quote:

---

Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
Look at Horners for example, we know that as far as recent history there was no mass settlement of the Horn by a group of Eurasians

---

On the contrary EVERYTHING points to mass settlement of the horn by Eurasians.

1- Logically: Neighboring people always mix to each others at various degrees. The Horn of Africa (and coastal North Africa) just happenned to be right beside Eurasia. So logically admixture will happens in both directions.

2- Genetically: Autosomally they have a lot of Eurasian admixture at K=2 (between 1%-60% depending on the ethnic group). In term of haplogroup they also have a lot of Eurasian admixture (F descendant haplogroups, M/N descendants haplogroups).

2- Linguistically: Many Horn populations speak a Semitic language. Those who don't probably still have admixed with them at various degrees.

3- Culturally: Many Horn populations practice Christianity and Islam. Imports from Eurasia.



Eurasian admixtures are dated to around 3000 years ago. This is well after the foundation of Ancient Egypt. 3000-2015 = 985BC. So around 1000 BC. Related to the Semitic (called ethio-semitic) migrations. So while Ancient Egyptians were according to current genetic and archaeological results truly indigenous Africans in every way (for the most part). Modern Egypt and the Horn of Africa received a lot of Eurasian people afterward (migrations, conquests, etc) in recent times.
 

---

Posted by .Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:

quote:

---

Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
Look at Horners for example, we know that as far as recent history there was no mass settlement of the Horn by a group of Eurasians

---

On the contrary EVERYTHING points to mass settlement of the horn by Eurasians.

1- Logically: Neighboring people always mix to each others at various degrees. The Horn of Africa (and coastal North Africa) just happenned to be right beside Eurasia. So logically admixture will happens in both directions.

2- Genetically: Autosomally they have a lot of Eurasian admixture at K=2 (between 1%-60% depending on the ethnic group). In term of haplogroup they also have a lot of Eurasian admixture (F descendant haplogroups, M/N descendants haplogroups).

2- Linguistically: Many Horn populations speak a Semitic language. Those who don't probably still have admixed with them.

3- Culturally: Many Horn populations practice Christianity and Islam.



Eurasian admixtures are dated to around 3000 years ago. This is well after the foundation of Ancient Egypt. 3000-2015 = 985BC. So around 1000 BC. Related to the Semitic (called ethio-semitic) migrations. So while Ancient Egyptians were according to current genetic and archaeological results truly indigenous Africans in every way (for the most part). Modern Egypt and the Horn of Africa received a lot of Eurasian people afterward (migrations, conquests, etc) in recent times.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
What's with the obsession with the Horn anyway? Are you not African-American? If you are most of your ancestry is from West Africa (from Senegal to Angola). Modern West Africans came in large part from East Africa (maybe around Sudan/Ethiopia) but that was a long time ago. E-P2 West African populations probably left East Africa somewhere before 10 000 years ago.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
Amun, there is no proof of mass settler colonisation of the Horn by Eurasians, plus all of those studies tend to focus on Afro-Asiatic Horners, predominately Semitic speakers, yet


you see similar levels of "Eurasian" mixture in Cushitic speakers

and they don't even give proper consideration to Nilo-Saharan speakers in the Horn.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
I know I've been MIA off and on, but I want to get back to the old ways of things like it was 12 years ago when I joined this forum, so let's talk about genetics.


I've observing, mostly these bloggers who download software, analysing data from genetic studies as well as raw data of individuals. I can't help but notice how too much stock is put into these software runs, in fact I think they are overstated. The clusters they come up with to me make sense at times, especially when it can be coroborrated with archeology and known historical events like the trans-Atlantic slave trade, and at other times they seem useless when assessing what happened in the ancient, prehistoric times.


In essence, what were the sub-Saharans of 30000, 20000, 10000, even 8000 years ago, genetically speaking? We know the genetics of MODERN sub-Saharans to a better degree, but how reliable is that data in interpreting, explaining, and answering questions about the African past? The same with so called "Eurasians," what were they like genetically? I find myself skeptical in believing that autosomal genetic data of today can explain the past, the distant past, at best all you have are crude approximations. Look at Horners for example, we know that as far as recent history there was no mass settlement of the Horn by a group of Eurasians, even if you go back further than that there are NO proof of it. There was trade contacts, things of that nature, thats all we see. Yet in some studies its proposed they show upwards of +50% "Eurasian" ancestry. Some say the admixture happened 10,000 or 20,000 years ago, ok, can we corroborate this with archeology or some kind of proof of population movement? Also, what was teh genetics of these Eurasians 10,000-20,000 years ago? Were they more African influenced-shifted genetically at that time?

Thoughts?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:

quote:

---

Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
Look at Horners for example, we know that as far as recent history there was no mass settlement of the Horn by a group of Eurasians

---

On the contrary EVERYTHING points to mass settlement of the horn by Eurasians.

1- Logically: Neighboring people always mix to each others at various degrees. The Horn of Africa (and coastal North Africa) just happenned to be right beside Eurasia. So logically admixture will happens in both directions.

2- Genetically: Autosomally they have a lot of Eurasian admixture at K=2 (between 1%-60% depending on the ethnic group). In term of haplogroup they also have a lot of Eurasian admixture (F descendant haplogroups, M/N descendants haplogroups).

2- Linguistically: Many Horn populations speak a Semitic language. Those who don't probably still have admixed with them.

3- Culturally: Many Horn populations practice Christianity and Islam.



Eurasian admixtures are dated to around 3000 years ago. This is well after the foundation of Ancient Egypt. 3000-2015 = 985BC. So around 1000 BC. Related to the Semitic (called ethio-semitic) migrations. So while Ancient Egyptians were according to current genetic and archaeological results truly indigenous Africans in every way (for the most part). Modern Egypt and the Horn of Africa received a lot of Eurasian people afterward (migrations, conquests, etc) in recent times.

---

Amun, there is no proof of mass settler colonisation of the Horn by Eurasians, plus all of those studies tend to focus on Afro-Asiatic Horners, predominately Semitic speakers, yet you see similar levels of "Eurasian" mixture in Cushitic speakers and they don't even give proper consideration to Nilo-Saharan speakers in the Horn.

---

quote:

---

Khoisan hunter-gatherers have been the largest population throughout most of modern-human demographic history

The Khoisan people from Southern Africa maintained ancient lifestyles as hunter-gatherers or pastoralists up to modern times, though little else is known about their early history. Here we infer early demographic histories of modern humans using whole-genome sequences of five Khoisan individuals and one Bantu speaker. Comparison with a 420 K SNP data set from worldwide individuals demonstrates that two of the Khoisan genomes from the Ju/’hoansi population contain exclusive Khoisan ancestry. Coalescent analysis shows that the Khoisan and their ancestors have been the largest populations since their split with the non-Khoisan population ~100–150 kyr ago. In contrast, the ancestors of the non-Khoisan groups, including Bantu-speakers and non-Africans, experienced population declines after the split and lost more than half of their genetic diversity. Paleoclimate records indicate that the precipitation in southern Africa increased ~80–100 kyr ago while west-central Africa became drier. We hypothesize that these climate differences might be related to the divergent-ancient histories among human populations.

[...]

Yet Khoisan populations have maintained the greatest nuclear-genetic diversity among all human populations3, 4, 5 and the most ancient Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA lineages 6, 7, implying relatively larger effective population sizes for ancestral Khoisan populations.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
What's with the obsession with the Horn anyway? Are you not African-American? If you are most of your ancestry is from West Africa (from Senegal to Angola). Modern West Africans came in large part from East Africa (maybe around Sudan/Ethiopia) but that was a long time ago. E-P2 West African populations probably left East Africa somewhere before 10 000 years ago.

---

Actually some of my ancestry is authentically East African, lol. But this is not really about the Horn, its about the reliability of these programs like STRUCTURE and ADMIXTURE and other similar software and the results they spit out relative to samples used along with time frame consideration.

---

quote:

---

Genetic genealogy is more within reach of the average person than ever, thanks to advances in sequencing technology that have helped the cost of genome sequencing dramatically plummet from nearly $3 billion in 2000 to near $1,000 nowadays. That sort of price reduction is mind-boggling, Ball said. “It’s as if, 15 years from now, I could get my own Mars rover.”

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
I know I've been MIA off and on, but I want to get back to the old ways of things like it was 12 years ago when I joined this forum, so let's talk about genetics.


I've observing, mostly these bloggers who download software, analysing data from genetic studies as well as raw data of individuals. I can't help but notice how too much stock is put into these software runs, in fact I think they are overstated. The clusters they come up with to me make sense at times, especially when it can be coroborrated with archeology and known historical events like the trans-Atlantic slave trade, and at other times they seem useless when assessing what happened in the ancient, prehistoric times.


In essence, what were the sub-Saharans of 30000, 20000, 10000, even 8000 years ago, genetically speaking? We know the genetics of MODERN sub-Saharans to a better degree, but how reliable is that data in interpreting, explaining, and answering questions about the African past? The same with so called "Eurasians," what were they like genetically? I find myself skeptical in believing that autosomal genetic data of today can explain the past, the distant past, at best all you have are crude approximations. Look at Horners for example, we know that as far as recent history there was no mass settlement of the Horn by a group of Eurasians, even if you go back further than that there are NO proof of it. There was trade contacts, things of that nature, thats all we see. Yet in some studies its proposed they show upwards of +50% "Eurasian" ancestry. Some say the admixture happened 10,000 or 20,000 years ago, ok, can we corroborate this with archeology or some kind of proof of population movement? Also, what was teh genetics of these Eurasians 10,000-20,000 years ago? Were they more African influenced-shifted genetically at that time?

Thoughts?

---

The above is in part the old "back-migration" thing so often thrown
about in ES over the years. Some points to consider:


1) Indeed there would be no mass settler colonization in
the sense of mass waves displacing and replacing
the indigenous folk. But there would be substantial
movement in SOME historic times, such as via the
Arab incursions, or the movement from Yemen to the
Horn historically. Amun -Ra would be right on this
score re 3000kya to more recent times.


2) Whatever "backmigration"or "backflow" in play,
the people involved would still look like indigenous Africans.




3) "Back-flow" or "back migration" does not automatically
mean "Eurasian." This is a LABEL Eurocentrics put on
it, but ancient tribes circa 30-40kya crossing over
the Red Sea or thru Sinai and returning a few centuries
later in the course of their wanderings- whether it
be nomads, fisherfolk, people moving because of climate
change etc, do not automatically become "Eurasian"
because they wander back into Africa a few centuries
or even millennia later. See #2 above, and Keita below.




4) A lot of the DNA studies advance crude approximations
and guesstimates, but they have a scientific veneer
because of the DNA statistics involved. Many are
informed guesses.


5) The claim of massive "Eurasian" movement is in part
a product of manipulated and skewed sampling. Thus for
example studies that undersample the Oromo downplay
some common DNA elements represented in many African peoples.
Y0u could create a "Eurasian" heavy picture by running this game.






6) One question to ask those who seem to push the
"Eurasian race mix" theme is if they are likewise
willing to accept then that white Greeks ar themselves
a "race mix" for said Greeks have substantial levels
of African DNA. How come the Ethiopians are "mixed"
but not your precious white Greeks? WHy the double standard?





^^african haplogroup e- europe greeks - how come Ethiopians are "mixed" but not white Greeks?

XYZ says:
Point being if the genetic study (using ancient skeletal material) does NOT
match what is “written” in the history books. One of the two is incorrect. Most likely, what is “documented”, is a lie.

7) Not necessarily, and in holding this you may fall into the
trap of relying on DNA guesstimates without parallel
corroboration, guesses which can change from month to month.
Point 7 would also be in relation with what XYZ
says. DNA should be correlated with OTHER evidence
including skeletal and cultural. If not, then what
you have are many guesstimates and estimations,
some of which are all over the place. Keep in mind
that Keita himself recommends a BALANCED PACKAGE
of data- DNA, skeletal, cranial, dental, cultural,
etc. If there are wide discrepancies something is
wrong.

This is why some people in the "Biodiversity" forums
who rush out waving the latest DNA are often on shaky
ground when they come up with these sweeping claims
about the Nile Valley or Africans. Their bold claims
often fall flat when measured against a package of
corroborating data.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bass I think you ought to lay out the various studies
where people are claiming all this mass movement.
What are they? Put the on the table, as well as assorted
claims, up for examination.
 

---

Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
What's with the obsession with the Horn anyway? Are you not African-American? If you are most of your ancestry is from West Africa (from Senegal to Angola). Modern West Africans came in large part from East Africa (maybe around Sudan/Ethiopia) but that was a long time ago. E-P2 West African populations probably left East Africa somewhere before 10 000 years ago.

---

Bass does not have any "obsession" about things.
Don't fall into the Eurocentric trap of trying to dice up
Africa into cultural "apartheid" zones that African- Americans
aren't "supposed" to study or comment on. This is the hypocritical
game Lefkowitz and others have been playing for years.
How come white British of cold northern Europe can
embrace "the glory that was Greece" and "the grandeur
that was Rome", but black Americans supposed to remain
silent from studying and discussing the Nile Valley
or the Horn? How come white Americans get to talk
abut Greek heritage and use Greek symbols and motifs
throughout their cultures, but black Americans supposed
to remain muted on Africa?

I am NOT, repeat NOT saying you PERSONALLY do this
far from it, but in your phrasing on such, keep in
mind that this is a frequent Eurocentric tactic to
"apartheid" off West Africans from the rest of Africa,
as if West Africans had no right to talk about, study
or discuss other parts, and should "confine" themselves
to "the West."

Diop spoke of the Nile Basin as a geographic basis
for culturally linking many areas of Africa. the
Sahara offers another geographic basis- being a true
"Pan African" physical entity. Likewise the culture
of ancient Egypt has roots deep in so-called
"Black African" culture, and places like Kush
are in part as "sub-Saharan" as anything else.


Again, NOT saying you personally are running this
apartheid debate tactic just be aware of what the
opponents of a balanced African bio-history are doing.
It's like the "sub-Saharan" labeling game they keep running.



NILE RIVER BASIN - taking in a good slice of Africa



KUSH - a SUB-SAHARAN ENTITY

 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Sidetracked. I know. Information overload.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
I know I've been MIA off and on, but I want to get back to the old ways of things like it was 12 years ago when I joined this forum, so let's talk about genetics.


