
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
Did African-Americans come up with the one drop rule? Yeah, that's right. Condemn them for not having any involvement in its creation.
White Americans are as bad as African-Americans. I don't like either of them. Like African-Americans, White Americans have an identity crisis. Afrocentrism, white nationalism, KKK, black Hebrew Israelites, nation of Islam, are all American. America is the land of mental illness. Don't also forget the hick Christian evangelical nuts who think the world is 6000 years.
Did it ever occur to you that there wouldn't have been no black Hebrew Israelites, Nation of Islam etc. if not for the constant terrorisms on the black community, by whites involved in the KKK and other aforementioned terrorist groups.
"White Americans are as bad as African-Americans." lol smh
Thanks for exposing your bigoted stupidly once more. You lack every sense of logical reasoning, but also have low evolved empathy.
When Museums Tackle Tough Topics: Race, Science, and the Penn Museum
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: There isn't a haplogroup that is subject to some geological apartheid barrier
You clearly haven't seen any maps of L4, E-M35, U6, M1, L6, etc. Apartheid is your words, but these haplogroups show a clear geography-based distribution pattern.
What do you call these largely uncorrelated distributions?
Peaks in 2-3 main areas: West African coast line (peaking in equitorial West African coast and staying steady into the Mauritania coastline where it starts tapering off). There's another peak area or two in east Africa. We also do not see a tapering effect that relies exclisvely on distance from the sahara. South Africa and east African coastlines as well as the distance from the Sahel show a tapering effect. I guess people can say that the peak points are in SSA but it's like injecting science into a preexisting construct. A lot of the genetic data is found in this sociopolitical area called "SSA" but it doesn't validate SSA as a ecological or genetic cluster (which I was not arguing that you or beyoku were saying, Doug was).
figure A (M1?) has peak points in areas north and south of the Sahara (like the horn). A nice example of some haplogroups not fitting neatly within sociopolitical lines.
Again, trying to obscure clear hg distribution patterns with irrelevant bi-directional migrations.
What are you talking about? M1 peaks in the horn AND in North East Africa. These are the two largest distributions. There are two distribution patterns, one in the Sahara, one outside. Even if we're going to say migrations are the reason, those people are not "Saharan" people. They are Native to a different location and are adapting to that areas ecosystem.
quote: You're not addressing what anyone is saying. You're too busy trying to push back against things you don't like based on pure wishful thinking.
This is what you said:
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: There isn't a haplogroup that is subject to some geological apartheid barrier
Based on the distribution of M1, U6 and the other aforementioned hgs, your claim is not supported. There is a clear geographical pattern over large regions, local contradictions (due to migrations) notwithstanding.
Some haplogroups will peak in areas north and south of the Sahara, but this doesn't make the idea of assigning genetics to this dichotomy valid in my opinion. U6's distribution is very localized within the Sahara. It's an example of a haplogroup inside of the Sahara, but it doesn't justify "Sub Saharan Africa" as an ecological or genetic cluster. M1 has distribution with peak points reaching inside and outside of the Sahara.
No single Haplogroup defines a population and that is why this whole argument is silly. Not to mention we are talking about current populations. As far as the historic distribution of these lineages most of it is theoretical because of the limited number of remains that have been sampled.
There are numerous genetic lineages in modern North African populations making this argument of genetic isolation between North Africa and Sub Saharan Africa a false dichotomy. Not to mention this doesn't extend back 50,000 years ago as populations moved around too much between now and then to make any suggestion that the modern distribution of haplogroups reflects ancient patterns. What you see today are simply the lineages that survived and does not tell you ALL the lineages that existed across space and time in North Africa. What haplogroups did the Uam Muhaggiang mummy carry? People need to stop with the oversimplification of population dynamics.
quote: The North African mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) genetic pool has been shown to reflect influence from different regions, with sizeable portions of lineages from Sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East, and others that diversified perhaps first in Europe [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10], a pattern also shown with autosomal data [11]. The geographic patterns of some of the haplogroups that constitute the North African mtDNA pool have been singled out as being more informative about early population histories than others; for example, the variation in haplogroup U6 [1, 12], a haplogroup that has been termed “the main indigenous North African cluster” [13], and, to a lesser extent the variation in M1, which is more predominantly found in Eastern Africa/Ethiopia [14, 15, 16]. U6 and M1 both share the feature of being African-specific sub-clades of haplogroups otherwise spread only in non-African populations. Indeed, whilst most U clades are found in North Africa and in Eurasia, as far as the Ganges Basin, U6 is virtually restricted to North (West) Africa. For macro-haplogroup M, this African connection is even more puzzling, as haplogroups belonging to M are mostly found only in South, Central and East Asia, the Americas and Oceania, where no M1 has yet been reported.
The Palaeolithic archaeological record of North Africa is spatially and temporally diverse, revealing a variety of technological shifts during the later Pleistocene period. The Aterian, a regional variant of the Middle Palaeolithic (or Middle Stone Age), was previously thought to have existed ~40,000–20,000 years ago (KYA), and argued to mark the earliest modern humans in North Africa. These dates have been drastically reassessed and the upper bound is now closer to ~115 KYA [17] or even as old as ~145 KYA [18]. The transition from the Middle Palaeolithic to Upper Palaeolithic in North Africa is characterised by the appearance of the “Dabban”, an industry that is restricted to Cyrenaica in northeast Libya and represented at the caves of Hagfet ed Dabba and Haua Fteah [19]. Whilst a techno-typological shift occurred within the Dabban ~33 KYA [19], starker changes in the archaeological record occurred throughout North Africa and Southwest Asia ~23-20 KYA, represented by the widespread appearance of backed bladelet technologies. The appearance of these backed bladelet industries more or less coincides with the timing of the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) (~23-18 KYA), including: ~21 KYA in Upper Egypt [20]; ~20 KYA at Haua Fteah with the Oranian [21]; the Iberomaurusian expansion in the Jebel Gharbi ~20 KYA [22]; and the first Iberomaurusian at Tamar Hat in Algeria ~20 KYA [23]. The earliest Iberomaurusian sites in Morocco appear to be only slightly younger ~18 KYA [24]. Whilst backed bladelet production is broadly shared across the different regions of North and East Africa, there was also a level of regional cultural diversity during this period, possibly mirroring a diversification of populations. The Sahara Desert expanded considerably during the LGM, perhaps concentrating human groups along the North African coastal belt and the Nile Valley. Climatic conditions improved in North Africa ~15 KYA, marking the beginning of a dramatic arid-to-humid transition [25]. This increase in humidity may have opened up ecological corridors, connecting North and Sub-Saharan Africa and allowing population dispersals between the two regions. An additional arid-humid transition occurred at 11.5–11 KYA [25]; this period coincides with a widespread change in the archaeological record that marks the beginning of Capsian lithic technologies. The Capsian is argued to have developed in situ in North Africa, marking a continuity from the Iberomaurusian and Oranian into the Capsian [21, 24, 26].
The saharan pump theory demolishes the idea of a historic divide between North and Africa South of the Sahara. the current distribution of some haplogroups today are only a faint echo of populations that existed in the past. They only tell you somewhat about those populations that survived in North Africa as part of the latest wave of migrations. There is not enough data from human remains over the period from 40kya to 10kya to fill in the gaps. But we know the Sahara was environmentally in flux over this period so it is impossible to calculate all the migration scenarios that occurred during this time. As far as we know those M lineages could have spanned the entire width of North Africa at some point and well to the south along with other lineages. But there is no way to know that without remains and DNA samples over that time period.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's easy to swap what people are actually saying (the genetic rift between North Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa being one of the most informative axes of variation in Africa), for something that's an easy target to take down, like "there was no apartheid as there was bi-directional migration".
You seem to essentially be arguing that Saharan and Sub Saharan Africa are valid genetic constructs, insisting that it is an "informative axes" of variation. But then if we were to view the distribution of Haplogroup M1 with respect to modern Egypt and neighboring areas south of the Sahara, it's not. You can argue whatever you want with respect to "recent migrations" but it doesn't change that with respect to haplogroup distributions and geological/ecological locations they will not always neatly fit within a Sahara/Sub Saharan dichotomy.
Wow. You just took my quote to a whole 'nother galaxy.
Oh hi I thought you were leaving?
quote: And you're proving my point that you're not responding to what people are saying. Look what I say about bi-directional migration in that excerpt you just quoted:
quote:ORiginally posted by Swenet: for something that's an easy target to take down, like "there was no apartheid as there was bi-directional migration"
^When you talk about M1 in the Horn you're doing exactly that; you're using recent migrations as an easy target to distract from what people are saying. Lol. [/QB]
You're not even responding anymore. You're just saying " this doesn't respond to my point." "your not responding to what people are saying." That's not outlining how. Anyone can say this in a disagreement.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bottom line the game being played here is mislabeling African origins of many ancient DNA lineages as "Eurasian admixture".... And no Africas genetic diversity is not fully documented. So to have folks talking about "Afrocentric" distortion but not pointing out the obvious Eurasiacentric distortion is simply hypocritical....
Do a search for West African DNA history and you will get more articles about Eurasian backmigration than you will about West African DNA....
And this is why reports like this can come out and not be challenged:
quote: Introduction
African genetic diversity is still incompletely understood, and vast regions in Africa remain genetically undocumented. Chad, for example, makes up ∼5% of Africa’s surface area, and its central location, connecting sub-Saharan Africa with North and East Africa, positions it to play an important role as a crossroad or barrier to human migrations. However, Chad has been little studied at a whole-genome level, and its position within African genetic diversity is not well known. With 200 ethnic groups and more than 120 indigenous languages and dialects, Chad has extensive ethnolinguistic diversity.1 It has been suggested that this diversity can be attributed to Lake Chad, which has attracted human populations to its fertile surroundings since prehistoric times, especially after the progressive desiccation of the Sahara starting ∼7,000 years ago (ya).2 ; 3
Important questions about Africa’s ethnic diversity are the relationships among the different groups and the relationships between cultural groups and existing genetic structures. In the present study, we analyzed four Chadian populations with different ethnicities, languages, and modes of subsistence. Our samples are likely to capture recent genetic signals of migration and mixing and also have the potential to show ancestral genomic relationships that are shared among Chadians and other populations. An additional major question relates to the prehistoric Eurasian migrations to Africa: what was the extent of these migrations, how have they affected African genetic diversity, and what present-day populations harbor genetic signals from the ancient migrating Eurasians? We have previously reported evidence of gene flow from the Near East to East Africa ∼3,000 ya, as well as subsequent selection in Ethiopians on non-African-derived alleles related to light skin pigmentation.4 A recent attempt to quantify the extent of such backflow into Africa more generally, by using ancient DNA (aDNA), suggested that the impact of the Eurasian migration was mostly limited to East Africa.5 However, previous studies using mitochondrial DNA and the Y chromosome in populations from the Chad Basin found some with an East African6 or Mediterranean and Eurasian influence,7 ; 8 and analysis based on genome-wide data9 found a non-African component (suggested to be from East Africa) in central Sahelian populations. Thus, studying diverse Chadian populations on a whole-genome level presents an opportunity to shed more light on the history of African-Eurasian mixtures, including whether or not selection after admixture is a widespread phenomenon in Africa and how the historical events in Chad are related to events that have occurred elsewhere in Africa and the Near East.
Hence the Sub Saharan genetic ghetto where ancient DNA diversity is simply chalked up to "EUrasian backmigration" with no serious effort to go any further.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"You cannot separate fruits from vegetables because not all fruit is the same."
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Bottom line the game being played here is mislabeling African origins of many ancient DNA lineages as "Eurasian admixture".... And no Africas genetic diversity is not fully documented. So to have folks talking about "Afrocentric" distortion but not pointing out the obvious Eurasiacentric distortion is simply hypocritical....
I read a study that originally argued west African mixture, but it turned out it was an error.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Bottom line the game being played here is mislabeling African origins of many ancient DNA lineages as "Eurasian admixture".... And no Africas genetic diversity is not fully documented. So to have folks talking about "Afrocentric" distortion but not pointing out the obvious Eurasiacentric distortion is simply hypocritical....
I read a study that originally argued west African mixture, but it turned out it was an error.
That is the point. They are over generalizing and using flawed methods to try and estimate mixture but over emphasizing "backflow" without documenting the corresponding outflow from Africa to Eurasia. According to these studies you would think Africans just sat in their "sub saharan" ghettoes for thousands of years and didn't move anywhere and hence are only diverse because of Eurasian admixture. As if Eurasia was genetically isolated from Africa after OOA.
But hey, this seems obvious to me.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: "You cannot separate fruits from vegetables because not all fruit is the same."
To establish a dichotomic difference, you need to find that which a vegetable has that a fruit cannot. If there is a SSA and Saharan dichotomy for genetics then haplogroup data we see peaking in North Africa shouldn't also be peaking in certain arts of "SSA."
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Bottom line the game being played here is mislabeling African origins of many ancient DNA lineages as "Eurasian admixture".... And no Africas genetic diversity is not fully documented. So to have folks talking about "Afrocentric" distortion but not pointing out the obvious Eurasiacentric distortion is simply hypocritical....
I read a study that originally argued west African mixture, but it turned out it was an error.
That is the point. They are over generalizing and using flawed methods to try and estimate mixture but over emphasizing "backflow" without documenting the corresponding outflow from Africa to Eurasia. According to these studies you would think Africans just sat in their "sub saharan" ghettoes for thousands of years and didn't move anywhere and hence are only diverse because of Eurasian admixture. As if Eurasia was genetically isolated from Africa after OOA.
But hey, this seems obvious to me.
I don't think that geneticists are suggesting Africa (especially SSA) needs Eurasia to be diverse. We also know from the Tichitt tradition that Africans in the Sahara did move south. I don't want to assume everyone in academia has a nefarious interest but I don't agree SSA/Sahara is a good genetic dichotomy or a ecological one. I do think it may be fair to at least consider the Sahara as an ecological construct with localized adaptations. But the Sahara as an ecological construct wouldn't validate everything below it to be a singular unit.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: "You cannot separate fruits from vegetables because not all fruit is the same."
To establish a dichotomic difference, you need to find that which a vegetable has that a fruit cannot. If there is a SSA and Saharan dichotomy for genetics then haplogroup data we see peaking in North Africa shouldn't also be peaking in certain arts of "SSA."
that's like comparing apples and oranges, two different races of fruit
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Bottom line the game being played here is mislabeling African origins of many ancient DNA lineages as "Eurasian admixture".... And no Africas genetic diversity is not fully documented. So to have folks talking about "Afrocentric" distortion but not pointing out the obvious Eurasiacentric distortion is simply hypocritical....
Do a search for West African DNA history and you will get more articles about Eurasian backmigration than you will about West African DNA....
And this is why reports like this can come out and not be challenged:
quote: Introduction
African genetic diversity is still incompletely understood, and vast regions in Africa remain genetically undocumented. Chad, for example, makes up ∼5% of Africa’s surface area, and its central location, connecting sub-Saharan Africa with North and East Africa, positions it to play an important role as a crossroad or barrier to human migrations. However, Chad has been little studied at a whole-genome level, and its position within African genetic diversity is not well known. With 200 ethnic groups and more than 120 indigenous languages and dialects, Chad has extensive ethnolinguistic diversity.1 It has been suggested that this diversity can be attributed to Lake Chad, which has attracted human populations to its fertile surroundings since prehistoric times, especially after the progressive desiccation of the Sahara starting ∼7,000 years ago (ya).2 ; 3
Important questions about Africa’s ethnic diversity are the relationships among the different groups and the relationships between cultural groups and existing genetic structures. In the present study, we analyzed four Chadian populations with different ethnicities, languages, and modes of subsistence. Our samples are likely to capture recent genetic signals of migration and mixing and also have the potential to show ancestral genomic relationships that are shared among Chadians and other populations. An additional major question relates to the prehistoric Eurasian migrations to Africa: what was the extent of these migrations, how have they affected African genetic diversity, and what present-day populations harbor genetic signals from the ancient migrating Eurasians? We have previously reported evidence of gene flow from the Near East to East Africa ∼3,000 ya, as well as subsequent selection in Ethiopians on non-African-derived alleles related to light skin pigmentation.4 A recent attempt to quantify the extent of such backflow into Africa more generally, by using ancient DNA (aDNA), suggested that the impact of the Eurasian migration was mostly limited to East Africa.5 However, previous studies using mitochondrial DNA and the Y chromosome in populations from the Chad Basin found some with an East African6 or Mediterranean and Eurasian influence,7 ; 8 and analysis based on genome-wide data9 found a non-African component (suggested to be from East Africa) in central Sahelian populations. Thus, studying diverse Chadian populations on a whole-genome level presents an opportunity to shed more light on the history of African-Eurasian mixtures, including whether or not selection after admixture is a widespread phenomenon in Africa and how the historical events in Chad are related to events that have occurred elsewhere in Africa and the Near East.
Hence the Sub Saharan genetic ghetto where ancient DNA diversity is simply chalked up to "EUrasian backmigration" with no serious effort to go any further.
LOL. This article is basing its conclusion on the presence of R1b1a. In the paper they call it L761. R1b1a is nothing more than V88. V88 is not isolated in Chad, as a result the author of this article is lying.
As I said in an earlier post. It is only a matter of time before they declare that V88 is a European haplogroup, eventhough this hg is found throughout Africa.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
You're the person who has used a pan-African political concept of Africa for years to try to cluster SSA's with North Africans. Your hypocrisy is through the roof since you're now trying to criticize socio-politicalizing geographical regions when that is your agenda.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
lol smh 
Printer-friendly view of this topic