...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
Theophile Obenga's "Negro-Egyptian" linguistic phylum
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Swenet: [QB] [QUOTE] Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: That's certainly a strange way to look at things. The genetic distance between people who speak languages derived from the Negro-Egyptian phylum is much shorter than between Semitic speakers and African Cushitic and Chadic speakers (that is the "Afro" branch of the debunked Afro-Asiatic language phylum).[/QUOTE]When you're trying to piece together the phylogenetic structure of an ancient proto-population (Proto-Afrasan speakers), you're not supposed to count other admixture events that postdate their split, dummy. This sounds strange to you because you're such a google scholar. [QUOTE] Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: You can refer for example to the Tishkoff study on STR for example or the DNA tribes SNPs distance tree. Those trees are not like haplogroups which use only one SNP (very tributary to "recent" or past genetic drift) but on the contrary use multiple SNPs (or STRs):[/QUOTE]They/their data certainly don't suggest anything even remotely conducive to Obenga's propositions. [QUOTE] Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: All speakers of Negro-Egyptian languages also have in common traditional religion practices. For example, Ancient Egyptian and African Traditional religions are very much similar. They are too many common cultural trait to name but we can note the presence of Headrest in all Negro-Egyptian descendant populations.[/QUOTE]None of this would have been specific to the proto Negro-Egyptian community. These are all either easily borrowed (don't need descent from a proto-community to explain their distribution) or they predate the time frame Obenga is talking about. Also, provide evidence that Semitic speakers and Berber speakers didn't have these traits. [QUOTE] Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: It's also important to note that ancestral E-M35(E-M78) are present in Nilo-Saharan speaking people for example (even if that fact is only skimmed over by Cruciani with the 'Nilo-Saharan from Kenya' with their 16.7% frequency of the M-35 mutation (11.1+5.6) ( ref. Table 1 ). Also note in the same table the presence of the E-M35* paragroup in South African !kung, Khwe and Bantu populations. Since they have no E-M78 in their population they likely acquired the M35 mutation within a population which didn't have the M78 mutation yet. A population close to the E-P2* who just got introduced the M35 mutation. The Khwe got the highest frequency of E-M35* haplogroup in the world. Obviously none of the Kenyan Nilo-Saharans or the South Africans were from the former Afro-Asiatic family.[/QUOTE]All outdated information. None of this Cruciani stuff is current. Also, if you're going to reply to my posts, make sure you read the goal post. Those E-M35 y-chromosomes in non-Afrasan speaking groups are all the result of admixture events--not through common descent. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: genetic analysis show that they have a short genetic distance between one another (compared to Semitic and Chadic/Cushitic speakers).[/QUOTE]See above. You're not supposed to confound post-split admixture events with genetic material that defines a proto-group. [/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