Correct me if I'm worng but are there not studies out that prove that these groups (Ethiopians) are spilt nearly 50/50 with Eurasians? With this study proving this why do you all still argue that these people are pure Africans, Do you all have any evidence to the contrary. Please don't bash me just answer the question and no I could not find a satisfying answer when I was searching the archives. At least not one in you all's case!
So are they pure unmixed Africans and can you prove this with pure evidence on your part.
Posted by Mmmkay (Member # 10013) on :
^ LMAO!
I'm thinking "this guy came out of nowhere" Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Correct me if I'm worng but are there not studies out that prove that these groups (Ethiopians) are spilt nearly 50/50 with Eurasians
You are wrong, and stand corrected.
The good news for you however is that there are studies showing that Europeans are a mixture of Africans, Asians and indigenenes, such that they show as genetically intermediate between Africa and Asia:
Europeans show as a mixture of 1/3 African, and 2/3 Asian - European Geneticists, Cavelli Sforza.
Posted by akoben08 (Member # 15244) on :
Chimu (white nord) is back. He is pointing to the Cavelli Sforza's "Ethiopian cluster" study but I recall reading past posts where Ausarianstein posted Keita's critique of it. Selective sampling can produce what the samplers want. Amazing since Ausarianstein himself is now prepared to accept similar genetic studies of "Levantine Jewry". But this seems to be a pattern on his side. Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
Ah, white Nord is back, and with another silly topic (click tha first link )
Posted by White Nord (Member # 14093) on :
"Tishkoff et al. (1996) Ethiopian populations experienced later periods of admixture which have played a major role in shaping the gene pool of Ethiopia, and its populations display both Eurasian and Sub-Saharan genetic influences."
"On the basis of historical, linguistic, and genetic data, it has been suggested that the Ethiopian population has been strongly affected by Caucasoid migrations since Neolithic times. On the basis of autosomal polymorphic loci, it has been estimated that 60% of the Ethiopian gene pool has an African origin, whereas ~40% is of Caucasoid derivation.... Our Ethiopian sample also lacks the sY81-G allele, which was associated with 86% and 69% of Senegalese and mixed-African YAP+ chromosomes, respectively. This suggests that male-mediated gene flow from Niger-Congo speakers to the Ethiopian population was probably very limited ... Caucasoid gene flow into the Ethiopian gene pool occurred predominantly through males. Conversely, the Niger-Congo contribution to the Ethiopian population occurred mainly through females."
(Passarino et al. 1998)
"The present composition of the Ethiopian population is the result of a complex and extensive intermixing of different peoples of North African, Near and Middle Eastern, and south-Saharan origin. The two main groups inhabiting the country are the Amhara, descended from Arabian conquerors, and the Oromo, the most important group among the Cushitic people. ... The genetic distance analysis showed the separation between African and non-African populations, with the Amhara and Oromo located in an intermediate position." (De Stefano et al. 2002)
"The occurrence of E*5 212 and E*5 204 alleles in two populations of the Mediterranean basin (Turkey and Italy) but not in West Africans can be explained by taking into account that the Ethiopian gene pool was estimated to be >40% of Caucasoid derivation (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994). In addition, more recent phylogenetic analysis based on classical protein polymorphism (Tartaglia et al. 1996) and Y-chromosome sequence variation (Underhill et al. 2000) showed that Ethiopians appear to be distinct from Africans and more closely associated with populations of the Mediterranean basin."
(Scacchi et al. 2003)
These are the studies I'm talking about , How can they just be explained away Posted by Yonis2 (Member # 11348) on :
Caucasoid,eh? And how much none-"caucasoid" influence do south-arabia, Balkan-Europe and Levant posses from the opposite direction? The pimp-juice have gone both ways you know. No single highway as you would wish, i'm sorry..
Posted by Yonis2 (Member # 11348) on :
Btw you're a "white nord" why do you even care? Your not from Balkan, Levant or southern Arabia. Shouldn't you be more concerned with the relationship your ancestors had with Siberians or Samer before engaging into a discussion of Horn Africans genetic makeup?
Posted by White Nord (Member # 14093) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yonis2: Btw you're a "white nord" why do you even care? Your not from Balkan, Levant or southern Arabia. Shouldn't you be more concerned with the relationship your ancestors had with Siberians or Samer before engaging into a discussion of Horn Africans genetic makeup?
Rather than questioning my motives why not just answer the question, If that's at all possible.
Posted by Ausarian (Member # 13266) on :
Just regurgitation of discredited nonsense that has been dealt with ad nauseam.
— For one, "caucasoid" is scientifically bankrupt. What makes a gene "caucasoid", and what are they?
— Passarino et a. 1998 pooled Ethiopian groups from a sample taken at a hospital in Addis Ababa, which were mainly self-identified Amhara-speakers. This pooling obscured genomic pattern differentiations across intra-Ethiopic ethnic-lines.
— Amhara groups seem to carry relatively more J haplotype bearing Y chromosomes than their Oromo counterparts, but even these appear to date back to some time in the Neolithic period.
— Ethiopia is a big country, with at least some 80 different ethnic groups. In fact, it is one of the most diverse nations on mainland Africa. The bulk of these were not tested by Passarino; so, how you can reduce their gene pool to Passarino et al.'s findings, is beyond logic.
— Ethiopia has been found to be 'intermediate', primarily because non-African gene pools are a subset of an East African population, and to a lesser extent, secondary to *bi-directional* gene flow between the African Horn and its neighbours. In other words, it is a region genetically composite of deep-rooted lineages that are rare outside of the African continent and more downstream mutations that are common in both Africa and elsewhere - hence, the intermediate location.
— Certain maternal haplogroups that are common in "south west Asia" occurred as rare subtypes in Ethiopian samples, like those associated with haplogroup N1 and M1. Some haplogroups like say, M1, have in the past been erroneously referenced as "Eurasian" by some authors, when there is little to no evidence to suggest so.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:How can they just be explained away?
^ Indeed.....
Europeans show as mixture- 1/3 African, 2/3 Asian - European Geneticists, Cavelli Sforza.
^ Posted by White Nord (Member # 14093) on :
quote:Originally posted by Alive-(What Box): ^ROFL, wrong!
Ah, white Nord is back, and with another silly topic (click tha first link )
It was nothing but crap presented on that thread once again.
First and for most the yth spreading around this forum that M1 is African in origin needs to be dispelled
Gonzalez et al (2007) found that...
quote:The coalescence age of the African haplogroup M1 is younger than those for other M Asiatic clades. In contradiction to the hypothesis of an eastern Africa origin for modern human expansions out of Africa, the most ancestral M1 lineages have been found in Northwest Africa and in the Near East, instead of in East Africa.
quote:This study provides evidence that M1, or its ancestor, had an Asiatic origin. The earliest M1 expansion into Africa occurred in northwestern instead of eastern areas; this early spread reached the Iberian Peninsula even affecting the Basques.
Mitochondrial lineage M1 traces an early human backflow to Africa. BMC Genomics 2007 9, 8
Krings et al 1999 in a study of gene flow analysis along the Nile valley found;
As for the East Africans a study touted around this forum alot is the Gurna population study which also proves that the population is not homogenous as you people claim.
quote:The Gurna sample presents an Fst () range from 0 (with Upper Egypt) to 0.10867 (with Berber) (except with the outgroup Fst of 0.56) (Appendix IIa). These relatively low values place Gurna as being as similar to Near Eastern populations as to Sudanese and sub-Saharan populations.
On the other hand, the Dinka and Kenyan populations were clearly different from Near Eastern populations (Palestinian, Syrian, Bedouin, Druze and Turkish) with Fst values ranging from 0.13 to 0.23 (Appendix IIa). The Dinka and Kenyan populations show differences with the Berber population too (Fst = 0.19 and 0.17 respectively).
Studies on Egpytians.
Hamdy et al 2003. Genotype and allele frequencies of TPMT, NAT2, GST, SULT1A1 and MDR-1 in the Egyptian population. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 55
quote:The Gurna area could be the meeting point of two independent waves of migration from the Near East and from sub-Saharan Africa, as suggested by the central position of the Gurna population in the unrooted NJ tree and the genetic and the nucleotidic diversity of the analysed populations. The presence in the Gurna gene pool of haplogroups found in Near Eastern populations but absent in sub-Saharan ones (like U4), and haplogroups found in sub-Saharan populations but only sporadically present in Near Eastern ones (like L1), reinforces this observation.
quote:In conclusion, the present study showed that the Egyptians have a relatively low frequency of TPMT mutant alleles. Only six out of 200 Egyptian individuals (3.00%) carried a variant TPMT allele (TPMT*3A or TPMT*3C).
Posted by akoben08 (Member # 15244) on :
^ white nord dishing out bogus genetic studies as ausarianburg does with those on ashkenazi. lol
Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
What Wanking Nord's need to do is stop wanking over Africans, and defend the turf they're loosing elsewhere.
(..looks like I've started a bit of trouble ... and no, I don't have anything to do with that thread, but another ... lol medit. girl is Italian/Greek/English btw)
quote:The coalescence age of the African haplogroup M1 is younger than those for other M Asiatic clades. In contradiction to the hypothesis of an eastern Africa origin for modern human expansions out of Africa, the most ancestral M1 lineages have been found in Northwest Africa and in the Near East, instead of in East Africa.
quote:This study provides evidence that M1, or its ancestor, had an Asiatic origin. The earliest M1 expansion into Africa occurred in northwestern instead of eastern areas; this early spread reached the Iberian Peninsula even affecting the Basques.
Mitochondrial lineage M1 traces an early human backflow to Africa.
The above bolded is completely un-substantiated, even according to your own study.
Krings et al 1999 in a study of gene flow analysis along the Nile valley found;
As for the East Africans a study touted around this forum alot is the Gurna population study which also proves that the population is not homogenous as you people claim.
Who has claimed this?
quote:The Gurna sample presents an Fst () range from 0 (with Upper Egypt) to 0.10867 (with Berber) (except with the outgroup Fst of 0.56) (Appendix IIa). These relatively low values place Gurna as being as similar to Near Eastern populations as to Sudanese and sub-Saharan populations.
On the other hand, the Dinka and Kenyan populations were clearly different from Near Eastern populations (Palestinian, Syrian, Bedouin, Druze and Turkish) with Fst values ranging from 0.13 to 0.23 (Appendix IIa). The Dinka and Kenyan populations show differences with the Berber population too (Fst = 0.19 and 0.17 respectively).
And?
quote:Studies on Egpytians.
Hamdy et al 2003. Genotype and allele frequencies of TPMT, NAT2, GST, SULT1A1 and MDR-1 in the Egyptian population. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 55
quote:The Gurna area could be the meeting point of two independent waves of migration from the Near East and from sub-Saharan Africa, as suggested by the central position of the Gurna population in the unrooted NJ tree and the genetic and the nucleotidic diversity of the analysed populations. The presence in the Gurna gene pool of haplogroups found in Near Eastern populations but absent in sub-Saharan ones (like U4), and haplogroups found in sub-Saharan populations but only sporadically present in Near Eastern ones (like L1), reinforces this observation.
quote:In conclusion, the present study showed that the Egyptians have a relatively low frequency of TPMT mutant alleles. Only six out of 200 Egyptian individuals (3.00%) carried a variant TPMT allele (TPMT*3A or TPMT*3C).
, Cool, thanx. Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
Btw, r u board?
Is this what 'white nord' ideology has been reduced to?
Modern anthropology have now forced 'white nords' to obsess over things that were the result of 'negros' and even 'sand-negroes'?
Posted by Wolofi (Member # 14892) on :
Alive can you give some data that definitively says that M1 is African?
Posted by White Nord (Member # 14093) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wolofi: Alive can you give some data that definitively says that M1 is African?
Exactly!
Posted by Mmmkay (Member # 10013) on :
^ His only reply to the above studies lol.
Posted by White Nord (Member # 14093) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mmmkay: ^ His only reply to the above studies lol.
None of these studies proves that M1 is of African origin, so that's my point is it not?
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
Mmmkay
Don't mean to derail the topic but. Earlier in another thread you posted that Jesus was not the only begotten son of God. You got it from the "Horses Mouth" as you said. Could you please elaborate for me. When you said this this stuck in my mind and just wanted to know how true your facts are. So if you could please answer the question.
Peace
Posted by akoben08 (Member # 15244) on :
^ mmmkay says many stupid things, i doubt she can remember that one. lol
Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
quote:Originally posted by White Nord:
Exactly!
quote:Originally posted by Wolofi: Alive can you give some data that definitively says that M1 is African?
Why?
It has been stated ad-nauseum that we haven't yet found out where the M haplogroup was derived, let alone East African M1.
The provided studies that people have apparently failed to read (even people who used them in a citation) state that no ancestral M1 has been found.
"Although two mtDNA lineages with an African origin (haplogroups M and N) were the progenitors of all non-African haplogroups, macrohaplogroup L (including haplogroups L0-L6) is limited to sub-Saharan Africa." - Tishkoff and Kivisild 2006
^Indeed.
Posted by Ausarian (Member # 13266) on :
Ana M. Gonzalez et al. published a paper on M1 expansions, 9 July 2007, and a few things about it immediately jumped at me; I lay these out shortly following the abstract below, which is there to put potential viewers of this page on "the same page" so to speak, as far as the synopsis of the paper is concerned:
Abstract:
Mitochondrial lineage M1 traces an early human backflow to Africa
Ana M Gonzalez , Jose M Larruga , Khaled K Abu-Amero , Yufei Shi , Jose Pestano and Vicente M Cabrera
The complete article is available as a provisional PDF. The fully formatted PDF and HTML versions are in production.
Background The out of Africa hypothesis has gained generalized consensus. However, many specific questions remain unsettled. To know whether the two M and N macrohaplogroups that colonized Eurasia were already present in Africa before the exit is puzzling. It has been proposed that the east African clade M1 supports a single origin of haplogroup M in Africa. To test the validity of that hypothesis, the phylogeographic analysis of 13 complete mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequences and 261 partial sequences belonging to haplogroup M1 was carried out.
Results The coalescence age of the African haplogroup M1 is younger than those for other M Asiatic clades. In contradiction to the hypothesis of an eastern Africa origin for modern human expansions out of Africa, the most ancestral M1 lineages have been found in Northwest Africa and in the Near East, instead of in East Africa. The M1 geographic distribution and the relative ages of its different subclades clearly correlate with those of haplogroup U6, for which an Eurasian ancestor has been demonstrated.
Conclusions This study provides evidence that M1, or its ancestor, had an Asiatic origin. The earliest M1 expansion into Africa occurred in northwestern instead of eastern areas; this early spread reached the Iberian Peninsula even affecting the Basques. The majority of the M1a lineages found outside and inside Africa had a more recent eastern Africa origin. Both western and eastern M1 lineages participated in the Neolithic colonization of the Sahara. The striking parallelism between subclade ages and geographic distribution of M1 and its North African U6 counterpart strongly reinforces this scenario. Finally, a relevant fraction of M1a lineages present today in the European Continent and nearby islands possibly had a Jewish instead of the commonly proposed Arab/Berber maternal ascendance.
-Abstract ends-
MY Response To Ana M. Gonzalez et al.
*First, a quick synopsis of the samplings, with regards to where the n=261 M1 bearing samples come from, aside from the 588 participants mentioned in one of the tables [table 2] in the study:
From my assessment of the table, it comes from the following numbers:
A total of 50 Europeans detected for M1. A total of 154 for Africans. A total of 28 Asians, barring 8 unknown Arabian haplotypes. And a total of 29 Jews, who were lumped together from the various continents. The sum of the above totals, amount to 261 "known" M1 lineages.
*With regards to the authors claim about M1 or its ancestor, having “had an Asiatic origin”, the following comes to mind:
The authors of the study at hand, themselves admit that they haven't come across M1 ancestor in either south Asia or southwest Asia. They also take note of its highest diversity in Ethiopia and east Africa. Yet through the shaky premise of their M1c expansion time frame estimations, they build a conclusion around it, by tying it to a dispersal(s) "parallel" to that of U6 - another African marker whose immediate common recent ancestor, namely proto-U6, appears to be elusive thus far.
Well, they wouldn’t be the only ones who have failed to come across any proto-M1 ancestor in southwest and south Asia [Indian Subcontinent mainly]:
Based on the high frequency and diversity of haplogroup M in India and elsewhere in Asia, some authors have suggested (versus [3]) that M may have arisen in Southwest Asia [16,17,31]. Finding M1 or a lineage ancestral to M1 in India, could help to explain the presence of M1 in Africa as a result of a back migration from India. Yet, to date this has not been achieved [15], this study). Therefore, one cannot rule out the still most parsimonious scenario that haplogroup M arose in East Africa [3]. Furthermore, the lack of L3 lineages other than M and N (indeed, L3M and L3N) in India is more consistent with the African launch of haplogroup M. On the other hand, one also observes that: i) M1 is the only variant of haplogroup M found in Africa; ii) M1 has a fairly restricted phylogeography in Africa, barely penetrating into sub-Saharan populations, being found predominantly in association with the Afro-Asiatic linguistic phylum – a finding that appears to be inconsistent with the distribution of sub-clades of haplogroups L3 and L2 that have similar time depths. — Mait Metspalu et al.
So, while they acknowledge the highest "frequencies and diversities" of M1 particularly in Ethiopia, and generally in East Africa., the authors base their claims about ’origins’ on their expansion estimations of M1c derivatives, presumably predominant in northwest Africa rather than east Africa, and its relative sporadic distribution in 'Europe' and 'Southwest' Asia. They attempt to buttress this, by invoking an initial parallel expansion of M1 and U6 "ancestor" lineages into north Africa via the Nile Valley [from "southwest Asia"], then an expansion from northwest Africa this time around, of U6 and M1 derivatives northward into Europe and then eastward into "southwest" Asia via the Nile Valley corridor in the Sinai peninsula, presumably with a few derivatives making their way into sub-Saharan east Africa, where they then underwent some expansion, to give rise to yet another, but later, dispersal from there into "southwest Asia" and hence, accounting for the 'majority' of M1 lineages in "southwest Asia" being east African derivatives than the north African [M1c] counterparts.
*Furthermore,
The authors gather that their observations correlate with that of other researchers, namely Olivieri et al. To this extent, they put forth that Olivieri et al.’s M1b corresponds to their M1c, the former’s M1a2 corresponds to their M1b, and the former’s M1a1 corresponds to their M1a. They go onto to add that the coalescence ages arrived by the two research group [that of Olivieri et al. and that of the present authors] also correlate. The present authors note that their coalescence time for M1c (25.7 +/- 6.6 ky) overlaps with Olivieri et al.’s coalescence time for M1b (23.4 +/- 5.6). Similarly, they note that their coalescence age for M1a (22.6 +/- 8.1ky) falls within that of Olivieri et al.’s age for M1a1 at 20.6 +/- 3.4ky. However, this makes way for great discrepancy between the said authors and Olivieri et al., whereby their coalescence age for M1b at 13.7 +/- 4.8ky falls quite short of the latter’s age for M1a2 at 24 +/- 5.7ky. Not only are the subgroup nomenclatures distinct, but this latter discrepancy makes an unsubtle difference, so as to no longer render M1c to be older than M1b, but rather, either place M1c at an age a bit younger or on par with the latter, which should be otherwise according to the present study. Though, by their own admission, the present authors favor Olivieri et al.’s methods over their own:
As our calculations are based only on three lineages and that of Olivieri et al on six, we think that their coalescence time estimation should be more accurate than ours. In fact, when time estimation is based on the eight different lineages (AFR-K143 is common to both sets) a coalescence age of 20.6 +/- ky is obtained.
*But if there is any indication about the tenuous nature of the above thesis, without going into other known details about M1, it would be this alternative viewpoint they came up with:
The alternative idea entertained by the authors, is one where M1 could actually be an autochthonous northwest African lineage, which spread northward into Europe and eastward to "Southwest Asia" and east Africa. Again, to be followed by a yet later dispersal from east Africa, likely sub-Saharan east Africa, particularly the Ethiopian populations.
*The limitations inherent in solely relying on hypervariable segment motifs:
The status quo hasn't changed, not withstanding the hype about the supposed older expansion timeframes from M1c derivatives, predominant in Northwest Africa, according to their study. The authors rely heavily on the hypervariable region of the mtDNA, which even they themselves don't seem to put much faith on, as demonstrated by their noting of the need to proceed cautiously, given that random parallel mutations are known to occur across distinct macro-haplogroups and sub-clades. They also note how hypervariable nature of the control region, can lead to misleading calculations from erratic mutations, as demonstrated by the M1a2 they put forth, leading them to omit them in their lineage coalescence analysis.
*Another thing that hasn't been relayed through this study, is this:
The coding regions transitions are likely to change relatively slower than those of hypervariable segments, and hence, likely to remain intact within a clade. To assist in determining which clade to place a monophyletic unit, key coding region transitions have to be identified. In the case of M1, we were told:
We found 489C (Table 3) in all Indian and eastern-African haplogroup M mtDNAs analysed, but not in the non-M haplogroup controls, including 20 Africans representing all African main lineages (6 L1, 4 L2, 10 L3) and 11 Asians.
These findings, and the lack of positive evidence (given the RFLP status) that the 10400 C->T transition defining M has happened more than once, suggest that it has a single common origin, but do not resolve its geographic origin. Analysis of position 10873 (the MnlI RFLP) revealed that all the M molecules (eastern African, Asian and those sporadically found in our population surveys) were 10873C (Table 3). As for the non-M mtDNAs, the ancient L1 and the L2 African-specific lineages5, as well as most L3 African mtDNAs, also carry 10873C.
Conversely, all non-M mtDNAs of non-African origin analysed so far carry 10873T. These data indicate that the **transition 10400 C-->T, which defines haplogroup M**, arose on an African background characterized by the ancestral state 10873C, which is also present in four primate (common and pygmy chimps, gorilla and orangutan) mtDNA sequences. — Semino et al.
...which is significant, as other M lineages are devoid of M1 coding region motifs, not to mention the M1 HVS-I package. The above does demonstrate, how M lineages likely arose on an African 'background' by single-event substitutions in the designated African ancestral counterparts. The ancestral transition of 10873C is substituted by 10873T in non-African non-M haplogroups, while the 10400C transition was substituted in M lineages by 10400T.
Furthermore,...
The 489C transition, as noted above and can be seen from the diagram, is peculiar to the M macrohaplogroup, again suggestive of unique event mutations characterizing the family:
The phylogenetic location of the mutations at nt 489 and 10,873 (arrow) was predicted by our analysis. The seemingly shared mutation at nt 16,129 (by G, Z and M1) is very likely an accidental parallelism. The ancestral states 10400C, 10810C and 10873C are fixed in L1 (as analysed so far) and are present in the ape sequences.
The 16129 sharing across the M1 haplogroups, seems to be one of those instances of random parallel mutation, recalling Chang Sun et al.'s observations of random parallel mutations of certain transitions across the M macrohaplogroup.
We also know that "southwest Asian" and "European" M1 lineages are derivatives of African counterparts, and the same is true for southwest Asian non-M1 affiliated M lineages from south Asia:
Compared to India, haplogroup M frequency in Iran is marginally low (5.3%) and there are no distinguished Iranian-specific sub-clades of haplogroup M. All Iranian haplogroup M lineages can be seen as derived from other regional variants of the haplogroup: eleven show affiliation to haplogroup M lineages found in India, twelve in East and Central Asia (D, G, and M8 ) and one in northeast Africa (M1)…
Indian-specific (R5 and Indian-specific M and U2 variants) and East Asian-specific (A, B and East Asian-specific M subgroups) mtDNAs, both, make up less than 4% of the Iranian mtDNA pool. We used Turkey (88.8 ± 4.0%) as the third parental population for evaluating the relative proportions of admixture from India (2.2 ± 1.7%) and China (9.1 ± 4.1%) into Iran. Therefore we can conclude that historic gene flow from India to Iran has been very limited.
With that said, Semino et al.'s older study still remains strong, the way I see it:
haplogroup M originated in eastern Africa approximately 60,000 years ago and was carried toward Asia. This agrees with the proposed date of an out-of-Africa expansion approximately 65,000 years ago10. After its arrival in Asia, the haplogroup M founder group went through a demographic and geographic expansion. The remaining M haplogroup in eastern Africa did not spread, but remained localized up to approximately 10,000-20,000 years ago, after which it started to expand. — Semino et al.
Elsewhere, I've also talked about some 'basal' M-like lineages in Africa; for instance, at least one of such was identified in the Senegalese sample.
Am. J. Hum. Genet., 66:1362-1383, 2000
mtDNA Variation in the South African Kung and Khwe and Their Genetic Relationships to Other African Populations
"The Asian mtDNA phylogeny is subdivided into two macrohaplogroups, one of which is M. M is delineated by a DdeI site at np 10394 and an AluI site of np 10397. The only African mtDNA found to have both of these sites is the Senegalese haplotype AF24. This haplotype branches off African subhaplogroup L3a (figs.2 and3), suggesting that haplogroup M mtDNAs might have been derived from this African mtDNA lineage..."
The relevant representation in this recap diagram:
^The 10397 transition is shown in the L3-M linkage, while 10394, which should show up as positive [as exemplified in the above extract] in the M macrohaplogroup, shows up negative in the linkage between L3 and non-M affiliated lineages.
**^To put the above compilation into perspective, and keep it simple, the point is this:
Semino et al.'s demonstration of certain characteristic basic coding transitions of the M super-haplogroup [not including the key coding region motifs unique to the M1 family], springing directly from African ancestral motifs, don't require that M1 has to have a proto "non-African" M1, whereas an Asian origin of M1 would necessitate an Asian proto-M1 lineage that would explain the relatively young expansion ages of M1 and lack of descendancy from pre-existing Asian M lineages. This hasn't been achieved either by the present study or ones prior to it.
Getting to the gist:
Basal M mtDNA ~ between c. 60 - 80 ky ago
And then, M1 ~ between ~ c. 10 - 30 ky ago
The studies I posted, suggest that the basal motifs characteristic of the M macrohaplogroup arose in Africa, anywhere between 60 - 80 ky ago [since they would have likely been in the continent by the time of the 60 ky ago or so OOA migrations] . Sometime between 60 ky and 50 ky ago [some sources place it between 75 - 60 ky ago], these L3 offshoots were carried outside of Africa, amongst early successful a.m.h migrations, which resulted in the populations now living in the Indian-subcontinent, Melanesia and Australia who have these lineages. Not all the basal African L3M lineages, as Semino et al. convincingly put it, left the continent, as indicated by the basal L3a-M motif detected in Senegal, M1 diversity in Africa, particularly East Africa, both M1 and other M lineages detected in Ugandan samples, and lack of descendancy of M1 from older-coalescent Asian macrohaplogroup. Rather, it appears that the basal L3M lineages which remained in Africa, underwent a relatively limited demographic intra-African expansion until relatively recently, i.e. between 10 - 30 ky ago, compared to the Asian L3M derivatives, which underwent major expansions, naturally within the quantitatively smaller founder immigrant groups, i.e. the founder effect.
M1 is likely the culmination of relatively more recent demographic expansions of basal L3M lineages in the African continent, with M1 derivative being a successful candidate, in what could have possibly involved other derivatives which might not have expanded to the same level intra-continentally, and subsequently, extra-continentally as well.
M1 has strongly been correlated with the upper Paleolithic expansion of proto-Afrasan groups across the Sahara to coastal north Africa, and further eastward via the Sinai peninsula.
^ Excellent post.
Posted by akoben08 (Member # 15244) on :
Wow!!! Ausarianburg didn't take this same critical analysis re the Hammer et al study! LMAO You Talmudic apologist! Posted by sportbilly (Member # 14122) on :
Awesome post Ausarian. I don't know much about chromosomes and genes but even so I was able to follow most of it. Big thanks.
Just more proof why this is THE best damned Egypt forum on the web --period!
And akoben needs to leave the Jew-bashing alone.
Posted by Mmmkay (Member # 10013) on :
^ He's a troll lol don't worry about him. He needs to leave his computer and get a life.
Really he just "showed up" here and already racked up a over 300 post count.
Posted by akoben08 (Member # 15244) on :
^ Thats funny because you are over 200, and honestly, apart from showing your panties, defending your boyfriend rasolowitz and complaining about getting your as kicked on a James Watson site (how dumb is that!) I can't see what you have substantially contributed.
Posted by Mmmkay (Member # 10013) on :
quote:Originally posted by akoben08: ^ Thats funny because you are over 200, and honestly, apart from showing your panties, defending your boyfriend rasolowitz and complaining about getting your as kicked on a James Watson site (how dumb is that!) I can't see what you have substantially contributed.
^ The difference is troll, that it took me *2* years to get over 200. You just registered like a less than a month ago lol.
Go away.
Posted by akoben08 (Member # 15244) on :
^ two years and all you can show for it is your panties? lol
Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
lol.
Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
You know ... six more months from the end of this one, he will have aquired the number of posts I have now (a number I took over two years to aquire) if he keeps up this pace.
To be fair, Mmmkay, (<- lol I sound like Mr. Mackey), I have had times where I stopped posting completely, and you definitely have.
I think lately what many have been trying to do is revive the forum. I had started to try, but it's starting to seem more and more impossible.
Just checked out TNV, they do have some good stuff going on there.
And just for clarity akoben, Mmmkay purports to be a guy, his posted picture:
,
Posted by akoben08 (Member # 15244) on :
^ south park. lol no wonder the negro loves jews and curses black people.
Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
Just because Supercar's anti-hitler and your not, doesn't make him Jewish, "a-dolphhitler-koben".
Posted by Mmmkay (Member # 10013) on :
^ Don't bother lol making comparisons. He incapable of distinguishing between good and evil.
He trolls here because basically he has no life. He has no meaningful contributions to make.
He's just an annoying fly (buzzing) posting in this forum. So he just "buzzes" around.
Just let him be, Mmmkay. Posted by akoben08 (Member # 15244) on :
quote:Originally posted by Alive-(What Box): Just because Supercar's anti-hitler and your not, doesn't make him Jewish, "a-dolphhitler-koben".
It makes him anti-black. Blames us for our underdevelopment, names himself after a retard teacher from a Jewish propaganda cartoon known for anti-black stereotyping and fascination with human excrement. Why should I not see him as the sick little pro-Jewish troll he is?
Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
That Supercar's anti-black and pro Jewish is the funniest thing you've ever said, troll.
He acknowledges what's what, that's what.
Yes, colonialism and it's neo are to blame, but also to blame is the fact that African leaders didn't base their infrastructure where they should have - in the fundamentals, the continent's strengths: farming and agriculture.
But if you will, continue in your un-cited and un-substantiated claims.
Posted by akoben08 (Member # 15244) on :
quote:Originally posted by Alive-(What Box): That Supercar's anti-black and pro Jewish is the funniest thing you've ever said, troll.
He acknowledges what's what, that's what.
Yes, colonialism and it's neo are to blame, but also to blame is the fact that African leaders didn't base their infrastructure where they should have - in the fundamentals, the continent's strengths: farming and agriculture.
But if you will, continue in your un-cited and un-substantiated claims.
^ Wow, you fired off your gun too fast. lol
No not supercar, the very attractive (leg and panty) Mmmmkay...I thought my post would have left no doubt who I was refering to.
Posted by Mmmkay (Member # 10013) on :
^ He still thinks those pics are actually mine. How dense can you be?
Or maybe he's been on this forum so long he hasn't gotten laid in a while.
Posted by akoben08 (Member # 15244) on :
^ tell you what, hows about giving me a lap dance in those pink panties of yours while the theme song for south park plays in the background..."friendly faces everywhere!!!" lol
you stupid negro
Posted by akoben08 (Member # 15244) on :
...my name is mmmkay and i love jewish propaganda cartoons with old black stereotypes. i think africans whine too much, all they have to do is just start businesses and think positive thoughts and everything will be fine!
Posted by Wolofi (Member # 14892) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ Excellent post.
Well we still need to wait and see from Geneticists where M originates from so don't get your hopes up yet. If people on this site are going to slaves to white scientist's studies there is no need to come to your OWN conclusion just to fit what you want to believe.
Be consistent
Posted by Mmmkay (Member # 10013) on :
quote:Originally posted by KING: Mmmkay
Don't mean to derail the topic but. Earlier in another thread you posted that Jesus was not the only begotten son of God. You got it from the "Horses Mouth" as you said. Could you please elaborate for me. When you said this this stuck in my mind and just wanted to know how true your facts are. So if you could please answer the question.
Peace
Sorry I got sidetracked by the resident idiot here.
You'll have to refresh my memory as to what you are talking about. I'm not sure what your referring to.
Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
quote:Originally posted by akoben08: ^ tell you what, hows about giving me a lap dance in those pink panties of yours while the theme song for south park plays in the background..."friendly faces everywhere!!!" lol
you stupid negro
While I odn't agree with everything M says, South Park's cool, bro, you need to chill out~
quote:Originally posted by Wolofi: there is no need to come to your OWN conclusion just to fit what you want to believe.
Of course not.
So, there's no need to come to the conclusion that M1 originated anywhere outside of Africa.
