...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
They have Hannibal Barca as black again and Eurocentrics are mad again
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Antalas: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug M: Because the studies you keep citing say these populations were Africans. [/QUOTE]They don't. They simply say that they also had "African" ancestry which is what I told you with aterians. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug M: However, we find instead that the Taforalt group is significantly closer to both outgroups (aSouthAfrica and Mbuti) than any combination of Yoruba and Natufians (z = 2.728 SE; Fig. 4). A similar pattern is observed for the East African outgroups Dinka, Mota, and Hadza (table S11 and fig. S20). [b]These results can only be explained by Taforalt harboring an ancestry that contains additional affinity with South, East, and Central African outgroups.[/b] None of the present-day or ancient Holocene African groups serve as a good proxy for this unknown ancestry, because adding them as the third source is still insufficient to match the model to the Taforalt gene pool (table S12 and fig. S21). How- ever, we can exclude any branch in human genetic diversity more basal than the deepest known one represented by SouthAfrica (4) as the source of this signal: it would result in a negative affinity to SouthAfrica, not a positive one as we find (Fig. 4). Both an unknown archaic hominin and the recently proposed deep West African lineage (4) belong to this category and therefore cannot explain the Taforalt gene pool.[/QUOTE] https://www.eva.mpg.de/documents/AAAS/Loosdrecht_Pleistocene_Science_2018_2583534.pdf [/QUOTE] yes so what ? Doesn't mean they didn't have eurasian ancestry and that paper is outdated lazaridis corrected it and here are his results : [IMG]https://i.imgur.com/X2swlef.png[/IMG] [QUOTE] We document major population turnover in the Near East after the time of Dzudzuana, [b]showing that the highly differentiated Holocene populations of the region6 were formed by ‘Ancient North Eurasian’3,9,10 admixture into the Caucasus and Iran and North African[/b] 11,12 admixture into the Natufians of the Levant. [b]We finally show that the Dzudzuana population contributed the majority of the ancestry of post-Ice Age people in the Near East, North Africa, and even parts of Europe, thereby becoming the largest single contributor of ancestry of all present-day West Eurasians.[/b] [/QUOTE] https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/423079v1.full so yes Taforalt had "african" ancestry but still was predominantly eurasian. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug M: It is easy as the dates on these papers are simple enough to read and you just keep randomly posting data as if that proves you right when most of it is contradicted by the papers themselves or other more recent information.[/QUOTE]You never succeed at contradicting the papers I posted you just said "gibberish" or implied that european scholars were behind some conspiracy against blacks... [QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug M: The point was that Natufians had African ancestry and that ancestry shared a common ancestor with Taforalt. Meaning they both descended from an ancient African population. So again, your argument that Taforalt represents ancient 20,000 year old Eurasian ancestry is still false. [/QUOTE]Natufians simply had a low quantity of Iberomaurusian ancestry that's it. I don't see how that prevent Iberomaurusians from having eurasian ancestry but ok... [QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug M: It has to do with the fact that these two populations, Natufians and Taforalt were connected by African ancestry. [/QUOTE]??? All modern north africans including the nordic looking ones have black/deep ancestry so what's your point ? [QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug M: So it says in black and white that Taforalt and Natufians shared a common ancestor in Africa predating both Natufians and Taforalt. And that Natufians had African ancestry via Haplogroup E. Now you are seriously going to claim this represnts Eurasian migration into North Africa 20,000 years ago? Come on dude quit when you are ahead. The papers say that the Taforalt populations are closer to ancient Africans than anybody else, then they also say they shared a common African ancestor with Natufians, but you still claim that this represents Eurasian gene flow. Again, if that was "Eurasian" ancestry, they would have called it that, but they cant so you are still wrong.[/QUOTE]You're either doing this on purpose or you're mentally retarded. The quote literally says that Natufians have IBM ancestry instead of the reverse and this guy interpret this as " the Taforalt populations are closer to ancient Africans than anybody else" and ask me without any reason "Now you are seriously going to claim this represnts Eurasian migration into North Africa 20,000 years ago? " holy sh*t XD I will not even try to correct you hahahah [QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug M: So they are right in that modern north Africans have more Eurasian ancestry as the result of recent mixture than Taforalt? Because that is what they are saying. Finally you get it. [/QUOTE]So you admit that taforalt had eurasian ancestry but simply less ? I wonder how they got such type of ancestry and when ... [QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug M: OK Fine those other lineages do not change the fact that these populations had substantial African ancestry. And that those combination of lineages do not reflect the modern make up of North Africans as more "Eurasian". Again, the idea that 25,000 years ago there was a migration from Eurasia to Africa bringing language and culture as the basis for "Berbers" is false, yet you keep swearing that this is being supported by these papers when it is not. [/QUOTE]Who denied they had substantial african ancestry ? Who said modern north Africans are 100% taforalt-like ? Who said these 25k years eurasians brought proto-berber in the region ? Again strawman. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug M: The key word is "might" but you keep referring to U6, even though it is mostly found in Africa as the "smoking gun" that makes these people "EUrasians" which is highly dubious. So again, you are wrong and just promoting false and misleading data that really isn't supported.[/QUOTE]Oldest U6 is found in Europe and I supposed all the other haplogroups I mentionned are also african ? If not how did they end up there ? Stop being in denial : [IMG]https://i.imgur.com/afZSqSv.png?1[/IMG] [IMG]https://i.imgur.com/1S9ezyK.png[/IMG] Iberomaurusians appeared roughly 25k years ago so how did they end up with typical eurasian lineages at that time ? [QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug M: The point was the Romans referred to coastal North Africa as "Africa". Period. [/QUOTE]They never saw blacks as africans nor called the whole continent "africa" that was simply the name of a province. Period. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug M: Again, you have no problem using the term Eurasian when all Eurasians don't have the same language and culture, yet complain about the word Africa as if that is a problem. And the term African is appropriate for coastal North Africans as they were the first to be labeled with it by the Romans. As most of the terms we use in Africa today are derived from foreigners: berber from Barbarian, Africa from Romans, Libya from Greece, etc.[/QUOTE]"Africa" and "libya" both derives from berber words but of course you didn't know that XD [/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