Ausar makes a GREAT argument as to why the over reliance of DNA to answer these questions is nonsensible. That means that 90% of what has been argued in ES for the last decade is useless garbage. That is a fact that I am not in conflict with.
posted
he's lucky I wasn't there lol but he actually provides nothing consistent just make fallacious parallels with american history and bring the stupid argument of "egypt is in Africa" + mix up some old 18th- early 19th century quotes ; and it seems that for him only levantines can be foreigners, nubians migrating to egypt or egyptians mixing with west african slaves is not foreign admixture lol.
The guy is literally an afro-american of west african descent and still obsess over a country he has nothing to do with. He simply plays on the american label of "black" to claim anything he wants to make himself proud.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
Ausar makes a GREAT argument as to why the over reliance of DNA to answer these questions is nonsensible. That means that 90% of what has been argued in ES for the last decade is useless garbage. That is a fact that I am not in conflict with.
Asar Imhotep:
" internet trolls don't don't follow any kind of scholastic protocol but scholars of course do which is why when you challenge any of them to a debate on the subject every one of them runs there's not one who will step up they'll all find excuses not to have the conversation"
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
^^ in the description box he also has a limited time download of the articles available (until 2/20/2022) for a few days
Asar says around 26:00 in the video that these journal articles is the prerequisite reading for the video. They are all available also online but some may be only partially accessible .
__________________________________________
On the lower screen is another article which seems to be unpublished I could only find it on Egyptsearch and Stormfront in July 2008
Egyptsearch July 15th 2008 posted by "Burhan" (member 2006-2008)
"For reasons of national security, DNA test results of Egyptian mummies are usually kept confidential. Some scholars conjecture that full disclosure of the research's findings could lead to a major revision of the country's ancient dynastic history."
^^ I haven't read the various comments yet. I can't say that is untrue but it is an unverified claim in an unpublished article that says some unnamed scholars "conjecture" a national security issue
______________________________
the author at Linked in :
Stan Parchin Publisher and Editor-in-Chief, ART MUSEUM JOURNAL Queens County, New York, United States About Specialties: Ancient, medieval, Renaissance and Baroque history and art; Old and New Kingdom Egypt; Tutankhamun; Church history 1200-1600; witchcraft, heresy and social dissent; and Leonardo da Vinci
However this Art Museum Journal is a website that seems to be no longer working unless it was always like this
About Stan Parchin Administrative Assistant, Degrees of Reading Power Program at College Entrance Examination Board
Assistant Editor at The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York Manhattan, New York College
Studied Marketing at American Management Association Studied Art History and computer science at The New School for Social Research Studied Fine Arts at NYU Also studied History and Medieval & Renaissance Studies ________________________________ ___
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^ It is for the most part useless in determining race of a person or peoples, as Ausar demonstrates. The reason why wytes attempt to shift the debate to focus entirely on this irrelevant aDNA is to hide from the fact that since UNESCO 1974 when Diop and Obenga wiped the floor with the World's most prominent Egyptologist on this debate it was settled. The only thing that keeps it afloat is the old "I'm white and I say so" move.
quote:Originally posted by Big O: [QB] ^^ It is for the most part useless in determining race of a person or peoples, as Ausar demonstrates. The reason why wytes attempt to shift the debate to focus entirely on this irrelevant aDNA is to hide from the fact that since UNESCO 1974 when Diop and Obenga wiped the floor with the World's most prominent Egyptologist on this debate it was settled. The only thing that keeps it afloat is the old "I'm white and I say so" move.
Look, you can take a tiny sample of a mummy like Rameses III and determine by genetically testing that tiny sample if he is related to another mummy in the same tomb. You can also tell what continent his male ancestors where from and the region within the continent with a good probability (and female side also if they had recovered it) How is that useless?
So is determining so called "race" the only thing of value? And what is race? Skin color?
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Determining a genetic relationship is not the same as determining a person or people's phenotype. aDNA does not give information about what a person looks like, just assumptions. The osteological remains are what determine really how a person or people looked.
Also aDNA does not tell you where you ancestors came. It is nothing more than assumption. For example E-M2 found in Ramses and son suggest what? That West African or SSA NC speaking populations migrated from their region into Khemet during antiquity? Or does it suggest that so called West, South, Central Africans originated in Northeast Africa, and dispersed? aDNA will never answer that question without context as Ausar points out.
quote:Originally posted by Big O: Determining a genetic relationship is not the same as determining a person or people's phenotype.
Again, being able to determine kinship is useful for Khametic Studies unless you think unless you think the sole purpose of Khametic studies is "race" determination
Both mummies were predicted by the STR-predictor to share the Y chromosomal haplogroup E1b1a1-M2 and 50% of their genetic material, which pointed to a father-son relationship
quote:Originally posted by Big O: Also aDNA does not tell you where you ancestors came. It is nothing more than assumption. For example E-M2 found in Ramses and son suggest what?
It strongly suggests his male side was African
Had it been haplogroup J that would be suggestive that his ancestry was Arabian peninsula or Levant since there is more diversity and frequency of J there. Similarly if it was haplogroup T or some other haplogroup it could have been suggestive of ancestral origin outside of Africa, if not ambiguous. However his YDNA was E-M2 and that is strongly of African origin and other E-M2 carriers today are related Ramesses or Pentawer could also have been of the African haplogroups A or B and that would have other implications. So how can that be useless information?
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Both mummies were predicted by the STR-predictor to share the Y chromosomal haplogroup E1b1a1-M2 and 50% of their genetic material, which pointed to a father-son relationship"
You keep ignoring that this information IN ITSELF.. tells us absolutely NOTHING about the external anatomical features of those individuals or a groups of people. It provides absolutely nothing, but assumptions for the ignorant to run with. Which appears to be the point... Ausar is absolutely right Your inability to demonstrate how identifying these markers can remotely create a rule regarding race is proof in the pudding.
"It strongly suggests his male side was African"
Again this sounds RIDICULOUS when we consider the fact that the VAST MAJORITY of genetic diversity in AMH IS AFRICAN. Then what is the significance of if a haplogroup originated in Africa or among the people who cross into the Arabian peninsula or the Sinai? Does it originating in any of these spots outside of Africa contribute to the physical morphology of the individual? If so how long would this assumingly stationary group of people have had been in place for true physical distinction to take affect? Meaning they did not suddenly turn "light" when they left the modern geographic concept of Africa. You have people desperate for a history personalizing haplogroups to their unique phenotypes, and assuming that it's existence in a place correlates with their current phenotype.
So again this means absolutely nothing in determining the race of the ancient Khamites. This is why Egyptsearch has been derailed from REAL SCHOLARSHIP to a bunch of agents trying to make focus on this DNA which has NO BEARING on the question that the wytes continuously try to ask to create doubt on the fact tha they were Black. You guys going on these 30 page debates on where a haplogroup originated is nothing but time wasting, that will yield NOTHING of value to answering the question that this forum is centered on.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: The guy is literally an afro-american of west african descent and still obsess over a country he has nothing to do with. He simply plays on the american label of "black" to claim anything he wants to make himself proud.
At least he is of African descent, speaking on an African civilization. You on the other hand are a non African who has made an obsession out of telling people of African descent that they have little in common with an African civilization.
Meanwhile you cannot find any civilization in Europe that did not have African involvement in it's founding population.
You are a certified troll, who has gotten his arse handed to him time and time again on this forum. You are a waste of time, and you would never yourself out there (no hiding behind a screen) to be made a fool out of.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: The guy is literally an afro-american of west african descent and still obsess over a country he has nothing to do with. He simply plays on the american label of "black" to claim anything he wants to make himself proud.
At least he is of African descent, speaking on an African civilization. You on the other hand are a non African who has made an obsession out of telling people of African descent that they have little in common with an African civilization.
Meanwhile you cannot find any civilization in Europe that did not have African involvement in it's founding population.
You are a certified troll, who has gotten his arse handed to him time and time again on this forum. You are a waste of time, and you would never yourself out there (no hiding behind a screen) to be made a fool out of.
african descent ? Not all africans are the same + as an afro-american he has recent NW european ancestry too. I'm definitely more "african" than him, still has my culture and regularly visit my country.
the word "africa" itself is of berber origin and "african" initially was used for NW africans (especially tunisians) not sub-saharan africans.
what's next ? Japanese obsessing over indian civilizations because of "asian people" "asian civilizations ? XD
What do you mean with your last sentence ? You clearly don't know me anyway if you ever come where I live I'll quickly deal with you be sure.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Big O: how long would this assumingly stationary group of people have had been in place for true physical distinction to take affect? Meaning they did not suddenly turn "light" when they left the modern geographic concept of Africa.
What you are saying here is that at some point a particular trait like light skin (also straight hair) become prominent in a population after they leave Africa
So DNA testing would give us no clue as to if a person was one of these people?
All people have a gene called SLC24A5 If it has a particular variation, that variation can indicate light skin and be detected genetically. Similarly in Asia a variation in the gene MFSD12 can indicate light skin
But these are external traits Are not internal traits deeper?
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Let me guess you're identifying yourself as African based on what 12andme, or is it an identity that you genuinely old onto? You guys sound GOOFY making identities of people based on DNA, not genuine passed down knowledge of their origin. Just GOOFY stuff that has absolutely no bearing in reality.
Like I said a wyte boy of European descent having the AUDACITY to attempt to ridicule a person of African descent speaking on African civilization is utterly ridiculous.
posted
^ I think this last Big O post was addressed to Antalas while I was writing my last one ??
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
"What you are saying here is that at some point a particular trait like light skin (also straight hair) become prominent in a population after they leave Africa
So DNA testing would give us no clue as to if a person was one of these people?"
The THEORY that geneticist have found the gene (SLC24A5) that equates to pale skin is debunked;
See the highest diversity of the gene is found in Bantu Africans, not pale skin Europeans. So no DNA is useless in this regard.
quote:Originally posted by Big O: "What you are saying here is that at some point a particular trait like light skin (also straight hair) become prominent in a population after they leave Africa
So DNA testing would give us no clue as to if a person was one of these people?"
The THEORY that geneticist have found the gene (SLC24A5) that equates to pale skin is debunked;
See the highest diversity of the gene is found in Bantu Africans, not pale skin Europeans. So no DNA is useless in this regard.
The highest diversity of SLC24A5 doesn't make a difference to light skin.
SLC24A5 has just two variations as regards skin color. Nearly all humans of European descent have a version of the gene with one type of amino acid, threonine; nearly everyone else has another, alanine. And this can be detected genetically.
Similarly a particular variant of the human gene MFSD12 causes light skin in Asians
You are trying to throw the baby out with bathwater as per genetics
Cheikh Anta Diop passed in 1986. The first mummy tested for DNA was Rameses III in 2012, 26 years later and if he had lived 36 years more up to this year we don't know what his reply to all the research that has gone on since then.
posted
"The highest diversity of SLC24A5 doesn't make a difference to light skin.
SLC24A5 has just two variations as regards skin color. Nearly all humans of European descent have a version of the gene with one type of amino acid, threonine; nearly everyone else has another, alanine. And this can be detected genetically."
That does not make ANY SENSE Lioness! How can the existence of SLC24A5 prove that ancient and modern Europeans were pale skinned, while AT THE SAME TIME SLC24A5 is found in Black Bantu and does NOT produce a depigmented humans. The theory that the existence of this gene correlates with pale skin wherever it is found is therefore a DEBUNKED THEORY.
"Similarly a particular variant of the human gene MFSD12 causes light skin in Asians"
No it does NOT Lioness. The derived version of MFSD12 is found in BLACK AFRICANS, and the ancestral version is found in pale Eurasians. That being said... this is essentially maintaining the Black skin. If it is a gene that indicates that people were pale then why do Black Africans have it Lioness? Shouldn't they be pale as a result Lioness?
This is what we mean! Genetics is a foking BABY of all the sciences. You laymen mf's are sooo EAGER to try to take a trope from these studies before they have properly matured (meaning stood up to scrutiny of their implications) and you end up proving WHY this information at this time is still USELESS in answering the question of what ancient peoples looked like. You guys are trying soo desperately to equate some sort of phenotype with a gene expression, and just doesn't work. Like Diop it's the new wyte boy fantasy that provides them some shelter from the biological realities of ancient history. This reality does not cast pale people in a positive light.
quote:Originally posted by Big O: Determining a genetic relationship is not the same as determining a person or people's phenotype. aDNA does not give information about what a person looks like, just assumptions. The osteological remains are what determine really how a person or people looked.
Also aDNA does not tell you where you ancestors came. It is nothing more than assumption. For example E-M2 found in Ramses and son suggest what? That West African or SSA NC speaking populations migrated from their region into Khemet during antiquity? Or does it suggest that so called West, South, Central Africans originated in Northeast Africa, and dispersed? aDNA will never answer that question without context as Ausar points out.
aDNA CAN tell you were a person "Came from". I am E1b1a1g1a1a1a, its quite clear that ancestor "Came from" Africa. We can compare my highly derived lineage to more basal ones like E1b1a* and E1b1a1* and look a the diversity of these lineages to trace the migration path of Y-chromosomes and Mtna. My Maternal marker is L0a1a2, its quite clear we can go back to L0a1a > L0a1 > L0a > L0 and see how this lineage originates somewhere in the South African to East African Rift Valley Corridor. There are also very specific mutations carried by humans due to environmental/disease adaptation and stress that are associated with very distinct regions: Regional Sickle Cell traits, Regional Lactose persistence variants, adaptation to high-altitude hypoxia...etc. If we had high resolution SNP and STR data from Ramessess III, it would be very clear what the nature of his E1b1a linage is, or if its even E1b1a in the first place.
I watched Asar's 4 hour video. The main thrust of his argument can be summed up as follows: "Look Hawass said Egyptians were 'Dark skinned but not Negro', he is wrong, here is evidence that shows my outdated idea of Race from my cultural perspective is better than his outdated idea of race from his cultural perspective: Exhibit A, this white man said they were similar to Australians"
The whole dismissal of Genetics smells like Anti Intellectualism. He is providing them FUEL. Its ALWAYS the anti-intellectuals that dismiss Genetic research in favor of lookership to shoe horn themselves into populations around the globe. Asar KNOWS better, its good to see him come out and say "they ARE descendant of Ancients they just admixture". So many people cant even commit to say this and have a totally ethnocentric interpretation of North African demographic events and argue replacement.
HE IS CORRECT on the cultural aspects. They are no longer Animists. They dont walk around with Ostrich plumes in the head Like this. . They dont farm naked and fish ass naked on papyrus reed boats. They dont use Wooded head rests anymore. They dont Bleed Cows and no more cattle insufflation like their ancient and modern pastoral kin. They no longer wear leopard skins. They no longer worship the "Old Gods". That culture is mostly gone and survives only in small linguistic remnants in Coptic and Egyptian Arabic. YOU DO have to reach out to other people who have a shared ancient culture to see how some of this stuff may have gone down, or see a modern interpretation of a feathered headrest, wooden pillow, leopard skin, women dancing naked. They no longer do these things due to modernization and Islam.
A genetic basis for "Race" Does not exist.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Big O: "The highest diversity of SLC24A5 doesn't make a difference to light skin.
SLC24A5 has just two variations as regards skin color. Nearly all humans of European descent have a version of the gene with one type of amino acid, threonine; nearly everyone else has another, alanine. And this can be detected genetically."
That does not make ANY SENSE Lioness! How can the existence of SLC24A5 prove that ancient and modern Europeans were pale skinned, while AT THE SAME TIME SLC24A5 is found in Black Bantu and does NOT produce a depigmented humans.
I have explained it well but you still don't get it.
I never said the existence alone of SLC24A5 determines light skin color
You need to do your homework and put on your thinking cap
the gene SLC24A5 is present in all humans but not all types of SLC24A5 are the same, their alleles can vary. An allele is one of two or more versions of a gene. It is only a specific allele type of SLC24A5 that can predict light skin.
SLC24A5 has just two variations as regards skin color.
A) Nearly all humans of European descent have a version of SLC24A5 that has one type of amino acid, THREONINE;
B) nearly everyone else has another version of SLC24A5 that has a different amino acid, ALANINE
And this can be detected genetically.Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
is there any scientific, measurable basis for race? [/QB]
No, not at all, There are specific cranio-facial, phenotype, skin color and hair texture combinations in modern humans we classify as different "Races".
There are different autosomal genetic variants that group populations based on geography, language, isolation etc.
The autosomal genetic Variants that seem to Group people in to distinct Breeding populations are NOT concordant to the physical variation among groups we classify as "Race".
This is ESPECIALLY the case in the ancient context. The genetic variation that distinguishes human groups/regions PRECEDES the physical variation typified as "Race". In many cases it precedes physical "Race" by 10s of thousands of years. Thus in ancient Context: Groups of people with Genotype X and phenotype X, associated with race X......NOW have descendants still with Genotype X, but Phenotype Y which is NOW associated with Race Y.
In the ancient context Genotypes O,P,Q,R,S,T,U,V,W,X,Y, and Z.....were ALL associated with Phenotype/Race A. Phenotype/Race A is NOW only associated with Genotypes A, B, C, D, and E, Y, and Z. This was different in the past because Phenotype A is basically one of the original generic phenotypes of anatomically modern humans. Since this anatomically modern phenotype basically covered the fully gamut (A-Z) of human genomic variation, genetic "Race" cannot exist. When people use genetic "Race" they are tying genetic components to physical races that DIDNT EVEN EXIST at the time.
TLDR : No, basically because All ancient humans with wildly different genetic components ALL looked like "Africans" the further back you go.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
TLDR : No, basically because All ancient humans with wildly different genetic components ALL looked like "Africans" the further back you go. [/QB]
Interesting something like for example modern onge people and sub-saharans. When do you think differences as we know them today were already established ? I remember reading that for example some minoans and phoenicians had retained variants making their skin darker. I wouldn't be surprised if some NW africans had retained such variants until very late in history which then would explain some ancient testimonies we have.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Big O: Determining a genetic relationship is not the same as determining a person or people's phenotype. aDNA does not give information about what a person looks like, just assumptions. The osteological remains are what determine really how a person or people looked.
Also aDNA does not tell you where you ancestors came. It is nothing more than assumption. For example E-M2 found in Ramses and son suggest what? That West African or SSA NC speaking populations migrated from their region into Khemet during antiquity? Or does it suggest that so called West, South, Central Africans originated in Northeast Africa, and dispersed? aDNA will never answer that question without context as Ausar points out.
aDNA CAN tell you were a person "Came from". I am E1b1a1g1a1a1a, its quite clear that ancestor "Came from" Africa. We can compare my highly derived lineage to more basal ones like E1b1a* and E1b1a1* and look a the diversity of these lineages to trace the migration path of Y-chromosomes and Mtna. My Maternal marker is L0a1a2, its quite clear we can go back to L0a1a > L0a1 > L0a > L0 and see how this lineage originates somewhere in the South African to East African Rift Valley Corridor. There are also very specific mutations carried by humans due to environmental/disease adaptation and stress that are associated with very distinct regions: Regional Sickle Cell traits, Regional Lactose persistence variants, adaptation to high-altitude hypoxia...etc. If we had high resolution SNP and STR data from Ramessess III, it would be very clear what the nature of his E1b1a linage is, or if its even E1b1a in the first place.
