|
Post by kaskata on Dec 4, 2014 3:46:53 GMT -5
"Until now, most studies examining genetic risk factors for disease have focused on Europe. Little has been known about Africa, the most genetically diverse region in the world. To find out more, a team of African, UK and US researchers collected genetic material from 1,800 people in Sub-Saharan Africa, including 320 whole genome sequences. The researchers found that there were some key regional differences. For example, people from South Africa are less likely to carry a genetic mutation that offers protection against malaria than those from other parts Africa. However, the researchers also found that there were more genetic similarities across Africa than they had thought. The African Genome Variation Project has also provided more insight into how ancient populations moved within Africa. The researchers found that many Africans have some Eurasian DNA within their genetic ancestry, which suggests that Eurasians migrated back into Africa many thousands of years after they first left. And several of the populations were descended from the Bantu, a group that spread across Africa about 5,000 years ago." It's interesting how they are trying to attribute the diversity of Africans to mainly the back migration of the Eurasians. I also find it interesting they didn't mention who these Eurasians were. If these Eurasians are mostly from the "middle East", I can some what buy their theory. If you follow the link provided in the article, to the section where they write about the Hunter Gatherers (HG), it should be no surprise, because a lot of African oral history, do recount the HG being the originals. www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-30318291Genetic diversity of Sub-Saharan Africa revealed
|
|
|
Post by zarahan on Dec 10, 2014 21:40:05 GMT -5
It's interesting how they are trying to attribute the diversity of Africans to mainly the back migration of the Eurasians. I also find it interesting they didn't mention who these Eurasians were. If these Eurasians are mostly from the "middle East", I can some what buy their theory. If you follow the link provided in the article, to the section where they write about the Hunter Gatherers (HG), it should be no surprise, because a lot of African oral history, do recount the HG being the originals. Indeed. Its interesting how they conveniently don;t mention other key points which ES and Reloaded regulars have long discussed: 1) The fact of population substructure and variation WITHIN Africa that causes diversity over and above the evolutionary processes making for anatomically modern humans evolving in Africa. 2) The fact that the so-called "Eurasians" allegedly "back flowing" are in part nothing more than Africans roaming over a wide area- Arabia, Mesopotamia, Sinai, Anatolia etc and back into Africa, then out again in small groups shifting constantly over millennia- a point Keita makes below. frigi keita berbers hypocrisy 3) "Backflowees" in many case ALREADY LOOKED LIKE tropical Africans, regardless of whatever supposed haplogroups are involved, for the new readers..
|
|
|
Post by kaskata on Dec 11, 2014 1:51:09 GMT -5
One would think, in this day age, any dishonesty in reporting any sort of data is ill advised. Unless they are hoping to have the same effect as the false king tut DNA result, which up to now many (specially the euro-centrist) people think is valid. It's funny when claims, such as the article in the BBC, are refuted, they are hardly mention or publicised.
|
|
karem
Craftsperson
Posts: 74
|
Post by karem on Dec 11, 2014 10:41:41 GMT -5
On the topic of bio-anthro and genetics, there are a few threads on the topic over at ES I've been skimming over - this being one of them www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009022;p=1 - but as a complete layman, reading over the various threads can be extremely confusing and difficult to keep up with.....Anyone who can break it down so its easier to understand would be much appreciated.
|
|
|
Post by zarahan on Dec 11, 2014 23:08:23 GMT -5
The Basic Database has several items on DNA. As for the linked page- it has some valuable info but unnecessary ego-driven posturing over technicalities in parts that detract from its usefulness. Nothing wrong with honest debate but the amount of personal name calling, and posturing, as if each post is some sort of "test of manhood" to one-up an "enemy," or to see who makes "the last post" takes away from what could have been much more productive learning and sharing of info. Yes we know that sometimes if you are dealing with hardcore racists you have to fight fire with fire and scorch the earth- but that is not the case on that thread. The fact that assorted parties keep accusing each other of "racism" when their histories and their posts show otherwise just shows how bad its gotten, and energy put into posturing as to who's "smarter" could have been better spent. No wonder some people as you said, are having trouble following. Even the tiniest technical point is blown up as some sort of manhood test that has to be argued out to the bitter end. So rather than clear exposition of relevant points (yes there will be disagreement but you have a clear idea) or clear teaching, you have grudge match insults. As I said, this is not a case where you have to hammer hardcore "Stormfront" style racists. That kind of ugly work is not needed here. But where you have personal beefs and grudges (also meaning info is oft distorted, hidden or buried in the struggle against "the enemy") the knowledge base is not expanded and made accessible as it should. To fight your personal grudge match for example you may have to hide key info, or distort an opponent's statements, and so oN.. With real life pressures knocking I have not been updating as often as in the past, but start off with the Basic Database below, and then other threads and posts that clearly lay out things. Also use a "big picture" view when you run into these personal beef threads. For example, in the big picture we know Africans are the most diverse, that there are certain DNA markers that cut across many areas of the continent, that anatomically modern humans evolved in Africa, that all else is a subset off the original African diversity, the falsity of the bogus "true negro" Eurocentric model and so on, and so on. egyptsearchreloaded.proboards.com/thread/15/basic-database-nile-valley-studiesAll the minor technical points argued back and forth in the grudge match to see who "wins" do not materially shake these primary "big picture" foundations. Its like all the various denominations here and there, but at the bottom are certain core bottom lines, certain fundamentals. Once you have that big picture view then you can begin to tease out or tune out things a lot better. And as part of the big picture keep in mind who the central enemy is - the opponents of a more balanced African bio-history- whether they be the standard Euro racist types or assorted Arabist types, Asianists, people who say to be "really black" or really "down" you have to accept only a certain line of thinking- that facts and data don't count.. etc, etc etc..
|
|
karem
Craftsperson
Posts: 74
|
Post by karem on Dec 13, 2014 13:09:26 GMT -5
Thanks, Ill have a look through the database.
|
|
|
Post by amunratheultimate on Dec 13, 2014 13:33:16 GMT -5
This is a great study. First they repeat to us that the date of the earliest Eurasians in Eastern Africa is between 2,400– 3,200 years ago with another more recent admixture episode with Eurasians between 150–1,500 years ago (page 3 on the document). This is a total victory for us since this is well AFTER the foundation of Ancient Egypt and the Naqada, Badarian and Tasian culture which were the precursors of Ancient Egypt. 3200 years ago translate to 1186 BC, which correspond to what we know of the history of Ancient Egypt, in the sense it correspond to the time of the intrusions of substantial amount of Aamu (West Asians) nomadic migrants in Ancient Egypt as well as the eventual conquest by Hyksos (Aamu), later repulsed by the 18th dynasty. Then it confirms what I was saying all along about the bio-diversity of Africa. That is East and West Africans share a common origin after the OOA migrations and that it is (much) AFTER the OOA migrations that non-Africans have been back-migrating in substantial proportion in Eastern Africa. This is easily confirmed by other studies and uniparentals analysis. It's interesting how they are trying to attribute the diversity of Africans to mainly the back migration of the Eurasians. I also find it interesting they didn't mention who these Eurasians were. If these Eurasians are mostly from the "middle East", I can some what buy their theory. If you follow the link provided in the article, to the section where they write about the Hunter Gatherers (HG), it should be no surprise, because a lot of African oral history, do recount the HG being the originals. What people must understand and is in fact very basic, is that there's a 61 800 years gap (65000 minus 3200) between the OOA migrations and the back migrations of Eurasians in Eastern Africa. 61 800 is very large and African people, as well as Eurasians, during that large gap had more than enough time to become their own people (culturally, historically and biologically). For example, during that gap, Africans developed new haplogroups like the E-M96 haplogroup and the E-P2 haplogroups. Eurasian developed the F-M89 haplogroup as well as physical adaptation like straight hair. 2) The fact that the so-called "Eurasians" allegedly "back flowing" are in part nothing more than Africans roaming over a wide area- Arabia, Mesopotamia, Sinai, Anatolia etc and back into Africa, then out again in small groups shifting constantly over millennia- a point Keita makes below. That's ridiculous. As pointed above there's an enormous 61 800 years gap between the OOA migrations and the back migrations in Africans in Eastern Africa.
|
|
|
Post by amunratheultimate on Dec 13, 2014 14:04:35 GMT -5
The next question somebody could ask me is: If East and West Africans share a common E-P2 origin in Eastern Africa after the OOA migrations does it means they look exactly similar, that they are exactly the same? Answer: No, while modern East and West Africans do share a common E-P2 origin in Northeastern Africa well after the OOA migrations, modern West Africans still left their Northeastern African homeland well before the foundation of Ancient Egypt. I put this separation and migrations (which was probably done in multiple phases) conservatively between the OOA migrations (ie: 65 000 years ago) and 10 000 BC. It's impossible to know the exact date but between 65 000-8000BC is sure to be right. During that time, East and West Africans had more than enough time to become their own people too, as any subgroups among those populations too. For example, Wolof, Igbo and Yoruba share the P2/E1b1a haplogroup but are not exactly the same either. Same with Karrayyu and Somali in Eastern Africa. Still Ramses III is said to be E1b1a and DNA Tribes matches the autosomal STR DNA of the 18th dynasty and 20th dynasty with modern populations living in the Great Lakes, Southern and Western Africa. Which happens to be where E1b1a is more prevalent. The large proportion of Eurasian admixtures in the Horn of Africa probably was one of the major factor explaining why the DNA STRs of the Ancient Egyptian mummies didn't match that East African region as much as we would have guessed. Although, Ramses III determination of E1b1a can't be explained that way since E1b1a is rare in Horn Africans. Maybe E1b1a was rare in Ancient Egypt and it's just a coincidence that the first 2 royal mummies (Ramses III and son) to be genotyped are E1b1a. What I get from this is not that Ancient Egypt were more like West Africans but that they were categorically not Eurasians. They were most probably from the African E, A and B haplogroups (MtDNA L). They were mostly composed of the indigenous black African people who stayed back in Africa during the OOA migrations 65 000 years ago. They were indigenous people of Africa not people from Europe or Asia. Eurasian admixtures would be present in Ancient Egypt considering trading, Hyksos/Aamu conquest, prisoners of wars, and nomadic migrations in Ancient Egypt, but it would be minimal. In a similar way non-Roman admixtures was minimal in Rome (and that nobody makes much of a case of it). While East and West Africans are not exactly the same people, not more than Igbo, Yoruba and Bantu are exactly the same. They do share many characteristics like the P2 haplogroup lineage, various MtDNA (L2a, L3eikx, L3bf, etc) as well as post-cranial measurements for example. All characteristics not shared with Eurasians.
|
|
karem
Craftsperson
Posts: 74
|
Post by karem on Dec 18, 2014 10:05:33 GMT -5
"This is a great study. First they repeat to us that the date of the earliest Eurasians in Eastern Africa is between 2,400– 3,200 years ago with another more recent admixture episode with Eurasians between 150–1,500 years ago (page 3 on the document). This is a total victory for us since this is well AFTER the foundation of Ancient Egypt and the Naqada, Badarian and Tasian culture which were the precursors of Ancient Egypt."
@amrta - From reading the Hodgson paper, I thought there were back migration dates prior to 2000-3000 years ago. In the latter part of the author summary, they say "With these data, we demonstrate that most non-African ancestry in the HOA cannot be the result of admixture within the last few thousand years, and that the majority of admixture probably occurred prior to the advent of agriculture."
Who are these Non-African peoples that are supposed to of back migrating into HOA, and why are there different dates for their apparent arrival East Africa ? Why do Euros try to make out that East Africans are mixed all the time ?
|
|
|
Post by kaskata on Dec 18, 2014 17:48:18 GMT -5
"Who are these Non-African peoples that are supposed to of back migrating into HOA, and why are there different dates for their apparent arrival East Africa ? Why do Euros try to make out that East Africans are mixed all the time ?"
I was wondering the same thing. Despite the DNA evidence that most of them are not mixed, they still somehow hope to attach themselves to Africa. I watched a youtube video, where DR Kieta, said he could make the case that these so called "middle easterners" were just some more Africans.
|
|
|
Post by amunratheultimate on Dec 20, 2014 10:54:48 GMT -5
3) "Backflowees" in many case ALREADY LOOKED LIKE tropical Africans, regardless of whatever supposed haplogroups are involved, I have question about that point. So, according to you, according to the statement above, it's more important they "LOOKED LIKED" tropical Africans than having similar haplogroups than "tropical" Africans? Many people look like us, Africans, like some Polynesian populations, it can't be more important than sharing DNA and genealogy thus history? In fact, I would say how they 'look like' is trivial, coincidental and insignificant.
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Dec 20, 2014 16:28:33 GMT -5
Great point! I knew you got potential. Widen you perspective and you will go a long way. But to Z-man's point. Tropical body proportions, black skin is also significant as haplogroups. Agreed Other blacks found in Asia are NOT Africans irregardless to "looking" African. But they should display tropical body proportions. 3) "Backflowees" in many case ALREADY LOOKED LIKE tropical Africans, regardless of whatever supposed haplogroups are involved, I have question about that point. So, according to you, according to the statement above, it's more important they "LOOKED LIKED" tropical Africans than having similar haplogroups than "tropical" Africans? Many people look like us, Africans, like some Polynesian populations, it can't be more important than sharing DNA and genealogy thus history? In fact, I would say how they 'look like' is trivial, coincidental and insignificant.
|
|
|
Post by amunratheultimate on Dec 23, 2014 15:45:03 GMT -5
Widen you perspective and you will go a long way. Usually the people who say that are people who don't want to admit Ancient Egyptians were mostly black Africans (at least considering current genetic and archaeological knowledge). Historically and genetically related to modern black African people (Karrayyu, Somali, Yoruba, Wolof, Zulu, etc) not a dynastic race coming from Europe or West Asia. If it weren't from the 18th century racist theories (dynastic race, hamitic myth, etc), nobody would question Ancient Egyptians to be nothing less than indigenous black Africans since Ancient Egypt is in Africa, the same way Greece is in Europe. Let's just say that under our current scientific knowledge, it seems Ancient Egyptians were indigenous black Africans, but let's not make a big case of it. Nobody would pretend after all that Rome wasn't built by Romans or that it was built by Africans or West Asians! A Roman dynastic race! The fact that the Roman Republic and Empire was built by Romans/Europeans is taken as a fact until proof of the contrary. Under our current scientific knowledge (archaeological continuity, genetic affiliations, historical documents), Ancient Egyptians were indigenous black Africans, but let's not make a big case out of it...
|
|
|
Post by snakepit on Dec 27, 2014 16:57:28 GMT -5
Widen you perspective and you will go a long way. Usually the people who say that are people who don't want to admit Ancient Egyptians were mostly black Africans (at least considering current genetic and archaeological knowledge). Historically and genetically related to modern black African people (Karrayyu, Somali, Yoruba, Wolof, Zulu, etc) not a dynastic race coming from Europe or West Asia. If it weren't from the 18th century racist theories (dynastic race, hamitic myth, etc), nobody would question Ancient Egyptians to be nothing less than indigenous black Africans since Ancient Egypt is in Africa, the same way Greece is in Europe. Let's just say that under our current scientific knowledge, it seems Ancient Egyptians were indigenous black Africans, but let's not make a big case of it. Nobody would pretend after all that Rome wasn't built by Romans or that it was built by Africans or West Asians! A Roman dynastic race! The fact that the Roman Republic and Empire was built by Romans/Europeans is taken as a fact until proof of the contrary. Under our current scientific knowledge (archaeological continuity, genetic affiliations, historical documents), Ancient Egyptians were indigenous black Africans, but let's not make a big case out of it... There's no such thing as a "black African". There are African people, and from our viewpoint, there are non-African people(s). That's it. All people INDIGENOUS to the African continent are so-called "black people" with brown skin. Africans DO NOT need to be hyphenated.
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Dec 27, 2014 19:09:38 GMT -5
Hmmmm! I like you! Well said. If AMRTU will open his mind. Yes, there are Africans and non-Africans. non-Africans being a sub-set of Africans. Usually the people who say that are people who don't want to admit Ancient Egyptians were mostly black Africans (at least considering current genetic and archaeological knowledge). Historically and genetically related to modern black African people (Karrayyu, Somali, Yoruba, Wolof, Zulu, etc) not a dynastic race coming from Europe or West Asia. If it weren't from the 18th century racist theories (dynastic race, hamitic myth, etc), nobody would question Ancient Egyptians to be nothing less than indigenous black Africans since Ancient Egypt is in Africa, the same way Greece is in Europe. Let's just say that under our current scientific knowledge, it seems Ancient Egyptians were indigenous black Africans, but let's not make a big case of it. Nobody would pretend after all that Rome wasn't built by Romans or that it was built by Africans or West Asians! A Roman dynastic race! The fact that the Roman Republic and Empire was built by Romans/Europeans is taken as a fact until proof of the contrary. Under our current scientific knowledge (archaeological continuity, genetic affiliations, historical documents), Ancient Egyptians were indigenous black Africans, but let's not make a big case out of it... There's no such thing as a "black African". There are African people, and from our viewpoint, there are non-African people(s). That's it. All people INDIGENOUS to the African continent are so-called "black people" with brown skin. Africans DO NOT need to be hyphenated. Notice at K2. TWO populations are formed. Africans and non-Africans. Neither is "pure". Europeans are at least 2/3 African. Asians/Native Americans are the most distant from modern Africans. geography! geopgraphy! geography! geography does not lie. Genetic Structure of Human Populations = Noah A. Rosenberg,1 2002
|
|