posted
we can't say anything about that unless it's compared to some other test
We know nothing about your wife. She could be 81% European or only 11% all we have is this 2008 you are showing
Posts: 42935 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: *In todays Model* East African HG + North African Neolithic + Central Saharan Neolithic Pastoral + Neolithic West Asia Herder/Farmer = "Ethiopian" These components crystalized 1000's of years ago.
Thus TODAY, when a modern Day "Ethiopian" who's grandparents and great grandparents are all from Ethiopia they are simply 100% Ethiopian as 23andMe is only going back a few hundred years.
It would be like ME taking a DNA test in 2423 and the results coming up 100% African American. They are not breaking down exactly what "African American entails, in its mosaic of Ancestry just giving your very recent ancestral origins. I have broken this down before in depth earlier. Search.
In 2023 yall are wasting yall time arguing against Horn of Africans having admixture from either North Africa and Levant/Arabia. All the models are just that admixture "Models"
Nobody arguing against any Arabian admixture, they have it, but its just not to the tune of 40-50%, the study I cited says they have admixture, so no one made the claim that they lack admixture.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: *In todays Model* East African HG + North African Neolithic + Central Saharan Neolithic Pastoral + Neolithic West Asia Herder/Farmer = "Ethiopian" These components crystalized 1000's of years ago.
Thus TODAY, when a modern Day "Ethiopian" who's grandparents and great grandparents are all from Ethiopia they are simply 100% Ethiopian as 23andMe is only going back a few hundred years.
It would be like ME taking a DNA test in 2423 and the results coming up 100% African American. They are not breaking down exactly what "African American entails, in its mosaic of Ancestry just giving your very recent ancestral origins. I have broken this down before in depth earlier. Search.
In 2023 yall are wasting yall time arguing against Horn of Africans having admixture from either North Africa and Levant/Arabia. All the models are just that admixture "Models"
Nobody arguing against any Arabian admixture, they have it, but its just not to the tune of 40-50%, the study I cited says they have admixture, so no one made the claim that they lack admixture.
Is one right and the other wrong? How do we know which one is better?
Posts: 42935 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Here are your lies :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: That percentage is FALSE and comes from a distortion of an autosomal study done by Dr. Sarah Tishkoff et al. (2004). In that study it was found that the Amhara, the dominant ethnic group in Ethiopia, has 40% Eurasian admixture. The Euronuts then spun it to mean that all Ethiopians are 40% Eurasian, then they spun it further to say that all Horn Africans are 40% Eurasian. Some have even increased the number to 50% and some even 60%!
Saying that it comes from Tishkoff et al. 2004, saying that Amhara are only 40% while they are at almost 50%, implying that 40% is the upper limit and saying that 50% or 60% can't be reached.
The 2004 Tishkoff study DID show the Amhara to be 40% Eurasian yet Euronuts have distorted it to say that all Horn Africans are 40 or even 50 percent Eurasian. What YOU cited was the 2014 Pickrell study. We are talking about two different things, though I was correct in recalling the results of the Pickrell one.
quote:I have not been inconsistent in any way, as I never suggested or clearly stated that Nubians constituted a homogeneous ethnic group. Therefore, it is true that lower Nubians were not black, while southern "Nubians" were (this situation persists today).
Yet in past threads when I posted pictures of black Baladi (Egyptians) you falsely labeled them as Lower Nubians living around Aswan! Also you cited studies showing Kushites who are Upper/Southern Nubians being craniometrically close to Naqada Egyptians.
Again you are a self-contradicting mess.
quote:Meanwhile you said "black" is only a "color descriptor" yet talked about "black ancestry and features" (I already took a screenshot of your answer so it's useless to edit it).
No. I talked about indigenous i.e. black AFRICAN ancestry as opposed to black Eurasians.
quote:Look how you try to save yourself now XD From "Amhara, the dominant ethnic group has 40% eurasian admixture" to "Somalis in Ogaden" XD
I don't need to "save myself" from contradiction like you. The Amhara are the politically dominant group in Ethiopia but they are NOT the predominant group in terms of population. That belongs to the Oromo.
quote:Even Somalis can score more than 40% here some example :
LMAO Look whose trying to save face! You then cite another study showing Natufian ancestry in the Horn even though the Natufians are actually AFRICAN in origin!
quote:You aren't correct at all since most people in the Horn have more than 40% Eurasian admixture.
And who is "most" people? Again the largest ethnic group in Ethiopia is the Oromo who have about 41%, The Somalis both in Ethiopia and Somalia are slightly < 40% and what about all the other ethnic groups in the Pickrell study? Also, as Brandon pointed out, how accurate are they in assessing "Eurasian" ancestry to begin with?
quote:You were also wrong when you stated that no Horner plot closer to Europeans than west Africans.
I never said that! Your psychosis is distorting your reading comprehension. What I wrote was that Horners are intermediate between West Africans and North Africans with North Africans being intermediate between Horners and Eurasians.
Loosdrecht et al. has proven that.
quote:And it doesn't matter how much you desperately try to make this Eurasian component a local one. The component can be 100% African with zero south Arabian introgression and even in that case, most Sub-Saharan African populations would still lack it, and the component would still share more genetic similarities with a true Eurasian component.
Yet Eurasians originated in Africa as genetics has shown.
So-called "Sub-Saharan" populations are diverse which is why West Africans are distant from indigenous (Khoisan) South Africans as seen in the Loosdrecht graph. Oh, and apparently your allegedly "true Eurasian" component also shows up in West Africans as cited in a paper on the Fulani here.
Also, the overwhelming majority of East Asians lack the Amerindian component but that doesn't change the fact that Amerindians entered the Americas from Northeast Asia or that some Northeast Asians have that component is not surprising. So your point is moot.
quote:It's over drop the case. Morphologically they plot with Eurasians (including europeans), genetically they are much closer to eurasians (including light skinned north africans like me) and they have substantial eurasian ancestry.
Correction, it's BEEN over yet you're too dumb to realize it! LOL The genetic evidence was already shown above. As for "morphologically", you forget morphology is not based on "African vs. Eurasian" since Eurasian Andamanese are morphologically the same as stereotypical Sub-Saharans even though they are 100% Eurasian while there are East Africans with little or no Eurasian ancestry at all but possess the narrow so-called "caucasoid" features. Light-skinned North Africans like you are of mixed ancestry between the black inidgenes and the white immigrants from Europe as was shown multiple times in this forum. You aren't just light-skinned but WHITE because you are a literally white-washed African. In fact Europeans have African admixture also which explains E-M215 and L2 lineages and Benin HBS in the Mediterranean.
quote:The Nubian Kadruka/Kulubnarti samples had also the same amount of eurasian ancestry if not more in the case of Kulubnarti so let's not even start with ancient Egyptians further north.
Indeed, this was discussed before. But wait. Where is the Neolithic site of Kadruka again?
Oh that's right! It's in Southern Nubia homeland of the black Nubians! LOL
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26267 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
As to everyone else with efficiently functioning brains...
quote:Antalas wrote: ...The component can be 100% African with zero south Arabian introgression and even in that case, most Sub-Saharan African populations would still lack it, and the component would still share more genetic similarities with a true Eurasian component.
How true is this?
^ According to Loosdrecht's graph Yemeni are in an intermediate position between Taforalt which is grouped with the Horn Africans and Mozabites which lie in the North African cluster. This despite the fact that Mozabites carry higher Yoruba IBD ancestry than Yemenis.
What are your thoughts on this?
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26267 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:So Antalas, do you agree that these Sub-Saharans below are not "caucasoid"?
Since the coward Antalas, refuses to answer the question.
It is obvious to anyone that the people above are morphologically "negroid" in appearance not "caucasoid", yet both the Wolayta (top) and the Dogon (bottom) have significant autosomal ancestry that's labeled as "Eurasian".
According to his data Wolayta are 34% Eurasian.
Strangely this doesn't quite line up with the uniparental data as presented by Ethiohelix
0% Eurasian paternal lineages
The amount of Eurasian maternal lineages doesn't even reach 20%
posted
^ I'm only familiar with a 2004 study on paternal ancestry done on African populations which shows the following.
According to Wikipedia Y-DNA (paternal lineages) Modern-day genetic studies of the Y-chromosome generally indicate that the Tutsi, like the Hutu, are largely of Bantu extraction (60% E1b1a, 20% B, 4% E-P2(xE1b1a)).
Paternal genetic influences associated with the Horn of Africa and North Africa are few (under 3% E1b1b-M35), and are ascribed to much earlier inhabitants who were assimilated. However, the Tutsi have considerably more haplogroup B Y-DNA paternal lineages (14.9% B) than do the Hutu (4.3% B).
Autosomal DNA (overall ancestry) In general, the Tutsi appear to share a close genetic kinship with neighboring Bantu populations, particularly the Hutus. However, it is unclear whether this similarity is primarily due to extensive genetic exchanges between these communities through intermarriage or whether it ultimately stems from common origins:
[...] generations of gene flow obliterated whatever clear-cut physical distinctions may have once existed between these two Bantu peoples – renowned to be height, body build, and facial features. With a spectrum of physical variation in the peoples, Belgian authorities legally mandated ethnic affiliation in the 1920s, based on economic criteria. Formal and discrete social divisions were consequently imposed upon ambiguous biological distinctions. To some extent, the permeability of these categories in the intervening decades helped to reify the biological distinctions, generating a taller elite and a shorter underclass, but with little relation to the gene pools that had existed a few centuries ago. The social categories are thus real, but there is little if any detectable genetic differentiation between Hutu and Tutsi.
Other than that, Razib Khan in Discover Magazine did a write up on Tutsi genetics here.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26267 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is what I find interesting from Razib Khan's findings of an autosomal analysis of a Rwandan.
quote: Remember that the Tutsi is 3/4 Tutsi, 1/4 Hutu. It is N = 1. So is the Nubian. You see in many of the Horn of Africa populations that the Eurasian component has an affinity with Yemenis, not Europeans. ~In contrast, the Nubian does have some European-like component. That's probably simply due to the fact that in this run Levantines themselves have that, and Egyptians who also carry that component are part of the heritage of the Nubian.~ The Tutsi does have the Southwest Asian component, which the Masai seem to lack. To get a better sense, let's look at a slice of individuals. The Tutsi is last. The family relationships of some of the Masai are also clear. Focus on the more typical Masai and the Tutsi:
See, this is why it's important for geneticists to have knowledge about the histories of the populations they study. If Khan knew about the history of that region (the Nile Valley) he would know that the European ancestry in Nubia actually dates back to the Ottoman Empire when Janissaries (Ottoman Imperial soldiers) from Albania were stationed in Nubia. These same soldiers ended up settling there and intermarrying with the local population and formed their own light-skinned class whose name I forgot. It has nothing to do with Levantines who received their European ancestry from elsewhere.
He goes on..
quote:Looking at the individual results it seems that the Tutsi can be placed with the range of combinations of ancestral components of the Masai, though not the Luhya. To get a different vantage point let's look at some PCAs, which visualize the largest components of genetic variance in the data set.
The results are not cut & dry. I am less skeptical of some Afro-Asiatic element in the Tutsi heritage, though it still seems that the dominant affinity is with the Masai. Note: I ran K = 7 to K - 10. There wasn't anything different in the general pattern of the runs I did not show.
So if anything, the Tutsi show more influence from Nilo-Saharan speakers like the Maasai.
Note that although they show a little of that Eurasian influence (light blue signal), Khan identifies that as "Yemeni" than anything else.
However recall that in the Loosdrecth et al. paper Yemenis are intermediate between Taforalt and other Horn African on one hand and North Africans on the other!
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26267 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Look whose trying to save face! You then cite another study showing Natufian ancestry in the Horn even though the Natufians are actually AFRICAN in origin!
Printer-friendly view of this topic