|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Mar 13, 2014 17:41:07 GMT -5
 ![]() Anyone seen the new DNATribes article? Damn am I good or what?!!! They have EEF(Basal Eurasian) originating in Africa just as I hypothesized in this thread. And true Arabians are Saharans. I also hypothesized. As I said many time, Arabia is an extension of Africa. E1b1b to the North with SSA to the South just as mainland Africa. The Ottoman Turks are modern imposters to the region. I went one step further and speculated that most of the migration was through the Sardinia and Iberia. Give them time they will catch on and admit it that too. That scenario makes the best geographic and genetic sense. New DNA technology is proving I am right. H is older in Africa than Europe, indicating the direction of migration. I will give them to the end of the year to admit it. Hats off to Lucas Martin he is shaking up the status quo. First the Amarnas, now this. Just loving it. |
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Mar 13, 2014 17:43:07 GMT -5
From Tribes ====== Within Africa, these innovations were integrated into the Pre-Dynastic cultures of Egypt (such as Naqada) and Nubia (further south along the Nile River). This included the emergence of a DISTINCTIVE AFRICAN CATTLE CULTURE attested in the Laas Gaal rock carvings (dated to between 9,000 – 3,000 BCE). As the climate changed and Africa’s “Green Sahara” became a desert, the fertile Nile Valley emerged as an important population and civilization center linking the East Mediterranean with the interior of East Africa, continuing the cycle of contacts that generated the first Out of Africa migrations. Although the model of human population history described in Lazaridis4 does not identify a geographical location where Basal Eurasian populations developed, the paper’s tree model suggests an origin after an initial split from African moderns and prior to the divergence of Eastern Non-African XYYMAN COMMENT: Yes they did…. somewhat. They used West Africans as a Proxy(the best fit) and not East African or Southern Africa.-San  |
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Mar 13, 2014 17:44:25 GMT -5
contd
This suggests that Sub-Saharan linked components in the Horn of Africa include components that are better represented by Asian-Pacific (including Oceanian) populations than by North African or Middle Eastern percentages.
XYYMAN COMMENT: The Asian Components are closer to SSA.
This unexpected result might reflect ancestry from Non-African populations that were separate from the Basal Eurasians in Lazaridis’ tree model (see Background), such as Eastern Non-Africans (ENA). However, another possibility is that these shared African and Asian-Pacific genetic components might reflect contacts with Denisovan related archaic hominens in Africa.8 However, additional research would be needed to explore this further.
XYYMAN COMMENT: As I said before Neandertal and Denisovan did Not admix with AMH. All supposed genetic signature came from Africans.
The step-by-step GEOGRAPHICAL PROGRESSION in Steps 3A-3I beginning near the Nile River and Red Sea and expanding outwards into West Eurasia is similar to the geographical distribution of Basal Eurasian and descendant EEF (Early European Farmer) ancestry described in Lazaridis (see Figure 1), as well as the modern Homo sapiens migration routes out of Africa and the East Mediterranean centered contact zone in which the first agricultural civilizations first emerged (see Background for more discussion).
For this reason, the Middle Eastern and Mediterranean related genetic components in the Horn of Africa might reflect traces of Basal Eurasian populations, which have been absorbed by neighboring African, European, and Asian populations since the beginning of the Neolithic period.
As with SNP results (see previous section of this article), the sequence of West Eurasian genetic components in the Horn of Africa expresses a GEOGRAPHICALLY ORDERED PROGRESSION of regions that BEGINS near the Nile River and Red Sea (North Africa and Arabian in Step 1) then in later steps includes West Asian and Mediterranean (Levantine, Iberian, and Mesopotamian in Steps 3A and 3C) and finally Northern European and South Asian regions (such as Northwest European and Eastern India percentages in Steps 3E-3F).
However, total percentages of West Eurasian components become progressively smaller in later iterations (starting at 42.3% in Step 1 and ending with only 12.9% in Step 3J). This suggests that the Horn of Africa’s West Eurasian related genetic components are substantially better represented by regions in early steps (such as North African and Arabian) than by regions in later steps (such as Slavic-Baltic or Eastern India).
XYYMAN COMMENT: I need someone to double check my work. Isn’t he saying here that the migration was NOT through the Levant into Europe. But a better model is through North Africa to Europe. It clearly shows the FIRST geographic progression was from the Horn to North Africa.
|
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Mar 13, 2014 17:45:27 GMT -5
Notably, the geographic progression of these components might reflect the expansions of Basal Eurasians (possibly including the earliest Nile River and/or Red Sea migration routes of behaviorally modern Homo sapiens out of Africa, as well as the early Neolithic centers of the East Mediterranean.
XYYMAN COMMENT: This is a curious statement. I have been internalizing the same thought. “Behavioral” modern humans are not as old as we are led to believe.
Conclusion
Sequential analyses of non-local genetic components in the Horn of Africa using both autosomal SNP and STR data express substantial Sub-Saharan African and West Eurasian (Middle Eastern and European) related percentages, perhaps expressing genetic traces of modern Homo sapiens expansions in Africa (Sub-Saharan African; possibly also reflecting Eastern Non-African and/or archaic Denisovan related introgression in Africa and Oceania) and Basal Eurasian expansions near the Nile River and East Mediterranean (West Eurasian; possibly also reflecting Eastern Non-African and/or Neanderthal introgression in Eurasia).
XYYMAN COMMENT: The word they are now starting to use is “related” which is more appropriate. eg West Eurasian “related” components instead of West Eurasian component. Seems like Denisovan and/or Neanderthal did enter Africa after all. LOL!!
|
|
|
|
Post by anastasiaescrava on Apr 11, 2014 23:12:09 GMT -5
Laymen terms?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2014 19:42:10 GMT -5
EEF = North Africa, not Sub-Saharan Africa. North Africa is closer genetically to Europe and West Asia, than Sub-Saharan Africa because of the Saharan desert barrier. Afrocentrists are too dumb to understand what these studies are actually showing!  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palearctic_ecozone |
|
rivertemz
Scribe
The thirst for Knowledge is strong in this one
Posts: 211 
|
Post by rivertemz on Apr 12, 2014 20:20:30 GMT -5
EEF = North Africa, not Sub-Saharan Africa. North Africa is closer genetically to Europe and West Asia, than Sub-Saharan Africa because of the Saharan desert barrier. Afrocentrists are too dumb to understand what these studies are actually showing! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palearctic_ecozoneDon't you realize that everyone on here knows your agenda. And we won't satisfy you. If you're too lazy or " too dumb" to observe your own contradictions, obviously don't bother expecting a debate, because there's no way to convince a person as ignorant as yourself. Why don't people like you ever keep updated with valuable and accurate research when it comes to African origins rather than re-visiting old European, racist and imperialistic ideologies. Fool, take a seat. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2014 22:27:34 GMT -5
EEF = North Africa, not Sub-Saharan Africa. North Africa is closer genetically to Europe and West Asia, than Sub-Saharan Africa because of the Saharan desert barrier. Afrocentrists are too dumb to understand what these studies are actually showing! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palearctic_ecozoneDon't you realize that everyone on here knows your agenda. And we won't satisfy you. If you're too lazy or " too dumb" to observe your own contradictions, obviously don't bother expecting a debate, because there's no way to convince a person as ignorant as yourself. Why don't people like you ever keep updated with valuable and accurate research when it comes to African origins rather than re-visiting old European, racist and imperialistic ideologies. Fool, take a seat. Lolz. In case you haven't noticed - this is an Afrocentrist and Pan-African/Black nationalist forum. Most of the posters here are well known proponents of Melanin theory pseudo-science which claims white people are albino mutants. The author of this thread even espouses this view. This is "accurate research"?  What I posted above is not ignorant, but you know (?) something called science. North Africa is not part as the same ecological zone as Sub-Saharan Africa. There is a major geographical barrier (desert) there that has affected population history. In this sense, North Africa is actually part of Eurasia, called the Palearctic (look at the zone highlighted). This is why North Africans are closer genetically to West Asians. |
|
|
|
Post by anastasiaescrava on Apr 13, 2014 0:23:02 GMT -5
Ben=Herodotus....
|
|
rivertemz
Scribe
The thirst for Knowledge is strong in this one
Posts: 211
|
Post by rivertemz on Apr 13, 2014 1:00:45 GMT -5
Don't you realize that everyone on here knows your agenda. And we won't satisfy you. If you're too lazy or " too dumb" to observe your own contradictions, obviously don't bother expecting a debate, because there's no way to convince a person as ignorant as yourself. Why don't people like you ever keep updated with valuable and accurate research when it comes to African origins rather than re-visiting old European, racist and imperialistic ideologies. Fool, take a seat. Lolz. In case you haven't noticed - this is an Afrocentrist and Pan-African/Black nationalist forum. Most of the posters here are well known proponents of Melanin theory pseudo-science which claims white people are albino mutants. The author of this thread even espouses this view. This is "accurate research"? What I posted above is not ignorant, but you know (?) something called science. North Africa is not part as the same ecological zone as Sub-Saharan Africa. There is a major geographical barrier (desert) there that has affected population history. In this sense, North Africa is actually part of Eurasia, called the Palearctic (look at the zone highlighted). This is why North Africans are closer genetically to West Asians. Wow this is incredible. I shouldn't have to repeat myself when I state the complete obvious. Again please take a seat. It's just quite played out what you're here for. There are spaces made for people like you to fill up your myths with, such as stormfront (which im guessing you're already a member of) and other blatant supremacist forums. Yet you so happen to engage with these Afrocentrist who ~merely make a religion out of false beliefs~ as you might put it, rather than us backing it up with actual references and Scientific research that you're not exposed to. what a shame So in the mean time, Re-evaluate your plain and vague theories and geographical concepts on North Africa, because you should really know how invalid your statements are, it's obviously the lack of affiliation you have with the continent, you're just rehearsing the same mumbo jumbo you got from another unreliable source or site. Help yourself a little by reading through the threads from this site that you've chosen to sign up for. There's information on North African cultures, ethnic lineages and North Africa's regional anthropology with references so you could be sure of it. Otherwise independently research what you're so interested in finding out. Instead of continuing to make the same overall statement; " Black negroids are not associated with North Africa in any way" as you might also put it. And if you're unaware of the recent(updated) research, showing a pattern in debunking most Eurocentric claims on Africa's geographical make-up and other aspects, have gradually been contradicted by the latest advanced studies i.e. genealogy, new archaeological findings and a little more transparency in terms of Historical relevance in these fields. (Just a little so far). Yet you are either blind to the new findings or just plain stupid. |
|
|
|
Post by anansi on Apr 13, 2014 1:53:24 GMT -5
Don't you realize that everyone on here knows your agenda. And we won't satisfy you. If you're too lazy or " too dumb" to observe your own contradictions, obviously don't bother expecting a debate, because there's no way to convince a person as ignorant as yourself. Why don't people like you ever keep updated with valuable and accurate research when it comes to African origins rather than re-visiting old European, racist and imperialistic ideologies. Fool, take a seat. Lolz. In case you haven't noticed - this is an Afrocentrist and Pan-African/Black nationalist forum. Most of the posters here are well known proponents of Melanin theory pseudo-science which claims white people are albino mutants. The author of this thread even espouses this view. This is "accurate research"? What I posted above is not ignorant, but you know (?) something called science. North Africa is not part as the same ecological zone as Sub-Saharan Africa. There is a major geographical barrier (desert) there that has affected population history. In this sense, North Africa is actually part of Eurasia, called the Palearctic (look at the zone highlighted). This is why North Africans are closer genetically to West Asians. Now you are out right lying please produce a thread where any ESR members uphold any Melanin theory there is one thread on the subject that asked the question Melanin Theory: fact or Fiction by Xyyman who sighted a WHO report concerning radiation and Melanin levels,thats it! by the response to A person everyone resoundingly denounced and rejected that theory. .and the O'P did not post it as a statement of fact just posed a question like any other question. egyptsearchreloaded.proboards.com/thread/253/melanin-theory-fact-fictionMany here are indeed Black, I am African Centered a claim I can't make for others they would have to declare that themselves but I think many are of the same mind set or at the very least looking for the truth where ever the evidence takes us, calling white folks mutant Albinos is not an ESR thing matter of fact one will be challenged on it as being scientifically incorrect , You however although polite is fishing but you are using the wrong tackle and bait,but please stay on you make a very good teaching tool  As for N.A that place separated by a desert is very recent by geological standard because before the last 6 or 5kyrs ago there were no desert the area looked like the Serengeti of today    The Green Sahara |
|
|
|
Post by azrur on Apr 13, 2014 2:00:22 GMT -5
Lolz. In case you haven't noticed - this is an Afrocentrist and Pan-African/Black nationalist forum. Most of the posters here are well known proponents of Melanin theory pseudo-science which claims white people are albino mutants. The author of this thread even espouses this view. This is "accurate research"? What I posted above is not ignorant, but you know (?) something called science. North Africa is not part as the same ecological zone as Sub-Saharan Africa. There is a major geographical barrier (desert) there that has affected population history. In this sense, North Africa is actually part of Eurasia, called the Palearctic (look at the zone highlighted). This is why North Africans are closer genetically to West Asians. Now you are out right lying please produce a thread where any ESR members uphold any Melanin theory there is one thread on the subject that asked the question Melanin Theory: fact or Fiction by Xyyman who sighted a WHO report concerning radiation and Melanin levels,thats it! by the response to person resoundingly denounced and rejected that theory. .and the O'P did not post it as a statement of fact just posed a question like any other question. egyptsearchreloaded.proboards.com/thread/253/melanin-theory-fact-fictionMany here are indeed Black, I am African Centered a claim I can't make for others they would have to declare that themselves but I think many are of the same mind set or at the very least looking for the truth where ever the evidence takes us, calling white folks mutant Albinos is not an ESR thing matter of fact one will be challenged on it as being scientifically incorrect , You however although polite is fishing but you are using the wrong tackle and bait,but please stay on you make a very good teaching tool As for N.A that place separated by a desert is very recent by geological standard because before the last 6 or 5kyrs ago there were no desert the area looked like the Serengeti of today The Green Sahara the asante does believe in the albinism thing but i think that is only one you are right that sahara it used to be a big forest and people walk across it back and forth there also used to be elephant in north africa i do not know much about elephant but i think they do not live in desert they need to live in forest |
|
rivertemz
Scribe
The thirst for Knowledge is strong in this one
Posts: 211
|
Post by rivertemz on Apr 13, 2014 2:57:43 GMT -5
Great info I understand your approach, hope I didn't seem too heated up, but I guess you are handling this as a 'teaching tool' for engaging in debates, so I'll leave it there  I'll mostly learn from your scholarly approach to this thread. I'm enjoying this ah! |
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Apr 13, 2014 15:49:58 GMT -5
I repeat....
Yes. Sforza got the percentages wrong. The Loschbour report put Lower Europeans(Iberia/Italy/Greece/and jewish groups) at close to 80% EEF. Northerners are more ancient and less EEF, they are about 40% EEF. They are saying that Lower Europeans are either Maghrebian decent or Arabian but NOT both. You know who my money is on. Lol! Both had a single “source” population.
I did not write this…honest!!! This is from DNATribes April2014. They are stealing my thunder on Arbia is an extension of Africa. Where did I post this. “sub-saharans to the south and North Africans to the North(in Arabia). The Levant seemed to be another divide. Not sure why. I get the Nile.
QUOTE
Within this agricultural zone range, EEF farmers came in contact with other ancient populations: In Europe and West Asia, EEF populations mixed with North Eurasians (including Siberian relatives of WHG hunter-gatherers). In the Arabian Peninsula, EEF farmers mixed with ancestral Sub-Saharan Africans related to modern Nigerian, Gambian, and Botswanan populations. In Armenia and Georgia, EEF farmers mixed with South Asian (Indian Subcontinent) populations
|
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Apr 13, 2014 15:52:41 GMT -5
Any questions?...this is self explanatory... ---- Relation??? Yeah. A bad step child. No gratitude or appreciation. SNP!!! Luhya, Hema and Alur  Haplogroups!!!    I went over this about 1 year ago. More on ESR. For those who are into coalescene age. I am Not  Thread close.  |
|