Be consistant. Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
Btw, I actually find this hilarious.
quote:Originally posted by akoben08: ^ tell you what, hows about giving me a lap dance in those pink panties of yours while the theme song for south park plays in the background..."friendly faces everywhere!!!" lol
Posted by White Nord (Member # 14093) on :
Origin of Ethiopian genetic heterogeneity posted on Saturday, March 05, 2005 | 5 comments | No trackbacks In agreement with previous research, a new study observes the intermediate position of Ethiopians between Sub-Saharan Africans (Negroids) and Western Eurasians (Caucasoids); genetic heterogeneity of Ethiopians is found to be the result of admixture:
However, the reduction in Tn diversity does suggest that a population bottleneck occurred in Ethiopia, associated with a major out of Africa expansion(s), which parallels the conclusion made by Tishkoff et al. (1996) from analysis of the CD4 locus. Certainly our data are not incompatible with the argument from Tishkoff et al. (1996) that an element of the contemporary Ethiopian population may be descendants of the ancestral population that spawned the migration out of Africa. We also argue, however, that in addition to this early bottleneck event, later periods of admixture have played a major role in shaping the gene pool of Ethiopia, and its populations display both Eurasian and Sub-Saharan genetic influences.
These results confirms what I have stated on several occasions in the past, about the three major elements in the East African population, e.g.,:
Thus, it appears that a large fraction of present-day East African mitochondrial ancestry is derived from different populations than the ones that spawned non-Africans. This element is probably responsible for the introduction of the Negroid type in the region, which now forms a major element in the population, together with the pre-Negroid East Africans and more recent Caucasoid arrivals from across the Red Sea.
Annals of Human Genetics (OnlineEarly)
Ethiopia: between Sub-Saharan Africa and Western Eurasia
A. Lovell et al.
Summary
Ethiopia is central to population genetic studies investigating the out of Africa expansion of modern humans, as shown by Y chromosome and mtDNA studies. To address the level of genetic differentiation within Ethiopia, and its relationship to Sub-Saharan Africa and Eurasia, we studied an 8kb segment of the X-chromosome from 72 chromosomes from the Amhara, Oromo and Ethiopian Jews, and compared these results with 804 chromosomes from Middle Eastern, African, Asian and European populations, and 22 newly typed Saharawi. Within Ethiopia the two largest ethnic groups, the Amhara and Oromo, were not found to be statistically distinct, based on an exact test of haplotype frequencies. The Ethiopian Jews appear as an admixed population, possibly of Jewish origin, though the data remain equivocal. There is evidence of a close relationship between Ethiopian and Yemenite Jews, likely a result of indirect gene flow. Within an African and Eurasian context, the distribution of alleles of a variable Tn repeat, and the spread of haplotypes containing Africa-specific alleles, provide evidence of a genetic continuity from Sub-Saharan Africa to the Near East, and furthermore suggest that a bottleneck occurred in Ethiopia associated with an out of Africa expansion. Ethiopian genetic heterogeneity, as evidenced by principal component analysis of haplotype frequencies, most likely resulted from periods of subsequent admixture. While these results are from the analysis of one locus, we feel that in association with data from other marker systems they add a complementary perspective on the history of Ethiopia
Dipartimento di Genetica e Microbiologia, "A. Buzzati Traverso," Universita di Pavia, Pavia, Italy.
Seventy-seven Ethiopians were investigated for mtDNA and Y chromosome-specific variations, in order to (1) define the different maternal and paternal components of the Ethiopian gene pool, (2) infer the origins of these maternal and paternal lineages and estimate their relative contributions, and (3) obtain information about ancient populations living in Ethiopia. The mtDNA was studied for the RFLPs relative to the six classical enzymes (HpaI, BamHI, HaeII, MspI, AvaII, and HincII) that identify the African haplogroup L and the Caucasoid haplogroups I and T. The sample was also examined at restriction sites that define the other Caucasoid haplogroups (H, U, V, W, X, J, and K) and for the simultaneous presence of the DdeI10394 and AluI10397 sites, which defines the Asian haplogroup M. Four polymorphic systems were examined on the Y chromosome: the TaqI/12f2 and the 49a,f RFLPs, the Y Alu polymorphic element (DYS287), and the sY81-A/G (DYS271) polymorphism. For comparison, the last two Y polymorphisms were also examined in 87 Senegalese previously classified for the two TaqI RFLPs. Results from these markers led to the hypothesis that the Ethiopian population (1) experienced Caucasoid gene flow mainly through males, (2) contains African components ascribable to Bantu migrations and to an in situ differentiation process from an ancestral African gene pool, and (3) exhibits some Y-chromosome affinities with the Tsumkwe San (a very ancient African group). Our finding of a high (20%) frequency of the "Asian" DdeI10394AluI10397 (++) mtDNA haplotype in Ethiopia is discussed in terms of the "out of Africa" model.
quote: Certainly our data are not incompatible with the argument from Tishkoff et al. (1996) that an element of the contemporary Ethiopian population may be descendants of the ancestral population that spawned the migration out of Africa.
^ This is correct.
The rest is just trollbait noisemaking from Dienekes and other pseudos, which is why you're not creating the desired fanfare, white nerd.
Let us know when you manage to cough up and answer.....
quote: The good news for you however is that there are studies showing that Europeans are a mixture of Africans, Asians and indigenenes, such that they show as genetically intermediate between Africa and Asia:
Europeans show as a mixture of 1/3 African, and 2/3 Asian - European Geneticists, Cavelli Sforza.
Posted by White Nord (Member # 14093) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote: Certainly our data are not incompatible with the argument from Tishkoff et al. (1996) that an element of the contemporary Ethiopian population may be descendants of the ancestral population that spawned the migration out of Africa.
^ This is correct.
The rest is just trollbait noisemaking from Dienekes and other pseudos, which is why you're not creating the desired fanfare, white nerd.
Let us know when you manage to cough up and answer.....
quote: The good news for you however is that there are studies showing that Europeans are a mixture of Africans, Asians and indigenenes, such that they show as genetically intermediate between Africa and Asia:
Europeans show as a mixture of 1/3 African, and 2/3 Asian - European Geneticists, Cavelli Sforza.
Please stop showing that damn diagram I'm not talking about Europeans I'm talking about East Africans. Only one of those studies came from Dienekes. My God you people act like your scared of the truth that these peoples are indeed a mixture of black and White (or near Easterners). How many damn studies do I need to post to confirm this fact. One after another simply states that these people are a mixture stop lying to yourselfs and accept the studies for what they prove!
Posted by akoben08 (Member # 15244) on :
^ His point is that both contemporary East Africans and Euros show admixture white nerd. Cavelli Sforza has already been exposed by Keita et al. These contemporary genetic studies say nothing for ancient east African especially Egyptian racial make up, which I know is where you want to take this argument. You are showing same desperation as Khazar pseudo scientists in trying to "prove" they are from Levantine Jewry, they managed to fool Ausarianstein though. lol But you are more pathetic, it's wide stretch, and so is your agenda.
Posted by White Nord (Member # 14093) on :
quote:Originally posted by akoben08: ^ His point is that both contemporary East Africans and Euros show admixture white nerd. Cavelli Sforza has already been exposed by Keita et al. These contemporary genetic studies say nothing for ancient east African especially Egyptian racial make up, which I know is where you want to take this argument. You are showing same desperation as Khazar pseudo scientists in trying to "prove" they are from Levantine Jewry, they managed to fool Ausarianstein though. lol But you are more pathetic, it's wide stretch, and so is your agenda.
How in the Hell can you be sure that they haven't always been mixed and thank you. Someone finally having the ballz to admit that this group has signifigant admixture.
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
quote:Originally posted by White Nord:
quote:Originally posted by akoben08: ^ His point is that both contemporary East Africans and Euros show admixture white nerd. Cavelli Sforza has already been exposed by Keita et al. These contemporary genetic studies say nothing for ancient east African especially Egyptian racial make up, which I know is where you want to take this argument. You are showing same desperation as Khazar pseudo scientists in trying to "prove" they are from Levantine Jewry, they managed to fool Ausarianstein though. lol But you are more pathetic, it's wide stretch, and so is your agenda.
How in the Hell can you be sure that they haven't always been mixed and thank you. Someone finally having the ballz to admit that this group has signifigant admixture.
Its well known that some Ethiopian ethnicities are mixed in terms of being part Southern Arabian. If you are trying to extend that to all East African in general then I think you need to do more research. It is not even appropriate to save that Ethiopians are mixed since you need to specify which groups you are referring to, let alone give that diescription as a generalization of East Africans.
Show me a study showing that Somalians are 50/50!
Posted by akoben08 (Member # 15244) on :
Someone finally having the ballz to admit that this group has signifigant admixture.
Never said "significant admixture", those are Cavelli Sforza's exaggerations, and another sign of desperation on your part.
Posted by White Nord (Member # 14093) on :
quote:Originally posted by osirion:
quote:Originally posted by White Nord:
quote:Originally posted by akoben08: ^ His point is that both contemporary East Africans and Euros show admixture white nerd. Cavelli Sforza has already been exposed by Keita et al. These contemporary genetic studies say nothing for ancient east African especially Egyptian racial make up, which I know is where you want to take this argument. You are showing same desperation as Khazar pseudo scientists in trying to "prove" they are from Levantine Jewry, they managed to fool Ausarianstein though. lol But you are more pathetic, it's wide stretch, and so is your agenda.
How in the Hell can you be sure that they haven't always been mixed and thank you. Someone finally having the ballz to admit that this group has signifigant admixture.
Its well known that some Ethiopian ethnicities are mixed in terms of being part Southern Arabian. If you are trying to extend that to all East African in general then I think you need to do more research. It is not even appropriate to save that Ethiopians are mixed since you need to specify which groups you are referring to, let alone give that diescription as a generalization of East Africans.
Show me a study showing that Somalians are 50/50!
The Somali male population has approximately 15% Y chromosomes from Eurasia and approximately 5% from sub-Saharan Africa.
Approximately 10 miles separate the Horn of Africa from the Arabian Peninsula at Bab-el-Mandeb (the Gate of Tears). Both historic and archaeological evidence indicate tight cultural connections, over millennia, between these two regions. High-resolution phylogenetic analysis of 270 Ethiopian and 115 Yemeni mitochondrial DNAs was performed in a worldwide context, to explore gene flow across the Red and Arabian Seas. Nine distinct subclades, including three newly defined ones, were found to characterize entirely the variation of Ethiopian and Yemeni L3 lineages. Both Ethiopians and Yemenis contain an almost-equal proportion of Eurasian-specific M and N and African-specific lineages and therefore cluster together in a multidimensional scaling plot between Near Eastern and sub-Saharan African populations. Phylogeographic identification of potential founder haplotypes revealed that approximately one-half of haplogroup L0–L5 lineages in Yemenis have close or matching counterparts in southeastern Africans, compared with a minor share in Ethiopians. Newly defined clade L6, the most frequent haplogroup in Yemenis, showed no close matches among 3,000 African samples. These results highlight the complexity of Ethiopian and Yemeni genetic heritage and are consistent with the introduction of maternal lineages into the South Arabian gene pool from different source populations of East Africa. A high proportion of Ethiopian lineages, significantly more abundant in the northeast of that country, trace their western Eurasian origin in haplogroup N through assorted gene flow at different times and involving different source populations.
The study its self indicates that Ethiopians sampled, share 52.2% maternal lineages in common with "Sub-Saharan" Africa, with Yemenis sharing 45% of the same lineages.. In other words, "half and half".
THEY ARE MIXED!
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by White Nord:
quote:Originally posted by osirion:
quote:Originally posted by White Nord:
quote:Originally posted by akoben08: ^ His point is that both contemporary East Africans and Euros show admixture white nerd. Cavelli Sforza has already been exposed by Keita et al. These contemporary genetic studies say nothing for ancient east African especially Egyptian racial make up, which I know is where you want to take this argument. You are showing same desperation as Khazar pseudo scientists in trying to "prove" they are from Levantine Jewry, they managed to fool Ausarianstein though. lol But you are more pathetic, it's wide stretch, and so is your agenda.
How in the Hell can you be sure that they haven't always been mixed and thank you. Someone finally having the ballz to admit that this group has signifigant admixture.
Its well known that some Ethiopian ethnicities are mixed in terms of being part Southern Arabian. If you are trying to extend that to all East African in general then I think you need to do more research. It is not even appropriate to save that Ethiopians are mixed since you need to specify which groups you are referring to, let alone give that diescription as a generalization of East Africans.
Show me a study showing that Somalians are 50/50!
The Somali male population has approximately 15% Y chromosomes from Eurasia and approximately 5% from sub-Saharan Africa.
Approximately 10 miles separate the Horn of Africa from the Arabian Peninsula at Bab-el-Mandeb (the Gate of Tears). Both historic and archaeological evidence indicate tight cultural connections, over millennia, between these two regions. High-resolution phylogenetic analysis of 270 Ethiopian and 115 Yemeni mitochondrial DNAs was performed in a worldwide context, to explore gene flow across the Red and Arabian Seas. Nine distinct subclades, including three newly defined ones, were found to characterize entirely the variation of Ethiopian and Yemeni L3 lineages. Both Ethiopians and Yemenis contain an almost-equal proportion of Eurasian-specific M and N and African-specific lineages and therefore cluster together in a multidimensional scaling plot between Near Eastern and sub-Saharan African populations. Phylogeographic identification of potential founder haplotypes revealed that approximately one-half of haplogroup L0–L5 lineages in Yemenis have close or matching counterparts in southeastern Africans, compared with a minor share in Ethiopians. Newly defined clade L6, the most frequent haplogroup in Yemenis, showed no close matches among 3,000 African samples. These results highlight the complexity of Ethiopian and Yemeni genetic heritage and are consistent with the introduction of maternal lineages into the South Arabian gene pool from different source populations of East Africa. A high proportion of Ethiopian lineages, significantly more abundant in the northeast of that country, trace their western Eurasian origin in haplogroup N through assorted gene flow at different times and involving different source populations.
The study its self indicates that Ethiopians sampled, share 52.2% maternal lineages in common with "Sub-Saharan" Africa, with Yemenis sharing 45% of the same lineages.. In other words, "half and half".
THEY ARE MIXED!
White Nordic.. First of all, that Somali study says no such thing about a 50/50 admixture, they have less non-African ancestry than AAs as a matter of fact according to that abstract, and the Ethiopian study is misleading. It it most notedly, not autosomal, it's maternal and is haste in its conclusions since it attributes M1 to Eurasian ancestry when it is more generally seen as an East African variant. In addition, the sample size is selective and doesn't represent the range of ethnicities in Ethiopia.
Posted by White Nord (Member # 14093) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata:
quote:Originally posted by White Nord:
quote:Originally posted by osirion:
quote:Originally posted by White Nord:
quote:Originally posted by akoben08: ^ His point is that both contemporary East Africans and Euros show admixture white nerd. Cavelli Sforza has already been exposed by Keita et al. These contemporary genetic studies say nothing for ancient east African especially Egyptian racial make up, which I know is where you want to take this argument. You are showing same desperation as Khazar pseudo scientists in trying to "prove" they are from Levantine Jewry, they managed to fool Ausarianstein though. lol But you are more pathetic, it's wide stretch, and so is your agenda.
How in the Hell can you be sure that they haven't always been mixed and thank you. Someone finally having the ballz to admit that this group has signifigant admixture.
Its well known that some Ethiopian ethnicities are mixed in terms of being part Southern Arabian. If you are trying to extend that to all East African in general then I think you need to do more research. It is not even appropriate to save that Ethiopians are mixed since you need to specify which groups you are referring to, let alone give that diescription as a generalization of East Africans.
Show me a study showing that Somalians are 50/50!
The Somali male population has approximately 15% Y chromosomes from Eurasia and approximately 5% from sub-Saharan Africa.
Approximately 10 miles separate the Horn of Africa from the Arabian Peninsula at Bab-el-Mandeb (the Gate of Tears). Both historic and archaeological evidence indicate tight cultural connections, over millennia, between these two regions. High-resolution phylogenetic analysis of 270 Ethiopian and 115 Yemeni mitochondrial DNAs was performed in a worldwide context, to explore gene flow across the Red and Arabian Seas. Nine distinct subclades, including three newly defined ones, were found to characterize entirely the variation of Ethiopian and Yemeni L3 lineages. Both Ethiopians and Yemenis contain an almost-equal proportion of Eurasian-specific M and N and African-specific lineages and therefore cluster together in a multidimensional scaling plot between Near Eastern and sub-Saharan African populations. Phylogeographic identification of potential founder haplotypes revealed that approximately one-half of haplogroup L0–L5 lineages in Yemenis have close or matching counterparts in southeastern Africans, compared with a minor share in Ethiopians. Newly defined clade L6, the most frequent haplogroup in Yemenis, showed no close matches among 3,000 African samples. These results highlight the complexity of Ethiopian and Yemeni genetic heritage and are consistent with the introduction of maternal lineages into the South Arabian gene pool from different source populations of East Africa. A high proportion of Ethiopian lineages, significantly more abundant in the northeast of that country, trace their western Eurasian origin in haplogroup N through assorted gene flow at different times and involving different source populations.
The study its self indicates that Ethiopians sampled, share 52.2% maternal lineages in common with "Sub-Saharan" Africa, with Yemenis sharing 45% of the same lineages.. In other words, "half and half".
THEY ARE MIXED!
White Nordic.. First of all, that Somali study says no such thing about a 50/50 admixture, they have less non-African ancestry than AAs as a matter of fact according to that abstract, and the Ethiopian study is misleading. It it most notedly, not autosomal, it's maternal and is haste in its conclusions since it attributes M1 to Eurasian ancestry when it is more generally seen as an East African variant. In addition, the sample size is selective and doesn't represent the range of ethnicities in Ethiopia.
A Ba Wa Wa so I guess this is nothing more than hogwash because it goes against your fantasy!
Posted by Ausarian (Member # 13266) on :
quote:Originally posted by White Nord:
Origin of Ethiopian genetic heterogeneity posted on Saturday, March 05, 2005 | 5 comments | No trackbacks In agreement with previous research, a new study observes the intermediate position of Ethiopians between Sub-Saharan Africans (Negroids) and Western Eurasians (Caucasoids); genetic heterogeneity of Ethiopians is found to be the result of admixture:
However, the reduction in Tn diversity does suggest that a population bottleneck occurred in Ethiopia, associated with a major out of Africa expansion(s), which parallels the conclusion made by Tishkoff et al. (1996) from analysis of the CD4 locus. Certainly our data are not incompatible with the argument from Tishkoff et al. (1996) that an element of the contemporary Ethiopian population may be descendants of the ancestral population that spawned the migration out of Africa. We also argue, however, that in addition to this early bottleneck event, later periods of admixture have played a major role in shaping the gene pool of Ethiopia, and its populations display both Eurasian and Sub-Saharan genetic influences.
White Nord, it seems to me that while you may be aware of what you're doing, you are not aware of what you're actually discussing. For instance, where does the underlying gist of the cited piece go back to?—Remember this point [see above]:
— Ethiopia has been found to be 'intermediate', primarily because non-African gene pools are a subset of an East African population, and to a lesser extent, secondary to *bi-directional* gene flow between the African Horn and its neighbours. In other words, it is a region genetically composite of deep-rooted lineages that are rare outside of the African continent and more downstream mutations that are common in both Africa and elsewhere - hence, the intermediate location.
White Nord, what do you understand by this point. Does it explain the observation made in the cited piece? If not, then please explain!
quote:White Nord writes:
These results confirms what I have stated on several occasions in the past, about the three major elements in the East African population, e.g.,:
Thus, it appears that a large fraction of present-day East African mitochondrial ancestry is derived from different populations than the ones that spawned non-Africans. This element is probably responsible for the introduction of the Negroid type in the region, which now forms a major element in the population, together with the pre-Negroid East Africans and more recent Caucasoid arrivals from across the Red Sea.
As I said, you may be aware of what you're doing [like say, willful evasion], but you aren't aware of what you're discussing. For instance, you were aware of the fact that you dodged this point:
— For one, "caucasoid" is scientifically bankrupt. What makes a gene "caucasoid", and what are they?
...but you aren't aware of what "caucasoid" or "negroid" gene actually is and what it entails [i.e. what specifically makes it "negroid" or "caucasoid"], as testified by the fact that you dodged the obligation to explain them.
Also, lay out the time frame of the eminence of "pre-negroid" anatomically modern humans in Africa, which seems to suggest that this a.m.h entity precedes the so-called "negroid" entity; also elaborate on the biological and environmental details of this "pre-negroid" entity. All this seems to be a flashback to regurgitated stormfront-like pseudo-science put forth by a long gone unknowledgeable dienekes disciple.
quote:White Nord posts:
Annals of Human Genetics (OnlineEarly)
Ethiopia: between Sub-Saharan Africa and Western Eurasia
A. Lovell et al.
Summary
Ethiopia is central to population genetic studies investigating the out of Africa expansion of modern humans, as shown by Y chromosome and mtDNA studies. To address the level of genetic differentiation within Ethiopia, and its relationship to Sub-Saharan Africa and Eurasia, we studied an 8kb segment of the X-chromosome from 72 chromosomes from the Amhara, Oromo and Ethiopian Jews, and compared these results with 804 chromosomes from Middle Eastern, African, Asian and European populations, and 22 newly typed Saharawi. Within Ethiopia the two largest ethnic groups, the Amhara and Oromo, were not found to be statistically distinct, based on an exact test of haplotype frequencies. The Ethiopian Jews appear as an admixed population, possibly of Jewish origin, though the data remain equivocal. There is evidence of a close relationship between Ethiopian and Yemenite Jews, likely a result of indirect gene flow. Within an African and Eurasian context, the distribution of alleles of a variable Tn repeat, and the spread of haplotypes containing Africa-specific alleles, provide evidence of a genetic continuity from Sub-Saharan Africa to the Near East, and furthermore suggest that a bottleneck occurred in Ethiopia associated with an out of Africa expansion. Ethiopian genetic heterogeneity, as evidenced by principal component analysis of haplotype frequencies, most likely resulted from periods of subsequent admixture. While these results are from the analysis of one locus, we feel that in association with data from other marker systems they add a complementary perspective on the history of Ethiopia
Goes back to:
— Ethiopia has been found to be 'intermediate', primarily because non-African gene pools are a subset of an East African population, and to a lesser extent, secondary to *bi-directional* gene flow between the African Horn and its neighbours. In other words, it is a region genetically composite of deep-rooted lineages that are rare outside of the African continent and more downstream mutations that are common in both Africa and elsewhere - hence, the intermediate location.
^See above about what you need to do about this point.
quote:White Nord posts:
Dipartimento di Genetica e Microbiologia, "A. Buzzati Traverso," Universita di Pavia, Pavia, Italy.
Seventy-seven Ethiopians were investigated for mtDNA and Y chromosome-specific variations, in order to (1) define the different maternal and paternal components of the Ethiopian gene pool, (2) infer the origins of these maternal and paternal lineages and estimate their relative contributions, and (3) obtain information about ancient populations living in Ethiopia. The mtDNA was studied for the RFLPs relative to the six classical enzymes (HpaI, BamHI, HaeII, MspI, AvaII, and HincII) that identify the African haplogroup L and the Caucasoid haplogroups I and T. The sample was also examined at restriction sites that define the other Caucasoid haplogroups (H, U, V, W, X, J, and K) and for the simultaneous presence of the DdeI10394 and AluI10397 sites, which defines the Asian haplogroup M. Four polymorphic systems were examined on the Y chromosome: the TaqI/12f2 and the 49a,f RFLPs, the Y Alu polymorphic element (DYS287), and the sY81-A/G (DYS271) polymorphism. For comparison, the last two Y polymorphisms were also examined in 87 Senegalese previously classified for the two TaqI RFLPs. Results from these markers led to the hypothesis that the Ethiopian population (1) experienced Caucasoid gene flow mainly through males, (2) contains African components ascribable to Bantu migrations and to an in situ differentiation process from an ancestral African gene pool, and (3) exhibits some Y-chromosome affinities with the Tsumkwe San (a very ancient African group). Our finding of a high (20%) frequency of the "Asian" DdeI10394AluI10397 (++) mtDNA haplotype in Ethiopia is discussed in terms of the "out of Africa" model.
— For one, "caucasoid" is scientifically bankrupt. What makes a gene "caucasoid", and what are they?
There is nothing "Asian" about either 10394 DdeI or 10397 Alu restriction enzyme identified sites:
Recap,
Am. J. Hum. Genet., 66:1362-1383, 2000
mtDNA Variation in the South African Kung and Khwe and Their Genetic Relationships to Other African Populations
"The Asian mtDNA phylogeny is subdivided into two macrohaplogroups, one of which is M. M is delineated by a DdeI site at np 10394 and an AluI site of np 10397. The only African mtDNA [i.e. aside from Hg M1] found to have both of these sites is the Senegalese haplotype AF24. This haplotype branches off African subhaplogroup L3a (figs.2 and3), suggesting that haplogroup M mtDNAs might have been derived from this African mtDNA lineage..."
Which was at any rate, addressed in my M1 analytical response to Gonzalez et al.; it seems to me that you either didn't bother to read that analysis at all, as indicated by this citation of Passarino's out-of-date characterizations, and/or you didn't understand one bit of it.
As noted, there's nothing "Asian" about 10394 DdeI site:
A less frequent group of haplotypes lacks the African-specific 3592 HpaI marker [10394DdeI(+)/ 10397AluI(-)/3592HpaI(-)] (Chen et al. 1995, 2000) and has been designated as haplogroup L3 (Watson et al. 1997). - Clemencia Rodas et al., Mitochondrial DNA studies show asymmetrical Amerindian admixture in Afro-Colombian and Mestizo populations, 2003.
As for RFLPs? Well, I noted before:
I see the method used herein, almost akin to using RFLP in Y chromosomes and microsatellite motifs, without having details on binary markers that could clearly define the monophyletic units themselves, thereby pooling otherwise different lineages based on absence or presence of certain restriction sites. We've seen this in the case of Y chromosomes, wherein E-M78, E-M81 and some other yet-to-be identified lineage were pooled together based on certain RFLP sequences, but when binary markers were tested, these related but distinct lineages came to the fore. Link
DYS287 is nothing more than reference to YAP Alu insertion, which is common to all PN2 clades, which are mainly present in Africa, with the exception of haplogroup D in south Asia. DYS271 which is generally associated with E3a [PN2+, YAP+] chromosomes, is according to most studies undertaken thus far, relatively low to rare in Ethiopian samples. Passarino misleadingly characterizes the site as "ascribable to Bantu migrations"; as far as I know, no Bantu-speaking population is a part of the at least 80 or so distinct ethnic natives of Ethiopia, unless you are prepared to identify them...which brings us to this point:
— Ethiopia is a big country, with at least some 80 different ethnic groups. In fact, it is one of the most diverse nations on mainland Africa. The bulk of these were not tested by Passarino; so, how you can reduce their gene pool to Passarino et al.'s findings, is beyond logic.
Where are the gene pools of the at least 80 or so distinct ethnic groups of Ethiopia, such that you'd generalize the entire Ethiopian gene pool by relatively very limited samplings undertaken in one or a few genealogical research projects?
Your lack of engagement to the points raised, again tells me that, while you may be aware of what you're doing in terms of evading instructive points raised and hence, blindly regurgitating questionable and/or redundant points, you don't actually understand the material depth of what you're posting!
Posted by Ausarian (Member # 13266) on :
quote:Originally posted by White Nord:
THEY ARE MIXED!
...but which population isn't?
Posted by Ausarian (Member # 13266) on :
quote:Originally posted by White Nord:
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote: Certainly our data are not incompatible with the argument from Tishkoff et al. (1996) that an element of the contemporary Ethiopian population may be descendants of the ancestral population that spawned the migration out of Africa.
^ This is correct.
The rest is just trollbait noisemaking from Dienekes and other pseudos, which is why you're not creating the desired fanfare, white nerd.
Let us know when you manage to cough up and answer.....
quote: The good news for you however is that there are studies showing that Europeans are a mixture of Africans, Asians and indigenenes, such that they show as genetically intermediate between Africa and Asia:
Europeans show as a mixture of 1/3 African, and 2/3 Asian - European Geneticists, Cavelli Sforza.
[
Please stop showing that damn diagram I'm not talking about Europeans I'm talking about East Africans.
Actually, it does you good to talk about that diagram, because it shows that Europeans are generally more intermediate in the scheme of a global comparison of genetic distances.
quote:White Nord writes:
My God you people act like your scared of the truth that these peoples are indeed a mixture of black and White (or near Easterners). How many damn studies do I need to post to confirm this fact. One after another simply states that these people are a mixture stop lying to yourselfs and accept the studies for what they prove!
In fact, the issue at hand is your selective reading and not wanting to hear the truth, as was already made known here:
— Ethiopia has been found to be 'intermediate', primarily because non-African gene pools are a subset of an East African population, and to a lesser extent, secondary to *bi-directional* gene flow between the African Horn and its neighbours. In other words, it is a region genetically composite of deep-rooted lineages that are rare outside of the African continent and more downstream mutations that are common in both Africa and elsewhere - hence, the intermediate location.
^There you have it: you were told the truth; you just chose not to listen to it.
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
Sadly people like White Nord could care less about the truth.
They have more invested in there ideologie. The truth *SHOULD* set you free.
As for that Somali study I have seen that study posted on hear countless times. And people seem to forget the part where Somalis are over 85% African and just concentrate on the Eurasian part of it.
The only good that comes out of new posters repeating old redundant studies is that they get refuted and information once forgotten gets a new ray of light. The truth will never vanish no matter how much old studies get piled up in front of it.
I'm still waiting on a study that takes all of Ethiopia in consideration instead of just useing the Amharas and Tigryna people as a sample of All ethiopians. Something tells me that the only way a country wide study on Ethiopia is coming is if Africans take more of an interest in this field of study.
Peace
Posted by Ausarian (Member # 13266) on :
White Nord and his ilk are simply trying to compensate for what has been observed in Greek and other south European populations, and the history of these groups being not deemed "pure Whites" in certain places by white supremacists...not understanding that the genetics behind "Ethiopian intermediacy" is not one and same as say, "Greek intermediacy". Context makes a big difference. So, instead of taking their frustrations out on white supremacists, they attempt to elicit reaction from Africanists on the idea of 'racial purity', which for the most part, has never been an issue for Africans. "Tainting of pure blood" has always been the mental baggage and problem of white supremacists.
Posted by Mmmkay (Member # 10013) on :
^ Well said.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by White Nord:
They are mixed!
White Nords are mixed:
Europeans show as a mixture of 1/3 African, and 2/3 Asian - European Geneticists, Cavelli Sforza.
^ Unless you can prove otherwise, your troll rant is completely pointless.
That's why it isn't working. Posted by Ausarian (Member # 13266) on :
^Yes. And that even that level of African "mixture" is a misnomer, because the *bulk* of the genes—of which Sforza's analyzed markers are but just a miniscule subset—that make Europeans human beings in the first place, were inherited from Africans.
Posted by Wolofi (Member # 14892) on :
quote:Originally posted by Alive-(What Box):
quote:Originally posted by akoben08: ^ tell you what, hows about giving me a lap dance in those pink panties of yours while the theme song for south park plays in the background..."friendly faces everywhere!!!" lol
you stupid negro
While I odn't agree with everything M says, South Park's cool, bro, you need to chill out~
quote:Originally posted by Wolofi: there is no need to come to your OWN conclusion just to fit what you want to believe.
Of course not.
So, there's no need to come to the conclusion that M1 originated anywhere outside of Africa.
Be consistant.
Why ALL of the studies say that it does?
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
The level of pitifulness of this forum never ceases to amaze.
Now this chimu (White Nord) is trying to lay some bullshit about Ethiopians being different.
LOL, LOL, LOL.
Is that why it is hard to tell the difference between Ethiopians (like the rest of Africans) and African Americans?
I'll post the evidence although I prefer not to because most people that are into race divisions are loons and I don't want to disrupt those sites because that is not what they are for.
They are for their ethnic groups not for a bunch of loons sitting around on their dead asses having delusional race fantasies.
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
Notice that no one dares to challenge my facts.
haha heeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wolofi: Why ALL of the studies say that it does?
Put up or shut up (quote it).
Posted by White Nord (Member # 14093) on :
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: I'll post the evidence although I prefer not to because most people that are into race divisions are loons and I don't want to disrupt those sites because that is not what they are for.
Well if someone on this forum would finally post evidence that they are Pure unmixed Africans rather than insult my intelligence or claim it's been proven 10000000 times maybe I might be content until then these so called "rebuttals" are pointless and don't address the issue at hand. Give me a study that shows that these peoples are Pure Africans, if you can't produce one then don't even respond to this post just sit there dumbfounded. Quite beating around the bush put up or shut up.
Posted by Habari (Member # 14738) on :
White Nord, I will concur with you, I don't think people from the Horn of Africa are pure based on genetics, but Europeans and West Asians are the most mixed people genetically on the face of the earth...what's your point...are you trying to say that Europeans are purer than Horn of Africa people...I mean you must be joking.... Genetics just show how the Nazis were the most stupid people on earth...White Nord By the way we were all Black not more than 20,000 years ago, leucoderms are quite recent on the face of the earth...White Nord...just tell your Dad and Mom that they have black ancestors and leucoderm skin is just a recent adaptation...
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
What is pure and what does that have to do with the point that the MAJORITY of Ethiopians are BLACK AFRICANS. You have given NO EVIDENCE that they are not. SOME Ethiopians have European, Arab, Indian and other ancestry. SO WHAT? Some Europeans have Arab, African, Asian and Indian ancestry. So?
If you want to know what Ethiopians look like, then go to Ethiopia.
quote:Originally posted by White Nord: post evidence that they are Pure unmixed Africans rather than insult my intelligence Give me a study that shows that these peoples are Pure Africans,
Noone has to insult your intelligence - you have none. Nobody said anything about "pure" Africans. This is just your final act of desperation to cover for your ignorance of Ethiopian genetics.
