posted
The Genetic Structure and History of Africans and African Americans
Doctoris Scientia's analysis follows
Originally published in Science Express on 30 April 2009 Science 22 May 2009: Vol. 324. no. 5930, pp. 1035 - 1044
Sarah A. Tishkoff,1,2,* Floyd A. Reed,1,{dagger},{ddagger} Françoise R. Friedlaender,3,{ddagger} Christopher Ehret,4 Alessia Ranciaro,1,2,5,§ Alain Froment,6,§ Jibril B. Hirbo,1,2 Agnes A. Awomoyi,1,|| Jean-Marie Bodo,7 Ogobara Doumbo,8 Muntaser Ibrahim,9 Abdalla T. Juma,9 Maritha J. Kotze,10 Godfrey Lema,11 Jason H. Moore,12 Holly Mortensen,1,¶ Thomas B. Nyambo,11 Sabah A. Omar,13 Kweli Powell,1,# Gideon S. Pretorius,14 Michael W. Smith,15 Mahamadou A. Thera,8 Charles Wambebe,16 James L. Weber,17 Scott M. Williams
quote:Originally posted by Doctoris Scientia: The Mozambite, unlike what some posters have stated, are a very good repersentation for the general North African population, being predomiantely African with a significant Eursian component, clustering between the two extremes.lineages found among Europeans and Southwest Asians due to AFRICAN gene-flow in particular Neolithic gene-flow, which are therefor shared between these non-Africans and some Africans. The other Africans who possessed large amounts of "blue" were the Dogon and the Mozabite. The Dogon's case is identical to that of the Beja, while the "blue" found among the Mozabite is likely that of both direct European admixture and them carrying "ancestral" lineages. In the Beja "direct non-African" admixture is less than 5%, even lower among the Dogon.
In regards to colour? no, but they do indicate the general amount of both blue's found in Africa. With the African ancestral "Saharan/Dogon" being the most prominent, even among the light skin, "typical" Northern Saharan/Coastal North African Mozabite. The Mozabite according to the study are predominantly African. Even if you discarded blue being both ancestral African and "European"... the Mozabite would have had been typical "mulattos" genetically, i.e. 49% being non-"Saharan/Dogon" African. Out of the 51% labeled as "Saharan/Dogon"... most of it's African. Mozabite are therefore about 80% African. Northern Algerian Mozabite are therefore 80% African and 20% Eurasian.
posted
Hey Lion, you sorry-ass lying piece of sh1t. What's with all of those pictures of White and almost White people, they're NOT Mozabite's!
The Mozabite people are a Berber ethnic group living in M'zab in the northern Sahara. They speak Tumzabt. Most of them are Ibadi Muslims. Nearly all of them read and write Arabic, though they use the Zenata dialect of the Berber language, for which they have no surviving written form.
Mozabites live in five oases, namely, Ghardaia, Beni-Isguen, El-Ateuf, Melika and Bounoura and two other isolated oases farther north, Berriane and Guerrara
posted
There's a difference between "Haratin" Mozabite and ethnic Mozabite, the Mozabite tested in the Tishkoff study were ethnic Mozabite who look like your average Northern Saharan/Coastal North African; lighter skin, etc. The ethnic Mozabite population is 49% non-"Saharan/Dogon" and 51% "Saharan/Dogon"... with them possessing more African ancestral "Saharan/Dogon" blue (40%) than non-African "European" blue (20%).
ethnic Mozabite
It's highly likely that the Northern Saharan/Coastal North African Berbers "bred" themselves due to sexual preferences, therefore explaining their unique physical appearance. Extensive or continous non-African admixture is not necessary for this to happen. If such features are perferred, such features would dominate. I wouldn't be surprised if the same thing happened in Egypt with the fall of Dynastic Egypt. Features associated with the new elite, i.e. non-Africans, being perferred due to obvious reasons... therefore growing in dominance, especially in more urban and northern areas.
For example if you isolated African-Americans as they are now in regards to genetics and phenotype, predomiantly West/Central African (87%) and non-African (13%). And you leave them on that island isolated from other groups for a thousand years, while genetically they're still 87% African and 13% non-African, physically due to sexual trends in the AA community... the general phsyical appearance would be more in line with modern day Coastal North Africans or at least Creoles or Puerto Ricans. Think modern day Cape Couloureds who are largly African, 79%, but appear more "mixed" or non-African than they "should" be according to genetics.
The opposite happened in places like Madagascar, where the "African" appearance was more in "vogue"... therefore why todays more modern Madagascar population resemble Africans much more than they do Southeast Asians... most of them being physically identical to Southern and Eastern African populations, even if they're almost genetically equally African and Southwest Asian. People who resemble Asians are an extreme minority.
posted
The Mozambite, unlike what some posters have stated, are a very good repersentation for the general North African population, being predomiantely African with a significant Eursian component, clustering between the two extremes.
I am not at all sure the Mozabites are good representatives of North Africa. They are North Africans but if I remember, Tishkoff's sample was Mozabites in Algeria, which she labels as "saharan" leaving out huge areas North Africa- Chad, Mali, Niger, etc. See the map from her study below. If the Mozabites are being studied by themselves fine, but when they start slapping broad labels on like 'Saharan' or "rperesentative" we should be on the alert.
Basically Tishkoff's "representative Saharans" are Algerians - a very skewed sample that some may then try to link to "Eurasians". You can see the same old stacked deck sampling game being run as in previous studies of North Africans and Saharans. The more the Saharans can be "Caucasianized" the more Egypt can be detached from its African context. Let's be skeptical of some of Tishkoff's methods. See Bosch below, doing the same thing with purported "North Africans" ...
similar skewed sampling:
and see the skewed sampling they are running below with southern Egyptians.. They went all the way to Algeria to get samples, while neglecting Nubia, and the Sudan right next door.
more skewed samples and stacked decks Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd specifically like to see the response from "the cowardly lion" to Doctoris, as Doctoris was specifically called out...albeit no doubt from a misunderstanding of what was posted originally...
quote:Originally posted by Doctoris Scientia: There's a difference between "Haratin" Mozabite and ethnic Mozabite, the Mozabite tested in the Tishkoff study were ethnic Mozabite who look like your average Northern Saharan/Coastal North African; lighter skin, etc. The ethnic Mozabite population is 49% non-"Saharan/Dogon" and 51% "Saharan/Dogon"... with them possessing more African ancestral "Saharan/Dogon" blue (40%) than non-African "European" blue (20%).
ethnic Mozabite
It's highly likely that the Northern Saharan/Coastal North African Berbers "bred" themselves due to sexual preferences, therefore explaining their unique physical appearance. Extensive or continous non-African admixture is not necessary for this to happen. If such features are perferred, such features would dominate. I wouldn't be surprised if the same thing happened in Egypt with the fall of Dynastic Egypt. Features associated with the new elite, i.e. non-Africans, being perferred due to obvious reasons... therefore growing in dominance, especially in more urban and northern areas.
