quote:Charles writes: I haven't seen rasol 'blacken' Greece at all. At any rate, just because the precursors to European E3b and J2 lineages lie in the Middle East and East Africa doesn't make them 'black lineages' by any stretch, just as most of the J-M267 lineages in Ethiopians are *NOT* 'Arabian Caucasoid' lineages. Lineages should not and are not "racial", they simply provide us clues to population expansions and migrations.
What is true and of relevance:
SOY Keita Arethusa 26 (1993) pg 329: "Professor Angel also found evidence for a "Black" (if such exists) genetic influence in neolithic and later Aegean populations. Racialists models, which imply non-overlapping gene pools, are clearly negated by Angel's work."
I concur with this.
To anyone who does not understand the above comments of Dr. Keita, I will assist in explaining them.
To anyone who would like to refute Keita's comments - here is your chance.
Posted by Underpants Man (Member # 3735) on :
Maybe Keita meant the very lineages Charles mentioned.
And how would Angel come up with a reliable image or description the genetic code of ancient Aegeans? The DNA in the bones would have rotted quite a bit over the ages, so I would take genetic samples from old bones with a grain of salt.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
No Keita's comment doesn't have any thing to do with DNA from old bones.
Other thoughts?
Posted by Horemheb (Member # 3361) on :
the statement is simply incorrect. There is no expicit genetic eveidence for any black influence in Greece, at least none that has ever been presented here. Outside of radical black political circles this kind of information is not discussed by anyone. It is a belated effort to attach to Africa an importance it has simply never had.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:There is no expicit genetic eveidence for any black influence in Greece
Please define for us your concept of explicit genetic evidence of black influence
If you can define this, then perhaps we can assess whether said influence does or does not exist?
If you can't define this, then your comments are literally meaningless.
I can define what Keita is talking about.
Can you define what you are talking about?
Posted by Horemheb (Member # 3361) on :
The burden of proof is on you rasol, not classical scholars, all of which disreagard those claims. The statement I made was that based on what you have posted there is no relaible evidence that any African influence on Greece exists.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
You didn't answer the question.
I will ask the question once more and then go back to ignoring you: Can you define what you are talking about?
Yes, or no?
Posted by Underpants Man (Member # 3735) on :
quote:No Keita's comment doesn't have any thing to do with DNA from old bones.
He cited a study from Angel that mentioned "genetic" influence from Africa in Greek bones. I must have taken this to mean that he had gotten DNA, and DNA contains genetic data (though it may not withstand all those centuries). Maybe I erred in assuming such.
Of course, the ancient Greeks would have had quite dark skin by European standards, and they almost certainly did have genes that originated from sub-Saharan Africa (unless someone could prove that Greek E3b came from African slaves imported into Greece as some Nordonuts contend, though I doubt it).
The question remains, how dark? Obviously they (with exceptions) had less brown complexions than Egyptians, but possibly barbarian incursions from the Roman period may have lightened the Greek net skin color. I guess they came in various shades of olive, similar to lighter-skinned Arabs and modern northern Egyptians today.
Posted by Horemheb (Member # 3361) on :
Go back and read the post rasol. I said that you have not offered ANY relaiable evidence to back up the idea of a black influnce in Greece, genetic or otherwise. That pretty much covers everything you have posted, at least everything that I have read.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:He cited a study from Angel that mentioned "genetic" influence from Africa in Greek bones
The question is - what is genetic influence?
Can bones tell us anything about geneology?
Can genes tell us anything about phenotype?
Can language tell us anything about population origins [again geneology], migrations and affinity?
Did Larry Angel draw conclusions about geneology based on physical anthropology?
Can a multidiscplinary approach be utilised to discuss all of the above?
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:unless someone could prove that Greek E3b came from African slaves imported into Greece as some Nordonuts contend, though I doubt it
The attempt to use slavery - a european reference to european ethnic groups - slavs, placed in bondage primarily by other europeans - as a qualifier of one's own ancestry is the height of ethnocentric lunacy.
Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome were slave socieites.
Therefore Europeans in general have slave ancestry.
The original Slav(s) were Europeans.
Europeans have Slav [slavic] ancestry. Europeans have Black African ancestry.
And whatever tortured excuses they make for it, it's *all* their ancestry.
Their need to make excuses only reveals that they are ashamed of their own ancestry.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
hore
quote:
The burden of proof is on you rasol, not classical scholars, all of which disreagard those claims. The statement I made was that based on what you have posted there is no relaible evidence that any African influence on Greece exists.
The burden is not on rasol, the burden is on you hore since Classical literature makes it clear Africans influenced Greece especially Egypt.
There is an abundance of evidence that the Egyptians had long settled many parts of ancient Greece.
In the ancient writings of the Greeks, the Egyptians were called Melampodes or "blackfeet". The Egyptians were also called Danaans in Greek history.
According to Hyainus in Fabula , and Appollonius, when the Danaans came to Greece they were called 'blackfeet'. This view is supported by the discovery of an inscribed stone in the Peloponnese that had Egyptian writing on it dating to the 5th Dynasty.
This short review of the Classical literature relating to the African identity of the Egyptians suggest that the views held by Lefkowitz in relation to an Egyptian presence in Egypt may not be correct.Numerous archaeologist have found abundant evidence of Egyptians settled in Greece long before the coming of the Indo-European-Aryans to Anatolia.
Cecil Torr in < Memphis and Mycenae> , discussed the inscriptions of Amemhotep found in a Mycenaean tomb at Ialysos in Rhodes and an 18th Dynasty scarab dating to the same period. As a result of the discovery of these artifacts Torr speculated that there were relations between Egypt and Greece between 1271 and 850 B.C.
The discovery of Torr was only the tip of the iceberg. Since the discovery of these artifacts in the 19th Century, archaeological evidence of Egyptians in Greece during the 2nd millennium has also been reported by J.D.S. Pendlebury, William A. Ward, and S.W. Manning .
Pendlebury provides a detailed discussion of the Egyptian material found at Laconia, Argolid, Thebes in Boeotia, and Athens. Pendlebury like Torr, believes that there were close relations between Greece and Egypt between the 12th and 7th centuries B.C.
Pendlebury's Aegyptiaca, has been excellently followed up by N. J. Skon Jedele, in her recent dissertation on Egyptian artifacts found in Greece. This dissertation provides even more examples of Egyptian artifacts found in Greece than those recorded by Pendlebury over sixty years ago.
Manning gives a well balanced discussion of the Egyptian material found in the Aegean area dating between the Old Kingdom and Dynasties 10 and ll. The work of Hankey and Warren indicate that there is archaeological evidence for Egyptians in ancient Greece, contrary to the false claims of Lefkowitz in Not Out of Africa.
The question must be asked, if there is this abundance of literature relating to an Egyptian role in ancient Greece, Why does Lefkowitz fail to discuss this literature? This question must be answered by Lefkowitz.
The failure of Lefkowitz to discuss this relevant knowledge base is inexcusable given her position at a prestigious Eastern University. The existence of a rich literature on the presence of Egyptians in ancient Greece makes Lefkowitz's and your claims about the ancient Greeks patently false.
End Notes
1. Lefkowitz, Not out of Africa, p.157.
2.Cecil Torr, Memphis and Mycenae, (London: Cambridge University Press, 1896) p.61.
3.Ibid., pp.64-65.
4. J.D.S. Pendlebury, Aegyptica: A catalogue of Egyptian objects in the Aegean Area, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1930.
5. William W. Ward, Egypt and the Mediterranean World 2200- 1900 B.C., Beirut: American University of Beirut. 1971.
6. S.W. Manning, The absolute chronology of the Aegean Early Bronze Age, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
Posted by Horemheb (Member # 3361) on :
You say the literature makes it clear Clyde, classical scholars do not. The only area that any connection can be made would be in large bulding and construction. I would agree that the Greeks got their ideal for building large structures from Egyptian grids....but that is all. Lefkowitz is a classical scholar, not an afrocentric crack pot. Her views are supported by Classical scholars in general.
Posted by IIla (Member # 10772) on :
No Hore Leftkowitz is a CLASSICS scholar! Perhaps you do not no the difference. I suggest that you use a dictionary.
Posted by Horemheb (Member # 3361) on :
The term classical is acceptable usage.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
hore
quote: You say the literature makes it clear Clyde, classical scholars do not. The only area that any connection can be made would be in large bulding and construction. I would agree that the Greeks got their ideal for building large structures from Egyptian grids....but that is all. Lefkowitz is a classical scholar, not an afrocentric crack pot. Her views are supported by Classical scholars in general.
hore you don'tknow anything about Classical lietrature. If you did you would know that it is the Classical literatures which proves the presence of Africans on the Greek mainland. Below we will discuss the Garamante/Garamande people.
GARAMANTES According to Classical Writers
Some of the first African colonists to arrive in Greece came from Crete. These Cretans were called Garamantes. After the goddess Ker or Car, these people also came to be also known as the Carians. The Carians spoke a Mande languages.
These people usually sailed to the Islands in Aegean and the surrounding coast where they established prosperous trading communities.
There is frequent mention of the Garamantes of the Fezzan, in Classical literature of Greece and Rome. The Garamantes were recognized as a Black tribe. They were known to the Greeks and Romans as dark skinned. In Ptolemy (I.8.5.,p.31) a Garamante slave was described as having a body the color of pitch or wholly black.
Graves (1980) and Leo Frobenius linked the Garamante to the ancient empire of Ghana (c.300 BC to A.D. 1100). Graves (1980) claims that the term Garamante is the Greek plural for Garama or Garamas. He said that the present Jarama or Jarma are the descendants of the Garamante; and that the Jarama live near the Niger river.
The Olympian creation myth, as recorded by Pindar in Fragment , and Apollonius Rhodius, makes it clear that the Garamantes early colonized Greece. Their descendants were called Carians. The Carians practiced apiculture. As in Africa the Carians practiced matrilineal descent. According to Herodotus , even up until his time the Carians took the name of their mother.
Many of the Greek myths are historical text which discuss the transition of Greece from an matriarchal society to a patriarchal Aryan society. The term Amazon was often used by the Aryans to denote matriarchal societies living on the Black Sea. The battle between Thesus and the Amazons, led by Queen Melanippe, records the conflicts between the ancient Aryan-Greeks and the Libyco-Nubians settled around the Black Sea.
The classical Carians and Egyptians were very close. Having originated in the Fertile African Crescent they had similar gods and cultural traditions dating back to the Proto-Saharan period.
The Garamantes founded Attica, where they worked the mines at Laureium. Demeter, the goddess of agriculture and fruitfulness, came from the Fezzan (Libya) by way of Crete. It was Demeter who took poppy seeds and figs to Europe.
Apollonius Rhodius (.iv.1310) tells us that the goddess Athene was born beside Lake Triton in Libya. The goddess Athene, was called Neith by the Egyptians and Nia by the Cretans in Linear A writing. This shows that the Garamantes took this god to Europe in addition to Demeter and Amon (=Ammon ,Amma).
By 3000 BC, the Garamantes has spread their influence to Thrace and early Hellenic Greece. Hesiod, who was a Kadmean (i.e., of Egyptian descent), in Works and Days , said that before the Hellenic invasion the Grecian people lived in peace and tranquility and had matriarchal societies. The name Europe comes from Aerope, the daughter of King Catreus, a Cretan.
Thucydides observed that:
"The first person known to us by tradition as having established a navy is Minos. He made himself master of what is now called the Hellenic sea, and ruled over the Cyclades into most of which he sent the first colonies, expelling the Carians and appointing his own sons as governors; and thus did his best to put down piracy in these waters, a necessary step to secure the revenues for his own use".
Thus we find that many Cretans who originally came from Africa also settled much of mainland southern Europe.
.
Posted by Horemheb (Member # 3361) on :
Nonsense. Clyde, you know that nobody is going to teach that stuff. If I email your post to Dr Lefkowitz and others you know what kind of response I am going to get.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: Nonsense. Clyde, you know that nobody is going to teach that stuff. If I email your post to Dr Lefkowitz and others you know what kind of response I am going to get.
No it isnt. Mr. Winters is absolutely correct that many writers have postulated a strong relationship between the Minoans(first Cretans) and Egypt. So get your facts straight. What you SHOULD say is that BECAUSE Minoan culture thrived 1000 years before the "classical" period, it is not considered part of "classical" Greek history, ie that after 500 B.C. To try and look at "classical" Greece ONLY AFTER 500 B.C. is only to look at Greece at the late period of its history and ignore what LED to its rise to greatness. Egypt's relationship to Greeceextends hundreds of years prior to Greece's "classical" period
No one is claiming that "classical" Greeks were black Africans. This is OBVIOUSLY not true. What we are saying is that in Greeces' prehistory, which goes back at least as far as 5,000 B.C., Africans played a role, but I wouldnt go as far as Mr. Winters because the evidence does not support the island of Thera, which was destroyed by the eruption of a volcano and earthquakes, being colonized by Africans. Therefore, we are taking legends and stories and trying to extrapolate that into a precise picture, which is not accurate. The best thing to do is to look at any contact between Africa and the Minoan civilization as NOT being the central element of their culture OR religion.
Therefore, the influence from Africa on Greece should not be OVER emphasized, but it should not be under emphasized. However, Afrocentrics have partially been the blame, since some of their claims go a bit overboard in tying Africa to Greece. Greece has a LOONG history and there were actually MANY different cultures/civilizations that developed at different periods in time. The Minoan is but one then there is the Mycenaean and Hellenistic civilization. What we call "classical" Greece is basically Hellenistic civilization. Much of Hellenistic culture derived from local traditions. Over this long period of history, there were contacts between Greece and Egypt/Africa, but you cannot generalize and say that Egypt "colonized" Greece. That is an overstatement. There may have been some presence of Egyptians in Greece as well as Greeks in Egypt, but you cannot overdo such settlements as necessarily "colonization"
Minoan frescoes from Thera (civilization destroyed by Volcano)
Note these ruins are MUCH MORE ADVANCED than those found in later periods in other parts of Greece. Therefore, various factors have impacted on the development of Greek civilization, including wars, natural disasters and other events, making the study of Greek history very complex indeed.
Here is a full listing of Greece's historical periods:
Therefore, it is not enough to claim "classical" studies as being a enough to explain Greek history. The classical period is really the LAST of a long line of Greek civilizations and really doesn't explain much. "Clasical" studies is only a SMALL part of all of Greek history.
quote: All the above terms are modern constructs used to cubbyhole the principal periods of Greek archaeology. For the ancient Greeks, the Late Bronze Age would have been their "Age of Heroes," the time of Herakles, Perseus, the Trojan War, etc. "Dark Age" generally describes a time of political and economic depression that occurred on the heels of the collapse of the Bronze Age powers of Greece. The 7th century marks a period of transition between the Dark Age and the rise of Greece as most people are familiar with it. "Archaic" can be defined only in relation to "Classical," i.e., as the developmental period in architecture, sculpture and other arts that eventually led to "Classical." "Classical" is a biased term, referring to what most people consider the epitome of Greek attainment in architecture and other arts. After Alexander the Great conquered the Persian Empire, beginning in 334, the Greek world expanded and took on new political institutions, while Greek art and architecture took on new twists. "Hellenistic" or "Greek-like" weakly describes this age, which modern scholarship has ending with the official founding of the Roman Empire.
Also note that the ideas of the colonization of Greece by Egypt is probably referring to the period after the Greek dark ages and is the beginning of what would be called the "classical" period. That is when we see Egyptian influence in art and architecture in Greek monuments, during what is called the "archaic" period. It would make sense as well, since Egypt had been thriving for more than two millenium as a continuous civilization at this point and would have been considered a "superpower" of the time. Therefore, a "classical" scholar could not contribute any signifigant information on this period, since it is PRIOR to the period covered in "classical" studies.
So, there are many instances of Egyptian influence on Greek and even Roman culture. The point is you have to be specific on who/what/when/where when making such claims since overgeneralization is NOT going to make a good argument.
Posted by Rigaud (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Charles writes: I haven't seen rasol 'blacken' Greece at all. At any rate, just because the precursors to European E3b and J2 lineages lie in the Middle East and East Africa doesn't make them 'black lineages' by any stretch, just as most of the J-M267 lineages in Ethiopians are *NOT* 'Arabian Caucasoid' lineages. Lineages should not and are not "racial", they simply provide us clues to population expansions and migrations.
What is true and of relevance:
SOY Keita Arethusa 26 (1993) pg 329: "Professor Angel also found evidence for a "Black" (if such exists) genetic influence in neolithic and later Aegean populations. Racialists models, which imply non-overlapping gene pools, are clearly negated by Angel's work."
I concur with this.
To anyone who does not understand the above comments of Dr. Keita, I will assist in explaining them.
To anyone who would like to refute Keita's comments - here is your chance.
Angel's "evidence" amounts to 2 out of 14 skeletal remains and even Keita was cautios about saying that, thus he said 'if thus exists'.
Posted by Rigaud (Member # 10328) on :
To add to that, I see no evidence of lineages reflecting “recent genetic mixture” from sub-Saharan Africans nor East Africans that would correspond with Angel’s proposed evidence of “black” genetic mixture.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
hore
quote: Nonsense. Clyde, you know that nobody is going to teach that stuff. If I email your post to Dr Lefkowitz and others you know what kind of response I am going to get.
Yes. They'll say: "KEEP IT ON THE DOWN LOW!"
.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rigaud: To add to that, I see no evidence of lineages reflecting “recent genetic mixture” from sub-Saharan Africans nor East Africans that would correspond with Angel’s proposed evidence of “black” genetic mixture.
But that is the problem what is "recent"? 5,000 B.C. is relatively recent compared to the existence of humans, but compared to the Greek "classical" period, that is ancient history.
Posted by Horemheb (Member # 3361) on :
There is no evidence of any African mixture in Greece in any era.
Posted by Rigaud (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by Rigaud: To add to that, I see no evidence of lineages reflecting “recent genetic mixture” from sub-Saharan Africans nor East Africans that would correspond with Angel’s proposed evidence of “black” genetic mixture.
But that is the problem what is "recent"? 5,000 B.C. is relatively recent compared to the existence of humans, but compared to the Greek "classical" period, that is ancient history.
The E3b lineages that Greeks have aren't the same as those found in East Africans. I agree the precoursor to both East African and European E3b1 has an East African origin but the European cluster is simply a different cluster.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
doug M
quote: Minoan frescoes from Thera (civilization destroyed by Volcano)
Note these ruins are MUCH MORE ADVANCED than those found in later periods in other parts of Greece. Therefore, various factors have impacted on the development of Greek civilization, including wars, natural disasters and other events, making the study of Greek history very complex indeed.
Doug you make some valid points. Yet I believe that the Akrot frescos have been retouched. The people in these frescoes bear little resemblance to the African type from Thera.
Akrot Figure
Thera Boat Scene
If you look carefully these men are wearing Afros, while the Akrot figure wears a 19th Century European haircut.
Close Up of Men on the Tower
Shame on those archaeologist who try to re-write history.
.... Posted by Rigaud (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: hore
quote: Nonsense. Clyde, you know that nobody is going to teach that stuff. If I email your post to Dr Lefkowitz and others you know what kind of response I am going to get.
Yes. They'll say: "KEEP IT ON THE DOWN LOW!"
.
Clyde you know full well there are no Black Greeks period, why keep advocating this position thats weakly supported if at all?
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
How do you know Hore? Have you studied the remains of ALL periods of civilization in Greece? The point is we should CLARIFY what is being said in the passage posted by Rasol, since it is a very loose and ambiguous phrase that really doesn't answer much at all. Whether there were African populations in Neolithic Greece, doesnt change the fact that by the "classical" period, such a presence was INSIGNIFICANT. Likewise, trying to extrapolate the POSSIBLE presence of Africans in the Neolithic to explain Greek culture in the "classical" period is ludicrous. However, that being said, that DOES NOT mean that there was no contact and influence from Egypt to Greece in the time leading up to and including the "classical" period. That is also ludicrous.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rigaud:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by Rigaud: To add to that, I see no evidence of lineages reflecting “recent genetic mixture” from sub-Saharan Africans nor East Africans that would correspond with Angel’s proposed evidence of “black” genetic mixture.
But that is the problem what is "recent"? 5,000 B.C. is relatively recent compared to the existence of humans, but compared to the Greek "classical" period, that is ancient history.
The E3b lineages that Greeks have aren't the same as those found in East Africans. I agree the precoursor to both East African and European E3b1 has an East African origin but the European cluster is simply a different cluster.
Right and the ancient migrations that introduced these lineages is TOO OLD to be of any signifigance in "classical" Greek populations. All humans came from Africa, at least SOME circles, but that does not change the fact that populations outside Africa have CHANGED a lot since then.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: doug M
quote: Minoan frescoes from Thera (civilization destroyed by Volcano)
Note these ruins are MUCH MORE ADVANCED than those found in later periods in other parts of Greece. Therefore, various factors have impacted on the development of Greek civilization, including wars, natural disasters and other events, making the study of Greek history very complex indeed.
Doug you make some valid points. Yet I believe that the Akrot frescos have been retouched. The people in these frescoes bear little resemblance to the African type from Thera.
Akrot Figure
Thera Boat Scene
If you look carefully these men are wearing Afros, while the Akrot figure wears a 19th Century European haircut.
Close Up of Men on the Tower
Shame on those archaeologist who try to re-write history.
....
While you do have fragments of images that SEEM to show a much darker population than that of present day or even "classical" Greece, the fact remains that the WHOLE population of Thera/Knossos, was NOT dark skinned. All of the images do not show brown skinned individuals. Either way, do you have EVIDENCE that the people looked more "African" prior to restoration by the archaeologists? Even if Thera did have a sizable African population, you must keep in mind that Thera was at least 1000 years prior to "classical" Greek civilization. Minoan civilization was destroyed by the earthquake and eruption of the volcano. Therefore, Minoan civilization and any presence of Africans is NOT directly significant to the development of "classical" Greek civilization.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Angel's "evidence" amounts to 2 out of 14 skeletal remains and even Keita was cautios about saying that, thus he said 'if thus exists'.
Not quite Charles:
Keita writes: Professor Angel also found evidence for a "Black" (if such exists) genetic influence -> in neolithic and later Aegean populations.
The such, in question, does not pertain to the quantity or quality of Larry Angel's evidence. [which is a life's work, btw, and not just from 14 skeletan as implied]
It does not pertain specifically to the Greeks and their ancestry either: it pertains to the concept of "Black genetic influence".
Whether or not such exists depends upon how you conceive of the notion of Black, and further within the context how 'genetic influence' is denoted.
Thus Keita adds: Racialists models, which imply non-overlapping gene pools, are clearly negated by Angel's work."
Blacks in the context in which Dr. Keita uses it here is and ethnic reference, [like Arab, or Berber, or Jew]....and not a racial typology.
And yes, the Greeks do have Black African ancestry, as denoted paternally by E3b male lineages, and autosomally via Benin HBS, which both originate via Black Africa and Black Africans.
Handwringings over uncontested facts are mere distraction.
In order to dispute Dr. Keita the following legitimate avenue are available.
* show that the Greeks do not have E3b.
* show that the Greeks do not have Benin Hbs.
* show that E3b and/or Benin Hbs did not originate in and among Black African[s].
And, show that Professor Larry Angel was wrong when he wrote the following:
Negroid traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters (McCown, 1939) and in Anatolian and Macedonian first farmers....probably FROM NUBIA via the predessors of the Badarians.
Posted by King_Scorpion (Member # 4818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: Nonsense. Clyde, you know that nobody is going to teach that stuff. If I email your post to Dr Lefkowitz and others you know what kind of response I am going to get.
Oh, so the ancients belief of where and how they came to be is less important than what some arrogant prick historian has to say thousands of years later...get real!! There is plenty of archeological evidence to support the theory of Greece being colonized by Egypt. I follow the Revised Ancient Model, not the Revised Aryan Model.
Posted by Rigaud (Member # 10328) on :
Of corse Winters has no evidence that Greeks and other Aegeans looked like blacks. Its plain to see that Clyde is a charalatan
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rigaud: The E3b lineages that Greeks have aren't the same as those found in East Africans.
Correct, in that Greeks carry a derived neolithic cluster of and East African lineage - derived *from East Africans.* The neolithic provinence of the alpha cluster provides genetic support for Neolithic African migrations to Greece.
quote: I agree the precoursor to both East African and European E3b1 has an East African origin
East African origin is correct!
As do the BOTH the East African and Europeans who carry the lineages.
One can scream cluster to the heavens and hope to change the subject, but it has no bearing on the Black African ancestry of the Greeks.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
What period are you referring to? The fact that Greece drew influence from Egypt during the archaic period, circa 800 B.C. has nothing to do with the ORIGIN of E3b in Greek populations. That would have been the result of a far more ANCIENT population migration. Likewise, the populations seen in the frescoes from Thera, therefore, could be a reflection of a lingering component of African features in the population or it could have also been a more RECENT migration from Africa. All of these periods of contact need to be clarified as well as the ORIGINAL basis of E3b and when it arrived in Greece.
Posted by Rigaud (Member # 10328) on :
Man this is redux once again and racializing lineages is not only wrong its something tht is not practiced by geneticists. E3b1 alpha has no distribution in Africa except for a minor influence in northern Egypt therefore it makes no sense to say that E3b in Greeks is proof of black African ancestry. As you well know now, E-M81 is now considered to be a E3b1 lineage so using your logic some Berbers are "black African" genetically?
Posted by Horemheb (Member # 3361) on :
rasol has no idea what he is talking about Doug. First, he can not firmly establish that they exist at all. This is what lefkowitz talked about when she discribed the afrocntrics attempt to turn "possibly" and "might have been" into absolute facts. If it were possible to prove that they existed then the next step would be to connect all of this to neolithic Europe, which cannot be done either. This is all lollipop land stuff put out for all the obvious reasons.
Posted by Rigaud (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Originally posted by Rigaud: The E3b lineages that Greeks have aren't the same as those found in East Africans.
Correct, the Greeks carry a derived neolithic cluster of and East African lineage - derived *from East Africans.* The neolithic provinence of the alpha cluster provides genetic support for Neolithic African migrations to Greece.
My point being that E3b1 in Greeks is not proof of black African mixture in Greeks still stands. The alpha cluster didn't arrive in Europe via migrations from Africa. There's also a lack of other African specific lineages to support this hypothesis, why would it be only E3b? E3b1 alpha is higest in Greece and decreases in frequency as one moves west. It is known that E3b1 alpha spread westward during Neolithic expansions, so using your logic that E3b is Greeks is proof of black African mixture one can say it was a westward expansion of black Africans into Europe, which is of course complete nonsense. Thats why it makes no sense to racialize lineages.
quote: I agree the precoursor to both East African and European E3b1 has an East African origin
East African origin is correct! As do the East African and Europeans who carry the lineages. [/QUOTE]
E3b1 alpha isn't east African in origin.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rigaud: Of corse Winters has no evidence that Greeks and other Aegeans looked like blacks. Its plain to see that Clyde is a charalatan
I wouldn't go that far. There clearly are images from Thera that depict a population with "afros". However, the point is WHO were they and what was their relation ship to the REST of Minoan civilization and the Agean?
another one:
Unfortunately, these are but fragments of images and we cannot make a conclusion based on fragmentary evidence. What I will say is that some of the frescoes were heavily damaged, requiring LARGE PARTS to be repainted in modern times:
other images from Santorini: Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:What period are you referring to?
The Neolithic.
African populations concentrated in the Upper Nile valley expanded both Eastwards and Westwards, and into the Middle East and Europe.
This scenario supports other studies about the Paleolithic European groups. Those studies suggest that a primitive, stone-age human came to Europe, probably from Central Asia and the Middle East, in two waves of migration beginning about 40,000 years ago. Their numbers were small and they lived by hunting animals and gathering plant food. They used crudely sharpened stones and fire.
About 24,000 years ago, the last ice age began, with mountain-sized glaciers moving across most of Europe. Paleolithic Europeans retreated before the ice, finding refuge for hundreds of generations in three areas: what is now Spain, the Balkans and the Ukraine.
When the glaciers melted, about 16,000 years ago, the Paleolithic tribes resettled the rest of Europe. Y chromosome mutations occurred among people in each of the ice age refuges, said Underhill. A pattern that developed in Spain is now most common in northwest Europe, while the Ukraine pattern is mostly in Eastern Europe and the Balkan pattern is most common in Central Europe.
About 8,000 years ago, a more advanced people, the Neolithic, migrated to Europe from the Middle East, bringing with them a new Y chromosome pattern and a new way of life: agriculture. About 20 percent of Europeans now have the Y chromosome pattern from this migration.
The above is a reference to East African lineages in the Greeks.
Underhill continues....
Archaeological digs in European caves clearly show that before 8,000 years ago, most humans lived by gathering and hunting, he noted. After that, there are traces of grains and other agricultural products. - Peter Underhill
quote:Doug writes: The fact that Greece drew influence from Egypt during the archaic period, circa 800 B.C. has nothing to do with the ORIGIN of E3b in Greek populations.
It simply denotes later and additional influence - and cultural, as opposed to biological.
That is also a valid point - although that is not what Dr. Keita is refering to.
quote:All of these periods of contact need to be clarified as well as the ORIGINAL basis of E3b and when it arrived in Greece.
Absolutely - so let's continue to do so. Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:E3b1 alpha isn't east African in origin.
Clade E3b1 is of Black African origin, and the Greeks have this clade, and so BY DEFINITION have Black African ancestry.
A clade is a single line of descent stemming from a common ancestor.
Alpha denotes a cluster - not a clade.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:My point being that E3b1 in Greeks is not proof of black African mixture in Greeks still stands.
As you have not met any of the specific requirments of refuting Dr. Keita statements, you don't actually have a valid point.
Again:
* show that the Greeks do not have E3b.
* show that the Greeks do not have Benin Hbs.
* show that E3b and/or Benin Hbs did not originate in and among Black African[s].
It's Dr. Keita whose point stands. You are not refuting it, only missing it.
Posted by Horemheb (Member # 3361) on :
Do you guys quote anyone but Keita rasol, Silly stuff, that is aside from distorting Brace.
Posted by Rigaud (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:E3b1 alpha isn't east African in origin.
Clade E3b1 is of Black African origin, and the Greeks have this clade, and so BY DEFINITION have Black African ancestry.
A clade is a single line of descent stemming from a common ancestor.
Alpha denotes a cluster - not a clade.
Look, I'm not going to further entertain this subject, I said my portion and it still stands that Greeks do not have any black African lineages. Underived E3b1 is African in origin but the alpha cluster is not.
Posted by Rigaud (Member # 10328) on :
"It's Dr. Keita whose point stands. You are not refuting it, only missing it."
I think you're misinterpreting and taking Keita's statements out of context, he said *IF* such a thing exists. I like what Underhill said of E-m81, that its incorrect to assume that all E-M81 is closely related, I think you're doing the same thing with E3b1 in this case, you're making the mistake of assuming that *ALL* E3b1 subclades and clusters are "black African,ie, closely related.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:I think you're misinterpreting and taking Keita's statements out of context, he said *IF* such a thing exists.
Actually, it was I who noted that "If such exists" properly qualifies the concept of Black genetic influence, and not as you implied, the quality of prof. Angel's work.
quote:I like what Underhill said of E-m81, that its incorrect to assume that all E-M81 is closely related,
I like what Underhill said too:
The point is that one should be careful not to assume that all M81 chromosomes are recently closely related. It is import to recognize that M81 probably does not truly occupy a "tip" in the Y tree even if depicted as such in some data sets.
But I don't see how it refutes Keita, or alters Underhill's assessment of E3b.
Underhill PA, Passarino G, Lin AA, Shen P, Mirazon Lahr M, Foley RA, Oefner PJ, Cavalli-Sforza LL.
The phylogeography of Y chromosome binary haplotypes and the origins of modern human populations.
Human Genetics 2001 Jan;65(Pt 1):43-62.
“The M35(E3b)/M215 sub-clade cluster of heliotypes fragments a lineage described previously (Hammer et al. 1997). We suggest that a population with this sub-clade of the African YAP/M145/M203/PN2 cluster expanded into the southern and eastern Mediterranean at the end of the Pleistocene.”
quote:you're making the mistake of assuming that *ALL* E3b1 subclades and clusters are "black African, ie, closely related.
No assumptions necessary in citing Keita and Underhill and Angel and foresight based on prior experience that no one can refute them.
The only mistake involved is in continually confusing clades and "clusters", which have no bearing on Keita's point.
Your entire argument depends upon PRETENDING NOT TO UNDERSTAND the difference between cluster and clade.
Posted by Rigaud (Member # 10328) on :
Keita never said there was any "black African" genetic influence in Greece, he simply quoted Angel based on Angel's skeletal analysis[2 out of 14 crania]. As per Underhill via personal communication, Y chromosones do not correlate to bone morphology and if you really read any of Keita's work on the Y chromosone and Pn2 clade he states that the PN2 clades cuts across different peoples with varying phenotypes thus E3b1 which is part of the PN2 clade does not correlate to anyone specific race. Your position is the exact opposite of what Keita is saying.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:As per Underhill via personal communication, Y chromosones do not correlate to bone morphology
Correct, but a straw argument since neither Keita nor I said otherwise.
quote: and if you really read any of Keita's work on the Y chromosone and Pn2 clade he states that the PN2 clades cuts across different peoples with varying phenotypes
Of course I have read his work, and understand it, and concur with it, however you do not, so you distort it to hide the differences between you:
What Keita actually says is, "the PN2 clade *UNITES*" people with various phenotypes.
By changing that to 'cuts across' you totally distort and reverse the meaning of it - from unite to 'divide'.
quote: thus E3b1 which is part of the PN2 clade does not correlate to anyone specific race.
Correct, as noted by Keita: Racialists models, which imply non-overlapping gene pools, are clearly negated by Angel's work."
Here is the clear difference between you and Keita, Charles:
Keita does not regard Black as a race typology.
But you continue to think in terms of race typologies.
This is why you can't understand his comments about Black genetic influence in ancient Greeks.
This is the key difference between you and Keita and that is exactly where and why you disagree.
quote:Your position is the exact opposite of what Keita is saying.
My position *is exactly* what Keita has stated:
Professor Angel also found evidence for a "Black" (if such exists) genetic influence in neolithic and later Aegean populations. Racialists models, which imply non-overlapping gene pools, are clearly negated by Angel's work."
Your position, that Greeks have no Black African ancestry is contradicted by Keita, Underhill, *and* Angel.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
hore
quote:
Do you guys quote anyone but Keita rasol, Silly stuff, that is aside from distorting Brace.