I watched Asar's 4 hour video. The main thrust of his argument can be summed up as follows: "Look Hawass said Egyptians were 'Dark skinned but not Negro', he is wrong, here is evidence that shows my outdated idea of Race from my cultural perspective is better than his outdated idea of race from his cultural perspective: Exhibit A, this white man said they were similar to Australians"
The whole dismissal of Genetics smells like Anti Intellectualism. He is providing them FUEL. Its ALWAYS the anti-intellectuals that dismiss Genetic research in favor of lookership to shoe horn themselves into populations around the globe. Asar KNOWS better, its good to see him come out and say "they ARE descendant of Ancients they just admixture". So many people cant even commit to say this and have a totally ethnocentric interpretation of North African demographic events and argue replacement.
HE IS CORRECT on the cultural aspects. They are no longer Animists. They dont walk around with Ostrich plumes in the head Like this. . They dont farm naked and fish ass naked on papyrus reed boats. They dont use Wooded head rests anymore. They dont Bleed Cows and no more cattle insufflation like their ancient and modern pastoral kin. They no longer wear leopard skins. They no longer worship the "Old Gods". That culture is mostly gone and survives only in small linguistic remnants in Coptic and Egyptian Arabic. YOU DO have to reach out to other people who have a shared ancient culture to see how some of this stuff may have gone down, or see a modern interpretation of a feathered headrest, wooden pillow, leopard skin, women dancing naked. They no longer do these things due to modernization and Islam.
A genetic basis for "Race" Does not exist.
I have to agree with beyoku more than any other poster in this thread. I don't have the stamina to watch all four hours of Asar's video, but I can tell he's salty that the aDNA research isn't all going the way he wants it to. Mind you, there are legitimate questions to be raised about sampling bias and how we interpret aDNA data, but it's not like aDNA is without any value whatsoever.
It's not even like the aDNA doesn't vindicate some Afrocentric narratives as well. People on ES were saying the Natufians and EEF had African admixture since the 2000s, and look at all the ANA and BE they turned out to have.
It's not even like the aDNA doesn't vindicate some Afrocentric narratives as well. People on ES were saying the Natufians and EEF had African admixture since the 2000s, and look at all the ANA and BE they turned out to have. [/QB]
They actually don't have much of it and actually aDNA goes against all afrocentrist theories : yDNA/MtDNA from ancient egyptians show no consistent "black" influence actually it increased over time same for the autosomal result of 5 egyptian samples, DNA of Iberomaurusians (literally paleolithic folks) show they were very distinct from sub-saharan africans including all the ancient samples from that area, DNA of KEB and IAM showed again the same thing with actually even more west eurasian ancestry and lineages, two north africans from the copper age already show a profile similar to modern north africans, later the isolated guanches strangely ended up being similar to modern north africans despite the trans-saharan slave trade, arab conquest, roman conquest, etc same results for north africans of the 1st-3rd century A.D., Results from al andalus show no influence of these "black moors" members here like to post but actually north african ancestry similar to what is found in modern day NA.
There is literally not a single genetic paper that supports afrocentrist theories that's why people like Asar end up making such type of video.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
It's not even like the aDNA doesn't vindicate some Afrocentric narratives as well. People on ES were saying the Natufians and EEF had African admixture since the 2000s, and look at all the ANA and BE they turned out to have.
They actually don't have much of it and actually aDNA goes against all afrocentrist theories : yDNA/MtDNA from ancient egyptians show no consistent "black" influence actually it increased over time same for the autosomal result of 5 egyptian samples, DNA of Iberomaurusians (literally paleolithic folks) show they were very distinct from sub-saharan africans including all the ancient samples from that area, DNA of KEB and IAM showed again the same thing with actually even more west eurasian ancestry and lineages, two north africans from the copper age already show a profile similar to modern north africans, later the isolated guanches strangely ended up being similar to modern north africans despite the trans-saharan slave trade, arab conquest, roman conquest, etc same results for north africans of the 1st-3rd century A.D., Results from al andalus show no influence of these "black moors" members here like to post but actually north african ancestry similar to what is found in modern day NA.
There is literally not a single genetic paper that supports afrocentrist theories that's why people like Asar end up making such type of video. [/QB]
Define "Black" influence Genetically? You are doing the same thing that Asar is doing. Using an outdated and invalid method of reasoning in apply racial groups to DNA.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Define "Black" influence Genetically? You are doing the same thing that Asar is doing. Using an outdated and invalid method of reasoning in apply racial groups to DNA. [/QB]
If that was the case why can they easily distinguish both type of ancestry ? Anyway "black" ancestry would be any type of ancestry that peaks in Sub-saharan africa.
It doesn't matter because even if you want to use these kind of arguments these studies still used modern references
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: I spoke against people who used such kind of argument to imply that all eurasian ancestry in north africa is in fact african as if eurasians couldn't settled in Africa. Also please take the timeframe into account : there is easily 20k-40k years between these first eurasians and for example the first iberomaurusian.
Mutations linked to light skin, caucasoid features, straight hair, etc obviously did not appear in Africa and were brought in the continent by proper eurasians.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Define "Black" influence Genetically? You are doing the same thing that Asar is doing. Using an outdated and invalid method of reasoning in apply racial groups to DNA.
If that was the case why can they easily distinguish both type of ancestry ? Anyway "black" ancestry would be any type of ancestry that peaks in Sub-saharan africa.
It doesn't matter because even if you want to use these kind of arguments these studies still used modern references [/QB]
Antalas' argument corresponds to an argument that E-M2 is the "non-black" form of E Lazaridis hints at this with his theoretical "Basal Eurasian"
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Define "Black" influence Genetically? You are doing the same thing that Asar is doing. Using an outdated and invalid method of reasoning in apply racial groups to DNA.
If that was the case why can they easily distinguish both type of ancestry ? Anyway "black" ancestry would be any type of ancestry that peaks in Sub-saharan africa.
It doesn't matter because even if you want to use these kind of arguments these studies still used modern references [/QB]
You cant. According to you and other race loons, All these individuals have "Black" Ancestry yet none of their ancestry peaks in Sub Saharan Africa. Two of them have ancestry that doesn't peak NOR EVEN EXIST in Africa, let alone Sub Saharan Africa. This is why genetic race is BROKEN. YES modern Studies have "References". Those references that create genetic isolates are not "RACE" because those genetic isolates originated in humans that look like these folks. You are smarter than this. I dont understand how anyone with a cursory understanding of autosomal DNA cant support "genetic Race".
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: You cant. According to you and other race loons, All these individuals have "Black" Ancestry yet none of their ancestry peaks in Sub Saharan Africa. Two of them have ancestry that doesn't peak NOR EVEN EXIST in Africa, let alone Sub Saharan Africa. This is why genetic race is BROKEN. YES modern Studies have "References". Those references that create genetic isolates are not "RACE" because those genetic isolates originated in humans that look like these folks. You are smarter than this. I dont understand how anyone with a cursory understanding of autosomal DNA cant support "genetic Race".
Smh I knew you would have used fringe examples...as for jebel irhoud we don't even have their DNA result but didn't ANA participated in the ethnogenesis of most SSA groups ? Doesn't this hypothetical component peaks in SSA ?
If we had to follow your logic then PCAs wouldn't make sense actually all genetics wouldn't make sense since it's based on the fact that we can clearly defined groups/clusters (of course this does not deny continuums but still you got the idea)
Are you telling me they wouldn't be able to distinguish mbuti ancestry from dzudzuana ? Come on man be serious
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: You cant. According to you and other race loons, All these individuals have "Black" Ancestry yet none of their ancestry peaks in Sub Saharan Africa. Two of them have ancestry that doesn't peak NOR EVEN EXIST in Africa, let alone Sub Saharan Africa. This is why genetic race is BROKEN. YES modern Studies have "References". Those references that create genetic isolates are not "RACE" because those genetic isolates originated in humans that look like these folks. You are smarter than this. I dont understand how anyone with a cursory understanding of autosomal DNA cant support "genetic Race".
Smh I knew you would have used fringe examples...as for jebel irhoud we don't even have their DNA result but didn't ANA participated in the ethnogenesis of most SSA groups ? Doesn't this hypothetical component peaks in SSA ?
If we had to follow your logic then PCAs wouldn't make sense actually all genetics wouldn't make sense since it's based on the fact that we can clearly defined groups/clusters (of course this does not deny continuums but still you got the idea)
Are you telling me they wouldn't be able to distinguish mbuti ancestry from dzudzuana ? Come on man be serious
Its not a fringe example. Its an example that breaks the rule. YES you can distinguish Dzudzuana ancestry from Mbuti ancestry. That is not the point.
The point is that you are not distinguishing "RACE". This is because the phenotype of Mbuti you associate with their "Race" can be found in modern AND Ancient human groups who are genetically further away from Mbuti than even Dzudzuana.
Thus, a phenotype you associate with the "Race" of Mbuti is in fact phenotype that can be found on both ends and ALL within the genetic spectrum of humans. Early Americans, all the way on the opposite genetic and geographic end of the spectrum physically looked like the "Race" that includes Mbuti (See Naia and Luzia).
Genetic race is broken. You are smarter than this......right? Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Its not a fringe example. Its an example that breaks the rule.
An exception then how is that supposed to be representative ? I still know what to expect in terms of phenotype when one sample get described as "SSA" "Deep" (of course diversity increase the further we go back in time).
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Thus, a phenotype you associate with the "Race" of Mbuti is in fact phenotype that can be found on both ends and ALL within the genetic spectrum of humans. Early Americans, all the way on the opposite genetic and geographic end of the spectrum physically looked like the "Race" that includes Mbuti (See Naia and Luzia).
Genetic race is broken.
Of course but that's not a general rule especially not for the recent populations I mentionned. Be honest when KEB samples from Morocco are described as intermediate between IAM and TOR (EEF) you obviously don't expect them to look like mbuti despite what you just said right ?
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Its not a fringe example. Its an example that breaks the rule.
An exception then how is that supposed to be representative ? I still know what to expect in terms of phenotype when one sample get described as "SSA" "Deep" (of course diversity increase the further we go back in time).
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Thus, a phenotype you associate with the "Race" of Mbuti is in fact phenotype that can be found on both ends and ALL within the genetic spectrum of humans. Early Americans, all the way on the opposite genetic and geographic end of the spectrum physically looked like the "Race" that includes Mbuti (See Naia and Luzia).
Genetic race is broken.
Of course but that's not a general rule especially not for the recent populations I mentionned. Be honest when KEB samples from Morocco are described as intermediate between IAM and TOR (EEF) you obviously don't expect them to look like mbuti despite what you just said right ?
Holy shit XD XD lmao
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Its not a fringe example. Its an example that breaks the rule.
An exception then how is that supposed to be representative ? I still know what to expect in terms of phenotype when one sample get described as "SSA" "Deep" (of course diversity increase the further we go back in time).
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Thus, a phenotype you associate with the "Race" of Mbuti is in fact phenotype that can be found on both ends and ALL within the genetic spectrum of humans. Early Americans, all the way on the opposite genetic and geographic end of the spectrum physically looked like the "Race" that includes Mbuti (See Naia and Luzia).
Genetic race is broken.
Of course but that's not a general rule especially not for the recent populations I mentionned. Be honest when KEB samples from Morocco are described as intermediate between IAM and TOR (EEF) you obviously don't expect them to look like mbuti despite what you just said right ?
Bird Brain logic. You are letting your outdated ideas of race cloud your intellect.
Pre Neolitic remains from Vietnam, China, Malaysian, Taiwan, Indonesia, etc ALL fit in the "Race" of people that include Mbuti . They are genetically FURTHEST away from the Mbuti, even further away than TAF, KEB, TOR, Natufian, Europeans et al.
Taforalt clustered closest to the Ethiopian Afar in PCA. Do you think they LOOKED like and Ethiopian Afar physically? Genetic "Race" models are broken. So far, you dont seem to be smart enough to fix them.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Big O: Determining a genetic relationship is not the same as determining a person or people's phenotype. aDNA does not give information about what a person looks like, just assumptions. The osteological remains are what determine really how a person or people looked.
Also aDNA does not tell you where you ancestors came. It is nothing more than assumption. For example E-M2 found in Ramses and son suggest what? That West African or SSA NC speaking populations migrated from their region into Khemet during antiquity? Or does it suggest that so called West, South, Central Africans originated in Northeast Africa, and dispersed? aDNA will never answer that question without context as Ausar points out.
aDNA CAN tell you were a person "Came from". I am E1b1a1g1a1a1a, its quite clear that ancestor "Came from" Africa. We can compare my highly derived lineage to more basal ones like E1b1a* and E1b1a1* and look a the diversity of these lineages to trace the migration path of Y-chromosomes and Mtna. My Maternal marker is L0a1a2, its quite clear we can go back to L0a1a > L0a1 > L0a > L0 and see how this lineage originates somewhere in the South African to East African Rift Valley Corridor.
Stop it. aDNA is useless in determining one's race.
Just because aDNA can provide information on a persons Phenotype it can not identify the race of the person whose teeth or bones are found at an archaeological site. The genes for Eye Color, hair Color, Hair thickness, Teeth Shape, Skin Color, Hair morphology, and etc., can not tell you the race of a person because different races can have similar phenotype.
.
In addition, aDNA can not tell where a person come from. Genome fails to tell you the geographical origin of a person since it only tells you the haplogroup possessed by an individual excavated at an archaeological site.
It is the artefacts associated with a site that tells where the inhabitants of a tomb originated.
In general, a genetic basis for "Race" Does not exist.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Big O: Determining a genetic relationship is not the same as determining a person or people's phenotype. aDNA does not give information about what a person looks like, just assumptions. The osteological remains are what determine really how a person or people looked.
Also aDNA does not tell you where you ancestors came. It is nothing more than assumption. For example E-M2 found in Ramses and son suggest what? That West African or SSA NC speaking populations migrated from their region into Khemet during antiquity? Or does it suggest that so called West, South, Central Africans originated in Northeast Africa, and dispersed? aDNA will never answer that question without context as Ausar points out.
aDNA CAN tell you were a person "Came from". I am E1b1a1g1a1a1a, its quite clear that ancestor "Came from" Africa. We can compare my highly derived lineage to more basal ones like E1b1a* and E1b1a1* and look a the diversity of these lineages to trace the migration path of Y-chromosomes and Mtna. My Maternal marker is L0a1a2, its quite clear we can go back to L0a1a > L0a1 > L0a > L0 and see how this lineage originates somewhere in the South African to East African Rift Valley Corridor.
Stop it. aDNA is useless in determining one's race.
Just because aDNA can provide information on a persons Phenotype it can not identify the race of the person whose teeth or bones are found at an archaeological site. The genes for Eye Color, hair Color, Hair thickness, Teeth Shape, Skin Color, Hair morphology, and etc., can not tell you the race of a person because different races can have similar phenotype.
In addition, aDNA can not tell where a person come from. Genome fails to tell you the geographical origin of a person since it only tells you the haplogroup possessed by an individual excavated at an archaeological site.
It is the artefacts associated with a site that tells where the inhabitants of a tomb originated.
In general, a genetic basis for "Race" Does not exist.
I didn't describe the genetic basis for race. I explicitly stated the genetic basis for RACE does not exist and the models are broken. There are STILL genetic variants that code for specific features like the ones i mentioned.
YOU cant tie genetic markers to geographic origin because YOU are unable to interpret genetic data.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Big O: Determining a genetic relationship is not the same as determining a person or people's phenotype. aDNA does not give information about what a person looks like, just assumptions. The osteological remains are what determine really how a person or people looked.
Also aDNA does not tell you where you ancestors came. It is nothing more than assumption. For example E-M2 found in Ramses and son suggest what? That West African or SSA NC speaking populations migrated from their region into Khemet during antiquity? Or does it suggest that so called West, South, Central Africans originated in Northeast Africa, and dispersed? aDNA will never answer that question without context as Ausar points out.
aDNA CAN tell you were a person "Came from". I am E1b1a1g1a1a1a, its quite clear that ancestor "Came from" Africa. We can compare my highly derived lineage to more basal ones like E1b1a* and E1b1a1* and look a the diversity of these lineages to trace the migration path of Y-chromosomes and Mtna. My Maternal marker is L0a1a2, its quite clear we can go back to L0a1a > L0a1 > L0a > L0 and see how this lineage originates somewhere in the South African to East African Rift Valley Corridor. There are also very specific mutations carried by humans due to environmental/disease adaptation and stress that are associated with very distinct regions: Regional Sickle Cell traits, Regional Lactose persistence variants, adaptation to high-altitude hypoxia...etc. If we had high resolution SNP and STR data from Ramessess III, it would be very clear what the nature of his E1b1a linage is, or if its even E1b1a in the first place.
I watched Asar's 4 hour video. The main thrust of his argument can be summed up as follows: "Look Hawass said Egyptians were 'Dark skinned but not Negro', he is wrong, here is evidence that shows my outdated idea of Race from my cultural perspective is better than his outdated idea of race from his cultural perspective: Exhibit A, this white man said they were similar to Australians"
The whole dismissal of Genetics smells like Anti Intellectualism. He is providing them FUEL. Its ALWAYS the anti-intellectuals that dismiss Genetic research in favor of lookership to shoe horn themselves into populations around the globe. Asar KNOWS better, its good to see him come out and say "they ARE descendant of Ancients they just admixture". So many people cant even commit to say this and have a totally ethnocentric interpretation of North African demographic events and argue replacement.
HE IS CORRECT on the cultural aspects. They are no longer Animists. They dont walk around with Ostrich plumes in the head Like this. . They dont farm naked and fish ass naked on papyrus reed boats. They dont use Wooded head rests anymore. They dont Bleed Cows and no more cattle insufflation like their ancient and modern pastoral kin. They no longer wear leopard skins. They no longer worship the "Old Gods". That culture is mostly gone and survives only in small linguistic remnants in Coptic and Egyptian Arabic. YOU DO have to reach out to other people who have a shared ancient culture to see how some of this stuff may have gone down, or see a modern interpretation of a feathered headrest, wooden pillow, leopard skin, women dancing naked. They no longer do these things due to modernization and Islam.
A genetic basis for "Race" Does not exist.
I agree that the genetic basis for "race" doesn't exist because race doesn't exist. However that does not change the fact that many people have exchanged genetics for cranial measurements in reinforcing "racial" distinctions in ancient North Africa. That is abundantly still the case. And the concept of "race" as we know it came from Europe as part of the evolution of modern anthropology, with the Nile Valley being a key topic. Old habits are hard to change and a lot of these ideas still persist to this day.
The biggest outstanding problem in modern anthrpology and genetics is the fact that they stll have not identified what specific lineages participated in OOA. And when I say OOA I mean those genes found among those first entering the Levant, Southern Europe and Arabia from Africa and survived to go on to settle Eurasia. Because they haven't found that, their 'dna tree' doesn't make sense because logically at some point all Eurasian DNA should converge on a set of African DNA lineages in Europe, but they don't. And my guess is that this is party due how haplogroup assignment works and partly due to statistical models used to estimate age and common ancestors of various DNA lineages.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Big O: Determining a genetic relationship is not the same as determining a person or people's phenotype. aDNA does not give information about what a person looks like, just assumptions. The osteological remains are what determine really how a person or people looked.
Also aDNA does not tell you where you ancestors came. It is nothing more than assumption. For example E-M2 found in Ramses and son suggest what? That West African or SSA NC speaking populations migrated from their region into Khemet during antiquity? Or does it suggest that so called West, South, Central Africans originated in Northeast Africa, and dispersed? aDNA will never answer that question without context as Ausar points out.
aDNA CAN tell you were a person "Came from". I am E1b1a1g1a1a1a, its quite clear that ancestor "Came from" Africa. We can compare my highly derived lineage to more basal ones like E1b1a* and E1b1a1* and look a the diversity of these lineages to trace the migration path of Y-chromosomes and Mtna. My Maternal marker is L0a1a2, its quite clear we can go back to L0a1a > L0a1 > L0a > L0 and see how this lineage originates somewhere in the South African to East African Rift Valley Corridor.
Stop it. aDNA is useless in determining one's race.
Just because aDNA can provide information on a persons Phenotype it can not identify the race of the person whose teeth or bones are found at an archaeological site. The genes for Eye Color, hair Color, Hair thickness, Teeth Shape, Skin Color, Hair morphology, and etc., can not tell you the race of a person because different races can have similar phenotype.
.
In addition, aDNA can not tell where a person come from. Genome fails to tell you the geographical origin of a person since it only tells you the haplogroup possessed by an individual excavated at an archaeological site.
It is the artefacts associated with a site that tells where the inhabitants of a tomb originated.
In general, a genetic basis for "Race" Does not exist.
Bro, set these blond-haired and green-eyed Austronesian kids free or at least pay them royalties for abusing their pics.
Posts: 288 | From: Asia | Registered: Mar 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
I appreciate the continued discourse on my YouTube video conversation titled “On why DNA studies are virtually useless in Ancient Egyptian studies.”
From the looks of the commentaries on this post, it is typical of Egyptsearch.com in that it is full of misinformation, use of outdated, non-scientific concepts, and an abundance of comprehension issues. Without having to quote and respond to each and every post, let’s make the following clear of my discussion from YouTube.
- DNA is VIRTUALLY (i.e., practically, effectively) useless in discussions on the ‘race’ of ancient Egyptians primarily because of methodological and conceptual issues.
- DNA cannot tell you the ‘race’ of a population because biological races for homo sapiens sapiens does not exit.
- Most DNA studies are often out of sync with historical data. This is why I provided, for free, the articles at the beginning of the discussion so that the non-researcher can have a better understanding of what I mean and why this is important.
- There are not enough ancient DNA fossils that have been analyzed from all periods of Egyptian history (i.e., 6000 years), from all settlement sites, through all historical layers to determine population history over time. And even if you get these perfect, non-contaminated specimens, mummy burials were for elites. You still must do the same number of tests on non-royal fossils as you could theoretically have a foreign elite, but an indigenous general population (cf. when the French ruled England for 138 years).
- It is an issue of statistics. To remotely begin to guess a populations’ genetic make-up, you need to test thousands of samples. And this is for modern populations. The requirements for doing good science doesn’t stop because the fossil samples are ancient. You still need thousands of samples that is representative of all aspects of known history. Otherwise, your results will be biased (e.g., the 2017 Abusir study of only 3 foreign mummies) toward a particular type. Thus, making your results virtually useless when trying to better understand ancient Egyptian population dynamics.
- No amount of DNA studies is going to trump the historical record of what foreigners saw and how they described the ancient Egyptians. No amount of DNA is going to trump how the Egyptians depicted themselves, the paints they used, the hairstyles they wore, the phenotypes depicted in stone, on papyri, on vases, on wood carvings, etc. No DNA is going to trump the Egyptian records and archaeological finds that discuss their origins being in the south where the so-called ‘Blacks’ originate and live(d). No DNA studies is going to trump foreign testimony that affirms the same history provided by the archaeological and philological testimonies.
- This is because, for example, if the Egyptians depicted themselves as all manner of ‘Blacks’ as our modern age classifies them, and the eye witness testimony corroborates how the Egyptians depicted themselves, if you find later fossils that lean towards the middle East, or modern populations that no longer have those characteristics, this can easily be explained by 1) population reduction due to disease, war, or some other calamity, which would cause a founder effect among immigrating populations, 2) migrations of the populations described in the ancient record in various directions, thus allowing foreigners to occupy population centers once occupied by the original inhabitants (e.g., the Trail of Tears between 1830 and 1850 in the United States) and thus skewing the population dynamics, or 3) the original people could have moved south and are erroneously classified today as “Nubians” inside of Egypt by modern people due to their ignorance of history. There is so much that must be contextualized before you can start making population history arguments without understanding ancient Egyptian history.
- DNA doesn’t answer not one question of culture. Nobody studies and admires ancient Egypt based on their phenotypes or genomes. Not one. What people are fighting over is the culture, the collective worldview that inspired the artistic and scientific output of ancient Km.t. Do you think I give a rat’s ass that some Egyptians had Afros? Or curly hair? Or dark pigmentation? This tells me NOTHING about the culture of the people. That’s what is important and why we study and admire. When we study language, culture, religion, the psychology, and behavior of the ancient Egyptians, their attitudes, their perception of life and ancestral motivations mirrors what we find in inner Africa. I cited a few European scholars who echoed the same sentiments in the video. Note that you cannot find these attitudes and worldviews among Berbers, Semites, or Indo-Europeans. It is uniquely African. This is why, for example, you cannot find among these language groups the very word for human-being, i.e. rmT (Coptic: romi, lomi). This is the most fundamental self-identifying label they chose to name themselves. Something so fundamental as to what does it mean to be human and what to label themselves, using their own agency, are key to discovering who they are and where they came from. But this label, the word for being human (a person; man, husband) is found only in Africa to the south of Egypt. No DNA test is going to trump this. How is it that people are arguing that the Egyptians derive from the ‘Near-East’ but the very label they named themselves when they got there can only be found, with the most diversity, in Africa, south of the Sahara?
For years this forum has been taken over by pseudo-science enthusiasts who don’t know how to conduct research, proper research methodology, and can’t even read one hieroglyphic inscription. As a result, we have all this misapplied, misunderstood collection of posts that misdirects and skews the nature of the true discussion.
DNA studies are at its infancy and there is not enough data to make definitive arguments on population history. You’re decades from that. And even when you arrive at a consensus, it still will tell you ZERO about the culture, language, science, political history, religion, etc. of the people.
Posts: 853 | From: Houston | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Asar can you resize that map if possible, it's making the text harder read because of the side bar
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
I think race can in fact be described by science.
Geographic breeding population pools are races to me. They are nearly inummerable yet can be conflated. Whole genome ADMIXTURE bar graphs clearly show this reality. Due to inter-mating there are no discrete boundary races. The old physical anthropologists stated as much. Their races were thought of like clouds in motion. Unfortunately the original physical anthropologists, white European men, made race a hierarchy. Mentality was also one of their racial measures. Their taints live on to the genetic science of humans today. They bred racism. That will make what I write intolerable to some who feel any admission of races is tantamount to racism.
My thinking on race recognizes some GBPPs can and have been mistaken for others with 'identical' phenotypes, witness Guinea and New Guinea. I don't think the science behind phenotype is sufficient on its own to define GBPPs.
I've replaced 'race by colour' with 'race by geography'. And yes, some looking like a certain GBPP will in fact be members some other 'recent' genetic lineage.
Simplified examples:
The Ancient One (Kenewick Man) was declared an European due to cranium. aDNA proved he was an American.
STRs of Americans differ from inner African STRs. Though a few do share a number of phenotypical features very few assign either to the same race.
Just as important, STR variation further subset any continents' peoples of same general STR affinities. Whole genome ADMIXTURE bar graphs do too. They also prove 'racial' purity is a phantasm.
American STRs internally vary between east, northwest, Mexico vicinity, and on to Patagonia. Inner African STRs do the same for southern, central and eastern Inner Africans who are the three primal humans all living humans all descend from. We conflate to one race, HUMAN. We are all equal Terrans of one diverse Earth bred isolating and recombining population.
Other than the Amarna and Ramesses royalty versus the Abusir general population samples there's only few others with more than the almost useless, two, deep ancestry uniparentals.
The results of set one, inner African affinities with minor other affinities including Eurasia, contradict set two, 'purely Levantine' with late African add-ons. Late Era Abusir STRs were never recovered or, if so, were never published.
Can less than 25 STR or whole genome samples stand in for a 3000 year old socially stratified civilization of over 900 miles length along the Nile? Not forgetting the absorbed new nationals from the west (Tjemehu), south (Nehesu), and east (Aamu), whether captive or immigrant seeking a better life?
And after all weren't the first dwellers along that stretch of Nile from Gafsian, Sahro-Sudanese, and Levantine folk?
The ancient Egyptians were a mix of those main elements constantly varying in dominance and plurality since the recess of the last African Humid Period desertified the Sahara, Sudan, and southwest Asia encouraging migration toward the Nile.
Even at present, DNA is useful in AE population studies.
Ausar makes a GREAT argument as to why the over reliance of DNA to answer these questions is nonsensible. That means that 90% of what has been argued in ES for the last decade is useless garbage. That is a fact that I am not in conflict with.
You are sadly miskten!
DNA is no more useless than other disciplines of bioanthropology such as skeletal analysis including cranial analysis.
The problem stems from how the results are being interpreted. For example, scholars for decades have interpreted certain cranial features of Egyptians to mean they are "caucasoid", and now some geneticists are interpreting the same with certain genetic signatures even though both cranial features and genetic signatures are found in some Sub-Saharans.
So it's not the DNA you should be questioning but rather the some of the so-called experts's conclusions. That's how science works. The results may be valid but not the 'findings' from those results.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
@Tukular, luckily science isn't about your opinion. Nothing you said justified or even defined biological races among homo sapiens sapiens. All that is guess work.
@Djehuti, one of the things I really hate about this forum at times is the lack of comprehension among its posters. No one said DNA is useless. I said it is virtually useless and primarily because you don't have a large enough sample size from all periods and in all regions to come to any definitive conclusion. What is so hard for you to understand? It's a serious question.
Posts: 853 | From: Houston | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Well my response was to Big O, but thanks for the clarification since this whole thread is supposed to be based on what you yourself said.
I agree with your assessment and on top of the scanty sampling, you have these interpretations that are at best misguided or at worst total distortions. This is why you have all this talk of "Eurasian" or even "caucasoid" genes or genetic markers. My point is that it's the same as cranial data.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
one of the things I really hate about this forum at times is the lack of comprehension among its posters. No one said DNA is useless. I said it is virtually useless and primarily because you don't have a large enough sample size from all periods and in all regions to come to any definitive conclusion. What is so hard for you to understand? It's a serious question.
the title of the thread did not use the word "virtually" although your video, linked in the OP did
Nevertheless if the genetic ancestry of a particular mummy is outside of Khametic Studies than DNA is completely useless to Khametic Studies not virtually
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again, I really wish more of us would be concerned with research methods and would take statistics so that they will understand why you can't over rely on aDNA studies when trying to argue historical population dynamics. We ain't there yet.
quote: Chapter Title: Ancient DNA Studies and African Population History (2022: 239) Chapter Author(s): Mário Vicente and Carina Schlebusch
(pg. 239)
"Due to the difficulty of extracting DNA from samples from warm climates and the initial focus on European aDNA studies, genome-wide aDNA studies in Africa presently number only few (Table 8.1) (Gallego Llorente et al., 2015, Skoglund et al., 2017, Prendergast et al., 2019, Lipson et al., 2020, Schlebusch et al., 2017, van de Loosdrecht et al., 2018, Fregel et al., 2018, Schuenemann et al., 2017, Rodriguez-Varela et al., 2017). However, with the development of new and improved molecular genetic methods and bioinformatic tools, it is becoming easier to not only extract DNA from samples found in warm climates, but more ancient samples too. At the time of writing this review, only nine studies in total have published ancient genome-wide results from Africa, four studies for North African aDNA and five for sub-Saharan African aDNA (Table 8.1). We analyzed the results of aDNA studies from continental Africa, published to date, in context of modern day African genetic variation (Figure 8.1 and 8.2)."
But people in these internet streets betting their entire pension on aDNA studies like they have enough information to speak intelligently about population movements and the like. Like I said, in regards to ancient Egyptian studies, DNA is virtually useless and tells us nothing we don't already know.
Posts: 853 | From: Houston | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic