I e-mailed Dr. Toomas Kivisild about these too matters and this is his reply:
My original e-mail:
> Hello Dr. Kivisild, my name is Charles Rigaud and I'm an athropology
> student. I have two question about African mtDNA that I seek your
> guiance on. The first one revolves around OOA mtDNAs. I understand
> from published data that mtDNAs associated with L3[super
> macrohaplogroups M and N] were the only ones that left Africa via a
> migration from East Africa. No L0-L2 lineages are associated with
OOA,
> but does that mean that L0-L2 lineages were:
>
> 1)Absent from East Africa at the time of these OOA migrations?
>
> or
>
> 2)Came from some place other that East Africa?
>
>
> My second question is about the Bantu migrations and their mtDNA.
From observing published data on the Y-chromosone, Bantu migrations have
> not significantly impacted Northeast Africans like Somalis,
> Ethiopians, and Sudanese. I would like to know if Bantu migrations
> have significantly impacted Northeast Africans like the ones listed
> above. I've read several publications on African mtDNA and none of
> them have yielded any answers regarding this matter, I seek you
> guidance and assistance on this. Thanks in advance.
>
>
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
> Charles Rigaud
Kivisild et tal's reply:
Dear Charles,
The picking up of just M and N from E-Afr is generally considered to be a phenomenon of lineage sorting,characteristic to relatively small founder population. Probably other African lineages were there but which exactly is impossible to judge now. As for the Bantus, I am not a
specialist in historic/arhaeologic details,
but yes, mostly as far as genetic evidence is concerned, I think generally it is assumed that NE Africa was relatively untouched by the massive gene flow of Bantus.
Best wishes,
Toomas
The first portion of the e-mail reply does not completely rule out out Dienekes' theory on the absence of L0-L2 lineages in OOA, but it his [Dienekes'] theory is certainly far from being the absolute, undeniable truth he's trying to make it out to be. The second portion of the e-mail confirms what I've said all along, that North-East Africans have not received 'Negroid' mtDNA by intrusive Negroid females, nor is assumed that North-East Africans ever have, therefore ruling out Dienekes theory that North-East Africans acquired 'Negroid' traits through mixture with intruding 'Negroid' females. What will he modify his theory to now?
quote:
L3 lineages were the only ones involved in OOA migration, L0-L2 lineages *MUST* have came from elsewhere in Africa
Kivisild shows us why Dienekes does not have a coherent premise, but even if we pretend otherwise, the premise does not make Dienekes intended underlying point, and here is why:
The Andaman's mitochondrial DNA supports the idea that humans leaving Africa dispersed along a southern coastal route through India and into southeast Asia and what is now Australia
This strongly supports the suggestion that the Orang Asli's [original people] harbor mitochondrial DNA lineages with time depths of about 44,000 to 63,000 years," concluded the researchers.
"The very similar ages of haplogroups M, N, and R indicate that they were part of the same colonization process. This most likely involved the exodus of a founding group of several hundred individuals from East Africa, some time after the appearance of haplogroup L3 about 85,000 years ago, followed by a period of mutation and drift, during which haplogroups M, N and R evolved and the ancestral L3 was lost," wrote the researchers."
L3 is the African group that gave rise to the two non-African groups, M and N, which are two of the three major Eurasian founder groups. N gave rise to the third. http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20050509/outofafrica.html
Since ALL non Africans have L3 derived lineages which were only a fraction of the total [African] gene pool,
and since all non Africans are derived from tropical African peoples and morphologies,
speculations on where exactly in Africa the different L lineages were located is useless for Dienekes intended purposes.
It could be that every current African L lineage existed in some small proto-village somewhere in Kenya, notwithstanding whatever lineages migrated out;
or if it please the pseudo [Dienekes], you can assign each L lineage an imaginary 'separate' area within Africa.
[a bit ridiculous too...what imaginary boundary would define "East vs. Central vs. West Africa" 60k years ago?]
The case would still be that non Africans are derived from a fraction of the African gene pool..... and that these people were tropical African morphologically, [per, trinkhous, holliday, rogers, etc..] regardless of L3,L2 or L1, all of which are African in any case.
The salient fact, which Dienekes seeks to evade is that the only European, or white people to exist at this time were Neanderthal. And they were wiped out by OOA migrants in the Upper Paleolithic, who lost their tropical adaptations [ie - turned white] in the late mesolithic.
No Neanderthal lineages have survived.
So...what Dienekes is trying to do, is invent a role for imaginary-ethnic-racial OOA "Europeans".
In fact, no such creature exists.
He is repeating the most famous fallacy in anthropological history, and for the same reason....
Piltdown man hoax.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 05 September 2005).]
quote:
Piltdown man hoax,
Two aspects aided the survival of the hoax for forty years. It satisfied European expectations that the earliest humans would be found in Eurasia, and the British also wanted a "first Briton" due to national identity
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 05 September 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by Charlie_Bass:
Its bad when I can predict this kid's actions, it makes you wonder how easy it is to do that.
Very easy, i'd say, posted 07 February 2005 11:17 AM:
quote:
S. Mohammad writes: Still jumpimg back to that outdated by seven years Passarino study? Read Salas et tal study which is the most updated study on African mtDNA and you will see that Ethiopians have no ancestry from Niger/Congo speakers. Moron!
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 05 September 2005).]
quote:
As for the Bantus, I am not a specialist in historic/arhaeologic details, but yes, mostly as far as genetic evidence is concerned, I think generally it is assumed that NE Africa was relatively untouched by the massive gene flow of Bantus.
Bantus are not the only Negroids:
The ensuing picture for East Africa, that is to say, would later have been changed through replacement by the expansion of Bantu or other "Negroid" tribes. -- Howells, 1995
And P.S. There's nothing "outdated" about the Passarino study. It was criticized for over-representing J-carrying Amharas, but that has no bearing on mtDNA.
quote:
Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Bantus are not the only Negroids:The ensuing picture for East Africa, that is to say, would later have been changed through replacement by the expansion of Bantu [b]or other "Negroid" tribes. -- Howells, 1995
And P.S. There's nothing "outdated" about the Passarino study. It was criticized for over-representing J-carrying Amharas, but that has no bearing on mtDNA.[/B]
The DNA evidence does not support any massive flooding of even West Africans. The lack of L3b and L3e cofirm this. Nilo-Saharans are indigenous to Northeast Africa as are people with so-called 'Negroid' morphology as represented by the Holocene remains of Sahaba, Tushka[Groves 1999] and Wadi Halfa mesolithic remains[Brace pers. communication]. Negroid peoples didn't come later or from west, central, or south Africa.
[This message has been edited by Charlie_Bass (edited 05 September 2005).]
quote:
The ensuing picture for East Africa, that is to say, would later have been changed through replacement by the expansion of Bantu [b]or other "Negroid" tribes. -- Howells, 1995
Even when we take that quote it still doesn't change the fact that:
The guy has been repeating the same crap for months, all of which are contradicting lies!!
Let dirty dogs lie.
Could someone post the relevant or in this case perhaps irrelevant portion of the passarino study?
quote:
Originally posted by kifaru:
"Niger-Congo' females from Passarino "Could someone post the relevant or in this case perhaps irrelevant portion of the passarino study?
You won't get the answer to this, precisely because of its irrelevance; ginzo ape simply snatches straws from a discredited and outdated study without actually understanding what is being said. Hence, ginney's extraordinary bewilderment to such extremely basic questions and the corresponding no-show of the long awaited answers to:
When one simply "mimics" without actually understanding what is being said, this kind of inferior sub-intelligent reaction to requests, is to be expected. This is clearly the case with ginney, and the questions were precisely intended to highlight this fact!
[This message has been edited by Super car (edited 06 September 2005).]
Great reference on Andamans islanders. Seems to be similar to result in Science 2005 article this year. I do not recall the month.
Thanks
hoda hafez
quote:
Originally posted by yazid904:
rasol,Great reference on Andamans islanders. Seems to be similar to result in Science 2005 article this year. I do not recall the month.
Thanks
hoda hafez
You're quite welcome.
quote:
Originally posted by Horemheb:
Its clear from reading the responses from various anthropologists that what we are doing here is more of the same old spin.
Toomas Kivisild is a geneticist, not a physical anthropologist, and are you even remotely familiar with his work?
The onus is on you to convince us that you understand anything that he is saying, otherwise we have no choice but to dismiss your remarks as a lame attempt at 'spin' by a clown who can't even do that correctly.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 07 September 2005).]
quote:
rasol...I don't have to convince you of anything. I'm not going to argue with political crackpots.
The only crackpot you're having an argument with, is yourself.
quote:
Originally posted by Horemheb:
rasol, You responded to my post, if you did not think there was a point there you would have ignored it.
If you make mistatements, they will be corrected. If your childish mentality is to take satisfaction from the response garnered from your own ignorance, then that's truly sad, but...so be it.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 07 September 2005).]
quote:
You are so hung up on this 'black thing' that the rest of the world just floats by unobserved..
You just described yourself perfectly. And that is why you have never contributed anything of value to this forum, and never will.
quote:
Thats right rasol...I'm not agoing to argue details with a racist moron.
Yes, stop arguing with yourself, good idea.
[This message has been edited by kafir4 ever (edited 07 September 2005).]
[This message has been edited by kafir4 ever (edited 08 September 2005).]
[This message has been edited by kafir4 ever (edited 07 September 2005).]
quote:
If you guys had a valid point to make you would not have to be on this board trying to prove it.
Once again, perfect self-discription of your mindless, pointless, off-topic, trolling antics. Continue to argue with yourself, idiot.