quote:

---

To sum it up, since Howells found no correlation between modern East African Bantu speaking Teita, Pontikos and Evil Euro argued that pre-historic East Africans were not "Negroid", while ignoring Rightmire's suggestion that these peoples were Nilotes, whom Howells did *NOT* include among his samples. This study proves that they are wrong as we already knew back in 2005, lol!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

To sum it up, since Howells found no correlation between modern East African Bantu speaking Teita, Pontikos and Evil Euro argued that pre-historic East Africans were not "Negroid", while ignoring Rightmire's suggestion that these peoples were Nilotes, whom Howells did *NOT* include among his samples. This study proves that they are wrong as we already knew back in 2005, lol!

---

^ The Howells nefarious claim that the original population of East Africa was not African, has to be one of the most mind-bending propaganda statements in the history of anthropological scholarship.

---

Evergreen Writes:

The claim is especially nefarious given the fact that West African specific haplogroup E1b1 is now seen as originating in East Africa.

Evergreen Posts:

Phylogeography of the human Y chromosome haplogroup E3a
F. Cruciani1, B. Trombetta1, D. Sellitto2, C. Nodale1, R. Scozzari1;
1Sapienza Università di Roma, Rome, Italy, 2Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Rome, Italy.
Presentation Number: P07.134
The Y chromosome specific biallelic marker DYS271 defines the most common haplogroup (E3a) currently found in sub-Saharan Africa. A sister clade, E3b (E-M215), is rare in sub-Saharan Africa, but very common in northern and eastern Africa. On the whole, these two clades represent more than 70% of the Y chromosomes of the African continent. A third clade belonging to E3 (E3c or E-M329) has been recently reported to be present only in eastern Africa, at low frequencies.
In this study we analyzed more than 1,600 Y chromosomes from 55 African populations, using both new and previously described biallelic markers, in order to refine the phylogeny and the geographic distribution of the E3a haplogroup.
The most common E-DYS271 sub-clades (E-DYS271*, E-M191, E-U209) showed a non uniform distribution across sub-Saharan Africa. Most of the E-DYS271 chromosomes found in northern and western Africa belong to the paragroup E-DYS271*, which is rare in central and southern Africa. In these latter regions, haplogroups E-M191 and E-U209 show similar frequency distributions and coalescence ages (13 and 11 kyr, respectively), suggesting their involvement in the same migratory event/s.
By the use of two new phylogenetically equivalent markers (V38 and V89), the earlier tripartite structure of E3 haplogroup was resolved in favor of a common ancestor for haplogroups E-DYS271 (formerly E3a) and E-M329 (formerly E3c). The new topology of the E3 haplogroup is suggestive of a relatively recent eastern African origin for the majority of the chromosomes presently found in sub-Saharan Africa.

SOURCE: ESHG 2008
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
All I gotta say is LMAO @ the notion of "prehistoric East African Caucasoids"!

This shows exactly how desperate and insane the eurocentrics and white racists are!
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
Help me out here Bass. The paper is saying that was a "recent" migration. ie ~2000ya. I thougt E3b is somewhere close to 10kyo.

---

quote:

---

If E3b was European

---

No geneticist argues that E3b is European, or "middle eastern". All agree that it originates in Africa.

The African origin of E3b is only disputed by non geneticists, whose view is rooted in the frustration of realising that Europeans, and Arabs, and Jews, all have Black African ancestry.

These pseudo-scholars simply exploit ignorance, and attempt to confuse the issue.

Since genetics is non trivial sometimes they succeed in sowing confusion.


And for all the anti-Kemetic haters - Black is just as valid as and ethnic reference as European or Arab or Jew, and Arabs, and Jews, and Europeans, and Africans have historically agreed....since they all have used the color reference/term "black", and it is has, if anything *greater* historical relevance than Arab, or Jew, or European, or African for that matter.

Dissenters feel free to speak up.
 

---

Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
 
^ Black is valid if you mean it in a social sense such as how it is used in America and Europe. Many latin American people will have a different definition for Black in comparison to mainstream America.

Nevertheless this is no longer considered Black but is called multi-racial in modern American society.




AE was primarily Black according to the American social definition.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ A strawman with silly semantics. What Rasol refers to is the original meaning of 'black' which is a reference to very dark skin such as populations indigenous to Africa like the ancient Egyptians. 'Mixed-race' categories are out of the question.

Also the description of Egypt being 'primarily' black is like that of Greece being 'primarily' white or even more so since ancient Egypt likely had less non-African lineages than Greece had non-European lineages. Unless you still insist on some major Asiatic ('Hebrew') population invovled in the founding of Egyptian civilization. LOL
 

---

Posted by Boofer (Member # 15638) on :
 
What I have yet to understand is how East Africa has so many different phenotypes if it is not in part due to contact with west Asians. Why is it that the only Africans with more caucasian looking features are nearer to the coast, if very little of there heritage is non-african? When people mention East Africa, they are mostly talking about Ethiopians and Somalis...Why is it that these are the only two groups with such features if they are of very little West Asian influence?

Note differences between the Nilotic speakers and the Cushtic speakers. Though both tend to have narrowish features, Nilotic peoples look more (and I hate this term) well negroid. The mursi of Western ethiopia have a very different look from those to the east.

Now, i'm not trying to prove anything...just using my eyes.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

Black is valid if you mean it in a social sense such as how it is used in America and Europe.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boofer:
What I have yet to understand is how East Africa has so many different phenotypes if it is not in part due to contact with west Asians.

---

This is a strawman argument, not a query.

It is a strawman because no one denies that Africa has contact with West Asia.

Also West Asia has phenotypical diversity as well, and also has contact with Africa.

Also West Africa has physical diversity as well.

East AFrica is the origion of all humans, and as a matter of logic, is the region of the world where it makes the -least- sence to invoke non indigenous admixture as the primary cause of diversity.

So if we can't explain native diversity in East Africa, we certainly can't explain it anywhere else.

Cavelli Sforza [european-geneticist] gave the game away decades ago when he stated with puzzlement that -EUROPEANS APPEAR AS A GENETIC MIXTURE - 1/3 African, 2/3 ASIAN.

Europeans are provably recipients of genetic admixtures to a greater extent than they are sources of mixture.

That's why most Eurocentric references disguise and obscure - with references to west asian, caucasian, and eurasian, all designed to conflate the literally limited European paternity.

Question: What male lineage is specifically European?

Answer - R1b.

Question: Which groups of East Africans have significant R1b.

Answer - none.

Question: What is the primary East African male lineage.

Answer - E3b.

Question: What groups of Europeans have signficant African E3b?

Answer: Greeks, Italian, Spaniard, Portugese.

Question: What groups of Arabs have signficant African male ancestry.

Answer: All of them.

And you wonder why Eurocentrists fight so desparately to have E3b mis-interpreted as a non African lineage?

E3b, when accurately comprehended - is the death blow to "Euro-centric-pseudo-biology-anthropology-history." That's why.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

Why is it that the only Africans with more caucasian looking features are nearer to the coast,

---

quote:

---

The African origin of E3b is only disputed by non geneticists, whose view is rooted in the frustration of realising that Europeans, and Arabs, and Jews, all have Black African ancestry

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Europeans are provably recipients of genetic admixtures to a greater extent than they are sources of mixture.

ALL DESIGNED TO CONFLATE THE LITTERALLY LIMITED EUROPEAN PATERNITY.

Question: What male lineage is specifically European?

Answer - R1b.

Question: Which groups of East Africans have significant R1b.

Answer - none.

Question: What is the primary East African male lineage.

Answer - E3b.

Question: What groups of Europeans have signficant African E3b?

Answer: Greeks, Italian, Spaniard, Portugese.

Question: What groups of Arabs have signficant African male ancestry.

Answer: All of them.

And you wonder why Eurocentrists fight so desparately to have E3b mis-interpreted as a non African lineage?

E3b, when accurately comprehended - is the death blow to "Euro-centric-pseudo-biology-anthropology-history." That's why.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

Black is valid if you mean it in a social sense such as how it is used in America and Europe.

---

Black as and ethnic reference to dark skinned people is by definition a social term.

Therefore Black is valid.

Black is valid when the AE refer to themselves as Blacks, or refer to Osirus as "The Great Black One".

Black is valid when in the Coptic Bible - it is written "I am Black and comely".

Black is valid when 'the Blacks' are made the topic of Al Jahiz "The Glory of the Blacks".

America or Europe are completely irrelevant to all of the above.

America and Europe are merely the source of your Kemo-phobic [fear of Blackness].

As for Race - meaning the sub division of species homo sapiens into sub-species - *not* recognised by any school of biology, it is therefore *not* valid, no matter what terminology/words you use to describe -non existent- races.

Jews, for example, are not a race, because race is invalid.

This says nothing whatsover about the validity of "Jew", as and ethnic reference.

One day, when you grow a bit more emotionally and intellectually....you will understand every word of the above.

Until then....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
[QB]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boofer:
What I have yet to understand is how East Africa has so many different phenotypes if it is not in part due to contact with west Asians.

---

This is a strawman argument, not a query.

It is a strawman because no one denies that Africa has contact with West Asia.

---

quote:

---

Also West Asia has phenotypical diversity as well, and also has contact with Africa.

---

quote:

---

Also West Africa has physical diversity as well.

---

quote:

---

East AFrica is the origion of all humans, and as a matter of logic, is the region of the world where it makes the -least- sence to invoke non indigenous admixture as the primary cause of diversity.

---

quote:

---

So if we can't explain native diversity in East Africa, we certainly can't explain it anywhere else.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boofer:
Sorry, for that...You're right. I assumed that people here were arguing that none of the diversity is a result of West Asian influence.

---

quote:

---

So I admit, I can't really back it up

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

Why is it that the only Africans with more caucasian looking features are nearer to the coast,

---

This is a typical race tautology.

Do you know what a tautology is?

It's when you assume a conclusion, and then ask

a question intended to encourage someone [stupid] to mistake your assumption for proof of

something.

Myself, I respond by demanding that you prove your own assumptions, otherwise your question is disregarded as empty rhetoric.

- Please present a map of caucasia.

- Now present a list of 'features' which you claim 'originate' in 'caucasia, and provide the evidence for your claims.

^ It's simple: Don't repeat the claim, if you can't provide the above evidense.

Otherwise you only reinforce the following...

quote:

---

The African origin of E3b is only disputed by non geneticists, whose view is rooted in the frustration of realising that Europeans, and Arabs, and Jews, all have Black African ancestry

---

---

Well, my usage of the term "caucasian" is to describe features that are most common in populations of Europe and Western Asia. So, instead of Caucasian, lets use the term "European looking." Such features imo are usually include pointy, narrow noses, thin lips, and what I'd like to call a "long faced" skull. Not sure if there is a name for it. Also, hair that is less kinky and more straight. In this case (many east africans), the hair is not exactly straight, but more of an intermediate, similar to many "bi racial" people that I've seen in the U.S.; curly or frizzy.

I'm aware that not every European descended person has all of the above features, and that many of the features can be found in non-european descended populations, but I'd say that such features are most common in Europe.

Please don't take this as my trying to squash the notion of the Ethiopians being indigenous. I'd bet money that those people are pretty much indigenous, but with some west Asian admixture.
 

---

Posted by Debunker (Member # 15669) on :
 
Boofer, don't listen to these fools. They're Afrocentrists. They spend their lives at this forum spouting lies, patting each other on the back, and insulting anyone who tries to bring some sense to the discussion. You won't get anything resembling truth from them.

In answer to your question, the reason East Africans look partly Caucasoid is, quite simply, because they are. This is due both to West Asian influences as you surmised, but also to the fact that prehistoric East Africans (E3b-carriers) were already evolving a Levantine Caucasoid appearance prior to Out-of-Africa migrations.




SOURCE: William Howells. Getting Here: The Story of Human Evolution. Howells House, 1997


"Populations that exist at the boundaries of these continental
divisions are sometimes the most difficult to categorize simply.
For example, east African groups, such as Ethiopians and
Somalis, have great genetic resemblance to Caucasians
and are clearly intermediate between sub-Saharan
Africans and Caucasians [5].

"The one population in their analysis that was seemingly not
clearly classified on continental grounds was the Ethiopians,
who clustered more into the Caucasian group. But it is
known that African populations with close contact with Middle
East populations, including Ethiopians and North Africans,
have had significant admixture from Middle Eastern
(Caucasian) groups, and are thus more closely related
to Caucasians [14]."

SOURCE: Risch et al. Categorization of humans in biomedical research: genes, race and disease. Genome Biology, 2002


For more evidence (and it's really quite overwhelming) visit this page:
http://dodona.proboards35.com/index.cgi?board=genetics&action=display&thread=6741
 

---

Posted by Hori (Member # 11484) on :
 
^ This persistent troll has registered again under another user because he has been debunked again and again.

How ironic that he will call himself Debunker this time. He clearly has serious mental problems.

Observe how he will get Debunked once again for talking rubbish.
 

---

Posted by Charlie Bass (Member # 10328) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Debunker:
Afrocentrists[/URL]. They spend their lives at this forum spouting lies, patting each other on the back, and insulting anyone who tries to bring some sense to the discussion. You won't get anything resembling truth from them.

---

quote:

---

In answer to your question, the reason East Africans look partly Caucasoid is, quite simply, because they are.

---

quote:

---

This is due both to West Asian influences as you surmised, but also to the fact that prehistoric East Africans (E3b-carriers) were already evolving a Levantine Caucasoid appearance prior to Out-of-Africa migrations.

---

The pre-historic east African remains *POST-DATE* OOA you numbskull.




The Bass has that same book and nowhere does Howells say pre-historic EAs are part "Caucasoid", in fact the source says its backwards, which would mean that your Levantines are part Elongated African.

quote:

---

"Populations that exist at the boundaries of these continental
divisions are sometimes the most difficult to categorize simply.
For example, east African groups, such as Ethiopians and
Somalis, have great genetic resemblance to Caucasians
and are clearly intermediate between sub-Saharan
Africans and Caucasians [5].

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Debunker:
Boofer, don't listen to these fools. They're Afrocentrists. They spend their lives at this forum spouting lies, patting each other on the back, and insulting anyone who tries to bring some sense to the discussion. You won't get anything resembling truth from them.

In answer to your question, the reason East Africans look partly Caucasoid is, quite simply, because they are. This is due both to West Asian influences as you surmised, but also to the fact that prehistoric East Africans (E3b-carriers) were already evolving a Levantine Caucasoid appearance prior to Out-of-Africa migrations.




SOURCE: William Howells. Getting Here: The Story of Human Evolution. Howells House, 1997


"Populations that exist at the boundaries of these continental
divisions are sometimes the most difficult to categorize simply.
For example, east African groups, such as Ethiopians and
Somalis, have great genetic resemblance to Caucasians
and are clearly intermediate between sub-Saharan
Africans and Caucasians [5].

"The one population in their analysis that was seemingly not
clearly classified on continental grounds was the Ethiopians,
who clustered more into the Caucasian group. But it is
known that African populations with close contact with Middle
East populations, including Ethiopians and North Africans,
have had significant admixture from Middle Eastern
(Caucasian) groups, and are thus more closely related
to Caucasians [14]."

SOURCE: Risch et al. Categorization of humans in biomedical research: genes, race and disease. Genome Biology, 2002


For more evidence (and it's really quite overwhelming) visit this page:
http://dodona.proboards35.com/index.cgi?board=genetics&action=display&thread=6741

---

Before we move further, into the land of Euro-turd fantasies. Please elaborate to me why South African Lembas show no features from the Middle East, though they have 50% J haplogroup admixture, so called 'caucasian'?

R1 is present at frequencies of 20% in North Cameroon. So hmm, if 'Caucasoid' genes exist where are they in these populations, who have more admixture than East Africans?

Tutsis have no West Asian admixture, yet exhibit so called 'Caucasoid' traits. Why? Can you explain this?
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
@Knowledge.

Great postings? refreshing to have someone with some knowledge of genetics and cite their references.. . .without getting emotional.

Great points - Looking at the World y-HG map I also noticed there are no R1a and R1b in East Africa the so called Euro y-HG. So Euros never "admixed with Africans to resultant . . .East Africans".

Furthermore, looking at the same map, E3b seems to be predominantly in east Africa and North Africa. With some in the Levant, Iberia and southern Europe. Which implies Southern Europe, East African and North Africa were essential of the same people.. . . but we have another thread dedicated that already. 26 pages.
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
@ Knowledge

info need on 50% J for Lembas.
 

---

Posted by Hori (Member # 11484) on :
 
^ Good to see you're now making a positive effort.
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
WTF you talking about!! you seen my posts? Get the FOH!!
 

---

Posted by Hori (Member # 11484) on :
 
^ Hey Tony, get your Java "annotations" right. There should be no space between the @ and the K in your penultimate post .

I taught you better than that Tony .
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
Oh God, please tell me 'Debunker' is not Stupid-Euro! LOL Because if he is, he is more of a masochist for humiliation than I thought! And if he isn't and is a newbie, he obviously has no clue what he's getting himself into! Charlie Bass already completely yet politely debunked him using his own source. I hope he is smart enough to stop at that.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

Well, my usage of the term "caucasian" is to describe features that are most common in populations of Europe and Western Asia. So, instead of Caucasian, lets use the term "European looking."

---

quote:

---

Debunker:
Afrocentrists. They spend their lives at this forum spouting lies, patting each other on the back, and insulting anyone who tries to bring some sense to the discussion.

---

quote:

---

Debunker quotes Howells: Perhaps these scholars have it backwards

---

quote:

---

Charle Bass writes: The Bass has that same book and nowhere does Howells say pre-historic EAs are part "Caucasoid", in fact the source says its backwards, which would mean that your Levantines are part Elongated African.

---

quote:

---

And populations that border East Africa have great genetic resemblance to East Africans.

---

^ And southern Europeans have a greater resemblence to Africans as well. And, Neolithic southern Europeans even moreso.

Advocates of 'hybrid' have as ever - no comment on this curious fact.

They appear to hope that the rantign 'caucaZoid' can make all those African genes in Europe go away.
 

---

Posted by Charlie Bass (Member # 10328) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
Oh God, please tell me 'Debunker' is not Stupid-Euro! LOL Because if he is, he is more of a masochist for humiliation than I thought! And if he isn't and is a newbie, he obviously has no clue what he's getting himself into! Charlie Bass already completely yet politely debunked him using his own source. I hope he is smart enough to stop at that.

---

Unfortunately that *IS* Evil Euro, he has returned, oh well, I mind as well stay and clobber him to death again.
 

---

Posted by Charlie Bass (Member # 10328) on :
 
Lets set Evil Euro turd up for a trap about his E3b is K-Zoid mania:


Damn, look at all those areas where E3b appears in high frequencies in SSA, by Evil Euroturd's logic SSA should be overwhelmingly Levantine K-Zoid looking




According to this study, Datog, who are Nilotic speaking people have 43% E3b1-M293, but since E3b is Caucasoid, why don't they look like so-called "mulattoes" and instead look like this:






Almost forgot those darfur people too, damn another study said this about Darfur males:


"Haplogroup E-M78, however, is more widely distributed
and is thought to have an origin in eastern African.
More recently, this haplogroup has been carefully dissected
and was found to depict several well-established subclades with defined geographical clustering (Cruciani
et al., 2006, 2007). Although this haplogroup is common
to most Sudanese populations, it has exceptionally high
frequency among populations like those of western
Sudan (particularly Darfur) and the Beja in eastern
Sudan."


And those Masalit

"The Masalit possesses by far the highest frequency
of the E-M78 and of the E-V32 haplogroup, suggesting
either a recent bottleneck in the population or a
proximity to the origin of the haplogroup. Both E-V13,
which is believed to originate in western Asia with its
low frequency in North Africa, and E-V65 of North African
origin (Cruciani et al., 2007), were not found among
Sudanese."
 

---

Posted by Debunker (Member # 15669) on :
 
For the illiterate: What Howells is saying is that the evolution of "peoples less like Africans" who were "almost-modern Levantines" with a "Hamitic" appearance actually took place in East Africa, and not North Africa as the older scholars believed. What they had backwards was the source and migratory direction of Caucasoid-like peoples.

This idea of a split within prehistoric Africa between a population that was evolving to look "African" and one that was evolving to look "non-African" is strongly supported by genetics:

"We propose that African chromosomes descend from at least two
lineages that have been evolving separately for a period of time.
One of them underwent range expansion colonizing different
continents, including Africa, where it mixed with another, local lineage
represented today by a large fraction of African-specific haplotypes.

"A remarkable separation of the African-specific haplotypes from
the rest of the sample was seen using both total and the reduced
number of sites. Fig 2 showing the results for 21 sites illustrates well
this effect, which obviously was even more dramatic with 35
polymorphisms (not shown). On the PC plot in Fig 2A geographically
related groups of populations cluster together.



"To examine the relatedness of the common and specific haplotypes,
the groups of common and specific chromosomes in the populations
were considered separately (specific chromosomes in non-African
populations were pooled continentally because of small per population
numbers). This stratification led to a rearrangement of the PC plot
(Fig 2B). African-specific chromosomes are clearly separated from
the cluster of common African haplotypes found in the center of an
even greater cluster including all other non-African groups, both
common and specific. This analysis confirms conclusions from structural
comparisons above (Fig 1 and previous section), indicating that the
African-specific haplotypes represent lineages distinct from those of
the common haplotypes and the closely related non-African-specific
haplotypes."



SOURCE: Labuda et al. Archaic Lineages in the History of Modern Humans. Genetics, 2000.
 

---

Posted by Charlie Bass (Member # 10328) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Debunked:
For the illiterate: What Howells is saying is that the evolution of "peoples less like Africans" who were "almost-modern Levantines" with a "Hamitic" appearance actually took place in East Africa, and not North Africa as the older scholars believed. What they had backwards was the source and migratory direction of Caucasoid-like peoples.

---

Dumb guy can't even read his own source correctly so I'll post the entire page for you to see stupid, and in no place in the book does Howells say "almost-modern Levantine" looking prehistoric East Africans. Do you even know what "almost modern" means?



 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

For the illiterate: What Howells is saying is...

---

....the illiterate, and ineducable would have to be your target audience.

Unfortunately there are no such fools here, other than yourself.

As usual Charlie Bass destroys you by referencing the very materials you hope to destort.

There is one reference to Hamite and Caucasoid in the above -> It is referenced as BACKWORDS thinking. On this matter you are debunked whether you admit it or not. Case closed.
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Seems like an interesting book. Need to get my hands on it. Amazon.com here I come . . .again

The last sentence/statement throws a new twist on my views. Seems like he is saying that the so called "bantu" phenotype is recent(ie approx: 2000yo). And that most indigenous Africans - East, North, Central had similar phenotype. The so called East African features but with varying skin tones.

Question is - what led to the evolutionary change. Seems like E3a may have originated in East Africa migrated North then South and Central.

Does the encounter with Y-Hg-B or earlier y-Hg have anything to do with it?? As they moved further South/Central their body adapted to environment? Also it seems like y-hg-B existed in "central" Africa prior to E3a.
 

---

Posted by Charlie Bass (Member # 10328) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

For the illiterate: What Howells is saying is...

---

....the illiterate, and ineducable would have to be your target audience.

Unfortunately there are no such fools here, other than yourself.

As usual Charlie Bass destroys you by referencing the very materials you hope to destort.

There is one reference to Hamite and Caucasoid in the above -> It is referenced as BACKWORDS thinking. On this matter you are debunked whether you admit it or not. Case closed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
Seems like an interesting book. Need to get my hands on it. Amazon.com here I come . . .again

The last sentence/statement throws a new twist on my views. Seems like he is saying that the so called "bantu" phenotype is recent(ie approx: 2000yo). And that most indigenous Africans - East, North, Central had similar phenotype. The so called East African features but with varying skin tones.

Question is - what led to the evolutionary change. Seems like E3a may have originated in East Africa migrated North then South and Central.

Does the encounter with Y-Hg-B or earlier y-Hg have anything to do with it?? As they moved further South/Central their body adapted to environment? Also it seems like y-hg-B existed in "central" Africa prior to E3a.

---

Understand this, when Howells studied these early east Africa crania he made no comparisons to modern day Nilotic, Afro-Asiatic speaking peoples like Datog, Maasai, Somali, etc, he made his conclusion based on the him comparing the early East African crania to modern day Teita who now inhabit the area, as if Bantus are the onl modern day inhabitant of East Africa. Debunked/Evil Euro ignores the data from other bioanthropologists who made the opposite conclusion when they compared these same crania to Nilotic and Afro-Asiatics speaking people.
 

---

Posted by Charlie Bass (Member # 10328) on :
 
xyyman, this thread here explains everything that Debunked/Evil Euro ignores.
 

---

Posted by Charlie Bass (Member # 10328) on :
 




A History of African Archaeology By Peter Robertshaw

p.89,92
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
^ Hilarity insued when Debunked proceded with one of his bizarro world "re-interpreations", in which every thing means the opposite.

For example - when his thinking is referred to by scholars as BACKWORDS - DeBunked beleives that means the scholar agrees with him.
 

---

Posted by Knowledgeiskey718 (Member # 15400) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
@ Knowledge

info need on 50% J for Lembas.

---

quote:

---

"We propose that African chromosomes descend from at least two
lineages that have been evolving separately for a period of time.

---

quote:

---

granted that it reiterates the well known point about more African diversity vis-a-vis "non-African" gene pool

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718:

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
@ Knowledge

info need on 50% J for Lembas.

---

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/Forum8/HTML/001543.html

---

quote:

---

There were only Black Africans

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by argyle104:
rasol aka "The One Who Caterwauls" wrote:

quote:

---

There were only Black Africans

---

So um oh scholarly one with many scientific journals to his credit (LOL, LOL, LOL), if there were only Black Africans, why not call them Africans? Since you are prefacing them with the black label, are you saying that they are not normal to Africa but more like an anominal occurence to Africa?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by argyle104:
rasol aka "The One Who Caterwauls" wrote:

quote:

---

There were only Black Africans

---

So um oh scholarly one with many scientific journals to his credit (LOL, LOL, LOL), if there were only Black Africans, why not just call them Africans? Since you are prefacing them with the black label, are you saying that they are not normal to Africa but more like an anominal occurence to Africa?

What other kind of African was/is there?

Are Africans who are yellow, black Africans?

Are Africans who are beige, black Africans?

Are Africans who are red, black Africans?

Are Africans who are brown, black Africans?

Are Moroccans, Libyans, Somalis, Mauritanians, Malians, Tunisians, Nigeriens, Chadians, Sudanese, Algerians, Ethiopians, Eritreans, Egyptians, Djiboutians, black Africans?

Are Fulanis, Kabyles, San, Khoi, Beja, Iraqw, Somalis, Hausa, Tuareg, black Africans?


If a Zulu has a red skin color is he a black African?

Why and why not to any of the above.


The white folks in your country really have you beatdown and thrashed don't they? : )


Folks watch him "attempt" to weasel around his stupidity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charlie Bass:

quote:

---

Originally posted by argyle104:
rasol aka "The One Who Caterwauls" wrote:

quote:

---

There were only Black Africans

---

So um oh scholarly one with many scientific journals to his credit (LOL, LOL, LOL), if there were only Black Africans, why not call them Africans? Since you are prefacing them with the black label, are you saying that they are not normal to Africa but more like an anominal occurence to Africa?

---

Ignoramus, don't troll this thread, this is precisely the kind of dialogue this forum needs to be rid of.

---

 

---

Posted by Hori (Member # 11484) on :
 
^ Is it your 'role' to do the impossible of supporting the trolls (however subtle) while not technically trolling yourself?

You're not too bright.
 

---

Posted by Debunker (Member # 15669) on :
 
Reading comprehension is not a strong point of Afrocentrists. Of course, Howells is using "backwards" in a literal not figurative sense, referring to the proposed direction of influence and not to the idea of a Caucasoid-like population. Indeed, in the extended passage, he reiterates the presence in East Africa of an "earlier, less 'African' population" that has in recent times become "increasingly Africanized" by the expansion of Bantus.
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
That's the problem with you teenagers. Can't see beyond your nose. . .and with Bantu's it's worst . What's your point of view on his comment about the term Black African's vs African's?????

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hori:
^ Is it your 'role' to do the impossible of supporting the trolls (however subtle) while not technically trolling yourself?

You're not too bright.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Debunker:
Reading comprehension is not a strong point of Afrocentrists.

---

quote:

---

Indeed, in the extended passage, he reiterates the presence in East Africa of an "earlier, less 'African' population" that has in recent times become "increasingly Africanized" by the expansion of Bantus.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ausàrian:

quote:

---

"We propose that African chromosomes descend from at least two
lineages that have been evolving separately for a period of time.

---

This is in reference to a segment of the X chromosome. Y chromosome, the counterpart of the X chromosome, shows a complex structure of branches, not just two lineages, or more appropriately, "sub-lineages". The same holds true for mtDNA, which is generally maternally transmitted. Based on what you are purportedly using this study for, can you demonstrate to us, how this is concordant with Y chromosomes and mtDNA distribution. I mean, granted that it reiterates the well known point about more African diversity vis-a-vis "non-African" gene pool, which is just a subset of the African overall gene pool, but that is pretty much a given at this stage of molecular genetics science.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
Hey Bass, aside from the annoying bhahahahahah etc the man do has a point. Why not call them Blacks or Africans?
What are you the censorship police. That's why you cannot be a moderator. You can't tolerate opposing views.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charlie Bass:

quote:

---

Originally posted by argyle104:
rasol aka "The One Who Caterwauls" wrote:

quote:

---

There were only Black Africans

---

So um oh scholarly one with many scientific journals to his credit (LOL, LOL, LOL), if there were only Black Africans, why not call them Africans? Since you are prefacing them with the black label, are you saying that they are not normal to Africa but more like an anominal occurence to Africa?

---

Ignoramus, don't troll this thread, this is precisely the kind of dialogue this forum needs to be rid of.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Debunker:
Reading comprehension is not a strong point of Afrocentrists. Of course, Howells is using "backwards" in a literal not figurative sense, referring to the proposed direction of influence and not to the idea of a Caucasoid-like population. Indeed, in the extended passage, he reiterates the presence in East Africa of an "earlier, less 'African' population" that has in recent times become "increasingly Africanized" by the expansion of Bantus.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charlie Bass:

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
Hey Bass, aside from the annoying bhahahahahah etc the man do has a point. Why not call them Blacks or Africans?
What are you the censorship police. That's why you cannot be a moderator. You can't tolerate opposing views.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charlie Bass:

quote:

---

Originally posted by argyle104:
rasol aka "The One Who Caterwauls" wrote:

quote:

---

There were only Black Africans

---

So um oh scholarly one with many scientific journals to his credit (LOL, LOL, LOL), if there were only Black Africans, why not call them Africans? Since you are prefacing them with the black label, are you saying that they are not normal to Africa but more like an anominal occurence to Africa?

---

Ignoramus, don't troll this thread, this is precisely the kind of dialogue this forum needs to be rid of.

---

---

Argyle simply trolls people, nobody is against her views, just the manner in which they're delivered.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Debunker:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ausàrian:

quote:

---

"We propose that African chromosomes descend from at least two
lineages that have been evolving separately for a period of time.

---

This is in reference to a segment of the X chromosome. Y chromosome, the counterpart of the X chromosome, shows a complex structure of branches, not just two lineages, or more appropriately, "sub-lineages". The same holds true for mtDNA, which is generally maternally transmitted. Based on what you are purportedly using this study for, can you demonstrate to us, how this is concordant with Y chromosomes and mtDNA distribution. I mean, granted that it reiterates the well known point about more African diversity vis-a-vis "non-African" gene pool, which is just a subset of the African overall gene pool, but that is pretty much a given at this stage of molecular genetics science.

---

Since your post contains no insults, distortions or stupidity, I'll respond.

If we were to interpret Labuda et al's results in terms of mtDNA and Y-chromosomes, the "African" lineages would be L1, L2, A and B, while the "non-African" lineages would be L3 and M168. Apart from minor historical admixture due to various slave trades, all non-Africans descend solely from L3 and M168, whereas Africans are descended from those lineages (L3, E, J, R etc.) as well as the archaic lineages (L1, L2, A, B).

That's consistent with the rest of the passage you quoted:

"We propose that African chromosomes descend from at least two
lineages that have been evolving separately for a period of time.
One of them underwent range expansion colonizing different
continents, including Africa, where it mixed with another,
local lineage represented today by a large fraction of African-
specific haplotypes."

It's also consistent with Howells' observation of populations more and less like Africans diverging prior to OOA.

The notion of a homogenous "Black African" race in prehistoric Africa giving birth to all mankind is nothing more than an Afrocentric fantasy. The evidence simply doesn't support it.

---

quote:

---

,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by argyle104:
Alive-(What Box) aka Jeeves wrote:

-------------------------
You lack a mind. No one is literally black, it's a social reference to shade, which is relative, so I ask you why you arbitrarily divide between red, brown, yellow, black, etc?

Stop PMSing all over the board and get help.
-------------------------

Non-seqtuire, ad hominems, and red herrings are ignored. Pertinent questions I have raised have not been answered.

---

Take it to another thread and quit trolling woman. Keep this thread clean.
 

---

Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
 
Oh oh. The sharecropper is back.
 

---

Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
PMSing?? Never came across a woman with that type of sense of humor. Are you guys sure???


Lesbo??

---

Hopefully this wasn't intended to be seen as insulting.[?]

I'm a dude.

I have only come across a female who had the ability to take such remarks lightly or in a comedic light. To any female lurkers and to xxyman I/we (my generation) don't always mean PMSing in the mysoginist/sexist way.

What I'd be concerned about if I were you (xxy) though is those childlike / immature (/ Greek? ) variety remarks, such as referring to self-proclaimed male posters as female?

(Nothing wrong with children or the inner child, but you know what they say - for everything there is a place and time: unless I was interested in one o y'all ... lol)

quote:

---

You guys should PM each other insults instead on here on the open forum.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by argyle104:
So are if there are Africans who don't call themselves black, are they black Africans?

---

quote:

---

Then why not just use African? Why use a color, any color at all? Especially given the your rational quoted above.

---

Good question, maybe. . I pretty much use it because I like it, because I like to: it's because I choose to.

I guess "whitey" just isn't so big on my radar in that regard (how I see myself). So I could care less if they called me Man Dadday Dingo.

quote:

---

Non-seqtuire ... red herrings

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by What Box/Alive:
No one is literally black, it's a social reference to shade, which is relative, so I ask you why you arbitrarily divide between red, brown, yellow, black, etc ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charlie Bass:
You guys should PM each other insults instead on here on the open forum.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Debunker:
Reading comprehension is not a strong point of Afrocentrists. Of course, Howells is using "backwards" in a literal not figurative sense, referring to the proposed direction of influence and not to the idea of a Caucasoid-like population. Indeed, in the extended passage, he reiterates the presence in East Africa of an "earlier, less 'African' population" that has in recent times become "increasingly Africanized" by the expansion of Bantus.

---

What's wrong with you? Howells is actually using 'backwards' in the literal sense, because he knows these these orthogonal so called 'Carcusfraud' traits, were around in Africa, before the pale 'white' skin of Europe even evolved, so they're not some exclusive monopolized traits of an imaginary 'white race of Carcusfrauds'. Europeans still exhibited signs of tropical adaptation up until about the end of the Mesolithic, and maybe even later. So by Howells proposing the scholars as having it backwards (if one has a reading comprehension level of at least a 5th grader),would notice he is saying the influence was from Africa, to the Near East then Europe, and not the other way around.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
In Marc's thread they are NOT Black Africans they are . . . . what? I am not sure what they are. Still don't get your point.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by argyle104:
LOL! This post doesn't even make sense.

---

I edited: was gonna go off on a tangent talkin about who called themselves what and how relevant it is.

I looked and indeed it made little sense to keep that last paragraph as the rest of the post is sufficient (for anyone with a brain following this).

You're dismissed.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
ROTFLMAO

So I was right! Stupid-Euro is back after all!!

Welcome back, Disney-Euro! I see after how many years of your absence you return for satisfy your masochist white (or in your case off-white) slave urge for domination via more whippings and beatings by black masters!

Speaking of which, everybody can ignore the male prostitute Argyle.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

(if one has a reading comprehension level of at least a 5th grader),would notice he is saying the influence was from Africa, to the Near East then Europe, and not the other way around.

---

quote:

---

If we were to interpret Labuda et al's results

---

quote:

---

in terms of mtDNA and Y-chromosomes, the "African" lineages would be L1, L2, A and B, while the "non-African" lineages would be L3 and M168.

---

quote:

---

Since your post contains no insults, distortions or stupidity, I'll respond.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ Rasol, as a rational person I just gotta ask why the fool ('debunked' AKA Stupid-Euro) does it?? Why is he back arguing the same refuted nonsense?? Any sane person would have given up long time ago!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

If we were to interpret Labuda et al's results

---

This is where you go wrong.

With your ideology driven attempts to 'interpret' passages from scholars as being the opposite of what is actually written.

You would think that with so many persons correcting you on this behavior..... it would sink in.

Of course, ideology overrides reason in your case and so it does not.

quote:

---

in terms of mtDNA and Y-chromosomes, the "African" lineages would be L1, L2, A and B, while the "non-African" lineages would be L3 and M168.

---

This is simply insane. L3 lineage originates in Africa and cannot be non African.

There is not a single geneticist who will claim that L3 is non African.

It does not matter at all if people of New Guinea and Greece are descendant from L3 - as is the case, or if Greeks are descendant from L1 and new Guineans from L3.

It's completely irrelevant to the African origin of both haplotypes.

Your need to make claims about genetics that no geneticist will support makes it easy to dismiss your rhetorics.

quote:

---

Since your post contains no insults, distortions or stupidity, I'll respond.

---

^ Your post contains all of the above [since your snide remark was and attempt at insult], but we still responded, and still debunked you, so now what?

---

quote:

---

It's also consistent with Howells' observation of populations more and less like Africans diverging prior to OOA.

---

quote:

---

The notion of a homogenous "Black African" race in prehistoric Africa giving birth to all mankind is nothing more than an Afrocentric fantasy. The evidence simply doesn't support it.

---

Genealogy does point to the ultimate tracing back of the whole array of contemporary human NRY gene pool to a singular NRY African common ancestor. The same has been demonstrated for contemporary human mtDNA gene pool. In this sense, genetics does lend support to singular African male and female ancestors giving birth to all humankind. Now of course, those two common ancestors represent a single "race", the human race.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
^ Correct.

There is only 1 human "race", which actually means 1 species with no sub-species or races proper.

All members of this single species originate in Africa.

All members of this African species were melanoderm/blacks.

These people.....


At the time of the origin of this species homo sapiens sapien, there were no Europeans, no whites, and no caucasians.

Europeans do not at this time exist.

White people do not at this time exist.

Caucasians do not at this time exist.

What is a fantasy is the wishful thinking that can conjure natives of Africa who aren't African, dark skinned peoples who aren't Blacks, and "caucasoids" who originate in Black Africa, - but are instead members of a nonexistent 'race' of Euro-poids, at a time when there are no people in Europe, and therefore no one of European descent.

De-bunked, please continue to argue your position. The more you argue, the less your credibility.
 

---

Posted by Knowledgeiskey718 (Member # 15400) on :
 

quote:

---

At the time of the origin of this species homo sapiens sapien, there were no Europeans, no whites, and no caucasians.

---

quote:

---

You're using "African" in a purely geographical sense

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718:
[QB] [QUOTE] At the time of the origin of this species homo sapiens sapien, there were no Europeans, no whites, and no caucasians.

---

quote:

---

hey rasol, I've read when you posted, similar to this "people fall victim to Euro-turd terms such as whites, Caucasians, Negroids, race, etc..


But yet you still advertise it?

---

quote:

---

However - you need to understand that caucasian is a perfectly valid term, when it is not misused.

It means native to caucasia.

---

quote:

---

Knowledgeiskey718 will be aware of no further need to downplay those terms by quotation marks. Once it is understood what the author stated and has stated on a continual basis there is no further need to ''draw attention to''. Context has already been established. I invite Knowledgeiskey718 to re-read the first paragraph then the second to see what has been firmly established.

---

I've read many many many many previous threads, I know whos who, who uses what terms etc.. I know all about the erroneous EvilEuro, hore etc.. all of the trolls. I know about the pre-historic East African 'Caucasoids' he erroneously tried to promote. And if this kid 'debunker' is actually Evil E, then yes he is still trying, sadly.
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Father of Racism changed his mind??? Africans are more diverse?

========

Blumenbach argued that physical characteristics like skin color, cranial profile, etc., were correlated with group character and aptitude. He interpreted craniometry and phrenology to make physical appearance correspond with racial categories. The fairness and relatively high brows of Caucasians were held to be apt physical expressions of a loftier mentality and a more generous spirit. The epicanthic folds around the eyes of Mongolians and their slightly sallow outer epidermal layer bespoke their supposedly crafty, literal-minded nature.
The dark skin and relatively sloping craniums were taken as wholesale proof of a closer genetic proximity to the monkeys, despite the fact that the skin of chimpanzees and gorillas beneath the hair is whiter than the average Caucasian skin, and that orangutans and some monkey species have foreheads fully as vertical as the typical Englishman or German.


Later in life, Blumenbach encountered in Switzerland "eine zum Verlieben schönen Négresse" ('a negro woman so beautiful to fall in love with'). Further "anatomical study" led him to the conclusion that 'individual Africans differ as much, or even more, from other individual Africans as Europeans differ from Europeans'. Furthermore he concluded that Africans were not inferior to the rest of mankind 'concerning healthy faculties of understanding, excellent natural talents and mental capacities'
 

---

Posted by Hori (Member # 11484) on :
 
^ oh dear
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718:
However - you need to understand that caucasian is a perfectly valid term, when it is not misused.

It means native to caucasia.

---

quote:

---

Oh of course I agree, like I also stated, their own erroneous terms can be used against them, but these imbeciles still promote 'Caucasian' preposterously as a race.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol

Jew and Hispanic and Arab and Black are also promoted erroneously as races.

What is erroneous- is race.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:

Father of Racism changed his mind??? Africans are more diverse?

========

Blumenbach argued that physical characteristics like skin color, cranial profile, etc., were correlated with group character and aptitude. He interpreted craniometry and phrenology to make physical appearance correspond with racial categories. The fairness and relatively high brows of Caucasians were held to be apt physical expressions of a loftier mentality and a more generous spirit. The epicanthic folds around the eyes of Mongolians and their slightly sallow outer epidermal layer bespoke their supposedly crafty, literal-minded nature.
The dark skin and relatively sloping craniums were taken as wholesale proof of a closer genetic proximity to the monkeys, despite the fact that the skin of chimpanzees and gorillas beneath the hair is whiter than the average Caucasian skin, and that orangutans and some monkey species have foreheads fully as vertical as the typical Englishman or German.


Later in life, Blumenbach encountered in Switzerland "eine zum Verlieben schönen Négresse" ('a negro woman so beautiful to fall in love with'). Further "anatomical study" led him to the conclusion that 'individual Africans differ as much, or even more, from other individual Africans as Europeans differ from Europeans'. Furthermore he concluded that Africans were not inferior to the rest of mankind 'concerning healthy faculties of understanding, excellent natural talents and mental capacities'

---

If Blumenbach changed his mentality, then what are the chances of Euro-disney doing the same??
 

---

Posted by Knowledgeiskey718 (Member # 15400) on :
 
Still Evolving, Human Genes Tell New Story

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/07/science/07evolve.html?pagewanted=1&_r=3

Dr. Richard G. Klein, a paleoanthropologist at Stanford, said that it was hard to correlate the specific gene changes in the three populations with events in the archaeological record, but that the timing and nature of the changes in the East Asians and Europeans seemed compatible with the shift to agriculture. Rice farming became widespread in China 6,000 to 7,000 years ago, and agriculture reached Europe from the Near East around the same time.

Skeletons similar in form to modern Chinese are hard to find before that period, Dr. Klein said, and there are few European skeletons older than 10,000 years that look like modern Europeans.

That suggests that a change in bone structure occurred in the two populations, perhaps in connection with the shift to agriculture. Dr. Pritchard's team found that several genes associated with embryonic development of the bones had been under selection in East Asians and Europeans, and these could be another sign of the forager-to-farmer transition, Dr. Klein said.

--------

Correct me if I am wrong but isn't Oldoway man dated to 20,000 B.C.E something like that? Well, if so, then the above statement from Dr. Klein about European skeletons not matching modern populations no more than 10kya (8,000 B.C.E) Which would definitely blow the whole East African 'Caucasoid' notion away, being that, European phenotype didn't even exist how it does today, and Oldoway 20,000kya was already Elongated. Which is actually a confirmation of Howells when he states the scientists had it backwards, and the real truth is that the features you see today come from Africans.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
^ One of the constant shell games that race-mongers play, is the attempt to determine when "phenotype races" evolved.

This produces disagreement amongst them, since they are essentially chasing the unicorn.

Human skulls never divided into race-templates to begin with, and moreover skeletal features constantly change amongst all peoples.

After many thousands of years, any search for highly exacting skeletal continuities it likely to come up false.

Or, if such is claimed, it is likely to be debunked.

We know that the original human population was African.

We know they were tropically adapted in terms of pigmentation, or melanoderm - blacks, as Africans are today.

We know that they were tropically adapted in terms of distal limb ratios, as is the case today.

We know that their skull shapes varied widely, as they do today. [the attempt to create a stereotype of african skull is invariably based on FAILURE to consider data that confounds the stereotype - of course all stereotypes work this way]

At this time we know that there are no white people, no europeans and no caucasians. They simply don't exist.

Eurocentrists such as Debunked know this.

One parameter for comedy is...the tension produced by knowing, yet not being able to admit.

Let the comedy continue then.....
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
^ Humans did not evolve in Europe, and white people don't exist in ancient history.

One of the functions of caucazoid ideology is to create a rhetorical basis for the existence of a European *race* of whites who need neither be European nor white.

Here then, is the *problem* [reality], that Eurocentrism is trying to *solve* [deny]......


 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ A shame, all this talk of "caucasoid" and "caucasians" used to promote racism and racial supremacist propaganda all while the true and real Caucasians of the Caucasus mountains were a considered all but a 'minor' people in Western history and for a long time victims in world affairs even today with the Georgians.
 

---

Posted by Knowledgeiskey718 (Member # 15400) on :
 
"Either way, the implication is that our European ancestors were brown-skinned for tens of thousands of years"


Point blank case closed.
 

---

Posted by Knowledgeiskey718 (Member # 15400) on :
 

quote:

---

Correct me if I am wrong but isn't Oldoway man dated to 20,000 B.C.E something like that? Well, if so, then the above statement from Dr. Klein about European skeletons not matching modern populations no more than 10kya (8,000 B.C.E) Which would definitely blow the whole East African 'Caucasoid' notion away, being that, European phenotype didn't even exist how it does today, and Oldoway 20,000kya was already Elongated. Which is actually a confirmation of Howells when he states the scientists had it backwards, and the real truth is that the features you see today come from Africans.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

You're using "African" in a purely geographical sense

---

No, actually he is using it in the *proper* sense of the word meaning - NATIVE TO AFRICA.

It may therefor be Geo-historical, Geo-biological, etc..

You on the other hand, use all terms in a purely nonsensical context.

And that is why you are so easily debunked.

---

quote:

---

Of course the phenotypes in question both arose in Africa

---

quote:

---

, but one population resembles Africans and the other does not.

---

quote:

---

The African-specific haplotypes (corresponding to L1, L2, A and B) are found to be separate from the common African haplotypes (corresponding to L3 and M168), indicating two very distinct populations.

---

L1 is no less a 'separate' clade from L2 [and Y chromosome clades A and B] than it is a separate clade from L3. Likewise, L2 is no less a separate clade from L1, than it is vis-a-vis L3 and vice versa. But all L1, L2, and L3 are *native African clades*, and all ultimately coalesce to a common ancestor, which too, arose in Africa. You cannot proclaim that four *distinct* lineages/super-clades represent a single population, while other two lineages represent another single population; it makes no sense. Yes, non-L3 maternal markers are largely restricted to Africans, save for some spots of genetic flow [both prehistoric and historic] in non-African territories.Again, this is nothing more than a reflection of the fact that much of non-African populations stem from a subset of Africans, and in tandem, that African gene pool sport the deepest clades of human genome - that's it; it means nothing more or less. It doesn't make L3 or M168 suddenly non-African. In fact, ancestral L3 clades are as restricted to Africa as L1 and L2. It is L3 *derivatives* that mainly dominate the non-African landscape. But I'm sure you knew that, right?
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
^ He hopes for some audience that will forget that M168 includes all of E, E3a and E3b alike. Both of which emerge from a common ancester, E3, which is also found only in Africa.

E3a and E3b are as African as the Nile and Congo river.

Of course the Nile overflows into the Mediteranean Sea... just like Black Africans bearing E3b did, which destroys his delusions of white racial purity, for which he can never forgive them.

The only non M168 male lineages are A and B.

They originate in East Africa, are ancestral to M168, and are rare...and even non existent in many West Africans, all facts which further contradict the wishful thinkings of debunked.

quote:

---

You cannot proclaim that four *distinct* lineages/super-clades represent a single population, while other two lineages represent another single population; it makes no sense

---

quote:

---

Debunked plays semantical games: You're using "African" in a purely geographical sense.

---

quote:

---

Debunked whines about playing semantical games: Playing semantics games is not a substitute for argument and evidence.

---

quote:

---

Debunked writes: What I've posted in this thread remains unchallenged.

---

quote:

---

Of course the phenotypes in question both arose in Africa,

---

quote:

---

if CR-M168 is "non-African" and haplogroup E is a descendant of CR-M168 are E3a carrying West Africans and Bantu speakers "non-African" paternally? using Howells' logic combined with your distorted view of genetics, E3a bantu speakers would have made East Africa "less-African", since they didn't carry haplogroups A and B with them predominately during Bantu migrations[since using your distorted logic, only haplogroups A and B are the only "true African" paternal lineages].

---

^^^^^ And this folks is a question he(debunked) will never answer.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
^ Since Debunked's claims that Africans are not really Africans is dismissed we can also take it to the next level.

Recalling that his ultimate aim is to promote the race-mythology of 'caucasoid'.

It's important to understand that the oldest/earliest non-african lineages are actually found among Melanesians and Australians.

The first people to enter the Pacific came from Southeast Asia, along the stepping-stone island chain -- now Indonesia -- to ancient Australia and New Guinea, and to the nearby islands just to the east and southeast, the Bismarcks and the Solomons,"

"They got there between 50,000 and 30,000 years ago, when Neanderthals were still roaming Europe -- very, very early in modern human prehistory," added Friedlaender, who is professor emeritus of anthropology at Temple University. The first people to enter the Pacific came from Southeast Asia, along the stepping-stone island chain -- now Indonesia -- to ancient Australia and New Guinea, and to the nearby islands just to the east and southeast, the Bismarcks and the Solomons," lead author Jonathan Friedlaender told Discovery News.

Melanesia was also settled around this time, probably by individuals from East Asia. Although Melanesians today resemble certain African groups, they turn out to be genetically far removed from Africa.
"

^ Even thousands of years after these peoples migrated from East Africa to Asia, and Asia to Melanesia.....

there were still no Europeans,

no caucasians,

and no white people.

And this is why Debunked has no answers.
 

---

Posted by Knowledgeiskey718 (Member # 15400) on :
 
^^ And if you want to take it further


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/09/030924055157.htm

Earliest European Modern Humans Found

A research team co-directed by Erik Trinkaus, professor of anthropology at Washington University in St. Louis, has dated a human jawbone from a Romanian bear hibernation cave to between 34,000 and 36,000 years ago That makes it the earliest known modern human fossil in Europe.
"The jawbone is the oldest directly dated modern human fossil," said Trinkaus, the Mary Tileston Hemenway Professor of Anthropology. "Taken together, the material is the first that SECURELY documents what modern humans looked like when they spread into Europe. Although we call them 'modern humans,' they were not fully modern in the sense that we think of living people."

To determine the fossils' implications for human evolution, Trinkaus and colleagues performed radiocarbon dating of the jawbone (dating of the other remains is in progress) and a comparative anatomical analysis of the sample. The jawbone dates from between 34,000 and 36,000 years ago, placing the specimens in the period during which early modern humans overlapped with late surviving Neandertals in Europe.

Most of their anatomical characteristics are similar to those of other early modern humans found at sites in Africa, in the Middle East and later in Europe , but certain features, such as the unusual molar size and proportions, indicate their archaic human origins and a possible Neandertal connection


____________


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/01/070112104129.htm

'Out Of Africa' Theory Boost: Skull Dating Suggests Modern Humans Evolved In Africa

Reliably dated fossils are critical to understanding the course of human evolution. A human skull discovered over fifty years ago near the town of Hofmeyr, in the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa, is one such fossil. A study by an international team of scientists led by Frederick Grine of the Departments of Anthropology and Anatomical Sciences at Stony Brook University in New York published in Science magazine has dated the skull to 36,000 years ago. This skull provides critical corroboration of genetic evidence indicating that modern humans originated in sub-Saharan Africa and migrated about this time to colonize the Old World.

"The Hofmeyr skull gives us the first insights into the morphology of such a sub-Saharan African population, which means the most recent common ancestor of all of us - wherever we come from," said Grine.



The field of paleoanthropology is known for its hotly contested debates, and one that has raged for years concerns the evolutionary origin of modern people. A number of genetic studies (especially those on the mitochondrial DNA) of living people indicate that modern humans evolved in sub-Saharan Africa and then left between 65,000 and 25,000 years ago to colonize the Old World. However, other genetic studies (generally on nuclear DNA) argue against this African origin and exodus model. Instead, they suggest that archaic non-African groups, such as the Neandertals, made significant contributions to the genomes of modern humans in Eurasia. Until now, the lack of human fossils of appropriate antiquity from sub-Saharan Africa has meant that these competing genetic models of human evolution could not be tested by paleontological evidence.

The skull from Hofmeyr has changed that. The surprising similarity between a fossil skull from the southernmost tip of Africa and similarly ancient skulls from Europe is in agreement with the genetics-based "Out of Africa" theory, which predicts that humans like those that inhabited Eurasia in the Upper Paleolithic should be found in sub-Saharan Africa around 36,000 years ago. The skull from South Africa provides the first fossil evidence in support of this prediction.

______________

Body proportions in Late Pleistocene Europe and modern human origins*1

Trenton W. Holliday

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WJS-45V7FWT-P&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5 =15eaed72efbf3bc648dcd990b9a36c91

Abstract

Body proportions covary with climate, apparently as the result of climatic selection. Ontogenetic research and migrant studies have demonstrated that body proportions are largely genetically controlled and are under low selective rates; thus studies of body form can provide evidence for evolutionarily short-term dispersals and/or gene flow. Following these observations, competing models of modern human origins yield different predictions concerning body proportion shifts in Late Pleistocene Europe. Replacement predicts that the earliest modern Europeans will possess “tropical” body proportions (assuming Africa is the center of origin), while Regional Continuity permits only minor shifts in body shape, due to climatic change and/or improved cultural buffering. This study tests these predictions via analyses of osteometric data reflective of trunk height and breadth, limb proportions and relative body mass for samples of Early Upper Paleolithic (EUP), Late Upper Paleolithic (LUP) and Mesolithic (MES) humans and 13 recent African and European populations. Results reveal a clear tendency for the EUP sample to cluster with recent Africans, while LUP and MES samples cluster with recent Europeans. These results refute the hypothesis of local continuity in Europe, and are consistent with an interpretation of elevated gene flow (and population dispersal?) from Africa, followed by subsequent climatic adaptation to colder conditions. These data do not, however, preclude the possibility of some (albeit small) contribution of genes from Neandertals to succeeding populations, as is postulated in Bräuer’s “Afro-European Sapiens” model.


___________

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WJS-45FKRFB-1Y&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md 5=50aa637db46aec3ea2344079c59aece6

Brachial and crural indices of European Late Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic humans

Trenton W. Holliday

Abstract

Among recent humans brachial and crural indices are positively correlated with mean annual temperature, such that high indices are found in tropical groups. However, despite inhabiting glacial Europe, the Upper Paleolithic Europeans possessed high indices, prompting Trinkaus (1981) to argue for gene flow from warmer regions associated with modern human emergence in Europe. In contrast, Frayeret al. (1993) point out that Late Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic Europeans shouldnotexhibit tropically-adapted limb proportions, since, even assuming replacement, their ancestors had experienced cold stress in glacial Europe for at least 12 millennia.

This study investigates three questions tied to the brachial and crural indices among Late Pleistocene and recent humans. First, which limb segments (either proximal or distal) are primarily responsible for variation in brachial and crural indices? Second, are these indices reflective ofoveralllimb elongation? And finally, do the Late Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic Europeans retain relatively and/or absolutely long limbs? Results indicate that in the lower limb, the distal limb segment contributes most of the variability to intralimb proportions, while in the upper limb the proximal and distal limb segments appear to be equally variable. Additionally, brachial and crural indices do not appear to be a good measure of overall limb length, and thus, while the Late Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic humans have significantly higher (i.e., tropically-adapted) brachial and crural indices than do recent Europeans, they also have shorter (i.e., cold-adapted) limbs. The somewhat paradoxical retention of “tropical” indices in the context of more “cold-adapted” limb length is best explained as evidence for Replacement in the European Late Pleistocene, followed by gradual cold adaptation in glacial Europe.


_________________

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=F0BD694D947317ADEDAC373B159FCEA6.tomcat1?fromPage=online&aid=226522

Gough's Cave 1 (Somerset, England): an assessment of body size and shape
TRENTON W. HOLLIDAY a1 and STEVEN E. CHURCHILL a2
a1

Abstract

Stature, body mass, and body proportions are evaluated for the Cheddar Man (Gough's Cave 1) skeleton. Like many of his Mesolithic contemporaries, Gough's Cave 1 evinces relatively short estimated stature (ca. 166.2 cm [5′ 5′]) and low body mass (ca. 66 kg [146 lbs]). In body shape, he is similar to recent Europeans for most proportional indices. He differs, however, from most recent Europeans in his high crural index and tibial length/trunk height indices. Thus, while Gough's Cave 1 is characterized by a total morphological pattern considered ‘cold-adapted’, these latter two traits may be interpreted as evidence of a large African role in the origins of anatomically modern Europeans.


____________

Still Evolving, Human Genes Tell New Story

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/07/science/07evolve.html?pagewanted=1&_r=3

Dr. Richard G. Klein, a paleoanthropologist at Stanford, said that it was hard to correlate the specific gene changes in the three populations with events in the archaeological record, but that the timing and nature of the changes in the East Asians and Europeans seemed compatible with the shift to agriculture. Rice farming became widespread in China 6,000 to 7,000 years ago, and agriculture reached Europe from the Near East around the same time.

Skeletons similar in form to modern Chinese are hard to find before that period, Dr. Klein said, and there are few European skeletons older than 10,000 years that look like modern Europeans.


Dr. Wells, of the National Geographic Society, said Dr. Pritchard's results were fascinating and would help anthropologists explain the immense diversity of human populations even though their genes are generally similar. The relative handful of selected genes that Dr. Pritchard's study has pinpointed may hold the answer, he said, adding, "Each gene has a story of some pressure we adapted to."

Dr. Wells is gathering DNA from across the globe to map in finer detail the genetic variation brought to light by the HapMap project.

Dr. Pritchard's list of selected genes also includes five that affect skin color. The selected versions of the genes occur solely in Europeans and are presumably responsible for pale skin. Anthropologists have generally assumed that the first modern humans to arrive in Europe some 45,000 years ago had the dark skin of their African origins, but soon acquired the paler skin needed to admit sunlight for vitamin D synthesis.

The finding of five skin genes selected 6,600 years ago could imply that Europeans acquired their pale skin much more recently. Or, the selected genes may have been a reinforcement of a process established earlier, Dr. Pritchard said.

The five genes show no sign of selective pressure in East Asians.

Because Chinese and Japanese are also pale, Dr. Pritchard said, evolution must have accomplished the same goal in those populations by working through different genes or by changing the same genes — but many thousands of years before, so that the signal of selection is no longer visible to the new test.

______


So in actuality "Debunked" doesn't have any credibility for Europeans even being 'white', before 6,600ya, let alone his pathetic attempt of them being in Africa.
 

---

Posted by Charlie Bass (Member # 10328) on :
 
Perhaps Debunked is running from his own possible African ancestry:




Source
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ LOL Just like old times-- Euro-disney humiliation never ends!

By the way, that paper about European origins is equally devastating to the likes of moronic Marc Washington.-- that white people evolved in Europe from darker ancestors.
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Funny YOU should say that DJ.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ How so, when YOU are the one who is just as dishonest and pathetic as Stupid-Euro???
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718:

These results refute the hypothesis of local continuity in Europe, and are consistent with an interpretation of elevated gene flow (and population dispersal?) from Africa, followed by subsequent climatic adaptation to colder conditions

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charlie Bass:
Perhaps Debunked is running from his own possible African ancestry:




Source

---

quote:

---

In fact, ancestral L3 clades are as restricted to Africa as L1 and L2.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Debunker:
- A number of studies showing that humans originated in Africa (no sh*t) and that they were not adapted to a cold climate (double no sh*t), neither of which has anything to do with the subject of racial and genetic affinities.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

In fact, ancestral L3 clades are as restricted to Africa as L1 and L2.

---

Indeed as is Pn2 [or E3, aka father of E3a and E3b].

---

quote:

---

"Because the Bushmen are well represented in the more recent
archaeological record, Dr. Harvati said, they were expected to
bear a close resemblance to the Hofmeyr skull. Instead,
the skull was found to be quite distinct from all recent
Africans, including the Bushmen, she said, and it has
'a very close affinity' with fossil specimens of Europeans living
in the Upper Paleolithic, the period best known for advanced
stone tools and cave art.

---

quote:

---

"Dr. Grine said these modern humans probably originated in East
Africa, which is rich in fossils of ancestors of the species, and
had then moved into Eurasia and also south to the tip of Africa."

---

^^^^ Do you need anymore of a confirmation, that the first people to inhabit Europe, came from Africa? Nice confirmation from Grines, in stating East Africa as the origin for Modern Europeans, and all over the world alike.

"East Africa is rich in fossils of the ancestors of the species"
 

---

Posted by Knowledgeiskey718 (Member # 15400) on :
 


"Older analysts of "race" constantly noted a less "African" appearance, however dark, reaching from the Horn of Africa northward and were given talk of a "Hamitic strain," that is, admixture of 'Caucasoids' from the north. PERHAPS THESE SCHOLARS HAD IT BACKWARDS."


^^^^ Your own source debunked you a long time ago, and as we know, the talk of a "Hamitic strain," is also DEBUNKED. Case closed.
 

---

Posted by Charlie Bass (Member # 10328) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718:
[QB] [QUOTE] "Because the Bushmen are well represented in the more recent
archaeological record, Dr. Harvati said, they were expected to
bear a close resemblance to the Hofmeyr skull. Instead,
the skull was found to be quite distinct from all recent
Africans, including the Bushmen, she said, and it has
'a very close affinity' with fossil specimens of Europeans living
in the Upper Paleolithic, the period best known for advanced
stone tools and cave art. 'Out Of Africa' Theory Boost: Skull Dating Suggests Modern Humans Evolved In Africa

---

quote:

---

"Dr. Grine said these modern humans probably originated in East
Africa, which is rich in fossils of ancestors of the species, and
had then moved into Eurasia and also south to the tip of Africa."

---

quote:

---

You were right, their African samples consisted of Dogon from Mali, Khoisan and Teita from Kenya, so its wuit inaccurate to say that that skull is quite distinct from *ALL* recent Africans. If that represents all recent Africans 98% of the people in Africa today are non-African.

---

quote:

---

she said, and it has
'a very close affinity' with fossil specimens of Europeans living
in the Upper Paleolithic, the period best known for advanced
stone tools and cave art.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Debunker:
- A number of studies showing that humans originated in Africa (no sh*t) and that they were not adapted to a cold climate (double no sh*t),

---

^ Swearing only shows your frustation at being so easily debunked.

Of course the studies do not merely show that the original human population were not 'cold adapted', but rather that they were tropically adapted, like modern Africans, and -unlike- modern Europeans.

Tropically adaptation is highly informative.

Stringer and other anthropologist use this fact to prove the African origin of all humans, and the recent adaptations to cold climate which give birth to white people in Europe.

Your response fails to engage these relevant material points, from noted scholars like Chris Stringer.

You continue to use poor debate strategy.

By not engaging the evidence that refutes your claims, you show any neutral observer that you can only run scared.

Of course, that's why you have nothing to say with regards to the genetic evidence that whites do not exist in ancient times, because the mutations that caused them to lose their tropical adaptations and become white, did not yet exist..........



^ Translating DeBunked: "Given the above, there are no white people in ancient times, there are no Europeans in ancient times, there are no caucasians in ancient times. The original population of Africa was of course, Black, and by definition African. I can niether deny nor dispute this evidense. Best I can do is pretend to ignore it." ----> no s**t.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
& Chris Stinger on early Cro-Magnon of Eurasia: "Some resembled modern Africans and Australians more than modern Europeans"

Debunked can only wail bitterly: "No s**t".

Actually there is 'feces', a heaping pile of it.

It's what you've been reduced to.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evergreen:

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

In fact, ancestral L3 clades are as restricted to Africa as L1 and L2.

---

Indeed as is Pn2 [or E3, aka father of E3a and E3b].

---

Evergreen Writes:

Rasol, this makes sense. It seems the "Bantu" and the Greeks have genetic affinity based upon the PN2 clade. But why don't we hear much about this close affinity in the media?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718:

quote:

---

"Dr. Grine said these modern humans probably originated in East
Africa, which is rich in fossils of ancestors of the species, and
had then moved into Eurasia and also south to the tip of Africa."

---

Wouldn't this also be in agreement with Europe, not being inhabited by the original OOA population 65kya+, but rather a later dispersal of OOA directly from Africa? Possibly around 40kya and 36kya?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718:

quote:

---

"Dr. Grine said these modern humans probably originated in East
Africa, which is rich in fossils of ancestors of the species, and
had then moved into Eurasia and also south to the tip of Africa."

---

Wouldn't this also be in agreement with Europe, not being inhabited by the original OOA population 65kya+, but rather a later dispersal of OOA directly from Africa? Possibly around 40kya and 36kya?

---

No, based on genetics, the case is that the primary populations spread from Africa along the southern route to south Asia and Australia 60+kya~, and later from south Asia to central asia. 40+kya ~

Europeans spread to Europe from central asia. 30+ yya ~

Most early ooa models assumed and northern passage thru the levantine.... but this model is hampered by the fact that is region is extreme desert during this time.

Remember this is the UP, and humans do not have any domesticated beasts of burden, or pottery [to carry food and water].

---

True indeed, I've saw Journey of man. I figured genetics would discredit it. I guess then it just confirms what we already know, humans still resembled populations in Africa, despite being OOA for about 25-30,000 years, entered Europe and stood this way, although through time Early Europeans, were beginning to become somewhat cold adapted, but not fully. Although retaining their original brown skin, by eating a lot of vitamin D rich meats, they were gradually adapting shorter I.e cold adapted limbs by the Mesolithic, and became fully pale in the Neolithic, due to the spread of agriculture.

------


The Genetic Map of Europe


By NICHOLAS WADE
Published: August 13, 2008

Biologists have constructed a genetic map of Europe showing the degree of relatedness between its various populations.


All the populations are quite similar, but the differences are sufficient that it should be possible to devise a forensic test to tell which country in Europe an individual probably comes from, said Manfred Kayser, a geneticist at the Erasmus University Medical Center in the Netherlands.

The map shows, at right, the location in Europe where each of the sampled populations live and, at left, the genetic relationship between these 23 populations. The map was constructed by Dr. Kayser, Dr. Oscar Lao and others, and appears in an article in Current Biology published on line on August 7.

The genetic map of Europe bears a clear structural similarity to the geographic map. The major genetic differences are between populations of the north and south (the vertical axis of the map shows north-south differences, the horizontal axis those of east-west). The area assigned to each population reflects the amount of genetic variation in it.


"Europe has been colonized three times in the distant past, always from the south. Some 45,000 years ago the first modern humans entered Europe from the south. The glaciers returned around 20,000 years ago and the second colonization occurred about 17,000 years ago by people returning from southern refuges. The third invasion was that of farmers bringing the new agricultural technology from the Near East around 10,000 years ago. "

The pattern of genetic differences among present day Europeans probably reflects the impact of these three ancient migrations, Dr. Kayser said.

The map also identifies the existence of two genetic barriers within Europe. One is between the Finns (light blue, upper right) and other Europeans. It arose because the Finnish population was at one time very small and then expanded, bearing the atypical genetics of its few founders.

The other is between Italians (yellow, bottom center) and the rest. This may reflect the role of the Alps in impeding free flow of people between Italy and the rest of Europe.

Data for the map were generated by gene chips programmed to test and analyze 500,000 sites of common variation on the human genome, although only the 300,000 most reliable sites were used for the map. Dr. Kayser's team tested almost 2,500 people and analyzed the data by correlating the genetic variations in all the subjects. The genetic map is based on the two strongest of these sets of correlations.

The gene chips require large amounts of DNA, more than is available in most forensic samples. Dr. Kayser hopes to identify the sites on the human genome which are most diagnostic for European origin. These sites, if reasonably few in number, could be tested for in hair and blood samples, Dr. Kayser said.

Genomic sites that carry the strongest signal of variation among populations may be those influenced by evolutionary change, Dr. Kayser said. Of the 100 strongest sites, 17 are found in the region of the genome that confers lactose tolerance, an adaptation that arose among a cattle herding culture in northern Europe some 5,000 years ago. Most people switch off the lactose digesting gene after weaning, but the cattle herders evidently gained a great survival advantage by keeping the gene switched on through adulthood.

-----------

I figured since in the above it states "Europe has been colonized three times in the distant past, always from the south"

And then the Skull found from South Africa matching Early Europeans. I would've thought it was a migration directly from Africa.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

I figured since in the above it states "Europe has been colonized three times in the distant past, always from the south"

---

quote:

---

And then the Skull found from South Africa matching Early Europeans.

---

quote:

---

"Because the Bushmen are well represented in the more recent
archaeological record, Dr. Harvati said, they were expected to
bear a close resemblance to the Hofmeyr skull. Instead,
the skull was found to be quite distinct from all recent
Africans, including the Bushmen, she said, and it has
'a very close affinity' with fossil specimens of Europeans living
in the Upper Paleolithic, the period best known for advanced
stone tools and cave art.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

^ Upper Paleolithic humans from Europe, China, Australia and even South America all resemble Upper Paleolithic Africans....because that is where they come from.

---

quote:

---

Someone already alluded to point with regards to the *actual* set of "recent" Africans used for comparison, not to mention whether the application "Africans" here extends to coastal north Africans, but question is, do these "Upper Paleolithic" fossil specimens resemble "recent Europeans"? -- for we were told that living Europeans of northern Europe less resemble their Neolithic counterpart than their southern colleaques are to their Neolithic counterparts; knowing that we are dealing with distinct time frames, so how about Upper Paleolithic patterns vis-a-vis those observed in recent Europeans [which I take it, is not homogenous]?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by phenelzine:
Those posting on this thread might find the article useful.


Excerpts from NY Times article by Nicholas Wade March 16, 1999.

---

quote:

---

True indeed, I've saw Journey of man. I figured genetics would discredit it. I guess then it just confirms what we already know, humans still resembled populations in Africa, despite being OOA for about 25-30,000 years, entered Europe and stood this way, although through time Early Europeans, were beginning to become somewhat cold adapted, but not fully. Although retaining their original brown skin, by eating a lot of vitamin D rich meats, they were gradually adapting shorter I.e cold adapted limbs by the Mesolithic, and became fully pale in the Neolithic, due to the spread of agriculture.

---

quote:

---

I figured since in the above it states "Europe has been colonized three times in the distant past, always from the south"

And then the Skull found from South Africa matching Early Europeans. I would've thought it was a migration directly from Africa.

---

quote:

---

You're leaping to wrong conclusions about what the article is saying by not reading quite carefully enough.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

Originally posted by phenelzine:
Those posting on this thread might find the article useful.


Excerpts from NY Times article by Nicholas Wade March 16, 1999.

---

Those who know anything about the topic might find the article outdated, and reference more current and accurate information instead:

http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/journey/

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
^ One of the constant shell games that race-mongers play, is the attempt to determine when "phenotype races" evolved.

This produces disagreement amongst them, since they are essentially chasing the unicorn.

Human skulls never divided into race-templates to begin with, and moreover skeletal features constantly change amongst all peoples.

After many thousands of years, any search for highly exacting skeletal continuities it likely to come up false.

Or, if such is claimed, it is likely to be debunked.

We know that the original human population was African.

We know they were tropically adapted in terms of pigmentation, or melanoderm - blacks, as Africans are today.

We know that they were tropically adapted in terms of distal limb ratios, as is the case today.

We know that their skull shapes varied widely, as they do today. [the attempt to create a stereotype of african skull is invariably based on FAILURE to consider data that confounds the stereotype - of course all stereotypes work this way]

At this time we know that there are no white people, no europeans and no caucasians. They simply don't exist.

Eurocentrists such as Debunked know this.

One parameter for comedy is...the tension produced by knowing, yet not being able to admit.

Let the comedy continue then.....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
As noted earlier regarding the lack of continuity in the skulls of ancient and modern Europeans.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
^ One of the constant shell games that race-mongers play, is the attempt to determine when "phenotype races" evolved.

This produces disagreement amongst them, since they are essentially chasing the unicorn.

Human skulls never divided into race-templates to begin with, and moreover skeletal features constantly change amongst all peoples.

After many thousands of years, any search for highly exacting skeletal continuities it likely to come up false.

Or, if such is claimed, it is likely to be debunked.

We know that the original human population was African.

We know they were tropically adapted in terms of pigmentation, or melanoderm - blacks, as Africans are today.

We know that they were tropically adapted in terms of distal limb ratios, as is the case today.

We know that their skull shapes varied widely, as they do today. [the attempt to create a stereotype of african skull is invariably based on FAILURE to consider data that confounds the stereotype - of course all stereotypes work this way]

At this time we know that there are no white people, no europeans and no caucasians. They simply don't exist.

Eurocentrists such as Debunked know this.

One parameter for comedy is...the tension produced by knowing, yet not being able to admit.

Let the comedy continue then.....

---

^ Of course Debunked had no answer, as he is too busy trying to justify his backwards thinking.

---

quote:

---

It could also just be implying...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

It could also just be implying...

---

^ Clarify what "it" you are referring to.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by phenelzine:
Here's a more recent study:


http://www.genetics.org/cgi/rapidpdf/genetics.105.041095v1

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by phenelzine:
1) Where did you get the idea that Garrigan was a multi-regionalist?

2) This study has nothing to do with Neanderthals; it's about population structure within Africa before anyone left.

3) Did you two guys even read the study? You couldn't have. You answered almost immediately-- the study is 29 pages long.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by phenelzine:
These studies have nothing to do with OOA. They're about population structure within Africa before OOA! I don't have access to Tishkoff; read Garrigan and make your own interpretations--- I'm not asserting anything here. It's for you guys to make your own interpretations.

On second thought, I will assert one thing: These studies are not taking the multiregionalist position. I'd guess that they follow the "weak" Garden of Eden theory, like that guy Oppenheimer at Bradshaw. Anyway, I thought this stuff was interesting. With that, I'll take my leave. We don't seem to talking about the same issue. Good luck.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by phenelzine:
1) Where did you get the idea that Garrigan was a multi-regionalist?

---

quote:

---

2) This study has nothing to do with Neanderthals; it's about population structure within Africa before anyone left.

---

quote:

---

3) Did you two guys even read the study? You couldn't have. You answered almost immediately-- the study is 29 pages long.

---

quote:

---

I don't have access to Tishkoff

---

quote:

---

Make your own interpretation

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718:

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

It could also just be implying...

---

^ Clarify what "it" you are referring to.

---

"Skeletons similar in form to modern Chinese are hard to find before that period, Dr. Klein said, and there are few European skeletons older than 10,000 years that look like modern Europeans. "


Instead of implying cranio-facial characteristics, perhaps he's implying skeletal adaptation of there being only few Europeans skeletons being cold adapted before 8,000 B.C.E. Instead of trying to insinuate when phenotypes and a fake constitution of 'race' came into play.

---

quote:

---

Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics Vol. 9 (Volume publication date September 2008) (doi:10.1146/annurev.genom.9.081307.164258) African Genetic Diversity: Implications for Human Demographic History, Modern Human Origins, and Complex Disease Mapping Michael C. Campbell­, Sarah A. Tishkoff­ Comparative studies of ethnically diverse human populations, particularly in Africa, are important for reconstructing human evolutionary history and for understanding the genetic basis of phenotypic adaptation and complex disease. African populations are characterized by greater levels of genetic diversity, extensive population substructure, and less linkage disequilibrium (LD) among loci compared to non-African populations

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by phenelzine:
"Much later, at about 189,000 years ago, the researchers said, the gene tree split into African and non-African branches, a point marked by a new mutation found only in the non-African subjects."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE7D7113EF935A25750C0A96F958260

"These patterns of deep haplotype divergence and long-range linkage disequilibrium are best explained by a prolonged period of ancestral population subdivision followed by relatively recent interbreeding."

http://www.genetics.org/cgi/rapidpdf/genetics.105.041095v1

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by phenelzine:

Do you have a cite for the other Garrigan paper? BTW, Hawkes and Trinkaus believe there might have been a few archaic lineages that "introgressed" into hss (see Hawkes on introgression, and also Razib at Gene Expression).

---

quote:

---

This does not negate OOA.

---

quote:

---

It only means that an "excluded middle" possibility exists---- something between pure replacement and multiregionalism. But Garrigan offers up another twist--- a sort of multiregionalism within Africa itself, before OOA, that rejects the "null hypothesis that our species descends from a single, historically panmictic population" (abstract---seen above in K's post).

---

quote:

---

I'm sure no one here understands G's math modeling.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Debunker:

The results presented in Table 1 are consistent with
the idea that Upper Paleolithic crania are, for the most part,
larger and more generalized versions of recent Europeans.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by phenelzine:


Understanding G's "mathematical modeling": I'd assume you'd need a PhD in statistics. Anybody here with one?

---

quote:

---

Debunked writes: Of course, Upper Paleolithic Europeans were caucasoid

---

quote:

---

African Exodus
The Origins of Modern Humanity
By Christopher Stringer and Robin McKie
Owl Books
Page 162
"Nor does the picture get any clearer when we move on to the Cro-Magnons, the presumed ancestors of Modern Europeans. Some were more like present-day Australians or Africans, judged by objective anatomical categorizations, as is the case with some early modern skulls from the Upper Cave at Zhoukoudian in China

---

But of course pretending to ignore reality doesn't make it go away.


Speaking of which, you'ved failed to address....


Of course, you never will, as you have no answers.
 

---

Posted by Ausàrian (Member # 14778) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by phenelzine:

Ausarian: Your critique of Harris seems plausible, except I dont see how a little introgression negates OOA.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by phenelzine:

Well, I for one dont know enough to justify the use of "Monte Carlo
simulations" and the assumptions of the Wright-Fisher model.

---

quote:

---

rasol writes: 1) Do you know what the null hypothesis is?

2) Do you understand why the "novel experimental" mathamatical modeling by which Garrigan rejects the null hypothesis, is itself rejected by most geneticists as "proof" of 'archaic' ancestry in humans?

3) If yes, can you explain the above?

---

quote:

---

PhenelzineL My cites are relevant to the existence of population structure in pre-OOA Africa at a deeper time depth than uniparentals.

---

quote:

---

Phenelzine: And that issue is of prime importance in this thread.

---

quote:

---

Ausarian writes: But I'm willing to reconsider, if you can point out 'archaic' hominid uniparental paternal and maternal markers in contemporary human gene pool.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ausàrian:

What is meant by "larger" and "more generalized" here?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ausàrian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ausàrian:

What is meant by "larger" and "more generalized" here?

---

It is worth understanding the specifics relayed about these terms, because the last time I read about "generalized" in cranial pattern, it was said to be akin to tropical populations like Melanesians, Australians, and tropical Africans. This would be consistent with the Chris Stringer citation just posted above.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by phenelzine:

Apparenly uniparentals wouldn't show it

---

Why not; do all male off-springs not inherit a Y chromosome from a single parent, and do all off-springs of any gender not inherit mtDNA mainly from a single parent? Do you see a scenario in reproduction, where this natural pattern doesn't take place?
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
Phenelzine, Melanesians and Europeans are both descendant from OutOfAfrica migrants.

Given this, can you explain how population structure within Africa, and prior to OOA would lend credence to the Caucasoid myth?

Melanesians {Oceania}....



Europeans, show as intermediates

between Oceania and Africans.....


In terms of lineages... Melanesians are close to 100% descendant of Out of Africa immigrants, whereas Europeans have significant post OOA ancestry from Black Africa, including E3b, and in Southern Europe, L2 L3, and even some E3a.

So again, how does this digression re: population structures in Pre_OOA Africa, inform on the topic at hand?

quote:

---

You're on a different page!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by phenelzine:
What does "Eurocentrism" have to do with what we're talking about?

---

quote:

---

Europeans just don't exist in ancient history.

White people don't exist in ancient history.

Caucasians don't exist in ancient history.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ausàrian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by phenelzine:

Apparenly uniparentals wouldn't show it

---

Why not; do all male off-springs not inherit a Y chromosome from a single parent, and do all off-springs of any gender not inherit mtDNA mainly from a single parent? Do you see a scenario in reproduction, where this natural pattern doesn't take place?

---

quote:

---

Prima facie? What bullshit! I didnt offer a prima facie case

---

quote:

---

Rasol: If yes, can you explain the [mathamatical model] above?

---

quote:

---

Invalid question. You explain why the model is incorrect.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by phenelzine:
Once again, you offer nothing. You're pathetic. And, notice that I've only cursed at you, nobody else. I have a weakness: I often get exasperated when dealing with people who have no integrity. That means you. Now, you may continue throwing poopoo.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Phenelzine, Melanesians and Europeans are both descendant from OutOfAfrica migrants.

Gibrm his, can you explain how population structure within Africa, and prior to OOA would lend credence to the Caucasoid myth?

Melanesians {Oceania}....



Europeans, show as intermediates

between Oceania and Africans.....


In terms of lineages... Melanesians are close to 100% descendant of Out of Africa immigrants, whereas Europeans have significant post OOA ancestry from Black Africa, including E3b, and in Southern Europe, L2 L3, and even some E3a.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

You are discussing ancient history - the upper paleolithic, or time of outmigration from Africa.

Europeans just don't exist in ancient history.

White people don't exist in ancient history.

Caucasians don't exist in ancient history.

This being so, the delusion of 'east africa caucasoid' remains as rightmire notes 'a myth'.


Do you agree or not?

Thank you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by phenelzine The nightmare you think you see in others is only a reflection of your own.

---

quote:

---

Rasol: This statement neither answers my questions, nor makes any sense, as both as uniparental lineages [ie - sexual reproduction - material biology] would always exist, and cannot be "preceded" by any particular modeling [reification] of population structure.

---

quote:

---

You're wrong. Most uniparentals have gone extinct.

---

^ Nope. You're not listening. Most genes and species eventually go extinct. The point is, that all populatoins have lineages - which is a near universal biological reality of genetics.

Population 'structure' in contrast, is actually a reified abstraction, which does not precede the biological reality of lineage.

That supposed structures are mathamatical abstractions is directly related to the manner in which they are modeled and correctly or incorrectly inferred. And this is what you fail to explain.

This is important and the basis of one of my questions which you refuse to [cannot?] answer?

As you would "model" homo-sapiens, are Melanesian and European a part of the same population structure?

Yes or no?

If yes, then what does "population structure" tell us aboutr "caucasian".

If no, then what *is* the basis of a genetic structure that contrasts "Africans" and Non Africans...which you propose?

To make it easier....here is picture and genetic data which relates my question.

Melanesians {Oceania}....



Europeans, show as intermediates

between Oceania and Africans.....


Let me know if you still don't understand and I'll further simplify for you.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
^ and finally...

quote:

---

And that issue is of prime importance in this thread.

---

quote:

---

Rasol :Why?

---

quote:

---

If you dont know by now, you might as well go to bed.

---

^ This bit of snideness suggests that *you* don't know, and can't answer a simple one word question [why?] about the relevance your own writings. This is in keeping with your general inability to speak with any substance on your own citations.

I thought for a second, you were going to be a better debator than Debunked.

But that second has passed.

For the record, let me ask you. Do you have anything else to present to us......?
 

---

Posted by Knowledgeiskey718 (Member # 15400) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718:

quote:

---

Originally posted by phenelzine:
These studies have nothing to do with OOA. They're about population structure within Africa before OOA! I don't have access to Tishkoff; read Garrigan and make your own interpretations--- I'm not asserting anything here. It's for you guys to make your own interpretations.

On second thought, I will assert one thing: These studies are not taking the multiregionalist position. I'd guess that they follow the "weak" Garden of Eden theory, like that guy Oppenheimer at Bradshaw. Anyway, I thought this stuff was interesting. With that, I'll take my leave. We don't seem to talking about the same issue. Good luck.

---

Umm hey guy have you even read the abstract?

http://www.genetics.org/cgi/rapidpdf/genetics.105.041095v1

Abstract
Fossil evidence links human ancestry with populations that evolved modern gracile morphology
in Africa 130,000 – 160,000 years ago. Yet fossils alone do not provide clear answers
to the question of whether the ancestors of all modern Homo sapiens comprised a single
African population or an amalgamation of distinct archaic populations. DNA sequence data
have consistently supported a single origin model in which anatomically modern Africans
expanded and completely replaced all other archaic hominin populations. Aided by a novel experimental design, we present the first genetic evidence that statistically rejects the null hypothesis that our species descends from a single, historically panmictic population. In a
global sample of 42 X chromosomes, two African individuals carry a lineage of non-coding
17.5 kilobase sequence that has survived for over one million years without any clear traces
of ongoing recombination with other lineages at this locus. These patterns of deep haplotype
divergence and long-range linkage disequilibrium are best explained by a prolonged
period of ancestral population subdivision followed by relatively recent interbreeding. This
inference supports human evolution models that incorporate admixture between divergent
African branches of the genus Homo.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ausàrian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by phenelzine:

Apparenly uniparentals wouldn't show it

---

Why not; do all male off-springs not inherit a Y chromosome from a single parent, and do all off-springs of any gender not inherit mtDNA mainly from a single parent? Do you see a scenario in reproduction, where this natural pattern doesn't take place?

---

Pehnelzines goal is simply to change the subject away from lineages, which are relevant to the topic,, to mathamatical models of African population structures....which are not, and which he does not understand and cannot explain at any rate.

In a way he reinforces the conclusions in the topic, which is about how genetic lineages destroy the caucasoid myth.

He can only attempt to counter this topic, by deflecting the discussion away from it.
 

---

Posted by Knowledgeiskey718 (Member # 15400) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ausàrian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by phenelzine:

Apparenly uniparentals wouldn't show it

---

Why not; do all male off-springs not inherit a Y chromosome from a single parent, and do all off-springs of any gender not inherit mtDNA mainly from a single parent? Do you see a scenario in reproduction, where this natural pattern doesn't take place?

---

quote:

---

Hawkes and Trinkaus believe there might have been a few archaic lineages that "introgressed"

---

Here phenelzine, this is for you, since you mentioned Trinkaus, if you want to believe any modern humans intermixed with archaic humans, this will be perfect in fitting into your theory. But then again, genetics will still disprove it anyway.

-----

More Human-Neandertal Mixing Evidence Uncovered

(Nov. 6, 2006) — A reexamination of ancient human bones from Romania reveals more evidence that humans and Neandertals interbred.


Erik Trinkaus, Ph.D., Washington University Mary Tileston Hemenway Professor in Arts & Sciences, and colleagues radiocarbon-dated and analyzed the shapes of human bones from Romania's Petera Muierii (Cave of the Old Woman). The fossils, discovered in 1952, add to the small number of early modern human remains from Europe known to be more than 28,000 years old.

Results were published in the current issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science.

The team found that the fossils were 30,000 years old and principally have the diagnostic skeletal features of modern humans. They also found that the remains had other features known, among potential ancestors, primarily among the preceding Neandertals, providing more evidence there was mixing of humans and Neandertals as modern humans dispersed across Europe about 35,000 years ago. Their analysis of one skeleton's shoulder blade also shows that these humans did not have the full set of anatomical adaptations for throwing projectiles, like spears, during hunting.

The team says that the mixture of human and Neandertal features indicates that there was a complicated reproductive scenario as humans and Neandertals mixed, and that the hypothesis that the Neandertals were simply replaced should be abandoned.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718:

We must repeat that our results do not exclude the occurrence of some admixture events between modern and archaic humans, but they strongly support the view that these events have been extremely rare. Had this not been the case, modern human populations expanding out of Africa should have had their genome massively introgressed by archaic genes, due to repeated admixture events having occurred at the expansion wave front (6).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

Pehnelzines goal is simply to change the subject away from lineages, which are relevant to the topic,, to mathamatical models of African population structures....which are not, and which he does not understand and cannot explain at any rate.

In a way he reinforces the conclusions in the topic, which is about how genetic lineages destroy the caucasoid myth.

He can only attempt to counter this topic, by deflecting the discussion away from it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718:

We must repeat that our results do not exclude the occurrence of some admixture events between modern and archaic humans, but they strongly support the view that these events have been extremely rare. Had this not been the case, modern human populations expanding out of Africa should have had their genome massively introgressed by archaic genes, due to repeated admixture events having occurred at the expansion wave front (6).

---

^ Very good, this answers the question of why the mathamatical modeling for archaic introgression is held in some skepticism by most geneticists.

And we are still left with 'no answer' as to the question of what this has to do with the fact that Europeans do not exist during the time of the African outmigration.

Isn't it true that this 'argument' is meant as a distraction from the dread 'uniparental' lineages which can directly demonstrate African admixtures in European popluations?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by phenelzine:

You're wrong. Most uniparentals have gone extinct.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

Pehnelzines goal is simply to change the subject away from lineages, which are relevant to the topic,, to mathamatical models of African population structures....which are not, and which he does not understand and cannot explain at any rate.

In a way he reinforces the conclusions in the topic, which is about how genetic lineages destroy the caucasoid myth.

He can only attempt to counter this topic, by deflecting the discussion away from it.

---

quote:

---

and "non-African" camp [aka the African lineages "common outside of the continent"].

---

quote:

---

As you would "model" homo-sapiens, are Melanesian and European a part of the same population structure?

Yes or no?

If yes, then what does "population structure" tell us about "caucasian".

If no, then what *is* the basis of a genetic structure that contrasts "Africans" and Non Africans...which you propose?

To make it easier....here is picture and genetic data which relates my question.

Melanesians {Oceania}....



Europeans, show as intermediates

between Oceania and Africans.....


Oceanians and Africans would represent the "opposite ends" of the proposed "structure".

---

quote:

---

Of course, the burden is on the Afrocentrists

---

Could be. I don't care about 'afrocentrism or eurocentrism' personally.

One thing is clear.

There's no longer any burden of proof on you.

Do you know why?

Because your case is dismissed.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718:
Rasol,


What are the other African lineages in southern Europe? I know about E3b1 and Benin hbs, but I saw you post other lineages as well, not too sure where, can't seem to find where you posted it. Can you further elaborate the other lineages? I am sure It's not just these two lineages which puts Europeans as intermediate right?

I recall this thread. Might just read it again

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/Forum8/HTML/001288.html

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:


Here are some more mixed Somalis:

These Somalis are Italian/Somali




Fabio Liverani, Italian father/somali mother

---

Thought Writes:

Looks like a **TYPICAL** Mediterranean European to me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Nah...he's an Erroneous E pure "Mediterranian" caucazoid of type B.28-xb4-dash-j45292......

Wait, that's not right, let me get out my binoculars and copy of Coon's 1939 "Races of Europe", for the latest information.



Carleton Coon!!!! Where are my Prehistoric caucazoids of East Africa!

---

quote:

---

This study is from a Japanese bioanthropologist:
Hanihara T. 1996

Comparison of craniofacial features of major human groups.


Department of Anatomy, Tohoku University School of Medicine, Sendai, Japan.

Distance analysis and factor analysis, based on Q-mode correlation coefficients, were applied to 23 craniofacial measurements in 1,802 recent and prehistoric crania from major geographical areas of the Old World. The major findings are as follows: 1) Australians show closer similarities to African populations than to Melanesians. 2) Recent Europeans align with East Asians, and early West Asians resemble Africans. 3) The Asian population complex with regional difference between northern and southern members is manifest. 4) Clinal variations of craniofacial features can be detected in the Afro-European region on the one hand, and Australasian and East Asian region on the other hand. 5) The craniofacial variations of major geographical groups are not necessarily consistent with their geographical distribution pattern. This may be a sign that the evolutionary divergence in craniofacial shape among recent populations of different geographical areas is of a highly limited degree. Taking all of these into account, a single origin for anatomically modern humans is the most parsimonious interpretation of the craniofacial variations presented in this study.

---

quote:

---

As you would "model" homo-sapiens, are Melanesian and European a part of the same population structure?

Yes or no?

If yes, then what does "population structure" tell us about "caucasian".

If no, then what *is* the basis of a genetic structure that contrasts "Africans" and Non Africans...which you propose?

To make it easier....here is picture and genetic data which relates my question.

Melanesians {Oceania}....



Europeans, show as intermediates

between Oceania and Africans.....


Oceanians and Africans would represent the "opposite ends" of the proposed "structure".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
^ Too bad they have no answers.

---

Yes .. too bad.
 

---

Posted by Knowledgeiskey718 (Member # 15400) on :
 
Originally posted by Alive

quote:

---

Basically, These ten posts (the posts in order starting at the liked-to post) are all you need to know about our friend Debunked Euro and his arguements.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718:
Rasol,


What are the other African lineages in southern Europe? I know about E3b1 and Benin hbs, but I saw you post other lineages as well, not too sure where, can't seem to find where you posted it. Can you further elaborate the other lineages? I am sure It's not just these two lineages which puts Europeans as intermediate right?

I recall this thread. Might just read it again

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/Forum8/HTML/001288.html

---

Southern Europe has L1, and L2 lineages as well. And some A lineages.

Cluster analysis of these lineages suggest that they are of Neolithic derivation.

I will post links to studies later.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Debunker:

Of course, the burden is on the Afrocentrists to disprove the evidence piled up against them. Responding to it with questions is a stall tactic designed to distract from their inability to do so, and it's not going to work.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

Southern Europe has L1, and L2 lineages as well. And some A lineages.

Cluster analysis of these lineages suggest that they are of Neolithic derivation.

I will post links to studies later.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alive-(What Box):

quote:

---

As you would "model" homo-sapiens, are Melanesian and European a part of the same population structure?

Yes or no?

If yes, then what does "population structure" tell us about "caucasian".

If no, then what *is* the basis of a genetic structure that contrasts "Africans" and Non Africans...which you propose?

To make it easier....here is picture and genetic data which relates my question.

Melanesians {Oceania}....



Europeans, show as intermediates

between Oceania and Africans.....


Oceanians and Africans would represent the "opposite ends" of the proposed "structure".

---

quote:

---

Absolutely devastating.

I don't think it would be possible for Evil E. to answer the question without revealing how hollow his arguments are.

---

Yes, you're obviously right.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol: Too bad they have no answers.

---

Yes .. too bad.

---

quote:

---

Debunked writes:
- This is consistent with evidence from uniparental markers whereby all non-Africans issue solely from L3 and M168

---

Wrong as usual and as easy to debunk as ever.

1) Unlike the mixed Europeans, the Blacks of New Guinea actually do consist soley of *derived* L3 and M168 lineages who migrated from East Africa.

Since they are original and pure "out of africa" migrants, and not European, not white and not causasian then obviously you have no point.

Obviously you know this, which is why you are unable to address it?

But who...reading your nonsense, is not supposed to notice that you are running away while "pretending" to fight?

2) The people of Europe, unlike Melanesians are *NOT* of "pure" M168/L3 extraction.

Because they are MIXED with Africans from the Neolithic, Moorish era, and later....much to your everlasting dispair.


This also explains why Greeks have Benin Hbs [sickle cell] but New Guineans do not.

This explains why underived L lineages [l1 l2 and l3] make up to 11% percent of the mtdna of parts of mixed Southern Europe, but are not found among Blacks of the South Pacific, Australia and elsewhere.

Of course we know you will have no answers for this either.

So tomorrow you can post another non-responsive reply which will also fail to address the topic.
 

---

Posted by Knowledgeiskey718 (Member # 15400) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Debunker:
Haplogroups U6 and M1 are Middle Eastern:

"Sequencing of 81 entire human mitochondrial DNAs (mtDNAs)
belonging to haplogroups M1 and U6 reveals that these
predominantly North African clades arose in southwestern
Asia and moved together to Africa about 40,000 to 45,000
years ago. Their arrival temporally overlaps with the event(s)
that led to the peopling of Europe by modern humans and was
most likely the result of the same change in climate conditions
that allowed humans to enter the Levant, opening the way to
the colonization of both Europe and North Africa. Thus, the
early Upper Palaeolithic population(s) carrying M1 and U6 did
not return to Africa along the southern coastal route of the
"out of Africa" exit, but from the Mediterranean area; and the
North African Dabban and European Aurignacian industries
derived from a common Levantine source."

SOURCE: Olivieri et al. The mtDNA Legacy of the Levantine Early Upper Palaeolithic in Africa. Science, 2006.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Debunker:
Recap for illiterate Afrocentrists:

- The Hofmeyr skull, which derives from the ancestral OOA population of East Africa, is unlike modern Africans, including the Khoisan, and instead resembles Upper Paleolithic Europeans.

- Upper Paleolithic Europeans in turn show affinities with recent Europeans when their skulls are well preserved and enough measurements are taken. What color their skin was is a red herring employed by losers, since "skin coloration is of no value in determining phylogenetic relationships" (Jablonski/Chaplin, 2000).

- In accordance with these morphological differences between OOA and archaic Africans, there's genetic evidence of population divergence within Africa predating the transformation to modern humans, where a single reproductively isolated population went on to colonize the world, including the rest of Africa.

- This is consistent with evidence from uniparental markers whereby all non-Africans issue solely from L3 and M168, while Africans are a mixture of these lineages and the archaic African lineages L(xL3), A and B. They're the one's who are "mixed", not the non-Africans.

- Hence, the Afrocentric fantasy of a panmictic "black African" population prior to OOA is not supported and crumbles into dust.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Debunker:
Recap for illiterate Afrocentrists:

- The Hofmeyr skull, which derives from the ancestral OOA population of East Africa, is unlike modern Africans, including the Khoisan, and instead resembles Upper Paleolithic Europeans.

---

quote:

---

- Upper Paleolithic Europeans in turn show affinities with recent Europeans when their skulls are well preserved and enough measurements are taken.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charlie Bass:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Debunker:
Recap for illiterate Afrocentrists:

- The Hofmeyr skull, which derives from the ancestral OOA population of East Africa, is unlike modern Africans, including the Khoisan, and instead resembles Upper Paleolithic Europeans.

---

Recap for illiterate Debunker

- The Hofmeyr skull, which derives from the ancestral OOA population of Southern African, is unlike Dogon and Teita from Mali and Kenya and unlike modern Khoisan, but equally unlike modern Europeans also.

quote:

---

- Upper Paleolithic Europeans in turn show affinities with recent Europeans when their skulls are well preserved and enough measurements are taken.

---

The primary sample of analysis consists of the EEMHs, those before ≈33 ka B.P. and therefore predating the Gravettian (or Middle Upper Paleolithic) populations of Europe. As a result of an ongoing cleansing of the fossil record through direct radiometric dating, a series of obviously modern, and in fact Late Upper Paleolithic or Holocene, human remains have been removed from consideration (7). This cleansing has helped to dilute the impression that the earliest modern humans in Europe were just like recent European populations.

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 May 1; 104(18): 7367–7372

---

Parrot!!!
 

---

Posted by Knowledgeiskey718 (Member # 15400) on :
 
While you're lost scrambling for evidence to make East Africans un-pure or somehow erroneously and fallaciously 'caucasoid'. Debunked I wonder how you feel about this publication, does it upset you? Lmao ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha


New Research Refutes Myth Of Pure Scandinavian Race

(June 10, 2008) — A team of forensic scientists at the University of Copenhagen has studied human remains found in two ancient Danish burial grounds dating back to the iron age, and discovered a man who appears to be of Arabian origin. The findings suggest that human beings were as genetically diverse 2000 years ago as they are today and indicate greater mobility among iron age populations than was previously thought. The findings also suggest that people in the Danish iron age did not live and die in small, isolated villages but, on the contrary, were in constant contact with the wider world.


On the southern part of the island of Zealand in Denmark, lie two burial grounds known as Bøgebjerggård and Skovgaarde, which date back to the Danish iron age (c. 0-400 BC). Linea Melchior and forensic scientists from the University of Copenhagen analysed the mitocondrial DNA of 18 individuals buried on the sites and found that there was as much genetic variation in their remains as one would expect to find in individuals of the present day. The research team also found DNA from a man, whose genetic characteristics indicate a man of Arabian origin.

The ancestors of the Danes were in contact with the wider world

Archeologists and anthropologists know today that the concept of a single scandinavian genetic type, a scandinavian race that wandered to Denmark, settled there, and otherwise lived in complete isolation from the rest of the world, is a fallacy.

"If you look at the geographic position of Denmark, then it becomes clear that the Danes must have been in contact with other peoples," says scientist, Linea Melchior. "We know from other archeological excavations that there was a good deal of trade and exchange of goods between Denmark and other parts of Scandinavia and Europe. These lines of communication must have extended further south as one of the Danish burial grounds, which dates back to the iron age also contained the remains of a man, who appears to have been of arabian origin.

People from distant lands were absorbed in Danish iron age communities

At the beginning of the Danish iron age, the roman legions were based as far north as the river Elbe (on the border of northern Germany) and it is thought that the man of arabian descent found in the burial grounds in Southern Zealand would have either been a slave or a soldier in the roman army. It is probable that he possessed skills or special knowledge, which the people in Bøgebjerggård or Skovgaard settlements could make use of, or he could have been the descendant of a female of arabian origin, who for reasons unknown, had crossed the river Elbe and settled down with the inhabitants of Zealand.

"This discovery is comparable to the findings of a colleague of mine, who found a person of siberian origin on the Kongemarke site," continues scientist, Linea Melchior. He was buried on consecrated ground, just as the circumstances of the arab man's burial was identical to that of the locals. The discovery of the arab man indicates that people from distant parts of the world could be and were absorbed in Danish communities.

The iron age peoples moved away from their place of birth

"All of our ancestors, no matter when they arrived have contributed to our history and the development of our lifestyle," explains Linea Melchior. "Indeed, Danish identity is more a definition of where one is physically located and lives today than a question of our past history - since we're all originally african in origin. That we ended up in Europe was accidental, which is in itself remarkable".

"Another interesting feature of the approximately 50 graves assessed so far on the two sites and also from other burial sites and time periods in Danish history is that none of the individuals seem to be maternally related to one another", explains Linea Melchior. "We couldn't see any large families buried in the same location. This suggests that in the Danish iron age, people didn't live and die in the villages of their birth, as we had previously imagined".

The findings have been published in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology 135:206-215 (2008) and PLoS One 3(5): e2214.
 

---

Posted by Knowledgeiskey718 (Member # 15400) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Debunker:
Recap for illiterate Afrocentrists:

- The Hofmeyr skull, which derives from the ancestral OOA population of East Africa, is unlike modern Africans, including the Khoisan, and instead resembles Upper Paleolithic Europeans.

- Upper Paleolithic Europeans in turn show affinities with recent Europeans when their skulls are well preserved and enough measurements are taken. What color their skin was is a red herring employed by losers, since "skin coloration is of no value in determining phylogenetic relationships" (Jablonski/Chaplin, 2000).

- In accordance with these morphological differences between OOA and archaic Africans, there's genetic evidence of population divergence within Africa predating the transformation to modern humans, where a single reproductively isolated population went on to colonize the world, including the rest of Africa.

- This is consistent with evidence from uniparental markers whereby all non-Africans issue solely from L3 and M168, while Africans are a mixture of these lineages and the archaic African lineages L(xL3), A and B. They're the one's who are "mixed", not the non-Africans.

- Hence, the Afrocentric fantasy of a panmictic "black African" population prior to OOA is not supported and crumbles into dust.

---

quote:

---

"panmictic Black African" population prior to OOA crumbles into dust

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Debunker:

Haplogroups U6 and M1 are Middle Eastern

---

This is gibberish. U6 [autochthonous Northwest African marker] and M1 [East African] markers in Africa 1) are ancestral to those found elsewhere [whether Europe or so-called "Near East"], wherein both markers were at some point radiated into the "Near East" from east African sources, and 2) have more diversity in Africa and are more frequent there.

Don't confuse U6 with a "proto-U6 ancestor", whose origins is still out on the jury. Some geneticists merely "guess" that the proto-U6 may have come from the "Near East" -- not on any firm grounds that a proto-U6 has actually been uncovered therein, but on the mere account that U6 ultimately splits from Hg R, which in turn derives from N; Hg N is generally deemed to have more diversity outside of the Africa. Case in point:


Another point is to decide whether the proto-U6 ancestor was also of African origin. Although it cannot be completely excluded, this hypothesis seems highly improbable even invoking strong bottlenecks in African populations. It is clear that the whole haplogroup U is an offshoot of macrohaplogroup N. This lineage, together with macrohaplogroup M, were the only ones that, belonging to the star radiation of L3 in Africa, left this continent to colonize Eurasia. Five mutations separate N from the root of the African L3 [8], and there are only late evolved N lineages in Africa, whereas representatives of the full N radiation are present in Eurasia. Thus, this continent would be the logical homeland of the proto-U6 that came back to Africa and spread in its northwest area around 30,000 ya (Table 4). Its most probable route had to be through East Africa. So, the loss of variability in this area is puzzling, although posterior demic expansions affecting East Africa might be the cause. - Maca-Meyer et al. 2003


Notes on U6:

In looking at the following diagram...



...it is apparent that at the least, U5 and U6 diverge into respective branches independent from that of the rest of U macro-haplogroup. Similar observation has been made about U1, which too, seems to have an independent branch from the rest of the U haplogroup. In other words, these three—either U1, U5 or U6—don't appear to have an ancestral clade within the main haplogroup U branch which is defined by the nucleotide transition at 1811 or vice versa. This is how it goes, courtesy of Maca-Meyer et al. 2003:

U6 is defined by two motifs represented by positions in the coding and HVR respectively: 3348 and 16172.

U5 is defined by the transitions at: 3197, 9477, 13617 and 16270.

And the rest of the U haplgroup [sans U1], defined by the mutation designated by position: 1811.

Maca-Meyer et al. add that:

U presents the following mutations with respect to rCRS: 73, 263, 311i, 750, 1438, 2706, 4769, 7028, 8860, 11467, 11719, 12308, 12372, 14766 and 15326. - Maca-Meyer et al. 2003

N macrohaplogroup is removed from the root of L3 by about 5 mutations, we are told. This is relevant, in that U haplogroup is often posited as having split from R, which derives from Haplogroup N. Speaking of haplogroup U splitting from R, we are told that this is the case via three mutations represented by: 11467, 12308 and 12372

Hence, the family association has been made between U6 [as is for U1 & U5] and the rest of the U haplogroup, primarily thanks to sharing of the above mentioned transition trio; if it weren't for these basic transitions, U6 would have likely just been considered as just another separate sub-branch of haplogroup R. Perhaps, if a clade was located—sharing the same transition trio but devoid of any known downstream coding or HVR mutations in either U6, U1 or U5 and the rest of haplogroup U, it could provide us with a possible candidate as the proto-U ancestor that gave rise to the divergent U branches in question. However, to date, no such lineage has come to light.

Thus, the re-examination point:

— U6 with respect to U5 , or U6 with respect to U1, and U6 with respect to the rest of haplogroup U, doesn't share defining motifs, outside of the basic transitions, particularly at the aforementioned position trio.

— In relation to the above, U6 doesn't have a common recent ancestor that is a U5 sub-lineage or vice versa, U6 doesn't have a common recent ancestor that is a U1 sub-lineage or vice versa, nor does U6 have a common recent ancestor that is a U*(xU1, U5) sub-lineage or vice versa.

Time will tell, as to whether much more improved resolution of mtDNA will bear out the possible candidate of the elusive proto-U6 ancestor, but until then, it would appear that the proto-U6 bearing population was quite small in size, such that proto-U6 itself would eventually be overwhelmed and essentially be erased by expansion of descendant U6 carriers and possibly, incursions from other populations. It is uncertain whether a proto-U6 ancestor would have been the very same ancestor that begot U1, U5 and U*(xU6,U1,U5) respectively elsewhere, or whether it would have been a single step or a few steps genetic-neighbor to those which begot the latter U groups, but it appears that the latter respective ancestors too were modestly represented 'population-wise', such that they too would have been overwhelmed by subsequent demographic expansions that gave rise to descendant populations and incoming groups from elsewhere. Whatever may be said about a proto-U6 ancestor's origin, one thing is clear: U6 itself is an autochthonous African marker, which would eventually spill over to parts of Europe, particularly those hugging the Mediterranean sea, and parts of "southwest Asia". It too, like M1 (clickable), has been implicated in the expansion of proto-Afrasan (aka proto-Afro-Asiatic) and/or Afrasan speakers outside of mainland Africa.

Extracted from: Link

Notes on M1:

Ana M. Gonzalez et al. published a paper on M1 expansions, 9 July 2007, and a few things about it immediately jumped at me; I lay these out shortly following the abstract below, which is there to put potential viewers of this page on "the same page" so to speak, as far as the synopsis of the paper is concerned:

Abstract:

Mitochondrial lineage M1 traces an early human backflow to Africa

Ana M Gonzalez , Jose M Larruga , Khaled K Abu-Amero , Yufei Shi , Jose Pestano and Vicente M Cabrera

BMC Genomics 2007, 8:223 doi:10.1186/1471-2164-8-223

Published 9 July 2007

Abstract (provisional)

The complete article is available as a provisional PDF. The fully formatted PDF and HTML versions are in production.

Background
The out of Africa hypothesis has gained generalized consensus. However, many specific questions remain unsettled. To know whether the two M and N macrohaplogroups that colonized Eurasia were already present in Africa before the exit is puzzling. It has been proposed that the east African clade M1 supports a single origin of haplogroup M in Africa. To test the validity of that hypothesis, the phylogeographic analysis of 13 complete mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequences and 261 partial sequences belonging to haplogroup M1 was carried out.

Results
The coalescence age of the African haplogroup M1 is younger than those for other M Asiatic clades. In contradiction to the hypothesis of an eastern Africa origin for modern human expansions out of Africa, the most ancestral M1 lineages have been found in Northwest Africa and in the Near East, instead of in East Africa. The M1 geographic distribution and the relative ages of its different subclades clearly correlate with those of haplogroup U6, for which an Eurasian ancestor has been demonstrated.

Conclusions
This study provides evidence that M1, or its ancestor, had an Asiatic origin. The earliest M1 expansion into Africa occurred in northwestern instead of eastern areas; this early spread reached the Iberian Peninsula even affecting the Basques. The majority of the M1a lineages found outside and inside Africa had a more recent eastern Africa origin. Both western and eastern M1 lineages participated in the Neolithic colonization of the Sahara. The striking parallelism between subclade ages and geographic distribution of M1 and its North African U6 counterpart strongly reinforces this scenario. Finally, a relevant fraction of M1a lineages present today in the European Continent and nearby islands possibly had a Jewish instead of the commonly proposed Arab/Berber maternal ascendance.

-Abstract ends-

MY Response To Ana M. Gonzalez et al.

*First, a quick synopsis of the samplings, with regards to where the n=261 M1 bearing samples come from, aside from the 588 participants mentioned in one of the tables [table 2] in the study:

From my assessment of the table, it comes from the following numbers:

A total of 50 Europeans detected for M1.
A total of 154 for Africans.
A total of 28 Asians, barring 8 unknown Arabian haplotypes.
And a total of 29 Jews, who were lumped together from the various continents.
The sum of the above totals, amount to 261 "known" M1 lineages.

*With regards to the authors claim about M1 or its ancestor, having “had an Asiatic origin”, the following comes to mind:

The authors of the study at hand, themselves admit that they haven't come across M1 ancestor in either south Asia or southwest Asia. They also take note of its highest diversity in Ethiopia and east Africa. Yet through the shaky premise of their M1c expansion time frame estimations, they build a conclusion around it, by tying it to a dispersal(s) "parallel" to that of U6 - another African marker whose immediate common recent ancestor, namely proto-U6, appears to be elusive thus far.

Well, they wouldn’t be the only ones who have failed to come across any proto-M1 ancestor in southwest and south Asia [Indian Subcontinent mainly]:

Based on the high frequency and diversity of haplogroup M in India and elsewhere in Asia, some authors have suggested (versus [3]) that M may have arisen in Southwest Asia [16,17,31]. Finding M1 or a lineage ancestral to M1 in India, could help to explain the presence of M1 in Africa as a result of a back migration from India. Yet, to date this has not been achieved [15], this study). Therefore, one cannot rule out the still most parsimonious scenario that haplogroup M arose in East Africa [3]. Furthermore, the lack of L3 lineages other than M and N (indeed, L3M and L3N) in India is more consistent with the African launch of haplogroup M. On the other hand, one also observes that: i) M1 is the only variant of haplogroup M found in Africa; ii) M1 has a fairly restricted phylogeography in Africa, barely penetrating into sub-Saharan populations, being found predominantly in association with the Afro-Asiatic linguistic phylum – a finding that appears to be inconsistent with the distribution of sub-clades of haplogroups L3 and L2 that have similar time depths. — Mait Metspalu et al.

So, while they acknowledge the highest "frequencies and diversities" of M1 particularly in Ethiopia, and generally in East Africa., the authors base their claims about ’origins’ on their expansion estimations of M1c derivatives, presumably predominant in northwest Africa rather than east Africa, and its relative sporadic distribution in 'Europe' and 'Southwest' Asia. They attempt to buttress this, by invoking an initial parallel expansion of M1 and U6 "ancestor" lineages into north Africa via the Nile Valley [from "southwest Asia"], then an expansion from northwest Africa this time around, of U6 and M1 derivatives northward into Europe and then eastward into "southwest" Asia via the Nile Valley corridor in the Sinai peninsula, presumably with a few derivatives making their way into sub-Saharan east Africa, where they then underwent some expansion, to give rise to yet another, but later, dispersal from there into "southwest Asia" and hence, accounting for the 'majority' of M1 lineages in "southwest Asia" being east African derivatives than the north African [M1c] counterparts.

*Furthermore,

The authors gather that their observations correlate with that of other researchers, namely Olivieri et al. To this extent, they put forth that Olivieri et al.’s M1b corresponds to their M1c, the former’s M1a2 corresponds to their M1b, and the former’s M1a1 corresponds to their M1a. They go onto to add that the coalescence ages arrived by the two research group [that of Olivieri et al. and that of the present authors] also correlate. The present authors note that their coalescence time for M1c (25.7 +/- 6.6 ky) overlaps with Olivieri et al.’s coalescence time for M1b (23.4 +/- 5.6). Similarly, they note that their coalescence age for M1a (22.6 +/- 8.1ky) falls within that of Olivieri et al.’s age for M1a1 at 20.6 +/- 3.4ky. However, this makes way for great discrepancy between the said authors and Olivieri et al., whereby their coalescence age for M1b at 13.7 +/- 4.8ky falls quite short of the latter’s age for M1a2 at 24 +/- 5.7ky. Not only are the subgroup nomenclatures distinct, but this latter discrepancy makes an unsubtle difference, so as to no longer render M1c to be older than M1b, but rather, either place M1c at an age a bit younger or on par with the latter, which should be otherwise according to the present study. Though, by their own admission, the present authors favor Olivieri et al.’s methods over their own:

As our calculations are based only on three lineages and that of Olivieri et al on six, we think that their coalescence time estimation should be more accurate than ours. In fact, when time estimation is based on the eight different lineages (AFR-K143 is common to both sets) a coalescence age of 20.6 +/- ky is obtained.

*But if there is any indication about the tenuous nature of the above thesis, without going into other known details about M1, it would be this alternative viewpoint they came up with:

The alternative idea entertained by the authors, is one where M1 could actually be an autochthonous northwest African lineage, which spread northward into Europe and eastward to "Southwest Asia" and east Africa. Again, to be followed by a yet later dispersal from east Africa, likely sub-Saharan east Africa, particularly the Ethiopian populations.

*The limitations inherent in solely relying on hypervariable segment motifs:

The status quo hasn't changed, not withstanding the hype about the supposed older expansion timeframes from M1c derivatives, predominant in Northwest Africa, according to their study. The authors rely heavily on the hypervariable region of the mtDNA, which even they themselves don't seem to put much faith on, as demonstrated by their noting of the need to proceed cautiously, given that random parallel mutations are known to occur across distinct macro-haplogroups and sub-clades. They also note how hypervariable nature of the control region, can lead to misleading calculations from erratic mutations, as demonstrated by the M1a2 they put forth, leading them to omit them in their lineage coalescence analysis.

*Another thing that hasn't been relayed through this study, is this:

The coding regions transitions are likely to change relatively slower than those of hypervariable segments, and hence, likely to remain intact within a clade. To assist in determining which clade to place a monophyletic unit, key coding region transitions have to be identified. In the case of M1, we were told:

We found 489C (Table 3) in all Indian and eastern-African haplogroup M mtDNAs analysed, but not in the non-M haplogroup controls, including 20 Africans representing all African main lineages (6 L1, 4 L2, 10 L3) and 11 Asians.

These findings, and the lack of positive evidence (given the RFLP status) that the 10400 C->T transition defining M has happened more than once, suggest that it has a single common origin, but do not resolve its geographic origin. Analysis of position 10873 (the MnlI RFLP) revealed that all the M molecules (eastern African, Asian and those sporadically found in our population surveys) were 10873C (Table 3). As for the non-M mtDNAs, the ancient L1 and the L2 African-specific lineages5, as well as most L3 African mtDNAs, also carry 10873C.

Conversely, all non-M mtDNAs of non-African origin analysed so far carry 10873T. These data indicate that the **transition 10400 C-->T, which defines haplogroup M**, arose on an African background characterized by the ancestral state 10873C, which is also present in four primate (common and pygmy chimps, gorilla and orangutan) mtDNA sequences. — Semino et al.

...which is significant, as other M lineages are devoid of M1 coding region motifs, not to mention the M1 HVS-I package. The above does demonstrate, how M lineages likely arose on an African 'background' by single-event substitutions in the designated African ancestral counterparts. The ancestral transition of 10873C is substituted by 10873T in non-African non-M haplogroups, while the 10400C transition was substituted in M lineages by 10400T.

Furthermore,...

The 489C transition, as noted above and can be seen from the diagram, is peculiar to the M macrohaplogroup, again suggestive of unique event mutations characterizing the family:

The phylogenetic location of the mutations at nt 489 and 10,873 (arrow) was predicted by our analysis. The seemingly shared mutation at nt 16,129 (by G, Z and M1) is very likely an accidental parallelism. The ancestral states 10400C, 10810C and 10873C are fixed in L1 (as analysed so far) and are present in the ape sequences.

The 16129 sharing across the M1 haplogroups, seems to be one of those instances of random parallel mutation, recalling Chang Sun et al.'s observations of random parallel mutations of certain transitions across the M macrohaplogroup.

We also know that "southwest Asian" and "European" M1 lineages are derivatives of African counterparts, and the same is true for southwest Asian non-M1 affiliated M lineages from south Asia:

Compared to India, haplogroup M frequency in Iran is marginally low (5.3%) and there are no distinguished Iranian-specific sub-clades of haplogroup M. All Iranian haplogroup M lineages can be seen as derived from other regional variants of the haplogroup: eleven show affiliation to haplogroup M lineages found in India, twelve in East and Central Asia (D, G, and M8 ) and one in northeast Africa (M1)…

Indian-specific (R5 and Indian-specific M and U2 variants) and East Asian-specific (A, B and East Asian-specific M subgroups) mtDNAs, both, make up less than 4% of the Iranian mtDNA pool. We used Turkey (88.8 ± 4.0%) as the third parental population for evaluating the relative proportions of admixture from India (2.2 ± 1.7%) and China (9.1 ± 4.1%) into Iran. Therefore we can conclude that historic gene flow from India to Iran has been very limited.

With that said, Semino et al.'s older study still remains strong, the way I see it:

haplogroup M originated in eastern Africa approximately 60,000 years ago and was carried toward Asia. This agrees with the proposed date of an out-of-Africa expansion approximately 65,000 years ago10. After its arrival in Asia, the haplogroup M founder group went through a demographic and geographic expansion. The remaining M haplogroup in eastern Africa did not spread, but remained localized up to approximately 10,000-20,000 years ago, after which it started to expand. — Semino et al.

Elsewhere, I've also talked about some 'basal' M-like lineages in Africa; for instance, at least one of such was identified in the Senegalese sample.

Am. J. Hum. Genet., 66:1362-1383, 2000

mtDNA Variation in the South African Kung and Khwe and Their Genetic Relationships to Other African Populations

"The Asian mtDNA phylogeny is subdivided into two macrohaplogroups, one of which is M. M is delineated by a DdeI site at np 10394 and an AluI site of np 10397. The only African mtDNA found to have both of these sites is the Senegalese haplotype AF24. This haplotype branches off African subhaplogroup L3a (figs.2 and3), suggesting that haplogroup M mtDNAs might have been derived from this African mtDNA lineage..."

The relevant representation in this recap diagram:



^The 10397 transition is shown in the L3-M linkage, while 10394, which should show up as positive [as exemplified in the above extract] in the M macrohaplogroup, shows up negative in the linkage between L3 and non-M affiliated lineages.

**^To put the above compilation into perspective, and keep it simple, the point is this:

Semino et al.'s demonstration of certain characteristic basic coding transitions of the M super-haplogroup [not including the key coding region motifs unique to the M1 family], springing directly from African ancestral motifs, don't require that M1 has to have a proto "non-African" M1, whereas an Asian origin of M1 would necessitate an Asian proto-M1 lineage that would explain the relatively young expansion ages of M1 and lack of descendancy from pre-existing Asian M lineages. This hasn't been achieved either by the present study or ones prior to it.

Getting to the gist:

Basal M mtDNA ~ between c. 60 - 80 ky ago

And then, M1 ~ between ~ c. 10 - 30 ky ago

The studies I posted, suggest that the basal motifs characteristic of the M macrohaplogroup arose in Africa, anywhere between 60 - 80 ky ago [since they would have likely been in the continent by the time of the 60 ky ago or so OOA migrations] . Sometime between 60 ky and 50 ky ago [some sources place it between 75 - 60 ky ago], these L3 offshoots were carried outside of Africa, amongst early successful a.m.h migrations, which resulted in the populations now living in the Indian-subcontinent, Melanesia and Australia who have these lineages. Not all the basal African L3M lineages, as Semino et al. convincingly put it, left the continent, as indicated by the basal L3a-M motif detected in Senegal, M1 diversity in Africa, particularly East Africa, both M1 and other M lineages detected in Ugandan samples, and lack of descendancy of M1 from older-coalescent Asian macrohaplogroup. Rather, it appears that the basal L3M lineages which remained in Africa, underwent a relatively limited demographic intra-African expansion until relatively recently, i.e. between 10 - 30 ky ago, compared to the Asian L3M derivatives, which underwent major expansions, naturally within the quantitatively smaller founder immigrant groups, i.e. the founder effect.

M1 is likely the culmination of relatively more recent demographic expansions of basal L3M lineages in the African continent, with M1 derivative being a successful candidate, in what could have possibly involved other derivatives which might not have expanded to the same level intra-continentally, and subsequently, extra-continentally as well.

M1 has strongly been correlated with the upper Paleolithic expansion of proto-Afrasan groups across the Sahara to coastal north Africa, and further eastward via the Sinai peninsula.

Extracted from: Link
 

---

Posted by Ausàrian (Member # 14778) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Debunker:

- The Hofmeyr skull, which derives from the ancestral OOA population of East Africa, is unlike modern Africans, including the Khoisan, and instead resembles Upper Paleolithic Europeans.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

Debunked writes:
- This is consistent with evidence from uniparental markers whereby all non-Africans issue solely from L3 and M168

---

Wrong as usual and as easy to debunk as ever.

1) Unlike the mixed Europeans, the Blacks of New Guinea actually do consist soley of *derived* L3 and M168 lineages who migrated from East Africa.

Since they are original and pure "out of africa" migrants, and not European, not white and not causasian then obviously you have no point.

Obviously you know this, which is why you are unable to address it?

But who...reading your nonsense, is not supposed to notice that you are running away while "pretending" to fight?

2) The people of Europe, unlike Melanesians are *NOT* of "pure" M168/L3 extraction.

Because they are MIXED with Africans from the Neolithic, Moorish era, and later....much to your everlasting dispair.


This also explains why Greeks have Benin Hbs [sickle cell] but New Guineans do not.

This explains why underived L lineages [l1 l2 and l3] make up to 11% percent of the mtdna of parts of mixed Southern Europe, but are not found among Blacks of the South Pacific, Australia and elsewhere.

Of course we know you will have no answers for this either.

So tomorrow you can post another non-responsive reply which will also fail to address the topic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Debunker:
Recap for illiterate Afrocentrists:

- The Hofmeyr skull, which derives from the ancestral OOA population of East Africa, is unlike modern Africans, including the Khoisan, and instead resembles Upper Paleolithic Europeans.

- Upper Paleolithic Europeans in turn show affinities with recent Europeans when their skulls are well preserved and enough measurements are taken. What color their skin was is a red herring employed by losers, since "skin coloration is of no value in determining phylogenetic relationships" (Jablonski/Chaplin, 2000).

- In accordance with these morphological differences between OOA and archaic Africans, there's genetic evidence of population divergence within Africa predating the transformation to modern humans, where a single reproductively isolated population went on to colonize the world, including the rest of Africa.

- This is consistent with evidence from uniparental markers whereby all non-Africans issue solely from L3 and M168, while Africans are a mixture of these lineages and the archaic African lineages L(xL3), A and B. They're the one's who are "mixed", not the non-Africans.

- Hence, the Afrocentric fantasy of a panmictic "black African" population prior to OOA is not supported and crumbles into dust.

---

Debunked, explain this:



If the Hofmeyr skull is "caucasoid" because by your logic UP Europeans are "Caucasoid", please explain why the Hofmeyr skull is closer to Recent Africans and Khoisan and farthest from Recent Europeans? Please explain why UP Eurasians are closer to Recent Africans and Khoisan and farthest from Recent Europeans? This supplemental data fro the same Hofmeyr Skull study.
 

---

Posted by Debunker (Member # 15669) on :
 
That's based on Euclidean distances. You conveniently ignored the table based on Mahalanobis D2 distances, which shows different results and is the more important:

"Mahalanobis D2, adjusted for unequal sample sizes (S24), is used to
estimate the morphological distances among samples. This method
is appropriate for the goal of this analysis because it represents
the morphological variation among groups scaled by the pooled within-
group variation, and accounts for covariation among landmark
coordinates, which is pervasive among biological datasets (S25, S26)."




Those figures produce these trees. You can see that Hofmeyr is closer to both UP and recent Eurasians than it is to either Africans or San, and that the UP Eurasians are nowhere near the Africans.


 

---

Posted by Debunker (Member # 15669) on :
 
The Afrocentrists have serious problems with reading comprehension, or else they just feel the need to stall with irrelevant questions and Afro-opinions. Because the evidence really couldn't be any clearer.

Pay close attention, Afrocentrists:

"M1 and U6...arose in southwestern Asia" -- Olivieri et al., 2006

"Upper Paleolithic crania are, for the most part, larger and more generalized versions of recent Europeans." -- Jantz and Owsley, 2003

"When one considers only those crania with 40 or more measurements, a majority express European affinity." -- Ibid.

"the [Hofmeyr] skull was found to be quite distinct from all recent Africans, including the Bushmen, she said, and it has 'a very close affinity' with fossil specimens of Europeans living in the Upper Paleolithic" -- Harvati/Grine
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ausàrian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Debunker:

Haplogroups U6 and M1 are Middle Eastern

---

This is gibberish. U6 [autochthonous Northwest African marker] and M1 [East African] markers in Africa 1) are ancestral to those found elsewhere [whether Europe or so-called "Near East"], wherein both markers were at some point radiated into the "Near East" from east African sources, and 2) have more diversity in Africa and are more frequent there.

Don't confuse U6 with a "proto-U6 ancestor", whose origins is still out on the jury. Some geneticists merely "guess" that the proto-U6 may have come from the "Near East" -- not on any firm grounds that a proto-U6 has actually been uncovered therein, but on the mere account that U6 ultimately splits from Hg R, which in turn derives from N; Hg N is generally deemed to have more diversity outside of the Africa. Case in point:


Another point is to decide whether the proto-U6 ancestor was also of African origin. Although it cannot be completely excluded, this hypothesis seems highly improbable even invoking strong bottlenecks in African populations. It is clear that the whole haplogroup U is an offshoot of macrohaplogroup N. This lineage, together with macrohaplogroup M, were the only ones that, belonging to the star radiation of L3 in Africa, left this continent to colonize Eurasia. Five mutations separate N from the root of the African L3 [8], and there are only late evolved N lineages in Africa, whereas representatives of the full N radiation are present in Eurasia. Thus, this continent would be the logical homeland of the proto-U6 that came back to Africa and spread in its northwest area around 30,000 ya (Table 4). Its most probable route had to be through East Africa. So, the loss of variability in this area is puzzling, although posterior demic expansions affecting East Africa might be the cause. - Maca-Meyer et al. 2003


Notes on U6:

In looking at the following diagram...



...it is apparent that at the least, U5 and U6 diverge into respective branches independent from that of the rest of U macro-haplogroup. Similar observation has been made about U1, which too, seems to have an independent branch from the rest of the U haplogroup. In other words, these three—either U1, U5 or U6—don't appear to have an ancestral clade within the main haplogroup U branch which is defined by the nucleotide transition at 1811 or vice versa. This is how it goes, courtesy of Maca-Meyer et al. 2003:

U6 is defined by two motifs represented by positions in the coding and HVR respectively: 3348 and 16172.

U5 is defined by the transitions at: 3197, 9477, 13617 and 16270.

And the rest of the U haplgroup [sans U1], defined by the mutation designated by position: 1811.

Maca-Meyer et al. add that:

U presents the following mutations with respect to rCRS: 73, 263, 311i, 750, 1438, 2706, 4769, 7028, 8860, 11467, 11719, 12308, 12372, 14766 and 15326. - Maca-Meyer et al. 2003

N macrohaplogroup is removed from the root of L3 by about 5 mutations, we are told. This is relevant, in that U haplogroup is often posited as having split from R, which derives from Haplogroup N. Speaking of haplogroup U splitting from R, we are told that this is the case via three mutations represented by: 11467, 12308 and 12372

Hence, the family association has been made between U6 [as is for U1 & U5] and the rest of the U haplogroup, primarily thanks to sharing of the above mentioned transition trio; if it weren't for these basic transitions, U6 would have likely just been considered as just another separate sub-branch of haplogroup R. Perhaps, if a clade was located—sharing the same transition trio but devoid of any known downstream coding or HVR mutations in either U6, U1 or U5 and the rest of haplogroup U, it could provide us with a possible candidate as the proto-U ancestor that gave rise to the divergent U branches in question. However, to date, no such lineage has come to light.

Thus, the re-examination point:

— U6 with respect to U5 , or U6 with respect to U1, and U6 with respect to the rest of haplogroup U, doesn't share defining motifs, outside of the basic transitions, particularly at the aforementioned position trio.

— In relation to the above, U6 doesn't have a common recent ancestor that is a U5 sub-lineage or vice versa, U6 doesn't have a common recent ancestor that is a U1 sub-lineage or vice versa, nor does U6 have a common recent ancestor that is a U*(xU1, U5) sub-lineage or vice versa.

Time will tell, as to whether much more improved resolution of mtDNA will bear out the possible candidate of the elusive proto-U6 ancestor, but until then, it would appear that the proto-U6 bearing population was quite small in size, such that proto-U6 itself would eventually be overwhelmed and essentially be erased by expansion of descendant U6 carriers and possibly, incursions from other populations. It is uncertain whether a proto-U6 ancestor would have been the very same ancestor that begot U1, U5 and U*(xU6,U1,U5) respectively elsewhere, or whether it would have been a single step or a few steps genetic-neighbor to those which begot the latter U groups, but it appears that the latter respective ancestors too were modestly represented 'population-wise', such that they too would have been overwhelmed by subsequent demographic expansions that gave rise to descendant populations and incoming groups from elsewhere. Whatever may be said about a proto-U6 ancestor's origin, one thing is clear: U6 itself is an autochthonous African marker, which would eventually spill over to parts of Europe, particularly those hugging the Mediterranean sea, and parts of "southwest Asia". It too, like M1 (clickable), has been implicated in the expansion of proto-Afrasan (aka proto-Afro-Asiatic) and/or Afrasan speakers outside of mainland Africa.

Extracted from: Link

Notes on M1:

Ana M. Gonzalez et al. published a paper on M1 expansions, 9 July 2007, and a few things about it immediately jumped at me; I lay these out shortly following the abstract below, which is there to put potential viewers of this page on "the same page" so to speak, as far as the synopsis of the paper is concerned:

Abstract:

Mitochondrial lineage M1 traces an early human backflow to Africa

Ana M Gonzalez , Jose M Larruga , Khaled K Abu-Amero , Yufei Shi , Jose Pestano and Vicente M Cabrera

BMC Genomics 2007, 8:223 doi:10.1186/1471-2164-8-223

Published 9 July 2007

Abstract (provisional)

The complete article is available as a provisional PDF. The fully formatted PDF and HTML versions are in production.

Background
The out of Africa hypothesis has gained generalized consensus. However, many specific questions remain unsettled. To know whether the two M and N macrohaplogroups that colonized Eurasia were already present in Africa before the exit is puzzling. It has been proposed that the east African clade M1 supports a single origin of haplogroup M in Africa. To test the validity of that hypothesis, the phylogeographic analysis of 13 complete mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequences and 261 partial sequences belonging to haplogroup M1 was carried out.

Results
The coalescence age of the African haplogroup M1 is younger than those for other M Asiatic clades. In contradiction to the hypothesis of an eastern Africa origin for modern human expansions out of Africa, the most ancestral M1 lineages have been found in Northwest Africa and in the Near East, instead of in East Africa. The M1 geographic distribution and the relative ages of its different subclades clearly correlate with those of haplogroup U6, for which an Eurasian ancestor has been demonstrated.

Conclusions
This study provides evidence that M1, or its ancestor, had an Asiatic origin. The earliest M1 expansion into Africa occurred in northwestern instead of eastern areas; this early spread reached the Iberian Peninsula even affecting the Basques. The majority of the M1a lineages found outside and inside Africa had a more recent eastern Africa origin. Both western and eastern M1 lineages participated in the Neolithic colonization of the Sahara. The striking parallelism between subclade ages and geographic distribution of M1 and its North African U6 counterpart strongly reinforces this scenario. Finally, a relevant fraction of M1a lineages present today in the European Continent and nearby islands possibly had a Jewish instead of the commonly proposed Arab/Berber maternal ascendance.

-Abstract ends-

MY Response To Ana M. Gonzalez et al.

*First, a quick synopsis of the samplings, with regards to where the n=261 M1 bearing samples come from, aside from the 588 participants mentioned in one of the tables [table 2] in the study:

From my assessment of the table, it comes from the following numbers:

A total of 50 Europeans detected for M1.
A total of 154 for Africans.
A total of 28 Asians, barring 8 unknown Arabian haplotypes.
And a total of 29 Jews, who were lumped together from the various continents.
The sum of the above totals, amount to 261 "known" M1 lineages.

*With regards to the authors claim about M1 or its ancestor, having “had an Asiatic origin”, the following comes to mind:

The authors of the study at hand, themselves admit that they haven't come across M1 ancestor in either south Asia or southwest Asia. They also take note of its highest diversity in Ethiopia and east Africa. Yet through the shaky premise of their M1c expansion time frame estimations, they build a conclusion around it, by tying it to a dispersal(s) "parallel" to that of U6 - another African marker whose immediate common recent ancestor, namely proto-U6, appears to be elusive thus far.

Well, they wouldn’t be the only ones who have failed to come across any proto-M1 ancestor in southwest and south Asia [Indian Subcontinent mainly]:

Based on the high frequency and diversity of haplogroup M in India and elsewhere in Asia, some authors have suggested (versus [3]) that M may have arisen in Southwest Asia [16,17,31]. Finding M1 or a lineage ancestral to M1 in India, could help to explain the presence of M1 in Africa as a result of a back migration from India. Yet, to date this has not been achieved [15], this study). Therefore, one cannot rule out the still most parsimonious scenario that haplogroup M arose in East Africa [3]. Furthermore, the lack of L3 lineages other than M and N (indeed, L3M and L3N) in India is more consistent with the African launch of haplogroup M. On the other hand, one also observes that: i) M1 is the only variant of haplogroup M found in Africa; ii) M1 has a fairly restricted phylogeography in Africa, barely penetrating into sub-Saharan populations, being found predominantly in association with the Afro-Asiatic linguistic phylum – a finding that appears to be inconsistent with the distribution of sub-clades of haplogroups L3 and L2 that have similar time depths. — Mait Metspalu et al.

So, while they acknowledge the highest "frequencies and diversities" of M1 particularly in Ethiopia, and generally in East Africa., the authors base their claims about ’origins’ on their expansion estimations of M1c derivatives, presumably predominant in northwest Africa rather than east Africa, and its relative sporadic distribution in 'Europe' and 'Southwest' Asia. They attempt to buttress this, by invoking an initial parallel expansion of M1 and U6 "ancestor" lineages into north Africa via the Nile Valley [from "southwest Asia"], then an expansion from northwest Africa this time around, of U6 and M1 derivatives northward into Europe and then eastward into "southwest" Asia via the Nile Valley corridor in the Sinai peninsula, presumably with a few derivatives making their way into sub-Saharan east Africa, where they then underwent some expansion, to give rise to yet another, but later, dispersal from there into "southwest Asia" and hence, accounting for the 'majority' of M1 lineages in "southwest Asia" being east African derivatives than the north African [M1c] counterparts.

*Furthermore,

The authors gather that their observations correlate with that of other researchers, namely Olivieri et al. To this extent, they put forth that Olivieri et al.’s M1b corresponds to their M1c, the former’s M1a2 corresponds to their M1b, and the former’s M1a1 corresponds to their M1a. They go onto to add that the coalescence ages arrived by the two research group [that of Olivieri et al. and that of the present authors] also correlate. The present authors note that their coalescence time for M1c (25.7 +/- 6.6 ky) overlaps with Olivieri et al.’s coalescence time for M1b (23.4 +/- 5.6). Similarly, they note that their coalescence age for M1a (22.6 +/- 8.1ky) falls within that of Olivieri et al.’s age for M1a1 at 20.6 +/- 3.4ky. However, this makes way for great discrepancy between the said authors and Olivieri et al., whereby their coalescence age for M1b at 13.7 +/- 4.8ky falls quite short of the latter’s age for M1a2 at 24 +/- 5.7ky. Not only are the subgroup nomenclatures distinct, but this latter discrepancy makes an unsubtle difference, so as to no longer render M1c to be older than M1b, but rather, either place M1c at an age a bit younger or on par with the latter, which should be otherwise according to the present study. Though, by their own admission, the present authors favor Olivieri et al.’s methods over their own:

As our calculations are based only on three lineages and that of Olivieri et al on six, we think that their coalescence time estimation should be more accurate than ours. In fact, when time estimation is based on the eight different lineages (AFR-K143 is common to both sets) a coalescence age of 20.6 +/- ky is obtained.

*But if there is any indication about the tenuous nature of the above thesis, without going into other known details about M1, it would be this alternative viewpoint they came up with:

The alternative idea entertained by the authors, is one where M1 could actually be an autochthonous northwest African lineage, which spread northward into Europe and eastward to "Southwest Asia" and east Africa. Again, to be followed by a yet later dispersal from east Africa, likely sub-Saharan east Africa, particularly the Ethiopian populations.

*The limitations inherent in solely relying on hypervariable segment motifs:

The status quo hasn't changed, not withstanding the hype about the supposed older expansion timeframes from M1c derivatives, predominant in Northwest Africa, according to their study. The authors rely heavily on the hypervariable region of the mtDNA, which even they themselves don't seem to put much faith on, as demonstrated by their noting of the need to proceed cautiously, given that random parallel mutations are known to occur across distinct macro-haplogroups and sub-clades. They also note how hypervariable nature of the control region, can lead to misleading calculations from erratic mutations, as demonstrated by the M1a2 they put forth, leading them to omit them in their lineage coalescence analysis.

*Another thing that hasn't been relayed through this study, is this:

The coding regions transitions are likely to change relatively slower than those of hypervariable segments, and hence, likely to remain intact within a clade. To assist in determining which clade to place a monophyletic unit, key coding region transitions have to be identified. In the case of M1, we were told:

We found 489C (Table 3) in all Indian and eastern-African haplogroup M mtDNAs analysed, but not in the non-M haplogroup controls, including 20 Africans representing all African main lineages (6 L1, 4 L2, 10 L3) and 11 Asians.

These findings, and the lack of positive evidence (given the RFLP status) that the 10400 C->T transition defining M has happened more than once, suggest that it has a single common origin, but do not resolve its geographic origin. Analysis of position 10873 (the MnlI RFLP) revealed that all the M molecules (eastern African, Asian and those sporadically found in our population surveys) were 10873C (Table 3). As for the non-M mtDNAs, the ancient L1 and the L2 African-specific lineages5, as well as most L3 African mtDNAs, also carry 10873C.

Conversely, all non-M mtDNAs of non-African origin analysed so far carry 10873T. These data indicate that the **transition 10400 C-->T, which defines haplogroup M**, arose on an African background characterized by the ancestral state 10873C, which is also present in four primate (common and pygmy chimps, gorilla and orangutan) mtDNA sequences. — Semino et al.

...which is significant, as other M lineages are devoid of M1 coding region motifs, not to mention the M1 HVS-I package. The above does demonstrate, how M lineages likely arose on an African 'background' by single-event substitutions in the designated African ancestral counterparts. The ancestral transition of 10873C is substituted by 10873T in non-African non-M haplogroups, while the 10400C transition was substituted in M lineages by 10400T.

Furthermore,...

The 489C transition, as noted above and can be seen from the diagram, is peculiar to the M macrohaplogroup, again suggestive of unique event mutations characterizing the family:

The phylogenetic location of the mutations at nt 489 and 10,873 (arrow) was predicted by our analysis. The seemingly shared mutation at nt 16,129 (by G, Z and M1) is very likely an accidental parallelism. The ancestral states 10400C, 10810C and 10873C are fixed in L1 (as analysed so far) and are present in the ape sequences.

The 16129 sharing across the M1 haplogroups, seems to be one of those instances of random parallel mutation, recalling Chang Sun et al.'s observations of random parallel mutations of certain transitions across the M macrohaplogroup.

We also know that "southwest Asian" and "European" M1 lineages are derivatives of African counterparts, and the same is true for southwest Asian non-M1 affiliated M lineages from south Asia:

Compared to India, haplogroup M frequency in Iran is marginally low (5.3%) and there are no distinguished Iranian-specific sub-clades of haplogroup M. All Iranian haplogroup M lineages can be seen as derived from other regional variants of the haplogroup: eleven show affiliation to haplogroup M lineages found in India, twelve in East and Central Asia (D, G, and M8 ) and one in northeast Africa (M1)…

Indian-specific (R5 and Indian-specific M and U2 variants) and East Asian-specific (A, B and East Asian-specific M subgroups) mtDNAs, both, make up less than 4% of the Iranian mtDNA pool. We used Turkey (88.8 ± 4.0%) as the third parental population for evaluating the relative proportions of admixture from India (2.2 ± 1.7%) and China (9.1 ± 4.1%) into Iran. Therefore we can conclude that historic gene flow from India to Iran has been very limited.

With that said, Semino et al.'s older study still remains strong, the way I see it:

haplogroup M originated in eastern Africa approximately 60,000 years ago and was carried toward Asia. This agrees with the proposed date of an out-of-Africa expansion approximately 65,000 years ago10. After its arrival in Asia, the haplogroup M founder group went through a demographic and geographic expansion. The remaining M haplogroup in eastern Africa did not spread, but remained localized up to approximately 10,000-20,000 years ago, after which it started to expand. — Semino et al.

Elsewhere, I've also talked about some 'basal' M-like lineages in Africa; for instance, at least one of such was identified in the Senegalese sample.

Am. J. Hum. Genet., 66:1362-1383, 2000

mtDNA Variation in the South African Kung and Khwe and Their Genetic Relationships to Other African Populations

"The Asian mtDNA phylogeny is subdivided into two macrohaplogroups, one of which is M. M is delineated by a DdeI site at np 10394 and an AluI site of np 10397. The only African mtDNA found to have both of these sites is the Senegalese haplotype AF24. This haplotype branches off African subhaplogroup L3a (figs.2 and3), suggesting that haplogroup M mtDNAs might have been derived from this African mtDNA lineage..."

The relevant representation in this recap diagram:



^The 10397 transition is shown in the L3-M linkage, while 10394, which should show up as positive [as exemplified in the above extract] in the M macrohaplogroup, shows up negative in the linkage between L3 and non-M affiliated lineages.

**^To put the above compilation into perspective, and keep it simple, the point is this:

Semino et al.'s demonstration of certain characteristic basic coding transitions of the M super-haplogroup [not including the key coding region motifs unique to the M1 family], springing directly from African ancestral motifs, don't require that M1 has to have a proto "non-African" M1, whereas an Asian origin of M1 would necessitate an Asian proto-M1 lineage that would explain the relatively young expansion ages of M1 and lack of descendancy from pre-existing Asian M lineages. This hasn't been achieved either by the present study or ones prior to it.

Getting to the gist:

Basal M mtDNA ~ between c. 60 - 80 ky ago

And then, M1 ~ between ~ c. 10 - 30 ky ago

The studies I posted, suggest that the basal motifs characteristic of the M macrohaplogroup arose in Africa, anywhere between 60 - 80 ky ago [since they would have likely been in the continent by the time of the 60 ky ago or so OOA migrations] . Sometime between 60 ky and 50 ky ago [some sources place it between 75 - 60 ky ago], these L3 offshoots were carried outside of Africa, amongst early successful a.m.h migrations, which resulted in the populations now living in the Indian-subcontinent, Melanesia and Australia who have these lineages. Not all the basal African L3M lineages, as Semino et al. convincingly put it, left the continent, as indicated by the basal L3a-M motif detected in Senegal, M1 diversity in Africa, particularly East Africa, both M1 and other M lineages detected in Ugandan samples, and lack of descendancy of M1 from older-coalescent Asian macrohaplogroup. Rather, it appears that the basal L3M lineages which remained in Africa, underwent a relatively limited demographic intra-African expansion until relatively recently, i.e. between 10 - 30 ky ago, compared to the Asian L3M derivatives, which underwent major expansions, naturally within the quantitatively smaller founder immigrant groups, i.e. the founder effect.

M1 is likely the culmination of relatively more recent demographic expansions of basal L3M lineages in the African continent, with M1 derivative being a successful candidate, in what could have possibly involved other derivatives which might not have expanded to the same level intra-continentally, and subsequently, extra-continentally as well.

M1 has strongly been correlated with the upper Paleolithic expansion of proto-Afrasan groups across the Sahara to coastal north Africa, and further eastward via the Sinai peninsula.

Extracted from: Link

---

quote:

---

"Upper Paleolithic crania are, for the most part, larger and more generalized versions of recent Europeans."

---

quote:

---

"the [Hofmeyr] skull was found to be quite distinct from all recent Africans, including the Bushmen"

---

^ I doubt Debunked believes this hyperbole, but if he does, he can tell us exactly how this skull differs from "all africans".

And in what way does Debunked claim it is specific to *current* Europeans....

What current "European" feature does it have?



This leave us with Upper Paleolithic Europeans, who of course *were not white* since the mutations for white skin had not yet developed, where still skeletally 'tropical' *unlike* modern Europeans, and do not particularly resemble modern Europeans 'cranially either'.

See the following....please note the specifics in boldface, and tell us how it relates "european skull".


The 35,000-year-old cranium discovered in Pestera cu Oase in the west of the country shows an interesting mix of features, say scientists.

Dr Helene Rougier, from Washington University in St Louis, US, and colleagues say the fossil suggests the first modern humans to enter Europe continued to change after they had settled.

H. sapiens is thought to have emerged in Africa more than 150,000 years ago before spreading out of the continent and arriving in Europe less than 50,000 years ago.

The reconstructed cranium - known as Oase 2 and found in a Late Pleistocene bone bed containing the remains of cave bears - comes from the earliest stages of the occupation.

In addition to its large face and retreating forehead, the specimen has the largest cheek teeth so far known for an otherwise anatomically modern human, the team reports.

^ Can Debunked tell us about large faces, sloping forheads, and large teeth, as distinguishing traits of Europeans?

If not, then what are the distinguishing traits found in UP crania?

Of course you can simply "claim" whateve skull is of European affinity, while offering no specifics.....

Of course Eurocentrists are notorious for that.
 

---

Posted by Charlie Bass (Member # 10328) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Debunker:
That's based on Euclidean distances. You conveniently ignored the table based on Mahalanobis D2 distances, which shows different results and is the more important:

"Mahalanobis D2, adjusted for unequal sample sizes (S24), is used to
estimate the morphological distances among samples. This method
is appropriate for the goal of this analysis because it represents
the morphological variation among groups scaled by the pooled within-
group variation, and accounts for covariation among landmark
coordinates, which is pervasive among biological datasets (S25, S26)."




Those figures produce these trees. You can see that Hofmeyr is closer to both UP and recent Eurasians than it is to either Africans or San, and that the UP Eurasians are nowhere near the Africans.

---

quote:

---

Its great when we can actually read the anthropological findings, to find out, even though hofmeyr, didn't match up to most recent Africans,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charlie Bass:
No, the Bass didn't ignore this info nor leave it out, it was the Bass setting you up to make a fool of yourself. The Hofmeyr skulls is closest to Oceania which are in turn closest to ASfricans, cased closed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

and "non-African" camp [aka the African lineages "common outside of the continent"].

---

Hence the relevance of the unanswered question:

quote:

---

As you would "model" homo-sapiens, are Melanesian and European a part of the same population structure?

Yes or no?

If yes, then what does "population structure" tell us about "caucasian".

If no, then what *is* the basis of a genetic structure that contrasts "Africans" and Non Africans...which you propose?

To make it easier....here is picture and genetic data which relates my question.

Melanesians {Oceania}....



Europeans, show as intermediates

between Oceania and Africans.....


Oceanians and Africans would represent the "opposite ends" of the proposed "structure".

---

^ Too bad they have no answers.

---

Again we ask - how can Melanesian looking skulls, genes or reified population structures, help to foster the mythology of Eurocentrists?


So afraid is Debunked of the above that he refuses to even try to come up with and answer.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charlie Bass:



No, the Bass didn't ignore this info nor leave it out, it was the Bass setting you up to make a fool of yourself. The Hofmeyr skulls is closest to Oceania which are in turn closest to ASfricans, cased closed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

"panmictic Black African" population prior to OOA crumbles into dust

---

->

- African is admitted by your statement "prior to Out of Africa", and is so, undisputed and indisputable.

- Black [melanoderm] is a fact of genetics, as dark skin is the product of the original underived genes for skin color. See.....

"dark skin is the original state of the species homo sapiens" - Nina Gablonski.

African ENTAILS BLACK, though Black does not entail African. - CL Brace.

- This leaves us with your 'cute' use of "panmixes"- [random mating] - which is completely irrelevant to either African or Black, and is introduced as a strawman argument.

Your rant is thus essentially worthless.

Anything else?

---

The problem is, Debunker (who I seriously doubt is Exasperating Euro; at least this new guy doesn't throw racial slurs every other post) seems to be working with the "true Negroid" definition of "blackness" (the one defined by a specific set of facial features), and is projecting it onto us. He doesn't understand that some people have a more flexible concept of blackness for that, that a Somali with fine features can be every bit as black and tropically adapted as the Bantu and pygmies his cited studies usually choose as samples.
 

---

Posted by Tyrann0saurus (Member # 3735) on :
 
BTW:



The dendrogram, which Debunker claims proves these prehistoric Europeans were just like modern Europeans, actually shows modern Europeans to be closer to Oceanians and East Asians than to prehistoric Europeans like the Hofmeyr skull. Odd way to shoot yourself in the foot, isn't it?
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
^ Correct, Modern Europeans are labeld WEU and at the upper right of that chart.

The fact is - - per this chart [rightly or wrongly] they are far away from EVERYTHING ELSE, including paleolithic Euro's.

Only Neanderthal is more of and outlier than European whites, per that chart.

Only Neanderthal is literally less close to -anything- else.

As usual, Debunker debunks himself.
 

---

Posted by Knowledgeiskey718 (Member # 15400) on :
 
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=000537


^^^^^^More rehashed nonsense from Debunked.
Desperately trying to defend the Greeks 'whiteness' again.
 

---

Posted by Charlie Bass (Member # 10328) on :
 
Debunked will now magically try to present the argument that East Asians and Oceanians are somehow "Caucasoids" or some other dumb argument. It was perfect how the Bass set himup to make a fool of himself. The funny thing is that from the data based on distances, Oceanians are closer to Africans than to West Eurasians
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
For Marc Washington - everything, is and African. [Celtics, Charlemagne, Eskimo, etc..].

For Debunked, even Africans are not African.... if it detracts from his desparate delusion of racial 'purity' in Europe.

Both of them are a little bit crazy and can never admit to being wrong.

So this thread, like Marc Washington's "Europeans aren't native to Europe" thread, is destined to go on, while Debunked makes a fool of himself.

Sometimes, you just have to sit back, and enjoy the show.
 

---

Posted by Debunker (Member # 15669) on :
 
Afrocentrists are also blind in addition to being stupid and dishonest.

Of course, Oceania is closest to East Asia, not Africa.

And Hofmeyr is still closer to recent Europeans than it is to any Africans.

Excluding Neanderthals, the only "groupings" that can be made from that data are Africans vs. non-Africans, and Hofmeyr is smack in the middle of the non-Africans, confirming all of the evidence regarding pre-OOA population structure.



Case closed.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Debunker: Afrocentrists are also blind in addition to being stupid and dishonest.

---

^ Certainly you are Erroneous Euro under new alias 'Debunked', as you are predictably resorting to insults in the face of defeat just as you did last round.

Your big blue circle is quite silly and also debunks you.

Take the same circle and turn it 45 degrees counter clockwise.

Now it includes everything *but* Europeans and Neanderthal.

Question - what population on the bottom chart are modern Europeans [WEU on the upper right] actually close to?

ANSWER: NONE. They are distant from 'everything else' on that chart.

You can't debate.

You can't read.

You can't even draw.

You're only good for laughs.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

re: smack in the middle of non africans

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

and "non-African" camp [aka the African lineages "common outside of the continent"].

---

Hence the relevance of the unanswered question:

quote:

---

As you would "model" homo-sapiens, are Melanesian and European a part of the same population structure?

Yes or no?

If yes, then what does "population structure" tell us about "caucasian".

If no, then what *is* the basis of a genetic structure that contrasts "Africans" and Non Africans...which you propose?

To make it easier....here is picture and genetic data which relates my question.

Melanesians {Oceania}....



Europeans, show as intermediates

between Oceania and Africans.....


Oceanians and Africans would represent the "opposite ends" of the proposed "structure".

---

^ Too bad they have no answers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
[QUOTE]We still want to know how grouping Europeans and New Guinea together proves the original African population was 'caucasian'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Debunker:
Afrocentrists are also blind in addition to being stupid and dishonest.

---

quote:

---

Of course, Oceania is closest to East Asia, not Africa.

---

quote:

---

And Hofmeyr is still closer to recent Europeans than it is to any Africans.

---

quote:

---

And Hofmeyr is still closer to recent Europeans than it is to any Africans.

---

Wrong again.

Not only is Hofmeyr closer, in your chart to Oceanians, but also to Paleolithic North Africans.

Paleolithic North Africa is turn closer to the Bantu samples that dubiously make up the entire "Africa" catagory in this study.

And recent West Eurasians are *not* close to anything.



^ Hofmeyr is similar in size to Eurasian UP crania, it differs from them in other respects (such as its broad nose and continuous supraorbital tori).

lol. In fact, this skull has no characteristics whatsoever, that is specific to current Europeans.
 

---

Posted by Tyrann0saurus (Member # 3735) on :
 
I notice that Debunker did a shitty job of addressing how, if Hofmyer and other European Paleolithic skulls were so similar to modern Europeans, modern Europeans show greater similarity to Oceanians and East Asians than to those prehistoric skulls.

Hell, for that matter, if you actually pay attention to the dendrogram, it shows modern Europeans as being closer to Africans than prehistoric Europeans. Prehistoric Europeans seem to be distinct from all currently existing human populations:


 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ LOL What the heck do you expect from Stupid-Euro. He like Marc Washington are only good at putting together photoshop stuff but NEVER at properly displaying accurate data.

As Rasol says, keep the laughs coming!
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
Right you are Djehuti. The Hofmeyr skull is a 35 thousand year old skull from Southern Africa.

The actual significance of the skull - which requires ignoring Debunkeds utterly idiotic prattle to understand - is as follows.

- The skull affirms the recent African origin of all humans.

- The reason for this is that the skull is similar to other skulls found in Eurasia at the time when Eurasia was 1st inhabited.

- That's why there are some similarities between Hofmyer and other Upper Paleolithic skulls.

- A dwindling minority of anthropologists have disputed the African origin of all humans based on the idea that Europeans, or say, Chinese actually resemble local Eurasian hominids such as Neanderthal and Nanjing man.

- And example of this belief was expressed some time ago by CL Brace, with regards to Herto skull - the oldest agreed upon homo sapiens from 130 thousand years ago in Ethiopia.....

The Beginning of Modern Humans" (editorial, June 15) states that a newly discovered Ethiopian skull more than 150,000 years old is "recognizably modern to paleoanthropologists but not to most of the rest of us." It does not look recognizably modern to _this_ paleoanthropologist, and it is a much less probable candidate for being the ancestor of the modern European human than the European Neanderthal is.

I have superimposed the outlines of the crania being compared. Statistical analysis of a battery of measurements shows that the European Neanderthal is more closely related to modern Europeans than to anyone else in the world. This can only be because there is an actual genetic relationship.

That splendid Ethiopian specimen is a good candidate for being an ancestor of Ethiopians, but not Europeans.

- C. Loring Brace

Herto Man:




Here is and intelligent discussion on video from Chris Stringer on Herto Man.

I'd advise viewing it, as it frames the debate nicely:

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/life/human-origins/webcast-humanoriginsvid/human-origins.html

^ The Hofmyer skull simply adds more evidence to Stringer's point, and further moots Brace...**assuming Brace still holds the Neanderthal hybrid hypothesis**...which I doubt, as evidence piles up against it.

- Lastly it should be understood, that there have already been 30 thousand plus year old skeletans from Africa - that resemble different specific *modern* African ethnic groups [like Herto/Brace's so called ancestor of Ethiopians].... but are at the same time different enough from paleolithic Eurasians that cause some to claim a distinct origin.

- The oldest human found in Egypt, is called Nazlet Khater and is as old as Hofmyer:


The morphometric affinities of the 33,000 year old skeleton from Nazlet Khater, Upper Egypt are examined using multivariate statistical procedures.

In the first part, principal components analysis is performed on a dataset of mandible dimensions of 220 fossils, sub-fossils and modem specimens, ranging in time from the Late Pleistocene to recent and restricted in space to the African continent and Southern Levant.

In the second part, mean measurements for various prehistoric and modem African and Levantine populations are incorporated in the statistical analysis. Subsequently, differences between male and female means are examined for some of the modern and prehistoric populations.

The results indicate a strong association between some of the sub-Saharan Middle Stone Age (MSA) specimens, and the Nazlet Khater mandible.

Furthermore, the results suggest that variability between African populations during the Neolithic and Protohistoric periods was more pronounced than the range of variability observed among recent African and Levantine populations.
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=1557864

- This shows how Africa is the home of rhe variability in skull shape for all humans.

- It is ironic, that the most recognizably 'ethnically african' looking skull is found in Egypt, at the same time as the Hofymer skull.

- Frankly, there are skulls from holocene East Africa which might be more similar [superfically] to *modern* Europeans than Hofmyer.

- Hofmyer has low nasal height and and extremely broad nose, there's nothing about this skull which lends it a specifically European appearance at all.

- The skull draws it's affinity to paleolithic skulls in Eurasia largely by it's so called 'primative' features ....shared by many 30 thousand year old skulls, but not found in moderns.

- All skull affinity studies need to be taken with a grain of salt.

- This one is based on the notorious Howells fordisc system which in my opinion is scandalous in the way it reduces African to Bantu and Khoisan only samples, and so tries to isolate the skull affinities of Africans.

- Even so, there is nothing in the study that is profoundly objectionable.

- Noone thinks Hofmyer skull is a member of a imaginary K-zoid race. Or that it looks like a European. In some ways, it is even more different from typical modern Europeans than Herto man, [which has a relatively narrow nose opening] and which is 100 thousand years older.

- It is a measure of the sheer desparation of Debunked, that his answer to the evidence of the reality of Black African admixture in southern Europe [from E3b to Benin west african originating sickle cell haplotype], is to claim that the original Africans, are not African.

He provides the desparate comedy relief, while we use him to educate on the otherwise dry topic of anthropology.
 

---

Posted by Tyrann0saurus (Member # 3735) on :
 
You mean the Hofmeyr skull was south African all this time? I had thought it was European, what with all of Debunker's prattling about it being similar to Europeans. I feel embarassed about my error.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
^ You shouldn't be embarrassed, but Debunked should.

HOfmeyr is a town in Eastern Cape province in South Africa.

The finding hurts Eurocentrism, because it shows again that human skull variability originates in Africa, and cannot be attributed to migrations from Asia and Europe.

This is what Chris Stringer has been saying all along.

This is what he meant with his observation that some Cro Magnon look more like modern Africans and Australians than current Europeans.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
The Great Human Migration


Why humans left their African homeland 80,000 years ago to colonize
the world

* By Guy Gugliotta
* Smithsonian magazine, July 2008

Seventy-seven thousand years ago, a craftsman sat in a cave in a
limestone cliff overlooking the rocky coast of what is now the Indian
Ocean. It was a beautiful spot, a workshop with a glorious natural
picture window, cooled by a sea breeze in summer, warmed by a small
fire in winter. The sandy cliff top above was covered with a white-
flowering shrub that one distant day would be known as blombos and
give this place the name Blombos Cave.

The man picked up a piece of reddish brown stone about three inches
long that he—or she, no one knows—had polished. With a stone point, he
etched a geometric design in the flat surface—simple crosshatchings
framed by two parallel lines with a third line down the middle.

Today the stone offers no clue to its original purpose. It could have
been a religious object, an ornament or just an ancient doodle. But to
see it is to immediately recognize it as something only a person could
have made. Carving the stone was a very human thing to do.

The scratchings on this piece of red ocher mudstone are the oldest
known example of an intricate design made by a human being. The
ability to create and communicate using such symbols, says Christopher
Henshilwood, leader of the team that discovered the stone, is "an
unambiguous marker" of modern humans, one of the characteristics that
separate us from any other species, living or extinct.

Henshilwood, an archaeologist at Norway's University of Bergen and the
University of the Witwatersrand, in South Africa, found the carving on
land owned by his grandfather, near the southern tip of the African
continent. Over the years, he had identified and excavated nine sites
on the property, none more than 6,500 years old, and was not at first
interested in this cliffside cave a few miles from the South African
town of Still Bay. What he would find there, however, would change the
way scientists think about the evolution of modern humans and the
factors that triggered perhaps the most important event in human
prehistory, when Homo sapiens left their African homeland to colonize
the world.

This great migration brought our species to a position of world
dominance that it has never relinquished and signaled the extinction
of whatever competitors remained—Neanderthals in Europe and Asia, some
scattered pockets of Homo erectus in the Far East and, if scholars
ultimately decide they are in fact a separate species, some diminutive
people from the Indonesian island of Flores (see "Were 'Hobbits'
Human?"). When the migration was complete, Homo sapiens was the last—
and only—man standing.

Even today researchers argue about what separates modern humans from
other, extinct hominids. Generally speaking, moderns tend to be a
slimmer, taller breed: "gracile," in scientific parlance, rather than
"robust," like the heavy-boned Neanderthals, their contemporaries for
perhaps 15,000 years in ice age Eurasia. The modern and Neanderthal
brains were about the same size, but their skulls were shaped
differently: the newcomers' skulls were flatter in back than the
Neanderthals', and they had prominent jaws and a straight forehead
without heavy brow ridges. Lighter bodies may have meant that modern
humans needed less food, giving them a competitive advantage during
hard times.

The moderns' behaviors were also different. Neanderthals made tools,
but they worked with chunky flakes struck from large stones. Modern
humans' stone tools and weapons usually featured elongated,
standardized, finely crafted blades. Both species hunted and killed
the same large mammals, including deer, horses, bison and wild cattle.
But moderns' sophisticated weaponry, such as throwing spears with a
variety of carefully wrought stone, bone and antler tips, made them
more successful. And the tools may have kept them relatively safe;
fossil evidence shows Neanderthals suffered grievous injuries, such as
gorings and bone breaks, probably from hunting at close quarters with
short, stone-tipped pikes and stabbing spears. Both species had rituals
—Neanderthals buried their dead—and both made ornaments and jewelry.
But the moderns produced their artifacts with a frequency and
expertise that Neanderthals never matched. And Neanderthals, as far as
we know, had nothing like the etching at Blombos Cave, let alone the
bone carvings, ivory flutes and, ultimately, the mesmerizing cave
paintings and rock art that modern humans left as snapshots of their
world.

When the study of human origins intensified in the 20th century, two
main theories emerged to explain the archaeological and fossil record:
one, known as the multi-regional hypothesis, suggested that a species
of human ancestor dispersed throughout the globe, and modern humans
evolved from this predecessor in several different locations. The
other, out-of-Africa theory, held that modern humans evolved in Africa
for many thousands of years before they spread throughout the rest of
the world.

In the 1980s, new tools completely changed the kinds of questions that
scientists could answer about the past. By analyzing DNA in living
human populations, geneticists could trace lineages backward in time.
These analyses have provided key support for the out-of-Africa theory.
Homo sapiens, this new evidence has repeatedly shown, evolved in
Africa, probably around 200,000 years ago.

The first DNA studies of human evolution didn't use the DNA in a
cell's nucleus—chromosomes inherited from both father and mother—but a
shorter strand of DNA contained in the mitochondria, which are energy-
producing structures inside most cells. Mitochondrial DNA is inherited
only from the mother. Conveniently for scientists, mitochondrial DNA
has a relatively high mutation rate, and mutations are carried along
in subsequent generations. By comparing mutations in mitochondrial DNA
among today's populations, and making assumptions about how frequently
they occurred, scientists can walk the genetic code backward through
generations, combining lineages in ever larger, earlier branches until
they reach the evolutionary trunk.

At that point in human history, which scientists have calculated to be
about 200,000 years ago, a woman existed whose mitochondrial DNA was
the source of the mitochondrial DNA in every person alive today. That
is, all of us are her descendants. Scientists call her "Eve." This is
something of a misnomer, for Eve was neither the first modern human
nor the only woman alive 200,000 years ago. But she did live at a time
when the modern human population was small—about 10,000 people,
according to one estimate. She is the only woman from that time to
have an unbroken lineage of daughters, though she is neither our only
ancestor nor our oldest ancestor. She is, instead, simply our "most
recent common ancestor," at least when it comes to mitochondria. And
Eve, mitochondrial DNA backtracking showed, lived in Africa.

Subsequent, more sophisticated analyses using DNA from the nucleus of
cells have confirmed these findings, most recently in a study this
year comparing nuclear DNA from 938 people from 51 parts of the world.
This research, the most comprehensive to date, traced our common
ancestor to Africa and clarified the ancestries of several populations
in Europe and the Middle East.

While DNA studies have revolutionized the field of paleoanthropology,
the story "is not as straightforward as people think," says University
of Pennsylvania geneticist Sarah A. Tishkoff. If the rates of
mutation, which are largely inferred, are not accurate, the migration
timetable could be off by thousands of years.

To piece together humankind's great migration, scientists blend DNA
analysis with archaeological and fossil evidence to try to create a
coherent whole—no easy task. A disproportionate number of artifacts
and fossils are from Europe—where researchers have been finding sites
for well over 100 years—but there are huge gaps elsewhere. "Outside
the Near East there is almost nothing from Asia, maybe ten dots you
could put on a map," says Texas A&M University anthropologist Ted
Goebel.

As the gaps are filled, the story is likely to change, but in broad
outline, today's scientists believe that from their beginnings in
Africa, the modern humans went first to Asia between 80,000 and 60,000
years ago. By 45,000 years ago, or possibly earlier, they had settled
Indonesia, Papua New Guinea and Australia. The moderns entered Europe
around 40,000 years ago, probably via two routes: from Turkey along
the Danube corridor into eastern Europe, and along the Mediterranean
coast. By 35,000 years ago, they were firmly established in most of
the Old World. The Neanderthals, forced into mountain strongholds in
Croatia, the Iberian Peninsula, the Crimea and elsewhere, would become
extinct 25,000 years ago. Finally, around 15,000 years ago, humans
crossed from Asia to North America and from there to South America.

Africa is relatively rich in the fossils of human ancestors who lived
millions of years ago (see timeline, opposite). Lush, tropical lake
country at the dawn of human evolution provided one congenial living
habitat for such hominids as Australopithecus afarensis. Many such
places are dry today, which makes for a congenial exploration habitat
for paleontologists. Wind erosion exposes old bones that were covered
in muck millions of years ago. Remains of early Homo sapiens, by
contrast, are rare, not only in Africa, but also in Europe. One
suspicion is that the early moderns on both continents did not—in
contrast to Neanderthals—bury their dead, but either cremated them or
left them to decompose in the open.

In 2003, a team of anthropologists reported the discovery of three
unusual skulls—two adults and a child—at Herto, near the site of an
ancient freshwater lake in northeast Ethiopia. The skulls were between
154,000 and 160,000 years old and had modern characteristics, but with
some archaic features. "Even now I'm a little hesitant to call them
anatomically modern," says team leader Tim White, from the University
of California at Berkeley. "These are big, robust people, who haven't
quite evolved into modern humans. Yet they are so close you wouldn't
want to give them a different species name."

The Herto skulls fit with the DNA analysis suggesting that modern
humans evolved some 200,000 years ago. But they also raised questions.
There were no other skeletal remains at the site (although there was
evidence of butchered hippopotamuses), and all three skulls, which
were nearly complete except for jawbones, showed cut marks—signs of
scraping with stone tools. It appeared that the skulls had been
deliberately detached from their skeletons and defleshed. In fact,
part of the child's skull was highly polished. "It is hard to argue
that this is not some kind of mortuary ritual," White says.

Even more provocative were discoveries reported last year. In a cave
at Pinnacle Point in South Africa, a team led by Arizona State
University paleoanthropologist Curtis Marean found evidence that
humans 164,000 years ago were eating shellfish, making complex tools
and using red ocher pigment—all modern human behaviors. The shellfish
remains—of mussels, periwinkles, barnacles and other mollusks—
indicated that humans were exploiting the sea as a food source at
least 40,000 years earlier than previously thought.

The first archaeological evidence of a human migration out of Africa
was found in the caves of Qafzeh and Skhul, in present-day Israel.
These sites, initially discovered in the 1930s, contained the remains
of at least 11 modern humans. Most appeared to have been ritually
buried. Artifacts at the site, however, were simple: hand axes and
other Neanderthal-style tools.

At first, the skeletons were thought to be 50,000 years old—modern
humans who had settled in the Levant on their way to Europe. But in
1989, new dating techniques showed them to be 90,000 to 100,000 years
old, the oldest modern human remains ever found outside Africa. But
this excursion appears to be a dead end: there is no evidence that
these moderns survived for long, much less went on to colonize any
other parts of the globe. They are therefore not considered to be a
part of the migration that followed 10,000 or 20,000 years later.

Intriguingly, 70,000-year-old Neanderthal remains have been found in
the same region. The moderns, it would appear, arrived first, only to
move on, die off because of disease or natural catastrophe or—possibly—
get wiped out. If they shared territory with Neanderthals, the more
"robust" species may have outcompeted them here. "You may be
anatomically modern and display modern behaviors," says
paleoanthropologist Nicholas J. Conard of Germany's University of
Tübingen, "but apparently it wasn't enough. At that point the two
species are on pretty equal footing." It was also at this point in
history, scientists concluded, that the Africans ceded Asia to the
Neanderthals.

Then, about 80,000 years ago, says Blombos archaeologist Henshilwood,
modern humans entered a "dynamic period" of innovation. The evidence
comes from such South African cave sites as Blombos, Klasies River,
Diepkloof and Sibudu. In addition to the ocher carving, the Blombos
Cave yielded perforated ornamental shell beads—among the world's first
known jewelry. Pieces of inscribed ostrich eggshell turned up at
Diepkloof. Hafted points at Sibudu and elsewhere hint that the moderns
of southern Africa used throwing spears and arrows. Fine-grained stone
needed for careful workmanship had been transported from up to 18
miles away, which suggests they had some sort of trade. Bones at
several South African sites showed that humans were killing eland,
springbok and even seals. At Klasies River, traces of burned
vegetation suggest that the ancient hunter-gatherers may have figured
out that by clearing land, they could encourage quicker growth of
edible roots and tubers. The sophisticated bone tool and stoneworking
technologies at these sites were all from roughly the same time period—
between 75,000 and 55,000 years ago.

Virtually all of these sites had piles of seashells. Together with the
much older evidence from the cave at Pinnacle Point, the shells
suggest that seafood may have served as a nutritional trigger at a
crucial point in human history, providing the fatty acids that modern
humans needed to fuel their outsize brains: "This is the evolutionary
driving force," says University of Cape Town archaeologist John
Parkington. "It is sucking people into being more cognitively aware,
faster-wired, faster-brained, smarter." Stanford University
paleoanthropologist Richard Klein has long argued that a genetic
mutation at roughly this point in human history provoked a sudden
increase in brainpower, perhaps linked to the onset of speech.

Did new technology, improved nutrition or some genetic mutation allow
modern humans to explore the world? Possibly, but other scholars point
to more mundane factors that may have contributed to the exodus from
Africa. A recent DNA study suggests that massive droughts before the
great migration split Africa's modern human population into small,
isolated groups and may have even threatened their extinction. Only
after the weather improved were the survivors able to reunite,
multiply and, in the end, emigrate. Improvements in technology may
have helped some of them set out for new territory. Or cold snaps may
have lowered sea level and opened new land bridges.

Whatever the reason, the ancient Africans reached a watershed. They
were ready to leave, and they did.

DNA evidence suggests the original exodus involved anywhere from 1,000
to 50,000 people. Scientists do not agree on the time of the departure—
sometime more recently than 80,000 years ago—or the departure point,
but most now appear to be leaning away from the Sinai, once the
favored location, and toward a land bridge crossing what today is the
Bab el Mandeb Strait separating Djibouti from the Arabian Peninsula at
the southern end of the Red Sea. From there, the thinking goes,
migrants could have followed a southern route eastward along the coast
of the Indian Ocean. "It could have been almost accidental,"
Henshilwood says, a path of least resistance that did not require
adaptations to different climates, topographies or diet. The migrants'
path never veered far from the sea, departed from warm weather or
failed to provide familiar food, such as shellfish and tropical fruit.

Tools found at Jwalapuram, a 74,000-year-old site in southern India,
match those used in Africa from the same period. Anthropologist
Michael Petraglia of the University of Cambridge, who led the dig,
says that although no human fossils have been found to confirm the
presence of modern humans at Jwalapuram, the tools suggest it is the
earliest known settlement of modern humans outside of Africa except
for the dead enders at Israel's Qafzeh and Skhul sites.

And that's about all the physical evidence there is for tracking the
migrants' early progress across Asia. To the south, the fossil and
archaeological record is clearer and shows that modern humans reached
Australia and Papua New Guinea—then part of the same landmass—at least
45,000 years ago, and maybe much earlier.

But curiously, the early down under colonists apparently did not make
sophisticated tools, relying instead on simple Neanderthal-style
flaked stones and scrapers. They had few ornaments and little long-
distance trade, and left scant evidence that they hunted large
marsupial mammals in their new homeland. Of course, they may have used
sophisticated wood or bamboo tools that have decayed. But University
of Utah anthropologist James F. O'Connell offers another explanation:
the early settlers did not bother with sophisticated technologies
because they did not need them. That these people were "modern" and
innovative is clear: getting to New Guinea-Australia from the mainland
required at least one sea voyage of more than 45 miles, an astounding
achievement. But once in place, the colonists faced few pressures to
innovate or adapt new technologies. In particular, O'Connell notes,
there were few people, no shortage of food and no need to compete with
an indigenous population like Europe's Neanderthals.

Modern humans eventually made their first forays into Europe only
about 40,000 years ago, presumably delayed by relatively cold and
inhospitable weather and a less than welcoming Neanderthal population.
The conquest of the continent—if that is what it was—is thought to
have lasted about 15,000 years, as the last pockets of Neanderthals
dwindled to extinction. The European penetration is widely regarded as
the decisive event of the great migration, eliminating as it did our
last rivals and enabling the moderns to survive there uncontested.

Did modern humans wipe out the competition, absorb them through
interbreeding, outthink them or simply stand by while climate,
dwindling resources, an epidemic or some other natural phenomenon did
the job? Perhaps all of the above. Archaeologists have found little
direct evidence of confrontation between the two peoples. Skeletal
evidence of possible interbreeding is sparse, contentious and
inconclusive. And while interbreeding may well have taken place,
recent DNA studies have failed to show any consistent genetic
relationship between modern humans and Neanderthals.

"You are always looking for a neat answer, but my feeling is that you
should use your imagination," says Harvard University archaeologist
Ofer Bar-Yosef. "There may have been positive interaction with the
diffusion of technology from one group to the other. Or the modern
humans could have killed off the Neanderthals. Or the Neanderthals
could have just died out. Instead of subscribing to one hypothesis or
two, I see a composite."

Modern humans' next conquest was the New World, which they reached by
the Bering Land Bridge—or possibly by boat—at least 15,000 years ago.
Some of the oldest unambiguous evidence of humans in the New World is
human DNA extracted from coprolites—fossilized feces—found in Oregon
and recently carbon dated to 14,300 years ago.

For many years paleontologists still had one gap in their story of how
humans conquered the world. They had no human fossils from sub-Saharan
Africa from between 15,000 and 70,000 years ago. Because the epoch of
the great migration was a blank slate, they could not say for sure
that the modern humans who invaded Europe were functionally identical
to those who stayed behind in Africa. But one day in 1999,
anthropologist Alan Morris of South Africa's University of Cape Town
showed Frederick Grine, a visiting colleague from Stony Brook
University, an unusual-looking skull on his bookcase. Morris told
Grine that the skull had been discovered in the 1950s at Hofmeyr, in
South Africa. No other bones had been found near it, and its original
resting place had been befouled by river sediment. Any archaeological
evidence from the site had been destroyed—the skull was a seemingly
useless artifact.

But Grine noticed that the braincase was filled with a carbonate sand
matrix. Using a technique unavailable in the 1950s, Grine, Morris and
an Oxford University-led team of analysts measured radioactive
particles in the matrix. The skull, they learned, was 36,000 years
old. Comparing it with skulls from Neanderthals, early modern
Europeans and contemporary humans, they discovered it had nothing in
common with Neanderthal skulls and only peripheral similarities with
any of today's populations. But it matched the early Europeans
elegantly. The evidence was clear. Thirty-six thousand years ago, says
Morris, before the world's human population differentiated into the
ethnicities that exist today, "We were all
Africans."

Looking foward to tomorrows fake arguments from Debunked, who will have no response to bolded passages from Smithsonian, for the same reason that he has had no answers to any of my questions.
 

---

Posted by Knowledgeiskey718 (Member # 15400) on :
 
European early modern humans and the fate
of the Neandertals
Erik Trinkaus*
Department of Anthropology, Campus Box 1114, Washington University, St. Louis, MO 653130
Contributed by Erik Trinkaus, March 9, 2007

http://www.pnas.org/content/104/18/7367.full.pdf+html?sid=4fe8c6d0-a57b-49c0-ac09-a5f3a6e6b88f


Hofmeyr 1 (13) is younger than the earliest EEMHs and
therefore cannot be ancestral to them.
The only other directly relevant specimen is Nazlet Khater 2,
from
42 ka B.P. in Egypt (20). Approximately contemporaneous
with the earliest EEMHs (21), it may represent the
morphology of modern humans dispersing out of Africa after

50 ka B.P. However, in some features it is more archaic than
the MPMHs, which raises questions as to the degree to which its
ancestry was purely from the MPMHs and therefore whether it
represents the ancestral modern human morphology.
The primary sample of analysis consists of the EEMHs, those
before
33 ka B.P. and therefore predating the Gravettian (or
Middle Upper Paleolithic) populations of Europe. As a result of
an ongoing cleansing of the fossil record through direct radiometric
dating, a series of obviously modern, and in fact Late
Upper Paleolithic or Holocene, human remains have been
removed from consideration (7). This cleansing has helped to
dilute the impression that the earliest modern humans in Europe
were just like recent European populations.


Conclusions

The human paleontological record of EEMHs is the ultimate test
of the phylogenetic fate of the Neandertals. Its indications are
clear. Early modern Europeans reflect both their predominant
African early modern human ancestry and a substantial degree
of admixture between those early modern humans and the
indigenous Neandertals. Given the tens of millennia since then
and the limitations inherent in ancient DNA, this process is
largely invisible in the molecular record. It is readily apparent in
the paleontological record.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :