posted
Or west Africa for that matter. I may have read every possible place of origin for every haplogroup and offhand I can't remember one example. The one that stands out is X. X's early branches are heavy in North Africa but the entry doesn't even have a possible place of origin section. It reminds me of what Beyoku said about North African ancestry.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
L1b is a branch of L1, which is a branch of L1-6, which one of the two daughters of Eve.
X is a branch of N, which is a branch of L3, which is a branch of L3'4, which is a branch of L3'4'6, which is a branch of L2'3'4'6, which is a branch of L2-6, which is a branch of L1-6, which is one of the two daughters of Eve.
So what's an early branch vs a subhaplogroup?
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
posted
Soares et al tend to lump West and Central Africa together in their phylogeographic studies, but broadly L1, L2, and L3b, L3d, and L3e likely originated in West or Central Africa. Specifically L1b is probably West and L1c probably Central African, specific branches of L2 and L3 I don't know. Then there are young subbranches of L0a, L3f, U6 etc with parent haplogroups recently arrived from elsewhere.
For North Africa, maybe L3k, but that is too rare to pin down. U6 and M1, the ancestral versions thought to back-migrate from West Eurasia, but the expansion of the haplogroups themselves, or at least old major subclades from North Africa. Enafaa et al add X1 to these having a Paleolithic coalescence age in North Africa. General view seems to be that North Africa was largely depopulated during harsh glacial periods and surviving lineages are due to repopulation from West Eurasia and Sub-Saharan Africa.
In the end we are talking about stuff that happened tens of thousands or over a hundred thousand years ago so modern distributions could be totally misleading.
For Y DNA, Trombetta et al (2015) found: "a northern African location is favored for the node defining the M78 subclade.... our phylogeographic analysis slightly favors an eastern African origin for E-M35.... A posterior probability of 0.92 supports a central/western African origin for haplogroup M2." Second place for E-M35 was North Africa, and the new ancient DNA shows it's very old there.
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
By nonsubs I'm talking about any letter or early branches in the letter. I would think M would be the likely candidate for North Africa but to my should not be surprise Wikipedia has an Asian origin for M. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_M_mtDNA So all this is back migration? Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
So what you are asking is, did the only non-African sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-branches of the human mitochondrial tree (M and N), or any of their immediate branches, originate in Africa?
Well we don't know, but there is no compelling reason they should have. The borders of Africa and Eurasia are deserts. IMHO if the Out-of-Africa boom did begin inside Africa and left any survivors there the most likely would be M1. But there could be others, how would you tell at this time depth?
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
posted
We don't know because we don't have ancient DNA from Africa of sufficient time depth. All the current models are speculative based on theoretical calculations using ancient DNA from Europe and more recent DNA from Africa (ie. mostly current populations).
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes: Does mainstream pop genetics recognize any haplogroups as native to North Africa?
.
quote: Prehistory, which is commonly defined as the time when the first human settlers arrived, began in West Africa around 12,000 B.C.E. The first settlers are thought to be the Pygmies, who began settling in the region in the thirteenth century B.C.E -- New World Encyclopedia
Possible time of origin 60,000 years before present
Origins There is a debate concerning geographical origins of Haplogroup M and its sibling haplogroup N. Both lineages are thought to have been the main surviving lineages involved in the out of Africa migration (or migrations) because all indigenous lineages found outside Africa belong to haplogroup M or haplogroup N. Yet to be conclusively determined is whether the mutations that define haplogroups M and N occurred in Africa before the exit from Africa or in Asia after the exit from Africa. Determining the origins of haplogroup M is further complicated by the fact that it is found in Africa and outside of Africa
African origin hypothesis
According to this theory, haplogroups M and N arose from L3 in an East African population that had been isolated from other African populations. Members of this population were involved in the out Africa migration and only carried M and N lineages. With the possible exception of haplogroup M1, all other M and N clades in Africa were lost by genetic drift.[6][12]
The African origin of Haplogroup M is supported by the following arguments and evidence.
L3, the parent clade of haplogroup M, is found throughout Africa, but is rare outside Africa.[12] According to Toomas Kivisild (2003), "the lack of L3 lineages other than M and N in India and among non-African mitochondria in general suggests that the earliest migration(s) of modern humans already carried these two mtDNA ancestors, via a departure route over the Horn of Africa."[6] Specifically concerning at least M1:
Haplogroup M1 is largely restricted to Africa where the highest frequencies of M1 can be found in Northeast Africa, particularly in Ethiopia. M1 is found in Europe and the Near East but at considerably lower frequencies than in Africa.[3]
Posts: 42939 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes: Or west Africa for that matter. I may have read every possible place of origin for every haplogroup and offhand I can't remember one example. The one that stands out is X. X's early branches are heavy in North Africa but the entry doesn't even have a possible place of origin section. It reminds me of what Beyoku said about North African ancestry.
I tell you it's so freaking weird. The commonly accepted date for OOA is between 50 000 to 70 000 years. Yet we have haplogroups with TMRCAs older than 50 000 years old being described unequivocally as originating from Eurasia.
Posts: 288 | From: Asia | Registered: Mar 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes: Or west Africa for that matter. I may have read every possible place of origin for every haplogroup and offhand I can't remember one example. The one that stands out is X. X's early branches are heavy in North Africa but the entry doesn't even have a possible place of origin section. It reminds me of what Beyoku said about North African ancestry.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: [QB]
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: [qb] North Africa E-M81
West Africa E-M2 E-M132 L2b, L1b, R-V88
I take it you don't consider Niger and Mali as part of West Africa then.
I consider Niger and Mali as part of West Africa.
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes: [QB] Or west Africa for that matter. I may have read every possible place of origin for every haplogroup and offhand I can't remember one example. The one that stands out is X. X's early branches are heavy in North Africa but the entry doesn't even have a possible place of origin section. It reminds me of what Beyoku said about North African ancestry.
^^ he is talking about origin, not a list of countries with people carrying a haplgroup
Posts: 42939 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Technically speaking he was talking about haplogroups being "native" to an area. Just because something is native or endemic to an area does not necessarily mean they originated there to begin with.
So Fourty2, are you questioning which haplogroups originate from an area??
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mansamusa: I tell you it's so freaking weird. The commonly accepted date for OOA is between 50 000 to 70 000 years. Yet we have haplogroups with TMRCAs older than 50 000 years old being described unequivocally as originating from Eurasia.
Where do those commonly accepted dates come from in the first place, though? Are they actually independent of those haplogroup TMRCAs? I'll be surprised if those estimates are not just approximations of the same TMRCAs.
In that case the approximate number (50 000 years) *comes from* the specific numbers (really they should be quite large intervals). The lower bound of those estimates *is* the TMRCA of the Eurasian haplogroups (M, N and C, D, F). The upper bound is the TMRCA of their parent haplogroups (L3 and CDEF), the logic being that the exit from Africa ought to have occurred between those two points. (That ain't necessarily so, but it is a reasonable hypothesis.)
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
posted
TMRCA (Most Recent Common Ancestor) doesn't tell you where that ancestor originated. It is more an issue of a skew in data between older DNA from Eurasia and younger, more contemporary DNA from Africa as to how these current models of human prehistory get so warped.
For example regarding Haplogroups M and N, given the time ranges involved it is perfectly plausible a small group of M carriers arose in Africa and from them a subset expanded out of Africa and those in Africa gave birth to the M1 lineages. However the way modern genetics and population modeling works they come up with absurd explanations and work arounds which to me are less plausible and definitely in some ways seem to push an agenda. Either that are just folks grasping at straws based on skewed ancient data from Europe.
quote:
Background
The main unequivocal conclusion after three decades of phylogeographic mtDNA studies is the African origin of all extant modern humans. In addition, a southern coastal route has been argued for to explain the Eurasian colonization of these African pioneers. Based on the age of macrohaplogroup L3, from which all maternal Eurasian and the majority of African lineages originated, the out-of-Africa event has been dated around 60-70 kya. On the opposite side, we have proposed a northern route through Central Asia across the Levant for that expansion and, consistent with the fossil record, we have dated it around 125 kya. To help bridge differences between the molecular and fossil record ages, in this article we assess the possibility that mtDNA macrohaplogroup L3 matured in Eurasia and returned to Africa as basal L3 lineages around 70 kya. Results
The coalescence ages of all Eurasian (M,N) and African (L3 ) lineages, both around 71 kya, are not significantly different. The oldest M and N Eurasian clades are found in southeastern Asia instead near of Africa as expected by the southern route hypothesis. The split of the Y-chromosome composite DE haplogroup is very similar to the age of mtDNA L3. An Eurasian origin and back migration to Africa has been proposed for the African Y-chromosome haplogroup E. Inside Africa, frequency distributions of maternal L3 and paternal E lineages are positively correlated. This correlation is not fully explained by geographic or ethnic affinities. This correlation rather seems to be the result of a joint and global replacement of the old autochthonous male and female African lineages by the new Eurasian incomers.
posted
^ I'm still not buying that the E clade is a back-migration. If that's the case then the vast majority of African males including those in Sub-Sahara are "Eurasian" then! LOL Also, this does not change the fact that the overwhelming diversity and time depth of E groups in Africa is much greater than in Eurasia. In fact all the upstream E* discovered are in Africa and non in Eurasia, as far as I know. Hell, even parental DE was found in higher frequency in West African groups than in northeast Indian and Tibetan populations.
With all the evidence thus far the only plausible scenario for E originating in Eurasia is if during the initial OOA DE carriers walked into Arabia or the Levant where E diverged and those E descendants merely walked back into Africa with no E clades entering Eurasia again until tens of thousands of years later. It is really absurd.
quote:Originally posted by capra:
quote:Originally posted by Mansamusa: I tell you it's so freaking weird. The commonly accepted date for OOA is between 50 000 to 70 000 years. Yet we have haplogroups with TMRCAs older than 50 000 years old being described unequivocally as originating from Eurasia.
Where do those commonly accepted dates come from in the first place, though? Are they actually independent of those haplogroup TMRCAs? I'll be surprised if those estimates are not just approximations of the same TMRCAs.
In that case the approximate number (50 000 years) *comes from* the specific numbers (really they should be quite large intervals). The lower bound of those estimates *is* the TMRCA of the Eurasian haplogroups (M, N and C, D, F). The upper bound is the TMRCA of their parent haplogroups (L3 and CDEF), the logic being that the exit from Africa ought to have occurred between those two points. (That ain't necessarily so, but it is a reasonable hypothesis.)
I agree, the lower time frame should be entry of early OOA people and the upper time frame the origin of their descendants in Eurasia proper.
Unless, one wants to get into the more complicated theory of Eurasian-like ancestry developing in Africa prior to the initial OOA event.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Technically speaking he was talking about haplogroups being "native" to an area. Just because something is native or endemic to an area does not necessarily mean they originated there to begin with.
So Fourty2, are you questioning which haplogroups originate from an area??
Getting back to my point all the ancestral clades of Indigenous Americans originated in Asia yet they are native to America. Could not the same situation apply to North Africans?
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
To answer the thread topic/question Basal N and possibly M might just be Saharan/North African. aDNA of a couple of lybians from 7kya can attest to that, by having a novel early offshoot of N.
However I wouldn’t get my hopes up (too much) about modern N distribution being indigenous as clearly most moder N carriers have downstream variations to previously discovered Eurasian lineages.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: To answer the thread topic/question Basal N and possibly M might just be Saharan/North African. aDNA of a couple of lybians from 7kya can attest to that, by having a novel early offshoot of N.
However I wouldn’t get my hopes up (too much) about modern N distribution being indigenous as clearly most moder N carriers have downstream variations to previously discovered Eurasian lineages.
Besides W, Y, O and a good portion of U I'm not seeing this.
Off N we have A. The only thing we have is an early branch of A in one Mende woman and a 23andme heatmap that shows low frequency A in west Africa and the Sinai.
I haven't studied I (mtDNA) much. Its awfully high frequency in certain tribes among the Horn and marginal in Egypt. I'm not familiar with its branches or phylogeny.
X seems to be obvious North African.
R and H seem to follow the bulk European phylogeny Horner/Central African>Berber>European so I lean toward an east and North African origin. V is early in Berbers and in ancient North African burials which would also make it a North African candidate.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mansamusa: I tell you it's so freaking weird. The commonly accepted date for OOA is between 50 000 to 70 000 years. Yet we have haplogroups with TMRCAs older than 50 000 years old being described unequivocally as originating from Eurasia.
They need a sweet spot for the Neanderthal admixture. OOA is pushed to be older so its not just African homosapiens mixing shared Neanderthal ancestry in Africa. But if its too old it predates the homosapien lineages that left.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don’t get why you’re collecting haplogroups for Africa. You seem to forget that for the most part they’re defined as they’re discovered. Basal N is no more significant than a L6* for example. It’s concerning that you find N to be less likely african than those haplogroups you mentioned despite it having one of the absolute strongest arguement for an origin in a nearby region unconfirmed.
A’s distribution (as a single late offshoot of N) says nothing about the origin of N. Its the same for all other arbitrary Letter-number combination defining a haplogroup. Basal lineages/early offshoots and diversity are good indicators of an origin nearby. The ancient samples from lybia have a novel mutation at the root of N.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
| Published: 21 November 2017 Whole Y-chromosome sequences reveal an extremely recent origin of the most common North African paternal lineage E-M183 (M81)
Neus Solé-Morata, Carla García-Fernández, Vadim Urasin, Asmahan Bekada, Karima Fadhlaoui-Zid, Pierre Zalloua, David Comas & Francesc Calafell
Studies based on the Y chromosome have highlighted E-M78 and E-M81 as the most frequent paternal lineages in North Africa, although they showed different distribution patterns. Whereas the frequency of E-M78 declines towards Northwest Africa, E-M81 has been found at high frequencies (71%) in Northwestern Africa and its frequency decreases towards the East; it is found sporadically in S Europe and E Africa, and it is practically absent elsewhere. These evidences suggest that E-M81 must be considered to explore the historical and demographical processes that gave rise to current North African populations. However, little is known about the phylogeographic structure of this haplogroup and its origin and emergence are still very controversial. While some studies pointed to a Palaeolithic origin21, other authors claimed that E-M81 may have a Neolithic origin22. The most likely scenario, as suggested by Fadhlaoui-Zid et al.17, is that the origin of E-M81 is more recent than previously reported.
In the present project, we analyse whole Y chromosome sequences from 32 North African individuals selected by carrying the derived allele at M183. M183 was first described by Karafet et al.5, and appears to be an extremely dominant subclade within E-M81, to the point that E-M81*(xM183) individuals are very rare. Since we found no samples derived for E-M81 and ancestral for E-M183, we selected our individuals on the basis of E-M183....
Finally, surprisingly, Iberian samples showed the highest proportion of E-M183*, with a frequency over E-M183 chromosomes of 20%, whereas in North Africa the frequencies of M183* range from 0 to 7%. However, note that if these frequencies were given over all individuals (and not only over those carrying E-M183), then E-M183* would represent just 0.5% of all Iberian Y chromosomes, but it reaches 7.7% in Libyans....
Moreover, the presence of autochthonous North African E-M81 lineages in the indigenous population of the Canary Islands, strongly points to North Africa as the most probable origin of the Guanche ancestors29. This, together with the fact that the oldest indigenous inviduals have been dated 2210 ± 60 ya, supports a local origin of E-M183 in NW Africa. Within this scenario, it is also worth to mention that the paternal lineage of an early Neolithic Moroccan individual appeared to be distantly related to the typically North African E-M81 haplogroup30, suggesting again a NW African origin of E-M183. A local origin of E-M183 in NW Africa > 2200 ya is supported by our TMRCA estimates, which can be taken as 2,000–3,000, depending on the data, methods, and mutation rates used.
The TMRCA estimates of a certain haplogroup and its subbranches provide some constraints on the times of their origin and spread. Although our time estimates for E-M78 are slightly different depending on the mutation rate used, their confidence intervals overlap and the dates obtained are in agreement with those obtained by Trombetta et al.13 Regarding E-M183, as mentioned above, we cannot discard an expansion from the Near East and, if so, according to our time estimates, it could have been brought by the Islamic expansion on the 7th century, but definitely not with the Neolithic expansion, which appeared in NW Africa ~7400 BP and may have featured a strong Epipaleolithic persistence31. Moreover, such a recent appearance of E-M183 in NW Africa would fit with the patterns observed in the rest of the genome, where an extensive, male-biased Near Eastern admixture event is registered ~1300 ya, coincidental with the Arab expansion20. An alternative hypothesis would involve that E-M183 was originated somewhere in Northwest Africa and then spread through all the region. Our time estimates for the origin of this haplogroup overlap with the end of the third Punic War (146 BCE), when Carthage (in current Tunisia) was defeated and destroyed, which marked the beginning of Roman hegemony of the Mediterranean Sea. About 2,000 ya North Africa was one of the wealthiest Roman provinces and E-M183 may have experienced the resulting population growth.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: I don’t get why you’re collecting haplogroups for Africa. You seem to forget that for the most part they’re defined as they’re discovered. Basal N is no more significant than a L6* for example. It’s concerning that you find N to be less likely african than those haplogroups you mentioned despite it having one of the absolute strongest arguement for an origin in a nearby region unconfirmed.
A’s distribution (as a single late offshoot of N) says nothing about the origin of N. Its the same for all other arbitrary Letter-number combination defining a haplogroup. Basal lineages/early offshoots and diversity are good indicators of an origin nearby. The ancient samples from lybia have a novel mutation at the root of N.
I forgot about mtdna J. It seems to traject towards Saudi Arabia. There isn’t much research on it.
So why am I collecting haplogroups for Africa?
FoA I'm no more claiming African haplogroups than I am verifying the ones that did not originate in or near Africa.
It all started when I was researching ancient history as source material for a pen and paper game. I saw a culture that was untouched by Hollywood with stories never told. Since nobody tells these stories I decided to tell it. https://filmfreeway.com/42.tribes.338
code:
2018 GLOBAL FILM FESTIVAL AWARDS: Honorable Mention Nyobaywa showcased at filmandscriptshowcase.com Nyobaywa: An Official Selection at Film Invasion Los Angeles. Nyobaywa 2018 OFFICIAL SELECTION First10PagesScriptContest Rebel Seed Studio Nyobaywa Simi-Finalist at Colorado International Activism Film Festival Nyobaywa. Bronze award at Royal Wolf Film Awards Nyobaywa keeps rolling. Honorable mention at the 2018 Urban Media Film Festival Nyobaywa 2018 winner for Los Angeles Screenplay contest
I needed source material on who ancient Nile folk were, so I studied African culture and pop genetics.
I’m a creature of collaborating evidence. So far Xyyman’s recent OoA model syncs with an objective model of Eurasian phylogeny, technology and a consideration for African diversity.
The mainstream model is contrived and shoehorned by comparison. Its so contrived I had a hard time naming one haplogroup that is reported to have originated in North Africa.
According to Wikipedia, North Africa is a big dynastic race back migration. Dna Tribes demonstrated that this was not the case in 2013 and 2014 but they were scrubbed from Wikipedia after the Armana and Ramses iii test. Taforalt was additional evidence.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mansamusa: I tell you it's so freaking weird. The commonly accepted date for OOA is between 50 000 to 70 000 years. Yet we have haplogroups with TMRCAs older than 50 000 years old being described unequivocally as originating from Eurasia.
Where do those commonly accepted dates come from in the first place, though? Are they actually independent of those haplogroup TMRCAs? I'll be surprised if those estimates are not just approximations of the same TMRCAs.
In that case the approximate number (50 000 years) *comes from* the specific numbers (really they should be quite large intervals). The lower bound of those estimates *is* the TMRCA of the Eurasian haplogroups (M, N and C, D, F). The upper bound is the TMRCA of their parent haplogroups (L3 and CDEF), the logic being that the exit from Africa ought to have occurred between those two points. (That ain't necessarily so, but it is a reasonable hypothesis.)
I thought the commonly accepted dates for OOA were based on archaeoology.
Posts: 288 | From: Asia | Registered: Mar 2016
| IP: Logged |
Earliest Human Remains Outside Africa Were Just Discovered in Israel
researchers in Israel have found a remarkably preserved jawbone they believe belongs to a Homo sapiens that was much, much older. The find, which they’ve dated to somewhere between 177,000 and 194,000 years, provides the most convincing proof yet that the old view of human migration needs some serious re-examination.
The new research, published today in Science, builds on earlier evidence from other caves in the region that housed the bones of humans from 90,000 to 120,000 years ago. But this new discovery goes one step further: if verified, it would require reevaluating the whole history of human evolution—and possibly pushing it back by several hundred thousand years.
_______________________________
Oldest human fossil from Saudi Arabia changes timeline for migration out of Africa
Doyle Rice, USA TODAY, 2018
The oldest homo sapiens fossil ever discovered in Saudi Arabia means the first human migration out of Africa was much more geographically widespread than originally thought, a new study suggests.
The fossil, an adult human's finger bone, dates back to 90,000 years ago, when the region's barren desert was green grassland.
__________________________
bbc
Earliest evidence of humans outside Africa By Paul Rincon Science editor, BBC News website
11 July 2018
Stone tools discovered in China suggest primitive humans - or a close relative - were in the region as early as 2.12 million years ago.
They are about 270,000 years older than the previous earliest evidence, which consists of bones and tools from Dmanisi in Georgia.
The research, by a Chinese-British team, appears in the journal Nature.
The stone artefacts were discovered at Shangchen on a plateau in northern China.
___________________________
Dmanisi Human: Skull from Georgia Implies All Early Homo Species were One Oct 18, 2013
An analysis of a complete 1.8-million-year-old hominid skull found at the archaeological site of Dmanisi in Georgia suggests the earliest Homo species – Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis and so forth – actually belonged to the same species.
Given their diverse physical traits, the fossils associated with Skull 5 at Dmanisi can be compared to various Homo fossils, including those found in Africa, dating back to about 2.4 million years ago, as well as others unearthed in Asia and Europe, which are dated between 1.8 and 1.2 million years ago.
“The Dmanisi finds look quite different from one another, so it’s tempting to publish them as different species,” Dr Zollikofer said.
“Yet we know that these individuals came from the same location and the same geological time, so they could, in principle, represent a single population of a single species.”
Posts: 42939 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes: So why am I collecting haplogroups for Africa?
FoA I'm no more claiming African haplogroups than I am verifying the ones that did not originate in or near Africa.
It all started when I was researching ancient history as source material for a pen and paper game. I saw a culture that was untouched by Hollywood with stories never told. Since nobody tells these stories I decided to tell it. https://filmfreeway.com/42.tribes.338
code:
2018 GLOBAL FILM FESTIVAL AWARDS: Honorable Mention Nyobaywa showcased at filmandscriptshowcase.com Nyobaywa: An Official Selection at Film Invasion Los Angeles. Nyobaywa 2018 OFFICIAL SELECTION First10PagesScriptContest Rebel Seed Studio Nyobaywa Simi-Finalist at Colorado International Activism Film Festival Nyobaywa. Bronze award at Royal Wolf Film Awards Nyobaywa keeps rolling. Honorable mention at the 2018 Urban Media Film Festival Nyobaywa 2018 winner for Los Angeles Screenplay contest
I needed source material on who ancient Nile folk were, so I studied African culture and pop genetics.
I’m a creature of collaborating evidence. So far Xyyman’s recent OoA model syncs with an objective model of Eurasian phylogeny, technology and a consideration for African diversity.
The mainstream model is contrived and shoehorned by comparison. Its so contrived I had a hard time naming one haplogroup that is reported to have originated in North Africa.
According to Wikipedia, North Africa is a big dynastic race back migration. Dna Tribes demonstrated that this was not the case in 2013 and 2014 but they were scrubbed from Wikipedia after the Armana and Ramses iii test. Taforalt was additional evidence.
I would be careful with Xyyman’s theories. Even if/when he has the right idea, most his supporting evidence is bonkers. He has little fundamental understanding of what he discusses. My issue is that if we want to tackle a problem like classical eurocentricity we can’t do it by creating theories that are just as bad or if not worse than mainstream models.
With North Africa you have to look at climate records and habitable land. Despite the majority being wrong about North Africans being Eurasian transplants, assigning origins of anything there will be difficult. You also gotta consider the fact that both Afrocentric and Eurocentrics can’t seem to fathom something as simple as SSA not forming a clean gradient to Eurasian populations. How will most people pick up on evidence that haplogroups we thought were SSA and autosomes we thought were Eurasian were initially North African.
The issue is multilayered, however despite the mainstream bias clues pointing toward the truth will always be hidden in the data. But it starts with understanding what you’re looking at. Collecting haplogroups is a waste of time.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mansamusa: I thought the commonly accepted dates for OOA were based on archaeoology.
