EgyptSearch Forums: Post A Reply

...

»	EgyptSearch Forums » Egyptology » Brenna Henn: Maasai as the best ancestral sub-Saharan population for extant Egyptians » Post A Reply

Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message: HTML is not enabled. UBB Code™ is enabled.	[QUOTE]Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: [QB] "We assume the Egyptians [b]HAVE ANCESTRY[/b] from Four Primary Source Populations" Comprehension is essential for basic understanding. The above makes it clear the Egyptians(Modern) have ancestry from 4 groups Conclusion Modern Egyptians are mixed.. Also the history of Egypt is another essential, show me one scrap of evidence on the face of the Earth of "Spanish Basque" Europeans in Predynastic Egypt. We already have the archeological, biological, and historical evidence of Predynastic Egypt and prior. The Asiatics of Mesopotama had little to nothing to do with Egypt's Founding let alone Europeans who had nothing at all do with it in the 3000 plus yrs prior to the Arrival of the Greeks. Don't you learn comprehension in like 2nd grade? [/QB][/QUOTE]

Instant Graemlins	Instant UBB Code™
	What is UBB Code™?

Options

Disable Graemlins in this post.

T O P I C R E V I E W
the lioness, Member # 17353	posted Henn's article, remarks on Egyptians specifically: (Maasai etc,) In order to first identify migrant tracts, we assign local ancestry to haplotypes using a novel, principal component-based analysis of three ancestral populations. We estimate that a migration of western African origin into Morocco began about 40 generations ago [approximately 1,200 ya]; a migration of individuals with Nilotic ancestry into Egypt occurred about 25 generations ago [approximately 750 ya]. We also find significant signatures of sub-Saharan African ancestry that vary substantially among populations. These sub-Saharan ancestries appear to be a recent introduction into North African populations, dating to about 1,200 years ago in southern Morocco and about 750 years ago into Egypt, possibly reflecting the patterns of the trans-Saharan slave trade that occurred during this period. he Tunisian Berbers further separate as a distinct population cluster at k = 8. An opposite cline of ancestry appears to originate in the Near East [i.e. Qatari Arabs] and decreases into Egypt and westward across North Africa [k = 6, 8]. nterestingly, eastern populations [i.e. Libya and Egypt] share ancestry assigned to both the Bantu-speaking Luhya and the Nilotic-speaking Maasai, whereas western populations share ancestry mainly with the Luhya. Of note is that the South Moroccan and western Saharan populations contain considerable variation across individuals in the amount of sub-Saharan ancestry [see also [14], [26]], consistent with recent admixture. We focus on admixed populations at either end of North Africa, specifically our population samples of South Moroccans and Egyptians. We similarly assume Egyptians have ancestry from four primary source populations: Maghrebi [e.g. Saharawi], eastern Nilotic-speakers [e.g. Maasai], Near Eastern Arabs [e.g. Qatari] and European [e.g. Spanish Basque]. These source populations reflect the ancestry assigned in our clustering algorithm analysis [Figure 1]. According to our ADMIXTURE results, two distinct sub-Saharan ancestries are present in Egyptian individuals at k = 6:10; these two ancestry components are highest in the Kenyan Luhya and Maasai populations. However, the “Luhya” ancestry is present at very low proportions, below 10% at k = 6 and below 5% at k = 8 and there is also “Luhya” ancestry detectable in Maasai populations. Thus, we chose the Maasai as the best ancestral sub-Saharan population for extant Egyptians. We hypothesized that the distribution of sub-Saharan African tracts in the Moroccans and Egyptians might better reflect a single episode or “pulse” of migration. Our Egyptian sample of Nilotic segments [derived from Maasai] has a better log likelihood under a pulse migration model, estimated as time since admixture of 24ga [95% CI: 23–26ga] rather than 51ga under a constant migration model Although we observe a declining amount of Maghrebi ancestry from northwest-to-northeast, it is possible that other geographically North African samples [e.g. Egyptians further south than the sampled Siwa Oasis] do not conform to this geographic cline. We also use the length of Nilotic tracts in Egyptians to ask if sub-Saharan ancestry [apparent in Figure 1 and Figure 6] also appears to be a recent introduction. Under a pulse model of migration, a significant increase in gene flow likely occurred ~700 ya, after the Arabic expansion into North Africa 1,400 ya. Our migration results are in agreement with previous studies based on mtDNA analysis where gene flow into eastern and western North Africa appeared to have different sub-Saharan population sources Genomic Ancestry of North Africans Supports Back-to-Africa Migrations Brenna M. Henn et al http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=008327;p=1
dana marniche Member # 13149	posted Conclusion - most modern Egyptians aren't related to the sub-Saharans that predominated in pharaonic Egypt. Something we already have knew and have confirmed with the dna tribes studies. So what's new.
xyyman Member # 13597	posted to those who calling her ...him Know who you are dealing with Brenna M. Henn Assistant Professor, Dept. of Ecology and Evolution, SUNY Stony Brook population genetics - human evolution - genomics - anthropology Verified email at stonybrook.edu Homepage
xyyman Member # 13597	posted Sarah Tishkoff University of Pennsylvania African Population History - Genetic Variation - Disease Susceptibility Verified email at mail.med.upenn.edu
Djehuti Member # 6698	posted ^ And your point?? That because these experts are white, they are not to be trusted?? By the way, I find the conclusions to be funny considering that Michael Crichton, Keita, and others noted the Sub-Saharans that show the most affinities to Egyptians in cranial features were the Nilotic Teita people.
xyyman Member # 13597	posted Ornella Semino Professor of Genetics, Dept. of Biology and Biotechnology, University of Pavia, Italy Human Genetics and Evolution - Population Genetics Verified email at unipv.it
lamin Member # 5777	posted quote: And your point?? That because these experts are white, they are not to be trusted?? By the way, I find the conclusions to be funny considering that Michael Crichton, Keita, and others noted the Sub-Saharans that show the most affinities to Egyptians in cranial features were the Nilotic Teita people. I am puzzled as to why posters on this site continue to use the stupidly racist Eurocentric term "sub-Saharan". Lesotho is thousands of kilometres from Senagal, Mali, Chad, Sudan, etc., yet the racism involved in using such a term doesn't register. Brenda Henn is not to be taken seriously at all: A lowly Assistant Professor at a low-grade state university. She looks kosher so she's making sure that she will have all the right credentials to join the covey that vigourously seeks to control research on African anthropological genetics. The big names in the kosher set include Mike Hammer and Sarah Tishkoff. And Kittles and Keita are all quiet these days.
the lioness, Member # 17353	posted Brenna Henn is currently working on a post docorate in the genetics dept at Stanford
lamin Member # 5777	posted And?
lamin Member # 5777	posted And? Stanford, That's where another big name Kosher guy is. Richard Klein. As the saying goes: it's who you know that counts, not what you know.
Djehuti Member # 6698	posted quote: Originally posted by lamin: I am puzzled as to why posters on this site continue to use the stupidly racist Eurocentric term "sub-Saharan". Lesotho is thousands of kilometres from Senagal, Mali, Chad, Sudan, etc., yet the racism involved in using such a term doesn't register. Actually I am well aware of the racist agenda behind the phrase 'Sub-Saharan' which is why I usually don't use it unless it's in context with someone else's usage. Even more recently is this silly racist agenda to separate 'Eurasians' from 'Sub-Saharans' even before the Out-of-Africa expansion! LOL quote: Brenda Henn is not to be taken seriously at all: A lowly Assistant Professor at a low-grade state university. I only take someone as seriously as his/her study or scientific work. quote: She looks kosher so she's making sure that she will have all the right credentials to join the covey that vigorously seeks to control research on African anthropological genetics. The big names in the kosher set include Mike Hammer and Sarah Tishkoff. And Kittles and Keita are all quiet these days. I go by the info presented in a study and what peers have to say about it also in conjunction with my own thoughts in the matter.
xyyman Member # 13597	posted You should know by now I have no problem with white people. My point is know the author, know their politics and you wouldn't be suprised. Henn has a boner for seperating Saharans from South Saharans. But she even admitted that IF there was migration into Arabia, it was short lived. The only way to be sure is through nrY and mtDNA. And we know what the answer on that is already. quote: Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ And your point?? That because these experts are white, they are not to be trusted?? By the way, I find the conclusions to be funny considering that Michael Crichton, Keita, and others noted the Sub-Saharans that show the most affinities to Egyptians in cranial features were the Nilotic Teita people.
xyyman Member # 13597	posted Agreed. The pattern is very simple. These upstarts need to "sow their oats". I always check out the authors when I read the article. They all go to a veteran to get their blessings. The big dogs are usually Achilli, Underhill, Torrini, Paabo, Barbujani, Maucaulay, Cruciani. Underhill and Babujani is a tard more objective, at least they pretend to be. Fortunately there are progressive young ones coming out. Malstrom, come to mind. She calls it as she sees it. quote: Originally posted by lamin: And? Stanford, That's where another big name Kosher guy is. Richard Klein. As the saying goes: it's who you know that counts, not what you know.
xyyman Member # 13597	posted As I said the heavy hitters came out on that Alps Iceman paper. My guess is they know the results already but would not publicize it. DNATribes...you reading this?
Djehuti Member # 6698	posted quote: Originally posted by xyyman: You should know by now I have no problem with white people. My point is know the author, know their politics and you wouldn't be suprised. Henn has a boner for seperating Saharans from South Saharans. But she even admitted that IF there was migration into Arabia, it was short lived. The only way to be sure is through nrY and mtDNA. And we know what the answer on that is already. I understand your point. Out of curiosity, which migrations into Arabia did she say was short lived? Arabians to this day carry paternal E1b1b and even E2 as well as maternal L3 lineages.
the lioness, Member # 17353	posted quote: Originally posted by xyyman: Agreed. The pattern is very simple. These upstarts need to "sow their oats". I always check out the authors when I read the article. They all go to a veteran to get their blessings. The big dogs are usually Achilli, Underhill, Torrini, Paabo, Barbujani, Maucaulay, Cruciani. Underhill and Babujani is a tard more objective, at least they pretend to be. Fortunately there are progressive young ones coming out. Malstrom, come to mind. She calls it as she sees it. quote: Originally posted by lamin: And? Stanford, That's where another big name Kosher guy is. Richard Klein. As the saying goes: it's who you know that counts, not what you know. The more separation the greater the accuracy in a genetic analysis Sahleians are primarily Tropical West African. Mahgrebians are not. If you combine the Sahel with the Mahgreb and call it North Africa you will have infrmation less accurate than if you called North Africa the Mahgreb only. But if you did combine the Sahel with the Mahgreb somebody could say you were separating North Sahelians from West or Central Africans. The naming is sematics. Only the sample sites are indicated it doesn't matter what you call the region. We see exactly where the samples were taken from and the analysis that is associted with these locations. Usually in region analysis the samples are taken from major popuation centers, cities.
-Just Call Me Jari- Member # 14451	posted So then how in hell is Henn et al. being spammed all over the net as proof positive that the Egyptians are the Same as their Ancestors. Even in their Henn et al. They are mixed... quote: Originally posted by the lioness,: We similarly assume Egyptians have ancestry from four primary source populations: Maghrebi [e.g. Saharawi], eastern Nilotic-speakers [e.g. Maasai], Near Eastern Arabs [e.g. Qatari] and European [e.g. Spanish Basque]. These source populations reflect the ancestry assigned in our clustering algorithm analysis [Figure 1]. According to our ADMIXTURE results, two distinct sub-Saharan ancestries are present in Egyptian individuals at k = 6:10; these two ancestry components are highest in the Kenyan Luhya and Maasai populations. However, the “Luhya” ancestry is present at very low proportions, below 10% at k = 6 and below 5% at k = 8 and there is also “Luhya” ancestry detectable in Maasai populations. Thus, we chose the Maasai as the best ancestral sub-Saharan population for extant Egyptians. We hypothesized that the distribution of sub-Saharan African tracts in the Moroccans and Egyptians might better reflect a single episode or “pulse” of migration.
the lioness, Member # 17353	posted quote: Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: So then how in hell is Henn et al. being spammed all over the net as proof positive that the Egyptians are the Same as their Ancestors. Even in their Henn et al. They are mixed... quote: Originally posted by the lioness,: We similarly assume Egyptians have ancestry from four primary source populations: Maghrebi [e.g. Saharawi], eastern Nilotic-speakers [e.g. Maasai], Near Eastern Arabs [e.g. Qatari] and European [e.g. Spanish Basque]. These source populations reflect the ancestry assigned in our clustering algorithm analysis [Figure 1]. According to our ADMIXTURE results, two distinct sub-Saharan ancestries are present in Egyptian individuals at k = 6:10; these two ancestry components are highest in the Kenyan Luhya and Maasai populations. However, the “Luhya” ancestry is present at very low proportions, below 10% at k = 6 and below 5% at k = 8 and there is also “Luhya” ancestry detectable in Maasai populations. Thus, we chose the Maasai as the best ancestral sub-Saharan population for extant Egyptians. We hypothesized that the distribution of sub-Saharan African tracts in the Moroccans and Egyptians might better reflect a single episode or “pulse” of migration. ^^^ and this "four primary source"quote is saying modern Egyptians are the same as their ancestors???
-Just Call Me Jari- Member # 14451	posted "We assume the Egyptians HAVE ANCESTRY from Four Primary Source Populations" Comprehension is essential for basic understanding. The above makes it clear the Egyptians(Modern) have ancestry from 4 groups Conclusion Modern Egyptians are mixed.. Also the history of Egypt is another essential, show me one scrap of evidence on the face of the Earth of "Spanish Basque" Europeans in Predynastic Egypt. We already have the archeological, biological, and historical evidence of Predynastic Egypt and prior. The Asiatics of Mesopotama had little to nothing to do with Egypt's Founding let alone Europeans who had nothing at all do with it in the 3000 plus yrs prior to the Arrival of the Greeks. Don't you learn comprehension in like 2nd grade?
Djehuti Member # 6698	posted ^ I believe the lyinass is mentored by her mistress Mathilda. Perhaps because she dropped out of school like many prostitutes(?).
asante-Korton Member # 18532	posted BUT THE MAASAI ARE CAUCASOIDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
xyyman Member # 13597	posted I agree with you. Southern Europeans are admixed with African. Southern Europeans are not Nordic quote: Originally posted by the lioness,: [QUOTE]Originally posted by xyyman: [qb] Sahleians are primarily Tropical West African. Mahgrebians are not. .
Djehuti Member # 6698	posted ^ But neither is being 'Nordic' exclusive to such African admixture. Remember that northern Europe has 1-2% frequency of E1b1b lineages. In the meantime there are Sardinians who don't carry E lineages at all and still look no different from other Mediterrnanean Euros. Thus one cannot tell what ancestry someone carries by the way they look.
the lioness, Member # 17353	posted quote: Originally posted by xyyman: I agree with you. Southern Europeans are admixed with African. Southern Europeans are not Nordic quote: Originally posted by the lioness,: [QUOTE]Originally posted by xyyman: [qb] Sahleians are primarily Tropical West African. Mahgrebians are not. . Who mentioned the word "Nordic" ?
Troll Patrol Member # 18264	posted ^ because the proposition by some studies is that these Europeans came from the North of Europe, you dumb ass!
the lioness, Member # 17353	posted
mena7 Member # 20555	posted The Ancient Egyptian were Niger Congo speaker.Their descendants live in Nigeria, Mali, Benin, Senegal, Ghana, Niger, Togo, the two Congo etc.
the lioness, Member # 17353	posted quote: Originally posted by xyyman: Southern Europeans are admixed with African. Southern Europeans are not Nordic
xyyman Member # 13597	posted I agree, 18.7% North African and close to 5% South Saharans for southern Europeans.
xyyman Member # 13597	posted This thing is getting out of control....and laughable. Ha! Ha! Ha! == Higher Levels of Neanderthal Ancestry in East Asians Than in Europeans Jeffrey D. Wall1,, Michael F. Hammer3 and Montgomery Slatkin2 Neanderthals were a group of archaic hominins that occupied most of Europe and parts of Western Asia from roughly 30-300 thousand years ago (Kya). They coexisted with modern humans during part of this time. Previous genetic analyses that compared a draft sequence of the Neanderthal genome with genomes of several modern humans concluded that Neanderthals made a small (1-4%) contribution to the gene pools of all non-African populations. This observation was consistent with a single episode of admixture from Neanderthals into the ancestors of all non-Africans when the two groups coexisted in the Middle East 50-80 Kya. We examined the relationship between Neanderthals and modern humans in greater detail by applying two complementary methods to the published draft Neanderthal genome and an expanded set of high-coverage modern human genome sequences. We find that, consistent with the recent finding of Meyer et al. (2012), Neanderthals contributed more DNA to modern East Asians than to modern Europeans. Furthermore we find that the Maasai of East Africa have a small but significant fraction of Neanderthal DNA.* Because our analysis is of several genomic samples from each modern human population considered, we are able to document the extent of variation in Neanderthal ancestry within and among populations. Our results combined with those previously published show that a more complex model of admixture between Neanderthals and modern humans is necessary to account for the different levels of Neanderthal ancestry among human populations. In particular, at least some Neanderthal-modern human admixture must postdate the separation of the ancestors of modern European and modern East Asian populations. Our finding of Neanderthal admixture into the Maasai was initially surprising, given the lack of evidence that Neanderthals ever crossed into Africa or that the ancestors of the Maasai were ever in the Middle East. Although direct contact between the two groups in the past is theoretically possible, our results are more consistent with a scenario involving recent admixture between the ancestors of the Maasai and one or more (historically) non-African groups with Neanderthal ancestry several thousand years ago
xyyman Member # 13597	posted now wouldn't that make the AEians..and even modern Egyptians have Neanderthal genes...(sic) The next Silicon Valley ...Maasai Country