posted
"Back migration" is the biological process where Population W in Area X, descended from migrants of Population Y in Area Z, migrate back to the original Area Z and contribute to the gene pool.
Apparently, certain Cameroonian populations have an extraordinarily high percentage of R1 Y-Chromosomes, and resulting haplogroups.
The Afrocentrist view (bastardisation is more appropriate, but...) is that: * Certain Cameroonian populations show large traces of R1 haplogroups on the Y-Chromosome * R1 haplogroups, and their resultant subclades, are common in Europe and Asia. * Therefore, Cameroonian populations must have settled Europe and Asia at some point 27,000 years ago (when the R1 haplogroup arose).
However, according to this:
quote:The hypervariable region-1 and four nucleotide positions (10400, 10873, 12308, and 12705) of the coding region of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) were analyzed in 441 individuals belonging to eight populations (Daba, Fali, Fulbe, Mandara, Uldeme, Podokwo, Tali, and Tupuri) from North Cameroon and four populations (Bakaka, Bassa, Bamileke, and Ewondo) from South Cameroon. All mtDNAs were assigned to five haplogroups: three sub-Saharan (L1, L2, and L3), one northern African (U6), and one European (U5). Our results contrast with the observed high frequencies of a Y-chromosome haplogroup of probable Asian origin (R1*-M173) in North Cameroon. As a first step toward a better understanding of the evident discrepancy between mtDNA and Y-chromosome data, we propose two contrasting scenarios. The first one, here termed migration and asymmetric admixture, implies a back migration from Asia to North Cameroon of a population group carrying the haplotype R1*-M173 at high frequency, and an admixture process restricted to migrant males. The second scenario, on the other hand, temed divergent drift, implies that modern populations of North Cameroon originated from a small population group which migrated from Asia to Africa and in which, through genetic drift, Y-chromosome haplotype R1*-M173 became predominant, whereas the Asian mtDNA haplogroups were lost.
quote:* Therefore, Cameroonian populations must have settled Europe and Asia at some point 27,000 years ago (when the R1 haplogroup arose).
No not really, I don't know where you heard of Cameroonians settling Europe or Asia 27kya. Yes the presence of Yhg R1 is said to be a back migration into Africa. This non-African lineage in these Cameroonians further debunks any notion of "Caucasoid".
Dr. Wells, of the National Geographic Society, said Dr. Pritchard's results were fascinating and would help anthropologists explain the immense diversity of human populations even though their genes are generally similar. The relative handful of selected genes that Dr. Pritchard's study has pinpointed may hold the answer, he said, adding, "Each gene has a story of some pressure we adapted to."
Dr. Wells is gathering DNA from across the globe to map in finer detail the genetic variation brought to light by the HapMap project.
Dr. Pritchard's list of selected genes also includes five that affect skin color . The selected versions of the genes occur solely in Europeans and are presumably responsible for pale skin. Anthropologists have generally assumed that the first modern humans to arrive in Europe some 45,000 years ago had the dark skin of their African origins, but soon acquired the paler skin needed to admit sunlight for vitamin D synthesis.
The finding of five skin genes selected 6,600 years ago could imply that Europeans acquired their pale skin much more recently. Or, the selected genes may have been a reinforcement of a process established earlier, Dr. Pritchard said. The five genes show no sign of selective pressure in East Asians.
Because Chinese and Japanese are also pale, Dr. Pritchard said, evolution must have accomplished the same goal in those populations by working through different genes or by changing the same genes — but many thousands of years before, so that the signal of selection is no longer visible to the new test.
---------
Check and mate!!!!!
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here are some more facts that I hope you know, and understand about Early moderns humans when they entered Europe....If not, then I am glad to inform you.
--------
1)Early Europeans still resembled modern tropical peoples -> some resemble modern Australian and Africans, more than modern Europeans [C. Stringer, R. McKie 1996]
"Nor does the picture get any clearer when we move on to the Cro-Magnons, the presumed ancestors of modern Europeans. Some were more like present-day Australians or Africans, judged by objective anatomical observations..." - African Exodus Christopher Stringer and Robin McKie 1996
Until now, the lack of human fossils of appropriate antiquity from sub-Saharan Africa has meant that these competing genetic models of human evolution could not be tested by paleontological evidence.
The skull from Hofmeyr has changed that. The surprising similarity between a fossil skull (Hofmeyr) from the southernmost tip of Africa and similarly ancient skulls from Europe is in agreement with the genetics-based "Out of Africa" theory, which predicts that humans like those that inhabited Eurasia in the Upper Paleolithic should be found in sub-Saharan Africa around 36,000 years ago. The skull from South Africa provides the first fossil evidence in support of this prediction.
European early modern humans and the fate of the Neandertals Erik Trinkaus*
"The skull is large and robust. The maximum estimated length and breadth of the neurocranium, as well as most measurements of the facial skeleton, lie at or exceed two standard deviations (SD) of the means for modern African males ,whereas they lie within these limits for Late Pleistocene crania from Eurasia and North Africa(table S3)."
"As a result of an ongoing cleansing of the fossil record through direct radiometric dating, a series of obviously modern, and in fact Late Upper Paleolithic or Holocene, human remains have been removed from consideration (7). This cleansing has helped to dilute the impression that the earliest modern humans in Europe were just like recent European populations.
Thus, Hofmeyr is seemingly primitive in comparison to recent African crania in a number of features, including a prominent glabella; moderately thick, continuous supraorbital tori; a tall, flat, and straight malar; a broad frontal process of the maxilla; and comparatively large molar crowns.
4) Multivariate Analysis of the Postcranium of Markina Gora (Kostenki XIV), A 30,000-Year-Old Skeleton from Russia
"The Markina Gora skeleton was excavated in 1954. Debets (1955, Sovetskaia Etnografiia 1: 43--53) described it as "negroid" based on its marked alveolar prognathism and high brachial and crural indices"
Body proportions in Late Pleistocene Europe and modern human origins*1
Trenton W. Holliday
Department of Anthropology, The College of William and Mary, P.O. Box 8795, Williamsburg, Virginia 23187-8795, U.S.A.
Abstract
Body proportions covary with climate, apparently as the result of climatic selection. Ontogenetic research and migrant studies have demonstrated that body proportions are largely genetically controlled and are under low selective rates; thus studies of body form can provide evidence for evolutionarily short-term dispersals and/or gene flow. Following these observations, competing models of modern human origins yield different predictions concerning body proportion shifts in Late Pleistocene Europe. Replacement predicts that the earliest modern Europeans will possess “tropical” body proportions (assuming Africa is the center of origin), while Regional Continuity permits only minor shifts in body shape, due to climatic change and/or improved cultural buffering. This study tests these predictions via analyses of osteometric data reflective of trunk height and breadth, limb proportions and relative body mass for samples of Early Upper Paleolithic (EUP), Late Upper Paleolithic (LUP) and Mesolithic (MES) humans and 13 recent African and European populations. Results reveal a clear tendency for the EUP sample to cluster with recent Africans, while LUP and MES samples cluster with recent Europeans. These results refute the hypothesis of local continuity in Europe, and are consistent with an interpretation of elevated gene flow (and population dispersal?) from Africa, followed by subsequent climatic adaptation to colder conditions. These data do not, however, preclude the possibility of some (albeit small) contribution of genes from Neandertals to succeeding populations, as is postulated in Bräuer’s “Afro-European Sapiens” model.
Brachial and crural indices of European Late Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic humans
Trenton W. Holliday
Department of Anthropology, Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana, 70118, U.S.A.f1
Abstract
Among recent humans brachial and crural indices are positively correlated with mean annual temperature, such that high indices are found in tropical groups. However, despite inhabiting glacial Europe, the Upper Paleolithic Europeans possessed high indices, prompting Trinkaus (1981) to argue for gene flow from warmer regions associated with modern human emergence in Europe. In contrast, Frayeret al. (1993) point out that Late Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic Europeans shouldnotexhibit tropically-adapted limb proportions, since, even assuming replacement, their ancestors had experienced cold stress in glacial Europe for at least 12 millennia.
This study investigates three questions tied to the brachial and crural indices among Late Pleistocene and recent humans. First, which limb segments (either proximal or distal) are primarily responsible for variation in brachial and crural indices? Second, are these indices reflective ofoveralllimb elongation? And finally, do the Late Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic Europeans retain relatively and/or absolutely long limbs? Results indicate that in the lower limb, the distal limb segment contributes most of the variability to intralimb proportions, while in the upper limb the proximal and distal limb segments appear to be equally variable. Additionally, brachial and crural indices do not appear to be a good measure of overall limb length, and thus, while the Late Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic humans have significantly higher (i.e., tropically-adapted) brachial and crural indices than do recent Europeans, they also have shorter (i.e., cold-adapted) limbs. The somewhat paradoxical retention of “tropical” indices in the context of more “cold-adapted” limb length is best explained as evidence for Replacement in the European Late Pleistocene, followed by gradual cold adaptation in glacial Europe.
Gough's Cave 1 (Somerset, England): an assessment of body size and shape TRENTON W. HOLLIDAY a1 and STEVEN E. CHURCHILL a2
Abstract
Stature, body mass, and body proportions are evaluated for the Cheddar Man (Gough's Cave 1) skeleton. Like many of his Mesolithic contemporaries, Gough's Cave 1 evinces relatively short estimated stature (ca. 166.2 cm [5′ 5′]) and low body mass (ca. 66 kg [146 lbs]). In body shape, he is similar to recent Europeans for most proportional indices. He differs, however, from most recent Europeans in his high crural index and tibial length/trunk height indices. Thus, while Gough's Cave 1 is characterized by a total morphological pattern considered ‘cold-adapted’, these latter two traits may be interpreted as evidence of a large African role in the origins of anatomically modern Europeans.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
It then goes to claim that it is 30,000 years old among Cameroonians, and implies-to-the-point-of-screaming-it-in-your-ear that the R1 haplotype has "African origins".
[/QUOTE] Dr. Pritchard's list of selected genes also includes five that affect skin color . The selected versions of the genes occur solely in Europeans and are presumably responsible for pale skin. Anthropologists have generally assumed that the first modern humans to arrive in Europe some 45,000 years ago had the dark skin of their African origins, but soon acquired the paler skin needed to admit sunlight for vitamin D synthesis. [/QUOTE]
So - outside darker skin colour than contemporary Europeans - the "first Europeans" were still effectively "European" in every other sense of the term?.
Note: Before this begins, it seems that origin of the R haplogroup is estimated at 28,000 years ago (Tatiana M. Karafet, Fernando L. Mendez, Monica B. Meilerman, Peter A. Underhill, Stephen L. Zegura, and Michael F. Hammer (2008). New binary polymorphisms reshape and increase resolution of the human Y chromosomal haplogroup tree ), and that the origin of this haplogroup is the Middle East.
1. Cro-Magnons:
quote:If Upper Paleolithic people were "European" from about 35,000 B.P., then such population distinctions are at least that old. And the Cro-Magnons were already racially European, i.e., Caucasoid. This has always been accepted because of the general appearance of the skulls: straight faces, narrow noses, and so forth. It is also possible to test this arithmetically ... Except for Predmosti 4, which is distant from every present and past population population, all of these skulls show themselves to be closer to "Europeans" than to other peoples - Mladec and Abri Pataud comfortably so, the other two much more remotely.
- W.W. Howells, 1997, Getting Here: the story of Human Evolution, p. 188.
Assuming that neither source is incorrect, it seems that whether the Cro-Magnons were indeed "sub-Saharan Africans" or not is still open to debate .
2. The Hofmeyr Skull:
quote:Another member of the team, Katerina Harvati of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, made a detailed examination of the shapes, sizes and contours of all parts of the (Hofmeyr) skull. She compared these three-dimensional measurements with those of early human skulls from Europe and with skulls of living humans in Eurasia and southern Africa, including the Khoe-San, commonly known as the Bushmen.
Because the Bushmen are well represented in the more recent archaeological record, Dr. Harvati said, they were expected to bear a close resemblance to the Hofmeyr skull. Instead, the skull was found to be quite distinct from all recent Africans, including the Bushmen, she said, and it has “a very close affinity” with fossil specimens of Europeans living in the Upper Paleolithic, the period best known for advanced stone tools and cave art.
The skull was "quite distinct" from all recent Africans, even the Bushmen - who are believed to be the "oldest humans"?Posts: 8 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
Profile for Tabula Rasa Rate Member 5: Highest Rating 4 3 2 1: Lowest Rating Member Status: Junior Member Member Number: 15909 Registered: 02 October, 2008 Posts: 5
-------------------- Research everything, believe nothing.(Immanuel Kant) Posts: 5454 | From: Holland | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
While an ancient migration from Asia is possible, it's not the only possible scenario (nor does it make the most sense IMO).
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: So - outside darker skin colour than contemporary Europeans - the "first Europeans" were still effectively "European" in every other sense of the term?.
Well no, they were European because they were in Europe, but in no way do they resemble their modern day descendants, who are recent Europeans.
as we can see.....
Early Europeans still resembled modern tropical peoples -> some resemble modern Australian and Africans, more than modern Europeans [C. Stringer, R. McKie 1996]
"Nor does the picture get any clearer when we move on to the Cro-Magnons, the presumed ancestors of modern Europeans. Some were more like present-day Australians or Africans, judged by objective anatomical observations..." - African Exodus Christopher Stringer and Robin McKie 1996
quote: 2. The Hofmeyr Skull:
quote:Another member of the team, Katerina Harvati of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, made a detailed examination of the shapes, sizes and contours of all parts of the (Hofmeyr) skull. She compared these three-dimensional measurements with those of early human skulls from Europe and with skulls of living humans in Eurasia and southern Africa, including the Khoe-San, commonly known as the Bushmen.
Because the Bushmen are well represented in the more recent archaeological record, Dr. Harvati said, they were expected to bear a close resemblance to the Hofmeyr skull. Instead, the skull was found to be quite distinct from all recent Africans, including the Bushmen, she said, and it has “a very close affinity” with fossil specimens of Europeans living in the Upper Paleolithic, the period best known for advanced stone tools and cave art.
- Skull Provides Signs of When Humans Left Africa
The skull was "quite distinct" from all recent Africans, even the Bushmen - who are believed to be the "oldest humans"?
Actually it's not up for debate, it's just something that's hard to accept for people like you.
European early modern humans and the fate of the Neandertals Erik Trinkaus*
"The skull is large and robust. The maximum estimated length and breadth of the neurocranium, as well as most measurements of the facial skeleton,lie at or exceedtwo standard deviations (SD) of the means for modern African males,whereas they lie within these limits for Late Pleistocene crania from Eurasia and North Africa(table S3)."
"As a result of an ongoing cleansing of the fossil record through direct radiometric dating, a series of obviously modern, and in fact Late Upper Paleolithic or Holocene, human remains have been removed from consideration (7). This cleansing has helped to dilute the impression that the earliest modern humans in Europe were just like recent European populations.
Thus, Hofmeyr is seemingly primitive in comparison to recent African crania in a number of features, including a prominent glabella; moderately thick, continuous supraorbital tori; a tall, flat, and straight malar; a broad frontal process of the maxilla; and comparatively large molar crowns.
So since you say Modern European resemble early Europeans/Ancient Africans right? Well then you're basically saying modern Europeans look like primitive Africans.
Btw.... Howells has long been debunked on this forum. Also if you're going to say early Europeans were "Caucasoid" we want you to provide an updated study which says so, and also the exact specific traits which are supposedly considered "Caucasian" if you can't do this, don't even bother replying.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tabula Rasa: "Back migration" is the biological process where Population W in Area X, descended from migrants of Population Y in Area Z, migrate back to the original Area Z and contribute to the gene pool.
Apparently, certain Cameroonian populations have an extraordinarily high percentage of R1 Y-Chromosomes, and resulting haplogroups.
The Afrocentrist view (bastardisation is more appropriate, but...) is that: * Certain Cameroonian populations show large traces of R1 haplogroups on the Y-Chromosome * R1 haplogroups, and their resultant subclades, are common in Europe and Asia. * Therefore, Cameroonian populations must have settled Europe and Asia at some point 27,000 years ago (when the R1 haplogroup arose).
However, according to this:
quote:The hypervariable region-1 and four nucleotide positions (10400, 10873, 12308, and 12705) of the coding region of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) were analyzed in 441 individuals belonging to eight populations (Daba, Fali, Fulbe, Mandara, Uldeme, Podokwo, Tali, and Tupuri) from North Cameroon and four populations (Bakaka, Bassa, Bamileke, and Ewondo) from South Cameroon. All mtDNAs were assigned to five haplogroups: three sub-Saharan (L1, L2, and L3), one northern African (U6), and one European (U5). Our results contrast with the observed high frequencies of a Y-chromosome haplogroup of probable Asian origin (R1*-M173) in North Cameroon. As a first step toward a better understanding of the evident discrepancy between mtDNA and Y-chromosome data, we propose two contrasting scenarios. The first one, here termed migration and asymmetric admixture, implies a back migration from Asia to North Cameroon of a population group carrying the haplotype R1*-M173 at high frequency, and an admixture process restricted to migrant males. The second scenario, on the other hand, temed divergent drift, implies that modern populations of North Cameroon originated from a small population group which migrated from Asia to Africa and in which, through genetic drift, Y-chromosome haplotype R1*-M173 became predominant, whereas the Asian mtDNA haplogroups were lost.
Idiot, this whole post of yours is a strawman as you labelled the opinion you don't like as "Afrocentrist" when you should have just addressed Marc ^Washington, who in no way represents the monolithic "Afrocentrist" view, nor the views and opinions of all Afrocentrists. Stop trolling the forum with your rubbish.
Posts: 2596 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Idiot, this whole post of yours is a strawman as you labelled the opinion you don't like as "Afrocentrist" when you should have just addressed Marc ^Washington, who in no way represents the monolithic "Afrocentrist" view, nor the views and opinions of all Afrocentrists. Stop trolling the forum with your rubbish.
Exactly.... I've noticed her whole beef is actually with Marc, whom we disagree with on a number of things as well. She doesn't notice that not all of us agree with Marc, actually most don't. Now she made a wrong turn, on the right site, and will now be corrected, debunked and put on the right path by real knowledgeable truthseekers.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
As far as R1*-M173 itself, it appears that the notion of this marker indicating a back migration is questionable and no longer a definite thing:
"Among other groups with a relatively large population size are the Hausa and Copts. Hausa display elevated frequencies of the haplogroup R-P25, which is considered as an evidence for back migration from Asia to Sub-Saharan Africa (Cruciani et al., 2002), although a recent study questions the reliability of this marker being usedin singularity (Adams et al., 2006). Other groups with varying frequencies of this haplogroup, like the Borgu and Nubians, appear to have acquired it from Afro-Asiatic speaking groups through gene flow."
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 000:000–000 (2008)
R1*-M173=R1b1* or undifferentiated R1b.
Posts: 2596 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: While an ancient migration from Asia is possible, it's not the only possible scenario (nor does it make the most sense IMO). [/QB]
quote:Other lineages derived from the M9 superclade have not been detected in sub-Saharan Africa, the only exception being the haplotype K2 found among some sub-Saharan populations (Cruciani et al., 2002; Luis et al., 2004). These findings are difficult to reconcile with an African origin of the R1*-M173 subclade, unless a considerable extinction of lineages is assumed (Cruciani et al., 2002).
quote: Furthermore, according to present studies, the frequency of haplogroup R1*-M173 in Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa seems to be substantially lower than in North Cameroon (North Africa) (Bosch et al., 2001; Cruciani et al., 2002; Cinnioglu et al., 2004; Luis et al., 2004; Arredi et al., 2004). This makes it unlikely that the presence of R1*- M173 in North Cameroon is due to recent gene flow from neighboring regions. Salas et al. (2002) suggested that the presence of the haplotype R1*-M173 in northern Cameroon populations could be due to recent gene flow from North Africa.
quote: These authors maintained that the processes leading to the present-day distribution of haplogroup R1*-M173 could have followed the same route of the mtDNA haplogroup U6, widespread among Berbers (Rando et al., 1998; Macaulay et al., 1999), which is thought to have arrived in North Africa from the Near East between 20,000–50,000 years ago. According to Salas et al. (2002), the Fulbe or other pastoralists might have conveyed both mtDNA sequences belonging to the U6 and H haplogroups and the haplotype R1*-M173 from Berbers to North Cameroon populations. This hypothesis is based on the presence of the Fulbe in North Cameroon and on the evidence that the Fulbe who settled in Nigeria show signs of gene flow of maternally transmitted characters from Berbers, namely sequences belonging to the haplogroups U6 and H (Watson et al., 1997).
The source states that this is only a theory - however, considering the evidence it seems most plausible.
quote:but in no way do they resemble their modern day descendants, who are recent Europeans
Yeah, I concede that: My point was that the current "European" phenotype - not just including light skin, light hair and light eyes in Northern Europe - didn't just spontaneously appear from sub-Saharan Africans in Europe.
quote:Thus, Hofmeyr is seemingly primitive in comparison to recent African crania in a number of features, including a prominent glabella; moderately thick, continuous supraorbital tori; a tall, flat, and straight malar; a broad frontal process of the maxilla; and comparatively large molar crowns.
It states that the "earliest European skulls are closest to recent Africans than modern Europeans", then states that the "Hofmeyr skull is "very primitive compared to recent African crania", so I'm going to assume that, as primitive as the skull was, it was closer to recent Africans than Europeans?
quote:This cleansing has helped to dilute the impression that the earliest modern humans in Europe were just like recent European populations.
As mentioned above, the "first Europeans" would've been as "European" as the "first Middle Easterners" would've been "Middle Eastern".
quote: Btw.... Howells has long been debunked on this forum.
Pray, do tell where I could find this refutation?
quote: Also if you're going to say early Europeans were "Caucasoid" we want you to provide an updated study which says so, and also the exact specific traits which are supposedly considered "Caucasian" if you can't do this, don't even bother replying.
Back the **** up Jack: 1. I hope the "Caucasoid" and "Caucasian" thing is just a slip of the tongue, as anybody will tell you that: Caucasoid does not = Caucasian. 2. You asking me to provide "specific Caucasoid features" is rich, and a tad hypocritical, from the person happy to post about "the earliest European skulls bearing a resemblance to those of recent Africans:
Or are you one of those hypocrites where: "Physical anthropology and deducing race/ethnicity from skulls is false", yet "These skulls in Land X bear a clear resemblance to those of recent Africans"?
quote:Idiot, this whole post of yours is a strawman as you labelled the opinion you don't like as "Afrocentrist" when you should have just addressed Marc ^Washington, who in no way represents the monolithic "Afrocentrist" view, nor the views and opinions of all Afrocentrists. Stop trolling the forum with your rubbish.
I don't like it because it is incorrect: Also, is that not the "Afrocentric" interpretation for the origin of that R1 subclade? What's the other intrepretation? Eurocentric?
I never assumed that they represented the "monolithic Afrocentrist view", I was just attacking an Afrocentric intrepretation of the results: I've had bat-**** insane "Afrocentrists" claiming that "white Europeans" were just slaves driven West by their Khazar Jew masters fleeing the fall of their empire - would refuting that claim constitute "attacking mainstream Afrocentrism"?
And I must have really struck a nerve here, with Egmond claiming I'm a mutant and now this.
quote:Exactly.... I've noticed her whole beef is actually with Marc, whom we disagree with on a number of things as well. She doesn't notice that not all of us agree with Marc, actually most don't.
I'm female now? And again, we enter the "if-you-refute-one-belief-held-by-a-minority-you-are-obviously-attacking-the-beliefs-of-the-majority" fallacy.
quote: Now she made a wrong turn, on the right site, and will now be corrected, debunked and put on the right path by real knowledgeable truthseekers.
"Real knowledgeable truthseekers": Is it a struggle to fit your ego through the doorway when you enter a room? My first post was a bit arrogant, but why do certain Afrocentrists (to cover my ass I'll state now that not all Afrocentrists are like this blah-blah-blah) claim that they are completely-beyond-any-shadow-of-a-doubt right? I may be wrong, and am probably making an enormous ass of myself here, but at least I'm not arrogantly claiming that "I'm a real knowledgeable truthseeker".
quote: Other groups with varying frequencies of this haplogroup, like the Borgu and Nubians, appear to have acquired it from Afro-Asiatic speaking groups through gene flow."
And where is the origin of these "Afro-Asiatics", precisely?
Posts: 8 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yeah, I concede that: My point was that the current "European" phenotype - not just including light skin, light hair and light eyes in Northern Europe - didn't just spontaneously appear from sub-Saharan Africans in Europe.
Well... of course it didn't. Blond hair can be found amongst Oceanians and a few rare occasions in indigenous Africans though.
quote:It states that the "earliest European skulls are closest to recent Africans than modern Europeans", then states that the "Hofmeyr skull is "very primitive compared to recent African crania", so I'm going to assume that, as primitive as the skull was, it was closer to recent Africans than Europeans?
Well....basically Hofmeyr was a primitive early modern human, now, where did modern humans evolve and come from? Yes Africa. So of course this ancient African skull will be closer to actual Africans than recent Europeans. Understand?
quote: As mentioned above, the "first Europeans" would've been as "European" as the "first Middle Easterners" would've been "Middle Eastern".
Well of course....A Chinese man born in America will make him American, but won't change his Chinese identity, ancestry or Asian phenotype.
quote:Pray, do tell where I could find this refutation?
"Older analysts of "race" constantly noted a less "African" appearance, however dark, reaching from the Horn of Africa northward and were given talk of a "Hamitic strain," that is, admixture of 'Caucasoids' from the north. PERHAPS THESE SCHOLARS HAD IT BACKWARDS."
^^^^ Your own source debunks you, and as we know, the talk of a "Hamitic strain," is also DEBUNKED. Case closed.
This above statement is from Howells et al.
quote: Back the **** up Jack: 1. I hope the "Caucasoid" and "Caucasian" thing is just a slip of the tongue, as anybody will tell you that: Caucasoid does not = Caucasian. 2. You asking me to provide "specific Caucasoid features" is rich, and a tad hypocritical, from the person happy to post about "the earliest European skulls bearing a resemblance to those of recent Africans:
Or are you one of those hypocrites where: "Physical anthropology and deducing race/ethnicity from skulls is false", yet "These skulls in Land X bear a clear resemblance to those of recent Africans"?
14,000 year old Sicilian woman skull reconstruction (yeah, if you just darkened her skin she'd totally resemble your average Nigerian).
Lol, not at all.....but I am glad you asked, well answer this...
Address how or why E3a carrying Africans exhibit so called "Carcusoid" traits
Address the Buba Clan Priestly class carrying Hg J, shouldn't this had turned these people "Caucasoid", as Euros erroneously proposing imaginary lineages(failed to name) in East Africans??
quote: I'm female now? And again, we enter the "if-you-refute-one-belief-held-by-a-minority-you-are-obviously-attacking-the-beliefs-of-the-majority" fallacy.
I thought you were, but just realize on this forum we accept nothing but the truth and substantial evidence to back up any said claims. Marc doesn't represent this site neither does Egmond. Truthfully I think they're ruining this site and attracting people such as yourself
quote: "Real knowledgeable truthseekers"
Yes Indeed.
quote: Is it a struggle to fit your ego through the doorway when you enter a room?
Not really.
quote: My first post was a bit arrogant,
I agree it pretty much was. I would say ignorant instead of arrogant though.
quote:but why do certain Afrocentrists (to cover my ass I'll state now that not all Afrocentrists are like this blah-blah-blah) claim that they are completely-beyond-any-shadow-of-a-doubt right?
I don't claim anything, If I am wrong, please, I implore you to show me where I am wrong. I see it as If I going to say something or make a claim, I will be damn sure I have peer reviewed evidence to back myself up
quote:I may be wrong,
You sure are.
quote:and am probably making an enormous ass of myself here,
You said it.
quote: but at least I'm not arrogantly claiming that "I'm a real knowledgeable truthseeker".
Because you might not be. Well I am secure in my claims, because I am a real truthseeker.
Sorry if the truth hurts though.
quote:And where is the origin of these "Afro-Asiatics", precisely?
East Africa as can be seen below.....
Ancient Egyptian as an African Language, Egypt as an African Culture
Christopher Ehret Professor of History, African Studies Chair University of California at Los Angeles
The origins of Egyptian ethnicity lay in the areas south of Egypt. The ancient Egyptian language belonged to the Afrasian family (also called Afroasiatic or, formerly, Hamito-Semitic). The speakers of the earliest Afrasian languages, according to recent studies, were a set of peoples whose lands between 15,000 and 13,000 B.C. stretched from Nubia in the west to far northern Somalia in the east. They supported themselves by gathering wild grains. The first elements of Egyptian culture were laid down two thousand years later, between 12,000 and 10,000 B.C., when some of these Afrasian communities expanded northward into Egypt, bringing with them a language directly ancestral to ancient Egyptian. They also introduced to Egypt the idea of using wild grains as food.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The parent post is rooted in the usual mistakes of people who only half understand genetics.
R1 underived - is *not* R1b [NorthWest Europe].
R1 is found mostly in Central Africa, NorthEast Africa and to a lesser to degree the Levantine.
It possibly originated in any one of those 3 locales.
There is no R1 in Northern Europe.
European have only later derived R1b and R1a.... not R1.
R1a may have originated in India, not Europe, so only R1b and I are markers of European male ancestry.
And ..... there is little to no R1b or I anywhere in tropical Africa, because there is no European genetic influence in tropical Africa.
This means that in spite of the intended fanfare, this thread makes no point, except the dangers of talking too much about '1/2 understood' genetics.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tabula, note: ^^^^Above poster rasol is an extreme example of what I meant, when I said truthseekers.
Believe me, or not, you can learn a lot from this board(if willing), whether you like or accept it, you can never ever deny the unbiased approach in which this site seeks truth. Plain and simple.
Sure hope you've learned something....
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Indeed. Rasol is correct about R1* (underived) being most prominent in Africa and is found nowhere outside of Africa except southern Arabia and the Levant (right next to Africa).
Charles is also correct...
quote:Originally posted by Charlie Bass: As far as R1*-M173 itself, it appears that the notion of this marker indicating a back migration is questionable and no longer a definite thing:
"Among other groups with a relatively large population size are the Hausa and Copts. Hausa display elevated frequencies of the haplogroup R-P25, which is considered as an evidence for back migration from Asia to Sub-Saharan Africa (Cruciani et al., 2002), although a recent study questions the reliability of this marker being usedin singularity (Adams et al., 2006). Other groups with varying frequencies of this haplogroup, like the Borgu and Nubians, appear to have acquired it from Afro-Asiatic speaking groups through gene flow."
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 000:000–000 (2008)
R1*-M173=R1b1* or undifferentiated R1b.
So it is obvious Tabula, that you are confused by the topic itself-- R1* from its derivatives that are prominent in Eurasia, especially Europe.
quote:Tabula Rasa wrote: "Back migration" is the biological process where Population W in Area X, descended from migrants of Population Y in Area Z, migrate back to the original Area Z and contribute to the gene pool.
Please do not cite one lousy webpage as an example or even generalization of what most Afrocentrists believe. This is like someone citing Arthur Kemp as being the general Eurocentrist interpretation... only worse since the author of that webpage is an old man suffering from senility or age related dementia. Posts: 26302 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
"...M173 chromosomes (group R) are observed in the Bantu of southern Cameroon (14.3%), Oman (10.7%), Egypt (6.8%), and the Hutu (1.4%). Whereas the R1*-M173 undifferentiated lineage is present in all four populations, the two downstream mutations, M17 and M269, are confined to Egypt and Oman."
I think you only remembered the presence of downstream mutations in that area but forgot that underived R1* was present there also.
Posts: 26302 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Nope; I was trying to get an idea of what you mean *specifically* by "southern Arabia". If by "southern Arabia", this was in reference to Oman, then that suffices. Otherwise it is still rare in both southern Arabia and the Levant.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
...R1* (underived) being most prominent in Africa and is found nowhere outside of Africa except southern Arabia ...
According to whom?
The Bass almost forgot to add this info from the full text about the R1*-M173:
Among other groups with a relatively large population size are the Hausa and Copts. Hausa display elevated frequencies of the haplogroup R-P25, which is considered as an evidence for back migration from Asia to Sub-Saharan Africa (Cruciani et al., 2002), although a recent study questions the reliability of this marker being used in singularity (Adams et al., 2006). Other groups with varying frequencies of this haplogroup, like the Borgu and Nubians, appear to have acquired it from Afro-Asiatic speaking groups through gene flow. We have recently shown that this haplogroup is strongly associated with the sickle cell gene. Both markers might have co-introgressed during the past 300 years to eastern Sahel (Bereir et al., 2007).
Bereir et al:
"The sample was further classified to include the Hausa as a separate group due to the high frequency of a particular distinctive haplogroup within this group (P25) whose closest phylogenetic molecular ancestor, haplogroup R1-M173* marks a back migration to Africa from west Eurasia."
My error, R1*-M173 and R-P25 are *NOT* the same, though the full text gave that false impression by citing Cruciani et al 2002 study on back migration into Africa. R-P25* was once used to type for R1b1, but is no longer reliable for typing R1b1.
Posts: 2596 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting find; the "strong association with the sickle cell gene" might be related to the correlation made by Flores et al. 2005, between the R1*-M173 undifferentiated marker and other markers, that is suggestive of common recent African ancestry, namely: the African G6PD-A allele on the X-chromosomes amongst the particular Jordanian [Dead Sea] population which has this R1*-M173, along with strong prevalence of E-M35 chromosomes - another marker of African ancestry. Specifics about the sickle trait mentioned above would be nice. Not surprisingly, Oman too has strong recent African ancestry.
Although, largely tenuous at this point, there might be a link between the C-13.9kbT allele [has been linked to lactose tolerance promotion] and ancestry amongst a section of the groups bearing the ancestral R1*-M173 markers. This phenomenon of one segment of R1*-M173 bearers having the C-13.9kbT allele, while other segments of R1*-M173 bearers have little to none, has only been demonstrated in Africa, the continent where the R1*-M173 marker is so far the most common. Then again, as just another possibility, this phenomenon might be better related by some other line of ancestry or biohistory that portrays a different demographic history from that of the Y DNA marker.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
This screeching freak of nature, this evil mutant is participating here using his new nick Tabula Rasa and his first one Djehuti. So some of you will come of being insulted and browbeaten, but he will win the argument, no matter how stupid his views are. How sick can you get? That you are deaf and speech impaired does not make you a superhuman, honey. God forbids we should mutate in something the likes of you! You come off as just average. Perhaps at the nazi-run institute, where they teach Blacks to hate their Blackness and Black people in general, you were surrounded by morons, so this would make you 'king one-eye' who rules the blind. What you are really becoming is a con-artist, as you were a plagiatrist already. Bashing me on one site and using my ideas on another site, as if they were your own.
Posts: 5454 | From: Holland | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
[Elmer writes] Please do not cite one lousy webpage as an example or even generalization of what most Afrocentrists believe. This is like someone citing Arthur Kemp as being the general Eurocentrist interpretation... only worse since the author of that webpage is an old man suffering from senility or age related dementia.
[Marc writes] And what do you suffer from?
Beyond the above (and aside from the belief held by some researchers that R1 had Old Stone Age originations among Cameroonians and was carried to Europe) is the following.
Despite the fact that this page does not speak of R1 having roots in Africa, per se
cranial and figurine of Upper Paleolithic Europe are African with pathways leading from Africa (grey segments). One can call spruce a pine, oak, or maple but it will remain a spruce. Regardless of what genetic labels are assigned to this or that group of Upper Paleolithic Europe, supportive evidence shows they began and remained African. For all intents and purposes, attempts to give genetic tags take a back seat to the fact that those of the Upper Paleolithic are African.
. .
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Regardless of whether or not there was a back migration of R1 (and I believe it had a Cameroonian Old Stone Age origin) any carrier of Upper Paleolithic R1 was African. If there was a back migration, it was of people who originated in Africa coming back home.
And consider how thorough researchers can or can't be. This page ...
... speaks of who held what genetic material when. But, the African source itself is label-less. Nothing is assigned for the roots though the trunk and stems are labeled as E, F, G, R, or whatever. Researchers often regard results as of greater significance than cause. Results derive from cause. And R as well.
Had Wiik been more thorough (honest?) he may (I say may) have noted that R1 did indeed begin at the grey roots in Africa among Cameroonians.
Researchers are often enamored of trumpeting anything that might be able to "glorify" white and trash anything that would glorify black. Think back to slavery when blacks made inventions but the idea and royalties were claimed by their so-called "masters" as anything a slave created (American wealth, for instance: Africans built the homes in addition to growing the profitable cotton crops) was the "master's" property since the slave was his "property."
To stay on target, I believe R1 had African origins. And if R1 went from Africa to Europe and came back, it only went full circle. The discussion has no more significance that that.
. .
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Two possibilities to deduce from R1*-M173 distribution pattern...
Possibility #1
— Originated in central Sahara or northeast Africa amongst a nomadic lifestyle oriented group and spread thereof to the Levant through the Sinai corridor, during the Upper Paleolithic.
— The remnants in Africa trekked down to Cameroonian region and the lower vestiges of West Africa as a place of refuge, with the coming of the Ogolian aridity [ca. between 23 ky ago and 18ky ago]. Sometime between 19ky ago and 15ky ago, some E-M35 bearing nomads would move into the Levant via northeast Africa, perhaps due to growing pressures of progressive Saharan aridity. This may explain R1*-M173 carriers in tandem with E-M34 carriers in places like the Dead Sea, whereas R1*-M173 is absent in sub-Saharan East Africa [but not in northeastern Africa] - the African Horn region - where E-M34 chromosomes are prevalent. It may also explain why the Dead Sea R1*-M173 bearing population also happens to standout from their high-frequency J1 carrying Levantine Bedouin brethren in sporting high prevalence of the African-specific G6PD-A locus on the X chromosome. The presence of both E-M34 and E-M78 derivatives in the so-called Near East make it clear that E-M35 chromosomes did not spill outside of the continent in single demographic event or even time frame. On the other hand, E-M34 is absent in West and Central Africa where R1*-M173 chromosomes are most prevalent.
— Upon finding a refuge to escape intense aridified condition of the Sahara, sections [meaning not all] of the previously largely nomadic R1*-M173 carriers began to settle in their new found refugia. The small communities of R1*-M173 would eventually expand, but they would have been overwhelmed by the faster expanding newly arrived PN2 carriers, especially with the receding of the Ogolian aridity. Those who retained their nomadic lifestyle, trekked back and forth the western[mainly] Sahel and the lower geographical vestiges of West Africa, where some of the settled brethren located themselves. These nomad traditionalists would adopt a pastoralist lifestyle [see: the theme centered on the *divergent* C-13.9kbT allele patterns in R1*-M173 carriers], which would modify their diet.
Sticking point(s) for possibility #1:
The only or main one so-offered for this possibility from those publications which propose otherwise, is the relative greater diversity of the overall K-M9 family outside of Africa, as opposed to that located within continent, even though the presence of Hg K itself [particularly in East Africa] in the continent have been noted; however, even if one were to look at it from that angle, it doesn't necessarily negate a possible African origin for R1*-M173, as its supposed predecessor P-M45 — in particular the elusive undifferentiated P-M45 — is just as rare in Asia.
Possibility #2
- Originated in the Sinai or the Levantine or northern regions of the Arabian desert, amongst a very small community nomads of that region. Those that trekked between North Africa and the so-called Near East through the Sinai corridor, when give rise to a subset that decided to stay put in North Africa and lead their nomadic lifestyle there. Others went even further north; they went as far as Europe, wherein they'd become ancestors of R1b bearers. While the demograhic shifts brought upon later by greater expanding groups, like say Hg J carriers, probably urged some remnants of R1*-M173 to spread eastward, central Asia, wherein they'd give rise to R1a carriers, sometime after the LGM. The small group of R1*-M173 bearers who moved into Europe would likely have met relatively modest competition, due to smaller isolated groups in the region, as compared to elsewhere in Asia and in Africa.
- With the coming of the LGM, the R1 carriers in Europe would find refugia in southwestern Europe and certain regions in the so-called Near East. This would have coincided with the aridification of the Sahara, wherein R1* bearers there, as I have noted above, would have migrated southward, out of the region of the intense aridification of the Sahara. However, when the LGM came to a conclusion, the R1 carriers in Europe, who sought refuge in southern Europe and parts of the so-called Near East, would start repopulating the more northerly regions of Europe, and the subsequent expansion, especially with the advent of farming from the so-called Near East, out of which R1b would overwhelm any remaining original R1b-predecessor R1* group. In otherwords, negative genetic drift essentially drifted out the original R1 carriers. Although R1b itself seems to have come to being before the LGM, its numbers likely became much greater after the LGM. As noted above, small group of R1 carriers who populated Europe, were likely fortunate enough to have not met the same competition from non-R1 bearing groups, as they might have been exposed to in Africa and the so-called Near East.
Sticking point(s) for possibility #2:
Naturally with possibility #2, one would have to explain away why the only one of the two places outside of Africa where the rare unidifferentiated R1*-M173 marker is present, and where it has been the most substantial [after Africa], that this marker appears to be in a population that stands out in its low Hg J [ 9% J1 in the Dead Sea compared with 63% J1 (Semino et al. 2004) of their Bedouin neighbors , per reference by Flores et al. 2005], while it bears 31% E-M34 compared to the only 7% of Bedouin (Cruciani et al. 2004)[See: Flores et al.2005], and last but not least — it has a lower number of different G6PD locus variants and a higher incidence of the African G6PD-A allele (Karadsheh, personal communication) than the Bedouin, when the molecular heterogeneity of the G6PD locus was compared between the Amman and the Dead Sea samples [Flores et al. 2005]. And even Oman, wherein R1*-M173 markers had been located in low frequency, cannot be ruled out as a recipient of these chromosomes through gene flow from Africa, because it isn't too far from northeast Africa, wherein these R1* chromosomes appear, not to mention the fact that other African ancestry therein [like variant E-M35 lineages and E3a chromosomes] make it clear that Oman has definitely been a recipient of genetic introgression from Africa via multiple and distinct demographic events.
Neutrals...
In either cases of possibility #1 and possibility #2, downstream R1 derivatives are relatively less to absent in the regions that harbor R1* undifferentiated chromosomes. Yet, the regions that do have the downstream R1 chromosomes, R1* undifferentiated chromosomes are virtually absent. This is simply testament to the possibility that in regions wherein the original R1 carriers [who were likely small to begin with, in terms of effective population size] appear to have expanded the most, the original R1* chromosomes were eventually drifted out by the more downstream R1 carriers.
One thing both possibility #1 and possibility #2 converge on, is this: R1*-M173 in Cameroon are very ancient, and did not come from populations characterizing downstream mutations, like say Europe.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanx. Those who wish to read a cleaned up version of the above rough draft [since the editing function is no longer available to regular posters], you may click on this link: R1*-M173 bearing chromosomes in Cameroon
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Yes an excellent display of info, Explora.
quote:Originally posted by Egmond Codfried: This screeching freak of nature, this evil mutant is participating here using his new nick Tabula Rasa and his first one Djehuti...
Apparently you are too stupid to realize it, I'll make it clear for you: I am NOT Tabula Rasa!!
Tabula is obviously an anti-African whose parent post is nothing more than a false claim! I and others rebuked that claim.
I suggest you stick to your own idiotic threads and leave the scientific ones to the mentally deficient, thankyou. Posts: 26302 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Apparently you are too stupid to realize it, I'll make it clear for you: I am NOT Tabula Rasa!! 
Printer-friendly view of this topic