...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
Egyptian DNA, Forumbiodiversity, sub-Saharan Africa
» 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 beyoku: [qb] @Doug M. You are running the tired old game of ignoring non African human divergence. YES we understand that ALL humans are African and Humanity is an African species. You like others are falling back on the "We are all African...everything is African because it came from Africa" in order to NOT place a genetic descriptor or draw a line on what is "African" and what is NOT. Its cowardice. [/qb][/QUOTE]The only game being played here is you pretending to not see the obvious contradictions as pointed out previously. You continuously keep ignoring them yet you refuse to admit you are being a hypocrite. When did OOA Africans stop being Genetically African and become Eurasians? That is the point. When did Eurasia suddenly become cut off from repeated genetic input from Africa. So if the labels used in Eurasia don't reflect the [b]AFRICAN[/b] ancestry of those genes, then it is hypocritical to speak of "Eurasian" genes in Africa. You understand this but you are as I said playing games. And we know you don't have the answer and are instead jumping on whatever bandwagon comes along to pretend you do. So no, this isn't about "we are all African species". This is about serious scholarship not half baked theories. If ancient DNA can be sampled in one specimen then they need to extract the DNA from ALL ancient samples and stop with these theoretical speculations. That is what this is about. If they can sample the DNA from the Abusir mummies then sample ALL the DNA from ancient Egyptian mummies. That is the MOST ACCURATE way to understand what DNA was where and when. But of course they play this game of "scientific speculation" and you folks go right along with it. [QUOTE]Originally posted by beyoku: [qb] The main reason folks do this is to lay claim to worldwide populations of dark skinned folks IE [/qb][/QUOTE]Because skin color is a fact of human diversity but somehow you have a problem with that. And it isn't anybody "claiming" anything, especially not me, I am just pointing out the obvious. [QUOTE]Originally posted by beyoku: [qb] Clown - "The first native Americans were Black". Reason - They are not African, they were more related to Siberians. Clown - All humans come from Africa and the first Eurasians come from Africa. [/qb][/QUOTE]Skin color is not limited to Africa, mr biologist. People with the same shades of skin color can be found around the world, from black to white and in between. [QUOTE]Originally posted by beyoku: [qb] They dont want to face the fact that those populations they are claiming are all the way on the other end of the genetic spectrum. Too stuck on race. [/qb][/QUOTE]Nothing to do the with fact that humans have skin color. White skin isn't unique to Europe and black skin isn't unique to Africa. Again, this is a biological fact but somehow you refuse to accept this even as you claim to be so "scientifically accruate". [QUOTE]Originally posted by beyoku: [qb] As to your Second half, if you dont think a major back-migration from Arabia happened. That is even MORE Reason for you to understand that such OOA ancestry you are talking about would look more "North African" than it would "Horn African". You are left in the DUST. As for Removing all Eurasian and Isolating African specific OOA type ancestry PAGANI already attempted to do that, hence the quote you keep ignoring. [/qb][/QUOTE]The part you keep missing is that humans were in North Africa before they settled Arabia. Your incessant focus on trying to equate African biological diversity to Eurasians who didn't even exist for 100,000 years shows you have no grasp of science or facts..... Please miss me with that nonsense. Human features and adaption to various environments in Africa started LONG BEFORE humans left Africa. And humans in Africa didn't stay in one place. Humans have been in Africa for 200,000 years which means they have moved around a lot and many groups probably existed that we don't even know about. This did not start with "Eurasians" and "horners" vs "East Africans". This is absurd and non scientific. [QUOTE]Originally posted by beyoku: [qb] [QUOTE][b]West Eurasian components were masked out,[/b] and the [b]remaining African haplotypes[/b] were compared with a panel of sub-Saharan African and non-African genomes. We showed that [b]masked Northeast African haplotypes overall were more similar to non-African haplotypes and more frequently present outside Africa[/b] than were any sets of haplotypes derived from a West African population. Furthermore, the [b]masked Egyptian haplotypes showed these properties more markedly than the masked Ethiopian haplotypes'[/b], pointing to Egypt as the [b]more likely gateway[/b] in the exodus to the rest of the world. [/QUOTE]Is Egypt in "North Africa." If populations carry this ancestry migration below the Sahara would that leave some popualtions as a mix of SSA and NA Ancestry? NOW what exactly is your contention? They just did exactly what you are requesting and discovered that Egyptians are "more OOA" than Ethiopians. Also this Egyptian African type ancestry was widespread outside of the continent compared to any other type of African Ancestry. Like I said before, you are not too familiar with the DATA...running your mouth and saying "They" need to do things that they have already DONE. [/qb][/QUOTE]Man you stretch reality and make absurd conclusions. What on earth does "more OOA" mean? Obviously if Africans are the parent then [b]OF COURSE[/b] the children would have a relationship to them. That doesn't make the children into the parent. If half of some group of ancient Africans crossed outside of Africa then of course later descendants of both groups would be related. That doesn't make the descendants of those who never left Africa into OOA. Your logic is flawed. But according to EEF and Basal Eurasian that group those who left weren't African anymore. Again the hypocrisy is that they are not even labeling the genes of the Africans that left as African when they left Africa. But make a whole lot of noise about "Eurasian" genes as if OOA populations didn't carry 100% African genes..... Not to mention labeling the descendants of those who never left as "reverse migrants" because of their close relatively close relationship to the descendants of those who left.... :rolleyes: [/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