|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Jan 31, 2018 16:23:51 GMT -5
Too many to mention. We can start off with the simplest , the word “Eurasian” which is very misleading and deceptive. A label such as Afro-EuroAsian may be more accurately descriptive. Since it(the EurAsian DNA) originated in Africa and still exist IN Africa.
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Jan 31, 2018 12:10:20 GMT -5
More examples of…… “unpublished results” This is becoming too overt now. All These studies being carried out and the results NOT published because it will destroy the Eurocentric world. I am being ever more confidence that many studies are performed but results not disclosed because of the impact of the results. The destructive impact it will have on the Eurocentric Myths being perpetuated.
Quote from: ----- The Early Colonial Atlantic World- New Insights on the African Diaspora from Isotopic and Ancient DNA Analyses of a Multiethnic 15th–17th Century Burial Population From the Canary Islands, Spain - Jonathan Santana2016
Two samples from Finca Clavijo (individuals 9 and 13) belong to the H haplogroup (Table 3). Although this lineage is considered of Eurasian origin, it is common in North Africa (Ennafaa et al., 2009). High frequencies of haplogroup H are observed in Berber and Arab speaking Moroccans ( 35%) and drops slightly as one moves southwards to the Sahara and Mauritania ( 20%) (Rando et al., 1998; Gonzalez et al., 2006) and eastwards, reaching <15% in Egypt (Stevanovitch et al., 2004). This haplogroup is also present in aboriginal samples from Tenerife, La Palma, and La Gomera (Maca– Meyer et al., 2004; Fregel et al., 2009, 2015), and in a Gran Canarian prehispanic sample ***(unpublished data)***. Two samples (individuals 3 and 10) belong to the R0a haplogroup that displays its highest frequencies in the Arabian Peninsula (Abu–Amero et al., 2008), but is also present in North Africa. Concretely, the haplotype 126 362 has been observed in Morocco (Brakez et al., 2001; Falchi et al., 2006) and Mauritania (Gonzalez et al., 2006). Individual 4 belongs to Eurasian**** haplogroup I***. This haplogroup is also present in Northwest (0.15%) and North Central Africa (1.17%) (Fregel et al., 2009). Individual 2 belongs to the Canarias autochthonous U6b1 lineage (Rando et al., 1998). This haplogroup has a clear Canarian aboriginal adscription, as its distribution is restricted to the Canary Islands. Individual 14 was classified as HV/R and assigned to a Eurasian origin, although more SNP analyses are required to obtain a refined classification. The rest of the samples belong to Sub-Saharan lineages L1b (individual 12), L1c (individual 11) and L2a1 (individuals 1 and 5) pointing to this area as their most probable origin.
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Jan 30, 2018 11:41:46 GMT -5
STR of the Amarnas Identifications of Ancient Egyptian Royal Mummies from the 18th Dynasty Reconsidered M.E. Habicht, A.S. Bouwman, and F.J. R€uhli* Institute of Evolutionary Medicine, University of Zurich, CH 8057, Switzerland Quote: “Woodward made the first attempt at genetic analyses of some of these mummies, but the results remained unpublished; however, some information was only shown in a documentary movie (Woodward et al., 2001; Habicht, 2014b, pp 52–53, 88; Marchant, 2014). He discovered inbreeding at the beginning and at the end of the 18th Dynasty and proposed that the mummy CG 61074 really is Amenhotep III. After the millennium, molecular genetics opened a new door into the past, but the feasibility of acquiring authentic ancient DNA from Egyptian mummies is still debated. Another project to obtain genetic profile of the Pharaohs by Sakuji Yoshimura was turned down in 2000 (Marchant, 2014).” “For the Tutankhamun Family project, such safety protocols were applied (Richards et al., 1995; Gad, 2010; Gabolde, 2013a). Several facts speak clearly in favor of authentic aDNA: The combination of nuclear data (Y- and autosomal chromosome–related markers) ****complemented ****each other.”ABSTRACT For centuries, ancient Egyptian Royal mummies have drawn the attention both of the general public and scientists. Many royal mummies from the New Kingdom have survived. The discoveries of the bodies of these ancient rulers have always sparked much attention, yet not all identifications are clear even nowadays. This study presents a meta-analysis to demonstrate the difficulties in identifying ancient Egyptian royal mummies. Various methods and pitfalls in the identification of the Pharaohs are reassessed since new scientific methods can be used, such as ancient DNA-profiling and CT-scanning. While the ancestors of Tutankhamun have been identified, some identities are still highly controversial (e.g., the mystery of the KV-55 skeleton, recently most likely identified as the genetic father of Tutankhamun). The meta-analysis confirms the suggested identity of some mummies (e.g., Amenhotep III, Thutmosis IV, and Queen Tjye). Am J Phys Anthropol 159:S216–S231, 2016. VC 2016 American Association of Physical Anthropologists
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Jan 29, 2018 16:11:48 GMT -5
I like you Kel. You are on point.
