Ancient west Eurasian ancestry in southern and eastern Africa 2013
Joseph K. Pickrell et al.
The history of southern Africa involved interactions between indigenous hunter-gatherers and a range of populations that moved into the region. Here we use genome-wide genetic data to show that there are at least two admixture events in the history of Khoisan populations (southern African hunter-gatherers and pastoralists who speak non-Bantu languages with click consonants). One involved populations related to Niger-Congo-speaking African populations, and the other introduced ancestry most closely related to west Eurasian (European or Middle Eastern) populations. We date this latter admixture event to approximately 900-1,800 years ago, and show that it had the largest demographic impact in Khoisan populations that speak Khoe-Kwadi languages. A similar signal of west Eurasian ancestry is present throughout eastern Africa. In particular, we also find evidence for two admixture events in the history of Kenyan, Tanzanian, and Ethiopian populations, the earlier of which involved populations related to west Eurasians and which we date to approximately 2,700 - 3,300 years ago. We reconstruct the allele frequencies of the putative west Eurasian population in eastern Africa, and show that this population is a good proxy for the west Eurasian ancestry in southern Africa. The most parsimonious explanation for these findings is that west Eurasian ancestry entered southern Africa indirectly through eastern Africa.
.
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
The claimed admixture is relatively small- 14% in one group, to 5% in another. Furthermore in some cases the differences between modern "Eurasian" DNA and that said to be more ancient is unclear. QUOTE:
"The highest levels of west Eurasian ancestry are found in Khoe-Kwadi speakers (Table 1), particularly the Nama, where our estimate of west Eurasian ancestry reaches 14% (though note we cannot distinguish between the impact of recent colonialism and older west Eurasian ancestry in the Nama using this method). Other populations of note include the Khwe, Shua, and Haijjom, who we estimate to have approximately 5% west Eurasian ancestry." Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
This paper, or at least its abstract, has been floating around the net for several months now. Never bothered to post it. It confirms what has been haunting ''The Explorer'' since a couple of months ago, when Pagani et al 2012 was posted by me. Because Pagani et al had the audacity to contradict ''The Explorer''s emotion-based knee jerk beliefs regarding Horner genetic purity (how dare they!!), ''The Explorer'' took exception to the Pagani paper.
Safe to say, Pickrell et al nuke ''The Explorer's'' fairy tale of a wholly indigenous origin of the SLC24A5 allele in San and Ethiopian populations, and therefore, his emotion-based objection that Ethiopian SLC24A5 represent some mystic wandering African ancestry that's not ultimately connected to Eurasian admixture events. As if his recent slew of intellectual beatings weren't enough, the charlatan just stays taking haymakers to the face left and right.
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
^Note his child-like logical fallacy that the mere act of carrying deep-rooted clades is some sort of shield against foreign admixture.
Expect his reaction to the above, assuming he won't cower and hide like he did with the E-M81 & uni/multi-variate blunders, to be riddled with denial, distortions, lies, manipulations and non-replies rather than to simply refute what I, Pagani et al 2012, Kitchen et al 2009, Keita 2004 and Pickrill et al 2013 (among others) have been saying for the longest.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
The idea that the Khoisan acquired Eurasian admixture via Ethiosemitic speakers is pure speculation. There is no archaeological evidence of Ethiopians migrating into East and South Africa, but there is evidence of an ancient migration of Khoisan into Europe based on archaeological and skeletal data.
First Europeans
The first modern European reconstructed by Forensic artist Richard Neave based on skull fragments from 35,000 years ago resembled a Khoisan. This supports the research of Boule and Vallois that South Africans migrated into Europe 35kya. This genetic evidence now supports Boule and Vallois of a khoisan migration into Europe.
There have been numerous "Negroid skeletons" found in Europe. Marcellin Boule and Henri Vallois, in Fossil Man, provide an entire chapter on the Africans/Negroes of Europe Anta Diop also discussed the Negroes of Europe in Civilization or Barbarism, pp.25-68. Also W.E. B. DuBois, discussed these Negroes in the The World and Africa, pp.86-89. DuBois noted that "There was once a an "uninterrupted belt' of Negro culture from Central Europe to South Africa" (p.88) 25-35kya.
Boule and Vallois, note that "To sum up, in the most ancient skeletons from the Grotte des Enfants we have a human type which is readily comparable to modern types and especially to the Negritic or Negroid type" (p.289). They continue, "Two Neolithic individuals from Chamblandes in Switzerland are Negroid not only as regards their skulls but also in the proportions of their limbs. Several Ligurian and Lombard tombs of the Metal Ages have also yielded evidences of a Negroid element.
Boule and Vallois, note that "We know now that the ethnography of South African tribes presents many striking similarities with the ethnography of our populations of the Reindeer Age. Not to speak of their stone implements which, as we shall see later , exhibit great similarities, Peringuey has told us that in certain burials on the South African coast 'associated with the Aurignacian or Solutrean type industry...."(p.318-319). They add, that in relation to Bushman art " This almost uninterrupted series leads us to regard the African continent as a centre of important migrations which at certain times may have played a great part in the stocking of Southern Europe. Finally, we must not forget that the Grimaldi Negroid skeletons sho many points of resemblance with the Bushman skeletons". They bear no less a resemblance to that of the fossil Man discovered at Asslar in mid-Sahara, whose characters led us to class him with the Hottentot-Bushman group.
The Boule and Vallois research makes it clear that the Bushman expanded across Africa on into Europe via Spain as the Grimaldi people. This makes it clear that the Bushman/Khoisan people were not isolated in South Africa.The Eurasian alleles alleged to have been carried by Khoisan as the result of a back migration, may in reality be the result of the ancient spread of Khoisan in Europe documented by Boule and Vallois. .
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ The reactionary Winters nonsense aside. I am not really surprised at all by these findings. As I've always said, the division of Africa into 'North' vs. 'Sub-Sahara' is a false construct and no such division has ever existed between African populations; therefore if alleged 'Eurasian' genes are found in North Africa then they must be found in so-called 'Sub-Sahara' as well, meaning they can't limit the admixture (or white-wash) to just the 'North'. We have NRY haplogroups R and T for example, the latter being widespread across the Sahel.
The only thing now is to put such 'Eurasian' influence into its proper historical aspect. Are we to assume that such genetic influence suggests "Caucasoid" presence as Tukuler fears? Or does this suggest something else? Again, I am in favor of the constant geneflow between northeast Africa and Southwest Asia all along.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
From blog entry, "Haplogroup Assignment; Old Habits that Die Hard", June 30, 2013:
Pagani et al.'s practice steers clear away from the real complexities of human phylogeny, by hinging their assignment effortlessly on what is considered an "L" clade and what is not, and thereof, facilitating assignment into two neat, seemingly non-overlapping, ancestral lines. The basis for the assignment of remaining segments of the genome, which were not mitochondrial, into an identical two-party grouping of ancestral lines (African and non-African respectively), was mostly left to the imagination of the reader. The few exceptions therein, where the DNA locus was implicated by the name of a gene, as was the case of the SLC24A5 gene, "frequency" was alluded to as the reasoning behind the assignment into one of the two camps of ancestry.
The "derived" variant of the SLC24A5 gene was taken for granted as "non-African" on the mere account of its high "frequencies" in European samples, but it was demonstrated [2] that the distribution pattern of the variant, along with the relevant attributes of other pigmentation genes, elicited caution against that assumption. Among other sub-Saharan groups, the "derived" variant of the SLC24A5 appears in the gene pool of the San, as have "derived" variants of other known "skin pigmentation" genes.
The easing up of skin eumelanin in San hunter-gatherers has generally been attributed to local evolution in lower UV radiation environments they frequent, as opposed to the result of gene flow. In the Ethiopian samples, on the other hand, the presence of the "derived" variant of the SLC24A5 gene was peculiar in that it was not found in tandem with other "skin-pigmentation" affiliated genes whose distribution generally paralleled that of the "derived" SLC24A5 variant, particularly in Europeans. Hence, "frequency" in itself is not a sufficient enough indicator for ascribing a single-source origin in the form of a "non-African" origin. - Extract ends
From blog entry, "What Ethiopian Genetic Diversity—Really—Reveals!", May 15, 2013:
This [SLC24A5] gene, in its derived form, which is said to be under positive selection in "lightly" pigmented populations, was implicated in the San, who as noted above, tend to generally be isolated, and culturally-conservative hunter-gatherers. "Derived" variants of other pigmentation-associated genes were also cited, with respect to the San([5]). It is questionable that this gene is serving as a "non-African" marker in the San. The same issue actually surfaces with regards to its presence in Ethiopian groups:
Secondly:
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.
If this gene, in its "derived" form, was essentially serving as a "non-African" marker in the Ethiopians, then one would expect that other "derived" skin-pigmentation markers would have been introduced along with the SLC24A5 allele, by the foreign "non-African" group(s) that is supposed to have been the source. Skin pigmentation is the byproduct of the consortial work of a number of distinct genes, and so, it's highly unlikely that a "derived" SLC24A5 allele would be introduced without other accompanying skin-pigmentation genes.
No less, it's highly unlikely that only the derived "SLC24A5" allele would survive from a foreign "non-African" source, in a population for which the allele's presence is "potentially disadvantageous", as the authors note, on grounds of the kind of UV-radiation intensive environment they generally reside. Likewise, if as the authors note, the presence of the derived SLC24A5 allele in Ethiopians may be attributable to "socially"-promoted selection, then one would think that other skin-pigmentation genes, which would have accompanied the SLC24A5 allele in an introduction by a foreign "non-African" source, would have likely also survived in some capacity or another, so as to serve the same role that the SLC24A5 may be serving. --Extract ends
As any rational person will glean from these notes, the issues raised undoubtedly emerge from a scientific and objective groundwork.
Kwadi is essentially an extinct KhoiSan language group, and it is fairly known that speakers of said language had largely integrated into surrounding non-KhoiSan speakers. Hence, it is not surprising to find considerable non-KhoiSan ancestry in elements of Kwadi groups.
The San hunter-gatherers on the other hand, as noted above, still maintain their traditional lifestyles and have remained largely isolated from non-KhoiSan groups. This means that they retain mainly their ancestry from before other groups intruded on traditional KhoiSan territory. KhoiSan territory spans southern Africa, and as mentioned, these groups have naturally adapted to the sub-tropical environments of southern Africa.
Bottom line is, there is no evidence whatsoever that the San hunter-gatherers have earned their relaxed skin-pigmentation from "Eurasians", and thus would not have been "light" without such foreign input, as opposed to a natural adaptation to their environment.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Are we to assume that such genetic influence suggests "Caucasoid" presence as Tukuler fears?
What the **** r u talkin bout Jr?
It is what it is.
If geneticist echo Hamiticism than there must be something valid to a revised "Hamitic" model.
Paleolithic movement to Africa from outside? Deep rooted uniparentals make that a fact. Does that fact need to be made into what Maca-Meyer made out of it, paleolithic full blown Caucasians >30k ? dunno bout dat.
Post LGM movement to Africa from outside? Looks like that happened too. Would some of those migrants have so-called caucasoid ('like a Caucasian') features?
Well considering osteo remains of certain E Afr early AMHs those characteristics are not necessarily extra-African except in their extreme pure blanco forms.
Would some of them have even more pinched noses and lips and orthognathism than their E Afr early AMH ancestors? Why not?
What the **** is there to fear? U?
What u need to do Jr is ask for clarification and expansion on themes I present that you obviously don't understand. That and don't presume to speak in my name, restate, or assume to represent me in any way shape fashion or form.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Are we to assume that such genetic influence suggests "Caucasoid" presence as Tukuler fears?
What the **** r u talkin bout Jr?
It is what it is.
If geneticist echo Hamiticism than there must be something valid to a revised "Hamitic" model.
Paleolithic movement to Africa from outside? Deep rooted uniparentals make that a fact. Does that fact need to be made into what Maca-Meyer made out of it, paleolithic full blown Caucasians >30k ? dunno bout dat.
Post LGM movement to Africa from outside? Looks like that happened too. Would some of those migrants have so-called caucasoid ('like a Caucasian') features?
Well considering osteo remains of certain E Afr early AMHs those characteristics are not necessarily extra-African except in their extreme pure blanco forms.
Would some of them have even more pinched noses and lips and orthognathism than their E Afr early AMH ancestors? Why not?
What the **** is there to fear? U?
What u need to do Jr is ask for clarification and expansion on themes I present that you obviously don't understand. That and don't presume to speak in my name, restate, or assume to represent me in any way shape fashion or form.
Of course I was being facetious when I wrote the part you quoted. No doubt the author and many others are trying to revive the Hamitic hypothesis. Though I believe Explorer has already shed light on the issue to end this obfuscation. Unless anyone else has anything to add. (Swenet?)
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote: Originally posted by Djehuti Of course I was being facetious when I wrote the part you quoted. No doubt the author and many others are trying to revive the Hamitic hypothesis.
^No, they don't, or, at least, they can't from this data. If anything, it destroys the Hamitic hypothesis as it suggests that most of the admixture in East African populations dates to 3kya and linguistically coincides with the introduction of Ethio-Semitic languages per Kitchen et al 2009's glottochronological dating, and other indications.
This admixture date is way too late to pertain to the Afrasan element among proto Egypto-Nubians that Euronuts obsessively want(ed) to include in such a Hamitic construct. In fact, European encounters with Egypto-Nubians (not with Abyssinians and related Horner populations) was the reason why the word 'Hamitic' acquired its current extra-biblical, Caucasian, connotations:
quote:This belief, often referred to as the Hamitic hypothesis, is a convenient explanation for all the signs of civilization found in Black Africa. It was these Caucasoids, we read, who taught the Negro how to manufacture iron and who were so politically sophisticated that they organized the conquered territories into highly complex states with themselves as the ruling elites. This hypothesis was preceded by another elaborate Hamitic theory. The earlier theory, which gained currency in the sixteenth century, was that the Hamites were black savages, 'natural slaves'-and Negroes. This identification of the Hamite with the Negro, a view which persisted throughout the eighteenth century, served as a rationale for slavery, using Biblical interpretations in support of its tenets. The image of the Negro deteriorated in direct proportion to the growth of the importance of slavery, and it became imperative for the white man to exclude the Negro from the brotherhood of races. Napoleon's expedition to Egypt in 1798 became the historical catalyst that provided the Western World with the impetus to turn the Hamite into a Caucasian. The Hamitic concept had as its function the portrayal of the Negro as an inherently inferior being and to rationalize his exploitation. In the final analysis it was possible because its changing aspects were supported by the prevailing intellectual viewpoints of the times.
--Sanders et al 1969
Proponents of the post Napoleonic version of the Hamitic hypothesis (the one we still deal with in contemporary anthropology), on the other hand, push their touted admixture date to the terminal pleistocene, and, more importantly, they postulate the existence of an intrinsic and deterministic link between this admixture and morphometric overlap with Eurasians, so that every population in Africa with such morphometric overlap automatically becomes a recipient of the said admixture.
Logically, Pagani et al 2012 and Pickrell et al 2013's admixture event estimates would not affect, nor explain the features of Gash cultured? Pwenet people depicted in Hatshepshut's Del Bahari temple. It would not explain nor affect the features of the LSA Great Rift Eburran cultured people who are attested since the Terminal Pleistocene, and logically predate it since the features appear 'as is' with no availability of earlier skeletal material that documents a transition.
The radical facial differentiation of these LSA peoples relative to MSA predecessors may represent a parallel evolution event as they have a plethora of traits that are peculiar to them and are not seen in Ethio-Semitic and Cushitic speakers.
quote:All the Upper Paleolithic peoples of Kenya were of Caucasoid or proto-Hamitic stock; they are represented by the Gamble's Cave and Naivasha skeletons, as well as the skeleton from Olduvai in northern Tanganyika. They were tall and dolichocephalic, with long face and narrow nose (the 'Elmenteitan type'); the other is brachycephalic, with a shorter face but also with a narrow nose. These two types are represented by Elmenteita A and F1 (Fig. 5 (2 and 3)) from Bromhead's site. The same types persist into the Neolithic, but now a third variation appears in the ultra-dolichocephalic skulls from Willey's kopje (Fig. 5 (4)); these differ from the Elmenteitan type by having a shorter face, a more prominent nose, and a different kind of mandible.
--Sonia Cole, 1954
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Just remember Hamiticism is inseparably linked to NE & E Africa as AMH Caucas(ian/oid) so it's not necessarily needing post chalcolithic or historic West Eurasian invaders.
Besides the Wiedner map from Doc Ben, Diop exposed Caucas(ian/oid) AMH E Africans as exemplified by Masai physiognomy in particular.
Think of that geneticist who postulated Maasai as best modern reps of ancient Egyptians, a safe view because of the NE&E African AMH Caucas(ian/oid) ideology correlate of Hamiticism.
= = = = = = =
The human skeletons discovered by Leakey near Elmenteita (Kenya) in the grotto called Gamble's Cave II, and which probably belonged to the same human type as the Olduvai man (northern Tanzania) of the Capsian, have caused much ink to flow. "It is certain that these are not true Negroes, in the usual sense of the word. These are men comparable to the Nilotics in the Great Lakes region, or else comparable to the lighter-skinned populations of those territories. A skeleton recently found at Naivasha (Kenya) obviously belongs to the same type."
From these discoveries, prehistorians, historians, and ethnologists draw conclusions of varying importance concerning the early peopling of Black Africa. In the Olduvai man, Cornevin sees the ancestor of the Nilotic, of the Shilluk, Dinka, Nuer, and Masai. He makes him a Caucasoid. His existence, Cornevin contends, "proves that it is useless to make the East African, improperly called Nilo-Hamitic, come from India or Arabia." Finally, referring to the Naivasha man just mentioned, on the next page he writes that archeological research reveals affinities with the Cro-Magnon race: "tall stature, low, wide face, broad forehead, rectangular sockets, thin nose, little prognathism."
There was no Cro-Magnon man in sub-Saharan Africa. At an interview that Professor Vallois was kind enough to grant me at the Paris Institute of Human Paleontology, this scientist was categorical about this. Only the Boskop man (Transvaal Province, South Africa) was, for a time, considered as a Cro-Magnoid having affinities with the Bushman. But this opinion was later abandoned by its partisans. Cornevin, unfortunately, continues to confuse Grimaldi man -- a "Negroid" with marked prognathism and broad nose -- with Cro-Magnon man, who is not at all prognathous but presents in hypertrophic fashion typical European traits: thin lips, prominent chin, narrow nose. There is reason to reexamine the documents.
The Negro has been there from the beginning; for millennia he was the only one in existence. Nevertheless, on the threshold of the historical epoch, the "scholar" turns his back on him, raises questions about his genesis, and even speculates "objectively" about his tardy appearance ...
Diop [Mercer] 1974 pp.268,273-4
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ The thing is no anthropologist and especially geneticist today worth his credentials would ever use the terms "Caucasoid" or "Negroid". They know full and well that 'racial' divisions of mankind are non-existent... However, what they do instead is simply refer their contrived genetic divisions of 'African' and 'Eurasian'. At least in genetic reports, there is no focus on cranio-facial features at least out right, yet what they do instead is focus in on those populations which display so-called 'Hamitic' or "Cockasoid" traits to look for Eurasian ancestry.
To Swenet, what do you make of Explorer's response that no other differentiated alleles or genes besides SLC24A5 was found??
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Race will always be a part of genomic research.
quote:
J Forensic Sci. 2002 Nov;47(6):1215-23. Characterization of the Caucasian haplogroups present in the SWGDAM forensic mtDNA dataset for 1771 human control region sequences. Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods. Allard MW, Miller K, Wilson M, Monson K, Budowle B. SourceDepartment of Biological Sciences, George Washington University, Washington DC, USA.
Abstract
Currently, the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods (SWGDAM) mtDNA dataset is used to infer the relative rarity of mtDNA profiles (i.e., haplotypes) obtained from evidence samples and for identification of missing persons. The Caucasian haplogroup patterns in this forensic dataset have been characterized using phylogenetic methods. The assessment reveals that the dataset is relevant and representative of U.S. and European Caucasians. The comparisons carried out were both the observation of variable sites within the control region (CR) and the selection of a subset of these sites, which partition the variation within human mtDNA control region sequences into clusters (i.e., haplogroups). The aligned sequence matrix was analyzed to determine both single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in a phylogenetic context, as well as to check and standardize haplogroup designations with a focus on determining the characters that define these groups. To evaluate the dataset for forensic utility, the haplogroup identifications and frequencies were compared with those reported from other published studies.
PMID:12455642[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
quote:
Am J Hum Genet. 1994 Oct;55(4):760-76. mtDNA and the origin of Caucasians: identification of ancient Caucasian-specific haplogroups, one of which is prone to a recurrent somatic duplication in the D-loop region.
Torroni A, Lott MT, Cabell MF, Chen YS, Lavergne L, Wallace DC. SourceDepartment of Genetics and Molecular Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA 30322.
Abstract
mtDNA sequence variation was examined in 175 Caucasians from the United States and Canada by PCR amplification and high-resolution restriction-endonuclease analysis. The majority of the Caucasian mtDNAs were subsumed within four mtDNA lineages (haplogroups) defined by mutations that are rarely seen in Africans and Mongoloids. The sequence divergence of these haplogroups indicates that they arose early in Caucasian radiation and gave raise to modern European mtDNAs. Although ancient, none of these haplogroups is old enough to be compatible with a Neanderthal origin, suggesting that Homo sapiens sapiens displaced H. s. neanderthaliensis, rather than mixed with it. The mtDNAs of one of these haplogroups have a unique homoplasmic insertion between nucleotide pair (np) 573 and np 574, within the D-loop control region. This insertion makes these mtDNAs prone to a somatic mutation that duplicates a 270-bp portion of the D-loop region between np 309 and np 572. This finding suggests that certain nonpathogenic mtDNA mutations could predispose individuals to mtDNA rearrangements.
PMID:7942855[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] PMCID:PMC1918284Free PMC Article
quote:
Am J Hum Genet. 2005 October; 77(4): 676–680. Published online 2005 August 11. PMCID: PMC1275617Charting the Ancestry of African Americans
Abstract.The Atlantic slave trade promoted by West European empires (15th–19th centuries) forcibly moved at least 11 million people from Africa, including about one-third from west-central Africa, to European and American destinations. The mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) genome has retained an imprint of this process, but previous analyses lacked west-central African data. Here, we make use of an African database of 4,860 mtDNAs, which include 948 mtDNA sequences from west-central Africa and a further 154 from the southwest, and compare these for the first time with a publicly available database of 1,148 African Americans from the United States that contains 1,053 mtDNAs of sub-Saharan ancestry. We show that >55% of the U.S. lineages have a West African ancestry, with <41% coming from west-central or southwestern Africa. These results are remarkably similar to the most up-to-date analyses of the historical record.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote: Originally posted by Djehuti: To Swenet, what do you make of Explorer's response that no other differentiated alleles or genes besides SLC24A5 was found??
What about it? It's just his usual lying ass charlatan denialist approach to obfuscating inconvenient data. Right from the onset in the paper's abstract they say that they've identified haplotypes which show affinity with Levantine genetic material. How exactly does the supposed lack of European specific markers wish all these haplotypes away? How exactly does the Levantine affinity with these haplotypes gel with his lying ass claim that their non-African affinity was ''left to the imagination of the readers''?
quote: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 was found to be more similar to populations inhabiting the Levant rather than the Arabian Peninsula (...)
--Pagani et al 2012
Then there is the fact that his lying ass was already confronted (by me) with the fact that Saudi specific lactase persistent associated alleles were found in Ethiopians:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
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
So, ''The Explorer's'' lying ass fabrications aside, of course SLC24A5 isn't some lone Eurasian marker in the Ethiopian populations. Pagani et al's inability to find additional European markers is not indicative of the African origin of Ethiopian SLC24A5; it's simply a reflection of the fact that Europeans are a poor proxy, which Pagani et al already knew beforehand.
The significance of the lack of European specific markers other than SLC24A5 needs to be looked at from the perspective of whether these European specific markers would have been present in the South Semitic speaking source population where this admixture is postulated to have originated from. Not some far flung irrelevant European comparative sample which, BTW, is EXPECTED to not share much, if any, European specific markers with Ethiopians. This is expected based on a lack of European specific haplogroups in Ethiopians.
What the lying ass also failed to reference in his ''objective'' summery:
quote:An intriguing consequence of admixture between populations is the opportunity for packages of genes to be “tested” in different environments. As a result, the genomic regions containing functionally divergent genes might experience either positive or negative selection, depending on whether their adaptive contribution was beneficial or damaging in the new environment, or whether it affected social factors such as sexual selection.
--Pagani et al 2012
The authors then go on to list SLC24A5 as an example of a marker that was under such positive selection in the Ethio-Semitic speaking Ethiopians, which the liar then quoted selectively and out of context to further his dogmatic case.
Using the lack of European specific markers in Ethiopians as an argument against the presence of Middle Eastern specific markers in Ethiopians is like denying Zanj admixture in Yemeni because no Khoisan or Pygmy genes have yet been found in Yemenis. Anyone who has read the paper and knows what I've told him in past discussions knows that his characterization of Pagani et al in that post only indicates that he's a lying low-life who is willing to go to great lengths to convince people of his lies.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Oh wow, never mind! LOL I totally forgot about the Pagani et al. 2012 paper, and so this study (Pickrell et al.) basically ties with the Pagani one. My bad.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
I find it slightly amusing how people who are unable to critically think for themselves appeal to--of all options--some crackpot clown or another who too clearly lacks any sign of critical thinking and independent thought. Shortage of independent and critical thinking is a serious problem in chat venues like ES.
As briefly indicated in my notes above, European variation in skin pigmentation was treated as a model to compare the Ethiopian samples against, because the variant in question is found at its highest frequencies in Europe, leading some to even speculate that this is from where the variant must have spread. Other pigmentation gene variants that generally accompanied the SLC24A5 variant in Europeans have also been implicated in nearby regions, including the so-called "Southwest Asia", which is of course what makes the Ethiopian distribution worth noting in the first place. This is not the sort of information one should expect to come in handy through knuckleheads who are only good for copying & pasting what other people write.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
What i find amusing is that some trolls just keep on lying their ass off. Science is clear on the matter; the derived SLC24A5 allele evinces positive selection in tropical populations due to its additional, non skin-color related functions it codes for, while other European skin pigmentation alleles that don't have these functions can easily experience purifying selection (get weeded out) in new environments where they're not advantageous (such as Southern Arabia, such as Ethiopia). Pagani et al already explained this, but, of course, it fell on deaf ears due to the charlatan's pre-existing commitment to his fairy tale and lying his ass off:
quote:An intriguing consequence of admixture between populations is the opportunity for packages of genes to be “tested” in different environments. As a result, the genomic regions containing functionally divergent genes might experience either positive or negative selection, depending on whether their adaptive contribution was beneficial or damaging in the new environment, or whether it affected social factors such as sexual selection.
--Pagani et al 2012
That some lying ass troll uses the lack of additional European skin color associated alleles, besides the SLC25A5 allele, as evidence that Ethiopian SLC25A5 is not a marker of Eurasian ancestry, is further evidence of the troll's inherent propensity to lie and distort.
It's not uncommon for tropical populations with relatively high derived SLC24A5 to be low on other European skin pigmentation markers. Indeed, Sri Lankan populations display the same pattern:
quote:The two genes SLC24A5 and SLC45A2 were recently identified as major determinants of pigmentation in humans and in other vertebrates. The allele p.A111T in the former gene and the allele p.L374F in the latter gene are both nearly fixed in light-skinned Europeans, and can therefore be considered ancestry informative marker (AIMs). AIMs are becoming useful for forensic identification of the phenotype from a DNA profile sampled, for example, from a crime scene. Here, we generate new allelic data for these two genes from samples of Chinese, Uygurs, Ghanaians, South African Xhosa, South African Europeans, and Sri Lankans (Tamils and Sinhalese). Our data confirm the earlier results and furthermore demonstrate that the SLC45A2 allele is a more specific AIM than the SLC24A5 allele because the former clearly distinguishes the Sri Lankans from the Europeans.
--Soejima & Koda 2006
This is precisely what the lying troll doesn't mention in his ''objective'' posts, because it nukes his frivolous objection that such a scenario in Ethiopian populations contradicts Pagani et al.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
Your retard monkey ass shows just how much of a non-existent critical thinking ability you have with each intellectually-dud post you address to me.
Tell the world what this "non" pigmentation related "positive" selection is the SLC24A5 variant supposedly serving in Ethiopians.
Present the proof of this supposed "weeding out" of other European skin pigmentation alleles in Ethiopians, and that this is not just another of those crackpot crap you pulled right outta your fat monkey ass!
You have your fuckhead right up your fat retarded ass:
First you cry like a retarded baby ape, about some supposed due attention not given to the fictitious prospect of other European-associated pigmentation alleles not showing up in the Levant, so as to parallel the Ethiopian distribution profile, because you parrot--without any deep insight of course--the claim about the supposed "non-African" component being "more similar the Levantine profiles than the Arabian Peninsula", which in effect is another observation that was actually used to obliterate your fuckheaded dogma in other discussions, but which you conveniently apply herein for a different dogmatic occasion.
Now, like a sick puppy, you cite a piece that only reaffirms what a complete deadheaded sucker you are, since it only serves to buttress the point (about the SLC24A5) already made in my first post in this thread, and elsewhere.
As I have said, only retards who are nearly as fuckheaded as your monkey ass is, are compelled to spinelessly beg a very sick specimen like you to respond to me, because they lack the basic ability to think for themselves, and address me on their own.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
LMAO. The troll just keeps lying through his filthy teeth! This troll is going full blown ape! Expect him to come out any minute now starting to walk on his knuckles, rub his buttocks and climb in a tree in search of a banana. First the troll asks me to present evidence of another function of the SLC24A5 allele when it was already posted:
quote:After ranking all the 40-SNP windows by the distance between the African and European cloud centers divided by the SD of the European cloud around its center, none of the large Z-score windows were present within the top 1%. We therefore speculate that the excess of non-African SLC24A5 haplotypes must be linked to the biological function of that gene.
--Pagani et al 2012
Then the debilitated troll asks for evidence that the other alleles underwent negative selection, as if light skin pigmentation genes with no useful other functions aren't going to undergo negative selection in tropical environments:
quote:Our data confirm the earlier results and furthermore demonstrate that the SLC45A2 allele is a more specific AIM than the SLC24A5 allele because the former clearly distinguishes the Sri Lankans from the Europeans.
--Soejima & Koda 2006
According to the lying ass troll's bankrupt reasoning, the near lack of derived SLC45A2 in these two Sri Lankan populations (SH, TA) means that Sri Lankans magically acquired most of their European shared SLC24A5 alleles, on their own, independent of admixture with West Eurasian populations, and that only a minor component, about equal in size tot their derived SLC45A2, comes from an outside source. According to the trolls reasoning, this Chinese sample got their derived SLC25A5 independent of outside West Eurasian contact, simply because they tested negative for the derived SLC45A2 marker!