I've observing, mostly these bloggers who download software, analysing data from genetic studies as well as raw data of individuals. I can't help but notice how too much stock is put into these software runs, in fact I think they are overstated. The clusters they come up with to me make sense at times, especially when it can be coroborrated with archeology and known historical events like the trans-Atlantic slave trade, and at other times they seem useless when assessing what happened in the ancient, prehistoric times.


In essence, what were the sub-Saharans of 30000, 20000, 10000, even 8000 years ago, genetically speaking? We know the genetics of MODERN sub-Saharans to a better degree, but how reliable is that data in interpreting, explaining, and answering questions about the African past? The same with so called "Eurasians," what were they like genetically? I find myself skeptical in believing that autosomal genetic data of today can explain the past, the distant past, at best all you have are crude approximations. Look at Horners for example, we know that as far as recent history there was no mass settlement of the Horn by a group of Eurasians, even if you go back further than that there are NO proof of it. There was trade contacts, things of that nature, thats all we see. Yet in some studies its proposed they show upwards of +50% "Eurasian" ancestry. Some say the admixture happened 10,000 or 20,000 years ago, ok, can we corroborate this with archeology or some kind of proof of population movement? Also, what was teh genetics of these Eurasians 10,000-20,000 years ago? Were they more African influenced-shifted genetically at that time?

Thoughts?

---

Exactly my question:

"ok, can we corroborate this with archeology or some kind of proof of population movement?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
If Bass wants deep discussion he needs to post the
studies in question that people are using to claim
this mass Eurasian movement. What studies? Who is
arguing thus? Break it down so it can be critiqued
in detail.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
[
Look at Horners for example, we know that as far as recent history there was no mass settlement of the Horn by a group of Eurasians, even if you go back further than that there are NO proof of it. There was trade contacts, things of that nature, thats all we see. Yet in some studies its proposed they show upwards of +50% "Eurasian" ancestry.

---

name the article
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 


They are getting in his head. They still don't get it. ADMIXTURE and how it works. There was never isolation of populations. Never! there is however "isolation by distance".

That is why Native American, Papaun, Indian, European "ancestry" show up in Tropical Africans.

Native Americans did not back-migrate to Central Africa. (tsk! tsk!).

Only a retard or racialist will believe that. Good God.! Move on man!
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
The man does not know 50% Eurasian ancestry is correct. It is 50% Eurasian ancestry by some estimates and depending on what SNPs are included in the study. It is labeled “Eurasian because of the “ascription” by the researcher( I like the word …ascription lol!). Europeans carry more of it. It does not mean Europeans or Eurasian ‘back-migrated’ to anywhere in Africa. The more important genetic signal does NOT support that theory. ie Haplogroups. Don’t you understand that? Trust me Tishkoff, Pagani, Henn etc all the major players know it.

Only the looney bloggers hold on to that belief. Not only AMRTU. If you read between the lines and understand the relevance of my citations you will get the message. But I am getting off track.


Carry on with the entertainment………..let me grab my popcorn


Oh! And we have moved on from 12years ago. Technology, knowledge and the debate have shifted. We know for a fact the AEians are indigenous Africans that carry SSA lineage. We know for a fact AEians had absolutely no connection to modern Europeans. Only a fool will continue to argue against that.

Move on! Have we become our parents?


==

Mike and EgMonde are debating Black Europeans. THAT! is an interesting discussion. It may be a little wacky but there is some interesting stuff in there.

The African presence in Europe.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:


They are getting in his head. They still don't get it. ADMIXTURE and how it works. There was never isolation of populations. Never! there is however "isolation by distance".

That is why Native American, Papaun, Indian, European "ancestry" show up in Tropical Africans.

Native Americans did not back-migrate to Central Africa. (tsk! tsk!).

Only a retard or racialist will believe that. Good God.! Move on man!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:


They are getting in his head. They still don't get it. ADMIXTURE and how it works. There was never isolation of populations. Never! there is however "isolation by distance".

That is why Native American, Papaun, Indian, European "ancestry" show up in Tropical Africans.

Native Americans did not back-migrate to Central Africa. (tsk! tsk!).

Only a retard or racialist will believe that. Good God.! Move on man!

---

The problem is that most people believe that there was only one OoA event and that there is only one Black population that originated in Africa. Although this is their opinion the fact remains that the skeletal evidence indicates that a variety of Black populations originated in Africa, existed there for a while in a mountainous area and then they migrated out of Africa into Eurasia and the Americas at specific times. Other populations originated in mountainous areas and replaced the Blacks living in the lowlands. After mating with the Blacks these other populations acquired haplogroups which they carry today--first carried by the Blacks.

Bass like most Blacks knows in his heart that what he has been taught by white scholars is a lie, thusly this thread. But, because he refuses to accept the fact that Afro-Americans , especially you and I, have any intelligence, he is waiting for some white person to tell him what we are saying so he can then accept what we teach as the truth.

LOL. As Egmond says the enemy of the black man is the black man. Most blacks are enemies of black scholars not recognized by whites, because they have an inferiority complex, that does not allow them to respect Blacks who think independently. Due to white supremacy even when some AAs like the posters here at Egyptsearch call themselves fighting whites, they still wait for whites to tell them what is right.

That is why I have not commented in detail on what Bass has requested. He has read our post about these issues in recent years but he refuses to accept our conclusions. Face it, many people here are brainwashed.You have to post info in the hope people with open minds will acknowledge it. I know there are many opened minded people out there look at the wealth of books published in recent years based our post we have made on the Ancient Egypt forum. This thread will soon end because there are no articles you can post for Bass to see where white researchers support what we have wrote.

.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:



I long ago questioned that study in 2007 that said U6 and M1 were Eurasian haplogroups that arrived 45,000 years ago with the Gravettian culture, so-called with no corresponding male Y chromosones still present in the same population. How likely is it that a bunch of females from two different haplogroups decided to migrate into Northest and Northeast Africa with no males and why?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:


We're talking about 45,000 years ago they proposed this, they can date haplogroups maternally to that time but have none in North African on the male side that old they ever dated, why?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:


Look at Horners for example, we know that as far as recent history there was no mass settlement of the Horn by a group of Eurasians, even if you go back further than that there are NO proof of it.

---

so now we're only supposed to look 45,000 years ago, thats the new goal
Again, this is a straw man thread unless the fill sentence article quotes making these claims are up
 

---

Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
 
BASS said:
I long ago questioned that study in 2007 that said U6 and M1 were Eurasian haplogroups that arrived 45,000 years ago with the Gravettian culture, so-called with no corresponding male Y chromosones still present in the same population. How likely is it that a bunch of females from two different haplogroups decided to migrate into Northest and Northeast Africa with no males and why? Why the attention on Afro-Asiatic speaking groups in the Horn and in Northeast Africa(mostly the Semitic and Cushitic speakers) and no attention on teh Nilo-Saharan and CHADIC speakers? The Nilo-Saharans hav more in common genetically with the Horners and Northeast Africans than the Afro-Asiatic Chadic speakers which is something these genetcists either ignore or never address.

Indeed. It is questionable. Even if the females were war captives there likely would have
been male captives as well, such as children or adults. Another thing that makes the claim
shaky, is that the Grevettian culture is marked by people with tropical skeletal affinities.
So if the people in Europe were tropical types around that time,
why would contemporaries in Africa be "Eurasians"
with LESS of such tropical affinities?

-------------------------------------------------------------------


-------------------------------------------------------------------

"Finally, all of the European early modern humans show some degree of tropical
linear body proportions, including the Mladec 27 femur as indicated by biomechanical
modeling of its diaphysical robusticity.. Given the stability of such body proportions
over extended periods of time, despite their ecogeographic variation among recent
human populations, they can be used for shedding light on what are essentially
populational processes. This is reinforced by the preservation of tropical cural indices
in high latitude Gravettian skeletons, including Paviland I and the very cold climate
Sunghir 1 and 2."
-- Trinkhaus E. Late Neanderthals and Early Modern Humans. 2011 in Condemni and
Weniger 2011. Continuity and Discontinuity in the Peopling of Europe.

"As with all the other limb/trunk indices, the recent Europeans evince lower indices,
reflective of shorter tibiae, and the recent sub-Saharan Africans have higher indices,
reflective of their long tibiae... The Dolno Vestonice and Pavlov humans.. have body
proportions similar to those of other Gravettian specimens. Specifically, they are
characterized by high bracial and cural indices, indicative of distal limb segment
elongation.."
--Trinkaus and Svoboda. 2005. Early Modern Human Evolution in Central Europe


-------------
They are trying to dismiss or downplay the "African types" in Europe. Having failed
to do it with the skeletal or cranial record, now they are trying to use DNA labeling
games to do the job- simply label away the "colored types" and reclassify them as
"Eurasian." As we saw with our data on Cro-Magnon the skeletal/cranial record
refuses to cooperate so they are running other games.

The nice thing about the physical record is that it represents
people and artifacts that were actually there, materially real,
and are not guesses or speculative DNA estimates based on
a particular author. Hence the importance of not relying
solely on DNA, but a balanced package of data. So it remains unclear
ho the ancient Eiros are tropical people, or at least showing
many such affinities, yet back in Africa, the point of origin for
Europe and Asia groups, we got different "Eurasian" types
floating in and out?

 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:


Indeed. It is questionable. Even if the females were war captives there likely would have
been male captives as well, such as children or adults.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charlie_Bass (the original not the impostor):
this is the same crackpot syndrome I see on Ta-Seti all the time where fools this haplogroup M is "black African". Clearly some people don't understand the process of phylogenetically mapping genes. On a phylogenetic map, E3b1 alpha would *NOT* be mapped to "black Africa", another erroneous construct name designed to separate Africans north and south.

---

quote:

---

I've shared some great information and had some good debates here, but I have to leave.

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=002754;p=1#000000

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charlie_Bass:
North Africans and Europeans carry E3b lineages, are they black also? Keita even says the PN2 clade shatters so-called distinct racial boundaries because the people who share in this clade look different in terms of morphological traits.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:

Why does he keep skipping these examples?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
Doesnt matter if it was the "real" Bass or not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
Doesnt matter if it was the "real" Bass or not. It was
a valid question, but when I asked for specifics as to who and what
little was forthcoming. And xyz noted how curiously behind
the times "bass" was. But doesn;t matter. The above
is simply another chance for good data to be posted- in turn
to be picked up by Google- in turn to bypass/end run the bogus "stealth"
moles on Wiki. And talk about so called "obsessions" with
the Nile Valley, as if folk should only "confine"
discussion to West Africa, while Europeans get to
discuss all and everything ought to be recognized for
the Eurocentric trap it is. And it gives another opportunity to
restate a key principle of studying African bio-history,
one Keita mentions in his Cambridge videos- the need for
a balanced package of evidence and multiple lines
of evidence corroborating and confirming each other,
not relying solely on DNA with its expansive guesstimates,
skewed sampling and occasional researcher bias- a problem
even Keita mentions in the scientific literature.


Djehuti says:
What's more is that Ahmanut keeps blabbing about PN2 being the be all end all, yet what are we to make of populations in West Africa who carry R clades that are presumably 'Eurasian' in origin??!! He NEVER talks about this and for obvious reasons. So are we to presume that West Africa, and in particular Cameroon was the site of "mass settlement by Eurasians" as well???

Why does he keep skipping these examples? And aren't some of the "R"
clades older in the African specimens than purported
Eurasian "ancestors" or "originators"? What's that
citation again where this is so?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:

quote:

---

Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:

Why does he keep skipping these examples?

---

It doesn't mean anything. I'm sure even Ancient Egyptians had some Eurasian lineages (like F and M, N) among their populations even at their foundation stage (so before the Hyksos/Aamu/Asian invasion), even if most of them would be African lineages (like Ramses III who was P2/E1b1a). In term of most Y-DNA, MtDNA and autosomally they would still be mostly black Africans (if we take into account the current ancient DNA results like BMJ, JAMA, DNA Tribes, Paabo). Said in another way, we must check all 3:

1) Y-DNA
2) Mt-DNA
3) Autosomal (STR/SNP)

To determine the ethnic affiliations and history of populations (or individuals).

But you Zarahan, know it, so I wonder why you lie to us again? On the reverse side, Einstein was also from the African haplogroup P2/PN2 (e1b1b). Was he African? nope. Because his mtDNA and autosomal DNA would say otherwise. So why the lying and the deception Zarahan? Because this is obvious and you still lie about it to people reading this forum.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:


^^So why have you not replied specifically to Djehuti's comments?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:

And why would you say people African Americans
who study/comment on the Nile Valley or the Horn
are "obsessed"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:

quote:

---

Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:

And why would you say people African Americans
who study/comment on the Nile Valley or the Horn
are "obsessed"?

---

Did I say that? Nope,so shut up please. That was between me and .Bass.. I said Basswith2periods was obsessed with Horners. I said it because you can see it in all his posts on this forum: African populations with (substantial) Eurasian admixtures is all he ever post about. If I was wrong, I'm sure he could have said the contrary himself but he couldn't and didn't (the idiot said he was partly horner, pure bullshit). I don't think this idiot needs you to come to rescue him.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:

What does being an African American have to do with it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:

The 3rd study not cited by Lioness did a high resolution analysis of R-V88 throughout Africa and concluded it was central Africans migrating outwards to North Africa and NOT the reverse .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
To the newbies who are interested and would like to know , all is posted on ESR.


Cruciani proposed R-V88 was back migration from Asia . The later study suggested it was Chadic speakers through the Sahara . The 3rd study not cited by Lioness did a high resolution analysis of R-V88 throughout Africa and concluded it was centraL Africans migrating outwards to North Africa and NOT the reverse . Lioness knows this, after accusing me of doctoring the same study. Asking Tukuler to delete it. Agent Provocateur at his best .

He really enjoying toying with you guys . ..
Ha! Ha!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
FYI. I do have a life. And a good one to at that…thus far. So…I take it you just gave up the keys to the house. Well there are a few people here who would like to moderate and will not throw tantrums. I reluctantly volunteer AMRTU. He seems genuinely interested in Africana. He may not be too objective but he isn’t throw emotional outburst. Plus he spends a lot of time here.

Give him, AMRTU, password. If you do not want to moderate. Keep in mind I voted for YOU as a moderator.

Sometimes we need a moderator and sometimes we do not. Example. I would like that fag thread Egmond Cod just created, edited. I don’t want to see fag horses. Really!!


Oh! Anasi is another option. He is doing a stellar job at ESR with growing membership...if he wants it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:

Give him, AMRTU, password. If you do not want to moderate. Keep in mind I voted for YOU as a moderator.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
You accused Bass of being "false"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:

The 3rd study not cited by Lioness did a high resolution analysis of R-V88 throughout Africa and concluded it was central Africans migrating outwards to North Africa and NOT the reverse .

---

^


disregard. He is saying I didn't cite a 3rd study,


red herring raised by zarahan, it's off topic

---

 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Lioness. Will you do the honors and post the yDNA R phylotree just so everyone understands the relevance. It is readily available on ESR. …with Doctored Charts(sic) and all to help newbies understand.
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
To those who don’t understand what was just said there. Gonzalez and Amorim just debunked Cruiciani’s back-to Africa Hypothesis of R1b and the other Chadic speakers nonsense.

The human species is a continuum radiating FROM Africa. There were three MAJOR expansions. Paleolithic humans carrying mtDNA Macrogroup M. Which most primarily went East to Asia and a few to the North. The 2nd wave were within the Macro-group N/U/H. 3rd mtDNA H Neolithics. Which went primarily North towards Europe and the near East. Some may ask what about mtDNA X in the Americas. But keep in mind the difference in age between X1 and X2. Just as there is a vast difference in age for yDNA E1b1b and E1b1a. I don’t expect to find E1b1a in aDNA in Europe and the far East.

And I will go out on a limb and also speculate they will NOT find E1b1a in aDNA in West Africa prior to say 2000BC. The mutation had NOT occurred to have expanded enough
 

---

Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
 
Nothing says Tukler couldn't do a once a month or even bimonthly cleanup.
He need not be here 24/7 running down every complaint.

Gonzalez and Amorim just debunked Cruiciani’s back-to Africa Hypothesis of R1b and the other Chadic speakers nonsense.

They did. Interesting that the flow is detected as
coming from within Africa, from the south.
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Yeah. That is more than interesting. I wish there were more capable posters on here to have a more in depth discussion as what Bass OP.

When you read enough and understand these studies a pattern is emerging.

It seems like SSA migrated more to the North West of the Sahara. Of course they penetrated North Africa.

But the absence of U6b in North Africa and the absence of U6a in the Canarie ancients tells a strange story.

Keep in mind West SSA also carry unique haplotypes of U6.

In addition most L1b is found in north west Iberia.

There could really be some interesting discussion for people who understood this stuff instead of the uusual admixture nonsense.
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
The author is suggesting that U6b did NOT migrate from North Africa Berbers. However both have the same parental population.

Man. What secrets lie below the sands of the Sahara.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
The genetic landscape of Equatorial Guinea and the origin and migration routes of the Y chromosome haplogroup R-V88

Miguel González 2012



Lower portion of figure 1 pertaining to the V88^^ clade of R

follow the parent of the branch
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Yes! Follow the clade. As I said. We need more competent people posting instead of the picture spamm-fest.

You can't just chose just ONE study to make your point. In your minds-eye you need to understand the full picture.


 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Any questions???




 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
So ......what do you gather from all these studies?


You are in over your head...

We need more competent posters to have a {DEEP discussion} instead of this superficial "who is mixed with whom".

THERE IS NO ADMIXTURE!!!!!

Modern Euroepans are a subset of Africans. It is just that simple.

Even the R1b pattern emerging is now confirming that.
 

---

Posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:

The 3rd study not cited by Lioness did a high resolution analysis of R-V88 throughout Africa and concluded it was central Africans migrating outwards to North Africa and NOT the reverse .

---

^ disregard. He is saying I didn't cite a 3rd study, yet he doesn't cite a study, that is complete foolishness
Furthermore R-V88 haplogroup a young clade of R almost completely restricted to Africa is found in Cameroon and Chad not in the horn and the horn is what Bass' thread is about. So mentioning it is a red herring raised by zarahan, it's off topic

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
The genetic landscape of Equatorial Guinea and the origin and migration routes of the Y chromosome haplogroup R-V88

Miguel González 2012



Lower portion of figure 1 pertaining to the V88^^ clade of R

follow the parent of the branch

---

quote:

---

quote:
The deepest branching separates A1b from a monophyletic clade whose members (A1a, A2, A3, B, C, and R) all share seven mutually reinforcing derived mutations (five transitions and two transversions, all at non-CpG sites). To retain the information from the reference MSY tree13 as much as possible, we named this clade A1a-T (Figure 1). Within A1a-T, the transversion V221 separates A1a from a monophyletic clade (called A2-T) consisting of three branches: A2, A3, and BT, the latter being supported by ten mutations (Figure 1).

---

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929711001649
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 


Haplogroup R ,
full name: paragroup R-M207

on the upper left of the tree it's marked M 207
follow the dotted line down it's labeled R*
It's the parent of R1, R2 etc, everything else on the chart

R-M207 originates in Central Asia
originating 24,000 - 34,300 years ago (Karafet 2008)

So follow down the branches
M173,
M420
M343
V88 (aka R1b2*)

etc,

and look up date of origin for each
 

---

Posted by .Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
 
lioness, I don't see teh point of you posting about R in central Africa when Europe is full of E clades with the parent E group originating in SSA itself.
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
This is really funny. Ha! Ha! You are missing the key point. First, R-V88 radiates/variability is OUTWARDS from Central Africa. Meaning the older version of R-V88 is inner Africa. European sub-clade of R1b is much much much younger than R-V88. Here is something interesting ignoring the fact than the authors provided no proof than R1b1a2 originated in the Steppes. The only thing they did was provided data showing that , YES!, R1b1a2 is indeed post-Neolithic and very young. Other recent studies has shown that the “European’ version of R1b1a2 is older IN the Palestianians and Iranians. The North African version was NOT included in the test. Sources cited already. Comeon man. Let’s talk the big picture. What you got?


1.0 AN ACCURATE GENETIC CLOCK
David H Hamilton

Abstract
Our method for “Time to most recent common ancestor” TMRCA of genetic trees for the first time deals with natural selection by apriori mathematics and not as a random factor. Bioprocesses such as “kin selection” generate a few overrepresented “singular lineages” while almost all other lineages terminate. This non-uniform branching gives greatly exaggerated TMRCA with current methods. Thus we introduce an inhomogenous stochastic process which will detect singular lineages by asymmetries, whose “reduction” then gives true TMRCA. This gives a new phylogenetic method for computing mutation rates, with results similar to “pedigree” (meiosis) data. Despite these low rates, reduction implies younger TMRCA, with smaller errors. We establish accuracy by a comparison across a wide range of time, indeed this is only y-clock giving consistent results for 500-15,000 ybp. In particular we show that the dominant European Y-haplotypes R1a1a & R1b1a2, expand from c4000BC, not reaching Anatolia before c3800BC. This CONTRADICTS PREVIOUS CLOCKS DATING R1B1A2 TO EITHER THE NEOLITHIC NEAR EAST OR PALEO-EUROPE. However our dates match R1a1a & R1b1a2 found in Yamnaya cemetaries of c3300BC by Nielsen et al (2015), Pääbo et al(2015), together proving R1a1a & R1b1a2 originates in the Russian Steppes.
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Notice what the Euronuts are trying to do now. They have given up on the AEian being white, AND! mtDNA H having an Iberian origin. Now, they are trying to put the male line originating in the Russian Steppes. (Mike will be happy with that). Euronuts are really fanatical like that. I guess the European male line and female have two DIFFERENT origins. Ha! Ha! Ha! . But there is a rude awakening around the corner.

The male line is also of African origin!! Ha! Ha! Ha!


It is very easy to confirm this. Just as what Kefi did. Do a comprehensive high resolution analysis of R1b1 on BOTH sides of the Medit Sea. And the Levant area.

The distribution pattern of R1b1a2 in Europe is consistent with what I am saying. There wasn’t enough time for R1b1a2 to reach Iberia from Asia without passing through the Sahara. Now with the upstream clade R-V88 being so old in central Africa. Undoubtedly R1bhas a Sahara origin.

Time will prove me correct…..again.!!
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:

This is really funny. Ha! Ha! You are missing the key point. First, R-V88 radiates/variability is OUTWARDS from Central Africa. Meaning the older version of R-V88 is inner Africa.
European sub-clade of R1b is much much much younger than R-V88.

---

R1b is Eurasian so a subclade of it is irrelevant to the fact it is Eurasian

V88 is a subclade of R1b (aka M343) as we have seen in every chart posted in this thread



^^^ This is Haplgroup R

It begins on the upper left at M207

M207 is Eurasian not African

So any subclades of R found outside of Eurasia arer younger

The younger estimate for haplogroup the age of M207 is 19,000 years, in other words Haplogroup R

Subclade V88 found at highest frequencies in Cameroon and Chad and is very rare and at low frequencies outside of Africa

The R-V88 coalescence time was estimated at 5,600 9,200 year old

The highest levels of V88 found outside of Africa are 1-4% in the Levant, comparitively in some tribes of Cameroon and Chad upwards of 95%

V88 is believed to have been spread by cattle herding nomads

_________________________

There is no need to complicate the topic

Haplogroup R originates outside of Africa and is represented by the M207 mutation.
It is at least twice as old as it's sub-clade R-V88

^^^ this last sentence = /close thread
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
xyyman I thought you said North Africa berbers founded Europe
But E3 is not very heavy in Europe while R most certianly is

You need to revise your theory
Paternally Europeans are primarily descendants of Cameroon/Chad peoples

-these "science" articles simply have the dates wrong
It's not back migration, it's front migration
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Yeah! Yeah ! Got jokes . The only reason YDNA R is considered Asian is because the upstream clade of R-V88 has higher frequency in Asia and is vitally absent in Africa . As I said ....time will set the record straight . Q has been found in Italy!!! You do understand the significance ? ?!
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:

The only reason YDNA R is considered Asian is because the upstream clade of R-V88 has higher frequency in Asia and is vitally absent in Africa .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
No Agent Provocateur. Continue to confuse the issue. Muddy the water. R-V88 from central Africa, to the Berbers of the Sahara and North Africa on to Euroepe…..just as the genetic studies show.

---

I think you are the Agent Provocateur. Your theories are all based on wrongness and trickery

Some tribes in Cameroon/Chad region have Hap R 95% +

As we can see above of all the berbers only the Siwa of Egypt have substancial frequencies of R (26.9%) although lower than several countries in Europe.
Furthermore the Siwa are on the East side, not near Gibralter which was your theory

Again, Europeans are albinoized Cameroonians and Chadians who crossed the strait of Gibralter
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
As TP posted above…..much more work is needed but the answer may be buried in the Sahara.


--

Second, the MSY tree is deeper than previously believed. The present figure of about 140 KY for the inferred most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of the MSY phylogeny is older than previous estimates (about 100 KY or below)33–35 and easier to reconcile with plausible scenarios of modern human origin.36 Clearly, calculation of the precise age of the tree largely depends on the accuracy of the assumed mutation rate. In any case, an antiquity of the root greater than that previously estimated is evident from the present tree structure. It is worth noting that A1b, long neglected in previous large-scale resequencing studies of the MSY, contributes to the older TMRCA and high nucleotide diversity values that we observe, highlighting the importance of targeted studies on rare haplogroups. Third, contrary to previous phylogeny-based conclusions, 15,16 the deepest clades of the revised MSYphylogeny are currently found in central and northwest Africa. MSY lineages from these regions coalesce at an older time (142 KY) than do those from east and south Africa (105 KY), opening new perspectives concerning early modern human evolution. A scenario of a Y chromosome ‘‘Adam’’ living in central-northwest Africa about 140 KY ago would provide a good fit to the present data. However, we also note that, because of the still largely incomplete geographic coverage of the African MSY diversity and unknown consequences of past population processes such as growth, extinction, and migration, any phylogeny-based inference on the geographical origin of human MSY diversity in Africa should be made with caution. Additional Y chromosome data and future discoveries in other disciplines are required in order to provide crucial information in support of the proposed scenario. Interestingly, there is an accumulation of a growing body of evidence that indicates that African regions that have been long neglected in studies on the origin of Homo sapiens may have been important early sites of modern human occupation, possibly connected to other areas of the continent by routes that are hidden today (see 37 and references therein). In conclusion, we present here a Y chromosome phylogenetic tree deeply revised in its root and earliest branches. Our data do not uphold previous models of Y chromosomal emergence15,16 and demand a reevaluation of some fundamental ideas concerning the early history of the human genetic diversity we find today.38–40 Our phylogeny shows a root in central-northwest Africa. Although this point requires further attention, we think that it offers a new prospect from which to view the initial development of our species in Africa.
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
No Albino Berbers.


==

No! No! No! Agent Provocateur. R-V88 has frequency in NW African Berbers, Siwa and Bedouins in the Levant and of course Afro-Iranians.. Sources cited on ESR. Again consistent with radiation OUTWARDS may be from a Sahara sources. If the migration was from Mid-East or Asian sources there should be a drop off heading West which is NOT observed. In fact the opposite is observed while testing the age/variability, the central African source is older as the Berbers of Siwa, Morroco, Algeria and Levant(Bedouins), carrying younger versions of R V88. The Iberians carry R V88 but at lower frequency. Sardinians also carry R V88 albeit a paragroup(Francesulou(sp?) et al). No study has been carried out to compare Iberians R V88 with Sardinians or with Black Iranians or Berbers . Why are we talking about R V88. Because that is the only version of R1b that we can compare apples and apples. Do you know why Hammer et al speculated a mid-East (Iranian) origin of R1b. Because of the African-Iranians. Also posted on ESR.


There is no definite proof ….yet….but the picture emerging is an African origin or Medit Sea Isle origin of R1b1a2.

To be continued.
 

---

Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
As TP posted above…..much more work is needed but the answer may be buried in the Sahara.


--

Second, the MSY tree is deeper than previously believed. The present figure of about 140 KY for the inferred most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of the MSY phylogeny is older than previous estimates (about 100 KY or below)33–35 and easier to reconcile with plausible scenarios of modern human origin.36 Clearly, calculation of the precise age of the tree largely depends on the accuracy of the assumed mutation rate. In any case, an antiquity of the root greater than that previously estimated is evident from the present tree structure. It is worth noting that A1b, long neglected in previous large-scale resequencing studies of the MSY, contributes to the older TMRCA and high nucleotide diversity values that we observe, highlighting the importance of targeted studies on rare haplogroups. Third, contrary to previous phylogeny-based conclusions, 15,16 the deepest clades of the revised MSYphylogeny are currently found in central and northwest Africa. MSY lineages from these regions coalesce at an older time (142 KY) than do those from east and south Africa (105 KY), opening new perspectives concerning early modern human evolution. A scenario of a Y chromosome ‘‘Adam’’ living in central-northwest Africa about 140 KY ago would provide a good fit to the present data. However, we also note that, because of the still largely incomplete geographic coverage of the African MSY diversity and unknown consequences of past population processes such as growth, extinction, and migration, any phylogeny-based inference on the geographical origin of human MSY diversity in Africa should be made with caution. Additional Y chromosome data and future discoveries in other disciplines are required in order to provide crucial information in support of the proposed scenario. Interestingly, there is an accumulation of a growing body of evidence that indicates that African regions that have been long neglected in studies on the origin of Homo sapiens may have been important early sites of modern human occupation, possibly connected to other areas of the continent by routes that are hidden today (see 37 and references therein). In conclusion, we present here a Y chromosome phylogenetic tree deeply revised in its root and earliest branches. Our data do not uphold previous models of Y chromosomal emergence15,16 and demand a reevaluation of some fundamental ideas concerning the early history of the human genetic diversity we find today.38–40 Our phylogeny shows a root in central-northwest Africa. Although this point requires further attention, we think that it offers a new prospect from which to view the initial development of our species in Africa.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:

This is really funny. Ha! Ha! You are missing the key point. First, R-V88 radiates/variability is OUTWARDS from Central Africa. Meaning the older version of R-V88 is inner Africa.
European sub-clade of R1b is much much much younger than R-V88.

---

R1b is Eurasian so a subclade of it is irrelevant to the fact it is Eurasian

V88 is a subclade of R1b (aka M343) as we have seen in every chart posted in this thread



^^^ This is Haplgroup R

It begins on the upper left at M207

M207 is Eurasian not African

So any subclades of R found outside of Eurasia arer younger

The younger estimate for haplogroup the age of M207 is 19,000 years, in other words Haplogroup R

Subclade V88 found at highest frequencies in Cameroon and Chad and is very rare and at low frequencies outside of Africa

The R-V88 coalescence time was estimated at 5,600 9,200 year old

The highest levels of V88 found outside of Africa are 1-4% in the Levant, comparitively in some tribes of Cameroon and Chad upwards of 95%

V88 is believed to have been spread by cattle herding nomads

_________________________

There is no need to complicate the topic

Haplogroup R originates outside of Africa and is represented by the M207 mutation.
It is at least twice as old as it's sub-clade R-V88

^^^ this last sentence = /close thread

---

http://files.figshare.com/292764/Table_S1.xls

quote:

---

Table S1. Haplogroup Affiliation of the Seven Chromosomes that Were Re-sequenced

Haplogroup (by lineage): R1b1*(×R1b1a,b,c)

Haplogroup (by mutation): R-P25*(×M18,P297,M335)

Although the level of resolution of the MSY tree has been significantly increased in the last decade, its basal backbone has remained substantially unchanged. The first branching in the MSY tree has been reported to be the one that separates the African-specific clade A (called clade I in 10) from clade BT (clade II-X in 10), whereas the second branching determines the subdivision of BT in clades B, mostly African, and CT, which comprises the majority of African and all non-African chromosomes.13 and 14 This branching pattern, along with the geographical distribution of the major clades A, B, and CT, has been interpreted as supporting an African origin for anatomically modern humans,10 with Khoisan from south Africa and Ethiopians from east Africa sharing the deepest lineages of the phylogeny.15 and 16


The deepest branching separates A1b from a monophyletic clade whose members (A1a, A2, A3, B, C, and R) all share seven mutually reinforcing derived mutations (five transitions and two transversions, all at non-CpG sites).





These chromosomes belong to a clade (haplogroup BT) in which chromosomes C and R share a common ancestor (Figure 2).

---

--Fulvio Cruciani et al
A Revised Root for the Human Y Chromosomal Phylogenetic Tree: The Origin of Patrilineal Diversity in Africa (2011)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929711001649
 

---

Posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
Scozzari R, Massaia A, D’Atanasio E, Myres NM, Perego UA, et al. (2012) Molecular Dissection of the Basal Clades in the Human Y Chromosome Phylogenetic Tree. PLoS ONE 7(11): e49170. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0049170

quote:

---

An independent high resolution MSY phylogeny has been recently obtained from 2,870 Y-SNPs discovered (or re-discovered) in the course of a large whole-genome re-sequencing study, but the observed variable sites all belong to the recent “out of Africa” CT clade [15]. Recently, in a re-sequencing study of the Y chromosome, the root of the tree moved to a new position and several changes at the basal nodes of the phylogeny were introduced [16]. Interestingly, the estimated coalescence age and deep branching pattern of the revised MSY tree appear to be more similar to those of the mtDNA phylogeny [17], [18] than previously reported [1].

[...]


Three of the seven R-specific mutations (V45, V69 and V88) were previously mapped within haplogroup R [34], whereas the remaining four mutations have been here positioned at the root of haplogroups F (V186 and V205), K (V104) and P (V231) (Figure S1) through the analysis of 12 haplogroup F samples (samples 40–51, in Table S1).


[...]


All Y-clades that are not exclusively African belong to the macro-haplogroup CT, which is defined by mutations M168, M294 and P9.1 [14], [31] and is subdivided into two major clades, DE and CF [1], [14]. In a recent study [16], sequencing of two chromosomes belonging to haplogroups C and R, led to the identification of 25 new mutations, eleven of which were in the C-chromosome and seven in the R-chromosome. Here, the seven mutations which were found to be shared by chromosomes of haplogroups C and R [16]


[...]


Two A1b chromosomes from a previous work (one from Algeria and one from Cameroon) [16] were included in this study together with two newly identified A1b chromosomes, whose geographic origin can be traced back to west-central Africa (Ghana) on the basis of the microsatellite profile (data not shown).

---

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0049170




Structure of the macro-haplogroup CT. For details on mutations see legend to Figure 1. Dashed lines indicate putative branchings (no positive control available). The position of V248 (haplogroup C2) and V87 (haplogroup C3) compared to mutations that define internal branches was not determined. Note that mutations V45, V69 and V88 have been previously mapped (Cruciani et al. 2010; Eur J Hum Genet 18∶800–807).
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Bass or anyone can jump in anytime. Jump in to have a DEEP DISCUSSION. Continuing…..

Looking at the chart from the study TP just posted. Several things stand out.

1. The root of y-DNA is 142,000yo.
2. >99%/Most modern humans fall within the CT split. That includes Africans and non-Africans.
3. CT is put at ONLY 39,000yo!!!!!! That goes for humans within and outside Africa.


Now since ALL humans outside Africa especially Asians fall within CT doesn’t that mean the AMH human expansion started less than 40kya? See the scaling to the left. Agent Provocateur. Thoughts?

Deep thoughts anyone else ? Bass or Sage? Counter argument?


In fact – recent studies are showing modern humans outside Africa is not as old as we initially thought. Eg that recent 2015 study of adjusting the molecular clock. Remember E1b1a, the dreaded “Bantu” lineage carried by AEians is only about 6000yo. More astonishing is that the European male line, R1b1a2, is only about 3-4000 yo. They do not have a Paleolithic presence in Europe. That is why their DNA will NOT be found in ancient Europeans. In fact no Royals in Europe up to the Medieval Age carried the modern European male line.
 

---

Posted by kdolo (Member # 21830) on :
 
'In fact no Royals in Europe up to the Medieval Age carried the modern European male line.'

So what happened ???

Wholesale replacement of the Royals during the middle ages ??
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by kdolo:
'In fact no Royals in Europe up to the Medieval Age carried the modern European male line.'

So what happened ???

Wholesale replacement of the Royals during the middle ages ??

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
Bass or anyone can jump in anytime. Jump in to have a DEEP DISCUSSION. Continuing…..

Looking at the chart from the study TP just posted. Several things stand out.

3. CT is put at ONLY 39,000yo!!!!!! That goes for humans within and outside Africa.


Now since ALL humans outside Africa especially Asians fall within CT doesn’t that mean the AMH human expansion started less than 40kya?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
Also astonishing is the growing trend of proposing AMH emerged in Western Africa and NOT EAST Africa.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
Also astonishing is the growing trend of proposing AMH emerged in Western Africa and NOT EAST Africa.

---

That is astonishing because there is no such trend

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:

This is really funny. Ha! Ha! You are missing the key point. First, R-V88 radiates/variability is OUTWARDS from Central Africa. Meaning the older version of R-V88 is inner Africa.
European sub-clade of R1b is much much much younger than R-V88.

---

R1b is Eurasian so a subclade of it is irrelevant to the fact it is Eurasian

V88 is a subclade of R1b (aka M343) as we have seen in every chart posted in this thread



^^^ This is Haplgroup R

It begins on the upper left at M207

M207 is Eurasian not African

So any subclades of R found outside of Eurasia arer younger

The younger estimate for haplogroup the age of M207 is 19,000 years, in other words Haplogroup R

Subclade V88 found at highest frequencies in Cameroon and Chad and is very rare and at low frequencies outside of Africa

The R-V88 coalescence time was estimated at 5,600 9,200 year old

The highest levels of V88 found outside of Africa are 1-4% in the Levant, comparitively in some tribes of Cameroon and Chad upwards of 95%

V88 is believed to have been spread by cattle herding nomads

_________________________

There is no need to complicate the topic

Haplogroup R originates outside of Africa and is represented by the M207 mutation.
It is at least twice as old as it's sub-clade R-V88

^^^ this last sentence = /close thread

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Explorer:

Interestingly, having re-visited Wood et al. (2005), it should be pointed out that paraphyletic clade of R*-M207 was detected amongst some "Afro-Asiatic" African groups, along with the paraphyletic clade R1*-M173 [both R* and R1* were very likely featured in "Chadic" speaking groups of northern Cameroon, the region where the authors themselves emphasized the also rare Hg R-P25* sub-group's incidence; Egypt could be considered a distant possibility here, based other studies re: Luis et al. (2004), but it is worth noting that authors implicate the Egyptian sample here as something other than that of Semitic speakers (Arabic), and keeping in mind that even Egyptian incidences of R1* are noticeably lower than that of northern Cameroon], while some Niger-Congo groups — though in small frequencies [pooled] — tested positive for the paraphyletic R1b*, lacking the established downstream R1b markers. Henceforth, R*-M207, lacking downstream mutations have been identified in African groups via this study; and yes, the basic nodes of all Hg R's downstream clades had been accounted for, which means that R*, as predicted above, is NOT relegated to the Indian sub-continent. All in all, this suggests that African Hg R pool is more diverse than many seem to think.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by beyoku:

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
Bass or anyone can jump in anytime. Jump in to have a DEEP DISCUSSION. Continuing…..

Looking at the chart from the study TP just posted. Several things stand out.

3. CT is put at ONLY 39,000yo!!!!!! That goes for humans within and outside Africa.


Now since ALL humans outside Africa especially Asians fall within CT doesn’t that mean the AMH human expansion started less than 40kya?

---

This is false. Whether you are being intellectually dishonest or you just dont know has yet to be seen.

Ust'-Ishim Y-DNA from Siberia falls under Haplogroup K...........And its 45 THOUSAND years old.

Source

With that said..........Autosomally it clusters with people in Eurasia and shows that Euasian/African autosomal divergence (regardless of its geographical occurrence) had since long occurred.

---

quote:

---

The next most important split point is the out-of-Africa superhaplogroup CT, which we date here at 56.26 kya (95% CI: 54.29-58.39 kya). This corresponds well to our previous estimation of CT using 78 East Asian Y chromosomes at 3.9 Mbp of the NRY (54.1 kya with 95% CI: 50.6-58.2 kya) (Yan et al., 2013). Only 2 ky later, DE branched off from CT.

---

code:

---

Haplogroup  TMRCA [SE] (rho estimates)  TMRCA [SE] (ML estimates) 

CT                  38.8 [9.7]        35.0 [7.0]
   

---

quote:

---

The regional distribution of an ancient Y-chromosome haplogroup C-M130 (Hg C) in Asia provides an ideal tool of dissecting prehistoric migration events. We identified 465 Hg C individuals out of 4284 males from 140 East and Southeast Asian populations. We genotyped these Hg C individuals using 12 Y-chromosome biallelic markers and 8 commonly used Y-short tandem repeats (Y-STRs), and performed phylogeographic analysis in combination with the published data. The results show that most of the Hg C subhaplogroups have distinct geographical distribution and have undergone long-time isolation, although Hg C individuals are distributed widely across Eurasia. Furthermore, a general south-to-north and east-to-west cline of Y-STR diversity is observed with the highest diversity in Southeast Asia. The phylogeographic distribution pattern of Hg C supports a single coastal 'Out-of-Africa' route by way of the Indian subcontinent, which eventually led to the early settlement of modern humans in mainland Southeast Asia. The northward expansion of Hg C in East Asia started approximately 40 thousand of years ago (KYA) along the coastline of mainland China and reached Siberia approximately 15 KYA and finally made its way to the Americas.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
If original R1* and R* are also found in Africa then could there still be the case that R originated in Africa? Mind you hg T is also found in significant and upstream forms in Africa as well. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
Malta was NOT R it was later corrected to Q typical Asian haplogroup. IIRC. Please keep up.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
Malta was NOT R it was later corrected to Q typical Asian haplogroup. IIRC. Please keep up.

---

false statement

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
Remember you ‘ate crow”. When you refused to post the 3rd study showing R-V88 radiated FROM inner Africa to North Africa.

Do you want me to dig up that study correcting yDNA as Q and NOT R? Agent Provocateur.

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
Malta was NOT R it was later corrected to Q typical Asian haplogroup. IIRC. Please keep up.

---

false statement

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
To the newbies who are interested and would like to know , all is posted on ESR.


Cruciani proposed R-V88 was back migration from Asia . The later study suggested it was Chadic speakers through the Sahara . The 3rd study not cited by Lioness did a high resolution analysis of R-V88 throughout Africa and concluded it was centraL Africans migrating outwards to North Africa and NOT the reverse . Lioness knows this, after accusing me of doctoring the same study. Asking Tukuler to delete it. Agent Provocateur at his best .

He really enjoying toying with you guys . ..
Ha! Ha!

---