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the eastern part of India in the Rajbansi of West Bengal (Palanichamy et al. 2006) and the Pauri Bhuiya of Orissa (our unpublished data).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'.
May I have a definition for Asiatic please.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
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.
Did you have any particular group in mind?
Posted by prmiddleeastern (Member # 14038) on :
YAP and E are African, M1 and U6 are Asian.
Posted by Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
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.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
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...
Posted by Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata:
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.
Posted by T. Rex (Member # 3735) on :
You'd think, if Haplogroup E was Asian, it wouldn't be so prevalent in Africa and not elsewhere.
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) LMAO Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
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.
Posted by astenb (Member # 14524) on :
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.
Posted by T. Rex (Member # 3735) on :
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.
Posted by T. Rex (Member # 3735) on :
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
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"
Posted by Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
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.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
"....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."
Posted by Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
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.
Posted by T. Rex (Member # 3735) on :
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.
Posted by T. Rex (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by T. Rex:
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.
Posted by Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
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.
Posted by prmiddleeastern (Member # 14038) on :
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*.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
^^But M is African.
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?
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: So Stupid-Euro is back!!
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) LMAO
I didn't even get a chance to dis him before he was destroyed by other posters.
Oh well. Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:it is descended from Asian M*.
^lie.
name an Asian population with haplotype M*.
lol. you can't. and why is that?
Posted by Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
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.
Posted by e3b1c1 (Member # 16338) on :
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 by Debunker (Member # 15669) on :
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:
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.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
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.
Posted by thegaul (Member # 16198) on :
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.
Posted by Freehand (Member # 10819) on :
"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).
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
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. Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
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.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
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.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
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?
Posted by T. Rex (Member # 3735) on :
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?
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
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.
Posted by Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
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.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Debunked writes: It's fun to watch the 'Black Stormfront' gang
^ 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." Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Debunked writes: It's fun to watch the 'Black Stormfront' gang
"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? Posted by astenb (Member # 14524) on :
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
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
^^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.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ 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! LMAO Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
^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?
Posted by astenb (Member # 14524) on :
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.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
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! Posted by T. Rex (Member # 3735) on :
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. Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ 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?? Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
astenb Quote: - "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)"
The next step might be to ponder what a genetic variance actually means as a physical reality. You know, like how does a mutation manifest itself. Hint; it is NOT possible to determine by DNA at what point Whites ceased being Black.
Secondly; you might want to remember that two brothers have more in common with EACH OTHER genetically, than they do with EITHER of their PARENTS!!
Kinda makes sense now, hah? Posted by T. Rex (Member # 3735) on :
I was reading that thread, and I notice that the only reason to think that this DE* may be Asian is because it was found in some South Asians...but before then, it was found in Nigerians. Why are Chandrasekar and Debunked so certain that of the two sets of DE, the Asian version is the older version?
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
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.
Of course they didn't establish civilization in all of those parts of the world.
In the case of Europe, they just hung around picking cotton or whatever, as the illiterate White nomads from Asia, tried to figure out how to work the technology and stuff that was just hanging around. How it got there, nobody knows.
You are just Sooo incredibly stupid!
Posted by prmiddleeastern (Member # 14038) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: ^^But M is African.
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?
I think it is an accurate study. Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
The ancestor of DE is African, M168.
DE has been identified in Nigerian sampling [about 5 or 6 individuals], and in Guinean sampling [an individual].
DE has purportedly been identified in only two Asia individuals [Tibetans].
DE's only descendant in Asia is D* which is relatively relegated to or *isolated mainly in south Asia amongst aforementioned heavily pigmented [skin] natives like those in the Andaman Islands, whereas it accounts for much of the male gene pool distributed across the entire African continent.
The presence of DE in Africa suggests that this lineage was in place very shortly after its emergence.
However, its presence -- not to mention diversity -- in Africa as an indication of a back-migration from Asia requires explanation, for in order for DE to have been more common in Africa than Asia [hence, spawning more sub-branches] and at that phylogenetic level [the ancestral state], DE would have had to have flowed into Africa shortly after OOA migrants settled in Asia [founder effect, Hg D], and remarkably, shortly after DE's emergence. What would a newly situated group in Asia from Africa suddenly migrate back to Africa for?
Hg D's distribution makes sense however, if one considers that DE expanded in the locale where the newly OOA migrants settled [in South Asia], followed by a series of relatively controlled dispersal events and hence, explaining D's rare to no presence westward or northward, save for adjoining eastward geographical confines to south Asia. The supposed back-migrants would seem to have left no genetic tracks behind in their destination from southern Asia via the Arabian peninsula, eastern Africa through to western Africa, in a back-to-Africa migration scenario. If they did, then it had been thoroughly erased by multiple demographic shifts.
However, the African DE distribution is easily accounted for by the major expansion of DE descendant clades, which seem to have in varying ways, partially erased or substantially modified pre-existing demographies in wide areas of the continent. So it is understandable that much of DE has been erased by the considerable expansion of its own subclades in Africa.
What do other loci suggest?
Let's consider skin pigmentation alleles, for instance...
Current archeological evidence suggests human presence in Island Melanesia by at least 40ky ago and in other parts of Sahul by at least 45ky ago (O’Connell and Allen 2004). If the original migrants to Oceania arrived there via a corridor of relatively high UVR, then we might expect their descendants to share ancestral pigmentation variants with African populations. However, if the ancestors of modern day Island Melanesians spent a significant amount of time in low-UVR, then it is possible that mutations associated with lighter pigmentation could have accumulated and a readaptation to high-UVR conditions would have been necessary, leading to potential divergence between Island Melanesians and Africans at functional pigmentation loci. In actuality, both of these scenarios may apply, as we know that modern Island Melanesian populations are descended broth early migrants (arriving 40ky ago) as well as later proto-Austronesian-speaking peoples from a southeast Asian homeland ~ 3,200 years ago (Spriggs 1997).
The discordance between our Fst -based divergence values and allele frequencies in the Melanesian CEPH populations at ASIP largely stem from the relatively low frequency of the ancestral allele in the 2 CEPH Island Melanesian populations relative to our original Island Melanesian sample. These discrepancies make it difficult to determine if ASIP truly underlies broad pigmentation differences between darkly and lightly pigmented populations or instead inter-population variation at this locus can largely be explained by differences between Africans and non-Africans. The discordance between the frequencies of the ASIP ancestral allele in our original Island Melanesian sample and the Melanesian samples from the CEPH panel may be indicative of both the complex demographic history of Island Melanesia (involving several migratory events (Spriggs 1997) and probable extensive genetic drift (Friendlaender 1975, 1987) as well as the importance of multiple loci in determining pigmentation phenotype… - Norton et al.
Thus possible further extensions of variations detected amongst Melanesians can be explained by successive demographic events After their African ancestors migrated over 40ky ago. The “original Melanesian sample” appears to have more ancestral pigmentation genes in common with tropical Africans, which is to be expected given that they are direct descendants of the earliest Eurasians, as demonstrated as follows with the OCA2 gene…
In general, the derived allele (associated with lighter pigmentation) is most common in Europeans and East Asians, and the ancestral allele predominates in sub-Saharan Africa and Island Melanesia. - Norton et al. 2006
That said, one would think that tests would show that African pigmentation gene pool had undergone switch from a gene pool(s) that is a composite of derived and ancestral alleles [if we consider the above mentioned excerpts and the likes of south and southeast Asians as back migrant candidates] to the present predominantly "ancestral" states. No evidence that African ancestral alleles are reversions from another state.
Lastly, as already questioned, what of it, if one were to presume an Asian, however unlikely it is, origin for DE? Hg E absent in Asia, except as a matter of gene flow from Africa. It is certainly rare to absent in D-bearing groups. PN2 clades in southern Europe and the rest of mainland Asia are nothing more than signs of recent African ancestry. Only a moron would think that the unlikely Asian origin for DE makes E -- which is not an autochthonous Asian marker at any rate -- also Asian by default.
Re-examination points:
DE ancestor is African, so it makes sense that this is also highly likely where it originated.
DE is more common in Africa than outside of it.
DE's sub-phylogeny is more diverse and widely distributed in Africa.
D is relatively confined in Asia to south Asia and adjoining eastern areas.
DE had been erased by major expansion of its own descendants in Africa, explaining its findings in western Africa but not in eastern Africa -- the avenue for OOA migrations responsible for contemporary non-African gene pool.
A hypothetical DE back-to-Africa migration seems to have been elusive in leaving genetic tracks behind, presumably from south Asia to Africa.
D's distribution in south Asia, on the other hand, with rare to no presence in territories between that region and Africa, is explained by founder effect of OOA migrants, already carrying DE amongst them.
Even if, for the sake of argument, one concedes to the unlikely scenario of an Asian origin of DE, PN2 clades that denote African ancestry in south Europeans and "Near Easterners" would not be Asian, but rather, remain a signature of recent or post-OOA African ancestry. There you have it.
Posted by Debunker (Member # 15669) on :
quote:T. Rex: I notice you have no answers for the fact that E is mostly found in Africa.
Irrelevant. Haplogroup R is found mostly in Europe, but that's not where it originated.
quote: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.
M40 and M96 are the mutations that define haplogroup E. The study is saying that E originated in Asia just like the other lineages descended from CT (D, C and F), which makes perfect sense when you think about it.
quote:Charlie Bass: 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.
The abstract says "Here we continued the discussion of Chandrasekar et al. (2007)", right after referencing the Shi study that found DE* in Tibetans, and with a lot of references to old Hammer and Underhill studies throughout. What do you think that means?
quote:rasol: ^ Don't you mean, the *Haplotype E* gang?
Anyway, how does this help you, Debunked?
Where does Europe get it's haplotype E?
"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.)"
It's haplogroup E, you imbecile. And the study you're quoting doesn't even deal with Y-chromosomes. It's that discredited HLA garbage from Arnaiz-Villena.
quote:rasol: ^ Speaking of Black, haplotype D is also certainly Black, ie - originates among Blacks. It is also likely Asian, ie- originating amongst Asians.
Non-sequitur. Next you'll be trying to claim the Japanese as "Black Africans". Posted by Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Debunker: ]The abstract says "Here we continued the discussion of Chandrasekar et al. (2007)", right after referencing the Shi study that found DE* in Tibetans, and with a lot of references to old Hammer and Underhill studies throughout. What do you think that means?
Basically you haven't provided one shred of evidence that haplogroup E is Asian. The study that you claimed further back ups Chandrasekar provides no evidence that haplogroup E is Asian and you have provided no direct citation to back this up, this is another Evil Euro case closed, don't up here in the Bass house popping off at the mouth making silly BS claims without backing it up.
quote:M40 and M96 are the mutations that define haplogroup E. The study is saying that E originated in Asia just like the other lineages descended from CT (D, C and F), which makes perfect sense when you think about it.
The study simply references Hammer et al from 1997 and 1998, Hammer et al position is not the widely accepted one, though anything is possible. Your thread title is misleading.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Debunker: It's that discredited HLA garbage from Arnaiz-Villena.
And why are your arguments so reckless and desperate? If E is the dominant male lineage in Africa as R is for Europe, then how does taking either out of its present location negate the shared ancestry of fellow haplogroup carriers anyway, no matter where their ancestors can be pinpointed (aside from the fact that in the case of E, it's obviously Africa...but to entertain an alternative still renders your argument useless)?
In other words, we would all still be just as African as Europeans are, well, European! Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
^Just a novice's apples & oranges. Europeans carry no upstream R markers, whereas Africans do for E. As noted above, E is essentially absent in YAP+ Asian locales.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Sundjata Quote: In other words, we would all still be just as African as Europeans are, well, European! [Roll Eyes]
Why don't you stop posting until you figure something out - anything!
Debunker - that should read...
In other words, we would all still be just as African as White Asians (now called Eupeans) are, well, White Asians.
Question Debunker; What exactly is your point? E (prime) began in Africa, but even if it began in the Levant, it would still be Black, so where are you going with this.
Have you confused M96 with it's brother M89?
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
^Being "white" or "Asian" has absolutely nothing to do with the point that I was making Mike, you weird radical. The point is that even if you do ignore the excellent point that Explorer makes, it still doesn't negate the ancestry! It is a dumb argument given his agenda. In an attempt to move east Africans out of Africa he so does the same for 75% of ALL Africans. He can't dilute the inextricable ties that nearly all Africans share so he comes up with this reckless argument concerning haplogroup E.
But why I'm explaining this to an obsessed race junky is beyond me.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:rasol: ^ Speaking of Black, haplotype D is also certainly Black, ie - originates among Blacks. It is also likely Asian, ie- originating amongst Asians.
quote:Debunked: Non-sequitur.
Incorrect. It does indeed follow logically and is therefore SEQUITUR, that as black skin is tropical adaptation, then the original African haplotype E bearing populations, as well as the original haplotype D bearing tropical Asian populations, as best represented by Melanesians....were melanoderms, or Blacks.
This is further confirmed by the skin color research which indicates the Black Africans and Melanesians have underived genes for skin color, whereas depigmented Northern Eurasians have recently derived genes which caused them to lose their black skin.
Melanesians on the other hand retain the original Black skin of their haplotype D bearing ancestors of course.
Debunked - you do realise that Melanisian means *Blacks*, don't you?
Haplotype E is African. Haplotype D is Asian. Both the original haplotype D and E populations were Blacks, which is why the darkest populations in the world bearing haplogroups E and D also retain their original genes for Black skin, without the recent mutations of non Blacks of Northern Eurasia.
But maybe this is too hard for you, and you can claim "non-sequitur" due to non-comprehension?
The *ancestral* allele associated with **dark pigmentation** has a ***shared high frequency*** in sub-Saharan African and Island Melanesians
quote:Rasol: ^ Don't you mean, the *Haplotype E* gang?
Anyway, how does this help you, Debunked?
Where does Europe get it's haplotype E?
"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.)"
quote:The study you're quoting doesn't even deal with Y-chromosomes.
You mean it doesn't deal with the fact that Greek Y chromosome "E3b", originates in Black Africa?
Sure it does "deal with it."
It is relevant as it explains why so many Greeks have an African paternal haplotype.
It's *you* who can't "deal with it".
quote: It's that discredit HLA garbage from Arnaiz-Villena
^ Of course the preponderance of African Y chromosome in Southern Europeans serves as *independent and corroborating* evidence for the mixed ancestry of Europeans.
It proves that Arnaiz-Villena was right, and the 'terrible truth' is revealed.
Your frustrated and incoherent railings agasint this fact are so rendered futile, if entertaining. Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Bass writes: his study simply references Hammer et al from 1997 and 1998, Hammer et al position is not the widely accepted one
^ Correct.
Hammer's pre-pn2-clade, and therefore outdated work, reflects the early hopes of an Asian origin for Yap, or DE.
Although there is not total concensus yet for DE, the preponderance of evidence and most geneticists favor an African origin, and no compelling data exists to the contrary.
At present, there is still considerable debate on the origins of Haplogroup DE. Weale et al. (2003) and Linda Stone and Paul F. Lurquin in their book Genes, Culture, and Human Evolution (2007) argue that the evidence favors an African origin rather than an Asian origin.
[10][11] Underhill et al. (2001) similarly argue that YAP+ originated in Africa since, at the time of their study, Africa had the highest frequency of YAP(>80%), no other division of the Asian lineages and no Asian lineages contemporaneous with Haplogroup E had been found in Africa, there was no archeological evidence of a back-migration to Africa, and there was no mtDNA and autosomal evidence of a back migration to Africa coincident with haplogroup E.[2]
In another 2001 study, Spencer Wells and Underhill state:
[i]Although we cannot rule out the possibility that an ancestral YAP(+) chromosome will be found as more samples are analyzed, the current survey of ≈2,000 men does not support an Asian origin for the YAP(+) lineage, consistent with the results of Underhill et al.
Haplogroup DE* has also been found in Nigeria, and Guinea Bissau, which further moots the notion of E as non African, as E1, E2 and E3, are only found in Africa to begin with.
Chandrasekar produces no evidence to the contrary.
Posted by T. Rex (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Chandrasekar produces no evidence to the contrary.
Yeah, all he does is find evidence of this YAP in India, even though YAP is also found in Africa. I'd hardly call that evidence that Haplogroup E is Asian.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
ROTFLOL @ Debunked getting her/his a$$ roasted.
No wonder the loser is too afraid to have people actually well informed in topics of genetics and other bioanthropology in his/her websites, and only makes a few hit-and-run appearances in this forum!
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
Haplogroup E spread agriculture from the Levant into Africa. Fossil evidence supports a Niger/Congo type person in the Levant as part of the Natufian population. Such types may have migrated back into Africa, down the Nile and then across a green Sahara to the Niger river. This would also coincide with the great Bantu expansion. Black people are not indigenous to Africa. The people of West Africa are Red Sea in origin or actually Western Asiatic and probably passed through Egypt/Nubia and as a result brought Iron technology and agriculture with them. They evolved their current adaptive features due to bottlenecks such as wide spread famine as a result of the green Sahara going through various catastrophic droughts. This would cause a punctual equilibrium event causing sudden adaptive changes such as what we see in West Africa today in comparison to East African phenotype.
The original features of the West African Bantu would have been no different than that of the Oromos today. And if indeed the Oromos are actually Indian in origin, this would support the obvious connection between the indigenous Southern Indian people and the Anadamanese with the Niger Congo classified Africans.
Black people as we know them are non-African and have evolved to their current feature types due to diversification because of the drying up of the Sahara. SAN people and Pygmies are the only indigenous African people.
Now how can it be that only the Africanid people (SAN and Pygmies) were the only people that stayed in Africa? And what happened to all of the Africanids that were living in North Africa? Why would the entire continent be empty until the Meditid people of Southwest Asia or maybe Tibet came along?
Haplogroup E doesn't make any sense being non-African in origin. Unless we look at this from Biblical proportions.
A catastrophic event reduced humans down to a small number in one location such as Iraq. After such an event, human migration occurs and all the major types of man re-evolved. There were various remnants of humans living far enough away to have survived: (Aborigine Australians, pygmies and SAN people).
I don't know how else this story could pan out as anyway possible.
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
^ You have to admit, it does sound like a catastrophic flood event as mentioned in the Bible.
I also find it very interesting that we don't have a language group that defines the ancient language of the Summerians. It is strange that the language is completely extinct. Is this not the story of the Tower of Babel and the confusion of the tongues of man? What if Black people such as the Bantu actually did come from Summeria? Would this not be further evidence supporting Biblical legends?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^^
Please Osrion, what did we say about using Biblical legends to distort scientific findings!
First of all, the Natufian fossils show "negroid" traits that distinguish them from indigenous Asians in the Levant.
Second of all, blacks are not only aboriginal to the African continent but black skin like *all* humans originated in Africa!!
Again lay off the Bible for a while and just read the FACTS laid out in this thread!
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by T. Rex:
Yeah, all he does is find evidence of this YAP in India, even though YAP is also found in Africa. I'd hardly call that evidence that Haplogroup E is Asian.
Precision: YAP *subclades are found in Indian territory, mainly in the form of D markers found in the Andaman Islands. Any small traces of E in that general area represents the *easternmost vestige of post-OOA or recent African ancestry, nothing more.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by osirion:
Haplogroup E doesn't make any sense being non-African in origin. Unless we look at this from Biblical proportions.
Nicely fits in with the theme of the thread's intro post, consistency in religion. It's authors [of thread] premise seems to be just that, religious.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
Just adding on to the excellent observations of Explorer:
If you try to invent a non-african origin for E, you have to explain why there are no sub-groups of E anywhere outside of Africa.
That is E1, E2, and of course E3 father of E3a and E3b are found only in Africa.
Having done that, you have to dismiss (somehow) the findings of DE* in Africa. (both M168 and DE would be known precursor of E in Africa, and there is no intermediate lineage between the two, only found outside of AFrica.)
And, you have to do this bearing in mind, the indisputably African origin of all haplotypes and lineages of non Africans with M168 as a point of demarcation.
Recall that at the point of origin of M168 - there are *only* Africans.
This is a kind of 'event-horizon' for non Africans, and the closer you get to it the more likely the contemporary lineages were African, and not non African(s), of whom there were few, or none.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
^Undoubtedly; things only become conveniently "complicated" for some, when the "African" label is attached to it.
It's really not that complicated, unless one really tries very hard to make it. Recap: D exists in Asia, while E plays a dominating role in Africa -- is so, because DE* were present in both. Simple enough.
Neither territory has the other respective sub-clade lineage, because these emerged after OOA migrations, understandably.
Common sense intimates that any hypothetical DE* back-to-Africa migration -- and it would have to have been major enough -- would have been pooled from a newly situated migrant group. The keywords here: "newly situated" [Hint: see note above about distribution].
The question becomes: the OOA migrants left Africa for a reason; what on earth would these *newly arrived folks go back for?
Recalling...
the presence of the DE* haplogroup has the effect of forcing an earlier date for the most recent common ancestor of all African YAP chromosomes. This reduces the possible time window within which a back-migration to Africa could have occurred under the scenario of an Asian origin for YAP. - Weale et al. 2003, Rare Deep-Rooting Y Chromosome Lineages in Humans.
...still true.
So, it is a no brainer that DE* should be implicated in Asian demographic history...*as well. It's the only way D could have arrived sans E, from Africa. The most parsimonious explanation generally tends to reduce the number of questions for each answer that it provides than the alternative. In this case, an African origin entailing DE* dispersals in OOA migration event, paving way for a founder effect situation in southern Asia is the most parsimonious. For specifics/elaboration on this, see previous notes above.
------------
On a side note, considering the greater internal phylogenetic branching of E vs D, it can be suggestive of either 1) longer time-depth for the explosion, and hence, DE being around longer...or 2) that E experienced an explosion that D counterparts did not achieve in more or less the same time depth. What could account for this? At any rate, the intensity of such intra-E phylogenetic explosion seems to have had some level of erasing effect on DE* distribution, as noted. Given the greater pressure, due to greater demic explosion brought to bear on preexisting DE in Africa [mainly by its own sub-phylogeny] than that which would have been the case in Asia by the YAP+ counterpart sub-phylogeny there, it's amazing that DE* is relentlessly visible enough in the African gene pool, as demonstrated by its greater chance detectability here than elsewhere. This suggests to me, that DE* would have been more widely distributed in Africa than in Asia.
The distribution and internal branching of D tells me, on the other hand, that it involved *lower scale dispersals of D*, which were relatively more controlled in their subsequent expansion.
Posted by Debunker (Member # 15669) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata:
quote:Originally posted by Debunker: It's that discredited HLA garbage from Arnaiz-Villena.
It discredits itself by being a forum post that dismisses this article published by three top geneticists:
"Even a cursory look at the paper's diagrams and trees immediately indicates that the authors make some extraordinary claims. They used a single genetic marker, HLA DRB1, for their analysis to construct a genealogical tree and map of 28 populations from Europe, the Middle East, Africa and Japan. Using results from the analysis of a single marker, particularly one likely to have undergone selection, for the purpose of reconstructing genealogies is unreliable and unacceptable practice in population genetics.
"The limitations are made evident by the authors' extraordinary observations that Greeks are very similar to Ethiopians and east Africans but very distant from other south Europeans; and that the Japanese are nearly identical to west and south Africans. It is surprising that the authors were not puzzled by these anomalous results, which contradict history, geography, anthropology and all prior population-genetic studies of these groups. Surely the ordinary process of refereeing would have saved the field from this dispute.
"We believe that the paper should have been refused for publication on the simple grounds that it lacked scientific merit."
quote:And why are your arguments so reckless and desperate?
I haven't made any arguments. I've just posted a new study. You guys are the ones scrambling recklessly and desperately to come up with "arguments" to deny the evidence.
Posted by Debunker (Member # 15669) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Haplotype E is African. Haplotype D is Asian. Both the original haplotype D and E populations were Blacks, which is why the darkest populations in the world bearing haplogroups E and D also retain their original genes for Black skin, without the recent mutations of non Blacks of Northern Eurasia.
So answer the question: Are Japanese "Black Africans" too then? Or "Black Asians"? Is everyone black in your negrocentric fantasy world?
And again, E and D are haplogroups, not haplotypes. Moron.
quote:In another 2001 study, Spencer Wells and Underhill state:
"Although we cannot rule out the possibility that an ancestral YAP(+) chromosome will be found as more samples are analyzed, the current survey of ≈2,000 men does not support an Asian origin for the YAP(+) lineage, consistent with the results of Underhill et al."
They arrived at that conclusion because DE* had never been found in Asia. Well guess what? Now it has, and they admitted that that would lend support to the Asian-origin model. Here's the full passage:
"Altheide and Hammer (34) have suggested that haplotypes defined by the presence of the YAP insertion originated in Asia and spread back to Africa. One prediction of this model is that the ancestral state of this lineage, which would be YAP(+) but ancestral for both the eastern (M174C) and western (M96C) sublineages (8), should be found in the Asian population(s) where the insertion originally occurred. We do not find any such ancestral chromosomes in our study. Although we cannot rule out the possibility that an ancestral YAP(+) chromosome will be found as more samples are analyzed, the current survey of ≈2,000 men does not support an Asian origin for the YAP(+) lineage, consistent with the results of Underhill et al."
The tide is turning...
Posted by T. Rex (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Debunker: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v415/n6868/full/415115b.html
First of all, that's not the paper we're talking about. That paper's the one on Palestinians and Jews, not "HLA genes in Macedonians and the sub-Saharan origin of the Greeks". No scientist has criticized that yet as far as we know.
Secondly, the finding on HLA genes has been replicated:
quote:They arrived at that conclusion because DE* had never been found in Asia. Well guess what? Now it has, and they admitted that that would lend support to the Asian-origin model.
Yes, and before then, it was found only in West Africans. Why is the Asian DE ancestral in your view but not the African DE?
Posted by Debunker (Member # 15669) on :
^ The exact same marker, data and methodology are used in all of those studies.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: [QB] ^^
Please Osrion, what did we say about using Biblical legends to distort scientific findings!
First of all, the Natufian fossils show "negroid" traits that distinguish them from indigenous Asians in the Levant.
Second of all, blacks are not only aboriginal to the African continent but black skin like *all* humans originated in Africa!!
Again lay off the Bible for a while and just read the FACTS laid out in this thread!
Djehuti: You seem to be suggesting that one of these men is not really a Black man. Care to tell me which one?
AND you seem to be suggesting that there is really such a thing as an indigenous TYPE Asian. I'm sure that you know that these were just average Africans who simply migrated northward - just moving a few miles northward doesn't cause physical changes.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Debunker Quote: So answer the question: Are Japanese "Black Africans" too then? Or "Black Asians"? Is everyone black in your negrocentric fantasy world?
Well YES! They originally WERE!
Haplogroup D
Like haplogroup C, D is believed to represent the Great Coastal Migration along southern Asia, from Arabia to Southeast Asia and thence northward to populate East Asia. It is found today at high frequency among populations in Tibet, the Japanese archipelago, and the Andaman Islands, though curiously not in India. The Ainu of Japan and the Jarawa and Onge of the Andaman Islands are notable for possessing almost exclusively Haplogroup D chromosomes, although Haplogroup C3 chromosomes also occur among the Ainu at a frequency of approximately 15%. Haplogroup D chromosomes are also found at low to moderate frequencies among populations of Central Asia and northern East Asia as well as the Han and Miao-Yao peoples of China and among several minority populations of Sichuan and Yunnan that speak Tibeto-Burman languages and reside in close proximity to the Tibetans.
Unlike haplogroup C, it did not travel from Asia to the New World.
