|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Oct 19, 2017 15:06:53 GMT -5
I TOLD YOU SO!!!!! White Africans – Tishkoff2017 Thanks to Lioness on posting this. But I would have come across it eventually. Being Excommunicated from Egyptsearch I have to post on the topic here since some members visit this site. But!! I TOLD YOU SO!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 I said it many times. There is no race and light skin existed in Africans BEFORE Eurasians. Light skin is ancestral but black skin made us human Quote by Sarah Tishkoff “One additional takeaway from this work is a broader picture of the evolution of skin color in humans. Most of the genetic variants associated with light and dark pigmentation from the study appear to have originated more than 300,000 years ago, and some emerged roughly 1 million years ago, well before the emergence of modern humans. The older version of these variants in many cases was the one associated with lighter skin, suggesting that perhaps the ancestral state of humans was moderately pigmented rather than darkly pigmented skin. "If you were to shave a chimp, it has light pigmentation," Tishkoff said, " so it makes sense that skin color in the ancestors of modern humans could have been relatively light. It is likely that when we lost the hair covering our bodies and moved from forests to the open savannah, we needed darker skin. Mutations influencing both light and dark skin have continued to evolve in humans, even within the past few thousand years." Tishkoff noted that the work underscores the diversity of African populations and the lack of support for biological notions of race.” journal Source article link below the following related article ______________________________ www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-10/uop-psi100517.php Penn-led study identifies genes responsible for diversity of human skin colors |
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Oct 19, 2017 15:07:27 GMT -5
more to come as I break down the paper
|
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Oct 19, 2017 15:20:27 GMT -5
You do know the Nilo-Saharans are the AEians?
“They obtained a range of measurements; the darkest skin was observed in Nilo-Saharan pastoralist populations in eastern Africa, and the lightest skin was observed in San hunter-gatherer populations in southern Africa.”
This variant was common in populations in Ethiopia and Tanzania that were known to have ancestry from southeast Asia and the Middle East, suggesting it was carried into Africa from those regions and, based on its frequency, may have been positively selected.
“Another region, which contains the MFSD12 gene, had the second strongest association to skin pigmentation. This gene is expressed at low levels in depigmented skin in individuals with vitiligo, a condition where the skin loses pigment in some areas.”
Tishkoff noted that the work underscores the diversity of African populations and the lack of support for biological notions of race.
"Many of the genes and new genetic variants we identified to be associated with skin color may NEVER have been found OUTSIDE of Africa, because they are not as highly variable," Tishkoff said. "There is so much diversity in Africa that's not often appreciated. There's no such thing as an African race. We show that skin color is extremely variable on the African continent and that it is still evolving. Further, in most cases the genetic variants associated with light skin arose in Africa."
|
|
|
|
Post by melanitex on Oct 20, 2017 2:04:03 GMT -5
Djoser When you say "Light Skin" how light are we talking pal? Obviously we aren't talking Nordic blonde hair and blue eyes right?
|
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Oct 20, 2017 7:54:08 GMT -5
On Tishkoff(2017) new paper on skin pigmentation. Where she said white skin is from Africa. ....
"Though I agree with MOST of what Tishkoff stated here. There is a some I disagree with. Tishkoff has problems with her modeling. She is NOT using "live" data from aDNA. We know for a fact that La Brana, Loahsbour, Neanderthal, Italians Villabruna 14000bc, Bronze Age Levantines, IAM(early Neolithic North Africans 4000bc) even the Steppes pastoralist were black skinned based upon their genome. So we can safely assume it was a BLACK world up to about 4000BC!!!. So from about 400,000 - 4000BC all humans and humanoids were black in skin tone. About 4000BC things started to change. Late Neolithic North African started lightening. We also know that La Brana genetic profile(around the genetic tract) was unlike West Africans but more like Papuans. Yes, West Africans are black but carries EXTREME variability around these pigmentation genes UNLIKE La Brana and his fellow humans at that time. Modern Europeans on the other hand shows also less variability but fixed for ONE SNP. So in short Tishkoff agrees with Shriver(2010?) paper that AMH already had the "white' gene before leaving Africa and it was NOT introduced from Europe to Africa or elsewhere. The problem with Tishkoff paper proposal is that the aDNA shows that black skin was still prominent up to 4000BC. And it was only the AMH leaving Africa after about 4000BC introduce light skin to the rest of the world..or at least Europe. More work is needed on East Asians."
If I Am a betting man, Malawi_Hora_8200BP has many clue. When will they release her BAM file?
|
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Oct 20, 2017 8:11:01 GMT -5
Djoser When you say "Light Skin" how light are we talking pal? Obviously we aren't talking Nordic blonde hair and blue eyes right? Understand the context. White or light is relative. Of course it is not "Nordic" white. The point is Africans carry the "capability" to become white in their genes that is why there is no race. "Nordic" pigmentation is not conducive to a tropical environment. That is why it is impossible for the AEains to be Nordic white. The point is two things have to be in play. One, the gene and two, the environment. Looking at the genetic evidence emerging it looks like the gene was NOT present in Eurasians (at least Europeans since we do not have much data on East Asians aDNA). That is why La Brana, Neanderthals, Loshcbour, Villabruna were all black skinned. And black skin was very prominent up to the Medieval age in Europe. And looking at the European artistic portraits and writings(not my expertise) blacks were revered in Europe up to that period. So, no, they were NOT Nordic white. They can't possibly be. It is impossible. Now as we have also seen. Light eyes is also African in origin but light skin has no relationship to light eyes. Most Ancient Europeans had black skinned with light eyes. The world is turning on its head....lol! Oh! Looking at Cape Verde peoples. I predict ancient Africans also had dark skin with light eyes. But for some unknown reason, balck Africans carrying the light gene swept OUT of Africa into Europe where they basically entered an environment that was conducive to their gene. Yes, The world is spinning on its head. |
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Oct 20, 2017 12:55:31 GMT -5
After reading this paper, yes, it is another bombshell. The paper was uploaded as an image to PDF file. So I will have to do a text conversion back to PDF then pull the relevant excerpts. But in summary the penned author(being white) seems conflicted. Agreed yes, light skin may be ancestral to darker skin. I agree with that(sorry brothas), But they are ignoring current aDNA data and coming up with some silly inferences. We also agree that ALL homo were most likely black skinned including Denisovan and Neandertals. But they are also implying that the global pigmentation structure was present at the very beginning of modern humans even if Africans carried the white skin genes and being originated there. In other words the current pigmentation stratification currently found world-wide was present from the very beginning humanity as Africans adapted to the low UV environment. Sounds reasonable?! Yes! But there is a big problem with that inference.
aDNA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
They totally ignore the results coming out from aDNA. Neolithic North Africans, Neolithic Near East and Huntergatherers across Eurasia carried the ancestral form of the genes or were heterogenous ie they were black skinned. These are the FACTS!!! Even if the gene is cumulative which I agree with. LSC24A5 etc was ancestral in these ancient Eurasian. Malawi-Hora-8200BP was NOT disclosed.
Nevertheless also interesting is the refocusing(the new target populations) on Tanzania, Botswana and Malawi. They are digging deep into populations of the Great Lakes Africa. Ethiopia is becoming an after-thought. They are unto something with the Great Lakes population. WATCH OUT!
Remember Tanzanians/Kenyans carry the "ancestral" clades of the Abusir mummies.
Mark my words they will also need to shift their focus to Guinea-Bissau, Cape Verde and Sao Tome Principe to do a deep dive on modern European origins(the other 20% that is not Neolithic). I will "told You So" WHG are closely related to Cape Verde and peoples in Islands off West Africa. A00??
|
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Oct 20, 2017 13:30:43 GMT -5
I will answer some question PMed to me here because others may have the same question
------
"Nordic" pigmentation is not conducive to a tropical environment "But isn't most of Egypt outside of the tropics?"
"Wouldn't this mean that most of the Ancient Egyptians have a much lighter skin color then other Africans living down South?"
"Haplogroup U6 and M1 present in North Africa and for thousands of years old? Wouldn't this indicate admixture with Eurasians?"
-----------------
Yes, Egypt is outside the tropic and, yes, Egyptians are EXPECTED to be "lighter" than those in the tropical belt proper. Southern Egyptians are expected to be darker than Northern Egyptians. Just as Southern Europeans are expected to be darker than Northern Europeans. Same as Central Americans vs North Americans(Natives). But several things, first, lighter does not mean pale like Nordics with blonde with blue eyes. Keep in mind Tunisians are one of the purest Africans genetically but are very distantly related to Near East and to a lesser extent Europeans. So, yes, there are light skinned Africans. Even in Tropical Africa there is much variation(Relethord et al), as this current paper also cites. But As I sated earlier this adaption is VERY VERY recent because ACTUAL aDNA Data has 4000bc Europeans as black. We still need to know why.
On U6 and M1. I am sure what is the point of the question. First off why would U6 be "Eurasian" or even M1. I think it is accepted as fact that M1 is African. Kivilsd et al . U6 is still debateable becasu eof a 35k year old discovery of U in Northern Europe. But we do not have anything comparable in Africa. Also the U found was at the root of the tree, exactly where it should be for the time period ...WITH an African origin!!!!! Furthermore, U6 and many subclades are found in Africa, even the threaded Bantu carry unique clades of U6 specific to SSA. All this is indicative of an origin ...yes, in Africa. Furthermore Kefi et al identified U in aDNA dated to 20,000years ago in North Africa. So to answer the question, no!, there are no migrants from Europe for Africa.
---
Quote by McEvoy et al :
"Calculated by different means from the same data, ***consistently*** demonstrate a significantly more
recent relationship between Europe and Africa than between East Asia and Africa. Using simulated populations, we show that under
the single-wave ‘‘Out of Africa’’ model,
While the exact bias is difficult to estimate (Sved et al. 2008), it appears that post-divergence migration rates from Africa
to Europe would need to be approximately CONSTANT because we observe consistent ratios of TF and TLD at different genetic distances.
Thus, the observations are suggestive that GREATER MIGRATION TO EUROPE FROM SUB-SAHARAN AFRICAN HAS BEEN A LONG-TERM PHENOMENON."
---
What the statement means if Europeans are a subset of Africans. That is hwy there carry subclades of U6 and M1. Autosomally there is SHARED ancestry.
|
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Oct 20, 2017 14:07:51 GMT -5
BTW. The Nilo-Saharans are one of the blackest people on the planet along with Melenesians unlike west Africans. Nilo-Saharans=AEians
|
|
|
|
Post by melanitex on Oct 20, 2017 17:51:10 GMT -5
I will answer some question PMed to me here because others may have the same question ------ "Nordic" pigmentation is not conducive to a tropical environment "But isn't most of Egypt outside of the tropics?" "Wouldn't this mean that most of the Ancient Egyptians have a much lighter skin color then other Africans living down South?" "Haplogroup U6 and M1 present in North Africa and for thousands of years old? Wouldn't this indicate admixture with Eurasians?" ----------------- Yes, Egypt is outside the tropic and, yes, Egyptians are EXPECTED to be "lighter" than those in the tropical belt proper. Southern Egyptians are expected to be darker than Northern Egyptians. Just as Southern Europeans are expected to be darker than Northern Europeans. Same as Central Americans vs North Americans(Natives). But several things, first, lighter does not mean pale like Nordics with blonde with blue eyes. Keep in mind Tunisians are one of the purest Africans genetically but are very distantly related to Near East and to a lesser extent Europeans. So, yes, there are light skinned Africans. Even in Tropical Africa there is much variation(Relethord et al), as this current paper also cites. But As I sated earlier this adaption is VERY VERY recent because ACTUAL aDNA Data has 4000bc Europeans as black. We still need to know why. On U6 and M1. I am sure what is the point of the question. First off why would U6 be "Eurasian" or even M1. I think it is accepted as fact that M1 is African. Kivilsd et al . U6 is still debateable becasu eof a 35k year old discovery of U in Northern Europe. But we do not have anything comparable in Africa. Also the U found was at the root of the tree, exactly where it should be for the time period ...WITH an African origin!!!!! Furthermore, U6 and many subclades are found in Africa, even the threaded Bantu carry unique clades of U6 specific to SSA. All this is indicative of an origin ...yes, in Africa. Furthermore Kefi et al identified U in aDNA dated to 20,000years ago in North Africa. So to answer the question, no!, there are no migrants from Europe for Africa. --- Quote by McEvoy et al : "Calculated by different means from the same data, ***consistently*** demonstrate a significantly more
recent relationship between Europe and Africa than between East Asia and Africa. Using simulated populations, we show that under the single-wave ‘‘Out of Africa’’ model, While the exact bias is difficult to estimate (Sved et al. 2008), it appears that post-divergence migration rates from Africa to Europe would need to be approximately CONSTANT because we observe consistent ratios of TF and TLD at different genetic distances. Thus, the observations are suggestive that GREATER MIGRATION TO EUROPE FROM SUB-SAHARAN AFRICAN HAS BEEN A LONG-TERM PHENOMENON."--- What the statement means if Europeans are a subset of Africans. That is hwy there carry subclades of U6 and M1. Autosomally there is SHARED ancestry. 1. Tunisians pure Africans are you sure? Most North Africans have a fair amount of European admixture, see:  2. Wow I honestly didn't know about Bantu's carrying U6 I always thought U6 was only isolated to North Africa and from what I thought M1 was isolated to North Africa and Ethiopia. If U was found in Northern Europe at 35K years old perhaps U6 could be indicative of a back-migration since it's younger in Africa? 3. If actual aDNA has 4000 BC Europeans as black and the adaptions/genes whatever in Africans for light skin as a very very recent phenomena it becomes sort of pointless as we're concentrating on Ancient Egypt and Ancient Africa. Any adaption in whiter/lighter skinned tones surely would have happened to Eurasians first right? 4. Are you sure about Nilo-Saharans being A Egyptians? Remember the Ancient Egyptian language has been cracked for over a 100 years now and shares similarities with other Afro Asiatic Languages. In a matter of fact I believe Coptic was used to decode Ancient Egypt which is basically an Afro Asiatic Language with Greek influences. Furthermore the Ancient Egyptians typically drew themselves lighter in skin tone then their Nubian Brethren whom are normally portrayed as jet black. It is likely a group lighter in skin stone where the Ancient Egyptians not Nilo-Saharans... 5. A bit of a left field question but here goes I remember when a random guy I was debating with said the Ancient Egyptians would most likely resemble the indigenous people of the Canary Islands (ie not black) how would you respond to such a statement? Thnx again Djoser |
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Oct 20, 2017 19:19:57 GMT -5
You do know I know your are white kid? But since you are respectful I will continue. I believe EVERYONE should be educated. This is a teaching moment for the lurkers also. ====== "1. Tunisians pure Africans are you sure? Most North Africans have a fair amount of European admixture, see: 2. Wow I honestly didn't know about Bantu's carrying U6 I always thought U6 was only isolated to North Africa and from what I thought M1 was isolated to North Africa and Ethiopia. If U was found in Northern Europe at 35K years old perhaps U6 could be indicative of a back-migration since it's younger in Africa? 3. If actual aDNA has 4000 BC Europeans as black and the adaptions/genes whatever in Africans for light skin as a very very recent phenomena it becomes sort of pointless as we're concentrating on Ancient Egypt and Ancient Africa. Any adaption in whiter/lighter skinned tones surely would have happened to Eurasians first right? 4. Are you sure about Nilo-Saharans being A Egyptians? Remember the Ancient Egyptian language has been cracked for over a 100 years now and shares similarities with other Afro Asiatic Languages. In a matter of fact I believe Coptic was used to decode Ancient Egypt which is basically an Afro Asiatic Language with Greek influences. Furthermore the Ancient Egyptians typically drew themselves lighter in skin tone then their Nubian Brethren whom are normally portrayed as jet black. It is likely a group lighter in skin stone where the Ancient Egyptians not Nilo-Saharans... 5. A bit of a left field question but here goes I remember when a random guy I was debating with said the Ancient Egyptians would most likely resemble the indigenous people of the Canary Islands (ie not black) how would you respond to such a statement? Thnx again Djoser" ================== I am not going to answer you in order but by your numbering. This will be last response because I see you are getting confused and have a ways to go with logic. I know you may think you have the "aha moment" but it more irritating to me than anything else. It is like a knat buzzing in my ear. 5. I am not into eye-ball anthropology. I have no idea that the Canary Islanders weren't Africans or that matter black(insert sarcasm). aDNA showed they carry BOTH SSA, North African and labeled "European" lineage. Sources cited on ESR. Pigmentation profile of the ancient Canary Islanders were NOT disclose. Nuff said? And take those strawman argument to the kiddy forum. Just an FYI. If you can't understand simple logic then you are "debating" the wrong man.(roll eyes) which is the black or African?    1. Tunisians. hope you understand what you are looking at? Saharo_arabian is indigenous North African...Not Europe. Neither modern middle East. Canary Islanders are modern Europeans,,,mostly  |
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Oct 20, 2017 19:45:46 GMT -5
2, www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_U6_mtDNA.shtmlU6a2 U6a2a: found in Ethiopia U6a3f: found in Guinea-Bissau, Burkina Faso and Nigeria U6a5: found in the Maghreb, Iberia, Italy, Hungary, Chad, Cameroon and Nigeria U6a5a U6a5b U6b: found mostly in southwest Asia, West Africa and Iberia either you have a problem understanding or you have preconceived ideas. I said U found in 35Kyo European is BASAL. Do you understand the significance or the time and what BASAL means? If you did you wouldn't make that stupid statement about "back-migration". The data is consistent NOT with back migration but the time when Africans migrated to Europe. That is why it is its BASAL form IN Europe. Africans haven't been tested for that time period. Closest was Kefi paper which was 22Kya |
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Oct 20, 2017 19:55:46 GMT -5
3.
You are not clear on your question. Hope you don't write your school report like that? But you missed the salient point. THE ******ACTUAL***** data on ancient humans PRIOR to 4000BC shows they carried ancestral forms of these alleles so they were BLACK skinned. So Tishkoff hypothesis which did NOT look at actual aDNA data but statistical modelling is WRONG. Yes, true white skin would have occurred in Northern Europe. But for some strange reason it did NOT happen (ie selective sweep or fixation) until after the bronze age. My guess is SLC24A5 did not arrive FROM Africa until later. SLC24A5 was the missing piece/allele according to Tishkoff
Nilo_saharan are jet black even today to since the AEians are Nilo-Saharan.....you finish it. They Are SSA carrying STR profile just as the Amarnans.
|
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Oct 20, 2017 20:04:41 GMT -5
5. nonsensical statement...I would not reply. There is a reason why they are called Nilo-Saharan....take it someplace else. I am not a linguist experts and had no idea AEians spoke Greek.
Abstract
Abstract: HLA alleles have been determined in individuals from the Republic of Macedonia by DNA typing and sequencing. HLA-A, -B, -DR, -DQ allele frequencies and extended haplotypes have been for the first time determined and the results compared to those of other Mediterraneans, particularly with their neighbouring Greeks. Genetic distances, neighbor-joining dendrograms and correspondence analysis have been performed. The following conclusions have been reached: 1) Macedonians belong to the “older” Mediterranean substratum, like Iberians (including Basques), North Africans, Italians, French, Cretans, Jews, Lebanese, Turks (Anatolians), Armenians and Iranians, 2) Macedonians are not related with geographically close Greeks, who do not belong to the “older” Mediterranenan substratum, 3) Greeks are found to have a substantial relatedness to sub-Saharan (Ethiopian) people, which separate them from other Mediterranean groups. Both Greeks and Ethiopians share quasi-specific DRB1 alleles, such as *0305, *0307, *0411, *0413, *0416, *0417, *0420, *1110, *1112, *1304 and *1310. Genetic distances are closer between Greeks and Ethiopian/sub-Saharan groups than to any other Mediterranean group and finally Greeks cluster with Ethiopians/sub-Saharans in both neighbour joining dendrograms and correspondence analyses. The time period when these relationships might have occurred was ancient but uncertain and might be related to the displacement of Egyptian-Ethiopian people living in pharaonic Egypt.
Do the research brother
|
|
|
|
Post by zarahan on Oct 21, 2017 20:22:44 GMT -5
XYZ said Yes, Egypt is outside the tropic and, yes, Egyptians are EXPECTED to be "lighter" than those in the tropical belt proper. Southern Egyptians are expected to be darker than Northern Egyptians. Just as Southern Europeans are expected to be darker than Northern Europeans. Same as Central Americans vs North Americans(Natives). But several things, first, lighter does not mean pale like Nordics with blonde with blue eyes. Keep in mind Tunisians are one of the purest Africans genetically but are very distantly related to Near East and to a lesser extent Europeans. So, yes, there are light skinned Africans. Even in Tropical Africa there is much variation(Relethord et al), as this current paper also cites. But As I sated earlier this adaption is VERY VERY recent because ACTUAL aDNA Data has 4000bc Europeans as black. We still need to know why. Indeed. As noted several ties over the years Africans have the most skin color diversity. Tishkoff's latest study only confirms what we have known for a long time and debunks various denialists about African diversity.  Folk should remember though that about 15-16% of Egypt as a whole is in the tropical belt- and almost half of Upper Egypt. So Egypt is PHYSICALLY in part of the tropica.  AND they should keep in mind that the foundational peopling of Egypt is from the tropics, southward, including "sub-Saharan" Africa, as even Afrocentric 'critics' acknowledge.  -------- Nilo_saharan are jet black even today to since the AEians are Nilo-Saharan....
.you finish it. They Are SSA carrying STR profile just as the Amarnans. Quite so. Hard anthro data confirms the DNA case as to that foundational tropical African population- Limb proportion studies show they came from the south- the tropics. And all Nilo-Saharan are not all jet black- they have a range of skin colors- all INDIGENOUS TO AFRICA.  |
|
