posted 28 May 2005 08:36 AM            

"Group VI was observed almost exclusively as the 12f2 subgroup in the Ethiopians. Among them, the Amhara are by far the most important component (33.4%, vs. 3.8% for the Oromo [P < .0001] and 3.4% for the other Ethiopian data [P < .0001]). This difference, not revealed in the study by Passarino et al. (1998), in which the Oromo were underrepresented, might reflect distinct population histories. It is reported (Levine 1974) that the Amhara experienced a strong influence from Middle Eastern populations, in which the 12f2 8-kb allele has a very high frequency and probably originated (Santachiara-Benerecetti et al. 1993; Semino et al. 1996; Quintana-Murci et al. 2001). This is further supported by the opposite distribution of the M35 subclade (35.4% for the Amhara, vs. 62.8% for the Oromo [P < .005] and 31.8% for the other Ethiopian data). Group VI also includes two Senegalese who, however, are currently defined only by the M89 mutation (haplotype 27) and lack any other known mutation characterizing the M89 subgroups."

Erroneos E, whats your answer for this discrepancy?

You know what that means Erroneous E, right? That means that citation you keep spamming that says 'Ethiopians' are 40% 'Caucasoid' is inflated and therefore inaccurate when we view Ethiopians. Lets see your answer for this Erroneous E, you wanted proof that the Passarino et tal study was inaccurate, now you have it!

posted 28 May 2005 11:42 AM            

"The Ethiopian sample was collected in the Black Lion Hospital of Addis Ababa and consisted of 77 unrelated males coming from different parts of Ethiopia; 55 were individuals hospitalized for trauma, and the remaining 22 were healthy hospital personnel. These subjects have been classified according to their language and the place of origin of their four grandparents; 19 were Oromo (Cushitic speakers), and 58 were from the northern part of the country and spoke languages derived from the Semitic Geeze (Amhara, Tigrinya, and Gurage). Since the analyses of the two groups did not show important differences, the data from both the Ethiopian groups have been pooled."

Pooling Oromos with the other Ethiopians groups gives the false inpression that *ALL* Ethiopians are 40% 'Caucasoid'. Thats why the 'differences' that Semino et tal was referring to in his study was *NOT* revealed, especially considering the fact that Oromos make up the majority of the people in Ethiopia. Underrepresenting them in a genetic study that titles itself "Different genetic components in the Ethiopian population" makes this study inaccurate. Basically Passarino et tal was wrong for saying there were no differences between Oromo and Amhara when there cleary is a difference.

posted 28 May 2005 02:09 PM            

But they are purposefully under-represented in many old genetic studies, in order to hide and otherwise obscure the following....

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Of interest, among other things is the different frequency of West Asian J in the Oromo [3.8% and the Amhara [35.4%], vs. E-M96, [80%] in the Oromo vs. [46%] in the Amhara.

Within these two Ethiopian groups there is an inverse relationship between East African E3b and West Asian J.

Good post.

---

posted 28 May 2005 02:29 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
This is correct Top Dog, the Oromo make up almost 1/2 of Ethiopia's 75 million people, are the largest ethnic group in East Africa and, along with the Borana of Kenya have the highest level of E3b(s) in the world.

But they are purposefully under-represented in many old genetic studies, in order to hide and otherwise obscure the following....

[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 28 May 2005).]

---

Its amazing no one noticed this observation in publsihed literature but as Semino et tal did again, he studied each Ethiopian group used in his studies separately. Oromos and Amharas don't have the same genetic profiles so of course Passarino's study gave an inaccurate admixture figure when we look at Ethiopians as a whole.

posted 29 May 2005 09:27 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Topdog:
Its amazing no one noticed this observation in publsihed literature but as Semino et tal did again, he studied each Ethiopian group used in his studies separately.

---

I think many did notice but unfortuneatly shoddy work based on half-baked premises like Passarino's is all too common, and since population genetics is relatively 'new', standards and practices are somewhat lacking.

But science is nothing if not a relentless search for truth, so pseudo-scientific works are envariably 'outed and discredited', much like Dienekes and his fan-boy Erroneous.

posted 29 May 2005 02:03 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Topdog:
Its amazing no one noticed this observation in publsihed literature but as Semino et tal did again, he studied each Ethiopian group used in his studies separately.

---

[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 29 May 2005).][/QUOTE]

Whats even more shocking is Erroneous E's silence on this matter, no attempt to even respond. Odds are he's still going to continue to post Passarino's study on site despite this documented discrepancy.

posted 30 May 2005 07:55 AM            

Furthermore, other studies using autosomal DNA (like Cavalli-Sforza did) describe both the Oromo and the Amhara as intermediate between Africans and Eurasians:

• "The genetic distance analysis showed the separation between African and non-African populations, with the Amhara and Oromo located in an intermediate position." (De Stefano et al. 2002)

• "...the Oromo and Amhara appear quite similar to Europoids (particularly to the South Arabians) and considerably different from the Negritic peoples." (Tartaglia et al. 1996)

And these X-chromosome, autosome and HLA studies confirm Oromo-Amhara genetic affinities:

• "Within Ethiopia the two largest ethnic groups, the Amhara and Oromo, were not found to be statistically distinct, based on an exact test of haplotype frequencies." (Lovell et al. 2005)

• "Here we report the gene frequencies of these two polymorphic sites in nine additional populations (Egyptians, Spaniards, Japanese, Chinese, Filipinos, Vietnamese, Africans from Togo and from Benin, and Pygmies), confirming their ethnospecificity and, through the analysis of these two markers in Oromo and Amhara of Ethiopia (two mixed populations), their usefulness in genetic admixture studies." (Ciminelli et al. 2002)

• "Oromo and Amhara only showed minor differences in spite of their different origins and histories." (Fort et al. 1998)

posted 30 May 2005 10:29 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:

And these X-chromosome, autosome and HLA studies confirm Oromo-Amhara genetic affinities:

[list]

"Within Ethiopia the two largest ethnic groups, the [b]Amhara and Oromo, were not found to be statistically distinct, based on an exact test of haplotype frequencies." (Lovell et al. 2005)

[/B]

---

Thought Posts:

Lovell et al. 2005

"However, the failure in finding significant differentiation could be a result of the common origin of two or more Ethiopian populations, or due to the relatively small sample sizes..."

"While these results are from the analysis of just one locus, and sample sizes for a number of populations remain relatively small (particularly in the case of the Oromo and the Ethiopian Jews)..."

posted 31 May 2005 06:16 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Dumb, desperate monkeys, the "40% Caucasoid" finding isn't even from the Passarino study. Passarino's Y and mtDNA data just supports it. The figure itself actually comes from Cavalli-Sforza. Is his analysis "inaccurate" too?

---

Wrong idiot, re-read the study once more, Passarino was *NOT* parroting Cavalli-Sforza and there are difference between Oromo and Amhara, particularly on the Y-chromosone. That has been noted in three different studies already. What isn't you numbskull brain not getting?

quote:

---

Furthermore, other studies using autosomal DNA (like Cavalli-Sforza did) describe both the Oromo and the Amhara as intermediate between Africans and Eurasians:

---

Idiot, we've been over this 'intermediate status' meaning too many times, the published literature state darn well what intermediate means, those two groups are intermediate between *AFRICAN and NON-AFRICAN*, not just Eurasians. Not quit selectively taking citations out of context you idiot!

posted 31 May 2005 07:50 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Topdog:
Wrong idiot, re-read the study once more, Passarino was *NOT* parroting Cavalli-Sforza

---

Illiterate fool . . .

"On the basis of autosomal polymorphic loci, it has been estimated that 60% of the Ethiopian gene pool has an African origin, whereas ~40% is of Caucasoid derivation (Guglielmino et al. 1987; Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994, p. 174)."

quote:

---

there are difference between Oromo and Amhara

---

Not significant ones, according to the five studies I posted.

quote:

---

those two groups are intermediate between *AFRICAN and NON-AFRICAN*, not just Eurasians.

---

posted 31 May 2005 08:37 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Topdog:
Idiot, we've been over this 'intermediate status' meaning too many times, the published literature state darn well what intermediate means, those two groups are intermediate between *AFRICAN and NON-AFRICAN*, not just Eurasians. Not quit selectively taking citations out of context you idiot!

---

I have the impression that many experts in genetics lack the knowledge that is needed to conduct research efficiently in Africa and other parts of the world. Indeed when I read articles or books on genetics, I'm always suspicious when they dump all Ethiopians in the same group. Indeed, the majority of Ethiopians are Oromos and are the original people living in the area, they speak a cushitic language and don't have any link with Yemen. The Amharas on the other hand are originally from Yemen and mixed with local women. Phenotypes between Oromo male and female are quite similar, we can observe the same thing among Somalis. However Amharas male and Amharas female have very distinct phenotypes. The Amharas women tend to have Ethiopian or Eastern African features whereas their male counterparts tend to have Semitic or Arab features. Genetics confirm the previous observations even if phenotype is not directly linked to the genotype. Another subtlety is that many Oromo have been assimilated into the Amhara culture and intermarried with Amharas, it is very common to see Oromos pretending to be Amharas because many of them have been alienated by the Amhara dominated Ethiopian society. However the original Oromos are represented by the Boranas who live in Southern Ethiopia and Northern Kenya, they still live a semi-nomadic life and are cattle herders. It is well known that Oromo-Boranas are considered as the ancestors of Somalis. The originality of the Boranas is that they didn't mix much with non African people compared to Somalis and other Oromos, because they lived in isolated areas: Southern Ethiopia and Northern Kenya. They have the highest amount of E3b genes in the world, which is understandable since they didn't mix with non African people: here is a link that can provide more details. http://www.familytreedna.com/pdf/hape3b.pdf
Relaxx

posted 31 May 2005 11:09 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by relaxx:
Phenotypes between Oromo male and female are quite similar, we can observe the same thing among Somalis. However Amharas male and Amharas female have very distinct phenotypes. The Amharas women tend to have Ethiopian or Eastern African features whereas their male counterparts tend to have Semitic or Arab features.

---

Genetics don't work that way Relaxx.

quote:

---

Genetics confirm the previous observations

---

posted 31 May 2005 12:00 PM            

quote:

---

Are Ethiopians mixed? The fact is that the admixture is greater in Ethiopians than in Somalians but still, by an large, the vast majority of Ethiopians are unmixed Africans. During the 2nd millennium B.C., when Semitic peoples of Arabia were migrating and expanding, some Semitic tribes spread south in to southern Arabia, in what is now Yemen and from there, crossed the Red Sea into what is now Eritrea and northern Ethiopia. These settlers were the Sabaean people, and they mixed and intermarried with the native Cushitic peoples. Their modern-day descendants are the Amhara and Tigre people whose languages are directly descended from Sabaean. I also know some Amhara people, these people are fairer with more pronounced so-called ‘caucasoid’ features and I have no doubt these are the people Evil-E claims to what all Ethiopians are like.

However, the Amhara and Tigre are a minorities who live mainly in the northeast. The vast majority of Ethiopians have nil admixture. The largest group in Ethiopia are the Oromo but there are others like the Borana, Kotu, Sidama, and even in the north there still remain unmixed groups like the Agau, Saho, and Afar.

---

posted 31 May 2005 12:02 PM            

quote:

---

Here are more pictures of what most Ethiopians look like:

---

posted 31 May 2005 12:12 PM            

This again points to the important fact that Ethiopians are not one group of people but consists of various groups.

I wonder what kind of results genetic studies on Agau people would yeild.

posted 31 May 2005 04:36 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
[B]As I said before on another thread:

..During the 2nd millennium B.C., when Semitic peoples of Arabia were migrating and expanding, some Semitic tribes spread south in to southern Arabia, in what is now Yemen and from there, crossed the Red Sea into what is now Eritrea and northern Ethiopia. These settlers were the Sabaean people, and they mixed and intermarried with the native Cushitic peoples. Their modern-day descendants are the Amhara and Tigre people whose languages are directly descended from Sabaean...

---

Speaking of which, I asked a question, but never got an answer.

posted 31 May 2005 05:38 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Genetics don't work that way Relaxx.

[QUOTE] Genetics confirm the previous observations

---

[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 31 May 2005).][/QUOTE]

Rasol,
I mentioned mainly the phenotype of Ethiopians and wanted to emphasize my point by the fact that genetics confirm the high frequency of the haplogroup E-M34 among Amharas and Ethiopian Jews but it is at lower levels among Oromos and almost non existent among Boranas from Kenya. If you think otherwise, please let me know. Beside genetics the following human skin color distribution map that you mention frequently shows a net difference between some parts of Ethiopia, Eritrea and Sudan and the rest of Africa. Interestingly enough the Amhara land is right in the middle.
Relaxx

posted 31 May 2005 10:16 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by relaxx:

I mentioned mainly the phenotype of Ethiopians and wanted to emphasize my point by the fact that genetics confirm the high frequency of the haplogroup E-M34 among Amharas and Ethiopian Jews but it is at lower levels among Oromos and almost non existent among Boranas from Kenya.

---

posted 01 June 2005 06:42 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Super car:
Relaxx, what are the 'respective' frequencies of E-M34 in Amharas, Ethiopian Jews, Oromo and the Borana? You must not be referring to the earlier Cruciani et al. study, which makes a reference to the frequencies observed by Underhill et al. and Semino et al., right?

---

posted 01 June 2005 11:13 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by relaxx:
Supercar, the frequencies are:
23.5,13.6 8.0; It seems that you covered that study before.
Relaxx

---

There are only three frequencies provided here; which frequency is for which group, respectively, as requested? And even if, it has been sited here before, I would still like to at least have the reference of your source!