Posted by Habari (Member # 14738) on :
Doug, It's very difficult to generalize, Northern Ethiopians have more Yemeni ancestry compare to Southern Ethiopians, Northern Somalis have more Yemeni ancestry than Southern Somali...but they are all the same people, same culture...so it's useless to show dark people and try to make a distinction...For most of the people from the Horn, even in Sudan, skin complexion is futile...because people are so mixed that it's impossible to categorize people...I have some friends from Northern Somalia who traveled in the Southern part of the country and were surprised how people were so dark, whereas people from Southern Somalis dismiss people from Northern Somalis as mixed with Yemeni because they are too light from a Southern Somalia standard...even within Somalia there is a lot of confusion....
Posted by Ausarian (Member # 13266) on :
quote:Originally posted by White Nord:
Well if someone on this forum would finally post evidence that they are Pure
"Racial purity" was your bankrupt dead-ender. Hence, you prove it.
quote:White Nord complains:
rather than insult my intelligence
You had beaten us to it.
quote:White Nord complains:
maybe I might be content until then these so called "rebuttals" are pointless
Because a) you don't understand the ones already given, and b)you have no logical scientific comeback to them. Extreme couch-potato laziness is no substitute for scholarship.
Ps - And no, you aren't expected to be made "content"; you are expected to work your butt off in supporting your propagations and addressing the above mentioned.
quote: White Nord writes:
Quite beating around the bush put up or shut up.
^Good advice; about time you heed to it.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Habari: Doug, It's very difficult to generalize, Northern Ethiopians have more Yemeni ancestry compare to Southern Ethiopians, Northern Somalis have more Yemeni ancestry than Southern Somali...but they are all the same people, same culture...so it's useless to show dark people and try to make a distinction...For most of the people from the Horn, even in Sudan, skin complexion is futile...because people are so mixed that it's impossible to categorize people...I have some friends from Northern Somalia who traveled in the Southern part of the country and were surprised how people were so dark, whereas people from Southern Somalis dismiss people from Northern Somalis as mixed with Yemeni because they are too light from a Southern Somalia standard...even within Somalia there is a lot of confusion....
Habari, YOU are making generalizations, by trying to make ALL Ethiopians mixed with Yemenis. MOST Ethiopians are NOT mixed with Yemenis and MOST Ethiopians are not LIGHT SKINNED. NORTHERN Somalis are JUST AS DARK as Southern Somalis. Yes, SOME Somalis have Yemeni ancestry and SOME Ethiopians have Yemeni ancestry, but they ALL ARE BLACK. You are making generalizations that have no actual merit, as Ethiopia is a VERY BIG country and ALL of it is populated by BLACK Africans. Trying to make SOME PARTS of the population into ALL of the population is NONSENSE. Ethiopians are BLACKS. Period.
But it is also true that SOME of the Ethiopians and Somalis who have mixed ancestry consider themselves DISTINCT from other Somalis and Ethiopians, but they are NOT the MAJORITY in Ethiopia or Northern Somalia.
Northern Somalia is called Puntland and the capital is Hargeisa:
So please cease that brainwashed westernized horn African NON SENSE.
Map of Somalia:
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
White Nord
quote:
See people I won't waste a lot of time with this person of low brain power. I will just simply and quickly administer an intellectual thrashing.
You should never encourage the brain dead.
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
White Nord
quote: Well if someone on this forum would finally post evidence that they are Pure unmixed Africans rather than insult my intelligence or claim it's been proven 10000000 times maybe I might be content until then these so called "rebuttals" are pointless and don't address the issue at hand. Give me a study that shows that these peoples are Pure Africans, if you can't produce one then don't even respond to this post just sit there dumbfounded. Quite beating around the bush put up or shut up.
Define mixed
Define pure
I'm waiting........
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
White Nord wrote:
quote:
There have been millions of Americans in Japan, Korea, China, Vietnam, and other Asian countries.
Are the Japanese, Chinese, and other Asians mixed or pure?
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
White Nord wrote:
quote: -------------------------
-------------------------
There have been millions of African Americans in European countries.
Are Europeans mixed or pure?
Posted by White Nord (Member # 14093) on :
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: White Nord
quote: Well if someone on this forum would finally post evidence that they are Pure unmixed Africans rather than insult my intelligence or claim it's been proven 10000000 times maybe I might be content until then these so called "rebuttals" are pointless and don't address the issue at hand. Give me a study that shows that these peoples are Pure Africans, if you can't produce one then don't even respond to this post just sit there dumbfounded. Quite beating around the bush put up or shut up.
Define mixed
Define pure
I'm waiting........
By mixed I mean of anything other than indigenous African ancestry.
By Pure I mean unmixed with anyone who is non African.
Now I've Been waiting for evidence which proves this. I've hear it spouted on this forum thousands of times; Oh they just have narrow noses because they live in mountainous climate it's all Pure unmixed African traits. Now I'm asking you all to prove this point! Don't pst pictures I want studies (and I have presented quite a few on this thread look back)it's your move PUT UP OR SHUT UP!
Posted by Yonis2 (Member # 11348) on :
quote:whitenord wrote: Now I've Been waiting for evidence which proves this. I've hear it spouted on this forum thousands of times; Oh they just have narrow noses because they live in mountainous climate it's all Pure unmixed African traits. Now I'm asking you all to prove this point! Don't pst pictures I want studies (and I have presented quite a few on this thread look back)it's your move PUT UP OR SHUT UP!
What, you think all africans must look like congolose in able to be pure? It's all about climate and landscape, most of northeast africa is dry land and thus the physics of the people is adapted to that land, while most of centralafrica is humid and forest that's why their body and face are different from those in northeast africa, it's all an adaptation to the environment.
Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
... all I know, is that White Nord clearly does not show understanding of the subject matter and that copy-and-paste 'scholarship' and immature tantrums aren't much of a reason for any us to continue to give it our attention.
Posted by White Nord (Member # 14093) on :
I mean you guys try to make this topic much more complicated then it really is. I only asked for a study which proves that East Africans are authentic unmixed Africans just as Nigerians and west Africans in general would be considered. I know not all Africans look alike, But when you have a group of Africans that borders another continent (unlike the rest of Africa) and that groups of Africans have how should I say...features not typical of most other Africans then by shear logic wouldn't it make since that these peoples are I don't know interbred with the peoples on the continent that they border! Stop being so indenial about this and even if I'm wrong all I ask for are studies which prove me wrong. Instead I get links to previous threads in which the argument was supositely won proving that these peoples are Pure Africans (as in non foreign admixtures) and I see nothing of the sort and in some cases it's even referenced to another thread!
I on the other hand only had to google in Ethiopian genetics and three different studies are listed and all three state that these peoples are mixed. I've even posted two of those studies on this very thread. Lol Why in the Hell is it so hard for you guys to do the same in your case. I'll tell you why because you all have no evidence (or study) to support your championed theory that East Africans are Pure Africans and were the founders of the Egyptian civilization... Oh yes I went there (just as every thread on this forum eventually goes to). I just find it fnny that you all are parading around a myth that is based on a LIE! And you know what I mean.
To end this like I said previously PUT UP OR SHUT UP!
Posted by Ausarian (Member # 13266) on :
quote:Originally posted by White Nord:
I mean you guys try to make this topic much more complicated then it really is.
The topic is certainly complicated for you, as indicated by this:
I only asked for a study which proves that East Africans are authentic unmixed Africans just as Nigerians and west Africans in general would be considered. - White Nord
White Nord, ever considered first taking biology and genetics 101, before starting topics like this? Just food for thought.
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
quote:Originally posted by White Nord:
quote:Originally posted by akoben08: ^ His point is that both contemporary East Africans and Euros show admixture white nerd. Cavelli Sforza has already been exposed by Keita et al. These contemporary genetic studies say nothing for ancient east African especially Egyptian racial make up, which I know is where you want to take this argument. You are showing same desperation as Khazar pseudo scientists in trying to "prove" they are from Levantine Jewry, they managed to fool Ausarianstein though. lol But you are more pathetic, it's wide stretch, and so is your agenda.
How in the Hell can you be sure that they haven't always been mixed and thank you. Someone finally having the ballz to admit that this group has signifigant admixture.
You might want to clarify timelines. You do not need to go outside of Africa to explain the phenotype of the Ethiopians. The climate of Ethiopia is sufficient to explain their adaptation without alegations of some foreign genetic fow. Obviously, like most modern societies, there have been conquests and migration from foreign lands but they are recent events. Also, these genetic reports you cite don't tell us much about when migrations occurred. For that we need skeletal remains. Neolithic remains in East Africa are tropically adapted and show relatedness to other tropical areas in Africa.
Ancient Caucasoid East Africans are still a White Supremist myth. I am open to actual evidence but what I have read leds me to this conclusion. If you are looking for mixture you will need to go further North. European U mtDNA is found amongst the Berbers such as the Kabyles. That is a much more interesting picture and is not seen anywhere else in the world. Essentially we have a maternal European gene with almost non-existent European paternal genes. Very interesting. U is normally found with R1b but not in North Africa.
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ausarian:
quote:Originally posted by White Nord:
I mean you guys try to make this topic much more complicated then it really is.
The topic is certainly complicated for you, as indicated by this:
I only asked for a study which proves that East Africans are authentic unmixed Africans just as Nigerians and west Africans in general would be considered. - White Nord
White Nord, ever considered first taking biology and genetics 101, before starting topics like this? Just food for thought.
You Afro-nuts need to cut down on the bashing and just give clear, concise and unbias information.
If you want to educate people you need to be willing to provide information in a non-confrontational manner.
Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
^Dumb comment. One needs to know what they're talking about cuz we don't get paid to teach.
Did you read what Ausarian just quoted???
If you want to be here for seven pages discussing bull (disney-style-fantasy postings of people who fantasize of and so distort scientists' statements and findings in favor of their wish full thinking ie 40% or whatevertheHell it is caucasian Ethiopians).
quote:Originally posted by osirion: You Afro-nuts need to cut down on the bashing and just give clear, concise and unbias information.
If you want to educate people you need to be willing to provide information in a non-confrontational manner.
First of all, he didn't even make a statement, or ask for the genetic composition of Ethiopians, and you type as if he's entitled to a response anyway.
He stated that he thought Ethiopians were 'mixed' but was unsure, and when his finding are explained to him, like he asked, he turns around and gayly calls for people to just admit Ethiopians to being 50% caucasian or whatever.
It's absurd to think that narrow noses originated outside Africa, since as anthropological studies indicate most physical features are derived from Africans, and usually in an extreme form like narrower and smaller nose among many east Africans compare to European and West Asians, I'm from East Africa so it's pretty easy to see that...But if you talk about other features like skin tone or hair maybe you can see some form of admixture among some Ethiopians but a large majority don't look mixed..
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
WHITENORD, If you assume that there racially pure Africans, would you apply the s ame logic to Europe and Asia?
So could you name the pure Europeans as opposed to those that are not pure? And do the same for East Asians. Are some Esat Asians pure and some non-pure?
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
WHITENORD,
Given that the phenotypical genotypical variations that we find among humans derive from the following well-known biological mechanisms, how exactly are they causative in the creation of racially "pure" groups?
I refer to: 1) assorted mating, 2)genetic drift, 3)bottleneck effects, 4) environmental adaptation by means genomic selection, and 5)chance mutations that spread through a population on purely stochastic grounds, 6)forced assorted mating as in the case of females kidnapped from one group and transported for mating purposes to another group.
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Alive-(What Box): ^Dumb comment. One needs to know what they're talking about cuz we don't get paid to teach.
Did you read what Ausarian just quoted???
If you want to be here for seven pages discussing bull (disney-style-fantasy postings of people who fantasize of and so distort scientists' statements and findings in favor of their wish full thinking ie 40% or whatevertheHell it is caucasian Ethiopians).
quote:Originally posted by osirion: You Afro-nuts need to cut down on the bashing and just give clear, concise and unbias information.
If you want to educate people you need to be willing to provide information in a non-confrontational manner.
First of all, he didn't even make a statement, or ask for the genetic composition of Ethiopians, and you type as if he's entitled to a response anyway.
He stated that he thought Ethiopians were 'mixed' but was unsure, and when his finding are explained to him, like he asked, he turns around and gayly calls for people to just admit Ethiopians to being 50% caucasian or whatever.
Some people deserve to be bashed but I don't see the justification in term of White Nord's postings.
The vast majority of Westerners are confused over the subject of the phenotype of NE Africans. I do find it interesting that many Orientals do not see the Ethiopians as being any different than other Black Africans. They simply think they are pretty Black Africans.
I simply think the bashing shows weakness and is a distraction from the points trying to be presented. Of course, bigots should be bashed on points clearly bias. Ethiopians being of mixed ancestry isn't really a point requiring bashing. Claiming that East Africans are Caucasian and yet calling Rev. Jeremy Wright an African American is selective bigotry.
Posted by astenb (Member # 14524) on :
^ good one.
Posted by Habari (Member # 14738) on :
quote:The vast majority of Westerners are confused over the subject of the phenotype of NE Africans.
That's the problem with White Nord; he doesn't understand that all human beings look like Africans, even East Asians have similar phenotype to many Southern Africans like khoisans even like some East Africans(the eyes and high bone cheeks). That's where we have the confusion and ignorance, especially among Westerners who have been led by fake ideologist to believe that they where pure which is utter nonsense since they are the most mixed genetically on the face of the earth ...let's educate him...
Posted by White Nord (Member # 14093) on :
My point exactly.... NO EVIDENCE just TALK!
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
White Nord
I will repost something from Ausarian:
— For one, "caucasoid" is scientifically bankrupt. What makes a gene "caucasoid", and what are they?
— Passarino et a. 1998 pooled Ethiopian groups from a sample taken at a hospital in Addis Ababa, which were mainly self-identified Amhara-speakers. This pooling obscured genomic pattern differentiations across intra-Ethiopic ethnic-lines.
— Amhara groups seem to carry relatively more J haplotype bearing Y chromosomes than their Oromo counterparts, but even these appear to date back to some time in the Neolithic period.
— Ethiopia is a big country, with at least some 80 different ethnic groups. In fact, it is one of the most diverse nations on mainland Africa. The bulk of these were not tested by Passarino; so, how you can reduce their gene pool to Passarino et al.'s findings, is beyond logic.
— Ethiopia has been found to be 'intermediate', primarily because non-African gene pools are a subset of an East African population, and to a lesser extent, secondary to *bi-directional* gene flow between the African Horn and its neighbours. In other words, it is a region genetically composite of deep-rooted lineages that are rare outside of the African continent and more downstream mutations that are common in both Africa and elsewhere - hence, the intermediate location.
— Certain maternal haplogroups that are common in "south west Asia" occurred as rare subtypes in Ethiopian samples, like those associated with haplogroup N1 and M1. Some haplogroups like say, M1, have in the past been erroneously referenced as "Eurasian" by some authors, when there is little to no evidence to suggest so.
Now to get to your comments Ethiopians are no more mixed then any other African population. Some Ethiopians have genes that some south arabians have and vice versa. To try and say that the Whole Coutry of Ethiopia is 50/50 mixed is just foolish talk. What we need is studies done on all the Ethnic groups of Ethiopia before we make foolish statements about 50/50 mix. Also I credit you for not getting into a flame war with some posters. Its refreshing to see debate without the insults. Will post more later.
Peace
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
White Nord
After rereading the thread again I tell you to go back and read Ausarians posts he answers most of your comments and really your studies are all outdated.
I also want to ask what are you trying to prove by saying that Ethopians are some how 50/50 mix? The Oromo the largest Ethnic group has less then 3% hap J The problem is I don't remember what study I read this from. Maybe Rasol or Ausarian, know.
Peace
Posted by Habari (Member # 14738) on :
King you are correct, some studies ignore the fact that Amhara and Oromos are different ethnically speaking, and the Oromos who are the majority along other cushitic speaking people have almost no non African genes...that's what White Nord should learn instead of quoting some funny forums...
Posted by Ausarian (Member # 13266) on :
quote:Originally posted by osirion:
You Afro-nuts need to cut down on the bashing and just give clear, concise and unbias information.
If you want to educate people you need to be willing to provide information in a non-confrontational manner.
Hey jewish-nut,
Ever consider first reading and following posts on the thread, before posting ignorance? Try it out.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:White Nord: My point exactly.... NO EVIDENCE just TALK!
It's obvous that White Nerd = white noise, and no answers.....
Europeans show as a mixture of 1/3 African, and 2/3 Asian - European Geneticists, Cavelli Sforza.
^ Unless you can prove otherwise, your troll rant is completely pointless.
That's why it isn't working.
quote:Originally posted by White Nord:
I mean you guys try to make this topic much more complicated then it really is.
^ Evidently it's *very* complicated for you, because you don't have any answers.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by Habari: King you are correct, some studies ignore the fact that Amhara and Oromos are different ethnically speaking, and the Oromos who are the majority along other cushitic speaking people have almost no non African genes...that's what White Nord should learn instead of quoting some funny forums...
^ People like white nerd prefer to stay ignorant, and work hard at it. That's why they recite from the same debunked pseudoes and repeat the same tired trash, never learning anything.
They imagine that their willful ignorance is a 'weapon' when in fact it's just a weakness.
They're just lame.
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
WHITE NORD:
I would say the Afro-Nuts win this discussion. Basically White Nord claims that the Ethiopians are mixed from Neolithic times but doesn't have any evidence whatsoever. No skeletal evidence, linguistic evidence, archaelogical evidence. Basically you want us to believe the Ethiopians are not African and their appearance, culture and history is non-African and yet they are in Africa. You want us to believe that the pirates that enslaved them and destroyed their civilization via military embargoes, raping raids and the like are somehow the original indigenous people. Even though we are quite aware of white supremacy teachings of the last 300 years and its purpose. You would like us to believe you over sensible logic.
The burdern of proof is on you!
Yes you deserve to be bashed.
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ausarian:
quote:Originally posted by osirion:
You Afro-nuts need to cut down on the bashing and just give clear, concise and unbias information.
If you want to educate people you need to be willing to provide information in a non-confrontational manner.
Hey jewish-nut,
Ever consider first reading and following posts on the thread, before posting ignorance? Try it out.
No one is going to listen to a scorner.
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
What people fail to understand is this: The out of Africa clade is not triple-pronged but resembles a bushy cantalebra--where there are many branches that spring from the same root.
The naive assumption by many is that phenotypically intermediate groups between the arbitrarily created prongs must have come from "mixtures". This is not always the case.
The truth is that naive humans are often led astray intellectually by appearances.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:The naive assumption by many is that phenotypically intermediate groups between the arbitrarily created prongs must have come from "mixtures".
It is certainly a fact that the presumptive wishful modeling of Eurocentrism - in which and imagined ancient white race would either precede or be contemporaneous to a black race, such that intermediate skin tones could be viewed as mongrel, or mixed, or hybrid or 'part white'.... has been falsified by genetics.
Via genetics we know that dark skin was the original state of homo sapiens, and that pale skin is recent adaptation to Northern Eurasian climate and equally non homogeneous. [with distinct development amongst Europeans and some NorthEast Asian]
Melanoderm and medium skin tones precede leucoderm, and therefore cannot derive in the main from leucoderm admixture.
Posted by Ausarian (Member # 13266) on :
quote:Originally posted by osirion:
quote: Hey jewish-nut,
Ever consider first reading and following posts on the thread, before posting ignorance? Try it out.
No one is going to listen to a scorner.
...and someone is listening to a jewish bitch?
Matter of fact, you're guilty of the very thing you're accusing me of, as the [my] post you were bitching about was concisely delivered about the post it was addressing, and nothing uncalled for about it. Either learn to follow threads or keep your hole shut.
Posted by Ausarian (Member # 13266) on :
quote:Originally posted by osirion:
WHITE NORD:
I would say the Afro-Nuts...
LOl. Yeah, the words of an "intellectual"......NOT!
Posted by Habari (Member # 14738) on :
Osirion, Ausarian, you are good contributors, let's move on and learn...people here appreciate your input...please avoid those negative comments...
Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
.
Posted by Habari (Member # 14738) on :
I'm from East Africa, where there is the most diverse physical features...on the earth the only people who have a case even if they look like Southern African San people are the East Asian...the rest: Europe and West Asia, they look mixed: their features are completely mixed from an African perspective...In Africa people go by the features...which is more accurate than the skin color which is a recent adaption...
Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yonis2: What, you think all africans must look like congolose in able to be pure? It's all about climate and landscape, most of northeast africa is dry land and thus the physics of the people is adapted to that land, while most of centralafrica is humid and forest that's why their body and face are different from those in northeast africa, it's all an adaptation to the environment.
quote:Originally posted by osirion: I simply think the bashing shows weakness
It does, and is.
quote: and is a distraction from the points trying to be presented.
quote:Originally posted by White Nord: My point exactly.... NO EVIDENCE just TALK!
...but what I call a DISTRACTION, and an attempted (but failed) evasion, is his rhetoric.
You guys (you and White Noise) note that he provided 'evidence'.
We actually took a look at his 'evidence', seen that it in fact wasn't evidence at all of that which it had been alleged to be, and a couple of us even generously helped him out. Someone read the rest of his provided studies and provided him with clear, concise statements from the said studies directly refuting the notion he wanted clarification for. Another person even provided and fully-laid-out a detailed and thourough critique analysis for White Nord, and also provided a summarized quite well the implications of a study (Gonzalez et all 2007 & Pessarino et all 1998, respectively).
Now the ensuing cryings, whinings or tantrums are irrelevant - you will notice they are devoid of fact or scientific analysis.
The fact is White Noise simply hasn't shown much in his postings other than that which would suggest he doesn't have any grasp on the relevant biology, not to mention that he seems to be even more ignorant of biological matters African.
He posts as if he wanted to deal with facts. When given facts, factually devoid postings of an upset White Noise to the contrary don't necissarily mean we have to entertain them.
Most posters aren't giving him the time of day.
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Originally posted by Habari: King you are correct, some studies ignore the fact that Amhara and Oromos are different ethnically speaking, and the Oromos who are the majority along other cushitic speaking people have almost no non African genes...that's what White Nord should learn instead of quoting some funny forums...
^ People like white nerd prefer to stay ignorant, and work hard at it. That's why they recite from the same debunked pseudoes and repeat the same tired trash, never learning anything.
They imagine that their willful ignorance is a 'weapon' when in fact it's just a weakness.
They're just lame.
^Exactly.
quote:Originally posted by osirion: WHITE NORD:
I would say the Afro-Nuts win this discussion. Basically ...
...
The burdern of proof is on you!
Yes you deserve to be bashed.
^Damn straight.
Posted by White Nord (Member # 14093) on :
This scientific data supports what I have stated all along and you can not refute hard data, no matter how much you desperately try. The fact remains that Caucasians from the earliest times came down through the corridor between Egypt and Eurasia and spread south. And then at a later time the Arabs. How else could Ethiopians obtain Caucasian DNA? This certainly explains the "variations" and the language branch within the Ethiopian population.
40% flowing thru the veins of Ethiopians (who you think are "pure") after thousands of years, still detectable is considered a heavy mixing, it must have been much higher (see study below) when Egypt conquered Nubia several times for a total of ~800 years. This further proves that there were indeed a substantial amount of whites in the N.E. region of Egypt - which you have also denied. Likewise, this evidence further supports why mummies, statues and paintings reflect Egypt as being of white royalty and Nubia being primarly negroid/mixed. Skeletal evidence and Egyptian culture discovered in Nubia/Meroe further supports the fact that whites penetrated that far south not to forget the white Libyans who are Egypt's next door desert neighbor.
Another genitic study supports this fact and the previous study:
“The Hpal (np3,592) mitochondrial DNA marker is a selectively neutral mutation that is very common in sub-Saharan Africa.... From 29 [Merotic Nubian] individuals analysed, only 15 yield positive amplifications, four of them (26.7%) displaying the sub-Saharan African marker. Hpa 1 (np3,592) marker is present in the sub-Saharan populations at a frequency of 68.7 on average. Thus, the frequency of genes from this area in the Merotic Nubian population can be estimated at around 39% (with a confidence interval from 22% to 55%). The frequency obtained fits in a south-north decreasing gradient of Hpa I (np3,592) along the African continent. Results suggest that morphological changes observed historically in the Nubian populations are more likely to be due to the existence of south-north gene flow through the Nile Valley than to in-situ evolution.” (Fox, Carles Lalueza, 1997. mtDNA Analysis in Ancient Nubians Supports the Existence of Gene Flow Between Sub-Sahara and North Africa in the Nile Valley. Ann Hum Biol; 24:217-227)
This shows that if the Meroitic people were 39% negro, it would logically follow that they were approximately 61% white.
FURTHER:
“...the present study on the Y-chromosome haplotype shows that there are northern and southern Y-haplotypes in Egypt. The main Y-haplotype V is a northern haplotype, with a significantly different frequency in the north compared to the south of the country: frequencies of haplotype V are 51.9% in the Delta (location A), 24.2% in Upper Egypt (location B), and 17.4% in Lower Nubia (location C). On the other hand, haplotype IV is a typical southern haplotype, being almost absent in A (1.2%), and preponderant in B (27.3%) and C (39.1%). Haplotype XI also shows a preponderance in the south (in C, 30.4%; B, 28.8%) compared to the north (11.7% in A) of the country.” “It is interesting to relate this peculiar north/south differentiation, a pattern of genetic variation deriving from the two uniparentally inherited genetic systems (mtDNA and Y chromosome), to specific historic events. Since the beginning of Egyptian history (3200-3100 B.C.), the legendary king Menes united Upper and Lower Egypt. Migration from north to south may coincide with the Pharaonic colonization of Nubia, which occurred initially during the Middle Kingdom (12th Dynasty, 1991-1785 B.C.), and more permanently during the New Kingdom, from the reign of Thotmosis III (1490-1437 B.C.). The main migration from south to north may coincide with the 25th Dynasty (730-655 B.C.), when kings from Napata (in Nubia) conquered Egypt.” (Lucotte et al.,2003 Brief Communication: Y-chromosome Haplotypes in Egypt. Am J Phys Anthro; 121:63-66)
Posted by Ebony Allen (Member # 12771) on :
Wow. Meroites were more white than black??!! Bwahahahaha!!! Idiot. And that study doesn't apply to all Ethiopians, jackass. The Afar who have thin lips, thin noses, and less kinky hair are pure. End of story.
Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
Alright, guys, if this isn't proof that we needn't pay him attention, I don't know what is.
quote:The fact remains that Caucasians from the earliest times came down through the corridor between Egypt and Eurasia and spread south.
There is actually evidence that inhabitants of the caucasus were bottlenecked from the us for some time (hence their depigmentation in such a scale).
But then again you never specified a time frame. Even so, your prior claim that 'Ethiopians are 50% caucasian' is still erroneous, and your quote above basically meaningless.
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
quote:Originally posted by White Nord: [QB] This shows that if the Meroitic people were 39% negro, it would logically follow that they were approximately 61% white.
Only a dumb twit would draw that conclusion.
Negro is an racially loaded term that is quite outdated and so is the term White.
Use your brain in this forum. Nobobdy here accepts your concept of Negro.
So give a better description of this 61%. What is the haplotype and where does it originate.
European haplotype is usually R1b which is probably what you are if you are White. Also J1 and J2 which are Eurasian signatures. There was a significant alliance between Nubians and Eurasians against the Egyptians so there may be a significant amount of J1/J2. Doubt there's much R1b which is true European. If you are trying to call E3b White or Caucasian - get the f##k out of here!
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
^The study doesn't even say what other lineages were found and they in all likely hood were African also since no one (except White Nord) in ancient times to modern ever had the gumption to describe Meroites as "61% white".. This fool so over stretches his argument that he bases his lofty conclusions on the analysis of one marker.
The study claims that the average frequency of Hpal in inner Africa is 68%. Well, according to his logic that would suggest that the average "sub-Saharan" African is 32% white.
What a ditz this guy is.
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by White Nord:
FURTHER:
“...the present study on the Y-chromosome haplotype shows that there are northern and southern Y-haplotypes in Egypt. The main Y-haplotype V is a northern haplotype, with a significantly different frequency in the north compared to the south of the country: frequencies of haplotype V are 51.9% in the Delta (location A), 24.2% in Upper Egypt (location B), and 17.4% in Lower Nubia (location C). On the other hand, haplotype IV is a typical southern haplotype, being almost absent in A (1.2%), and preponderant in B (27.3%) and C (39.1%). Haplotype XI also shows a preponderance in the south (in C, 30.4%; B, 28.8%) compared to the north (11.7% in A) of the country.” “It is interesting to relate this peculiar north/south differentiation, a pattern of genetic variation deriving from the two uniparentally inherited genetic systems (mtDNA and Y chromosome), to specific historic events. Since the beginning of Egyptian history (3200-3100 B.C.), the legendary king Menes united Upper and Lower Egypt. Migration from north to south may coincide with the Pharaonic colonization of Nubia, which occurred initially during the Middle Kingdom (12th Dynasty, 1991-1785 B.C.), and more permanently during the New Kingdom, from the reign of Thotmosis III (1490-1437 B.C.). The main migration from south to north may coincide with the 25th Dynasty (730-655 B.C.), when kings from Napata (in Nubia) conquered Egypt.” (Lucotte et al.,2003 Brief Communication: Y-chromosome Haplotypes in Egypt. Am J Phys Anthro; 121:63-66)
Point?
V is not a European, non-African haplotype. It is rare outside of Africa.. In fact, more V is found in Falash ("Black") Jews of Ethiopia than in Egypt.
Southern Egypt and Lower Nubia show more southernly African haplotypes.
Quote: "(Table 1). Given the historical nature of the presentation of Lucotte and Mercier (2003a), the term ‘‘Arabic’’ suggests a southwest Asian origin for V. In contrast, haplotypes XI and IV, called ‘‘southern,’’ with IV labeled ‘‘sub-Saharan,’’ have their lowest frequencies in lower (northern) Egypt, but increase in upper (southern) Egypt and lower Nubia; there is no statistically significant difference in frequencies between the latter two regions for the haplotypes studied (Lucotte and Mercier 2003a)."
Note that lower Nubia and southern Egypt share the most genetic similarity, yet:
quote:Cosmopolitan northern Egypt is less likely to have a population representative of the core indigenous population of the most ancient times.
- Keita, pp. 564
Moving on:
......."Haplotype V is found in very high frequencies in supra-Saharan countries and Mauretania (collective average, 55.0%) and in Ethiopia (average, 45.8% for reported groups). Its highest prevalence to date is in samples from specific populations: Ethiopian Falasha (60.5%) and Moroccan Berbers (68.9%). Haplotype V’s frequency is considerably lower in the Near East, and decreases from west (Lebanon, 16.7%) to east (Iraq, 7.2%) (Table 2A). The appellation ‘‘Arabic’’ for V is therefore misleading, because it suggests an origin external to Africa that is not supported by the evidence. In fact, this variant was called African by Lucotte et al. (1993, p. 839; 1996, p. 469), as well as ‘‘Berberian’’ (Lucotte et al., 2001, p. 887). Significantly, it was convincingly argued by these same researchers and their associates that because the Falasha (the ‘‘black Jews’’ of Ethiopia) have such a high frequency of V and XI and none (yet found) of VII and VIII, this shows them to be ‘‘clearly of African origin’’ and to have adopted Judaism (Lucotte and Mercier, 2003b, p. 669; Lucotte and Smets, 1999). This is in contrast to their being the descendants of males from immigrant Near Eastern Jewish communities.
Given these findings, it is more accurate to call V ‘‘Horn-supra-Saharan African’’ (or simply African), not ‘‘Arabic;’’ it is indigenous to Africa" S.O.Y. Keita, American Journal of Human Biology, 17: 559–567 (2005)
When were these African lineages likely established in Egypt? Basically when various Africans migrated there and unified it.
quote:a synthesis of evidence from archaeology, historical linguistics, texts, the distribution of haplotypes outside of Egypt, and some demographic considerations, lends greater support to the establishment, before the Middle Kingdom, of the observed distributions of the most prevalent haplotypes: V, XI, and IV. It is suggested that the pattern of diversity for these variants in the Egyptian Nile Valley, was largely the product of population events that occurred in the late Pleistocene to mid-Holocene through Dynasty I, and was sustained by continuous smaller scale bi-directional migrations/interactions. The higher frequency of V in Ethiopia than in Nubia or upper (southern) Egypt, has to be taken into account in any discussion of variation in the Nile Valley, especially in the context of the findings of historical linguistics.
S.O.Y. Keita, African Archaeological Review (2005)
Posted by NatiW (Member # 13862) on :
quote:Originally posted by White Nord: Correct me if I'm worng but are there not studies out that prove that these groups (Ethiopians) are spilt nearly 50/50 with Eurasians? With this study proving this why do you all still argue that these people are pure Africans, Do you all have any evidence to the contrary. Please don't bash me just answer the question and no I could not find a satisfying answer when I was searching the archives. At least not one in you all's case!
So are they pure unmixed Africans and can you prove this with pure evidence on your part.
Is anyone pure, do populations exist in a bubble. Are europeans pure? I am Ethiopian, back home I am black. Come to america, discover the internet, and now I am half white. Technology is really messing up my world.
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
^^Such has more do do with ideology, as opposed to technology or scientific advancement. Those type of wishful distortions only hinder advancement.
