...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
Because I need to get something off my chest
» 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 Tyrannohotep: [qb] I wasn't addressing you in particular. But I would have thought you've picked up that a large chunk of the pan-Africanists in this community do in fact want Africans, or at least SSA, to be one big monophyletic clade. Isn't that the mindset you've been criticizing for years? [QUOTE]Originally posted by Swenet: [qb] I'm confused. You said "I'm not the only one with this view". Why say that right after saying something that isn't disputed anywhere? Lol. Wasn't this already apparent from [URL=http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009677;p=1#000006]what you posted earlier?[/URL] Your Tishkoff tree in that post doesn't depict SSA ancestry as forming a clade relative to other humans either. [IMG]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dc/Paraphyletic.svg/300px-Paraphyletic.svg.png[/IMG] ^This pattern of differentiation is no different from the Tishkoff tree. It's just more stylized and upside down. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Tyrannohotep: [qb] To be honest, my belief is that "sub-Saharan African" itself is a [URL=http://www.dictionary.com/browse/paraphyletic]paraphyletic[/URL] category. It seems to mean basically any modern [i]Homo sapiens[/i] who isn't OOA or pre-OOA. And I'm not the only one with this view: [URL=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4949479/#!po=66.4063]Human population history revealed by a supertree approach[/URL] [QUOTE]The resulting supertree topology includes the most basal position of S African Khoisan followed by C African Pygmies, and the [qb]paraphyletic section of all other sub-Saharan peoples[/qb].[/QUOTE]In that respect it's similar to the traditional understanding of "reptile" which excludes birds, even though we now know birds represent a branch of the theropod dinosaurs. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dc/Paraphyletic.svg/300px-Paraphyletic.svg.png For example, if you compare the genetics of southern African Khoisan peoples with those of other sub-Saharans and then OOA, you might find that most sub-Saharan populations actually appear closer to OOA than they do to these Khoisan populations. See K = 2 on this chart, wherein most SSA groups have [i]predominantly[/i] "red" components like those of the French instead of "blue" like the Khoisan peoples. http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-QfOlhMaKVUc/UA_N_qZbFxI/AAAAAAAAFGE/sb6UiX29r_c/s1600/admixture.jpg A category like "sub-Saharan African" might have utility if you need to single out those Africans who aren't descended from the pre-OOA branch, much as we conventionally use "dinosaur" as shorthand for the non-avian ones. But they still aren't a monophyletic grouping, so anyone trying to force genetics into an exclusive "pan-African" scheme is going to make a fool out of themselves in any case. [/qb][/QUOTE][/qb][/QUOTE][/qb][/QUOTE]I think you are over generalizing. Sub Saharan is not "needed" to define African diversity because Sub Saharan Africa is not all of Africa. OOA doesn't define African DNA diversity. That is backwards thinking. Eurasians and other folks descended from OOA are defined by African diversity not the other way around. Africans were in place before, during and after OOA and it is only Europeans who have flipped the script to make OOA a marker of African diversity instead of Eurasian diversity. Again this goes back to not even wanting to label OOA DNA as "African". But they got folks clowning themselves on this forum trying to use OOA as a way to define and categorize African identity, in effect turning the parent into the child or even a sibling even. This is pathetic. Not to mention where were the major human population centers in Africa before, during and after OOA? And what physical features did those OOA populations carry? People move around and this is how OOA came about because humans have always been moving. This is how the ancestors of the Khoi got to South Africa. And before they migrated what were they? SSA? Come on this is idiotic. [/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