Maybe? If you can find a source of independent dates from archaeology it'd be useful to cross check with genetic estimates.
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: I would be careful with Xyyman’s theories. Even if/when he has the right idea, most his supporting evidence is bonkers. He has little fundamental understanding of what he discusses. My issue is that if we want to tackle a problem like classical eurocentricity we can’t do it by creating theories that are just as bad or if not worse than mainstream models.
With North Africa you have to look at climate records and habitable land. Despite the majority being wrong about North Africans being Eurasian transplants, assigning origins of anything there will be difficult. You also gotta consider the fact that both Afrocentric and Eurocentrics can’t seem to fathom something as simple as SSA not forming a clean gradient to Eurasian populations. How will most people pick up on evidence that haplogroups we thought were SSA and autosomes we thought were Eurasian were initially North African.
The issue is multilayered, however despite the mainstream bias clues pointing toward the truth will always be hidden in the data. But it starts with understanding what you’re looking at. Collecting haplogroups is a waste of time.
Its more nuanced than collecting haplogroups. I’m factoring how they behave, how they age and the environment that they are in. Id call it a holistic approach which in turn is more scientific. My main weakness is in how they pair/group.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: I would be careful with Xyyman’s theories. Even if/when he has the right idea, most his supporting evidence is bonkers. He has little fundamental understanding of what he discusses. My issue is that if we want to tackle a problem like classical eurocentricity we can’t do it by creating theories that are just as bad or if not worse than mainstream models.
With North Africa you have to look at climate records and habitable land. Despite the majority being wrong about North Africans being Eurasian transplants, assigning origins of anything there will be difficult. You also gotta consider the fact that both Afrocentric and Eurocentrics can’t seem to fathom something as simple as SSA not forming a clean gradient to Eurasian populations. How will most people pick up on evidence that haplogroups we thought were SSA and autosomes we thought were Eurasian were initially North African.
The issue is multilayered, however despite the mainstream bias clues pointing toward the truth will always be hidden in the data. But it starts with understanding what you’re looking at. Collecting haplogroups is a waste of time.
Its more nuanced than collecting haplogroups. I’m factoring how they behave, how they age and the environment that they are in. Id call it a holistic approach which in turn is more scientific. My main weakness is in how they pair/group.
The weakness is that Reich and the Max Plank Institute no longer adhere to archaeogenetics to support their research. Their work can not be supported by archaeology or linguistics so they just throw out dates for haplogroups and hope no one checks the archaeological history of the cultures/populations they associate with the ancient Eurasians/Pseudo Indo-Europeans.
As a result, population genetics in relation to the "Proto-Indo-Europeans and Neanderthals " is just an exercise in White supremacy propaganda. Sadly, young AAs feel they should support "white supremacy" because they have been condition to believe that "white is right", no matter what the stupid ideas may be promoted by Eurocentric population genetics.
Once students of world history understand that population genetics is based solely on statistical modeling , and the genetic data is simply "raw material", that can be (re)interpreted by other geneticists and physical anthropologists-- will we discover the actual phylogenetic history of African people.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Studies based on the Y chromosome have highlighted E-M78 and E-M81 as the most frequent paternal lineages in North Africa, although they showed different distribution patterns. Whereas the frequency of E-M78 declines towards Northwest Africa, E-M81 has been found at high frequencies (71%) in Northwestern Africa and its frequency decreases towards the East; it is found sporadically in S Europe and E Africa, and it is practically absent elsewhere. These evidences suggest that E-M81 must be considered to explore the historical and demographical processes that gave rise to current North African populations.
The title is incoherent with what the history of Hg E-M81 shows. E-M78 is more suited and coherent.
”E-M81 has been found at high frequencies (71%) in Northwestern Africa and its frequency decreases towards the East;...”
In spite of a reduction in STR heterozygosity towards the West, which would point to an origin in the Near East, ancient DNA evidence together with our TMRCA estimates point to a local origin of E-M183 in NW Africa.”
~Comas D, Fadhlaoui-Zid K et al. Whole Y-chromosome sequences reveal an extremely recent origin of the most common North African paternal lineage E-M183 (M81)
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic