Is one more comprehensive than the other? Because the way this illustration looks, mtdna could reflect as little as 1/16th of your overall ancestry...
Posted by capra (Member # 22737) on :
They're quite different things, you can't really put a percentage on it. A mitochondrial chromosome is actually a kidnapped bacterial chromosome; it's structure is completely different and it is much much smaller than a nuclear chromosome. It has a small set of very important genes and very little 'junk', while your nuclear genome has a buttload of genes, some not all that important, and loads of 'junk DNA'.
mtDNA tells about one line of ancestry, so what percentage of your ancestors that is depends on how many generations back you go. If you go far enough back you could have no autosomal material whatsoever from your mitochondrial DNA ancestor, and they'd be one out of thousands.
Y DNA is a nuclear chromosome but similarly traces one line of ancestry. Thing is, they are very good at tracing that particular line of descent. Autosomal DNA represents all your ancestry (on average anyway), but it's scrambled together and much harder to make a neat tree of relationships with it like you can with uniparental markers.
In short there isn't any straightforward percentage you can put on it, just autosomal is much more informative overall if you can get it.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
An interesting related article:
quote: For a species whose numbers show no signs of collapsing, humans have a shockingly high mutation rate. Each of us is born with about 70 new genetic errors that our parents did not have. That’s much more than a slime mold, say, or a bacterium. Mutations are likely to decrease an organism’s fitness, and an avalanche like this every generation could be deadly to our species. The fact that we haven’t gone extinct suggests that over the long term, we have some way of taking out our genetic garbage. And a new paper, recently published in Science, provides evidence that the answer may be linked to another fascinating procedure: sex.
For about three decades, one of the senior authors of that paper, Alexey Kondrashov, a biologist at University of Michigan, has explored how populations might shed such mutations. The question poses more of a conundrum than you might think. One model of natural selection is that it acts on mutations one by one: letting this one stay, forcing that one out. Another, though, is that the fates of mutations can be linked—an effect that population geneticists call synergistic, or narrowing, epistasis. This might happen if having one mutation can compound the effects of another: for instance, a system that’s able to limp along with one defective piece will fail with the loss of a second or a third. In this way of thinking, for an individual, having more mutations is not just additively worse, but closer to exponentially worse.
To Kondrashov and others, that prediction suggests an escape route from the trap of rapidly accumulating mistakes, both for humans and other multicellular organisms prone to mutations: As the number of nasty genetic errors in a population rises, natural selection will sweep large rafts of them out of the genome together. And in sexual organisms, because of the ways that mutations from each parent can recombine randomly onto the same chromosomes, the synergistic elimination of bad mutations can happen even faster.
Kondrashov has investigated the implications of synergistic epistasis with theoretical studies. Other researchers have taken the experimental route, trying to detect whether, in real life, mutations can interact with each other this way. Those tests yielded mixed results, though, perhaps because the effect would not have to be very large to keep a population from succumbing.
Now, however, Kondrashov and his co-authors have put together a statistical case, pulled from the genomes of about 2,000 people and about 300 wild fruit flies, that the effect has been quietly acting on us and other organisms all along. Drawing on knowledge of the species’ mutation rates and other factors, the scientists began by calculating what the distribution of mutations in populations of humans and flies ought to be in the absence of this purging effect. Certain numbers of individuals in the group, for example, ought to show 100, 50 or 30 mutations. Then the group of researchers turned to the genomic data, looking for the distribution of mutations in real-world populations.
Egyptians and blacks in the Americas with white ancestors have left me a little puzzled about genetics. I'm wondering if genetically people who've mixed can have European or Near Eastern haplogroups, while technically having most of their ancestry come from elsewhere. And if that's the case, how is that measured. Is that where K clustering comes in? Bear in mind I'm being very simplistic here with the picture right above. I only state "African" and "Asiatic" because both populations throughout the entire duration of history involved populations in multiple climate zones and ecological systems.
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
Make life easy and treat different forms of genetic analysis as its own discipline.
K clustering? Like STRUCTURE or ADMIXTURE plots? Arent affected by uniparental haplogroups. In fact a lot of time we remove the sex chromosome reads in preprocessing.
You've been on this site for quite a while, I'm pretty sure you know the answer to you own questions most of the time. In that example you have above the Jx/U5 boy can be as much as 99% African. I believe you know that already aswell...
...so what's going on here... Idk for sure but I'm pretty confident in my guess that you're being a about what you think is going on with the Abusir mummies and their 90+ mtDNA haplogroups.
[ 21. July 2017, 09:40 AM: Message edited by: Punos_Rey ]
Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
If you read the post above you, I actually do say my interest with respect to Egypt was part of why I asked (the other part being the implications DNA testing has on Afro Americans). I was not being a "pussy" about anything. In my example the person can have as much as 99% African ancestry, but the question for those with more experience with genetics is: Was the example I illustrated a proper way to understand how this works? And if that's true, would K clustering be a better way to understand the series of lineages that make up a person's background? Like, if I wanted to find out what groups I'm mixed with globally and to what extent, k clustering or a genome wide analysis would be more relevant than ydna mtdna analysis?
And since we're talking about Egypt: Would for that for instance explain why a few people were upset a genome wide analysis was only successfully preformed for 3 remains? My only thing about clustering tho is didn't they kinda do that here (assuming that'd show a bigger picture than simply showing their haplogroups:
I guess one of the things I imagine some could complain about though with this is that Yoruba is the "Africa" proxy despite having being a population of Africans with no known relevance to Ancient Egypt. But then when you see the bit above it they seem to have a graph comparing AE to plots of more specific ethnicities. They seem to plot more with the Bedouin. One other thing: Applying ancient Egypt to genetics is because it makes genetics more fun for me. I don't think genetics should any place in "race" conversation. I already said this but: Until black people are subjected to racism based on their genetic background instead of their phenotypes, throwing genetics into that sort of debate deserves all sorts of side eye. You have people roaming the world just as mixed as any mummy in Abusir and they will be treated as "negroes."
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
@PR - Can you add the reason(s) or at least a one word summary of what you edited so people who respond (like Oshun) don't look crazy or out of context to third party readers please.
@Oshun There's nothing "wrong" with your example in theory. What you've illustrated can and does happen. I don't know exactly where you're coming from with your inquiry on "K-clustering." However it goes without saying that autosomal "clustering" of any form can better explain who you are or where you from genetically.
I can't speak about others but I wasn't upset at what we got, cuz I was biased and set in stone from since I read the abstract. But I see how some other users who were expecting revelation based on what the 90 leaked mtHgs suggested can be disappointed. There's a certain way you have to look at these samples to really get a grasp of what might really be going on if you catch my drift....
In fact, the results shown in the actual paper is gimped, they only showed one K, and didn't even disclose if it had the best CV error value. They ran 19 Ks, (38 including non pruned LD variants) it ain't shit to give us a page with one full run as an image in the supp.
But that's besides the point, look at what bloggers and others are doing with the genomes they released to the public. That's the more important part. And I don't mind when people interject racial stuff in genetics... As long as I can understand where they're personally coming from and they're consistent
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: An interesting related article:
quote: For a species whose numbers show no signs of collapsing, humans have a shockingly high mutation rate. Each of us is born with about 70 new genetic errors that our parents did not have. That’s much more than a slime mold, say, or a bacterium. Mutations are likely to decrease an organism’s fitness, and an avalanche like this every generation could be deadly to our species. The fact that we haven’t gone extinct suggests that over the long term, we have some way of taking out our genetic garbage. And a new paper, recently published in Science, provides evidence that the answer may be linked to another fascinating procedure: sex.
For about three decades, one of the senior authors of that paper, Alexey Kondrashov, a biologist at University of Michigan, has explored how populations might shed such mutations. The question poses more of a conundrum than you might think. One model of natural selection is that it acts on mutations one by one: letting this one stay, forcing that one out. Another, though, is that the fates of mutations can be linked—an effect that population geneticists call synergistic, or narrowing, epistasis. This might happen if having one mutation can compound the effects of another: for instance, a system that’s able to limp along with one defective piece will fail with the loss of a second or a third. In this way of thinking, for an individual, having more mutations is not just additively worse, but closer to exponentially worse.
To Kondrashov and others, that prediction suggests an escape route from the trap of rapidly accumulating mistakes, both for humans and other multicellular organisms prone to mutations: As the number of nasty genetic errors in a population rises, natural selection will sweep large rafts of them out of the genome together. And in sexual organisms, because of the ways that mutations from each parent can recombine randomly onto the same chromosomes, the synergistic elimination of bad mutations can happen even faster.
Kondrashov has investigated the implications of synergistic epistasis with theoretical studies. Other researchers have taken the experimental route, trying to detect whether, in real life, mutations can interact with each other this way. Those tests yielded mixed results, though, perhaps because the effect would not have to be very large to keep a population from succumbing.
Now, however, Kondrashov and his co-authors have put together a statistical case, pulled from the genomes of about 2,000 people and about 300 wild fruit flies, that the effect has been quietly acting on us and other organisms all along. Drawing on knowledge of the species’ mutation rates and other factors, the scientists began by calculating what the distribution of mutations in populations of humans and flies ought to be in the absence of this purging effect. Certain numbers of individuals in the group, for example, ought to show 100, 50 or 30 mutations. Then the group of researchers turned to the genomic data, looking for the distribution of mutations in real-world populations.
Actually the advantage of sexual reproduction is that it yields more genetic diversity. Mutation is the original source of all genetic diversity in all organisms both in asexual and sexual reproducing organisms however sexual organisms have an additional source of diversity through genetic recombination in that although the offspring inherits only half the genes from each parent, these genes recombine in ways that make the offspring genetically unique which is why with the exception of monozygotic (identical) birth siblings even siblings born at the same time but from different eggs and sperm differ from each other. Asexual organisms because they are identical are an entire population if not species vulnerable to disease. Because they are identical, what affects one individual will effect all of that population. Sexual organisms do not have that problem because of the great genetic diversity. The only way asexual organisms have any hope of surviving any onslaught against them is through mutation, but even some mutations may be harmful with those carrying those harful mutations usually dying before they reproduce.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
Is one more comprehensive than the other? Because the way this illustration looks, mtdna could reflect as little as 1/16th of your overall ancestry...
I suggest you look up this site for any of your future questions.
quote: Genome-wide association studies are a relatively new way for scientists to identify genes involved in human disease. This method searches the genome for small variations, called single nucleotide polymorphisms or SNPs (pronounced “snips”), that occur more frequently in people with a particular disease than in people without the disease. Each study can look at hundreds or thousands of SNPs at the same time. Researchers use data from this type of study to pinpoint genes that may contribute to a person’s risk of developing a certain disease.
Because genome-wide association studies examine SNPs across the genome, they represent a promising way to study complex, common diseases in which many genetic variations contribute to a person’s risk. This approach has already identified SNPs related to several complex conditions including diabetes, heart abnormalities, Parkinson disease, and Crohn disease. Researchers hope that future genome-wide association studies will identify more SNPs associated with chronic diseases, as well as variations that affect a person’s response to certain drugs and influence interactions between a person’s genes and the environment.
I can give you a real world example with my child's 23andme Report.
Here is a screen shot showing the Childs Ancestry as passed on from the parents.
This is the whole genome. You are able to get this split view because both parents have had their DNA sequenced and the proprietary programs form 23andme knows EXACTLY what parts of our ancestry was randomly passed to the child. This is somewhat of an easy case because My wife (Ethiopian) has no West African and I (African American) have no North African nor East African....so really you almost know what is what since our African ancestries are so distinct.
Now I have a cousin who's wife is Kenyan. His wife as far as whole genome ancestry is East African AND West African. Looking at the child's genome alone you wouldn't be able to tell which portions of West African were from the father or mother....and sometimes its not a clear 50% of all different ancestries down the line IE: If she is 50% West African, 25% Nilotic and 25% Cushitic the child's RANDOM recombination of Ancestry would inherit 50% but not in these exactly proportions. This this woman who hypothetically inherited ALL of Each parents white African ancestry instead of half of it and came out looking pretty mixed. Its like second nature to cut these figures in half but when with heterogeneous genomes its not quite that simple.
Here is another paining of Just the Child:
When looking at Mtdna. It is ONLY the mothers line, mothers mothers mother...all the way back. The Child is East African L3f, but L3f sublades also show up in West African. I have a Zimbabwean frined that is E1b1a8a and L3f1b4a. His WHole genome is 95% West African and 5% East African. I have an Ivory Coast coworker that is E1b1a8a1a /L3f1b4a1 his whole genome is 100% West African. Obama kids carry a presumable a MTdna of West African or SSA origin, as I would presume his potential Sons BUT ONLY whole genome would tell us his kids are 25-35% or more European ancestry.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
That is why it is important to look at BOTH uniparental markers and autosomal markers. And NOT ONLY frequency of autosomal markers. Uniparental provides is the best indication of DIRECTION of migration. Of course in recent admixed populations like Obama's kids and yours. The story is incomplete when only considering autosomal makers. Interesting you said that West Africans carry "sub-clades" of L3f found in East Africa. I have no proof of that but that is again indicative of there being no such thing as a Bantu Expansion.
That is why the FREQUENCY nonsense in the New Kingdom mummies is a slieght of hands. Deep analysis is needed to determine migration route, frequency cannot tells us anything, and they know it that is why the paper is written like that. .
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
^so when you say frequency, what exactly are you referring too...I'm talking about in relationship to abusir mummies. From the get we have pointed out how relatively diverse the mtdna samples were, and it turns out they're even more diverse than expected when the actual paper dropped.
I know you're itching to say that these lineages represent indigenous African haplogroup diversity...but, till this day you haven't answered how it's possible for such a diverse set of lineages to have such low L frequencies. Would you expect this result If these lineages are coming from inner Africa?
Sleight of hand or not, we know more now than we did before, just apply the data.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
^It is not necessary to see a high frequency of L mtDNA to support the African heritage of the Egyptians and Abusir mummies, because African maternal lineages should not be solely delegated to L branches. This is due to the fact Eurocentrists are constantly tinkering with names of L3 and L3(M,N) clades to deny the African origin of many so-called Asian lineages. This is supported by the change in the name of the mtDNA L3c group. The group L3c of Watson et al. (1997) was renamed U6 (Richards et al. 1998). This along with changing Y-Chromosomes R1b1 and R1b1a found in Africans into R-L278 and R-L754/L761 respectively , while Europeans carrying these clades are simply referred to as R1b1 and R1b1a, to make it appear the these clades do not exist in Africa and promote the idea that R-V88 is of non-African origin.
.
.
Because few people who do genetics research study history and anthropology, they fail to realize that the skeletons dating between 950-750 BC, would represent Egyptians not Asians. This is supported by the fact that Abusir has been recognized as an early center of Egyptian civilization, and the Hyksos was a Kushite dynasty: See http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=18;t=000042
As a result, the Abusir mummies dating between 750-950 BC indicate that the so-called Eurasian haplogroups are in reality African haplogroup. Click on the video below:
' '
.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Two thirds of the sample in the study were individual mummies of people who were the descendants of the Greeks, Romans and Turks that drove many Egyptians into Nubia and West Africa. Given the sample of mummies of non-Egyptian origin in the study it was natural that the mummies would possess non-African DNA
Clyde, stop making up stuff What is this non-African DNA you are talking about ? what haplogroups?
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Two thirds of the sample in the study were individual mummies of people who were the descendants of the Greeks, Romans and Turks that drove many Egyptians into Nubia and West Africa. Given the sample of mummies of non-Egyptian origin in the study it was natural that the mummies would possess non-African DNA
Clyde, stop making up stuff What is this non-African DNA you are talking about ? what haplogroups?
This would be the haplogroups carried by the Turks, Greco-Romans and etc. skeletons, beginning with the Ptolemaic period of Egypt.
Click on the following video:
.
.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Two thirds of the sample in the study were individual mummies of people who were the descendants of the Greeks, Romans and Turks that drove many Egyptians into Nubia and West Africa. Given the sample of mummies of non-Egyptian origin in the study it was natural that the mummies would possess non-African DNA
Clyde, stop making up stuff What is this non-African DNA you are talking about ? what haplogroups?
This would be the haplogroups carried by the Turks, Greco-Romans and etc. skeletons, beginning with the Ptolemaic period of Egypt.
Click on the following video:
.
.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
The C-Group founded the Kerma dynasty of Kush. The Temehus or C-Group people began to settle Kush around 2200 BC.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
blacks carry Eurasian DNA because the first Eurasians were black Kushite.
So Eurasia was not populated until after 2200 BC ?
The video says blacks carry Eurasian DNA because the first Eurasians were black Kushites.
If the first Eurasians were black Kushites why would they be carrying Eurasian DNA? They would be carrying African DNA
And if for 2/3 of the mummies it was "natural that the mummies would possess non-African DNA" --Clyde Winters what is the non-African haplogroups you are referring to? The video does does not state which haplogroups are the non-Kushite aka non-African DNA
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Two thirds of the sample in the study were individual mummies of people who were the descendants of the Greeks, Romans and Turks that drove many Egyptians into Nubia and West Africa. Given the sample of mummies of non-Egyptian origin in the study it was natural that the mummies would possess non-African DNA
Clyde, stop making up stuff What is this non-African DNA you are talking about ? what haplogroups?
This would be the haplogroups carried by the Turks, Greco-Romans and etc. skeletons, beginning with the Ptolemaic period of Egypt.
Click on the following video:
.
.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
The C-Group founded the Kerma dynasty of Kush. The Temehus or C-Group people began to settle Kush around 2200 BC.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
blacks carry Eurasian DNA because the first Eurasians were black Kushite.
So Eurasia was not populated until after 2200 BC ?
The video says blacks carry Eurasian DNA because the first Eurasians were black Kushites.
If the first Eurasians were black Kushites why would they be carrying Eurasian DNA? They would be carrying African DNA
And if for 2/3 of the mummies it was "natural that the mummies would possess non-African DNA" --Clyde Winters what is the non-African haplogroups you are referring to? The video does does not state which haplogroups are the non-Kushite aka non-African DNA
LOL. The Kushites carried so-called Eurasian genes because they were the Eurasians who took these genes from the Levant into Eurasia. This is especially true of the R1 clade.
Eurocentrists confuse the origin of the CHG and EF populations in Europe. The African Y-Chromosomes R1b1 and R1b1a is called R-L278 and R-L754/L761 respectively , while Europeans carrying these clades are simply referred to as R1b1 and R1b1a. Eurocentrists do this to make it appear the these clades do not exist in Africa and promote the idea that R-V88 is of non-African origin.
.
.
Mal'ta man belonged to the R1 clade. The First Europeans in Italy (14kya) and Samara were R1b1a and R1b1.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The Kushites carried so-called Eurasian genes because they were the Eurasians who took these genes from the Levant into Eurasia.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Two thirds of the sample in the study were individual mummies of people who were the descendants of the Greeks, Romans and Turks that drove many Egyptians into Nubia and West Africa. Given the sample of mummies of non-Egyptian origin in the study it was natural that the mummies would possess non-African DNA
So Greek and Roman DNA is non-African Kushite DNA.
So which haplogroups are these?
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
@ ELMaestro Yes. These are indigenous Africans. I agree it is surprising with the low levels of mtDNA L. But M1 and T etc are found as far south of Tanzania. Also interesting is the LACK of H1 and H3. Typical North African and "European" female markers. These were NOT European women. This data set also opposes the Armana data which were clearly SSA along with yDNA E. So obviously we have to rethink who or what is an Eurasian vs a SSA. Geographically this dataset of the "new kingdom" mummies is typical of Great Lakes Africans like Kenyans and, yes, Horners' Swenets favorite people.
But undoubted these are not Europeans.
As I said I would like to the see the STR data.
Please, fools, do not respond.
What are the STR profile of the New Kingdom mummies? Understand the game being played.
The STR Profile of the New Kingdom mummies will show they are undoubtedly African. That is why they switched from STR to SNPs....FREQUENCY. ----
Multi-locus inference of population structure a comparison between single nucleotide polymorphisms and microsatellites R J Haas
Although growing numbers of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and microsatellites (short tandem repeat polymorphisms or STRPs) are used to infer population structure, their relative properties in this context remain poorly understood. SNPs and STRPs mutate differently, suggesting multi-locus genotypes at these loci might differ in ability to detect population structure. Here, we use coalescent simulations to measure the power of sets of SNPs and STRPs to identify population structure. To maximize the applicability of our results to empirical studies, we focus on the popular STRUCTURE analysis and evaluate the role of several biological and practical factors in the detection of population structure. We find that (1) fewer unlinked STRPs than SNPs are needed to detect structure at recent divergence times greater than 0.3 Ne generations; (2) accurate estimation of the number of populations requires many fewer STRPs than SNPs; (3) for both marker types, declines in power due to modest gene flow (Nem=1.0) are largely negated by increasing marker number; (4) variation in the STRP mutational model affects power modestly; (5) SNP haplotypes (θ=1, no recombination) provide power comparable with STRP loci (θ=10); (6) ascertainment schemes that select highly variable STRP or SNP loci increase power to detect structure, though ascertained data may not be suitable to other inference; and (7) when samples are drawn from an admixed population and one of its parent populations, the reduction in power to detect two populations is greater for STRPs than SNPs. These results should assist the design of multi-locus studies to detect population structure in nature.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The Kushites carried so-called Eurasian genes because they were the Eurasians who took these genes from the Levant into Eurasia.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Two thirds of the sample in the study were individual mummies of people who were the descendants of the Greeks, Romans and Turks that drove many Egyptians into Nubia and West Africa. Given the sample of mummies of non-Egyptian origin in the study it was natural that the mummies would possess non-African DNA
So Greek and Roman DNA is non-African Kushite DNA.
So which haplogroups are these?
It would be R1 clades. Epigravettian culture context in Italy (Villabruna) who lived circa 12,000 BC belonged to R1b1a, which is primarilly found in Africa.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
cont-
Five-population simulations For a divergence time of 0.16 Ne generations, 25-STRP data sets were the first to show marked peakedness at K=5, though other values of K were still broadly supported (Figure 2a). 100 STRP data sets showed an average rescaled ΔK of 0.98 for K=5 (values of rescaled ΔK close to 1 suggest strong support for a particular number of populations), whereas other values of K received little support (Figure 2a). 35-SNP data sets showed a bias toward low K-values (Figure 2b). Even 10 000-SNP data sets were less efficient at detecting five populations than 100 STRPs (Figure 2). However, 1000-SNP data sets in which all loci were ascertained based on the criterion of minor allele frequency >0.1 were near perfect at detecting the correct value of K (Figure 2b).
SNP haplotypes
15-SNP-haplotype data sets (θ=1, see Materials and methods) offered near identical performance to 15 STRP data sets in STRUCTURE analyses. Increasing marker number from 15 to 35 did less to improve the power of SNP haplotype data sets than STRP data sets (Figure 6a). The number of polymorphic loci comprising a simulated SNP haplotype varied from run to run.
Time scale When a panmictic population splits into two isolated populations, all genetic diversity found within these daughter populations is initially descended from the parent population. Unless the daughter populations sample diversity from the parent population unevenly (due to a small parent population or other biological/ecological factors), genetic data will fail to distinguish the daughter populations from one another for some period of post-divergence time. In other words, spatial but not genetic structure exists. As long as gene flow is limited, genetic structure eventually arises through changes in allele frequencies due to drift and the emergence of derived alleles in one population or another.
STRP loci in the parent population should show greater allelic diversity than SNP loci, thereby providing greater opportunity for early genetic differentiation of the daughter populations due to random drift. In addition, the high rate of STRP mutation suggests private STRP variants should appear and accumulate more quickly than new SNPs. Our results support the general expectation that the greatest power gap between SNPs and STRPs is found when divergence times are small. For divergence times <0.24 Ne generations, detection of population structure with >0.95 power requires 5–15 times as many SNPs as STRPs (Figure 1). If gene flow and other complicating factors are ignored, the superior efficiency of STRP data decays rapidlyas divergence time increases; marker choice becomes nearly irrelevant for divergence times >0.40 Ne generations. Indeed, <50 SNPs are needed to detect structure with >0.95 power for divergence times >0.32 Ne generations. For populations with small Ne and short generation time, 0.32 Ne generations represent a relatively small number of years. Even for non-model organisms, the development of 50 unlinked SNP markers is a realistic objective
The exponential form of the SNP curves in Figure 1 suggests that detection of such recent population structure may require very large (perhaps impossible) numbers of unlinked SNPs. This corroborates a recent empirical result in maize (Hamblin et al., 2007
Interestingly, while the power of an individual SNP never approaches that of an individual STRP (Figure 3), multi-locus SNP and STRP data sets show roughly equal power for divergence times >0.3 Ne generations (Figure 1). This finding indicates that some SNP loci outperform the average SNP by a large margin,
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The Kushites carried so-called Eurasian genes because they were the Eurasians who took these genes from the Levant into Eurasia.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Two thirds of the sample in the study were individual mummies of people who were the descendants of the Greeks, Romans and Turks that drove many Egyptians into Nubia and West Africa. Given the sample of mummies of non-Egyptian origin in the study it was natural that the mummies would possess non-African DNA
So Greek and Roman DNA is non-African Kushite DNA.
So which haplogroups are these?
It would be R1 clades. Epigravettian culture context in Italy (Villabruna) who lived circa 12,000 BC belonged to R1b1a, which is primarilly found in Africa.
You said given the sample of 2/3 mummies of non-Egyptian origin in the study it was natural that the mummies would possess non-African DNA
so if R1b1a is primarily found in Africa what haplogroups are the non-African haplogroups of the 2/3 mummies ?
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The Kushites carried so-called Eurasian genes because they were the Eurasians who took these genes from the Levant into Eurasia.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Two thirds of the sample in the study were individual mummies of people who were the descendants of the Greeks, Romans and Turks that drove many Egyptians into Nubia and West Africa. Given the sample of mummies of non-Egyptian origin in the study it was natural that the mummies would possess non-African DNA
So Greek and Roman DNA is non-African Kushite DNA.
So which haplogroups are these?
It would be R1 clades. Epigravettian culture context in Italy (Villabruna) who lived circa 12,000 BC belonged to R1b1a, which is primarilly found in Africa.
You said given the sample of 2/3 mummies of non-Egyptian origin in the study it was natural that the mummies would possess non-African DNA
so if R1b1a is primarily found in Africa what haplogroups are the non-African haplogroups of the 2/3 mummies ?
Read the article!
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Geographically this dataset of the "new kingdom" mummies is typical of Great Lakes Africans like Kenyans and, yes, Horners' Swenets favorite people.
Not at all. Cushitic speaking Horners are just a useful approximation. Truth is, Horners have more SSA ancestry than ancient Egyptians. So it's not about them being "favoured" by me; if anything, using equatorial Horners as an example has been sparing your emotional investment in your AE=SSA delusion. After all, even modern Cushitic speaking Horners as an approximation is too generous.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: No one is talking about the Horn, except as a useful proxy in a global context. But when you zoom in and look at the region, the Horn lags behind also when compared to ancient Nubians.
I don't see what this has to do with favouritism.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The Kushites carried so-called Eurasian genes because they were the Eurasians who took these genes from the Levant into Eurasia.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Two thirds of the sample in the study were individual mummies of people who were the descendants of the Greeks, Romans and Turks that drove many Egyptians into Nubia and West Africa. Given the sample of mummies of non-Egyptian origin in the study it was natural that the mummies would possess non-African DNA
So Greek and Roman DNA is non-African Kushite DNA.
So which haplogroups are these?
It would be R1 clades. Epigravettian culture context in Italy (Villabruna) who lived circa 12,000 BC belonged to R1b1a, which is primarilly found in Africa.
You said given the sample of 2/3 mummies of non-Egyptian origin in the study it was natural that the mummies would possess non-African DNA
so if R1b1a is primarily found in Africa what haplogroups are the non-African haplogroups of the 2/3 mummies ?
Read the article!
So when you said given the sample of 2/3 mummies of non-Egyptian origin in the study it was natural that the mummies would possess non-African DNA then you agree with the article's opinion of what the non-African haplogroups are. Ok. that concludes the investigation
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Again, from the study I cited, quote:
"The exponential form of the SNP curves in Figure 1 suggests that detection of such recent population structure may require very large (perhaps impossible) numbers of unlinked SNPs. This corroborates a recent empirical result in maize (Hamblin et al., 2007"
They said UNLINKED SNPs. Anyone!!!??? It is Impossible to determine population structure using SNPs. So what do they do, used FREQUENCY to assign population structure. But that model ASSUMES humans were isolated for 10's THOUSANDS of years then suddenly decided to admix. That is impossible. Understand the game being played.
The ONLY model the data supports is Isolation by Distance. Meaning there is no race and there never was!!! Meaning there was NEVER any back-migration. And they know this!!!
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Unlinked SNPs=STR=haplotypes. That is why Berbers show up as "Negros" in CODIS. That is why these racialist Scientist stopped used STRs and macrosatellites . These results show Greeks are highly Africans, and this was confirmed by Arnaiz-Villens. That is why the Amarnas came out sub-Saharan Africans.
That is why they switched to SNP frequency(unlinked). Understand the game. Sleight of hands.
Posted by Thereal (Member # 22452) on :
That includes the amazigh? As I thought the Berber was cultural groups and couldn't be specified as phenotype unless I'm not understanding the usage of negro in that context.
Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Again, from the study I cited, quote:
"The exponential form of the SNP curves in Figure 1 suggests that detection of such recent population structure may require very large (perhaps impossible) numbers of unlinked SNPs. This corroborates a recent empirical result in maize (Hamblin et al., 2007"
They said UNLINKED SNPs. Anyone!!!??? It is Impossible to determine population structure using SNPs. So what do they do, used FREQUENCY to assign population structure. But that model ASSUMES humans were isolated for 10's THOUSANDS of years then suddenly decided to admix. That is impossible. Understand the game being played.
The ONLY model the data supports is Isolation by Distance. Meaning there is no race and there never was!!! Meaning there was NEVER any back-migration. And they know this!!!
Can someone explain what he's trying to say in plain English?
Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: I can give you a real world example with my child's 23andme Report.
Here is a screen shot showing the Childs Ancestry as passed on from the parents.
This is the whole genome. You are able to get this split view because both parents have had their DNA sequenced and the proprietary programs form 23andme knows EXACTLY what parts of our ancestry was randomly passed to the child. This is somewhat of an easy case because My wife (Ethiopian) has no West African and I (African American) have no North African nor East African....so really you almost know what is what since our African ancestries are so distinct.
Now I have a cousin who's wife is Kenyan. His wife as far as whole genome ancestry is East African AND West African. Looking at the child's genome alone you wouldn't be able to tell which portions of West African were from the father or mother....and sometimes its not a clear 50% of all different ancestries down the line IE: If she is 50% West African, 25% Nilotic and 25% Cushitic the child's RANDOM recombination of Ancestry would inherit 50% but not in these exactly proportions. This this woman who hypothetically inherited ALL of Each parents white African ancestry instead of half of it and came out looking pretty mixed. Its like second nature to cut these figures in half but when with heterogeneous genomes its not quite that simple.
Here is another paining of Just the Child:
When looking at Mtdna. It is ONLY the mothers line, mothers mothers mother...all the way back. The Child is East African L3f, but L3f sublades also show up in West African. I have a Zimbabwean frined that is E1b1a8a and L3f1b4a. His WHole genome is 95% West African and 5% East African. I have an Ivory Coast coworker that is E1b1a8a1a /L3f1b4a1 his whole genome is 100% West African. Obama kids carry a presumable a MTdna of West African or SSA origin, as I would presume his potential Sons BUT ONLY whole genome would tell us his kids are 25-35% or more European ancestry.
Beyoku you need to update your account to enable 3rd party hosting.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Maybe someone else can better explain. Continuing, this is what Hamblin et al states.
Quote ---- Abstract
While Simple Sequence Repeats (SSRs) are extremely useful genetic markers, recent advances in technology have produced a shift toward use of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). The different mutational properties of these two classes of markers result in differences in heterozygosities and allele frequencies that may have implications for their use in assessing relatedness and evaluation of genetic diversity. We compared analyses based on 89 SSRs (primarily dinucleotide repeats) to analyses based on 847 SNPs in individuals from the same 259 inbred maize lines, which had been chosen to represent the diversity available among current and historic lines used in breeding. The SSRs performed better at clustering germplasm into populations than did a set of 847 SNPs or 554 SNP haplotypes, and SSRs provided more resolution in measuring genetic distance based on allele-sharing. Except for closely related pairs of individuals, measures of distance based on SSRs were only weakly correlated with measures of distance based on SNPs. Our results suggest that 1) large numbers of SNP loci will be required to replace highly polymorphic SSRs in studies of diversity and relatedness and 2) relatedness among highly-diverged maize lines is difficult to measure accurately regardless of the marker system. ---
What does it all mean? The Abusir mummies are not "Eurasian' if "Eurasian" means coming FROM Eurasia. They canNOT use frequency of SNPs to determine relatedness. Henn, Reich, Paabo etc . they ALL know this!!! It is a game played and laymen are caught up in the middle. Caught up in this "back-migration from Eurasia nonsense.
The author(Hamblin) is stating that an infinite amount of SNPs is need to determine relatedness which is impossible The only way to determine related is through STRs/SSRs or uniparental markers like what the JAMA report did and DNATribes exposed and what the FBI uses through CODIS. The FBI do NOT use SNPs frequency because it is meaningLESS and cannot be used to catch a criminal. The novice reader do NOT know this. That is why STR showed the Amarna's were SSA and if the autosomal STRs (CODIS) is revealed for the Abusir mummies they too will be African. It is a game and the novice readers are the one being fooled.
Posted by Thereal (Member # 22452) on :
So what's the point in maintaining this lie? to convince everybody that Africans are incapable of developing advance societies? If race doesn't exist and people are only different because of time conditions and circumstances than why conduct these studies because the knowledge gained doesn't seem to be as enlightening as it should be.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Be REAL. What do you mean what's the point. How long have been on this site. Doug says it many times. That is his mantra. To maintain the status quo and continued European dominance. To make Europeans in the Appalachians believe they are important than they really are.
That is why they still spin a WHITE Neanderthal even when they genetic evidence shows Neanderthals were black skinned with black hair and black eyes. These Appalachians will not pay good money at the Smithsonian to see a Black Negroid Neanderthal who roamed Europe for 400,0000 YEARS!! Why stop a good thing?
Obviously Some white scientist are struggling with these ethical issues. Henn is a good example. Helena Malmstrom also. White women caught between a rock and a hard place. See my thread on ESR.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Can someone post that plot showing Berbers are negros based on CODIS STRs? ------ Quote: "5 SNP versus STR In conclusion, the above numerical results of the comparative efficiency analysis of SNP and STR loci suggest that, without population data on SNP loci, a definite prescription regarding the required number of SNP loci cannot be given; to equal the power of the 13 STR loci with regard to genotypic match probability and/or paternity exclusion, however, somewhere in the range of 30±60 SNP loci would be needed, and they must be selected in such a manner that the assumption of independence across loci are met. Note that since SNP loci are biallelic (and hence, less mutable than the STR loci), the population substructure effect on SNP loci can be more severe than at the STR loci [37, 38]. Hence, more careful validation studies of SNP loci would be needed before implementing them for forensic and paternity analysis. In addition, the efficiency of SNP loci for interpreting DNA mixture evidence is far more reduced, necessitating a far
(on STRs) Above and beyond this, the population data collected in this context can address many of the broad questions of the human genome diversity studies, such as the evolutionary relationship of populations, the implications of reduced genetic variation in specific populations, as well as inference of the past demographic history of populations [39]. The availability of commercial kits for genotyping the STR loci [6, 7] offers the opportunity to conduct population genetic analysis by pooling data through interlaboratory comparisons of results. Worldwide allele frequency data at these 13 STR loci also raises some questions that could yield information as to the mechanism of maintenance of genetic variation at these tetranucleotide loci."
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Swenet .....or Sage may remember the chart I posted when I schooled him on dendogram branch lengths and showed Berbers are Negros. I will try to find it on one of my many computers I post from.
Posted by Thereal (Member # 22452) on :
I've been an active member on the site a little under a year and have browsed stuff here a little under 3 years,my points is whites already have the advantage of general ignorance and they control all the knowledge institutes,the flow of information in the Americas and Europe,sense there are not enough black owned and operated institutions to do those types studies,it doesn't matter if you're a black person in those fields because whites control your pay and they can discredit any work you've done and most people don't have good enough idea of certain groups which further obscures info not coming from the people themselves so why do these things if the knowledge acquired is being manipulate by whites or other people,its not hard to look online of people given misinformation.
No,I like using my tablet but sometimes it acts wonky.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
So Capra is correct and Beyoku's gave an example why Uniparental markers (mtDNA or YDNA) can also be misleading when looking at MODERN or EXTANT samples. In ancient times/ samples there was very little intercontinental travel therefore uniparental markers and their haplotypes or sub-clades are very informative. SNPs are useless without TreeMix which show migration edges or events. That is why ALL objective TreeMix studies show a 2nd migration event from SSA to Europe with Sardinians and Iberians being the closest. This trend is displayed also in STR analysis and NOT SNP analysis. This is why SNP analysis as a standalone is useless and misleading.
To Beyoku's point autosomal SNPs sometimes do NOT corroborate uniparental markers in "recent" admixed peoples like Obama and his offsprings. That may even apply to samples WITHIN Africa or even Europe. That is why aDNA is so important to understand migration history. There were no airplanes back then. Although some of us believe UFO/aliens built the pyramid and Africans could not have possible built it. lol!
quote:Originally posted by capra: [Q] They're quite different things, you can't really put a percentage on it. A mitochondrial chromosome is actually a kidnapped bacterial chromosome; it's structure is completely different and it is much much smaller than a nuclear chromosome. It has a small set of very important genes and very little 'junk', while your nuclear genome has a buttload of genes, some not all that important, and loads of 'junk DNA'.
mtDNA tells about one line of ancestry, so what percentage of your ancestors that is depends on how many generations back you go. If you go far enough back you could have no autosomal material whatsoever from your mitochondrial DNA ancestor, and they'd be one out of thousands.
Y DNA is a nuclear chromosome but similarly traces one line of ancestry. Thing is, they are very good at tracing that particular line of descent. Autosomal DNA represents all your ancestry (on average anyway), but it's scrambled together and much harder to make a neat tree of relationships with it like you can with uniparental markers.
In short there isn't any straightforward percentage you can put on it, just autosomal is much more informative overall if you can get it. [/QB]
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Posting from your phone? I try to advise my pre-teen about importance of punctuation.
quote:Originally posted by Thereal: [Q] I've been an active member on the site a little under a year and have browsed stuff here a little under 3 years,my points is whites already have the advantage of general ignorance and they control all the knowledge institutes,the flow of information in the Americas and Europe,sense there are not enough black owned and operated institutions to do those types studies,it doesn't matter if you're a black person in those fields because whites control your pay and they can discredit any work you've done and most people don't have good enough idea of certain groups which further obscures info not coming from the people themselves so why do these things if the knowledge acquired is being manipulate by whites or other people,its not hard to look online of people given misinformation. [/QB]
You can't even see it clicking the direct link. You might have to do something with your account. Guess they're trying to cut corners. WTF did they think anyone used that site for. sigh...
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Swenet .....or Sage may remember the chart I posted when I schooled him on dendogram branch lengths and showed Berbers are Negros. I will try to find it on one of my many computers I post from.
Sometimes when you can't find the name of a paper, you can just google your old posts. If you can remember how you phrased your comments and the keywords you used, it's a good way to find old papers. Here is your paper:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Get to work guys...
Do you think this study will ever be released? Quite some time ago.
Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
I asked Paabo about the successful sample in 1995. To paraphrase he said pffft that ole thing we misplaced it but we have this new sample that was just released.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes: I asked Paabo about the successful sample in 1995. To paraphrase he said pffft that ole thing we misplaced it but we have this new sample that was just released.
The article was published in 1985 and I have read it. Iy so not about ancestral analysis of the DNA it is about DVA recovery methods. This was before they even were doing mtDNA analysis
Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
Okay I hear that you need more SNPs, but they're saying:
quote:"Using in solution enrichment for 1.2 million genome-wide SNPs, we obtained between 3,632 and 508,360 target SNPs per sample (Supplementary Data 2)."
I'm hearing you need 30-60 SNP for 13 SSRs but but they collected a minimum of 3.6k SNPs per sample. Wouldn't they have more than enough? I mean if people are arguing the STR of the Amarna (8 loci), could prove relatedness etc, wouldn't 3.6k SNPs be more than enough to fit that 13:60 ratio? I'm very confused.
Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Unlinked SNPs=STR=haplotypes. That is why Berbers show up as "Negros" in CODIS. That is why these racialist Scientist stopped used STRs and macrosatellites . These results show Greeks are highly Africans, and this was confirmed by Arnaiz-Villens. That is why the Amarnas came out sub-Saharan Africans.
That is why they switched to SNP frequency(unlinked). Understand the game. Sleight of hands.
Links to these findings? Or an older thread??
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: That is why it is important to look at BOTH uniparental markers and autosomal markers. And NOT ONLY frequency of autosomal markers. Uniparental provides is the best indication of DIRECTION of migration. Of course in recent admixed populations like Obama's kids and yours. The story is incomplete when only considering autosomal makers. Interesting you said that West Africans carry "sub-clades" of L3f found in East Africa. I have no proof of that but that is again indicative of there being no such thing as a Bantu Expansion.
That is why the FREQUENCY nonsense in the New Kingdom mummies is a slieght of hands. Deep analysis is needed to determine migration route, frequency cannot tells us anything, and they know it that is why the paper is written like that. .
So they can perhaps discuss coalescence, but not which genetic components would've been older or native, and which would've been the result of foreigners? Because they seem to imply their findings were able to establish when the populations had a surge mixture attributed to post-OOA lineages.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
I always site sources. Read over my posts. I don't blow smoke from my azz. The key word here is "unlinked SNP". Reason? Blocks of genes are linked ie they do NOT break apart during meiosis/recombination. (this is high school biology by the way). So in other words the only way to research population structure is through these blocks of genes that are NOT break apart during meiosis. ie STRs or haplotypes or microsatellites .
Think of the human genome as a long city block with houses. During recombination maybe 3 ADJACENT houses will never be unlinked and will recombine as a unit. 200 generations later those same 3 house will still be linked together. Those same 3 ADJACENT houses will be found in all Africans including Berbers. These same 3 ADJACENT houses will be found in ancient Greeks per Arnaiz-Villen using microsatellite data. SNP analysis do NOT take that into consideration. It assumes there is no linked allele which is false. That is why the FBI do not use it because it cannot tell the FBI investigator if the person is an African or European or Asian. SNP cannot tell the difference and therefore NOT used by criminal investigator. It is used by these "political" scientist to spin their BS to the unsuspecting and gullible web readers.
As I said Paabo, Henn, Reich etc ...they all know this!!!
Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes: I asked Paabo about the successful sample in 1995. To paraphrase he said pffft that ole thing we misplaced it but we have this new sample that was just released.
The article was published in 1985 and I have read it. Iy so not about ancestral analysis of the DNA it is about DVA recovery methods. This was before they even were doing mtDNA analysis
I'm not talking about the 85 sample I'm talking about the 93 (my mistake I said 95) sample that yielded the often quoted never tangibly cited test.
Paabo, S., and A. Di Rienzo, A molecular approach to the study of Egyptian history. In Biological Anthropology and the Study of Ancient Egypt. V. Davies and R. Walker, eds. pp. 86-90. London: British Museum Press. 1993
quote: identified multiple lines of descent, some of which originated in Sub-Saharan Africa.
