|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Dec 19, 2013 23:06:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Dec 19, 2013 23:14:49 GMT -5
acccording to Guido. The Tuscanies are NOT direct decendents of the Etruscans. The Etruscans came from the "south". He stopped short of saying Africa. But there is only one land mass south of Ialy....Africa!!! The Greek crew , George Stephnosulosu(?) aDNA work on the Nuragic concluded that the Nuragic came also from the "South". They implied either Iberia or ...Africa!!!
You be the judge.....
For the record.
1. Barbujani et al -
Genealogical Discontinuities among Etruscan, Medieval, and Contemporary Tuscans -
Quote: “The available mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) data do not point to clear genetic relationships between current Tuscans and the Bronze-Age inhabitants of Tuscany, the Etruscans. To understand how and when such a genetic discontinuity may have arisen, we extracted and typed the mtDNAs of 27 medieval Tuscans from an initial sample of 61, spanning a period between the 10th and 15th century AD. Extensive demographic changes before AD 1000 are thus the simplest explanation for the differences between the contemporary and the Bronze-Age mtDNAs of Tuscany.
Accordingly, genealogical continuity between ancient and modern populations of the same area does not seem a safe
general assumption, but rather a hypothesis that, when possible, should be tested using ancient DNA analysis
THE ERROR: However, a third, and simpler, explanation was proposed by Achilli et al. (2007), who observed similarities between the contemporary mtDNAs of Turks and three samples of Tuscans. They interpreted this finding as evidence of a common descent of these populations from Etruscan ancestors.
contemporary Tuscans from local medieval (but not Bronze Age) ancestors fits the data, that shift likely occurred in the first millennium BC.
Analyses of mtDNA diversity in the British Isles (To¨pf et al. 2007), and Iceland (Helgason et al. 2009), also showed sharp differences between historical and current populations.
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Dec 19, 2013 23:20:25 GMT -5
As I said there are a few honest White geneticist. But Even he was afraid to say "Africa" instead he said "South". But irregardless all power to him. Some are proud of their Black Blood.
|
|
|
Post by azrur on Dec 19, 2013 23:34:53 GMT -5
british isles what time is this historical DNA from? what people of the british isles did they take sample from? the british isles they have had many invaders the celts the romans the anglo saxons the normans the vikings differences they would be expected in certain parts yeah?
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Jan 9, 2014 20:12:33 GMT -5
That is why you read the paper, FIRST, then critique. Of course you need to understand it. Material and Methods section should get you your answers. If you then want to discuss. I am game. british isles what time is this historical DNA from? what people of the british isles did they take sample from? the british isles they have had many invaders the celts the romans the anglo saxons the normans the vikings differences they would be expected in certain parts yeah?
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Jul 18, 2019 14:09:28 GMT -5
quote
"Hutu and Tutsi believed they were two different ethnicities… I hate the word ethnicity. I prefer using population. Only two centuries ago, people thought just as there are different breeds of dogs, horses, cats, there were also human breeds. And many human races catalogues were written… some even published by serious scientists. And then others such as The Negro, a Beast, published in 1900 in Saint Louis, U.S.A., which is a real outrage. Do you know the only thing all the race catalogues published by rigorous scientists had in common? They contradicted each other! There is a long history of failure of the concept of race. It is true that if you look at the DNA, differences can be found. But all this diversity represents different parts of a continuum. Talking about race is racist, but it is a mistake to think that mankind is made of very different groups, that you can put each individual in a drawer with a label above: Caucasian, Asian, black… And when we use the term ethnicity, in the heart we are applying the same concept as race; we are referring to a discontinuous diversity and that does not work, it’s neither helpful nor useful for understanding humanity. It is therefore more appropriate to talk about populations."
|
|
|
Post by zarahan on Sept 10, 2019 23:34:37 GMT -5
Populations is more accurate and more useful. But "race" is a neat way to continue a hierarchical narrative of inferior and superior groups, even as certain allegedly "pure" races only appeared recently, and indeed are not a primary "race" at all according to some scientists, but are "hybrids"- on third African, two-thirds Asian.
|
|
|
Post by Tukuler al~Takruri on Sept 11, 2019 17:26:50 GMT -5
Yes. Apparently all people descended from Africans, but only Africans are African. It's 2020. Cavalli-Sforza/Bowcock/et al 1991 is archaic. Is there a modern chart made by a modern method supporting the notion that any Euro pop is 35% African AND 65% (east) Asian from 30,000 years ago. Remember, Cavalli-Sforza/Bowcock's ancestral African and ancestral Asian are based precisely on C.A.R. Biaka & Congo Mbuti Rainforesters and San Francisco born Chinese. Bowcock and Cavalli-Sforza's is way before ancient DNA. Here's the figure that goes along with the 65-35 thing The figure in the previous post relates to genetic distance. For me, not that anbody needs to agree, I've done the 65% 35% thing in like a loyal pet dog too old to walk or feed itself, or a prized favorite horse with a fracture that'll never heal. I think he didn't like it but this fig is more today and even fits the top (a) section of the previous posting. No? Yes? You tell me.
|
|
|
Post by zarahan on Sept 11, 2019 21:34:23 GMT -5
Yes Sforza is dated, and I use him as mainly KEita does, to comment on the weakness of various race model studies and their hierarchism. I don't think there will be any ironclad study showing Sforza's percentage split across all of humanity. His study is useful though as Keita found it- in deconstructing the popular "3 race" model of both academic and popular lore. Says Keita: "Nuclear DNA studies also contribute to the deconstruction of received racial entities. Ann Bowcock and her colleague's interpretation (Bowcock et al. 1991; Bowcock et al. 1994) of analyses of restriction-site polymorphisms and microsatellite polymorphisms (STRPs) suggests that Europeans, the defining Caucasians, are descendants of a population that arose as a consequence of admixture between already differentiated populations ancestral to (some) Africans and Asians. Therefore, Caucasians would be a secondary type or race due to its hybrid origin and not a primary race". --S.O.Y. Keita and Rick Kittles. (1997) The Persistence of Racial Thinking and the Myth of Racial Divergence Newer data as to skin color of course shows that the hierarchists alleged pure white race that existed since the dawn of humanity is dubious, as "whites" only became "white" recently. You, Swenet, TRex and some others debated it back on ES back in the day. www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=008932;p=1================================ ================================================= The WIki page Swenet mentions has seen some controversy. Here it is as pf 9/11/19, quoting Cavalli Sforza, and Bauchet 2007. ====================================== Relation between Europeans and other populations
A 2007 study by Bauchet, which utilised about 10,000 autosomal DNA SNPs arrived at similar results. Principal component analysis clearly identified four widely dispersed groupings, corresponding to Africa, Europe, Central Asia and South Asia. PC1 separated Africans from the other populations, PC2 divided Asians from Europeans and Africans, whilst PC3 split Central Asians apart from South Asians.[100]
According to Cavalli-Sforza's work, all non-African populations are more closely related to each other than to Africans, supporting the hypothesis that all non-Africans descend from a single old-African population. The genetic distance from Africa to Europe (16.6) was found to be shorter than the genetic distance from Africa to East Asia (20.6), and much shorter than that from Africa to Australia (24.7). He explains:
... both Africans and Asians contributed to the settlement of Europe, which began about 40,000 years ago. It seems very reasonable to assume that both continents nearest to Europe contributed to its settlement, even if perhaps at different times and maybe repeatedly. It is reassuring that the analysis of other markers also consistently gives the same results in this case. Moreover, a specific evolutionary model tested, i.e., that Europe is formed by contributions from Asia and Africa, fits the distance matrix perfectly (6). In this simplified model, the migrations postulated to have populated Europe are estimated to have occurred at an early date (30,000 years ago), but it is impossible to distinguish, on the basis of these data, this model from that of several migrations at different times. The overall contributions from Asia and Africa were estimated to be around two-thirds and one-third, respectively".[102][103][104]
This particular model used an Out of Africa migration 100,000 years ago, which separated Africans from non-Africans, followed by a single admixture event 30,000 years ago leading to the formulation of the European population. The admixture event consisted of a source population that was 35% African and 65% East Asian. However, the study notes that a more realistic scenario would include several admixture events occurring over a sustained period. In particular, they cite the spread of farming from a source population in West Asia 5000–9000 years ago that may have played a role in the genetic relatedness of Africans and Europeans, since West Asia is sandwiched in between Africa and Central Asia.[102][103][104]
The model assumed an out of Africa migration 100kya and a single admixture event 30kya. However, most contemporary studies have more recent dates that place the out of Africa migration 50–70kya. The study also involved a direct comparison between Sub-Saharan Africans (Central Africans and Senegalese) and Europeans. North African populations were omitted from the study. These considerations might help explain the apparent short genetic distance between Europeans and Africans.[102][103][104]
A recent genetic study published in the "European Journal of Human Genetics" in Nature (2019) [Genetic relationships of European, Mediterranean, and SW Asian populations using a panel of 55 AISNPs] showed that modern Europeans are closely related to Northern Africans and West Asians as well as to Southwest Asians. These mentioned groups can be clearly distinguished from most populations in East Asia or Western Africa and Africans south of the Sahara.[105] FROM: GENETIC HISTORY OF EUROPE- WIKIPEDIA en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_history_of_Europe
|
|
|
Post by zarahan on Sept 11, 2019 21:39:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by zarahan on Sept 11, 2019 21:57:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by thereal on Sept 11, 2019 23:19:21 GMT -5
Wow! That highlighted part is interesting but why were the North Africans excluded? Are Europeans assuming North Africans are mixed or not "authentic" Africans? Because its hella weird to bypass the North when there aren't anyways to leave or enter Africa by skipping the North unless you're coming from the Americas or Oceania.
|
|
|
Post by Tukuler al~Takruri on Sept 12, 2019 12:58:36 GMT -5
All very well and good but those guys, except Mensamind, didn't deal directly with Bowcock and Cavalli-Sforza's data and methodolovy. www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=008932;p=2#000086 T-hotep went racist accusing me of using the word Chinese derisively which proves he never read Bowcock or C-S, just itching to attack. Surprisingly, theLioness is more strict shuttered logical analytic in that thread and non-distracting/non-diversionary than most others. Who, except Mensa, read and analyzed any of these sources in order to arrive at an opinion based on other than emotional preference or caping their clique? The issue is not whether Europeans originate from mixture. Unless a population is isloated they will be mixed.
Recognize valid criticism even if your palate can't accept it. Circulating outdated and currently unsupportable materials with an unrelated figure? I know you want only the better and best for you readership. Science moves on. A scientist doesn't keep spouting an outdated or erroneous concept just because they the one who thought it up. They revise or, better, come up with something totally new. Just like Diop said to do about his own concepts. And what did C-S himself say about it?. Europeans do not come from a 35 65 ancestral Rainforester ancestral Chinese mix 30,000 years ago (based on only modern RLFPs). You will not find a single population geneticist touting that old 1991 hypothesis or anything similar to it. We have the "whole genome" ancient DNA now and our argument has to stem from it too.
|
|
|
Post by Tukuler al~Takruri on Sept 12, 2019 13:14:47 GMT -5
This is a genetic distance chart showing the results of two different methods. a) the UPGMA tree, shows Europe nearly sibling to East Asia. b) the NJ tree, shows Europe closer to Asia than Africa. They don't agree on Oceania in relation to Africa. Neither has anything at all to do with ancestral percentages except allusion. Your graphic has arrows from mixture quotes pointing to distance charts. Fig 1 (a) the UPGMA tree isn't in your 1997 quote. This is a 1991 ML tree close to your 1997 quote but no Americas. This is the 1991 mixture chart Bowcock & C-S used to illustrate their 1994 text. It's a Maximum Likelihood tree too. It could go along with your 2001 quote. What harm is there in precisioning or expanding your graphic if you won't retire it for a fresher one that includes aDNA based analysis? I'm a big fan of your graphics since their Players style debutt, er, debut. Got time to author a new admix origin Europe graphic? I know, it's much easier asked than produced.
|
|
|
Post by zarahan on Sept 12, 2019 20:48:17 GMT -5
I would do a new one but haven't had time, in that evidence is stretched across multiple studies and some clear quotes showing the admixture, that the "man on the street" can quickly grasp, aren't readily apparent. The best I can come up with in "man on the street" mode is the recent stuff on humans not having white skin until recently, which basically debunks some of the "racial evolution" nonsense. Hence the alleged "caucasoids" bringing "revolutionary" white cultural magic to Paleolithic Europe for example, turn to to be those dreaded darkies.. You know the masses out there are not going to get into studies in-depth the way you and the old guard used to do. "Understandable by the man on the street" can be a difficulty. What quotes would you recommend to update Sforza? Especially the aDNA side of the house? Also there is the "Basal Eurasian" thing Xyz points out as well.
|
|