quote:

---

Using the principle of the phylogeographic parsimony, the resolution of the E1b1b trifurcation in favor of a common ancestor of E-M2 and E-M329 strongly supports the hypothesis that haplogroup E1b1 originated in eastern Africa, as previously suggested [10], and that chromosomes E-M2, so frequently observed in sub-Saharan Africa, trace their descent to a common ancestor present in eastern Africa.

---

-- from A New Topology of the Human Y Chromosome Haplogroup E1b1 (E-P2) Revealed through the Use of Newly Characterized Binary Polymorphisms (Trombetta 2011)

Download link:
http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchObject.action?uri=info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0016073&representation=PDF

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0016073
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2787129/

Y chromosome diversity, human expansion, drift, and cultural evolution
Jacques Chiaroni,a Peter A. Underhill,b and Luca L. Cavalli-Sforzac,1
2009


Haplogroups A and B are the deepest branches in the phylogeny and are essentially restricted to Africa, bolstering the evidence that modern humans first arose there (14, 15). Haplogroup A is mainly found in the Rift Valley from Ethiopia to Cape Town, mostly but not exclusively in some of the oldest hunter-gatherers who still survive and speak Khoikhoi and San languages, proposed by some to be the oldest languages. The interruption of its distribution in the middle of the Rift Valley is possibly the consequence of replacement by Bantu-speaking farmers who settled the region starting in the first millennium of the Christian era. Haplogroup B is found mainly among African Pygmies, who live in the central African forest and are still predominantly hunters-gatherers but speak Bantu languages borrowed from farmers who arrived in the area between 2,000 and 3,000 years ago. The third predominantly African haplogroup, E, diversified some time afterward, probably descending from the East African population that generated the Out of Africa expansion. The geographic distributions of the major branches of this haplogroup, given in Fig. S1b, suggest that most of the settlement outside of Africa by haplogroup E members involves the later mutant E-M35 varieties like M78, M81, and M123 that extended to Arabia and the northern Mediterranean coast.....


It is also interesting to sum the distributions of different haplogroups descending from the same mutation, as for example D and E, which both descend from DE-YAP, the first mutation that split into the E branch that perhaps returned to Africa (or arose there), whereas the other branch, D, is found today mainly in the Himalayas and Japan.




 

---

Posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
^for the trolling person above. It's funny and pathetic how you fight this with every drop of blood running through your racist veins.


Sub clade E-M81 is known as the Berber clade, since it's regional to Northwest Africa.


And for Yap DE*.

quote:

---

The DE haplogroup appeared approximately 50,000 years bp in North East Africa and subsequently split into haplogroup E that spread to Europe and Africa and haplogroup D that rapidly spread along the coastline of India and Asia to North Asia.

---

quote:

---

The BT haplogroup split from the root of the Y haplogroup tree 55,000 years before present (bp), probably in North East Africa. The CF(xDE) haplogroup was the common ancestor of all people who migrated outside of Africa until recent times. The defining mutation occurred 31-55,000 years bp in North East Africa and is still most common in Africa today in Ethiopia and Sudan. The DE haplogroup appeared approximately 50,000 years bp in North East Africa and subsequently split into haplogroup E that spread to Europe and Africa and haplogroup D that rapidly spread along the coastline of India and Asia to North Asia.

---

quote:

---

"Firstly, haplogroup E-M2 (former E1b1a) and haplogroup E-M329 (former E1b1c) are now united by the mutations V38 and V100, reducing the number of E1b1 basal branches to two. The new topology of the tree has important implications concerning the origin of haplogroup E1b1. Secondly, within E1b1b1 (E-M35), two haplogroups (E-V68 and E-V257) show similar phylogenetic and geographic structure, pointing to a genetic bridge between southern European and northern African Y chromosomes. Thirdly, most of the E1b1b1* (E-M35*) paragroup chromosomes are now marked by defining mutations, thus increasing the discriminative power of the haplogroup for use in human evolution and forensics."

[...]

Within E-M35, there are striking parallels between two haplogroups, E-V68 and E-V257. Both contain a lineage which has been frequently observed in Africa (E-M78 and E-M81, respectively) [6], [8], [10], [13]–[16] and a group of undifferentiated chromosomes that are mostly found in southern Europe (Table S2). An expansion of E-M35 carriers, possibly from the Middle East as proposed by other Authors [14], and split into two branches separated by the geographic barrier of the Mediterranean Sea, would explain this geographic pattern. However, the absence of E-V68* and E-V257* in the Middle East (Table S2) makes a maritime spread between northern Africa and southern Europe a more plausible hypothesis. A detailed analysis of the Y chromosomal microsatellite variation associated with E-V68 and E-V257 could help in gaining a better understanding of the likely timing and place of origin of these two haplogroups.

---

--Beniamino Trombetta, Fulvio Cruciani et al. (2011)

A New Topology of the Human Y Chromosome Haplogroup E1b1 (E-P2) Revealed through the Use of Newly Characterized Binary Polymorphisms








There ya go!
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor:
[QB] ^for the trolling person above. It's funny and pathetic how you fight this with every drop of blood running through your racist veins.


Sub clade E-M81 is known as the Berber clade, since it's regional to Northwest Africa.

---

what I posted supports much of what Amun Ra posted so what are you talking about?

Diop, Clyde and Amun Ra are more Afrocentric that you are. You cliam that berbers are primarily African. They don't.
And this is bourne out by the maternal DNA
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Nice synopsis TP.

@ Lioness. So...We are back to White women leaving their white men behind...20ya...in search of black men. Or were they hunting in Africa for food and decided to stay and not go back?

I know some brothas like to think they are all that but...
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Can someone explain this? I am not sure what they are trying to say here...

---
The IJ haplogroup characterizes part of the second wave of emigration from Africa that occurred via the Middle East 45,000 years bp and defines two branches I and J that emigrated northwards and eastwards into Europe. The J branch subsequently split again and contributed to the current North African population. The NO haplogroup appeared approximately 35,000-40,000 years bp in a region east of the Aral sea; subsequent branches spread to North Asia (N) and another branch (O) to South Asia via North India
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
Nice synopsis TP.

@ Lioness. So...We are back to White women leaving their white men behind...20ya...in search of black men. Or were they hunting in Africa for food and decided to stay and not go back?

I know some brothas like to think they are all that but...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
Can someone explain this? I am not sure what they are trying to say here...

---
The IJ haplogroup characterizes part of the second wave of emigration from Africa that occurred via the Middle East 45,000 years bp and defines two branches I and J that emigrated northwards and eastwards into Europe. The J branch subsequently split again and contributed to the current North African population. The NO haplogroup appeared approximately 35,000-40,000 years bp in a region east of the Aral sea; subsequent branches spread to North Asia (N) and another branch (O) to South Asia via North India

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
Can someone explain this? I am not sure what they are trying to say here...

---
The IJ haplogroup characterizes part of the second wave of emigration from Africa that occurred via the Middle East 45,000 years bp and defines two branches I and J that emigrated northwards and eastwards into Europe. The J branch subsequently split again and contributed to the current North African population. The NO haplogroup appeared approximately 35,000-40,000 years bp in a region east of the Aral sea; subsequent branches spread to North Asia (N) and another branch (O) to South Asia via North India

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
Can someone explain this? I am not sure what they are trying to say here...

---
The IJ haplogroup characterizes part of the second wave of emigration from Africa that occurred via the Middle East 45,000 years bp and defines two branches I and J that emigrated northwards and eastwards into Europe. The J branch subsequently split again and contributed to the current North African population. The NO haplogroup appeared approximately 35,000-40,000 years bp in a region east of the Aral sea; subsequent branches spread to North Asia (N) and another branch (O) to South Asia via North India

---

Dates such as these prove that what you have just written is bull. The first amh do not enter Western eurasia until 40kya , and they do not reach eastern Europe and the levant until 34kya. Up until this time Neandethals were the dominant group in Europe. Thusly, to claim the origination of IJ and NO in eastern Europe prior to amh reaching these locations is not supported by archaeological or skeletal evidence.

As a result, if these haplogroups existed 45kya they had to have originated in africa and taken to Europe by African people.

.

---

no example of a Haplogroup IJ* Y-chromosome has been found among any modern human population; the existence of the Haplogroup IJ node has been inferred from the fact that certain mutations are shared in common among all Y-chromosomes belonging to the descendant haplogroups I and J. The lack of any examples of Haplogroup IJ* belonging to neither Haplogroup I nor Haplogroup J complicates any attempt to deduce the geographical location where Haplogroup IJ first appeared; however, the fact that both Haplogroup I and Haplogroup J are found among modern populations of the Caucasus, Anatolia, and Southwest Asia tends to support the hypothesis that Haplogroup IJ derived from Haplogroup F in the vicinity of West Asia or the Middle East and subsequently spread throughout Western Eurasia.

Haplogroup IJ is a descendant branch of the greater Haplogroup F (M89, P14, M213).


 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
Stick to E though, thread topic
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
That's my point. It does not make sense. BTW. I did not write it. This is from the ISOGG website. It seems like they are waffling.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
Can someone explain this? I am not sure what they are trying to say here...

---
The IJ haplogroup characterizes part of the second wave of emigration from Africa that occurred via the Middle East 45,000 years bp and defines two branches I and J that emigrated northwards and eastwards into Europe. The J branch subsequently split again and contributed to the current North African population. The NO haplogroup appeared approximately 35,000-40,000 years bp in a region east of the Aral sea; subsequent branches spread to North Asia (N) and another branch (O) to South Asia via North India

---

Dates such as these prove that what you have just written is bull. The first amh do not enter Western eurasia until 40kya , and they do not reach eastern Europe and the levant until 34kya. Up until this time Neandethals were the dominant group in Europe. Thusly, to claim the origination of IJ and NO in eastern Europe prior to amh reaching these locations is not supported by archaeological or skeletal evidence.

As a result, if these haplogroups existed 45kya they had to have originated in africa and taken to Europe by African people.

.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
Nice synopsis TP.

@ Lioness. So...We are back to White women leaving their white men behind...20ya...in search of black men. Or were they hunting in Africa for food and decided to stay and not go back?

I know some brothas like to think they are all that but...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
This is very interesting. Because, it most probably means that at one point all Niger-Congo, Cushitic and Chadic speakers were united, thus were in the same geographical location and they all spoke the same language. The whatever language spoken by the E-P2 carrier at that far away time.

So they were at the same geographical location and spoke the same language (most probably).

This by itself is interesting. It has definitive historical/archaeological ramifications.

If you want to push it a bit more. You can see how this fits with Obenga's classification of African languages exposed in the book called Origine commune de l'egyptien ancien, du copte et des langues negro-africaines modernes: Introduction a la linguistique historique africaine.

In fact, we already got the Niger-Congo, Cushitic and Chadic speakers here, all descended from the same language. Obenga's call it the Negro-Egyptian language. The only language family left is the Nilo-Saharan one. Rarely populations are formed by only one haplogroup (which can later drift). Obenga's of course already exposed the linguistic basis for including Nilo-Saharan in the Negro-egyptian language family. But other linguists, like Blench, also combines the Niger-Congo and Nilo-Saharan family into one. They call it "Niger-Saharan" "Kongo-Saharan" language family. So there we are, the Obenga's classification of African language family supported by genetics and other recent linguists (for the Niger-Saharan part).

This is another brick to add to the common origin of African people (postdating the main OOA migration). For example, something like the headrests, could be a physical representation of this common origin. On the most basic level, the fact that African populations usually looks like each other in a rough manner is another clue (in the sense that Europeans and Asians looks like each other too in a rough manner). If African populations would have been isolated from each other for a long time (let's say from before the OOA). There's no reason why they wouldn't have changed physical appearance like non-African poplations did when they left the continent during the OOA migration.

Also, while admixture and the OOA bottleneck can explain part of the situation. It doesn't seem enough to explain how come African people (as other people like Europeans, Asians, Native Americans) cluster up with each other on genetic distance calculations. We can understand why Europeans, Asians and Native Americans populations cluster up with each others respectively. For one, they have their common origin in the main OOA migration. And they also have other period of (multiple) common origin to colonize Europe, East Asia and America respectively. As any people close geographically they also admixed with each others, so we understand why they cluster up with each others in term of genetic distance. For this to work with African populations, like Europeans, Asians and Native Americans, they also must have a common origin post-dating the main OOA migration. And this is what I just noted in this thread both genetically and linguistically.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by typeZeiss:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
This is very interesting. Because, it most probably means that at one point all Niger-Congo, Cushitic and Chadic speakers were united, thus were in the same geographical location and they all spoke the same language. The whatever language spoken by the E-P2 carrier at that far away time.

So they were at the same geographical location and spoke the same language (most probably).

This by itself is interesting. It has definitive historical/archaeological ramifications.

If you want to push it a bit more. You can see how this fits with Obenga's classification of African languages exposed in the book called Origine commune de l'egyptien ancien, du copte et des langues negro-africaines modernes: Introduction a la linguistique historique africaine.

In fact, we already got the Niger-Congo, Cushitic and Chadic speakers here, all descended from the same language. Obenga's call it the Negro-Egyptian language. The only language family left is the Nilo-Saharan one. Rarely populations are formed by only one haplogroup (which can later drift). Obenga's of course already exposed the linguistic basis for including Nilo-Saharan in the Negro-egyptian language family. But other linguists, like Blench, also combines the Niger-Congo and Nilo-Saharan family into one. They call it "Niger-Saharan" "Kongo-Saharan" language family. So there we are, the Obenga's classification of African language family supported by genetics and other recent linguists (for the Niger-Saharan part).

This is another brick to add to the common origin of African people (postdating the main OOA migration). For example, something like the headrests, could be a physical representation of this common origin. On the most basic level, the fact that African populations usually looks like each other in a rough manner is another clue (in the sense that Europeans and Asians looks like each other too in a rough manner). If African populations would have been isolated from each other for a long time (let's say from before the OOA). There's no reason why they wouldn't have changed physical appearance like non-African poplations did when they left the continent during the OOA migration.

Also, while admixture and the OOA bottleneck can explain part of the situation. It doesn't seem enough to explain how come African people (as other people like Europeans, Asians, Native Americans) cluster up with each other on genetic distance calculations. We can understand why Europeans, Asians and Native Americans populations cluster up with each others respectively. For one, they have their common origin in the main OOA migration. And they also have other period of (multiple) common origin to colonize Europe, East Asia and America respectively. As any people close geographically they also admixed with each others, so we understand why they cluster up with each others in term of genetic distance. For this to work with African populations, like Europeans, Asians and Native Americans, they also must have a common origin post-dating the main OOA migration. And this is what I just noted in this thread both genetically and linguistically.

---

The Sahara was once green, turns dry in the east around 4,000 BC a little later in the west. So probably during the green phase everyone was in one geographical location

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
E-P2 (PN2) is one of the main haplogroup in Africa along with other E, A and B haplogroups.

It has its origin after the main OOA migration of non-Africans. E-P2 carriers weren't part of the main OOA migration.

So E-P2 unites African people and is probably one of the main haplogroup among Ancient Egyptians along with other A, B and E haplogroups.

Most Niger-Congo(Kordofanian), Cushitic and Chadic speakers are carriers of E-P2.

---

quote:

---

Tanzania is the only region of Africa where populations speak languages classified as belonging to the 4 major language families present in Africa: Afro-Asiatic, Nilo-Saharan, Niger-Kordofanian, and Khoisan (Greenberg 1963). The Hadza and Sandawe, who speak a click language classified as Khoisan, are thought to be indigenous to Tanzania. However, populations speaking languages belonging to the other 3 language families are thought to have migrated into Tanzania from the Sudan (Nilotic Nilo-Saharan speakers), Ethiopia (Cushitic Afro-Asiatic speakers), and West Africa (Bantu Niger-Kordofanian speakers) within the past 5,000 years (Ambrose 1982; Newman 1995).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by typeZeiss:

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
Nice synopsis TP.

@ Lioness. So...We are back to White women leaving their white men behind...20ya...in search of black men. Or were they hunting in Africa for food and decided to stay and not go back?

I know some brothas like to think they are all that but...

---

They were enslaved and brought to North and West africa where they would then become concubines.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOPYiG_FOe4

---

Interesting, it works.





http://genforum.genealogy.com/morocco/messages/166.html


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/secret/famous/vansallees.html



 

---

Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
 
Read more about it here:

Common Origin of black Africans, Ancient Egyptians and Kushites people
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009076
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
People can be related genectically and not have the same origins, as a result of admixture. Below are 18 points that support a Saharan--not East African origin of the Niger-Congo speakers.

1. The Saharan population hunted animals with the bow-and –arrow; they are associated with the Ounanian culture. The Ounanian culture existed 12kya [2].

2. 10,000 BC there was continuity between the populations in the Maghreb and southern Sahara referred to as Capsians, Iberomaurusians, and Mechtoids [3].

3. The Ounanian culture is associated with sites in central Egypt, Algeria, Mali, Mauretania and Niger. There are no East African sites.
.
4. The original homeland of the Niger-Congo speakers was probably situated in the Saharan Highlands.

5. Proto-Niger- Congo people developed an agro-pastoral economy which included the cultivation of millet, and domestication of cattle (and sheep).

6. The Niger-Congo speakers probably began to exit the Saharan Highlands during the Ounanian period. By the 8th millennium BC Saharan-Sudanese pottery was used in the Air [22]. Ceramics of this style have also been found at sites in the Hoggar [22-23]. Dotted wavy-line pottery has also been discovered in the Libyan Sahara [22]. Again no sites are found in East Africa.


7. They migrated from the Highlands into Nubia.

7a. Genetic evidence supports the upper Nile settlement for the Niger-Congo speakers. Rosa et al, in a paper discussing the y-Chromosomal diversity in the population of Guinea-Bissau, noted that while most Mande & Balanta carry the E3a-M2 gene, there are a number of Felupe-Djola, Papel, Fulbe and Mande carry the M3b*-M35 gene the same as many non-Niger-Congo speaking people in the Sudan.


8. They were the C-Group people.

9. Researchers have conclusively proven that the Dravidians are related to the Niger-Congo speaking group and they originally lived in Nubia [7]. The Dravidians and C-Group people of Nubia used 1) a common BRW [7]; 2) a common burial complex incorporating megaliths and circular rock enclosures [7] and 3) a common type of rock cut sepulcher [7] and writing system [50-51].

10. The BRW industry diffused from Nubia, across West Asia into Rajastan, and thence to East Central and South India [30]. Singh [30] made it clear that he believes that the BRW radiated from Nubia through Mesopotamia and Iran southward into India

11. The mtDNA haplogroups L1, L2, L3 and U5 are associated with Niger-Congo speakers. Phylogenetically all the Eurasian mtDNA branches descend from L3.
The Pan-African haplotypes are 16189,16192,16223, 16278,16294, 16309, qnd 16390. This sequence is found in the L2a1 haplotype which is highly frequent among the Mande speaking group and the Wolof.

12. The phylogeography of y-Chromosome haplotypes shared among the Niger-Congo speakers include A,B, Elb1a, E1b1b, E2, E3a and R1 [57] (See: Figures 1-2). The predominate y-Chromosome among the Niger-Congo is M2, M35, and M33.

Haplogroup E has three branches carried by Niger-Congo populations E1, E2 and E3. The E1 and E2 clines are found exclusively in Africa. Haplogroup E3 is also found in Eurasia. Haplogroup E3 subclades are E3b, E-M78, E-M81 and E-M34. The E clades probably originated in Saharan Africa. This is based on the fact that the Niger-Congo people carry this haplogroup at high frequencies.

The majority of Niger-Congo speakers belong to E1b1a, Elb1b, E2 and R1. Around 90% belong to y-Chromosome group E (215,M35*).

Y-Chromosome haplogroup A is represented among Niger-Congo speakers. In West Africa, under 5% of the NC speakers belong to group A. Most Niger-Congo speakers who belong to group A are found in East Africa and belong to A3b2-M13: Kenya (13.8) and Tanzanian (7.0%).


13. The Bantu originated in Saharan Africa not East Africa. The Bantu expansion is usually associated with the spread of y-Chromosome E3a-M2. The most common branch of the V-38 haplogroup is E-M2. E-M2 dates to around 25ky old. It probably originated in the Highland area during the Ounanian period.

14. Some researchers claim that: “The downstreams SNP E-M180 possibly originated on the moist south-central Saharan savannah/grassland of northern West Africa during the early Holocene period. Much of the population that carried E-M2 retreated to southern West Africa with the drying of the Sahara. These later people migrated from Southeastern Nigeria and Cameroon ~8.0 kya to Central Africa, East Africa, and Southern Africa causing or following the Bantu expansion.[4][5][6] According to Wood et al. (2005) and Rosa et al. (2007), such population movements from West Africa changed the pre-existing population Y chromosomal diversity in Western, Central, Southern and southern East Africa, replacing the previous haplogroups frequencies in these areas with the now dominant E1b1a1 lineages.” See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_E-V38
“
In Kenya the frequentcy for E3a-M2 is 52%; and 42% in Tanzania. In Burkina Faso high frequentcies of E-M2* and E-M191* are also represented. It is interesting to note that among the Mande speaking Bisa and Mandekan there are high frequentcies of E-M2*. This is in sharp contrast to the Marka and South Samo who have high frequencies of E-M33.


15. The pristine form of R1-M173 is found in Africa. Y-Chromosome R is characterized by M207/ V45. The V45 mutation is found among NC speakers. The R1b mutations include V7, V8, V45, V69 and V88. The frequentcy of R1-M173 varies among Niger-Congo speakers. The frequentcy of R-M173 range between 3-54%. The most frequent subtype in Africa is V88 (R1b1a). Haplogroup R1b1a ranges between 2-20% among the Bantu speakers.The highest frequentcy of R1 is found among Fulbe or Fulani speakers

16. First use Saharo-Sudanese Pottery in Niger 10,000BC

17. First use of cereals in the Sahara 9400 BC

18.7500 BC domestication of sheep and goats in Sahara.

.
 

---

Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
[QB] People can be related genectically and not have the same origins, as a result of admixture.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
[QB] The E clades probably originated in Saharan Africa.This is based on the fact that the Niger-Congo people carry this haplogroup at high frequencies.[qb]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
[QB] People can be related genectically and not have the same origins, as a result of admixture.

---

Every human populations (as well as individuals for that matter) are the results of admixtures. When I'm talking about the common origin of people (like Niger-Kordofanian, Cushitic and Chadic speakers), I'm talking about the common origin of the greater part of their ancestry. In this case, the greater part of their genetic ancestry.

For example, Yoruba are over 90% from the P2 haplogroups (P2/e1b1a). For Somali it's over 80% (P2/e1b1b) of their population.

90% and 80% are really large numbers. So it constitute the greater part of those populations (NK, Cushitic, Chadic) ancestry on the Y-DNA side.

The MtDNA counterparts of E-P2 are L2a, L3bf, L3cd, L3eikx, L0a and possibly a few other haplogroups. Those are the MtDNA haplogroups spread across all E-P2 populations in Africa, not just limited to one region or a few E-P2 populations.

For example, Yoruba got 75.75% and Somali 66.93% of L2a, L3bf, L3cd, L3eikx, L0a1 (using numbers from the Hirbo study linked below).

Some haplogroups are not shared between Yoruba, Somali and various E-P2 populations like L4 or M and N haplogroups. Those are the products of more recent admixtures between E-P2 migrants and other populations. Some MtDNA haplogroups are shared across many E-P2 populations but not all of them (or not almost all of them), or not across all regions where the E-P2 lineage is present in large proportion, so I didn't include those haplogroups as part of the original E-P2 population (even if it could be possible due to genetic drift in extent population).

The idea is to determine the mtDNA counterparts of the E-P2 lineages as it spread all across Africa. All regions, almost all populations. So those mtdNA counterparts must be present in almost ALL populations with a high level of E-P2. Only the migrations of E-P2 lineage carriers across all Africa (which did happen for sure) can explain the pan-African widespread nature of those MtDNA haplogroups.

As a side note, the origin of an haplogroup doesn't matter. What is important here is that it eventually found its way into the E-P2 populations before the E-P2 population split and migrated toward different directions in Africa (eventually turning into E1b1a for West Africa and E1b1b for East Africa). Also it doesn't really matter if E-P2 originated in the Northeastern Africa or anywhere between Chad and the Nile, or anywhere else, although basic logic would indicate that it has a greater chance of having originated where there's a greater diversity and frequency of E-P2. That's why biologist locate the origin of E-P2 in Eastern Africa.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
[QB] The E clades probably originated in Saharan Africa.This is based on the fact that the Niger-Congo people carry this haplogroup at high frequencies.[qb]

---

It's true that Niger-Congo(Niger-Kordofanian) speakers carry this haplogroup in great frequencies but so does Cushitic and Chadic speakers. Northeastern Africa also has a greater diversity of the E haplogroup.

The Y-DNA and mtDNA haplogroup frequencies for Somali (Cushitic speakers) and Yoruba (Niger-Kordofanian speakers) used in this post, as well as other African populations, were taken from the Hirbo study (starting at Appendix 6a ii, p195): http://drum.lib.umd.edu/handle/1903/11443

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
[QB] People can be related genectically and not have the same origins, as a result of admixture.

---

Every human populations (as well as individuals for that matter) are the results of admixtures. When I'm talking about the common origin of people (like Niger-Kordofanian, Cushitic and Chadic speakers), I'm talking about the common origin of the greater part of their ancestry. In this case, the greater part of their genetic ancestry.

For example, Yoruba are over 90% from the P2 haplogroups (P2/e1b1a). For Somali it's over 80% (P2/e1b1b) of their population.

90% and 80% are really large numbers. So it constitute the greater part of those populations (NK, Cushitic, Chadic) ancestry on the Y-DNA side.

---

This is patently False. What does "ancestry on the Y-DNA side" even mean? They Y-dna does not code for autosomal dna regardless of you thinking it does. You are only looking at 30 generations. You are speaking on the ancestry of 30 MEN in the image below but you ignore the other 1,073,741,794 !

What number is larger you ding bat 30 or 1,073,741,794?
Man GTFOOHWTBS !

 

---

Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
 
@ Clyde Winters

You can disagree with it or not but most biologists locate the origin of the E (M96) haplogroup in Northeastern Africa. Same for the related downstream E-P2 haplogroup (see above).
 

---

Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
@ Clyde Winters

You can disagree with it or not but most biologists locate the origin of the E (M96) haplogroup in Northeastern Africa. Same for the related downstream E-P2 haplogroup (see above).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by beyoku:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
@ Clyde Winters

You can disagree with it or not but most biologists locate the origin of the E (M96) haplogroup in Northeastern Africa. Same for the related downstream E-P2 haplogroup (see above).

---

Why Would it be East African when its Ancestor DE* is firmly found in West Africa? Also most....not all but MOST of the E* lineages are western African? The oldest lineage of E........E1a = West African...what about E2...That looks to be West African as well.

---

quote:

---

Using the principle of the phylogeographic parsimony, the resolution of the E1b1b trifurcation in favor of a common ancestor of E-M2 and E-M329 strongly supports the hypothesis that haplogroup E1b1 originated in eastern Africa , as previously suggested [10], and that chromosomes E-M2 , so frequently observed in sub-Saharan Africa, trace their descent to a common ancestor present in eastern Africa .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
@beyoku Stop being a stupid racist as well as exhibiting ridiculous knee jerk reactions everybody can see. Your post comes down to not being able to use uniparental haplogroups at all to analyze population movements and migrations, which is part of their very purpose and are used in many scientific study for such purpose. There's also other purpose like medical, etc.

To analyse population movements and migrations you must use uniparental as well as autosomal DNA (as well as other linguistic and archaeological data). This is what I do in this linked post (as well as various posts on this site):

Common Origin of black Africans, Ancient Egyptians and Kushites people
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009076

You may have 1,073,741,794 ancestors but if almost over 90% of them derive from the same Y-DNA haplogroup (and the same MtDNA haplogroups) it means those ancestors share a lot of autosomal DNA between each others. Those 1,073,741,794 ancestors are related to each others through the E-P2 and various MtDNA haplogroups in great proportion.

---

quote:

---

We date the initial split between Yoruba and out of African populations to 90,000-100,000 years ago with substantial gene flow occurring until nearly 50,000 years ago, and obtain congruent results with the autosomes and the X chromosome.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
Please explain why not just any person, but the
empirical evidence is staring you in the face and
telling you that you're full of bs when you say
that the West Africans you refer to split only
recently, during the Green Sahara (using not any
scientific reference, but your own non-existent
grasp of population genetics):

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

We date the initial split between Yoruba and out of African populations to 90,000-100,000 years ago with substantial gene flow occurring until nearly 50,000 years ago, and obtain congruent results with the autosomes and the X chromosome.

---

Song et al 2014

Damn! You just took a haymaker to the face from
Song et al! All that "Africans were one people until
3000 years ago" crap... just give it up, cesspool
mouth. The stench of bs emanating from your
propagandistic posts is unbearable at this point.

Not unimportant in light of the propaganda you're
evangelizing in your fraudulent threads; apparently
the software of Song et al has no problem detecting
the migration of L3 lineages ~50kya towards West/
Central African aborigines, using ancestral
Europeans and Indians as models! Guess where that
leaves your claim that a high diversity and
frequency of L3 in certain East Africans doesn't
imply a closer genetic affinity between them and
OOA populations.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:


Nonetheless straight line maternal
mtDNA and paternal nrY chromosome
lineages don't tell nearly as much
about an individual's geographic
geneaology as the autosomes because
the sex linked genetic indicators
outside of the straight maternal and
paternal ones are lost each generation
compone

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
You're lying to us again. If you need to lie about my position

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
I locate the common origin of East and West Africans between the OOA migrations and the foundation of Ancient Egypt.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
For example, Yoruba got 92% of haplogroup P2/E1b1a, they share with East Africans like Somali, and only 8% of B-M60. This 8% represent what you call the aboriginal component to West Africans. Clearly it doesn't form the greater part of their ancestry.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by beyoku:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:


Nonetheless straight line maternal
mtDNA and paternal nrY chromosome
lineages don't tell nearly as much
about an individual's geographic
geneaology as the autosomes because
the sex linked genetic indicators
outside of the straight maternal and
paternal ones are lost each generation
compone

---

This. And he has a hard time understanding this. that said in reference to the math you have to factor in death. The numbers are correct.

---

You'd have to factor in that autosomally there
are no linear "lineages" and you and I, for
instance, may share 10000s ancestors since
slavery, just because the way human autosomal DNA
is intertwined due to recombination. The ancestors
in your image don't have to add up to billions of
people at once.
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
They simply cannot add up to billions.
Human population has increased over
the years. The exponential number
of ancestors is patently false
because using it to go back
to our pleistocene beginnings
would require more people
than has ever lived
altogether through
time to be alive
all in one generation.


 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
Tracing one person's lineage back in time for a few generations in principle forms a binary tree of parents, grandparents, great-grandparents and so on. However, the number of individuals in such an ancestor tree grows exponentially and very soon exceeds the population from which the ancestors were drawn. A human alive today would, over 30 generations (going back to about the High Middle Ages), have 2^30 or about 1.07 billion ancestors, more than the world population at the time.
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

Tracing one person's lineage back in time for a few generations in principle forms a binary tree of parents, grandparents, great-grandparents and so on. However, the number of individuals in such an ancestor tree grows exponentially and very soon exceeds the population from which the ancestors were drawn. A human alive today would, over 30 generations (going back to about the High Middle Ages), have 230 or about 1.07 billion ancestors, more than the world population at the time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

Tracing one person's lineage back in time for a few generations in principle forms a binary tree of parents, grandparents, great-grandparents and so on. However, the number of individuals in such an ancestor tree grows exponentially and very soon exceeds the population from which the ancestors were drawn. A human alive today would, over 30 generations (going back to about the High Middle Ages), have 230 or about 1.07 billion ancestors, more than the world population at the time.

---

to continue the above Wiki (authorless quote) into its pertinence


Thus it is obvious that there is multiple counting and the individual is descended from some of these ancestors through more than one line: pedigree collapse changes the binary tree to a directed acyclic graph.

Obviously if only N people were alive
then N+ ancestors are impossible for
the time period.

---

The point remains uniparentals show deep
lineage for fathers fathers father way
back into time and are very narrow slits
compared to the wide berth of information
obtainable from autosomes which have bits
from all ancestors not just the 2 uniparentals
indicate no matter which generation is chosen.


I can't find it but I prepped an expo tree
for 3 or 4 generations of a hypothetical
AfrAm male illustrating the massive loss
of African genetics if only his Euro male
nrY and NativeAmer mtDNA were considered.
His uniparentals would make him a mestizo
whereas his autosomes clearly demostrated
his "Africanity."

Here is something similar, and more eye
pleasing. In my chart BLUE gggrandaddy
was Euro and RED ggnonna was NativeAmer
and WHITE was the Afr ancestry hidden
if relying solely on uniparentals.


 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
Even if one takes multiple counting into account,
it's a non-sequitur that the amount of ancestors
one has since the Middle Ages can't exceed
the amount of people who were alive in the
Middle Ages. Unless I'm missing something not yet
brought to my attention in this thread, counting
the amount of ancestors back in time who donated
genetic material to the genepool of someone who is
alive today, at some point, you're going to reach a
billion, whether you count multiple times or not.
That's the last thing I have to say about this
axiomatic idea.
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

Even if one takes multiple counting into account,
it's a non-sequitur that the amount of ancestors since
the Middle Ages can't exceed the amount of people
who were alive in the Middle Ages. Unless
I'm missing something not yet brought to my
attention in this thread, counting the amount of
ancestors back in time who donated genetic material
to the genepool of someone who is alive today, at
some point, you're going to reach a billion, whether
you count multiple times or not. That's the last
thing I have to say about this axiomatic idea.

---

• The reason that the indefinite exponential increase in the number of one’s
  ancestors does not take place is found in the law of sibling interference, ...

• ... as one travels back in a pedigree, duplicate ancestors
  grow increasingly common due to ancient inbreeding.

 

---

Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
 
To analyse population history, migrations and the common origin of Niger-Kordofanian, Cushitic and Chadic language speakers, we must use a multidisciplinary approach. On the genetic front we must use uniparental as well as autosomal DNA. In this thread, I used mainly the uniparental haplogroups. In the linked thread below, I also used autosomal, uniparental as well as archaeological and linguistic data:

Common Origin of black Africans, Ancient Egyptians and Kushites people:
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009076

Autosomally, you also can see the evidence of the common origin of NK, Cushitic and Chadic African people.

The genetic distance between various African and world populations shouldn't be a guess, or something related to our own personal prejudice and bias. The genetic distances between populations is measured in a scientific way by geneticists using genetic distance mathematical formula.

In the following genetic distance tree, using autosomal STR, we can see Cushitic, Chadic and Niger-Kordofanian speakers as well as various African populations are genetically closer to each others than they are to any non-African populations:


Taken from the Supporting Online Material from this study (Figure S14, p40): The Genetic Structure and History of Africans and African Americans by Tishkoff (2009)
Direct Link to Supporting Online Material: DOWNLOAD

This graph above completely obliterate the argument of some people in this thread who try to say it was not true (autosomally) that Cushitic, Chadic and Niger-Kordofanian speakers were genetically closer to each others than toward any non-African populations. We can see that it is both true autosomally as it was with uniparental (shared E-P2 and various MtDNA haplogroups).

I could end my argumentation right here. My point is already won. That is we can clearly see that Cushitic, Chadic and Niger-Kordofanian are genetically closer to each others than they are to any Europeans or West Asian populations using autosomal DNA this time. The African AACs are at the bottom and the non-African AACs at the top of the graph.

As a side note. We know from uniparental Y-DNA and MtDNA that Fulani, for example, have some recent post-OOA Eurasian admixtures. This would explain why the Fulani AAC cluster is closer to non-Africans than for example Niger-Kordofanian and Nilo-Saharan speakers are to non-Africans. The Fulani AAC is still much closer to the Niger-Kordofanian and Nilo-Saharan AAC than to any non-African AACs.

There's many other graph showing the relatively close genetic distances between various African populations like HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE. This is also true for Eurasians, East Asians and Native Americans populations toward each other respectively. In all those graphs, we can see African populations clustering close to each others because of 2 main aspects 1)Relatively recent common origin 2)Relatively recent admixtures. By relatively recent we mean post-OOA migrations.


But to be completely sure, we can go further than this. We must make sure Cushitic and Chadic populations are not genetically close to each others and to Niger-Kordofanian populations because of recent admixtures.

For this, lets use another genetic distance tree from the same study (Figure S7, p33). Links to bigger image below or in the study:


Genetic distance between various African and World populations (bigger image below).
http://www.dhushara.com/book/unraveltree/tishkoff09.jpg
Same image here too:
http://img809.imageshack.us/img809/8691/5gmh.jpg


This above genetic distance tree using autosomal STR is also enough by itself to show African populations are genetically closer to each others than they are toward any non-African populations. This genetic distance tree is on scale, so we can measure the genetic distances with a ruler or by eye. We measure the distances by calculating the horizontal distance undertaken by traveling from one population node to another.

For example, we can see Yoruba and Mandinka are very close to each others in term of genetic distance. While Igbo are a bit further away from Yoruba but not that much. All those populations (Yoruba, Mandinka and Igbo) are clearly much closer to each others than to non-African populations like Bedouin or French which are completely on the other side.

Generally, African populations cluster in term of autosomal genetic distance on the right side of the tree, and non-African on the left side. But more precisely, it seems to be mostly the populations between the Gabra (top right) and the Venda (bottom right) which are genetically closer to each others than to Eurasian populations. African populations between Mozabite and Cape Mixed Ancestry are kind of in between African and non-African populations. Mozabite are closer to non-African populations (Bedouin), while Beja Hadandawa are just a tad closer to African populations like Yoruba than they are to the Bedouin and other non-African populations.

What is important for us is that between Gabra and Venda, all those populations are genetically closer to each others than they are to any Eurasian populations like in the Middle East, Oceania or Europe.

The next step into our investigation is to verify (for example) that Cushitic speakers like the Gabra are not recently admixed with Niger-Kordofanian speakers like Yoruba and Bantu. A bit like we did with Somali populations above.

For this, we will first use again the table of haplotype frequencies from the Hirbo study (starting at Appendix 6a ii, p195): DOWNLOAD HERE.

If you take the time to look at it, this confirms Gabra are not recently admixed with Niger-Kordofanian speakers (like Yoruba) or Bantu populations.


Gabra:
- Percentage of E1b1b: 82.6%(6.9+58.6+3.4+10.3+3.4)
- No E1b1a and no L3e, so no evidence of recent admixtures between the Gabra and Niger-Kordofanian speakers characterized by E1b1a and L3e. They only share the related upstream(older) basal P2 and African L3(L3eikx, etc) lineages with West Africans/Yoruba and Bantu populations as does all African populations cited in this thread (NK, Cushitic, Chadic).
- It's also interesting to note that Gabra have a low level of Eurasian Y-DNA haplogroups like F descendants (6.8%) and about 54.83% (100-45.17=54.83) of Eurasian M, N descendants haplogroups. Which is typical of female mediated recent admixture (post OOA at the very least) with Semitic (ethiosemitic) speakers and Muslim Arabs speakers in Eastern Africa. The same can be seen in Somali, Afar and various Northeastern African populations. We can also see the frequencies of Eurasian M and N haplogroups in Gabra people here too.

With this I have proved my point again. Gabra, which are Cushitic speakers, NOT recently admixed with Niger-Kordofanian speakers are genetically closer to Yoruba than they are to Bedouin, French or any non-African populations. Recent post-OOA non-African admixtures (bi-directional) through intermediaries explain why they are closer to Eurasians than Yoruba are to Eurasians. The Gabra population are still closer to Yoruba populations than to any Eurasians populations despite not having any evidence of recent admixture with Niger-Kordofanian speakers like Yoruba (who are also not recently admixed with any E1b1b populations).

To double check that Gabra from the Tiskoff study are also not recently admixed with NK speakers, we can also check Figure S12 in the Supporting Online Material posted before at K=14. We can see that Gabra have no orange color characteristic of Niger-Kordofanian speakers (orange at K=14 are mostly, but not only, recent NK alleles).

Double check done. Gabra are not recently admixed with Yoruba or any related NK populations. They have no e1b1a or L3e or orange color cluster. But they are still genetically closer to Yoruba and related Niger-Kordofanian speakers than to any Eurasian populations like Bedouin or French.

The reason why African populations like Cushitic speakers (eg. Gabra, Somali, etc) and NK speakers (eg Yoruba, Bantu, etc) are genetically closer to each others in relations to non-AFrican populations is because they share a common origin with other African populations from the same E-P2 Y-DNA lineage and various common MtDNA haplogroups lineages (L2a, L3bf, L3cd, L3eikx, L0a, etc).

So contrary to what some people try to say in this thread, we can see with both uniparental DNA haplogroups and autosomal DNA that Cushitic, Chadic and Niger-Kordofanian speakers share a common origin between the time of the OOA migrations of non-Africans and the foundation of Ancient Egypt.
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
Quote:
"Watch the clown cop-out again"

Exactly as anticipated. Notice the fact that this
charlatan is his own source; his "evidence" tracks
back to the spammy fairy tales he made up himself.
If that doesn't ring alarm bells in the minds of
the intelligent readers, I don't know what will.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
For example, Yoruba got 92% of haplogroup P2/E1b1a, they share with East Africans like Somali, and only 8% of B-M60. This 8% represent what you call the aboriginal component to West Africans. Clearly it doesn't form the greater part of their ancestry.

---

This crappy statement presumes that haplogroup
profiles are stable throughout time and accurate
portrayals of all the genetic history of a
population. Are they? Is E1b1a the only major
Y-DNA expansion that impacted the ancestral Yoruba
since West Africa was settled by AMHs? Post evidence.

^Watch the clown cop-out again

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
Y chromosomes and mtDNAs are the extremely
sensitive to 101 agents of evolutionary change.
They are absolutely worthless when it comes to
unravelling the palimpsest layers of expansions
that make each population what they are today,
and even with the layers you are able to unravel
by studying specific lineages, the frequencies in
which they occur say absolutely nothing about the
magnitude of the expansions that brought them to
a particular locale.

Contrary to the fairy tales of these propagandists,
100% E1b1a doesn't mean the population considered
originated with E1b1a. It doesn't even need to
mean the majority of the genepool of that population
originates with the ancestral population in which
E1b1a emerged.

There are various genetic investigations one would
need to reference to build a case for this bizarre
claim, however, the charlatans deliberately avoid
consulting these tests, because the result of said
tests is the YRI population coalesces with other
branches of Africans in the Middle Palaeolithic.
Nowhere even near the terminal pleistocene touted
as the magical moment West/Central Africans
separated into their own biological entity.

---

Man did you read what I said? Autosomals don't tell teh entire story either, you cannot look at autosomal ancestry and know someones Y-haplogroup or mtDNA, and the uni-parentals are good for tracking migrations from one region or another
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
@Charlie

Of course I read what you said. While no one ever said
that autosomes tell the whole story (a position you're
bent on arguing against, but why?), someone did actually
imply that haplogroup frequencies are more informative
for uncovering all layers of migrations and their relative
importance in terms of how much they're representative
of the genetic make up of a population. I haven't seen
you reply to that, once, hence, my previous attempt to
put things back on track.

You're going out of your way to defend the usefullness
of haplogroups, when, to my awareness, their value in
general or ability to do what you're suggesting was never
questioned. What exactly is it that you're arguing against,
that makes you so determined to repeat your argument
and feel like you're not being heard?

Quote:
"Man did you read what I said?"
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
The point of the matter is that there are certain genetic markers only tell one side of the story. Uniparentals tell you exactly that-- one-parent lineages; while autosomes give you a rough picture of how you relate to others in everything else i.e. HLA. Even when both genetic methods are used, it still doesn't tell you their precise history as to which individuals migrated to their present location and mated with which individuals at a certain time. The best that genetics can give are CLUES as to the history of a population. It's just like archaeology. Archaeology gives clues via the material culture. History is perhaps the most accurate but of course written history as we know it is relatively recent and even the earliest histories written are full of mythology.

As for the author of this thread, Amun-Ra is obviously confused as he is biased to the point of blindness. He accuses us of being racist due to his mistaken belief that we are somehow white-washing or 'de-Africanizing' certain populations. We are NOT! However, he thinks this is the case due to the fact that the genetic diversity in Africa shows some populations are more closely related to certain populations while more distantly related to others.

Even the idiotic chart he spams shows this:



LOL
 

---

Posted by .Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
 
I think people are over-emphasizing autosomes over the other loci, which should not be the case and I think it has a lot to do with the rise of these DNA companies and these STRUCTURE studies, to the point where people are seeing uni-parentals as useless and that should never be the case.
 

---

Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
 
^^^It's the contrary. Y-DNA and MtDNA analysis to determine your ancestors are very popular with DNA ancestry companies. They don't use autosomal much even if it could be done too. Ideally all three (Y-DNA, MtDNA, Autosomal) would be done at the same time for the same price. Giving you a more complete picture as I did in this thread:

https://www.familytreedna.com/
 

---

Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
I think people are over-emphasizing autosomes over the other loci, which should not be the case and I think it has a lot to do with the rise of these DNA companies and these STRUCTURE studies, to the point where people are seeing uni-parentals as useless and that should never be the case.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by beyoku:

quote:

---

Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
I think people are over-emphasizing autosomes over the other loci, which should not be the case and I think it has a lot to do with the rise of these DNA companies and these STRUCTURE studies, to the point where people are seeing uni-parentals as useless and that should never be the case.

---

I dont think this is the case. The two do not overlap. One can be easily altered by drift. Here is a clear example. Please match the autosomal profile to this Uniparental Marker.

E1b1b1
H1a

Where in Africa and the new world is this found?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by beyoku:

quote:

---

Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
I think people are over-emphasizing autosomes over the other loci, which should not be the case and I think it has a lot to do with the rise of these DNA companies and these STRUCTURE studies, to the point where people are seeing uni-parentals as useless and that should never be the case.

---

I dont think this is the case. The two do not overlap. One can be easily altered by drift. Here is a clear example. Please match the autosomal profile to this Uniparental Marker.

E1b1b1
H1a

Where in Africa and the new world is this found?

---

I never said that, but in the case of autosomals....look at Henry Louis gates, both his paternal and maternal uni-parentals are European, autosomally he is 50% African, yet he isn't a mulatto because neither of his parents are white, both are Aframs.


As for your question, well those two uniparentals you posted look about typical for a North African or even a Tuareg

---

Or



That would have a totally different autosomal makeup than North Africans.....and would put the uniparental markers in perspective.
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
Good point Beyoku. Hadn't even though of that in
relation to this topic. Individuals with the same hgs but
who belong to different populations will have an
entirely different autosomal signature. If this happens
at the population level (as opposed to the individual
level), you get the very thing that Amun Ra's inner
RAM memory can't seem to process without short
circuiting: at the population level, individuals will
cluster with the populations they're from, every
time, regardless of how much the uniparental profiles
of individuals within those populations resemble, or
are identical to individuals from other, traditionally
separated populations.

By far, in most population affinity uses, hgs are little
more than icing on the cake or even third wheels
compared to autosomal profiles. Sometimes they
have specific niche benefits but the case can be
made that many of these are either not population
affinity/genetic closeness related (e.g. constructing
trees that reflect the extant history of the human
tree, entirely free of recombination) or that
autosomes can perform some of those functions
as well.
 

---

Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
 
This Reminds me of a discussion with a Somali. One of those nationalist "we not black....we not negro" types. I then proceeded to have him describe the Somali genesis and who was on Somalia prior to Somali and what negroids they have mixed with. He did a pretty bad job and tried to pin it all down to E-m78(v32). Somali are dominated by v32 but this marker only describes a paternal event in the area. It's hypothesized To have happened quite recent per Sanchez. ..I think 5600 or 6500 years ago.

Point is there are remains in Somalia that predate this. There is rock art in Somalia that dates to 6500 BC or earlier. It would be foolish to think Somali popped into existence with the dating of their main paternal marker. This marker is associated with s SMALL migration and has arisen to high frequency through drift.

Futuremore it is likely western Sudanese with high V32 have a different autosomal profile than Somali. According to limited STR at least they do.
 

---

Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
 
To add. What this parental marker DOES do, is let you get a picture of WHERE the small migration population came from before it rose to near fixation. It adds another element to the discussion. E-M81 reaching fixation in the Maghreb can be an anomaly when dealing with their autosomal profile....it does though let you know the Source of the founder in reg to the "founder effect".

The discussion in genetics has moved from uniparentals to Autosomal SNP's complimented by uniparentals. Many populations SHARE uniparentals. This is particularly the case with the area from Southern Europe through the fertile crescent and into the Horn and East Africa. If using the time span of "Dey all be E-PN2" as a gauge, then there is a vast span of lineages shared between Africans and non Africans when it comes to derivatives of M and N...Particularly RO. This would leads to vast swathes of that area mentioned above sharing R0 when not reduced all they way down to H. And Pn2. Folks in the chad basin would have an even closer sharing relationship with Europeans based on the sharing between Pn2 and R1.

The entire argument really falls flat when we look at NEW RESEARCH. Folks here dont know but haplogroup R and many lineages in south East Asia and the southern pacific have been consolidated and resolved down into SIMPLE SUBCLADES OF K2B. Yep you heard it....M, S, Q, R, P are all subcaldes of one K2b. If we take a step back to K2 we can include ALL of Haplogroup N and the VAST East Asian population of Haplogroup O.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_K-M9
The time frame of K2 breaking up in the diversity that it is today and all the populations it represents IS YOUNGER THAN the breakup of Haplogroup E and its subclades.

I will repeat that for emphasis and clarify:

The time frame of K2 breaking up in and Haplogroup diversity it represents today....and all the Autosomal separation between these populations (Europeans, Paupans, Chinese, Central Asians, Negritos, Southern Indians, Sub Saharans[T,R], Native Americans etc) IS YOUNGER THAN the breakup of Haplogroup E and its subclades....and possibly even E1b1 depending on the dating.

I know most of you dont study Eurasian genetics but to put things in perspective it would be very similar to finding new Y mutations in Africa that indicate that ALL the African uniparental markers can be resolved under a subclade of Sahelian E1a or East African B2a. once you understand the implications you can see how false it is to think Y dna is more important than or directly implies autosome.
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:

... Cushitic, Chadic and Niger-Kordofanian speakers as well
as various African populations are genetically closer to each
others than they are to any non-African populations:

[...]



[...]

... the Fulani AAC cluster is closer to non-Africans than
for example Niger-Kordofanian and Nilo-Saharan speakers are
to non-Africans. The Fulani AAC is still much closer to the
Niger-Kordofanian and Nilo-Saharan AAC than to any non-African AACs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:


Well, actually, the ordered tip
to tip distance from European is

* Cushitic
* Nilo-Saharan
* Sandawe
* Fulani & Niger-Kordofanian & Chadic
* Southern African Khoesan
* W. Pygmy
* Hadza

so, no, Fulani are not "closer
to non-Africans than" are their
Niger-Kordofanian co-linguists.
The two are ~equidistant from
European.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by beyoku:
To add. What this parental marker DOES do, is let you get a picture of WHERE the small migration population came from before it rose to near fixation. It adds another element to the discussion. E-M81 reaching fixation in the Maghreb can be an anomaly when dealing with their autosomal profile....it does though let you know the Source of the founder in reg to the "founder effect".

The discussion in genetics has moved from uniparentals to Autosomal SNP's complimented by uniparentals. Many populations SHARE uniparentals. This is particularly the case with the area from Southern Europe through the fertile crescent and into the Horn and East Africa. If using the time span of "Dey all be E-PN2" as a gauge, then there is a vast span of lineages shared between Africans and non Africans when it comes to derivatives of M and N...Particularly RO. This would leads to vast swathes of that area mentioned above sharing R0 when not reduced all they way down to H. And Pn2. Folks in the chad basin would have an even closer sharing relationship with Europeans based on the sharing between Pn2 and R1.

The entire argument really falls flat when we look at NEW RESEARCH. Folks here dont know but haplogroup R and many lineages in south East Asia and the southern pacific have been consolidated and resolved down into SIMPLE SUBCLADES OF K2B. Yep you heard it....M, S, Q, R, P are all subcaldes of one K2b. If we take a step back to K2 we can include ALL of Haplogroup N and the VAST East Asian population of Haplogroup O.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_K-M9
The time frame of K2 breaking up in the diversity that it is today and all the populations it represents IS YOUNGER THAN the breakup of Haplogroup E and its subclades.

I will repeat that for emphasis and clarify:

The time frame of K2 breaking up in and Haplogroup diversity it represents today....and all the Autosomal separation between these populations (Europeans, Paupans, Chinese, Central Asians, Negritos, Southern Indians, Sub Saharans[T,R], Native Americans etc) IS YOUNGER THAN the breakup of Haplogroup E and its subclades....and possibly even E1b1 depending on the dating.

I know most of you dont study Eurasian genetics but to put things in perspective it would be very similar to finding new Y mutations in Africa that indicate that ALL the African uniparental markers can be resolved under a subclade of Sahelian E1a or East African B2a. once you understand the implications you can see how false it is to think Y dna is more important than or directly implies autosome.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
I look at the case of the Khoisan, a couple of papers claim these people have anceint Eurasian admixture from East Africans, but there is no recognisable signature of anything Eurasian as far as haplogroups on neither the maternal nor paternal side.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
The "Eurasian" population that admixed with Khoisans
are projected to have been ~75% African. I don't
see why that would have to leave a Eurasian hg
signature in the recipient populations. I'm not
saying there is no such hg signature, I'm saying that,
in principle, there doesn't need to be one today. The
very fact that select South Africans have notable freqs
of hgs like L4, L5 and E-M293 today, and that these are
especially found in South African pastoralists,
proves that East Africans migrated there recently.
This absence of substantial derived Eurasian hgs
in these admixed Khoisan populations is clearly a(nother)
case where hgs have proven unreliable trackers of
migrations.

It was the study of autosomal DNA that brought
clarity to the hitch-hiking layer of Eurasian
ancestry towards South Africa, when hg investigations
initially failed to attract researchers' undivided
attention towards these "new" genetic aspects of the
E-M293 migration, which go together well with what
was initially known as movement of East African
hgs, pottery and cattle to South Africa.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
The "Eurasian" population that admixed with Khoisans
are projected to have been ~75% African. I don't
see why that would have to leave a Eurasian hg
signature in the recipient populations. I'm not
saying there is no such hg signature, I'm saying that,
in principle, there doesn't need to be one today. The
very fact that select South Africans have notable freqs
of hgs like L4, L5 and E-M293 today, and that these are
especially found in South African pastoralists,
proves that East Africans migrated there recently.
This absence of substantial derived Eurasian hgs
in these admixed Khoisan populations is clearly a(nother)
case where hgs have proven unreliable trackers of
migrations.

It was the study of autosomal DNA that brought
clarity to the hitch-hiking layer of Eurasian
ancestry towards South Africa, when hg investigations
initially failed to attract researchers' undivided
attention towards these "new" genetic aspects of the
E-M293 migration, which go together well with what
was initially known as movement of East African
hgs, pottery and cattle to South Africa.

---

I believe they see mixture and are trying to find a satisfactory date, thus all that talk about Aksum when in reality Aksum was a kingdom of its own without any significant mixture from the Red Sea. I think that specific "Eurasian2 ancestry is just Horn ancestry but of a different type

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
Technically, autosomal mixture goes back as far as the mixture you get from your grandparents.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
Technically, autosomal mixture goes back as far as the mixture you get from your grandparents.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

Why someone would rely on trees or dendrograms to
infer pairwise genetic distances is completely
beyond me.

---

1. Figure S7: Neighbor-joining tree from pairwise (δμ)² microsatellite genetic distances between populations (S16).
2. Figure S8: Neighbor-joining tree from pairwise Rst microsatellite genetic distances between populations (S15).
3. Figure S14: Un-rooted neighbor-joining tree based on pairwise nucleotide genetic distances using inferred ancestral
   allele frequencies from the global STRUCTURE analysis at K = 14.
4. Figure S18: Un-rooted neighbor-joining tree from pairwise net nucleotide genetic distances calculated from the inferred
   ancestral allele frequencies at K = 14 from STRUCTURE analysis of the African dataset.
5. Figure S21: Un-rooted neighbor-joining tree from pairwise net nucleotide genetic distances calculated from the inferred
   ancestral allele frequencies for clusters at K = 10 with STRUCTURE analysis of the Eastern African dataset

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:


Well, actually, the ordered tip
to tip distance from European is

* Cushitic
* Nilo-Saharan
* Sandawe
* Fulani & Niger-Kordofanian & Chadic
* Southern African Khoesan
* W. Pygmy
* Hadza

so, no, Fulani are not "closer
to non-Africans than" are their
Niger-Kordofanian co-linguists.
The two are ~equidistant from
European.

---

Well, actually, you're wrong.

And it's not the first time you fail to understand very basic things then come here to tell me, I'm the one who is wrong with an exaggerated confidence sure of yourself, instead of simply asking questions and ask me for clarification, if I'm able and willing to provide them. Obviously I can make simple errors too sometimes, all informed criticisms and counter-argumentation are welcome. It's a bit why I post those stuff here.

As I already explained to Beyoku (and thus to all readers of this forum) in greater length in another thread, that's not how you measure the distance between populations. You must not measure the distance from the tip but from the beginning of the colored lines.

If you check out p13-14 in the paragraph about Fig. S14 in the Tishkoff document ( DOWNLOAD HERE) . You will read:

The Fulani and Cushitic [] are closest to the non-African AACs. - Tiskhoff et al., P13-14

So it is indeed, as I implied in my previous post in this thread, Fulani and then Cushitic populations which are the closest to non-African AACs and the European AAC. Obviously, they are still much closer to the other African AACs than to the non-African ones.

As a side note, this is also reflected by the uniparental haplogroups of those populations which display a greater proportion of recent post-OOA Eurasian haplogroups admixtures (back migrations) in those populations.

---