...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Deshret
»
Why do Afro-Nuts continuously post their Bullshit across the internet?
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Calabooz': [QB] Honestly Iah, you are just acting like an idiot: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Iah: Which is all the evidence needed to establish the fact that Caucasoids penetrated deep into the region (among other findings).[/QUOTE]*sighs* You just don't get what Keita et al. were saying, and instead you choose to stick to Hassan et al.'s interpretation of their data even though Keita et al. address their suggestion quite thoroughly. I don't really give a damn if you don't like it and decide to stick with the Hassan et al's suggestion which I may add they are not defending themselves. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Iah: Diversion. We're not talking about other groups.[/QUOTE]Dumbass. We are talking about the [b]Fulani[/b] and they don't just occupy the Sudan but they are widespread. Nor did they originate in Sudan. So in order to establish a biocultural origins we can not just look in on place they occupy. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Iah: And notice, Keita (like you) couldn't refute that study, instead he mocks it as a "suggestion" and completey diverts by injecting some other population. Other geneticists demonstrate similar findings:[/QUOTE]What the phuck are you talking about? Keita et al. don't mock anything - they are simply exploring the suggestion made by Hassan et al. of a non-African origin of the Fulani. Just because you're too stupid to understand Keita et al.'s response does not mean they didn't refute a non-African suggestion of the Fulani. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Iah: Lokki et al 2011: "One novel DNA polymorphism, C/T-13906, in the immediate proximity of the main European mutation, was found in six of the Fulani samples... Among the 162 Fulani genotyped, the major Caucasian mutation C/T-13910 was by far the most common polymorphism"[/QUOTE]The article you are citing is basing this claim solely on another article from 2002 which identifies the T allele as main causative mutation for lactase persistence in European descent populations. I know this from reading their references. In this case, they are using the article: "Identification of a variant associated with adult-type hypolactasia." To back up their claim of the main European component being found in the Fulani. You would know this as well if you read their references. The relevance of this fact is that the are using an older (2002) article to substantiate the claim of the Fulani lactose persistence (LP) to be associated with Europeans. That said, the T allele isn't the only one linked to lactose persistence. Further reading in the Nucleotide specifis [URL=http://exploring-africa.blogspot.com/2011/02/lactase-persistence-genotypes-and.html]Here[/URL] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Iah: Tishkoff et al. 2009: "Fulani, and eastern Afroasiatic speakers exhibit low to moderate levels of European–Middle Eastern ancestry, consistent with possible gene flow from those regions."[/QUOTE]And this proves the point I raised in the other thread about you selecting things you can twist to your liking. Tishkoff et al. NEVER interpreted anything in their data for a non-African origin of the Fulani. They clarify the issue here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2930575/ Furthermore, when they say that there are "low to moderate" levels of Middle Eastern-European ancestry, that is based at the K = 11. When we look at K = 14 we see that the Fulani have little if any Near Eastern ancestry, and in fact, as pointed out time and time again, the Dogon seem to have more non African AACs when looking at K= 14. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Iah: Cerny et al, 2006: "The haplogroups of Western Eurasian origin, such as J1b, U5, H, and V, were also detected but in rather low frequencies (8.1% in total).”[/QUOTE]Exactly. Key words - low frequencies and 8.1% not indicative of a non-African origin. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Iah: Paganotti et al 2004: "the Fulani are nomadic pastoralists recently settled in west Africa and supposed to have a Caucasoid origin" .[/QUOTE]You just cited Cerny et al. and now this? That makes no sense. Cerny et al. (2006) show the Fulani to have a predominant maternal gene pool west African in origin which in turn suggests a west African origin. Get your sh!t together. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Iah: In other words, no, you do not have a study that refutes Cavalli-Sforza's 2008 study so you can't refute it, (neither did Keita) so instead you react by directing us to some other population group not related to this one. just like how you completely deviated in the previous post.[/QUOTE]Nope. You're just to stupid to understand how Keita et al. addressed Hassan et al.'s interpretation of the Fulani paternal variation. I mean really, if you want to be stubborn about it and ignore the more recent interpretation offered go right ahead. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Iah: And LOL @ "genetic drift" another inexcusable attempt at denial, at nearly 60% it's not. It's a FOUNDING lineage: "The Fulani, who possess the lowest population size in this study, have an interesting genetic structure, effectively consisting of two haplogroups or founding lineages " Cavalli-Sforza et al 2008[/QUOTE]Genetic drift certainly did play a role. As a matter of fact, you have the answer in your own citation. The Fulani from their study was a [b]small sample size[/b]. Keita et al. also addressed that: "[i]The diversity of Y chromosome haplotypes found in Fulani samples is highly variable and is [b]likely explained by ancient and recent events[/b]. The more recent political activities of Fulani in the 18th and 19th centuries led to the Fulbeization of various peoples, a process which had not ended by the mid-20th century (Hendrixson, 1980; David and Voas, 1981; Schultz, 1984). [b]The frequencies in Hassan et al.’s sample are consistent with a secondary migration from the Cameroons where the Fulani are known to have bioculturally assimilated various groups[/b] (Schultz, 1984), and where there is a notable frequency of R1*M173 in published samples of various ethnolinguistic groups, including some Fulbe (Scozzari, 1997; Cruciani et al., 2002). [b]Genetic drift could also have had a role. Space does not permit further discussion of R1*M173, which has a higher frequency in central Africa than in the Near East (Flores et al., 2005),[/b] and which may have come to Africa in a back migration (Cruciani, 2002) during the Late Stone Age, before the emergence of current or ancient African ethnic/linguistic groups/ peoples. [b]R1*M173 became part of an African biocultural evolutionary history, perhaps shaped in part in a later Saharan metapopulation, and apparently later dispersed (along with other lineages) into the ancestral populations of various regions. The evidence supports the Fulbe having emerged in Africa[/b].[/i]--Keita et al. Oh wait, you're going to say that Keita et al. didn't refute Hassan et al's suggestions even though they responded in the same journal and their article has yet to be challenged by Hassan et al. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Iah: Fulvio Cruciani 2010[/QUOTE]What's your point with Cruciani exactly? [QUOTE]Originally posted by Iah: Your sources only mention Tunisia and Siwa Berbers, not ancient Egyptians. The only one to mention European gene flow is you. But let's see what your source, Frigi et al 2010 said that you apparently ignored or didn't read: "The dates for subhaplogroups H1 and H3 (13,000 and 10,000 years, respectively) in Iberian and North African populations allow for this possibility. Kefi et al.’s (2005) data on ancient DNA could be viewed as being in agreement with such a presence in North Africa in ancient times (about 15,000–6,000 years ago) and with the fact that the North African populations are considered by most scholars as having their closest relations with European and Asian populations " (Cherni et al. 2008; Ennafaa et al. 2009; Kefi et al. 2005; Rando et al. 1998). Frigi et al 2010[/QUOTE]And just when I though you couldn't get any more retarded than you already are. In the above quote Frigi et al. is NOT talking about Nile Valley inhabitants but NORTHWEST Africans. Are you for some reason unable to check the references she is making there? The mtDNA for northwest Africa is not the same as for northeast Africa. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Iah: And then your source Fadhlaoui-Zid 2011: "most haplogroups in North Africa are of Eurasian origin (Rando et al., 1998; Krings et al., 1999; Plaza et al., 2003; Fadhlaoui-Zid et al., 2004; Harich et al., 2010). Some can be traced to ancient Paleolithic times (such as haplogroups U6, M1b, which are almost specific of northern African populations); however, some maternal lineages have been recently acquired from Europe or the Middle East (such as haplogroups U5, V, R0a, J1b, U3) (Maca-Meyer et al., 2003; Olivieri et al., 2006; Gonzalez et al., 2007). Your source Fadhlaoui-Zid references Maca-Meyer et al 2003 (above) who in turn states: "The most probable origin of the proto-U6 lineage was the Near East. Around 30,000 years ago it spread to North Africa where it represents a signature of regional continuity. Subgroup U6a reflects the first African expansion from the Maghrib returning to the east in Paleolithic times. Derivative clade U6a1 signals a posterior movement from East Africa back to the Maghrib and the Near East. This migration coincides with the probable Afroasiatic linguistic expansion. U6b and U6c clades, restricted to West Africa, had more localized expansions. U6b probably reached the Iberian Peninsula during the Capsian diffusion in North Africa. Attested presence of Caucasian people in Northern Africa goes up to Paleolithic times. From the archaeological record it has been proposed that, as early as 45,000 years ago (ya), anatomically modern humans, most probably expanded the Aterian stone industry from the Maghrib into most of the Sahara [1]. More evolved skeletal remains indicate that 20,000 years later the Iberomaurusian makers, replaced the Aterian culture in the coastal Maghrib. Several hypothesis have been forwarded concerning the Iberomaurusian origin. They can be resumed in those which propose an arrival, from the East, either from the Near East or Eastern Africa, and those which point to west Mediterranean Europe, either from the Iberian Peninsula, across the Gibraltar Strait, or from Italy, via Sicily, as their most probable homeland [2]. Between 10,000 and 6,000 ya the Neolithic Capsian industry flourished farther inland. The historic penetration in the area of classical Mediterranean cultures, ending with the Islamic domination, supposed a strong cultural influx. Linguistic research suggests that the Afroasiatic phylum of languages could have originated and extended with these Caucasians, either from the Near East or Eastern Africa and that posterior developments of the Capsian Neolithic in the Maghrib might be related to the origin and dispersal of proto-Berber speaking people into the area. From a mtDNA point of view, the most informative of these genetic markers is the North African clade U6. On the basis of complete mtDNA sequences, it has been proposed that U6 lineages, mainly found in North Africa, are the signatures of a return to Africa around 39,000–52,000 ya [8]. This stresses the importance of its detailed study in order to trace one of the earliest Caucasian arrivals to Africa. Although in moderate frequencies, the geographic range of this clade extends from the Near East to the Canary Islands, along the Atlantic shores of Northwest Africa and from the Sahel belt, including Ethiopia, to the southern Mediterranean rim. The fact that 5 of the 8 U6a haplotypes detected in the Near East are unique of this area (Fig. ?(Fig.2),2), points to prehistoric demic movements as the most probable cause of the U6a Africa to Asia migration, although historic events cannot be completely ruled out. In frame with the estimated age of U6a are archaeological data supporting early migrations from Africa into the Near East [26]. The expansion of Caucasians in Africa has been correlated with the spread and diversification of Afroasiatic languages. In summary, the phylogeography, nucleotide diversity, and coalescence ages of U6 lineages show that this clade came back to Africa in Paleolithic times. Its most probable origin was the Near East and not Europe, and since then, its presence in North Africa has been permanent. The focus of the first African expansion, detected by the spread of U6a, was Northwest Africa reaching the Near East also in the Paleolithic.[/B] The posterior U6a1 radiation most probably occurred in Northeast Africa again extending to the Near East. This movement is correlated in time with the attributed origin and expansion of Afroasiatic languages. This U6a1 wave also arrived to the Maghrib, the Northwest African margin, where the more localized U6b and U6c lineages were spreading.[/QUOTE]No offense dude, but you're just really stupid. Did you not realize when reading any of the above quotes that they mainly discuss haplogroup U6? And if you would have paid attention to the article, U6 is rare to nonexistent in the Nile Valley. The above quotes deal with North[b]west[/b] African specific clades, they have nothing to do with Northeast Africa that is genetically separated from the west which they subsequently go on to demonstrate in their article. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Iah: Your source Fadhlaoui-Zid references Olivieri et al 2006 (above) who in turn states: Sequencing of 81 entire human mitochondrial DNAs (mtDNAs) belonging to haplogroups M1 and U6 reveals that these predominantly North African clades arose in southwestern Asia and moved together to Africa about 40,000 to 45,000 years ago. Their arrival temporally overlaps with the event(s) that led to the peopling of Europe by modern humans and was most likely the result of the same change in climate conditions that allowed humans to enter the Levant, opening the way to the colonization of both Europe and North Africa. Thus, the early Upper Palaeolithic population(s) carrying M1 and U6 did not return to Africa along the southern coastal route of the “out of Africa” exit, but from the Mediterranean area; and the North African Dabban and European Aurignacian industries derived from a common Levantine source.[/QUOTE]That's better since the above mentions M1 which is the predominant clade in the East. However, if you would have realized when I cited Karima et al. 2011, my citation said: EVEN IF THOSE CLADES ARE THOUGHT TO BE BROUGHT FROM EURASIA. It doesn't change the fact that M1 is an East African specific haplogroup and U6 is North African specific. The origin of M1 has yet to be decided. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Iah: Saudi Arabs had only a minority sub-Saharan Africa component (7%), similar to the specific North-African contribution (5%). Egyptians were aligned in the cluster of Near East populations. /// The first component separated all the Near East populations from a cluster including Egyptians and other east African groups. The majority of L haplogroups, pulling positively, and haplogroup H, pulling negatively, were predominantly responsible for this split. The second component divided the Near East cluster into three groups. The first comprised northeastern populations characterized by higher frequencies of H haplogroups and absence of L haplogroups. The second combined the Levantine population with Egypt, and the three Arabian Peninsula samples were left in a third group.[/QUOTE]I have no idea what sub-Saharan admixture Saudi Arabia has to do with anything. What I find funny here, is that you emphasize on the 7% sub-Saharan input in Saudi Arabia, yet the Fulani had only 8% Eurasian maternal haplotypes. Why the double standard? FYI, the above quote on Egyptians has to do with the population structure of the modern population, not the ancient. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Iah: And then there is Ottoni et al in Mitochondrial Haplogroup H1 in North Africa: An Early Holocene Arrival from Iberia (yes that's Europe) 2010 who states: "the maternal pool of Northern Africa appears to be characterized by at least two other major components: (i) a Levantine contribution (i.e. haplogroups U6 and M1, [11]), associated with the return to Africa around 45 kya, and (ii) a more recent West European input associated with the postglacial expansion. Overall, the results of this study support the hypothesis that most of the West Eurasian maternal contribution detectable in Northwest African populations is likely linked to prehistoric (i.e. the post-glacial expansion from the Iberian Peninsula) rather than more recent historic events [26], [27], [37]." these H1 sub-clades most likely arose in North Africa after the arrival of the H1 European founder sequence, corresponding to the H1 node in Figure 1...Coalescence time estimates suggest an arrival of the European H1 mtDNAs at about 8,000–9,000 years ago.....Evidence of trans-Mediterranean contacts between Northern Africa and Western Europe has been assessed at the level of different genetic markers (e.g. [21], [22], [23], [24])."[/QUOTE]More retardation. H1=Northwest Africa. It has nothing to do with Northeast Africans and why you insist on associating it with Nile Valley inhabitants is beyond me. The Karima article clearly shows the Northeast African sequencies fall under the starlike node within M1, M1a1, not the Northwest African U6, H lineages etc., which are absolute irrelevancies. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Iah: Which is confirmed and complimented by an older study: “We show that the main indigenous North African cluster is a sister group to the most ancient cluster of European mtDNAs, from which it diverged »50,000 years ago.” (“The Emerging Tree of West Eurasian mtDNAs: A Synthesis of Control-Region Sequences and RFLPs” Institute of Molecular Medicine, University of Oxford) All these dates predate your recent (A.D.) trans-Saharan slave empire.[/QUOTE]I'm getting really tired of this. The above study that you are using sampled - you guessed it north[b]WEST[/b] Africans. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Iah: All of this equates to a damning blow to your ideology, especially in light of the fact that you won't, no, you couldn't even refute it.[/QUOTE]All this equates to is that you are still unable to grasp the genetic separation of northwest and East Africans and how the former is not representative of the latter. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Iah: And you failed in any way shape or form to refute the information on the Fulani. Don't waste my time. All you offer is constant diversion and diversion is a tactic of the delusional.[/QUOTE]What's there to refute? It's quite simple. The Fulani sample from Hassan et al. was a relatively small sample size that showed a high incidence of R1*-M173. However, the problem arises when they tried to suggest a non-African origin for the Fulani based on their rather limited results. It should also be mentioned that R1*-M173 is rare to nonexistent in the Near East and Europeans carry the downstream mutation [QUOTE]Originally posted by Iah: Paleolithic Horner's are not the same population as today's Horner's and there are more than enough genetic studies confirming this in the literature. Not only that, but your own article Frigi (above) states: "This would indicate that the North African populations arose from admixture rather than from local evolution, leading to an intermediate genetic structure between eastern sub-Saharan Africans and Eurasians." Therefore your own source betrays your idea of a "blacks only" Egypt. And we know from Harich et al, 2010 which is much more detailed exposed those Sub Saharan's in North Africa as being a result of the trans Saharan slave trade. And you failed in any way shape or form to refute the information on the Fulani. Don't waste my time. All you offer is constant diversion and diversion is a tactic of the delusional.[/QUOTE]I am getting tired of this. Once again, [b]THE ABOVE QUOTE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE NILE VALLY BUT BERBERS[/b]. Did you not bother to read the full context. The people who have an intermediate genetic structure are NOT those in the Nile Valley, but BERBERS. She makes this abundantly clear in the full context of your quote. You do realize that in the paper she says East Africa was a major population source for North Africa AND [b]the Nile Valley[/b] which means that she is not treating the Nile Valley as a part of North Africa. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Iah: And we know from Harich et al, 2010 which is much more detailed exposed those Sub Saharan's in North Africa as being a result of the trans Saharan slave trade.[/QUOTE]LMAO! [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3