quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Anybody with a brain will see this for what it is. Keep looking until you find the data that suits your agenda. How many mummies from across ALL of Egypt are there in various European museums? So why did they pick these particular mummies from this particular time period? What about the previous DNA tests done on other mummies?
This study was supposedly to test the ability to extract full DNA profiles from ancient specimens. But of course they just had to throw some "forest Negroes" in there for comparison and to be the REAL purpose of the study. Seems to me if these folks really were serious they would try to do tests on ALL the mummies available, in and outside Egypt. Therefore, the fact that they try and use modern Yoruba as proxies for all Africans (not just Sub Saharan Africans) tells you everything. No populations close to Egypt in Africa were sampled. There is no definition of "indigenous North African" DNA. So for all this talk of "Sub Saharan" Africans, what DNA represents indigenous Nile Valley Africans? Or are we supposed to think that the Nile Valley never had an indigenous population except for "near Easterners".
Amazing.
quote: We observe highly similar haplogroup profiles between the three ancient groups (Fig. 3a), supported by low FST values (<0.05) and P values >0.1 for the continuity test. Modern Egyptians share this profile but in addition show a marked increase of African mtDNA lineages L0–L4 up to 20% (consistent with nuclear estimates of 80% non-African ancestry reported in Pagani et al.17). Genetic continuity between ancient and modern Egyptians cannot be ruled out by our formal test despite this sub-Saharan African influx, while continuity with modern Ethiopians17, who carry >60% African L lineages, is not supported (Supplementary Data 5).
..... On the nuclear level we merged the SNP data of our three ancient individuals with 2,367 modern individuals34,35 and 294 ancient genomes36 and performed PCA on the joined data set. We found the ancient Egyptian samples falling distinct from modern Egyptians, and closer towards Near Eastern and European samples (Fig. 4a, Supplementary Fig. 3, Supplementary Table 5). In contrast, modern Egyptians are shifted towards sub-Saharan African populations. Model-based clustering using ADMIXTURE37 (Fig. 4b, Supplementary Fig. 4) further supports these results and reveals that the three ancient Egyptians differ from modern Egyptians by a relatively larger Near Eastern genetic component, in particular a component found in Neolithic Levantine ancient individuals36 (Fig. 4b). In contrast, a substantially larger sub-Saharan African component, found primarily in West-African Yoruba, is seen in modern Egyptians compared to the ancient samples.
It also affirms what I said before, that "African" mtDNA lineages are limited to "L0-L4" lineages, while all other mtDNA lineages like M1 and U6 are considered non African. This means that the ONLY African lineages according to science are the mtDNA L lineages which just so happens to what folks call "sub saharan" Africa. Everything else, including the DNA in North Africa is supposedly "non African" as a result of ancient Eurasian back migration.
jackpot.... they love given half a** testing and they always will
Posts: 54 | From: va | Registered: Dec 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^^I mean did you guys even Read the f******* article, they admit themselves that this study doesnt represent all of Egypt
quote:However, we note that all our genetic data were obtained from a single site in Middle Egypt and may not be representative for all of ancient Egypt. It is possible that populations in the south of Egypt were more closely related to those of Nubia and had a higher sub-Saharan genetic component, in which case the argument for an influx of sub-Saharan ancestries after the Roman Period might only be partially valid and have to be nuanced. Throughout Pharaonic history there was intense interaction between Egypt and Nubia, ranging from trade to conquest and colonialism, and there is compelling evidence for ethnic complexity within households with Egyptian men marrying Nubian women and vice versa51,52,53. Clearly, more genetic studies on ancient human remains from southern Egypt and Sudan are needed before apodictic statements can be made.
They even agree with you jackasses when it comes to Southern Egypt...
but carry on, Whitey B Da Evil Devil N **** Trying to hide that we wuz kangs..
smdh
Typical, Now We will see how Doug can explain Abusir Egyptian becoming More SSA AFTER the Roman period
Dont hold your breath
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: ^Yeah, I'm not bothering with this... Swenet can but I wont. Totally misinterpreted everything I said.
I apologise since you feel I fouled you.
I asked you to clarify and expand on the Egyptians of the south of any era not being indigenous northern Africans since Nabta is in Egypt north Africa and even the Sudanese Libyan Western and Nubian deserts are 'North Africa' the same latitude as southernmost Algeria.
Please don't take personal offense. It's the idea I'm critiquing. I'm not being critical of you.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
That man Doug don't like to read shiatt... It's unbelievable. There's only 1 truth, 1 history if you confident in your studies and what you believe is true you shouldn't shy away & cover your eyes n ears. Evidence is evidence.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
You keep thinking that I am saying Ancient Egypt started from Lower Egypt. NO... I am NOT saying that. Hell I'm not even arguing to prove you wrong.
The thing is I am slowly seeing Egypt similar to how the Maghreb/Northwest Africa was populated.
We all know the oldest/indigenous Maghrbi people carried North African U6. However, those people were asborsbed by Northeast African proto-Berbers. Berbers still carry North African U6 but we KNOW the Berber culture came from the East and NOT the Maghreb.
I see something like this happening with Egypt. The early Egyptians were "Natufian-like" or basically Basel Eurasian but still African. But I personally think that after the drying of the Sahara those people in Egypt were later ABSORBED by Africans migrating from the South and West especially for Upper Egypt. Those Africans migrating from the South(especially) and West brought Egyptian culture/civilization.
Khoisan related ancestry is the oldest in South Africa but we know that Bantu speakers founded and brought civilizations that we associate with South Africa to that area. I personally think Lower Egypt contained more of that early/Basel Eurasian Egyptian ancestry compared to Upper Egypt.
ONCE AGAIN I AM NOT SAYING Egyptian Culture/Civilization came from Lower Egypt.
PS: And I know you are not attacking, but you being more informed on this than me should know I am NOT saying Ancient Egypt developed from the North... This is why I kinda disagree with Swenet with Upper Egypt hardly being SSA and these samples being representative for all Egyptians throughout the dynastic periods.
No need to apologize.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: ^^^^I mean did you guys even Read the f******* article, they admit themselves that this study doesnt represent all of Egypt
quote:However, we note that all our genetic data were obtained from a single site in Middle Egypt and may not be representative for all of ancient Egypt. It is possible that populations in the south of Egypt were more closely related to those of Nubia and had a higher sub-Saharan genetic component, in which case the argument for an influx of sub-Saharan ancestries after the Roman Period might only be partially valid and have to be nuanced. Throughout Pharaonic history there was intense interaction between Egypt and Nubia, ranging from trade to conquest and colonialism, and there is compelling evidence for ethnic complexity within households with Egyptian men marrying Nubian women and vice versa51,52,53. Clearly, more genetic studies on ancient human remains from southern Egypt and Sudan are needed before apodictic statements can be made.
They even agree with you jackasses when it comes to Southern Egypt...
but carry on, Whitey B Da Evil Devil N **** Trying to hide that we wuz kangs..
smdh
Typical, Now We will see how Doug can explain Abusir Egyptian becoming More SSA AFTER the Roman period
Dont hold your breath
You are missing the point. SSA is irrelevant to fully understanding African DNA and Egypt is not in Sub Saharan Africa and therefore, one would expect the AE to be indigenous to the Nile and not SSA populations. Again, you are not paying attention and for all your ranting you refuse to accept the history behind how North Africa has been cut off from the rest of Africa in scholarship. And modern DNA studies ALL SAY that North Africans are typified by mtDNA lineages M1 and U6 which they claim represents Eurasian back migration. So if that is the case what are the indigenous DNA lineages of Egypt if L lineages are "Sub Saharan" and M and U lineages are "Eurasian" what lineages are left? Either M1 and U6 originate in Africa or North Africans are primarily non African. Period. That is what is at play here and nothing else.
Like I said before, I don't buy into SSA as a signifier for African, because the true agenda here is to make L0-L4 lineages as the ONLY truly African lineages and that corresponds to SSA. Which means that North Africa has always been more closely related to "Eurasians" because of back migrations starting thousands of years ago.
Ultimately the point is to sample all the dam DNA of existing mummies and stop playing games with little bits of data and trying extrapolate a conclusion from a limited data set. No much how you trying pretend otherwise, this study actually does just that. So it is worthless in understanding what everybody REALLY wants to know, which is what the DNA relationship was of the prime Ancient dynasties of Egypt not the late periods after they fell to foreign influence.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: That man Doug don't like to read shiatt... It's unbelievable. There's only 1 truth, 1 history if you confident in your studies and what you believe is true you shouldn't shy away & cover your eyes n ears. Evidence is evidence.
^^^^ Because no matter how they try to spin it Pan African Egypt, esp. those like Doug who advocate Diffusionist Pan Africanism gotta deal with what these results are saying, Abusir a territory in the Sacred Land of Kemet had a Eurasian population that became more SSA after the Roman period.
Now Doug et al realizes it Could have been a Eurasian Kemetian from Abusir Diffusing all that Afrikan knowledge to the Greeks...lol
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: @Tukuler
You keep thinking that I am saying Ancient Egypt started from Lower Egypt. NO... I am NOT saying that. Hell I'm not even arguing to prove you wrong.
The thing is I am slowly seeing Egypt similar to how the Maghreb/Northwest Africa was populated.
We all know the oldest/indigenous Maghrbi people carried North African U6. However, those people were asborsbed by Northeast African proto-Berbers. Berbers still carry North African U6 but we KNOW the Berber culture came from the East and NOT the Maghreb.
I see something like this happening with Egypt. The early Egyptians were "Natufian-like" or basically Basel Eurasian but still African. But I personally think that after the drying of the Sahara those people in Egypt were later ABSORBED by Africans migrating from the South and West especially for Upper Egypt. Those Africans migrating from the South(especially) and West brought Egyptian culture/civilization.
Khoisan related ancestry is the oldest in South Africa but we know that Bantu speakers founded and brought civilizations that we associate with South Africa to that area. I personally think Lower Egypt contained more of that early/Basel Eurasian Egyptian ancestry compared to Upper Egypt.
ONCE AGAIN I AM NOT SAYING Egyptian Culture/Civilization came from Lower Egypt.
PS: And I know you are not attacking, but you being more informed on this than me should know I am NOT saying Ancient Egypt developed from the North... This is why I kinda disagree with Swenet with Upper Egypt hardly being SSA and these samples being representative for all Egyptians throughout the dynastic periods.
No need to apologize.
What do you mean by basal Eurasian but still African?
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: ^^^^ Because no matter how they try to spin it Pan African Egypt, esp. those like Doug who advocate Diffusionist Pan Africanism gotta deal with what these results are saying, Abusir a territory in the Sacred Land of Kemet had a Eurasian population that became more SSA after the Roman period. It
Now Doug et al realizes it Could have been a Eurasian Kemetian from Abusir Diffusing all that Afrikan knowledge to the Greeks...lol
Dude give it up. Calling Egypt African is no more Pan Africanist than calling Greece European is Pan European. Because both are simply facts of history, biology and geography.
You guys are losing your minds trying to spin your nonsense instead of addressing the facts.
Where did ancient Egyptian culture and people originate:
1) the Near East 2) Africa
Simple straight forward question and certainly answering 2 is no more pan African than saying that the Mongols were Asian is pan Eurasian.
Like I said before, there should be a concept of 'indigenous' Nile Valley DNA that covers the tip of the Delta down to Aswan. The idea that they cannot find any "indigenous" lineages in this area are the problem as if to say that the entire Nile Valley is "foreign". We know that this is not the case but this is what is being put on the table. Either they were "Near Eastern" or they were "Sub Saharan", so what is "indigenous" then if not one of those two? So folks are setting up a situation where there cannot be an "indigenous" AE DNA lineage because they have already claimed most lineages that might be present in the Nile Valley as "foreign"....
Duh that can't be right.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The "we was wuz kangs" line was employed and popularized as a mocking and dismissive rhetorical grenade by people who openly mocked the very notion that Africans had civilizations and organised societies led by kings and would then have the gall to assert that fact. I'm really surprised that black posters have started using the "we wuz kangs" line. I saw this on FB from certain black posters and I'm wondering what message is actually conveyed and what is gained from it.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: ^^^^I mean did you guys even Read the f******* article, they admit themselves that this study doesnt represent all of Egypt
quote:However, we note that all our genetic data were obtained from a single site in Middle Egypt and may not be representative for all of ancient Egypt. It is possible that populations in the south of Egypt were more closely related to those of Nubia and had a higher sub-Saharan genetic component, in which case the argument for an influx of sub-Saharan ancestries after the Roman Period might only be partially valid and have to be nuanced. Throughout Pharaonic history there was intense interaction between Egypt and Nubia, ranging from trade to conquest and colonialism, and there is compelling evidence for ethnic complexity within households with Egyptian men marrying Nubian women and vice versa51,52,53. Clearly, more genetic studies on ancient human remains from southern Egypt and Sudan are needed before apodictic statements can be made.
They even agree with you jackasses when it comes to Southern Egypt...
but carry on, Whitey B Da Evil Devil N **** Trying to hide that we wuz kangs..
smdh
Typical, Now We will see how Doug can explain Abusir Egyptian becoming More SSA AFTER the Roman period
Dont hold your breath
Good **** Jari. I too kinda overlooked this. This is what happens when you have big studies like these. Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Dude give it up. Calling Egypt African is no more Pan Africanist than calling Greece European.
Yes but its alot more complicated than that. Dont forget that Africa is a very diverse continent, in that context its no surprise that certain populations esp. one as only as Egypt has its distinctions. Also Calling Greece "European" is also simplistic, Greece had population origins and contact with the Middle East and North Africa.
quote:You guys are losing your minds trying to spin your nonsense instead of addressing the facts.
Where did ancient Egyptian culture and people originate:
1) the Near East 2) Africa
Simple straight forward question and certainly answering 2 is no more pan African than saying that the Mongols were Asian.
The Culture mostly from Africa but the people is more complicated.
I have a question were the Scythians an Indo European people...Asian or European??
How about the Ancient Persians??
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Dude give it up. Calling Egypt African is no more Pan Africanist than calling Greece European.
Yes but its alot more complicated than that. Dont forget that Africa is a very diverse continent, in that context its no surprise that certain populations esp. one as only as Egypt has its distinctions. Also Calling Greece "European" is also simplistic, Greece had population origins and contact with the Middle East and North Africa.
quote:You guys are losing your minds trying to spin your nonsense instead of addressing the facts.
Where did ancient Egyptian culture and people originate:
1) the Near East 2) Africa
Simple straight forward question and certainly answering 2 is no more pan African than saying that the Mongols were Asian.
The Culture mostly from Africa but the people is more complicated.
I have a question were the Scythians an Indo European people...Asian or European??
How about the Ancient Persians??
No it isn't. Learn geography. Because otherwise what you are saying is Greece is kinda sorta in Europe but not really or China is kinda sorta in Asia but not really and those populations are kind of sorted related to others from the same region but not really.
Please.
Save me the retarded kindergarten playground talk.
The point of anthropology is to clarify and quantify the PRECISE relationships between populations and cultures within and across geographic lines. To claim that in any such study there isn't a concept of "African" or a concept of "Asian" and "European" is bull sh*t.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Its a mockery of diffusionist Afrocentrics like Mike111, Marc Washington, etc who claim every significant culture was created by blacks. Afrocentrics been claiming their ancestors and calling these people dehumanized Albinos...but they are in the wrong?
Except for Ancient Egypt, Ive never seen it used on videos and forums about authentic African History and Empires/Kingdoms.
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: The "we was wuz kangs" line was employed and popularized as a mocking and dismissive rhetorical grenade by people who openly mocked the very notion that Africans had civilizations and organised societies led by kings and would then have the gall to assert that fact. I'm really surprised that black posters have started using the "we wuz kangs" line. I saw this on FB from certain black posters and I'm wondering what message is actually conveyed and what is gained from it.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
There are strong arguments that "Basel Eurasian" can in fact be African. The did the Natufians not have mostly African E on their paternal side? To me Basel Eurasians are those who did not leave Africa yet but were just an ancestral population to Eurasians outside of Africa. I mean did E-M78 subclades not leave Africa through Egypt? Which is why according to certain studies Egyptians plot closer to Eurasians via genetic distance?
But more importantly what Beyoku posted to me(and I think here too) was some interesting **** that really forced me to entertain Basel Eurasian being African.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: @Tukuler
You keep thinking that I am saying Ancient Egypt started from Lower Egypt. NO... I am NOT saying that. Hell I'm not even arguing to prove you wrong.
The thing is I am slowly seeing Egypt similar to how the Maghreb/Northwest Africa was populated.
We all know the oldest/indigenous Maghrbi people carried North African U6. However, those people were asborsbed by Northeast African proto-Berbers. Berbers still carry North African U6 but we KNOW the Berber culture came from the East and NOT the Maghreb.
I see something like this happening with Egypt. The early Egyptians were "Natufian-like" or basically Basel Eurasian but still African. But I personally think that after the drying of the Sahara those people in Egypt were later ABSORBED by Africans migrating from the South and West especially for Upper Egypt. Those Africans migrating from the South(especially) and West brought Egyptian culture/civilization.
Khoisan related ancestry is the oldest in South Africa but we know that Bantu speakers founded and brought civilizations that we associate with South Africa to that area. I personally think Lower Egypt contained more of that early/Basel Eurasian Egyptian ancestry compared to Upper Egypt.
ONCE AGAIN I AM NOT SAYING Egyptian Culture/Civilization came from Lower Egypt.
PS: And I know you are not attacking, but you being more informed on this than me should know I am NOT saying Ancient Egypt developed from the North... This is why I kinda disagree with Swenet with Upper Egypt hardly being SSA and these samples being representative for all Egyptians throughout the dynastic periods.
No need to apologize.
What actual evidence do you have for the assertion that "early Egyptians" were "Natufian-like" or "Basal Eurasian" and that they were only then replaced by "migrating Africans" from the South? How and why do you suppose that these "Basal Eurasian" Egyptians precede the "migrating Africans"?
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
C'mon son.
Even per Laz OOA happened over 45k. Early OOA equals "Basic White" ??? More faith based phantasms.
When you get off your smart aleck high horse and finish orgasming off your inka-Dinka-doo fetish the Angel thread is waiting for you.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Its a mockery of diffusionist Afrocentrics like Mike111, Marc Washington, etc who claim every significant culture was created by blacks. Afrocentrics been claiming their ancestors and calling these people dehumanized Albinos...but they are in the wrong?
Except for Ancient Egypt, Ive never seen it used on videos and forums about authentic African History and Empires/Kingdoms.
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: The "we was wuz kangs" line was employed and popularized as a mocking and dismissive rhetorical grenade by people who openly mocked the very notion that Africans had civilizations and organised societies led by kings and would then have the gall to assert that fact. I'm really surprised that black posters have started using the "we wuz kangs" line. I saw this on FB from certain black posters and I'm wondering what message is actually conveyed and what is gained from it.
If all humans came from Africa doesn't that make all human history African centered? Yes/no maybe so?
So it is wrong for Africans to study that part of their history but OK for Eurasians to claim everything that happened since humans left Africa? Seriously?
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doug..answer the following if you dont mind...
I have a question were the Scythians an Indo European people...Asian or European??
How about the Ancient Persians??
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Dude give it up. Calling Egypt African is no more Pan Africanist than calling Greece European.
Yes but its alot more complicated than that. Dont forget that Africa is a very diverse continent, in that context its no surprise that certain populations esp. one as only as Egypt has its distinctions. Also Calling Greece "European" is also simplistic, Greece had population origins and contact with the Middle East and North Africa.
quote:You guys are losing your minds trying to spin your nonsense instead of addressing the facts.
Where did ancient Egyptian culture and people originate:
1) the Near East 2) Africa
Simple straight forward question and certainly answering 2 is no more pan African than saying that the Mongols were Asian.
The Culture mostly from Africa but the people is more complicated.
I have a question were the Scythians an Indo European people...Asian or European??
How about the Ancient Persians??
No it isn't. Learn geography. Because otherwise what you are saying is Greece is kinda sorta in Europe but not really or China is kinda sorta in Asia but not really and those populations are kind of sorted related to others from the same region but not really.
Please.
Save me the retarded kindergarten playground talk.
