Sometimes I wish you people would READ these papers instead making a big deal out of the title. Read the damn paper!!! And stopping misquoting, understand what the author is doing instead of throwing a hissy and making a big deal out of it. The “middle eastern” population they are comparing North Africans to are Yemenese, Saudis (most likely Bedoiuns not the elite) and Kuwaiti. All are heavily Africanized populations. They tried using Iran but Iranians were not even close. They did NOT use Kazars in Isreal nor, Syrians nor these “Turkish” middle Eastern groups. Why? There will not be a match. Henn played the same game with her back-migration infamous paper. So read the damn papers before posting like you are unto something. But even with the African “middle easterners”, it was NOT a close match. The data shows North Africans are MORE differentiated than “middle Easterners”. Meaning they are most like OLDER and the original population of the two. Also the Aran North Africans are less differentiated and homogenous, meaning they are most likely Ottoman Turks. Egyptian Cotps may be foreigners!!!
-----------
QUOTES
Locus-by-locus comparisons assuming the Bonferroni correction for multiple tests (p<0.05/10¼0.005) showed that
Tunisian Arabs did not differ from Moroccan Arabs, Sahrawi, Lybians, Moroccan Berbers or Tunisian Berbers at any locus,
while they
significantly differed from Algerian Berbers, Egyptian Berbers and Egyptian Arabs at one locus and from
Egyptian Copts at four loci. Tunisian Berbers, when compared to Tunisian Arabs,
revealed more significant differentiations,namely with Algerian Berbers and Egyptian Arabs at two loci, with Egyptian Berbers at three loci and with Egyptian Copts
at nine loci. Overall these results indicate that, in the context of North Africa,
the Tunisian Berbers are rather more differentiated
than the Tunisian Arab populationsInterestingly, the overall level of population differentiation (FST values in Table 5) was
slightly higher in North Africa
than in the broader geographical region encompassing North Africa plus the Near East. Still, whereas in North Africa neither
geography nor ethnicity accounted for the apportionment of the total diversity (FCT values in Table 5), when considering
North Africa and the Near East, both variables significantly explain a fraction, although very small ( 0.19% each) of the
global population structure.
populations (Dubai, Yemen, Kuwait, Oman, Saudi Arabia and Iran), which stand dispersed in a separate cluster amid Sub-
Saharan and European populations.
The *****Tunisian Arabs *******occupy an intermediate position between Middle Eastern and
European populations. THEY ARE TURKS!!!!!!!
No significant clustering was observed when STRUCTURE analysis was performed for Arab and Berber populations
(data
not shown). *****LIARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*****
Bosch et al., 2001; Coudray et al., 2007a, b; Gaibar et al., 2012; Khodjet-El-Khil et al., 2012). Thus, based upon average
heterozygosity and exact tests of population differentiation, there are indications that
Tunisian Arabs are genetically more
homogeneous and less differentiated than Berbers, a finding that can be explained by the recent shared ancestry between
the Tunisian Arabs and the non-Berber neighbouring populations. Our results reinforce previous studies with autosomal
STR loci
reflecting their richness in patterns of diversity and diversified origins,
in opposition
to European populations that are more homogenous, being so characterised by much less genetic structure. In the cloud
of North African and Near Eastern populations, Tunisian Berbers remain in a relative outsider position, confirming previous
observations based on autosomal STR loci
The PCA analysis further showed that the
Tunisian Arab populations were very close to Middle Eastern ones (Yemen,
Kuwait and Saudi Arabia),. Turks mixed with Africans!!!!!!