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
First the troll asks me to present evidence of another function of the SLC24A5 allele when it was already posted:
quote:After ranking all the 40-SNP windows by the distance between the African and European cloud centers divided by the SD of the European cloud around its center, none of the large Z-score windows were present within the top 1%. We therefore speculate that the excess of non-African SLC24A5 haplotypes must be linked to the biological function of that gene.
--Pagani et al 2012
fuckhead queen, this extract is not spelling out "another" (your fictitious) biological function. It's merely speaking to the positive selection of the gene. To the contrary, the paper only identifies skin pigmentation as the likely phenotypic candidate of this selection. You are too fucked in the skull to even properly read a citation that you cherry-picked for dogmatic purposes.
quote:
Then the debilitated troll asks for evidence that the other alleles underwent negative selection, as if light skin pigmentation genes with no useful other functions aren't going to undergo negative selection in tropical environments:
In other words, you fat dumb ass has no ounce of evidence for that crazy ass speculation about some fictitious "weeding out" event that some how magically spoofed out other pigmentation genes from Europe, an origin which you were first against because it didn't jive with your zealotry, then for it when you couldn't think of a dogmatic alternative. You sound like John Kerry but dumber, with a twist: "I was against it, before I was for it."
quote:According to the lying ass troll's bankrupt reasoning, the near lack of derived SLC45A2 in these two Sri Lankan populations (SH, TA) means that Sri Lankans magically acquired most of their European shared SLC24A5 alleles, on their own, independent of admixture with West Eurasian populations, and that only a minor component, about equal in size tot their derived SLC45A2, comes from an outside source. According to the trolls reasoning, this Chinese sample got their derived SLC25A5 independent of outside West Eurasian contact, simply because they tested negative for the derived SLC45A2 marker!
Far from capturing some imagined reasoning, this is just chickenShit red-herring meant to supposedly make you forget that your reference to the Sri Lankan SLC24A5 actually had the unintended effect of advancing my point while making a stupid monkey out of you. It ain't working, retard queen!
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
Here's another tidbit to contemplate about, fuckhead Cinderella:
Even IF it was supposed that your fictitious unspecified "biological function" is attributable to the SLC24A5 distribution in Ethiopian samples, this actually again serves to refute your rotten fat dumb ass, because it is tacitly saying that gene flow is not fundamental to said distribution, when your punk-ass is rooting for gene flow as that fundamental reason. When a genetic sequence is serving as a gene flow marker, it does not magically lose the selective feature it came fully built up with; rather the selective feature is rendered either deleterious or advantageous, which will govern its subsequent distribution pattern.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: this extract is not spelling out "another" (your fictitious) biological function.
They are saying something that's even more damning to your troll case. Other than SLC24A5 they found no additional skin pigmentation genes in Ethiopians that co-occur and are protective in the high latitude environment they were originally, and still are, selected for. They then say the excess of SLC24A5 is due to its biological function. If, as you say, SLC24A5 got selected for in an equatorial population because of their skin colour related function (lol!), explain why complementary genes that have this function, which the Levant affinity having haplotypes say should have been present, aren't there. Start explaining, troll!!
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: In other words, you fat dumb ass has no ounce of evidence for that crazy ass speculation about some fictitious "weeding out" event that some how magically spoofed out other pigmentation genes from Europe
Lying ass troll, the whole purpose of that segment of their paper was to test which of the genes that typically occur as ''packages'', have survived in Ethiopia's tropical environment, and which got weeded out:
quote: An intriguing consequence of admixture between populations is the opportunity for packages of genes to be ‘‘tested’’ in different environments. As a result, the genomic regions containing functionally divergent genes might experience either positive or negative selection, depending on whether their adaptive contribution was beneficial or damaging in the new environment, or whether it affected social factors such as sexual selection.
--Pagani et al 2012
To protect your previous lies, you're now lying like the pathologically lying dog that you are. Talk about being knee deep in your own excretions.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: your reference to the Sri Lankan SLC24A5 actually had the unintended effect of advancing my point
Sure. Let me guess, UFOs exist and you've just had telepathic contact with Sasquatch. Lying ass troll, the Sri Lankan samples had an excess of SLC24A5, and a severe deficit of SLC45A2. Explain this under your crackpot theory that a severe minority of SLC24A5 correlated genes testify to an indigenous origin of SLC24A5. LMAO!
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
The thing is no anthropologist and especially geneticist today worth his credentials would ever use the terms "Caucasoid" or "Negroid". They know full and well that 'racial' divisions of mankind are non-existent... However, what they do instead is simply refer their contrived genetic divisions of 'African' and 'Eurasian'. At least in genetic reports, there is no focus on cranio-facial features at least out right, yet what they do instead is focus in on those populations which display so-called 'Hamitic' or "[Caucasoid]" traits to look for Eurasian ancestry.
.
Um, don't look now, West Eurasian is the new caucasoid / Caucasian.
But apparently unnoticed from my initial post a modern geneticist Maca-Meyer believes in paleolithic full blown Caucasians whom she says are a Near East and Eastern Africa people just as in Weider's map.
Attested presence of Caucasian people in Northern Africa goes up to Paleolithic times.
. . . .
... the Afroasiatic phylum of languages could have originated and extended with these Caucasians, either from the Near East or Eastern Africa ...
Some important issues are pending of resolution to clarify the past and present of the North African Caucasians: To which extent the Neolithic waves substituted the Paleolithic recipients? Which is the most probable origin of these prehistoric occupants? Did they come from Europe, East Africa, Southwest Asia or are they a result of an "in situ" evolution? Is there a correspondence between the Afroasiatic diversification and the spread of Caucasians?
. . . .
... U6 lineages, mainly found in North Africa, are the signatures of a return to Africa around 39,000–52,000 ya. This stresses the importance of its detailed study in order to trace one of the earliest Caucasian arrivals to Africa.
. . . .
The expansion of Caucasians in Africa has been correlated with the spread and diversification of Afroasiatic languages.
Now a decade after her publication geneticists don't have to come out up front and say North Africans are white Caucasian. They just have to include Maca-Meyer in their list of sources.
If they don't take her to task for using Caucasian then they agree with her usage.
Dialectic is stronger than explicit.
Rolling "the Cheikh," Doc Ben, Xyyman, and Zarahan all into one; so-called generalized or undifferentiated AFRICAN AMHs step across the Bab el Mendeb, stay a minute, step back across and voila! here's your Caucasian Africa(n). Nevermind whiteness, fleshless lips, rather long but paperthin noses, and multi-colored eyes and hair developing in a Arabian Peninsula or SW Asia essentially the same environmentally etc as NE Africa was at that epoch.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
They are saying something that's even more damning to your troll case. Other than SLC24A5 they found no additional skin pigmentation genes in Ethiopians that co-occur and are protective in the high latitude environment they were originally, and still are, selected for.
Now that it's been established that your "another" biological function for the SLC24A5 variant was a big fiasco of bullshit, let's deal with your next fiasco:
Where, fuckhead queen, are we told specifically about that "no additional skin pigmentation genes in Ethiopians that co-occur and are protective in the high latitude environment they were originally, and still are, selected for "?
We know that they did not find skin pigmentation alleles that typically accompany the European distribution of SLC24A5, which was what you were just educated on but met with your thickheaded denials; you wouldn't happen to simply be repeating this very idea, in a supposedly "different" way--according to your stunted intellect, would you?
quote: They then say the excess of SLC24A5 is due to its biological function.
Ok? Tell us something that we don't already know from the paper, fuckhead queen.
quote: If, as you say, SLC24A5 got selected for in an equatorial population because of their skin colour related function (lol!)
Where do I say such a thing, moron? And I mean, a quote, not your usual paraphrasing psycho-babble.
Manufacturing claims will not make you win an argument, my dumb servant. It does the opposite.
quote: explain why complementary genes that have this function, which the Levant affinity having haplotypes say should have been present, aren't there. Start explaining, troll!!
I don't have to explain crap for your idiotic tales; that's your job--it came outta your ass.
However, I will clue you on the no-brainer fact that Ethiopians have their own skin pigmentation genes like any other population. Otherwise, they would not have any pigmentation, you big fat moron! LOL
PS: Clowns who look to you as some sort of a genetic "expert" on ES [of course, where else would such a dumb undertaking take place], and they know who they are, actually insult themselves by doing so.
quote:
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: In other words, you fat dumb ass has no ounce of evidence for that crazy ass speculation about some fictitious "weeding out" event that some how magically spoofed out other pigmentation genes from Europe
Lying ass troll, the whole purpose of that segment of their paper was to test which of the genes that typically occur as ''packages'', have survived in Ethiopia's tropical environment, and which got weeded out:
quote: An intriguing consequence of admixture between populations is the opportunity for packages of genes to be ‘‘tested’’ in different environments. As a result, the genomic regions containing functionally divergent genes might experience either positive or negative selection, depending on whether their adaptive contribution was beneficial or damaging in the new environment, or whether it affected social factors such as sexual selection.
--Pagani et al 2012
You merely cited a piece that essentially repeats what I told your uneducated monkey ass about the inheriting of genes under selection as is (genes serving as "gene flow" indicators), and comes down to a matter of whether said selection is deleterious or advantageous, douchebag.
The piece you are citing says absolutely nothing about "weeding out"; those are your dumb words, not the authors.
Nor did they even say a damn thing about genes that "typically occur as packages" or "to test which of the genes that typically occur as ''packages'', have survived in Ethiopia's tropical environment"; again, those are your words. You are an illiterate dickhead par excellence, LOL.
Rather, the authors "looked" for "such outlier regions of admixture"...and by "such", they are referring to regions under examination, whose divergence patterns may speak to a possible "biological function" of the sequence in question, be it potentially positive or negative. This is how the SlC24A5 allele stood out to the authors, hence leading them to do this, in their own words, as cited in my first post in this thread:
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
And
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.
quote:
To protect your previous lies, you're now lying like the pathologically lying dog that you are. Talk about being knee deep in your own excretions.
There is only one liar--and a rather dumb one at that--in our exchange, and it is not me, I can assure you that.
quote:Sure. Let me guess, UFOs exist and you've just had telepathic contact with Sasquatch. Lying ass troll, the Sri Lankan samples had an excess of SLC24A5, and a severe deficit of SLC45A2. Explain this under your crackpot theory that a severe minority of SLC24A5 correlated genes testify to an indigenous origin of SLC24A5. LMAO!
You are the one who claimed to be reading my mind, and now you are accusing me of telepathy. You are one screwed up sick puppy. It therefore follows that you should know more about imaginary worlds of UFOs and extraterrestrials than I do.
Secondly, you are asking me to explain an irrelevant citation that you broached, but too dumb to understand on your own. The Sri Lankan case is neither a substitute nor analogous to the Ethiopian case, douchebag.
The only remotely relevant thing your Sri Lankan case can possibly have on our exchange, is one that is advantageous to me, and detrimental to your dumb monkey ass. The SLC24A5 marker served as a weaker marker in differentiating the Sri Lankan and Europeans, in contrast to the SLC45A2. That's what that citation was speaking to.
Don't fault me because you were blessed with brainlessness and not being able to read your own citations. Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Where do I say such a thing, moron?
Your lying ass was caught red handed making the retarded statement that derived SLC24A5 was selected for in a tropical environment, right here:
To the contrary, the paper only identifies skin pigmentation as the likely phenotypic candidate of this selection. --The Explorer
Troll, if skin pigmentation was the ’’likely phenotypic candidate of this selection’’, explain how SLC24A5 was selected for not just in equatorial Africa, but, of all places, the highly UV radiated highlands of Ethiopia! Obviously your microcephalic head is not in the know when it comes to comprehending the earth shatteringly stupid excrements that ooze down the sphincter you call your mouth!
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: I don't have to explain crap for your idiotic tales; that's your job
LMAO @ this cowering puppy. You can run but you can't hide. If not negative selection, explain why no other skin pigmentation genes were found in the Ethiopian population, other than SLC25A5, even though the presence of Syria affinity having haplotypes and Saudi lactose alleles point to their ancient presence.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: The piece you are citing says absolutely nothing about "weeding out"; those are your dumb words, not the authors.
Of course it does. Apparently your microcephalic head just cannot grasp the simple idea that SLC45A2 and other genes are a part of the package they tested for, but came up short. In a section of their paper titled ''selection after admixture'', how is their focused effort to elucidate the environment-linked demise of certain genes not linked to their stated inability to find such genes, a couple of sentences later? Gawd DAMN you're dumb!
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Nor did they even say a damn thing about genes that "typically occur as packages" or "to test which of the genes that typically occur as ''packages'', have survived in Ethiopia's tropical environment";
I can always tell when it is dawning on you that you’re getting thrashed around the forum. It’s typically when your lies go from subtle to explicit to not even making sense. You’re such a sh!t stained troll that you’re taking my paraphrased description of what they were doing, and then arguing about whether the authors explicitly said they were doing that in those words. Filthy lying ass pig! Fix up that sick issue ridden narcissistic personality of yours, will ya? You have psychological issues.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Rather, the authors "looked" for "such outlier regions of admixture"
Speaking of which, explain why the non Ethio- Semitic/Cushitic speaking Ethiopians tested positive for the SLC24A5 gene in ways that are consistent with their respective size of the Syrian affinity having non-African haplotypes, if Ethiopian SLC24A5 is to be divorced from the said admixture event.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: they are referring to regions under examination, whose divergence patterns may speak to a possible "biological function" of the sequence in question, be it potentially positive or negative.
Stop lying, pig. They were investigating divergence patters which speak to admixture. The authors were looking for genes that experienced selection **after admixture** as indicated by the title of that segment of their paper. You still have a cry baby emotion based struggle to come to grips with this basic fact, don’t you?
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: The only remotely relevant thing your Sri Lankan case can possibly have on our exchange, is one that is advantageous to me
Two faced snake. Your inability to address what I’m shoving in your face for the second time speaks louder than your lying ass see-through professed unperturbedness. For the third time, lying ass troll, the Sri Lankan samples had an excess of SLC24A5, and a severe deficit of SLC45A2. Explain this under your crackpot theory that a severe minority of SLC24A5 correlated genes testify to an indigenous origin of this gene.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
Your lying ass was caught red handed making the retarded statement that derived SLC24A5 was selected for in a tropical environment, right here:
To the contrary, the paper only identifies skin pigmentation as the likely phenotypic candidate of this selection. --The Explorer
As if you were not punished enough by a stunted brain, you are now a certified blind dingbat. Where does it say "tropical" in what you just quoted, or even this: "derived SLC24A5 was selected for in a tropical environment"; where? And you accuse me of doing something retarded, retarded monkey.
Stop the futile attempts at reading or thinking, foolish monkey. Neither suits you.
quote:Troll, if skin pigmentation was the ’’likely phenotypic candidate of this selection’’
numbskull, what you are quoting [incompletely] there, is just me telling you what the paper actually notes about the SLC24A5 allele, as a contrast to your dumb monkey ass' fairy tale "biological function". Correcting you--as this case shows superbly--is like adding fuel to gasoline. Instead of getting you educated, you get even more fat-ass crazy and out of control, LOL, because your stunted skull just cannot take accumulative inflow of real world information.
quote: If not negative selection, explain why no other skin pigmentation genes were found in the Ethiopian population
I thought I already clued in your stupid monkey ass that if there were no other skin pigmentation genes in Ethiopians, then they would not have any pigmentation. That's a no-brainer. There is just no way you have the smarts to even go to the toilet on your own or wear cloths on your own. FYI: This is the last time I'm telling you this; so get a care-taker who can read for you, moron.
quote:
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: The piece you are citing says absolutely nothing about "weeding out"; those are your dumb words, not the authors.
Of course it does.
Because your block skull imagined it. That makes sense! LOL
quote: Apparently your microcephalic head just cannot grasp the simple idea that SLC45A2 and other genes are a part of the package they tested for, but came up short.
Indeed, I cannot grasp a simple stupid idea borne out of the crazy imagination of a complete lunatic.
numbnut, they would neither be "looking for" nor applying Z-scores for a [fictitious] "package of genes" that "SlC24A5 (i.e. the correct gene; you can't even get the gene right) is part of" (your stupid words of course), because they would have gotten right to the "package of genes, that SLC24A5 is a part of" (your words, not the papers), as they would have known exactly where such a [silly fictitious] "package" would have been. Now let your care-taker spoon-feed you with reading, and learn, douchebag:
To look for such outlier regions of admixture in Ethiopian populations (Semitic and Cushitic) where the estimated proportions of African and non-African ancestries were roughly equal, we listed those regions showing an excess or a deficit (see Material and Methods) of non-African haplotypes (Table S4). Of the fourteen 40-SNP windows observed with a Z-score > 2, 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,10,46 we then looked for other highly differentiated genes10 among the outlier windows, but found none. We also checked whether the 24 large Z-score windows reported in Table S4 showed enrichment for regions with extreme distances between the African and non-African clouds. After ranking all the 40-SNP windows by the distance between the African and European cloud centers divided by the SD of the European cloud around its center, none of the large Z-score windows were present within the top 1%. We therefore speculate that the excess of non-African SLC24A5 haplotypes must be linked to the biological function of that gene.
Instead, they would get right to doing this, as the authors did, only after having identified SLC24A5 locus as one suggestive of a "biological function" in the Ethiopian samples:
To further investigate [meaning, this was not the primary focus of the tests] the effect of admixture on the **genetic landscape of skin pigmentation** in Ethiopia, we also looked at (notice it's not "looked for", douchebag) other genes associated with pigmentation in Europe; however, none were found in our outlier regions.
You should not be trying to learn genetics, which you don't even bother doing anyway; rather, you should be trying to catch up on reading 101, LOL.
quote:I can always tell when it is dawning on you that you’re getting thrashed around the forum.
Ooh, I'm shaking in my boots, because the fuckhead queen is "thrashing" me "around"...with utterly stupid zealotry crap.
quote: Fix up that sick issue ridden narcissistic personality of yours, will ya? You have psychological issues.
I know that you cannot possibly "fix up" your stunted thick skull--that ship has sailed; how about getting tampons to help "fix up" your PMS emotional attacks, fuckhead queen?
quote:Speaking of which, explain why the non Ethio- Semitic/Cushitic speaking Ethiopians tested positive for the SLC24A5 gene in ways that are consistent with their respective size of the Syrian affinity having non-African haplotypes, if Ethiopian SLC24A5 is to be divorced from the said admixture event.
dumbass chump, they have different bio-histories [while related]. How did you not get that? Well, you are dickheaded servant after all.
quote:Stop lying, pig. They were investigating divergence patters which speak to admixture. The authors were looking for genes that experienced selection **after admixture** as indicated by the title of that segment of their paper.
First you say they were "investigating patterns which speak to admixture", then you say they were "looking for" genes that "experienced selection" supposedly "after admixture". You are all over the place, and cannot make up your silly monkey mind up about what the primary goal was, just like a headless chicken hopping about everywhere. If this alone does not speak to that absent mind of your's, what else will?
Fact of the matter is, as your dumb monkey ass was told, the authors had already decided upon which sequences to treat "African" and "non-African", henceforth why the study was fucked up. So they could not have been investigating "admixture", dumb servant. What about "selection"? Yes, they were trying to discern whether elements of their test sequences via distribution were suggestive of selection. The problem the authors faced, as your fat monkey ass was told, is:
SLC24A5 variant in the Ethiopian groups was not accompanied by other "skin pigmentation" gene alleles whose distribution typically accompany that of SLC24A5 in "Europeans" and "west Asians".
The phenotypic trait identified for the SLC24A5 variant argues against "selection" of the variant in an equatorial region, but the frequency of the variant suggests otherwise in Ethiopians. Thus the authors were compelled to reckon that "social factors" such as "sexual selection" may explain the distribution of SLC24A5 in Ethiopians. The problem with that reckoning has already been specified in my first post in this thread, but I won't hold my breath for you to read or understand it, and so, it is there for those with common sense and a reading skill of an educated adult.
quote:You still have a cry baby emotion based struggle to come to grips with this basic fact, don’t you?
The answer is of course a resounding "no", but you clearly do. This very post of yours is proof of it in itself.
quote:
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: The only remotely relevant thing your Sri Lankan case can possibly have on our exchange, is one that is advantageous to me
Two faced snake. Your inability to address what I’m shoving in your face for the second time speaks louder than your lying ass see-through professed unperturbedness. For the third time, lying ass troll, the Sri Lankan samples had an excess of SLC24A5, and a severe deficit of SLC45A2. Explain this under your crackpot theory that a severe minority of SLC24A5 correlated genes testify to an indigenous origin of this gene.
Go ahead and ask many more times, the answer doesn't change, as was stated the last time you asked. Your reference to the Sri Lankan case is not only an irrelevant space waster, but also ironically, advantageous to me while damning to you, fuckhead queen. And guess what? This will be the last time I remind your numbskull of that too. Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Where does it say "tropical" in what you just quoted
Trolling again. That your dumbass didn’t specifically mention ‘’tropical’’ doesn’t mean that I can’t hold it against you that your dumbass needed to be reminded of the no-brainer fact that the Ethiopian environment wherein such a selection would have taken place, is climatically tropical.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: what you are quoting [incompletely] there, is just me telling you what the paper actually notes about the SLC24A5 allele
Trolling again. The paper doesn't say that the authors identify ''skin pigmentation as the likely phenotypic candidate of this selection''. It's your interpretation of what they're saying, and, as such, it was your dumbass who made the retarded claim that light skin was selected for in a region which, apparently unbeknownst to your dumb ass, is equatorial.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: I thought I already clued in your stupid monkey ass that if there were no other skin pigmentation genes in Ethiopians
You’re such a phuckin’ low IQ, dumbass, charlatan. Is your bum ass saying that the Ethiopian sample implicated here wouldn’t have had additional skin pigmentation genes, had, let’s say, derived SLC45A2 been found in them? Get to work, fraud:
If not negative selection, explain why no other skin pigmentation genes were found in the Ethiopian population --Swenet
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: the correct gene; you can't even get the gene right
Hey, it’s not my fault you’re bewildered about the fact that they tested for SLC45A2 and came up short. That you don’t know this is further evidence that you’re way out of your league here.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: they would neither be "looking for" nor applying Z-scores
LMAO. **Where** did they ''apply Z-scores’’ when they attempted to track down the other skin pigmentation genes? You’re such a phuckin’ crackhead. Judging by past discussions where you kept running away from your blunders, you will now stop responding to this, no matter how many times I press you to back this piece of sh!t claim up.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: notice it's not "looked for", douchebag
This, too, shows how patently stupid you are. As a matter of fact, I’m beginning to suspect that you have the reading comprehension of Ray Charles. Of course they ’’looked at’’ the literature first to identify which genes they should be looking ‘’for’’ in the Ethiopian populations. Only a brainless troll such as yourself would use it against another poster that the authors state that they consulted the literature.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: dumbass chump, they have different bio-histories
Your spacey attempt to wilfully wish these facts away with some random mumbo jumbo blank no-brainer invocation of ’’differing bio-histories’’ is at odds with the fact that I’ve just told your dumbass that the levels of derived SLC24A5 in Ethiopia match the amount of Syria affinity having haplotypes in the respective local populations.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: the authors had already decided upon which sequences to treat "African" and "non-African", henceforth why the study was fucked up.
Ah, let me guess, this is where your lie comes in that the discernment of African vs non-African was ’’mostly left to the imagination of the reader’’, right? Your dogmatic troll inclinations are obstructing your bias stricken eyeballs from seeing the readily observable fact that Pagani et al’s methods are vindicated by the fact that the Omotic speakers, whose African haplotypes differ from other Ethiopians only in terms of component proportion (i.e. not in terms of component type), yet, they had little trouble coming out as biologically almost exclusively African. Of course, their comparatively low level of SLC24A5, their comparatively lower amount of non-African uniparentals, their comparatively lower amount of Ethio-Semitic loanwords and comparatively larger distance from the ancient urban localities that would have attracted populations with these Syrian affinity having haplotypes you're lamenting (but can't do sh!t about), have nothing to do with each other; it’s all just a coincidental happenstance that these independent phenomena happen to date to 3kya and come together to form a coherent multi-disciplinary case.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Go ahead and ask many more times, the answer doesn't change
Of course it won’t, and the reason is none other than the fact that you can’t answer it without inserting girly giggle accompanied unsubstantiated claims that the Sri Lankan skin pigmentation state of affairs bolsters your non-existent case! For the fourth time it’s observed that you’re scared sh!tless to address what is being shoved in your face, with more than tail between legs amygdala triggered non-replies:
Lying ass troll, the Sri Lankan samples had an excess of SLC24A5, and a severe deficit of SLC45A2. Explain this under your crackpot theory that a severe minority of SLC24A5 correlated genes testify to an indigenous origin of this gene. --Swenet
Posted by claus3600 (Member # 19584) on :
@The Explorer I used to think you had an intellect and that you had a real contribution to make in the re-writing of African history...after reading your 'monkey' taunts below, I'm not so sure.
quote: Your retard monkey ass shows just how much of a non-existent critical thinking ability you have with each intellectually-dud post you address to me.
quote: As I have said, only retards who are nearly as fuckheaded as your monkey ass is, are compelled to spinelessly beg a very sick specimen like you to respond to me, because they lack the basic ability to think for themselves, and address me on their own.
quote: I thought I already clued in your stupid monkey ass that if there were no other skin pigmentation genes in Ethiopians
How scummy.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
^Compared to his psychopathic outbursts elsewhere, those epithets you've highlighted make him look like a saint.
Trolling again. That your dumbass didn’t specifically mention ‘’tropical’’ doesn’t mean that I can’t hold it against you
A plain text stumped your monkey ass, and you think some one else is dumb, LOL. A stupid donkey can out-read you. And no, imaginary things can't be held against real world things.
quote:Trolling again. The paper doesn't say that the authors identify ''skin pigmentation as the likely phenotypic candidate of this selection''. It's your interpretation of what they're saying
And the right interpretation, in contrast to your numbskull fairy tale. Get your care-taker, there is some reading to do:
"Of the fourteen 40-SNP windows observed with a Z-score > 2, 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.4"
"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."
"SLC24A5 was within the top 5% of selection signals, whereas the gene was not detected as an outlier in the other groups of Ethiopians. The unusual history of this gene was further supported by the presence of the derived A allele of the SNP rs1834640, associated with the light skin pigmentation of Europeans and western Asians..."
"This putative migration from the Levant to Ethiopia, which is also supported by linguistic evidence, may have carried the derived western Eurasian allele of SLC24A5, which is associated with light skin pigmentation."
The paper identifies skin pigmentation as phenotypic trait of the allele, not once but several times over. This has not deterred your thick monkey skull from saying that it's just my interpretation, just so your fairy tale unspecified "biological function" can have a companion. You are such a blank-headed fuckhead whore.
quote:Hey, it’s not my fault you’re bewildered about the fact that they tested for SLC45A2 and came up short. That you don’t know this is further evidence that you’re way out of your league here.
The section cited mentions nothing about SLC45A2 that you are apparently confusing with SLC24A5 (aka the subject of that section in the real world). You have gone bananas. Get it? stupid monkey...gone bananas, LOL.
quote:LMAO. **Where** did they ''apply Z-scores’’ when they attempted to track down the other skin pigmentation genes?
You confuse "look for" with "Z-scores", just because they happened to be mentioned in the same sentence. Of course, this is you staying true to form, as you confused other vastly different concepts on so many occasions. Here's the point: Z-scores were not applied to either "investigate admixture" or "to test which of the genes that typically occur as ''packages'', have survived in Ethiopia's tropical environment"; those moronic ideas come from your dumb monkey ass. The scoring was used to isolate regions that may be suggestive of either a positive [and thereof, a "biological function"] or negative selection. If one were just working with "genes that typically occur as a package" just to see "which survived in Ethiopia's tropical environment", then one simply needed to go straight to the location (which should already be known) of that "package", of which SLC24A5 is supposedly "a part" (your words), and look at the content. One would not need to "look for" the "package", my dumb servant.
quote: Only a brainless troll such as yourself would use it against another poster that the authors state that they consulted the literature.
I'd have to take it that a brainless troll is vastly smarter than a brainless fairy-tale telling monkey (you). Where do you see, ’’looked at’’ the literature first to identify which genes they should be looking ‘’for’’" in this:
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.
quote:
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: dumbass chump, they have different bio-histories
Your spacey attempt to wilfully wish these facts away with some random mumbo jumbo blank no-brainer invocation of ’’differing bio-histories’’
You needed to be fed like a helpless baby with this "no-brainer", because apparently, you are not equipped with a brain to figure out on your own, that the differences stem from their different bio-histories; else you would not have asked that fuckheaded question.
quote:
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: the authors had already decided upon which sequences to treat "African" and "non-African", henceforth why the study was fucked up.
Ah, let me guess
That's just what you do: guessing. If you used as much effort at actually reading and learning as you do at being incredibly stupid when not guessing imaginary things, then you'd get somewhere--not mindless drivels in circles. Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by claus3600: @The Explorer I used to think you had an intellect and that you had a real contribution to make in the re-writing of African history
These would be the very things that you lack: an intellect, or any real contribution to make. Funny how that works out. It's called projecting; check with a psychiatrist.
I can produce a long list of substance I bring here. How about you? Where's your real contribution, besides being a wimp and an unimportant chatroom cheerleader?
PS: In case you didn't get the memo, your opinion is worthless. On the other hand, if you want to discuss facts, I'll be glad to indulge you.
Posted by AGÜEYBANÁ II (Mind718) (Member # 15400) on :
Lol interesting thread. While the OP creator sits back...
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
I was thinking do I want to read 75 pages but I just skimmed it over and it's only about 20 or so pages of texts
Posted by AGÜEYBANÁ II (Mind718) (Member # 15400) on :
^What have you learned?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Ancient west Eurasian ancestry in southern and eastern Africa 2013
excerpts
We then applied our method for dating multiple admixture events to the eastern African populationsin these data (Supplementary Figure 24-38). Pagani et al. [2012] previously dated the earliest admixture events in Ethiopia to around 3,000 years ago, but with considerable variation between populations. We find evidence for multiple episodes of population mixture in eastern Africa; most populations have evidence for an early admixture event that we date to around 80-110 generations (2,400-3,300 years) ago (Figure 4). As insouthern Africa, the west Eurasian ancestry is present in the early admixture event. The dates we estimatein eastern Africa are almost uniformly older than the dates we estimate in southern Africa (Figure 4). One potential concern regarding this conclusion is that the southern and eastern African populations displayed in Figure 4 were genotyped on different genotyping arrays; however, this pattern remains when using onlypopulations typed on the same array (Supplementary Figure 39).
Back-to-Africa gene flow in eastern Africa. A major open question concerns the initial sourceof the west Eurasian ancestry in eastern Africa. The estimated mean time of gene flow in eastern Africa isaround 3,000 years ago, and the amount of gene flow must have been quite extensive, as the west Eurasianancestry proportions reach 40-50% in some Ethiopian populations (Table 1 and Pagani et al. [2012]). Archaeological records from this region are sparse, so Pagani et al. [2012] speculate that this admixture is related to the Biblical account of the Kingdom of Sheba. However, archaeological evidence is not completely absent. During this time period, architecture in the Ethiopian culture of D’mt has an “unmistakable South Arabian appearance in many details” [Munro-Hay, 1991], though there is some debate as to whether these patterns can be attributed to large movements of people versus elite-driven cultural practices [Mitchell, 2005;Munro-Hay, 1991]. Additionally, linguistic evidence suggests that this time period was when Ethiosemitic languages were introduced to Africa, presumably from southern Arabia [Kitchen et al., 2009]. It is perhaps not a coincidence that the highest levels of west Eurasian ancestry in eastern Africa are found in the Amharaand Tygray, who speak Ethiosemitic languages and live in what was previously the territory of D’mt andthe later kingdom of Aksum.The hypothesis that west Eurasian ancestry entered eastern Africa through Arabia must be reconciled. with the observation that the best modern proxies for this ancestry are often found in southern Europerather than the Middle East (Supplementary Table 4). This observation can be interpreted in the context of ancient DNA work in Europe, which has shown that, approximately 5,000 years ago, people genetically closely related to modern southern Europeans were present as far north as Scandinavia [Keller et al., 2012;Skoglund et al., 2012]. We thus find it plausible that the people living in the Middle East today are not representative of the people who were living the Middle East 3,000 years ago. Indeed, even in historical times,there have been extensive population movements from and to the Middle East [Davies, 1997; Kennedy, 2008].West Eurasian ancestry in southern Africa. A second question is: which population or populations introduced west Eurasian ancestry into southern Africa? The best genetic proxy for this ancestry that we have found is the west Eurasian ancestry in eastern Africa (Figure 5). The most parsimonious explanation for this observation is that west Eurasian ancestry entered southern Africa indirectly via eastern Africa (though the alternative scenario of direct contact with an unsampled west Eurasian populationcannot be formally excluded; however, there is no archaeological, historical, or linguistic evidence of suchcontact). The relevant eastern African population may no longer exist. However, such a migration has beensuggested based on shared Y chromosome haplotypes [Cruciani et al., 2002; Henn et al., 2008] and sharedalleles/haplotypes associated with lactase-persistence [Coelho et al., 2009; Schlebusch et al., 2012] between the two regions. Furthermore, based on a synthesis of archaeological, genetic, climatological and linguistic data Güldemann [2008] hypothesized that the Khoe-Kwadi languages in southern Africa were brought to th eregion by immigrating pastoralists from eastern Africa. Our observation of elevated west Eurasian ancestry in Khoe-Kwadi groups in general (Table 1) is consistent with this hypothesis.Alternative historical scenarios. We note that we have interpreted admixture signals in terms of large-scale movements of people. An alternative frame for interpreting these results might instead proposean isolation-by-distance model in which populations primarily remain in a single location but individuals choose mates from within some relatively small radius. In principle, this sort of model could introduce west Eurasian ancestry into southern Africa via a “diffusion-like” process. Two observations argue against this possibility. First, the gene flow we observe is asymmetric: while some eastern African populations haveup to 50% west Eurasian ancestry, levels of sub-Saharan African ancestry in the Middle East and Europeare considerably lower than this (maximum of 15% [Moorjani et al., 2011]) and do not appear to consist of ancestry related to the Khoisan. Second, the signal of west Eurasian ancestry is present in southern Africa but absent from central Africa, despite the fact that central Africa is geographically closer to the putative source of the ancestry.These geographically-specific and asymmetric dispersal patterns are mostparsimoniously explained by migration from west Eurasia into eastern Africa, and then from eastern tosouthern Africa.
Conclusions.
{b]Based on these analyses, we can propose a model for the spread of west Eurasian ancestry insouthern and eastern Africa as follows: first, a large-scale movement of people from west Eurasia into Ethiopiaaround 3,000 years ago (perhaps from southern Arabia and associated with the D’mt kingdom and the arrivalof Ethiosemitic languages) resulted in the dispersal of west Eurasian ancestry throughout eastern Africa.This was then followed by a migration of an admixed population (perhaps pastoralists related to speakers of Khoe-Kwadi languages) from eastern Africa to southern Africa, with admixture occurring approximately1,500 years ago.[/b] Advances in genotyping DNA from archaeological samples may allow aspects of this modelto be directly tested
Table 1: Estimates of the proportion of west Eurasian ancestry in southern and easternAfrican populations. We estimated the percentage of west Eurasian ancestry in each southernand eastern African population as well as the Mandenka from western Africa (Methods). Shown arethese estimates for each population. Populations are sorted according to the estimated proportionof west Eurasian ancestry, and rows of southern African populations are shaded. Standard errorson all estimates ranged from 0.3% to 1.1%, with an average of 0.7
Table 2: Estimates of the proportion of Khoisan, putative eastern African, and putativeBantu-related ancestry in southern African populations, ordered by the amount ofputative eastern African ancestry. The Nama were excluded from this analysis because oftheir recent European ancestry. Additionally shown is the proportion of west Eurasian ancestryin each population as estimated by the linear model (these proportions are slightly different fromthose in Table 1). *The admixture proportions of the Ju|hoan North were fixed in this analysis
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
From lioness' extract above, the authors insist--even though genetic evidence is noticeably against it--that:
The hypothesis that west Eurasian ancestry entered eastern Africa through Arabia must be reconciled.
This was after having invoked the south Arabian connection, and having selectively applied Stuart Munro-Hay's work. In other words, the theory must be upheld at any cost, regardless of what evidence actually points to, by making evidence fit the theory rather than the theory fit evidence. Simply put: Come up with a theory first, and then look around for evidence to fit it. If that does not smell of dogmatism, what then will.
Like other ideologues, they try to placate weak genetic evidence for their theories by claiming--without concrete substantiation of wholesale population replacement--that resident populations of the "Middle East" are not representative of what would have been there, supposedly 3ky ago.
From blog entry, "What Ethiopian Genetic Diversity—Really—Reveals!", May 15, 2013:
While on the subject of suspiciously tenuous findings by the authors (Pagani et al. 2012), it's worth noting that the introduction—for which the authors insinuate a single-entry—of the so-called "non-African" gene pool of Ethiopian groups is purported to have taken place some 3ky ago; this interestingly coincides with the date generally attributed to the historic Sabean kingdom of southern Arabia; in fact, in a thinly veiled manner, the authors even make a reference to a study (Kitchen et. al. 2009), so as to make it a point that their dates firmly match that of said study:
The estimated time (3 kya) and the geographic origin (the Levant) of the gene flow into Ethiopia are consistent with both the model of Early Bronze Age origins of Semitic languages and the reported age estimate (2.8 kya) of the Ethio-Semitic language group. They are also consistent with the legend of Makeda, the Queen of Sheba. According to the version recorded in the Ethiopian Kebra Nagast (a traditional Ethiopian book on the origins of the kings), this influential Ethiopian queen (who, according to Hansberry, reigned between 1005 and 955 BCE) visited King Solomon—ruler, in biblical tradition, of the United Kingdom of Israel and Judah—bringing back, in addition to important trading links, a son.
The authors of course, conveniently seize on legends of the Kebra Nagast, with little regard to what archaeology has to say, because doing so seems to fit into the narrative they want to build. There is a "dark age" period in Ethiopian archaeological record, between the Da'amat complex—a contemporary of the noted Sabean complex—and the Aksumite complex:
A kingdom called D`MT (perhaps to be read Da`mot or Di`amat) is attested in Ethiopian inscriptions at this early date, and, though the period between this and the development of Aksum around the beginning of the Christian era is an Ethiopian `Dark Age' for us at present, it may be surmised that the D`MT monarchy and its successors, and other Ethiopian chiefdoms, continued something of the same *`Ethio-Sabaean'* civilisation until eventually subordinated by Aksum.
"A certain linguistic and religious continuity may be observed between the two periods, though many features of Aksumite civilisation differ considerably from the earlier material." [1]
The Dark period (from archaeological standpoint) between the demise of D'MT complex and the rise of the Aksumite complex gave way to the introduction of Christianity, which would become a regular feature of the Aksumite complex. It is little wonder then, that legends would subsequently develop, long after the demise of the Aksumite complex, which would capitalize on Abrahamic belief, centered on the person of King Solomon and Makeda, i.e. Queen of Sheba, as part of the Kebra Nagast narrative. As such, just as observed elsewhere (click on the link), the narrative of Kebra Nagast seems to proceed from a mythologized period to a more realistic historic era...
The origins of these legends hark back to some unknown time after the conversion of the kingdom to Christianity in the reign of king Ezana of Aksum in the fourth century AD, or in some cases perhaps to an even earlier period when some Jewish traditions had entered the country.
Such legends had their political use in providing pedigrees for national institutions. It was believed in later times that the state offices from the king downwards were descended from the company which had brought the Ark to Aksum from Jerusalem (Budge 1922: 61). **Doubtless the Christian priests, searching for a longer pedigree for their religion to impress pagans and unbelievers, would have been interested in developing these tales which connected Ethiopia with Solomon and Sheba.**
The Ethiopian kings themselves, **anxious to acquire the prestige of ancient** and **venerable dynastic ancestors**, could **scarcely have hoped for a more august couple as their reputed progenitors**. Even in the official Ethiopian Constitution, up to the time of the end of the reign of emperor Haile Selassie, the dynasty was held to have descended directly from Solomon and the queen of Sheba through their mythical son, the emperor Menelik I.
The real events in Ethiopia's history before the present two millenia are **lost in the mists of antiquity**, but valiant attempts were made by Ethiopian chroniclers to fill in the immense gap between the reign of Menelik I and the time of the kings of Aksum. The king lists they developed (all those now surviving are of comparatively recent date), name a long line of rulers, covering the whole span from Menelik through the Aksumite period and on to the later Zagwé and `Solomonic' dynasties (Conti Rossini 1909). There is little point in reciting the majority of these names, but some of the most important of the reputed successors of Menelik I are worth noting for their importance in Ethiopian tradition.
With regards to Menelik I, legend says of him...
Tradition says that he was the son of king Solomon of Israel and the queen of Sheba conceived during the queen's famous visit to Jerusalem. Although no information survives in the legends about the ancient Aksumite rulers whoreally built the palaces and erected the giant stone obelisks or stelae which still stand in several places around the town, these monuments are locally attributed in many instances to Menelik or to Makeda, the queen of Sheba or queen of Azab (the South). Such legends are still a living force at Aksum today; for example, the mansion recently excavated in the district of Dungur, west of Aksum, has immediately been absorbed into local legends as the `palace of the queen of Sheba'. [1]
This phenomenon is not uncommon on the African continent; many groups, be they Muslims, Jews or Christians, tend to build legends around eponymous ancestors which take their community's lineage back to the homelands of these ancestors. These legends, as the notes above indicate, are generally applied to give ruling circles—more than anyone else—legitimacy of power, as well as the ability to macro-manage their societies through prestige bestowed upon religion. The authors of the present genetic study (Pagani et al.) seem to be oblivious of intricacies of this nature.
While there have been long contacts across the Red Sea, it is mainly between 8th Century and 5th century B.C. that we begin to see visible south Arabian influence in the region, in the form inscription, architecture and so forth. As Stuart Munro-Hay put it,...
some sort of contact, apparently quite close, seems to have been maintained between Ethiopia and South Arabia. This developed to such an extent that in not a few places in Ethiopia the remains of certain mainly religious or funerary installations, some of major importance, with an unmistakeable South Arabian appearance in many details, have been excavated. Among the sites are Hawelti-Melazo, near Aksum (de Contenson 1961ii), the famous temple and other buildings and tombs at Yeha (Anfray 1973ii), the early levels at Matara (Anfray 1967), and the sites at Seglamien (Ricci and Fattovich 1984-6), Addi Galamo, Feqya, Addi Grameten and Kaskase, to name only the better-known ones. Fattovich (1989: 4-5) comments on many of these and has been able to attribute some ninety sites altogether to the pre-Aksumite period...
Inscriptions found at some of these sites include the names of persons bearing the traditional South Arabian title of mukarrib, apparently indicating a ruler with something of a priest-king status, not otherwise known in Ethiopia (Caquot and Drewes 1955). Others have the title of king, mlkn (Schneider 1961; 1973). Evidently the pre-Aksumite Sabaean-influenced cultural province did not consist merely of a few briefly-occupied staging posts, but was a wide-spread and well-established phenomenon.
Having acknowledged the extent of Sabean influence, Munro-Hay cautioned:
Until relatively recently South Arabian artefacts found in Ethiopia were interpreted as the material signs left behind by a superior colonial occupation force, with political supremacy over the indigenes — an interpretation still maintained by Michels (1988).But further study has now suggested that very likely, by the time the inscriptions were produced, the majority of the material in fact represented the civilisation of the Ethiopians themselves.Nevertheless, a certain amount of contact with South Arabia is very apparent, and had resulted in the adoption of a number of cultural traits (Schneider 1973; 1976).
The picture that emerges, based on archaeology, is one wherein the late early-Holocene urbanization process of the African Horn was accompanied by cultural interaction—such as trade—with the relatively more established complexes to the north, on the African continent itself (see: Urbanization in the African Horn was the outcome of autochthonous social processes, or was it?, for example). This interaction may well have aided the growth of Ethiopian urbanization, to extent whereupon state formation in the Ethiopian highlands was made possible, and with it, the capacity of Ethiopia's forebears to become worthy trade partners in their own right, i.e. of their counterparts both to their north and across the Red Sea. However, the subsequent rise to regional prominence of the Sabean complex in southern Arabia marked a new chapter in Ethiopian history.
From Fattovich, 2002 [2]:
The late second and early first millennia BC were marked by the decline of Egyptian power, and the rise and expansion of the kingdom of Kush in Nubia, and the kingdoms in southwest Arabia. Trade along the Red Sea was under the control of the South Arabians, but it is possible , however, that the Phoenicians sporadically visited the Horn (Doe 1971; Adams 1977; Groom 1981; Liverani 1988). In the mid-first millennium BC, the south Arabian commercial expansion was at its peak under the control of the kingdom of Saba. At this time, the pre-Aksumite kingdom of Da’amat was surely an important partner of Saba…
In the early first millennium BC, the South Arabians penetrated in the western Tigrean plateau, most likely to get a direct access to the resources of the western lowlands, particularly ivory. Quite soon the region was included in the area of political and commercial influence of the kingdom of Saba. That contacts with the Sabeans gave rise to the local kingdom of Da’amat. An urban society, reflecting the south Arabian pattern, appeared on the plateau. Yeha become a very important ceremonial center and the possible residence of the kings. The agricultural production to sustain the new state was improved by the use of plough. The need to control the routes to the Red Sea caused the eastwards territorial expansion of the kingdom. Kaskase became another important ceremonial centre. An urban settlement arose at Matara.
In the late first millennium BC, after the decline of the kingdom of Saba in southern Arabia, the kingdom of Da’amat collapsed. The plateau was probably divided into petty kingdoms
The use of Sabean language as a possible trade language, for example, would have a lasting impact on the evolution of Ethio-Semitic language in a certain manner, which was already described briefly in earlier passages. This is not to say that Ethio-Semitic itself comes from southern Arabia, but just that such a trade language would have had an impact on how Ethio-Semitic would evolve; for instance, from Stuart Munro-Hay, one also gets an impression of this, i.e. existence of Ethio-Semitic language prior to contact with the Sabean complex before some 3ky ago:
Semiticized Agaw peoples are thought to have migrated from south-eastern Eritrea possibly as early as 2000 BC, bringing their `proto-Ethiopic' language, ancestor of Ge`ez and the other Ethiopian Semitic languages, with them; and these and other groups **had already developed specific cultural and linguistic identities** by the time any Sabaean influences arrived. [1]
The implied message here, is that the Agaw people of Ethiopia were already "Semiticized" by 2000 BC, long before the appearance of the south Arabian complex in history. At this time however, we are informed that this would have been a proto-Ethiopic ancestor of modern Ethio-Semitic languages. Note that the "Semiticized" (acculturated) Agaw and other Ethiopian groups "had already developed specific cultural and linguistic identities by the time any Sabean influences arrived."
Elsewhere:
The inscriptions dating from this period [Sabean-Ethiopian contact] in Ethiopia are apparently written in two languages, pure Sabaean and another language with certain aspects found later in Ge`ez (Schneider 1976). All the royal inscriptions are in this second, presumably Ethiopian, language. A number of different tribes and families seem to be mentioned by the inscriptions of this period, but there is no evidence to show whether any of these groups lasted into the Aksumite period.[1]
One of the two aforementioned languages was very likely serving as a trade language and possibly for administrative purposes, which from a logical standpoint, would have been the "pure Sabean" noted above; the other language, would have been for the benefit of the locals, so that the message which the ruling circles wanted to get across the public, could be heard widely. This latter language, would have desirably been a language that is more widely accessible to the public than the former, and hence, would have been a local "Ethiopian language", as indicated above. This local language happened to already have "aspects" that would later on be a feature of Ge'ez, which happens to be an Ethio-Semitic language. Remember, this was during the time of Ethio-Sabean contact!
Only the word YG`DYN, man of Yeg`az, might hint that the Ge`ez or Agazyan tribe was established so early, though the particular inscription which mentions it is written in the South Arabian rather than the Ethiopian language (Schneider 1961). Some of the other apparently tribal names also occur in both groups of inscriptions. The usual way of referring to someone in the inscriptions is `N. of the family N. of the tribe N.', possibly also reflected later by the Aksumite `Bisi'-title; `king N. man of the tribe/clan (?) N.' (Ch. 7: 5). [1]
...again, speaking to the already established presence of Ethiopic language with Semitic attributes, prior to contact with the Sabean complex. Furthermore:
Indeed, it may be that the Sabaeans were able to establish themselves in Ethiopia in the first place because both their civilisation and that of mid-1st millenium Ethiopia already had something in common; it has been suggested that earlier migrations or contacts might have taken place, leaving a kind of cultural sympathy between the two areas which allowed the later contact to flourish easily.[1]
Ethio-Semitic language, having been available prior to any contact with the Sabean complex, would fit into this scenario of "something in common".
As noted earlier, south Arabian impact on Ethiopian gene pool would have been limited, and primarily focused in administrative outposts, where Sabean migrants communities would have been more visible, during the Ethio-Sabean contact. So, the south Arabian footprint is nowhere near as considerable as proponents of a south Arabian origin for Ethio-Semitic would like it to be, so as to bolster their theory. As one observation has it, the possible role south Arabian migrants would have served during this time,...
It appears that there were undoubtedly some South Arabian immigrants in Ethiopia in the mid-first millenium BC, but there is (unless the interpretation of Michels is accepted) no sure indication that they were politically dominant.
The sites chosen by them may be related to their relative ease of access to the Red Sea coast. Arthur Irvine (1977) and others have regarded sympathetically the suggestion that the inscriptions which testify to Sabaean presence in Ethiopia may have been set up by colonists around the time of the Sabaean ruler Karibil Watar in the late fourth century BC; but the dating is very uncertain, as noted above. They may have been military or trading colonists, living in some sort of symbiosis with the local Ethiopian population, perhaps under a species of treaty-status.[1]
With regards to the D'MT complex, it's noted:
Its rulers, kings and mukarribs, by including the name Saba in their titles, **appear to have expressly claimed control over the resident Sabaeans** in their country; actual Sabaean presence is assumed at Matara, Yeha and Hawelti-Melazo according to present information (Schneider 1973: 388).
The Sabaeans in Ethiopia appear, from the use of certain place-names like Marib in their inscriptions, to have kept in contact with their own country, and indeed the purpose of their presence may well have been to maintain and develop links across the sea to the profit of South Arabia's trading network.
Naturally, such an arrangement would have worked also to the benefit of the indigenous Ethiopian rulers, who employed the titles mukarrib and mlkn at first, and nagashi (najashi) or negus later; no pre-Aksumite najashi or negus is known.
It seems that these `inscriptional' Sabaeans did not remain more than a century or so — or perhaps even only a few decades — as a separate and identifiable people. Possibly their presence was connected to a contemporary efflorescence of Saba on the other side of the Red Sea. Their influence was only in a limited geographical area, affecting the autochthonous population in that area to a greater or lesser degree. Such influences as did remain after their departure or assimilation fused with the local cultural background , and contributed to the ensemble of traits which constituted Ethiopian civilisation in the rest of the pre-Aksumite period. [1]
Moving past the addictive history lessons, let's take a look at other weak moments of the Pagani et al. (2012) analysis. They purportedly have been able to get solid dates on "admixture" events, by using some ROLLOFF logarithm coded "in-house".
Short of coming across haplogroups wherein the mutation rate is supposedly steady and non-variable, available dating models, from "strict-clock" inference model, "relaxed-clock" inference models to time-free inference models (like say, the Bayesian model) hardly ever get 100% accuracy on dating (for example, see [3]). Whereas reporting concrete dates, short of using reference fossils or remains of known dates to aid in phylogenetic dating, imply maximum accuracy of the model being applied, likely within the reach of a 100% accuracy, which as noted, is hardly ever attained through available inference models .
Seemingly neutral segments of the genome are not necessarily inclined to conform to uniform or strict-clock rates of mutation, let alone the even more unpredictable segments of the genome that are under selection. Besides, the parameters picked by the authors, such as the translation of generations into years, is largely an arbitrary variable. So, the alleged attainment of precise dates is cause for skepticism.
As much as I want to get into more of what is actually posted, the material is simply too lengthy to warrant that. And so, for interested parties, the remainder of this material--to give a more complete picture of what is being said--can be attained here: What Ethiopian Genetic Diversity—Really—Reveals! Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
Ancient west Eurasian ancestry in southern and eastern Africa 2013
excerpts...
It is perhaps not a coincidence that the highest levels of west Eurasian ancestry in eastern Africa are found in the Amharaand Tygray, who speak Ethio semitic languages and live in what was previously the territory of D’mt andthe later kingdom of Aksum...
From blog entry, "Haplogroup Assignment; Old Habits that Die Hard", June 30, 2013:
The near identical incidences, aside from peculiarities noted above, of what some take for granted as "non-African" ancestry in the Ethiopian maternal gene pool suggests a population history of considerably deeper time depth than the 3ky ago scenario idolized by followers of a South Arabian origin; their rationale is that subsequent inter-ethnic group intermingling must have evened out the distribution between the major Ethiopian groups. However, the failure of this trend to continue into the Y-DNA [6, 9] counterpart (in what some take for granted as "non-African"), where there seems to be a lingering genetic-structuring along linguistic lines, punches a hole into that frame of mindset.
If anything, the contrasting Y-DNA and mtDNA patterns, the former being largely one of linguistic variation, while the latter largely geographical variation, suggests different demographic processes being the likely driver. The mtDNA may well speak to a common ancestral gene pool from which the major Ethiopian groups emerged, while the Y-DNA is likely speaking to a subsequent differentiation attained in a group whose language was more Semitic-like in its fundamental features. This differentiation would then have had a temporal and spatial component to it [6, 9].
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: A plain text stumped your monkey ass, and you think some one else is dumb
Your lying ass was caught red handed making the retarded statement that derived SLC24A5 was selected for in a tropical environment, right here:
To the contrary, the paper only identifies skin pigmentation as the likely phenotypic candidate of this selection.--The Explorer
No amount of creative replying is going to fix that. You can either defend that pre-defeated claim or take another loss. it's up to you.
quote:The paper identifies skin pigmentation as phenotypic trait of the allele, not once but several times over.
You’re now getting caught red-handed lying that the contention is about whether the gene is associated with light skin. Troll, you were tasked with backing your piece of sh!t claim up that this phenotype was specifically selected for in Sub-Sahara Africa, not with citing what so far has been found to be an expression of derived SLC24A5.
quote:The section cited mentions nothing about SLC45A2
Your filthy lying ass is clearly in need of schooling on the fact that SLC45A2 was referred to, among other genes, when they said ’’other genes associated with pigmentation in Europe’’.
quote:Where do you see, ’’looked at’’ the literature first to identify which genes they should be looking ‘’for’’" in this
Of course it’s not in that citation after your pathologically lying, bummy ass doctored it, thinking your manipulations would go unnoticed.
The quote without your deliberate distortions:
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; 46 [***footnote***] however, none were found in our outlier regions. --Pagani et al
quote:You needed to be fed like a helpless baby with this "no-brainer"
Back to running away from the inconvenient facts that are being shoved down your throat, eh? These facts are staring you in the face, and there is nothing you’re going to do about them, other than masking your inability to adress them with keyboard warrior macho-talk, like the pathetic b!tch that you are:
Your spacey attempt to wilfully wish these facts away with some random mumbo jumbo blank no-brainer invocation of ’’differing bio-histories’’ is at odds with the fact that I’ve just told your dumbass that the levels of derived SLC24A5 in Ethiopia match the amount of Syria affinity having haplotypes in the respective local populations. --Swenet
quote:That's just what you do: guessing.
Yes, citing sections of my posts that don't even contain arguments and thinking of creative ways to make off-topic comments is what you do when imminent thrashing is staring you in the face. How about actually addressing these facts, which you've gone to great lengths to seek refuge from:
quote:your dogmatic troll inclinations are obstructing your bias stricken eyeballs from seeing the readily observable fact that Pagani et al’s methods are vindicated by the fact that the Omotic speakers, whose African haplotypes differ from other Ethiopians only in terms of component proportion (i.e. not in terms of component type), yet, they had little trouble coming out as biologically almost exclusively African. Of course, their comparatively low level of SLC24A5, their comparatively lower amount of non-African uniparentals, their comparatively lower amount of Ethio-Semitic loanwords and comparatively larger distance from the ancient urban localities that would have attracted populations with these Syrian affinity having haplotypes you're lamenting (but can't do sh!t about), have nothing to do with each other; it’s all just a coincidental happenstance that these independent phenomena happen to date to 3kya and come together to form a coherent multi-disciplinary case.
When you’ve mustered up the balls to do so, try tackling the following inconvenient facts as well, will ya? I have more ass whooping in store for your lying ass:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Go ahead and ask many more times, the answer doesn't change
Of course it won’t, and the reason is none other than the fact that you can’t answer it without inserting girly giggle accompanied unsubstantiated claims that the Sri Lankan skin pigmentation state of affairs bolsters your non-existent case! For the fourth time it’s observed that you’re scared sh!tless to address what is being shoved in your face, with more than tail between legs amygdala triggered non-replies:
Lying ass troll, the Sri Lankan samples had an excess of SLC24A5, and a severe deficit of SLC45A2. Explain this under your crackpot theory that a severe minority of SLC24A5 correlated genes testify to an indigenous origin of this gene. --Swenet
Just thought I’d ’remind’ you that you ran away from this, here, too:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: I thought I already clued in your stupid monkey ass that if there were no other skin pigmentation genes in Ethiopians
You’re such a phuckin’ low IQ, dumbass, charlatan. Is your bum ass saying that the Ethiopian sample implicated here wouldn’t have had additional skin pigmentation genes, had, let’s say, derived SLC45A2 been found in them? Get to work, fraud:
If not negative selection, explain why no other skin pigmentation genes were found in the Ethiopian population --Swenet
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
Your filthy lying ass is clearly in need of schooling on the fact that SLC45A2 was referred to, among other genes, when they said ’’other genes associated with pigmentation in Europe’’.
Cite the text (Pagani et al. 2012) that mentions "SLC45A2", fuckhead monkey.
quote:
Of course it’s not in that citation after your pathologically lying, bummy ass doctored it, thinking your manipulations would go unnoticed.
The quote without your deliberate distortions:
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; 46 [***footnote***] however, none were found in our outlier regions. --Pagani et al
You've confused Pagani et al.'s application of "looked at" in the text for this self-interjected moronic substitution, "looked at’’ the literature first to identify which genes they should be looking ‘’for’’" (your words), simply because they happen to put a footnote number "46" at the end of the sentence. You've had your fuckhead stuck in your fat ass for too long.
quote:
quote:That's just what you do: guessing.
Yes, citing sections of my posts that don't even contain arguments
There's no point in citing useless "sections" of your post stuffed with fairy tale gibberish (you mindlessly confuse with "arguments"), and my response (as cited) was adequately measured.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
Your lying ass was caught red handed making the retarded statement that derived SLC24A5 was selected for in a tropical environment, right here:
To the contrary, the paper only identifies skin pigmentation as the likely phenotypic candidate of this selection.--The Explorer
"caught red handed" in this piece, in which "derived SLC24A5 was selected for in a tropical environment" is nowhere to be found outside of your stunted head:
fuckhead queen, this extract is not spelling out "another" (your fictitious) biological function. It's merely speaking to the positive selection of the gene. To the contrary, the paper only identifies skin pigmentation as the likely phenotypic candidate of this selection. You are too fucked in the skull to even properly read a citation that you cherry-picked for dogmatic purposes. - Explorer
Sure, I was caught "red-handed". Red-handed in correcting your dumb monkey ass. Posted by .Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^Compared to his psychopathic outbursts elsewhere, those epithets you've highlighted make him look like a saint.
LOL, why did yall bring that up for? lol
Posted by IronLion (Member # 16412) on :
Hmmm, Charlibaa.com is back. Good to see you Charlibaa.ediooo.t.
Summer must be getting over, cause lately mi bin seeing lotsa insects crawling back indoors...
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Can't believe these guys are still arguing over slc24A5. As a pigmentation gene after publications to the contrary. Eg. Norton, Kittles, Rees, Sturm. Etc tsk tsk 2yrs behind the times. This is what the simple-minded racist believe..
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Would someone post that Norton/Kittles paper up and shut these annoying brtha’s up. I am not sure what’s up with you Sweetness but everyday you prove to be dumber than the day before
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: [QB] Can't believe these guys are still arguing over slc24A5.
what do you mean? it's supposed to be 20 pages at least per sub topic
Posted by claus3600 (Member # 19584) on :
@The Explorer
quote: These would be the very things that you lack: an intellect, or any real contribution to make. Funny how that works out. It's called projecting; check with a psychiatrist.
I can produce a long list of substance I bring here. How about you? Where's your real contribution, besides being a wimp and an unimportant chatroom cheerleader?
PS: In case you didn't get the memo, your opinion is worthless. On the other hand, if you want to discuss facts, I'll be glad to indulge you.
You got me... I'm not an anthropologist, so have very little to contribute here...however, I still don't have to resort to your monkey taunts to make my points.
And you're supposed to be someone helping to re-write African history within the context of wider racism. Wow. We really are fvked!
You talk about projection - maybe you could clue us in on why you use monkey taunts?
Just read this -
quote: Originally posted by Swenet: ^Compared to his psychopathic outbursts elsewhere, those epithets you've highlighted make him look like a saint. What ''The Explorer'' aka ''Supercar'' aka ''Ausarian''aka ''Mystery Solver''s posts look like when he is in full troll mode
Don't think I've ever read anything like that on a forum before. What conclusion is one to draw from those comments?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by claus3600: @The Explorer
quote: These would be the very things that you lack: an intellect, or any real contribution to make. Funny how that works out. It's called projecting; check with a psychiatrist.
I can produce a long list of substance I bring here. How about you? Where's your real contribution, besides being a wimp and an unimportant chatroom cheerleader?
PS: In case you didn't get the memo, your opinion is worthless. On the other hand, if you want to discuss facts, I'll be glad to indulge you.
You got me... I'm not an anthropologist, so have very little to contribute here...however, I still don't have to resort to your monkey taunts to make my points.
And you're supposed to be someone helping to re-write African history within the context of wider racism. Wow. We really are fvked!
You talk about projection - maybe you could clue us in on why you use monkey taunts?
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
Ass-Offerer.. I mean Explorer, I knew your ass was a shady character! Pongid ape's display in this thread is rather telling. Thank god there is such a thing as a time constraint, when it comes to doing damage control and editing posts. The guy is mentally retarded.
it goes back and forth
Posted by IronLion (Member # 16412) on :
quote:Originally posted by claus3600: @The Explorer
quote: These would be the very things that you lack: an intellect, or any real contribution to make. Funny how that works out. It's called projecting; check with a psychiatrist.
I can produce a long list of substance I bring here. How about you? Where's your real contribution, besides being a wimp and an unimportant chatroom cheerleader?
PS: In case you didn't get the memo, your opinion is worthless. On the other hand, if you want to discuss facts, I'll be glad to indulge you.
You got me... I'm not an anthropologist, so have very little to contribute here...however, I still don't have to resort to your monkey taunts to make my points.
And you're supposed to be someone helping to re-write African history within the context of wider racism. Wow. We really are fvked!
You talk about projection - maybe you could clue us in on why you use monkey taunts?
Just read this -
quote: Originally posted by Swenet: ^Compared to his psychopathic outbursts elsewhere, those epithets you've highlighted make him look like a saint. What ''The Explorer'' aka ''Supercar'' aka ''Ausarian''aka ''Mystery Solver''s posts look like when he is in full troll mode
Don't think I've ever read anything like that on a forum before. What conclusion is one to draw from those comments?
We are not fucked.
Ass-plorer is mest up by himself, for himself, with himself... Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by claus3600:
You got me... I'm not an anthropologist, so have very little to contribute here
No doubt, which is why if you are contributing zip, it's best to simply step aside; it beats serving as a cheerleading minion for the poster that you are obviously emotionally partial to.
quote: ...however, I still don't have to resort to your monkey taunts to make my points.
Rather, you resort to school-girl-like cheerleading on the sideline, while name-calling on the other hand.
Calling someone a "stupid monkey" is supposedly the mother of all insults, but calling someone a "filthy lying pig" is just fine in your book. How "classy" of you.
quote: And you're supposed to be someone helping to re-write African history within the context of wider racism. Wow. We really are fvked!
I never announced my role on ES to you, so how the heck do you know whom I supposed to be? I'm not here for your entertainment or your personal liking. When I was joining ES, you were not around to make that decision for me. You don't like what you see, then you certainly have the free-will of not participating, or just leave altogether.
My goal is to set the record straight where I see it necessary, and if that means talking down to some lowlife at the level he/she can understand, then so be it. Simply put, I come at you in the way you come at me.
quote: You talk about projection - maybe you could clue us in on why you use monkey taunts?
It's not complicated, buddy: it's called an insult. Insults are supposed to be painful, not generous...that's why they are insults, if you get my drift.
quote:Just read this -
quote: Originally posted by Swenet: ^Compared to his psychopathic outbursts elsewhere, those epithets you've highlighted make him look like a saint. [b]What ''The Explorer'' aka ''Supercar'' aka ''Ausarian''aka ''Mystery Solver''s posts look like when he is in full troll mode
Don't think I've ever read anything like that on a forum before. What conclusion is one to draw from those comments?
The conclusion to be drawn, is that you are obviously a minion and must not be too bright, when you are clueless enough to listen to a clown which itself is throwing around insults left and right.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Cite the text (Pagani et al. 2012) that mentions "SLC45A2", fuckhead monkey.
You now realize that you phucked up when your glaring obliviousness to the matters being discussed led you to confuse my mention of SLC45A2 for a mistaken identity with SLC24A5 on my part. In a desperate bid to safe face and hide your glaring blunder, you're now moving the goal post to whether SLC45A2 was singled out and specifically articulated in Pagani's text. Filthy lying ass pig, didn't I tell your filthy ass to stop lying so much?
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: You've confused Pagani et al.'s application of "looked at" in the text for this self-interjected moronic substitution
Lying ass pig, they referenced a 2009 paper which has a section dedicated to the exact same pigmentation genes that were of interest to Pagani et al. Do your struggling neurones imagine the footnote is sitting there for decoration purposes? What is it doing there if not serving as a reference to point their readership to the genes they themselves had the samples tested for? Speak up, troll!
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: There's no point in citing useless "sections" of your post stuffed with fairy tale gibberish
Filthy lying ass pig, your structural angst of addressing what you're referring to as ''fairy tales'' speaks louder than your wimpy, all by your lonesome, protestations. two invitations, pig. Two invitations were extended to you, and both of them were met with angst driven avoidance and subsequent toothless tough talk. This is the third invitation to back your piece of sh!t claim up:
quote:your dogmatic troll inclinations are obstructing your bias stricken eyeballs from seeing the readily observable fact that Pagani et al’s methods are vindicated by the fact that the Omotic speakers, whose African haplotypes differ from other Ethiopians only in terms of component proportion (i.e. not in terms of component type), yet, they had little trouble coming out as biologically almost exclusively African. Of course, their comparatively low level of SLC24A5, their comparatively lower amount of non-African uniparentals, their comparatively lower amount of Ethio-Semitic loanwords and comparatively larger distance from the ancient urban localities that would have attracted populations with these Syrian affinity having haplotypes you're lamenting (but can't do sh!t about), have nothing to do with each other; it’s all just a coincidental happenstance that these independent phenomena happen to date to 3kya and come together to form a coherent multi-disciplinary case.
--Swenet
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: "caught red handed" in this piece, in which "derived SLC24A5 was selected for in a tropical environment" is nowhere to be found outside of your stunted head
...and then the lying ass troll goes on to re-confirm its shaky interpretation that Pagani state that SLC24A5 got selected in the Ethiopian Cushitic-Semitic speakers because of its light skin associated features. You're stumped by 1) the fact that the implied populations are living in highly inconducive intense UV environments 2) that there are no traces of other pigmentation genes in Semitic-Cushitic speakers (despite their inferred ancient presence) and 3) that derived SLC24A5 in the other Ethiopian populations did not undergo selection.
When you’ve mustered up the balls to do so, try tackling the following inconvenient facts as well, will ya? I have more ass whooping in store for your lying ass:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Go ahead and ask many more times, the answer doesn't change
Of course it won’t, and the reason is none other than the fact that you can’t answer it without inserting girly giggle accompanied unsubstantiated claims that the Sri Lankan skin pigmentation state of affairs bolsters your non-existent case! For the fourth time it’s observed that you’re scared sh!tless to address what is being shoved in your face, with more than tail between legs amygdala triggered non-replies:
Lying ass troll, the Sri Lankan samples had an excess of SLC24A5, and a severe deficit of SLC45A2. Explain this under your crackpot theory that a severe minority of SLC24A5 correlated genes testify to an indigenous origin of this gene. --Swenet
Just thought I’d ’remind’ you that you ran away from this, here, too:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: I thought I already clued in your stupid monkey ass that if there were no other skin pigmentation genes in Ethiopians
You’re such a phuckin’ low IQ, dumbass, charlatan. Is your bum ass saying that the Ethiopian sample implicated here wouldn’t have had additional skin pigmentation genes, had, let’s say, derived SLC45A2 been found in them? Get to work, fraud:
If not negative selection, explain why no other skin pigmentation genes were found in the Ethiopian population --Swenet
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ass-ion:
Ass-plorer is mest up by himself, for himself, with himself...
Ass-ion still has its paper-lion fuckhead up his fat Haile-Selassie worshiping ass, forcing hot-air to channel from the ass-hole to the pot-mouth, which is why stuff (as cited) come out of the pot-orifice that make less and less sense with each blurt. Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Cite the text (Pagani et al. 2012) that mentions "SLC45A2", fuckhead monkey.
You now realize that you phucked up when your glaring obliviousness to the matters being discussed led you to confuse my mention of SLC45A2 for a mistaken identity with SLC24A5 on my part. In a desperate bid to safe face and hide your glaring blunder, you're now moving the goal post to whether SLC45A2 was singled out and specifically articulated in Pagani's text. Filthy lying ass pig, didn't I tell your filthy ass to stop lying so much?
Ok, Pagani et al.'s text does not mention SLC45A2 at all. That renders you a lying sucker of a stupid monkey.
quote:
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: You've confused Pagani et al.'s application of "looked at" in the text for this self-interjected moronic substitution
Lying ass pig, they referenced a 2009 paper which has a section dedicated to the exact same pigmentation genes that were of interest to Pagani et al. Do your struggling neurones imagine the footnote is sitting there for decoration purposes? What is it doing there if not serving as a reference to point their readership to the genes they themselves had the samples tested for? Speak up, troll!
Of course, the footnote number is there for the benefit of the reader, so that the reader can track down what "other genes" they are referring to. But that is not what you said that raised eyebrows, fuckhead queen.
Even if Pagani et al. themselves referred to said material to get an idea of what these genes were, they would have still had to familiarize themselves with the actual locations of those genes before they actually sequenced the sites of interest. That's just common sense. They would not therefore be "looking for" the sites; they'd just go right to the sites of interest and examine them accordingly. As such, when the authors noted "looked at" the other genes, they simply meant that they took them (other genes) into consideration, which you comically bungled up and mistook it for your own silly conception that their invocation of "looked at" must signify their "looking at literature first to identify which genes they should be looking ‘’for’’" (your words). LOL, you are such a dense bonehead.
quote:
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: "caught red handed" in this piece, in which "derived SLC24A5 was selected for in a tropical environment" is nowhere to be found outside of your stunted head
...and then the lying ass troll goes on to re-confirm its shaky interpretation that Pagani state that SLC24A5 got selected in the Ethiopian Cushitic-Semitic speakers because of its light skin associated features.
These are of course your usual silly paraphrasing crap as opposed to my exact words, but in any event, saying that "SLC24A5 got selected in the Ethiopian Cushitic-Semitic speakers" is not the same thing as "derived SLC24A5 was selected for in a tropical environment", now is it?
Nor is saying that the authors identified skin pigmentation as the likely phenotypic trait of this selection, my words, is not the same thing as "derived SLC24A5 was selected for in a tropical environment".
The selection does not have to be a response to the environment, which in this case, happens to be a tropically-situated one. Of course, you'd know this if you were actually clued in what was mentioned in the paper, and how genetics works, rather than manufacturing quotes just to score a point.
quote: You're stumped by 1) the fact that the implied populations are living in highly inconducive intense UV environments
As evidenced by what? Quotes, not dumb misinformed paraphrases.
quote: 2) that there are no traces of other pigmentation genes in Semitic-Cushitic speakers (despite their inferred ancient presence) and 3) that derived SLC24A5 in the other Ethiopian populations did not undergo selection.
Again evidences for these crazy accusations that only you seem to be clued in on. And again, just quotes, no misinformed paraphrase.
I did, however, chime in on the first two issues of your "three point" wimpy accusations, and there is clear evidence thereof, that you are stumped crazy, like the stupid monkey you are, on what was actually related about those two issues.
Any one with a slight nerve activity above you, which says a lot since you have none at all, can figure out that your nutty accusations and what was actually said are worlds apart. Posted by IronLion (Member # 16412) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:Originally posted by Ass-ion:
Ass-plorer is mest up by himself, for himself, with himself...
Ass-ion still has its paper-lion fuckhead up his fat Haile-Selassie worshiping ass, forcing hot-air to channel from the ass-hole to the pot-mouth, which is why stuff (as cited) come out of the pot-orifice that make less and less sense with each blurt.
What is this gibberish above? Demented nah?
By the way Superfly, I thought you went back to writing your phucked up blog? Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
What blogs did you write again, Haile Selassie's ass-licking fuckhead?
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
Tukler says: Now a decade after her publication geneticists don't have to come out up front and say North Africans are white Caucasian. They just have to include Maca-Meyer in their list of sources.
If they don't take her to task for using Caucasian then they agree with her usage.
Dialectic is stronger than explicit.
Rolling "the Cheikh," Doc Ben, Xyyman, and Zarahan all into one; so-called generalized or undifferentiated AFRICAN AMHs step across the Bab el Mendeb, stay a minute, step back across and voila! here's your Caucasian Africa(n). Nevermind whiteness, fleshless lips, rather long but paperthin noses, and multi-colored eyes and hair developing in a Arabian Peninsula or SW Asia essentially the same environmentally etc as NE Africa was at that epoch.
lol.. Amen brother... Now if only more folk would grasp what you have written and catch on to the game they are playing...
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
but who is saying, in these time periods it was across Bab el Mendeb rather than sinai ?
Posted by .Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
I come back here and this maniacal trolling is still going on. These DNA studies are only as good as the samples and methods used, compare this study to others done on South Africans and check for similarities, smh
Posted by IronLion (Member # 16412) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: What blogs did you write again, Haile Selassie's ass-licking fuckhead?
Phucked up bytch
Phucked up blog.
Superfly, fly back to your shyt-hole blog... Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Ok, Pagani et al.'s text does not mention SLC45A2 at all.
Like the sick troll that you are, you're now structurally lying your way out of your phuckups. Filty lying ass pig, cite where I said that Pagani et al mention SLC45A2 explicitly in their text, rather than simply having identified it as one of the genes implicated in what they meant when they said ''we also looked at other genes associated with pigmentation in Europe''. While you're at it, explain how your persistent trolling in regards to this tenacious lie of yours, rectifies your earlier fabricated lie that my mention of the gene was an accident.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: As such, when the authors noted "looked at" the other genes, they simply meant that they took them (other genes) into consideration
Cognitively challenged lying ass troll, how is the highlighted inconsistent with what I said, namely, that the authors consulted the aforementioned source? What would have preceded this ''taking into consideration'', if not getting updated on prospect genes, which they could then test their samples for?
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: but in any event, saying that "SLC24A5 got selected in the Ethiopian Cushitic-Semitic speakers" is not the same thing as "derived SLC24A5 was selected for in a tropical environment", now is it?
Unless these people aren't actually tropical populations, it isn't going to matter whether you explicitly said they were equatorial, you phuchin' jackass. You said skin pigmentation is a ''likely phenotypic candidate of this selection'' (end quote) in populations who reside at an equatorial lattitude.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: And again, just quotes, no misinformed paraphrase
You're now asking me to quote where you were stumped? You're such a cognitively impaired sack of sh!t, LMAO. How is someone supposed to quote a non-verbal state of mind (being stumped), you filthy dumbass pig? Then again, making such braindead logically impracticable requests is right up your alley, recalling earlier crackhead requests you made, such as ''cite the accuracies in Kefi 2005''.
Explain the following specifics under your crackpot view that derived SLC24A5 got selected for in the sampled Cushitic-Semitic speakers due to its light skin associated expression:
You're stumped by 1) the fact that the implied populations are living in highly inconducive intense UV environments 2) that there are no traces of other pigmentation genes in Semitic- Cushitic speakers (despite their inferred ancient presence) and 3) that derived SLC24A5 in the other Ethiopian populations did not undergo selection. --Swenet
When you’ve mustered up the balls to do so, try tackling the following inconvenient facts as well, will ya? I have more ass whooping in store for your lying ass:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Go ahead and ask many more times, the answer doesn't change
Of course it won’t, and the reason is none other than the fact that you can’t answer it without inserting girly giggle accompanied unsubstantiated claims that the Sri Lankan skin pigmentation state of affairs bolsters your non-existent case! For the fourth time it’s observed that you’re scared sh!tless to address what is being shoved in your face, with more than tail between legs amygdala triggered non-replies:
Lying ass troll, the Sri Lankan samples had an excess of SLC24A5, and a severe deficit of SLC45A2. Explain this under your crackpot theory that a severe minority of SLC24A5 correlated genes testify to an indigenous origin of this gene. --Swenet
Just thought I’d ’remind’ you that you ran away from this, here, too:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: I thought I already clued in your stupid monkey ass that if there were no other skin pigmentation genes in Ethiopians
You’re such a phuckin’ low IQ, dumbass, charlatan. Is your bum ass saying that the Ethiopian sample implicated here wouldn’t have had additional skin pigmentation genes, had, let’s say, derived SLC45A2 been found in them? Get to work, fraud:
If not negative selection, explain why no other skin pigmentation genes were found in the Ethiopian population --Swenet
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
Like the sick troll that you are, you're now structurally lying your way out of your phuckups. Filty lying ass pig, cite where I said that Pagani et al mention SLC45A2 explicitly in their text, rather than simply having identified it as one of the genes implicated in what they meant when they said ''we also looked at other genes associated with pigmentation in Europe''. While you're at it, explain how your persistent trolling in regards to this tenacious lie of yours, rectifies your earlier fabricated lie that my mention of the gene was an accident.
That's just it, fuckhead queen. You are a moron of a unique kind for focusing on a gene that wasn't even mentioned in the paper.
quote:
Cognitively challenged lying ass troll, how is the highlighted inconsistent with what I said
fuckhead queen, you do realize by this absentminded begging, that you are in effect saying that you don't know how to read this text, don't you:
"when the authors noted "looked at" the other genes, they simply meant that they took them (other genes) into consideration, which you comically bungled up and mistook it for your own silly conception that their invocation of "looked at" must signify their "looking at literature first to identify which genes they should be looking ‘’for’’" (your words). LOL, you are such a dense bonehead."
That's why you were instructed to let your care-taker do all your reading, but you are about as terribly handicapped at taking instructions as you are reading.
quote: Unless these people aren't actually tropical populations, it isn't going to matter whether you explicitly said they were equatorial, you phuchin' jackass.
Other than fuckhead crackpots, who else would be intellectually inept enough to say that quoting information correctly does not matter?
On top of that, you make another stupid claim about Ethiopians not "actually tropical populations". Your mental ineptness just gets worse by the minute...and you wishfully accuse me of being the stumped one, LOL.
quote: You said skin pigmentation is a ''likely phenotypic candidate of this selection'' (end quote) in populations who reside at an equatorial lattitude.
Let's stick to what I actually said:
the paper only identifies skin pigmentation as the likely phenotypic candidate of this selection.
I bet that the stupid monkey will scratch its head in trying to figure out the difference between what I just cited, and what the moron claims I said.
quote:You're now asking me to quote where you were stumped?
You retarded monkey. You were instructed to provide "evidence" for your crazy accusations. Naturally, that would mean first quoting (not silly misinformed paraphrases) me, and then demonstrating where I went wrong, jackass!
Somebody should sufficiently pad your small basement room for your own safety, not to leave out a straitjacket. Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
Come to think of it, when you said...
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
You're such a cognitively impaired sack of sh!t, LMAO. How is someone supposed to quote a non-verbal state of mind (being stumped), you filthy dumbass pig?
Rather than whining about my requests, which were actually monumentally kind to your accusations, considering how illogical they were, it is your own accusations that you should be perplexed about. Given that you are tacitly saying your accusation speaks to "a non-verbal state of mind", how the heck then can you discern "a non-verbal state of mind", when you have no "verbal basis" for it? Are you into some kind of a supernatural witchcraft crap?
Posted by IronLion (Member # 16412) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: buzzzz...buzzzzz.... I am a supernatural witchcraft crap!
Yes so says Ass-plorer the endangered Superfly, the crap eater...
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: You are a moron of a unique kind for focusing on a gene that wasn't even mentioned in the paper.
Sick lying ass troll, this is the third time that you're running away from addressing this segment of the discussion:
Like the sick troll that you are, you're now structurally lying your way out of your phuckups. Filty lying ass pig, cite where I said that Pagani et al mention SLC45A2 explicitly in their text, rather than simply having identified it as one of the genes implicated in what they meant when they said ''we also looked at other genes associated with pigmentation in Europe''. While you're at it, explain how your persistent trolling in regards to this tenacious lie of yours, rectifies your earlier fabricated lie that my mention of the gene was an accident. --Swenet
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: when the authors noted "looked at" the other genes, they simply meant that they took them (other genes) into consideration, which you comically bungled up and mistook it for your own silly conception that their invocation of "looked at" must signify their "looking at literature first to identify which genes they should be looking ‘’for’’
You phuchin' troll, this is the 2nd time that you're desperately running away from this segment of the discussion. Explain how ''taking into consideration'', in this context, is supposedly an endeavour separated from ''consulting the literature'', to make sense of the non-existent dichotomy between ''taking into consideration'' and ''consulting the literature'', that you're desperately hoping will catch on. Surely there must be an explanation for why your crippled sh!t stained brains are attempting to discredit my interpretation of that Pagani et al citation with what can only be described as another way of saying what I said.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Other than fuckhead crackpots, who else would be intellectually inept enough to say that quoting information correctly does not matter?
Lying ass pig, it is obvious that you're not only running away from what I'm telling you, but that you apparently on the other side of the 99,9% of the educated public who know the difference between a paraphrase and a verbatim quote:
Unless these people aren't actually tropical populations, it isn't going to matter whether you explicitly said they were equatorial, you phuchin' jackass. --Swenet
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Let's stick to what I actually said: the paper only identifies skin pigmentation as the likely phenotypic candidate of this selection.
Which brings us back to the fact that the paper says light skin got selected for in the case of Europeans, and makes no such explicit case for Ethiopians. Which then brings us back to the fact that what you proclaim is a view of the authors, is really your own retarded claim, hiding behind someone else’s authority. Which brings us back to the fact that it was none other than your own retarded ass that said that light skin got selected for in populations who reside in the tropics.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: You were instructed to provide "evidence" for your crazy accusations. Naturally, that would mean first quoting (not silly misinformed paraphrases) me, and then demonstrating where I went wrong, jackass!
Filthy pig, your stupidity has no bounds! You asked someone to reproduce, out of a textual exchange, records of something that’s inherently non-verbal. Even worse: you then go on a full blown super stumped discourse, talking about how, if there was no record of this apparent fact in the said textual exchange, your demented neurones find it a real enigma that it could have been discerned in other ways:
Given that you are tacitly saying your accusation speaks to "a non-verbal state of mind", how the heck then can you discern "a non-verbal state of mind" --The Explorer
According to this crippled reasoning, I must not know for a fact that you're alive, simply because there is no explicit record of this in the textual exchanges in this thread! Do you have any idea how insanely retarded your barely functioning neurones must be, to be sending impulses to your crack besmirched lips that it's okay to be talking such unearthly stupid smack? Get your microcephalic head looked at, son!
When you’ve mustered up the balls to do so, try tackling the following inconvenient facts as well, will ya? I have more ass whooping in store for your lying ass:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Go ahead and ask many more times, the answer doesn't change
Of course it won’t, and the reason is none other than the fact that you can’t answer it without inserting girly giggle accompanied unsubstantiated claims that the Sri Lankan skin pigmentation state of affairs bolsters your non-existent case! For the fourth time it’s observed that you’re scared sh!tless to address what is being shoved in your face, with more than tail between legs amygdala triggered non-replies:
Lying ass troll, the Sri Lankan samples had an excess of SLC24A5, and a severe deficit of SLC45A2. Explain this under your crackpot theory that a severe minority of SLC24A5 correlated genes testify to an indigenous origin of this gene. --Swenet
Just thought I’d ’remind’ you that you ran away from this, here, too:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: I thought I already clued in your stupid monkey ass that if there were no other skin pigmentation genes in Ethiopians
You’re such a phuckin’ low IQ, dumbass, charlatan. Is your bum ass saying that the Ethiopian sample implicated here wouldn’t have had additional skin pigmentation genes, had, let’s say, derived SLC45A2 been found in them? Get to work, fraud:
If not negative selection, explain why no other skin pigmentation genes were found in the Ethiopian population --Swenet
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
Sick lying ass troll, this is the third time that you're running away from addressing this segment of the discussion:
Like the sick troll that you are, you're now structurally lying your way out of your phuckups. Filty lying ass pig, cite where I said that Pagani et al mention SLC45A2 explicitly in their text, rather than simply having identified it as one of the genes implicated in what they meant when they said ''we also looked at other genes associated with pigmentation in Europe''. While you're at it, explain how your persistent trolling in regards to this tenacious lie of yours, rectifies your earlier fabricated lie that my mention of the gene was an accident. --Swenet
You've only managed to confirm the astute observation that you are a moron with no peers. Who else reads "other genes" as specifically "SLC45A2" but a numbskull such as yourself?
Just like a quick sand, the more you try to justify your profound stupidity, the more you sink.
quote:Lying ass pig, it is obvious that you're not only running away from what I'm telling you, but that you apparently on the other side of the 99,9% of the educated public who know the difference between a paraphrase and a verbatim quote
It's no rocket science that the meaning of the word "lying" is alien to you, as are a number of other simple terms. This is what you can expect from fuckheads who can't tell "taking into consideration" apart from "consulting the literature". In a clear contrast to you, my reply is premised on firsthand evidence--an actual quote, which is hard to lie about after the fact, even though that never stops you [as I said, you are a unique moron like that].
You are not mentally competent to paraphrase just yet; leave that to thinking-people, my fuckhead queen.
quote:Which brings us back to the fact that the paper says light skin got selected for in the case of Europeans, and makes no such explicit case for Ethiopians.
Utter silliness--you were already spoon fed about the only biological function (skin pigmentation) the paper identifies in the real world, and in association, how a marker serving as gene flow (what you've been vainly wishing for) works; go back and read. Oh wait; you have trouble with reading!
Comprehending genetics is far out. You have a more pressing problem: Seek reading 101 first.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Who else reads "other genes" as specifically "SLC45A2" but a numbskull such as yourself?
You're lying again, filthy pig. If not, cite, without relapsing to your amygdala triggered habit of fleeing the scene, where I even remotely said something to the effect that SLC45A2 itself was the text's ''other genes''.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: This is what you can expect from fuckheads who can't tell "taking into consideration" apart from "consulting the literature".
Produce this imaginary, cooked up, account where ''taking into consideration'' was conflated with ''consulting the literature'' in any context, other than the one implied here, where the ''taking into consideration'' of genes would have happened by way of ''consulting the literature'', wherein these genes are described.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Utter silliness--you were already spoon fed about the only biological function (skin pigmentation) the paper identifies in the real world
Dumb sack a sh!t, in addition to coding for skin color, SLC24A5 has also been found to code for eye color, among other things. Explain this under your cuckoo, sh!t stained fairy tale that Pagani et al's reference to ''biological function'' here should refer exclusively to SLC24A5's skin color associated expression. Then, when you're done performing this pre-defeated undertaking, explain to me how light skin color got selected for in an equatorial population.
What your dumbass ''forgot'' to address in the midst of the thrashing you've been submitted to:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: when the authors noted "looked at" the other genes, they simply meant that they took them (other genes) into consideration, which you comically bungled up and mistook it for your own silly conception that their invocation of "looked at" must signify their "looking at literature first to identify which genes they should be looking ‘’for’’
You phuchin' troll, this is the 2nd time that you're desperately running away from this segment of the discussion. Explain how ''taking into consideration'', in this context, is supposedly an endeavour separated from ''consulting the literature'', to make sense of the non-existent dichotomy between ''taking into consideration'' and ''consulting the literature'', that you're desperately hoping will catch on. Surely there must be an explanation for why your crippled sh!t stained brains are attempting to discredit my interpretation of that Pagani et al citation with what can only be described as another way of saying what I said.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Other than fuckhead crackpots, who else would be intellectually inept enough to say that quoting information correctly does not matter?
Lying ass pig, it is obvious that you're not only running away from what I'm telling you, but that you apparently on the other side of the 99,9% of the educated public who know the difference between a paraphrase and a verbatim quote:
Unless these people aren't actually tropical populations, it isn't going to matter whether you explicitly said they were equatorial, you phuchin' jackass. --Swenet
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Let's stick to what I actually said: the paper only identifies skin pigmentation as the likely phenotypic candidate of this selection.
Which brings us back to the fact that the paper says light skin got selected for in the case of Europeans, and makes no such explicit case for Ethiopians. Which then brings us back to the fact that what you proclaim is a view of the authors, is really your own retarded claim, hiding behind someone else’s authority. Which brings us back to the fact that it was none other than your own retarded ass that said that light skin got selected for in populations who reside in the tropics.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: You were instructed to provide "evidence" for your crazy accusations. Naturally, that would mean first quoting (not silly misinformed paraphrases) me, and then demonstrating where I went wrong, jackass!
Filthy pig, your stupidity has no bounds! You asked someone to reproduce, out of a textual exchange, records of something that’s inherently non-verbal. Even worse: you then go on a full blown super stumped discourse, talking about how, if there was no record of this apparent fact in the said textual exchange, your demented neurones find it a real enigma that it could have been discerned in other ways:
Given that you are tacitly saying your accusation speaks to "a non-verbal state of mind", how the heck then can you discern "a non-verbal state of mind" --The Explorer
According to this crippled reasoning, I must not know for a fact that you're alive, simply because there is no explicit record of this in the textual exchanges in this thread! Do you have any idea how insanely retarded your barely functioning neurones must be, to be sending impulses to your crack besmirched lips that it's okay to be talking such unearthly stupid smack? Get your microcephalic head looked at, son!
When you’ve mustered up the balls to do so, try tackling the following inconvenient facts as well, will ya? I have more ass whooping in store for your lying ass:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Go ahead and ask many more times, the answer doesn't change
Of course it won’t, and the reason is none other than the fact that you can’t answer it without inserting girly giggle accompanied unsubstantiated claims that the Sri Lankan skin pigmentation state of affairs bolsters your non-existent case! For the fourth time it’s observed that you’re scared sh!tless to address what is being shoved in your face, with more than tail between legs amygdala triggered non-replies:
Lying ass troll, the Sri Lankan samples had an excess of SLC24A5, and a severe deficit of SLC45A2. Explain this under your crackpot theory that a severe minority of SLC24A5 correlated genes testify to an indigenous origin of this gene. --Swenet
Just thought I’d ’remind’ you that you ran away from this, here, too:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: I thought I already clued in your stupid monkey ass that if there were no other skin pigmentation genes in Ethiopians
You’re such a phuckin’ low IQ, dumbass, charlatan. Is your bum ass saying that the Ethiopian sample implicated here wouldn’t have had additional skin pigmentation genes, had, let’s say, derived SLC45A2 been found in them? Get to work, fraud:
If not negative selection, explain why no other skin pigmentation genes were found in the Ethiopian population --Swenet
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
You're lying again, filthy pig. If not, cite, without relapsing to your amygdala triggered habit of fleeing the scene, where I even remotely said something to the effect that SLC45A2 itself was the text's ''other genes''.
skanky piece of trash, on top of being reading-retarded, are you now suffering from Alzheimer's, so that you can't remember highlighting "other genes" in your remark, as a justification for your obsession over an allele that is not even mentioned in Pagani et al.'s paper? What will be the next misfortune of your careless simple-minded lying spree: gouging your eyes out? LOL
quote:Dumb sack a sh!t, in addition to coding for skin color, SLC24A5 has also been found to code for eye color, among other things.
Where does Pagani et al.'s (2012) text make a reference to "eye color"? Cite it, princess dufus. You are not on the same planet as either the study in question or this discussion.
Posted by IronLion (Member # 16412) on :
quote:Originally posted by IronLion:
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: buzzzz...buzzzzz.... I love supernatural witchcraft crap!
Yes so says Ass-plorer the endangered Superfly, the crap eater...
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Posted by IronLion (Member # 16412) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
George Washington
Black Caucasian ....
Posted by IronLion (Member # 16412) on :
quote:Originally posted by IronLion:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: .. Dorthea Duchess, pricess of Denmark, Duchess of Prussia (1504-1547)
Gee, IronLion has fu cked me again!
quote:Originally posted by IronLion: Lion killing Lioneseee
2000years before now...
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: are you now suffering from Alzheimer's, so that you can't remember highlighting "other genes" in your remark
What I can't remember, lying ass troll, is the existence of neurodegenerative conditions where patients feel compelled to distort an observation as simple as ''SLC45A2 was just one of several genes implicated in Pagani et al's text'', into your lying ass allegation that ''other genes'' was said to refer ''specifically'' to SLC45A2:
Who else reads "other genes" as specifically "SLC45A2" but a numbskull such as yourself? --The Explorer
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Where does Pagani et al.'s (2012) text make a reference to "eye color"?
Dumb sack a sh!t with ADHD attention span, my invocation of other expressions of the SLC24A5 gene was a direct response to your earlier fabricated mumbo jumbo claptrap that other expressions of the gene are ''fictitious'', and your psychologically self-comforting fairy tale that the ''biological function'' of SLC24A5, referred to in Pagani's text, necessarily refers to it's skin color related expression, in the case of Cushitic-Semitic speaking Ethiopians. Where is the evidence for such a pre-conceived, entirely made up, self-serving reading of the Pagani passage?
Utter silliness--you were already spoon fed about the only biological function (skin pigmentation) the paper identifies in the real world --The Explorer
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
What I can't remember, lying ass troll, is the existence of neurodegenerative conditions where patients feel compelled to distort an observation as simple as ''SLC45A2 was just one of several genes implicated in Pagani et al's text'', into your lying ass allegation that ''other genes'' was said to refer ''specifically'' to SLC45A2
LOL, so your dumb monkey ass now figures that by saying "just one of severals genes implicated" as supposed--misguided--substitute for "other genes", you'll somehow placate the fact that you made SLC45A2 the focus of a text which says absolutely nothing about the allele? Well, you thought wrong, again, shithead.
quote:Dumb sack a sh!t with ADHD attention span, my invocation of other expressions of the SLC24A5 gene was a direct response to your earlier fabricated mumbo jumbo claptrap that other expressions of the gene are ''fictitious''
Then missy, to put it another way, you were bamboozled by--and "directly responded" to--one of your reading-retarded screw ups. Calling you out for ascribing imaginary stories to Pagani & co. is not synonymous with "other expressions of the gene are ''fictitious''".
quote: and your psychologically self-comforting fairy tale that the ''biological function'' of SLC24A5, referred to in Pagani's text, necessarily refers to it's skin color related expression, in the case of Cushitic-Semitic speaking Ethiopians. Where is the evidence for such a pre-conceived, entirely made up, self-serving reading of the Pagani passage?
Try this recap from page 1, reading-retarded donkey:
"Of the fourteen 40-SNP windows observed with a Z-score > 2, 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.4"
"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."
"SLC24A5 was within the top 5% of selection signals, whereas the gene was not detected as an outlier in the other groups of Ethiopians. The unusual history of this gene was further supported by the presence of the derived A allele of the SNP rs1834640, associated with the light skin pigmentation of Europeans and western Asians..."
"This putative migration from the Levant to Ethiopia, which is also supported by linguistic evidence, may have carried the derived western Eurasian allele of SLC24A5, which is associated with light skin pigmentation."
The paper identifies skin pigmentation as phenotypic trait of the allele, not once but several times over. This has not deterred your thick monkey skull from saying that it's just my interpretation, just so your fairy tale unspecified "biological function" can have a companion. - Explorer, 12 August, 2013
PS: What's the deal with Selassie's ass-kissing pussy-cat. Just an observation: ass-ion's pink undies get in a bunch every time you get thrashed. Are you two love birds, or what?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: LOL, so your dumb monkey ass now figures that by saying "just one of severals genes implicated" as supposed--misguided--substitute for "other genes", you'll somehow placate the fact that you made SLC45A2 the focus of a text which says absolutely nothing about the allele?
Lying ass filthy pig, your permanently stumped neurones were caught red handed going from your earlier crack induced rant about a supposed mix-up of SLC45A2 and SLC24A5 on my part, to your current super stumped rant on how explicit references on SLC45A2 are supposedly missing from the Pagani text. All the while, your severely handicapped brains are still at a loss as to how to deal with footnote 46 (you know, the footnote your lying ass went to great lengths to scratch out of the undoctored text it originally appeared in)--whether to cope with it by running away from it, or by simply acting like it doesn't exist. Filthy liar, SLC45A2, among other selection candidate pigmentation genes, is explicitly mentioned in the paper associated with footnote 46. No amount of lying and buying time with your snaky deceptive ploys about what is, or isn't explicitly discussed in Pagani et al 2012 is going to change that fact.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Calling you out for ascribing imaginary stories to Pagani & co. is not synonymous with "other expressions of the gene are ''fictitious''".
Filthy pig, if not an outright pathological lie, told by a lying pig with an axe to grind, explain how your earlier insistence that non skin color associated expressions of SLC24A5 are ''ficticious'' should be read.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Try this recap from page 1, reading- retarded donkey:
Dumbass troll, none of their excerpts pertaining to SLC24A5 based selection in Europeans automatically make it so that the same expression underwent selection in Cushitic- Semitic speakers in Ethiopia. That's precisely why your cognitively challenged ass had to be schooled earlier on the fact that they conducted their tests to picture the impact that the different Ethiopian environments had on their foreign ancestral component. Yet, being the slow, clueless phuck that you are, you apparently still don't get it. Delirious claptrap ravings about Europeans aside, man up for once, deadbeat lying ass pig, and explain, taking into account the just administered embarrassing reprimand that Ethiopians aren't subject to the same high latitude/low UV selective pressures as Northern Europeans, how your pre-defeated attempts to invoke European based SLC24A5 selection automatically advances your retarded claim that the same gene expression underwent the same (locally non-existent) selective pressures in equatorial Ethiopia.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
Lying ass filthy pig, your permanently stumped neurones were caught red handed going from your earlier crack induced rant about a supposed mix-up of SLC45A2 and SLC24A5 on my part, to your current super stumped rant on how explicit references on SLC45A2 are supposedly missing from the Pagani text. All the while, your severely handicapped brains are still at a loss as to how to deal with footnote 46 (you know, the footnote your lying ass went to great lengths to scratch out of the undoctored text it originally appeared in)--whether to cope with it by running away from it, or by simply acting like it doesn't exist. Filthy liar, SLC45A2, among other selection candidate pigmentation genes, is explicitly mentioned in the paper associated with footnote 46. No amount of lying and buying time with your snaky deceptive ploys about what is, or isn't explicitly discussed in Pagani et al 2012 is going to change that
Moaning and fussing hysterically like the deranged monkey you are about how you were called out or in what form it supposedly took from one occasion to another will not wish away the fact that you made SLC45A2 the focal point of a text that does not mention it at all.
The footnote? Simply there for reader reference, not what you abused it for: to excuse your buffoonish mistaking of "looked at" in the text to mean "looking at literature first, blah blah". We've already been through this, numbnuts.
quote:
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer:
Calling you out for ascribing imaginary stories to Pagani & co. is not synonymous with "other expressions of the gene are ''fictitious''".
Filthy pig, if not an outright pathological lie, told by a lying pig with an axe to grind, explain how your earlier insistence that non skin color associated expressions of SLC24A5 are ''ficticious'' should be read.
What you cited above is all there's to know, silly monkey, and is only made more relevant by what you just babbled.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: The footnote? Simply there for reader reference, not what you abused it for
Filthy lying ass troll, in the midst of all your lies, distortions, manipulations and logical fallacies, did you really think your meaningless pussyfooting around segments of my posts that aren't even focal points to what I'm saying, are going to go unnoticed? Fumbling, incompetent, asswipe, your deceptive ploy where you talk about everything other than the focal point of the excerpt you're pretending to address, aside, explain this under your brainless cuckoo theory that SLC45A2 was not among the ''other genes'' Pagani et al used in their analysis and tested the Ethiopian samples were tested for:
All the while, your severely handicapped brains are still at a loss as to how to deal with footnote 46 (you know, the footnote your lying ass went to great lengths to scratch out of the undoctored text it originally appeared in)--whether to cope with it by running away from it, or by simply acting like it doesn't exist. Filthy liar, SLC45A2, among other selection candidate pigmentation genes, is explicitly mentioned in the paper associated with footnote 46. No amount of lying and buying time with your snaky deceptive ploys about what is, or isn't explicitly discussed in Pagani et al 2012 is going to change that. --Swenet
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: What you cited above is all there's to know, silly monkey, and is only made more relevant by what you just babbled.
Chemically imbalanced unintelligible rants aside, one cannot help but notice the cosmic gap in between your retarded description of the other factual expressions of SLC24A5 as ''ficticious'' and what the scientific literature has to say about the non skin color related phenotypes the gene codes for. Would one be correct in resolving this discrepancy between fact and your dogmatic denial as that you're a pathologically lying ass pig, led by faith-based self-comforting inclinations, rather than readily observable reality?
This is the 8th point of contention that you're now going on record, running away from, like the little amygdala-led wussy that you are:
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Try this recap from page 1, reading- retarded donkey:
Dumbass troll, none of their excerpts pertaining to SLC24A5 based selection in Europeans automatically make it so that the same expression underwent selection in Cushitic- Semitic speakers in Ethiopia. That's precisely why your cognitively challenged ass had to be schooled earlier on the fact that they conducted their tests to picture the impact that the different Ethiopian environments had on their foreign ancestral component. Yet, being the slow, clueless phuck that you are, you apparently still don't get it. Delirious claptrap ravings about Europeans aside, man up for once, deadbeat lying ass pig, and explain, taking into account the just administered embarrassing reprimand that Ethiopians aren't subject to the same high latitude/low UV selective pressures as Northern Europeans, how your pre-defeated attempts to invoke European based SLC24A5 selection automatically advances your retarded claim that the same gene expression underwent the same (locally non-existent) selective pressures in equatorial Ethiopia.
(....crickets.....) *I, Explorer, am such a panic stricken b!tch. When I'm not lying, distorting or manipulating, I run away from others' posts all the time. I make up for my lack of being unable to keep up by playing make believe. I simply profess to be adamant that my being on the run somehow doesn't mean I got my ass handed to me and use other self-deceptive tricks that inadvertently only broadcast how out of touch I am with regular folk reality!*
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
Filthy lying ass troll, in the midst of all your lies, distortions, manipulations and logical fallacies, did you really think your meaningless pussyfooting around segments of my posts that aren't even focal points to what I'm saying, are going to go unnoticed? Fumbling, incompetent, asswipe, your deceptive ploy where you talk about everything other than the focal point of the excerpt you're pretending to address, aside, explain this under your brainless cuckoo theory that SLC45A2 was not among the ''other genes'' Pagani et al used in their analysis and tested the Ethiopian samples were tested for
You mean another meaningless focal point (just like the meaningless emphasis on SLC45A2) of your dumb rabid monkey ass about what some supposed referenced-study mentions, which is neither the focal point of Pagani et al.'s text or this discussion. Go pick some lice, that's all you are good for, LOL.
quote:
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: What you cited above is all there's to know, silly monkey, and is only made more relevant by what you just babbled.
Chemically imbalanced unintelligible rants aside
The unintelligible rant you are complaining about comes from no other but thyself, silly:
other factual expressions of SLC24A5 as ''ficticious'' - authored by swenet
You'll not track it back to any other quote (sans your nutty misinformed paraphrases) other than your own.
quote:
gene codes for. Would one be correct in resolving this discrepancy between fact and your dogmatic denial as that you're a pathologically lying ass pig, led by faith-based self-comforting inclinations, rather than readily observable reality?
"Faith-based" like your clueless nutty accusations about being "stumped":
You're stumped by 1) the fact that the implied populations are living in highly inconducive intense UV environments 2) that there are no traces of other pigmentation genes in Semitic-Cushitic speakers (despite their inferred ancient presence) and 3) that derived SLC24A5 in the other Ethiopian populations did not undergo selection. - swenet
Apparently the only way you feel like you can get away from the gargantuan mess of a flop that represents your "contribution" to this discussion, is to either bizarrely obsess yourself with things that are totally irrelevant to Pagani et al.'s text and this discussion (e.g. some undefined "non-Skin pigmentation" biological function not mentioned by Pagani et al, SLC45A2 not mentioned by Pagani et al, etc), or just make crazy harebrained accusations that amount to half baked voodooism behind a computer screen.
quote:(....crickets.....) *I, Explorer, am such a panic stricken b!tch. When I'm not lying, distorting or manipulating, I run away from others' posts all the time. I make up for my lack of being unable to keep up by playing make believe. I simply profess to be adamant that my being on the run somehow doesn't mean I got my ass handed to me and use other self-deceptive tricks that inadvertently only broadcast how out of touch I am with regular folk reality!*
stupid monkey scratch, stupid monkey sleep, stupid monkey eat, and stupid monkey poop. That's your worth in a nutshell, if you get my drift.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
Synopsis of what transpired, starting with this partial recap from page 1:
The easing up of skin eumelanin in San hunter-gatherers has generally been attributed to local evolution in lower UV radiation environments they frequent, as opposed to the result of gene flow. In the Ethiopian samples, on the other hand, the presence of the "derived" variant of the SLC24A5 gene was peculiar in that it was not found in tandem with other "skin-pigmentation" affiliated genes whose distribution generally paralleled that of the "derived" SLC24A5 variant, particularly in Europeans. Hence, "frequency" in itself is not a sufficient enough indicator for ascribing a single-source origin in the form of a "non-African" origin. - Extract ends
From blog entry, "What Ethiopian Genetic Diversity—Really—Reveals!", May 15, 2013:
This [SLC24A5] gene, in its derived form, which is said to be under positive selection in "lightly" pigmented populations, was implicated in the San, who as noted above, tend to generally be isolated, and culturally-conservative hunter-gatherers. "Derived" variants of other pigmentation-associated genes were also cited, with respect to the San([5]). It is questionable that this gene is serving as a "non-African" marker in the San. The same issue actually surfaces with regards to its presence in Ethiopian groups:
Secondly:
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.
If this gene, in its "derived" form, was essentially serving as a "non-African" marker in the Ethiopians, then one would expect that other "derived" skin-pigmentation markers would have been introduced along with the SLC24A5 allele, by the foreign "non-African" group(s) that is supposed to have been the source. Skin pigmentation is the byproduct of the consortial work of a number of distinct genes, and so, it's highly unlikely that a "derived" SLC24A5 allele would be introduced without other accompanying skin-pigmentation genes.
No less, it's highly unlikely that only the derived "SLC24A5" allele would survive from a foreign "non-African" source, in a population for which the allele's presence is "potentially disadvantageous", as the authors note, on grounds of the kind of UV-radiation intensive environment they generally reside. Likewise, if as the authors note, the presence of the derived SLC24A5 allele in Ethiopians may be attributable to "socially"-promoted selection, then one would think that other skin-pigmentation genes, which would have accompanied the SLC24A5 allele in an introduction by a foreign "non-African" source, would have likely also survived in some capacity or another, so as to serve the same role that the SLC24A5 may be serving. --Extract ends
As any rational person will glean from these notes, the issues raised undoubtedly emerge from a scientific and objective groundwork. - The Explorer, June 30, 2013
These notes naturally speak to the arguments put forth by Pagani et al., but they set off mindless hysteria in the fuckhead queen called 'swenet'...
who starts babbling about some undefined "non-skin pigmentation" related "biological function" of the derived SLC24A5 variant supposedly introduced to Ethiopians via "gene flow"...
To this, the idiot was informed that a marker serving as "gene flow" would be introduced "as is", and as such, one that is under selective pressure, will continue to have that selective attribute. From there, it boils down to whether the selective trait is advantageous or deleterious--and to what degree--to the "receiving" population, which will subsequently decide the fate of an allele. The "receiving" population doesn't get to cherry pick which trait to pick and which to discard at a conference table; that's not how nature works to swenet's dismay.
Furthermore, the knucklehead doesn't understand that SLC24A5 having a "different biological function" in Ethiopians from that of an alleged external source, actually weakens the claim for "gene flow", and only reinforces the point I'm making above.
My objection to the idiot's obsession over said "different biological function" that is presumably "non-skin pigmentation related", is that it is immaterial to Pagani et al.'s case, since they make no mention of such a "biological function", other than "skin pigmentation" as the phenotypic trait associated with the SLC24A5 variant. This was turned upside down by the fuckhead queen to mean, that "non-skin pigmentation" related expressions of SLC24A5 gene are "fictitious".
I also clearly note in the blog passages above that:
Skin pigmentation is the byproduct of the consortial work of a number of distinct genes - from the blog
So, it is not unheard of for a population to have a skin pigmentation allele that resembles that of populations which are usually identified with said allele, and yet, have other skin pigmentation alleles that are different from said populations. The derived variant of SLC24A5 similar to the type present in Europe and "southwest Asia" can be present in Ethiopians, yet other alleles that typically accompany the variant in the said regions can be absent in Ethiopians. As such, even if SLC24A5 has a phenotypic trait that is generally disadvantageous in the tropics, by its lonesome, it is not going to have as profound an impact on skin pigmentation as it allegedly does in say, Europeans...
which brings us to the question of why then, there seems to be indication (as shown in the Z-scores) that a derived variant is "selected for" in Ethiopians. Pagani et al., apparently working with their "gene flow" theory, posit that it could be the byproduct of "socially" channeled "selection", like say, "sexual selection". I've already laid out the coherency difficulties which inflict that composite theorizing.
While the "social factor" is a plausible scenario, unlike Pagani et al., I posit that the allele could have been selected initially for a different environment, on the African continent itself (the sub-tropical Sahara), in the ancestral populations of Ethiopians in question.
fuckhead queen also turned upside down, my arguments to this end; instead fuckhead queen says "I" am making a case for "a selection of light skin pigmentation in the tropical environment", and asks me why "other genes" (skin pigmentation) typically found in Europe and "southwest Asia", were not found in Ethiopians. I told the fuckhead queen, it's because Ethiopians have their own skin pigmentation genes, otherwise they would be colorless.
By this silly question, what the fuckhead queen was really trying to say, is that other skin pigmentation alleles vanished into extinction, while the SLC24A5 variant stayed. But the fuckhead realizes that this runs into one of the problems I already identified: that it makes no sense for SLC24A5 to stick around, given the identified (in the text) phenotypic trait associated with skin pigmentation, while other skin pigmentation alleles serving a similar purpose, simply vanished. This forced the fuckhead queen to look to some other, presumably a "non-skin pigmentation" related "biological function" of the gene, that Pagani et al.'s text makes no mention of. The fuckhead queen was thereafter called out for fictitiously ascribing said unspecified "biological function" to Pagani et al.'s text, but fuckhead queen translated this to mean, "other biological functions of SLC24A5 are fictitious".
The fuckhead queen was even forced to refer to "eye color" as this supposed "non-skin pigmentation" related "biological function" at one point. That led to an obvious dead end, when the fuckhead queen was asked to cite Pagani et al.'s piece making a case of that nature.
My theory takes into account the plausibility that the "derived" SLC24A5 variant may have been initially selected for in a different African environment, but because it merely contributed to the skin tone continuum seen in said Ethiopians, as opposed to having a decisive role, SLC24A5 variant managed to survive the UV environment of the tropics. This is how my theory takes into account, the "social factor" that Pagani et al were speaking of, in an entirely different context.
You see, the ancestors of said Ethiopians living in sub-tropical African environment north of the equator may have undergone some skin pigmentation relaxation, initially as a response to the said sub-tropical environment, but not enough to have gone to the extreme relaxations seen in Europe, for instance. As such, their skin pigmentation relaxation was perhaps not extreme enough to make their survival in the tropical African environment unbearable. This will adequately account for why SlC24A5 derived variant happens to appear in Ethiopians at substantial frequencies, while other skin pigmentation alleles generally associated with Europeans do not.
The fuckhead queen proceeds to ask me why there is frequency disparity between major Cushitic-Semitic Ethiopian groups and the Omotic and Nilotic Ethiopians. To it's puzzlement, the fuckhead queen was thereof informed that it must be reflective of the different bio-histories of said groups. [BTW, I give details of these distinct bio-histories in the blog entry cited]
As if that was not bizarre enough, the fuckhead queen cites from a different study, that is totally irrelevant to Pagani et al.'s text or this discussion: the fuckhead queen cites from a study comparing Sri Lankans to several samples, including those from Europe. It is from here, that SLC45A2 was introduced into this discussion. The fuckhead queen's motive for this citation, was supposedly to show me that SLC24A5 was found in Sri Lankans along with SLC45A2, which must therefore mean that they only attained SLC24A5 from Europeans, and henceforth, supposedly refute what I said about the Ethiopian case, which no less, resembles nothing like the Sri Lankan case.
The only [unintended] thing the Sri Lankan case managed to do, is give even more fodder to my argument, since even that study--as irrelevant as it was--showed that it was SLC45A2 rather than SLC24A5 that proved to sufficiently differentiate European samples and the Sri Lankan counterparts; SLC24A5 was relatively weak in performing that role. What this means, is that between the two skin pigmentation variants, SLC45A2 would have served better as a marker of European ancestry than would SLC24A2, if such a case were to hypothetically be entertained. Simply put, SLC24A5 has a wider distribution, and hence, more generic.
Running out of ideas to con a way out of this mess of a fiasco that missy created, fuckhead queen decides to take a crack at nutty accusations about "being stumped", presumably by some "three" bulleted points. Asked for evidence, in the form of quotes, the fuckhead queen says that it is from a "non-verbal" analysis, which is beyond comical, because the only way to know anything about me, is from what I write in the thread.
fuckhead queen would have to either see me to read my body language perhaps, which any sane person knows is out of the question, or have supernatural powers to read minds afar from behind a computer screen. fuckhead queen instead compares this bizarre accusation with the prospect of "knowing that I exist", but presumably me denying this. Of course, the fuckhead queen would know I exist, only because I happen to post here and elsewhere. But try telling something that very simple to princess dufus.
From here, everything only becomes repetitive, as fuckhead queen tries to salvage whatever's left of that tattered ego from merciless defeat. Going in circles, with wimpy posts about how I supposedly did the fuckhead queen wrong, left something said (usually pure crap) unadressed or how I "lied" about some post or another, is what fuckhead queen usually does after humiliating defeat in every discussion.
For the finer details, spectators need to just turn to the first page, but this sums up what happened. Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: You mean another meaningless focal point (just like the meaningless emphasis on SLC45A2) of your dumb rabid monkey ass about what some supposed referenced-study mentions, which is neither the focal point of Pagani et al.'s text or this discussion.
Dumb, lying ass, vegetative pig, without reverting to your snaky pathological habit of running away from the facts, how is the paper associated with citation number 46 (and the skin pigmentation genes mentioned therein), which Pagani et al formulate in the following manner, not the focal point of what Pagani et al mean when they say ''other genes''?
''other genes associated with pigmentation in Europe 46 [...]''
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: The unintelligible rant you are complaining about comes from no other but thyself, silly:
This brainless attempt to disguise your inability to save your hide in the face of being made out for the fraudulent liar you are aside, one cannot help but notice the cosmic gap in between your retarded description of the other factual expressions of SLC24A5 as ''fictitious'' and what the scientific literature has to say about the non skin color related phenotypes the gene codes for. Would one be correct in resolving this discrepancy between fact and your dogmatic denial as that you're a pathologically lying ass pig, led by faith-based self-comforting inclinations, rather than readily observable reality?
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
how is the paper associated with citation number 46 (and the skin pigmentation genes mentioned therein), which Pagani et al formulate in the following manner, not the focal point of what Pagani et al mean when they say ''other genes''?
Easy, queen of skank: SLC45A2 was not mentioned in the text you want to wish it in, that's how irrelevant it is.
The real question is, how many more times must your retarded dry ass be clued in on this. Endless times, that's what, because you are fuckhead queen. Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer:
which brings us to the question of why then, there seems to be indication (as shown in the Z-scores) that a derived variant is "selected for" in Ethiopians.
I'd like to add another thing about these Z-scores, with regards to technicalities. Given the cut-off points picked by Pagani et al., there is no telling of whether say, any skin pigmentation alleles outside of SLC24A5, which may resemble variants of Europeans or "southwest Asians", could have had neutral-seeming occurrences across the tropical African populations analyzed; the only thing is, such occurrences will neither point to a drifting out (of deleterious alleles) event nor a natural selection event (for biologically or socially advantageous alleles), if that makes any sense or is even possible. Pagani et al.'s readers are only informed about the regions they deemed outliers, of which said alleles (outside of SLC24A5) would not have been a part. In any event, the prospect seems very unlikely given that Pagani et al. did not capitalize on it in any capacity, to bolster their "gene flow" theories. And in such a hypothetical scenario, even if they did, they'd run into a problem similar to the one outlined in my blog notes, with regards to the prospects of negative drift or natural selection.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: SLC45A2 was not mentioned in the text you want to wish it in, that's how irrelevant it is.
Lying ass fraud, you're quite uncreative with your repetitive, shaky-legged, amygdala triggered non- replies to my very simple question:
how is the paper associated with citation number 46 (and the skin pigmentation genes mentioned therein), not the focal point of what Pagani et al mean when they say ''other genes''? --Swenet
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: I'd like to add another thing about these Z-scores
Dumbass, your uninformed input is not needed, your dumbass is arguing from a position of cluelessness. You will not post evidence that Ethiopians have derived SLC45A2, because you can't. Your worthless super stumped pussyfooting speculations are already pre-defeated by the literature.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Given the cut-off points picked by Pagani et al.
What would these ''cut-off points'' be?
Posted by .Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
This back and forth is boring.........
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
What? Yr actually reading it?
I keep checkin in hopin ta learn sumpin but I cyaan wade thru all thaa **** even if a pearl or two might be buried in it.
But slong as they enjoy it let em carry on, they made this thread into a series of PMs.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
tru dat!! waste of band width.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Bored? Aint concerned with the next man's entertainment. You're not contractually obligated to read anything, nor are forcefully spoon-fed the ''boring'' exchanges that you (for some strange reason) seem unwilling to tune out of.
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Synopsis of what transpired, starting with this partial recap from page 1:
The easing up of skin eumelanin in San hunter-gatherers has generally been attributed to local evolution in lower UV radiation environments they frequent, as opposed to the result of gene flow. In the Ethiopian samples, on the other hand, the presence of the "derived" variant of the SLC24A5 gene was peculiar in that it was not found in tandem with other "skin-pigmentation" affiliated genes whose distribution generally paralleled that of the "derived" SLC24A5 variant, particularly in Europeans. Hence, "frequency" in itself is not a sufficient enough indicator for ascribing a single-source origin in the form of a "non-African" origin. - Extract ends
From blog entry, "What Ethiopian Genetic Diversity—Really—Reveals!", May 15, 2013:
This [SLC24A5] gene, in its derived form, which is said to be under positive selection in "lightly" pigmented populations, was implicated in the San, who as noted above, tend to generally be isolated, and culturally-conservative hunter-gatherers. "Derived" variants of other pigmentation-associated genes were also cited, with respect to the San([5]). It is questionable that this gene is serving as a "non-African" marker in the San. The same issue actually surfaces with regards to its presence in Ethiopian groups:
Secondly:
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.
If this gene, in its "derived" form, was essentially serving as a "non-African" marker in the Ethiopians, then one would expect that other "derived" skin-pigmentation markers would have been introduced along with the SLC24A5 allele, by the foreign "non-African" group(s) that is supposed to have been the source. Skin pigmentation is the byproduct of the consortial work of a number of distinct genes, and so, it's highly unlikely that a "derived" SLC24A5 allele would be introduced without other accompanying skin-pigmentation genes.
No less, it's highly unlikely that only the derived "SLC24A5" allele would survive from a foreign "non-African" source, in a population for which the allele's presence is "potentially disadvantageous", as the authors note, on grounds of the kind of UV-radiation intensive environment they generally reside. Likewise, if as the authors note, the presence of the derived SLC24A5 allele in Ethiopians may be attributable to "socially"-promoted selection, then one would think that other skin-pigmentation genes, which would have accompanied the SLC24A5 allele in an introduction by a foreign "non-African" source, would have likely also survived in some capacity or another, so as to serve the same role that the SLC24A5 may be serving. --Extract ends .. a marker serving as "gene flow" would be introduced "as is", and as such, one that is under selective pressure, will continue to have that selective attribute. From there, it boils down to whether the selective trait is advantageous or deleterious--and to what degree--to the "receiving" population, which will subsequently decide the fate of an allele. The "receiving" population doesn't get to cherry pick which trait to pick and which to discard at a conference table; that's not how nature works to swenet's dismay. ..
Skin pigmentation is the byproduct of the consortial work of a number of distinct genes - from the blog
So, it is not unheard of for a population to have a skin pigmentation allele that resembles that of populations which are usually identified with said allele, and yet, have other skin pigmentation alleles that are different from said populations. The derived variant of SLC24A5 similar to the type present in Europe and "southwest Asia" can be present in Ethiopians, yet other alleles that typically accompany the variant in the said regions can be absent in Ethiopians. As such, even if SLC24A5 has a phenotypic trait that is generally disadvantageous in the tropics, by its lonesome, it is not going to have as profound an impact on skin pigmentation as it allegedly does in say, Europeans...
which brings us to the question of why then, there seems to be indication (as shown in the Z-scores) that a derived variant is "selected for" in Ethiopians. Pagani et al., apparently working with their "gene flow" theory, posit that it could be the byproduct of "socially" channeled "selection", like say, "sexual selection". I've already laid out the coherency difficulties which inflict that composite theorizing.
While the "social factor" is a plausible scenario, unlike Pagani et al., I posit that the allele could have been selected initially for a different environment, on the African continent itself (the sub-tropical Sahara), in the ancestral populations of Ethiopians in question.
My theory takes into account the plausibility that the "derived" SLC24A5 variant may have been initially selected for in a different African environment, but because it merely contributed to the skin tone continuum seen in said Ethiopians, as opposed to having a decisive role, SLC24A5 variant managed to survive the UV environment of the tropics. This is how my theory takes into account, the "social factor" that Pagani et al were speaking of, in an entirely different context.
You see, the ancestors of said Ethiopians living in sub-tropical African environment north of the equator may have undergone some skin pigmentation relaxation, initially as a response to the said sub-tropical environment, but not enough to have gone to the extreme relaxations seen in Europe, for instance. As such, their skin pigmentation relaxation was perhaps not extreme enough to make their survival in the tropical African environment unbearable. This will adequately account for why SlC24A5 derived variant happens to appear in Ethiopians at substantial frequencies, while other skin pigmentation alleles generally associated with Europeans do not.
Just to clarify here:
^^(1) Under what scenario could the derived SLC24A5 variant have been selected for? Climate zone variations over log time spans? Differing micro-clime zones spread over a broad Saharan/NE African geographic space?
2) Does your approach absolutely reject any outside gene flow or do you still leave the door open for such, while holding that the primary pattern of variation or diversity could well be indigenous, from within the African continent or the NE African region?
3) On your blog you take issue with Pagani's definitions of a so-called "African" versus "non-African" component. Does the use of Yoruba samples as the primary "African" Exhibit represent a variation of the old "true negro" game, as you see it?
Posted by .Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Bored? Aint concerned with the next man's entertainment. You're not contractually obligated to read anything, nor are forcefully spoon-fed the ''boring'' exchanges that you (for some strange reason) seem unwilling to tune out of.
I fail to see what you're both arguing about, are you arguing that this gene came out or is it indigenous? If it came from outside please explain how Somalis, who were tested in that genetic study by Pangani are darker than Ethiopians despite having nearly the same amount of genetic admixture as Ethiopians. I really do care for this back and forth name calling and trolling, you both sound like punks for real.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
Dumbass, your uninformed input is not needed, your dumbass is arguing from a position of cluelessness.
You must be basing this "uninformed input" on some creepy "non-verbal state of mind" supernatural intuition, rather than unemotional evidence-based premise?
quote: You will not post evidence that Ethiopians have derived SLC45A2, because you can't.
LOL, why note the obvious only now...after endless attempts to clue your fuckhead to no avail! If I can't quote Pagani & co. on "Ethiopians having derived SLC45A2", then naturally, a useless skank as yourself doesn't stand a chance to do better.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer:
Synopsis of what transpired, starting with this partial recap from page 1:
The easing up of skin eumelanin in San hunter-gatherers has generally been attributed to local evolution in lower UV radiation environments they frequent, as opposed to the result of gene flow. In the Ethiopian samples, on the other hand, the presence of the "derived" variant of the SLC24A5 gene was peculiar in that it was not found in tandem with other "skin-pigmentation" affiliated genes whose distribution generally paralleled that of the "derived" SLC24A5 variant, particularly in Europeans. Hence, "frequency" in itself is not a sufficient enough indicator for ascribing a single-source origin in the form of a "non-African" origin. - Extract ends
From blog entry, "What Ethiopian Genetic Diversity—Really—Reveals!", May 15, 2013:
This [SLC24A5] gene, in its derived form, which is said to be under positive selection in "lightly" pigmented populations, was implicated in the San, who as noted above, tend to generally be isolated, and culturally-conservative hunter-gatherers. "Derived" variants of other pigmentation-associated genes were also cited, with respect to the San([5]). It is questionable that this gene is serving as a "non-African" marker in the San. The same issue actually surfaces with regards to its presence in Ethiopian groups:
Secondly:
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.
If this gene, in its "derived" form, was essentially serving as a "non-African" marker in the Ethiopians, then one would expect that other "derived" skin-pigmentation markers would have been introduced along with the SLC24A5 allele, by the foreign "non-African" group(s) that is supposed to have been the source. Skin pigmentation is the byproduct of the consortial work of a number of distinct genes, and so, it's highly unlikely that a "derived" SLC24A5 allele would be introduced without other accompanying skin-pigmentation genes.
No less, it's highly unlikely that only the derived "SLC24A5" allele would survive from a foreign "non-African" source, in a population for which the allele's presence is "potentially disadvantageous", as the authors note, on grounds of the kind of UV-radiation intensive environment they generally reside. Likewise, if as the authors note, the presence of the derived SLC24A5 allele in Ethiopians may be attributable to "socially"-promoted selection, then one would think that other skin-pigmentation genes, which would have accompanied the SLC24A5 allele in an introduction by a foreign "non-African" source, would have likely also survived in some capacity or another, so as to serve the same role that the SLC24A5 may be serving. --Extract ends .. a marker serving as "gene flow" would be introduced "as is", and as such, one that is under selective pressure, will continue to have that selective attribute. From there, it boils down to whether the selective trait is advantageous or deleterious--and to what degree--to the "receiving" population, which will subsequently decide the fate of an allele. The "receiving" population doesn't get to cherry pick which trait to pick and which to discard at a conference table; that's not how nature works to swenet's dismay. ..
Skin pigmentation is the byproduct of the consortial work of a number of distinct genes - from the blog
So, it is not unheard of for a population to have a skin pigmentation allele that resembles that of populations which are usually identified with said allele, and yet, have other skin pigmentation alleles that are different from said populations. The derived variant of SLC24A5 similar to the type present in Europe and "southwest Asia" can be present in Ethiopians, yet other alleles that typically accompany the variant in the said regions can be absent in Ethiopians. As such, even if SLC24A5 has a phenotypic trait that is generally disadvantageous in the tropics, by its lonesome, it is not going to have as profound an impact on skin pigmentation as it allegedly does in say, Europeans...
which brings us to the question of why then, there seems to be indication (as shown in the Z-scores) that a derived variant is "selected for" in Ethiopians. Pagani et al., apparently working with their "gene flow" theory, posit that it could be the byproduct of "socially" channeled "selection", like say, "sexual selection". I've already laid out the coherency difficulties which inflict that composite theorizing.
While the "social factor" is a plausible scenario, unlike Pagani et al., I posit that the allele could have been selected initially for a different environment, on the African continent itself (the sub-tropical Sahara), in the ancestral populations of Ethiopians in question.
My theory takes into account the plausibility that the "derived" SLC24A5 variant may have been initially selected for in a different African environment, but because it merely contributed to the skin tone continuum seen in said Ethiopians, as opposed to having a decisive role, SLC24A5 variant managed to survive the UV environment of the tropics. This is how my theory takes into account, the "social factor" that Pagani et al were speaking of, in an entirely different context.
You see, the ancestors of said Ethiopians living in sub-tropical African environment north of the equator may have undergone some skin pigmentation relaxation, initially as a response to the said sub-tropical environment, but not enough to have gone to the extreme relaxations seen in Europe, for instance. As such, their skin pigmentation relaxation was perhaps not extreme enough to make their survival in the tropical African environment unbearable. This will adequately account for why SlC24A5 derived variant happens to appear in Ethiopians at substantial frequencies, while other skin pigmentation alleles generally associated with Europeans do not.
Just to clarify here:
^^(1) Under what scenario could the derived SLC24A5 variant have been selected for? Climate zone variations over log time spans? Differing micro-clime zones spread over a broad Saharan/NE African geographic space?
This has already been addressed in the very paragraph you cited. See above: initial selection in the sub-tropical region of the Sahara. Unless the spinning orientation of the Earth has dramatically shifted (as opposed to minor wobbles) time and again, such things should not change much over time.
Skin pigmentation content correlates with UV radiation intensity, not heat, or general weather.
quote: 2) Does your approach absolutely reject any outside gene flow or do you still leave the door open for such, while holding that the primary pattern of variation or diversity could well be indigenous, from within the African continent or the NE African region?
In scientific theory, there generally are no absolutes. If you are referring to SLC24A5, then I'm saying the evidence put before me does not point to "gene flow from outside"; that's what I'm saying. Rather, it points to an autochthonous origin scenario.
quote:
3) On your blog you take issue with Pagani's definitions of a so-called "African" versus "non-African" component. Does the use of Yoruba samples as the primary "African" Exhibit represent a variation of the old "true negro" game, as you see it?
It's analogous to it. Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
I fail to see what you're both arguing about
It is a self-responsibility to read preceding material. If ones so chooses not to do that, then that's on said individual, who should not be in a position to whine to others about not knowing what's going on. At any rate, I went through the trouble of writing out a synopsis--particularly for the lazy--of what the commotion in this thread is about, as briefly as possible. I tried to simplify the jargon in that synopsis for the benefit of those who might find some of the genetic stuff a little consuming.
quote:I really do care for this back and forth name calling and trolling, you both sound like punks for real.
...and you have now become a part of this club of punks.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
You're repeatedly logging in and clicking on a thread, solely to repeatedly spam your disapproval of what is supposed to take place on a forum. This is odd behaviour in and of itself. Why would a grown man repeatedly solicit other men's attention and lament being a witness of something he himself is making himself go through?
Then, you call the thread boring, but yet, can't recall for the life of you what is being discussed.
Then, to top it all off, you criticize people for their name calling, which you then comically proceed to self-righteously indulge in yourself with your own 'insults'.
Your erratic behaviour is puzzling. What is your closet reason for logging in to repeatedly express your disapproval, which you then go on to admit, is totally baseless? You know what, I don't even want your answer. Just hop off my you know what, take your see-through 'holier than thou' masquerade and go play with your friends over at Dodona, where you're known for routinely doing the same thing you're now pathetically trying knock, trying to get brownie points.
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: I really do care for this back and forth name calling and trolling,
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: you both sound like punks for real.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
I'm on yo ass, boy!
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [QB]
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: SLC45A2 was not mentioned in the text you want to wish it in, that's how irrelevant it is.
Lying ass fraud, you're quite uncreative with your repetitive, shaky-legged, amygdala triggered non- replies to my very simple question:
how is the paper associated with citation number 46 (and the skin pigmentation genes mentioned therein), not the focal point of what Pagani et al mean when they say ''other genes''? --Swenet
If your balls didn't desert you, like they did the past hundred times you were asked to address the above, you can take a stab at addressing these inconvenient dumpers, that you dogmatically failed to take into account:
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: See above: initial selection in the sub-tropical region of the Sahara.
The admixture event dates to 3kya. You're not going to wish this admixture event away by assigning Ethiopians a fabricated origin in the Sahara. The Syria-like genetic component would still have to become an important genetic contribution, even within your shitty scenario. Not to mention, the hard to swallow pill that this component has an obvious connection to derived SLC24A5 in Ethiopians, also seems to have slipped through the gaping holes of your ''Sahara'' figment.
Other than that, I sure would like to see the pre-defeated piece of evidence that warrants this misty ''Sahara'' scenario, where the sampled Cushitic-Speakers are somehow not the descendants of Axum era equatorial populations, but of some Northern entity that's solely the product of your rabid imagination.
Moreover, how does selection on the derived gene in Ethiopians qualify as a remnant of some imaginary proto population in the Sahara, when the other Ethiopians (Omotic speakers), who derive from the exact same ancestral populations (they only vary from Cushitic-Semitic speakers in their amount of Syrian-like ancestry), don't have excesses of the derived gene?
It would also be nice to see the ecological specifics you've gathered before you went public with that claptrap theory, so as to make sure you wouldn't be making a complete ass out of yourself, by suggesting that light skin is advantageous in the Sahara.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
I'm on yo ass, boy!
Like the mindless Nancy boy fag you are?
quote:The admixture event dates to 3kya. You're not going to wish this admixture event away by assigning Ethiopians a fabricated origin in the Sahara.
To do that, I'd have to fabricate Ethiopian genetic profiles; thanks for the ass-kissing, but you are venerating me with way more extraordinary powers than I'm capable of.
To familiarize with "fabrication", just look no further than your mindlessly parroted 3kya date.
quote:The Syria-like genetic component would still have to become an important genetic contribution, even within your shitty scenario.
"Syria-like" genetic component, LOL; spoken like a true chump with its head up the ass.
quote:Not to mention, the hard to swallow pill that this component has an obvious connection to derived SLC24A5 in Ethiopians, also seems to have slipped through the gaping holes of your ''Sahara'' figment.
You nailed the "hard to swallow pill" bit of your comically chumpy analysis.
I bet you are just dying to tell us what "obvious connection" the San hunter-gatherer (and indeed other sub-Saharan Africans) marker of the like has to "this component". While at it numbnuts, entertain us with the juicy legendary stories of from which particular Asians the San attained the "derived" OCA2, which they apparently share with "light skin" east Asians.
quote: It would also be nice to see the ecological specifics you've gathered before you went public with that claptrap theory, so as to make sure you wouldn't be making a complete ass out of yourself, by suggesting that light skin is advantageous in the Sahara.
numbnuts, you are confusing a no-brainer for rocket science, because that's how practically stupid you are; the Sahara spans the sub-tropical area. You may confide with early primary school kids to give you a tip on the geography. Forget me; the ass you should be looking out for is you, which you just made a fool of. LOL
PS: Why don't you tell us more about how it is like to be a gullible brainwashed sap who buys into the "forest negro" concept as the true African. It obviously shapes your emotional ideas about Africans, not leaving out the false sense of duty of telling Africans who are true Africans and who aren't.
Posted by .Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: You're repeatedly logging in and clicking on a thread, solely to repeatedly spam your disapproval of what is supposed to take place on a forum. This is odd behaviour in and of itself. Why would a grown man repeatedly solicit other men's attention and lament being a witness of something he himself is making himself go through?
Then, you call the thread boring, but yet, can't recall for the life of you what is being discussed.
Then, to top it all off, you criticize people for their name calling, which you then comically proceed to self-righteously indulge in yourself with your own 'insults'.
Your erratic behaviour is puzzling. What is your closet reason for logging in to repeatedly express your disapproval, which you then go on to admit, is totally baseless? You know what, I don't even want your answer. Just hop off my you know what, take your see-through 'holier than thou' masquerade and go play with your friends over at Dodona, where you're known for routinely doing the same thing you're now pathetically trying knock, trying to get brownie points.
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: I really do care for this back and forth name calling and trolling,
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: you both sound like punks for real.
It was a typo I made, but yes, you both do sound like punks agree to disagree and shut up and move on and last like I checked no *STRAIGHT* man would tell another man to suck his you know what so your sexuality is now in question. Funny how nether of you punks responded to my question as it pertained to the topic, smh
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
Charlie the sissy, which question was not already addressed, as it pertained to the ongoing exchanges, not your own diversion?
Posted by .Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Charlie the sissy, which question was not already addressed, as it pertained to the ongoing exchanges, not your own diversion?
This one
quote: are you arguing that this gene came out or is it indigenous? If it came from outside please explain how Somalis, who were tested in that genetic study by Pangani are darker than Ethiopians despite having nearly the same amount of genetic admixture as Ethiopians.
Punk sounding people can't read?
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
And you are living proof of this punk sounding creep, since after all, your question does not follow from anything I've argued thus far. I'm not making a case for a non-African introduction of the downstream SLC24A5 variant, swenet is.
PS: Charlie, I strongly urge you to reconsider directing your poorly-thought through silly invectives at me, just as I urged that clown swenet to refrain from the same at an earlier time, after having made several attempts to have an adult conversation with the character, which unfortunately fell on the stubborn def ears of a mule. Consequently, I approach the clown as a special case where communication at the human level is futile. So I ask: Do you want to become another such special case? Because if you do, then by all means, continue with the uncultured keyboard thuggery, and I'll make sure you are dealt with at a level you best understand. It's all on you, my friend, but don't say I didn't warn you. Posted by .Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
lol, I was calling you both clowns for going back and forth and found it funny that one of my topics was linked to, but its all good. lol. You don't have enough brains to come close to annihilating me, even though I've retired at doing this stuff.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
Charlie, you are such a fuckheaded sissy that you cannot tell your ass from your head, and see that you are a bigger clown than anybody for being a prime example of what you're crying like a baby about. On this point, I agree with the other fuckhead (swenet). What has your Mississippi jungle ass offered to begin with, that warrants "annihilating" your trailer trash countryside ass? LOL
Far from retiring, you are a veteran par excellence at being an idiot, who makes a good piñata to be made a complete fool of at white nationalist cult avenues? Posted by .Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Charlie, you are such a fuckheaded sissy that you cannot tell your ass from your head, and see that you are a bigger clown than anybody for being a prime example of what you're crying like a baby about. On this point, I agree with the other fuckhead (swenet). What has your Mississippi jungle ass offered to begin with, that warrants "annihilating" your trailer trash countryside ass? LOL
Far from retiring, you are a veteran par excellence at being an idiot, who makes a good piñata to be made a complete fool of at white nationalist cult avenues?
You sound like you have PTSD from fighting all of those bad Euros, what has Evil Euro and Horemheb done to you?
I was a vet here in the beginning and put my work in and what I've done to build here stands for itself, I don't have to trade insults with you and thus sound like a punk to prove anything, lol
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
Come on buddy: You came at me with your insults, out of nowhere in the misguidedly-disguised form of playing some sort of a "peace-maker". My issue is with just swenet, at this point, as anybody with half a brain knows that I do partake in civil exchanges with those who conduct themselves accordingly. Anyone else who got thrashed thereby invited it upon one self when he/she decided to play the emotional cheerleader and come at me the wrong way. That suggests to me, that you are bad at lying, since you are obviously trying to "prove something", however bad at it you are.
Posted by .Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Come on buddy: You came at me with your insults, out of nowhere in the misguidedly-disguised form of playing some sort of a "peace-maker". My issue is with just swenet, at this point, as anybody with half a brain knows that I do partake in civil exchanges with those who conduct themselves accordingly. Anyone else who got thrashed thereby invited it upon one self when he/she decided to play the emotional cheerleader and come at me the wrong way. That suggests to me, that you are bad at lying, since you are obviously trying to "prove something", however bad at it you are.
I have nothing to prove, nor do I want to prove anything, I'm basically retired at this mess. You OTOH, let Swenet bait you into the insults since he started in this topic so he's an agitator, you feel for the bait, how does that make you look? lol
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
Trust me, nobody baits me to do what I have no desire in doing in the first place. I saw an opportunity to make some points, even if it means using the most unenlightened reactionary personalities to do it--which is often never easy...just as you did with Evil Euro and a whole host of other such characters...unless you were gullible enough to be baited likewise?
Posted by .Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Trust me, nobody baits me to do what I have no desire in doing in the first place. I saw an opportunity to make some points, even if it means using the most unenlightened reactionary personalities to do it--which is often never easy...just as you did with Evil Euro and a whole host of other such characters...unless you were gullible enough to be baited likewise?
I always had a plan for each specific opponent but my foundation was always rooted in the truth, not ideology.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
It's simple for me; you see ideology in my message, produce the proof. Nothing says ideology more than nutty toothless allegations.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Like the mindless Nancy boy fag you are?
I'll let you rave on with your non-replies. When you're done wiping the foam out your mouth, you can address this with actual (counter)evidence, and prove there is more to you than an amygdala- led heap a sh!t, who is only good at running: running your mouth and running away when it comes to substantiating your wacky dogmatic theories.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: SLC45A2 was not mentioned in the text you want to wish it in, that's how irrelevant it is.
Lying ass fraud, you're quite uncreative with your repetitive, shaky-legged, amygdala triggered non- replies to my very simple question:
how is the paper associated with citation number 46 (and the skin pigmentation genes mentioned therein), not the focal point of what Pagani et al mean when they say ''other genes''? --Swenet
and this:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: See above: initial selection in the sub-tropical region of the Sahara.
The admixture event dates to 3kya. You're not going to wish this admixture event away by assigning Ethiopians a fabricated origin in the Sahara. The Syria-like genetic component would still have to become an important genetic contribution, even within your shitty scenario. Not to mention, the hard to swallow pill that this component has an obvious connection to derived SLC24A5 in Ethiopians, also seems to have slipped through the gaping holes of your ''Sahara'' figment.
Other than that, I sure would like to see the pre-defeated piece of evidence that warrants this misty ''Sahara'' scenario, where the sampled Cushitic-Speakers are somehow not the descendants of Axum era equatorial populations, but of some Northern entity that's solely the product of your rabid imagination.
Moreover, how does selection on the derived gene in Ethiopians qualify as a remnant of some imaginary proto population in the Sahara, when the other Ethiopians (Omotic speakers), who derive from the exact same ancestral populations (they only vary from Cushitic-Semitic speakers in their amount of Syrian-like ancestry), don't have excesses of the derived gene?
It would also be nice to see the ecological specifics you've gathered before you went public with that claptrap theory, so as to make sure you wouldn't be making a complete ass out of yourself, by suggesting that light skin is advantageous in the Sahara.
Posted by .Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: It's simple for me; you see ideology in my message, produce the proof. Nothing says ideology more than nutty toothless allegations.
When did I say that I see ideology in your message? smh, you only visualise what you want to see.
Posted by .Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Like the mindless Nancy boy fag you are?
I'll let you rave on with your non-replies. When you're done wiping the foam out your mouth, you can address this with actual (counter)evidence, and prove there is more to you than an amygdala- led heap a sh!t, who is only good for running: running your mouth and running away when it comes to substantiating your wacky dogmatic theories.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: SLC45A2 was not mentioned in the text you want to wish it in, that's how irrelevant it is.
Lying ass fraud, you're quite uncreative with your repetitive, shaky-legged, amygdala triggered non- replies to my very simple question:
how is the paper associated with citation number 46 (and the skin pigmentation genes mentioned therein), not the focal point of what Pagani et al mean when they say ''other genes''? --Swenet
and this:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: See above: initial selection in the sub-tropical region of the Sahara.
The admixture event dates to 3kya. You're not going to wish this admixture event away by assigning Ethiopians a fabricated origin in the Sahara. The Syria-like genetic component would still have to become an important genetic contribution, even within your shitty scenario. Not to mention, the hard to swallow pill that this component has an obvious connection to derived SLC24A5 in Ethiopians, also seems to have slipped through the gaping holes of your ''Sahara'' figment.
Other than that, I sure would like to see the pre-defeated piece of evidence that warrants this misty ''Sahara'' scenario, where the sampled Cushitic-Speakers are somehow not the descendants of Axum era equatorial populations, but of some Northern entity that's solely the product of your rabid imagination.
Moreover, how does selection on the derived gene in Ethiopians qualify as a remnant of some imaginary proto population in the Sahara, when the other Ethiopians (Omotic speakers), who derive from the exact same ancestral populations (they only vary from Cushitic-Semitic speakers in their amount of Syrian-like ancestry), don't have excesses of the derived gene?
It would also be nice to see the ecological specifics you've gathered before you went public with that claptrap theory, so as to make sure you wouldn't be making a complete ass out of yourself, by suggesting that light skin is advantageous in the Sahara.
You say this event of "admixture" goes back to 3,000 years ok, what demographic event is this associated with and how do we know said people carried this gene with them? The so called "more like the Levant" phrase in that paper could well mean some where in Egypt since it peaks higher in Africa than outside of Africa.
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
Originally posted by The Explorer:
..initial selection in the sub-tropical region of the Sahara.
I think this is a reasonable starting basis for an indigenous scenario. You made no claim that all developments were strictly confined to Ethiopia but include the broad Saharan zone, which extends all the way across the continent just above the Horn of Africa. Said zone has had diverse climatic fluctuations over time, so it is reasonable also to talk about a sub-tropical region, and the "Saharan pump" influenced population movements across the board. "Diffusion" incorporates movement internal to and within Africa.
Nor have you excluded the possibility that "Eurasian" gene flow entered the region at some time. Such flow is not incompatible with a primarily indigenous origin. Both can co-exist with the primary weight being indigenous.
Can you think of an analogous situation where the presence of "outside" gene variants in a population was not associated with other typical gene variants seen in said "outside" population? Within Africa? Asia? Americas? I think this argument's model, as it develops, shows potential for future reference.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote: Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: I think this is a reasonable starting basis for an indigenous scenario.
Instead of the discussion moving forward, its moving backward. Hard science, and even already established observations are being rejected over vague ''possibilities'' and ''reasonable scenarios''. By ''reasonable scenario'', do you mean ''consistent with my vested interests''? I sure would like to see what is reasonable about the notion that sub-tropical latitudes are causative of light skin.
Posted by .Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote: Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: I think this is a reasonable starting basis for an indigenous scenario.
Instead of the discussion moving forward, its moving backward. Hard science, and even already established observations are being rejected over vague ''possibilities'' and ''reasonable scenarios''. I sure would like to see what is reasonable about the notion that sub-tropical latitudes are causative of light skin.
I asked you a simply question and you have to understand, these geneticists are NOT actually providing "hard science" in the sense of indisputable facts, they said in that paper that the "Eurasian" mixture in Ethiopians was more like observed in the Levant than that in Arabia, well I'm asking you, what demographic event is this associated with? If you can't connect it with one then that conclusion has to be called into question, simple and plain. For example........Geneticists at one time said Negroids, Caucasoids, and Mongoloids all split off genetically from each other hundreds of thousands of years ago, but there was a problem with that....the splits happened at a time when there were NO modern humans in Europe and Asia so what does that mean? The splits represented deep population substructure within Africa, you have to have all pieces of the puzzle to get the bigger picture.....
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: You say this event of "admixture" goes back to 3,000 years ok, what demographic event is this associated with and how do we know said people carried this gene with them? The so called "more like the Levant" phrase in that paper could well mean some where in Egypt since it peaks higher in Africa than outside of Africa. [/QB]
Ancient west Eurasian ancestry in southern and eastern Africa 2013
Joseph K. Pickrell et al.
The history of southern Africa involved interactions between indigenous hunter-gatherers and a range of populations that moved into the region. Here we use genome-wide genetic data to show that there are at least two admixture events in the history of Khoisan populations (southern African hunter-gatherers and pastoralists who speak non-Bantu languages with click consonants). One involved populations related to Niger-Congo-speaking African populations, and the other introduced ancestry most closely related to west Eurasian (European or Middle Eastern) populations. We date this latter admixture event to approximately 900-1,800 years ago, and show that it had the largest demographic impact in Khoisan populations that speak Khoe-Kwadi languages. A similar signal of west Eurasian ancestry is present throughout eastern Africa. In particular, we also find evidence for two admixture events in the history of Kenyan, Tanzanian, and Ethiopian populations, the earlier of which involved populations related to west Eurasians and which we date to approximately 2,700 - 3,300 years ago. We reconstruct the allele frequencies of the putative west Eurasian population in eastern Africa, and show that this population is a good proxy for the west Eurasian ancestry in southern Africa. The most parsimonious explanation for these findings is that west Eurasian ancestry entered southern Africa indirectly through eastern Africa.
. PDF, 75 pages Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
When did I say that I see ideology in your message? smh, you only visualise what you want to see.
Not really. Seeing as how you mentioned that you were not forwarding ideology in your dealings with certain mentioned posters when no accusation was made to that end, and how I was the only one exchanging words with you at the time, your remark came across as underhandedly suggesting that perhaps I advance ideology.
Posted by .Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: You say this event of "admixture" goes back to 3,000 years ok, what demographic event is this associated with and how do we know said people carried this gene with them? The so called "more like the Levant" phrase in that paper could well mean some where in Egypt since it peaks higher in Africa than outside of Africa.
Ancient west Eurasian ancestry in southern and eastern Africa 2013
Joseph K. Pickrell et al.
The history of southern Africa involved interactions between indigenous hunter-gatherers and a range of populations that moved into the region. Here we use genome-wide genetic data to show that there are at least two admixture events in the history of Khoisan populations (southern African hunter-gatherers and pastoralists who speak non-Bantu languages with click consonants). One involved populations related to Niger-Congo-speaking African populations, and the other introduced ancestry most closely related to west Eurasian (European or Middle Eastern) populations. We date this latter admixture event to approximately 900-1,800 years ago, and show that it had the largest demographic impact in Khoisan populations that speak Khoe-Kwadi languages. A similar signal of west Eurasian ancestry is present throughout eastern Africa. In particular, we also find evidence for two admixture events in the history of Kenyan, Tanzanian, and Ethiopian populations, the earlier of which involved populations related to west Eurasians and which we date to approximately 2,700 - 3,300 years ago. We reconstruct the allele frequencies of the putative west Eurasian population in eastern Africa, and show that this population is a good proxy for the west Eurasian ancestry in southern Africa. The most parsimonious explanation for these findings is that west Eurasian ancestry entered southern Africa indirectly through eastern Africa.
Only one problem with this Lyingness, this paper says the Eurasian mixture in Ethiopians came from Arabia, which is contra to what the Pagani paper said which stated it came from the Levant and not Arabia so what I see at play here are geneticists who are not familiar with the archaeological history of the regions trying to connect admixture with Biblical stories, that story of the Quen of Sheba was told hundreds of years AFTER the suggested first contact between Ethiopians and Southern Arabians, get with the program...........
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
I think this is a reasonable starting basis for an indigenous scenario. You made no claim that all developments were strictly confined to Ethiopia but include the broad Saharan zone, which extends all the way across the continent just above the Horn of Africa. Said zone has had diverse climatic fluctuations over time, so it is reasonable also to talk about a sub-tropical region, and the "Saharan pump" influenced population movements across the board. "Diffusion" incorporates movement internal to and within Africa.
"Climatic fluctuations over time" only become a factor in population movements, but as far as DNA like the SLC24A5 marker are concerned, their association with skin pigmentation as an adaptive trait is only correlative with the UV radiation environment, which as I already noted, does not change over time...at least not in the sense that the sub-tropical regions turn tropical or vice versa. The slight wobbles that the Earth goes through when spinning only decisively effect general weather conditions, which can change on a daily basis.
quote: Nor have you excluded the possibility that "Eurasian" gene flow entered the region at some time. Such flow is not incompatible with a primarily indigenous origin. Both can co-exist with the primary weight being indigenous.
Of course I am not excluding the prospect of "Eurasian gene flow"; I just think that it is overemphasized in the ancestry of some Africans or the other, whenever a gene pool does not fit Eurocentered stereotypes of what is "African" and "non-African". I'm of the mindset that much of what is dismissed in some circles as "Eurasian" in such groups like Ethiopians, are actually of local African origin, and one such area that was very likely home to such ancestry, was the Sahara, and that a smaller element may actually be attributable to gene flow from outside than is generally acknowledged.
There is no doubt that there is an underlying genetic structuring that can be characterized as "African" and "OOA", only because the latter is a subset of the former, but that does not mean that a direct African origin cannot be attributed to major clades that characterize OOA gene pools, simply because they are proportionately more prominent in OOA gene pools than in the African genetic landscape.
quote: Can you think of an analogous situation where the presence of "outside" gene variants in a population was not associated with other typical gene variants seen in said "outside" population? Within Africa? Asia? Americas? I think this argument's model, as it develops, shows potential for future reference.
I want to emphasis that I don't come up with scenarios just because they sound good, or simply on the grounds that they are possible; I build the most plausible scenario based on what the weight of evidence is suggesting.
To your question: The other instance I can think of, could well be the San hunter-gatherer case, where it has been noted that the downstream variant of OCA2, which is also associated with "light skin" in Asian groups, is prominent. The San may share this allele with east Asians, where it is said to occur at high frequencies, but this does not mean that the San share the same skin pigmentation genetic profiles with east Asians. The "derived" variant of the SLC24A5 allele in other sub-Saharan groups could well also be a case where other skin pigmentation markers found in "west Eurasians" are not represented.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: Only one problem with this Lyingness,
stop being an asshole get the name right
Posted by .Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: Only one problem with this Lyingness,
stop being an asshole get the name right
I would but you think you rule this place, lol
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Come on Bass...not calling him correctly as Lioness because of WHAT!?! ..immaturity or self esteem.
Posted by .Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Come on Bass...not calling him correctly as Lioness because of WHAT!?! ..immaturity or self esteem.
A man named lioness, wth?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
get the gender right bitches
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
^ Yeah, man!
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Come on Bass...not calling him correctly as Lioness because of WHAT!?! ..immaturity or self esteem.
A man named lioness, wth?
quote:The two genes SLC24A5 and SLC45A2 were recently identified as major determinants of pigmentation in humans and in other vertebrates. The allele p.A111T in the former gene and the allele p.L374F in the latter gene are both nearly fixed in light-skinned Europeans, and can therefore be considered ancestry informative marker (AIMs). AIMs are becoming useful for forensic identification of the phenotype from a DNA profile sampled, for example, from a crime scene. Here, we generate new allelic data for these two genes from samples of Chinese, Uygurs, Ghanaians, South African Xhosa, South African Europeans, and Sri Lankans (Tamils and Sinhalese). Our data confirm the earlier results and furthermore demonstrate that the SLC45A2 allele is a more specific AIM than the SLC24A5 allele because the former clearly distinguishes the Sri Lankans from the Europeans. Authors
--Soejima M, Koda Y, Population differences of two coding SNPs in pigmentation-related genes SLC24A5 and SLC45A2.
Source Int. J. Legal Med. 2007 Jan; 121(1):36-9. Institution Department of Forensic Medicine and Human Genetics, Kurume University School of Medicine, Kurume, 830-0011, Japan.
Mike will find this useful. HERC2 is the new SLC45A2. Alps Iceman was negative for SLC45a2 positive for HERC2. However they are unsure whether HERC2 code for brown blue eyes.
Keep in mind the SLC45A2 or even HERC2 does not translate to a light skin phenotype.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
^^^ this guy keeps summoning the Egyptsearch genetics expert Mike
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
.Geneticists at one time said Negroids, Caucasoids, and Mongoloids all split off genetically from each other hundreds of thousands of years ago, but there was a problem with that....the splits happened at a time when there were NO modern humans in Europe and Asia so what does that mean? The splits represented deep population substructure within Africa, you have to have all pieces of the puzzle to get the bigger picture.....
^^Can you provide a recent reference Bass? What scholars show the splits occurring when there were no modern humans, and that said splits represent deep population substructure within Africa?
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol: ^ Yeah, man!
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Come on Bass...not calling him correctly as Lioness because of WHAT!?! ..immaturity or self esteem.
A man named lioness, wth?
quote:The two genes SLC24A5 and SLC45A2 were recently identified as major determinants of pigmentation in humans and in other vertebrates. The allele p.A111T in the former gene and the allele p.L374F in the latter gene are both nearly fixed in light-skinned Europeans, and can therefore be considered ancestry informative marker (AIMs). AIMs are becoming useful for forensic identification of the phenotype from a DNA profile sampled, for example, from a crime scene. Here, we generate new allelic data for these two genes from samples of Chinese, Uygurs, Ghanaians, South African Xhosa, South African Europeans, and Sri Lankans (Tamils and Sinhalese). Our data confirm the earlier results and furthermore demonstrate that the SLC45A2 allele is a more specific AIM than the SLC24A5 allele because the former clearly distinguishes the Sri Lankans from the Europeans. Authors
--Soejima M, Koda Y, Population differences of two coding SNPs in pigmentation-related genes SLC24A5 and SLC45A2.
Source Int. J. Legal Med. 2007 Jan; 121(1):36-9. Institution Department of Forensic Medicine and Human Genetics, Kurume University School of Medicine, Kurume, 830-0011, Japan.
edit- Patrol what do you have as to a skin color distribution chart worldwide?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
Patrol what do you have as to a skin color distribution chart worldwide?
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
however, UV predicts skin tone to an extent but as we can see other things may also be factors:
- how long a popualtion has lived in particular area
-high vitamin D levels in fish based diets
-genetic bottleneck
-sexual selection
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Predictive charts
^^^ What the shades of humanity are predicted to be generated from the regression analysis model
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
.Geneticists at one time said Negroids, Caucasoids, and Mongoloids all split off genetically from each other hundreds of thousands of years ago, but there was a problem with that....the splits happened at a time when there were NO modern humans in Europe and Asia so what does that mean? The splits represented deep population substructure within Africa, you have to have all pieces of the puzzle to get the bigger picture.....
^^Can you provide a recent reference Bass? What scholars show the splits occurring when there were no modern humans, and that said splits represent deep population substructure within Africa?
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol: ^ Yeah, man!
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Come on Bass...not calling him correctly as Lioness because of WHAT!?! ..immaturity or self esteem.
A man named lioness, wth?
quote:The two genes SLC24A5 and SLC45A2 were recently identified as major determinants of pigmentation in humans and in other vertebrates. The allele p.A111T in the former gene and the allele p.L374F in the latter gene are both nearly fixed in light-skinned Europeans, and can therefore be considered ancestry informative marker (AIMs). AIMs are becoming useful for forensic identification of the phenotype from a DNA profile sampled, for example, from a crime scene. Here, we generate new allelic data for these two genes from samples of Chinese, Uygurs, Ghanaians, South African Xhosa, South African Europeans, and Sri Lankans (Tamils and Sinhalese). Our data confirm the earlier results and furthermore demonstrate that the SLC45A2 allele is a more specific AIM than the SLC24A5 allele because the former clearly distinguishes the Sri Lankans from the Europeans. Authors
--Soejima M, Koda Y, Population differences of two coding SNPs in pigmentation-related genes SLC24A5 and SLC45A2.
Source Int. J. Legal Med. 2007 Jan; 121(1):36-9. Institution Department of Forensic Medicine and Human Genetics, Kurume University School of Medicine, Kurume, 830-0011, Japan.
edit- Patrol what do you have as to a skin color distribution chart worldwide?
quote: Biochemistry and Histology of Different Skin Types (A) Activation of the melanocortin 1 receptor (MC1R) promotes the synthesis of eumelanin at the expense of pheomelanin, although oxidation of tyrosine by tyrosinase (TYR) is required for synthesis of both pigment types. The membrane-associated transport protein (MATP) and the pink-eyed dilution protein (P) are melanosomal membrane components that contribute to the extent of pigment synthesis within melanosomes. (B) There is a gradient of melanosome size and number in dark, intermediate, and light skin; in addition, melanosomes of dark skin are more widely dispersed. This diagram is based on one published by Sturm et al. (1998) and summarizes data from Szabo et al. (1969), Toda et al. (1972), and Konrad and Wolff (1973) based on individuals whose recent ancestors were from Africa, Asia, or Europe.
--Barsh GS PLoS Biol. 2003 Oct;1(1):E27. Epub 2003 Oct 13. What controls variation in human skin color?
quote:It is widely assumed that genes that influence variation in skin and hair pigmentation are under selection. To date, the melanocortin 1 receptor (MC1R) is the only gene identified that explains substantial phenotypic variance in human pigmentation. Here we investigate MC1R polymorphism in several populations, for evidence of selection. We conclude that MC1R is under strong functional constraint in Africa, where any diversion from eumelanin production (black pigmentation) appears to be evolutionarily deleterious. Although many of the MC1R amino acid variants observed in non-African populations do affect MC1R function and contribute to high levels of MC1R diversity in Europeans, we found no evidence, in either the magnitude or the patterns of diversity, for its enhancement by selection; rather, our analyses show that levels of MC1R polymorphism simply reflect neutral expectations under relaxation of strong functional constraint outside Africa.
--Am J Hum Genet. 2000 Apr;66(4):1351-61. Epub 2000 Mar 24. Evidence for variable selective pressures at MC1R. Harding RM, Healy E, Ray AJ, Ellis NS, Flanagan N, Todd C, Dixon C, Sajantila A, Jackson IJ, Birch-Machin MA, Rees JL.
Posted by .Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
.Geneticists at one time said Negroids, Caucasoids, and Mongoloids all split off genetically from each other hundreds of thousands of years ago, but there was a problem with that....the splits happened at a time when there were NO modern humans in Europe and Asia so what does that mean? The splits represented deep population substructure within Africa, you have to have all pieces of the puzzle to get the bigger picture.....
^^Can you provide a recent reference Bass? What scholars show the splits occurring when there were no modern humans, and that said splits represent deep population substructure within Africa?
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol: ^ Yeah, man!
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Come on Bass...not calling him correctly as Lioness because of WHAT!?! ..immaturity or self esteem.
A man named lioness, wth?
quote:The two genes SLC24A5 and SLC45A2 were recently identified as major determinants of pigmentation in humans and in other vertebrates. The allele p.A111T in the former gene and the allele p.L374F in the latter gene are both nearly fixed in light-skinned Europeans, and can therefore be considered ancestry informative marker (AIMs). AIMs are becoming useful for forensic identification of the phenotype from a DNA profile sampled, for example, from a crime scene. Here, we generate new allelic data for these two genes from samples of Chinese, Uygurs, Ghanaians, South African Xhosa, South African Europeans, and Sri Lankans (Tamils and Sinhalese). Our data confirm the earlier results and furthermore demonstrate that the SLC45A2 allele is a more specific AIM than the SLC24A5 allele because the former clearly distinguishes the Sri Lankans from the Europeans. Authors
--Soejima M, Koda Y, Population differences of two coding SNPs in pigmentation-related genes SLC24A5 and SLC45A2.
Source Int. J. Legal Med. 2007 Jan; 121(1):36-9. Institution Department of Forensic Medicine and Human Genetics, Kurume University School of Medicine, Kurume, 830-0011, Japan.
edit- Patrol what do you have as to a skin color distribution chart worldwide?
I saw this in one of Keita's videos, I'll have to look it up, but will find it.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
I fail to see what skin color maps have to do with anything. Just a lazy roundabout way of getting around the fact that ecological underpinnings that we know select for light skin, CLEARLY aren't there. The extant indigenous populations who have been living in the Sahara for the longest are arguably the most heavily pigmented people in Africa. Then again, save from a few posts, this thread has been a cringing display of collective double standard applying, denialist buffoonery, anyway.
ES joke of the month: mutation or admixture mediated light skin genes in Kordofan/Nuba, Chadic speakers and Nilo-Saharan speakers are subject to positive selection in the near future, because the said populations inhabit the (Circum-)Sahara.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
^weirdo, do tell what "ecological underpinnings" supposedly "select for light skin" as an adaptive trait that is not UV radiation exposure related.
Name the "extant indigenous populations" of the sub-tropical areas of the Sahara, that have supposedly lived there the "longest" and "are arguably the most heavily pigmented people in Africa". I have a hunch that your responses will be good for making the audience laugh rather than educated.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: weirdo, do tell what "ecological underpinnings" supposedly "select for light skin" as an adaptive trait that is not UV radiation exposure related.
Sack a sh!t, without predictably resorting to your habit of running away with your tail tucked in your booty, do tell what part of post indicates that UV radiation was not implicated in what I said.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Name the "extant indigenous populations" of the sub-tropical areas of the Sahara, that have supposedly lived there the "longest" and "are arguably the most heavily pigmented people in Africa".
Deceitful goalpost moving lying sack a sh!t, talking about ''subtropical parts of the Sahara''. As if living on either side of the man-made tropic of cancer is going to make difference for whether you come out black or light skinned if there is little UV radiation variation immediately South or North of this imaginary land mark within the Sahara.
You were talking about skin pigmentation based selection of SLC24A5 in the Sahara and got your dumb ass handed to you, for excrementing such an atrociously stupid claim. I DARE your fraud ass to not run away for once, and to actually refute the figment in your head that the said population do not conform to my description, with material other than the additional figments in your head (i.e. keep figments such as your earlier mentioned ''subtropical Sahara'' and your misty, cooked up, wandering ''Saharan'' populations outside of the realm of reality).
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
ES joke of the month: mutation or admixture mediated light skin genes in Kordofan/Nuba, Chadic speakers and Nilo-Saharan speakers are subject to positive selection in the near future, because the said populations inhabit the (Circum-)Sahara.
And the joker--not by choice of course--of the month: swenet.
Wait: I hope you were not referring to the Nuba people when you alluded to the people who supposedly "lived in the Sahara the longest", 'cause fool, they don't live in the sub-tropical areas of the Sahara. Chadic speakers span diverse people from west to central Africa, and Nilo-Saharan speakers stretch from west to east. You'd have to specify which elements of these speakers meet the description of "longest residence" in sub-tropical Sahara, as well as being "arguably the most heavily pigmented people in Africa".
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
Sack a sh!t, without predictably resorting to your habit of running away with your tail tucked in your booty, do tell what part of post suggests that UV radiation was not implicated in what I said.
Then numbnuts you are not on the same planet as discussants on here, since UV radiation was mentioned as the environmental trigger for "light skin" as an adaptive trait. If you are not challenging this yet whining about "ecological underpinnings that select for "light skin" not being there", then it must be because you have your head tucked in your booty. LOL
quote:Deceitful goalpost moving lying sack a sh!t, no one is talking about ''subtropical parts of the Sahara''.
That is precisely what has been talked about, and nothing but--initial selection in the vicinity of sub-tropical Sahara, fuckhead bitch. Pull your head outta your ass already.
quote: keep figments such as your earlier mentioned ''subtropical Sahara'' fallacy and your misty, cooked up wandering ''Saharan'' populations outside of the realm of reality).
Thought you were crying that "nobody" is "talking about sub-tropical Sahara; now, you acknowledged that it was in fact talked about. You are one mentally fucked up nut. Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Yeah, I've edited my post. And you damn sure ain't going to refute anything in it. You can spastically rave on if you want to, get your other faith-based buddies to pat you on the back for appealing to their vested interests, lying your ass off and excrementing misty pseudo-scientific hogwash. I'll be awaiting actual science-based refutations to the below (and other pending, selectively hedged segments of my earlier posts), knowing full well you're going to run off with your tail tapered in-booty and mask your inability to step up, with distractive ploys.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: the fact that ecological underpinnings that we know select for light skin, CLEARLY aren't there. The extant indigenous populations who have been living in the Sahara for the longest are arguably the most heavily pigmented people in Africa. Then again, save from a few posts, this thread has been a cringing display of collective double standard applying, denialist buffoonery, anyway.
ES joke of the month: mutation or admixture mediated light skin genes in Kordofan/Nuba, Chadic speakers and Nilo-Saharan speakers are subject to positive selection in the near future, because the said populations inhabit the (Circum-)Sahara.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
Whoa, you decide when science is "faith-based" or not, as it caters to your emotional feelings...like some kind of an Ayatollah of science. But forbid anyone challenges you to produce undoctored evidence (the opposite of uninformed paraphrases) for your senseless allegations, you cry that it's your observation of a non-verbal state of mind. LOL
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
^As predicted, another one of your distractive ploys.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Yeah, I've edited my post. And you damn sure ain't going to refute anything in it. You can spastically rave on if you want to, get your other faith-based buddies to pat you on the back for appealing to their vested interests, lying your ass off and excrementing misty pseudo-scientific hogwash. I'll be awaiting actual science-based refutations to the below (and other pending, selectively hedged segments of my earlier posts), knowing full well you're going to run off with your tail tapered in-booty and mask your inability to step up, with distractive ploys.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: the fact that ecological underpinnings that we know select for light skin, CLEARLY aren't there. The extant indigenous populations who have been living in the Sahara for the longest are arguably the most heavily pigmented people in Africa. Then again, save from a few posts, this thread has been a cringing display of collective double standard applying, denialist buffoonery, anyway.
ES joke of the month: mutation or admixture mediated light skin genes in Kordofan/Nuba, Chadic speakers and Nilo-Saharan speakers are subject to positive selection in the near future, because the said populations inhabit the (Circum-)Sahara.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Name the "extant indigenous populations" of the sub-tropical areas of the Sahara
talking about ''subtropical parts of the Sahara''. As if living on either side of the man-made tropic of cancer is going to make difference for whether you come out black or light skinned if there is little UV radiation variation immediately South or North of this man-made land mark within the Sahara.
You were talking about skin pigmentation based selection of SLC24A5 in the Sahara and got your dumb ass handed to you, for excrementing such an atrociously stupid claim.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:
Albinism: Causes - MayoClinic.com
Causes
By Mayo Clinic staff
The cause of albinism is a mutation in one of several genes. Each of these genes provides the chemically coded instructions for making one of several proteins involved in the production of melanin. Melanin is produced by cells called melanocytes, which are found in your skin and eyes. A mutation may result in no melanin production at all or a significant decline in the amount of melanin.
In most types of albinism, a person must inherit two copies of a mutated gene — one from each parent — in order to have albinism (recessive inheritance). If a person has only one copy, then he or she won't have the disorder.
Impact of mutations on eye development Regardless of which gene mutation is present, vision impairment is a common characteristic with all types of albinism. These impairments are caused by irregular development of the nerve pathways from the eye to the brain and from abnormal development of the retina.
Types of albinism
The system for classifying types of albinism is based primarily on which mutated gene caused the disorder rather than by outward signs. Nonetheless, most types of albinism have some features that distinguish them from each other. Types of albinism include:
Oculocutaneous albinism. Oculocutaneous albinism is caused by a mutation in one of four genes. These mutations result in signs and symptoms related to vision (ocular) and those related to skin (cutaneous), hair and iris color.
Oculocutaneous albinism type 1 is caused by a mutation in a gene on chromosome 11. Most people with this type of albinism have milky white skin, white hair and blue eyes at birth. Some people with this disorder never experience changes in pigmentation, but others begin to produce melanin during childhood and adolescence. Their hair may become a golden blond or brown. Their skin usually doesn't change color, but it may tan somewhat. The irises may also change color and lose some of their translucence.
Oculocutaneous albinism type 2 is caused by a mutation in a gene on chromosome 15. It's more common in Sub-Saharan Africans, African-Americans and Native Americans than in other population groups. The hair may be yellow, auburn, ginger or red, the eyes can be blue-gray or tan, and the skin is white at birth. In people of African descent, the skin may be light brown, and in those of Asian or Northern European descent, the skin is usually white. In either case, the skin color is generally close to the family's coloring, but a little bit lighter. With sun exposure, the skin may over time develop freckles, moles or lentigines.
The rarer oculocutaneous albinism type 3 is caused by a gene mutation on chromosome 9 and has been primarily identified in black South Africans. People with this disorder usually have reddish-brown skin, ginger or reddish hair, and hazel or brown eyes.
Oculocutaneous albinism type 4, caused by a gene mutation on chromosome 5, is an uncommon form of the disorder generally presenting signs and symptoms similar to those of type 2. This type of albinism may be one of the most common forms among people of East Asian descent.
X-linked ocular albinism. The cause of X-linked ocular albinism, which occurs almost exclusively in males, is a gene mutation on the X chromosome. People who have ocular albinism have the developmental and functional vision problems of albinism. But skin, hair and eye color are generally in the normal range or slightly lighter than that of others in the family.
Hermansky-Pudlak syndrome. Hermansky-Pudlak syndrome is a rare albinism disorder caused by a mutation in one of at least eight genes associated with this syndrome. People with this disorder have signs and symptoms like those of oculocutaneous albinism, but they also develop lung and bowel diseases and a bleeding disorder.
Chediak-Higashi syndrome. Chediak-Higashi syndrome is a rare form of albinism that's associated with a mutation in the LYST gene. Signs and symptoms are similar to those of oculocutaneous albinism. The hair is usually brown or blond with a silvery sheen, and the skin is usually creamy white to grayish. People with this syndrome have a defect with white blood cells that results in a susceptibility to infections. DS00941 April 2, 2011
J Invest Dermatol. 2013 Jul;133(7):1834-40. doi: 10.1038/jid.2013.49. Epub 2013 Jan 30. Exome sequencing identifies SLC24A5 as a candidate gene for nonsyndromic oculocutaneous albinism. Wei AH, Zang DJ, Zhang Z, Liu XZ, He X, Yang L, Wang Y, Zhou ZY, Zhang MR, Dai LL, Yang XM, Li W.
Source State Key Laboratory of Molecular Developmental Biology, Institute of Genetics and Developmental Biology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China.
Abstract
quote: Oculocutaneous albinism (OCA) is a heterogeneous and autosomal recessive disorder with hypopigmentation in the eye, hair, and skin color. Four genes, TYR, OCA2, TYRP1, and SLC45A2, have been identified as causative genes for nonsyndromic OCA1-4, respectively. The genetic identity of OCA5 locus on 4q24 is unknown. Additional unknown OCA genes may exist as at least 5% of OCA patients have not been characterized during mutational screening in several populations. We used exome sequencing with a family-based recessive mutation model to determine that SLC24A5 is a previously unreported candidate gene for nonsyndromic OCA, which we designate as OCA6. Two deleterious mutations in this patient, c.591G>A and c.1361insT, were identified. We found apparent increase of immature melanosomes and less mature melanosomes in the patient's skin melanocytes. However, no defects in the platelet dense granules were observed, excluding typical Hermansky-Pudlak syndrome (HPS), a well-known syndromic OCA. Moreover, the SLC24A5 protein was reduced in steady-state levels in mouse HPS mutants with deficiencies in BLOC-1 and BLOC-2. Our results suggest that SLC24A5 is a previously unreported nonsyndromic OCA candidate gene and that the SLC24A5 transporter is transported into mature melanosomes by HPS protein complexes.
Posted by HidayaAkade (Member # 20642) on :
bump
Posted by HabariTess (Member # 19629) on :
Aren't the Lemba tribe further proof of Eurasian genes in Southern Africa? I wonder why they did not study them. They reportedly have as much Eurasian lineages(up to 50%) as some Ethiopian groups.
Posted by HabariTess (Member # 19629) on :
quote:Originally posted by HabariTess: Aren't the Lemba tribe further proof of Eurasian genes in Southern Africa? I wonder why they did not study them. They reportedly have as much Eurasian lineages(up to 50%) as some Ethiopian groups.
Thinks that make you go, hmmmm?
In fact they carry the highest frequency of the clade. Makes you wonder...hmmmm?
The Lemba claim to have come from Yemen, originally.
Ancient Hebrew depicted, being captured by Assyrians.
Also interesting is:
Avshalom Zoossmann-Diskin1,2,3 et al.
1 Department of Haematology and Genetic Pathology, School of Medicine, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia 2 Department of Human Genetics, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Israel 3 Current Address: Blood Bank, Sheba Medical Center, Ramat-Gan 52621, Israel
quote: "The origin of Eastern European Jews revealed by autosomal, sex chromosomal and mtDNA polymorphisms"
The origin of Eastern European Jews, (EEJ) by far the largest and most important Ashkenazi population, and their affinities to other Jewish and European populations are still not resolved.
Studies that compared them by genetic distance analysis of autosomal markers to European Mediterranean populations revealed that they are closer to Europeans than to other Jewish populations [1-3].
In contrast, according to the Y-chromosomal haplogroups EEJ are closest to the non-Jewish populations of the Eastern Mediterranean (table 3, figure 4).
"EEJ are the largest and most investigated Jewish community, yet their history as Franco-German Jewry is known to us only since their appearance in the 9th century, and their subsequent migration a few hundred years later to Eastern Europe [4,5]. Where did these Jews come from? It seems that they came to Germany and France from Italy [5-8].
It is also possible that some Jews migrated northward from the Italian colonies on the northern shore of the Black Sea [9]. All these Jews are likely the descendents of proselytes.
Conversion to Judaism was common in Rome in the first centuries BC and AD. Judaism gained many followers among all ranks of Roman Society [10-13]."
The autosomal genetic distance analysis presented here clearly demonstrates that the investigated Jewish populations do not share a common origin.
The resemblance of EEJ to Italians and other European populations portrays them as an autochthonous European population.
**The demographic histories of three Jewish populations exemplify how different demographic patterns make the uniparental markers more reliable for Iraqi (Babylonian) Jews and Yemenite Jews and less reliable for EEJ. Both Yemenite Jews and Iraqi Jews resemble populations from their regions of origin according to autosomal markers [1,3,30-32].
**Babylonian Jews numbered more than a million in the first century AD [35], and constituted the majority of the population in the area between the Euphrates and the Tigris in the 2nd-3rd centuries AD [36]. Gilbert [37] estimates that by 600 AD there were 806,000 Jews in Mesopotamia, and according to Sassoon [38] it was inhabited by about a million Jews in the 7th century. In the 14th century the estimates for Baghdad alone range from 70,000 to hundreds thousands [38].
*By comparing the structure of the STRs network among the various Ashkenazi populations and among the various European non-Jewish populations they reached the conclusion that a single male founder introduced this haplogroup into Ashkenazi Jews in the first millennium.
New paper came out. African SLC24A5 has the same single origin as non-African SLC24A5, as I've stated all along. Some things can be ruled out with simple thinking and abiding by scientific principles. This thread is a an instructive display of how far some ES members are prepared to go to preserve their childish nonsense fairy tales of African purity. Of only a few ES members can it be said that they're honest and critical. When people start to knowingly deny well documented events, like the entry of Ethio- Semitic languages and genes into East Africa 3kya, you know that they have zero integrity and operate in their own little fantasy world and cannot be trusted when it comes reporting on African population genetics and African history in general.
quote:To gain insight into when and where this mutation arose, we defined common haplotypes in the genomic region around SLC24A5 across diverse human populations and deduced phylogenetic relationships between them. Virtually all chromosomes carrying the A111T allele share a single 78-kb haplotype that we call C11, indicating that all instances of this mutation in human populations share a common origin
... well documented events, like the entry of Ethio- Semitic languages and genes into East Africa 3kya, ...
Granted, for the vast majority, but what of Gurage? What's your take? Really Ethio-semitic or ???
Posted by Nodnarb (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: The radical facial differentiation of these LSA peoples relative to MSA predecessors may represent a parallel evolution event as they have a plethora of traits that are peculiar to them and are not seen in Ethio-Semitic and Cushitic speakers.
quote:All the Upper Paleolithic peoples of Kenya were of Caucasoid or proto-Hamitic stock; they are represented by the Gamble's Cave and Naivasha skeletons, as well as the skeleton from Olduvai in northern Tanganyika. They were tall and dolichocephalic, with long face and narrow nose (the 'Elmenteitan type'); the other is brachycephalic, with a shorter face but also with a narrow nose. These two types are represented by Elmenteita A and F1 (Fig. 5 (2 and 3)) from Bromhead's site. The same types persist into the Neolithic, but now a third variation appears in the ultra-dolichocephalic skulls from Willey's kopje (Fig. 5 (4)); these differ from the Elmenteitan type by having a shorter face, a more prominent nose, and a different kind of mandible.
--Sonia Cole, 1954
Now that two years have passed since this post, would you maintain the features identified as "proto-Hamitic" by Sonia Cole represent a local evolution peculiar to these Late Stone Age people? Or might they possibly represent some affinity, distant or not, with "pre-OOA" Eastern Saharans?
Posted by kdolo (Member # 21830) on :
Negroes......nothing but Negroes....
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
The problem with studies like the one Lioness posted in the OP is that geneticists truly haven't figured out the exact 'dividing line', so to speak, between Africans and Eurasians in Southwest Asia. It's known and virtually accepted by all experts that all Eurasians are derived from Africans, but exactly where in the genome this distinction first took place is a matter of debate just like with uniparental markers in the Y chromosome and mitochondria. What complicates things even more and adds confusion is the fact that there were multiple waves out of Africa in addition to possible back-migrations. That said, one may question exactly how "Eurasian" the back-migrants really were. For example, there was a 2013 study by Lazardis et al. on the forebears of Neolithic culture in Europe. Lazardis discovered an autosomal component strongly associated with the Neolithic immigrants which he calls “basal Eurasian” and is found in varying frequencies among modern populations of Europe, North Africa, Southwest Asia, and as far east as northern India, again all regions associated with Neolithic expansion. Lazardis postulates that this original ‘basal Eurasian’ population from which this component arose was genetically intermediate between the Mbuti pygmies of central Africa and say Persians of western Eurasia. This leaves a vast area of the Great Rift Valley--from east Africa to the Jordan Valley, and on either side of the Red Sea in the Nile Valley or Arabia where this population could have arisen. And even if one were to take Africa out of the picture and leave only Southwest Asia, they are still intermediate with Central African pygmies! It’s not even known when exactly these “basal Eurasians” arose, though since they are equally intermediate to west Eurasians like Iranians but very distant from east Eurasians, they either were part of the initial OOA but remained isolated while other populations branched off OR they represent a later African expansion. Either way, it appears they were not quite as divergent from Africans as many Euronuts would wish them to be. In fact, among the Neolithic skeletal remains of Stuttgart, southern Germany which Lazardis et al. studied, the individual which had the strongest sample of “basal Eurasian” component happened to be a male whose craniofacial traits were very African-like!
So again, while I do not at all deny back-migrations into Africa in ancient times as such has occurred even in more recent historical times, I do seriously call into question these sweeping claims of “extensive Eurasian admixture” throughout the whole African continent! This is no different from Euronut claims that YAP on the Y-chromosome (hg DE) is “Eurasian” therefore making the entire hg E clade “Eurasian” even though a study published last month by Ottoni et al. has confirmed the presence of D-M174 (D*) in West Africa!! I don’t know if this is the case with Lioness personally but I have noticed a trend among Euronuts where due to their miserable failure at white-washing the Egyptians and other North Africans, they then go for the crazier tactic of white-washing populations throughout Sub-Sahara including Pygmies and Khoisan which this OP study seems to be doing.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Ancient Ethiopian genome reveals extensive Eurasian admixture throughout the African continent
M. Gallego Llorente et al
Characterizing genetic diversity in Africa is a crucial step for most analyses reconstructing the evolutionary history of anatomically modern humans. However, historic migrations from Eurasia into Africa have affected many contemporary populations, confounding inferences. Here, we present a 12.5x coverage ancient genome of an Ethiopian male (‘Mota’) who lived approximately 4,500 years ago. We use this genome to demonstrate that the Eurasian backflow into Africa came from a population closely related to Early Neolithic farmers, who had colonized Europe 4,000 years earlier. The extent of this backflow was much greater than previously reported, reaching all the way to Central, West and Southern Africa, affecting even populations such as Yoruba and Mbuti, previously thought to be relatively unadmixed, who harbor 6-7% Eurasian ancestry
^ Nobody is ignoring anything. I merely gave my opinion based on sound logic. Geneticists are quick to label autosomal genetic components found in ancient Africans as "Eurasian". This same tactic was applied to Y-chromosomal markers such as hg E in the past, but recent studies have debunked the "Eurasian" claims and confirmed what many have suspected all along that they were African. So if you want to believe that Africans from Pygmies to Khoisan are "Eurasian-mixed", then that's your prerogative. Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Nobody is ignoring anything. I merely gave my opinion based on sound logic. Geneticists are quick to label autosomal genetic components found in ancient Africans as "Eurasian". This same tactic was applied to Y-chromosomal markers such as hg E in the past, but recent studies have debunked the "Eurasian" claims and confirmed what many have suspected all along that they were African. So if you want to believe that Africans from Pygmies to Khoisan are "Eurasian-mixed", then that's your prerogative.
The above abstract says Yoruba and Mbuti are of 6-7% Eurasian ancestry. Assuming that Khosians average a similar low percentage (and they do have low frequencies of R clades) and considering that African Americans average around 20% Eurasian I would not characterize Khosians or AA as a "mixed people" though they do have some admixture
"Mixed people" are genrally regarded as more around 50/50 or 60/40
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Do you realize how idiotic you sound?? "Mixed" means exactly what it means regardless of actual percentage. Thus, many studies show that a third of Europeans have recent African admixture confirmed by Y-chromosome (hg E) . The study you cite, based on autosomal alleles says Mbuti, (a Pygmy group) is Eurasian mixed. You do realize there is NO presence of hg R or any Eurasian lineage among Mbuti Pygmies or in Khoisan either yet the latter are also said to be "Eurasian" mixed. So how do you explain this?? This is why I don't hold a pinch of salt to admixture studies based on autosomes without further context of other factors, and this is especially true of African populations due to the reasons I stated above.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: The radical facial differentiation of these LSA peoples relative to MSA predecessors may represent a parallel evolution event as they have a plethora of traits that are peculiar to them and are not seen in Ethio-Semitic and Cushitic speakers.
quote:All the Upper Paleolithic peoples of Kenya were of Caucasoid or proto-Hamitic stock; they are represented by the Gamble's Cave and Naivasha skeletons, as well as the skeleton from Olduvai in northern Tanganyika. They were tall and dolichocephalic, with long face and narrow nose (the 'Elmenteitan type'); the other is brachycephalic, with a shorter face but also with a narrow nose. These two types are represented by Elmenteita A and F1 (Fig. 5 (2 and 3)) from Bromhead's site. The same types persist into the Neolithic, but now a third variation appears in the ultra-dolichocephalic skulls from Willey's kopje (Fig. 5 (4)); these differ from the Elmenteitan type by having a shorter face, a more prominent nose, and a different kind of mandible.
--Sonia Cole, 1954
Now that two years have passed since this post, would you maintain the features identified as "proto-Hamitic" by Sonia Cole represent a local evolution peculiar to these Late Stone Age people? Or might they possibly represent some affinity, distant or not, with "pre-OOA" Eastern Saharans?
I wonder, where these would fit?
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: It's difficult to ignore the ongoing articles:
Ancient Ethiopian genome reveals extensive Eurasian admixture throughout the African continent
M. Gallego Llorente et al
Characterizing genetic diversity in Africa is a crucial step for most analyses reconstructing the evolutionary history of anatomically modern humans. However, historic migrations from Eurasia into Africa have affected many contemporary populations, confounding inferences. Here, we present a 12.5x coverage ancient genome of an Ethiopian male (‘Mota’) who lived approximately 4,500 years ago. We use this genome to demonstrate that the Eurasian backflow into Africa came from a population closely related to Early Neolithic farmers, who had colonized Europe 4,000 years earlier. The extent of this backflow was much greater than previously reported, reaching all the way to Central, West and Southern Africa, affecting even populations such as Yoruba and Mbuti, previously thought to be relatively unadmixed, who harbor 6-7% Eurasian ancestry
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Nobody is ignoring anything. I merely gave my opinion based on sound logic. Geneticists are quick to label autosomal genetic components found in ancient Africans as "Eurasian". This same tactic was applied to Y-chromosomal markers such as hg E in the past, but recent studies have debunked the "Eurasian" claims and confirmed what many have suspected all along that they were African. So if you want to believe that Africans from Pygmies to Khoisan are "Eurasian-mixed", then that's your prerogative.
The above abstract says Yoruba and Mbuti are of 6-7% Eurasian ancestry. Assuming that Khosians average a similar low percentage (and they do have low frequencies of R clades) and considering that African Americans average around 20% Eurasian I would not characterize Khosians or AA as a "mixed people" though they do have some admixture
"Mixed people" are genrally regarded as more around 50/50 or 60/40
You are still ignoring the 7 mutations. Why?
What is "eurasian", see this is where is gets fussy and obfuscated.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Do you realize how idiotic you sound?? "Mixed" means exactly what it means regardless of actual percentage. Thus, many studies show that a third of Europeans have recent African admixture confirmed by Y-chromosome (hg E) . The study you cite, based on autosomal alleles says Mbuti, (a Pygmy group) is Eurasian mixed. You do realize there is NO presence of hg R or any Eurasian lineage among Mbuti Pygmies or in Khoisan either yet the latter are also said to be "Eurasian" mixed. So how do you explain this?? This is why I don't hold a pinch of salt to admixture studies based on autosomes without further context of other factors, and this is especially true of African populations due to the reasons I stated above.
The whole "they are mixed" thing is becoming absurdly.
What they claim is the when an African American procreates with an indigenous African (let's say from Congo for convenience), those children are therefore "eurasian mixed". This then becomes a eurasian black migration.
I recently saw a prologue by Spencer Wells, warning for this method and way of reasoning.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
^ Indeed. That's why I just laugh at Lioness when she presents studies like the one in the OP. It's just more white-wash hogwash. This reminds me how when past geneticists tried to claim YAP as 'Eurasian' thus all DE derived clades including hg E is not really African but Eurasian and thus viola, the vast majority of Sub-Saharans are Eurasian-mixed!
As I said, many of these experts don't even know what the exact dividing line between African and Eurasian even is!
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
Djehuti
I really don't trust some of these 'studies'. The amount of claimed 'Eurasian' admixture in the Fulani people seems a little high. I'm referring to the genetic studies on the Sudanese Fula.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
I prefer to trust science than a racist idiot like Djehuti.
Racists on this website are just mad because those latest researches show us that Eurasian admixtures in the Northeast African region, including Ancient Egypt, was absent or rare before 3000 years ago. and thus rare or absent during the foundation of Ancient Egypt around 6000 years ago. Confirming yet again, Ancient Egyptians to be indigenous Africans. Biologically, historically and culturally Africans.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ LMAO You keep accusing me of being "racist" yet you NEVER are able to prove it! In fact YOU are the idiot as you say you trust science yet Lioness cites a scientific study claiming Eurasian admixture throughout much of Sub-Saharan Africa!!
I simply disagree with their findings and suggest the opposite of what they say yet you accuse me of saying the opposite!! You are obviously a sick psychopath and need professional help, bro. Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: Djehuti
I really don't trust some of these 'studies'. The amount of claimed 'Eurasian' admixture in the Fulani people seems a little high. I'm referring to the genetic studies on the Sudanese Fula.
Was this study done on autosomes? I don't know if you realize this but Sudanese Fula as well as various other groups in the Horn carry hg T in the Y-chromosome. Many use this as proof of Eurasian admixture but there are West Africans who carry R, and some Somalis who carry hg K. So clearly this is evidence of "Eurasian" input, but my question is were these Eurasians actually different from Africans??
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ LMAO You keep accusing me of being "racist" yet you NEVER are able to prove it! In fact YOU are the idiot as you say you trust science yet Lioness cites a scientific study claiming Eurasian admixture throughout much of Sub-Saharan Africa!!
I simply disagree with their findings and suggest the opposite of what they say yet you accuse me of saying the opposite!! You are obviously a sick psychopath and need professional help, bro.
No matter, I still trust science more than you. You're obviously a white idiot claiming to be East Asian. Pathetic.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Indeed. That's why I just laugh at Lioness when she presents studies like the one in the OP. It's just more white-wash hogwash. This reminds me how when past geneticists tried to claim YAP as 'Eurasian' thus all DE derived clades including hg E is not really African but Eurasian and thus viola, the vast majority of Sub-Saharans are Eurasian-mixed!
As I said, many of these experts don't even know what the exact dividing line between African and Eurasian even is!
Yes, I hear this often coming from eurocentrics. Had they get really hateful in their ways too. Phoenician7 has video like that, all the cohorts except it like drones. I then show them different and they get more upset. Is if it should matter anyway.
This whole Eurasian vs Africa is getting out of controls, and has nothing to do with science, it has more to do with an agenda then anything else. And that agenda started decades ago perhaps centuries, at Egypt is from Caucasoid, Egypt is Eurasian. Everything in these social sciences is based on that philosophy.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: Djehuti
I really don't trust some of these 'studies'. The amount of claimed 'Eurasian' admixture in the Fulani people seems a little high. I'm referring to the genetic studies on the Sudanese Fula.
I consign. As Doug M stated, also modern scientists can be racist (prejudice). And he is right about that. I have encountered quite a few on line racists who claimed to have some sort of academic degree.
An old human genome project by Spencer Wells, showed that the Tubu are predominately "middle eastern from a genetic Piont of view". However, they themselves went back into Africa, Sahara. He said tens of tousands of years ago. And they look mostly like the stereotype sub-Sahara African.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: Djehuti
I really don't trust some of these 'studies'. The amount of claimed 'Eurasian' admixture in the Fulani people seems a little high. I'm referring to the genetic studies on the Sudanese Fula.
Was this study done on autosomes? I don't know if you realize this but Sudanese Fula as well as various other groups in the Horn carry hg T in the Y-chromosome. Many use this as proof of Eurasian admixture but there are West Africans who carry R, and some Somalis who carry hg K. So clearly this is evidence of "Eurasian" input, but my question is were these Eurasians actually different from Africans??
According to your logic, scientists can't be racist and or prejudice.
Fury at DNA pioneer's theory: Africans are less intelligent than
One of the world's most eminent scientists was embroiled in an extraordinary row last night after he claimed that black people were less intelligent than white people and the idea that "equal powers of reason" were shared across racial groups was a delusion.
James Watson, a Nobel Prize winner for his part in the unravelling of DNA who now runs one of America's leading scientific research institutions, drew widespread condemnation for comments he made ahead of his arrival in Britain today for a speaking tour at venues including the Science Museum in London.
The 79-year-old geneticist reopened the explosive debate about race and science in a newspaper interview in which he said Western policies towards African countries were wrongly based on an assumption that black people were as clever as their white counterparts when "testing" suggested the contrary. He claimed genes responsible for creating differences in human intelligence could be found within a decade.
The newly formed Equality and Human Rights Commission, successor to the Commission for Racial Equality, said it was studying Dr Watson's remarks "in full". Dr Watson told The Sunday Times that he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really". He said there was a natural desire that all human beings should be equal but "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true".
His views are also reflected in a book published next week, in which he writes: "There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so."
The furore echoes the controversy created in the 1990s by The Bell Curve, a book co-authored by the American political scientist Charles Murray, which suggested differences in IQ were genetic and discussed the implications of a racial divide in intelligence. The work was heavily criticised across the world, in particular by leading scientists who described it as a work of "scientific racism".
Dr Watson arrives in Britain today for a speaking tour to publicise his latest book, Avoid Boring People: Lessons from a Life in Science. Among his first engagements is a speech to an audience at the Science Museum organised by the Dana Centre, which held a discussion last night on the history of scientific racism.
Critics of Dr Watson said there should be a robust response to his views across the spheres of politics and science. Keith Vaz, the Labour chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, said: "It is sad to see a scientist of such achievement making such baseless, unscientific and extremely offensive comments. I am sure the scientific community will roundly reject what appear to be Dr Watson's personal prejudices.
"These comments serve as a reminder of the attitudes which can still exists at the highest professional levels."
The American scientist earned a place in the history of great scientific breakthroughs of the 20th century when he worked at the University of Cambridge in the 1950s and 1960s and formed part of the team which discovered the structure of DNA. He shared the 1962 Nobel Prize for medicine with his British colleague Francis Crick and New Zealand-born Maurice Wilkins.
But despite serving for 50 years as a director of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory on Long Island, considered a world leader in research into cancer and genetics, Dr Watson has frequently courted controversy with some of his views on politics, sexuality and race. The respected journal Science wrote in 1990: "To many in the scientific community, Watson has long been something of a wild man, and his colleagues tend to hold their collective breath whenever he veers from the script."
In 1997, he told a British newspaper that a woman should have the right to abort her unborn child if tests could determine it would be homosexual. He later insisted he was talking about a "hypothetical" choice which could never be applied. He has also suggested a link between skin colour and sex drive, positing the theory that black people have higher libidos, and argued in favour of genetic screening and engineering on the basis that "stupidity" could one day be cured. He has claimed that beauty could be genetically manufactured, saying: "People say it would be terrible if we made all girls pretty. I think it would great."
The Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory said yesterday that Dr Watson could not be contacted to comment on his remarks.
Steven Rose, a professor of biological sciences at the Open University and a founder member of the Society for Social Responsibility in Science, said: "This is Watson at his most scandalous. He has said similar things about women before but I have never heard him get into this racist terrain. If he knew the literature in the subject he would know he was out of his depth scientifically, quite apart from socially and politically."
Anti-racism campaigners called for Dr Watson's remarks to be looked at in the context of racial hatred laws. A spokesman for the 1990 Trust, a black human rights group, said: "It is astonishing that a man of such distinction should make comments that seem to perpetuate racism in this way. It amounts to fuelling bigotry and we would like it to be looked at for grounds of legal complaint."
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: I prefer to trust science than a racist idiot like Djehuti.
Racists on this website are just mad because those latest researches show us that Eurasian admixtures in the Northeast African region, including Ancient Egypt, was absent or rare before 3000 years ago. and thus rare or absent during the foundation of Ancient Egypt around 6000 years ago. Confirming yet again, Ancient Egyptians to be indigenous Africans. Biologically, historically and culturally Africans.
Are you kidding? Ask lioness to provide you the opposite.
What they claim is that when you marry an Igbo, your offspring then will be Eurasian mixed, due to back migration.
For the record, you claim to be a "pure" African.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: Djehuti
I really don't trust some of these 'studies'. The amount of claimed 'Eurasian' admixture in the Fulani people seems a little high. I'm referring to the genetic studies on the Sudanese Fula.
Was this study done on autosomes? I don't know if you realize this but Sudanese Fula as well as various other groups in the Horn carry hg T in the Y-chromosome. Many use this as proof of Eurasian admixture but there are West Africans who carry R, and some Somalis who carry hg K. So clearly this is evidence of "Eurasian" input, but my question is were these Eurasians actually different from Africans??
Years ago I saw this documentary, in it was the advisor of the Royal house of Saudi. He stated that all over the Red Sea the same people were living on both sides of the sea. This was long before I knew anything about what Dana was saying. We know what Al Jahiz stated on the population at that region.
Head of a Syrian KhM 3896a TILE; RAMESSES III/USERMAATRE-MERIAMUN
I really don't trust some of these 'studies'. The amount of claimed 'Eurasian' admixture in the Fulani people seems a little high. I'm referring to the genetic studies on the Sudanese Fula.
Was this study done on autosomes? I don't know if you realize this but Sudanese Fula as well as various other groups in the Horn carry hg T in the Y-chromosome. Many use this as proof of Eurasian admixture but there are West Africans who carry R, and some Somalis who carry hg K. So clearly this is evidence of "Eurasian" input, but my question is were these Eurasians actually different from Africans??
According to your logic, scientists can't be racist and or prejudice.
Fury at DNA pioneer's theory: Africans are less intelligent than
One of the world's most eminent scientists was embroiled in an extraordinary row last night after he claimed that black people were less intelligent than white people and the idea that "equal powers of reason" were shared across racial groups was a delusion.
James Watson, a Nobel Prize winner for his part in the unravelling of DNA who now runs one of America's leading scientific research institutions, drew widespread condemnation for comments he made ahead of his arrival in Britain today for a speaking tour at venues including the Science Museum in London.
The 79-year-old geneticist reopened the explosive debate about race and science in a newspaper interview in which he said Western policies towards African countries were wrongly based on an assumption that black people were as clever as their white counterparts when "testing" suggested the contrary. He claimed genes responsible for creating differences in human intelligence could be found within a decade.
The newly formed Equality and Human Rights Commission, successor to the Commission for Racial Equality, said it was studying Dr Watson's remarks "in full". Dr Watson told The Sunday Times that he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really". He said there was a natural desire that all human beings should be equal but "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true".
His views are also reflected in a book published next week, in which he writes: "There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so."
The furore echoes the controversy created in the 1990s by The Bell Curve, a book co-authored by the American political scientist Charles Murray, which suggested differences in IQ were genetic and discussed the implications of a racial divide in intelligence. The work was heavily criticised across the world, in particular by leading scientists who described it as a work of "scientific racism".
Dr Watson arrives in Britain today for a speaking tour to publicise his latest book, Avoid Boring People: Lessons from a Life in Science. Among his first engagements is a speech to an audience at the Science Museum organised by the Dana Centre, which held a discussion last night on the history of scientific racism.
Critics of Dr Watson said there should be a robust response to his views across the spheres of politics and science. Keith Vaz, the Labour chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, said: "It is sad to see a scientist of such achievement making such baseless, unscientific and extremely offensive comments. I am sure the scientific community will roundly reject what appear to be Dr Watson's personal prejudices.
"These comments serve as a reminder of the attitudes which can still exists at the highest professional levels."
The American scientist earned a place in the history of great scientific breakthroughs of the 20th century when he worked at the University of Cambridge in the 1950s and 1960s and formed part of the team which discovered the structure of DNA. He shared the 1962 Nobel Prize for medicine with his British colleague Francis Crick and New Zealand-born Maurice Wilkins.
But despite serving for 50 years as a director of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory on Long Island, considered a world leader in research into cancer and genetics, Dr Watson has frequently courted controversy with some of his views on politics, sexuality and race. The respected journal Science wrote in 1990: "To many in the scientific community, Watson has long been something of a wild man, and his colleagues tend to hold their collective breath whenever he veers from the script."
In 1997, he told a British newspaper that a woman should have the right to abort her unborn child if tests could determine it would be homosexual. He later insisted he was talking about a "hypothetical" choice which could never be applied. He has also suggested a link between skin colour and sex drive, positing the theory that black people have higher libidos, and argued in favour of genetic screening and engineering on the basis that "stupidity" could one day be cured. He has claimed that beauty could be genetically manufactured, saying: "People say it would be terrible if we made all girls pretty. I think it would great."
The Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory said yesterday that Dr Watson could not be contacted to comment on his remarks.
Steven Rose, a professor of biological sciences at the Open University and a founder member of the Society for Social Responsibility in Science, said: "This is Watson at his most scandalous. He has said similar things about women before but I have never heard him get into this racist terrain. If he knew the literature in the subject he would know he was out of his depth scientifically, quite apart from socially and politically."
Anti-racism campaigners called for Dr Watson's remarks to be looked at in the context of racial hatred laws. A spokesman for the 1990 Trust, a black human rights group, said: "It is astonishing that a man of such distinction should make comments that seem to perpetuate racism in this way. It amounts to fuelling bigotry and we would like it to be looked at for grounds of legal complaint."
I never said scientists can't be racist or prejudice!! Of course they can! They are humans prone human weakness also. In fact, where do you think scientific racism came from?? Perhaps you need to tell this to Ahamanuttheultimate who keeps talking about trusting science as if science is without flaw. All science is based on human endeavor.
About my response to Sudaniya, Y-chromosome hg T is found throughout western Eurasia both in Europe and the Middle East at low frequencies but it seems to have it's highest occurrence in Eritrea and the Horn. It's second highest occurrence is in eastern India. Now that I think about it, I believe hg T's occurrence in Africa does overlap with areas where the so-called 'Eurasian' autosomal alleles occur both in Central Africa and Southern Africa. However, as you pointed out the 'Eurasian' Mota is a carrier of E1b1. This is why I asked Sudaniya what the study on Sudanese Fula is based on.
Posted by Nodnarb (Member # 3735) on :
^ Mota does not have any significant Eurasian ancestry though (as measured by a lack of Neanderthal ancestry). The claim is that he represents people in NE Africa BEFORE a big Eurasian incoming ~3,000. So no, there's no need to call him "Eurasian" even sarcastically.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Years ago I saw this documentary, in it was the advisor of the Royal house of Saudi. He stated that all over the Red Sea the same people were living on both sides of the sea. This was long before I knew anything about what Dana was saying. We know what Al Jahiz stated on the population at that region.
Head of a Syrian KhM 3896a TILE; RAMESSES III/USERMAATRE-MERIAMUN
The funny thing is that the above figures you posted are individuals from the Levant, NORTH of Arabia and the Red Sea. Since Arabia is in the same latitude as both Egypt and Sudan, it is no surprise that the indigenous peoples of the region were indeed black and still are today though to a lesser extent.
I myself have been gathering sources for the past couple of years on the population history of Arabia which I plan to discuss in the future. In the mean time I suggest you also contact Dana's friend Tariq Beri on this issue as well. While I don't agree with everything he says, his blog 'Save the True Arabs' does have a lot of interesting information on description of Arab tribes and individuals and he even has a lot of TV footage from Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and other Gulf Arab states showing black natives. Tariq has even explained that the Arab media is no different from that of Indian media where the movie and TV stars are usually fair-skinned 'Caucasian' looking but when you see footage of rural areas of Arabia there is a stark contrast of how the natives really look.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
@Djehuti Don't be stupid, this is a scientific forum. What do you use to base your opinion on if not science? Only white racist like you base their opinion on nothing and prejudice instead.
For population genetics, I always analyze the Data myself instead of leaning on the studies authors interpretation of them (which are sometimes great sometime erroneous as any theory). For example, it's easy to see the proportion of African-Eurasian admixtures in each populations using the Admixture software at k=2. Other things like sample representativity must also be checked out and we must remember those are only estimates which varies (usually slightly) from one study to another.
The Aamu/Hyksos/West Asians were painted white by Ancient Egyptians themselves. They were considered different people called Aamu.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: Djehuti
I really don't trust some of these 'studies'. The amount of claimed 'Eurasian' admixture in the Fulani people seems a little high. I'm referring to the genetic studies on the Sudanese Fula.
Was this study done on autosomes? I don't know if you realize this but Sudanese Fula as well as various other groups in the Horn carry hg T in the Y-chromosome. Many use this as proof of Eurasian admixture but there are West Africans who carry R, and some Somalis who carry hg K. So clearly this is evidence of "Eurasian" input, but my question is were these Eurasians actually different from Africans??
According to your logic, scientists can't be racist and or prejudice.
Fury at DNA pioneer's theory: Africans are less intelligent than
One of the world's most eminent scientists was embroiled in an extraordinary row last night after he claimed that black people were less intelligent than white people and the idea that "equal powers of reason" were shared across racial groups was a delusion.
James Watson, a Nobel Prize winner for his part in the unravelling of DNA who now runs one of America's leading scientific research institutions, drew widespread condemnation for comments he made ahead of his arrival in Britain today for a speaking tour at venues including the Science Museum in London.
The 79-year-old geneticist reopened the explosive debate about race and science in a newspaper interview in which he said Western policies towards African countries were wrongly based on an assumption that black people were as clever as their white counterparts when "testing" suggested the contrary. He claimed genes responsible for creating differences in human intelligence could be found within a decade.
The newly formed Equality and Human Rights Commission, successor to the Commission for Racial Equality, said it was studying Dr Watson's remarks "in full". Dr Watson told The Sunday Times that he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really". He said there was a natural desire that all human beings should be equal but "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true".
His views are also reflected in a book published next week, in which he writes: "There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so."
The furore echoes the controversy created in the 1990s by The Bell Curve, a book co-authored by the American political scientist Charles Murray, which suggested differences in IQ were genetic and discussed the implications of a racial divide in intelligence. The work was heavily criticised across the world, in particular by leading scientists who described it as a work of "scientific racism".
Dr Watson arrives in Britain today for a speaking tour to publicise his latest book, Avoid Boring People: Lessons from a Life in Science. Among his first engagements is a speech to an audience at the Science Museum organised by the Dana Centre, which held a discussion last night on the history of scientific racism.
Critics of Dr Watson said there should be a robust response to his views across the spheres of politics and science. Keith Vaz, the Labour chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, said: "It is sad to see a scientist of such achievement making such baseless, unscientific and extremely offensive comments. I am sure the scientific community will roundly reject what appear to be Dr Watson's personal prejudices.
"These comments serve as a reminder of the attitudes which can still exists at the highest professional levels."
The American scientist earned a place in the history of great scientific breakthroughs of the 20th century when he worked at the University of Cambridge in the 1950s and 1960s and formed part of the team which discovered the structure of DNA. He shared the 1962 Nobel Prize for medicine with his British colleague Francis Crick and New Zealand-born Maurice Wilkins.
But despite serving for 50 years as a director of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory on Long Island, considered a world leader in research into cancer and genetics, Dr Watson has frequently courted controversy with some of his views on politics, sexuality and race. The respected journal Science wrote in 1990: "To many in the scientific community, Watson has long been something of a wild man, and his colleagues tend to hold their collective breath whenever he veers from the script."
In 1997, he told a British newspaper that a woman should have the right to abort her unborn child if tests could determine it would be homosexual. He later insisted he was talking about a "hypothetical" choice which could never be applied. He has also suggested a link between skin colour and sex drive, positing the theory that black people have higher libidos, and argued in favour of genetic screening and engineering on the basis that "stupidity" could one day be cured. He has claimed that beauty could be genetically manufactured, saying: "People say it would be terrible if we made all girls pretty. I think it would great."
The Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory said yesterday that Dr Watson could not be contacted to comment on his remarks.
Steven Rose, a professor of biological sciences at the Open University and a founder member of the Society for Social Responsibility in Science, said: "This is Watson at his most scandalous. He has said similar things about women before but I have never heard him get into this racist terrain. If he knew the literature in the subject he would know he was out of his depth scientifically, quite apart from socially and politically."
Anti-racism campaigners called for Dr Watson's remarks to be looked at in the context of racial hatred laws. A spokesman for the 1990 Trust, a black human rights group, said: "It is astonishing that a man of such distinction should make comments that seem to perpetuate racism in this way. It amounts to fuelling bigotry and we would like it to be looked at for grounds of legal complaint."
I never said scientists can't be racist or prejudice!! Of course they can! They are humans prone human weakness also. In fact, where do you think scientific racism came from?? Perhaps you need to tell this to Ahamanuttheultimate who keeps talking about trusting science as if science is without flaw. All science is based on human endeavor.
About my response to Sudaniya, Y-chromosome hg T is found throughout western Eurasia both in Europe and the Middle East at low frequencies but it seems to have it's highest occurrence in Eritrea and the Horn. It's second highest occurrence is in eastern India. Now that I think about it, I believe hg T's occurrence in Africa does overlap with areas where the so-called 'Eurasian' autosomal alleles occur both in Central Africa and Southern Africa. However, as you pointed out the 'Eurasian' Mota is a carrier of E1b1. This is why I asked Sudaniya what the study on Sudanese Fula is based on.
I had your screen name mixed up, with someone else's.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Years ago I saw this documentary, in it was the advisor of the Royal house of Saudi. He stated that all over the Red Sea the same people were living on both sides of the sea. This was long before I knew anything about what Dana was saying. We know what Al Jahiz stated on the population at that region.
Head of a Syrian KhM 3896a TILE; RAMESSES III/USERMAATRE-MERIAMUN
The funny thing is that the above figures you posted are individuals from the Levant, NORTH of Arabia and the Red Sea. Since Arabia is in the same latitude as both Egypt and Sudan, it is no surprise that the indigenous peoples of the region were indeed black and still are today though to a lesser extent.
I myself have been gathering sources for the past couple of years on the population history of Arabia which I plan to discuss in the future. In the mean time I suggest you also contact Dana's friend Tariq Beri on this issue as well. While I don't agree with everything he says, his blog 'Save the True Arabs' does have a lot of interesting information on description of Arab tribes and individuals and he even has a lot of TV footage from Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and other Gulf Arab states showing black natives. Tariq has even explained that the Arab media is no different from that of Indian media where the movie and TV stars are usually fair-skinned 'Caucasian' looking but when you see footage of rural areas of Arabia there is a stark contrast of how the natives really look.
Dana Marniche on the Ethnohistory of the Moors Berbers and true Arabians
About ten years or so ago, there was this tv-special on a Saudi Prince and his 18 female assistance. They also showed rural places. These people all could "pass" for blacks in various degrees. Even most of the assistance. The whole (Eurasian) non-African vs Africa thing is a game.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: @Djehuti Don't be stupid, this is a scientific forum. What do you use to base your opinion on if not science? Only white racist like you base their opinion on nothing and prejudice instead.
For population genetics, I always analyze the Data myself instead of leaning on the studies authors interpretation of them (which are sometimes great sometime erroneous as any theory). For example, it's easy to see the proportion of African-Eurasian admixtures in each populations using the Admixture software at k=2. Other things like sample representativity must also be checked out and we must remember those are only estimates which varies (usually slightly) from one study to another.
The Aamu/Hyksos/West Asians were painted white by Ancient Egyptians themselves. They were considered different people called Aamu.
This depiction of a Hyksos has been circling around, ...
The top row, is considered Hyksos.
? Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
A Syrian mercenary drinking beer in the company of his Egyptian wife and child, c. 1350 BC. Photograph: Bettmann/Corbis
"A mid 2nd Millennium BCE painted limestone stele showing a Syrian mercenary drinking beer. The mercenary;s name is Terura and his wife's name is Arbura. His facial features and dress clearly identify him as a Syrian. While his wife is also Syrian, she wears the traditional Egyptian attire and wig. Terura drinks wine (less probably beer) through a long curved lead tube from an amphora. The long lance behind him and the dagger in his belt suggest that he is a soldier; Syrian mercenaries were incorporated in large number in the Egyptian army during the New Kingdom.
The scene reflects a festive event and that the stele was placed in a house rather than inside a tomb. Probably from Amarna, Egypt. New Kingdom, 18th Dynasty, reign of Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten), 1351-1334 BCE. It is on display at the Neues Museum, Berlin, Germany." https://www.ancient.eu/image/11155/egyptian-stele-of-a-syrian-mercenary/ Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by kdolo: Negroes......nothing but Negroes....
This was the ideal and most common way to depict Northeast African (Egyptian) females throughout all dynasties. So, we can consider that they took this as the standard of beauty. What do you think?
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