The point of anthropology is to clarify and quantify the PRECISE relationships between populations and cultures within and across geographic lines. To claim that in any such study there isn't a concept of "African" or a concept of "Asian" and "European" is bull sh*t.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
Why do I think that? Studies seem to hint at that. And I consider Basel Eurasians to be African. Read what Swenet has posted here and other threads on the Natufians vs Egyptians.
Again I am not talking about Egyptian ancestry around what we associate with the predynastic period but further back. Probably the early Neolithic.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Doug..answer the following if you dont mind...
I have a question were the Scythians an Indo European people...Asian or European??
How about the Ancient Persians??
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Dude give it up. Calling Egypt African is no more Pan Africanist than calling Greece European.
Yes but its alot more complicated than that. Dont forget that Africa is a very diverse continent, in that context its no surprise that certain populations esp. one as only as Egypt has its distinctions. Also Calling Greece "European" is also simplistic, Greece had population origins and contact with the Middle East and North Africa.
quote:You guys are losing your minds trying to spin your nonsense instead of addressing the facts.
Where did ancient Egyptian culture and people originate:
1) the Near East 2) Africa
Simple straight forward question and certainly answering 2 is no more pan African than saying that the Mongols were Asian.
The Culture mostly from Africa but the people is more complicated.
I have a question were the Scythians an Indo European people...Asian or European??
How about the Ancient Persians??
No it isn't. Learn geography. Because otherwise what you are saying is Greece is kinda sorta in Europe but not really or China is kinda sorta in Asia but not really and those populations are kind of sorted related to others from the same region but not really.
Please.
Save me the retarded kindergarten playground talk.
The point of anthropology is to clarify and quantify the PRECISE relationships between populations and cultures within and across geographic lines. To claim that in any such study there isn't a concept of "African" or a concept of "Asian" and "European" is bull sh*t.
What on earth do the Scythians have to do with Africa? Europe isn't a continent. Eurasia is. Across Eurasia there are different ethnic groups and phenotypes. Africa is a continent primarily historically populated by Africans. Indo Europeans, Indo Asians, Indo Aryans and Scythians are all Eurasians so there is no contradiction.
The question is what are the representative of "indigenous" ancient Nile Valley DNA lineages. Because all I keep hearing is that they are either NON African: as in ancient Eurasian back migrants or they are "Sub Saharan" African, meaning not from the Nile Valley. This line of argument means there are no indigenous DNA lineages that evolved locally in the Nile Valley that would be rightly classified as African. Thats sort of impossible but that is what is being said.
So either this is a retarded way of characterizing Nile Valley ancient biological history or what we know about human evolution is wrong. Because if the first humans in Eurasia originated from a "northern route" through what is now Egypt then there HAS to be an "indigenous" DNA component ancestral to Eurasia which is indeed African. Otherwise, whatever ancient DNA left through the Northern route was totally replaced by later migrants from Eurasia or other parts of "sub saharan" Africa....
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: If all humans came from Africa doesn't that make all human history African centered? Yes/no maybe so?
No, this is like saying because English originated in England everyone who speaks English and their accomplishments is the property of Anglo Saxon England.
By the time that folks like the Vikings, Chinese, Romans, Greeks, Celts etc. were recorded in history these Europeans and Asians were already culturally, linguistically,and genetically distinct from Africans. That fact that diffusionists Afrocentrics like you dont understand how desperate and pathetic you all look claiming Vikings and Chinese as black speaks volumes to your mentality.
quote:So it is wrong for Africans to study that part of their history but OK for Eurasians to claim everything that happened since humans left Africa? Seriously?
You're using fallacious reasoning here. No on is claiming the moment populations stepped out of Africa. Your approach to history, culture and population origins seems really simplistic.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: If all humans came from Africa doesn't that make all human history African centered? Yes/no maybe so?
No, this is like saying because English originated in England everyone who speaks English and their accomplishments is the property of Anglo Saxon England.
By the time that folks like the Vikings, Chinese, Romans, Greeks, Celts etc. were recorded in history these Europeans and Asians were already culturally, linguistically,and genetically distinct from Africans. That fact that diffusionists Afrocentrics like you dont understand how desperate and pathetic you all look claiming Vikings and Chinese as black speaks volumes to your mentality.
quote:So it is wrong for Africans to study that part of their history but OK for Eurasians to claim everything that happened since humans left Africa? Seriously?
You're using fallacious reasoning here. No on is claiming the moment populations stepped out of Africa. Your approach to history, culture and population origins seems really simplistic.
The point is that all roads converge on Africa the further you go back in time. But somehow according to these studies the further you go back in time the less African populations get, especially in Africa. But whatever. You obviously DON'T WANT to see that contradiction and Basal Eurasian is a perfect example of that contradiction, but you seem to approve of that kind of nonsense. Yet you try and tell other folks that they need to be so precise and accurate while carrying around totally inaccurate and imprecise baggage of your own.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Its a mockery of diffusionist Afrocentrics like Mike111, Marc Washington, etc who claim every significant culture was created by blacks. Afrocentrics been claiming their ancestors and calling these people dehumanized Albinos...but they are in the wrong?
Except for Ancient Egypt, Ive never seen it used on videos and forums about authentic African History and Empires/Kingdoms.
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: The "we was wuz kangs" line was employed and popularized as a mocking and dismissive rhetorical grenade by people who openly mocked the very notion that Africans had civilizations and organised societies led by kings and would then have the gall to assert that fact. I'm really surprised that black posters have started using the "we wuz kangs" line. I saw this on FB from certain black posters and I'm wondering what message is actually conveyed and what is gained from it.
I've seen this line used primarily in relation to discussions on ancient Egypt. Doug is clearly not in Mike's deranged camp and does not espouse the laughably absurd proposition that every civilization was black, and so I'm perplexed as to why you would use that line on him when he was undoubtedly just discussing ancient Egypt -- an *authentic* African civilization.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: If all humans came from Africa doesn't that make all human history African centered? Yes/no maybe so?
No, this is like saying because English originated in England everyone who speaks English and their accomplishments is the property of Anglo Saxon England.
By the time that folks like the Vikings, Chinese, Romans, Greeks, Celts etc. were recorded in history these Europeans and Asians were already culturally, linguistically,and genetically distinct from Africans. That fact that diffusionists Afrocentrics like you dont understand how desperate and pathetic you all look claiming Vikings and Chinese as black speaks volumes to your mentality.
quote:So it is wrong for Africans to study that part of their history but OK for Eurasians to claim everything that happened since humans left Africa? Seriously?
You're using fallacious reasoning here. No on is claiming the moment populations stepped out of Africa. Your approach to history, culture and population origins seems really simplistic.
Dude I am going by the charts presented by those who claim that after humans left Africa they split into "non Africans". That is the "science" you claim is so objective.
So show me the lineages that the scientists claim were associated with the OOA migrations into Eurasia.... I will wait.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Who cares. If you understand what is going on that is all that counts. Think with your own brain.
Most of these folks just want people to be blind followers not independent thinkers.
Nice quote bub, did you patent this one?
@BBH 100 years ahead of you guys though I didn't hammer down the Hadza component being BE or actually representing shared drift between Neolithic populations, I knew since I started on here that something very similar or of that nature had to have been going on. And was welcomed with name calling, and nothing. But. Name. Calling at the time.... What Beyoku posted isn't revolutionary from my POV, I even gave him more sources to help solidify that position and even have more, which I will not go over on here for reasons stated in Nodnarbs thread.
So now I am going to ask you, under which circumstance will an African BE directly decended from an SSA population not be SSA related. Also why are Natufians less BE than Iranians, and some Neolithic levantine populations, with the latter 2 being closer to SSA regardless of geneflow??
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
Further you advocated for Europe a few posts back...
quote:originally posted by Doug M: calling Greece European is Pan European.
You literally just made fun of me about this..
quote:No it isn't. Learn geography. Because otherwise what you are saying is Greece is kinda sorta in Europe but not really or China is kinda sorta in Asia
Now you seem to be changing your argument, how odd.
quote:Africa is a continent primarily historically populated by Africans. Indo Europeans, Indo Asians, Indo Aryans and Scythians are all Eurasians so there is no contradiction.
Yes it is, if your approach is a simplistic Africa=Africans, Europe=Europeans, Asia=Asians
You like to claim Africa was inhabited only by Africans, Yet Africans represent the most diverse in terms of Genetics of all of Humanity, more Diverse than the Sythian to the Han Chinese, or the Caledonian to the Persian.
Like I said your approach is very simplistic and shifty at that. Define your position and stop living in fear/paranoia of some imagined European coverup conspiracy. You have Folks like Keita and Ehret giving you a hand to pull you into 2017 level academia
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Very interested in how BBH will handle the Basal Eurasian=Hadza fairy tale. Also, we starting to see more and more people exposing themselves and coming to the front of the congregation admitting that they think Basal Eurasian-heavy populations were SSA in ancestry and geography. So much for the collective "no one ever said AE was SSA" coverup.
quote:So now I am going to ask you, under which circumstance will an African BE directly decended from an SSA population not be SSA related.
posted
Ive known Doug for years, I know what he advocates. He's a diffusionist not on the level of Mike but one none the less so spare me...
Second I used it because Doug literally argued a position against the Article that the said article itself upheld.
It was tongue in cheek, a mockery of his parania of European Coverup...
should I offer a trigger warning next time for you
Funny enough, you seem more triggered than Doug is..
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Its a mockery of diffusionist Afrocentrics like Mike111, Marc Washington, etc who claim every significant culture was created by blacks. Afrocentrics been claiming their ancestors and calling these people dehumanized Albinos...but they are in the wrong?
Except for Ancient Egypt, Ive never seen it used on videos and forums about authentic African History and Empires/Kingdoms.
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: The "we was wuz kangs" line was employed and popularized as a mocking and dismissive rhetorical grenade by people who openly mocked the very notion that Africans had civilizations and organised societies led by kings and would then have the gall to assert that fact. I'm really surprised that black posters have started using the "we wuz kangs" line. I saw this on FB from certain black posters and I'm wondering what message is actually conveyed and what is gained from it.
I've seen this line used primarily in relation to discussions on ancient Egypt. Doug is clearly not in Mike's deranged camp and does not espouse the laughably absurd proposition that every civilization was black, and so I'm perplexed as to why you would use that line on him when he was undoubtedly just discussing ancient Egypt -- an *authentic* African civilization.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
So now I am going to ask you, under which circumstance will an African BE directly decended from an SSA population not be SSA related.
Like what we've seen with that farmers study.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Also why are Natufians less BE than Iranians, and some Neolithic levantine populations, with the latter 2 being closer to SSA regardless of geneflow??
When did I say they are less BE than Iranians?
@Swenet What do you mean? Never argued Hadza=Basel Eurasian. But certain stuff posted recently made me question the possibility of BE being African.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blessedbyhorus: @Swenet What do you mean? Never argued Hadza=Basel Eurasian. But certain stuff posted recently made me question the possibility of BE being African.
I should have been more clear. I meant that I'm interested in how you will address his claim that Basal Eurasian is SSA in terms of ancestry and geography.
quote:So now I am going to ask you, under which circumstance will an African BE directly decended from an SSA population not be SSA related.
posted
Whats interesting is how Pan Lavant these haplogroups are. I think it was Artu that said that those leaked Old and Middle Kingdom haplogroups were kumbaya Africa. These are kumbaya Lavant.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
So now I am going to ask you, under which circumstance will an African BE directly decended from an SSA population not be SSA related.
Like what we've seen with that farmers study.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Also why are Natufians less BE than Iranians, and some Neolithic levantine populations, with the latter 2 being closer to SSA regardless of geneflow??
When did I say they are less BE than Iranians?
@Swenet What do you mean? Never argued Hadza=Basel Eurasian. But certain stuff posted recently made me question the possibility of BE being African.
Your pops is trying to indirectly misquote me as he usually does, he has no clue what's going on but likes to pretend he does. You never said Iranians have more BE... Iranians DO have more BE than natufians, that's why I'm asking you how this African BE will work from your POV.
Notice how I refer to a poster as your pops, this why you are caught of guard, don't just swallow what's in poppas spoon without masticating.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blessedbyhorus: @Swenet What do you mean? Never argued Hadza=Basel Eurasian. But certain stuff posted recently made me question the possibility of BE being African.
I should have been more clear. I meant that I'm interested in how you will address his claim that Basal Eurasian is SSA in terms of ancestry and geography.
OH. I was about to say... I was like, "didn't you read our past conversations?"
Anyways like I said in my recent post that Natufian study last year hinted at North African ancestry. And like I said in another one of my posts is that the subclades of E-M78 migrated out of Africa through the area of Egypt and so to me personally that hints at BE being North African. And also why Egyptians in terms of genetic distance plot closer to Eurasians than any other Africans.
So far we have not seen any clues of BE being SSA(at least from what I know).
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lmao.... Wow like a cub when he strays to far from home. Good night. I don't think I'm interested anymore.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Ive known Doug for years, I know what he advocates. He's a diffusionist not on the level of Mike but one none the less so spare me...
Second I used it because Doug literally argued a position against the Article that the said article itself upheld.
It was tongue in cheek, a mockery of his parania of European Coverup...
should I offer a trigger warning next time for you
Funny enough, you seem more triggered than Doug is..
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Its a mockery of diffusionist Afrocentrics like Mike111, Marc Washington, etc who claim every significant culture was created by blacks. Afrocentrics been claiming their ancestors and calling these people dehumanized Albinos...but they are in the wrong?
Except for Ancient Egypt, Ive never seen it used on videos and forums about authentic African History and Empires/Kingdoms.
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: The "we was wuz kangs" line was employed and popularized as a mocking and dismissive rhetorical grenade by people who openly mocked the very notion that Africans had civilizations and organised societies led by kings and would then have the gall to assert that fact. I'm really surprised that black posters have started using the "we wuz kangs" line. I saw this on FB from certain black posters and I'm wondering what message is actually conveyed and what is gained from it.
I've seen this line used primarily in relation to discussions on ancient Egypt. Doug is clearly not in Mike's deranged camp and does not espouse the laughably absurd proposition that every civilization was black, and so I'm perplexed as to why you would use that line on him when he was undoubtedly just discussing ancient Egypt -- an *authentic* African civilization.
I'm not at all "triggered". I'm just curious and amused.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blessedbyhorus: @Swenet What do you mean? Never argued Hadza=Basel Eurasian. But certain stuff posted recently made me question the possibility of BE being African.
I should have been more clear. I meant that I'm interested in how you will address his claim that Basal Eurasian is SSA in terms of ancestry and geography. [/qb]
OH. I was about to say... I was like, "didn't you read our past conversations?"
Anyways like I said in my recent post that Natufian study last year hinted at North African ancestry. And like I said in another one of my posts is that the subclades of E-M78 migrated out of Africa through the area of Egypt and so to me personally that hints at BE being North African. And also why Egyptians in terms of genetic distance plot closer to Eurasians than any other Africans.
So far we have not seen any clues of BE being SSA(at least from what I know).
Nope we haven't. All we've seen is a k-17 screenshot (with no k=1-16 attached) showing a component peaking in Hadza that also shows up in North Africans and Middle Eastern populations. They think that proves Basal Eurasian is Hadza and Sub-Saharan in origin and geography.
Too bad the turd is weaseling out of it now. Would have been an interesting excercise to see this turd post non-existent F3 and F4 statistics indicating an ancestral relationship between Hadza and farmers that explains Basal Eurasian.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Dude I am going by the charts presented by those who claim that after humans left Africa they split into "non Africans". That is the "science" you claim is so objective.
Who's making such claims? I honestly think you're confused and are interpreting such results in a simplistic manner...
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I usually don't pay attention to your posts but I find it strange for a new poster that you lash out against random people. Especially thinking me and Swenet are apart of some gang. Whatever beef you have with Swenet keep that between you and him. Anyways...
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: \Your pops is trying to indirectly misquote me as he usually does, he has no clue what's going on but likes to pretend he does. You never said Iranians have more BE... Iranians DO have more BE than natufians, that's why I'm asking you how this African BE will work from your POV.
Where is it said that Iranians have more BE than Natufian? I'm asking this out of curiosity.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Notice how I refer to a poster as your pops, this why you are caught of guard, don't just swallow what's in poppas spoon without masticating.
Lol. Now tell me how I was caught off guard? Like I said keep this between you and Swenet.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Nuff respect BBH
I wish I got you good enough to see if I can paraphrase you right.
Admitting I'm not quite sure what all you mean, one critique if I may. Isn't 40k the cut off year for BE or did I mistake Tianyuan's significance?
Not specifically addressing you but a little clarity and a plea for precision on this. Natufians aren't straight up African. They're hybrid from NE Afr and Levantine peoples that happened in the Levant.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Nope we haven't. All we've seen is a k-17 screenshot (with no k=1-16 attached) showing a component peaking in Hadza that also shows up in North Africans and Middle Eastern populations. They think that proves Basal Eurasian is Hadza and Sub-Saharan in origin and geography.
Too bad the turd is weaseling out of it now. Would have been an interesting excercise to see this turd post non-existent F3 and F4 statistics indicating an ancestral relationship between Hadza and farmers. [/QB]
And thats why I(and I also think true for Beyoku) bought up the Hazda.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: @sudaniya
Why do I think that? Studies seem to hint at that. And I consider Basel Eurasians to be African. Read what Swenet has posted here and other threads on the Natufians vs Egyptians.
Again I am not talking about Egyptian ancestry around what we associate with the predynastic period but further back. Probably the early Neolithic.
Please cite the names of these studies so I may come to my own conclusions on the matter.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
-shouts to the wind- "When 2 other studies show the same results for admixture on the runs with the best cross variation score aka the most statistically significant, why would one harken for other Ks"
Lmao ...huh, what's going on?? Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: @sudaniya
Why do I think that? Studies seem to hint at that. And I consider Basel Eurasians to be African. Read what Swenet has posted here and other threads on the Natufians vs Egyptians.
Again I am not talking about Egyptian ancestry around what we associate with the predynastic period but further back. Probably the early Neolithic.
Please cite the names of these studies so I may come to my own conclusions on the matter.
^^^Id like to see these studies as well, esp. the Canary Islander and Natufian ones if accessible..
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
Not specifically addressing you but a little clarity and a plea for precision on this. Natufians aren't straight up African. They're hybrid from NE Afr and Levantine peoples that happened in the Levant. [/qb]
Why "hybrid?" Just asking because as far as I remember we did not get any in-depth admixture results for the Natufians showing their North African admixture. However, some hinted at it being mostly North African and also their paternal side was mostly E.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
So there we have it. They are fully aware of what they're doing and they know full well they can post only tiny shreds of data (k=17 and nothing more) and pass that off as gospel. Pure confirmation bias.
Very interesting how forthcoming he is with his own deceptions and quote-minded data. You just can't make this up. Lol.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: I usually don't pay attention to your posts but I find it strange for a new poster that you lash out against random people. Especially thinking me and Swenet are apart of some gang. Whatever beef you have with Swenet keep that between you and him. Anyways...
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: \Your pops is trying to indirectly misquote me as he usually does, he has no clue what's going on but likes to pretend he does. You never said Iranians have more BE... Iranians DO have more BE than natufians, that's why I'm asking you how this African BE will work from your POV.
Where is it said that Iranians have more BE than Natufian? I'm asking this out of curiosity.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Notice how I refer to a poster as your pops, this why you are caught of guard, don't just swallow what's in poppas spoon without masticating.
Lol. Now tell me how I was caught off guard? Like I said keep this between you and Swenet.
Not lashing out, I just want to know what you think, not what you think others think or what you feel is acceptable to say. I don't start off with name callings and personal attacks. as a new poster I was treated as if I knew someone or had history with someone or something when I was introduced to personal attacks and smug jabs...most of which hit air. So excuse me if I come off as blunt. I might not be the most knowledgable person when it comes to history but I'm pretty sure that when it comes to genetics or non physical anthropological biological subjects, there's probably 2 posters on here I can confidently nod at. With that being said you should take the time to read my posts...
When I ask you a question, it is a question for you. So as a respectful peer I want to know what you believe is going on with BE. Read the supp for laz 2016 when you have free time.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
Watch as he swings at air desperately trying to discredit before even knowing the position of his opposition. It is pathetic and desperate... Does the fvck even understand the basis of replicability and cross validation.
Lmao
The usuals, you know how to reach me.
Btw BBH, correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't I questioning your veiw of an African/SSA basal Eurasian? I don't know if that was clear.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic