posted 21 August 2005 01:44 AM            

quote:

---

S. Mohommad writes: Still jumping back to that outdated Passarino study, Erroneous? Read Salas et tal study which is the most updated study on African mtDNA and you will see that Ethiopians have no ancestry from Niger/Congo speakers. Moron!

---

Ethiopian languages.

posted 21 August 2005 01:48 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Calypso:
Let’s assume for a moment that we did not have the further clarification of the Passarino Study from Semino.

---

Semino's criticism is one that cannot be ignored, for he was implicated in that outmoded [as well as debunked] and unscientific study; meaning that, he was involved in it. So, Semino debunked a study he, himself, was involved in!

Common sense tells us that, geneflow from back migration into east Africa is not uniformly distributed among the populations there. There are more than 80 ethnic groups in Ethiopia alone. Amhara are basically indigenous sub-Saharan East Africans, but they seem to have had more contacts with Eurasians and subsequent gene flow than their Oromo counterparts. Study after study shows this through Y-chromosomes. Moreover, Passarino et al. never studied the Borana; the study therefore can't be used to make up lies about these groups.

quote:

---

Calypso:
Accepting the above statement at its face is nonetheless devastating to the argument, which poster Evil Euro, attempts to advance, namely, that e3b correlates with Caucasians. The poster marshals this statement as evidence that an extraneous “Negroid” element left its imprint upon the Ethiopian gene pool. The Passarino statement does in fact suggest that this occurred but the authors do not advance a racial construct “Negroid” but a linguistic: Niger-Congo to describe this particular influence. The other extraneous influence cited by the authors, in stark contrast to the merely linguistic formulation: Niger-Congo, is explicitly advanced in racial terms: Caucasian. Therefore the Caucasian element according to this statement is foreign to the Ethiopian gene pool.

---

You are right about the so-called Caucasian element being implied as "foreign" (which has nothing do with sub-Saharan E3b lineages), and not indigenous, which apparently didn't penetrate illiterate wop's skull. Notwithstanding, the bottom line is that, parceling out results as though they are representative of an entire Nation with more than 80 ethnic groups, is a grotesque distortion of reality, not to mention the outright irresponsible "under-representation" of the largest ethnic group in the country. Add the long outdated social 'racial' constructs to this, and what you end up with, is a total sham!

posted 21 August 2005 07:25 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Super coon:
Now guess who criticizes the debunked Passarino et a1. 1998, study? No other than Semino, who was implicated in that very same Passarino et al study, and here’s what he, himself, had to say about it:

“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.**” - Semino et al. 2001.

---

* Yawn *

Differences between the Amhara and Oromo are insignificant:

• "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)

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

And both groups are Eurasian/African hybrids:

• "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)

• "Considering the erythrocyte enzyme data, the Oromo and Amhara appear quite similar to Europoids (particularly to the South Arabians) and considerably different from the Negritic peoples. There is evidence for close genetic affinity among the Cushitic- and Semitic-speaking population groups of the Horn. Admixture between Europoid and Negritic populations seems to have been the main microevolutionary factor in generating the present day Cushitic (and Semitic)-speaking group of eastern Africa." (Tartaglia et al. 1996)

• "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)

Hence this conclusion based on data from mtDNA, Y-chromosomes and classic markers:

• "Though present-day Ethiopia is a land of great ethnic diversity, the majority of Ethiopians speak different Semitic, Cushitic, and Omotic languages that belong to the Afro-Asiatic linguistic phylum. Maternal lineages of Semitic- (Amharic, Tigrinya, and Gurage) and Cushitic- (Oromo and Afar) speaking populations studied here reveal that their mtDNA pool is a nearly equal composite of sub-Saharan and western Eurasian lineages. This finding, consistent with classic genetic-marker studies (Cavalli-Sforza 1997) and previous mtDNA results, is also in agreement with a similarly high proportion of western Asian Y chromosomes in Ethiopians (Passarino et al. 1998; Semino et al. 2002), which supports the view (Richards et al. 2003) that the observed admixture between sub-Saharan African and, most probably, western Asian ancestors of the Ethiopian populations applies to their gene pool in general." (Kivisild et al. 2004)

posted 21 August 2005 07:38 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Topdog:
at no point does he ever give the impression that E3b1 makes East Africans more Eurasian

---

Y-chromosome:

Phenotype:

[ #4 = English; #7 = Greek; #10 = Swiss ]

East Africans with ~80% E3b:

posted 21 August 2005 09:55 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Topdog:
He makes it quite clear that E3b1 is East African in origin. Erroneous E has lost all credibility. He will now reply with another lame distortion or he will either spam the same nonsense he's been spamming.

---

lol. Well, you've beaten him senseless, assuming he ever had any sense...so what can you expect.

E3b1 gamma which the Somali and Oromo have is found only in East Africa. E3b is sub-saharan.

[per Underhill, Sanchez, Cruciani], et. al.

Back to the topic, and the study in question:

Per Wetton, dark "medit" Europeans have 24% African paternal lineage.
They are in fact -Afro European, and they admit it.. They are proud of it.
No such thing as 'pure race' and certainly not in Southern Europe.

posted 21 August 2005 12:08 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:

[b]Y-chromosome:

Phenotype:

[ #4 = English; #7 = Greek; #10 = Swiss ]

East Africans with ~80% E3b:

[/B]

---

Please dumbass, don't keep running us around in circles with the same bullshit. I haven't been here in ages but common tells me you're up to the same bullshit.

posted 21 August 2005 12:19 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Topdog:
Erroneous E obviously misrepresented Sanchez et tal's words. Sanchez et tal never gave the impression that E3b1 made East Africans less African and or "more Eurasian". He makes it quite clear that E3b1 is East African in origin. Erroneous E has lost all credibility. He will now reply with another lame distortion or he will either spam the same nonsense he's been spamming.

---

Just as you instinctively predicted Bass, he spammed the same graphs and quotes from those studies. This guy is an idiotic fool who prides himself in thinking he's won debates.

posted 21 August 2005 01:55 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tony_Soprano:
This guy is an idiotic fool who prides himself in thinking he's won debates.

---

If he thought that he wouldn't still be here, repeating immaterial nonsense in a desparate gambit to change the subject.

THIS STUDY:

quote:

---

Y chromosomes are the single most informative marker of biogeographical origin, but they only represent patrilineal ancestry and can therefore be misleading if the possibility of admixture and clinal changes in allele frequencies between source population areas are not considered.

This study was done among a sample of populations in Britain and so divided into 6 groups, note: these 6 groups do not correspond to 'races', but ethnic groups based on physical appearance. Both native European groups are referenced as 'caucasians in this study'; but Middle Easterners are not.

