Topic: IAM population, Natufians, Proto-Semitic, North African Component
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
Re-reading this part of my last comment, after reminding myself that you constantly try to discredit Dr. Elhaik's research makes me literally LOL.
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
You were completely unaware of the fact that E carriers were in Mesopotamia yet still tried to draw a conclusion without the full picture. This is why I like to let people talk and dig themselves into a hole.
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: [QB] Still trying to sidestep the data. This demonstrates natufians (E carriers) had a significant presence in neolithic Mesopotamia.
(You falsely accused me of making up information again... and were proven wrong yet again.)
You were completely unaware of the fact that E carriers were in Mesopotamia
show us an article documenting an individual or individuals bearing haplogroup E. You have not
from the article:
"Caucasus hunter-gatherer–related ancestry levels are high in all inland populations"
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
Yeah just ignore the part about the natufians being in Mesopotamia (where Abraham/Hebrews came from) after you repeatedly tried to discredit an actual geneticist for drawing a similar conclusion. Not only are you a troll but you're pseudo.
No wonder you were afraid to propose some questions to him as to his methodology when given the opportunity.
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
Ancient DNA from Mesopotamia suggests distinct Pre-Pottery and Pottery Neolithic migrations into Anatolia IOSIF LAZARIDIS
"By analyzing
Pre-Pottery and
Pottery Neolithic populations of Anatolia,
we show that the former (Pre) were derived from admixture between Mesopotamian-related and local Epipaleolithic-related sources,
but the latter (Pottery Neolithic) experienced additional Levantine-related gene flow, thus documenting at least two pulses of migration from the Fertile Crescent heartland to the early farmers of Anatolia."
so what does this prove about Hebrews?
I have already maintained the first Hebrews could have been J or E or possibly a combination, T and R are also in the neighborhood
According to this a Levantine element came in later into Mesopotamia
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
Yeah so Natufians/E were in Mesopotamia during the neolothic and you had no idea yet you were trying to shit all over Dr. Elhaik as recently as yesterday. There's really nothing left to talk about at this point
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: Yeah so Natufians/E were in Mesopotamia
You have shown no article that says either Natufians or E was in Mesopotamia
If you think you do quote the sentence in the article saying this
_____________________________
Suppose there was though
quote: "Yet, these averages mask the high heterogeneity among all Jewish communities. Some people may share the highest similarity with Gal (named after Wonder Woman actress Gal Gadot), a young Neolithic woman – only 6200 years old, and other people may find that they are close to Abraham, a Turkish man (E1b1) who led a group of Anatolians to what he must to have felt was the promised land."
we are still left with this claim from who you regard as an Edomite and he still doesn't know if Abraham came from the small part of Mesopotamia that is in Turkey and he doesn't know if he was E1b1
He wrote science articles but he would never claim that as a fact as he does above
If it is a theory he should be saying it is a theory or hypothesis
Let us know when Elhaik even mentions Abraham in any way in any of his science journal articles
Also look at the dates of Natufians: 12,500 and 9,500 BC. That doesn't even correspond to thr right period
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
"Lioness" is lying and playing dumb like he always does when he gets proven wrong. All of a sudden he can't read anymore.
quote: "We present the first ancient DNA data from the Pre-Pottery Neolithic of Mesopotamia (Southeastern Turkey and Northern Iraq), Cyprus, and the Northwestern Zagros, along with the first data from Neolithic Armenia. We show that these and neighboring populations were formed through admixture of pre-Neolithic sources related to Anatolian, Caucasus, and Levantine hunter-gatherers, forming a Neolithic continuum of ancestry mirroring the geography of West Asia. By analyzing Pre-Pottery and Pottery Neolithic populations of Anatolia, we show that the former were derived from admixture between Mesopotamian-related and local Epipaleolithic-related sources, but the latter experienced additional Levantine-related gene flow, thus documenting at least two pulses of migration from the Fertile Crescent heartland to the early farmers of Anatolia."
quote: "The Eastern Mediterranean and inland clusters are separated by a gap in Fig. 2A, which may correspond to geographically intermediate areas between sampling locations, for example, the Euphrates region of North Mesopotamia. The totality of Neolithic West Asia is enclosed within the range of variation of the quadrangle formed by Caucasus hunter-gatherers, Ganj Dareh, Levantine Natufians from Israel, and Epipaleolithic Pınarbaşı from Central Anatolia."
quote: "The Natufian culture is certainly well-documented. The earliest sites, in Israel, have been dated to 10,900 BCE and the culture continued to 7,800 BCE, during which it metamorphosed between 8,500 and 8,000 BCE into the first full-blown agricultural Neolithic Pre-Pottery A culture found throughout the Levant. This would correspond well with the date given by Igor Diakonoff for the Proto-Afro-Asiatic parent culture (i.e. approximately 12,000 years ago). The Natufian culture certainly did spread, northwards to Syria and Mesopotamia, and the Belbasi culture of interior Anatolia certainly was of clear Natufian derivation."
quote:"Belbaşı is a cave and a late Paleolithic/Mesolithic site in southern Turkey, located southwest of Antalya."
"Belbaşı culture shows indications of an early connection to the Kebaran industry assemblages of Palestine. Their settlements were stable, typical of Natufian culture sites in this respect, and many later evolved into agricultural villages, similar to Jericho’s forerunner Tell es-Sultan, settled around 7,800 years BCE."
According to Lazaridis we know Taforalt (IBM) was comprised of 45% ANA and 55% Eurasian (Dzudzuana)
When a pure or mostly pure "ANA" carrying population is eventually found in your opinion do you think it will be phenotypically distinct from Taforalt? If so how would each population look since they both would be technically dark skinned?
I understand this is more of a hypothetical "what if" kind of question. But I thought it would be interesting to speculate how each population would differ to one another phenotypically.
Posts: 58 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Mar 2023
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by LoStranger: Bit of a thought question for the forum.
According to Lazaridis we know Taforalt (IBM) was comprised of 45% ANA and 55% Eurasian (Dzudzuana)
When a pure or mostly pure "ANA" carrying population is eventually found in your opinion do you think it will be phenotypically distinct from Taforalt? If so how would each population look since they both would be technically dark skinned?
I understand this is more of a hypothetical "what if" kind of question. But I thought it would be interesting to speculate how each population would differ to one another phenotypically.
I wonder what a pure "ANA" population would look like too. But I remember Swenet recently identifying the ANA in Iberomaurusians with earlier Aterians. In which case, maybe something like these skeletal remains?
quote: "The Natufian culture is certainly well-documented. The earliest sites, in Israel, have been dated to 10,900 BCE and the culture continued to 7,800 BCE, during which it metamorphosed between 8,500 and 8,000 BCE into the first full-blown agricultural Neolithic Pre-Pottery A culture found throughout the Levant. This would correspond well with the date given by Igor Diakonoff for the Proto-Afro-Asiatic parent culture (i.e. approximately 12,000 years ago). The Natufian culture certainly did spread, northwards to Syria and Mesopotamia, and the Belbasi culture of interior Anatolia certainly was of clear Natufian derivation."
This is a peculiar source, not linking directly to wikipedia. It says it's from Wikipedia but I don't see it in Wikipedia. Also it has no numbered references like Wikipedia has for supporting sources to the statements and a list of references at the bottom linked to each claim
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
quote:"Belbaşı is a cave and a late Paleolithic/Mesolithic site in southern Turkey, located southwest of Antalya."
"Belbaşı culture shows indications of an early connection to the Kebaran industry assemblages of Palestine. Their settlements were stable, typical of Natufian culture sites in this respect, and many later evolved into agricultural villages, similar to Jericho’s forerunner Tell es-Sultan, settled around 7,800 years BCE."
None of this proves anything about Abraham some of this might actually be closer to the tread topic.
It is just noting common stability in these prehistoric cultures typical "in this respect" it doesn't say the people who loved in each site overlapped Kebaran is much older (c. 23,000 to 15,000 BP )
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
@the lioness,
I'm going to start ignoring you now that I've cited sources saying and demonstrating exactly what I claimed... Natufians/E in Mesopotamia before the time of Abraham. Which logically means E was there during the time of Abraham. You can play dumb all you want. I should have returned to ignoring you sooner. My apologies to all other people (excluding "the lioness"), regardless of whether they agree or disagree with my position
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
According to the Genesis narrative, Abraham and his people were immigrants from Haran in northern Mesopotamia which was the region that hg J was prevalent. His migration occurred in the Bronze Age and only in the Iron Age do we see prevalence of hg J in the Levant, prior to that other Y lineages were present-- E, R, and T to name a few. Yet Taz claims Abraham carried E not J or not even R or T.
Yantunde says Semitic languages or rather Proto-Semitic is to be associated with E-M34 carriers but the E clade itself originated in Africa meaning that M34 were African immigrants who entered the Levant and their language spread and diversified from there. Abraham supposedly spoke a down stream descendant of Proto-Semitic namely Hebrew, but that doesn't mean he carries the lineage of Proto-Semites anymore than someone from India carrying the lineage of Proto-Indo-Iranians.
quote:Originally posted by LoStranger: Bit of a thought question for the forum.
According to Lazaridis we know Taforalt (IBM) was comprised of 45% ANA and 55% Eurasian (Dzudzuana)
When a pure or mostly pure "ANA" carrying population is eventually found in your opinion do you think it will be phenotypically distinct from Taforalt? If so how would each population look since they both would be technically dark skinned?
I understand this is more of a hypothetical "what if" kind of question. But I thought it would be interesting to speculate how each population would differ to one another phenotypically.
Much of that "Eurasian" ancestry is Basal Eurasian. But I am curious as to what other African ancestries Taforalt had besides ANA and Hadza-like ancestry.
Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
Once again for the record, I've demonstrated that haplogroup J was linked to Kura-Araxes (Hurrian) culture long before it was ever in Mespotamia and Abraham did NOT have Hurrian ancestry... J did not originate in Mesopotamia, nor was it native to Mesopotamia. It came via Kura-Araxes/Hurrian invaders from the caucusus.
The Bible says Abraham's origin was Ur of the Chaldees, not Haran.
Abraham and co. later migrated TO Haran, they did not originate there.
Djehuti, if you think Abraham was a Hurrian or had Hurrian ancestry then just say that already and stop beating around the bush so that I can laugh at you.
Because that is literally what you are claiming by saying Abraham was J.
quote:"Hurrian language, extinct language spoken from the last centuries of the 3rd millennium BCE until at least the latter years of the Hittite empire (c. 1400–c. 1190 BCE); it is neither an Indo-European language nor a Semitic language. It is generally believed that the speakers of Hurrian originally came from the Armenian mountains and spread over southeast Anatolia and northern Mesopotamia at the beginning of the 2nd millennium BCE. Before the middle of the 2nd millennium BCE, parts of Hurrian territory were under the control of an Indo-Aryan ruling class, the Mitanni, whose name was incorrectly applied to the Hurrians by early researchers."
quote:Originally posted by LoStranger: Bit of a thought question for the forum.
According to Lazaridis we know Taforalt (IBM) was comprised of 45% ANA and 55% Eurasian (Dzudzuana)
When a pure or mostly pure "ANA" carrying population is eventually found in your opinion do you think it will be phenotypically distinct from Taforalt? If so how would each population look since they both would be technically dark skinned?
I understand this is more of a hypothetical "what if" kind of question. But I thought it would be interesting to speculate how each population would differ to one another phenotypically.
I don't necessarily agree with the term "ANA" as we know populations have been moving in and out of North Africa since before Europe even had humans. So specifically to Taforalt and Dzudzuana in Europe the theory would be an ancestral population in Africa that is a common ancestor of both which would have a time range of 30 to 40 kya. Good luck finding such DNA in North Africa anytime soon. But the key here is distinguishing "Eurasian" DNA signatures from Africa that are ancestral to actual Eurasian lineages in Europe. Otherwise, the concept of ANA would kind of be pointless as again, the movements of populations in and out of North Africa over the last 50,000 years would make identification of such a thing rather arbitrary. I would fully expect such an ancestral population to carry some novel lineages that are today only found in Eurasia.
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: Once again for the record, I've demonstrated that haplogroup J was linked to Kura-Araxes (Hurrian) culture long before it was ever in Mespotamia and Abraham did NOT have Hurrian ancestry... J did not originate in Mesopotamia, nor was it native to Mesopotamia. It came via Kura-Araxes/Hurrian invaders from the Caucusus.
The Bible says Abraham's origin was Ur of the Chaldees, not Haran.
Abraham and co. later migrated TO Haran, they did not originate there.
Djehuti, if you think Abraham was a Hurrian or had Hurrian ancestry then just say that already and stop beating around the bush so that I can laugh at you.
Because that is literally what you are claiming by saying Abraham was J.
quote:"Hurrian language, extinct language spoken from the last centuries of the 3rd millennium BCE until at least the latter years of the Hittite empire (c. 1400–c. 1190 BCE); it is neither an Indo-European language nor a Semitic language. It is generally believed that the speakers of Hurrian originally came from the Armenian mountains and spread over southeast Anatolia and northern Mesopotamia at the beginning of the 2nd millennium BCE. Before the middle of the 2nd millennium BCE, parts of Hurrian territory were under the control of an Indo-Aryan ruling class, the Mitanni, whose name was incorrectly applied to the Hurrians by early researchers."
And when did I say Abraham was Hurrian??! LOL You obviously mistaken my reference to the Nuzi texts for such a claim, when my claim was simply that his culture and its customs were Mesopotamian. Abraham ethnically and at least linguistically was Hebrew a West Semitic language related to Chaldean and Sutean which were also found in Mesopotamia.
So please stop with the straw dolls.
Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
@Djehuti
I never said you directly claimed Abraham was a Hurrian, which is why I asked you to directly say it if you believe that he was.
Because ultimately, by asserting that he was a J carrier, this is what you are claiming. Whether you realize it or not.
I am explaining everything very clearly.
"Once again for the record, I've demonstrated that haplogroup J was linked to Kura-Araxes (Hurrian) culture long before it was ever in Mespotamia and Abraham did NOT have Hurrian ancestry... J did not originate in Mesopotamia, nor was it native to Mesopotamia. It came via Kura-Araxes/Hurrian invaders from the Caucusus."
Imagine trying to convince yourself and others that Abraham came from an invading culture from the Caucusus that had nothing to do with Semites, instead of actual Semites (E carriers) who inhabited Mesopotamia.
The people you are trying to say Abraham descends from (J carriers) were hunter-gatherers from the Caucusus.
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: I don't necessarily agree with the term "ANA" as we know populations have been moving in and out of North Africa since before Europe even had humans. So specifically to Taforalt and Dzudzuana in Europe the theory would be an ancestral population in Africa that is a common ancestor of both which would have a time range of 30 to 40 kya. Good luck finding such DNA in North Africa anytime soon.
Hmmm so what about the upcoming (god knows when) Takarkori study which according to the abstract found a brand new lineage and was found to supposedly be related to Taforalt? What do you think that could be?
It supposedly had neanderthal levels similar to modern day Sub-Saharans so it can't be very Eurasian. My question then would be given it's relatively young age 7000-6000 years and given what you just mentioned about a "Pure" Ancestral North African lineage precursor to Taforalt probably being around 30-40kya just what is this brand new Takarkori North African lineage?
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: But the key here is distinguishing "Eurasian" DNA signatures from Africa that are ancestral to actual Eurasian lineages in Europe. Otherwise, the concept of ANA would kind of be pointless as again, the movements of populations in and out of North Africa over the last 50,000 years would make identification of such a thing rather arbitrary. I would fully expect such an ancestral population to carry some novel lineages that are today only found in Eurasia.
This makes perfect sense actually I suppose it's true of the reverse also very old Eurasian populations carrying DNA from Ancient Africa.
Posts: 58 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Mar 2023
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: I don't necessarily agree with the term "ANA" as we know populations have been moving in and out of North Africa since before Europe even had humans. So specifically to Taforalt and Dzudzuana in Europe the theory would be an ancestral population in Africa that is a common ancestor of both which would have a time range of 30 to 40 kya. Good luck finding such DNA in North Africa anytime soon.
Hmmm so what about the upcoming (god knows when) Takarkori study which according to the abstract found a brand new lineage and was found to supposedly be related to Taforalt? What do you think that could be?
It supposedly had neanderthal levels similar to modern day Sub-Saharans so it can't be very Eurasian. My question then would be given it's relatively young age 7000-6000 years and given what you just mentioned about a "Pure" Ancestral North African lineage precursor to Taforalt probably being around 30-40kya just what is this brand new Takarkori North African lineage?
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: But the key here is distinguishing "Eurasian" DNA signatures from Africa that are ancestral to actual Eurasian lineages in Europe. Otherwise, the concept of ANA would kind of be pointless as again, the movements of populations in and out of North Africa over the last 50,000 years would make identification of such a thing rather arbitrary. I would fully expect such an ancestral population to carry some novel lineages that are today only found in Eurasia.
This makes perfect sense actually I suppose it's true of the reverse also very old Eurasian populations carrying DNA from Ancient Africa.
What I mean is "ANA" as a ancestral lineage that is common to certain Eurasian and African populations in the Mediterranean region which arose sometime after OOA. It would be key to being able to distinguish actual Eurasian lineages in Africa that came later from 'indigenous' African lineages that share a common ancestor with Eurasian lineages. Right now we only see hints of that but there isn't any direct evidence. Basically it helps give a better picture of who was where and when in terms of populations and movements over 10kya ago.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: I don't necessarily agree with the term "ANA" as we know populations have been moving in and out of North Africa since before Europe even had humans. So specifically to Taforalt and Dzudzuana in Europe the theory would be an ancestral population in Africa that is a common ancestor of both which would have a time range of 30 to 40 kya. Good luck finding such DNA in North Africa anytime soon.
Hmmm so what about the upcoming (god knows when) Takarkori study which according to the abstract found a brand new lineage and was found to supposedly be related to Taforalt? What do you think that could be?
It supposedly had neanderthal levels similar to modern day Sub-Saharans so it can't be very Eurasian. My question then would be given it's relatively young age 7000-6000 years and given what you just mentioned about a "Pure" Ancestral North African lineage precursor to Taforalt probably being around 30-40kya just what is this brand new Takarkori North African lineage?
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: But the key here is distinguishing "Eurasian" DNA signatures from Africa that are ancestral to actual Eurasian lineages in Europe. Otherwise, the concept of ANA would kind of be pointless as again, the movements of populations in and out of North Africa over the last 50,000 years would make identification of such a thing rather arbitrary. I would fully expect such an ancestral population to carry some novel lineages that are today only found in Eurasia.
This makes perfect sense actually I suppose it's true of the reverse also very old Eurasian populations carrying DNA from Ancient Africa.
What I mean is "ANA" as a ancestral lineage that is common to certain Eurasian and African populations in the Mediterranean region which arose sometime after OOA. It would be key to being able to distinguish actual Eurasian lineages in Africa that came later from 'indigenous' African lineages that share a common ancestor with Eurasian lineages. Right now we only see hints of that but there isn't any direct evidence. Basically it helps give a better picture of who was where and when in terms of populations and movements over 10kya ago.
I get this but what about upcoming Takarkori study? Keep in mind it's a fairy young specimen 7kya while it appears to be related to Taforalt it has also has Sub-Saharan like neanderthal levels Furthermore given it's relatively young age as well as the constant movement between Eurasian as well as African population within North African throughout the ages shouldn't it be tied up with Eurasian like Taforalt?
Obviously we're speculating here as the paper is not obviously yet out.
Posts: 58 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Mar 2023
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: I don't necessarily agree with the term "ANA" as we know populations have been moving in and out of North Africa since before Europe even had humans. So specifically to Taforalt and Dzudzuana in Europe the theory would be an ancestral population in Africa that is a common ancestor of both which would have a time range of 30 to 40 kya. Good luck finding such DNA in North Africa anytime soon.
Hmmm so what about the upcoming (god knows when) Takarkori study which according to the abstract found a brand new lineage and was found to supposedly be related to Taforalt? What do you think that could be?
It supposedly had neanderthal levels similar to modern day Sub-Saharans so it can't be very Eurasian. My question then would be given it's relatively young age 7000-6000 years and given what you just mentioned about a "Pure" Ancestral North African lineage precursor to Taforalt probably being around 30-40kya just what is this brand new Takarkori North African lineage?
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: But the key here is distinguishing "Eurasian" DNA signatures from Africa that are ancestral to actual Eurasian lineages in Europe. Otherwise, the concept of ANA would kind of be pointless as again, the movements of populations in and out of North Africa over the last 50,000 years would make identification of such a thing rather arbitrary. I would fully expect such an ancestral population to carry some novel lineages that are today only found in Eurasia.
This makes perfect sense actually I suppose it's true of the reverse also very old Eurasian populations carrying DNA from Ancient Africa.
What I mean is "ANA" as a ancestral lineage that is common to certain Eurasian and African populations in the Mediterranean region which arose sometime after OOA. It would be key to being able to distinguish actual Eurasian lineages in Africa that came later from 'indigenous' African lineages that share a common ancestor with Eurasian lineages. Right now we only see hints of that but there isn't any direct evidence. Basically it helps give a better picture of who was where and when in terms of populations and movements over 10kya ago.
I get this but what about upcoming Takarkori study? Keep in mind it's a fairy young specimen 7kya while it appears to be related to Taforalt it has also has Sub-Saharan like neanderthal levels Furthermore given it's relatively young age as well as the constant movement between Eurasian as well as African population within North African throughout the ages shouldn't it be tied up with Eurasian like Taforalt?
Obviously we're speculating here as the paper is not obviously yet out.
Depends on how you define "ANA". My opinion is if such a theoretical population existed, it would exist in that time frame I mentioned and have the characteristics mentioned. Otherwise no population can truly be labeled as "ANA" because populations in the region have been so fluid over time that there is no single "Ancestral" population that can be identified specific to North Africa. Different populations at different times would be more ancestral to certain modern groups than others. For example, the 7KYA date range falls in the time range of the last wet phase and we don't know where the population with the novel lineage originated and how they are related to any potential ANA population.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Paleolithic DNA from the Caucasus reveals core of West Eurasian ancestry Iosif Lazaridis, 2018
Table 1: (in gray box, you have to click to see the chart)
Taforalt A and B
A, Mbuti 27.2% B, Dzudzuana 72.8%
Natufians, and Taforalt, can all be modeled as a mixture of Dzudzuana and additional ‘Deep’ ancestry that may represent an even earlier split than the Basal Eurasians.
we do not consider Taforalt as a mixture of Africans and West Eurasians14. Rather, we attempt to graft each of the 3 populations on the graph in the 1st step, then the second population as a mix of the first and an unconstrained other (2nd step), and finally the third population as a mix of the second and an unconstrained other (3rd step). Thus, all orders of the 3 populations are considered.
Finally, we attempt to fit Sub-Saharan African populations onto the models of Fig. S2.7, motivated by the observation14 that West Africans share more alleles with Taforalt than with Natufians, which was interpreted as evidence that Taforalt is a mixture of a Sub-Saharan lineage and Natufians.
Taforalt is inferred to have ~58% deep ancestry; the admixture graph model makes them a mixture of Dzudzuana and a more deeply splitting lineage, thus giving them 0.45+0.55*.28 ≈ 60% deeply splitting ancestry, which is also a good match to the admixture graph. However, qpAdm can also successfully model Taforalt as a mixture of 73% Dzudzuana and 27% Mbuti, which produces a lower proportion of 0.73*0.28+0.27≈47% deep ancestry.
. No Sub-Saharan African populations appear to be good sources for the ancestry of Taforalt as described previously.
The admixture graph model suggests an alternative possibility: that it is West African populations like the Yoruba that may have ancestry from a North African Taforalt-like population. Under such a scenario, North Africa and the Levant were occupied by populations that experienced gene flow from each other, with more ancestry from a Basal lineage in North Africa, and more ancestry from a West Eurasianspecific lineage (represented by Dzudzuana) in the Levant, thus explaining the presence of Dzudzuanarelated admixture in Taforalt and of Taforalt-related admixture in the Levant. Under this scenario, a North African-related population may have contributed some ancestry to Sub-Saharan populations to its south, perhaps during the Holocene Green Sahara period (~11-6kya)22 that postdates the sampled Taforalt individual which may have facilitated north→south gene flow across the Sahara.
Based on the very low presence of Neandertal admixture in Yoruba, it has been estimated that >2.7±0.9% of the ancestry of Yoruba came from West Eurasia 9618 ± 1825 years ago 23 . The admixture graph model predicts that 13% of the ancestry of Yoruba came from Taforalt, which in turn was 55% descended from Dzudzuana and which in turn was 72% descended from Villabruna, for a total of 0.13*0.55*0.72≈5% Villabruna-related ancestry that would have carried Neanderthal DNA. This is consistent with the >2.7±0.9% estimate of ref. 2
.
.
quote:Originally posted by LoStranger: Bit of a thought question for the forum.
According to Lazaridis we know Taforalt (IBM) was comprised of 45% ANA and 55% Eurasian (Dzudzuana)
The text is not exactly clear. I see Dzudzuana 72% but then at the bolded 55%,
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
The argument that Proto-Semitic developed in northern Mesopotamia makes me wonder how we should reconstruct ancient South Semitic peoples of Arabia like the Sabaeans. Can we really say they were descended from the (undeniably dark-skinned) aboriginal inhabitants of southern Arabia if their language attests to an origin further north? I suppose they could have still mixed with aboriginal types though.
EDIT: Of course the earliest Proto-Semitic speakers would have been dark themselves, having just arrived from Africa, but I wonder if admixture with more northerly populations like Anatolians might have lightened them up over time.
posted
^ There are men in southern Europe around the Balkans and Italy who carry hg E yet are no different in appearance from their non-E carrying folk. At the same time there are Cameroonians who carry hg R and look no different from other Cameroonians. This is why uniparental lineage is just one genetic factor alone.
By the way, LOL @ Taz squirming like the worm he is. Haplogroup J was not associated with any one archaeological group but spread rapidly since the Neolithic to Bronze Age.
Here is a Youtube video on hg J1 one subtype is identified as Cohen-modal:
Here is some scriptural support from Genesis 10: 25-30 Two sons were born to Eber: One was named Peleg, because in his time the earth was divided; his brother was named Joktan. Joktan was the father of Almodad, Sheleph, Hazarmaveth, Jerah, Hadoram, Uzal, Diklah, Obal, Abimael, Sheba, Ophir, Havilah and Jobab. All these were sons of Joktan. The region where they lived stretched from Mesha toward Sephar, in the eastern hill country.
Again the Joktanites were the southern Hebrews corresponding with southern Arabians who predominantly carry J1.
Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: Courtesy of revoiye Some findings of interest:
* ANA (Ancient North African) ancestry appears to be most heavily concentrated in Northeast African populations, although West and Central Africans, as well as ancient Maghrebis, have some ANA as well. * Various ancient populations in West Eurasia have small but significant ANA ancestry components as well. Minoans actually have a rather large chunk of it as far as EEF-descended populations go. * The Abusir el Meleq mummies have less ANA than modern Egyptians (either Coptic or Muslim). The former have approximately as much ANA as Natufians. Make of that what you will.
^ Note that both Basal Eurasian and 'Main Eurasian' diverged from a common ancestor who also diverged from the same common ancestor as Ancestral North African.
Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
Gotta love how Djehuti the clown comes back to a thread weeks later and indirectly addresses me after undeniably running away from the last response I made to him about how impossible it would be for Abraham to have had J due to it not being native to Mesopotamia and due to its Hurrian/Kura-Araxes origin prior to it invading Mesopotamia.
Anyone can scroll up and see that he ran away from my last response and has returned to the thread weeks later to declare victory and go "back to the original topic of the thread."
ROFLLLLL.
And regarding the "cohen gene" that Djehuti has already admit lacks conclusive evidence:
quote: "One thing is clear: the CMH cannot definitively prove the existence of a single founding father for the Jewish priesthood, let alone confirm that he was Aaron. If it is primarily a marker of priestly inheritance, why would it show up on two J lineages—most commonly on J1 but also on J2 -- that split thousands of years, maybe more than ten thousand years, before the time of Aaron? Moreover, some Jews with an oral history of being a Cohanim and no known record of conversion have neither a J1 nor J2 lineage. They are from the haplogroup E3b, which has Middle Eastern origins, or from Rlb, which is common among Europeans and some Turks. How could that be?"
"Abraham's Children: Race, Identity, and the DNA of the Chosen People" by Jon Entine, page 70-71
Djehuti has admit the "cohen gene" lacks conclusive evidence and other authorities also say the same, so why does he keep trying to appeal to it? Is it incompetence? Or deception and dishonesty.
He's not even worth the time. I think I'm about to start treating Djehuti like "the lioness," and ignoring him completely.
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Bruh, I didn't know if you're away or not, nor do I care. It doesn't matter if there is no conclusive evidence (yet). The point is that we have circumstantial evidence, while you have NO evidence for your claims at all.
How about you address the Y- haplogroup that all Jews have in common (J) OR the fact that the descendants of the Joktanites (Southern Hebrews) share it as well and or any of the autosomal data I brought up.
You can't can you because your delusion won't let you.
Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Lazaridis & Reich et ales. (2018) We find that the individuals buried in Peqi’in Cave represent a relatively genetically homogenous population. This homogeneity is evident not only in the genome-wide analyses but also in the fact that most of the male individuals (nine out of ten) belong to the Y-chromosome haplogroup T (see Supplementary Table 1), a lineage thought to have diversified in the Near East. This finding contrasts with both earlier (Neolithic and Epipaleolithic) Levantine populations, which were dominated by haplogroup E, **and later Bronze Age individuals, all of whom belonged to haplogroup J**.
The highlight of the very partial results is that the Y chromosome in the man belongs to the J2 haplogroup, a group of closely-related DNA sequences that is believed to have originated in the Caucasus or Eastern Anatolia, a vast area including modern-day eastern Turkey, northwest Iran, Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan and southern Russia.
This is important because, as mentioned, researchers have already mapped the DNA of ancient Canaanites, showing that they had a strong ancestral connection to modern-day Jewish and Arab populations. That research, published in Cell in 2020, also showed that the Canaanites in the Middle and Late Bronze Age (before the emergence of the Israelite identity) descended from a mix of Neolithic inhabitants of the Levant and a group that immigrated from the Caucasus or Eastern Anatolia.
Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
^
Sorry but I can't take anyone seriously who literally ran away from my last reponse to them concerning the issue at hand, only to return weeks later with a deflection while indirectly addressing me and trying to claim victory.
This has nothing to do with whether or not I am "away".
Literally anyone can scroll up and see that you ran away and never addressed my last response to you. You come back weeks later after thinking the coast is clear and still have not addressed anything I said about how your argument about J is 100% flawed in regards to Abraham due to it's non-Mesopotamian and Hurrian/Kura-Araxes origin. Abraham did not descend from Caucusus hunter-gatherers you clown.
And you repeat the same old bs over and over about the "cohen gene" even after admitting that there is no conclusive evidence to substantiate it.
You're literally spamming and reposting the same irrelevant sh*t over and over again.
Stop wasting my time and stop indirectly addressing me when we all know damn well you ran away from my last response to you. It's right there for anyone and everyone to see.
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
What does the Kura–Araxes Culture (c. 3,400 B.C.E. — c. 2,000 B.C.E.) have to do with the origin of Y haplogroup J (~ 45 thousand years ago)??
I'm beginning to think you have low IQ until you prove me otherwise. Here is yet another source for you.
Origin and diffusion of human Y chromosome haplogroup J1-M267 ABSTRACT Human Y chromosome haplogroup J1-M267 is a common male lineage in West Asia. One high-frequency region—encompassing the Arabian Peninsula, southern Mesopotamia, and the southern Levant—resides ~ 2000 km away from the other one found in the Caucasus. The region between them, although has a lower frequency, nevertheless demonstrates high genetic diversity. Studies associate this haplogroup with the spread of farming from the Fertile Crescent to Europe, the spread of mobile pastoralism in the desert regions of the Arabian Peninsula, the history of the Jews, and the spread of Islam. Here, we study past human male demography in West Asia with 172 high-coverage whole Y chromosome sequences and 889 genotyped samples of haplogroup J1-M267. We show that this haplogroup evolved ~ 20,000 years ago somewhere in northwestern Iran, the Caucasus, the Armenian Highland, and northern Mesopotamia. The major branch—J1a1a1-P58—evolved during the early Holocene ~ 9500 years ago somewhere in the Arabian Peninsula, the Levant, and southern Mesopotamia. Haplogroup J1-M267 expanded during the Chalcolithic, the Bronze Age, and the Iron Age. Most probably, the spread of Afro-Asiatic languages, the spread of mobile pastoralism in the arid zones, or both of these events together explain the distribution of haplogroup J1-M267 we see today in the southern regions of West Asia.
They even go on to say that Ashkenazi Jews preserve J1-M267 i.e. 'Cohen modal'. So I'm still waiting on you for an actual counter-argument let alone refutation.
Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
^ Your source says J supposedly evolved in a part of Mesopotamia. That's not it's origin. Are you trying to ignore all the other locations that the source lists as possible evolution points?
The same source says the oldest ancient DNA for J was found in the Caucusus ~ 13.3 kya.
quote:"Haplogroup J1-M267 probably evolved in the region encompassing northeastern Syria, southeastern Turkey, and northwestern Iran 23 to 24 kya. The oldest human aDNA reported so far, belonging to this haplogroup, originates from an individual, who lived ~ 13.3 kya in the Caucasus during the Late Upper Paleolithic."
J came to the Levant via Kura-Araxes movement and brought Hurrian onomastics (names) along with it.
quote: "This geographic distribution of J2a versus J1 mirrors the two autosomal components from Haber et al. (2013). However, several demographic and migrational events may contribute to the observed Y frequency patterns in the southern Levant. Major J2a lineages whose origin is likely from East Anatolia, Armenia, Georgia, and NW Iran could have migrated to the southern Levant during the Early Bronze Age through the movement of the Kura-Araxes horizon to Lebanon, Syria, and ultimately the Galilee area marked by the Khirbet Kerak culture (Akkermans and Schwartz 2003). Later immigration from a similar East Anatolian source may have brought Hurrian onomastics to the southern Levant during the Middle Bronze Age (King 2009). These events may have added J2a to an underlying J1 substratum."
These people came from the Caucusus and invaded the Levant/Mesopotamia with Kura-Araxes/Hurrian culture and you are claiming this was Abraham.
ROFL!
I will not entertain your "cohen gene" fantasies anymore because you have alteady admit there is zero conclusive evidence to substantiate it, and I've referenced an actual authority on the topic who has also said it's bogus.
The fact that you continue bringing it up each time you post is hilarious.
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ No. What's hilarious is that YOU are the one who posts things without knowing the context or detail.
The source I cited is about subtype J1-M267 which IS the Cohen-modal haplotype! What YOU cite instead is a paper on subtype J2a and how it is affiliated with the Kura-Araxes Culture. Wrong genetic marker as well as wrong culture! LOL
So are you still going to pretend to argue with this farce of an error? Because my point still stands.
Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
^ Still babbling about the bogus "cohen gene" that you already admit is bogus?
Imagine that! "Cohen Hurrians"
R O F L!
Did you already forget that the "Israelite" sample you keep affirming from that recent haaretz article was J2?.........
Furthermore there are plenty of sources that assign both J1 and J2 as being Hurrian/Kura-Araxes.
Keep playing dumb and I'll surely start posting some of them for you.
quote: "A second expansion would have occured with the advent of metallurgy. J2 could have been the main paternal lineage of the Kura-Araxes culture (Late Copper to Early Bronze Age), which expanded from the southern Caucasus toward northern Mesopotamia and the Levant. After that J2 could have propagated through Anatolia and the Eastern Mediterranean with the rise of early civilizations during the Late Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age."
quote: "It is very likely that J2a, J1-Z1828, L1b, T1a-P77 and G2a-L293 were the dominant male lineages the Early Bronze Age Kura-Araxes culture, which expanded from the South Caucasus to eastern Anatolia, northern Mesopotamia and the western Iran. From then on, J2 men would have definitely have represented a sizeable portion of the population of Bronze and Iron Age civilizations such as the Hurrians, the Assyrians or the Hittites. It is very possible that bronze technology spread from the South Caucasus across the Iranian plateau until the Indus Valley, giving rise to the Harappan Civilisation (see below)."
quote:"The Minoan civilisation emerged from 2,700 BCE and could have been founded by colonists from the Kura-Araxes culture who would have brought bronze working with them. Modern Cretans have the highest percentage of G2a (11%), J1 (8.5%), J2a (32%), and L + T (2.5% together) in Greece (and the highest percentage of J1 and J2a in all Europe for that matter), the three haplogroups associated with the Kura-Araxes culture."
quote:"While the Maykop culture was closely linked to the Yamnaya culture in the Pontic-Caspian Steppe and is thought to be associated with Proto-Indo-European speakers and Y-haplogroups R1a and R1b, the Kura-Araxes culture would have allowed the diffusion of Y-haplogroup J1 and J2a around the Middle East, taking over the Neolithic societies primarily associated with Y-haplogroup G2a and G2b."
We report ancient DNA data from 727 individuals of this region over the past 11,000 years, which we co-analyzed with the published archaeogenetic record to understand the origins of its people. We focused on the Chalcolithic and Bronze Ages about 7000 to 3000 years ago, when Indo-European language speakers first appeared.
Lazaridis et al. examined more than 700 ancient genomes from across this region, the Southern Arc, spanning 11,000 years, from the earliest farming cultures to post-Medieval times
That's the entire Mesoptamia and surrounding region and above you see the haplogroups, lots of J there no E >actual science article with actual human remains and DNA
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
quote: "A second expansion would have occured with the advent of metallurgy. J2 could have been the main paternal lineage of the Kura-Araxes culture (Late Copper to Early Bronze Age), which expanded from the southern Caucasus toward northern Mesopotamia and the Levant. After that J2 could have propagated through Anatolia and the Eastern Mediterranean with the rise of early civilizations during the Late Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age."
The Kura–Araxes culture was an archaeological culture that existed from about 4000 BC until about 2000 BC
Estimates as to the era in which Abraham lived can vary from 2100 BC to 1800 BC
So Abraham could have (yes all this stuff is "could have" because there is no proof he was even a real person) but could have have been J or T or R, etc (see chart) and if he came from Mesopotamia he would inconsequential to two thousand years prior of J being spread by Kura–Araxes theorized by Eupedia
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is a little off-topic but I didn't want to create a entire new thread just to ask one simple question about the Kadruka/Sudan sample
What was the exact portion of Sub-Saharan and Eurasian DNA in the sole sample that was taken. I've looked through the study as well as this forum and other internet forums and can't find percentage numbers.
I can only find this graph and the genetic distance appears to be in the middle between "West African and "North African."
So does this equate to the stereotypical 50% Sub-Saharan 50% Eurasian ancestry ratio similar to modern day Horners/Sundanese?
Posts: 58 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Mar 2023
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
I want all future readers to pay attention to how this blackfacing career troll "lioness" tries to present himself as an unbiased keeper of equality when it comes to who descends from Abraham, yet we never see him challenging people like Djehuti who argue that Abraham was a J carrier. This "lioness" character only pops his head in these conversations and only comes after me for demonstrating that Abraham could not have been J, but he never goes after anyone who claims Abraham could not have been E or any other marker.
Keep that in mind folks, this is definitely what it looks like. I do not plan on ever addressing him directly especially concerning this topic since he continuously demonstrates 100% incomptence when it comes to understanding that it is Biblically impossible for Abraham to have been a descendant of the Kura-Araxes/Hurrians (J1 and J2).
quote: The Northeast Caucasian language family seems to show clear links to Ancient eastern Anatolia, as most subclades of J1-Z1842 (TMRCA 4300 BCE) can be linked to the Armenian Highlands and present day Azerbaijan, precisely fitting the exact location of the Kura-Araxes culture (3400 BCE- 2000 BCE). Three subclades of it, J1-ZS 3042 (TMRCA 3500 BCE), J1-ZS5658 (TMRCA 2800 BCE), J1-ZS2872 (2800 BCE) and J1-Y5353 (TMRCA 2500 BCE) are widespread among Northeast Caucasian groups (YFull 2021), suggest Northeast Caucasian languages to have originated from the Kura-Araxes culture. As ancient J1 subclades also seem to have been present in the ancient Levant as well, this supports the existence of the Alarodian language family, linking Hurrian to Northeast Caucasian. Regarding the Northwest Caucasian language famil, broader analysis of other genetic components by Yunusbayev et al (Yunusbayev et al. 2011). confirmed that Northwest Caucasian populations also originate from South of the Caucasus, thus from within the cradle of the Neolithic Middle East. This also supports their supposed relations to the Indo-European family (Colarusso, 1997), and suggests that their urheimat must have been in close proximity with that of the Indo-European Homeland in Eastern Anatolia. On the other hand it must have been west of the Northeast Caucasian urheimat, as the latter seemed to have cover the entire Kura-Araxes culture area. The presence of J2-M67 in Northwest Caucasian populations also points to origins south of the Caucasus, although as J2-M67 is present in human populations belonging to both Northwest Caucasian and Northeast Caucasian language groups, it is somewhat ambiguous to which language family did the population that introduced it in the region, belong to."
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: is Biblically impossible for Abraham to have been a descendant of the Kura-Araxes/Hurrians (J1 and J2).
It's ridiculous to use the term "biblically" impossible and then talk about genetics
the Kura-Araxes/Hurrian are only one of groups that may have carried J in the greater Mesopotamia region "the Southern Arc" it's all over the place and before Abraham That deads your argument and The Hebrew of Israel's who you copied He who acted like he never read Genesis 11:28, 11:31, 15:17, 24:2 Nehemiah 9:7 (although just myth or legend as regards anthropology)
I thought there would be some E in this Southern Arc greater Mesopotamian region but it wasn't until you, trying to bolster your argument brought up Lazaridis' 2022 "Ancient DNA from Mesopotamia suggests distinct Pre-Pottery and Pottery Neolithic migrations into Anatolia" and I was wondering where the data was but read " In a trio of papers, Lazaridis et al. examined " and realized the three articles are like a set and data was in the Southern Arc article. I don't see the E there due to you bringing up that other article except for an earlier time period in Israel, 6 people in a cave bearing E 15,000-11,500 cal. BP and if you want to believe the great flood myth most theologians would date that pre-flood. Since I don't believe that I think there were E carriers continually living in Israel, North Africa and the Arabian peninsula but if we are going to talk about people who may or may not have existed we have to go by what we have " Nehemiah 9:7 Thou art the Lord the God, who didst choose Abram, and broughtest him forth out of Ur of the Chaldees, and gavest him the name of Abraham;"
Taz, how come in our old battles you swept this under the rug? You're supposed to by the bible expert
Again the Kura-Araxes/Hurrian are only one of groups that may have carried J in the greater Mesopotamia region "the Southern Arc" it's all over the place and before Abraham That deads your argument
They still might find some ancient E in that region so I still would not exclude the possibility but when you hipped me to that Lazridis article it seems lesser but maybe
I'm going to put money on you or The Hebrew of Israel never mentioning the ancestry of Abraham as per the Chaldees references in a video
Djehuti was just reacting to YOU and your exclusion fails (although he did do a little entertaining baiting of the Tazmanian devil) Taz your vibe is too pissy. Let it be a resolution to be more cool and chill this year
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
^ still has to play dumb and act as though I haven't stated ad nauseum that I do not subscribe to genetics because it contradicts the Bible.
Nobody is going to read the long-winded wall of text you wrote, first you said there's no actual reference(s) saying that Kura-Araxes/Hurrians were J, then when I show a reference saying it, you do your signature move and try to move the goalpost after getting debunked and embarrassed.
If your new argument made any sense then you would have made that argument originally but you didn't because you're full of sh*t and you get off on trolling black people who say things that trigger you.
You should make your new years resolution to stop being a white man who pretends to be a black woman on the internet all day, and to stop being a biased career troll who only challenges black people who make arguments concerning Abraham and who his descendants are.
*** You have never challenged Djehuti for excluding other Y markers and claiming that Abraham must have been a J carrier. You only run to me and start obsessing and crying about what I say. ***
All the genetic evidence points to J originating in the caucusus and being Kura-Araxes/Hurrian before invading the Levant and Mesopotamia which makes it impossible for Abraham to descend fron J. The sources literally say that the J carriers who invaded the Levant/Mesopotamia were Kura-Araxes/Hurrian people, and not even Djehuti was dumb enough to try asserting Abraham was a Hurrian or Kura-Araxes. You look extremely stupid for trying to keep this going.
Stop referencing the Bible which you know absolutely nothing about. Remember I had to teach you the difference between a haplotype and a haplogroup? Rofl.
Let me go back to ignoring you now because literally no one on this website takes you seriously and I'm convinced at this point that you have an unhealthy obsession with me, or black people in general.
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: ^ still has to play dumb and act as though I haven't stated ad nauseum that I do not subscribe to genetics because it contradicts the Bible.
quote: Originally posted by Tazarah: is Biblically impossible for Abraham to have been a descendant of the Kura-Araxes/Hurrians (J1 and J2).
this is why nobody takes you seriously here, saying genetics contradicts the bible and then using genetics to claim something is biblically impossible. That is completely ridiculous. No one is in your camp. Yatunde thinks it's a joke even to think Abraham was a real person
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: Nobody is going to read the long-winded wall of text you wrote, first you said there's no actual reference(s) saying that Kura-Araxes/Hurrians were J, then when I show a reference saying it,
It's not an academic reference. Unlike wikipedia Eupedia does not list references. I sometimes mention what they say but to get to a professional level it will need to be backed by peer reviewed journal articles
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
*** You have never challenged Djehuti for excluding other Y markers and claiming that Abraham must have been a J carrier.
Me stating Abraham if he existed could have been an E carrier already does that
But after the Lazaridis article you mentioned it seems less likely
You have bad character. When someone says you stole a cookie from the cookie jar you say "but Jimmy stole two cookies and you didn't say anything" That's a deflection to someone else If you get debunked by me, mentioning Djehuti is irrelevant, you still stole a cookie. Try to train yourself to stop using this argument. I suspect you use it in other parts of your life. Instead of admitting guilt or error you say "but you didn't say anything about what so and so did" That is child-like
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
All the genetic evidence points to J originating in the caucusus and being Kura-Araxes/Hurrian before invading the Levant and Mesopotamia which makes it impossible for Abraham to descend fron J.
That's retarded. The age of J is over 40,000 years ago Kura-Araxes/Hurrian around 4-5,000
They were spreading their culture to other J carriers (assuming they were J carriers - not proven) and this 2,000 years before Abraham !!
back to the drawing board Taz
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
Future readers, pay close attention to how this "lioness" character cries about me demonstrating that Abraham was likely E and not J. He gets triggered by the sources I bring out and starts suggesting that Abraham could have been any number of haplogroups to counter what I say.
But when Djehuti or anyone else claims Abraham was J and could not have been E, "the lioness" is completely quiet and does not ever come at them with the same energy. He has no problem with other people trying to exclude certain haplogroups.
The reason why is obvious.
He is only here to antagonize a certain demographic.
He only crawls out of his hole to cry about what I say because of who I am. As countless others have pointed out over the years, this "lioness" character is not actually a black woman but a white man in digital blackface who tries to hide his racism but always exposes himself when he breaks character and starts trolling.
When something triggers him, all of his biases and contradictory logic rise to the forefront for all to see.
And on top of that he tries to present himself as someone who knows more about genetics than he actually does. Prove him wrong and he just moves the goalpost and tries to come up with a new flawed line of thinking that makes absolutely no sense.
It's always satisfying to see a troll expose themselves.
He was once a moderator on this site but had the position stripped from him because of the exact type of behavior that you see him exhibiting right now in this thread. Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: Future readers, pay close attention to how this "lioness" character cries about me demonstrating that Abraham was likely E
" Nehemiah 9:7 Thou art the Lord the God, who didst choose Abram, and broughtest him forth out of Ur of the Chaldees, and gavest him the name of Abraham;"
_________________________
Taz without even mentioning J or T etc.
what leads you to believe that Abraham, if he is not mythological was an E carrier?
"because Elhaik said so"
That's not good enough. We need some reasoning Then maybe it's worth considering
If you think you are excluding "A" and that means "B" is right Assuming your exclusion was right (Not, but for the purposes of argument) that does not mean C or D might not be right
This is logic, Taz.
without even mentioning J or T etc.
what leads you to believe that Abraham, if he is not mythological was an E carrier?
>> you will have to establish E in ancient Mesopotamia. So see if you can find an journal article to that effect That is basic to what your need for your argument. Otherwise turn off the waterworks
Stop thinking exclusion for a minute If you want E to be on the table you need hard evidence for it's INCLUSION
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
On top of what we have already witnessed, a sure fire way to know that "the lioness" is in troll mode is when he starts rapidly responding and trying to divert attention away from what was originally being discussed after getting debunked.
The reason why he is so triggered is because it has been thoroughly demonstrated that the J carriers who invaded the Levant/Mesopotamia were Kura-Araxes/Hurrian hunter gatherers from the caucusus who had nothing to do with the Hebrews, Abraham, or any of Abraham's ancestors.
Abraham was not a descendant of any Kura-Araxes/Hurrian populations.
If I were to feed this troll the attention he desires and needs, he would no doubt try to go back and forth with me all day in an attempt to save face.
He has moved the goal post so many times, his existence in this thread is laughable at this point.
quote: "Hurrian-speaking people was the region of the upper Nabur and Tigris Rivers, together with the piedmont beyond, extending into the eastern Taurus and northwestern Zagros Mountains. The Hurrian language belongs to neither the Semitic nor the Indo-European language family, nor is it related to Sumerian or Elamite, other important isolated languages of the ancient Near East."
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: J carriers who invaded the Levant/Mesopotamia were Kura-Araxes/Hurrian hunter gatherers from the caucusus who had nothing to do with the Hebrews, Abraham, or any of Abraham's ancestors.
Abraham was not a descendant of any Kura-Araxes/Hurrian populations.
Again, J was all over the region prior to Abraham Kura-Araxes/Hurrian didn't have any exclusive rights on it
Make this your other resolution: stop trying to argue that your theory is correct because someone (in your mind) can't prove their theory
I see people do this a lot. People have a theory. Theory A Someone else has a different theory, Theory B The one that believes Theory B is correct thinks that if A can't prove their theory then their theory B is instantly correct
> wrong
you still have to prove theory B regardless
Your horse hasn't even exited the gate. The first step is hard evidence of E in the ancient Mesopotamia region
No more Mickey-ing
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by LoStranger: This is a little off-topic but I didn't want to create a entire new thread just to ask one simple question about the Kadruka/Sudan sample
What was the exact portion of Sub-Saharan and Eurasian DNA in the sole sample that was taken. I've looked through the study as well as this forum and other internet forums and can't find percentage numbers.
I can only find this graph and the genetic distance appears to be in the middle between "West African and "North African."
quote:So does this equate to the stereotypical 50% Sub-Saharan 50% Eurasian ancestry ratio similar to modern day Horners/Sundanese?
It's not that simple. The 'Eurasian' as you can see is identified with the Levant Neolithic while the so-called 'Sub-Saharan' is Kenyan Late Stone Age which is different from the Yoruba IBD marker and is associated with Mota among other things.
Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
All the evidence I've shared shows that J was brought to the Levant/Mesopotamia specifically by the Kura-Araxes/Hurrians regardless of other bogus arguments that "the lioness" or anyone else tries to make. No information has been presented that says any other population brought J into the Levant/Mesopotamia, "the lioness" is grasping at straws and desparately trying to change the focus of the conversation as he normally does after getting disproven, instead of admitting that he was wrong.
This is because he does not seek any honest dialogue and his only goal is to troll.
The Kura-Araxes/Hurrians were a completely separate group of people who had nothing to do with Hebrews, Abraham or Abraham's ancestors.
quote: "While Hurrians are not mentioned by that name in the Bible, scholars suggest they had contact with the Israelites during the second millennium BC. When Abraham stayed in Haran of northwest Mesopotamia, he was living in the major region of Hurrian influence. Some scholars also suggest Hurrians lived in Canaan before and during the Israelite period."
The cohen haplotype is J1-P58 is a subtype of J-M267 (J1) yet you keep bringing up J2a and Hurrian/Kura-Araxes culture. If you think throwing the same straw sex doll you love so much at me will help your argument you thought wrong.
quote:Imagine that! "Cohen Hurrians"
R O F L!
Did you already forget that the "Israelite" sample you keep affirming from that recent haaretz article was J2?.........
Again Cohen carry J1 NOT J2 and since when is J2 identified with Hurrians only?? You do realize that these haplotypes are not confined to one culture only! LOL This shows how idiotic and desperate you are.
By the way, didn't I show that Abraham and his people did practice rites similar to the Hurrians? Again, I never said they were but that northern Mesopotamia which was their home was a melting pot of many cultures. But your low simplistic low IQ brain can comprehend that.
quote:Furthermore there are plenty of sources that assign both J1 and J2 as being Hurrian/Kura-Araxes.
Nobody with half a brain would assign haplogroups that predate a culture by tens of thousand of years to that culture! Which means you have less brains that that! LMAO Kura-Araxes people also carried hg G2 so did that haplogroup originated among them too?! LOL
quote:Keep playing dumb and I'll surely start posting some of them for you.
No boy, YOU are dumb!
ROTFLMAO Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
Let me repost this since Djehuti is attempting to use the same bogus strawman argument that "the lioness" tried using in regards to J and Kura-Araxes/Hurrians.
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: All the evidence I've shared shows that J was brought to the Levant/Mesopotamia specifically by the Kura-Araxes/Hurrians regardless of other bogus arguments that "the lioness" or anyone else tries to make. No information has been presented that says any other population brought J into the Levant/Mesopotamia,...
The Kura-Araxes/Hurrians were a completely separate group of people who had nothing to do with Hebrews, Abraham or Abraham's ancestors.
quote: "While Hurrians are not mentioned by that name in the Bible, scholars suggest they had contact with the Israelites during the second millennium BC. When Abraham stayed in Haran of northwest Mesopotamia, he was living in the major region of Hurrian influence. Some scholars also suggest Hurrians lived in Canaan before and during the Israelite period."
(Now that it's been shown that Kura-Araxes/Hurrians had both J1 and J2, which Djehuti challenged at first, he is now trying to move the goalpost just like "the lioness".)
J was specifically brought to the Levant/Mesopotamia via the Kura-Araxes/Hurrian migration/invasion from the caucusus.
Also keep in mind, Djehuti is on record admitting that there is zero conclusive evidence to substantiate the "cohen gene" yet he continues making appeals to it.
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Because he thinks that the only advantage he has left.
Anyway, does Lostranger or anyone else have anything to say about the topic??
Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
^ Exactly what I thought... no answer after getting called out for your strawman argument.
"tHe KuRa-ArAxeS ArE noT tHe onLy oNeS wHo hAd J maRkErsss!!!" -- djehuti and "the lioness"
^ cool, I never said that you clowns. Nor did any of the sources I referenced. But what they did say is that J was specifically brought to the Levant/Mesopotamia by invading Kura-Araxes/Hurrian hunter-gatherers from the Caucusus, who had nothing to do with Abraham, Hebrews, ETC.
You are completely unable to refute that evidence so now your only option is to gaslight, build strawmen and run away.
You know it says A LOT more about you than it does about me when you have to seek validation from one of the biggest, unhinged and most notorious trolls on the internet ("the lioness").
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Predictable. Again with the Kura-Araxes straw sex doll whom you love to ravish but have yet to prove how that culture is the origin of any haplogroup let alone J1.
Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
You obviously mistaken my reference to the Nuzi texts for such a claim, when my claim was simply that his culture and its customs were Mesopotamian. Abraham ethnically and at least linguistically was Hebrew a West Semitic language related to Chaldean and Sutean which were also found in Mesopotamia.
Printer-friendly view of this topic