Posted by NatiW (Member # 13862) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata: ^^Such has more do do with ideology, as opposed to technology or scientific advancement. Those type of wishful distortions only hinder advancement.
You are right.
Posted by HistoryFacelift (Member # 14696) on :
When whites are faced with the reality that the possibility of Eastern Africans being the Ancient Egyptians is considerably high they always try to pull the "not pure" card, it's pathetic.
I heard some idiotic White Nationalist woman on that one website with Don Black say once that if the white Greeks came in as Ancient Egyptians it is possible that a first wave of whites were there and were the first Egyptians. She based this on a bunch of non royal mummies buried in the sands around Egypt dating to the earliest time.
I said to her it is also feasible they were the corpses of prisoners the first pharaoh of Upper Egypt conquered kingdoms, hoarded treasures and imprisoned people from other kingdoms. Her head exploded.
She then goes on to say "We know "Arab types" were never in Egypt before whenever the date was she quoted. I say to her, so you can only see a first wave of "White types" coming in before the Greeks but cannot see a first weave of Arab types coming in before the Persians? She want to denounce the fact that even though some of the earliest tombs depict "Asiatics" with eye folds etc. that this region could only of been between Arabs/Blacks and Whites. She say that since blacks couldn't of done it because she is racist, and Asians weren't there (what is "Asian"?) and Arabs didn't get there till later (So no "Arabs" came before Persia?) that it must be whites (but whites weren't there till the Greeks according to your logic) Her head exploded and so did her temper.
There are very stupid people defending white Egypt, they have no common sense I think. No wonder cannot take them serious.
Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
LOL believe me I know what you mean, and concur, and for our resident Nord, here (and for that Euro lady).
As was also posted above by Sundiata (I think anyway):
quote:"Moving to the opposite geographic extremity, the very small sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty(Merimda, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a south-north cline of variation along the Nile Valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into Palestine. The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans"
Ancient Egypt Anatomy of a Civilisation(Paperback) by Barry Kemp (Author) Publisher: Routledge; 2 edition (December 12, 2005) p.54
...and...
quote:Did Egyptians in the second half of the dynastic period become biologically distinct from those in the first?
Ideally, more dynastic samples than those from Abydos, Thebes, Qurneh, Tarkhan, Saqqara, Lisht, and Giza should be compared to address such a broad question. Yet excluding the Lisht and perhaps Saqqara outliers, it appears that overall dental homogeneity among these samples would argue against such a possibility (Table 4; Figs. 2, 3, 5). Specifically, an inspection of MMD values reveals no evidence of increasing phenetic distance between samples from the first and second halves of this almost 3,000-year-long period. For example, phenetic distances between First–Second Dynasty Abydos and samples from Fourth Dynasty Saqqara (MMD ¼ 0.050), 11– 12th Dynasty Thebes (0.000), 12th Dynasty Lisht (0.072), 19thþ Dynasty Qurneh (0.053), and 26th–30th Dynasty Giza (0.027) do not exhibit a directional increase through time. Moreover, there is no conspicuous correlation between MMD and geographic distances within and between Upper and Lower Egypt. A similar pattern is evident when comparing First Dynasty Tarkhan to these same five Old Kingdom through Late Dynastic samples. All display moderate frequencies of the nine influential traits identified by CA, and a largely concordant occurrence of, and trends across, the remaining traits (Table 2). Thus, despite increasing foreign influence after the Second Intermediate Period, not only did Egyptian culture remain intact (Lloyd, 2000a), but the people themselves, as represented by the dental samples, appear biologically constant as well. These findings coincide with those of Brace et al. (1993, p. 1), who stated that the Egyptians were ‘‘largely unaffected by either invasions or migrations,’’ and do not support suggestions of increased diversity due to infiltration of outside physical elements.
Did Egyptians of the Ptolemaic and Roman periods differ significantly from their dynastic antecedents?
Again, more postdynastic samples would prove useful in answering this broad question. Moreover, any foreign genetic influence on the indigenous populace likely diminished relative to the distance upriver. However, as it stands, the lone Greek Egyptian (GEG) sample from Lower Egypt significantly differs from all but the small Roman-period Kharga sample (Table 4). In fact, it was shown to be a major outlier that is divergent from all others (Figs. 2, 3, 5). The Greek Egyptians exhibit the lowest frequencies of UM1 cusp 5, three-rooted UM2, fivecusped LM2, and two-rooted LM2, along with a high incidence of UM3 absence, among others (Table 2). This trait combination is reminiscent of that in Europeans and western Asians (Turner, 1985a; Turner and Markowitz, 1990; Roler, 1992; Lipschultz, 1996; Irish, 1998a). Thus, if the present heterogeneous sample is at all representative of peoples during Ptolemaic times, it may suggest some measure of foreign admixture, at least in Lower Egypt near Saqqara and Manfalut. Another possibility is that the sample consists of actual Greeks. Although their total number was probably low (Peacock, 2000), Greek administrators and others were present in Lower Egypt. Future comparisons to actual Greek specimens will help verify this possibility.
Joel D. Irish, American Journal of Physical Anthropology, (2006)
quote: During Naqada III, kings at Hierakonpolis and Abydos initiated the unification of Upper and Lower Egypt (Hassan, 1988, 1997b; Holmes, 1989; Midant-Reynes, 2000a); this consolidation resulted in the celebrated civilization that came to rule Egypt for nearly 3,000 years. Therefore, it is commonly held that the dynastic period is a result of an internal development from the Naqada (Childe, 1952; Arkell and Ucko, 1965; Kantor, 1965; Holmes, 1989; Hassan, 1997b; Bard, 2000; Midant-Reynes, 2000a). This idea counters a long-discredited hypothesis suggesting that a foreign ‘‘race’’ invaded from west Asia during Naqada III times (Petrie, 1939; Engelbach, 1943; Derry, 1956; Emery, 1961). If continuity is discerned between Naqada and dynastic dental samples, the latter hypothesis can be further discounted. Fourth, with the possible exception of 13th and 15th Dynasty Aamu and Hyksos, the first half of the dynastic is thought to have largely been one of indigenous continuity. In other words, this span, which comprises the Early Dynastic (ca. 3000–2686 BC), Old Kingdom (2686–2125 BC), First Intermediate (2125–2055 BC), Middle Kingdom (2055–1650 BC), and Second Intermediate periods (1650– 1550 BC), may have been little affected by foreign biocultural influence relative to other Mediterranean-area empires (Trigger et al., 1983; Watterson, 1997; Hornung, 1999; Bard, 2000; Bourriau, 2000; Callender, 2000; Malek, 2000; Shaw, 2000). However, by the second half of the dynastic, Egypt became more cosmopolitan. Foreign input increased in the New Kingdom (1550–1069 BC) with immigrations of Libyans and Asians to complement a Nubian inflow. This influence climaxed with the 21st– 25th Dynasty Libyan and Kushite rulers of the Third Intermediate period (1069–664 BC), and 26th–27th Dynasty Libyan and Persian rulers of the Late Dynastic (664–332 BC) (Trigger et al., 1983; Watterson, 1997; Hornung, 1999; Bryan, 2000; Shaw, 2000; van Dijk, 2000; Taylor, 2000; Lloyd, 2000a). Local culture remained mostly intact through all of this (Lloyd, 2000a), though later peoples may have become physically more diverse due to the gradual infiltration of outside elements (discussed in Shaw, 2000). Dental affinities among samples from the two broad dynastic periods will help test the degree to which this diachronic influence may have affected Egyptian biological makeup. Lastly, following the relative cultural stability of the dynastic, Egypt came to be wholly dominated by foreign rulers during Ptolemaic (332–30 BC) and Roman (30 BC– AD 395) times. In general, the Egyptian administrative system was maintained and traditional culture mostly continued throughout these periods; regardless, Egypt began to accumulate characteristics of the occupying powers (Watterson, 1997; Lloyd, 2000a,b; Peacock, 2000). To what extent this influence involved gene flow into the native peoples is unknown. Keita (1992, p. 251) suggested that migrations resulting in a ‘‘major genetic impact’’ might have occurred immediately prior to and during this period. However, the numbers of Greek and Roman immigrants (Peacock, 2000), particularly outside the major centers of government, were probably low. As such, indigenous Egyptians may not have differed significantly from their dynastic predecessors. Again, affinities among samples from these two time-successive periods can help gauge the amount of biological influence these outside groups had on the local peoples.
quote:Beyond testing various hypotheses and less formal assumptions, other intersample variation identified by dental analyses will be examined in the light of known Egyptian history, and interpretations of this patterning will be offered. At a more basic level, study of the samples will provide a better assessment of the diachronic occurrence and expression of the 36 dental traits beyond that currently known. Ultimately, it is anticipated that all of this information will complement and expand upon the findings of previous researchers, and lead to an improved understanding of the peoples and peopling of this important time and place in African prehistory.
Posted by White Nord (Member # 14093) on :
No doubt, more scientific research which you will find incomprehensible that East Africans are mixed.
The role of the Levantine Corridor vs. Horn of Africa in Human Dispersions
Am. J. Hum. Genet., 74:000, 2004 The Levant versus the Horn of Africa: Evidence for Bidirectional Corridors of Human Migrations J. R. Luis et al.
Paleoanthropological evidence indicates that both the Levantine corridor and the Horn of Africa served, repeatedly, as migratory corridors between Africa and Eurasia.
We have begun investigating the roles of these passageways in bidirectional migrations of anatomically modern humans, by analyzing 45 informative biallelic markers as well as 10 microsatellite loci on the nonrecombining region of the Y chromosome (NRY) in 121 and 147 extant males from Oman and northern Egypt, respectively. The present study uncovers three important points concerning these demic movements: (1) The E3b1-M78 and E3b3-M123 lineages, as well as the R1*-M173 lineages, mark gene flow between Egypt and the Levant during the Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic. (2) In contrast, the Horn of Africa appears to be of minor importance in the human migratory movements between Africa and Eurasia represented by these chromosomes, an observation based on the frequency distributions of E3b*-M35 (no known downstream mutations) and M173. (3)
The areal diffusion patterns of G-M201, J-12f2, the derivative M173 haplogroups, and M2 suggest more recent genetic associations between the Middle East and Africa, involving the Levantine corridor and/or Arab slave routes. Affinities to African groups were also evaluated by determining the NRY haplogroup composition in 434 samples from seven sub-Saharan African populations. Oman and Egypt's NRY frequency distributions appear to be much more similar to those of the Middle East than to any sub-Saharan African population, suggesting a much larger Eurasian genetic component.
"It is interesting to relate this peculiar north/south differentiation, a pattern of genetic variation deriving from the two uniparentally inherited genetic systems (mtDNA and Y chromosome), to specific historic events. Since the beginning of Egyptian history (3200-3100 B.C.), the legendary king Menes united Upper and Lower Egypt. Migration from north to south may coincide with the Pharaonic colonization of Nubia, which occurred initially during the Middle Kingdom (12th Dynasty, 1991-1785 B.C.), and more permanently during the New Kingdom, from the reign of Thotmosis III (1490-1437 B.C.). The main migration from south to north may coincide with the 25th Dynasty (730-655 B.C.), when kings from Napata (in Nubia) conquered Egypt." (Lucotte et al. 2003)
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
^^We've went over that study many times on this forum and it makes no claim of "East Africans being mixed". In fact, Cushitic speaking Somali for example, have been found genetically to be overwhelmingly indigenous (at least 90%, which is less "mixed" than even African Americans). Ironically, the paper goes against your general premise. It argues instead that peoples of the levant and near east "mixed" with East Africans as they migrated to the levant. Brace (2006) supports this, showing that the Neolithic Natufians of Palestine were reminiscent of an African morphology.
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
I'm not going to waste time going around in circles refuting the same old lies. So I'll just leave this:
Even if we humored the idiots and said Ethiopians were "mixed" or whatever, it does them no good since ancient Egypt was a part of the complex of ancient Saharan societies:
They literally skip over Sudan and the indigenous populations of Egypt itself in order to lay claim to Ancient Egypt by using Ethiopians as a proxy by way of using "Arabs" as a proxy.
In their deranged world of pseudoscience the indigenous people of Egypt and the people of Sudan are too "negroid", which they believe is a hinderance to whites/Euros ability to lay claim to ancient Egypt. So a lie has to be concocted that will allow them to steal Ancient Egypt.
Whites hate Arabs, Kurds, Persians, and other Non-arabs in West Asia but they will use them in bogus diffusion theories in order to allow themselves the ability to lay claim to Africans which in turn they believe allows them to lay claim to African civilization and history.
Whites have also murdered hundreds of thousands of Ethiopians which makes it even more astounding that they would use those people in such a heinous way.
The formula is below:
Ancient Egyptians come from Ethiopians who come from Arabs who come from Caucasians (whites)
LOL LOL LOL See how they use folks?
PS. Even if we humor the loon and say that Ethiopians indeed created Ancient Egypt it still does them no good. Since many an Ethiopian looks just like an African American. LOL : )
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
Notice how the loons who post all of this nonsense never show you these caucasoid Ethiopians.
Posted by NatiW (Member # 13862) on :
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: The level of pitifulness of this forum never ceases to amaze.
Now this chimu (White Nord) is trying to lay some bullshit about Ethiopians being different.
LOL, LOL, LOL.
Is that why it is hard to tell the difference between Ethiopians (like the rest of Africans) and African Americans?
I'll post the evidence although I prefer not to because most people that are into race divisions are loons and I don't want to disrupt those sites because that is not what they are for.
They are for their ethnic groups not for a bunch of loons sitting around on their dead asses having delusional race fantasies.
It is bs. Most ethiopians would think White Nord crazy as outhouse rat eating his feces calling it caviar, if he called them white. I believe the ploy is more that ethiopians, eritreans, somali are related to the ae, thus if these people are white so are the AE. L3 is a african mitochondrial dna ( indigenious african )is a single haplotype, with many subclades.L3 is haplotypes and also the haplogroup from which the haplogroups M and N have arisen covering the mtDNA pool of all non-African lineage. Simplest explanation for haplogroup L3 geographical distribution is an expansion of the root type within East Africa, where several independent L3 branches flourished. This was followed by the so called “African exit” and the divergence into haplogroups M and N somewhere between the Horn of Africa and the Indian subcontinent. Since neither the L3 root type nor any other descendants survived outside of Africa, the root type itself must have become extinct during a period of genetic drift in the original population. Later, it diversified into haplogroups M and N, granted that the diversification indeed took place outside of the African continent. As for phenotypic appearance , remember with population genetics, if a population intermarry among themselves , certain features become dominant. There are plenty of ethiopians who look like average african americans, and vice versa. Thus ethiopians are diverse in looks for example Mengistu and Haile Selassie.So are AA. No offense White Nord, we are not your brothers and sisters.
Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: Notice how the loons who post all of this nonsense never show you these caucasoid Ethiopians.
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: Notice how the loons who post all of this nonsense never show you these caucasoid Ethiopians.
Actually a long while back, we had a hilarious nut-job known as *Evil-Euro*.
He began by posting pictures of "Ethiopians" from the website *best of asia*.
He reached a low point when he found a woman named "Somali", whom he passed of as being representative of the original Kawkazoid East Africans.
The women turned out to be an Australian, who just happened to have the name Somali.
Usually these folks are European or half European mongrels, who try to deflect their ethnocentric shame at their own mixed heritage by projecting their "East Africans are mixed" diatribe.
They are easily destroyed when you refuse to play along with them by taking a defensive posture.
Always make them show you that they are not "mixed", that Europeans are not mixed, that white people are not mixed.
They can't.
Either they know this, and so don't bother to try - like white nord.
Or they do try, and make fools of themselves in doing so.... like Evil Euro.
Europeans are the biggest group of mixed-mutt-mongrels in the world.
By their internal standard and status of mixture....virtually everyone else is relatively "pure."
White Nord knows this, which is why he does not answer.
He never will, either.....
Posted by White Nord (Member # 14093) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: Notice how the loons who post all of this nonsense never show you these caucasoid Ethiopians.
Actually a long while back, we had a hilarious nut-job known as *Evil-Euro*.
He began by posting pictures of "Ethiopians" from the website *best of asia*.
He reached a low point when he found a woman named "Somali", whom he passed of as being representative of the original Kawkazoid East Africans.
The women turned out to be an Australian, who just happened to have the name Somali.
Usually these folks are European or half European mongrels, who try to deflect their ethnocentric shame at their own mixed heritage by projecting their "East Africans are mixed" diatribe.
They are easily destroyed when you refuse to play along with them by taking a defensive posture.
Always make them show you that they are not "mixed", that Europeans are not mixed, that white people are not mixed.
They can't.
Either they know this, and so don't bother to try - like white nord.
Or they do try, and make fools of themselves in doing so.... like Evil Euro.
Europeans are the biggest group of mixed-mutt-mongrels in the world.
By their internal standard and status of mixture....virtually everyone else is relatively "pure."
White Nord knows this, which is why he does not answer.
He never will, either.....
Oh please I've just been busy, But here's more evidence not only about East Africans, But the AE's!
There is significant gene flow before this period though while.
"....markers signaling the Neolithic expansion from the Middle East (12f2, M201, and M35 derivatives) constitute the predominant component in these two Afro-Asiatic populations."
"Integration of our results with previous data expands the known R1*-M173 distribution and yields additional support for a previous hypothesis suggesting that the presence of this lineage in Africa signals a backflow from Asia (Cruciani et al. 2002) that has also been associated with the existence of the Eurasian mtDNA haplogroups U6 and H..." Luis et al 2004
Interestingly the study also went on to find a close simularity between Egyptians and people form the middle east.
"Oman and Egypt’s NRY frequency distributions appear to be much more similar to those of the Middle East than to any sub-Saharan African population, suggesting a much larger Eurasian genetic component."
"The cumulative frequency of typical sub-Saharan lineages (A, B, E1, E2, E3a, and E3b*) is 9% in Egypt and 10% in Oman, whereas the haplogroups of Eurasian origin (Groups C, D, and F–Q) account for 59% and 77%, respectively. These profiles display levels of diversity similar to those of the nine Turkish populations reported by Cinnioğlu et al. (Cinnioğlu et al., 2004 C Cinnioğlu, R King, T Kivisild, E Kalfoglu, S Atasoy, Gl Cavalleri, AS Lillie, CC Roseman, AA Lin, K Prince, PJ Oefner, P Shen, O Semino, LL Cavalli-Sforza and PA Underhill, Excavating Y-chromosome haplotype strata in Anatolia, Hum Genet 114 (2004), pp. 127–148. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (75)2004) (an average of 9 groups and 19 haplogroups per population) and also include polymorphic frequencies of many of the lineages observed in Turkey..."
BTW gene flow has been detected flowing northwards most recently. On top of the fact that 9 million blacks passed through Egypt during the arab slave trade. Of course no genetic trace is going to be left.
Logically if the Egyptians have been so bastardised by foreigners the nubians to the south should have also been influenced to some degree. Yet again the gene flow is opposite.
We conclude that these migrations probably occurred within the past few hundred to few thousand years and that the migration from north to south was either earlier or lesser in the extent of gene flow than the migration from south to north. (Kringgs et al 1999)
quote: We've went over that study many times on this forum and it makes no claim of "East Africans being mixed". In fact, Cushitic speaking Somali for example, have been found genetically to be overwhelmingly indigenous (at least 90%, which is less "mixed" than even African Americans).
Where did he 10% come from? Dont give me that arab crap because they end up being a different ethnicity in somalia and its not cushitic.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
^^Well, Somalia IS right next door to the Asian continent, so I'd expect at least some kind of interaction through the centuries. Though 10% of foreign ancestry is kind of inconsequential. I'm not exactly sure what any of this has to do with White Nordics. Also, those quotations above say nothing about either East Africans being "mixed" no more than they claim that Europeans are "pure" (which they are not). It is obvious to those not in denial that much of the non-African derived variation in the Nile valley has to do with demographic changes spanning some millenia, during and after the collapse of ancient Egypt, but not before or during its development.. Keita, Zakrzewski, etc have shown that no Neolithic replacement occurred. Brace in fact shows Neolithic pastoralists as resembling Africans more than Europeans, so the said Afro-Asiatic speakers would have been morphologically similar to other Saharo-tropical Africans such as the Egyptians anyway. Ehret has shown that the language of the Egyptians is more similar to other African languages, indicating an indigenous cultural development in the Nile valley and adjacent areas. The few genes that were examined from actual mummies (the only truly reliable way of telling what genes may have been part of the ancient Egyptian population) revealed African ancestry ONLY. So stop posting old studies and parsing out of context quotes that don't directly address the ethnic identity of the ANCIENT Egyptians and other East Africans.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
^^To bring my point home, I will post this 96 paper by Boyce and Keita..
...............................
The Geographical Origins and Population Relationships of Early Ancient Egyptians Professor S.O.Y. Keita Department of Biological Anthropology Oxford University
Professor A. J. Boyce University Reader in Human Population Oxford University
What was the primary geographical source for the peopling of the Egyptian Nile Valley? Were the creators of the fundamental culture of southern predynastic Egypt—which led to the dynastic culture—migrants and colonists from Europe or the Near East? Or were they predominantly African variant populations?
These questions can be addressed using data from studies of biology and culture, and evolutionary interpretive models. Archaeological and linguistic data indicate an origin in Africa. Biological data from living Egyptians and from skeletons of ancient Egyptians may also shed light on these questions. It is important to keep in mind the long presence of humans in Africa, and that there should be a great range of biological variation in indigenous "authentic" Africans.
Scientists have been studying remains from the Egyptian Nile Valley for years. Analysis of crania is the traditional approach to assessing ancient population origins, relationships, and diversity. In studies based on anatomical traits and measurements of crania, similarities have been found between Nile Valley crania from 30,000, 20,000 and 12,000 years ago and various African remains from more recent times (see Thoma 1984; Brauer and Rimbach 1990; Angel and Kelley 1986; Keita 1993). Studies of crania from southern predynastic Egypt, from the formative period (4000-3100 B.C.), show them usually to be more similar to the crania of ancient Nubians, Kushites, Saharans, or modern groups from the Horn of Africa than to those of dynastic northern Egyptians or ancient or modern southern Europeans.
Another source of skeletal data is limb proportions, which generally vary with different climatic belts. In general, the early Nile Valley remains have the proportions of more tropical populations, which is noteworthy since Egypt is not in the tropics. This suggests that the Egyptian Nile Valley was not primarily settled by cold-adapted peoples, such as Europeans.
Art objects are not generally used by biological anthropologists. They are suspect as data and their interpretation highly dependent on stereotyped thinking. However, because art has often been used to comment on the physiognomies of ancient Egyptians, a few remarks are in order. A review of literature and the sculpture indicates characteristics that also can be found in the Horn of (East) Africa (see, e.g., Petrie 1939; Drake 1987; Keita 1993). Old and Middle Kingdom statuary shows a range of characteristics; many, if not most, individuals depicted in the art have variations on the narrow-nosed, narrow-faced morphology also seen in various East Africans. This East African anatomy, once seen as being the result of a mixture of different "races," is better understood as being part of the range of indigenous African variation.
The descriptions and terms of ancient Greek writers have sometimes been used to comment on Egyptian origins. This is problematic since the ancient writers were not doing population biology. However, we can examine one issue. The Greeks called all groups south of Egypt "Ethiopians." Were the Egyptians more related to any of these "Ethiopians" than to the Greeks? As noted, cranial and limb studies have indicated greater similarity to Somalis, Kushites and Nubians, all "Ethiopians" in ancient Greek terms.
There are few studies of ancient DNA from Egyptian remains and none so far of southern predynastic skeletons. A study of 12th Dynasty DNA shows that the remains evaluated had multiple lines of descent, including not surprisingly some from "sub-Saharan" Africa (Paabo and Di Rienzo 1993). The other lineages were not identified, but may be African in origin. More work is needed. In the future, early remains from the Nile Valley and the rest of Africa will have to be studied in this manner in order to establish the early baseline range of genetic variation of all Africa. The data are important to avoid stereotyped ideas about the DNA of African peoples.
The information from the living Egyptian population may not be as useful because historical records indicate substantial immigration into Egypt over the last several millennia, and it seems to have been far greater from the Near East and Europe than from areas far south of Egypt. "Substantial immigration" can actually mean a relatively small number of people in terms of population genetics theory. It has been determined that an average migration rate of one percent per generation into a region could result in a great change of the original gene frequencies in only several thousand years. (This assumes that all migrants marry natives and that all native-migrant offspring remain in the region.) It is obvious then that an ethnic group or nationality can change in average gene frequencies or physiognomy by intermarriage, unless social rules exclude the products of "mixed" unions from membership in the receiving group. More abstractly this means that geographically defined populations can undergo significant genetic change with a small percentage of steady assimilation of "foreign" genes. This is true even if natural selection does not favor the genes (and does not eliminate them).
Examples of regions that have biologically absorbed genetically different immigrants are Sicily, Portugal, and Greece, where the frequencies of various genetic markers (and historical records) indicate sub-Saharan and supra-Saharan African migrants.
This scenario is different from one in which a different population replaces another via colonization. Native Egyptians were variable. Foreigners added to this variability.
The genetic data on the recent Egyptian population is fairly sparse. There has not been systematic research on large samples from the numerous regions of Egypt. Taken collectively, the results of various analyses suggest that modern Egyptians have ties with various African regions, as well as with Near Easterners and Europeans. Egyptian gene frequencies are between those of Europeans and some sub-Saharan Africans. This is not surprising. The studies have used various kinds of data: standard blood groups and proteins, mitochondrial DNA, and the Y chromosome. The gene frequencies and variants of the "original" population, or of one of early high density, cannot be deduced without a theoretical model based on archaeological and "historical" data, including the aforementioned DNA from ancient skeletons. (It must be noted that it is not yet clear how useful ancient DNA will be in most historical genetic research.) It is not clear to what degree certain genetic systems usually interpreted as non-African may in fact be native to Africa. Much depends on how "African" is defined and the model of interpretation.
The various genetic studies usually suffer from what is called categorical thinking, specifically, racial thinking. Many investigators still think of "African" in a stereotyped, nonscientific (nonevolutionary) fashion, not acknowledging a range of genetic variants or traits as equally African. The definition of "African" that would be most appropriate should encompass variants that arose in Africa. Given that this is not the orientation of many scholars, who work from outmoded racial perspectives, the presence of "stereotypical" African genes so far from the "African heartland" is noteworthy. These genes have always been in the valley in any reasonable interpretation of the data. As a team of Egyptian geneticists stated recently, "During this long history and besides these Asiatic influences, Egypt maintained its African identity . . ." (Mahmoud et al. 1987). This statement is even more true in a wider evolutionary interpretation, since some of the "Asian" genes may be African in origin. Modern data and improved theoretical approaches extend and validate this conclusion.
In summary, various kinds of data and the evolutionary approach indicate that the Nile Valley populations had greater ties with other African populations in the early ancient period. Early Nile Valley populations were primarily coextensive with indigenous African populations. Linguistic and archaeological data provide key supporting evidence for a primarily African origin. Posted by akoben08 (Member # 15244) on :
Very interesting sock puppet show Sundiata. But it's kindda going around in circles now don't you think? LOL However, I'm still waiting on that "progress" report reference, and the significance of it, you claimed to have. Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by White Nord:
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: Notice how the loons who post all of this nonsense never show you these caucasoid Ethiopians.
Actually a long while back, we had a hilarious nut-job known as *Evil-Euro*.
He began by posting pictures of "Ethiopians" from the website *best of asia*.
He reached a low point when he found a woman named "Somali", whom he passed of as being representative of the original Kawkazoid East Africans.
The women turned out to be an Australian, who just happened to have the name Somali.
Usually these folks are European or half European mongrels, who try to deflect their ethnocentric shame at their own mixed heritage by projecting their "East Africans are mixed" diatribe.
They are easily destroyed when you refuse to play along with them by taking a defensive posture.
Always make them show you that they are not "mixed", that Europeans are not mixed, that white people are not mixed.
They can't.
Either they know this, and so don't bother to try - like white nord.
Or they do try, and make fools of themselves in doing so.... like Evil Euro.
Europeans are the biggest group of mixed-mutt-mongrels in the world.
By their internal standard and status of mixture....virtually everyone else is relatively "pure."
White Nord knows this, which is why he does not answer.
He never will, either.....
Oh please I've just been busy,
Ok, then why have you still not addressed the obvious mongrelization of Europeans? Prove that THEY are not mixed. Prove that they are not merely mixed breeds who are effectively 1/3 African and 2/3 Asian.
"Europe shows a shorter distance from Africa than do all the other continents......The overall contributions from Asia and Africa were estimated to be around two-thirds and one-third, respectively. Simulations have shown (7) that this hypothesis explains quite well the discrepancy between trees obtained by maximum likelihood and neighbor joining. " - L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Europeans are the biggest group of mixed-mutt-mongrels in the world.
By their internal standard and status of mixture....virtually everyone else is relatively "pure."
So true.
Posted by akoben08 (Member # 15244) on :
^ "sundiata" versus "white nord"...when will it all end? LOL
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Indeed, this is getting to be like Stupid-Euro! Where the (presumably) white idiot posts either inaccurate studies or puts a spin on accurate studies and then tries to pass it off as "facts"! No matter how many real accurate facts we show him.
Notice how he ignores certain discrepancies that we point about about his so-called studies such as using a single ethnic group in Ethiopia to make generalizations about every Ethiopian.
But I ain't got time for dummy trolls like White Nerd LOL that's a good one. Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
You don't get it. The guy's saying Sundjata and White Nord are one and the same person.
Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
Who cares what he says when he thinks that Mmkay is Supercar/Ausarian, and that he is also rasol and that all of the above are Jewish because they don't believe in inflated holocaust numbers?
Posted by Mmmkay (Member # 10013) on :
^ Akobo will say anything to get attention.
Posted by White Nord (Member # 14093) on :
What ever in the Hell you afrocentrics are doing to discredit my argument lol it's quite laughable and well..false! Please just get a life or get out of this debate!
The point that you are dishonestly evading is that there is no such biological or social category called "African" which unites all of the inhabitants of the African continent.
"Africa," as a single conceptual entity was created by the European imperialists, and by African-Americans and Afro-Caribbeans in the late 19th and early 20th century. It is not a biological or ethnic category that can comprehend all the inhabitants of the African continent, since Africa is genetically the most diverse of all the continents, and is linguistically one of the most diverse.
No one would suggest that all the inhabitants of the Asian continent share some kind of transcendental "Asian-ness" that unites them genetically and culturally.
The same is true of ancient and modern Africa.
There is no language called "African" and there is no ethnicity called "African" that unites all the inhabitants of the African continent.
I challenge anyone to find a single meaningful characteristic, beyond their common humanity, that would unite all of the inhabitants of the African continent, while simultaneously excluding non-Africans.
The PN2 clade cannot be used as a basis of "racial" identity, since as I have noted, it is the third most prevalent clade in Turkey and exists outside of Africa.
What is true is that the Ancient Egyptians are distantly related to all Afro-Asiatic speakers, including Amharic speaking Ethiopians, Cushitic speaking Somalis, the Berbers, the Arabs, Hebrews, the ancient Phoenicians, and Aramaic and Syriac speakers, etc.
The Afro-Asiatic speakers not only share an ultimate linguistic heritage, but they all share the E1b1b clade, which constitutes a significant proportion of the genotype of all countries inhabited by Afro-Asiatic speakers. Furthermore, Afro-Asiatic speakers often share other haplotypes of Asian origin.
The E1b1b clade does not confer "blackness" or any other racial characteristic upon its carriers, and if it did, that would mean that the Berbers, Near Easterners, and Southern Europeans that carry this clade are also "black" which is a meaningless statement.
By contrast, the sub-Saharan E1b1a clade, is only found in trace proportions in Egypt, and primarily among the Nubians, and so cannot be the basis of any kind of racial nationalism.
There is no reason to impose artificial political meaning or racial categories upon the distant relationships between the Afro-Asiatic speakers, because each of its constituent groups have developed their own particular set of morphological, linguistic, and ethnic characteristics that make each of these groups and the societies they inhabit unique.
What is also undeniable is that there is no direct relationship between the Niger Congo speaking people and the Ancient Egyptians. Ancient Egypt was not created by Bantu populations that spoke Niger Congo languages. In fact, the Bantu people contributed nothing to Egyptian civilization, and still contribute nothing to Egypt.
In order to find a direct organic link between the Ancient Egyptians and your Bantu ancestors, we would have to go back 30-40,000 years, and moreover, the carriers of the specifically sub-Saharan E1b1a clade emerged 10,000 years after their ancestors migrated from East Africa.
This is standard genetics:
"Haplogroup E1b1a is mainly restricted to sub-Saharan Africa. It is barely observed in the Horn of Africa, North Africa, and Southwest Asia, where the E1b1b haplogroup dominates, and its small presence in those areas is generally attributed to the slave trade and/or the Bantu Expansion."
Consequently, the fact that the E1b1a and E1b1b are "sister mutations" changes nothing, because the Pharonic Egyptians were not primarily descended from carriers of the E1a or E1b1a clades, and the carriers of these clades never formed a significant percentage of the population of ancient Egypt.
Thus, the ancestors of African Americans contributed nothing to Ancient Egyptian civilization, and African Americans are not at all related to Egypt, and no amount of exaggeration or historical fabrication will change that reality.
"It is of great interest that the PN2 clade or “family” indicates that the males of numerous African populations with different morphologies on average (skin colors, physiognomies, and hair forms) (sometimes incorrectly called “races”), share ancient ancestry, i.e., are microcladistically related to each other, **before** they share ancestry with groups from other regions who may be more anatomically similar in the aforementioned traits.."
Thus, according to Keita, although numerous (but not all) African groups share genetic characteristics that are less prevalent in non-African groups, we cannot infer a similarity in morphology, skin color, hair texture, or "race" from these genetic similarities, precisely because the carriers of these genetic characteristics are so varied in their physical appearance and morphological characteristics that we cannot impose a single and artificial "racial" or "ethnic" category on these otherwise divergent populations.
Note further that Keita never says that all inhabitants of Africa are more similar to each other than all non-Africans.
And even between carriers of the E1b1b clade, we cannot assume morphological or ethnic similarity, or else Albanians and Ethiopians would be members of the same "race."
Another relevant quote:
"E1a and E2 are found almost exclusively in Africa, and only E1b1b is observed in significant frequencies in Europe and western Asia in addition to Africa. Most Sub-Saharan Africans belong to subclades of E other than E1b1b, while most non-Africans who belong to haplogroup E belong to its E1b1b subclade.[3]."
"Haplogroup E would appear to have arisen in Northeast Africa based on the concentration and variety of E subclades in that area today. But the fact that Haplogroup E is closely linked with Haplogroup D, which is not found in Africa, leaves open the possibility that E first arose in the Near or Middle East and was subsequently carried into Africa by a back migration[4]."
Posted by White Nord (Member # 14093) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: [QB]
[QUOTE]Well, Somalia IS right next door to the Asian continent, so I'd expect at least some kind of interaction through the centuries. Though 10% of foreign ancestry is kind of inconsequential. Also, those quotations above say nothing about either East Africans being "mixed" no more than they claim that Europeans are "pure" (which they are not).
The fact that somalia is far more isolated than Egypt indicates the gene flow in Egypt would be significantly larger if they were pure black africans.
Remeber other studies such as that by Passarino et al 1998 found
On the basis of historical, linguistic, and genetic data, it has been suggested that the Ethiopian population has been strongly affected by Caucasoid migrations since Neolithic times (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994, p. 174). On the basis of autosomal polymorphic loci, it has been estimated that 60% of the Ethiopian gene pool has an African origin, whereas 40% is of Caucasoid derivation (Guglielmino et al. 1987; Cavalli-Sforza et al., 1994 LL Cavalli-Sforza, P Menozzi and A Piazza, The history and geography of human genes, Princeton University Press, Princeton (1994).Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994, p. 174).
This is very considerable. There has obviously been geen flow since the neolithic period into a more isolated population. To suggest that Egypt remained a homogenous north east african population up to the first dynastic times is insane.
Before dynastic Egypt was even established there were large scale migrations. LOOK AT THE POSITION of Egypt. It is at the cross roads of migrations there is no was in hell North africa and more southern parts can be influenced by migrations during the neolithic and Egpyt to stay this homogenous population. Idigenous north Africans were not black.
quote:^^To bring my point home, I will post this 96 paper by Boyce and Keita..
Thaose retards fail to aknowledge any back flow into africa. They dont even seem to accept neolithic migrations into africa.
Posted by akoben08 (Member # 15244) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: You don't get it. The guy's saying Sundjata and White Nord are one and the same person.
"Yep right you are alT." LOL
I mean it takes great insight and erudition (. .) to cut and paste primary data from the net when debating "white nords" and "evil Euros" spouting hopelessly outdated Caucasian theories. LMAO! I mean I've seen this particular debate a thousand times (even as Sundiata maintains it is air tight and not open for debate or interpretation as pre-Colombian African scholarship )
As Djehuti observed it's the same arguments over and over again, same responses as if the "opponents" never even read the info posted in reply. Just seem odd....is this a "debate" or puppet show?
Posted by Burhan (Member # 11310) on :
quote:Originally posted by White Nord: What ever in the Hell you afrocentrics are doing to discredit my argument lol it's quite laughable and well..false! Please just get a life or get out of this debate!
The point that you are dishonestly evading is that there is no such biological or social category called "African" which unites all of the inhabitants of the African continent.
"Africa," as a single conceptual entity was created by the European imperialists, and by African-Americans and Afro-Caribbeans in the late 19th and early 20th century. It is not a biological or ethnic category that can comprehend all the inhabitants of the African continent, since Africa is genetically the most diverse of all the continents, and is linguistically one of the most diverse.
No one would suggest that all the inhabitants of the Asian continent share some kind of transcendental "Asian-ness" that unites them genetically and culturally.
The same is true of ancient and modern Africa.
There is no language called "African" and there is no ethnicity called "African" that unites all the inhabitants of the African continent.
I challenge anyone to find a single meaningful characteristic, beyond their common humanity, that would unite all of the inhabitants of the African continent, while simultaneously excluding non-Africans.
The PN2 clade cannot be used as a basis of "racial" identity, since as I have noted, it is the third most prevalent clade in Turkey and exists outside of Africa.
What is true is that the Ancient Egyptians are distantly related to all Afro-Asiatic speakers, including Amharic speaking Ethiopians, Cushitic speaking Somalis, the Berbers, the Arabs, Hebrews, the ancient Phoenicians, and Aramaic and Syriac speakers, etc.
The Afro-Asiatic speakers not only share an ultimate linguistic heritage, but they all share the E1b1b clade, which constitutes a significant proportion of the genotype of all countries inhabited by Afro-Asiatic speakers. Furthermore, Afro-Asiatic speakers often share other haplotypes of Asian origin.
The E1b1b clade does not confer "blackness" or any other racial characteristic upon its carriers, and if it did, that would mean that the Berbers, Near Easterners, and Southern Europeans that carry this clade are also "black" which is a meaningless statement.
By contrast, the sub-Saharan E1b1a clade, is only found in trace proportions in Egypt, and primarily among the Nubians, and so cannot be the basis of any kind of racial nationalism.
There is no reason to impose artificial political meaning or racial categories upon the distant relationships between the Afro-Asiatic speakers, because each of its constituent groups have developed their own particular set of morphological, linguistic, and ethnic characteristics that make each of these groups and the societies they inhabit unique.
What is also undeniable is that there is no direct relationship between the Niger Congo speaking people and the Ancient Egyptians. Ancient Egypt was not created by Bantu populations that spoke Niger Congo languages. In fact, the Bantu people contributed nothing to Egyptian civilization, and still contribute nothing to Egypt.
In order to find a direct organic link between the Ancient Egyptians and your Bantu ancestors, we would have to go back 30-40,000 years, and moreover, the carriers of the specifically sub-Saharan E1b1a clade emerged 10,000 years after their ancestors migrated from East Africa.
This is standard genetics:
"Haplogroup E1b1a is mainly restricted to sub-Saharan Africa. It is barely observed in the Horn of Africa, North Africa, and Southwest Asia, where the E1b1b haplogroup dominates, and its small presence in those areas is generally attributed to the slave trade and/or the Bantu Expansion."
Consequently, the fact that the E1b1a and E1b1b are "sister mutations" changes nothing, because the Pharonic Egyptians were not primarily descended from carriers of the E1a or E1b1a clades, and the carriers of these clades never formed a significant percentage of the population of ancient Egypt.
Thus, the ancestors of African Americans contributed nothing to Ancient Egyptian civilization, and African Americans are not at all related to Egypt, and no amount of exaggeration or historical fabrication will change that reality.
"It is of great interest that the PN2 clade or “family” indicates that the males of numerous African populations with different morphologies on average (skin colors, physiognomies, and hair forms) (sometimes incorrectly called “races”), share ancient ancestry, i.e., are microcladistically related to each other, **before** they share ancestry with groups from other regions who may be more anatomically similar in the aforementioned traits.."
Thus, according to Keita, although numerous (but not all) African groups share genetic characteristics that are less prevalent in non-African groups, we cannot infer a similarity in morphology, skin color, hair texture, or "race" from these genetic similarities, precisely because the carriers of these genetic characteristics are so varied in their physical appearance and morphological characteristics that we cannot impose a single and artificial "racial" or "ethnic" category on these otherwise divergent populations.
Note further that Keita never says that all inhabitants of Africa are more similar to each other than all non-Africans.
And even between carriers of the E1b1b clade, we cannot assume morphological or ethnic similarity, or else Albanians and Ethiopians would be members of the same "race."
Another relevant quote:
"E1a and E2 are found almost exclusively in Africa, and only E1b1b is observed in significant frequencies in Europe and western Asia in addition to Africa. Most Sub-Saharan Africans belong to subclades of E other than E1b1b, while most non-Africans who belong to haplogroup E belong to its E1b1b subclade.[3]."
"Haplogroup E would appear to have arisen in Northeast Africa based on the concentration and variety of E subclades in that area today. But the fact that Haplogroup E is closely linked with Haplogroup D, which is not found in Africa, leaves open the possibility that E first arose in the Near or Middle East and was subsequently carried into Africa by a back migration[4]."
Hello,
I am jumping in the middle of this debate, having said that, one must sometimes be intelectually mature and concede to reality when it is presented.
I do not see a single inaccuracy, both in material and formulation from the above quoted material.
Regards.
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
White Nord:
----------------------------- What is true is that the Ancient Egyptians are distantly related to all Afro-Asiatic speakers, including Amharic speaking Ethiopians, Cushitic speaking Somalis, the Berbers, the Arabs, Hebrews, the ancient Phoenicians, and Aramaic and Syriac speakers, etc. -----------------------------
See people this is the race fantasy that I was speaking of. Notice how the clown makes himself look even dumber than was thought possible by trying to ascribe without evidence that the Ancient Egyptians are from the above groups he mentioned.
You see losers like White Nord have to create some fantasy for Europe since he realizes that Europe has no historical importance in ancient history.
Hence he has to create this fantasy that the Sudanese, indigenous people of Egypt along with the other saharans (Chad, Niger, Libya, Algeria, Mali, and Mauritania) are not related to the Ancient Egyptians.
We can all testify with certainty that Europeans didn't have anything to do with Ancient Egypt.
Have a good nights rest Powder. : )
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
Ain't this pitiful? The somali roach is trying to piggy back with a white supremacist in order to gain some form of historical accomplishment.
Burhan, you Puff Daddy looking bastards haven't accomplished one thing outside of getting a foot stuck up your asses by every ethnic group on this planet.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Burhan:
I am jumping in the middle of this debate, having said that, one must sometimes be intelectually mature and concede to reality when it is presented.
I do not see a single inaccuracy, both in material and formulation from the above quoted material.
Regards.
You didn't jump into anything. All I see here is an intimidated African with limited knowledge to even give an assessment of what is or isn't accurate, which is exactly why you're unable to pin point how exactly any of these "accuracies" contradict an exclusively African origin among the Egyptians.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by White Nord: What ever in the Hell you afrocentrics are doing to discredit my argument lol it's quite laughable and well..false! Please just get a life or get out of this debate!
You yourself have discredited your own fake argument a long time ago by misinterpreting and deliberately distorting out of context quotes from qualified authorities on the subject.
quote:The point that you are dishonestly evading is that there is no such biological or social category called "African" which unites all of the inhabitants of the African continent.
No, but there is a genetic lineage associated with the PN2 clade or E haplogroup which unites generally all Africans (at least all those who share in common PN2 derivatives) of recent common ancestry, through various sublineages associated with each respective region. These coalesce into a single lineage which identifies common ancestry going back just before the last glacial maximum, while UnderHill's data support a migration from below the Sahara into North Africa during the Mesolithic. Maternally, several studies have clearly shown Egyptians to be most similar to Ethiopians.
quote:"Africa," as a single conceptual entity was created by the European imperialists, and by African-Americans and Afro-Caribbeans in the late 19th and early 20th century. It is not a biological or ethnic category that can comprehend all the inhabitants of the African continent, since Africa is genetically the most diverse of all the continents, and is linguistically one of the most diverse.
Genetic diversity does not contradict shared ancestry/lineages (as the same variation applies at the individual level), yet you contradict your own argument by using a pseudoscientific "Caucasoid" proxy to identify yourself with ancient African populations that have no linguistic, genetic, or historical association with Northern Europeans whatsoever. Don't be a hypocrite.
quote:No one would suggest that all the inhabitants of the Asian continent share some kind of transcendental "Asian-ness" that unites them genetically and culturally.
Yes, but it goes with out saying that the vast majority of Asians are more closely related to each other than they are to Europeans and Africans, while Asia as a continent is not at all distinct from the European continent, making for a more arbitrary geographical distinction. Your argument fails here since the same doesn't apply for Africa as it concerns the latter point, yet it does also apply to Africa concerning the former..
quote:The same is true of ancient and modern Africa.
Not at all, and ancient Africa and Modern Africa are two separate entities. Nothing in Africa remains static and you'd be a hypocrite to suggest so, especially after emphasizing its diversity.
quote:There is no language called "African" and there is no ethnicity called "African" that unites all the inhabitants of the African continent.
No, but there are "African" languages spoken by "African" people who reside on the "African" continent and in a biohistorical context, "Africans" don't warrant any false dichotomy as there's no evidence to suggest any historically valid reason to "separate" them arbitrarily. It isn't a matter of who and who isn't "unified" since they share a common origin. The question is whether or not the lineage break or subsequent drift of certain populations is substantial enough to argue against a biological relationship. Data has shown that no such argument can be made.
quote:I challenge anyone to find a single meaningful characteristic, beyond their common humanity, that would unite all of the inhabitants of the African continent, while simultaneously excluding non-Africans.
The PN2 clade..
quote:The PN2 clade cannot be used as a basis of "racial" identity,
Of course, since race doesn't exist. Straw man.
quote:since as I have noted, it is the third most prevalent clade in Turkey and exists outside of Africa.
Obviously because Africans contributed their own genetic material to these populations, likely and predominantly during the Neolithic. I don't understand your point since the said clade is the MOST prevalant clade observed in Egypt, not 3rd, AND the said derivatives all originate in Africa, East, North, and South/West, respectively. We're discussing origins and affinities. Such originates in Africa. Egyptians originate in Africa. Turks and other Eurasians originate in Africa, but developed distinct characteristics in Eurasia. Get it? Got it? Good.
quote:What is true is that the Ancient Egyptians are distantly related to all Afro-Asiatic speakers, including Amharic speaking Ethiopians, Cushitic speaking Somalis, the Berbers, the Arabs, Hebrews, the ancient Phoenicians, and Aramaic and Syriac speakers, etc.
There's no evidence of any natural, biohistorical relationship between Ethiopians and Somalis with Arabs, Phoenicians, and other non-Africans, so there's no evidence of a similar relationship between ancient Egyptians and the said non-Africans. If naively you look to equate linguistics with genetic affinity, then surely you neglect that the majority of Afro-asiatic speakers are Black Africans. From Cushitic-speaking Ethiopians, to Semitic-speaking ones, to Beja speakers in Sudan, to Somalis to Chadic-speakers in central Africa, to Hausa speakers in west Africa, to black Tuareg Berbers of the Sahara, and other indigenous Berber-speakers of North Africa, your argument from context simply falls dead. How closely related are Chadic-speakers to Israeli Jews, for example? It has been well established that non-African Afro-asiatic speakers received their language as a cultural transplant from migrating Africans during the Neolithic. Militarev identifies this language dispersal with the Natufians, who entered the levant probably from NorthEast Africa prior to the Neolithic revolution (which they were most responsible for). The context isn't with the Africans fitting into a non-African context [as far as language is concerned], but rather non-Africans fitting with in an African context.
By which you mean, Sudanese Beja, Central African Chadic-speakers, West African Huasa, and East African Ethiopians/Somalis?
quote: not only share an ultimate linguistic heritage, but they all share the E1b1b clade, which constitutes a significant proportion of the genotype of all countries inhabited by Afro-Asiatic speakers. Furthermore, Afro-Asiatic speakers often share other haplotypes of Asian origin.
e3a and e3a are sister mutations of the same lineage. It should be of value to you that the more indigenous the African [who descends from an e3b derived population], the higher the percentage of e3b. Egyptians have a high percentage of e3b, while Ethiopians have an even higher percentage still, indicating origins in or near Ethiopia. Non-African Afrasian speakers have a lower percentage as they are not of recent African derivation (like Egyptians) but received such from recent admixture, notably associated with the linguistic contacts.
quote:The E1b1b clade does not confer "blackness" or any other racial characteristic upon its carriers, and if it did, that would mean that the Berbers, Near Easterners, and Southern Europeans that carry this clade are also "black" which is a meaningless statement.
No, it definitely isn't associated with skin complexion but as stated, the ones most commonly referred to as "Black" have the highest levels of e3b since the haplotype in question originates in Black Africa. Near Easterners and Southern Europeans have it in relatively low frequencies, indicative of recent admixture with Africans extant from the continent.
quote:By contrast, the sub-Saharan E1b1a clade, is only found in trace proportions in Egypt, and primarily among the Nubians, and so cannot be the basis of any kind of racial nationalism.
e3a and e3b are related and merge into E3. E3 originates in Black Africa, not Asia or Europe. Therefore, citing white people with small traces of E3 derivatives, indicative of Black ancestry is indeed no basis for Nordic nationalism especially since such is virtually absent in contemporary Nordic populations.
quote:There is no reason to impose artificial political meaning or racial categories
You're the only one subscribing to fixed architypes with no defining power, such as "Caucasoid". I don't subscribe to such things. I only recognize obvious biological relationships and cultural ties as it applies to geographically.
quote: upon the distant relationships between the Afro-Asiatic speakers, because each of its constituent groups have developed their own particular set of morphological, linguistic, and ethnic characteristics that make each of these groups and the societies they inhabit unique.
Indeed, and the vast majority have developed nothing that would substantiate a connection to white Nords, nor does their history reflect any such connections. This is a microcosm for the African continent in general.
quote:What is also undeniable is that there is no direct relationship between the Niger Congo speaking people and the Ancient Egyptians.
Isolation based on linguistic affiliation doesn't at all reflect the complex reality of the peopling of ancient Egypt. Irish actually and ironically found early Nile valley remains to be most similar to modern West Africans. Keita analyzed this data and identified a relationship between the Ancient Egyptians/Nubians, and this preceding population. The Sahara was populated by Africans who dispersed after desertification. Some East, Some West. Such is confirmed from Saharan art and archaeology.
quote: Ancient Egypt was not created by Bantu populations that spoke Niger Congo languages.
So, that doesn't mean that they didn't derive from the same populations that Niger-Congo speakers derive from. In fact, genetics prove they do. The same isn't true for white Nords.
quote: In fact, the Bantu people contributed nothing to Egyptian civilization, and still contribute nothing to Egypt.
Well, maybe because Bantu people didn't even begin their storied migration until well after the establishment of the first dynasty and currently, Bantu-speakers live no where near Modern Egypt. Point being that it doesn't really concern me. Facts are that simply another group of Blacks contributed to Egyptians civilization in a way that basically defined it.
quote:In order to find a direct organic link between the Ancient Egyptians and your Bantu ancestors, we would have to go back 30-40,000 years, and moreover, the carriers of the specifically sub-Saharan E1b1a clade emerged 10,000 years after their ancestors migrated from East Africa.
I'm not sure who told you that I had Bantu-speaking ancestors. Also, first you said to establish a link one would have to go back 50,000 years and now it is refined to 30-40,000 years. It goes with out saying that this contradicts divergence estimates for E3 and the data of Underhill and Keita suggesting these derivatives were all present in the Nile valley as early as the Mesolithic. Conversely, Nordics have no stake in this arguments since one would indisputable have to go back as far as the migration of modern humans from the African continent.
quote:This is standard genetics:
"Haplogroup E1b1a is mainly restricted to sub-Saharan Africa. It is barely observed in the Horn of Africa, North Africa, and Southwest Asia, where the E1b1b haplogroup dominates, and its small presence in those areas is generally attributed to the slave trade and/or the Bantu Expansion."
Not sure why this is relevant? In Egypt, the majority of slaves ended up North while e3a has been found in the south at up to 20%. Oppositely, no nordic lineages have been identified.
quote:Consequently, the fact that the E1b1a and E1b1b are "sister mutations" changes nothing, because the Pharonic Egyptians were not primarily descended from carriers of the E1a or E1b1a clades, and the carriers of these clades never formed a significant percentage of the population of ancient Egypt.
Why are we pigeon-holding African diversity to one single Haplotype as if it's the only shared haplotype in Africa? Point as, as a Nordic European you're not in a position to establish a baseline definition of how related is closely related, in terms of genetic African lineages. Especially when Egyptians, Ethiopians, and West Africans ALL share Y ancestry with each other well before they do with non-Africans. I seriously do not understand your anger with me as an African who finds comfort in the achievement of other Africans who they are more closely related to than you are.
quote:Thus, the ancestors of African Americans contributed nothing to Ancient Egyptian civilization
African Americans have diverse ancestry that is recently derived. Km't is an ancient civilization spawned by untracked migratory events, so you have no basis fr this statement.,
quote:and African Americans are not at all related to Egypt, and no amount of exaggeration or historical fabrication will change that reality.
I am proof positive that if we are especially speaking in relative terms, then you're flat out wrong since AAs are demonstrably much more related to ancient Nile valley Africans (including Egyptians) than are white Nordic Europeans. That's just a FACT.
quote:"It is of great interest that the PN2 clade or “family” indicates that the males of numerous African populations with different morphologies on average (skin colors, physiognomies, and hair forms) (sometimes incorrectly called “races”), share ancient ancestry, i.e., are microcladistically related to each other, **before** they share ancestry with groups from other regions who may be more anatomically similar in the aforementioned traits.."
Thus, according to Keita, although numerous (but not all) African groups share genetic characteristics that are less prevalent in non-African groups, we cannot infer a similarity in morphology, skin color, hair texture, or "race" from these genetic similarities, precisely because the carriers of these genetic characteristics are so varied in their physical appearance and morphological characteristics that we cannot impose a single and artificial "racial" or "ethnic" category on these otherwise divergent populations.
Actually, he asserted that "race" is incorrectly identified by superficial soft tissue traits and any distinction between these Africans are not justified by "racial" distinctions since they share common ancestry [quoting] before they share ancestry with groups from other regions. If I were you, I'd of stayed away from that quote and not try to misinterpret it since it isn't up for interpretation.
quote:Note further that Keita never says that all inhabitants of Africa are more similar to each other than all non-Africans.
Yes he did, I just quoted him.
quote:And even between carriers of the E1b1b clade, we cannot assume morphological or ethnic similarity, or else Albanians and Ethiopians would be members of the same "race."
Well they aren't since genetics doesn't confirm either "race" or a relationship between those groups.
quote:Another relevant quote:
"E1a and E2 are found almost exclusively in Africa, and only E1b1b is observed in significant frequencies in Europe and western Asia in addition to Africa. Most Sub-Saharan Africans belong to subclades of E other than E1b1b, while most non-Africans who belong to haplogroup E belong to its E1b1b subclade.[3]."
"Haplogroup E would appear to have arisen in Northeast Africa based on the concentration and variety of E subclades in that area today. But the fact that Haplogroup E is closely linked with Haplogroup D, which is not found in Africa, leaves open the possibility that E first arose in the Near or Middle East and was subsequently carried into Africa by a back migration[4]."
Stop quoting Wikipedia.. That's just pathetic and shows you to be a google scholar.
quote:Cruciani et al estimate the age of E3b1 at 21-25 thousand years and also place its origin in east Africa.
Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
^So that's what a Google Scholar is?
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata:
I am proof positive that if we are especially speaking in relative terms, then you're flat out wrong since AAs are demonstrably much more related to ancient Nile valley Africans (including Egyptians) than are white Nordic Europeans. That's just a FACT.
Interesting ... never thought of it that way, but I am now.
quote:Keita citation originally posted by White Nord:
"It is of great interest that the PN2 clade or “family” indicates that the males of numerous African populations with different morphologies on average (skin colors, physiognomies, and hair forms) (sometimes incorrectly called “races”), share ancient ancestry, i.e., are microcladistically related to each other, **before** they share ancestry with groups from other regions who may be more anatomically similar in the aforementioned traits.."
^^Indeed.
Thus, according to Keita, the vast majority of African groups (including Middle Passage descent African Americans) share genetic characteristics that are less prevalent in non-African groups -- we cannot infer a similarity "race" based in biologically less relevant morphological traits such as skin color, hair texture. Thusly, "race" is scientifically rather subjective and arbitrary in this context.
...I'll be gettin down to business in a sec'...
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:White Nerd writes: What ever in the Hell you afrocentrics are doing to discredit my argument
You do that yourself, when you fail to answer, and start swearing in exasperation as if that will save you:
It won't:
"Europe shows a shorter distance from Africa than do all the other continents......The overall contributions from Asia and Africa were estimated to be around two-thirds and one-third, respectively. Simulations have shown (7) that this hypothesis explains quite well the discrepancy between trees obtained by maximum likelihood and neighbor joining. " - L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:^So that's what a Google Scholar is?
In this case it is. Why else would White Nerd use a wikipedia citation to exert "authority" against contrary data in mainstream biology which contradicts him? Because it's convenient by way of a google search and he is fully aware of how his erroneous speculative quotations only see to prolong a needless discussion [as if there's any serous debate].
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ He also commits errors of omission:
quote:"....markers signaling the Neolithic expansion from the Middle East (12f2, M201, and M35 derivatives) constitute the predominant component in these two Afro-Asiatic populations."
^ This is referring to *Oman* [mostly 12f2/m201] and Egypt [mostly m35], not Ethiopia, and he also leaves out the sentense that follows from the study [full text linked below]....,
- The situation is further complicated by the fact that, unlike 12f2 and the M201, which are Eurasian in origin, the undifferentiated M35 lineage can be traced back to the Mesolithic in *East Africa*.
What happened here White-Nerd, did you your cut-and-paste buffer run low? Why did you leave that out?
E3b signifies EAST AFRICAN incursion into the Levant and Europe.
This east African lineage makes up the majory of lineages even to this day in Egyptian Upper Nile valley, and is overwhelmingly predominent among the Oromo, largest ethnic group in Ethiopia.
As for Afro-"asiatic" languages, this family consists of over 100 exclusively African languages [including ancient Egyptian], along with Hebrew and Arabic, which are actually the only Afro-"Asian" languages in the family.
Further none of these langauges are even remotely related to the Indo European languages including the Latin languages of Medit coast.
So what did you gain from your citation other than to provide evidence for the mixed heritage of Europeans and the East African origin of Ancient Egypt?
Time for you to start cursing again I think, White Nerd. This 'debate' is over.....you lose. Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
.
Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
^^Indeed it appears White Nord knows not the meaning of what he cites..
quote:"Oman and Egypt’s NRY frequency distributions appear to be much more similar to those of the Middle East than to any sub-Saharan African population, suggesting a much larger Eurasian genetic component."
^ Like this for example - I don't think anyone's disputing that MODERN Egyptians overall bare more affinities affinities to non-African populations, compared with Ancient Egypt (genetic and otherwise). Read the study before, btw (like the first ever one I read and this was only a few months ago).
On the phenetic tip and other tips, there are still exceptions, people all across Egypt still have ancestry and physical resemblance toward the ancient Tropical African root population that stemmed Kemet.
Which leaves me more than a bit un-interested as to what those more Euro-centered minds fantasize of as being a 'non-African' look, or a look of "non-African admixture". One could actually say the 'Middle Eastern' look is also an 'Egyptian' look for some Egyptians because of the major flow of African migration into the Levantine populations in Ancient times to begin with. They got their looks from African admixture, one would posit.
People may claim the looks in the boys above to be 'Arab' (the most mixed group in the region), which is nonsense, but if we play their (eurocentric) stereotypes back at them, 'Arabs' are supposed to have the 'big-nosed Semite' look, and therefore all Arid, semi-Arid (narrow) and tropical (wide) facial physiognomy among 'Middle Easterners' are the product of Saharo Tropical African features.
See kids, petty 'arguements' can go both ways ...
quote:Originally posted by White Nord: The point that you are dishonestly evading is that there is no such biological or social category called "African" which unites all of the inhabitants of the African continent.
However there IS a geographical landmass, and Kemet and its persons originate from well within it.
Biologically? You are incorrect in your insinutations as there is indeeda biological commanality which is [b]shared ancestry in ~ Most ~ Africans: E3, which is derived AFTER NON-AFRICANS left Africa. It is what is known as/ reffered to as the PN2 Clade.
quote:or social category
Don't know what you talkin bout, but we Africans iz cool, most uv, n e way. There is definitely a social concept called African, just like, though not as powerful as is 'black', 'white', etc.
(btw rasol no matter their say, I don't think South African imperialist progeny have really, socially squeezed in to the [authentic] African bunch yet.)
Now, down to the real, scholarly business:
quote:Originally posted by White Nord: What ever in the Hell you afrocentrics are doing to discredit my argument lol it's quite laughable and well..false! Please just get a life or get out of this debate!
lol I agree with you if you're talking about Akob. (-ozo)
The ONLY thing of importance that 'the Afrocentrists' have ignored is this study of North-South Temporal 'sub-Saharan' influence in the Egyptian gene pool.
"To assess the extent to which the Nile River Valley has been a corridor for human migrations between Egypt and sub-Saharan Africa, we analyzed mtDNA variation in 224 individuals from various locations along the river. Sequences of the first hypervariable segment (HV1) of the mtDNA control region and a polymorphic HpaI site at position 3592 allowed us to designate each mtDNA as being of "northern" or "southern" affiliation. Proportions of northern and southern mtDNA differed significantly between Egypt, Nubia, and the southern Sudan. At slowly evolving sites within HV1, northern-mtDNA diversity was highest in Egypt and lowest in the southern Sudan, and southern-mtDNA diversity was highest in the southern Sudan and lowest in Egypt, indicating that migrations had occurred bidirectionally along the Nile River Valley. Egypt and Nubia have low and similar amounts of divergence for both mtDNA types, which is consistent with historical evidence for long-term interactions between Egypt and Nubia. Spatial autocorrelation analysis demonstrates a smooth gradient of decreasing genetic similarity of mtDNA types as geographic distance between sampling localities increases, strongly suggesting gene flow along the Nile, with no evident barriers. We conclude that these migrations probably occurred within the past few hundred to few thousand years and that the migration from north to south was either earlier or lesser in the extent of gene flow than the migration from south to north." - Krings et al 1999
However there are some problems, as was in the past pointed out by the guru:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
Assignment of mtDNA was by a majority of those three loci, 2 out of 3 or 3 out of 3. The report holds to this classification methodology even though a 2/3 class-by-site could contradict full mtDNA database classification. For instance, one of the northern by 2/3 site majority samples was found to be identical to two Songhai and two Kikuyu when full sequencing was employed. Nonetheless it remained as Eurasian! This was so because the weight for sub-Saharan inclusion relied on the presense of HpaI since it's proposed to be of single sub-Saharan origin. In this we can see the makeover of the old physical anthropology's "true negro" myth carried over into the new population genetics anthropology.
As posted on here before by Charlie Bass/Xcross Breed, in this study the author uses markers that have HpaI site at position 3592[which codifies L1 and L2 African mtDNA haplogroups] as the sole criterion for designating markers as "southern". Any haplotypes lacking HpaI site at position 3592 are erroneously taken to be of non-sub Saharan origin ["northern" haplotypes in the study].
It is now known that African macrohaplogroup L3[which includes all so-called "Eurasian" haplogroups, but is also of sub-Saharan origin] also lack HpaI site at position 3592, therefore the two above studies are inaccurate. Perhaps the author's studies predated all existing knowledge about L3 or either they totally ignored the possibility that some of these haplotypes lacking HpaI site at position 3592 are of African origin.
And indeed:
"However, although we did not observe haplotypes lacking the 3592 HpaI site in the Pygmies, haplotypes lacking the 3592 HpaI site are not limited to Senegalese populations. These haplotypes have been described in 36% of the Bamileke from Cameroon (Scozzari et al. 1994), 12% of the Khoisan populations from Namibia (Soodyall and Jenkins 1992), and 23% - 89% of several Bantu-speaking populations from southern Africa (Johnson et al. 1983; Soodyall and Jenkins 1993). The finding of mtDNAs without the 3592 HpaI site in sub-Saharan populations, which are unlikely to be genetically admixed with European populations, suggests that at least some of the mtDNAs lacking the 3592 HpaI site in the Senegalese arose in Africa and are not the product of genetic admixture with populations from northern Africa, Europe, or Asia. Because of their widespread distribution in sub-Saharan populations, it is most likely that these mtDNAs have an ancient African origin. An African origin of the mtDNAs without the 3592 HpaI site, their similarity to European and Asian mtDNAs, and the absence of mtDNAs defined by the HpaI site at np 3592 in non-African populations, appear to suggest that African mtDNAs without the 3592 HpaI were the only mtDNAs that were carried from Africa by the Homo sapiens sapiens migrations, which ultimately gave rise to modern non-African populations." - Chen et al 1995
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
"haplogroup M originated in eastern Africa approximately 60,000 years ago and was carried toward Asia. This agrees with the proposed date of an out-of-Africa expansion approximately 65,000 years ago10. After its arrival in Asia, the haplogroup M founder group went through a demographic and geographic expansion. The remaining M haplogroup in eastern Africa did not spread, but remained localized up to approximately 10,000−20,000 years ago, after which it started to expand." - Semino et al.
Semino et al.'s demonstration of certain characteristic basic coding transitions of the M super-haplogroup [not including the key coding region motifs unique to the M1 family], springing directly from African ancestral motifs, don't require that M1 has to have a proto "non-African" M1, whereas an Asian origin of M1 would necessitate an Asian proto-M1 lineage that would explain the relatively young expansion ages of M1 and lack of descendancy from pre-existing Asian M lineages. This hasn't been acheived either by the present study or ones prior to it.
So you see White Nord, On this site this is all old business, and so it is to with knowledgeable anthropologists who acknowledge that AE was an indigenous African civilization.
So,
White Nord, I actually at the moment don't bare any averse feelings toward you (kinda like Browns fans not baring any averse feelings toward a Ben Reosthless Burger interception ridden Squeelers loss). So, it would be wise for you to take my advice and quit while you're not as far behind as you're going to be if you continue.
Still I must say this thread was a much less bad attempt than was that last White Nord- thread about 'super-troppically African physiognomies' of the Ancient Kemetians.
Posted by Ausarian. (Member # 14778) on :
quote:White Nord writes:
The point that you are dishonestly evading is that there is no such biological or social category called "African" which unites all of the inhabitants of the African continent.
Yes, "African" is a "social" term that does indeed unite everything African under the "African" banner. And yes, biologically, the PN2 clade --a lineage that is typical of recent African ancestry--for example, ties together the various African populations...transcending morphological variation tendencies.
quote:White Nord writes:
"Africa," as a single conceptual entity was created by the European imperialists, and by African-Americans and Afro-Caribbeans in the late 19th and early 20th century.
Actually, "Africa as a single conceptual entity" was not created by European imperialists. In fact, the Europeans did everything they could to "divide and conquer" the continent, as seen today in the artificial political boundaries on the continent; this would be the anti-thesis of what you just said. Rather, "Africa as a single conceptual entity" was a "side-effect" of European imperialism. It was brought about by an *autochthonous* common desire of Africans to free themselves off savage imperialists; Africans didn't need people from outside to "teach" them the innate desire to be free off oppression, or to see that they faced the common foe of European imperialism, and hence identify with each other's situation.
However, on the same token, if one were to use your logic, then it could be said that "Europe as a single conceptual entity" was created by Africans when they invaded Europe in the medieval era.
quote:White Nord writes:
It is not a biological or ethnic category that can comprehend all the inhabitants of the African continent, since Africa is genetically the most diverse of all the continents, and is linguistically one of the most diverse.
It is a geographical construct that socially describes Africa's inhabitants, which are indeed "biological" entities, which would make "African" an "ethnic" construct as well. Now of course, even if one were to apply your peculiar way of thinking, as you approach African matters, then the same could just as easily apply to Europeans as well. So, at the end of the day, what is your point?
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:It is not a biological or ethnic category that can comprehend all the inhabitants of the African continent, since Africa is genetically the most diverse of all the continents, and is linguistically one of the most diverse.
^ This is a nonsensical and completely self defeating sentense.
It is further and indication of the sheer desparation of a broken argument.
To speak of Africa as a continent is to admit Africa as a singular entity [ie continent].
To speak of AFrica as the most NATIVELY diverse is to further underline it's relevence, compared to Europe for example.
Europe for example is less diverse than Africa only in the sense that it is more 'derivitive' of Africa. [and Asia] And so also less - relevant. [literally encompassing LESS of the human genome]
More derivition and less native diversity makes Europe less relevant.
What White Nerd needs to do, is establish the greater relative importance of Europe as compared to Africa, but of course he can't do that, so he tries the knuckleheaded line that Africa is 'too big to be valid'.
This underscores the futility of denying Africa's validity as a biological, genetic, social or cultural construct.
Indeed no biologist, geneticist, or sociologist would deny such.
Indeed the very concept of the African origin of humanity - in anthropology and genetics is rooted in the notion that AFRICA is seminal.
That is why Africa is THE fundamental point of reference for population geneticists.
Evidently this fact annoys white nerd, but he needs to find less patently stupid anti-African arguments, if he wants to get any troll-play.
Posted by Burhan (Member # 11310) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata:
quote:Originally posted by Burhan:
I am jumping in the middle of this debate, having said that, one must sometimes be intelectually mature and concede to reality when it is presented.
I do not see a single inaccuracy, both in material and formulation from the above quoted material.
Regards.
You didn't jump into anything. All I see here is an intimidated African with limited knowledge to even give an assessment of what is or isn't accurate, which is exactly why you're unable to pin point how exactly any of these "accuracies" contradict an exclusively African origin among the Egyptians.
-------------------------------------------------
Hello,
Frankly, it is you who failed to discern Whitenord's post. IF you read again, it only proves that ancient Egyptians were "Africans" who are still the very majority of that country. If you look at the number of E3b in Egypt, however it is downgraded, it is still a majority of the country. A fact the post itself attested to and thus lead to my comment.
If anything, the poster challenged any Bantu involvement, which is why you all pundits are crying a foul. the sad truth is that your whole judgment is clouded by race, which we have proven time and again, it is a fallacy.
Ancient Egypt, it's legacy and history and for Ancient Egyptians and their descendants, whitenord isn't any further from it than you people. Leave ancient Egypt to it's people.
By the way, it only shows your poor capacity by instead of engaging the debate, you start attacking the person with profanity. This only demonstrates a Negro, if not physically shackled, is indeed cognitively buried.
Regards.
Posted by Burhan (Member # 11310) on :
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: Burhan wrote:
Your IQ is below that of a ten year old. Clearly, the evolution process of your brain did not keep up with that of your body. Although on a second glance, one may argue and rightly so, that even your face has much catching up to do as it closely approximates that of an ape.
To engage with such would be a disgrace to my honor.
You must be reconsidered for the zoo, you filthy scum.
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
Burhan wrote:
quote:
Hey Roach Roach,
What's Bantu?
What groups make up the Bantu?
What groups call themselves Bantu?
Who coined the term Bantu for these ethnic groups?
Don't get mad because the Ethiopians throughout your history called your people animals and savages while selling you off to the highest bidder all across the planet?
Hell they're still calling soSmalies animals, savages, and say that they had to teach you guys to wear clothes. Do you want me to post links? I will if you want. : )
a wala wala, a walaheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
a xiiuliaaxiuleeciaax
LOL : )
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
Burhan aka Roach, Roach baby wrote:
--------------------------------------- If anything, the poster challenged any Bantu involvement, which is why you all pundits are crying a foul. the sad truth is that your whole judgment is clouded by race, which we have proven time and again, it is a fallacy. ---------------------------------------
Unless you can prove otherwise (which we all know that you can't), the African diaspora in America is descended from North Africans (including Egypt) as well as those from the other three regions.
Now run along teefie, there are some unattended countertops that are available for you to crawl on.
oohohohohohohohohohohohohohohohooho
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
Burhan wrote: ---------------------------------- Your IQ is below that of a ten year old. Clearly, the evolution process of your brain did not keep up with that of your body. Although on a second glance, one may argue and rightly so, that even your face has much catching up to do as it closely approximates that of an ape. ----------------------------------
BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA
This is coming from a Somali of all people.
Shall I pooooooost liiiiiinks?
Shall I pooooooost liiiiiinks?
LOL! : )
Posted by White Nord (Member # 14093) on :
OMG you guys are full of ****, you talk and talk about African diversity and all that BS. When it's quite clear that those Africans who look different from West and Central Africans are mixed with the non African regions that they border and here's the damn post I made earlier that you Afro nut couldn't even respond to!
quote:The fact that somalia is far more isolated than Egypt indicates the gene flow in Egypt would be significantly larger if they were pure black africans.
Remeber other studies such as that by Passarino et al 1998 found
On the basis of historical, linguistic, and genetic data, it has been suggested that the Ethiopian population has been strongly affected by Caucasoid migrations since Neolithic times (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994, p. 174). On the basis of autosomal polymorphic loci, it has been estimated that 60% of the Ethiopian gene pool has an African origin, whereas 40% is of Caucasoid derivation (Guglielmino et al. 1987; Cavalli-Sforza et al., 1994 LL Cavalli-Sforza, P Menozzi and A Piazza, The history and geography of human genes, Princeton University Press, Princeton (1994).Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994, p. 174).
This is very considerable. There has obviously been geen flow since the neolithic period into a more isolated population. To suggest that Egypt remained a homogenous north east african population up to the first dynastic times is insane.
Before dynastic Egypt was even established there were large scale migrations. LOOK AT THE POSITION of Egypt. It is at the cross roads of migrations there is no was in hell North africa and more southern parts can be influenced by migrations during the neolithic and Egpyt to stay this homogenous population. Idigenous north Africans were not black.
You guys have even made the bogus claim that East, West, South, and even North Africans (berbers hello) were all black! You’re so in denial, I think you are here solely to entertain the mainstream!
Am. J. Hum. Genet., 74:000, 2004 The Levant versus the Horn of Africa: Evidence for Bidirectional Corridors of Human Migrations J. R. Luis et al.
Paleoanthropological evidence indicates that both the Levantine corridor and the Horn of Africa served, repeatedly, as migratory corridors between Africa and Eurasia.
We have begun investigating the roles of these passageways in bidirectional migrations of anatomically modern humans, by analyzing 45 informative biallelic markers as well as 10 microsatellite loci on the nonrecombining region of the Y chromosome (NRY) in 121 and 147 extant males from Oman and northern Egypt, respectively. The present study uncovers three important points concerning these demic movements: (1) The E3b1-M78 and E3b3-M123 lineages, as well as the R1*-M173 lineages, mark gene flow between Egypt and the Levant during the Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic. (2) In contrast, the Horn of Africa appears to be of minor importance in the human migratory movements between Africa and Eurasia represented by these chromosomes, an observation based on the frequency distributions of E3b*-M35 (no known downstream mutations) and M173. (3)
The areal diffusion patterns of G-M201, J-12f2, the derivative M173 haplogroups, and M2 suggest more recent genetic associations between the Middle East and Africa, involving the Levantine corridor and/or Arab slave routes. Affinities to African groups were also evaluated by determining the NRY haplogroup composition in 434 samples from seven sub-Saharan African populations. Oman and Egypt's NRY frequency distributions appear to be much more similar to those of the Middle East than to any sub-Saharan African population, suggesting a much larger Eurasian genetic component.
"It is interesting to relate this peculiar north/south differentiation, a pattern of genetic variation deriving from the two uniparentally inherited genetic systems (mtDNA and Y chromosome), to specific historic events. Since the beginning of Egyptian history (3200-3100 B.C.), the legendary king Menes united Upper and Lower Egypt. Migration from north to south may coincide with the Pharaonic colonization of Nubia, which occurred initially during the Middle Kingdom (12th Dynasty, 1991-1785 B.C.), and more permanently during the New Kingdom, from the reign of Thotmosis III (1490-1437 B.C.). The main migration from south to north may coincide with the 25th Dynasty (730-655 B.C.), when kings from Napata (in Nubia) conquered Egypt." (Lucotte et al. 2003)
Obviously this 2004 study supersedes Keita's 1996 study! Keita claims that there are aspects of the Egyptian profile that he can't identify and then falsely assumes that these are "African" based on no evidence at all - he fills in the blanks with his racist African bias!
Black Egypt..For christ sake look at Ramses II
The man was found to be a fair skinned natural red head, Why are there so many Red haired, Blond Haired, mummies in Egypt if it was so black you morons. Get a life and stop stealing history!
Posted by Yonis2 (Member # 11348) on :
quote:Whitenord wrote: The man was found to be a fair skinned natural red head, Why are there so many Red haired, Blond Haired, mummies in Egypt if it was so black you morons.
Because ramses II was red head it suddenly means egyptians are europeans??
Btw Ramses II came from a military family who became naturalized egyptians. He was only partially native to northeast africa. You should read about his city Pi ramses which is located aat the most northern point of egypt same latitude as alexandria. Most of dynastic egypt had their powerbase in central and southern egypt. Using Ramses II as representative of ancient egyptians is as flawed as using Obama as a representation of Anglo-saxons. Majority of modern egyptians don't even remotly come close to have red hair, not even the few descendants of greeks, romans and mamluk/turks in the delta let alone egyptians from central and southern egypt. You need to travel to egypt, they all look like a bunch of mullatos (or something close to it)the egyptian media only show the greek/lebanese/syrian looking egyptians, you can clearly see the difference between an average egyptian and an average palestinian/syrian (including the north), they only share language and islamic culture nothing more, but from luxor downwards they look eritrean/northern sudanese but still somehow unique. Egyptians are a very distinct and heterogenous people.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Actually it's been discussed many times before that there is no evidence of Ramses or his family being of foreign ancestry. Mummies with red hair have been refuted many times before as nothing more than the effect of embalming chemicals on the hair.
Here was Ramses in life:
As for White Nerd, I'm ROTFL at this guy's humiliation and his desperation at escaping from facts!
Hey White Nerd, I suggest you and your lover argyle stop visiting this forum!
Posted by akoben08 (Member # 15244) on :
quote:Originally posted by White Nord: OMG you guys are full of ****, you talk and talk about African diversity and all that BS. When it's quite clear that those Africans who look different from West and Central Africans are mixed with the non African regions that they border and here's the damn post I made earlier that you Afro nut couldn't even respond to!
quote:The fact that somalia is far more isolated than Egypt indicates the gene flow in Egypt would be significantly larger if they were pure black africans.
Remeber other studies such as that by Passarino et al 1998 found
On the basis of historical, linguistic, and genetic data, it has been suggested that the Ethiopian population has been strongly affected by Caucasoid migrations since Neolithic times (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994, p. 174). On the basis of autosomal polymorphic loci, it has been estimated that 60% of the Ethiopian gene pool has an African origin, whereas 40% is of Caucasoid derivation (Guglielmino et al. 1987; Cavalli-Sforza et al., 1994 LL Cavalli-Sforza, P Menozzi and A Piazza, The history and geography of human genes, Princeton University Press, Princeton (1994).Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994, p. 174).
This is very considerable. There has obviously been geen flow since the neolithic period into a more isolated population. To suggest that Egypt remained a homogenous north east african population up to the first dynastic times is insane.
Before dynastic Egypt was even established there were large scale migrations. LOOK AT THE POSITION of Egypt. It is at the cross roads of migrations there is no was in hell North africa and more southern parts can be influenced by migrations during the neolithic and Egpyt to stay this homogenous population. Idigenous north Africans were not black.
You guys have even made the bogus claim that East, West, South, and even North Africans (berbers hello) were all black! You’re so in denial, I think you are here solely to entertain the mainstream!
Am. J. Hum. Genet., 74:000, 2004 The Levant versus the Horn of Africa: Evidence for Bidirectional Corridors of Human Migrations J. R. Luis et al.
Paleoanthropological evidence indicates that both the Levantine corridor and the Horn of Africa served, repeatedly, as migratory corridors between Africa and Eurasia.
We have begun investigating the roles of these passageways in bidirectional migrations of anatomically modern humans, by analyzing 45 informative biallelic markers as well as 10 microsatellite loci on the nonrecombining region of the Y chromosome (NRY) in 121 and 147 extant males from Oman and northern Egypt, respectively. The present study uncovers three important points concerning these demic movements: (1) The E3b1-M78 and E3b3-M123 lineages, as well as the R1*-M173 lineages, mark gene flow between Egypt and the Levant during the Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic. (2) In contrast, the Horn of Africa appears to be of minor importance in the human migratory movements between Africa and Eurasia represented by these chromosomes, an observation based on the frequency distributions of E3b*-M35 (no known downstream mutations) and M173. (3)
The areal diffusion patterns of G-M201, J-12f2, the derivative M173 haplogroups, and M2 suggest more recent genetic associations between the Middle East and Africa, involving the Levantine corridor and/or Arab slave routes. Affinities to African groups were also evaluated by determining the NRY haplogroup composition in 434 samples from seven sub-Saharan African populations. Oman and Egypt's NRY frequency distributions appear to be much more similar to those of the Middle East than to any sub-Saharan African population, suggesting a much larger Eurasian genetic component.
"It is interesting to relate this peculiar north/south differentiation, a pattern of genetic variation deriving from the two uniparentally inherited genetic systems (mtDNA and Y chromosome), to specific historic events. Since the beginning of Egyptian history (3200-3100 B.C.), the legendary king Menes united Upper and Lower Egypt. Migration from north to south may coincide with the Pharaonic colonization of Nubia, which occurred initially during the Middle Kingdom (12th Dynasty, 1991-1785 B.C.), and more permanently during the New Kingdom, from the reign of Thotmosis III (1490-1437 B.C.). The main migration from south to north may coincide with the 25th Dynasty (730-655 B.C.), when kings from Napata (in Nubia) conquered Egypt." (Lucotte et al. 2003)
Obviously this 2004 study supersedes Keita's 1996 study! Keita claims that there are aspects of the Egyptian profile that he can't identify and then falsely assumes that these are "African" based on no evidence at all - he fills in the blanks with his racist African bias!
Black Egypt..For christ sake look at Ramses II
The man was found to be a fair skinned natural red head, Why are there so many Red haired, Blond Haired, mummies in Egypt if it was so black you morons. Get a life and stop stealing history!
LOL at the lo mein eating, sushi munching philipeeeno whose name is probably:
juan julio hector guerero manuel lopez
HA HA HA HEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!
Posted by White Nord (Member # 14093) on :
I make a genuine point and the best that you afro-nuts can do is tell me to leave and that I'm not welcome rather than addressing my post.... that's truely pathetic!
Posted by akoben08 (Member # 15244) on :
quote:Originally posted by White Nord: I make a genuine point and the best that you afro-nuts can do is tell me to leave and that I'm not welcome rather than addressing my post.... that's truely pathetic!
Just wait a sec. Sundiata will soon ride in to "answer" your "post".
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by White Nord: I make a genuine point and the best that you afro-nuts can do is tell me to leave and that I'm not welcome rather than addressing my post.... that's truely pathetic!
LOL It's genuine alright, it's genuinely misleading and inaccurate. I would explain how but I rather leave that to Rasol who is more artful as exposing your nonsense!
To gargoyles childishly retarded racial/ethnic derogatory..
All I can say is that must love to talk dirty when your lover has his hand up your... well you know.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
Witness the futility of a troll with a busted argument, contradicting himself, and then swearing to himself in frustration....
White Nerd writes: Africa is genetically the most diverse of all the continents.
White Nerd then writes: MG you guys are full of ****, you talk and talk about African diversity and all that BS.
^ You silly child. You can't even retain coherence of thought process, from one post to the next. Granted your posts are forgettable to everyone else, but at least *you* should remember your own nonsense.
Just admit that you are clueless and defeated, and be done with it.
Perhaps you really *are* and Afrocentrist feigning as a really stupid white boy, just as a prank??
How else to explain your utter ineptitude?
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
Before dynastic Egypt was even established there were large scale migrations.
^ From Africa into the Levantine?
Why, of course....
One can identify Negroid traits appearing in Natufian [Neolithic Israel] hunters...and in Anatolian and Macedonian first farmers.... probably from Nubia." - anthropologist, Larry Angel
re: LOOK AT THE POSITION of Egypt.
^ Indeed. No doubt proto semitic spread from North East Africa into the Levantine, along with African genes [E3b, Benin Hbs], but, how does that help you?
Can you tell us why the Indo-European language family *failed* to spread into Africa in antiquity?
Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
quote:Originally posted by Burhan: judgment is clouded by race, which we have proven time and again, it is a fallacy.
Yep, we old forum regulors have proven racial constructs have no biological basis time and again, while you and white Nord continue to talk of negro- and caucasians.
quote:If anything, the poster challenged any Bantu involvement, which is why you all pundits are crying a foul.
wrong again imbecile:
quote:Originally posted by rasol: And now for something different.
Genetics:
Phylogenetic analysis reveals that the origin of sub-Saharan African mtDNA variants in Yemenis is a mosaic of different episodes of gene flow. Three different passages can be outlined.
The first is gene flow, likely mediated by the Arab slave trade from southeastern Africa, as evidenced by exact mtDNA haplotype matches.
Such matches account for 23% of the total variation in Yemenis and occur in lineages and lineage groups that cannot be found in Ethiopia and northeastern Africa.
Many of these can be traced to the Bantu dispersal; they have their origin in West Africa and supply thereby the upper time limit of 3,000–4,000 years for their departure from southeastern Africa toward Arabia.
The sub-Saharan African component of Ethiopians has remained untouched by such influences and may therefore be considered most representative of the indigenous gene pool of sub-Saharan East Africa.
Ethiopian Mitochondrial DNA Heritage: Tracking Gene Flow Across and Around the Gate of Tears Toomas Kivisild - 2004
^^That last paragraph shows that Ethios are LARGELY not Bantu.
By the way, it only shows your poor capacity by instead of engaging the debate, you start poluting this thread with your inanity. This only demonstrates a Medtz, if not physically shackled, is indeed cognitively buried.
Regards.
PS: Btw, if one is going to parrot racial ideology like Sshaun's, one should at least keep up with the current state of the debate!
*
White Nord actually kindly makes a point of mine for me:
quote:Originally posted by White Nord:
...
"(1) The E3b1-M78 and E3b3-M123 lineages, as well as the R1*-M173 lineages, mark gene flow between Egypt and the Levant during the Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic. (2) In contrast, the Horn of Africa appears to be of minor importance in the human migratory movements between Africa and Eurasia represented by these chromosomes, an observation based on the frequency distributions of E3b*-M35 (no known downstream mutations) and M173."
"(3) The areal diffusion patterns of G-M201, J-12f2, the derivative M173 haplogroups, and M2 suggest more recent genetic associations between the Middle East and Africa, involving the Levantine corridor and/or Arab slave routes."
...
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:You guys have even made the bogus claim that East, West, South, and even North Africans (berbers hello) were all black!
This seems to be offpoint, but then offpoint arguments are the handmaiden of desperation and defeat.
At any rate:
No one has claimed that *all* Berber are Black.
What is claimed about Berber is exactly what can be proven....
1) There are Black Berber groups, and the Egyptian Berber are amongst the darkest....
Berber is and *exclusively African* language family, and this family originates in East Africa, where the darkest Berber live.
Light skinned NorthWest African Berber have recent maternal ancestry from Europe - *where there is not now and never have been any native Berber*. This means that the European, and *white* maternal ancestry of some Northwest African Berber is by definition *non Berber ancestry*.
^ btw: Any passing NW African Berber nationalist are invited to debate this, because we already know White Nerd can't.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:White Nord actually kindly makes a point of mine for me:
Perhaps that's his intention?
It's hard to believe his ineptitude is entirely genuine.
He earlier tried to site G-M201, J-12f2, and M173 as indicators of ancient migration into Africa, but then he sites.....
"The areal diffusion patterns of haplogroups,G-M201, J-12f2, and M173 suggest *more recent* genetic associations between the Middle East and Africa."
^ White Nerd what is your true motive in engaging in such self defeating argumentative incompetence?
Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
quote:You guys have even made the bogus claim that East, West, South, and even North Africans (berbers hello) were all black!
[hey! psst.... I'll give you a hint: just who do you think it is that originally populated North Africa to begin with?]
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
What is proven like what Rasol said is that Black Berbers are the original Berbers and not descendant of slaves. E-M81 is the Berber Lineage, it is also found in sub-sahara Africa. What is not really known is how big an impact this lineage is with the siwa berbers. What is known though is that this lineage is East African. P. Underhill found E-M81 being detected in Sudan. It is also found in Niger, Mali, and Senegal. E-M81 in descending order...
Saharawish (North Africa) = 75.9%, Berber (Morocco) = 68.7%, Berber (north central Morocco) = 65.1%, Berber (southern Morocco) = 65%, Algerian = 53.1%, Arab (Morocco) = 52.3%, Arab (Morocco) = 32.6%, Mali = 29.5%, Tunisian = 27.6%, Sudan = 5%, Senegalese = .7%
Source: Semino et al., Origin, Diffusion, and Differentiation of Y Chromosome Haplogroups E and J, 2004.
White Nord I really feel you should give it up, you lost this debate and now you are trying to move it over to berbers which the truth is that Original Berbers were Black.
Peace
Posted by Knowledgeiskey718 (Member # 15400) on :
^^bumped
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Yes this thread is a perfect example of the desperation of white racists-- they try to make the generalist claim that East Africans are mixed when in fact Europeans are more mixed than any group of Africans! LOL Posted by White Nord (Member # 14093) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ausarian: Ana M. Gonzalez et al. published a paper on M1 expansions, 9 July 2007, and a few things about it immediately jumped at me; I lay these out shortly following the abstract below, which is there to put potential viewers of this page on "the same page" so to speak, as far as the synopsis of the paper is concerned:
Abstract:
Mitochondrial lineage M1 traces an early human backflow to Africa
Ana M Gonzalez , Jose M Larruga , Khaled K Abu-Amero , Yufei Shi , Jose Pestano and Vicente M Cabrera
The complete article is available as a provisional PDF. The fully formatted PDF and HTML versions are in production.
Background The out of Africa hypothesis has gained generalized consensus. However, many specific questions remain unsettled. To know whether the two M and N macrohaplogroups that colonized Eurasia were already present in Africa before the exit is puzzling. It has been proposed that the east African clade M1 supports a single origin of haplogroup M in Africa. To test the validity of that hypothesis, the phylogeographic analysis of 13 complete mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequences and 261 partial sequences belonging to haplogroup M1 was carried out.
Results The coalescence age of the African haplogroup M1 is younger than those for other M Asiatic clades. In contradiction to the hypothesis of an eastern Africa origin for modern human expansions out of Africa, the most ancestral M1 lineages have been found in Northwest Africa and in the Near East, instead of in East Africa. The M1 geographic distribution and the relative ages of its different subclades clearly correlate with those of haplogroup U6, for which an Eurasian ancestor has been demonstrated.
Conclusions This study provides evidence that M1, or its ancestor, had an Asiatic origin. The earliest M1 expansion into Africa occurred in northwestern instead of eastern areas; this early spread reached the Iberian Peninsula even affecting the Basques. The majority of the M1a lineages found outside and inside Africa had a more recent eastern Africa origin. Both western and eastern M1 lineages participated in the Neolithic colonization of the Sahara. The striking parallelism between subclade ages and geographic distribution of M1 and its North African U6 counterpart strongly reinforces this scenario. Finally, a relevant fraction of M1a lineages present today in the European Continent and nearby islands possibly had a Jewish instead of the commonly proposed Arab/Berber maternal ascendance.
-Abstract ends-
MY Response To Ana M. Gonzalez et al.
*First, a quick synopsis of the samplings, with regards to where the n=261 M1 bearing samples come from, aside from the 588 participants mentioned in one of the tables [table 2] in the study:
From my assessment of the table, it comes from the following numbers:
A total of 50 Europeans detected for M1. A total of 154 for Africans. A total of 28 Asians, barring 8 unknown Arabian haplotypes. And a total of 29 Jews, who were lumped together from the various continents. The sum of the above totals, amount to 261 "known" M1 lineages.
*With regards to the authors claim about M1 or its ancestor, having “had an Asiatic origin”, the following comes to mind:
The authors of the study at hand, themselves admit that they haven't come across M1 ancestor in either south Asia or southwest Asia. They also take note of its highest diversity in Ethiopia and east Africa. Yet through the shaky premise of their M1c expansion time frame estimations, they build a conclusion around it, by tying it to a dispersal(s) "parallel" to that of U6 - another African marker whose immediate common recent ancestor, namely proto-U6, appears to be elusive thus far.
Well, they wouldn’t be the only ones who have failed to come across any proto-M1 ancestor in southwest and south Asia [Indian Subcontinent mainly]:
Based on the high frequency and diversity of haplogroup M in India and elsewhere in Asia, some authors have suggested (versus [3]) that M may have arisen in Southwest Asia [16,17,31]. Finding M1 or a lineage ancestral to M1 in India, could help to explain the presence of M1 in Africa as a result of a back migration from India. Yet, to date this has not been achieved [15], this study). Therefore, one cannot rule out the still most parsimonious scenario that haplogroup M arose in East Africa [3]. Furthermore, the lack of L3 lineages other than M and N (indeed, L3M and L3N) in India is more consistent with the African launch of haplogroup M. On the other hand, one also observes that: i) M1 is the only variant of haplogroup M found in Africa; ii) M1 has a fairly restricted phylogeography in Africa, barely penetrating into sub-Saharan populations, being found predominantly in association with the Afro-Asiatic linguistic phylum – a finding that appears to be inconsistent with the distribution of sub-clades of haplogroups L3 and L2 that have similar time depths. — Mait Metspalu et al.
So, while they acknowledge the highest "frequencies and diversities" of M1 particularly in Ethiopia, and generally in East Africa., the authors base their claims about ’origins’ on their expansion estimations of M1c derivatives, presumably predominant in northwest Africa rather than east Africa, and its relative sporadic distribution in 'Europe' and 'Southwest' Asia. They attempt to buttress this, by invoking an initial parallel expansion of M1 and U6 "ancestor" lineages into north Africa via the Nile Valley [from "southwest Asia"], then an expansion from northwest Africa this time around, of U6 and M1 derivatives northward into Europe and then eastward into "southwest" Asia via the Nile Valley corridor in the Sinai peninsula, presumably with a few derivatives making their way into sub-Saharan east Africa, where they then underwent some expansion, to give rise to yet another, but later, dispersal from there into "southwest Asia" and hence, accounting for the 'majority' of M1 lineages in "southwest Asia" being east African derivatives than the north African [M1c] counterparts.
*Furthermore,
The authors gather that their observations correlate with that of other researchers, namely Olivieri et al. To this extent, they put forth that Olivieri et al.’s M1b corresponds to their M1c, the former’s M1a2 corresponds to their M1b, and the former’s M1a1 corresponds to their M1a. They go onto to add that the coalescence ages arrived by the two research group [that of Olivieri et al. and that of the present authors] also correlate. The present authors note that their coalescence time for M1c (25.7 +/- 6.6 ky) overlaps with Olivieri et al.’s coalescence time for M1b (23.4 +/- 5.6). Similarly, they note that their coalescence age for M1a (22.6 +/- 8.1ky) falls within that of Olivieri et al.’s age for M1a1 at 20.6 +/- 3.4ky. However, this makes way for great discrepancy between the said authors and Olivieri et al., whereby their coalescence age for M1b at 13.7 +/- 4.8ky falls quite short of the latter’s age for M1a2 at 24 +/- 5.7ky. Not only are the subgroup nomenclatures distinct, but this latter discrepancy makes an unsubtle difference, so as to no longer render M1c to be older than M1b, but rather, either place M1c at an age a bit younger or on par with the latter, which should be otherwise according to the present study. Though, by their own admission, the present authors favor Olivieri et al.’s methods over their own:
As our calculations are based only on three lineages and that of Olivieri et al on six, we think that their coalescence time estimation should be more accurate than ours. In fact, when time estimation is based on the eight different lineages (AFR-K143 is common to both sets) a coalescence age of 20.6 +/- ky is obtained.
*But if there is any indication about the tenuous nature of the above thesis, without going into other known details about M1, it would be this alternative viewpoint they came up with:
The alternative idea entertained by the authors, is one where M1 could actually be an autochthonous northwest African lineage, which spread northward into Europe and eastward to "Southwest Asia" and east Africa. Again, to be followed by a yet later dispersal from east Africa, likely sub-Saharan east Africa, particularly the Ethiopian populations.
*The limitations inherent in solely relying on hypervariable segment motifs:
The status quo hasn't changed, not withstanding the hype about the supposed older expansion timeframes from M1c derivatives, predominant in Northwest Africa, according to their study. The authors rely heavily on the hypervariable region of the mtDNA, which even they themselves don't seem to put much faith on, as demonstrated by their noting of the need to proceed cautiously, given that random parallel mutations are known to occur across distinct macro-haplogroups and sub-clades. They also note how hypervariable nature of the control region, can lead to misleading calculations from erratic mutations, as demonstrated by the M1a2 they put forth, leading them to omit them in their lineage coalescence analysis.
*Another thing that hasn't been relayed through this study, is this:
The coding regions transitions are likely to change relatively slower than those of hypervariable segments, and hence, likely to remain intact within a clade. To assist in determining which clade to place a monophyletic unit, key coding region transitions have to be identified. In the case of M1, we were told:
We found 489C (Table 3) in all Indian and eastern-African haplogroup M mtDNAs analysed, but not in the non-M haplogroup controls, including 20 Africans representing all African main lineages (6 L1, 4 L2, 10 L3) and 11 Asians.
These findings, and the lack of positive evidence (given the RFLP status) that the 10400 C->T transition defining M has happened more than once, suggest that it has a single common origin, but do not resolve its geographic origin. Analysis of position 10873 (the MnlI RFLP) revealed that all the M molecules (eastern African, Asian and those sporadically found in our population surveys) were 10873C (Table 3). As for the non-M mtDNAs, the ancient L1 and the L2 African-specific lineages5, as well as most L3 African mtDNAs, also carry 10873C.
Conversely, all non-M mtDNAs of non-African origin analysed so far carry 10873T. These data indicate that the **transition 10400 C-->T, which defines haplogroup M**, arose on an African background characterized by the ancestral state 10873C, which is also present in four primate (common and pygmy chimps, gorilla and orangutan) mtDNA sequences. — Semino et al.
...which is significant, as other M lineages are devoid of M1 coding region motifs, not to mention the M1 HVS-I package. The above does demonstrate, how M lineages likely arose on an African 'background' by single-event substitutions in the designated African ancestral counterparts. The ancestral transition of 10873C is substituted by 10873T in non-African non-M haplogroups, while the 10400C transition was substituted in M lineages by 10400T.
Furthermore,...
The 489C transition, as noted above and can be seen from the diagram, is peculiar to the M macrohaplogroup, again suggestive of unique event mutations characterizing the family:
The phylogenetic location of the mutations at nt 489 and 10,873 (arrow) was predicted by our analysis. The seemingly shared mutation at nt 16,129 (by G, Z and M1) is very likely an accidental parallelism. The ancestral states 10400C, 10810C and 10873C are fixed in L1 (as analysed so far) and are present in the ape sequences.
The 16129 sharing across the M1 haplogroups, seems to be one of those instances of random parallel mutation, recalling Chang Sun et al.'s observations of random parallel mutations of certain transitions across the M macrohaplogroup.
We also know that "southwest Asian" and "European" M1 lineages are derivatives of African counterparts, and the same is true for southwest Asian non-M1 affiliated M lineages from south Asia:
Compared to India, haplogroup M frequency in Iran is marginally low (5.3%) and there are no distinguished Iranian-specific sub-clades of haplogroup M. All Iranian haplogroup M lineages can be seen as derived from other regional variants of the haplogroup: eleven show affiliation to haplogroup M lineages found in India, twelve in East and Central Asia (D, G, and M8 ) and one in northeast Africa (M1)…
Indian-specific (R5 and Indian-specific M and U2 variants) and East Asian-specific (A, B and East Asian-specific M subgroups) mtDNAs, both, make up less than 4% of the Iranian mtDNA pool. We used Turkey (88.8 ± 4.0%) as the third parental population for evaluating the relative proportions of admixture from India (2.2 ± 1.7%) and China (9.1 ± 4.1%) into Iran. Therefore we can conclude that historic gene flow from India to Iran has been very limited.
With that said, Semino et al.'s older study still remains strong, the way I see it:
haplogroup M originated in eastern Africa approximately 60,000 years ago and was carried toward Asia. This agrees with the proposed date of an out-of-Africa expansion approximately 65,000 years ago10. After its arrival in Asia, the haplogroup M founder group went through a demographic and geographic expansion. The remaining M haplogroup in eastern Africa did not spread, but remained localized up to approximately 10,000-20,000 years ago, after which it started to expand. — Semino et al.
Elsewhere, I've also talked about some 'basal' M-like lineages in Africa; for instance, at least one of such was identified in the Senegalese sample.
Am. J. Hum. Genet., 66:1362-1383, 2000
mtDNA Variation in the South African Kung and Khwe and Their Genetic Relationships to Other African Populations
"The Asian mtDNA phylogeny is subdivided into two macrohaplogroups, one of which is M. M is delineated by a DdeI site at np 10394 and an AluI site of np 10397. The only African mtDNA found to have both of these sites is the Senegalese haplotype AF24. This haplotype branches off African subhaplogroup L3a (figs.2 and3), suggesting that haplogroup M mtDNAs might have been derived from this African mtDNA lineage..."
The relevant representation in this recap diagram:
^The 10397 transition is shown in the L3-M linkage, while 10394, which should show up as positive [as exemplified in the above extract] in the M macrohaplogroup, shows up negative in the linkage between L3 and non-M affiliated lineages.
**^To put the above compilation into perspective, and keep it simple, the point is this:
Semino et al.'s demonstration of certain characteristic basic coding transitions of the M super-haplogroup [not including the key coding region motifs unique to the M1 family], springing directly from African ancestral motifs, don't require that M1 has to have a proto "non-African" M1, whereas an Asian origin of M1 would necessitate an Asian proto-M1 lineage that would explain the relatively young expansion ages of M1 and lack of descendancy from pre-existing Asian M lineages. This hasn't been achieved either by the present study or ones prior to it.
Getting to the gist:
Basal M mtDNA ~ between c. 60 - 80 ky ago
And then, M1 ~ between ~ c. 10 - 30 ky ago
The studies I posted, suggest that the basal motifs characteristic of the M macrohaplogroup arose in Africa, anywhere between 60 - 80 ky ago [since they would have likely been in the continent by the time of the 60 ky ago or so OOA migrations] . Sometime between 60 ky and 50 ky ago [some sources place it between 75 - 60 ky ago], these L3 offshoots were carried outside of Africa, amongst early successful a.m.h migrations, which resulted in the populations now living in the Indian-subcontinent, Melanesia and Australia who have these lineages. Not all the basal African L3M lineages, as Semino et al. convincingly put it, left the continent, as indicated by the basal L3a-M motif detected in Senegal, M1 diversity in Africa, particularly East Africa, both M1 and other M lineages detected in Ugandan samples, and lack of descendancy of M1 from older-coalescent Asian macrohaplogroup. Rather, it appears that the basal L3M lineages which remained in Africa, underwent a relatively limited demographic intra-African expansion until relatively recently, i.e. between 10 - 30 ky ago, compared to the Asian L3M derivatives, which underwent major expansions, naturally within the quantitatively smaller founder immigrant groups, i.e. the founder effect.
M1 is likely the culmination of relatively more recent demographic expansions of basal L3M lineages in the African continent, with M1 derivative being a successful candidate, in what could have possibly involved other derivatives which might not have expanded to the same level intra-continentally, and subsequently, extra-continentally as well.
M1 has strongly been correlated with the upper Paleolithic expansion of proto-Afrasan groups across the Sahara to coastal north Africa, and further eastward via the Sinai peninsula.
Read, it laughed at it, and observed how Exploring Africa carefully clipped the quote to leave out that the L3a was possibly present in Senegal from a back migration. It also doesn’t deal with the latest publication that also points the finger out of Africa for the Origin of M1, and ignores that Gonzalez observed older ancestral M1 in the Near East.
the most ancestral M1 lineages have been found in Northwest Africa and in the Near East
BTW, date for M1 is way older than 10k, which EA put as a lower date range; expansion dates for the M1 offshoots in Africa are in the 22k and older region. Also, M1 and M1a show the exact same distribution as M78, and they all appear to spread out from southern Egypt, not North Africa.
Posted by Alive (Member # 10819) on :
Awesome.
quote:Originally posted by Alive:
Here is some interesing data:
TABLE 4. Intra-limb bone length indices in US and Egyptian samples
************************** Crural index | Brachial index ********************** Males \ Females | Males \ Females ***************** Mean - SE \ Mean - SE | Mean - SE \ Mean - SE ** American Whites: 81.9 - 0.4 \ 82.0 - 0.4 | 74.3 - 0.4 \ 73.5 - 0.5 ** American Blacks: 83.7 - 0.4 \ 83.8 - 0.5 | 77.1 - 0.5 \ 76.5 - 0.5 Ancient Egyptians: 83.6c - 0.2 \ 82.8 - 0.3 | 77.9c - 0.5 \ 77.5c - 0.6
Posted by astenb (Member # 14524) on :
quote: Read, it laughed at it, and observed how Exploring Africa carefully clipped the quote to leave out that the L3a was possibly present in Senegal from a back migration. It also doesn’t deal with the latest publication that also points the finger out of Africa for the Origin of M1, and ignores that Gonzalez observed older ancestral M1 in the Near East.
the most ancestral M1 lineages have been found in Northwest Africa and in the Near East
BTW, date for M1 is way older than 10k, which EA put as a lower date range; expansion dates for the M1 offshoots in Africa are in the 22k and older region. Also, M1 and M1a show the exact same distribution as M78, and they all appear to spread out from southern Egypt, not North Africa.
And you lifted this quote from where? LOL, She/YOu were not even smart enough to understand what he wrote. L3a back migrated from where? Where did L3 come from.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Alive: Awesome.
quote:Originally posted by Alive:
Here is some interesing data:
TABLE 4. Intra-limb bone length indices in US and Egyptian samples
************************** Crural index | Brachial index ********************** Males \ Females | Males \ Females ***************** Mean - SE \ Mean - SE | Mean - SE \ Mean - SE ** American Whites: 81.9 - 0.4 \ 82.0 - 0.4 | 74.3 - 0.4 \ 73.5 - 0.5 ** American Blacks: 83.7 - 0.4 \ 83.8 - 0.5 | 77.1 - 0.5 \ 76.5 - 0.5 Ancient Egyptians: 83.6c - 0.2 \ 82.8 - 0.3 | 77.9c - 0.5 \ 77.5c - 0.6
^^Very awesome.. I've contended in the past, here and elsewhere that limb-ratio is the hardest line of evidence to obscure as it is soooo dependent on geographic orientation. Show me one pale/light skinned population known for their elongated bodies (that are comparaple to African-Americans) and I'll show you a group of ancient white Egyptians. Posted by White Nord (Member # 14093) on :
quote:Originally posted by Alive: Awesome.
quote:Originally posted by Alive:
Here is some interesing data:
TABLE 4. Intra-limb bone length indices in US and Egyptian samples
************************** Crural index | Brachial index ********************** Males \ Females | Males \ Females ***************** Mean - SE \ Mean - SE | Mean - SE \ Mean - SE ** American Whites: 81.9 - 0.4 \ 82.0 - 0.4 | 74.3 - 0.4 \ 73.5 - 0.5 ** American Blacks: 83.7 - 0.4 \ 83.8 - 0.5 | 77.1 - 0.5 \ 76.5 - 0.5 Ancient Egyptians: 83.6c - 0.2 \ 82.8 - 0.3 | 77.9c - 0.5 \ 77.5c - 0.6
Bs where's the source for such data !
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
You can tell that the "caucasoid" "east" African is a ruse. If these people believed "east" Africans were so "caucasoid", why don't they use Ethiopians and other "east" Africans in those Ancient Egyptian documentaries? LOL : )
Why are they casting "west" Asians and not "east" Africans? They are "caucasoid" aren't they? All of the hundreds of documentaries and not one of them casts these so called "caucasoid" "east" Africans as Ancient Egyptians.
Obviously Powder knows the "caucasoid" "east" African lie won't hold up to the Euro audience. If they used Ethiopians and other "east" Africans the white audience could not pretend that the Ancient Egyptians were not Africans, thus the ratings would tank.
They have been exposed yet again.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by White Nord:
quote:Originally posted by Alive: Awesome.
quote:Originally posted by Alive:
Here is some interesing data:
TABLE 4. Intra-limb bone length indices in US and Egyptian samples
************************** Crural index | Brachial index ********************** Males \ Females | Males \ Females ***************** Mean - SE \ Mean - SE | Mean - SE \ Mean - SE ** American Whites: 81.9 - 0.4 \ 82.0 - 0.4 | 74.3 - 0.4 \ 73.5 - 0.5 ** American Blacks: 83.7 - 0.4 \ 83.8 - 0.5 | 77.1 - 0.5 \ 76.5 - 0.5 Ancient Egyptians: 83.6c - 0.2 \ 82.8 - 0.3 | 77.9c - 0.5 \ 77.5c - 0.6
quote: Read, it laughed at it, and observed how Exploring Africa carefully clipped the quote to leave out that the L3a was possibly present in Senegal from a back migration. It also doesn’t deal with the latest publication that also points the finger out of Africa for the Origin of M1, and ignores that Gonzalez observed older ancestral M1 in the Near East.
the most ancestral M1 lineages have been found in Northwest Africa and in the Near East
BTW, date for M1 is way older than 10k, which EA put as a lower date range; expansion dates for the M1 offshoots in Africa are in the 22k and older region. Also, M1 and M1a show the exact same distribution as M78, and they all appear to spread out from southern Egypt, not North Africa.
And you lifted this quote from where?
Nowhere; just troll mumbling.
quote: LOL, She/YOu were not even smart enough to understand what he wrote.
Ah, these are the keywords!
Anyone with at least half a brain would notice that the post the troll cites talks about *in detail*, which cannot be countered by "one-liner" trollish denial-mumblings, inconsistencies and problems with Gonzalez et al.'s control region-derived coalescence age estimations; not only is its accuracy hampered by insufficiency of Intra-M1 phylogenetic representation, but also due to the homoplasic events that are often associated with the hypervariable region. As noted, the authors' forced omission of their M1a2 markers from their estimations for instance, is bound to contribute to the throwing off their age estimations. The "Near Eastern" section of the Great Rift Valley have 1) no upstream markers of neither M1, L3, nor even that of the Asian M macrohaplogroup; rather, this region has only downstream derivatives of these markers. 2) The ancestor of M1 has not been located in either south Asia [which is essentially home to the Asian M family] or the "Near East". 3) However, the lineages necessary to give rise to M1 are all present in Africa, as exemplified by the 10873C [emphasis added] marker [Semino et al.] at the RFLP position 10873, which transcends M macrohaplogroup, having been identified amongst L1, L2 and L3 clades; on the other hand, all non-African non-M clades, which are all essentially ultimately derivatives of the African L3 superclade, have 10873T [with emphasis]. This suggests that African M1 and the Asian M macrahaplogroup derive from an earlier bifurcation event that took place in Africa, which transcended L3. Furthermore, "middle-of-the-road" evolutionary clade of L3a, descendant of L3 but older than other M-designated L3 lineages and found in a Senegalese sample, adds to this theme of Africa having all the necessary markers to give rise to M1. Further more, that the authors propose two origin theories, is further testament to the fragile nature of their theory.
Now, I've dumben down the M1 piece further down by several notches; alas, these things are too complicated for feeble-minds.
quote: L3a back migrated from where? Where did L3 come from.
No sweat; the resident troll will enlighten us where else the Senegalese marker has been identified for starters. Posted by White Nord (Member # 14093) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:Originally posted by astenb:
quote: Read, it laughed at it, and observed how Exploring Africa carefully clipped the quote to leave out that the L3a was possibly present in Senegal from a back migration. It also doesn’t deal with the latest publication that also points the finger out of Africa for the Origin of M1, and ignores that Gonzalez observed older ancestral M1 in the Near East.
the most ancestral M1 lineages have been found in Northwest Africa and in the Near East
BTW, date for M1 is way older than 10k, which EA put as a lower date range; expansion dates for the M1 offshoots in Africa are in the 22k and older region. Also, M1 and M1a show the exact same distribution as M78, and they all appear to spread out from southern Egypt, not North Africa.
And you lifted this quote from where?
Nowhere; just troll mumbling.
quote: LOL, She/YOu were not even smart enough to understand what he wrote.
Ah, these are the keywords!
Anyone with at least half a brain would notice that the post the troll cites talks about *in detail*, which cannot be countered by "one-liner" trollish denial-mumblings, inconsistencies and problems with Gonzalez et al.'s control region-derived coalescence age estimations; not only is its accuracy hampered by insufficiency of Intra-M1 phylogenetic representation, but also due to the homoplasic events that are often associated with the hypervariable region. As noted, the authors' forced omission of their M1a2 markers from their estimations for instance, is bound to contribute to the throwing off their age estimations. The "Near Eastern" section of the Great Rift Valley have 1) no upstream markers of neither M1, L3, nor even that of the Asian M macrohaplogroup; rather, this region has only downstream derivatives of these markers. 2) The ancestor of M1 has not been located in either south Asia [which is essentially home to the Asian M family] or the "Near East". 3) However, the lineages necessary to give rise to M1 are all present in Africa, as exemplified by the 10873C [emphasis added] marker [Semino et al.] at the RFLP position 10873, which transcends M macrohaplogroup, having been identified amongst L1, L2 and L3 clades; on the other hand, all non-African non-M clades, which are all essentially ultimately derivatives of the African L3 superclade, have 10873T [with emphasis]. This suggests that African M1 and the Asian M macrahaplogroup derive from an earlier bifurcation event that took place in Africa, which transcended L3. Furthermore, "middle-of-the-road" evolutionary clade of L3a, descendant of L3 but older than other M-designated L3 lineages and found in a Senegalese sample, adds to this theme of Africa having all the necessary markers to give rise to M1. Further more, that the authors propose two origin theories, is further testament to the fragile nature of their theory.
Now, I've dumben down the M1 piece further down by several notches; alas, these things are too complicated for feeble-minds.
quote: L3a back migrated from where? Where did L3 come from.
No sweat; the resident troll will enlighten us where else the Senegalese marker has been identified for starters.
The problems with what you just posted…
1. I’m not using Gonzalez for the dates-I’m using Olivieri’s recent study that also points out of Africa for M1 ( the one that uses twice as many lineages as Gonzalez to date it). You’ve overlooked that Gonzalez and Olivieri both get similar dates, over 20k as an average for the dispersal of M1 in North Africa, and when combined their results support each other.
2. Moaning there is no ancestral M in India is dumb as a support for an African origin, as it doesn’t occur in Africa either. But you do get masses of different types of M in India, some very ancient, I’ve seen a date of over 87k estimated in one Asian branch. You only get one relatively young M in Africa, and it shows a close affinity to the movements of U in North Africa, which is Asian. Two points against an African origin of M1 (younger age and less diversity).
However, the lineages necessary to give rise to M1 are all present in Africa
3. Nope. You need to read more up to date papers, you are using data ten years old (and now heinously outdated) to base your arguments on, which is probably why your age for L3 at 50k was so massively innacurrate - M is over 65 at least, you do the maths.
The 10400 C > T transition defines M, not 10873 C. (Semino, the study you quote) and so far all the evidence is that it had a single origin, and nothing points to it being in Africa. Sure, it descends from an African mt DNA with 10873 C, but the actually M defining mutation is absent in these African L clades (by defintion really). All that shows is that Eurasian mt DNA is descended from African mt DNA, (duh) and that the split from L3 to N was outside Africa and possibly L3 had been in Asia for a while when it happened; 10873 with a C to T transition is typical of Eurasian non-M (N), and it isn’t seen in L. L3a is ancestral to M and N, (source Kittles), the one you observe in Senegal, but it lacks 10400 C>T. If anything the lack of N in Africa (a first generation offspring of M like M) is indicative the it was L3 that left Africa and not M.
So all that you did is show that L types with 10873 C (L3) are ancestral to M and N, and that 10873 T occurred in Eurasia-again duh. BTW; Semino says there’s no evidence the 10400 C > T transition has arisen more than once, so it’s not looking like a spontaneous mutation in East Africa from some stray L mother- all you’ve done is list the mutations that L and M have in common, not point out the long ignored mother of M1.
Your entire case is built on Semino’s old and way less complex study of M1 which is now pretty antiquated. His dates for M don’t match anything published after 2005 and are corrected by later larger studies with beter resolution involving M1 and M, yet you chose to cling to it like it’s gospel. It’s still got an OOA date of 65k on it, for heavens sake.
The only reason you take issue with the M1 being Asian in origin is that it demonstrates a significant input from Asia into Africa at a very ancient date, and it ‘contaminates’ East Africans if it’s not African in origin. This is not an intellectual quibble with the origin of M or M1.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
^^You're clearly grasping for straws, White Nerd. I doubt you understand what is implied from The Explorer's analysis laid out above. Basically, the variants that gave rise to M1 are exclusive to Africa. Even entertaining your wishful hypothesis that it is Asian doesn't negate the fact that it is African derived in the most basic way given that its very components are African. You seem to associate a single set of mutations with a distinction in phenotype and/or common ancestry which doesn't make much sense. The earliest M1 carriers were "Black" not based on geography, but population structure as was evident 60,000 years ago. Though of course entertaining your deranged rants doesn't seem to be much of a viable option. Rasol most recently made a keen observation concerning the presence of M1 in Siwa Berbers from Egypt. It was striking that these folks were not burdened by the presence of supposed "Asian derived" lineages that would theoretically be seen to accompany M1, like U6. Either way you cut it such can never support your White Nerd agenda.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata:
^^You're clearly grasping for straws, White Nerd. I doubt you understand what is implied from The Explorer's analysis laid out above.
It's beyond doubt; it is a given, and this despite the analysis having been ridiculously dumben down by *multiple* notches. Point: the troll doesn't have even half a brain. The petty troll needs a special English teacher, because his/her mumblings are replete with misreadings and misunderstandings, phantom citations (strawmen), contradictions, lack of basic intuition into genetics -- and the basic principles of science for that matter, packaged in a noisy [as does hot air] material-free response tinged amateurish false sense self-aggrandizement. Personally, I view the clown as something not even worthy of remote serious consideration, but just for the sake of providing illustrations of the just mentioned, here are examples to be made out of the petty troll:
quote:
The problems with what you just posted…
Is that you are not equipped with the brain necessary to absorb it.
Contradiction #1 [emphasized]:
1. I’m not using Gonzalez for the dates-I’m using Olivieri’s recent study that also points out of Africa for M1 ( the one that uses twice as many lineages as Gonzalez to date it).
You’ve overlooked that Gonzalez and Olivieri both get similar dates, over 20k as an average for the dispersal of M1 in North Africa, and when combined their results support each other. - the white clown
The clown says it isn't using Gonzalez et al. for the date, and then immediately after that, does just that, LOL.
The clown of course, has remotely touched reality; my analysis spends more than a good amount of time *pinpointing* the inadequacies and inconsistencies [and hence, the subjective nature] in said authors' dating-reports.
Example #2:
2. Moaning there is no ancestral M in India is dumb as a support for an African origin, as it doesn’t occur in Africa either. - the white clown
*Consensus genetics* must be doing the said moaning about lack of M ancestor outside of Africa, well, because it's the consensus. You are apparently too dense to realize that ancestors of M are already in Africa, as succinctly demonstrated.
Example #3:
But you do get masses of different types of M in India, some very ancient, I’ve seen a date of over 87k estimated in one Asian branch. You only get one relatively young M in Africa, and it shows a close affinity to the movements of U in North Africa, which is Asian. Two points against an African origin of M1 (younger age and less diversity). - the white clown
You mean you've just made two pointless noises. M1 is only young in relative terms of its expansion time frame, as suggested by its distinctive UEPs. Only in Africa, as demonstrated, is there an observed "evolutionary continuum" from Hg M-ancestral clades to M subclades. Plus, only an idiot comes out of reading my analysis, and still says there's only one M clade in Africa.
Example #4, contradiction#2 [emphasized]:
However, the lineages necessary to give rise to M1 are all present in Africa
3. Nope. - the white clown
...Sure, it descends from an African mt DNA with 10873 C, but the actually M defining mutation is absent in these African L clades (by defintion really). - the white clown
Example #5:
You need to read more up to date papers - the white clown
The analysis was first made in 2007 and reposted in the blog in '08, and remains valid, as demonstrated by your decrepit capacity to invalidate it. When was the Ganzalez et al. piece published? Then, tell me I needed more up to date papers.
Example #6:
, you are using data ten years old (and now heinously outdated) to base your arguments on - the white clown
If you have a new paper that has invalidated the nucleotide observations made in said "data ten years old", I'll be glad to examine it. Trolling is cheap.
Example 7, contradiction #3:
Says...
, you are using data ten years old (and now heinously outdated) to base your arguments on - the white clown
And...
which is now pretty antiquated. - the white clown
And goes onto use the same supposed antiquated data...
BTW; Semino says there’s no evidence the 10400 C > T transition has arisen more than once, - the white clown
Plus...
; 10873 with a C to T transition is typical of Eurasian non-M (N), and it isn’t seen in L. - the white clown
Plus...
The 10400 C > T transition defines M, not 10873 C. - the white clown
And...
Sure, it descends from an African mt DNA with 10873 C, but the actually M defining mutation is absent in these African L clades (by defintion really). - the white clown
White clowns are illiterate hypocrites.
Example #8, phantom citation/strawman:
, which is probably why your age for L3 at 50k was so massively innacurrate - M is over 65 at least, you do the maths. - the white clown
You need a special English class, as your post replies & relies on a non-existent entity.
Example #9, phantom citation/strawman #2:
The 10400 C > T transition defines M, not 10873 C. - the white clown
Your post replies & relies on a non-existent entity. Prep school English reading is in order.
Example #10:
(Semino, the study you quote) and so far all the evidence is that it had a single origin, and nothing points to it being in Africa. - the white clown
Total BS. Of course, it does; M1 has it, and M1's ancestors are all in Africa. That was the whole point of Semino et al.'s UEPs reporting on Hg M characteristic markers, not to mention the Senegalese haplotype.
Example #11:
Sure, it descends from an African mt DNA with 10873 C, but the actually M defining mutation is absent in these African L clades (by defintion really). - the white clown
Total horseshit. Recap:
Am. J. Hum. Genet., 66:1362-1383, 2000
mtDNA Variation in the South African Kung and Khwe and Their Genetic Relationships to Other African Populations
"The Asian mtDNA phylogeny is subdivided into two macrohaplogroups, one of which is M. M is delineated by a DdeI site at np 10394 and an AluI site of np 10397. The only African mtDNA found to have both of these sites is the Senegalese haplotype AF24. This haplotype branches off African subhaplogroup L3a (figs.2 and3), suggesting that haplogroup M mtDNAs might have been derived from this African mtDNA lineage..."
The relevant representation in this recap diagram:
^The 10397 transition is shown in the L3-M linkage, while 10394, which should show up as positive [as exemplified in the above extract] in the M macrohaplogroup, shows up negative in the linkage between L3 and non-M affiliated lineages.
And again, of course, it does; M1 has it.
Example #12:
All that shows is that Eurasian mt DNA is descended from African mt DNA, (duh) - the white clown
More accurate to say, that it is *all* that your brain-free skull was able to self-interpret from a very detailed & complex post.
Example #13:
and that the split from L3 to N was outside Africa and possibly L3 had been in Asia for a while when it happened - the white clown
Is that so? Well, recap...
As for the non-M mtDNAs, the ancient L1 and the L2 African-specific lineages5, as well as most L3 African mtDNAs, also carry 10873C.
Does that mean "all" L3 African mtDNAs? Also, do you know of any non-African L3, and which is the ancestral candidate of Hg M?
Example #14:
; 10873 with a C to T transition is typical of Eurasian non-M (N), and it isn’t seen in L. - the white clown
Noted long before your noisy point-free ramblings & whining; so, pointless. Glad for you, that you just *now* realized it though.
Example #15:
L3a is ancestral to M and N, (source Kittles), the one you observe in Senegal, but it lacks 10400 C>T. - the white clown
And nothing was said otherwise. Told you that you need a special English class.
Example #16:
If anything the lack of N in Africa (a first generation offspring of M like M) is indicative the it was L3 that left Africa and not M. - the white clown
If anything, this post shows how a lack of brain can be bitch. And there is no such thing as "lack of N in Africa"; it's your imagination.
Example #17:
So all that you did is show that L types with 10873 C (L3) are ancestral to M and N, and that 10873 T occurred in Eurasia-again duh. - the white clown
You mean, that's all you've self-interpreted from a presentation too elaborate for your mind. Re-read what was said in Example #13; alas, you are literacy-retardant.
Example #18:
BTW; Semino says there’s no evidence the 10400 C > T transition has arisen more than once, - the white clown
No kidding.
Example #19:
so it’s not looking like a spontaneous mutation in East Africa from some stray L mother- - the white clown
Indeed, there is nothing "spontaneous" about the "evolutionary gradient" pattern we [sans yourself of course] have seen in Africa. However, UEPs by themselves are spontaneous -- not that this was apparent to you.
Example #20:
all you’ve done is list the mutations... - the white clown
...that demonstrate an evolutionary continuum from L3 to Hg M; that, clown, I most certainly did. But hey, that ain't nothing compared to having no case at all, as you do, right?
Example #21:
that L and M have in common, not point out the long ignored mother of M1. - the white clown
What does this "long ignored mother of M1" mean to you, in the nucleotide sense? Tell us why Asia is home to this "long ignored mother".
Example #22:
Your entire case is built on Semino’s old and way less complex study of M1 - the white clown
That is a figment of your imagination. My case is built on both *pinpointing* [not merely engaging in whining, unconditional acceptance and indiscriminate reading like you do] the shortcomings of Gonzalez et al. [as I had done with Olivieri and others elsewhere] from a multifaceted standpoint, revisiting the evolutionary ancestors of Hg M [transcending Semino et al.'s report], which all only exist in Africa, and the distinctiveness of M1, which can more easily be explained from an African origin standpoint than a non-African one.
And oh, how is Semino et al.'s examination that covers both UEPs and hypervariable polymorphisms, less complex than Gonzalez et al.'s hypervariable-only examination? And the sad thing is that, without my simplification effort, even Gonzalez et al.'s study would have been prohibitively complicated for your feeble grasping ability.
Example #23:
which is now pretty antiquated. - the white clown
What about Semino et al.'s nucleotide specifications is antiquated? We are dying to see it.
Example #24:
His dates for M don’t match anything published after 2005 and are corrected by later larger studies with beter resolution involving M1 and M - the white clown
Semino et al.'s dating are well within the general realm of the relatively recent expansion of M1, which may differ by a few thousand years here and there. It does not have to "match" reports of others, which if not citing other authors, rarely match either, precisely due to the relatively subjective nature of hypervariable nucleotide interpretations, which could be affected by the unpredictable nature of hypervariable regions of subclades, the intra-Hg M phylogenetic extent of study in question, and the testing procedure applied. The uncertain nature of these datings are reflected in considerable margins of error, as Gonzalez et al.'s dates for example display.
Example #25:
, yet you chose to cling to it like it’s gospel. - the white clown
I'm all ears; ready to listen to what you have to say about what's wrong with Semino et al.'s nucleotide specifications, which are more comphrensive than say, Gonzalez et al., who didn't examine characteristic UEPs themselves and thereof its implications.
Example #26:
It’s still got an OOA date of 65k on it, for heavens sake. - the white clown
No doubt; many publications even today still use the 60,000 years ago mark; things considered, it appears that Semino et al. took it a notch up with the 65ky ago expansion reckoning.
Example #27:
The only reason you take issue with the M1 being Asian in origin is that it demonstrates a significant input from Asia into Africa at a very ancient date, and it ‘contaminates’ East Africans if it’s not African in origin. - the white clown
As with everything else we've seen, you've got it wrong. I take issue with it, because of lack of evidence. Your entire illogical ramblings of a response is predicated on the fact that an African origin of M bothers you, as it builds on both the *general* and other themes of African origins of white intellectual-vestigials like yourself.
All in all, as these mere examples show, your post is one big fat noisy incoherent BS outcry for attention; nothing remotely correct about any of it. And don't forget: That prep-school English reading is strongly recommended.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
^^Excellent breakdown for the troll (white nerd); albeit not needed, since you already explained yourself quite elegantly.
Only an incompetent individual would have a dissenting remark against the above post.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
Only an incompetent individual would have a dissenting remark against the above post.
Indeed.
Posted by astenb (Member # 14524) on :
Nice write up.
Posted by White Nord (Member # 14093) on :
quote:Originally posted by Alive: Awesome.
quote:Originally posted by Alive:
Here is some interesing data:
TABLE 4. Intra-limb bone length indices in US and Egyptian samples
************************** Crural index | Brachial index ********************** Males \ Females | Males \ Females ***************** Mean - SE \ Mean - SE | Mean - SE \ Mean - SE ** American Whites: 81.9 - 0.4 \ 82.0 - 0.4 | 74.3 - 0.4 \ 73.5 - 0.5 ** American Blacks: 83.7 - 0.4 \ 83.8 - 0.5 | 77.1 - 0.5 \ 76.5 - 0.5 Ancient Egyptians: 83.6c - 0.2 \ 82.8 - 0.3 | 77.9c - 0.5 \ 77.5c - 0.6
"Take a look at the crural index of modern Egyptians before you decide to wave those figures around ignorantly. I have it here; different study but there you go.
American white 82.6% Modern Egyptian 84.9% American Black 85.25%
It’s just shorter than a black Americans, coincidentally about the same as the ancient Egyptians. How inconvenient for you. I have that study you pasted around here somewhere too, I’ve had it it waved at me so many times by people that never thought to compare what the modern length is. You ‘conveniently’ leave out middle Easterners and modern North Africans. They have much longer limbs than Europeans: for example;
Belgium 82.5% Yugoslav 83.75% Egyptian 84.9%
As you can see it lengthens as you move South. Egyptians were Egyptians, not white Americans who mainly come from Northern Europe."
Posted by nomorelies (Member # 16201) on :
quote:Originally posted by White Nord:
quote:Originally posted by Alive: Awesome.
quote:Originally posted by Alive:
Here is some interesing data:
TABLE 4. Intra-limb bone length indices in US and Egyptian samples
************************** Crural index | Brachial index ********************** Males \ Females | Males \ Females ***************** Mean - SE \ Mean - SE | Mean - SE \ Mean - SE ** American Whites: 81.9 - 0.4 \ 82.0 - 0.4 | 74.3 - 0.4 \ 73.5 - 0.5 ** American Blacks: 83.7 - 0.4 \ 83.8 - 0.5 | 77.1 - 0.5 \ 76.5 - 0.5 Ancient Egyptians: 83.6c - 0.2 \ 82.8 - 0.3 | 77.9c - 0.5 \ 77.5c - 0.6
"Take a look at the crural index of modern Egyptians before you decide to wave those figures around ignorantly. I have it here; different study but there you go.
American white 82.6% Modern Egyptian 84.9% American Black 85.25%
It’s just shorter than a black Americans, coincidentally about the same as the ancient Egyptians. How inconvenient for you. I have that study you pasted around here somewhere too, I’ve had it it waved at me so many times by people that never thought to compare what the modern length is. You ‘conveniently’ leave out middle Easterners and modern North Africans. They have much longer limbs than Europeans: for example;
Belgium 82.5% Yugoslav 83.75% Egyptian 84.9%
As you can see it lengthens as you move South. Egyptians were Egyptians, not white Americans who mainly come from Northern Europe."
Envious one. Can you provide a link of where you got these percentages from? Also, you provided a list of percentages. Percentages of what? Is the table you are comparing these percentages to quoting percentages or average centimeters?
Finally, the object of the table is to show that people of the Nile Valley have limb structure similar to African Americans, and therefore implying similarites to other blacks.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by White Nord: "Take a look at the crural index of modern Egyptians before you decide to wave those figures around ignorantly. I have it here; different study but there you go.
American white 82.6% Modern Egyptian 84.9% American Black 85.25%
Please provide the link for said study as you were provided with one conveniently when you asked for one.
....they have American blacks at 83.7, Ancient Egyptians 83.6c and whites 81.9.
Compared to your Black 85.25% Modern Egyptian 84.9% American American white 82.6%.
Seems modern Egyptians crural index is higher than Ancients..?
Again, post link.
Posted by nomorelies (Member # 16201) on :
Mindovermatter
"Compared to your Black 85.25% Modern Egyptian 84.9% American American white 82.6%."
What are these percents referring to? Percent of what? Your link for your own table does not work for me.
Is the 83.6c for Ancient Egyptians a percent or average length in some sort of unit? Either WhiteNord is confused about what he/she/it is reading or I am.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by White Nord:
quote:Originally posted by Alive:
Awesome.
quote:Originally posted by Alive:
Here is some interesing data:
TABLE 4. Intra-limb bone length indices in US and Egyptian samples
************************** Crural index | Brachial index ********************** Males \ Females | Males \ Females ***************** Mean - SE \ Mean - SE | Mean - SE \ Mean - SE ** American Whites: 81.9 - 0.4 \ 82.0 - 0.4 | 74.3 - 0.4 \ 73.5 - 0.5 ** American Blacks: 83.7 - 0.4 \ 83.8 - 0.5 | 77.1 - 0.5 \ 76.5 - 0.5 Ancient Egyptians: 83.6c - 0.2 \ 82.8 - 0.3 | 77.9c - 0.5 \ 77.5c - 0.6
"Take a look at the crural index of modern Egyptians before you decide to wave those figures around ignorantly. I have it here; different study but there you go.
American white 82.6% Modern Egyptian 84.9% American Black 85.25%
It’s just shorter than a black Americans, coincidentally about the same as the ancient Egyptians. How inconvenient for you. I have that study you pasted around here somewhere too, I’ve had it it waved at me so many times by people that never thought to compare what the modern length is. You ‘conveniently’ leave out middle Easterners and modern North Africans. They have much longer limbs than Europeans: for example;
Belgium 82.5% Yugoslav 83.75% Egyptian 84.9%
As you can see it lengthens as you move South. Egyptians were Egyptians, not white Americans who mainly come from Northern Europe."
Indeed, as others have already noted, crediting the source is warranted! That said; it's mighty good of you to re-emphasize [whatever the actual authenticity of your citation] the point that ancient Egyptians and yes, even their modern counterparts, are distinct from Europeans, and henceforth, tears apart this one big fairyland family of "caucasoids", of which Europeans are supposedly a part. Rather, they nicely fit into the tropical African continuum; hey after all, them Euro scholars didn't call 'em "Super Negroid" for nothing.
As for the "Middle Easterners"; what of them? If it's any constellation, an "ancient Egyptian" specimen was described in relation to Levantine specimens this way:
Source: Link!
Posted by MaximallyAbstract_Faith (Member # 10819) on :
quote:Intralimb (crural and brachial) indices are significantly higher in ancient Egyptians than in American Whites, i.e., Egyptians have relatively longer distal segments (Table 4). Intralimb indices are not significantly different between Egyptians and American Blacks.
...
Egyptians fall within the range of modern African populations (Ruff and Walker, 1993), but close to the upper limit of modern Europeans as well, ***at least for the crural index*** (brachial indices are definitely more ‘‘African’’).
...
ancient Egyptians have intralimb length proportions similar to those of US Blacks ... There is no evidence for significant temporal or class-related variation among ancient Egyptians in linear body proportions. Thus, the new equations may be broadly applicable to Egyptian archaeological samples.
Unfortunately, what does "modern" mean in this context? And where were the Egyptian samples obtained?
Madilda imples that black Americans are more like Ancient Egyptians than White Americans because they have 25% "white blood." The only thing wrong with this is that if "white blood" were a significant determinant, then they SHOULD have matched up more with white people, but they didn't. She claims that the match with black Americans thus supports a "mixed" race model.
Another thing wrong with this is that the limb length studies of Zakrewski (2003, Shute 1983, et al.) ALSO group the early dynasty era ancient Egyptians more with black African groups. Indeed Zakrewski confirms Shute's finding that they were 'super-negroid.' "Super-negroid' captures how distinctive these people were, and how they so much resembled the Broad African type of physigonomy. It is hardly indicative of the presence of any white "mix". But even the super-negroid' types are merely ONE type of African among the many found in the Nile Valley. ANOTHER is the Elongated East African type and various other blends in between.
Once again Madilda keeps pushing her "true negro" approach. Variations in limb length do not automatically indicate any "mix" at all. She always keeps trying to duck the fact that Africans can actually vary in their physical dimensions. GASP... They can be short-limbed, or long limbed, tall or short, have light brown skin and jet black skin, have narrow noses or broad noses, and so on. And it is not always due to climate. In Africa, broad-nosed people with thin lips live in the high altitutes of East Africa, and thin nosed, full-lipped people like in West Africa's tropical zone.
Madilda's flawed premise is that to be "truly" black you HAVE to have a certain limb length. The reason she uses this is clear. Anything not 100% like the "true" type can then be labeled a "mix" or called something else like "Mediterranean" or "Middle Eastern." This is precisely the same approach that gave rise to the bogus "Aryan model". That is her approach and it collapses like a house of cards once people see that.
Just as "broad" type Africans are not the sole "true" type, neither are those with a certain limb proportions. They are definitely African, but only ONE type of African among many built-in INDIGENOUS variations.
Ironically Madilda, waxes indignant about "black Americans" who dare study the Nile Valley saying they have "no connection" with it. Well, as proved by the PN2 transition, DNA links them with other African peoples like the Egyptians. Furthermore both West African and Egyptian civilizations are inheritors of a heritage from the Sahara, which once stretched across a third of Africa. It is the Saharans that jump-started or laid the fundamental basis for civilizations in both places. Throw in the limb studies, which show said US blacks them to be closer to the ancient peoples that whites, and they have more than enough "right" to "be involved" with the Nile Valley civilizations.
The US Black sample though should not obscure the real point as to the limb studies. They show that the ancient Egyptians cannot be divorced from their African environment as many repeatedly try to do, or to minimize. That environment includes the Sudan, Sahara, the Horn, East Africa etc. "African" does not mean some distant location far south as some would like to spin it.
As for the Egyptian samples, if you read the study, they were mostly drawn from the north of Egypt supposedly a hotbed of Caucasoid colonization, and where indeed there has been more immigration from the Levant and the Medit. If anything, this northern bias shown have made the samples match white people more. However even with the deck stacked, they match more with the blacks, who we are told repeatedly, supposedly have "no connection" with them. The results should not be surprising. Other limb studies of the ancient deliver essentially the same result as noted by The E. Here's the plain text:
"..sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty (Merimda, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a south-north cline variation along the Nile valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into southern Palestine. The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans." (Barry Kemp, "Ancient Egypt Anatomy of a Civilisation. (2005) Routledge. p. 54
Everyone knows that ancient Egypt experienced the movements of other peoples. Hyskos, Greeks Romans, Arabs, Asiatics, etc. were all to enter in later periods. And there was always trade with various places. But even then, the country never lost its fundamental indigenous African character. That African character includes Nubia, (basically part of Egypt as noted many times here), the Sudan, the Horn, and the Saharan regions. Too often European scholars deliberately exclude these areas or conveniently airbrush them out of the picture.
"Ancient Egyptian civilization was, in ways and to an extent usually not recognized, fundamentally African. The evidence of both language and culture reveals these African roots. 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. (Christopher Ehret (1996) "Ancient Egyptian as an African Language, Egypt as an African Culture." In Egypt in Africa Egypt in Africa, Theodore Celenko (ed), Indiana University Press)
Posted by T. Rex (Member # 3735) on :
I did some looking up on the "modern Egyptian" limb data. It comes from a paper by some guy named Trinkaus in 1981.
Now, after further searching, I found comments on the Trinkaus paper by Keita ( http://wysinger.homestead.com/keita-1993.pdf ) that said that the "Egyptian" sample was from the predynastic period, not the "modern" period.
In other words, the "modern Egyptian" sample that Nord and Mathilda are referring to is actually a predynastic sample! Looks like they didn't do their homework!
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by T. Rex: I did some looking up on the "modern Egyptian" limb data. It comes from a paper by some guy named Trinkaus in 1981.
Pretty amazing that he would reference Erik Trinkaus 1981, trying to debunk a new 2008 study.
The 2008 study of which used a new technique based on anatomical reconstruction of stature.
Now, after further searching, I found comments on the Trinkaus paper by Keita ( http://wysinger.homestead.com/keita-1993.pdf ) that said that the "Egyptian" sample was from the predynastic period, not the "modern" period.
In other words, the "modern Egyptian" sample that Nord and Mathilda are referring to is actually a predynastic sample! Looks like they didn't do their homework!
Good information. I checked out your link. Trinkhaus' plot finds the ancient Egyptian samples plotting near to tropically adapted peoples like Pygmies and Melanesians and US Blacks. Yugoslavs and Belgians are nowhere near the Egyptians or US blacks as White Nord tried to imply. Trinkhaus, E. (1981) "Neanderthal limb proportions and cold adaptation."
Shaw 1976 noted: "..the early cultures of Merimde, the Fayum, Badari Naqada I and II are essentially African and early African social customs and religious beliefs were the root and foundation of the ancient Egyptian way of life." (Source: Shaw, Thurston (1976) Changes in AfricanArchaeology in the Last Forty Years in African Studies since 1945. p. 156-68. London.)
Following this, Merimde and Fayum are in northern (Lower) Egypt, but even then they still are found closely linked with African cultures. The samples in the recent study are drawn from the north but even then, they still hookup more closely with the tropically adapted US blacks.
Posted by MaximallyAbstract_Faith (Member # 10819) on :
Good find above.
quote:Originally posted by Alive: Awesome.
quote:Originally posted by Alive:
Here is some interesing data:
TABLE 4. Intra-limb bone length indices in US and Egyptian samples
************************** Crural index | Brachial index ********************** Males \ Females | Males \ Females ***************** Mean - SE \ Mean - SE | Mean - SE \ Mean - SE ** American Whites: 81.9 - 0.4 \ 82.0 - 0.4 | 74.3 - 0.4 \ 73.5 - 0.5 ** American Blacks: 83.7 - 0.4 \ 83.8 - 0.5 | 77.1 - 0.5 \ 76.5 - 0.5 Ancient Egyptians: 83.6c - 0.2 \ 82.8 - 0.3 | 77.9c - 0.5 \ 77.5c - 0.6
quote:Originally posted by MaximallyAbstract_Faith:
quote:Intralimb (crural and brachial) indices are significantly higher in ancient Egyptians than in American Whites, i.e., Egyptians have relatively longer distal segments (Table 4). Intralimb indices are not significantly different between Egyptians and American Blacks.
...
Egyptians fall within the range of modern African populations (Ruff and Walker, 1993), but close to the upper limit of modern Europeans as well, ***at least for the crural index*** (brachial indices are definitely more ‘‘African’’).
...
ancient Egyptians have intralimb length proportions similar to those of US Blacks ... There is no evidence for significant temporal or class-related variation among ancient Egyptians in linear body proportions. Thus, the new equations may be broadly applicable to Egyptian archaeological samples.
American Journal of Physical Anthropology Feb. 2008
Of the intralimbic measurements the brachial are superior. You're measuring the humerus (the proximal higher segment of the large limb bones) length with respect to its radius and so are sure to get results dichotomizing populations more adapted to the tropics from others less so.
Crural indices just measure tibia (shin bone) length relative to (divided by) femur length. The femur is the more proximal large lower limb bone ("thy bone").
By the way all of the female samples I've seen are more tropically adapted than the males as far as the crural index goes. The Ancient Egyptian female crural measurements cited by me are the only outliers, of all the various AE and other groups in all studies cited by the AJPA.
Of the limb to height ratios they said were the "more important" measurements (as opposed to intralimb data) blacks were over 21 times more similar to the AE for the male femur-to-skeletal height ratio measurements and 47+ times for the female measurments. In all stature to limb bone proportions the white percentage was "< .001" which means blacks were still not all that similar.
Posted by MaximallyAbstract_Faith (Member # 10819) on :
For the tibial/height measurements the female blacks weren't measured due to slopes not lining up (males had a percentage more than 25 times greater than "< .001").
Posted by MaximallyAbstract_Faith (Member # 10819) on :
For the plot graphs they showed, even though black American plots were within the AE range - especially tibia/stature data plots (though with great variability but with a non-parallel in comparison overall slope line that was closer to the Egyptian sample for those of shorter height though those with shorter height were more variable with relatively very long tibia) - they were not that similar as a group to the AE for some reason. The BA plots looked funky too. The Femur-to-stature plots didn't have the group ranges as distinct.
*
Alternative Crural measurements:
*************** Males * Females
******* A Egyptian: 83.8 * 83.0 (present study)
** Pre Dyn Naqada: 84.8 * 84.0 (Robins and Shute 1986)
**** African range: 82.8 - 85.8 (pooled sex - Ruff and Walker 1993)
* European range: 78.4 - 83.1 (pooled sex - Ruff and Walker 1993)
Interesting Observation:
Peep the comparison between the measurements of this and previous studies (using yet another alternative crural {tibia/femur} measurement) with the same studies' brachial measurements below. Why the inverse results as far as populations are concerned?
Crural:
quote:******* Males Females
Ancient Egyptians: 83.1 82.2 (present)
PreDyn Egyptians: 82.7 82.1 (Warren 1897)
American blacks: 83.0 83.1 (Raxter et al 2006)
American whites: 81.5 81.3 (Raxter et al 2006)
Brachial
quote:** American whites: 74.3 * 73.5 (present)
* American blacks: 77.1 * 76.5 (present)
Ancient Egyptians: 77.9 * 77.5 (present)
PreDyn Egyptians: 78.8 * 78.1 (Warren 1897)
**** African range: 76.4 - 78.7 (again, pooled sexes from Ruff and Walker '93)
** European range: 72.9 - 74.0 (Ruff and Walker '93)
I'm thinking that Saharans may be different proportionally (but that tropical influences on Ancient Egyptian stature remain obvious).
Posted by zarahan (Member # 15718) on :
quote:Originally posted by MaximallyAbstract_Faith: "(brachial indices are definitely more ‘‘African’’).[/b]
...
ancient Egyptians have intralimb length proportions similar to those of US Blacks ... There is no evidence for significant temporal or class-related variation among ancient Egyptians in linear body proportions. Thus, the new equations may be broadly applicable to Egyptian archaeological samples.[/i]
American Journal of Physical Anthropology Feb. 2008 [/QUOTE]
And thanks to T. Rex for the catch.
The study did note that the ancient Egyptian samples are not identical to that of US Blacks. This is not surprising. Few such studies show IDENTICAL measurements for everyone, especially populations separated thousands of years.
What is interesting is that (a) even though thousands of years separate the peoples and US blacks have a small anmount of white admixture , and (b) the samples were drawn from northern Egypt, particularly Giza near the Mediterranean, which some claim was a 'white' area, and (c) the samples were heavily Old Kingdom not only pre- dynastic - after all that, after 3 strikes - the ancient Egyptians STILL matched closer with black people.
. Furthermore, as you say, the study confirms several older studies like Trinkhaus (1981) who compared Southern Europeans, Northern Europeans, US whites and US Blacks. In that study too, the ancient Egyptians matched closer with the blacks. The north Keita notes, historically has had more migration of outsiders from Europe and the Levant than the South. By all rights then, these Lower/Northern samples 'should' match white people more closely- but they don't. The north too as Keita notes had a range of variation, but this need not indicate "white blood" at all, simply built-in native variation on the ground.
African people can vary in how they look, surprising as this still seems to some people. Thus it could also be said that any promimity to Europeans or resemblance is not at all due to any significant race 'mix' or reputed 'white blood' but routine African variability. Blacks can have narrow noses, wavy hair, light brown skin, etc etc without the need for any 'mix'. Just recapping.
And as noted by others, all this dovetails with other studies of the ancient Egyptian north.
"..sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty (Merimda, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a south-north cline variation along the Nile valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into southern Palestine. The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans." (Barry Kemp, "Ancient Egypt Anatomy of a Civilisation. (2005) Routledge. p. 54 .
Looking at this data one can see the sleight of hand played by C.L. Brace's 1993 clines and clusters study.
ES old timers already know the info, but recapping for new readers. The sleight of hand involved:
-Excluding the Badarians who clearly linked with the tropical peoples of the south, thus ensuring their characteristics would not be in his final results
-Using an artifical "African" category that excluded the Maghreb, Sudan, and the Horn of Africa
-Weighting his analysis heavily on noses and classsifying narrow noses in such a way that they were 'non sub-Saharan'
--Lumping together ancient and modern Nubians, thus blurring their distinctiveness, and obscuring any matches with Egyptians in various time periods
-Selective definitions of 'true' 'Sub-Saharan' types
When Keita re-ran the data in a more balanced fashion and tested several of Brace's assumptions in (S.O.Y. Keita. "Early Nile Valley Farmers from El-Badari: Aboriginals or "European" Agro-Nostratic Immigrants? Craniometric Affinities Considered With Other Data". Journal of Black Studies, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 191-208 (2005) a much more accurate picture emerged.
Quote:
However, Brace et al. (1993) find that a series of upper Egyptian/Nubian epipalaeolithic crania affiliate by cluster analysis with groups they designate “sub-Saharan African” or just simply “African” (from which they incorrectly exclude the Maghreb, Sudan, and the Horn of Africa), whereas post-Badarian southern predynastic and a late dynastic northern series (called “E” or Gizeh) cluster together, and secondarily with Europeans. In the primary cluster with the Egyptian groups are also remains representing populations from the ancient Sudan and recent Somalia. Brace et al. (1993) seemingly interpret these results as indicating a population relationship from Scandinavia to the Horn of Africa, although the mechanism for this is not clearly stated; they also state that the Egyptians had no relationship with sub-Saharan Africans, a group that they nearly treat (incorrectly) as monolithic, although sometimes seemingly including Somalia, which directly undermines aspects of their claims. Sub-Saharan Africa does not define/delimit authentic Africanity."
"An examination of the distance hierarchies reveals the Badarian series to be more similar to the Teita in both analyses and always more similar to all of the African series than to the Norse and Berg groups (see Tables 3A & 3B and Figure 2). Essentially equal similarity is found with the Zalavar and Dogon series in the 11-variable analysis and with these and the Bushman in the one using 15 variables. The Badarian series clusters with the tropical African groups no matter which algorithm is employed (see Figures 3 and 4).. In none of them did the Badarian sample affiliate with the European series."
Which exactly explains why Brace left them out. In 93 he attacked such limb studies by Shute and Trinkhaus. Well, the new data shows AGAIN that these and numerous other studies, as noted by Keita more than 10 years ago, were right all along.
Assorted Eurocentrics may spam his slanted diagrams everywhere, but the bogus game has been exposed a long time, and they know it.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
^I find it interesting that some of these stature studies take into account American Blacks samples and samples of European descent, while *leaving out* comprehensive sampling on continental "saharo-sub.Saharan" Africa itself.
Posted by zarahan (Member # 15718) on :
^Good point. I wonder why they do that. Speaking of exclusions Brace 93 excluded the Badarians, linked more with tropical types by Keita as we know. But I ran across someone recently who flashed a dental study at me arguing that it supports Brace. It does in that it disavows the Dynastic Race thing, and supports continuity.
But it examined the key Badarian group excluded by Brace, and found that said Badarians can indeed be considered quite representative of the Egyptian population, pre, mid and late Dyanstic. It also found the Badarians linked quite nicely with the Naqada. Which makes me wonder why there aren't more studies which as you say take in the WHOLE picture of Saharo- tropical Africa, and how the various peoples compare in varius eras. Limb studies would be especiallyinteresting. Why as you say doesnt someone run a comparison of those northern samples in Rafferty and Ruzz with the Saharo- tropical peoples? What's stopping them?
Quotes from Irish on the Badarians excluded by Brace:
"Despite the difference, Gebel Ramlah [the Western Desert- Saharan zone] is closest to predynastic and early dynastic samples from Abydos, Hierakonpolis, and Badari.."
the Badarians were a "good representative of what the common ancestor to all later predynastic and dynastic Egyptian peoples would be like."
"A comparison of Badari to the Naqada and Hierakonpolis samples .. contradicts the idea of a foreign origin for the Naqada (Petrie, 1939; Baumgartel, 1970)"
"Evidence in favor of continuity is also demonstrated by comparison of individual samples.. Naqada and especially Hierakonpolis share close affinities with First–Second Dynasty Abydos.. These findings do not support the concept of a foreign dynastic ‘‘race’’"
"Thus, despite increasing foreign influence after the Second Intermediate Period, not only did Egyptian culture remain intact (Lloyd, 2000a), but the people themselves, as represented by the dental samples, appear biologically constant as well."
(Joel D. Irish (2006). Who Were the Ancient Egyptians? Dental Affinities Among Neolithic Through Postdynastic Peoples. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2006 Apr;129(4):529-43.)
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:In other words, the "modern Egyptian" sample that Nord and Mathilda are referring to is actually a predynastic sample! Looks like they didn't do their homework!
Another disastrous attempt at propaganda by Mathilda....exploded.
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
The Explorer wrote: ---------------------------------- I find it interesting that some of these stature studies take into account American Blacks samples and samples of European descent ----------------------------------
One probable reason is that African Americans of all African people are the biggest threat to white supremacy. At least from what I have seen on the internet they are the most numerous and loudest of the Africans who combat eurocentrism.
Therefore one of the probable goals of this study was to show that Europeans were more affiliated with the Ancient Egyptians than African Americans.
Obviously they failed. Their own stupidity and race mythology didn't take into account that African Americans descend from "north" Africans also.
Posted by zarahan (Member # 15718) on :
^^LOL. I ain't surprised.
Posted by MaximallyAbstract_Faith (Member # 10819) on :
I was actually thinking what Supercar was thinking as I read "blacks and whites" "blacks and whites" "blacks and whites" when looking over the study again.
Why not measure Egyptians and Sudanese? Sahelians, and Eastern and Horn Africans? Sub-tropically adapted Southern Africans (though the South hemisphere is a different story from the Northern). At least Egyptian and Sudanese rural though.
Also, I made a mistake:
quote:By the way all of the female samples I've seen are more tropically adapted than the males as far as the crural index goes. The Ancient Egyptian female crural measurements cited by me are the only outliers, of all the various AE and other groups in all studies cited by the AJPA.
Obviously.
Besides, purely from a measuring standpoint the new studies used a new and putatively better technique - and got closer results for males and females of the same group. Except the Egyptians.
And that's what I was getting at. Though still in the African range and out of but sometimes near the European (though it can overlap crurally) something just strikes me as odd about the Egyptians even in the new study sexually diverging they way they do. Which is why other groups should be tested.
Posted by MaximallyAbstract_Faith (Member # 10819) on :
As said before in tibia vs skeletal stature measurement line-plot graph the AE line was closer to the black American line than in the femur vs stature graph. In the former the range of plots and the line for black americans really converged into the AE line and cluster the shorter individuals became -- many more whites were out of the AE range than were they from a purely hieght to femur measurement (where groups ranges really overlapped).
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by MaximallyAbstract_Faith:
something just strikes me as odd about the Egyptians even in the new study sexually diverging they way they do. Which is why other groups should be tested.
I question that it is an Egyptian "thing", to see indicators or trends of sexual dimorphism in either other morphological aspects or size.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
The main, primary, and actually ONLY reason why white supremacy fails is that it is totally and utterly illogical and irrational.
Posted by DULL-RAB Debunked (Member # 16646) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ausarian: Just regurgitation of discredited nonsense that has been dealt with ad nauseam.
— For one, "caucasoid" is scientifically bankrupt. What makes a gene "caucasoid", and what are they?
— Passarino et a. 1998 pooled Ethiopian groups from a sample taken at a hospital in Addis Ababa, which were mainly self-identified Amhara-speakers. This pooling obscured genomic pattern differentiations across intra-Ethiopic ethnic-lines.
— Amhara groups seem to carry relatively more J haplotype bearing Y chromosomes than their Oromo counterparts, but even these appear to date back to some time in the Neolithic period.
— Ethiopia is a big country, with at least some 80 different ethnic groups. In fact, it is one of the most diverse nations on mainland Africa. The bulk of these were not tested by Passarino; so, how you can reduce their gene pool to Passarino et al.'s findings, is beyond logic.
— Ethiopia has been found to be 'intermediate', primarily because non-African gene pools are a subset of an East African population, and to a lesser extent, secondary to *bi-directional* gene flow between the African Horn and its neighbours. In other words, it is a region genetically composite of deep-rooted lineages that are rare outside of the African continent and more downstream mutations that are common in both Africa and elsewhere - hence, the intermediate location.
— Certain maternal haplogroups that are common in "south west Asia" occurred as rare subtypes in Ethiopian samples, like those associated with haplogroup N1 and M1. Some haplogroups like say, M1, have in the past been erroneously referenced as "Eurasian" by some authors, when there is little to no evidence to suggest so.
You've said it all nicely.
Posted by Yonis2 (Member # 11348) on :
^^ Zaharan, what evidence do you have which supports your preposterous claim that "Amhara people are recent entrants" to Ethiopia?
Have you ever seen an Amhara or an Oromo for that matter? If so can you please outline the physical difference between them?
If you believe that oromo look like they are from central africa then you are really ignorant.
The genetic difference between Amhara and Oromo is insignificant, infact the basic component of the ASmhara people is shewan oromo, Agew etc. Amhara are just a federation of Oromo, Gurage and Agew people. So you don't make any sense when you say that Oromo are indigenous while Amhara are recent arrivals. If such is the case, then elaborate, "entrants" from where?
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
Do you agree with Passarono that Ethiopians (Amhara) are Caucasiod mixed?
Posted by Yonis2 (Member # 11348) on :
No i don't, now buzz off bookshop boy, i wasn't adressing you.
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
While the Oromos are the Majority in Ethiopia, It does not mean that the Amharas are somehow Immigrants from Asia.
Yes the Oromos have indeginous lineages that belong to E3 and less then 3% that are J lineage. Yes the Amhara have Hap J at a much higher rate but people have to understand how old the Lineage is in the Amhara. What I think that there was some West Asians that came and lived in Ethiopia at the time of the Neolithic, but they were more so like Other Ethiopians. You cannot tell a Amhara apart from a Oromo no matter how you line them up. I hope I explained it right but Yonis can tell you more about this region then anyone else.
Peace
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yonis2: No i don't, now buzz off bookshop boy, i wasn't adressing you.
What do you think was the reason for Passarono's claim?
quote:It does not mean that the Amharas are somehow Immigrants from Asia
I don't think this is what Zarahan was saying. In any event I'm sure he will come and explain himself.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
I'd actually have to agree with Yonis on this one; maybe he misspoke. The genetic difference among these groups, noted by the slightly higher Eurasian component among the Amhara, can simply be attributed to geography as trade relations, noted by the early pre-Askumite polities, were mediated more so by the Habesha in the northern fringes. The notion that these people are not indigenous or aboriginal can and I believe has even been used as propaganda. They are by far an African people so to state otherwise in that they came from somewhere else is a stretch. They need not be singled out since genetic studies show their closest relatives to be (not surprisingly) other Habesha and then Oromos and then Horn Africans in general.
This is not a criticism more than a respectful correction as zaharan's work is nearly pristine.
Posted by Yonis2 (Member # 11348) on :
quote:King wrote: Yes the Oromos have indeginous lineages that belong to E3 and less then 3% that are J lineage. Yes the Amhara have Hap J at a much higher rate but people have to understand how old the Lineage is in the Amhara.
It depends which oromo you speak of, oromo are like the slavic people, they are spread all over the horn and are not homogenous, Oromo who live in southern ethiopia and northern kenya will be very much different from the oromos who live in the highlands of Ethiopia. There is almost no difference between the sedentary oromos of highland Ethiopia and Amhara, these oromo are the basic component of the Amhara along with Agew and other minor ethnicities. Amhara is just a collective name of these christian orthodox highland dwellers who consist of different groups around those regions.
Posted by astenb (Member # 14524) on :
quote:Originally posted by KING: While the Oromos are the Majority in Ethiopia, It does not mean that the Amharas are somehow Immigrants from Asia.
Yes the Oromos have indeginous lineages that belong to E3 and less then 3% that are J lineage. Yes the Amhara have Hap J at a much higher rate but people have to understand how old the Lineage is in the Amhara. What I think that there was some West Asians that came and lived in Ethiopia at the time of the Neolithic, but they were more so like Other Ethiopians. You cannot tell a Amhara apart from a Oromo no matter how you line them up. I hope I explained it right but Yonis can tell you more about this region then anyone else.
Peace
This may sound stupid but I actually though you could tell them apart in some cases. I have been to Ethiopia a few times and traveled a lot around in the country. My ~personal~ opinion, reflecting on what i know NOW about the population : The Amhara compared to Oromo, especially in the northern parts of the country are darker (regardless of climate) and have broader features than Oromo. But it depends on exactly where you are. And all these differences are so ACUTE it sort of doesn't really matter. Also some features are differentiated even between certain family members, so you could see a picture of one Ethiopian with a Slim straight nose large eyes, and someone with broader features but they are all within the same family so its a moot point.
Ultimately ALL these features are Ethiopian and as Yonis said: Commentary about Ethiopian looks is really "insignificant" because ALL these looks are shared between ALL Ethnic groups as the LOOKS probably originated before a time such identifiable ethnic groups even existed....But they all still have the North East African look (Long head, receding hairline, almond eyes, etc).
Why people assume some Ancient admixture is going to change the way a people look is beyond me. And this is admixture from so called Arabians - who stereotypically have LARGE wide or Hook noses.
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
astenb
You make a very valid arguement. Why are people so quick to say that Ethiopians are mixed with Arabs, When the Arabs look "NOTHING" like the Ethiopians. Arabs are hairier and have hooked noses.
This is why when you say Neolithic immigrants, you are really talking about Asians that look like Ethiopians.
Peace
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
Some Ethiopians have hooked noses too look at Haile Sellasie.
Posted by Yonis2 (Member # 11348) on :
^^ Haile sellasie was half oromo half amhara, but in reality he was more like 2/3 oromo since amhara are more or less oromo in confederation with other ethnicities around those region on the highlands.
His father Ras Mekonen looks like any other Oromo/Amhara.
Posted by The_Killer_Wolofi (Member # 16624) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Before dynastic Egypt was even established there were large scale migrations.
^ From Africa into the Levantine?
Why, of course....
One can identify Negroid traits appearing in Natufian [Neolithic Israel] hunters...and in Anatolian and Macedonian first farmers.... probably from Nubia." - anthropologist, Larry Angel
re: LOOK AT THE POSITION of Egypt.
^ Indeed. No doubt proto semitic spread from North East Africa into the Levantine, along with African genes [E3b, Benin Hbs], but, how does that help you?
Can you tell us why the Indo-European language family *failed* to spread into Africa in antiquity?
Not according to Clyde lol Posted by The_Killer_Wolofi (Member # 16624) on :
quote:Originally posted by Alive-(What Box):
quote:You guys have even made the bogus claim that East, West, South, and even North Africans (berbers hello) were all black!
[hey! psst.... I'll give you a hint: just who do you think it is that originally populated North Africa to begin with?]
Well Berbers as we know are white in Africa and have been there for 50,000 years even the forum's anthropologist hero Keita attests to that.
You might want to GO to Africa rather than living in Africa on the internet
Those sorry white trash Berbers have been in North Africa forever dude, but you would have to actually BE an African to know that lol which we ALL know Afro Americans don't WANT unless it involves the White man's Egypt.
Posted by astenb (Member # 14524) on :
quote:Originally posted by The_Killer_Wolofi:
quote:Originally posted by Alive-(What Box):
quote:You guys have even made the bogus claim that East, West, South, and even North Africans (berbers hello) were all black!
[hey! psst.... I'll give you a hint: just who do you think it is that originally populated North Africa to begin with?]
Well Berbers as we know are white in Africa and have been there for 50,000 years even the forum's anthropologist hero Keita attests to that.
You might want to GO to Africa rather than living in Africa on the internet
Those sorry white trash Berbers have been in North Africa forever dude, but you would have to actually BE an African to know that lol which we ALL know Afro Americans don't WANT unless it involves the White man's Egypt.
Maaan........."Hell-out-my-face" There were no "Berbers" 50 thousand years ago. Berber language is not 50 thousands year old.
Posted by DULL-RAB Debunked (Member # 16646) on :
quote:Originally posted by KING: While the Oromos are the Majority in Ethiopia, It does not mean that the Amharas are somehow Immigrants from Asia.
Yes the Oromos have indeginous lineages that belong to E3 and less then 3% that are J lineage. Yes the Amhara have Hap J at a much higher rate but people have to understand how old the Lineage is in the Amhara. What I think that there was some West Asians that came and lived in Ethiopia at the time of the Neolithic, but they were more so like Other Ethiopians. You cannot tell a Amhara apart from a Oromo no matter how you line them up. I hope I explained it right but Yonis can tell you more about this region then anyone else.
Peace
Yes they are all Ethiopians AND Africans, and early West Asians looked like Africans as Hanihara 1996 shows.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
) 
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
, Cool, thanx.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