"Even hen they admit the "truth"they still lie.
Reading the piece they admit their lies and replace it with more lie. A really fugked up people! Fascinating. They have the Universe in disorder. They just can't come clean!
I never knew there was a word for it...."'limited hangout'. "
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Jan 29, 2018 12:03:32 GMT -5
I am curious what is the “Book of Invasions and Medieval Text” written by an anonymous. And why would Europeans put so much faith in it?
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Jan 29, 2018 12:02:42 GMT -5
*****But try as they might, *****researchers so far haven’t found anyone, living or dead, with a distinct Celtic genome. The ancient Celts got their name from Greeks who used “Celt” as a label for barbarian outsiders—the diverse Celtic-speaking tribes who, starting in the late Bronze Age, occupied territory from Portugal to Turkey. “It’s a hard question who the Celts are,” says population geneticist Stephan Schiffels of the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History in Jena, Germany. Bodmer’s team traced the ancestry of 2039 people whose families have lived in the same parts of Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales since the 19th century. These people form at least nine genetic and geographic clusters, showing that after their ancestors arrived in those regions, they put down roots and married their neighbors. But the clusters themselves are of diverse origin, with close ties to people now in Germany, Belgium, and France. “‘Celtic’ is a cultural definition,” Bodmer says. “It has nothing to do with hordes of people coming from somewhere else and replacing people.”
“Ethnic groups in the past and present create an ‘imagined past’ of the longtime and ‘pure’ origins of their group,” Maeir says. But that created past often has “little true relation to the historical processes” that actually created the group, he says.
----
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Jan 29, 2018 12:02:10 GMT -5
That was just one of many episodes of migration and mixing. The first Europeans came from Africa via the Middle East and settled there about 43,000 years ago. But some of those pioneers, such as a 40,000-year-old individual from Romania, have little connection to today’s Europeans, Reich says.
***Farther north, the Irish Book of Invasions, ****written by an anonymous author in the 11th century, recounts that the “Sons of Mí l Espá ine … after many wanderings in Scythia and Egypt” eventually reached Spain and Ireland, creating a modern Irish people distinct from the British—and linked to the Spanish. That telling resonates with a later yarn about ships from the Spanish Armada, wrecked on the shores of Ireland and the Scottish Orkney Islands in 1588, Bradley says: “Good-looking, dark-haired Spaniards washed ashore” and had children with Gaelic and Orkney Islands women, creating a strain of Black Irish with dark hair, eyes, and skin.
Although it’s a great story, Bradley says, it “just didn’t happen.” In two studies, researchers have found only “a very small ancient Spanish contribution” to British and Irish DNA, says human geneticist Walter Bodmer of the University of Oxford in the United Kingdom, co-leader of a landmark 2015 study of British genetics.
The Irish also cherish another origin story, of the Celtic roots they are said to share with the Scots and Welsh. In the Celtic Revival of the 19th and 20th centuries, writers such as William Butler Yeats drew from stories in the Book of Invasions and medieval texts. Those writings described a migration of Gaels, or groups of Celts from the mainland who clung to their identity in the face of later waves of Roman, Germanic, and Nordic peoples.
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Jan 29, 2018 12:01:37 GMT -5
Myth of a European race, Myth of Vandals and Celts I am not history buff and now I see that it is a good thing….not being a history buff and believing everything you read. Here a Euroepan is shedding light on the lies being spewed in our “history” books. As I said “ ancient genetics will make liars of historians” BUSTING MYTHS OF ORIGIN by Ann Gibson Summary New studies show that there is no such thing as "pure" European—or anyone else. Almost all of us are the children of repeated ancient migrations, according to researchers who study ancient human origins. Indigenous Europeans, for example, descend from at least three major migrations in the past 15,000 years, including two from the Middle East. Those migrants swept across Europe, mingled with previous immigrants, and then remixed to create the peoples of today. Using revolutionary new methods to analyze DNA and the isotopes found in bones and teeth, scientists are exposing the tangled roots of peoples around the world, as varied as Germans, ancient Philistines, and Kashmiris. Few of us are actually the direct descendants of the ancient skeletons found in our backyards or historic homelands. Only a handful of groups today, such as Australian Aborigines, have deep bloodlines unaffected by mixing with immigrants. www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LacD_JOI04&feature=youtu.be-- Wind back the clock more than a thousand years—a trivial slice of time compared with the 200,000 years or so since our species emerged— and stories of exclusive heritage or territory crumble. “Basically, everybody’s myth is wrong, even the indigenous groups’,” says population geneticist David Reich of Harvard University.After Tacitus’s account resurfaced in the 15th century, German nationalists resurrected the myth of Arminius, who is often depicted as a blond, muscular young chieftain and known as Hermann. Hailed as the first “German” hero, he was said to have united the Germanic tribes and driven the Romans from their territory. That was considered the start of a period when fearsome Germanic tribes such as the Vandals swept around Europe, wresting territory from Romansand others. In the 20th century, the Nazis added their own dark spin to that origin story, citing Arminius as part of an ancient pedigree of a “master race” from Germany and northern Europe that they called Aryans. They used their view of prehistory and archaeology to justify claims to the tribes’ ancient homelands in Poland and Austria. Scholars agree that there was indeed a real battle that sent shock waves through the Roman Empire, which then stretched from the island of Britain to Egypt. But much of the rest of Arminius’s story is myth: The Romans persisted deep in Germania until at least the third century C.E., as shown by the recent discovery of a third-century Roman battlefield in Harzhorn, Germany. And Arminius by no means united the more than 50 Germanic tribes of the time. He persuaded five tribes to join him in battle, but ******** members of his own tribe soon killed him******. Moreover, Arminius and his kin were not pure “Aryan,” if that term means a person whose ancestors lived solely in what is now Germany or Scandinavia. The Cherusci tribe, like all Europeans of their day and later, were themselves composites, built from serial migrations into the heart of Europe and then repeatedly remixed. “The whole concept of an ethnic German … it’s ludicrous when you look at the longue durée [long time] scale,” says archaeologist Aren Maeir of Bar-Ilan University in Ramat Gan, Israel.
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Jan 29, 2018 8:38:42 GMT -5
siiigh! We may be more effective if we stay away from the pseudo-science stuff like "mutants" etc.
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Jan 27, 2018 12:45:45 GMT -5
Thumps up!
And welcome
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Jan 25, 2018 9:38:01 GMT -5
There is no way in hell the AEians are Europeans or modern Near Easterners. They have absolutely no connection to the AEians. Those people in the Near East are mostly Ottoman Turks. This paper ALSO proves that I am correct about that. Look at the PCoA Figure 1. Syrians, Palestinians, Iraqi, etc do NOT cluster with North Africans (Oh! But I don’t have much faith in PCA based upon frequency). However , They are NOT the same people.
We saw the same with the Abusir mummies. Modern Near/middle East do NOT cluster with the Abusir mummies. They do not. Look at the charts in the abusir paper. You need to rethink who is a "middle East" person. The Middle East who the Abusir cluster with is the same people higlighted in this paper(op). YEMEN(Hadarmwat(sp?) of Yemen). (Bedouins and Black Yemenis!!). .
Most Berbers of North Africans are indigenous they are not Turks like those people in the middle East.
Although the Bedouins/Yemenis are migrant Africans they are NOT closely related to North Africans(Henn was correct- dont you get that?). That is why they may carry the same upstream haplogroup as North Africans their sub-haplogroup or haplotype is on a different branch of the tree meaning they have the same ancestors but one is not a subset of the other. Both their ancestral home is Sub-Saharan Africa along the Great Lakes. That is why Africans carry the basal form of R0a.
The data is consistent!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Jan 25, 2018 8:56:04 GMT -5
Some of you may be puzzled at what you are looking at. Let me break it down. We know R0a is a subclade of mtDNA N(L3-N). The question is where did the mutation to form R0a took place. Think of mtDNA R0a as the base of a huge tree and each subclade (mutation) is an individual branch which has smaller branches and so on. R0a is the main trunk of that tree(the base). Looking at the diagram, So R0a is found in a wide geographic area like in Africa(Sub-Saharan Africa and North Africa), Europe and Near east. This is an indication of a very early dispersal after the formation of R0a. Next we look at the next main branch from the trunk of that tree. This is where the rubber hits the road!!!!!(frequency means nothing – that is just genetic drift). Looking at the smaller branches or down stream sub-clades of R0a it is clear that by far Africa carry the most next Basal sub-clades branches R0a. Also In fact Europe carry virtual no sub-clade of R0a which is indicative that they were recipients of migrating mtDNA R0a females. Africans especially sub-saharans are mostly at the base-clade of R0a. Most of the clades of the “near East” are found downstream of R0a but some are near the base. This is indicative that there was a higher frequency of migrating sub-clade of R0a towards the near East very early on. In summary the clades of R0a found in Africa are at the root. The Near East carry mostly downstream clades of those found in Africa. Europeans carry virtually no basal clades of R0a. In addition Europeans do not carry downstream clades of those found in the “Near East” which support Lazaridis et al etc that the Natufians are NOT ancestral to modern Europeans As I said. Within their lie they unknowingly provide the truth.
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Jan 25, 2018 8:06:36 GMT -5
Quote Cont: ------------------ North African specific lineages (U6 and M1) occurred at lower frequencies compared to West Eurasian and Sub- Saharan African lineages. They were more frequent in Wesletia (7.8%) than in Kairouan (4%).
Middle Eastern haplogroup R0a Middle Eastern haplogroup R0a, the most frequent and widespread in the Arabia Peninsula ( Cern y et al., 2011), was observed in Tunisian Arabs (exclusively in Wesletia) and displayed the highest frequency (9.37%) among 36 North African populations studied to date. A total of 314 R0a sequences, with known geographical origins (Supporting Information Table S4), were used to produce a median joining network (Figure 2). The network showed a star-like structure with the ancestral haplotype R0a from which derived different subhaplogroups. The ancestral haplotype R0a, characterized by (16126–16362), was widespread in the Middle East and North Africa (including four samples from Wesletia), and occurred to a lesser extend in Europe, East Africa, West Africa, and Asia. The rest of the R0a haplotypes were scattered in Middle Eastern, Ethiopian, North African, and Eurasian samples. Among R0a lineages, the most abundant subhaplogroup was R0a1a, defined by the additional 16355 transition (Abu-Amero, Gonz alez, Larruga, Bosley, & Cabrera, 2007; Cern y et al., 2009, 2011). The most abundant R0a1a haplotype was overwhelmingly found in the Middle East followed by North Africa (including one sample from
Wesletia), Ethiopia and Europe. The rest of the R0a1a haplotypes were scattered mostly in Middle East but also in North Africans and Ethiopians. The second most abundant subhaplogroup was R0a2c characterized by the 16304 transition ( Cern y et al., 2011). R0a2c occurred frequently in Middle Eastern samples followed by North African (included one sample from Wesletia), Ethiopian and one Mauritanian, while the rest of the R0a2c haplotypes were from the Middle East. The subclade R0a1b, identified by the 16093 and 16189 mutations (Abu-Amero et al., 2007), was mainly represented by various haplotypes from Saudi Arabia. In addition, several minority subclades R0a2b2, R0a2h, R0a2f1b, and R0a2k ( Cern y et al., 2011), appeared mostly in Middle Eastern and Eastern African samples, while subclade R0a2i, defined by 16092– 16278 ( Cern y et al., 2011), was only found in Middle East and North Africa.
-------------
Again! They should stop there! Right? R0a is omnipresent in Africa.. They are not Middle Easterners,. They are not! Why even write the paper and publish it??!! Overall, the two populations shared ****only one *****Middle Eastern haplotype T1a [16126C-16163G-16186T-16189C-16294T-73G-263G] considering both HVS-I and HVS-II sequences
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Jan 25, 2018 8:05:43 GMT -5
Ancient and recent Middle Eastern maternal genetic contribution to North Africa – Elkamel et al 2018 -Another lie!!
When I read these published studies I am amazed with the concentrated effort to alienate Sub Saharan Africans. The vitriol that is displayed is really alarming. Here is another paper that twist and manipulate data and information to make false claims. To the unsuspecting it is as clear as mud. But to those in the genetic circle it is clear what they are doing. That is why I am entirely convinced I am right. And their commonality in data manipulation is consistently the same that is why I am spot on and I easily see what they are doing. Most of these researchers have a common theme. “Alienate Sub Saharan Africans” and don't include samples that make geographic sense. Predictable?! I Can predict how they will spin the data.
Here is another example. They claim North Africans are from Eurasia but PROVIDE NO GENETIC data. Read the paper!! They provide data that ONLY two Tunisian population carry R0a, T1 and J1b. They also admit Tunisians within the same population carry a high frequency as much as 45% mtDNA L(supposed SSA). They compared haplotype between the two population but did not include modern Near East. none! When that kind of sloppy analysis is that?. It is clear that if Modern Near east population were included the haplotypes will NOT match. That is why Near Easterners weren’t included. Ha! Ha! Ha! They will not have matching haplotypes(Ennafa sp? et al). That is why I am convinced I am always correct. That is why I am convinced and it is undeniable that AEians are Africans, Abusir were Africans, Amarna were Africans two brothers were Africans etc They know it. . Why? Because they do NOT conduct the analysis the right way…why, because if they did it will not support their hypothesis ..and they know it. Instead they play these labeling and sampling gymnastics like removing unwanted samples, not publishing results excluding certain populations when it makes scientific sense to include that same population to prove their point. Keep in mind the main method to determine origin and ancestry and relatedness is by comparing mtDNA or yDNA subclades on a Phylotree. They did not do that. Or using software which can map autosomal LD or IBD which they did not do. Or using software like TreeMix and possibly genetic GPS which they did not do either.
Some of you may understand what I am getting at others may not.
------- QUOTES: Ancient and recent Middle Eastern maternal genetic contribution to North Africa – Elkamel et al 2018 Lotfi Cherni
Even so, previous studies on Tunisian populations displayed the mosaic structure of the mitochondrial gene pool, which is characterized by an overall high frequency of Eurasian haplogroups ( 70%), followed by Sub-Saharan L lineages ( 25%), and lesser frequencies of North African haplogroups U6 and M1 (5%) (Fadhlaoui-Zid et al., 2004; Frigi et al., 2010; Kefi et al., 2015). However, of these mtDNA, only Fernandes et al. (2015) estimated the recent contribution of Near Eastern sublineages, i.e., K1a1, N1, T, J, R0a, U, and X, suggesting that they arrived around
Genomic DNA was extracted from fresh blood samples donated by 114 unrelated subjects, who originated from two regions of central Tunisia, using the salting out protocol
The location of the two studied regions Kairouan and Wesletia (Oueslatia) is shown in the Supporting Information Figure S1
Considering HVS-I and HVS-II sequences, the number of unique haplotypes found in Kairouan and Wesletia was 45 (90%) and 56 (92%) respectively, along with only three haplotypes being shared between the two populations (Supporting Information Table S2).
By contrast, the population of Kairouan displayed five Middle Eastern subhaplogroups K1a (4%), J1b (2%), T1a (2%), T2c1 (2%), and U1a (2%). Overall, the two populations shared ****only one *****Middle Eastern haplotype T1a [16126C-16163G-16186T-16189C-16294T-73G-263G] considering both HVS-I and HVS-II sequences
Sub-Saharan lineages represented by the branches L0, L1, L2, L3, and L4 were also common, being slightly more frequent in Kairouan (40%) than in Wesletia (31.25%). The two populations displayed 12 Sub-Saharan subhaplogroups (Supporting Information Table S2), and shared two haplotypes from L3e5 and L3f1b4c when considering HVS-I and HVS-II variants.
--------------------------------- They should stop there! lol! Right? They are not Middle Easterners,. They are not! Why even write the paper and publish it??!! Overall, the two populations shared ****only one *****Middle Eastern haplotype T1a [16126C-16163G-16186T-16189C-16294T-73G-263G] considering both HVS-I and HVS-II sequences [/QB]
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Jan 24, 2018 19:05:02 GMT -5
|
|