Abstract: HLA alleles have been determined in individuals from the Republic of Macedonia by DNA typing and sequencing. HLA-A, -B, -DR, -DQallele frequencies and extended haplotypes have been for the first timedetermined and the results compared to those of other Mediterraneans, par-ticularly with their neighbouring Greeks. Genetic distances, neighbor-join-ing dendrograms and correspondence analysis have been performed. Thefollowing conclusions have been reached: 1) Macedonians belong to the‘‘older’’ Mediterranean substratum, like Iberians (including Basques), NorthAfricans, Italians, French, Cretans, Jews, Lebanese, Turks (Anatolians), Ar-menians and Iranians, 2) Macedonians are not related with geographicallyclose Greeks, who do not belong to the ‘‘older’’ Mediterranenan substratum,3) Greeks are found to have a substantial relatedness to sub-Saharan (Ethiop-ian) people, which separate them from other Mediterranean groups. BothGreeks and Ethiopians share quasi-specific DRB1 alleles, such as *0305,*0307, *0411, *0413, *0416, *0417, *0420, *1110, *1112, *1304 and *1310.Genetic distances are closer between Greeks and Ethiopian/sub-Saharangroups than to any other Mediterranean group and finally Greeks clusterwith Ethiopians/sub-Saharans in both neighbour joining dendrograms andcorrespondence analyses. The time period when these relationships mighthave occurred was ancient but uncertain and might be related to the displace-ment of Egyptian-Ethiopian people living in pharaonic Egypt.The highly polymorphic HLA system has been validated as useful fordistinguishing and/or relating populations (and individuals) in manyresearch studies since the first International HLA AnthropologyWorkshop (Evian, 1973) and in all the subsequent seven InternationalWorkshops. HLA gene frequencies correlate with geographically re-lated populations. The existence or absence of gene flow among neighbouring ethnic groups may be assessed with the study of HLAfrequencies and the corresponding genetic distances (1, 2).Ancient Macedonians were among the peoples that lived be-tween northern Greece (Thessaly) and Thrace in the Balkans andwere considered by the classical Greeks as ‘‘non-Greek barbarians’’that could not participate in the Greek Olympic Games (3).
..
Posted by Horemheb (Member # 3361) on :
Posted by basicbows (Member # 10371) on :
Rasol and Rigaud:
Why don't you send a transcript of your argument to a geneticist and ask him to comment on it?
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
Don't know that is makes sense to ask anyone to "comment on and argument", and besides, I'd like to think we were having a respectful debate.
If anyone want's to send my comments to someone else for email reply, send the following:
quote:Professor Angel also found evidence for a "Black" (if such exists) genetic influence in neolithic and later Aegean populations. Racialists models, which imply non-overlapping gene pools, are clearly negated by Angel's work."
Keita is simply saying, that racialist models are negated by overlapping lineages, using the Black African ancestry in Neolithic Greeks as and example. Keita does not regard either in racial terms.
Posted by Rigaud (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by basicbows: Rasol and Rigaud:
Why don't you send a transcript of your argument to a geneticist and ask him to comment on it?
That wouldn't be in rasol's best interest because none of the people he quotes has said Greeks have black African lineages. I regularly do personally communicate with geneticists so I know what rasol says is certainly not the case.
Posted by basicbows (Member # 10371) on :
Rigaud:
If EB3 comes from black Africa, why isn't it a black lineage? I don't understand. Why is Rasol wrong?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: Do you guys quote anyone but Keita rasol, Silly stuff, that is aside from distorting Brace.
And exactly how was Brace distorted??..
He made it quite clear that "there was clearly a sub-Saharan African element present of almost equal importance as the Late Prehistoric Eurasian element."
And Brace went so far as to compare Natufians with Niger-Congo speakers!
Sorry Hore, but the only one trying to distort Brace is YOU.
And again with a simple lesson in genetics:
E3b is a subclade of E3 which is part of the E cladistic family which is totally African in origin.
All E3b found outside of Africa are downstream (younger) derivatives of older E3b lineages that are predominant IN AFRICA.
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
The Question is what is the big deal about clusters. If greeks have E3b1 alpha cluster it is still a part of E3b1. I am beginning to think that Rasol could be right about E3b1 Alpha cluster. I never really thought of it before but the Greeks Could have ancestry from Black Africa. Benin HBS needs to be discussed more because it is being left behind. If we agree that E3b1 alpha is a part of E3b1 then what is so hard to understand about the Greeks having Black Lineages.
Peace
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by basicbows: Rigaud:
If EB3 comes from black Africa, why isn't it a black lineage? I don't understand.
The answer has to do with the devastating discovery of Europeans that they have Black African ancestry.
For Euro-racialists - this deflates their entire conception of specialness and superiority over other peoples.
Therefore some devise for desparate and hypoocritical semantical games designed to make ancestry from Black Africans disappear behind ruse rhetoric or weasal word.
Sometimes this is even disguised as 'non racialism'.
Don't be fooled.
While these hypocrities try to convince Black people that we don't exist, in terms of population genetics - they busily carve Africa up genetically - speaking of Berber lineages, Arab mixture, and Jewish haplotypes.
Blacks in this scheme - must never be denoted as having lineages - for to do so is to immediately run smack-on into the reality that Jews...Arabs, Berbers...and Greeks ALL have Black ancestry.
Some Africanists still get intimidated, or confused by Eurocentrists into partaking in this anti-Black double standard.
Imagine someone who calls himself a Black man [a form of ethnic identification], yet denies that Black people have biological history - no lineages = no genetic history, thus allowing himself to be erased from said history.
Then, to add personal injury to self inflicted insult - speaks with strait face and no apparent sense of contradiction about Arab lineages in North Africa.
Arabs have lineages.
Blacks do not.
Even in Africa. (!!)
Time to stop playing the chump for Eurocentrists and their ethnocentric grandstanding and false vanity.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:That wouldn't be in rasol's best interest because none of the people he quotes has said Greeks have black African lineages.
Professor Angel also found evidence for a "Black" (if such exists) genetic influence in neolithic and later Aegean populations. - SOY Keita
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^^Ironically, Hore and his ilk have yet to produce evidence of an early "caucasoid" ancestry in Africa. Sure there is the CLAIM, that Egyptians are somehow really caucasians, other than that and distortions that is all they got.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by KING: The Question is what is the big deal about clusters. If greeks have E3b1 alpha cluster it is still a part of E3b1. I am beginning to think that Rasol could be right about E3b1 Alpha cluster.
The alpha cluster is actually a part of the proof of Neolithic African influence in Ancient Greece.
Clades define lineages.
Clusters are means of determining when those lineages expanded within populations.
The alpha cluster has a neolithic expansion date.
From this fact we know, that the original population of Europe - who settled Europe about 35 thousand years ago - *did not have E3b lineage*.
Therefore this lineage is not native to Europe.
E3b was introduced into Europe in the Neolithic - along with ->
a) the Natufians,
b) agriculture and animal domestication
c) benin sickle cell [which by the way - also shows distinct european 'clustering' which further shows the antiquity of Black African ancestry in Europeans].
d) distinct African morphologies - who resemble modern and ancient Black Africans and *do not resemble current white populations of Europeans*.
The later point is the essential finding of CL Brace [2005]:
The questionable contribution of the Neolithic and the Bronze Age to European craniofacial form The assessment of prehistoric and recent human craniofacialdimensions supports the picture documented by genetics that theextension of Neolithic agriculture from the Near East westwardto Europe and across North Africa was accomplished by aprocess of demic diffusion (11–15). If the Late PleistoceneNatufian sample from Israel is the source from which thatNeolithic spread was derived, then there was clearly a Sub-Saharan African element present of almost equal importance asthe Late Prehistoric Eurasian element. At the same time, thefailure of the Neolithic and Bronze Age samples in central andnorthern Europe to tie to the modern inhabitants supports thesuggestion that, while a farming mode of subsistence was spreadwestward and also north to Crimea and east to Mongolia byactual movement of communities of farmers, the indigenousforagers in each of those areas ultimately absorbed both theagricultural subsistence strategy and also the people who hadbrought it. The interbreeding of the incoming Neolithic peoplewith the in situ foragers diluted the Sub-Saharan traces that mayhave come with the Neolithic spread so that no discoverableelement of that remained. This picture of a mixture between theincoming farmers and the in situ foragers had originally beensupported by the archaeological record alone (6, 9, 33, 34, 48,49), but this view is now reinforced by the analysis of skeletal morphology - CL Brace
Posted by redmarrakesh (Member # 8201) on :
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: The burden of proof is on you rasol, not classical scholars, all of which disreagard those claims. The statement I made was that based on what you have posted there is no relaible evidence that any African influence on Greece exists.
Lol nice to see this forum never changes.
Horemheb, why do you take this biggot RASOL seriously enough to open a conversation with him? Next he's gonna tell us that we modern Greeks are really Africans who are not REALLY white,we just use the same whitening-body-cream-for-egyptian-bimbos to appear whiter.
Rasol- ...umak!
LOL!
Posted by Keins (Member # 6476) on :
This information is what is driving the eurocentric dogmatic people, who truly understand the implication of the new genetic information, to force aboriginal cacausoids into the prehistory of not only all of North Africa but now onto East Africans whom are still sub-saharan africans. The next trick will have to be reclaim East Africans as caucosiods!
Eurocentric euphemistic trickology!
What or who are/were caucasians/caucazoids again? Where did they orginate? How do/did they look? What genetic lineage(s) originated specifically in their population? What language(s) do/did they speak?
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: hore
quote:
Do you guys quote anyone but Keita rasol, Silly stuff, that is aside from distorting Brace.
Abstract: HLA alleles have been determined in individuals from the Republic of Macedonia by DNA typing and sequencing. HLA-A, -B, -DR, -DQallele frequencies and extended haplotypes have been for the first timedetermined and the results compared to those of other Mediterraneans, par-ticularly with their neighbouring Greeks. Genetic distances, neighbor-join-ing dendrograms and correspondence analysis have been performed. Thefollowing conclusions have been reached: 1) Macedonians belong to the‘‘older’’ Mediterranean substratum, like Iberians (including Basques), NorthAfricans, Italians, French, Cretans, Jews, Lebanese, Turks (Anatolians), Ar-menians and Iranians, 2) Macedonians are not related with geographicallyclose Greeks, who do not belong to the ‘‘older’’ Mediterranenan substratum,3) Greeks are found to have a substantial relatedness to sub-Saharan (Ethiop-ian) people, which separate them from other Mediterranean groups. BothGreeks and Ethiopians share quasi-specific DRB1 alleles, such as *0305,*0307, *0411, *0413, *0416, *0417, *0420, *1110, *1112, *1304 and *1310.Genetic distances are closer between Greeks and Ethiopian/sub-Saharangroups than to any other Mediterranean group and finally Greeks clusterwith Ethiopians/sub-Saharans in both neighbour joining dendrograms andcorrespondence analyses. The time period when these relationships mighthave occurred was ancient but uncertain and might be related to the displace-ment of Egyptian-Ethiopian people living in pharaonic Egypt.The highly polymorphic HLA system has been validated as useful fordistinguishing and/or relating populations (and individuals) in manyresearch studies since the first International HLA AnthropologyWorkshop (Evian, 1973) and in all the subsequent seven InternationalWorkshops. HLA gene frequencies correlate with geographically re-lated populations. The existence or absence of gene flow among neighbouring ethnic groups may be assessed with the study of HLAfrequencies and the corresponding genetic distances (1, 2).Ancient Macedonians were among the peoples that lived be-tween northern Greece (Thessaly) and Thrace in the Balkans andwere considered by the classical Greeks as ‘‘non-Greek barbarians’’that could not participate in the Greek Olympic Games (3).
..
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:We just use the same whitening-body-cream-for-egyptian-bimbos to appear whiter.
Apparently so.... Pigmentation and Empire The Emerging Skin-Whitening Industry By AMINA MIRE
Eastern and southern European women have used skin-whitening in order to appear as 'white' as their 'Anglo-Saxon' "native" white sisters. If dark skinned eastern and southern Europeans can "pass" for white with a little help from skin-bleaching creams, those with sufficiently light skin tones but who are legally categorized as racially black by their invisible " one drop" of "black blood", could also "pass" for white as well.
The "appearance of whiteness" is the key to accessing the exclusive cultural and economic privileges whiteness accrues.
The fear of the infiltration of "invisible' blackness has fuelled both the marketing strategies of industry and the anxieties of white women that they may not appear "white enough".
Ouch.
Don't hate, now. Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:This information is what is driving the eurocentric dogmatic people, who truly understand the implication of the new genetic information, to force aboriginal cacausoids into the prehistory of not only all of North Africa but now onto East Africans whom are still sus-saharan africans. The next trick will have to be reclaim East Africans as caucosiods!
Precisely Keins.
The East Africa K-zoids sillyness came about precisely when it was no longer possible to claim that human beings originated in Eurasia [caucasia], or that Europeans have a separate - pure white - origin.
Genetics has simply applied a death blow to Euro-racialism.
The result is sheer desparation.
If little to nothing of biological consequence actually originates in caucasia - then simply call it caucaziod and dare anyone to call the nonsense bluff.
The only cauca-zoids, are the caucasians, the people who live in caucasia.
This term became the basis of a fake race typology because German scholar Johanne Blumanbach actually claimed mankind originated in the caucasus, and that moreover all peoples were originally white, and non whites were literally deginerate. Wrong, wrong and wrong.
Use of this term as a race typology is therefore oxymoronic, misnomer, transgressive, and imperialistic - which is really the point of using it to begin with.
Posted by Keins (Member # 6476) on :
Thanks for reiterating the debunked caucasoid theory which I am aware of. I was really posting those questions for Hore, but of course he will not be able to answer those questions according to the way he uses the lose term caucazoid/caucasian. Pseudosceince as at its best or worst; take your pick!
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:This information is what is driving the eurocentric dogmatic people, who truly understand the implication of the new genetic information, to force aboriginal cacausoids into the prehistory of not only all of North Africa but now onto East Africans whom are still sus-saharan africans. The next trick will have to be reclaim East Africans as caucosiods!
Precisely Keins.
The East Africa K-zoids sillyness came about precisely when it was no longer possible to claim that human beings originated in Eurasia [caucasia], or that Europeans have a separate - pure white - origin.
Genetics has simply applied a death blow to Euro-racialism.
The result is sheer desparation.
If little to nothing of biological consequence actually originates in caucasia - then simply call it caucaziod and dare anyone to call the nonsense bluff.
The only cauca-zoids, are the caucasians, the people who live in caucasia.
This term became the basis of a fake race typology because German scholar Johanne Blumanbach actually claimed mankind originated in the caucasus, and that moreover all peoples were originally white, and non whites were literally deginerate. Wrong, wrong and wrong.
Use of this term as a race typology is therefore oxymoronic, misnomer, transgressive, and imperialistic - which is really the point of using it to begin with.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:We just use the same whitening-body-cream-for-egyptian-bimbos to appear whiter.
Apparently so.... Pigmentation and Empire The Emerging Skin-Whitening Industry By AMINA MIRE
Eastern and southern European women have used skin-whitening in order to appear as 'white' as their 'Anglo-Saxon' "native" white sisters. If dark skinned eastern and southern Europeans can "pass" for white with a little help from skin-bleaching creams, those with sufficiently light skin tones but who are legally categorized as racially black by their invisible " one drop" of "black blood", could also "pass" for white as well.
The "appearance of whiteness" is the key to accessing the exclusive cultural and economic privileges whiteness accrues.
The fear of the infiltration of "invisible' blackness has fuelled both the marketing strategies of industry and the anxieties of white women that they may not appear "white enough".
Ouch.
Don't hate, now.
LMAOH Nice one, Rasol!
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Keins: This information is what is driving the eurocentric dogmatic people, who truly understand the implication of the new genetic information, to force aboriginal cacausoids into the prehistory of not only all of North Africa but now onto East Africans whom are still sub-saharan africans. The next trick will have to be reclaim East Africans as caucosiods!
Eurocentric euphemistic trickology!
What or who are/were caucasians/caucazoids again? Where did they orginate? How do/did they look? What genetic lineage(s) originated specifically in their population? What language(s) do/did they speak?
Hard to imagine there are others out there just as sick as he is.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: Do you guys quote anyone but Keita rasol, Silly stuff, that is aside from distorting Brace.
And exactly how was Brace distorted??..
He made it quite clear that "there was clearly a sub-Saharan African element present of almost equal importance as the Late Prehistoric Eurasian element."
And Brace went so far as to compare Natufians with Niger-Congo speakers!
Sorry Hore, but the only one trying distorting Brace is YOU.
And again with a simple lesson in genetics:
E3b is a subclade of E3 which is part of the E cladistic family which is totally African in origin.
All E3b found outside of Africa are downstream (younger) derivatives of older E3b lineages that are predominant IN AFRICA.
Correct, the Wairak of Tanzania, along with the Datoga, Iraqw, Khwe and several other South and SouthEast Africans [including South African Bantu], have underived E3b lineages.
This lineages extend northward into the horn {Oromo, Somali, Afar, Borana} and then transition into derived lineages E3b1, E3b2 and so on in the horn and areas further North.
E3b is the definitive male lineage of Native East Africa.
Posted by redmarrakesh (Member # 8201) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:We just use the same whitening-body-cream-for-egyptian-bimbos to appear whiter.
Apparently so.... Pigmentation and Empire The Emerging Skin-Whitening Industry By AMINA MIRE
Eastern and southern European women have used skin-whitening in order to appear as 'white' as their 'Anglo-Saxon' "native" white sisters. If dark skinned eastern and southern Europeans can "pass" for white with a little help from skin-bleaching creams, those with sufficiently light skin tones but who are legally categorized as racially black by their invisible " one drop" of "black blood", could also "pass" for white as well.
The "appearance of whiteness" is the key to accessing the exclusive cultural and economic privileges whiteness accrues.
The fear of the infiltration of "invisible' blackness has fuelled both the marketing strategies of industry and the anxieties of white women that they may not appear "white enough".
Ouch.
Don't hate, now.
LMAOH Nice one, Rasol!
Djehuti, hey sexy do you have a pretty ass? Do your YANKEE SOLDIERS have a pretty ass too? Listen you corn-fed Atlanta whore.. When your **** goverment send your yankee WHORES to IRAN for a new war,you will enjoy some Persian cock as well..it seems that Arab cock wasnt enough Hail Iraq
Rasol , which century do you live in? Tanning salons have been fashionable here for decades,don't know any black Greek wanting to become white. Which whitening cream does your MAMA use? ahhh...as I said ,..umak! Love ya habiby
Posted by redmarrakesh (Member # 8201) on :
Hard to imagine there are others out there just as sick as he is.
lol whats a caucasoid?
Mmm...whats that smell? is it your negroid? skin that stinks in here? Posted by Mansa Musa (Member # 6800) on :
^^
LMAO .
You know which trolls are smoking crack when they start using homoerotic taunts to flame you.
Reminds me of Giza Rider and his perverted attacks on Sonomod.
Posted by redmarrakesh (Member # 8201) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mansa Musa: ^^
LMAO .
You know which trolls are smoking crack when they start using homoerotic taunts to flame you.
Reminds me of Giza Rider and his perverted attacks on Sonomod.
No offence Mansa Munsa but he had it coming! And by the way,I never tried drugs,I think you mistake me with the white trash of your own country..
Anyway who are you,Djehuti's mama ,or one of his bit.ches? LOL ghetoo culture and proud of it ,huh?
Before you offend someone else's cultural background and country,look at your own shi.t! Capito ,Americano? Posted by Mansa Musa (Member # 6800) on :
When have you ever seen me attack someone elses cultural/national background?
And it's funny that you'd accuse me of being Djehuti's "bitch", when you are the one engaging in prison talk*.
* See Example Posted by redmarrakesh (Member # 8201) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mansa Musa: When have you ever seen me attack someone elses cultural/national background?
That wasn't aimed at you,it was a comment for rasol and djehuti and probably it can apply to many others.I thought you understood that.
I don't know if you are another extremist of their type,but I can assure you that I ve come across such types before.The last one I remember ,in a public forum ,was obsessed with "Pan-Turkism" .And the ridiculous theory that everything(languages,civilisation,traditions) was created or came from Pro-Turks or Proto-Turks or whatever. My theory is that when I see people like that I deal with them on their own level.And excuse that bad language honey ,but I am afraid its the only language they understand. All they do is try to hide the fact that they are biggoted racists behind pseudo-arguments and "educated remarks".The imbecilic reply of rasol to me didn't bother you.So why does my talk bother you?Double standards yet again ,my dear?
Posted by Calypso (Member # 8587) on :
Spencer Wells The Journey of Man pg 58:
quote:Early human beings probably had fairly dark skin. This is because of the nature of the environment in which they lived.
Spencer wrote the above with reference to the OOA population. This discussion of course is about relatively recent African ancestry. Wells's quote may be used as a benchmark to illustrate what we all agree about tropical Africans: they are dark skinned, i.e., black.
The question boils down to this: is use of the term “black” legitimate? I don’t think anyone here would disagree that East Africans are tropically adapted people and that “black” is the convenient shorthand by which we refer to dark skinned tropically adapted people – especially Africans. Similarly the cold adapted people of Europe can be called “white.” That does not mean that ipso facto one believes in the concept of race.
Did E3b originate in East Africa? Rigaud agrees with Rasol that it did. Were these African people black? I don’t think Rigaud disputes that they were.
If you accept that E3b originated among black people in East Africa then perforce you have to agree that all the descendents of these people had black ancestry. This is nothing controversial or disputable-its pure logic that can be applied to any human attribute: All of Eric Clapton’s scions can say their ancestor was a rock star, all of Derek Jeter’s grandkids can say they have an ancestor who was a Yankee, all of Jennifer Lopez’s grandchildren can claim their grandmamma had a tremendous asset which she left to posterity. All people who have downstream E3b have ancestors who had un-derived E3b and therefore black ancestry. The logic is inescapable.
Does that mean there are “black” genes? No it does not; and I haven’t seen that claim being made.
If Greeks are descendants of people who carried E3b and we cannot say the have black ancestry then in what sense can we logically say they have white ancestry? We can't make that cliam either - for any people.
The question of whether these people were black when they settled Greece is a different question entirely. The skeletal morphology of Neolithic first farmers in Europe argues that they were still similar to Africans and that they differed morphologically from the aboriginal European foragers.
What about their impact on culture and civilization? It cannot be denied that the introduction of a new mode of life, farming, was the basis of any subsequent civilization. The artifacts that remain can attest the Neolithic technology these people brought.
What about other aspects of life? I quote Frazer from, the preface to his classic, The Golden Bough written in 1922:
quote:With these and other instances of like customs before us it is no longer possible to regard the rule of succession to the priesthood of Diana at Aricia as exceptional; it clearly exemplifies a widespread institution, of which the most numerous and the most similar cases have thus far been found in Africa. How far the facts point to an early influence of Africa on Italy, or even to the existence of an African population in Southern Europe, I do not presume to say. The pre-historic relations between the two continents are still obscure and still under investigation.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
Very good post Calypso.
Posted by Calypso (Member # 8587) on :
^^Thanks Rasol - for the compliment but moreso for the knowledge you impart on this board.
Posted by Calypso (Member # 8587) on :
I don't mean to stray off topic but I'd be remiss if I didn't also acknowledge a debt to Charles Rigaud, Supercar, Ausar, Wally and many others for their contributions towards a better understanding of the human family. These discussions are helping to blow away eurocentric distortions like chaff in the wind.
Posted by Horemheb (Member # 3361) on :
Calypso, Genetic research is in its early stages and while it can tell you some things it cannot tell you everything. The very fact that all of these arguments take place makes the point. In terms of eurocentric distortions some of you have a lot of nerve insulting good men and women who have earned their PHD and work hard everyday to try to expand our knowlede in these various fields. To call them frauds is the height of ignorance and pettiness. To dismiss their hard work because it does not correspond with some 'notion' you have is absurd . The larger academic community will ignore you, as they should.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by Calypso: I don't mean to stray off topic but I'd be remiss if I didn't also acknowledge a debt to Charles Rigaud, Supercar, Ausar, Wally and many others for their contributions towards a better understanding of the human family. These discussions are helping to blow away eurocentric distortions like chaff in the wind.
I agree with you.
I started this thread to further prior fruitful discussions with all the other contructive discussants - and I would make mention of "Thought" here in particular.
They all help make ES worthwhile - just disregard the noisemakers whose only goal is to distract and disrupt.
Posted by Horemheb (Member # 3361) on :
disrupt what? This implies what all of us have known all along, that rasol looks at the board as his 'personal' soap box. Any point of view that challenges his 'dogma' becomes an effort to disrupt and distort.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by KING: Benin HBS needs to be discussed more because it is being left behind.
Peace
Good post King. Benin HBS is additional, important and irrefutable evidence of Black African ancestry in Southern Europeans.
Because of this, a great deal of effort has gone into obscurring the facts of Benin HBS in Europe, in order to deny this, or simply to confuse people.
In order to understand Benin Hbs autosome in southern Europe we can begin with some definitions.
autosomes - autosomes are all the chromosomes in the [in this case human] genome that are not sex chromosomes.
sex chromosomes - trace maternal and paternal ancestry.
autosomes however are inherited from the mother and father.
non coding genes - this are both autosomes and sex chromsome genes passed on from one generation to the next - but having no direct effect on morphology.
morphology - anything dealing with structure of and organism - similar to phenotype.
sickle cell *anemia* - a disease characterised by sickle shaped bood cells interfering with blood flow
Consider for now - that sickle cell is not a gene. it is not a disease either it is a morphology or phenotype. literally referencing blood cells shaped like sickles.
Benin hbs is not a morphology. it is and autosomal gene that is coded for - and therefore causes sickle cell morphology.
With this as background information, we can begin to rationally discuss benin hbs in Europe.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
Benin HBS in Sicily:
quote:"Sickle cell [anemia] is the most common genetic abnormality that afflicts people of African ancestry and it is the most frequent hemoglobinopathy in Italy." Their report goes on to say that "HbS is endemic in Sicily and this anomaly has been described in living Sicilians and in people of Sicilian ancestry. For thousands of years the Mediterranean basin has been the crossroad for trade, races, ideas, and art. The geographical position of Sicily at the center of the Mediterranean made it a natural stopover on these journeys. Phoenicians, Greeks, Carthaginians, Byzantines, Saracens, Normans, Spaniards, Arabs, Jews, and mercenaries from all over the world came to Sicily in large numbers to settle. In contrast to the past, there has been almost no immigration of this kind during the last few centuries. The genetic structure of the Sicilians is clearly not due to recent additions. The consensus is that the gene was introduced into Sicily and Southern Italy from Northern Africa through the trans-Saharan trade routes or, alternatively, by means of the Greek colonisation, although the introduction of the gene into Sicily during the Arab (Saracen) invasion cannot be excluded."
Actually you have no idea where the gene entered from. This is all prue speculation, just as rasols post above was. No scholar is going to make these huge leaps of faith we see here. There is a historical method that must be adhered to. We recently found some Roman coins buried in an indian mound on the Mississippi river. People like rasol and Clyde would take information like this an assume Rome conquered ancient America and that the Indians were all Italian.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
Note that there are 4 distinct HBS [hemoglobin S] autosomes.
They are all noted as HBS because they cause the same morphology - sickle shaped blood cells, but are otherwise completely distinct inherited genes, with 4 separate origins.
Note the names Geneticists have given these Haplotypes, they are named after their source of origin:
Benin HBS - orignates in Benin West Africa. Senegal haplotype - originates in Senegal. Bantu HBS - originates among the Bantu peoples. Arab/India [Asia] haplotype - originates in Asia, *not* in Africa.
Where these haplotypes began, and where they are today, can be used to qualitatively trace population history.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
hore
quote: Calypso, Genetic research is in its early stages and while it can tell you some things it cannot tell you everything. The very fact that all of these arguments take place makes the point.
Most of the time I do believe that hore's goal is to distract readers from gaining knowledge from the messages posted on the forum/board but I agree with him concerning the role of genetics in interpreting the past since 32,000 BC.
The debates surrounding the interpretation of genetic knowledge herein, makes it clear, that this knowledge base can tell us very little about recent population movements i.e., after 32000 BC.
Chiek Anta Diop laid the foundations for Afrocentric historiography. He argues that the genetic model can be used to explain the analogy between ancient African civilizations. There are three components in the genetic model:1) common physical type, 2) common cultural patterns and 3) genetically related languages.
Genetic research can not be made part of the genetic model of study of ancient African civilizations because this knowledge base places emphasis on the fact that Africans spread throughout the world in 32,000 BC, and after this date the other population groups arose and became individual "lineages". This is not science, because the researchers practicing this method can only speculate when this or that differentiation actually took place.
Although geneticists can not be specific in establishing dates for the possible rise of particular cultures, peoples and civlizations. Other social sciences can be more specific in dating the past. for example:
1)historians using textual evidence can positively date specific civilizations and, events and personages participating in the civilization under examination by the researcher;
2) archaeologists identify specific cultural packages/assemblages associated with particular civilizations and skeletons can identify when and where various ancient people lived and posit when certain populations existed and migrated in to specific area (i.e., the movement of the Natufians from African into the Middle East);
and 3) linguists can use linguistic data to genetically connect speakers of one language to other languages, and through the study of toponymic eveidence they can infer on population movements and places of origination of speakers of a particular language.
As pointed out by hore genetic research lacks this internal validity since it is not an exact science, and the results are only agreed upon by most scholars in the field relating to 32,000 BC. The absence of internal validity in genetic research makes it clear that this knowledge base can provides us with little solid information from which we can make inferences about the presence or absence of this or that popoulation / group, in this or that area/region at a paticular point in history.
.
Posted by Horemheb (Member # 3361) on :
From his consistent habit of ignoring 'historical method' we can assume that rasol is 'not' a trained scholar but rather something far less on the educational latter. If he has an advanced degree in genetics he should tell us so. If he does not then what we have is a layman trying to use very complicated information that he does not have the background to understand. I bacame suspicious when he kept insisting on turing "possibilities" and "could have beens" into absoltue facts. I think he used the term himself..."distort and disrupt."
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Dr Winters writes: The debates surrounding the interpretation of genetic knowledge herein, makes it clear, that this knowledge base can tell us very little about recent population movements i.e., after 32000 BC.
Two simple points, and some observations:
1) Population geneticists uniformly disagree with you.
2) Your statement that 'debate' on interpretation of genetic knowledge somehow "makes it clear that genetics can teach us very little about population movements", is a classic example of logical non-sequitur.
A non-sequitur is specious argument in which a conclusion is made based on 'evidence' that in fact does not lead to said conclusion
The best way to show you why your comment is a non-sequitur is for you to replace the word genetics, with 'linguistics' or 'physics' for that matter.... and then make the very same comment.
In the case of linguistics, the irony is trenchent, since your views on language are contradicted by essentially the *ENTIRE LINGUISTIC COMMUNITY*.
What is most logical to infere of course is that this tells us - not about the limitations of linguistics - but rather/merely, about the limitations of *your own unsupported linguistic theories.*
Not meaning to be impolite here, but non-sequitur arguments are a form of distraction.
The point is: Debate over interpretation of knowledge does *not* prove that knowledge is of little use.
As for Horemheb, he doesn't understand linguistics, genetics, historical method or anything else. He is simply a joke and beneath contempt - which is why I won't let him waste my time.
Just ignore him so we can have and intelligent conversation.
Which leads me to....
Dr Winters, let's be honest with each other.
Isn't it fair to say that you do understand genetics well enough to know that it strongly disconfirms [to use your pet phrase] your linguistic theories.
So, you have little choice but to attempt well poisoning attacks against the science of genetics, or..... abandon your linguistic theories, which are so badly contradicted by genetics.
You choose to do the former - simply because have no choice.
Am I wrong?
Given this, I don't expect your semantics to change, but I do want you to know that I understand why you need to reduce yourself to and essentially anti-scientific approach.
Meanwhile, I wish you good luck removing the genetics from geneology in order to put the 'genie' back in the bottle.
You are just painting yourself into a corner, where linguists, geneticists, and historians can all easily dismiss your theories as mere pseudoscience, unworthy even of debate, and persuasive only to 'luddites' unwilling or inable to deal with 21st century scientific method.
Posted by Horemheb (Member # 3361) on :
rasol says he ignores me and then responds. I asked if rasol had an advanced degree in the field he seems to want to distort. he ignores proper historical method and then throws the argument back at the other person. Classic example, he accuses Winters of using statements that are "a non-sequitur" but then does not expalin himself. i think we have caught rasol and the game he plays.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Dr. Winters writes: 1)historians using textual evidence can positively date specific civilizations and, events and personages participating in the civilization under examination by the researcher;
This is simplistic of course as textual evidence is debated all the time.
Time frames are subject to debate because each cultural group maintains distinct calendar/chronology, and even then, the texts are subject to interpretation - and moreover - even if interpreated correctly - they are subject to human error.
To imply that textual evidence is necessarily definitive is to say that anything that is written can only be interpreted in one way, is always interpreted clearly, and is always true.
That makes little sense.
Disagree?
Based on textual evidence:
* tell us exactly when the the Great Sphinx was constructed?
* when exactly did the Hebrew enter Egypt? when did they leave?
* did Moses of Egypt exist? why is he mentioned in the textual evidence of the Bible, but not at all in MDW NTR.
* did exodus occur, and if so, when where.
* did narmer really unit egypt, was he one king, many, or merely symbolic.
* when exactly was egypt united.
According to you: textual evidence should reveal clear/simple irrefutable answers - with *no debate over interpretation*, which, again according to you, is what demonstrates - superiority of historical method.
We await the definitive answers.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Note that there are 4 distinct HBS [hemoglobin S] autosomes.
They are all noted as HBS because they cause the same morphology - sickle shaped blood cells, but are otherwise completely distinct inherited genes, with 4 separate origins.
Note the names Geneticists have given these Haplotypes, they are named after their source of origin:
Benin HBS - orignates in Benin West Africa. Senegal haplotype - originates in Senegal. Bantu HBS - originates among the Bantu peoples. Arab/India [Asia] haplotype - originates in Asia, *not* in Africa.
Where these haplotypes began, and where they are today, can be used to qualitatively trace ancestry, and population migrations.
As shown below....
quote:Sandler SG, Schiliro G, Russo A, Musumeci S, Rachmilewitz EA.
"As an approach to investigating the origin of sickle cell hemoglobin (hemoglobin S) in white persons of Sicilian ancestry, two groups of native Sicilians were tested for blood group evidence of African admixture. Among 100 unrelated Sicilians, the phenotypes cDe(Rho) and Fy(a-b-), and the antigens V(hrv) and Jsa, which are considered to be African genetic markers, were detected in 12 individuals. Among 64 individuals from 21 families with at least one known hemoglobin S carrier, African blood group markers were detected in 7 (11%). These findings indicate that hemoglobin S is only one of multiple African genes present in contemporary Sicilian populations. The occurrence of hemoglobin S in white persons of Sicilian ancestry is considered to be a manifestation of the continuing dissemination of the original African mutation."
Posted by Horemheb (Member # 3361) on :
rasol, Nobody is saying Greece has a black componet but you. When people hear that they automatically think you are a 'nut' and disregard everything else you have to say. Its better to error on the safe side than to just wander off the academic plank .
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
rasol
quote:
So, you have little choice but to attempt well poisoning attacks against the science of genetics, or..... abandon your linguistic theories, which are so badly contradicted by genetics.
You choose to do the former - simply because have no choice.
Am I wrong?
Yes. You are wrong because I see many ways in wish genetic research can be used to support my linguistic hypothesis.
I really have no confidence in genetic research, but I have read the literature and saw how other researchers have used the knowledge to discuss recent population movements so I plan to apply the same methods to my papers, especially the relationship between Dravidian and African languages.
I have already decided on how I plan to write the studies up and during the up coming year I will be sending my articles out to be considered for publication in the journals mentioned regularly in this forum. If they are accepted for publication I will report back to the forum.
Hore is right about one thing, if you don't have the courage to publish your own work, don't attack the work of others , when your own work has not been placed before the public.
.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
rasol
quote:
According to you: textual evidence should reveal clear/simple irrefutable answers - with *no debate over interpretation*, which, again according to you, is what demonstrates - superiority of historical method.
This is not what I said, I said that textual evidence can be used to prove a particular point such as how the political system operated at a particular point in time, or the identiies of specific leaders and the period they ruled.
Genetic research does not have this specificity. That is why it usually has to be supported by linguistic and anthropological research.
.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by redmarrakesh: Djehuti, hey sexy do you have a pretty ass? Do your YANKEE SOLDIERS have a pretty ass too? Listen you corn-fed Atlanta whore.. When your **** goverment send your yankee WHORES to IRAN for a new war,you will enjoy some Persian cock as well..it seems that Arab cock wasnt enough Hail Iraq
OKAAAY... Sorry to disappoint your fantasies of me, then again i'm not sorry, but I'm a guy!
I also find it funny how a Greek would support a Middle Eastern country, but I guess you are trying to get in touch with your roots. LOL
quote:Rasol , which century do you live in? Tanning salons have been fashionable here for decades,don't know any black Greek wanting to become white. Which whitening cream does your MAMA use? ahhh...as I said ,..umak! Love ya habiby
As Rasol says, don't hate! LOL Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by redmarrakesh: lol whats a caucasoid?
Mmm...whats that smell? is it your negroid? skin that stinks in here? ....
No offence Mansa Munsa but he had it coming! And by the way,I never tried drugs,I think you mistake me with the white trash of your own country..
Anyway who are you,Djehuti's mama ,or one of his bit.ches? LOL ghetoo culture and proud of it ,huh?
Before you offend someone else's cultural background and country,look at your own shi.t! Capito ,Americano?
LMAO I'm not even African American.
And besides African Americans here in Atlanta are among the most successful in the nation. Yea we have a few ghettos around here but most live in middle to upper class neighborhoods.
Sorry.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mansa Musa: ^^
LMAO .
You know which trolls are smoking crack when they start using homoerotic taunts to flame you...
Musa, You musn't forget that the guy is Greek!...
And you know what they call "Greek Love"! LMFO Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: rasol, Nobody is saying Greece has a black componet but you. When people hear that they automatically think you are a 'nut' and disregard everything else you have to say. Its better to error on the safe side than to just wander off the academic plank .
What I would say is that he is postulating that there is no such thing as a "black" or "white" gene. Since all humans are genetically related to one another, it really makes no sense to try and classify lineages as "racial" markers. Which is what he hinted at in the beginning of this thread. Therefore, there is no such thing as a "pure" gene anywhere, just like there is no such thing as a "pure" race. Therefore, what he is trying to say is that the Greeks share dna with Africans from some point in history. When this occurred and how is subject to the interperetation of migration patterns of people into and around Europe. Therefore, the presence of E3b in Greece only indicates that at some point in the past a substantial number of people carrying E3b lineages migrated into Greece and probably derived from populations who came from Africa at some point.
Whether this was due to direct migrations from Africa to Greece or via a more circuitous route through the Levant and Turkey is what remains to be determined.
Posted by Horemheb (Member # 3361) on :
Doug, Good post, He has not established that E3b migrated into Greece from Africa.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: Calypso, Genetic research is in its early stages and while it can tell you some things it cannot tell you everything. The very fact that all of these arguments take place makes the point.
Hore, nobody has said genetics tells us everything, but you are right that it can tell us some things such as lineage. That these said lineages are established can be shown in legitimate MAINSTREAM works like the haplogroup maps above. Even National Geographic has its Genographic project headed by Spencer Wells one of the top geneticist. Are you know dismissing the likes of National Geographic?
quote:In terms of eurocentric distortions some of you have a lot of nerve insulting good men and women who have earned their PHD and work hard everyday to try to expand our knowlede in these various fields. To call them frauds is the height of ignorance and pettiness. To dismiss their hard work because it does not correspond with some 'notion' you have is absurd . The larger academic community will ignore you, as they should.
That would depend, professor. Most of the Eurocentric distorters we talk about are long dead and gone and many white Western scholars today admit that there was a lot distortion based on racism back in the old days. If you are talking about any attacks on scholars today, then perhaps the only one would be Hawass for his blatant disregard of the FACTS. Hawass is an archaeologist and it's silly for him to talk as if he is an experto on anthropology.
quote:disrupt what? This implies what all of us have known all along, that rasol looks at the board as his 'personal' soap box. Any point of view that challenges his 'dogma' becomes an effort to disrupt and distort.
You fail to realize that it is not about 'personal dogma' but about FACTS. Or perhaps you do realize this but you are in such desperate denial.
quote:Actually you have no idea where the gene entered from. This is all prue speculation, just as rasols post above was. No scholar is going to make these huge leaps of faith we see here. There is a historical method that must be adhered to. We recently found some Roman coins buried in an indian mound on the Mississippi river. People like rasol and Clyde would take information like this an assume Rome conquered ancient America and that the Indians were all Italian.
Nope, sorry professor but Rasol has shown the genetic maps for BOTH y-chromosomal haplotypes and sickle-cell alleles! BOTH are very well established.
quote:From his consistent habit of ignoring 'historical method' we can assume that rasol is 'not' a trained scholar but rather something far less on the educational latter. If he has an advanced degree in genetics he should tell us so. If he does not then what we have is a layman trying to use very complicated information that he does not have the background to understand. I bacame suspicious when he kept insisting on turing "possibilities" and "could have beens" into absoltue facts. I think he used the term himself..."distort and disrupt."
Sorry professor, but regardless of Rasol's credentials he uses legitimately established sources from the very same MAINSTREAM you keep hailing about.
quote:rasol says he ignores me and then responds. I asked if rasol had an advanced degree in the field he seems to want to distort. he ignores proper historical method and then throws the argument back at the other person. Classic example, he accuses Winters of using statements that are "a non-sequitur" but then does not expalin himself. i think we have caught rasol and the game he plays.
LOL You must be joking! Rasol has explained himself enough on this forum so many times. It's not his problem if you cannot or would not understand what he says.
quote:rasol, Nobody is saying Greece has a black componet but you. When people hear that they automatically think you are a 'nut' and disregard everything else you have to say. Its better to error on the safe side than to just wander off the academic plank .
Sorry, but Angel, Brace and several others are saying these claims also.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: Doug, Good post, He has not established that E3b migrated into Greece from Africa.
Of course not. Rasol has long established what other experts like Wells have been saying all along-- that E3b entered Greece from the NEAR EAST. This is why E3b frequencies in Greece are about the same as J frequencies and haplogroup J originated in the Near-East.
The archaeological record supports this case with the Natufians-- peoples from Africa who migrate into the Levant and from there spread agriculture into other areas.
Posted by Horemheb (Member # 3361) on :
The evidence does not say that, we went all through that the other day. You are READING that information into those studies.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Also, while the male lineage (E3b) was the only one that has survived into the present we now have evidence of the female lineage:
WASHINGTON (AP): Modern Europeans appear genetically unrelated to first farmers
Researchers led by Wolfgang Haak of Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz, Germany, argue that their finding supports the belief that modern residents of central Europe descended from Stone Age hunter-gatherers who were present 40,000 years ago, and not the early farmers who arrived thousands of years later...
Haak's team used DNA from 24 skeletons of farmers from about 7,500 years ago, collected in Germany, Austria and Hungary. Six of the skeletons -- 25 percent -- belonged to the "N1a" human lineage, according to genetic signatures in their mitochondrial DNA, which is inherited from the mother.
The N1a marker is extremely rare in modern Europeans, appearing in just 0.2 percent.
"This was a surprise. I expected the distribution of mitochondrial DNA in these early farmers to be more similar to the distribution we have today in Europe," co-author Joachim Burger, also from Johannes Gutenberg University, said in a statement...
FYI, N1a occurs in high frequencies in both Ethiopian and Yemeni populations. Posted by Horemheb (Member # 3361) on :
and? This kind of stuff does not make your point.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: The evidence does not say that, we went all through that the other day. You are READING that information into those studies.
In the 1932 article: They [Natufians] were clearly a Negroid people, said Sir Arthur, with wide faces flat- noses and long large heads...
Larry Angel (1972): one can identify Negroid traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters.(McCown, 1939) and in Anatolian and Macedonian first farmers, probably from Nubia via the predecesors of the Badarians and Tasians...
C.L. Brace (2005): If the late Pleistocene Natufian sample from Israel is the source from which that Neolithic spread was derived, there was clearly a sub-Saharan African element present of almost equal importance as the Late Prehistoric Eurasian element.
quote: and? This kind of stuff does not make your point.
Different studies that span over 80 years but with the same conclusions.
How dense could you get, professor?! Posted by Horemheb (Member # 3361) on :
The point is that you are trying to take a very meager amount of information and 'create' history from it. You just do not have enough data to draw any conclusions . A study on 24 skulls is a study on 24 skulls, it says nothing about ALL of Europe, Africa or anyplace else. Again. it does not make the point...whatever the point is.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^^On the contrary. The FACT that any percentage, let alone 25% of Europe's first farmers were found to have a lineage associated with Ethiopians is not "nothing".
Add that finding with ALL THE OTHER findings on E3b and the Natufian remains, and well it is YOU who has nothing but complaints.
Posted by Horemheb (Member # 3361) on :
You are being irresponible Djehuti and you are smart enough to know better.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: This is not what I said, I said that textual evidence can be used to prove a particular point such as how the political system operated at a particular point in time, or the identiies of specific leaders and the period they ruled.
Yes I agree with this.
quote:Genetic research does not have this specificity.
This comment is illogical, as the application of genetics to political issues has nothing to do with its application to geneology, which was the subject of the post you originally responded to, and then - digressed from.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote: Yes. You are wrong because I see many ways in wish genetic research can be used to support my linguistic hypothesis.
Do elaborate.
quote: I really have no confidence in genetic research
Or you reject it because it contradicts you.
quote:but I have read the literature and saw how other researchers have used the knowledge to discuss recent population movements so I plan to apply the same methods to my papers, especially the relationship between Dravidian and African languages.
Then you would know that geneticists and linguists agree that Dravidians are not descendant of Neolithic Africans but rather paleolithic Asians.
quote: I have already decided on how I plan to write the studies up
I wish you only the best and look forward to reading them.
I hope you understand that my converse with you is always in good faith, and I don't shy away from disagreement with a fellow student of African history.
Whatever your thesis is going to be, the search for truth can only be strengthened by exposing it to alternate views.
Having said that, you may find that to get your thesis on the table of formal scholarly debates - you may need to change some of your root assumptions, particularly with regard to recent common origins of Dravidians and Africans - because the evidence rather strongly contradicts this.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: Doug, Good post, He has not established that E3b migrated into Greece from Africa.
Of course not. Rasol has long established what other experts like Wells have been saying all along-- that E3b entered Greece from the NEAR EAST. This is why E3b frequencies in Greece are about the same as J frequencies and haplogroup J originated in the Near-East.
The archaeological record supports this case with the Natufians-- peoples from Africa who migrate into the Levant and from there spread agriculture into other areas.
But the issue is can you call these lineages "black". THAT is the problem. I dont think we should be using genetics as "racial" labels. This contradicts the whole point of using dna in the first place.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: You are being irresponible Djehuti and you are smart enough to know better.
Nope, but YOU are being incorrigible as always professor.
Posted by Horemheb (Member # 3361) on :
In other words, if we find a group of skulls in Utah, we can take that info and draw conclusions for North America?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^^let's not play dumb Hore. The keyword is multi-disciplinary.
You find a group of skulls anywhere and studies are going to be done on them to identify them at least physically. As for what their culture is like, that's where archaeology comes into play. And as too what their ancestry is--genetics.
It's as simple as that. For decades now, anthropologists have been commenting on how Natufian remains possess "negroid" or African features. Archaeology has shown that these people were responsible for the first use of agriculture in the area and both anthropology and archaeology shows that their technology spread to other areas.
Now with the advent of genetics it is now verified that these people did not just look African but had African ancestry by the lineages they carried.
It's as simple as that professor.
Posted by Horemheb (Member # 3361) on :
None of that is being done here. There is simply not enough information. You guys are making much of this up and it goes on here all the time. Thats why NONE of this stuff ever makes it into mainline history books. By the way Brace used the word "possible." I posted it the other day. You guys are reading each other on this garble and you end up walking off a cliff.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^^ And exactly what are we making up, professor??
The FACT that 25% of Greeks carry E3b which is an African derived male lineage?
The FACT that the exact same amount (25%) of Neolithic skeletons in Europe carry N1a which is an African derived female lineage?
And what about these statements from experts that have been consistent for the past several decades...
In the 1932 article: They [Natufians] were clearly a Negroid people, said Sir Arthur, with wide faces flat- noses and long large heads...
Larry Angel (1972): one can identify Negroid traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters.(McCown, 1939) and in Anatolian and Macedonian first farmers, probably from Nubia via the predecesors of the Badarians and Tasians...
C.L. Brace (2005): If the late Pleistocene Natufian sample from Israel is the source from which that Neolithic spread was derived, there was clearly a sub-Saharan African element present of almost equal importance as the Late Prehistoric Eurasian element.
... what about them??
Are you saying we made all of this up?!!
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Were the Greeks 'black'?
Well that would depend on how the label is used. As Brace has said, the Natufians were a minority in the areas they entered and were eventually absorbed by the indigenous populations. That Middle-Eastern J haplotype frequency is associated with that of E3b only shows that the people who brought the Neolithic to Europe were not directly from Africa and were a mixed group.
For decades anthropologists have remarked about how populations in the Aegean area were mixture of different groups.
But again, many Greeks by archaic times did not 'look' black but this doesn't mean they didn't have any African ancestry.
Posted by Horemheb (Member # 3361) on :
means nothing in terms of the development of Europe. You haven't even proven that it happened that way and if it did what it means.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
What I find funny Hore is that you ramble all the time about how Egyptian civilization in Africa is due to the presence of "caucasians" without ever explaining who these caucasians were, where they come from, or what their culture was.You never could answer any of it simply because there was no evidence at all of such a thing...
But when we find evidence of black Africans being present in the Near East and even Europe, you consider it all impossible ridiculous nonsense despite the overwhelming evidence!
This is not only hypocritical but unfortunate of you.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: means nothing in terms of the development of Europe. You haven't even proven that it happened that way and if it did what it means.
Actually it means alot really.
Agriculture spawned civilization.
It is a very simple yet very significant concept. Before neolithic technology (agriculture and/or pastoralism) peoples were still living a paleolithic mode of life-- hunter-gathering.
When the neolithic was introduced to Europe it brought about settled urban communities, beauracracy, complex government-- CIVILIZATION.
Call it what you will, but it still won't change the FACTS.
Posted by Horemheb (Member # 3361) on :
Who were the syrians and others in the near East? Most world history classes teach that middle eastern pastoral populations entered the sahara before it became a desert, later moving east and south. The problem is you haven't found any evidence. You have a series of isolated facts and theories that you are trying to weave into some sort of larger picture. Even your isolated facts are not certain. This stuff will never get off the ground.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: Who were the syrians and others in the near East? Most world history classes teach that middle eastern pastoral populations entered the sahara before it became a desert, later moving east and south.
Where did you hear this?! And you have the nerve to accuse others of making stuff up?!!
quote:The problem is you haven't found any evidence. You have a series of isolated facts and theories that you are trying to weave into some sort of larger picture. Even your isolated facts are not certain. This stuff will never get off the ground.
There is nothing "isolated" or "theoretical" about the first agriculturalists having 'negroid' features, them and their descendants in the areas carrying African lineages, or peoples in the area speaking African languages.
However "isolated" or "theoritical" you think this maybe at least we have material for it and not just some imagined migration of 'Middle-Easterners' into the Sahara before its dessication.
Speaking of which, we have plenty of evidence from the Sahara desert itself in regards as to who lived there before it became desert. ALL of which shows indigenous Africans (blacks) and that pastoralism was developed in the area and NOT introduced.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Here is some info from linguist Christopher Ehret:
There are at least seven or eight maybe eleven to thirteen world regions which independently invented agriculture. None in Europe, by the way.
One, of course, is in the Middle East, and many people still believe that this was the first, from which all the others developed. The idea of diffusion from the Middle East still lingers.
That idea really can't be sustained.
Here's the point: agriculture was invented in Africa in at least three centers, and maybe even four. In Africa, you find the earliest domestication of cattle. The location, the pottery and other materials we've found makes it likely that happened among the Nilo-Saharan peoples, the sites are in southern Egypt. There is an exceptionally strong correlation between archaeology and language on this issue. A separate or distinct agriculture arose in West Africa around yams.
A third takes place in southeastern or southern Ethiopia.
The Ethiopians domesticated a plant called enset. It's very unique: Ethiopians use the lower stem and the bulb; not the tuber, the fruit, or the greens. Enset grows in a climatic zone distinct from that where cattle were first domesticated; that was further north.,....
We actually have DNA evidence which fits very well with an intrusion of people from northEast Africa into southwestern Asia.
The Y-chromosome markers, associated with the male, fade out as you go deeper into the Middle East.
Another thing about the Afrasans: their religious beliefs. Anciently, each local group had its own supreme deity. This is called "henotheism." In this kind of religion, you have your own god to whom you show your allegiance. But you realize that other groups have their own deities. The fact that they have deities different from yours doesn't mean their deities don't exist. This kind of belief still exists.
It's fading, maybe on its last legs, in southeastern Ethiopia, among people of the Omati group. They descend from the earliest split in the Semitic family. Way up in the mountains...
Sorry Hore, but the Hegelian myth of a feckless Africa whose innovations were introduced from the outside by "caucasians" has been debunked a long time ago! Posted by Horemheb (Member # 3361) on :
Problem is that nobody is teaching your stuff. Brace would not touch your theories with a telephone poll. I read his study and it does not say what you say it says. These are all ideas PUT TOGETHER on this board . If it filters into the history books I'll know about it because I either see it or get the samples and nothing like this is being taught.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
rasol
quote:
I wish you only the best and look forward to reading them.
I hope you understand that my converse with you is always in good faith, and I don't shy away from disagreement with a fellow student of African history.
Whatever your thesis is going to be, the search for truth can only be strengthened by exposing it to alternate views.
Having said that, you may find that to get your thesis on the table of formal scholarly debates - you may need to change some of your root assumptions, particularly with regard to recent common origins of Dravidians and Africans - because the evidence rather strongly contradicts this.
Thanks for your support even if we disagree. I see nothing wrong with disagreement on issues , and I enjoy our debates. It helps one grow, and learn.
The only thing I don't like about the forum is that selected people enter constructive conversations then use name calling and other tactics to change the subject of the forum so they can keep people ignorant.
I can't take things personal because I know that the state of research changes and I may even have to change my thinking about some ideas I have about history.
This is a great forum, back in the 1990's certain list would allow people to get into a debate and then drop one of the debaters if they were able to present evidence that knocked down the status quo. Here you battle it out, and move on to new topics that are always interesting.
Coming here has made me think about how I will use the genetic data to supplement the linguistic, anthropological, archaeological and historical evidence of the expansion of the Sumerians, Elamites, Dravidians and Mande from Africa to Asia since 3000-2500 BC.
That being said, I believe that my work may be published in journals mentioned frequently on this forum because I don't think that a professional geneticist is going to publicly dispute my work given the amount of archaeological, linguistic and anthropological research supporting a link between the Dravidians and Africans.
On this forum people can summary reject a proposition because they disagree with it and hold narrow views about the research findings discussed on this board. Professional geneticists on the other other hand , like most academics are cautious and will not challenge a thesis which has an abundance of evidence in support of that thesis, because they don't want to be embarassed.
They don't want people from other fields of study to dispute their work and show that much of it has a foundation of sand. So they will either refuse to publish my future articles or remain silent, like the professional archaeologists and linguists who came to my presentations on the Olmec at national anthropological meetings.
.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: Problem is that nobody is teaching your stuff.
Brace would not touch your theories with a telephone poll. I read his study and it does not say what you say it says. These are all ideas PUT TOGETHER on this board .
Oh really?! Then why is Brace's recent 2005 study talk about the Natufians' identity and their relationship to Europeans?
Why does Brace himself conclude: If the late Pleistocene Natufian sample from Israel is the source from which that Neolithic spread was derived, there was clearly a sub-Saharan African element present of almost equal importance as the Late Prehistoric Eurasian element.
Why does his cranio-facial comparison of Natufians look like this:
Sorry Hore, but your denial of reality is futile.
quote:If it filters into the history books I'll know about it because I eoither see of get all the samples and nothing like this is being taught.
Then what is being taught? So far all of world history classes have taught that agriculture in the Near-East was brought to Europe. They taught that the "Neolithic revolution" as it was called was responsible for the production of civilizations. Of course they didn't mention anything about Natufians having African ancestry but that was back then, things may start to change.
Non of my history classes by the way, mention anything about a migration of Middle-Easterners into the Sahara and all of them taught what Egyptologists have been saying all along-- that Egyptian civilization was indigenous to the Nile Valley. The teachers don't really get into the whole racial issue but it's implied that Egypt is African and not Near Eastern.
Posted by Horemheb (Member # 3361) on :
I've never seen Egypt sold as an Aftican nation in a world history class. I'll say this for you. I think you actually have convinced yourself this concoction is correct.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: I've never seen Egypt sold as an Aftican nation in a world history class.
Well you haven't but I have. Egypt is IN Africa. It's people were/are African and so was it's culture. For as long as you've been lurking around this board, it is still a wonder how you could deny all this.
quote:I'll say this for you. I think you actually have convinced yourself this concoction is correct.
Which one, the Natufians or the Egyptians? In both the evidence is overwhelming, the latter moreso than the former.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
hore
quote: Problem is that nobody is teaching your stuff. Brace would not touch your theories with a telephone poll. I read his study and it does not say what you say it says. These are all ideas PUT TOGETHER on this board . If it filters into the history books I'll know about it because I either see it or get the samples and nothing like this is being taught.
hore is right. I helped write the World History Standards for the Chicago Public Schools and the Guided Lesson Plans used to teach 6th Grade World History. Although I was able to make the lessons on Kush and Egypt more realistic I was not allowed to insert information on the African origin of the Olmecs and lessons on Blacks in China.
As a result, if students are to learn real history and the role of African and Black people in ancient history they will not learn it in the public schools unless teachers use supplemental text.
Public school teachers interested in teaching an Afrocentric History, use supplemental text and the WWW to effectively instruct their students in Afrocentric truths. Earlier this year the Philadelphia Public School announced it was making its curriculum more African Centered; it will be interesting to see how Afrocentric ideas are incorporated in the proposed African centered curriculum being developed in Philadelphia.
.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: hore is right. I helped write the World History Standards for the Chicago Public Schools and the Guided Lesson Plans used to teach 6th Grade World History. Although I was able to make the lessons on Kush and Egypt more realistic I was not allowed to insert information on the African origin of the Olmecs and lessons on Blacks in China.
I wonder why!
quote:As a result, if students are to learn real history and the role of African and Black people in ancient history they will not learn it in the public schools unless teachers use supplemental text.
Better yet, if students are to learn real African history they need to be aware of psuedo-stuff from people like YOU.
quote:Public school teachers interested in teaching an Afrocentric History, use supplemental text and the WWW to effectively instruct their students in Afrocentric truths. Earlier this year the Philadelphia Public School announced it was making its curriculum more African Centered; it will be interesting to see how Afrocentric ideas are incorporated in the proposed African centered curriculum being developed in Philadelphia.
The key is not so much Afrocentrism as it is real history regardless of the region, whether it be Africa, Europe, or Asia etc.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Professional geneticists on the other other hand , like most academics are cautious and will not challenge a thesis which has an abundance of evidence in support of that thesis, because they don't want to be embarrassed.
True, for example with the 1st genetic study was released stating frankly that the Greeks have Black African ancestry - it was savaged in peer review.
It was the genetic equivalent of classicist Martin Bernal's puncturing of Eurocentric sacred mythologies involving the origins of ancient Greece.
And of course, Diops masterwork(s) on the African origins of Kemet - decades earlier - resulted in a similar firestorm.
So the resultant howlings of protest were predictable.
But truth will 'out', and subsequent study in genetics and physical anthroplogy - such as Brace 2005 - have supported earlier findings.
Future study will continue to reveal over and over again, that there is a Black African component in the European gene pool, because...it's true.
So no amount of argument by ridicule, sophistry or semantical dodging will make this truth go away.
Posted by Horemheb (Member # 3361) on :
Thats all garbage, none of it is true. Disney productions should hire rasol to make up cartoons. Brace did not even say what rasol says he did, he knows that.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^^Are you sure about that Hore?
Brace (2005): If the late Pleistocene Natufian sample from Israel is the source from which that Neolithic spread was derived, there was clearly a sub-Saharan African element present of almost equal importance as the Late Prehistoric Eurasian element.
and his map:
Posted by Horemheb (Member # 3361) on :
I read the entire study. You guys could not get this past any scholarly examination. Your methods are faulty and your conclusions are careless. No historian thinks like that.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^^Why should we, when scholarly examination was how this evidence was first discovered?!!
In the 1932 article: They [Natufians] were clearly a Negroid people, said Sir Arthur, with wide faces flat- noses and long large heads...
Larry Angel (1972): one can identify Negroid traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters.(McCown, 1939) and in Anatolian and Macedonian first farmers, probably from Nubia via the predecesors of the Badarians and Tasians...
C.L. Brace (2005): If the late Pleistocene Natufian sample from Israel is the source from which that Neolithic spread was derived, there was clearly a sub-Saharan African element present of almost equal importance as the Late Prehistoric Eurasian element...
And of course the presence of E3b male lineage and N1a female lineage in Europe. Posted by Horemheb (Member # 3361) on :
You clearly are not qualified to evaluate the information.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
LOL What is there to evaluate?! The conclusions are obvious and clear.
Sorry if you don't like them, professor.
Posted by Horemheb (Member # 3361) on :
If you had a PHD in the field you might be able to come to some meaningful conclusions. Its not my field so I would not venture out like that but I can tell your methods are incorrect.
i am a regular poster on a civil war board and we have the same problem from time to time though we do have some actual civil war specialists that leep the board from going insane like this one has.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: If you had a PHD in the field you might be able to come to some meaningful conclusions. Its not my field so I would not venture out like that but I can tell your methods are incorrect.
Sorry Hore, but the conclusions were meaningful enough. There was nothing complicated and there was no word usage involved that only an anthropologist could understand. The conclusions from all these scholars were very clear.
quote:i am a regular poster on a civil war board and we have the same problem from time to time though we do have some actual civil war specialists that leep the board from going insane like this one has.
And what problem is that? We are not dealing with some scanty clues from a Civil War battle mystery. Again, the evidence is very clear and so are the conclusions of which the experts reached
Posted by Horemheb (Member # 3361) on :
have another glass of that grape Koolaide Djehuti and check back with me when mainstream scholarship starts teaching this demented garble.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: LOL What is there to evaluate?! The conclusions are obvious and clear.
Sorry if you don't like them, professor.
Indeed, incompetant trolls are certainly free to keep bumping the thread with their mindless blatherings.
They allow us to present the evidence, while exposing their helplessness and frustration in the face of it.
I stated at the beginning of this thread, that Keita, Angel, Brace 2005, Underhill, etc. would all stand unrefuted, and that has been precisely the case, after nearly 150 replies, lol.
SOY Keita Arethusa 26 (1993) pg 329: "Professor Angel also found evidence for a "Black" (if such exists) genetic influence in neolithic and later Aegean populations. Racialists models, which imply non-overlapping gene pools, are clearly negated by Angel's work."
No rebuttal from anyone eh?.
Very well then, let's continue.....
Posted by Horemheb (Member # 3361) on :
The problem is rasol that you have always been careless in your evaluations. i personally could care less what you think but if you are serious about the subject you are going to have to train your mind to think in a more precise way. There is nothing wrong with being a layman, i wish more people were, but putting together historical material in a scholarly way takes years of training and education. This shot gun approach that you like simply leaves you open to endless errors.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
Published/Tissue Antigens, 2002
quote:Originally posted by rasol: The gene flow from Black Africa to Greece may have occurred in Pharaonic times or when Saharan people emigrated after the present hyperarid conditions were established (5000 years B.C.). -Arnaiz-Villena A, Gomez-Casado E, Martinez-Laso J.
Eur J Med Genet. 2006 January The present study confirms the relatedness of Greeks to Sub-Saharan populations.
This suggests that there was an admixture between the Greeks and Sub-Saharans probably during Pharaonic period or after natural catastrophes (dryness) occurred in Sahara. - Hajjej A, Hmida S, Kaabi H, Dridi A, Jridi A, El Gaa1ed A, Boukef K Posted by redmarrakesh (Member # 8201) on :
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Djehuti:
OKAAAY... Sorry to disappoint your fantasies of me, then again i'm not sorry, but I'm a guy!
What fantasies obese retarded Yankee? I'm a sexy greek female,don't care for American twats like you...By the way how could you possibly satifsy a lady?With your middle finger perhaps.. since you got nothing useful in your pants.
(By the way ,you are the one who started the vulgar sexual comments.Sorry ,its not my fault.)
Thanks for the offer though....I have a wonderful Egyptian man for myself
I also find it funny how a Greek would support a Middle Eastern country, but I guess you are trying to get in touch with your roots.
I love my roots,and no Yankee moron like you is gonna make me feel somehow guilty for being white and not black.You guys are sick .. Maybe I should apologise also for being straight or something?!
I also love Arabs and enjoy so much that your nation has become their bit.ches. I had a good laugh on 9-11 too,miss that date.. Ya sou!Bye! Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
I will agree with Charles that we have been through everything discussed here before, and for that reason, I'll just reiterate only once, some of the points raised, which perhaps still stand, barring any new information being brought to light:
Elsewhere I posted:
...not to mention E3b1 delta. There is a tendency to focus on the alpha cluster too much, it being the predominent E3b1 cluster in Europe, while ignoring the presence of older clusters like the E3b1 delta. Some folks do so, as some of us are already aware, to distract, or dissociate the lineage from its relatively recent sub-Saharan African origin. A similar treatment [i.e., ignoring the lineage's presence in Europe], though to a greater extent, has been afforded to the lineages' PN2 clade sister lineages, the E3a haplotypes.
Charles posted:
On the other forum it was mentioned that E3b1 alpha was derived from E3b1 delta. I've searched every available publication on E3b1 and none have ever made that statement, so where's the proof?
Thought posted:
You are absoluetly correct. The Cruciani et al study does not explicitly state that alpha derived from delta. It does state that delta spread from East Africa to Europe after ~14,000 years ago. It also states that alpha derived in Europe. Hence it requires a commonsensical sort of extrapolation.
I replied:
Well, let's take a look:
"The fourth cluster **delta **(cluster in fig. 2B) is present, albeit at low frequencies, in **all** of the regions analyzed (4.0% in eastern and northern Africa, 3.3% in the Near East, and 1.5% in Europe) and shows a notable microsatellite differentiation (fig. 2B). The two E-M78 chromosomes found in Pakistan, at the eastern borders of the area of dispersal of haplogroup E3b, also belong to **cluster delta**.
On the basis of these data, we suggest that cluster delta was involved in a **first dispersal** or dispersals of E-M78 chromosomes from eastern Africa into northern Africa and the Near East. Time-of-divergence estimates for E-M78 chromosomes suggest a relatively great antiquity (14.7 ± 2.7 ky) for the separation of eastern Africans from the other populations. A later range expansion from the Near East or, possibly, from northern Africa would have introduced E-M78 cluster **delta** into Europe. However, given the low frequencies of E-M78 delta, it seems to have contributed only marginally to the shaping of the **present** E-M78 frequency distribution in Africa and western Eurasia. Indeed, later (and previously undetected) demographic population expansions involving clusters alpha in Europe (TMRCA 7.8 ky; 95% CI 6.39.2 ky), beta in northwestern Africa (5.2 ky; 95% CI 3.27.5 ky), and gamma in eastern Africa (9.6 ky; 95% CI 7.212.9 ky) should be considered the main contributors to the relatively high frequency of haplogroup E-M78 in the surveyed area." - Cruciani et al.
Again, the experts give us data, and then, it is our job to take further understanding from there. Most forget that the delta cluster is STILL present in **all of the regions surveyed**. Hence, the original cluster that made its way to the Near East, is still present in the Asia and Europe, and hasn't been totally wiped out. What other E3b1 cluster is found in the so-called "Near East"? So, it is obvious, that it was this cluster that mutated, most likely in the Balkans, where it has the highest frequencies and spread to southern Europe. The fact that the alpha cluster now dominates the delta cluster in the region [Europe], has to do with further migrations from the east, and perhaps, genetic drift [and founder effect] had a hand in enhancing its frequency. This is why the alpha cluster is largely responsible for the **present** E-M78 frequency distribution in Europe. We know how other E3b lineages, like E3b2, got into southwestern Europe.
Charles posts: If we read Cruciani's study he says the spread of E3b chromosones isn't so simple, so that extrapolation is *NOT* an absolute truth. Delta cluster was involve in several dispersals possibly so should we have several more clusters from each dispersal?
Thought posts:
1) There are NO absolutes in statistics because all forms of statistical analysis are based upon probability, hence there is the margin of error.
2) Common sense can be of assistance as well. E3b1 alpha is derived from E3b1 and has a MRCA of ~8,000 ky. E3b1 is absent in Europe. E3b1 beta is virtually absent in the Balkans. E3b1 gamma is restricted to East Africa. E3b1 delta predates E3b1 alpha AND is located in the Balkans. This is why E3b1 delta is considered the precursor of E3b1 alpha.
Rasol posts:
Also not all E3b1 have been sub-catagorised into *any* cluster.
All E3b1's are by definition a part of the same lineage.
Whether alpha descends from a specific cluster such as delta, or from and undefined/underived E3b1 makes essentially no difference.
What is important about alpha is it's neolithic mrca, which tells 'when' and in turn sheds light on 'whom' brought this lineage into the Balkans.
One reason there are so many 'clusters' is that this lineage has been studied with a fine tooth comb, perhaps with hope of 'clustering' it out of Africa.
'Not a chance. This is the genetically ill-informed equivelant of the geographical illiteracy of removing East Africa from sub-saharan Africa.
It is a desparate ruse and should be dismissed as such.
Charles posts:
Black Africans didn't bring the alpha mutation into Europe, if thats what you're hinting at and thats faulty logic. Each of the clusters are defined by specific mutations that are geographically restricted to certain areas. At any rate, I've e-mailed some geneticists about where exactly does the alpha exactly is the alpha mutation derived from so I'll have an answer. No ois trying to cluster E3b1 out of Africa, the publications state that E-M78[the mutation of E3b that defines E3b1] has an East African origin and no place does it state that E3b1 came into Africa from the outside. All thats being said is certain clusters of E3b1 are geographically restricted to certain areas.
I posted:
One cannot be certain about the morphology of the folks, among whom the mutation occurred. What is certain, is that there were clear sub-Saharan affinities among the Neolithic populations of the "Near Easterners" who spread the Neolithic culture into Europe. Sub-Saharan affinities were also found in the Balkans, **from where the alpha derivatives appear to have spread elsewhere westward**:
"Against this background of disease, movement and pedomorphic reduction of body size one can identify Negroid traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters (McCown, 1939) and **in Anatolian** and Macedonian first farmers, probably from Nubia via the unknown predecesors of the Badarians and Tasians....". - Angel
This was once again, more recently, observed by Brace et al.:
"...the failure of the Neolithic and Bronze Age samples in central and northern Europe to tie to the modern inhabitants supports the suggestion that,...
while a farming mode of subsistence was spread westward and also north to Crimea and east to Mongolia by actual movement of communities of farmers, the indigenous foragers in each of those areas ultimately absorbed both the agricultural subsistence strategy and also the people who had brought it." - Brace et al.
Not to mention...
"If the late Pleistocene Natufian sample from Israel is the source from which that Neolithic spread was derived, there was clearly a sub-Saharan African element present of **almost equal importance** as the Late Prehistoric Eurasian element.” - Brace et al.
According to Brace et al., this sub-Saharan element must have diluted over time, which I take it, is due to population expansions in Europe.
I agree with Rasol that, at the end of the day, the important point should be: What lineage the alpha cluster is, i.e., its derivation from E3b1, which is of sub-Saharan origin. Thus, E3b1 is sub-Saharan derived. Talking of clusters, or focusing on the question of which one is specific to which region, doesn't alter this fact in any case. Sub-Saharan Africa is also referred to as tropical Africa ~ black Africa.
Other matters that are taken into consideration in the discussion of the Neolithic spread of E3b1...
1)The mrca of the alpha cluster.
2)Examination frequencies of other [older] E3b1 clusters in the Near East and the Balkans, so as to narrow it down to the most likely precursor of the alpha cluster. At the end of the day, it can only derive from a E3b1 type that originated in Africa. Preponderance of available data favors the delta cluster, which is present in all the regions surveyed for E-M78 distribution.
Thought posts:
One fact that needs to be considered in this regard is that as the neolithic spread via the Rhine deeper into Central Europe TRADE ROUTES would have been established and BACK-MIGRATION would have occured. This society may have been paterilineal meaning indigenous European women would have gained priveldge mating with the neolithic males. In addition, as the African mtDNA lineages fade-out sooner as we enter Europe it may have been due to the fact that these original hunting parties contained few women. In fact, I have proposed that one of the reasons we see a spread from the Nile into Eurasia was because of the disruption of the gathering economy on the Kom Ombo plain with the onset of the Holocene High Nile Floods. This disruption could have empacted the local subsistance system and hence forced migration. This imples a tough lifestyle where women and children may have died out more rapidly than men. Areas for future research.....
Charles posts: The Natufian sample consisted of only four individuals and in an e-mail to me Dr. Brace said one should be careful when making conclusions about *ALL* Natufians. We do know that some of the skeletal material in the Levant was sub-Saharan influenced, thats something to build with.
Thought posts:
What is your point? I sometimes question if you are really as naive as you pretend to be. I have said DOZENS of times that the evidence for Sub-Saharan gene flow into Eurasia during the Mesolithic period relies on a multidisciplinary approach NOT just cranial analysis. Lingustics, arcaheology and genetics also support this conclusion. I have said that the Natufians were a COMBINATION of incoming Mushabians and indigenous northern Levant Upper Paleolithic populations such as the Ohalo populations YEARS AGO!
I reply:
Folks here have been consistent on this issue, about the Natufians being the product of cross-breeding between African populations and those of the Levantine. It also has to be recognized that Brace is just another expert, who has reached the same conclusion about the Natufians, as others BEFORE him and his partners. For example...
"[The caves of Erq-el-Ahmar] . . . Produced 132 individuals for Miss Garrod. All these Natufians share the same physical type, completely different from that of earlier Palestinians. They are short, about 160 cm.* and dolichocephalic. They were probably Cro-Magnoid Mediterraneans, presenting certain Negroid characteristics attributable to crossbreeding..." - Furon.
What I am getting at here, is that, notwithstanding Brace's rather smaller collection, others before him, who collected varying numbers of Natufian remains, had reached the same conclusion. As you can see, Miss Garrod's collection was much larger than Brace's. Thus, Brace et al.'s work, should simply seen as another re-confirmation of an earlier discovery, although Brace has the advantage of working with molecular geneticists to build a more complete thesis or the broader picture, than those who had to work with what was available to them at the time, i.e., archeology, including skeletal remains, and linguistics. Molecular genetics is much more prevalent now, and Brace can correlate his findings with this discipline.
“….is common in northwestern Africa (14.0%), representing 80% of E-M78 chromosomes in that area. Outside this region, E-M78 beta was observed only in five European subjects.”
The gamma cluster:
“Outside of eastern Africa, it was found only in two subjects from Egypt (3.6%) and in one Arab from Morocco.”
The alpha cluster:
“This cluster is very common in the Balkans (with frequencies of 20%-32%), and its frequencies decline toward western (7.0% in continental Italy, 7.4% in Sicily, 1.1% in Sardinia, 4.3% in Corsica, 3.0% in France, and 2.2% in Iberia) and northeastern (2.6%) Europe. In the Near East, this cluster is essentially limited to Turkey (3.4%). The relatively high frequency of DYS413 24/23 haplogroup E chromosomes in Greece (A.N., unpublished data) suggests that cluster alpha of the E-M78 haplogroup is common in the Aegean area, too.”
...the clinal frequency distribution of E-M78 alpha within Europe testifies to important dispersal(s), most likely Neolithic or post-Neolithic. These took place from the Balkans, where the highest frequencies are observed, in all directions, as far as Iberia to the west and, most likely, also to Turkey to the southeast. Thus, it appears that, in Europe, the overall frequency pattern of the haplogroup E-M78, the most frequent E3b haplogroup in this region, is mostly contributed by a new molecular type that distinguishes it from the aboriginal E3b chromosomes from the Near East. These data are hard to reconcile with the hypothesis of a uniform spread of a single Near Eastern gene pool into southeastern Europe. On the other hand, they might be consistent with either a small-scale leapfrog migration from Anatolia into southeastern Europe at the beginning of the Neolithic or with an expansion of indigenous people in southeastern Europe in response to the arrival of the Neolithic cultural package. At the present level of phylogenetic resolution, it is difficult to distinguish between these possibilities. - Cruciani et al.
I’ve already pointed out the case with the “delta” cluster.
“Clusters” are a family which derive from a common ancestor, the original E3b1 mutation. E3b alpha being prevalent in Europe, or E3b1b (formerly E-M81) being prevalent in northwest Africa, or E3b1 gamma being prevalent in eastern Africa, and so forth, doesn't exempt one cluster from being part of the family of...E3b1 clade. E3b and E3a as PN2 clades, are typical tropical African lineages. This simply denotes the region of origin and the natives of such region, who originally carried the lineage, NOT to denote “phenotype” of a gene, LOL. Bone morphology and facial characteristics [that is, shape of face, mouth, nose, and so forth] are determined by a whole another group of DNA, among autosomes ; no set types of such phenotype-coding DNA have been identified, which is understandable, considering that individuals usually have their own unique combination of characteristics, while carrying hereditary material from their ancestors, ensuring similarities between ancestors and offspring , as well as sustenance of naturally selected traits among populations. For instance, we all have faces that are distinguishable from that of another person, even if there seems to be cranio-facial trends or patterns in populations. Melanin level has been determined to be influenced by variations in such DNA as for example, the “MC1R” (Melanocortin for MC, and R, denoting receptor) gene, which manifest in color of hair, eyes, and skin tone.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote: clinal frequency distribution of E-M78 alpha within Europe testifies to important dispersal(s), most likely Neolithic or post-Neolithic.
Good post Supercar.
Clade is what and who.
Cluster is when and where.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
What about N1a?? According to the article on first European farmers, N1a accounts for .02% of the mtDNA lineage in Europe. If this is true, then the female lineage didn't completely die out after all.
What is the geographic distribution of N1a as opposed to E3b1 delta; is there an association?
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
N1a is extremely rare today, and is most frequently found only in Ethiopia and South Yemen.
N1a is a minor mtDNA haplogroup that has been observed at marginal frequencies in European, Near Eastern, and Indian populations (Mountain et al. 1995; Richards et al. 2000).
It occurs at a significant frequency in both Ethiopian and Yemeni populations.
Six Ethiopian N1a lineages, restricted to Semitic-speaking subpopulations, show low haplotype diversity and include an exact HVS-I sequence match with a published N1a sequence from Egypt (Krings et al. 1999). Tracking Gene flow across the Gates of Tears.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
E3b alpha in modern Europe:
quote:The alpha cluster is the *European branch of an African haplogroup,* E3b1 (M78), which spreads from what seems to be a Balkan homeland.
Alpha cluster seems to have entered Europe from the Middle East about the same time as the first pottery and farming around 10 thousand years ago, perhaps part of a population pushed there by the filling of the Black Sea.
How can someone mention anything about "whitwashing ancient Greece" when the said person doesn't believe race exists? At any rate, Greeks are considered as "white" socially and somatically look like Europeans, so wjat is there to "whitewash"? This thread was worthless to begin with.
Posted by *Topdog* (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol: E3b alpha in modern Europe:
quote:The alpha cluster is the *European branch of an African haplogroup,* E3b1 (M78), which spreads from what seems to be a Balkan homeland.
Alpha cluster seems to have entered Europe from the Middle East about the same time as the first pottery and farming around 10 thousand years ago, perhaps part of a population pushed there by the filling of the Black Sea.
That citation supports me and refutes you at the same time because it says a "European branch" of a haplogroup that originated in Africa. Note how it doesn't say an "African Neolithic" lineage in Europe, much to your chagrin. It states it entered Europe from the Middle East and expanded from the Balkans into the rest of Europe, thats essentially everything I have said. You shot yourself in the head on this one.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol: E3b alpha in modern Europe:
quote:The alpha cluster is the *European branch of an African haplogroup,* E3b1 (M78), which spreads from what seems to be a Balkan homeland.
quote:Charles writes: That citation supports me and refutes you at the same time
In your fantasies, perhaps.
In reality you simply misquoted it, [again] in a last ditch effort to revive a lost argument.
In addition to misquoting you completely missed the point of why it was cited in the 1st place.
quote:Charles writes: you shot yourself in the foot
No, but by resorting to misquoting the citation, a desparate act....you just shot yourself right between the eyes....again.
Posted by *Topdog* (Member # 10328) on :
I didn't misquote anything, I read the entire link instead of cherry picking like you. basically you have provided no evidence from published data that E3b1-M78 alpha represents an "African Neolithic" lineage in Europe. The human mind has a way of making itself believe something is true even when the evidence is overwhelimngly against it.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Charles writes: I didn't misquote anything
In fact you did.
quote:Charles writes: I read the entire link
I provided the link from a laymen source for a reason: to teach you that increasingly Europeans can admit the truth, that E3b1 is and African clade, and that the clustering merely denotes the neolithic expansion in Europeans of this African clade.
This is our position.
You 'tried' to rephrase it, so as to remove this central fact, which you are still in denial of.
quote:Charles: instead of cherry picking......
....you resort to misquoting.
But it doesn't work.
You'd be better off scrolling your head up the thread, and answering some the questions you've been running from, rather than misquoting passages to hide the fact the E3b1 is and African clade and so denotes African ancestry in Europeans.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Charles asks: How can someone mention anything about "whitwashing ancient Greece" when the said person doesn't believe race exists?
^ Of course the question is non-sequitur - but I'll answer it anyway, by quoting you:
quote:Charles wrote on May 25, 2005, 1:18am:......for the purpose of keeping Greeks and southern Europeans free and pure of any African blood.
Question asked. Question answered. Any more questions? Posted by *Topdog* (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol: In fact you did.
No, in fact you ate that paper up and fitted to what you want to see
quote:I provided it for you - to show that that increasingly Europeans can admit that E3b1 is and African clade, and that the clustering merely denotes the neolithic expansion of this African clade.
M-78 alpha is simply a cluster within the E3b1 network, just as mtDNA haplogroups M and N are within the L3 network, that doesn't make them all African. The clade itself didn't expand into Europe during the Neolithic, just a cluster within its network.
NOTE: I'm explaining this in the format of the geneticist that emailed me a reply on this matter so that should be a hint for you.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Charles:No, in fact you ate that paper up and fitted to what you want to see
Actually that's what *you did*. And, that's exactly why you needed to misquote to begin with.
I properly provided the link and citation - you did all the 'eating'.
And it is *you* who provided the ad lib distortions, because you need them - only way you can keep your comatose argument wheezing along on life support.
quote:Charles: Alpha is simply a cluster
Exactly. - it is simply a cluster of the African E3b1 clade.
That's our position, so what are you supposidly aruging about?
You want to argue bout clusters?
Ok.
Define cluster. You can't. How ridiculous your position is.
If alpha is simply a cluster, and you don't know what a cluster is, then your entire argument built around it, is simply dismissed as nonsense.
quote:within the E3b1 network
E3b1 is not a network,.
It is an African clade.
A clade in biology is a singular line of descent from a common in this case African, ancestry.
A clade is not a network.
It is clusters - based on multi-locus multi- satellites that are better likened to networks - not clades, which singularly denote direct line of ancestry based on unique event markers.
quote:Charles writes: The clade itself didn't expand into Europe during the Neolithic
Not "literally during", which would be after the fact [of neolithic] and so beside the point, but rather preceding, and so denoting the origin of the Neolithic in Europe.
This is as geneticists have stated.
quote:I'm explaining this in the format of the geneticist that emailed me a reply
^ You're using it as a crutch to compensate for incoherence, and adding selective heresay parrotings to your misquotes in the process.
Anything else?
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
Unfinished business:
quote:Charles:
That has nothing to do with the closer relationship, don't even attempt to try and interpret Templeton.
What then does? Feel free to interpret Templeton's explanation for this phenomenon, that doesn't boil down to what I had already spelt out.
quote: Charles:
From what I did^read of Templeton's study Melanesians descend from a subset of^Eurasians, the study mentioned nothing about recent African ancestry in Europeans a the reason for Europeans and Africans being closer to one another.
Since when does somebody have to say something before you can get it - what ever happened to the idea of accumulation of knowledge from earlier learning? Your approach to knowledge-gathering is bizarre indeed.
BOTH Melanesian and European gene pools are a subset of Eurasian gene pool [which again, derived from a subset of African gene pool]; Given this, again, why then do we have this situation?...
There is more genetic similarity between Europeans and sub-Saharan Africans and between Europeans and Melanesians, inhabitants of islands northeast of Australia, than there is between Africans and Melanesians.
M-78 alpha is simply a cluster within the E3b1 network, just as mtDNA haplogroups M and N are within the L3 network, that doesn't make them all African. The clade itself didn't expand into Europe during the Neolithic, just a cluster within its network.
"Network"?! LOL. The guy's posts just keep getting "nuttier".
The clade E3b derivatives are involved in the expansions elsewhere; that is why E3b underived is rare elsewhere but Africa. It is just like how you and your father are not one, but this does NOT break the father-son relationship. The vitality of understanding clades and clusters cannot be overemphasized.
As for your analogy of M and N lineages, again L3 is the Clade; those are sub-clades of L3.
Whereas E3b is the main clade, and E3b1 is the sub-Clade of E3b. E3b1 alpha is a "cluster" of E3b1 "sub-Clade"; the "alpha" tandem repeat is not a clade at all. What can be possibly so difficult for one to understand this, no matter the level of intelligence?
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:There is more genetic similarity between Europeans and sub-Saharan Africans and between Europeans and Melanesians, inhabitants of islands northeast of Australia, than there is between Africans and Melanesians. - alan templeton.
Correct, and here is why:
Europeans appear as a genetic mixture - 2/3rds Asian, 1/3 African. - C Sforza, History and Geography of Human genes.
quote:Supercar writes: Charles, since when does somebody have to say something before you can get it - what ever happened to the idea of accumulation of knowledge from earlier learning? Your approach to knowledge-gathering is bizarre indeed.
Indeed sources and citations should stimulate the thought process, not substitute for it.
quote:Originally posted by Supercar:
Whereas E3b is the main clade, and E3b1 is the sub-Clade of E3b. E3b1 alpha is a "cluster" of E3b1 "sub-Clade"; the "alpha" tandem repeat is not a clade at all.
^ Bottom line. Thank you for answering the question I put to Charles nearly a month ago.
Posted by *Topdog* (Member # 10328) on :
This nonsense about E3b1 M78 alpha has gone too far, I will put the nail in the coffin and end all of the bickering myself. I have ben in contact with Cruciani et al about the matter and lets just says my version of this debate is the most accurate so I consider this matter closed and this debate over, continuing to argue with me is going to make things worse.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by *Topdog*:
This nonsense about E3b1 M78 alpha has gone too far, I will put the nail in the coffin and end all of the bickering myself. I have ben in contact with Cruciani et al about the matter and lets just says my version of this debate is the most accurate so I consider this matter closed and this debate over, continuing to argue with me is going to make things worse.
...ah but the real world doesn't work like your wonderland. You need to actually refute the points raised and demonstrate that you understand them in the first place; you have a long way to addressing ANY of the points raised here and elsewhere. It doesn't mean that you can't START doing so. Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
Charles just present in unedited form, the entiriety of whatever it is you wrote to a geneticist, and the entiriety of whatever it is you got back.
We will be the judge of it.
Posted by *Topdog* (Member # 10328) on :
Ok, you asked for it:
My email:
Hello Dr Cruciani, my name is Charles Rigaud and I'm a college student studying physical anthropology. I have some questions about your 2004 study,
Phylogeographic analysis of haplogroup E3b (E-M215) y chromosomes reveals multiple migratory events within and out of Africa.
In your study, you stated that there are 4 "clusters" of E-M78, the alpha, beta, delta and gamma clusters. I would like to know what is a cluster because I cannot find a textbook definition of what a cluster is, at least not in the genetic sense. My next question is does the alpha cluster, prevalent in Europe and the Balkans, represent an "African Neolithic" contribution to the European male gene pool? According to your study, it reprsents a migration during the Neolithic from the Near East but some colleagues of mine see it as indicating an African migration into Europe. I seek your guidance and answers to these questions. Thanks in advance.
Best Regards,
Charles Rigaud.
the reply:
Hi Mr Rigaud, We used the term cluster simply to indicate a group of chromosomes that share similar microsatellite haplotypes. In our mind a cluster is a monophyletic unit, but this cannot be proved based on the microsatellites alone. A paper on this argument will be published by Human Mutation shortly, I will send you a copy. I think that the term cluster has not been defined in a genetic sense in any textbook. We believe that cluster alfa chromosomes come from the Near East, but, in turn, M78 chromosomes are of african origin, so you can imagine a two steps migration: from Africa to the Middle east and from the Middle east to the Europe. We are still working on this argument, I hope to publish something about that in the next months
I hope this can help[/b]
ciao
Fulvio
Fulvio Cruciani Dipartimento di Genetica e Biologia Molecolare Università degli Studi di Roma "La Sapienza" P.le Aldo Moro 5 00185 Rome, Italy Phone: (39) 06 49912857 (office) Phone: (39) 06 49912924 (lab) Fax: (39) 06 4456866 email: fulvio.cruciani@uniroma1.it
Case closed, E3b1 M78 alpha does *NOT* represent an African migration into Europe and the alpha mutation originated in the Middle East. The clusters are believed to be monophyletic. Now quit your arguments about E3b1 M78 alpha being a signature of a migration of Africans into Europe. Ownage achieved.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
Cruciani writes:
quote:I think that the term cluster has not been defined in a genetic sense in any textbook.
^ correct, clusters are not clades and so are not specifically delineated.
quote:We believe that cluster alfa chromosomes come from the Near East, but, in turn M78 chromosomes are of african origin,
correct, note M78 is not a cluster - It is and African clade, It is a common line of descent from a single ancestry. Alpha cluster is not a clade, is not E3b1-M78, is not even the same locus, and by definition has no bearing on the origin of E3b1-M78.
quote:so you can imagine a two steps migration: from Africa to the Middle east and from the Middle east to the Europe.
Yes. This has been our position all along.
Evidently Charles is so flummexed that he MISreads -> A two-step MIGRATION originating in Africa with the Levantine being step 1 and Europe being step 2, as ->
two unrelated migrations, one from Africa to Levant, the other from the middle east to europe, having nothing to do with the 1st. Sorry Charles, this is not the case...per Cruciani.
quote: We are still working on this argument, I hope to publish something about that in the next months
I hope this can help
Very much so.
Charles, please thank Cruciani on behalf of ES discussants. Posted by *Topdog* (Member # 10328) on :
As it stands, E3b1 M78 alpha is not evidence of an African Neolithic contribution to Europe. The alpha chromosones originated in the Near East then came into Europe. Thus alpha chromosones do not represent African mixture in Greeks. Now try to tapdance around this and pretend thats what you were stating all along.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by *Topdog*:
We believe that cluster alfa chromosomes come from the Near East, but, in turn, M78 chromosomes are of african origin, so you can imagine a two steps migration: from AFRICA to the Middle east and from the Middle east to the Europe. We are still working on this argument, I hope to publish something about that in the next months
I hope this can help[/b]
I don't know how this supposedly vindicates your nonsense about E-M78 lineages in Europe don't reflect African ancestry. On the contrary, Cruciani actually re-vindicated our position about E3b1 marking African ancestry, as demonstrated by the fact that he needed to talk about the "alpha" cluster by reiterating the point of E3b1 origins in AFRICA. Even with mentioning the term "migration", Africa was still evoked.
It has been our position that clusters allow us to track the migratory expansion of lineages and the timelines of those expansions, and that is precisely what this cluster is serving as. The lineage itself marks "Ancestry" or "point of origin".
Moreover, other E3b1 lineages made their way to Europe directly via North Africa. And no, they don't have to be of the "Neolithic" expansion into Europe, so as to have any bearings on their designation as "African ancestry".
quote:Charles:
Case closed,
For you. You have failed to address each and every point made on this thread, and others. And now, you present yet another material that vindicates the point we've been trying to get you to see for so long.
quote:Charles: The clusters are believed to be monophyletic.
Of course they are monophyletic, that is how they are used to determine an expansion of a "lineage"!...and you wonder why we ask you to differentiate a "cluster" from a "lineage". These basics go right over you head, and then you have the guts to engage in circular exchanges with those who know better.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
Disecting the following...
supposedly from Cruciani:
two steps imigration: from AFRICA to the Middle east and from the Middle east to the Europe.
^^Origin and Ancestry-->Clade:
FROM **Africa** - Cruciani
Marker of migration from Africa to "Near East" and then to Europe-->Cluster "alpha":
...TO the Middle east and from the Middle east to the Europe. - Cruciani
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Charles writes: The alpha chromosones originated in the Near East
Cruciani replies: but the M78 chromosomes are of African origin
Charles can only pretend to not understand this clear rebuttal to his false claim that M-78 in Europe is not of African origin.
quote:Supercar writes: two steps imigration: from AFRICA to the Middle east and from the Middle east to the Europe.
Correct Supercar, but note, actually Cruciani is much clearer than that:
M78 chromosomes are of african origin, so you can imagine A TWO STEPS MIGRATION: from Africa to the Middle east and from the Middle east to the Europe.
^ I will note for future reference. Still waiting for Charles to explain why he thinks this helps him?
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
Correct Supercar, but note, actually Cruciani is much clearer than that:
M78 chromosomes are of african origin, so you can imagine A TWO STEPS MIGRATION: from Africa to the Middle east and from the Middle east to the Europe.
Yep; been noted in an earlier post, but still worth reiterating, so as to not let someone forget.
quote: ^ I will note for future reference. Still waiting for Charles to explain why he thinks this helps him?
I think he has been forced to say how it supposedly helped him, but not exactly up to his expectations...as we've demonstrated so swiftly!
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ Cruciani's comments were clear and I concur.
Charles, has much explaining to do.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by *Topdog*:
the reply:
Hi Mr Rigaud,
We used the term cluster simply to indicate a group of chromosomes that share similar microsatellite haplotypes. In our mind a cluster is a monophyletic unit, but this cannot be proved based on the microsatellites ALONE.
Again, cannot therefore be treated as a standalone entity, but needs to be defined/identified further by its ancestor, the CLADE!
Posted by basicbows (Member # 10371) on :
Address for correspondence and reprints: Dr. Marcus W. Feldman, Department of Biological Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. E-mail: marc@charles.stanford.edu --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction
The distribution of genetic variation within and among human populations has long been an important tool for inferring the evolutionary history of modern humans. Dramatic improvements in genotyping technologies over the past 15 years have facilitated the development of many types of DNA markers. Considerable attention has been devoted to both uniparental and autosomal genetic markers. Because of their lack of recombination, uniparental markersmtDNA and the nonrecombining region of the Y chromosome (e.g., see R. L. Cann et al. 1987; Ingman et al. 2000; Underhill et al. 2000)and their genealogical histories are perhaps easier to study than are recombining markers. Although recombination introduces additional uncertainty regarding the history of any individual autosomal locus, consideration of a large collection of polymorphic loci spread across the genome enables more general inference about demographic history and population relationships than does study of the Y chromosome and mtDNA, loci whose histories may be anomalous when compared with that of an "average" locus in the genome. Studies of autosomal variation that are based on protein polymorphisms, blood groups, restriction-site polymorphisms, and Alu insertions have revealed much about within- and among-population genetic diversity of humans (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994; Relethford 2001).
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Supercar writes: Again, cannot therefore be treated as a standalone entity, but needs to be defined/identified further by its ancestor, the CLADE!
Correct.
Cruciani informs Charles that all M-78's are of African origin, but Charles pretends not to hear this.
Cruciani explains to Charles that Europeans have and African lineage due to a two step migration from Africa to Europe via the Levantine, but Charles mentally erases the African origin of this migration.
Cruciani patiently explains to Charles that alpha cluster is actually different loci/gene(s) altogether than M-78, but Charles blots this out, so as to continue arguing for a confusion of the two.
Lastly Cruciani informs Charles that clusters are not clades because microsatellite str similarities are *not* unique event polymorphisms, and unlike clade E3b1-M-78 cannot delineate singular common ancestries.
But Charles.... just looks on like the dog watching the Opera, and most definitely not getting it. Posted by basicbows (Member # 10371) on :
Where can one find autosomal info that shows relationships among different populations? Does anyone know?
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
You can read C. Sforza's, history and geography of human genes, and his genes languages and peoples.
They are a bit long in the tooth, for example they are pre-discovery of the Pn2 clade [E3a and E3b], and Sforza combines brilliance with bias, but they are massive in scope.
In fact the full history and geography/human genes is multi volume, much of it dedicated to data tables.
I have the softcover edition of both.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
basicbows
quote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Address for correspondence and reprints: Dr. Marcus W. Feldman, Department of Biological Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. E-mail: marc@charles.stanford.edu --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction
The distribution of genetic variation within and among human populations has long been an important tool for inferring the evolutionary history of modern humans. Dramatic improvements in genotyping technologies over the past 15 years have facilitated the development of many types of DNA markers. Considerable attention has been devoted to both uniparental and autosomal genetic markers. Because of their lack of recombination, uniparental markersmtDNA and the nonrecombining region of the Y chromosome (e.g., see R. L. Cann et al. 1987; Ingman et al. 2000; Underhill et al. 2000)and their genealogical histories are perhaps easier to study than are recombining markers. Although recombination introduces additional uncertainty regarding the history of any individual autosomal locus, consideration of a large collection of polymorphic loci spread across the genome enables more general inference about demographic history and population relationships than does study of the Y chromosome and mtDNA, loci whose histories may be anomalous when compared with that of an "average" locus in the genome. Studies of autosomal variation that are based on protein polymorphisms, blood groups, restriction-site polymorphisms, and Alu insertions have revealed much about within- and among-population genetic diversity of humans (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994; Relethford 2001).
Hi. what is the title of this article and place of publication.
Features of Evolution and Expansion of Modern Humans, Inferred from Genomewide Microsatellite Markers
Lev A. Zhivotovsky,1 Noah A. Rosenberg,2 and Marcus W. Feldman3
1Vavilov Institute of General Genetics, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow; 2Program in Molecular and Computational Biology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles; and 3Department of Biological Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, CA
Received December 9, 2002; accepted for publication February 20, 2003; electronically published April 10, 2003.
We study data on variation in 52 worldwide populations at 377 autosomal short tandem repeat loci, to infer a demographic history of human populations. Variation at di-, tri-, and tetranucleotide repeat loci is distributed differently, although each class of markers exhibits a decrease of within-population genetic variation in the following order: sub-Saharan Africa, Eurasia, East Asia, Oceania, and America. There is a similar decrease in the frequency of private alleles. With multidimensional scaling, populations belonging to the same major geographic region cluster together, and some regions permit a finer resolution of populations. When a stepwise mutation model is used, a population tree based on TD estimates of divergence time suggests that the branches leading to the present sub-Saharan African populations of hunter-gatherers were the first to diverge from a common ancestral population (71142 thousand years ago). The branches corresponding to sub-Saharan African farming populations and those that left Africa diverge next, with subsequent splits of branches for Eurasia, Oceania, East Asia, and America. African hunter-gatherer populations and populations of Oceania and America exhibit no statistically significant signature of growth. The features of population subdivision and growth are discussed in the context of the ancient expansion of modern humans.
Posted by basicbows (Member # 10371) on :
Rasol, thanks for the info.
Posted by basicbows (Member # 10371) on :
quote: they are pre-discovery of the Pn2 clade [E3a and E3b].
Why does this matter?
quote:Considerable attention has been devoted to both uniparental and autosomal genetic markers. Because of their lack of recombination, uniparental markersmtDNA and the nonrecombining region of the Y chromosome (e.g., see R. L. Cann et al. 1987; Ingman et al. 2000; Underhill et al. 2000)and their genealogical histories are perhaps easier to study than are recombining markers. Although recombination introduces additional uncertainty regarding the history of any individual autosomal locus, consideration of a large collection of polymorphic loci spread across the genome enables more general inference about demographic history and population relationships than does study of the Y chromosome and mtDNA, loci whose histories may be anomalous when compared with that of an "average" locus in the genome. Studies of autosomal variation that are based on
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by basicbows: they are pre-discovery of the Pn2 clade [E3a and E3b]. Why does this matter?
The majority of the native male population of Africa, from Cairo to CapeTown is of this single native African Clade.
PN2 clade Africans settled the Nile Valley in the Holocene and formed the base population of Kemet and Kush.
To this day the Pn2 clade is the predominent lineage in Upper Egypt and Nubia, so the relavence to Egyptsearch is keen.
As we have shown - Nile Valley Africans crossed the Levantine into Asia Minor and Europe.
They helped spark the Eurasian Neolithic, [Brace] and their physical and genetic legacy spread as far as Greece. [Keita, Angel].
Now here's a question for you:
Why are you gratuitously reposting abstracts unrelated to this particular conversation?
Are you hoping to change the subject?
Posted by basicbows (Member # 10371) on :
Read Zhitovsky's study; and the one I cited about divergence between Afs and non-Afs before anyone left Africa. The two studies complement each other, and you ought to see the relevance to what Underhill said.
Posted by basicbows (Member # 10371) on :
One more thing.You appear to think that uniparental clades determine population structure, and the geographical reference to Africa as the point of origination of a haplogroup describes the genetic constitution of the population (and thus its genetic relationships to other pops) among whom it arose. Am I right?
Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
In my view, when reference is made to the Caucasian Aegean and ancient world in general, no attention is paid to the well-established histories of the movement of Steppic peoples into the area. History is truncated where history begins, when written by Western hands, with its Caucasian phase closing the eyes to the people and history before their arrival. The images below are the images left by the original peoples of those lands. Their memory remains with us though their presence there does not:
quote:Originally posted by basicbows: One more thing.You appear to think that uniparental clades determine population structure,
Nope - no one said that.
But don't worry, if you keep spamming off topic, perhaps someone else will give chase and help you change the subject. But, not me. Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: I don't understand?
I thought there were 46 chromosomes.
Y is one of those 46 chromosomes.
M78 is an SNP of the Y chromosome.
The alpha cluster associated with SNP M78 of the Y chromosome is a certain microsatellite constellation.
I don't understand how a microsatellite cluster of a SNP is a chromosomes.
You're right AlTakruri.
I noticed that too, which is why I referenced it as a string tandem repeat/loci.
A loci is a specific position on a chromosome.
But I assumed that Cruciani was speaking 'down' a bit to the lay person.
One of the reason that these nonsensical 'debates' go on and on, is that the terminology goes over peoples heads, and some will intentionally exploit this fact, in and attempt to confuse.
The entire premise of confusing a clade with a cluster is the ROOT CAUSE of this debate.
Posted by *Topdog* (Member # 10328) on :
I'm far from a lay person. You highmnded people totally misrpresented Cruciani's reply to me, its getting frustrating to put in hard work to bring out objectivity and people turn right around and distort it to fit their agenda. Why don't one of you two goons email a geneticists your thoughts and questions like I did and get replies instead of playing armchair quarterback?
Posted by *Topdog* (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
Cruciani informs Charles that all M-78's are of African origin, but Charles pretends not to hear this.
Incorrect and a bunch of BS, if thats the case why did I post it?
quote:Cruciani explains to Charles that Europeans have and African lineage due to a two step migration from Africa to Europe via the Levantine, but Charles mentally erases the African origin of this migration.
]
Cruciani never stated that Europeans have "African" lineages please post where he stated it. he said that M78 came into the Near East from Africa and that the alpha chromosones came from the Near East, stated quite plainly. He never states that this was a two step Africans-only migration. You two clowns keep forgetting that haplogroups J and G along with a small amount of R lineages came into Europe during this same migration that brought E3b1-M78 alpha into Europe. The initial E-M78 migration into the Near Eat was a Paleolithic migration from Africa, the Neolithic migration from the Middle East into Europe happened thousands of years later so essentially the migration from the Near East into Europe is *NOT* a continuation of the first migration from Africa. You can read Cruciani's study on this matter and he plainly states this. Don't try to play spin games with me.
quote:Cruciani patiently explains to Charles that alpha cluster is actually different loci/gene(s) altogether than M-78, but Charles blots this out, so as to continue arguing for a confusion of the two.
If thats the case, why are you still stating Europeans have African ancestry?
quote:Lastly Cruciani informs Charles that clusters are not clades because microsatellite str similarities are *not* unique event polymorphisms, and unlike clade E3b1-M-78 cannot delineate singular common ancestries.
Where does Cruciani state any the following you distorter?
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:I'm far from a lay person.
Don't get your back up. I was thinking of Cruciani writing to ES in general, not specifically or only you.
And know this: I respect the courage and the effort that it took for you to email a geneticist and actually get a response.
No hard feelings.
- your favorite goon, rasol. Posted by *Topdog* (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Supercar:
quote:Originally posted by *Topdog*:
the reply:
Hi Mr Rigaud,
We used the term cluster simply to indicate a group of chromosomes that share similar microsatellite haplotypes. In our mind a cluster is a monophyletic unit, but this cannot be proved based on the microsatellites ALONE.
Again, cannot therefore be treated as a standalone entity, but needs to be defined/identified further by its ancestor, the CLADE!
Cruciani never stated that you distorter, he said he will send me the paper about this argument to further explain it.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
I don't understand Cruciani's use of chromosome.
I thought there were 46 chromosomes.
Y is one of those 46 chromosomes.
M78 is an SNP of the Y chromosome. SNP's mark allele changes.
The alpha cluster associated with SNP M78 of the Y chromosome is a certain microsatellite (STR)constellation. STR's mark allele repeat patterns.
I don't understand how a microsatellite cluster or a SNP is a whole chromosome instead of a gene.
quote:Originally posted by Fulvio Cruciani Ok, you asked for it:
Hi Mr Rigaud, We used the term cluster simply to indicate a group of chromosomes that share similar microsatellite haplotypes. In our mind a cluster is a monophyletic unit, but this cannot be proved based on the microsatellites alone. A paper on this argument will be published by Human Mutation shortly, I will send you a copy. I think that the term cluster has not been defined in a genetic sense in any textbook. We believe that cluster alfa chromosomes come from the Near East, but, in turn, M78 chromosomes are of african origin, so you can imagine a two steps migration: from Africa to the Middle east and from the Middle east to the Europe. We are still working on this argument, I hope to publish something about that in the next months
I hope this can help[/b]
ciao
Fulvio
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Topdog
quote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm far from a lay person. You highmnded people totally misrpresented Cruciani's reply to me, its getting frustrating to put in hard work to bring out objectivity and people turn right around and distort it to fit their agenda. Why don't one of you two goons email a geneticists your thoughts and questions like I did and get replies instead of playing armchair quarterback?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ok, you asked for it:
My email:
Hello Dr Cruciani, my name is Charles Rigaud and I'm a college student studying physical anthropology. I have some questions about your 2004 study,
Phylogeographic analysis of haplogroup E3b (E-M215) y chromosomes reveals multiple migratory events within and out of Africa.
In your study, you stated that there are 4 "clusters" of E-M78, the alpha, beta, delta and gamma clusters. I would like to know what is a cluster because I cannot find a textbook definition of what a cluster is, at least not in the genetic sense. My next question is does the alpha cluster, prevalent in Europe and the Balkans, represent an "African Neolithic" contribution to the European male gene pool? According to your study, it reprsents a migration during the Neolithic from the Near East but some colleagues of mine see it as indicating an African migration into Europe. I seek your guidance and answers to these questions. Thanks in advance.
Best Regards,
Charles Rigaud.
the reply:
Hi Mr Rigaud, We used the term cluster simply to indicate a group of chromosomes that share similar microsatellite haplotypes. In our mind a cluster is a monophyletic unit, but this cannot be proved based on the microsatellites alone. A paper on this argument will be published by Human Mutation shortly, I will send you a copy. I think that the term cluster has not been defined in a genetic sense in any textbook. We believe that cluster alfa chromosomes come from the Near East, but, in turn, M78 chromosomes are of african origin, so you can imagine a two steps migration: from Africa to the Middle east and from the Middle east to the Europe. We are still working on this argument, I hope to publish something about that in the next months
I hope this can help[/b]
ciao
Fulvio
Fulvio Cruciani Dipartimento di Genetica e Biologia Molecolare Università degli Studi di Roma "La Sapienza" P.le Aldo Moro 5 00185 Rome, Italy Phone: (39) 06 49912857 (office) Phone: (39) 06 49912924 (lab) Fax: (39) 06 4456866 email: fulvio.cruciani@uniroma1.it
Topdog it would appear from Fulvio's e-mail statement "M78 chromosomes are of african origin, so you can imagine a two steps migration: from Africa to the Middle east and from the Middle east to the Europe", that he is talking about the migration of M78 first to the Middle East and then to Europe.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ Obviously, yet we still hear dissembling in regards to this clearly stated fact, related to him by myself, supercar, thought, altakruri, and several geneticists, cruciani included.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Marc
quote:
In my view, when reference is made to the Caucasian Aegean and ancient world in general, no attention is paid to the well-established histories of the movement of Steppic peoples into the area. History is truncated where history begins, when written by Western hands, with its Caucasian phase closing the eyes to the people and history before their arrival. The images below are the images left by the original peoples of those lands. Their memory remains with us though their presence there does not:
Thanks for the great posters they provide graphic evidence of the Blacks who ruled the ancient world. It also highlights the fact that many of these Blacks, were establishing civilization in Asia, Europe and elsewhere in historic times.
.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by *Topdog*:
quote:Originally posted by Supercar:
quote:Originally posted by *Topdog*:
the reply:
Hi Mr Rigaud,
We used the term cluster simply to indicate a group of chromosomes that share similar microsatellite haplotypes. In our mind a cluster is a monophyletic unit, but this cannot be proved based on the microsatellites ALONE.
Again, cannot therefore be treated as a standalone entity, but needs to be defined/identified further by its ancestor, the CLADE!
Cruciani never stated that you distorter, he said he will send me the paper about this argument to further explain it.
Supercar is not distorting.
His explanation of the alpha tandem repeat was spot on, especially in correcting your misunderstandings - which is the 'cause' of our little discussion to begin with.
He has shown very impressive understanding of the genetics involved.
It's one thing to have access to papers and studies, and so be able to quote them, but quite another to be able to understand, and analyse.
Charles, I think everyone here at Egyptsearch respects you, there's no need to make a big deal out of one lost argument.
Just let it go.
Posted by *Topdog* (Member # 10328) on :
I never lost anything to pompous overconfident distorters. Don't kid yourself into believing such nonsense..
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ tsk tsk Charles. The resort to personal attacks in anger only makes matters worse.
Just let it go. Posted by *Topdog* (Member # 10328) on :
You're the one personally attacking and distorting, if you have any questions about what Cruciani is saying either read his studies or just ask him. Since you can't do the former, whats the problem with asking him directly whether Alpha chromosones represent African ancestry in Europeans?
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:TopDog writes: you have any questions about what Cruciani is saying
I don't. It's quite clear:
M78 chromosomes are of African origin,
so you can imagine A TWO STEPS MIGRATION: from Africa to the Middle east and from the Middle east to the Europe.
I do have a question for you. Why are you so upset and raging at everyone? 'Cruciani say something you didn't want to hear?? Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by basicbows: Read Zhitovsky's study; and the one I cited about divergence between Afs and non-Afs before anyone left Africa...
Again, I ask how the heck can non-Africans develop IN Africa?!! It makes no sense! Any development IN Africa means it is African!!
quote:The two studies complement each other, and you ought to see the relevance to what Underhill said.
You obviously don't know how to comprehend those studies then. Posted by *Topdog* (Member # 10328) on :
From Cruciani's study:
the clinal frequency distribution of E-M78α within Europe testifies to important dispersal(s), most likely Neolithic or post-Neolithic. These took place from the Balkans, where the highest frequencies are observed, in all directions, as far as Iberia to the west and, most likely, also to Turkey to the southeast. Thus, it appears that, in Europe, the overall frequency pattern of the haplogroup E-M78, the most frequent E3b haplogroup in this region, is mostly contributed by a new molecular type that distinguishes it from the aboriginal E3b chromosomes from the Near East. These data are hard to reconcile with the hypothesis of a uniform spread of a single Near Eastern gene pool into southeastern Europe. On the other hand, they might be consistent with either a small-scale leapfrog migration from Anatolia into southeastern Europe at the beginning of the Neolithic or with an expansion of indigenous people in southeastern Europe in response to the arrival of the Neolithic cultural package. At the present level of phylogenetic resolution, it is difficult to distinguish between these possibilities.
Am. J. Hum. Genet., 74:1014-1022, 2004
Posted by *Topdog* (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:TopDog writes: you have any questions about what Cruciani is saying
I don't. It's quite clear:
M78 chromosomes are of African origin,
so you can imagine A TWO STEPS MIGRATION: from Africa to the Middle east and from the Middle east to the Europe.
I do have a question for you. Why are you so upset and raging at everyone?
alpha chromosnes are derived from an M78 background from the Near East I just posted so from Cruciani. The Near East received the initial M78 chromosones and Europe received the alpha chromosones on a M78 background from the Near East thats exactly what Cruciani is stating, not your distortions of his words.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:TopDog writes: whats the problem with asking him directly whether Alpha chromosones represent African ancestry in Europeans?
Why would we ask him about alpha tandem repeat, when Cruciani just clearly explained to anyone with a good pair of ears that alpha tandem repeat is not clade E3b-M78, and that clade E3b-M78 is African.
We already knew this. We tried to warn you.
The only one who can't accept it is you.
When you're done venting E3b1-M78 will still be and African clade. And alpha cluster will not be M78 or a clade, and so will still be as irrelevant to the African origin of E3b1-M78 as it was when you first started your doomed argument.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Charles: alpha chromosnes are derived from an M78 background
lol, nope.
You never learn do you?
Didn't you even listen to AlTakruri correct you on the matter of str clusters not being chromosomes?
And str clusters are *not* derived from snp mutations such as M78, they are completely different loci. on the Y chromosome.
alpha tandem repeat is not Mutation-78 which defines the E3b1 clade.
How many times, must how many different discussants explain the same things to you, over and over....
For the sake of your own 'health' man - give .... it .... up!
Posted by *Topdog* (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:TopDog writes: whats the problem with asking him directly whether Alpha chromosones represent African ancestry in Europeans?
Why would we ask him about alpha tandem repeat, when Cruciani just clearly explained to anyone with a good pair of ears that alpha tandem repeat is not clade E3b-M78, and that clade E3b-M78 is African.
We already knew this. We tried to warn you.
The only one who can't accept it is you.
When you're done venting E3b1-M78 will still be and African clade. And alpha cluster will not be M78 or a clade, and so will still be as irrelevant to the African origin of E3b1-M78 as it was when you first started your doomed argument.
From Cruciani's study:
the clinal frequency distribution of E-M78α within Europe testifies to important dispersal(s), most likely Neolithic or post-Neolithic. These took place from the Balkans, where the highest frequencies are observed, in all directions, as far as Iberia to the west and, most likely, also to Turkey to the southeast. Thus, it appears that, in Europe, the overall frequency pattern of the haplogroup E-M78, the most frequent E3b haplogroup in this region, is mostly contributed by a new molecular type that distinguishes it from the aboriginal E3b chromosomes from the Near East. These data are hard to reconcile with the hypothesis of a uniform spread of a single Near Eastern gene pool into southeastern Europe. On the other hand, they might be consistent with either a small-scale leapfrog migration from Anatolia into southeastern Europe at the beginning of the Neolithic or with an expansion of indigenous people in southeastern Europe in response to the arrival of the Neolithic cultural package. At the present level of phylogenetic resolution, it is difficult to distinguish between these possibilities.
Am. J. Hum. Genet., 74:1014-1022, 2004
Posted by basicbows (Member # 10371) on :
Rasol: Since you so often talk about the PN2 clade, the studies I showed you are directly relevant to what you're talking about here. The crucial difference is between the relations among populations (or metapopulations), and the relations between networks of genes.If you fail to make that distinction, there's nothing more to say.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ basicbrows, could you start a new thread to discuss the instigation above? i will respond to it there.
I doubt you'll bother, as it would not accomplish the goal of distration in this thread.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by *Topdog*: From Cruciani's study:
the clinal frequency distribution of E-M78α within Europe testifies to important dispersal(s), most likely Neolithic or post-Neolithic. These took place from the Balkans, where the highest frequencies are observed, in all directions, as far as Iberia to the west and, most likely, also to Turkey to the southeast. Thus, it appears that, in Europe, the overall frequency pattern of the haplogroup E-M78, the most frequent E3b haplogroup in this region, is mostly contributed by a new molecular type that distinguishes it from the aboriginal E3b chromosomes from the Near East. These data are hard to reconcile with the hypothesis of a uniform spread of a single Near Eastern gene pool into southeastern Europe. On the other hand, they might be consistent with either a small-scale leapfrog migration from Anatolia into southeastern Europe at the beginning of the Neolithic or with an expansion of indigenous people in southeastern Europe in response to the arrival of the Neolithic cultural package. At the present level of phylogenetic resolution, it is difficult to distinguish between these possibilities.
Am. J. Hum. Genet., 74:1014-1022, 2004 [/QB]
quote:Originally posted by *Topdog*:
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:TopDog writes: whats the problem with asking him directly whether Alpha chromosones represent African ancestry in Europeans?
Why would we ask him about alpha tandem repeat, when Cruciani just clearly explained to anyone with a good pair of ears that alpha tandem repeat is not clade E3b-M78, and that clade E3b-M78 is African.
We already knew this. We tried to warn you.
The only one who can't accept it is you.
When you're done venting E3b1-M78 will still be and African clade. And alpha cluster will not be M78 or a clade, and so will still be as irrelevant to the African origin of E3b1-M78 as it was when you first started your doomed argument.
From Cruciani's study:
the clinal frequency distribution of E-M78α within Europe testifies to important dispersal(s), most likely Neolithic or post-Neolithic. These took place from the Balkans, where the highest frequencies are observed, in all directions, as far as Iberia to the west and, most likely, also to Turkey to the southeast. Thus, it appears that, in Europe, the overall frequency pattern of the haplogroup E-M78, the most frequent E3b haplogroup in this region, is mostly contributed by a new molecular type that distinguishes it from the aboriginal E3b chromosomes from the Near East. These data are hard to reconcile with the hypothesis of a uniform spread of a single Near Eastern gene pool into southeastern Europe. On the other hand, they might be consistent with either a small-scale leapfrog migration from Anatolia into southeastern Europe at the beginning of the Neolithic or with an expansion of indigenous people in southeastern Europe in response to the arrival of the Neolithic cultural package. At the present level of phylogenetic resolution, it is difficult to distinguish between these possibilities.
Am. J. Hum. Genet., 74:1014-1022, 2004
Indeed, we've covered this over and again...
Redundancy is just another form of running away from Cruciani's clear statement on the African origin of E3b1-M78.
But as you require that everything be repeated:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Supercar: [qb] I will agree with Charles that we have been through everything discussed here before, and for that reason, I'll just reiterate only once, some of the points raised, which perhaps still stand, barring any new information being brought to light:
Elsewhere I posted:
...not to mention E3b1 delta. There is a tendency to focus on the alpha cluster too much, it being the predominent E3b1 cluster in Europe, while ignoring the presence of older clusters like the E3b1 delta. Some folks do so, as some of us are already aware, to distract, or dissociate the lineage from its relatively recent sub-Saharan African origin. A similar treatment [i.e., ignoring the lineage's presence in Europe], though to a greater extent, has been afforded to the lineages' PN2 clade sister lineages, the E3a haplotypes.
Charles posted:
On the other forum it was mentioned that E3b1 alpha was derived from E3b1 delta. I've searched every available publication on E3b1 and none have ever made that statement, so where's the proof?
Thought posted:
You are absoluetly correct. The Cruciani et al study does not explicitly state that alpha derived from delta. It does state that delta spread from East Africa to Europe after ~14,000 years ago. It also states that alpha derived in Europe. Hence it requires a commonsensical sort of extrapolation.
I replied:
Well, let's take a look:
"The fourth cluster **delta **(cluster in fig. 2B) is present, albeit at low frequencies, in **all** of the regions analyzed (4.0% in eastern and northern Africa, 3.3% in the Near East, and 1.5% in Europe) and shows a notable microsatellite differentiation (fig. 2B). The two E-M78 chromosomes found in Pakistan, at the eastern borders of the area of dispersal of haplogroup E3b, also belong to **cluster delta**.
On the basis of these data, we suggest that cluster delta was involved in a **first dispersal** or dispersals of E-M78 chromosomes from eastern Africa into northern Africa and the Near East. Time-of-divergence estimates for E-M78 chromosomes suggest a relatively great antiquity (14.7 ± 2.7 ky) for the separation of eastern Africans from the other populations. A later range expansion from the Near East or, possibly, from northern Africa would have introduced E-M78 cluster **delta** into Europe. However, given the low frequencies of E-M78 delta, it seems to have contributed only marginally to the shaping of the **present** E-M78 frequency distribution in Africa and western Eurasia. Indeed, later (and previously undetected) demographic population expansions involving clusters alpha in Europe (TMRCA 7.8 ky; 95% CI 6.39.2 ky), beta in northwestern Africa (5.2 ky; 95% CI 3.27.5 ky), and gamma in eastern Africa (9.6 ky; 95% CI 7.212.9 ky) should be considered the main contributors to the relatively high frequency of haplogroup E-M78 in the surveyed area." - Cruciani et al.
Again, the experts give us data, and then, it is our job to take further understanding from there. Most forget that the delta cluster is STILL present in **all of the regions surveyed**. Hence, the original cluster that made its way to the Near East, is still present in the Asia and Europe, and hasn't been totally wiped out. What other E3b1 cluster is found in the so-called "Near East"? So, it is obvious, that it was this cluster that mutated, most likely in the Balkans, where it has the highest frequencies and spread to southern Europe. The fact that the alpha cluster now dominates the delta cluster in the region [Europe], has to do with further migrations from the east, and perhaps, genetic drift [and founder effect] had a hand in enhancing its frequency. This is why the alpha cluster is largely responsible for the **present** E-M78 frequency distribution in Europe. We know how other E3b lineages, like E3b2, got into southwestern Europe.
Charles posts: If we read Cruciani's study he says the spread of E3b chromosones isn't so simple, so that extrapolation is *NOT* an absolute truth. Delta cluster was involve in several dispersals possibly so should we have several more clusters from each dispersal?
Thought posts:
1) There are NO absolutes in statistics because all forms of statistical analysis are based upon probability, hence there is the margin of error.
2) Common sense can be of assistance as well. E3b1 alpha is derived from E3b1 and has a MRCA of ~8,000 ky. E3b1 is absent in Europe. E3b1 beta is virtually absent in the Balkans. E3b1 gamma is restricted to East Africa. E3b1 delta predates E3b1 alpha AND is located in the Balkans. This is why E3b1 delta is considered the precursor of E3b1 alpha.
Rasol posts:
Also not all E3b1 have been sub-catagorised into *any* cluster.
All E3b1's are by definition a part of the same lineage.
Whether alpha descends from a specific cluster such as delta, or from and undefined/underived E3b1 makes essentially no difference.
What is important about alpha is it's neolithic mrca, which tells 'when' and in turn sheds light on 'whom' brought this lineage into the Balkans.
One reason there are so many 'clusters' is that this lineage has been studied with a fine tooth comb, perhaps with hope of 'clustering' it out of Africa.
'Not a chance. This is the genetically ill-informed equivelant of the geographical illiteracy of removing East Africa from sub-saharan Africa.
It is a desparate ruse and should be dismissed as such.
Charles posts:
Black Africans didn't bring the alpha mutation into Europe, if thats what you're hinting at and thats faulty logic. Each of the clusters are defined by specific mutations that are geographically restricted to certain areas. At any rate, I've e-mailed some geneticists about where exactly does the alpha exactly is the alpha mutation derived from so I'll have an answer. No ois trying to cluster E3b1 out of Africa, the publications state that E-M78[the mutation of E3b that defines E3b1] has an East African origin and no place does it state that E3b1 came into Africa from the outside. All thats being said is certain clusters of E3b1 are geographically restricted to certain areas.
I posted:
One cannot be certain about the morphology of the folks, among whom the mutation occurred. What is certain, is that there were clear sub-Saharan affinities among the Neolithic populations of the "Near Easterners" who spread the Neolithic culture into Europe. Sub-Saharan affinities were also found in the Balkans, **from where the alpha derivatives appear to have spread elsewhere westward**:
"Against this background of disease, movement and pedomorphic reduction of body size one can identify Negroid traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters (McCown, 1939) and **in Anatolian** and Macedonian first farmers, probably from Nubia via the unknown predecesors of the Badarians and Tasians....". - Angel
This was once again, more recently, observed by Brace et al.:
"...the failure of the Neolithic and Bronze Age samples in central and northern Europe to tie to the modern inhabitants supports the suggestion that,...
while a farming mode of subsistence was spread westward and also north to Crimea and east to Mongolia by actual movement of communities of farmers, the indigenous foragers in each of those areas ultimately absorbed both the agricultural subsistence strategy and also the people who had brought it." - Brace et al.
Not to mention...
"If the late Pleistocene Natufian sample from Israel is the source from which that Neolithic spread was derived, there was clearly a sub-Saharan African element present of **almost equal importance** as the Late Prehistoric Eurasian element.” - Brace et al.
According to Brace et al., this sub-Saharan element must have diluted over time, which I take it, is due to population expansions in Europe.
I agree with Rasol that, at the end of the day, the important point should be: What lineage the alpha cluster is, i.e., its derivation from E3b1, which is of sub-Saharan origin. Thus, E3b1 is sub-Saharan derived. Talking of clusters, or focusing on the question of which one is specific to which region, doesn't alter this fact in any case. Sub-Saharan Africa is also referred to as tropical Africa ~ black Africa.
Other matters that are taken into consideration in the discussion of the Neolithic spread of E3b1...
1)The mrca of the alpha cluster.
2)Examination frequencies of other [older] E3b1 clusters in the Near East and the Balkans, so as to narrow it down to the most likely precursor of the alpha cluster. At the end of the day, it can only derive from a E3b1 type that originated in Africa. Preponderance of available data favors the delta cluster, which is present in all the regions surveyed for E-M78 distribution.
Thought posts:
One fact that needs to be considered in this regard is that as the neolithic spread via the Rhine deeper into Central Europe TRADE ROUTES would have been established and BACK-MIGRATION would have occured. This society may have been paterilineal meaning indigenous European women would have gained priveldge mating with the neolithic males. In addition, as the African mtDNA lineages fade-out sooner as we enter Europe it may have been due to the fact that these original hunting parties contained few women. In fact, I have proposed that one of the reasons we see a spread from the Nile into Eurasia was because of the disruption of the gathering economy on the Kom Ombo plain with the onset of the Holocene High Nile Floods. This disruption could have empacted the local subsistance system and hence forced migration. This imples a tough lifestyle where women and children may have died out more rapidly than men. Areas for future research.....
Charles posts: The Natufian sample consisted of only four individuals and in an e-mail to me Dr. Brace said one should be careful when making conclusions about *ALL* Natufians. We do know that some of the skeletal material in the Levant was sub-Saharan influenced, thats something to build with.
Thought posts:
What is your point? I sometimes question if you are really as naive as you pretend to be. I have said DOZENS of times that the evidence for Sub-Saharan gene flow into Eurasia during the Mesolithic period relies on a multidisciplinary approach NOT just cranial analysis. Lingustics, arcaheology and genetics also support this conclusion. I have said that the Natufians were a COMBINATION of incoming Mushabians and indigenous northern Levant Upper Paleolithic populations such as the Ohalo populations YEARS AGO!
I reply:
Folks here have been consistent on this issue, about the Natufians being the product of cross-breeding between African populations and those of the Levantine. It also has to be recognized that Brace is just another expert, who has reached the same conclusion about the Natufians, as others BEFORE him and his partners. For example...
"[The caves of Erq-el-Ahmar] . . . Produced 132 individuals for Miss Garrod. All these Natufians share the same physical type, completely different from that of earlier Palestinians. They are short, about 160 cm.* and dolichocephalic. They were probably Cro-Magnoid Mediterraneans, presenting certain Negroid characteristics attributable to crossbreeding..." - Furon.
What I am getting at here, is that, notwithstanding Brace's rather smaller collection, others before him, who collected varying numbers of Natufian remains, had reached the same conclusion. As you can see, Miss Garrod's collection was much larger than Brace's. Thus, Brace et al.'s work, should simply seen as another re-confirmation of an earlier discovery, although Brace has the advantage of working with molecular geneticists to build a more complete thesis or the broader picture, than those who had to work with what was available to them at the time, i.e., archeology, including skeletal remains, and linguistics. Molecular genetics is much more prevalent now, and Brace can correlate his findings with this discipline.
Redundancy is just another form of running away from Cruciani's clear statement on the African origin of E3b1-M78.
But as you require that everything be repeated:...
^^Indeed, that is what Charles does; he never addresses each important point relayed to him, but dodges them, and bring up the same discredited ranting in another thread. All those points have yet to still be addressed. Case in point, notice how he never answered this point:
There is more genetic similarity between Europeans and sub-Saharan Africans and between Europeans and Melanesians, inhabitants of islands northeast of Australia, than there is between Africans and Melanesians. - Templeton
quote:Originally posted by *Topdog*:
quote:Originally posted by Supercar:
quote:Originally posted by *Topdog*:
the reply:
Hi Mr Rigaud,
We used the term cluster simply to indicate a group of chromosomes that share similar microsatellite haplotypes. In our mind a cluster is a monophyletic unit, but this cannot be proved based on the microsatellites ALONE.
Again, cannot therefore be treated as a standalone entity, but needs to be defined/identified further by its ancestor, the CLADE!
Cruciani never stated that you distorter, he said he will send me the paper about this argument to further explain it.
Use your lay man brain appropriately for once, and comprehend. “I” used my knowledge, to understand what this means, FROM Cruciani:
We used the term cluster simply to indicate a group of chromosomes that share similar microsatellite haplotypes. In our mind a cluster is a monophyletic unit, but this cannot be proved based on the microsatellites ALONE.
What does this mean layman?
Now, of course I knew this all along, and have been saying this to you from day one when you brought this issue up. Being the utter layman you truly are, you misconstrued “monophyletic” to mean the “alpha” cluster is some how independent from E3b1 or an 'independent' lineage.
Hence, Cruciani goes onto the explain, apparently though, being the layman you are, who cannot grasp something and refuses to do so, did not still get it:
We believe that cluster alfa chromosomes come from the Near East, but, in turn, M78 chromosomes are of african origin, so you can imagine a two steps migration...
…meaning the M78 chromosomes, bearing the alpha tandem repeats, simply informs of migration from the Near East. It doesn’t in any way affect M78 marking African ancestry. You cannot use, as Cruciani makes abundantly clear, “microsatellites” such as the tandem repeats like alpha, delta, or what have you, to prove that these chromosomes belong to the same family or , i.e. of the same or singular ancestry or monophyly. You need to have the M78 mutation, a one time mutation that occurred in tropical Africa, to determine the relationship between the alpha cluster, delta, and gamma clusters - they are all monophyletic units that share a single ancestor, M78 [E3b1] mutation. When will you grasp this concept, instead of waisting your time “whitewashing” E3b1-M78’s true designation as “African ancestry” by irrelevantly clinging onto “micro satellite clusters” that only keep track of the whereabouts of the expansion of a “lineage”, and help determine the timelines of those expansion, but are not enough to tell us anything about “shared” ancestry?
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
I noticed that too, which is why I referenced it as a string tandem repeat/loci.
A loci is a specific position on a chromosome.
But I assumed that Cruciani was speaking 'down' a bit to the layperson.
One of the reason that these nonsensical 'debates' go on and on, is that the terminology goes over peoples heads, and some will intentionally exploit this fact, in and attempt to confuse.
The entire premise of confusing a clade with a cluster is the ROOT CAUSE of this debate. [/QB]
Actually, Cruciani was quite clear. By saying “alpha cluster” chromosomes, he was simply trying to point out that these were still on the M78 chromosomes, by following it up with this: M78 chromosomes are of african origin
…as you’ve already noted. He’s already noted that “microsatellites clusters” cannot be viewed separately to tell us about their monophyletic nature. They naturally need to be identified by a SNP ancestor. Maybe for someone as hard of understanding like Charles, he should have phrased it this way:
The “alfa clusters on M78 chromosomes”. Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol: basicbrows, could you start a new thread to discuss the instigation above? i will respond to it there...
Why bother?! What he has to say has already been refuted multiple times and in this thread already!
quote:Originally posted by basicbows: Rasol: Since you so often talk about the PN2 clade, the studies I showed you are directly relevant to what you're talking about here. The crucial difference is between the relations among populations (or metapopulations), and the relations between networks of genes. If you fail to make that distinction, there's nothing more to say.
quote:Supercar has already answered: "Network"?! LOL. The guy's posts just keep getting "nuttier".
The clade E3b derivatives are involved in the expansions elsewhere; that is why E3b underived is rare elsewhere but Africa. It is just like how you and your father are not one, but this does NOT break the father-son relationship. The vitality of understanding clades and clusters cannot be overemphasized.
As for your analogy of M and N lineages, again L3 is the Clade; those are sub-clades of L3.
Whereas E3b is the main clade, and E3b1 is the sub-Clade of E3b. E3b1 alpha is a "cluster" of E3b1 "sub-Clade"; the "alpha" tandem repeat is not a clade at all. What can be possibly so difficult for one to understand this, no matter the level of intelligence?
A little comprehension of the material is in order before you can criticize anyone about it.
Posted by *Topdog* (Member # 10328) on :
LOL, these guys are still beating the clade/cluster strawmen, its very amusing, as if that changes the fact that E3b1 alpha is *NOT* an "African Neolithic" lineage in Europe and people here cannot understand the relationships of lineages. E3b1 alpha repreents mixture from the Near East, not Neolithic Africans, case closed. Try emailing a geneticist your pseudoscientific interpretations and post the response.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Charles: these guys are still beating the clade/cluster strawmen
translation: doesn't understand the difference between a clade and cluster.
doesn't want to understand either.
wouldn't admit to understanding even if he did understand.
because a simple honest admission on his part ends this silly argument.
Thus Charles continues to beat his own head against the wall.
E3b1 is African in origin - Cruciani.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
There is more genetic similarity between Europeans and sub-Saharan Africans and between Europeans and Melanesians, inhabitants of islands northeast of Australia, than there is between Africans and Melanesians. - Templeton
...says it all; no self-delusion or illiteracy can miscontrue this reality.
Posted by *Topdog* (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Charles: these guys are still beating the clade/cluster strawmen
translation: doesn't understand the difference between a clade and cluster.
doesn't want to understand either.
wouldn't admit to understanding even if he did understand.
because a simple honest admission on his part ends this silly argument.
Thus Charles continues to beat his own head against the wall.
E3b1 is African in origin - Cruciani.
Translation:
Still beating a strawman over claims that were never made and distorts Cruciani's reply and overstating the meaning of a clade to make everyone who shares ancestry within clade African. E3b1 did originate in Africa, no one denied this so repeating to prove something is beating on strawman. All of the variation within the E3b1 is *NOT* African, therefore everyone who shares ancestry within E3b1 doesn't have African ancestry. If you have arguments to the contrary please email a geneticist and post the reply.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ translation: charles, unable to grasp elementary genetics, still beating his head against the wall.
quote:Charles writes: All of the variation within the E3b1 is not African
Wrong again.
E3b1 is a single event mutation.
Charles can you even define what the above means?
...
...
I didn't think so.
In genetics this means it has exactly one, in this case, African origin.
Thus Cruciani is correct: M78 is of African origin.
tandem repeat microsat clusters are distinct loci within the genome.
They cannot by function of mutation or coding have any impact on the origin of single event mutations such as E3b1-M78.
This means exactly as it sounds - there is exactly 1 E3b1-m78 mutation.
It is African in Origin, as noted by Cruciani, and as you pretend by obtuseness not to hear.
There is no middle eastern E3b1-m78.
There is no European E3b1-m78.
There is only African E3b1-m78.
short tandem repeats are not M78, and have no bearing on the above no matter how desparate you are to wish it to be so.
Charles: I don't mind explaining genetics 101 to you, over and over.
If you aren't embarrassed by your inability to understand it, it's ok by me. Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Give it a rest Charles! Rasol and Super have given all the info they need to refute your proposterous claims!