Haplogroup D is also remarkable for its rather extreme geographic differentiation, with a distinct subset of Haplogroup D chromosomes being found exclusively in each of the populations that contains a large percentage of individuals whose Y-chromosomes belong to Haplogroup D: Haplogroup D1 among the Tibetans (as well as among the mainland East Asian populations that display very low frequencies of Haplogroup D Y-chromosomes), Haplogroup D2 among the various populations of the Japanese Archipelago, Haplogroup D3 among the inhabitants of Tibet, Tajikistan and other parts of mountainous southern Central Asia, and Haplogroup D* (probably another monophyletic branch of Haplogroup D) among the Andaman Islanders. Another type (or types) of Haplogroup D* is found at a very low frequency among the Turkic and Mongolic populations of Central Asia, amounting to no more than 1% in total. This apparently ancient diversification of Haplogroup D suggests that it may perhaps be better characterized as a "super-haplogroup" or "macro-haplogroup." In one study, the frequency of haplogroup D* found among Thais was 10%. Haplogroup D1 also reaches a combined frequency of 8% in Korea, which otherwise is found primarily in Tibet and other Sino-Tibetan groups in China.
The Haplogroup D Y-chromosomes that are found among populations of the Japanese Archipelago are particularly distinctive, bearing a complex of at least five individual mutations along an internal branch of the Haplogroup D phylogeny, thus distinguishing them clearly from the Haplogroup D chromosomes that are found among the Tibetans and Andaman Islanders and providing evidence that Y-chromosome Haplogroup D2 was the modal haplogroup in the ancestral population that developed the prehistoric Jomon culture in the Japanese islands.
Oh I know, you got confused by this fake Jomon figure that the Japanese have started circulating.
It's not real, the one below is actually a Jomon figure. Do you know of any Mongols who look like that?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ You see... this is what we get for having scientifically illiterate folk post in a scientific thread. Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Djehuti - You are a "know nothing". Is this how you refute scientific data and ancient artifact; with little girlish catty comments?
Sundjata's already got that idiots corner locked up, you'll have to find another. Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:So answer the question: Are Japanese "Black Africans" too then?
Now this question is a perfect example of a non-sequitur, and strawman.
Your question is non-sequitur because it does not follow logically from....
quote: Originally posted by rasol: Haplotype E is African. Haplotype D is Asian. Both the original haplotype D and E populations were Blacks, which is why the darkest populations in the world bearing haplogroups E and D also retain their original genes for Black skin, without the recent mutations of non Blacks of Northern Eurasia.
^ Your question is also a strawman, because it does not refute (address) the above, but rather tries to attack a claim never made.
Again debunked, you are a poor debator and that is all you have shown us, thus far.
For the record, here is the answer to your strawman, non-sequitur rhetoric:
The Japanese are Asians and so not African, and not dark skinned and so not Black.
Haplotype D, and E far predate the settling of Japan, and also predate the mutations for depigmentation found amongst Japanese, which renders Japan/non sequitur/strawman *completely irrelevant* to this discussion.
Try again?
Posted by thegaul (Member # 16198) on :
This entire thread is a strawman and non-sequitur. E is mostly found amongst Africans and hence, makes Africans "African".
Making claims on the other two is also up for ongoing debate and yet still, really doesn't serve any purpose as far the civilization pertinent to this board.
Now if you want to re-name the continent and it's people "Asian", then so be it. In the end it really changes nothing and seems like another desperate attempt at trying to claim civilizations that don't belong to you...Mathilda.
Asian? African? Caucasian? What ever you want to call them, we ALL know who these people represent in today's world.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Debunker: ^ The exact same marker, data and methodology are used in all of those studies.
Point is that these results are repeatedly replicated and only confirm the Y-Chromosome data that it supplements. Your issues are your issues but your initial point in refutation is now moot.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Of course it is moot, and has been for a long, long, long time now. But not in the insane mind of Debunked (Mathilda and/or Stupid-Euro).
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
Chandresakar's speculation is highly questionable for the same reasons just stated above; see:
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).
Hg D is rare to absent in the Levant, and conversely, Hg E is virtually rare to absent in populations that do carry Hg D.
Furthermore, Hg E's presence in the so-called Near East, including the Levant and Europe, serves as gene flow from Africa, because Africa is where the entire Hg E phylogeny occurs, not the Levant. All upstream Hg E markers are exclusively found in Africa, and essentially none in the Levant.
The so-called Near East has far much lower frequencies of Hg E than in mainland Africa, and all of these happen to be subclades of African counterparts. Much of these subclades are relegated to the P2 (PN2) phylogeny. Upstream PN2 clades as generally known, only occur in Africa.
Revisiting Chandresakar's post again,...
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).
It is also of note that Chandresakar conveniently ignores that DE* has been found in Africa as well, but in even greater frequencies than his personal favored region [aka second point above], i.e. Asia, not to mention that it is essentially non-existent in the so-called Mediterranean or the Levant. With DE* being in Africa, it is not necessary for Hg E to have come from the Levant, for reasons just mentioned and the ones immediately above this last Chandresakar citation. Instead, Chandresakar relies heavily on outdated studies, when Hg E phylogeny, as with many others, were in their early stages of being resolved.
More on this, see link!
Posted by e3b1c1 (Member # 16338) on :
but still the 2 de* samples from tibet is mystery and leave all the cards open leave the pn2 alone it was 30,000 years ago if i dont see you as related to me as we share common ancestor 30,000 yeras ago than why the hell i should see the tibetean and japanes haplogroup d members as related 65,000 yeras ago e3b1c1
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:But still the 2 de* samples from tibet is mystery
^ It's not a mystery.
It's an example of mystification.
Mystification is the attempt to obscure the truth by confounding it.
DE* is neither D nor E. It is the coparent of both. It is itself derived from M168.
In order for D to be particular to Asia then either, D originates in Africa, and then migrates into Asia, or DE* originates in Africa and migrates to Asia.
If this is the case - then you might expect to find remnants of DE* in both Africa and Asia.
If D originated in Africa, you might expect to find unique derivitives of D in Africa, but you don't.
If E originates in Asia, you might expect to find unique derivatives in Asia, but you don't.
The reason that most geneticists ascribe E to Africa and D to Asia is because this is a logical conclusion.
The attempt to make E non African is a mystification.
The purpose of this threads mystification is to confound an often unpleasant truth.
And here is the truth the thread tries but fails to hide:
In Greece today, the main paternal lineage is E3b. It makes up 24% of Greek male inheritance.
This lineage originates in Black Africa and penetrates the Levant and Southern Europe as admixture FROM Blacks of Africa into Southern Europeans, Arabs, Jews and others.
This thread fails to alter, obscure or hide this reality.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:e3b1c1 - tibetean and japanes haplogroup d
^ Tsk, tsk.
Here you imply that haplogroup D is Japanese or Tibetean origin, when *no* geneticist regards this as the case.
This completely ignores South Asia and Melanesia where D is most common.
In fact....
quote: According to Dr. Su, molecular evolution studies on the Y chromosome in Asia previously suggested that modern humans of African origin initially settled in mainland southern East Asia. Then, about 25,000 to 30,000 years ago, they migrated northward, spreading throughout East Asia. However, the fragmented distribution of one East-Asian-specific Y chromosome lineage (D-M174), which is found frequently only in Tibet, Japan and the Andaman Islands, is inconsistent with this scenario.
Dr. Su and his collaborators of the Comparative Genomics Group, KIZ-affiliated Key Laboratory of Cellular and Molecular Evolution therefore collected more than 5,000 male samples from 73 East Asian populations to reconstruct the D-M174 lineage. The results suggested that D-M174 represents an extremely ancient lineage of modern humans in East Asia, and that there is a deep divergence between northern and southern populations.
To explain this, the researchers proposed that D-M174 has a southern origin and its northward expansion occurred about 60,000 years ago, *before the northward migration of other major East Asian lineages.*
The bad weather of the last ice age and the expansion of Han culture in the New Stone Age (some 10,000 years ago) were likely the key factors leading to the *current relic distribution of D-M174 in East Asia.*
The study, which was reported by BMC Biology online, also indicated that the [b]Tibetan and Japanese populations are the admixture of two ancient populations represented by two major East Asian specific Y chromosome lineages, the O and D lineages.
haplogroup d is asian no doubt about it rasol and e is african than we go to pn2 which happen 30,000 years ago thats our common ancestor that i have with it happens realy early in human history but you forget that the europeans belong to v13 which originated in western asia making them non africans even though m78 is north african in his origin i belong to m34 which exist in arabia and antolia the reality that the conection was to far back in time add to that the skin coulor slac24a5 which 100% of the europeans and 80% of north africans and 95% middle eastern have so calling this e3b members black is ridiculous e3b1c1
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:haplogroup d is asian no doubt about it rasol and e is african
yes. And so is E3 African, and so is E3b African. And all these haplotypes originate amongst Blacks. In the case of E, Blacks of Africa, in the case of D, Blacks of Asia - whom you try to cross out of history, because they apparently inconvenience you.
quote:than we go to pn2
PN2 is E3, it is even more certainly Black African. It exists only in Black Africa. Good luck finding a non Black African with PN2-E3.
quote:but you forget that the europeans belong to v13, which originated in western asia making them non africans even though m78is north african in his origin
Strawman.
It is an attempt to change the subject, which is E, not V13. Attempts to change the subject occur when the argument at hand...is lost.
The fact stands and is irrefutable: Levantines and Southern Europeans have African admixture, represented by E haplotypes.
quote:i belong to m34 which exist in arabia and antolia the reality that the conection was to far back in time add to that the skin coulor slac24a5 which 100% of the europeans and 80% of north africans and 95% middle eastern have have so calling thios e3b members vblack is ridiculous
The above is jibberish and addresses no comment other than it's own internally generated nonsense.
The stated, and undisputed fact is that E3b originates in Black Africa.
You cannot contra' this fact, by changing the topic to other markers which may or may not originate in Black Africa.
When you attempt to change the topic in order to evade a fact you don't like, that is called making a 'strawman' argument.
Both you and Debunked consistently commit this error of logic, because it is only thru illogical rhetoric that you can promote your views.
Posted by e3b1c1 (Member # 16338) on :
but if you have slac24a5 the derived allel {which most euorpean north africans and middle eastern have which is very rare among negros and e3a members} than you are white there is no way around it secound i never say haplogroup d is tibetean and malenesians dont have haplogroup d you ediot the andeman islands have it they have d* the japanese have haplogroup d2 and tibeteans have d1 hope you know this you know this e3b1c1
Posted by Moronic Moderation (Member # 16592) on :
Amr and his little girly friend Vader are ‘cunts’.
* If you say you are going to clean up ES… do it. Allowing your friends to use filthy language, even when it is reported, shows how sick the moderation on ES now is. Clean out moron Amr and this forum will begin to breathe again
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:but if you have slac24a5 the derived allel {which most euorpean north africans and middle eastern have which is very rare among negros and e3a members} than you are white there is no way around it
^ i have no idea what this incoherence aims to address. and i doubt you do either at this point.
quote:secound i never say haplogroup d is tibetean
actually, you did, quoting you.....
quote:tibetean and japanes haplogroup d
.... but i don't blame you for backtracking now.
what else can you do, having been busted for making a misleading statement?
quote:and i never said malenesians dont have haplogroup d
^ no, you merely ignored them, and falsely referred it as tibetean and japanese instead. that is called dissembling, and it's a method of lying.
i don't blame you for being upset at your lies being exposed.
quote:you ediot the andeman islands have it they have d* the japanese have haplogroup d2 and tibeteans have d1 hope you know this you know this
well, since i just corrected you with regards to this and linked you to a study explaining it, it's probably a good guess that i know this. but thanks for the false pretense, it provides some amusement.
just make sure you know that haplotype D denotes the original expansion of DE populations out of Black African populations into Southern Asia.
These Blacks are therefore the direct descedants of the original Asians.
They populated Southern Asia and Melanesia *prior* to the existence of Northern Eurasians.
They still live in Southern Asia and Melanesia today - and wherever they have not subsequently mixed with northerners, they are as they were -> Black.
Any questions?
Posted by e3b1c1 (Member # 16338) on :
but melanesians dont have haplogroup d deal with it do you claim haplogroup d members as the blacks of asia only afrcentric like you can do it about slac24a5 if you have the derived allel than you are white ther is abig chance you dont since you are negro e3b1c1
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:but melanesians dont have haplogroup d
->
quote:i never said malenesians dont have haplogroup d
Are you on drugs or something.
Clearly I'm wasting my time talking to an illiterate crack-head.
Stay off drugs!
Posted by Moronic Moderation (Member # 16592) on :
Amr and his little girly friend Vader are ‘cunts’.
* If you say you are going to clean up ES… do it. Allowing your friends to use filthy language, even when it is reported, shows how sick the moderation on ES now is. Clean out moron Amr and this forum will begin to breathe again
** Acceptable language on the new 'clean' ES... 'cunt', 'motherfucker' 'bastard'. Watch how quickly he deletes the word 'cunt' when it is applied to him. Posted by e3b1c1 (Member # 16338) on :
but answere me nigger show me resarch who shopw malenisians have haplogroup d its your fantasy i think you are taking the drugs you cut my sentences to fit for your agenda while all researches show no haplogroup d in malensians ps. you dont have to talk with me i hate negros who want to turn every one to black you were slaves dont forget you are inferiour in your nature e3b1c1
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by T. Rex:
First of all, that's not the paper we're talking about. That paper's the one on Palestinians and Jews, not "HLA genes in Macedonians and the sub-Saharan origin of the Greeks". No scientist has criticized that yet as far as we know.
Secondly, the finding on HLA genes has been replicated:
this present study confirms the relatedness of Greeks to Sub-Saharan populations.
^ Debunked would have you believe that the predominance of E3b in Greece is co-incidental to the presence of Benin Haplotype (sickle cell) in Greece, which would then be coincidental to the affinity of Greeks and Black Africans in HLA frequencies, which would then be coincidental the archeological evidence of African admixture in Greeks as described by Larry Angel.
For ethnocentrists, E3b has been a nightmare, from which they have been unable to recover.
Posted by Moronic Moderation (Member # 16592) on :
Amr and his little girly friend Vader are ‘cunts’.
* If you say you are going to clean up ES… do it. Allowing your friends to use filthy language, even when it is reported, shows how sick the moderation on ES now is. Clean out moron Amr and this forum will begin to breathe again
** Acceptable language on the new 'clean' ES... 'cunt', 'motherfucker' 'bastard'. Watch how quickly he deletes the word 'cunt' when it is applied to him. Posted by Debunker (Member # 15669) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Your question is non-sequitur because it does not follow logically from....
Of course it does. But you have to pretend that it doesn't because you've stupidly dug yourself another hole that you can't get out of.
- You said that "haplotype (sic) D is also certainly Black".
- The Japanese have haplogroup D at a rate of ~35%.
- So I asked (perfectly reasonably): "Are Japanese Black...too then?"
- You had to reply (to avoid looking like an even bigger fool) that "The Japanese are...not Black."
Hence, you've refuted your own nonsense.
Posted by Debunker (Member # 15669) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: Point is that these results are repeatedly replicated and only confirm the Y-Chromosome data that it supplements. Your issues are your issues but your initial point in refutation is now moot.
They're the same results that Cavalli-Sforza called "anomalous" because they're being replicated using the same method that he said was "unreliable and unacceptable".
Posted by Debunker (Member # 15669) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: But this excitement is emotionally driven, and just that. As such, intellectual engagement gives way to religious cultism as the medium of self-expression.
Nah, emotionally driven religious cultism is an Afrocentrist thing. I go by what the studies say. The more recent the better.
quote:DE* is a descendant clade of M168. M168 is undoubtedly African; this fact alone makes it more than probable that this place [Africa] is also likely where DE* emerged.
M168 is African, but CF, C, F and D are all Asian, which makes it more than probable that DE and E are also Asian. That's the most parsimonious explanation, and it's one of Chandrasekar's main points.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Debunker - I see that you choose your adversaries carefully – very wise. Posted by T. Rex (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Debunker: M168 is African, but CF, C, F and D are all Asian, which makes it more than probable that DE and E are also Asian.
Not necessarily. It's perfectly plausible for:
1) CF to leave Africa while its brother DE stays in Africa
2) D to leave Africa sometime later while its brother E stays in Africa
Posted by T. Rex (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Debunker: Of course it does. But you have to pretend that it doesn't because you've stupidly dug yourself another hole that you can't get out of.
- You said that "haplotype (sic) D is also certainly Black".
- The Japanese have haplogroup D at a rate of ~35%.
- So I asked (perfectly reasonably): "Are Japanese Black...too then?"
- You had to reply (to avoid looking like an even bigger fool) that "The Japanese are...not Black."
Hence, you've refuted your own nonsense.
rasol meant that there's a good chance that the people among who D initially appeared still had dark skin and other tropical adaptations, since they were taking the southern coastal root. That doesn't mean that some people who inherited D didn't lose skin pigmentation tens of millennia later. The point is, the first D people were probably still black.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
quote:Originally posted by T. Rex:
quote:Originally posted by Debunker: [qb]Of course it does. But you have to pretend that it doesn't because you've stupidly dug yourself another hole that you can't get out of.
- You said that "haplotype (sic) D is also certainly Black".
- The Japanese have haplogroup D at a rate of ~35%.
- So I asked (perfectly reasonably): "Are Japanese Black...too then?"
- You had to reply (to avoid looking like an even bigger fool) that "The Japanese are...not Black."
Hence, you've refuted your own nonsense.
rasol meant that there's a good chance that the people among who D initially appeared still had dark skin and other tropical adaptations, since they were taking the southern coastal root. That doesn't mean that some people who inherited D didn't lose skin pigmentation tens of millennia later. The point is, the first D people were probably still black.
Haplogroup D
Like haplogroup C, D is believed to represent the Great Coastal Migration along southern Asia, from Arabia to Southeast Asia and thence northward to populate East Asia. It is found today at high frequency among populations in Tibet, the Japanese archipelago, and the Andaman Islands
T. Rex - Not meaning to bust your balls; but instead of guessing, why didn’t you just web-search for a photo of an Andaman Islander?
Posted by e3b1c1 (Member # 16338) on :
so whats your point nigger post some japanese and tibetean photos they look east asian as hell can be in your afrcentric world everyone is black while in the reality only negros like you are e3b1c1
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
e3b1c1 - In China, Tibet, Japan, and all of Southeast Asia, the original Black populations have been genetically absorbed by Mongols. Andaman Islanders are "Pure-Blood" original Human.
In china the process began at about 1040 B.C When the Mongol Zhou defeated the Black Shang. As is clear from the photo below; even 800 years later you could still see the Black part of the Chinese.
In Japan the process began at about 350 B.C. when a Mongol group called the "Yayoi" broke-off from China and invaded and conquered Black Japan. These Yayoi are the progenitors of modern Japanese.
In Tibet the Mongols conquered it in the 1200s A.D. But it is not known what the ethnic population was at that time of conquest.
In the Southeast Asian countries, the change occured as a result of Mongols expanding southward after 1200 A.D.
I have included photos of the original Southeast Asians below.
Thailand
Cambodia
Vietnam
So Albino boy, now you know not to mess with smart Niggers, right? Posted by e3b1c1 (Member # 16338) on :
common man you are delutional conquered black japan so now east asian people in your eyes are black mike111 what happen to you nothing black in this statue in either way haplogroup d is asian get it to your head e3b1c1
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
^Mike is just as dumbfounded as you are.
Posted by e3b1c1 (Member # 16338) on :
mike is a neggro but you are a rude negro belive me you are worse rahn him i respect mike than you you are cocy who live in is afrocentric dream that everything great in this world is black while you guys have done is get on slave ships nothing more e3b1c1
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
Sundjata the "cocy" America-loving negro. lol
Posted by e3b1c1 (Member # 16338) on :
whats your point akoben you are also a negro you came from jamica all you do is run in the jungle in your country e3b1c1
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
e3b1c1 you illiterate junky, I don't care about the rest of the world. Most of what's great IN AFrica was Black (this is my only position unlike Mike). You and Mike are simply inferior individuals which is why you both make up bullshit to appease your deflated egos. What kind of idiot names himself after a DNA lineage? Your life must be f*cked up..
quote:Originally posted by e3b1c1: whats your point akoben you are also a negro you came from jamica all you do is run in the jungle in your country e3b1c1
Aside from the jungle nonsense, you do have a point about Akoben's self-hating mentality. Though of course you are the one who imitates Black people by claiming affinity with them (e1b1b) based on your great grandmother being fucced in the azz by an Oromo.
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
Posted by e3b1c1 (Member # 16338) on :
wahts great in africa was egypt an e3b nation the ancient egyption were e1b1b1 not e1b1a they were not negros you can count on it but the oromo are diffrent race than you the oromo is e3b and you are an e3a negro we are diffrent race why is it so hard to except you are inferiour by natur since your ancestors were slaves e3b1c1
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
^
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by e3b1c1:
"Race" isn't based on a differentiation of a couple of genes. How can you legitimately argue that two siblings make-up different "races". You are not related to most e1b1b carriers, your great grandmother was simply fucked in the azz by one and now you have their lineage. You are a lost foreigner. Africans would not except you, the original e1b1b carriers would have kicked your albino azz out of Africa. You are such a delusional weirdo.
And Egypt was only the first great civilization of Africa. There were actually more kingdoms in West Africa than East.
i dont need them to except i have the derived allel of slac24a5 i am white i am not nigger like you north africans like morrocans and algerians tunisans and also northen egyptions all of therm are e1b1b1 and have the slc24a5 they are also white like me . if you were such a great civilizations in africa than why most of you were slaves answere you stupit **** e3b1c1
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
Your claims about nearly 1 billion people being mostly slaves are asinine and don't warrant a response.
And what does SLC24A5 gene have to do with what we're discussing you ugly mutant wanna-be African?
LMAO @ this english and science illiterate faggot trying to deny his Black ancestry (or the fact that his great grandmother was fucced in the azz by a big black cock) by posting red herrings.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by T. Rex:
quote:Originally posted by Debunker: M168 is African, but CF, C, F and D are all Asian, which makes it more than probable that DE and E are also Asian.
Not necessarily. It's perfectly plausible for:
1) CF to leave Africa while its brother DE stays in Africa
2) D to leave Africa sometime later while its brother E stays in Africa
Also the origin of Haplogroup F is undetermined:
Haplogroup F was in the original migration out of Africa, or else it was founded soon afterward, because F and its sub-haplogroups are primarily found outside, with very few inside, sub-Saharan Africa. The founder of F could have lived between 60,000 and 80,000 years ago, depending on the time of the out-of-Africa migration. http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpF08.html Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
..
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
quote:Originally posted by e3b1c1: common man you are delutional conquered black japan so now east asian people in your eyes are black mike111 what happen to you nothing black in this statue in either way haplogroup d is asian get it to your head e3b1c1
e3b1c1: Are you related rasol or Djehuti? You are attempting to use their old trick of feigning stupidity on the one hand while trying to prove intelligence on the other.
That is really quite desperate and silly. But I will explain it to you anyway.
Example - A puss filled slob like you likely eats sh1t on a daily basis, that sh1t is ABSORBED into your body. BUT, that does not make you a lump of sh1t - entirely. I can say that with confidence, because as everybody knows, a lump of sh1t cannot read and write, which you obviously can do. So, remember; that which absorbs the sh1t is DIFFERENT from the sh1t. I hope that clears it up for you.
BTW - If you know of any Albinos like yourself, who look like the statue artifacts that I posted, please show them to us.
Posted by e3b1c1 (Member # 16338) on :
she was fucked by a middle eastern not a blck negro my clade in antolia so you can thank god i dont see you in reality i will crush completely all you think is fucking cant blame you its your negroid nature if being white is mutant than most of the world are mutatnt and only you a negro what can you do continue your evolution in africa doodbye e3b1c1
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: Your claims about nearly 1 billion people being mostly slaves are asinine and don't warrant a response.
And what does SLC24A5 gene have to do with what we're discussing you ugly mutant wanna-be African?
LMAO @ this english and science illiterate faggot trying to deny his Black ancestry (or the fact that his great grandmother was fucced in the azz by a big black cock) by posting red herrings.
Why do you let him turn you into this Captain America? I thought you were above such talk. This R2d2 guy has some power over you man!
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Debunked writes: M168 is African, but CF, C, F and D are all Asian which makes it more than probable that DE and E are also Asian. That's the most parsimonious explanation.
^ Wrong again, as usual.
Your claim is actually non parsimonious which is why geneticists reject it.
African M168 is ancestral to C,D,E and F.
E is as certainly African as D is Asian.
F is either African or Asian.
The majority of Africans are M168 derived via E.
In your view - M168 would originate in Africa - but have *no* African descendants, so that every M168 African has to be the descendant of someone that left Africa - and came back.
The rule of parsimony is the fewer the moves, the more logical the conclusion.
M168 = African followed by E out of Africa and then E back into Africa which then splits into E1, E2, and E3 such that they are found only in Africa requires 2 migrations.
It also leaves unexplained the absense of basal E lineages 1,2,3 outside of Africa, and the non existence of unique E lineages outside of Africa.
E3a and b in Eurasia can only denote recent admixture in Europeans and Levantines.
As for M168, it is the result African deriving into E, and thence E1, E2 and E3 in Africa requires no migrations, nor are their missin lineages as M168, DE*, E1, E2, E3 are all found in Africa.
This is therefore the most parsimonious explanation.
Debunked: You don't even understand what parsimony means.
How else to explain why you offer a completely non-parsimonious delusion as your best hope for explaining away African admixture in Europeans.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
^^^But you are right on one count; Sundjata truly is a waste. I'm still trying to figure out if she is really that stupid, or if she is just trying to be a nuisance. Either way, she is a good case for birth control. Come to think of it, is she a she? Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by akoben:
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: Your claims about nearly 1 billion people being mostly slaves are asinine and don't warrant a response.
And what does SLC24A5 gene have to do with what we're discussing you ugly mutant wanna-be African?
LMAO @ this english and science illiterate faggot trying to deny his Black ancestry (or the fact that his great grandmother was fucced in the azz by a big black cock) by posting red herrings.
Why do you let him turn you into this Captain America? I thought you were above such talk. This R2d2 guy has some power over you man!
Don't act like this is the first time that I let my afro out.. Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
Aww Mike111, just shut up. Your comments are almost as worthless and stupid as E3's. You have nothing to say about genetics, and are only interested in making attempts at insult, which don't work because you're a half-wit with no sense of humor.
Stop peeing the floor and just move along.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
quote:Originally posted by e3b1c1: she was fucked by a middle eastern not a blck negro my clade in antolia so you can thank god i dont see you in reality i will crush completely all you think is fucking cant blame you its your negroid nature if being white is mutant than most of the world are mutatnt and only you a negro what can you do continue your evolution in africa doodbye e3b1c1
e3b1c1: Sorry White boy, you can't have Anatolia either - unless you're Black that is.
Here are the Ancient Anatolians: (There are no Albinos in the group).
From the Apadana staircase at Persepolis:
Sardis capitol of Lydia – western half of Anatolia Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
e3b1c1 wrote: --------------------------- you north africans like morrocans and algerians tunisans and also northen egyptions all of therm are e1b1b1 and have the slc24a5 they are also white like me. ---------------------------
WOOOOOAAAAHOOOOOOOHOHHOHHOHOHOHOHHOHOHOHO!!!
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:debunked, rasol meant that there's a good chance that the people among who D initially appeared still had dark skin and other tropical adaptations, since they were taking the southern coastal root. That doesn't mean that some people who inherited D didn't lose skin pigmentation tens of millennia later. The point is, the first D people were probably still black. [/qb]
^ He understands exactly what was meant.
As usual, debunked arques by obtuseness, whenever the facts contradict him which they always do.
It won't save him, as I am as patient with the truth as am persistent with it....
quote:Originally posted by Debunker:
- You said that "haplotype (sic) D is also certainly Black".
- The Japanese have haplogroup D at a rate of ~35%.
- So I asked (perfectly reasonably): "Are Japanese Black...too then?"
No the question is actually dumb, and not reasonable at all.
The question is dumb because haplogroup D does not originate amongst non Blacks of Japan, but rather amongst Blacks of Southern Asia, prior to the settling of Japan. Therefore Japan has no bearing on the origin of haplotype D.
The question is especially ignorant as we have already cited a study explaining *how the Japanese* come to aquire this haplotype from the Blacks of Southern Asia:
According to Dr. Su, molecular evolution studies on the Y chromosome in Asia previously suggested that modern humans of African origin initially settled in mainland southern East Asia. Then, about 25,000 to 30,000 years ago, they migrated northward, spreading throughout East Asia. However, the fragmented distribution of one East-Asian-specific Y chromosome lineage (D-M174), which is found frequently only in Tibet, Japan and the Andaman Islands, is inconsistent with this scenario.
Dr. Su and his collaborators of the Comparative Genomics Group, KIZ-affiliated Key Laboratory of Cellular and Molecular Evolution therefore collected more than 5,000 male samples from 73 East Asian populations to reconstruct the D-M174 lineage. The results suggested that D-M174 represents an extremely ancient lineage of modern humans in Asia, and that there is a deep divergence between northern and southern populations.
To explain this, the researchers proposed that D-M174 has a southern origin and its northward expansion occurred about 60,000 years ago, *before the northward migration of other major East Asian lineages.*
*The study, which was reported by BMC Biology online, also indicated that the Tibetan and Japanese populations are the admixture of two ancient populations represented by two major specific Y chromosome lineages, the O and D lineages.
So, in order to ask your phony stupid question you ignore the answer already provided.
Either that, or you can't read. Which is it debunked?
Do you have any more irrelevant destractions to offer?
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
e3b1c1
Wait theres more:
Italians
google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=%22slaves+from+italy%22
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by e3b1c1: but if you have slac24a5 the derived allel {which most euorpean north africans and middle eastern have which is very rare among negros and e3a members} than you are white there is no way around it secound i never say haplogroup d is tibetean and malenesians dont have haplogroup d you ediot the andeman islands have it they have d* the japanese have haplogroup d2 and tibeteans have d1 hope you know this you know this e3b1c1
That still does not change the FACT that original D* is found among black Asians who descended from their African (black) ancestors moron! Tibetans and Japanese are not black but they only have downstream (descendant) lineages of D.
quote: but melanesians dont have haplogroupd deal with it do you claim haplogroup d members as the blacks of asia only afrcentric like you can do it about slac24a5 if you have the derived allel than you are white ther is abig chance you dont since you are negro e3b1c1
It makes no difference. Haplogroup D and *ALL* original haplogroups of Eurasians were present among blacks first! Don't get mad at Rasol because he knows what he's talking about but YOU don't even though he's black and you aren't!
quote: but answere me nigger show me resarch who shopw malenisians have haplogroup d its your fantasy i think you are taking the drugs you cut my sentences to fit for your agenda while all researches show no haplogroup d in malensians ps. you dont have to talk with me i hate negros who want to turn every one to black you were slaves dont forget you are inferiour in your nature e3b1c1
Correction, everyone was black as all humans originated in the tropics and in Africa!
The haplogroup you carry-- E3b-- originated among BLACKS who then screwed your European foremothers! You carry E3b because you inherited it from a BLACK forefather. E3b is also the BROTHER of E3a. And your attempts to seperate them or distance them is STUPID. You also denigrate E3a carriers as slaves when the vast majority of Africans were not enslaved, and even E3b carriers were enslaved as well!
You are just MAD at these facts that you carry NEGRO ancestry yourself! You hate "negros" because you hate YOURSELF.
If blacks were so inferior why are they able to produce more civilizations than Europe??
You still haven't answered my quetions on the 'Somalid' Greek page. Why is that? I will eventually post more FACTS there as well. Unless you are too scared of the truth Posted by T. Rex (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: If blacks were so inferior why are they able to produce more civilizations than Europe??
And more original civilizations at that. Most of modern European civilization is derivative of Greece, Rome, and some Germanic kingdoms at the start of the Middle Ages.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Debunker:
quote:DE* is a descendant clade of M168. M168 is undoubtedly African; this fact alone makes it more than probable that this place [Africa] is also likely where DE* emerged.
M168 is African, but CF, C, F and D are all Asian, which makes it more than probable that DE and E are also Asian. That's the most parsimonious explanation, and it's one of Chandrasekar's main points.
You offer emotionalism in lieu of material to these claims. No evidence on your part that Hgs DE* and E are Asian - zip. If you did, you would have answered the relevant points I've made in that link, instead of being more concerned about being called a sect member, no?
Ps - Also, where has CF been located in Asia?
quote: M168 is African, but CF, C, F and D are all Asian, which makes it more than probable that DE and E are also Asian. That's the most parsimonious explanation
This is case in point, that you offer only emotionalism. M168 being African and being the *ancestor*, makes it more than probable that its decendants would immediately derive from it, in Africa as well.
Saying that descendant clades like C, F, and D are Asian, so therefore DE and E must be Asian, is moronic jibberish that makes no sense.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Indeed, and his (Debunked's) claim is a perfect example of a non sequitur.
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
Notice how the trolls run for cover after I scald them?
Amazing how a quick efficient scholarly beatdown by argyle cleans out the joint.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Debunked writes: M168 is African, but CF, C, F and D are all Asian which makes it more than probable that DE and E are also Asian. That's the most parsimonious explanation.
^ Wrong again, as usual.
Your claim is actually non parsimonious which is why geneticists reject it.
African M168 is ancestral to C,D,E and F.
E is as certainly African as D is Asian.
F is either African or Asian.
The majority of Africans are M168 derived via E.
In your view - M168 would originate in Africa - but have *no* African descendants, so that every M168 African has to be the descendant of someone that left Africa - and came back.
The rule of parsimony is the fewer the moves, the more logical the conclusion.
M168 = African followed by E out of Africa and then E back into Africa which then splits into E1, E2, and E3 such that they are found only in Africa requires 2 migrations.
It also leaves unexplained the absense of basal E lineages 1,2,3 outside of Africa, and the non existence of unique E lineages outside of Africa.
E3a and b in Eurasia can only denote recent admixture in Europeans and Levantines.
As for M168, it is the result African deriving into E, and thence E1, E2 and E3 in Africa requires no migrations, nor are their missin lineages as M168, DE*, E1, E2, E3 are all found in Africa.
This is therefore the most parsimonious explanation.
Debunked: You don't even understand what parsimony means.
How else to explain why you offer a completely non-parsimonious delusion as your best hope for explaining away African admixture in Europeans.
Indeed, emotionally, debunked would love to put Hg E into his non-African basket, but intellectually, he has far too many hurdles along the way, to "de-Africanize" what amounts to essentially *all* the upstream sub-clades of Hg E, including P2, the most prevalent in Europe.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by e3b1c1:
the have the slc24a5 they are also white like me
In contrast, the SLC24 A5 11*A-derived allele is found at low frequencies in several sub-Saharan populations including the West African Mandinka and Yoruba, the Southern African San, and South West Bantu.
I take it that you think these folks are white too?
Posted by e3b1c1 (Member # 16338) on :
the answere is yes but slc24a5 the derived allel is generally very low in west africa and also african american in other words most of the chances that you dont carry the slc24a5 derived allel e3b1c1
Posted by T. Rex (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by e3b1c1: the answere is yes
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by e3b1c1:
the answere is yes
Interesting. Let me see pictures of these white folks of the ethnic groups mentioned.
...
...long time now. Well, what seems to be the hold up, e3b1c1?
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
BTW...
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:Originally posted by Debunker:
M168 is African, but CF, C, F and D are all Asian, which makes it more than probable that DE and E are also Asian. That's the most parsimonious explanation, and it's one of Chandrasekar's main points.
You offer emotionalism in lieu of material to these claims. No evidence on your part that Hgs DE* and E are Asian - zip. If you did, you would have answered the relevant points I've made in that link, instead of being more concerned about being called a sect member, no?
Ps - Also, where has CF been located in Asia?
Recap:
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. - Peter A. Underhill , Toomas Kivisild, Use of Y Chromosome and Mitochondrial DNA Population Structure in Tracing Human Migrations
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
I notice E3bc never addressed my post especially with regards to "negro" history and civilization. Now he states those with slc24a5 derived alleles are white!!
I guess Rasol is right-- HE MUST BE ON THAT 'STUFF'!!
I hear coke is pretty big in Italy and Greece. Perhaps that is their way with coping with the fact that they have black ancestry. Posted by e3b1c1 (Member # 16338) on :
but you negros dont have the derived allel of slac24a5 since most african american dont have it you dont have the mutated vertion thats why you are blacks deal with the fact that i have middle eastern ancestery and i am not negro like you e3b are not negros get it only e3a are e3b1c1
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: I notice E3bc never addressed my post especially with regards to "negro" history and civilization. Now he states those with slc24a5 derived alleles are white!!
I guess Rasol is right-- HE MUST BE ON THAT 'STUFF'!!
I hear coke is pretty big in Italy and Greece. Perhaps that is their way with coping with the fact that they have black ancestry.
This is why I don't bother to address the crackhead.
Posted by e3b1c1 (Member # 16338) on :
crack drugs who care you are a nigger can you change this fact you are a slave e3a are slaves you should set west african forum instead of egypt serach forum since the ancient egyptions were e3b and not e3a e3b1c1
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: BTW...
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:Originally posted by Debunker:
M168 is African, but CF, C, F and D are all Asian, which makes it more than probable that DE and E are also Asian. That's the most parsimonious explanation, and it's one of Chandrasekar's main points.
You offer emotionalism in lieu of material to these claims. No evidence on your part that Hgs DE* and E are Asian - zip. If you did, you would have answered the relevant points I've made in that link, instead of being more concerned about being called a sect member, no?
Ps - Also, where has CF been located in Asia?
Recap:
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. - Peter A. Underhill , Toomas Kivisild, Use of Y Chromosome and Mitochondrial DNA Population Structure in Tracing Human Migrations
Yes, this is the logical and objective assessment of geneticists.
As juxtaposed with the puerile and ethnocentric pseudo-scholarship that cripples and moots each post from Debunked.
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
e3b1c1 wrote: ------------------------------ deal with the fact that i have middle eastern ancestery and i am not negro like you e3b are not negros get it
can you change this fact you are a slave e3a are slaves ------------------------------
Apparently Euros don't think so. LOL!
"Middle Easterners" toptraveldealz.com/bermuda/bermuda-history.html
Posted by e3b1c1 (Member # 16338) on :
the euros can **** of they belong to r1b dont know if you know that hapologroup r is realted to haplogroup q as both haplogroups descendents from haplogroup p now haplogroup q is very common in native americans people who look snon white certently not in my eyes in fact the splitt between those haplogroupos i sclose to the splaitt between negroid e3a and caucasoide e3b 30-40,000 yeras ago long tim e but they are still conected but i dont see native american swho claim that they are related to europ[eans like the negroid e3a claim they are related to all the western asians and europeans e3b e3b1c1
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
quote:Originally posted by e3b1c1: in fact the splitt between those haplogroupos i sclose to the splaitt between negroid e3a and caucasoide e3b 30-40,000 yeras ago long tim e but they are still conected but i dont see native american swho claim that they are related to europ[eans like the negroid e3a claim they are related to all the western asians and europeans e3b e3b1c1
e3b1c1 - Is that what this has all been about; your not wanting to be called Black, or identified with Black?
Damn Boy why didn't you just say so? I herewith declare that e3b1c1 does not have a drop of Black blood in him, and is as pure an Albino as can be found on this Earth. (If you send me your address, I will supply you with written papers to that effect).
He he, I hate to tell you this, but the arguement was never to CLAIM you people. It was simply to re-claim Black history. (that is why I find that little mindless piece-of-sh1t Sundjata such a bother, she doesn't get it, but yet she blindly tries to block something which she can't even begin to understand).
BUT, you do know that you will have to call yourself something other than Turkish or Arab. I mean, with the admixture and history so recent (since about 700 A.D.) no one is gonna believe that you are pure Albino AND middleeastern or pure Mongol/Albino AND southeast Asian. I know! Say that you are a Black Russian. By the time that they figure out that is a drink, you will be long gone! Posted by e3b1c1 (Member # 16338) on :
why cant i call myself arab tell me mike i didnt understand your logic about sundjata is it a man or a woman if it was a woman i wa sto harsh with her tell me i nned to know e3b1c1
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
e3b1c1 isn't fooling anyone who's intelligent.
He's just the same white boy with who flashes women and children with an erection that has pink blisters on it.
hahahahaheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!
Watch after the thrashing he's been enduring, he'll change into another costume.
Posted by Debunker (Member # 15669) on :
quote:Originally posted by T. Rex: rasol meant that there's a good chance that the people among who D initially appeared still had dark skin and other tropical adaptations, since they were taking the southern coastal root. That doesn't mean that some people who inherited D didn't lose skin pigmentation tens of millennia later. The point is, the first D people were probably still black.
No, rasol didn't mean that, which is true of all OOA migrants and therefore irrelevant to the topic. He meant exactly what he said: "haplotype (sic) D is also certainly Black", just like he believes haplogroup E is "Black". But now he's backpedaling frantically to avoid the logical implication of his bullshit: that Japanese carriers of haplogroup D are also "Black", which even an imbecile like him knows is absurd.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
quote:Originally posted by e3b1c1: why cant i call myself arab tell me mike i didnt understand your logic about sundjata is it a man or a woman if it was a woman i wa sto harsh with her tell me i nned to know e3b1c1
I will be very happy to explain it to you e3b1c1:
Firstly; this is an Arab - a REAL Arab - not that “CULTURAL” Arab nonsense that you White people and half breeds have been trying to make real. You will note that he is a Black Man. (It is from an Assyrian battle stele).
Next we have the genetics:
Eurasian and African mitochondrial DNA influences in the Saudi Arabian population Khaled K Abu-Amero, 1 Ana M González,2 Jose M Larruga,2 Thomas M Bosley,3 and Vicente M Cabrera2
The total number of different haplotypes in our sample of 120 Saudi Arabs were 107 (K = 89%) when HVSI and II variation and RFLP were taken into account [see Additional file 1]; however, the K value dropped to 64% when only partial HVSI variation was used in comparison with other populations (see Table 1). Some lineages had to be included into imprecise groups such as H/HV/R for haplotype and haplogroup frequency comparison, although all Saudi haplotypes were completely sorted into their respective clades and sub-clades [see Additional file 1]. The bulk of individuals (86%) belonged to the Eurasian macrohaplogroup N and its main R branch (75%), while the Sub-Saharan Africa macrohaplogroup L (7%) and the Asian macrohaplogroup M (7%) accounted for a smaller proportion of haplotypes.
{Note; “Eurasian means “Central Asia” the same place ALL White people come from!!!!!!!}
So e3b1c1 – As you can see, you genetically have NOTHING to do with the lands that you now occupy. You are interlopers, migrants, even conquers, but NOT natural to the land!!!
Posted by Debunker (Member # 15669) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: No evidence on your part that Hgs DE* and E are Asian - zip.
Read the study in the original post. It easily trumps your inane ramblings of denial and Afrocentrism.
quote:Saying that descendant clades like C, F, and D are Asian, so therefore DE and E must be Asian, is moronic jibberish that makes no sense.
No, moronic gibberish is what you offer in lieu of evidence. Again, read the study in the OP.
quote:haplogroup CF and DE molecular ancestors first evolved inside Africa and subsequently contributed as Y chromosome founders to pioneering migrations that successfully colonized Asia.
Underhill's position has been challenged by a recent study. Perhaps you've heard about it. Posted by e3b1c1 (Member # 16338) on :
but waht you gave mike is mtdna data how it is related to the y dna prespective my clade in arabia since meseolithic neolithic periods enough time to consider as an arab the ancient arabians carry my clade i am not recent arrivel as you said e3a which came with the arab slave trade to the area ps. you didnt answere me sudjata is a man or a woman i think it is a man e3b1c1
Posted by thegaul (Member # 16198) on :
Debunker
What overall point are you trying to make exactly? The first humans were not from Africa? Anceint Egyptians were "asians"? Africans are really asians? Asians were the first modern human beings?
What is the point in what you perceive this study to be exactly? The opinions of verified nuts are accepted here. Don't be afraid. See e3b1c1.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Whew!! This guy is probably at the prison computer. Can’t believe he is out and about. he is saying e3b's are White!! That means that Black Africans that carry the e3b like east, southern, some westerna and central africans are. . . WHITE. OK!
<b>
Posted by thegaul (Member # 16198) on :
quote:Originally posted by Debunker:
quote:Originally posted by T. Rex: rasol meant that there's a good chance that the people among who D initially appeared still had dark skin and other tropical adaptations, since they were taking the southern coastal root. That doesn't mean that some people who inherited D didn't lose skin pigmentation tens of millennia later. The point is, the first D people were probably still black.
No, rasol didn't mean that, which is true of all OOA migrants and therefore irrelevant to the topic. He meant exactly what he said: "haplotype (sic) D is also certainly Black", just like he believes haplogroup E is "Black". But now he's backpedaling frantically to avoid the logical implication of his bullshit: that Japanese carriers of haplogroup D are also "Black", which even an imbecile like him knows is absurd.
I think you misunderstood the point, but that withstanding, calling east asians "black" is not that absurd, given that the majority of them have the same phenotype of some Africans on the continent, especially people like the khoi-san/xhosa. The main difference being skin color and hair. I've heard even some Japanese have a word for Chinese that basically is akin to "nigger".
Posted by Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Debunker: ]Read the study in the original post. It easily trumps your inane ramblings of denial and Afrocentrism.
The study you keep damn rambling and trolling about quotes Hammer et al from damn 1997 and 1998, it offers *ZERO* new evidence that haplogroup E is Asian and not African, you can even see the author directly cite Hammer for God's sake, quit acting like a damn fool as if people can't read and see that or that people are denying something, nothing in that study trumps nor challenges anything Underhill has stated.
quote:]No, moronic gibberish is what you offer in lieu of evidence. Again, read the study in the OP.
Again, what evidence did the author offer besides quoting Hammer et al from 1997 and 1998? Still waiting for your answer, you've been ducking and didging for almost 2 weeks now.
quote:Underhill's position has been challenged by a recent study. Perhaps you've heard about it. [/QB]
It has *NOT* been challenged, unless you think quoting a studies from 11 and 12 years ago[studies that were challenged by Underhill years ago] is new "evidence," Underhill has not been challenged.
Posted by Lord Sauron (Member # 6729) on :
I see...damn, presumptions can be very powerful.
But we live and we learn.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
quote:Originally posted by e3b1c1: but waht you gave mike is mtdna data how it is related to the y dna prespective my clade in arabia since meseolithic neolithic periods enough time to consider as an arab the ancient arabians carry my clade i am not recent arrivel as you said e3a which came with the arab slave trade to the area ps. you didnt answere me sudjata is a man or a woman i think it is a man e3b1c1
e3b1c1 – I am very very sorry; But if you are accurate that e3b1c1 is from the Mesolithic/ Neolithic period (I don’t know and don’t care). Then – get ready for this – you are a Nigger! There is just no way around it – at that time there were ONLY Black people in all parts of the world except Asia.
White people didn’t begin coming to Europe until about 1,200 B.C. and Turks didn’t reach Turkey until about 300 A.D.
Like I said before, tell them that you are a “Black Russian”. You could also try skin bleach.
Mesolithic 1 (Kebara culture; 20–18,000 BC to 12,150 BC) followed the Aurignacian or Levantine Upper Paleolithic throughout the Levant.
The Neolithic Age, Era, or Period, or New Stone Age, was a period in the development of human technology, beginning about 9500 BCE in the Middle East
BTW - forget about sudjata; be it man or woman, it's still worthless. Ignore it or abuse it as you see fit.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by e3b1c1: crack drugs who care you are a nigger can you change this fact you are a slave e3a are slaves you should set west african forum instead of egypt serach forum since the ancient egyptions were e3b and not e3a e3b1c1
LOL
So it doesn't matter if you're on drugs. Yes as long as you are not black. Even though you carry black ancestry. I see.
And sense when does having E3a make one a slave?? Last time I checked slave catchers in any part of Africa did not seek those with a certain genetic lineage. Again even E3b carrying East Africans were enslaved. Also some Egyptians do carry E3a.
quote: the euros can **** of they belong to r1b dont know if you know that hapologroup r is realted to haplogroup q as both haplogroups descendents from haplogroup p now haplogroup q is very common in native americans people who look snon white certently not in my eyes in fact the splitt between those haplogroupos i sclose to the splaitt between negroid e3a and caucasoide e3b 30-40,000 yeras ago long tim e but they are still conected but i dont see native american swho claim that they are related to europ[eans like the negroid e3a claim they are related to all the western asians and europeans e3b e3b1c1
You make no sense. How can E3b be "caucasoid" when its parent lineage as well as its sibling lineage is 'negroid'??! Stop LYING to yourself because nobody else is buying your lies! No wonder you're on drugs! I wonder what Mediterranean Euros who aren't on drugs must say about you since you so proudly parade the lineage of your BLACK forefather! Posted by e3b1c1 (Member # 16338) on :
mike the nigger calling me a nigger i will strugle agians mother fukers like you djhuti e3b is mediterreanean thats is race look at the map somalid v13 post evn my clade is mediterreanean it exist in cyprus sicily and north central sardinia are all of them also black acording to you and e3a are slaves get it to your black head i carry the slc24a5 derived allel so i am not black e3a splitt and continue is evoulution in africa became neo- negroid e3b went to inlands and mediterreanean deal with it e3b1c1
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ How is E3b "Mediterranean" and not E3a when they *both* originated in AFRICA and is predominantly found there among BLACKS??! This is why YOU MAKE NO SENSE! I already addressed 'Somalid's' map in the original thread of discussion here! I suggest you go back there if you want to discuss it further.
I also suggest you stay off the drugs. Posted by e3b1c1 (Member # 16338) on :
stay of drugs youre funny only negros e3a can do comedy there is nothing to discus e3b also went out of africa e3a didnt thats the major diffrence between those haplogroups and even thna e3b is high in morroco and egypt both populations have slc24a5 derived allel they are both white e3b1c1
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
quote:Originally posted by e3b1c1: mike the nigger calling me a nigger i will strugle agians mother fukers like you djhuti e3b is mediterreanean thats is race look at the map somalid v13 post evn my clade is mediterreanean it exist in cyprus sicily and north central sardinia are all of them also black acording to you and e3a are slaves get it to your black head i carry the slc24a5 derived allel so i am not black e3a splitt and continue is evoulution in africa became neo- negroid e3b went to inlands and mediterreanean deal with it e3b1c1
e3b1c1 – I hope that you understand that I did it with the greatest reluctance. But you left me no choice; it was you who said that e3b1c1 was from the Mesolithic period.
But e3b1c1 please believe me when I say that I want very much for you NOT to be a Nigger. But ya gotta give me something to work with. Are you mixed at all? If so, is it mostly with Turk or regular Albino? Whichever way, play that up. And keep using the bleach cream.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by e3b1c1: stay of drugs youre funny only negros e3a can do comedy there is nothing to discus e3b also went out of africa e3a didnt thats the major diffrence between those haplogroups and even thna e3b is high in morroco and egypt both populations have slc24a5 derived allel they are both white e3b1c1
First of all, I'm not even "negro". I'm an O carrying ASIAN American. But it doesn't matter, because it still doesn't change the FACT that E3b is predominant among black Africans because it originated among black Africans with E3a being its brother! Stop trying to deny your NEGRO ancestry and accept it! Posted by e3b1c1 (Member # 16338) on :
tyhe term nigger is applied to e3a not e3b e3b is mediterreanean give you something to work with look at the miror than you will know if you are a nigger a mediterreanean or middle eastern i defined myself as middle eastern m81 and m78 are more mediterreanean and in africa they occure mostly in the north among slc24a5 derived allel populations who are caucasoide e3b1c1
Posted by prmiddleeastern (Member # 14038) on :
quote:Concerning the origins of the E1b1b lineage, Bosch et al. (2001), Semino et al. (2004), Cruciani et al. (2004), (2006), and (2007), point to evidence that not only E1b1b (E-M215), but also both its parent lineage E1b1 (E-P2), and its dominant sub-clade E1b1b1 (E-M35) probably all first appeared in East Africa between 20,000 and 47,500 years ago. There are different techniques available for such estimates, and a considerable range of possibilities, but the most recent estimates of Cruciani et al. (2007) are around 22,400 years ago for E-M215 or E-M35.
All major sub-branches of E1b1b1 are thought to have originated in the same general area as the parent clade: in North Africa, the Horn of Africa, or the Near East. Underhill (2002) believes that the structure and regional pattern of E-M35 sub-clades potentially give "reagents with which to infer specific episodes of population histories associated with the Neolithic agricultural expansion". Concerning European E-M35 within this scheme, Underhill and Kivisild (2007) have remarked that E1b1b seems to represent a late-Pleistocene migration from Africa to Europe over the Sinai Peninsula in Egypt.
Citing Cruciani et al. (2004), Coffman-Levy (2005) wrote that E1b1b1 (E-M35) "arose in East Africa". However, she added that this haplogroup is "often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup", and that such misinformation about this haplogroup also continued to pervade the public and media at least until the time of writing in 2005.
P.S. Forgot to tell that E1b1b is also found in Ethiopians, East Africans and some West Africans.
Posted by e3b1c1 (Member # 16338) on :
thanks ediot but i ddint understand your purpose so what if coffman arose in east africa but most of the p[opulations morocans egyptions have the derived form of e3b lik ee3b2 e3b1 or e3b3 my clade this clades probably arised in north africa not in the east in either way most of the population who carry it morrocans algerians tunisians egyptions have derived form of e3b and derived allel for slc24a5 they are white ho wmany times do you want me to tell you this stuff e3b1c1
Posted by prmiddleeastern (Member # 14038) on :
They aren't white,they are mulattos(they mixed with arabs)and Arabs are Y-DNA J people.
Posted by e3b1c1 (Member # 16338) on :
yes they are slc24a5 mutated vertion is 87% in north africa hot spot of e3b2 and and 97% in the middle east including the dark bedouine and arabians if you have the mutated vertion you are white no way around it they are not mullatos since many of them as europasian mtdna you ediot mulattos are half black they arent the y have the mutated vertoion of slc24a5 they had white skin even befor the incrusion of j1 to north africa deal with the facts e3b1c1
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
quote:Originally posted by e3b1c1: tyhe term nigger is applied to e3a not e3b e3b is mediterreanean give you something to work with look at the miror than you will know if you are a nigger a mediterreanean or middle eastern i defined myself as middle eastern m81 and m78 are more mediterreanean and in africa they occure mostly in the north among slc24a5 derived allel populations who are caucasoide e3b1c1
e3b1c1 - I am try to help you, but you keep messing it up for yourself. Come-on, even you must know that there is no such thing as a mediterreanean race.
But that doesn't mean that you still can't be White, just play up the other aspects of yourself. You could always say things like "White is a state of mind" that will undoubtly impress a lot of mixed bloods and Whites. But above all; keep using the bleach cream!!
Posted by prmiddleeastern (Member # 14038) on :
They have the Eurasian MTDNA but the African y-dna they are mulattos, that is why they have the white skin.Your ancestors mixed with arab people so that is were you got your white skin, but you are black in ancestry.
Posted by prmiddleeastern (Member # 14038) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Come-on, even you must know that there is no such thing as a mediterreanean race.
No, it is called mediterranean race because it is a phenotype that is very typial on the mediterranid region, so it get its name by the region it is more common, not by origin.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
quote:Originally posted by prmiddleeastern: They aren't white,they are mulattos(they mixed with arabs)and Arabs are Y-DNA J people.
prmiddleeastern: You knucklehead, true Arabs are Black - can't you read???
YES, they are mulattos, but they are mixed with TURKS, FRENCH, ROMANS, GREEKS, etc. etc. Get it right!!!
Posted by e3b1c1 (Member # 16338) on :
yes yes ediot so many balkan and western asian and morrocoans are black acording to you answere think again since many carry e3b in those population i mantion but ediot my clade was in arabia before j1 haplogroup slc24a5 the derived allel meaning i was white before mixing with arabs j acording to you i already had the mutated vertion e3b11c1
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
e3b1c1
LOL! Its sad to see how pathetic you euros have become. What is wrong with being a euro?