For example if you isolated African-Americans as they are now in regards to genetics and phenotype, predomiantly West/Central African (87%) and non-African (13%). And you leave them on that island isolated from other groups for a thousand years, while genetically they're still 87% African and 13% non-African, physically due to sexual trends in the AA community... the general phsyical appearance would be more in line with modern day Coastal North Africans or at least Creoles or Puerto Ricans. Think modern day Cape Couloureds who are largly African, 79%, but appear more "mixed" or non-African than they "should" be according to genetics.
The opposite happened in places like Madagascar, where the "African" appearance was more in "vogue"... therefore why todays more modern Madagascar population resemble Africans much more than they do Southeast Asians... most of them being physically identical to Southern and Eastern African populations, even if they're almost genetically equally African and Southwest Asian. People who resemble Asians are an extreme minority.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
Apparently you're illiterate. Those south African coloreds are actually descendents of Malaysian, South Asian, and Chinese slaves brought over to South Africa.
Yet another scholarly beatdown you've suffered at my hands.
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
do not forget ,some african americans have no admixture had all,about 20%.
Thus, in KwaZulu-Natal, most coloureds come from British and Zulu heritage, while Zimbabwean coloureds come from Shona or Ndebele mixing with British and Afrikaner settlers. Griqua, on the other hand, are descendants of Khoisan and Afrikaner trekboers. Despite these major differences, the fact that they draw parentage from more than one 'naturalised' racial group means that they are 'coloured' in the southern African context. Such people did not necessarily self-identify this way; some preferred to call themselves 'black' or 'Khoisan' or just 'South African'.
Posts: 2688 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
below I will quote Doctoris Scientia's two posts exactly in complete form from the thread called
"Horn Africans and Ancient Egyptians - same group" (thread starter osirion)
Basically in my initial post I compiled a couple of his posts, keeping context, the main difference is that I put up the photos he had selected but had put them in link form. Below are the exact quotes with the links. Go to the links and you will see that the photos I used in my initial thread here are from the Doctor. I didn't really change or add anything. I have returned the photos to the original safe link only format as to not upset anyone:
_____________________________________________ page two, 6th post
quote:Originally posted by Doctoris Scientia: In regard to the Mozabite in Algeria.
Mozabite = 40% African Blue + 20% Eurasian Blue = 60 % Blue.
In addition to the 40% composed of both Cushitic (Purple) and Niger-Kordafanian (Orange).
Northern Algerian Mozabite are therefore 80% African and 20% Eurasian.
Mozabite = 40% African Blue + 20% Eurasian Blue = 60 % Blue.
In addition to the 40% composed of both Cushitic (Purple) and Niger-Kordafanian (Orange).
Northern Algerian Mozabite are therefore 80% African and 20% Eurasian.
Them being 80% African, really kills the whole East Africans are mulatto theory. LOL.
____________________________________ page two, 12th post
quote:Originally posted by Doctoris Scientia:
quote:Originally posted by the lion: Doc, does Tishkoff et all make this distinction you are making "Eurasian Blue" and "African Blue" in the study ? Is this difference indicated in the map color charts?
Yes, it does. Thats why the team who took part in the study labeled blue in regards to Africa as "Saharan/Dogon" and blue in regards to Eurasia as "European" < whatever that means, "Southwest Asian" is much more accurate since Europe had little influence on any human gene-pool, even it's own.
In regards to colour? no, but they do indicate the general amount of both blue's found in Africa. With the African ancestral "Saharan/Dogon" being the most prominent, even among the light skin, "typical" Northern Saharan/Coastal North African Mozabite. The Mozabite according to the study are predomiantly African. Even if you disgarded blue being both ancestral African and "European"... the Mozabite would have had been typical "mulattos" genetically, i.e. 49% being non-"Saharan/Dogon" African. Out of the 51% labeled as "Saharan/Dogon"... most of it's African. Mozabite are therefore about 80% African.
posted
do not forget ,some african americans have no admixture had all,about 20%.
Thats not true, as AA are a mix of various African Tribes, the 20% just rep. Europeans.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan: The Mozambite, unlike what some posters have stated, are a very good repersentation for the general North African population, being predomiantely African with a significant Eursian component, clustering between the two extremes.
I am not at all sure the Mozabites are good representatives of North Africa. They are North Africans but if I remember, Tishkoff's sample was Mozabites in Algeria, which she labels as "saharan" leaving out huge areas North Africa- Chad, Mali, Niger, etc. See the map from her study below. If the Mozabites are being studied by themselves fine, but when they start slapping broad labels on like 'Saharan' or "rperesentative" we should be on the alert.
Basically Tishkoff's "representative Saharans" are Algerians - a very skewed sample that some may then try to link to "Eurasians". You can see the same old stacked deck sampling game being run as in previous studies of North Africans and Saharans. The more the Saharans can be "Caucasianized" the more Egypt can be detached from its African context. Let's be skeptical of some of Tishkoff's methods. See Bosch below, doing the same thing with purported "North Africans" ...
similar skewed sampling:
and see the skewed sampling they are running below with southern Egyptians.. They went all the way to Algeria to get samples, while neglecting Nubia, and the Sudan right next door.
more skewed samples and stacked decks
The Tishkoff study sampled several Saharan populations, from Chad, Mali, Sudan, and several other West African Saharan groups from several other countries. So while the Mozabite may not represent the entire Saharo-North African sub-region, since their genetic ancestry is drastically different from that of Chad and Mali, they are a good representation of the general Berber/Arab speaking Northwest African population... with the Kabyle and the Tuareg representing two extremes.
Also, "Saharan/Dogon" represented the ancestral group in question to the "ancestral" African blue, given the fact that the ancestral group showed a greater affinity to the Dogon then it did do either the Mozabite or the Beja. Meaning that the Dogon are genetically more closer to the source population than any other group with possession of the above ancestry. Therefore why they chose "Saharan/Dogon" over that of "Saharan/Mozabite" or "Saharan/Beja".
The blue among the Mozabite, like you already mentioned, is of mixed origin, unlike the Dogon or the Beja. Meaning they possess both ancestral indigenous African Saharan and more recent non-African admixture. But than again the ancestral African admixture forms the majority of the "blue" found among the Mozabite, +/-30%, with the recent non-African blue forming the minority, +/-20%. Mozabite are therefore 40% African minus the "Saharan/Dogon" ancestry, 40% African "Saharan/Dogon", and only 20% non-African. Therefore tearing apart any theory that Berber/Arab North Africans, while receiving limited non-African admixture, for the most part are indigenous Africans, i.e. not "Caucasoid", genetically related to other Africans.
Check out my previous post, in which I explain why Coastal and Northern Saharan populations look the way they do.
Posts: 341 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: Doctoris Scientia,
Apparently you're illiterate. Those south African coloreds are actually descendents of Malaysian, South Asian, and Chinese slaves brought over to South Africa.
Yet another scholarly beatdown you've suffered at my hands.
LOL... "scholarly beatdown", yeah ok sure.
South African coloureds are predomiantly African derived populations with a minor European input, and an even smaller "Asian" contribution.
"The major ancestral components of the South African Coloured population are predominantly Khoisan (32–43%), Bantu-speaking Africans (20–36%), European (21–28%) and a smaller Asian contribution (9–11%), depending on the model used."
52-79% African 30-39% non-African
Predomiantly African, no matter what way you cut it.
Posts: 341 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jari-Matamoros: do not forget ,some african americans have no admixture had all,about 20%.
Thats not true, as AA are a mix of various African Tribes, the 20% just rep. Europeans.
100% C/S.
African-Americans as a group are 87% African, and only 13% European.
80% of all African-Americans are at least 75%. 70% of all African-Americans are at least 85%. 42% of all African-Americans are 100% African or quite near 100%. 20% of all African-Americans are atleast 50-75% African. 5% of all African-Americans have any trace of Native American ancestry. So if you do, your special. =)
Posts: 341 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I FOUND THE THIS the u.s. census on african american.is seem all blacks in america are called african americans even recent african groups. ____________ quote-
Most African Americans are the direct descendants of captive Africans who survived the slavery era within the boundaries of the present United States, although some are—or are descended from—immigrants from African, Caribbean, Central American or South American nations. As an adjective, the term is usually spelled African-American.
the breakdown like this.
On census forms, the government depends on individuals' self-identification. Due in part to a centuries-old history within the United States, historical experiences pre- and post-slavery, and migrations throughout North America, contemporary African Americans possess varying degrees of admixture with European ancestry. A lesser percentage also have Native American ancestry.
# 58 percent of African Americans have at least 12.5 percent European ancestry (equivalent of one great-grandparent);
# 19.6 percent of African Americans have at least 25 percent European ancestry (equivalent of one grandparent);
# 1 percent of African Americans have at least 50 percent European ancestry (equivalent of one parent); and
# 5 percent of African Americans have at least 12.5 percent Native American ancestry (equivalent to one great-grandparent).
_______________- this means out of the 40 million blacks in the u.s. around 32 million have some form of admixture form another race and about and 8 million do not have any admixture from any other race.
some say that up to 70% of black americans have some form of white admixture instead of 77%. lamin mention once before it may be lower then even 70%,but 77% is what we got so far. this may get lower in the future or not.
___________________________________________
remember there are a few african americans in not represented here that have european or white dn that have less then 12% or less then 4% or 3%.
same with native american dna. very few have like like less then 12 has well.large number of african americans with native american dna have white dna too,that is why it number is rounded off, of african americans with admixture to around 80%,while the 20% of african american with no admixture,are really are a admixture of unmixed blacks. you just remind us of something,when folks think of admixture or mixed they always think of racial mixture when speaking of blacks,but with whites it's always mixture with in their own group and there racial mixture is always most of the time left out,but overall most african americans are a mixture of african black african ethnic groups.
that is what mark shriver the geneticist told once has well.
___________________________---
true Jari-Matamoros any african americans that do not have any white or native american dna is a mixture of unmixed black groups from africa,of course there are a few that come from only one ethnic group from africa when tested but that is few. chris tucker for an example has only 10% native ameica dna but they trace has african dna to only one ethnic group in angola. Don Cheadle on on the the show who do you think you are? thought he had some native dna,but it turn out that he had none.on the show they wil; mention if he has other dna but they did not so i assume he has no white dna has will,so don seem to be a unmixed black.
_____________
i wonder if africa americans were isolated for 1000 years if most or a large chunk would they turn out to look more like dominicans,the black looking one that is, or not. puerto ricans ,well most of them do not look black at all,so the closest look if isolated would be dominicans,or overall just remain he basically the same look,but it's hard to tell the future on that one if african american would lie like if isolated,i have not really thought of that one.
Posts: 2688 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doctoris said: The blue among the Mozabite, like you already mentioned, is of mixed origin, unlike the Dogon or the Beja. Meaning they possess both ancestral indigenous African Saharan and more recent non-African admixture. But than again the ancestral African admixture forms the majority of the "blue" found among the Mozabite, +/-30%, with the recent non-African blue forming the minority, +/-20%. Mozabite are therefore 40% African minus the "Saharan/Dogon" ancestry, 40% African "Saharan/Dogon", and only 20% non-African. Therefore tearing apart any theory that Berber/Arab North Africans, while receiving limited non-African admixture, for the most part are indigenous Africans, i.e. not "Caucasoid", genetically related to other Africans.
OK fair enough. It is a good approach to take- breaking down the color coding. I have seen some on the web try to twist it into some sort of vague "Eurasian" grouping.
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan: Doctoris said: The blue among the Mozabite, like you already mentioned, is of mixed origin, unlike the Dogon or the Beja. Meaning they possess both ancestral indigenous African Saharan and more recent non-African admixture. But than again the ancestral African admixture forms the majority of the "blue" found among the Mozabite, +/-30%, with the recent non-African blue forming the minority, +/-20%. Mozabite are therefore 40% African minus the "Saharan/Dogon" ancestry, 40% African "Saharan/Dogon", and only 20% non-African. Therefore tearing apart any theory that Berber/Arab North Africans, while receiving limited non-African admixture, for the most part are indigenous Africans, i.e. not "Caucasoid", genetically related to other Africans.
OK fair enough. It is a good approach to take- breaking down the color coding. I have seen some on the web try to twist it into some sort of vague "Eurasian" grouping.
Right. Even when the study itself points out the multi-origins of the "blue" colour characterized in the groupings of ancestral groups. This study, while some may deny it, is a nightmare for Eurocentrics, not only does it debunk massive admixture among most East and North African populations, it proposes significant gene-flow from Africa into "Western Eurasia".
Posts: 341 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kendo, You mentioned some comments I made a while back on Kittles's Y-chromosome study of AAs. He claimed that 27% of AAs showed European male Y DNA, while with AA females it was 5%.
This seems to be supported by direct haplogroup analysis of AA males. The percentage with E3a ranges from 67-75%--as the research goes.
But what I find puzzling is that given that AA males were always in proximity to AA females during the days of captivity and subsequently, this would mean that for any given year the vast majority of offspring of AA females would have AA fathers--as is the case even today when legal restrictions on "inter-racial mating" have been removed; so how could it be that only 20% have only direct African ancestry?
The Tishkoff study offers a hint of the breakdown. If the actual European genomic input is 13% then it would be highly unlikely that that 13% be spread among 80% of the population, or even among 60%.
Seems as if kittles's numbers would be more reliable: Tishkoff's 13% would be spread over some 27%(Kittles) of the AA population bearing in mind that some AAs--according to customary sociological principles---might have as much as 75-85% European ancestry.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
kittles and shriver work together for a short while i think,shriver was the one i spoke to a few years ago. he was one that mention to to about 80% of african americans had some form admixture.he mention to me the combined study was for all black groups america,but all were labeled african american.
has you know of the recent research,about 58% of african americans have about 12.5 white dna,so it seems the the % of white dna is for the average african american is not has high has folks thought.
folks who though they had native american dna,turns out they did not have it or have white dna.
in some regions in america you have some on averge having about 25% white dna ,other region it's lower then then 10% and some areas african americans with no admixture has awhole.this wouldbe 20% of african american american with no admixture.they tend do be more so among other blacks over the years.
what most folks seem to be more surprise at is such a low % of african americans with native american dna.
I thought it was much higher,but it turn out to be much lower ,but i am not really surprised.
___________________________________
anyway this berber study is what i what to focus on now.let's talk about it the berber study on thist thread and clear up a some facts about berbers.i remember recent i was going back and forth on another about the berbers.i show him some pictures of berbers that were black,but this fool kept telling me they were not berbers but berber slaves.he did not even post pictures of brown pictures.this guy wastrying to post every white looking berber has much has he could.i find it amazing the mindset of these folks who do that.
anyway this berber study is what i what to focus on now.let's talk about it the berber study on thist thread and clear up a some facts about berbers.i remember recent i was going back and forth on another about the berbers.i show him some pictures of berbers that were black,but this fool kept telling me they were not berbers but berber slaves.he did not even post pictures of brown pictures.this guy wastrying to post every white looking berber has much has he could.i find it amazing the mindset of these folks who do that.
even the moors.
the lion:The thread is talking specifically of Mozabite Berbers of Northern Algeria. If somebody posted pictures of Tuareg Berbers from somewhere else such as Mali who look "black" to you it would be unremarkable. You would say," yeah so what, they're African, they look black what did you expect" and I would agree.
But I posted all the photos below that doc linked of Mozabites, specifically, who according to him, are 80% African indigenous according to DNA from the large Tishkoff study- that's more African than Barack Obama, regardless of whether or not they don't look black enough for your liking.
quote: Originally posted by Doctoris Scientia:Mozabite are therefore about 80% African.
.
quote:photos Originally posted by Doctoris Scientia::
quote: Originally posted by Doctoris Scientia: It's highly likely that the Northern Saharan/Coastal North African Berbers "bred" themselves due to sexual preferences, therefore explaining their unique physical appearance. Extensive or continous non-African admixture is not necessary for this to happen. If such features are perferred, such features would dominate. I wouldn't be surprised if the same thing happened in Egypt with the fall of Dynastic Egypt. Features associated with the new elite, i.e. non-Africans, being perferred due to obvious reasons... therefore growing in dominance, especially in more urban and northern areas.
Right. Even when the study itself points out the multi-origins of the "blue" colour characterized in the groupings of ancestral groups. This study, while some may deny it, is a nightmare for Eurocentrics, not only does it debunk massive admixture among most East and North African populations, it proposes significant gene-flow from Africa into "Western Eurasia".
The blurb below is from one website on the Tishkoff study. Can you or anyone break it down into "plain English"? Is the author saying that:
a)the "R haplogroup has certain unique markers found only in Africa, markingit out as the "original"?
b) Hence any variants found in Europe or the Middle East such as R1 and subsets of the original African 'R"?
c) Hence any Africans that later have R1, do not have a "European/Middle Eastern" variant, but are themselves just another parallel group that picked up the subsets from the "original "R"?
In other words, the 'R" group is a tree with several sub-branches of variants. Europeans and Middle easterners picked up one of the branches. Certain groups of Africans ALSO picked up the same branches as the Europeans, parallel with them. So a branch labeled 'European" is not that at all, but simply another variant picked up by other Africans as well, parallel to the Europeans/Measterners? Both the Africans and Europeans sit on the same branch, being both joint recipients from the original African mother-source?
The Africans therefore owe nothing to the Europeans/Middle Easterners. They are parallel recipients from the original source at various times and places?
----
d) Now if a, b and c above are true, what data would be needed to support such an argument- the unique markers of the African original? What would be the boundaries and limitations of the argument? What are concrete examples from the field in support of this argument? The b;urb below? Other?
By all means, correct the above scenarios if in error. Just trying to establish various strands of reasoning clearly.
"Again quite misleading. Yes, understandably, "low" levels of shared ancestry attributable to potential "European" ancestry, might be correlated with "low level" incidences (~1.7 %) of R1b [pertaining the Rosa et al.'s (2007) Guinean sample] or relics of this ancestry attained from coastal northwestern populations [Imazighen] seen on the mtDNA side [Cherny et al. 2006], as cited in the main post. However, in the case of Fula samples, from northern Cameroon through to Sudan, a good degree of presumed shared "European/Middle Eastern ancestry [blue]" may very well actually be linked to common "distant" ancestry, as the paraphyletic R*-M207 and R1*-M173 markers suggest; these latter two are essentially rare to absent in "Middle Eastern" and "European" populations, which are mainly characterized by more downstream markers, especially European populations, who have no upstream markers for R1. Now, because R1b and R1a markers are still 'molecularly' linked to the upstream R*, any group bearing the latter or else any intermediary nodes between the upstream R* and the downstream R1a and R1b will "appear" to share ancestry with Europeans and/or possibly "Middle Easterners", which could misleadingly be misread as ancestry from "European/Middle East". Given the features of northern Cameroonian and Sudanese Fula sample uniparental male gene pool, it is a safe bet that this is the underlying issue at work, especially when the red flag of "moderate" levels is evoked; the Fula uniparental gene pool specifics, whether maternal or paternal, simply do not bear out "moderate" ancestry from "Middle East" or "Europe". --
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ You basically got the main point of the above quote, in that R lineages in much of Africa, in particular West/Central Africa, are in way the product of a back-migration from "Europe" or "Southwest", and that the groups who possess these said lineages are therefore not the product of mixture from "Eurasia" into Africa. African groups possess ancestral upstream lineages in associated with haplogroup R, i.e. R*-M207 and R1*-M173. Making any "European" or "Middle Eastern" origin of those markers among Africans impossible, in that these non-Africans groups carry downstream lineages. The above quote also indirectly like many other studies proposes an African origin for Haplogroup R, and many of the other Haplogroups spanning both Africa and "Eurasia", i.e. IJK (and it's descendants), M1, N etc.
Also, R1a and R1b are found in Europe, they are downstream mutations, any R* or R1* found in the Middle East, none have been found in Europe, are found among African derived populations in places like the Dead Sea at lower levels than in Africa.
R1a and R1b are also found in Africa, i.e. Coastal North Africa, at very low levels.
Also, like the quote said as well, the uni-parental ancestry of the Fulani and Chadic populations show no trace of any non-African ancestry.
The recent Tishkoff study even goes further in proving the above point. The Tishkoff study finds no non-African ancestry among the Chadic or Fulani groups, both groups also possess miniscal levels of the "Saharan/Dogon" ancestral group, who form the ancestral group which recently donated ancestry to non-Africans. Therefore suggesting an origin of Haplogroup R among another group other than the ancestral "Saharan/Dogon" cluster.
"The fact that Chadic speakers have high frequencies of a maker deemed "Eurasian" : R1 but have little possibly "Saharan/Dogon" or "Eurasian" yet cluster with Southern Sudan / Central Sudanic + forms their OWN cluster is very telling about the coalescence location of such Chadic speakers themselves. And also how Eurasian Blue is/was NOT spread."
"The Fulani cluster with the Chadic and Central Sudanic speaking populations at K <13 in the global analysis and at K <8 in the Africa analysis. Additionally, we observe moderate to high levels of Niger- Kordofanian ancestry in the Fulani populations."
-------------------- Doctoris Scientia Posts: 341 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kendo, your points are noted. But it was Kittles who did the research on AA Y-chromosome analysis, not Shriver.
Tishkoff put the AA European genetic load as 13%--not 20% as was the standard claim for many years. Admittedly, one must take any sampling analysis with the proverbial grain of salt.
Compound that with the Kittles claim that 5% of AA females demsonstrate maternal MtDNA of European provenance. So there you have it: Kittles claims 27% and 5%(females) and Tishkoff claims 13%---so how does all that produce 58% European DNA.
Add to this the question of whether there was any year when the majority of offspring of AA females was not AA male?
I guess it all depends on the definition of AA male. The Europeans sought to ensure that no non-European genes enter their gene pool--hence they walled themselves off genetically with the so-called "one-drop rule". I guess they assumed that a dilution factor of 1/32 was genetically safe--since at that point all phenotypical traces of African ancestry would have been "washed" out.
On the other hand, the fact that the BW offspring in the U.S. is usually palmed off into the AA ethnic community would mean some annual genetic leakage into that community. The result would some incremental "whitening" of the AA community--thus making that group more palatable to the European community--and some have been conditioned to accept and promote that socio-genetic policy.
I imagine that the relevant and parallel question is the extent of that kind of population modification taking place in North Africa. The possibility of such probably explains the often noted disconnect between phenotype and genotype.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lamin: Kendo, your points are noted. But it was Kittles who did the research on AA Y-chromosome analysis, not Shriver.
Tishkoff put the AA European genetic load as 13%--not 20% as was the standard claim for many years. Admittedly, one must take any sampling analysis with the proverbial grain of salt.
Compound that with the Kittles claim that 5% of AA females demsonstrate maternal MtDNA of European provenance. So there you have it: Kittles claims 27% and 5%(females) and Tishkoff claims 13%---so how does all that produce 58% European DNA.
Add to this the question of whether there was any year when the majority of offspring of AA females was not AA male?
I guess it all depends on the definition of AA male. The Europeans sought to ensure that no non-European genes enter their gene pool--hence they walled themselves off genetically with the so-called "one-drop rule". I guess they assumed that a dilution factor of 1/32 was genetically safe--since at that point all phenotypical traces of African ancestry would have been "washed" out.
On the other hand, the fact that the BW offspring in the U.S. is usually palmed off into the AA ethnic community would mean some annual genetic leakage into that community. The result would some incremental "whitening" of the AA community--thus making that group more palatable to the European community--and some have been conditioned to accept and promote that socio-genetic policy.
I imagine that the relevant and parallel question is the extent of that kind of population modification taking place in North Africa. The possibility of such probably explains the often noted disconnect between phenotype and genotype.
quote:Originally posted by Doctoris Scientia: ^ You basically got the main point of the above quote, in that R lineages in much of Africa, in particular West/Central Africa, are in way the product of a back-migration from "Europe" or "Southwest", and that the groups who possess these said lineages are therefore not the product of mixture from "Eurasia" into Africa. African groups possess ancestral upstream lineages in associated with haplogroup R, i.e. R*-M207 and R1*-M173. Making any "European" or "Middle Eastern" origin of those markers among Africans impossible, in that these non-Africans groups carry downstream lineages. The above quote also indirectly like many other studies proposes an African origin for Haplogroup R, and many of the other Haplogroups spanning both Africa and "Eurasia", i.e. IJK (and it's descendants), M1, N etc.
Also, R1a and R1b are found in Europe, they are downstream mutations, any R* or R1* found in the Middle East, none have been found in Europe, are found among African derived populations in places like the Dead Sea at lower levels than in Africa.
R1a and R1b are also found in Africa, i.e. Coastal North Africa, at very low levels.
Also, like the quote said as well, the uni-parental ancestry of the Fulani and Chadic populations show no trace of any non-African ancestry.
The recent Tishkoff study even goes further in proving the above point. The Tishkoff study finds no non-African ancestry among the Chadic or Fulani groups, both groups also possess miniscal levels of the "Saharan/Dogon" ancestral group, who form the ancestral group which recently donated ancestry to non-Africans. Therefore suggesting an origin of Haplogroup R among another group other than the ancestral "Saharan/Dogon" cluster.
"The fact that Chadic speakers have high frequencies of a maker deemed "Eurasian" : R1 but have little possibly "Saharan/Dogon" or "Eurasian" yet cluster with Southern Sudan / Central Sudanic + forms their OWN cluster is very telling about the coalescence location of such Chadic speakers themselves. And also how Eurasian Blue is/was NOT spread."
"The Fulani cluster with the Chadic and Central Sudanic speaking populations at K <13 in the global analysis and at K <8 in the Africa analysis. Additionally, we observe moderate to high levels of Niger- Kordofanian ancestry in the Fulani populations."
Indeed. Check your mail for that other report.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lion: The Genetic Structure and History of Africans and African Americans
Doctoris Scientia's analysis follows
Originally published in Science Express on 30 April 2009 Science 22 May 2009: Vol. 324. no. 5930, pp. 1035 - 1044
Sarah A. Tishkoff,1,2,* Floyd A. Reed,1,{dagger},{ddagger} Françoise R. Friedlaender,3,{ddagger} Christopher Ehret,4 Alessia Ranciaro,1,2,5,§ Alain Froment,6,§ Jibril B. Hirbo,1,2 Agnes A. Awomoyi,1,|| Jean-Marie Bodo,7 Ogobara Doumbo,8 Muntaser Ibrahim,9 Abdalla T. Juma,9 Maritha J. Kotze,10 Godfrey Lema,11 Jason H. Moore,12 Holly Mortensen,1,¶ Thomas B. Nyambo,11 Sabah A. Omar,13 Kweli Powell,1,# Gideon S. Pretorius,14 Michael W. Smith,15 Mahamadou A. Thera,8 Charles Wambebe,16 James L. Weber,17 Scott M. Williams
quote:Originally posted by Doctoris Scientia: The Mozambite, unlike what some posters have stated, are a very good repersentation for the general North African population, being predomiantely African with a significant Eursian component, clustering between the two extremes.lineages found among Europeans and Southwest Asians due to AFRICAN gene-flow in particular Neolithic gene-flow, which are therefor shared between these non-Africans and some Africans. The other Africans who possessed large amounts of "blue" were the Dogon and the Mozabite. The Dogon's case is identical to that of the Beja, while the "blue" found among the Mozabite is likely that of both direct European admixture and them carrying "ancestral" lineages. In the Beja "direct non-African" admixture is less than 5%, even lower among the Dogon.
In regards to colour? no, but they do indicate the general amount of both blue's found in Africa. With the African ancestral "Saharan/Dogon" being the most prominent, even among the light skin, "typical" Northern Saharan/Coastal North African Mozabite. The Mozabite according to the study are predominantly African. Even if you discarded blue being both ancestral African and "European"... the Mozabite would have had been typical "mulattos" genetically, i.e. 49% being non-"Saharan/Dogon" African. Out of the 51% labeled as "Saharan/Dogon"... most of it's African. Mozabite are therefore about 80% African. Northern Algerian Mozabite are therefore 80% African and 20% Eurasian.
These photos show the interesting contrast to the Berber-looking people of Ghardaia. The Ibadites were originally Berbers mainly Zenata and many in fact were supposed to have been Jews. Since Jews were more inclined to stay to themselves in a very late period the Jews of Wargla are called "as black as Negroes".
The land of M'zab was settled by the Iranians who formed the Rustamite Kingdom there in the 8th century. Thus we can see the obvious contrast still playing out today in the differing phenotypes. The Iranians coming over 1000 years to various regions of North Africa as they did in Yemen so they are of course going to have African blood after these many centuries.
On the other hand I haven't heard of Haratin being among the early Ibadites. The Iranians described the Berbers like the Masmuda as "black Africans". The darker skinned Ghardaia in Mike's picture certainly look more like pure Berbers of Zenata stock they came from resembling many of their Tuareg, Masmuda, Sanhaja relatives today.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lion: [qb] The Genetic Structure and History of Africans and African Americans
Doctoris Scientia's analysis follows
Originally published in Science Express on 30 April 2009 Science 22 May 2009: Vol. 324. no. 5930, pp. 1035 - 1044
Sarah A. Tishkoff,1,2,* Floyd A. Reed,1,{dagger},{ddagger} Françoise R. Friedlaender,3,{ddagger} Christopher Ehret,4 Alessia Ranciaro,1,2,5,§ Alain Froment,6,§ Jibril B. Hirbo,1,2 Agnes A. Awomoyi,1,|| Jean-Marie Bodo,7 Ogobara Doumbo,8 Muntaser Ibrahim,9 Abdalla T. Juma,9 Maritha J. Kotze,10 Godfrey Lema,11 Jason H. Moore,12 Holly Mortensen,1,¶ Thomas B. Nyambo,11 Sabah A. Omar,13 Kweli Powell,1,# Gideon S. Pretorius,14 Michael W. Smith,15 Mahamadou A. Thera,8 Charles Wambebe,16 James L. Weber,17 Scott M. Williams
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Doctoris Scientia: The Mozambite, unlike what some posters have stated, are a very good repersentation for the general North African population, being predomiantely African with a significant Eursian component, clustering between the two extremes.lineages found among Europeans and Southwest Asians due to AFRICAN gene-flow in particular Neolithic gene-flow, which are therefor shared between these non-Africans and some Africans. The other Africans who possessed large amounts of "blue" were the Dogon and the Mozabite. The Dogon's case is identical to that of the Beja, while the "blue" found among the Mozabite is likely that of both direct European admixture and them carrying "ancestral" lineages. In the Beja "direct non-African" admixture is less than 5%, even lower among the Dogon.
In regards to colour? no, but they do indicate the general amount of both blue's found in Africa. With the African ancestral "Saharan/Dogon" being the most prominent, even among the light skin, "typical" Northern Saharan/Coastal North African Mozabite. The Mozabite according to the study are predominantly African. Even if you discarded blue being both ancestral African and "European"... the Mozabite would have had been typical "mulattos" genetically, i.e. 49% being non-"Saharan/Dogon" African. Out of the 51% labeled as "Saharan/Dogon"... most of it's African. Mozabite are therefore about 80% African. Northern Algerian Mozabite are therefore 80% African and 20% Eurasian.
One can perhaps see some Balkan or Greek influence in the attire of these women.
[IMG]
These photos show the interesting contrast to the Berber-looking people of Ghardaia. The Ibadites were originally Berbers mainly Zenata and many in fact were supposed to have been Jews. Since Jews were more inclined to stay to themselves in a very late period the Jews of Wargla are called "as black as Negroes".
The land of M'zab was settled by the Iranians (Eurasiatics) who formed the Rustamite Kingdom there in the 8th century along with the indigenous clans of Berbers. Thus we can see the obvious contrast still playing out today in the differing phenotypes. The Iranians came and settled over 1000 years ago in various regions of North Africa (as they did in Yemen during the Sassanid era) so they are of course going to have African blood after these many centuries.
On the other hand I haven't heard of Haratin being among the early Ibadites. The Iranians in their texts describe the Berbers like the Masmuda as "black Africans". The darker skinned Ghardaia in Mike's picture certainly look more like pure Berbers of Zenata stock they came from - unlike the Nilo-Saharan originated Haratin - resembling many of their Tuareg, Masmuda, Sanhaja relatives today.
M''zab Berbers of Ghardaia
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The dark skinned Berbers of Figuig in eastern Morocco belong to this same ancient African stock once known as Berber in North and East Africa. Such people once occupied much of the Mediterranean. Berbers of Figig Oasis were of Zenaga (Sanhaja stock) and had inherited the prosperity of the Midieval Kingdom of Sijilmasa. It was during this time Berbers started becoming mixed with Iranians and other Eurasiatics.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
It's highly likely that the Northern Saharan/Coastal North African Berbers "bred" themselves due to sexual preferences, therefore explaining their unique physical appearance. Extensive or continous non-African admixture is not necessary for this to happen.
True, but there is evidence that extra-continental influence is the case, so although we can't randomly attribute various things to it we must acknowledge it.
Most notably for Coastal Northern Africa there are the European and West Asian extra-continental nations and empires, the trafficking of circassian women which by the Islamic era had escalated to a massive trade of Christian sex slaves from places as far North as England. To factor these in with an even less (back then) densely and more sparsely inhabited North Africa's polygamy and it's easy to see how extra-continental influence could progress..
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
It's highly likely that the Northern Saharan/Coastal North African Berbers "bred" themselves due to sexual preferences, therefore explaining their unique physical appearance. Extensive or continous non-African admixture is not necessary for this to happen.
True, but there is evidence that extra-continental influence is the case, so although we can't randomly attribute various things to it we must acknowledge it.
Most notably for Coastal Northern Africa there are the European and West Asian extra-continental nations and empires, the trafficking of circassian women which by the Islamic era had escalated to a massive trade of Christian sex slaves from places as far North as England. To factor these in with an even less (back then) densely and more sparsely inhabited North Africa's polygamy and it's easy to see how extra-continental influence could progress..
doc goes by the DNA
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
It's highly likely that the Northern Saharan/Coastal North African Berbers "bred" themselves due to sexual preferences, therefore explaining their unique physical appearance. Extensive or continous non-African admixture is not necessary for this to happen.
True, but there is evidence that extra-continental influence is the case, so although we can't randomly attribute various things to it we must acknowledge it.
Most notably for Coastal Northern Africa there are the European and West Asian extra-continental nations and empires, the trafficking of circassian women which by the Islamic era had escalated to a massive trade of Christian sex slaves from places as far North as England. To factor these in with an even less (back then) densely and more sparsely inhabited North Africa's polygamy and it's easy to see how extra-continental influence could progress..
I 100% agree, I'm in no way denying the fact of significant non-African admixture into the Northern Coastal/Northern Saharan Berber/Arab population, but that these particular populations are biologically more related to other Africans than they are no-Africans. They're predominant "divergent" physical appearance being the result of sexual preferences among the general North African population, explaining the general appearance of the Berber/Arab speaking peoples. Theres no need for any extensive admixture, a limited 20% non-African genetic input is enough to change the general appearance of a particular population, depending on the sexual trends of that population.
Any ways biologically, the Mozabite Berbers are 80% African and 20% non-African. That number is likely going to be the same in much of Berber speaking North Africa. With the Tuareg/Haratin/Siwa/Moors representing one extreme and the Kabyle/Riffan representing the other.
Posts: 341 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lion: doc goes by the DNA
Nice to know, so do i.
The Mozabites' "predominant divergent" phys appearance is explained as
quote:Originally posted by the Doc:
Features associated with the new elite, i.e. non-Africans, being perferred
There was also extra continental influence coming from those of a lower social status (i.e. the circassian slaves and European (mostly female) slaves.
Proximity also played a part in exaggerating both the higher social and lower social status influences: Saharan Africa's biggest populations are at its edges fueling extremes like the Tuareg and Kabyle and thusly North Africa's (which is the Mediterranean Coast and Northern Sahara) largest populations are going to be the ones at the Mediterranean Coast instead of in the middle of the Sahara.
I too can draw parallels -- as much as paternal European ancestry shows up in black American U.S.A.) Middle Passage descended individuals to this day, a percentage reflecting mixing patterns before say the 1960's and most certainly much higher than the current percentage of such interracial pregnancies or marriages. Simply put lower social status can cause population growth as well, but yeah i can see how in N.A. the new and more urban extra-continentals with more status would have influence as well.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Still continuing to show your inability to comprehend I see. Using your imbecilic understanding of tropically adapted, modern Greeks who show 25% African E derivatives are 25% tropically adapted. That's not how it works kid. Tropical adaptations are resulted from osteological analysis, not DNA.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: Still continuing to show your inability to comprehend I see. Using your imbecilic understanding of tropically adapted modern Greeks who show 25% African E derivatives are 25% tropically adapted.
That's not how it works kid. Tropical adaptations are resulted from the study of osteology, not DNA.
we are not talking about Greeks. that is a Mozabite Berber provided by doc as well as the other pics in the initial thread, doc's links. Also, tropical adaptation are traits determined by DNA
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
And? We weren't talking about tropical adaptations either, and your failure to see the point I made with the Greeks further shows your incompetence.
quote:Originally posted by the lion: doc's links
nice disclaimer.
quote:Originally posted by the lion: Also, tropical adaptation are traits determined by DNA
They're determined by the environment and through osteological studies, not DNA.
As I've stated, using your mis-comprehension, then modern Greeks are 25% tropically adapted simply because they're Y-chromosome shows African admixture, without the actual osteological data to confirm this you're going out on a limb. No pun intended.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: And? We weren't talking about tropical adaptations either, and your failure to see the point I made with the Greeks further shows your incompetence.
How about making a point about Mozabite Berbers in a thread about Mozabite Berbers? Why would these North Africans not be tropically adapted?
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
How about I corrected your incompetence concerning tropical adaptations in this thread, yet again, and now you're running, yet again. Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: How about I corrected your incompetence concerning tropical adaptations in this thread, yet again, and now you're running, yet again.
All modern humans are tropical adapted regardless of skin color. How many times must you be told.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^No, all modern humans are not tropically adapted lil Mikey, I've proven this to you a number of times in the past. You, like "the cowardly lion", always fail to grasp the concept. Btw, I noticed somewhere you wrote that white skin was supposedly adapted to the cold, when its not (lighterskin is adapted in response to lesser UV, not cold), and never was said to be. We're talking about limb proportions, osteology, I.e, higher brachial and crural indices. Not about height either, for example Pygmies show higher brachial and crural indices than Europeans who on average are taller.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lamin: Kendo, your points are noted. But it was Kittles who did the research on AA Y-chromosome analysis, not Shriver.
Tishkoff put the AA European genetic load as 13%--not 20% as was the standard claim for many years. Admittedly, one must take any sampling analysis with the proverbial grain of salt.
Compound that with the Kittles claim that 5% of AA females demsonstrate maternal MtDNA of European provenance. So there you have it: Kittles claims 27% and 5%(females) and Tishkoff claims 13%---so how does all that produce 58% European DNA.
Add to this the question of whether there was any year when the majority of offspring of AA females was not AA male?
I guess it all depends on the definition of AA male. The Europeans sought to ensure that no non-European genes enter their gene pool--hence they walled themselves off genetically with the so-called "one-drop rule". I guess they assumed that a dilution factor of 1/32 was genetically safe--since at that point all phenotypical traces of African ancestry would have been "washed" out.
On the other hand, the fact that the BW offspring in the U.S. is usually palmed off into the AA ethnic community would mean some annual genetic leakage into that community. The result would some incremental "whitening" of the AA community--thus making that group more palatable to the European community--and some have been conditioned to accept and promote that socio-genetic policy.
oh,i see what you mean.i think you misunderstood me.i did not mean to say that most african americans are 58% european in dna,i meant to say most african americans 12.5% european dna on average or little less
that will be about 23 million african americans out of 40 million african americans.so thier was a misunderstanding there.keep in mind up to 8 million do not have any admixture at all.
that's all from on this topic,just want to clear the misunderstanding.
back to the topic, berbers.
Posts: 2688 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
If a scientist is going to produce a study or some other scientific hypothesis, shouldn't that person be at least familiar with the history of the object of the experiment?
For example if someone is going to study the solar system, rain forest, moon, grand canyon, etc. They normally are versed in the history of those entities, thus aiding in their ability to properly research them.
Therefore Doctoris Scientia, is it not bad scholarship that people like Tishkoff, Shriver, Kittles do not know basic history that other people for example South Asians were brought to America as slaves?
That is at the least sloppy, unintelligent, and incompetent scholarship.
quote:Originally posted by Doctoris Scientia: Any ways biologically, the Mozabite Berbers are 80% African and 20% non-African.
Is this taking into account both parental markers (X and Y)?
I'm not exactly sure if the study, the recent "pan-African" Tishkoff study, mentioned anything particular in regard to the parental markers of the Mozabite. But in regard to the Mozabite, don't they possess some of the highest frequencies of E-derived lineages in North Africa?
Posts: 341 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: kenndo, lamin, Doctoris Scientia, and anyone else:
What is the genesis for this obsession that you have that AAs must be mixed?
I've said nothing in that regard, African-Americans are biologically a predominant African population, 87%, with some limited non-African admixture, 13%.
Posts: 341 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic