|
Post by clydewin98 on Aug 30, 2017 11:07:44 GMT -5
Title : Northeast African genomic variation shaped by the continuity of indigenous groups and Eurasian migrations - Nina Hollfelder, Published: August 24, 2017 Is this a rebuttal to Abusir paper? Lol! It disputes Abusir? ----- Authors summary This admixture process largely coincides with the time of the Arab conquest, spreading in a southbound direction along the Nile and the Blue Nile. Nilotic populations occupying the region around the White Nile show long-term continuity, genetic isolation and genetic links to ancestral East African people. Compared to current times, groups that are ancestral to the current day Nilotes likely inhabited a larger area of northeast Africa prior to the migration from the Middle East as their ancestry component can still be found in a large area. Our findings reveal the genetic history of Sudanese and South Sudanese people, broaden our knowledge on demographic history of humans, and quantify the impact of large-scale historic migration events in northeast Africa. also Quote: The Nilotes are predominantly pastoralist populations, they live in Uganda, Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, and are the most ****PROMINENT*** ethnicity in South Sudan. They are traditionally strongly endogamic which could account for low levels of admixture. In terms of specific Nilotic populations, the f3 test showed no significant signal of gene flow with external populations for the Nuer and Baria (Fig 3A), however, we detected indications of external ------------ For those who did not get it. Notice the groups to identified. Remember I said the Abusir mummies are Kenyans, Tanzanians, Sudanese and my man's...Horners.. Quote:"The Nilotes are predominantly pastoralist populations, they live in Uganda, Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, and are the most ****PROMINENT*** ethnicity in South Sudan" I love being right! This article is bs. The Anatolians and Western Eurasians were Kushites as a result the so called Eurasian genes are in relaity African genes. See: www.academia.edu/33990833/A_GENETIC_CHRONOLOGY_OF_AFRICAN_Y-CHROMOSOMES_R-V88_AND_R-M269_IN_AFRICA_AND_EURASIA
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Aug 30, 2017 14:15:53 GMT -5
Yes. There is a lot of spin. But we have to see the truth within their spin...
---- Can anyone say....GREAT LAKES!!!!!!!!! Sub-Saharan from the Great Lakes. Lucas Martin was correct!
--- Quote: The Nilotes are predominantly pastoralist populations, they live in Uganda, Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, and are the most ****PROMINENT*** ethnicity in South Sudan. They are traditionally strongly endogamic which could account for low levels of admixture. In terms of specific Nilotic populations, the f3 test showed no significant signal of gene flow with external populations for the Nuer and Baria (Fig 3A), however, we detected indications of external
|
|
|
Post by zarahan on Jan 5, 2018 9:09:14 GMT -5
Does this Great Lakes data track with the earlier DNA Tribes finding?
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Aug 30, 2018 8:44:30 GMT -5
cracs.fc.up.pt/~nf/popaffiliator2/index.php#f------------------------ Quote: “PopAffiliator 2 Prediction of an individual affiliation to a major population group based on information from a small set of autosomal STRsTo calculate the assignment of an individual to a major population group (Asia, Eurasia, sub-Saharan Africa, North Africa, Near East) the values in the form below should be provided. The range for the allele size was restricted to the ones published in the Short Tandem Repeat DNA Internet DataBase.The output will indicate the probability of assignment to the major population groups. The accuracy of individual population affiliation assignment to three population groups (Asia, Eurasia, sub-Saharan Africa) is approximately 90%. The accuracy decreases to 65% when two more population groups are considered. The probabilities are computed using a machine learning model built as described in: Fonseca et. al., On using Machine Learning to predict the affiliation of an individual to a major population group using a forensic set of autosomal STRs. 2011. (submitted) Supplementary Material document is available here. The data in ARFF format used to generate the models is (will be) available here. More information regarding the genetic profiles used is available in the previous version of popaffilator.” ------------------
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Aug 30, 2018 8:47:11 GMT -5
This why we need the STR profile of the Abusirs. It is impossible to have 94% Sub-Saharan Amenhotep while the Abusir which is within walking distance being Eurasian. It is IMPOSSIBLE!!. They need to disclose the STR profile of the Abusir. The SNP dataset is misleading. cracs.fc.up.pt/popaffiliator/index.php
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Aug 31, 2018 13:23:08 GMT -5
Thanks to Tyranohotep of ES for posting the paper. I couldn’t have said it better myself. But honest….I did not write this but they are stealing pages from my book!! lol! Keita...you owe me HE! HE! HE! But Keita forgot one thing. The red YRI component was a distraction. “Ancient Egyptian Genomes from northern Egypt: Further discussion - Jean-Philippe Gourdine1,4, S.O.Y Keita2,4, Jean-Luc Gourdine3 and Alain Anselin4
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Aug 31, 2018 13:42:49 GMT -5
I said so from the beginning when the paper was released and I analyzed it
1. There are alternative explanations 2. Sampling and methodology is skewed 3. What or who is an “African”. North Africans and ancient Levantines ARE Africans 4. It is impossible for the Abusir to be anything but African because the Amarnas a few 100 miles away were up to >90% Sub Saharan African 5. We also need the STRs of the Abusirs!!!!!! 6. They provide ONLY 3 SNP to make such a ludicrous claim 7. The genetic material they chose were bias and “fixed” 8. The sub-clades found in the Abusir are clearly African not Asian. There you cannot use “doctored” autosomes from only 3 mummies to make such an outlandish claim 9. Props to Sage and his shorty alleles in the AEians. He picked up on that. Now Keita did also 10. SSA Africa is NOT only Nigerians. These authors are racist 11. They left out key populations like Sudanese as I pointed out many times. It was deception on the authors part. LIARS!!!!!! AND CHEATS!!!!!
Quote: “Ancient Egyptian Genomes from northern Egypt: Further discussion - Jean-Philippe Gourdine1,4, S.O.Y Keita2,4, Jean-Luc Gourdine3 and Alain Anselin4
There are alternative interpretations of the results but which were NOT presented as is TRADITIONALLY done, with the exception of the admission that results from southern Egyptians may have been different. The ALTERNATIVE interpretations involve three major considerations: 1) sampling and methodology, 2) historiography and 3) definitions as they relate to populations, origins and evolution.
● All of the samples are from the northern half of Egypt, from one nome which is 2.4% (1/42) of AE nomes. Ancient Egyptian culture originated southern Upper Egypt2
● The timeline is not representative of AE history ~ 3,000 years is missing (e.g. Predynastic, Early Dynastic, Old Kingdom, Middle Kingdom2).
● The whole genome sample size is too small (n=3) to accurately permit a discussion of all Egyptian population history from north to south.
Results that are likely reliable are from studies that analyzed short tandem repeats (STRs) from Amarna royal mummies5 (1,300 BC), and of Ramesses III (1,200 BC)6; Ramesses III had the Y chromosome haplogroup E1b1a, an old African lineage7. Our analysis of STRs from Amarna and Ramesside royal mummies with popAffiliator18 based on the same published data5,6 indicates a 41.7% to 93.9% probability of SSA affinities (see Table 1); most of the individuals had a greater probability of affiliation with “SSA” which is not the only way to be “African” a point worth repeating. ● There are some philosophical issues as well for which space does not permit a full discussion. Conceptually what genetic markers are considered to be “African” or “Asian” needs discussion--and of what “defines” Africa as well. For example, the E1b1b1 (M35/78) lineage found in one Abusir el-Meleq sample is found not only in northern Africa, but is also well represented in eastern Africa7 and perhaps was taken to Europe across the Mediterranean before the Holocene (Trombetta, personal communication). E lineages are found in high frequency (>70%) among living Egyptians in Adaima9. The authors define all mitochondrial M1 haplogroups as “Asian” which is problematic. Gene history is not population history: ultimate “origins” and later sources to a specific
region/population are conceptually different. Gene history is not also ethnic or linguistic history. M1 has been postulated to have emerged in Africa10, and there is no convincing evidence supporting an M1 ancestor in Asia: many M1 daughter haplogroups (M1a) are clearly African in origin and history10. The M1a1, M1a2a, M1a1i, M1a1e variants found in the Abusir el-Meleq samples1 predate Islam and are abundant in SSA groups10, particularly in East Africa. Furthermore, SSA groups indicated to have contributed to modern Egypt do not match the Muslim trade routes that have been well documented11 as SSA groups from the great lakes and southern African regions were largely absent in the internal trading routes that went north to Egypt. It is important to note that “SSA” influence may not be due to a slave trade, an overdone explanation; the green Sahara is to be considered as Egypt is actually in the eastern Sahara. SSA affinities of modern Egyptians from Abusir El-Meleq might be attributed to ancient early settlers as there is a notable frequency of the “Bushmen canine”- deemed a SSA trait in Predynastic samples dating to 4,000 BC9 from Adaima, Upper Egypt. Haplogroup L0f, usually associated with southern Africans, is present in living Egyptians in Adaima9 and could represent the product of an ancient “ghost population” from the Green Sahara that contributed widely. Distributions and admixtures in the African past may not match current “SSA” groups12. 3) On the Definition of African Schuenemann et al.1 seem to implicitly suggest that only SSA equals Africa and that there are no interconnections between the various regions of Africa not rooted in the slave trade, a favorite trope. It has to be noted too that that in the Islamic armies that entered Egypt that there were a notable number of eastern Africans. It is not clear why there is an emphasis on ‘sub-Saharan’ when no Saharan or supra-Saharan population samples--empirical or modelled are considered; furthermore, there is no one way to be “sub-Saharan.” In this study northern tropical Africans, such as lower and upper Nubians and adjacent southern Egyptians and Saharans were not included as comparison groups, as noted by the authors themselves.
|
|
|
Post by zarahan on Sept 1, 2018 18:02:40 GMT -5
Excellent work XYZ. Above is a quick consolidated "nutshell" summary for folk to use as desired..
|
|
|
Post by kel on Sept 1, 2018 18:24:32 GMT -5
I always try to use proper language but in this case a few choice words are warranted.
These people are a bunch of piece of sh!t f@cking degenerates....................(Mike was right).
There is no other excuse. How can people who call themselves scientists engage in such behavior ? This means that nothing they say can be trusted.
Have they no idea the amount of damage they are causing ?? They too must suffer from the psychiatric disorders as was discussed in the other threads.........60% of white scientists at least are mentally ill ,,,,,,,,,,,,,(,in addition to being bad people.)
|
|
|
Post by zarahan on Sept 1, 2018 23:43:41 GMT -5
While bias, racism and plain stubbornness/unwillingness to change all play a part, not all can be called evil. Some of these claims over the years were based on faulty data or too limited data. When more, and better data came they made corrections, and dropped old claims. There are some honest folk doing fair and balanced work- which we have often recognized on ES and Reloaded. It is important to recognize good, balanced research when it is done, and not do blanket condemnations against everyone. But this being 2018, you would think that SOME researchers who claim to be doing science on ancient Kemet would produce a balanced analysis, relatively free of old dogma- such as the insinuation that "sub-Saharan Africans" are in Kemet due to the "slave trade." Like Keita says this is an old trope. But the way it keeps being recycled, when there is a ton of hard scientific evidence against it, not to mention the historical context, also based on hard data, suggests various agendas at work.
|
|