...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
E-P2 (PN2) unites Niger-Congo, Cushitic and Chadic speakers
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: [QB] To analyse population history, migrations and the common origin of Niger-Kordofanian, Cushitic and Chadic language speakers, we must use a multidisciplinary approach. On the genetic front we must use uniparental as well as autosomal DNA. In this thread, I used mainly the uniparental haplogroups. In the linked thread below, I also used autosomal, uniparental as well as archaeological and linguistic data: [b]Common Origin of black Africans, Ancient Egyptians and Kushites people:[/b] http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009076 Autosomally, you also can see the evidence of the common origin of NK, Cushitic and Chadic African people. [b]The genetic distance between various African and world populations shouldn't be a guess, or something related to our own personal prejudice and bias. The genetic distances between populations is measured in a scientific way by geneticists using genetic distance mathematical formula. [/b] In the following genetic distance tree, using autosomal STR, we can see Cushitic, Chadic and Niger-Kordofanian speakers as well as various African populations are genetically closer to each others than they are to any non-African populations: [IMG]http://i1274.photobucket.com/albums/y421/amunratheultimate2/CushiticAACinTishkoffgeneticdistance_zps89d8fca2.png~original[/IMG] Taken from the Supporting Online Material from this study (Figure S14, p40): [URL=http://www.sciencemag.org/content/324/5930/1035.short]The Genetic Structure and History of Africans and African Americans by Tishkoff (2009)[/URL] Direct Link to Supporting Online Material: [URL=http://www.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2009/04/30/1172257.DC1/Tishkoff.SOM_REVISED.pdf]DOWNLOAD[/URL] This graph above completely obliterate the argument of some people in this thread who try to say it was not true (autosomally) that Cushitic, Chadic and Niger-Kordofanian speakers were genetically closer to each others than toward any non-African populations. [b]We can see that it is both true autosomally as it was with uniparental (shared E-P2 and various MtDNA haplogroups).[/b] I could end my argumentation right here. My point is already won. That is we can clearly see that Cushitic, Chadic and Niger-Kordofanian are genetically closer to each others than they are to any Europeans or West Asian populations using autosomal DNA this time. The African AACs are at the bottom and the non-African AACs at the top of the graph. As a side note. We know from uniparental Y-DNA and MtDNA that Fulani, for example, have some recent post-OOA Eurasian admixtures. This would explain why the Fulani AAC cluster is closer to non-Africans than for example Niger-Kordofanian and Nilo-Saharan speakers are to non-Africans. The Fulani AAC is still much closer to the Niger-Kordofanian and Nilo-Saharan AAC than to any non-African AACs. There's many other graph showing the relatively close genetic distances between various African populations like [URL=http://www.dhushara.com/book/unraveltree/tishkoff09.jpg]HERE[/URL], [URL=http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/files/2010/08/abofig331b.png]HERE[/URL], [URL=http://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0888754310001552-gr3.jpg]HERE[/URL], and [URL=http://i1274.photobucket.com/albums/y421/amunratheultimate2/Misc/GeneticDistancesBetweenPopulationsusingSNPsfromDNATribes2014_zps07329a43.jpg]HERE[/URL]. This is also true for Eurasians, East Asians and Native Americans populations toward each other respectively. In all those graphs, we can see African populations clustering close to each others because of 2 main aspects 1)Relatively recent common origin 2)Relatively recent admixtures. By relatively recent we mean post-OOA migrations. But to be completely sure, we can go further than this. We must make sure Cushitic and Chadic populations are not genetically close to each others and to Niger-Kordofanian populations because of recent admixtures. For this, lets use another genetic distance tree from the same study (Figure S7, p33). Links to bigger image below or in the study: [IMG]http://i1274.photobucket.com/albums/y421/amunratheultimate2/Misc/Neighbor-joiningtreefrompairwisedeltamu2microsatellitegeneticdistancesbetweenpopulationsTishkoff2009_zps11c4ef3c.png[/IMG] Genetic distance between various African and World populations (bigger image below). http://www.dhushara.com/book/unraveltree/tishkoff09.jpg Same image here too: http://img809.imageshack.us/img809/8691/5gmh.jpg [b] This above genetic distance tree using autosomal STR is also enough by itself to show African populations are genetically closer to each others than they are toward any non-African populations.[/b] This genetic distance tree is on scale, so we can measure the genetic distances with a ruler or by eye. We measure the distances by calculating the horizontal distance undertaken by traveling from one population node to another. For example, we can see Yoruba and Mandinka are very close to each others in term of genetic distance. While Igbo are a bit further away from Yoruba but not that much. All those populations (Yoruba, Mandinka and Igbo) are clearly much closer to each others than to non-African populations like Bedouin or French which are completely on the other side. [b]Generally, African populations cluster in term of autosomal genetic distance on the right side of the tree, and non-African on the left side.[/b] But more precisely, it seems to be mostly the populations between the Gabra (top right) and the Venda (bottom right) which are genetically closer to each others than to Eurasian populations. African populations between Mozabite and Cape Mixed Ancestry are kind of in between African and non-African populations. Mozabite are closer to non-African populations (Bedouin), while Beja Hadandawa are just a tad closer to African populations like Yoruba than they are to the Bedouin and other non-African populations. [b] What is important for us is that between Gabra and Venda, all those populations are genetically closer to each others than they are to any Eurasian populations like in the Middle East, Oceania or Europe.[/b] The next step into our investigation is to verify (for example) that Cushitic speakers like the Gabra are not recently admixed with Niger-Kordofanian speakers like Yoruba and Bantu. A bit like we did with Somali populations above. For this, we will first use again the table of haplotype frequencies from the Hirbo study (starting at Appendix 6a ii, p195): [URL=http://hdl.handle.net/1903/11443]DOWNLOAD HERE[/URL]. If you take the time to look at it, this confirms Gabra are not recently admixed with Niger-Kordofanian speakers (like Yoruba) or Bantu populations. Gabra: - Percentage of E1b1b: 82.6%(6.9+58.6+3.4+10.3+3.4) - No E1b1a and no L3e, so no evidence of recent admixtures between the Gabra and Niger-Kordofanian speakers characterized by E1b1a and L3e. They only share the related upstream(older) basal P2 and African L3(L3eikx, etc) lineages with West Africans/Yoruba and Bantu populations as does all African populations cited in this thread (NK, Cushitic, Chadic). - It's also interesting to note that Gabra have a low level of Eurasian Y-DNA haplogroups like F descendants (6.8%) and about 54.83% (100-45.17=54.83) of Eurasian M, N descendants haplogroups. Which is typical of female mediated recent admixture (post OOA at the very least) with Semitic (ethiosemitic) speakers and Muslim Arabs speakers in Eastern Africa. The same can be seen in Somali, Afar and various Northeastern African populations. We can also see the frequencies of Eurasian M and N haplogroups in Gabra people [URL=http://ethiohelix.blogspot.ca/2013/12/more-east-african-mtdna-charts.html]here[/URL] too. [b]With this I have proved my point again. Gabra, which are Cushitic speakers, NOT recently admixed with Niger-Kordofanian speakers are genetically closer to Yoruba than they are to Bedouin, French or any non-African populations.[/b] Recent post-OOA non-African admixtures (bi-directional) through intermediaries explain why they are closer to Eurasians than Yoruba are to Eurasians. The Gabra population are still closer to Yoruba populations than to any Eurasians populations despite not having any evidence of recent admixture with Niger-Kordofanian speakers like Yoruba (who are also not recently admixed with any E1b1b populations). To double check that Gabra from the Tiskoff study are also not recently admixed with NK speakers, we can also check Figure S12 in the Supporting Online Material posted before at K=14. We can see that Gabra have no orange color characteristic of Niger-Kordofanian speakers (orange at K=14 are mostly, but not only, recent NK alleles). [b]Double check done. Gabra are not recently admixed with Yoruba or any related NK populations. They have no e1b1a or L3e or orange color cluster. But they are still genetically closer to Yoruba and related Niger-Kordofanian speakers than to any Eurasian populations like Bedouin or French.[/b] The reason why African populations like Cushitic speakers (eg. Gabra, Somali, etc) and NK speakers (eg Yoruba, Bantu, etc) are genetically closer to each others in relations to non-AFrican populations is because they share a common origin with other African populations from the same E-P2 Y-DNA lineage and various common MtDNA haplogroups lineages (L2a, L3bf, L3cd, L3eikx, L0a, etc). So contrary to what [URL=http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=008817;p=1#000033]some people[/URL] try to say in this thread, we can see with both uniparental DNA haplogroups and autosomal DNA that Cushitic, Chadic and Niger-Kordofanian speakers share a common origin between the time of the OOA migrations of non-Africans and the foundation of Ancient Egypt. [/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