What they are called is irrelevant. What is significant is how and why they are separated one from the other.

1) pale skinned Europeans Ea1, [negligible E3a and E3b]

2) dark skinned Europeans, Ea2 [24% E3a and E3b]

3) Afro-Carribean, Ea3

4) South Asian, Ea4

5) East Asian, Ea5

6) Middle Eastern, Ea6

In another country - Cameroon for instance - this clustering scheme would not be applicable, and the author's don't imply otherwise.

That is - those 6 groups don't exist in Cameroon.

In Cameroon R1 might correlate with darker taller African phenotype, whereas a lack of R1 might associate with the smaller lighter Baka. [Pygme]

But because correlation is not cause the results for Cameroon can not be applied to Britain, or vice versa, obviously.

What is of passing interest in terms of their findings is the distinction they draw between group 1 - pale europeans, and group 2, dark europeans.

The finding of 24% African Y chromsome among their native 'dark whites' of Europe [7% E3a and 17% E3b] is much as one would expect: in spite of the occasional propaganda to the effect that there is no E3A among Europeans.

In contrast the Ea1 pale-whites found to have negligible E3a and E3b in this study, will doubtless be of propaganda benefit to the Nordacists, who have always claimed that the dark skin of southern Europeans was 'proof' of African admixture.

This is why the Medi-centrists are foolish to advocate any conception of racial purity, as that is the one thing they most certainly are not.

Most Southern Europeans know this, acknowledge it, and so do not need to grovel in whiney denial like Dienekes and his fanboy.

---

posted 21 August 2005 05:48 PM            

Oh, ginney dyke pussy, has no gas left in the tank…from rehashing stuff that has either been addressed or outright debunked countless times. But what the heck, here goes:

Calypso wrote:

Let’s assume for a moment that we did not have the further clarification of the Passarino Study from Semino.

Super car responded:

Semino's criticism is one that cannot be ignored, for he was implicated in that outmoded [as well as debunked] and unscientific study; meaning that, he was involved in it. So, Semino debunked a study he, himself, was involved in!

So much for the outmoded Passarino et al. study, as exemplified by one of it’s participants!

quote:

---

ginney wop pussy:
* Yawn *

---

Yeap that happens…when you start to bore yourself from rehashing the same old tired wop gibberish.

quote:

---

ginney pussy:
Differences between the Amhara and Oromo are insignificant:

• "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)

  ---

Now for the full text that ginney pussy wishes to deface:

Ethiopia: between Sub-Saharan Africa and Western Eurasia
A. Lovell et al.

Summary

Ethiopia is central to population genetic studies investigating the out of Africa expansion of modern humans, as shown by Y chromosome and mtDNA studies.

To address the level of genetic differentiation within Ethiopia, and its relationship to Sub-Saharan Africa and Eurasia, we studied an 8kb segment of the **X-chromosome** from 72 chromosomes from the Amhara, Oromo and Ethiopian Jews, and compared these results with 804 chromosomes from Middle Eastern, African, Asian and European populations, and 22 newly typed Saharawi. 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.

The Ethiopian Jews appear as an admixed population, possibly of Jewish origin, though the data remain equivocal. There is evidence of a close relationship between Ethiopian and Yemenite Jews, likely a result of indirect gene flow.

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1046/j.1529-8817.2005.00152.x/abs/?c ookieSet=1

As we can see, it is very important to know the context in which a statement is put. This obviously has nothing to do with **differences in Y-chromosomes**. In any case, in terms of Y-chromosomes, both Amhara and Oromo carrying indigenous E3b lineages, will naturally be similar in **that context** of Y-chromosomes.

But…
What do we know about the Ethiopian Jews?

Rasol posted earlier:

* These data, together with those reported elsewhere (Ritte et al. 1993a, 1993b; Hammer et al. 2000) suggest that the Ethiopian Jews acquired their religion without substantial genetic admixture from Middle Eastern peoples and that they can be considered an ethnic group with essentially a continental African genetic composition."

quote:

---

ginney pussy:

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

---

Again, the full text of the “defaced” study:

HLA class II allele and haplotype frequencies in Ethiopian Amhara and Oromo populations.

Fort M, de Stefano GF, Cambon-Thomsen A, Giraldo-Alvarez P, Dugoujon JM, Ohayon E, Scano G, Abbal M., 1998

HLA class II alleles were identified in 181 healthy unrelated Ethiopian children of both sexes and in 350 European controls from the South of France. The Ethiopian individuals belonged to the two major ethnic groups of the country:

Oromo (N=83) and Amhara (N=98).

In both panels, genetic polymorphism of HLA class II alleles was analysed for the first time by molecular typing of DRB1, DQA1 and DQB1 loci. Allelic and phenotypic frequencies were compared with those of European controls and other African populations. Construction of HLA class II three-locus haplotypes was also performed. The study revealed some differences between the two groups.

Characteristic features of Central and North African populations appeared on the Ethiopian HLA genotypes. Surprisingly, DRB1*11 presented one of the lowest gene frequencies in both Ethiopian ethnic groups in contrast to Europeans and West Africans. Furthermore, this decrease was more marked than those observed using serological techniques in other geographically close East African countries. Oromo and Amhara only showed minor differences in spite of their **different origins and histories**.

**One significant difference** consisted of a lower DRB1*01 gene frequency in Oromo as reported in most West African people. Some new or rare haplotypes were also observed in the Oromo group.

** Our results underline the distinctive features of the Ethiopian populations among the few HLA genotyping data available for East African groups and emphasise the major interest of such investigations in this region of Africa.**

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_ uids=9583804&dopt=Abstract

quote:

---

ginney pussy:
And both groups are Eurasian/African hybrids:

• "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 full text of another poor victim of wop defacement:

Analysis of three RFLPs of the COL1A2 (Type I Collagen) in the Amhara and the Oromo of Ethiopia

G. F. De Stefano A1, C. Martínez-Labarga , R. Casalotti , M. Tartaglia , A. Novelletto , G. Pepe , O. Rickards

June 01, 2002

Abstract:
Background: The present composition of the Ethiopian population is the result of a complex and extensive intermixing of different peoples of North African, Near and Middle Eastern, and south-Saharan origin. The two main groups inhabiting the country are the Amhara, descended from Arabian conquerors, and the Oromo, the most important group among the Cushitic people. With the exception of some surveys on the general Ethiopian populations, little is known about the degree of genetic differentiation between the Amhara and the Oromo.

(***)Aim: The study seeks to investigate the genetic structure of these two heterogeneous Ethiopian populations and to characterize their relationships with other **African and Mediterranean peoples**.

Subjects and methods: Amhara and Oromo individuals (n = 171) were analysed for three RFLPs (restriction fragment length polymorphisms) of the COL1A2 gene. To better define the genetic relationship between the two Ethiopian groups, and also between African and non-African peoples, genetic distances among Amhara, Oromo and other populations were estimated using the COL1A2 allele and haplotype frequencies, and the allele frequencies of 16 additional classical markers.

Results: h2 analysis applied to the COL1A2 allele and haplotype frequencies showed a small but statistically significant degree of heterogeneity between the two Ethiopian populations. Combining the information obtained from the three RFLP markers, a significant level of differentiation (Fst = 0.0147, p = 0.036) was also detected between Amhara and Oromo. The genetic distance analysis showed the separation between African and non-African populations, with the Amhara and Oromo located in an intermediate position. This pattern is consistent with the location of the two Ethiopian groups in other genetic analysis and with cultural data.

Conclusions: The present findings suggest the presence of a differential level of **genetic relatedness with south-Saharan peoples in the two Ethiopian groups**, Which

**could reflect their different history and seems to indicate the existence of genetic sub-structure within the country.**

-----
(***)> Note the study of the relationship between "Mediterraneans", **who are known for their relatively high frequencies of sub-Saharan lineages**, and the two Ethiopian ethnic groups, in addition to the relationship between the Ethiopian groups and other Africans.

But what do we know about what makes the Ethiopian groups position b/n Africans and those non-Africans?

Topdog did a fairly good job of demonstrating it:

"The intermediate position, between African and non-African populations, that the Ethiopian Jews and Somalis occupy in the PCA plot also has been observed in other genetic studies (Ritte et al. 1993; Passarino et al. 1998) and could be due either to shared common ancestry or to recent gene flow. The fact that the Ethiopians and Somalis have a subset of the sub-Saharan African haplotype diversity and that the non-African populations have a subset of the diversity present in Ethiopians and Somalis makes simple-admixture models less likely; rather, these observations support the hypothesis proposed by other nuclear-genetic studies (Tishkoff et al. 1996a, 1998a, 1998b; Kidd et al. 1998)that populations in northeastern Africa may have diverged from those in the rest of sub-Saharan Africa early in the history of modern African populations and that a subset of this northeastern-African population migrated out of Africa and populated the rest of the globe. These conclusions are supported by recent mtDNA analysis (Quintana-Murci et al. 1999)."

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v67n4/001733/001733.html

"However, the reduction in Tn diversity does suggest that a population bottleneck occurred in Ethiopia, associated with a major out of Africa expansion(s), which parallels the conclusion made by Tishkoff et al. (1996) from analysis of the CD4 locus. Certainly our data are not incompatible with the argument from Tishkoff et al. (1996) that an element of the contemporary Ethiopian population may be descendants of the ancestral population that spawned the migration out of Africa."

[Ethiopia: between Sub-Saharan Africa and Western Eurasia]

The information from the latter source goes on to say that only later was there admixture and as already discussed the mixture is lower in the Oromo(15%) and higher in the Amhara(30%). No one has ever denied mixture in both groups guido, but your stupid argument that E3b *MUST* be Caucasoid is based on selectively citing, misreading and distorting several genetic studies.

quote:

---

ginney pussy:

"Considering the erythrocyte enzyme data, the Oromo and Amhara appear quite similar to Europoids (particularly to the South Arabians) and considerably different from the Negritic peoples. There is evidence for close genetic affinity among the Cushitic- and Semitic-speaking population groups of the Horn. Admixture between Europoid and Negritic populations seems to have been the main microevolutionary factor in generating the present day Cushitic (and Semitic)-speaking group of eastern Africa." (Tartaglia et al. 1996)

---

No need to even bother with this mess; full of psuedo-scientific trash. What are a Europoid South Arabians? European South Arabians...perhaps?...or maybe that "enzymes" are Europoid South Arabians?

quote:

---

ginney pussy:

"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)

---

The broader text of the study, which has no bearings on sub-Saharan E3b lineages:

Two polymorphic sites, -107 and -100 with respect to the "cap" site of the human beta globin pseudogene, recently discovered in our laboratory, turned out to have an ethnically complementary distribution. The first site is polymorphic in Europeans, North Africans, Indians (Hindu), and Oriental Asians, and monomorphic in sub-Saharan Africans. Conversely, the second site is polymorphic in sub-Saharan African populations and monomorphic in the aforementioned populations. 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. Moreover, we studied another marker polymorphic in sub-Saharan African populations only, a TaqI restriction fragment length polymorphism located in the same region as the present markers, demonstrating the absence of linkage disequilibrium between it and the -100 site, so that we can exclude that the information they provide is redundant.
(Ciminelli et al. 2002)

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/human_biology/toc/hub74.2.html

It says two “mixed populations”, and so? Racial purity is only in the head of a miserable illiterate wop. What it doesn’t say, is that E3b are not sub-Saharan tropical lineages. In fact, none of ginney pussy's straws get at that. Something to think about!

And it has been addressed here earlier anyway:

From Topdog:
Stupid Euro as usual, misquotes another study to support his lame arguments. Observe this:

"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)"

From the full text *THIS* was stated:

"The sub-Saharan African component seems to be larger in the Oromo than in the Amhara. This result was obtained using both RFLPs, mtDNA and Y-chromosome specific markers, and several classical protein markers (Tartaglia et al. 1996; Scozzari et al. 1999; Scacchi et al. 1994; Passarino et al. 1998; De Stefano et al. [in press])."

Thus those same studies that Erroneous E keeps repeatedly spamming and distorting in fact are *REFUTING* him.

quote:

---

dark mediterranean wop pussy:

Hence this conclusion based on data from mtDNA, Y-chromosomes and classic markers:

• "Though present-day Ethiopia is a land of great ethnic diversity, the majority of Ethiopians speak different Semitic, Cushitic, and Omotic languages that belong to the Afro-Asiatic linguistic phylum. Maternal lineages of Semitic- (Amharic, Tigrinya, and Gurage) and Cushitic- (Oromo and Afar) speaking populations studied here reveal that their mtDNA pool is a nearly equal composite of sub-Saharan and western Eurasian lineages. This finding, consistent with classic genetic-marker studies (Cavalli-Sforza 1997) and previous mtDNA results, is also in agreement with a similarly high proportion of western Asian Y chromosomes in Ethiopians (Passarino et al. 1998; Semino et al. 2002), which supports the view (Richards et al. 2003) that the observed admixture between sub-Saharan African and, most probably, western Asian ancestors of the Ethiopian populations applies to their gene pool in general." (Kivisild et al. 2004)

---

From the same Kivisild et al text, we get a better idea of what the real deal is:

“…On the other hand, significant differences in the proportions of derived lineages of haplogroup N between northeastern and south-central sam- ples from Ethiopia are consistent with the proximity of the Tigrinya region (Aksum) and Eritrea to the coast of the Red Sea, the latter having mediated gene flow with Egypt and southern Arabia—perhaps, in particular, with the rise of Semitic cultural influence in the region. In contrast, the similarity of Amharas and Oromos, also expressed in other genetic loci (Fort et al. 1998; Corbo et al. 1999), supports the idea that “amharization” may have been **largely a sociocultural rather than a genetic phenomenon**.

Yet, it is important to add here that Y- chromosomal haplogroup J1-M267, which is widespread throughout Arab-speaking countries and encompasses a third of Amharan Y chromosomes, **has hardly penetrated the Cushitic-speaking Oromo population (Semino et al. 2004).**” Kilvisid et al, 2004.

“…High diversity of M1 among Cushitic populations of East Africa and the absence of specific subclades present among them, in Tigrais and in all western Asian populations, point to an ancient diversification of M1 in East Africa, consistent with the East African origin of the main subgroups of Afro-Asiatic languages (Ehret 1995).” - Kilvisid et al, 2004.

So much for the rehashed straws on which ginney pussy’s fragile hopes were based, as a last gasp; wop myths are being shred to pieces right before its eyes. Isn’t this just sad?

However…

The illiterate dark mediterranean cockroach isn’t off the hook:

• What haplotypes are considered “Niger Congo” mtDNA in the Ethiopian gene pool? Where is the Borana sample that Passarino et al, 1998, studied? And what does “Niger Congo” lineages have to do with the Borana?

• The E3b1 lineages in East African populations, with highest found in Cushitic speakers like the Borana, are indigenous sub-Sahara tropical African lineages. How does admixture or gene flow into east Africa, disqualify this fact any way?

• Recent E3b lineages in southern Europe, including E3a and HBS are all sub-Saharan. These people are genetically closer to sub-Saharan Africans, than the non-outlier Europeans carrying Hg R1b and Hg I in high frequencies. Where does Sanchez et al., 2005, state that E3b is genetically closer to Eurasian J and K, more than its sister PN2 E3a?
  

Wop dreams are only good for flushing down the toilet, and no one simply cares! Not even these folks!

posted 22 August 2005 07:41 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Babbling Ape:
Per Wetton, dark "medit" Europeans have 24% African paternal lineage.
They are in fact -Afro European, and they admit it.. They are proud of it.

---

*Yawn*

Niggers are illiterate, low-IQ savages.

1) A single website with an agenda does not constitute "most Southern Europeans"; and 2) that section is about the African origins of humanity, you illiterate spook. It does nothing to support your embarrassing misreading of Wetton's study.

* EA1 (R1b/I) and EA2 (E3b/J2/G) = Both Caucasoid

* "Pale" and "Dark" = Recent climatic adaptations

Spanish Basques have more than 85% R1b, ~10% I, and only ~2% J, ~2% E3b, and 0% E3a. Their mtDNA is equally European, being ~80% H, V and U*, with no L markers.

quote:

---

repeating immaterial nonsense in a desparate gambit to change the subject.

---

posted 22 August 2005 07:55 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Super coon:
outmoded [as well as debunked] and unscientific study

---

Dumb nigger. You clearly don't understand Semino's criticism of Passarino et al., otherwise you wouldn't say such stupid things. All it does is point out that the Oromo were underrepresented in the sample. That doesn't make the study "outmoded" or "unscientific". It just opens up the possibility that the Oromo and Amhara are two distinct and unrelated populations. However, we know from all of the other research cited that this isn't the case. And Sanchez's most recent Y-chromosome study confirms their relatedness by placing both in the same intermediate cluster with other East and North Africans.

quote:

---

But what do we know about what makes the Ethiopian groups position b/n Africans and those non-Africans?

Topdog did a fairly good job of demonstrating it:

---

Tishkoff et al. was dealt with a long time ago. You Afronuts are too stupid to realize how thoroughly it destroys your "pre-historic E3b-carrying Blacks" fantasy:

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/Forum8/HTML/001611.html

quote:

---

What are a Europoid South Arabians? European South Arabians...perhaps?

---

posted 22 August 2005 08:34 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Super car:
Those most Southern Europeans who know this, and acknowledge it, have also made it clear that there is no room left on their watch for a ginney wop, who doesn't have a dignity to loose.

---

So let's continue to use the enraged fool:

Wetton found that the Ea2 'dark' Europeans distinguished in this study from the pale Ea1 Northern Europeans, did indeed have 7% West African E3a and 17% East African E3b or 24% African Y chromosome.

In fact, the study refers to the pale whites of Northern Europe as genetically 'homogeneous' while refering to the dark 'medit' whites as 'heterogeneous' or mixed.

Meanwhile, group Ea6 which bears predominent haplotypes from West Asia [such as J] is described as Middle Eastern - and NOT white, nor European nor caucaZoid.

posted 22 August 2005 08:43 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
Southern Europeans are fully caucasian.

---

Define 'fully caucasian'.

posted 22 August 2005 09:04 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
I will

---

When?

quote:

---

a stray gene here and there is meaningless.

---

What's taking so long, Professor?

posted 22 August 2005 09:22 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
i just have to spoon feed you all the time rasol. Do you have a dictionary or do you want me to look it up for you?

---

I have plenty of definitions, general:

caucazoid - a member of a race classification no longer in scientific use. - AHD, 2005

And anthropological:

terms like caucasoid are worse than useless. if Arafat or Bin Laden can be classified into 'caucasian', then the term has 'no meaning' - anthropologist C.L. Brace.

But....what's taking 'you' so long?

Repeat define: "fully caucasian"

Get about it "Professor." While we're young.

posted 22 August 2005 09:45 AM            

Here let me help you.

In the context of the study in question (EA stands for Ethnic Appearance Group):

Ea2:

Ea3:

Ea6:

quote:

---

Define "fully caucasian"

---

This seems to be taking quite a long time?

posted 22 August 2005 09:49 AM            

quote:

---

Professor Horemheb whines: The reason for that is political correctness, not scientific fact

---

Please relate the "scientific facts" Professor.

posted 22 August 2005 09:54 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
Caucasian....of or being a major human racial classification traditionally distinguished by physical characteristics light to BROWN skin and straight to wavy hair, and including peoples in Europe, North africa, western Asis and India."

---

Nope. The question is....

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Define 'fully caucasian'.

---

Please try again.

More assistance for you,
Ea4:

posted 22 August 2005 10:13 AM            

Anthropology Of or being a major human racial classification traditionally distinguished by physical characteristics such as very light to brown skin pigmentation and straight to wavy or curly hair, and including peoples indigenous to Europe, northern Africa, western Asia, and India. No longer in scientific use.

quote:

---

Professor Horemheb whines: The reason for that is political correctness, not scientific fact

---

quote:

---

Then please relate the scientific facts Professor.

We're waiting.

---

posted 22 August 2005 10:30 AM            

Professor H's reply: no answer.

question # 2: define fully caucasian.

Professor H's reply: plagiarised misquote which contradicts him and still provides no answer.

question # 3: define 'stray gene'

Professor H's reply: no answer.

Your score:

Zero of 3 correct. GRADE: F - failed.

Thank you for playing.

posted 22 August 2005 11:13 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
Need any more help?

---

Thanks no. Your score stands. Grade F. Sorry Professor.

posted 22 August 2005 02:37 PM            

quote:

---

ginney pussy
You clearly don't understand Semino's criticism of Passarino et al., otherwise you wouldn't say such stupid things. All it does is point out that the Oromo were underrepresented in the sample. That doesn't make the study "outmoded" or "unscientific".

---

Well, illiterate ginney mediterranean pussy , the criticism of Semino was pointed out for the very reason you stated above, and which is the center of the issue. The results cannot be forwarded as representative of a nation with more than 80 ethnic groups with different histories and possibly origins. Sure enough, the obvious differences in the level of indigenous sub-Saharan E3b lineages in the Oromo and Amhara was obscured as a result [As Semino and others correctly pointed out]. This alone makes Passarino’s study worthless, at least for the purpose you are trying to advance it!

And then, of course we have outdated "social" constructs in the study.

quote:

---

dark oily mediterranean pussy:
It just opens up the possibility that the Oromo and Amhara are two distinct and unrelated populations. However, we know from all of the other research cited that this isn't the case.

---

Well, illiterate med-wop nigga, we’ll be happy to examine them. We haven’t yet seen any citation that suggests a such thing; it is all a figment of a wop’s imagination.

quote:

---

ginney pussy:
And Sanchez's most recent Y-chromosome study confirms their relatedness by placing both in the same intermediate cluster with other East and North Africans.

---

Sanchez map simply reconfirms that you are one retarded undocumented spaghetti munching dark mediterranean hussy immigrant, and here’s why:

You must be the only dumb ginney wop who sees Amharas and Oromos clustering into one in this Sanchez et al. 2005 Y-Chromosome map, aren’t you, ginney dyke?

quote:

---

ginney mediterranean filth:
Tishkoff et al. was dealt with a long time ago. You Afronuts are too stupid to realize how thoroughly it destroys your "pre-historic E3b-carrying Blacks" fantasy:

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/Forum8/HTML/001611.html

---

Would that be, uhem, this?…

"...these observations support the hypothesis proposed by other nuclear-genetic studies (Tishkoff et al. 1996a, 1998a, 1998b; Kidd et al. 1998) that populations in northeastern Africa may have diverged from those in the rest of sub-Saharan Africa early in the history of modern African populations and that a subset of this northeastern-African population migrated out of Africa and populated the rest of the globe."

Any literate can clearly see that this statement is actually supporting what I claimed Topdog was demonstrating well, which was that, east Africans position between Africans and non-Africans because non-African gene pools are a subset of East Africans, whose gene pools are in turn a subset of the entire Africa. Plus, E3b in mediterranean rats like you, is of recent sub-Saharan origin, i.e., it post dates the original OAA. ginney, you’ve been toasted!

quote:

---

ginney pussy:
"Europoid" is a synonym for "Caucasoid"

---

Well, you flaccid dinkey-licking ginney hussy, where is an up-to-date “scientific” definition of “Europoid”? And in any case, how does “europoid enzymes” change the status quo of E3b lineages, i.e., they are sub-Sahara tropical African, and that outlier-euro wops carry them?

-----------

Side notes on the positioning of East Africans in relation to Africans and non-Africans, in terms of paternal lineages:

Here’s the deal: Mediterraneans would be inclined to cluster away from most Africans, if it were just for the Hg R and Hg I, but because of substantial sub-Saharan E3b and Asian Hg J in Mediterranean European populations, they cluster closer to groups like East Africans, who carry the same sub-Saharan Haplogroups, and to a lesser extent, Hg J, due its small frequencies in East Africa.

Similarly for West Asians: East Africans are going to cluster closer, again because of the influence of mainly sub-Saharan E3b lineages, and then to lesser degrees, Asian J and K lineages due to mutual gene flow from the regions.

Richards et al’s analysis demonstrates this...

quote:

---

Richards et al, 2002, actually make reference to an even more recent gene flow of sub-Saharan E lineages into Europe:

"The analysis for eastern Mediterranean Europe indicated a very high frequency (∼20%) of recent gene flow, as compared with only ∼10% Neolithic input. It would be necessary to perform a similar founder analysis (using, for example, a large panel of fast-evolving microsatellites) to see whether a proportion of the putative Y chromosome Neolithic types in Europe are actually of more recent origin. However, it is suggestive that the frequency of Y chromosome haplogroup E, which Semino et al. (2000) have inferred to be Neolithic, appears at particularly high levels in the western Mediterranean in the more extensive sample of Rosser et al. (2000) (fig. 3E). As Rosser et al. suggest, this may imply gene flow mainly from North Africa (where haplogroup E reaches its highest frequency), rather than mainly from the Near East, because, judging from archaeological evidence, the development of agriculture in Iberia is likely to have been largely indigenous (Zilhão 2000)."

From the first PC analysis, Richards et al found that,

"The first PC accounts for 49% of the variation and is approximately east-west within Europe, but the Near East and eastern Mediterranean Europe cluster with central Europe. This gradient is accounted for largely by paragroup R* (nomenclature of the Y Chromosome Consortium [2002]), formerly haplogroup 1 (Jobling and Tyler-Smith 2000) in the west and by haplogroups R1a (formerly haplogroup 3) and N3 (formerly Tat) in the east (fig. 5). In agreement with the suggestion proposed to explain the distribution of mtDNA haplogroup V (Torroni et al. 1998, 2001), the distributions of Y chromosome groups R* and R1a have been interpreted by Semino et al. (2000) to be the result of postglacial expansions from refugia within Europe."

But with Hg E in the mix, they got:

"The second PC of Y chromosome variation accounts for 26% of the variation, and it clusters most European regions at one pole while grouping the Near East at the other, with eastern Mediterranean and central Mediterranean Europe between the two poles.

The main contributors to the gradients are **haplogroups E** and J (formerly haplogroups 21 and 9, both of which are frequent in the Near East) and, again, R* and N3 (both of which are more frequent in Europe). This points to gene flow from the Near East, as suggested by both Cavalli-Sforza et al. (1994) and Semino et al. (2000). Haplogroup J in Europe is interpreted more specifically by Semino et al. (2000) as the result of Neolithic dispersal. Curiously, however, **haplogroups E **and J are again most frequent along the Mediterranean coastline and rapidly dwindle as one moves into central Europe, where the archaeological record tells us the main farming expansion took place…

---

None of this, of course has any bearings on recent sub-Saharan E3b lineages in southern Europeans, and various West Asian populations!

posted 22 August 2005 02:47 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
So let's continue to use the enraged fool:

Wetton found that the Ea2 'dark' Europeans distinguished in this study from the pale Ea1 Northern Europeans, did indeed have 7% West African E3a and 17% East African E3b or 24% African Y chromosome.

In fact, the study refers to the pale whites of Northern Europe as genetically 'homogeneous' while refering to the dark 'medit' whites as 'heterogeneous' or mixed.

Meanwhile, group Ea6 which bears predominent haplotypes from West Asia [such as J] is described as Middle Eastern - and NOT white, nor European nor caucaZoid.

---

Undoubtedly. Meanwhile, I can't but help notice that the dark mediterranean coackroach couldn't come up with answers for the following lingering questions:

• What haplotypes are considered “Niger Congo” mtDNA in the Ethiopian gene pool? Where is the Borana sample that Passarino et al, 1998, studied? And what does “Niger Congo” lineages have to do with the Borana?

• The E3b1 lineages in East African populations, with highest found in Cushitic speakers like the Borana, are indigenous sub-Sahara tropical African lineages. How does admixture or gene flow into east Africa, disqualify this fact any way?

• Recent E3b lineages in southern Europe, including E3a and HBS are all sub-Saharan. These people are genetically closer to sub-Saharan Africans, than the non-outlier Europeans carrying Hg R1b and Hg I in high frequencies. Where does Sanchez et al., 2005, state that E3b is genetically closer to Eurasian J and K, more than its sister PN2 E3a?
  

posted 22 August 2005 04:47 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
So let's continue to use the enraged fool

---

posted 22 August 2005 04:57 PM            

quote:

---

Where does Sanchez et al., 2005, state that E3b is genetically closer to Eurasian J and K, more than PN2 E3a?

---

It's right next to the passage where Sanchez discusses the Y chromosome bearing females:

EuroMonkey, shocked by the stupidity.

posted 22 August 2005 05:57 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by leba:
...Some of them are not Saudi but Omani...

---

posted 23 August 2005 07:34 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Super coon:
You must be the only dumb ginney wop who sees Amharas and Oromos clustering into one in this Sanchez et al. 2005 Y-Chromosome map, aren’t you, ginney dyke?

---

They're in the same intermediate cluster, blind ape. They're closer to each other than Central and Southwestern Africans are.

quote:

---

because of substantial sub-Saharan E3b and Asian Hg J in Mediterranean European populations, they cluster closer to groups like East Africans, who carry the same sub-Saharan Haplogroups

---

No, little nigger. You've got that backwards. E3b and J cause the East Africans to cluster closer to groups like Mediterranean Europeans than they do to Sub-Saharan Africans:

Mediterranean Europeans always cluster with non-Mediterranean Europeans:

And of course, these genetic relationships manifest themselves craniometrically as well:

[ #4 = English; #7 = Greek; #10 = Swiss ]

posted 23 August 2005 07:45 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
I went over that rasol...go back and read my post on political correctness. You and I and the anthropologists as well know it is still valid. If not we would not have all of these people on this board, including you, whining about being black.

---

Of course racial classifications are still valid. The Babbling Ape's source is "thefreedictionary.com". Geneticists like Passarino, Comas, Spurdle, Jenkins and Cavalli-Sforza all accept and use racial terminology, as do anthropologists like Howells and Groves. And there are thousands of recent studies at PubMed that analyze human races as well.

Here's a more credible source that reveals the non-PC, scientific consensus on the issue of race:

"To classify humans on the basis of physiological traits is difficult, for the coexistence of races through conquests, invasions, migrations, and mass deportations has produced a heterogeneous world population. Nevertheless, by limiting the criteria to such traits as skin pigmentation, color and form of hair, shape of head, stature, and form of nose, most anthropologists agree on the existence of three relatively distinct groups: the Caucasoid, the Mongoloid, and the Negroid."

posted 23 August 2005 07:49 AM            

* EA1 (R1b/I) and EA2 (E3b/J2/G) = Both Caucasoid

* "Pale" and "Dark" = Recent climatic adaptations

PROOF:

~80% E3b + Caucasoid mtDNA =

~80% E3b + Negroid mtDNA =

~95% R1b/I + European mtDNA =

posted 23 August 2005 02:19 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Super car:

I can't but help notice that the dark mediterranean coackroach couldn't come up with answers for the following lingering questions:

• What haplotypes are considered “Niger Congo” mtDNA in the Ethiopian gene pool? Where is the Borana sample that Passarino et al, 1998, studied? And what does “Niger Congo” lineages have to do with the Borana?

• The E3b1 lineages in East African populations, with highest found in Cushitic speakers like the Borana, are indigenous sub-Sahara tropical African lineages. How does admixture or gene flow into east Africa, disqualify this fact any way?

• Recent E3b lineages in southern Europe, including E3a and HBS are all sub-Saharan. These people are genetically closer to sub-Saharan Africans, than the non-outlier Europeans carrying Hg R1b and Hg I in high frequencies. Where does Sanchez et al., 2005, state that E3b is genetically closer to Eurasian J and K, more than its sister PN2 E3a?
  

---

More from Wetton on the "dark whites" of southern Europe and their 24% African paternal lineage:

The occurrence of sub-Saharan haplogroups at high frequency AND the intermediate frequencies between surrounding populations including EA1, EA4, and EA6 suggest that it may include individuals with recent heterogeneous ancestry.

posted 23 August 2005 02:46 PM            

quote:

---

ginney pussy:
They're in the same intermediate cluster, blind ape. They're closer to each other than Central and Southwestern Africans are.

---

Well, maggot-infested ginney ho pussy, this is immaterial. Your position was that “there was no difference between the two groups”, to justify your straw usage of the Passarino study . But it appears that the Sanchez et al. map has proven to be quite a shocking wop wake up call for an illiterate spaghetti munching ginney dyke, hasn‘t it?

quote:

---

ginney pussy:
You've got that backwards. E3b and J cause the East Africans to cluster closer to groups like Mediterranean Europeans than they do to Sub-Saharan Africans

---

Illiterate dick-licking ginney hussy, whichever way a wop wishes to phrase this, the mere presence of E3b in your phrase is vindication that you haven’t been able to go around the fact that, those sub-Saharan E3b lineages are the reason you dark skin medwop rats cluster close to sub-Saharan Africans. Otherwise, you wouldn’t be the outlier dark skin mediterraneans that you are, as Richards et al. nicely demonstrates:

quote:

---

Richards et al, 2002, actually make reference to an even more recent gene flow of sub-Saharan E lineages into Europe…

From the first PC analysis, Richards et al found that,

"The first PC accounts for 49% of the variation and is approximately east-west within Europe, but the Near East and eastern Mediterranean Europe cluster with central Europe. This gradient is accounted for largely by paragroup R* (nomenclature of the Y Chromosome Consortium [2002]), formerly haplogroup 1 (Jobling and Tyler-Smith 2000) in the west and by haplogroups R1a (formerly haplogroup 3) and N3 (formerly Tat) in the east (fig. 5). In agreement with the suggestion proposed to explain the distribution of mtDNA haplogroup V (Torroni et al. 1998, 2001), the distributions of Y chromosome groups R* and R1a have been interpreted by Semino et al. (2000) to be the result of postglacial expansions from refugia within Europe."

But with Hg E in the mix, they got:

"The second PC of Y chromosome variation accounts for 26% of the variation, and it clusters most European regions at one pole while grouping the Near East at the other, with eastern Mediterranean and central Mediterranean Europe between the two poles.

The main contributors to the gradients are **haplogroups E** and J (formerly haplogroups 21 and 9, both of which are frequent in the Near East) and, again, R* and N3 (both of which are more frequent in Europe). This points to gene flow from the Near East, as suggested by both Cavalli-Sforza et al. (1994) and Semino et al. (2000). Haplogroup J in Europe is interpreted more specifically by Semino et al. (2000) as the result of Neolithic dispersal. Curiously, however, **haplogroups E **and J are again most frequent along the Mediterranean coastline and rapidly dwindle as one moves into central Europe, where the archaeological record tells us the main farming expansion took place…

---

So as Richards et al demonstrated, the presence of recent sub-Saharan Hg E and Asian Hg J in dark skin outlier medwops, pulls them away from the REAL Europeans, and puts them in b/n the Near Easterners (who carry the same sub-Saharan and Asian lineages amongst others) and the REAL Europeans. But the small frequencies of Hg R and Hg I in outlier dark skin meds, pulls them away from Near Easterners on the other end, and puts them in the middle.

So now that every single wop straw has been squashed swiftly and concisely, emotionally fragile ginney retard, how about answers for the following:

• What haplotypes are considered “Niger Congo” mtDNA in the Ethiopian gene pool? Where is the Borana sample that Passarino et al, 1998, studied? And what does “Niger Congo” lineages have to do with the Borana?

• The E3b1 lineages in East African populations, with highest found in Cushitic speakers like the Borana, are indigenous sub-Sahara tropical African lineages. How does admixture or gene flow into east Africa, disqualify this fact any way?

• Recent E3b lineages in southern Europe, including E3a and HBS are all sub-Saharan. These people are genetically closer to sub-Saharan Africans, than the non-outlier Europeans carrying Hg R1b and Hg I in high frequencies. Where does Sanchez et al., 2005, state that E3b is genetically closer to Eurasian J and K, more than its sister PN2 E3a?
  

…or else, you can always go back to the cheap slutting that you ginney ho’s do best. The choice is yours.

posted 24 August 2005 07:35 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Babbling Ape:
the intermediate frequencies between surrounding populations including EA1, EA4, and EA6 suggest that it may include individuals with recent heterogeneous ancestry.

---

That's right. Southeastern Europeans are a mix of Paleolithic hunter-gatherers and Neolithic agriculturalists -- both Caucasoid and both "dark" from adaptating to the Mediterranean climate.

Of course, the high frequency of E3a in Wetton's sample comes from intermarriage with Afro-Caribbeans within the U.K., as that haplogroup has never been detected in Greece or Sicily.

This desperate need to be associated with Europeans only exposes the Negro's keen awareness of his own inferiority, and deep shame about his underachievement. In other words, it's doing you more harm than good, savage. Take my advice and quit now before every last shred of your dignity is gone.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Super coon:
Your position was that “there was no difference between the two groups”

---

posted 24 August 2005 07:40 AM            

quote:

---

WETTON:

* EA1 (R1b/I) and EA2 (E3b/J2/G) = Both Caucasoid

* "Pale" and "Dark" = Recent climatic adaptations

PROOF:

~80% E3b + Caucasoid mtDNA =

~80% E3b + Negroid mtDNA =

~95% R1b/I + European mtDNA =

R.I.P.

---

quote:

---

E3b and J cause East Africans to cluster closer to groups like Mediterranean Europeans than they do to Sub-Saharan Africans:

Mediterranean Europeans always cluster with non-Mediterranean Europeans:

And of course, these genetic relationships manifest themselves craniometrically as well:

[ #4 = English; #7 = Greek; #10 = Swiss ]

R.I.P.

---

They'd better hurry up. Time is running out . . .

posted 24 August 2005 08:18 AM            

quote:

---

The occurrence of sub-Saharan haplogroups at high frequency AND the intermediate frequencies between surrounding populations including EA1, EA4, and EA6 suggest that it may include individuals with recent heterogeneous ancestry.

---

quote:

---

"The first PC accounts for 49% of the variation and is approximately east-west within Europe, but the Near East and eastern Mediterranean Europe cluster with central Europe. This gradient is accounted for largely by paragroup R* (nomenclature of the Y Chromosome Consortium [2002]), formerly haplogroup 1 (Jobling and Tyler-Smith 2000) in the west and by haplogroups R1a (formerly haplogroup 3) and N3 (formerly Tat) in the east (fig. 5). In agreement with the suggestion proposed to explain the distribution of mtDNA haplogroup V (Torroni et al. 1998, 2001), the distributions of Y chromosome groups R* and R1a have been interpreted by Semino et al. (2000) to be the result of postglacial expansions from refugia within Europe."

"The second PC of Y chromosome variation accounts for 26% of the variation, and it clusters most European regions at one pole while grouping the Near East at the other, with eastern Mediterranean and central Mediterranean Europe between the two poles.

The main contributors to the gradients are **haplogroups E** and J (formerly haplogroups 21 and 9, both of which are frequent in the Near East) and, again, R* and N3 (both of which are more frequent in Europe). This points to gene flow from the Near East, as suggested by both Cavalli-Sforza et al. (1994) and Semino et al. (2000). Haplogroup J in Europe is interpreted more specifically by Semino et al. (2000) as the result of Neolithic dispersal. Curiously, however, **haplogroups E **and J are again most frequent along the Mediterranean coastline and rapidly dwindle as one moves into central Europe, where the archaeological record tells us the main farming expansion took place…

---

quote:

---

Thought Writes:
* Evil E quotes EARLY J.L. Angel work to support the idea of striking "Racial continuity in Greece" (Angel, 1944), yet he seems to overlook the LATER Angel finds which indicate…. "...one can identify Negroid (Ethiopic or Bushmanoid) traits appearing in Natufian latest hunters and in Anatolian and Macedonian first farmers, probably FROM NUBIA..."

* Evil E still has not come to terms with the fact that the PN2 Clade [E3a and E3b] derived in Sub-Saharan East Africa among indigenous tropically adapted people AND that southern Europeans and Central and West African share in the same common Sub-Saharan derived origin.

---

True, per Wetton, et. al dark "medit" Europeans have 24% African paternal lineage including 7% E3a and 17% E3b.
They are in fact -Afro European, and they admit it.. They are proud of it.
No such thing as 'pure race' and certainly not in Southern Europe.

posted 24 August 2005 10:15 AM            

quote:

---

http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/9072/plot21fa.jpg

---

Unlike this map above this below focuses specifically of E3b lineages

Look where Eurasians like Omanis, Iraqis, and Turks cluster and look where East Africans cluster you idiot, there is a difference. If E3b makes East Africans more Eurasian, why are both sub-Saharan East Africans and sub-Saharan west and central Africans so far away from Europeans and West Asians? Still think E3b makes East Africans more Eurasian? Look at this chart of haplogroup frequencies from the same study.

If E3b makes East Africans more Eurasian why do Eurasians and Europeans have lower frequencies of E3b lineages? Using this information the *OPPOSITE* can be stated, not your stupidity. The higher the frequency of E3b1 the more East African the population becomes; the lesser the E3b1 the lesser East African one becomes, its as plain and simple as that you dummy.

posted 24 August 2005 10:51 AM            

Both groups have signficant East and West African paternity which pulls them closer to Africans in all of these studies.

Dienekes fan-boy better keep running, because he can't hide.

quote:

---

Relatedness by Y chromosome per Sanchez plot with Oromo as baseline:

Oromo 0
Ethiopian 2
Somali 2.5
Sudan 3.5
Amhara 5.5
North African 6
Khoisan 7.5
Egyptian 8.5
Central AFrican 9
Bantu 12
Omani 14

---

posted 24 August 2005 01:50 PM            

quote:

---

ginney wop:
No, my position was and remains that differences between the two groups are minor and insignificant. All of the evidence supports that position.

---

Well, ginney ho pussy, this forced admission that there are indeed differences, is all we need. A wop's subjective opinion on what is considered significant or not, is immaterial to conclusions of studies from Sanchez, Semino & a great many others, which have all unequivocally shown that there are indeed significant differences in levels of sub-Saharan E3b lineages and foreign (Asian) gene flow. It correlates well with their different histories. For instance, Sanchez et al.'s map demonstrates that Oromos and Amharas don't cluster into one; their positions are clearly defined on the map, which is of course significant...and has proven to be a devastating wop myth buster.

In the meantime, here's some unfinished business...

quote:

---

Richards et al, 2002, actually make reference to an even more recent gene flow of sub-Saharan E lineages into Europe…

From the first PC analysis, Richards et al found that,

"The first PC accounts for 49% of the variation and is approximately east-west within Europe, but the Near East and eastern Mediterranean Europe cluster with central Europe.

**This gradient is accounted for largely by paragroup R* (nomenclature of the Y Chromosome Consortium [2002]), formerly haplogroup 1 (Jobling and Tyler-Smith 2000) in the west and by haplogroups R1a (formerly haplogroup 3) and N3 (formerly Tat) in the east (fig. 5).

In agreement with the suggestion proposed to explain the distribution of mtDNA haplogroup V (Torroni et al. 1998, 2001), the distributions of Y chromosome groups R* and R1a have been interpreted by Semino et al. (2000) to be **the result of postglacial expansions from refugia within Europe."

But with Hg E in the mix, they got:

"The second PC of Y chromosome variation accounts for 26% of the variation, and it clusters most European regions at one pole while grouping the Near East at the other, with eastern Mediterranean and central Mediterranean Europe between the two poles.

The main contributors to the gradients are **haplogroups E** and J (formerly haplogroups 21 and 9, both of which are frequent in the Near East) and, again, R* and N3 (both of which are more frequent in Europe). This points to gene flow from the Near East, as suggested by both Cavalli-Sforza et al. (1994) and Semino et al. (2000). Haplogroup J in Europe is interpreted more specifically by Semino et al. (2000) as the result of Neolithic dispersal. Curiously, however, **haplogroups E **and J are again most frequent along the Mediterranean coastline and rapidly dwindle as one moves into central Europe, where the archaeological record tells us the main farming expansion took place…
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/Forum8/HTML/002445.html]http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/Forum8/HTML/002445.html]h ttp://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/Forum8/HTML/002445.html

As Richards et al demonstrated, the presence of recent sub-Saharan Hg E and Asian Hg J in dark skin outlier medwops, pulls them away from the REAL Europeans, and puts them in b/n the Near Easterners (who carry the same sub-Saharan and Asian lineages amongst others) and the REAL Europeans. But varying frequencies of Hg R and Hg N3 in outlier dark skin meds, keeps them in the middle.

So now that every single wop straw has been squashed swiftly and concisely, emotionally fragile ginney retard, how about answers for the following:

• What haplotypes are considered “Niger Congo” mtDNA in the Ethiopian gene pool? Where is the Borana sample that Passarino et al, 1998, studied? And what does “Niger Congo” lineages have to do with the Borana?

• The E3b1 lineages in East African populations, with highest found in Cushitic speakers like the Borana, are indigenous sub-Sahara tropical African lineages. How does admixture or gene flow into east Africa, disqualify this fact any way?

• Recent E3b lineages in southern Europe, including E3a and HBS are all sub-Saharan. These people are genetically closer to sub-Saharan Africans, than the non-outlier Europeans carrying Hg R1b and Hg I in high frequencies. Where does Sanchez et al., 2005, state that E3b is genetically closer to Eurasian J and K, more than its sister PN2 E3a?
  

…or else, you can always go back to the cheap slutting that you ginney ho’s do best. The choice is yours.

---

...or I take it that it is finished business, as per your no-answers, i.e., ginney pussy being toast!