quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Good lecture, Thanks
.
Especially the part where she stated, Africans are most diverse in genes, and different small pockets of people left Africa. Thus making people outside of Africa less diverse. Basically Hg are African in origins!
Point blank.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: that's why we don't have unity the people are too diverse
In a way you're right but also wrong. There is diversity and this is because we are talking about different populations originating in Africa: i.e., Khoisan, pgymy and Proto-Saharan.
Geneticists fail to realize this reality so they can not properly differentiate each population and place each population in its proper place. As a result the diversity exist because we are talking about diverse populations that just happen to have negroid features.
Today they attempt to place the negroid Oceaneans and Australians into two different groups, if this was the case for the Khoisan, pgymy and contemporary Black African populations you would see that Africa is no more diversified than any other region.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: that's why we don't have unity the people are too diverse
And what do you consider the PN2 clade and L clade?
Genotype/Phenotype Association Studies
quote: For many of the individuals for which we have obtained DNA, we also collected phenotype data for traits likely to play a role in adaptation, some of which demonstrate a complex pattern of inheritance and are likely influenced by multiple loci and environmental factors. In addition to case/control analyses of variation at candidate genes, we are using whole-genome association studies to identify novel genes that are associated with these traits. Together with collaborators, we are also developing methods for mapping complex traits (including disease) in highly structured African populations.
The Evolution of Human Genetic and Phenotypic Variation in Africa
quote: Africa is the birthplace of modern humans, and is the source of the geographic expansion of ancestral populations into other regions of the world.
Indigenous Africans are characterized by high levels of genetic diversity within and between populations. The pattern of genetic variation in these populations has been shaped by demographic events occurring over the last 200,000 years.
The dramatic variation in climate, diet, and exposure to infectious disease across the continent has also resulted in novel genetic and phenotypic adaptations in extant Africans.
This review summarizes some recent advances in our understanding of the demographic history and selective pressures that have influenced levels and patterns of diversity in African populations.
Africa not only has the highest levels of human genetic variation in the world but also contains a considerable amount of linguistic, environmental and cultural diversity. For example, more than 2,000 distinct ethno-linguistic groups, representing nearly a third of the world’s languages, currently exist in Africa
The timing and duration of some of these demographic events were often correlated with known major environmental changes and/or cultural developments in Africa [6].
A number of novel genetic and phenotypic adaptations have also evolved in Africans in response to dramatic variation in environment, diet, and exposure to infectious disease across the continent.
In some cases, these adaptations have occurred in the last several thousand years, exemplifying the ongoing evolution of human populations.
Thus, present-day patterns of variation in African genomes are a product of both demographic and selective events.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: that's why we don't have unity the people are too diverse
In a way you're right but also wrong. There is diversity and this is because we are talking about different populations originating in Africa: i.e., Khoisan, pgymy and Proto-Saharan.
Geneticists fail to realize this reality so they can not properly differentiate each population and place each population in its proper place. As a result the diversity exist because we are talking about diverse populations that just happen to have negroid features.
Today they attempt to place the negroid Oceaneans and Australians into two different groups, if this was the case for the Khoisan, pgymy and contemporary Black African populations you would see that Africa is no more diversified than any other region.
.
.
quote: Although the study's main focus was on Africa, Tishkoff and her colleagues studied DNA markers from around the planet, identifying 14 "ancestral clusters" for all of humanity. Nine of those clusters are in Africa. "You're seeing more diversity in one continent than across the globe," Tishkoff said.
quote:Originally posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: that's why we don't have unity the people are too diverse
In a way you're right but also wrong. There is diversity and this is because we are talking about different populations originating in Africa: i.e., Khoisan, pgymy and Proto-Saharan.
Geneticists fail to realize this reality so they can not properly differentiate each population and place each population in its proper place. As a result the diversity exist because we are talking about diverse populations that just happen to have negroid features.
Today they attempt to place the negroid Oceaneans and Australians into two different groups, if this was the case for the Khoisan, pgymy and contemporary Black African populations you would see that Africa is no more diversified than any other region.
.
.
quote: Although the study's main focus was on Africa, Tishkoff and her colleagues studied DNA markers from around the planet, identifying 14 "ancestral clusters" for all of humanity. Nine of those clusters are in Africa. "You're seeing more diversity in one continent than across the globe," Tishkoff said.
These papers fail to recognie each African population as diverse. Granted, some groups such as the Khoisan and pgymies carry a variety of L3(M,N), y-chromodome R, remnant haplogroups, each population can still be catogorized into unique mtDNA and y-chromosome groups. Groupings which can be used to put each group into a specific population like Europeans have done with the Melanesians, Dravidians and Munda groups in Indi. All of these populations are negroid but Europeans have decided to differentiate between these groups to try and make the rise of Europeans a unique phenomena and deny the reality that Europeans carry genes that were first carried by Africans,
This is why the Kittle group can still situate Afro-Am with specific West African populations, eventhough Tishkoff claimed that this was impossible in the paper you sourced. This is possible because contemporary Black African groups (Niger-Congo, Nilo-Saharan, Cushitic etc.), are of Proto-Saharan and Aqualithic culture origin. These populations came down from the Highlands and pushed the pygmies into marginal areas in Africa.
Europeans claim multiple migrations but these migrations are all suppose to preceed the rise of L3(N,M/Q)in Eurasia. This is false, because the presence of these haplogroups among the Khoisan and Pygmies suggest that they spread across Africa before the alleged OoA events e,g, 125kya or 60kya.
The true history of Black people will never be written by Europeans. They can not write this history because they will not acknowledge that Black/negroid people were not confined to Africa.
We need a lot more research into Black and African genetics. The fact that all Afro-Americans were not slaves may explain why ancient clades are now being found among AA populations and the large number of AAs who carry y-chromosome R who have been taught by their parents that their ancestors were Native Americans. .
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Clyde if Europeans carry genes that were first carried by Africans then aren't Europeans Negroid ?
Posts: 42935 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Clyde if Europeans carry genes that were first carried by Africans then aren't Europeans Negroid ?
No. You can still isolate populations. The problem is that we must first admit that the genes spread across Africa before they entered Eurasia.
]Below the face of the First European or Cro-Magnon Man
Europeans as I said earlier evolved from Africans/Blacks who fled to the caves during the last Ice Age, so in a sense their heritage was that of negroids as proven by the first Europeans.
Their pigmentation and physical features make Europeans non-Negroid, just as they claim.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Clyde if Europeans carry genes that were first carried by Africans then aren't Europeans Negroid ?
No. You can still isolate populations. The problem is that we must first admit that the genes spread across Africa before they entered Eurasia.
]Below the face of the First European or Cro-Magnon Man
Europeans as I said earlier evolved from Africans/Blacks who fled to the caves during the last Ice Age, so in a sense their heritage was that of negroids as proven by the first Europeans.
Their pigmentation and physical features make Europeans non-Negroid, just as they claim.
.
If physical features make Europeans and many Asians non-Negroid then there must be new non-Negroid genes, new haplogroups involved in governing those features
Posts: 42935 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Clyde if Europeans carry genes that were first carried by Africans then aren't Europeans Negroid ?
No. You can still isolate populations. The problem is that we must first admit that the genes spread across Africa before they entered Eurasia.
]Below the face of the First European or Cro-Magnon Man
Europeans as I said earlier evolved from Africans/Blacks who fled to the caves during the last Ice Age, so in a sense their heritage was that of negroids as proven by the first Europeans.
Their pigmentation and physical features make Europeans non-Negroid, just as they claim.
.
If physical features make Europeans and many Asians non-Negroid then there must be new non-Negroid genes, new haplogroups involved in governing those features
That's true, but there were multiple migrations out of Africa. The above describes just one of many. And that is what this thread is about in essence.
quote:Migrations into India “did occur, but rarely from western Eurasian populations.” There are low frequencies of the western Eurasian mtDNA types in both southern and northern India. Thus, the ‘caucasoid’ features of south Asians may best be considered ‘pre-caucasoid’— that is, part of a diverse north or north-east African gene pool that yielded separate origins for western Eurasian and southern Asian populations over 50,000 years ago.
--U.S. biological anthropologist Todd R. Disotell.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Clyde if Europeans carry genes that were first carried by Africans then aren't Europeans Negroid ?
No. You can still isolate populations. The problem is that we must first admit that the genes spread across Africa before they entered Eurasia.
]Below the face of the First European or Cro-Magnon Man
Europeans as I said earlier evolved from Africans/Blacks who fled to the caves during the last Ice Age, so in a sense their heritage was that of negroids as proven by the first Europeans.
Their pigmentation and physical features make Europeans non-Negroid, just as they claim.
.
If physical features make Europeans and many Asians non-Negroid then there must be new non-Negroid genes, new haplogroups involved in governing those features
Not really, they can carry the same gene--but belong to a different clade. for example, haplogroup R originated in Africa, and Europeans and Africans belong to predominately varying clades that had different mutations between and within the specific haplogroup.
quote:Originally posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor: ^
In E* there is variation as well.
So yes, Clyde is right.
so you agree that R and every other haplogroup originated in Africa?
Read this:
quote:
This branching pattern, along with the geographical distribution of the major clades A, B, and CT, has been interpreted as supporting an African origin for anatomically modern humans,10 with Khoisan from south Africa and Ethiopians from east Africa sharing the deepest lineages of the phylogeny.15 and 16
[...]
The deepest branching separates A1b from a monophyletic clade whose members (A1a, A2, A3, B, C, and R) all share seven mutually reinforcing derived mutations (five transitions and two transversions, all at non-CpG sites).
[...]
How does the present MSY tree compare with the backbone of the recently published “reference” MSY phylogeny?13 The phylogenetic relationships we observed among chromosomes belonging to haplogroups B, C, and R are reminiscent of those reported in the tree by Karafet et al.13 These chromosomes belong to a clade (haplogroup BT) in which chromosomes C and R share a common ancestor (Figure 2).
posted
^ Why bother explaining anything to the lyinass. You know she is not interested in learning but only in obfuscation. Even if you were to explain it in a way for her to understand she will still just misconstrue it the way Xyman misconstrues studies. Posts: 26267 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic