posted
YAP insertion signature in South Asia A. Chandrasekar et al. Ann Hum Biol, 2007
EVOLUTIONARY IMPLICATIONS
All Y chromosomes that are not exclusively African have M168 mutation. The M168 lineage evolved into three distinct sub-clusters: One with the Alu insertion, YAP (DE haplogroup) and the other two lineages, C (RPS4Y/M216) and F* (M89/M213). Underhill et al. (2001) suggested that an African population with M168 mutation dispersed from the Horn of Africa via a coastal or interior route about 50 000–45 000 years ago (Walter et al. 2000) towards southern Asia, where the C lineage (RPS4Y/M216 mutations) probably originated. The YAP insertion probably occurred on an Asian Y chromosome as long ago as ~55 000 years (Hammer et al. 1998) based on the evidence of ancestral alleles for M40 and M96 on exclusively Asian M174 chromosomes (Altheide and Hammer 1997). The ancestral allele of M174 found exclusively in Africa, supports an African origin of YAP insertion (Underhill 2001) but the time of mutational events on the Asian YAP insertion chromosome (Hammer et al. 1998) gives antiquity to M174. Our findings of the presence of the YAP insertion in northeast Indian tribes and Andaman islanders with haplogroup D indicate that some of the M168 chromosomes have given rise to the YAP insertion and M174 mutation in south Asia. The presence of C*, YAP insertion and F* in India (Kivisild et al. 2003; Cordaux et al. 2004; Sengupta et al. 2006; Thangaraj et al. 2003) suggests that the Y chromosome is well differentiated into major lineages in south Asia. Then they moved towards southeast Asia and the Andaman Islands. Andamanese maternal links have been established through mtDNA M31 lineage with the eastern part of India in the Rajbansi of West Bengal (Palanichamy et al. 2006) and the Pauri Bhuiya of Orissa (our unpublished data). After reaching the southern part of East Asia descendants of the initial dispersal, led to a northward diaspora thus peopling across all of East Asia (Su et al. 1999). Some of the YAP insertion chromosomes without the M174 mutation reached the Mediterranean via Central Asia and gave rise to the E lineage with mutations at M40 and M96 (~31 000 years ago; Hammer et al. 1998). This E lineage back-migrated to Africa through the Levant as hypothesized by Hammer et al. (1997) and Altheide and Hammer (1997). It is also evident that haplotype E-M34 chromosomes were probably introduced into Ethiopia from the Near East (Cruciani et al. 2004). The hypothesis of a back migration from Asia to Africa is strongly supported by the current phylogeography of the Y-chromosome variation, because haplogroup K2 and paragroup R1b*, both belonging to the otherwise Asiatic macro haplogroup K, have only been observed at high frequencies in Africa (Cruciani et al. 2002; Luis et al. 2004). Thus the major sub-sets of Y lineages that arose from the M168 lineage do not trace to an African origin. Likewise the M, N and R haplogroups of mtDNA have no indication of an African origin. In the light of recent findings by Olivieri et al. (2006) the scenario of a back migration into Africa is supported by two features of mtDNA: M1 (with an estimated coalescence time of 38.6+/-7.1 ky) and U6 (with an estimated coalescence time of 45.1+/-6.9 ky), which are predominantly north African clades arose in southwestern Asia and differentiated into their major sub-clades while they were in the Mediterranean area and only later some sub-sets of M1a (with an estimated coalescence time of 28.8+/-4.9 ky), U6a2 (with an estimated coalescence time of 24.0+/-7.3 ky) and U6d (with an estimated coalescence time of 20.6+/-7.3 ky) diffused to East and North Africa through the Levant. Thus modern humans used a southern coastal route for their 'Out of Africa' exit, and the Levantine route from Asia to Africa for 'back migration'.
posted
Perhaps this map will help you. As you can see Asia extends from the Eastern shores of the Mediterranean Sea, eastward to the end of the land mass, and south to, but not including Australia.
All of the Human phenotypes exist here; with Central Asia as the point of origination for Caucasians, and Eastern Asia being the point of origination for Mongols.
posted
Evil Euro apparently doesn't read the studies he posts, the authors have made no new claims and simply repeat the claims of Hammrer et al from 1998. Another part of their schema is that they improperly date the age of haplogroup D back to 60,000 years ago, the problem with that is that there were no AMH is East Asia that long ago, LMAO, disregard Evil Euro's trolling. Haplogroup E is not Asian. Evil Euro didn't address Underhill et al's methods from a study that appeared after the one he's quoting which refute the one he's posting.
The author presented no new evidence that haplogroup E is now Asian and no longer African, he simply cited Hammer et al from 1997 and 1998, the only thing the author found was high frequencies of haplogroup D in northeast Indian tribes, which have zero to do with whether haplogroup E is African.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by prmiddleeastern: YAP and E are African, M1 and U6 are Asian.
There's no real evidence for M1 being Asian either...
There evidence that M1 is Asians is based on them saying that Northwest African specific M1c and older than Northeast African specific M1a, eventhough the two have dates that overlap. Evil Euro never looks at the entire sandwich, he just nips at what he thinks is the meat.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Perhaps he can help out his E carrying Sicilian brother E3b1c in proving how E1b1b (E3b) is not black African like its sibling E1b1a (E3a) LMAOPosts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think that is Evil Euro. I think that is Mahilda. I seen some posts on her blogs that indicated she was carrying on a debate here @ ES. At the time only Debunker was in a heated debate.
----------------
What I don't get is that she is referring to this:
"Our findings of the presence of the YAP insertion in northeast Indian tribes and Andaman islanders with haplogroup D indicate that some of the M168 chromosomes have given rise to the YAP insertion and M174 mutation in south Asia"
Andaman Islanders? Come on, they are clearly Black African in appearance. Even if DE is Asian we are talking about Melanesian people and not the illusive East African Caucasian.
-------------------- Across the sea of time, there can only be one of you. Make you the best one you can be. Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess it all makes sense now.....OK if Haplogroup E is Asian then most Africans are simply Asian.
What is the result? Does that mean NOW ALL Blacks have something in common? I guess Black 'Asians' living in African and Black 'Asians' Living in "Asia" are NOT so distantly related? Maybe there IS a uniting theme with all the Ancient Cultures of Africa and Asia being comprised of Blacks. I guess they ARE all related by the M168 mutation or that YAP mutation!
And it was stupid of me to separate Black 'Asians' from Black "Africans" DUH, cough sniff, snarf.
Damn...........I KNEW Dr. Winters was right when he said all these people were connected. WOW, black people world wide have an abundance of history i guess i really didnt know about seeing as i now come from Asia.
Jomon culture......Indus Valley Civilization....etc etc. Damn ALL that belongs to blacks.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Andaman Islanders? Come on, they are clearly Black African in appearance. Even if DE is Asian we are talking about Melanesian people and not the illusive East African Caucasian.
You have a good point, even if Haplogroup E is of Asian origin, the people who carried it could still have retained ancestral tropical adaptations.
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Charlie Bass.: they improperly date the age of haplogroup D back to 60,000 years ago, the problem with that is that there were no AMH is East Asia that long ago
quote:Originally posted by osirion: I don't think that is Evil Euro. I think that is Mathilda. I seen some posts on her blogs that indicated she was carrying on a debate here @ ES. At the time only Debunker was in a heated debate.
If that is truly the case, than there is even less reason to debate with a nutcase like her! She is after all the same Mathilda who denies the African origins of the modern human species!! LOL
quote:What I don't get is that she is referring to this:
"Our findings of the presence of the YAP insertion in northeast Indian tribes and Andaman islanders with haplogroup D indicate that some of the M168 chromosomes have given rise to the YAP insertion and M174 mutation in south Asia"
Andaman Islanders? Come on, they are clearly Black African in appearance. Even if DE is Asian we are talking about Melanesian people and not the illusive East African Caucasian.
Indeed. First of all, DE (yap mutation) was discussed several times in this forum before (too bad no search engine). Second of all, even if it were true that DE is of Asian origin than she has to admit that even West Africans as she calls "true negroes" are also Eurasian and as such equally related to Southwest Asians and even Euro-nuts like herself!
You know the situation: "Pseudoscience contradicts itself"
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think most of you get so I will repeat this again, the study that Evil Euro is referencing if anyone took the time to actually read it does *NOT* prove that haplogroup E is no longer African and now Asian in origin, the author simply quoted Hammer et al from 1997 and 1998, look at the dates for haplogroup E in the citation. Haplogroup E is now considered to be 50,000 years old, there were still hardly any modern people in Asian at this time and this is the exact time frame where Africans would be migrating out.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
"....haplogroup CF and DE molecular ancestors first evolved inside Africa and subsequently contributed as Y chromosome founders to pioneering migrations that successfully colonized Asia. While not proof, the DE and CF bifurcation (Figure 8d ) is consistent with independent colonization impulses possibly occurring in a short time interval."
-------------------- Black Roots. Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by T. Rex: All that having been said:
quote:Originally posted by Charlie Bass.: they improperly date the age of haplogroup D back to 60,000 years ago, the problem with that is that there were no AMH is East Asia that long ago
Please re-read that link again, the link lists no specific fossil specimens of AMH humans in Asia at this time, they're simply theorizing. On the other hand, the link has a link to anoother article saying that China's earliest AMH dates back to only 40,000 years ago, this doesn't sit well with the theory that assuming that haplogroup D is supposed to represent the earliest male lineage in Asia, that haplogroup D is 60,000 years old.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Charlie Bass.: I don't think most of you get so I will repeat this again, the study that Evil Euro is referencing if anyone took the time to actually read it does *NOT* prove that haplogroup E is no longer African and now Asian in origin, the author simply quoted Hammer et al from 1997 and 1998, look at the dates for haplogroup E in the citation. Haplogroup E is now considered to be 50,000 years old, there were still hardly any modern people in Asian at this time and this is the exact time frame where Africans would be migrating out.
Again, I'm not sure where you're getting this idea that modern people weren't in Asia at that time.
Pinpoints migration into Asia at around 60-70 kya.
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Charlie Bass.: I don't think most of you get so I will repeat this again, the study that Evil Euro is referencing if anyone took the time to actually read it does *NOT* prove that haplogroup E is no longer African and now Asian in origin, the author simply quoted Hammer et al from 1997 and 1998, look at the dates for haplogroup E in the citation. Haplogroup E is now considered to be 50,000 years old, there were still hardly any modern people in Asian at this time and this is the exact time frame where Africans would be migrating out.
Again, I'm not sure where you're getting this idea that modern people weren't in Asia at that time.
Pinpoints migration into Asia at around 60-70 kya.
EDIT: Never mind, I read your response which was posted at the same time as this post.
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
As Shomarka Keita once stated, we must be careful not to confuse genetic history and TMRCA and population history. Some study placed the divergence of Africans from Asians and Europeans as far back as almost 150,000 years ago, thje problem with that is that there were *NO* AMH in Europe and Asians at this time, thats why one should not confuse population history and genetic coalesence times.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: There's no real evidence for M1 being Asian either...
It is an Asian "back to Africa" migration haplogroup, as it is descended from Asian M*.
Posts: 1106 | From: Puerto Rico | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Although two mtDNA lineages with an African origin (haplogroups M and N) were the progenitors of all non-African haplogroups, macrohaplogroup L (including haplogroups L0-L6) is limited to sub-Saharan Africa.
It is directly associated with the original OOA migrations. Asian M carriers are most likely simply a product of that dispersal. See the link that T-Rex showed you. What do you think about it?
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Evil Euro has reading comprehension problems and is arrogant as hell in thing that he knows all, the Bass has been in contact with a few geneticists and believe me, the notion that haplogroup E is Asian is a very minority view based on the flimsiest of evidence.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
djheuti i am not sicilian you ediot somalid v13 is sicilian go to you tube see the movie he put e1b1b1 the meditid race it will explain to you everything e3b1c1
posted
It's fun to watch the 'Black Stormfront' gang go into evasion and denial mode as their last glimmer of hope for stealing white people's culture fades away into nothingness.
Charlie Bass's lies and distortions have already been dealt with:
quote:Originally posted by Charlie Bass.: Evil Euro apparently doesn't read the studies he posts, the authors have made no new claims and simply repeat the claims of Hammrer et al from 1998. Another part of their schema is that they improperly date the age of haplogroup D back to 60,000 years ago, the problem with that is that there were no AMH is East Asia that long ago, LMAO, disregard Evil Euro's trolling. Haplogroup E is not Asian. Evil Euro didn't address Underhill et al's methods from a study that appeared after the one he's quoting which refute the one he's posting.
The author presented no new evidence that haplogroup E is now Asian and no longer African, he simply cited Hammer et al from 1997 and 1998, the only thing the author found was high frequencies of haplogroup D in northeast Indian tribes, which have zero to do with whether haplogroup E is African.
Lol debunked is an idiot, especially with his 2007 text as if it was saying something new.
Too bad for him we are not idiots like his comrades over at anthroscape.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I'm reading this excpert correctly, it does not state that E is of asian origin, but only certain mutations of E, M40 and M96, are of asian origin via the out-of-Africa migrants.
Also, one needs to be careful with calling a haplogroup "asian", while attaching the people we currently call "asian" to these groups in this historical timeframe. An "asian" y-chromosome or mtDNA doesn't mean people looking like Yasser Arafat or Fahad were the ones that back-migrated into Africa.
This excerpt only speaks of SUB-CLUSTERS of the M168 mutation brought out by people who left Africa 50,000 years ago.
To what end will euro-nut morons misread data to deny an African civilization? If some German wants to claim that modern Germans are descendants of the Roman empire than so be it. At the end of the day I really don't give a sh*t. Why do euro-nuts go so far with Ancient Egypt? A people they have NO TIES to whatsoever.
Posts: 455 | From: Tharsis Montes | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
"It was pointed out that macrohaplogroups M, N, and R are universally distributed in Eurasia but differentiated into distinct haplogroups in East Asia, Oceania, Southeast Asia, and the Andaman Islands in particular (Macaulay et al. 2005; Thangaraj et al. 2005). This finding is further strengthened by our newly obtained Indian M data because the mutations that characterize the basal M lineages in India are virtually unique and not shared by those of East Asian, Oceanian, and Southeast Asian M lineages (Ingman et al. 2000; Ingman and Gyllensten 2003; Kong et al. 2003; Tanaka et al. 2004; Friedlaender et al. 2005; Macaulay et al. 2005). This star-like and nonoverlapping pattern of the mtDNA phylogeny is in good agreement with the proposed scenario that the initial dispersal of modern human into Eurasia some 60 x 103 years ago was rather rapid along the Asian coastline (Macaulay et al. 2005; Thangaraj et al. 2005; Forster and Matsumura 2005)."
- Chang Sun et al
quote:Originally posted by T. Rex:
quote:Originally posted by Debunker: And Chandrasekar's conclusions have already been upheld in a new study:
That's Haplogroup D, not E, which is what we're interested in.
I notice you have no answers for the fact that E is mostly found in Africa.
I thought only downstream E1b1b1 lineages were found outside of it (to the shame of people like Dumb Euro).
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by thegaul: If I'm reading this excpert correctly, it does not state that E is of asian origin, but only certain mutations of E, M40 and M96, are of asian origin via the out-of-Africa migrants.
Also, one needs to be careful with calling a haplogroup "asian", while attaching the people we currently call "asian" to these groups in this historical timeframe. An "asian" y-chromosome or mtDNA doesn't mean people looking like Yasser Arafat or Fahad were the ones that back-migrated into Africa.
This excerpt only speaks of SUB-CLUSTERS of the M168 mutation brought out by people who left Africa 50,000 years ago.
To what end will euro-nut morons misread data to deny an African civilization? If some German wants to claim that modern Germans are descendants of the Roman empire than so be it. At the end of the day I really don't give a sh*t. Why do euro-nuts go so far with Ancient Egypt? A people they have NO TIES to whatsoever.
Also, one needs to be careful with calling a haplogroup "asian", while attaching the people we currently call "asian" to these groups in this historical timeframe. An "asian" y-chromosome or mtDNA doesn't mean people looking like Yasser Arafat or Fahad were the ones that back-migrated into Africa.
Glad somebody understands that.
A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing in the wrong hands.
These were just "plain-ole" African looking Africans, moving back and forth. It would be thousands of years later, before the Caucasians and Mongols would come into play.Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anyone care to comment on the fact that on the maps above the number of MtDNA haplogroups are only 3 in number while those outside of Africa are multiples of 3.
This is odd since it is assumed that muatations occur at the same regularity everywhere and that humans lived in Africa for at least 3 times the length of time theylived anywhere else.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lamin: Anyone care to comment on the fact that on the maps above the number of MtDNA haplogroups are only 3 in number while those outside of Africa are multiples of 3.
This is odd since it is assumed that muatations occur at the same regularity everywhere and that humans lived in Africa for at least 3 times the length of time theylived anywhere else.
Hybrids have a more complicated (as in variety) DNA structure simply because they are hybrids – a product of more than one source.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lamin: Anyone care to comment on the fact that on the maps above the number of MtDNA haplogroups are only 3 in number while those outside of Africa are multiples of 3.
This is odd since it is assumed that muatations occur at the same regularity everywhere and that humans lived in Africa for at least 3 times the length of time theylived anywhere else.
Well according to my recollection I could swear you've asked this before, anyway because L3 gave rise to M and N, in turn all non African mtdna markers are descendant of M or N.
Now, how much diversity is there?
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am curious, though; why is E found mostly in Africa, but its brother D is found mostly in Asia? I'm guessing that D was one of the first OOA lineages?
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Anyone care to comment on the fact that on the maps above the number of MtDNA haplogroups are only 3 in number while those outside of Africa are multiples of 3.
I've answered this question for Lamin so many times it's not funny.
I don't understand why he doesn't understand the answer.
Lamin chooses not to grasp that L1, L2, and L3, is more diverse than A,B,C,D, thru T mtdna, whenever A thru T are all sub clades of L3.
He gets distracted by number of labels or number of colors on a map.
He doesn't understand that it might be possible to break L2 up into 1000 different subclades and give them just as many labels and colors as sub components of L3.
Anygroup with L2 and L3 is inherently more diverse than a group made up only of sub-components of L3.
Excuse the redundancy, but in a few months, Lamin will repeat this question, anyway.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Debunker: [qb] It's fun to watch the 'Black Stormfront' gang go into evasion and denial mode as their last glimmer of hope for stealing white people's culture fades away into nothingness.87quote]
Ad-hominem
[QUOTE]Charlie Bass's lies and distortions have already been dealt with:
There were no lies told idiot, it was the Bass simply pointing out your inaccurate readings of that study?
quote:And Chandrasekar's conclusions have already been upheld in a new study:
They were *NOT* upheld and since when did you learn how to read Chinese? Hint, that link your provided has Chandrasekar's study in it, but its in Chinese. If that link has any info that uphold#s the said author's study please point it out. That said author presented no evidence that haplogroup E originated in Asia, he simply cited Hammer's study from 1997 and 1998.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Speaking of Black, haplotype D is also certainly Black, ie - originates among Blacks. It is also likely Asian, ie- originating amongst Asians.
But we must ask again, how does this help Debunked?
"Today the members of haplogroup D, defined by marker m174, are found along portions of this ancient route in the Andaman Island and Southeast Asia, though, interestingly, not in India."Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
"The gene flow from Black Africa to Greece may have occurred in Pharaonic times or when Saharan people emigrated after the present hyperarid conditions were established (5000 years B.C.)"
Just curious; Has the mindless rabble finally accepted this as fact?Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
LOL. I dont know. I think he is right. (sniff, slurp) Maybe there IS a connection of all black people worldwide. Maybe all Black people in African as well as those in "EURASIA" DO form some unified genetic group.
Every time I see anything prehistoric or many things of ancient pre/historical significance it seems to have a Black face to it....REGARDLESS of where it is in the world.
Maybe We are some Black "Super Race" that brought sparks of civilization and culture to every end of the planet.....Because we definitely populated it. I cannot think of one continent that has not had a presence of black people. And many places sans Europe STILL have some "Aboriginal Black People."
Maybe this is what Debunker is trying to point out. Maybe he took a genetic test and came up as Haplogroup E and now wants to turn over a new leaf as an Africanist.....or should i say an "AsiAfricanist."
Hey Debunker - "Welcome to the P2 Clade" LMAO
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^Be careful. You're starting to sound like Mike with this Black Superman stuff. Having populated the world is different from having established civilization in all of these parts of the world 40-50,000 years later.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ LOL I see Debunked is getting his a$$ debunked as usual!
Now I see why he (if it's Evil-Euro) or she (if it's Mathilda) is desperate to keep us Egyptsearch posters out her/his website! After all you don't want to look like an idiot in her own website! LMAOPosts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Funny thing is that in his desperate attempts to de-africanize the entire universe, he also excludes over 73% of all African males by attributing to haplogroup E an origin in "Asia" (whatever "Asia" means to him at that point in time). What kind of kook would be so reckless?
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: ^^Be careful. You're starting to sound like Mike with this Black Superman stuff. Having populated the world is different from having established civilization in all of these parts of the world 40-50,000 years later.
I actually DO believe that Africans and other Black populations around the world are separated by Genetics and Language. Two populations that have similar physical affinities may not be related. One of those groups (Black Asians in this example) in theory are more related to groups in their similar geographical settings (Other Asians) vs those whom they LOOK like thousands of miles away. (Other Africans)
DEBUNKER - In an attempt to remove certain Africans from their African genetic default inadvertently groups ALL Black populations across the globe via Genetic and language. He creates the "Black Asian Supergroup"
Either way I dont see what type of point he/she trying to make.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by astenb: I actually DO believe that Africans and other Black populations around the world are separated by Genetics and Language. Two populations that have similar physical affinities may not be related. One of those groups (Black Asians in this example) in theory are more related to groups in their similar geographical settings (Other Asians) vs those whom they LOOK like thousands of miles away. (Other Africans)
Correct; which is exactly why 'race' as we know it --phenotype isolate correlating to genetic lineage-- does not exist!
The Andamanese boy above due to certain cranial features would be classified as "negroid" even though he is Asian and genetically far closer related to Japanese than any African.
Meanwhile the Egyptian man below would be classified as "caucasoid" due to certain features despite his skin color, even though he is far more related to Nigerians than Southwest Asians and Europeans!
The contradiction is too obvious.
quote:DEBUNKER - In an attempt to remove certain Africans from their African genetic default inadvertently groups ALL Black populations across the globe via Genetic and language. He creates the "Black Asian Supergroup"
Either way I dont see what type of point he/she trying to make.
He/she/it has NO point! He/she/it is just desperate because it knows that the ancient Egyptians as indigenous Africans are related to all other indigenous Africans including so-called "negroids", and that Southwest Asians and southern Europeans share lineages with Africans due to black African ancestors migrating to Europe in late prehistoric times! Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by astenb: Either way I dont see what type of point he/she trying to make.
I think he assumes that the DE people, by virtue of being Asians, must have lost their tropical adaptations. Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Or rather yet, because they were Eurasians they were not 'black' or had no "negroid" features! LOL Yes the claims are hilarioiusly ironic.
So 'Debunked' what's your pleasure??-- Are you a liar or just stupid?? Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
(sniff, slurp) Maybe there IS a connection of all black people worldwide. Maybe all Black people in African as well as those in "EURASIA" DO form some unified genetic group.
Printer-friendly view of this topic