Topic: Irish: Predynastic Hierakonpolis crania have Eurasian affinity
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Huh? The prelude loses me.
Some africans closer to 'eurasians' than other Africans means Closer to 'eurasians' than to any and all africans Afr_A . . Afr_B . . . . . . . . Afr_C . . . Euras
or
Closer to 'eurasians' than some other africans are to 'eurasians Afr_A . . Afr_B . . Afr_C . . . . . . . . . Euras
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Why you always behind on everyone's positions yet blaming it on other people. How is it my fault you're confused about things I've already spoken on many times?
I'm not behind on anything. I'm ahead. You are talking to Jari about being "hoodwinked" but are purposely vague on how. Just read everything you can you advise, the very articles doing the hoodwinking Then Doug comes in and thinks you are talking about back migration. It's obfuscation
Posts: 42941 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Why you always behind on everyone's positions yet blaming it on other people. How is it my fault you're confused about things I've already spoken on many times? [/qb]
I'm not behind on anything. I'm ahead. You are talking to Jari about being "hoodwinked" but are purposely vague on how. Just read everything you can you advise, the very articles doing the hoodwinking Then Doug comes in and thinks you are talking about back migration. It's obfuscation
Lol. What are you even on about. Irish is going around making it seem like the Hierakonpolis sample is a European plant, even thought the Hierakonpolis sample clusters metrically with all sorts of Africans before clustering with Europeans. You cannot understand the affinities of the Hierakonpolis sample going by Irish's verbal description cited in the OP. You can't tell if he is describing normal variations in that region or a European colony deep into Egypt when he says the Hierakonpolis sample is "European-like". That sounds real confusing if not an attempt to hoodwink. And some of his descriptions are not even European-like so there is that, too.
Like I said, you're the one who is behind and confused. How is that my fault? Everyone is on the same page about that description looking like a hoodwink. Only you think I'm purposely vague.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
What do you think about the Irish quote in the OP where he emphasizes only differences to his SAF sample, but not to his European sample?
Because I find it interesting you let that slide and accuse me of obfuscating. In your view, is that obfuscation in that Irish quote?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: It is purely a result of historical precedent in treating North Africa as different and separate from the rest of Africa.
I know you think that. That was your argument in the "when to use black" thread: that treating NA as different from SSA is a conspiracy that's not based on data.
But none of the North African admixed aDNA that has come out since then (Luxmanda, IAM, Taforalt, Abusir, Natufian) supports your claim that it's all a conspiracy. With the exception of Luxmanda they're all closer to Eurasians than to Africans.
But I get what you're going to say next. "That's not what I mean: what I mean is (insert totally different argument from what was argued initially)". [/qb]
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: So who would you suggest to get a firm foundation?
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: They are more tropical than Europeans and West Eurasians. Irish is emphasizing the difference to his SSA samples, but doesn't mention differences to his West Eurasian samples.
I would stay away from Irish and researchers like him until you have a firm foundation. They will only confuse you. Been there.
To get a good foundation I would suggest getting everything you can get your hands on about backmigration and OOA migrations. Once you know that, they can't hoodwink you anymore. When there is a closeness to Eurasians, or a closeness of Eurasians to Africans, you will know why and what it is they're not telling you.
The problem is this type of information is scattered. There is no one single book that will bring you fully up to speed. But some sources are better to start with than others. Irish is not one of them.
posted
Ok. But can I get an answer to that question? What do you think about that Irish quote emphasizing European traits but not non-European traits?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
People need to learn to read and comprehend english. Irish is no different than many other anthropologists who assign the primary origin of North Africans to Eurasia. It doesn't matter what traits you are focusing on, be it nose shape, head shape and skin color or whether it is DNA. Many of these scientists, if not most will say that not only do modern North Africans have Eurasian mixture but that ancient North Africans going back thousands of years were also substantially the result of Eurasian mixture as well. And yes the only way this Eurasian mixture could have taken place and most often the way this mixture is proposed is as a result of back migration.
Trying isolate Irish from the rest of the scientists who say similar things using other characteristics of biology is what I am disagreeing with.
I am certainly not going to sit here and debate people about the scientific consensus on North Africa as having a distinct biological ancestry from the rest of Africa based on Eurasian ancestry going back many thousands of years. There are far too many papers available that people can read for themselves for me to sit here and debate it.
The problem is that some individuals have their own opinions on the history of African biological diversity but those opinions are not always in agreement with the scientific community at large. So rather than pretending there is a quorum we need to be precise in how we describe our position so as to distinguish one's personal vies from others, whether in the scientific community or otherwise. At no point have I seen any papers claiming that ancient North Africans evolved a separate set of indigenous features and traits that were a branch that split off from other Africans before, during or after OOA. Some people may have this view and that probably did take place. But most papers on the topic of African DNA history do not support such a theory even going back to the time of OOA and prior to OOA.
My personal take on this is that such a branch did exist and there were multiple sub branches and those branches are also associated with various migration scenarios OUT Of Africa that make Africans in North Africa closer related to Eurasians as a result of those various branches and waves of migration being ancestral to various Eurasian populations. The problem is we cannot identify these branches or cases of ancestral relationship because there isnt any ancient DNA from Africa going back far enough to identify them.
Posts: 8900 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Will somebody please help me with this. For years now nobody has clarified what this means Some africans are closer to 'eurasians' than other Africans
Does it mean closer to 'eurasians' than to any and all africans Afr_A . . Afr_B . . . . . . . . Afr_C . . . Euras
Or does it mean closer to 'eurasians' than some other africans are to 'eurasians' Afr_A . . Afr_B . . Afr_C . . . . . . . . . Euras
Am I so clueless that it means neither of the above but means something I can't conceive?
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: People need to learn to read and comprehend english. Irish is no different than many other anthropologists who assign the primary origin of North Africans to Eurasia. It doesn't matter what traits you are focusing on, be it nose shape, head shape and skin color or whether it is DNA. Many of these scientists, if not most will say that not only do modern North Africans have Eurasian mixture but that ancient North Africans going back thousands of years were also substantially the result of Eurasian mixture as well. And yes the only way this Eurasian mixture could have taken place and most often the way this mixture is proposed is as a result of back migration.
Trying isolate Irish from the rest of the scientists who say similar things using other characteristics of biology is what I am disagreeing with.
I am certainly not going to sit here and debate people about the scientific consensus on North Africa as having a distinct biological ancestry from the rest of Africa based on Eurasian ancestry going back many thousands of years. There are far too many papers available that people can read for themselves for me to sit here and debate it.
The problem is that some individuals have their own opinions on the history of African biological diversity but those opinions are not always in agreement with the scientific community at large. So rather than pretending there is a quorum we need to be precise in how we describe our position so as to distinguish one's personal vies from others, whether in the scientific community or otherwise. At no point have I seen any papers claiming that ancient North Africans evolved a separate set of indigenous features and traits that were a branch that split off from other Africans before, during or after OOA. Some people may have this view and that probably did take place. But most papers on the topic of African DNA history do not support such a theory even going back to the time of OOA and prior to OOA.
My personal take on this is that such a branch did exist and there were multiple sub branches and those branches are also associated with various migration scenarios OUT Of Africa that make Africans in North Africa closer related to Eurasians as a result of those various branches and waves of migration being ancestral to various Eurasian populations. The problem is we cannot identify these branches or cases of ancestral relationship because there isnt any ancient DNA from Africa going back far enough to identify them.
Please. At the end of the day, the anthropologists you're talking about have imperfect models in regards to the ancestry types under discussion, but they are still closer to the truth than what you have claimed in your posts in all these years. Your bogus claims are well preserved in the "when to use black thread". You said their claims were all a racist conspiracy. aDNA says it isn't all a racist conspiracy. You said there is no relationship between EEF and North Africans. aDNA proves you wrong on that, too. First you had no problem with third intermediate period aDNA, then Abusir aDNA dropped and you started special pleading. Then Middle Kingdom Upper Egyptian aDNA dropped and you started special pleading and posting sore loser non sense. Now you have backpedaled all the way to the Nubian border begging for samples to be taken there only. You look confused in all North African aDNA threads, giggling at imaginary vindications, special pleading, etc. I know you're not pontificating about others being wrong, with your track record.
You were definitely more off the mark than Irish. Let's be absolutely clear about that. One can salvage a lot of his work by putting it in an African context, instead of a backmigration context. Which of your analyses on North African affinities can be given a place in the aDNA era with some modifications? Your analyses can't even be salvaged. That's how lost you were all these years.
And BTW, I'm not going to keep responding to you on your delusional claims. On the first page you tried to go into your rants again about everything being a conspiracy. You're wrong about that (as aDNA shows some parallels with Irish's work). Does not matter how many times you repeat a lie in your sermons. It's still a lie.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wouldn't be surprised honestly if Upper Egypt was mixed with back migrants too. What blackness means to people with that in mind is another matter. I suspect Doug will be team Lioness on the subject before long though. Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: I wouldn't be surprised honestly if Upper Egypt was mixed with back migrants too. What blackness means to people with that in mind is another matter. I suspect Doug will be team Lioness on the subject before long though.
Which Eurasian population? Do you believe it’s appropriate to call M and U6 Eurasian?
Btw @Tukuler your first schematic is what I believe people are suggesting.
Posts: 1782 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Closer to 'eurasians' than to any and all africans Afr_A . . . Afr_B . . . . . . . . . Afr_C . . . . Eura
Afr_A . . Afr_B . . . Afr_C . . . . . . . . . . . Eura Closer to 'eurasians' than some other africans are to 'eurasians'
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Btw @Tukuler your first schematic is what I believe people are suggesting.
. Thx 4 t/answer proponents couldn't bother to answer or maybe as clueless as me and have no idea of what it means either, even when presented clear choices.
A visual of Schema2 is @, based on pairwise nucleotide genetic distance. A visual of Schema1 is @, based on maximum-likelihood and mixture. Maximum-likelihood TreeMix visual for Schema2 @
Without geneflow Mzabi are [closer to] Africans Admitting mixture, Mzabi are [closer to] Eurasians
Very simplified, demography vs geography? Misleading?
My guess? These visuals imply there are genetic Africans and there are Africans only by residence.
For Mozabites, a proxy for indigenous NW Africans, I'll make another guess.
Mzabi underlying Afroasian genetics jelled in Africa with local NW continental genetics as an older cousin of some pre-'NC'/NS speakers to get overlayed by non-continental pre-AA speakers but more so mostly in historic times by non-continental AA speakers themselves of varying ancient African admixture in their own genesis.
Or since no migration arrow from southeastern Mediterraneans, then the underlying genetics are non-continental [pre-] AA speakers. Technically not Africans at all, not closer to, but actual Eurasians just happening to live in Africa and absorbing some African genetics.
What's known of NW Africa since the Pleistocene up to day suggests its peoples are a good measure of both.
If so, an African population can crossover to, or else have, ancestral characteristics of both distance from Eurasians/Africans models.
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: I wouldn't be surprised honestly if Upper Egypt was mixed with back migrants too. What blackness means to people with that in mind is another matter. I suspect Doug will be team Lioness on the subject before long though.
Which Eurasian population? Do you believe it’s appropriate to call M and U6 Eurasian?
Btw @Tukuler your first schematic is what I believe people are suggesting.
I don't think there would've been any one particular Eurasian population. groups such as a proto Natufian or a Soqotri like people that may even predate the development and spread Near Eastern agriculture. Mixing someone like this:
This:
mix some East Africans and you'd probably get a Southern Egyptian. However one thing that'd likely offer distinction is that I would expect back migration to have been more irregular and (generally) earlier than northern Egypt which would have multiple pulses of gradual Near Eastern flow, some very ancient some a lot younger.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Will somebody please help me with this. For years now nobody has clarified what this means Some africans are closer to 'eurasians' than other Africans
Does it mean closer to 'eurasians' than to any and all africans Afr_A . . Afr_B . . . . . . . . Afr_C . . . Euras
Or does it mean closer to 'eurasians' than some other africans are to 'eurasians' Afr_A . . Afr_B . . Afr_C . . . . . . . . . Euras
Am I so clueless that it means neither of the above but means something I can't conceive?
Help
I think the more ancient dna we get the 1st option is going to be correct.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's good to know I wasn't wrong on lioness giving Irish a pass on his European-like comment. Who knew all it takes to draw out lioness astronomical bias is just to ask her to comment on false claims in Lazaridis and Irish. It's really that simple, apparently. Just ask, sit back, wait for her distracting evasions and keep asking until it's obvious she's not going to utter one critical note in regards to these authors' openly false claims.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Troll. Even Eurocentric authors have agreed there is a negroid component in predynastics.
Yet Irish breaks with established fact, sidesteps what is already known and demonstrated, and makes it sound like predynastic Hierakonpolis is fully European/West Asian
All of these features are also present in Europeans and West Asians to some degree, but are uncommon in sub-Saharan peoples. Craniometric indicators appear to support these results, and European-like discrete traits, such as alveolar orthognathism, dolichocephaly, rhomboid orbits, narrow nasal aperture, and nasal sill, are prevalent. Irish
In your troll point of view, was it okay for Irish to blatantly misrepresent the variations in the Hierakonpolis population? And how is it you keep running from the elephant in the room re: Irish's obfuscations, but yet you keep mentioning my name and my supposed "obfuscations"?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [QB] Troll. Even Eurocentric authors have agreed there is a negroid component
I thought that whole "true Negroid" concept was shut down on ES a long time ago. I'm not into this crania measurement = white/black thing. That seems like the old school scientific "racialism" stuff to me but you talk about this stuff like it trumps genetics (no pun intended)
----------------------------------------------- Doug I need help he's after mePosts: 42941 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
But why are you cool with his describing their features Eurocentrically, if you feel caucasoid/negroid to be shut down? Europe is not a likely ancestor to AE. So why describe their features via Europeans over for example Near Easterners, Horners or Sudanese?
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks. I like how your question refuses to take her bait on racialism and how it refocuses on Irish's misrepresentations and her refusal to acknowledge that.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Ok. But can I get an answer to that question? What do you think about that Irish quote emphasizing European traits but not non-European traits?
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: I'll look later, got to go to bed
You were asked what you thought if Irish's Eurocentic characterizing of HRK and you've still said nothing about that. You said you'd speak on it after rest and came back but only to talk about other stuff. That is why Swenet has the impression you're not against it and are dodging. So please just answer the question.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
I got tired again, the whole Memorial day partying got to me go to go to bed again, Doug will handle it, peace out
Posts: 42941 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: People need to learn to read and comprehend english. Irish is no different than many other anthropologists who assign the primary origin of North Africans to Eurasia. It doesn't matter what traits you are focusing on, be it nose shape, head shape and skin color or whether it is DNA. Many of these scientists, if not most will say that not only do modern North Africans have Eurasian mixture but that ancient North Africans going back thousands of years were also substantially the result of Eurasian mixture as well. And yes the only way this Eurasian mixture could have taken place and most often the way this mixture is proposed is as a result of back migration.
Trying isolate Irish from the rest of the scientists who say similar things using other characteristics of biology is what I am disagreeing with.
I am certainly not going to sit here and debate people about the scientific consensus on North Africa as having a distinct biological ancestry from the rest of Africa based on Eurasian ancestry going back many thousands of years. There are far too many papers available that people can read for themselves for me to sit here and debate it.
The problem is that some individuals have their own opinions on the history of African biological diversity but those opinions are not always in agreement with the scientific community at large. So rather than pretending there is a quorum we need to be precise in how we describe our position so as to distinguish one's personal vies from others, whether in the scientific community or otherwise. At no point have I seen any papers claiming that ancient North Africans evolved a separate set of indigenous features and traits that were a branch that split off from other Africans before, during or after OOA. Some people may have this view and that probably did take place. But most papers on the topic of African DNA history do not support such a theory even going back to the time of OOA and prior to OOA.
My personal take on this is that such a branch did exist and there were multiple sub branches and those branches are also associated with various migration scenarios OUT Of Africa that make Africans in North Africa closer related to Eurasians as a result of those various branches and waves of migration being ancestral to various Eurasian populations. The problem is we cannot identify these branches or cases of ancestral relationship because there isnt any ancient DNA from Africa going back far enough to identify them.
Please. At the end of the day, the anthropologists you're talking about have imperfect models in regards to the ancestry types under discussion, but they are still closer to the truth than what you have claimed in your posts in all these years. Your bogus claims are well preserved in the "when to use black thread". You said their claims were all a racist conspiracy. aDNA says it isn't all a racist conspiracy. You said there is no relationship between EEF and North Africans. aDNA proves you wrong on that, too. First you had no problem with third intermediate period aDNA, then Abusir aDNA dropped and you started special pleading. Then Middle Kingdom Upper Egyptian aDNA dropped and you started special pleading and posting sore loser non sense. Now you have backpedaled all the way to the Nubian border begging for samples to be taken there only. You look confused in all North African aDNA threads, giggling at imaginary vindications, special pleading, etc. I know you're not pontificating about others being wrong, with your track record.
You were definitely more off the mark than Irish. Let's be absolutely clear about that. One can salvage a lot of his work by putting it in an African context, instead of a backmigration context. Which of your analyses on North African affinities can be given a place in the aDNA era with some modifications? Your analyses can't even be salvaged. That's how lost you were all these years.
And BTW, I'm not going to keep responding to you on your delusional claims. On the first page you tried to go into your rants again about everything being a conspiracy. You're wrong about that (as aDNA shows some parallels with Irish's work). Does not matter how many times you repeat a lie in your sermons. It's still a lie.
Man please stop changing the topic. Can you stick to one point for a change? I said that Irish is no different than other scientists in using the distinction between North Africa and Sub Saharan Africa. Stick to that point and stop going anywhere else.
Here is what you said earlier:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: He is not a geographer and so he will have geography as less important in his criteria than affinity. This is why his "SSA dental trait complex" reminds you of True Negro. But he's not doing that. That is how the affinities of these populations are structured.
What I am specifically saying is that Irish's use of the distinction between SSA and North Africans is following the common usage of the term is the problem. He is not off on his own outside the context and precedent already established within the anthropological community.
And you keep contradicting yourself. On one hand you say the man is biased, yet you agree with the overall conclusion? Really?
So do you therefore believe that North Africa prior to and after OOA was distinguished from the rest of Africa by "Eurasian" ancestry?
This was the underlying issue that caused various debates here with you starting with the whole EEF and Basal Eurasian fiasco.
I can't take anybody seriously who wants to claim there was a Eurasian branch of Africans in Africa before humans even left Africa. My point is that the only populations in Africa before OOA and after OOA were Africans. Period. Their skin color isn't even the main issue, as we can assume it to be black. The issue is this nonsense of trying to make up new names for African populations who never left Africa and assigning them to a "Eurasian" category even if they aren't Eurasian. And no, Irish is not supporting that nonsense either. I think you are just grasping at straws to make up a scenario where somehow these papers touting "Eurasian" affinities in Africa somehow support your ancient indigenous "Eurasian" branch of pre-OOA Africans when they dont. All these people are referring to back migrants. Back migrants are not the same as some pre-OOA "basal" Eurasian group of Africans who never left Africa. That is your position from what I gather and it makes no sense and is not really supported by the science talking of Eurasian affinities in North Africa.
When modern science talks about Eurasian affinity in North Africa we know they are talking of back migrants. There are more than enough papers that state this. And I disagree BOTH with characterizing ancient indigenous African ancestry as being the result of Eurasian backmigration as well as trying to claim there was some "Eurasian" branch of Africans that existed in North Africa prior to OOA.
No need to sidetrack into a discussion of skin color. I am familiar with the history of this whole discussion at the high level.
So when you say that North Africans are closer to Eurasians, which most people understood from prior to you even posting on this forum, we know that you mean it as "there was a pre OOA population with Eurasian affinity in Africa". The problem here is semantics. No Eurasians existed prior to OOA. So calling any group of Africans prior to leaving Africa "Eurasian" is absurd and illogical. Not to mention trying to twist the words and views of the scientific community to support that crap is likewise absurd.
I just call the pre OOA Africans Africans. Period. There is absolutely no justification for any ancient split of Africans into North African vs Sub Saharan. None. Similarly Eurasians are Eurasians. Obviously there is migration and populations mix. But no need to muddy the water with trying to push this "Eurasian population in Africa before OOA" nonsense, especially when in reference to various scientists dividing ancient African biological history based on Eurasian ancestry via migration. Both models of African biological history are flawed. And if the model is flawed the conclusions that result from that model are flawed.
And bottom line, the whole issue in the when to use black thread was an issue of semantics and labels. It wasn't just about the word black. For example, I questioned you then about when the first OOA populations stopped being African and when they became Eurasian? Obviously science has no better answer on this than you do as even the Lazaridis tree of human DNA ancestry shows clearly they have no idea either. Therefore, given that they can't tell us what criteria should be used to define that "branching" of Eurasians from Africans, it makes the whole discussion an issue of semantics. Case in point, if tomorrow some ancient DNA from Africa was found showing that some of the lineages claimed to be "Eurasian" like J1, J2 or M1 were found in Africa before Eurasia, what does that mean about calling these lineages "Eurasian"? At a meta level that is what all of this is about.
I try to keep it simple but some folks want to make things overly convoluted and complex.
Posts: 8900 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not to mention I find it funny how Swenet likes to automatically propose a "black agenda" when certain folks talk about African biological history when they disagree with him as some sort of "conspiracy theory". Yet European scientists and others who propose variations of the same flawed models going back to the bad old days of overt race science are just "following the data" and coming to their own independent conclusions independent of any larger historical agenda within these same institutions of science.
Posts: 8900 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doug how many chances do you think you get with aDNA for I stop taking you serious. Lol. Go bother someone else with your long winded posts that never turn out to be correct with new papers.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Prediction noted.
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: ... [clarify] what this means Some africans are closer to 'eurasians' than other Africans
Does it mean closer to 'eurasians' than to any and all africans Afr_A . . Afr_B . . . . . . . . Afr_C . . . Euras
Or does it mean closer to 'eurasians' than some other africans are to 'eurasians' Afr_A . . Afr_B . . Afr_C . . . . . . . . . Euras
[Does] it means neither of the above but [] something I can't conceive?
.
I think the more ancient dna we get the 1st option is going to be correct.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Doug how many chances do you think you get with aDNA for I stop taking you serious. Lol. Go bother someone else with your long winded posts that never turn out to be correct with new papers.
Why should I care about you taking me serious when I was discussing a particular point with you and you refuse to address it? That means you can't be taken seriously to even follow a simple discussion that isn't even that deep.
You think can keep trying to minimize this to ADNA, metrics or anything you want. The fact is that for most of African history prior to and after OOA, North Africa was populated by Africans, not Eurasians of any kind neither back migrants nor an indigenous African "Eurasian" sub group.
Therefore no metric is going to prove either one of these groupings are valid for overall African biological history, whether ADNA, skull shape or anything else.
That is my point. If I am wrong on that then fine, but I doubt it will be shown that I am.
But of course you can keep on debating whether Irish's agenda and selective sampling is just his own personal style and separate from what others in the scientific community think about Africans all you want. That right there is wishful thinking at best and at worst being an apologist.
Case point what on earth does this mean:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Please. At the end of the day, the anthropologists you're talking about have imperfect models in regards to the ancestry types under discussion, but they are still closer to the truth than what you have claimed in your posts in all these years. Your bogus claims are well preserved in the "when to use black thread".
If the ancestry types are wrong how can the conclusions be right that are based on using flawed or imperfect models? And if they KEEP USING said imperfect or flawed models, why can't we not call them out for having an agenda to push distortions and deceptions for continuing to use such models. At some point you have to admit they must have an agenda if they keep using such imperfect or inaccurate models. So you are contradicting yourself. It is OK for these guys to keep pushing imperfect models and assumptions ON PURPOSE but Africans have to be held to a higher standard? Seriously?
You don't make any earthly sense. Let these guys stand or fall based on their own work and stop trying to make their foibles seem legit. If they fall on their sword then so be it. I don't see the need to protect them from justifiable criticism or to pretend that overall this criticism isn't tied to historical precedent. That is just nonsense talk.
Posts: 8900 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lmao. This negro saw Laz 2018's cartoon slide and started celebrating conjecture about BE being non-African. But has the nerve to tell me I'm wrong for accepting Irish statistical data that has been reproduced many times by many researchers. At least I'm not falling for someone's powerpoint presentation concept slide. Or whatever that was supposed to be. Such a dupe.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: What I am specifically saying is that Irish's use of the distinction between SSA and North Africans is following the common usage of the term is the problem. He is not off on his own outside the context and precedent already established within the anthropological community.
And you keep contradicting yourself. On one hand you say the man is biased, yet you agree with the overall conclusion? Really?.....
This was the underlying issue that caused various debates here with you starting with the whole EEF and Basal Eurasian fiasco.....
I can't take anybody seriously who wants to claim there was a Eurasian branch of Africans in Africa before humans even left Africa. My point is that the only populations in Africa before OOA and after OOA were Africans. Period. Their skin color isn't even the main issue, as we can assume it to be black. The issue is this nonsense of trying to make up new names for African populations who never left Africa and assigning them to a "Eurasian" category even if they aren't Eurasian. And no, Irish is not supporting that nonsense either. I think you are just grasping at straws to make up a scenario where somehow these papers touting "Eurasian" affinities in Africa somehow support your ancient indigenous "Eurasian" branch of pre-OOA Africans when they dont. All these people are referring to back migrants. Back migrants are not the same as some pre-OOA "basal" Eurasian group of Africans who never left Africa. That is your position from what I gather and it makes no sense and is not really supported by the science talking of Eurasian affinities in North Africa.
I was going to say that Doug was making a good critique of Swenet but then I went to the first page of this thread and Swenet says
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
But none of the North African admixed aDNA that has come out since then (Luxmanda, IAM, Taforalt, Abusir, Natufian) supports your claim that it's all a conspiracy. With the exception of Luxmanda they're all closer to Eurasians than to Africans.
So Doug's critique of Swenet is good but doesn't capture the full dimesion of Swenet's inconsistency
He's right that Swenet has this alternate definition of "Basal Eurasians" being a group of Africans who were Eurasian before even leaving Africa and were the Africans "closer to Eurasians"
but in this quote above he then talks about "closer to Eurasians" as " admixed aDNA"
Posts: 42941 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Prediction noted.
Afr_A . . Afr_B . . . . . . . . Afr_C . . . Euras
And then we’ll discover a group of Africans between Afr_A and Afr_B with ancestry from Afr_C called the “Bantu”
Posts: 1782 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
BTW, I never said Irish or Lazaridis agrees with my interpretations or that I agree with their interpretations. What I said is I agree with their DATA and their DATA agrees with what I'm saying. Just because an author talks about backmigration doesn't mean I can't take their DATA and give it a better interpretation. That is not an inconsistency. It's normal in science to take the DATA of someone you disagree with, examine it, and see if it really means what they claim it means. DATA is not proprietary. No one can claim data. I'm free to take data as I please as long as I can give it a better fitting analysis. And notice the trolls above never talk about my analysis being wrong. They talk about how I try to reconcile data, like that's a scientific no-no or something.
Much of Keita's work is based on taking Eurocentric researchers to task on their own DATA, and using that same data to argue his points. Does that mean Keita is inconsistent for condemning Eurocentric researchers, and at the same time using their DATA? Of course not. That's normal.
Some people on this forum really can't think. LMAO. They have mental constipation or something. It's really sad that they think they're saying something profound but they're saying nothing.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Will somebody please help me with this. For years now nobody has clarified what this means Some africans are closer to 'eurasians' than other Africans
Does it mean closer to 'eurasians' than to any and all africans Afr_A . . Afr_B . . . . . . . . Afr_C . . . Euras
Or does it mean closer to 'eurasians' than some other africans are to 'eurasians' Afr_A . . Afr_B . . Afr_C . . . . . . . . . Euras
Am I so clueless that it means neither of the above but means something I can't conceive?
Help
If I understand the pre-OOA argument correctly, Africans are naturally going OOA vary in their relative closeness to Eurasians depending on how early their ancestors "got off the bus". The proto-Afrasan Northeast Africans whom we assume were the foundational ancestors of AE etc. would have gotten off the bus after the ancestors of West Africans, who in turn got off the bus long after Khoisan, and so on. So yeah, when you consider Northeast Africa would have been the last bus stop before OOA proper, the first option you listed would be more accurate.
Obviously, the implications of that aren't attractive to those in the "Afrocentric" community who want population genetics to mirror pan-Africanist sociopolitical views. But if it's any consolation, it's not likely that Homo sapiens turned pale the moment they passed the Sinai into the Middle East ~50 kya. That depigmentation would have probably happened in somewhere in West Eurasia long after OOA. So it seems likely to me that the so-called "Basal Eurasian" population that remained in Northeast Africa would have still been phenotypically "black", and that they would have stayed that way prior to later admixture with West Eurasian populations.
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannohotep: it seems likely to me that the so-called "Basal Eurasian" population that remained in Northeast Africa would have still been phenotypically "black", and that they would have stayed that way prior to later admixture with West Eurasian populations. [/QB]
So are they Ethiopians ? or are they Levantines or Arabians?
This mysterious term "basal Eurasians" , why can't a place be named?
Posts: 42941 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Lmao. This negro saw Laz 2018's cartoon slide and started celebrating conjecture about BE being non-African. But has the nerve to tell me I'm wrong for accepting Irish statistical data that has been reproduced many times by many researchers. At least I'm not falling for someone's powerpoint presentation concept slide. Or whatever that was supposed to be. Such a dupe.
No Swenet, the point was going back to the question I asked you "when did OOA populations become Eurasian". You had no answer and neither does Laziridis and the rest of the scientific community. That is why the cartoon chart is relevant. Again, if all original humans were African in Origin what "metric/marker/lineage" defines NON African and when or where did this "metric/marker/lineage" arise? That question is fundamental to this issue of labeling and semantics in biological history related to OOA.
You keep seeing this as an attack on you but it isn't. I just don't agree with some of your positions stated previously about a "Eurasian" structure in Africans before they left Africa. All this other stuff you keep bringing up is just you doing your usual duck and dodge of relevant points pretending to be clever by not addressing the issue.
Posts: 8900 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannohotep: it seems likely to me that the so-called "Basal Eurasian" population that remained in Northeast Africa would have still been phenotypically "black", and that they would have stayed that way prior to later admixture with West Eurasian populations.
So are they Ethiopians ? or are they Levantines or Arabians?
This mysterious term "basal Eurasians" , why can't a place be named?
For what it's worth, I don't think any modern population looks exactly like the original "Basal Eurasian" population. All the populations in northern Africa seem to have acquired too much admixture from all directions in the millennia since. This would be true even for the populations people on ES would have cited as the best models for AE phenotype, like the Beja or certain modern Upper Egyptians. It's like how you don't see people who look precisely like Cheddar Man walking around Europe anymore.
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Will somebody please help me with this. For years now nobody has clarified what this means Some africans are closer to 'eurasians' than other Africans
Does it mean closer to 'eurasians' than to any and all africans Afr_A . . Afr_B . . . . . . . . Afr_C . . . Euras
Or does it mean closer to 'eurasians' than some other africans are to 'eurasians' Afr_A . . Afr_B . . Afr_C . . . . . . . . . Euras
Am I so clueless that it means neither of the above but means something I can't conceive?
Help
If I understand the pre-OOA argument correctly, Africans are naturally going OOA vary in their relative closeness to Eurasians depending on how early their ancestors "got off the bus". The proto-Afrasan Northeast Africans whom we assume were the foundational ancestors of AE etc. would have gotten off the bus after the ancestors of West Africans, who in turn got off the bus long after Khoisan, and so on. So yeah, when you consider Northeast Africa would have been the last bus stop before OOA proper, the first option you listed would be more accurate.
Obviously, the implications of that aren't attractive to those in the "Afrocentric" community who want population genetics to mirror pan-Africanist sociopolitical views. But if it's any consolation, it's not likely that Homo sapiens turned pale the moment they passed the Sinai into the Middle East ~50 kya. That depigmentation would have probably happened in somewhere in West Eurasia long after OOA. So it seems likely to me that the so-called "Basal Eurasian" population that remained in Northeast Africa would have still been phenotypically "black", and that they would have stayed that way prior to later admixture with West Eurasian populations.
All humans in Africa before OOA were African. What part of that is so hard to understand? And Pan African is a political ideology not a genetics argument. You are just making up nonsensical talking points. Semantically and logically there were no "Other" humans in Africa before OOA. Therefore All humans were African up to that point and until somebody somewhere defines when Africans became "Eurasian" or otherwise "Non African" this question will linger. Getting off the bus has nothing to do with it. Africans were Africans until they left Africa and they were still African after they left for a while after until said "Eurasian/Non African" split event. To suggest otherwise is the problem.
This nonsense of a "Eurasian" substructure in Africa before OOA is something some here tried to uphold as some "holy grail" of African biological understanding and to me it is completely a crock of b.s. It is a fairy tale creature that doesn't exist and those that believe in that crap or want to force others to believe in that garbage should be called out for that nonsense.
Africans before and after OOA are equally African. Some groups having closer relationships to non Africans due to the history of OOA doesn't make that group more or less African. That is where this whole obsession of finding this "Eurasian substructure" in Africa a defining chararistic of African populations going back to even before OOA an absurd and silly game.
Posts: 8900 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
I agree with your interpretation in the first paragraph. I would also add that there is no longer a need to present this as a likely scenario. It's mainstream science that North Africans conforming to your description exist. They have the low Neanderthal proportion to prove that their African ancestry is contributing to their closeness to Eurasians (not [just] their Eurasian ancestry).
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
I agree with your interpretation in the first paragraph. I would also add that there is no longer a need to present this as a likely scenario. It's mainstream science that North Africans conforming to your description exist. They have the low Neanderthal proportion to prove that their African ancestry is contributing to their closeness to Eurasians (not [just] their Eurasian ancestry).
The problem with that picture is that Taforalt as an example of ACTUAL DNA from ancient North Africa does not cluster with the "North African" group to the right in the green circle. Therefore, that already is a red flag. It is an issue of temporal distortion based on using modern populations on one hand as proxies for ancient populations to dont fit "the flawed model" used to separate North Africa from the rest of Africa. Ancient Taforalt DNA clusters with Africa as African not as North African and separate from the rest of Africa....... which is my whole point.
Posts: 8900 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
I agree with your interpretation in the first paragraph. I would also add that there is no longer a need to present this as a likely scenario. It's mainstream science that North Africans conforming to your description exist. They have the low Neanderthal proportion to prove that their African ancestry is contributing to their closeness to Eurasians (not [just] their Eurasian ancestry).
.
.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
But none of the North African admixed aDNA that has come out since then (Luxmanda, IAM, Taforalt, Abusir, Natufian) supports your claim that it's all a conspiracy. With the exception of Luxmanda they're all closer to Eurasians than to Africans.
posted
I didn't say admixed North African. I said North African admixed. And even if I said admixed North African and acknowledged they have some Eurasian ancestry (e.g. U6). Your point?
Like I said above, your problem is that you can't even think and you're trying to make it my problem. I'm not responsible for your reading comprehension or ability to think. Go back to the Deshret or entertainment section, please.
You have nothing of value to add on the topic and the conversation flies over your head.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannohotep: It's like how you don't see people who look precisely like Cheddar Man walking around Europe anymore.
Correct. Hold this W.
Cheddar Man is a good example to relate to Basal Eurasion. Not only because both are extinct populations, as you point out, but also because, like Basal Eurasian, no pure WHG population has been sampled yet. Yet no one is saying WHG is a "hypothetical population", like they're trying to say about Basal Eurasian.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic