...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
Ques. about AMH migrations: horn vs. nile-valley
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug M: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: [qb] To Doug M and xyyman. It's obvious to me by reading your posts above that you have limited knowledge about population genetics. I ask you to please don't try to confuse people reading this forum with your ignorance. You can't blame geneticists and researchers if YOU have limited knowledge and if YOU don't understand the basic of genetics. And this thread is certainly not a good thread for me, or other people, to school you about the basic of population genetics. Anyway along the years you 2 have shown your constant unwillingness to learn the basics of population genetics and your posts are only good at confusing people with unsourced opinions based on your ignorance. Your posts belong to the Ancient Egypt forum, not here. [/qb][/QUOTE]Please school me. I want to know like I asked, when the African populations who migrated to Europe and Asia stopped being African? Simple question. What is the yardstick you use for defining a "Eurasian" gene? And why is that siginificant considering that ALL the root genotypes came from Africa in the first place? So if you can label genetic lineages as "Eurasian" even if they exist outside Europe, then why can we not claim the same for African genes outside of Europe? This is a simple point. And obviously it has to do with Egypt in that if you can arbitrarily and misleadingly claim a lineage as Eurasian and so-called 'isolated' populations in South Africa as 'mixed' with Eurasians then any part of Africa can be claimed as mixed with Eurasians in prehistory. Human genetics is a tree. The trunk of that tree is in Africa. So wouldn't the main branches of that tree be African as well? Doesn't that only make logical common sense? But you got people taking twigs and branches and trying to claim those twigs and branches are as old as or are more significant in terms of the growth of the tree than the trunk itself. With no trunk there is no tree. So I want to understand the yardstick being used here. Because any moron with half a brain knows full damn well that those populations who carried Early mutations of major lineages in Europe and Asia 40,000 and 60,000 years ago for all intents and purposes physically looked very much like their African ancestors. You are talking about many many small genetic chemical codes that do not necessarily have any impact on the outward appearance of the individual. Hence, mutations have been occurring in Africa since before humans left there. So again, when did Eurasians lineages stop being African lineages? What is the yardstick being used here? Because I find it odd that Europeans have a hard time finding African lineages in Europe and Asia but have no problem finding Eurasian genes in Africa.... and I am talking about old genes not new ones. Case in point. Look at the following page on wikipedia: [QUOTE] Defining African admixture Generally lineages used to characterize African admixture are those that are specific to Africa. Some DNA polymorphisms are shared by Europeans, West Asians, North Africans and Sub-Saharan Africans. Examples of such variants include the y-chromosomal haplogroup E1b1b and mitochondrial haplogroup M1.[10] This sharing of polymorphisms is the result of long distance movements of peoples between Sub-Saharan Africa and Eurasia that involved traversing North Africa and sometimes the Middle East. Consequently the definitions of "African", "Sub-Saharan African" and "North African" will depend on the time frame of reference or the semantic preferences of any particular scientist. Due to prehistoric migrations in and out of Africa, North African populations tend to exhibit allele frequencies that are intermediate between Sub-Saharan Africa and Eurasia.[13][14] Due to this complex genetic profile of Africa, African admixture in Europe could be the result of direct contact with Sub-Saharan Africans or indirectly through contact with North Africans with Sub-Saharan affiliations. In some cases, lineages found in Africa and Europe may have a common origin in Asia (for example Y haplogroups R1, T) and Haplogroup U. One clade of haplogroup U, U6a1 is known to have expanded from North and East Africa back into Europe[15][16] even though haplogroup U6 is considered to have originated in the Middle East. Other lineages are known to have moved from Europe directly into Africa (for example mitochondrial haplogroups H1, H3.[5][17] Such back migrations between Africa and Eurasia also complicate defining admixture.[/QUOTE] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_admixture_in_Europe Which starts with the following, where they claim that Europeans started with Cro-Magnons, not Africans. Don't you see the contradiction and hypocrisy? [QUOTE] According to the leading evolutionary theory of human origins, known as the Out of Africa theory, anatomically-modern humans first emerged in Africa 150,000-200,000 years ago. All non-Africans are descended from at least one group of humans who migrated out of Africa into western Asia 50,000-70,000 years ago. The first modern humans in Europe, the Cro-Magnon, was first found in southern Italy, and may have completely replaced the previous inhabitants, the Neanderthals, or mixed into them through mutual cooperation. Cro-Magnons were in the Middle East (Lebanon) by 45,000 years ago and in Eastern Europe by 40,000 years ago. By 30,000 years ago, the Cro-Magnon people had populated much of Europe. This was however not the last major human migration into Europe and this paleolithic population was to some extent replaced by later migrations to be discussed below.[/QUOTE] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_admixture_in_Europe And here is an even better page, which gets right to the point. If we are going to label genes and features based on their point of origin then why arent the first humans in Europe called Africans carrying African genes? [QUOTE] Where Did EMH Come From? In Africa, early modern humans appeared at least as long ago as 160,000 years BP at sites such as Bouri in Ethiopia, and perhaps as long ago as 195,000 years ago, if the dating of Omo Kibish, also in Ethiopia, is correct. The earliest sites outside of Africa with early modern humans are at Skhul and Qafzeh caves in what is now Israel about 100,000 years ago. There's a large gap in the record for Asia and Europe, between 100,000 and 40,000 years ago, a period in which the Middle East seems to have been occupied by Neanderthals; but around 50,000 years ago, the EMH appear again and flow back into Europe. This is problematic, because there's very little data for these periods of time. In addition, the relationship between Neanderthals and Homo sapiens is hotly debated in some circles. Behaviorally, in Africa and the Middle East, the Neanderthals and EMH were pretty much the same; they were physically quite different and different scholars debate on our exact relationship with them. Before the return of EMH to the Middle East and Europe, early technological glimmers of modern behavior are in evidence at several South African sites of the Still Bay/Howiesons Poort tradition, about 75,000-65,000 years ago. But it wasn't until about 50,000 years ago or so, that a difference in tools, in burial methods, in the presence of art and music, and probably some changes in social behaviors as well, became apparent. At the same time, early modern humans left Africa. What were the Tools Like? Beginning about 50,000 years ago, the tool kit associated with EMH is the Aurignacian, characterized by what archaeologists call a 'blade industry'. In blade technology, the knapper has sufficient skill to purposefully produce a long thin sliver of stone that is triangular in cross-section. Blades were then converted into all kinds of tools, sort of the Swiss army knife of early modern humans. Other things associated with early modern humans include ritual burials, such as that at Abrigo do Lagar Velho, Portugal, where a child's body was covered with red ochre before being interred 24,000 years ago. The invention of the atlatl was at least as long as 17,500 years ago, the earliest having been recovered from the site of Combe Sauniere. Venus figurines are attributed to early modern humans of about 30,000 years ago; and of course, let's not forget the amazing Lascaux Cave. So Why Don't We Still Call Them Cro-Magnon? The more we learn about early modern humans, the less we feel confident about the early classification systems we developed more than 130 years ago. The term Cro-Magnon doesn't refer to a particular taxonomy or even a particular group located in a particular place. The word is not precise enough, and so most paleontologists prefer to use Anatomically Modern or Early Modern Humans. [/QUOTE] http://archaeology.about.com/od/earlymansites/a/cro_magnon.htm What the hell is a cro magnon if the first humans in Europe came from Africa? Why is the water so muddy if OOA is a proven fact? Why are all alternate naming conventions being used for modern humans outside of Africa that down play and diminish the fact that they are Africans? [/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