Mediterraneans and especially the Greeks have African ancestry, PERIOD!
Nuff said, so stop already!
Your incessant denial and circular arguments are becoming like those of Evil-Euro!! Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:All of the variation within the E3b1 is not African
The above is incorrect of course.
E3b1 is a single event mutation.
Charles, in genetics this means it has exactly one, in this case, African origin.
Thus Cruciani is correct: M78 is of African origin.
tandem repeat microsat clusters are distinct loci within the genome.
They cannot by function of mutation or coding have any impact on the origin of single event mutations such as E3b1-M78.
This means exactly as it sounds - there is exactly 1 E3b1-m78 mutation.
It is African in Origin.
There is no middle eastern E3b1-m78.
There is no European E3b1-m78.
There is only African E3b1-m78.
short tandem repeats are not M78, and have no bearing on the above no matter how desparate you are to wish it to be so.
Charles: I don't mind explaining genetics 101 to you, over and over.
If you aren't embarrassed by your inability to understand it, it's ok by me.
That's right; hit the guy with the BASICs like a ton of bricks. He can't even understand his own correspondence with Cruciani.
There is NO variant of "M78" mutation, i.e. African ancestry. It is a one time, and only ONE time, mutation that defines a specific monophyly [E3b1] that the various "microsatellite cluster" haplotypes, including the alpha, belong to.
Posted by basicbows (Member # 10371) on :
Rasol: You mean you have taken genetics 101? I'll take your suggestion--I won't be back. Oh, one other suggestion, by me. Why don't you bring your opinions out into the "big bad world" instead of hiding out here. "Top Dog" has the gumption to write to geneticists, and there are plenty of blogs out there, run by scientists, where you can voice your ideas. I'm sure it will refine your perspective on all this. With this final comment, I'll say goodbye. It was interesting.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by basicbows: I'll take your suggestion--I won't be back.
What I suggested is that you start a new thread dedicated to whatever triffling matter preoccupies your mind.
I'll gladly play with you.
But I won't help you disrupt this thread...as you are trying sooo very hard to do.
That's all. thanks.
Posted by *Topdog* (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Give it a rest Charles! Rasol and Super have given all the info they need to refute your proposterous claims!
Mediterraneans and especially the Greeks have African ancestry, PERIOD!
Nuff said, so stop already!
Your incessant denial and circular arguments are becoming like those of Evil-Euro!!
Get off the bandwagon and be your own man, you're sounding just like King. Rasol and supercar hae done nothing.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by *Topdog*:
Rasol and supercar hae done nothing.
...but to expose that you know nothing of genetics. Posted by *Topdog* (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Supercar:
quote:Originally posted by *Topdog*:
Rasol and supercar hae done nothing.
...but to expose that you know nothing of genetics.
You haven't exposed jack.. If you're so sure that you're analysis is so accurate and I'm so wrong package up your thoughts and email them to a geneticist, like I did then post the reply. Whats the problem? I've basically refuted your nonsense.
Posted by *Topdog* (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Supercar:
There is NO variant of "M78" mutation, i.e. African ancestry. It is a one time, and only ONE time, mutation that defines a specific monophyly [E3b1] that the various "microsatellite cluster" haplotypes, including the alpha, belong to. [/QB]
If M78 cannot accumulate variation, why do we have four different clusters geographically structured in 4 different places? The clusters are variants of M78, thats what you fail to realize and get through your thick skull.
Posted by *Topdog* (Member # 10328) on :
the clinal frequency distribution of E-M78α within Europe testifies to important dispersal(s), most likely Neolithic or post-Neolithic. These took place from the Balkans, where the highest frequencies are observed, in all directions, as far as Iberia to the west and, most likely, also to Turkey to the southeast. Thus, it appears that, in Europe, the overall frequency pattern of the haplogroup E-M78, the most frequent E3b haplogroup in this region, is mostly contributed by a new molecular type that distinguishes it from the aboriginal E3b chromosomes from the Near East. These data are hard to reconcile with the hypothesis of a uniform spread of a single Near Eastern gene pool into southeastern Europe. On the other hand, they might be consistent with either a small-scale leapfrog migration from Anatolia into southeastern Europe at the beginning of the Neolithic or with an expansion of indigenous people in southeastern Europe in response to the arrival of the Neolithic cultural package. At the present level of phylogenetic resolution, it is difficult to distinguish between these possibilities.
Am. J. Hum. Genet., 74:1014-1022, 2004
Wow, when something is of a new molecular type its still the same old M78 and acquires no distinction, lol, this passage went right over your head because you have no comments for it, oh ye mighty "experts" who claim I haven't taken genetics 101. If you took genetics 101 you should know what this means instead of avoiding it crying redundancy.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by *Topdog*: You haven't exposed jack...
Then how come you are not able to delineate a cluster from a clade? How come you don't have an answer to this phenomenon:
There is more genetic similarity between Europeans and sub-Saharan Africans and between Europeans and Melanesians, inhabitants of islands northeast of Australia, than there is between Africans and Melanesians. - Templeton
quote:Charles:
If you're so sure that you're analysis is so accurate and I'm so wrong package up your thoughts and email them to a geneticist, like I did then post the reply. Whats the problem? I've basically refuted your nonsense.
^^The usual cry of defeat, when your own correspondence has been used to show your scientific illiteracy. The question should rather be; hence, what more else do we need.
Writing email to experts on issues that you have no clue about and simply blindly posting studies on discussion forums, don't make you knowledgeable, although it could happen IF you tried; your situation is testament to this - you simply don't know much, and not willing to learn. It is the latter that is the biggest problem.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by *Topdog*:
the clinal frequency distribution of E-M78α within Europe testifies to important dispersal(s), most likely Neolithic or post-Neolithic. These took place from the Balkans, where the highest frequencies are observed, in all directions, as far as Iberia to the west and, most likely, also to Turkey to the southeast. Thus, it appears that, in Europe, the overall frequency pattern of the haplogroup E-M78, the most frequent E3b haplogroup in this region, is mostly contributed by a new molecular type that distinguishes it from the aboriginal E3b chromosomes from the Near East. These data are hard to reconcile with the hypothesis of a uniform spread of a single Near Eastern gene pool into southeastern Europe. On the other hand, they might be consistent with either a small-scale leapfrog migration from Anatolia into southeastern Europe at the beginning of the Neolithic or with an expansion of indigenous people in southeastern Europe in response to the arrival of the Neolithic cultural package. At the present level of phylogenetic resolution, it is difficult to distinguish between these possibilities.
Am. J. Hum. Genet., 74:1014-1022, 2004
Wow, when something is of a new molecular type its still the same old M78 and acquires no distinction, lol, this passage went right over your head because you have no comments for it, oh ye mighty "experts" who claim I haven't taken genetics 101. If you took genetics 101 you should know what this means instead of avoiding it crying redundancy.
Why bother when it has been explained to you ad nauseam in earlier discussions? Not that you would know it, if it came and punched you right in the face, but again, Cruciani, whose work you are citing above, gave you the answer, in his correspondence to you:
We used the term cluster simply to indicate a group of chromosomes that share similar microsatellite haplotypes. In our mind a cluster is a monophyletic unit, but this cannot be proved based on the microsatellites ALONE.
I am not repeating this for you, since it will never sink in, but for those, who wish to learn.
Ps - We believe that cluster alfa chromosomes come from the Near East, but, in turn, M78 chromosomes are of african origin, so you can imagine a two steps migration... Posted by *Topdog* (Member # 10328) on :
"short tandem repeats are not M78, and have no bearing on the above no matter how desparate you are to wish it to be so."
STRS are defined by rare alleles which distinguish them from each other, if you really read Cruciani's study you would have saw this. Each cluster is defined by a unique STR get it through your thick skulls. I've emailed two geneticists that said essentially the same thing, that E3b1 is NOT an index for black ancestry, end of story, if you're so right about your claims whats stopping you from emailing a geneticist your claims and posting the replyß I smell cowardice. Evil Euro and Dienekes cowarded out when I asked them to do the same and you're doing the same thing.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by *Topdog*: "short tandem repeats are not M78, and have no bearing on the above no matter how desparate you are to wish it to be so."
STRS are defined by rare alleles which distinguish them from each other, if you really read Cruciani's study you would have saw this. Each cluster is defined by a unique STR get it through your thick skulls...
^^Strawman is a sure sign of a real coward. Refuting every piece of garbage you spout here, into "whitewashing" African M78 and making it out to be something that sports viariation, shows confidence.
Posted by *Topdog* (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: Why bother when it has been explained to you ad nauseam in earlier discussions? Not that you would know it, if it came and punched you right in the face, but again, Cruciani, whose work you are citing above, gave you the answer, in his correspondence to you:
Translation: Supercar doesn't understand what the above passage meant now he's cowarding out by trying to ridicule the opponent, a classic fallacy.
quote:We used the term cluster simply to indicate a group of chromosomes that share similar microsatellite haplotypes. In our mind a cluster is a monophyletic unit, but this cannot be proved based on the microsatellites ALONE.
Which is why he said a new paper will be coming out to better explain this, a paper I will have in my email btw.
quote:I am not repeating this for you, since it will never sink in, but for those, who wish to learn.
Trasnlation: Supercar is simply stating that failure to agree with his one-sided view makes the opponent ignorant, a clear sign of his frustration.
quote:Ps - We believe that cluster alfa chromosomes come from the Near East,
Which is what I've stated all along when this erroneous statement was made by rasol:
"The original European populations had R1b and I, until Africans and Southwest Asians introduced the Neolithic into Europe along with E3b and J."
quote: but, in turn, M78 chromosomes are of african origin, so you can imagine a two steps migration...[/i]
Which refutes the notion of Africans introducing the Neolithic into Europe along with E3b lineages, it came from the Near East as stated by Cruciani through personal communication and published data. You deliberately left out the part where Cruciani said the migration from the Near East to Europe brought E3b1-M78 alpha into Europe, which is distinguished from aboriginal E3b chromosones in he Near East by a new molecular type.
Posted by *Topdog* (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Supercar:
Strawman is a sure sign of a real coward. Refuting every piece of garbage you spout here, into "whitewashing" African M78 and making it out to be something that sports viariation, shows confidence. [/QB]
The strawman is your dumb ad-hominem statement that I'm whitewashing M78 when I did no such thing and you know it. I simply stated what was stated in published data that alpha cluster chrommosones are defined by a new molecular type that distinguishes it from aboriginal E3b chromosones from the Near East, Thats all I've stated and you can see it in published data for yourself.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by *Topdog*: Which is why he said a new paper will be coming out to better explain this, a paper I will have in my email btw.
Your dumb babblings aside, let me help you figure it out:
M78 chromosomes are of African origin,
Need the M78 to determine the monophyly of the clusters, microsatellite clusters don't. Simple as that, for any not hard of learning.
quote:Charles:
quote: Ps - We believe that cluster alfa chromosomes come from the Near East,
Which is what I've stated all along.
What you are not saying or understanding, is that this has no bearings on M78 African ancestry or that the chromosomes bearing those clusters are M78 chromosomes.
quote: Charles: Which refutes the notion of Africans introducing the Neolithic into Europe along with E3b lineages, it came from the Near East as stated by Cruciani through personal communication and published data.
You mean this:
M78 chromosomes are of African origin
You've reached the retardation point.
quote:Charles:
You deliberately left out the part where Cruciani said the migration from the Near East to Europe brought E3b1-M78 alpha into Europe, which is distinguished from aboriginal E3b chromosones in he Near East by a new molecular type.
You were busy with your mindless ranting to have noticed my earlier postings on this. But hey, I can always repost it, and hence falsifying your poor excuse of an argument:
M78 chromosomes are of African origin,
so you can imagine A TWO STEPS MIGRATION: from Africa to the Middle east and from the Middle east to the Europe.
There! Happy now. Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by *Topdog*:
The strawman is your dumb ad-hominem statement that I'm whitewashing M78 when I did no such thing and you know it. I simply stated what was stated in published data that alpha cluster chrommosones are defined by a new molecular type that distinguishes it from aboriginal E3b chromosones from the Near East, Thats all I've stated and you can see it in published data for yourself.
It would be considered ad-homimen, if it weren't true. So you acknowledge then the lineage marks African ancestry in Europeans and other folks who carry it?!
What is this molecular type? - don't you dare tell me, it is going to be in the study that you are awaiting from Cruciani, when in fact, you were already given the answer in both the study cited, and your correspondence with Cruciani!
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by Supercar:
What is this molecular type?
Again, let me help you with the answer:
The "new molecular type" is the tandem repeat allele given the name "alpha", which is distinguished from other tandem repeat microsatellite clusters like the delta and gamma.
The "new molecular type" does not mean the M78; M78 mutation has no variant - it is a one time event mutation. Take this home, if you will or don't if you don't choose to; either way, the fact is unaffected.
Posted by *Topdog* (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: It would be considered ad-homimen, if it weren't true. So you acknowledge then the lineage marks African ancestry in Europeans and other folks who carry it?!
No, it doesn't mark African ancestry in everyone who carries it, if you believe so please email a geneticist that thought and post the response. If you're so right and I'm totally wrong why aren't you doing it? Is it because you're too lazy and perhaps afraid of what the answer will be? You're no geneticist and you're definitely no expert.
quote:What is this molecular type? - don't you dare tell me, it is going to be in the study that you are awaiting from Cruciani, when in fact, you were already given the answer in both the study cited, and your correspondence with Cruciani! [/QB]
Cruciani stated it in his study already, but I guess you were too blind and perhaps too damn dumb to read it:
"Clusterα is largely characterized by the otherwise rare nine-repeat allele at A7.1 (we found only 3 such alleles out of 800 E[xE3b1] chromosomes analyzed [present study; R.S., unpublished data]), often associated with the uncommon DYS413 24/23 pattern and its one-step neighbors. When compared with the other clusters in the network, it displays marked starlike features, with three central haplotypes accounting for 26% of the entire cluster. This cluster is very common in the Balkans (with frequencies of 20%32%), and its frequencies decline toward western (7.0% in continental Italy, 7.4% in Sicily, 1.1% in Sardinia, 4.3% in Corsica, 3.0% in France, and 2.2% in Iberia) and northeastern (2.6%) Europe. In the Near East, this cluster is essentially limited to Turkey (3.4%). The relatively high frequency of DYS413 24/23 haplogroup E chromosomes in Greece (A.N., unpublished data) suggests that clusterα of the E-M78 haplogroup is common in the Aegean area, too."
Am. J. Hum. Genet., 74:1014-1022, 2004
I guess this went over your head also, didn't it?
Posted by *Topdog* (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Supercar:
The "new molecular type" does not mean the M78; M78 mutation has no variant - it is a one time event mutation. Take this home, if you will or don't if you don't choose to; either way, the fact is unaffected. [/QB]
Another strawman, you must spar with strawman in your off time don't you? The STR that characterizes the alpha cluster isn't African so wy are you stating that the alpha cluster is African Neolithic ancestry in Europeans? Thats an erroneous appellation and you know it.
Posted by Underpants Man (Member # 3735) on :
How do Greeks' E3b levels compare with those of Turks? I recall reading somewhere that Greeks have higher levels than do Turks, thus ruling against an Ottoman origin for Greek E3b, but I don't know for sure.
Posted by *Topdog* (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Underpants Man: How do Greeks' E3b levels compare with those of Turks? I recall reading somewhere that Greeks have higher levels than do Turks, thus ruling against an Ottoman origin for Greek E3b, but I don't know for sure.
Turks have 5.5% E3b3-M123 and 5.0% E3b1-M78 alpha and delta combined, far lower than in Greece.
Cinniolu C, King R, Kivisild T, Kalfolu E, Atasoy S, Cavalleri GL, Lillie AS, Roseman CC, Lin AA, Prince K, Oefner PJ, Shen P, Semino O, Cavalli-Sforza LL, Underhill PA (2004) Excavating Y-chromosome haplotype strata in Anatolia
Greeks have 18.6% E3b1-M78 alpha and 2.0% E3b3-M123
Carlos Flores Æ Nicole Maca-Meyer Æ Jose M. Larruga Vicente M. Cabrera Æ Naif Karadsheh Æ Ana M. Gonzalez
Isolates in a corridor of migrations: a high-resolution analysis of Y-chromosome variation in Jordan
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by *Topdog*:
No, it doesn't mark African ancestry in everyone who carries it,
Then, you are indeed falsely trying to "whitewash" the African M78 marker.
quote:Charles:
if you believe so please email a geneticist that thought and post the response.
Already have been noted in your correspondence and elsewhere:
M78 chromosomes are of African origin
quote:Charles:
If you're so right and I'm totally wrong why aren't you doing it? Is it because you're too lazy and perhaps afraid of what the answer will be? You're no geneticist and you're definitely no expert
If am so lazy and you aren't, how come it is you who cannot define a cluster, or a lineage, AND differentiate them. How come it is you who cannot explain the comparison between Africans and Europeans and Europeans and Melanesians vs Africans and Melanesians? I may be no geneticist, but I am far from being an utterly frustrated laydude like you.
quote:Charles:
quote:What is this molecular type? - don't you dare tell me, it is going to be in the study that you are awaiting from Cruciani, when in fact, you were already given the answer in both the study cited, and your correspondence with Cruciani!
Cruciani stated it in his study already, but I guess you were too blind and perhaps too damn dumb to read it:
"Clusterα is largely characterized by the otherwise rare nine-repeat allele at A7.1 (we found only 3 such alleles out of 800 E[xE3b1] chromosomes analyzed [present study; R.S., unpublished data]), often associated with the uncommon DYS413 24/23 pattern and its one-step neighbors.
I guess you were too retarded to realize that I've already answered this for you. I guess that went over your empty skull. Lol.
Now, tell us what bearing this has on the cluster being on M78 chromosomes, dumb layman.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by *Topdog*:
quote:Originally posted by Supercar:
The "new molecular type" does not mean the M78; M78 mutation has no variant - it is a one time event mutation. Take this home, if you will or don't if you don't choose to; either way, the fact is unaffected.
Another strawman, you must spar with strawman in your off time don't you? The STR that characterizes the alpha cluster isn't African so wy are you stating that the alpha cluster is African Neolithic ancestry in Europeans? Thats an erroneous appellation and you know it.
When will your deeply screwed up head realize that this is immaterial to the fact of M78 marking African ancestry? The answer is that, your thick skull will never get it.
We used the term cluster simply to indicate a group of chromosomes that share similar microsatellite haplotypes. In our mind a cluster is a monophyletic unit, but this cannot be proved based on the microsatellites ALONE. - Cruciani
^^ad nauseam.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by Supercar:
quote:Cruciani stated it in his study already, but I guess you were too blind and perhaps too damn dumb to read it:
"Clusterα is largely characterized by the otherwise rare nine-repeat allele at A7.1 (we found only 3 such alleles out of 800 E[xE3b1] chromosomes analyzed [present study; R.S., unpublished data]), often associated with the uncommon DYS413 24/23 pattern and its one-step neighbors.
I guess you were too retarded to realize that I've already answered this for you. I guess that went over your empty skull. Lol.
Now, tell us what bearing this has on the cluster being on M78 chromosomes, dumb layman.
The utterly dumb layman, who cannot even tell who, betweem male and female, are the sole transmitters of mtDNA, and initially had no clue whatsoever what Cruciani meant by "new molecular type" until I had pointed it out to him, makes yet another retarded attempt of reciting something that I had just informed him of. This is one funny character we are dealing with here.
Posted by *Topdog* (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Supercar:
quote:Originally posted by *Topdog*:
No, it doesn't mark African ancestry in everyone who carries it,
Then, you are indeed falsely trying to "whitewash" the African M78 marker.
quote:Charles:
if you believe so please email a geneticist that thought and post the response.
Already have been noted in your correspondence and elsewhere:
M78 chromosomes are of African origin
quote:Charles:
If you're so right and I'm totally wrong why aren't you doing it? Is it because you're too lazy and perhaps afraid of what the answer will be? You're no geneticist and you're definitely no expert
If am so lazy and you aren't, how come it is you who cannot define a cluster, or a lineage, AND differentiate them. How come it is you who cannot explain the comparison between Africans and Europeans and Europeans and Melanesians vs Africans and Melanesians? I may be no geneticist, but I am far from being an utterly frustrated laydude like you.
quote:Charles:
quote:What is this molecular type? - don't you dare tell me, it is going to be in the study that you are awaiting from Cruciani, when in fact, you were already given the answer in both the study cited, and your correspondence with Cruciani!
Cruciani stated it in his study already, but I guess you were too blind and perhaps too damn dumb to read it:
"Clusterα is largely characterized by the otherwise rare nine-repeat allele at A7.1 (we found only 3 such alleles out of 800 E[xE3b1] chromosomes analyzed [present study; R.S., unpublished data]), often associated with the uncommon DYS413 24/23 pattern and its one-step neighbors.
I guess you were too retarded to realize that I've already answered this for you. I guess that went over your empty skull. Lol.
Now, tell us what bearing this has on the cluster being on M78 chromosomes, dumb layman.
The retard is you and this dumb topic about Greeks being white washed and your delusional obsessions with Southern Europeans being partially black. You're obviously too stupid, dumb, lazy and scared to email a geneticist your bogus claims and post the responses in the forum. You have no credentials that makes you smarter than me or more qualified than me on this topic so quit pretending like you do. I'm no obsessed with African ancestry in Greeks and or southern Europeans but you are, thus this stupid thread about whitewashing Greeks.
Posted by *Topdog* (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: The utterly dumb layman, who cannot even tell who, betweem male and female, are the sole transmitters of mtDNA,
Ad-hominem and red herring sttack since I never made any such claims, proof positive of your inane stupidity.
quote: and initially had no clue whatsoever what Cruciani meant by "new molecular type" until I had pointed it out to him,
I pointed it out to you retard. If you still believe your garbage is true, email a gneticist and post the response, the smackdown I'm putting on you is making you desperately frustrated to the point that you're trolling.
Posted by *Topdog* (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Supercar:
quote:Originally posted by *Topdog*:
quote:Originally posted by Supercar:
The "new molecular type" does not mean the M78; M78 mutation has no variant - it is a one time event mutation. Take this home, if you will or don't if you don't choose to; either way, the fact is unaffected.
Another strawman, you must spar with strawman in your off time don't you? The STR that characterizes the alpha cluster isn't African so wy are you stating that the alpha cluster is African Neolithic ancestry in Europeans? Thats an erroneous appellation and you know it.
When will your deeply screwed up head realize that this is immaterial to the fact of M78 marking African ancestry? The answer is that, your thick skull will never get it.
We used the term cluster simply to indicate a group of chromosomes that share similar microsatellite haplotypes. In our mind a cluster is a monophyletic unit, but this cannot be proved based on the microsatellites ALONE. - Cruciani
^^ad nauseam.
Which is why a paper will come out discussing that topic you retard. M78 arose in Africa, but the subsequent variation accumulated under M78 is not all African, therefore M-78 is not an index for African ancestry, the same was said for E3b1 by Underhill but your retarded brain was too stubborn and dumb to accept it even when a geneticist stated it.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by *Topdog*:
The retard is you and this dumb topic about Greeks being white washed and your delusional obsessions with Southern Europeans being partially black.
Notice how our super retard has avoided the issues put forth, and continues to project his obsession with "whitewashing" the African M78 marker onto educated folks. Lol.
quote:Charles:
You're obviously too stupid, dumb
Which would make you dirt dumb/stupid, as I am clearly more informed about the matter than yourself. Look around the thread, and see who is the losing scientifically ignorant fellow - it is none other than yourself of course.
quote:Charles:
, lazy and scared to email a geneticist your bogus claims and post the responses in the forum.
This is the kind of nagging that you do, like a helpless child, when you've been mercilessly defeated in your illogical futile rantings to "whitewash" the tropical African M78 marker.
I don't need to check with experts when I have already understood them the first time around. It is you, who is making the bizarre claim that M78 markers in Europeans doesn't reflect African ancestry, when everybody else, including the experts you claim to be in correspondence with, have reiterated time and again to the contrary. Thus, the burden of proof for your fantastic wonderland-like claims falls solely on your shoulders, not anyone else, unless that person is equally uneducated as you are on the issues.
quote:Charles:
You have no credentials that makes you smarter than me or more qualified than me on this topic so quit pretending like you do.
I don't need credentials to prove that I'm more informed about the basics than you are. So in a sense, I guess this thread should serve as my "credentials". Your postings show that you have 'zip'.
quote:Charles:
I'm no obsessed with African ancestry in Greeks and or southern Europeans but you are, thus this stupid thread about whitewashing Greeks.
You could have fooled me, layman, who is obsessed with 'whitewashing' the tropical African M78 marker of ancestry.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by *Topdog*:
Which is why a paper will come out discussing that topic you retard.
Super retarded one, what do you need another paper to explain something to you, that you already have answers for, in the citations you provided AND in your own e-mail correspondence? You are just too retarded man.
quote:Charles:
M78 arose in Africa, but the subsequent variation accumulated under M78 is not all African,
Utter layman, M78 marker itself doesn't vary - it is a one time mutation - finito, no more variation. You look too foolish by never understanding this concept.
quote:Charles:
therefore M-78 is not an index for African ancestry, the same was said for E3b1 by Underhill but your retarded brain was too stubborn and dumb to accept it even when a geneticist stated it.
See my post super retard. Your head is way too much of a deep concrete block for anything to get through, isn't it?
Btw, since you keep nagging like an infant whose pacifier has been taken away from its mouth, by claiming that I'm lazy, how about you being not the so lazy one answer these ridiculously basic questions:
a)What is a clade?
b)What is a cluster?
c)What is the difference between a clade and a cluster?
d)what bearing does the alpha microsatellite cluster have on the fact that the cluster appears on M78 bearing chromosomes?
d)How do you explain this:
There is more genetic similarity between Europeans and sub-Saharan Africans and between Europeans and Melanesians, inhabitants of islands northeast of Australia, than there is between Africans and Melanesians. - Templeton
More to come, but this will do for now, for an utterly slow individual like yourself. Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Charles:
quote:Supercar: and initially had no clue whatsoever what Cruciani meant by "new molecular type" until I had pointed it out to him,
I pointed it out to you retard. If you still believe your garbage is true, email a gneticist and post the response, the smackdown I'm putting on you is making you desperately frustrated to the point that you're trolling.
How can you claim to have pointed out to me, when my showing you the fact precedes your post [the evidence is right in front of you in this very thread], which was obviously not understood by you until I pointed it out so, judging from your need to even show the citation containing the phrase "new molecular type" in the first place?
quote:Originally posted by *Topdog*:
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: The utterly dumb layman, who cannot even tell who, betweem male and female, are the sole transmitters of mtDNA,
Ad-hominem and red herring sttack since I never made any such claims, proof positive of your inane stupidity.
Oh yeah...
Supercar:
Exactly, the Neolithic migrant groups were likely "male-biased".
Charles/“topdog”
Duh, but even males carry mtDNA markers so why is it that African mtDNA found higher on average in the Levant and Middle East than in Europe, with the exception of geneflow via the slave trade?
Supercar:
Duh, but males don't transmit mtDNA, it is transmitted through the female. Another genetics basics that you have screwed up, and have the nerve to even engage in a debate on genetics.
now, who is not only been shown to be inanely stupid, but also a pathetic liar. Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Give it a rest Charles! Rasol and Super have given all the info they need to refute your proposterous claims!
Mediterraneans and especially the Greeks have African ancestry, PERIOD!
Nuff said, so stop already!
Your incessant denial and circular arguments are becoming like those of Evil-Euro!!
You are exactly right Djehuti. He can't help it.
quote:Charles writes: I smell cowardice.
^ You smell yourself, silly.
Ignoring the childishness: Is there anyone who still can't accept the fact that E3b1 is and African lineage denoting direct paternal Ancestry from Africa?
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by *Topdog*: No, it doesn't mark African ancestry in everyone who carries it,
quote:SuperCar writes: Then, you are indeed falsely trying to "whitewash" the African M78 marker.
Which is hopeless, since he's had geneticist Cruciani tell him directly that M78 is and African marker, found in Eurasians because Africans immigrated into Eurasia, and Eurasians carry this African ancestry.
He simply deadens his brain to any truth he doesn't like.
By resorting to baldfaced falsehood, he merely manages to affirm the thread topic, while reducing himself to absurdity.
He evokes known whitewashers Dienekes and Evil Euro, while completely missing the irony of his own irrational behavior and juvenile antics:
Not only has Charles lost this debate [days ago], but he also ultimately been defeated in his debates with Dienekes and Evil Euro.
Why?
Because they succeeded in spreading their lying insanity to Charle - which was their main goal to begin with.
In fact, all three of them now harbor the exact same position on this issue, and Charles and Evil Euro both essentially parrot Dienkes verbatim.
How sad. Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Supercar writes: The utterly dumb layman, who cannot even tell who, betweem male and female, are the sole transmitters of mtDNA, and initially had no clue whatsoever what Cruciani meant by "new molecular type" until I had pointed it out to him, makes yet another retarded attempt of reciting something that I had just informed him of. This is one funny character we are dealing with here.
Yes, It's clear that Charles is well sourced, but doesn't understand his sources. And moreover he refuses to understand them, when they contradict his bias.
Charles: You should consider reading some basic texts on genetics, as opposed to studies which are somewhat going over your head. You are only embarrassing yourself, and damaging your fast fading credibility.
^ You'll probably take offense, and then ignore this I know, but just remember as the beating Supercar is giving you 'gets worse and worse', that we warned you.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by Underpants Man: How do Greeks' E3b levels compare with those of Turks? I recall reading somewhere that Greeks have higher levels than do Turks, thus ruling against an Ottoman origin for Greek E3b, but I don't know for sure.
Thought answered this previously:
Posted by Underpants Man (Member # 3735) on :
quote:In fact, all three of them now harbor the exact same position on this issue, and Charles and Evil Euro both essentially parrot Dienkes verbatim.
I had the impression that Topdog strongly disagreed with Dienekes and Evil Euro.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ Of course he did. But if you argue with loons for too long...eventually you parrot their looniness.
This is a good faith warning to you too UP man, as you frequent those sites.
I don't know why folks won't read biology text books before debating supremacists.
You end trying to refute half of their nonsense, while buying into the other 1/2, because you can't tell cluster from clade to begin with. lol.
This way - they win, and you lose.
Remember I clued you in on the relationship betwen EE and Dienekes to begin with.
No disrespect but I have to agree with Thought - Charles, I sometimes wonder if you are really as naive' as you pretend to be?.
Anyway, here is the info you asked for earlier.
It answers your question, for anyone who cares to listen:
quote: Charles posted:
On the other forum it was mentioned that E3b1 alpha was derived from E3b1 delta. I've searched every available publication on E3b1 and none have ever made that statement, so where's the proof?
Thought posted:
You are absoluetly correct.
The Cruciani et al study does not explicitly state that alpha derived from delta.
It does state that delta spread from East Africa to Europe *after* ~14,000 years ago. It also states that alpha derived in Europe.
Hence it requires a commonsensical sort of extrapolation.
"The fourth cluster **delta **(cluster in fig. 2B) is present, albeit at low frequencies, in **all** of the regions analyzed (4.0% in eastern and northern Africa, 3.3% in the Near East, and 1.5% in Europe) and shows a notable microsatellite differentiation (fig. 2B). The two E-M78 chromosomes found in Pakistan, at the eastern borders of the area of dispersal of haplogroup E3b, also belong to **cluster delta**.
On the basis of these data, we suggest that cluster delta was involved in a **first dispersal** or dispersals of E-M78 chromosomes from eastern Africa into northern Africa and the Near East. Time-of-divergence estimates for E-M78 chromosomes suggest a relatively great antiquity (14.7 ± 2.7 ky) for the separation of eastern Africans from the other populations. A later range expansion from the Near East or, possibly, from northern Africa would have introduced E-M78 cluster **delta** into Europe. However, given the low frequencies of E-M78 delta, it seems to have contributed only marginally to the shaping of the **present** E-M78 frequency distribution in Africa and western Eurasia. Indeed, later (and previously undetected) demographic population expansions involving clusters alpha in Europe (TMRCA 7.8 ky; 95% CI 6.39.2 ky), beta in northwestern Africa (5.2 ky; 95% CI 3.27.5 ky), and gamma in eastern Africa (9.6 ky; 95% CI 7.212.9 ky) should be considered the main contributors to the relatively high frequency of haplogroup E-M78 in the surveyed area." - Cruciani et al.
quote: Charles posts: If we read Cruciani's study he says the spread of E3b chromosones isn't so simple, so that extrapolation is *NOT* an absolute truth. Delta cluster was involve in several dispersals possibly so should we have several more clusters from each dispersal?
^
quote: Thought posts:
1) There are NO absolutes in statistics because all forms of statistical analysis are based upon probability, hence there is the margin of error.
2) Common sense can be of assistance as well. E3b1 alpha is derived from E3b1 and has a MRCA of ~8,000 ky. E3b1 is absent in Europe. E3b1 beta is virtually absent in the Balkans. E3b1 gamma is restricted to East Africa. E3b1 delta predates E3b1 alpha AND is located in the Balkans. This is why E3b1 delta is considered the precursor of E3b1 alpha.
Charles could not *debate* Thought or Supercar on this point because he didn't understand what clusters were to begin with.
This is why he keeps emailing geneticists and asking them, while he stalls in debates by claiming that the difference between clusters and clades doesn't matter.
If it doesn't matter, why keep asking?
Why keep asking even after you been given answer?
Because he can't accept the answer given and keeps looking for one that he can 'use', to make and insane [AND RACIST] argument that one can have and African lineage defined by and African Original Event Polymorphism and yet - have no African ancestry.
Charles argument is and insult to intelligence and beneath contempt.
It is good that Charlie emails geneticists.
The problem is that he is not looking to learn, and therefore 'doesn't listen'.
He's far too busy looking for ammunition to justify his past foolish remarks.
Charles is making this argument because Dienekes lied to him, by telling him that clusters could be treated the same as clades.
But that is false, and the argument ends right there, even though his pointless 'argu-ing' will no doubt continue.
Posted by *Topdog* (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Underpants Man:
quote:In fact, all three of them now harbor the exact same position on this issue, and Charles and Evil Euro both essentially parrot Dienkes verbatim.
I had the impression that Topdog strongly disagreed with Dienekes and Evil Euro.
Of course I strongly disagree with Pontikos and Evil Euro, rasol is clueless with his loser tactic personal attacks.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Chalres wrote: I smell cowardice.
^ Still smelling yourself and blaming the stink on others, as usual.
In fact your bizarrely genetically illiterate claims with regards to E3b in Europeans parrots Dienekes, whose argument here you and EE both copy to the letter.
That's why your post above fails to differeniate, in any specific way.
No?
Feel free then, to spell out the specific difference in your position on E3b in Europeans, from that of whom you learned it from -> Dienekes, your nemesis, and your tutor. Posted by *Topdog* (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ Of course he did. But if you argue with loons for too long...eventually you parrot their looniness.
This is a good faith warning to you too UP man, as you frequent those sites.
Same ad-hominem personal attack that shows your inane stupidity, whgen Evil Euro was still here largely because of the work I put in you were able to refute most if not all of his arguments. Whether it was providing studies, quots from books or email correspondence from geneticists, I put the work in.
quote:You end trying to refute half of their nonsense, while buying into the other 1/2, because you can't tell cluster from clade to begin with. lol.
Idiot, when i don't clearly understand something I ask the professionals for answers which is what I did so asking me the same question over and over again about a term that hasn't even been defined genetically yet shows your stupidity once again. The clade/cluster argument is a stupid red herring argument to delect attention away from your real position. Your contention is that since the alpha cluster belongs to the E-M78 network[and since the M-78 clade is African in origin] everyone ´sharing ancestry in the M78 clade has African ancestry, which is false, no published data has ever stated that fallacious point, it is you who has. Now that i reject it and refuse to accept you fallacious position, I'm siding and agreing with Evil Euro and Pontikos? Are you really that retarded?
quote:No disrespect but I have to agree with Thought - Charles, I sometimes wonder if you are really as naive' as you pretend to be?.
I get it, disagreeing with anyone's position makes me naive and stupid? No, you are the stupid one and its been demonstrated here time and time again that disagreeing with you and or Supercar inspires ad-hominem, silly personal attacks. Sorry, i stand on my own as a lone wolf without lumbar support.
quote:This is why he keeps emailing geneticists and asking them, while he stalls in debates by claiming that the difference between clusters and clades doesn't matter.
The cluster/clade strawman you keep bringing up is a red herring, your logic is that clusters mean nothing and clades means everything...that is when the focus is obsession with African ancestry in Southern Europeans. If the clusters are meaningless, why are they mentioned in published data?
quote: that one can have and African lineage defined by and African Original Event Polymorphism and yet - have no African ancestry.
*ALL* humans are descended from an original African event Polymorphism[that still present in East Africa, Underhill et al 2001], does that make everyone on this damn planet African genetically?
quote:Charles is making this argument because Dienekes lied to him, by telling him that clusters could be treated the same as clades.
A lie and a stupid personal attack, Pontikos told me nothing, please produce evidence of this, everything I quoted came from published data and personal email communication with professionals.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Of course he did. But if you argue with loons for too long...eventually you parrot their looniness.
This is a good faith warning to you too UP man, as you frequent those sites.
quote:Charles writes: Same ad-hominem personal attack that shows your inane stupidity
No, it's a general point and good-faith warning as note....it didn't apply specifically or only to you.
That *you chose* to take it personally and respond to it with flame-attacks [albeit laughbly weak ones], is the product of how you feel about yourself.
Sorry. Posted by *Topdog* (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Still smelling yourself and blaming the stink on others, as usual.
Still aiting o you to email a geneticist your lunatic position and post a reponse where one agrees with it, which you're obviously too afraid to do.
quote:In fact your bizarrely genetically illiterate claims with regards to E3b in Europeans parrots Dienekes, whose argument here you and EE both copy to the letter.
No stupid, EE and Pontikos stated that E3b was Caucasoid and "East Africa Caucasoid and associated E3b with so-called "caucasoid features", I have made no such dumb claims. It was I who emailed Underhill in fact and posted his reply to me to refute their nonsense. Get your head out of your rear end before maiing dumb statements
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:EE and Pontikos stated that E3b was Caucasoid.
They base this in part on the lunatic [impossible] claim that Europeans have and E3b, and African lineage, but no African ancestry, due to alpha cluster - which somehow negates African ancestry - thru the magic of pseudoscience, a claim that you parrot - to a TEE.
In what way do you disagree?
How are they wrong?
If you know their claim is a lie, why do you repeat it?
If you will simply stop parroting Dienekes lies, we can conclude this increasingly uncivil discourse.
quote:Charles writes: Pontikos told me nothing.
Well, denial is "par for the course."
But, denial is not answer, now is it?
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Chalres wrote: I smell cowardice.
^ Still smelling yourself and blaming the stink on others, as usual.
In fact your bizarrely genetically illiterate claims with regards to E3b in Europeans parrots Dienekes, whose argument here you and EE both copy to the letter.
That's why your post above fails to differeniate, in any specific way.
No?
Feel free then, to spell out the specific difference in your position on E3b in Europeans, from that of whom you learned it from -> Dienekes, your nemisis, and your tutor.
Still waiting.....
Posted by Underpants Man (Member # 3735) on :
quote:This is a good faith warning to you too UP man, as you frequent those sites.
Actually, although I have visited Racial Reality and Pontikos' blog a few times, I don't visit them often (perhaps twice or three times at most). I have no interest in starting the kind of brain cell holocaust that would ensue from paying a lot of attention to those Greco/Sicilo-Nazis.
BTW, I should have mentioned this earlier, but in response to my question about differences in E3b levels between Turks and Greeks, you said:
quote:Thought answered this previously:
Nothing came afterwards. Did you intend to post a link or something?
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ Good for you UP man. Posted by *Topdog* (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Of course he did. But if you argue with loons for too long...eventually you parrot their looniness.
This is a good faith warning to you too UP man, as you frequent those sites.
quote:Charles writes: Same ad-hominem personal attack that shows your inane stupidity
No, it's a general point and didn't apply specifically to you.
That *you chose* to take it personally and respond to it with flame-attacks [albeit laughbly weak ones], is the product of how you feel about yourself.
Sorry.
You started the flame attacks now I'm returning the fire, I take no man's nonsense.
Posted by Underpants Man (Member # 3735) on :
Can you two just vist your local pharmacies and buy chill pills? I don't want this argument to morph into a clone of the ones with Evil Euro.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ I'm cool.
quote:Thought answered this previously:
quote:UPman writes: Did you intend to post a link or something?
quote: Charles posted:
On the other forum it was mentioned that E3b1 alpha was derived from E3b1 delta. I've searched every available publication on E3b1 and none have ever made that statement, so where's the proof?
Thought posted:
You are absoluetly correct.
The Cruciani et al study does not explicitly state that alpha derived from delta.
It does state that delta spread from East Africa to Europe *after* ~14,000 years ago. It also states that alpha derived in Europe.
Hence it requires a commonsensical sort of extrapolation.
"The fourth cluster **delta **(cluster in fig. 2B) is present, albeit at low frequencies, in **all** of the regions analyzed (4.0% in eastern and northern Africa, 3.3% in the Near East, and 1.5% in Europe) and shows a notable microsatellite differentiation (fig. 2B). The two E-M78 chromosomes found in Pakistan, at the eastern borders of the area of dispersal of haplogroup E3b, also belong to **cluster delta**.
On the basis of these data, we suggest that cluster delta was involved in a **first dispersal** or dispersals of E-M78 chromosomes from eastern Africa into northern Africa and the Near East. Time-of-divergence estimates for E-M78 chromosomes suggest a relatively great antiquity (14.7 ± 2.7 ky) for the separation of eastern Africans from the other populations. A later range expansion from the Near East or, possibly, from northern Africa would have introduced E-M78 cluster **delta** into Europe. However, given the low frequencies of E-M78 delta, it seems to have contributed only marginally to the shaping of the **present** E-M78 frequency distribution in Africa and western Eurasia. Indeed, later (and previously undetected) demographic population expansions involving clusters alpha in Europe (TMRCA 7.8 ky; 95% CI 6.39.2 ky), beta in northwestern Africa (5.2 ky; 95% CI 3.27.5 ky), and gamma in eastern Africa (9.6 ky; 95% CI 7.212.9 ky) should be considered the main contributors to the relatively high frequency of haplogroup E-M78 in the surveyed area." - Cruciani et al.
quote: Charles posts: If we read Cruciani's study he says the spread of E3b chromosones isn't so simple, so that extrapolation is *NOT* an absolute truth. Delta cluster was involve in several dispersals possibly so should we have several more clusters from each dispersal?
^
quote: Thought posts:
1) There are NO absolutes in statistics because all forms of statistical analysis are based upon probability, hence there is the margin of error.
2) Common sense can be of assistance as well. E3b1 alpha is derived from E3b1 and has a MRCA of ~8,000 ky. E3b1 is absent in Europe. E3b1 beta is virtually absent in the Balkans. E3b1 gamma is restricted to East Africa. E3b1 delta predates E3b1 alpha AND is located in the Balkans. This is why E3b1 delta is considered the precursor of E3b1 alpha.
Charles could not *debate* Thought or Supercar on this point because he didn't understand what clusters were to begin with.
This is why he keeps emailing geneticists and asking them, while he stalls in debates by claiming that the difference between clusters and clades doesn't matter.
If it doesn't matter, why keep asking?
Why keep asking even after you been given answer?
Because he can't accept the answer given and keeps looking for one that he can 'use', to make and insane [AND RACIST] argument that one can have and African lineage defined by and African Original Event Polymorphism and yet - have no African ancestry.
Posted by Underpants Man (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ I'm cool.
quote:Thought answered this previously:
quote:UPman writes: Did you intend to post a link or something?
quote: Charles posted:
On the other forum it was mentioned that E3b1 alpha was derived from E3b1 delta. I've searched every available publication on E3b1 and none have ever made that statement, so where's the proof?
Thought posted:
You are absoluetly correct.
The Cruciani et al study does not explicitly state that alpha derived from delta.
It does state that delta spread from East Africa to Europe *after* ~14,000 years ago. It also states that alpha derived in Europe.
Hence it requires a commonsensical sort of extrapolation.
"The fourth cluster **delta **(cluster in fig. 2B) is present, albeit at low frequencies, in **all** of the regions analyzed (4.0% in eastern and northern Africa, 3.3% in the Near East, and 1.5% in Europe) and shows a notable microsatellite differentiation (fig. 2B). The two E-M78 chromosomes found in Pakistan, at the eastern borders of the area of dispersal of haplogroup E3b, also belong to **cluster delta**.
On the basis of these data, we suggest that cluster delta was involved in a **first dispersal** or dispersals of E-M78 chromosomes from eastern Africa into northern Africa and the Near East. Time-of-divergence estimates for E-M78 chromosomes suggest a relatively great antiquity (14.7 ± 2.7 ky) for the separation of eastern Africans from the other populations. A later range expansion from the Near East or, possibly, from northern Africa would have introduced E-M78 cluster **delta** into Europe. However, given the low frequencies of E-M78 delta, it seems to have contributed only marginally to the shaping of the **present** E-M78 frequency distribution in Africa and western Eurasia. Indeed, later (and previously undetected) demographic population expansions involving clusters alpha in Europe (TMRCA 7.8 ky; 95% CI 6.39.2 ky), beta in northwestern Africa (5.2 ky; 95% CI 3.27.5 ky), and gamma in eastern Africa (9.6 ky; 95% CI 7.212.9 ky) should be considered the main contributors to the relatively high frequency of haplogroup E-M78 in the surveyed area." - Cruciani et al.
quote: Charles posts: If we read Cruciani's study he says the spread of E3b chromosones isn't so simple, so that extrapolation is *NOT* an absolute truth. Delta cluster was involve in several dispersals possibly so should we have several more clusters from each dispersal?
^
quote: Thought posts:
1) There are NO absolutes in statistics because all forms of statistical analysis are based upon probability, hence there is the margin of error.
2) Common sense can be of assistance as well. E3b1 alpha is derived from E3b1 and has a MRCA of ~8,000 ky. E3b1 is absent in Europe. E3b1 beta is virtually absent in the Balkans. E3b1 gamma is restricted to East Africa. E3b1 delta predates E3b1 alpha AND is located in the Balkans. This is why E3b1 delta is considered the precursor of E3b1 alpha.
Charles could not *debate* Thought or Supercar on this point because he didn't understand what clusters were to begin with.
This is why he keeps emailing geneticists and asking them, while he stalls in debates by claiming that the difference between clusters and clades doesn't matter.
If it doesn't matter, why keep asking?
Why keep asking even after you been given answer?
Because he can't accept the answer given and keeps looking for one that he can 'use', to make and insane [AND RACIST] argument that one can have and African lineage defined by and African Original Event Polymorphism and yet - have no African ancestry.
What does that have to do with Turks?
Posted by *Topdog* (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ I'm cool.
quote:Thought answered this previously:
quote:UPman writes: Did you intend to post a link or something?
quote: Charles posted:
On the other forum it was mentioned that E3b1 alpha was derived from E3b1 delta. I've searched every available publication on E3b1 and none have ever made that statement, so where's the proof?
Thought posted:
You are absoluetly correct.
The Cruciani et al study does not explicitly state that alpha derived from delta.
It does state that delta spread from East Africa to Europe *after* ~14,000 years ago. It also states that alpha derived in Europe.
Hence it requires a commonsensical sort of extrapolation.
"The fourth cluster **delta **(cluster in fig. 2B) is present, albeit at low frequencies, in **all** of the regions analyzed (4.0% in eastern and northern Africa, 3.3% in the Near East, and 1.5% in Europe) and shows a notable microsatellite differentiation (fig. 2B). The two E-M78 chromosomes found in Pakistan, at the eastern borders of the area of dispersal of haplogroup E3b, also belong to **cluster delta**.
On the basis of these data, we suggest that cluster delta was involved in a **first dispersal** or dispersals of E-M78 chromosomes from eastern Africa into northern Africa and the Near East. Time-of-divergence estimates for E-M78 chromosomes suggest a relatively great antiquity (14.7 ± 2.7 ky) for the separation of eastern Africans from the other populations. A later range expansion from the Near East or, possibly, from northern Africa would have introduced E-M78 cluster **delta** into Europe. However, given the low frequencies of E-M78 delta, it seems to have contributed only marginally to the shaping of the **present** E-M78 frequency distribution in Africa and western Eurasia. Indeed, later (and previously undetected) demographic population expansions involving clusters alpha in Europe (TMRCA 7.8 ky; 95% CI 6.39.2 ky), beta in northwestern Africa (5.2 ky; 95% CI 3.27.5 ky), and gamma in eastern Africa (9.6 ky; 95% CI 7.212.9 ky) should be considered the main contributors to the relatively high frequency of haplogroup E-M78 in the surveyed area." - Cruciani et al.
quote: Charles posts: If we read Cruciani's study he says the spread of E3b chromosones isn't so simple, so that extrapolation is *NOT* an absolute truth. Delta cluster was involve in several dispersals possibly so should we have several more clusters from each dispersal?
^
quote: Thought posts:
1) There are NO absolutes in statistics because all forms of statistical analysis are based upon probability, hence there is the margin of error.
2) Common sense can be of assistance as well. E3b1 alpha is derived from E3b1 and has a MRCA of ~8,000 ky. E3b1 is absent in Europe. E3b1 beta is virtually absent in the Balkans. E3b1 gamma is restricted to East Africa. E3b1 delta predates E3b1 alpha AND is located in the Balkans. This is why E3b1 delta is considered the precursor of E3b1 alpha.
Charles could not *debate* Thought or Supercar on this point because he didn't understand what clusters were to begin with.
This is why he keeps emailing geneticists and asking them, while he stalls in debates by claiming that the difference between clusters and clades doesn't matter.
If it doesn't matter, why keep asking?
Why keep asking even after you been given answer?
Because he can't accept the answer given and keeps looking for one that he can 'use', to make and insane [AND RACIST] argument that one can have and African lineage defined by and African Original Event Polymorphism and yet - have no African ancestry.
Argument By Repetition (Argument Ad Nauseam)
Changing The Subject (Digression, Red Herring, Misdirection, False Emphasis)
Needling
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Argument By Repetition
^ No actually I was asked a question by Upman and replying to him.
quote:UPman writes: Did you intend to post a link or something?
I reposted it because UPman missed it when you interrupted, Charles.
Of course you have no answers for that or anything else, so you're correct in noting that there should be no need to repeat the facts, and no excuse for anyone not grasping them.
quote:Charles writes: Needling
^ Ad hominem whining, and attempting to distract instead of answering.
Still waiting....
Posted by *Topdog* (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Underpants Man: ]What does that have to do with Turks?
Nothing, the guy is simply babbling and making non-sequitir. Turks have less E3b than Greeks, I thought I posted an answer earlier in this thread, it could have been missed.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:UPman writes: What does that have to do with Turks?
Everything:
Egyptian M78 lineages are highly consistent with a northbound migration *through the Levantine corridor*, reflected in M78 males as far north as Turkey.- Luis, et. al., 2004
Where are the Balkans in relation to Turkey?
Common sense can be of assistance as well. E3b1 alpha is derived from E3b1 and has a MRCA of ~8,000 ky. E3b1 is absent in Europe. E3b1 beta is virtually absent in the Balkans. E3b1 gamma is restricted to East Africa. E3b1 delta predates E3b1 alpha AND is located in the Balkans. This is why E3b1 delta is considered the precursor of E3b1 alpha. - Thought.
How did E3b spread from Africa to Europe as denoted by Cruciani and Luis above?
How do clusters help us track these migrations of E3b Africans?
All of this has been covered thuroughly, and Charles knows it.
Charles wants to dissociate 'alpha' cluster from clade E3b1, and then redefine the clade by it's cluster, in order to provide a fake emaculate conception for E3b1 in Europe.
But that makes no sense to anyone who understands genetics.
That's why he had no rebuttal to us then [a year ago!], and still doesn't today.
So why are we repeating the same discussion now?
He'd just rather it be forgotten, or not understood. Posted by adrianne (Member # 10761) on :
hi there you two
what about other studies to do with this discussion.
what do they say about it?
p.s i have been enjoying this discussion.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ The same thing as Cruciani and Luis quoted above, we've discussed all of this innumerable times before on Egyptsearch, so if you search E3b you'll find tons.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Underpants Man: Can you two just vist your local pharmacies and buy chill pills? I don't want this argument to morph into a clone of the ones with Evil Euro.
I fear it is too late for that now, UP Man!
Look at how many pages this 'debate' has ensued. Definitely a repeat of the Evil-Euro wars (just without the racial epithets).
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ I agree and couldn't have put it better.
Perhaps it's time for Ausar to close the thread, since it has definitely become redundant.
Your call Ausar.
Posted by *Topdog* (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ The same thing as Cruciani and Luis quoted above, we've discussed all of this innumerable times before on Egyptsearch, so if you search E3b you'll find tons.
Cruciani and Luis et al papers do not support your idiotic assertions so don't pretend to act as if they do.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ Childish ventings may relieve your frustations at being refuted by Cruciani and Luis, but don't kid yourself. It won't save you:
Egyptian M78 lineages are highly consistent with a northbound migration *through the Levantine corridor, reflected in M78 males as far north as Turkey.- Luis, et. al., 2004
M78 chromosomes are of African origin, there was A TWO STEPS MIGRATION, from Africa to the MidEast & the MidEast to Europe. - Cruciani, 2006.
Posted by *Topdog* (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
Egyptian M78 lineages are highly consistent with a northbound migration *through the Levantine corridor*, reflected in M78 males as far north as Turkey.- Luis, et. al., 2004
Turks have M78 delta and alpha clusters with the delta cluster being indicative of a much earlier Paleolithic migration out of Africa, as well as having the alpha cluster which is younger in Turkey than in Europe.
quote:Where are the Balkans in relation to Turkey?
Common sense can be of assistance as well. E3b1 alpha is derived from E3b1 and has a MRCA of ~8,000 ky. E3b1 is absent in Europe. E3b1 beta is virtually absent in the Balkans. E3b1 gamma is restricted to East Africa. E3b1 delta predates E3b1 alpha AND is located in the Balkans. This is why E3b1 delta is considered the precursor of E3b1 alpha. - Thought.
No where is it stated that the alpha cluster is derived from the delta cluster, I remind that both are clusters and using your logic you're stating the alpha cluster is a cluster of a cluster, which isn't stated. Thought acknowledges that himself that this isn'*t stated but he makes *HIS* onw inference that it is. A theory unsubstantiated is *NOT* irrefutable proof and you know that. [
quote:How do clusters help us track these migrations of E3b Africans?
Clusters are defined by the rare STR alleles that characterize them, they're not fancy names for M78 for use of tracking migrations nor are they all them same. The alpha cluster doesn't denote a migration from Africa to Europe but it does denote a migration from the Near east to Europe as already stated ad-naseum. M78 alpha chromosones declines in Europe as one moves West, so using your logic that the alpha cluster denotes an "African Neolithic" migration into Europe are you saying that Africans migrated north out of Africa through Egypt into the Levant as far north s Turkey then these same Africans turned west and migrated all the way to southwestern Europe? If so you're smarter than Cruciani also:
"the clinal frequency distribution of E-M78 within Europe testifies to important dispersal(s), most likely Neolithic or post-Neolithic. These took place from the Balkans, where the highest frequencies are observed, in all directions, as far as Iberia to the west and, most likely, also to Turkey to the southeast. Thus, it appears that, in Europe, the overall frequency pattern of the haplogroup E-M78, the most frequent E3b haplogroup in this region, is mostly contributed by a new molecular type that distinguishes it from the aboriginal E3b chromosomes from the Near East. These data are hard to reconcile with the hypothesis of a uniform spread of a single Near Eastern gene pool into southeastern Europe. On the other hand, they might be consistent with either a small-scale leapfrog migration from Anatolia into southeastern Europe at the beginning of the Neolithic or with an expansion of indigenous people in southeastern Europe in response to the arrival of the Neolithic cultural package. At the present level of phylogenetic resolution, it is difficult to distinguish between these possibilities."
Note, neither one of the possibilities state that M78 were introduced into Europe by any "African" Neolithic nor by Africans and Southwest Asians.
quote:Charles wants to dissociate 'alpha' cluster from clade E3b1, and then redefine the clade by it's cluster, in order to provide a fake emaculate conception for E3b1 in Europe.
Lies, I simply stated what was stated in published data the way it was said without adding any nonsense to it. You're the one calling it "African Neolithic ancestry" when no such thing has been said in published data
Posted by *Topdog* (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Childish ventings may relieve your frustations at being refuted by Cruciani and Luis, but don't kid yourself. It won't save you:
Quit playing with yourself kid, Cruciani didn't refute me, he refuted you.
quote:Egyptian M78 lineages are highly consistent with a northbound migration *through the Levantine corridor, reflected in M78 males as far north as Turkey.- Luis, et. al., 2004
The Egyptian M78 lineages simply tell the direction the migration took, there are no distinctive "Egyptian" M78 lineages.
quote:M78 chromosomes are of African origin, there was A TWO STEPS MIGRATION, from Africa to the MidEast & the MidEast to Europe. - Cruciani, 2006. [/QB]
Ok, but Crucinai didn't say it was a two step migration of *AFRICANS* into Europe, just one from Africa into the Near East. You're too thick in the skull to see this.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Turks have M78 delta and alpha clusters with the delta cluster being indicative of a much earlier Paleolithic migration out of Africa
Wrong again, the delta cluster originates in East Africa 14kya~. Since underived E3b1 lineages are *not* found in Eurasia, this time period marks the earliest possible beginning of African migrations into Eurasia.
It does *not* denote the "last" of such migrations, it does not denote the 'first' of such migrations either....but merely the earliest possible.
And therefore does not denote 'a much earlier' migration.
We have explained this to you time and time again.
You're hopeless. Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Thought wrote: Common sense can be of assistance as well. E3b1 alpha is derived from E3b1 and has a MRCA of ~8,000 ky. E3b1 is absent in Europe. E3b1 beta is virtually absent in the Balkans. E3b1 gamma is restricted to East Africa. E3b1 delta predates E3b1 alpha AND is located in the Balkans. This is why E3b1 delta is considered the precursor of E3b1 alpha. - Thought.
The above is correct.
Charles response by asking a question which Thought just answered, only he doesn't understand what clusters are, and so doesn't understand the answer.
And since he refuses to understand, then he *cannot* by his own choice understand the answer.
No matter how much it is broken down and simplified for him, and no matter how many times it is explained.
Hence the redundant discussion continues.....
quote:Charles: No where is it stated that the alpha cluster is derived from the delta cluster
Thought answered this. Cruciani answerd this, Supercar answerd this, and I answerd this.
You simply refuse to understand any fact that you do not like:
Clusters are not clades.
You cannot treat them as such.
They cannot be 'delineated' as deriving sequentially one from another.
They simply tell us when lineages such as E3b1 expand into different population groups.
So read again care-full-y this time:
quote:E3b1 alpha is derived from E3b1 and has a MRCA of ~8,000 ky
quote:E3b1 delta is considered the precursor of E3b1 alpha
.
Again read and keep reading until you understand:
Since the E3b underived lineages appear to be confined mostly to the sub-Saharan Africans, initial migrations toward North Africa from the south primarily involved derivative E3b-M35 lineages. - Luis.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:M78 chromosomes are of African origin, there was A TWO STEPS MIGRATION, from Africa to the MidEast & the MidEast to Europe. - Cruciani, 2006.
quote:Charles writes: Ok
I'm sure it is ok, since it is the original and factual comment I made that set your pointless ranting nonresponsives off to begin with.
Then Cruciani repeated it, reducing you to frenzy of helpless rantings and ludicrous excuses, such as.....
quote: but..... Crucinai didn't say it was a two step migration of *AFRICANS* into Europe
lol. lol. lol.
He clearly denotes a two step migration From Africa, into Europe, thru the levantine,
with the levant being step 1
and europe being step 2.
This fact must be eating you alive, judging by the extreme nature of your disingenuous denials.
And yes he says from 'Africa' and not from Africans.
He also says to 'Europe' and not to Europ-eans.
Your attempts at petty dissembling to run away from the incontestible fact of African migration to Eurasia, and Afrian ancestry in Eurasians...are nothing but a joke.
You complain of others insulting you.
That is not true.
You debase yourself.
Posted by *Topdog* (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ]Incorrect, the delta cluster originates in East Africa 14kya~. Since underived E3b1 lineages are *not* found in Eurasia, this time period marks the earliest possible beginning of African migrations into Eurasia.
You're quite stupid, the first M78 lineages enetered the Near East in the late Paleolithic, just read the studies. The delta cluster was involved in the first dispersals of M78 out of Africa:
"On the basis of these data, we suggest that cluster was involved in a first dispersal or dispersals of E-M78 chromosomes from eastern Africa into northern Africa and the Near East.
Cruciani et al, 2004
Now please explain where I was wrong. Where did I state underivd E3b1 is found in the Near East?
quote:It does *not* denote the "last" of such migrations.
When and where did I say it denoted a last migration? Stop beating on strawmen.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Charles writes: You're quite stupid
And you're obviously completely demoralised in that you resort to such self degrading semantics such as this forum has not seen since Evil Euro was banned. In fact, that kind of remark typifies the last resort banalities of those looking for a way out of lost arguments.
quote:Charles writes: The delta cluster was involved in the first dispersals of M78 out of Africa
Yes I know, that's why: E3b1 delta is considered the precursor of [neolithic] E3b1 alpha. - Thought
It took you one year to come up with response to the devastating fact noted above, and when you did finally respond, you still managed to miss the point. rotfl!
So come back tomorrow and ask the same question again, and we can repost the answer for 10th time. Posted by *Topdog* (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol: This is why E3b1 delta is considered the precursor of E3b1 alpha. - Thought.The above is correct.
Where's the evidence for this in published data? Where's the evidence from published data that the delta cluster is considered as the precursor to the alpha cluster? You state this is correct but post no evidence for it.
quote:Charles response by asking a question which Thought just answered, only he doesn't understand what clusters are, and so doesn't understand the answer.
Non-sequitir and red herring, next....
quote:. Cruciani answerd this, Supercar answerd this, and I answerd this.
Cruciani didn't state that, point out where he did, or will you draw another unsupported theory in conclusion?
quote:You simply refuse to understand any fact that you do not like:
Clusters are not clades.
You cannot treat them as such.
They cannot be 'delineated' as deriving sequentially one from another./quote]
More non-sequitir and strawman beating
[quote]They simply tell us when lineages such as E3b1 expand into different population groups.
Thats why they're defined by unique STR alleles, oh wait, you totally ignore this and pretend its insignificant.
quote:E3b1 alpha is derived from E3b1 and has a MRCA of ~8,000 ky
quote:E3b1 delta is considered the precursor of E3b1 alpha
More unsupported garbage that isn't stated in published data yet you state it as if its an already proven fact.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thought: This is why E3b1 delta is considered the precursor of E3b1 alpha.
quote:Charles:Where's the evidence for this in published data?
It has been presented over and over again, but you don't understand what clusters and clades are, and moreover you don't want to understand. Because for you to to accept the answer provided over and again, is to end this argument, and admit defeat.
Not our fault, you won't put two and two together.
quote: Charles posted:
On the other forum it was mentioned that E3b1 alpha was derived from E3b1 delta. I've searched every available publication on E3b1 and none have ever made that statement, so where's the proof?
Thought posted:
You are absoluetly correct.
The Cruciani et al study does not explicitly state that alpha derived from delta.
It does state that delta spread from East Africa to Europe *after* ~14,000 years ago. It also states that alpha derived in Europe.
Hence it requires a commonsensical sort of extrapolation.
"The fourth cluster **delta **(cluster in fig. 2B) is present, albeit at low frequencies, in **all** of the regions analyzed (4.0% in eastern and northern Africa, 3.3% in the Near East, and 1.5% in Europe) and shows a notable microsatellite differentiation (fig. 2B). The two E-M78 chromosomes found in Pakistan, at the eastern borders of the area of dispersal of haplogroup E3b, also belong to **cluster delta**.
On the basis of these data, we suggest that cluster delta was involved in a **first dispersal** or dispersals of E-M78 chromosomes from eastern Africa into northern Africa and the Near East.
A later range expansion from the Near East or, possibly, from northern Africa would have introduced E-M78 cluster **delta** into Europe.
However, given the low frequencies of E-M78 delta, it seems to have contributed only marginally to the shaping of the **present** E-M78 frequency distribution in Africa and western Eurasia.
Indeed, later[!!!] (and previously undetected) demographic population expansions involving clusters alpha in Europe (TMRCA 7.8 ky; 95% CI 6.39.2 ky), beta in northwestern Africa (5.2 ky; 95% CI 3.27.5 ky), and gamma in eastern Africa (9.6 ky; 95% CI 7.212.9 ky) should be considered the main contributors to the relatively high frequency of haplogroup E-M78 in the surveyed area." - Cruciani et al. Thought posts:
Common sense can be of assistance as well.
E3b1 alpha is derived from E3b1 and has a MRCA of ~8,000 ky.
E3b1 is absent in Europe.
E3b1 beta is virtually absent in the Balkans.
E3b1 gamma is restricted to East Africa.
E3b1 delta predates E3b1 alpha AND is located in the Balkans.
This is why E3b1 delta is considered the precursor of E3b1 alpha.
quote:Charles could not *debate* Thought or Supercar on this point because he didn't understand what clusters were to begin with.
This is why he keeps emailing geneticists and asking them, while he stalls in debates by claiming that the difference between clusters and clades doesn't matter.
If it doesn't matter, why keep asking?
Why keep asking even after you been given answer?
It's not enough to quote sources, a parrot can do that much. A scholar is required to be able to think. If one cannot do this, then there is little anyone else can do to help. Posted by *Topdog* (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Originally posted by Thought: This is why E3b1 delta is considered the precursor of E3b1 alpha.
quote:Charles:Where's the evidence for this in published data?
It has been presented over and over again, but you don't understand what clusters and clades are, and moreover you don't want to understand. Because for you to to accept the answer provided over and again, is to end this argument, and admit defeat.
Not our fault, you won't put two and two together.
quote: Charles posted:
On the other forum it was mentioned that E3b1 alpha was derived from E3b1 delta. I've searched every available publication on E3b1 and none have ever made that statement, so where's the proof?
Thought posted:
You are absoluetly correct.
The Cruciani et al study does not explicitly state that alpha derived from delta.
It does state that delta spread from East Africa to Europe *after* ~14,000 years ago. It also states that alpha derived in Europe.
Hence it requires a commonsensical sort of extrapolation.
"The fourth cluster **delta **(cluster in fig. 2B) is present, albeit at low frequencies, in **all** of the regions analyzed (4.0% in eastern and northern Africa, 3.3% in the Near East, and 1.5% in Europe) and shows a notable microsatellite differentiation (fig. 2B). The two E-M78 chromosomes found in Pakistan, at the eastern borders of the area of dispersal of haplogroup E3b, also belong to **cluster delta**.
On the basis of these data, we suggest that cluster delta was involved in a **first dispersal** or dispersals of E-M78 chromosomes from eastern Africa into northern Africa and the Near East.
A later range expansion from the Near East or, possibly, from northern Africa would have introduced E-M78 cluster **delta** into Europe.
However, given the low frequencies of E-M78 delta, it seems to have contributed only marginally to the shaping of the **present** E-M78 frequency distribution in Africa and western Eurasia.
Indeed, later[!!!] (and previously undetected) demographic population expansions involving clusters alpha in Europe (TMRCA 7.8 ky; 95% CI 6.39.2 ky), beta in northwestern Africa (5.2 ky; 95% CI 3.27.5 ky), and gamma in eastern Africa (9.6 ky; 95% CI 7.212.9 ky) should be considered the main contributors to the relatively high frequency of haplogroup E-M78 in the surveyed area." - Cruciani et al. Thought posts:
Common sense can be of assistance as well.
E3b1 alpha is derived from E3b1 and has a MRCA of ~8,000 ky.
E3b1 is absent in Europe.
E3b1 beta is virtually absent in the Balkans.
E3b1 gamma is restricted to East Africa.
E3b1 delta predates E3b1 alpha AND is located in the Balkans.
This is why E3b1 delta is considered the precursor of E3b1 alpha.
quote:Charles could not *debate* Thought or Supercar on this point because he didn't understand what clusters were to begin with.
This is why he keeps emailing geneticists and asking them, while he stalls in debates by claiming that the difference between clusters and clades doesn't matter.
If it doesn't matter, why keep asking?
Why keep asking even after you been given answer?
It's not enough to quote sources, a parrot can do that much.
A scholar is required to be able to think.
Argument By Repetition (Argument Ad Nauseam). Repeating the same garbage over and over again doesn't make it true. Post proof that Cruciani stated that the alpha cluster is derived from the delta cluster. Quoting Thought as proof is just as stupid as EE quoting Dienekes, you don't quote layman.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Argument By Repetition
^ Argument by obtuseness.
Also repeating a question that has already been answered is repetition fallacy as well.
quote: Note, neither one of the possibilities state that M78 were introduced into Europe by any "African" Neolithic nor by Africans and Southwest Asians
^ That quote does not answer the question at issue, and hense is irrelevant to citations that do:: Egyptian M78 lineages are highly consistent with a northbound migration *through the Levantine corridor, reflected in M78 males as far north as Turkey.- Luis, et. al.,
You can't refute and answer with a non-answer Charles. Try again.
quote: Post proof that Cruciani stated that the alpha cluster is derived from the delta cluster
Why? that's not our position.
You still don't get it.
Our position is that clusters are not clades and so don't derive from one another in a linear fashion like clades.
also, our position is that you are unable to understand this, because...... ????
Well you have to answer that question. Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
obtuse - not perceptive, or sharp, and [often deliberate] lack of ability to understand.
Argument by obtuseness:
Another example of arugment by obtuseness is Charles protest that Cruciani denotes migrations to Europe thru the Levantine from "Africa", but not from......'Africans'.
This would be and obtuse protest, even if Cruciani had not destroyed all hope [for Charles entire argument actually], by specifying E3b1-M78 is AFRICAN.
This "should" satisfy even the slowest and most inattentive minded of folks.
But Charles chooses to forget/ignore whatever he needs to in order to argue obtusely.
Argument by obtuseness is as easy as it is ineffectual.
Easy because playing dumb is easier than 'playing smart'.
Ineffectual because it merely suggests the person arguing obtusely is either unserious or unbelievably slow.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by *Topdog*:
When i don't clearly understand something I ask the professionals for answers which is what I did so asking me the same question over and over again about a term that hasn't even been defined genetically
This is glaringly false; if there is no definition for a cluster, why then was the term used? Cruciani gave you the definition; you just failed to recognize it.
Both clades and clusters have clear definitions, that you are unable to define, differentiate, and know the role of each, in the investigation of human expansion. Because you don't know these concepts, you keep repeating nonsense that has been torn apart for a year now.
quote:Charles:
Your contention is that since the alpha cluster belongs to the E-M78 network[and since the M-78 clade is African in origin] everyone ´sharing ancestry in the M78 clade has African ancestry, which is false, no published data has ever stated that fallacious point
Yes, everyone who has this mutation, has common recent African ancestry with all others who carry this mutation. That is simply what the mutation denotes, "tropical African ancestry". There is no variant of this one time mutation; don't confuse microsatellite clusters with one time event SNPs. You end up in the kind of confusion as you, Charles, sports.
quote:Charles:
The cluster/clade strawman you keep bringing up is a red herring...
Wrong again, as usual. They are brought up time and again, because your understanding of them will instantly show you how silly these exchanges have dragged on, simply because of your illiteracy on the matter.
quote:Charles:
, your logic is that clusters mean nothing and clades means everything...
Another lie. What we are trying to get you to see is that clusters have their own meanings and role in a monophyly in reconstructing human expansions, and one time event SNPs have another. But since you cannot grasp this concept, you naturally unfoundedly assume that folks are saying what your lie above is stating.
quote:Charles:
ALL* humans are descended from an original African event Polymorphism[that still present in East Africa, Underhill et al 2001], does that make everyone on this damn planet African genetically?
Keep bringing up the same points that were addressed a year ago. I told you that this nonsense of yours is futile as a distractive antic; Yes all humanity ultimately have African ancestry, BUT not all have the MOST RECENT COMMON AFRICAN ANCESTOR. When will this penetrate your skull? This is why you need to know what single event SNPs denote; can't be overemphasized. Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by Underpants Man:
quote:Thought answered this previously:
Nothing came afterwards. Did you intend to post a link or something?
Nope, there was no answer provided by Charles. He was owned in that discussion, as every other discussion. But see for yourself:
ALL* humans are descended from an original African event Polymorphism[that still present in East Africa, Underhill et al 2001], does that make everyone on this damn planet African genetically?
Keep bringing up the same points that were addressed a year ago. I told you that this nonsense of yours is futile as a distractive antic; Yes all humanity ultimately have African ancestry, BUT not all have the MOST RECENT COMMON AFRICAN ANCESTOR. When will this penetrate your skull? This is why you need to know what single event SNPs denote; can't be overemphasized.
This reality manifests itself time and again, in observations like this one:
There is more genetic similarity between Europeans and sub-Saharan Africans and between Europeans and Melanesians, inhabitants of islands northeast of Australia, than there is between Africans and Melanesians. - Templeton
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by Supercar:
quote:Originally posted by *Topdog*:
When i don't clearly understand something I ask the professionals for answers which is what I did so asking me the same question over and over again about a term that hasn't even been defined genetically
This is glaringly false; if there is no definition for a cluster, why then was the term used? Cruciani gave you the definition; you just failed to recognize it.
Both clades and clusters have clear definitions, that you are unable to define, differentiate, and know the role of each, in the investigation of human expansion. Because you don't know these concepts, you keep repeating nonsense that has been torn apart for a year now.
quote:Charles:
Your contention is that since the alpha cluster belongs to the E-M78 network[and since the M-78 clade is African in origin] everyone ´sharing ancestry in the M78 clade has African ancestry, which is false, no published data has ever stated that fallacious point
Yes, everyone who has this mutation, has common recent African ancestry with all others who carry this mutation. That is simply what the mutation denotes, "tropical African ancestry". There is no variant of this one time mutation; don't confuse microsatellite clusters with one time event SNPs. You end up in the kind of confusion as you, Charles, sports.
quote:Charles:
The cluster/clade strawman you keep bringing up is a red herring...
Wrong again, as usual. They are brought up time and again, because your understanding of them will instantly show you how silly these exchanges have dragged on, simply because of your illiteracy on the matter.
quote:Charles:
, your logic is that clusters mean nothing and clades means everything...
Another lie. What we are trying to get you to see is that clusters have their own meanings and role in a monophyly in reconstructing human expansions, and one time event SNPs have another. But since you cannot grasp this concept, you naturally unfoundedly assume that folks are saying what your lie above is stating.
quote:Charles:
ALL* humans are descended from an original African event Polymorphism[that still present in East Africa, Underhill et al 2001], does that make everyone on this damn planet African genetically?
Keep bringing up the same points that were addressed a year ago. I told you that this nonsense of yours is futile as a distractive antic; Yes all humanity ultimately have African ancestry, BUT not all have the MOST RECENT COMMON AFRICAN ANCESTOR. When will this penetrate your skull? This is why you need to know what single event SNPs denote; can't be overemphasized.
Good response Supercar, the perceptive will pick up on the fact that clades by definition lead back to mrca and thus can denote a relative-relationship in the direct ancestry of every single person on earth, who ever lived.
tandem repeats cannot do this, for they are neither necessarily parent and child, nor sibling, nor cousin.
alpha microsats. associated with clade E3b1 can tell us something about the spread of African lineage in Eurasians going as far back as the neolithic, and thats it. It's not a clade, and you cannot delineate it as if it were.
E3b1-M78 is African - Cruciani.
Good stuff. Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by *Topdog*:
Clusters are defined by the rare STR alleles that characterize them
...as has been pointed out to you countless times already. And yet, you hereby claim that there is no way to tell or define what a cluster is. This is "a" step towards learning about "clusters" and their role in human expansion.
quote:Charles: they're not fancy names for M78 for use of tracking migrations nor are they all them same.
...naturally not; otherwise it would be harder to track the direction of each and every migration that involves a clade and perhaps an estimate of the timeline of such expansions with a relatively high or adequate degree of precision, without such variation between clusters. Yet all are still tied to a single common recent ancestor, the M78 mutation.
quote:Charles:
The alpha cluster doesn't denote a migration from Africa to Europe but it does denote a migration from the Near east to Europe as already stated ad-naseum.
This assertion is actually quite simplistic and wrong. I'll demonstrate again why via Cruciani:
We used the term cluster simply to indicate a group of chromosomes that share similar microsatellite haplotypes. In our mind a cluster is a MONOPHYLETIC unit, but this CANNOT BE PROVED based on the microsatellites ALONE…
We believe that cluster alfa chromosomes come from the Near East, but, in turn, M78 chromosomes are of AFRICAN ORIGIN, so you can imagine a TWO STEPS MIGRATION:
from Africa to the Middle east and from the Middle east to the Europe. - Cruciani
It denotes a two steps migration from Africa to the "Middle east", and from the "Middle east" to Europe. You cannot break this denotation into two pieces and leave the other piece of information out [in any case, ANY prehistoric African migrations to the Balkans through the Nile Valley corridor would have to be a two steps, meaning having to go through the "Near East" first ]. Why again? Because it is tantamount to treating the derivative with the alpha microsatellite cluster as a standalone entity. The M78 denotes African ancestry, as Cruciani states, and hence a microsatellite "cluster" on M78 bearing chromosomes cannot be treated as separate entity from the M78 mutation; the alpha cluster bearing chromosomes have the M78 SNP. The parent-offspring relationship is not broken in anyway.
quote:Charles:
"the clinal frequency distribution of E-M78 within Europe testifies to important dispersal(s), most likely Neolithic or post-Neolithic. These took place from the Balkans, where the highest frequencies are observed, in all directions, as far as Iberia to the west and, most likely, also to Turkey to the southeast. Thus, it appears that, in Europe, the overall frequency pattern of the haplogroup E-M78, the most frequent E3b haplogroup in this region, is mostly contributed by a new molecular type that distinguishes it from the aboriginal E3b chromosomes from the Near East. These data are hard to reconcile with the hypothesis of a uniform spread of a single Near Eastern gene pool into southeastern Europe. On the other hand, they might be consistent with either a small-scale leapfrog migration from Anatolia into southeastern Europe at the beginning of the Neolithic or with an expansion of indigenous people in southeastern Europe in response to the arrival of the Neolithic cultural package. At the present level of phylogenetic resolution, it is difficult to distinguish between these possibilities."
Note, neither one of the possibilities state that M78 were introduced into Europe by any "African" Neolithic nor by Africans and Southwest Asians.
What marks the beginning of the "Neolithic" and who brought its spawned economy into Europe, is the question you keep dodging.
Posted by *Topdog* (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
That quote does not answer the question at issue, and hense is irrelevant to citations that do::
I did provide an answer, you're just too stubborn to see it.
quote:Egyptian M78 lineages are highly consistent with a northbound migration *through the Levantine corridor, reflected in M78 males as far north as Turkey.[/i]- Luis, et. al.,
You can't refute and answer with a non-answer Charles. Try again.
Dummy that question was already answered, there are *NO* distinctive Egyptian M78 lineages, Luis is simply indicating the direction the M78 lineages took, through Egypt into the Levant. still don't get it, try again.
quote: Why? that's not our position.
Yes it is, you quoted Thought on it as fact and made the fallacious statement that I ran from it, don't lie.
quote:Our position is that clusters are not clades and so don't derive from one another in a linear fashion like clades.
Yet you quoted Thought as stating that the delta cluster is the precursor of the alpha and you quoted Thought as stating a fact which even he admits Cruciani didn't state.
Posted by *Topdog* (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol: obtuse - not perceptive, or sharp, and [often deliberate] lack of ability to understand.
Argument by obtuseness:
Another example of arugment by obtuseness is Charles protest that Cruciani denotes migrations to Europe thru the Levantine from "Africa", but not from......'Africans'.
This would be and obtuse protest, even if Cruciani had not destroyed all hope [for Charles entire argument actually], by specifying E3b1-M78 is AFRICAN.
This "should" satisfy even the slowest and most inattentive minded of folks.
But Charles chooses to forget/ignore whatever he needs to in order to argue obtusely.
Argument by obtuseness is as easy as it is ineffectual.
Easy because playing dumb is easier than 'playing smart'.
Ineffectual because it merely suggests the person arguing obtusely is either unserious or unbelievably slow.
Vicious personal attack, post ignored
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ ad hominem whining, post ignored.
Posted by *Topdog* (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Supercar:
Your contention is that since the alpha cluster belongs to the E-M78 network[and since the M-78 clade is African in origin] everyone ´sharing ancestry in the M78 clade has African ancestry, which is false, no published data has ever stated that fallacious point
Yes, everyone who has this mutation, has common recent African ancestry with all others who carry this mutation. That is simply what the mutation denotes, "tropical African ancestry". There is no variant of this one time mutation; don't confuse microsatellite clusters with one time event SNPs. You end up in the kind of confusion as you, Charles, sports.[/quote]
Sure, thats why M78 alpha isn't labelled as African ancestry in published data nor is it called an "African Neolithic" contribution to Europe, your other fallacious tale.
quote:]Wrong again, as usual. They are brought up time and again, because your understanding of them will instantly show you how silly these exchanges have dragged on, simply because of your illiteracy on the matter.
Yes it is s strawman and you know it, in fact its s red herring also, it has nothing to do with the fact that M78-alpha is not an African lineage.
quote:Another lie. What we are trying to get you to see is that clusters have their own meanings and role in a monophyly in reconstructing human expansions, and one time event SNPs have another. But since you cannot grasp this concept, you naturally unfoundedly assume that folks are saying what your lie above is stating.
Rubbish, you ignore the data which state the STR microstaellite alleles which define each cluster and the populations that harbor these rare STRs and see only what you want to see, which is called cherry picking
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote: That quote does not answer the question at issue, and hense is irrelevant to citations that do: Egyptian M78 lineages are highly consistent with a northbound migration *through the Levantine corridor, reflected in M78 males as far north as Turkey.- Luis, et. al.,
quote:Charles: I did provide and answer.
You didn't and you can't.
You did try to run away from luis, et. al answer though via obtuseness.
But, it didn't work, see the following....
quote:Charles writes: there are *NO* distinctive Egyptian M78 lineages
E3b1 M78 IS distinctive to East Africa, where it originates.
Egypt is *in* East Africa.
The population group in the study reference.. *IS* Egyptian. Get a clue!
This is why simply reading studies never helps you Charles.
You recite from studies much like a parrot - without actual comprehension.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by *Topdog*: ...Rubbish, you ignore the data which state the STR microstaellite alleles which define each cluster and the populations that harbor these rare STRs and see only what you want to see, which is called cherry picking
This entire rambling above marks tremendous stupidity, that doesn't deserve going over circular exchanges on. How about actually addressing what was requested of you?...
Btw, since you keep nagging like an infant whose pacifier has been taken away from its mouth, by claiming that I'm lazy, how about you being not the so lazy one answer these ridiculously basic questions:
a)What is a clade?
b)What is a cluster?
c)What is the difference between a clade and a cluster?
d)what bearing does the alpha microsatellite cluster have on the fact that the cluster appears on M78 bearing chromosomes?
d)How do you explain this:
There is more genetic similarity between Europeans and sub-Saharan Africans and between Europeans and Melanesians, inhabitants of islands northeast of Australia, than there is between Africans and Melanesians. - Templeton
More to come, but this will do for now, for an utterly slow individual like yourself.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
This is why simply reading studies never helps you Charles.
You recite from studies much like a parrot - without actual comprehension.
You can say that again. One would think that the million times that basic facts have been told to him, both from us and his latest correspondence, would have sunk in. Very unsually unperceptive character we are dealing with here.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ I actually like Charles, but his obtuseness is *astounding*.
quote:rasol writes: Our position is that clusters are not clades and so don't derive from one another in a linear fashion like clades.
quote:charles writes: Yet you quoted Thought as stating that the delta cluster is the precursor of the alpha
It's not a quote of Thought, it's a fact that E3b1 with delta clusters precede E3b1 alpha clusters in Eurasia.
But precursor does not have the same meaning as derive.
Precede simply establishes that one comes before the other.
This term is used instead of 'derived' for a reason, Charles.
Clusters do not necessarily derive linearly from each other, like clades, ie -> E3, E3b, E3b1, Charles.
That's exactly what makes them clusters -> *NOT* clades.
This is what Cruciani tried to tell you - you can't make those kinds of claims based on clusters alone.
But since you won't listen to him, and you won't listen to Luis, then why should we expect you to listen to us?
You know, I'm only explaining this for the benefit of others who actually are educable.
You've completely convinced me that you are either unable or unwilling to get it.
But that's your loss. You want to be the mere tool we use to teach those able and willing to learn? So be it.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
It's not a quote of Thought, it's a fact that E3b1 with delta clusters precede E3b1 alpha clusters in Eurasia.
But precede does not have the same meaning as derive.
Precede simply establishes that one comes before the other.
This term is used instead of 'derived' for a reason, Charles...
...it is possible that the alpha cluster bearing M78 chromosomes were spawned from some M78 cluster that became very rare or "died out" through drift, while the "alpha" increased - but if we were to look at contemporary distributions of M78 clusters, in the regions which have this tropical African marker, then the delta looks to be the likely candidate, from which the alpha cluster spawned. This extrapolation would be based on info like:
"The fourth cluster **delta **(cluster in fig. 2B) is present, albeit at low frequencies, in **all** of the regions analyzed (4.0% in eastern and northern Africa, 3.3% in the Near East, and 1.5% in Europe) and shows a notable microsatellite differentiation (fig. 2B). The two E-M78 chromosomes found in Pakistan, at the eastern borders of the area of dispersal of haplogroup E3b, also belong to **cluster delta**.
On the basis of these data, we suggest that cluster delta was involved in a **first dispersal** or dispersals of E-M78 chromosomes FROM eastern Africa into northern Africa and the Near East. Time-of-divergence estimates for E-M78 chromosomes suggest a relatively great antiquity (14.7 ± 2.7 ky) for the separation of eastern Africans from the other populations. A later range expansion from the Near East or, possibly, from northern Africa would have introduced E-M78 cluster **delta** into Europe. - Cruciani et al.
Posted by *Topdog* (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Supercar:
quote:Originally posted by Underpants Man:
quote:Thought answered this previously:
Nothing came afterwards. Did you intend to post a link or something?
Nope, there was no answer provided by Charles. He was owned in that discussion, as every other discussion. But see for yourself:
I was not owned, get off the bandwagon and take your beating.
You were trashed, as evidenced from your lack of answers in the said discussion, just like you are taking quite a beating here. Case in point, where are the answers to the questions I re-posed to you three posts [of mine] ago?
Posted by *Topdog* (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Supercar:
quote:Originally posted by *Topdog*: ...Rubbish, you ignore the data which state the STR microstaellite alleles which define each cluster and the populations that harbor these rare STRs and see only what you want to see, which is called cherry picking
This entire rambling above marks tremendous stupidity, that doesn't deserve going over circular exchanges on. How about actually addressing what was requested of you?...
Btw, since you keep nagging like an infant whose pacifier has been taken away from its mouth, by claiming that I'm lazy, how about you being not the so lazy one answer these ridiculously basic questions:
a)What is a clade?
b)What is a cluster?
c)What is the difference between a clade and a cluster?
d)what bearing does the alpha microsatellite cluster have on the fact that the cluster appears on M78 bearing chromosomes?
d)How do you explain this:
There is more genetic similarity between Europeans and sub-Saharan Africans and between Europeans and Melanesians, inhabitants of islands northeast of Australia, than there is between Africans and Melanesians. - Templeton
More to come, but this will do for now, for an utterly slow individual like yourself.
Argument by Repetition once again asking the same dumb questions which have nothing to do ith the fact that M78-alpha is not African ancestry in Europeans.
Posted by *Topdog* (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Supercar:
quote:Originally posted by *Topdog*:
quote:Originally posted by Supercar:
quote:Originally posted by Underpants Man:
quote:Thought answered this previously:
Nothing came afterwards. Did you intend to post a link or something?
Nope, there was no answer provided by Charles. He was owned in that discussion, as every other discussion. But see for yourself:
I was not owned, get off the bandwagon and take your beating.
You were trashed, as evidenced from your lack of answers in the said discussion, just like you are taking quite a beating here. Case in point, where are the answers to the questions I re-posed to you three posts [of mine] ago? [/QB]
This is a red herring anayways, but I was not trashed, get off Thought's nut sack and be your own man.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by *Topdog*:
quote:Originally posted by Supercar:
quote:Originally posted by *Topdog*: ...Rubbish, you ignore the data which state the STR microstaellite alleles which define each cluster and the populations that harbor these rare STRs and see only what you want to see, which is called cherry picking
This entire rambling above marks tremendous stupidity, that doesn't deserve going over circular exchanges on. How about actually addressing what was requested of you?...
Btw, since you keep nagging like an infant whose pacifier has been taken away from its mouth, by claiming that I'm lazy, how about you being not the so lazy one answer these ridiculously basic questions:
a)What is a clade?
b)What is a cluster?
c)What is the difference between a clade and a cluster?
d)what bearing does the alpha microsatellite cluster have on the fact that the cluster appears on M78 bearing chromosomes?
d)How do you explain this:
There is more genetic similarity between Europeans and sub-Saharan Africans and between Europeans and Melanesians, inhabitants of islands northeast of Australia, than there is between Africans and Melanesians. - Templeton
More to come, but this will do for now, for an utterly slow individual like yourself.
Argument by Repetition once again asking the same dumb questions which have nothing to do ith the fact that M78-alpha is not African ancestry in Europeans.
This beyond-retard screeching, is case in point that you need to answer those questions as specifically asked; the gibbering is no substitute for answers. Face it boy, you are OWNED. Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by *Topdog*:
quote:Originally posted by Supercar:
Nope, there was no answer provided by Charles. He was owned in that discussion, as every other discussion. But see for yourself:
This is a red herring anayways, but I was not trashed, get off Thought's nut sack and be your own man.
What "Thought"? I was one of , if not the principal poster, who OWNED you in that discussion. Your reading skills [for reading the link] has failed you...yet again. Posted by *Topdog* (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: ]This beyond-retard screeching, is case in point that you need to answer those questions as specifically asked; the gibbering is no substitute for answers. Face it boy, you are OWNED. [/QB]
Just like I thought, a thoughtless post of no value. YOU have been owned which is why you kep repeating the same garbage questions over and over again, fact remains that M78 alpha is *NOT* a tropical lineage, END OF STORY now...
Posted by *Topdog* (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Supercar:
quote:Originally posted by *Topdog*:
quote:Originally posted by Supercar:
Nope, there was no answer provided by Charles. He was owned in that discussion, as every other discussion. But see for yourself:
This is a red herring anayways, but I was not trashed, get off Thought's nut sack and be your own man.
What "Thought"? I was one of , if not the principal poster, who OWNED you in that discussion. Your reading skills [for reading the link] has failed you...yet again.
You have proven nothing and the fact remains that M78 alpha is not a tropical African marker in Europeans, since you have no answers for that other than childish rants about who owned who when I was not owned just....
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by *Topdog*: Just like I thought, a thoughtless post of no value. YOU have been owned which is why you kep repeating the same garbage questions over and over again, fact remains that M78 alpha is *NOT* a tropical lineage, END OF STORY now...
[/QB]
You been reduced to petty picture spamming, as a cowardly copout.
Otherwise, you would have produced answers for something you've never had the guts or "intelligence" to answer:
quote:Originally posted by Supercar:
Btw, since you keep nagging like an infant whose pacifier has been taken away from its mouth, by claiming that I'm lazy, how about you being not the so lazy one answer these ridiculously basic questions:
a)What is a clade?
b)What is a cluster?
c)What is the difference between a clade and a cluster?
d)what bearing does the alpha microsatellite cluster have on the fact that the cluster appears on M78 bearing chromosomes?
d)How do you explain this:
There is more genetic similarity between Europeans and sub-Saharan Africans and between Europeans and Melanesians, inhabitants of islands northeast of Australia, than there is between Africans and Melanesians. - Templeton
More to come, but this will do for now, for an utterly slow individual like yourself.
Cowering your way out of outstanding questions, by retarded picture spams; comeon surely you are not beneath even that.
Face it boy, you've been helplessly OWNED. Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by *Topdog*:
These toddler picture spamming antics, is a sure sign that you and Evil Euro have a lot in common, - both show an unusual level of illiteracy, obtuseness and being totally OWNED as a result.
Posted by *Topdog* (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Supercar:
quote:Originally posted by *Topdog*: Just like I thought, a thoughtless post of no value. YOU have been owned which is why you kep repeating the same garbage questions over and over again, fact remains that M78 alpha is *NOT* a tropical lineage, END OF STORY now...
You been reduced to petty picture spamming, as a cowardly copout.
Otherwise, you would have produced answers for something you've never had the guts or "intelligence" to answer:
quote:Originally posted by Supercar:
Btw, since you keep nagging like an infant whose pacifier has been taken away from its mouth, by claiming that I'm lazy, how about you being not the so lazy one answer these ridiculously basic questions:
a)What is a clade?
b)What is a cluster?
c)What is the difference between a clade and a cluster?
d)what bearing does the alpha microsatellite cluster have on the fact that the cluster appears on M78 bearing chromosomes?
d)How do you explain this:
There is more genetic similarity between Europeans and sub-Saharan Africans and between Europeans and Melanesians, inhabitants of islands northeast of Australia, than there is between Africans and Melanesians. - Templeton
More to come, but this will do for now, for an utterly slow individual like yourself.
Cowering your way out of outstanding questions, by retarded picture spams; comeon surely you are not beneath even that.
Face it boy, you've been helplessly OWNED. [/QB]
Still morer spamming the same dumb questions, the fact remains, M78 alpha is not a marker denoting tropical African ancestry, end of story.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by *Topdog*:
Still morer spamming the same dumb questions, the fact remains, M78 alpha is not a marker denoting tropical African ancestry, end of story.
The guy has been utterly defeated, as can be seen from his mental incapacity to provide answers to questions which will surely put an end to his trolling, that he can't even write a sentence coherently anymore.
That is how badly he has been owned. Lol.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
The confused guy says:
the fact remains, M78 alpha is not a marker denoting tropical African ancestry, end of story.
...not realizing the glaring contradictions in that comment alone.
Perhaps, he meant to say:
the lie remains, M78 alpha is not a marker denoting tropical African ancestry
He could have polished this lie/nonsense up better, by removing the term "M78" out of the picture, and make it look like "alpha" is a separate entity, which has no link with M78 monophyly. Lol.
Posted by *Topdog* (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Supercar:
quote:Originally posted by *Topdog*:
Still morer spamming the same dumb questions, the fact remains, M78 alpha is not a marker denoting tropical African ancestry, end of story.
The guy has been utterly defeated, as can be seen from his mental incapacity to provide answers to questions which will surely put an end to his trolling, that he can't even write a sentence coherently anymore.
That is how badly he has been owned. Lol.
You're dreaming, M78 alpha does not denote tropical African ancestry, you have posted no evidence for this, end of story. Of course you're leaving out the alpha and concentrating on M78, thats calling cherry picking ie, argument by selective observation.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by *Topdog*:
You're dreaming, M78 alpha does not denote tropical African ancestry, you have posted no evidence for this, end of story. Of course you're leaving out the alpha and concentrating on M78, thats calling cherry picking ie, argument by selective observation.
We will find out what cherry picking I am supposedly doing, according your brain-dead logic, from answers to this; something you were NEVER man enough to answer:
a)What is a clade?
b)What is a cluster?
c)What is the difference between a clade and a cluster?
d)what bearing does the alpha microsatellite cluster have on the fact that the cluster appears on M78 bearing chromosomes?
d)How do you explain this:
There is more genetic similarity between Europeans and sub-Saharan Africans and between Europeans and Melanesians, inhabitants of islands northeast of Australia, than there is between Africans and Melanesians. - Templeton
...this will do for now, for an utterly slow individual like yourself.
Face it boy, you've been helplessly OWNED.
Posted by Underpants Man (Member # 3735) on :
Why do so many arguments here degenerate into mudslinging? I feel sorry for ausar, he must feel over-worked.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
^Easy; trolls come up with weak and badly thought out claims, which they don't have enough knowledge on to back up of course, try to hide behind circular exchanges without answering/addressing points raised, vent their ensuing frustation through "mudslinging" antics, and even resort to infantile picture spamming, as an indication of nothing left in their tank to go on trolling. The only way one can get through them at this point, is to talk down to them. That sums it up.
Posted by *Topdog* (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Supercar:
quote:Originally posted by *Topdog*:
You're dreaming, M78 alpha does not denote tropical African ancestry, you have posted no evidence for this, end of story. Of course you're leaving out the alpha and concentrating on M78, thats calling cherry picking ie, argument by selective observation.
We will find out what cherry picking I am supposedly doing, according your brain-dead logic, from answers to this; something you were NEVER man enough to answer:
a)What is a clade?
b)What is a cluster?
c)What is the difference between a clade and a cluster?
d)what bearing does the alpha microsatellite cluster have on the fact that the cluster appears on M78 bearing chromosomes?
d)How do you explain this:
There is more genetic similarity between Europeans and sub-Saharan Africans and between Europeans and Melanesians, inhabitants of islands northeast of Australia, than there is between Africans and Melanesians. - Templeton
...this will do for now, for an utterly slow individual like yourself.
Face it boy, you've been helplessly OWNED.
Argument ad naseum once again, constantly repeating the same crap doesn't make it true. M78 alpha is not tropical African end of story.
Posted by *Topdog* (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: ^Easy; trolls come up with weak and badly thought out claims, which they don't have enough knowledge on to back up of course, try to hide behind circular exchanges without answering/addressing points raised, vent their ensuing frustation through "mudslinging" antics, and even resort to infantile picture spamming, as an indication of nothing left in their tank to go on trolling. The only way one can get through them at this point, is to talk down to them. That sums it up.
I've answered all of your points fool, from clade to cluster, you only selectively read and see what you want to see and ignore what you don't like.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by *Topdog*:
I've answered all of your points fool, from clade to cluster, you only selectively read and see what you want to see and ignore what you don't like.
You have NOT answered ANY point made, dummy. Where are the answers then for the aforementioned questions?...in addition to physical anthropological [e.g. skeletal remains], archeological, and linguistic data given earlier, all in harmony of African expansions into Eurasia, and are in line with genetic data on M78 spread into Eurasia - all of which remain unaddressed.
For instance, you recite words without understanding them. When you say M78 alpha, do you have any clue as to why it is called M78 FIRST AND FOREMOST, in the first place? We've already told you the purpose of all terms associated with naming a cluster, and that all allele designation have specific meanings and roles to them, that are distinguished. Your failure in understanding these concepts, i.e. the distinctive meanings of clades and clusters, is needlessly dragging a topic that would not go far, if you were well acquainted with these differences in the first place, and not falsely assuming that others are ignoring the meanings of designations given to monophyletic units.
If geneticists were dummies like yourself, why even bother with calling ANY cluster "E3b1/M78" if this was not as important as you claim it to be. What does that "M78" designate. Well, you claim to have answered them already. Now repost those answers then, and tell us why M78 doesn't denote "African ancestry".
Don't forget to answer the other question dealing with Africans, Europeans and Melanesians. These are non-negotiable requests, unless of course, you wish to resume trolling and remained owned. Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Underpants Man: Why do so many arguments here degenerate into mudslinging? I feel sorry for ausar, he must feel over-worked.
7 pages and over 300 posts, and this is what becomes of the debate.
By the way T-dog, you lost a long time ago so give it a rest! You are becoming just as silly as stupid-euro.
Ausar might as well shut this thread down since it's productiveness has been lost a long while ago. Posted by Masonic Rebel (Member # 9549) on :
I’m no expert on Genetics (Sorry), but this debate is starting to get ugly and the Mudslinging not even necessary
The Black or African Influence on Greece was proven a long time ago.
Maybe this will help although it’s not based on Dr. Keita data or Genetics
Who were the Garamantes
A tribe mentioned by the historian Herodotus who lived in the deserts of Northern Africa; Herodotus described them as hunters and farmers who grew their crops on soil they placed on top of the desert salt and used their four-horse teams to hunt the cave-dwelling Ethiopians.
Recent excavations in the African desert of south-western Libya have given us a new appreciation for the Garamantes and their culture; they are now believed to have had at least three large cities and twenty smaller communities which supported a population of perhaps fifty thousand citizens.
Their cities and farms were vitalized by an extensive network of underground irrigation canals which extended for thousands of miles and provided water to nourish the harsh desert environment.
During the rise and pentacle of the Roman Empire, the Garamantes traded in gold, ivory and slaves; the population and culture slowly began to diminish as trade with Rome and other wealthy Mediterranean cities came to an end; the lack of trade and the gradual lowering of the water table sealed the fate of the Garamantes and by 700 CE they were, for all practical purposes, forgotten by history.
We need to get back to the civil scholarly debetes here
Posted by HERU (Member # 6085) on :
rasol, on one of the pages you posted, there's a footnote that says:
Some will ask why I do not mention the possibility of this E3b being Jewish in origin, as it is widely stated that E3b is evidence of a Jewish origin. In fact this is a simplification. E3b (M35) has its origins in Africa, but it is indeed common in the Middle East, so some types of E3b are a good indicator that one might have Middle Eastern, African or Southern European ancestry. However we are here discussing the very particular “alpha” type of E3b1 (M78) that is not found in the Middle East or Africa. It is found in Ashkenazi Jewish families, who presumably have it from their long time in central and southern Europe. But Ashkenazim are not likely to account for the above Lancashire surnames, as Ashkenazi immigration to England was late, and came during a time when the push to convert to Christianity and change surname was less than it had been in the middle ages.
Can you explain the use of "alpha" further? Also, are there any studies showing "Vikings" with E3b lineages?
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote: Can you explain the use of "alpha" further?
The whole thread consists of said explanation. Please read thru it 1st, and then if you have questions, ask. I'll be happy to answer them. Posted by X-Ras (Member # 10328) on :
Looking back at this debate though it became completely out of hand, I recently communicated with a geneticist about E3b1 yet agfain and he does agree that it does denote the an African bloodline that recently migrated out so its suffice to say that I might have understated and or misrepresented the arguments of rasol and Supercar, but I'm not going to admit I was totally wrong because I wasn't.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Either way, the roots of Greek civilization lie in Western Asia (the Levant, but especially Asia Minor) as well Africa. And it's roots do NOT come from Indo-Europeans.
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
All E3b found outside of Africa are downstream (younger) derivatives of older E3b lineages that are predominant IN AFRICA.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
was involved in a first dispersal or dispersals of E-M78 chromosomes from eastern Africa into northern Africa and the Near East.