Besides having all of that baggy wrinkly skin of course? : )
Is that why you guys are so obsessed with Africans and African Americans? To the point that you either try to claim anything of theirs or become despondent when you see them claiming their own culture, history, and people.
Shall we find you Frostys a shrink? LOL! : )
Posted by prmiddleeastern (Member # 14038) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: prmiddleeastern: You knucklehead, true Arabs are Black - can't you read???
True arabs, no, they are Caucasians, the E3b arabs are mulattos, the J ones are whites.
Posted by e3b1c1 (Member # 16338) on :
but e3b also in balkan and antolia are they are also mulatto acording to you think again use your haed you j1 sand nigger answer me e3b was in arabia before j get it to your head i am white slc24a5 derived allel e3b1c1
Posted by prmiddleeastern (Member # 14038) on :
quote:Originally posted by e3b1c1: slc24a5 the derived allel meaning i was white before mixing with arabs j acording to you i already had the mutated vertion e3b11c1
Yes, because of the autosomal dna, as I said they are africans who mixed with nons and got the white skin from autosomal DNA also(autosomal dna is what makes your trait characteristics)
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
quote:Originally posted by prmiddleeastern:
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Come-on, even you must know that there is no such thing as a mediterreanean race.
No, it is called mediterranean race because it is a phenotype that is very typial on the mediterranid region, so it get its name by the region it is more common, not by origin.
So the mediterreanean is the only place with mulattos?
Whats next, the Puerto Rican race, or the Mexican race? A mulatto is a Mulatto, wherever they might be.
Posted by e3b1c1 (Member # 16338) on :
but they arent mullato you are you are puartorican you are a fuking mestizo you probably have nativae american mtdn ayou are a fukking mulato e3b1c1
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
quote:Originally posted by prmiddleeastern:
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: prmiddleeastern: You knucklehead, true Arabs are Black - can't you read???
True arabs, no, they are Caucasians, the E3b arabs are mulattos, the J ones are whites.
What the hell are you talking about? Explain your nonsense.
Posted by prmiddleeastern (Member # 14038) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: So the mediterreanean is the only place with mulattos?
Whats next, the Puerto Rican race, or the Mexican race? A mulatto is a Mulatto, wherever they might be.
No, mediteranean is the region were that phenotype originated, like the Nordic phenotype is common in the North region(that is were the name Nordic comes from because Nordic=North)and Alpine is typical from the Alps Mountains.The three are phenotypic variations of the Caucasian race.
Posted by prmiddleeastern (Member # 14038) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: What the hell are you talking about? Explain your nonsense.
E3b Arabs were descendants of African who moved to the Middle east and mixed with the caucasian Arab, J Arabs are Eurasiatic ones as the Y-DNA J haplogroups more common in West Asia and the Middle East
Posted by prmiddleeastern (Member # 14038) on :
quote:Originally posted by e3b1c1: but they arent mullato you are you are puartorican you are a fuking mestizo you probably have nativae american mtdn ayou are a fukking mulato e3b1c1
Perhaps I could have Amerindian MTDNA but I don't know yet, but e3b people are of African ancestry.
Posted by e3b1c1 (Member # 16338) on :
but answer me faukking mestizo lik eyou whaen did e3b enter the middle east the answere meseolithic and neolirthic period very early infact in eastern arabia e3b1c is much older than j1 haplogroup second the e3b members werer already white it s your fantasy that they were black skin who mixed with wite bitches they already carried slc24a5 white skin allel e3b1c1
Posted by prmiddleeastern (Member # 14038) on :
That allel came from autosomal DNA that means they mixed with white women before entering the Middle east,that is were the allele was created.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by e3b1c1: the term nigger is applied to e3a not e3b e3b is mediterreanean give you something to work with look at the miror than you will know if you are a nigger a mediterreanean or middle eastern i defined myself as middle eastern m81 and m78 are more mediterreanean and in africa they occure mostly in the north among slc24a5 derived allel populations who are caucasoide e3b1c1
No. The term "nigger" is applied to *all* blacks and E3b is predominant among blacks because it originated among them! The only reason why southern Europeans along the Mediterranean carry E3b is because they inherited it from BLACK ANCESTORS! Thus you ARE 'MULATTO'
But boys feel free to discuss it HERE. Posted by e3b1c1 (Member # 16338) on :
pre midlle eastern if i am mulato snce mt mtdn is european than what are you tell me do you consider yourself white? mestizo ? are the balkans v13 are also mulatto acording to you maybe e3b is african but it isnt black it enterd arabia antolia form egypt a non black nation e3b1c1
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
quote:Originally posted by prmiddleeastern:
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: What the hell are you talking about? Explain your nonsense.
E3b Arabs were descendants of African who moved to the Middle east and mixed with the caucasian Arab, J Arabs are Eurasiatic ones as the Y-DNA J haplogroups more common in West Asia and the Middle East
Who or what is a caucasian Arab?
Who or what is a Eurasiatic Arab?
Forget about the nonsense of letters and numbers (which you clearly don't understand). Who are these people? Where did they come from? When did they get there? Show me a picture.
Just as a curiousity;
Are there also caucasian Africans? Eurasiatic Africans?
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
LOL
Look at the people posting above.
Its a nuthouse. : )
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ So says the nuttiest one of them all above me.
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ So says the nuttiest one of them all... me.
We know Mary, we know.
Posted by prmiddleeastern (Member # 14038) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: [quote]Who or what is a caucasian Arab?
An arb whose ancestry lies in the Caucasus region.
quote:Who or what is a Eurasiatic Arab?
An arab whose ancestry lies in Eurasia.
quote:Forget about the nonsense of letters and numbers (which you clearly don't understand). Who are these people? Where did they come from? When did they get there?
I told you above where they came from, they moved my migration movements and i don't have to show you a picture because you already know how a Caucasic person looks like.
quote:Just as a curiousity;
Are there also caucasian Africans? Eurasiatic Africans?
yes, Africans whose ancestors came from Eurasia and the Caucasus.
Posted by prmiddleeastern (Member # 14038) on :
quote:Originally posted by e3b1c1: pre midlle eastern if i am mulato snce mt mtdn is european than what are you tell me do you consider yourself white? mestizo ? are the balkans v13 are also mulatto acording to you maybe e3b is african but it isnt black it enterd arabia antolia form egypt a non black nation e3b1c1
Egypt is a black nation, ancient egyptians were black and native to Africa, they were like the ethiopians, I consider myself a mixed phenotype individual.
Posted by e3b1c1 (Member # 16338) on :
youre funny so e3b is black to you so there was e3b black invation who **** so many poor little white girls in euroasia doers antolians and balkan v13 are also black to you so i should i define myself negro black mulato middle eastern from were i came e3b1c1
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted confused openass: We know Mary, we know.
LOL @ your love-hate relationship with Jews. You fear and hate them so much, yet subconsciously you are obsessed with them to the point of envoking their names all the time be it "Mary" or "Jesus".
Why don't you find a Jewish d*ck to suck on already.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by e3b1c1: youre funny so e3b is black to you so there was e3b black invation who **** so many poor little white girls in euroasia doers antolians and balkan v13 are also black to you so i should i define myself negro black mulato middle eastern from were i came e3b1c1
No YOU'RE funny! You still aren't intelligent enough to understand that YES black men migrated to southern Europe and had intercourse with the women there. And of course after many generations among white Europeans, their descendants would carry their lineages but NOT look 'black'.
How about taking your dumbass back here since you obviously don't engage the topic of this thread.
Posted by e3b1c1 (Member # 16338) on :
i dont want to folow your link i amtierd struggle with you i need somalid v13 help he left and you are stubrn ps. whats important is how you look at lerast in my opinion north africans look white same as balkan people and antolians arabians at least i dont look negro e3b1c1
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted confused openass: We know Mary, we know.
LOL @ your love-hate relationship with Jews. You fear and hate them so much, yet subconsciously you are obsessed with them to the point of envoking their names all the time be it "Mary" or "Jesus".
You know why your name is Mary, Mary. Dare you prove me wrong.
quote:Originally posted by e3b1c1: i dont want to folow your link i amtierd struggle with you i need somalid v13 help he left and you are stubrn ps. whats important is how you look at lerast in my opinion north africans look white same as balkan people and antolians arabians at least i dont look negro e3b1c1
You really are sounding kind of idiotic.
This is really simple - haplogroup E is a lineage not a race. If you really want to waste time debating this with these afronuts fine but you deserve to get beaten down.
E is for Ethiopic and climate and diet diversified the population to result in what we see today.
I am E3b and I am Black. Since E3b originated closer to the homeland of my fathers I think only a fool would claim that it originated from Greek like people.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ That's because he IS an idiot! Either that, or he's on drugs as Rasol pointed out earlier.
quote:originally farted by the Openass: You know why your name is Mary, Mary. Dare you prove me wrong.
Are you drugs too? My name isn't 'Mary', it's Djehuti. But I know why you can be called Eva. You prove this to us all the time. I'm sure you still pine for what was between your führer's legs. Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
^ again you prove me right, Mary.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by e3b1c1: yes they are slc24a5 mutated vertion is 87% in north africa hot spot of e3b2 and and 97% in the middle east including the dark bedouine and arabians
According to what data?
quote:Originally posted by e3b1c1: you have the mutated vertion you are white no way around it
Actually only certain geographically proximate populations in north Africa, the middle east and Pakistan carry the derived SLC24a5 allele associated with light skin, this in no way implies that all north Africans, Pakistanis and middle easterners carry it, as you obviously wished it did sorry kid.
quote:Originally posted by e3b1c1: the y have the mutated vertoion of slc24a5 they had white skin even befor the incrusion of j1 to north africa deal with the facts e3b1c1
Who told your genetically illiterate ass that the SLC24a5 derived allele was a Y chromosome?
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Debunker:
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: No evidence on your part that Hgs DE* and E are Asian - zip.
Read the study in the original post.
Been addressed and refuted. If you fail to understand why, that's *your problem.
quote: It easily trumps your inane ramblings of denial and Afrocentrism.
What is "it", which specific points does "it" trump, and how? Which specific points do find inane, why, and how do you intend to rectify them intellectually, i.e. not your usual way -- emotional breakdown?
quote:
quote:Saying that descendant clades like C, F, and D are Asian, so therefore DE and E must be Asian, is moronic jibberish that makes no sense.
No, moronic gibberish is what you offer in lieu of evidence. Again, read the study in the OP.
This doesn't even constitute a reply; just more of your emotional outbreaks. So I ask again, which *specific points in my link can you take on *intellectually, and how? Lay 'em on me.
quote:
quote:haplogroup CF and DE molecular ancestors first evolved inside Africa and subsequently contributed as Y chromosome founders to pioneering migrations that successfully colonized Asia.
Underhill's position has been challenged by a recent study. Perhaps you've heard about it.
Nope, I haven't. Enlighten me.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by Charlie Bass.:
quote:Originally posted by Debunker: Read the study in the original post. It easily trumps your inane ramblings of denial and Afrocentrism.
The study you keep damn rambling and trolling about quotes Hammer et al from damn 1997 and 1998, it offers *ZERO* new evidence that haplogroup E is Asian and not African, you can even see the author directly cite Hammer for God's sake, quit acting like a damn fool as if people can't read and see that or that people are denying something, nothing in that study trumps nor challenges anything Underhill has stated.
^ and debunked knows this. as usual he is reduced to trolling pathetically transparent falsehood, to drag out yet another debate which he has lost.
how boring.....
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by T. Rex: rasol meant that there's a good chance that the people among who D initially appeared still had dark skin and other tropical adaptations, since they were taking the southern coastal root. That doesn't mean that some people who inherited D didn't lose skin pigmentation tens of millennia later. The point is, the first D people were probably still black.
quote:No, rasol didn't mean that, which is true of all OOA migrants and therefore irrelevant to the topic.
^ Uhm, yes I did say and mean exactly that, which is why I am correctly understood by anyone of good sense and good faith, both of which you lack.
quote: He meant exactly what he said: "haplotype (sic) D is also certainly Black", just like he believes haplogroup E is "Black".
^ Which is redundant of course. Lineages are defined by the population groups that originate them.
And Asian haplotype is defined as a haplotype originating amongst Asians.
A Jewish haplotype is defined as originating amongst Jews.
A Black haplotype is defined as originating amongst Blacks.
Haplotype D is a Black Asian haplotype.
Haplotype E is a Black African haplotype.
Europeans who have haplotype E, have this haplotype because they are mixed with Black Africans.
Yes..... they are.
And you know this, hence your rage....
quote:But now he's backpedaling frantically to avoid the logical implication of his bullshit:
^ translation: Now you're swearing and dissembling out of frustration at your failure to obscure the origin of haplotype E amongst Black Africans.
quote:that Japanese carriers of haplogroup D are also "Black"
^ this is not a logical implication of anything anyone stated. this is just a stupid remark from you which again is made out of your frustration, at your inability to refute the scientific findings on haplogroup D.
and this is very obvious to the entire forum, because you fail to address these findings.
instead you 'waste' your replies attacking *your own stupid remarks*, and trying to attribute them to others.
every loser of every debate does exactly what you do.
and, it never works....
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ so let's get back to the study that debunked is frantically running away from...
quote: According to Dr. Su, molecular evolution studies on the Y chromosome in Asia previously suggested that modern humans of African origin initially settled in mainland southern East Asia. Then, about 25,000 to 30,000 years ago, they migrated northward, spreading throughout East Asia. However, the fragmented distribution of one East-Asian-specific Y chromosome lineage (D-M174), which is found frequently only in Tibet, Japan and the Andaman Islands, is inconsistent with this scenario.
Dr. Su and his collaborators of the Comparative Genomics Group, KIZ-affiliated Key Laboratory of Cellular and Molecular Evolution therefore collected more than 5,000 male samples from 73 East Asian populations to reconstruct the D-M174 lineage. The results suggested that D-M174 represents an extremely ancient lineage of modern humans in Asia, and that there is a deep divergence between northern and southern populations.
To explain this, the researchers proposed that D-M174 has a southern origin and its northward expansion occurred about 60,000 years ago, *before the northward migration of other major East Asian lineages.*
*The study, which was reported by BMC Biology online, also indicated that the Tibetan and Japanese populations are the admixture of two ancient populations represented by two major specific Y chromosome lineages, the O and D lineages.
?
Posted by prmiddleeastern (Member # 14038) on :
quote:Originally posted by e3b1c1: youre funny so e3b is black to you so there was e3b black invation who **** so many poor little white girls in euroasia doers antolians and balkan v13 are also black to you so i should i define myself negro black mulato middle eastern from were i came e3b1c1
Yes. Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
and because idiocy never rests, i will happily bludgeon the idiots with the truth.
We know haplogroup D has a southern origin.
But which populations belong predominantly to haplogroup D:
quote:Genetic analysis indicates that male Onges and Jarawas almost exclusively belong to Haplotype D
Blacks of Southern Asia, Melanesian and Andaman Islands.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ LMAO @ these buffoons who talk about genetic info BUT ARE TOO STUPID TO UNDERSTAND IT! Posted by e3b1c1 (Member # 16338) on :
mind over matter count on me i know the frequency and even palestinians druze and the dark bedouins 100 people from each population wa staken 97% carry slc24a5 so why the hell do you think that i dont carry the derived allel making me white no matter waht you and a fuking mestizo telling me palestine isnt that close to europe like antolia but still they carry the slc24a5 derived allel meaning white about premiddle eastern idea fukking mestizo calling me mulato while i carry the slc24a5 and it isnt an autosomal genes effect i already talled you i was white before entering the middle east you didnt answere are you consider all those balkan western asian and moorocons iberians black are you crazy what the **** is going with you samuel v13 also mulato acording to you they were romans they gave civilization to your mestizo ass e3b1c1
Posted by prmiddleeastern (Member # 14038) on :
quote:Originally posted by e3b1c1: mind over matter count on me i know the frequency and even palestinians druze and the dark bedouins 100 people from each population wa staken 97% carry slc24a5 so why the hell do you think that i dont carry the derived allel making me white no matter waht you and a fuking mestizo telling me palestine isnt that close to europe like antolia but still they carry the slc24a5 derived allel meaning white about premiddle eastern idea fukking mestizo calling me mulato while i carry the slc24a5 and it isnt an autosomal genes effect i already talled you i was white before entering the middle east you didnt answere are you consider all those balkan western asian and moorocons iberians black are you crazy what the **** is going with you samuel v13 also mulato acording to you they were romans they gave civilization to your mestizo ass e3b1c1
Posted by Debunker (Member # 15669) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer:
Been addressed and refuted.
Please show me the study that "addressed and refuted" Chandrasekar's study.
quote:Nope, I haven't. Enlighten me.
It's the study in the OP. Try actually reading it instead of pontificating blindly.
Posted by Debunker (Member # 15669) on :
quote:Debunker: ...the logical implication of his bullshit: that Japanese carriers of haplogroup D are also "Black"
rasol: ^ this is not a logical implication of anything anyone stated.
What you stated (i.e. the bullshit in question):
quote:Haplotype D is a Black Asian haplotype.
Haplotype E is a Black African haplotype.
Europeans who have haplotype E, have this haplotype because they are mixed with Black Africans.
The logical implication is that Japanese who have haplogroup D are "Black" as well. So are they, buffoon?
Posted by Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Debunker: ]Please show me the study that "addressed and refuted" Chandrasekar's study.
Post evidence that Chandrasekar proved Haplogroup E was no longer African but now Asian and please post where he refuted Underhill. You have nothing to hide behind except your lack of reading comprehension. Underhill addressed Hammer et al's theory on haplogroup E and YAP which is what Chandrasekar cites in his study you jackass, he brings no evidence that haplogroup E is Asian, now tapdance, we can agrue to infinity on this because you're simply trying to wear down the oppoistion by ceaselessly repeating the same argument and hiding behind Chandrasekar's words selectively without reading them in context.
Posted by prmiddleeastern (Member # 14038) on :
quote:Originally posted by Debunker: The logical implication is that Japanese who have haplogroup D are "Black" as well. So are they, buffoon?
Yes, they have a very ancient African ancestry as their ancestors came from Africa crossing the Indian Ocean to East Asia long ago
Posted by Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
Here is Chandrasekar's "new2 evidence of haplogroup E being Asian:
"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)."
New evidence isn't it?
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by e3b1c1: mind over matter count on me i know the frequency and even palestinians druze and the dark bedouins 100 people from each population wa staken 97% carry slc24a5 so why the hell do you think that i dont carry the derived allel making me white no matter waht you and a fuking mestizo telling me palestine isnt that close to europe like antolia but still they carry the slc24a5 derived allel meaning white about premiddle eastern idea fukking mestizo calling me mulato while i carry the slc24a5 and it isnt an autosomal genes effect i already talled you i was white before entering the middle east you didnt answere are you consider all those balkan western asian and moorocons iberians black are you crazy what the **** is going with you samuel v13 also mulato acording to you they were romans they gave civilization to your mestizo ass e3b1c1
So basically you don't know what study you're quoting, simple as usual, you're talking out of your ass? Thought so. Now carry on with your incompetent genetically illiterate rambling postings.
Note as I said; Actually only certain geographically proximate populations in north Africa, the middle east and Pakistan carry the derived SLC24a5 allele associated with light skin, this in no way implies that all north Africans, Pakistanis and middle easterners carry it, as you obviously wished it did sorry kid.
Genetic Evidence for the Convergent Evolution of Light Skin in Europeans and East Asians Heather L. Norton,*1 Rick A. Kittles
quote: In contrast, the **ancestral allele** associated with **dark pigmentation** has a shared high frequency in **sub- Saharan African and Island Melanesians**.A notable exception is the relatively lightly pigmented San population of Southern Africa where the **derived allele** predominates (93%), although this may be simply due to small sample size (n514). The distributions of the **derived and ancestral alleles** at TYR A192C, MATP C374G, and SLC24A5 A111G are consistent with the FST results suggesting strong Europeans pecific divergence at these loci. The *derived allele* at TYR, 192*A (previously linked with lighter pigmentation [Shriver et al. 2003]), has a frequency of 38% among European populations but a frequency of only 14% among non-Europeans. The differences between Europeans and non-Europeans for the MATP 374*G and SLC24A5 111*A alleles (both derived alleles associated with lighter pigmentation) were even more striking (MATP European 5 87%; MATP non-European 5 17%; SLC24A5 European 5 100%; SLC24A5 non-European 5 46%). The frequency of the SLC24A5 111*A allele outside of Europe is largely accounted for by high frequencies in geographically proximate populations in northern Africa, the Middle East, and Pakistan (ranging from 62% to 100%).
The virtual absence of MATP 374*G–derived allele in the sub-Saharan African populations that we examined in the CEPH-Diversity Panel is consistent with the origin of this mutation outside of Africa after the divergence of modern Asians and Europeans. In contrast, the SLC24A5 111*A–derived allele is found at low frequencies in several sub-Saharan populations including the West African Mandenka and Yoruba, the Southern African San , and SouthWest Bantu. The relatively high frequencies of the derived allele in Central Asian, Middle Eastern, and North Africa seem likely to be due to gene flow with European populations. Similarly, the presence of the derived allele (albeit at low frequencies) in some sub-Saharan African populations may be due to recent gene flow from European and Central Asian populations.
Posted by e3b1c1 (Member # 16338) on :
who say idont know i know you dont want to look at the evidence how do you think they say slc24a5 is almost 100% in the middle east you think they reach that conclution with out checking poulations they checked people from the middle east palwestinians druze and bedouins i know that i have good memoury so i remember the poulations and frequency the question is do you want to see the evidence i see you europeid as much as enemy to me as the negroid e3a and arabid j fuking mestizo you are enemys of the somalid e1b1b1 race which i belong to e3b1c1
Posted by e3b1c1 (Member # 16338) on :
there is supplemental data in the reserach you gave above look at it if you want to see i am right e3b1c1 your somalid nightmer
Posted by T. Rex (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Debunker: The logical implication is that Japanese who have haplogroup D are "Black" as well. So are they, buffoon?
For the last time, rasol meant that the people among who D originally appeared were black. He made himself pretty clear on this issue. Why do you fail to grasp this?
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by e3b1c1: who say idont know
I say you don't know, because well, you simply don't.
quote:Originally posted by e3b1c1: i know you dont want to look at the evidence how do you think they say slc24a5 is almost 100% in the middle east
It ranges as noted from 62% to 100% in geographically proximate populations.
This is not in reference towards the whole "middle east", northern Africa and Pakistan.
This comes from admixture from Europeans, so basically if you claim to carry said allele, along with an e3b derivative from Africa, and Mtdna from the middle east, wow kid no wonder you're so confused and obviously having an identity crisis.
quote:Originally posted by e3b1c1: you think they reach that conclution with out checking poulations
Nope, but you think an allele ranging from 62% to 100% in geographically proximate populations implies all "middle easterners", northern Africans carry it. Which it doesn't.
So now using your logic, you're a different "race" from "middle easterners" carrying J, yet you claim to be a middle easterner, different from those middle easterners not carrying Slc24a5, yet related to those who do, who are actually your supposed sworn enemy the "europoid".
You're part of how many "races" now according to your logic?
quote:Originally posted by e3b1c1: they checked people from the middle east palwestinians druze and bedouins i know that i have good memoury so i remember the poulations and frequency
Quote the study, whats taking so long?
quote:Originally posted by e3b1c1: the question is do you want to see the evidence i see you europeid as much as enemy to me as the negroid e3a and arabid j fuking mestizo you are enemys of the somalid e1b1b1 race which i belong to e3b1c1
The evidence is, by your own logic you are part of a few genetic "races" some of which you actually despise you illiterate
Btw I'm not a mestizo you incompetent fool.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by e3b1c1: there is supplemental data in the reserach you gave above look at it if you want to see i am right e3b1c1 your somalid nightmer
I posted it, I understand it, you don't, the data doesn't say what you wished it did, but actually says only geographically proximate populations in northern Africa, the middle east and Pakistan carry this derived allele through admixture with Europeans , ranging from 62 to 100%.
Posted by e3b1c1 (Member # 16338) on :
62% of the derived allel in pakistan you ediot read carfully it ranges 87% in north africa they took mozobite berbers from algeria in this reaserach look at the supplemental data 97% in middle east you may be right about arabia because they didnt checked yemenites and omanites but they checked palestinians druze and bedouins all those populations show 97% slc24a5 derivved allel not only antolians carry the slc24a5 derived allel also levantines thats whayt i want you to understand again read the supplemental data e3b1c1
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by e3b1c1: 62% of the derived allel in pakistan you ediot read carfully it ranges 87% in north africa they took mozobite berbers from algeria in this reaserach look at the supplemental data 97% in middle east
Doofis, what does ranging from 62% to 100% in geographically proximate populations mean to you?
quote:Originally posted by e3b1c1: you may be right about arabia
I am right about all.
quote:Originally posted by e3b1c1: because they didnt checked yemenites and omanites but they checked palestinians druze and bedouins all those populations show 97% slc24a5 derivved allel not only antolians carry the slc24a5 derived allel also levantines thats whayt i want you to understand again read the supplemental data e3b1c1
All non Europeans who carry this derived allele received it through admixture with Europeans, hence you're saying you're related to Europeans, whom you actually deem your enemy the so called "europoid", but not related to middle easterners who don't carry it. Yet you call yourself a "middle easterner", an enemy to the europoid. Lol.
You don't make sense, possibly because you don't understand what you read.
Posted by e3b1c1 (Member # 16338) on :
if thats the case than palestinians druze and bedouins all carry slc24a5 derived allel 97% are related to europens acording to you the european varient is another one slc45a2 opay atention it sdiffrenrt from slc24a5 slc45a2 is european vertion but many southern europeans have the ancesteral version of slc45a2 and even the deruived allel of slc45a2 exist in palestinians druza at 57% again look at the data e3b1c1
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by Debunked: the logical implication of his bullshit
^ Your profanity logically implies *your frustration* in the face of your usual fiasco failed attempts at debate.
quote:debunked makes a straw man argument: that Japanese carriers of haplogroup D are also "Black"
rasol: ^ this is not a logical implication of anything anyone stated.
quote:debunked: What you stated
quote:Haplotype D is a Black Asian haplotype.
Haplotype E is a Black African haplotype.
Europeans who have haplotype E, have this haplotype because they are mixed with Black Africans.
^ Yes. What's missing is your claim that it was implied Europeans are Black Africans or that Japanese are Black Southern Asians. And where is that implied? Nowhere.
And that you keep repeating it, does not demonstrate that anyone else is saying it.
To repeat your claims and attribute them to others is the very definition of strawman logical fallacy.
You still haven't learned even rule 1 about how to debate, which is why you stink at it.
quote:a defaeted and distraught debunked writes: The logical implication is that Japanese who have haplogroup D are "Black" as well.
That is not a logical implication, but rather an example of *your broken logic.*
That you repeate this, only indicates that you are unable to process information in a logical fashion.
Your fallacy - is equivalent to claiming that by stating the fact that the Greeks have Benin (West African) HBS autosome, that it is therefore claimed that the Greeks are West African.
In fact no such claim is made. Nor is that a logical implication of the fact that the Greeks have Benin Hbs.
What is implied, is what is shown, right here....
The logical implication is that the Greeks are mixed with Black Africans. In fact, they are. This requires neither that the Greeks be Black, nor that they be African. (actually the very notion of *MIXED WITH* implies that they are not)
The same applies to haplotype D. It originates with Blacks of Southern Asia. It is present in Northern Japan - amongst people who are neither Southern Asian, nor Black.
Who other than you Debunked, cannot grasp something so elementary.
^ Debunked, the more I toy with you, the more I realise that Charlie Bass and Explorer are right about you.
You aren't just a cynical lying racist.
You are also a genuine ninny who could not locate his own thumb if it were stuck in his ear.
You're hilarious.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
What is implied, is what is shown, right here....
Remedial lesson for debunked:
* Benin autosome originates among Black Africans =true.
* Greeks have Benin autosome = true.
* Greeks have ancestry from Blacks Africans = true.
* Greeks are therefore mixed = true.
* Implication that the above states that Greeks are therefore Black African = false.
* Assertion that Greeks are Black Africans was **ever** implied = straw man argument.
straw man -> the attempt to evade stated facts, by substituting them with statements no one ever made to begin with.
let us know when you're ready for your next lesson debunked. Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by e3b1c1: if thats the case than palestinians druze and bedouins all carry slc24a5 derived allel 97% are related to europens acording to you
Actually they're related according to your logic, since non Europeans all received this derived version of the SLC24A5 111*A allele from Europeans.
quote:Originally posted by e3b1c1: the european varient is another one slc45a2 opay atention it sdiffrenrt from slc24a5
You need to learn how to read, the European version is a derived version which is called SLC24A5 111*A
quote:Originally posted by e3b1c1: slc45a2 is european vertion but many southern europeans have the ancesteral version of slc45a2 and even the deruived allel of slc45a2 exist in palestinians druza at 57% again look at the data e3b1c1
Nitwitted fool, like I said, all non European populations who carry the derived allele associated with lighterskin received it through admixture with Europeans.
Slc24a5 is not indicative of lightskin its actually the derived version of SLC24A5 111*A.
Anyway like I said, not all populations in said areas carry the allele as you wish, but certain geographically proximate populations.
Posted by e3b1c1 (Member # 16338) on :
ok i understand you but do you explain the fact that palestinians and druze carry slc24a5 derived allel in frequency of 97% it condratict your logic since the levant isnt a proximate to europe in fact if you know geography the levant is more closer to egypt so why do you think egyptions also dont carry the slc24a5 derived allel e3b1c1
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by e3b1c1: ok i understand you
No you don't which is why you're still confused.
quote:Originally posted by e3b1c1: but do you explain the fact that palestinians and druze carry slc24a5 derived allel in frequency of 97%
Doofball, it's already noted the allele ranges from 67 to 100% in said areas in geographically proximate populations in north Africa, the middle east and Pakistan, this is through admixture with Europeans.....
Note;
quote:Originally posted by e3b1c1: it condratict your logic since the levant isnt a proximate to europe in fact if you know geography the levant is more closer to egypt so why do you think egyptions also dont carry the slc24a5 derived allel e3b1c1
You have no logic.
Geographically proximate doesn't mean geographically adjacent you imbecile, go read a dictionary for a change.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Debunker:
Please show me the study that "addressed and refuted" Chandrasekar's study.
The postings my blog link, which you obviously read but couldn't do anything about it...and the last Underhill piece for example, simply reaffirms this merciless refutation (my positon).
BTW, I congratulate you for nicely dodging requests to challenge my positions in that link.
quote:Nope, I haven't. Enlighten me.
It's the study in the OP. [/quote]
You've got to be kidding, right? Where is anything about CF in that study, as one example for starters?
quote: Try actually reading it instead of pontificating blindly.
I take it that English isn't your first language, since you missed my refutations in the blog?
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Debunker:
Please show me the study that "addressed and refuted" Chandrasekar's study.
The postings my blog link, which you obviously read but couldn't do anything about it...and the last Underhill piece for example, simply reaffirms this merciless refutation (my positon).
BTW, I congratulate you for nicely dodging requests to challenge my positions in that link.
quote:Nope, I haven't. Enlighten me.
It's the study in the OP. [/quote]
You've got to be kidding, right? Where is anything about CF in that study, as one example for starters?
quote: Try actually reading it instead of pontificating blindly.
I take it that English isn't your first language, since you missed my point by point refutations [of Chandrasekar] in the blog?
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
^I see that my earlier posting actually appeared; they didn't for some time -- twice! Oh well...
quote:Originally posted by Debunker:
Please show me the study that "addressed and refuted" Chandrasekar's study.
You've been shown accordingly in my blog link, which you obviously read but was too airtight & technical for you to do anything about. That Underhill piece, while not necessary, only reaffirms this merciless refutation of Chandrasekar.
quote: It's the study in the OP.
You've got to be clowning, right? Since your OP's wishful claims around DE and E had been swiftly squashed, let's put that aside; where's anything about CF in your OP, as one example for starters? You made a rash claim about CF that has no legs.
quote: Try actually reading it instead of pontificating blindly.
I take it that English is neither your first or second language, since you missed my point by point annihilation of your OP in the blog, with some excerpts even reposted here, that have gone unchallenged.
I congratulate you for being a consistent challenge-dodger.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
Slc24a5 is not indicative of lightskin its actually the derived version of SLC24A5 111*A.
Speaking of which, no word yet on our elusive lily white Mandinka, Yoruba, Southern African San and Bantu brothers and sisters.
Recalling this...
The Explorer:
In contrast, the SLC24 A5 11*A-derived allele is found at low frequencies in several sub-Saharan populations including the West African Mandinka and Yoruba, the Southern African San, and South West Bantu.
I take it that you think these folks are white too?
e3b1c1:
the answere is yes
Explorer:
Interesting. Let me see pictures of these white folks of the ethnic groups mentioned.
...
...long time now. Well, what seems to be the hold up, e3b1c1? Posted by e3b1c1 (Member # 16338) on :
good question maybe mnind over matter could answere it since he thinks he is so smart he probably thinks the west africa mandinka and yoruba the southern african san all those populations were the slc24a5 derived alle was thound aquired it through admixture with europeans as well since he thinks any non european who carry that derived slc24a5 go it from europeans e3b1c1
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
No need to deflect one's own responsibility(s) onto others. It's a good question that deserves a long overdue answer from you, considering the posts above [see: I recited].
Posted by e3b1c1 (Member # 16338) on :
ok since you ask the mandeka the southern african san those populations were slc24a5 was found in none of them was found the slc45a2 another important one who effects skin coulour now this one is very rare in africa sugest that the slc24a5 was arised in africa maybe the north of it than spread out of africa and to the south of it in contrast since slc45a2 was very rare in africa the auther of the paper sugest it arised out side of africa this the real white skin marker i dont think i hve the derived form of it but since western asians do carry the derived slc45a2 57% i also had a chance to carry it although i dont think i carry the derived slc45a2 i do think i carry the slc24a5 derived allel since it is 97% in the levant e3b1c1
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by e3b1c1:
ok since you ask the mandeka the southern african san those populations were slc24a5
Are you suffering from a reading deficit; what does the citation say?
quote: was found in none of them
Come again?...
In contrast, the SLC24 A5 11*A-derived allele is found at low frequencies in several sub-Saharan populations including the West African Mandinka and Yoruba, the Southern African San, and South West Bantu.
quote: was found the slc45a2 another important one who effects skin coulour now this one is very rare in africa sugest that the slc24a5 was arised in africa maybe the north of it than spread out of africa and to the south of it in contrast since slc45a2 was very rare in africa the auther of the paper sugest it arised out side of africa this the real white skin marker i dont think i hve the derived form of it but since western asians do carry the derived slc45a2 57% i also had a chance to carry it although i dont think i carry the derived slc45a2 i do think i carry the slc24a5 derived allel since it is 97% in the levant e3b1c1
Hit me with this again some other day, when I specifically ask you to produce gibberish. Deal?
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by e3b1c1: since he thinks he is so smart he probably thinks the west africa mandinka and yoruba the southern african san all those populations were the slc24a5 derived alle was thound aquired it through admixture with europeans as well since he thinks any non european who carry that derived slc24a5 go it from europeans e3b1c1
What does the following say?
In contrast, the SLC24A5 111*A–derived allele is found at low frequencies in several sub-Saharan populations including the West African Mandenka and Yoruba, the Southern African San , and SouthWest Bantu.......The relatively high frequencies of the derived allele in Central Asian, Middle Eastern, and North Africa seem likely to be due to gene flow with European populations. Similarly, the presence of the derived allele (albeit at low frequencies) in some sub-Saharan African populations may be due to recent gene flow from European and Central Asian populations. -- Norton, Kittles et al. Posted by e3b1c1 (Member # 16338) on :
so wahta a european army came to souther africa in in ancient time and fucked the local girls do you realy belive in that mindover matter are you serious ??????????? ps. about explorer you fucking nigger you cut my sentences to fitt your own agenda i am done talking with you you fucking nigger e3b1c1
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by e3b1c1:
ps. about explorer you fucking nigger you cut my sentences to fitt your own agenda i am done talking with you you fucking nigger e3b1c1
You fucking sand ape, answer the questions.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
What does the following say?
In contrast, the SLC24A5 111*A–derived allele is found at low frequencies in several sub-Saharan populations including the West African Mandenka and Yoruba, the Southern African San , and SouthWest Bantu.......The relatively high frequencies of the derived allele in Central Asian, Middle Eastern, and North Africa seem likely to be due to gene flow with European populations. Similarly, the presence of the derived allele (albeit at low frequencies) in some sub-Saharan African populations may be due to recent gene flow from European and Central Asian populations. -- Norton, Kittles et al.
The fecal-loaded diaper head avoids corroborating his claims re: SLC24A5 111*A–derived allele unquestionably means a person is white, and instead rambles on about some other derivative that has no bearing here.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by e3b1c1: so wahta a european army came to souther africa in in ancient time and fucked the local girls
This is your illogical misinterpretation, you're the only one saying this, but if you understood genetics, and understood the study in question, you wouldn't have this problem, understand that this derived allele is present in these populations through admixture with Europeans.
Since you ignored the first question let's see if you'll avoid another..
Do you understand the highlighted following or not?
The *derived allele* at TYR, 192*A (previously linked with lighter pigmentation [Shriver et al. 2003]), has a frequency of 38% among European populations but a frequency of only 14% among non-Europeans. The differences between Europeans and non-Europeans for the MATP 374*G and SLC24A5 111*A alleles (both derived alleles associated with lighter pigmentation) were even more striking (MATP European 5 87%; MATP non-European 5 17%; SLC24A5 European 5 100%; SLC24A5 non-European 5 46%). The frequency of the SLC24A5 111*A allele outside of Europe is largely accounted for by high frequencies in geographically proximate populations in northern Africa, the Middle East, and Pakistan (ranging from 62% to 100%). Posted by zarahan (Member # 15718) on :
quote:Originally posted by T. Rex:
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.
A good point indeed. A similar scenario appears with older Europeans, who retain tropical characteristics and are more related to Africans than modern Europeans. The dodge of Madilda and her ilk is to claim that any European matches equals a match with today's "white" people. But the bogus claim falls flat when we realize that OLDER Euros, mesolithics, neolithics and such resemble Africans. So they are making comparisons between dark-skinned people with tropical char- acteristics who happen to be living in Europe, with dark-skinned, tropically adapted African peoples living in Africa. Either way you slice it the people look like Africans. Brace's 2005 study showed this. And it undermines the claims of Madilda and co.
hanihara (1996) notes that early West Asians looked like Africans, so if someone is using old/early Indian populations, the people there already looked like Africans. So any comparisons are almost Africans to Africans.
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
You idiots don't know that e3b1c1 is nothing but a white boy trolling?
You can't tell by how hard he tries to sound like a character in his posts? The forced spelling and grammer? The use of racial epithets?
Its nothing more than a sockpuppet of that troll with the pink penile blisters.
Posted by Debunker (Member # 15669) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol: The logical implication is that the Greeks are mixed with Black Africans.
Then so are the Japanese, right? Or maybe you'd like to rethink your whole "argument".
Posted by Debunker (Member # 15669) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: You've been shown accordingly in my blog link, which you obviously read but was too airtight & technical for you to do anything about. That Underhill piece, while not necessary, only reaffirms this merciless refutation of Chandrasekar.
Translation: You can't show me any study that addresses and refutes Chandrasekar.
Posted by Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Debunker:
quote:Originally posted by rasol: The logical implication is that the Greeks are mixed with Black Africans.
Then so are the Japanese, right? Or maybe you'd like to rethink your whole "argument".
More strawman arguments from Evil Euro because you're addressing a position thats not being taken.
Posted by Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Debunker:
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: You've been shown accordingly in my blog link, which you obviously read but was too airtight & technical for you to do anything about. That Underhill piece, while not necessary, only reaffirms this merciless refutation of Chandrasekar.
Translation: You can't show me any study that addresses and refutes Chandrasekar.
Translation, you haven't shown any evidence that Chandrasekar proved haplogroup E is no longer African and now Asian.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: You idiots don't know that e3b1c1 is nothing but a white boy trolling?
Like YOU?!
quote:You can't tell by how hard he tries to sound like a character in his posts? The forced spelling and grammer? The use of racial epithets?
Like YOU?!
quote:Its nothing more than a sockpuppet of that troll with the pink penile blisters.
You mean YOURSELF?!
Yes, yes, and of course! Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Debunked: So you're saying Japanese are black?!.. So Chandrasekar says E is no longer African?!..
Posted by zarahan (Member # 15718) on :
quote:Originally posted by T. Rex: You'd think, if Haplogroup E was Asian, it wouldn't be so prevalent in Africa and not elsewhere.
Indeed as Explorer's blog notes. And 'E" makes up 70% of the Y-chromosone diversity on the continent, more than any other. It is most definitely associated with the African environment, unpalatable as this may be to many.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Debunker:
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: You've been shown accordingly in my blog link, which you obviously read but was too airtight & technical for you to do anything about. That Underhill piece, while not necessary, only reaffirms this merciless refutation of Chandrasekar.
Translation: You can't show me any study that addresses and refutes Chandrasekar.
You are forgiven for mistranslating posts communicated in a language you don't understand -- English.
That said, I'm fairly certain that you've read my blog posting, and came out of reading it virtually disarmed, because you didn't really challenge anything, SAVE for making yourself *emotionally* heard about the audacity of instilling in you a self-consciousness, that you are one of those cult members being referred to...
Remember this?...
Only from the blog:
But this excitement is emotionally driven, and just that. As such, intellectual engagement gives way to religious cultism as the medium of self-expression.
Debunked reacts:
Nah, emotionally driven religious cultism is an Afrocentrist thing. I go by what the studies say. The more recent the better.
Again, taken from the blog:
DE* is a descendant clade of M168. M168 is undoubtedly African; this fact alone makes it more than probable that this place [Africa] is also likely where DE* emerged.
Debunked's best response to this was:
M168 is African, but CF, C, F and D are all Asian, which makes it more than probable that DE and E are also Asian. That's the most parsimonious explanation, and it's one of Chandrasekar's main points.
The obvious follow up to this, and my response was:
You offer emotionalism in lieu of material to these claims. No evidence on your part that Hgs DE* and E are Asian - zip.
If you did, you would have answered the relevant points I've made in that link, instead of being more concerned about being called a sect member, no?
Ps - Also, where has CF been located in Asia?
^Furthermore, evidence that debunked is all emotional, no intellect, requires looking no further than this; I wrote:
This is case in point, that you offer only emotionalism. M168 being African and being the *ancestor*, makes it more than probable that its decendants would immediately derive from it, in Africa as well.
Saying that descendant clades like C, F, and D are Asian, so therefore DE and E must be Asian, is moronic jibberish that makes no sense.
Debunked's outdated "referential-encyclopedia" of mainly outdated and phased-out [aka his "OP" post] material has been easily thrashed into pieces in my blog, and his only reactions, ignoring all this thrashing:
"why do you call me a cult?"
"DE and E must be Asian, because M168's descendant clades like C, F, D are purportedly Asian. I consider this senseless gibberish the most parsimonious explanation."
Furthermore...
"I throw in baseless personal-opinions about clades like CF, or F, just to look artificially intelligent, without actually being intelligent, hoping any person with little sense won't call me out"
LOL.
Simply devastating. Debunked, you have not even touched my arguments; remember, it is okay to admit being defeated, which is by now obvious to all but you. Posted by Debunker (Member # 15669) on :
I'm still waiting to see a study that addresses and refutes Chandrasekar the way he addressed and refuted Underhill.
Posted by Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Debunker: I'm still waiting to see a study that addresses and refutes Chandrasekar the way he addressed and refuted Underhill.
He didn't address nor refute Underhill, he simply quoted Hammer et al studies from 11 and 12 years ago, way to go to be a coward and avoid addressing studies you don't understand and making up lies as you go.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
^Undoubtedly.
quote:Originally posted by Debunker:
I'm still waiting to see a study that addresses and refutes Chandrasekar the way he addressed and refuted Underhill.
I officially accept this admission of defeat. Posted by Debunker (Member # 15669) on :
Studies are refuted by other studies -- preferably that address those they're refuting -- not by opinions posted on a blog. Hence, the Chandrasekar study still stands unrefuted, and it's the Afrocentrists who have admitted defeat.
Posted by Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Debunker: Studies are refuted by other studies -- preferably that address those they're refuting -- not by opinions posted on a blog. Hence, the Chandrasekar study still stands unrefuted, and it's the Afrocentrists who have admitted defeat.
BS, where did Chandrasekar refute Underhill? Good luck finding that because he doesn't even address his position head on, stop trolling. Admit your defeat because Chandrasekar merely cited Hammer from 12 years ago.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Debunker:
Studies are refuted by other studies -- preferably that address those they're refuting -- not by opinions posted on a blog.
Thanks for the tacit compliment, because for simple opinions on a blog, as you cowardly call them, they sure have you in a tight leash running around in circles like a broken record with that single one-liner above. Question is: why have these basic "opinions" rendered you so intellectually under-powered? You should be refuting them, without delay, not running away from them.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:*Person A is an authority on subject S. *Person A makes claim C about subject S. *Therefore, C is true.
^Debunked has regressed to a classic case of an appeal to authority fallacy where a claim is presumed true based on nothing more than said authority's positive assertion (no matter how counter intuitive). The guy is so defeated that his arguments are now non-existent, either suggesting that he doesn't even understand the work of the person he cites, or he understands that this person's position is simply too weak to defend. Either way the poor guy lost a long time ago. Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
And I doubt it, but maybe this paper will satisfy his appeals to novelty as well:
...................
Y chromosome evidence of earliest modern human settlement in East Asia and multiple origins of Tibetan and Japanese populations Hong Shi et al. BMC Biology, 2008
The Y chromosome Alu polymorphism (YAP, also called M1) defines the deep-rooted haplogroup D/E of the global Y-chromosome phylogeny. This D/E haplogroup is further branched into three sub-haplogroups DE*, D and E (Figure 1). The distribution of the D/E haplogroup is highly regional, and the three subgroups are geographically restricted to certain areas, therefore informative in tracing human prehistory (Table 1). The sub-haplogroup DE*, presumably the most ancient lineage of the D/E haplogroup was only found in Africans from Nigeria, supporting the "Out of Africa" hypothesis about modern human origin. The sub-haplogroup E (E-M40), defined by M40/SRY4064 and M96, was **also** suggested originated in Africa, and later dispersed to Middle East and Europe about 20,000 years ago. Interestingly, the sub-haplogroup D defined by M174 (D-M174) is East Asian specific with abundant appearance in Tibetan and Japanese (30–40%), but rare in most of other East Asian populations and populations from regions bordering East Asia (Central Asia, North Asia and Middle East) (usually less than 5%). Under D-M174, Japanese belongs to a separate sub-lineage defined by several mutations (e.g. M55, M57 and M64 etc.), which is different from those in Tibetans implicating relatively deep divergence between them. The fragmented distribution of D-M174 in East Asia seems not consistent with the pattern of other East Asian specific lineages, i.e. O3-M122, O1-M119 and O2-M95 under haplogroup O.
^The entire paper is based on the above premise. Anyways, more here:
Now according to the same logic, Chandrasekar et al. has been superseded while Shi et al. has yet to be refuted. Posted by Debunker (Member # 15669) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Thanks for the tacit compliment, because for simple opinions on a blog, as you cowardly call them, they sure have you in a tight leash running around in circles like a broken record with that single one-liner above. Question is: why have these basic "opinions" rendered you so intellectually under-powered? You should be refuting them, without delay, not running away from them.
There's nothing to refute. People propound their opinions when they don't have any evidence. So the real question is: Where's your evidence? Posted by Debunker (Member # 15669) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: Now according to the same logic, Chandrasekar et al. has been superseded while Shi et al. has yet to be refuted.
Um, Shi et al. is the paper I cited earlier as showing for the first time the presence of DE* outside of Africa:
"In surprise, we observed two DE* in the Tibetan samples, which was previously only observed in Africa (Nigerians), but not in other world populations."
You're quoting the Introduction, which is simply recapping the evidence up to that point.
If anything, Shi et al.'s discovery strengthens the Asian-origin hypothesis advanced by Chandrasekar, at least according to Underhill:
"Altheide and Hammer (34) have suggested that haplotypes defined by the presence of the YAP insertion originated in Asia and spread back to Africa. One prediction of this model is that the ancestral state of this lineage, which would be YAP(+) but ancestral for both the eastern (M174C) and western (M96C) sublineages (8), should be found in the Asian population(s) where the insertion originally occurred. We do not find any such ancestral chromosomes in our study. Although we cannot rule out the possibility that an ancestral YAP(+) chromosome will be found as more samples are analyzed, the current survey of ≈2,000 men does not support an Asian origin for the YAP(+) lineage, consistent with the results of Underhill et al."
^Stop selective reading. It doesn't matter because Shi et al. obviously doesn't make the same arguments that you do. They first of all, clearly identify E as an African haplogroup. Secondly, they attribute the presence of DE* to early settlement.
quote:The finding of two DE* in Tibet, which was only observed in Africa, supports the antiquity of D-M174 and suggests that the D-M174 lineage is among the earliest modern human settlers in East Asia.
They go on and on after this about dates and when said East African migrants would have arrived. Again, your logic is flawed. You ignored the logical rebuttal against Chandrasekar so why should anyone listen to your illogical retort of Shi, who hasn't been refuted by a NEWER study (which according to you, is the only thing that matters)..
Selective quoting of other papers (how you just selectively quoted Shi et al.) will not change much of anything since they don't jump to your far off conclusions. "Shi study stands unrefuted". Posted by Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
Notice how Evil Euro forgot this part when he selectively quoted Shi et al:
We do not find any such ancestral chromosomes in our study. Although we cannot rule out the possibility that an ancestral YAP(+) chromosome will be found as more samples are analyzed, the current survey of ≈2,000 men does not support an Asian origin for the YAP(+) lineage, consistent with the results of Underhill et al."
Evil Euro's entire argument has been deep sixed
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Debunker:
There's nothing to refute. People propound their opinions when they don't have any evidence. So the real question is: Where's your evidence?
Debunked, when you are ready to confront what the blog educates you on, and not repeatedly waving a white flag, keep me posted.
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
Wow, Sundjata wins again.
Might as well close this thread and wait since clearly Shi Et Al supports Underhill.
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
Must like being debunked even uses the handle.
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
Man so I finally heard criquets on the Forum.
Loud noise.
Debunked has been schooled much to his surprise.
He came on the forum ranting about Hap E, YAP, M1, U6 all being Asian. Not even thinking that majority of Africans are Hap E.
Truthseekers 1
Racist 0
Posted by Debunker (Member # 15669) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: ^Stop selective reading. It doesn't matter because Shi et al. obviously doesn't make the same arguments that you do. They first of all, clearly identify E as an African haplogroup. Secondly, they attribute the presence of DE* to early settlement.
Shi et al. make no claim concerning the origin of haplogroup E. They simply state in their Introduction that E "was also suggested originated in Africa" in previous studies. No mention is made of its origin in the body of the paper. Likewise with DE*. The only thing in their study that's relevant to this discussion is the discovery of DE* in Asia for the first time, which Underhill said was a necessary condition for an Asian origin. Apart from that, it's all about D-M174. The fact that they don't address the other points does not constitute a refutation of Chandrasekar. You're the one whose logic is flawed.
Posted by Debunker (Member # 15669) on :
quote:Originally posted by Charlie Bass.: Notice how Evil Euro forgot this part when he selectively quoted Shi et al:
We do not find any such ancestral chromosomes in our study. Although we cannot rule out the possibility that an ancestral YAP(+) chromosome will be found as more samples are analyzed, the current survey of ≈2,000 men does not support an Asian origin for the YAP(+) lineage, consistent with the results of Underhill et al."
Evil Euro's entire argument has been deep sixed
That quote is NOT from Shi et al., you illiterate imbecile. It's Underhill and Wells from eight years ago saying that their "current survey" doesn't support an Asian origin because DE* was only found in Africa. Shi et al. are the ones challenging that with their recent discovery of DE* in Asia. Damn you're stupid.
Posted by Debunker (Member # 15669) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Debunked, when you are ready to confront what the blog educates you on, and not repeatedly waving a white flag, keep me posted.
Just as soon as "the blog" contains something other than your opinions, like say, a study that addresses Chandrasekar.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Debunker:
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: ^Stop selective reading. It doesn't matter because Shi et al. obviously doesn't make the same arguments that you do. They first of all, clearly identify E as an African haplogroup. Secondly, they attribute the presence of DE* to early settlement.
Shi et al. make no claim concerning the origin of haplogroup E. They simply state in their Introduction that E "was also suggested originated in Africa" in previous studies. No mention is made of its origin in the body of the paper. Likewise with DE*. The only thing in their study that's relevant to this discussion is the discovery of DE* in Asia for the first time, which Underhill said was a necessary condition for an Asian origin. Apart from that, it's all about D-M174. The fact that they don't address the other points does not constitute a refutation of Chandrasekar. You're the one whose logic is flawed.
SMH @ this pathetic attempt at spin. Their premise was based on said previous work which is why they worked with in a framework that took such data for granted (and which is why they didn't cite Hammer). DE* in Tibet was attributed to early colonization as shown to you, and in said intro they state that E was "also" said to have originated in Africa, also implicating DE*, further citing that E only reached Europe and Asia 20,000 ybp. They cite former work (one of which was Cruciani et al.-2007 who you cite haphazardly in another thread) no differently than Chandrasekar (2007) cites Hammer and takes it for granted. These are by YOUR standards so playing dumb won't help you.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
By the way.. What does Hammer mean when he says[?]:
"The major lineages within the most common African haplogroup, E, are now all sorted out, with the topology providing new interpretations on the geographical origin of ancient sub-clades"
and:
"The age of [haplogroup] DE is about 65,000 years, just a bit younger than the **other major lineage to leave Africa**, which is assumed to be about 70,000 years old"
The sub-haplogroup DE*, presumably the most ancient lineage of the D/E haplogroup was only found in Africans from Nigeria, supporting the "Out of Africa" hypothesis about modern human origin. The sub-haplogroup E (E-M40), defined by M40/SRY4064 and M96, was **also** suggested originated in Africa, and later dispersed to Middle East and Europe about 20,000 years ago.
We do not find any such ancestral chromosomes in our study. Although we cannot rule out the possibility that an ancestral YAP(+) chromosome will be found as more samples are analyzed, the current survey of ≈2,000 men does not support an Asian origin for the YAP(+) lineage, consistent with the results of Underhill et al."
-----------------------
I am confused, what is there to debate? Seems to me that the research findings of Shi Et al came to the above conclusions supporting Underhill and a Out of Africa migration of DE/E. Are the above excerpts not from Shi Et al? I would read this crap but really I have more important things to do.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
^^Man, those two quotes are from different papers. Not that it matters anyways (as shown above you)..
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
^ It does matter. I need to have clarity and I don't think we are going to get much.
This keeps going back and forth on the E and M origin questions.
quote: We do not find any such ancestral chromosomes in our study.
Also didn't find in WMDs in Iraq.
Does the body of evidence continue to mount in a OUT of Africa direction? Or are Black Africans super-tropically adapted Asians?
Is a study of 2000 men sufficient to make a conclusion?
Posted by Debunker (Member # 15669) on :
Repeat: Shi et al. do not discuss the origins of DE* or E. Their study is primarily about D, but it also happened to find DE* in Asia for the first time, which is relevant in light of what Wells and Underhill said. On the other hand, Chandrasekar et al. is primarily about YAP and it specifically discusses its origin as well as that of E.
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
^ just quit you dishonest fart.
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
^ Actually Debunker has been rather civil so give her a break. I still think this is Anthrofan and/or Mahilda.
quote:We do not find any such ancestral chromosomes in our study. Although we cannot rule out the possibility that an ancestral YAP(+) chromosome will be found as more samples are analyzed, the current survey of ≈2,000 men does not support an Asian origin for the YAP(+) lineage, consistent with the results of Underhill et al."
Please someone tell me if the above does not come from Shi et al? If it does then clearly the author is saying that their results conform with Underhill et al. If so then there is more research supporting the Out of Africa model than not.
DE* found in Asia. Not sure how that refutes the fact that is also found in Nigeria.
I think both the Eurocentric and the Afrocentric need to be open minded to change in their understanding of this data.
None of what I have read in this thread changes anything. Clearly the people of the Andamanes have an African phenotype. So if DE is Asian it would only mean it is derived from a person similar to the Andamanes people which is still Black.
As for the Japanese being Black because they have Haplogroup D and DE is arguably Black?
Black Japanese? You simply cannot define race based on haplogroup and phenotype. Pick one or the other people. But do Oriental people have similar features to Africans? Certainly I have thought so. Especially since prognathism is very common among Orientals as well as a low nasal root.
Hell with the crap I hear about Ethiopians being White why the hell not have Black Orientals?
It seems to me that Japanese actually do appear to be very similar to East African people in appearance.
Admiral Yamamoto
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Please someone tell me if the above does not come from Shi et al? If it does then clearly the author is saying that their results conform with Underhill et al. If so then there is more research supporting the Out of Africa model than not.
Osirion, jeeze, just read the paper and stop speculating. I posted the link above and it doesn't matter because newer data as reported in the above press release, contradicts the former's wishful thinking.
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata:
quote:Please someone tell me if the above does not come from Shi et al? If it does then clearly the author is saying that their results conform with Underhill et al. If so then there is more research supporting the Out of Africa model than not.
Osirion, jeeze, just read the paper and stop speculating. I posted the link above and it doesn't matter because newer data as reported in the above press release, contradicts the former's wishful thinking.
^ Okay but I don't have much time.
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
Okay I just finish reading Shi et al. I somewhat agree with Debunker that Shi et al does not directly relate to the question of origin for E or DE but rather simply cites research from previous work.
This is a long way from agreeing with Debunker that E or DE is non-African when the vast majority of the evidence supports an African origin.
More research is needed though I think DE* in Tibet is very interesting but how it can be reconciled to Nigerian evidence remains to be seen.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Okay I just finish reading Shi et al. I somewhat agree with Debunker that Shi et al does not directly relate to the question of origin for E or DE but rather simply cites research from previous work.
..funny, since that's exactly what Chandrasekar (2007) does when he cites Hammer et al.
Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
. .
[Osirion writes]
It seems to me that Japanese actually do appear to be very similar to East African people in appearance.
Admiral Yamamoto
[Marc writes]
Japan has quite a few Africoid statues, masks, and sculptures; especially prior to 1800.
Just as soon as "the blog" contains something other than your opinions, like say, a study that addresses Chandrasekar.
I'm sure if or whenever you graduate to pre-molecular genetics 101 level and get material, these opinions will instantly become apparent as common sense. Advice: Don't continue to let common sense confuse you.
quote:Originally posted by osirion:
I think DE* in Tibet is very interesting but how it can be reconciled to Nigerian evidence remains to be seen.
This is how:
* DE* is a descendant clade of M168. M168 is undoubtedly African; this fact alone makes it more than probable that this place [Africa] is also likely where DE* emerged.
* DE* is more common in Africa than outside of it -
It has been identified in African samples in more than one accasion in separately-conducted studies, having been identified in 5 Nigerian sampling candidates in one study, and 1 Guinean individual in another. On the other hand, it had purportedly been identified in only 2 Tibetan sampling candidates. So we have 6 African cases vs. 2 Asian cases.
* DE*'s internal phylogeny is more diverse and widely distributed in Africa -
Considering the greater internal phylogenetic branching of haplogroup E vs haplogroup D, it can be suggestive of either 1) longer time-depth for haplogroup E explosion/expansion, and hence, implicating DE* being around longer in Africa, as the homeland of haplogroup E ...
Or
2) that the haplogroup E lineage experienced an explosion that the D counterparts did not achieve in more or less the same time depth. The question becomes: What could account for this?
Either way, with fact being that African Hg E internal phylogeny is more elaborate than Hg D, the end result suggests that the intensity of such intra-E phylogenetic explosion seems to have had some level of erasing effect on DE* distribution. Given the greater pressure, due to greater demic explosion brought to bear on preexisting DE* in Africa — mainly by its own sub-phylogeny — than that which would have been the case in Asia by the YAP+ counterpart sub-phylogeny there, it's amazing that DE* is relentlessly visible enough in the African gene pool, as demonstrated by its greater chance detectability here than elsewhere, including Asia. This suggests that DE* would have been more widely distributed in Africa than in Asia, having been able to withstand greater pressure from greater subsequent demic expansion of Hg E phylogeny than that involving Hg D phylogeny, respectively in Africa and Asia.
The distribution and internal branching of Hg D suggests, on the other hand, that it involved lower scale dispersal of Hg D*, which were relatively more controlled in their subsequent expansion. The distribution pattern for instance, shows that the major subclades of D in different territories are highly differentiated and generally sharply geographically-structured, being confined to territorial spheres. At least that is the image reflected, if one goes by what's professed in the ISOGG.org website, whatever may be said of the credibility:
"Sub-group D1 (D-M15) is seen in Tibet, Mongolia, Central Asia, and Southeast Asia, and the sub-groups D* (D-M174) and D3 (D-P47) are seen in Central Asia. The sub-group D2 (D-M55) is seen almost exclusively in Japan." - ISOGG.org
Hg D* is presumably also identified in the Andaman Islands.
* A hypothetical Hg DE* back-to-Africa migration seems to have been elusive in leaving genetic tracks behind, presumably from south Asia to Africa -
The supposed back-migrants would seem to have left no genetic tracks behind in a hypothetical destination from southern Asia via the Arabian peninsula, eastern Africa through to African interior, in a hypothetical back-to-Africa migration scenario. If they did, then it had been thoroughly erased by multiple demographic shifts. Hg D's distribution in south Asia, with rare to no presence in territories between that region and Africa, is however explained by founder effect of OOA migrants, already carrying Hg DE* amongst them.
Chandrasekar's speculation is highly questionable for the same reasons just stated above; see:
"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)." - Chandrasekar et al.
Hg D is rare to absent in the Levant, and conversely, Hg E is virtually rare to absent in populations that do carry Hg D.
Furthermore, Hg E's presence in the so-called Near East, including the Levant and Europe, serves as gene flow from Africa, because Africa is where the entire Hg E phylogeny occurs, not the Levant. All upstream Hg E markers are exclusively found in Africa, and essentially none in the Levant.
The so-called Near East has far much lower frequencies of Hg E than in mainland Africa, and all of these happen to be subclades of African counterparts. Much of these subclades are relegated to the P2 (PN2) phylogeny. Upstream PN2 clades as generally known, only occur in Africa.
Revisiting Chandrasekar's post again,...
"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)." - Chandrasekar et al.
It is also of note that Chandrasekar conveniently ignores that DE* has been found in Africa as well, but in even greater frequencies than his personal favored region [aka second point above], i.e. Asia, not to mention that it is essentially non-existent in the so-called Mediterranean or the Levant. With DE* being in Africa, it is not necessary for Hg E to have come from the Levant, for reasons just mentioned and the ones immediately above this last Chandrasekar citation. Instead, Chandrasekar relies heavily on outdated studies, when Hg E phylogeny, as with many others, were in their early stages of being resolved.
His statement above, about "some of the YAP insertion chromosomes without the M174 mutation" has also implications that Chandrasekar seems to have overlooked:
* Common sense intimates that any hypothetical DE* back-to-Africa migration — and it would have to have been major enough — would have been pooled from a newly situated migrant group. The keywords here: "newly situated".
Recalling Weale et al....
"the presence of the DE* haplogroup has the effect of forcing an earlier date for the most recent common ancestor of all African YAP chromosomes. This reduces the possible time window within which a back-migration to Africa could have occurred under the scenario of an Asian origin for YAP. - Weale et al. 2003, Rare Deep-Rooting Y Chromosome Lineages in Humans." - Weale et al.
Indeed! The presence of DE* in Africa suggests that this lineage was in place very shortly after its emergence. The OOA migrants had just recently left Africa for a reason; what on earth would these folks, who had just arrived, go back to Africa for, and at such a gruesomely long distance from a south Asian refuge? Pending tangible evidence of a compelling motive, it makes little sense.
And even if one were to take a hypothetical Asian origin of DE* for granted, based on skin pigmentation allele examinations, the original carriers of these markers would have closely resembled contemporary "black Africans", and even then, Hg E would still not be Asian [considering points above].
Let's face it; it's really not all that complicated: It just so happens that Hg D exists in Asia, while Hg E plays a dominating role in Africa, well, because DE* markers were present in both. Simple enough, isn't it?!
Neither territory has the other respective sub-clade lineage, because these emerged after OOA migrations, understandably.
Not sure why finding DE* therefore, surprises anyone. It's the only way D could have arrived in south Asia sans E; thus, DE* chromosomes brought in from Africa would have to have been around, in order for D to emerge, there is no other way around it. It is also the reason one finds DE* in both Africa, the origin point of destination, and Asia, the destination. However, instead of looking at it that way, some complicate things for themselves, and say that in order for DE* to be in Asia, it surely must have emerged there, and that there is no other way around that.
The most parsimonious explanation generally tends to reduce the number of questions for each answer that it provides than the alternative. In this case, an African origin entailing DE* dispersal in a OOA migration event, paving way for a founder effect situation in southern Asia is the most parsimonious.
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Okay I just finish reading Shi et al. I somewhat agree with Debunker that Shi et al does not directly relate to the question of origin for E or DE but rather simply cites research from previous work.
..funny, since that's exactly what Chandrasekar (2007) does when he cites Hammer et al.
Incorrect.
"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."
-- Chandrasekar et al. 2007
Posted by Debunker (Member # 15669) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: I'm sure if or whenever you graduate to pre-molecular genetics 101 level and get material, these opinions will instantly become apparent as common sense. Advice: Don't continue to let common sense confuse you.
Science is not based on the "opinions" and "common sense" of amateur Afronut bloggers. It's based on evidence published in peer-reviewed studies. Advice: Get some evidence.
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
The northern Africans were selling European men and women as slaves left and right, not to mention the colonial rebelions.
This fool still thinks someone buys into his caucasoid nonsense.
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Debunker:
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: I'm sure if or whenever you graduate to pre-molecular genetics 101 level and get material, these opinions will instantly become apparent as common sense. Advice: Don't continue to let common sense confuse you.
Science is not based on the "opinions" and "common sense" of amateur Afronut bloggers. It's based on evidence published in peer-reviewed studies. Advice: Get some evidence.
As with many such things in a nascent field, this is far from conclusive.
Your thread makes it sound as if this debate is over.
I think not.
There is still more DE* in Africa than not. I haven't heard anything from you that changes this fact.
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: Debunker wrote: ----------------- -----------------
ha ha ha ha ha heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
The northern Africans were selling European men and women as slaves left and right, not to mention the colonial rebelions.
This fool still thinks someone buys into his caucasoid nonsense.
Not sure, I haven't heard this person claim DE* to be Caucasoid. There appears to be Niger/Congo type Natufians so I could see how E came from back migration from Canaan into Africa. And the Andamanese are clearly not Caucasoid.
This person seems to just want to enjoy a good fight with Afronuts.
I find it amusing.
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
Euronuts against Afronuts
I think with 5 Nigerians against 2 Tibetians I say Afronuts are in the lead.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
The only ones nuts in here are the trolls Debunked, SirIgnoramus, Assopen, Gaygoyle, and of course Marc! To call the rest of us 'nuts' might mean YOU belong in the list as well! Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
osirion is definitely a weirdo. Don't respect the guy's style at all; he'd be better off just staying out of matters that he looks stupid trying to address.
Anyways, Debunked's constant spamming of that one source while disregarding newer references that clearly diverge from his ONE appeal to authority definitely suggests that the guy be ignored until he can actually present a coherent argument as opposed to being a typical Euro hack.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Debunked:
Science is not based on the "opinions"
Of course it is based on opinions, moron, but "objectively" -- i.e. not your disorganized "subjective" medicentric fanaticism/cultism.
quote: and "common sense" of amateur Afronut bloggers.
...which remains standing as ever, since you offer no refutation, save for moanin' and bitchin' about it, like an infant girl. Not bad for an amateur, wouldn't you say?
Remember that your "opinion" was swiftly squashed here, precisely because it fails to adhere to the basic principles of genetics -- i.e. nothing more than a rambling of a lunatic. If your rambling were an "opinion" that actually conformed to standard principles of genetics, then we might simply be expected to do what you do: presume that we can spinelessly hide from common-sensitive material simply by acknowledging it for what it is, 'opinion' like every other human expression of ideas, while like an idiot, think that this constitutes a rebuttal.
quote: Get some evidence.
You bet; here:
* DE* is a descendant clade of M168. M168 is undoubtedly African; this fact alone makes it more than probable that this place [Africa] is also likely where DE* emerged.
* DE* is more common in Africa than outside of it -
It has been identified in African samples in more than one accasion in separately-conducted studies, having been identified in 5 Nigerian sampling candidates in one study, and 1 Guinean individual in another. On the other hand, it had purportedly been identified in only 2 Tibetan sampling candidates. So we have 6 African cases vs. 2 Asian cases.
* DE*'s internal phylogeny is more diverse and widely distributed in Africa -
Considering the greater internal phylogenetic branching of haplogroup E vs haplogroup D, it can be suggestive of either 1) longer time-depth for haplogroup E explosion/expansion, and hence, implicating DE* being around longer in Africa, as the homeland of haplogroup E ...
Or
2) that the haplogroup E lineage experienced an explosion that the D counterparts did not achieve in more or less the same time depth. The question becomes: What could account for this?
Either way, with fact being that African Hg E internal phylogeny is more elaborate than Hg D, the end result suggests that the intensity of such intra-E phylogenetic explosion seems to have had some level of erasing effect on DE* distribution. Given the greater pressure, due to greater demic explosion brought to bear on preexisting DE* in Africa — mainly by its own sub-phylogeny — than that which would have been the case in Asia by the YAP+ counterpart sub-phylogeny there, it's amazing that DE* is relentlessly visible enough in the African gene pool, as demonstrated by its greater chance detectability here than elsewhere, including Asia. This suggests that DE* would have been more widely distributed in Africa than in Asia, having been able to withstand greater pressure from greater subsequent demic expansion of Hg E phylogeny than that involving Hg D phylogeny, respectively in Africa and Asia.
The distribution and internal branching of Hg D suggests, on the other hand, that it involved lower scale dispersal of Hg D*, which were relatively more controlled in their subsequent expansion. The distribution pattern for instance, shows that the major subclades of D in different territories are highly differentiated and generally sharply geographically-structured, being confined to territorial spheres. At least that is the image reflected, if one goes by what's professed in the ISOGG.org website, whatever may be said of the credibility:
"Sub-group D1 (D-M15) is seen in Tibet, Mongolia, Central Asia, and Southeast Asia, and the sub-groups D* (D-M174) and D3 (D-P47) are seen in Central Asia. The sub-group D2 (D-M55) is seen almost exclusively in Japan." - ISOGG.org
Hg D* is presumably also identified in the Andaman Islands.
* A hypothetical Hg DE* back-to-Africa migration seems to have been elusive in leaving genetic tracks behind, presumably from south Asia to Africa -
The supposed back-migrants would seem to have left no genetic tracks behind in a hypothetical destination from southern Asia via the Arabian peninsula, eastern Africa through to African interior, in a hypothetical back-to-Africa migration scenario. If they did, then it had been thoroughly erased by multiple demographic shifts. Hg D's distribution in south Asia, with rare to no presence in territories between that region and Africa, is however explained by founder effect of OOA migrants, already carrying Hg DE* amongst them.
Chandrasekar's speculation is highly questionable for the same reasons just stated above; see:
"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)." - Chandrasekar et al.
Hg D is rare to absent in the Levant, and conversely, Hg E is virtually rare to absent in populations that do carry Hg D.
Furthermore, Hg E's presence in the so-called Near East, including the Levant and Europe, serves as gene flow from Africa, because Africa is where the entire Hg E phylogeny occurs, not the Levant. All upstream Hg E markers are exclusively found in Africa, and essentially none in the Levant.
The so-called Near East has far much lower frequencies of Hg E than in mainland Africa, and all of these happen to be subclades of African counterparts. Much of these subclades are relegated to the P2 (PN2) phylogeny. Upstream PN2 clades as generally known, only occur in Africa.
Revisiting Chandrasekar's post again,...
"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)." - Chandrasekar et al.
It is also of note that Chandrasekar conveniently ignores that DE* has been found in Africa as well, but in even greater frequencies than his personal favored region [aka second point above], i.e. Asia, not to mention that it is essentially non-existent in the so-called Mediterranean or the Levant. With DE* being in Africa, it is not necessary for Hg E to have come from the Levant, for reasons just mentioned and the ones immediately above this last Chandrasekar citation. Instead, Chandrasekar relies heavily on outdated studies, when Hg E phylogeny, as with many others, were in their early stages of being resolved.
His statement above, about "some of the YAP insertion chromosomes without the M174 mutation" has also implications that Chandrasekar seems to have overlooked:
* Common sense intimates that any hypothetical DE* back-to-Africa migration — and it would have to have been major enough — would have been pooled from a newly situated migrant group. The keywords here: "newly situated".
Recalling Weale et al....
"the presence of the DE* haplogroup has the effect of forcing an earlier date for the most recent common ancestor of all African YAP chromosomes. This reduces the possible time window within which a back-migration to Africa could have occurred under the scenario of an Asian origin for YAP. - Weale et al. 2003, Rare Deep-Rooting Y Chromosome Lineages in Humans." - Weale et al.
Indeed! The presence of DE* in Africa suggests that this lineage was in place very shortly after its emergence. The OOA migrants had just recently left Africa for a reason; what on earth would these folks, who had just arrived, go back to Africa for, and at such a gruesomely long distance from a south Asian refuge? Pending tangible evidence of a compelling motive, it makes little sense.
And even if one were to take a hypothetical Asian origin of DE* for granted, based on skin pigmentation allele examinations, the original carriers of these markers would have closely resembled contemporary "black Africans", and even then, Hg E would still not be Asian [considering points above].
Let's face it; it's really not all that complicated: It just so happens that Hg D exists in Asia, while Hg E plays a dominating role in Africa, well, because DE* markers were present in both. Simple enough, isn't it?!
Neither territory has the other respective sub-clade lineage, because these emerged after OOA migrations, understandably.
Not sure why finding DE* therefore, surprises anyone. It's the only way D could have arrived in south Asia sans E; thus, DE* chromosomes brought in from Africa would have to have been around, in order for D to emerge, there is no other way around it. It is also the reason one finds DE* in both Africa, the origin point of destination, and Asia, the destination. However, instead of looking at it that way, some complicate things for themselves, and say that in order for DE* to be in Asia, it surely must have emerged there, and that there is no other way around that.
The most parsimonious explanation generally tends to reduce the number of questions for each answer that it provides than the alternative. In this case, an African origin entailing DE* dispersal in a OOA migration event, paving way for a founder effect situation in southern Asia is the most parsimonious.
The question now is, whether you'll swap your bright flowery skirt for grown-up men pants, and answer to science. Little girl, get to work.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Only thing he'll work on is some retarded spin as total refutation is impossible!
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: The only ones nuts in here are the trolls Debunked, SirIgnoramus, Assopen, Gaygoyle, and of course Marc! To call the rest of us 'nuts' might mean YOU belong in the list as well!
Aren't you the same guys that insists that Ramses II was 100% Black African? I think that is nuts. Its possible that he was but at the same time it is more likely he was a mixture of Semitic, Libyan and East African.
Also, Afro-Nuts insist that the Upper Egyptians under Menes was conquering other Black North Africans? That the Lower Egyptians in pre-dynastic times were pure Black Africans.
I think thats nuts.
Clearly the Africans taming the beast are Ethiopian type Black East Africans where as the person being trampled on at the bottom is likely Semitic.
To insist on a Pure Black only Egypt I think is nutty but not as Nutty as White Egyptians of course.
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: osirion is definitely a weirdo. Don't respect the guy's style at all; he'd be better off just staying out of matters that he looks stupid trying to address.
Anyways, Debunked's constant spamming of that one source while disregarding newer references that clearly diverge from his ONE appeal to authority definitely suggests that the guy be ignored until he can actually present a coherent argument as opposed to being a typical Euro hack.
My style? I simply disagree with you on this one. You have been very helpful to me on other issues and have done an excellent job in supporting you position. However, Shi et al doesn't work in this regards to the origin question of DE* and subsequently E. Though one only needs common sense to recognize the highly improbable likelihood of DE* being SE Asian derived.
However, stranger things have been discovered.
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
I think Debunker has provided an excellent topic that needs to be discussed further.
DE* found in Tibet is most interesting but not likely to mean much but deserves our attention.
Obviously Debunker cannot argue that DE* is Caucasian since the Andamanese are clearly not.
This picture is getting more and more interesting all the time:
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ Only thing he'll work on is some retarded spin as total refutation is impossible!
If by some retarded spin you are referring to emotionalism, then yes. The radical medicentric loon will simply come crying back, stuck on broken record: "opinion", "opinion", "opinion",... Me offer this one-liner because me cannot in any semblance, challenge said "opinion".
Me think just saying "opinion" = refutation.
Me think me fool other morons like me, by this meaningless one-liner cop-out
LOL
The loon's sheer stupidity is as funny as it is tragic.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Aren't you the same guys that insists that Ramses II was 100% Black African? I think that is nuts. Its possible that he was but at the same time it is more likely he was a mixture of Semitic, Libyan and East African.
Exactly what is so "nuts" about an African king being 100% African??! You say that it is more likely that he was of mixed Asiatic and Libyan (I take it 'white') as well as black ancestry but exactly where is the evidence to suggest this?!!
quote:Also, Afro-Nuts insist that the Upper Egyptians under Menes was conquering other Black North Africans? That the Lower Egyptians in pre-dynastic times were pure Black Africans.
I think thats nuts.
Clearly the Africans taming the beast are Ethiopian type Black East Africans where as the person being trampled on at the bottom is likely Semitic.
And where exactly on the palette is this interpretation of yours "clear"??! As has been remarked by most scholars, the features of the supposed northerners are not much different from the alleged southerners..
And what is clear is from examination of the physical remains:
"..sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty (Merimda, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a south-north cline variation along the Nile valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into southern Palestine. The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans."---Ancient Egypt Anatomy of a Civilisation, Barry Kemp, Routledge; 2 ed, 2005, pp. 7-105)
quote:To insist on a Pure Black only Egypt I think is nutty but not as Nutty as White Egyptians of course.
Again, what is so "nutty" about a nation in Africa being all black?! I just don't see it. But what I do see is your bias I take it out of some twisted Jewish ethnocentrism that truly has become nutty!-- Asiatic (you presume Jewish ancestors) responsible for northern Egyptian culture and therefore co-founding Egypt!
We've been over your claims countless times before! It just ain't so. Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
^ See, just what I am talking about. Nutty!
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
Hoffman, Ibid., 214
The people of Ma'adi were among the communities of Asiatic peoples who were still productively active in the north at the time it was invaded and their communities destroyed. The Asiatics suffered a cruel thanks for the technology and culture they had introduced. "Ma'adi met a violent end as witnessed by widespread ash and human bones over the settlement. If so, then perhaps this was the "final solution' arranged for the heterogenous society of Ma'adi by the victorious kings of the First Dynasty."11
Ｈｏｗ ｍａｎｙ ｔｉｍｅｓ ｉｎ ｈｉｓｔA 359;ｒｙ ｈａｖｅ Ｊｅｗｓ ｂｅｅｎ ｗｉｐｅ ｄ ｏｕｔ？
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by osirion: My style? I simply disagree with you on this one. You have been very helpful to me on other issues and have done an excellent job in supporting you position. However, Shi et al doesn't work in this regards to the origin question of DE* and subsequently E. Though one only needs common sense to recognize the highly improbable likelihood of DE* being SE Asian derived.
However, stranger things have been discovered.
osirion. Thanx for the compliment but I just don't appreciate how you go about loosely referring to everyone as "Afronuts" or "Euronuts". You throw insults at people so casually. Your point of disagreement isn't an issue, it's your polarizing language.
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
None, or the sh!tty little religion wouldn't still be around today...duh.
Posted by Debunker (Member # 15669) on :
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Your thread makes it sound as if this debate is over.
Let's just say that the debate has been reignited in a big way, and this makes Afrocentrists very nervous and angry, especially when they don't have any evidence to refute the new studies. We'll see what the future holds.
Of course, there's never been consensus on the origin of haplogroup E. The Afrocentrists just chose to believe what they wanted/needed to believe ("emotionally driven religious cultism"). But ISOGG, which summarizes developments and debates in the field, has always included both the African and Asian models:
"Y-DNA haplogroup E probably arose in Northeast Africa, if one looks only at the concentration and variety of E subclades in that area today. But the fact that Haplogroup E is closely linked with Haplogroup D, which is not found in Africa, leaves open the possibility that E first arose in the Near or Middle East and was subsequently carried into Africa by a back migration. Today E* is found predominantly in Ethiopia. E1 and E2 are found in Northeast Africa, but surveys show E1 may actually be more prevalent in Mali than in its presumed region of origin. E4 is a minor subclade. E3 is by far the lineage of greatest geographical distribution. It has two important sub-lineages, E3a and E3b. E3a is an African lineage that probably expanded from northern Africa to sub-Saharan and equatorial Africa with the Bantu agricultural expansion. E3a is the most common lineage among African Americans. E3b probably evolved either in Northeast Africa or the Near East and then expanded to the west both north and south of the Mediterranean Sea. E3b clusters are seen today in Western Europe, the Balkans, the Near East, Northeast Africa and Northwest Africa. The Cruciani articles (references and links below) are indispensable resources for understanding the structure of this complicated haplogroup."
Seen it before (wiki's retarded over parroted sorry excuse for a source -- well, nothing against isogg but claiming non-Africa origin for lineages that originate South of the Sahara & only show up outside of it in downstream lineages means somebody needs some help is all).
Debunker, you understand the subhect matter, correct?
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
^ I still have not heard Debunker use the word - Caucasoid or tried to make such a claim.
You are probably right but I am not seeing it.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
Reminder: For anybody with a brain cell, and is not a radical 'medicentric' wacko, this works just fine in summing up the blog post, though again, not really required for support, since the post obviously stands well on its own:
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. - Peter A. Underhill , Toomas Kivisild, Use of Y Chromosome and Mitochondrial DNA Population Structure in Tracing Human Migrations
Posted by zarahan (Member # 15718) on :
quote:Originally posted by osirion: QUOTE]Aren't you the same guys that insists that Ramses II was 100% Black African? I think that is nuts. Its possible that he was but at the same time it is more likely he was a mixture of Semitic, Libyan and East African.
Also, Afro-Nuts insist that the Upper Egyptians under Menes was conquering other Black North Africans? That the Lower Egyptians in pre-dynastic times were pure Black Africans.
I think thats nuts.
Can you provide an example of any serious poster here claiming that "Lower Egyptians in pre-dynastic times were pure Black Africans"? or any of the your other claims? Go ahead. Let's see what you got. While you are at it- what's your definition of the term you use- "Black African"? and how do you define "pure" in relation to "Black African"? You use the terms- so what are your definitions?
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
^ boring - move on.
Deal with: Hoffman, Ibid., 214
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
^I don't know about any "pure" black Africans but that citation you posted is "pure" garbage.
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
^ go on
explain
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
You're the one who posted that random nonsense. Defend it..
quote:The Asiatics suffered a cruel thanks for the technology and culture they had introduced.
Posted by zarahan (Member # 15718) on :
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Hoffman, Ibid., 214
The people of Ma'adi were among the communities of Asiatic peoples who were still productively active in the north at the time it was invaded and their communities destroyed. The Asiatics suffered a cruel thanks for the technology and culture they had introduced. "Ma'adi met a violent end as witnessed by widespread ash and human bones over the settlement. If so, then perhaps this was the "final solution' arranged for the heterogenous society of Ma'adi by the victorious kings of the First Dynasty."11
Hold on there. The blurb you post is taken from a website (Hebrew history) dedicated to arguing for and magnifying the reputed Semitic influence in forming Egypt. Among other things it repeats the old Dynastic Race Theory- namely, in the beginning Egypt was crude and primitive. Then an influx of advanced Asiatics (Semites) came along, and there was light. The Semites allegedly introduced agriculture to the natives who did not know how to farm or domesticate cattle or plants, introduced advanced tools, and even introduced a more democratic style living in contrast to those evil hierarchial natives. This cosy picture is quite shaky however on several counts.
For one thing, the pattern of peoples in Lower Egypt, while more variable in terms of crania than the South, clustered towards African types as shown in modern limb proportion studies. In any event, both Lower and Upper Egyptians clustered much more towards each other than the reputed "Semitic civilizers" or "Aryan" ones for that matter. (Zakrewski 2007, Keita 92, 93, 04,05, Kemp 2005, Lovell 1999, etc etc)
quote:
"..sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty (Merimda, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a south-north cline variation along the Nile valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into southern Palestine. The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans."Ancient Egypt Anatomy of a Civilisation, Barry Kemp, Routledge; 2 ed, 2005, pp. 50-55
Second the much more reliable Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt By Kathryn A. Bard, Steven Blake Shubert (2002) debunks "Semitic influx" notions, showing that Ma'adi most likely developed from indigenous roots. quote: pg 23 "The Ma'adi culture, named after the site of Ma'adi located south of present day Cairo, most likely evolved from indigenous Neolithic cultures."
It also shows that the main overall weight or direction of cultural expansion was South-> North. The bulk of the most important sites and cultural areas were in the South, Naqada, Abydos, etc etc.. If civilization was due to alleged 'Caucasoids" or "Semites" from the north or Sinai, this would not have been the pattern. The north did have significant trade in some areas, and amassed its own sophiscated zones of wealth and crafts, but it was hardly alone in this gioventhe contact between north and south and the ultimate tide of advance rolled from the south.
quote:
"Possibly there was first a more or less peaceful movement or migrations(s) of Nagada culture peoples from south to north, as suggested by archaeological evidence of Nagada culture in the Fayum region. The final unification of Upper and Lower Egypt under one rule may have been achieved by military conquest(s) in the north, but there is not much evidence for this aside from scenes carved on stylistically late Predynastic palettes... There was undoubtedly heightened commerical contact with southwest Asia in the late fourth millennium BC, but the Early Dynastic state in Egypt was unique and indigenous in character." p. 29 Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt By Kathryn A. Bard, Steven Blake Shubert
Third the dramatic claims of fire, destruction and "final solutions" appear much less than advertised. As noted by the Encyclopedia above, such a "holocaust" appears unlikely. Ash on the old Maadi site could be merely ash from various mining and craft operations. And indeed, just this is said by the touregyt.com website's page on Maadi which uses the Hoffman reference among others. Apparently touregyt did not find any fiery Holocausts at Maadi.
quote:
[i] "Substantial ash deposits also point to industrial activities... Its ultimate abandonment, however, may have been due to the ease with which its location was imitated by the ancient capital of Egypt, Memphis, located only ten kilometers north of Maadi. Another contributory factor may have also been the fact that after the unification of Egypt, its rulers sought to control and exclude the nomads that undoubtedly provided considerable trade goods to the area." http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/maadi.htm
Well! Hardly the dramatic "final solution" imposed by the conquering 'Negroes' on dem there sensitive northerners.
Sunddjata said:
"You're the one who posted that random nonsense. Defend it.. "
How do you define "Black Africans"? How do you define "pure" in relation to said "Blacks"? Is it true that your Semites Asiatics introduced civilization to the natives? Was there indeed a "holocaust" imposed on Maadi? You advanced these claims. Defend them. Let's see what you got.
Posted by Freehand (Member # 10819) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata:
quote:Originally posted by osirion: My style? I simply disagree with you on this one. You have been very helpful to me on other issues and have done an excellent job in supporting you position. However, Shi et al doesn't work in this regards to the origin question of DE* and subsequently E. Though one only needs common sense to recognize the highly improbable likelihood of DE* being SE Asian derived.
However, stranger things have been discovered.
osirion. Thanx for the compliment but I just don't appreciate how you go about loosely referring to everyone as "Afronuts" or "Euronuts". You throw insults at people so casually. Your point of disagreement isn't an issue, it's your polarizing language.
At first (a while back) i just saw the comments with "Afro-nuts" as facetious if not satirical and now i just see them as corny.
Not only does his somewhat awkward and corny use of "Afro-nuts" get old fast, but as you noted i'm starting to think he really does ultimately think of this as a debate between two polarized monoliths, Euro- and Afro- ethnocentrists (originally DumbEuro/Euro-Disney/Debunked's own coinage: "while the Afro-nuts are busy creaming themselves over Brace 2005 ... " but coming from him it's funny cuz he has a serious problem)
Posted by Freehand (Member # 10819) on :
quote:Originally posted by osirion: ^ I still have not heard Debunker use the word - Caucasoid or tried to make such a claim.
Neither have i, (i noticed too) though knowing him he's itching.
Then again, Caucasoid was fully destroid in Charlie Bass's "East African Caucasoid myth" thread.
Posted by ackee (Member # 16371) on :
What's the big deal here?why can't folks just look at Africa as they would any other continent,that people moved around setup trading centers that grew into cities that grew into kingdoms and eventually empires,that they then had contact with other folks outside Africa trading and warfaring.Why insist on a continent full of people needing out side help for problem solving,I mean Africa is full of Africans because they were successfull.
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
quote: How do you define "Black Africans"? How do you define "pure" in relation to said "Blacks"? Is it true that your Semites Asiatics introduced civilization to the natives? Was there indeed a "holocaust" imposed on Maadi? You advanced these claims. Defend them. Let's see what you got.
I defended my claim when I post a source. As for civilization, the source did not claim that. It merely claimed technology and culture trade. East Africans were already practicing what is known as Egyptian culture in Upper Egypt well before the 1st dynasty. So the real question you should be asking me is WHAT technology and cultural components were assimilated into the existing Nubian/Egyptian regions from Asiatics that were either assimilated or wiped out.
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
quote:Originally posted by ackee: What's the big deal here?why can't folks just look at Africa as they would any other continent,that people moved around setup trading centers that grew into cities that grew into kingdoms and eventually empires,that they then had contact with other folks outside Africa trading and warfaring.Why insist on a continent full of people needing out side help for problem solving,I mean Africa is full of Africans because they were successfull.
True, but Afro-Nuts try to claim complete isolation. It is unnecessary since European civilizations were not isolated from Africans and Asiatics either.
I simply claim that there were quite a few Semitic trading centers in Lower Egypt in pre-dynastic times. Not sure what precipitated the war against them but they were clearly destroyed and evidence shows absorption of their maternal lineage.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:I defended my claim when I post a source.
osirion. No you didn't. You simply posted trash from a Hebrew nationalist web page and expected people to take it at face value. Also, you should stop ignoring zaharan's points. That is very unscholarly.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by osirion: ^ See, just what I am talking about. Nutty!
No we don't see what you're talking about as everything in my response to your claims is totally logical. Then again, seeing is in the mind of the beholder so of course an irrational 'nutty' person could see alot of things despite reality.
quote: Hoffman, Ibid., 214
The people of Ma'adi were among the communities of Asiatic peoples who were still productively active in the north at the time it was invaded and their communities destroyed. The Asiatics suffered a cruel thanks for the technology and culture they had introduced. "Ma'adi met a violent end as witnessed by widespread ash and human bones over the settlement. If so, then perhaps this was the "final solution' arranged for the heterogenous society of Ma'adi by the victorious kings of the First Dynasty."11
LMAO This is obviously taken from a Jewish psuedo-scholarly source as not only is there no evidence of Asiatic communities in the Delta during predynastic times but definitely no evidence of a "holocaust" against them!! As Zarahan clearly shows in the multiple true scholarly sources he cites, the Delta people did indeed cultural implements from Asiatics via trade but that did not mean they themselves were Asiatic!!
Jeesh, first the Nordicists, then the Medicentrists, and now the Jewcentrists!! It seems every centrism is plausible other than the obvious Afrocentrism as *all* ancient Egyptians (including Delta ones) were African!
And for Osirion to call us nutty is like the dove calling the raven white! Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
^ Ma'adi met a violent end as witnessed by widespread ash and human bones over the settlement.
Are you saying that there is no evidence when the source claims such evidence? Nevermind the fact it is indeed posted on a Hebrew-centric site (as if Egyptsearch does not have its on centrism) but the quest is whether or not there was indeed Asiatics that were wiped out in the same manner as depicted on the Narmer palette.
"bvious Afrocentrism as *all* ancient Egyptians (including Delta ones) were African!"
The above is nutty!
ALL were African? Really? Right next door to Palestine and yet its a pure African region with no admixture?
Nutty!
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:"bvious Afrocentrism as *all* ancient Egyptians (including Delta ones) were African!"
The above is nutty!
^^About as "nutty" as saying that *all* Levantines (including those of the Sinai) were Asiatic! Posted by zarahan (Member # 15718) on :
^^ lol..
1) We are challenging your evidence. We again ask, can you show us proof of this fiery "final solution", this supposed "holocaust" perpetrated by the hegmons of Upper Egypt? We all know your supposedly "Semitic" north was taken over by the south, but most current scholars see a mix of things- from peaceful trade, to outright conquest, to slow absorption via alliances, etc. So again, we ask, can you show archaeological proof of this fiery "Holocaust" on the poor northern "Semites"? Proof, not a blurb by one writer in 1980. So far you have failed to provide such.
2) You claim that the "Afrocentrists" say Egypt was "completely isolated" from Asia. Really now... Who might these people be? Any established posters on ES? How about Asante? Diop? Keita? From whence this claim of "complete isolation"? You advanced this claim. We ask for proof. SO far you have failed to show any.
3) You imply and your Hebrew History site clearly implies, that advanced Semites supposedly introduced all the good things- the elaborations, and sophiscation that was to become Dynastic Egypt. OK, so let's take your source and lay it against mainstream scholarship, INCLUDING research by ISRAELI archaeologists as shown at the bottom:
Quote: "What is truly unique about this state is the integration of rule over an extensive geographic region, in contrast to other contemporaneous Near Easter polities in Nubia, Mesopotamia, Palestine and the Levant. Present evidence suggests that the state which emerged by the First Dynasty had its roots in the Nagada culture of Upper Egypt, where grave types, pottery and artifacts demonstrate an evolution of form from the Predynastic to the First Dynasty, This cannot be demonstrated for the material culture of Lower Egypt, which was eventually displaced by that which originated in Upper Egypt. Hierarchical society with much social and economic differentiation, as symbolized in the Nagada II cemeteries of Upper Egypt, does not seem to have been present, then, in Lower Egypt, a fact which supports an Upper Egyptian origin for the unified state. Thus archaeological evidence cannot support earlier theories that the founders of Egyptian civilization were an invading Dynastic race from the east.."
"Egyptian contact in the 4th millennium B.C. with SW Asia is undeniable, but the effect of this contact on state formation is Egypt is less cleat... The unified state which emerged in Egypt in the 3rd millenium B.C. however, was unlike the polities in Mesopotamia, the Levant, northern Syria, or Early Bronze Age Palestine- in sociopolitical organization, material culture, and belief system. There was undoubtedly heightened commercial contact with SW Asia in the 4th millennium B.C., but the Early Dynastic state which emerged in Egypt is unique and religious in character."
Bard, Kathryn A. 1994 The Egyptian Predynastic: A Review of the Evidence. Journal of Field Archaeology 21(3):265-288.
There you have it. Everyone knows there was extensive trade contact with Mesopotamia in early Egypt, but that does not translate into your simplictic claim of "Semites" virtually building Egyptian early civilization.
As for said "Semites" no one denies there was movement of such people, if even to trade one would expect to see such movement. But scholarship shows no mass influx of such people, and their presence does not translate into your supposed 'Semitic civiizer" approach. Keep in mind that as far as cranial studies, most find that Upper and Lower Egyptians cluster much more closely with one another than anyone else. This would not be so, under your Hebrew History's pro-Semite claim. Keep in mind also that limb proportion studies group the peoples of the north with Africans rather than Europeans.
Quote: "..sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty (Merimda, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a south-north cline variation along the Nile valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into southern Palestine. The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans."Ancient Egypt Anatomy of a Civilisation, Barry Kemp, Routledge; 2 ed, 2005, pp. 50-55
Also using mostly northern samples, head to head comparisons were run in 2008 against other peoples like Black Americans, White americans, Southern Europeans and Northern Europeans. The results- tropically adapted peoples like Black Amerians matched up closer with the ancient Egyptians than with the whites. Where does this leave your all-important "Semites?"
quote: "We also compare Egyptian body proportions to those of modern American Blacks and Whites... Long bone stature regression equations were then derived for each sex. Our results confirm that, although ancient Egyptians are closer in body proportion to modern American Blacks than they are to American Whites, proportions in Blacks and Egyptians are not identical... Intralimb indices are not significantly different between Egyptians and American Blacks. ..brachial indices are definitely more ‘African’... There is no evidence for significant variation in proportions among temporal or social groupings; thus, the new formulae may be broadly applicable to ancient Egyptian remains." ("Stature estimation in ancient Egyptians: A new technique based on anatomical reconstruction of stature." Michelle H. Raxter, Christopher B. Ruff, Ayman Azab, Moushira Erfan, Muhammad Soliman, Aly El-Sawaf, (Am J Phys Anthropol. 2008, Jun;136(2):147-55
4) As for your precious 'Semites' from Palestine, the data at hand suggest that it was the Upper Egyptian hegemons that were the organizers of major trade to Palestine rather than the other way around, and that they were a major factor in the expansion of a more sophiscated urbanization there. And this is data by ISRAELI scholars not "American Afrocentrists."
quote:
"From Petrie onwards, it was regularly suggested that despite the evidence of Predynastic cultures, Egyptian civilization of the 1st Dynasty appeared suddenly and must therefore have been introduced by an invading foreign 'race'. Since the 1970s however, excavations at Abydos and Hierakonpolis have clearly demonstrated the indigenous, Upper Egyptian roots of early civilization in Egypt.
Contact between northern Egypt and Palestine was overland, as evidence in northern Sinai demonstrates.. Israeli archealogists suggest that this evidence represents a commercial network established and controlled by the Egyptians as early as EBA Ia, and that this network was a major factor in the rise of the urban settlements found later in Palestine EBA II. Naomi Porat's technological study of ceramics from EBA sites in southern Palestine clearly demonstrates that in EBA Ib strata many of the pottery vessels used for food preparation were probably manufactured by Egyptian potters using Egyptian technology but local Palestinian clays. In EBA Ib strata there are also many storage jars made from Nile silt and marl wares, which must have been imported from Egypt. Not only did the Egyptians establish camps and way stations in norhern Sinai, but the ceramic evidence also suggests that they established a highly organized network of settlements in southern Palestine where an Egyptian population was in residence."
Ian Shaw ed. (2003) The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt By Ian Shaw. Oxford University Press, page 40-63 Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Indeed. We presented evidence or rather the lack of evidence of any Asiatic community present in the Delta let alone any "holocaust" or genocide against them, yet Osirion still clings to his claim!
quote:Originally posted by osirion: True, but Afro-Nuts try to claim complete isolation. It is unnecessary since European civilizations were not isolated from Africans and Asiatics either.
Strawman argument. Nobody said anything about isolation. Just because Egypt was in contact with Palestine does not mean there were any Palestinian populations present in Egypt.
quote:I simply claim that there were quite a few Semitic trading centers in Lower Egypt in pre-dynastic times. Not sure what precipitated the war against them but they were clearly destroyed and evidence shows absorption of their maternal lineage.
Again, trading centers yes but no 'Semitics' as in Asiatics! And there is no evidence of any attack or conflict let alone conflagration against these traders! Lastly, by maternal lineage I take it you mean U6. How many times do we have to tell you that U6 is AFRICAN in origin despite similarities to other U haplogroups in much the same way that M1 is African despite similarities to other M* derived haplogroups in Asia! U6 is predominant in Africa than it is outside of it so whatever minimal presence found in the Levant can only be due to influxes from Africa which corresponds to the presence of paternal E lineages in that area also! So please spare us silly conjecture of a community prehistoric 'Jewish' traders who were victims of a genocide where only the women survived! LOL The archaeology does not support it, the anthropological remains don't, and neither do the genetics!
quote:Ma'adi met a violent end as witnessed by widespread ash and human bones over the settlement.
Not according to all the scholarly data gathered on Maadi.
quote:Are you saying that there is no evidence when the source claims such evidence? Nevermind the fact it is indeed posted on a Hebrew-centric site (as if Egyptsearch does not have its on centrism) but the quest is whether or not there was indeed Asiatics that were wiped out in the same manner as depicted on the Narmer palette.
LOL Nevermind the fact that your so-called source is the ONLY one that makes such a claim while all others do not! Also Egyptsearch may be centric, but it is truthcentric-- all Afrocentrism you percieve comes from the simple FACT that Egypt is African! It's been shown to you already that the people of Maadi via studies of their own bodily remains were of African origin and NOT Asiatics, and again there is nothing objective in the Narmer Palette to show that Narmer's enemies were Asiatics themselves!
quote:"obvious Afrocentrism as *all* ancient Egyptians (including Delta ones) were African!"
The above is nutty!
ALL were African? Really? Right next door to Palestine and yet its a pure African region with no admixture?
Nutty!
There's nothing "nutty" about about EVIDENCE or your case a lack thereof! Yes Egypt is right next door to the Levant which means it is always a possibility even a likely hood of peoples from the Levant. There is even evidence from genetics that a few of the J lineages in Egypt go back farther than the Arab invasion into prehistoric times, hence only a few and not enough to mark any community of Asiatics as all the early Delta remains including Maadi show African characteristics. On the contrary we have evidence of the opposite-- substantial E lineages in the Levant back up by contemporary skeletal remains with African features (Natufians)!
It's not a matter of centrism or bias but again of EVIDENCE and therefore REALITY. You call others "nutty" when it is YOU who hypothesizes not only a prehistoric community of Asiatics in the Delta but a genocide against them!
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata:
quote:"bvious Afrocentrism as *all* ancient Egyptians (including Delta ones) were African!"
The above is nutty!
^^About as "nutty" as saying that *all* Levantines (including those of the Sinai) were Asiatic!
Hey I have learned something from this site: strawman.
Yes I get to use it.
Cool.
Why would I think Western Asiatics are 100% Asian? Not with the significant amount of African/Nubian admixture. They also speak what there is evidence for, a African language. So likely they are a significant mixture between Indo-European and East African.
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
Dhjeuti:
"There is even evidence from genetics that a few of the J lineages in Egypt go back farther than the Arab invasion into prehistoric times"
Are you schizophrenic or something? First you say its pure Black African and now you admit to Asiatic genes in North Africa back to the upper Holocene?
Everyone above has only repeated what I said and thrown in a few strawmens. Not one of you has refuted a single thing.
I claim trading centers similar to the ones during pre-Aksumite era when the Sabeans made small trading colonies in Northern Ethiopia. Asiatic people trading culture and technology in the Delta with Africans (also why you find mostly African remains because the predominant people of the Delta were Africans no different than modern day Nubians and containing the diversity we see in people such as the Tuareg, Oromos and other Nilotic Africans). These Asiatics also gained from this trade.
Considering that early excavations have shown that Egyptian masonry is of Upper Egyptian/Nubian source, I am certainly not claiming that the techno-complex of Egypt was Asiatic. There were some styles that were Asiatic but the type of masonry work we see is really more Nubian than Asiatic.
As far as the Narmer Palette is concerned. I believe it depicts people like are clearly differentiated from each other.
Clearly an exagerated Afro styled African -vs- a hooked nose Asiatic type similar to the ones we see on chest of King Tut:
I personally think this war between NE Africa and the Asiatics has been going on since the Holocene. A rivalry of sorts between Black Africans and their neighbors to the East of them.
War of the Titans since well into pre-Dynastic times.
Posted by zarahan (Member # 15718) on :
You havent provided any evidence to support your claims. Let's recap.
1) You claimed that mysterious Afrocentrists say Egypt is "completely isolated" from Palestine etc. Status- no evidence to back it up.
2) You claimed a fiery holocaust, a "final solution" consumed Maadi. Status- no evidence to back it up.
3) You claimed a large number of Semitic trading centers. Status- no evidence to back it up.
4) Your Hebrew History claimed massive Asiatic influence in civilizing the natives. There was trade and interchange, but hardly any massive civilizing effect. Status- no evidence to back it up.
On the traders, Sure there could have been traders, and other miscellaneous small scale movement or settlement, but the question is how significant are they as far as population? Archaeological evidence shows no major influx.
Where is the proof of the "quite a few Semitic trading centers"? It should be noted that Upper Egyptians also ran a fair amount of trade themselves with the north, so don't try to equate "trade" with "Semitic".. Hmmm... now that sounds familar... Trade was a 2 way street.
The early southern rulers also dominated parts of Palestine in view of trade according to some writers:
Quotes: WIlkinson 1999 (early Dynastic Egypt) shows "substantial Egyptian activity in southern Palestine during the late Predynastic to early Dynastic transition,” including establishment of military bases and more forceful domination of trade terms. (Wilkinson 1999, p.24).
and within Egypt, Memphis appeared ideally situated to the purposes of the southerners as they centralized power and brought more advanced culture and technology to the north. "The greater Memphite area must have seen the first changes to this indigenous tradition caused by the northward expansion of the more advanced technologies from Upper Egypt..” (Wilkinson 1999, p.31)
So the notion of "Semites" bringing civilization to the natives as claimed in the 'Hebrew History 'website is dubious. That is just a "Semitic" version of the old "Aryan model". Both are defunct.
On top of that the supposed "Asiatic" civilizers" did not seem to have shaped the development of Egyptian Dynastic civilization much at all. Trade as we have seen, was firmly in the hands of Egyptians not supposed 'Semites" and as to the claimed "Asiatic" influence:
"What is truly unique about this state is the integration of rule over an extensive geographic region, in contrast to other contemporaneous Near Easter polities in Nubia, Mesopotamia, Palestine and the Levant. Present evidence suggests that the state which emerged by the First Dynasty had its roots in the Nagada culture of Upper Egypt, where grave types, pottery and artifacts demonstrate an evolution of form from the Predynastic to the First Dynasty. This cannot be demonstrated for the material culture of Lower Egypt, which was eventually displaced by that which originated in Upper Egypt.."
"Egyptian contact in the 4th millennium B.C. with SW Asia is undeniable, but the effect of this contact on state formation is Egypt is less cleat... The unified state which emerged in Egypt in the 3rd millenium B.C. however, was unlike the polities in Mesopotamia, the Levant, northern Syria, or Early Bronze Age Palestine- in sociopolitical organization, material culture, and belief system. There was undoubtedly heightened commercial contact with SW Asia in the 4th millennium B.C., but the Early Dynastic state which emerged in Egypt is unique and religious in character."
Bard, Kathryn A. 1994 The Egyptian Predynastic: A Review of the Evidence. Journal of Field Archaeology 21(3):265-288.
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
^ You now are King Strawman.
Asiatic civilizers? When did I say that.
In fact when did I say anything you claimed I said above. Aryan Model? Lol? I claim Hebrew trading colonies and you speark of Aryans? I must agree that I do think that Aryans were indeed Hebrew but that is not the point. Hebrew people became subjects of the Egyptians rather than the other way around as claimed by White Nationalists.
I claim a Saharan origin of Egypt's culture not Asiatic. However, technological trade is still quite supported and again the masonry work of Egypt can be attribtued to Nubian development not Asiatic.
Personally I think there was a synthesis of Asiatic and African culture with the latter being dominant that led to Egypt's dynastic period. So if there was a Dynastic Race it was African. But this doesn't mean that the Africans did not have an Asiatic conquered class in their midst and no one yet has provided any review of my post that corrects supposed errors other than simply arguing against it in a philosophical way.
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
"Egyptian contact in the 4th millennium B.C. with SW Asia is undeniable, but the effect of this contact on state formation is Egypt is less cleat... The unified state which emerged in Egypt in the 3rd millenium B.C. however, was unlike the polities in Mesopotamia, the Levant, northern Syria, or Early Bronze Age Palestine- in sociopolitical organization, material culture, and belief system. There was undoubtedly heightened commercial contact with SW Asia in the 4th millennium B.C., but the Early Dynastic state which emerged in Egypt is unique and religious in character."
Thanks for this post it helps strengthen my position. Appreciate it.
Posted by ackee (Member # 16371) on :
@ Zarahan,the^was what I was talking about I was just now thumming thru an old copy of Egypt revisited to provide a similar response,but you got to it first.The contents of an A-group royal tomb at Qustul includes large amounts of fine painted pottery,with one large bowl decorated with rows of palace facades;a Syro-palastinian early Bronze 1 jug and egyptian pottery.Now you have to remember that Ta-Seti was no mere chieftancy but a state that conducted warfare or trade with whomever they like or dont like,quote: The last group came from the Lavant and was made in the tradition of Syro-Palestinian vessels dating to the early Bronze 1 period(before ca 3200/3150 B.C.). Almost all of these were found in a single early cemetary L tomb and represent a type that has never been found in Egypt-although close parallels have been found on the Asiatic cost.
Now for the warfare part.The bow hovers over a shortened rectangle which in this period represents land.The obvious interpretation is that the man is saluting the name for Nubia-Ta-Seti,or"Land of the Bow"-as a kingship and territoral state. Three objects from cemetary L relate even more directly to the history of the kingdom of Ta-Seti.The first is a large bowl from tomb L23 which has an elaborate painting of a processional scene leading to a shrine made of poles.Three vultures appear, two of them holding serpents in their talons and attacking them with their beaks,the specific occurrence of this motif on the Qustul bowl allows us to follow a chronological progression in the development of this motif on two other important objects.One of these also a large bowl the other an Egyptian storage jar.It shows a vertical pole with an oval object on it being attacked by an elongated vulture like bird.The back and neck of the bird is streched in an exaggerated arc,like that made by tails.The oval under attack contains two diagonal lines,clearly the sign for Nekhen or Heirakonpolis,the late prehistoric site that has yielded so much evidence for the rise of the Egyptian pharaohs.The third piece of evidence ,from cemetary L19,painted on the side are static heraldic groups,consisting of two giraffes facing a tree with aleast one animal above and behind them.The most striking feature of this decoration is crown of the palm tree between the giraffes which has been supplanted by an animal group including the now familiar vulture.Here the bird tears not at a serpent or a symbol but at a fallen man,the fallen man is labeled below his knee with the familiar oval land sign-without the two diagonal marks,instead a plant extends at an odd angle from the left end of the torso which can no longer be seen,the plant has three opposed pair of short leaves and a broad stalk that curves sharply to a point an early form of the symbol for Upper Egypt.The plant with the land oval can only be read one way, the Fallen enemy is labeled Ta-Shemau or upper Egypt.On the other bowl the enemy is fallen on his back rather than forward.The long flat land sign extends from his knee and thevertical sign appears to make aquestion mark above this,in all probablity,is the label Ta-Tjemeh or Libya. All of these complex parts comprise the great legacy of the cemetary at Qustul-the eloquent remains of a remarkable civilization that rose out of both Egyptian and Sudanese heritages and had contacts as far away as Libya and west Asia.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Are you schizophrenic or something? First you say its pure Black African and now you admit to Asiatic genes in North Africa back to the upper Holocene?
First of all I never argued any 'purity' so much as no substantial presence of Asiatics in that we have NO archaeological or anthropological remains of such.
Second, the few J lineages present in the Delta date to Neolithic expansions-- the same that led to Greece. Obviously Greece received alot more of them than Egypt.
quote:Everyone above has only repeated what I said and thrown in a few strawmens. Not one of you has refuted a single thing.
LOL I don't recall anyone in here repeating any hypothesis of Asiatic communities in the predynastic Delta who were victims of a pre-Jewish Holocaust!
quote:I claim trading centers similar to the ones during pre-Aksumite era when the Sabeans made small trading colonies in Northern Ethiopia. Asiatic people trading culture and technology in the Delta with Africans (also why you find mostly African remains because the predominant people of the Delta were Africans no different than modern day Nubians and containing the diversity we see in people such as the Tuareg, Oromos and other Nilotic Africans). These Asiatics also gained from this trade.
But whatever trading centers in Maadi were African and NOT Asiatic. And there was no violent genocide against them.
quote:Considering that early excavations have shown that Egyptian masonry is of Upper Egyptian/Nubian source, I am certainly not claiming that the techno-complex of Egypt was Asiatic. There were some styles that were Asiatic but the type of masonry work we see is really more Nubian than Asiatic.
Again, masonry and metallurgy was indigenous to Egypt and the rest of Africa. The main thing the Egyptians traded with Asiatics are simple tools of pottery, wood, and even foods like wheat.
quote:As far as the Narmer Palette is concerned. I believe it depicts people that are clearly differentiated from each other.
And again YOU believe. It is not a matter of belief but what is. There is nothing to suggest that the enemies defeated were Asiatics!
quote:Clearly an exagerated Afro styled African -vs- a hooked nose Asiatic type similar to the ones we see on chest of King Tut:
There are no "hook-nosed" figures in the Narmer Palette unless you count enemy whose nose is literally being hooked by a hawk! They are not wearing Asiatic garb but African and nothing to suggest they came from anywhere else but the Delta.
quote:I personally think this war between NE Africa and the Asiatics has been going on since the Holocene. A rivalry of sorts between Black Africans and their neighbors to the East of them.
Again, what you personally think is irrelevent to what is known.
quote:War of the Titans since well into pre-Dynastic times.
LOL That's some imagination you got there. I mean even your ancient Hebrew texts speak of no such thing. Likely because there never was one!
"..sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty (Merimda, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a south-north cline variation along the Nile valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into southern Palestine. The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans." Ancient Egypt Anatomy of a Civilisation, Barry Kemp, Routledge; 2 ed, 2005, pp. 50-55
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
"There are no "hook-nosed" figures in the Narmer Palette unless you count enemy whose nose is literally being hooked by a hawk! "
Quite so and very symbolic of the hook nosed Asiatics lying dead on the battle fields.
However, it is the hair texture of the people in Lower Egypt that differentiates them from the Upper Egyptians. The Lower Egyptians have more coarse straight hair where as the Upper Egyptians have what is clearly Afro fizzy hair. And again if you look closely the Lower Egyptians have hooked pointy noses very much different from the boulbous nose of Narmer himself.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
^^Pseudo-scholarship..
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
^ Ha! Its not even scholarship its my opinion.
This is Scholarship:
Hoffman, Ibid., 214
The people of Ma'adi were among the communities of Asiatic peoples who were still productively active in the north at the time it was invaded and their communities destroyed. The Asiatics suffered a cruel thanks for the technology and culture they had introduced. "Ma'adi met a violent end as witnessed by widespread ash and human bones over the settlement. If so, then perhaps this was the "final solution' arranged for the heterogenous society of Ma'adi by the victorious kings of the First Dynasty."11
Now why don't you guys look at the footnote and find out what evidence support the above scholarship and point out any errors.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
^^Well, your "opinion" is baseless and thus, should be disregarded.
The one who should be double checking citations is you so that you may proceed to defend your bankrupt argument.
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
Moving on:
Does it follow that simply because there isn't a substantial amount of skeletal remains supporting a trading center in Lower Egypt, that we can conclude that Asiatics had not penetrated into Lower Egypt and setup trading centers and farm lands? How about we look at other East African societies. Pre-Aksumite remains also appear to be quite African even though we know there were Sabean trading colonies in Ethiopia that existed before the rise of the Aksumite society. Simply to cite skeletal remains will not suffice considering the amount of physical evidence supporting ties with Libya and West Asia.
Though Aksum is clearly an African civilization with its own independent religious customs and script, we still must recognize Asiatic presence before this civilization took root. The same is true in Egypt where we clearly find evidence of contact and trade with Asiatic people. There is certainly enough evidence both in genetic research and physical evidence to support a small trading center and likely farmers. Intermarriage would natural have taken place as well. Such off spring could expand rapidly in a fertile Delta.
My opinion is far from baseless. The gene flow across the Red Sea and the Sinai peninsula is now well established on multiple fronts. African civilizations for sure but not isolated from Asiatic developments or gene flow. It would not take much but a few group of people that happened to be traders and willing to sell technical information. Egypt, like Greece, is not located at the center of non-Western Asiatic continents. Europe's greatest civilization was on the edge of Europe's frontiers. The same is true with Egypt, it is not at the center of Africa but at its front door.
It is strange, since, AfroNuts claim Greece was a partially African and Asiatic society. So Europe's greatest civilization was not 100% European but Africa's greatest must be 100% African. Really? I think the evidence is clearly against that.
----
In summary: We know that the Aksumites were East African people and yet without a doubt we know that Sabeans were Asiatic and yet living in Ethiopia before the rise of the Aksumite civilization. However, there is no skeletal evidence supporting Sabean existence in Ethiopia. We do know that at some point their trading colonies were overrun. In fact, not only were their trading colonies over run in Ethiopia but the Aksumites took it further and crossed the Red Sea and conquered parts of Yemen.
This is the story of East Africa.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Indeed Osirion is quite admitting that he is giving nothing more than his opinion no matter how twisted, which is why he equates the scene of the totemic hawk sticking a hook like object in a man's nose to "hook" shape noses and fantasizes dead enemies with such noses.
Osirion, give it up!
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
osirion
What you have said seems interesting.
We need evidence of lower Egyptians being mixed with Asiatics. We know for sure that Upper Egypt was where the population in Egypt was mostly populated. I think there is something to your rants about Asiatics being present, but they were not there in numbers that would make there presence alter how Lower Egypt was populated.
We need more evidence.
Peace
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Indeed Osirion is quite admitting that he is giving nothing more than his opinion no matter how twisted, which is why he equates the scene of the totemic hawk sticking a hook like object in a man's nose to "hook" shape noses and fantasizes dead enemies with such noses.
Osirion, give it up!
Yes I admit that it is my opinion that the depictions of the Lower Egyptians on the Narmer palette is that of Asiatic people and very similar to the depiction of Asiatic people in Egyptian art throughout much of the Pharoanic era. If you compare the Asiatics on the Tut Chest picture I posted above with that of the Lower Egyptians on the Narmer Palette we see a characterization of Asiatics that is common in Egypt: Long hair, facial hair and overtly point hooked noses. These individuals are differentiated from Narmer and his followers.
I think the natural reaction to someone claiming Asiatic influence in Africa is one of repugnation since it is usually based on racist idealogies that Africans could not have alone produced such civilizations. I reject this premise entirely and again point out that I believe Egypt has a Saharan origin. Asiatic adopted African culture and tradition in their dealings with East African cultures. However, Africa has benefited from a flow of some techniques that were introduced from Western Asia: camels, horse pulled Charriots, etc.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
^Yea, well, you've still yet to produce evidence or an argument that contradicts the consensus of archaeology/anthropology as exemplified by zaharan's posts, so your theory can be seen so far as merely speculative, which isn't worth very much here.
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
^ But Zaharan's post supported my position rather than refuted it:
"Egyptian contact in the 4th millennium B.C. with SW Asia is undeniable, but the effect of this contact on state formation is Egypt is less cleat... The unified state which emerged in Egypt in the 3rd millenium B.C. however, was unlike the polities in Mesopotamia, the Levant, northern Syria, or Early Bronze Age Palestine- in sociopolitical organization, material culture, and belief system. []bThere was undoubtedly heightened commercial contact with SW Asia in the 4th millennium B.C.[/b], but the Early Dynastic state which emerged in Egypt is unique and religious in character."
The above is essentially exactly what I said and also why I believe in Lower Egypt there were trading colonies that were overrun. The colonies were already assimilated into African culture via admixture. These people were overwhelmed by the Upper Egyptians who reinforced the African culture of Kemet/Nubia on all of Egypt's regional states.
Thanks again for providing posts to support my position which I can use in future discussions. However this is quite OT to the spirit of this thread.
Posted by Freehand (Member # 10819) on :
The above doesn't affirm anything.
The fact is you don't ask for someone to proove an absence, you prove the presence son.
I'm sure there was Southward migration, infact i'm aware there actually was. This doesn't imply a blasian or mulatto Northern region any more than a few million of us in China today make China blasian.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
LOL Osrion, what you highlight is pretty much a well accepted fact--- there was contact between Egypt and SW Asia during predynastic times via trade but exactly how does this imply any communities of Asiatic immigrants in the Delta??! You realize that through trade, Egyptians have had contact with people as far away as Afghanistan but that doesn't mean there were Afgans living in Egypt!!
Perhaps you need to review the definition of contact.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by osirion: ^ But Zaharan's post supported my position
But no it didn't..
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
^ Asiatic iconograph in Egypt a long with trade. The fact that these are adjacent communities with related language. I can go on and on why Asiatic penetration into Egypt makes perfectly good sense and your analogy is pointless.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
^When someone like Keita affirms that there is no evidence of large-scale migration of Asiatics into the Nile Valley during the formative period, what REAL evidence can you bring to his attention that he and others may have overlooked?
quote:..sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty (Merimda, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a south-north cline variation along the Nile valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into southern Palestine. The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans."
---Ancient Egypt Anatomy of a Civilisation, Barry Kemp, Routledge; 2 ed, 2005, pp. 50-55
To ignore the above in favor of some distorted interpretation of iconography is nutty!
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
" it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into southern Palestine. "
Read closely please. A Eurocentric would tear you apart on this.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ LOL Nitpicking one word won't help you. By "limited" they mean the very fact that archaeology in the Delta is very scanty compared to further south where archaeological evidence is more abundant. Regardless, all of what evidence is available in the Delta including Maadi suggest no Asiatic presence! I don't know why you can't get this through to your brain.
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Asiatic iconograph in Egypt a long with trade. The fact that these are adjacent communities with related language. I can go on and on why Asiatic penetration into Egypt makes perfectly good sense and your analogy is pointless.
Asiatic iconography does NOT mean Asiatic people as shown through studies of the remains and of course there was trade, hence how they got the iconography in the first place. That they had related languages is that both are Afrasian and the phylum we know originated in Africa with Semitic being the only one spoken outside of Africa. What you point out makes NO sense as to how this suggests Asiatic penetration!
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
^@ Osirion.. And how would you know unless you can easily convert your way of thinking into a Eurocentric framework? Besides, I don't ever recall a Eurocentric "tearing me apart".. I see that quote differently in that the only evidence available doesn't at all prove your case but reinforces their Africanity. Difference of course being that you have NO evidence whatsoever..
I recommend you read the content analyzed in this thread here:
^ LOL Osirion does not even address the anthropological evidence but merely takes *one* claim from one Jewish website while making wild conclusions from all evidence cited.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ LOL Nitpicking one word won't help you. By "limited" they mean the very fact that archaeology in the Delta is very scanty compared to further south where archaeological evidence is more abundant. Regardless, all of what evidence is available in the Delta including Maadi suggest no Asiatic presence! I don't know why you can't get this through to your brain.
Well, you are trying to talk to an old school Eurocentric mentality of "population replacement/demic diffusion" origins.
With regards to what you note about the general state of human bio-anthropology archaeology in northern areas of Egypt, which is generally well-known, it's a context that has to be taken into account with probability statistics; that probability says that, one would think it would be easier to come across osirion's elusive "dynastic race - Asians" by chance discovery than the alternative evidence cited above, because they would have been presumably greater in numbers than local Nile Valley Africans, according to mentioned crumbling old school mentality.
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ LOL Osirion does not even address the anthropological evidence but merely takes *one* claim from one Jewish website while making wild conclusions from all evidence cited.
LOL You mean like how you never address the fact that Greek classical philosophy was not home grown but a stolen legacy (James, 1958, p. 14)...The Stolen Legacy Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: LOL Osrion, what you highlight is pretty much a well accepted fact--- there was contact between Egypt and SW Asia during predynastic times via trade but exactly how does this imply any communities of Asiatic immigrants in the Delta??!
Evergreen Writes: I would want to understand what one means when one refers to "Asiatics" in the southern Levant during this timeframe? We have mesolithic populations from this region with phenetic and genetic characteristics derived within Africa. We have neolithic populations moving out of this region and into SW Europe with phenetic and genetic characteristics derived within Africa as well. Then we have Upper Egyptians "colonizing" the southern Levant during the proto-Dynastic era.
Within this context the term "Asiatics" has to be used tongue-in-cheek. Many of these "Asiatics" would have to ride on the "back of the bus" in the Segregated South.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: LOL Osrion, what you highlight is pretty much a well accepted fact--- there was contact between Egypt and SW Asia during predynastic times via trade but exactly how does this imply any communities of Asiatic immigrants in the Delta??!
Evergreen Writes: I would want to understand what one means when one refers to "Asiatics" in the southern Levant during this timeframe? We have mesolithic populations from this region with phenetic and genetic characteristics derived within Africa. We have neolithic populations moving out of this region and into SW Europe with phenetic and genetic characteristics derived within Africa as well. Then we have Upper Egyptians "colonizing" the southern Levant during the proto-Dynastic era.
Within this context the term "Asiatics" has to be used tongue-in-cheek. Many of these "Asiatics" would have to ride on the "back of the bus" in the Segregated South.
Evergreen Writes: But if we wanted to learn more about the influx of stereotypical "Asiatics" into the southern Levant and Nile Delta we should look to the Middle Bronze Age.
Wild horses running in the desert mountains of Kazakhstan.
ScienceDaily (Apr. 24, 2009) —
Wild horses were domesticated in the Ponto-Caspian steppe region (today Russia, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Romania) in the 3rd millennium B.C. Despite the pivotal role horses have played in the history of human societies, the process of their domestication is not well understood.
In a new study published in the scientific journal Science, an analysis by German researchers from the Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research, Berlin, the German Archaeological Institute, the Humboldt University Berlin, the Max Planck Institute of Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, in cooperation with American and Spanish scientists, has unravelled the mystery about the domestication of the horse.
Based on ancient DNA spanning the time between the Late Pleistocene and the Middle Ages, targeting nuclear genes responsible for coat colorations allows to shed light on the timing and place of horse domestication. Furthermore the study demonstrates how rapid the number of colorations increased as one result of the domestication. As well, it shows very clearly that the huge variability of coloration in domestic horses which can be observed today is a result of selective breeding by ancient farmers.
Our modern human societies were founded on the Neolithic revolution, which was the transformation of wild plants and animals into domestic ones available for human nutrition. Within all domestic animals, no other species has had such a significant impact on the warfare, transportation and communication capabilities of human societies as the horse.
For many millennia, horses were linked to human history changing societies on a continent-wide scale, be it with Alexander the Great’s or Genghis Khan’s armies invading most of Asia and Eastern Europe or Francis Pizarro destroying the Inca Empire with about 30 mounted warriors. The horse was a costly and prestigious animal in all times, featured in gifts from one sovereign to another as a nobleman’s mark.
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
quote:Evergreen Writes: I would want to understand what one means when one refers to "Asiatics" in the southern Levant during this timeframe? We have mesolithic populations from this region with phenetic and genetic characteristics derived within Africa. We have neolithic populations moving out of this region and into SW Europe with phenetic and genetic characteristics derived within Africa as well.
Which makes mockery of rasolowitz, gringo and Co. swallowing the racial divergence theory of Bowcock (1991) concerning two differentiated populations, two "extremes", two fundamental units coming together to create a hybrid in 35kya.
"Dendrograms are also used to illustrate the divergence of entities called human races or of populations used as their surrogates. This is problematic since few human populations, even authentic breeding ones, are so well differentiated (and independent) from each other as to support the distinctness implied by tree branches" - Keita
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
Evergreen wrote: -------------------------- Within this context the term "Asiatics" has to be used tongue-in-cheek. Many of these "Asiatics" would have to ride on the "back of the bus" in the Segregated South. --------------------------
Djehuti thinks otherwise. He believes that only those "he deems" as "negroes" would only be the ones to ride in the back of the bus. You see he believes that only Africans are "negroes".
Djehuti is quite sick psychologically.
The nut actually believes that when the Spanish and white Americans invaded his wretched island they thought of his people and in effect him as "white".
LOL! What a loon.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:so says the gaping openass: LOL You mean like how you never address the fact that Greek classical philosophy was not home grown but a stolen legacy (James, 1958, p. 14)...The Stolen Legacy
Actually, the very thread you link cites how the so-called 'stolen' philosophy was never stolen by the Greeks but stolen by recent western scholars. You're still wrong and yet you still grab at my Asian dick. Satisfy your Asian fetish elsewhere.
quote: Which makes mockery of rasolowitz, gringo and Co. swallowing the racial divergence theory of Bowcock (1991) concerning two differentiated populations, two "extremes", two fundamental units coming together to create a hybrid in 35kya.
"Dendrograms are also used to illustrate the divergence of entities called human races or of populations used as their surrogates. This is problematic since few human populations, even authentic breeding ones, are so well differentiated (and independent) from each other as to support the distinctness implied by tree branches" - Keita
LOL and now you speak of "swallowing" and "bowcock". Freudian slips on your part. Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Getting back to the previous topic...
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Well, you are trying to talk to an old school Eurocentric mentality of "population replacement/demic diffusion" origins.
With regards to what you note about the general state of human bio-anthropology archaeology in northern areas of Egypt, which is generally well-known, it's a context that has to be taken into account with probability statistics; that probability says that, one would think it would be easier to come across osirion's elusive "dynastic race - Asians" by chance discovery than the alternative evidence cited above, because they would have been presumably greater in numbers than local Nile Valley Africans, according to mentioned crumbling old school mentality.
It's not such much Eurocentrism he suffers from but his own brand of Jewish ethnocentrism. He better watch out, cuz that really gets deep into the Openass! Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Actually, the very thread you link cites how the so-called 'stolen' philosophy was never stolen by the Greeks but stolen by recent western scholars.
Damn Mary do you ever stop lying? Where did Prof. James (whom you call "silly") say it wasn't stolen by Greeks?
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ LOL Nitpicking one word won't help you. By "limited" they mean the very fact that archaeology in the Delta is very scanty compared to further south where archaeological evidence is more abundant. Regardless, all of what evidence is available in the Delta including Maadi suggest no Asiatic presence! I don't know why you can't get this through to your brain.
Well, you are trying to talk to an old school Eurocentric mentality of "population replacement/demic diffusion" origins.
With regards to what you note about the general state of human bio-anthropology archaeology in northern areas of Egypt, which is generally well-known, it's a context that has to be taken into account with probability statistics; that probability says that, one would think it would be easier to come across osirion's elusive "dynastic race - Asians" by chance discovery than the alternative evidence cited above, because they would have been presumably greater in numbers than local Nile Valley Africans, according to mentioned crumbling old school mentality.
Dynastic race of slaves? Now come again with that? I will repeat - the Asiatics of Lower Egypt were conquered and absorbed a long with iconography, some art forms, etc. Their genes becoming part of the genetic pool of NE Africa. But a Dynastic race is absurd. Again - Egypt's culture, customs and techno-complex is Saharan African. The father of Egyptology stated this quite clearly that the type of stone work and tools are Nubian in origin not Asiatic.
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
.M. Flinders Petrie, The Making of Egypt, 1939, pp. 125-126
(Famously known as "The Father of Pre-history")
W.M. Flinders Petrie, A History of Egypt - Part One, 1896, pp. 125-129
"The Oromo Penetration. It has long ago been remarked that the black sphinxes, later appropriated by the Hyksos, approximated to the Oromo type of Abyssinia".
"This starts an enquiry how the Oromo connection could thus appear on monuments. In the clearance and planning of the rock tombs at Qau, Antaeopolis, the peculiar plan of those tombs, with great halls and small chambers annexed, was observed to be closely parallel to that of later Nubian temples. In both tomb and temple the chief work is in the solid rock, while the forecourt is of masonry constructed in front of it. Another peculiarity was the hammer-work excavation of one tomb, which had evidently been done with stone balls, as in the Aswan granite working, and this implies a southern connection".
"These people do not appear in any records, and all their monuments have been reappropriated. They left, however, a most striking style of sculpture, in the sphinxes which were later removed to Tanis, but seem originally to have come from El Kab, where a piece of such a sphinx has been found.The type is closely like that of the Oromo. The evidence that all the earlier sculptures of Tanis were collected there by Ramessu II seems clear; and that these sphinxes are earlier than the Hyksos is certain by those kings having appropriated them. No period seems so likely for them as the 7th to the 10th dynasties. The type was heavily bearded, with bushy hair".
"Thus again a southern people reanimated Egypt, like the Sudani 3rd dynasty and the Oromo 12th dynasty".
"All of the perennial enemies of Egypt had poured into the land, from the north-east, the south, and the west, just as in the 7th B.C. the Assyrian and Scythian, the Ethiopian, and the Libyan of Sais struggled over the helpless Egyptians. The history of Egypt from the earliest age has always been the same; each great age has been the product of an able race of invaders."--Petrie
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: the so-called 'stolen' philosophy was never stolen by the Greeks but stolen by recent western scholars.
No doubt.
And then assholes have the nerve to start talkin about the need not "revision" and "threaten history's foundations based in 'Western civiliezation'".
And then their submissive afrocentrist Uncle Tom pets come to ES and say, "aren't you guys / us guys revisionists?".
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
^ you jackass, in that quote Mary is claiming James never pointed to the Greeks as the thieves. You are truely the queer of ES Alive Boy, in your effort to pleasure your BFFs you sacrifice truth.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by osirion:
.M. Flinders Petrie, The Making of Egypt, 1939, pp. 125-126
(Famously known as "The Father of Pre-history")
W.M. Flinders Petrie, A History of Egypt - Part One, 1896, pp. 125-129
"The Oromo Penetration. It has long ago been remarked that the black sphinxes, later appropriated by the Hyksos, approximated to the Oromo type of Abyssinia".
"This starts an enquiry how the Oromo connection could thus appear on monuments. In the clearance and planning of the rock tombs at Qau, Antaeopolis, the peculiar plan of those tombs, with great halls and small chambers annexed, was observed to be closely parallel to that of later Nubian temples. In both tomb and temple the chief work is in the solid rock, while the forecourt is of masonry constructed in front of it. Another peculiarity was the hammer-work excavation of one tomb, which had evidently been done with stone balls, as in the Aswan granite working, and this implies a southern connection".
"These people do not appear in any records, and all their monuments have been reappropriated. They left, however, a most striking style of sculpture, in the sphinxes which were later removed to Tanis, but seem originally to have come from El Kab, where a piece of such a sphinx has been found.The type is closely like that of the Oromo. The evidence that all the earlier sculptures of Tanis were collected there by Ramessu II seems clear; and that these sphinxes are earlier than the Hyksos is certain by those kings having appropriated them. No period seems so likely for them as the 7th to the 10th dynasties. The type was heavily bearded, with bushy hair".
"Thus again a southern people reanimated Egypt, like the Sudani 3rd dynasty and the Oromo 12th dynasty".
"All of the perennial enemies of Egypt had poured into the land, from the north-east, the south, and the west, just as in the 7th B.C. the Assyrian and Scythian, the Ethiopian, and the Libyan of Sais struggled over the helpless Egyptians. The history of Egypt from the earliest age has always been the same; each great age has been the product of an able race of invaders."--Petrie
LMAO @ this fool as a last resort reverting back to Petrie's dynastic race theory (even after decrying it) that has all but been dismissed in modern Archaeology and Egyptology..
the theory of the ‘dynastic race’—a ‘master race’ of invaders from the east, thought to be responsible for imposing civilisation on the ‘primitive’ and unsophisticated indigenous Egyptians—had been articulated by Petrie only ten years before (Petrie 1939) and was still being espoused enthusiastically by scholars such as Emery (1961) and Edwards (1971) two decades after the publication of Massoulard’s work. The recognition of the indigenous roots of classic Egyptian civilisation emphasised the continuities between Predynastic and Early Dynastic culture. The achievements of the First Dynasty, it was realised, were the result of a long period of cultural and political development, rather than a radically new order imposed from outside. This change of perception undoubtedly influenced the course of Early Dynastic scholarship, and has now totally replaced the discredited ‘dynastic race’ theory."---Toby Wilkinson. "Early Dynastic Egypt, p15
You seem to be scrambling right now as suggested by your reliance on outdated theories and extremely sloppy scholarship. Just let it go. You obviously haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about...
Posted by FaithTest (Member # 10819) on :
quote:Originally posted by
:
you jackass, in that quote Mary is claiming James never pointed to the Greeks as the thieves.
I already told you: I ----- D O N ' T give Uhh DAYUhMN!
You mention Djehuti upsets you -- I could care less if Clay Aiken had come on here and pissed you off, i was responding to what i cited. I really --- d o n ' t --- give a sh*t (in this instance) WHAT Djehuti was trying to say.
In the past few centuries er so whites of inner Europe have denied alot of **** that even the Greeks didn't (for ancient Greek historians probably though, how could they deny what was commonly known in those times).
That was my point.
Carry on,
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
Babes, you always get so emotional even when you deny you give a damn. You must really like as me you say. lol
Posted by FaithTest (Member # 10819) on :
Sure dude.
You obviously don't get me, but then i wouldn't really expect you to.
Any way i stand by what i said.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ LMAO No doubt this is Assopen's very own personal business advertisement. He puts this sign on the door of his 'workplace' (a mens restroom stall).
Moving on...
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Dynastic race of slaves? Now come again with that? I will repeat - the Asiatics of Lower Egypt were conquered and absorbed a long with iconography, some art forms, etc. Their genes becoming part of the genetic pool of NE Africa. But a Dynastic race is absurd. Again - Egypt's culture, customs and techno-complex is Saharan African. The father of Egyptology stated this quite clearly that the type of stone work and tools are Nubian in origin not Asiatic.
Your own argument is absurd due to the very fact there is NO evidence of population of Asiatics in Lower Egypt at all! The Asiatic iconography was derived from Asia via trade along with other cultural materials but physical remains of Lower Egyptians show them all to be African. And what Asiatic genes are you speaking of anyway?? Please don't bring up U6 as it was stated numerous times that it's African in origin.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by osirion:
Dynastic race of slaves? Now come again with that? I will repeat - the Asiatics of Lower Egypt were conquered and absorbed a long with iconography, some art forms, etc. Their genes becoming part of the genetic pool of NE Africa. But a Dynastic race is absurd.
As absurd as it is, and as confused as you carry yourself above about your old school Eurocentric cult-like mentality of some elusive "proto-dynastic" or "dynastic race" of "Asiatics", you are hooked on it so much so, that you keep repeating it like a gospel, as you do with a religion...like you've made abundantly clear here, for example:
"Asiatics of Lower Egypt" were conquered and absorbed
^You are right about one thing though: your broken old school Eurocentric fairy tale ancient Egyptian "race" of "Asiatics of Lower Egypt" is "absurd".
Posted by blackmanthinking (Member # 17520) on :
![[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.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
