The ancient Egyptians could soon be getting their genomes sequenced as a matter of routine. That’s the view, at least, of the first researchers to use next-generation techniques to analyse DNA from Egyptian mummies.
In a preliminary study that the authors describe as “a first step”, they detected hints of one of the mummies’ ancestral origins, as well as pathogens and a range of plant materials presumably used in the embalming process. The researchers, led by Carsten Pusch, a geneticist at the University of Tübingen in Germany, published their findings last week in the Journal of Applied Genetics.
Previous studies of DNA from Egyptian mummies have used a technique called polymerase chain reaction (PCR) to amplify specific segments of DNA. But these studies have been controversial. The PCR method is susceptible to contamination with modern DNA, especially when amplifying genes from humans or bacteria that are likely to be present in the environment.
DNA degrades relatively quickly in warm conditions, leading to doubts that it would survive for long in the Egyptian desert. For example, a high-profile DNA analysis of 3,300-year-old royal mummies published by Pusch and his colleagues in 2010 attracted scepticism. But the authors stood by their results, arguing that the embalming process must have preserved the DNA despite the heat.
Further support for their argument came in 2011, when researchers amplified DNA from 2,000-year-old mummified crocodile hatchlings. So researchers on both sides of the debate have been looking forward to the application of next-generation sequencing techniques. Instead of amplifying specific sequences, these methods read millions of small fragments and give a broad picture of all the DNA present in a sample, making it easier to spot contamination.
Since 2010, next-generation sequencing has been used to decipher the genomes of a variety of ancient humans preserved in cold conditions, including a 4,000-year-old Palaeo-Eskimo dubbed Saqqaq Man; ‘Denisova Man’, a novel hominin unearthed in Siberia[5]; and ‘Ötzi the Iceman’, a 5,300-year-old mummy found frozen in the Central Eastern Alps.
Now, Pusch and his colleagues, including Rabab Khairat, have carried out next-generation sequencing on five Egyptian mummified heads held at the University of Tübingen. The heads date from relatively late in ancient Egyptian history — between 806 bc and 124 ad.
The data sets retrieved so far are small — a tiny fraction of what would be required for a whole genome sequence. But they show that human DNA survives in the mummies and that it is amenable to sequencing.
The researchers determined that one of the mummified individuals belongs to an ancestral group, or haplogroup, called I2, believed to have originated in Western Asia. They also retrieved genetic material from the pathogens that cause malaria and toxoplasmosis, and from a range of plants that includes fir and pine — both thought to be components of embalming resins — as well as castor, linseed, olive, almond and lotus.
According to Pusch, the proportion of human DNA in the identified sequences is comparable to that from frozen specimens, such as Saqqaq Man. In mummies, “DNA preservation appears to be independent of temperature,” he says.
But Tom Gilbert, who leads two research groups at the Center for GeoGenetics in Copenhagen and was part of the team that sequenced the Saqqaq genome, warns against making such a comparison, because many of the sequences obtained in the latest study were unidentifiable.
Now that Pusch and his colleagues have demonstrated next-generation sequencing in Egyptian mummies, however, moving on to entire genomes “isn’t rocket science”, Gilbert says. “What limits you is the size of a sample. For Denisova Man they had just a finger bone. Here they have the whole mummy.”
Indeed, Pusch and his colleagues say that they are now working on a more comprehensive analysis, and that “entire-genome sequencing of ancient Egyptian individuals is likely to become standard in the not-too-distant future”.
i try to stay away from NatGeo...Too Eurocentric. Just look at how they potray the Ancient Egyptians and Ramses III. I mean he was E1b1a...
Anyways I'm still going to watch it since you posted it.
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
How about excavating the tombs of French and British monarchs buried respectively in the St-Denis Basilica and Westminster Abbey? I am sure their DNA is just as important as that of the AE pharaohs.
But the grave robbers of AE tombs would not be allowed to do the same in Europe.
Posted by Son of Ra (Member # 20401) on :
quote:Originally posted by lamin: How about excavating the tombs of French and British monarchs buried respectively in the St-Denis Basilica and Westminster Abbey? I am sure their DNA is just as important as that of the AE pharaohs.
But the grave robbers of AE tombs would not be allowed to do the same in Europe.
True.
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
The fact that the governments of Egypt allow excavating the tombs of AE pharaohs and royalty is proof that the dominant classes in Egypt really have little or no connection to Egypt's 3000+ years past. For most of such people only the Koran matters the biggest crime is not to rob an AE tomb but to "insult Islam".
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ That's an understatement. The 'Arab' elite of the country knows full and well that pharaonic civilization is a culture of al jahiliyyah (the time of ignorance) i.e. time before the Prophet Muhammad. Ironically, it is the interests of the West as well as the rest of the world that provides a great deal of investment in the Egyptian economy via media and tourism that is the ONLY reason why the pharaonic ruins and pyramids are being protected by the government. There have long been Islamic clerics who call for the dismantlement and destruction of the pyramids and tombs, now that the Muslim Brotherhood is in charge this threat is even greater yet the economic toll is too great for the Egyptian government to allow that to happen. Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
The researchers determined that one of the mummified individuals belongs to an ancestral group, or haplogroup, called I2, believed to have originated in Western Asia.
The mitochondrial nucleotide(s) that determined this is/are?
“It would be nice to know more about the origins of the ancient Egyptians,” says Pusch. “Where did they come from? Where did they go? Are there still traces of ancestral DNA in today’s Egypt?”
The researchers should not be too biased in favor of ancient Egyptians; they should afford the same focus to ancient Greeks, so that...
“It would be nice to know more about the origins of the ancient Greeks,Where did they come from? Where did they go? Are there still traces of ancestral DNA in today’s Greece?”
Time to give the ancient Greeks a level playing field in research, is it not. They should not be taken for granted as true Europeans.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
^ if so, it means they start all over, again.
Y-DNA haplogroup I is a European haplogroup, representing nearly one-fifth of the population. It is almost non-existent outside of Europe, suggesting that it arose in Europe. Estimates of the age of haplogroup I suggest that it arose prior to the last Glacial Maximum.
Just to point out: An excerpt from the researchers' (Pusch et al.) paper refers to the I2--in question--in connection with mtDNA sequencing. So, the Y-DNA with the same namesake is not the issue here.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol: ^ if so, it means they start all over, again.
Whatever nuclear DNA that had already been detected in the mummies, assuming they were not casualties of contamination, degradation et al., should still be valid. Genome-wide or wider sequencing should have no bearing on those results, other than possibly shed light on other ancestry that would have been otherwise obscure. If memory serves me correctly, other segments of nuclear DNA, outside of Y-DNA, had already been undertaken on ancient Egyptian remains; recall DNA reports posted by the likes of DNAtribes, for instance...the only issue the researchers' mentioned could possibly have with these, is presumably the focus on only specific loci of chromosomes under study.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Just to point out: An excerpt from the researchers' (Pusch et al.) paper refers to the I2--in question--in connection with mtDNA sequencing. So, the Y-DNA with the same namesake is not the issue here.
Oh, okay.
So they speak of a female.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
It doesn't have to be a female. Both male and female can be tested for mtDNA.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: It doesn't have to be a female. Both male and female can be tested for mtDNA.
Yes, that's true. I was just guessing.
quote: Now, Pusch and his colleagues, including Rabab Khairat, have carried out next-generation sequencing on five Egyptian mummified heads held at the University of Tübingen. The heads date from relatively late in ancient Egyptian history — between 806 bc and 124 ad.
Yeah, the late dates had already been noted...but that doesn't absolve the researchers from quality DNA-sequencing work.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Yeah, the late dates had already been noted...but that doesn't absolve the researchers from quality DNA-sequencing work.
I have noticed.
quote: The researchers determined that one of the mummified individuals may belong to an ancestral group, or haplogroup, called I2, believed to have originated in Western Asia. They also retrieved genetic material from the pathogens that cause malaria and toxoplasmosis, and from a range of plants that includes fir and pine — both thought to be components of embalming resins — as well as castor, linseed, olive, almond and lotus.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
I do agree on placing some emphasis on the reported age of the mummified specimens, to put things into perspective...after all, the ancient Egyptian culture, which was for a good period of time predominantly under indigenous domination, had already been eroded after a series of foreign takeovers.
It strikes me however, that European/European-descended researchers just can't seem to come to terms with the fact that Europe did not culturally bloom as early as other locations around the globe...and so, they have to treat non-Europeans of antiquity, like the ancient Egyptians, as if they were foreign to Earth, and that they need to be heavily placed under a microscope like laboratory specimens...and they mostly do this with non-Europeans!
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: I do agree on placing some emphasis on the reported age of the mummified specimens, to put things into perspective...after all, the ancient Egyptian culture, which was for a good period of time predominantly under indigenous domination, had already been eroded after a series of foreign takeovers.
It strikes me however, that European/European-descended researchers just can't seem to come to terms with the fact that Europe did not culturally bloom as early as other locations around the globe...and so, they have to treat non-Europeans of antiquity, like the ancient Egyptians, as if they were foreign to Earth, and that they need to be heavily placed under a microscope like laboratory specimens...and they mostly do this with non-Europeans!
I agree on this.
1) I read somewhere Romans use to take Vandal slaves to Egypt. Vandals descent from Germans, who came from North Europe.
2) why is it that: Outside of Europe, the highest frequencies of mitochondrial haplogroup I observed so far appear in the Cushitic-speaking El Molo (23%) and Rendille (>17%) in northern Kenya (Castrì 2008).
I have not been able to find a group outside of Africa with a frequency come even close. Or am I overlooking something?
The highest of Western Europe is in France.
-France (Finistere) - 2/22 9.10% (Dubut et al. 2003)
The highest of Eastern Europe is in Lemko and Croatia.
-Lemko 6/53 11.32% (Nikitin et al. 2009)
-Croatia (Krk) 15/133 11.28% (Cvjetan et al. 2004)
For Asia it is:
-Iran (North) - 3/31 9.70% (Terreros et al. 2011)
-Sindhi Indo-European 1/23 8.70% (Quintana-Murc et al. 2004) Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
Could be the result of genetic drift. The key to determining the most likely provenance of African hg I DNA, is to extensively look at the sequences respective to populations and the global distribution pattern of the clade itself.
There are parties who take it for granted that anything which is deemed to be outside of the major L-designated haplogroups has got to have a non-African origin...I recall coming across material some time back, which even opened up the possibilities that some or another of such clades, that fall outside the latter, may very well be products of convergent evolution, attributable to the degree of tendencies made permissible by a common ancestral substratum!
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Could be the result of genetic drift. The key to determining the most likely provenance of African hg I DNA, is to extensively look at the sequences respective to populations and the global distribution pattern of the clade itself.
There are parties who take it for granted that anything which is deemed to be outside of the major L-designated haplogroups has got to have a non-African origin...I recall coming across material some time back, which even opened up the possibilities that some or another of such clades, that fall outside the latter, may very well be products of convergent evolution, attributable to the degree of tendencies made permissible by a common ancestral substratum!
Pusch et al.
quote:believed to have originated in Western
I will do some more research into that.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
Aside from the scientific jargon, i.e. of always leaving room for possibility of disproof, authors have to use "believe", because much of the time, the would-be "most fundamental/rudimentary" clades of the bulk of major haplogroups, which predominantly make up the ancestral lines of non-African populations, are elusive. A good amount of the conclusions built around these clades come from guesswork around geographical distribution of the clades, not on the actual most phylogenetically-basic common recent ancestral clade(s).
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Aside from the scientific jargon, i.e. of always leaving room for possibility of disproof, authors have to use "believe", because much of the time, the would-be "most fundamental/rudimentary" clades of the bulk of major haplogroups, which predominantly make up the ancestral lines of non-African populations, are elusive. A good amount of the conclusions built around these clades come from guesswork around geographical distribution of the clades, not on the actual most phylogenetically-basic common recent ancestral clade(s).
I understand why they use "believe". I just find it ironic.
From what I understand Hg N is parental to Hg I. And some "claim" that Hg N has originated in Asia.
Is this correct?
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol: ^ if so, it means they start all over, again.
Whatever nuclear DNA that had already been detected in the mummies, assuming they were not casualties of contamination, degradation et al., should still be valid. Genome-wide or wider sequencing should have no bearing on those results, other than possibly shed light on other ancestry that would have been otherwise obscure. If memory serves me correctly, other segments of nuclear DNA, outside of Y-DNA, had already been undertaken on ancient Egyptian remains; recall DNA reports posted by the likes of DNAtribes, for instance...the only issue the researchers' mentioned could possibly have with these, is presumably the focus on only specific loci of chromosomes under study.
I overlooked this post by you, earlier on.
However, I'd like to add some more info.
King Tut died from sickle-cell disease, not malaria
King Tutankhamun died from sickle-cell disease, not malaria, say experts. A team from Hamburg's Bernhard Noct Institute for Tropical Medicine (BNI) claim the disease is a far likelier cause of death than the combination of bone disorders and malaria put forward by Egyptian experts earlier this year.
The BNI team argues that theories offered by Egyptian experts, led by antiquities tsar Zahi Hawass, are based on data that can be interpreted otherwise. They say further analysis of the data will confirm or deny their work. Hawass' claim, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association this February, and followed by a swarm of accompanying television shows, claimed King Tut suffered from Kohler's disease, a bone disorder prohibiting blood flow, before succumbing to malaria.
Multiple bone disorders, including one in Tutankhamun's left foot, led to the Kohler's diagnosis, while segments of a malarial parasite were found via DNA testing. Yet the BNI team claims the latter results are incorrect. “Malaria in combination with Köhler's disease causing Tutankhamun's early death seems unlikely to us,” say Prof Christian Meyer and Dr Christian Timmann.
Instead the BNI team feels sickle-cell disease (SCD), a genetic blood disorder, is a more likely reason for the Pharaoh's death aged just 19. The disease occurs in 9 to 22 per cent of people living in the Egyptian oases, and gives a better chance of surviving malaria; the infestation halted by sickled cells.
They say the disease occurs frequently in malarial regions like the River Nile, and that it would account for the bone defects found on his body.
“The genetic predisposition for (SCD) can be found in regions where malaria frequently occurs, including ancient and modern Egypt.” says Meyer. “The disease can only manifest itself when a sickle cell trait is inherited from both parents: it is a so-called 'recessive inheritance'.” A family tree for the Pharaoh suggested by Hawass himself appears to back the BNI team's case.
The relatively old age of Tutankhamun's parents and relatives – up to 50 years – means they could very well have carried sickle-cell traits, and could therefore have been highly resistant to malaria. The high likelihood that King Tut's parents were siblings means he could have inherited the sickle cell trait from both and suffered from SCD.
“Sickle-cell disease is an important differential diagnosis: one that existing DNA material can probably confirm or rule out,” conclude Timmann and Meyer. They suggest that further testing of ancient Egyptian royal mummies should bear their conclusions in mind.
King Tut's young demise has long been a source of speculation. As well as malaria, recent decades have seen scholars argue that he was murdered, and that he died from infection caused by a broken leg.
Let me just say that said claim is just one of the possibilities out there, based on material accessible to me.
It's possible that I have missed it, but I have not come across material that has pointed out the most basic N clade to date outside of Africa, that is supposedly representative of the most common recent ancestor to all N sub-clades.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Let me just say that said claim is just one of the possibilities out there, based on material accessible to me.
It's possible that I have missed it, but I have not come across material that has pointed out the most basic N clade to date outside of Africa, that is supposedly representative of the most common recent ancestor to all N sub-clades.
This gene-tree is based on mtDNA.
Sorry for the large image, it is as it comes. And I have no small version.
quote:Evolutionary history of mtDNA haplogroup structure in African populations inferred from mtDNA d-loop and RFLP analysis.
(A) Relationships among different mtDNA haplogroup lineages inferred from mtDNA d-loop sequences and mtDNA coding region SNPs from previous studies (Kivisild, Metspalu, et al. 2006). Dashed lines indicate previously unresolved relationships.
(B) Relative frequencies of haplogroups L0, L1, L5, L2, L3, M, and N in different regions of Africa from mtDNA d-loop and mtDNA coding region SNPs from previous studies.
(C) Relative frequencies of haplogroups L0, L1, and L5 subhaplogroups (excluding L2 and L3) in different regions of Africa from mtDNA d-loop and mtDNA coding region SNPs from previous studies. Haplogroup frequencies from previously published studies include East Africans (Ethiopia [Rosa et al. 2004], Kenya and Sudan [Watson et al. 1997; Rosa et al. 2004]), Mozambique (Pereira et al. 2001; Salas et al. 2002), Hadza (Vigilant et al. 1991), and Sukuma (Knight et al. 2003); South Africans (Botswana !Kung [Vigilant et al. 1991]); Central Africans (Mbenzele Pygmies [Destro-Bisol et al. 2004], Biaka Pygmies [Vigilant et al. 1991], and Mbuti Pygmies [Vigilant et al. 1991]); West Africans (Niger, Nigeria [Vigilant et al. 1991; Watson et al. 1997]; and Guinea [Rosa et al. 2004]). L1*, L2*, and L3* from previous studies indicate samples that were not further subdivided into subhaplogroups.
You could leave it as a working link, if you want to, just to preserve the screen size of the thread.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: You could leave it as a working link, if you want to, just to preserve the screen size of the thread.
I did change it into a link format.
Extended to that study I have this.
Continuing the Hg mtDNA tree, Hg R so on [...]
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Ah, so it is mitochondrial DNA hg I2. I don't know much about it except that it is postulated to have arisen in Southwest Asia specifically the Iranian area, though as Troll Patrol noted there are significant frequencies among East African, specifically Cushitic speaking groups. By the way, what time period is the mummy who carries I2 from??
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Ah, so it is mitochondrial DNA hg I2. I don't know much about it except that it is postulated to have arisen in Southwest Asia specifically the Iranian area, though as Troll Patrol noted there are significant frequencies among East African, specifically Cushitic speaking groups. By the way, what time period is the mummy who carries I2 from??
quote: Now, Pusch and his colleagues, including Rabab Khairat, have carried out next-generation sequencing on five Egyptian mummified heads held at the University of Tübingen. The heads date from relatively late in ancient Egyptian history — between 806 bc and 124 ad.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
While not excluding the possibility that this haplogroup group reached Egypt via the Horn, lets not forget that Eurasian mtDNAs other than U6 and M1 in Semitic and Cushitic Horner populations mostly correlate with the introduction of Ethio-Semetic languages into the Horn, around 3kya. If Ethiopiwn mtDNA I2 is indeed associated with the said admixture event, it seems unlikely that Ethiopian geneflow explains this lineage.
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
While we on the subject of Pusch et al's research, I wonder what he and his colleagues would think of the DNATribes reports? I recall they got quite upset when people starting claiming King Tut was R1b.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: While not excluding the possibility that this haplogroup group reached Egypt via the Horn, lets not forget that Eurasian mtDNAs other than U6 and M1 in Semitic and Cushitic Horner populations mostly correlate with the introduction of Ethio-Semetic languages into the Horn, around 3kya. If Ethiopiwn mtDNA I2 is indeed associated with the said admixture event, it seems unlikely that Ethiopian geneflow explains this lineage.
From what I could trace quickly, (with the help of wiki)
Tigrai Ethiopia Afro-Asiatic > Semitic 0/44 0.00% --Kivisild 2004
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
While not excluding the possibility that this haplogroup group reached Egypt via the Horn, lets not forget that Eurasian mtDNAs other than U6 and M1 in Semitic and Cushitic Horner populations mostly correlate with the introduction of Ethio-Semetic languages into the Horn, around 3kya.
1. I see that you are still talking out of the orifice in your behind, concerning fairy-tale "Eurasian origins" of hg U6 and hg M1, lacking substance other than parroting hearsay from the net.
I am open to acquainting myself with what you seem to take for granted as "Eurasian mtDNAs" in "Semitic and Cushitic Horner populations".
2. Given the prospect of a lack of structuring of hg N, for one, along linguistic lines concerning the main Semitic and Cushitic speaking Ethiopian groups, begs the question of what you are basing your notion that these "Eurasian mtDNAs" correlate "mostly with the introduction of Ethio-Semetic languages into the Horn, around 3kya" on!
3. What is the "introduction of Ethio-Semitic languages around 3 kya, into the African Horn based on?
quote: If Ethiopiwn mtDNA I2 is indeed associated with the said admixture event, it seems unlikely that Ethiopian geneflow explains this lineage.
Talk about muddled up presentation of thought:
1. What is the "admixture event" here; is it the supposed "not excluding the possibility that this haplogroup group reached Egypt via the Horn, or...is it the supposed "introduction of Ethio-Semetic languages into the Horn, around 3kya"?
2. Either way, why would "Ethiopian gene flow" need to "explain" hg I2?
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
This talk of "Afro-Asiatic" is simply a racist ploy be orthodox Euro-anthropology. Asia is the world's biggest continent and its by-far largest population percentages are Sinoid(60%), Indoid(30%), Indo-European( 6%:Iran, Armenia, Turkey, Caucasus area) and the rest 4%.
So to label migrants from the Horn into the Arabian peninsula who then tracked back as "Afro-Asiatic' is just bogusly Eurocentric. And the Andaman Islanders? Asiatic?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ I agree, though actually proto-Semitic was said to have developed in 'Asia' (the Levant) among proto-Afrisian speakers from Africa. I agree that another name needs to be used for the language group than 'Asian'. I personally like Afro-Erythrean. By the way, the Andamanese ARE Asian and thus Asiatics.
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol: From what I could trace quickly, (with the help of wiki) Amhara Ethiopia Afro-Asiatic > Semitic 1/120 0.83% --Kivisild 2004
Beta Israel Ethiopia Afro-Asiatic > Cushitic 0/29 0.00% --Behar 2008a
From the same wiki source: Outside of Europe, the highest frequencies of mitochondrial haplogroup I observed so far appear in the Cushitic-speaking El Molo (23%) and Rendille (>17%) in northern Kenya (Castrì 2008).
According to Wiki, the only Ethio-Semitic speakers who carry hgI are Amhara less than 1% and Gurage at 4%, yet the highest percentages according to them outside of Europe are found among Cushitic speaking El Molo and Rendille. This is rather curious and bespeaks its association with something other than Semitic.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol: Now, Pusch and his colleagues, including Rabab Khairat, have carried out next-generation sequencing on five Egyptian mummified heads held at the University of Tübingen. The heads date from relatively late in ancient Egyptian history — between 806 bc and 124 ad.
The above time period corresponds with the 3rd Intermediate Period [the 23rd (Libyan) dynasty] up to Roman Imperial times. So how will that answer the following questions Pusch asks: “It would be nice to know more about the origins of the ancient Egyptians,” says Pusch. “Where did they come from? Where did they go? Are there still traces of ancestral DNA in today’s Egypt?”
One would think they would test mummies from earlier periods such as from the Old Kingdom if one wants to find 'origins'. Posted by Firewall (Member # 20331) on :
Son of Ra have seen this? or anybody else?
Candace of Meroe (1999)
24BC, Rome On the 15th March 44BC, Julius Caesar is assassinated in Rome. A new regime comes to birth when his adopted son, Octavius, becomes the first Emperor of the Roman Empire as Augustus on the 16th January 27BC. One African woman stands against the might of Rome. Her name is Kandake Amanirenas, otherwise known as Candace of Meroe.
Director: Jason Young
Writer: Jason Young (screenplay)
Stars: Grahame Edwards, Mari Ellingson, Richard Ward | See full cast and crew
quote:According to Wiki, the only Ethio-Semitic speakers who carry hgI are Amhara less than 1% and Gurage at 4%, yet the highest percentages according to them outside of Europe are found among Cushitic speaking El Molo and Rendille. This is rather curious and bespeaks its association with something other than Semitic.
As far as I know, Afrasan speaking Ethiopians, whether Semitic speakers or Cushitic speakers, cannot be differentiated based on mtDNA. They generally all have a very similar mtDNA profile. This, to me, hints at the scenario that most of their Eurasian mtDNAs derive from the same Semetic speaking population. Why? Kinda hard to imagine all these different Eurasian mtDNAs reaching seperate Ethiopian etnhic groups one by one, in very similar frequencies.
The Eurasian signal in Ethiopians (of course, not including much older Eurasian M1 and U6) has been has been dated to 3kya by Pagani et al 2012:
quote:Humans and their ancestors have traversed the Ethiopian landscape for millions of years, and present-day Ethiopians show great cultural, linguistic, and historical diversity, which makes them essential for understanding African variability and human origins. We genotyped 235 individuals from ten Ethiopian and two neighboring (South Sudanese and Somali) populations on an Illumina Omni 1M chip. Genotypes were compared with published data from several African and non-African populations. Principal-component and STRUCTURE-like analyses confirmed substantial genetic diversity both within and between populations, and revealed a match between genetic data and linguistic affiliation. Using comparisons with African and non-African reference samples in 40-SNP genomic windows, we identified “African” and “non-African” haplotypic components for each Ethiopian individual. The non-African component, which includes the SLC24A5 allele associated with light skin pigmentation in Europeans, may represent gene flow into Africa, which we estimate to have occurred ∼3 thousand years ago (kya). The non-African component was found to be more similar to populations inhabiting the Levant rather than the Arabian Peninsula, but the principal route for the expansion out of Africa ∼60 kya remains unresolved. Linkage-disequilibrium decay with genomic distance was less rapid in both the whole genome and the African component than in southern African samples, suggesting a less ancient history for Ethiopian populations.
Compare with the date associated with the yellow arrow going into Ethiopia, per Kitchen et al 2009:
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ So are you suggesting then that hg I2 is present among the aforementioned populations due to founder effect? And what about the Omotic speaking populations; do you include them under this common Eurasian mtDNA profile?
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ So are you suggesting then that hg I2 is present among the aforementioned populations due to founder effect? And what about the Omotic speaking populations; do you include them under this common Eurasian mtDNA profile?
From what I've gathered, Ethiopia in general, but Afro-Asiatic speakers in particular, including Omotic speakers, have been impacted by the same demic expansion ~3kya. The Eurasian portion of Cushitic, Semitic and Omotic speakers is very similar, although Omotic speakers seem to have retained more of their pre-semitic local heritage. See Plaster 2011 (p166).
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
Extinct languages
Gafat
[gft] Extinct. South Blue Nile area. Classification: Afro-Asiatic, Semitic, South, Ethiopian, South, Outer, n-Group
Geez
(Still used in the orthodox church and in religious manuscripts) [gez] Extinct. Also spoken in Eritrea. Alternate names: Ancient Ethiopic, Ethiopic, Ge’ez, Giiz.
Classification: Afro-Asiatic, Semitic, South, Ethiopian, North
Mesmes
[mys] Extinct. Gurage, Hadiyya, Kambatta Region. Dialects: Related to West Gurage.
[amh] 17,372,913 in Ethiopia (1998 census). 14,743,556 monolinguals. Population total all countries: 17,417,913. Ethnic population: 16,007,933 (1998 census). North central Ethiopia, Amhara Region, and in Addis Ababa. Also spoken in Egypt, Israel, Sweden. Alternate names: Abyssinian, Ethiopian, Amarinya, Amarigna.
[agj] 10,860 (1998 census). 44,737 monolinguals. Population includes 47,285 in Amharic, 3,771 in Oromo, 541 in Tigrigna (1998 census). Ethnic population: 62,831 (1998 census). Fragmented areas along the Rift Valley in settlements like Yimlawo, Gusa, Shonke, Berket, Keramba, Mellajillo, Metehara, Shewa Robit, and surrounding rural villages. Dialects: Ankober, Shonke. It is reported that the ‘purest’ Argobba is spoken in Shonke and T’olaha. Lexical similarity 75% to 85% with Amharic.
[har] 21,283 (1998 census). 2,351 monolinguals. 20,000 in Addis Ababa, outside Harar city (Hetzron 1997:486). Ethnic population: 21,757 (1998 census). Homeland Eastern, traditionally within the walled city of Harar. Large communities in Addis Ababa, Nazareth, and Dire Dawa. Alternate names: Hararri, Adare, Adere, Aderinya, Adarinnya, Gey Sinan.
[ior] 280,000. Population includes 50,000 Endegeny. West Gurage Region, Innemor and Endegeny woredas. Alternate names: Ennemor. Dialects: Enegegny (Enner). Part of a Gurage cluster of languages.
[gru] 254,682 (1998 census). Ethnic population: 363,867 (1998 census) including 4,000 Gogot. Gurage, Kambaata, Hadiyya Region, just southwest of Addis Ababa. Alternate names: Soddo, Soddo Gurage, North Gurage. Dialects: Soddo (Aymallal, Aymellel, Kestane, Kistane), Dobi (Dobbi, Gogot, Goggot). Not intelligible with Silte or West Gurage. Dobi speakers’ comprehension of Soddo is 76%, and Soddo speakers’ comprehension of Dobi is 90%.
[sgw] 440,000. Population includes Chaha 130,000, Gura 20,000, Muher 90,000, Gyeto 80,000, Ezha 120,000. West Gurage Region, Chaha is spoken in and around Emdibir, Gura is spoken in and around Gura Megenase and Wirir, Muher is spoken in and around Ch’eza and in the mountains north of Chaha and Ezha, Gyeto is spoken south of Ark’it’ in K’abul and K’want’e, Ezha is spoken in Agenna. Alternate names: Central West Gurage, West Gurage, Guragie, Gouraghie, Gurague. Dialects: Chaha (Cheha), Ezha (Eza, Izha), Gumer (Gwemarra), Gura, Gyeto, Muher. A member of the Gurage cluster of languages.
[xst] 827,764 (1998 census). Ethnic population: 900,348 (1998 census). About 150 km south of Addis Ababa. Alternate names: East Gurage, Selti, Silti. Dialects: Enneqor (Inneqor), Ulbarag (Urbareg), Wolane (Walane). Not intelligible with West or North Gurage. 40% or less intelligible with Chaha (Central West Gurage).
[tir] 3,224,875 in Ethiopia (1998 census). 2,819,755 monolinguals. Population total all countries: 4,449,875. Ethnic population: 3,284,568 (1998 census). Tigray Province. Also spoken in Eritrea, Germany, Israel. Alternate names: Tigrinya, Tigray.
Classification: Afro-Asiatic, Semitic, South, Ethiopian, North
Gafat
[gft] Extinct. South Blue Nile area. Classification: Afro-Asiatic, Semitic, South, Ethiopian, South, Outer, n-Group
Geez (Still used in the orthodox church and in religious manuscripts) [gez] Extinct. Also spoken in Eritrea. Alternate names: Ancient Ethiopic, Ethiopic, Ge’ez, Giiz.
Classification: Afro-Asiatic, Semitic, South, Ethiopian, North
Zay
[zwa] 4,880 (1994 SIL). Ethnic population: 4,880. Shores of Lake Zway and eastern islands in Lake Zway. Alternate names: Zway, Lak’i, Laqi, Gelilla. Dialects: No dialect variations. Lexical similarity 61% with Harari, 70% with Silte (M. L. Bender 1971).
"Omotic looks like being a reasonably nuclear member of [AA]. For example Blažek claims that for some 80 per cent of the names for parts
of the body found among the various Omotic languages cognates can be identified among the Chadic languages—which … is a family of languages situated on the other side of the African Continent"
The following comparison between OM and PIE is limited to Fleming's alleged OM/AA cognates. The comparison is also limited in another way: With few exceptions, OM is compared to one language, PIE, and not to all the 449 IE languages (Gordon 2005); including all languages in the comparison would have made it even easier to find similarities.
BE, CH, CU, EG, and SE forms are left out, but are found in 4.2-3. The source for IE forms is Mallory & Adams (2006), unless other works are referred to.
I have included data from Greenberg's (2000-2002) Eurasiatic (IE, Uralic, Altaic, Gilyak, Korean-Japanese-Ainu, Chukotian, and Eskimo-Aleut) and Ruhlen's (1994)«global etymologies ». Fleming's methods are similar to those of Greenberg and Ruhlen, and the EA and GE data emphasize the arbitrariness of Fleming's results.
Most resemblances in grammatical morphology between OM and AA are also found between OM and IE:
6 Conclusion
My conclusion is that Omotic should be treated as an independent language family. No convincing alternative has ever been presented.
Hayward (1995: 11) writes that «[i]t is, of course, a relief not to have Omotic as an isolate; we do not need a whole family of 'Basques' on our hands!» An alternative point of view is possible. Africa is the cradle of mankind.
Why are there no language isolates on a continent where humans have lived since language was invented?
Omotic livestock terminology and its implications for the history of Afroasiatic
The Omotic languages were the last branch of Afroasiatic to be formally recognised, and even today, some researchers would like to see them re-united with Cushitic. Nonetheless, following Bender (1975) and Hayward (1989), the acceptance of the distinctive nature of Omotic is the dominant paradigm. Bender (2000, 2003) has presented an overall picture of Omotic phonology, morphology and lexicon and collected together the majority of references as well as a variety of unpublished materials. The features of Omotic that continue to persuade authors such as Lamberti & Sottile (1997:19) it should be considered ‘West Cushitic’ are though by most researchers to be simply evidence of extensive long-term interactions between the two Afroasiatic branches.
Most likely, however, is that Omotic is simply older than the other branches of the phylum and this is in turn is because SW Ethiopia is the homeland of the phylum. If this is the case, then Omotic may well throw light on the primary expansion of Afroasiatic. Archaeology in this part of Ethiopia is too weak to advance any clear correlations, but it is possible to examine the Afroasiatic languages for possible reconstructions that may point to the lifeways of early speakers (Blench 2006).
A Typology of Verbal Derivation in Ethiopian Afro-Asiatic Languages, Dissertation put forward by; Tolemariam Fufa Teso
Promoters commissioners:
Prof. dr. M. Mous
Prof. dr. Baye Yimam (Addis Ababa University) Additional promoters:
Dr. Azeb Amha Prof. dr. O.D. Gensler (Addis Ababa University) Prof. dr. F.H.H Kortlandt Dr. L.I. Kulikov Dr. C.H. Reintges (CNRS-Université Paris 7) Prof. dr. H.J. Stroomer
quote:According to Wiki, the only Ethio-Semitic speakers who carry hgI are Amhara less than 1% and Gurage at 4%, yet the highest percentages according to them outside of Europe are found among Cushitic speaking El Molo and Rendille. This is rather curious and bespeaks its association with something other than Semitic.
As far as I know, Afrasan speaking Ethiopians, whether Semitic speakers or Cushitic speakers, cannot be differentiated based on mtDNA. They generally all have a very similar mtDNA profile. This, to me, hints at the scenario that most of their Eurasian mtDNAs derive from the same Semetic speaking population. Why? Kinda hard to imagine all these different Eurasian mtDNAs reaching seperate Ethiopian etnhic groups one by one, in very similar frequencies.
The Eurasian signal in Ethiopians (of course, not including much older Eurasian M1 and U6) has been has been dated to 3kya by Pagani et al 2012:
quote:Humans and their ancestors have traversed the Ethiopian landscape for millions of years, and present-day Ethiopians show great cultural, linguistic, and historical diversity, which makes them essential for understanding African variability and human origins. We genotyped 235 individuals from ten Ethiopian and two neighboring (South Sudanese and Somali) populations on an Illumina Omni 1M chip. Genotypes were compared with published data from several African and non-African populations. Principal-component and STRUCTURE-like analyses confirmed substantial genetic diversity both within and between populations, and revealed a match between genetic data and linguistic affiliation. Using comparisons with African and non-African reference samples in 40-SNP genomic windows, we identified “African” and “non-African” haplotypic components for each Ethiopian individual. The non-African component, which includes the SLC24A5 allele associated with light skin pigmentation in Europeans, may represent gene flow into Africa, which we estimate to have occurred ∼3 thousand years ago (kya). The non-African component was found to be more similar to populations inhabiting the Levant rather than the Arabian Peninsula, but the principal route for the expansion out of Africa ∼60 kya remains unresolved. Linkage-disequilibrium decay with genomic distance was less rapid in both the whole genome and the African component than in southern African samples, suggesting a less ancient history for Ethiopian populations.
Compare with the date associated with the yellow arrow going into Ethiopia, per Kitchen et al 2009:
The idea that Ethiopians are UNIFORMLY mixed with a recent migration of "Eurasian" populations is strictly nonsensical. Which tells me that some of the genes that they call "Eurasian" are actually African as we have discussed many times before. It is impossible to believe that such a large population of Africans is UNIFORMLY MIXED with some Eurasian population which is only 3,000 years old, but the Ethiopians as the paper studied are Millions of years old.
The point being how come these millions of year old Ethiopian populations aren't called out for the AFRICAN genetic impact they had on surrounding populations for the last million years? Why is the reverse case of some "Eurasian" component in the Ethiopian gene pool always being played up as being so significant? What are they trying to pretend that "Eurasians" have the same genetic importance on the human history tree as Ethiopians? Seriously? Are they trying to pretend that Europeans actually GAVE something significant to the Ethiopian gene pool, while ignoring the fact that Ethiopians and other Africans are the MOTHER gene pool of all humans? LOL!
But I wouldn't be surprised. Europeans are desperate in clinging to the notion that all humanity originated somehow in Europe. Note the following from CBS Sunday Morning from the end of April. They actually start off with NEANDERTHALS as if they represent the first humans! Anything to make it seem as if white Europeans are the first "humans". Not one mention of Africa which is the BIRTHPLACE of Africans AND the Neanderthal.
And they have the nerve to say that over time brown skin will be more common, when brown skin and black skin is the ORIGINAL skin color of mankind and has been the dominant skin color for most of human history..... These clowns never give up.
Genetic evidence of an early exit of Homo sapiens sapiens from Africa through eastern Africa
quote: The mitochondrial haplogroup M, first regarded as an ancient marker of East-Asian origin4, 5, has been found at high frequency in India6 and Ethiopia7, raising the question of its origin.(A haplogroup is a group of haplotypes that share some sequence variations.) Its variation and geographical distribution suggest that Asian haplogroup M separated from eastern-African haplogroup M more than 50,000 years ago.
Two other variants (489C and 10873C) also support a single origin of haplogroup M in Africa.
These findings, together with the virtual absence of haplogroup M in the Levant and its high frequency in the South-Arabian peninsula, render M the first genetic indicator for the hypothesized exit route from Africa through eastern Africa/western India. This was possibly the only successful early dispersal event of modern humans out of Africa.
To construct maternal phylogeny and prehistoric dispersals of modern human being in the Indian sub continent, a diverse subset of 641 complete mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) genomes belonging to macrohaplogroup M was chosen from a total collection of 2,783 control-region sequences, sampled from 26 selected tribal populations of India. On the basis of complete mtDNA sequencing, we identified 12 new haplogroups - M53 to M64; redefined/ascertained and characterized haplogroups M2, M3, M4, M5, M6, M8′C′Z, M9, M10, M11, M12-G, D, M18, M30, M33, M35, M37, M38, M39, M40, M41, M43, M45 and M49, which were previously described by control and/or coding-region polymorphisms. Our results indicate that the mtDNA lineages reported in the present study (except East Asian lineages M8′C′Z, M9, M10, M11, M12-G, D ) are restricted to Indian region.The deep rooted lineages of macrohaplogroup ‘M’ suggest in-situ origin of these haplogroups in India.
The mitochondrial haplogroup M which was first regarded as an ancient marker of East-Asian origin [30]–[31], had been found at high frequency in India [32] and Ethiopia [33], thus raising the question of its origin.
The presence of M haplogroup in Ethiopia, named M1, led to the proposal that haplogroup M originated in eastern Africa, approximately 60,000 years ago, and was carried towards Asia [34].
Phylogeographic distribution of mitochondrial DNA macrohaplogroup M in India
SUVENDU MAJI, S. KRITHIKA and T. S. VASULU∗
Biological Anthropology Unit, Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata 700 108, India
quote: Macrohaplogroup M (489-10400-14783-15043), excluding M1 which is east African, is distributed among most south, east and north Asians, Amerindians (containing a mi- nority of north and central Amerindians and a majority of south Amerindians), and many central Asians and Melane- sians.
On the other hand, macrohaplogroup N (8701-9540- 10398-10873-15301) has been reported among nearly all Europeans, west Asians, North Africans and Australian aborigines as well as among east Asians, South Asians, Amerindians (containing a majority of north and central Amerindians and a minority of south Amerindians), and Polynesians (Schurr et al. 1990; Ballinger et al. 1992; Chen et al. 1995; Torroni et al. 1996, 2001; Finnila ̈ et al. 2001; In- gman and Gyllensten 2001; Maca-Meyer et al. 2001, 2003; Salas et al. 2002; Kong et al. 2003; Mishmar et al. 2003).
Ethiopian Mitochondrial DNA Heritage: Tracking Gene Flow Across and Around the Gate of Tears
Am J Hum Genet. 2004 November; 75(5): 752–770. Published online 2004 September 27. PMCID: PMC1182106
Toomas Kivisild et al.
quote:
Haplogroup M Lineages in Ethiopians and Yemenis
Haplogroup M1 lineages constitute 17% of the Ethiopian mtDNA sequences, consistent with their high frequency in the region (Passarino et al. 1998; Quintana-Murci et al. 1999; Richards et al. 2003). Two subclades, which can be distinguished by coding-region RFLPs (Quintana-Murci et al. 1999)—M1a by 12345 RsaI (12346T) and M1b by 15883 AvaII (15884A)—together account for 56% of its variation. M1a is further characterized by a transition at np 16359 in HVS-I and is also present in the single Yemeni M1 sample (fig. 2B). M1a can be found together with M1* lineages in populations from the Near East, the Caucasus, and in Europe at marginally low frequencies (Corte-Real et al. 1996; Macaulay et al. 1999; Richards et al. 2000). The minor group M1b, defined by the motif 15884-16260-16320, is restricted to East Africans, having been observed, so far, only in Ethiopians (Quintana-Murci et al. 1999) and in Egypt (authors' unpublished results). It is interesting that the variable noncoding nucleotide 15884 also carries the derived A allele in one Moroccan M1* complete sequence, yet without the characteristic M1b HVS-I pattern (Maca-Meyer et al. 2001). M1a and M1b sequences are rare or absent in North Africans (Corte-Real et al. 1996; Rando et al. 1998; Brakez et al. 2001; Plaza et al. 2003). Instead, a third clade, M1c, defined by a transition at np 16185, covers most of haplogroup M1 variation in northwestern Africa, the Canary Islands, and the Near East. M1c has not been sampled yet among Ethiopians. It is intriguing that a Moroccan M1c complete sequence (Maca-Meyer et al. 2001) lacks the 813-6671-12950C mutations that define a common branch holding the M1a and M1b clades (fig. 4). It is notable that the other Moroccan M1 sequence with the 15884 mutation also lacks the 6671-12950C signature. In light of these data and because of the lack of other distinctive East African–specific mtDNA haplogroups in northwestern Africa, it is difficult to interpret the northwestern African haplogroup M1 variation as a derivative from the East African mtDNA pool.
^ ^ I agree, though actually proto-Semitic was said to have developed in 'Asia' (the Levant) among proto-Afrisian speakers from Africa.
I'd urge you to provide proof for this assertion, but then you are more than likely going to buckle under pressure from just a mildly complicated--if even that--question and bail out again. Repeating empty opinions over and over do not magically turn them into fact.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
As far as I know, Afrasan speaking Ethiopians, whether Semitic speakers or Cushitic speakers, cannot be differentiated based on mtDNA.
Hence, goes to reaffirm just how much of a klutz you are for struggling to tie a "Semitic origin" to the origin of Ehtiopian mtDNA gene pools, which you self-convincingly call "Eurasian", apparently for nothing more than to just satisfy a silly emotional hunger.
quote:They generally all have a very similar mtDNA profile. This, to me, hints at the scenario that most of their Eurasian mtDNAs derive from the same Semetic speaking population.
The "same" fairy-tale "Semitic speaking population" which I'm pretty sure you are just dying to reveal to us, with substantive proof than toothless barking, aren't you? LOL
quote:Why? Kinda hard to imagine all these different Eurasian mtDNAs reaching seperate Ethiopian etnhic groups one by one, in very similar frequencies.
Let me clue you in on what's really hard to imagine: That you are anything but dumber than a brick for even entertaining something as profoundly stupid as you are above.
As for the quote, the copy & paste parrot posts...
quote:The Eurasian signal in Ethiopians (of course, not including much older Eurasian M1 and U6) has been has been dated to 3kya by Pagani et al 2012:
The non-African component, which includes the SLC24A5 allele associated with light skin pigmentation in Europeans, may represent gene flow into Africa, which we estimate to have occurred ∼3 thousand years ago (kya).
1. The notion that SLC24A5 allele is unequivocally "non-African", is nothing more than subjective opining by the source above. Ethiopian populations and southern African San hunter-gatherers have both tested positive for the gene variant, on top of other sub-Saharan groups; the key here, is that both populations are reputed to represent the living remnants of relatively deep-rooted ancestry, when compared to other populations.
2. Perhaps the source were relying on other components of the gene pool outside of the SLC24A5 marker, but it is almost next to impossible to have any concrete or reliable dating of pigmentation gene variants.
quote: The non-African component was found to be more similar to populations inhabiting the Levant rather than the Arabian Peninsula
Yep, and an obvious blow to speculators whose favorite ideological theories of the supposed "Semitic" coming into the Horn from outside seem to be one of by way of the southern part of the Arabian peninsula. I've made a note of this for years and years; only now, has this dawned on the source cited above!
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
The idea that Ethiopians are UNIFORMLY mixed with a recent migration of "Eurasian" populations is strictly nonsensical. Which tells me that some of the genes that they call "Eurasian" are actually African as we have discussed many times before. It is impossible to believe that such a large population of Africans is UNIFORMLY MIXED with some Eurasian population which is only 3,000 years old, but the Ethiopians as the paper studied are Millions of years old.
Try cluing swenet with some common sense, but it is an uphill battle to tell you the truth.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol: Phylogeographic distribution of mitochondrial DNA macrohaplogroup M in India
SUVENDU MAJI, S. KRITHIKA and T. S. VASULU∗
Biological Anthropology Unit, Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata 700 108, India
quote: Macrohaplogroup M (489-10400-14783-15043), excluding M1 which is east African, is distributed among most south, east and north Asians, Amerindians (containing a mi- nority of north and central Amerindians and a majority of south Amerindians), and many central Asians and Melane- sians.
On the other hand, macrohaplogroup N (8701-9540- 10398-10873-15301) has been reported among nearly all Europeans, west Asians, North Africans and Australian aborigines as well as among east Asians, South Asians, Amerindians (containing a majority of north and central Amerindians and a minority of south Amerindians), and Polynesians (Schurr et al. 1990; Ballinger et al. 1992; Chen et al. 1995; Torroni et al. 1996, 2001; Finnila ̈ et al. 2001; In- gman and Gyllensten 2001; Maca-Meyer et al. 2001, 2003; Salas et al. 2002; Kong et al. 2003; Mishmar et al. 2003).
No, they didn't!...in any way just associate M1 with African ancestry! LOL
Lightheartedness aside, the piece you cited following this one hones in on the matter around M1 African phylogeny. Indeed, as I also directed attention to both here and on my blog, M1's origin was likely not in eastern Africa, but rather, in either the western part or the middle regions of the Sahara, before subsequently diversifying in eastern Africa, and spilling over to the so-called "Near East".
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Hence, goes to reaffirm just how much of a klutz you are for struggling to tie a "Semitic origin" to the origin of Ehtiopian mtDNA gene pools, which you self-convincingly call "Eurasian", apparently for nothing more than to just satisfy a silly emotional hunger.
And the part that is inconsistent about my noting the resemblance of the mtDNA profiles of Cushitic and Semitic speaking horners is, what exactly?
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: That you are anything but dumber than a brick for even entertaining something as profoundly stupid as you are above.
Same applies here: lay out what's inconsistent about me stating that the similarity of the mtDNA profiles of Cushitic and Semitic speaking Ethiopians is due to both having split off from the same community.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Ethiopian populations and southern African San hunter-gatherers have both tested positive for the gene variant, on top of other sub-Saharan groups
Sources please.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: the key here, is that both populations are reputed to represent the living remnants of relatively deep-rooted ancestry, when compared to other populations.
Which bars them from having non-African ancestry? What exactly is key about this random injection?
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: but it is almost next to impossible to have any concrete or reliable dating of pigmentation gene variants.
Source?
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Yep, and an obvious blow to speculators whose favorite ideological theories of the supposed "Semitic" coming into the Horn from outside
So, are you saying that the Semetic language didn't spread from the Levant, per the linguistic evidence? Exactly how is Pagani et al's genetically based observation that the Eurasian componant in the Ethiopian genome fits this linguisitc expectation, a ''blow'' to the idea that these languages came from the outside?
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
My comment about your excessively silly attempt at painting what you self-convincingly call “Eurasian” in Ethiopian mtDNA profile as “Semitic in origin” is pretty self-explanatory to anyone who can do something as basic as assemble alphabets together. As for the incessant red-herring about “inconsistency”, not an issue; rather, it’s more a matter of your conclusion not following the inbuilt logic of a certain fact which you are forced to acknowledge.
quote:lay out what's inconsistent about me stating that the similarity of the mtDNA profiles of Cushitic and Semitic speaking Ethiopians is due to both having split off from the same community.
You know “same community”--which you just introduced--is not the issue; amateurish deception is futile; the fairy-tale “Semitic origin” of the Ethiopian gene pool is, of course.
quote:
quote:Ethiopian populations and southern African San hunter-gatherers have both tested positive for the gene variant, on top of other sub-Saharan groups
Sources please.
See, for example, Genetic Evidence for the Convergent Evolution of Light Skin in Europeans and East Asians, courtesy Norton et al. 2006.
quote:Which bars them from having non-African ancestry? What exactly is key about this random injection?
Do you have proof that the San bushmen got lighter primarily because of “admixture” from “Eurasia”. If so, post it! The ball is really in your court.
quote:
quote:but it is almost next to impossible to have any concrete or reliable dating of pigmentation gene variants.
Source?
Tell me how, a gene that is very likely under selective pressure, is a reliable candidate for solid dating? The fact that you even have to question me on this, shows just how out of touch you are with the genetics discipline.
quote:
quote:Yep, and an obvious blow to speculators whose favorite ideological theories of the supposed "Semitic" coming into the Horn from outside
So, are you saying that the Semetic language didn't spread from the Levant, per the linguistic evidence? Exactly how is Pagani et al's genetically based observation that the Eurasian componant in the Ethiopian genome fits this linguisitc expectation, a ''blow'' to the ''speculators'' you're referring to?
It’s clear you have trouble understanding the English language, as I just provided the reason as to why the so-called “Arabian” origins of Ethio-Semitic suffers a blow from genetic information; duh: the Ethiopian gene pool, that you love to gratuitously dismiss as “Eurasian”, is relatively closer to that in area north of Arabia than it is to southern Arabia, which is where most speculators love to stake their ideological theories on. For you, I’ll spell out the otherwise obvious: if their gene pool is from Semitic speakers of such ancestry, then their gene pool should be more similar to south Arabians than it does people north of the Arabian peninsula. Do you get it now, kiddo?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: As for the incessant red-herring about “inconsistency”, not an issue; rather, it’s more a matter of your conclusion not following the inbuilt logic of a certain fact which you are forced to acknowledge.
Typical. Denies that inconsistency is the issue, and then goes on to point out there is an inconsistency between my conclusion and ''a certain fact''. Again, what is this inconsistent about my conclusion and the fact that Cushitic and Semitic mtDNA profiles are similar?
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: See, for example, Genetic Evidence for the Convergent Evolution of Light Skin in Europeans and East Asians, courtesy Norton et al. 2006.
Thought so. Your objection that SLC24A5 isn't ''unequivocally non-African'' is predicated on the existence of a few Africans here and there who carry the allele, which, if this bankrupt reasoning is applied across the board, no alleles have a single origin. After all, in this day and age, there is always some individual somewhere who carries a marker that isn't from that locale.
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: If so, post it! The ball is really in your court.
You can't even justify your random invocation of the presence of ''relatively deep-rooted ancestry'' in Ethiopians, without further embarrassing yourself with a lame attempt to let others take the fall for a random claim you felt the need to interject--from out of nowhere.
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: Tell me how, a gene that is very likely under selective pressure, is a reliable candidate for solid dating?
Genes under selective pressure are dated all the time. You provide no source that this is generally frowned upon, or seen as unreliable in academic circles, as expected. On top of that, the fact that your criticisms against Pagani et al are confused and incoherent is further indicated by the fact that the Ethiopian SLC24A5 alleles themselves weren't even dated by Pagani et al.
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: if their gene pool is from Semitic speakers of such ancestry, then their gene pool should be more similar to south Arabians than it does people north of the Arabian peninsula.
Again, your reasoning is very confused, and sounds like something someone would say who is in the dark about demographic changes that have impacted Yemenites since the settlement of South Arabian speakers ~3kya. Note also that it isn't a given that the average Arabic speaking Yemenite, or even the modern descendants of the South Arabian speakers with which Ethio-Semitic languages form a clade within the Semitic family, retain the ancestry of this Semitic wave as well as modern Levantines have.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
Genes under selective pressure are dated all the time. You provide no source that this is generally frowned upon, or seen as unreliable in academic circles, as expected. On top of that, the fact that your criticisms against Pagani et al are confused and incoherent is further indicated by the fact that the Ethiopian SLC24A5 alleles themselves weren't even dated by Pagani et al.
Perhaps the source were relying on other components of the gene pool outside of the SLC24A5 marker, but it is almost next to impossible to have any concrete or reliable dating of pigmentation gene variants. - Explorer
Is your eyesight sharp enough to enable you to tell the difference between this and the nonsense you wrote above, or is it too failing you like what is supposed to be your brain?
As for the gratuitous begging for a source on genes under selection, my friend, it is simply something that anybody with even a slight understanding of genetics would know.
quote: Again, your reasoning is very confused, and sounds like something someone would say who is in the dark about demographic changes that have impacted Yemenites since the settlement of South Arabian speakers ~3kya. Note also that it isn't a given that the average Arabic speaking Yemenite, or even the modern descendants of the South Arabian speakers with which Ethio-Semitic languages form a clade within the Semitic family, retain the ancestry of this Semitic wave as well as modern Levantines have.
[Ps: Well spoken...that is, about as well as a dullard who is "in the dark" about actual Ethiopian mitochondrial genetic profiles] Let me guess where the cool "Yemenites" must have gone: to another, unknown galaxy, in the universe; ain't that so? Translation: You are full of shyt...and you know it! Give it a rest, baby. Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: Is your eyesight sharp enough to enable you to tell the difference between this and the nonsense you wrote above
Yes it is, and judging by your acute amnesia regarding some of the other criticism you levied against Pagani et al, and confusion as to how they play into what I told you, you on the other hand, seem to have more to worry about than a fairly innocent lacking eyesight.
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: As for the gratuitous begging for a source on genes under selection, my friend, it is simply something that anybody with even a slight understanding of genetics would know.
Without further stalling and giving me another round of hot air, where is your source that genes under selection can’t be reliably dated?
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: Let me guess where the cool "Yemenites" must have gone: to another, unknown galaxy, in the universe; ain't that so?
That you see well established Yemenite demographic changes after and immediate before the common era (e.g., influx of Bantu speakers, South Asians, Jews) as so surprising that you see the discussion of such facts as akin to random science fiction is obviously a function of your complete bewilderedness when it comes to the subject matter at hand, and possibly shabby mental faculties in general. Indeed, you’re so bewildered that you can’t even explain perceived inconsistencies in my writings nor were you able to explain your own random invocation of deep-rooted clades in Ethiopians.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
Yes it is, and judging by your acute amnesia regarding some of the other criticism you levied against Pagani et al, and confusion as to how they play into what I told you, you on the other hand, seem to have more to worry about than a fairly innocent lacking eyesight.
When you are stupid enough to mistake a direct quote for "amnesia", then kid, it's a warning sign to stop sweating it -- this stuff is way over your head. Let loose damage control, pick up a book and learn how to read a word or two.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
Without further stalling and giving me another round of hot air, where is your source that genes under selection can’t be reliably dated?
blockhead, you need a “source” to clue you, rather than from common sense--a “luxury” you clearly ought to seek out, in on? … the propensity of these genes to LACK neutrality towards time or rate of mutation!…or other words, munchkin, that they throw off track any predictability factor about either the pace or temporal inclinations of mutation (hint: even the hyper-polymorphic and seemingly more neutral sites, like say--tandem repeats, have their own challenging polymorphic-irregularities to contend with, so as to make any appropriation of concrete dating attainable, let alone sites under pressure). Tell me how something of that nature is a candidate for concrete dating?
Try your hand at learning the rudimentary stuff before getting wasted on copy & past parroting, and thereby begging the same of others!
PS: As for the concept of stalling…realizations of those imaginary "Semitic origins" of Ethiopian "Eurasian"-mtDNA gene pool that you alone seem to see, the supposed "Eurasian" contribution of the SLC24A5 allele into San hunter-gatherer [and other sub-Saharan Africans] gene pool, or your nowhere-to-be-found molecular basis of "Eurasian" genesis of either U6 or M1...come to mind when you bring up the whining about "stall" -- no, why wouldn't I do that.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
That you see well established Yemenite demographic changes after and immediate before the common era (e.g., influx of Bantu speakers, South Asians, Jews) as so surprising
I'd say the disappearance of the Yemenites and their subsequent replacement, which you now simply term "demographic changes", is something to be surprised about. Where did they go; were they exterminated, migrate to another galaxy; what?
quote: that you see the discussion of such facts as akin to random science fiction is obviously a function of your complete bewilderedness when it comes to the subject matter at hand, and possibly shabby mental faculties in general.
So, your understanding of a "fact" is act of saying something without the ability of offering its material foundation. Did you come from some sort of a parallel universe where this is the case?
quote: Indeed, you’re so bewildered that you can’t even explain perceived inconsistencies in my writings nor were you able to explain your own random invocation of deep-rooted clades in Ethiopians.
Now there, cut the all-day weeping about "inconsistencies"; if you want some, try these...again:
1. the idea that "Semitic origins" is responsible for Ethiopian mtDNA, which you have no way of showing to be demarcated along linguistic lines, does NOT follow from the fact you were forced to acknowledge: that there is no such demarcation!
2. the idea that the alternative to the above, can only be to imagine different "Eurasian" groups introducing different "Eurasian" mtDNA "uniformly" into Ethiopian groups is not only profoundly stupid, it too does NOT follow from the fact you were forced to acknowledge: that there is no such demarcation!
Happy yet, kid?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Genome-Wide Diversity in the Levant Reveals Recent Structuring by Culture 2013 Marc Haber,Dominique Gauguier, Sonia Youhanna,
The population tree (Figure 3A) splits Levantine populations in two branches: one leading to Europeans and Central Asians that includes Lebanese, Armenians, Cypriots, Druze and Jews, as well as Turks, Iranians and Caucasian populations; and a second branch composed of Palestinians, Jordanians, Syrians, as well as North Africans, Ethiopians, Saudis, and Bedouins. The tree shows a correlation between religion and the population structures in the Levant: all Jews (Sephardi and Ashkenazi) cluster in one branch; Druze from Mount Lebanon and Druze from Mount Carmel are depicted on a private branch; and Lebanese Christians form a private branch with the Christian populations of Armenia and Cyprus placing the Lebanese Muslims as an outer group. The predominantly Muslim populations of Syrians, Palestinians and Jordanians cluster on branches with other Muslim populations as distant as Morocco and Yemen.
ADMIXTURE identifies at K = 10 an ancestral component (light green) with a geographically restricted distribution representing ~50% of the individual component in Ethiopians, Yemenis, Saudis, and Bedouins, decreasing towards the Levant, with higher frequency (~25%) in Syrians, Jordanians, and Palestinians, compared with other Levantines (4%–20%). The geographical distribution pattern of this component (Figure 4A, 4B) correlates with the pattern of the Islamic expansion, but its presence in Lebanese Christians, Sephardi and Ashkenazi Jews, Cypriots and Armenians might suggest that its spread to the Levant could also represent an earlier event.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
lioness, so how do you think these findings above tie into Ethiopian mtDNA and Y-DNA gene pool, when it comes to their supposed relationship with Yemeni gene pool?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: When you are stupid enough to mistake a direct quote for "amnesia",
When you’re stupid enough to not realize that ’’criticisms’’ is in plural, and that it therefore includes your other criticism of Pagani et al as well, I’d say you not only have a pretty severe case of amnesia, but that the ‘stupid’ appellation fits you to a t.
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: you need a “source” to clue you, rather than from common sense--a “luxury” you clearly ought to seek out, in on?
No source I see. Good boy. You realize that dating genes under selective pressure is commonplace, and you opted to bail out of citing a source that says ’’ it is almost next to impossible’’ to reliably date genes under selection.
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: I'd say the disappearance of the Yemenites and their subsequent replacement, which you now simply term "demographic changes", is something to be surprised about. Where did they go; were they exterminated, migrate to another galaxy; what?
I see your severe case of amnesia is coming up again. Let me put those misfiring and dementing neurones back on track again: your bizarre ’’disappearance’’ figment came out of nowhere, after I told you that the said demographic changes occurred. If you then bizarrely think it bespeaks proper mental functioning to address this readily observable fact by going off on a tangent about intergalactic travel, that’s something you have to deal with, perhaps with professional mental help--not me.
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: So, your understanding of a "fact" is act of saying something without the ability of offering its material foundation.
The ‘fact’ bit that you’re talking about here, was originally meant to refer to post 3kya admixture events in Yemen. Are you saying that this is without material foundation?
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: the idea that "Semitic origins" is responsible for Ethiopian mtDNA, which you have no way of showing to be demarcated along linguistic lines, does NOT follow from the fact you were forced to acknowledge: that there is no such demarcation!
The notion that that’s a non-sequitor only makes sense if mtDNAs necessarily travel with languages. Since that isn’t the case, it follows that you then must not make sense.
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: the idea that the alternative to the above, can only be to imagine different "Eurasian" groups introducing different "Eurasian" mtDNA "uniformly" into Ethiopian groups is not only profoundly stupid, it too does NOT follow from the fact you were forced to acknowledge: that there is no such demarcation!
Where your first statement would have been correct if the premise was correct (which it isn't), this here is a total figment of your imagination. I've never said anything about ''different Eurasian groups'' introducing ''different Eurasian mtDNA". No doubt a function of your degrading mental faculties.
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: is not only profoundly stupid
What is profoundly stupid is that you embrace the Pagani et al's bit where they say that the Ethiopian component with questionable origins has more affinity with Levantines than Yemenites, with the intention of arguing against the Eurasian origin of Ethio-Semitic languages, even though the South Arabian linguistic clade would originally have Levantine ancestry, and hence, the Ethiopian component in Ethiopians would therefore not even need to be closer to Yemenite ancestry. Even that aside, relatively closer to Levantines than Yemenites is STILL Eurasian, and therefore, not inconsistent with this linguistic clade having origins in Eurasia. Beyond profoundly stupid.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: lioness, so how do you think these findings above tie into Ethiopian mtDNA and Y-DNA gene pool, when it comes to their supposed relationship with Yemeni gene pool?
I thought there might be something in this article pertinant to your debate with Sweetnet. I could be wrong
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
I thought there might be something in this article pertinant to your debate with Sweetnet. I could be wrong
Hence, my asking you, what you seem to think is that "pertinent thing"!
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
When you’re stupid enough to not realize that ’’criticisms’’ is in plural
dumbfuck, the direct quote was produced in response to this absent-minded gratuitous allegation:
On top of that, the fact that your criticisms against Pagani et al are confused and incoherent is further indicated by the fact that the Ethiopian SLC24A5 alleles themselves weren't even dated by Pagani et al. - swenet
And you convince yourself that it is others who suffer from "a severe case of amnesia". LOL
quote:No source I see. Good boy. You realize that dating genes under selective pressure is commonplace, and you opted to bail out of citing a source that says ’’ it is almost next to impossible’’ to reliably date genes under selection.
I realize people saying Ethiopians are "caucasoid", or hear of a "white" ancient Egypt, are a common place, dummy, but I also realize that it is not accurate. That you have to ask for a source for something that should have been a given, says that you are straining the capacity of your brain, taking part in a topic that is obviously too steep for your intellectual exercise.
Speaking of "bailing out", why is it that silence is your only capable response to this: Tell me how something of that nature is a candidate for concrete dating?...[recap--given that non-neutral genes throw off track any predictability factor about either the pace or temporal inclinations of mutation]
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
I see your severe case of amnesia is coming up again. Let me put those misfiring and dementing neurones back on track again: your bizarre ’’disappearance’’ figment came out of nowhere, after I told you that the said demographic changes occurred.
Oh, so, your sudden broaching of "demographic changes", after having been informed of the fact that the finding of your own source actually serves as a blow to your ideology, was not just an underhanded way of trying to explain away the incompatibility of Ethiopian gene pool with a south Arabian source, supposedly dating to just 3kya, that backfired?
Prey tell, how "demographic changes" then, are supposed to erase considerable genealogical harmony between the prime living descendants of a source population (supposedly ancient Yemenites) and a supposed satellite "descendant" population (Ethiopian/Ethio-Semites) in the African Horn, without insinuating that the genetic imprint of that source has been effectively erased in what is supposed to be the prime descendant populations, while said imprint supposedly survives on in the Ethiopian populations?
Here's something to think about: if you are saying that the genetic imprint of a source population is "erased" in what should be its prime descendant offshoot, then whether or not you realize it, you are advocating population replacement.
quote: If you then bizarrely think it bespeaks proper mental functioning to address this readily observable fact by going off on a tangent about intergalactic travel, that’s something you have to deal with, perhaps with professional mental help--not me.
There is no "readily observable fact" about your science fiction theories of what supposedly came of the Yemeni populations.
quote: The ‘fact’ bit that you’re talking about here, was originally meant to refer to post 3kya admixture events in Yemen. Are you saying that this is without material foundation?
Yes, I'm saying that your underhanded insinuation that the living Yemeni populations do not preserve ancestry of their forebears as well as living Ethiopians supposedly do, presumably because migrations to the area from elsewhere had taken place, is without material foundation.
quote:The notion that that’s a non-sequitor only makes sense if mtDNAs necessarily travel with languages. Since that isn’t the case, it follows that you then must not make sense.
Then you are guilty of a non-sequitur, since the inherent message of your placement of a "Semitic origin" onto Ethiopia's supposedly "Eurasian"-derived mtDNA, is predicated on the spread of that language phylum with said genes. Otherwise, you would not have made the connection between "Semitic" origin and the supposed "Eurasian" mtDNA in Ethiopia.
quote:Where your first statement would have been correct if the premise was correct (which it isn't), this here is a total figment of your imagination. I've never said anything about ''different Eurasian groups'' introducing ''different Eurasian mtDNA". No doubt a function of your degrading mental faculties.
You may have used clumsier terms, but I effectively captured your logic: you essentially spoke of the only other alternative to your first theory, a supposed "Semitic orgin", could only be to have "different" sources (supposedly "Eurasian"] contributing "different elements" of "Eurasian" mtDNA in "similar" capacity across the main Ethiopian populations.
A goat is a goat, no matter how many different ways you dress it, or not. LOL
quote:What is profoundly stupid is that you embrace the Pagani et al's bit where they say that the Ethiopian component with questionable origins has more affinity with Levantines than Yemenites, with the intention of arguing against the Eurasian origin of Ethio-Semitic languages, even though the South Arabian linguistic clade would originally have Levantine ancestry, and hence, the Ethiopian component in Ethiopians would therefore not even need to be closer to Yemenite ancestry.
You indulge in yet another profound stupidity even as you humorously charge me of the same. LOL
It stumps you, to dawn on you that the Yemeni gene pool would be more likely to show strong correspondence with Ethiopians, if your nutty south Arabian origins were in fact, closer to fact than fiction. Saying that the south Arabians would have ultimately derived from the Levant, does not absolve you from the embarrassing misfortune of having to contend with a lack of strong genetic correspondence between south Arabian populations and Ethiopians.
You are more than willing to say that Yemeni languages possess strong correspondence with the Ethiopians, implying that they managed to preserve that, while they supposedly managed to have done away with the genetic component of the responsible heritage.
quote:Even that aside, relatively closer to Levantines than Yemenites is STILL Eurasian, and therefore, not inconsistent with this linguistic clade having origins in Eurasia. Beyond profoundly stupid.
dumbass, the "relatively closer" does not by default turn something into Eurasians. You talk as if you have never ever heard of such a thing as genetic exchange, or gene flow, which can go either way!
You are truly a dumbass. Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
I can't help but also get the resounding impression that you are oblivious to actual Ethiopian mtDNA, AND Y-DNA gene pools. While certain Ethiopian elements may show close ties with those in the Levant, it is also known that Ethiopian Y-DNA and mtDNA gene pools do not find duplicity in even the Levant, which is said to show closer correspondence than the Arabian peninsula. I've recaptured specific examples on this in a different bu somewhat related thread. Rather, in many cases, Ethiopian gene pools find their immediate or closer matches in northern coastal Africa than they do either the Levant or the Arabian peninsula.
Also, you are not making sense, when you tie "Semitic origin" with the genesis of so-called Ethiopian "Eurasian" maternal gene pool, given that elements in the Y-DNA are better at featuring gradients along linguistic lines...thereby implying that somehow the imprint of the "Semitic" source population managed to structure itself relatively better along linguistic lines across Ethiopian populations in one type of gene pool but not the other.
This also tacitly implies that the migrant "Semitic" source population came in with more female company than it could handle, thereby presumably making them available to other non-Semitic speaking segments of the Ethiopian population, and paving way to the lack of discernible structuring of the maternal line along linguistic grounds.
The above in turn would tacitly imply that the females of the "Semitic" source population must have been very hot in demand, such that their lineage would find such wide distribution across core Ethiopian populations.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
It is funny how white folks are so concerned about "Eurasians" in Africa thousands of years ago as if they really think Africa was overrun by white folks that far back in history, yet they ignore the proof of their own genetic history and being overrun by the same Eurasians and "Africans" in multiple waves. Eurasian being any person from the Levant to India.
quote: DNA sequenced from nearly 40 ancient skeletons has shed light on the complex prehistoric events that shaped modern European populations.
A study of remains from Central Europe suggests the foundations of the modern gene pool were laid down between 4,000 and 2,000 BC - in Neolithic times.
These changes were likely brought about by the rapid growth and movement of some populations.
The work by an international team is published in Nature Communications.
Decades of study of the DNA patterns of modern Europeans suggests two major events in prehistory significantly affected the continent's genetic landscape: its initial peopling by hunter-gatherers in Palaeolithic times (35,000 years ago) and a wave of migration by Near Eastern farmers some 6,000 years ago. (in the early Neolithic)
^^^ the article doesn't mention African what are you talking about?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: the direct quote was produced in response to this absent-minded gratuitous allegation
You must be one of those weirdoes who like talking to no one in particular, since you’re reiterating something no one is denying and was already acknowledged when I said that ’criticisms’ is in plural.
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: I realize people saying Ethiopians are "caucasoid", or hear of a "white" ancient Egypt, are a common place, dummy, but I also realize that it is not accurate.
With the difference being that an infinitely stronger case can be made for the contrary, which you have, and still fail to do when it comes to ’’it is almost next to impossible to reliably date genes under selection’’. Stop b!tching and produce a source already.
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: Tell me how something of that nature is a candidate for concrete dating?
As with any scientific discipline, there can be models devised for this, where the effect of uncertainty inducing variables is minimized by including them into the TMRCA equation. You obviously have no idea how science works, that you’d ask me such a preposterous question.
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: Prey tell, how "demographic changes" then, are supposed to erase
That’s a question YOU need to ask yourself, dummy. I get the feeling that you still don’t understand how retarded you sound when you equate the assimilation of new groups with the elimination of population segments. Any repeat of the said incoherent mumbo jumbo henceforth will be taken to mean that you must be mentally dysfunctional.
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: Then you are guilty of a non-sequitur, since the inherent message of your placement of a "Semitic origin" onto Ethiopia's supposedly "Eurasian"-derived mtDNA, is predicated on the spread of that language phylum with said genes. Otherwise, you would not have made the connection between "Semitic" origin and the supposed "Eurasian" mtDNA in Ethiopia.
You’re simply rephrasing your earlier garbage, which I had already flushed down the toilet by schooling you on the fact that the connection I made still stands despite the mtDNA conformity of the speakers in question, since the spread of mtDNAs need not co-vary with the languages of the migrating parties. You deliberately confound the two (which makes your argument a non-sequitor [not mine]) in your pathetic need to keep the Ethiopian genepool free of outside influences--lame.
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: but I effectively captured your logic:
That I’m right in that you distorted what I said can be easily seen in that your paraphrase of what I allegedly said doesn’t even conform to what you’re accusing me of elsewhere (i.e., on one occasion you say I supposedly spoke of different mtDNA bearing Eurasian groups impacting Ethiopian groups and on the other occasion [when you see non-sequitors where there are none] you say I argue that the mtDNA profiles of Ethiopian Cushitic and Semitic speakers are interchangeable). You can’t even get your sh!t together. You’re being called out for more than enough phuckups to be tripping over your own words. Keep you pants up, bwoy.
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: that the Yemeni gene pool would be more likely to show strong correspondence with Ethiopians, if your nutty south Arabian origins were in fact, closer to fact than fiction.
It still hasn’t dawned on you that the Yemenite proper population pre-dates the South Arabian speakers, has it? Otherwise it would have occurred to you that using Yemenites as a proxy for the said South Arabian speakers is self-expository of your rather marginal understanding of the issue at hand, without me having to clue you into this fact 4 times in a row.
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: of having to contend with a lack of strong genetic correspondence between south Arabian populations and Ethiopians.
This just proves the above, i.e., that your cosmic unsophistication in these matters is what leads you to conclude that all Yemenites are South Arabian speakers, and that you, in your astronomic obtuseness, even try to turn a linguistic clade into a geographic population (i.e., South Arabian languages).
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: the "relatively closer" does not by default turn something into Eurasians.
He-who-takes-the-cake-in-obtuseness, stop being such a knuckle head. The Ethiopian component in question shows genetic traces of admixture events that can be dated to less than 3kya—a conclusion you’ve been pathetically trying to avoid ever since that abstract was posted. It’s a wrap, bwoy, you’re done.
Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
Cosmic unsophistication. LOL!!! This coming from a pretend geneticist. hohohehehehahaha
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
You must be one of those weirdoes who like talking to no one in particular, since you’re reiterating something no one is denying and was already acknowledged when I said that ’criticisms’ is in plural.
You are the dumbass wierdo who makes dense-headed gratuitous accusations, and then forget what those accusations were, in just mere seconds after making them. Brain activity is not one of your strong suits.
quote: With the difference being that an infinitely stronger case can be made for the contrary, which you have, and still fail to do when it comes to ’’it is almost next to impossible to reliably date genes under selection’’. Stop b!tching and produce a source already.
No can do, until you are able to get past being a numbnut and actually cater to this, other than resounding silence of ignorance on the topic:
1. Tell me how something of that nature is a candidate for concrete dating?...[recap--given that non-neutral genes throw off track any predictability factor about either the pace or temporal inclinations of mutation]
2. While at it, when will you grow the balls to substantiate what makes the SLC24A5 gene, as found in Ethiopians, and the San bushmen, "non-African", other than this being nothing more than ideological hotair that makes you feel good?
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote: As with any scientific discipline, there can be models devised for this, where the effect of uncertainty inducing variables is minimized by including them into the TMRCA equation.
Good, mr. goofball, who supposedly knows "how science works" more than anybody: start by telling me how the "effect of uncertainty inducing variables is minimized" in making it magically possible to get reliably-concrete dating on a gene(s) clearly under positive selection
quote: That’s a question YOU need to ask yourself, dummy. I get the feeling that you still don’t understand how retarded you sound when you equate the assimilation of new groups with the elimination of population segments.
LOL. I need to ask myself a question around some dumb allegation that none other than you had made. What warped up planet do you come from, seriously?
Besides, if you are not advocating "replacement", then why does Ethiopian mtDNA and Y-DNA gene pool profile not fit into your south Arabian-origin fairy tale?
quote:
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: Then you are guilty of a non-sequitur, since the inherent message of your placement of a "Semitic origin" onto Ethiopia's supposedly "Eurasian"-derived mtDNA, is predicated on the spread of that language phylum with said genes. Otherwise, you would not have made the connection between "Semitic" origin and the supposed "Eurasian" mtDNA in Ethiopia.
You’re simply rephrasing your earlier garbage, which I had already flushed down the toilet by schooling you on the fact that the connection I made still stands despite the mtDNA conformity of the speakers in question, since the spread of mtDNAs need not co-vary with the languages of the migrating parties.
Facts are not generated magically, because you call any nonsense that comes out of you as such. You'll have to do a lot more than just empty barking. Who says that mtDNA cannot correlate to the language distribution, while Y-DNA can, and why! Dummy, do these markers come with people...who speak a language?
quote:
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: but I effectively captured your logic:
That I’m right in that you distorted what I said can be easily seen in that your paraphrase of what I allegedly said doesn’t even conform to what you’re accusing me of elsewhere
Cutting off my post, and then completing them with phantom acknowledgements isn't going to magically remove them from the realm of fiction of your own making. LOL
quote:(i.e., on one occasion you say I supposedly spoke of different mtDNA bearing Eurasian groups impacting Ethiopian groups and on the other occasion [when you see non-sequitors where there are none] you say I argue that the mtDNA profiles of Ethiopian Cushitic and Semitic speakers are interchangeable).
So, who's doing the paraphrasing now, eh? Where do I apply the word "interchangeable"?
Furthermore, it's not mutually exclusive for you to be forced to acknowledge the lack of differentiation of content in Ethiopian Cushitic and Semitic speakers gene pools, where the supposed "non-African" lineages are concerned, and for you to suggest--as you actually have--that this could have come about, as the only other alternative to your frivolous "Semitic origin" theory, through different Eurasian groups supposedly indiscriminately introducing different types of so-called "non-African" lineages into and across the diverse language-speaking Ethiopian populations.
quote: You can’t even get your sh!t together. You’re being called out for more than enough phuckups to be tripping over your own words. Keep you pants up, bwoy.
The problem isn't me; it's your inability to understand plain English.
quote:
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: that the Yemeni gene pool would be more likely to show strong correspondence with Ethiopians, if your nutty south Arabian origins were in fact, closer to fact than fiction.
It still hasn’t dawned on you that the Yemenite proper population pre-dates the South Arabian speakers, has it?
Well, apparently, it has not "dawned on you" that "Yemenites" ARE/were "south Arabians"!
Unless, you are advocating "replacement", you haven't a leg to stand on, as to why Ethiopian DNA profiles are incompatible with your goofy South Arabian origin theory, that you merely parrot without the foggiest idea of why, other than just being a good sap for psychological conditioning by other ideologues.
quote: Otherwise it would have occurred to you that using Yemenites as a proxy for the said South Arabian speakers is self-expository of your rather marginal understanding of the issue at hand, without me having to clue you into this fact 4 times in a row.
The loon takes it for granted that living Ethiopians, whose DNA we talk about, are "proxy" for the ancient Semitic-speaking Ethiopians, but that living Yemeni, are somehow transplanted aliens from somewhere else, who have no relevance to the dynamics of the history of cultural interaction across the Red Sea...all this in the name of being stumped and frustrated by the fact that Ethiopian gene profiles do not sit well with a south-Arabian origin.
quote:
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: of having to contend with a lack of strong genetic correspondence between south Arabian populations and Ethiopians.
This just proves the above, i.e., that your cosmic unsophistication in these matters is what leads you to conclude that all Yemenites are South Arabian speakers, and that you, in your astronomic obtuseness, even try to turn a linguistic clade into a geographic population (i.e., South Arabian languages).
1. Cite where I "conclude that all Yemenites are "South Arabian" speakers", and thus show me how much of your "cosmic sophistication" in reading is doing good by you.
2. Do you know what "South Arabians" are? Did you know that South Arabia is geography? Did you know that "Yemenites" live(d) on what is called South Arabia?
3. Use your supposed "cosmic sophistication" to show me why Ethiopian gene pool profiles don't fit your goofy South Arabian origin.
quote:He-who-takes-the-cake-in-obtuseness, stop being such a knuckle head. The Ethiopian component in question shows genetic traces of admixture events that can be dated to less than 3kya—a conclusion you’ve been pathetically trying to avoid ever since that abstract was posted. It’s a wrap, bwoy, you’re done.
numbnut, explain how "being relatively closer to" a group, magically turns the former into the latter...and you are quite convince that you have some "cosmic sophistication" in matters of genetics that I supposedly lack, and not the numb-nutted blockhead that you actually conform to, to the letter? This, I've got to see.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
It is funny how white folks are so concerned about "Eurasians" in Africa thousands of years ago as if they really think Africa was overrun by white folks that far back in history, yet they ignore the proof of their own genetic history and being overrun by the same Eurasians and "Africans" in multiple waves.
They do this, consciously or not, because Africa, generally being considered the "cradle of humanity", has an obvious importance in human biology, and so, designating lineages "non-African" or "Eurasian", even when there is no actual clear evidence to justify such classification policy, gives a certain importance or monopoly to "Eurasians" that they would not otherwise have in the biological development of modern humanity. Pagani et al. (2012) for example, yeah the folks cited here, gratuitously just divided genetic mtDNA markers into "African" and "non-African" on the grounds of hg L-types vs. the non-L types. This is the kind of "solid" science we are dealing with!
Eurasians are given exclusivity/importance and are gratuitously appointed monopoly over certain groups of markers, even as it is acknowledged that those very markers derive from African ancestry, because Europeans see themselves as extensions of "Eurasians", hence the name "Eur-Asians"--specially emphasizing Europe in the name, and would like to assign greater importance to themselves in a matter(s) than they otherwise actually deserve. If a whole group of lineages were not put in the exclusive domain of "Eurasians", then greater importance is attached to Africa....rather than Europe!
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: No can do
Exactly. Was not so bad to admit your gaping failure, now was it?
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: While at it, when will you grow the balls to substantiate what makes the SLC24A5 gene, as found in Ethiopians, and the San bushmen, "non-African"
LMAO. ’’found in Ethiopians and the San bushmen'', as if the incidence of finding it in other African groups (for whatever reason, i.e., even if indigenous) discounts an Eurasian origin of the allele in the case of Ethiopians who indeed have Eurasian input dating to 3kya. There is really no reason to mention San SLC24A5, unless you can clue me in to the evidence you’re withholding from me, that shows that the allele has a related history in both cases. I suspect this rather straightforward request will undergo the same fate as my earlier queries; you'll either misplace it as someone else’s responsibility, or frame your inability to back up your insinuations and claims as ’’its common knowledge’’.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: start by telling me how the "effect of uncertainty inducing variables is minimized" in making it magically possible to get reliably-concrete dating on a gene(s) clearly under positive selection
No refutation of what I said, because you can’t. That’s why you’re desperately fishing for more things to refute. Either you refute what I said in your next post, or I will take it to mean you simply can’t.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: LOL. I need to ask myself a question around some dumb allegation that none other than you had made.
It’s really an issue you’re struggling with, eh? I mean, lying chronically? Produce this allegation by quoting me (watch this request go unanswered).
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: if you are not advocating "replacement", then why does Ethiopian mtDNA and Y-DNA gene pool profile not fit into your south Arabian-origin fairy tale?
Uniparental evidence doesn’t show that Ethiopia's foreign ancestry is primarily from groups other than Yemenites, who live more towards West Asia? Prove it (this is going to be hilarious)!
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Who says that mtDNA cannot correlate to the language distribution, while Y-DNA can, and why
Either this is another incidence of you lying, or its your amnesia rearing its head again. Produce a citation where I said that mtDNA ’’cannot correlate to the language distribution while Y-DNA can’’.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Furthermore, it's not mutually exclusive for you to be forced to acknowledge the lack of differentiation of content in Ethiopian Cushitic and Semitic speakers gene pools, where the supposed "non-African" lineages are concerned, and for you to suggest--as you actually have--that this could have come about, as the only other alternative to your frivolous "Semitic origin" theory, through different Eurasian groups supposedly indiscriminately introducing different types of so-called "non-African" lineages into and across the diverse language-speaking Ethiopian populations.
Blablabla. That this messy turd, posing as an English sentence is actually saying something, is a product of the psychedelic figments in your head. Recap:
--there is a special kind of cretin needed to see a contradiction in the notion that the gene pools of groups were impacted similarly by foreign immigrants, but that most of the said groups preserved their language, while others did not.
--no ’’only alternatives’’ were spoken of. Again, either a flat-out lie, or your neurones are misfiring again.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: The problem isn't me; it's your inability to understand plain English.
Of course it is you. It’s all in your posts: first you’re (correctly) stating that I’m saying that their mtDNAs are interchangeable, the next moment you’re adamant that I’ve said that different groups introduced different mtDNAs to Ethiopian populations.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Well, apparently, it has not "dawned on you" that "Yemenites" ARE/were "south Arabians"!
In the face of knowing South Arabian speakers came from the Levant, and are a separate entity from the older Yemenite population, simply their sharing of the same land (South Arabia) in modern times, means they can just recklessly be used as proxies for one another? Say it aint so Explorer, I knew you were in the clinch with your mental faculties, but you can’t be that astronomically stupid!
quote:[quote]Originally posted by The Explorer: The loon takes it for granted that living Ethiopians, whose DNA we talk about, are "proxy" for the ancient Semitic-speaking Ethiopians, but that living Yemeni, are somehow transplanted aliens from somewhere else
Firstly, I recently schooled you on the fact that the isolated Ethiopian component was relatively closer to Levantines, vis a vis Yemenites; not absolutely closer. Secondly, this repeated talk of ’’intergalactic travel’’ and ’’aliens’’ is, as already noted, indicative of your mental figments, which we know by now, have quite a stronghold on your dementing neurones.
quote:Cite where I "conclude that all Yemenites are "South Arabian" speakers"
Why else would you drool and get over-zealous over Pagani et al’s observation that the Ethiopian component evinces greater affinity to Levantines than Yemenites? Had you known that South Arabians speakers are said to have originated in/near the Levant, and that Pagani et al’s quote therefore would be consistent with the Levantine origin of Ethio-Semitic languages, you would have recognized this as a great opportunity to leave that excerpt alone, and act like you never read it. But no, you repeatedly and boldly used the aforementioned Pagani citation as evidence, yes, you used it as evidence for christ sake (even proudly citing your newfound wisdom in other threads), to conclude that Ethio-Semitic languages don’t have a foreign origin, without realizing, until after I drummed in into your head, that Yemenites cannot stand in for South Arabian speakers.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: numbnut, explain how "being relatively closer to" a group, magically turns the former into the latter
I will. Right after you catch me saying this is so. In the meantime, while you’re searching for something that doesn’t exist, you can prove this observation about you doesn’t hold weight:
The Ethiopian component in question shows genetic traces of admixture events that can be dated to less than 3kya— a conclusion you’ve been pathetically trying to avoid ever since that abstract was posted. --Swenet
Oops, forgot. You already proved it to be true when you ignored it when I said it the first time around.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
Exactly. Was not so bad to admit your gaping failure, now was it?
Now that you've got those clown urges out of your system, take another look--these still remain at large:
1. Tell me how something of that nature is a candidate for concrete dating?...[recap--given that non-neutral genes throw off track any predictability factor about either the pace or temporal inclinations of mutation]
2. While at it, when will you grow the balls to substantiate what makes the SLC24A5 gene, as found in Ethiopians, and the San bushmen, "non-African", other than this being nothing more than ideological hotair that makes you feel good?
These matters aren't going to disappear, just because your idea of competence is to cut posts and paste them onto your fairy tales.
quote:LMAO. ’’found in Ethiopians and the San bushmen'', as if the incidence of finding it in other African groups (for whatever reason, i.e., even if indigenous) discounts an Eurasian origin of the allele in the case of Ethiopians who indeed have Eurasian input dating to 3kya.
You are obviously milking time to obscure your frivolous allegation about the SLC24A5 genes--found in said African--being "non-African". Your tooth-fairy rendition as to why they are "discounted" isn't going to get you off the hook; that's to say: deliver the answers with less whiny, more fetchy, bitch!
quote: There is really no reason to mention San SLC24A5, unless you can clue me in to the evidence you’re withholding from me, that shows that the allele has a related history in both cases.
There's an obvious reason, but you are notoriously absentminded: you treated the SLC24A5 gene as "non-African". Hence, the overdue of your demonstration as to how the gene in either the San or Ethiopians serve as such.
quote:
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: start by telling me how the "effect of uncertainty inducing variables is minimized" in making it magically possible to get reliably-concrete dating on a gene(s) clearly under positive selection
No refutation of what I said, because you can’t.
You are right, I can't refute empty gobbledygook made apparently by an empty-headed goofball. Let me know when you don't have an air-headed reply to the highlighted request above.
quote:Uniparental evidence doesn’t show that Ethiopia's foreign ancestry is primarily from groups other than Yemenites, who live more towards West Asia? Prove it (this is going to be hilarious)!
LOL, "prove it"? dumbmass, your own source has been reapplied to penetrate that very point into your blockhead, with regards to shutting down your goofy south Arabian origin story; that's # 1. As for me "proving it", that ship had sailed more than 3 years ago, long before your source caught on. I just recaptured involved-material in a remotely-related thread days ago: I'll grant you that it's going to be "hilarious" to see you fumble with addressing that with potent counter-feedback.
quote:Either this is another incidence of you lying, or its your amnesia rearing its head again. Produce a citation where I said that mtDNA ’’cannot correlate to the language distribution while Y-DNA can’’.
Good. Since, we've now establish that you are not saying the above, then explain why you attribute a "Semitic origin" to Ethiopian mtDNA gene pool, when you obviously have no material groundwork to base it on?
quote:In the face of knowing South Arabian speakers came from the Levant, and are a separate entity from the older Yemenite population, simply their sharing of the same land (South Arabia) in modern times, means they can just recklessly be used as proxies for one another?
This post only reaffirms the fact that you are a complete idiot who has neither a clue as to what south Arabia is or what Yemenites are. Maybe you should learn what either are first, before jumping the gun on goofy stories of a "south Arabian" origin.
quote:Say it aint so Explorer, I knew you were in the clinch with your mental faculties, but you can’t be that astronomically stupid!
I can't say you are not an absentminded fuckhead; doing so, would be lying.
quote: Firstly, I recently schooled you on the fact that the isolated Ethiopian component was relatively closer to Levantines, vis a vis Yemenites; not absolutely closer.
LOL. Now you try to convince yourself of the prospect of "schooling" people on self-incriminating material from your own source, which obviously caught you off-guard. Hence, all the panicky scrambling for fruitless excuses.
quote: Secondly, this repeated talk of ’’intergalactic travel’’ and ’’aliens’’ is, as already noted, indicative of your mental figments, which we know by now, have quite a stronghold on your dementing neurones.
I call it as it is; your nutty stories are as good as fiction. You should actually consider it a gratuitous compliment, that I'm equating it with anything as remotely coherent as "intergalactic travel".
quote:
quote:Cite where I "conclude that all Yemenites are "South Arabian" speakers"
Why else would you drool and get over-zealous over Pagani et al’s observation that the Ethiopian component evinces greater affinity to Levantines than Yemenites?
Ok. You are coming clean on the fact that you are not in possession of an actual quote to the effect of your fairy tale allegation.
quote:I will. Right after you catch me saying this is so.
Then I'll get right to it: You in effect said that the idea of Ethiopians positioning relatively closer to the Levantines, even though it busts your myth about a south Arabian origin, still renders them "Eurasian". Demonstrate how so!
quote:
In the meantime, while you’re searching for something that doesn’t exist, you can prove this observation about you doesn’t hold weight:
The Ethiopian component in question shows genetic traces of admixture events that can be dated to less than 3kya— a conclusion you’ve been pathetically trying to avoid ever since that abstract was posted. --Swenet
Oops, forgot. You already proved it to be true when you ignored it when I said it the first time around.
"forgeting" is the least of your ineptitude problems; you are too stumped to even recognize that our whole exchange revolves around this very goofy spam in your fruitless re-copy & paste effort. A brick can put in more brain effort than you can possibly ever imagine achieving.
Posted by Son of Ra (Member # 20401) on :
Man I love the discussion going on here.
Posted by Ru2religious (Member # 4547) on :
quote:Originally posted by Son of Ra: Man I love the discussion going on here.
Not me - there is nothing substantial being given. We have to great thinkers going at each others throat yet there has been absolute no substance submitted by either to to justify each other claim.
What we have here is a stand off where two people fighting says "hit me first, hit me first". I'm sure they both have information - but they are waiting on each other to throw the first blow - which is a fighting style tactic.
I'm curious as to how why Eurasian becomes the destination to gene-pools which seems to be indigenous to Africa and have spread out through migration vs. back migration. One is claiming migration and the other is claiming back migration. One is claiming African origins and other other is giving to white people. I'm looking for proof as to which is more accurate. I'm looking for the documentation and not the battle of ego's.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Ha. Ha. Ha. ...SLC24A5...is not Africans?!!!! Sweet and simple mind. Sugar does not know it is as African as melanin. SLC24A5 correlates with latitude. Source cited. ...
Posted by Son of Ra (Member # 20401) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ru2religious:
quote:Originally posted by Son of Ra: Man I love the discussion going on here.
Not me - there is nothing substantial being given. We have to great thinkers going at each others throat yet there has been absolute no substance submitted by either to to justify each other claim.
What we have here is a stand off where two people fighting says "hit me first, hit me first". I'm sure they both have information - but they are waiting on each other to throw the first blow - which is a fighting style tactic.
I'm curious as to how why Eurasian becomes the destination to gene-pools which seems to be indigenous to Africa and have spread out through migration vs. back migration. One is claiming migration and the other is claiming back migration. One is claiming African origins and other other is giving to white people. I'm looking for proof as to which is more accurate. I'm looking for the documentation and not the battle of ego's.
I've seen much worse arguments than the arguments seen on this thread.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
What the dummy don’t understand is that when a gene correlates with latitude (environment) like that it has nothing to do with admixture.
In addition, skin pigmentation is affected by SEVERAL genes, not just one; SLC45A2(high frequency in Europeans), SLC24A5 (high frequency in Hindus), ASIP(high frequency East Asians and Native Americans), OCA2(high frequency in Sans), OCA3/4(high frequency in light skinned South African groups). Also TYR, MTAP etc. Europeans carry a high frequency of ALL light pigmentation gene. Africans carry a low frequency of ALL light coloring gene. East Asians carry zero frequency of SLC45A2.
ALL humans carry a relatively high frequency of MC1R, the so called darkening(tanning) gene. Even Europeans.
What does that tell you genius? Tic! Toc! Clock is ticking. Are you a pretender?
BTW: Otzi iceman tested negative for SLC45A2!!!! I guess he wasn’t European. He! He! What a jackass! Your boyfriend probably rolls his eye a lot when you are among friends.
Added to that – I am messing with Dhoxie on Europeans being from Central Asia. I always contend there is no race. All humans are essential Africans adpted to live in their specific environment combined with genetic drift. It is called adaptation and bio-diversity, Europeans are a blend of continuously migrating Africans and Asians. All were recent African migrants at one time.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ru2religious:
Not me - there is nothing substantial being given. We have to great thinkers going at each others throat yet there has been absolute no substance submitted by either to to justify each other claim.
This is obviously your opinion, as I have posted specific guiding principles by which I'm approaching the subject under discussion. If you don't understand what these say or do, why not simply just ask, rather than making unfounded conclusions about what they mean.
If you disagree, I'd urge you to identify what it is from me, that you supposedly consider "absolute no substance", but I'm fairly certain your reply will not be forthcoming. It never fails.
quote:
I'm curious as to how why Eurasian becomes the destination to gene-pools which seems to be indigenous to Africa and have spread out through migration vs. back migration. One is claiming migration and the other is claiming back migration. One is claiming African origins and other other is giving to white people. I'm looking for proof as to which is more accurate. I'm looking for the documentation and not the battle of ego's.
As I said, if you want to learn what I'm relating, then just come out and ask me what or where specifically you are lost, and I'll brief you to the best of my ability. It certainly beats making frivolous accusations about that, which you admit you have very little understanding to begin with.
As for the tit-for-tat name calling in discussions in venues like Egyptsearch, you should know this all too well by now; you've been here long enough to know how that works out.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
For those who can get any substance out of it, here's something to chew on; those who can't, then just assume I'm rambling on with "absolutely no substance"...
With respect to the SLC24A5 pigmentation-associated gene, Pagani et al. (2012) note as follows:
"we noted one that contained SLC24A5 (MIM 113750). This gene is a major contributor to the pigmentation differences between Africans and Europeans and a strong candidate for positive selection in Europe.44,45
Given that SLC24A5 is one of the most highly differentiated genes between African and European populations, we then looked for other highly differentiated genes among the outlier windows, but found none.
To further investigate the effect of admixture on the genetic landscape of skin pigmentation in Ethiopia, we also looked at other genes associated with pigmentation in Europe; however, none were found in our outlier regions." - Pagani et al. (2012)
Significance of this, if any?
Posted by Calabooz1996 (Member # 20793) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: For those who can get any substance out of it, here's something to chew on; those who can't, then just assume I'm rambling on with "absolutely no substance"...
With respect to the SLC24A5 pigmentation-associated gene, Pagani et al. (2012) note as follows:
"we noted one that contained SLC24A5 (MIM 113750). This gene is a major contributor to the pigmentation differences between Africans and Europeans and a strong candidate for positive selection in Europe.44,45
Given that SLC24A5 is one of the most highly differentiated genes between African and European populations, we then looked for other highly differentiated genes among the outlier windows, but found none.
To further investigate the effect of admixture on the genetic landscape of skin pigmentation in Ethiopia, we also looked at other genes associated with pigmentation in Europe; however, none were found in our outlier regions." - Pagani et al. (2012)
Significance of this, if any?
What's the name of this study? Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
Ethiopian Genetic Diversity Reveals Linguistic Stratification and Complex Influences on the Ethiopian Gene Pool
Posted by Calabooz1996 (Member # 20793) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Ethiopian Genetic Diversity Reveals Linguistic Stratification and Complex Influences on the Ethiopian Gene Pool
tyvm Posted by Ru2religious (Member # 4547) on :
quote:Originally posted by Calabooz1996:
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: For those who can get any substance out of it, here's something to chew on; those who can't, then just assume I'm rambling on with "absolutely no substance"...
With respect to the SLC24A5 pigmentation-associated gene, Pagani et al. (2012) note as follows:
"we noted one that contained SLC24A5 (MIM 113750). This gene is a major contributor to the pigmentation differences between Africans and Europeans and a strong candidate for positive selection in Europe.44,45
Given that SLC24A5 is one of the most highly differentiated genes between African and European populations, we then looked for other highly differentiated genes among the outlier windows, but found none.
To further investigate the effect of admixture on the genetic landscape of skin pigmentation in Ethiopia, we also looked at other genes associated with pigmentation in Europe; however, none were found in our outlier regions." - Pagani et al. (2012)
Significance of this, if any?
What's the name of this study?
Thank sir - this I can comprehend ... and let me re-word the "no substance" part. There has been substance given but I was looking for some documentations as you have provided here.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ru2religious:
quote:Originally posted by Son of Ra: Man I love the discussion going on here.
Not me - there is nothing substantial being given. We have to great thinkers going at each others throat yet there has been absolute no substance submitted by either to to justify each other claim.
What we have here is a stand off where two people fighting says "hit me first, hit me first". I'm sure they both have information - but they are waiting on each other to throw the first blow - which is a fighting style tactic.
Most of this is a pretty fair assessment, but this discussion did not arose out of a question that was being asked from someone with an open mind. If you know anything from Explorer's history of posts is that he never admits he's wrong, he'll simply endlessly question the data you put up, no matter its legitimacy. If you notice, he'll even have the audacity to demand you to back up something he has claimed. This passive role by definition will always lead to openings for him to **look** like he has a point, due to the fact that every piece of research can be questioned in some way, shape or form.
If you want to know something, ask away and I will try to answer it to the best of my ability, as I've always done with some of the more genuine posters.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
To be honest, I didn’t expect others to be reading this, I was just enjoying putting a smackdown on Explorer as usual. To make things more easy to follow for those who are reading this, I will tone it down a notch.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Tell me how something of that nature is a candidate for concrete dating?...[recap--given that non-neutral genes throw off track any predictability factor about either the pace or temporal inclinations of mutation]
Already answered this question. BTW, if you don’t see me responding to some of the things you keep reiterating, it’s because they’re already dealt with, and it’s your turn to refute what I said, rather than asking for another round of answers.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: While at it, when will you grow the balls to substantiate what makes the SLC24A5 gene, as found in Ethiopians, and the San bushmen, "non-African", other than this being nothing more than ideological hotair that makes you feel good?
See above. Already answered. Amnesia is not an excuse.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: You are obviously milking time to obscure your frivolous allegation about the SLC24A5 genes--found in said African--being "non-African".
Call it what you want. I still expect you to explain what San SLC24A5 has to do with the Ethiopian counterparts, if you’re going to bring San into this, since the virtue of the San having it (even if indigenous), won't make it so that Ethiopians have it because of the same reason.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: There's an obvious reason, but you are notoriously absentminded: you treated the SLC24A5 gene as "non-African". Hence, the overdue of your demonstration as to how the gene in either the San or Ethiopians serve as such.
As expected, your reason(ing) doesn’t make sense. You keep trying to simplify matters, and taking them out of their context, to make what I’m saying seem unreasonable. In the context of 1) the questionable component of Ethiopians isolated by Pagani et al, 2) the similarly aged (~3kya) subfamily Ethio-Semetic languages are rooted in, together with the youngest Semitic languages (which is indicative of backflow), the SLC24A5 alleles in San clearly have a different history compared to Ethiopians.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: You are right, I can't refute
I agree.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: your own source has been reapplied to penetrate that very point into your blockhead
Pagani et al was reapplied to corroborate the point that uniparental lineages already pointed out, namely, that Ethiopians have Eurasian ancestry? Thanks for admitting that Ethiopians indeed have West Asian ancestry. LMAO.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Good. Since, we've now establish that you are not saying the above, then explain why you attribute a "Semitic origin" to Ethiopian mtDNA gene pool, when you obviously have no material groundwork to base it on?
Leaving aside the fact that this post doesn’t follow out of my previous post (me saying that you were lying when you claimed that I said ’’that mtDNA cannot correlate to the language distribution, while Y-DNA can’’), this post flies in the face of the fact that you just admitted that you posted Pagani et al as corroboration of the relatively old discovery that Ethiopians share more Eurasian uniparentals with Levantines, than Yemenites.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: This post only reaffirms the fact that you are a complete idiot who has neither a clue as to what south Arabia is or what Yemenites are.
A familiar habit of yours: substituting arguments with a non-reply semi-insult when you get your nose slammed in the facts, and there is no way out. Again:
In the face of knowing South Arabian speakers came from the Levant, and are a separate entity from the older Yemenite population, simply their sharing of the same land (South Arabia) in modern times, means they can just recklessly be used as proxies for one another? --Swenet
Start explaining what about this post vindicates your opinion that it ’’reaffirms the fact that you are a complete idiot’’.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Ok. You are coming clean on the fact that you are not in possession of an actual quote to the effect of your fairy tale allegation.
Everyone can see that you’re, to this moment, clamping desperately to the assumption that South Arabian speakers can stand in for Yemenites. This assumption only makes sense if you dumb enough to think they’re the same, duh.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: even though it busts your myth about a south Arabian origin
Lie. I said that Ethio-Semitic languages, or even South Arabian languages for that matter, are ultimately of a South Arabian origin? Where?
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: still renders them "Eurasian". Demonstrate how so!
I was saying that their **genetic component**, which comprises of only a part of their genome, would still be Eurasian, given the other arguments that were posted, not that Ethiopians in general were rendered Eurasian, you dumb phuck.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: you are too stumped to even recognize that our whole exchange
You addressed the part where Pagani said that this genetic component became a part of the Ethiopian genome 3kya? Where?
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
For the record...on pigmentation.
Maybe someone is willing to discuss this …?. This is one of many such papers. Skin pigmentation isn’t as simple as the presence or absence ONE gene. Besides SLC45A2 shows gradation with latitude, from Africa to Europe. It is not a “white” gene. Sheeesssh! And therefore NOT an indicator of admixture.
As I pointed out in another post.…Mike is onto something but I will let him do his Albino thing.
To those who are capable, here is something to sink your teeth into. This table tells the story. It essentially corroborates that famous paper by Norton/Kittles... Hopefully some of the less simple minds can grasp it.
Some of you may know what the HAPMAP is? That project is going to change the way we view things. Anyone can freely access it, but it is a bear to use. It was used to help isolate the K-haplogroup of Otzi.
As I said no gene or phenotype is unique to Europeans. Nada, All genes came from Africans. Every, single one.
========
Molecular genetics of human pigmentation diversity .
Richard A. Sturm
Notably, a recent knockout of Slc24a5 in the mouse has given a phenotype of ocular albinism with no gross changes in pigmentation of the coat colour apparent. However, microscopic differences were seen in the melanosomes, and exposed skin surfaces of the mice were paler than normal (28). An ancestral allele of SLC24A5 was found in non-European groups using information from the HapMap database to examine the frequency of SNPs reported in this locus, an Ala111Thr polymorphism reaching near fixation in Europeans. THIS POPULATION-BASED DIFFERENCE IN FREQUENCY stimulated investigations into genotype–phenotype correlations using a skin melanin-index scale in African-American and African- Caribbean admixed populations (7), which indicated that 25–38% of variation was due to this single SLC24A5 polymorphism within the study group.
Miller et al. then turned their attention to KITLG variation in humans (9–12) to test for association between skin colour and an ancestral SNP allele in West Africans and strong linkage for the derived allele within Europeans and East Asians. By sampling an African-American population for a highly conserved and potential regulatory SNP, it was found that individuals carrying two ancestral alleles were associated with _20% higher melanin index scores than individuals carrying two European/East Asian alleles. Finally, a list of all known loci influencing pigmentation is available from the ESPCR web site (www.espcr.org/micemut/), which currently lists 279 colour loci in mice and their human and zebrafish homologues (29)
This reflects the fact that skin colour as a selectable trait has likely occurred multiple times at diverse geographical sites around the globe in ancestral as well as presently distributed human populations. NO ADMIXTURE NEEDED!!!!
In Europeans, genetic selection has been confirmed for SLC24A5 (7,34) and SLC45A2 (34,35) in relation to the evolution of pale skin colour. A range of other genes showing signs of selection in at least one population include: TYR, TYRP1, DCT, OCA2, MC1R, ASIP, KITL, MITF, SILV, MYO5A, DTNBP1 (HPS7), RAB27A, ATRN, LYST, MLPH, HPS6, TRPM1, ADAM17, ADAMTS20 (33,36–38) etc.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Notice Europeans are homologous(base pair) for almost each allele for each pigmentation gene.
However, Africans have a similar pairing. The difference is, Europeans have a higher frequency(bold) in many categories. Hence the term "fixation" or selective sweep.
ALL humans carry the genes for light skin. That is why I said about 2 ya. ..light skin is ancestral...right Lioness...I know you were slow to grasp the concept.
Per Heather Norton...remove the constraint(high UV) and humans revert back to their natural/ancestral state.
Notice the author speculated that it happened SEVERAL times throughout human history(200,000years) at different geographical location.
Excuse me...but I hate sitting on the side-lines and witness my black people mislead and mis-educated.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
in order words..the order is light skin>dark skin>light skin for Europeans.
Skin pigmentation changes depending on environment..ie UV adaptation.
That is why Tunisians are lightest of Africans...why...lowest UV region(highest latitude) on the African continent. No admixture needed.
Note: also Sergi speculated that ALTITUDE may also effect pigmentation. Some researchers have speculated on that....more work is needed.
......and please no more food made them white Vit D Jablonski pop culture nonsense.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
As I said no gene or phenotype is unique to Europeans. Nada, All genes came from Africans. Every, single one.
This still hold true
We are the first man ......and will always be.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
To onlookers, notice how Explorer is deliberately manipulating data by repeating falsehoods I have shown to be false since my earliest post. He knows he's wrong, and he also knows that hanging on to this deliberate misinterpretation of Pagani et al and other data is what creates the impression that he just may have a point. Note the following exchanges:
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: yep, and an obvious blow to speculators whose favorite ideological theories of the supposed "Semitic" coming into the Horn from outside
^Here he's saying that the closer genetic affinity the Ethiopian genetic component (see Pagani et al) has to Levantines, rather than Yemenites, is evidence that Ethio-Semitic languages have an African origin. He reasons, if Ethio-Semitic languages were indeed from Yemen, Ethiopians would have more affinity with Yemenites than with Levantines. He repeats this here:
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: It’s clear you have trouble understanding the English language, as I just provided the reason as to why the so-called “Arabian” origins of Ethio-Semitic suffers a blow from genetic information; duh: the Ethiopian gene pool, that you love to gratuitously dismiss as “Eurasian”, is relatively closer to that in area north of Arabia than it is to southern Arabia, which is where most speculators love to stake their ideological theories on. For you, I’ll spell out the otherwise obvious: if their gene pool is from Semitic speakers of such ancestry, then their gene pool should be more similar to south Arabians than it does people north of the Arabian peninsula. Do you get it now, kiddo?
and here:
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: It stumps you, to dawn on you that the Yemeni gene pool would be more likely to show strong correspondence with Ethiopians, if your nutty south Arabian origins were in fact, closer to fact than fiction.
Note, however, that evidence from the field of Linguistics (e.g., Kitchen et al 2009), as well as other fields (e.g., archaeology) have demonstrated that South Arabian and Ethio-Semitic languages are very recent arrivals from the area North of the Arabian peninsula, and so, that the Ethiopian genetic component in question shows more affinity with Levantines, rather than Yemenites, should be expected! Note the flow of Semitic languages from the Levant to Southern Arabia (map is from Kitchen et al 2009):
It should be noted here that the migrations of South Arabian speakers depicted in the Arabian peninsula post date the emergence of populations in (Southern) Arabia. The evidence for this comes from archaeology, uniparental lineages, ancient texts that confirm the presence of populations in Southern Arabia prior to 3kya (3kya is the approximate date of the arrival of the ancestors of Ethio-Semitic and South Arabian speakers from the Levant, see that map from Kitchen et al 2009, above). So then, what is Explorer's response to my constant reminder that Yemenites and South Arabian speakers are different entities? Absolutely nothing, other than denial, lying, ignoring and stalling the inevitable, which would be, being forced to admit that Ethio-Semitic languages come from outside of Africa and that the closer genetic affinity of Levantines to Ethiopians, rather than Yemenites, is fully consistent with the emergence of Ethio-Semitic languages outside of Africa!
My question to him, days ago:
quote:So, are you saying that the Semetic language didn't spread from the Levant, per the linguistic evidence? [he ignored this question] Exactly how is Pagani et al's genetically based observation that the Eurasian componant in the Ethiopian genome fits this linguisitc expectation, a ''blow'' to the idea that these languages came from the outside?
--Swenet
Note the redherrings, strawmen, and other distracting antics in his reply, i.e., I've just told him that, according to current Linguistic data, South Arabian and Ethio-Semitic come from the Levant, not Southern Arabia, yet he continues to push the same tired bullsh!t that these languages originate in (Southern) Arabia:
quote:It’s clear you have trouble understanding the English language, as I just provided the reason as to why the so-called “Arabian” origins of Ethio-Semitic suffers a blow from genetic information; duh: the Ethiopian gene pool, that you love to gratuitously dismiss as “Eurasian”, is relatively closer to that in area north of Arabia than it is to southern Arabia, which is where most speculators love to stake their ideological theories on. For you, I’ll spell out the otherwise obvious: if their gene pool is from Semitic speakers of such ancestry, then their gene pool should be more similar to south Arabians than it does people north of the Arabian peninsula. Do you get it now, kiddo?
--The Explorer
Look where it leads to, when I repeated it to him, that South Arabian speakers are said to have a recent origin North of Arabia:
quote: What is profoundly stupid is that you embrace the Pagani et al's bit where they say that the Ethiopian component with questionable origins has more affinity with Levantines than Yemenites, with the intention of arguing against the Eurasian origin of Ethio-Semitic languages, even though the South Arabian linguistic clade would originally have Levantine ancestry, and hence, the Ethiopian component in Ethiopians would therefore not even need to be closer to Yemenite ancestry.
--Swenet
As usual, he’s just being redundant, and repeating his bullsh!t:
quote: It stumps you, to dawn on you that the Yemeni gene pool would be more likely to show strong correspondence with Ethiopians, if your nutty south Arabian origins were in fact, closer to fact than fiction.
--The Explorer
Here, the cat comes out of the bag:
quote:Saying that the south Arabians would have ultimately derived from the Levant, does not absolve you from the embarrassing misfortune of having to contend with a lack of strong genetic correspondence between south Arabian populations and Ethiopians.
--Explorer
He says ''Saying that the south Arabians would have ultimately derived from the Levant'', but note that I never said that Southern Arabians come from the Levant; I said that South Arabian speakers are from the Levant, with the difference being that the former are the aboriginal populations of Southern Arabia, while the latter are recent arrivals from the Levant!
By accidentally misconstruing my words as saying that the latter equal the former, he’s showing how little he knows about the topic; he’s confusing the spread of South Arabian speakers from the Levant 3kya, with the aboriginal population in Southern Arabia, who, as stated earlier, pre-date the arrival of South Arabian speakers (i.e., Levantines) in Southern Arabia ~3kya.
He, however, denies that he is doing this:
quote:Cite where I "conclude that all Yemenites are "South Arabian" speakers"
--The Explorer
Yet, look where another reminder (how many reminders can one need for the fact the penetrate) of mine that the term 'South Arabian speakers' does not equal 'aboriginal Southern Arabian', takes us:
quote:In the face of knowing South Arabian speakers came from the Levant, and are a separate entity from the older Yemenite population, simply their sharing of the same land (South Arabia) in modern times, means they can just recklessly be used as proxies for one another?
--Swenet
His reply:
quote:This post only reaffirms the fact that you are a complete idiot who has neither a clue as to what south Arabia is or what Yemenites are.
--The Explorer
Which then brings me back to my earlier observation about him:
quote:This just proves the above, i.e., that your cosmic unsophistication in these matters is what leads you to conclude that all Yemenites are South Arabian speakers, and that you, in your astronomic obtuseness, even try to turn a linguistic clade into a geographic population (i.e., South Arabian languages).
--Swenet
He's saying that he's not confusing the name of a linguistic clade (South Arabian speakers), with a general, geographical population with multiple distinct ethnies (Southern Arabians), yet, he describes the post where I'm saying something he supposedly isn't denying, as:
quote:This post only reaffirms the fact that you are a complete idiot who has neither a clue as to what south Arabia is or what Yemenites are.
--The Explorer
Talk about being a brick headed lunatic.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
If you know anything from Explorer's history of posts is that he never admits he's wrong, he'll simply endlessly question the data you put up, no matter its legitimacy.
If this was not mere fiction, then surely you would have a very easy time actually showing how I'm supposedly wrong, without requiring some sort of platitude from me, rather than just being reduced to a copying & pasting parrot who hardly understands what is being parroted.
Many here [e.g. like Ru2religious] are obviously not that well acquainted with the subject (genetics), and so, they assume that just because I'm exchanging notes with you, that this graduates you to some sort of a knowledgeable character. Those who do have a clue, instantly get the given:
You are a mere copy & paste parrot vs. me--who has the indepth insight. As clear as the difference between day and night.
quote: If you want to know something, ask away and I will try to answer it to the best of my ability
Staying true to your only talent as a mere copy & paste parrot, you can't even resist ripping off a line from my response to the very same poster that you are supposedly trying to clue in on about me, a poster who no less, has been on ES much longer than you. LOL
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: To be honest, I didn’t expect others to be reading this, I was just enjoying putting a smackdown on Explorer as usual. To make things more easy to follow for those who are reading this, I will tone it down a notch.
False sense of feel-good self-aggrandizement aside, you are demanding the impossible of yourself: you can try to get out of the bitch, but you can't get the bitch out of you.
quote:Already answered this question. BTW, if you don’t see me responding to some of the things you keep reiterating, it’s because they’re already dealt with, and it’s your turn to refute what I said, rather than asking for another round of answers.
Any idiot--you, case in point--can merely "answer". Actually delivering the requested is a whole another universe. It's obvious to any half-wit that you don't know what how means, and well, if it makes you feel good, call your cowering whatever you see fit.
quote: Call it what you want. I still expect you to explain what San SLC24A5 has to do with the Ethiopian counterparts, if you’re going to bring San into this, since the virtue of the San having it (even if indigenous), won't make it so that Ethiopians have it because of the same reason.
Ok. Staying true to character: your dumbass merely parroted a line from a study, whose underlying idea you are actdually clueless about.
You were absolutely clueless about the subject; all you knew, and which drives you, is to parrot anything that makes you feel good on the surface.
quote:As expected, your reason(ing) doesn’t make sense. You keep trying to simplify matters, and taking them out of their context, to make what I’m saying seem unreasonable.
Reasoning that you have to date, still not identified, while purporting to be qualified to draw a conclusion.
quote: Pagani et al was reapplied to corroborate the point that uniparental lineages already pointed out, namely, that Ethiopians have Eurasian ancestry? Thanks for admitting that Ethiopians indeed have West Asian ancestry. LMAO.
All your jokes aside, point to me, specifically--in detailed molecular explanation--what is the supposed "Eurasian ancestry" that Ethiopians have.
quote:Leaving aside the fact that this post doesn’t follow out of my previous post
Are you hereby trying to convince someone, supposedly, that you have not attributed a "Semitic origin" to what you dismiss as "Eurasian" mtDNA in Ethiopian ethnic groups?
quote: Start explaining what about this post vindicates your opinion that it ’’reaffirms the fact that you are a complete idiot’’.
No problem: when someone speaks of a south Arabian origin, you gratuitously mistake that for language, moron!
quote:Lie. I said that Ethio-Semitic languages, or even South Arabian languages for that matter, are ultimately of a South Arabian origin? Where?
Isn't that what you've been defending all along, with so much emotional fuss? If not, then let's make this interesting:
Given that you are implying Ethio-Semitic languages derive from outside of the continent's mainland, then precisely where did they come from?
quote:I was saying that their **genetic component**, which comprises of only a part of their genome, would still be Eurasian, given the other arguments that were posted, not that Ethiopians in general were rendered Eurasian, you dumb phuck.
Isolate these components into specifics, and tell me why they "would still be Eurasian"!
quote:You addressed the part where Pagani said that this genetic component became a part of the Ethiopian genome 3kya? Where?
I'm well aware that those authors were trying to match their dating with reference to some dubious research from a linguistic research team, which attributes Ethio-Semitic language to a south Arabian complex aka the Sabeam kingdom -- dated to approx. 3 kya as well. Coincidence? I think not. So, I'm addressing the "3 kya" aspect now: How was that 3kya solidly attained on the genome?
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
^Here he's saying that the closer genetic affinity the Ethiopian genetic component (see Pagani et al) has to Levantines, rather than Yemenites, is evidence that Ethio-Semitic languages have an African origin.
Reading or using a brain is not your strength. So, let me straighten you up: It was actually said that you source bursts your south-Arabian origin copy-cat theory. Nothing mentioned on an "African origin" yet; your imagination is just messing with you.
quote:Note, however, that evidence from the field of Linguistics (e.g., Kitchen et al 2009), as well as other fields (e.g., archaeology) have demonstrated that South Arabian and Ethio-Semitic languages are very recent arrivals from the area North of the Arabian peninsula, and so, that the Ethiopian genetic component in question shows more affinity with Levantines, rather than Yemenites, should be expected! Note the flow of Semitic languages from the Levant to Southern Arabia (map is from Kitchen et al 2009
Try actually reading the study, rather than making up fairy tale stories from cartoon, dumbass!
Here is material from the said authors:
"Kitchen A, Ehret C, Assefa S, Mulligan CJ. Department of Anthropology, PO Box 103610, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32610-3610, USA.
The evolution of languages provides a unique opportunity to study human population history. The origin of Semitic and the nature of dispersals by Semitic-speaking populations are of great importance to our understanding of the ancient history of the Middle East and Horn of Africa. Semitic populations are associated with the oldest written languages and urban civilizations in the region, which gave rise to some of the world's first major religious and literary traditions. In this study, we employ Bayesian computational phylogenetic techniques recently developed in evolutionary biology to analyse Semitic lexical data by modelling language evolution and explicitly testing alternative hypotheses of Semitic history. We implement a relaxed linguistic clock to date language divergences and use epigraphic evidence for the sampling dates of extinct Semitic languages to calibrate the rate of language evolution. Our statistical tests of alternative Semitic histories support an initial divergence of Akkadian from ancestral Semitic over competing hypotheses (e.g. an African origin of Semitic). We estimate an Early Bronze Age origin for Semitic approximately 5750 years ago in the Levant, and further propose that contemporary Ethiosemitic languages of Africa reflect a single introduction of early Ethiosemitic from southern Arabia approximately 2800 years ago."
quote:
It should be noted here that the migrations of South Arabian speakers depicted in the Arabian peninsula post date the emergence of populations in (Southern) Arabia.
That's a given, dummy. The so-called OOA peopling modern humans predates the origin of the Semitic branch.
What you should be proving, rather, is your shifty insinuations about the South Arabian population, that supposedly gave rise to Ethiopian elements, having been replaced!
quote:The evidence for this comes from archaeology, uniparental lineages, ancient texts that confirm the presence of populations in Southern Arabia prior to 3kya
What ancient texts are we talking about, and what do they say about South Arabian populations?
quote:--The Explorer
Yet, look where another reminder (how many reminders can one need for the fact the penetrate) of mine that the term 'South Arabian speakers' does not equal 'aboriginal Southern Arabian', takes us
You are too dirt-stupid to even realize that you are the only one here, ever, to speak of "south Arabian speakers".
The reference to some supposed "aboriginal south Arabians" is utterly immaterial, a stupid diversion actually, as the discussion is about some supposed south-Arabian origin for Ethio-Semitic languages...which dunce, would make the "Semitic"-speaking south Arabians (around by the supposed 3kya date) the relevant subject here.
Now, you are shifty, but you have been toying with population replacement in south Arabia. Prove it!
quote: Talk about being a brick headed lunatic.
I'd say let's talk about that some time, but to have that talk, you'd have to actually be smarter than a brick...which you are undoubtedly not. Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: Any idiot--you, case in point--can merely "answer". Actually delivering the requested is a whole another universe.
I have delivered on everything you requested, other than the baiting that followed it. That you're now trolling and fishing for more because you can't refute what I said, will not be muddled up by flipping the script on me and making it seem like I did not deliver. As a matter of fact, not only are your replies to what I said still pending, you have yet to post source to back up your conjecture that ''genes under selection cannot be reliably dated''. The only way to make it clearer that you're trolling with those unilateral requests and lies that your original query was not delivered, would be to attach a sticker to your forehead with the word 'troll' on it.
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: Ok. Staying true to character: your dumbass merely parroted a line from a study, whose underlying idea you are actdually clueless about.
Here is the bottom line: paper says the genetic component of Ethiopians dates to 3kya. You can't refute that so you start trolling and make SLC24A5 an issue. I never broached the subtopic of SLC24A5; you did. That being the case, I have no intentions nor obligations to follow you in your manipulative distractions and baiting, other than calling you out for your bizarre mix-ups, which in this case, would be comparing San SLC24A5 and the Ethiopian counterparts. Apparently, you can't even justify your left-field mention of San SLC24A5, just like you couldn't justify your bizarre invocations of '''deep-rooted clades in Ethiopians''. I guess it’s just something we have to live with; that some people habitually talk out the side of their neck, and that even they don't know why they do it.
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: Reasoning that you have to date, still not identified, while purporting to be qualified to draw a conclusion.
As evidenced by what?
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: All your jokes aside, point to me, specifically--in detailed molecular explanation--what is the supposed "Eurasian ancestry" that Ethiopians have.
All bitching aside, you have several outstanding requests to oblige to, while some of the questions I've answered earlier were met with more baiting. What makes you think I'm going indulge in your trolling, when you yourself have admitted that Ethiopians share their Eurasian mtDNAs more with Levantines than with Yemenites?
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: Are you hereby trying to convince someone, supposedly, that you have not attributed a "Semitic origin" to what you dismiss as "Eurasian" mtDNA in Ethiopian ethnic groups?
WTF are you talking about? I'm telling you for the second time in a row that you've failed to produce where I said that mtDNAs ''cannot correlate to the language distribution while Y-DNA can’’.
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: No problem: when someone speaks of a south Arabian origin, you gratuitously mistake that for language, moron!
LMAO. By now it should be clear to everyone that you’re a troll. I ask you what vindicates your retarded opinion that the following is ’’idiotic’’:
In the face of knowing South Arabian speakers came from the Levant, and are a separate entity from the older Yemenite population, simply their sharing of the same land (South Arabia) in modern times, means they can just recklessly be used as proxies for one another? --Swenet
And frankly, your answer sounds like you must’ve been high when you replied back.
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: Given that you are implying Ethio-Semitic languages derive from outside of the continent's mainland, then precisely where did they come from?
I refuse to take the fall for your phuckups. I ask you:
I said that Ethio-Semitic languages, or even South Arabian languages for that matter, are ultimately of a South Arabian origin? Where?
Answering a question with a question will not do. Produce the excerpt; where is it?
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: Isolate these components into specifics, and tell me why they "would still be Eurasian"!
Phuck outta here with those new baiting attemts. The post you’re responding to calls you out for telling a lie, because that’s exactly what it was. You’re not even denying it.
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: I'm well aware that those authors were trying to match their dating with reference to some dubious research from a linguistic research team
I don’t care what you’re aware of or not, I was calling you out for being a big fat liar when you said you had already addressed the said excerpt.
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: So, I'm addressing the "3 kya" aspect now: How was that 3kya solidly attained on the genome?
Are you saying you’re ignorant about the contents of the paper?
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
Here is the bottom line: paper says the genetic component of Ethiopians dates to 3kya. You can't refute that so you start trolling and make SLC24A5 an issue. I never broached the subtopic of SLC24A5; you did. That being the case, I have no intentions nor obligations to follow you in your manipulative distractions and baiting, other than calling you out for your bizarre mix-ups, which in this case, would be comparing San SLC24A5 and the Ethiopian counterparts. Apparently, you can't even justify your left-field mention of San SLC24A5, just like you couldn't justify your bizarre invocations of '''deep-rooted clades in Ethiopians''. I guess it’s just something we have to live with; that some people habitually talk out the side of their neck, and that even they don't know why they do it.
In that heap of a mess, I still don't see a detailed demonstration on what makes SLC24A5 "non-African" as you parrot.
PS: I've got to apparently think for both me and you; so, here's how it works dumbass: If you say SLC24A5 gene is "non-African", then surely it must be serving the same role in the San. Obviously, you don't have the foggiest clue as to what would render SLC24A5 "non-African", other than just copy & paste other people's words.
quote:
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: All your jokes aside, point to me, specifically--in detailed molecular explanation--what is the supposed "Eurasian ancestry" that Ethiopians have.
All bitching aside, you have several outstanding requests to oblige to, while some of the questions I've answered earlier were met with more baiting. What makes you think I'm going indulge in your trolling, when you yourself have admitted that Ethiopians share their Eurasian mtDNAs more with Levantines than with Yemenites?
Why put it aside; bitching is your first and the only language you understand. You then don't have a detailedmolecular justification for your constant fussing about why supposed "Eurasian" Ethiopian mtDNA "would still be Eurasian"; good.
You are like a neutered barking dog; all noise, absolutely no substance!
quote:WTF are you talking about? I'm telling you for the second time in a row that you've failed to produce where I said that mtDNAs ''cannot correlate to the language distribution while Y-DNA can’’.
Here's what I'm talking about, based on your last response: You are clueless moron who obviously has no basis for attributing a "Semitic origin" to supposed "Eurasian" Ethiopian mtDNA! Comprendez?
quote:I refuse to take the fall for your phuckups.
You are a toasted fuckhead; you've been thoroughly owned: your copy-cat fairy tale "South Arabian" origin for Ethio-Semitic and Ethiopian gene pool will only fly when pigs actually fly.
quote: Phuck outta here with those new baiting attemts. The post you’re responding to calls you out for telling a lie, because that’s exactly what it was. You’re not even denying it.
Of course, other than outright bail out, what else can be expected of a dumbass sick puppy such as yourself: you have no detailed specifics for what is apparently a gratuitous dismissal of Ethiopian gene pool as "Eurasian".
quote:
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: So, I'm addressing the "3 kya" aspect now: How was that 3kya solidly attained on the genome?
Are you saying you’re ignorant about the contents of the paper?
Indeed, you don't have an ounce of clue about what "how" means. You are now dismissed. Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: So, let me straighten you up: It was actually said that you source bursts your south-Arabian origin copy-cat theory. Nothing mentioned on an "African origin" yet; your imagination is just messing with you.
Lying again. You're so lame. Everyone can see that you were arguing against the idea that Ethio-Semitic lanuages came from outside of Africa:
yep, and an obvious blow to speculators whose favorite ideological theories of the supposed "Semitic" coming into the Horn from outside --The Explorer
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: Try actually reading the study, rather than making up fairy tale stories from cartoon, dumbass!
Where does the paper say that the languages originate in Southern Arabia? I see I must also school you on the fact that passing through somewhere does not mean originating there.
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: What you should be proving, rather, is your shifty insinuations about the South Arabian population, that supposedly gave rise to Ethiopian elements, having been replaced!
You're such a troll. I bet you if I ask for elaboration on this your lying ass will be forced to take another loss. I can't prove that which does not exist; prove I insinuated that!
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: What ancient texts are we talking about
If you want more schooling, I can do that, too! You can start out by reading Mesopotamian text involving Makkan.
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: You are too dirt-stupid to even realize that you are the only one here, ever, to speak of "south Arabian speakers".
Apparently you do not know that South Arabian speakers are the population that we've been talking about the entire time, that would have introduced Ethio-Semitic languages to the Horn. Thanks for broadcasting to everyone how profoundly unlettered you are on the subject. You're doing me a big favor.
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: The reference to some supposed "aboriginal south Arabians" is utterly immaterial
Not at all; their separate identity from South Arabian speakers was brought up because your short term memory is too demented to grasp onto the idea that **only** South Arabian languages present immediate affinities with Ethio-Semitic languages, while the other Semitic languages spoken in Southern Arabia are more distantly related to both Ethio-Semitic languages and South Arabian languages. Yet, your misfiring neurones just can’t seem to hold on to this simple concept, without them snapping back into Alzheimer mode every five minutes.
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: would make the "Semitic"-speaking south Arabians (around by the supposed 3kya date) the relevant subject here.
Are you saying that all Semitic languages spoken in Southern Arabia ~3kya are said to have immediate affinities (i.e., residing in the same sub-clade) with Ethio-Semitic languages? LMAO.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: In that heap of a mess, I still don't see a detailed demonstration on what makes SLC24A5 "non-African"
Perhaps that has something to do with me not taking your troll bait?
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: If you say SLC24A5 gene is "non-African", then surely it must be serving the same role in the San.
And I've committed myself in this thread to the view that SLC24A5 is non-African, where? To engage in a debate with you is to subject oneself to trolling, baiting and logical fallacies. You've proven that time after time again; there is no manipulative tactic you shun, to delay impending intellectual thrashings.
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: You are a toasted fuckhead; you've been thoroughly owned:
Yes, other than trolling and baiting, trying to flip the script when you're at the receiving end of intellectual thrashings is something you excel at; backing the said attempts up with actual demonstrations where you had the better of me, however, are never accompanied by such claims. I wonder why.
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: Indeed, you don't have an ounce of clue about what "how" means.
And you can learn that about me, from me asking you whether you're ignorant about the contents of the paper? If there is one thing I've learned from talking to trolls in the past couple of years, its that impending defeat is always apparent when trolls start to talk incoherent mumbo jumbo that has zero connectivity to what was asked!
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: You are now dismissed.
Running away, are we? LMAO.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
Lying again. You're so lame. Everyone can see that you were arguing against the idea that Ethio-Semitic lanuages came from outside of Africa:
yep, and an obvious blow to speculators whose favorite ideological theories of the supposed "Semitic" coming into the Horn from outside --The Explorer
queen of delirious, "African origin" is mentioned in the above, where?
BTW, if you are going to quote, why not try doing it with the complete thing, like this:
Yep, and an obvious blow to speculators whose favorite ideological theories of the supposed "Semitic" coming into the Horn from outside seem to be one of by way of the southern part of the Arabian peninsula.
PS: Not that I have qualms about an "African origin", but your crackhead is seeing things.
quote:]If you want more schooling, I can do that, too! You can start out by reading Mesopotamian text involving Makkan.
Before dreaming about schooling people, you might want to get schooled on words like "how" and "what", so you can start showing me what Mesopotamian text supposedly say about South Arabian populations prior to 3 kya.
quote:Apparently you do not know that South Arabian speakers are the population that we've been talking about the entire time, that would have introduced Ethio-Semitic languages to the Horn. Thanks for broadcasting to everyone how profoundly unlettered you are on the subject. You're doing me a big favor.
Instead of dreaming up a "big favor", how about you try a real one, as an advice: Get a brain. It'll make you see that pointless rambling-excuses are no substitute for the fact that you are the lonesome airhead who has spoken of South Arabian "speakers" throughout this entire thread.
quote:Not at all; their separate identity from South Arabian speakers was brought up because your short term memory is too demented to grasp onto the idea that **only** South Arabian languages present immediate affinities with Ethio-Semitic languages, while the other Semitic languages spoken in Southern Arabia are more distantly related to both Ethio-Semitic languages and South Arabian languages. Yet, your misfiring neurones just can’t seem to hold on to this simple concept, without them snapping back into Alzheimer mode every five minutes.
If shyt didn't fill up your head, you'd ditch the needles repetition of ideas I already hammered into your head, and give into the fact that your so-called "aboriginal South Arabians" is as immaterial as ever.
You're obviously too fuckheaded to get in touch, but I already clued you in on the fact that Semitic speakers are more relevant. Anyone who has ever heard of Sabeans will also be familiar with the implied language; so, I'll leave the pointless hairsplitting (designed to buy you time) about sorting out the Semitic speakers to you.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
Perhaps that has something to do with me not taking your troll bait?
It definitely has something to do with you talking out of your ass, on subjects you least understand.
quote:And I've committed myself in this thread to the view that SLC24A5 is non-African, where?
It follows then that you are relinquishing your association with treating SLC24A5 as "non-African"...like your source says?
quote:And you can learn that about me, from me asking you whether you're ignorant about the contents of the paper? If there is one thing I've learned from talking to trolls in the past couple of years, its that impending defeat is always apparent when trolls start to talk incoherent mumbo jumbo that has zero connectivity to what was asked!
A lot of whining here; what isn't here, is your delivery of how--in your own words (not your usual copy & paste parroting crap)--the "effect of uncertainty inducing variables is minimized" in making it possible to get reliably-concrete dating on a gene(s) clearly under positive selection.
This request might be "mumbo jumbo" to you, but it makes sense to normal-thinking people.
On notice too: Absence of a detailed molecular layout for your justification for dismissing Ethiopian mtDNA as "Eurasian" and what renders them "still Eurasian"!
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
Try actually reading the study, rather than making up fairy tale stories from cartoon, dumbass!
Here is material from the said authors:
"Kitchen A, Ehret C, Assefa S, Mulligan CJ. Department of Anthropology, PO Box 103610, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32610-3610, USA.
The evolution of languages provides a unique opportunity to study human population history. The origin of Semitic and the nature of dispersals by Semitic-speaking populations are of great importance to our understanding of the ancient history of the Middle East and Horn of Africa. Semitic populations are associated with the oldest written languages and urban civilizations in the region, which gave rise to some of the world's first major religious and literary traditions. In this study, we employ Bayesian computational phylogenetic techniques recently developed in evolutionary biology to analyse Semitic lexical data by modelling language evolution and explicitly testing alternative hypotheses of Semitic history. We implement a relaxed linguistic clock to date language divergences and use epigraphic evidence for the sampling dates of extinct Semitic languages to calibrate the rate of language evolution. Our statistical tests of alternative Semitic histories support an initial divergence of Akkadian from ancestral Semitic over competing hypotheses (e.g. an African origin of Semitic). We estimate an Early Bronze Age origin for Semitic approximately 5750 years ago in the Levant, and further propose that contemporary Ethiosemitic languages of Africa reflect a single introduction of early Ethiosemitic from southern Arabia approximately 2800 years ago."
Folks, that numbhead swenet says this above is talking about "passing through somewhere", as opposed to the obvious therein...and the numbnut thinks this is clear evidence that he/she/it is in a position to "school" someone else on what is being said. Who else thinks like this?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: queen of delirious, "African origin" is mentioned in the above, where?
Your approval of my reading of that sentence is not needed. Everyone with a healthy set of eyeballs can see for themselves that the following utterance indicates that you're arguing against an African origin for Ethio-Semitic languages:
yep, and an obvious blow to speculators whose favorite ideological theories of the supposed "Semitic" coming into the Horn from outside --The Explorer
Even more surprisingly, but not inconsistent with your trolling and desperate face-saving, you then even further prove that you were against a non-African origin of Ethio-Semitic languages, by taking issues with imaginary and unspecified proponents who are pin pointing the the origin of Ethio-Semitic languages in Southern Arabia:
Yep, and an obvious blow to speculators whose favorite ideological theories of the supposed "Semitic" coming into the Horn from outside seem to be one of by way of the southern part of the Arabian peninsula. --The Explorer
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: Before dreaming about schooling people, you might want to get schooled on words like "how" and "what", so you can start showing me what Mesopotamian text supposedly say about South Arabian populations prior to 3 kya.
Trolling again. Last time I checked, I don't owe you sh!t, other than backing up what I said, re: that there are ancient documents that testify to the existence of Southern Arabian populations prior to the arrival of South Arabian languages in Southern Arabia.
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: It'll make you see that pointless rambling-excuses are no substitute for the fact that you are the lonesome airhead who has spoken of South Arabian "speakers" throughout this entire thread.
**Prove** that the Semitic speakers that moved into Southern Arabia 3kya, and who speak languages that reside within the same linguistic clade with Ethio-Semitic languages, are called anything other than 'South Arabian speakers'. This would go a long way in substantiating your excretion that I'm ''the only one here, ever, to speak of "south Arabian speakers''.
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: you'd ditch the needles repetition of ideas I already hammered into your head, and give into the fact that your so-called "aboriginal South Arabians" is as immaterial as ever.
Your excretions aside, in your obtuseness it did not occur to you that Levantine emigres to Southern Arabia 3kya were a different entity from the pre-existing Southern Arabian populations, which then led me deem it appropriate that I called you out for equating the two:
Saying that the south Arabians would have ultimately derived from the Levant, does not absolve you from the embarrassing misfortune of having to contend with a lack of strong genetic correspondence between south Arabian populations and Ethiopians. --The Explorer
You equated a Levantine immigrant population with South Arabians in general, and you got called out for it. Stop the face-saving already.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: You're obviously too fuckheaded to get in touch, but I already clued you in on the fact that Semitic speakers are more relevant.
What Semitic languages are more relevant, compared to what?
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Anyone who has ever heard of Sabeans will also be familiar with the implied language
And the Sabaeans and their language(s) are going to help you out of this sticky mess (read: impending routing) you've immersed yourself in, how?
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: It follows then that you are relinquishing your association with treating SLC24A5 as "non-African"...like your source says?
No, troll. I posted Pagani et al in the context of a certain mtDNA lineage that a mummy was said to be a bearer of, and talks that this mtDNA might have been Ethiopian. Unless you think SLC24A5 is a part of this mtDNA haplogroup (I wouldn't be surprised of you're actually dumb enough to think this is the case), the above accusation would amount to trolling.
quote:A lot of whining here; what isn't here, is your delivery of how--in your own words (not your usual copy & paste parroting crap)--the "effect of uncertainty inducing variables is minimized" in making it possible to get reliably-concrete dating on a gene(s) clearly under positive selection.
^If anyone would be interested in what troll bait from a seasoned troll looks like, this would be a good place to start.
quote:that numbhead swenet says this above is talking about "passing through somewhere", as opposed to the obvious therein
LMAO! Prey tell, how is: ''introduction **from** Southern Arabia ~2.8kya'' consistent with ancestral Ethio-Semitic originating in Southern Arabia?
We estimate an Early Bronze Age origin for Semitic approximately 5750 years ago in the Levant, and further propose that contemporary Ethiosemitic languages of Africa reflect a single introduction of early Ethiosemitic from southern Arabia approximately 2800 years ago."
Also pertinent: where are Southern Arabian Ethio-Semitic languages if the clade originated there, rather than simply passing through?
Any particular reason why purposefully avoided answering the following?
quote: Originally posted by Swenet:
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: would make the "Semitic"-speaking south Arabians (around by the supposed 3kya date) the relevant subject here.
Are you saying that all Semitic languages spoken in Southern Arabia ~3kya are said to have immediate affinities (i.e., residing in the same sub-clade) with Ethio-Semitic languages? LMAO.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
Even more surprisingly, but not inconsistent with your trolling and desperate face-saving, you then even further prove that you were against a non-African origin of Ethio-Semitic languages, by taking issues with imaginary and unspecified proponents who are pin pointing the the origin of Ethio-Semitic languages in Southern Arabia:
Yep, and an obvious blow to speculators whose favorite ideological theories of the supposed "Semitic" coming into the Horn from outside seem to be one of by way of the southern part of the Arabian peninsula. --The Explorer
Your own ass hole, and even feces at that, must have higher IQ than you do. Other than a rare complete dumbass specimen like you, who would think it's a smart strategy to use a recited correct version of a post you idiotically tried to misuse, only to then attempt to misuse that same post in the very same way you tried earlier, apparently in a fuckheaded bid to bail your ass out? LOL
quote: Trolling again. Last time I checked, I don't owe you sh!t, other than backing up what I said, re: that there are ancient documents that testify to the existence of Southern Arabian populations prior to the arrival of South Arabian languages in Southern Arabia.
You don't "owe me shyt", but you do owe it to yourself, to stop making an incredible shithead out of yourself, who can't tell your ass hole from your mouth, by broaching matters you clearly have no grounding on.
quote:**Prove** that the Semitic speakers that moved into Southern Arabia 3kya, and who speak languages that reside within the same linguistic clade with Ethio-Semitic languages, are called anything other than 'South Arabian speakers'. This would go a long way in substantiating your excretion that I'm ''the only one here, ever, to speak of "south Arabian speakers''.
Your "South Arabian speakers" obsession is as irrelevant as ever since you broached it; but I tell you what: How about you prove [with evidence of course] this "Semitic speakers moved into southern Arabia 3ky ago", supposedly for the first time, that you are now broaching!
quote:You equated a Levantine immigrant population with South Arabians in general, and you got called out for it. Stop the face-saving already.
This only exists in your crackhead. Lose the crack!
quote:What Semitic languages are more relevant, compared to what?
If only your fuckhead could read a word or two, I wouldn't have to repeat. The Semitic speakers are more relevant than your irrelevantly-broached "non-Semitic speaking aboriginal" south Arabians. Understand better?
quote:And the Sabaeans and their language(s) are going to help you out of this sticky mess (read: impending routing) you've immersed yourself in, how?
You stumped monkey, just thought I'd clue you in on the tidbit fact that Sabeans speaking a south Arabian language is supposed to be a given, and that your psychotic obsession with "south Arabian speakers"--as a diversion to buy you time--simply isn't going to work, to your frustration!
quote:No, troll. I posted Pagani et al in the context of a certain mtDNA lineage that a mummy was said to be a bearer of, and talks that this mtDNA might have been Ethiopian. Unless you think SLC24A5 is a part of this mtDNA haplogroup (I wouldn't be surprised of you're actually dumb enough to think this is the case), the above accusation would amount to trolling.
The dumbass finds the simple question incredibly challenging, and so goes off on a complete tangent. It's simple:
Are you relinquishing your association with treating SLC24A5 as "non-African"? Yes or No.
If you have to ask me whether this is an mtDNA marker, then clearly you are overstepping your boundaries. This is not a topic you should be indulging. The next thing I don't want to worry about, is for you to wonder if Y-DNA is also mtDNA.
quote:
quote:A lot of whining here; what isn't here, is your delivery of how--in your own words (not your usual copy & paste parroting crap)--the "effect of uncertainty inducing variables is minimized" in making it possible to get reliably-concrete dating on a gene(s) clearly under positive selection.
^If anyone would be interested in what troll bait from a seasoned troll looks like, this would be a good place to start.
Ok, I get it. You don't know the answer -- you are just too dumb to put it in English!
quote:LMAO! Prey tell, how is: ''introduction **from** Southern Arabia ~2.8kya'' consistent with ancestral Ethio-Semitic originating in Southern Arabia?
It's fortunate that as a total loser, you are not going to pass on your genes. You needed to be weeded out from any gene pool, let alone human. Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
A minor insertion,
Part II Jonathan Owens
Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London
Vol. 61, No. 2 (1998), pp. 215-227 Published by: Cambridge University Press
Abstract
quote: That proto-Arabic had morphological case is an assumption which has hardly generated debate. Like all assumptions, however, it rests on concrete arguments. The two most important of these are probably (1), the existence of case in Classical Arabic and (2), the existence of case elsewhere in Semitic, particularly in Akkadian. However, applying standard comparative and philological methodology, one is equally led to the opposite conclusion, that proto-Arabic did not have case. Relevant arguments to support this position are:(1) most Semitic languages do/did not have case, nor probably did proto-Afroasiatic; (2) the oldest Arabic epigraphic record probably does not show case; (3) there are various problematic issues in the Arabic grammatical and many tradition which suggest the existence of caseless varieties parallel to Classical Arabic; (4) modern Arabic dialects do not have case. The present paper expanded upon points 1-3 in Part I. In Part II it incorporates point 4 and goes on to construct a model for the development of a case-based Classical Arabic out of an original caseless variety.
1). Arabian peoples have been held to be related to a variety of groups, with homelands in almost all directions outside Arabia: the view that sought to visualize all Arabians as a single race has never been valid.
The oldest evidence indicates the presence of Africans in the Red Sea coastal plain, Iranians in the southeastern tip of the peninsula, and peoples of Aramaean stock in the north. The racial affinities of the ancient Yemeni peoples remain unsolved; the marked similarity of their culture to the Semitic cultures that arose in the Fertile Crescent to the north of the peninsula can be attributed to cultural spread rather than to immigration.
2).
a. In the north and centre the dominant linguistic form is Old North Arabian (subclassified into Lihyanic, Thamudic, and Safaitic); despite close connections between this group and Arabic, the latter cannot be regarded as lineally descended from it.
b. The Yemenite inscriptions are in Old South Arabian (subclassified into Minaean, Sabaean, Qatabanian, and Hadhramautic), which is a wholly independent group within the Semitic family of languages. (The Old North Arabian and Old South Arabian inscriptions and graffiti are in scripts of a South Semitic type, of which Ethiopic is the only present-day survivor; modern Arabic script is of a North Semitic type.)
This large pre-Islamic inscription is depicted on a rock near a well in southern Arabia and consists of ten lines. It is popularly known as "the inscription of Abraha." The inscription is still in its original location; a replica is on display in the museum
نقش سبئي
(i) Transliteration b kh ya l / r h m n n / w m s ya h ha / m l k n / a b r ha / z ya b m n / m l k / s b a / w z r ya d n / w h dh r m d t
Transcription B'khail / ar-rahman / wmaseeha / malikan / Abraha / Zaybm / malik / sab'a / w zarydan / w hadarmaut
Translation With the power (help) of god, and the Jesus (=Christian) King Abraha Zeebman (King's title), the King of Saba'a, Zuridan and Hadrmaut.
(ii) w ya m n t / w r a a'in r b ha m r / ta w d m / w t ha m t / s ta r w / z n / s ta r n / k gh z ya w
w yement / wa r'a rab hamw / Twadam / w thamat / satro / zn / satran / K'ghazow
and Yemen and the tribes (on) the mountains and the coast wrote these lines on his battle
(iii) m a'in d m / gh z w t n / r b a'in t n / b w r kh n / z th b t n / k f s d w / k l / b n ya a'in m r m
against the tribe of Ma'ad ( in ) the battle of al-Rabiya in the month of "Dhu al Thabithan" (April) and fight (against) all the (tribes) of Bani A'amir.
(iv) w z k ya / m l k n / a b j b r / b a'in m / k d t / w a'in l / w b sh r m / b n h sa n m / b a'in / m
Wazaki/ malikn/ abjabar / b ainam/ kadat/ wain/ w basharm / bin hasahanm/ bainm
and appointed the King (the leader) "Abi Jabar" with (tribe) Kinda and (Qahtani tribe) Al (and the leader) "Bishar bin Hasan" with
(v) s a'in d m / w m r d m / w h dh r w / q d m ya / j ya sh n / a'in l ya b n ya a'in m r m / k d t / w a'in l / b w d / z m r kh / w m r d m / w s d m / b w d.
San dam/ wa mardam / wa hadaru/ qadami / jayshan/ alia bani yamram/ kadat/ wail/ b wad /samrakh / wa mardam/ wa sadam/ b wad..
(Tribe) Sa'ad ( and the tribe) Murad and ( the tribe) Hadarmaut (stand) in front of the army against Bani Amir of Kinda. and (the tribe) Al in wadi "zu markh" and Murad and Sa'ad in wadi
(vi) b m n ha j / t r b n / w z b h w / w a s r w / w gh n m w / z a'in s m / w m kh dh / m l k n / b h l b n / w d n w.
B manhaj / tarban/ w zabahow / wa sarw / w ghanamw / zaisam / wa makhdah/ malakin/ b halban/ wa danw
Manha on the way to Turban and killed and captured and took the booty in large quantities and the King and fought at Halban and reached
(vii) k za l / m a'in d m / w r ha n w / w b a'in d n ha w / w s a'in ha m w / a'in m r m / b n / m z r n..
Ka zalam/ maidam / wrahanw / wa badanahaw / nwa sa'aham mw / amram / bin/ mazran.
Ma'ad and took booty and prisoners, and after that, conquered (from the tribe of Ma'ad) Omro bin al-Munzir …
(viii) w r ha n m w / b n ha w / w s t kh l fa ha w / a'in l ya / m a'in d m / w q f l w / b n / h l
Wa rahanamw / bin haw / wa sata khalafw / ala/ ma'dam/ wa qafalw/ bin/ hal.
(and according to the agreement between Abrha and the tribe of Ma'ad) (Abrhas) appointed the son (of Omro) as the ruler and returned (Abraha) from Hal.
(ix) (b) n / (b) kh ya l / r h m n n / w r kh ha w / z a'in l n / z l th n ya / w s th ya / w s
( bi)n / (b) akhayal / rahman / wa rakhaw / zalan / salthany / w sathya/ ws
Ban (halban) with the power of the god in the month of Zu A'allan in the year sixty-two
(x) th / m a t m
Tha / matam
and six hundred
النص ب خ ى ل / ر ح م ن ن / و م س ى ح هـ / م ل ك ن / أ ب ر هـ / ز ى ب م ن / م ل ك / س ب أ / و ذ ر ي د ن / و ح ض ر م و ت
القراءة بقوة الرحمن ومسيحة الملك أبرهة زيبمان ملك سبأ وذو ريدان وحضرموت
ـ 2 ـ و ي م ن ت / و ر أ ع ر ب هـ م و / ط و د م / و ت هـ م ت / س ط ر و / ذ ن / س ط ر ن / ك غ ز ى و
.ويمنات وقبائلهم (في) الجبال والسواحل ، سطر هذا النقش عندما غزا
ـ 3 ـ م ع د م / غ ز و ت ن / ر ب ع ت ن / ب و ر خ ن / ذ ث ب ت ن / ك ف س د و / ك ل / ب ن ى ع م رم/
(قبيلة) معد (في) غزوة الربيع في شهر "ذو الثابة" (ابريل) عندما ثاروا كل (قبائل) بنى عامر
ـ 4 ـ و ذ ك ى / م ل ك ن / أ ب ج ب ر / ب ع م / ك د ت / و ع ل / و ب ش ر م / ب ن ح ص ن م / ب ع م
وعين الملك (القائد) "أبي جبر" مع (قبيلة) على (والقائد) "بشر بن حصن" مع
ـ 5 ـ س ع د م / و م ر د م / و ح ض ر و / ق د م ى / ج ي ش ن / ع ل ي / ب ن ي ع م ر م / ك د ت / و ع ل / ب و د / ذ م ر خ / و م ر د م / و س ع د م / ب و د
قبيلة) سعد (وقبيلة) مراد وحضروا أمام الجيش ـ ضد بنى عامر (وجهت) كندة وعلى في) وادي "ذو مرخ" ومراد وسعد في وادي
ـ 6 ـ ب م ن هـ ج / ت ر ب ن / و ذ ب ح و / و أ س ر و / و غ ن م و / ذ ع س م / و م خ ض / م ل ك ن / ب ح ل ب ن / و د ن و
على طريق تربن وذبحوا وأسروا وغنموا بوفرة وحارب الملك في حلبن واقترب
ـ 7 ـ ك ظ ل / م ع د م / و ر هـ ن و / و ب ع د ن هـ و / و س ع هـ م و / ع م ر م / ب ن / م ذ ر ن
كظل معد (وأخذ) اسرى، وبعد ذلك فوضوا (قبيلة معد) عمروا بن المنذر (في
ـ 8 ـ و ر هـ ن هـ م و / ب ن هـ و / و س ت خ ل ف هـ و / ع ل ى / م ع د م / و ق ف ل و / ب ن / ح ل
الصلح) فضمنهم ابنه (عروا) (عن أبرهة) فعينه حاكماً على) معد ورجع (أبرهة) من حلـ
ـ 9 ـ (ب) ن / ( ب ) خ ى ل / ر ح م ن ن / و ر خ هـ و / ذ ع ل ن / ذ ل ث ن ى / و س ث ى / و س
بن (حلبان) بقوة الرحمن في شهر ذو علان في السنة الثانية والستين وسـ
ـ 10 ـ ث / م أ ت م
ستمائة
مسند جنوبي
Transliteration ha z a'in n b t a l
Transcription/Translation Haza'a nabt al
(name of the deceased)
النص
ح ذ ع ن ب ت أ ل
القراءة حذع نبت أل
مسند جنوبي
Transliteration n ya a'in th t / k ya l / w m q m / sh ya m ha m w gh wa n ha m w / b n / a a'in r b n / w b z t t a t b / r ya m m / s a'in d / w ha w f ya n r ya m m / r dh w / w h sd ya / m r a ha m
Transcription Nai Asath/ Khail/ w maqam/ shai mahamo/ Ghawnham/bin/ A'araban/ w bazat/ Ta'atab/remom/sad/w hawfain Remom/ Rado/ wa hasiya/ mraham
Translation With the power of Naiqthat and his high position Ghawnaham from the Arabian tribe of Dhat Ta'atab - Raimam Sa'ad Fulfilled and pleased with the will of their Lord and his presence.
حجر عليه نقش مسند جنوبي مفقود جزء منه والجزء الواضح يتكون من اربعة أسطر كتبت بطريقة النقر وبخط غائر من اليمين إلى اليسار
النص 1- ن ي ع ث ت ، خ ي ل ، و م ق م ، ش ي م هـ م و ، 2- غ و ن هـ م و ، ب ن ، أ ع غ ب ن ، و ب ذ ت 3- ت أ ت ب ، ر ي م م ، س ع د ، و هـ و ف ي ن 4- ر ي م م ، ر ض و ، و ح ص ي ، م ر أ هـ م
القراءة نيعست خيل ومقام شيمهمو ونهمو بن (من) أعربن (بمعنى قبيلة) وبذت (وتأتتب ريمم سعد وهوفين (بمعنى وأوفى (ريمم بوصية المعبود رضو على مرآ هم (_على سمعهم
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
^The Old south Arabian (language) may be effectively defunct now, perhaps in part due to the role of Arabic in contemporary times, but that does not mean that genetic continuity from the time of Sabean complex to present should be non-existent. Ethiopian Semitic languages have also evolved over the ages since the decline of the ancient Ethio-Sabean contact, but that does not mean because there are language shifts or changes, that populations have undergone extinction. I'm not aware of any population "replacement" in South Arabia, but if there was, I'd like to know about its details. BTW: There is also such a thing as acculturation!
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: Other than a rare complete dumbass specimen like you, who would think it's a smart strategy to use a recited correct version of a post you idiotically tried to misuse, only to then attempt to misuse that same post in the very same way you tried earlier, apparently in a fuckheaded bid to bail your ass out?
Another non-reply. With every face-saving attempt, you can brainstorm three hours for the slickest sounding one-liners you can come up with all you want, but you’re see-through; none of your petty diversions take away the fact that you were using Pagani et al to argue against a non-African origin of Ethio-Semitic. Simply telling someone how stupid you think he/she is, without addressing what was said, is not a reply you dumb phuck.
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: You don't "owe me shyt", but you do owe it to yourself, to stop making an incredible shithead out of yourself, who can't tell your ass hole from your mouth, by broaching matters you clearly have no grounding on.
Troll! Another non-reply. This waste of hot air posing as a reply does not follow out of the fact that I just told you that your requests are troll bait.
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: Your "South Arabian speakers" obsession is as irrelevant as ever since you broached it
Another non-reply. Repeat:
**Prove** that the Semitic speakers that moved into Southern Arabia 3kya, and who speak languages that reside within the same linguistic clade with Ethio-Semitic languages, are called anything other than 'South Arabian speakers'. This would go a long way in substantiating your excretion that I'm ''the only one here, ever, to speak of "south Arabian speakers''. --Swenet
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: This only exists in your crackhead. Lose the crack!
Another troll non-reply. If you weren’t equating a Levantine immigrant population with South Arabians, why would you make the backwater claim that Levantine descent for the Semitic speakers we’re discussing does not absolve me of explaining why Ethiopians don’t have closer affinity with Yemenites than Yemenites? Skirting around the issue like a little b!tch, aren’t we?
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: The Semitic speakers are more relevant than your irrelevantly-broached "non-Semitic speaking aboriginal" south Arabians. Understand better?
Glad that I now have it on record that your dumbass is on the one hand schizophrenically calling aboriginal Southern Arabians ’’irrelevant’’, and on the other hand, using their (irrelevant) genome as mapped by Pagani et al, to make it stand in for the Semitic speakers you’re now calling ’’more relevant’’. Congratulations for the Donkey of the year award. You’re a true numbskull.
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: You stumped monkey, just thought I'd clue you in on the tidbit fact that Sabeans speaking a south Arabian language is supposed to be a given
I asked you a question, donkey; how is their language going to save your ass, given the many losses you’ve already taken, and are still taking, as we speak? Which one of my claims exactly, is the mere existence of the Sabaean language contracting? Speak up girl, and man up for once.
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: The dumbass finds the simple question incredibly challenging, and so goes off on a complete tangent.
Troll, do you have evidence that I’ve said something definitive about the origins of the SLC24A5 allele, or are you just living up to your reputation of a mega troll when you’re asking me whether I’m relinquishing my views on the topic?
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: It's fortunate that as a total loser, you are not going to pass on your genes. You needed to be weeded out from any gene pool, let alone human.
Another non-reply, perfectly consistent with your super troll reputation. Try as you may, I’m not going to get side tracked by your manipulations. The question was:
LMAO! Prey tell, how is: ''introduction **from** Southern Arabia ~2.8kya'' consistent with ancestral Ethio-Semitic originating in Southern Arabia? --Swenet
Oh yeah, and I’ve noticed that you’re running away from this question for the third time in a row:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Any particular reason why purposefully avoided answering the following?
quote: Originally posted by Swenet:
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: would make the "Semitic"-speaking south Arabians (around by the supposed 3kya date) the relevant subject here.
Are you saying that all Semitic languages spoken in Southern Arabia ~3kya are said to have immediate affinities (i.e., residing in the same sub-clade) with Ethio-Semitic languages? LMAO.
Any reason for this, that doesn’t involve you shitting your pants? LMAO.
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol: Now, Pusch and his colleagues, including Rabab Khairat, have carried out next-generation sequencing on five Egyptian mummified heads held at the University of Tübingen. The heads date from relatively late in ancient Egyptian history — between 806 bc and 124 ad.
The above time period corresponds with the 3rd Intermediate Period [the 23rd (Libyan) dynasty] up to Roman Imperial times. So how will that answer the following questions Pusch asks: “It would be nice to know more about the origins of the ancient Egyptians,” says Pusch. “Where did they come from? Where did they go? Are there still traces of ancestral DNA in today’s Egypt?”
One would think they would test mummies from earlier periods such as from the Old Kingdom if one wants to find 'origins'.
If Late Period samples, no surprise that more outside admixture may be present. But they only give data from one mummy- the Hap I. What about the other mummies Patrol?
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
Another non-reply. With every face-saving attempt, you can brainstorm three hours for the slickest sounding one-liners you can come up with all you want, but you’re see-through; none of your petty diversions
If a "petty diversion" pinched you right in your tranny ass hole, you wouldn't know it, and apparently, your "see-through" superpowers have failed you in the ability to understand simple text like this:
Yep, and an obvious blow to speculators whose favorite ideological theories of the supposed "Semitic" coming into the Horn from outside seem to be one of by way of the southern part of the Arabian peninsula.
Maybe in some alternate universe there's an answer to why you are a total klutz at quoting this plain piece just as it is. Obviously the answer is not in this universe.
quote:Troll! Another non-reply. This waste of hot air posing as a reply does not follow out of the fact that I just told you that your requests are troll bait.
Less bitchy, more fetchy! Provided you can grow even one tidbit of a ball, how about fetching the request around your own broached subject: what the supposed ancient texts tell us about supposed Southern Arabian populations prior to the arrival of Semitic speakers in Southern Arabia.
quote: Another non-reply. Repeat:
**Prove** that the Semitic speakers that moved into Southern Arabia 3kya, and who speak languages that reside within the same linguistic clade with Ethio-Semitic languages, are called anything other than 'South Arabian speakers'. This would go a long way in substantiating your excretion that I'm ''the only one here, ever, to speak of "south Arabian speakers''. --Swenet
Your "south Arabian speakers" is still irrelevant!...hussy-fuss aside.
quote:Another troll non-reply. If you weren’t equating a Levantine immigrant population with South Arabians, why would you make the backwater claim that Levantine descent for the Semitic speakers we’re discussing does not absolve me of explaining why Ethiopians don’t have closer affinity with Yemenites than Yemenites? Skirting around the issue like a little b!tch, aren’t we?
Let's see: Maybe it has to do with the facts, fuckface, that South Arabian Semitic--Sabean in particular--language was not spoken in the Levant to begin with, and 2)their descendants would not have disappeared out of thin air! Capish?...and you swear that you are not dirt retarded. LOL
The backwater that should worry you, is the one in which your brain is supposed to be.
quote:Glad that I now have it on record that your dumbass is on the one hand schizophrenically calling aboriginal Southern Arabians ’’irrelevant’’, and on the other hand, using their (irrelevant) genome as mapped by Pagani et al, to make it stand in for the Semitic speakers you’re now calling ’’more relevant’’. Congratulations for the Donkey of the year award. You’re a true numbskull.
Oh really, dickhead. 1) So you have the genome of your "aboriginal" South Arabians dated from prior to arrival of the Semitic speakers, do you?
2)Point out the details, wherein Pagani et al. managed to sift supposed "aboriginal South Arabians" from the predominant Semitic-speaking south Arabians, which--I'm to take it--you are convinced were not sampled. Let's learn who the true numbskull is, shall we.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
I asked you a question, donkey; how is their language going to save your ass, given the many losses you’ve already taken, and are still taking, as we speak? Which one of my claims exactly, is the mere existence of the Sabaean language contracting? Speak up girl, and man up for once.
stumped monkey, repeating that tired-ass spam filler only keeps you as stupid as ever about that you were just clued about.
quote:Troll, do you have evidence that I’ve said something definitive about the origins of the SLC24A5 allele, or are you just living up to your reputation of a mega troll when you’re asking me whether I’m relinquishing my views on the topic?
So fuckhead, are you hereby begging me to now inform you about the origin of the SLC24A5 gene, when in fact you were earlier defending a non-African origin for it?
quote: Another non-reply, perfectly consistent with your super troll reputation. Try as you may, I’m not going to get side tracked by your manipulations.
Instead of lamenting about getting "side tracked", you should be more alarmed at the fact that you cannot read an atrociously simple line in a quoted piece!
You should be panicking at the prospect of being this stupid.
quote:Any reason for this, that doesn’t involve you shitting your pants? LMAO.
Never mind me, numbnut; mind this, which certainly got you pissing all over yourself like a sick toddler in kindergarten:
The pending presentation of a detailed molecular layout for your justification for dismissing Ethiopian mtDNA as "Eurasian" and what renders them "still Eurasian"!
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
Does anyone have any predictions as to what sort of mtDNA haplogroups we might find in the New Kingdom (and earlier) mummies? I bet good money it'll be something along the lines of L2. From what I understand M1 and U6 are associated with those Africans that are closest genetically to Eurasians, yet it appears from the STR data that AEs did not belong to that branch but rather the one ancestral to all other Africans.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: Yep, and an obvious blow to speculators whose favorite ideological theories of the supposed "Semitic" coming into the Horn from outside seem to be one of by way of the southern part of the Arabian peninsula.
You can repost it how often you want, with or without the rest of the sentence. Both excerpts--the longer and the shorter one--bespeak that you were making an argument against the non-African origin of Ethio-Semitic.
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: how about fetching the request around your own broached subject: what the supposed ancient texts tell us about supposed Southern Arabian populations prior to the arrival of Semitic speakers in Southern Arabia.
Trolling aint gonna cut it. This is what it stands, recap:
Troll! Another non-reply. This waste of hot air posing as a reply does not follow out of the fact that I just told you that your requests are troll bait. --Swenet
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: Your "south Arabian speakers" is still irrelevant!...hussy-fuss aside.
Repeating non-replies right after repeated requests to back up claims are the marks of true troll. Recap:
**Prove** that the Semitic speakers that moved into Southern Arabia 3kya, and who speak languages that reside within the same linguistic clade with Ethio-Semitic languages, are called anything other than 'South Arabian speakers'. This would go a long way in substantiating your excretion that I'm ''the only one here, ever, to speak of "south Arabian speakers''. --Swenet
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: Maybe it has to do with the facts, fuckface, that South Arabian Semitic--Sabean in particular--language was not spoken in the Levant to begin with, and 2)their descendants would not have disappeared out of thin air!
And these two random uncontested trivialities vindicate your claim that the ultimate origin of Semitic speakers in the Levant does not absolve me of explaining why Ethiopians have a closer affinity to Levantines than Yemenites, how?
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: 1) So you have the genome of your "aboriginal" South Arabians dated from prior to arrival of the Semitic speakers, do you?
Wasn't it the point of your intergalactic mumbo jumbo to argue that the original Yemenite populations didn't vanish into thin air? Phuckin cretin.
quote:2)Point out the details, wherein Pagani et al. managed to sift supposed "aboriginal South Arabians" from the predominant Semitic-speaking south Arabians
The ‘Eurasian’ genetic component in Ethiopians dates to admixture events of 3kya. The mtDNAs that were left behind in the Ethiopian genepool as a result of these admixture events aren’t particularly close to Yemenite versions. Seeing as though the said Ethiiopian mtDNAs would necessarily have to be a microcosm of the Levantine populations Ethiopians inherited these mtDNAs from, the same thing (little sharing of specific haplotypes compared to Yemenites) would hold true for the Levantine populations Ethiopians inherited the said mtDNAs from. Use your goddamn brain for once.
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: when in fact you were earlier defending a non-African origin for it?
Repeating non-replies right after repeated requests to back up claims are the hallmarks of true troll. Recap:
Troll, do you have evidence that I’ve said something definitive about the origins of the SLC24A5 allele, or are you just living up to your reputation of a mega troll when you’re asking me whether I’m relinquishing my views on the topic? --Swenet
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: you should be more alarmed at the fact that you cannot read an atrociously simple line in a quoted piece!
Repeating non-replies right after repeated requests to back up claims are the hallmarks of true troll. Recap:
LMAO! Prey tell, how is: ''introduction **from** Southern Arabia ~2.8kya'' consistent with ancestral Ethio-Semitic originating in Southern Arabia? --Swenet
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: Never mind me, numbnut; mind this, which certainly got you pissing all over yourself like a sick toddler in kindergarten:
Repeating non-replies right after repeated requests to back up claims are the hallmarks of true troll. Recap:
Are you saying that all Semitic languages spoken in Southern Arabia ~3kya are said to have immediate affinities (i.e., residing in the same sub-clade) with Ethio-Semitic languages? LMAO. --Swenet
You’ve been running away from this question for the fourth time in a row. Any reason for this, that doesn’t involve you shitting your pants? LMAO.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: From what I understand M1 and U6 are associated with those Africans that are closest genetically to Eurasians, yet it appears from the STR data that AEs did not belong to that branch but rather the one ancestral to all other Africans.
You do realize that M1 and U6 clades are found in western through to eastern Africa, don't you?
The nuclear DNA STRs (xY-DNA) cannot predict what mtDNA are likely to be present in a given population. Heck, it can't even predict what specific Y-DNA are to be present in a given population.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
You can repost it how often you want, with or without the rest of the sentence.
Fock you kid! I am only re-posting it for the benefit of thinking readers (which you are obviously not), as an exposé of the absolute klutz you are, that you can't even parrot simple texts word for word. A kindergartener can teach you a lesson or two how to repeat after grown ups correctly.
quote:Trolling aint gonna cut it. This is what it stands
Figures; You are deeply stumped for a relevant answer. Your crying "troll" like a fat baby every time you are stumped is by now as transparent to anyone as day.
It's like the little lying boy who cries "wolf" that nobody minds, i.e. nobody in their right mind.
quote:And these two random uncontested trivialities vindicate your claim that the ultimate origin of Semitic speakers in the Levant does not absolve me of explaining why Ethiopians have a closer affinity to Levantines than Yemenites, how?
little hussy, if you have to ask how you getting schooled on the nobrainer fact South Arabian Semitic was not spoken in the Levant--nor was there a "magic disappearance" of their descendants in southern Arabia--vindicates a request for you to explain why Ethiopian gene pool is incompatible with your loony-tale "South Arabian origin" of Ethiopians, then you have no business being here. Get lost!
quote:Wasn't it the point of your intergalactic mumbo jumbo to argue that the original Yemenite populations didn't vanish into thin air? Phuckin cretin.
dumbass, I was not referring to your supposed non-Semitic "aboriginal south Arabians" when I said the descendants of ancient south Arabian Semitic speakers, you know--the fairies who were suppose to have taught Ethiopians how to speak Semitic, could not have simply vanished into thin air.
quote:
quote:2)Point out the details, wherein Pagani et al. managed to sift supposed "aboriginal South Arabians" from the predominant Semitic-speaking south Arabians
The ‘Eurasian’ genetic component in Ethiopians dates to admixture events of 3kya. The mtDNAs that were left behind in the Ethiopian genepool as a result of these admixture events aren’t particularly close to Yemenite versions. Seeing as though the said Ethiiopian mtDNAs would necessarily have to be a microcosm of the Levantine populations Ethiopians inherited these mtDNAs from, the same thing (little sharing of specific haplotypes compared to Yemenites) would hold true for the Levantine populations Ethiopians inherited the said mtDNAs from. Use your goddamn brain for once.
I'm glad that you noticed that I have a brain, a luxury you are clearly drooling after. fuckhead, where is the requested notes from Pagani et al. backing your fairy tale "aboriginal south Arabians" being sifted, and supposedly being used exclusive of the Semitic speaking Yemeni. Back it up, bitch!
quote: Repeating non-replies right after repeated requests to back up claims are the hallmarks of true troll. Recap:
Troll, do you have evidence that I’ve said something definitive about the origins of the SLC24A5 allele, or are you just living up to your reputation of a mega troll when you’re asking me whether I’m relinquishing my views on the topic? --Swenet
I still don't see a yes or no. Are you retracting from your defense of a non-African origin for SLC24A5? Your ability to simply say "yes" or "no", as monumentally hard as it may be for you, is a prerequisite to any prospect of you getting schooled on SLC24A5!
quote:Repeating non-replies right after repeated requests to back up claims are the hallmarks of true troll. Recap:
Are you saying that all Semitic languages spoken in Southern Arabia ~3kya are said to have immediate affinities (i.e., residing in the same sub-clade) with Ethio-Semitic languages? LMAO. --Swenet
Rubbish is abundantly visible in your post; what isn't visible, is an answer to this:
The pending presentation of a detailed molecular layout for your justification for dismissing Ethiopian mtDNA as "Eurasian" and what renders them "still Eurasian"!
Go fetch me answers, not non-stop unintelligible hussy-fuss spam fillers.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
LMAO. You're done. For several times in a row, you're not even addressing my posts anymore; you're just talking at them--the ones you had the balls to address that is. I don't need to debate you until you shut the phuck up, for the forum to know you had your ass handed to you; the proof is in the pudding (to everyone: just take a look at my last post and then at his last post, to see his non-replies). You stepped to me and got your ass handed to you, and you know it. Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: LMAO. You're done. For several times in a row, you're not even addressing my posts anymore; you're just talking at them--the ones you had the balls to address that is. I don't need to debate you until you shut the phuck up, for the forum to know I send you off with your tail in between your legs; the proof is in the pudding (to everyone: just take a look at my last post and then at his last post, to see his non-replies). You stepped to me and got your ass handed to you, and you know it.
Cop-out! Did not expect anything less, of course.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
You're something else explorer, you truly are. Who the PHUCK do you think you're kidding? Do you think the forum isn't on to you, just because no one is jumping in?
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
You could learn a lesson from all this: bitching and moaning gets you nowhere, nor does pretending to know a subject that is clearly too complex for you.
Were you hoping that some one would jump in to relieve you of some of that heat your ass-whooping had been getting you? Hate to pop your bubble, when I say that it has no bearing on my actions one way or another.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
I was absent for quite some time, can someone please explain what the argument between Explorer and Swenet is about? I take it, it has to do with the provenance of mtDNA hg I and its alleged Arabian origins, correct?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Summation:
--He repeatedly spams the forum with straw-man bait, asking me to defend statements that I've never made, re: supposedly I said in this thread that the SLC24A5 is non-African. He's also quite fond of bizarrely demanding I present random data, re: after I mentioned the existence of early ancient texts describing Southern Arabian territories (i.e., Makkan), he then strangely spams the forum with questions about what these texts talk about as if simply mentioning the existence of texts about Makkan burden me with the responsibility to go off on an elaborate discourse about what these texts say.
--Current linguistic evidence says that original Ethio-Semitic speakers and South Arabian speakers come from the Levant, while Explorer keeps lying and manipulating Kitchen et al 2009 to say that the said languages originate in Southern Arabia. He lies and says that this map from Kitchen et al 2009 is somehow a cartoon, and that the actual contents of the paper posit that the Ethio-Semitic linguistic clade originates in Southern Arabia, rather than simply passing through there on their way to Ethiopia. He avoids repeated requests to back up his claim that the actual contents of Kitchen et al 2009 contradict their own map, which he bizarrely calls ''a cartoon''.
--He does this because he's in the dark about the linguistics of the area. He's fighting imaginary opponents who, according to him, posit that Ethio-Semitic originates in Southern Arabia, and so, he uses the following Pagani excerpt as evidence that the views of his imaginary opponents ''have suffered a blow'':
The non-African component was found to be more similar to populations inhabiting the Levant rather than the Arabian Peninsula --Pagani et al 2012
He maintains that, had these original Ethio-Semitic speakers come from Southern Arabia like his imaginary opponents say is the case, we'd expect the Eurasian component of Ethiopians to have a closer affinity to Yemenites than to Levantines. However, his imaginary opponents are neither here nor there. The data discussed in this thread says that the original Ethio-Semitic speakers originate in the Levant, and so, the aforementioned Pagani excerpt he is cluelessly sprinkling around, is actually in harmony with the linguistic evidence that I'm bringing to the table (Kitchen et al 2009).
--When I attempt to educate him on this fact (i.e., that the original Ethio-Semitic speakers originate in the Levant and not Southern Arabia) he keeps repeating the same thing like a chicken without a head. I'm not kidding you, with every reminder that the original Ethio-Semitic speakers didn't originate in Southern Arabia, he simply repeats the same debunked conjecture that the closer affinity of the Eurasian genetic component in Ethiopians to Levantines rather than Yemenites is ''a blow'' to his imaginary opponents. Look at this exchange, for instance:
quote:What is profoundly stupid is that you embrace the Pagani et al's bit where they say that the Ethiopian component with questionable origins has more affinity with Levantines than Yemenites, with the intention of arguing against the Eurasian origin of Ethio-Semitic languages, even though the South Arabian linguistic clade would originally have Levantine ancestry, and hence, the Ethiopian component in Ethiopians would therefore not even need to be closer to Yemenite ancestry.
--Swenet
What follows is his signature troll non-sequitor reply, where he's simply reiterating the same debunked view ad infinitum:
quote:It stumps you, to dawn on you that the Yemeni gene pool would be more likely to show strong correspondence with Ethiopians, if your nutty south Arabian origins were in fact, closer to fact than fiction.
--Explorer
--Having been schooled on the fact that the original Semitic speakers who moved towards Southern Arabia would have had Levantine ancestry (not aboriginal Southern Arabian ancestry), and that his perceived contradiction between Pagani et al and the linguistic evidence is therefore a figment of his imagination, he then switched his pitch from ''there is a contradiction between the origin of Ethio-Semitic languages in Yemen and the Ethiopian relative dissimilarity to Yemenites compared to Levantines'' to ''even though the original Semitic speakers who donated their languages to Ethiopians would have had Levantine ancestry, Ethiopians should still be closer to Yemenites than Levantines''.
The reason why he says this is because he's trolling and because he's totally in the dark about the existence of pre-Semitic speakers in Southern Arabia, and the fact that most Arabic speaking Yemenites are their descendants, while Yemenites who speak non-Arabic (i.e., South Semitic languages) are the descendants of the original waves of Semitic speakers from the Levant.
He knows the Levantine ancestry of the original Semitic speakers destroy his case, so ever since he was forced to admit that they would have Levantine ancestry, he's been trolling his ass off. Note the following exchange for instance, where I repeatedly attempt to clue him into the fact that the aboriginal Yemenite population and the later arriving speakers of South Arabian languages should be seen as distinct elements:
quote:It still hasn’t dawned on you that the Yemenite proper population pre-dates the South Arabian speakers, has it?
--Swenet
Note that he doesn't even know that South Arabian speakers refers to a linguistic clade, and strangely turns ''South Arabian speakers'' into a matter of geography:
quote:Well, apparently, it has not "dawned on you" that "Yemenites" ARE/were "south Arabians"!
--Explorer
I then repeat it to him that South Arabian speakers refers to a set of closely related languages that arrived in Southern Arabia from the Levant:
quote:In the face of knowing South Arabian speakers came from the Levant, and are a separate entity from the older Yemenite population, simply their sharing of the same land (South Arabia) in modern times, means they can just recklessly be used as proxies for one another?
--Swenet
Note his trolling non-reply, which is totally devoid of any argument, because he simply cannot refute what I'm saying:
quote:This post only reaffirms the fact that you are a complete idiot who has neither a clue as to what south Arabia is or what Yemenites are.
--Explorer
I then, again, urge him to demonstrate why my post evinces that I don't have a clue:
quote:A familiar habit of yours: substituting arguments with a non-reply semi-insult when you get your nose slammed in the facts, and there is no way out. Start explaining what about this post vindicates your opinion that it ’’reaffirms the fact that you are a complete idiot’’.
--Swenet
On topic replies to this very simple request for clarification had him running with his tail between his legs. Instead of complying with my request to back his sh!t up, he switched his pitch again. Seeing that his whole case is disintegrating in front of his eyes, he all of a sudden starts yapping about how I'm supposedly the only one who is talking about the speakers of the South Arabian linguistic clade:
quote:You are too dirt-stupid to even realize that you are the only one here, ever, to speak of "south Arabian speakers".
--Explorer
Notice what happens when I tell him that we've been talking about the speakers of the said linguistic clade all along:
quote:Apparently you do not know that South Arabian speakers are the population that we've been talking about the entire time, that would have introduced Ethio-Semitic languages to the Horn. Thanks for broadcasting to everyone how profoundly unlettered you are on the subject. You're doing me a big favor.
--Swenet
He then reverts back to his trolling, by responding with non-replies that don't even address what I said:
quote:Instead of dreaming up a "big favor", how about you try a real one, as an advice: Get a brain. It'll make you see that pointless rambling-excuses are no substitute for the fact that you are the lonesome airhead who has spoken of South Arabian "speakers" throughout this entire thread.
--Explorer
I then gave him another opportunity to clarify his remarks that I'm ''the only one who's talking about South Arabian speakers'':
quote:**Prove** that the Semitic speakers that moved into Southern Arabia 3kya, and who speak languages that reside within the same linguistic clade with Ethio-Semitic languages, are called anything other than 'South Arabian speakers'. This would go a long way in substantiating your excretion that I'm ''the only one here, ever, to speak of "south Arabian speakers''.
--Swenet
But to no avail, all got was more non-reply trolling remarks where he's letting his opinions talk instead of the requested data:
quote:Your "South Arabian speakers" obsession is as irrelevant as ever since you broached it; but I tell you what: How about you prove [with evidence of course] this "Semitic speakers moved into southern Arabia 3ky ago", supposedly for the first time, that you are now broaching!
--Explorer
When asked him for the umpteenth time to clarify his remarks, all I got was more of the same opinionated troll non-replies:
quote:Your "south Arabian speakers" is still irrelevant!...hussy-fuss aside.
--Explorer
That is basically how it went with every claim of his that I destroyed; as soon as he's debunked, he simply starts giving ad-hominem non-replies, and then repeating them ad infinitum until the person he's talking to gets tired of his manipulations, fallacies and lies. Just look at my last post to him, to get an idea of how many outstanding requests were pending for on-topic replies, that he kept running away from, again and again and again. Then compare those outstanding requests to his latest non-reply response, which is in essence just a repeat of his past five debunked posts.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Well you guys seem to be making mountains out of hills of beans. According to Kitchen et al. Proto-Semitic originated in the Levant but its various derivatives or dialects spawned the various sub-branches some of which traveled south to spawn South-Arabian. And wasn't all this discussed before in here??
But language speakers and whole scale populations are another thing. As far as non-Semitic languages in South Arabia we have from the same thread by Tukuler this:
"There is no real doubt that the ancestors of both epigraphic (ESA) and modernn South Arabian (MSA) were languages spoken in the Near East rather than Ethiopia. But the date and processes whereby the speakers of these languages migrated and diversified are unknown. Apart from inscriptions that can be read, some contain evidence for completely unknown languages co-existing with ESA. Beeston (1981: 181) cites an inscription from Marib which begins in Sabaean but then switches to an unknown language. He mentions several other texts which have similar morphology (a final –k suffix) and which may represent an unknown non-Semitic language (or possibly a Nilo-Saharan language such as Kunama, for which such a feature would be typical)."
But does any of this have to do with hg I or even the topic of this thread?? Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Hey, it aint my fault I got dragged into something because some weirdo doesn't know what he's talking about! On the 1st and 2nd page I was asked to back up on-topic references to Pagani et al and Kitchen et al. I was trying to stick to the topic of mtDNA I2 in Northeastern Africa, with my reference to both Pagani and Kitchen et al, but if some troll desperately tries to prostitute for my attention, I wont turn down the invitation to beat common sense into its brain pan. Posted by Son of Ra (Member # 20401) on :
^^^Agreed...
What does any of this have to do with the topic?
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: I was absent for quite some time, can someone please explain what the argument between Explorer and Swenet is about? I take it, it has to do with the provenance of mtDNA hg I and its alleged Arabian origins, correct?
Already commented on hg I, and requested a detailed account on the molecular specifics that determined the specimen's assignment into this clade, but no answer was forthcoming on that. Instead, a citation was offered on a study (Pagani et al.) around Ethiopian genome, referencing a linguistic study on a south Arabian origin for Ethio-Semitic, which the authors seemed keen on capitalizing, so as to make the same point. Problem with that, is that the authors own findings contradict that hypothesis. This is how the discussion on a south Arabian origin theory came about, with swenet very emotionally trying to defend that premise, but that was a colossal misjudgment on his/her/its part, as he/she/it would soon find out!
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Summation:
--He repeatedly spams the forum with straw-man bait, asking me to defend statements that I've never made, re: supposedly I said in this thread that the SLC24A5 is non-African.
This is for the lazy, but well-meaning learners out there, who might not make any sense of what's going on, and might assume that this is just a tit for tat orgy between me and a knucklehead, the mistake Ru2religious made for instance. Otherwise, I would not even bother. So here is how it went on this gene, SLC24A5:
I commented on a citation from a study (Pagani et al. 2012) with regards to the treatment of SLC24A5 as a "non-African" marker in African samples, including Ethiopians, who were the primary subjects of the study...
Quote:
1. The notion that SLC24A5 allele is unequivocally "non-African", is nothing more than subjective opining by the source above. Ethiopian populations and southern African San hunter-gatherers have both tested positive for the gene variant, on top of other sub-Saharan groups; the key here, is that both populations are reputed to represent the living remnants of relatively deep-rooted ancestry, when compared to other populations. - The Explorer
And here comes the clown, swenet, obviously not having the slightest clue why I objected to said treatment, interjects, for the sake of settling a score on sour grapes from past thrashings he/she/it apparently received from...none other than myself:
Which bars them from having non-African ancestry? What exactly is key about this random injection? - swenet
To which I then follow up with, in an apparent bid to clue the clueless on the underlying point that obviously took a flight over his/her/its empty head:
Do you have proof that the San bushmen got lighter primarily because of “admixture” from “Eurasia”. If so, post it! The ball is really in your court. - The Explorer
Rather than directly reply the above, the request was greeted by the clueless clown as follows:
Thought so. Your objection that SLC24A5 isn't ''unequivocally non-African'' is predicated on the existence of a few Africans here and there who carry the allele, which, if this bankrupt reasoning is applied across the board, no alleles have a single origin. After all, in this day and age, there is always some individual somewhere who carries a marker that isn't from that locale. - swenet
Mind you, this was supposedly a response to an answer I submitted to a query, by none other than the clown itself, about a source which would have implicated the San in the distribution of SLC24A5 'derived' variant...which was offered as follow:
See, for example, Genetic Evidence for the Convergent Evolution of Light Skin in Europeans and East Asians, courtesy Norton et al. 2006. - The Explorer
Obviously the numbskull was taking the position of defending a gratuitous assumption that SLC24A5 allele--associated with light skin in European--is serving as a "non-African" DNA in Pagani et al.'s African samples, Ethiopians included!
The clown was thus put to task on this emotionally-driven defensive posture, an undertaking which proved to be a total disaster; the rest--as they say--is history!
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
As for swenet's longwinded bitch-talk, full of fairy tales, about the irrelevant "aboriginal" non-Semitic speaking south Arabians from prior to 3kya, whom the clown itself brought up but for some awkward reason, just as the clown--by its lonesome--made a mole hill out of "south Arabian speakers" apparently with no clear justification to show for it, other than to place some fictitious blame on me for the necessary reference to a "south Arabian origin", I won't get into a longwinded correction of every falsehood; the posts that I actually posted speak for themselves, without the clown's paraphrasing or re-interpretations. Anyone who allows the clown to do the interpreting for them, rather than reading the damn posts directly themselves, are needlessly setting themselves to be bamboozled by an idiot, which is actually worse than being the idiot itself!
My reference to south Arabian origin speaks directly to a geographical context, although the underlying linguistic context is also a given--and I pointed this out to the nutjob clown. So, it is not necessary for me to laboriously spell out that the transfer of language would have involved ancient "south Arabian Semitic speakers". I have long suspected that the reason the clown insisted on making a needless mole hill out of what should have been obvious, is to assume some shifty position whereby the clown can claim "a population replacement", as the reason for the apparent lack of compatibility of Ethiopian genome with a South Arabian origin, but at the same time deny a "population replacement", if put to task on the prospect. Hence, this talk of "aboriginal south Arabians" vs. "south Arabian speakers".
Dichotomizing south Arabians as such makes little to no sense, unless one is advocating "population replacement". That much of south Arabia speaks Arabic in contemporary times, speaks to the power of acculturation; it doesn't necessarily point to a population replacement. This is the nobrainer I have been trying to hammer into the clown's dense head.
Besides, Ethiopian genome comes closer to north coastal African counterparts than they do the Levant, which in turn comes closer than the south Arabian counterpart. None of this real world stuff seems to seep into that fairy land bubble of the clown.
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: From what I understand M1 and U6 are associated with those Africans that are closest genetically to Eurasians, yet it appears from the STR data that AEs did not belong to that branch but rather the one ancestral to all other Africans.
You do realize that M1 and U6 clades are found in western through to eastern Africa, don't you?
The nuclear DNA STRs (xY-DNA) cannot predict what mtDNA are likely to be present in a given population. Heck, it can't even predict what specific Y-DNA are to be present in a given population.
True, but as I understand it there does seem to be a correlation between the presence of M1 and U6 and affinity to the Horner/Eurasian clade. That is to say, African populations with a large proportion of these haplogroups tend to have a closer relationship to Horners and Eurasians than Africans with lower proportions. Now we know from the STR data that the AEs' ancestry stems largely from the inner African rather than Horner/Eurasian side of the split, so the probability of them having M1 or U6 should be lower.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Yet while U6 is minimal in Egypt, M1 has a significant frequency, especially in southern Egypt.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric:
True, but as I understand it there does seem to be a correlation between the presence of M1 and U6 and affinity to the Horner/Eurasian clade. That is to say, African populations with a large proportion of these haplogroups tend to have a closer relationship to Horners and Eurasians than Africans with lower proportions.
I find this claim very questionable. You'll have to provide details of what you are basing it on.
I mean, I've long become accustomed to Eurocentrists claiming "Eurasian" closeness with Ethiopian groups, but that is because of the component these centrists like to dismiss as "Eurasian". Ethiopians are much more than that component--that Eurocentrists are so fixated on, to the exclusion of the even more important components of Ethiopian gene pool--of course.
And no, the only tangible correlation I see involving M1 and U6, and the said east Africans, is that of its dispersal serving as potential marker of proto-"Afro-Asiatic" movement within and out of the continent. Nothing more or less.
As for the so-called "Eurasian" components in groups that seem to have "higher" portions of "M1 and U6", there is good indication that many of these groups actually acquired said component on the African continent itself; this component appears to have had a good presence in the Sahara, whereupon the environmental fluctuations forced groups to seek other habitations. This component also appears to be far more phylogenetically complex than what Eurocentrists make it out to be!
quote:
Now we know from the STR data that the AEs' ancestry stems largely from the inner African rather than Horner/Eurasian side of the split, so the probability of them having M1 or U6 should be lower.
This is a weak probability, because as I just noted, the distribution of M1 and U6 appear to be more of a geographic factor, than the correlation between frequency of M1-U6 and "Eurasian" ancestry. As a matter of fact, the fact that northwest Africans who seem to have a higher component of so-called "Eurasian" genome, have much lower M1 prevalence than Ethiopians but with phylogenetically-deeper clades, weakens your correlation theory. Your theory would dictate a higher northwest African M1, just based on its correlation with the supposed "Eurasian" component. On the other hand, U6 prevalence in Ethiopia is comparable to those reported in west African samples with very high supposedly "African" component, at least according to one finding.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric:
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: From what I understand M1 and U6 are associated with those Africans that are closest genetically to Eurasians, yet it appears from the STR data that AEs did not belong to that branch but rather the one ancestral to all other Africans.
You do realize that M1 and U6 clades are found in western through to eastern Africa, don't you?
The nuclear DNA STRs (xY-DNA) cannot predict what mtDNA are likely to be present in a given population. Heck, it can't even predict what specific Y-DNA are to be present in a given population.
True, but as I understand it there does seem to be a correlation between the presence of M1 and U6 and affinity to the Horner/Eurasian clade. That is to say, African populations with a large proportion of these haplogroups tend to have a closer relationship to Horners and Eurasians than Africans with lower proportions. Now we know from the STR data that the AEs' ancestry stems largely from the inner African rather than Horner/Eurasian side of the split, so the probability of them having M1 or U6 should be lower.
I agree with Explorer, and this is why. M1 is among the ancient clades that made it to Western Eurasia, around the same time as E-M78. If its associated with E-M78 and late Pleistocene OOA expansions from Northeastern Africa, common sense dictates that it should then also have been present in (dynastic) Ancient Egypt. While I don't believe this clade is phylogenetically African, it, along with E-M78 are still Late Pleistocene North(east) African signatures, both in and outside of Africa.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Also, it cannot be taken for granted that the Cushitic and Semitic speaking Ethiopian local genome would have been as pristine as it was when Egyptic speakers branched off of the early Afrasan community. As Pagani et al have demonstrated, most of the Eurasian elements in Horners date to 3kya. Therefore, the conclusions that can be drawn from the relatively low MLI scores of modern day Ethiopians to the Pharaohs are limited. The way I see it (and I've said it before), is that the STR allelles found in Egyptians are mostly (old) pan-African DNA, and so, the original Afrasan community (minus the 3kya Eurasian admixture) would likely have much higher MLI scores than modern day Afrasan speaking Ethiopians.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
.
According to this study Siwa have hg U at a similar but higher frequency than M1 but not subclade U6 (one source I read said also HV0, L3 and K
However hg U as far as I know is not common in Egyptians as a whole wheras M1 is
.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
As Pagani et al have demonstrated, most of the Eurasian elements in Horners date to 3kya.
Explain to me, in your own words -- but does not mean you should shy away from corresponding citations that back you up, how they have determined this, the markers (meaning specific haplotypes or haplogroups) involved, and why you think it is accurate!
I look at Ethiopian mtDNA profile for instance, and I find it hard to conceive of a profile like that only dating to the magic date of 3kya, which suspiciously approximates that of the linguistic study Pagani et al. just so happened to reference! Even the Y-DNA profile by and large contradicts this date.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
While I don't believe this clade is phylogenetically African
Good thing that you're making it clear that this amounts to just a belief that you cling onto...because you will be up against an uphill battle in actually proving it, as I have amply demonstrated on several occasions.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
However hg U as far as I know is not common in Egyptians as a whole wheras M1 is
U6 is generally found in low frequencies in even other Tamazight-speaking groups, while M1 is usually found in moderate to low frequencies. So, U6's absence in Siwa samples may just be reflecting the effect of negative genetic drift on that clade.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
As Pagani et al have demonstrated, most of the Eurasian elements in Horners date to 3kya.
Explain to me, in your own words -- but does not mean you should shy away from corresponding citations that back you up, how they have determined this, the markers (meaning specific haplotypes or haplogroups) involved, and why you think it is accurate!
I look at Ethiopian mtDNA profile for instance, and I find it hard to conceive of a profile like that only dating to the magic date of 3kya, which suspiciously approximates that of the linguistic study Pagani et al. just so happened to reference! Even the Y-DNA profile by and large contradicts this date.
What, just because I agreed with what you said, you think that's a nod to you or something? You're a lying troll, guided by vested interests, lies, fallacies and manipulations. Even as we speak, you're again introducing fallacies like the mega troll that you are. Even way before Pagani 2012 and Kitchen 2009, Rosa & Brehm 2011 and Kivisild et al. 2004 had entertained the possibility that the lineages being referred to could very well have been introduced by Ethio-Semitic speakers:
quote:N1 is a minor mtDNA haplogroup that has been observed at marginal frequencies in European, Near Eastern, Indian and East African populations (Richards et al., 2000; Kivisild et al., 2004), mainly in Semitic speakers. Although with much older coalescences in the Near East and Southwest Asia (Richards et al., 2000), N1, U (non-U5 or U6) and W lineages may have been imported relatively recently, with the expansion of Semitic languages, at least in the Ethiopian pool (Kivisild et al., 2004).
--Rosa & Brehm, 2011
No one needs you to 'okay' or 'approve' any scientific observation, for those observations to be scientifically well founded, although I'm sure that is how you perceive things to be in your coo coo world.
Also, what I've been holding back, as it was way too funny seeing Explorer squirm, trying to defend a position of a predominantly local origin of the Ethiopian non-L mtDNAs, which has been crumbling far years: according to various researchers, the very recent G 13915 allele, perhaps associated with the Saudi Camel domestication event, made its way into Ethiopia at a time that could not have been much older that ~4kya. Enattah et al:
quote:Our age estimate of the G 13915 allele of ~4095 (+/- 2045) years in the Arabian Peninsula would suggest that the introduction of this LP variant might be associated with the domestication of the Arabian camel more than 6000 years ago.
--Enattah et al, 2008
Where this allele is found according to Ingram et al 2006:
quote:Of the populations tested, the -13915*G allele was found to be fairly widespread in eastern Africa and the Middle East. It was most common in the Saudi Bedouins
--Ingram et al 2006
I'd love to see the nutties pull the ''this is not due to Eurasian backflow, but due to OOA events'', or ''its not Eurasian because (insert African ethnic group) have it too!'' mumbo jumbo on this one.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
As Pagani et al have demonstrated, most of the Eurasian elements in Horners date to 3kya.
Explain to me, in your own words -- but does not mean you should shy away from corresponding citations that back you up, how they have determined this [3kya], the markers (meaning specific haplotypes or haplogroups) involved, and why you think it is accurate!
I look at Ethiopian mtDNA profile for instance, and I find it hard to conceive of a profile like that only dating to the magic date of 3kya, which suspiciously approximates that of the linguistic study Pagani et al. just so happened to reference! Even the Y-DNA profile by and large contradicts this date.
What, just because I agreed with what you said, you think that's a nod to you or something?
dumbass, I could care less whether you agree with me on something or not. You are requested to deliver the above. Stop crying for made-up reasons, and start delivering!
quote:
You're a lying troll, guided by vested interests, lies, fallacies and manipulations. Even as we speak, you're again introducing fallacies like the mega troll that you are. Even way before Pagani 2012 and Kitchen 2009, Rosa & Brehm 2011 and Kivisild et al. 2004 had entertained the possibility that the lineages being referred to could very well have been introduced by Ethio-Semitic speakers
The fact that your supposed "Eurasian" mtDNA is not structured along linguistic lines in Ethiopian samples, makes mockery of your sad little tale about Ethio-Semitic speakers being the source of it. We've been through this. You failed, but danced around the issue every possible way you imagined you could to avoid substantiating the tale, and now you are it again.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:
N1 is a minor mtDNA haplogroup that has been observed at marginal frequencies in European, Near Eastern, Indian and East African populations (Richards et al., 2000; Kivisild et al., 2004), mainly in Semitic speakers. Although with much older coalescences in the Near East and Southwest Asia (Richards et al., 2000), N1, U (non-U5 or U6) and W lineages may have been imported relatively recently, with the expansion of Semitic languages, at least in the Ethiopian pool (Kivisild et al., 2004).--Rosa & Brehm, 2011
How recent is "recently" here?
Elsewhere I posted this:
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.
But...
It occurs at a significant frequency in both Ethiopian and Yemeni populations.
Further...
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). A related sequence, from southern Sudan (Krings et al. 1999), was misclassified as a member of the L1a clade (Salas et al. 2002).
Yemeni N1a sequences, on the other hand, display a high level of haplotype (h=0.89) and nucleotide (ρ=2.75±1) diversity, combined with the highest frequency (6.9%) of this haplogroup reported so far.
We see that the Ethiopian sequences show their closest matches with those of northern areas of Africa than with those in southern Arabia and the "Near East" and elsewhere, where as noted, save for Yemen, hg N1a markers are visibly lower than in Ethiopian populations.
quote:
Also, what I've been holding back, as it was way too funny seeing Explorer squirm
More like, you having scrambled for answers for a while, never being able to come up with rationale reasons for your cartoon-like claims. Now, something else grabs your eye, and you say to yourself, "let me bring it up to The Explorer".
quote: trying to defend a position of a predominantly local origin of the Ethiopian non-L mtDNAs, which has been crumbling far years
Throughout your exchanges, you have only managed to demonstrate that empty-headed talk is cheap.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
according to various researchers, the very recent G 13915 allele, perhaps associated with the Saudi Camel domestication event, made its way into Ethiopia at a time that could not have been much older that ~4kya. Enattah et al:
quote:Our age estimate of the G 13915 allele of ~4095 (+/- 2045) years in the Arabian Peninsula would suggest that the introduction of this LP variant might be associated with the domestication of the Arabian camel more than 6000 years ago.
--Enattah et al, 2008
Where this allele is found according to Ingram et al 2006:
quote:Of the populations tested, the -13915*G allele was found to be fairly widespread in eastern Africa and the Middle East. It was most common in the Saudi Bedouins
--Ingram et al 2006
I'd love to see the nutties pull the ''this is not due to Eurasian backflow, but due to OOA events'', or ''its not Eurasian because (insert African ethnic group) have it too!'' mumbo jumbo on this one.
You are on the verge of making the same mistake that you made with the SLC24A5 marker. You simply parrot whatever tickles your emotion, without thinking. Here's a little known trivia about lactose tolerance in east Africa:
After testing for lactose tolerance and genetic makeup among 43 ethnic groups in East Africa, she and her colleagues have found three new mutations all independent of one another and of the European mutation, that keep the lactase gene permanently switched on. - Tishkoff et al., courtesy of NY Times.
Few things to note about the above:
Unique mutations were found in east Africa.
Not only are these mutations different from say, those in Europeans, but they tend to be independent variants between east African groups themselves.
Lactose tolerance-associated alleles are the product of positive selection on the LCT gene.
Therefore, it is not inconceivable for the gene to either actually originate in Africa, and/or, for it to emerge on the backdrop of convergent evolution.
You have to demonstrate to me how lactose tolerance in east Africans is the product of non-African gene flow!
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
PS:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
N1 is a minor mtDNA haplogroup that has been observed at marginal frequencies in European, Near Eastern, Indian and East African populations (Richards et al., 2000; Kivisild et al., 2004), mainly in Semitic speakers. Although with much older coalescences in the Near East and Southwest Asia (Richards et al., 2000), N1, U (non-U5 or U6) and W lineages may have been imported relatively recently, with the expansion of Semitic languages, at least in the Ethiopian pool (Kivisild et al., 2004).--Rosa & Brehm, 2011
How recent is "recently" here?
Elsewhere I posted this:
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.
But...
It occurs at a significant frequency in both Ethiopian and Yemeni populations.
Further...
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). A related sequence, from southern Sudan (Krings et al. 1999), was misclassified as a member of the L1a clade (Salas et al. 2002).
Yemeni N1a sequences, on the other hand, display a high level of haplotype (h=0.89) and nucleotide (ρ=2.75±1) diversity, combined with the highest frequency (6.9%) of this haplogroup reported so far.
We see that the Ethiopian sequences show their closest matches with those of northern areas of Africa than with those in southern Arabia and the "Near East" and elsewhere, where as noted, save for Yemen, hg N1a markers are visibly lower than in Ethiopian populations.
Adding to the above...
As my contribution, here's a little more genetic substance to the discussion, mainly recounting some interesting findings I had come across years ago.
To piggyback on an observation Pagani et al. (2012) made...
The non-African component was found to be more similar to populations inhabiting the Levant rather than the Arabian Peninsula
I recount noting as follows, with reference to observations around Kivisild et al. (2004):
"Given what the authors say about mtDNA like pre-HV markers, attempt at correlation here can only hint on possible entertainment of back-migration involving "Afro-Asiatic" groups from the "Near East" through the Sinai corridor as opposed to the south Arabian peninsula [note here, that invocation of the low incidence of E-M78 in Yemeni samples fit into that theme]" - Explorer
On the mtDNA front, years ago I had noted as follows, courtesy of Kivisild et al. (2004)...
This pattern (below) was observed quite frequently for hg N and its sub-clades in the Ethiopian maternal gene pool:
"AGAIN, northern Africa is implicated. One confronts a situation wherein Ethiopian examples fail to find matches with those in the "Near East" or southern Arabia, and again, there doesn't seem to any structuring along linguistic lines." - Explorer
Furthermore...
...A specific haplotype match in haplogroup (preHV)1—which is also widely spread in the Near East—between Ethiopian Jews and non-Jews is more problematic, because it is also possible that the non-Jews obtained the lineage from the Jews. This particular (preHV)1 haplotype, with a rare transversion at np 16305, (1) has not been detected, so far, among other Semitic populations of the Near East; whereas, (2) in Ethiopia, it occurs both among Cushitic and Semitic speakers;
But...
and, (3) in Ethiopian Jews, there are many sub-Saharan African lineages from haplogroups L0–L3. It is more likely, therefore, that the matching haplotype does not represent the incursion of Jewish maternal lineages into the Ethiopian gene pool but that this haplotype instead substantiates the extent of Ethiopian admixture in the Falasha population.
Taken together, the influx of the elements of the Hebraic culture in the first centuries a.d. probably did not have a major impact on the genetic pool of Ethiopians,
and the present-day Jews of Ethiopian descent probably assimilated genes from the local non-Jewish populations through conversion of the latter to Judaism.
Importantly...
The other two episodes of intrusion of Semitic influence, related to contacts with southern Arabia, are weakly supported by our data.
This is because, among the haplogroup N lineages present in high frequency in the Tigrais and other Ethiopian ethnic groups, only a few revealed close relationships with equivalent lineages present in southern Arabia.
The pattern you see above, surfaces quite frequently in Ethiopian so-called "Eurasian" gene pool.
^A genetic profile starts to emerge that does not square with a 3ky ago age!
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Try again, troll, this time, actually refuting what I posted below, rather than throwing in a bunch of vague and general information, that doesn't even come close to bring into question what I posted:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
As Pagani et al have demonstrated, most of the Eurasian elements in Horners date to 3kya.
Explain to me, in your own words -- but does not mean you should shy away from corresponding citations that back you up, how they have determined this, the markers (meaning specific haplotypes or haplogroups) involved, and why you think it is accurate!
I look at Ethiopian mtDNA profile for instance, and I find it hard to conceive of a profile like that only dating to the magic date of 3kya, which suspiciously approximates that of the linguistic study Pagani et al. just so happened to reference! Even the Y-DNA profile by and large contradicts this date. [/qb]
What, just because I agreed with what you said, you think that's a nod to you or something? You're a lying troll, guided by vested interests, lies, fallacies and manipulations. Even as we speak, you're again introducing fallacies like the mega troll that you are. Even way before Pagani 2012 and Kitchen 2009, Rosa & Brehm 2011 and Kivisild et al. 2004 had entertained the possibility that the lineages being referred to could very well have been introduced by Ethio-Semitic speakers:
quote:N1 is a minor mtDNA haplogroup that has been observed at marginal frequencies in European, Near Eastern, Indian and East African populations (Richards et al., 2000; Kivisild et al., 2004), mainly in Semitic speakers. Although with much older coalescences in the Near East and Southwest Asia (Richards et al., 2000), N1, U (non-U5 or U6) and W lineages may have been imported relatively recently, with the expansion of Semitic languages, at least in the Ethiopian pool (Kivisild et al., 2004).
--Rosa & Brehm, 2011
No one needs you to 'okay' or 'approve' any scientific observation, for those observations to be scientifically well founded, although I'm sure that is how you perceive things to be in your coo coo world.
Also, what I've been holding back, as it was way too funny seeing Explorer squirm, trying to defend a position of a predominantly local origin of the Ethiopian non-L mtDNAs, which has been crumbling far years: according to various researchers, the very recent G 13915 allele, perhaps associated with the Saudi Camel domestication event, made its way into Ethiopia at a time that could not have been much older that ~4kya. Enattah et al:
quote:Our age estimate of the G 13915 allele of ~4095 (+/- 2045) years in the Arabian Peninsula would suggest that the introduction of this LP variant might be associated with the domestication of the Arabian camel more than 6000 years ago.
--Enattah et al, 2008
Where this allele is found according to Ingram et al 2006:
quote:Of the populations tested, the -13915*G allele was found to be fairly widespread in eastern Africa and the Middle East. It was most common in the Saudi Bedouins
--Ingram et al 2006
I'd love to see the nutties pull the ''this is not due to Eurasian backflow, but due to OOA events'', or ''its not Eurasian because (insert African ethnic group) have it too!'' mumbo jumbo on this one.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
This redundant re-posting of material that has either been rendered questionable or debunked is in keeping with your usual way of throwing in the towel. Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
If you say so. In the real world, however, level-headed posters will realize:
--that your vague comments about the independent origins of LP associated alleles do not even begin to address or contradict the post they're targeting. To the contrary, such a view is rather compatible with my posts. In fact, 13915*G having an independent origin is what makes it a useful polymorphic allele in the first place, that can be used to determined who Ethiopians inherited it from, and the upper bound of such an admixture date. Additionally, its also not clear from the article whether 13915*G was one of the newly detected mutations. But, as we all know, trolls are not particularly concerned with making sense of their dumb ass posts. Initially, when you first posted the irrelevant Tiskoff bit, I didn't want to say it, but, since you're denying the patently obvious conclusion that your post has zero relevancy, I'm going to go ahead and clue you in to the fact that your source says that all four LP associated alleles are dated and that the dates match with the archaeological record. This is another smack in the face of your theory that ''genes under selection cannot be reliably dated''.
--that the admixture event of 3kya cannot be falsified with the vague, mindless mumbo jumbo references you have in mind, since the said methods cannot distinguish between the split of Levantine ancestral Ethio-Semitic speakers from the Levantine Proto-Semitic community ~6kya, and the admixture event 3kya which led to Ethiopian populations inheriting the said varations. They will simply pick up on the former event, not the latter. Therefore, the TMCRA dates older than 3kya, but younger than ~7kya, of most non mtDNA L, U6 and M1 Ethiopian haplogroups cannot falsify the 3kya admixture event established by Pagani et al. Heck, even haplotype TMRCAs that are older than that don't necessarily refute Pagani et al's admixture date of 3kya. Pagani et al used another method to arrive at their conclusions, which you still haven't refuted, and CANNOT refute. Hence, you pathetically resort to the next best thing; troll baiting others into talking about their interpretations of/take on Pagani et al, rather than taking it up with the paper itself. No stalling, troll, do it right here! Bring into question the results obtained by Pagani et al, that left you butt hurt since the first page of this thread. Do it right here, for everyone to see.
--that irrelevant exact matches of Egyptian and Ethiopian mtDNAs do not even begin to address what was posted, since, like the rest of your shabby post, its not incompatible with what I posted. It wouldn't be more random if you were to randomly post a news article about the VMAs in response to my post.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
In fact, 13915*G having an independent origin is what makes it a useful polymorphic allele in the first place, that can be used to determined who Ethiopians inherited it from, and the upper bound of such an admixture date.
Whom did Ethiopians supposedly "inherit" from? When, where, and against what backdrop?
quote:Additionally, its also not clear from the article whether 13915*G was one of the newly detected mutations. But, as we all know, trolls are not particularly concerned with making sense of their dumb ass posts. Initially, when you first posted the irrelevant Tiskoff bit, I didn't want to say it, but, since you're denying the patently obvious conclusion that your post has zero relevancy, I'm going to go ahead and clue you in to the fact that your source says that all four LP associated alleles are dated and that the dates match with the archaeological record.
Let me clue in your dumbass. I did not vouch for accuracy of the source's dates.
I'd say bringing to light, the tendency of lactose tolerant polymorphism to occur on convergent evolutionary backgrounds is quite relevant. It's understandable that the empty volume of your head obscures the all too obvious.
quote:This is another smack in the face of your theory that ''genes under selection cannot be reliably dated''.
Deja vu. How was it done? and again, tell me in your own words, how solid dating on DNA under selection is achieved.
quote: --that the admixture event of 3kya cannot be falsified with the vague, mindless mumbo jumbo references you have in mind
Run by me, what is "mindless mumbo jumbo", and how you've arrived at this context-free analysis.
quote: since the said methods cannot distinguish between the split of Levantine ancestral Ethio-Semitic speakers from the Levantine Proto-Semitic community ~6kya, and the admixture event 3kya which led to Ethiopian populations inheriting the said varations.
Your fuckhead buys into the precision of "said methods" in attaining a magic introduction of Ethiopian mtDNA 3ky ago, but somehow the said methods cannot discern between the "split" from a supposed Levantine source, and the "admixture" event. If said methods cannot differentiate between two demographic events, then they should not be able to date them either; naturally, such common sense eludes you, because you talk through your ass.
quote:Therefore, the TMCRA dates older than 3kya, but younger than ~7kya, of most non mtDNA L, U6 and M1 Ethiopian haplogroups cannot falsify the 3kya admixture event established by Pagani et al.
What haplogroups/haplotypes are you dating, and based on what molecular specifics?
quote:Heck, even haplotype TMRCAs that are older than that don't necessarily refute Pagani et al's admixture date of 3kya.
As a matter of fact, older ages for what you dismiss as "Eurasian" in mtDNA gene pool would refute that magic date of 3kya, as you associated that date with the origin of the said Ethiopian gene pool. Secondly, it nullifies the claim that said "Eurasian" component is signal of "introduction of Ethio-Smetic language", which Pagani et al. were obviously trying to capitalize on.
Besides, did I not request you produce how the solid dating had been achieved by Pagani et al., in your own words, and why you say it is accurate? Of course I did. You have a habit of evading, by dancing around like a fag--to use your own words but more appropriately, in the hopes to bore readers to death, and then, rehash your quackery on a different page or topic.
quote: Pagani et al used another method to arrive at their conclusions, which you still haven't refuted, and CANNOT refute.
I've been waiting on you for the details of this method for ages; one cannot refute that which has not been established.
quote: Hence, you pathetically resort to the next best thing; troll baiting others into talking about their interpretations of/take on Pagani et al, rather than taking it up with the paper itself.
Pagani et al. are not here debating; you are, dummy. I have to take it up on the idiot who cited them, albeit without actually understanding the study.
Not that it is relevant here, but I have in fact "taken it up" with Pagani et al.
quote:--that irrelevant exact matches of Egyptian and Ethiopian mtDNAs do not even begin to address what was posted
Naturally, Ethiopian supposed "Eurasian" component finding its closest associations with northern Africa as opposed to either the Levant or the Arabian peninsula is not relevant to you, which begs the question of why you are even discussing genetics (clearly over your head), but it is obviously relevant to geneticists, and to the topic of supposed introduction of Ethio-Semitic from southern Arabia.
quote:since, like the rest of your shabby post, its not incompatible with what I posted.
Now you are just using comments like this as a blanket for coping out. You aren't even touching the molecular notes I posted, quite simply, because you can't.
One thing is undeniable, as your last post shows: you are very talented at senseless crying; if only, the talent extended to delivering relevant answers and substance.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Same thing applies to this thread. I DARE you to contradict anything I'm saying here with actual demonstrations. You can't, troll, and you know it.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: If you say so. In the real world, however, level-headed posters will realize:
--that your vague comments about the independent origins of LP associated alleles do not even begin to address or contradict the post they're targeting. To the contrary, such a view is rather compatible with my posts. In fact, 13915*G having an independent origin is what makes it a useful polymorphic allele in the first place, that can be used to determined who Ethiopians inherited it from, and the upper bound of such an admixture date. Additionally, its also not clear from the article whether 13915*G was one of the newly detected mutations. But, as we all know, trolls are not particularly concerned with making sense of their dumb ass posts. Initially, when you first posted the irrelevant Tiskoff bit, I didn't want to say it, but, since you're denying the patently obvious conclusion that your post has zero relevancy, I'm going to go ahead and clue you in to the fact that your source says that all four LP associated alleles are dated and that the dates match with the archaeological record. This is another smack in the face of your theory that ''genes under selection cannot be reliably dated''.
--that the admixture event of 3kya cannot be falsified with the vague, mindless mumbo jumbo references you have in mind, since the said methods cannot distinguish between the split of Levantine ancestral Ethio-Semitic speakers from the Levantine Proto-Semitic community ~6kya, and the admixture event 3kya which led to Ethiopian populations inheriting the said varations. They will simply pick up on the former event, not the latter. Therefore, the TMCRA dates older than 3kya, but younger than ~7kya, of most non mtDNA L, U6 and M1 Ethiopian haplogroups cannot falsify the 3kya admixture event established by Pagani et al. Heck, even haplotype TMRCAs that are older than that don't necessarily refute Pagani et al's admixture date of 3kya. Pagani et al used another method to arrive at their conclusions, which you still haven't refuted, and CANNOT refute. Hence, you pathetically resort to the next best thing; troll baiting others into talking about their interpretations of/take on Pagani et al, rather than taking it up with the paper itself. No stalling, troll, do it right here! Bring into question the results obtained by Pagani et al, that left you butt hurt since the first page of this thread. Do it right here, for everyone to see.
--that irrelevant exact matches of Egyptian and Ethiopian mtDNAs do not even begin to address what was posted, since, like the rest of your shabby post, its not incompatible with what I posted. It wouldn't be more random if you were to randomly post a news article about the VMAs in response to my post.
Note this one in particular:
quote:Your fuckhead buys into the precision of "said methods" in attaining a magic introduction of Ethiopian mtDNA 3ky ago
--The Explorer
^The supertroll's head is veiled in complete darkness. She thinks the 3ky date was obtained by calculating haplogroup TMRCAs, and so, her confusion is making her see contradictions where there are none.
And this:
quote:If said methods cannot differentiate between two demographic events, then they should not be able to date them either
--Explorer
^Here babygirl shows how little she knows about the topic of genetics. By contradicting what I said, she's suggesting that haplogroup and haplotype TMRCAs necessary confer information about the date when a haplogroup introgressed into a distant population that inherits the haplogroups/types later on. Hence, her profoundly stupid remarks about the TMRCAs of some non-L mtDNAs in Ethiopians not fitting the 3kya date--as if that's a contradiction to the 3kya date obtained by Pagani et al.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
You know the deal, right, babygirl? Actual demonstrations of where the above is wrong, or you'll get ignored. No longer will I entertain your trolling, lies, non-replies, troll bait and deliberate misinterpretations.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)