Even if I didnt think Beyoku was honest I would give him the benefit of the doubt on those 42 haplogroups. Something was bound to leak.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
the above chart is based upon STR analyis not autosomal SNPs. We know Mzabs carry a high frequency of "Eurasian" autosomal SNPs but clearly they are MORE African than West Africans/African Americans.
That is why autosomal SNPs is useless. The STR/CODIS clearly follows a geographical cline. What stands out is the Aframs falls smack in the middle of Berbers. Also what is striking is the furthest genetically are Mzabs and Northern Europeans/Euro-Americans.
The Abusir mummies are Africans
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: [QB] the above chart is based upon STR analyis not autosomal SNPs. We know Mzabs carry a high frequency of "Eurasian" autosomal SNPs but clearly they are MORE African than West Africans/African Americans.
As usual Lioness trying to confuse the unsuspecting and novice reader. Will someone explain to HIM that what he posted corroborates my point. He is comparing apples and oranges. Yes, West African/AFRAMs carry more mtDNA L than MZabs, but these are uniparental markers passed from mothers to offsprings and continued through the daughters, but autosomal STR confirms that geographically the MZabs are more African than West Africans/AFRAMS and are more distant to North Europeans. That means the MZab has existed in Africa longer than maybe modern West Africans. The length of branch indicates they have been isolated for a very long time. This also supports the view that their lineage is indigenous as supported by Kefi et al. Over 22,000years ago mtDNA H existed in Africa BEFORE entry as Neolithic Europeans (6000years ago).
There was never any back-migration and Europeans are a subset of Africans. Holistically SNPs are useless. Without the appropriate tool such as TReeMix.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: This also supports the view that their lineage is indigenous as supported by Kefi et al.
quote:
why are you lying? Over and over again Kefi calls these haplogroups Eurasian
the maternal genetic lineage of TAF population is composed of North African hap logroup (U6) and Eurasian haplogroups (H, U, R0).
Interestingly among the seven samples tested, no Sub-Saharan haplogroups (L0–L7) were identified.
Our results showed that the mtDNA sequences of the seven specimens from AFA are classified exclusively into Eurasiatic haplogroups: H or U (three individuals), T2 (two individuals), JT (one individual), and J (one individual). Our findings are in agreement with our previous study
Our phylogenetic analysis showed that Iberomaurusian individuals from TAF and AFA (coastal archaeological sites in Northern Morocco and in Northern Algeria respectively) are genetically close to Berbers from the North of Morocco, Berbers from the Jerba Island in Tunisia and close to some South Western European populations: Valencia and the Balearic Islands from Spain and Sardinia from Italy
According to our results, the presence of Eurasian haplogroups (JT, J, T, H, R0a1, U) in AFA and in TAF individu- als suggests that these lineages were present in North Africa at least 21,000 YBP confirming the estimated coales- cence time for these haplogroups (Brandst€atter et al. 2008;)
-- On the origin of Iberomaurusians: new data based on ancient mitochondrial DNA and phylogenetic analysis of Afalou and Taforalt populations Rym Kefi 2017
Phylogeographic and phylogenetic analyses performed in the present study suggest that the main H sub-Hg indicators of post-glacial population expansions from the Iberian refuge were H1 and H3, the most frequent maternal lineages in Iberia. The time depths calculated for these sub-clades in Iberia and the Maghreb, together with the presence of specific H variants in some North African populations –revealed at a deep phylogenetic resolution (e.g. H1v1, H1w, and others in Tuareg from Libya [16])– it would support scenarios of ancient radiations in the direction Iberia-to-North Africa. Accordingly, the genetic structure analysis of Mediterranean populations by AMOVA demonstrated that Italy was significantly different from Iberia (see Table 4) and that this dissimilarity was not as visible between Iberian and Maghrebian populations. These findings suggest that gene flow between Europe and northwestern Africa, involving Hg H, would have occurred primarily through Iberia. The HCA also provided strong support for this assertion.
--The distribution of mitochondrial DNA haplogroup H in southern Iberia indicates ancient human genetic exchanges along the western edge of the Mediterranean, 2017
Introducing the Algerian Mitochondrial DNA and Y-Chromosome Profiles into the North African Landscape Asmahan Bekada, 2013
^^ As we can see haplogroup L is under 3% in Mozabites.
Therefore even if one argued for an African origin of Haplogroup H Europeans maternally are closer to Mozabites and many of the other berbers than Sub Saharan Africans are maternally to these H carrying berbers If you want to go that route it would be more useful to suggest that berbers are the maternal ancestors of Europeans instead of saying European are depigmented Africans which has nice shock value but is a lot more vague. Anyway this Bekada chart shows Mozabites 22.35% H carriers and 27% U6 Ancient DNA classified as belonging to the U* mitochondrial haplogroup has been recovered from human remains found in Western Siberia, dated to c. 45,000 years ago ( "Carriers of human mitochondrial DNA macrohaplogroup M colonized India from southeastern Asia" -Cabrera 2017)
Also notable are Libyan Tuaregs carry haplogroup H at 61% ( Ottoni 2010)
The Y haplogroup M81 is an E clade and that is the most common West African E , although a different sub clade of it So you have to ask yourself why maternally are berbers mainly H and U6 carriers which are entirely different clades than Sub Saharans, virtually no H recorded in other non-Northern parts of Africa
Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman:
Wouldn't that pretty long line on the African American branch suggest they're fairly distant to these groups? The length of that line looks about as long as the distance between NC Berbers and Andalusians?
Posted by Thereal (Member # 22452) on :
If I'm interpreting xyman right,the comparison is not between Africans but other people to African groups.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
No! read the link.
quote:Originally posted by Oshun:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman:
Wouldn't that pretty long line on the African American branch suggest they're fairly distant to these groups? The length of that line looks about as long as the distance between NC Berbers and Andalusians?
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: [qb] Swenet .....or Sage may remember the chart I posted when I schooled him on dendogram branch lengths and showed Berbers are Negros. I will try to find it on one of my many computers I post from.
Sometimes when you can't find the name of a paper, you can just google your old posts. If you can remember how you phrased your comments and the keywords you used, it's a good way to find old papers. Here is your paper:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Get to work guys...
the above chart is based upon STR analyis not autosomal SNPs. We know Mzabs carry a high frequency of "Eurasian" autosomal SNPs but clearly they are MORE African than West Africans/African Americans.
We know Mzabs carry a high frequency of "Eurasian" autosomal SNPs but clearly they are MORE African than West Africans/African Americans.
The above is an unrooted branch tree. Therefore your claim that the Mozabite sare "MORE African than West Africans/African Americans" is unfounded silliness You have been posting this chart for years and you have been misunderstanding since 2012. Up and down positions on this type of unrooted chart are meaningless. There is no trunk or root. You can rotate this chart any way and it has no effect. It just shows the interrelatedness of each group. Up on this chart is not more European, down is not more African. It has no directional orientation. The useless orange line you drew through the chart is another illustration of how you don't understand the difference between a rooted and an unrooted tree chart
Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: No! read the link.
I'm still confused as to why the AFRAM branch is so long, even though you're saying the number 16 means it's distance is shorter.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
I know, I know, Lioness does that deliberately. He is here to confuse and misdirect. Muddy the water.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Lioness does not read what he himself post. The Chart said "GENETIC DISTANCE!!!" and it is based upon STRs. Nevertheless, Keep in mind the paper focuses ONLY on NW Africa and Western Europe. Khoisan, Twa , East Africans and Eastern Europeans and Near East is NOT included.
There are several populations in that chart that have long branches. Basque, MZab and AFRAMS(West Africans). If you read the link you will understand the "numerals' represent distance while the length of the branch represent uniqueness or length of isolation. Example if Khoi-San were included then their branch length may be off the charts and all other branches will seem insignificant. Understand that! MZab, West Africans and Basque are about the same length with AFRAMS being a tard longer. If Twa were included and placed next to AFRAMS I expect AFRAM branch to be extremely short to almost insignificance. There was indeed an older population in West Africa but it is NOT modern day West Africans.
On "16", This is what I was alluding to. The "16" does NOT represent branch length. It represents distances BETWEEN the branches. READ THE THERAD AGAIN!! And the paper.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
What is interesting also is that Catalans and Euro-Americans are at the same root but Andalusians and Basque root differently. So within Iberia there are FOUR Separate populations and within Spain there are THREE. In Spain there are the Basque, Catalans and Andalusian. The Catalans are More "European".
Notice also the Iberians are closer to NW Africans vs other Europeans which matches geography Of course there is a barrier looking at the value of "77". But there is also a barrier between Basque and Italians at 72 and Basques and Portuguese at 59.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Oshun:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman:
Wouldn't that pretty long line on the African American branch suggest they're fairly distant to these groups? The length of that line looks about as long as the distance between NC Berbers and Andalusians?
^^^ See this Oshun comment? This is before I debunked xyyman nonsense where he claims Mozabite berbers are "more African" than West Africans based on this char which he added the orange line to "doctored"
Then Oshun said this
quote:Originally posted by Oshun:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: No! read the link.
I'm still confused as to why the AFRAM branch is so long, even though you're saying the number 16 means it's distance is shorter.
And below xyyman ,right after pretends that Oshun was replying to my comment
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: I know, I know, Lioness does that deliberately. He is here to confuse and misdirect. Muddy the water.
But Oshun was not replying to me comment. He was asking the same thing he asked xyyman before
Oshun, when are you going to realize xyymans comments are laden with error and misinterpretation. If you ask him about one thing he answers and raises two new things that are wrong. It's endless. xyyman hasn't known how to read these charts since 2012
The answer to Oshun's question is in the proper version of the chart where the numbers are explained in the text of figure 1
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
huh?!! Lioness, read the thread Swenet pulled up.
BTW - for everyone's information. We are talking STRs here. Don't Lioness mi-direct the discussion.
Oshun confusion stems from discrepancy between Uniparental markers vs autosomal SNPs. Beyoku touched on the answer somewhat. I am stating that frequency SNP is useless when compared to well established STR's analysis which is still used by criminalist. People who are not caught up in racism when it comes to catching criminals..
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: [QB] huh?!! Lioness, read the thread Swenet pulled up.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: The distance between ALL AFRICANS and EUROPEANS is 77.
^ That is wrong, shall we continue going over each wrong statement in that other thread also? That chart does not represent all Africans and it is the percentage that a certain branch is found in 10000 bootstrapped trees, that is not distance and why the numbers don't correspond with the line lengths Furthermore you use this chart to refer to such distance and at the same time on of your themes is to try to say Europeans are depigmented Africans !
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
"That chart does not represent all Africans and it is the percentage that a certain branch is found in 10000 bootstrapped trees"
^mind elaborating on what this means lioness?
Or even Xyyman, you wanna take a go at it?
In laymans language...
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
quote: "From the Study: "The two STRONGEST genetic boundaries in the geographical area comprised by NW Africa and the Iberian Peninsula (see Figure 3) were found to encircle single populations.
STR diversity AMONG populations Genetic differentiation among the populations of both the extended and basic sets was analysed by computing Fst genetic distances and representing them by means of neighbour- joining trees (Figures 1a and 1b). We also computed other genetic distances (data not shown): the NW African populations cluster together, although with short and not very statistically robust branches among them. In the basic analysis, the Mozabites stand out from the rest of the NW Africans
It should be noted that the MOST robust branch (77%) in the tree is that separating NW Africans(AND AFRAMS) from Europeans. Among the Iberians, Andalusians and Portuguese are closest to NW Africa.
African-Americans appear linked to NW Africa through a long branch."
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
AFRAMs and Berbers are AFRICANS based upon STR. Of "Europeans" the closest match is ANDALUSIANS and Portuguese. Why? Geography!!!! It is a continuum!!!!!!! Europeans are a subset of Africans.
Do you know WHY Italians are higher up the Tree? ANswer: They are compared to the wrong set of Africans. If Amazigh from central Sahara or East Africa were included Island Italians would be closer than Iberians. THere is no race. Europeans are a subset of Africans
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: "That chart does not represent all Africans and it is the percentage that a certain branch is found in 10000 bootstrapped trees"
Bootstrapping is one of the most popular ways to assess the reliability of branches. The term bootstrapping goes back to the Baron Münchhausen (pulled himself out of a swamp by his shoe laces). Briefly, positions of the aligned sequences are randomly sampled from the multiple sequence alignment with replacements.? The sampled positions are assembled into new data sets, the so-called bootstrapped samples. Each position has an about 63% chance to make it into a particular bootstrapped sample. If a grouping has a lot of support, it will be supported by at least some positions in each of the bootstrapped samples, and all the bootstrapped samples will yield this grouping. Bootstrapping can be applied to all methods of phylogenetic reconstruction. Bootstrapping thus realizes the impossible: the evolution of sequences in real life happened only once, and it is impossible to run the evolution of, let's say, small subunit ribosomal RNAs again. Nevertheless, using the resampling approach, pseudosamples are generated that have a variation that resembles the variation one would have obtained, if it were possible to sample 100 or 1000 parallel worlds in which the evolution of 16S rRNAs occurred over and over again. You end up with a statistical analyses using a single original sample only.
Bootstrapping has become very popular to assess the reliability of reconstructed phylogenies. Its advantage is that it can be applied to different methods of phylogenetic reconstruction, and that it assigns a probability-like number to every possible partition of the dataset (= branch in the resulting tree). Its disadvantage is that the support for individual groups decreases as you add more sequences to the dataset, and that it just measures how much support for a partition is in your data given a method of analysis. If the method of reconstruction falls victim to a bias or an artifact, this will be reproduced for every of the bootstrapped samples, and it will result in high bootstrap support values. Some researchers such as a person known as xyyman on the Egyptology forum, Egyptsearch have no straps on their boots. This leads to the boots falling off and has been an ongoing problem in such approaches
quote:Originally posted by xyyman:
The distance between ALL AFRICANS and EUROPEANS is 77.
correcting xyyman is a full time job Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
you only need like 6-9 sentences. Want to try again in your own lay friendly words? Can you explain why Xyymans lack of understanding of the what the figures represent in the neighbor joining tree makes his argument fundamentally wrong..?
Going back to the previous page, @Xyyman, is it necessary to dismiss one approach when using another? Those haplogroups found in abusir el meleq couldn't have possibly came from inner Africa, it's impossible... Sometimes it feel like you forget that their are haplogroups upstream, that till this day haven't been found on the continent. The STR argument kinda irrelevant as it doesn't directly contradict anything recently discussed. Matterfact, see Tukuler North African thread.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
"Some researchers such as a person known as xyyman on the Egyptology forum, Egyptsearch have no straps on their boots. This leads to the boots falling off and has been an ongoing problem in such approaches"
ever the comedian.
oh! I am waiting to be corrected. ANYONE!!!??
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: AFRAMs and Berbers are AFRICANS based upon STR.
STRs are for determining male haplogroups AFRAM and berbers are both most commonly E carriers. However the most common sub clade in berbers E-M81 is not common in AFRAMS
And if you instead look at the mtDNA AFRAMs and berbers are not similar in a much bigger way unless they have mixed parents
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
WTF are you talking about Lioneze? STR are for determining male haplogroups(only)!?
WT.....
Remind me! Why am I having this discussion with you again?
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: AFRAMs and Berbers are AFRICANS based upon STR.
STRs are for determining male haplogroups AFRAM and berbers are both most commonly E carriers. However the most common sub clade in berbers E-M81 is not common in AFRAMS
And if you instead look at the mtDNA AFRAMs and berbers are not similar in a much bigger way unless they have mixed parents
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
I will pretend that you did NOT understand I am speaking about autosomal STRs.
Continuing.....Agreed AFRAMS carry mostly E-M2* while Berbers carry E-M35-81. But we are speaking AUTOSOMES Mr Lioneze. lol!
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: you only need like 6-9 sentences. Want to try again in your own lay friendly words? Can you explain why Xyymans lack of understanding of the what the figures represent in the neighbor joining tree makes his argument fundamentally wrong..?
quote: Originally posted by xyyman: The distance between ALL AFRICANS and EUROPEANS is 77.
the distance between all Africans and Europeans is not 77
It is a confidence estimate on a particular branch.
If you want to known the distances on the tee look at the length of the lines
And disregard people trying to spin the numbers in as completely wrong way to try to suggest the distances of the lines are other than shown.
Secondly there are two main types of phylogenetic tree. Rooted starts at the bottom and branches out Unrooted just shows the distance relation between each branch, there is no starting point
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
I am not sure what you are on about. I always contend AEians including Abusir are indigenous Africans. And has absolutely nothing to do with "Eurasian" except some SHARED ancestry. I am not sure what you mean by INNER Africa. If you think I am saying AEians are Nigerians. You misunderstand what I am saying. AEians are closest connected to peoples of the Great Lakes as shown by prior autosomal STR data in the Amarnas. No STR data was provided of the Abusir muumies but the haplogroup profile is consistent with the Great Lakes.....AGAIN.
Do AEians share genetic links to West Africans ...YES! But not more than East Africans of the Great Lakes who are sub-saharans.
Why is this so difficult to understand?
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: you only need like 6-9 sentences. Want to try again in your own lay friendly words? Can you explain why Xyymans lack of understanding of the what the figures represent in the neighbor joining tree makes his argument fundamentally wrong..?
Going back to the previous page, @Xyyman, is it necessary to dismiss one approach when using another? Those haplogroups found in abusir el meleq couldn't have possibly came from inner Africa, it's impossible... Sometimes it feel like you forget that their are haplogroups upstream, that till this day haven't been found on the continent. The STR argument kinda irrelevant as it doesn't directly contradict anything recently discussed. Matterfact, see Tukuler North African thread.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
The only problem with the Abusir dataset is the unexpected low number of mtDNA L. But they are Africans. Keeping in mind mtDNA L existed in "Eurasian" Neolithic Samples at higher frequency as some studies have shown. That makes me think the researchers doctored the results of Abusir.
But Abusir dataset matches Great Lake Africans. Any one who knows their geography will know it is impossible for mtDNA not to exist in Egypt if it is found in Iberia and the Levant during the Neolithic.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
xyyman is saying mtDNA doesn't count, Barack Obama is 100% African
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
No Lioneze. I am saying you need to take ALL the data into consideration. Least of which is statistical manipulation using FREQUENCY of SNPs. Autosomal STRs combined with uniparental haplogroups or haplotypes takes precedence.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: xyyman is saying mtDNA doesn't count, Barack Obama is 100% African
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
"Back in the day" their game was statistical manipulation of FREQUENCY of uniparental markers. same game, different dataset
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
Bringing up west Africans in regards to abusir is lazy... I didn't say anything about them, I could be talking about Great Lakes South Sudan, Ethiopia, Chad, Libya and southern Egypt. I mean abusir is one of the closest points to Asia... Inner Africa could mean from just about anywhere in respects to that location.
Your looking at the fact that these down stream clades are found sporadically in ssa and calling them indigenous. But in every area where any of the diverse ASIAN haplogroups are found there are MOSTLY indigenous L lineages and their upstream clades are Absent. Are you telling me that the chosen ones from every ethnic group that didn't carry L lineages joined forces and migrated to Egypt???? Are you retarded?
I mean Jeeze, did you not see khans comments on the upcoming Tanzania pastoralist study.
"Expansion from NE Africa to everywhere"
It's time to start putting two and two together and wake up from your eurofantasy dream. Those Asian lineages entered Africa through Egypt bruh.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: As usual Lioness trying to confuse the unsuspecting and novice reader. Will someone explain to HIM that what he posted corroborates my point. He is comparing apples and oranges. Yes, West African/AFRAMs carry more mtDNA L than MZabs, but these are uniparental markers passed from mothers to offsprings and continued through the daughters, but autosomal STR confirms that geographically the MZabs are more African than West Africans/AFRAMS and are more distant to North Europeans. That means the MZab has existed in Africa longer than maybe modern West Africans. The length of branch indicates they have been isolated for a very long time. This also supports the view that their lineage is indigenous as supported by Kefi et al. Over 22,000years ago mtDNA H existed in Africa BEFORE entry as Neolithic Europeans (6000years ago).
There was never any back-migration and Europeans are a subset of Africans. Holistically SNPs are useless. Without the appropriate tool such as TReeMix.
Yep!
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: "Back in the day" their game was statistical manipulation of FREQUENCY of uniparental markers. same game, different dataset
True!
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
BS on all 3 counts. You are blowing smoke.
I posted these Abusir HG are found as far as Tanzania and they are UPSTREAM clades ...WTF.
Why couldn't they Abusir HG come from Great Lake Again? What is your argument? They are still found in Great Lakes region. R0 and M1 is still found in Africa. M1 is found from theShores of the Red Sea to Islands off Nigeria ...WT....
The STR argument IS relevant. Because it shows GEOGRAPHICAL affinity unlike SNP which is really SHARED ancestry.
What are you smoking bruh??!! You got some bad weed.!
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: [Q] Going back to the previous page, @Xyyman, is it necessary to dismiss one approach when using another?
- Those haplogroups found in abusir el meleq couldn't have possibly came from inner Africa, it's impossible...
-Sometimes it feel like you forget that their are **haplogroups upstream***, that till this day haven't been found on the continent.
**The STR argument kinda irrelevant** as it doesn't directly contradict anything recently discussed.
Matterfact, see Tukuler North African thread. [/QB]
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Oshun:
Is one more comprehensive than the other? Because the way this illustration looks, mtdna could reflect as little as 1/16th of your overall ancestry...
By the way, the chart above looks misleading in that it shows the male to inherit 1/2 of his Y chromosome from his father and 1/2 of his mitochondria from his mother. Of course this is not what happens. Instead a male inherits the ENTIRE Y chromosome intact from his father and ALL of his mother's mitochondria. It just so happens that a male can only pass on his Y chromosome to progeny via his sperm but not mitochondria which is carried by the female's egg.
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: BS on all 3 counts. You are blowing smoke.
I posted these Abusir HG are found as far as Tanzania and they are UPSTREAM clades ...WTF.
Why couldn't they Abusir HG come from Great Lake Again? What is your argument? They are still found in Great Lakes region. R0 and M1 is still found in Africa. M1 is found from theShores of the Red Sea to Islands off Nigeria ...WT....
The STR argument IS relevant. Because it shows GEOGRAPHICAL affinity unlike SNP which is really SHARED ancestry.
What are you smoking bruh??!! You got some bad weed.!
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: [Q] Going back to the previous page, @Xyyman, is it necessary to dismiss one approach when using another?
- Those haplogroups found in abusir el meleq couldn't have possibly came from inner Africa, it's impossible...
-Sometimes it feel like you forget that their are **haplogroups upstream***, that till this day haven't been found on the continent.
**The STR argument kinda irrelevant** as it doesn't directly contradict anything recently discussed.
Matterfact, see Tukuler North African thread.
[/QB]
"Your looking at the fact that these down stream clades are found sporadically in ssa and calling them indigenous. But in every area where any of the diverse ASIAN haplogroups are found there are MOSTLY indigenous L lineages and their upstream clades are Absent. Are you telling me that the chosen ones from every ethnic group that didn't carry L lineages joined forces and migrated to Egypt????"
If you beleive M1 is idigenous fine, whatever.... If you beleive R0 is native to Uganda and tanzania somehow.... Fine too, I'll give you "points." But my main point remains, how are you planning on explaining this.?? can you even name any SSA region with any of these H.groups present in combination with a low frequency of L.
please enlighten, do you believe that Africans banded together and formed the "non-L coalition" before migrating north? lol
Matterfact what exactly do you expect to see if we looked at FST and NJT's of the Abusir mummy microsatellites? what pattern will you expect, that'll dispell, corroborate or Straighten out any thing that has been said for the past few months?
@Djehuti Ovals are women, squares are men. the teminal has an example of a male and female offspring... Blue reps the pipeline for Ydna, Grey for MtDNA. Oshuns example is not wrong at all.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
stop hurting xyyman Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
1. Those haplogroups WILL be found Sporadically in Africa because of the high diversity of Africans. Africans carry the ancestral or upstream of these haplogropus ...whenever they are discovered. Whenever they are discovered Africans carry the ancestral forms. Like in the Abusir mummies. These Euro-Researchers are starting to str8up outright lie now!!!!! Before they would statistically manipulate the data but now they are outright falsifying the data. It is impossible for mtDNA L to exist in the early Neolithic Levant and even extant Levantines and be at such low frequency in the Abusir mommies. MtDNA L is also found in pre-historic Iberia. Don't forget that. THEY ARE LYING!!!! Added the ones they do disclose are closer to Great Lakes Africans. 2. Yes, mtDNA M1 is indigenous!!!!!, Kivilsid et al and a few others. The most diverse form of M1 is found IN Africa. R0 is has highest diversity on BOTH sides of the Red Sea. Sudan and SOUTH Arabian Peninisular-YEMEN (ie the blackest people on the land mast). M1 is found in Nigeria to the Horn and including North Africa. M1 in Europe is downstream!!!! Of Africans'. 3. There is no banding together because these are Africans and the mtDNA L is NOT the ONLY African lineage. Regardless, the researchers are definitely LYING. There CANNOT be such a low frequency of L in Africa even in the Abusir mummies. I am confident of that. Prior data do NOT support that. 4. They cannot use SNP to assign affinity. Autosomal STRs determine geographic affliliations. That is why Berbers are classified as NEGROS in CODIS(FBI) 5. "What do I expect?", The Abusir mummies STR will show they are on the African side of the Tree. Just as when DNATribes opened our eyes to The Amarna STR values. The Abusir mummies STR will not be disclosed!! SNPs are meaningless that is why they play the statistical manipulation games. TreemIx with migration edges will also help.
As I said. Lay off the grass!
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: BS on all 3 counts. You are blowing smoke.
I posted these Abusir HG are found as far as Tanzania and they are UPSTREAM clades ...WTF.
Why couldn't they Abusir HG come from Great Lake Again? What is your argument? They are still found in Great Lakes region. R0 and M1 is still found in Africa. M1 is found from theShores of the Red Sea to Islands off Nigeria ...WT....
The STR argument IS relevant. Because it shows GEOGRAPHICAL affinity unlike SNP which is really SHARED ancestry.
What are you smoking bruh??!! You got some bad weed.!
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: [Q] Going back to the previous page, @Xyyman, is it necessary to dismiss one approach when using another?
- Those haplogroups found in abusir el meleq couldn't have possibly came from inner Africa, it's impossible...
-Sometimes it feel like you forget that their are **haplogroups upstream***, that till this day haven't been found on the continent.
**The STR argument kinda irrelevant** as it doesn't directly contradict anything recently discussed.
Matterfact, see Tukuler North African thread.
"Your looking at the fact that these down stream clades are found sporadically in ssa and calling them indigenous. But in every area where any of the diverse ASIAN haplogroups are found there are MOSTLY indigenous L lineages and their upstream clades are Absent. Are you telling me that the chosen ones from every ethnic group that didn't carry L lineages joined forces and migrated to Egypt????"
If you beleive M1 is idigenous fine, whatever.... If you beleive R0 is native to Uganda and tanzania somehow.... Fine too, I'll give you "points." But my main point remains, how are you planning on explaining this.?? can you even name any SSA region with any of these H.groups present in combination with a low frequency of L.
please enlighten, do you believe that Africans banded together and formed the "non-L coalition" before migrating north? lol
Matterfact what exactly do you expect to see if we looked at FST and NJT's of the Abusir mummy microsatellites? what pattern will you expect, that'll dispell, corroborate or Straighten out any thing that has been said for the past few months?
@Djehuti Ovals are women, squares are men. the teminal has an example of a male and female offspring... Blue reps the pipeline for Ydna, Grey for MtDNA. Oshuns example is not wrong at all. [/QB]
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
1. Those haplogroups WILL be found Sporadically in Africa because of the high diversity of Africans. Africans carry the ancestral or upstream of these haplogropus ...when they are discovered. Whenever they are discovered Africans carry the ancestral forms. Like in the Abusir mummies. These Euro-Researchers are starting to str8up outright lie now!!!!! Before they would statistically manipulate the data but now they are outright falsifying the data. It is impossible for mtDNA L to exist in the early Neolithic Levant and even extant Levantines and be at such low frequency in the Abusir mommies. MtDNA L is also found in pre-historic Iberia. Don't forget that. THEY ARE LYING!!!! Added the ones they do disclose are closer to Great Lakes Africans. 2. Yes, mtDNA M1 is indigenous!!!!!, Kivilsid et al and a few others. The most diverse form of M1 is found IN Africa. R0 is has highest diversity on BOTH sides of the Red Sea. Sudan and SOUTH Arabian Peninisular-YEMEN (ie the blackest people on the land mast). M1 is found in Nigeria to the Horn and including North Africa. M1 in Europe is downstream!!!! Of Africans'. 3. There is no banding together because these are Africans and the mtDNA L is NOT the ONLY African lineage. Regardless, the researchers are definitely LYING. There CANNOT be such a low frequency of L in Africa even in the Abusir mummies. I am confident of that. Prior data do NOT support that. 4. They cannot use SNP to assign affinity. Autosomal STRs determine geographic affliliations. That is why Berbers are classified as NEGROS in CODIS(FBI) 5. What do I expect, The Abusir mummies STR will show they are on the African side of the Tree. Just as when DNATribes opened our eyes to The Amarna STR values. The Abusir mummies STR will not be disclosed!! SNPs are meaningless that is why the play the statistical manipulation games. TreemIx with migration edges will also help.
Including peoples from the Great lakes will also help(After all this where they AEians said they were from ...right?!) lol! Only a fool will get caught in their manipulation deceptions. Typical Europeans and their games of cheating and lying. The logical thing to do is compare apples and apples. Included the right populations first, and then use and disclose and compare global groups. This is not about science but the continued stealing of African history. And Europeans trying to include themselves into the past greatness. They need to get over it!
ALL genetic evidence shows there is a continuum will AFRICA as the focal point. This only changed with in the last 500-600years.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman:
4. They cannot use SNP to assign affinity. Autosomal STRs determine geographic affliliations. That is why Berbers are classified as NEGROS in CODIS(FBI)
on the same basis Europeans are light skinned Negroes
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
As more Africans are analyzed here is what the Europeans are saying ...Eupedia.com
Quote: " Nowadays small percentages (1 to 4%) of R1b-V88 are found in the Levant, among the Lebanese, the Druze, and the Jews, and almost in every country in Africa north of the equator. Higher frequency in Egypt (5%), among Berbers from the Egypt-Libya border (23%), among the Sudanese Copts (15%), the Hausa people of Sudan (40%), the Fulani people of the Sahel (54% in Niger and Cameroon), and Chadic tribes of northern Nigeria and northern Cameroon (especially among the Kirdi), where it is observed at a frequency ranging from 30% to 95% of men. ..... ... However, R1b-V88 is not only present among Chadic speakers, but also among Senegambian speakers (Fula-Hausa) and Semitic speakers (Berbers, Arabs). R1b-V88 is found among the native populations!!!!!! of Rwanda, South Africa, Namibia, Angola, Congo, Gabon, Equatorial Guinea, Ivory Coast, Guinea-Bissau."
You do know that R-V88 is upstream of R1b-M269?
The Abusir mummies are Africans
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman:
4. They cannot use SNP to assign affinity. Autosomal STRs determine geographic affliliations. That is why Berbers are classified as NEGROS in CODIS(FBI)
on the same basis Europeans are light skinned Negroes
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Someone should tell these misguided, lying and delusional Europeans that South Africa, Namibia, Angola and parts of Rwanda and Congo are SOUTH of the equator. R1b-V88 is indigenous to Africa just as most of the mtDNA found in the Abusir mummies albeit at low frequency. Just as R1b-V88 is an upstream clade so too are the mtDNA clades found in the Abusir mummies.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
example: "In Africa, haplogroup T is primarily found among Afro-Asiatic-speaking populations, including the basal T* clade.[1] Some non-basal T clades are also commonly found among the Niger-Congo-speaking Serer
@XYYman I mean sure I guess you can just fall back on the "euros are lying," etc. whatever... But as opposed to spreading alternative facts, I elect to fuck em up with their own publications. I mean, they made the "mistake" of uploading these genomes Raw. STR, SNPs... Whatever, they are who they are, FFS they cluster relatively poorly with even NORTH AFRICANS, for people who are supposedly "indigenous". I know we don't like Occams razor around here but, my god, I haven't seen so many clear signals towards an explanation in my life.
Look I wanna show you something, but you gotta get off this "every Haplogroup is indigenous" train... It's harmful.
What you are saying as arguments in terms of the presence of these genes in SSA would makes sense in the grand scheme of things. I mean M can very well have it's inception on the continent.. R0, eh?? Maybe Djibouti?? either way, you're picking Dhalsim .. and don't get me started on the others...
So, I'ma remind you that they uploaded the full genomes raw lol... lets say if someone called the Abusir mummy STR's and measured the Fst, and they don't show your desired result what then? will you then shut up about these HG's being indigenous?
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Yes, I will like to see the STRs of the Abusir mummies with comparison of together with the relevant populations. Not some obscure population in the azz end of Africa like ....Senegal. Give me STRs of Great Lakes, Egypt, Levant with Bedoiuns and Yemen. And of course the "lying" cheating Europeans. I want the repeats of the autosomal STRs. So anyone can run their own analysis like with JAMA and the Amarna's
The 8 published for the Amarnas will be MOST helpful. And that will settle it. Maybe you know something I don't. lol!
Give up the grass bruh!! It will never happen. They won't make the same mistake ...TWICE
Put up or shut up!
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: @XYYman :rolleyes: I mean sure I guess you can just fall back on the "euros are lying," etc. whatever... But as opposed to spreading alternative facts, I elect to fuck em up with their own publications. I mean, they made the "mistake" of uploading these genomes Raw. STR, SNPs... Whatever, they are who they are, FFS they cluster relatively poorly with even NORTH AFRICANS, for people who are supposedly "indigenous". I know we don't like Occams razor around here but, my god, I haven't seen so many clear signals towards an explanation in my life.
Look I wanna show you something, but you gotta get off this "every Haplogroup is indigenous" train... It's harmful.
What you are saying as arguments in terms of the presence of these genes in SSA would makes sense in the grand scheme of things. I mean M can very well have it's inception on the continent.. R0, eh?? Maybe Djibouti?? either way, you're picking Dhalsim .. and don't get me started on the others...
So, I'ma remind you that they uploaded the full genomes raw lol... lets say if someone called the Abusir mummy STR's and measured the Fst, and they don't show your desired result what then? will you then shut up about these HG's being indigenous?
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN!! Because they know if the Amarna's are "Negros" the Abusir mummies are also "Negros". It is IMPOSSIBLE for the Abusir to be anything but "Negros" if the Armarnas are "Negros". Hawass cannot retest the Amarans..lol! It took almost a year before DNATribes exposed the truth. Remember even King Tut was R1b. lol!
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Here is what Keita states:
Quote"
"Taken together, the autosomal, Y chromosome ,and Mitochondrial DNA data support the conclusion that the Indigenous African components of the specific samples of Modern Egyptians and modern Ethiopians studied by Pagani etal. (2015) are uninformative with respect to the origin of non-Africans. The available data suggest that the separation of ancient Egyptians and ancient Ethiopians *****postdates**** Out-of- Africa. In the absence of ancient DNA specimens, estimation of Genetic profiles of core Afroasiatic and Nilo-Saharan speakers Requires phylogenetic techniques to reconstruct ancestral states."
You are blowing smoke
Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN!! Because they know if the Amarna's are "Negros" the Abusir mummies are also "Negros". It is IMPOSSIBLE for the Abusir to be anything but "Negros" if the Armarnas are "Negros". Hawass cannot retest the Amarans..lol! It took almost a year before DNATribes exposed the truth. Remember even King Tut was R1b. lol!
If the Abusir 3 werent melinated (negro) we would have their entire pigment profile. But what does that have to do with the Armanas? Why is it impossible for them to be different genetically?
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
They cannot be genetically different because they are ...what...300 miles apart? Valley of the Kings vs Abusir
If the Amarnas are "Negros" the Abusir mummies are Negro also.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Abusir are undoubtedly indigenous Africans. Yellow are modern Africans that carry haplogroups found in Abusir mummies
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Admitted their genetic haplogropu composition is very similar to Horners...Which would make Swenet happy,
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
The GREEN highlights are unique and unusual haplogroups found in Eastern Africa eg L1b found in West Africa and ancient Europeans, M5 and M76 found in Madagascar and India? N1b andR0, U5b and U6
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Admitted their genetic haplogropu composition is very similar to Horners...Which would make Swenet happy,
Don't deflect and try to make it about me, gramps. You feel the need to paint me as having an axe to grind because you're looking for an edge after the Abusir and Natufian aDNA bombshells left you with your pants down.
You posted the highlights of where in Africa the Abusir mtDNAs are found. Now bask in their full implications instead of making it about me.
Feel free to also post highlights of where in Africa Natufian Y-DNAs are found. In the meantime, I'll be going over your old posts, like:
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
It is not necessary to see a high frequency of L mtDNA to support the African heritage of the Egyptians and Abusir mummies, because African maternal lineages should not be solely delegated to L branches. This is due to the fact Eurocentrists are constantly tinkering with names of L3 and L3(M,N) clades to deny the African origin of many so-called Asian lineages. This is supported by the change in the name of the mtDNA L3c group. The group L3c of Watson et al. (1997) was renamed U6 (Richards et al. 1998). This along with changing Y-Chromosomes R1b1 and R1b1a found in Africans into R-L278 and R-L754/L761 respectively , while Europeans carrying these clades are simply referred to as R1b1 and R1b1a, to make it appear the these clades do not exist in Africa and promote the idea that R-V88 is of non-African origin.
.
.
Because few people who do genetics research study history and anthropology, they fail to realize that the skeletons dating between 950-750 BC, would represent Egyptians not Asians. This is supported by the fact that Abusir has been recognized as an early center of Egyptian civilization, and the Hyksos was a Kushite dynasty: See http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=18;t=000042
As a result, the Abusir mummies dating between 750-950 BC indicate that the so-called Eurasian haplogroups are in reality African haplogroup.
First of all, Afro-American scholars have accepted that the Egyptians were Black/African people for the past 200 years, i.e., Carter G. Woodson, W.E.B. DuBois, and J.A. Rogers, and the Senegalese scholar Anta Diop ; but, Negro Apologist : Gates, Kittles and etc, spend their time parroting the status quo line that the Egyptians were a mixed race. This same group attempt to make it appear that the Fulani, Somalis and Ethiopians are black skinned whites, because of their facial features. This is stupid, because man originated in Africa, so the physical features of these populations are African features.
The article by Schuenemann et al, 2017 on the Abusir mummies is basically a discussion of the data that support a Greco-Roman origin for Egypt. But the data on the mummies dating between 992-749 BC, can offers us keen insight into haplogroups carried by Egyptians during this time.
The genomic data from this period is important because the people of Abusir at this time would have been primarily Egyptian. As a result, the mtDNA carried by the Egyptians confirms the reality that the so-called Eurasian haplogroups are nothing more than African haplogroups.
.
.
In Schuenemann et al, 2017, there were 100 mummies in the study. A total of 27 mummies were dated between 992-749BC. In Figure 1, you can see the clades carried by these Egyptians. Below are the frequencies of the haplogroups among Egyptians at this time:
Haplogroup Frequency U 18.5 T 22.2 J 18.5 X 0.0675 M1a 0.0675 H 0.0675 I 0.0675 HV 0.037 RO 0.037 K 0.037 N 0.037
The presence of these haplogroups among the Abusir population shows that the U,T, and J clades had a high frequency among the Egyptians, and that many of the so called Middle East clades were already present in Egypt before the Greco-Romans, Turks and etc. ruled Egypt.
In conclusion, the Abusir article provides more data on the African origin of Eurasian mtDNA.
Click on the video below:
' ' .
Reference:
Schuenemann et al., Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods, Nature Communications 8, Article number: 15694 (2017), doi:10.1038/ncomms15694
.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: They cannot be genetically different because they are ...what...300 miles apart? Valley of the Kings vs Abusir
If the Amarnas are "Negros" the Abusir mummies are Negro also.
The "negro" label aside, you are aware that foreign incursions have affected northern Egypt including Middle Egypt a lot more than southern Egypt, and that such incursions have been happening since the Hyksos period. So how can you be confident that the peoples of the 'Two Lands' are genetically identical??
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman:
The ancient Egyptians of lower Egypt are closely related to modern Southern Africans like Ethiopians and Somalians. And to a lesser extent modern Sudanese
lol ^
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
What "foreign" incursion. Africans invading Africa is not....foreign. Many fail to realize the Bedouins of the Levant and Arabia are the indigenous population of the Levant and Arabia.
The Bedouins are Africans from the Nile and North Africa. Sources cited.
RESULTS: Statistical analysis revealed that, whereas the sample from Amman did not significantly differ from their Levantine neighbours, the Dead Sea sample clearly behaved as a genetic outlier in the region. Its outstanding Eurasian haplogroup U3 frequency (39%) and its south-Saharan Africa lineages (19%) are the highest in the Middle East. On the contrary, the lack ((preHV)1) or comparatively low frequency (J and T) of Neolithic lineages is also striking. Although strong drift by geographic isolation could explain the anomalous mtDNA pool of the Dead Sea sample, the fact that its mtDNA lineage composition mirrors, in geographic origin and haplogroup frequencies, its Y-chromosome pool, points to founder effect as the main cause. Ancestral M1 lineages detected in Jordan that have affinities with those recently found in Northwest but not East Africa question the African origin of the M1 haplogroup.
CONCLUSION: Results are in agreement with an old human settlement in the Jordan region. However, in spite of the attested migratory spreads, genetically divergent populations, such as that of the Dead Sea, still exist in the area
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Notice Yasin et al labels the Dead Sea population as "African Jordanians". No, Lioness I did not doctor the chart. :D
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
BTw - later studies proved M1 is of African origin.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
While we wait on ElMaestro to come up with STR proving the Abusir mummies are NOT Africans here are some reading material for those interested. Get a head start!!!
---- (1)Analysis of 15 short tandem repeats reveals significant differences between the Arabian populations from Morocco and Syria - Louai Abdin
Abstract The short tandem repeat (STR) systems D3S1358, TH01, D21S11, D18S51, Penta E, D5S818, D13S317, D7S820, D16S539, CSF1PO, Penta D, vWA, D8S1179, TPOX and FGA were studied in Arabian population samples from Morocco and Syria. No significant deviation from Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium could be observed in either preparation. Comparing the Moroccan and Syrian populations using the program R×C, no similarity could be observed at all 15 loci. In the Moroccan and Syrian populations the matching probability is 1 in 1.4×1017 and 1 in 2.6×1017, respectively. Thus, the combination of these 15 STR loci is powerful tool for forensic identification in Arabian populations
(2)Jordanian population data on five STR forensic loci: D16S539, TPOX, CSF1PO, Penta D, and Penta E - Khawlah Salem
(3)Allele frequency distribution for 15 autosomal STR loci in Afridi Pathan population of Uttar Pradesh, India - Sabahat Noor
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Anyone needs a copy? Hit me up! lol!
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
It's hilarious to me how people are collectively scrambling for a new edge from which to pontificate.
With all these aDNA bombshells Clyde refuses to admit he was wrong. He now claims there is a massive conspiracy, where academics are renaming African lineages in Europe, Asia and the New World to undermine Afrocentrism. Clyde's branch of diffusionist Afrocentrism has devolved into a full-fledged conspiracy theory.
People now claim the Abusir mummies' results are "worthless". But nowhere on this site was the third intermediate period ever claimed to be a problematic period to study. In fact, many people here cited al Jahiz as evidence that Egyptians were 'black' up to the Arab invasions. They also cited Herodutus and other Greek authors (who lived after the Third Intermediate Period) as evidence that Egyptians were still 'black' during this time. Ramses III's E1b1a predication was portrayed as typical of ancient Egyptian ancestry. But sampling mummies a few generations younger than Ramses III, is problematic now all of a sudden?
People who predicted these results are now called Hamiticists/portrayed as displaying favouratism to Horners. According to these people, even if you were right, you're still wrong. You can still catch people going on tirades about racist Egyptologists, totally obscuring the facts of the matter. No one is denying they were racist. The point is they were closer to the truth than you are: Natufian genetics is closer to the "racist" 'Eurafrican' construct than to anything these ES members have put forth. But because the 'Eurafrican' touting Hamiticists were racists, Egyptsearch trolls use their racism as a copout. But guess what, they were closer to the truth on the affinities of Natufians than you. People repeatedly try to obscure this fact using cultic logic:
"Claim A about AE population affinties was made by a racist, so this means that we therefore don't have to consider Claim A. If you entertain Claim A, you're a Hamiticist and racist, too."
People with emotional investments in nonsense always lash out at the messenger instead of taking it up with the evidence.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Again while we wait on "the Master" to come up with data proving the Abusir are NOT Africans(which is an impossible task) let me post a few notes on why STRs are used by forensic scientist and not SNPs. SNPs cannot give the investigator a most likely GEOGRAPHIC region from which the perpetrator ORIGINATED. STR would or uniparental markers. That is why the Armanas came as Sub-Saharan regardless of what you think a Sub-Saharan should look like. Under the skin they were sub-saharan Africans. That is why Berbers are African.
---- Paternity testing and forensic DNA typing by multiplex STR analysis using ABI PRISM 310 Genetic Analyzer- Sherif H.El-Alfy
Abstract Short tandem repeats (STRs) are widespread throughout the human genome and are a rich source of highly polymorphic markers which can be detected by PCR. To gain a better appreciation for how the polymorphism at a particular locus impacts the individual identity, the present study was undertaken to explore the use of 15 STR loci in forensic investigation and paternity testing. Multiplex STR typing was used to study the 15 STR loci (D8S1179, D21S11, D7S820, CSF1PO, D3S1358, TH01, D13S317, D16S539, D2S1338, D19S433, vWA, TPOX, D18S51, D5S818 and FGA) in addition to a gender identification marker, amelogenin, by capillary electrophoresis on 310 Genetic Analyzer. Samples from 85 trio and duo cases of disputed paternity were investigated. The data were analyzed to give information on paternity index, probability of paternity, frequency of number of exclusions and rate of mismatch at each STR locus. The method was also successfully applied to forensic personal identification in theft and murder cases. The results demonstrated that the STR typing is a reliable and robust tool for analyzing the forensic practice as well as for paternity testing. The advantages of using multiplex STR analysis over other conventional methods are discussed. ---
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: What "foreign" incursion. Africans invading Africa is not....foreign. Many fail to realize the Bedouins of the Levant and Arabia are the indigenous population of the Levant and Arabia.
The Bedouins are Africans from the Nile and North Africa. Sources cited..
Okay, by foreign incursions I am referring to ancient invasions from the Levant starting with the Hyksos. Ancient Levantine folks like the Hyksos are not exactly the same as modern day Bedouin which you like to cite. I believe Swenet posted a study elsewhere showing how Bronze Age Jordanians differed from modern Jordanian Bedouins.
Second, if these [modern] Bedouin are indigenous to the Levant and Arabia then how can they be "African" then, let alone Nile Valley Africans. Mind you there are some Bedouin groups around the Nile Valley of both Egypt and Sudan who are descendants of indigenes but if that's so I don't see what they have to do with those of the Levant and Arabia other than adopting the language and customs of the latter.
Swenet is right, these latest results of the Abusir mummies as provoked your dementia even more! LOL Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: It's hilarious to me how people are collectively scrambling for a new edge from which to pontificate.
With all these aDNA bombshells Clyde refuses to admit he was wrong. He now claims there is a massive conspiracy, where academics are renaming African lineages in Europe, Asia and the New World to undermine Afrocentrism. Clyde's branch of diffusionist Afrocentrism has devolved into a full-fledged conspiracy theory.
People now claim the Abusir mummies' results are "worthless". But nowhere on this site was the third intermediate period ever claimed to be a problematic period to study. In fact, many people here cited al Jahiz as evidence that Egyptians were 'black' up to the Arab invasions. They also cited Herodutus and other Greek authors (who lived after the Third Intermediate Period) as evidence that Egyptians were still 'black' during this time. Ramses III's E1b1a predication was portrayed as typical of ancient Egyptian ancestry. But sampling mummies a few generations younger than Ramses III, is problematic now all of a sudden?
People who predicted these results are now called Hamiticists/portrayed as displaying favouratism to Horners. According to these people, even if you were right, you're still wrong. You can still catch people going on tirades about racist Egyptologists, totally obscuring the facts of the matter. No one is denying they were racist. The point is they were closer to the truth than you are: Natufian genetics is closer to the "racist" 'Eurafrican' construct than to anything these ES members have put forth. But because the 'Eurafrican' touting Hamiticists were racists, Egyptsearch trolls use their racism as a copout. But guess what, they were closer to the truth on the affinities of Natufians than you. People repeatedly try to obscure this fact using cultic logic:
"Claim A about AE population affinties was made by a racist, so this means that we therefore don't have to consider Claim A. If you entertain Claim A, you're a Hamiticist and racist, too."
People with emotional investments in nonsense always lash out at the messenger instead of taking it up with the evidence.
It's getting to the point where I'm about to add gramps to the ignore list along with Clyde. People who are too caught up in their ethnocentric delusions where they can no longer rationalize let alone assess data are no longer worthy of addressing. Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
You know I have a a problem with brown-nosing Hindus. You can ignore away....knock yourself out. I don't have to be pissed off by your bitch ass comments.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Abusir are undoubtedly indigenous Africans. Yellow are modern Africans that carry haplogroups found in Abusir mummies
So your logic is if a modern African carries a particular haplogroup then that haplogroup is therefore indigenous to Africa?
It seems all your theories are based on this assumption.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
The Hyksos were not a foreign incursions. The Hyksos are Kushites, they were only returning to Lower Egypt which had always been settled by Kushites.
Eurocentrists attempt to limit the extent of the Kushite empire. The Weni inscription makes it clear that many states were inhabited ḫ3st, or Kushites.
.
.
. The map above makes it appear that only Irthet was Kush, but the Weni inscriptions includes Wawat, Yam and Temeh as being inhabited by Kushite = ḫ3st.
quote:
The inscription of Weni reads:
“His majesty made war on the Asiatic Sand-dwellers and his majesty made an army of many ten thousands; in the entire South, southward to Elephantine, and northward to Aphroditopolis [Busiris]; in the Northland on both sides entire in the [stronghold], and in the midst of the [strongholds], among the Irthet khas [Kusites], the Mazoi khas [Kushites], the Yam khas [Kushites], among the Wawat Khas [Kushites], among the Kau khas [Kushites], and in the land of Temeh.”
In the Weni inscription we can clearly see that Kushites were living in Upper and Lower Egypt. The final comment in the Weni inscription made it clear that ḫ3st (khas=Kushites) were also “in the land of Temeh”.
On this map, Temeh is situated to the south of Irthet, but in Egyptian Temeh, meant Lower Egypt.
The Egyptians made it clear that LOWER EGYPT was called : TAMEH , and UPPER EGYPT : TA SHEMA .
Because the ḫ3st (khas = Kushites), were living in Lower Egypt, when the Kings of Heqa ḫ3st took control of Egypt during the Hyksos period they were returning to the lands of their ancestors as Heqa ḫ3st (khas= Kushites) (Kings of the Kushites).
The khas [Kushites ] belonged to the C-Group people and lived in Upper and Lower Egypt between 3700-1300 BC and were called Tmhw (Temehus). The Temehus were organized into two groups: the Thnw (Tehenu) in the North and the Nhsj (Nehesy) in the South.
Sahure referred to the Tehenu leader as “Hati Tehenu”. The name Hati corresponds to the name Hatti - a tribe in Anatolia. However, the Hatti people often referred to themselves as Kashkas. Kashkas corresponds to ḫ3st (Khas), and the Hyksos were identifying their ethnic origins when they called themselves ḫ3st .
.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
To those who can follow this stuff. Here is what the repeats at the STRs look like for the Afro-Jordanians. When "The Master" get us the STR of Abusir mummies we can have a quick comparison to work with. Keep in mind these are indigenous Africans in the Levant. The author calls them Afro-Jordanians.
--- African Jordanian Population Genetic Database on Fifteen Short Tandem Repeat Genetic Loci - Salem R. Yasin et al
Results The observed allele frequencies for the fifteen STR loci found in African-Jordanians are shown in Table 1. The data in Table 1 shows the most predominant and the least common alleles for the D3S1358, D5S818, D7S820, D8S1179, D13S317, D16S539, D18S51, D21S11, TH01, vWA, TPOX, CSF1PO, FGA, Penta D, and Penta E STR genetic loci. Alleles 15, 12, 10, 13, 12, 11, 16, 29, 7, 16, 8, 10, 22, 13, and 8 were the most frequent alleles for the D3S1358, D5S818, D7S820, D8S1179, D13S317, D16S539, D18S51, D21S11, TH01, vWA, TPOX, CSF1PO, FGA, Penta D, and Penta E STR genetic loci, respectively.
-----
Also Hamad M, Yasin SR, Elkarmi A. Polymorphism of HUMvWA31, HUMTH01, HUMF13A1 and HUMFES/FPS STR genetic loci in Jordanians.
Yasin SR. Allele frequencies at nine PCR-based STR loci in Jordanians. Korean J Genetics. 2002
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Abusir are undoubtedly indigenous Africans. Yellow are modern Africans that carry haplogroups found in Abusir mummies
So your logic is if a modern African carries a particular haplogroup then that haplogroup is therefore indigenous to Africa?
It seems all your theories are based on this assumption.
That assumption is indeed very likely.
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 lineages6, 7, implying relatively larger effective population sizes for ancestral Khoisan populations.
Hey Xyyman, relax... when I get home in a week or so, I'll calculate the FSTs using STR's myself, don't worry. I know you feel the need to pad because you haven't realized yet that I actually can run these programs/tests on my own without the help of the lying Euros... So with confidence that I have no access to get any data at all you're doubling down on the rhetoric.
....But I got you, just gimme a few days OK? In the meantime while we wait, how about you actually do what I suggested in my previous comment and make some estimations or hypothesis in what you expect to see lmao... It's coming, don't worry.
..Mind you this whole time I could have been of help to you but you let your pride betray you. It has to be that, I honestly don't beleive you are that foolish or dishonest tbh...
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
" I actually can run these programs/tests on my own without the help of the lying Euros"---- More power to you. I cannot. Just don't have the time.
But Given the actual STRs I can run it through a publicly available software. I cannot pull the STR from the actual genome. Maybe when you do you can look up SLC24A5 etc as to what FortyTribes alluded to.
If I have the time I can do a deep dive into this. And I would have to rely of the "lying Euros".
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
@DJ
I'm told Neolithic Moroccan aDNA is underway. Any predictions on what their population affinities are going to be?
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: It's hilarious to me how people are collectively scrambling for a new edge from which to pontificate.
With all these aDNA bombshells Clyde refuses to admit he was wrong. He now claims there is a massive conspiracy, where academics are renaming African lineages in Europe, Asia and the New World to undermine Afrocentrism. Clyde's branch of diffusionist Afrocentrism has devolved into a full-fledged conspiracy theory.
People now claim the Abusir mummies' results are "worthless". But nowhere on this site was the third intermediate period ever claimed to be a problematic period to study. In fact, many people here cited al Jahiz as evidence that Egyptians were 'black' up to the Arab invasions. They also cited Herodutus and other Greek authors (who lived after the Third Intermediate Period) as evidence that Egyptians were still 'black' during this time. Ramses III's E1b1a predication was portrayed as typical of ancient Egyptian ancestry. But sampling mummies a few generations younger than Ramses III, is problematic now all of a sudden?
People who predicted these results are now called Hamiticists/portrayed as displaying favouratism to Horners. According to these people, even if you were right, you're still wrong. You can still catch people going on tirades about racist Egyptologists, totally obscuring the facts of the matter. No one is denying they were racist. The point is they were closer to the truth than you are: Natufian genetics is closer to the "racist" 'Eurafrican' construct than to anything these ES members have put forth. But because the 'Eurafrican' touting Hamiticists were racists, Egyptsearch trolls use their racism as a copout. But guess what, they were closer to the truth on the affinities of Natufians than you. People repeatedly try to obscure this fact using cultic logic:
"Claim A about AE population affinties was made by a racist, so this means that we therefore don't have to consider Claim A. If you entertain Claim A, you're a Hamiticist and racist, too."
People with emotional investments in nonsense always lash out at the messenger instead of taking it up with the evidence.
I wholeheartedly agree with you.
quote:These important differences have lead some, such as James Watson (1996), codiscoverer of the structure of DNA, to endorse eugenics, when free of bias and of state compulsion.
—Thomas C. Leonard
Retrospectives Eugenics and Economics in the Progressive Era
Journal of Economic Perspectives—Volume 19, Number 4—Fall 2005—Pages 207–224
Note: Watson, James D. 1996. “President’s Essay.” Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. Annual Report, pp. 1–20.
quote: Fury at DNA pioneer's theory: Africans are less intelligent than Westerners
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".
quote: What is today known as Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory was once at the center of the American eugenics movement, when it was home to the Eugenics Record Office from 1910 to 1939, at first under the tutelage of the infamous eugenicists Charles Benedict Davenport and Harry Laughlin. […]
yyman I already tried to get calls for rs16891982, and rs1426654 from the complete genome, whatever was reported in the study was all I could find, so as far as "complete" genome, They haven't omitted anything. Someone else downloaded the strands but IDK if they used the compiled BAM as I did or used the unsorted files (which would be better). However they didn't get much different results than Scheunamen. I believe they were uploaded on ES too.
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: @DJ
I'm told Neolithic Moroccan aDNA is underway. Any predictions on what their population affinities are going to be?
I heard about this too. I'm expecting some East African, Levantine and a little West African and European.
Not sure if there will be any significant A.
Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: They cannot be genetically different because they are ...what...300 miles apart? Valley of the Kings vs Abusir
If the Amarnas are "Negros" the Abusir mummies are Negro also.
People live in the same house and are genetically different.
The border's of the 17th dynasty were below Asyut. Egypt above Asyut was controlled by people they called foreigners. This was before firearms, so invasions needed great numbers to succeed and occupy. This was especially true along the borders. Obviously Egypt was not ethically cleansed in any absolute sort of way, however with the ability to selectively release test its plausible to eventually find a region where the “Modern Egyptians are more subsaharan African than Ancient Egyptians” slogan jives in an initial report.
Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
I'm told Neolithic Moroccan aDNA is underway. Any predictions on what their population affinities are going to be?
Mende, Batwa, Karamojong, San, Bell Beakers/WHG, Tuareg and Fula.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: You know I have a a problem with brown-nosing Hindus. You can ignore away....knock yourself out. I don't have to be pissed off by your bitch ass comments.
Okay, so good thing for you there are no "Hindus" here. Though apparently I hit a nerve with my post. You are still in denial and grossly misinterpreting data I see. Speaking of "brown nosing", after you change your depends, why don't you change your prescription for whatever it is you're taking for your mental faculties.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: @DJ
I'm told Neolithic Moroccan aDNA is underway. Any predictions on what their population affinities are going to be?
Well that depends on what part of Morocco the remains are from. My guess (based on fossil record as well as older blood group studies on rural populations) is that those around the Atlas areas will show affinities to Iberian populations while those further south will show affiinities to Saharan Africans.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
People live in the same house and are genetically different.
The border's of the 17th dynasty were below Asyut. Egypt above Asyut was controlled by people they called foreigners. This was before firearms, so invasions needed great numbers to succeed and occupy. This was especially true along the borders. Obviously Egypt was not ethically cleansed in any absolute sort of way, however with the ability to selectively release test its plausible to eventually find a region where the “Modern Egyptians are more subsaharan African than Ancient Egyptians” slogan jives in an initial report.
According to Manetho, there was an event called the "Smiting of God" which left Kmt defenseless so that the Hyksos were able to invade. The actual entry of the Hyksos was described more as an immigration than an actual invasion and that their rise in Lower Egypt became gradual after which they took power. What's interesting is despite their Semitic origin betrayed by their names and names of their deities, they largely adopted Egyptian culture and other Egyptian deities as their own.
This is the reason why I am somewhat skeptical of the Abusir mummies being true representatives of indigenous Egyptians.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: @DJ
I'm told Neolithic Moroccan aDNA is underway. Any predictions on what their population affinities are going to be?
Well that depends on what part of Morocco the remains are from. My guess (based on fossil record as well as older blood group studies on rural populations) is that those around the Atlas areas will show affinities to Iberian populations while those further south will show affiinities to Saharan Africans.
Good observation. I agree there will be a north-south cline of Iberian ancestry into the Maghreb and a south-north cline of African ancestry into Iberia.
The Neolithic Maghreb is the best period to find substantial West/Central African ancestry in ancient North Africa north of the 25th parallel. It's also the best region in general for this type of ancestry, at this point in time, north of the 25th parallel. So, odds for this ancestry in that time period and part of North Africa are far higher than for, say, the Egyptian Nile Valley.
But since the sample consists of food producers, we may see little or negligible amounts of West/Central African ancestry in this specific sample, especially if the sample is early Neolithic. In that case I expect equatorial East African ancestry as the primary type of SSA ancestry.
I expect the remaining, non-SSA, types of African ancestry to be related to what's found in the hybrid so-called "Levant Neolithic" and Maghrebi components.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
I'm told Neolithic Moroccan aDNA is underway. Any predictions on what their population affinities are going to be?
Mende, Batwa, Karamojong, San, Bell Beakers/WHG, Tuareg and Fula.
Nice.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: @DJ
I'm told Neolithic Moroccan aDNA is underway. Any predictions on what their population affinities are going to be?
Well that depends on what part of Morocco the remains are from. My guess (based on fossil record as well as older blood group studies on rural populations) is that those around the Atlas areas will show affinities to Iberian populations while those further south will show affiinities to Saharan Africans.
Theoretically that would make sense.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Good observation. I agree there will be a north-south cline of Iberian ancestry into the Maghreb and a south-north cline of African ancestry into Iberia.
The Neolithic Maghreb is the best period to find substantial West/Central African ancestry in ancient North Africa north of the 25th parallel. It's also the best region in general for this type of ancestry, at this point in time, north of the 25th parallel. So, odds for this ancestry in that time period and part of North Africa are far higher than for, say, the Egyptian Nile Valley.
But since the sample consists of food producers, we may see little or negligible amounts of West/Central African ancestry in this specific sample, especially if the sample is early Neolithic. In that case I expect equatorial East African ancestry as the primary type of SSA ancestry.
I expect the remaining, non-SSA, types of African ancestry to be related to what's found in the hybrid so-called "Levant Neolithic" and Maghrebi components.
Yeah, funny how some Afrocentrics are so keen on tying Nile Valley (Egypt & Nubia) with West African ancestry when the part of North Africa more likely to have such ancestry is the Maghreb. Also, I personally believe prehistoric Central Saharan populations to be somewhat of a 'wild card' so to speak in terms of African population genetics since not much is known about them. We only get bits and snippets of their ancestry from modern populations living around the Sahara today. We know more about them archaeologically from from experts like Edmond Bernus and Barbara Barich. I believe they are the 'missing link' between the Nile Valley and the Maghreb as well as the Mediterranan and the Sahel.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
@DJ, some ethnic groups from West African Sahel, South-Sahara, relate to Northern Magrebi groups, Northern Sahara.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Last comment before I get banned...
Maybe the local Africans can help me out here. Why are the Mandenka ancestral to Levantines/Middle Easterners and some West Asian( Indians) but NOT Europeans but the Yorubans are ancestral to West Europeans?
Lioness, I did not doctor the chart. Honest!. This is from the original author.
While we wait..... TreeMix.
/Mod
Large image converted to link form to make page readable.
[ 05. August 2017, 01:25 AM: Message edited by: Elite Diasporan ]
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Last comment before I get banned...
Maybe the local Africans can help me out here. Why are the Mandenka ancestral to Levantines/Middle Easterners and some West Asian( Indians) but NOT Europeans but the Yorubans are ancestral to West Europeans?
Lioness, I did not doctor the chart. Honest!. This is from the original author.
While we wait..... TreeMix.
LOL. They would claim that this is an outliner and that you are reading the chart wrong. Now we know that this claim is bs, because researchers have found that the Mande carry Eurasian admixture, and that African populations carrying R1, usually have Neanderthal admixture.
The discovery of Eurasian "admixture" among West Africans is not a recent discovery. Pickrell et al (2014) found that the Mande people carry 2% Eurasian admixture. This supports the claim of the authors of the Mota article. .
. If it has been known since 2014 that West Africans were carrying Eurasian admixture the findings of, the authors of the Mota article that as much as 6–7% of the ancestry of West and Central African groups was "Eurasian" was not an error.
Moreover the xyyman chart above is not an outliner as researchers, would claim--it reflects an actual relationship.
/Mod
Large image converted to link form to make page readable.
[ 05. August 2017, 01:25 AM: Message edited by: Elite Diasporan ]
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Good observation. I agree there will be a north-south cline of Iberian ancestry into the Maghreb and a south-north cline of African ancestry into Iberia.
The Neolithic Maghreb is the best period to find substantial West/Central African ancestry in ancient North Africa north of the 25th parallel. It's also the best region in general for this type of ancestry, at this point in time, north of the 25th parallel. So, odds for this ancestry in that time period and part of North Africa are far higher than for, say, the Egyptian Nile Valley.
But since the sample consists of food producers, we may see little or negligible amounts of West/Central African ancestry in this specific sample, especially if the sample is early Neolithic. In that case I expect equatorial East African ancestry as the primary type of SSA ancestry.
I expect the remaining, non-SSA, types of African ancestry to be related to what's found in the hybrid so-called "Levant Neolithic" and Maghrebi components.
Yeah, funny how some Afrocentrics are so keen on tying Nile Valley (Egypt & Nubia) with West African ancestry when the part of North Africa more likely to have such ancestry is the Maghreb. Also, I personally believe prehistoric Central Saharan populations to be somewhat of a 'wild card' so to speak in terms of African population genetics since not much is known about them. We only get bits and snippets of their ancestry from modern populations living around the Sahara today. We know more about them archaeologically from from experts like Edmond Bernus and Barbara Barich. I believe they are the 'missing link' between the Nile Valley and the Maghreb as well as the Mediterranan and the Sahel.
Some prehistoric skeletal remains in the western Sahara have been reliably identified as related to West/Central Africans. There are some cases of remains in the eastern Sahara were substantial West/Central African is likely. As far as I know they are pre-Neolithic and seem to me to be leftovers from L2a1 people who migrated north with the African ancestors of Natufians. Aside from these individuals, most of the eastern Saharan remains with SSA affiliation have a combination of traits diagnostic of prehistoric East Africans. Most of them look like Mesolithic Nubians. And the latter, in turn, look like prehistoric equatorial East Africans:
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: The Upper Pleistocene and Early Holocene Prehistory of the Horn of Africa
Steven A. Brandt
The African Archaeological Review, Vol. 4 (1986), pp. 41-82
The early Holocene deposits at Lake Besaka and Buur Heybe have provided the earliest evidence in the Horn of intentional human burial....Morphological features of the crania indicate Negroid affinities and can best be compared to the Sudanese skeletons of Jebel Sahaba and Wadi Haifa (McCown n.d.).
So it's very obvious that most of the impact West/Central Africans had on the Sahara was on the western side.
And thanks for those leads. I will look those names up soon.
Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: So it's very obvious that most of the impact West/Central Africans had on the Sahara was on the western side.
According to you anything in the Sahara is no longer West/Central African so really its not even the west.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: So it's very obvious that most of the impact West/Central Africans had on the Sahara was on the western side.
According to you anything in the Sahara is no longer West/Central African so really its not even the west.
In your view, what nomenclature should I use for these respective regions?
Posted by Elite Diasporan (Member # 22000) on :
It should be pretty obvious to everyone that the ancestors that would be "Niger-Congo" people would predominate the Western part of the Sahara instead of the East based on archaeological evidence. I'm just curious how "North" they would have went.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elite Diasporan: It should be pretty obvious to everyone that the ancestors that would be "Niger-Congo" people would predominate the Western part of the Sahara instead of the East based on archaeological evidence. I'm just curious how "North" they would have went.
Geographically, in topology that is a bit complex. Can you be a bit more specific when you say Western part of the Sahara? What would that be like in modern day borders vs classical borders?
Posted by Elite Diasporan (Member # 22000) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by Elite Diasporan: It should be pretty obvious to everyone that the ancestors that would be "Niger-Congo" people would predominate the Western part of the Sahara instead of the East based on archaeological evidence. I'm just curious how "North" they would have went.
Geographically, in topology that is a bit complex. Can you be a bit more specific when you say Western part of the Sahara? What would that be like in modern day borders vs classical borders?
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
@ Elite Diasporan,
Okay, thanks.
What confused it was:
Posted by Elite Diasporan (Member # 22000) on :
No problem.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Some prehistoric skeletal remains in the western Sahara have been reliably identified as related to West/Central Africans. There are some cases of remains in the eastern Sahara were substantial West/Central African is likely. As far as I know they are pre-Neolithic and seem to me to be leftovers from L2a1 people who migrated north with the African ancestors of Natufians. Aside from these individuals, most of the eastern Saharan remains with SSA affiliation have a combination of traits diagnostic of prehistoric East Africans...
By "West/Central African" related remains, I take it you mean those remains which display typical "negroid" morphology. Of course despite claims to the contrary by Euronuts like Oliver a.k.a. the Anglo bozo of many alises, such remains have been found in Egypt since at least the mesolithic. [By the way, I'm actually thinking of making a thread on this issue alone.] In fact, in the Fayum we have the epipaleolithic Qarunian Culture a.k.a. Fayum B (c.7000-5180 BCE) which you may recall the description of one Qarunian body by Beatrix Midant-Reynes:
The body was that of a forty-year old woman with a height of about 1.6 meters, who was of a more modern racial type than the classic 'Mechtoid' of the Fakhurian culture (see pp. 65-6), being generally more gracile, having large teeth and thick jaws bearing some resemblance to the modern 'negroid' type.
The Prehistory of Egypt Wiley-Blackwell. pg. 82
quote:Most of them look like Mesolithic Nubians. And the latter, in turn, look like prehistoric equatorial East Africans:
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: The Upper Pleistocene and Early Holocene Prehistory of the Horn of Africa
Steven A. Brandt
The African Archaeological Review, Vol. 4 (1986), pp. 41-82
The early Holocene deposits at Lake Besaka and Buur Heybe have provided the earliest evidence in the Horn of intentional human burial....Morphological features of the crania indicate Negroid affinities and can best be compared to the Sudanese skeletons of Jebel Sahaba and Wadi Haifa (McCown n.d.).
So it's very obvious that most of the impact West/Central Africans had on the Sahara was on the western side.
And thanks for those leads. I will look those names up soon.
So what of the remains that display non-negroid features typically identified as "Mediterranean"? What do you think is their provenance?-- the Horn or Upper Nile Valley??
Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
So testing for shared ancestry is different from testing for genetic distance? Can someone illustrate to me how someone could in theory have more shared ancestors with one group of people but be more genetically closer to another group of people that don't share as many ancestors? Was some of the research posted here supposed to explain that because I am still confused. And if there haven't been any studies that shows that can happen please post it.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [qb] Some prehistoric skeletal remains in the western Sahara have been reliably identified as related to West/Central Africans. There are some cases of remains in the eastern Sahara were substantial West/Central African is likely. As far as I know they are pre-Neolithic and seem to me to be leftovers from L2a1 people who migrated north with the African ancestors of Natufians. Aside from these individuals, most of the eastern Saharan remains with SSA affiliation have a combination of traits diagnostic of prehistoric East Africans...
By "West/Central African" related remains, I take it you mean those remains which display typical "negroid" morphology. Of course despite claims to the contrary by Euronuts like Oliver a.k.a. the Anglo bozo of many alises, such remains have been found in Egypt since at least the mesolithic. [By the way, I'm actually thinking of making a thread on this issue alone.] In fact, in the Fayum we have the epipaleolithic Qarunian Culture a.k.a. Fayum B (c.7000-5180 BCE) which you may recall the description of one Qarunian body by Beatrix Midant-Reynes:
The body was that of a forty-year old woman with a height of about 1.6 meters, who was of a more modern racial type than the classic 'Mechtoid' of the Fakhurian culture (see pp. 65-6), being generally more gracile, having large teeth and thick jaws bearing some resemblance to the modern 'negroid' type.
The Prehistory of Egypt Wiley-Blackwell. pg. 82
Yes I was alluding to her and also some Natufians with certain features diagnostic of West/Central African ancestry. I've written about this, as you know, and the L2a1 people's influence on the North African ancestors of the Natufians. Those are the only skeletal remains I know of that hint at this terminal Pleistocene L2a1 migration to the eastern Sahara. What I'm interested in is evidence of additional, post-Neolithic, migration of these people to the eastern Sahara. For all the wishful optimism that they represent a large population in early dynastic Egypt, the evidence is very weak, or simply doesn't exist:
quote:Overall, as predicted by HVSI-I data, most of the L2 lineages entered Eastern Africa between 15 and 7 ka.
^Look at that time frame. This is why Natufian aDNA is so damning to Afrocentrists as far as providing an approximation of the West/Central African ancestry in Egypt. Xyyman and other DNA Tribes dupes refuse to address this and act like it doesn't exist. I have posted this paper many times for DNA Tribes-touting ES members to comment on. They never do, for obvious reasons.
quote:So what of the remains that display non-negroid features typically identified as "Mediterranean"? What do you think is their provenance?-- the Horn or Upper Nile Valley??
North Africa. I especially like Ehret's ideas on where various North African linguistic communities were concentrated over time. Although there may have been refugia in the Horn where some of these people retreated from time to time. What are your thoughts?
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
^What I meant to say is that those who were duped by DNA Tribes' Pharaonic MLI score tables refused to address the parts of that paper that specified the when and wheres of contact between SSA L2 carriers and different parts of Africa. You give them the quotes and they pretend to not see it or understand what it means.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
^Oh, okay.
Anyway do you have info on the maternal DNA on Amarna mummies?
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
HA!HA! HA! HA! I Did NOT want to show him up. SMH. He just can't help himself.
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: ^Oh, okay.
Anyway do you have info on the maternal DNA on Amarna mummies?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: HA!HA! HA! HA! I Did NOT want to show him up. SMH. He just can't help himself.
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: ^Oh, okay.
Anyway do you have info on the maternal DNA on Amarna mummies?
What is so funny about that? Judging by his comments on JK2888's paternal hg, Ish thinks haplogroups are informative of recent ancestry. If you think that question is funny, you apparently do, too.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: What is so funny about that?
For the record, no one is denying that L2 lineages were in Egypt or in the Amarna family. I have to clarify this now because xyyman apparently does not know how to interpret the L2 paper correctly (he thinks the presence of L2 in the Amarna family would invalidate what I said), so he's bungling the point of contention.
Posted by Elite Diasporan (Member # 22000) on :
@Swenet
Since we are on the topic of L2 and it POSSIBLY being in Egypt, this is what this post was addressing in that other thread.
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: I still believe the Upper Egyptians will have "added" SSA admixture at least. *Shrugs*
Sue me...
Again, I do not know why you were projecting that I was in the same camp as Xxyman or that I believed Egypt was a melting pot of different Africans when we both had conversations on L2 on another site[plus I sent you a PM].
You already know that I am a very open minded person and not prideful[said many times I am here to learn], and you could have just corrected me instead of the certain amount of projections.
I admit the "sue me" part could have been a bit cocky, but again that post was in relation to L2 being in Levant and so Egypt[Upper Egypt] POSSIBLY having some SSA influence via the Green Sahara.
NOT that Ancient Egyptians themselves were of SSA descent. Once again feel free to correct me without putting me in certain groups. Thats what we are all here for.
PS-When I mean "SSA admixture" I DO NOT mean "West/Central African", but Nilo-Saharan East African. Before the Abusir/Natufian papers I always assumed the Upper Egyptians at least had significant East African Nilo-Saharan genetic influence, heck we seen Nilo-Saharan influence AE culture. You can even ask Truthcentric and he'll vouch for me with the past discussions we had. But after this Abusir study I am not sure this may be the case.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: HA!HA! HA! HA! I Did NOT want to show him up. SMH. He just can't help himself.
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: ^Oh, okay.
Anyway do you have info on the maternal DNA on Amarna mummies?
What is so funny about that? Judging by his comments on JK2888's paternal hg, Ish thinks haplogroups are informative of recent ancestry. If you think that question is funny, you apparently do, too.
I actually think the paternal hg's for JK2888 are "relative old" in the region (about 15 to 10 Kya, but yeah that is indeed close to 7Kya).
The problem we have here is that we lack a lot of data from Africa. So a proper reconstruction cannot be done yet.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elite Diasporan: @Swenet
Since we are on the topic of L2 and it POSSIBLY being in Egypt, this is what this post was addressing in that other thread.
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: I still believe the Upper Egyptians will have "added" SSA admixture at least. *Shrugs*
Sue me...
Again, I do not know why you were projecting that I was in the same camp as Xxyman or that I believed Egypt was a melting pot of different Africans when we both had conversations on L2 on another site[plus I sent you a PM].
You already know that I am a very open minded person and not prideful[said many times I am here to learn], and you could have just corrected me instead of the certain amount of projections.
I admit the "sue me" part could have been a bit cocky, but again that post was in relation to L2 being in Levant and so Egypt[Upper Egypt] POSSIBLY having some SSA influence via the Green Sahara.
NOT that Ancient Egyptians themselves were of SSA descent. Once again feel free to correct me without putting me in certain groups. Thats what we are all here for.
PS-When I mean "SSA admixture" I DO NOT mean "West/Central African", but Nilo-Saharan East African. Before the Abusir/Natufian papers I always assumed the Upper Egyptians at least had significant East African Nilo-Saharan genetic influence, heck we seen Nilo-Saharan influence AE culture. You can even ask Truthcentric and he'll vouch for me with the past discussions we had. But after this Abusir study I am not sure this may be the case.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: HA!HA! HA! HA! I Did NOT want to show him up. SMH. He just can't help himself.
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: ^Oh, okay.
Anyway do you have info on the maternal DNA on Amarna mummies?
What is so funny about that? Judging by his comments on JK2888's paternal hg, Ish thinks haplogroups are informative of recent ancestry. If you think that question is funny, you apparently do, too.
I actually think the paternal hg's for JK2888 are "relative old" in the region (about 15 to 10 Kya, but yeah that is indeed close to 7Kya).
The problem we have here is that we lack a lot of data from Africa. So a proper reconstruction cannot be done yet.
Of course a lot of data is missing.
Here are the only scenarios possible at this point:
1) AE were derived largely from Non Africans migrating back into North Africa. Therefore the Abusir remains becomes the "proof" that the AE were non African.
2) AE primarily derived from some "proto Eurasian" population that has not yet been identified but descended from original populations involved in OOA with MTDNA and Paternal DNA UNASSOCIATED with L lineages and E lineages (the only confirmed and currently identified African lineages). IE. A ghost population often mislabeled as Eurasian back migrants.
3) AE primarily derived from African populations carrying L MTDNA lineages and E paternal lineages (ie. the only African categorized DNA lineages) but subsequently mixed with Non African populations over time.
4) Some combination of all the above.
Right now the latest paper is leaning towards scenario 1.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elite Diasporan: [QB] @Swenet
Since we are on the topic of L2 and it POSSIBLY being in Egypt, this is what this post was addressing in that other thread.
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: I still believe the Upper Egyptians will have "added" SSA admixture at least. *Shrugs*
Sue me...
You made that same comment when I was debating Bass. Neither of us was denying SSA ancestry in Egypt, but you still made that statement to contrast it with what I said. Since I don't deny a presence of SSA ancestry in Upper Egypt, why do you feel the need to point out that you still believe it was present in Upper Egypt? You know what you're doing. Just say what you really mean. Posted by Elite Diasporan (Member # 22000) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Elite Diasporan: [QB] @Swenet
Since we are on the topic of L2 and it POSSIBLY being in Egypt, this is what this post was addressing in that other thread.
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: I still believe the Upper Egyptians will have "added" SSA admixture at least. *Shrugs*
Sue me...
You made that same comment when I was debating Bass. Neither of us was denying SSA ancestry in Egypt, but you still made that statement to contrast it with what I said. Since I don't deny a presence of SSA ancestry in Upper Egypt, why do you feel the need to point out that you still believe it was present in Upper Egypt? You know what you're doing. Just say what you really mean.
I'm still confused. If you believe that there was a presence of SSA in Upper Egypt then why in the post in the main thread did say that posters like me are M.I.A when actual data are posted? Or that we make bold claims. Or that posters like me ignore the data? In the other thread you posted this link. http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009626;p=18#000891
^^I admit I did NOT see that data before. Which is why I said if you want to correct me than do so without some of the projections.
I don't remember contrasting anything with what you said. Second I can't say what I "really mean" because I am still confused. And no I do NOT know "what I am doing."
All I'm trying to do is trying to get a clear understanding.
PS- The reason why I pointed it out was because people around the net believe that there was almost zero SSA influence in Upper Egypt[don't blame them with this recent study], but based on L2, the Green Sahara and possible Nilo-Saharan/Nilotic influence there could have been added SSA admixture to the already indigenous Egyptian admixture in Upper Egypt.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: HA!HA! HA! HA! I Did NOT want to show him up. SMH. He just can't help himself.
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: [qb] ^Oh, okay.
Anyway do you have info on the maternal DNA on Amarna mummies?
What is so funny about that? Judging by his comments on JK2888's paternal hg, Ish thinks haplogroups are informative of recent ancestry. If you think that question is funny, you apparently do, too.
I actually think the paternal hg's for JK2888 are "relative old" in the region (about 15 to 10 Kya, but yeah that is indeed close to 7Kya).
Some ES members think all SNPs are haplogroups and you think haplogroups reflect recent ancestry.
This indicates that you and some others don't have the frame of reference to understand the gravity of the conclusions of that L2 paper. Your rhetorical question (whether I know the Amarna mummies' mtDNAs) speaks parts. It doesn't follow from what I said, but you think it does because you don't even know what is being argued.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elite Diasporan: I'm still confused.
^Out of curiosity, why did you point out that you still think there is SSA ancestry in Upper Egypt? No one in that thread denies that and main ongoing point of contention is how much SSA there was in ancient Egypt.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
Of course a lot of data is missing.
Here are the only scenarios possible at this point:
1) AE were derived largely from Non Africans migrating back into North Africa. Therefore the Abusir remains becomes the "proof" that the AE were non African.
2) AE primarily derived from some "proto Eurasian" population that has not yet been identified but descended from original populations involved in OOA with MTDNA and Paternal DNA UNASSOCIATED with L lineages and E lineages (the only confirmed and currently identified African lineages). IE. A ghost population often mislabeled as Eurasian back migrants.
3) AE primarily derived from African populations carrying L MTDNA lineages and E paternal lineages (ie. the only African categorized DNA lineages) but subsequently mixed with Non African populations over time.
4) Some combination of all the above.
Right now the latest paper is leaning towards scenario 1. [/QB]
^ these hypotheticals don't instances where E is not accompanied by L
Berbers for instance, are often a combination of Y DNA E and mtDNA H
Similarly some people in the Balkans although they are E-V13 carriers rather than E-M81 as the berbers are >>>
Paternal and maternal lineages in the Balkans show a homogeneous landscape over linguistic barriers, except for the isolated Aromuns 2005
E. Bosch1, F. Calafell1, A. Gonza ́lez-Neira1,∗, C. Flaiz1,2, E. Mateu1, H.-G. Scheil3, W. Huckenbeck4, L. Efremovska5, I. Mikerezi6, N. Xirotiris7, C. Grasa8, H. Schmidt2 and D. Comas1,†
Albanians
E3b1-M78 23% (highest Y percentage) (Kosovo 45.6% - Peričic 2005)
High-Resolution Phylogenetic Analysis of Southeastern Europe Traces Major Episodes of Paternal Gene Flow Among Slavic Populations Marijana Peričić
Observed high E3b1 frequency in Kosovar Albanians (46%) and Macedonian Romani (30%) represent a focal rather than a clinal phenomenon resulting most likely from genetic drift.
Posted by Elite Diasporan (Member # 22000) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Elite Diasporan: I'm still confused.
^Out of curiosity, why did you point out that you still think there is SSA ancestry in Upper Egypt? No one in that thread denies that and main ongoing point of contention is how much SSA there was in ancient Egypt.
quote:Originally posted by Elite Diasporan:
PS- The reason why I pointed it out was because people around the net believe that there was almost zero SSA influence in Upper Egypt[don't blame them with this recent study], but based on L2, the Green Sahara and possible Nilo-Saharan/Nilotic influence there could have been added SSA admixture to the already indigenous Egyptian admixture in Upper Egypt.
I understand you may have a curiosity with that post, but that post was mainly addressing the "Anti-Afrocentric" crowd on sites like FBD and others.
Bro, you know how I move. If you feel I said something that had a lot of errors or was beyond stupid then just ask/correct me. I just wanted us to come to an understanding because it seems stuff got mixed up.
PS- As of how much SSA admixture in Upper Egypt I personally guess around 15-22%. Again my guessing. Not based on fact until we have actual data.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Some ES members think all SNPs are haplogroups and you think haplogroups reflect recent ancestry.
This indicates that you and some others don't have the frame of reference to understand the gravity of the conclusions of that L2 paper. Your rhetorical question (whether I know the Amarna mummies' mtDNAs) speaks parts. It doesn't follow from what I said, but you think it does because you don't even know what is being argued.
The question wasn't rhetorical, nor do think haplogroups always reflect recent ancestry. But considering the history from the Sahara-Sahel and specific pastoralist ethnic groups that seems to indicate it in this case.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: ^ these hypotheticals don't instances where E is not accompanied by L
Berbers for instance, are often a combination of Y DNA E and mtDNA H
Similarly some people in the Balkans although they are E-V13 carriers rather than E-M81 as the berbers are >>>
Paternal and maternal lineages in the Balkans show a homogeneous landscape over linguistic barriers, except for the isolated Aromuns 2005
E. Bosch1, F. Calafell1, A. Gonza ́lez-Neira1,∗, C. Flaiz1,2, E. Mateu1, H.-G. Scheil3, W. Huckenbeck4, L. Efremovska5, I. Mikerezi6, N. Xirotiris7, C. Grasa8, H. Schmidt2 and D. Comas1,†
Albanians
E3b1-M78 23% (highest Y percentage) (Kosovo 45.6% - Peričic 2005)
High-Resolution Phylogenetic Analysis of Southeastern Europe Traces Major Episodes of Paternal Gene Flow Among Slavic Populations Marijana Peričić
Observed high E3b1 frequency in Kosovar Albanians (46%) and Macedonian Romani (30%) represent a focal rather than a clinal phenomenon resulting most likely from genetic drift.
What would happen to the data if L snippets was found in Albanians? Would that be problematic?
The interesting part is that V13 is barley found in North (east and west) Africa.
quote:
Within E-M35, there are striking parallels between two haplogroups, E-V68 and E-V257. Both contain a lineage which has been frequently observed in Africa (E-M78 and E-M81, respectively) [6], [8], [10], [13]–[16] and a group of undifferentiated chromosomes that are mostly found in southern Europe (Table S2). An expansion of E-M35 carriers, possibly from the Middle East as proposed by other Authors [14], and split into two branches separated by the geographic barrier of the Mediterranean Sea, would explain this geographic pattern. However, the absence of E-V68* and E-V257* in the Middle East (Table S2) makes a maritime spread between northern Africa and southern Europe a more plausible hypothesis. A detailed analysis of the Y chromosomal microsatellite variation associated with E-V68 and E-V257 could help in gaining a better understanding of the likely timing and place of origin of these two haplogroups.
--Beniamino Trombetta, Fulvio Cruciani et al. (2011)
A New Topology of the Human Y Chromosome Haplogroup E1b1 (E-P2) Revealed through the Use of Newly Characterized Binary Polymorphisms
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Some ES members think all SNPs are haplogroups and you think haplogroups reflect recent ancestry.
This indicates that you and some others don't have the frame of reference to understand the gravity of the conclusions of that L2 paper. Your rhetorical question (whether I know the Amarna mummies' mtDNAs) speaks parts. It doesn't follow from what I said, but you think it does because you don't even know what is being argued.
The question wasn't rhetorical, nor do think haplogroups always reflect recent ancestry. But considering the history from the Sahara-Sahel and specific ethnic groups that seems to indicate it in this case.
I'm not going back and forth with you on this. You expressed amazement that Jk2888 did not cluster with SSA groups, despite belonging to the same macrohaplogroup. Haplogroups don't even work like that because they don't reflect recent ancestry. So it's also pointless to ask me if I know what the Amarna hgs are.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
^ Swenet,
What amazed me was that they didn't consider these populations despite being pastoralist ethnic groups from the region. They used BAM files to map European populations, but the same was not done for Africa even with little that is known about Africa. For them to use this method is not surprising.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Blah! Blah! blah! Ish is too nice, so I will ask it. Do YOU Know the mTDNA HG of the Amarnas?
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: HA!HA! HA! HA! I Did NOT want to show him up. SMH. He just can't help himself. :rolleyes:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: [qb] ^Oh, okay.
Anyway do you have info on the maternal DNA on Amarna mummies?
What is so funny about that? Judging by his comments on JK2888's paternal hg, Ish thinks haplogroups are informative of recent ancestry. If you think that question is funny, you apparently do, too.
I actually think the paternal hg's for JK2888 are "relative old" in the region (about 15 to 10 Kya, but yeah that is indeed close to 7Kya).
Some ES members think all SNPs are haplogroups and you think haplogroups reflect recent ancestry.
This indicates that you and some others don't have the frame of reference to understand the gravity of the conclusions of that L2 paper. Your rhetorical question (whether I know the Amarna mummies' mtDNAs) speaks parts. It doesn't follow from what I said, but you think it does because you don't even know what is being argued.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Yes I was alluding to her and also some Natufians with certain features diagnostic of West/Central African ancestry. I've written about this, as you know, and the L2a1 people's influence on the North African ancestors of the Natufians. Those are the only skeletal remains I know of that hint at this terminal Pleistocene L2a1 migration to the eastern Sahara. What I'm interested in is evidence of additional, post-Neolithic, migration of these people to the eastern Sahara. For all the wishful optimism that they represent a large population in early dynastic Egypt, the evidence is very weak, or simply doesn't exist:
Well since I first began studying the topic of Egypt's African identity years ago when I was still in high school I did come across several old sources which point out "negroid" crania among predynastic skeletal remains. These sources say although they were a minority (despite claims to the contrary by some Afrocentrics) they were still significant enough a presence to be remarked, with around 30% of predynastic crania in Upper Egypt being classified as "negroid" by honest anthropologists.
quote:
quote:Overall, as predicted by HVSI-I data, most of the L2 lineages entered Eastern Africa between 15 and 7 ka.
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep12526.pdf ^Look at that time frame. This is why Natufian aDNA is so damning to Afrocentrists as far as providing an approximation of the West/Central African ancestry in Egypt. Xyyman and other DNA Tribes dupes refuse to address this and act like it doesn't exist. I have posted this paper many times for DNA Tribes-touting ES members to comment on. They never do, for obvious reasons.
Which is exactly why I don't even address such dopes let alone take them serious enough to debate. I mean who in the right mind would expect the prehistoric Nile Valley folk let alone Levantine folk to share close affinities to West/Central Africans in the first place?? Acknowledging that the Egyptians and Nubians were black Africans is one thing but as soon as I point out that this doesn't mean that genetically they are close 'kissing cousins' of West Africans do the Afronuts attack me. My hypothesis is simply whatever relations Nile Valley Africans may have with West Africans, whether genetic or especially cultural, it is indirect via the Central Sahara and whatever populations existed there. And judging from the aarchaeological evidence, the Central Sahara during the Holocene wet phase was home to diverse populations one of which is no doubt the source of mtDNA hg L2a which spread to Egypt and then the Levant. I'm thinking they are probably the source of Benin HBS in the Nile Valley and eastern Mediterranean as well.
quote:North Africa. I especially like Ehret's ideas on where various North African linguistic communities were concentrated over time. Although there may have been refugia in the Horn where some of these people retreated from time to time. What are your thoughts?
I too think the morphology is indigenous to at least Northeastern Africa, though what do you make of Terminal Pleistocene remains as far south as Kenya and Tanzania displaying similar morphology such as the Naivasha and Gamble's Cave crania? Do you think there is close relation??
I believe you or Thought/Evergreen may have discussed it here or on your blog.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: I mean who in the right mind would expect the prehistoric Nile Valley folk let alone Levantine folk to share close affinities to West/Central Africans in the first place??
That is an interesting statement.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elite Diasporan:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Elite Diasporan: I'm still confused.
^Out of curiosity, why did you point out that you still think there is SSA ancestry in Upper Egypt? No one in that thread denies that and main ongoing point of contention is how much SSA there was in ancient Egypt.
quote:Originally posted by Elite Diasporan:
PS- The reason why I pointed it out was because people around the net believe that there was almost zero SSA influence in Upper Egypt[don't blame them with this recent study], but based on L2, the Green Sahara and possible Nilo-Saharan/Nilotic influence there could have been added SSA admixture to the already indigenous Egyptian admixture in Upper Egypt.
I understand you may have a curiosity with that post, but that post was mainly addressing the "Anti-Afrocentric" crowd on sites like FBD and others.
Bro, you know how I move. If you feel I said something that had a lot of errors or was beyond stupid then just ask/correct me. I just wanted us to come to an understanding because it seems stuff got mixed up.
PS- As of how much SSA admixture in Upper Egypt I personally guess around 15-22%. Again my guessing. Not based on fact until we have actual data.
What needs to be addressed and studied thoroughly is the commonalities Tishkoff subscribes to, so this can answer the genome-wide data and mitochondrial genomes:
quote:African and Middle Eastern populations shared the greatest number of alleles absent from all other populations
—Sarah Tishkoff et al.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
He expects them for have close affinity with Western Europeans instead.
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: I mean who in the right mind would expect the prehistoric Nile Valley folk let alone Levantine folk to share close affinities to West/Central Africans in the first place??
That is an interesting statement.
Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: So testing for shared ancestry is different from testing for genetic distance? Can someone illustrate to me how someone could in theory have more shared ancestors with one group of people but be more genetically closer to another group of people that don't share as many ancestors? Was some of the research posted here supposed to explain that because I am still confused. And if there haven't been any studies that shows that can happen please post it.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: He expects them for have close affinity with Western Europeans instead.
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: I mean who in the right mind would expect the prehistoric Nile Valley folk let alone Levantine folk to share close affinities to West/Central Africans in the first place??
That is an interesting statement.
That is an interesting statement as well.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Oshun:
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: So testing for shared ancestry is different from testing for genetic distance? Can someone illustrate to me how someone could in theory have more shared ancestors with one group of people but be more genetically closer to another group of people that don't share as many ancestors? Was some of the research posted here supposed to explain that because I am still confused. And if there haven't been any studies that shows that can happen please post it.
Watch this and listen carefully.
IRACDA NY-CAPS Postdoctoral Scholar Profile - Dr. Elizabeth Atkinson
quote: Originally posted by Xyyman: Blah! Blah! blah! Ish is too nice, so I will ask it. Do YOU Know the mTDNA HG of the Amarnas?
Xyyman, which of your multiple personalities am I talking to now? The one that said AE were "Horners" or the one that wrongly keeps accusing me of saying they were Horners?
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Some of us a really too sensitive.
1. Geographically.
Based upon information about the AEians one would expect that modern Egyptians, albeit the peasants, to be closest to AEians.
One will also expect that next in line will be peoples from the Sahara and Upper Nile, Then peoples from the Sudan and Great Lakes.
2. Phenotypically `(if I am to believe in the stereotypically true Negro - we know that does not exist). But based on what I see on TV/Media
Then AEians are closest to Saharans and Horners. Few resemble the stereotypical Negro. None resemble nordic Europeans.
I am light years ahead of you Lioness, Hope I answered your question - as I said. I have never come across a white man smarter than me.
Count your blessings you all are in a position of power.
Sometimes I just don't know which of your internal voices I'm dealing with.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
This is somewhat crazy and funny at the same time, on multiple levels.
quote:
Introduction
Two main routes out of Africa are still widely discussed: the Sinai, linking Egypt to the Levant, and the Bab el-Mandab strait, from the Horn of Africa to the Arabian Peninsula (Derricourt 2005). Early dates for the settlement of Southeast Asia by ∼50 ka (Barker et al. 2007) and Australia by 48 ka (Turney et al. 2001) combined with the distribution and ages of mtDNA lineages (Kivisild et al. 2003; Macaulay et al. 2005; Thangaraj et al. 2005; Atkinson et al. 2008; Soares et al. 2009) have suggested a “southern coastal route” via Arabia (Field and Lahr 2005) as the sole major exit from Africa in the Late Pleistocene (Beyin 2006; Mellars 2006; Richards et al. 2006; Bulbeck 2007). Nevertheless, controversy about the timing in particular remains.
[…]
Eastern African Origins
Furthermore, L3c is extremely rare: Only two samples have been detected so far, one in Eastern Africa and the other in the Near East.
[…]
North Africa
We performed a founder analysis stipulating three migration times, including a third one of 35.0 ka, based on the ages of U6, L3k and the population increase in the BSP (supplementary fig. S7, Supplementary Material online) with results presented in table 1
[…]
The other major lineages contributing to the 6.6 ka partition (Central African L3b, L3e1, and L3e2 lineages: founders F17, F28, and F41 in supplementary table S4, Supplementary Material online), suggest the postglacial period was characterized by gene flow across the Sahel belt (Cerný et al. 2007); these founder clades are mainly restricted to Northwest Africa and absent from Egypt.
—Pedro Soares et al.
The Expansion of mtDNA Haplogroup L3 within and out of Africa
quote:The group L3c of Watson et al. (1997) is renamed here as U6 (Richards et al. 1998) since it proves to constitute a part of haplogroup U (Richards et al. 1998) since it proves to constitute a part of haplogroup U.
—Rando JC1, Pinto F, González AM, Hernández M, Larruga JM, Cabrera VM, Bandelt HJ.
Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Well since I first began studying the topic of Egypt's African identity years ago when I was still in high school I did come across several old sources which point out "negroid" crania among predynastic skeletal remains. These sources say although they were a minority (despite claims to the contrary by some Afrocentrics) they were still significant enough a presence to be remarked, with around 30% of predynastic crania in Upper Egypt being classified as "negroid" by honest anthropologists. [/QB]
sources?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [qb] Yes I was alluding to her and also some Natufians with certain features diagnostic of West/Central African ancestry. I've written about this, as you know, and the L2a1 people's influence on the North African ancestors of the Natufians. Those are the only skeletal remains I know of that hint at this terminal Pleistocene L2a1 migration to the eastern Sahara. What I'm interested in is evidence of additional, post-Neolithic, migration of these people to the eastern Sahara. For all the wishful optimism that they represent a large population in early dynastic Egypt, the evidence is very weak, or simply doesn't exist:
Well since I first began studying the topic of Egypt's African identity years ago when I was still in high school I did come across several old sources which point out "negroid" crania among predynastic skeletal remains. These sources say although they were a minority (despite claims to the contrary by some Afrocentrics) they were still significant enough a presence to be remarked, with around 30% of predynastic crania in Upper Egypt being classified as "negroid" by honest anthropologists.
I think you're referring to the analysis undertaken by MacIver and Thomson. Note, though, that even of those "negroid" individuals, only a subset would cluster with most SSA groups. When you look at the criteria they used to identify negroid Egyptians, it covers not just Sub-Saharan Africans, but also northeast Africans and even Afalou and Taforalt (who we now know, have substantial Eurasian mtDNAs). One of the criteria they used was platyrrhiny. Look at the map below for an indication of how different populations relate in terms of this index: https://mathildasanthropologyblog.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/saharan-populations-compared1.png
MacIver and Thompson started counting individuals as negroid already at 51%, while the Sub-Saharan population averages used here start at 57%. Most predynastic Egyptian populations average around 52%, while dynastic Egyptian populatons average lower, towards West Eurasians. Because of this, predynastic population averages are called negroid. But it's clear that most predynastic population averages are nowhere near the 57-60% range of the Sub-Saharan African population averages shown here. Lioness recently posted this table from a German study, where various measurements of Egyptian mummies are listed. As you can see, two of the four Egyptian mummies can be classified as negroid in terms of nasal index, but only one of these negroid individuals approaches the range of SSA population averages. The other three, one of which also has a 'negroid index', are far removed from SSA population averages:
quote:My hypothesis is simply whatever relations Nile Valley Africans may have with West Africans, whether genetic or especially cultural, it is indirect via the Central Sahara and whatever populations existed there. And judging from the aarchaeological evidence, the Central Sahara during the Holocene wet phase was home to diverse populations one of which is no doubt the source of mtDNA hg L2a which spread to Egypt and then the Levant. I'm thinking they are probably the source of Benin HBS in the Nile Valley and eastern Mediterranean as well.
I have not looked into the possible genetic affiliations of prehistoric Central Saharans much, but the pre-Neolithic Round Head rock art in the Central Sahara and certain skeletal remains in the region support a presence of SSA groups there. I have posted about these skeletal remains in the past, but it was a long time ago. I don't remember the source, unfortunately.
quote:I too think the morphology is indigenous to at least Northeastern Africa, though what do you make of Terminal Pleistocene remains as far south as Kenya and Tanzania displaying similar morphology such as the Naivasha and Gamble's Cave crania? Do you think there is close relation??
I have been working on the origins of those populations. I'm still gathering evidence to make sure I'm on point. I aint trying to go out like the Xyyman's "Niger Congo Natufians" that never materialized. Lol.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
At a recent meeting in Oakland of the American Research Center in Egypt three scientists announced with confidence they had ruled out all of those five locations, and there was no disagreement from the 300 archaeologists there.
The Land of Punt, the scientist said, must have existed in eastern North Africa - either in the region where Ethiopia and Eritrea confront each other, or east of the Upper Nile in a lowland area of eastern Sudan.
--Scientists zero in on ancient Land of Punt
David Perlman Chronicle Science Editor The San Francisco Chronicle May 08, 2010
quote: Baboon mummy analysis reveals Eritrea and Ethiopia as location of land of Punt
Analysis of mummified baboons in the British Museum has revealed the location of the land of Punt as the area between Ethiopia and Eritrea. To the Egyptians, Punt was a place of fragrances, giraffes, electrum and other exotic goods, and was sometimes referred to as Ta-netjer, or 'God’s land'.
There are several ancient Egyptian texts that record trade voyages to the Land of Punt, dating up until the end of the New Kingdom, 3,000 years ago. But until now scholars did not know where Punt was. Ancient texts offer only vague allusions to its location and no 'Puntite' civilization has been discovered. Somalia, Ethiopia, Yemen and even Mozambique have all been offered as possible locations.
However, it appears that the search for Punt may have come to an end according to new research which claims to prove that it was located in Eritrea/East Ethiopia. Live baboons were among the goods that we know the Egyptians got from Punt. The research team included Professor Salima Ikram from the Egyptian Museum, Cairo, and Professor Nathaniel Dominy and graduate student Gillian Leigh Moritz, both from the University of California, Santa Cruz.
The team studied two baboon mummies in the British Museum. By analysing hairs from these baboons using oxygen isotope analysis, they were able to work out where they originated. Oxygen isotopes act as a 'signal' that can let scientists know where they came from. Depending on the environment an animal lived in, the ratio of different isotopes of oxygen will be different. “Oxygen tends to vary as a function of rainfall and the water composition of plants and seed,” said Professor Nathaniel Dominy of UC Santa Cruz.
Only one of the two baboons was suitable for the research – the other had spent time in Thebes as an exotic pet, and so its isotopic data had been distorted. Working on the baboon discovered in the Valley of the Kings, the researchers compared the oxygen isotope values in the ancient baboons to those found in their modern day brethren. Although isotope values in baboons in Somalia, Yemen and Mozambique did not match, those in Eritrea and Eastern Ethiopia were closely matched.
“All of our specimens in Eritrea and a certain number of our specimens from Ethiopia – that are basically due west from Eritrea – those are good matches,” said Professor Dominy.
The team were unable to compare the mummies with baboons in Yemen. However, Professor Dominy reasoned that “We can tell, based on the isotopic maps of the region, that a baboon from Yemen would look an awful lot like a baboon from Somalia isotopically.” As Somalia is definitely not the place of origin for the baboon, this suggests that Yemen is not the place of origin either.
He concluded that “We think Punt is a sort of circumscribed region that includes eastern Ethiopia and all of Eritrea.”
The team also think that they may have discovered the location of the harbour that the Egyptians would have used to export the baboons and other goods back to Egypt. Dominy points to an area just outside the modern city of Massawa: “We have a specimen from that same harbour and that specimen is a very good match to the mummy.”
Next, the team hopes to get the British Museum’s permission to take a pea-sized sample of bone from the baboon mummy and use it strontium isotope testing. This would hopefully confirm Eritrea/Eastern Ethiopia as the baboon’s origin and narrow down its location more specifically.
Relief of Hatshepsut's expedition to the Land of Punt
King and Queen of Punt
Posted by Elite Diasporan (Member # 22000) on :
@Djehuti
What are your thoughts on the upcoming Tanzanian pastoralist paper thats coming out? The Euronut wannabe Razib Khan attended the conference iirc and spoke on it.
I asked because you been in a long hiatus.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
This is the original paper by Felix von, Luschan, Felix von, 1854.
Priestergräber und andere grabfunde vom ende des alten reiches bis zur griechischen zeit vom totentempel des Ne-user-rê
Good point.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elite Diasporan: Also @Ish Gebor
Good point.
What are you referring at?
Posted by Elite Diasporan (Member # 22000) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by Elite Diasporan: Also @Ish Gebor
Good point.
What are you referring at?
Your Tishkoff post you posted to me.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Ho! Ho! split? Insert Sarcasm about Western European. But yes I expected the modern peasant Egyptians to be closest to the AEians but based upon genetics of the Amarnas and genetics of modern Egyptians, obviously they are NOT. Modern Egyptian has 18-20% foreign ancestry. Amarnas has very distant ancestry to modern Egyptians, Levantines and Western Europeans. Greatest affinity with Great Lakes Africans while West Africans come in 3rd.
That is why you can NOT perform "eye ball anthropology"
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote: Originally posted by Xyyman: Blah! Blah! blah! Ish is too nice, so I will ask it. Do YOU Know the mTDNA HG of the Amarnas?
Xyyman, which of your multiple personalities am I talking to now? The one that said AE were "Horners" or the one that wrongly keeps accusing me of saying they were Horners?
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Some of us a really too sensitive.
1. Geographically.
Based upon information about the AEians one would expect that modern Egyptians, albeit the peasants, to be closest to AEians.
One will also expect that next in line will be peoples from the Sahara and Upper Nile, Then peoples from the Sudan and Great Lakes.
2. Phenotypically `(if I am to believe in the stereotypically true Negro - we know that does not exist). But based on what I see on TV/Media
Then AEians are closest to Saharans and Horners. Few resemble the stereotypical Negro. None resemble nordic Europeans.
I am light years ahead of you Lioness, Hope I answered your question - as I said. I have never come across a white man smarter than me.
Count your blessings you all are in a position of power.
Sometimes I just don't know which of your internal voices I'm dealing with.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
And ..yes, I go where the data take me. The "haplogroup composition" of the Abusir mummies us reflective of Horners. But the STR profile data of the Amarnas are not Horners. Let us wait on ElMaestro to provide the STR profile of the Abusirs so we can compare "apples and apples".
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Modern Egyptian has 18-20% foreign ancestry. […]
What do you consider native to Egypt (Northeast African)?
quote: "Both the haplotype and MSMC analyses thus suggest a predominant northern route out of Africa via Egypt."
[…]
Sequence data avoid the effect of ascertainment bias that one encounters when dealing with SNP arrays from the same populations (Figure S1). If the northern route was the predominant path followed by the ancestors of the OOA populations, and modern African populations are representative of those at the time of the exit, Egyptians should be genetically more similar to modern non-Africans. Conversely, if the southern route was the main way out of Africa, Ethiopians should be closest to the OOA populations. However, extensive historical and genetic data show that recent gene flow has drastically influenced the genomes of present-day Egyptians and Ethiopians.
To minimize the confounding effect of this gene flow back to Africa while testing this hypothesis, we first identified and then masked the recent non-African ancestry in the Ethiopian and Egyptian genomes.
—Luca Pagani et al.
Tracing the Route of Modern Humans out of Africa by Using 225 Human Genome Sequences from Ethiopians and Egyptians
What are these Ethiopian and Egyptian genomes?
Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: I mean who in the right mind would expect the prehistoric Nile Valley folk let alone Levantine folk to share close affinities to West/Central Africans in the first place??
Me. And all those exclusive Pygmy genes in the royals tested so far proved it.
I noticed that DnaConsultants didnt even profile the really exclusively central African markers. They profiled worldly markers that were Central African in origin.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Amarnas has very distant ancestry to modern Egyptians, Levantines and Western Europeans. Greatest affinity with Great Lakes Africans while West Africans come in 3rd.
Modern Egyptians are closer to Sub Saharan Africans than supposedly "Niger Congo" Abusir mummies and Natufians. Damn, gramps. You got duped hard.
quote:Let us wait on ElMaestro to provide the STR profile of the Abusirs so we can compare "apples and apples".
More wishful thinking and faith-based optimism. Amarna alleles peak in Adaima Muslims and other regional samples. But if you insist on more embarrassment, are you willing to bet that the Abusir mummies have Amarna alleles?
Posted by Elite Diasporan (Member # 22000) on :
Lets keep this civil people. Both sides.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
Amarna alleles peak in Adaima Muslims and other regional samples. But if you insist on more embarrassment, are you willing to bet that the Abusir mummies have Amarna alleles?
That's certainly interesting.
Is this the paper you're referring at?
"Allele frequencies of 15 short tandem repeats (STRs) in three Egyptian populations of different ethnic groups"
Beatrix Midant-Reynes did some archeological fieldwork on this site.
quote: Attention is paid to archeological finds and problems of climatic fluctuations. Afrocentrists may note that the oldest skeletal remains are "somewhat negroid."
--Beatrix Midant-Reynes. The Prehistory of Egypt: From the First Egyptians to the First Pharoahs
quote: The site of Adaima is crucial for understanding the Predynastic cultures of Upper Egypt. Located 8 km south from the modern city of Esna, Adaima occupies an area of 35 ha and consists of a large settlement and two necropoleis. It was occupied from the end of Naqada I (ca. 3900 bce) to the 3rd Dynasty (ca. 2700).
quote: Based on the sherds found in the filling of the trenches and the holes, these, structures can be dated from the end of Nagada I to the middle of Nagada II. This stands m contrast to the very mixed surface material found, but also here the material never extends beyond Dynasty I.
--Beatrix Midant-Reynes. The Predynastic site of Adaima (Upper Egypt)
Interregional Contacts in the Later Prehistory of Northeastem Africa Poznan 1996
quote:Originally posted by Elite Diasporan: Also @Ish Gebor
Good point.
What are you referring at?
Your Tishkoff post you posted to me.
Hmmm, I see.
quote: Testing whether a serial founder effect could give rise to the decay of expected heterozygosity with distance observed in Fig. 4A requires appropriate demographic models for calculating the effect of drift. We performed simulations of evolutionary processes to assess whether we could recover a similar pattern to what was computed from the data as shown in Fig. 4A (37). Assume for simplicity that we begin with a parental population, and there are n serial bottleneck episodes starting at the origin (the location of the parental population). In each bottleneck, a sample of individuals of size Nb founds the next colony, which is established at some distance from the previous colony and which remains isolated from all other colonies. This subsampling generates a succession of colonies in time, each of which grows to a large size K before generating the next colony in the chain.
[...]
Further, the observed pattern of within-population diversity is best explained by an origin in Africa (Fig. 5). By studying the relationship between genetic and geographic distance, we can assess the relative importance of genetic drift and natural selection in determining the genetic variation observed among human populations. The average contribution of drift generated by the serial founder effect might be estimated from the properties of the regression in Figs. 1B and 4A. Because our regressions explain 76–78% of the observed genetic variation, this quantity is therefore an estimate of the minimum influence that drift, due to the serial founder effect, has on the total variation observed. In other words, the fraction of the variation in heterozy- gosity across human populations that is explained by drift is at least 76–78%. If stabilizing selection has been a major force in human evolution, then the decrease of average heterozygosity would be reduced, and the slope in Fig. 4A would be less negative (by an unknown amount).
--Sohini Ramachandran et al.
Support from the relationship of genetic and geographic distance in human populations for a serial founder effect originating in Africa
My warning asking both sides to be civil clearly went ignored and so I deleted all flame war posts after that warning.
This thread isn't about DNAtribes, silly personal beefs/vendettas or even the Ancient Egyptians but "the difference between genome-wide data and mitochondrial genomes." This thread was going perfectly until the silly personal beefs and flame wars[which I admit I did enable a bit]. Again this is a warning to BOTH SIDES... Xyyman, Swenet, Mansamusa, Ish Geber, Lioness, and Fourty2Tribes.
Djehuti was the ONLY POSTER in thread that remained civil and out of this silly forum beef. Be LIKE Djehuti... Anyways, after this warning this thread will be locked if this continues. You all been warned.
PS-Intentionally dragging other posters names down around this site is not allowed[not in my section] to create a false narrative about their position/character is not allowed and I'm thinking about making it a official rule.
/MOD
Edit-If you feel a poster is purposely dragging your name down to ruin your character than contact a MOD and we'll deal with it. That's what we are here FOR. This is the Egyptology section and personal beefs stinks up threads.
Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: So South Africans have the most similarity to the ancient Egyptians?
ancient DNA is not modern DNA. The MLI is a method proprietary to the private testing company DNA Tribes and their results are not peer reviewed.
Zawi Hawass team reported Rameses III predicted E1b1a. Does that mean all ancient Egyptians were E1b1a ? No but that is a peer reviewed article published in a scientific journal
We are talking two people from the 20th dynasty and like 3 from the 18th with them being inbred. They are however of the Upper Egyptian lineage. Amenhotep iii is a descendant. There was much continuity between the 18th and 20th so Amehotep iii's genes might be common in ancient Upper Egypt.
Dna Tribes is peer reviewed and authority reviewed. That said, who gives a damn if a regarded ancestry company is peer reviewed when they are running an ancestry test?
An ancestry company ran an ancestry test. Lets make that clear, no spooky stuff. Their results on the Armanas were replicated by DnaConsultants and Pop affiliator. It was Pop affiliator's pissass for African diversity database that rated them as more SSA than me... cept Yuya by two percents give or take. Dna Tribes is a lot more accurate than that database and their MLI scores are chess to checkers compared to Pop Aff. Pop Aff is peer reviewed too btw. Still Tukler's work with SPSsmart is the most telling because that is where you can see why the MLI scores were what they were. That and Beyoku and Swenet's discovery on the Karamojong having the more exclusive Euro markers. Dna Tribe's database has Karamojong so its results should be more SSA than Pop Aff.
Yeah all ancient Egyptians aren't E1b1a. Ramses iii might not have been. Its a prediction. I think Beyoku is right that Ramsses iii might be Ev-22. I think his leaked haplogroups are also legit which included instances e1b1a.
Posted by Elite Diasporan (Member # 22000) on :
I'm just responding. I don't really have much on Ramses iii's haplogroup.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
No one "ignored" your request. It's just that bs pretending to be "scientific" will get pointed out as such. That's my policy from now on with the few posts I will be making here once in a blue moon. I don't care if my post get deleted. Say something to me that reeks of crackpot drivel and you will either get ignored or you will get called out.
If you want to believe the Abusir mummies were Dinka, you deserve to get called out. Has nothing to do with "dragging names". It's just that you collectively want to believe in non sense so you're making rules now that allow non sense beliefs to flourish and forbid pointing non sense beliefs out.
And you can delete this, too. I'm done here.
Posted by Elite Diasporan (Member # 22000) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: No one "ignored" your request. It's just that bs pretending to be "scientific" will get pointed out as such. That's my policy from now on with the few posts I will be making here once in a blue moon. I don't care if my post get deleted. Say something to me that reeks of crackpot drivel and you will either get ignored or you will get called out.
If you want to believe the Abusir mummies were Dinka, you deserve to get called out. Has nothing to do with "dragging names". It's just that you collectively want to believe in non sense so you're making rules now that allow non sense beliefs to flourish and forbid pointing non sense beliefs out.
And you can delete this, too. I'm done here.
The "dragging name" was actually in response to you saying that Xyyman was going around distorting your position and trying to character assassinate you. The beef between you two have been spreading to different threads and it has been ruining the quality of them. Challenging posters post which you fill are pseudo-science are NOT against the rules. I specifically said going around and character assassinating posters was against the rules and yet you are trying to make it into something else.
I don't know HOW you feel guilty or feel my warning was ONLY directed at you. But whatever.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: I mean who in the right mind would expect the prehistoric Nile Valley folk let alone Levantine folk to share close affinities to West/Central Africans in the first place??
That is an interesting statement.
And if you read the rest of my post where that statement comes from you would know exactly what I'm talking about.
By close affinities I mean a much more recent common ancestry like the claim that Ancient Egyptian speakers and Niger-Congo speakers share recent common ancestry. Of course we know this isn't the case and that Egyptians are about as closely related to West/Central Africans as Khoisan speakers are.
My point is that genetic relations are relative. Some populations are going to be closer related than others. The PCA shows this with Horn populations being closer to Nile Valley Africans than West Africans which makes sense geographically as well, though even then the PCA shows that there is some distance between the Horn populations and Nile Valley ones, and the Hassan et al. study I cited here shows that there is more genetic diversity in northeast Africa let alone the whole African continent than is previously thought.
Mod-
Ignore him.
[ 08. August 2017, 09:53 AM: Message edited by: Elite Diasporan ]
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: I think you're referring to the analysis undertaken by MacIver and Thomson. Note, though, that even of those "negroid" individuals, only a subset would cluster with most SSA groups. When you look at the criteria they used to identify negroid Egyptians, it covers not just Sub-Saharan Africans, but also northeast Africans and even Afalou and Taforalt (who we now know, have substantial Eurasian mtDNAs). One of the criteria they used was platyrrhiny. Look at the map below for an indication of how different populations relate in terms of this index: https://mathildasanthropologyblog.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/saharan-populations-compared1.png
MacIver and Thompson started counting individuals as negroid already at 51%, while the Sub-Saharan population averages used here start at 57%. Most predynastic Egyptian populations average around 52%, while dynastic Egyptian populatons average lower, towards West Eurasians. Because of this, predynastic population averages are called negroid. But it's clear that most predynastic population averages are nowhere near the 57-60% range of the Sub-Saharan African population averages shown here. Lioness recently posted this table from a German study, where various measurements of Egyptian mummies are listed. As you can see, two of the four Egyptian mummies can be classified as negroid in terms of nasal index, but only one of these negroid individuals approaches the range of SSA population averages. The other three, one of which also has a 'negroid index', are far removed from SSA population averages:
Yeah, Thompson & MacIver's book The Ancient Races of the Thebaid was exactly what I meant, though I'm embarassed to say that I wasn't aware until years later in this forum when the poster Rasol informed me there was a difference between "negroid" and "[true] negro". Thus many old scholars like Petrie, Gardiner, Griffith, and Mackay noted "negroid" features were not uncommon in Egyptians and some even outright called Egyptians "negroid" in appearance but not actually "negro". Although ironically enough these same scholars did note a very select few of the skeletal remains especially in Upper Egypt were of truly "negro" and thus foreigners.
quote:I have not looked into the possible genetic affiliations of prehistoric Central Saharans much, but the pre-Neolithic Round Head rock art in the Central Sahara and certain skeletal remains in the region support a presence of SSA groups there. I have posted about these skeletal remains in the past, but it was a long time ago. I don't remember the source, unfortunately.
Well, like I said there were a number of cultures living in the central Sahara during the Holocene wet period, and the skeletal remains also display heterogeneity with some looking "negroid" (or negro) and others looking "Mediterranean" while others "Mechtoid". It varies from area to area.
quote:I have been working on the origins of those populations. I'm still gathering evidence to make sure I'm on point. I aint trying to go out like the Xyyman's "Niger Congo Natufians" that never materialized. Lol.
I personally think these populations displaying so-called "caucasoid" morphology predate Afro-asiatic and Nilo-Sahran in the Great Lakes region and clues to who they may be genetically can be seen in the Hassan et al. paper I cited here with regards to the Maasai perhaps.
By the way, I checked and realized it was Lioness who first posted the study in this forum 2 years ago here.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elite Diasporan: @Djehuti
What are your thoughts on the upcoming Tanzanian pastoralist paper thats coming out? The Euronut wannabe Razib Khan attended the conference iirc and spoke on it.
I asked because you been in a long hiatus.
Well knowing Razib, he'll no doubt (over) emphasize the EEF elements that may be present. That said, I think the Azanians will show close ties to modern Cushitic speaking peoples as well as perhaps Great Lakes inhabitants like the Turkana and Maasai. I'll have to wait and see.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
@Mod. Swenet and I have no "beef". We are two grown men talking.
Mod-
Knock it off PLEASE. The admin is already gunning for you so consider yourself lucky that I removed most of your post.
[ 08. August 2017, 09:55 AM: Message edited by: Elite Diasporan ]
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
BTW – I never once claimed the AEians or Natufians were Nigerians.(YRI is 3rd closest to Amarnas) I follow the data. AEians are indigenous Africans with Sub-Saharan roots in the Great Lakes and surprisingly southern Africa. This is what the data has shown. Modern Europeans, North Africans , Modern Levantines are NOT closely matched. This was borne out with the Amarnas and now the Abusir mummies. Autosomal SNP Suppl Fig 3 shows that modern Europeans are NOT closely matched and very distant from the Abusir mummies. And most Levantines/Near East are NOT closely matched either. Modern SSA Africans weren’t included in the chart. The closest matched based upon the released that in the study are Neolithic Levant(ie Natufians related-which is NOT closely related to modern Levantines), Southern Yemenis, Modern Egyptians, Bedoiuns(who are the African base population of the Levant) and Tunisians(who irregardless of their features are the LEAST admixed and purest North Africans withOUT modern Europeans admixture). The Druze are much further than the southern Yeminis.
But guess what, now have the tools. We have the genome of the Abusir mummies(I downloaded myself recently), I am sure we can download other groups from HAPMAP, HGDP etc and run our own analysis for comparison with Eastern SSA. We have TreeMix software etc to estimate migration edges. This is where DNATribes and Lucas Martin would of done his thing. But I am sure it is only a matter of time before someone (like DNAConsultants etc ) do the analysis. Now that I have re-read the study, come to think of it, STR may not be needed after all.
I am sure if the Great Lakes Africans were included who carry the labeled “Eurasian” ancestry (they)will be closest matched to Abusir. It is only a matter of time.
Posted by Elite Diasporan (Member # 22000) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Elite Diasporan: @Djehuti
What are your thoughts on the upcoming Tanzanian pastoralist paper thats coming out? The Euronut wannabe Razib Khan attended the conference iirc and spoke on it.
I asked because you been in a long hiatus.
Well knowing Razib, he'll no doubt (over) emphasize the EEF elements that may be present. That said, I think the Azanians will show close ties to modern Cushitic speaking peoples as well as perhaps Great Lakes inhabitants like the Turkana and Maasai. I'll have to wait and see.
Glad you replied. Its just one remain of a pastoralist around 3000 BC. Around that date I TOO believe he would show close affinity to S.Cushites. Bantus would have arrived later in Azania bringing agriculture/iron, but prior to them S.Cushites would have probably predominate that region.
I cant wait for this because it we have MORE Ancient African DNA.
PS-I notice you are well versed Ancient Nile Valley culture/religion. I plan on sending you a PM because I have a question.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: I mean who in the right mind would expect the prehistoric Nile Valley folk let alone Levantine folk to share close affinities to West/Central Africans in the first place??
That is an interesting statement.
And if you read the rest of my post where that statement comes from you would know exactly what I'm talking about.
By close affinities I mean a much more recent common ancestry like the claim that Ancient Egyptian speakers and Niger-Congo speakers share recent common ancestry. Of course we know this isn't the case and that Egyptians are about as closely related to West/Central Africans as Khoisan speakers are.
My point is that genetic relations are relative. Some populations are going to be closer related than others. The PCA shows this with Horn populations being closer to Nile Valley Africans than West Africans which makes sense geographically as well, though even then the PCA shows that there is some distance between the Horn populations and Nile Valley ones, and the Hassan et al. study I cited here shows that there is more genetic diversity in northeast Africa let alone the whole African continent than is previously thought.
Mod-
Ignore him.
The reason why it became inserting was because of the "multiple back migrations" into the "sub Sahara including Niger-Congo". Not that I "believe" in that narrative necessarily, but simply going by what is being said / claimed in some papers.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: AEians are indigenous Africans with Sub-Saharan roots in the Great Lakes and surprisingly southern Africa.
I have heard certain South Africans make these claim ever since the the 90's, so I was like let me look it up.
quote: Among these so-called Bantu were the Zulu ancestors - the Nguni people. Named after the charismatic figure who in a previous epoch had led a migration from Egypt to the Great Lakes via the Red Sea corridor and Ethiopia, this new home of the Nguni is the mystical Embo of Zulu storytellers to the present day.
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: The reason why it became inserting was because of the "multiple back migrations" into the "sub Sahara including Niger-Congo". Not that I "believe" in that narrative necessarily, but simply going by what is being said / claimed in some papers.
The key question is back migrations from where?? No doubt the papers you speak of say "Eurasia", but I personally think it is North Africa. The Pagani et al. 2015 paper you like to cite which was first cited here suggests OOAs left via Egypt and thus are a subset of North Africans makes it all the more easier for geneticists to confuse/obfuscate North African genetic elements for 'Eurasian' ones. This explains why for example in the Tishkoff et al. 2009 paper an alleged "Eurasian" component was found not only among the Mozabite and Beja but the Dogon people as well.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: The reason why it became inserting was because of the "multiple back migrations" into the "sub Sahara including Niger-Congo". Not that I "believe" in that narrative necessarily, but simply going by what is being said / claimed in some papers.
The key question is back migrations from where?? No doubt the papers you speak of say "Eurasia", but I personally think it is North Africa. The Pagani et al. 2015 paper you like to cite which was first cited here suggests OOAs left via Egypt and thus are a subset of North Africans makes it all the more easier for geneticists to confuse/obfuscate North African genetic elements for 'Eurasian' ones. This explains why for example in the Tishkoff et al. 2009 paper an alleged "Eurasian" component was found not only among the Mozabite and Beja but the Dogon people as well.
I agree with the point on obfuscating data. I have noticed that often they chanced the narrative to the origin of a "HG". And the more I read the more I see contradictions in their narratives.
I have referenced to Tiskoff before in this thread, here. And here is the Pagani et al. 2015 paper, which was used by Verena J. Schuenemann et al., which made me wonder about many things since Pagani used filters in his study.
Many posters here who are in dispute with each other are actually say the same thing. But arrogance gets in the way to reason objectively, which is sad.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Pagani used filters in his study.
what filters did Pagani use?
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Pagani used filters in his study.
what filters did Pagani use?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: The reason why it became inserting was because of the "multiple back migrations" into the "sub Sahara including Niger-Congo". Not that I "believe" in that narrative necessarily, but simply going by what is being said / claimed in some papers.
The key question is back migrations from where?? No doubt the papers you speak of say "Eurasia", but I personally think it is North Africa. The Pagani et al. 2015 paper you like to cite which was first cited here suggests OOAs left via Egypt and thus are a subset of North Africans makes it all the more easier for geneticists to confuse/obfuscate North African genetic elements for 'Eurasian' ones. This explains why for example in the Tishkoff et al. 2009 paper an alleged "Eurasian" component was found not only among the Mozabite and Beja but the Dogon people as well.
Oh and how could I forget to mention the 2003 Hanihara et al. study using MMD based on non-metric traits, whose findings show that North Africans (including Nubians as well as Egyptians) cluster together with Eurasians.
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: I agree with the point on obfuscating data. I have noticed that often they chanced the narrative to the origin of a "HG". And the more I read the more I see contradictions in their narratives.
I have referenced to Tiskoff before in this thread, here. And here is the Pagani et al. 2015 paper, which was used by Verena J. Schuenemann et al., which made me wonder about many things since Pagani used filters in his study.
Many posters here who are in dispute with each other are actually say the same thing. But arrogance gets in the way to reason objectively, which is sad.
Indeed, as Zarahan has often pointed out where experts in the past would obfuscate by shuffling data in regards to cranial traits whether metric or non-metric, now geneticists are doing the same thing in regards to their data by not properly assessing the indigenous genetic diversity in Africa.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Good observation. I agree there will be a north-south cline of Iberian ancestry into the Maghreb and a south-north cline of African ancestry into Iberia.
The Neolithic Maghreb is the best period to find substantial West/Central African ancestry in ancient North Africa north of the 25th parallel. It's also the best region in general for this type of ancestry, at this point in time, north of the 25th parallel. So, odds for this ancestry in that time period and part of North Africa are far higher than for, say, the Egyptian Nile Valley.
But since the sample consists of food producers, we may see little or negligible amounts of West/Central African ancestry in this specific sample, especially if the sample is early Neolithic. In that case I expect equatorial East African ancestry as the primary type of SSA ancestry.
I expect the remaining, non-SSA, types of African ancestry to be related to what's found in the hybrid so-called "Levant Neolithic" and Maghrebi components.
Not so bad, if I do say so myself.
Ancient Maghrebi mtDNAs are inconsistent with an origin of "EEF neolithics" in the Maghreb. These aDNA samples have no prominent Maghrebi mtDNA H, nor do any of the samples have affinities with WHG, which they were supposed to have in gramps' "blue-eyed Maghrebi blacks" scenario. Another batch of setbacks for gramps. It's raining aDNA setbacks for you, isn't it? Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Tell that to Kefi with her Paleoltihic mtDNA H. SMH
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
just look at where the greatest diversity of H is
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: just look at where the greatest diversity of H is
At the diverted groups, because of genetic drifts. Set forth by a panmictic population, logically.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
